MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: nomorebuycks on November 28, 2010, 02:53:21 PM
-
It's literally impossible now for GB to get home field, and the rest of the season is pretty much meaningless now since they have zero shot at a Super Bowl appearance. The game vs Atlanta was of HUGE importance...set up the entire rest of the season...but too many fans are so focused on the struggles of Favre that they won't even realize Green Bay can't accomplish anything of note now.
-
The idiocy of your views on MU actually give me some peace of mind reading this as a Green Bay fan.
Also... please superbar this mods
-
They just proved to me they can beat anyone in the league, especially on the road. Did you watch the game?
-
It's literally impossible now for GB to get home field, and the rest of the season is pretty much meaningless now since they have zero shot at a Super Bowl appearance. The game vs Atlanta was of HUGE importance...set up the entire rest of the season...but too many fans are so focused on the struggles of Favre that they won't even realize Green Bay can't accomplish anything of note now.
Green Bay is a fine football team. I'll remind you that there have been more than a few teams that have gone and won the Super Bowl without having home field.
I wouldn't count out the Packers at all. They look to be one of the three best NFC teams out there along with Atlanta and Philly. Honestly thought GBP should have won today. The Rodgers fumble was a killer....14 point swing.
It's wide open in the NFC and Green Bay will not be intimidated by anyone.
-
It's literally impossible now for GB to get home field,
No it isn't.
and the rest of the season is pretty much meaningless now since they have zero shot at a Super Bowl appearance.
Not true on either count.
-
Nomorebuycks as really stumbled and fallen through the muscoop door here.
The season isnt over so there's no reason to jump yet. The team is 7-4. There are 5 games to go and 11-5 or 10-6 is a reasonable expectation. And though the NFC South and East are pretty tight at the top, Packers could still get to the playoffs.
All things considered, with the amount of injuries the packers have had to key players, I'm pretty satisfied with how things are turning out.
-
It's literally impossible now for GB to get home field,
I like your confidence in the Bears.
-
It's literally impossible now for GB to get home field, and the rest of the season is pretty much meaningless now since they have zero shot at a Super Bowl appearance. The game vs Atlanta was of HUGE importance...set up the entire rest of the season...but too many fans are so focused on the struggles of Favre that they won't even realize Green Bay can't accomplish anything of note now.
i love the ignore button
-
Green Bay is a fine football team. I'll remind you that there have been more than a few teams that have gone and won the Super Bowl without having home field.
I wouldn't count out the Packers at all. They look to be one of the three best NFC teams out there along with Atlanta and Philly. Honestly thought GBP should have won today. The Rodgers fumble was a killer....14 point swing.
It's wide open in the NFC and Green Bay will not be intimidated by anyone.
You know the Bears beat GB and just dominated Philly yesterday, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Bears are the best team in the NFC but to not even put them in the top 3, especially considering they beat 2 of your top 3 doesn't make much sense.
That being said, the Bears still have to play at Detroit, New England, NY Jets, at Minnesota and at GB. The season is far from over.
-
You know the Bears beat GB and just dominated Philly yesterday, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Bears are the best team in the NFC but to not even put them in the top 3, especially considering they beat 2 of your top 3 doesn't make much sense.
That being said, the Bears still have to play at Detroit, New England, NY Jets, at Minnesota and at GB. The season is far from over.
Yup. Call me very surprised with yesterday's win, too. I'm not a believer in the Bears this year, but they are making it more and more difficult to say that.
-
You know the Bears beat GB and just dominated Philly yesterday, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Bears are the best team in the NFC but to not even put them in the top 3, especially considering they beat 2 of your top 3 doesn't make much sense.
That being said, the Bears still have to play at Detroit, New England, NY Jets, at Minnesota and at GB. The season is far from over.
Bears don't have too many quality wins under their belt. Beat the Packers in week three and Philly yesterday but besides that they've beaten Detroit, Dallas, Buffalo, Carolina and Minnesota -Terrible teams. The Dolphins are hot and cold. Losses to the Giants, Seattle and Washington indicate the Bears aren't their yet. Those team's are amazing.
-
Bears don't have too many quality wins under their belt. Beat the Packers in week three and Philly yesterday but besides that they've beaten Detroit, Dallas, Buffalo, Carolina and Minnesota -Terrible teams. The Dolphins are hot and cold. Losses to the Giants, Seattle and Washington indicate the Bears aren't their yet. Those team's are amazing.
