PDA

View Full Version : The Green Bay Packers



Captain Hook
11-21-2011, 10:36 PM
I'd like the hear what RZ thinks about my favorite NFL team, the Green Bay Packers. I don't believe my guys are unbeatable despite their 10-0 record but they're looking pretty good.Going back to last year they've won 16 in a row including a Super Bowl victory. So what do you guys think?Is this a complete team that has everything it takes to go all the way or are they just a mediocre team that's being carried by a QB that's as hot as any QB's been in the long history of the NFL?

top6
11-21-2011, 11:09 PM
They're pretty obviously the best team in the NFL, and it's not that close with the Colts, Patriots and Steelers all having down years to various degrees.

Doesn't seem like they are goo enough to go undefeated. I bet they lose to Detroit, Chicago or New York.

On another note, I took my first trip to Lambeau this year (for the Broncos game) and it is an amazing place. Really cool history, really great fans, and all-in-all just an amazing way to spend a Sunday.

Slyder
11-22-2011, 01:25 AM
I'd like the hear what RZ thinks about my favorite NFL team, the Green Bay Packers. I don't believe my guys are unbeatable despite their 10-0 record but they're looking pretty good.Going back to last year they've won 16 in a row including a Super Bowl victory. So what do you guys think?Is this a complete team that has everything it takes to go all the way or are they just a mediocre team that's being carried by a QB that's as hot as any QB's been in the long history of the NFL?

If they don't lose on the back of a short week I don't see when they will any time soon. They've played a lot of football the last two years as a team and so if someone should go Indy the rest of the way it should be them. Get some people rested after they clinch.

I personally think they are just that good on offense right now. The defense has been feeding off of the offense putting up just sick points on everyone and its hidden some flaws on the unit because teams get 1 dimensional quickly against GB.

Caveat Emperor
11-22-2011, 02:02 AM
You put this same exact team on the field 10 years ago, and they'd struggle to win 8 games. However, with it being nearly impossible to legally defend against passing in the NFL today, they're probably any even money shot to go undefeated.

Todd Gack
11-22-2011, 06:31 AM
You put this same exact team on the field 10 years ago, and they'd struggle to win 8 games. However, with it being nearly impossible to legally defend against passing in the NFL today, they're probably any even money shot to go undefeated.

AMEN. This team is average/above average in the mid 90's.

Their defense is near the bottom in most categories and somehow many consider them 'great.'

reds1869
11-22-2011, 06:56 AM
The NFL is an offense first league now, there is no denying it. And the Packers are very good at offense.

Captain Hook
11-24-2011, 02:22 AM
You put this same exact team on the field 10 years ago, and they'd struggle to win 8 games. However, with it being nearly impossible to legally defend against passing in the NFL today, they're probably any even money shot to go undefeated.

I don't know about that but I get your point.Would you say some teams that were good 10 years ago might struggle to win 8 games now?Green Bay is built to win now and teams 10 years ago where built to win then.It's a fair and possibly accurate observation.I just don't think you can take anything away from a team playing in the present based what your saying when considering how good they are.

Ohayou
11-24-2011, 07:44 PM
Can Suh be anymore ridiculous? Blames everyone but himself for his own stupidity.

top6
11-24-2011, 08:56 PM
Can Suh be anymore ridiculous? Blames everyone but himself for his own stupidity.

I know. That team reminds me a lot of the Bengals teams in 2005-2008: i.e., a bad franchise with players that are talented but simply incapable of handling the smallest amount of success.

Mutaman
11-24-2011, 11:42 PM
You put this same exact team on the field 10 years ago, and they'd struggle to win 8 games.

Struggle to win 8 games Hey? Lets see, I am familiar with the Packers of 10 years ago- Mike Sherman's 2001 Team. That team won 12 games in the regular season and one game in the playoffs before Favre had a major meltdown against St Louis. That Packer team was good but they couldn't get within 10 points of the 2010-2011 Pack. The present team has a much better organization, better coaching, a far superior passing attack, better kicking, more playmakers on defense, and is much, much deeper than the 2001 team. Its not even close. To say they would have "struggled to win 8 games" is simply foolish.

Mutaman
11-24-2011, 11:51 PM
AMEN. This team is average/above average in the mid 90's.

Their defense is near the bottom in most categories and somehow many consider them 'great.'

