IS GB A LEADING SUPERBOWL CONTENDER EVEN W/O #4?

[MOBB DEEP]

good news! pro foootball prospectus author aaron schatz states this on espn first take. WOW...

he points to the youth, improved D (front 7 will be even better), and stacked roster as reasons why they will succeed even w/o lord favre


says that as long as arod is average we have the line, running game, and wr's to have great offense

also says giants will miss playoffs and cowgirls "are not superbowl contenders, jus another good team..."

[MadtownPacker]

I dont know about SB contenders but playoff contenders for sure.

[ThunderDan]

We are definately not a "Leading" Superbowl contender. We have an outside chance but not the lead horse.

[Chevelle2]

Someone from football outsiders last summer was on ESPN first take, said GB was a darkhorse to get to the SB.

[The Leaper]

Typically, a team needs to be able to pressure the QB before you are a true Super Bowl contender. Our pass rush is pathetic right now.

[Tony Oday]

We are a contender and a great one at that...not one game has been played yet!

[LL2]

Well, I say we have just as good of a chance as any of the other contenders. To do it though we will have to win a few in the first 4 or 5 games until the team gets all of the starters healthy. They are a banged up bunch right now.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Packers were Super Bowl contenders last year WITH Favre, and Favre looked like a worn-down old man who didn't want to play in the NFC championship game. I suspect the team had a better chance of advancing to the Super Bowl if Rodgers had played that game.

Favre is gone. Let him go.

[MOBB DEEP]

The Packers were Super Bowl contenders last year WITH Favre, and Favre looked like a worn-down old man who didn't want to play in the NFC championship game. I suspect the team had a better chance of advancing to the Super Bowl if Rodgers had played that game.

Favre is gone. Let him go.

HH,

i hope the "let him go" comment wasnt directed towards me. the question was posed that way to that aaron schatz guy; "without favre, how good do you think the packers will be?"

or did u take that opportunity to remind me, and others, to get over it??

i dont know about others but im EXCITED for brett in NY and look forward to sundays twice as much

im sure pack will be AT LEAST 11-5 and 2nd best in nfc behind cowgirls...

[Harlan Huckleby]

I am really sick of all things Brett Favre. I don't mind cheering him on with the Jets, but the old hand-wringing is just that, old.

[texaspackerbacker]

The Packers were Super Bowl contenders last year WITH Favre, and Favre looked like a worn-down old man who didn't want to play in the NFC championship game. I suspect the team had a better chance of advancing to the Super Bowl if Rodgers had played that game.

Favre is gone. Let him go.

Good analysis, Harlan.

This seems to be shaping up as a parity season.

The Giants were a fluke and will be worst with injuiries and other personnel losses; The Cowboys haven't looked good at all in preseason; Tampa isn't even as good as their record last year; Who else is there in the NFC? The Vikings? Come on!

Even in the AFC, the Pats and Colts show signs of coming back to the pack. San Diego was a fluke and is hurting too. Jacksonville just doesn't seem as good as a lot of people think. Pittsburgh might be the team, but they have weaknesses too. The Jets with Favre? A big no way there!

The Packers IMO should be as good as last season, and the rest of the league should be a little weaker.

[MOBB DEEP]

I am really sick of all things Brett Favre. I don't mind cheering him on with the Jets, but the old hand-wringing is just that, old.

well, like harv, u better get prepared for the reg season.

just imagine how it's gonna be around here at certain points...

i, for 1, will aim to post about favre in that 1 "official" thread. but u know people will be indignant and post where they want.

but u're better than that; after all #4 has meant to GB u cant xpect folk to say bye so easily (it's only been 5 months not 2 years) and like mad said it has simmered down quite a bit (the favre talk).

it'll probly increase on sundays and mondays during the season but the rest of the week will be dedicated to breakn down the pack's performance (right now there's only so much pack info to relay/discuss...)

[mraynrand]

The Packers were Super Bowl contenders last year WITH Favre, and Favre looked like a worn-down old man who didn't want to play in the NFC championship game. I suspect the team had a better chance of advancing to the Super Bowl if Rodgers had played that game.

Favre is gone. Let him go.

But Favre looked like an energized young man leading the Packers back from a 2 TD deficit in the Divisional game. He also looked like an extremely experienced veteran, in complete control of his game, having an MVP-level season for most of the season. Rodgers is almost a complete unknown. The advantages he has going for him are three years in the system, a coach with a proven record of improving the play of QBs, and what looks to be a very talented offense to work with, possibly with the exception of a couple of spots on the line. QBs typically don't learn all the nuances of the game in one season of starting, but with a very solid team around him, Rodgers could weather the initial steep part of the learning curve and be a competent starter (or more) by playoff time. More realistically, this will happen next year or the year after, but it's possible he'll be playoff ready this year and should the Packers be forced to play in the third coldest game in NFL history yet again, he could fare better than Favre and the Packers could get to the big game. Some of that depends on the competition, which doesn't figure to be any harder than last year.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I wanted the team to bring back Favre. I also saw TT & MM's point of view.

[SD GB fan]

Good analysis, Harlan.

This seems to be shaping up as a parity season.

The Giants were a fluke and will be worst with injuiries and other personnel losses; The Cowboys haven't looked good at all in preseason; Tampa isn't even as good as their record last year; Who else is there in the NFC? The Vikings? Come on!

Even in the AFC, the Pats and Colts show signs of coming back to the pack. San Diego was a fluke and is hurting too. Jacksonville just doesn't seem as good as a lot of people think. Pittsburgh might be the team, but they have weaknesses too. The Jets with Favre? A big no way there!

The Packers IMO should be as good as last season, and the rest of the league should be a little weaker.

uhhhh..no

giants weren't exactly a fluke. their pass rush is tremendous but osi is a big loss. i don't think looking bad in preseason writes cowboys off as a contender; they have roster loaded with talent. vikings have a legit reason to be a contender. they were on the border and have improved.

where'd you get the idea that colts and pats are losing a step? are you thinking this statement based on preseason games without their two legendary QBs? they have injuries but once they heal, there is no question that both are contenders. saying that the chargers are a fluke is wrong. they had 3 or 4 games last year that they could and should have won. in the AFC championship game, their defense was really solid against the pats but their offense was missing LT, river had a torn knee ligament, gates had a toe problem. all of them are now getting healthy. losing merriman will hurt, but their defense always produces pressure and even had the most interceptions last year. jacksonville has been consistently making the playoffs despite playing in the same division as the colts for many years. in fact, many say this could be the year for them to knock off the colts with better pass rushers. saying pittsburg has weaknesses doesn't say much. all teams do.

i don't think packers are the leading team for SB win. they have the talent to be a playoff contender, but we need a better pass rush and consistent play from the o-line to reach the SB.

[mraynrand]

I wanted the team to bring back Favre. I also saw TT & MM's point of view.

I was in the same spot. Particularly because Favre was so wishy-washy aboutcoming back. He STILL is - Jets announcers were quoting him as saying that he doesn't want to practice etc. He didn't want to train off season either. That's a bad sign, because that quasi-readiness can lead to injuries. So if Favre was on the team and got hurt, Rodgers could step in - but the question becomes, would a Rodgers coming in mid-season (or whenever) be able to lead the team, would Favre's attitude disrupt team chemistry, etc. And intangibles: Favre intimidates the hell out of a lot of other teams. Rodgers won't have that until he starts lighting people up.

In making a prediction, I'm going with McCarthy, based on how he got Favre to play last year (yes, a lot of it was Favre's doing). I'm going to trust his judgment about Rodgers' readiness and predict that Rodgers will struggle early, but will come on strong down the stretch for a playoff run. If Rodgers struggles too much though, the Packers will be looking to play on the road at the end, making a Superbowl appearance more difficult. If they have a Divisional game at home, I say they make it, if they have to win a wild-card and play two on the road I say they won't make it. But I do think they make the playoffs, with Rodgers healthy.

[Brohm]

Contender, yes. Leading...nah. Rodgers is too unknown for that statement and the OL/DL too unsettled atm.

[texaspackerbacker]

I wanted the team to bring back Favre. I also saw TT & MM's point of view.

I was in the same spot. Particularly because Favre was so wishy-washy aboutcoming back. He STILL is - Jets announcers were quoting him as saying that he doesn't want to practice etc. He didn't want to train off season either. That's a bad sign, because that quasi-readiness can lead to injuries. So if Favre was on the team and got hurt, Rodgers could step in - but the question becomes, would a Rodgers coming in mid-season (or whenever) be able to lead the team, would Favre's attitude disrupt team chemistry, etc. And intangibles: Favre intimidates the hell out of a lot of other teams. Rodgers won't have that until he starts lighting people up.