And Packers have beaten: Minnesota (2), Det, Buf, Phi, NYJ, and Dal. And lost to Washington and the hot and cold Dolphins. Must have been hot that week I guess.
Huh, sounds like the Bears have just as many "quality wins" as anyone else in the NFC North, two.
-
And Packers have beaten: Minnesota (2), Det, Buf, Phi, NYJ, and Dal. And lost to Washington and the hot and cold Dolphins. Must have been hot that week I guess.
Huh, sounds like the Bears have just as many "quality wins" as anyone else in the NFC North, two.
And that Philly win was with the starting QB getting knocked out...If GB played Philly now I don't think the outcome would be the same, IMO.
-
And Packers have beaten: Minnesota (2), Det, Buf, Phi, NYJ, and Dal. And lost to Washington and the hot and cold Dolphins. Must have been hot that week I guess.
Huh, sounds like the Bears have just as many "quality wins" as anyone else in the NFC North, two.
This is because 14 of the 16 games every team in the division plays are identical.
-
This is because 14 of the 16 games every team in the division plays are identical.
Yes. I know.
-
And Packers have beaten: Minnesota (2), Det, Buf, Phi, NYJ, and Dal. And lost to Washington and the hot and cold Dolphins. Must have been hot that week I guess.
Huh, sounds like the Bears have just as many "quality wins" as anyone else in the NFC North, two.
Bears lost to the Lions. That call was BS.
-
Bears lost to the Lions. That call was BS.
Not according to the standings. Not according to the rule book.
-
And that Philly win was with the starting QB getting knocked out...If GB played Philly now I don't think the outcome would be the same, IMO.
I disagree with that statement, after Kolb left the game the Packers had to play against Vick without ever game planning for him, now everyone knows Vick is playing
plus the Packers were a much worse team then i.e. penalties, turnovers etc. areas that have improved significantly
-
Bears lost to the Lions. That call was BS.
I think everyone else got over that several weeks ago. Funnily enough the idea of the "process" also helped the packers avoid a delay of game penalty with time winding down and allowed for Rodgers to throw the game tying touchdown pass. Though they lost the game in the end, the "process" definitely worked in your favor as well.
-
I think everyone else got over that several weeks ago. Funnily enough the idea of the "process" also helped the packers avoid a delay of game penalty with time winding down and allowed for Rodgers to throw the game tying touchdown pass. Though they lost the game in the end, the "process" definitely worked in your favor as well.
Do you know how the delay of game penalty is determined?
Ref in charge of the clock sees the "0" and then looks to see if play was snapped. It was correctly not a delay of game, unless you're talking about another play.
When does the NFL make Chicago spend some money on that gawd-awful field?
-
When does the NFL make Chicago spend some money on that gawd-awful field?
I thought the Eagles have notoriously bad astro turf for many many years, and nothing ever changed.
Does the NFL ever get involved in that?
-
I thought the Eagles have notoriously bad astro turf for many many years, and nothing ever changed.
Does the NFL ever get involved in that?
Remember when the Houston Oilers played in the astrodome? Players said it was like playing on concrete.
-
I preface this by saying I think the Packers are the better team, but the best two teams on the Bears schedule up until now have been the Packers and Eagles. Bears are 2-0 against them, so you have to give them their due in that regard.
Talk to the Chicago Park District if you want field turf at Soldier Field. Bears don't own Soldier Field, the Park District does. Don't even get me started on the BS that goes on back and forth between the Bears and Park District.
-
I preface this by saying I think the Packers are the better team, but the best two teams on the Bears schedule up until now have been the Packers and Eagles. Bears are 2-0 against them, so you have to give them their due in that regard.
Talk to the Chicago Park District if you want field turf at Soldier Field. Bears don't own Soldier Field, the Park District does. Don't even get me started on the BS that goes on back and forth between the Bears and Park District.
They should do what Lambeau did and put in heaters...
I also wanted to take a shot at the team that sits above mine in the division standings.
-
Bears probably have the worst playing surface (with Pittsburgh a close second) of any team in the league. The field itself is a joke, and embarassing. High schools have better playing surfaces than the Bears.
