How did we get Gute and Pettine?

[GleefulGary]

You can have a Super Bowl capable roster and not win the Super Bowl.

It's insane to think otherwise.

 

[swhitset]

Well, the Packers didn't win the Super Bowl that year, so no.



That's definitely true. On the other hand the Vikings had a much more talented roster than the Packers last season while allocating more cap space to quarterbacks compared to Green Bay.

The glib response in the first quote earned the red X .... you really should stop combining posts lol.

 

[brandon2348]

We got lucky as hell to answer the OP's question. Were gonna win some "Super Bowls". Thompson was okay as a talent guy but was missing the "x" factor many times. Gute has turned over the roster with better talent and parlayed the future at the same time and I am excited as hell. "Win Win" You guys are gonna want statues of the guy soon and he actually will deserve it. Just sucks we had to wait so long because of Ted and people feeling sorry. That **** had to go. My dreams are actually coming true and it has nothing to do with Ted "dinosaur" Thompson.

Capers had success in the past but towards the end was a "LOSER". Pettine is gonna break the bank with this talent. All you worried guys about pass rush? It will be there with a dominant front. If the opposing QB makes one mistake were getting ready to go "Nick Collins" on them.

On a side note I close on my home in Green Bay next week for all those that I promised "parking" and a "good time". I think others offered for some substances but were gonna win more then 10 games finally.


We getting ready to go on a "Winning Run". This is gonna be beautiful. Good riddance to the losers. Go cry after a Championship run because I will happily buy your house too.

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

Yeah I get it. If I had a property next to Lambeau and it was all Ted Thompson and lies and more it's just "A LIE." Love the place but I am sure you can find a backstreet you can name him after.


Like "LOSER"

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You can have a Super Bowl capable roster and not win the Super Bowl.

Actually that's not true. If you don't win the Super Bowl your roster wasn't good enough to achieve the ultimate goal.

 

[Mondio]

Actually that's not true. If you don't win the Super Bowl your roster wasn't good enough to achieve the ultimate goal.

you do type some ridiculous stuff to dance around a point you absolutely don't want to get caught in. It's entertaining and mildly irritating at the same time to say the least. That roster DID beat the super winners that year. Anybody with 2 eyeballs and a brain knows that team was good enough to win a Super Bowl. You know it too, you just can't ever, and won't ever admit to it because it doesn't fit with the argument you're trying to make at this point in time. You'll will dance around and avoid ta all costs so you can maintain your "ted didn't build a super bowl roster" mantra. and if you showed any signs of accepting that '14 was good enough to win, you'd then have to admit '15 and '16 were up there too as they were largely the exact same roster. But you can't allow other circumstances to be brought into the equations because you don't like it when you can't keep it to a single variable play with words. Like saying "ted can't draft good defense" it's like you do it, just hoping someone brings Shields and Tramon into the conversation and you can say, "see, he didn't draft them, they don't count". Knowing full well it was Ted and his staff that brought on 2 extremely good defense players. But any way you can keep it controlled, you think you win.

Like saying the 1960 Packers didn't have a roster capable of winning a championship, yet the same roster won it in '61 and '62. and didn't in '64 but then did in '65. Again almost exactly the same rosters. But of course, they weren't a roster capable of winning a championship if they didn't LOL . You come up with some doozies sometimes, this is one of your better ones LOL Keep hanging on

 

[GleefulGary]

Actually that's not true. If you don't win the Super Bowl your roster wasn't good enough to achieve the ultimate goal.

So there's only one Super Bowl capable team each year?

Lol

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So there's only one Super Bowl capable team each year?

Lol

Like it or not, at the end of the season that is true.

 

[GleefulGary]

Like it or not, at the end of the season that is true.

No. No, it isn't.

Some teams match up better than others. Some guys get hurt. A fluke play can happen. Some teams get hot at the right time, some teams go cold at the wrong time. What you're doing is incredibly simplistic and reductionary.

When the Patriots went undefeated, they certainly had a Super Bowl worthy roster. Hell, we made the wildcard and won the Super Bowl. Had we lost in the playoffs that year, you'd be saying we didn't have a Super Bowl worthy roster. You're promoting fallacy and false logic.

 

[Mondio]

Like it or not, at the end of the season that is true.

Dancin', Dancin', Dancin...

He's a dancin' machine.

Rodgers is not an MVP quality player either LOL.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

When the Patriots went undefeated, they certainly had a Super Bowl worthy roster. Hell, we made the wildcard and won the Super Bowl. Had we lost in the playoffs that year, you'd be saying we didn't have a Super Bowl worthy roster. You're promoting fallacy and false logic.

Dancin', Dancin', Dancin...

He's a dancin' machine.

Rodgers is not an MVP quality player either LOL.

Whatever guys, it's fine if you're satisfied with what you want to call a Super Bowl caliber roster. In my opinion that's not good enough if the Packers fall short of actually winning another year after year, especially as they have the best quarterback in the league.

 

[Mondio]

Yes, complete and grand satisfaction that can only be derived from not winning a super bowl it puts an extra skip in my step. A little extra lead in the pencil if you know what I mean. Sure keeps the Mrs. Happy

 

[GleefulGary]

Whatever guys, it's fine if you're satisfied with what you want to call a Super Bowl caliber roster. In my opinion that's not good enough if the Packers fall short of actually winning another year after year, especially as they have the best quarterback in the league.

What you just said here can be summed up as:

"I know you guys are right, but I can't bring myself to admit it, so I'm just gonna try to throw an intellectual insult out there."

