Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2015 13:24:34 GMT -5
I believe this will be a very close game. The Chiefs will be angry after the way the lost last week to Denver. The Packers should win this one since it's at home, but it could go either way. Hopefully Lacy is healthy and can play the entire game this week.
Packers 24
Chiefs 20
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Sept 22, 2015 15:10:45 GMT -5
How close this game is will be determined by the extent of Eddie Lacy's injury. If he can't go, the Packers will probably go to a ball control short passing game to offset the fact that they don't want to over work what we have left as RBs. If Lacy plays, effectively, the Packers will use their ground game to set up the passing game, and quite honestly, could bury the Chiefs by halftime.
After all that gobbledy goop, I see the Packers winning 28-24.
|
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Sept 22, 2015 18:36:43 GMT -5
I heard that Lacy will miss one game and should be ready for week 4. I think the Pack will bring up the big back in Harris to help with Starks as the one two punch. this gut is big like lacy. I like neal better in preseason but the team seems to think Harris was the way to go. how many times can you activate a player from the Practice squad before he must be on the 46? He may not be brought up at all because Lacy is thought to be ready week 4.
To early for me yet. But oh well
Pack-- 24
Chiefs--13
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Sept 23, 2015 17:08:21 GMT -5
It was a surprise that they kept Harris. Yet, I wasn't disappointed because I liked how he moved players when he hit them. We need a bull running out of the tailback slot at times.
|
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Sept 24, 2015 8:31:53 GMT -5
that is why it was either Harris or Neal. Neal outperformed Harris in preseason, by a lot. Neal also was a good receiver, but not as good as Harris. Neal was a better blocker. and Neal had Harris by almost one yard on ave carry.(Neal 4.0 yards,Harris was 3.2 per carry) I do not know what they saw in Harris over Neal Oh, both are big bruising backs, Harris is at 232 lbs, and Neal is about 223 lbs,anyway, they knew Lacy needed time off once in a while and they wanted that bull, Starks is more of a slasher with speed and power.
|
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Sept 26, 2015 15:12:22 GMT -5
looks like Lacy and Adams are going to be game time on if they play. this year it is all the teams talking about ANKLE injuries. I tell ya, i think sometimes things are blown way out of proportion. it is like a car one year it is the rear light next year it is the ignition, well it has a pattern on sports to, one year it is ham strings, that are the most and the next year it is the ankle injury, really i got to think about the money the betting and the way big money drives things. Oh, i am so glad that IDIOT for the republicans decided to quit, he was one of the dumbest people i every listened to or read about . good riddance to him. I will stick with the score i posted earlier. GO PACK GO!!
|
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Sept 28, 2015 15:12:54 GMT -5
where are all the predictions? Come on! Go pack Go! make it 3-0!!
|
|
|
|
Post by nick20 on Sept 29, 2015 0:16:26 GMT -5
pack win 38-28, and game wasnt that close. if not for dumb penalties we could have hung 50 on these guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Sept 29, 2015 8:07:41 GMT -5
It's the old story of McC teams. Get a big lead and it ends up a question of whether or not they can hold on, at the end. I would have thought the NFC Championship loss to Seattle last year would have taught him that you keep the hammer down until you're so far ahead that they can't even make it look like it was close.
Had they gotten the 2 point conversion and the onside kick, there was always a chance they could tie, and send it in to overtime. Our guys had quit playing way before that.
I don't like that type of game plan. Guys get hurt when you play that kind of game that we did, during the second half.
|
|
|
|
Post by tnpackfan7 on Sept 29, 2015 8:44:02 GMT -5
It was not that close. Look, so many ifs...they forced a 17 play drive to take that much time off the clock for the Chiefs to even score.
In that (I think it was that drive or the one before), the Chiefs needed a ridiculous spot on a long 4th down conversion. Had GB had any timeouts (now there is a criticism for sure) they would have challenged and won it.
They played soft defensively late because they knew they could.
The game was never in question.
Positives...
Nate Palmer...made several tough tackles including getting Charles one on one in the open field.
