Week 6: Texans Lead-Up

Newz · Post #61 » by **Newz** » Tue Oct 9, 2012 3:37 pm

jimmybones wrote:
emunney wrote:Really makes me jealous to watch somebody like Gronkowski seal the edge on end runs. I wonder how Quarless is doing.

It's getting to the point where I'd almost prefer a Quarless/DJ Williams platoon.

I really liked Quarless when he was healthy. That guy was a monster as a blocker, he was a solid receiver and he had cool tattoos.

raysbookclub · Post #62 » by **raysbookclub** » Tue Oct 9, 2012 4:03 pm

I liked Quarless too. I'd be surprised to see him this year though, that was a bad injury.

Cushing out for the year? That hurts the Texans. On a chop block too, that is terrible; good for Clay, reacting to that and supporting his old teammate I guess.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/20 ... g/1621955/

UWM_Brew_Buck · Post #63 » by **UWM_Brew_Buck** » Tue Oct 9, 2012 4:50 pm

The Packers are +1400 on winning the Superbowl. I'd put some money on them right now if I had a reliable way. I would think the odds would drop to +1000 if they beat a Texans team that hasn't beaten anyone good.

Post #64 » by **humanrefutation** » Tue Oct 9, 2012 5:37 pm

Quarless was not a reliable receiver. He also suffered from the case of the dropsies, but coupled that with the lack of big play ability.

Maybe he'll get better, but I'd rather have Williams out there.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #65 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Tue Oct 9, 2012 6:25 pm

humanrefutation wrote:Quarless was not a reliable receiver. He also suffered from the case of the dropsies, but coupled that with the lack of big play ability.

Maybe he'll get better, but I'd rather have Williams out there.

That was his m.o. prior to last year, but he actually made some pretty big improvements and was looking pretty legit right up until his injury. I guess we'll have to wait and see what he does when he is finally 100%.

El Duderino · Post #66 » by **El Duderino** » Tue Oct 9, 2012 8:36 pm

GrendonJennings wrote:
MickeyDavis wrote:5 1/2 point dogs, that seems low to me.

I'm all over the Packers. The Texans are definitely a top 3 team in the NFL right now or top 5 depending on how you want to classify things.

They beat Jake Locker/Hasselbeck and the 1-4 Titans who look HORRIBLE.
They beat Blaine Gabbert and the scary Jaguars, who are 1-4 and look really bad.
They beat Marky Mark Sanchize and the horrendousJets in a game they controlled but had a chance to lose at the end.
They beat Tannehill and the Dolphins who aren't very good.

The Broncos are decent, and they nearly lost in Packers/Colts fashion.

Something tells me that they are definitely a good team for beating up who they should, but something also tells me that they probably could have just played a bunch of tackling dummies and gotten similar competition.

Their opponents are 8-17 and one of those wins came because somebody had to win the Jets/Dolphins game.

The good sign for them though is they are +76 in point differential. They have played some bad teams, but for the most part they didn't struggle and allow a bad team to hang around as the Packers did Sunday.

Kerb Hohl · Post #67 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Tue Oct 9, 2012 8:45 pm

El Duderino wrote:
GrendonJennings wrote:
MickeyDavis wrote:5 1/2 point dogs, that seems low to me.

I'm all over the Packers. The Texans are definitely a top 3 team in the NFL right now or top 5 depending on how you want to classify things.

They beat Jake Locker/Hasselbeck and the 1-4 Titans who look HORRIBLE.
They beat Blaine Gabbert and the scary Jaguars, who are 1-4 and look really bad.
They beat Marky Mark Sanchize and the horrendousJets in a game they controlled but had a chance to lose at the end.
They beat Tannehill and the Dolphins who aren't very good.

The Broncos are decent, and they nearly lost in Packers/Colts fashion.

Something tells me that they are definitely a good team for beating up who they should, but something also tells me that they probably could have just played a bunch of tackling dummies and gotten similar competition.

Their opponents are 8-17 and one of those wins came because somebody had to win the Jets/Dolphins game.