I remember the mid 90's Packers- played in two Super bowls, won one, got knocked out in the NFC Championship a few times. Obviously a team that was much better than "average/above average". But with all due respect to Desmond, Reggie and Leroy Butler, the present day Packers are better.

I don't know anyone who has called the Packer defense "great". But they have a defensive coordinator who is a genius, and a lot of playmakers in Matthews, Raj, Williams, and of course the incredible Woodson. They really miss Nick Collins. They're not great, but as they proved today, they're not bad.

Caveat Emperor
11-25-2011, 12:42 AM
Struggle to win 8 games Hey? Lets see, I am familiar with the Packers of 10 years ago- Mike Sherman's 2001 Team. That team won 12 games in the regular season and one game in the playoffs before Favre had a major meltdown against St Louis. That Packer team was good but they couldn't get within 10 points of the 2010-2011 Pack. The present team has a much better organization, better coaching, a far superior passing attack, better kicking, more playmakers on defense, and is much, much deeper than the 2001 team. Its not even close. To say they would have "struggled to win 8 games" is simply foolish.

Ten years ago, they'd have been manhandled by defenses and their inability to consistently run the football would cost them games. They're a very good team now, but a major product of the current rules which disallows physical play in the secondary and allows teams to be one-dimensional.

Caveat Emperor
11-25-2011, 12:47 AM
I don't know about that but I get your point.Would you say some teams that were good 10 years ago might struggle to win 8 games now?Green Bay is built to win now and teams 10 years ago where built to win then.It's a fair and possibly accurate observation.I just don't think you can take anything away from a team playing in the present based what your saying when considering how good they are.

Oh absolutely -- that Ravens Super Bowl team from 2000 would have had a tough time playing in the current era due to the rules and their inability to pass effectively. The 2002 Tampa Bay team would probably have similar problems (John Lynch would be a 15-yard flag machine today).

Mutaman
11-25-2011, 01:20 AM
Ten years ago, they'd have been manhandled by defenses and their inability to consistently run the football would cost them games. They're a very good team now, but a major product of the current rules which disallows physical play in the secondary and allows teams to be one-dimensional.

This of course is coming from the guy who said about 15 straight wins ago that the Ravens could beat Green Bay on a neutral field. Right! Funny how the current rules haven't helped Joe Flacco much.

If Mccarthy wanted to run the ball he could. Starks is a load. When you've got an out of this world quarterback and six big time receivers, why run the ball? Defenses have to double team Finley and Jennings. They just have too. Which is why Jones, Nelson, Driver, and Cobb are always open.

Funny how physical players like Tramon Williams and Charles Woodson don't let current rules bother them. How'd that guy Johnson do today?

But I guess "They're a very good team now" is a nice concession. Thats what 17 straight wins will do.

Caveat Emperor
11-25-2011, 01:56 AM
This of course is coming from the guy who said about 15 straight wins ago that the Ravens could beat Green Bay on a neutral field. Right! Funny how the current rules haven't helped Joe Flacco much.

If Mccarthy wanted to run the ball he could. Starks is a load. When you've got an out of this world quarterback and six big time receivers, why run the ball? Defenses have to double team Finley and Jennings. They just have too. Which is why Jones, Nelson, Driver, and Cobb are always open.

Funny how physical players like Tramon Williams and Charles Woodson don't let current rules bother them. How'd that guy Johnson do today?

But I guess "They're a very good team now" is a nice concession. Thats what 17 straight wins will do.

They've won 17 straight games, and they epitomize everything I hate about the current NFL. I'm happy your fan and look forward to the next time you pop your head up to remind everyone how awesome you are.

Mutaman
11-25-2011, 05:59 AM
They've won 17 straight games, and they epitomize everything I hate about the current NFL. I'm happy your fan and look forward to the next time you pop your head up to remind everyone how awesome you are.


Just doing my bit to point out foolish statements when I read them. Its a tough job but somebody has to do it.

WVRed
11-25-2011, 10:24 AM
Can Suh be anymore ridiculous? Blames everyone but himself for his own stupidity.

Suh is a dirty player and what he did deserves a fine and/or suspension, but the way the media is going after him compared to James Harrison. Suh would actually fit right in with the Steelers.

As for the Pack, I hated watching the Patriots chase perfection but Green Bay is a different story. What makes this years team scarier than last years is that last year's lacked a return game and a pass catching TE (Finley was hurt during the playoffs). With Randall Cobb giving them that presence on special teams, they are that much better this year.

