I found this to be very interesting

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
1,101
As per NFL.com

13) Will the Packers unseat the Bears as the NFL's all-time winningest team?
The Bears and Packers comprise the NFL's oldest rivalry, and the Packers have a chance to finally unseat the Bears as the NFL's winningest team in 2022. The Bears franchise has concluded each of the first 102 seasons of NFL football as the all-time leader in regular-season wins by any team. The 1920 Decatur Staleys won a league-best 10 games, relocated to Chicago for a championship-winning season in 1921, then were renamed the Bears in 1922.

Seventy years later, Chicago entered the 1992 season with 85 more wins (561) than the Packers and Giants (tied for second with 476 wins each). However, 30 seasons of Hall of Fame quarterback play have allowed the Packers (782) to close the gap on the Bears (783) to one win entering the 2022 season.
With a win (at Vikings) and Bears loss (vs. 49ers) in Week 1, the Packers could tie their division rivals and add a compelling subplot to the Week 2 Sunday Night Football Bears at Packers matchup.



So I don't think there is any doubt the Packers will take over as the NFLs winningest team but one thing I found very interesting is that for the first time ever in the history of the NFL that team won't be the Bears. I know the details and how they haven't been good recently and the most wins were piled on early and how they are one of the founding members (longevity and all that) all that but its still amazing to me. I mean the Packers were only a year behind and by 1992 the Bears had earned 85 more wins and even more than that over the Cardinals.

I also find it interesting, and little funny that it has only taken the Packers 30 years to erase an 85 game deficit.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
4,685
Reaction score
695
As per NFL.com

13) Will the Packers unseat the Bears as the NFL's all-time winningest team?
The Bears and Packers comprise the NFL's oldest rivalry, and the Packers have a chance to finally unseat the Bears as the NFL's winningest team in 2022. The Bears franchise has concluded each of the first 102 seasons of NFL football as the all-time leader in regular-season wins by any team. The 1920 Decatur Staleys won a league-best 10 games, relocated to Chicago for a championship-winning season in 1921, then were renamed the Bears in 1922.

Seventy years later, Chicago entered the 1992 season with 85 more wins (561) than the Packers and Giants (tied for second with 476 wins each). However, 30 seasons of Hall of Fame quarterback play have allowed the Packers (782) to close the gap on the Bears (783) to one win entering the 2022 season.
With a win (at Vikings) and Bears loss (vs. 49ers) in Week 1, the Packers could tie their division rivals and add a compelling subplot to the Week 2 Sunday Night Football Bears at Packers matchup.



So I don't think there is any doubt the Packers will take over as the NFLs winningest team but one thing I found very interesting is that for the first time ever in the history of the NFL that team won't be the Bears. I know the details and how they haven't been good recently and the most wins were piled on early and how they are one of the founding members (longevity and all that) all that but its still amazing to me. I mean the Packers were only a year behind and by 1992 the Bears had earned 85 more wins and even more than that over the Cardinals.

I also find it interesting, and little funny that it has only taken the Packers 30 years to erase an 85 game deficit.
I'll only accept this if the Bears organization correctly identifies it as the Staley/Bears all time record. We busted through the Chicago Bears record a couple of years ago. I'm not buying their new math.
 

MadScientist

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 9, 2022
Messages
8
Reaction score
2
About time.

While the Packers have made up 84 games over 30 years, the Giants are still 77 games behind, despite winning 2 Superbowls.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
3,930
Reaction score
546
I remember some guy telling me that absolutely the bears had won more world championships than GB. Later, I realized he was counting all Chicago teams. And they weren't all bear teams. Some franchises just went away and others moved to other cities, like St. Louis. So you need to be careful about how you add things up when it comes to Chicago.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,903
Reaction score
2,293
I remember some guy telling me that absolutely the bears had won more world championships than GB. Later, I realized he was counting all Chicago teams. And they weren't all bear teams. Some franchises just went away and others moved to other cities, like St. Louis. So you need to be careful about how you add things up when it comes to Chicago.
Especially if they have a fake mustache. Always look for the Fake mustache. Just pull on it if you have to. How do you spell shyster? :whistling:
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
3,581
Reaction score
485
I remember some guy telling me that absolutely the bears had won more world championships than GB. Later, I realized he was counting all Chicago teams. And they weren't all bear teams. Some franchises just went away and others moved to other cities, like St. Louis. So you need to be careful about how you add things up when it comes to Chicago.
Wait, does that even work out? The Bears have nine championships (that includes the Staleys' one, I believe), and the Cardinals have two. That's eleven. The Packers have 13. Is there another Chicago team I'm forgetting? Or was he counting the Bulls and Black Hawks too? :laugh:
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
1,399
Reaction score
264
As per NFL.com

