We're an eight-point underdog going in

Philip Milhous Duert · Joined: 05 Dec 2007 Posts: 8

What were we last year going to Soldier Field, something like a ten
point underdog? We got thoroughly thrashed in our first meeting
against the Bears, so that point-spread was no surprise. Neither
should this point-spread be a surprise, being that last summer in
pre-season, they gave us an ass-kicking with an exclamation point.

Teams during pre-season generally play a vanilla defense, nothing too
fancy. But the Packers virtually unloaded their entire defensive
playbook at us in a meaningless game. From their point of view, they
shouldn't have done that. Now I'm not the poker expert that Mr. Tad
Perry is, but showing your hand too early by rule of thumb is never
wise. I do believe our offense will be going into this game a lot
better prepared than we were last August.

Looking at the great job done by the defensive line lately (especially
watch Rocky, Howie and Craig - who have done a hell of a job, without
much fanfare), we've got a fighting chance in this one.

-
http://philduert.wordpress.com

Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro>sea-seahawks

trw343 · Joined: 04 Jan 2008 Posts: 33

"Philip Milhous Duert" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> What were we last year going to Soldier Field, something like a ten
> point underdog? We got thoroughly thrashed in our first meeting
> against the Bears, so that point-spread was no surprise. Neither
> should this point-spread be a surprise, being that last summer in
> pre-season, they gave us an ass-kicking with an exclamation point.
>
> Teams during pre-season generally play a vanilla defense, nothing too
> fancy. But the Packers virtually unloaded their entire defensive
> playbook at us in a meaningless game.

hahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Robin in Bremerton · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 30

"Philip Milhous Duert" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> What were we last year going to Soldier Field, something like a ten
> point underdog? We got thoroughly thrashed in our first meeting
> against the Bears, so that point-spread was no surprise. Neither
> should this point-spread be a surprise, being that last summer in
> pre-season, they gave us an ass-kicking with an exclamation point.
>
> Teams during pre-season generally play a vanilla defense, nothing too
> fancy. But the Packers virtually unloaded their entire defensive
> playbook at us in a meaningless game. From their point of view, they
> shouldn't have done that. Now I'm not the poker expert that Mr. Tad
> Perry is, but showing your hand too early by rule of thumb is never
> wise. I do believe our offense will be going into this game a lot
> better prepared than we were last August.
>
> Looking at the great job done by the defensive line lately (especially
> watch Rocky, Howie and Craig - who have done a hell of a job, without
> much fanfare), we've got a fighting chance in this one.

As I have stated elsewhere, I am feeling very optimistic about this.We have
taken our lumps in Green Bay, people are making fun of Hass and his "We want
the ball and we are going to score" comment. But I think he has a good
attitude about it, after all... I think he really does want the ball, and I
think he is gonna score. What is it that Holmgren says? When the game is
on the line, winners want the ball!

I too have been very impressed with the play of our interior defensive
linemen. Our opponents cannot key on any one guy, cause the others will
just step it up and make the play. Bring on the frozen tundra, We want the
ball and we gonna score! Damn I want a Tshirt with that printed on it!

Robin

Tad Perry · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 14

"Robin in Bremerton" wrote in message@comcast.com...
>
> I too have been very impressed with the play of our interior defensive
> linemen.

[I'm goin' old school, man. I snipped and bottom posted and everything!]

I agree. When the media was telling us how they were sorry to say that we
were going to be losing to the Redskins, I was wondering whether they'd even
been watching our defense.

How many times in the last 5 or 6 games have opponents gone for it on 3rd
and 1, 4th and 1, or goal to go on the 1 or 2 yard line and ended out been
totally STUFFED?

Also, I love their conditioning. They still have quite a motor in the 4th
quarter even when they've been left out there for a while.

tvp

Robin in Bremerton · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 30

"Tad Perry" wrote in message @comcast.com...
> "Robin in Bremerton" wrote in message
> @comcast.com...
>>
>> I too have been very impressed with the play of our interior defensive
>> linemen.
>
> [I'm goin' old school, man. I snipped and bottom posted and everything!]
>
> I agree. When the media was telling us how they were sorry to say that we
> were going to be losing to the Redskins, I was wondering whether they'd
> even
> been watching our defense.
>
> How many times in the last 5 or 6 games have opponents gone for it on 3rd
> and 1, 4th and 1, or goal to go on the 1 or 2 yard line and ended out been
> totally STUFFED?
>
> Also, I love their conditioning. They still have quite a motor in the 4th
> quarter even when they've been left out there for a while.

The folks making personnel decisions are a lot better (or a lot luckier)
than in the pasts, no doubt about that. When looking at Kearney, he does
not look like a really big guy, he is lean and mean. I read in an article
that he has to force himself to eat to keep his weight up, I hope we find
more guys like that in the future.

