NFC North Predictions

[Raptorman]

Darnold had a one-time career year last year with the Queens. I don't expect he'll ever surpass that, and he had some very good WRs and TE Hockenson.

I don't think JJM will reach Arnold's numbers, but it's impossible to say with a first-time starter. It is safe to say that JJM makes or breaks the Queens this year. They have an otherwise solid offense and a solid D. So JJM's play will have an outsized impact on the upcoming season.

Doesn't matter if he does or not. As long as he has a good defense and doesn't make stupid mistakes. Brady won 2 Super Bowls before he passed for 4,000 yards and had more than 30 TDs.

Wow, and I thought I was a homer!!!!!

But it doesn't mean I'm wrong. Go back and take a good look at the teams that have won the Championship/Super Bowl over the years. They almost all have one thing in common. A good defense and a good QB. But the QB gets the credit. In the last two years, the Chiefs have been in the Super Bowl. And people think it's Mahomes. Yeah, the 15th-rated offense in the league will get you there. Really? Since 1990 the Packers have had a top 10 offense in scoring 22 times. And yet the only years they won the Super Bowl were when their defense was 1 and 2.

Brady never won a Super Bowl with a defense ranked lower than 8 in the league in points. Patriots had a top 3 offense 16 times in their existence. How many times have they won the Super Bowl with that? Once, when they had the top defense. Now, they have had the top 3 defenses 11 times, 3 Super Bowl victories. Pittsburgh, 20 top 3 defenses 5 Super Bowls. And you can do this with any team that has won the Championship/Super Bowl. The QB gets the credit because he is the "Face" of the team. But no QB is going to win the Super Bowl without a good defense. I don't care who he is.

You give me how many points a team will give up per game during the year, and I'll predict their record. And I'll be within 2 games of being right.

On another note, in their prime, between Brady and Starr, I'd take Starr any day of the week over Brady. Brady goes down as a Great QB. But I firmly believe that Starr was a much better QB.

 

[OldSchool101]

Doesn't matter if he does or not. As long as he has a good defense and doesn't make stupid mistakes. Brady won 2 Super Bowls before he passed for 4,000 yards and had more than 30 TDs.

But it doesn't mean I'm wrong. Go back and take a good look at the teams that have won the Championship/Super Bowl over the years. They almost all have one thing in common. A good defense and a good QB. But the QB gets the credit. In the last two years, the Chiefs have been in the Super Bowl. And people think it's Mahomes. Yeah, the 15th-rated offense in the league will get you there. Really? Since 1990 the Packers have had a top 10 offense in scoring 22 times. And yet the only years they won the Super Bowl were when their defense was 1 and 2.

Brady never won a Super Bowl with a defense ranked lower than 8 in the league in points. Patriots had a top 3 offense 16 times in their existence. How many times have they won the Super Bowl with that? Once, when they had the top defense. Now, they have had the top 3 defenses 11 times, 3 Super Bowl victories. Pittsburgh, 20 top 3 defenses 5 Super Bowls. And you can do this with any team that has won the Championship/Super Bowl. The QB gets the credit because he is the "Face" of the team. But no QB is going to win the Super Bowl without a good defense. I don't care who he is.

You give me how many points a team will give up per game during the year, and I'll predict their record. And I'll be within 2 games of being right.

On another note, in their prime, between Brady and Starr, I'd take Starr any day of the week over Brady. Brady goes down as a Great QB. But I firmly believe that Starr was a much better QB.

There’s zero doubt in my mind that Brady had lots of help and I was probably one of the initial posters researching and posting that in the forum years ago as the Tampa transition happened area. However as I’ve regurgitated and compared and compared some more? Brady 100% absolutely without a doubt did a fantastic job rising above the level of his opponent in critical situations. That was a direct carry over trait from his days at Michigan. He has that X factor. He’s more than good across a Regular season. Once the Playoffs arrive there’s an extra gear that clicks with him. He was known to prepare like nobody else and it reminded me of Michael Jordan from a work ethic standpoint, those guys both took preparation very seriously. IMO if you mix desire and effort it brings an extra gear to the table. Brady had an extra gear that Rodgers and Favre did not imo. Great D or not we have to respect what Brady made with a quality bag of tools.

