OldSchoolSnapper

Greene's been practicing for 2-3 weeks. There were rumblings he'd be active last week but they held him out.

Agreed and I don't know what happened to him. It's very strange. He looked like the next 25-year legendary punter last season and this year he's just been off.

Always thought that had a major long term effect on the Packers. I think it was the worst thing to happen to Brett Favre. They obviously got the Rhodes hire wrong and while Sherman won a lot of games I think he was responsible for Favre going rogue. Holmgren left to become GM, and they wound up giving that to Sherman a couple years later, around the same time he stepped down/was fired from it in Seattle.

I think their defense is special. They get to quarterbacks when the game is on the line and time and time again this season when they need a stop to win a game, they do it. I'm not expecting much running the ball. I honestly think their only legit shot is a) the defense playing a great game and b) Rodgers making enough magic to score 20+points. The defense can help with a turnover or two but Rodgers is going to have to make a few special throws. If the defense can keep us in it where a couple plays from Rodgers is the difference, they have a chance. I'm optimistic. For no other reason than I still think our QB is vastly superior even if statistically he hasn't been this year. Jimmy isn't going to evade sacks and run for 60 yard touchdowns. He has a propensity for throwing a couple really bad passes a game. If the 49ers can't run at will it's going to be a good game. I don't know why but I feel good about the game. I'm going with 23-20 Packers. Shanahan turtled the passing game the moment he threw a pick against Minnesota and it didn't matter because they did whatever they wanted. I think the Packers will force them to have to throw enough that they get a break or two. I think Rodgers is going to have a legacy game. He won't blow up the box score but he'll play really well and end up winning the game for them.

Because if they do lose tomorrow it will be warranted criticism. The offense didn't hold the team up this year, the defense did. That's literally never been the case. The 2014 team had an OK defense that did end up playing really well at the end of the year. But 2010 and 2014 have been by far the best defenses Rodgers has had to this point. Rodgers deserves a lot of criticism for the offense's limitations this year, IMO. But the idea that he's responsible for not winning more Super Bowls with defenses consistently in the bottom 12 of the league, nah, I can't buy into that. For his entire career the cry has been to get him a defense. They did, so it's time for him to finish.

I think everyone recognizes that but if a bad enough flu can delay reaction time by 1/100 of a second that's sometimes the difference between 3 points a blocked kick or sack on a high snap. I highly doubt he doesn't play. Maybe they are just setting him up for a JK Scott Michael Jordan flu game.

He's already in the Hall of Fame. It sucks that they haven't gotten to a second one but I personally find it a very lazy argument. Ben Roethlisberger has been to three and isn't close to Rodgers. Joe Flacco and Trent Dilfer have one. You need a team. Nobody wins or loses Super Bowls alone. Rodgers wasn't even good in the NFCCG he did win. The whole thing about needing rings is more based in American culture than reality IMO. It's simply fun for average people and critics to poke holes in successful people, and specifically to assign group failures to one person. It's the same concept when people freak out about the last play of a game vs. The 100 previous ones that were just as or more significant.

I flat out reject the comparisons with Favre and Manning. Those two lost a lot of games being extremely sloppy with the ball. Favre threw 6 picks in one playoff game. They were both all-time players, but they were both also champions of 3 and 4 INT games. When the bad versions of them showed up, they made it virtually impossibly for their teams to win. Favre threw 13 interceptions spanning three playoff games. It just doesn't hold up. I can't recall one playoff game under Favre where the Packers lost because he had to score 40-50 points. They gave up 45 to STL, entirely because of him. I do remember several where he couldn't pull himself together and they lost on FGs or directly because he turned the ball over. As far as Manning goes, the season he "went 3-0" with Denver makes this stat even dumber because he was god awful that season and could barely turn his head. Here are some numbers: 27/43 3 TDs 1 INT 308 yards 44.25 Those are Rodgers' average totals in 4 games the in which the Packers were eliminated. I included a couple where he didn't play particularly well and it still ends up there. Brady has played a lot worse than that in games "he" won. The last number is how many points the other team scored. I'm aware people look at postseason success. I'm saying I don't, because I think it's stupid. I also think it would be a major, major reach to suggest NFL QBs have more direct influence on a game than NBA superstars where literally one guy can come in and bring a franchise from the cellar to a title shot in a year, but I think that's getting way off topic. Ironically, I'm actually NOT as big a fan of Rodgers as there is, but this is one particular area where I think the argument lacks any merit.

Exactly, and it's just a very misleading way of analyzing things. .500 is mediocre. The Packers reached the NFC Championship going 1-1 in 2007, 2014 and potentially 2019. That's 3-3 with three title game appearances. That's really hard to do and looking at it in hindsight and saying they're .500 in the playoffs just doesn't do it justice. IMO they should treat NFL playoff records like tournament combat sports. If you win the game after your bye, you should get a win for the bye week.

And the winner is 2-0 and is going to the Super Bowl, which would you rather be? I think I get what you are saying, if we went 9-7 and missed the playoffs there would be no conversation about Rodgers not getting it done. But I would say playoff record is pretty damn important, getting wins there is what it is all about. I always remind myself that the Lions have 1 playoff win in my lifetime. I am 51. I'd rather win, but I'm not sure you did get what I was saying. The point is that getting 1 game from the Super Bowl is a very, very good season. You're in the last 4 standing. And all you get to show for it is a ".500" playoff record. The stats will treat it identically to going 8-8, winning a Wild Card game and getting blown out by 40 the next week. The Packers have a bunch of playoff losses and some wins in years they'd be 6-10 without Aaron Rodgers. Tacking their postseason W/L record on one guy is dumb. It's always been dumb.

