MUScoop

MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: nomorebuycks on January 08, 2011, 07:05:57 PM

Title: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: nomorebuycks on January 08, 2011, 07:05:57 PM
Nah, you don't want a running back that can break tackles and make one of the greatest TD runs in NFL playoff history.  Thanks for nothing, Ted Thompson.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: reinko on January 08, 2011, 07:15:28 PM
You must hate life.  Subjecting all of us to your rants, whines, crys, and whimpers.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: wadesworld on January 08, 2011, 07:33:59 PM
Quote from: nomorebuycks on January 08, 2011, 07:05:57 PM
Nah, you don't want a running back that can break tackles and make one of the greatest TD runs in NFL playoff history.  Thanks for nothing, Ted Thompson.

Hilarious.  Congratulations, it was a great run no doubt about that.  But almost every starting running back has one of those in his career.  His was on a bigger stage than most get on theirs.

Thanks for nothing?  So when you have 9 opening day roster starters placed on the IR list and you STILL manage to go 10-6 and make the playoffs I suppose your roster must be paper thin and just awful, right?  The man picks people up out of nowhere that nobody has ever heard of and they go and have 11 tackle, 2 sack games in the biggest games of the year.  I guess that's nothing to be thankful for...man if we could just have Al Davis or Jerry Jones!
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: GOMU1104 on January 08, 2011, 08:03:53 PM
Lynch has been horribly unproductive this year. One good run doesn't change that.

If you cant see how good of a job TT did with this roster, you dont understand football.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: nomorebuycks on January 08, 2011, 08:04:11 PM
Quote from: wadesworld on January 08, 2011, 07:33:59 PM
Hilarious.  Congratulations, it was a great run no doubt about that.  But almost every starting running back has one of those in his career.  His was on a bigger stage than most get on theirs.

Thanks for nothing?  So when you have 9 opening day roster starters placed on the IR list and you STILL manage to go 10-6 and make the playoffs I suppose your roster must be paper thin and just awful, right?  The man picks people up out of nowhere that nobody has ever heard of and they go and have 11 tackle, 2 sack games in the biggest games of the year.  I guess that's nothing to be thankful for...man if we could just have Al Davis or Jerry Jones!

I'll be interested to see what you have to say tomorrow when Jackson averages 1yd per carry and repeatedly falls down when someone breathes too hard on him.

BTW, GB will lose due to the horrendous running game (no surprise), the inability to stop Vick (who has owned the Pack during his career), and McCarthy's idiotic comments this week about how great GB is and how they will play anyone, anywhere.  Saying that when you have a home game is stupid.  Saying it when you are going into a hornet's nest in Philly is suicidal.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: reinko on January 08, 2011, 08:09:29 PM
I will gladly take your money Mr. Buycks.  PM me.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: nomorebuycks on January 08, 2011, 08:11:27 PM
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 08, 2011, 08:03:53 PM
Lynch has been horribly unproductive this year. One good run doesn't change that.

If you cant see how good of a job TT did with this roster, you dont understand football.

Feel free to worship at the feet of TT and to celebrate another first round playoff disappointment.  Lynch showed more ability on that TD run than all the GB running backs combined.  Seattle probably goes on to lose the game without that huge play from Lynch.  That run alone made the trade worthwhile for the Seahawks.

Let's see how far the Brandon Jackson's of the world (or any of the other RB duds) take the Pack.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: GOMU1104 on January 08, 2011, 08:16:10 PM
Funny thing...Brandon Jackson was better than Lynch in pretty much every statistical category this year.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: GOMU1104 on January 08, 2011, 08:17:57 PM
Quote from: nomorebuycks on January 08, 2011, 08:11:27 PM
Feel free to worship at the feet of TT and to celebrate another first round playoff disappointment.  Lynch showed more ability on that TD run than all the GB running backs combined.  Seattle probably goes on to lose the game without that huge play from Lynch.  That run alone made the trade worthwhile for the Seahawks.

Let's see how far the Brandon Jackson's of the world (or any of the other RB duds) take the Pack.