 

[Voyageur]

Ah, the Tark thing. That's easy. Two different leagues back then. He was a 3rd pick for MN and 5th rd pick for Boston. Separate Drafts, different rules. AFL had the 2-point conversion. MN was initially slated to be an AFL team until the NFL made them an offer.

I'll go so far as he was the reason we lost the last 3 Super Bowls. People think of him as some great QB because of the records at the time. And I did as well. Then I started looking at things differently. He was an average QB who could run around winning based not on his skill, but the skill of the Defense. His first 5 years back, when they lost 3 Super Bowls, the Defense was giving up 13.9 ppg during that time.

Now, can you imagine for one minute, if Love or for that matter, Rodgers, had a defense that gave up 13.9 ppg? (well adjusted for the slight increase in points over the years, 15.5 ppg.) For 5 years in a row. Here's a little stat for you. The Packers have 4 Super Bowls. In every one of those years, the Packers' defense gave up 15 ppg or less. But it's the QB that gets the glory. Don't get me wrong, the QB matters. Which is why I blame Tarkenton for the Vikings' Super Bowl losses. A good defense with a good QB that doesn't make mistakes will win the Super Bowl 95% of the time. Since 2003 the average SB winner had a point differential of 7.5 ppg. So, you need a QB that can score more than a TD per game or a defense that makes it easier on the QB. But this should be all on a different thread.

You might want to consider the fact that the Vikings offense in those days was constantly dealing with injury problems and that necessitated Fran's running around to avoid the pass rush. Not everything is blamed on the QB.

Just getting to the Super Bowl is a major accomplishment. Buffalo hasn't won one yet either and they made 4 trips with Jim Kelly at QB and quite frankly, like Tarkenton, a tremendous QB.

 

[Raptorman]

You might want to consider the fact that the Vikings offense in those days was constantly dealing with injury problems and that necessitated Fran's running around to avoid the pass rush. Not everything is blamed on the QB.

Just getting to the Super Bowl is a major accomplishment. Buffalo hasn't won one yet either and they made 4 trips with Jim Kelly at QB and quite frankly, like Tarkenton, a tremendous QB.

And my point is no one ever blamed Fran. And it's not a popular opinion on Vikings forums. But when you come right down to it, just look at his game logs in the playoffs. 16-6 against the Steelers in the Super Bowl. The 6 points, not even from the offense, from the defense, or better yet, special teams. 11 TDs vs 17 Ints in the playoffs. You ain't winning much with numbers like that.

 

[rmontro]

IMO if you mix desire and effort it brings an extra gear to the table. Brady had an extra gear that Rodgers and Favre did not imo. Great D or not we have to respect what Brady made with a quality bag of tools.

You can't argue with results. A lot of posters here talked about the lousy defenses the Packers fielded over the years, as a reason why Rodgers didn't have Brady's success. But after awhile it just got too overwhelming, especially after Brady beat Rodgers head to head in the NFCCG. Seven rings is insane.

 

[gopkrs]

You might want to consider the fact that the Vikings offense in those days was constantly dealing with injury problems and that necessitated Fran's running around to avoid the pass rush. Not everything is blamed on the QB.

Just getting to the Super Bowl is a major accomplishment. Buffalo hasn't won one yet either and they made 4 trips with Jim Kelly at QB and quite frankly, like Tarkenton, a tremendous QB.

I don't know how many times he had to go against that Steeler D. But they were awfully good

 

[OldSchool101]

You can't argue with results. A lot of posters here talked about the lousy defenses the Packers fielded over the years, as a reason why Rodgers didn't have Brady's success. But after awhile it just got too overwhelming, especially after Brady beat Rodgers head to head in the NFCCG. Seven rings is insane.

