From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
If Paul Hornung's number was never retired, why should AR's or for that matter Woodson's? Or anyone else's? You are 100% correct, with a roster in the 80's including IR and PS, there is not room to have so many retired. Hudson, Starr, Nitschke and White, that is enough for permanent retirements. If you want a 5 year after leaving the game retirement of the number, that would be OK, they can work around that.
because Hornungs accomplishments pale compared to Rodgers, the only person that wanted his # retired was Vince, and if there is a lack of room on the facade to add Rodgers name to it then Hornungs should be removed, or Thompsons, don't know why he was put up there either.
to answer your question Ringo, yes Woodsons name should be on the facade.
to my knowledge we've only retired 6 numbers, Rodgers will make 7.
Excuse me, but exactly what makes Rodgers so great? 1 SB win, no other appearances? Several NFC championships when he laid an egg? You might take a look at just what Hornung was, the all time scoring leader for the first 12 games of a season (and the 2 TD passes he threw did not count in that stat). League scoring leader 3 years in a row. Hell, he even ran back kickoffs. The only thing he was not particularly good at was kicking field goals but in a roster of 40 or less, not having a dedicated kicker mattered.
How many rings did Hornung get? How many does AR have? In the year that Hounung did not play did the Packers win the championship? No, they did not. The only stat that matters is championships. Case closed.
I'm with you 100% Skeptic. Slam the dang door effen shut on this nonsense.
Aaron Rodgers is today's shiny object.....shelf life is what? What will be his legacy? $400 autographs? These individual records and awards don't mean much without team titles and team chemistry. Everyone loved Paul and Bart. Brett is loved more than Aaron. Dickey and Majik are held in high esteem as well. Zeke too.
I'm gonna get me 16X20s of Majik and Sharpe next (I already have a Hornung).
If Paul Hornung's number was never retired, why should AR's or for that matter Woodson's? Or anyone else's? You are 100% correct, with a roster in the 80's including IR and PS, there is not room to have so many retired. Hudson, Starr, Nitschke and White, that is enough for permanent retirements. If you want a 5 year after leaving the game retirement of the number, that would be OK, they can work around that.
because Hornungs accomplishments pale compared to Rodgers, the only person that wanted his # retired was Vince, and if there is a lack of room on the facade to add Rodgers name to it then Hornungs should be removed, or Thompsons, don't know why he was put up there either.
to answer your question Ringo, yes Woodsons name should be on the facade.
to my knowledge we've only retired 6 numbers, Rodgers will make 7.
Excuse me, but exactly what makes Rodgers so great? 1 SB win, no other appearances? Several NFC championships when he laid an egg? You might take a look at just what Hornung was, the all time scoring leader for the first 12 games of a season (and the 2 TD passes he threw did not count in that stat). League scoring leader 3 years in a row. Hell, he even ran back kickoffs. The only thing he was not particularly good at was kicking field goals but in a roster of 40 or less, not having a dedicated kicker mattered.
How many rings did Hornung get? How many does AR have? In the year that Hounung did not play did the Packers win the championship? No, they did not. The only stat that matters is championships. Case closed.
Hornung played in a the small ball era, on a team loaded with talent, and his claim to fame was scoring points, and his all pro team mates set him up to do that well, this was not a slam on Paul for those accomplishments, but comparing his road to fame against what Rodgers has had to contend with during his career is laugh out loud funny, even Hornung would acknowledge the diff. of when he played and the game now.
Rodgers won a SB when he had comparable talent, and has struggled because unlike Paul he had to carry a disfunctional defense ever since, and a declining receiver core in a era when Passing has ruled most games.
Unless Rodgers does something to ruin his Packer Legacy he'll have his number retired and name on the facade
Charles will honored during half time ceremonies tomorrow in the game against the Rams. I took this photo during a stadium tour today. Look closely and you can see the cover that will removed tomorrow. Well done Charles, you contributed so much to many of our victories.
Lambeau Field
3D100202-9611-48CB-A488-36BF4512216B.jpeg (551.93 KiB) Viewed 574 times
Charles will honored during half time ceremonies tomorrow in the game against the Rams. I took this photo during a stadium tour today. Look closely and you can see the cover that will removed tomorrow. Well done Charles, you contributed so much to many of our victories. 3D100202-9611-48CB-A488-36BF4512216B.jpeg
because Hornungs accomplishments pale compared to Rodgers, the only person that wanted his # retired was Vince, and if there is a lack of room on the facade to add Rodgers name to it then Hornungs should be removed, or Thompsons, don't know why he was put up there either.
to answer your question Ringo, yes Woodsons name should be on the facade.
to my knowledge we've only retired 6 numbers, Rodgers will make 7.
