DakotaT;199372Isn't winning and losing in the NFL 95% determined by the amount of talent a team has, and how well they are coached?
Since the Packers have the most talent and one of the top coaching staffs - shouldn't we be winning every game?
In fact, a loss should be almost unacceptable.
I say almost because we do play the Bears twice a year, who definitley make up the other 5%.

Nobody, and I mean nobody phones in games like the shmucks in the NBA.

I'm not sure if talent and coaching is 95% because the Eagles have a lot of talent and good coaching (minus the defensive coordinator in my opinion) and they can't win much. I believe having a good plan of attack, ability to adapt properly and solid execution trumps both talent and coaching.

Zero2Cool;199373I'm not sure if talent and coaching is 95% because the Eagles have a lot of talent and good coaching (minus the defensive coordinator in my opinion) and they can't win much. I believe having a good plan of attack, ability to adapt properly and solid execution trumps both talent and coaching.

Not to nitpick, but a good plan of attack and ability to adapt properly are two aspects of coaching.
[mm] has both.
I don't know how many times I gave props to [mm] for making the necessary half-time adjustments.

A good plan of attack is something Belichick always had.

Zero2Cool;199373I'm not sure if talent and coaching is 95% because the Eagles have a lot of talent and good coaching (minus the defensive coordinator in my opinion) and they can't win much. I believe having a good plan of attack, ability to adapt properly and solid execution trumps both talent and coaching.

A couple things that get overlooked with the Eagles struggles and the Packers success is Continuity and Chemistry.

The WRs of the Packers have been together for quite a while. Cobb is the only new one and the rest have been here for years.

Continuity includes the depth, because when the Packers lose a guy, they have guys who are coached up and ready to step right in.

The Eagles threw a bunch of talented individuals together and expected chemistry to develop. Sorry, don't happen that way.

On D, it takes repetition to get the point where you know on an instinctual level how the guy next to you is going to react to any given situation. It takes communication on a subliminal level. When you have guys that are both learning a system and the guys they are playing with, they won't play well together.

The Packers succeed because they have continuity and chemistry. The Eagles fail because of its lack.

Giants are a team with a low morale. If a team jumps on them early, its all down hill for them and that could be contributed to bad coaching, bad leadership, and bad team chemistry. Packers offense is going to dominate the Giants defense...period. They just do not have an answer for the weapons this Packers offense has.

Giants offense will score on the Packers, but not near as much as the Packers will score on the Giants.

Packers get two key turnovers on defense when Eli tries to do too much.
Rodgers throws for 4 touchdowns, maybe 5 if he feels like it.

Packers- 42
Giants- 28

Nonstopdrivel;199354I don't know when you were checking, but there are usually members in the chat room two hours before the game and often most of the day after the game.

So is there usually a feed now? I know this was my favorite thing about PH the live feed and chat ...

Why don't you take a gander at the navbar on top of the page and see for yourself?

zombieslayer;199380Not to nitpick, but a good plan of attack and ability to adapt properly are two aspects of coaching.
[mm] has both.
I don't know how many times I gave props to [mm] for making the necessary half-time adjustments.

A good plan of attack is something Belichick always had.

That is true, the coaches procure the plan of attack and adapting. I was more so talking about the players on the field doing both of them though.

A player has to have a plan to attack the player across from him, that's what I was referring to.
A player has to be able to adapt if he's expecting a post route and it's a curl instead.

However, those could fall easily into coaching and/or talent.

Ugh, Mike McCarthy reduces practices times to save on 'wear and tear'. Great, now the Packers are going to sloppy and undisciplined and we'll see a lot more yellow booger rags on the field.

Vince LombardiPractice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

Even with Hawk, Bishop, and Sitton out...I still have faith in this Packers team and the back-ups to get the job done.

Just makes the game a little more interesting.

If the Giants aren't able to exploit our 3rd and 4th MLB's than they have some serious issues.
I think Bradshaw is coming back this week.
Either way, I foresee a pretty rough game defensively.
Smith looks like a potential future starter, but definitely not sold on Francois.
I would feel much more confident if Hawk or Bishop was able to start.
I think Smith could do a more than adequate job filling in for the other.

I imagine this will be another game that will largely need to be won by our offense and maybe a key turnover or two on defense.
Outside of that, the Giants should move the ball fairly easily.
I expect several defensive "miscommunications" if Smith is calling plays, simply due to his lack of experience.


I could see a loss here, or I could also see a win.
I'm not sure.
I think if we could somehow get a couple of scores up on them early, we will win.
It should be interesting, for sure.