From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
seriously who ever thought Mike Daniels had a grasp of reality, good football players does not equate to rational thinker.
never saw TJ Lang stomp a players head while he lay on the ground, and why would anyone promote a sorry sack of &%$@ like Incognito.
Mike should stick to watching reruns of his glory days, the Williams punch seems retaliation for comments made after the play, what needs addressing is the volatile and offensive trash talking after the play that now seems to dominate some games, what ever happened to letting your play speak for you? years ago that was all that was needed.
Mike always seemed pretty good at that, now here he is with forked tongue, a Bad attitude does not equal dirt bag actions, if someone says something derogatory towards momma ( which is what the rumor is) they should expect a face wack, I applauded that punch from Williams
seriously who ever thought Mike Daniels had a grasp of reality, good football players does not equate to rational thinker.
never saw TJ Lang stomp a players head while he lay on the ground, and why would anyone promote a sorry sack of &%$@ like Incognito.
Mike should stick to watching reruns of his glory days, the Williams punch seems retaliation for comments made after the play, what needs addressing is the volatile and offensive trash talking after the play that now seems to dominate some games, what ever happened to letting your play speak for you? years ago that was all that was needed.
Mike always seemed pretty good at that, now here he is with forked tongue, a Bad attitude does not equal dirt bag actions, if someone says something derogatory towards momma ( which is what the rumor is) they should expect a face wack, I applauded that punch from Williams
He has a point though. Every team needs guys with that edge and willing to, occassionally, cross the line. I don't condone a lot of what Suh, Burfict, and others have done. They crossed the line too often and were many times too far over it.
But that nasty, that edge, has helped make teams great. It has been something we have lacked. The killer instinct.
seriously who ever thought Mike Daniels had a grasp of reality, good football players does not equate to rational thinker.
never saw TJ Lang stomp a players head while he lay on the ground, and why would anyone promote a sorry sack of &%$@ like Incognito.
Mike should stick to watching reruns of his glory days, the Williams punch seems retaliation for comments made after the play, what needs addressing is the volatile and offensive trash talking after the play that now seems to dominate some games, what ever happened to letting your play speak for you? years ago that was all that was needed.
Mike always seemed pretty good at that, now here he is with forked tongue, a Bad attitude does not equal dirt bag actions, if someone says something derogatory towards momma ( which is what the rumor is) they should expect a face wack, I applauded that punch from Williams
He has a point though. Every team needs guys with that edge and willing to, occassionally, cross the line. I don't condone a lot of what Suh, Burfict, and others have done. They crossed the line too often and were many times too far over it.
But that nasty, that edge, has helped make teams great. It has been something we have lacked. The killer instinct.
In any case, an interesting conversation to have.
I also want guys that play hard to the whistle, my point is Danials included some guys I consider dirty players, I think there is a line crossed here by Mike, he's lumping players that simply play hard at 100% with guys that do try and hurt people even after the whistle blows.
if where not going to condone what Walker did last year, then I wont condone a guy like Suh and others who do the same thing, that was my point, Mike simply isn't being rational doing that.
we do have hard nosed players that don't take any crap, and they let there play do the talking, not sure when that became not enough, always has been for me.
I feel like Burfict and Jones are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Daniels talks about us not winning a ring, but those two lost their team a playoff game they had well in hand owing solely to their excessive aggression. And when Walker did what he did, that was what I was immediately reminded of.
I am sympathetic to Mike's broader point, but I think saying that we need guys like those two or even Suh for that matter is a bridge too far. Suh only got to two championships playing for teams that were ridiculously stacked with talent, i.e. he stepped into an ideal situation.
“Most other nations don't allow a terrorist to be their leader.”
“... Yet so many allow their leaders to be terrorists.”—Magneto
Andrew Luck (or some mock account, I didn’t bother to look) having some fun with the reemergence of his name and potential return talk in football media…
Update:
It’s a mock account narrating Andrew Luck’s football and life events in the form of a Civil War era persona. And it’s hilarious! I recommend clicking the account and reading through some of the posts.
seriously who ever thought Mike Daniels had a grasp of reality, good football players does not equate to rational thinker.
