Packers Huddle

Half Empty wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2022 15:36

Yoop wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2022 14:57

Half Empty wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2022 14:57

I usually read your stuff for the humor, but this finally managed to hit that nail. What's important, heck, what constitutes winning, is subjective and a personal opinion. Given your statement, there's no point in debating whether the Pack has been successful (except for the years they won the last game of the season), much less who's responsible for it.

humor is important

we just finished 39-9 over the last 3 seasons, I'd call that winning, 11 winning season over the last 13, 1st in the div. 8 of those, so ya, imo thats the definition of winning, if winning to you is defined by SB trophy's, why have you backed a team you'd consider to be losers for however long you claim to be a Packer fan? since Rodgers has been our starting QB ( 14 years) only 1 team has won the SB more then once, maybe you should join a Patriot forum, move to NE and buy a Belichick hoodie.


I read your stuff by accident

Just in case you make another accident and read this...the highlighted part is exactly what I was referring to. You'd call a winning record winning, I call winning the objective as winning - subjective, personal opinion as I stated. The reason I've backed the Pack since pre-Lombardi (the coach, not the trophy) days is that, for most of the 20th century, WHEN THEY WERE A REAL CONTENDER, they did really well. In the 21st century, not so much, but it's tough to cut the cord, especially when the team tantalizes so much and so often. I don't pay too much attention to what the other teams accomplish as I certainly want mine to be better (ala those Pats you recommend - if they can do it, why can't GB?).

I'll take the real contenders of the last 30 years over the complete pretenders for the 20 years prior, no one else has accomplished what Belichick and NE have either, your demands are unrealistic, these are not the 60's when player movement was far more limited and players stayed with the same team all or most of there careers.

again, we contended in the PO games we lost till the last minutes, seconds of these games, so for you to think we have not been contenders is utter insanity, your so polarized locked into the 60's you've over looked the evolution of the NFL, we only have a half doz players been on this team prior to Gutekunst taking over, far cry from all the seasoned vets Lombardi had in the 60's.

Labrev wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2022 14:09

That thing about the "chip on his shoulder" was true back when he had to prove himself. But now, for the most part, he is done needing to prove himself. The only real thing he yet needs to prove is that he can add another ring to his achievements, but when you win MVP, you kind of have a built-in defense of "Well, *I* was the best player in the league, don't look at me!"

I can't quite get on board with that. All of the awards and recognitions for September through December are wonderful and they can certainly accumulate enough for a legitimate HOF career. But January football is altogether different. Example:

How much value is your Most Valuable Player from the regular season if he isn't good enough to elevate his own performance and his team's performance in the playoffs?

That is also a measure by which we can evaluate. It's certainly used in the regular season too. People often say that Rodgers was the biggest key in GB winning 13 games again. I think they'd be right to say so. Anyhow, that is a measuring rod in the regular season. So, it should also be a standard in the playoffs.

Rodgers wasn't the issue in some games that the Pack lost in the playoffs, clearly. But he played miserably in this last game, clearly. He made no difference, or at least not nearly enough, to help the Pack in January.

That's also a standard that past players have benefitted from (for better or for worse):
Starr (better)
Bradshaw (lots better)
Fouts (worse)
Kelly (worse)
Unitas (better)
Namath (way better)
Marino (worse)
McNabb (worse)
Tarkenton (worse)
Brady (about even actually, in my book)
Manning (better)
Elway (worse, and then better)
and so on

All that to say about Rodgers, the ring helped him to be seen early in his career as being better. Now, with a string of playoff losses, there's a bigger shadow on his accomplishments than ever. I think he DOES have something to prove. I only hope he thinks so too, if he stays with GB.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 06:44

All that to say about Rodgers, the ring helped him to be seen early in his career as being better. Now, with a string of playoff losses, there's a bigger shadow on his accomplishments than ever. I think he DOES have something to prove. I only hope he thinks so too, if he stays with GB.

I think so, too. There is no question Rodgers has earned those MVP awards but that's a reflection of regular season success. Rodgers clearly experiences a dropoff in play come playoff time, though. His often dominant regular season performance has not translated to post-season success in over a decade. That will impact how he is viewed when compared to the other greats. His detractors can make a strong case for Rodgers choking when games matter most.

Pugger wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2022 15:55

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2022 12:59

Packers won championships when Hornung, Taylor, Starr and Favre won MVPs (Lombardi or Wolf as GMs, plus Lombardi had Vainisi building the team that brought Hornung, Taylor and Starr to Titletown before Lombardi arrived on the scene). Can't say that about the TT era. MVPs are meaningless without a ring to accompany the trophy.

I don't think the MVP award is meaningless without a ring. That award is an individual one whereas a ring is a TEAM accomplishment. The MVP voting is done before the playoffs even begin. There is an award for the SB MVP.

I guess I should have explained myself better so my message was more clearly, exactly, and succinctly understood.
When I say "meaningless" with respect to the NFL MVP Award, I am specifically talking about the award's meaning with respect to the end goal of the NFL teams. The Packers goals are to win the North, get a home playoff game at Lambeau Field, get a #1 playoff game at Lambeau Field, win the playoff games ......... at least get the NFC Championship game.

At the end of the most recent Niners-Packers playoff game, people in the Lambeau Field stands started chanting "MVP MVP MVP". I don't think it ever got loud enough to get on TV. The people around me shut up when I pointed out that the goal here is to win this playoff game ............ not advertise Rodgers as a MVP awardee ... and, in the real heat of the real battle, they all agreed and basically shut up. After the loss no one ............. no one was chanting MVP. You could almost hear a pin drop leaving Lambeau Field that cold Saturday night in Titletown. As a Packers fan .......... these MVPs are meaningless unless they result in a significant performance in the playoffs. Therefore I fully applaud all of Brett Favre's MVPs. 1995 was amazing. And the win in San Francisco in the 1997 NFC Championship Game was how a NFL MVP quarterback should perform on the big stage in the one and done playoffs. MVP is meaningful as an INDIVIDUAL award .......... but meaningless as a TEAM award.

go pak go wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2022 17:36

The MVP award is absolutely a team award. Being on a winning team does so much to help win that award.

