Packer Fans Are Out Of Control

Packer fans should be confident. But they seem to be getting out of control...again.

From Greg Bedard's Twitter feed last night:

On the road? Done RT @BlaqShady: no response on my cheeseburger bet? I'll take the pack vs the eagles and give you 13 1/2 points....

OK, for those of you who don't speak Twitter, let me break this down for you.

Someone who has chosen to call themselves "BlaqShady" on Twitter has bet Greg that the Packers will not only win their opening game against the Eagles, but that they will do so by at least two touchdowns.

Please, Packer fans, stop the insanity.

Yes, the Packers' offense has looked unstoppable this preseason. When was the last time we saw that? Oh, that's right. Last preseason.

We all know what happened there.

Now, I hear your protestations, that Mark Tauscher won't be doing an Allen Barbre impression, that the defense has been playing vanilla and won't possibly look as bad as it has so far through three preseason games and yadda, yadda, yadda.

To quote my good friend Corey Behnke:

Until the Offensive line shows they can sustain blocks for the running game and prevent sacks against playoff caliber teams in games that actually mean something there is a big question about whether the Packer’s have truly plugged a weakness that has been nagging them for the last 3 years.

Last I checked, this same offensive line gave up five sacks the last time it was on the field in a game that mattered, against a "playoff caliber team". And lets not even talk about what the defense was doing in that game.

Will the opener against the Eagles be a good game? You bet. Will the Packers win? They should.

But let's slow down with the whole "The Packers are going to clobber the Eagles in a town where they haven't won since 1962" stuff right now, shall we?

 

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.

__________________________

0 points
 

Comments (70)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Dale Zawada's picture

August 30, 2010 at 01:58 am

"We all know what happened there."

We had one of the best offenses in the league?

Beating the Eagles by 14 or more...yeah I'd make that bet too(as long as no injury things happen in game 4). The team is good.

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

August 30, 2010 at 02:02 am

"We had one of the best offenses in the league?" You're right. Rolling over the Browns, the Rams and the Lions (twice!) sure was impressive...

0 points
0
0
Dale Zawada's picture

August 30, 2010 at 02:16 am

Yeah, it's their fault the schedule came out that way and they did good against those teams. How dare they? The team is good. Improved over last year roster-wise PLUS experience(growing athletes and familiarity with scheme) so...yeah, GB fans gonna be a little crazy until that first loss, which will be next year's first preseason game. Booyah!

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

August 30, 2010 at 09:30 am

Lol. Look, you know I agree that this is a good team. But giving anyone 14 points against Philly in Philly is insane. Remember how the Pack rolled on offense last preseason and then struggled against the Bears in the opener? Not saying we'll see a repeat of that, but everything changes once the regular season starts. Everything.

0 points
0
0
ynwa's picture

August 30, 2010 at 11:53 am

The offense was dogshit for the first half of last season......especially opening night.

0 points
0
0
happyc's picture

August 30, 2010 at 04:10 pm

Actually the packers offense moved the ball quite well against the vikings, 49ers, steelers, ravens, and cardinals. All very respectable defenses.

The packers offense did well against some very good defenses. Had Tausch and Clifton not been out the first half of the season, things may have started out much better.

0 points
0
0
Mr_Fastbucks's picture

August 30, 2010 at 02:11 am

Because I read this blog, I am not out of control.

0 points
0
0
David's picture

August 30, 2010 at 02:16 am

Nagler = the voice of reason.

0 points
0
0
Arrigo's picture

August 30, 2010 at 03:16 am

I think the Packers have one of the most explosive offenses in the NFL. But as good as it has been in the Pre-Season, it is just that, the PRE-Season. If the OL holds up in the regular season and a major injury doesn't happen, they should put up major points. But the other teams will be better because their #1's will be on the field 90% of the time.

0 points
0
0
Baboons's picture

August 30, 2010 at 04:48 am

The early spread is Packers -2.5. Offering two touchdowns is madness.