Exactly. It was a semi debate until Brady filled his entire first hand with SB Rings. Once we lost in 2020 the debate was over. Rodgers finished 0-3 on the Tampa8. Couldn’t even get a yard when the game was on the line.

What I never understood in that 2020 season NFC Conference game was when Adams caught that Pass at the Tampa8 and got a clock stop. You know if you get inside the <3 yard line you go for the TD there and 2-pt to tie. We had All 3 Timeouts + 2 min (2:22 game clock)

You technically have 5 clock stops if you play that correctly.
You can get a run and pass play in using the 2-minute. (1-clock)
4th down try = (2-clocks)

We still would’ve had 3 timeouts left if we missed the tying score. The 2-pt doesn’t run clock that a free try. Really really only need 2-timeouts if you miss the TD and we had 3 timeouts. You can run the ball 1-2 times depending on results.

Miss a TD? Miss an 2-pt? No biggie leave Tampa backed up inside their 2-yard line there. You run 2-timeouts and they run +40 seconds. There’s still close to 1 minute left and Tampa is punting from their paint. You get the ball near midfield with :40-50 sec.

Why in the world would you go 3 straight pass incompletions and Not even get 1 try to tie??? That makes zero sense.
We gave up a free clock stop on a 4th down try.
We gave up 25+ yards of field position by kicking off.
We gave up a TD try to tie.

 

[Voyageur]

And my point is no one ever blamed Fran. And it's not a popular opinion on Vikings forums. But when you come right down to it, just look at his game logs in the playoffs. 16-6 against the Steelers in the Super Bowl. The 6 points, not even from the offense, from the defense, or better yet, special teams. 11 TDs vs 17 Ints in the playoffs. You ain't winning much with numbers like that.

His stats did suck, no doubt about it. But remember this. The defenses he played against were the Steel Curtain in Pittsburgh, the No Name Defense of Miami and probably the best defense the Oakland Raiders ever fielded.

So how did it happen?

In all three games the defenses were geared to shut down the Vikings rushing attack. They did. The only offense that the Vikings had was in the air and Tark was on the run with almost every pass because they were teeing off on him. Everyone knew that to beat the Vikings you had to stop their run game and put Tark on the run.

He only ran the ball 4 times in that first loss in VIII if I recall. He accounted for about 15 yards with them I think, and the rest of the team had about 50. They were 2nd and 10 because of failed first down runs repeatedly and at best 3rd and 7 or 8. You know what comes next. Tark running around to save his life under the pressure. He didn't scramble around because he had fun doing it, he did it to survive.

One of the things the Vikings touted in those days was their mobile undersized offensive linemen and when they went against the best in the entire NFL they folded like a $2 tent. They had their hands on Tark as soon as he touched the ball.

But that's what I saw. What would I know?

 

[milani]

Ah, the Tark thing. That's easy. Two different leagues back then. He was a 3rd pick for MN and 5th rd pick for Boston. Separate Drafts, different rules. AFL had the 2-point conversion. MN was initially slated to be an AFL team until the NFL made them an offer.

I'll go so far as he was the reason we lost the last 3 Super Bowls. People think of him as some great QB because of the records at the time. And I did as well. Then I started looking at things differently. He was an average QB who could run around winning based not on his skill, but the skill of the Defense. His first 5 years back, when they lost 3 Super Bowls, the Defense was giving up 13.9 ppg during that time.

Now, can you imagine for one minute, if Love or for that matter, Rodgers, had a defense that gave up 13.9 ppg? (well adjusted for the slight increase in points over the years, 15.5 ppg.) For 5 years in a row. Here's a little stat for you. The Packers have 4 Super Bowls. In every one of those years, the Packers' defense gave up 15 ppg or less. But it's the QB that gets the glory. Don't get me wrong, the QB matters. Which is why I blame Tarkenton for the Vikings' Super Bowl losses. A good defense with a good QB that doesn't make mistakes will win the Super Bowl 95% of the time. Since 2003 the average SB winner had a point differential of 7.5 ppg. So, you need a QB that can score more than a TD per game or a defense that makes it easier on the QB. But this should be all on a different thread.