In making a prediction, I'm going with McCarthy, based on how he got Favre to play last year (yes, a lot of it was Favre's doing). I'm going to trust his judgment about Rodgers' readiness and predict that Rodgers will struggle early, but will come on strong down the stretch for a playoff run. If Rodgers struggles too much though, the Packers will be looking to play on the road at the end, making a Superbowl appearance more difficult. If they have a Divisional game at home, I say they make it, if they have to win a wild-card and play two on the road I say they won't make it. But I do think they make the playoffs, with Rodgers healthy.

Excellent prediction/conclusion, aynrand.

[Lurker64]

Every team that's a playoff contender is a superbowl contender. The Lombardi trophy goes to the team that gets hot at the end just as often as it goes to the best team.

[PackerBlues]

Typically, a team needs to be able to pressure the QB before you are a true Super Bowl contender. Our pass rush is pathetic right now.

Exactly! Not to mention that our O-line is STILL patchwork.

Who knows though, they were successfull last year as a team, but I cannot help but to think that without Favre for the first six games of the season (when the Pack had no running game to speak of), the playoffs would have been a pipe dream.

[bobblehead]

We are definately not a "Leading" Superbowl contender. We have an outside chance but not the lead horse.


This is how I feel. We have a decent shot, some things need to come together like any team on any season. Some teams need a little less to come together, but no one is far superior in the NFC.

We need healthy DL, settled stable OL, and Arod to develope as the season progresses.

[texaspackerbacker]

Good analysis, Harlan.

This seems to be shaping up as a parity season.

The Giants were a fluke and will be worst with injuiries and other personnel losses; The Cowboys haven't looked good at all in preseason; Tampa isn't even as good as their record last year; Who else is there in the NFC? The Vikings? Come on!

Even in the AFC, the Pats and Colts show signs of coming back to the pack. San Diego was a fluke and is hurting too. Jacksonville just doesn't seem as good as a lot of people think. Pittsburgh might be the team, but they have weaknesses too. The Jets with Favre? A big no way there!

The Packers IMO should be as good as last season, and the rest of the league should be a little weaker.

uhhhh..no

giants weren't exactly a fluke. their pass rush is tremendous but osi is a big loss. i don't think looking bad in preseason writes cowboys off as a contender; they have roster loaded with talent. vikings have a legit reason to be a contender. they were on the border and have improved.

where'd you get the idea that colts and pats are losing a step? are you thinking this statement based on preseason games without their two legendary QBs? they have injuries but once they heal, there is no question that both are contenders. saying that the chargers are a fluke is wrong. they had 3 or 4 games last year that they could and should have won. in the AFC championship game, their defense was really solid against the pats but their offense was missing LT, river had a torn knee ligament, gates had a toe problem. all of them are now getting healthy. losing merriman will hurt, but their defense always produces pressure and even had the most interceptions last year. jacksonville has been consistently making the playoffs despite playing in the same division as the colts for many years. in fact, many say this could be the year for them to knock off the colts with better pass rushers. saying pittsburg has weaknesses doesn't say much. all teams do.

i don't think packers are the leading team for SB win. they have the talent to be a playoff contender, but we need a better pass rush and consistent play from the o-line to reach the SB.

Just because circumstances/weather, etc. upgraded the relevance of their forte--the pass rush, and just because Manning had a sudden attack of maturity, and just because Al Harris picked that game to lose it--temporarily I hope, and just because Brett Favre caught a chill that day, doesn't mean their late season surge wasn't a fluke. There were/are at least a half dozen better NFC teams, not to mention at least that many in the AFC.

The Pats and Colts still are the class of the AFC, maybe the league, but they showed a few signs of deterioration last season. Both teams, especially the Patriots, have kinda sat still quality-wise and gotten older the past couple of seasons. The Chargers WERE a fluke last year, in part for the exact reasons you stated--the injuries. They, also, are possibly ready for a fall, as LT gets more mileage, as they play without their best defensive player, after losing LT's backup, etc. The Vikings are going nowhere with Jackson or worse at QB and poor receivers. Jacksonville is just a gut feeling on my part. Maybe I'm wrong and they will emerge as super, but I just can't see it happening.

[sheepshead]

Who's better in the NFC?? The cowboys are, but they are going to more losses in their division than we will count on that. Leading?? Sure! Top 10% 15% 20% in the NFC ?? Hell yes.

[Gunakor]

Typically, a team needs to be able to pressure the QB before you are a true Super Bowl contender. Our pass rush is pathetic right now.

Exactly! Not to mention that our O-line is STILL patchwork.

Who knows though, they were successfull last year as a team, but I cannot help but to think that without Favre for the first six games of the season (when the Pack had no running game to speak of), the playoffs would have been a pipe dream.


Favre was downright awful in 2 of those first six games. The defense beat the Iggles and the Skins, because we had no offense to speak of.

Perhaps you are right that without Favre the playoffs would have been a pipe dream. But it's just as likely that without Favre the SB could have been a reality. It's all speculation, because nobody ever got the chance to see the other side of that coin. This year we'll see. Isn't it exciting?

[Lurker64]

Favre was downright awful in 2 of those first six games. The defense beat the Iggles and the Skins, because we had no offense to speak of.

Defense and special teams, the STs had major roles in both of those wins.

[The Leaper]

But it's just as likely that without Favre the SB could have been a reality.

So we could have gone just as far without the play of a guy who earned the only MVP vote other than Tom Brady?

It is fine to agree with the viewpoint that the Packers had to move on. That has some logical merit. It is something else to start spouting ridiculous hogwash. Aaron Rodgers would not have done shit last year for the Packers. When faced with constant pressure Rodgers folds...just like any inexperienced QB. Favre did not fold...he had the experience and savvy to still be successful.

[texaspackerbacker]

Who's better in the NFC?? The cowboys are, but they are going to more losses in their division than we will count on that. Leading?? Sure! Top 10% 15% 20% in the NFC ?? Hell yes.

Great optimism on your part, Sheepshead. However, regarding the Cowboys' division versus the Packers division, I'll take the quality of the Vikings and Bears over the Redskins and Eagles any day, and the Lions versus the Cardinals is at least a wash.

[Gunakor]

But it's just as likely that without Favre the SB could have been a reality.

So we could have gone just as far without the play of a guy who earned the only MVP vote other than Tom Brady?

It is fine to agree with the viewpoint that the Packers had to move on. That has some logical merit. It is something else to start spouting ridiculous hogwash. Aaron Rodgers would not have done shit last year for the Packers. When faced with constant pressure Rodgers folds...just like any inexperienced QB. Favre did not fold...he had the experience and savvy to still be successful.


How do you know what Rodgers could or could not have done last year? You can't because nobody got a chance to see it. Well, except in preseason and the biggest regular season game of the year - and in both cases, Rodgers showed us that he COULD in fact "do shit" with the Packers last year.

And to say Favre did not fold in the biggest game of last season is rediculous. Deer-In-Headlights is an appropriate description of Favre in the second half of the NFC Championship game. Truth be told, Favre has lost significantly more big games over the last bunch of seasons than he's won. He isn't the clutch QB that many portray him as being.

Point is, Leaper, that we didn't see Rodgers play last year. We don't know what he could or couldn't have done. It's not rediculous hogwash to assume Rodgers would have been successful last season had he been given the opportunity. There was no way Brady could have led the Pats to a SB win his rookie year, at least not until he did it. There's no way Warner could have taken the Rams to the SB and won, but he did it. There's no way Rothlisberger could win 15 straight games his rookie year until he did it. There's no way Rodgers could have taken the Packers to a SB and won last year, but only because he wasn't given a chance. Had he been given a chance, who knows what he could have done. Certainly not you or I.

[Chevelle2]

Truth be told, Favre has lost significantly more big games over the last bunch of seasons than he's won. He isn't the clutch QB that many portray him as being.

Yep.....3-7 last 10 playoff games with 20 TOs.


Point is, Leaper, that we didn't see Rodgers play last year. We don't know what he could or couldn't have done. It's not rediculous hogwash to assume Rodgers would have been successful last season had he been given the opportunity. There was no way Brady could have led the Pats to a SB win his rookie year, at least not until he did it. There's no way Warner could have taken the Rams to the SB and won, but he did it. There's no way Rothlisberger could win 15 straight games his rookie year until he did it. There's no way Rodgers could have taken the Packers to a SB and won last year, but only because he wasn't given a chance. Had he been given a chance, who knows what he could have done. Certainly not you or I.

Wow, wonderfully said.

[sheepshead]

Who's better in the NFC?? The cowboys are, but they are going to more losses in their division than we will count on that. Leading?? Sure! Top 10% 15% 20% in the NFC ?? Hell yes.

