Packers Huddle

Well then

BF004 wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2024 13:32

Well then

I prefer it to be this way.

go pak go wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2024 14:17

BF004 wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2024 13:32

Well then

I prefer it to be this way.

I am probably picking them to win, too. This is a house money game, even at home.

It's easy to pick the Lions after what they did last week. But that isn't the norm.

The Lions are likely the better team. And it won't help that Love might be out or restricted. But they lost Hutchinson too. He was their best defensive player. If our D is on track, we can cover their guys. But they'll need to create real and consistent pressure on Goff. Front four needs to put on their big boy pants.

In the end, I think we probably play well enough. But it's one of those we must WIN the turnover battle and limit penalties. If we do that, I like our odds just fine.

BTW, at this point in his career, MLF will create an "edgy" team attitude, maybe not too much different than Campbell does with Detroit. We need it. The Lions might be the best team out there.

Wouldn't mind us trying out Wilson as MLB with the dot, and Coop and Quay as other LBs... McDuffie is a warrior, but just a dude.

I love the idea of the Packers being home underdogs or underdogs in general. It seems(at least in my head) we get their best games in these instances. Games that come to mind in the last year are KC, 2nd Lions game, Dallas and San Fran in the playoffs.

I expect the team to have a good game.

It makes complete sense to me that those prognosticators unanimously picked the Lions. Detroit is built exactly like the type of team that has bullied the Packers around in recent history. These are some corn fed boys who show up to beat your ass into the dirt. Hey, Packers- we've watched you beat up on the other finesse teams like Houston and Dallas over the years. Why don't you grow some balls, step up, and take down one of the big dogs for once. Like SF or DET. You pissed off yet? Good. Then get your ass out there, get the W, and come back to rub it in this old man's face. Until then, get used to dealing with all the &%$@ I'm gonna dish out to ya.

Not that they don’t have a big game in front of them, but did you miss the game at the end of November, the last in time we played them? I’ll assume you did

I'll take the Packers and 3 points. Then wait for Malik's Majic to kick in allowing the Pack to 1-2-3 DOMINATE! Jam it baby!

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2024 18:41

Not that they don’t have a big game in front of them, but did you miss the game at the end of November, the last in time we played them? I’ll assume you did

Papa's using the age-old tactic of negative nelly selective labeling.

Logic goes: Packers can never beat Real Good teams. Thus, if the Packers beat a team, that team can not actually have been Real Good, and is re-labeled as finesse/pretender/whatever. Therefore, by definition, the Packers can never beat Real Good teams.

Someone on this forum does this yearly. Usually it's "we never beats Real Contenders, and if we do, they were actually just pretenders".

So if we beat the Lions, we won't actually beat a good team, the Lions are just revealed to be bad. If we lose to the Lions, then it's "I told ya so, we never beat a good team".

I do like getting fired up about the game, tho.

Papa John wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2024 17:28

It makes complete sense to me that those prognosticators unanimously picked the Lions. Detroit is built exactly like the type of team that has bullied the Packers around in recent history. These are some corn fed boys who show up to beat your ass into the dirt. Hey, Packers- we've watched you beat up on the other finesse teams like Houston and Dallas over the years. Why don't you grow some balls, step up, and take down one of the big dogs for once. Like SF or DET. You pissed off yet? Good. Then get your ass out there, get the W, and come back to rub it in this old man's face. Until then, get used to dealing with all the &%$@ I'm gonna dish out to ya.

GB played physical vs the Jags. They seem to be turning the corner on the “soft” perception from end of last year on.

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2024 18:41

Not that they don’t have a big game in front of them, but did you miss the game at the end of November, the last in time we played them? I’ll assume you did

Different Detroit then. They’ve since stood up and spread their wings. They know what they are now- a beast team. Gonna be on us to prove we have what it takes. New year.

Goff must go down and he must go down hard! (I wish I had thought of it)

Papa John wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2024 20:07

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2024 18:41

Not that they don’t have a big game in front of them, but did you miss the game at the end of November, the last in time we played them? I’ll assume you did

Different Detroit then. They’ve since stood up and spread their wings. They know what they are now- a beast team. Gonna be on us to prove we have what it takes. New year.

I know it's a new year, but they were one of the Super Bowl favorites last year and we handled them nicely in the time of year when everyone is playing big boy football. To say this team doesn't or can't is pretty short sighted. This year presents new challenges, like every year.

each year is a new team

we got this soft title because our defense had sucked for so long, not the case any more, we beat these guys last year, and can do that again, this will be a slug fest, and probably low scoring.

Pack 24-20

Yoop wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2024 06:09

each year is a new team

we got this soft title because our defense had sucked for so long, not the case any more, we beat these guys last year, and can do that again, this will be a slug fest, and probably low scoring.

Pack 24-20

It wasn't just the defense. Our inability to run in big games also helped cause that perception. How much of that was Aaron trying to play hero ball? I'm not sure, but we were definitely never confused as a physical offensive team, either.

NCF wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2024 08:21

Yoop wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2024 06:09

each year is a new team

we got this soft title because our defense had sucked for so long, not the case any more, we beat these guys last year, and can do that again, this will be a slug fest, and probably low scoring.

Pack 24-20

It wasn't just the defense. Our inability to run in big games also helped cause that perception. How much of that was Aaron trying to play hero ball? I'm not sure, but we were definitely never confused as a physical offensive team, either.

I remember some of our biggest loses being special teams, defense, and a couple fumbles in really really bad spots by big names like Aaron Jones and the Big Dawg.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2024 19:01

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2024 18:41

Not that they don’t have a big game in front of them, but did you miss the game at the end of November, the last in time we played them? I’ll assume you did

Papa's using the age-old tactic of negative nelly selective labeling.

Logic goes: Packers can never beat Real Good teams. Thus, if the Packers beat a team, that team can not actually have been Real Good, and is re-labeled as finesse/pretender/whatever. Therefore, by definition, the Packers can never beat Real Good teams.

Someone on this forum does this yearly. Usually it's "we never beats Real Contenders, and if we do, they were actually just pretenders".

So if we beat the Lions, we won't actually beat a good team, the Lions are just revealed to be bad. If we lose to the Lions, then it's "I told ya so, we never beat a good team".

I do like getting fired up about the game, tho.

What a stupid synopsis of what I said. I think you need to go back and re-read my original post one more time (or maybe more), specifically the last few lines.

Papa John wrote: ↑

31 Oct 2024 09:37

salmar80 wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2024 19:01

musclestang wrote: ↑

30 Oct 2024 18:41

Not that they don’t have a big game in front of them, but did you miss the game at the end of November, the last in time we played them? I’ll assume you did

Papa's using the age-old tactic of negative nelly selective labeling.

Logic goes: Packers can never beat Real Good teams. Thus, if the Packers beat a team, that team can not actually have been Real Good, and is re-labeled as finesse/pretender/whatever. Therefore, by definition, the Packers can never beat Real Good teams.

Someone on this forum does this yearly. Usually it's "we never beats Real Contenders, and if we do, they were actually just pretenders".

So if we beat the Lions, we won't actually beat a good team, the Lions are just revealed to be bad. If we lose to the Lions, then it's "I told ya so, we never beat a good team".

I do like getting fired up about the game, tho.

What a stupid synopsis of what I said. I think you need to go back and re-read my original post one more time (or maybe more), specifically the last few lines.

It's actually a great example was what happens year in and year out. There are those that say we are pretenders until we beat the good teams, but when we beat the good teams those teams are no longer good teams, so we are still pretenders. Happens pretty much every year.