Sign in to follow this  
KDawg

Next Day Thread: Redskins vs. Panthers

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Scherff might leave in FA.¬† Some think Bruce's goes to his favorite thing though, the tag.¬†¬†ūüėÄ

Damn, I got my years wrong.  Yeah, he might leave or they might tag him.  I bet they tag him unless they don't have a better option.  And I really hope it's not Bruce making the pick. 

 

23 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

If they stay healthy I think they will beat pretty good but will be great.

IF they stay healthy, and IF they are used properly THEN they could be great. 

 

23 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

While we still have a fighting chance I'll keep pining for Chase Young.  I think he transforms that D line.  Kerrigan to me isn't that hot of a pass rusher anymore.  Young to me is special. 

I agree but I just don't see that as likely.  I would also try and trade Kerrigan as part of a package to move up to get Young if possible.  Kerrigan + Trent + 1st to move up high enough to get Young would be a deal I would do in a heartbeat, and maybe get something back depending on how far up you had to move...

 

23 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 I like Foster but wonder if he can stay healthy and I felt that way even before the ACL tear.

He's got to stay healthy eventually, right?  And I think they have enough players where they could fill MLB without having to go spend big money on one.  

 

23 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Agree though FO worries me more.  

It worries me more too, because if they have the same FO, then they will have a mediocre coach.  Unless you think Callahan is a good fit and a good coach, and you roll with the staff you've got.  But if Bruce is still here, and it's not Callahan,  it's a Bowles, Gregg Williams (maybe, though possibly not), Rex Ryan, Mike McCarthy, Marvin Lewis, yadda yadda yadda.  

 

While I might argue (and you would disagree :) ) that any of those would be an upgrade from Jay, none of them are top 10 coaches in the league. Though I do give Marvin Lewis more credit than most because he took over a bungling Bengal's franchise and got them to the playoffs 7 times.  Ok, he lost all 7 playoff games.  But before Lewis they were awful and after Lewis they've been awful, so that says something about him as a coach.  Rex somehow got butt fumble to 2 AFC Championship games.  The Jets were terrible before and after him.  McCarthy I think is the worst of the lot.  If you have Aaron Rodgers, you need to win ringS, plural.  And that team perennial under-performed it's talent and was bailed out by a HOF QB.  If Rodgers was on the Patriots, and Brady was on the Packers, I firmly believe that the GOAT conversation would be reversed.  Both are HOFers in their own right, but the success Brady has had also has something to do with the situation he's in, while the "lack of success" Rodgers (if you can call a SB and perennial playoff team lack of success) has had has something to do with the situation he is in.  And McCarthy has something to do with that.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might add it was nice seeing Sweat back there pressuring the QB a couple times. Its ashame he got banged up.  If anything, its baby steps in the right direction 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

@Voice_of_Reason Agree with much of that.  A few points though.  Moreland is looking pretty good in the slot, IMO Honestly, I’m shocked with how physical he is given his stature.  I’ve been holding out hope for Moreau (as a boundary corner), and it looks like he’s making strides there.  I would still love to add a good corner though. We need depth and could certainly do better than Moreau.  This (improves coverage) will also help our dline get home - something that was lacking but has improved in recent weeks.  Kyle Allen held the ball a bunch of times that lead to sacks, qb hits, throwing the ball up for grabs, etc.  And yet, they still passed for a lot of yards on us and suffered from a lot of big time drops.  Point being, I still have corner as a top need for us.  

I'm fine watching Moreland develop, but I'd still find somebody else back there who's proven.  I absolutely think they need CB help.  

 

15 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

The one thing I like about the 34 is that it gets 3 of our best players on the field - Allen/Payne/Ioannidis. I’m fine with OLBs dropping into coverage  at times (Sweat, in particular is relatively suited to this with his wingspan and athleticism), but they can’t be manning up on a back or TE.  Puts pressure on olines when we bring a blitzer and have an OLB drop into a shallow zone.  

But you put Payne, who might be the best of the 3 at nose, and that diminishes his value.  If you really wanted to, what you could do in known passing situations is go Allen/Payne/Ioannidis/Kerrigan as your DL, and have Sweat as a rush LB.  Because both Kerrigan and Sweat CAN play LB, you have a lot of flexibility to move around pieces to get the best matchups on the field.  I want the best rushers rushing.  I don't want them having to worry about an assignment and covering a back out of the backfield or something.  