Robin

Squidly · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 47

On Jan 7, 9:10 pm, Philip Milhous Duert
wrote:

> Teams during pre-season generally play a vanilla defense, nothing too
> fancy. But the Packers virtually unloaded their entire defensive
> playbook at us in a meaningless game.

I read nothing into the pre-season. Yeah, they
blitzed more than most do in that game. I expect a
completely different package on Saturday.

An aside, we're proving to be pretty stout
on short yardage this season. If we get into a key
3rd and 1 or 4th and 1, I expect play action.

It's coming.

I hope the Hawks are ready.

BillB

Tim Douglass · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 21

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 06:53:08 -0800, "Robin in Bremerton"
wrote:

>The folks making personnel decisions are a lot better (or a lot luckier)
>than in the pasts, no doubt about that. When looking at Kearney, he does
>not look like a really big guy, he is lean and mean. I read in an article
>that he has to force himself to eat to keep his weight up, I hope we find
>more guys like that in the future.

I *so* wish *I* had that problem!!

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"If football were easy then everybody could do it."
Chuck Knox

Warren Louthan · Joined: 10 Oct 2007 Posts: 16

"Philip Milhous Duert" wrote in message @4ax.com...
> What were we last year going to Soldier Field, something like a ten
> point underdog? We got thoroughly thrashed in our first meeting
> against the Bears, so that point-spread was no surprise. Neither
> should this point-spread be a surprise, being that last summer in
> pre-season, they gave us an ass-kicking with an exclamation point.
>
> Teams during pre-season generally play a vanilla defense, nothing too
> fancy. But the Packers virtually unloaded their entire defensive
> playbook at us in a meaningless game. From their point of view, they
> shouldn't have done that. Now I'm not the poker expert that Mr. Tad
> Perry is, but showing your hand too early by rule of thumb is never
> wise. I do believe our offense will be going into this game a lot
> better prepared than we were last August.
>
> Looking at the great job done by the defensive line lately (especially
> watch Rocky, Howie and Craig - who have done a hell of a job, without
> much fanfare), we've got a fighting chance in this one.
>
> -
> http://philduert.wordpress.com

I wouldn't say it was their entire defensive playbook, just a host of
blitzes which can look pretty impressive in preseason. The only impact it
*might* have on Saturdays game is a bit of revenge for the Hawks, but I
really doubt that. The way I look at it its a pretty evenly matched game,
with and edge going to the Pack because they have been able to run the ball
in the latter half of the season. That edge is slight though. This will be
McCarthy's first playoff game as HC, that could mean nothing, it could mean
a lot. I was pretty certain that the Seahawks were gonna beat the Redskins
but I knew the Redskins would be ready for the game because of the coaching
staff they had. This is an unknown with the Packers. They have a lot of
young players in their first postseason game as well. I dunno how prepared
this team is gonna be for that yet. This Saturday is a tough call as a
result, anything can happen.

Melvin · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 24

On Jan 8, 12:41 pm, "Warren Louthan" wrote:

> I wouldn't say it was their entire defensive playbook, just a host of
> blitzes which can look pretty impressive in preseason. The only impact it
> *might* have on Saturdays game is a bit of revenge for the Hawks, but I
> really doubt that. The way I look at it its a pretty evenly matched game,
> with and edge going to the Pack because they have been able to run the ball
> in the latter half of the season. That edge is slight though. This will be
> McCarthy's first playoff game as HC, that could mean nothing, it could mean
> a lot. I was pretty certain that the Seahawks were gonna beat the Redskins
> but I knew the Redskins would be ready for the game because of the coaching
> staff they had. This is an unknown with the Packers. They have a lot of
> young players in their first postseason game as well. I dunno how prepared
> this team is gonna be for that yet. This Saturday is a tough call as a
> result, anything can happen.

You have to give the Packers the edge, because of their running game
and playing at home, but their probability of winning is no more than
65 percent or so. Of all the road teams this weekend, I think the
Seahawks have the best chance of pulling off an upset, with the Giants
close behind.

Melvin

Squidly · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 47

On Jan 8, 2:29 pm, Melvin wrote:

> You have to give the Packers the edge, because of their
> running game and playing at home,

Rushing? The Packers TRAIL the Hawks
statistically in that department. Not by
much, but there it is. The Packers
are a far worse rushing time than the
Skins were. It's a counterpunch
deal.

In many ways, the teams are a mirror.

> but their probability of winning is no more than
> 65 percent or so.

Honestly Melvin, where do you come up with
this stuff? Are you sure it's not 65.4%?

