Alright, so your team "got home" on Rodgers, he didn't have Cobb, he didn't have a running game, and he STILL torched y'all for 4 TDs and handed Green Bay a lead in the fourth quarter that their defense coughed up in the closing moments. Meanwhile, your guys don't have Trufant or the dude who got most of the sacks against Green Bay in Clayborn. But yes. I'll give you the fact that Atlanta's defense has played better since that day. Playing the Rams, Browns and Niners along the way will help the cause, but your statement can't be denied. And Atlanta was very impressive against Seattle, who fielded a crippled Legion of Boom and an offensive line that has a harder time preventing penetration than Kim Kardashian does around a black man. Nevertheless, Atlanta handled the fukk out of them, which was more than I figured would happen. The Falcons SHOULD do the same Sunday. Doesn't mean they will.
As it were, Rodgers' level of play has upped considerably (which is the one reason why I took GB to beat an Atlanta team that I have repeatedly said ought to win the game). Green Bay's offensive line is still pretty stout in pass protection. They've found a kid in Montgomery who can give them a little bit on the ground, not to mention that he is a legit receiver out of the backfield. Cook and Richard Rodgers -- who killed Dallas in the Divisional round -- gives GB threats at the tight end position, which based on the numbers, isn't a position that Atlanta defends well. Is it out of the realm of possibility for Rodgers to have a better day than he did then against Atlanta the first time?
The crux of my argument comes down to this: I don't think Atlanta's defense can stop Rodgers and co. from putting up points. Granted, I don't think GB can stop Atlanta's offense either. But I'm picking the team that has the better quarterback.
and say I was wrong. Makes me no difference.
.
.
pretty much after the 1st half