I beg to differ somewhat. Tarkenton is in the HOF, if I am not mistaken. The 4 SB losses were not the fault of the QB any more than the Buffalo Bills QB in their 4 losses. I can tell you that no other QB in the 60s and 70s gave the Packers more fits than Fran. Tarkenton was able to put up numbers for a horrible NY Giant team. Look at whom the Vikings faced in those SB defeats: Shula, Madden, and Knoll, great coaches with great teams. The fact that the Vikings GOT there 3 times is a credit to Bud Grant, their players, AND Fran Tarkenton. Be thankful. Green Bay has had 2 HOF QBs from 1992-2022. They have 2 SB victories but only 3 appearances.

 

[milani]

His stats did suck, no doubt about it. But remember this. The defenses he played against were the Steel Curtain in Pittsburgh, the No Name Defense of Miami and probably the best defense the Oakland Raiders ever fielded.

So how did it happen?

In all three games the defenses were geared to shut down the Vikings rushing attack. They did. The only offense that the Vikings had was in the air and Tark was on the run with almost every pass because they were teeing off on him. Everyone knew that to beat the Vikings you had to stop their run game and put Tark on the run.

He only ran the ball 4 times in that first loss in VIII if I recall. He accounted for about 15 yards with them I think, and the rest of the team had about 50. They were 2nd and 10 because of failed first down runs repeatedly and at best 3rd and 7 or 8. You know what comes next. Tark running around to save his life under the pressure. He didn't scramble around because he had fun doing it, he did it to survive.

One of the things the Vikings touted in those days was their mobile undersized offensive linemen and when they went against the best in the entire NFL they folded like a $2 tent. They had their hands on Tark as soon as he touched the ball.

But that's what I saw. What would I know?

Ron Yary is in the HOF, I believe. And **** Tinglehoff was no slouch. The Vikings were outstanding. Their 3 opponents were super. I just think that as good as Bud Grant was his game planning for these opponents was lacking. He got outcoached. Looking at the regular seasons the Vikings were in the old NFC North division. Bears, Packers, Lions, and later the Bucs. In the 70s these teams were horrible. The NFC only had Dallas and maybe the Rams that could compete. The AFC was the better conference that decade.

 

[Raptorman]

His stats did suck, no doubt about it. But remember this. The defenses he played against were the Steel Curtain in Pittsburgh, the No Name Defense of Miami and probably the best defense the Oakland Raiders ever fielded.

So how did it happen?

In all three games the defenses were geared to shut down the Vikings rushing attack. They did. The only offense that the Vikings had was in the air and Tark was on the run with almost every pass because they were teeing off on him. Everyone knew that to beat the Vikings you had to stop their run game and put Tark on the run.

He only ran the ball 4 times in that first loss in VIII if I recall. He accounted for about 15 yards with them I think, and the rest of the team had about 50. They were 2nd and 10 because of failed first down runs repeatedly and at best 3rd and 7 or 8. You know what comes next. Tark running around to save his life under the pressure. He didn't scramble around because he had fun doing it, he did it to survive.

One of the things the Vikings touted in those days was their mobile undersized offensive linemen and when they went against the best in the entire NFL they folded like a $2 tent. They had their hands on Tark as soon as he touched the ball.

But that's what I saw. What would I know?

Yeah, the Steel Curtain. 189 points given up that year. The Vikings Defense 195 points that year. Not even a point per game difference. Know who the Steel Curtain took over for that number one spot? The Vikings, one spot below them.

That's not how I remember watching them live.

 

[Voyageur]

Ron Yary is in the HOF, I believe. And **** Tinglehoff was no slouch. The Vikings were outstanding. Their 3 opponents were super. I just think that as good as Bud Grant was his game planning for these opponents was lacking. He got outcoached. Looking at the regular seasons the Vikings were in the old NFC North division. Bears, Packers, Lions, and later the Bucs. In the 70s these teams were horrible. The NFC only had Dallas and maybe the Rams that could compete. The AFC was the better conference that decade.

