Half Empty
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,473
- Reaction score
- 604
Pretty hard to argue with that definition. However, when that team crapped their pants, did he switch?
SMH! Superbowl Bound?? I don't think so
- Thread starter armand34
- Start date
If they were bad enough during the season, yep.
Guy was impervious to getting his chops busted about it. No shame gene, I guess, heh.
RRyder
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2014
- Messages
- 1,775
- Reaction score
- 183
Question asked, question answered - wish that happened more often.
The main reason I asked is that I tend to think of the bandwagon as full of people that support/follow/root for the Packers, not those that have particular aspirations at a given time. I have been on the bandwagon since pre-Lombardi (the coach, not the trophy), and there were many, many years when one-and-done was a big leap from what I expected. I knew they were terrible, but they were the only team I cared about.
Addressing your specific description, I don't even now see much of a conflict between the two. The Packers have often been a SB contender and they've also been one-and-done enough that I can answer Yes when asked if either is true right now.
Finally, if we are free to address the deficiencies, why even bring up the bandwagon theme when we do so? Sure, every team has problems, but the Packers are our team, so I'm not inclined to worry about the troubles of the other guys.
Again, thanks for addressing the original question in such a ration manner. I hope my obvious disagreement is presented in the same way.
I don't disagree with your points as you've been pretty consistent in your views which is what I'm trying to get at.
I agree most Packers fans support and root for the team regardless of how they feel the outlook for the season appears. It's just the people that can have their confidence in a team both shaken to its core after one or even two bad games equally annoy me as the ones that will have their confidence inflated to epic heights after one or two great games.
I also agree whether you consider a team a potential "contender" or potentially "one n done" aren't mutually exclusive terms rather just that the arguments alot of times are phrased that way.
I guess what I'm saying is there comes a point where someone believes in a teams ability or not.
Right now with all of the nagging injuries, I tend to think of the team as suffering the "death of a thousand cuts". Neither Starks or Lacy is 100%. Nelson is gone, Cobb and Montgomery are both playing through injuries. The secondary is banged up and Matthews is banged up. The offensive line is limping along. Sheesh, this has been a rough first half of a season. They said they were healthy after the bye week, but it looked like they meant "relatively healthy". I think if they can work off a bunch of these injuries, there is still a chance to put up a good presence in the playoffs. But that is a big "if".
The great X factor is having a big say in things again, Croak. The bye week is gone and still injuries are an issue. I don't think at this point that we'll have a lot of luck with injuries this season.
Let's just hope it doesn't get to the level of 2013.
Let's just hope it doesn't get to the level of 2013.
Carl
Cheesehead
After 2010 and the Patriots getting demolished by an average team last season, it remains incredible to me that fans can still say the Packers are for sure not going to win it all.
For nearly every single Super Bowl team, a game or more can be picked out in which they did not look like a Super Bowl team. Yes, there are concerns, but there is no way to definitively declare the Packers out of it.
If we win 50-0 next week, the same over reactors won't be saying we will for sure win it all. For some reason, the loses mean much more. More than 6 wins even.
Logic and evidence will just never get through to some people after loses.
For nearly every single Super Bowl team, a game or more can be picked out in which they did not look like a Super Bowl team. Yes, there are concerns, but there is no way to definitively declare the Packers out of it.
If we win 50-0 next week, the same over reactors won't be saying we will for sure win it all. For some reason, the loses mean much more. More than 6 wins even.
Logic and evidence will just never get through to some people after loses.
Half Empty
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,473
- Reaction score
- 604
Missed most of those posts. How many have said that? A lot of us are concerned about injuries, the level of play, coaching decisions, et. al. And, if the problems identified are corrected, it's probably going to be a short postseason. However, I've seen few that believe, at this point, that they 'for sure' aren't going to win it all.
ShockwaveRider
Cheesehead
There appears to be two schools of thought regarding our beloved Green Bay Packers. Those that are simply highly despondent after last week's beat-down against Denver (and then denounced as "bandwagon jumpers") and those that are actually delusional enough to believe that the Denver beat-down was just a "bump in the road" or "a bad game". The truth (as usual) probably lies somewhere there between.
I fear that the Packers have been exposed as having no suitable "over the middle" defense and no wide receivers capable of getting separation. I read this preposterous article (I think it was on ESPN) stating that Aaron Rodgers should "throw his wide receivers open". Does that really make any sense? They took read-option QB Colin Kaepernick and made him a pocket QB and how well has that worked out? Now we're supposed to make A-Rod "a gunslinger"?
The Packers simply have no deep threat and no wide receivers that are capable of getting open against a truly superior defense. Eddie Lacy looks fat and slow (and possibly injured) and all this results in the defense being on the field WAY too long.
The Packers will stomp weak and middle-of-the-road NFL teams because they are better than that. But I don't honestly in my heart see them holding up against the elite teams like Denver, New England, or even Cincinnati.
