Let me say it one more time.
IT IS COMPLETELY INACURRATE TO SAY THEY PACKERS WERE LUCKY TO BE 8-8 BECAUSE THEY HAPPENED TO CATCH THE BEARS IN THE LAST GAME OF THE YEAR.
What I am saying is the arguement about the Bears mind set in the last game is ONE thing and saying they were LUCKY because of that game to finish 8-8 is another.
It's ONE of SIXTEEN games. You minimize the effort of the Packers defense against a "Division 11 QB" but what about the fact we were the LUCKY ones that caught Seattle in the first game all their injured guys returned.
Were we LUCKY getting the Bears in the opener where they were starting the same twenty two returning guys from the previous year while we were putting like five guys out there playing in their first NFL game EVER?
Luck has a way of evening itself out. It's very, very, shallow thinking when someone spits out "your lucky to be 8-8 because you caught the Bears sleeping there at the end."
Yes, the TIMING of things enters into the picture over an NFL season. Do you catch them off a win? Do you catch them injured? Do you catch them on the second of a two consecutive game road trip?
But don't tell me the Packers were Lucky to finish 8-8 when REALITY is that's about the worst we could have done based on how we played each and every team over the course of the year.
Name one game we were handed our *** but still won the game. The REALITY of it is the answer is ZERO. If we were handed a few games I would be the first to say "hey, we were lucky." It didn't happen.
LOLOL!!! Thanks! Mister "R-tick-you-lit".......yup, that be ME!!!warhawk said:Let me say it one more time.
IT IS COMPLETELY INACURRATE TO SAY THEY PACKERS WERE LUCKY TO BE 8-8 BECAUSE THEY HAPPENED TO CATCH THE BEARS IN THE LAST GAME OF THE YEAR.
What I am saying is the arguement about the Bears mind set in the last game is ONE thing and saying they were LUCKY because of that game to finish 8-8 is another.
It's ONE of SIXTEEN games. You minimize the effort of the Packers defense against a "Division 11 QB" but what about the fact we were the LUCKY ones that caught Seattle in the first game all their injured guys returned.
Were we LUCKY getting the Bears in the opener where they were starting the same twenty two returning guys from the previous year while we were putting like five guys out there playing in their first NFL game EVER?
Luck has a way of evening itself out. It's very, very, shallow thinking when someone spits out "your lucky to be 8-8 because you caught the Bears sleeping there at the end."
Yes, the TIMING of things enters into the picture over an NFL season. Do you catch them off a win? Do you catch them injured? Do you catch them on the second of a two consecutive game road trip?
But don't tell me the Packers were Lucky to finish 8-8 when REALITY is that's about the worst we could have done based on how we played each and every team over the course of the year.
Name one game we were handed our *** but still won the game. The REALITY of it is the answer is ZERO. If we were handed a few games I would be the first to say "hey, we were lucky." It didn't happen.
I understand how important timing is... I get that. For me to say the Pack was lucky to be 8-8 is completely true. Why? Had we not been playing a team in safe mode the last week of the season we were nearly certain to lose that game making us 7-9. That is all I'm saying. I understand the point on Seattle getting Hasselbeck back right in time for us. That isn't the same thing. Chicago's mentality was completely different the last week of the season than at any other time during the year. That's all I'm saying.
7-9 or 8-8 it's hardly worth arguing about. Both those records left us out of the playoffs and our season ended that final night.
Congrats to CHEESEY on his award.
Do you think the Bears were the same team in the playoffs they were the last week of the season? No way. How on earth would you expect the Bears to make it all the way to the SuperBowl if they were as bad as they were that last night of the regular season? It seems to me you all think if we would've been in the playoffs we would've walked all over Chicago and made our march to the Bowl. That would've never have happened and I can't even believe you think that game meant what it meant.
How'd our team perform THE PREVIOUS TWO WEEKS? We struggled with both DETROIT and MINNESOTA (two horrendous teams) at HOME, no less, and you draw conclusions from ONE absolutely MEANINGLESS game to the Bears?
Wow. That is about all I can say.
I just have to keep reminding myself that you honestly believe this team went from barely beating Minnesota A RIVAL on NATIONAL TV the week before and improved that much in one game. The Vikings, started a Division II rookie who'd never started in the NFL. We narrowly escaped on a late FG for crying out loud. That is our improved late season Packers were talking about who barely beat a Vikings team with a rookie debuting QB.
What is the more reasonable explanation for us beating the Bears like that?
1) They're a rival----- NO. The Vikes were a rival.
2) It was on National TV....NO. The Pack/Vikes was on national TV.
3) The Bears had no incentive to win.... DING DING DING...Correct.
I know we beat them. I enjoyed the game a whole bunch. My son enjoys it when I don't try my best at something and he wins.
