Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Report: Rodgers cleared?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by ERoyal248 View Post
    LOL, this crap again.

    They won 2 games with Flynn.

    Just stop it, your hate for Rodgers is ridiculous.
    I agree, it was pretty ridiculous. Rodgers should start for sure. The post he quoted was pretty stupid too though, pretty dumb to say either QB faked an injury.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Houshmazode View Post
      Can't wait till Cutler fakes an injury late in the 3rd when Chicago is down a TD.

      Hopefully Rodgers is fully healthy. It would be nice to see them knock off a SF or Carolina if they make it in.
      Oh Christ, the word filter won't let me say all the things I want to say right now. It seems impossible for anyone to seriously say this if their parents weren't blood relatives.

      Cutler did not fake an injury, he got hurt, it happens in football. You must be among the group of half-witted numbskulls who said things like 'if he can walk he can play' after that NFCC game. Lol, sure there's no difference in walking and being able to move well enough to play football. It is a COMPLETE JOKE for people who don't even play to criticize guys for not playing hurt.

      This sort of thing agitates me, because we hear all this stuff about player safety but no one says anything about not trying to play injured. We all love tough warriors, but it's better to rest for a game than end your career. It seems the most obvious thing.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ERoyal248 View Post
        I would give GB a shot since Rodgers is capable of putting up a 40-burger on any team.
        Green Bay isn't going to beat the 49ers, and probably not the Panthers either. Those 2 teams are not going to give up 40 to Green Bay, they probably wouldn't even give up 40 to Denver.

        Teams don't just roll on good defenses especially in the playoffs.

        The Niners have the Packers number, and at this point, it'd probably be a road game in Carolina which makes it less likely. They probably get in, and go one and done.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by fallforward3y+ View Post
          Green Bay isn't going to beat the 49ers, and probably not the Panthers either. Those 2 teams are not going to give up 40 to Green Bay, they probably wouldn't even give up 40 to Denver.

          Teams don't just roll on good defenses especially in the playoffs.

          The Niners have the Packers number, and at this point, it'd probably be a road game in Carolina which makes it less likely. They probably get in, and go one and done.
          Car is overrated.

          I agree SF has GB's number though.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by ERoyal248 View Post
            Car is overrated.

            I agree SF has GB's number though.
            I don't really see how they are overrated, especially defensively speaking. The only bad game they really had defensively was in New Orleans, but they also held them to 13 in the game in Carolina.

            I see that team potentially making it to the Super Bowl, if they can in fact win in Seattle.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by fallforward3y+ View Post
              I don't really see how they are overrated, especially defensively speaking. The only bad game they really had defensively was in New Orleans, but they also held them to 13 in the game in Carolina.

              I see that team potentially making it to the Super Bowl, if they can in fact win in Seattle.
              I wouldnt be surprised if Atl beat them on Sunday.

              Their Front 7 is real, but their secondary can be exploited.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by AC1 View Post
                So with everything in his favor, if Rodgers loses this game, is it fair to ask the question whether GB should have started Flynn? He was the "hot hand" who actually salvaged their season.
                Good thing they didnt stick with Flynn, did they?

                Maybe Rodgers is actually good?!?!?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ERoyal248 View Post
                  Good thing they didnt stick with Flynn, did they?

                  Maybe Rodgers is actually good?!?!?
                  You think Flynn would have thrown two boneheaded red-zone picks and cough up a fumble that he would be lucky the defense wouldn't pick up? The Packers won, but it was in spite of Rodgers, not because of him.

                  In a vacuum, obviously Rodgers is the better player, but the rhetoric about Cutler/McCown was equally stupid to the idea of starting Flynn over Rodgers (and my post was obviously a reference to it). You've never understood my point about Rodgers/Flynn or have deliberately mis-represented it. Either way, your problem not mine.
                  Hoping for a defensive-minded head coach and a return to the ZBS on offense. At the very least, no more cheaters for head coach.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by AC1 View Post
                    You think Flynn would have thrown two boneheaded red-zone picks and cough up a fumble that he would be lucky the defense wouldn't pick up? The Packers won, but it was in spite of Rodgers, not because of him.

                    In a vacuum, obviously Rodgers is the better player, but the rhetoric about Cutler/McCown was equally stupid to the idea of starting Flynn over Rodgers (and my post was obviously a reference to it). You've never understood my point about Rodgers/Flynn or have deliberately mis-represented it. Either way, your problem not mine.
                    You dont think him being rusty had a part to the early INT's?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by ERoyal248 View Post
                      You dont think him being rusty had a part to the early INT's?
                      I do think rustiness played a part in those INTs. I expect him to play better next game (until the game is close in the 4th qtr at least). But Flynn would not have been rusty. In any event, I would have started Rodgers over Flynn and Cutler over McCown. My post was merely intended to point out how ridiculous it is to say otherwise in either case.
                      Hoping for a defensive-minded head coach and a return to the ZBS on offense. At the very least, no more cheaters for head coach.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X