quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:

quote:

From day 1 McCarthy wanted this team to be able to run the ball and then in the biggest game of the year he decided on a game-plan to throw-throw-throw.

In the first drive, the Packers went to the fullback. 13 yards. Then Donald Lee. Another 1st down. And I swear, I never saw those plays again. From the standpoint of the x's and the o's, I would REALLY like to understand the extent to which those kind of things, as well as short to medium slants, were taken away by the Giants scheme versus just not attempted by the Packers.

On that one, I have no idea. I just don't know.

How many short slant passes were thrown to Jones, for example?

Completely agree with this.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:...I said recent history.

quote:

Statisticians also crunch these numbers at a desk and not in 20 below weather. I'm telling you right now I'm your official weather statistician and Favre couldn't handle it. You can quiz me as I remember pulling off frozen boots from swollen feet after being in 20 below for a day.

quote:

Originally posted by RB87:
In the rush of some to pin this thing on Favre, or amazingly the decision to play him and stick with him instead of Rodgers (?!!), let's examine some inconvenient facts:

*The Giants started the 1st half with an 8 minute FG drive. They started the 2nd half with a 7 minute TD drive. That's 1/4 of the game on two drives to start each half and has nothing to do with the offense.

*The Packers rushed for 28 yards in the game.

*Yes, the Giants only won by a FG in OT. But anyone who watched the game knows the Giants basically blew a number of opportunities to put that game away before then. When you add up the unforced errors by the Giants -- two missed FGs, a TD called back on a hold, a drop by Burress at the 2 yard line, a drop by Toomer at midfield, a fumble after an interception, etc, etc, this was a 3 pt. cliffhanger in name only.

The Giants dominated this game and deserved to win. They outcoached the Packers. They played and executed better on offense. They played and executed better on defense. Any analysis beyond that (e.g., the Packers would have won with Rodgers) is hypothetical drivel.

quote:

Originally posted by pacfan:

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:...I said recent history.

40 out of 45 games in weather below 34 degrees isn't good enough, but 2 recent games lost (one on the road) in cold weather makes him a cold weather wuss? Sorry, I don't buy it.

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:

quote:

Statisticians also crunch these numbers at a desk and not in 20 below weather. I'm telling you right now I'm your official weather statistician and Favre couldn't handle it. You can quiz me as I remember pulling off frozen boots from swollen feet after being in 20 below for a day.

I'm just not sure about this Henry. One reason being - the Bear game.

Last year, the Bears had nothing to play for and on Monday night, the Packers destroyed them. Was it a harbinger of things to come? No. The Bears reached the SB.

The guys aren't robots. In the regular season, they are not going to get up for every game. Now, in that Bear game, the players could have thought: "Wow. The weather SUCKS! We gain nothing in this game cuz Dallas has the #1 spot locked up and we've got #2 locked up. What the hell are we doing here?"

(Realizing, in retrospect, Dallas didn't have the #1 spot locked up.)

I just cannot place a lot of significance to the Bears game with respect to the climate. As I cannot, that leaves me with ONE GAME.

One game.

Man, Favre was given the task of moving the ball in that cold with nothing for a running game and knowing Manning had the luxory of knowing the Pack was having problems offensively while he enjoyed a semblance of a running attack and Burress there as the best kind of security a QB could ask for. (Not to mention little pass rush.)

When I reduce this to ONE GAME and allow for other factors that appear to me to be extenuating in the extreme, I am unable to say that "Favre and the cold" is an ultra-significant consideration.

I am honestly unsure. He threw a bad pick in OT in -24 and he threw a bad pick in OT in Philly in much warmer temps.

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:
Favre's demeanor in the Chicago game and the NFCC game were enough for me. You could read it from his face.

quote:

Originally posted by STEAMBOAT:
Posted 12-24-2007 02:54 PM Favre is no longer a Cold weather QB. He needs nice / dome weather. Old age has caught up to him. He is a below average QB with the weather <30 , where-as in his early years he was great <30. I don't know if Rodgers is the answer, but I do know you need some mobility and strong [young) hands in adverse weather.


Remember this?



Posted 12-23-2007 08:34 PM I've been thinking this for a long time and have argued with my brother about this. I was scared to post anything about it because I didn't want to get blasted.

The PACKERS are not a COLD weather team!!!!!!

1) Favre is getting old (in football years) = his body/hands cannot handle it.
2) Our running game is not superior.
3) Our "O" is built to throw the ball ALOT All Over the Field.
4) Our "O" is built on receivers getting the ball quick while using their SPEED.
5) Our Special Teams are huge to us because of SPEED.

Favre has had little trouble, Actually excelling the last few years in controled weather environments --- warm weather/dome games. He does not fit the bill as a cold weather guy anymore. The Cold has brought out the worst in him lately....


I feel much more comfortable playing on the road / warm/dome than playing at home <20 degrees...

Go Pack!!!!!
Get Healthy!!!!!


And this?

I wasn't referring to playing in Texas Stadium.....
I was just stating an opinion I've had for a long time....
Texas Stadium (while only a 3/4 dome) is better suited for the Pack "O" then <20 in GB....



Steamboat =

quote:

How do you stop from rolling off the couch when attempting to blow yourself?

quote:

Originally posted by STEAMBOAT:

quote:

How do you stop from rolling off the couch when attempting to blow yourself?

Why blow myself, when your wife/girlfriend does it for me?

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
Well, Henry, maybe you're right. I'm just a flawed person as are all of us (imperfect discernment).

quote:

Originally posted by Ed Vedder:
Recent history? How about his game in a blizzard against a division champion?

quote:

Completely agree with this.

quote:

Originally posted by Ed Vedder:
Recent history? How about his game in a blizzard against a division champion?

Reading some of the posts around here, it seems like we just completed a 3-13 season instead of the other way around. It is sad to see that some people actually believe that we won as many games as we did in spite of Favre, while in reality he was a huge part of our success (I’m not saying that we won only because of him). This was a flawed immature team, which had a bit too much success too early. I hope they learn from this.

Re: Rodgers – I really hope he is as good as some around here believe he is. Once teams know him and his tendencies, it would be far easier to scheme against him, and he will have to adapt in order to be successful. Sure, he showed something against the Cowboys, but there were some factors to be considered, like the fact that the cowboys were not prepared for him, or that the cowboys’ D relaxed and played vanilla after Favre went out, which could be seen by the softer pass-rush he faced. He had a good game, but his grade is incomplete and IMO, doesn’t give a reason to feel confident that he would take the team further than Favre did.

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
You're a good man, Henry and sorry for flaming on you yesterday. I am sure it was largely due to carrying emotional baggage over this loss.

This frigging loss REALLY STINGS!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
You're a good man, Henry and sorry for flaming on you yesterday. I am sure it was largely due to carrying emotional baggage over this loss.

This frigging loss REALLY STINGS!!!

Back at you. If it wasn't for the fashion that they lost this really wouldn't be that big of deal for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:...Plus, the difference between 32 and 0 is pretty damn substantial. The difference between 70 and 0 is huge.