Great optimism on your part, Sheepshead. However, regarding the Cowboys' division versus the Packers division, I'll take the quality of the Vikings and Bears over the Redskins and Eagles any day, and the Lions versus the Cardinals is at least a wash.


psssst the NFL champs are in that division too.....

The Bears are going to be terrible this year. Having said that, they seem to get up for our games lately. The best teams in the NFC are in that division. Seattle's a big question mark, they have that win one for the gipper thang going.

[PackerBlues]

But it's just as likely that without Favre the SB could have been a reality.

So we could have gone just as far without the play of a guy who earned the only MVP vote other than Tom Brady?

It is fine to agree with the viewpoint that the Packers had to move on. That has some logical merit. It is something else to start spouting ridiculous hogwash. Aaron Rodgers would not have done shit last year for the Packers. When faced with constant pressure Rodgers folds...just like any inexperienced QB. Favre did not fold...he had the experience and savvy to still be successful.
:worship:
You da man Leaper! :glug:

[PackerBlues]

How do you know what Rodgers could or could not have done last year? You can't because nobody got a chance to see it. Well, except in preseason and the biggest regular season game of the year - and in both cases, Rodgers showed us that he COULD in fact "do shit" with the Packers last year.

And to say Favre did not fold in the biggest game of last season is rediculous. Deer-In-Headlights is an appropriate description of Favre in the second half of the NFC Championship game. Truth be told, Favre has lost significantly more big games over the last bunch of seasons than he's won. He isn't the clutch QB that many portray him as being.

Point is, Leaper, that we didn't see Rodgers play last year. We don't know what he could or couldn't have done. It's not rediculous hogwash to assume Rodgers would have been successful last season had he been given the opportunity. There was no way Brady could have led the Pats to a SB win his rookie year, at least not until he did it. There's no way Warner could have taken the Rams to the SB and won, but he did it. There's no way Rothlisberger could win 15 straight games his rookie year until he did it. There's no way Rodgers could have taken the Packers to a SB and won last year, but only because he wasn't given a chance. Had he been given a chance, who knows what he could have done. Certainly not you or I.

Ya wanna know what "Ridiculous Hogwash" is? It's any shit being spouted by any assclown that would blame the loss against the Giants in the playoffs, soley on Brett Favre. "Deer-in-the-Headlights look"? It was 30-fucking below zero you Dousche Bag, but go ahead and interperet Favre's "look" in that game any way that you want, if it supports your own opinion.

Follow that stupidity with your bs about Favre losing more big games than he won. At least Favre has played in big games. For you to sit here and spout shit about how "If only Arod had been given a chance last year", speaks volumes to just how ignorant you are. The fucking guy has ZERO NFL starts. Nobody knows for sure how he will perform this season, not the Coaches, certainly not me, and definitely not an ignorant bastard like you. :evil:

[Chevelle2]

How do you know what Rodgers could or could not have done last year? You can't because nobody got a chance to see it. Well, except in preseason and the biggest regular season game of the year - and in both cases, Rodgers showed us that he COULD in fact "do shit" with the Packers last year.

And to say Favre did not fold in the biggest game of last season is rediculous. Deer-In-Headlights is an appropriate description of Favre in the second half of the NFC Championship game. Truth be told, Favre has lost significantly more big games over the last bunch of seasons than he's won. He isn't the clutch QB that many portray him as being.

Point is, Leaper, that we didn't see Rodgers play last year. We don't know what he could or couldn't have done. It's not rediculous hogwash to assume Rodgers would have been successful last season had he been given the opportunity. There was no way Brady could have led the Pats to a SB win his rookie year, at least not until he did it. There's no way Warner could have taken the Rams to the SB and won, but he did it. There's no way Rothlisberger could win 15 straight games his rookie year until he did it. There's no way Rodgers could have taken the Packers to a SB and won last year, but only because he wasn't given a chance. Had he been given a chance, who knows what he could have done. Certainly not you or I.

Ya wanna know what "Ridiculous Hogwash" is? It's any shit being spouted by any assclown that would blame the loss against the Giants in the playoffs, soley on Brett Favre. "Deer-in-the-Headlights look"? It was 30-fucking below zero you Dousche Bag, but go ahead and interperet Favre's "look" in that game any way that you want, if it supports your own opinion.

Follow that stupidity with your bs about Favre losing more big games than he won. At least Favre has played in big games. For you to sit here and spout shit about how "If only Arod had been given a chance last year", speaks volumes to just how ignorant you are. The fucking guy has ZERO NFL starts. Nobody knows for sure how he will perform this season, not the Coaches, certainly not me, and definitely not an ignorant bastard like you. :evil:

Since 1998:

3-7
20 turnovers
1 Super Bowl loss
2 NFCCG losses


:cry:

[LL2]

Those stats speak for themselves. Favre's INT's have killed the Packers in the past decade during the playoffs.

[GBRulz]

Since 1998:

3-7
20 turnovers
1 Super Bowl loss
2 NFCCG losses


:cry:

I know 5-7 doesn't look quite as bad as 3-7, but if you're going to attempt to prove a point, at least be truthful. You counted the SB loss in your stats, but not the 2 post season wins that season? :roll:

[bobblehead]

Nobody knows for sure how he will perform this season, not the Coaches, certainly not me, and definitely not an ignorant bastard like you. :evil:

I think that was his point wasn't it?? Did you read his post or see he said something bad about favre and then go off?

[Chevelle2]

Since 1998:

3-7
20 turnovers
1 Super Bowl loss
2 NFCCG losses


:cry:

I know 5-7 doesn't look quite as bad as 3-7, but if you're going to attempt to prove a point, at least be truthful. You counted the SB loss in your stats, but not the 2 post season wins that season? :roll:

NYG: L
SEA: W
MIN: L
PHI: L
SEA: W
ATL: L
STL: L
SF: W
SF: L
DEN: L

Count em.

[GBRulz]

NYG: L
SEA: W
MIN: L
PHI: L
SEA: W
ATL: L
STL: L
SF: W
SF: L
DEN: L

Count em.

Please show me where the 2 W's are from Tampa and SF in the year that we lost the SB? You are only counting the SF win from '01.

Let me even spell this out so you can count em...

97 Tampa: W SF: W Denver: L
98 SF: L
01 SF: W STL: L
02 ATL: L
03 SEA: W PHILLY: L
04 MN: L
07 SEA: W NYG: L

I'm not at all saying that Brett is the perfect PS QB, but it pisses me off when people feel the need to manipulate facts in order to prove a point.

[Chevelle2]

NYG: L
SEA: W
MIN: L
PHI: L
SEA: W
ATL: L
STL: L
SF: W
SF: L
DEN: L

Count em.

Please show me where the 2 W's are from Tampa and SF in the year that we lost the SB? You are only counting the SF win from '01.

Let me even spell this out so you can count em...

97 Tampa: W SF: W Denver: L
98 SF: L
01 SF: W STL: L
02 ATL: L
03 SEA: W PHILLY: L
04 MN: L
07 SEA: W NYG: L

I'm not at all saying that Brett is the perfect PS QB, but it pisses me off when people feel the need to manipulate facts in order to prove a point.

How am I manipulating facts????? Those are the last 10 playoff games dude.

[Rastak]

NYG: L
SEA: W
MIN: L
PHI: L
SEA: W
ATL: L
STL: L
SF: W
SF: L
DEN: L

Count em.



Please show me where the 2 W's are from Tampa and SF in the year that we lost the SB? You are only counting the SF win from '01.

Let me even spell this out so you can count em...

97 Tampa: W SF: W Denver: L
98 SF: L
01 SF: W STL: L
02 ATL: L
03 SEA: W PHILLY: L
04 MN: L
07 SEA: W NYG: L

I'm not at all saying that Brett is the perfect PS QB, but it pisses me off when people feel the need to manipulate facts in order to prove a point.

How am I manipulating facts????? Those are the last 10 playoff games dude.


If you are going to include a year, use all the games that year is her point.

[GBRulz]

Dude? :roll:

You said since 1998. How foolish of me to think that you would count the two wins because it goes against your "facts"

[Chevelle2]

Dude? :roll:

You said since 1998. How foolish of me to think that you would count the two wins because it goes against your "facts"

Fine 5-7, wow much better.

How about this...

3-7 in the last 10 playoff games.

Take that year out:

3-6 in last 9.

Anyway you look at it, its terrible.

[esoxx]

Since 1998:

2 NFCCG losses



What does NFCCG stand for?

[mraynrand]

not only did Favre go 3-7, but all the losses were entirely his fault. And based on his two regular season appearances and preseason outings, Rodgers will certainly be better.

[Chevelle2]

Since 1998:

2 NFCCG losses



What does NFCCG stand for?

NFC Championship game, and I just realized Im wrong, it was only 1 loss.

[mraynrand]

Should this thread be in the smoking or non-smoking section?