You dont understand football.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: nomorebuycks on January 08, 2011, 08:18:43 PM
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 08, 2011, 08:16:10 PM
Funny thing...Brandon Jackson was better than Lynch in pretty much every statistical category this year.

Well, then enjoy his 1yd slogs tomorrow.  I doubt he'll break a single tackle all day much less 5 or so on one TD run like Lynch.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: nomorebuycks on January 08, 2011, 08:19:56 PM
Quote from: reinko on January 08, 2011, 08:09:29 PM
I will gladly take your money Mr. Buycks.  PM me.

PM sent.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: Hards Alumni on January 08, 2011, 08:59:30 PM
I seem to remember the Packers going into Philly earlier this year and winning.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: GGGG on January 08, 2011, 09:08:34 PM
Quote from: nomorebuycks on January 08, 2011, 07:05:57 PM
Nah, you don't want a running back that can break tackles and make one of the greatest TD runs in NFL playoff history.  Thanks for nothing, Ted Thompson.

Do you honestly think that if the Packers had Lynch this year, that they would be any better off?  Especially considering they would have had to trade AJ Hawk to get him?  (AJ had a pretty good second half...)
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: nomorebuycks on January 08, 2011, 10:23:40 PM
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 08, 2011, 08:59:30 PM
I seem to remember the Packers going into Philly earlier this year and winning.


I seem to remember Vick destroying the Packers when he came into the game.  He starts and the Packers lose.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: nomorebuycks on January 08, 2011, 10:32:14 PM
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 08, 2011, 09:08:34 PM
Do you honestly think that if the Packers had Lynch this year, that they would be any better off?  Especially considering they would have had to trade AJ Hawk to get him?  (AJ had a pretty good second half...)

Yes, and especially come playoff time when the running game is extra important.  Tomlinson made a difference for the Jets tonight, as well.  GB doesn't have a single running back good enough to excel in the playoffs, imo.  That inability to run the football will come back to bite them.

And AJ Hawk is just another guy.  You can count on one hand (and have fingers left over) the amount of big plays he's made in his career with GB.

ESPN discussing what a great trade it was for Seattle to get Lynch.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: MU B2002 on January 08, 2011, 10:51:20 PM
The Vick they will see tomorrow is not the same guy they saw week one.  He has been beat to shreds this season, and it is showing. That being said, man does he have a cannon.  Semingly effortless 50 yard throws, still amazing to watch.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: IAmMarquette on January 08, 2011, 10:57:55 PM
Quote from: nomorebuycks on January 08, 2011, 10:23:40 PM
I seem to remember Vick destroying the Packers when he came into the game.  He starts and the Packers lose.

I seem to remember the Packers game-planning for Kevin Kolb, too. Give Capers a week to prepare. I'm not worried.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: Moonboots on January 09, 2011, 01:32:18 AM
Quote from: GOMU1104 on January 08, 2011, 08:17:57 PM

You dont understand football.

Truth.

Feel however you want about McCarthy, but he, maybe more than anyone else, has the right to say the Packers will play "anywhere, with anyone."

I did some research for a blog this past week, and found that the 2010 Packers are the only team since the merger in 1970 to have not been down by more than 7 at ANY point during the season.  A handful of teams did it before that. But it's been that long. Obviously, only 10 of those 16 are wins, but given the in-season roster turnover that's an accomplishment in itself.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: g0lden3agle on January 09, 2011, 03:10:53 PM
Quote from: nomorebuycks on January 08, 2011, 10:32:14 PM
Yes, and especially come playoff time when the running game is extra important.  Tomlinson made a difference for the Jets tonight, as well.  GB doesn't have a single running back good enough to excel in the playoffs, imo.  That inability to run the football will come back to bite them.

And AJ Hawk is just another guy.  You can count on one hand (and have fingers left over) the amount of big plays he's made in his career with GB.

ESPN discussing what a great trade it was for Seattle to get Lynch.

