It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from PaulLaCourse. Show PaulLaCourse's posts

    It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    It's bad enough that the Pats are getting whacked by the great Matt Flynn but it could have been really humiliating if Rodgers had started.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Soxpatsfan08. Show Soxpatsfan08's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    why the pats might have shown up if he had
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from PaulLaCourse. Show PaulLaCourse's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    In Response to Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight:
    [QUOTE]why the pats might have shown up if he had
    Posted by Soxpatsfan08[/QUOTE]
     
    Good point. They have been completely outplayed tonight right from the on-side kickoff. I am surprised Belichick did not see this coming.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Brad34. Show Brad34's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    In Response to It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight:
    [QUOTE]It's bad enough that the Pats are getting whacked by the great Matt Flynn but it could have been really humiliating if Rodgers had started.
    Posted by PaulLaCourse[/QUOTE]

    No I disagree Pats maybe took them a little lightly and were possibly a bit unfamiliar with the back ups play.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    It was the Green Bay running game that (almost) killed the Pats tonight. That was partly a function of being thin on the defensive front, but there was also some poor tackling and we've seen, yet again, that the Pats have trouble with a big, bruising back. If Rodgers is in there, I think the Pats lose tonight. All other things being equal, Rodgers wouldn't have wasted that last play.


    Take it and get ready for Buffalo.


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    You are wrong.  There are many amongst us who fear the backup QB more than the starter.  BB's Pats are such a game plan specific team, it's been an established tendency to make backups look like all-pros.  I guess there isn't enough film out there to game plan.  It would be wrong to assume that Rodgers would have done better.

    Flynn simply joins the long list of backup QB's who looked like pro bowlers playing the Pats.  It is what it is. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from kesayo. Show kesayo's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    In Response to Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight:
    [QUOTE]You are wrong.  There are many amongst us who fear the backup QB more than the starter.  BB's Pats are such a game plan specific team, it's been an established tendency to make backups look like all-pros.  I guess there isn't enough film out there to game plan.  It would be wrong to assume that Rodgers would have done better. Flynn simply joins the long list of backup QB's who looked like pro bowlers playing the Pats.  It is what it is. 
    Posted by carawaydj[/QUOTE]

    Good point. This team dosn't win with raw talent, it wins with solid execution of an effective game plan. Without a good plan, we can barely beat a team that lost to the Lions 7 to 3.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from NY-PATS-FAN4. Show NY-PATS-FAN4's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    It is impossible to know what would have happened, because it would have been a completely different game. Having a backup QB forces the offensive play caller to really focus on what the TEAM does well, versus what the QB does well. Towards the end of the game, the announcers said that GB had run the ball 37 times and passed 37 times...maybe they throw a lot more if Rodgers is in the game. Maybe they don't try a game-opening onside kick if Rodgers is playing.

    Nothing about this game would have been the same.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    I don't know. Hochuli had it bagged pretty good. That kind of stuff is concerning.

    Too many flags when GB needed it.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from FOWLER8196. Show FOWLER8196's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    i think if he had played the patriots would have come into the game with an entirely different mentality... thus, a completely different performance. granted not necessarily a win. but a different performance and mentality all week coming into the game.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dodie2g. Show dodie2g's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    I don't think so, you really can't tell. This kid Flyn is competitive, he doesn't mine getting hit or gettint INT, he got nothing to lose right there, got a lot of confidence..
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    In Response to Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight:
    [QUOTE]I don't know. Hochuli had it bagged pretty good. That kind of stuff is concerning. Too many flags when GB needed it.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    The officials conference when there was no flag on McCourty was very troubling . . .  but you can bet your boots and mittens that was a direct result of Goodell being in the crowd.

    The hands-to-the-face on TBC should have, at the most, been off-setting penalites.

    The Packers got some breaks, to be sure . . .  but it's also true that the Pats did not play with their ususal discipline.


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from 49Patriots. Show 49Patriots's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    Seriously, Kuhn and the RBs killed us. If Rodger played the Pats would've crushed him because the Packers would've been more pass happy had Rodgers been in the game. I swear, how can some of you call yourselves fans when whenever the Pats don't dominate you start talking about how they suk? 


    Hop off the wagon. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from TFB12. Show TFB12's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    You just never know how it would have turned out. Rodgers could have made some bad throws for int's, missed throws, etc.. I think the backup had a realy great game tonight and GB probably could have beat most teams tonight with that game.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davedsone. Show Davedsone's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    In Response to It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight:
    [QUOTE]It's bad enough that the Pats are getting whacked by the great Matt Flynn but it could have been really humiliating if Rodgers had started.
    Posted by PaulLaCourse[/QUOTE]


    Matt Flynn put up better numbers against us than Rodgers did against the Lions.  Its not about his name.  It's about the passes he completes.  Like when we knocked Marino out of the game, Damon Huard came in and beat us.  BY COMPLETING PASSES.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    In Response to Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight:
    [QUOTE]You are wrong.  There are many amongst us who fear the backup QB more than the starter.  BB's Pats are such a game plan specific team, it's been an established tendency to make backups look like all-pros.  I guess there isn't enough film out there to game plan.  It would be wrong to assume that Rodgers would have done better. Flynn simply joins the long list of backup QB's who looked like pro bowlers playing the Pats.  It is what it is. 
    Posted by carawaydj[/QUOTE]

    Great point.

    I'd like to add that it was pretty obvious the zebras were keeping things interesting for the Pats' D.  Just take Merriweather's INT play.  Banta-Cain was called for a facemask, but the O-lineman was holding his heads with two hands first, then Tully grabs the mask, and then the O-lineman grabs Tully's mask.  That should have either not been called or called illegal use of hands on the O-lineman, since he was attacking Tully's head.  This is not my imagination.  The guys at the NFL Network talked about that play with the same opinion.

    My step-dad and I counted four Pats' pass rushers being held on one play alone near the end, most of them by the facemask.  It is the way the game started, and it happened right to the end, and on just about every passing down for GB.

    I didn't see bad officating when the Pats had the ball and the Packers playing D.  The Packers were not holding Pats' receivers or doing P/I.  Maybe they should have. Weirdly frustrating to watch. I guess TV ratings go into it.

    So I am not worried. In an evenly called game, the Pats get 10 sacks, not just five. And the opposing QB is forced to pass under pressure.

    For a worse-called game today, did anybody see the weirdness of the Jags-Colts?  Bad both ways. Really bad.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from chrisakawoody. Show chrisakawoody's posts

    Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight

    In Response to Re: It's a good thing Rodgers did not play tonight:
    [QUOTE]I don't know. Hochuli had it bagged pretty good. That kind of stuff is concerning. Too many flags when GB needed it.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    BINGO!

    And no flags on the GB o-line when they were blantantly holding pass rushers. Hochuli's crew is awful. Why does he get talked up so much? Because he lifts weights? He would impress me more if he called a game evenly.


     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share