13) Will the Packers unseat the Bears as the NFL's all-time winningest team?
The Bears and Packers comprise the NFL's oldest rivalry, and the Packers have a chance to finally unseat the Bears as the NFL's winningest team in 2022. The Bears franchise has concluded each of the first 102 seasons of NFL football as the all-time leader in regular-season wins by any team. The 1920 Decatur Staleys won a league-best 10 games, relocated to Chicago for a championship-winning season in 1921, then were renamed the Bears in 1922.

Seventy years later, Chicago entered the 1992 season with 85 more wins (561) than the Packers and Giants (tied for second with 476 wins each). However, 30 seasons of Hall of Fame quarterback play have allowed the Packers (782) to close the gap on the Bears (783) to one win entering the 2022 season.
With a win (at Vikings) and Bears loss (vs. 49ers) in Week 1, the Packers could tie their division rivals and add a compelling subplot to the Week 2 Sunday Night Football Bears at Packers matchup.



So I don't think there is any doubt the Packers will take over as the NFLs winningest team but one thing I found very interesting is that for the first time ever in the history of the NFL that team won't be the Bears. I know the details and how they haven't been good recently and the most wins were piled on early and how they are one of the founding members (longevity and all that) all that but its still amazing to me. I mean the Packers were only a year behind and by 1992 the Bears had earned 85 more wins and even more than that over the Cardinals.

I also find it interesting, and little funny that it has only taken the Packers 30 years to erase an 85 game deficit.
Well, it is not over til it's over. Rodgers owning the Bears will only stoke more fires.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
3,930
Reaction score
546
Wait, does that even work out? The Bears have nine championships (that includes the Staleys' one, I believe), and the Cardinals have two. That's eleven. The Packers have 13. Is there another Chicago team I'm forgetting? Or was he counting the Bulls and Black Hawks too? :laugh:
I'm not sure. I remember going on the computer and looking at champions from back to when it started and I counted more from Chicago but definitely not from the chicago bears. Maybe even before NFL.
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
3,581
Reaction score
485
I remember waiting a long time for the Packers to gain the head to head advantage over the Bears, they accomplished that a few years back. I hadn't even thought about the record for most wins. I guess there's always another challenge.
 

El Guapo

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,745
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Land 'O Lakes
Wait, does that even work out? The Bears have nine championships (that includes the Staleys' one, I believe), and the Cardinals have two. That's eleven. The Packers have 13. Is there another Chicago team I'm forgetting? Or was he counting the Bulls and Black Hawks too? :laugh:
Did this conversation take place sometime between 1986 and 1996?
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
3,581
Reaction score
485
Did this conversation take place sometime between 1986 and 1996?
It was gopkers' friend, not mine, so I'm not sure. Even if it was before '96, it would still just be a draw, 11-11. Unless someone can come up with another Chicago team that won NFL championships.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
661
About time.

While the Packers have made up 84 games over 30 years, the Giants are still 77 games behind, despite winning 2 Superbowls.
That's an interesting factoid. Although I'd rather have the SBs than the all-time wins title. Even so, it's pretty amazing for a tiny city in Wisconsin. Tradition counts.
 

MadScientist

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 9, 2022
Messages
8
Reaction score
2
That's an interesting factoid. Although I'd rather have the SBs than the all-time wins title. Even so, it's pretty amazing for a tiny city in Wisconsin. Tradition counts.
Having back to back HoF QB's counts more. The only way to make up that kind of deficit is to consistently be better than the other team. The Packers have averaged being 3 games better for 30 years.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
661
Having back to back HoF QB's counts more. The only way to make up that kind of deficit is to consistently be better than the other team. The Packers have averaged being 3 games better for 30 years.
It's been a surrealistic run of excellent QB play. Make that HOF QB play. Some of us tend to take it for granted. I lived through the 70s and 80s and take nothing for granted. Maybe it's karma. But you're right, if a team doesn't have a HOF QB, or even an otherwise elite QB, they have to make it up, usually with outstanding defense.

As for the SBs, well those are hard to come by. Ask a Viking fan. But for 30 years the Packers have pretty much kept us in out seats with outstanding play, and two more Lombardi trophies.