 

[GleefulGary]

Seriously, if the only way you can be satisfied is if we win the Super Bowl, then that's a miserable way to watch football.

This game is meant as entertainment. Don't take it too seriously.



/I say after posting for over the millionth time on a message board devoted to sports

 

[Deleted member 6794]

"I know you guys are right, but I can't bring myself to admit it, so I'm just gonna try to throw an intellectual insult out there."

BS, it should be pretty obvious to everyone that only the Super Bowl champion had a roster capable of winning it.

Seriously, if the only way you can be satisfied is if we win the Super Bowl, then that's a miserable way to watch football.

This game is meant as entertainment. Don't take it too seriously.

I don't take it too seriously as I enjoy watching the game. I'm disappointed if the Packers end up short of the ultimate goal though.

 

[PackerDNA]

There's only one SB winner a season, but that doesn't mean other teams that didn't win it didn't have SB worthy or capable rosters. For me, the 2013 and 2014 teams were the zenith.2013 was wrecked by injuries, and 2014...well we know how that turned out. Neither team won the SB, but certainly they had rosters fully and realistically capable of doing so.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

There's only one SB winner a season, but that doesn't mean other teams that didn't win it didn't have SB worthy or capable rosters. For me, the 2013 and 2014 teams were the zenith.2013 was wrecked by injuries, and 2014...well we know how that turned out. Neither team won the SB, but certainly they had rosters fully and realistically capable of doing so.

The 2014 roster was extremely close to being Super Bowl caliber but it wasn't there. It might have been different if the Packers had a tight end third on their depth chart capable of following instructions though.

 

[Mondio]

or if Rodgers doesn't throw a couple INT's, one in the endzone. Or if Jordy doesn't have one go off his finger tips resulting in another FG, or if... a special teams player doesn't make a mistake. Dancin' Dancin' Dancin He's a dancin' machine!

 

[GleefulGary]

The 2014 roster was extremely close to being Super Bowl caliber but it wasn't there. It might have been different if the Packers had a tight end third on their depth chart capable of following instructions though.

So we weren't a Super Bowl capable roster because of our 3rd string TE?

What a craptastic argument.

 

[PackAttack12]

Yeah captain, this isn't your finest argument ever.

There are always at least 2 or 3 teams that have rosters capable of winning the Super Bowl. Were the Patriots in '07 not capable because of the Tiree play? Were the Seahawks not capable in '14 because of the dumbest play call in the history of the Super Bowl? Were the Falcons not capable after they had proven they could man handle the Patriots, before going completely conservative? Were the Titans not capable just because one linebacker made an outstanding play to tackle Dyson at the 1 yard line? Football games turn all of the time on good or bad fortune.

If the Packers participate in this upcoming Super Bowl, and the entire team plays extremely well and has a 10 point lead, but Rodgers throws two interceptions late in the game, how would it be logical to suggest that the Packers didn't have a roster capable enough to win the Super Bowl when the best player in the game made two errors?

 

[swhitset]

Actually that's not true. If you don't win the Super Bowl your roster wasn't good enough to achieve the ultimate goal.

I think you should look up the definition of "capable" lol.

 

[GleefulGary]

BS, it should be pretty obvious to everyone that only the Super Bowl champion had a roster capable of winning it.

Sounds like it isn't so obvious to everybody.

Shocker.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So we weren't a Super Bowl capable roster because of our 3rd string TE?

Well, Bostick made a terrible mistake that resulted in the Seahawks staying alive. If the Packers had another third string tight end their roster might have been Super Bowl caliber.

Yeah captain, this isn't your finest argument ever.

There are always at least 2 or 3 teams that have rosters capable of winning the Super Bowl. Were the Patriots in '07 not capable because of the Tiree play? Were the Seahawks not capable in '14 because of the dumbest play call in the history of the Super Bowl? Were the Falcons not capable after they had proven they could man handle the Patriots, before going completely conservative? Were the Titans not capable just because one linebacker made an outstanding play to tackle Dyson at the 1 yard line?

I think you should look up the definition of "capable" lol.

According to the Oxford Dictionary the defition of being capable of doing something is as follows:

Having the ability, fitness, or quality necessary to do or achieve a specified thing.

The Packers didn't achieve winning the Super Bowl in 2014 therefore by definition weren't capable of.

Sounds like it isn't so obvious to everybody.

Shocker.

I agree it's shocking that it isn't obvious to a lot of posters around here.

 

[swhitset]

Well, Bostick made a terrible mistake that resulted in the Seahawks staying alive. If the Packers had another third string tight end their roster might have been Super Bowl caliber.





According to the Oxford Dictionary the defition of being capable of doing something is as follows:

Having the ability, fitness, or quality necessary to do or achieve a specified thing.

The Packers didn't achieve winning the Super Bowl in 2014 therefore by definition weren't capable of.



I agree it's shocking that it isn't obvious to a lot of posters around here.

I am capable of continuing to point out the fallacy in your argument, but I am not sure if you are joking around... However, arguing with a brick makes the rest of us just as ridiculous.... so .... I'm out.

 

[Mondio]

I am capable of continuing to point out the fallacy in your argument, but I am not sure if you are joking around... However, arguing with a brick makes the rest of us just as ridiculous.... so .... I'm out.

Good point, watching the dance was mildly amusing for a while, now it's just kind of sad to see one hang on so tightly to something that is not there.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Good point, watching the dance was mildly amusing for a while, now it's just kind of sad to see one hang on so tightly to something that is not there.

It's great that you feel awfully smart with others patting you on the back. Nevertheless you're wrong though.