Packers vs Vikings

[nolte]

Dallas Cowboys receivers do not necessarily compare, because they are better. Miles Austin, Dez Bryant, Laurant Robinson, and Jason Witten are better than Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, James Jones, and Jermichael Finley without a doubt.

The Pack doesn't have a receiver with the ability of Bryant, but that doesn't mean their receiving corp isn't better. Likewise, Witten doens't have the natural ability of Finley but he is more steady. With the Pack's receivers, I'd rather they have Finley because he can make that ridiculous play. If the only had a couple decent receivers, Witten would be a better fit.

If you had a QB that is playing lights out, would you run the ball. Probably not. You'd run just enough to set up the pass or when you needed to take time off the clock.

[Rick]

If you had a QB that is playing lights out, would you run the ball. Probably not. You'd run just enough to set up the pass or when you needed to take time off the clock.

Not only that but the Packers RBs are abysmal. Good thing they have ARodge and the WRs. Without them the Packs in the cellar. Packer fans gotta love ARodge & their passing game

[SkunkedAgain]

I love a football fan who can't accept his team's demise so he cast out stones. Oh well, here you go.

Yes Rodgers makes the WR look better. You know what though, those wide receivers make Rodgers look better too. The TV announcers can say all day what a "great" throw Rodgers makes when he throws it low and away where only the receiver can get it, but most receivers don't make those catches and that's when the announcers say that the QB needs to put the ball where the receiver can make a play on it. What you all are witnessing in Rodgers and his WRs are a group of players that are incredibly in sync.

As for the Cowboys comparisons....it's a ridiculous comparison. Witten is the best receiver on that team but also appears more steady because he gets more balls thrown his way. What is unsteady about Finley? He makes fantastic plays almost every time the ball is thrown to him. Bryant may be more athletic than the GB receivers but that doesn't make him better. I'd want guys that make the catches, get the yards, and score the touchdowns WHEREVER the QB puts the ball. If the Dallas receiving corps was better then Romo wouldn't be getting all of the grief that he's gotten. He's certainly made some bad throws but his supposedly superior receiving corps isn't helping him out as much as they could be.

As for the Packer defense being bad, they held AP to 58 yards total. On first down AP got the ball four times. The Packer defense held him to 2 yards, 1 yard, 1 yard, and -6 yards. That's how you take an opposing team out of rhythm. Limit their ability to be in 2nd and 3rd down short yardage situations.

Sour grapes/gripes are all that I'm hearing. The Vikings will get better but only once they give into a rebuilding plan versus just a re-tinkering plan. Minnesota had one good year because of Favre. Look at the other recent Viking seasons and you see a team that doesn't have the tools to be a serious challenger in this league. The team and its fans need to get past the denial stage.

[JosMN]

Takes more than a good QB to win a superbowl, with 15 guys on IR mind you, and the next year start out 9-0. Isn't all because of one player. Rodgers isn't out there on defense making 2-3 interceptions a game.

[JosMN]

Very well said Skunked! Straight and to the point! Love it

[MUSKY18]

Obviously the Packers outplayed the Vikings in every facet of the game on the field, but to me, one of the biggest areas of concern is the coaching. The Packers staff had a game plan, then made the necessary adjustments and keep the throttle down. Vikings looked lost and seemed to stay with their original game plan, that didn't work. Prime example.....The Packers blitzed alot and Ponder didn't have time. Why were they still running routes down the field? How about a couple of quick slants to beat the blitz? Musgrave isn't a very good coordinator. Doesn't make any on the fly corrections and mostly.....why was AP on the sidelines every other play? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[RiverFish]

Lets get one thing straight, the Pack are such a good team because of Rodgers. Without him the Pack would be as bad if not worse then the Vikings. They have no running game and the defense is not all that.

Yeah I know you can say that about all the teams with a great QB, look at the Colts just because they lost Manning this season, Pats would be horrible without Brady. Saints without Bree's, ect.

Rodgers makes them over rated WR's really good because of his ability to extend a play. No corner or safety in the NFL can cover a WR for 10 seconds, especially safeties and corners that don't have a right to be on the field like we are starting.

When this statement is posted on here I just have to laugh. Any HOF QB in the history of the NFL makes their team. That is how those teams are constructed.

There is no argument in what Fishingguru posted. We all know the Pack would be a different team with out A-Rod.

"A- Rod...Discount Double Check" Go Pack.

[nolte]

Skunked,

I am a life-long Pack fan so don't take my comments as bagging on them. I think they are doing great, but they aren't spectacular or better in every facet to every team. They still have areas to improve. Monday's win was the worst thumping I've ever seen them put on the Vikings.

My comments on Witten are more due to the fact that he has been very good for a long time and hasn't missed hardly any playing time. Finley hasn't made it through a full season of full duty yet. He probably won't get a chance to be that workhorse fall back guy because if he stays with the pack in the near future, he'll be surrounded by other good players. Is it better to be the "man" on a crappy team or one of the top weapons on a very good team that has a chance of competing for the big prize for the next 5 years.