That gets me excited for this year. Not only is Rodgers still playing, that D is shaping up to be one of the best in many years. It's a good blend of veterans and youth that should last a while. Depth is questionable, but there's that salary cap to deal with. And I credit the Packers' position coaches for doing outstanding work with what looks like average talent when injuries inevitable happen.

Who knows what will happen when Rodgers leaves. It's a little much to expect another HOF candidate at QB, so it's more important than ever for Gluten to keep the team balanced, and he's done that.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,903
Reaction score
2,293
Having back to back HoF QB's counts more. The only way to make up that kind of deficit is to consistently be better than the other team. The Packers have averaged being 3 games better for 30 years.
That truly is stellar. You would think that we had 4-5 Superbowls to show for that 3 game yearly advantage over 3 decades.
2 Superbowls since the 1960’s is getting closer and closer to the statistical NFL average. Although as they say “no better time than the present” 1 SB this year or next would have a profound effect on our long term success rate.
 
Last edited:

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
661
That truly is stellar. You would think that we had 4-5 Superbowls to show for that 3 game yearly advantage over 3 decades.
2 Superbowls since the 1960’s is getting closer and closer to the statistical NFL average. Although as they say “no better time than the present” 1 SB this year or next would have a profound effect on our long term success rate.
Agreed, and we came close with Favre, and had even more opportunities with Rodgers - only to lose the last 4 NFCCGs Green Bay has played in. Those are team failures, and really GB was outmatched by Atlanta and SF the first time. But Seattle, and the 2nd SF game were very, very winnable. Not SB games? Correct but ya can't win the SB if ya can't get there. And with 30 years of HOF QBing, it's not acceptable to be close to the NFL average.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,903
Reaction score
2,293
Agreed, and we came close with Favre, and had even more opportunities with Rodgers - only to lose the last 4 NFCCGs Green Bay has played in. Those are team failures, and really GB was outmatched by Atlanta and SF the first time. But Seattle, and the 2nd SF game were very, very winnable. Not SB games? Correct but ya can't win the SB if ya can't get there. And with 30 years of HOF QBing, it's not acceptable to be close to the NFL average.
We lost to Denver in the 1997 Chsmpionship game. But another one that hurt was losing to the Giants in 2007 in Overtime in the NFC game.

We definitely do not have a good Overtime record in the playoffs.
Since Favre took over and including Rodgers tenure, we are 1-5 in Overtime during the postseason.

Winning those 5 games would’ve put us in a Conference Championship match, a SuperBowl match, a Divisional game, another Superbowl and another NFC Conference game. Now Aikman that’s some tough sledding
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
661
We lost to Denver in the 1997 Chsmpionship game. But another one that hurt was losing to the Giants in 2007 in Overtime in the NFC game.

We definitely do not have a good Overtime record in the playoffs.
Since Favre took over and including Rodgers tenure, we are 1-5 in Overtime during the postseason.

Winning those 5 games would’ve put us in a Conference Championship match, a SuperBowl match, a Divisional game, another Superbowl and another NFC Conference game. Now Aikman that’s some tough sledding
Both the 1997 loss to Denver and that 2007 loss to the Giants, where Favre threw one of his patented and ill-timed INTs really hurt. And I think that 2007 game was played in brutal conditions, well below zero. I remember seeing Tom Coughlin's face redder than a tomato. I'm pretty sure he got nasty frostbite on his nose. 1997 was a slow motion disaster. 2007 was a knife right through the heart of Packerland.

I guess what bothers me is that so many of those teams had the chance to put "dynasty" next to them. Those teams are rare - the Pats, Steelers, and 49ers come to mind. Maybe the Cowboys with Aikman, much as that sickens me. No good reason the Packers of the last 30 years shouldn't be there. But the reality hurts. They aren't......
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
3,581
Reaction score
485
I guess what bothers me is that so many of those teams had the chance to put "dynasty" next to them. Those teams are rare - the Pats, Steelers, and 49ers come to mind. Maybe the Cowboys with Aikman, much as that sickens me. No good reason the Packers of the last 30 years shouldn't be there. But the reality hurts. They aren't......
That Cowboys team was the first to win three Super Bowls in a four year period, so I would call them a dynasty. We certainly couldn't get past them. That feat was later reproduced by the Patriots.

