It is very difficult to make the NFL playoffs 7 consecutive seasons

[NelsonsLongCatch]

This is referring to my post... So I feel ok saying...

If you are drawing your conclusion off of one line of my post, than you are ill informed to the point that I am trying to make about playoff appearances and success.

So please I dare you to go to the Giants/Steelers/Patriots/Raven/Seahawks forum and tell them how much more consistent we have been with our playoff appearance over the last 10 years (other than the patriots). How we have built our roster from within... How awesome our drafting is, and how well we develop young talent. And just tell me what they say... I'd be curious.

Fact is that is THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS. You obviously can't win every year but there is quite a few teams doing it as well as the Packers in the last decade, and quite a few more doing it better. So please don't act like some homer who believes that "being competitive" matters to anyone outside of Green Bay fans. It is an excuse people use when you are disappointed with an outcome.

You hear it all the time even in single game scenarios.. "Ohh they lost but they were competitive". "Well Frank you didn't get the job, but you did your best". It's the same thing... People everywhere do this, it's a coping mechanism to deal with failure.

 

[longtimefan]

Speaking very generally, if you play a game... You are contending.

0-16 Lions were contenders... Just not very good ones.

So while I do agree with your premise, It is just a matter of where your standards are. And I suppose it is a very subjective thing.

To me contending for a championship. Mean you at least made it to the championship game. All others have already been deem unworthy.

While others may see playoffs as a win, (nothing wrong with that). I see us as the 8th ish most successful team since 2000. Certainly not in the top 5.

I get and understand your opinion on it. But 0-16 is not contending as they didnt get to playoffs..

As the lotto saying goes--cant win if you dont buy...Cant get to SB if not in playoffs

So yes it is subjective.

 

[longtimefan]

What do you say to the so called experts that make statements such as "GB is mentioned with top teams all the time"

Just this week----Brian Billick was on NFLN and talking about the teams that are always in the thick of it. Pitts, NE, GB, Giants, Seattle..

I am leaning to your viewpoint but at the same point, a team can't contend if your not in the playoffs

 

[TJV]

Or maybe you are misguided?...

Thompson supplied the talent to beat New England in the regular season and to beat Seattle at their place in NFCCG. You apparently don’t even know what happened on the critical onside kick near the end of that game. It wasn’t a matter of talent or even coaching. Bostick practiced his assignment on that play dozens if not hundreds of times and right before the kick Quarless pointed out the player he was supposed to block and Bostick replied “I got this”. To post that was somehow Thompson’s fault is ludicrous. Peppers motioned for Burnett to go down after that interception. Was Thompson wrong to acquire either player? Was that also somehow his fault? Change either of those plays and they likely win the game. Thompson did his job. To say they obviously weren’t talented enough is to say in every game the more talented team wins. And if you believe that...

You and others are misguided by placing so much emphasis on the QB to exclusion to “tiny” details like the defense, STs, the OL and supporting players on offense. The post I was responding to, with which you apparently agree included this: “The Packers SHOULD be great for the past 20+ years because the Packers have had AMAZING quarterbacks over that timespan, quarterbacks that have missed very little time. Any team in the NFL with a great QB should be a great team. …” They should be great for more than 20 years because they had Favre and Rodgers. Any team with a great QB should be great – no qualifier regarding any other player or unit on the team. Of course that statement is coming from – at the very least a misguided fan – and more likely a spoiled one.

 

[RRyder]

This is referring to my post... So I feel ok saying...

If you are drawing your conclusion off of one line of my post, than you are ill informed to the point that I am trying to make about playoff appearances and success.

So please I dare you to go to the Giants/Steelers/Patriots/Raven/Seahawks forum and tell them how much more consistent we have been with our playoff appearance over the last 10 years (other than the patriots). How we have built our roster from within... How awesome our drafting is, and how well we develop young talent. And just tell me what they say... I'd be curious.

Fact is that is THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS. You obviously can't win every year but there is quite a few teams doing it as well as the Packers in the last decade, and quite a few more doing it better. So please don't act like some homer who believes that "being competitive" matters to anyone outside of Green Bay fans. It is an excuse people use when you are disappointed with an outcome.