Todd Gack
11-25-2011, 01:21 PM
This of course is coming from the guy who said about 15 straight wins ago that the Ravens could beat Green Bay on a neutral field. Right! Funny how the current rules haven't helped Joe Flacco much.

If Mccarthy wanted to run the ball he could. Starks is a load. When you've got an out of this world quarterback and six big time receivers, why run the ball? Defenses have to double team Finley and Jennings. They just have too. Which is why Jones, Nelson, Driver, and Cobb are always open.

Funny how physical players like Tramon Williams and Charles Woodson don't let current rules bother them. How'd that guy Johnson do today?

But I guess "They're a very good team now" is a nice concession. Thats what 17 straight wins will do.

So the rules haven't helped out offenses immensely? What rules have the NFL put in place that have helped out defenses? Of course, comparatively speaking, their offense is the best in the league for the past couple years and that's with virtually little help on the ground.

Oh, and their defense is ranked 30th in YPG given up, 26th in rushing y/a and such. They're not even 'average' for NFL standards.

And Woodson doesn't even play "CB." He plays almost like a LB most plays so he's not even a true corner. Meanwhile, Williams played Johnson today. . . . with rolled over coverage up top. Not exactly 'shut down' by himself, but whatever.

And I completely disagree with you about McCarthy running the ball if he wanted to. Green Bay averages 3.9 ypa and is 24th in the NFL. Not that it really matters because their passing game is the best the NFL has seen in 10 years.

Ohayou
11-29-2011, 05:12 PM
So, Taiwan decided to make a parody video of Suh:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Dear-Taiwan-Please-know-that-Ndamukong-Suh-does;_ylt=AuMJ9rCvb2UB_ZO66MeSZ5c5nYcB?urn=nfl-wp12818

Mutaman
12-04-2011, 08:08 PM
Big effort by the Giants today after their Monday night debacle, but Rodgers was simply amazing in the last 58 seconds. Could be a costly win if the great Woodson suffered a serious injury.

MWM
12-04-2011, 08:14 PM
I don't see how they can lose. They have built the perfect team for the current NFL and I don't see how you can slow down that pass offense. I think it's the template for how to win with the current NFL rules. I give them credit for it as I think they've just figured it out before everyone else has. The only thing I have a hard time with right now is that they are now getting the Patriots, Colts, and Steelers treatment and getting very favorable officiating. I've never understood this about sports and it's a big pet peeve of mine, but make no mistake, the Packers are getting the benefit of the doubt from teh refs right now.

Mutaman
12-04-2011, 08:47 PM
Can any OSU fans tell me anything about Brandon Saine?

MWM
12-04-2011, 08:58 PM
Brandon Saine was a nice find by the Packers, something great organizations always seem to do. He'll never be a feature back, but will be very versatile and will be more than willing to do what a lot of other players don't like to do. He could play a role similar to what Kevin Faulk played over the years for the Patriots. You could also think Darren Sproles without that kind of speed.

He'll wind up being that player the fanbase will love. He won't be spectacular but will do everything he's called on to do and will be a very smart player. He's one of those guys that will get on the nerves of the opposing defense. He'll be valuable to the Packers for years to come.

Mutaman
12-04-2011, 09:07 PM
Brandon Saine was a nice find by the Packers, something great organizations always seem to do. He'll never be a feature back, but will be very versatile and will be more than willing to do what a lot of other players don't like to do. He could play a role similar to what Kevin Faulk played over the years for the Patriots. You could also think Darren Sproles without that kind of speed.

He'll wind up being that player the fanbase will love. He won't be spectacular but will do everything he's called on to do and will be a very smart player. He's one of those guys that will get on the nerves of the opposing defense. He'll be valuable to the Packers for years to come.

Thanks. Everyone in the organization seems to really like him. Looks like a typical Ted Thompson pickup.

MWM
12-04-2011, 09:10 PM
Yep, he's a great fit for that team and a fan-favorite type. He loves to play football. He's not spectacular, but will never phone it in and never scoff at an assignment. Plus, he's got an extremely high football IQ, and is a really good athlete to boot.

