Greg C. Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 Did anyone else watch all the Packers stuff on the NFL Network last night? They replayed Super Bowl I (with just the original announcer this time, and no wisecrackers talking over him) and then showed a one-hour special on the entire 1966 season. One thing I took away from it was the importance of Willie Davis to that defense. He was a team leader and seemed to be the most disruptive member of the front seven at that time. That first Super Bowl was so much cleaner to watch than modern games. There were not a lot of penalties and no controversial officiating calls. I think there were fewer penalties because back then players usually played within the rules instead of constantly trying to stretch them to the limit. The lack of controversial calls was maybe because the players were not as fast and athletic as they are nowadays. There were no acrobatic sideline catches, for example. It was a great evening of entertainment, and I learned a lot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 1 hour ago, Donzo said: Nah, that's just an ol' fashioned coverage sack... Rodgers didn't hold it too long. He tried to scramble and just got caught. Didn't need to scramble, pocket was clean, only reason the guy got by Jenkins is because he assumed Rodgers was behind him. Then Rodgers chose the wrong side of the pocket to escape out of. He had next to no blemishes last week, but this sack is his and the receivers for not winning. The line does their job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterfish_21 Posted October 27, 2019 Share Posted October 27, 2019 44 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Didn't need to scramble, pocket was clean, only reason the guy got by Jenkins is because he assumed Rodgers was behind him. Then Rodgers chose the wrong side of the pocket to escape out of. He had next to no blemishes last week, but this sack is his and the receivers for not winning. The line does their job. I'm putting 1/2 on Bak, 1/2 on EJ, and the other one half on AR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 5 hours ago, waterfish_21 said: I'm putting 1/2 on Bak, 1/2 on EJ, and the other one half on AR. 1/11 on everyone! (Including LaFleur) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted October 28, 2019 Author Share Posted October 28, 2019 Peter Bukowski- Aaron Rodgers in four games without Davante Adams: 94/136 (69.1% comp) 1255 YDS 9.2 YPA 10 TD 1 INT 119.58 Rating 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Because the Vikes are just a game behind us I thought I'd look at their schedule to see who they had played and who they still have to play. Played Falcons (won), Packers (lost), Raiders (won), Bears (lost), Giants (won) Eagles (won), Lions (won), Redskins (won). The only win that impressed me, was the one over the Eagles. Yet to play: Chiefs (away), Cowboys (away), Broncos (home), [BYE WEEK], Seahawks (away), Lions (home), Chargers (away), Packers (home), Bears (home). The next few games for the Vikes may determine their season, it's the tough part of their schedule with away games against the Chiefs, Cowboys, Seahawks, Chargers, in the next 6 games. They have a nice 2x home games to end the season, but it's a tough road for them. The rest of the Packers season is Chargers (away), Panthers (home), [BYE WEEK], 49ers (away), Giants (away), Redskins (home), Bears (home), Vikes (away), Lions (away). So the Vikings got the Falcons (an easy win, Falcons are poor this year) and the Seahawks (should be a tough game), while the Packers got the 49ers (who ATM are probably better than the Seahawks) and the Panthers (who are tougher than the Falcons). Packers bye week is one week earlier than the Vikes, no big deal either way. The difference between the two schedules for me, is that the Packers have had many of their toughest matches already and are 7-1, while the Vikes have several tough away games to come, are a game behind the Packers, and are down in the head-to-head, meaning week 15 at home vs the Pack is pretty much a must-win for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donzo Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 3 hours ago, Leader said: Peter Bukowski- Aaron Rodgers in four games without Davante Adams: 94/136 (69.1% comp) 1255 YDS 9.2 YPA 10 TD 1 INT 119.58 Rating Just amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachbuns Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 3 hours ago, Leader said: Peter Bukowski- Aaron Rodgers in four games without Davante Adams: 94/136 (69.1% comp) 1255 YDS 9.2 YPA 10 TD 1 INT 119.58 Rating Yup and there are those who don't think he's playing well enough or his skills are regressing. Every QB in the league will make errors in a game ... he's kept them to a minimum which has enabled this