Clay's Jock Strap
TRK's Hero
This is a forum for Packer fans.
You must admit - Packer fan sites seem to draw Viqueen fans like moths to a flame. I don't know why that is, but it just seems to be. :shock:
This is a forum for Packer fans.
You must admit - Packer fan sites seem to draw Viqueen fans like moths to a flame. I don't know why that is, but it just seems to be. :shock:
Yesterday I wore a Packer tie to work. Some guy at the store made some snide remark about if my company had any dress code standards (I do live in vike country). I said "yeah, their requirement is that any team tie can only be of a team with at least 12 championships." He replies "typical Packer fan - living in the past"... Which resulted in a the rather obvious comeback "well at least my team has a past, and a rather glorious one at that, and isn't a never-was."
That ended the conversation.
You guys don't understand, I guess, what a forum is all about. I'm not sure why that is? It's not like you're going to get non-exclusive Packers fans banned, so why whine and complain when a guy like me posts self-evident truths?
Green Bay is good, but Minnesota is better. Will the Packers get better over the course of this off season? If you're going by history of TT's records, then no, they will regress. Consistent winning is a concept that has escaped MM and TT. Furthermore, it takes TT's draft picks years to develop AND he doesn't sign many FA's - so if you expect the Packers to get better in 2010 without the help of FA's and draft picks, I think it's a tough sell. I would settle for 11-5 and a playoff berth, all things in TT's history being considered.
You guys don't understand, I guess, what a forum is all about. I'm not sure why that is? It's not like you're going to get non-exclusive Packers fans banned, so why whine and complain when a guy like me posts self-evident truths?
Green Bay is good, but Minnesota is better. Will the Packers get better over the course of this off season? If you're going by history of TT's records, then no, they will regress. Consistent winning is a concept that has escaped MM and TT. Furthermore, it takes TT's draft picks years to develop AND he doesn't sign many FA's - so if you expect the Packers to get better in 2010 without the help of FA's and draft picks, I think it's a tough sell. I would settle for 11-5 and a playoff berth, all things in TT's history being considered.
... from what my neutral mind has seen ... from a non-talking-head or Vegas standpoint.
Been lurking on this site for the bulk of the past season. I don't believe, Haus, that you are as "neutral" in your analysis as you apparently think. Not that I am saying that I disagree with your insights as they tend to be quite good and interesting, but they do tend to favor the purple team a bit. If you accepted that you have this bias, then you'd be more credible to, at least, this one reader.
You are right if you definition of "winning tradition" is limited to only winning the big game. If that is all that counts, and in this instance I'm sure it is because we are talking the Vikings and the Packers. But if you want to broaden the scope of "winning tradition" don't be to sure that the Packers will beat the Vikings every time. I'll give you a little example. Percentage of years the teams have made it to the playoffs. Packers 32.5%, Vikings 54.2%. Oops, better adjust that to just the time frame the Vikings have been in the league. Packers, 39.6%. (Now this is where you make your comment about the number of championships won. Because we all know that winning traditions can only come from a team that wins championships.)Do you really want to compare winning traditions between the two franchises? You will lose every time.
That's dumb. I don't know how else to put it. You are the only person i've ever seen measure franchise success with percentage of seasons in the playoffs. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it, success is measured in championships. Why were the '80's 49ers great? Because they won Super Bowls. Why were the 70's Steelers great? Because they won Super Bowls. Why were the '90s Cowboys great? Because they won Super Bowls. Why were the '00s Patriots great? Because they won Super Bowls. Why are the New York Yankees great? Because they have the most World Series. Why are the Boston Celtics great? Because they have about a billion NBA championships. Like it or not, and if my team had none i'd try to come up with some other argument, teams are defined by their championships. That's just the way it is.You are right if you definition of "winning tradition" is limited to only winning the big game. If that is all that counts, and in this instance I'm sure it is because we are talking the Vikings and the Packers. But if you want to broaden the scope of "winning tradition" don't be to sure that the Packers will beat the Vikings every time. I'll give you a little example. Percentage of years the teams have made it to the playoffs. Packers 32.5%, Vikings 54.2%. Oops, better adjust that to just the time frame the Vikings have been in the league. Packers, 39.6%. (Now this is where you make your comment about the number of championships won. Because we all know that winning traditions can only come from a team that wins championships.)
I always find it funny how on Packer boards if a Packer fan claims the Vikings are a better team, no matter what the reason, he is brought to task because he doesn't "toe the line" to the Packers are better then the Vikings no matter what line.