I will answer your question with a question.
who and when did anyone not think Mike Daniels did not have a grasp of reality?
Was there a trend in the 2010's that I was not privy to but yoop was privy to regarding Mike Daniels?
Maybe Daniels comes off as making sense to you, but I don't remember anyone here condoning the antics of Suh and others on that list, why would he?
again I don't have a problem with clean hard hitting football, or even a retaliation punch, as far as attempts to hurt opponents in any manor is where I draw the line.
I get that defenders tend to be more aggressive, and that attitude stuff, for me though it doesn't include cheap shots and dirty hits, I don't tune in to watch a fight.
seriously who ever thought Mike Daniels had a grasp of reality, good football players does not equate to rational thinker.
I will answer your question with a question.
who and when did anyone not think Mike Daniels did not have a grasp of reality?
Was there a trend in the 2010's that I was not privy to but yoop was privy to regarding Mike Daniels?
Maybe Daniels comes off as making sense to you, but I don't remember anyone here condoning the antics of Suh and others on that list, why would he?
again I don't have a problem with clean hard hitting football, or even a retaliation punch, as far as attempts to hurt opponents in any manor is where I draw the line.
I get that defenders tend to be more aggressive, and that attitude stuff, for me though it doesn't include cheap shots and dirty hits, I don't tune in to watch a fight.
Yoop, you need to remember that those guys weren't that all the time either. Yes, they were dirty at times, even often. Daniels said nothing specific about the dirty plays. I believe he is talking more about the general aggressiveness and attitude of those guys. He mentioned Lang, was he a dirty player to you? I don't remember that. But he wasn't a guy to be messed with either. Don't be so quick to condemn.
I feel like Burfict and Jones are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Daniels talks about us not winning a ring, but those two lost their team a playoff game they had well in hand owing solely to their excessive aggression. And when Walker did what he did, that was what I was immediately reminded of.
I am sympathetic to Mike's broader point, but I think saying that we need guys like those two or even Suh for that matter is a bridge too far. Suh only got to two championships playing for teams that were ridiculously stacked with talent, i.e. he stepped into an ideal situation.
All this from the idiot, who when we get an INT in the 1st Q, in the Seahawks Championship game returned inside the 5 screws us over by running onto the field after the play and drawing a 15 yard taunting penalty. Making it tougher on an O with a crippled QB against the toughest D, forcing us to settle for the FG.
I feel like Burfict and Jones are on the opposite end of the spectrum. Daniels talks about us not winning a ring, but those two lost their team a playoff game they had well in hand owing solely to their excessive aggression. And when Walker did what he did, that was what I was immediately reminded of.
I am sympathetic to Mike's broader point, but I think saying that we need guys like those two or even Suh for that matter is a bridge too far. Suh only got to two championships playing for teams that were ridiculously stacked with talent, i.e. he stepped into an ideal situation.
All this from the idiot, who when we get an INT in the 1st Q, in the Seahawks Championship game returned inside the 5 screws us over by running onto the field after the play and drawing a 15 yard taunting penalty. Making it tougher on an O with a crippled QB against the toughest D, forcing us to settle for the FG.
I had no memory of that. What an unmitigated disaster of a game.
“Most other nations don't allow a terrorist to be their leader.”
“... Yet so many allow their leaders to be terrorists.”—Magneto
Mike Daniels doing some tweeting today.
tweet
tweet
tweet
Mike Daniels channeling his inner @texas thoughts..
Man that is like a perfect impersonation of me. Pretty much took my exact quotes and players I have wanted over the years. Now he just needs to add that the only thing Quay did wrong was crying when he was sent to the locker room.
I read something today that shocked me. Steve Young did not take one snap out of the shotgun in his career. Bill Walsh was all about footwork and timing, and he loved that split back formation. Even Holmgren was reluctant to run shotgun plays until he had Favre to work with. It got me thinking about what happened to that split back formation. What ultimately led to it's demise? As the game evolved, there must have been some disadvantages with running that formation. At the time it was so prolific. How did it lose so much relevance?
"It's better to decide wrongly than weakly; if you're weak, you're likely to be wrong anyway."