Playoff records for anyone are dumb. If you make it and lose you're 0-1 and someone that went 4-12 doesn't get a loss. If you don't win the Super Bowl, you end with a loss. The loser of Sunday's game is .500 in the playoffs this year and was a game from the Super Bowl. It's stupid.

I've had the cauliflower homemade and Costco's. It falls under the pesto category. I thought it was good, but, I won't call it pizza.

It was the Eagles game, but I'd forgotten about that one. He did make an insane catch in both the Super Bowl and the Atlanta game. He had a reputation for making impossible catches and dropping the ones right it in his chest. That 2007 NFCCG should have been over a couple times too. Tynes missed two FGs in the 4th, I think one as time expired. I think both were shorter than the one he made in OT.

Speaking of things that should have happened. The Super Bowl probably wouldn't have been remotely suspenseful If James Jones hadn't dropped what was likely a TD pass right off his mitts in the 3rd quarter. They would have gone up 18. Instead they punted and were up 4, nearly lost the lead before the famous fumble.

It was indeed the year after that. Their defense actually played extremely well. Even in that blowout game, one of the most underrated Packers turning points IMO is the Jeremy Ross fumble. That game ended so poorly that nobody remembers the Packers had a 14-7 lead in the second quarter and forced a punt. Ross muffed the punt inside the 10 and everything went downhill. To that point, the Packers were doing whatever they wanted on offense. I still believe that game was headed in a completely different direction until that play. If I'm not mixing games, that divisional loss opened with a pick 6 off Kaepernick, wanna say Sam Shields. Love reliving all the playoff games this time of year, even the bad ones.

Most guys are awful on LeBron. Edit: For some reason I read your comment as "Watching Matthews on LeBron was awful."

I forgot about him missing Jennings in the '09 game. I do remember Rex Ryan whining the next day about Woodson winning DPOY. He got in front of the podium said this: "A number that I think is interesting would be eight, and no, that's not the amount of touchdown passes that Green Bay gave up against Arizona. That's the number of touchdown passes we gave up all season as the Jets, and the biggest reason for that is Darrelle Revis.” I always thought the Packers took that very personally when they shut them out 9-0 the next year.

That seems kind of circular to me. The Bucks might have very well beaten Toronto with one more shooter. George Hill kept them from getting blown out in at least one of those losses. If they'd had Korver knocking down 3s when Giannis was busy driving into the wall they might have won the series. If it "helps" the Bucks it hurts Boston or Philly.

They "can" be beat because it is a pro sport. They are 37-6. It's awfully hard to see anyone in the East taking them out 4 times but everyone said that last year. There's no Kawhi this year. The Giannis wall will be attempted again but this is where I strongly disagree with you. Being deep enough absolutely does matter, and the Bucks lack of depth shooting the ball kept them out of the Finals. They have too many shooters for that to work this year. Giannis barely playing 30 minutes a game, and I don't think you can say that doesn't matter. They're winning when he's off the floor. https://i.imgur.com/rbIkUHs.png

I agree and thought so during the game. But I'm generally in favor of doing that at the end of games. It's quite likely your best chance to win and it doesn't happen enough. I'd never fault a visiting coach for missing it. You have a chance to run a scripted play you've practiced 10k times all season to gain 2 yards.

So I think Rodgers has had 3 OT playoff games that I remember. In two they did lose the toss, Arizona and Seattle, and lost almost immediately on touchdowns. In the Seattle game, he had to go down the field and get a FG just to force it. In the Arizona loss, he completed a Hail Mary. The other was the first loss to Arizona, in which they did win the toss and he did that fumble-kick into the DL's hands. I also remember reading a stat that I think is still the right #, but McCarthy's Packers lost five playoff games on the last play: 2007 Giants, 2009 Cardinals, 2013 49ers, 2014 Seahawks, 2015 Cardinals

Philly doesn't concern me because Embiid will be on fumes by the end of the year and I don't think they're deep enough. Honestly no one overly concerns me in the East. I don't think any of them can beat the Bucks.

I just genuinely don't see that being the perception. Most people remember Bostick Bosticking. I don't think anyone even remembers their game with Atlanta, they remember the rabbit he pulled from the hat the week before in Dallas. Even in national press, I usually see comparison's between Brady's teams defensive ranking and Rodgers. The broad narrative really seems to be the Packers "wasting" Rodgers, not Rodgers coming up short.

Relax. I never said you couldn't like Pizza Hut, Pizza Planet, Pizza Face or that you had to love Dom's. I didn't even reply to you. I said it's the closest thing to a traditional pizza among the chains, which is true if you believe a traditional pizza uses fresh dough. That's not my opinion. That's how they make it, and Pizza Hut uses a pre-made frozen crust. I'm happy that you like it. I don't why you responded like that.

Dom's is the closest thing to a genuine pizza among the chains. Pizza Hut uses premade frozen dough and over the years has been the master of the gimmick, cheesy bites crust, stuffing the crust with mozz, etc. If you like that sort of thing or don't care, you'll probably like Pizza Hut. It's basically the Taco Bell equivalent of Pizza which isn't entirely surprising since both are Yum! brands. Admittedly, it's been quite a long time (5+ years) since I've eaten at either one.