 

15 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I think we should really take advantage of this receiving class, but I‚Äôm happy with Harmon as McLaurin‚Äôs complement. ¬†TE is the much bigger need IMO. ¬†However,¬†I‚Äôm not going to assume Sims will develop into a starting caliber slot receiver (I like Harmon in the ‚Äėbig slot‚Äô role as¬†@stevemcqueen1has mentioned - Draft Network likes him for that role too IIRC), but I think he has potential. ¬†Finding a receiver that could man the slot or start on the outside, and/or¬†serve to bolster our depth would be nice. ¬†

Harmon doesn't have the speed to take the top off of a defense, and he has a ceiling based on his physical skills.  He's somebody you want on the team, but he's not going to put the fear of God in anybody.  McLaurin can, and if you have speed on the other side, defensive coordinators are going to have to pick their poison.

 

Especially if you have a better TE.  I agree that TE is a more desperate need, but I think another playmaker is what takes the offense from average to potentially lethal.  This is all dependent on Haskins developing and a good coach coming in who knows how to use weapons.  

 

15 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

As to running back, I‚Äôm a big fan of Guice and Love, and AP is a nice complement. ¬†I think we could really benefit from a good 3rd down back. ¬†Love Thompson, but I just don‚Äôt think bringing him back makes sense. ¬†Due to health/age issues at the position, if that ‚Äėhands back‚Äô¬†could¬†maybe occasionally handle a full load that would be an added bonus. ¬†The position is just so dangerous for a defense. ¬†

Thompson isn't coming back.

 

I have grown to HATE the 1st/2nd down back and 3rd down back designations.  It's so 1990's.  I think you get backs who can do everything, and use them as much as possible.  Both Guice and Love fit that description.  I like AP as well as a power option, but if you have Guice and a healthy Love, you can basically rotate them and do whatever you want whenever you want, which doesn't tip your hand.  

 

AP being on the field tips your hand a bit.  It's either a run, or he's staying in to block (and hopefully does it better than he did on that first sack against Haskins yesterday).  Guice and Love just open up the playbook on every play.  

 

 

15 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

I’m down with re-signing Flowers.  I’d wait though in case of injury.  Assuming we pick either him or Scherff to re-sign, I’d still hope to draft a guy to compete with Martin.  

I blew it on the Scherff contract thing.  If Scheff leaves via FA, then you need another guard for sure, but you have to secure Flowers so you don't have 2 new starting guards, and possibly a new starting LT.  The OL needs some consistency.  If you are going to have to replace Scherff (minus a tag), and probably Penn, you'd prefer not to have to replace 3 starters at the same time by having to replace Flowers as well...  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

While I might argue (and you would disagree :) ) that any of those would be an upgrade from Jay, none of them are top 10 coaches in the league. Though I do give Marvin Lewis more credit than most because he took over a bungling Bengal's franchise and got them to the playoffs 7 times.  Ok, he lost all 7 playoff games.  But before Lewis they were awful and after Lewis they've been awful, so that says something about him as a coach.  Rex somehow got butt fumble to 2 AFC Championship games.  The Jets were terrible before and after him.  McCarthy I think is the worst of the lot.  If you have Aaron Rodgers, you need to win ringS, plural.  And that team perennial under-performed it's talent and was bailed out by a HOF QB.  If Rodgers was on the Patriots, and Brady was on the Packers, I firmly believe that the GOAT conversation would be reversed.  Both are HOFers in their own right, but the success Brady has had also has something to do with the situation he's in, while the "lack of success" Rodgers (if you can call a SB and perennial playoff team lack of success) has had has something to do with the situation he is in.  And McCarthy has something to do with that.  

 

I've never been a live and die guy with Jay.  I've backed him, i've criticized him.  My main point with him is removing him isn't the be all and end all.   I want a real FO and they could do whatever they please including canning Jay or whomever.

 

But for entertainment sake, I'll answer the apples to apples part.  I'd take Jay over Marvin and McCarthy and Bowles.  I'd take Rex and Gregg over Jay. 

 

I am growing on the belief which some sports writers and fans have said over the years that its better to get a new-youngish and hungry coach then bringing someone back for their 2nd go of it.  I get there are exceptions like Andy Reid on that front.  I recall seeing stats somewhere that coaches on their 2nd big tour don't do as well as their original tour.  Part of that reason according to some is they aren't as young and hungry.  Heck I think it was Shannon Sharpe who said watching Shanny in practice which he did for a few days in DC, Shanny wasn't that same dude as he was in Denver.   He said the fire wasn't the same.