team to be 7-1. Good enough for me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacman5252 Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 13 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said: Because the Vikes are just a game behind us I thought I'd look at their schedule to see who they had played and who they still have to play. Played Falcons (won), Packers (lost), Raiders (won), Bears (lost), Giants (won) Eagles (won), Lions (won), Redskins (won). The only win that impressed me, was the one over the Eagles. Yet to play: Chiefs (away), Cowboys (away), Broncos (home), [BYE WEEK], Seahawks (away), Lions (home), Chargers (away), Packers (home), Bears (home). The next few games for the Vikes may determine their season, it's the tough part of their schedule with away games against the Chiefs, Cowboys, Seahawks, Chargers, in the next 6 games. They have a nice 2x home games to end the season, but it's a tough road for them. The rest of the Packers season is Chargers (away), Panthers (home), [BYE WEEK], 49ers (away), Giants (away), Redskins (home), Bears (home), Vikes (away), Lions (away). So the Vikings got the Falcons (an easy win, Falcons are poor this year) and the Seahawks (should be a tough game), while the Packers got the 49ers (who ATM are probably better than the Seahawks) and the Panthers (who are tougher than the Falcons). Packers bye week is one week earlier than the Vikes, no big deal either way. The difference between the two schedules for me, is that the Packers have had many of their toughest matches already and are 7-1, while the Vikes have several tough away games to come, are a game behind the Packers, and are down in the head-to-head, meaning week 15 at home vs the Pack is pretty much a must-win for them. It is nice knowing we are effectively 2 games up with the divisional tie breaker. Hopefully Mahommes plays and KC beats minny next week. I don’t think minny has the secondary to match up with KC. Either way though we’re sitting pretty. I was expecting to be 5-3 right now before the season, but we’ve been winning our close games. The team is coming together nicely. Barring major injuries, 13-3 and a bye is pretty possible. The only games we won’t be favored in the rest of the way are @sf and @mn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 I still don't think Cousins is for real. The first time they get into a real punching match he will shatter and come back to reality. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 4 hours ago, Leader said: Peter Bukowski- Aaron Rodgers in four games without Davante Adams: 94/136 (69.1% comp) 1255 YDS 9.2 YPA 10 TD 1 INT 119.58 Rating Trade Davante! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 Personally, I think Rodgers has been playing better BECAUSE Davante is out. I'm very nervous about when Davante comes back because at that point, Rodgers might not distribute the ball as well as he has in the past four games. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 9 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Personally, I think Rodgers has been playing better BECAUSE Davante is out. I'm very nervous about when Davante comes back because at that point, Rodgers might not distribute the ball as well as he has in the past four games. I agree with you. I will split from what I think your opinion is in that I would still like to add another WR. I don't think there's anyone left really so it's a moot point. But I don't want to be complacent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted October 28, 2019 Share Posted October 28, 2019 53 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Personally, I think Rodgers has been playing better BECAUSE Davante is out. I'm very nervous about when Davante comes back because at that point, Rodgers might not distribute the ball as well as he has in the past four games. There is definitely that to be concerned about. But the flip side is that Adams dictates coverage and should open holes for other guys, too. While there is a negative to consider, there is also a positive, above and beyond what 'Vante can do catching the ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted October 28, 2019 Author Share Posted October 28, 2019 54 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: Personally, I think Rodgers has been playing better BECAUSE Davante is out. I'm very nervous about when Davante comes back because at that point, Rodgers might not distribute the ball as well as he has in the past four games. Could be, but I'm not as concerned as you. Rather - I think what we're witnessing is the schemed "semi-short" passing game some/many/most have been hoping for - characterized with the ball leaving ARs hand faster than its more "scramble drill" predecessor. 1 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.