To say that because AJ hasn't made that many big plays in his career as a Packer he is expendable is pretty short sighted.  Buzz was recently quoted on Wes Matthews saying that while Wes was not always the best player out on the court, he never gave you a reason to take him off the court.  I'd rather have a team of entirely guys that simply do what they do day in day out over having a bunch of guys that make one ESPN top 10 play for every handful of missed plays
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: 4everwarriors on January 09, 2011, 04:12:59 PM
Hank Aaron looks pretty good running today.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: chren21 on January 09, 2011, 04:17:49 PM
LotsmoreStarks
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: Ari Gold on January 09, 2011, 05:42:50 PM
If no more buycks is wrong -as he is so far. Jackson doesnt have a lot of yards, but a great TD grab, can NoMoreBuycks be banned? I mean he is fucking retarded.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: Markusquette on January 09, 2011, 06:43:54 PM
Now I can safely say how dumb nomorebuycks is.  Starks was huge.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: GOMU1104 on January 09, 2011, 06:46:17 PM
nomorenomorebuycks
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: Jam Chowder on January 09, 2011, 11:24:47 PM
Quote from: nomorebuycks on January 08, 2011, 10:32:14 PM
Yes, and especially come playoff time when the running game is extra important.  Tomlinson made a difference for the Jets tonight, as well.  GB doesn't have a single running back good enough to excel in the playoffs

You're right. 20+ carries for 123 yards sucks.

EDIT: Don't forget he set a rookie post-season record tonight as well

Thompson stole Starks in the 7th round. Before an injury is senior year, he was a projected 1st rounder. Right now, it looks like he found the back of the future (or at least a solid contributor besides Grant) for next to nothing and didn't have to trade anything away in the process. Sounds like exactly what you'd expect a savvy GM to do.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: Ari Gold on January 10, 2011, 12:07:43 AM
Quote from: BirkieWarrior on January 09, 2011, 11:24:47 PM
You're right. 20+ carries for 123 yards sucks.

EDIT: Don't forget he set a rookie post-season record tonight as well

Thompson stole Starks in the 7th round. Before an injury is senior year, he was a projected 1st rounder. Right now, it looks like he found the back of the future (or at least a solid contributor besides Grant) for next to nothing and didn't have to trade anything away in the process. Sounds like exactly what you'd expect a savvy GM to do.

So MuScoop is now "nomorebuycks" free?
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: Markusquette on January 10, 2011, 02:00:35 AM
Quote from: Ari Gold on January 10, 2011, 12:07:43 AM
So MuScoop is now "nomorebuycks" free?

I think that's too good to be true.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: reinko on January 10, 2011, 07:53:32 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueR1TFFEt3g&feature=player_embedded

Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: Mayor McCheese on January 10, 2011, 08:06:35 AM
I'll leave this here for everyone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npouEg5Xxnw&t=1m0s

so much for those 1 yard runs.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: ATWizJr on January 10, 2011, 08:36:20 AM
Quote from: Mayor McCheese on January 10, 2011, 08:06:35 AM
I'll leave this here for everyone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npouEg5Xxnw&t=1m0s

so much for those 1 yard runs.
[/quote   

Starks.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: DJO's Pump Fake on January 10, 2011, 09:13:32 AM
hahahahaha nomorebuycks
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: Benny B on January 10, 2011, 10:35:07 AM
I'm reading this thread for the first time Monday morning, and I must say, there would appear to be lesser idiots in Philadelphia right now.

This is why you never put your credibility on the line for something over which you have no control.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: MUshrooms on January 11, 2011, 04:08:25 PM
Haha!! This thread is awesome.  I was curious when the last time Nomorebuycks posted (after Buycks went off last night) and found this gem.  I think I found the biggest idiot on this board, and that is saying A LOT.
Title: Re: Good thing the Packers didn't need Lynch!
Post by: Mayor McCheese on January 12, 2011, 08:00:41 PM
Quote from: ATWizJr on January 10, 2011, 08:36:20 AM
Quote from: Mayor McCheese on January 10, 2011, 08:06:35 AM
I'll leave this here for everyone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npouEg5Xxnw&t=1m0s

so much for those 1 yard runs.
[/quote   

Starks.

That isn't James Starks... that is Brandon Jackson... listen to Joe Buck, and look at the number
EhPortal 1.39.9 © 2025, WebDev