Ben Roelisberger will not start against the Packers this Sunday. He's expected to have Knee surgery. I'm not sure how long he'll be out. It did say that Big Ben will not start against the Pack. I can't say that I'm not happy a little. I hate to see guys get hurt. I however can say I rather have the Pack beat the Steelers when their at full strength. Now this doesn't mean GB will win but it certainly gives them a better chance.
i think they might have a chance now, I think they will pound the rock against the Packer. Hey porky, you got any stats on what Pack are like against the run?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wannab Favre)</div><div class='quotemain'>Hey porky, you got any stats on what Pack are like against the run?</div> 5th in the NFC against the run. 706 yards 100.9 yards per game http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFC/DEF-...ar?sort_col_1=7 4th in average. 3.4 yards. http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFC/DEF-..._1=7&_1:col_1=6 T-2nd in allowing rushing TD's. 2 http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFC/DEF-..._1=8&_1:col_2=7 So there pretty good against the run. The defense in general is pretty good this season. Hopefully Favre plays a lot better though.
i dont think theyll beat them anyways. Pitt did good against Jax w/o Big Ben, so they should do good this week.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wannab Favre)</div><div class='quotemain'>Hey porky, you got any stats on what Pack are like against the run?</div> 5th in the NFC against the run. 706 yards 100.9 yards per game http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFC/DEF-...ar?sort_col_1=7 4th in average. 3.4 yards. http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFC/DEF-..._1=7&_1:col_1=6 T-2nd in allowing rushing TD's. 2 http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFC/DEF-..._1=8&_1:col_2=7 So there pretty good against the run. The defense in general is pretty good this season. Hopefully Favre plays a lot better though.</div> No, they're not great against the run because they have not proven that. The reason the stats against the run look good is because they have not faced any teams that have a good RB.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawk)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wannab Favre)</div><div class='quotemain'>Hey porky, you got any stats on what Pack are like against the run?</div> 5th in the NFC against the run. 706 yards 100.9 yards per game http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFC/DEF-...ar?sort_col_1=7 4th in average. 3.4 yards. http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFC/DEF-..._1=7&_1:col_1=6 T-2nd in allowing rushing TD's. 2 http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFC/DEF-..._1=8&_1:col_2=7 So there pretty good against the run. The defense in general is pretty good this season. Hopefully Favre plays a lot better though.</div> No, they're not great against the run because they have not proven that. The reason the stats against the run look good is because they have not faced any teams that have a good RB.</div> Saints= Deuce McAlister Lions = Kevin Jones Vikings = Mewelde Moore Bengals= Rudi Johnson Browns = Reuben Droghns Panthers= Stephen Davis Bucs = Carnell Williams The only RB not to go over 1,000 yards on that list is Moore and Williams. Williams is probably been arguably the best rookie in the NFL at this point. He also set an all time rushing record for first 5 games of a RB's career. McAlister got hurt late into the Packer game. So yes we played him for majority of the game and shut him down. Davis has been playing well. Also: I'm sick of little pricks out there ripping on the Packers when they don't even watch the games. It's not this you and I won't name any others but it's starting to take a tulle on me and I can see PA starting to get frustrated in some of his posts as well. The defense has played well and is good against the Run. Who the F do we have to stop to do so. Fricking Barry Sanders.....
