Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 08:12

In 15 snaps WAlker had 5 tackles and a PD, yet APB doesn't think the defense missed him...

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 07:18

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 06:21

Rules are rules.

You shove a person without pads during a game, you are ejected. It's not a hard rule to deter away from being black and white. Just like if you throw any variation of a punch, you are ejected from the game. Doesn't matter if the person you hit has a helmet and it didn't do any harm.

They are good rules for obvious reasons. I don't see much else to debate here.

so then it's OK to push a reporter.

rules are up to interpretation all the time, nothing is cut and dried, black and white, your right there is nothing else to debate here, it was a BS ejection, most of the time players are not ejected for a simple push, this is the nfl making a example and taking talent from our team, and Walker was having a great game, we needed him in center field.

APB wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 07:26

I'm only gonna say this because I've seen you retreat to this "rigged" narrative a couple times now: the Packers beat the spread. Ejecting Walker did not have the effect you've been claiming it had.

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 08:17

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 07:18

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 06:21

Rules are rules.

You shove a person without pads during a game, you are ejected. It's not a hard rule to deter away from being black and white. Just like if you throw any variation of a punch, you are ejected from the game. Doesn't matter if the person you hit has a helmet and it didn't do any harm.

They are good rules for obvious reasons. I don't see much else to debate here.

so then it's OK to push a reporter.

rules are up to interpretation all the time, nothing is cut and dried, black and white, your right there is nothing else to debate here, it was a BS ejection, most of the time players are not ejected for a simple push, this is the nfl making a example and taking talent from our team, and Walker was having a great game, we needed him in center field.

You have this population of examples of players pushing someone that is not suited up and continued to play the game?

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 08:26

Where do you see that Walker had a PD?

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 08:24

APB wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 07:26

I'm only gonna say this because I've seen you retreat to this "rigged" narrative a couple times now: the Packers beat the spread. Ejecting Walker did not have the effect you've been claiming it had.

we had about 50 snaps on defense, Walker was absent for 2/3 rds of those snaps, during the 15 snaps he did play he had 5 tackles a nd a PD, of course not having Walker affected the defense we got gut punched as the Bills ran the ball down our throat, and it would have been 10 times as bad, but for some unknown reason the Bills quit running as much in the second half, for Christ sakes do you just argue to argue

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 08:28

to think we didn't miss Walker against the Bills doesn't even make sense.

APB wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 08:29

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 08:24

APB wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 07:26

I'm only gonna say this because I've seen you retreat to this "rigged" narrative a couple times now: the Packers beat the spread. Ejecting Walker did not have the effect you've been claiming it had.

we had about 50 snaps on defense, Walker was absent for 2/3 rds of those snaps, during the 15 snaps he did play he had 5 tackles a nd a PD, of course not having Walker affected the defense we got gut punched as the Bills ran the ball down our throat, and it would have been 10 times as bad, but for some unknown reason the Bills quit running as much in the second half, for Christ sakes do you just argue to argue

Again, where did I say anything about the Packer defense not missing Quay Walker? I simply said ejecting Walker did not have the NFL's supposed desired effect on the Packers of not covering the spread. I even emphasized my statement with THAT IS ALL. For those lacking reading comprehension, that means nothing else follows or inferred.

Jesus.

And I'm the one looking for an argument??

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 08:41

APB wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 08:29

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 08:24

we had about 50 snaps on defense, Walker was absent for 2/3 rds of those snaps, during the 15 snaps he did play he had 5 tackles a nd a PD, of course not having Walker affected the defense we got gut punched as the Bills ran the ball down our throat, and it would have been 10 times as bad, but for some unknown reason the Bills quit running as much in the second half, for Christ sakes do you just argue to argue

Again, where did I say anything about the Packer defense not missing Quay Walker? I simply said ejecting Walker did not have the NFL's supposed desired effect on the Packers of not covering the spread. I even emphasized my statement with THAT IS ALL. For those lacking reading comprehension, that means nothing else follows or inferred.

Jesus.

And I'm the one looking for an argument??

now a insult to my reading comprehension, the point is ejecting Walker made our defense WEAKER, hence the greater possibility of Vegas beating the spread, that our offense didn't allow that to happen is BESIDES the point, you seem to have some of these reading comprehension issues as well smart ass

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 06:21

Rules are rules.

You shove a person without pads during a game, you are ejected. It's not a hard rule to deter away from being black and white. Just like if you throw any variation of a punch, you are ejected from the game. Doesn't matter if the person you hit has a helmet and it didn't do any harm.

They are good rules for obvious reasons. I don't see much else to debate here.

Pugger wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 11:17

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 06:21

Rules are rules.

You shove a person without pads during a game, you are ejected. It's not a hard rule to deter away from being black and white. Just like if you throw any variation of a punch, you are ejected from the game. Doesn't matter if the person you hit has a helmet and it didn't do any harm.

They are good rules for obvious reasons. I don't see much else to debate here.

I didn't know about that rule about ejection if you shove someone without pads. I guess we learn something new every day.

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 11:20

Pugger wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 11:17

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 06:21

Rules are rules.

You shove a person without pads during a game, you are ejected. It's not a hard rule to deter away from being black and white. Just like if you throw any variation of a punch, you are ejected from the game. Doesn't matter if the person you hit has a helmet and it didn't do any harm.

They are good rules for obvious reasons. I don't see much else to debate here.

I didn't know about that rule about ejection if you shove someone without pads. I guess we learn something new every day.

The NFL rulebook is big. Normally it occurs when attacking a ref but a dressed person on the sideline also counts.

Most ejections are for throwing a punch or multiple unsportsmanlike conduct penalties.

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 11:20

Pugger wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 11:17

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 06:21

Rules are rules.

You shove a person without pads during a game, you are ejected. It's not a hard rule to deter away from being black and white. Just like if you throw any variation of a punch, you are ejected from the game. Doesn't matter if the person you hit has a helmet and it didn't do any harm.

They are good rules for obvious reasons. I don't see much else to debate here.

I didn't know about that rule about ejection if you shove someone without pads. I guess we learn something new every day.

The NFL rulebook is big. Normally it occurs when attacking a ref but a dressed person on the sideline also counts.

Most ejections are for throwing a punch or multiple unsportsmanlike conduct penalties.

APB wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 11:11

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 08:41

APB wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2022 08:29

Again, where did I say anything about the Packer defense not missing Quay Walker? I simply said ejecting Walker did not have the NFL's supposed desired effect on the Packers of not covering the spread. I even emphasized my statement with THAT IS ALL. For those lacking reading comprehension, that means nothing else follows or inferred.

Jesus.

And I'm the one looking for an argument??

now a insult to my reading comprehension, the point is ejecting Walker made our defense WEAKER, hence the greater possibility of Vegas beating the spread, that our offense didn't allow that to happen is BESIDES the point, you seem to have some of these reading comprehension issues as well smart ass

You're on an insufferable roll today, yoop...