They both were excellent players. Yary played around 250# and Tingelhoff if I remember was about 230#. It wasn't a question of talent it was that their entire line caved because of the size difference. At that time, the NFL was a finesse league, and the AFL was a bull in a China shop. They mowed people over. The year Miami beat them in SB 8, the Dolphins put up the best record in NFL history going through the season and playoffs without getting beat or tied. Czonka & Kiick, the no-name defense that excelled? No way anyone was going to take them out.

If you look at the positions outside of LT and Center during those Vikings season you'll see it was a revolving door of guys who got shots at filling the other 3 positions but weren't up to the task.

But, like I said, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I have mine for reasons I can explain and have.

 

[OldSchool101]

You old guys are amazing. I’m jealous I’d pay $5000 to go see 1 or 2 of those key matchups from the early 70’s. Instead I grew up with essentially the Mid 70’s Packer Teams. Then Bart and Forrest as Coaches etc. Lynn ****ey was entertaining but it the Packers really didn’t have a competitive team again until Tye Big Bad Wolf and then Magic Man showed up from VA Tech Insitution lol. I witnessed 20 years of poor level play for the most part. My favorite highlight was GB beating the Rams (edit:Redskins)in a shootout like 48-47 when I was maybe 12 years old tops. Might’ve been the game I was on my knees praying they missed a chip shot FG and God delivered!

 

[OldSchool101]

Now I know every generation thinks they are the one. Just like waiting on our Lord like thunder the first time.. heck if he comes we still wouldn’t believe it, just like the first time we all have ears that don’t hear and eyes that don’t see.
That said. I really like what I see going on in GB. Gone are the Rodgers drama and just awful Defenses post our last Super Bowl. What nobody is really believing yet is we just fielded a Top 6 Defense and that’s very substantial when crossed with a Top 10 QB. We looked awful at times tripping around the field.. yet we just went to Philly and if not for a fumble play #1 we stifled them to 15 points across 4 Quarters?? What?!
At Philly??

GB Defense finished strong, Like Top 3 level strong imo. Then we essentially kept 90% of that D intact from last season. They added a substantial FA that might not be Probowl but Dobbs has a very high floor. That guy is a hitter and he’s a guy that gets other players excited because he does his 1/11th ++. I think Bullard might rise this year he got stretched too thin Rookie season, but he’s a very intuitive player. They expected a little too much from him year1.
Then in a STRONG and DEEP DL draft class we plugged 4th,5th,6th Rounders and I think it’s being overlooked. These were guys that in many drafts would go a full Round earlier imo. GB has a battle going on in their DL depth and I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see 1 of those 3 Draftees show up big time. I’m most exited about 5th Rounder Oliver, I think he’s our “Karl Brooks” type from the draft this year.

 

[OldSchool101]

Then on Offense.
GB went FULL THROTTLE!!

We just got 2 very good Weapons to play with in the WR Room. Backed it up with a 2nd RD Mauler OT that likes to toss people around and then sit on them. Literally!

Now? It’s looking like Watson is returning earlier than expected. I’m telling you having Golden, Watson, Reed, Kraft and Jacobs all usable as Pass game weapons and simultaneous?? That’s substantial. Back it up with upgraded at OL? Then upgraded depth behind WR, TE AND RB? All these accumulated draft picks are hitting at once.

We have not had anything like that since Cobb, Jones, Peak Tonyan and Davante lined up together. 2025 presents a much more evenly rounded Roster with better depth. It’s just a matter of time before someone eats your lunch. Those guys never got to see a Top 6 Defense that could keep them in each game.