Mutaman
12-12-2011, 12:00 AM
Losing Jennings will be a big blow to this team- he's a big time, underated playmaker. On the other hand, Green Bay's receiving corp is very deep and having guys step up when someone is injured has been the key to their success.

fearofpopvol1
12-12-2011, 03:42 AM
I still think in a rematch that the Saints could take the Packers. It's a shame Cutler is injured because I think if he was healthy the Bears may have been able to win.

Mutaman
12-12-2011, 12:23 PM
I still think in a rematch that the Saints could take the Packers. It's a shame Cutler is injured because I think if he was healthy the Bears may have been able to win.

"On any given Sunday". That's what makes 19 in a row so amazing.

Captain Hook
12-12-2011, 07:21 PM
Losing Jennings will be a big blow to this team- he's a big time, underated playmaker. On the other hand, Green Bay's receiving corp is very deep and having guys step up when someone is injured has been the key to their success.

He's got five weeks before GB will play a game that really matters.Sure it might make it a bit more difficult to go 16-0 but winning playoff games and the Super Bowl is what really matters.Of course going 16-0 would be nice.

Captain Hook
12-12-2011, 07:25 PM
I still think in a rematch that the Saints could take the Packers. It's a shame Cutler is injured because I think if he was healthy the Bears may have been able to win.

The Saints seem to play very bad on the road although they still win most of the time.If that rematch happens it will be a road game for them unless they go 3-0 and the Packers go 0-3 and that's not happening.

Slyder
12-13-2011, 12:43 AM
The Saints seem to play very bad on the road although they still win most of the time.If that rematch happens it will be a road game for them unless they go 3-0 and the Packers go 0-3 and that's not happening.

Plus you have the weather factor. I doubt if anyone goes into Green Bay and wins with the way Aaron Rodgers and Co are playing on offense. The Defense can just wait until the other team gets desperate and pin its ears back and drop the final nail on most offenses.

Jeff Dunham - Spark of Insanity - Walter Disses on Green Bay - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rav3eN5OA4)

IslandRed
12-14-2011, 09:42 AM
I don't see how they can lose. They have built the perfect team for the current NFL and I don't see how you can slow down that pass offense. I think it's the template for how to win with the current NFL rules. I give them credit for it as I think they've just figured it out before everyone else has.

I'm not sure I agree with this. The NFL is a pass-oriented league and has been for awhile. I don't know of anything the Packers are doing with strategy or roster management that's changing the game. They just have a great quarterback playing out of his mind, and other teams don't.

Mutaman
12-18-2011, 04:28 PM
Well you can't win them all. Big time effort by the Chiefs.

texasdave
12-18-2011, 04:37 PM
Well you can't win them all. Big time effort by the Chiefs.

Colts 27 Titans 13. I guess you can't lose them all either.

KronoRed
12-18-2011, 06:37 PM
Sad to see the Colts get a win, if you're going to be last, be last with style.

gilpdawg
12-19-2011, 01:02 AM
Sad to see the Colts get a win, if you're going to be last, be last with style.
As a Colts fan, I'm ecstatic that we got one. Absolutely thrilled. Don't want to be a fan of 0-16. I've lived through 1-15 before so I can handle that.

Mutaman
12-19-2011, 05:07 AM
I see that Colts fans have taken over this thread which means they now have two threads, one for each, no scratch that, 2 threads for each win in 2011.

gilpdawg
12-19-2011, 05:32 AM
Give it a rest. ;) It's two posts.

Mutaman
12-19-2011, 05:46 AM
Give it a rest. ;) It's two posts.


I count 3. Actually its nice balance- posts about what is far and away the worst organization in the NFL alongside posts about the best.

And I don't care how many writers complain about having to go to Indianapolis to cover the Super Bowl. They're getting paid for it and they're just going to have to go there.

KronoRed
12-19-2011, 07:15 AM
Whoa whoa whoa...I am not a Colts fan.

Razor Shines
12-19-2011, 12:43 PM
5th post about the Colts. May the Packers be blessed with many season ending injuries.

Mutaman
12-19-2011, 02:29 PM
5th post about the Colts. May the Packers be blessed with many season ending injuries.


Been there , done that. They led the league in that catagory last year. They just stick in the next guy. Granted replacing Greg Jennings can get to be a bit complicated.

Todd Gack
12-19-2011, 08:58 PM
Been there , done that. They led the league in that catagory last year. They just stick in the next guy. Granted replacing Greg Jennings can get to be a bit complicated.