 

If so that would be people like a Matt Rhule, Kris Richards types versus bringing a late 50s-60 year old type to see what they got left. 

Edited by Skinsinparadise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest negative: when you’re defense is attacking people and crushing their necks for the last 2.5 quarters of football and has held them to less than 100 yards and just a couple first downs and has 6 sacks (at the time), you don’t ****ing switch to prevent defense. Keep ****ing doing what you’re doing. Asking you’re guys who have executed perfectly almost the entire game and are winning the game for us to stop what they’re doing and just play soft and be ****es is unacceptable. We let them march right down the field and get within striking range and then we couldn’t just turn it back on. That was embarrassing and we should have closed it out and never let them score again and instead I had a bad taste in my mouth at the end that we almost went full redskins again and ****ed it up. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I was content with sucking for a top 1-2 pick, I have to be honest that it's nice to watch this team win. That being said, I'm finding it hard to get too pumped over beating avg teams with backup QBs... I just can't be impressed by the "top 5 ranking over the past two weeks" stat when it's against these opponents and have a feeling that if we played competent offenses we wouldn't have looked nearly as strong. The next two weeks will be a good litmus test. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

I've never been a live and die guy with Jay.  I've backed him, i've criticized him.  My main point with him is removing him isn't the be all and end all.   I want a real FO and they could do whatever they please including canning Jay or whomever.

I think where we differed is I don't think you can win with Jay unless you have the '91 'Skins, and even then I don't think he gets that team to the SB.  But I also don't think we have the '91 roster and I don't think our FO is capable of putting together a solid roster.  I wanted both.  I'm greedy.  But I wasn't shy about criticising Jay even though his situation is not ideal. 

 

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

For for entertainment sake, I'll answer the apples to apples part.  I'd take Jay over Marvin and McCarthy and Bowles.  I'd take Rex and Gregg over Jay. 

I would take all of them over Jay, except MAYBE McCarthy.  I might have talked myself out of McCarthy.  I think Marvin would fix the defense and would get the team to the playoffs.  Bowles I think with a legitimate QB would be ok.  But who really knows?

 

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I am growing on the belief that some sports writers and fans have said over the years that its better to get a new-youngish and hungry coach then bringing someone back for their 2nd go of it.  I recall seeing stats somewhere that coaches on their 2nd big tour don't do as well as their original tour.  Part of that reason is they aren't as young and hungry.  Heck I think it was Shannon Sharp who said watching Shanny in practice which he did for a few days in DC, Shanny wasn't that same as he was in Denver.  

Zorn and Jay were this, weren't they?  Kindof?  

 

1 minute ago, Skinsinparadise said:

If so that would be people like a Matt Rhule, Kris Richards type versus bringing a late 50s-60 year old type to see what they got left. 

I wouldn't be opposed to that if they were put in the right situation.  I would be concerned that this is not the right situation for anybody who doesn't have a really strong presence.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

 

I am growing on the belief which some sports writers and fans have said over the years that its better to get a new-youngish and hungry coach then bringing someone back for their 2nd go of it.  I get there are exceptions like Andy Reid on that front.  I recall seeing stats somewhere that coaches on their 2nd big tour don't do as well as their original tour.  Part of that reason according to some is they aren't as young and hungry.  Heck I think it was Shannon Sharpe who said watching Shanny in practice which he did for a few days in DC, Shanny wasn't that same dude as he was in Denver.   He said the fire wasn't the same.

 

If so that would be people like a Matt Rhule, Kris Richards types versus bringing a late 50s-60 year old type to see what they got left. 

 

 

I think it can be done correctly... like McVay, but I don't think it's the only direction to success.  There are some new hot shots out there, Lefleur and McVay being the two having the most success at this point.  I also see a lot of the same old heads winning a lot of games.  Bill Belichick, Sean Payton, Andy Reid (as you mentioned), John Harbaugh, and Pete Carroll.   There have been some flashes like Matt Nagy, and even Doug Pederson, but both of those guys have regressed much closer to the mean regarding team success.  I think you're taking a much bigger chance when you go young like McVay, with the hopes that the payoff is much larger, and faster.  We heard locally that he had what it takes but was still too young, and he turned that team around really quick, now also coming back to earth a bit.  

 

This is all basic logic, when you find a good HC, you keep them, which is why those older guys have stuck around for so long.  Andy Reid and Harbaugh are the two who have had to truly sustain it with multiple QBs, which likely is the biggest factor. 