0 points
0
0
Jayme's picture

August 30, 2010 at 10:28 am

Bill Simmons has a gambling expert on his podcast every now and then and one thing they talk about is the lines vs actuality. One thing they pointed out is that the line is always moved a point or three in favor of teams that have a strong fan base around the country or teams that are thought to be stronger than they actually are. These teams include the Packers, Cowboys, Patriots, Notre Dame, and several others.

That means that when the Packers are favored by 2.5, they are probably relatively even with or only slightly better than their opponents in the eyes of the oddsmakers.

Obviously the Packers could win by 14. This is the NFL and two touchdowns often come way easier than they should. But to give them that against a very good team is unreasonable.

0 points
0
0
Max (ukpackersfan)'s picture

August 30, 2010 at 04:58 am

For those letting the pre-season get to their heads, here's a different take: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/101774153.html

0 points
0
0
NickGBP's picture

August 30, 2010 at 08:13 am

I can see 9-7. My prediction is 10-6. And this is a better team than last year.

0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

August 30, 2010 at 11:13 am

"a. Well, first, let's not suggest that the Packers were some awful team that just bounced into the playoffs on sheer luck... Now, it's hard for a team to win a Super Bowl WITHOUT luck, both anecdotal (the Saints having suddenly-elite corner Jabari Greer fall in their lap last year in free agency after Ronald Bartell turned them down to stay with the Rams) and statistical... It's not that the Packers won't have any luck in 2010; it's just that, well, we can't predict what they'll be lucky in.... On the other hand, there are positive aspects of luck that should also come into play for Green Bay. "
-----
You can't make this up. So, in essence, FO, a "statitical analysis" site, base their predictions on luck.

Well, FO, stick to analysing past games, and leave the prediction to people that watch football, and not numbers... (this coming from a guy that loves statistics and numbers).

0 points
0
0
Flikery's picture

August 30, 2010 at 01:21 pm

I think FO is translating for a more layperson audience. Football is a very high variance game due to the high injury rate and the small sample size (short season). I assume they are translating "high variance" to "luck" as that is what a larger swath of the population will understand. It is hard to argue that there is not a high variance to football outcomes.

0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

August 30, 2010 at 02:57 pm

Okay, but a FOUR GAME VARIATION based on that????

0 points
0
0
Max (ukpackersfan)'s picture

August 30, 2010 at 02:02 pm

To be honest 9-7 is not unreasonable, I'm predicting 10-6. I believe there was more to their analysis than just saying 'if they're lucky'.

0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

August 30, 2010 at 02:58 pm

Completely unreasonable, when you consider that only the Falcons have a better prediction in the NFC, and that is mathematically impossible, for every NFC team to have at least 7 losses.

0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

August 30, 2010 at 01:50 pm

FO predicted 7 wins for the Packers last year and 8 for the Saints. I think that's all you have to say about their numbers.

0 points
0
0
Wiscokid's picture

August 30, 2010 at 08:00 pm

Well said.

0 points
0
0
Chris's picture

August 30, 2010 at 05:40 am

Agreed Aaron. We Packer fans should remember last season. We looked unstoppable then. Luckily we play against the Eagles early, cause Kolb and his offense will still be getting used to each other. So I still like the Packers chances to win this. 1 point more is enough for me.

0 points
0
0
Anita's picture

August 30, 2010 at 06:37 am

I prefer to downplay the "Super Bowl or Die" mentality, but 9-7 is ridiculous, unless Matt Flynn suddenly became our starting QB. Do you know something we don't?

0 points
0
0
Jersey Al's picture

August 30, 2010 at 07:41 am

Are you now a card-carrying member of the "everybody just pipe down" contingent?

0 points
0
0
Andyman's picture

August 30, 2010 at 07:54 am

Is that the same as the "Get off my lawn!" contingent?

0 points
0
0
Adam Czech's picture

August 30, 2010 at 07:42 am

This is why sports books stay in business.