-
I used to be against artificial turf because of the injury factor, but since fieldturf has gotten rid of that issue, and the players actually like playing on it, it wouldn't kill me if the NFL mandated the use of artificial surfaces at some point in the future. I know that goes against the "traditional" nature of football, but I would rather have a clean, consistent playing surface.
-
Bears probably have the worst playing surface (with Pittsburgh a close second) of any team in the league. The field itself is a joke, and embarassing. High schools have better playing surfaces than the Bears.
Don't they play HS games at Soldier Field late for the playoffs or all star games?
-
I think the only HS game played at Soldier Field is the Prep Bowl, but I could be mistaken. The worst the "new" Soldier Field turf ever has been was last year when U2 played there and then I think it was a week later the Bears hosted the Steelers (to top it off, it rained half that game).
Steelers, I believe, let Heinz Field be used every weekend for HS games. I know there's been more than one weekend where Pitt and the Steelers have played back to back days, and throw in a HS game on a Friday night on top of it.
-
I used to be against artificial turf because of the injury factor, but since fieldturf has gotten rid of that issue, and the players actually like playing on it, it wouldn't kill me if the NFL mandated the use of artificial surfaces at some point in the future. I know that goes against the "traditional" nature of football, but I would rather have a clean, consistent playing surface.
The DD Grassmaster stuff used in Green Bay has held up really well. I think it's something like one synthetic fiber for every 1000 blades of grass to keep it tied together tightly. I know it was used on European soccer fields before the Packers became the first to implement it over here, and some other teams have followed suit. I don't think that's an unreasonable supplement for 100% natural grass.
-
The DD Grassmaster stuff used in Green Bay has held up really well. I think it's something like one synthetic fiber for every 1000 blades of grass to keep it tied together tightly. I know it was used on European soccer fields before the Packers became the first to implement it over here, and some other teams have followed suit. I don't think that's an unreasonable supplement for 100% natural grass.
Hah, the Broncos (2001), Eagles (2003) and Steelers (2003) had the DD Grassmaster surface way before Packers (2007), but a minor correction :)
-
Football is meant to be played on grass and mud. synthetic stuff doesn't stick on your helmet.
-
Sports evolve. Otherwise we'd still be shooting at peach baskets.
-
I believe the Badgers still do.
-
I believe the Badgers still do.
nice.
-
Hah, the Broncos (2001), Eagles (2003) and Steelers (2003) had the DD Grassmaster surface way before Packers (2007), but a minor correction :)
I was at Lambeau Field for an event in October. It was a Tuesday evening, and in the center of the field, between the 35 yard markers, had a strange looking apparatus, sort of like an irrigation system that you see in farm fields, with huge lights shining onto the field. I asked a maintenance worker what it was all about, and he said that they were testing different grass seeds to see which grew fastest and strongest in the eventuality of an 18 game season and the need to keep the field in playing shape for two additional games. He may have been full of crap, but they obviously were testing something.
-
I was at Lambeau Field for an event in October. It was a Tuesday evening, and in the center of the field, between the 35 yard markers, had a strange looking apparatus, sort of like an irrigation system that you see in farm fields, with huge lights shining onto the field. I asked a maintenance worker what it was all about, and he said that they were testing different grass seeds to see which grew fastest and strongest in the eventuality of an 18 game season and the need to keep the field in playing shape for two additional games. He may have been full of crap, but they obviously were testing something.
I don't think that contradicts anything. The "system" is mostly a synthetic fibers buried int the sandy surface, and you still plant grass or lay sod on top of it. The roots of the grass eventually intertwine with the fibers, making the grass tougher to up-root.
But really, I was only correcting the statement that the packers with the first team in the US to use this system.
-
I don't think that contradicts anything. The "system" is mostly a synthetic fibers buried int the sandy surface, and you still plant grass or lay sod on top of it. The roots of the grass eventually intertwine with the fibers, making the grass tougher to up-root.
But really, I was only correcting the statement that the packers with the first team in the US to use this system.
I wasn't trying to contradict you. I just thought what I observed was interesting. As the sun set, and it got dark, it looked like some weird science fiction movie experiment. I tried to capture it on my cellphone, but it didn't turn out very well. As to who used it first, I will defer to your knowledge.
-
Football is meant to be played on grass and mud. synthetic stuff doesn't stick on your helmet.
+1
Astroturf is un-American! Just ask Crash Davis!