BillB

Robin in Bremerton · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 30

"Squidly" wrote in message @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 8, 2:29 pm, Melvin wrote:
>
>> You have to give the Packers the edge, because of their
>> running game and playing at home,
>
> Rushing? The Packers TRAIL the Hawks
> statistically in that department. Not by
> much, but there it is. The Packers
> are a far worse rushing time than the
> Skins were. It's a counterpunch
> deal.
>
> In many ways, the teams are a mirror.
>
>> but their probability of winning is no more than
>> 65 percent or so.
>
> Honestly Melvin, where do you come up with
> this stuff? Are you sure it's not 65.4%?

Hmmm, I think it is closer to 64.6%.... :p

Robin

Phil N D'Blan©® · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 41

"Squidly" wrote in message @e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 8, 2:29 pm, Melvin wrote:
>
>> You have to give the Packers the edge, because of their
>> running game and playing at home,
>
> Rushing? The Packers TRAIL the Hawks
> statistically in that department. Not by
> much, but there it is. The Packers
> are a far worse rushing time than the
> Skins were. It's a counterpunch
> deal.
>
> In many ways, the teams are a mirror.
>
>> but their probability of winning is no more than
>> 65 percent or so.
>
> Honestly Melvin, where do you come up with
> this stuff? Are you sure it's not 65.4%?
>
> BillB

Honestly I had them at 64.93% but then I have been busy f**king myself for
weeks now!

**FIRE Ms Roundup**

trw343 · Joined: 04 Jan 2008 Posts: 33

"Robin in Bremerton" wrote in message @comcast.com...
>
> "Philip Milhous Duert" wrote in message
> @4ax.com...
>> What were we last year going to Soldier Field, something like a ten
>> point underdog? We got thoroughly thrashed in our first meeting
>> against the Bears, so that point-spread was no surprise. Neither
>> should this point-spread be a surprise, being that last summer in
>> pre-season, they gave us an ass-kicking with an exclamation point.
>>
>> Teams during pre-season generally play a vanilla defense, nothing too
>> fancy. But the Packers virtually unloaded their entire defensive
>> playbook at us in a meaningless game. From their point of view, they
>> shouldn't have done that. Now I'm not the poker expert that Mr. Tad
>> Perry is, but showing your hand too early by rule of thumb is never
>> wise. I do believe our offense will be going into this game a lot
>> better prepared than we were last August.
>>
>> Looking at the great job done by the defensive line lately (especially
>> watch Rocky, Howie and Craig - who have done a hell of a job, without
>> much fanfare), we've got a fighting chance in this one.
>
> As I have stated elsewhere, I am feeling very optimistic about this.We
> have taken our lumps in Green Bay, people are making fun of Hass and his
> "We want the ball and we are going to score" comment. But I think he has
> a good attitude about it, after all... I think he really does want the
> ball, and I think he is gonna score. What is it that Holmgren says? When
> the game is on the line, winners want the ball!
>
> I too have been very impressed with the play of our interior defensive
> linemen. Our opponents cannot key on any one guy, cause the others will
> just step it up and make the play. Bring on the frozen tundra, We want
> the ball and we gonna score! Damn I want a Tshirt with that printed on
> it!
>
> Robin
>

Packers 42
robin a dork

Robin in Bremerton · Joined: 07 Aug 2007 Posts: 30

"trw343" wrote in message $0$4969$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

snip
>>
>
> Packers 42
> robin a dork

I am not a dork, I am a big swinging schlong.

Robin

What the hell is going on with the point spread? Been thinking about betting the 'Hawks but I've never seen this before. This is flat weird. They opened a 9 point 'dog, then went to +9.5. Then back to +9. Now, overnight, in eight hours they've gone to +7.5 WTF? Did someone get injured on the Packers? Di

Vick (ironically) an "underdog" vs. feds The feds don't go after NFL players often but when they do their prosecution success rate rises vs. the numbers of the general populace. FEDS' HOLD WINNING RECORD AGAINST NFL PLAYERS NFL players and their clashes with the feds: L - Former Falcons WR Tony

Feds 4 vs. NFL Players 1 (Vick ironically "underdog" vs. Fe Some were wondering (aloud) why federal charges left little hope for Vick. The feds don't go after NFL players often but when they do, their prosecution successes against the NFL rise against the numbers of the general population FEDS' HOLD WINNING RECORD

Only 2.5 point dog Considering the hype the Bills got and the domination over a supposedly decent NE team, I am mildly surprised the spread is this low. I was expecting a 10-point+ spread and thought of taking Jags if it were over 10 points. But only 2.5? I don't know. You

Question about point spread Oddsmakers sometimes list "PK" instead of some number for the point spread. I understand the +/- numbers for point spreads, but what does "PK" stand for? Thanks!