[Chevelle2]

not only did Favre go 3-7, but all the losses were entirely his fault. And based on his two regular season appearances and preseason outings, Rodgers will certainly be better.

I was looking at the game log of the 04 MIN game.

3 straight possessions in the 4th quarter:

INT
3-and-out on a 3rd and 4
INT

Score remained the same after all three possesions, that is MIN didn't score, that is, it would have been easy to comeback.

[mraynrand]

not only did Favre go 3-7, but all the losses were entirely his fault. And based on his two regular season appearances and preseason outings, Rodgers will certainly be better.

I was looking at the game log of the 04 MIN game.

3 straight possessions in the 4th quarter:

INT
3-and-out on a 3rd and 4
INT

Score remained the same after all three possesions, that is MIN didn't score, that is, it would have been easy to comeback.

And of course you remember that Clifton and Walker were lost to injury in that game, and that essentially no one was open. But those injuries, wrong routes, poor running game were Favre's fault too, because he just didn't call the right audibles and alert his WR and LT to oncoming injuries. It angers me to think of Favre not protecting his players. Like in 2002, when he allowed 9 starters to get injured by the Wild card game.

[Pacopete4]

How many QB's have played 9 games in the playoffs since 1998?

[MadtownPacker]

Since 1998:

3-7
20 turnovers
1 Super Bowl loss
2 NFCCG losses


:cry:You are really turning out to be nothing but a troll in Packers clothing. Can people have a discussion without you spamming crap at them? Check yourself before you get checked.

Packerblues - If you are reading this, it's too late.

[HarveyWallbangers]

How many QB's have played 9 games in the playoffs since 1998?

Actually, how many QBs are still around from 1998?

Brady has played 17 (14-3).
Manning has played 14 (7-7).
McNabb has played 12 (7-5).
Warner has played 8 (5-3).
Hasselbeck has played 8 (3-5).
Big Ben has played 7 (5-2).

Thinking about the other top QBs in the league, most of them are pretty young and haven't played long enough to accumulate a lot of postseason stats. Favre was one of the best ever, but his playoff results from the last 10 years are the knock against him. Of course, his teams were always in the playoffs, so there's something to be said about that.

[mraynrand]

Since 1998:

3-7
20 turnovers
1 Super Bowl loss
2 NFCCG losses


:cry:You are really turning out to be nothing but a troll in Packers clothing. Can people have a discussion without you spamming crap at them? Check yourself before you get checked.

Packerblues - If you are reading this, it's too late.

You banned Packerblues (Tank#3)?

[Partial]

Dude? :roll:

You said since 1998. How foolish of me to think that you would count the two wins because it goes against your "facts"

Fine 5-7, wow much better.

How about this...

3-7 in the last 10 playoff games.

Take that year out:

3-6 in last 9.

Anyway you look at it, its terrible.

Not really. I'll take 3-6 over 0-0 any day. Furthermore, they're called the playoffs because the best teams play. 11/12 of the teams in the playoffs lose a game annually, ya know.

Take out the two horrendous performances and the numbers are not very bad at all.

How many times would we have been in the playoffs with a lesser quarterback to lose those games?!? Nobody is itching to throw Romo out despite being 0-2!

Manning - 2007 - 2 TO, 0-1
- 2006 - 8 TO, 4-0
- 2005 - 0 TO, 0-1
- 2004 - 3 TO, 1-1
- 2003 - 5 T0, 2-1
- 2002 - 2 TO, 0-1
- 2001 - 0 TO, 0-0
- 2000 - 0 TO, 0-1
- 1999 - 3 TO, 0-1
- 1998 - 0 TO, 0-0

Let's see... 1-1 conference championship loss
1 super bowl appearance
23 TO
7-7 record
1.5 TOPG
1.4 PGPY

Brett Favre
2007 - 2 TO, 1-1
2006 - 0 TO, 0-0
2005 - 0 TO, 0-0
2004 - 5 TO, 0-1
2003 - 1 TO, 1-1
2002 - 3 TO, 0-1
2001 - 7 TO, 1-1
2000 - 0 TO, 0-0
1999 - 0 T0, 0-0
1998 - 2 TO, 0-1
1997 - 4 TO, 2-1
1996 - 2 T0, 3-0
1995 - 2 TO, 2-1
1994 - 1 TO, 1-1
1993 - 3 TO, 1-1

2-2 conference championship record
12 - 9 record
32 total turnovers
1.52 TOPG
1.4 PGPY

hmmm... Almost identical stats... Funny how when Favre was on a bad team in recent years, and Peyton was on a bad team in the early years things managed to work out almost evenly.

Accept Favre managed to win some playoff games. His stats would be even better if the first round bye didn't exist!

Both quarterbacks are considered old in quarterback years. Would you not take Peyton Manning over A-Rod either, despite virtually identical # of playoff games per year, and 1.3% less turnovers per game?!? Both are .500 in conference championship games as well. Favre has a better winning percentage in the playoffs, though.

[Partial]

How many QB's have played 9 games in the playoffs since 1998?

Actually, how many QBs are still around from 1998?

Brady has played 17 (14-3).
Manning has played 14 (7-7).
McNabb has played 12 (7-5).
Warner has played 8 (5-3).
Hasselbeck has played 8 (3-5).
Big Ben has played 7 (5-2).

Thinking about the other top QBs in the league, most of them are pretty young and haven't played long enough to accumulate a lot of postseason stats. Favre was one of the best ever, but his playoff results from the last 10 years are the knock against him. Of course, his teams were always in the playoffs, so there's something to be said about that.

Ding ding ding.. And his recent teams haven't been great with the exception of last year. It's very comparable to some of the bad teams Manning took a team to the playoffs with. And look at that... virtually identical stats.. from two of the best ever... yet one takes all the criticism... despite both being old for QBs nowadays.

[GrnBay007]

not only did Favre go 3-7, but all the losses were entirely his fault. And based on his two regular season appearances and preseason outings, Rodgers will certainly be better.

:lol:

[Pacopete4]

Dude? :roll:

You said since 1998. How foolish of me to think that you would count the two wins because it goes against your "facts"

Fine 5-7, wow much better.

How about this...

3-7 in the last 10 playoff games.

Take that year out:

3-6 in last 9.

Anyway you look at it, its terrible.

Not really. I'll take 3-6 over 0-0 any day. Furthermore, they're called the playoffs because the best teams play. 11/12 of the teams in the playoffs lose a game annually, ya know.

Take out the two horrendous performances and the numbers are not very bad at all.

How many times would we have been in the playoffs with a lesser quarterback to lose those games?!? Nobody is itching to throw Romo out despite being 0-2!

Manning - 2007 - 2 TO, 0-1
- 2006 - 8 TO, 4-0
- 2005 - 0 TO, 0-1
- 2004 - 3 TO, 1-1
- 2003 - 5 T0, 2-1
- 2002 - 2 TO, 0-1
- 2001 - 0 TO, 0-0
- 2000 - 0 TO, 0-1
- 1999 - 3 TO, 0-1
- 1998 - 0 TO, 0-0

Let's see... 1-1 conference championship loss
1 super bowl appearance
23 TO
7-7 record
1.5 TOPG
1.4 PGPY

Brett Favre
2007 - 2 TO, 1-1
2006 - 0 TO, 0-0
2005 - 0 TO, 0-0
2004 - 5 TO, 0-1
2003 - 1 TO, 1-1
2002 - 3 TO, 0-1
2001 - 7 TO, 1-1
2000 - 0 TO, 0-0
1999 - 0 T0, 0-0
1998 - 2 TO, 0-1
1997 - 4 TO, 2-1
1996 - 2 T0, 3-0
1995 - 2 TO, 2-1
1994 - 1 TO, 1-1
1993 - 3 TO, 1-1

2-2 conference championship record
12 - 9 record
32 total turnovers
1.52 TOPG
1.4 PGPY

hmmm... Almost identical stats... Funny how when Favre was on a bad team in recent years, and Peyton was on a bad team in the early years things managed to work out almost evenly.

Accept Favre managed to win some playoff games. His stats would be even better if the first round bye didn't exist!

Both quarterbacks are considered old in quarterback years. Would you not take Peyton Manning over A-Rod either, despite virtually identical # of playoff games per year, and 1.3% less turnovers per game?!? Both are .500 in conference championship games as well. Favre has a better winning percentage in the playoffs, though.



Partial... you the man!

[Partial]

How many QB's have played 9 games in the playoffs since 1998?

Actually, how many QBs are still around from 1998?

Brady has played 17 (14-3).
Manning has played 14 (7-7).
McNabb has played 12 (7-5).
Warner has played 8 (5-3).
Hasselbeck has played 8 (3-5).
Big Ben has played 7 (5-2).