The Giants irritate me because they won two playoff games in Lambeau on their way to two separate Super Bowl wins. The Giants are kind of weird because they're generally not that good, but once in a while they catch fire and win the Super Bowl. Then they slip back to mediocrity.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
661
That Cowboys team was the first to win three Super Bowls in a four year period, so I would call them a dynasty. We certainly couldn't get past them. That feat was later reproduced by the Patriots.

The Giants irritate me because they won two playoff games in Lambeau on their way to two separate Super Bowl wins. The Giants are kind of weird because they're generally not that good, but once in a while they catch fire and win the Super Bowl. Then they slip back to mediocrity.
I knew the Cowboys won 3 SBs that were within a small range. I forgot that it was 3 in 4 years. And yeah, in the age of parity, that's a dynasty.

And I share your irritation with the Giants. I'm not sure, but in 2007 I think they got in the playoffs with a 9-7 record, or maybe 10-6. And after they beat us, they went on to beat the undefeated Patriots in the SB. I think that was the game when BB ran off the field at the end without shaking Coughlin's hand. That was also the game with the famous, or infamous, helmet catch. It was unreal.

And if Eli Manning can win two SBs, I gotta believe Rodgers can at least duplicate that. I don't know if that will happen. Our record in the playoffs isn't encouraging, but the past is the past. And that record includes big-game losses by Holmgren, McCarthy, and now LeFleur. I say it's time for good karma to smile on the Pack.
 
Last edited:

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
3,581
Reaction score
485
I knew the Cowboys won 3 SBs that were within a small range. I forgot that it was 3 in 4 years. And yeah, in the age of parity, that's a dynasty.
Some people who would say that wasn't a dynasty would have said it was if it was three Super Bowls over six years. I can't penalize them for being so efficient. I think winning three in a row is a dynasty too, for that matter.

I'd like to think GB is due for some good karma, but at this point they're going to have to prove it to me.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
661
Some people who would say that wasn't a dynasty would have said it was if it was three Super Bowls over six years. I can't penalize them for being so efficient. I think winning three in a row is a dynasty too, for that matter.

I'd like to think GB is due for some good karma, but at this point they're going to have to prove it to me.
Yeah three in six years would count as a dynasty in my book. And I agree with your caution when it comes to the Packers. The string of post-season losses is a little staggering for a team with Rodgers at QB. And when a team has so many disappointing endings, it almost becomes self-fulfilling. I'll believe they can win another SB when I see it.

I don't think any team has won three SBs in a row. Even two in a row is rare. The Packers did it at the start of SB history. I know Denver and New England have done it. Maybe SF or the Steelers.
 

Poppa San

Love her or leave her. Either way is expensive.
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
11,365
Reaction score
1,567
Location
Brown County Wisconsin
Yeah three in six years would count as a dynasty in my book. And I agree with your caution when it comes to the Packers. The string of post-season losses is a little staggering for a team with Rodgers at QB. And when a team has so many disappointing endings, it almost becomes self-fulfilling. I'll believe they can win another SB when I see it.

I don't think any team has won three SBs in a row. Even two in a row is rare. The Packers did it at the start of SB history. I know Denver and New England have done it. Maybe SF or the Steelers.
Back-to-back SB? Dolphins, 'Boys, Steelers twice, Pats, Broncos, and of course your GBP.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,124
Reaction score
661
Back-to-back SB? Dolphins, 'Boys, Steelers twice, Pats, Broncos, and of course your GBP.
Thanks Poppa. I missed the Dolphins. Griese was their QB for those SB wins and one season they were undefeated. That still hasn't been repeated and might be one of those records that stands the test of time, like Favre's consecutive start record.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
8,903
Reaction score
2,293
Thanks Poppa. I missed the Dolphins. Griese was their QB for those SB wins and one season they were undefeated. That still hasn't been repeated and might be one of those records that stands the test of time, like Favre's consecutive start record.
We now know that It’s a phenomenal feat being undefeated.
It’s also going to continue to be increasingly difficult to attain. The number of teams has increased (expansion teams) and add to that their are more games being added to the schedule. It’s really much more difficult in comparison because Miami had 13 teams in the AFC AND played 17 games total, including the SuperBowl. Several teams have been very close or comparable. It’s interesting and ironic that it was Don Shula who erased any chance of Chicago going undefeated in 1985.

Shula is both the only HC to go undefeated (Miami) AND succeed at ruining another teams perfect season (Bears). He was also at the Super Bowl watching the Patriots fall from Glory after they went 18-0. I’m quite sure he had a voodoo doll of Tom Brady. :whistling:
 
Last edited:

Members online

Top