Excuse me, but exactly what makes Rodgers so great? 1 SB win, no other appearances? Several NFC championships when he laid an egg? You might take a look at just what Hornung was, the all time scoring leader for the first 12 games of a season (and the 2 TD passes he threw did not count in that stat). League scoring leader 3 years in a row. Hell, he even ran back kickoffs. The only thing he was not particularly good at was kicking field goals but in a roster of 40 or less, not having a dedicated kicker mattered.
How many rings did Hornung get? How many does AR have? In the year that Hounung did not play did the Packers win the championship? No, they did not. The only stat that matters is championships. Case closed.
Hornung played in a the small ball era, on a team loaded with talent, and his claim to fame was scoring points, and his all pro team mates set him up to do that well, this was not a slam on Paul for those accomplishments, but comparing his road to fame against what Rodgers has had to contend with during his career is laugh out loud funny, even Hornung would acknowledge the diff. of when he played and the game now.
Rodgers won a SB when he had comparable talent, and has struggled because unlike Paul he had to carry a disfunctional defense ever since, and a declining receiver core in a era when Passing has ruled most games.
Unless Rodgers does something to ruin his Packer Legacy he'll have his number retired and name on the facade
case closed, thats so funny.
I have to agree with Skeptic on this one. While Rodgers has given the Packers opportunities to win championships, he has flopped all too often in the big games. Obviously, these haven't just been his fault. Football is very much a team game. However, Rodgers has never been able to provide that "something" that the best team leaders do. Hornung was a perfect example of a player who provided that "something" that pushes others to do whatever is needed to win championships. Hornung has very often been mentioned by teammates as a player that provided inspiration in the big games.
Granted, Hornung had Lombardi as a coach, which obviously meant a great deal. As much as I appreciate what Rodgers can do throwing a football, he is not, and never will be the type of team leader Hornung was.
I am not saying that Rodgers is not a good QB. He is very good. But he is not even the best QB of his generation, Brady is. Nor is he the best Packers QB, Starr was. Can you imagine Bart taking so much cap room that the Packers would have to let good teammates walk? I cannot. Starr always put the team ahead of himself. Brady has almost always come up big when it matters most, so did Peyton.
As far as football players in general, I can easily think of many that were better than Rodgers, even if Rodgers wins his 2nd SB this year. Because of the position he plays, he is the current MVP of the Packers but he is not even the best football player on the team right now. Rodgers isn't even in the same league as Woodson or for that matter Hornung.
Permanently retiring his number is absurd. Why not retire Bakh's number. Why not Jaire and Z and Clark and Adams and maybe Jenkins too?
seriously these comments are absurd, take away a lot of the easy scoring and Hornung doesn't make the HOF, Rodgers is a first ballot HOFamer and will be considered one of the greatest QB's of all time.
this has nothing to do with our feelings about these players, I played in Golf outings with Paul Hornung and love the guy, as of Rodgers actions this past year or so I don't care for him at all any more, he's shown his true colors, none of that means squat in this conversation, Rodgers has been far more valuable to this era of Packers then Paul was to his, take away Rodgers and this is a 500 team for most of the last decade, Hornung was out in 1963 for gambling and the team went 11-2, I rest my case
Welcome back, Yoop. Glad you're back on Team Rodgers despite his immuniza....er...I mean current health protection status.
snip, try again
snip, try again
no comment
The only person snipping you is…you.
I snipped my responses because my views would not be favorable, one thing for sure I'am not a team Rodgers person, I simply accept that he is our best chance for a ring, if that where not the case I'd pack him off to Detroit tomorrow, he cost us a game with his silly ness already.
seriously these comments are absurd, take away a lot of the easy scoring and Hornung doesn't make the HOF, Rodgers is a first ballot HOFamer and will be considered one of the greatest QB's of all time.
this has nothing to do with our feelings about these players, I played in Golf outings with Paul Hornung and love the guy, as of Rodgers actions this past year or so I don't care for him at all any more, he's shown his true colors, none of that means squat in this conversation, Rodgers has been far more valuable to this era of Packers then Paul was to his, take away Rodgers and this is a 500 team for most of the last decade, Hornung was out in 1963 for gambling and the team went 11-2, I rest my case
Really? Well, 1963 was the year the Bears went 11-1-2 and won the championship and beat the Packers 10-3 and 26-7. Without Hornung the Packers scored 10 points in 2 games. I fail to understand how getting beat twice (including 1 blowout) and scoring only 1 TD in 2 games against Da Bears is a successful season. Oh, yes, a 13-13 tie with the Lions is a tough pill to swallow also.