Mehh, that's not saying much. Last year's playoff teams were about the weakest I've collectively seen in a long, long time. This year might be even worse. The way the NFL is setup today, it doesn't take as much talent/skill/coaching to win a Super Bowl as it once did.

gilpdawg
12-20-2011, 12:28 AM
I count 3. Actually its nice balance- posts about what is far and away the worst organization in the NFL alongside posts about the best.

And I don't care how many writers complain about having to go to Indianapolis to cover the Super Bowl. They're getting paid for it and they're just going to have to go there.

Worst organization in the NFL? You can't be serious. I believe the worst organizations over the last 25 years are in Cincinnati and Phoenix. This has to be an attempt to stir something up, but I would like to know your rationale behind that statement. If you would like, respond in "our" thread so this one can stay on topic.

Sent from my SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

Mutaman
12-20-2011, 12:29 AM
Mehh, that's not saying much. Last year's playoff teams were about the weakest I've collectively seen in a long, long time. This year might be even worse. The way the NFL is setup today, it doesn't take as much talent/skill/coaching to win a Super Bowl as it once did.

Mehh. I think we've been over this before. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Just dopey speculation . I don't know much about football, but I know the Packers: This organization has more talent, more skill, and far superior coaching than the Holmgrin Teams did. Ron Wolf was a great GM, but Thompson is a genius.

Sounds like Yankee fans I know whining about the quality of baseball that produces a Texas-St Louis world series.

Razor Shines
12-20-2011, 01:29 AM
This was posted in the Colts thread, figured I'd repost it since it's relevant here.


It would take a Bobby Thompson type comeback for the Colts to lose the #1 pick.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20111219/SPORTS/111219023/Indianapolis-Colts-still-inside-track-top-pick-2012-draft?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|IndyStar.com|s

Todd Gack
12-20-2011, 06:11 AM
Mehh. I think we've been over this before. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Just dopey speculation . I don't know much about football, but I know the Packers: This organization has more talent, more skill, and far superior coaching than the Holmgrin Teams did. Ron Wolf was a great GM, but Thompson is a genius.

Sounds like Yankee fans I know whining about the quality of baseball that produces a Texas-St Louis world series.

I'm not trying to degrade the Packers. I love watching them play. I just know that the Cowboys/49ers teams of the 90's would never lose to a team like the Chiefs starting Kyle Orton for the first time in 10 weeks. As I said, the NFL is much weaker than it once was.

It's OK to admit that the quality of teams in the NFL sucks these days compared to pre-salary cap days.

gilpdawg
12-20-2011, 09:12 AM
I'm not trying to degrade the Packers. I love watching them play. I just know that the Cowboys/49ers teams of the 90's would never lose to a team like the Chiefs starting Kyle Orton for the first time in 10 weeks. As I said, the NFL is much weaker than it once was.

It's OK to admit that the quality of teams in the NFL sucks these days compared to pre-salary cap days.

Parity. It doesn't mean the teams "suck" it just means the talent is spread around more. And I think it makes things more fun as a fan.

Also, teams like the Packers and Saints, and yes, the Colts with Manning, are completely dominant offensively, but I believe the defensive rules where you get flagged for breathing on someone is a factor in that, which makes it hard to compare eras. Brees is going to shatter Marino's yardage record, but is Drew Brees better than Dan Marino was? I'd say no. He's great, but not that great. If you plugged Marino into today's game he's throw for 50 TDs every year and would have several rings, unless he was stuck on a total crap team.

MWM
12-20-2011, 09:33 AM
Everyone sees a team like the Packers doing what they're going and envy kicks in and they try to devalue it. The Cowboys and 49ers of the 90s probably did lose the occasional game they shouldn't have. KC is not as bad as they're being made out to be. They've looked awful at times, but they've looked pretty darn good at times. They got a new coach that week and came out and played the game of their lives and the Packers finally got distracted and didn't come out ready. It happens.

My junior year, our high school baseball team lost one game all year before going on the win the state championship (and the #1 ranking in the country from USA Today). That one loss was to Piqua. We traveled north and just weren't ready that day for whatever reason. They weren't a good team and would have been destroyed most any other day. It happens at all levels.

This Packers team is 13-1 and the defending super bowl champs for a reason. The NFL has more talent now than it ever has. It might distributed more evenly, but there are still dominant teams and this Packers team is one of them. Devalue it if you want, but I believe all these arguments being made are rubbish.