You hear it all the time even in single game scenarios.. "Ohh they lost but they were competitive". "Well Frank you didn't get the job, but you did your best". It's the same thing... People everywhere do this, it's a coping mechanism to deal with failure.

The Steelers and Pats are the only teams you listed that could make a strong claim from the last ten years, possibly the Ravens also, but when you include sustained success there's absolutely no way to include Seattle and the Giants. If you do your neglecting all the years they were god awful. But there is the Ricky Bobby theory of if your not first your last your preaching so........

 

[PackerDNA]

No team or fan base talks super bowl more than this one at the start of every season. Which keeps getting whittled down until you end up with we're better than the Browns and Lions, and anyone not happy with that is spoiled.

 

[RRyder]

No team or fan base talks super bowl more than this one at the start of every season. Which keeps getting whittled down until you end up with we're better than the Browns and Lions, and anyone not happy with that is spoiled.

Yeah that's not why people are called spoiled or entitled.

It's the constant b!%"#ing and moaning and an utter unwillingness to see anything other than a championship as absolutely anything but a complete failure and that's how u get to the Browns/Lions comment which is dumb in its own right.

 

[Calvin Carolina]

Considering the disappointing and difficult season we have all witnessed this year with our beloved Green Bay Packers, there is one positive that I take away from this season – call it a silver lining if you will.


For the past 7 years, 2009-15, only 2 teams have made the playoffs each season – the Green Bay Packers and the New England Patriots. When you consider how difficult it is to make the playoffs 7 straight years in the NFL, it is a major accomplishment. The Packers with the great Brett Favre made the playoffs for 6 consecutive seasons from 1993-1998, but could not do it for 7 straight seasons.


How would you like to be a Chicago “the Bears still suck” fan? Since 2009, they have made the postseason only once – the 2010 season when the Packers defeated the Bears in the NFC Championship on their way to Super Bowl 45. One playoff appearance in 7 years for the Bears – that would really suck! Since 2009, the Detroit Lions have made the playoffs twice and the Vikings have now made the playoffs for the fourth time.


How about those Dallas Cowboys – 2 playoff appearances, 2009 & 2014, in 7 years. Or how about the teams that have not even sniffed the playoffs – Buffalo, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Miami, Oakland, St. Louis, Tampa Bay and Tennessee. I am so thankful that I am a fan of the Green Bay Packers.


Yes, this has been a very disappointing season and a deep run by the Packers in the playoffs seems very unlikely, but it is so difficult just to make the postseason, and even more difficult to make it 7 consecutive seasons.


Here are all 32 teams and how many times they have made the playoffs the last 7 years, from 2009-2015:


7 Playoff appearances

Green Bay Packers (2009-15 – 1 Super Bowl Win)

New England Patriots (2009-15 – 1 Super Bowl Win)


6 Playoff appearances

Cincinnati Bengals (2009, 2011-15 / 0-5 record in the playoffs, not counting 2015)


5 Playoff appearances

Baltimore Ravens (2009-12, 2014 - 1 Super Bowl Win)

Denver Broncos (2011-2015)

Indianapolis Colts (2009-10, 2012-14)

Seattle Seahawks (2010, 2012-2015 - 1 Super Bowl Win)


4 Playoff Appearances

Pittsburgh Steelers (2010-11, 2014-15)

New Orleans Saints (2009-11, 2013 - 1 Super Bowl Win)


3 Playoff Appearances

San Francisco 49’ers (2011-13)

Philadelphia Eagles (2009-10, 2013)

Atlanta Falcons (2010-12)

Arizona Cardinals (2009, 2014-15)

Carolina Panthers (2013-15)

Minnesota Vikings (2009, 2012, 2015)

Houston Texans (2011-12, 2015)

Kansas City Chiefs (2010, 2013, 2015)


2 Playoff Appearances

San Diego Chargers (2009, 2013)

NY Jets (2009-10)

Dallas Cowboys (2009, 2014)

Detroit Lions (2011, 2014)

Washington Redskins (2012, 2015)


1 Playoff Appearance

NY Giants (2011 – 1 Super Bowl Win)

Chicago Bears (2010)


X Playoff Appearances

Buffalo

Cleveland

Jacksonville

Miami

Oakland

St. Louis

TampaBay

Tennessee


Be thankful we are Packers fans!