0 points
0
0
Ct Sharpe Cheddar's picture

August 30, 2010 at 07:43 am

I'm pretty sure the Packers hav'nt
won a game in the state of Pennsylvania since the 60's.Hope this will come to an end.Something funny always happens in Philly.They need too start fast because the schedule is favorable in the first few games.

0 points
0
0
Tony Wilson's picture

August 30, 2010 at 07:46 am

Do others actually think the Packers will win by 14? Or is this some dick that spurred this post?

0 points
0
0
Bogmon's picture

August 30, 2010 at 07:56 am

Packers are goin' 19-0 to the SUPERBOWL...
It's already been decided...logic and reason don't have to exist until the real season starts.

0 points
0
0
Brett Cristino's picture

August 30, 2010 at 08:22 am

I'm actually pretty nervous for this game, mainly bc the Eagles r such an unknown right now. The Eagles always play us tough, so I expect a close game. Either way, I think its a great test for our guys Week 1 in a hostile environment, against a tough Eagles team.

0 points
0
0
Anita's picture

August 30, 2010 at 08:33 am

There ARE things that the Croc-footed-douche did not accomplish in all his years in Green Bay, and winning at Philly is one of them.

After Aaron Rodgers gets the Philly monkey off the Packers backs, I hope he shows up and does the belt celebration on your freshly manicured lawns.

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

August 30, 2010 at 09:32 am

"Croc-footed-douche" - Priceless.

0 points
0
0
Tony Wilson's picture

August 30, 2010 at 09:51 am

I second that. Could make for a funny t-shirt.

0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

August 30, 2010 at 03:49 pm

Really? I rememeber some stat that showed he had won in every NFL stadium...

0 points
0
0
Mel's picture

August 30, 2010 at 09:31 am

Are we forgetting that Kolb is the starter not McNabb?? We remember how arod struggled his first year and I think rod is twice the qb Kolb!!!

0 points
0
0
alfredomartinez's picture

August 30, 2010 at 09:39 am

TWICE! TWICE! sacriligious...kolb = unknonw, AROD...well you know damn well know how golden this sumbtich is...

0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

August 30, 2010 at 03:57 pm

Well, to tell the truth, Rodgers didn't struggle, unless you consider 4000 yards, 28 Tds, 12 Ints, good for a 93.8 QB rating (better than Favre's 97' MVP year, with 92.6) struggling. And unless you completely disregard 32 other players on the team (ST included), plus coaching staff, when counting wins and lossess.

But, was he elite? Was he as good as he is now? Was he a "dominant" QB? No.

Are the Eagles better off with Kolb and without McNabb? From the little I've seen, it seems not, but I don't think anyone can say for sure one way or another...

0 points
0
0
Jayme Snowden's picture

August 30, 2010 at 09:41 am

I am too out of control to read this! Packers will win every game by 30 points, and anyone who disagrees sucks!

0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

August 30, 2010 at 09:51 am

It's opening weekend, so it will be crazy. Week 1 in the NFL is a nightmare for bookies AND gamblers, because nobody knows. That said, 14 points in today's NFL is too much to give ANYONE. I wouldn't make that bet if they were playing the LIONS.

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

August 30, 2010 at 10:13 am

"Week 1 in the NFL is a nightmare for bookies AND gamblers, because nobody knows." Bingo.

0 points
0
0
WoodyG's picture

August 30, 2010 at 09:53 am

The fact that GB hasn't won in Philly since 1962 means absolutely nothing in game 1 - 2010 ........ It's ludicrous to make that any part of the equation ........

I'm picking GB to win game 1 ....... 38-17 .......... So I guess I'd take the bet .......

0 points
0
0
bigfog's picture

August 30, 2010 at 10:11 am

Worried about the damage that Philly's receivers will do to the secondary. Woodson's good for one guy, but Tramon Williams on Maclin/Jackson/etc?

I have my doubts.

0 points
0
0
bomdad's picture

August 30, 2010 at 10:12 am

The odds are long, but still better than a lotto ticket.