For the poster that said the Pack's running game is atrocious, I disagree. Grant has been subpar, but Starks is more than capable of being decent. He did have more yards than Peterson with roughly the same amount of carries.

[RiverFish]

Doesn't make any on the fly corrections and mostly.....why was AP on the sidelines every other play? Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I was wondering the same thing. You have the best RB in the NFL on your team and he is sitting on the sidelines. Is he hurt? Only thing that would make sense.

[SkunkedAgain]

I think they are doing great, but they aren't spectacular or better in every facet to every team. They still have areas to improve.

Agreed. I've posted on the Packers thread about all of the things that they could/should improve upon.

[JosMN]

I thought AP was always out only on 3rd downs? We all know the kid can't catch the ball very well. Seems like they were always facing a 3rd and 15-20.

[zepman]

AP does the Vikes no favors by being on the field when they're down by 14-20+ pts...espedcially against a team like the Packers.

The Vikings are not a team that is built to come from behind a big deficit...the Packers know that. Game over once it went 14-0.

[LMITOUT]

AP does the Vikes no favors by being on the field when they're down by 14-20+ pts...espedcially against a team like the Packers.

Especially against almost every team in the NFL since it's a PASSING LEAGUE.

Yet, they paid him a bazillion dollars to stand on the sidelines on 3rd down...

What happened to getting AP the ball more through the passing game? That lasted about 10 minutes...and it worked for those 10 minutes too and afterwards everyone had a tingle up their leg like they've never seen a RB catch a pass before.

[zepman]

I understand it's a passing league...that doesn't mean your allowed to be 14-20+ points down at any time during the game. Those type of deficits send any teams gameplan down the drain.

The Vikes are built to have the game stay "close" and win it in the 4th quarter...I've never agreed with this but that's what they are...2-7.

[LMITOUT]

FISHINGURU??

[SkunkedAgain]

I've felt that way. Not since Favre beat the Packers at Lambeau, but I've felt that way!

[mrklean]

FISHINGURU??

">

[FISHINGURU]

You ladies are funny, the Packers WR's are definitely over rated. Jennings the biggest deep threat in the league? LMMFAO.

You really think Jordy and Jones would be good WR's on a different team? Finley was supposed to be one of the biggest stud TE's in the league that hasn't happened.

Rodgers makes the team...period. Whats wrong with that?

All most all the big plays are when he extends the play, has nothing to do with design or the WR's, they just keep working and he gets them the ball.

Pull your panties out of your cracks, I'm not whining about anything.

You guys whine because I think the WR's are over rated and Rodgers is a stud that makes the plays happen.

[Steve Foss]

the Packers WR's are definitely over rated.

Not by the people who really understand what's going on. Skunked said it best when he said the receiving corps and Rodgers are incredibly in synch.

GB is the 1 percent. All you others are the 99. Maybe y'all oughta Occupy Lambeau and see how it should be done. Could a long dysfunctional Vikings organization take a few lessons from Green Bay? Ayup.

[FISHINGURU]

I understand that, individually they are over rated. As a group with Rodgers they are mean.

You could take any one of them WR's out and replace them with someone and get the same results because of Rodgers ability to extend plays and put it only where his guy can catch it.

If you took Rodgers out for the season them WR's would not even be talked about.

[Steve Foss]

I understand that, individually they are over rated.

Again, they are only overrated by people who don't really know what's going on. Well, that's about 99 percent of TV broadcast buffoons, most of whom seem to have forgotten everything they learned on the playing field as soon as they got up in the booth in front of the camera.

But there are others, like yourself, who get it.

Now, while I agree they are overrated as individuals by the booth stooges, they are generally above average, and there are other teams on which some of them could well thrive. AT GB, the receiver numbers, the offensive scheme, and Rodgers all make it work wonderfully. Definitely a case where the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

[hawgchaser]

As a Packer fan, let me express total agreement to all you Vikings fans (Packer haters). Yup we have no decent WR's...No decent backfield...no decent defense!!! Sucks to be a Packer fan and have only the Lombardi trophy and a 9-0 record so far to TRY to feel good about. On top of that, chances don't look good for a high draft pick next year to fill any of these gaping holes. Some teams and their fans have all the luck!!! Rumor has it we keep all those players on the roster just to have a cheering section for A. Rod at away games.

[FISHINGURU]

Personally I don't hate any good player or team, I'm a football fan and have had multiple fantasy football teams every year for about the last 12 years.

[SkunkedAgain]

...and that may frame your perspective. None of the Packer WR are fantasy studs so you're right, they haven't lived up to their potential. Oh well.

I'll bet you one thing, if the Packers and Vikings WR's were swapped, the Packers would be 3-7 and the Vikings would have one or two more wins since Ponder became QB.

[FISHINGURU]

...and that may frame your perspective. None of the Packer WR are fantasy studs so you're right, they haven't lived up to their potential. Oh well.

LOL, you must not play, Jennings and Jordy are both fantasy studs, Finley has some pretty good weeks too just not consistant.