Plus the fact that the Bears just ROFLStomped the Lions and have won what? 5 games in a row now? I don't think I'd call the Raiders a sure win either. Have to wait and see how Carson Palmer does in the coming weeks for that.
My guts keep telling me 19-o for the pack,yes bears do give us fits in away just like the vikes Jared Allen,but people have to look at the whole bears lions game,Cutler and company did nothing had it not been for Hester and the d-line,game may have been different our d-line will just get better. I have faith the o-line up front will improve pack is back
Agreed. After (if) the #1 seed is achieved, you play the starters. As Rodgers said, there're no meaningless games in the NFL. But, like you said, if ANYONE needs a rest, you rest them. Only play who is 100%.
i think that they will lose one to the bears, and one to either the 49ers or the giants. what i would honestly rather have is them loose one or two games in the regular season after it has been secured that they will make the playoffs, fix their mistakes and come out in the playoff playing their best ball of the year. that being said, it'd be awesome and super fun for a 19-0 season
I can see them going 16-0 and losing to he 15-1 Niners in the NFC championship game, in Lambeau, in overtime, by a field goal. That way I would never have to hear about Gary Anderson and the Atlanta game again.
I know, but poster stated we lose one vs. Bears and one either Giants or 9ers. 14-2 record, making adjustments come playoff time to repeat as champs.
Lol Raptor, I can just imagine you imagining it. I'd bet every other fan of every other NFCN team would keep it on DVR for a long time. But I'm not buying it, I still think the teams with the best chance to beat the Packers in the NFC playoffs are the Saints and the Bears. I keep reading about how the 9ers have this terrific defense. Well cold games work both ways, defenses have to have footing too. The Packers are NOT a dome team so they will be fine in December and January. Though I don't think the Bears are good enough on paper it's always a dicey proposition with those guys. I don't even want to think about what it would feel like to lose to them at home. We stung 'em last year.... you know... Karma and all that.
I'd love to go 19-0, even my Steelers supporting son is now rooting for us ............ but the most important thing is to win a 14th Championship, so if players need resting, then I'll sacrifice a regular season win or two, to ensure success in the play-offs ........... better to go 14-2 or 13-3 and win a SB, then to do what the Patsies did in 2007.
I just don't see it happening, and if it is possible, ask yourself what is more important. Losing a key starter trying to go undefeated, or going undefeated and possibly losing in the playoffs? You should know by now, the playoffs is all that matters. All those games that we lost last year sure didn't matter come playoff time. You can dwell on the close loses to Washington, Miami, Chicago all day long, but those didn't matter one bit come play off time. Once we have the #1 seed and Division title wrapped up, I don't want to see us losing a bunch of starters trying to go undefeated. I do see our first loss coming to either Chicago or Oakland, and even Detroit. Just remember, the Patriots went to the Super Bowl and lost undefeated, bound to finally lose a game.
Didn't the Colts rest up a few years back and still lose? I think staying sharp by regularly playing is the best way to stay healthy. Healthy is great but being sharp is better. I'd be worried about the Lions being bitter by missing the playoffs and going headhunting in the last game though.
Playing the starters after grabbing everything can still lead to losing key starters, that is why the Colts rested up. New England played their starters back in 2009 after getting the playoff spot and ended up losing Wes Welker going into the playoffs. We don't need to lose a starter by trying to win the last few games or go undefeated I think.
Agreed, but with a 1st round bye, somebody would have to be really screwed up to need more than two weeks rest. The other issue too, is that they may need a 16th win to guarantee home field advantage. I'm not sold on the 49ers, but their remaining schedule is pretty easy. It's not impossible for them to end up 15-1.
I don't know if they'll clinch it, so we're discussing in theory. And I agree, nothing is certain, so there's a big possibility that this situation never comes up. But my point is, if it does, we should still play the starters, but err on the side of caution.
We should play our starters, and play to win. I think it helps that our last two games are versus the Bears and Lions, both teams who are going to bring there best games, Chicago because they have nothing better to do than try and beat the Packers, and the Lions who would want to beat their 20+ losing streak in GB. And since both games are at home, no Packers fan would like to see us lose either game, yet no one would want to see anyone hurt either. And you know what would be awesome, if in the middle of the Bears game we pull A-Rod, who does what he can to help out Flynn and his teammates AND Flynn wins us the game, to show how a leader should act on the sidelines.
I still feel that Big Mac will play full speed the whole way. he may rest anyone who needs it and sit the starters once the game is in hand but unless all 3 phases are playing to the best of thier ability he will play them to keep them sharp. Lets not forget he likes to use history as a motivator. Last year it was the empty photo on the wall with the team pictures of past champions. What better way to motivate a Defending Champion than to say, "here is your chance to take your place in NFL history". Several teams have repeated as Super Bowl Champions, only one team has gone undefeated. But we'll see, gotta get to the last couple of games undefeated first to see how this pans out. We should really call this thread 19-0 because that's what it is all about. But how freeking great is it that at this point in the season we are still talking about this.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...he-2011-packers-better-than-the-2007-patriots Well he is right about one thing. The 2011 Pack are ridiculously more likable to me then the 2007 Pats, who started the year on the wrong foot IMO with spygate. He is wrong about one thing, if the Pack go 19-0 a year after winning the SB you cannot question who is the better perfect team. Funny to see the Pack sorta have his "blessing" though. He is usually so snippy when a team lasts this long undefeated and I know from memory too since the Colts had seasons where they started 14-0 and 13-0. Overall the Packers don't get the same hype as the Pats did and might not since they are from Green Bay and not the beloved East coast. A SB win is for sure more important then the perfect season but if you can shoot for both go for it. A fun ride to watch indeed. The 2011 Packers will write their own destiny. They are not the 2007 Pats or 2009 Colts.
If or when the Pack clinches the #1 seed, they could rest Aaron and let Flynn who's been playing great come in, and they still might go 16-0. But as long as the Niners keep winning, it may come down to the last game of the season before that happens. On a side note, I believe if the Niners beat the Cards and Ravens, then they clinch their division on Thanksgiving day.
When the Packers beat the Lions on Thursday, then I'll start believing the chances for an undefeated season.
What difference does it make as long as we're undefeated in the post season. For now, the prospect of 16-0 is the ONLY reason anyone beside us are talking about the Pack at all.