seriously these comments are absurd, take away a lot of the easy scoring and Hornung doesn't make the HOF, Rodgers is a first ballot HOFamer and will be considered one of the greatest QB's of all time.
this has nothing to do with our feelings about these players, I played in Golf outings with Paul Hornung and love the guy, as of Rodgers actions this past year or so I don't care for him at all any more, he's shown his true colors, none of that means squat in this conversation, Rodgers has been far more valuable to this era of Packers then Paul was to his, take away Rodgers and this is a 500 team for most of the last decade, Hornung was out in 1963 for gambling and the team went 11-2, I rest my case
Really? Well, 1963 was the year the Bears went 11-1-2 and won the championship and beat the Packers 10-3 and 26-7. Without Hornung the Packers scored 10 points in 2 games. I fail to understand how getting beat twice (including 1 blowout) and scoring only 1 TD in 2 games against Da Bears is a successful season. Oh, yes, a 13-13 tie with the Lions is a tough pill to swallow also.
Skeptic and WillieWasGreat continue to correctly objectively assess the shiny object situation that has infiltrated this discussion.
Charles Woodson had alot to do with the Packers winning SB 45.
seriously these comments are absurd, take away a lot of the easy scoring and Hornung doesn't make the HOF, Rodgers is a first ballot HOFamer and will be considered one of the greatest QB's of all time.
this has nothing to do with our feelings about these players, I played in Golf outings with Paul Hornung and love the guy, as of Rodgers actions this past year or so I don't care for him at all any more, he's shown his true colors, none of that means squat in this conversation, Rodgers has been far more valuable to this era of Packers then Paul was to his, take away Rodgers and this is a 500 team for most of the last decade, Hornung was out in 1963 for gambling and the team went 11-2, I rest my case
Really? Well, 1963 was the year the Bears went 11-1-2 and won the championship and beat the Packers 10-3 and 26-7. Without Hornung the Packers scored 10 points in 2 games. I fail to understand how getting beat twice (including 1 blowout) and scoring only 1 TD in 2 games against Da Bears is a successful season. Oh, yes, a 13-13 tie with the Lions is a tough pill to swallow also.
Skeptic and WillieWasGreat continue to correctly objectively assess the shiny object situation that has infiltrated this discussion.
Charles Woodson had alot to do with the Packers winning SB 45.
well everyone is certainly encouraged to support there position concerning team value of players related to the era they played in, but we shouldn't over look team talent in these comparisons
thing is a lot of games back in the run first era where low scoring, and while debatable it's hardly certain that had we had Paul in 63 we'd have beaten the Bears, imo what makes Rodgers the favorite is the factual evidence that he really did over come one of the worst defenses in the league for most of a decade, rarely in big games was our defense able to protect a lead, minus a QB of Rodgers ability coupled with those defenses we pick top 10 in the following draft, imo minus Paul, and Vinces loaded with talent teams would have rolled with the best anyway.
Really? Well, 1963 was the year the Bears went 11-1-2 and won the championship and beat the Packers 10-3 and 26-7. Without Hornung the Packers scored 10 points in 2 games. I fail to understand how getting beat twice (including 1 blowout) and scoring only 1 TD in 2 games against Da Bears is a successful season. Oh, yes, a 13-13 tie with the Lions is a tough pill to swallow also.
Skeptic and WillieWasGreat continue to correctly objectively assess the shiny object situation that has infiltrated this discussion.
Charles Woodson had alot to do with the Packers winning SB 45.
well everyone is certainly encouraged to support there position concerning team value of players related to the era they played in, but we shouldn't over look team talent in these comparisons
thing is a lot of games back in the run first era where low scoring, and while debatable it's hardly certain that had we had Paul in 63 we'd have beaten the Bears, imo what makes Rodgers the favorite is the factual evidence that he really did over come one of the worst defenses in the league for most of a decade, rarely in big games was our defense able to protect a lead, minus a QB of Rodgers ability coupled with those defenses we pick top 10 in the following draft, imo minus Paul, and Vinces loaded with talent teams would have rolled with the best anyway.
seriously these comments are absurd, take away a lot of the easy scoring and Hornung doesn't make the HOF, Rodgers is a first ballot HOFamer and will be considered one of the greatest QB's of all time.
this has nothing to do with our feelings about these players, I played in Golf outings with Paul Hornung and love the guy, as of Rodgers actions this past year or so I don't care for him at all any more, he's shown his true colors, none of that means squat in this conversation, Rodgers has been far more valuable to this era of Packers then Paul was to his, take away Rodgers and this is a 500 team for most of the last decade, Hornung was out in 1963 for gambling and the team went 11-2, I rest my case
Wow, both you and skeptic are intentionally missing the point to try and build your own cases. Making both of you sound ridiculous. Even though you both have many legit points. Sigh
I am not saying that Rodgers is not a good QB. He is very good. But he is not even the best QB of his generation, Brady is. Nor is he the best Packers QB, Starr was. Can you imagine Bart taking so much cap room that the Packers would have to let good teammates walk? I cannot. Starr always put the team ahead of himself. Brady has almost always come up big when it matters most, so did Peyton.