The good sign for them though is they are +76 in point differential. They have played some bad teams, but for the most part they didn't struggle and allow a bad team to hang around as the Packers did Sunday.

They seemed to control the game a lot better, but they nearly let the Jets beat them yesterday.

The whole post I had wasn't really to knock them down a peg, they are beating who they are supposed to. However, I don't know if they've played a dangerous team yet.

Post #68 » by **humanrefutation** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:14 am

Nice story about the Pats no-huddle offense. It'd be nice if we could incorporate innovations like that into our offense.

Post #69 » by **MickeyDavis** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:59 pm

McGinn's Texans scouting report

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/ ... 29311.html

emunney · Post #70 » by **emunney** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:42 pm

RIP Alex Karras

askdavescat · Post #71 » by **askdavescat** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:22 pm

Interesting - looking at the stream of Mongo decking the horse - you can see the rider pull on the right rein, to have the horse go down, a moment before Karras throws his punch. I've seen that a dozen times in the theatre/DVD's, but the slower speed of the stream really made that obvious.

As for the Packers at Houston, as much as my heart wants Green Bay to find a way, my head keeps asking, if Donald Brown could run for 84 yards, what do you think Foster and Tate are going to do?

FAH1223 · Post #72 » by **FAH1223** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:43 pm

‎20 years ago, the Packers went to Houston for a Sunday night game. They were underdogs then, too. They won.

http://www.packersnews.com/article/20121011/PKR04/121011038/Packers-Scrapbook-20-years-ago-underdog-Packers-upset-Houston?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE&nclick_check=1

th87 · Post #73 » by **th87** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:06 pm

FAH1223 wrote:‎20 years ago, the Packers went to Houston for a Sunday night game. They were underdogs then, too. They won.

http://www.packersnews.com/article/20121011/PKR04/121011038/Packers-Scrapbook-20-years-ago-underdog-Packers-upset-Houston?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE&nclick_check=1

Warren Moon wasn't playing that game, IIRC, so was it really such a huge upset?

HurricaneKid · Post #74 » by **HurricaneKid** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:15 pm

I think I am taking the Pack at +175. They were outstanding when they "needed" the game against Chicago.

It certainly is terrible timing to lose Raji the one game his run defense is a necessity though.

Kerb Hohl · Post #75 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:17 pm

Pack -175? They're favored?

HurricaneKid · Post #76 » by **HurricaneKid** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Sorry, that was +175.

HurricaneKid · Post #77 » by **HurricaneKid** » Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:54 pm

HurricaneKid wrote:I think I am taking the Pack at +175. They were outstanding when they "needed" the game against Chicago.

Ugh. I was trying to get +175 and all I could find was +165 and I got all pissy and decided not to. Would have been the best bet I have made in a long time.

Kerb Hohl · Post #78 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:32 pm

mlloyd10 wrote:With Benson out this week and his future unknown, Butler on 1250 this afternoon suggested that the Packers "need a splash" and said the Packers should call up the titans and offer them Finley and whoever for CJ2k. Interesting

Coming in late. I have no idea why the Titans would have done this either. I think they'd rather roll with Jared Cook and see if he pans out.

Another video game trade from WSSP.

Ayt · Post #79 » by **Ayt** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:58 am

GrendonJennings wrote:
mlloyd10 wrote:With Benson out this week and his future unknown, Butler on 1250 this afternoon suggested that the Packers "need a splash" and said the Packers should call up the titans and offer them Finley and whoever for CJ2k. Interesting

Coming in late. I have no idea why the Titans would have done this either. I think they'd rather roll with Jared Cook and see if he pans out.

Another video game trade from WSSP.

It is even worse than that. Video games are at least advanced enough to factor in the acceleration of signing bonuses. Sports writers apparently can't even boot up Madden to see the cap hits on trades.

emunney · Post #80 » by **emunney** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:14 pm

I don't think the signing bonus acceleration would be that big of an issue for the Titans. It was only 10m and he's already two years in. The bigger problem for them or more exactly anybody who'd consider trading for him is that most of his giant salary for next year is guaranteed.