0 points
0
0
Asshalo's picture

August 30, 2010 at 10:20 am

On the Tweet: Meh.

On the Eagles: Couldn't agree more with this: "Will the Packers win? They should." Eagles have a lot of weapons on offense and do they ever have a bad defense? Would anyone really be that surprised if Kevin Kolb tore apart that secondary?

I actually think Kolb has multiple picks in the opener, but that's not the point. Packers haven't arrived yet.

0 points
0
0
thepretzelhead's picture

August 30, 2010 at 12:05 pm

You are so right. The Packers will not beat the Eagles by two touchdowns.. 38-10 Pack

0 points
0
0
jerseypackfan's picture

August 30, 2010 at 03:00 pm

Whatever the outcome, I expect a ton of points on the board at the end of the game. Hopefully in favor of us.

0 points
0
0
Cuphound's picture

August 30, 2010 at 03:25 pm

Whenever you feel that preseason euphoria is getting ahead of you, just imagine Coach McCarthy talking about the need to return to fundamentals at a press conference.

It's a great way to kill an erection, too.

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

August 30, 2010 at 03:56 pm

LOL

0 points
0
0
Chris's picture

August 30, 2010 at 04:38 pm

Cuphound just made my day with this comment. Thanks, man!

0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

August 30, 2010 at 05:21 pm

LOL wrong thread...

0 points
0
0
ACDC84's picture

August 30, 2010 at 06:12 pm

Hilarious. I wagered on NFL games pretty heavily last year (through legal means of course, wink wink), and did pretty well. I don't think the Saints were even giving Tampa Bay 13.5 points later in the year.

Would I be shocked if the Pack wins by 14? No. But I wouldn't bet on the game if Philly was getting more than 3 points, sans a comparably large payout. Gambling is all about being smart and finding value. I'd love to get in contact with this sucker ERRRRR fellow and make some wagers this year.

I count on the Packers (as well as the other 31 teams) to make me some good legal(?) money again this year, but if you wager with emotion you're a sucker, and it will cost you sooner or later.

0 points
0
0
ACDC84's picture

August 30, 2010 at 06:21 pm

I was largely unimpressed with the FO article. I can't picture a scenario where the Packers win less than ten games, barring a major injury to Rodgers, or injuries to multiple other playmakers. Heck, I am confident that Flynn could lead us to wins over lesser teams and at least keep us in games versus better opponents.

One of the wagering sites I use has the Packers wins at 9 1/2. Now the over payout isn't pretty at about -150 (which is 2 to 3) but I'm pretty confident we'll get to 11, much less 10.

0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

August 31, 2010 at 06:49 am

There is no such thing as LUCK.This is a word used by those who refuse to accept what they see because it didn't happen for them but against them,which covers all depending on what side your on at the time.

Luck if you will is acheived by those who put themselves in position to make things happen and have the ability to cash in on those events.

Luck is not a real thing but a fictious feeling that comes to life when some refuse to believe what they see.

So anytime I read an article which includes the phenomenom of LUCK into it's analysts I cannot stop reading it fast enough.LUCK...a no truer reason why there are so many losers in Las Vegas and come to Vegas every year,they believe in LUCK instead of understanding what they are seeing in front of them.

LUCK isn't in the air that you can grab,it's what you make something do thats already in the air by being there.

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

August 31, 2010 at 08:19 am

"There is no such thing as LUCK" Ok Obi-Wan.

0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

August 31, 2010 at 09:58 am

Yes Nagler"The force can have a big impact on the weak minded"especially those who believe in LUCK as yourself.
As I have stated to Packsmack,football is a force against a force which CREATES effect and outcome.Luck as you have it ,is walking down the street and and stepping on a bag of money.Nothing in football is LUCK.

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

August 31, 2010 at 10:18 am

"those who believe in LUCK as yourself." Where did I say that?

0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

August 31, 2010 at 10:25 am

That's me making a quote toward you in respone to you quoting me YODA.You do believe in Luck in football right?