Hey Cory...
Here's what those 2 previous games had to do with Chicago. The victory over Chicago is being used as an exlcamation point, a validation, if you will, about how much we improved toward the end of the season.
My point is that we didn't all of a sudden go from a team that barely beat two horrible teams on our home field to one that could trounce a Bears team that was actually trying.
I know we beat them. I enjoyed the game a whole bunch. My son enjoys it when I don't try my best at something and he wins.
I do understand your point and agree that week to week things vary incredibly in the NFL. You, and most if not all of the others, see more in a regular season win in Chicago than I ever will. We both have our rights to see it however we choose and can try and convince each other of our viewpoints but there's been no give from either side.
Here's what I think about the boasting over that victory by our fans. It's kind of like when there's that undefeated BCS team in college that has played NOBODY all year long. The fans of that school truly believe they belong on the field with teams like Florida and Ohio State. The reality is they would get crushed by the superior competition. It's an unfounded presumption based on real events. Green Bay won...yes...but there was much more to it than meets the eye. Just like a 12-0 season by a team like a Utah who plays nobody in their conference all year thinks that entitles them to play with the big boys. It doesn't.
Here's Lovie Smith AFTER the loss to the Pack...
Speaking to the media Tuesday, Smith focused on what his team has accomplished over the course of the entire season. He also conceded that having already wrapped up the No. 1 seed likely contributed to Sunday night’s forgettable performance..
“We were flat,” Smith said. “We didn’t play our best game against Green Bay. It’s hard not to look past it when the game really doesn’t count. Besides being our biggest rival and wanting to go into this next phase on a high note, it doesn’t count a lot. You would like to be at the top of your game, but naturally that isn’t the case most of the time.
"We’re going to chalk that game up to it. We’re going to look at our season as a whole. There’s a reason why we won 13 games this year. We’re a good football team, and the next time we play, we’re going to show it.”
====I do owe an apology to the poster who talked about Lovie Smith's obsession with beating Green Bay. In the snippet I posted above, just before that, he said the focus going into the season was beating Green Bay. He was disappointed they only accomplished that ONCE. So, you were right....Smith is intent on beating Green Bay. Sadly, for him, his players didn't give a rats on that final game.
+++ In a little toot of my own horn, that is what I refer to when I harp on BALANCE and OBJECTIVITY. If I am wrong, I will admit it. I don't want to think I'm right and be wrong and will post things that go counter to my opinion and statements.
I understand how important timing is... I get that. For me to say the Pack was lucky to be 8-8 is completely true. Why? Had we not been playing a team in safe mode the last week of the season we were nearly certain to lose that game making us 7-9.
Grossman was putrid and the Bears were totally uninspired playing a team that was jacked out of their minds. Arizona hadn't been on MNF in years. They had a brand new stadium and the place was in a frenzy unlike anything I've ever seen from the ARIZONA Cardinals.
Remember, at the time we played Minnesota the Bears game hadn't been announced as the flex scheduling game meaning our boys had no way of knowing it would be on national TV. So, the Viking game was Brett Favre's potential LAST GAME ON NATIONAL TV. We win that game, BARELY, by a count of 9-7. and YES it sure in the heck matters that a rookie D2 QB was under center. To read anything from our defensive performance against a guy like that is nothing short of ridiculous IMO.
Oannes said:Remember, at the time we played Minnesota the Bears game hadn't been announced as the flex scheduling game meaning our boys had no way of knowing it would be on national TV. So, the Viking game was Brett Favre's potential LAST GAME ON NATIONAL TV. We win that game, BARELY, by a count of 9-7. and YES it sure in the heck matters that a rookie D2 QB was under center. To read anything from our defensive performance against a guy like that is nothing short of ridiculous IMO.
but if they guy would have an okay day or a solid day, people would be all over the pack D for allowing it to happen..
So only counts when it supports someones stance..
The Pack D did what was EXPECTED to do agaisnt a q/b like that..
Someone keeps forgetting how many dropped balls Franks had in that game as well.
One thing I think leads to a lot of the differing opinions in any forum is the general outlook of what people think a fan is.
Some people think a true fan is someone who cheers on his/her beloved team no matter what, regardless of their success. These people are generally the eternal optimists who feel that those in charge must be doing the right things and that the Super Bowl is only a year or two away.
Others think a true fan is one who expects his/her team to be a winner and doesn't accept anything less than success. These people come across as pessimists because they are generally critical of moves which don't seem to add to the chances of success any time soon, and as a result the Super Bowl is nowhere in sight.
Me, I'm a realist and I generally listen more to what others in the industry are saying and doing than what fans are saying and doing. And lately, I don't see many others in the industry saying and doing things that indicate the Packers are a team on the brink of success.
