squire12 Posted May 14, 2018 Share Posted May 14, 2018 On 5/10/2018 at 12:49 AM, footbull3196 said: Fair point, though I should bring up that when they played in Green Bay in the playoffs in 2013, Kaepernick's output greatly decreased from 27/39 for 412 yards with 3 TDs and 0 INTs in the opener that year to 16/30 for 227 with 1 TD and 1 INT. Then again, so did Rodgers when he went from 21/37 for 333 with 3 TDs and 1 INT to 17/26 for 177 with 1 TD and 0 INT You do realize the playoff game in 2013 was in subzero temperatures in GB. Not surprising to see the statistics and game scenarios change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footbull3196 Posted May 14, 2018 Author Share Posted May 14, 2018 29 minutes ago, squire12 said: You do realize the playoff game in 2013 was in subzero temperatures in GB. Not surprising to see the statistics and game scenarios change. Uh yeah, that's kinda the entire argument that I was making about how if the site of the SF/GB game changed, so would the outcome of the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master of Suspense Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 22 hours ago, footbull3196 said: Uh yeah, that's kinda the entire argument that I was making about how if the site of the SF/GB game changed, so would the outcome of the game Yeah, but it's unlikely it would have been THAT cold. Wasn't that game historically cold, at least in terms of NFL games? Yes Green Bay is cold in January but there's a big difference between 15-20 degrees and however cold it was in that game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thanos0341 Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 In the 2011 Div rd game vs the Giants, the refs did their best to help out GB with 2 of the worst calls I've ever seen in a game. They overturned a blatant fumble on 1 play that led to a GB TD & then on a 3rd & long late in the game, they called a BS roughing the passer flag on Osi when he delivered a clean hit on AR, that led to GB's final TD, if not for those 2 calls, the Giants destroy GB 37-6 instead of 37-20. Tynes also missed an easy FG so it could have easily been 40-6. GB D that yr was dead last in yds allowed & 19th in PA, the #1 ranked O was the main reason they finished 15-1 that yr. Giants rang em up for 35 in that 3pt loss a month earlier as well. But as the saying goes, Defense wins championships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incarcerated_Scarface Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 On 5/15/2018 at 6:43 PM, tribar said: Yeah, but it's unlikely it would have been THAT cold. Wasn't that game historically cold, at least in terms of NFL games? Yes Green Bay is cold in January but there's a big difference between 15-20 degrees and however cold it was in that game. Ehhh, once it gets below freezing it feels pretty much the same to me. Unless it's windy, then it's a whole other ballgame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4L Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 On 5/14/2018 at 4:58 PM, footbull3196 said: Uh yeah, that's kinda the entire argument that I was making about how if the site of the SF/GB game changed, so would the outcome of the game There are two problems with this argument though. 1) you cant assume that changing the 'failmary' outcome wouldn't change the results of anything else that happened after that point. (changing one historical event will have ripples that will change other parts of history). So even if the packers win that game, there is no guarantee they end up with home field against the niners 2) you cant assume that where the game was played would have had a significant effect on the outcome of the game. Remind me again, did the 49ers beat GB in that frigid game in Lambeau the next season? (spoiler, they did). So please explain to me how exactly the niners would have lost to greenbay, just because the game was in greenbay, when they played in green bay the very next year and STILL WON. This was AFTER GB had an entire offseason to practice against the read option, which they STILL had problems stopping. The fact remains that the packers OWNED the 49ers in the early-mid 90s, and that the 49ers OWNED the packers between 2011-2013/14. That was just a bad matchup for the packers during that time period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter2_1 Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 I like the OP, it's original and well thought out, but it does hinge on a lot hypotheticals and guesstimation - I guess that's the point. We'll never know, and as some have suggested, Pack struggled with read option. You could just as easily say SF would rack up over 200 yards of total running and squeeze GB out the game. But I look forward to some more of these! As for Rogers; if he stays fit, he will win another. He's too good not to. Fans should be on high alert for him becoming an "injury prone" QB though, if he's not already. Part of what makes the great QBs great is the longevity of them being on the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 7 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said: I like the OP, it's original and well thought out, but it does hinge on a lot hypotheticals and guesstimation - I guess that's the point. We'll never know, and as some have suggested, Pack struggled with read option. You could just as easily say SF would rack up over 200 yards of total running and squeeze GB out the game. But I look forward to some more of these! As for Rogers; if he stays fit, he will win another. He's too good not to. Fans should be on high alert for him becoming an "injury prone" QB though, if he's not already. Part of what makes the great QBs great is the longevity of them being on the field. That's not true at all. Dan Marino was too good not to win a Super Bowl. Probably the best pure passer the game has ever