lets be optimistic for a change....

[longtimefan]

ya LTF. It's okay to praise other teams. I often do it.

Is it okay to point out facts to dispute somebodies opinion? Captaingooglemeister tends to make these idiotic statements where he thinks his "opinion" is "fact" and anyone that disputes it he calls names.
.

Maybe it is time to put Captn on ignore..

Name calling is starting (from you as well) and from then on, it tends to escalate to other issues.

 

[NOMOFO]

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

really?

Maybe it is time to put Captn on ignore..

Name calling is starting (from you as well) and from then on, it tends to escalate to other issues.

well...mine comes from the heart. ....and...it's not a name it's a title.

 

[realcaliforniacheese]

They weren´t dead last in the league though.

True.

 

[realcaliforniacheese]

Ya...I get that... but the issues in Seattle and San Fran are real. Especially Seattle... it's bad. Have you read anything at all about that?

Nope.

 

[PikeBadger]

Ironic ain't it? The title of this thread and the posts contained within.

And never is heard a discouraging word, and the sky is not cloudy all day.

Screw it. Got my shades on. The future is bright. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

[GoPGo]

We're all Packers fans here. Nothing wrong with being critical of the direction of the team.

No there's not. The problem is the logic (or lack thereof) behind it.

I'm disappointed with a team that doesn't block and tackle well--and hasn't for 4 years.

So because they had a bad game where they didn't block or tackle as well in the Superdome (we won't even go into the atrocious officiating, since that is the NFL norm) and suddenly the previous 4.5 games where they DID block and tackle well are irrelevant? Whatever, man.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So because they had a bad game where they didn't block or tackle as well in the Superdome (we won't even go into the atrocious officiating, since that is the NFL norm) and suddenly the previous 4.5 games where they DID block and tackle well are irrelevant? Whatever, man.

The problem with it is that none of the four teams we beat during our winning streak had a great offense. We´ll have to wait how the defense will fair against Philadelphia and New England to find out if the game at New Orleans was an aberration or the norm against high scoring teams. If the last few years are any indicator though I wouldn´t expect the defense to rise to the occasion.

 

[Carl]

No there's not. The problem is the logic (or lack thereof) behind it.



So because they had a bad game where they didn't block or tackle as well in the Superdome (we won't even go into the atrocious officiating, since that is the NFL norm) and suddenly the previous 4.5 games where they DID block and tackle well are irrelevant? Whatever, man.

Wouldn't matter if we were 10-0 before the game. Some people would still only use the one game to draw conclusions.

 

[JBlood]

No there's not. The problem is the logic (or lack thereof) behind it.



So because they had a bad game where they didn't block or tackle as well in the Superdome (we won't even go into the atrocious officiating, since that is the NFL norm) and suddenly the previous 4.5 games where they DID block and tackle well are irrelevant? Whatever, man.

We haven't had a dominant team on either side of the ball for 3 years. The o-line can't handle good d-lines and the d-line (and linebackers) can't handle good o-lines. We've been blown out by 2 good teams (that have shown they are beatable), and won a game where we gave up 500 yards, 33 first downs, and allowed Chicago to control the ball for 36 minutes (thankyou Jay Cutler). The 2010 team which was also 5 and 3 at this point never lost a game by more than 4 points; and had the no. 2 defense in the league--and still required other teams to win/lose on the last regular season weekend to get into the playoffs. So, to me, the evidence is pretty convincing that we are not an elite team. It wouldn't bother me at all to be proven wrong.

 

[NOMOFO]

We haven't had a dominant team on either side of the ball for 3 years. The o-line can't handle good d-lines and the d-line (and linebackers) can't handle good o-lines. We've been blown out by 2 good teams (that have shown they are beatable), and won a game where we gave up 500 yards, 33 first downs, and allowed Chicago to control the ball for 36 minutes (thankyou Jay Cutler). The 2010 team which was also 5 and 3 at this point never lost a game by more than 4 points; and had the no. 2 defense in the league--and still required other teams to win/lose on the last regular season weekend to get into the playoffs. So, to me, the evidence is pretty convincing that we are not an elite team. It wouldn't bother me at all to be proven wrong.

I think this entire debate over "elite" and not "elite" is just getting sooooo old. Fine... my initial reaction is to agree with you. I don't think the Packers are "elite". But AGAIN...who is?!!

I don't even disagree with really anything you are saying about where we are and have been. ...but... This is so frustrating. My Lord. We could be saying the exact same types of things if we were fans of Seattle...or San Fran...or certainly the Saints. I would lay money down today that the Packers would beat Dallas or Arizona if they played today. Vegas would indicated that Packer fans are whacked in underestimating their team.

So, we can whine and btch about the fact that we're not going 16-0 every season and winning the Super Bowl every year... or we can be realistic in understanding the days of "elite" teams and "dynasties" are long gone. BTW... I'll say it again...I agree Jay is Jay... but that's about the most over-rated group of talent in the NFL. Forte is an absolute beast but after that... classic cases of WAY more hype than proven world class studs.

 

[NOMOFO]

Wouldn't matter if we were 10-0 before the game. Some people would still only use the one game to draw conclusions.

Yep! AMEN. Like I said, anything short of 16-0 with a Super Bowl title makes them a failure and the sky is falling.

AGAIN - go to bearsfanforum.com and then try to come back on this forum and tell us how the Pack has problems.

