It’s Time!

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
2,987
Reaction score
259
That's fair. And it's not easy to win a SB, especially with parity.
One reason things seemed so hopeless back in the 70s and 80s was because they didn't have the cap system that is in place today. Now days if your team stinks there's more hope that the wheel will turn around sooner rather than later.
 

grefe

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 13, 2021
Messages
1
Reaction score
3
What makes up the team you're talking about? Individual players I believe... Apparently you don't like that some players/employees are more important to the team than others but that's the way it goes whether you play for the Packers or for McDonald's

Is it the individual employees fault when things don't go right with the overall operation? I don't think so...I think that's managements fault

Without Favre and Rodgers I believe it's a totally different story for the franchise but you are correct it's still Go Pack Go
There is no I in team and you never want a weed in your garden, no matter how pretty the weed is. Time to pull the weed and let it infest another garden. A sign of a good organization and manager is treating everyone equally and parting ways with the members who puts their interests above the organization.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
4,622
Reaction score
233
There is no I in team and you never want a weed in your garden, no matter how pretty the weed is. Time to pull the weed and let it infest another garden. A sign of a good organization and manager is treating everyone equally and parting ways with the members who puts their interests above the organization.
I’m pretty sure Rodgers hasn’t changed in the last 3 months and the team did pretty well with his weed-iness last year. Treating everyone equally works great in a soho kitchen but is a terrible policy in professional sports (before anyone gets ridiculous i only mean great players get treated differently than the gunners on special teams).
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
2,086
Reaction score
156
There is no I in team and you never want a weed in your garden, no matter how pretty the weed is. Time to pull the weed and let it infest another garden. A sign of a good organization and manager is treating everyone equally and parting ways with the members who puts their interests above the organization.

You're out of touch with how sports as entertainment and society in general works...you're utopian idea of equality is awesome but I've never experienced any organization or manager do what you're saying it's one of those easy to say hard to do things...for a number of complex reasons

Further if the weed is pretty and I enjoy having it in my garden then I'm not cutting it down just because it's considered a weed by some...

Also I didn't say there's an I in team but there's no escaping the fact that a team is made up of a group of I's working together to achieve a common goal...

Bottom line suggesting, that allowing this situation to arise between the team and a fhof qb for the second time in the last 17 years is solid management is curious at best...whatever you think of Rodgers or you thought of Favre there's no way it should happen once let alone twice under the same management...
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
167
I’m pretty sure Rodgers hasn’t changed in the last 3 months and the team did pretty well with his weed-iness last year. Treating everyone equally works great in a soho kitchen but is a terrible policy in professional sports (before anyone gets ridiculous i only mean great players get treated differently than the gunners on special teams).
Yeah and in the NBA, and maybe the NFL and MLB, elite players are treated differently by the refs/umpires. That is, the close calls will go the star's way more often than not. Is that fair? Not really but remember all of these sports are businesses first. They'll give their customers/viewers what they want, well most of the time. I do think the Rodgers situation could have been avoided if Gluten had more common sense. But judging by Rodgers's response, he's lacking in common sense too. He seems downright vengeful. And justified or not, it's not a mature way to act. Gluten threw the first punch, Rodgers the second, and it's always the second guy who gets flagged for the foul.
 

Poppa San

Levelheaded
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
10,441
Reaction score
1,095
Location
Brown County Wisconsin
With all respect, a champion is a champion regardless of the era they played. That is, they all played by the same set of rules for that era. Now when there were fewer than 32 teams it might have been an easier road to a championship, but not by much.
If it is easier to get a championship with fewer teams, why don't the other teams get them? You get 10-12 stacked teams in a smaller league or 25 so-so teams in an expanded league.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
167
If it is easier to get a championship with fewer teams, why don't the other teams get them? You get 10-12 stacked teams in a smaller league or 25 so-so teams in an expanded league.
Probably right. I should have stopped with "a champion is a champion."
 