 

 

 

Edited by OVCChairman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

Zorn and Jay were this, weren't they?  Kindof?  

 

 

Yep.  Not saying its fool proof but some say it increases the odds.  As we know the Zorn hire was weird, he never even ran an offense or defense but in one fell swoop he became both a first time offensive coordinator and HC.

 

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

 

I would take all of them over Jay, except MAYBE McCarthy.  I might have talked myself out of McCarthy.  I think Marvin would fix the defense and would get the team to the playoffs.  Bowles I think with a legitimate QB would be ok.  But who really knows?

 

From what I've read Marvin hasn't been very hands on with the defense in quite some time.  Wonder if he's the guy to deal with modern offenses.  His teams tended to falter in big games.  And I think they had some talented teams.   I'd trust Bowles to run a defense but I am not a fan of X and O's types with questionable HC attributes -- I posted many articles about Bowles in different threads and he reads almost to a tee with every weakness that some here accused Jay of having but without the personality. 

 

I like Rex's leadership presence over Bowles and Rex knows the X's and O's.  I go back and forth on Gregg.  I don't love his personality but I like aspects of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I am growing on the belief which some sports writers and fans have said over the years that its better to get a new-youngish and hungry coach then bringing someone back for their 2nd go of it.  I get there are exceptions like Andy Reid on that front.  I recall seeing stats somewhere that coaches on their 2nd big tour don't do as well as their original tour.  Part of that reason according to some is they aren't as young and hungry.  Heck I think it was Shannon Sharpe who said watching Shanny in practice which he did for a few days in DC, Shanny wasn't that same dude as he was in Denver.   He said the fire wasn't the same.

 

Current Head Coaches in their 2nd coaching stint:

Andy Reid

Bill Belichick

Pat Shurmur

Bruce Arians (you could argue this is his 3rd)

Doug Marrone

 

Current Head Coaches in their 3rd coaching stint:

Pete Carroll

Jon Gruden

 

I'm probably missing a few, but that's what I'm seeing.  There's also a guaranteed future 2nd stint as HC with Josh McDaniels, whose been promised the Pats job once Bill retires.  I'm thinking the sample size on Head Coaches getting a 2nd shot (or 3rd) is more uncommon than we realize.

Edited by Alcoholic Zebra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam Gase is on stop #2 as a HC.

 

Gregg Williams will probably get a second stint somewhere as well. Third if you count his interim gig last year.

Edited by Stadium-Armory
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yep.  Not saying its fool proof but some say it increases the odds.  As we know the Zorn hire was weird, he never even ran an offense or defense but in one fell swoop he became both a first time offensive coordinator and HC.

Some say all kinds of things.  I think this is a situation where you could find examples all over the map to make whatever point you want to make.  Tomlin was a young guy, Bruce Arians was older when he got his first job, and both had success.  

 

I think the one thing which has held true is that a SB winning coach (or maybe even a coach who has appeared in the SB?) has not repeated the same feat with another team except for Holmgren who got both Seattle and GB to Superbowls.  Otherwise, the second time around for any of the "successful" coaches hasn't been quite so successful.  Though, honestly, not a lot of SB coaches change teams.  I can think of Shanahan, John Fox, Andy Reid (though he still has time), going way back Jimmy Johnson, Gibbs if you want to count 2.0... The list isn't that long.  Arians is on that list also, but he's only been in TB one year, though it doesn't look good so far.  

 

1 hour ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

From what I've read Marvin hasn't been very hands on with the defense in quite some time.  Wonder if he's the guy to deal with modern offenses.  His teams tended to falter in big games.  And I think they had some talented teams.   I'd trust Bowles to run a defense but I am not a fan of X and O's types with questionable HC attributes -- I posted many articles about Bowles in different threads and he reads almost to a tee with every weakness that some here accused Jay of having but without the personality. 

 

I like Rex's leadership presence over Bowles and Rex knows the X's and O's.  I go back and forth on Gregg.  I don't love his personality but I like aspects of it. 

