Rodgers for Vice President?

[Heyjoe4]

Unfortunately, politicians can do us a great deal of harm.

As for Rodgers, I've never cared about his personality, except in whatever manner it affected the team. I wonder how much it affected his effectiveness as a leader? Brady is always held up as an example of a great on field leader. But for all we know Rodgers was a great leader. Most of the players seemed to like him, although there were a handful that didn't.

I think that most of the guys Rodgers played with respected him. There may be a few rookie receivers who didn't appreciate his demanding nature, but hey, welcome to the pros. I think he took that criticism of rookies too far, but he earned the right to lead the way he wanted.

He only got truly weird after Gluten drafted Love. I'm not gonna run down the entire list here, other than to mention taking hallucinogens (in the off season) and his weird darkness retreat. He truly did get weird, and still is as far as I know.

He gave us many years of great football. I'll certainly watch when they officially retire his number and put his name in the ring at Lambeau. He's earned that.

 

[rmontro]

He gave us many years of great football.

He did that. He helped get us a Super Bowl. If he could have gotten us another one, I couldn't have cared less if he sat in the dark every day. The worst bit was losing those four NFC Championship Games (to four different teams, no less). Of course it's a team sport, so you can't blame it all on him. Our defenses during his years were mostly atrocious. And better to have gotten to those NFCCGs than never to have gotten to them at all. I just wish we would have done better than 1-4.

 

[Heyjoe4]

He did that. He helped get us a Super Bowl. If he could have gotten us another one, I couldn't have cared less if he sat in the dark every day. The worst bit was losing those four NFC Championship Games (to four different teams, no less). Of course it's a team sport, so you can't blame it all on him. Our defenses during his years were mostly atrocious. And better to have gotten to those NFCCGs than never to have gotten to them at all. I just wish we would have done better than 1-4.

Agreed. As I recall, we were competitive in 2 of the 4 losses. I think the game at Atlanta was a blow out loss. The Seahag game is still the worst loss ever, far worse than "4th and 26", way worse.......

But still a lot of great football every week and a Lombardi, the fourth, which is a lot more than the other teams in the NFC North can say.

And you're right - other than the 2011 win over the Steelers, the playoff Packers never had a dominant D. And I still believe D wins championships. Well, here's to more great football ahead.

 

[OldSchool101]

I don’t know what worse. Losing all those NFC games or losing that many Superbowls? We’d be like Jim Kelly and The Bills.

 

[rmontro]

I don’t know what worse. Losing all those NFC games or losing that many Superbowls? We’d be like Jim Kelly and The Bills.

Those Bills teams at least got to the Super Bowl, so they achieved more than our teams that lost those NFCCGs. But that one Super Bowl win is worth more than their four losses. I would say.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Those Bills teams at least got to the Super Bowl, so they achieved more than our teams that lost those NFCCGs. But that one Super Bowl win is worth more than their four losses. I would say.

You and OS make logical points. The Packers would have technically had better seasons if they made it to the SB and then lost. I don't know that I could handle 4 SB losses, like the Bills and Vikings. I know that doesn't sound logical, but that's the way I feel about it.

That Seahag loss will stay with me for a long time. That year the team should have been in the SB. Well no, they lost. Ah, you know what I mean......

To paraphrase a quote from Bill Bellickek - "At the end if the season there are 31 plane crashes, and 1 winner." Easy for him to say, but he's right.

 

[rmontro]

You and OS make logical points. The Packers would have technically had better seasons if they made it to the SB and then lost. I don't know that I could handle 4 SB losses, like the Bills and Vikings. I know that doesn't sound logical, but that's the way I feel about it.

Well, I hate to bring up another unpleasant memory, but:

The stain on the Vikings and Bills isn't that they've lost four Super Bowls, it's that they've never won one. The Denver Broncos were once also 0-4 in Super Bowls until '97 (and they've won a few since then). Do you ever hear people talk about the Broncos four Super Bowl losses anymore (it's actually five losses now, they're 3-5)? I don't.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Well, I hate to bring up another unpleasant memory, but:

The stain on the Vikings and Bills isn't that they've lost four Super Bowls, it's that they've never won one. The Denver Broncos were once also 0-4 in Super Bowls until '97 (and they've won a few since then). Do you ever hear people talk about the Broncos four Super Bowl losses anymore (it's actually five losses now, they're 3-5)? I don't.

I forgot about the Broncos. And yeah, I know, they broke their streak of SB losses against the Packers in the 97-98 season and when on to win two in a row. I'm sure John Elway is a fine person, but I can't stand looking at the guy and that goofy grin.

And yeah, the Bills and Vikings have zero Lombardis after 8 combined attempts. That is harsh. As I said, maybe it's better to lose in the AFC or NFC CG, heartbreaking as all these losses are. Although if the Vikings never win a SB in my lifetime - well I'm fine with that.

Side note - Pete Prisco of CBS Sports has the Packers beating the Bills in the next SB. There's a prediction I can support. These preseason predictions aren't worth much, but always fun when your team is picked!

 

[rmontro]

As I said, maybe it's better to lose in the AFC or NFC CG, heartbreaking as all these losses are.

That is something people say, but I've never understood it. Nor do I agree with it. Even though I agree that there are 31 losers every year, I still want the team to get as far as they can. It's better to be in the Super Bowl than not. If nothing else, it's a lot of free press for the team. At least you're in the conversation.

 

[Heyjoe4]

That is something people say, but I've never understood it. Nor do I agree with it. Even though I agree that there are 31 losers every year, I still want the team to get as far as they can. It's better to be in the Super Bowl than not. If nothing else, it's a lot of free press for the team. At least you're in the conversation.

You're right of course. We're all fans and it hurts to lose in any big game. Losing in a SB means the team was good enough to get there in the first place. That's what was so disappointing in the 4 NFCCG losses - the SB was so close. Hard to imagine more heartbreak.

So time to make another run for it. This team certainly looks like a viable contender for the SB, ideally a win.