Skip to content

A.J. Hawk to see reduced playing time?

An inside linebacker taken in the top five of the NFL Draft has certain expectations to meet.

The position isn’t usually taken that high, so a team is expecting to get a player that will ideally contend for Pro Bowls annually; a player they can plug in the middle of their defense and leave him there for a decade.

At the very least, you expect the linebacker to play every down.

It’s a cruel business, but Packers linebacker A.J. Hawk is starting to fall short of expectations.

As Green Bay transitions to a 3-4 defense, the Green Bay Press-Gazette writes that Hawk is looking likely to lose most of his snaps on passing downs. That would cut the 2006 number five pick’s snaps in half if it happened.

The Packers beat writers have been hinting at this story for weeks, noticing that Hawk often played with the second-team nickel defense.  His snaps with the first team were reduced to nothing by Monday.  The return of starter Nick Barnett to practice has likely expedited the process.

Barnett has to prove he’s fully recovered from ACL surgery, but it sounds like he’ll be a three-down player when he’s healthy again.  Brandon Chillar is also excellent on passing downs, and Desmond Bishop has opened eyes this preseason. 

“Brandon’s a great player for the nickel,” Barnett said. “It’s one of
his strengths. He can cover. I’ve been playing nickel my whole career.
I don’t know if it’s going to be A.J. or me, I’ll let you guys figure
it out.”

This is a good problem for the Packers to have.  Most teams don’t have enough linebackers when they switch to a 3-4 defense and Green Bay may have too many to keep everyone happy.

Still, the loss of reps would be a disappointing career step for Hawk, who has generally received acceptable, although not overwhelmingly positive reviews thus far in his career.  Green Bay’s coaching staff are the only critics that matter in the end, and they will say how they feel about Hawk with playing time.

Permalink 109 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Green Bay Packers, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
109 Responses to “A.J. Hawk to see reduced playing time?”
  1. footballrulz says: Sep 1, 2009 6:13 PM

    OK Hydra–here’s what your’e looking for. Maybe Poppinga is going to finally step up.

  2. Osterhouse says: Sep 1, 2009 6:14 PM

    Greenway>Hawk

  3. jimicos says: Sep 1, 2009 6:15 PM

    Good. It’s taken too long.

  4. Fan_Of_ Four says: Sep 1, 2009 6:16 PM

    Just another first round bust for Teddy. Justin Harrell is even worse, he hasn’t contributed squat but that’s not surprising considering he was already damaged goods in College. Teddy Thompson went ahead and used a first round pick on him anyway. He should have been cut three years ago but that would be admitting Thompson fked up.

  5. Bob Nelson says: Sep 1, 2009 6:18 PM

    So what?
    Like you say there are so many great linebackers in Green Bay that those cut will be persued by other teams.
    Any teams looking for linebackers should be calling to jump the waiver system.
    Too much talent is a great problem to have.

  6. irishgary says: Sep 1, 2009 6:25 PM

    Another Ohio St, LB bust.

  7. DarthPirate says: Sep 1, 2009 6:27 PM

    Damn, I’d love the Raiders to go after Hawk. He’s better than what we have now at MLB.

  8. Citizen Strange says: Sep 1, 2009 6:30 PM

    I was actually surprised to find that A.J. Hawk was still in the NFL. Do they actually let him wear a uniform and everything?

  9. BuckyBadger says: Sep 1, 2009 6:38 PM

    AJ Hawk hasn’t been very good at all since his rookie season. I know last year he was playing a different position but he has been a bit disappointing.
    I wouldn’t be surprised if Chillar or Bishop over take him completely. This preseason it seems like Hawk has been out of position every time they attack his area of the field.
    I am actually happy to see that the coaching staff is thinking the same way many of us already have.

  10. Fan of Football says: Sep 1, 2009 6:40 PM

    Can you say another Ted Thompson ba ba ba ba BUST!

  11. irishgary says: Sep 1, 2009 6:43 PM

    Fan_Of_ Four
    Dude you are so boring with your TT stuff. Pull the Tampon out and get over it.
    Oh yeah, FYI TT drafted a QB in the first round and he’s gonna light up the league this season.

  12. Barcid says: Sep 1, 2009 6:48 PM

    Greatest mediocre linebacker of all-time, easily.
    If Hawk keeps it up, he’ll cement his status amongst all the other legendary mediocre players from Ohio State who fail to match the hype… along with Gholston, Pitcock, Whitner, Carpenter, Youboty, Schlegel, Salley, Doss, Peterson, Ross et al.
    Those vaunted mediocre Ohio State defenses, always producing larger-than-life mediocre NFL megastars.

  13. Osterhouse says: Sep 1, 2009 6:50 PM

    So What Bob Nelson? Hmmm how about the fact that your Faaaavorite team the Vikings drafted a guy 17th in that same draft who has become a budding star at linebacker. Looks like the pack took the wrong white linebacker.

  14. ShimSham says: Sep 1, 2009 7:05 PM

    Anyone calling Hawk a bust just flat out doesn’t understand football. Hawk has been consistently good, and almost never a liability. He’s technically sound and typically grades out very high among all the LBs on the team. He’s always around the ball but in the new defense he’s not playing a glory position. He’s the buck LB in the base and he’s typically responsible for engaging an OG and freeing up the Mack. And he’s done that very well so far.

  15. DocBG says: Sep 1, 2009 7:12 PM

    @ dbag nelson
    The thing you’re not understanding is that there isn’t too much talent, there isn’t enough, otherwise he would probably be playing all 3 downs like good linebackers do. he’s a bust, along with harrel, and soon raji will have the same article about him.
    rodgers is overblown too, now that the league has had a good look at him, he’s all but done, same thing as a rookie pitcher in baseball, once teams get a look at you, they know how to beat you. rodgers will probably put up good numbers largely due to the fact that the pack will ALWAYS be in passing situations, but the ints will follow and maybe Jared Allen will get to him a couple times and put him out of his misery.

  16. SpartaChris says: Sep 1, 2009 7:12 PM

    I love critics. If you could draft so much better, why aren’t you working for a team?

  17. Beer Cheese Soup says: Sep 1, 2009 7:12 PM

    Let the best player play, to hell with when he was drafted. Bishop’s been a monster, and Chillar always was better in coverage anyhow.
    I don’t care who plays and who doesn’t. I care about wins, and I trust Capers to get us a few.

  18. Alpheratz says: Sep 1, 2009 7:18 PM

    Don’t forget Katzenmoyer

  19. karpsta says: Sep 1, 2009 7:19 PM

    Compared to most of the Packer front 7 top draft picks the last decade, Hawk just being solid is a victory. The guy has honestly been disappointing from a big play perspective, but can’t argue that the guy makes tackles and is always around the ball.
    Beats the heck out of complete failures such as Jamal Reynolds, and Justin Harell.

  20. COcheeseHead says: Sep 1, 2009 7:24 PM

    1st off, he was selected as a weakside lb as a rookie as barnett was entrenched in the middle. He has not justified the 5th pick but has been solid and dependable while improving every year. last year he was hampered by injuries and this is the year to prove himself so lets wait and see how the switch goes and the regular season begins. Teddy T may have missed on a few picks here and there but his depth is excellent and his first pick is turning out to be a good one. Mr Rodgers that is….

  21. Fan_Of_ Four says: Sep 1, 2009 7:27 PM

    I wouldn’t expect anything else from Teddy’s Boot lickers. If Rodgers lights it up this season he will be the first first round pick to contribute since Teddy “Alternative Lifestyle” Thompson took over.

  22. lebowski says: Sep 1, 2009 7:28 PM

    That draft was one of the worst for first round talent in years. And everyone wanted Thompson to draft Hawk. Sitting here with the benefit of hindsight, saying what a terrible pick it was, is B.S. With that, I’d agree that Chillar is a better cover linebacker and should be in there with Barnett, and I’d actually like to see Bishop teamed with Hawk for run downs. Bishop can bring it.

