Nemeses.

[Half Empty]

OK, now I think I understand. If it's Lombard's dynasty, then I guess it's hard to argue with the span of his tenure. Even then, I think of it as five titles in seven years. But, much ado about nothing.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Munch]

Whenever I hear the word: Nemesis it reminds me of this:

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[PFanCan]

An argument could be made that beginning in the 2001 season another nemesis for the Packers in the playoffs was the player quarterbacking the team. After winning the wild card game against the 49ers after the 2001 season, the Packers faced the “greatest show on turf”. Favre scored 21 points for the Rams when he threw 6 INTs, three of which were returned for TDs. The Rams won in a blowout 45-17. If you take away the pick sixes, the game is 24-17 with the Packers having three possessions to score seven or more points and that’s even leaving the other three (plenty enough) INTs that didn’t result directly in TDs.

2003 season: After beating the Seahawks in a wild card game the Packers faced the Eagles in the divisional playoffs. Favre had a great running game at his disposal which averaged 160 yards per game with a 5.0 ypr average. In spite of the mistakes by Sherman not going for 4th and short and the 4th and 26 disaster on D, the game went to overtime. The D got a 3-and-out and Favre trotted onto the field in OT with good field position – the Packers had the ball at their 32 yard line. Favre had a great chance to lead the team to the NFCCG. On first down he was rushed and panicked. He threw what looked like a punt to Philly’s Brian Dawkins. It was a throw unworthy of a rookie QB, let alone a 12-year veteran. Philly, instead of the Packers went on to play the Panthers in the NFCCG.

2004 season: The Packers started the season 1-4 and finished 9-2 to win the division for the third year in a row. In the home wild card game against the Vikings, Favre threw 4 INTs. The game ended up being only a 14 point loss despite the four picks. Somehow in the middle of the fourth quarter of that game the Packers were only down by seven. It was a winnable game except for the carelessness of the Packers QB. The Vikings had only had 11 INTs for the season before this game.

2007 season: The Packers finished 13-3 and beat the Seahawks in the divisional round. In the NFCCG at Lambeau Favre faded in the second half but trotted out on the field with a chance to win a Super Bowl berth. Again he trotted out onto the field in overtime of a playoff game with decent field position. On 2nd and 8, he dropped back to pass. Dorsey Levens snuck out of the backfield and was wide open right in front of Favre. If he had thrown the ball to Levens there wasn’t a defender within 10 yards of him. The chance of an INT on that throw was zero. Driver OTOH was never open on his route, but Favre decided to make the “exciting” throw to Corey Webster.

Of course teams win and lose games and there’s no guarantee winning a wild card or divisional game will lead to a Super Bowl. But the job of a QB in a playoff game - at the very least - is to give his team a chance to win. In two of the above games Favre threw six and four INTs. That’s doing the opposite of giving his team a chance to win. In the other two games he trotted out onto the field in OT with decent field position – not backed up to his EZ. Against the Eagles he threw an historically bad INT; an incredibly stupid throw for a veteran QB best described as a “punt”. In the game against the Giants, after looking like he didn’t want to play in the cold, he ignores a wide open Levens who would have at least moved the chains. Go back and look at those two plays of you don’t believe me.

Were some teams the Packers nemesis? Sure, there’s always more than one good team in the conference. But a QB who is careless with the ball in crucial playoff games also ‘causes major problems’. Had they won either of those playoffs games that went to OT I would have liked their chances to win a title, but only if the Packers QB was careful with the ball.

Don't forget the "exciting" pick that Favre threw for the Vikings a few years back. He played pretty well in the playoffs for the *other* team.

 

[TJV]

Don't forget the "exciting" pick that Favre threw for the Vikings a few years back.

I would have included it, but I enjoyed the hell out of that one!

 

[JBlood]

I agree. And any of us who suffered through Bart Starr's 9 year tenure can be particularly happy with the last 20 years. If all we have to complain about is that we should have won more championships, well I can certainly deal with that.

Most of us who watched Bart Starr lead the Packers to 5 Championships found it difficult to criticize his coaching. His incredible leadership as a player will likely never be equaled imo. He made the losing of the 70s and 80s much easier to accept. The Championships are what it's all about. MM has had a nice run, but this era will only be rembered for the Patriots, unfortunately-- for a number of reasons.

 

[PFanCan]

I would have included it, but I enjoyed the hell out of that one!

Me, too!

 

[Beagle]

Ahh those were the days.

 

[toolkien]

1)

Dynasties died when free agency/salary caps were put in place, and the 1995 expansion, so generous to Jacksonville and Carolina, evened everybody up. While there are still incompetent franchises that dwell at the bottom, the offsetting "titanic teams" don't exist anymore. And it was out of those titanic teams that dynasties were born. The only titanic team I've seen since 1995 is New England - the Packers, Colts, Broncos, Steelers, Ravens, whoever, don't compare to the titanic teams of the 60's-80's - free agency and salary caps have killed those type of teams. These teams ARE the best of the last few decades, but they're not titanic. Too much fluidity to maintain potency on both sides of the ball for 7-10 years like in the past. Too many Packer fans have been judging the second best team the last two decades, not as the compare to the actual NFL reality, but against some ideal from 1985. They've done themselves a disservice by having out of whack expectations.

2)

For the Packers being "soft", they are only team to have a winning record against playoff caliber teams played in the regular season, since 1992, at .504. Every other team has a losing record against playoff caliber teams played in the regular season. The Packers' problem is a matter of CONSISTENCY once the post-season starts. I did a fairly thorough analysis between the Packers' regular season stats and post season stats. Some areas actually got BETTER, while there were three declining stats - more giveaways, less takeaways, and a slightly higher rate of surrendering TD's rushing. And the giveaways were by far the biggest factor, and I believe were influential on the other two - instead of being ahead forcing the other team to make mistakes, the Packers were behind and didn't have the ability to force turnovers. And since teams were more ahead than behind in the post-season versus the regular season, they'd run more, hence more rushing TD's on average. So the Packers lived/live by the turnover margin, they just *****'ed their formula come the playoffs.

And what would cause this sudden shift? Lack of preparation and the ability to handle the pressure of the single elimination. In other words, the Packers CHOKED. How is this? The Packers weren't always losing to infinitely better teams in the playoffs, they'd lose to teams near parity or worse. Favre released his inner Jay Cutler too often, and McCarthy releases his inner Marty Schottenheimer too often.

Gratefully, the Packers have won somethings along the line, and the Packers are the tied with the Steelers for the 2nd best overall "playoff worth" behind New England, but the Packers should be between the two. The Packers choked a little too often. Not rolling around on the floor, purple as a grape type choking (like the Vikings) but a corn nut in the windpipe. But it stands the Packers should have been to about five Super Bowls and probably 3-2 in those appearances. But they choked. It wasn't a lack of anything other than consistency and handling the pressures of single elimination.