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

    • Most EVs are in the 90+ e-MPG meaning some measurement house somewhere compares the EV to a similar ICE model and works out how much is costs to charge (on average) versus fill up as a point of comparison. Talking long term, in the hundreds of thousands of miles?  No clue.  Some early signs are that EV batteries maintain 80% charge over 400k miles.  So there's that.   The challenge and charm of an ICE vehicle is being able to park it under a tree, get your jack stands out and tinker with your engine.  There's just not that same level of complexity in an EV.  I saw someone estimate there are 200 or so moving parts in an EV, and 2000 in an ICE vehicle.  I'm not a part counter so I can't really speak to that. I think that the EV is more the future than any type of combustion engine.  Those will still be around in specific purposes, but for most people - an EV will be the superior option in terms of efficiency.  I say that as someone who loves stupid horsepower numbers out of turbo 4 bangers and inline 6s...  I am one of those tinkers when I can be. A bigger issue for EVs is going to be the ownership versus lease.  Right now, there are INSANE leases on EVs, which is great, but what do you have at the end of that lease?  Nada, maybe some equity if you're lucky.  Where as I'm almost done paying for my car, and plan to keep it until the wheels fall off (or my son wrecks it when he starts to drive).  Will EV makers do the smartphone thing and build in planned obsolesce?  Stop updating software?  I love the tech in EVs, and I think getting more cars and trucks off the road is a good thing.  But I am still just a little concerned.  Capitalism has gotten far too extractive.  
    • Blacksheer's time was up when they drafted Etienne. 
×
×
  • Create New...