Note: I'm not in favor of hiring Marvin Lewis.  However, just to be argumentative for no reason, on the flip side, his teams were in big games a lot, he completely turned around a team which was just putrid for decades, was there when they groomed both Carson Palmer and Andy Dalton. His teams played in a lot of big games, and they won a lot of them, just not in the playoffs, and typically not against the Steelers.  Lewis had a 131-122-3 record in 15 seasons.  In the middle of the run, Carson Palmer broke his leg and was lost, and they found and developed a second QB.  His last 3 years weren't strong, and so it's possible the game has passed him by a bit.  However, it's also possible that his time in Cincy was just up, and he took the time-off to figure things out.  You don't have to be young to be creative.  Andy Reid is as creative a coach as there is in the NFL, and he's been in the league since the 90's. So, who knows.  I wouldn't go for Lewis either, but I guess I've always had respect for his ability to get the Bengals turned around, get to 7 playoff games in 15 years, and develop 2 QBs.  In my opinion, that doesn't happen by accident.  

 

Rex's biggest problem is that he basically ignores offense and wants to win every game 6-3.  He's like the Buddy Ryan of his generation.  I don't know where he might have gotten that from ....  If he hired a stud OC, and then let the OC be the OC, and he handled the defense, (and did not keep his good for nothing brother around), he could be successful. The question is, would he be able to do that?  Not sure.  

 

Gregg, I feel like he falls into almost the same category as Rex.  I think he knows how to run a team, but he'd absolutely have to embrace new offensive football or he would fail.  Being around Sean Payton and Drew Brees might have helped him come around to that belief.  Remember, he came up as Fisher's DC, and Fisher and then Gibbs were both run-first beat the hell out of your opponent type coaches.  (Gibbs just did it a million times better than Fisher could dream of).  When he went to New Orleans is the first time he really was on a team with a dynamic offense.  And as interim with the Browns, he didn't seem to rein back the offense.  So maybe he has learned a bit.  Players LOVE playing for Gregg, except Lavar, who hated anybody who told him to play in any scheme.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Damn, I got my years wrong.  Yeah, he might leave or they might tag him.  I bet they tag him unless they don't have a better option.  And I really hope it's not Bruce making the pick. 

 

IF they stay healthy, and IF they are used properly THEN they could be great. 

 

I agree but I just don't see that as likely.  I would also try and trade Kerrigan as part of a package to move up to get Young if possible.  Kerrigan + Trent + 1st to move up high enough to get Young would be a deal I would do in a heartbeat, and maybe get something back depending on how far up you had to move...

 

He's got to stay healthy eventually, right?  And I think they have enough players where they could fill MLB without having to go spend big money on one.  

 

It worries me more too, because if they have the same FO, then they will have a mediocre coach.  Unless you think Callahan is a good fit and a good coach, and you roll with the staff you've got.  But if Bruce is still here, and it's not Callahan,  it's a Bowles, Gregg Williams (maybe, though possibly not), Rex Ryan, Mike McCarthy, Marvin Lewis, yadda yadda yadda.  

 

While I might argue (and you would disagree :) ) that any of those would be an upgrade from Jay, none of them are top 10 coaches in the league. Though I do give Marvin Lewis more credit than most because he took over a bungling Bengal's franchise and got them to the playoffs 7 times.  Ok, he lost all 7 playoff games.  But before Lewis they were awful and after Lewis they've been awful, so that says something about him as a coach.  Rex somehow got butt fumble to 2 AFC Championship games.  The Jets were terrible before and after him.  McCarthy I think is the worst of the lot.  If you have Aaron Rodgers, you need to win ringS, plural.  And that team perennial under-performed it's talent and was bailed out by a HOF QB.  If Rodgers was on the Patriots, and Brady was on the Packers, I firmly believe that the GOAT conversation would be reversed.  Both are HOFers in their own right, but the success Brady has had also has something to do with the situation he's in, while the "lack of success" Rodgers (if you can call a SB and perennial playoff team lack of success) has had has something to do with the situation he is in.  And McCarthy has something to do with that.  

I'm not sure Rodgers will win us a playoff game. The way he looked against Frisco tells me we might win our division but lose our first playoff game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ThePackisback said:

I'm not sure Rodgers will win us a playoff game. The way he looked against Frisco tells me we might win our division but lose our first playoff game.

 

I mean...they have the best defense in the league.  That wasn't even the worst QB performance against them this season.  That was like 7th best...out of 12.  So almost average.  Rodgers is having his best season in what...4 years?  I'm not going to count the guy out in the playoffs.  The playoffs are different, strange things happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThePackisback said:

I'm not sure Rodgers will win us a playoff game. The way he looked against Frisco tells me we might win our division but lose our first playoff game.