Thinking about the other top QBs in the league, most of them are pretty young and haven't played long enough to accumulate a lot of postseason stats. Favre was one of the best ever, but his playoff results from the last 10 years are the knock against him. Of course, his teams were always in the playoffs, so there's something to be said about that.

These stats are pretty eye opening. Some of the wins are inflated for Roethlisberger as his team came in as a 6 seed. Not to take anything away from it, but it creates the appearance of more playoff appearances since only one team ends up winning :)

I'm surprised when looking at Hass' stats. I would have expected more success.

[gex]

Very well thought out P.

Unless you win the SB your going to take 1 loss for every time your team makes the playoffs. The entire team needs to be hitting on all cylanders in the playoffs vs the other playoff caliber rosters your going up against.

Damn just to have a winning record in playoff appearances you would have to make it to the championship game every time almost( if you had a bye and didn't play in the wildcard round)

[th87]

not only did Favre go 3-7, but all the losses were entirely his fault. And based on his two regular season appearances and preseason outings, Rodgers will certainly be better.

I was looking at the game log of the 04 MIN game.

3 straight possessions in the 4th quarter:

INT
3-and-out on a 3rd and 4
INT

Score remained the same after all three possesions, that is MIN didn't score, that is, it would have been easy to comeback.

And of course you remember that Clifton and Walker were lost to injury in that game, and that essentially no one was open. But those injuries, wrong routes, poor running game were Favre's fault too, because he just didn't call the right audibles and alert his WR and LT to oncoming injuries. It angers me to think of Favre not protecting his players. Like in 2002, when he allowed 9 starters to get injured by the Wild card game.

Only in Favre land do I always hear about the wrong routes. Our receivers must have been the biggest idiots ever.

(I do agree that not all losses were solely Favre's fault)

[th87]

Dude? :roll:

You said since 1998. How foolish of me to think that you would count the two wins because it goes against your "facts"

Fine 5-7, wow much better.

How about this...

3-7 in the last 10 playoff games.

Take that year out:

3-6 in last 9.

Anyway you look at it, its terrible.

Not really. I'll take 3-6 over 0-0 any day. Furthermore, they're called the playoffs because the best teams play. 11/12 of the teams in the playoffs lose a game annually, ya know.

Take out the two horrendous performances and the numbers are not very bad at all.

How many times would we have been in the playoffs with a lesser quarterback to lose those games?!? Nobody is itching to throw Romo out despite being 0-2!

Manning - 2007 - 2 TO, 0-1
- 2006 - 8 TO, 4-0
- 2005 - 0 TO, 0-1
- 2004 - 3 TO, 1-1
- 2003 - 5 T0, 2-1
- 2002 - 2 TO, 0-1
- 2001 - 0 TO, 0-0
- 2000 - 0 TO, 0-1
- 1999 - 3 TO, 0-1
- 1998 - 0 TO, 0-0

Let's see... 1-1 conference championship loss
1 super bowl appearance
23 TO
7-7 record
1.5 TOPG
1.4 PGPY

Brett Favre
2007 - 2 TO, 1-1
2006 - 0 TO, 0-0
2005 - 0 TO, 0-0
2004 - 5 TO, 0-1
2003 - 1 TO, 1-1
2002 - 3 TO, 0-1
2001 - 7 TO, 1-1
2000 - 0 TO, 0-0
1999 - 0 T0, 0-0
1998 - 2 TO, 0-1
1997 - 4 TO, 2-1
1996 - 2 T0, 3-0
1995 - 2 TO, 2-1
1994 - 1 TO, 1-1
1993 - 3 TO, 1-1

2-2 conference championship record
12 - 9 record
32 total turnovers
1.52 TOPG
1.4 PGPY

hmmm... Almost identical stats... Funny how when Favre was on a bad team in recent years, and Peyton was on a bad team in the early years things managed to work out almost evenly.

Accept Favre managed to win some playoff games. His stats would be even better if the first round bye didn't exist!

Both quarterbacks are considered old in quarterback years. Would you not take Peyton Manning over A-Rod either, despite virtually identical # of playoff games per year, and 1.3% less turnovers per game?!? Both are .500 in conference championship games as well. Favre has a better winning percentage in the playoffs, though.

Most people don't have an issue with Favre losing.

They have an issue with HOW the Packers did the losing.

- 6 interception debacle against the Rams
- Crappy showing against the Falcons (lots of injuries though)
- Inexplicable chuck to Brian Dawkins (this didn't need to happen, regardless of 4th and 26 defense)
- No show against the Vikings (remember the 'give up' pass past the line of scrimmage?)
- Inaccurate against the Giants

As I always say, Favre giveth and Favre taketh away. If you like that, fine, and if you don't like that, fine.

[mraynrand]

Only in Favre land do I always hear about the wrong routes. Our receivers must have been the biggest idiots ever.

Really? Receivers never run bad routes outside of 'Favre land?' Or is it that outside 'Favre land' they simply refuse to talk about bad routes, and lay the blame on the QB? Please explain.

[Partial]

The rams and vikings performances are two of the worst ever. No excuse for those. Period.

I don't blame him for the Eagles INT. The wind was out of their sail at 4th and 1.

The Giants were a team of destiny that went on to beat the Perfect Pats. I don't fault him for this loss either. He didn't play great, but no one on the Pack did. Can't fault the guy for going to his #1 when going all in.

[Gunakor]

How do you know what Rodgers could or could not have done last year? You can't because nobody got a chance to see it. Well, except in preseason and the biggest regular season game of the year - and in both cases, Rodgers showed us that he COULD in fact "do shit" with the Packers last year.

And to say Favre did not fold in the biggest game of last season is rediculous. Deer-In-Headlights is an appropriate description of Favre in the second half of the NFC Championship game. Truth be told, Favre has lost significantly more big games over the last bunch of seasons than he's won. He isn't the clutch QB that many portray him as being.

Point is, Leaper, that we didn't see Rodgers play last year. We don't know what he could or couldn't have done. It's not rediculous hogwash to assume Rodgers would have been successful last season had he been given the opportunity. There was no way Brady could have led the Pats to a SB win his rookie year, at least not until he did it. There's no way Warner could have taken the Rams to the SB and won, but he did it. There's no way Rothlisberger could win 15 straight games his rookie year until he did it. There's no way Rodgers could have taken the Packers to a SB and won last year, but only because he wasn't given a chance. Had he been given a chance, who knows what he could have done. Certainly not you or I.

Ya wanna know what "Ridiculous Hogwash" is? It's any shit being spouted by any assclown that would blame the loss against the Giants in the playoffs, soley on Brett Favre. "Deer-in-the-Headlights look"? It was 30-fucking below zero you Dousche Bag, but go ahead and interperet Favre's "look" in that game any way that you want, if it supports your own opinion.

Follow that stupidity with your bs about Favre losing more big games than he won. At least Favre has played in big games. For you to sit here and spout shit about how "If only Arod had been given a chance last year", speaks volumes to just how ignorant you are. The fucking guy has ZERO NFL starts. Nobody knows for sure how he will perform this season, not the Coaches, certainly not me, and definitely not an ignorant bastard like you. :evil:

1) How am I ignorant? Would I have been ignorant to predict Tom Brady (6th round draft pick, could not beat Drew Hensen for a starting job at Michigan) would win a Super Bowl the very minute that he stepped in for an injured Drew Bledsoe in his rookie season? Would I have been ignorant to predict Kurt Warner (Arena League, bagger at a food market) could take the Rams to a Super Bowl before the first snap he took replacing an injured Trent Green? According to you I would have been. Neither of those QB's had started even one NFL game before coming in to replace injured starters, and both led thier teams to a SB win the very season they tallied thier first NFL start. How can you be so sure that Aaron Rodgers (1st round pick, set all kinds of records in college) could not have done what Warner or Brady did? To assume it isn't possible sounds extremely ignorant on your part.

2) There is ample proof that Favre has not performed well in big games in recent seasons. His playoff record since 2000 is more than enough. And I never blamed the loss to the Giants solely on Favre. Please point out where I said that, because I never did. What I said was that Favre had a deer in headlights look, which is completely true. I know it was cold, but it was just as cold for Eli Manning - Eli did not have the same look that Favre did. Watch the game again. No, it was not completely Favre's fault, but Favre does get his share of the blame. After all of the mistakes made by everyone on the roster, the game went to overtime and the Packers had the ball. Had Favre brought his "A" game that night it would have been enough to overcome all of the other mistakes. It would have been enough to get a win.

Keep in mind, though, that the game against the Giants was not the first time Favre threw a season ending INT in overtime of a playoff game. It was the second time this decade. I have 10 years to back me up when I say that Favre has not been clutch in big games.