Poppa San

Levelheaded
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
10,441
Reaction score
1,095
Location
Brown County Wisconsin
Probably right. I should have stopped with "a champion is a champion."
No. This opinion of easier in a smaller league has never been analyzed AFAIK. It's just a common assumption. On the surface it makes sense. A team in a 12 team legue should win the championship once every 12 years on average. 32 NFL teams now should win 3 SB's per century. One a decade pummels the average and is a decent goal.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
167
No. This opinion of easier in a smaller league has never been analyzed AFAIK. It's just a common assumption. On the surface it makes sense. A team in a 12 team legue should win the championship once every 12 years on average. 32 NFL teams now should win 3 SB's per century. One a decade pummels the average and is a decent goal.
Thanks that makes more sense. Especially in this era of salary caps and parity, the argument for a team winning a SB once every 32 years is reasonable. Well, unless you're the Vikings who for some reason keep defying the odds. The Packers won in 1997 and 2011, so that is a decent accomplishment as well. As for the arguments of "we should have won more with Favre or Rodgers" I'm moving away from that "logic". Championships involve a lot of moving pieces from the team to the # of impact players to health to the FO. Savor the SB memories until another won rolls around. That eases anxiety (and anger in some cases). - And I didn't forget the first two SB wins. It was another era, but again, a championship is a championship. So that makes 4 SBs for GB in under 60 years. Not bad at all.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Messages
75
Reaction score
3
I felt exactly the same way, I thought the Packers as a force were done. Back then, there was a small group of teams that were always in the mix, like the Cowboys. Now we've been that team that's always in the mix.

As for the 13 championships, that's the big number. But kids and the media mainly just talk about Super Bowl wins, so we get short shrifted a lot. Oh well, we know the truth.
I now I am biased, but I do think the Packers have the best history and are the most successful franchise, and I do not think its even close. We have the most championships by far(13), winning many of those in both the pre-super bowl era and the super bowl era. We also have both the most wins and the highest winning percentage when you include both the regular season and the playoffs.

While I do get that there are a few that have won more Super bowls, we are not far behind those teams, and Super bowls are only championships in the last half of pro football history, I think there is a lot more to look at when judging a franchise than just Super bowl wins, like total championships, wins, and consistency.
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Messages
75
Reaction score
3
Thanks that makes more sense. Especially in this era of salary caps and parity, the argument for a team winning a SB once every 32 years is reasonable. Well, unless you're the Vikings who for some reason keep defying the odds. The Packers won in 1997 and 2011, so that is a decent accomplishment as well. As for the arguments of "we should have won more with Favre or Rodgers" I'm moving away from that "logic". Championships involve a lot of moving pieces from the team to the # of impact players to health to the FO. Savor the SB memories until another won rolls around. That eases anxiety (and anger in some cases). - And I didn't forget the first two SB wins. It was another era, but again, a championship is a championship. So that makes 4 SBs for GB in under 60 years. Not bad at all.
I do hope we can maintain that parity in the NFL and the other pro sports as well. Most pro sports(except baseball) have salary caps and of course you have a draft with the worst teams picking first.

I don't ever want it to become like college where it's the same teams winning every year and the other teams don't even have a realistic shot because of the wide gap in talent(due to the players choosing the schools), as well as $, facilities, and resources, .
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
167
I do hope we can maintain that parity in the NFL and the other pro sports as well. Most pro sports(except baseball) have salary caps and of course you have a draft with the worst teams picking first.

I don't ever want it to become like college where it's the same teams winning every year and the other teams don't even have a realistic shot because of the wide gap in talent(due to the players choosing the schools), as well as $, facilities, and resources, .
Parity will stick around because it provides a more entertaining game/season. And yeah, heaven forbid the NFL becomes the NCAA "triopoly" of Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State. Even now, I can pretty safely say these three teams will be back in the final top 4 this November. Yawn.
 

rmontro

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 8, 2017
Messages
2,987
Reaction score
259
While I do get that there are a few that have won more Super bowls, we are not far behind those teams
I don't think four Super Bowls is a bad number at all, I think that's more than respectable from a historical standpoint. I know a few teams have more, but when we reached four I felt pretty good about it, especially since there are teams in our division who don't have any.