Until 2024,
D ranked #6; O ranked #8
GB has been lopsided like most teams. GB is very well distributed in 2025 and there’s talent peppered across this Roster. There’s a decent % chance that The Packers field a Top 5 area O and Top 5 area Defense this season. Such as
#4 D #7 O
#3 O #8 D
#6 O, #7 D
#3 D, #7 O

I see Chicago as the only other team that really should see a significant uptick. The Vikings is total coin flip, they’ll either be similar or they’ll drop if JJ doesn’t assimilate and quickly. Minnesota doesn’t have luxury of a “training wheels” period. There’s too many playoff caliber teams coming to town early. You just can’t fall behind .500 in this North division and expect to play catchup and that applies to everyone.
Detroit is well Rostered, but they did have major changes in their Coaching Ranks. It would be a gamble to expect them to match a 14 Win season. I think they’re built to Win 12 games over under type area. Dont get me wrong that plenty good for playoffs. Yet it still allows someone else to Win the Division and get mental momentum.

 

[Voyageur]

Now I know every generation thinks they are the one. Just like waiting on our Lord like thunder the first time.. heck if he comes we still wouldn’t believe it, just like the first time we all have ears that don’t hear and eyes that don’t see.
That said. I really like what I see going on in GB. Gone are the Rodgers drama and just awful Defenses post our last Super Bowl. What nobody is really believing yet is we just fielded a Top 6 Defense and that’s very substantial when crossed with a Top 10 QB. We looked awful at times tripping around the field.. yet we just went to Philly and if not for a fumble play #1 we stifled them to 15 points across 4 Quarters?? What?!
At Philly??

GB Defense finished strong, Like Top 3 level strong imo. Then we essentially kept 90% of that D intact from last season. They added a substantial FA that might not be Probowl but Dobbs has a very high floor. That guy is a hitter and he’s a guy that gets other players excited because he does his 1/11th ++. I think Bullard might rise this year he got stretched too thin Rookie season, but he’s a very intuitive player. They expected a little too much from him year1.
Then in a STRONG and DEEP DL draft class we plugged 4th,5th,6th Rounders and I think it’s being overlooked. These were guys that in many drafts would go a full Round earlier imo. GB has a battle going on in their DL depth and I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see 1 of those 3 Draftees show up big time. I’m most exited about 5th Rounder Oliver, I think he’s our “Karl Brooks” type from the draft this year.

My relationship to all of it is a lot different than most people inasmuch as I have played, coached, and been a spectator for over 7 decades. I learned that the game evolves and as it evolves you can only relate to a player and his attributes based on the competition in his specific era. Stats don't tell the truth when they're intended to compare one era to another.

As a prime example, place kickers. Back in the early days, even into the 60s there wasn't usually a specialist handling the punting and kicking duties. It was usually a guy who also played on offense or defense often on a substantial number of snaps. Take Lou Groza of the Cleveland Browns as an example. An offense lineman who wore a flat front shoe on his kicking foot, so he was prepared to kick after playing the previous down on the offensive line.

For some, wearing that shoe didn't work on a continuous basis so there was a strap on toe that had a flat front that I could have my holder attach to my shoe so I could make my kick. It was a nightmare on a muddy field trying to get it on and in place quick enough to make the kick. I rarely had time to even think about the kick itself. I was worried the plate wouldn't be on right. As a running back and linebacker that normally flat toed kicking shoe was out of the question. It caused me to stumble when I used it, so it was history soon after I tried using it.

As a straight-line kicker, we didn't come close to the accuracy of today's kickers.

Another example is the passing game. How can you compare a guy like Don Hutson who actually caught more passes for more yardage in Green Bay than a lot of the NFL teams had in their entirety as a team over the course of a season. He also did it in 12 games not the 16 then 17 of today.

It's all relative to it's era not a comparable over an extended period of time.

 

[milani]

They both were excellent players. Yary played around 250# and Tingelhoff if I remember was about 230#. It wasn't a question of talent it was that their entire line caved because of the size difference. At that time, the NFL was a finesse league, and the AFL was a bull in a China shop. They mowed people over. The year Miami beat them in SB 8, the Dolphins put up the best record in NFL history going through the season and playoffs without getting beat or tied. Czonka & Kiick, the no-name defense that excelled? No way anyone was going to take them out.