JMHO
Lare said:One thing I think leads to a lot of the differing opinions in any forum is the general outlook of what people think a fan is.
Some people think a true fan is someone who cheers on his/her beloved team no matter what, regardless of their success. These people are generally the eternal optimists who feel that those in charge must be doing the right things and that the Super Bowl is only a year or two away.
Others think a true fan is one who expects his/her team to be a winner and doesn't accept anything less than success. These people come across as pessimists because they are generally critical of moves which don't seem to add to the chances of success any time soon, and as a result the Super Bowl is nowhere in sight.
Me, I'm a realist and I generally listen more to what others in the industry are saying and doing than what fans are saying and doing. And lately, I don't see many others in the industry saying and doing things that indicate the Packers are a team on the brink of success.
JMHO
While I generally agree with your larger point, relying upon "others in the industry's" spin is NOT significantly different than listening to informed fans.
How many saw St Louis coming in 2000 esp after there QB went down?
How man saw Baltimore coming in 2001?
Virtually NO one saw New England turning a losing franchise into the dominate team of the 2000's in 2002.
Ditto on the wild card Pittsburgh Steelers...
Who saw NO rising from worst to first???
Please don't misunderstand, I am not predicting a Super Bowl for Green Bay. But for God's Sake there is a reason the games are won and lost on the field, verses awarded by the paper hype of the offseason
While I generally agree with your larger point, relying upon "others in the industry's" spin is NOT significantly different than listening to informed fans.
all about da packers said:So wait, the players being pumped up for Brett wouldn't have translated to another game?
The 3 game winning streak wouldn't have counted if we faced another team instead of the Bears?
The great performance of our D coming into the game wouldn't have mattered if we faced another team?
It would have. All those factors give the Packers a shot at winning. It sure as hell doesn't guarantee them a win, but it certainly doesn't mean that because of the reasons above, the Packers would be (as you said) "nearly certain to loose" against any other team.
I take issue with that.
Neither stance is less credible nor less knowledgeable.
all about da packers said:So wait, the players being pumped up for Brett wouldn't have translated to another game?
The 3 game winning streak wouldn't have counted if we faced another team instead of the Bears?
The great performance of our D coming into the game wouldn't have mattered if we faced another team?
It would have. All those factors give the Packers a shot at winning. It sure as hell doesn't guarantee them a win, but it certainly doesn't mean that because of the reasons above, the Packers would be (as you said) "nearly certain to loose" against any other team.
I take issue with that.
====I'm really perplexed by what you're taking issue with? I never said the Packers would have trouble beating any one that final week. I think they very well could've beaten most teams the final weekend. I'd exclude the good teams like NE, INDY and any team with nothing to play for. All I said is Chicago laid down that game. If we had played them week 13 as opposed to 16 we wouldn't have done what we did to them. I say week 13 because this is considered the start of our great turnaround and 4 game win streak.
====Oh.... and a response to someone who doesn't quite seem to get things and is one of the least informed here... National TV is a motivator for a team who hasn't been on MNF for many, many years. Green Bay is usually on it 3 times a year. Old hat for us. Plus, check our recent record on National TV...not good. And to further the point... Sunday Night football ain't quite the same as being the ONLY game on that day like MNF. Continue to cling to what that game meant. As I said, my kid probably thinks he's destined for greatness one day because pops let's him win once in awhile.
And to Cory... The Boise State vs. Oklahoma isn't exactly what I was referencing. I feared someone would bring that game up. Oklahoma isn't the type of team I was referring to. Oklahoma, although in a BCS game, wasn't a national championship type team. Have Boise State play Florida. ...then it would make sense. I'd love to see that happen. I love Boise State. I love Boise and the entire state of Idaho. I would be rooting for them but Florida would've destroyed them. Unless, it was meaningless for Florida to beat them.
The last line is the best line I've ever read from you.
It is often who wants it more. It was as if there was a juicy steak on the line just sitting there during that last week of the season. The Bears came to the game after going through the best buffet in Chicago and stuffed themselves. The Packers came in on a 3 day fast. Who wants the steak more?
Chicago had no hunger that game. Take out the fact they had nothing to play for. They toyed with us Week 1. How inspired would they have been anyway? Even if they hadn't clinched, I'm sure they would've played down to their competition because how fired up can you be to play a team you shutout? I'm sure we very well might have jumped out on them early, regardless of my argument they had nothing to play for, but they would've found something like they did in Arizona and beaten us.
If you've ever played sports, you'd realize, or admit, that playing a team you know is inferior to you doesn't make you bring your A game. The reverse is also true. So... We bring our A game because we're the inferior opponent and Chicago brings their Z game because they know we suck and they shut us the F out...throw a little "we got nothing to play for" into the mix and you get what happened on that Sunday night.