Oh ye of little faith The Packers can beat anybody in their pathway and win the Super Bowl I believe they will do it go pack go.

 

[Un4GivN]

Thompson supplied the talent to beat New England in the regular season and to beat Seattle at their place in NFCCG. You apparently don’t even know what happened on the critical onside kick near the end of that game. It wasn’t a matter of talent or even coaching. Bostick practiced his assignment on that play dozens if not hundreds of times and right before the kick Quarless pointed out the player he was supposed to block and Bostick replied “I got this”. To post that was somehow Thompson’s fault is ludicrous. Peppers motioned for Burnett to go down after that interception. Was Thompson wrong to acquire either player? Was that also somehow his fault? Change either of those plays and they likely win the game. Thompson did his job. To say they obviously weren’t talented enough is to say in every game the more talented team wins. And if you believe that...

Since you have this habit of mis-quoting and quoting in small pieces. This is what I said.

Then they didn't make it. They obviously weren't good enough. Whether that is coaching, or scheme or players. Doesn't matter. They didn't and thus were not good enough.

I know exactly what happened... And losing is losing. So saying someone is "good enough" when they didn't make it to the championship is ludicrous. Good enough was Seattle, they were good enough to make there.

While the examples I brought were talent if you want to know what I really think about that game... It was a product of us capitalizing on Seattle's mistakes more than a product of us being more talented. Our offense was horrid that day. 5 or 6 turnovers and 20 points? Really? Aaron threw an interception that could have resulted in a FG in the first quarter. Play-calling was downright atrocious thus is why they had such a stink about it after the game. In the end the defense couldn't hold out any longer being put on the field constantly after 3 and outs and we lost.

There was a probably near 50 ways to win that game. Only someone short-sighted would say it is because of bostick. He messed up for sure, but he is the easy scapegoat to a team that allowed the opponent to even be in at after that many turnovers.

So your soliloquy on Thompson is mis-guided. Because I didn't blame him. Slice it anyway makes you sleep better at night, but they weren't good enough. Better coaching they win, better execution they win, better talent they win...

You and others are misguided by placing so much emphasis on the QB to exclusion to “tiny” details like the defense, STs, the OL and supporting players on offense. The post I was responding to, with which you apparently agree included this: “The Packers SHOULD be great for the past 20+ years because the Packers have had AMAZING quarterbacks over that timespan, quarterbacks that have missed very little time. Any team in the NFL with a great QB should be a great team. …” They should be great for more than 20 years because they had Favre and Rodgers. Any team with a great QB should be great – no qualifier regarding any other player or unit on the team. Of course that statement is coming from – at the very least a misguided fan – and more likely a spoiled one.

If you don't see the point that 8+ are more successful than the Packers the 15 years. than you're not going to get it. You get some solace in the fact they are competitive and that's OK and your opinion. But that isn't how I feel. I have also heard the same analyst say a hall of fame quarterback is worth 8 wins a year. Look at Dallas this year. Is it the only position on the field? No. But it is the most important.

And if you're main point is that it takes more than a quarterback... Well duh. I believe the rest of are saying they should have more to show of the years of being stable in the most important position on the field.

I'll end this one here... Given that there is 8 or more teams above Green Bay in the last 15 years. Do you really feel none of this is on MM or TT? That there isn't better? Other teams seem to be doing much better? And it's not only New England.

Just a hint, speaking to other people like you are some worldly genius on football, with judgmental overtones, and name calling is not the way to get people to listen. Doesn't matter if your point is right or wrong that is a bit childish.

 

[Un4GivN]

The Steelers and Pats are the only teams you listed that could make a strong claim from the last ten years, possibly the Ravens also, but when you include sustained success there's absolutely no way to include Seattle and the Giants. If you do your neglecting all the years they were god awful. But there is the Ricky Bobby theory of if your not first your last your preaching so........

Who cares if they were god awful? They also have more appearances (Seattle 3) to and Giants more wins in the super bowl (Giants 2). In fact one of the most historic wins in NFL history against the undefeated Patriots. Those numbers might get even worse this year with Seattle on the tear they are on.

I understand that you don't get it. But I would take the Giants success any day. 2 Super Bowls victories in the last 10 years is all that matters. The other years can be 6 and 10 and missed playoffs, it really doesn't matter. I honestly don't even see how you can argue that.