  23. The Family Ghost says: Sep 1, 2009 7:28 PM

    Hawk has been pretty solid overall. He led the Packers again in tackles last year. He hasn’t played up to the level of a #5 pick, but he’s been a solid pro. He played thru a few injuries last year that really held him back. To call him a “Bust” at this point is short sighted.

  24. OHbuckeyesIO says: Sep 1, 2009 7:46 PM

    IrishGary and Barcid,
    All those OSU players going pro. Such a terrible problem to have.
    Maybe you should watch more games and pay attention to how football is played. You understand that the players with the most media coverage aren’t necessarily the best, right? That many good players go without a lot of media coverage?
    Gary, let us know when the Irish’s greatest football moment in the past decade isn’t the loss to USC in 2005.
    Many teams would love to have Hawk.

  25. purpleguy says: Sep 1, 2009 7:56 PM

    The point here, as most Pack fans recognize, is that the 5th over-all pick in the draft shouldn’t be just a serviceable player, let alone a part-timer. The fact that the guy can’t make it in a 3-4 system is pretty frigging telling.

  26. BuckyBadger says: Sep 1, 2009 7:58 PM

    Say what you want about Thompson but the Packers have one of the most talented young squads in the league and it was built through the draft. Yes Harrell and Hawk didn’t pan out but Rodgers, Jennings, Spitz, Sitton, Colledge and many more have. The aquisitions of Al Harris, Woodson and Grant have also worked pretty well.
    I can understand person posting under Fan_of_Four complaining but is it turns out the dumping of Favre and keeping Rodgers was the correct decision too.
    Every draft expert said that Hawk was the safest pick in the draft and it was a good pick. It’s so easy to be an arm chair GM and criticize all his mistakes. Why not look at all the right moves too, you know, judge his full body of work. Oh cause than you can’t be post your pent up hatred cause your mom didn’t hug you enough.

  27. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Sep 1, 2009 8:00 PM

    @Osterhouse,
    If Greenway is a star, then I guess Hawk achieved stardom after his first two years in the NFL. One of which Greenway sat out after tearing his ACL given that they have identical stats in both of their first 2 years as a starter. Hawk played through multiple tough injuries through much of last year but never used it as an excuse. Grade him on his previous 2 years and they are identical to your boy Greenway.

  28. BuckyBadger says: Sep 1, 2009 8:00 PM

    Everyone called Thompson an idiot for trading Javon Walker too. How did that one turn out. They traded that pick for what turned out to be Colledge [starting guard] and Jennings [top 6 WR in the league].

  29. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Sep 1, 2009 8:04 PM

    DogBG,
    Please…. Now you just sound like every other idiot Viking fanboy with no logic or spare brain cells. The fact is that there were a lot of backup linebackers that excel in the 3-4 and only made them so-so in a 4-3. If you knew or read anything about the 3-4 or their recent switch to it you’d know that. After watching Raji in only 2 pre-season games, it’s quite apparent that there’s no way he’ll be a bust like your friend Erasmus James or Troy Williamson. Talk about busts!

  30. packerblitz says: Sep 1, 2009 8:10 PM

    Rodgers>Favre

  31. jorge says: Sep 1, 2009 8:29 PM

    # DarthPirate says: September 1, 2009 6:27 PM
    Damn, I’d love the Raiders to go after Hawk. He’s better than what we have now at MLB.
    ——————————————————
    Hey DarthPirate, I propose a trade: Hawk 4 Raiders Morrison straight up! wadda ya say???

  32. Majik Man says: Sep 1, 2009 8:32 PM

    irishgary
    Rodgers does appear to be a decent player, but he was a wasted pick considering the situation. The Packers finished 10-6 the previous year, and could have gotten a player that would have helped immediately (Roddy White, Luis Castillo, Heath Miller, Barrett Ruud, Lofa Tatupu). Instead, TT does nothing to improve the team, and they follow up a playoff appearance with a 4-12 season in Ted’s first year. He was to busy getting ready to run Favre out of town to worry about fielding a competitive team.

  33. Kerg01 says: Sep 1, 2009 8:38 PM

    Sometimes it isn’t a bad pick, it is just the right pick that didn’t work out. Hawk is one such pick. The Packers were needing LBs in 2006 and Hawk was there. If you look at the next 5 picks, you have Huff, V. Davis, E. Sims, Whitner and Leinert. Safe to safe no one in that group is lighting the NFL world on fire. Anything after would have been seen as a reach at the 06′ draft at the #5 slot.
    Now Harrell.. ya.. absolutely horrible.

  34. jorge says: Sep 1, 2009 8:39 PM

    ESPN: Minnesota Timberwolves say Ricky Rubio backed out of coming to Minnesota “- 1 hour ago”
    I don’t blame the kid, who’d wanna play in a city fulla douche bags!

  35. MkePackFan says: Sep 1, 2009 8:46 PM

    Anyone calling AJ Hawk a bust is misguided or misinformed (likely both).
    Has he been great? No. Has he been bad? No. He’s been serviceable but not a big play guy you would expect as the #5 pick of the draft.
    Say what you want about TT drafting him…but TT isn’t on the field making plays for Hawk. And if you want to complain about TT’s drafts & free agents, here’s some names for you…Jamal Reynolds, Ahmad Carroll, Joe Johnson, Cletidus Hunt, BJ Sanders, Grady Jackson. All mistakes from the prior GM…makes all of Ted’s draft & free agent signings look like gems in comparison.
    And Fan_of_Four, the only “alternative” lifestyle is yours – aka Packer pajama pants and a daily Brett Favre jersey. Go have your mom run to Culvers and get you a butterburger while you watch the 1996 season in review for the 900th time, since nobody anywhere (including WI) wants to see a 350lb, +40 year old, unshaven man walking into Culvers at this time of the day.

  36. zangy says: Sep 1, 2009 8:46 PM

    # packerblitz says: September 1, 2009 8:10 PM
    Rodgers>Favre
    ——————-
    Can’t post that enough times….
    Most significant playing time so far this pre-season
    Against last years NFC SuperBowl rep:
    Passing CP/AT YDS TD INT
    A. Rodgers 14/19 258 3 0
    Against a team that has never made the playoffs:
    Passing CP/AT YDS TD INT
    B. Favre 13/18 142 1 0
    Of course Favre gets “toughness” points for laying a douche bag hit…

  37. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Sep 1, 2009 9:02 PM

    Majik Man,
    I don’t even know where to begin with your ridiculous assertion. Rodgers was a wasted pick? First of all, you do realize that a guy who was supposed to be the #1 pick until the 49′ers (stupidly) change their mind at the last second and Rodgers fell to them in their lap at a time when Favre was doing his will he won’t he…will he won’t he play again.
    Rodgers only sat on the bench for 3 years, which by his own account and many others that amount of time is the ideal situation for a QB to wait if possible before being thrown in as a starter. Unfortunately, most don’t ever get that luxury because they are high picks and expected to fix the problem that got the team such a high pick in the first place. If they hadn’t made that pick, the Packers would be like the Vikings- always going through re-tread washed up QB’s as stop gap players.
    As it stands right now, they could have stability for almost 3 decades in a row at the most important position on the field. What a waste of a pick……

  38. Plankshelmet says: Sep 1, 2009 9:19 PM

    Heres a solution for you Packer fans let the Bears draft your defensive players and then in return you draft the Bears offensive players. Problem solved for both oraganizations everyone happy.