I've always been wondering this... Hey Porky, why do you have a picture of the Bengals in your signature? I thought you were a Packer fan? Is it because they are losing that you might put the Bengals since they have a winning record so far? I'm just wondering, so don't start throwing rocks at me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawk)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'> 5th in the NFC against the run. 706 yards 100.9 yards per game http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFC/DEF-...ar?sort_col_1=7 4th in average. 3.4 yards. http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFC/DEF-..._1=7&_1:col_1=6 T-2nd in allowing rushing TD's. 2 http://www.nfl.com/stats/teamsort/NFC/DEF-..._1=8&_1:col_2=7 So there pretty good against the run. The defense in general is pretty good this season. Hopefully Favre plays a lot better though.</div> No, they're not great against the run because they have not proven that. The reason the stats against the run look good is because they have not faced any teams that have a good RB.</div> Saints= Deuce McAlister Lions = Kevin Jones Vikings = Mewelde Moore Bengals= Rudi Johnson Browns = Reuben Droghns Panthers= Stephen Davis Bucs = Carnell Williams The only RB not to go over 1,000 yards on that list is Moore and Williams. Williams is probably been arguably the best rookie in the NFL at this point. He also set an all time rushing record for first 5 games of a RB's career. McAlister got hurt late into the Packer game. So yes we played him for majority of the game and shut him down. Davis has been playing well. Also: I'm sick of little pricks out there ripping on the Packers when they don't even watch the games. It's not this you and I won't name any others but it's starting to take a tulle on me and I can see PA starting to get frustrated in some of his posts as well. The defense has played well and is good against the Run. Who the F do we have to stop to do so. Fricking Barry Sanders.....</div> Deuce McAlister YEAR TEAM G ATT YDS AVG 2005 NOR 5 93 335 3.6 Kevin Jones YEAR TEAM G ATT YDS AVG 2005 DET 7 122 366 3.0 Mewelde Moore YEAR TEAM G ATT YDS AVG 2005 MIN 7 81 319 3.9 Rudi Johnson YEAR TEAM G ATT YDS AVG 2005 CIN 8 162 681 4.2 Reuben Droughns YEAR TEAM G ATT YDS AVG 2005 CLE 7 125 530 4.2 Stephen Davis YEAR TEAM G ATT YDS AVG 2005 CAR 7 121 358 3.0 Carnell Williams YEAR TEAM G ATT YDS AVG 2005 TAM 5 112 467 4.2 Yes those RB's except Moore and Williams made it to 1000...in their previous years but not this year 5 of 7 have not made it to 500 and it's halfway though the season. Every starting RB makes it to 1000 sometime in their career it's not that uncommon so this year, the RB's that the Packers have faced do suck.
I dont think the packers have enough talent on their roster to win this one. It will be close up untill the 4th qtr when the more depth on steelers backfield is present with parker, bettis, and staley
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MKIV_Supra)</div><div class='quotemain'>I've always been wondering this... Hey Porky, why do you have a picture of the Bengals in your signature? I thought you were a Packer fan? Is it because they are losing that you might put the Bengals since they have a winning record so far? I'm just wondering, so don't start throwing rocks at me.</div> :throws rock: Lets see since we all jump to conclusions. :Cough: DPG(although I could be wrong about you) To put it simple. Packers played at Bengals last week. Packers lost. There are Bengal fans on there. Perhaps some way that there was a bet in which Porky lost. http://www.nfl-forums.com/vt4018/could-it-...or-bengals.html Yeah there it is....... That also explains PA's Bengal cheerleaders.. Does that answer your question and set things clear!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'>Ok question for Hawk. Do you think the Bears have a good run defense?</div> YES! YES YES!!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawk)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'>Ok question for Hawk. Do you think the Bears have a good run defense?</div> YES! YES YES!!! </div> haha took the bait Opponents combined rushing yards that the Packers have played 3345 yards Opponents combined rushing yards that the Bears have played 3202 yards Talk yourself out of that one now. How do the Bears have a good rushing Defense and the Packers don't. When the Packers have played "harder" RB's. Note: I think the Bears have the best defense in football so this is by no means bashing the Bears.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawk)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'>Ok question for Hawk. Do you think the Bears have a good run defense?</div> YES! YES YES!!! </div> haha took the bait Opponents combined rushing yards that the Packers have played 3345 yards Opponents combined rushing yards that the Bears have played 3202 yards Talk yourself out of that one now. How do the Bears have a good rushing Defense and the Packers don't. When the Packers have played "harder" RB's. Note: I think the Bears have the best defense in football so this is by no means bashing the Bears.</div> Okay porkymon the Pack have not played hard RB's I said it once I'm saying it now. The Bears Opponent rushing avg. is .2 lower than the Packers and they've played about the same RB's as the Packers [probobly because they're in the same division]. I just talked my way out of that one. I'M THE MAN!!