I seriously want you to go to the Giants forum and say "I know the Packers are a better team because they made the playoffs more, they draft and develop, and that leads to stability. Overall we are better organization over the past 10 years." See what they say. This whole logic is a homer way of making yourself feel better.

Guaranteed they don't give a **** about the Packers consecutive playoff appearance, or stability. They are better in the last 10 years because they have more trophies in their case. End of story.

If Lombardi came in second all those years no one would think of him the same way either... I really don't get how this is even a conversation.

 

[4Ever4Favre]

I completely agree with Un4GivN here. So just because fans want something more from their team than a playoff appearance, we are misguided? The fact is yes, GB has a pretty good regular season record under MM and TT and we have a bunch of NFC North titles and a SB.

But please look at the post season record and tell me its OK because we just made it to the playoffs.

2006 8-8 Season record, Missed playoffs
2007 13-3 Season record, 1-1 Playoff record, Lost in NFC Championship
2008 6-10 Season record, Missed playoffs
2009 11-5 Season record, 0-1 Playoff record, Lost in Wildcard Game
2010 10-6 Season record, 4-0 Playoff record, Won SB
2011 15-1 Season record, 0-1 Playoff record, Lost in Divisional Game
2012 11-5 Season record, 1-1 Playoff record, Lost in Divisional Game
2013 8-7-1 Season record, 0-1 Playoff record, Lost in Wildcard Game
2014 12-4 Season record, 1-1 Playoff record, Lost in NFC Championship
2015 10-6 Season record, ?????

How long can MM and TT ride that SB victory before its OK to question what their doing? Outside of the SB year, MM and TT are 3-6 in the post season. Technically, they should have lost to Dallas last year. I am not saying they aren't successful, but I think as a fan of a team with the best QB in football (I do still think that) we should be much better and TT and MM are to blame for not putting them in a better position with players via draft/FA and coaching.

If you think GB played a great game against Seattle, you are mistaken. Seattle turned the ball over 4 times in the first and we only scored 16. 5 FG and 1 TD for the game, Rodgers threw for 178 yds, 1 TD & 2 INT's. This BS offense we see didn't start after the bye week this year, it started last year. And to those that will come back with the 6-0 start defense, I will say again that the 6-0 start was smoke and mirrors.

 

[Half Empty]

Yep. Knew the "mediocrity" crowd would come out in this thread along with the "if you don't win the SB you might as well be 0-16".

Way to try and hold off guys. I know it must've been rough for you

Hey, no fair. As a member of the board of directors of the Negative Nellie/Debbie Downer corporation, I think we've done a pretty decent job pointing out the team's deficiencies, even during the 6-0 start.

 

[Half Empty]

I get and understand your opinion on it. But 0-16 is not contending as they didnt get to playoffs..

As the lotto saying goes--cant win if you dont buy...Cant get to SB if not in playoffs

So yes it is subjective.

First of all, wholeheartedly agree with the subjective comment. However, these forums are also subject to relativity, semantics, and parsing. You (and you're welcome to it) pick the playoffs as the definition of contending, and at that time of the season, nobody can question it. However, the Lions were indeed contenders for quite a while, until mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. They just happened to turn into non-contenders earlier than the rest.

 

[Half Empty]

Oh ye of little faith The Packers can beat anybody in their pathway and win the Super Bowl I believe they will do it go pack go.

Good for you. Let's chat again in February.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

You and a few others post as if the QB is the end-all be-all of the NFL. While important the rest of the team matters a lot. Have you forgotten the thousands of posts complaining about Capers and the talent on defense? You and a few others will no doubt post 'of course that's true', but you don't post as if you believe it. So maybe you're not spoiled, just misguided.

Regarding Thompson his philosophy is obviously to attempt to keep the team in contention year after year as opposed to "going for broke" in a season's gamble that may result in a series of "feast or famine" seasons. That frustrates many fans but he has kept the team in contention and IMO last season he did his job: He put a team on the field that had the talent to win a title.

The single MOST IMPORTANT piece of a football team is the QB. There is zero arguing with that. You mention the defense and being misguided...what does that have to do with anything? The thousands of posts about Capers are reactionary, the Packers defense has been bad a couple of seasons, average a couple seasons and won the Packers a Super Bowl in one season.