  39. jimicos says: Sep 1, 2009 9:26 PM

    DocBG says:
    September 1, 2009 7:12 PM
    @ dbag nelson
    The thing you’re not understanding is that there isn’t too much talent, there isn’t enough, otherwise he would probably be playing all 3 downs like good linebackers do. he’s a bust, along with harrel, and soon raji will have the same article about him.
    rodgers is overblown too, now that the league has had a good look at him, he’s all but done, same thing as a rookie pitcher in baseball, once teams get a look at you, they know how to beat you. rodgers will probably put up good numbers largely due to the fact that the pack will ALWAYS be in passing situations, but the ints will follow and maybe Jared Allen will get to him a couple times and put him out of his misery.
    ———————-
    By that logic, Adrian Peterson is all but done as well. The league has seen him, so he must be done.
    By the way, Bob wasn’t saying Hawk has too much talent. He’s saying there’s a lot of talent in the Green Bay linebacker corps. Depending on how Kampman plays when the games count and how Chillar and Bishop respond to increased playing time, I tend to agree with him.
    Bishop’s been everywhere when he’s been on the field. He’s made mistakes, but inexperienced players tend to do that.

  40. packerblitz says: Sep 1, 2009 9:27 PM

    Packers>Vikings
    Packers 3
    Vikings 0 (On the Move LA)

  41. DocBG says: Sep 1, 2009 9:31 PM

    @whatthehellisgoingonoutthere
    Sometimes its important to remember to translate your comments into a format that the readers will understand. one would imagine that a large portion of the people reading this article would be packer fans, thusly there exsists a need to dumb everything down. After all, crappy cheese and watered down beer certainly doesn’t help with keeping the limited number of brain cells most of the packer fans are born with in tip-top shape.
    After reading your comments regarding the switches into and out of a 3-4 system regarding Hawk, its quite clear that the blame doesn’t neccesarily fall on his shoulders, but instead on the idiots running that so called team. Raji certainly had the potential comming out of college, as did hawk and harrel, you are correct in that regard. The problem is that they haven’t performed worth a damn and thusly it is the coaches fault, not the players. also, greenway was still on the board then, thanks for not picking him.
    @buckybadger
    yeah, you are right, dumping favre sure worked out good didn’t it, how did that 6-10 season feel? but no, you’re right, the jets went from 4-12 to 9-7, and the pack fell of the map, good thing detroit was as bad as their where, otherwise you would have been looking up at them.

  42. packerblitz says: Sep 1, 2009 9:31 PM

    Packer Fans>Viking Fans

  43. jimicos says: Sep 1, 2009 9:35 PM

    whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says:
    September 1, 2009 9:02 PM
    Majik Man,
    I don’t even know where to begin with your ridiculous assertion. Rodgers was a wasted pick? First of all, you do realize that a guy who was supposed to be the #1 pick until the 49′ers (stupidly) change their mind at the last second and Rodgers fell to them in their lap at a time when Favre was doing his will he won’t he…will he won’t he play again.
    Rodgers only sat on the bench for 3 years, which by his own account and many others that amount of time is the ideal situation for a QB to wait if possible before being thrown in as a starter. Unfortunately, most don’t ever get that luxury because they are high picks and expected to fix the problem that got the team such a high pick in the first place. If they hadn’t made that pick, the Packers would be like the Vikings- always going through re-tread washed up QB’s as stop gap players.
    As it stands right now, they could have stability for almost 3 decades in a row at the most important position on the field. What a waste of a pick……
    ————————
    +1 for this. You don’t always draft for “right now”. If you do, you’ll never get to where you want to be.
    If the Vikings had drafted for “right now” back in 1998, Moss would’ve continued his free fall and another team would’ve torched secondaries for several years.

  44. jimicos says: Sep 1, 2009 9:37 PM

    zangy says:
    September 1, 2009 8:46 PM
    Can’t post that enough times….
    Most significant playing time so far this pre-season
    Against last years NFC SuperBowl rep:
    Passing CP/AT YDS TD INT
    A. Rodgers 14/19 258 3 0
    Against a team that has never made the playoffs:
    Passing CP/AT YDS TD INT
    B. Favre 13/18 142 1 0
    Of course Favre gets “toughness” points for laying a douche bag hit…
    ————————-
    I don’t mean to compare those two games at face value just like that, but as long as we’re on the subject… Don’t forget that Favre’s 142 and 1 came with 3 quarters. Rodgers’ 258 and 3 came in 2 quarters… And both were missing their best WR.
    If you’d call Berrian the Vikings’ best. I’m not sure.

  45. packerblitz says: Sep 1, 2009 9:39 PM

    “# whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: September 1, 2009 9:02 PM
    Majik Man,
    I don’t even know where to begin with your ridiculous assertion. Rodgers was a wasted pick? First of all, you do realize that a guy who was supposed to be the #1 pick until the 49′ers (stupidly) change their mind at the last second and Rodgers fell to them in their lap at a time when Favre was doing his will he won’t he…will he won’t he play again.
    Rodgers only sat on the bench for 3 years, which by his own account and many others that amount of time is the ideal situation for a QB to wait if possible before being thrown in as a starter. Unfortunately, most don’t ever get that luxury because they are high picks and expected to fix the problem that got the team such a high pick in the first place. If they hadn’t made that pick, the Packers would be like the Vikings- always going through re-tread washed up QB’s as stop gap players.
    As it stands right now, they could have stability for almost 3 decades in a row at the most important position on the field. What a waste of a pick……”
    You have to take this kind of comment with a grain of salt, ignorance is bliss. Consider the source it came from. Again…
    Packers>Vikings
    Packers 3
    Vikings 0 (On the Move LA)

  46. Majik Man says: Sep 1, 2009 9:41 PM

    whatthehellisgoingonoutthere
    Or they could have taken Luis Castillo and anchored their D line for 10 years, or Lofa Tatupu, paired him with Barnett, and really been a force. Then there would be no Hawk or Harrell. The Packers could have snagged Cutler or Leinart the next year, or even Quinn the next year. They even could have waited a couple years, and get Joe Flacco.
    I didn’t say Rodgers is a bad player, just that the Packers could have taken someone who could contribute immediately, so they could have attempted to be competitive, and worry about the QB a few years down the road.
    No need to get so angry, I didn’t kick your dog, I didn’t take your birthday away, I simply stated my opinion. I’m sorry if I offended you by insulting your Uncle Ted, but maybe you should wait for more than 6 wins to start carving Rodgers’ Hall of Fame bust.

  47. zangy says: Sep 1, 2009 9:41 PM

    Majik Man says: September 1, 2009 8:32 PM
    irishgary
    Rodgers does appear to be a decent player, but he was a wasted pick considering the situation. The Packers finished 10-6 the previous year, and could have gotten a player that would have helped immediately (Roddy White, Luis Castillo, Heath Miller, Barrett Ruud, Lofa Tatupu). Instead, TT does nothing to improve the team, and they follow up a playoff appearance with a 4-12 season in Ted’s first year. He was to busy getting ready to run Favre out of town to worry about fielding a competitive team.
    —————————
    So the next going 13-3 and barely missing the Superbowl isn’t competitive enough for you? Would you rather have majowski back and never make the playoffs?

  48. DCViking says: Sep 1, 2009 9:41 PM

    jorge says:
    September 1, 2009 8:39 PM
    ESPN: Minnesota Timberwolves say Ricky Rubio backed out of coming to Minnesota “- 1 hour ago”
    I don’t blame the kid, who’d wanna play in a city fulla douche bags!
    ——————————————–
    I didn’t know that your family AND Bob Nelson lived in Minnesota…your right, that’s alot of douchebags…

  49. JimmySmith says: Sep 1, 2009 9:41 PM

    I especially love Fan of 4′s comments, he still hasn’t washed the pair of underwear that he had on when Brett violated him from behind so to infer anything about Thompson is laughable.
    Hawk hasn’t been lights out but he is still better than most but considering he was #5 pick overall, knowledgable football fans (in other words, not the viking fans) felt there should be more.
    We will see, its a new year and Hawk is healthy again so lets see how he does.

  50. misterj says: Sep 1, 2009 9:44 PM

    As far as picking LBs that draft, only one LB picked in that draft is better than Hawk: Demeco Ryans.