0 points
0
0
PackerAaron's picture

August 31, 2010 at 11:00 am

How about this: Lombardi and the Packers were lucky to make the 1967 playoffs, lucky to win three straight titles, lucky to play in the famous “Ice Bowl” that sent them to Super Bowl II, and lucky to have the name of the coach etched on the trophy handed to the NFL champion at the end of each season.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_484_Lady_Luck_and_the_L...

0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

August 31, 2010 at 11:16 am

Restructuring how teams make the playoffs and such makes teams LUCKY.So now with the REF having to get behind the deepest player on offense is making bad luck for the Colts.It's not perhaps the inability for them to adapt their play like the others.So when the Colts lose it's due to the other teams LUCK of a RULE CHANGE.GEEZ!!!

0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

August 31, 2010 at 09:03 am

So a person can control where the ball stops on a roulette wheel?

0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

August 31, 2010 at 09:47 am

That would be telekenesis.What happens in FOOTBALL is created by what one does and the ability of another to react.The physical talent of one to succeed in that goal at that moment.
The QB passes and the ball deflected is a result of excertion of ability,the ball landing of the ground or in anothers hands is the excertion of that player to get to the spot or simply not being there at all due to other created happenings.
Playing roulette requires no physical excertion except to sit and put money on something NO ONE PLAYING can alter.Which is why there are so many LOSERS in Vegas.In FOOTBALL the players create and alter the effects and outcome due to physical participation in it.
Football is science...for every action there is a re-action and the outcome is based on the ability of it's players not LUCK.

0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

August 31, 2010 at 09:53 am

Sorry, but Al Harris had his knee shred on him last year, and that was out of his control. Nothing he did or didn't do could have prevented that, it just happened. Thus, luck.

0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

August 31, 2010 at 10:10 am

No,that is being beaten by the LAW of AVERAGES.Which in football hitting and getting hit as often as they do,pain and injury is a very calculated fact not LUCK or no-Luck.When it happens may be construed as un-lucky in the emotional aspect,but not in the sense of why it happened.That is a result of force against force and one was stronger than the other and injury ensued.

0 points
0
0
packsmack25's picture

August 31, 2010 at 09:58 am

Also, take the last play of the season last year. If the refs call the penalty, the Packers likely go on to score and win the game. Because they didn't, the Cards won. That was luck, and not controlled by the players. The refs caused the Packers to be unlucky on that play.

0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

August 31, 2010 at 10:19 am

Again that is the active participants doing or not doing what was physically required.The ref not throwing a flag was the result(good or bad)of his active part in seeing or not seeing what some wanted and some didn't want.
That whole play was from excertion of ability as was the end result.

0 points
0
0
WoodyG's picture

August 31, 2010 at 10:32 am

IMO, we're all "lucky" Tarynfor12 doesn't post very often .....

0 points
0
0
WoodyG's picture

August 31, 2010 at 09:41 am

If a football were round, I might agree to some degree ....... Thus, the 'lucky bounce.'

0 points
0
0
Tarynfor12's picture

August 31, 2010 at 11:22 am

WoodyG,please allow me to bestow some more LUCK upon you by saving you time by not reading my posts.Hence you will have more time to polish your namesake in a slower manner.

0 points
0
0
glorious80s's picture

August 31, 2010 at 03:27 pm

My hope is they're prepared enough not to have to rely on luck.

0 points
0
0
Rob's picture

August 31, 2010 at 07:55 am

On the contrary, I think there's a lot more luck involved in a successful NFL season than most people are comfortable admitting.

FO's apparently conservative prediction is based mostly on our schedule, which is undoubtedly more difficult than last season's. Personally I'm happy enough that if Clifton and Tauscher can stay fit, that'll offset the harder schedule. (They also point out that teams don't often have consecutive seasons with excellent turnover ratios.)

The rest depends on relative unknowns like how well Capers can generate pass rush, how well the LB and DB corps hold up with injuries and whether ST can get it together.

0 points
0
0