Caveat Emperor
12-20-2011, 10:38 AM
This Packers team is 13-1 and the defending super bowl champs for a reason. The NFL has more talent now than it ever has. It might distributed more evenly, but there are still dominant teams and this Packers team is one of them. Devalue it if you want, but I believe all these arguments being made are rubbish.

What was the last "great" NFL team that didn't have either an all-pro running back or dominant, physical defense?

Sorry, but the Packers are a byproduct of the proliferation of the spread offense and the NFL's desire to use rule changes to encourage high scoring, low impact games.

They're working the current system better than any other team, and they're probably the first dynasty of the current version of the NFL, but they simply don't match up historically with other great teams that could play the run and the pass on both sides of the ball.

Just my opinion, though.

MWM
12-20-2011, 11:12 AM
I guess I don't have a copy of the list of things required to be considered a dominant team. They won 19 games in a row, including a super bowl. And during that stretch they pretty much destroyed most of the teams they played. How not having a certain type of player changes that is beyond me. I didn't realize football could only be dominated with a single formula.

I think they'd matchup just fine historically. I don't think there are many defenses historically that could slow down their passing attack. Show me a "great" team of the past that never had a one game blip where they didn't play well.

IslandRed
12-20-2011, 11:21 AM
I agree, MWM. Historically great teams aren't great because they played a certain way, they're great because they won. A lot. As the winning formula changes, teams change with it, as they should.

IslandRed
12-20-2011, 11:54 AM
Let me add this -- defense matters. Always will. It's primarily the offensive balance between running and passing that's different versus 20-30 years ago. Simply put, it no longer takes a stud running back or even a better-than-competent running game to be a dominant team. The best illustration of that: Working backwards from today, go down the list of Super Bowl winners and see how many years back you go before the winning team had a Hall of Fame-caliber running back, or a running back won the game's MVP award. Then compare that to how important the quarterbacks are to winning.

top6
12-20-2011, 12:06 PM
I'm not trying to degrade the Packers. I love watching them play. I just know that the Cowboys/49ers teams of the 90's would never lose to a team like the Chiefs starting Kyle Orton for the first time in 10 weeks. As I said, the NFL is much weaker than it once was.

It's OK to admit that the quality of teams in the NFL sucks these days compared to pre-salary cap days.

The 1992 (eventual champion) Cowboys lost at home to a 3-6 Rams team that was led by Jim Everett (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199211150dal.htm) and would go on to finish 6-10 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/ram/1992.htm).

The next year they lost to a 3-6 Falcons team (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199311210atl.htm). (In fairness - and I did a double take when I saw this - Aikman must have been hurt because it looks like that Cowboys team was QBed by Bernie Kosar. I have no memory of that.)

Don't forget the next year (in what was - sadly - one of the highlights for Bengals fans in the mid-'90s) when they ALMOST lost (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199410300cin.htm) to a horrible, winless Bengals teams with third-string quarterback Jeff Blake.

In fact, the Packers are guaranteed to finish with as good a record as any of those Cowboys teams, as only one of them won more than 12 games (in 1992, when they finished 13-3).

And I bet if I had 5 more minutes I could find similar losses for those 49ers teams. If I recall, the 1988 team that beat the Bengals only barely slipped into the playoffs.

I agree those teams were very dominant, but we have a tendency to think things were so much better years ago. All teams have bad games, even the legendary Cowboys and 49ers teams. For my money, the most dominant team I've ever seen is the 2007 Patriots, who just happened to have their bad game at the worst possible time.

The NFL is awesome right now, is the bottom line.

Razor Shines
12-20-2011, 12:15 PM
I don't really see the point of comparing them to previous eras. Maybe they'd be terrible in other eras, maybe not. They're built for the way the NFL is now. If they'd be bad in other eras then good teams from previous eras may struggle in this one. Right? I don't know, just seems impossible to determine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mutaman
12-20-2011, 12:48 PM
I just spoke to my good friend Donald Driver, who has played for a few years, and he assures me that the 2010 -2011 Packers are pretty good. He said there is no need to give back last years Lombardi trophy.


The best football team ever was the 62 Packers ( about 10 HOFs) and they lost a game to a team quarterbacked by a guy named Milt Plum.

RedsBaron
12-20-2011, 09:53 PM
The 1992 (eventual champion) Cowboys lost at home to a 3-6 Rams team that was led by Jim Everett (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199211150dal.htm) and would go on to finish 6-10 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/ram/1992.htm).

