Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="weeds" data-source="post: 468991" data-attributes="member: 39">Jules, did you note that "Nobody" liked your first two posts? <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/wink.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" data-shortname=";)" /> Haha... ok... I'll let it alone. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/smile.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)" data-shortname=":)" /> Your post after a good win for your guys was certainly an effort in good sportsmanship. (Notice how I carefully stepped around the now cliche "classy"? I despise the use of that term on nearly every damned football forum and radio sports talk venue.) However, even a week removed from that game -- I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Packers fan, Packers coach or player, member of the national media or any bum on the street who would agree with your "overly kind" assertion that "It's not that bad". It IS that bad if you're not a fan of the Colts, Bears, Vikings and/or Lions. Oddly enough, I can't think of a worse outcome for the Packers and their fans since the '97 game where the World Champion Packers went into Indy (who was 0-10 [the opposite of undefeated -- which is "defeated"] at the time), and were beaten 41-38. Adding insult to injury, Detroit murdered the Colts the following week. It was at that point that I came to realize that the '97 Packers were not the same team as the '96 Packers.</blockquote>

Total: 1,171 (members: 4, guests: 1,167)