Still not really sure how I'm misguided after reading your post. You keep comparing the Packers to other teams as if everything is equal. You don't expect a team with a terrible QB to win a bunch of games. Therefore you don't expect a team with a terrible QB to go to the playoffs very often. You DO expect a team with an elite QB to win a lot of games. Therefore you would expect that team to go to the playoffs. It's very simple logic here.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

So in summation: Teams with All-Time Great Quarterbacks make the playoffs a lot.

But fans are spoiled if they aren't ecstatic that said teams are better than teams with Weeden at QB.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

What do you say to the so called experts that make statements such as "GB is mentioned with top teams all the time"

Just this week----Brian Billick was on NFLN and talking about the teams that are always in the thick of it. Pitts, NE, GB, Giants, Seattle..

I am leaning to your viewpoint but at the same point, a team can't contend if your not in the playoffs

Because the Packers have Aaron Rodgers and he's one of the more well known NFL players. Media people aren't exactly a terrific standard for information. How many times do you hear a tv announcer credit the wrong guy with a play just because that guy is the more recognized name? Yes the Packers make the playoffs fairly often, but that's what you expect from a Rodgers-lead team. Issue is what's being done to help Rodgers and the Packers take that next step.

 

[TJV]

And if you're main point is that it takes more than a quarterback... Well duh. I believe the rest of are saying they should have more to show of the years of being stable in the most important position on the field.

You can believe that but I quoted a post that contradicts it. “The Packers SHOULD be great for the past 20+ years … Any team in the NFL with a great QB should be a great team.”

For those of you who agree with that sentiment why do you suppose is it that over the previous 5 seasons, the Packers won the title with their worst scoring average and with Rodgers’ worst passer rating from 2010 through 2014?

Just a hint, speaking to other people like you are some worldly genius on football, with judgmental overtones, and name calling is not the way to get people to listen. Doesn't matter if your point is right or wrong that is a bit childish.

I hope you had a mirror nearby while you typed this. Just a hint typing, “I understand that you don't get it.” Is condescending and looks like you think you are some worldly genius on football, with judgmental overtones. And that’s been a theme of your posts since you returned to the board. And speaking of childish, just as spoiled children don’t know they’re spoiled, spoiled fans apparently don’t know either.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Thompson supplied the talent to beat New England in the regular season and to beat Seattle at their place in NFCCG. You apparently don’t even know what happened on the critical onside kick near the end of that game. It wasn’t a matter of talent or even coaching. Bostick practiced his assignment on that play dozens if not hundreds of times and right before the kick Quarless pointed out the player he was supposed to block and Bostick replied “I got this”. To post that was somehow Thompson’s fault is ludicrous. Peppers motioned for Burnett to go down after that interception. Was Thompson wrong to acquire either player? Was that also somehow his fault? Change either of those plays and they likely win the game. Thompson did his job. To say they obviously weren’t talented enough is to say in every game the more talented team wins. And if you believe that...

You and others are misguided by placing so much emphasis on the QB to exclusion to “tiny” details like the defense, STs, the OL and supporting players on offense. The post I was responding to, with which you apparently agree included this: “The Packers SHOULD be great for the past 20+ years because the Packers have had AMAZING quarterbacks over that timespan, quarterbacks that have missed very little time. Any team in the NFL with a great QB should be a great team. …” They should be great for more than 20 years because they had Favre and Rodgers. Any team with a great QB should be great – no qualifier regarding any other player or unit on the team. Of course that statement is coming from – at the very least a misguided fan – and more likely a spoiled one.

This argument is misguided. The Packers defense has been bad, as in one of the worst in the NFL, only a couple times during Rodger's career. The offensive line has been fine for a Super Bowl team (go check out the olines the Giants fielded for two Super Bowl wins) and the supporting cast on offense has been terrific (or is a succession of WRs like Driver, Jennings, Nelson & Cobb somehow lacking?). So I guess it comes down to special teams? Which has historically actually been a problem that Thompson has contributed to. It was pointed out in an ESPN article a couple seasons ago that Thompson's strategy of having a very young team (due to using predominantly drafts to build the team) means that the special teams unit was populated with first and second year guys and can't deal with injuries; basically, when someone gets hurt, special teams is left with a bunch of young guys who have no clue.