  51. Fan of Football says: Sep 1, 2009 9:47 PM

    “Rodgers>Favre”
    6 wins

  52. Fan of Football says: Sep 1, 2009 9:55 PM

    The 2005 Rodgers pick wasn’t a wasted pick, but it contributed ZERO to the 2007 season when the Pack were a defense away from the Superbowl. Who knows how a first round talent would have contributed to that team if it wasn’t rising the bench. In that respect, it was a wasted pick.

  53. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Sep 1, 2009 10:08 PM

    DocBG,
    Don’t even know where to begin with your drivel. First of all, I live in Minneapolis, so I get to see firsthand every day how uneducated fairweather football fans think. If they did know anything about football, you would think they would show up when the team is winning or at least jump on the bandwagon when they host their first playoff game in 10 years after the refs gave them the division title over the Bears in 4 games they should have lost.
    Using your same logic regarding Hawk and Rodgers, AP must be done since everyone has seen him in the league AND because he gets yanked on passing down because he can’t pass protect and isn’t a good receiver like all GOOD running backs, right???? This was confirmed to the media on more than one occasion by that Major Dad pedophile looking coach that runs the circus here in Minnesota. You know, the same coach who lied to the owner to get him to hire him on the spot?

  54. zangy says: Sep 1, 2009 10:18 PM

    # Fan of Football says: September 1, 2009 9:47 PM
    “Rodgers>Favre”
    6 wins
    ———————————
    and favre just rocked the playoffs last year didn’t he? Moron.

  55. Majik Man says: Sep 1, 2009 10:29 PM

    zangy says:
    So the next going 13-3 and barely missing the Superbowl isn’t competitive enough for you?
    They actually went 8-8 after the 4-12, then came 13-3. And just think what could have been with Luis Castillo anchoring that front 7. I’m guessing he would have made a bigger impact than Rodgers did holding a clipboard.
    Rodgers may have some pretty numbers, but I would rather have a 4th Lombardi Trophy sitting at Lambeau than a 4,000 yard passer leading a 6-10 team.

  56. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Sep 1, 2009 10:32 PM

    FOF, do you believe the crap you spew or is it really about trying to rile people up? Everyone knows that the Packers would have had 6 wins with Favre or Rodgers last year and that defenses with all the injuries. Throw in Favre’s typical late season slide which was even more pronounced last season and they might not have even won 5.

  57. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Sep 1, 2009 10:38 PM

    Majik Man, it has nothing to do with you insulting me. It has to do with you sounding a lot like another Brett Favre nut slurper who is a Favre fan first, Packer fan second. All of your stuff sounds good in hindsight, but I don’t recall any other of the guys you mentioned being called even close to a concensus #1 overall pick in the draft. Not even close….. Rodgers was and fell to the Packers because nobody above them needed a QB.
    So Rodgers who put up better numbers than the NFL MVP last season and had a defense that gave up more points than any defense during the Favre era (by a significant margin) shouldn’t be recognized as a very good QB, especially under all of the drama and scrutiny that he did it under because his 5th ranked offense that he lead only won 6 games?

  58. c.carterhof says: Sep 1, 2009 10:56 PM

    jimicos, you are becoming more like Jimmy and Bob. What do you mean “If the Vikings had drafted for ‘right now’ in 1998…”
    News flash, they did! Just like they did with AD, you can do both AT THE SAME TIME. The Vikings played them right after…
    its useless. Trying to reason with some of you Peckers is useless.

  59. BuckyBadger says: Sep 1, 2009 11:02 PM

    DocBG,
    The Packers 6-10 season had very little to do with QB play. Rodgers put up superior stats in every category. On the other hand the Jets collapse had a lot to with Lord Favre throwing the ball to the other team.
    The Packers lost both of their starting tackles last year and injuries all over an already average defense. The Packers with all of that were still in every game. Favre played awful and was alienated by his teammates.
    For anyone calling Rodgers a wasted pick knows little to nothing about building a football team. The draft isn’t for the next year. Its for building a team. The Packers were more than one player away back than and now they have a franchise QB.

  60. Majik Man says: Sep 1, 2009 11:44 PM

    Rodgers wasn’t the consensus number 1, there wasn’t one that year. And if he had been, he wouldn’t have slipped to 24. Reggie Bush was a consensus #1, and when the Texans passed, the Saints took him at #2, even though they didn’t need him. Rodgers was just considered one of the top 2 QB’s in a very weak QB class. Let’s not forget that Leinart would have been the hands down number 1 had he come out that year.
    And I will say again, I don’t think Rodgers is bad, he may even turn out to be a very good player. My point is that picking an immediate contributor would have been a better selection, and perhaps could have added another Super Bowl win.
    But feel free to interpret what I say however you desire, and now resorting to name calling. Classy. And pretty typical of a blind faith, never questioning Thompson backer. Just remember, he has taken a perennial playoff team and gone 31-33, while his hand picked QB has a 6-10 record, and also has an impressive 0-8 record in games where he had a chance to win or tie with 5 minutes or less left in the game. But hey, they’re 3-0 in the preseason, you can hang your hat on that I suppose.

  61. Dont Taze Me Bro says: Sep 1, 2009 11:45 PM

    Hawk is now the Reggie Bush of LBs.
    Paul Posluszny > Hawk

  62. Osterhouse says: Sep 1, 2009 11:55 PM

    News Flash to those saying because there is tape on Adrian it is the same as having a year of tape on Rodgers….this is a RB vs QB…HUGE difference. Tape on a QB is much more valuable to a defense than tape on a guy like Adrian. Kinda common sense.

  63. BuckyBadger says: Sep 2, 2009 12:09 AM

    Majik Man,
    You bring up some very valid points.
    Lets remember last year was Rodgers first season as a starter and he threw for 4000 yds, only the second to do so.
    The 2 minute warning was an issue but its also a bit misleading. 2 of those 8 were do to miss FGs that would have either tied or won the game. Also there at least 2 where Rodgers had just lead the team down the field for a score only to have the defense to give up points in return.
    Had the Packers had any semblance of a defense last year they would have been a playoff team.
    Did Rodgers have a perfect year? No but the way Favre played they would have not been much better. Football is more than just the QB [I know you know this from your comments]. I don’t think the Packers were a player away from a Super Bowl when they drafted Rodgers. Remember they were just coming back from the Sherman years.
    In the end the pick is looking very smart. Rodgers will be one of the better passers this year.

  64. zangy says: Sep 2, 2009 12:45 AM

    @ majik
    I forgot about the 8-8 year, my bad. Your argument for the defensive draft still doesn’t hold water. There was no way to know that a defensive player would have made an immediate impact but TT did know that he had a coach who has history molding very good qb’s ala rich gannon. So the choice was between a possible defensive contributor right now or a possible stable qb for another 10 years. I agree with how TT picked…As for saying Arod had a chance to win 8 games within the last 5 minutes is also bunk. A couple of those games he did lead the team to the lead only for the defense to give it back and leave him with almost no time or Mason Crosby would miss the field goal (against the Vikings), or the left tackle doesn’t even try to block the d-end and rodgers get laid out and throws a lame duck that gets picked to end game (bucs)…the team is still one of if thee youngest in the league and is still very competitive. I say give TT one more draft, two more seasons. If nothing of substance comes in that time then he will be shown the door. You gotta remember, (I don’t know how old you are) but the generation of packers fans before myself had to wait thirty years for a return to glory. Let’s be patient.
    One more thing, TT built the Seattle team that went to the Superbowl and dominated the NFC West for years until injuries decimated the team last season.
    —————-
    Paul Posluszny > Hawk
    Check the stats PP=Hawk

  65. cab1030 says: Sep 2, 2009 12:58 AM

    Typical hate on an Ohio State player and always from haters from other Big Ten teams that are jealous of their success, or Notre Lame fans who watched him destroy their team in the 2006 Fiesta Bowl. There are plenty of teams out there willing to take AJ off their hands. The Packers have misused him since his rookie season, now that they have Raji in the center, he could be poised for his best season. But whatever, keep hating, Packers suck.