3) "Nobody knows for sure how he will perform this season, not the Coaches, certainly not me, and definitely not an ignorant bastard like you."

That's exactly what I said in my previous post.

"Had he been given a chance, who knows what he could have done. Certainly not you or I."

Glad we agree.

You only call me ignorant because you are a glass half empty kind of guy. I on the other hand am a glass half full kind of guy. I embrace the opportunity that change brings. I don't claim to know for certain that Rodgers would have been successful last season had he been the starter. I only claim to know for certain that he could have been. I provided examples of other QB's who had absolutely NO shot at success in thier first year as starter, yet wound up winning the SB anyhow. Your assertion that Rodgers cannot be successful simply because he hasn't started a game yet does not hold water. Who's the ignorant one here? :?:

[The Leaper]

The rams and vikings performances are two of the worst ever. No excuse for those. Period.

I don't see the gripe with the Rams performance. Yeah, Favre stunk...but the Rams were a much better team, and the only chance the Packers had to win was by Favre tossing into coverage.

I don't see how you can make the argument that Green Bay can win that game on the road simply by playing "smart, close-to-the-vest" football.

[mraynrand]

The rams and vikings performances are two of the worst ever. No excuse for those. Period.

I don't see the gripe with the Rams performance. Yeah, Favre stunk...but the Rams were a much better team, and the only chance the Packers had to win was by Favre tossing into coverage.

I don't see how you can make the argument that Green Bay can win that game on the road simply by playing "smart, close-to-the-vest" football.

A while ago I went back and looked through the Rams playoff game, frame by frame to analyze Favre's performance. By the time he threw his third INT, the game was pretty much over - after that he was just slinging it like crazy, trying to get something to happen. He played extremely well in the first half, with poor support from the run game, and turnovers by other players (Green and Freeman). It really comes down to one play - the INT and TD on a throw to Schroeder early on - and I can't quite figure out where the blame resides. Here's what happened: Schroeder is out in the right - split wide. He clearly thinks it's man coverage and that means he should run a go route. That's what he does. Favre sees the safety hanging back and must think it's zone, but right before the snap, the safety cheats up. My guess is that Schroeder saw this, but Favre either didn't see it, or guessed that it was a fake, and threw the quick slant, thinking Schroeder would run it. Assigning fault on that one play is difficult, but clearly, if Favre had been on the same page as Schroeder, it would have been a Packer TD - if Schroeder had been on Favre's page, it probably would have been a short gain or incomplete. Still, the Rams were the better team - CLEARLY - that day, and Favre, while having the memorable 6 INTs, actually played pretty well, with the possible exception of that one play, and another INT where he probably led Freeman too far.

[mraynrand]

The rams and vikings performances are two of the worst ever. No excuse for those. Period.

I don't blame him for the Eagles INT. The wind was out of their sail at 4th and 1.

The Giants were a team of destiny that went on to beat the Perfect Pats. I don't fault him for this loss either. He didn't play great, but no one on the Pack did. Can't fault the guy for going to his #1 when going all in.

I can come up with some excuses for the Vikings game. 1) The Packers D spotted the Vikings 17 points (yes there was an INT by Favre leading to one drive, but that ball was wrestled away from Driver on a slant) 2) Longwell missed a critical FG 3) Walker and Clifton were lost due to injury. With Flanagan already out, the Packer line no longer blocked well in the run game 3) The Vikings, despite the reg. season wins, were every bit as good as the Packers - perhaps better. In the regular season, the Vikings gave the Eagles all they could handle and the Packers were slaughtered. 5) Recall again how terrible the Packers D was. They even allowed about a 6 minute drive to close out the playoff game, following Al Harris' blown coverage on the Moss TD.


Favre did not have a good game. I credit him with the responsibility for 2 of 4 INTs, and he did not play well down the stretch under the adverse conditions. He also totally bungled the drive late in the first half, not trying to get into the endzone. With Longwell's miss, that really killed the teams' momentum. being at the game, you could really feel the stadium deflate after that.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't blame him for the Eagles INT. The wind was out of their sail at 4th and 1.


It was overtime. They had the ball. You can't EVER let previous circumstances take the wind out of your sails in that situation.

Oh, so close we were.

[cheesner]

I voted yes, but I should have said no.

I do think they are in contention, but would not label them as a 'leading' SB contender. And losing Brett has nothing to do with it - it is the worries about the defensive line that is holding us back. We may hit the season and pick up the pace, who knows. Too many examples of the Packers looking weak in preseason, only to have individuals step forward during the season (see grant, bigby, T williams, Donald Lee, etc from last year alone.)

[Badgerinmaine]

If the question means "leading contender to reach the Super Bowl", I think the answer is "definitely--but only because they are in the NFC".

[mngolf19]

Good analysis, Harlan.

This seems to be shaping up as a parity season.

The Giants were a fluke and will be worst with injuiries and other personnel losses; The Cowboys haven't looked good at all in preseason; Tampa isn't even as good as their record last year; Who else is there in the NFC? The Vikings? Come on!

Even in the AFC, the Pats and Colts show signs of coming back to the pack. San Diego was a fluke and is hurting too. Jacksonville just doesn't seem as good as a lot of people think. Pittsburgh might be the team, but they have weaknesses too. The Jets with Favre? A big no way there!

The Packers IMO should be as good as last season, and the rest of the league should be a little weaker.

uhhhh..no

giants weren't exactly a fluke. their pass rush is tremendous but osi is a big loss. i don't think looking bad in preseason writes cowboys off as a contender; they have roster loaded with talent. vikings have a legit reason to be a contender. they were on the border and have improved.

where'd you get the idea that colts and pats are losing a step? are you thinking this statement based on preseason games without their two legendary QBs? they have injuries but once they heal, there is no question that both are contenders. saying that the chargers are a fluke is wrong. they had 3 or 4 games last year that they could and should have won. in the AFC championship game, their defense was really solid against the pats but their offense was missing LT, river had a torn knee ligament, gates had a toe problem. all of them are now getting healthy. losing merriman will hurt, but their defense always produces pressure and even had the most interceptions last year. jacksonville has been consistently making the playoffs despite playing in the same division as the colts for many years. in fact, many say this could be the year for them to knock off the colts with better pass rushers. saying pittsburg has weaknesses doesn't say much. all teams do.

i don't think packers are the leading team for SB win. they have the talent to be a playoff contender, but we need a better pass rush and consistent play from the o-line to reach the SB.

Just because circumstances/weather, etc. upgraded the relevance of their forte--the pass rush, and just because Manning had a sudden attack of maturity, and just because Al Harris picked that game to lose it--temporarily I hope, and just because Brett Favre caught a chill that day, doesn't mean their late season surge wasn't a fluke. There were/are at least a half dozen better NFC teams, not to mention at least that many in the AFC.

The Pats and Colts still are the class of the AFC, maybe the league, but they showed a few signs of deterioration last season. Both teams, especially the Patriots, have kinda sat still quality-wise and gotten older the past couple of seasons. The Chargers WERE a fluke last year, in part for the exact reasons you stated--the injuries. They, also, are possibly ready for a fall, as LT gets more mileage, as they play without their best defensive player, after losing LT's backup, etc. The Vikings are going nowhere with Jackson or worse at QB and poor receivers. Jacksonville is just a gut feeling on my part. Maybe I'm wrong and they will emerge as super, but I just can't see it happening.

I hope your team looks at Jackson and the Vikes the same way you do in week 1. :wink:

[Packers4Ever]

The Packers were Super Bowl contenders last year WITH Favre, and Favre looked like a worn-down old man who didn't want to play in the NFC championship game. I suspect the team had a better chance of advancing to the Super Bowl if Rodgers had played that game.

Favre is gone. Let him go.

But - he was GREAT in the first 1/3 of the season, Harlan, or thereabouts, remember? Sure didn't look like a worn-down old man to me. And the excitement continued to build, we won 9 of the last 11 plus that fabulous game with the Seahawks, before we started slipping away.

Some folks just take a little longer than others to adjust.
Some folks were lucky, they managed the "jump" lots sooner.
This is to take nothing away from Arod, he'll be fine.

[falco]

if GB learns to play this guy a bit more, i think we have a good shot at the SB

heck, if we had let him cover Burress in the championship game, we might have gone last year

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/photographer/16/16776_large.jpg

[Partial]

You mean a blantant, obvious, automatic first down hands to the face if not a 15 yard facemask penalty? :D

Williams is alright for a Nic but I don't think he is anywhere near Ancient Al

[SnakeLH2006]

good news! pro foootball prospectus author aaron schatz states this on espn first take. WOW...

he points to the youth, improved D (front 7 will be even better), and stacked roster as reasons why they will succeed even w/o lord favre


says that as long as arod is average we have the line, running game, and wr's to have great offense

also says giants will miss playoffs and cowgirls "are not superbowl contenders, jus another good team..."