I'd give them a 50-50 shot at beating the Panthers, though.
GO PACK
I fear that the Packers have been exposed as having no suitable "over the middle" defense and no wide receivers capable of getting separation. I read this preposterous article (I think it was on ESPN) stating that Aaron Rodgers should "throw his wide receivers open". Does that really make any sense? They took read-option QB Colin Kaepernick and made him a pocket QB and how well has that worked out? Now we're supposed to make A-Rod "a gunslinger"?
The Packers simply have no deep threat and no wide receivers that are capable of getting open against a truly superior defense. Eddie Lacy looks fat and slow (and possibly injured) and all this results in the defense being on the field WAY too long.
The Packers will stomp weak and middle-of-the-road NFL teams because they are better than that. But I don't honestly in my heart see them holding up against the elite teams like Denver, New England, or even Cincinnati.
I'd give them a 50-50 shot at beating the Panthers, though.
GO PACK
Well I'd say it was probably addressing the actual thread title of 'SMH! Super Bowl bound?? I don't think so!' which is a fairly strong implication that we 'for sure' aren't going to win it all.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Right now I think the only fans that have the right to be more confident in their teams are in New England and Denver. As many point out, its a long season and we aren't even at the halfway point, so a lot can happen. That said, the Packers have a better shot at the SB then most, but to get there they are going to have to clean things up on both sides of the ball. Not even going to list those things, because that horse has been beat to death the last 3 weeks. BTW...how about those special teams this year? 
All we as fans can do is hope for no more major injuries, let the coaches and players get out there and do what they are paid to do and enjoy the ride.
All we as fans can do is hope for no more major injuries, let the coaches and players get out there and do what they are paid to do and enjoy the ride.
Besides the usual "anything can happen" or "it's only mid season" jazz, this team is still one of only a handful of teams most capable of winning it all.
There are no lead pipe lock super teams. It's not like '86, when at midseason I and some buddies looked at the Giants and said,"hey, barring injuries or something wacky happening, these guys are gonna win the Super Bowl".
To me this a down year for the league; a handful of very good but not quite great teams, the rest of the league is from slightly below average/mediocre to flat out sucks.
Gonna be a fun ride.
There are no lead pipe lock super teams. It's not like '86, when at midseason I and some buddies looked at the Giants and said,"hey, barring injuries or something wacky happening, these guys are gonna win the Super Bowl".
To me this a down year for the league; a handful of very good but not quite great teams, the rest of the league is from slightly below average/mediocre to flat out sucks.
Gonna be a fun ride.
Best part of all of it is the Packers are in the NFC... IMO the best teams in the NFL are in the AFC. The only teams I somewhat fear in the NFC are a healthy Dallas if they can pull it together, Seattle (In Seattle), and Carolina. And if we could win against Carolina this weekend it gives us a clear path to homefield. Which hasn't been a guaranteed win to us in recent post-seasons but I think is still an advantage. Other than that I still think the Packers have a decent shot of reaching it.
Winning it on the other hand, may take some pretty strong improvements.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
Most of the Packers problems can be solved until the playoffs start. Rodgers and the coaching staff have to adjust though to make it work.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
I think the Cardinals could give the Packers some fits as well.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
When I made my last post, I noticed that Pokerbrat had posted while I was typing. I got a kick out of the similarities between our posts.
Great minds think alike, heh!
Was wondering if you were looking over my shoulder or had bugged my computer!
Yeah, not a team I'd dismiss.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Road games against Carolina, Arizona and even Minnesota are the 3 left on the schedule that concern me the most. Obviously we will not win any of those with the same type of performance we had in Denver.
Good point, not quite as worried about Arizona if they have to come to Lambeau though.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Maybe in the playoffs....but we travel there on Dec. 27th
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Our last 2 games of the season could have some major implications on who and where teams are playing in the playoffs.
Half Empty
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,473
- Reaction score
- 604
Just another example of how relativity, subjectivity and semantics are at the root of most discussions here. I personally think there is a wide, wide gulf between thinking that they won't win and knowing that for sure. Heck, I've been disappointed enough recently to think that they won't make it, but, then again, I didn't think so in 2010, either.
That's a game a really interested in next weekend. Cardinals @ Seattle.
I'm not sure I trust the cards yet 6-2 yes but their opponents overall record is like 21-42. They haven't even played a team with a winning record yet I don't believe.
Kind of like the Packers playing their first game against a team with a winning record im curious how Arizona will do against Seattle, and Cinci in the near future.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
They lost to a 4-4 Steelers team at Pittsburgh (13-25)
But I hear you, prior to their game against Denver, the Packers 6-0 record was done against opponents who were a combined 14-26 at the time. Time will tell how we fare against the better teams and this weekend is a chance to prove to themselves and the fans, that the Packers are legit.
Similar threads