  66. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Sep 2, 2009 2:14 AM

    Osterhouse,
    Hardly. The only thing that’s a give away on tape is if a QB stares down their receivers like the last 2 Vikings QB’s have done in Culpepper and T-Joke. Other than that, you might be more apt to recognize if the QB gets rattled under pressure, but if the QB goes through his reads, doesn’t stare down receivers, then the tape you’re referring to is more about the offensive plays that the coordinator calls for the QB than the QB. Same goes for the running back. Why do you think Childo yanks Peterson out on passing downs when they require the RB to pass block (something he’s terrible at) or catch passes (something that he’s mediocre at best at).

  67. Rogue 420 says: Sep 2, 2009 6:23 AM

    For being the 5th overall pick, Hawk is average at best. This article could not have said it any better, Hawk should be a multiple Pro Bowler and an impact player on the defense by now. Sadly, he is not. He can and will be considered a bust.
    If you don’t believe me, then check out the best LB in that 2006 draft; defensive rookie of the year, DeMeco Ryan. Now that guy is a stud, an impact player, and already a Pro Bowler. By the way, he was a 2nd rounder.
    Thompson’s track record for draft picks is getting worse by the day, Justin “Brokeback” Harrell anyone. Thompson’s best draft pick, Greg Jennings. A-Rod has to perform again this year to even be in that conversation. Remember, Derek Anderson had ONE Pro Bowl year also.

  68. RagnartheViking says: Sep 2, 2009 8:11 AM

    Hawk isn’t a bust. I’d say more of a disappointment, for where he was drafted.
    As for All Day, no he isn’t the best at those 2 things, but we won’t know that for sure, because we have chester taylor for a 3rd down back.
    I say, having that luxury keeps AD fresher and may prolong his career.
    Jimicos, please look at another website, Favre only played 1 series in the 3rd quarter. As I have told you before, it is senseless to compare stats of these 2, they arent being asked to play the same way, Favre isn’t going to be asked to put up gaudy numbers.
    The question you Pack fans should be asking yourselves is, if Erin has that many passing yards, where is the running game?
    Rodgers was awesome last year, but let him do it a few years before you say you are set at QB for 10 years. Look at Duante Culpepper for a frame of reference.

  69. irishgary says: Sep 2, 2009 8:14 AM

    Majik Man
    You moron!!!!!! take Lienart????? Flacco???? Instead of Rodgers.
    You are an idiot.

  70. zangy says: Sep 2, 2009 8:21 AM

    @Rogue
    I wouldn’t be comparing whoever the texans gm is to TT…pretty sure the texans would cream their pants to get arod or derek anderson considering the guy they traded to minnesota has a better win percentage than their starter whom can barely smell field before getting hurt.

  71. green&bold says: Sep 2, 2009 8:43 AM

    I would love for Fan of 4′s mother to take away his computer privileges.
    AND WHY DO I HAVE TO LOG IN ALL THE DAMN TIME? WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS STUPID SITE?

  72. TheHydra says: Sep 2, 2009 9:17 AM

    TheHydra is always a step ahead in the knowledge department. TheHydra has been saying this since the beginning of last year.
    “Erin” will be just fine Ragner. You seem concerned. to answer your question of “der der der wheres the running game if they throw all over the place etc etc” IF they are as proficient as they have been in camp in the passing game (they wont be) but if they were….they wouldnt need one. Arizona was almost dead last in rushing last year. But the reality is they will have good balance.

  73. TheHydra says: Sep 2, 2009 10:15 AM

    RAGNAR,
    Arizona was DEAD LAST in rushing in the NFL last year by SIX YARDS PER GAME and were NFC CHAMPS!
    Green Bay “with all those passing yards” is 4th in the NFL in rushing this preseason.

  74. RagnartheViking says: Sep 2, 2009 10:15 AM

    Hydra.
    That is idiotic. That may just be the dumbest thing I’ve read on here( and you are topping Dewey here, that’s saying alot).
    How in the hell does a team not need a running game? When Arizona got hot last year, the Edge was finally getting some yards.
    Der, der, der………
    The reality is that you don’t know shit. You have no clue if they will have good balence or not.
    You need to quit coming off like you are some “insider” to the team, which we know you are not.
    The Hydra is a moron with an overinflated opinion of his “knowledge” of sports.
    I’m sure the Hydra is one of those fans that predicts 13-3 every year, because the team is jelling and they are infusing new talent into the team.
    Not needing a running game at all, too funny.
    Rushing the ball and defense wins championships right?
    If the 3-4 doesn’t work, you won’t have either.

  75. Majik Man says: Sep 2, 2009 10:19 AM

    irishgary
    Apparently they give accounts to 12 year olds now. It’s pretty easy to spot, when children have no defense or argument, they resort to name calling. Before you trash Leinart and Flacco, just remember that Rodgers had 3 years to learn. Flacco came in as a rookie and took a 5-11 team to 11-5 and playoffs. Rodgers, a 4th year player, took a 13-3 team to 6-10. I’m fully aware that it’s not all on the QB, but he is the most important player on the field. And in both instances, the QB was the most significant change on both teams. And don’t play the injury card, because every team has them.
    zangy
    TT did not build that team. Most of the key contributors were picked up by Holmgren when he was GM (Alexander, Hasselback). It’s no coincidence that they went to the Super Bowl only after Thompson was gone. And Rodgers did have 8 chances to win or tie, with reasonable time left to do so, he failed 8 times, with 4 of them ending in INT’s. Like I said, he may become a good player, but he’s not complete yet, which he should be after 4 years in the league.
    You’re right though, there’s no way to tell if a defensive player pushes them to the Super Bowl in 2007, but I think it’s pretty safe to assume that a Pro Bowl caliber defensive tackle or linebacker would have been much more help than a 2nd string QB.

  76. TheHydra says: Sep 2, 2009 10:36 AM

    RAGNAR,
    4th in the preseason in rushing with your quote “all those passing yards” the balance is there. I sense anger and frustration in your comments. Could that be you are threatened by Green Bay? Could that be you are threatened by something else? It seems when someone challenges your opinion with factual information you get personal. Oh well. Anyway, I dont make predictions. What is a prediction anyway? really what is it? It means nothing. Unless it comes from God himself they mean nothing. I do have expectactions as do the rest of us that know what we are talking about in packer nation. Those expectations are very very high. As they are every year. We dont settle. We dont accept mediocrity we demand excellence. Those expectations are Miami.

  77. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Sep 2, 2009 10:37 AM

    RagnartheViking,
    Two things. First of all Childo has already acknowledged to the media multiple times that the reason why Peterson gets pulled is because he’s not good at pass protecting and receiving. This is not in Childo’s words up for “conjecture”. It’s already a fact……so we do know.
    Secondly, where is the Packers running game? Grant had over 1200 yards last with a bum hamstring all season. That still put him as #9 in rushing for the year. This pre-season, while Rodgers is lighting it up with his passing, the Packers are 4th in rushing.
    I’m not exactly sure what more you expect, but might I add that the Vikings were 6th in the NFL in rushing, even though they supposedly have the best RB in the game.

  78. TheHydra says: Sep 2, 2009 10:41 AM

    One other thing..I didnt say they didnt need a running game. I said if they pass for 300 flippin yards a half (which was hyphenated with a “they wont”) then they wouldnt need one. Who would?
    It was said to counter your part about being concerned about lack of rushing yards with “all those passing yards you should ask yourselves wheres the running blah blah blah”
    Of course you need to run the ball or at least attempt to. You said we should be concerned yet we are 4th in the NFL in camp games in rushing….so Im confused to your point.
    My guess is you didnt have one and out of anger and frustration are typing anything before thinking about what you are saying.