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h94/JANIBABU/WTF.jpg
Who'd we trade for?

[ThunderDan]

While Brett Favre may be 3-6 in the last 10 years in playoff games. The difference between the 1st half of his career and the back half is a dominate defense.

In the mid-90's our D was great. We could easily hold teams to 10 points a game. We had one of the best front 4s and as we all saw with the Giants last year that can turn a pretty average team into a hard fought game every week.

Favre had to carry more and more weight on his shoulders as the defense declined. I think the last 2 years under TT we have started to rebuild our D. I hope our DC doesn't screw it up (Let's actually blitz this year).

Favre played great last year, but no QB will play great for all 16+ games a season (happens maybe once every 10 years). They need the D and the ST to help them not just not loose games but actually win a few.

I am excited to see what Arod will do this year. I also think we have the peices in place on D now to actually win some games if we can stay/get healthy.

[mraynrand]

Bravo, Thunder Dan! You're absolutely right. Favre turned the ball over twice in the 1996 NFC Championship, leading to 10 Carolina points. And the final score of that game was......

Anyone?

http://pervegalit.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/ben-stein.jpg

[Scott Campbell]

if GB learns to play this guy a bit more, i think we have a good shot at the SB

heck, if we had let him cover Burress in the championship game, we might have gone last year

http://graphics.jsonline.com/graphics/photographer/16/16776_large.jpg


I think Burress should have drawn double coverage.

[Chevelle2]

While Brett Favre may be 3-6 in the last 10 years in playoff games. The difference between the 1st half of his career and the back half is a dominate defense.

In the mid-90's our D was great. We could easily hold teams to 10 points a game. We had one of the best front 4s and as we all saw with the Giants last year that can turn a pretty average team into a hard fought game every week.

Favre had to carry more and more weight on his shoulders as the defense declined. I think the last 2 years under TT we have started to rebuild our D. I hope our DC doesn't screw it up (Let's actually blitz this year).

Favre played great last year, but no QB will play great for all 16+ games a season (happens maybe once every 10 years). They need the D and the ST to help them not just not loose games but actually win a few.

I am excited to see what Arod will do this year. I also think we have the peices in place on D now to actually win some games if we can stay/get healthy.

*sigh*

Favre's playoff teams in the last 10 years, had an average win total of 11.53 wins per year.

Lets take a look at those defenses iregarding PA:

1998: 11th
2001: 5th
2002: 12th
2003: 11th
2004: 23rd
2007: 6thth

So we can see that in 5/6 years, Favre had a top 1/2 defense. In 2001, he had a top 5 defense, but still failed.

[HarveyWallbangers]

1998: 11th
2001: 5th
2002: 12th
2003: 11th
2004: 23rd
2007: 6th


Added 2007. He hasn't had great defenses, but outside of 2004, they haven't been bad either. 5 of the 6 have been in the top 12 in points allowed. A couple of those years (2002 and 2004) he had to deal with a plethora of injuries and in 1998 we were screwed by the non-fumble call on Jerry Rice, but 2003 and 2007 were games that a Hall of Fame QB should have won. I'm not laying the total blame on him, but he was the one who didn't get it done late. McNabb and Manning did.

[Chevelle2]

Bravo, Thunder Dan! You're absolutely right. Favre turned the ball over twice in the 1996 NFC Championship, leading to 10 Carolina points. And the final score of that game was......

Anyone?


Favre had a QB rating of 107 in that game you moron.

Now Favre apologists are shooting down his best performances, to make it seem like the poor performances aren't as bad. Wow.

[Chevelle2]

1998: 11th
2001: 5th
2002: 12th
2003: 11th
2004: 23rd
2007: 6th


Added 2007. He hasn't had great defenses, but outside of 2004, they haven't been bad either. 5 of the 6 have been in the top 12 in points allowed.

Good call, thanks

[gex]

While Brett Favre may be 3-6 in the last 10 years in playoff games. The difference between the 1st half of his career and the back half is a dominate defense.

In the mid-90's our D was great. We could easily hold teams to 10 points a game. We had one of the best front 4s and as we all saw with the Giants last year that can turn a pretty average team into a hard fought game every week.

Favre had to carry more and more weight on his shoulders as the defense declined. I think the last 2 years under TT we have started to rebuild our D. I hope our DC doesn't screw it up (Let's actually blitz this year).

Favre played great last year, but no QB will play great for all 16+ games a season (happens maybe once every 10 years). They need the D and the ST to help them not just not loose games but actually win a few.

I am excited to see what Arod will do this year. I also think we have the peices in place on D now to actually win some games if we can stay/get healthy.

*sigh*



Lets take a look at those defenses iregarding PA:


sigh :roll:

[Chevelle2]

While Brett Favre may be 3-6 in the last 10 years in playoff games. The difference between the 1st half of his career and the back half is a dominate defense.

In the mid-90's our D was great. We could easily hold teams to 10 points a game. We had one of the best front 4s and as we all saw with the Giants last year that can turn a pretty average team into a hard fought game every week.

Favre had to carry more and more weight on his shoulders as the defense declined. I think the last 2 years under TT we have started to rebuild our D. I hope our DC doesn't screw it up (Let's actually blitz this year).

Favre played great last year, but no QB will play great for all 16+ games a season (happens maybe once every 10 years). They need the D and the ST to help them not just not loose games but actually win a few.

I am excited to see what Arod will do this year. I also think we have the peices in place on D now to actually win some games if we can stay/get healthy.

*sigh*



Lets take a look at those defenses iregarding PA:


sigh :roll:

Explain to be what is wrong with looking at the Packers defenses, based on points allowed.

[mraynrand]

Bravo, Thunder Dan! You're absolutely right. Favre turned the ball over twice in the 1996 NFC Championship, leading to 10 Carolina points. And the final score of that game was......

Anyone?


Favre had a QB rating of 107 in that game you moron.

Now Favre apologists are shooting down his best performances, to make it seem like the poor performances aren't as bad. Wow.

The point was that the Packers gave up only 10 points to Carolina, off Favre turnovers. The defense didn't allow any other scores. You can't say that about a number of other Packer defenses, including the #5 ranked defense, which gave up tons of points at St. Louis, most before Favre's third INT. The point was to applaud T. Dan for recognizing that great defenses tend to win championships. Of course Favre played well in the Carolina game, but the defense was outstanding. And Harv is correct - Favre takes a huge amount of blame for blown games in 2003 and 2007.

Just a thought about that disaster in Philly. Favre should have gone in the huddle on fourth and one, where the plan was to try to draw Philly offsides and said "Guys, Sherm wants us to draw 'em off and punt after the penalty. We're gonna run the ball, stuff it down their throats, and Sherm will be so goddamn happy we won, he won't be too hard on us. But we'd better get it done. So let's stuff the damn ball down their throats and get the hell out of here." If he had done that, I think they would have won the game.

[Chevelle2]

Just a thought about that disaster in Philly. Favre should have gone in the huddle on fourth and one, where the plan was to try to draw Philly offsides and said "Guys, Sherm wants us to draw 'em off and punt after the penalty. We're gonna run the ball, stuff it down their throats, and Sherm will be so goddamn happy we won, he won't be too hard on us. But we'd better get it done. So let's stuff the damn ball down their throats and get the hell out of here." If he had done that, I think they would have won the game.

Although I think that Favre is NOT to blame for the Philly loss (it was Sherman) this is an interesting idea, which I have too thought of. I do agree that it would have been what Id like to see, but Im not sure you can blame Brett (which I don't think you are, Im just saying) I guess sometimes you SHOULD listen to your coach, and sometimes you shouldn't.

[mraynrand]

Just a thought about that disaster in Philly. Favre should have gone in the huddle on fourth and one, where the plan was to try to draw Philly offsides and said "Guys, Sherm wants us to draw 'em off and punt after the penalty. We're gonna run the ball, stuff it down their throats, and Sherm will be so goddamn happy we won, he won't be too hard on us. But we'd better get it done. So let's stuff the damn ball down their throats and get the hell out of here." If he had done that, I think they would have won the game.

Although I think that Favre is NOT to blame for the Philly loss (it was Sherman) this is an interesting idea, which I have too thought of. I do agree that it would have been what Id like to see, but Im not sure you can blame Brett (which I don't think you are, Im just saying) I guess sometimes you SHOULD listen to your coach, and sometimes you shouldn't.

Yep. I just think the huddle would have been so fired up about sticking it to the Eagles, that they might have just blown them out of the water. Think about it - You've got Favre all fired up, you got Ahman Green with his testosterone flushing (and we know how dangerous he can be) - you have the whole offensive line knowing that they have to make it work. Man I would have loved to have seen it. I really believe, to this day, that they would have kicked the shit out of the Eagle's line, and Ahman would have run it to the house. And another point - they should have run the ball down their throats when they got it in OT as well. That was a beat up, tired ass D-line. Geez, now I'm all fired up. I gotta go lift some weights or something!