But, here's the problem - I am a Packers fan first and foremost and when the way I go about my business is that I don't wanna have smoke blown up my *** about my team. I want them to be great and improve and the best method, for me, is to call a spade a spade.
I don't necessarily like the Vikings - I am only following them because of Favre. Once he's done, my affinity for the Vikings is all but gone.
So, I think Minnesota is a better team. Is Chilly better than Mac? That's kinda like comparing ****** to Mussolini - neither are going to win many awards. I do think Minnesota is a better-run franchise over the past few years - not by leaps and bounds, but by about what we've seen in both teams' records over the past two years. They drafted remarkably well, and they aren't afraid to bring in guys that cost money.
Both teams are very good, yet both teams were exposed by certain ball clubs this past year, so I wouldn't call either team dominant, although Minny really tightened up their game in the post-season. But, lots of things will happen between now and next season. I can't wait.
You are right if you definition of "winning tradition" is limited to only winning the big game. If that is all that counts, and in this instance I'm sure it is because we are talking the Vikings and the Packers. But if you want to broaden the scope of "winning tradition" don't be to sure that the Packers will beat the Vikings every time. I'll give you a little example. Percentage of years the teams have made it to the playoffs. Packers 32.5%, Vikings 54.2%. Oops, better adjust that to just the time frame the Vikings have been in the league. Packers, 39.6%. (Now this is where you make your comment about the number of championships won. Because we all know that winning traditions can only come from a team that wins championships.)
I always find it funny how on Packer boards if a Packer fan claims the Vikings are a better team, no matter what the reason, he is brought to task because he doesn't "toe the line" to the Packers are better then the Vikings no matter what line.
What other way do you measure winning tradition? The Cubs have been a very good franchise in the last 10 years.....making the playoffs plenty of times....and yet they are still considered one of the worst franchises in sports. No one cares about winning in the regular season unless you win the big one....which, last time I checked, the 'queens have never done.
Here's to hoping the 'queens move to LA. GO LOS ANGELES VIKINGS!!!!!!
You are right if you definition of "winning tradition" is limited to only winning the big game. If that is all that counts, and in this instance I'm sure it is because we are talking the Vikings and the Packers. But if you want to broaden the scope of "winning tradition" don't be to sure that the Packers will beat the Vikings every time. I'll give you a little example. Percentage of years the teams have made it to the playoffs. Packers 32.5%, Vikings 54.2%. Oops, better adjust that to just the time frame the Vikings have been in the league. Packers, 39.6%. (Now this is where you make your comment about the number of championships won. Because we all know that winning traditions can only come from a team that wins championships.)
I always find it funny how on Packer boards if a Packer fan claims the Vikings are a better team, no matter what the reason, he is brought to task because he doesn't "toe the line" to the Packers are better then the Vikings no matter what line.
. You are the only person i've ever seen measure franchise success with percentage of seasons in the playoffs.
Count me in as another "dumb ***", then, because winning is winning. Certainly, you wouldn't have us all believe that a team can have 20 years of losing seasons, then win a Super Bowl, then have 20 more season of losing football, then win another Super Bowl, yada yada yada...and then come to the conclusion that this particular team is a winning team???
Holy smokes - there are bats in full flight in some belfrys here.
I guess thats how you measure success if your team sucks and can't win anything important. That's how losers talk. "Well, we had a good season, lets go get 'em next year."
Only crappy franchises measure success that way. Like the Clippers, Cubs, and Vikings.
As a rational person, I will give you that the Vikings aren't losers. They have a pretty good win percentage, good for them. I just think 12 championships or whatever we have trumps that.Count me in as another "dumb ***", then, because winning is winning. Certainly, you wouldn't have us all believe that a team can have 20 years of losing seasons, then win a Super Bowl, then have 20 more season of losing football, then win another Super Bowl, yada yada yada...and then come to the conclusion that this particular team is a winning team???
Holy smokes - there are bats in full flight in some belfrys here.
As a rational person, I will give you that the Vikings aren't losers. They have a pretty good win percentage, good for them. I just think 12 championships or whatever we have trumps that.
I'm not arguing that Minnesota wins a lot of games, they certainly do, but when someone tries to tell me they have a better "winning tradition" than the Packers, I don't buy it.
I just can't believe I'm actually hearing that the Vikings have a winning tradition...
Last time I checked, the NFL isn't decided by who wins more during the season, but rather who wins the final game...