  79. RagnartheViking says: Sep 2, 2009 10:44 AM

    Hydra, again with the preseason garbage?
    Really?
    What part of these games don’t count don’t you get?
    Key stats of preseason
    Rushing leader 230 yards glenn coffee( who?!)
    rec. leader 232 yards Troy williamson
    pass yards 517 yards matt lienart
    Yeah, those stas are real meaningful!!
    I noticed no mention of that “stellar defense” of yours.
    This is probably why:
    They rank 29 out of 32 teams—that 3-4 is doing the trick alright.
    Guess who is #1 ……….Vikings.
    Nice that you omit the fact that the defense still sucks.
    I expect that out of moronic fans such as yourself tho.
    29th ranked d and they are going 13-3 this year….lol
    Idiot

  80. RagnartheViking says: Sep 2, 2009 11:10 AM

    8 Green Bay Packers 3 30.7 92 189 364.0
    9 Minnesota Vikings 3 15.7 47 187 354.3
    Preseason stats of Both teams.. that vaunted pack Attack is a whole 9.7 yards per game better.
    Go ahead an twist it now. But this is how the NFL rank teams.
    Favre has only been there 2 weeks.
    Whatthehellamitalkingabout: thats should be your screen name.
    AllDay led the league in rushing.
    It’s nice how you hold the vikings to overall team rushing, but conviently leave it out when talking about grant. Minn #5 GB #17
    Injuries, the mantra of all Packer fans.
    Wha about all that “depth”?
    Hydra. Not worried at all. Sick of morons is all, welcome to the top 5.
    Preseason d stacks up as :
    Minn 236 ypg
    GB 372.3 ypg
    How bout that 3-4 defense? Against the Bills Browns, and Cards!!
    Hope that is enough “facts” for all you jagoffs out there.
    Not personal at all Hydra, I detest Packer fan stupidity, and there is an overabundance of it.

  81. TheHydra says: Sep 2, 2009 11:17 AM

    Ragnar,
    Arizona Cardinals Post season rushing (Im assuming the post season is what you are referring to when you say they “got hot” because they lost 4 of their last 6 regular season games)
    112 attempts
    366 yards
    3.2 yds per attempt
    91.5 yards per game.
    Had they ran the ball at the blistering pace all year as they did during their “hot streak” they would have finished 30th in the NFL in rushing instead of 32nd.

  82. jimicos says: Sep 2, 2009 11:29 AM

    c.carterhof says:
    September 1, 2009 10:56 PM
    jimicos, you are becoming more like Jimmy and Bob. What do you mean “If the Vikings had drafted for ‘right now’ in 1998…”
    News flash, they did! Just like they did with AD, you can do both AT THE SAME TIME. The Vikings played them right after…
    its useless. Trying to reason with some of you Peckers is useless.
    ——————————–
    Don’t be an idiot. Did the Vikings need a WR in round one in 1998? No. They had Cris Carter and Jake Reed, both of whom cracked 1,000 yards in the prior year. I’d argue that there might’ve been 5 better WR tandems in the league at the time. It was a position of strength.
    Meanwhile, their defense was in the bottom third of the league and they could’ve used help there.
    They made the smart move. They picked up a great talent, in spite of his character issues. And they reaped the benefits for several years. As it turns out, he was even better than they thought and he DID make an impact right away. But if they were drafting for “right now” they would’ve gone defense.

  83. jimicos says: Sep 2, 2009 11:30 AM

    Osterhouse says:
    September 1, 2009 11:55 PM
    News Flash to those saying because there is tape on Adrian it is the same as having a year of tape on Rodgers….this is a RB vs QB…HUGE difference. Tape on a QB is much more valuable to a defense than tape on a guy like Adrian. Kinda common sense.
    —————————
    OK. Then Drew Brees, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are all done because we have tape on them. That makes much more sense. Thank you for explaining that to me.

  84. jimicos says: Sep 2, 2009 11:42 AM

    RagnartheViking says:
    September 2, 2009 8:11 AM
    Jimicos, please look at another website, Favre only played 1 series in the 3rd quarter. As I have told you before, it is senseless to compare stats of these 2, they arent being asked to play the same way, Favre isn’t going to be asked to put up gaudy numbers.
    The question you Pack fans should be asking yourselves is, if Erin has that many passing yards, where is the running game?
    Rodgers was awesome last year, but let him do it a few years before you say you are set at QB for 10 years. Look at Duante Culpepper for a frame of reference.
    ————————-
    Again, tell me where to look. Which website is going to magically (or magikally, depending on your username) convince me that Brett Favre did not take all the snaps from center for the Vikings in the third quarter? I’m waiting.
    I’m only comparing their stats because all you Vikings fans, in response to Rodgers’ gaudy preseason numbers have replied, “It’s only preseason, it’s only preseason.” I agree it’s only preseason. But then Favre plays three quarters, puts up numbers worse than Tarvaris the prior week and you’re all claiming he played great. Wha?
    And comparing Aaron Rodgers (or anyone else) to Daunte Culpepper is a slap in the face. My only concern with Rodgers is durability. He came in last year with the Favre circus all around him, with Favre putting up 6 TD passes in one game early with the Jets, as a first year starter with a crappy defense and he played very very well. Comparable to Favre’s nearly MVP-worthy 2007 numbers. IF their defense is healthier this season, IF Dom Capers continues his trend of instantly improving defenses, IF Grant is back to his 2007 form.. Then I think we can all expect much more than 6 wins in 2009. That’s a lot of IFs. But I’m quite comfortable with Rodgers.

  85. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Sep 2, 2009 11:45 AM

    Ragnar,
    You sir are the idiot…..I mean just another typical Viking fan. Ranking 17th in rushing while being 4th in passing is about what you would expect, no? It probably could be higher, but you’re not going to find a #4 passing/rushing attack in the NFL very often if ever.
    The Vikings were 5th in rushing and 25th in passing last year. That looks much more balanced than the Packers at 17 in rushing and 8th in passing, right? It seemed to workout ok, since they were 5th in scoring while the Vikings were 12th.
    Depth only goes so far when all your injuries happen on one side of the ball and at the same positions. Even though you could only hope your starting QB would get injured last year.
    I like how you pull out yards allowed per game by the defenses, rather than the starters. If that’s not a typical Viking fan, I don’t know what is. Most of those yard were given up late by 3rd stringers late in the game after the Packers were so far ahead.
    Oh and by the way, we played our #2 CB’s for half of the pre-season with our #1 defense with the starters not even dressed. The same starting defense that gave up a total of one TD in pre-season and committed 4 turnovers per game and that was only while they were in. I’m not even counting garbage turnovers by the scrubs who won’t even make the team.

  86. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Sep 2, 2009 11:58 AM

    Ragnar,
    You sir are the idiot…..I mean just another typical Viking fan. Ranking 17th in rushing while being 4th in passing is about what you would expect, no? It probably could be higher, but you’re not going to find a #4 passing/rushing attack in the NFL very often if ever.
    The Vikings were 5th in rushing and 25th in passing last year. That looks much more balanced than the Packers at 17 in rushing and 8th in passing, right? It seemed to workout ok, since they were 5th in scoring while the Vikings were 12th.
    Depth only goes so far when all your injuries happen on one side of the ball and at the same positions. Even though you could only hope your starting QB would get injured last year.
    I like how you pull out yards allowed per game by the defenses, rather than the starters. If that’s not a typical Viking fan, I don’t know what is. Most of those yard were given up late by 3rd stringers late in the game after the Packers were so far ahead.
    Oh and by the way, we played our #2 CB’s for half of the pre-season with our #1 defense with the starters not even dressed. The same starting defense that gave up a total of one TD in pre-season and committed 4 turnovers per game and that was only while they were in. I’m not even counting garbage turnovers by the scrubs who won’t even make the team.

