Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

I'd rather play Green Bay. Here's why:


hepcat

Recommended Posts

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d82609ff6/GameDay-Giants-vs-Packers-highlights

 

I'm sure Gettleman remembers this game.  The Giants had a similar team to Carolina back in 2011.  If we erase the game the Packers beat the Joe Webb lead Vikings at home in the 2012 playoffs (seriously that doesn't count - almost as bad as playing Ryan Lindley and the Cardinals), they haven't won a home playoff game since 2007 against Seattle.  Lambeau used to be a place where you knew you were going to lose if you played there in the playoffs.  Now?  Not so bad.  Green Bay has shown to be very beatable there, losing home playoff games in 2013, 2011, and 2007.  Seattle?  Not so much.  

 

Despite matching up better on paper against Seattle, I think the Panthers chances are better against Green Bay.  The cold weather means those timed passing routes are harder to execute, and the Panthers physical defense will make those Packers receivers feel every catch.  I think this could be a huge upset in waiting.  Seattle is the harder opponent IMO.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually i think there's a good chance the panthers beat either of those teams. we've played both and both have beat us. it's very hard to beat any team twice in the same season. usually the losing team learns enough to get the next game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d82609ff6/GameDay-Giants-vs-Packers-highlights

I'm sure Gettleman remembers this game. The Giants had a similar team to Carolina back in 2011. If we erase the game the Packers beat the Joe Webb lead Vikings at home in the 2012 playoffs (seriously that doesn't count - almost as bad as playing Ryan Lindley and the Cardinals), they haven't won a home playoff game since 2007 against Seattle. Lambeau used to be a place where you knew you were going to lose if you played there in the playoffs. Now? Not so bad. Green Bay has shown to be very beatable there, losing home playoff games in 2013, 2011, and 2007. Seattle? Not so much.

Despite matching up better on paper against Seattle, I think the Panthers chances are better against Green Bay. The cold weather means those timed passing routes are harder to execute, and the Panthers physical defense will make those Packers receivers feel every catch. I think this could be a huge upset in waiting. Seattle is the harder opponent IMO.

The cold weather works to GBs advantage....you are claiming that will hurt them? They are conditioned to it.

Rodgers at home has been the most dominant play by a QB this season at any stadium

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cold weather works to GBs advantage....you are claiming that will hurt them? They are conditioned to it.

Rodgers at home has been the most dominant play by a QB this season at any stadium

 

 

Still who has the better playoff record? GB at home or SEA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last year Rodgers had just come back from injury and they were playing a clearly better team, were only at home because of winning the North. There team this year is no comparison.

2007 is so long ago, it does not matter here at all.

Rodgers and Co. at home this year is a much better measure of what to expect, and they are scary as hell up there.

Seattle is much more beatable for our current personnel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, I don't buy into these trends spanning back multiple seasons.  Each season is unique.  All that matters is how they've been playing this year, and this year GB seems like a tougher team to beat.  Against Seattle our strengths match up well and it'll be a close game that comes down to the fewest mistakes.  GB's strengths exploit our weaknesses and vice versa.  A game that is more difficult to plan for and more prone to slipping out of control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Miller being less raw and more pro ready makes sense of why they picked him. With us having a capable starter in Walker the lower floor higher ceiling player makes sense for us as well. I agree with that. 
    • I'm from Michigan and have had this discussion with my Lions friends, and they all agree with me, they were never going to take Freeling over Miller.  As, yes, you are correct, they could have left Sewell at RT and taken Freeling, but they are in a SB contention window right now. An OL with Freeling at LT and Sewell at RT is not as strong as Sewell at LT and Miller at RT would be for this upcoming season and likely at least next year as well. 5 years it could be looked back upon as a long term "mistake" to take Miller over Freeling, but for a franchise like the Lions, you can't worry about the long term when you have current SB aspirations.  It's all about maximizing their current SB window over the next 1-3 years. And it's not about style, it's about day 1 readiness, and a lot of "experts" aren't even sure if Freeling is ready to play Week 1 yet at the position he's used to, let alone switching to a side he hasn't played before, but a career starting RT is going to be more than ready to fill that role for them Week 1. I'm 100% convinced that if our draft positioning was swapped, we'd have still taken Freeling, they'd have still taken Miller, and both teams would have got the OT that they preferred due to what each team needs right now and what their current realistic aspirations are for the 2026 season. We're in a position where we can let our drafted OT sit and learn for a bit, they needed a week 1 starter, for me that's where this discussion becomes very easy to understand why each team took the player they did.
×
×
  • Create New...