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawk)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawk)</div><div class='quotemain'> YES! YES YES!!! </div> haha took the bait Opponents combined rushing yards that the Packers have played 3345 yards Opponents combined rushing yards that the Bears have played 3202 yards Talk yourself out of that one now. How do the Bears have a good rushing Defense and the Packers don't. When the Packers have played "harder" RB's. Note: I think the Bears have the best defense in football so this is by no means bashing the Bears.</div> Okay porkymon the Pack have not played hard RB's I said it once I'm saying it now. The Bears Opponent rushing avg. is .2 lower than the Packers and they've played about the same RB's as the Packers [probobly because they're in the same division]. I just talked my way out of that one. I'M THE MAN!!!</div> No you didn't make any points there at all. .2 is not a big diiference. Sorry to say that but it's not. 3.4 to 3.2 isn't much of a difference at all. You say the Packers don't have a good run defense because they've played nobody good. You say the Bears do have a good run defense. Yet the Packers have according to stats have played tougher RB's. So whats the logic behind your madness. Please I'd like to know. I think others as well.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawk)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'> haha took the bait Opponents combined rushing yards that the Packers have played 3345 yards Opponents combined rushing yards that the Bears have played 3202 yards Talk yourself out of that one now. How do the Bears have a good rushing Defense and the Packers don't. When the Packers have played "harder" RB's. Note: I think the Bears have the best defense in football so this is by no means bashing the Bears.</div> Okay porkymon the Pack have not played hard RB's I said it once I'm saying it now. The Bears Opponent rushing avg. is .2 lower than the Packers and they've played about the same RB's as the Packers [probobly because they're in the same division]. I just talked my way out of that one. I'M THE MAN!!!</div> No you didn't make any points there at all. .2 is not a big diiference. Sorry to say that but it's not. 3.4 to 3.2 isn't much of a difference at all. You say the Packers don't have a good run defense because they've played nobody good. You say the Bears do have a good run defense. Yet the Packers have according to stats have played tougher RB's. So whats the logic behind your madness. Please I'd like to know. I think others as well.</div> Okay, the littlest difference counts in stats, elections, awards and everything else you can think of so I do make a point. What I don't make a point because it's "not a big difference".
You're right, Porky. I am getting sick of people taking shots at the Packers when they're not even watching the games. You can argue with Hawk here until you're blue in the face, but you won't win. You can manipulate statistics any way you want to make a point. It goes both ways. P,S, 0.2 yards is 7.2 inches.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawk)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (porky88)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hawk)</div><div class='quotemain'> Okay porkymon the Pack have not played hard RB's I said it once I'm saying it now. The Bears Opponent rushing avg. is .2 lower than the Packers and they've played about the same RB's as the Packers [probobly because they're in the same division]. I just talked my way out of that one. I'M THE MAN!!!</div> No you didn't make any points there at all. .2 is not a big diiference. Sorry to say that but it's not. 3.4 to 3.2 isn't much of a difference at all. You say the Packers don't have a good run defense because they've played nobody good. You say the Bears do have a good run defense. Yet the Packers have according to stats have played tougher RB's. So whats the logic behind your madness. Please I'd like to know. I think others as well.</div> Okay, the littlest difference counts in stats, elections, awards and everything else you can think of so I do make a point. What I don't make a point because it's "not a big difference".</div> I'm still not getting this. You said that the Packers have a bad run defense becaue they've played "nobody" You said the Bears have a good defense. Yet the Packers opponents combined rushing yards from their starting RB's is higher than the Bears. So whats the logic?
Bettis will most likely be out of this game as well, he seems to have injured a quad and is day to day I guess. It seems Maddox has been demoted and Charlie Batch is getting the start, hopefully our secondary can make some plays against him. And for those of you judging the Packers defense from reputation...Stop! This defense is vastly improved and if you would actually WATCH A fricken game you would see it as well, the Packers held the Bengals to 7 points off 5 turnovers! Count em 1,2,3,4,5 INTS and the High Powered Bengals O only scored a singleTouchdown after getting those picks. If anything it's the Packer's Offense thats the weak link here, I mean we lost 3 wide outs and two great running backs, we have a bunch of replacement players playing for us!
