ROUND 2: Dirty Birds Lead-Up

chuckleslove · Post #141 » by **chuckleslove** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:05 pm

I'd be surprised if this game is decided before the second half of the 4th quarter. Most likely it will come down to the last drive.

chuckleslove · Post #142 » by **chuckleslove** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:06 pm

Oh and also Matt Ryan has never won a playoff game

an_also · Post #143 » by **an_also** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:08 pm

Defensive Players of the Week

Tramon Williams, CB, Green Bay.

America held its breath when Michael Vick, from the Packer 27 with 44 seconds left, down 21-16, sent four receivers downfield and for some reason targeted the one playing against Green Bay's top 2010 cover corner, Williams. Intended for Riley Cooper in the back left corner of the end zone, Vick left it a yard short, and Williams leapt high to pick it off. Ballgame. Biggest play of young Williams' career. "He's played incredible one-on-one coverage all year, and I'm not surprised he made the play,'' Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers said.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/w ... z1AenfTCN7

Newz · Post #144 » by **Newz** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:15 pm

To me when you say "We have proven we can beat this team." that means that you actually have beat them, not that you came close to beating them.

That's not saying the Packers have a 0% chance to win. It's just saying they haven't actually beat them.

So if you want to say "The Packers have a good shot at winning this game", then yeah... I completely agree. But we haven't proven we can beat them in Atlanta because we haven't. They prove they could beat us in Atlanta because they actually did it.

LUKE23 · Post #145 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:19 pm

To me when you say "We have proven we can beat this team." that means that you actually have beat them, not that you came close to beating them.

We have different definitions of the word "can" then. I think you're confusing "can" and "did".

Newz · Post #146 » by **Newz** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:21 pm

LUKE23 wrote:
To me when you say "We have proven we can beat this team." that means that you actually have beat them, not that you came close to beating them.

We have different definitions of the word "can" then. I think you're confusing "can" and "did".

I think we have different definitions of the word prove. To prove you can do something you actually have to do it.

It's like saying "Yeah I ran a 90 mile marathon so that proves I can run a 100 mile marathon.". No, you didn't prove that at all.

I have no problem with the statement "The Packers can beat the Falcons.". To say that they have proven they can beat them I don't agree with.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #147 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:25 pm

I don't think there needs to be an argument here. The Packers CAN beat Atlanta Saturday. If you don't agree with that you are an idiot. That doesn't mean they WILL win, but they definitely CAN.

Newz · Post #148 » by **Newz** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:27 pm

PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:I don't think there needs to be an argument here. The Packers CAN beat Atlanta Saturday. If you don't agree with that you are an idiot. That doesn't mean they WILL win, but they definitely CAN.

Agreed.

The Packers CAN beat Atlanta.

They have to PROVE it on Saturday.

You don't prove that you can do something by not doing it.

Wilford Brimley · Post #149 » by **Wilford Brimley** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:29 pm

@ these semantics.

chuckleslove · Post #150 » by **chuckleslove** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:29 pm

I disagree on the marathon statement. I think if someone runs a 90 mile marathon they can most definitely run a 100 mile marathon. I wouldn't say someone who ran a 26 mile marathon can run a 100 mile marathon though.

Newz · Post #151 » by **Newz** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:30 pm

chuckleslove wrote:I disagree on the marathon statement. I think if someone runs a 90 mile marathon they can most definitely run a 100 mile marathon. I wouldn't say someone who ran a 26 mile marathon can run a 100 mile marathon though.

They probably can.

They haven't proven they can though. They showed proof they could run a 90 mile marathon, not a 100 mile marathon. How is that difficult to understand? :-?

chuckleslove · Post #152 » by **chuckleslove** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:31 pm

I just look at it differently than you. They haven't actually done it but to me when they are that close they have proven that they are more than capable.

LUKE23 · Post #153 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:32 pm

I think we have different definitions of the word prove. To prove you can do something you actually have to do it.

They have proven they can (are capable of) beating them. How is that still being disputed?

Be Here Now · Post #154 » by **Be Here Now** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:38 pm

Wilford Brimley wrote::lol: @ these semantics.

Yeah, no kidding. Gonna be a long week.

shaolin34 · Post #155 » by **shaolin34** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:47 pm

I think we all want the "prove" debate to die, but to throw my 2 cents into the pot:

The Lions completely outplayed us in our game at Lambeau, they were the better team out there that day. But they had 2 more turnovers and a missed FG, and we hung on for the 2-pt victory. Detroit proved then that they were capable of beating us, people who watched the game didn't need the Lions to win for that to actually show. And lo-and-behold, they got a chance to prove it again when they beat us at Detroit.

So in my opinion, the Packers proved that they are capable of beating Atlanta, even if they didn't actually beat them the first time.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #156 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:05 pm

I think all that matters is whether the Packers players believe they can beat the Falcons. They most definitely believe they can beat the Falcons and I think they'd point to the game earlier in the year as evidence.

trwi7 · Post #157 » by **trwi7** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:13 pm

LUKE23 wrote:I think you're confusing "can" and "did".

This is a very candid conversation.

Newz · Post #158 » by **Newz** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:14 pm

trwi7 wrote:
LUKE23 wrote:I think you're confusing "can" and "did".

This is a very candid conversation.

HEYYYYOOOO!

Wilford Brimley · Post #159 » by **Wilford Brimley** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:43 pm

Rodgers' last eight games (including playoffs)

Completion percentage - 70.8
Passing YPG - 261.4
TD-INT - 19-2
Passer rating - 122.1
Yards per attempt - 9.0

El Duderino · Post #160 » by **El Duderino** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:49 pm

Wilford Brimley wrote:Rodgers' last eight games (including playoffs)

Completion percentage - 70.8
Passing YPG - 261.4
TD-INT - 19-2
Passer rating - 122.1
Yards per attempt - 9.0

And 4 dropped long TD passes