seen. He didn't win won. Steve Young was too good to only win one. Probably the best peak of QB play the game has ever seen. He only won one. Brett Favre was too good to only win one, he was in the middle of an unprecedented 3 year MVP stretch and probably one of the best gunslingers in league history. He only won one. Hell even Peyton Manning was so lucky the Broncos defense was legit his final year or a guy that holds all the bulk QB passing stats and is generally regarded as a top 3 of all time, would have only won one. Drew Brees is likely going to only win one. This is the list of QB's that won multiple Super Bowls. -Tom Brady won 3 in a period of 4 years with the same core group of guys and another 2 in 3 years with another set of the same core group of guys, also had the best coach in possibly league history. -Joe Montana won 4 with largely the same team in a revolution offense headed by one of the greatest offensive coaches of all time and had what was effectively a super team that also included the GOAT WR who many people will say is one of the greatest football players ever. -Bradshaw who won 4 in 6 years with the same team, legendary defense, legendary coach. -Staubach won two over 5 seasons with largely the same group of guys on a stacked team with Tom Landry as the coach -Troy Aikman won 3 over 4 years with the same core team which was the most stacked team of the 90's. -Ben Roethlisberger won 2 over a period of 4 years with largely the same core of talent and a killer defense. -Plunkett won 2 over 4 years with roughly the same team. -Griese won 2 in a row with the most stacked team of the early 70's and the legendary Don Shula as coach. -Eli Manning kind of an outlier but won 2 over 5 years with the same coach. -Starr who won 2 back to back coming off the tail end of his run with Packers in the 60's with Lombardi. Same group of guys, legendary head coach (duh) -And then you have Peyton who was really carried to his 2nd. Notice a common denominator? VERY SHORT WINDOWS. Even for the great ones. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are the only two guys with more than a 5 year gap between Super Bowl wins. Tom Brady needed a whole new team around him that could win championships again and once they did they had another slice of success and Peyton got carried by his defense and was fortunate to be in the Trent Dilfer role. Aside from those two guys, most multiple Super Bowl winners won the bulk of their titles in a short period of time with the same team and typically a legendary head coach. Aaron Rodgers is 8 years removed from his first Super Bowl win (historically unlikely that you win after that long of a gap and only two guys did it and one was carried), he does not have the same team he won the first one with, his team is not a generally good team, and his coach is not Belichick, Walsh, Landrey, Noll, Shula, or Lombardi. Hell he'd be lucky to be in the Johnson/Coughlin tier of the guys I mentioned. I think people have a very skewed perception of what is likely when it comes to winning Super Bowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malfatron Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 Mr Boom Bostic, not fantastic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaserFocus Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 On 5/10/2018 at 1:08 PM, EliteTexan80 said: As a non-GB fan, I'd say he's higher on the list vs Favre, but not by much. Rodgers was the more precise of the two, Favre was the most revered of the two among his counterparts at QB (that's not really a fair point of comparison however, as Favre didn't play much of his career in a Brady/Manning/Brees/Ben/Rivers era). It's a coin flip, both guys excelled with different styles. I do give Favre credit for leading the rebirth of the Packers, and nearly taking Minnesota to a SB near the end of his career. Rodgers was more precise, with fewer picks, but Favre was more durable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
childofpudding Posted June 7, 2018 Share Posted June 7, 2018 He's a QB that wears a turtleneck while playing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayRaider Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 Packers are a build through the draft team and have missed quite a bit over the past several years... although the 2018 Packers are the best roster Rodgers has had since probably 2012 IMO. So he definitely has a solid shot this year. Although Philadelphia and Minnesota will be tough to beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelKing728 Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 2 hours ago, BayRaider said: Packers are a build through the draft team and have missed quite a bit over the past several years... although the 2018 Packers are the best roster Rodgers has had since probably 2012 IMO. So he definitely has a solid shot this year. Although Philadelphia and Minnesota will be tough to beat. don't you pick the Packers to win the Superbowl every year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Slim Posted June 9, 2018 Share Posted June 9, 2018 something else to consider here, when talking about the pack moving forward moving forward i don't think the pack will be guaranteed the nfc north to be a clear path for them which also has implications on home field advantage and seeding Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketchup Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 On 6/2/2018 at 4:02 PM, steadypimpin said: Ehhh, once it gets below freezing it feels pretty much the same to me. Unless it's windy, then it's a whole other ballgame. As a native of Wisconsin and someone who works outside, that’s bs. There’s a huge difference between 30 and -5. Sure, if you are just running from your warm house to your warm car and so on, it’s probably no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.