Pack is for real, But

[Bullazin]

I still think we are the better team. 

They fly around on D and are stout on O with Kraft and Jacobs.  

Parsons is electric and pulls them even with us and the Kitties. Good call by their front office, but a huge risk for them as they are hitching their wagon to Jordan Love to see how far he can pull them. The wagon will fall apart in 3 years if Love doesn’t take the next step, which I don’t believe he has in him. 

Love has a great arm, and sees the field ok, but this O is like ours quite a bit, with LaFleur being a great offensive mind and scheming open plays. 

Going to be a fun year in the Norse. “Lucky break” Pack getting 2 tough games at home to start the year. ( eye roll)

[purplefaithful]

With their D playing like it is, and running the ball as they are? Love doesnt have to be Favre or Rogers re-incarnate

Jacobs and Parsons were great pick-up's and LaFleur is a good coach.

Hats off to Gutekunst I guess?

15, long weeks to go

[greediron]

I wasn't impressed with the Lions or the Commanders. Not to say the Packers D didn't have something to do with that, but anointing them after these 2 wins is a bit early. Everyone expected the Lions to take a few steps back and WA was super flat.

That is why strength of schedule is such a pile of crap. This looked like a super tough 1st 2 weeks, but things change so much year to year.

[Montana Tom]

I wasn't impressed with the Lions or the Commanders.  Not to say the Packers D didn't have something to do with that, but anointing them after these 2 wins is a bit early.  Everyone expected the Lions to take a few steps back and WA was super flat.

That is why strength of schedule is such a pile of crap.  This looked like a super tough 1st 2 weeks, but things change so much year to year.

I certainly was not impressed with the Commanders last night.
They seemed flat the entire game.

[comet52]

I wasn't impressed with the Lions or the Commanders.  Not to say the Packers D didn't have something to do with that, but anointing them after these 2 wins is a bit early.  Everyone expected the Lions to take a few steps back and WA was super flat.

That is why strength of schedule is such a pile of crap.  This looked like a super tough 1st 2 weeks, but things change so much year to year.

They definitely haven't been challenged yet.

[StickierBuns]

They definitely haven't been challenged yet.

So its the old chicken or the egg thing: do teams look bad against Green Bay because the Packers are making them look that way or did the Lions and Commanders just have dud games?

[purplefaithful]

So its the old chicken or the egg thing: do teams look bad against Green Bay because the Packers are making them look that way or did the Lions and Commanders just have dud games?

I know how I'd be feeling right now if I wore green/gold.

Probably similar to how I felt after we beat the 49'ers last year.

[Zanary]

So its the old chicken or the egg thing: do teams look bad against Green Bay because the Packers are making them look that way or did the Lions and Commanders just have dud games?

Ask me after week 8 or so. Juries are still out on most of the NFL as they work the offseason dust out.

[MaroonBells]

I think we have to admit that Green Bay is better this year than last year. They dominated two playoff teams, and while those teams may have been flat, you have to give Green Bay some credit for making them look that way. 

That said, it's a long season and they're just as vulnerable to key injuries and cold streaks as any other team. It's been said a million times on this board, but Bud was exactly right when he said "it's not who you play, but when you play them." If the Vikings can avoid key injuries, I think they'll be a much better team later in the year. Will the Packers? Who knows. I think their corners are actually worse than ours. Right now, their pass rush is hiding that fact. A team with a better offensive line could expose them.

[greediron]

I think we have to admit that Green Bay is better this year than last year. They dominated two playoff teams, and while those teams may have been flat, you have to give Green Bay some credit for making them look that way. 

That said, it's a long season and they're just as vulnerable to key injuries and cold streaks as any other team. It's been said a million times on this board, but Bud was exactly right when he said "it's not who you play, but when you play them." If the Vikings can avoid key injuries, I think they'll be a much better team later in the year. Will the Packers? Who knows. I think their corners are actually worse than ours. Right now, their pass rush is hiding that fact. A team with a better offensive line could expose them.

I watched both games.  Their D is better than it was last year.  Parson's will do that for a D. But I see he is already whining about not getting enough playing time.

Their offense has been ok.  TE Clark was left wide open by the commanders.  He ran free repeatedly, not sure what that was about.  They schemed some good openings, but I didn't see anything special by their WRs or Love.  Most of his hits were easy throws and he hasn't been hit or hurried in the first 2 weeks.  Their o-line is a weakness, but neither team seemed to bring any pressure.  Leave alone and comfortable, LaFleur is going to get people open.  But bring some heat and Love's accuracy suffers.