PG: Week 7 - Over .500 at 4-3 (5-2)

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #1 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:15 pm

Good win. I like our chances to be 6-3 going into the bye with Jacksonville and Arizona at home the next two weeks. 6-3 at the bye would be great given the early season bad luck.

Balls2TheWalls · Post #2 » by **Balls2TheWalls** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:16 pm

I love Randall Cobb. I am man enough to admit that. He also has beautiful eyes.

LUKE23 · Post #3 » by **LUKE23** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:20 pm

This is still clearly the best team in the division.

Cobb is a monster.

FAH1223 · Post #4 » by **FAH1223** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:34 pm

Minnesota keeps winning, they're at 5-2. Hopefully Detroit beats CHI tomorrow night.

We gotta take care of business at home and not underestimate the Jaguars.

MikeIsGood · Post #5 » by **MikeIsGood** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:41 pm

Cobbinance, as per usual. This is a solid win. Let's keep the streak going.

Marley2Hendrix · Post #6 » by **Marley2Hendrix** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:44 pm

Michael Rodney ‏@PackerUpdate
In his 2 starts, Green has carried the ball 42 times (I like that) for 90 yards (I don't like that). Time to scrape the rust off ol' No. 44.

As Bernman said, given our history of success in starting James Starks, it seems odd he isn't being worked in.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #7 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:53 pm

Jones-Drew just carted off. He hasn't been great this year but it would still be nice if he was out next week.

Turk Nowitzki · Post #8 » by **Turk Nowitzki** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:54 pm

The Vikings have played a complete cupcake schedule so far. The win against San Fran was impressive but other than that, they're nothing special.

mnWI · Post #9 » by **mnWI** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:58 pm

This team is winning a lot more like the Super Bowl team of 2 years ago than the high octane team of last season. The defense isn't at the 2010 level, but it's much better than last season, and the added rest time from longer offensive drives seems to make a difference.

Hayward is legit, and is now tied for the league lead in interceptions. He'll be getting DROY consideration by the end of the year.

I felt like more than a few times today points were left on the field, but it's hard to complain when the receivers are playing well and Rodgers is in MVP form. The Packers controlled this game pretty much the whole way.

I'm not as down on Green as some. He runs hard, and seems to be doing a better job of finding where there should be a hole (I think the o-line wasn't great today at opening them). Plus St Louis has a top defensive line and Brockers is a monster run stopper. The Texans and Rams are both top level run defenses, hopefully he can show better next week against Jacksonville.

Post #10 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 10:27 pm

Packers have run it up against two of the best defenses in the NFL over the last two weeks. Good sign.

BigDee · Post #11 » by **BigDee** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:29 pm

I wonder why they haven't started to work in Starks. Could he be in MM doghouse.

Kerb Hohl · Post #12 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:21 am

I thought Green looked good against Houston, despite the modest numbers.

Obviously not good today, but given that Starks was already banged up, I doubt he's going to look much better.

The revered Cedric Benson had a few awful games such as this one as well.

I was a huge Starks homer back in the day but I can't imagine him being a whole lot more effective.

Kerb Hohl · Post #13 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:27 am

Gabbert may be out next week as well. Shoulder injury, though he didn't seem to be in a ton of pain on the sideline.

Post #14 » by **MickeyDavis** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:30 am

No let down, need to win the next 2 at home.

mnWI · Post #15 » by **mnWI** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:31 am

GrendonJennings wrote:I thought Green looked good against Houston, despite the modest numbers.

Obviously not good today, but given that Starks was already banged up, I doubt he's going to look much better.

The revered Cedric Benson had a few awful games such as this one as well.

I was a huge Starks homer back in the day but I can't imagine him being a whole lot more effective.

I would imagine the lack of holes to run through would have hurt most any back you put back there. Tons of credit to the front 4 of St. Louis. Anybody know where Jacksonville's run defense is ranked this year? I'm betting Green shows better stuff when he doesn't have to face great defenses.

Kerb Hohl · Post #16 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:38 am

Jacksonville was bottom 3 in rush yards/game against coming into today, though they mostly shut down Run DMC.

I also think a lot of that has to do with the fact that teams ran all the time while leading the games.

emunney · Post #17 » by **emunney** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:45 am

What's our record when starting Alex Green again?

eagle13 · Post #18 » by **eagle13** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:38 am

Guess we cannot win without Jennings. Guess Jennings HAS to be in the lineup for Nelson Jones & Cobb to be effective.

Bernman · Post #19 » by **Bernman** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:15 am

emunney wrote:What's our record when starting Alex Green again?

Packers are 2-1 when Green has gotten the lion's share of carries.

They were 2-2/3-1 when Benson did.

17-0 regular season w/ Starks when Rodgers was available too, won their first 21 games. First and only loss last playoffs against the Giants. Lost the only game of last regular season in one of the 2 games he didn't play. 6-0 (against much tougher comp too) in the Super Bowl season w/ Starks + Rodgers, 8-4 without Starks.

Are you really trying to support the phasing out of Starks given this information? If so, you're not the voice of reason, you're the voice of insanity. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That applies both to staying the same or changing things.

LUKE23 · Post #20 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:20 am

I'm not saying I'm against Starks getting more touches to see what is there, but I think you're trying to use causation that isn't there. I know you're not saying Starks is the primary factor behind 17-0, but I question if it isn't just all coincidence to be perfectly honest.

I'm fine giving both guys touches to see who can emerge though.