  87. TheHydra says: Sep 2, 2009 1:35 PM

    I don’t think its a good idea to look at Culpepper as a frame of reference in regards to anything good about NFL quarterback play. Ragnar you must be a teenager with your usage of nicknames like “The Edge” and “AllDay” That might explain your reckless thinking. Please explain why you were so wrong about the Arizona Cardinals and their rushing attack. Fan stupidity?? Go sit in that shithole of a stadium in Minneapolis and you automatically lose IQ points. Let’s face it. Your team has not won anything..ever. You can’t sell out your games even with Favre though he provided a cute little surge. You seem to have more knowledge then most viking fans but yet your comments are filled with anger and that only has to be from the lack of winning your team has done..ever.

  88. RagnartheViking says: Sep 2, 2009 1:48 PM

    @whatthehellamitalkingabout:
    It seemed to work out o.k? You were 6-10!
    Oh yeah, that was the refs/defense/injury bug’s fault right?
    Not only are we deabting preseason stats, now we have to break them down between starters/ reserves too?
    Just so it fits your arguement, I suppose.
    Nah, you wouldn’t count anything that doesn’t prove what you want it to prove.
    Packers = good, Vikings = bad.
    Jimi: I’m not going to continue debating this dumb obsession of yours with the whole 3rd quarter business. By your rationale if Favre took only 1 snap, didn’t attempt a pass, his stats should be spread out of 3 quarters?
    That is insanely idiotic, but not suprising out of a Packer fan.
    You sir are generalizing Vikings fans also, hypocritical much?
    Culpepper to Rodgers is not compareable, you are right.
    2000 Duante 3937 yds 33 tds 16 ints
    2008 Erin 4038 yds 28 tds 13 ints
    (2000 = DC’s 1st year starting)
    Minnesota-> 28th ranked defense that year.
    What was the record that year……….11-5!
    Kinda blows your whole it was the defenses fault out of the water, huh?
    Until this kid learns to close out games, or the coaching staff doesn’t play for FG’s at the end of games, your team isn’t going anywhere.
    You guys wanted facts, I gave you facts, thats still not good enough, now we have to break them down even further.
    Thank you guys for proving my point that you can never win with a Packer fan, you’ll just keep turning to a different slant on an arguement.
    Whatever gets you to sleep at night fellas……

  89. TheHydra says: Sep 2, 2009 1:56 PM

    The Vikings only had one series in the third quarter so in a sense you both are right and both look really dumb as either one of you could have said that before TheHydra threw the nugget out there. Sounds like alot of ass answers. Speaking and typing without being certain of their facts

  90. Bob Nelson says: Sep 2, 2009 2:06 PM

    This just gets out of hand people.
    The ignorant throw a stupid comment in on a Packer story and Packer fans actually give them attention by trying to correct them with facts, statistics and logic.
    If some fool viking idiot says Greenway is better than Hawk do you really think he is smart enough to listen when you say:
    Hawk has 50% more NFL starts, 50% more INT’s and 41% more tackles than Greenway?
    They can’t even read and stick to the subject; let alone listen to facts and reasoning.
    Don’t waste your time solving their ignorance.

  91. TheHydra says: Sep 2, 2009 2:18 PM

    Ragnar,
    You just set me off. Rodgers led the team down the field to take the lead on three seperate occasion last year only to have the defense blow it. You know what?? You play for field goals instead of risking turnovers when all you need is a FG to win. No wonder your team hasnt won a goddamn thing in this league with that thinking. Close out games? If you mean pulling something out of your ass in the last seconds then you are relying on such low percentage and your team is no good anyway. Dont think favre is gonna do it for you either. He hasnt since 1999. GET SOME KNOWLEDGE!!!!!

  92. TheHydra says: Sep 2, 2009 2:21 PM

    The whole third qtr thing made you look really really dumb guys. Really really dumb. Really unintelligent. Very shoot at the hip. Your knowledge needs work.

  93. TheHydra says: Sep 2, 2009 2:22 PM

    Ragnar,
    please explain why you were so wrong about Arizona and “the edge”

  94. RagnartheViking says: Sep 2, 2009 2:26 PM

    Bob, that stands to reason, considering Greenway missed 1 complete season due to a knee injury.
    Don’t let that FACT get in your way though.
    Nah, don’t wast your time solving our “ignorance”.
    Try sticking to solving your own first, genius.

  95. jimicos says: Sep 2, 2009 2:44 PM

    RagnartheViking says:
    September 2, 2009 1:48 PM
    Jimi: I’m not going to continue debating this dumb obsession of yours with the whole 3rd quarter business. By your rationale if Favre took only 1 snap, didn’t attempt a pass, his stats should be spread out of 3 quarters?
    That is insanely idiotic, but not suprising out of a Packer fan.
    You sir are generalizing Vikings fans also, hypocritical much?
    Culpepper to Rodgers is not compareable, you are right.
    2000 Duante 3937 yds 33 tds 16 ints
    2008 Erin 4038 yds 28 tds 13 ints
    (2000 = DC’s 1st year starting)
    Minnesota-> 28th ranked defense that year.
    What was the record that year……….11-5!
    Kinda blows your whole it was the defenses fault out of the water, huh?
    Until this kid learns to close out games, or the coaching staff doesn’t play for FG’s at the end of games, your team isn’t going anywhere.
    You guys wanted facts, I gave you facts, thats still not good enough, now we have to break them down even further.
    Thank you guys for proving my point that you can never win with a Packer fan, you’ll just keep turning to a different slant on an arguement.
    Whatever gets you to sleep at night fellas……
    ————————–
    Ha!
    Unable to prove that any other Vikings QB took a snap from center in the third quarter, our hero resorts to name calling. Still waiting for the site that would prove me wrong. Go ahead and tell me which one it is. Until then, I’ll just say Favre played 3 quarters in preseason week 3 and Rodgers played 2 quarters.
    And no, I’m not saying if Favre took one snap that means he played the whole quarter. I’m saying if he took ALL their snaps in the quarter… Then he played the whole quarter. Nice job trying to twist it, though. Just accept that Favre played three quarters and only had 142 yards passing to show for it.
    Nice job pulling Culpepper’s first season stats, though. I had no idea they were that good. Knock it off with “Erin”, though. It’s beneath you. It lowers you to the level of the “Brettney” guys.
    As far as the 2000 Vikings’ 28th ranked defense is concerned, they ranked 24th by points allowed. 2008 Packers were ranked 22nd by points allowed. So that’s a wash. And Culpepper had the league’s 6th ranked rushing game to support him. The 2008 Packers? 17th.
    And it never hurts to have Randy Moss pulling in 1400 yards receiving and 15 TDs. But I admit Culpepper actually put up better numbers than I remembered.
    And you did hit on something there with the coaching. Several times last season I found myself wondering why they were playing for the FG (and the tie or tiny lead) when it was apparent to EVERYONE that the defense would not be able to stop the other team. The playcalling was bad.
    1) Get into field goal range
    2) Run
    3) Run
    4) Run
    5) Kick the FG
    6) Watch the other team score easily and leave precious little time on the clock

  96. RagnartheViking says: Sep 2, 2009 3:34 PM

    Hydra, you should stick to your own conversations.
    Your definition of dumb needs to be reflected back on yourself.
    I am at work, i don’t have the time to explain the ins and outs of the running game( or the threat thereof). James brok off big runs down the stretch that kept defenses honest(in a nutshell)
    By the way there sparky, your team hasnt won since 96.
    MM is a meathead. As jimi said, you can just about make theplay call while watching tv.
    He had 8 chances last year, so the d “blew” 3 of them, what happened on the other 5?
    MM didn’t even TRY to move the ball 1/2 the time.
    Lack of confidence?
    Who knows.
    You telling me to get some knowledge, is like the scarecrow in the wizard of oz telling me to get a brain.
    I don’t know where the ego and the pomposity comes from with you. Perhaps trying to cover up your inadequacy in the knowledge department?
    You remind me of a packer fan freind of mine, he know everything and everyone else is a football idiot.
    I play along with him because he is my freind, but you, I’ll call out incessantly, because, you sir, are a freaking moron.