If you look at the positions outside of LT and Center during those Vikings season you'll see it was a revolving door of guys who got shots at filling the other 3 positions but weren't up to the task.

But, like I said, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I have mine for reasons I can explain and have.

I think you are saying that at that time the best of the AFC was better than the best of the NFC.

 

[milani]

You old guys are amazing. I’m jealous I’d pay $5000 to go see 1 or 2 of those key matchups from the early 70’s. Instead I grew up with essentially the Mid 70’s Packer Teams. Then Bart and Forrest as Coaches etc. Lynn ****ey was entertaining but it the Packers really didn’t have a competitive team again until Tye Big Bad Wolf and then Magic Man showed up from VA Tech Insitution lol. I witnessed 20 years of poor level play for the most part. My favorite highlight was GB beating the Rams in a shootout like 48-47 when I was maybe 12 years old tops. Might’ve been the game I was in my knees praying LA missed a chip shot FG and God delivered!

It was the Redskins with Joe Theismann and Curt Knight. Was it not?

 

[OldSchool101]

It was the Redskins with Joe Theismann and Curt Knight. Was it not?

Yeah I mixed 2 games up. It was 100% the Skins thanks for that! I’m going off long range memory which apparently ain’t good!!

 

[Heyjoe4]

Ah, the Tark thing. That's easy. Two different leagues back then. He was a 3rd pick for MN and 5th rd pick for Boston. Separate Drafts, different rules. AFL had the 2-point conversion. MN was initially slated to be an AFL team until the NFL made them an offer.

I'll go so far as he was the reason we lost the last 3 Super Bowls. People think of him as some great QB because of the records at the time. And I did as well. Then I started looking at things differently. He was an average QB who could run around winning based not on his skill, but the skill of the Defense. His first 5 years back, when they lost 3 Super Bowls, the Defense was giving up 13.9 ppg during that time.

Now, can you imagine for one minute, if Love or for that matter, Rodgers, had a defense that gave up 13.9 ppg? (well adjusted for the slight increase in points over the years, 15.5 ppg.) For 5 years in a row. Here's a little stat for you. The Packers have 4 Super Bowls. In every one of those years, the Packers' defense gave up 15 ppg or less. But it's the QB that gets the glory. Don't get me wrong, the QB matters. Which is why I blame Tarkenton for the Vikings' Super Bowl losses. A good defense with a good QB that doesn't make mistakes will win the Super Bowl 95% of the time. Since 2003 the average SB winner had a point differential of 7.5 ppg. So, you need a QB that can score more than a TD per game or a defense that makes it easier on the QB. But this should be all on a different thread.

Interesting observations about the frustrating SB losses by MN, and how Tark got to the NFL. I forgot that was before the SB era. A D that allows an average of 14 or 15, hell 16 points a game is going to win, a lot, and I expect that team would win its share of championships.

Thanks for the history.

 

[Voyageur]

You old guys are amazing. I’m jealous I’d pay $5000 to go see 1 or 2 of those key matchups from the early 70’s. Instead I grew up with essentially the Mid 70’s Packer Teams. Then Bart and Forrest as Coaches etc. Lynn ****ey was entertaining but it the Packers really didn’t have a competitive team again until Tye Big Bad Wolf and then Magic Man showed up from VA Tech Insitution lol. I witnessed 20 years of poor level play for the most part. My favorite highlight was GB beating the Rams in a shootout like 48-47 when I was maybe 12 years old tops. Might’ve been the game I was in my knees praying LA missed a chip shot FG and God delivered!

Three things I remember so well from the era where the Packers weren't competitive. Charles Martin throwing McMahon to the ground after a play was over. Totally uncalled for and it hurt the Packers image for quite some time.