The next year they lost to a 3-6 Falcons team (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199311210atl.htm). (In fairness - and I did a double take when I saw this - Aikman must have been hurt because it looks like that Cowboys team was QBed by Bernie Kosar. I have no memory of that.)

In fact, the Packers are guaranteed to finish with as good a record as any of those Cowboys teams, as only one of them won more than 12 games (in 1992, when they finished 13-3).


I agree those teams were very dominant, but we have a tendency to think things were so much better years ago. All teams have bad games, even the legendary Cowboys and 49ers teams.

Exactly. :thumbup: The 1995 Cowboys also won a Super Bowl, going 12-4 in the regualr season, but losing twice to a Redskins team that otherwise went 4-10.
I hate the Steelers but IMO the greatest NFL team of all time may have been the 1978 Steelers who went 14-2 in the regular season and went on to win the Super Bowl. Of their two defeats one came at the hands of a Bengals team that only won three other games all season.

Todd Gack
12-21-2011, 06:20 AM
I just spoke to my good friend Donald Driver, who has played for a few years, and he assures me that the 2010 -2011 Packers are pretty good. He said there is no need to give back last years Lombardi trophy.


The best football team ever was the 62 Packers ( about 10 HOFs) and they lost a game to a team quarterbacked by a guy named Milt Plum.

Thanks Muta. You might be the most arrogant person on this board, but at least you know it.

Todd Gack
12-21-2011, 06:24 AM
The 1992 (eventual champion) Cowboys lost at home to a 3-6 Rams team that was led by Jim Everett (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199211150dal.htm) and would go on to finish 6-10 (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/ram/1992.htm).

The next year they lost to a 3-6 Falcons team (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199311210atl.htm). (In fairness - and I did a double take when I saw this - Aikman must have been hurt because it looks like that Cowboys team was QBed by Bernie Kosar. I have no memory of that.)

Don't forget the next year (in what was - sadly - one of the highlights for Bengals fans in the mid-'90s) when they ALMOST lost (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/199410300cin.htm) to a horrible, winless Bengals teams with third-string quarterback Jeff Blake.

In fact, the Packers are guaranteed to finish with as good a record as any of those Cowboys teams, as only one of them won more than 12 games (in 1992, when they finished 13-3).

And I bet if I had 5 more minutes I could find similar losses for those 49ers teams. If I recall, the 1988 team that beat the Bengals only barely slipped into the playoffs.

I agree those teams were very dominant, but we have a tendency to think things were so much better years ago. All teams have bad games, even the legendary Cowboys and 49ers teams. For my money, the most dominant team I've ever seen is the 2007 Patriots, who just happened to have their bad game at the worst possible time.

The NFL is awesome right now, is the bottom line.

All you need to do is see the quality of teams who have been to the Super Bowl the past 10-15 years. I know people LOVE the salary cap so the poor old teams could have a chance to win, but I love a sport, like MLB, where you often pitted against the likes of the Yanks/Sox.

As I've said before, a pile of crap can looks great if it's sitting next to a bunch of other of piles of crap.

Mutaman
12-21-2011, 07:08 PM
Thanks Muta. You might be the most arrogant person on this board, but at least you know it.

And you're a right winger, but I don't hold it against you. If you got it flaunt it.

Mutaman
12-21-2011, 07:10 PM
but I love a sport, like MLB, where you often pitted against the likes of the Yanks/Sox.


Right- The Reds versus the Yankees and Red Sox. I remember it like it was yesterday.

Mutaman
12-26-2011, 12:30 AM
Always nice to beat the Bears, and get the # 1 seed, and eliminate the Bears from the playoffs, and get 14 wins in one year.

Mutaman
01-01-2012, 08:38 PM
Matt Flynn made himself a lot of money today.

Mutaman
01-09-2012, 01:28 AM
You just knew it was going to be Big Blue who would show up next weekend in Lambeau. Shades of 2008. This is going to be a tough one. The Giants have rebounded well since the debacle in New Orleans and Manning and Coughlin know how to win in the cold. But despite 2 wins over the Giants in the last year, I think the Packers still owe them one for the day Farve forgot to show up.

Greg Jennings tweeted this today: "The team that kept us from our potential Super Bowl in 08 is back on OUR turf now. Trust me, we haven't forgotten."