  97. jimicos says: Sep 2, 2009 3:41 PM

    TheHydra says:
    September 2, 2009 1:56 PM
    The Vikings only had one series in the third quarter so in a sense you both are right and both look really dumb as either one of you could have said that before TheHydra threw the nugget out there. Sounds like alot of ass answers. Speaking and typing without being certain of their facts
    —————————–
    Hydra, STFU. I posted the entire play-by-play from the Vikings’ one third quarter possession in another thread and Ragnar still refused to acknowledge that Favre played the whole quarter.
    Maybe he’s inclined to think that would be a dig on Minnesota’s stellar defense to suggest that they couldn’t force a three and out and get their offense the ball. But for whatever reason he can’t accept the FACT that Favre played the entire quarter.

  98. RagnartheViking says: Sep 2, 2009 3:50 PM

    For the last time and I’m done. favre played 1 series.
    The defense played the rest of the quarter.
    I find it odd that you are hanging on this point…not all that important, and a matter of semantics.
    If you feel better jimi, I concede, you win.

  99. TheBaySay says: Sep 2, 2009 4:24 PM

    Hmmm… all this grew out of the fact that AJ Hawk MAY come off the field on passing downs. Guess I shouldn’t be surprised, seeing as an attempt to get all citizens health insurance has turned into Death Panels and coddling illegal aliens. But anyway, the important thing here is that the Packers’ D is going to be quite a bit better this year, mostly because we have better coaches who will be able to make adjustments during games. Sanders couldn’t or wouldn’t do that last season. I don’t care who’s on the field as long as the defense gets stops more often, and I can’t imagine why any other Green Bay fan would care either. Hawk has played to the level of a mid-second round pick, okay? So on to the new season, and what the TEAM will do. Sheesh.

  100. jimicos says: Sep 2, 2009 5:42 PM

    RagnartheViking says:
    September 2, 2009 3:50 PM
    For the last time and I’m done. favre played 1 series.
    The defense played the rest of the quarter.
    I find it odd that you are hanging on this point…not all that important, and a matter of semantics.
    If you feel better jimi, I concede, you win.
    —————————-
    I don’t care whether or not you concede. It’s misleading to characterize Favre’s play in that game as “two quarters and one series”.
    By that logic you could characterize it as “only 7 series”, or some other such shit. He played three quarters. There’s no better reason to downplay Favre’s involvement in the third quarter than there is to downplay his involvement in the first quarter. In fact, there’s better reason to downplay his involvement in the first quarter because someone other than him actually took a snap from center in that quarter.
    Oh, and I believe it was you who last week pointed out that the last Packers thread only got 20 comments. I believe you characterized the team as “boring” because that one thread only had 20 hits. Congrats, you had a hand in fixing that trend.

  101. JimmySmith says: Sep 2, 2009 6:56 PM

    All I know for sure is Childress is still the head coach of the Vikings and that should account for about 4-5 wins, for the other team.
    Throw in the washed up diva and there is another 2 to 3 wins, for the other team.
    according to that math, yet another 8-8 season, just getting warmed up for LA.

  102. CutlerISaPussy says: Sep 2, 2009 7:24 PM

    Did anybody else see JimmySmith licking Rodgers taint?
    He is a giant douchebag. JimmySmith belongs in FudgePacker land.
    JimmySmith better be ready for another 6-10 season. Enjoy the preseason boys b/c the preseason is the only season you will have a winning record in.
    Oh yeah, and keep up the good work in the draft. TT is JimmySmith’s teddy bear….if you catch my drift.

  103. zangy says: Sep 3, 2009 8:07 AM

    # CutlerISaPussy says: September 2, 2009 7:24 PM
    Did anybody else see JimmySmith licking Rodgers taint?
    He is a giant douchebag. JimmySmith belongs in FudgePacker land.
    JimmySmith better be ready for another 6-10 season. Enjoy the preseason boys b/c the preseason is the only season you will have a winning record in.
    Oh yeah, and keep up the good work in the draft. TT is JimmySmith’s teddy bear….if you catch my drift.
    ———————————–
    I thought these posts were monitored? How about only allowing posts that have something to do with football, not ridiculous slander…Dom Capers is the BEST football coach in the league at turning defenses around, not in the top 3 or 5, NUMBER ONE. I’m not saying Green Bay will have the number one defense in the league but they will definitely be in the top half, which will be plenty good enough to go with an offense that puts out around 30 points a contest.

  104. RagnartheViking says: Sep 3, 2009 8:31 AM

    Yeah Jimmy, Cos Chilly was the coach last year, and a washed up QB(gus) was there and that equated to 10 wins……..nice logic
    How bout this jimi. Find out how much time he was on the field in the quarter and we can call it 2 quarters and 5minutes and 22 seconds or some other such nonsense?
    I do not care anymore, whatever it takes for you to crunch the numbers so that you feel better about the situation.
    Favre playing within the system and looking good(and by that , vikings fans don’t mean he set the world on fire, we mean he took what the d gave him and didn’t turn the ball over.) doesn’t fit what you pack fans want.
    You want nothing but utter failure for him, because that makes you pathetic fans feel better about yourselves, because favre ” screwed you”.
    Considering his role, it won’t happen, but how would you spin it if favre put up better numbers than A-Rod? ( like that nick better?)
    I really do think you Pack fans are scared, if he is healthy, you know what he is capable of.
    Downplay it all you want, call him washed up, whatever.
    Fact is, all of you wouldn’t be on here bashing him daily, if he was as irrelevant as you say he is.
    Keep believing the media, keep waiting for the train wreck that is never going to come.
    Keep praising those awesome preseason stats.
    We will see real soon who is for real.

  105. jimicos says: Sep 3, 2009 10:31 AM

    I’m crunching the numbers? YOU’RE the one doing that. Favre played the entire quarter. Plain and simple. Since you have yet to show me a site that claims there was another QB wearing that god-awful purple taking snaps in the third, HE PLAYED THE ENTIRE QUARTER.
    Let it go. You’re wrong. You tried to twist it and downplay how much time Favre was in there. It didn’t work.
    As far as Favre putting up better numbers than Rodgers is concerned.. We’ll see about that, won’t we? He didn’t do it last season, and he sure as shit hasn’t done it in the preseason.

  106. RagnartheViking says: Sep 3, 2009 12:40 PM

    I said considering his role, it won’t happen for God’s sake.
    I conceded the point to you, yet that wasn’t good enough on the 3 quarters thing.
    Jesus!! Favre played 47 minutes.
    From NFL.com game recap:
    Favre led a Vikings drive that took SEVEN minutes in the third quarter, but that too ended with a punt after an incomplete pass and a false start penalty.
    I can’t believe I’m still belaboring this point with you, how are you that anal?
    I’m pretty sure it’s because his stats don’t look good spread over 3 quarters as they do over 2, 2.5.
    Even beer cheese posted the same thing as I did.
    You’re being silly about this. Which is why I’m done with this part of our convo.

  107. jimicos says: Sep 3, 2009 2:06 PM

    When has Favre ever stuck to his role? You’ll see. He’ll get bored and start jacking the ball around. Or they’ll be playing from behind and he’ll take things into his own hands. After seeing the guy play for 17 damn years (or whatever it is now), you ought to pick up on that.
    Yeah, you concede the point, say you’re done arguing about it and then immediately reference it on another post.
    What exactly is the NFL.com recap supposed to prove? It proves he held the ball for half of the quarter. And that they punted. Nothing more.

  108. RagnartheViking says: Sep 3, 2009 2:30 PM

    Jimi:
    You have to be insane. There is no other reason for you to keep holding on to this. He played 1/2 the quarter. Give it up dude.

  109. jimicos says: Sep 3, 2009 6:13 PM

    See what I mean? On one thread you’re saying you acknowledged you were wrong. On this thread you still downplay Favre’s involvement. If you’re going to expend this much time and energy over his playing time in a preseason game.. Wow. You’re going to have to drop out of pussy class to find enough time to explain away all Favre’s interceptions this year.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!