NoFlyZone Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 12 minutes ago, squire12 said: Elaborate on how the GB game vs Chicago wasn't a great offensive game? They scored 17 points.. which even the Falcons and Cardinals did to that defense 1-2 weeks prior. It was mediocre at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Tso Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 minute ago, NoFlyZone said: They scored 17 points.. which even the Falcons and Cardinals did to that defense 1-2 weeks prior. It was mediocre at best. I don't think you watched the game.. They had 0 punts. Both teams used a ball control offense so GB only had 7 possessions, but they didn't really have trouble actually moving the ball. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 3 minutes ago, General Tso said: I don't think you watched the game.. They had 0 punts. Both teams used a ball control offense so GB only had 7 possessions, but they didn't really have trouble actually moving the ball. Yup. Dude just score board scouts. 0 punts. 432 yards. 7.2 yards per play. Poor redzone offense, Missed FG and sketchy clock management at the end of the 1st half left points on the field 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Tso Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 38 minutes ago, squire12 said: Yup. Dude just score board scouts. 0 punts. 432 yards. 7.2 yards per play. Poor redzone offense, Missed FG and sketchy clock management at the end of the 1st half left points on the field I mean, I suppose you could argue that could happen again vs a good Dallas defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 3 hours ago, NoFlyZone said: They weren’t particularly great in their final game, but I can concede that they played well against Carolina and Minnesota. Still, as a team they weren’t exactly stellar to the extent that I’d say they were on fire. The win against the Vikings was really the only noteworthy performance, with the other wins being a quiet one score win against Chicago and a late FG win against Carolina of all teams. Think they’d have to play a bit above that level to beat the Cowboys at their place. Green Bay's offense was great against Chicago. We never punted the ball. There was a missed FG, fumble, and mismanaged play clock to end half for another FG. Majority of the drives for both teams were relatively long which is why the score was low. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Towerbridge Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 The Packers almost/should have lost to one of the worst teams of the modern era Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 7 hours ago, NoFlyZone said: They weren’t particularly great in their final game, but I can concede that they played well against Carolina and Minnesota. Still, as a team they weren’t exactly stellar to the extent that I’d say they were on fire. The win against the Vikings was really the only noteworthy performance, with the other wins being a quiet one score win against Chicago and a late FG win against Carolina of all teams. Think they’d have to play a bit above that level to beat the Cowboys at their place. If you wanted to argue that the Packers weren't sharp, I probably could have gotten behind that statement. If you wanted to argue that the score was a bit misleading, I would have agreed with you. But to argue that they didn't play well, now that's just some poor opinion. The Packers really only had 2 miscues offensively that game: the missed FG on their first drive (Anders Carlson missing a 41 yard FG) and the fumble by Jordan Love. But you don't complete 84% of your passes with 2 TDs, 0 INTs, and 9.3 YPA. And the running game added another 4.6 YPC for a total of 124 rushing yards. I guess if you really wanted to nitpick, they could have been better in the RZ. Defensively, they were very good much to the chagrin of Packers' fans. The Bears were 3-11 on 3rd down, averaged 4.2 yards per play (as compared to 7.2 for Green Bay), and 0-2 in the red zone. Also, Chicago punted the ball 3 times as opposed to Green Bay punting the ball 0 times. I guess the lone "bleak" spot was the lack of turnovers forced, but the Packers finished T-23rd in takeaways. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 On 1/11/2024 at 6:34 PM, NoFlyZone said: Thank you for your important contribution to this thread. I’m not a victim, as evidenced by the clapping back. If you read through this thread and didn’t see the basic moment of everyone vs NFZ, then you’re being disingenuous. So many people want to attack the poster instead of their points. You’re continuing to do so, for no good reason. Victim complex much? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 hour ago, Towerbridge said: The Packers almost/should have lost to one of the worst teams of the modern era And beat the Chiefs Therefore chiefs are worst team in playoffs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddHatter Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 24 minutes ago, incognito_man said: And beat the Chiefs Therefore chiefs are worst team in playoffs Cowboys and Eagles lost to the Cardinals; they’re clearly the worst teams in the playoffs 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFlyZone Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 8 hours ago, General Tso said: I don't think you watched the game.. They had 0 punts. Both teams used a ball control offense so GB only had 7 possessions, but they didn't really have trouble actually moving the ball. I never said they played poorly. Saying they played great is a major stretch. Being able to punch the ball in for touchdowns is important. You’re saying they didn’t punt.. great.. but how many drives ended in 6? 17 points is absolutely not great offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFlyZone Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 (edited) 3 hours ago, CWood21 said: Victim complex much? It’s called calling out bs.. which I’ll do if I feel like. Thanks for your contribution to this thread’s topic. Continued high quality posting around here. 50% of this thread consists of various posters teaming up to make personal attacks, some of it because of personal history. But sure, it’s just a “victim complex” because I bother to respond to the nonsense lol.. One word: Salt Edited January 13 by NoFlyZone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Tso Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 4 minutes ago, NoFlyZone said: I never said they played poorly. Saying they played great is a major stretch. Being able to punch the ball in for touchdowns is important. You’re saying they didn’t punt.. great.. but how many drives ended in 6? 17 points is absolutely not great offense. You're just moving the goal posts at that point. We'll see how they play tomorrow, I think they'll have a good plan. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFlyZone Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 3 hours ago, CWood21 said: If you wanted to argue that the Packers weren't sharp, I probably could have gotten behind that statement. If you wanted to argue that the score was a bit misleading, I would have agreed with you. But to argue that they didn't play well, now that's just some poor opinion. The Packers really only had 2 miscues offensively that game: the missed FG on their first drive (Anders Carlson missing a 41 yard FG) and the fumble by Jordan Love. But you don't complete 84% of your passes with 2 TDs, 0 INTs, and 9.3 YPA. And the running game added another 4.6 YPC for a total of 124 rushing yards. I guess if you really wanted to nitpick, they could have been better in the RZ. Defensively, they were very good much to the chagrin of Packers' fans. The Bears were 3-11 on 3rd down, averaged 4.2 yards per play (as compared to 7.2 for Green Bay), and 0-2 in the red zone. Also, Chicago punted the ball 3 times as opposed to Green Bay punting the ball 0 times. I guess the lone "bleak" spot was the lack of turnovers forced, but the Packers finished T-23rd in takeaways. It was the Bears. It was a ho-hum one score win. I never said it was a poor performance or anything - I’m simply saying it wasn’t great or worthy of saying the Packers are playing like they’re on fire. They punted 0 times, but didn’t put it in the endzone often. Again, I’m not saying it was a poor performance worthy of a lot of criticism.. it simply wasn’t great or especially noteworthy. And again.. it was Chicago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFlyZone Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, General Tso said: You're just moving the goal posts at that point. We'll see how they play tomorrow, I think they'll have a good plan. No? In what way did I move the goal posts from any other statement I made? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.