Rodgers is a Deva.  He will play Lafleur like a fiddle.   Not only did McCarthy have to put up with AR, constantly changing plays at the LOS, but he also had a GM, Ted Thomson who was in the twilight of his career and was very conservative in upgrading roster.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Harriet33 said:

Rodgers is a Deva.  He will play Lafleur like a fiddle.   Not only did McCarthy have to put up with AR, constantly changing plays at the LOS, but he also had a GM, Ted Thomson who was in the twilight of his career and was very conservative in upgrading roster.  

Everyone hates and roots against Rodgers outside of us Packer fans. That's no news to me. Him and Lafluer are getting along fine so far. Rodgers is liking the new offense. Rodgers played for McCarthy for 14 years and they didn't have a rocky relationship until last year. A lot of the players wanted him out of there besides AR. The guy was not a good coach toward the end and his game plan was becoming stale. Yeah  I hate when everyone thinks Rodgers is a jerk when most of the team wanted the guy out of there when he's done a poor job of drafting talent and getting the team to another Super Bowl. 

6 hours ago, Harriet33 said:

Rodgers is a Deva.  He will play Lafleur like a fiddle.   Not only did McCarthy have to put up with AR, constantly changing plays at the LOS, but he also had a GM, Ted Thomson who was in the twilight of his career and was very conservative in upgrading roster.  

The biggest crybaby QB is Brady. You see him screaming at his teammates and tossing his helmet. The media and everyone gives him a pass though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ThePackisback said:

I'm not sure Rodgers will win us a playoff game. The way he looked against Frisco tells me we might win our division but lose our first playoff game.

Packers need to start looking at Aaron's eventual replacement, Draft a QB next year and have him sit and learn; like Aaron did.  Then when the time comes to move on,

you will have your replacement on the roster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Packers need to start looking at Aaron's eventual replacement, Draft a QB next year and have him sit and learn; like Aaron did.  Then when the time comes to move on,

you will have your replacement on the roster.

You guys don't have to worry about us going to the Super Bowl this year. The 49ers or Seahawks or the Saints will win the NFC. I bet Skin fans will pull for the 49ers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ThePackisback said:

You guys don't have to worry about us going to the Super Bowl this year. The 49ers or Seahawks or the Saints will win the NFC. I bet Skin fans will pull for the 49ers?

No.  49ers have beaten us a few times in the playoffs.

 

I might root for Lamar and the Ravens, if they make it or Patrick and the Chiefs if they make it.

 

My preseason pick was New Orleans, I think.  Something tells me, it's Baltimore's year though.

 

That should even be more impetus for Dan to make a change.  The nearby Ravens winning their 3rd Superbowl, since he came Skins owner; not a good thing for Dan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

No.  49ers have beaten us a few times in the playoffs.

 

I might root for Lamar and the Ravens, if they make it or Patrick and the Chiefs if they make it.

 

My preseason pick was New Orleans, I think.  Something tells me, it's Baltimore's year though.

 

That should even be more impetus for Dan to make a change.  The nearby Ravens winning their 3rd Superbowl, since he came Skins owner; not a good thing for Dan.

I think everyone would root against us or the Patriots lol. That said if my Packers get eliminated I'm going for Baltimore, KC or the Saints. I don't want to see the Patriots win or the Vikings and Seahawks. 49ers I don't mind. The three above I mentioned I detest.

Edited by ThePackisback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d root for the Vikings also, our former QB winning it all. Thing is, Kirk probably loses the Vikes first playoff game; which might be against the Packers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ThePackisback said:

You guys don't have to worry about us going to the Super Bowl this year. The 49ers or Seahawks or the Saints will win the NFC. I bet Skin fans will pull for the 49ers?

 

HELL NO!!!!!

 

You couldn't pay me to root for a Shanahan! And I detest the Seahawks and their low life fan base with a passion. 

 

So in that scenario, I'd be cheering for the Saints. 

 

I had a Dallas/ New England SB before the season. Which would have been a tough watch wanting both teams to lose heavily haha. Christ knows what's going on down South but Garretts completely wasting the talent on that stacked roster so that doesn't look like happening as I type. 

 

Hail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long time no see pack is back!!..

 

Hats off to Greg Manusky  ×3

Hats off to Derius Guice √ó3

Peterson  ×2

Offensive line √ó3

Defense √ó3

 

Kinda strange how the d comes around without norman playing ūü§Ē

 

And we shut down McCaffrey..AGAIN..like I said would happen..AGAIN..way to go defense!!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.