So please help guide me O Learned One. The Packers have had one of the best five-QBs in the NFL for about the last 18 years (end of Favre-era and beginning of Rodgers-era they weren't top-5). In that time the Packers have won two Super Bowls. The Steelers have had a top-5 QB for about ten years and have won two Super Bowls and been to another. So the Steelers have done more than the Packers. The Pats, I don't need to explain, they've done more.

The only other team I can think of (and this is where your wisdom will come in handy to help guide my misguided mind) that has had elite QB play for a comparable period of time to the Packers would be the Colts with Manning and they were about on-par with what the Packers have managed. Manning was with the Colts for 13 seasons and won one Super Bowl (so he's basically half of what the Packers have had as far as time with an elite QB). Not sure how to factor in the fact that the Colts got bumped by the Pats quite a bit before reaching the Super Bowl and that's something the Packers didn't have to face.

 

[TJV]

So please help guide me O Learned One.

If you don't understand this:

The Packers SHOULD be great for the past 20+ years because the Packers have had AMAZING quarterbacks over that timespan, quarterbacks that have missed very little time. Any team in the NFL with a great QB should be a great team.

is ridiculous, you are beyond help. To be clear I'm not calling you ridiculous, just those two sentences are among the most ridiculous I've read on this board.

 

[Mondio]

anything that doesn't point to MM and TT being idiots and this team sucking and deserving of more is misguided. Nevermind the thousand other variables to each game, times of season, the level of a group is playing at during any certain stretch. I remember a Steelers/ Seahawks super bowl and I think the league and the refs absolutely gave the game to Pittsburgh. I don't care anymore, i just remember feeling pretty badly for seattle fans, then they had the fail mary and got Pete Carroll and I'm glad

all sorts of things happen at the time, like the time we had to lay with pretty much no linebackers and a make shift defensive line and were still a rookie interception to a most likely victory against the 49er's. Give that many injuries to the Seahawks on defense and see how many post seasons they're in, or super bowls, LOL but hey, we lost and TT and every one else sucks because of it. LOL

I'm willing to bet that Special teams are still made up of a lot of younger guys, just like every other special teams roster in the league, but hey, we're special, TT SUCKS at getting decent players.

 

[Un4GivN]

You can believe that but I quoted a post that contradicts it. “The Packers SHOULD be great for the past 20+ years … Any team in the NFL with a great QB should be a great team.”

For those of you who agree with that sentiment why do you suppose is it that over the previous 5 seasons, the Packers won the title with their worst scoring average and with Rodgers’ worst passer rating from 2010 through 2014?

In 2010 Aaron was 3rd in qbr, 2nd in ypa, 6th completion percentage, and 7th in yards... Pretty damn good year.

Now that we got that out of the way... no one in this forum has once stated you win a title with one person. Ever. Not once as it been said we only need Rodgers on the roster. Run a 1 man roster and we win.

The point that you keep trying to avoid is look at the bottom 10 qbs from that year. None of those teams made the playoffs, none of them competed for a championship.. QB is the most important position on the field. There is no way to argue that.

Once you have that franchise quarterback it's your time to shine, and if you don't get it done in that limited amount of time. If you don't take some chances to win... Your time will pass and you may end up in those bottom 10 teams once again.

I hope you had a mirror nearby while you typed this. Just a hint typing, “I understand that you don't get it.” Is condescending and looks like you think you are some worldly genius on football, with judgmental overtones. And that’s been a theme of your posts since you returned to the board. And speaking of childish, just as spoiled children don’t know they’re spoiled, spoiled fans apparently don’t know either.

I'll let other judge dude, I am not in that business. You want to call me names to prove a point, makes you feel better about your argument. Go for it. I will no longer be a part of that.

For being a respected poster with some very good opinions, you attitude on the forums is very lacking at times. You feel name calling, makes you more respected... But it makes me not want to even debate things with you. It isn't fun. It is like a personal vendetta. If you want to ride me. Go for it, but at least I have the willingness to admit when I was wrong, to be humble in the face of contrary evidence. Something in the last months that I have been active on here I have never seen you do. Because even the way you talk you believe your football knowledge is above everyone else, and it shows in the way you speak to others.