As far as football players in general, I can easily think of many that were better than Rodgers, even if Rodgers wins his 2nd SB this year. Because of the position he plays, he is the current MVP of the Packers but he is not even the best football player on the team right now. Rodgers isn't even in the same league as Woodson or for that matter Hornung.
Permanently retiring his number is absurd. Why not retire Bakh's number. Why not Jaire and Z and Clark and Adams and maybe Jenkins too?
Uh. What. This is ridiculous. So ridiculous that I suspect ulterior motivations for the dislike.
Woodson goes on the ring easily. As does Rodgers. Rodgers almost certainly gets his number retired. He is the best QB of all time. He is far from the best leader or teammate, but in terms of QB skill, he is the best. He also has 3 MVPs and may very well win another one this year.
On another note, yes we will eventually have to find a solution to the problem of limited space for our honored greats, but the solution isn't to start denying NFL legends the reward of having their name up there because they happened to play for a 100-year old franchise. Woodson is an NFL legend. So is Reggie White. Ted Thompson is iffy in terms of being an NFL legend, but his 5 years or so after taking over were some of the best talent acquisition years ever, so he should probably go up there. We could easily just move the years section to be in line with the name, and then we'd have double the spots available.
I am not saying that Rodgers is not a good QB. He is very good. But he is not even the best QB of his generation, Brady is. Nor is he the best Packers QB, Starr was. Can you imagine Bart taking so much cap room that the Packers would have to let good teammates walk? I cannot. Starr always put the team ahead of himself. Brady has almost always come up big when it matters most, so did Peyton.
As far as football players in general, I can easily think of many that were better than Rodgers, even if Rodgers wins his 2nd SB this year. Because of the position he plays, he is the current MVP of the Packers but he is not even the best football player on the team right now. Rodgers isn't even in the same league as Woodson or for that matter Hornung.
Permanently retiring his number is absurd. Why not retire Bakh's number. Why not Jaire and Z and Clark and Adams and maybe Jenkins too?
Uh. What. This is ridiculous. So ridiculous that I suspect ulterior motivations for the dislike.
Woodson goes on the ring easily. As does Rodgers. Rodgers almost certainly gets his number retired. He is the best QB of all time. He is far from the best leader or teammate, but in terms of QB skill, he is the best. He also has 3 MVPs and may very well win another one this year.
On another note, yes we will eventually have to find a solution to the problem of limited space for our honored greats, but the solution isn't to start denying NFL legends the reward of having their name up there because they happened to play for a 100-year old franchise. Woodson is an NFL legend. So is Reggie White. Ted Thompson is iffy in terms of being an NFL legend, but his 5 years or so after taking over were some of the best talent acquisition years ever, so he should probably go up there. We could easily just move the years section to be in line with the name, and then we'd have double the spots available.
First of all, having your name on the ring and having your number retired are 2 different things. You could easily put 50 names on the ring but you can't retire 50 numbers unless you go to a 3 digit uniform number.
Secondly anyone who believes Rodgers is the best QB of all time is out of reality. Brady is clearly better. Starr was better - Rodgers would not last 2 weeks with the lack of protection against roughing the passer that Starr had to endure, nor would he be able to play the way he does if he had to deal with actually getting hit. Johnny Unitas was better. Peyton Manning was better - he was so dominant that he changed the way plays are called and how defenses are called. Montana, Graham, Staubach, Tarkington and Young and Marino were better. The second tier includes Rodgers but it also includes Brees and Favre and Wilson and Warner, all of whom may/are/were better. In an objective all time ranking that takes into account the rules changes on roughing the passer and sliding down without getting speared and championships, Rodgers would be hard pressed to make it into the top 20. He is the beneficiary of the pansy rules for QB's and receivers and he could not be effective without them.
But even if you measure only QB's now playing, he is not the best current QB. Based solely on stats, he is #10 this year: https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-qb-index-w ... n-rankings. If you take into account the strength of the team around him, he still is probably abut #20.
I get it, being a homer is not a bad thing. But be a homer for the real stars of this team. Adams and Jones and Dillon and Clark and Gary and Alexander and Campbell. And soon, I hope Bakh and Myers and Z.