Nope. It's an INDIVIDUAL award.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 06:44

All that to say about Rodgers, the ring helped him to be seen early in his career as being better. Now, with a string of playoff losses, there's a bigger shadow on his accomplishments than ever. I think he DOES have something to prove. I only hope he thinks so too, if he stays with GB.

Absolutely right! Would love to see another run at the NFC championship in 2022 ........... would be another very exciting season for sure.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 06:42

Labrev wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2022 14:09

That thing about the "chip on his shoulder" was true back when he had to prove himself. But now, for the most part, he is done needing to prove himself. The only real thing he yet needs to prove is that he can add another ring to his achievements, but when you win MVP, you kind of have a built-in defense of "Well, *I* was the best player in the league, don't look at me!"

I can't quite get on board with that. All of the awards and recognitions for September through December are wonderful and they can certainly accumulate enough for a legitimate HOF career. But January football is altogether different. Example:

How much value is your Most Valuable Player from the regular season if he isn't good enough to elevate his own performance and his team's performance in the playoffs?

That is also a measure by which we can evaluate. It's certainly used in the regular season too. People often say that Rodgers was the biggest key in GB winning 13 games again. I think they'd be right to say so. Anyhow, that is a measuring rod in the regular season. So, it should also be a standard in the playoffs.

Rodgers wasn't the issue in some games that the Pack lost in the playoffs, clearly. But he played miserably in this last game, clearly. He made no difference, or at least not nearly enough, to help the Pack in January.

That's also a standard that past players have benefitted from (for better or for worse):
Starr (better)
Bradshaw (lots better)
Fouts (worse)
Kelly (worse)
Unitas (better)
Namath (way better)
Marino (worse)
McNabb (worse)
Tarkenton (worse)
Brady (about even actually, in my book)
Manning (better)
Elway (worse, and then better)
and so on

supporting cast really makes a difference in the PO when your playing against the NFL's best, your top two of Starr and Bradshaw had the best defenses in the league during there SB years, this last season was the best since he won the SB for Rodgers, and this last loss was with a depleted OL, WR group, several players missing on defense, and the worst ST's unit in the league, hardly a fair comparison to those 60's Packers or 70's Steelers, same with Manning or Elway etc. from that list Scott, why people discount the ability of the supporting cast to make playing easier for QB's of those teams makes no sense to me, we all know it does.
this is in no way a defense for Rodgers missing a wide open Lazard, but that in no way should have been the deciding factor in that loss, Lewis Fumble, Dillon injury, countless mistakes from ST's, MVS, Cobb???? Bakh, and other starters missing didn't make it easier to win either.

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 07:26

go pak go wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2022 17:36

The MVP award is absolutely a team award. Being on a winning team does so much to help win that award.

Nope. It's an INDIVIDUAL award.

yep they give it to the individual who benefits the most from having other players raise his stat line, Rodgers did better with less of those players so they gave the honor to him.

Sounds like someone expecting to be a Packer next year.

Well, that’s a waste of a home game.

Gunzaan wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 09:22

Well, that’s a waste of a home game.

It was going to happen eventually, we're the last team to do it. Better that its happening on a year with 9 home games.

Gunzaan wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 09:22

Well, that’s a waste of a home game.

If only they could schedule those for the playoffs, instead of Lambeau.

Half Empty wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 09:32

Gunzaan wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 09:22

Well, that’s a waste of a home game.

If only they could schedule those for the playoffs, instead of Lambeau.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 11:03

Half Empty wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 09:32

Gunzaan wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 09:22

Well, that’s a waste of a home game.

If only they could schedule those for the playoffs, instead of Lambeau.

A) I'd hate to lose a Lambeau Field playoff game.
B) No one in their right mind wants to play in rainy, miserable London in December or January.

I believe the Packers are 7-7 at Lambeau in the Playoffs since the 2002 season correct? That's pretty bad considering we won our division a lot so most of the "home" playoff games were in the earlier stages of the playoffs.

Wins
2003 - Seattle
2007 - Seattle
2012 - Minnesota
2014 - Dallas
2016 - Giants
2019 - Seattle
2020 - LA Rams

Losses
2002 - Atlanta
2004 - Minnesota
2007 - New York
2011 - New York
2013 - San Francisco
2020 - Tampa Bay
2021 - San Francisco

go pak go wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 11:20

I believe the Packers are 7-7 at Lambeau in the Playoffs since the 2002 season correct? That's pretty bad considering we won our division a lot so most of the "home" playoff games were in the earlier stages of the playoffs.

Wins
2003 - Seattle
2007 - Seattle
2012 - Minnesota
2014 - Dallas
2016 - Giants
2019 - Seattle
2020 - LA Rams

Losses
2002 - Atlanta
2004 - Minnesota
2007 - New York
2011 - New York
2013 - San Francisco
2020 - Tampa Bay
2021 - San Francisco

Aside from the first two losses, notice that all of those teams had one thing in common. They were able to get constant pressure with only 4 rushers.

paco wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 08:31

Good grief. I don't mind the game in London if they are hell bent on doing this but to take away a freaking home game?

salmar80 wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 11:07

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 11:03

Half Empty wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2022 09:32

If only they could schedule those for the playoffs, instead of Lambeau.

A) I'd hate to lose a Lambeau Field playoff game.
B) No one in their right mind wants to play in rainy, miserable London in December or January.

I think the Skeptic got the joke...