Clay...holy crap this guy is just all over the place good.
Obviously Rodgers...goes without saying.
OLine...opening holes in the run game...and doing very well against that pass rush. Not perfect on the edges, but got the job done.
Ty Montgomery...looked very good early, but they did not go to him as much later in the game.
Shields and the DBs...much better tackling last night.
Negatives...
Penalties...both real and crap calls. Sorry, but Ha-Ha's penalty (that also gave KC a better shot at a TD) was shoulder to shoulder and as clean as can be. Just a few others that were unnecessary and kept the game closer in a way.
Injuries...not having Burnett is not great, though, guys played well in relief. But Adams didn't seem to be ready from the start, not sure why they played him and now will have to see how much he gets set back by playing and getting hurt again.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Sept 29, 2015 11:57:09 GMT -5
Apparently you have forgotten the fiasco against the Seahawks. It was a "lesson game." You learn from them, and don't allow the opposition to get close enough for it to have possibly repeated.
The fact remains they would have been within one score of us had the 2-point conversion worked.
I'm a pragmatic person who looks at what can go wrong and does everything possible to avoid that happening. Even though the Packers totally dominated the Chiefs - which was obvious - the prevent defense and predictable run left, run right, run up the middle, then punt offense allowed the Chiefs to creep much closer than they should have ever gotten. If you deny that happened, you haven't seen how often this happens. The Packers are a team that's at least 3 TDs better than the Chiefs, especially last night.
|
|
|
|
Post by tnpackfan7 on Sept 29, 2015 22:25:36 GMT -5
Apparently you have forgotten the fiasco against the Seahawks. It was a "lesson game." You learn from them, and don't allow the opposition to get close enough for it to have possibly repeated. The fact remains they would have been within one score of us had the 2-point conversion worked. I'm a pragmatic person who looks at what can go wrong and does everything possible to avoid that happening. Even though the Packers totally dominated the Chiefs - which was obvious - the prevent defense and predictable run left, run right, run up the middle, then punt offense allowed the Chiefs to creep much closer than they should have ever gotten. If you deny that happened, you haven't seen how often this happens. The Packers are a team that's at least 3 TDs better than the Chiefs, especially last night. Nope...didn't forget. They were up 16 points...against a pretty weak offense, and forced them to go 17 plays on a drive (and again, a drive that basically was stopped except for a terrible spot). The lesson was they did plenty enough to win...and did win. And the only time they ran 3 straight to run out the clock was the last drive...up by 10, and left KC with 19 seconds left. The previous drive they took 4 minutes off the clock...ran it 3 times (-2, 2, 1) and 3 passes (8, 10, and incomplete). There was a world of difference between the Chiefs game and Seahawks game. KC was never a threat or in the game. Did they get closer than they should have? Sure. I think a difference there is forcing a long drive...and the Chiefs did that and are typically careful with the ball. I don't think things happen as often as you think...and I think there are people who like to complain a lot even when things go well...rather than just enjoying the ride. |
|
|
|
Post by happypacker on Sept 30, 2015 8:45:16 GMT -5
one thing about easing up in games. they become HABITS all things repeated good or bad become habits. The packers (and other teams) when having a good lead tend to by design to ease up. Only problem is, a good team that you may have a solid lead on, only needs a team to ease up a little to get back there own swagger and then mount a come back.
I hate to say it but, never let any team back into a game by not trying to stop them.play like you did in three quarters, or to ease up and run the ball to a point where your not making first downs.
One team that plays the entire game on both sides of the ball in every game are the Pats, MAYBE that is why they have so many super bowls and div titles. you do not see teams making big come backs on them., that is because they keep trying the whole game. good habits reap positives , bad habits reek havoc.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Sept 30, 2015 19:57:09 GMT -5
Exactly. You let up, you end up losing some games. The loss to the Seahawks last year was a prime example. You don't let NFL teams off the hook at all. You run up the score if you can. That didn't happen Sunday, but should have.
I even indicated that it would be a game like that when I made my prediction. It's getting to be a constant scenario, but some people just don't comprehend it.
|
|