- Bill Parcells
I read something today that shocked me. Steve Young did not take one snap out of the shotgun in his career. Bill Walsh was all about footwork and timing, and he loved that split back formation. Even Holmgren was reluctant to run shotgun plays until he had Favre to work with. It got me thinking about what happened to that split back formation. What ultimately led to it's demise? As the game evolved, there must have been some disadvantages with running that formation. At the time it was so prolific. How did it lose so much relevance?
If I had to guess, it was the speed of the defenders. They are a lot faster today than back then. But, it's just a guess. But don't worry, someone will bring it back and everyone will be shocked and awed by it working.
I read something today that shocked me. Steve Young did not take one snap out of the shotgun in his career. Bill Walsh was all about footwork and timing, and he loved that split back formation. Even Holmgren was reluctant to run shotgun plays until he had Favre to work with. It got me thinking about what happened to that split back formation. What ultimately led to it's demise? As the game evolved, there must have been some disadvantages with running that formation. At the time it was so prolific. How did it lose so much relevance?
Mike Wahle touched the topic on one of his videos (can't remember which one), and essentially said having the TE/FB in-line gives more options with motion and a faster chip block & check-down if blitz comes from that side.
We actually lined up in split back formation occasionally last season, but often moved Jones out wide from that. I have a feeling our RBs didn't really wanna double as FBs...
I read something today that shocked me. Steve Young did not take one snap out of the shotgun in his career. Bill Walsh was all about footwork and timing, and he loved that split back formation. Even Holmgren was reluctant to run shotgun plays until he had Favre to work with. It got me thinking about what happened to that split back formation. What ultimately led to it's demise? As the game evolved, there must have been some disadvantages with running that formation. At the time it was so prolific. How did it lose so much relevance?
split back or pro set was pre spread offense, pre zone blocking scheme, once the spread offense with multiple boundary receivers became vogue we saw more and more shotgun, so my guess is spread offense led to the demise of the pro set, split back formations, teams simply wanted more pass catchers near the los and spread out wide
the game went from dinky dunky to big chunk play, now it seems to be coming back to more ball control and clock management, now ya need to be able to do both.
best guess, now maybe I'll see what google has to say
well I was partially right, but there's much more about it here. Belichick credits the Buddy Ryan defense as the defense that broke the pro set scheme.
I read something today that shocked me. Steve Young did not take one snap out of the shotgun in his career. Bill Walsh was all about footwork and timing, and he loved that split back formation. Even Holmgren was reluctant to run shotgun plays until he had Favre to work with. It got me thinking about what happened to that split back formation. What ultimately led to it's demise? As the game evolved, there must have been some disadvantages with running that formation. At the time it was so prolific. How did it lose so much relevance?
split back or pro set was pre spread offense, pre zone blocking scheme, once the spread offense with multiple boundary receivers became vogue we saw more and more shotgun, so my guess is spread offense led to the demise of the pro set, split back formations, teams simply wanted more pass catchers near the los and spread out wide
the game went from dinky dunky to big chunk play, now it seems to be coming back to more ball control and clock management, now ya need to be able to do both.
best guess, now maybe I'll see what google has to say
well I was partially right, but there's much more about it here. Belichick credits the Buddy Ryan defense as the defense that broke the pro set scheme.
I read something today that shocked me. Steve Young did not take one snap out of the shotgun in his career. Bill Walsh was all about footwork and timing, and he loved that split back formation. Even Holmgren was reluctant to run shotgun plays until he had Favre to work with. It got me thinking about what happened to that split back formation. What ultimately led to it's demise? As the game evolved, there must have been some disadvantages with running that formation. At the time it was so prolific. How did it lose so much relevance?
split back or pro set was pre spread offense, pre zone blocking scheme, once the spread offense with multiple boundary receivers became vogue we saw more and more shotgun, so my guess is spread offense led to the demise of the pro set, split back formations, teams simply wanted more pass catchers near the los and spread out wide
the game went from dinky dunky to big chunk play, now it seems to be coming back to more ball control and clock management, now ya need to be able to do both.
best guess, now maybe I'll see what google has to say
well I was partially right, but there's much more about it here. Belichick credits the Buddy Ryan defense as the defense that broke the pro set scheme.