I happen to think the total number of NFL championships is the most important number. Part of that is a product of our longevity in the league, true, but we still have the most.
 

TEXPAC2

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 4, 2021
Messages
4
Reaction score
6
With the latest report about that Rodgers actually was informed about the Love pick beforehand, this is getting more complicated. Frankly as a fan, “I’m Offended” that Rodgers keeps playing these games. It’s time for him to place all his cards on the table and quit working through the idiots in the media…….
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
167
I don't think four Super Bowls is a bad number at all, I think that's more than respectable from a historical standpoint. I know a few teams have more, but when we reached four I felt pretty good about it, especially since there are teams in our division who don't have any.

I happen to think the total number of NFL championships is the most important number. Part of that is a product of our longevity in the league, true, but we still have the most.
Amen. It's why, whether you like em or not, you at least have to respect the Yankees 26 (or 27) World Series Championships. Four SBs for a small team in WI is pretty damn good. Look at Mine and Detroit. None.
 

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
2,086
Reaction score
156
With the latest report about that Rodgers actually was informed about the Love pick beforehand, this is getting more complicated. Frankly as a fan, “I’m Offended” that Rodgers keeps playing these games. It’s time for him to place all his cards on the table and quit working through the idiots in the media…….

That sounds like another bad move by the Packers FO...leaking a story like that now? Why wouldn't they have just said that from the beginning of it was true. I wonder if Murphy hired another former Whitehouse press secretary

What's the source?
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
4,622
Reaction score
233
With the latest report about that Rodgers actually was informed about the Love pick beforehand, this is getting more complicated. Frankly as a fan, “I’m Offended” that Rodgers keeps playing these games. It’s time for him to place all his cards on the table and quit working through the idiots in the media…….

Now it's an absolute he said/she said. Plenty of quotes and reports following the Love pick that Rodgers was surprised by the draft selection. If anything I think he's already said he didn't know about the pick. Do you have a link to the latest reports you're talking about? I haven't seen them and I'm curious how the Packers are trying to call Rodgers a liar without actually doing so.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
4,622
Reaction score
233
If it is easier to get a championship with fewer teams, why don't the other teams get them? You get 10-12 stacked teams in a smaller league or 25 so-so teams in an expanded league.

Disclaimer: I hate the Celtics so I'm more than happy to point out that for the Celtics, they were able to dominate because there was no free agency and, with only 8 teams in the league, they got the 8th pick in the draft every year.

Not to the same for football since players aren't NEARLY as impactful in a football game (22+ guys contributing as opposed to 7) but I just wanted to hate on the Celtics.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
2,815
Reaction score
166
Disclaimer: I hate the Celtics so I'm more than happy to point out that for the Celtics, they were able to dominate because there was no free agency and, with only 8 teams in the league, they got the 8th pick in the draft every year.

Not to the same for football since players aren't NEARLY as impactful in a football game (22+ guys contributing as opposed to 7) but I just wanted to hate on the Celtics.
Celtics were able to dominate because they had Bill Russell and Sam Jones.
 

Heyjoe4

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
2,297
Reaction score
167
Now it's an absolute he said/she said. Plenty of quotes and reports following the Love pick that Rodgers was surprised by the draft selection. If anything I think he's already said he didn't know about the pick. Do you have a link to the latest reports you're talking about? I haven't seen them and I'm curious how the Packers are trying to call Rodgers a liar without actually doing so.
Yeah I mean this is the first time I've heard that Rodgers knew about the Love pick before it happened. I'm certain that didn't happen.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
12,566
Reaction score
1,185
Ive never heard they told Rodgers anything either and IMO, it doesn’t really matter. There is zero benefit to letting people outside of your draft room know your draft intentions.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
4,622
Reaction score
233
Celtics were able to dominate because they had Bill Russell and Sam Jones.
Yes, and no team had any way to improve more than them or weaken them. At that time, when you were the best, how exactly was another team supposed to get better than you? Voodo magic?
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top