Next is the blocked FG attempt by Chester Marcol in the season opener in 1980. Marcol caught the ball off the block and ran 25 yards to the end zone to score the winning touchdown on opening day 1980 in Lambeau Field. It happened right in front of me.

Next is the Monday night game in 1983 where the Packers beat the Redskins 48-47 in what was the highest scoring game on a Monday night until just recently. It was one of those games where everyone left the stadium no longer having a voice and couldn't speak much the next day. It was an amazing game to watch.

Maybe the 48-47 game you're referencing was this one?

But the two most memorable games I've ever attended were the Ice Bowl and the 1961 NFL Championship game played at Lambeau Field between the NY Giants and Packers. The first championship game ever played in GB and the Packers slugged them 37-0. It was nearly as cold as the Ice Bowl but special in its own right for the championship it brought.

Lots of exciting game but these are things that stand out to me most often. They might not be the most important games in history, but they had something special attached to each of them.

 

[rmontro]

It was the Redskins with Joe Theismann and Curt Knight. Was it not?

Monday Night Football, 1983. That game was about the only thing we had to cheer for a long stretch there. That and a first round playoff win over the Cardinals the previous season. That was the sole playoff win the Packers had in the post-Lombardi, pre-Favre era.

 

[OldSchool101]

Monday Night Football, 1983. That game was about the only thing we had to cheer for a long stretch there. That and a first round playoff win over the Cardinals the previous season. That was the sole playoff win the Packers had in the post-Lombardi, pre-Favre era.

That’s the one! That’s the game I referenced where I was on my knees praying. The Skins missed an easier FG for the Packer Win closing seconds
It’s one of the better games I can remember because it was a back and forth slug fest and obviously the better team Won

I do miss Joe Theisman. I really liked that guy both as a player but also he’s a good person. There’s an interview about him growing up and him talking about the influence his Dad had on him. Now he stuck his head through a Sheetrock wall when he smarted off once… that was a little concerning. lol

Yet he said the one thing that always stood out about his Dad was that no matter what his Dad was doing, when Joe asked him to go out and throw the baseball or play with him.. his Dad never once said no or ignored him. He said he would make his Son a priority and it made such an impression on him that he carried that with him wanting to always make his Dad proud. Then eventually put that into practice with his own children. I also thought about that and it’s changed my relationship with my Daughter I drop what I’m doing even when I don’t feel like it. It’s that important

 

[Raptorman]

You old guys are amazing. I’m jealous I’d pay $5000 to go see 1 or 2 of those key matchups from the early 70’s. Instead I grew up with essentially the Mid 70’s Packer Teams. Then Bart and Forrest as Coaches etc. Lynn ****ey was entertaining but it the Packers really didn’t have a competitive team again until Tye Big Bad Wolf and then Magic Man showed up from VA Tech Insitution lol. I witnessed 20 years of poor level play for the most part. My favorite highlight was GB beating the Rams in a shootout like 48-47 when I was maybe 12 years old tops. Might’ve been the game I was in my knees praying LA missed a chip shot FG and God delivered!

"Everythings fine with Devine" I remember the bumper stickers. What Viking fans call the glory days (1970's) of the Packers. At least for us. BTW, it was Packer fans that made me a Vikings fan. One game. Nov. 6, 1966.

That was Washington, not the Rams.

Washington Redskins at Green Bay Packers - October 17th, 1983 | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Washington Redskins 47 at Green Bay Packers 48 on October 17th, 1983 - Full team and player stats and box score

www.pro-football-reference.com

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That was Washington, not the Rams.

Washington Redskins at Green Bay Packers - October 17th, 1983 | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Washington Redskins 47 at Green Bay Packers 48 on October 17th, 1983 - Full team and player stats and box score

www.pro-football-reference.com

Entertaining game...and interesting to hear that former Packer GM Mark Murphy was playing...as well as former player, Mark Murphy.

OJ doing the color commentary.

That first Packer TD (fumble recovery and TD return) wouldn't have been a TD today, under the "catch rule". I don't believe Joe Washington actually made the catch.

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