ImageImage

Game 16: Pack at Queens - 3:25 -FOX

Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25, humanrefutation

User avatar
rilamann
RealGM
Posts: 27,701
And1: 15,233
Joined: Jun 20, 2003
Location: Damn that rilamann!!
     

Re: Game 16: Pack at Queens - 3:25 -FOX 

Post#841 » by rilamann » Wed Jan 2, 2013 3:39 am

trwi7 wrote:Are the 49ers not a Super Bowl caliber team? They lost to Christian Ponder.



Good point Twirl,although I think the game with the Packers is a little different because it was week 17 and the Packers had a lot riding on the game as far as playoff position.It was big for the Vikings too obviously so maybe I'm wrong.


I guess I see it as a situation where the Packers had a lot riding on the game and if they are in Super Bowl mode they show they are the better team and take that game from the Vikings and wrap up that #2 seed.AP is my MVP but after him the Vikings are not a very good team.

And keep in mind when I say that I am putting a lot of the focus on the defense.The offense looked great Sunday,if the defense makes Christian Ponder look like Christian Ponder we probably win by 2 tds Sunday.

Again I hope I'm wrong and I very well could be,from a potential match up point of view in these playoffs the Packers could find themselves in some favorable situations.I acknowledge that,I just don't trust this defense in a big game.
Giannis Antetokounmpo wrote:You're out here reffing like Marc Davis and ****
User avatar
trwi7
RealGM
Posts: 111,788
And1: 27,357
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: Aussie bias
         

Re: Game 16: Pack at Queens - 3:25 -FOX 

Post#842 » by trwi7 » Wed Jan 2, 2013 3:51 am

There was a hell of a lot more riding on it for the Vikings.

The Packers knew at worst they were going to be the 3 seed and play Minnesota at home the next week. Since the Bears won before the game the Vikings knew they had to win to get in. Tell me who's going to have a bigger sense of urgency in that scenario.
stellation wrote:What's the difference between Gery Woelful and this glass of mineral water? The mineral water actually has a source."


I Hate Manure wrote:We look to be awful next season without Beasley.
User avatar
rilamann
RealGM
Posts: 27,701
And1: 15,233
Joined: Jun 20, 2003
Location: Damn that rilamann!!
     

Re: Game 16: Pack at Queens - 3:25 -FOX 

Post#843 » by rilamann » Wed Jan 2, 2013 4:15 am

I agree the Vikings obviously would have a greater sense of urgency in that game.

But I also think the Packers had or should have had a decent amount of urgency in that game as well and when you combine that with the Packers being the better team the Packers take that game from the Vikings if they are about to go on a Super Bowl run.

I am trying to think of any recent Super Bowl winning teams that would have lost in week 17 to a team the caliber of the Vikings with the #2 seed and the bye riding on the game.Before Sunday the Vikings had only beaten 2 playoff teams,49ers in week 3 and the fading Texans in week 16.

Don't get me wrong I want to have more confidence in the Packers Super Bowl chances in these playoffs but I can't get Christian Ponder's 120 QB rating out of my head.

Again my basic point is that IMO a team that will be hoisting the Lombardi a month from now doesn't lose to the Minnesota Vikings at this point in the season,urgency or not.
Giannis Antetokounmpo wrote:You're out here reffing like Marc Davis and ****

Return to Green Bay Packers