Mutaman
01-10-2012, 06:34 PM
Aaron Rodgers: 'Been a rough couple days'
January, 10, 2012
JAN 10

By Kevin Seifert
Those of you who listened Tuesday afternoon to "The Aaron Rodgers Show" on ESPN 540 in Milwaukee know that the Green Bay Packers have been deeply, deeply impacted by the death of offensive coordinator Joe Philbin's 21-year-old son.

Speaking in low tones and a halting voice, Rodgers said, "It's been a rough couple days around the facility," and, "a lot of us have been really upset."

It's fair to wonder about the Packers' mental state when they begin practicing Wednesday for Sunday's divisional playoff game against the New York Giants. Rodgers expressed confidence but also acknowledged reality.

"We're all professionals," Rodgers said. "We have to be able to separate the on-the-field from the off-the-field stuff. And make sure when you're at work, you remain focused. But we're human as well, and the human element is that it's on your mind. You're thinking about it. You're thinking about Joe."

Rodgers said that "a lot of people" have visited the Philbin family home to express condolences and said he spoke with Philbin, as well.

"What do you say to someone who has lost their son in a tragic way like this?" Rodgers said. "At 28, there are no words I can say to comfort him. I wanted him to know how much I care about him and [his wife] Diane and the family and I'm praying for him.

"But I think once we get in here on Wednesday, it's going to be about beating the Giants and making sure we're doing everything we can do to play our best game."

The Packers are scheduled to practice at noon ET Wednesday then will conduct postpractice interviews with reporters.

Mutaman
01-12-2012, 08:17 PM
In a world and a genre where I am constantly surrounded by hype (ESPN, the Eagles, Tony Romo, Tebow, Rex Ryan, ect, ect), this Giant-Packer game is going to be the real deal.

Wellington Mara, Tobin Rote, Charlie Connerly, Henry Jordan, Justin Tuck, the great Charles Woodson. Lets go! I'm ready.

Mutaman
01-15-2012, 08:09 PM
Well, get em next year. Let's start the baseball season.

RANDY IN INDY
01-15-2012, 08:14 PM
Same here, buddy.

fearofpopvol1
01-15-2012, 08:30 PM
You can't drop that many balls and botch 2 on-side kicks and expect to win unfortunately.

RANDY IN INDY
01-16-2012, 05:42 AM
The Packers were not in the game yesterday. Very poor performance in just about every regard.

RedsBaron
01-16-2012, 07:26 AM
The Packers were not in the game yesterday. Very poor performance in just about every regard.

Yes. My interest in the playoffs just went way down as I don't have a team to root for.

Mutaman
01-16-2012, 03:58 PM
Yes. My interest in the playoffs just went way down as I don't have a team to root for.

My problem is I've got 4 teams to root against. I guess I hate the 49ers least.

Mutaman
01-16-2012, 04:03 PM
The Packers were not in the game yesterday. Very poor performance in just about every regard.

Bingo. I don't know if it was the 2 week layoff, the Philbin stuff or overconfidence. Rodgers and the receivers' timing was off, nobody held on to the ball, and McCarthy made some really strange decisions. They didn't tackle or pressure Eli, but that's been a problem all year.

Plus the Giants came to play.

fearofpopvol1
01-16-2012, 04:31 PM
My problem is I've got 4 teams to root against. I guess I hate the 49ers least.

You hate the Giants? I can't say I love them or anything, but I really don't mind them either. I will forever be okay with the Giants after they beat New England in the Super Bowl.

Mutaman
01-16-2012, 06:25 PM
You hate the Giants? I can't say I love them or anything, but I really don't mind them either. I will forever be okay with the Giants after they beat New England in the Super Bowl.

I respect the Giants-they gave us Vince. I met Wellington Mara once and he and his wife were really nice people. But I don't have much to say for Giant fans and I would hate to see them win another Super Bowl.

Sea Ray
03-19-2012, 09:58 AM
Matt Flynn made himself a lot of money today.

Well he did cash in for 3 yrs and $10 mill guaranteed. I wonder if Seattle figures on him as their answer at QB for awhile and eschews drafting a QB early next month?

RedsBaron
03-19-2012, 02:20 PM
Well he did cash in for 3 yrs and $10 mill guaranteed. I wonder if Seattle figures on him as their answer at QB for awhile and eschews drafting a QB early next month?

I would think that is their plan.