And its not even just with me... It's all the time.

If you don't understand this: is ridiculous, you are beyond help. To be clear I'm not calling you ridiculous, just those two sentences are among the most ridiculous I've read on this board.

Say something like you are beyond help... Then come back immediately with "To be clear I'm not calling you ridiculous." No you are right... You are calling him "beyond help". Which is worse.

1. That could be put in much better terms. Especially for someone who is a respected part of the community. Someone others look to.

2. It's not even true... I have only been here a few months and I have heard things like legitimately trading Rodgers. Fire MM mid season... Crazy trade talk. His statement doesn't even register as a top 10 in the last 3 months. Let alone all-time.

You just do this to make it seem like he isn't even in the same league as you and doesn't deserve your time.

 

[Un4GivN]

anything that doesn't point to MM and TT being idiots and this team sucking and deserving of more is misguided. Nevermind the thousand other variables to each game, times of season, the level of a group is playing at during any certain stretch. I remember a Steelers/ Seahawks super bowl and I think the league and the refs absolutely gave the game to Pittsburgh. I don't care anymore, i just remember feeling pretty badly for seattle fans, then they had the fail mary and got Pete Carroll and I'm glad

Your points on this subject don't even make logical sense.

Who cares if Pitt or Seattle won that one... Then Pitt would have been to 3 and won 1 and Seattle would have been to 3 and won 2. Both still better than the Packers.

all sorts of things happen at the time, like the time we had to lay with pretty much no linebackers and a make shift defensive line and were still a rookie interception to a most likely victory against the 49er's. Give that many injuries to the Seahawks on defense and see how many post seasons they're in, or super bowls, LOL but hey, we lost and TT and every one else sucks because of it. LOL

How do you know this, if it didn't happen? This is just based on what you believe would happen. You could be right, but you also could be wrong. There is no way of proving "what would have happened". It's just a theory. Maybe the Packers draft too many players prone to injury. I don't really believe that... But this point is backed by no actual truth.

I'm willing to bet that Special teams are still made up of a lot of younger guys, just like every other special teams roster in the league, but hey, we're special, TT SUCKS at getting decent players.

Like Richard Sherman as a gunner? Don't say every other cause it isn't true. Sherman was the absolute best corner in the league and still played gunner. But our above average Randall Cobb, who is no where near his level can't return kicks and punts because he is too valuable?

 

[TJV]

Now that we got that out of the way... no one in this forum has once stated you win a title with one person. Ever. Not once as it been said we only need Rodgers on the roster. Run a 1 man roster and we win.

Wrong. Read the quote of sunshinepacker again: That’s as definitive as a statement can be and it lists only one player, the QB.

I'll let other judge dude, I am not in that business. You want to call me names to prove a point, makes you feel better about your argument. Go for it. I will no longer be a part of that.

I did not call you names. Calling names is posting ‘You are a jerk’ or ‘You are an ***hole’, etc. Calling you a spoiled fan or childish (which you called me) is not name calling, it’s descriptive – the difference between a noun and adjective. And as you characterize how I post be sure to examine your own posting style.

 

[Un4GivN]

Wrong. Read the quote of sunshinepacker again: That’s as definitive as a statement can be and it lists only one player, the QB. I did not call you names. Calling names is posting ‘You are a jerk’ or ‘You are an ***hole’, etc. Calling you a spoiled fan or childish (which you called me) is not name calling, it’s descriptive – the difference between a noun and adjective. And as you characterize how I post be sure to examine your own posting style.

This is exactly what I am saying...

1. You are wrong... Calling someone childish is name calling, and descriptive. Just as calling someone an *******, is both name calling but also descriptive. Or a nerd, it both calling them a name, and also describing them having a certain skillset. That isn't even debatable, it's fact. And the fact that you choose these of all the arguments in my previous post only proves my point.

2. I have, and others have noticed my change over the course of the past month. I made some mistakes when I first got back in how I was posting and what things I was putting out there. I have corrected those and apologized for that to those it was pertinent to. I am not perfect... But I will without second thought own up to my mistakes.

I seriously hope you do as well. Since you are a widely trusted and listen to poster on the forums.