 

[red4tribe]

We haven't had a dominant team on either side of the ball for 3 years. The o-line can't handle good d-lines and the d-line (and linebackers) can't handle good o-lines. We've been blown out by 2 good teams (that have shown they are beatable), and won a game where we gave up 500 yards, 33 first downs, and allowed Chicago to control the ball for 36 minutes (thankyou Jay Cutler). The 2010 team which was also 5 and 3 at this point never lost a game by more than 4 points; and had the no. 2 defense in the league--and still required other teams to win/lose on the last regular season weekend to get into the playoffs. So, to me, the evidence is pretty convincing that we are not an elite team. It wouldn't bother me at all to be proven wrong.

I think that 10-6 team in 2010 was more like a 12-4 or 13-3 team given all the close losses. And the fact that the team never trailed by more than 7 points the entire season, which is absolutely amazing.

 

[PackerDNA]

NOMOFO, I don't disagree with your points or anything you wrote. Didn't find a thing wrong with any of it.
IMO, the point you may/seem to be missing is that I and others don't care how other teams are doing, or if their fan bases have more reason to be miserable than ours. I only care how the Packers are doing. Saying that 20 other teams and their fans are worse off than ours only means to me that there are 10 doing better, and I don't like that.

 

[JBlood]

I think that 10-6 team in 2010 was more like a 12-4 or 13-3 team given all the close losses. And the fact that the team never trailed by more than 7 points the entire season, which is absolutely amazing.

Yup, they played just poorly enough to almost miss the playoffs--depended on the Lions beating the Bucs, if I remember, last game of the season. It's been downhill since. Got a lot of crap from the Vikes fans who pointed out that we were the first 1 loss team to lose in the first round of the playoffs, which erased their ineptness as the first loss team to lose a conference championship game. I went through the best in the 60s, the worst in the 70s and 80s, and it bothers me that we're slowly declining instead of improving. Personally, I've come to the conclusion it's the coaching more than the personnel.

 

[PackerDNA]

JBlood, I think it's as much other teams doing more improving/ more to improve then the Packers every year.

 

[Carl]

Yup, they played just poorly enough to almost miss the playoffs--depended on the Lions beating the Bucs, if I remember, last game of the season. It's been downhill since. Got a lot of crap from the Vikes fans who pointed out that we were the first 1 loss team to lose in the first round of the playoffs, which erased their ineptness as the first loss team to lose a conference championship game. I went through the best in the 60s, the worst in the 70s and 80s, and it bothers me that we're slowly declining instead of improving. Personally, I've come to the conclusion it's the coaching more than the personnel.

They didn't need help during the last two weeks that season. When they were 8-6, if they won out, they were in no matter what.

 

[NOMOFO]

NOMOFO, I don't disagree with your points or anything you wrote. Didn't find a thing wrong with any of it.
IMO, the point you may/seem to be missing is that I and others don't care how other teams are doing, or if their fan bases have more reason to be miserable than ours. I only care how the Packers are doing. Saying that 20 other teams and their fans are worse off than ours only means to me that there are 10 doing better, and I don't like that.

I don't think that's a good read at all on what I was saying. I don't think there are 10 better teams than the packer right now. I don't think there are 5 better. I would put the Packers in the same group with the top 5 teams. I was saying there are 20 franchises that without question have all in all been really bad for 20 plus years. By winning percentage, super bowls, division crowns and all of those benchmarks.... the Packers are right up there in the NFL the past 20 years. There are not 10 teams better in that regard.

 

[PackerDNA]

Didn't read that at all in your post; probably just a misread on my part.
But again, we agree.

 

[PackerDNA]

That's true , Carl. The help they needed- Lions upset by Bucs, Giants incredible collapse against the Eagles- had already happened.

 

[JBlood]

They didn't need help during the last two weeks that season. When they were 8-6, if they won out, they were in no matter what.

Detroit beat Tampa Bay in week 15. Had Tampa Bay won that game they would have knocked Green Bay out of the playoffs. I'd say that qualifies as help--even if it wasn't on the last weekend, as I remembered.

 

[JBlood]

JBlood, I think it's as much other teams doing more improving/ more to improve then the Packers every year.

No argument. Same result.

 

[NOMOFO]

Didn't read that at all in your post; probably just a misread on my part.
But again, we agree.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Detroit beat Tampa Bay in week 15. Had Tampa Bay won that game they would have knocked Green Bay out of the playoffs. I'd say that qualifies as help--even if it wasn't on the last weekend, as I remembered.

I agree. 3-10 Detroit knocked off Tampa in Tampa in OT. That was the help that got the Packers out from behind the 8 ball.

 

[NOMOFO]

No , anything can't just happen. The playoffs are a different beast, and the best teams, barring something crazy, will win the vast majority of the time. Look at your own examples. All were very good teams who overcame early slumps to play up to their capabilities, and matched up very well against their playoff opponents.
This Packers team is Aaron Rodgers and not a whole lot else.

lol....but just 8 days ago the general comments from most fans and talking heads was that the Packer's defense was on the rise and they were one of the deepest in the league with their secondary. One loss and the sky is falling.

The Packers would be in trouble without Rodgers. Agreed. Just like Denver would without Manning and the Colts without Luck. The Packers have holes and some weak positional talent-agreed. The Packers do however have enough talent to beat anyone on any given day. Lacey...Cobb...Nelson...these guys are no joke.

 

[JBlood]

I agree. 3-10 Detroit knocked off Tampa in Tampa in OT. That was the help that got the Packers out from behind the 8 ball.

I kind of like the fact that some fans hate other fans questioning the direction of the Packers, even if it's me doing the questioning.