[ThunderDan]

While Brett Favre may be 3-6 in the last 10 years in playoff games. The difference between the 1st half of his career and the back half is a dominate defense.

In the mid-90's our D was great. We could easily hold teams to 10 points a game. We had one of the best front 4s and as we all saw with the Giants last year that can turn a pretty average team into a hard fought game every week.

Favre had to carry more and more weight on his shoulders as the defense declined. I think the last 2 years under TT we have started to rebuild our D. I hope our DC doesn't screw it up (Let's actually blitz this year).

Favre played great last year, but no QB will play great for all 16+ games a season (happens maybe once every 10 years). They need the D and the ST to help them not just not loose games but actually win a few.

I am excited to see what Arod will do this year. I also think we have the peices in place on D now to actually win some games if we can stay/get healthy.

*sigh*

Favre's playoff teams in the last 10 years, had an average win total of 11.53 wins per year.

Lets take a look at those defenses iregarding PA:

1998: 11th
2001: 5th
2002: 12th
2003: 11th
2004: 23rd
2007: 6thth

So we can see that in 5/6 years, Favre had a top 1/2 defense. In 2001, he had a top 5 defense, but still failed.

*SIGH*

From 94 - 97 the Packers D averaged 17.0 ppg. If you get rid of 1995 when the allowed 19.6 ppg the average is 16.2 ppg.

Fom 98 - 07 the Packer D averaged 20.4 ppg. Get rid of 2004 when they allowed 23.8 ppg the average is 20.0 ppg.

The defense has on average been giving up 23% more points per year.

And if you only look at 02 - 07 the D has averaged 21.0 ppg. An increase of almost 5 points or a 30% increase

Would you rather have MM turn to AROD and say we need 3 TD and a FG to win or say we need 2 TD and a FG to win?

In the mid 90s I was comfortable with a 2 point lead in the 4th quarter. Our D was a monster. Not so in todays NFL. It does look like we have some players finally that could make our defense dangerous again if we stay healthly.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Giants won the Super Bowl last year. Their defense ranked 17th in PA at 21.9.

The Colts won the Super Bowl in 2006. Their defense ranked 23rd in PA at 22.5.

We know it takes a great all-around team to win the Super Bowl, but teams have gotten it done without having a dominating defense. We're not even talking about a failure to get to the Super Bowl, but a failure to even get to the NFC Championship Game more than once. To be fair, those defenses played better in the postseason. Most of the blame for the playoff failures falls on the defense or injuries. However, some of the blame goes on Favre. He had chances to extend two or three of those seasons, but he didn't get it done. Before 2001, he was mostly a stud in the postseason. Since 2001, he's been mostly a dud--although all of it isn't his fault. I'd say overall he's been an above average QB in the playoffs, but he hasn't been the all-time great that he's been during the regular season.

Don't get me wrong. If Favre were 30, 32, or even 35, I'd still love him to be the QB on the Packers over anybody else. However, he's about to turn 39, and I'm okay with moving on.

[mraynrand]

The Giants won the Super Bowl last year. Their defense ranked 17th in PA at 21.9.

The Colts won the Super Bowl in 2006. Their defense ranked 23rd in PA at 22.5.

We know it takes a great all-around team to win the Super Bowl, but teams have gotten it done without having a dominating defense. We're not even talking about a failure to get to the Super Bowl, but a failure to even get to the NFC Championship Game more than once. To be fair, those defenses played better in the postseason. Most of the blame for the playoff failures falls on the defense or injuries. However, some of the blame goes on Favre. He had chances to extend two or three of those seasons, but he didn't get it done. Before 2001, he was mostly a stud in the postseason. Since 2001, he's been mostly a dud--although all of it isn't his fault. I'd say overall he's been an above average QB in the playoffs, but he hasn't been the all-time great that he's been during the regular season.

Don't get me wrong. If Favre were 30, 32, or even 35, I'd still love him to be the QB on the Packers over anybody else. However, he's about to turn 39, and I'm okay with moving on.

Good post, especially about the defenses that peaked during the playoffs. I think the thing about Favre (and this is a guess - an opinion) is that when he really believed that the outcome of the game was solely up to him, as he got older, that he performed worse. Under those conditions, he was willing to take a lot of chances, slinging the ball, trying to make huge plays, instead of keeping within himself. I can't explain what happened on the horrible toss in Philly, and I can't imagine what was going on against the Giants.

I'm OK with moving on if Rodgers plays well enough to get the Packers to the playoffs and if Rodgers plays better in the playoffs than Favre would have. (sounds obvious, but the bottom line is that TT and MM have to be right - Rodgers has to play better than Favre at some point this season - OR, the team has to win even if Rodgers isn't as good).

[Chevelle2]

While Brett Favre may be 3-6 in the last 10 years in playoff games. The difference between the 1st half of his career and the back half is a dominate defense.

In the mid-90's our D was great. We could easily hold teams to 10 points a game. We had one of the best front 4s and as we all saw with the Giants last year that can turn a pretty average team into a hard fought game every week.

Favre had to carry more and more weight on his shoulders as the defense declined. I think the last 2 years under TT we have started to rebuild our D. I hope our DC doesn't screw it up (Let's actually blitz this year).

Favre played great last year, but no QB will play great for all 16+ games a season (happens maybe once every 10 years). They need the D and the ST to help them not just not loose games but actually win a few.

I am excited to see what Arod will do this year. I also think we have the peices in place on D now to actually win some games if we can stay/get healthy.

*sigh*

Favre's playoff teams in the last 10 years, had an average win total of 11.53 wins per year.

Lets take a look at those defenses iregarding PA:

1998: 11th
2001: 5th
2002: 12th
2003: 11th
2004: 23rd
2007: 6thth

So we can see that in 5/6 years, Favre had a top 1/2 defense. In 2001, he had a top 5 defense, but still failed.

*SIGH*

From 94 - 97 the Packers D averaged 17.0 ppg. If you get rid of 1995 when the allowed 19.6 ppg the average is 16.2 ppg.

Fom 98 - 07 the Packer D averaged 20.4 ppg. Get rid of 2004 when they allowed 23.8 ppg the average is 20.0 ppg.

The defense has on average been giving up 23% more points per year.

And if you only look at 02 - 07 the D has averaged 21.0 ppg. An increase of almost 5 points or a 30% increase

Would you rather have MM turn to AROD and say we need 3 TD and a FG to win or say we need 2 TD and a FG to win?

In the mid 90s I was comfortable with a 2 point lead in the 4th quarter. Our D was a monster. Not so in todays NFL. It does look like we have some players finally that could make our defense dangerous again if we stay healthly.

It goes both ways tho. Did Favre's interception total increase because he was playing from behind a lot? Or, did the defense's PA increase because Favre's increase in interceptions gave the opposing team easy field position and pick 6's?

Just something to think about.

[Partial]

While Brett Favre may be 3-6 in the last 10 years in playoff games. The difference between the 1st half of his career and the back half is a dominate defense.

In the mid-90's our D was great. We could easily hold teams to 10 points a game. We had one of the best front 4s and as we all saw with the Giants last year that can turn a pretty average team into a hard fought game every week.

Favre had to carry more and more weight on his shoulders as the defense declined. I think the last 2 years under TT we have started to rebuild our D. I hope our DC doesn't screw it up (Let's actually blitz this year).

Favre played great last year, but no QB will play great for all 16+ games a season (happens maybe once every 10 years). They need the D and the ST to help them not just not loose games but actually win a few.

I am excited to see what Arod will do this year. I also think we have the peices in place on D now to actually win some games if we can stay/get healthy.

*sigh*



Lets take a look at those defenses iregarding PA:


sigh :roll:

Explain to be what is wrong with looking at the Packers defenses, based on points allowed.

That view is very incomplete and narrow-sighted.

[texaspackerbacker]

It's up to 17-29 AGAINST the Packers now? And you people call yourselves PACKER FANS? Didn't you learn anything last season?

The poll is worded "a leading contender". 29 people actually think the Packers are not among the top NFC teams? It doesn't say "the" leading contender, just one of them. By implication, you people are claiming the Packers are not even in the top 3 or 4 or 5 NFC teams! I just have to ask, WHO do you see as better?

The Cowboys? Maybe better than the Packers by a small margin, but with a recent history of fading in the stretch run.

The fluky Giants? With their personnel losses, not to mention numerous positions where they just aren't very good?

Tampa? They won their division virtually by default--no decent teams in it?

Seattle? With a steady erosion of talent from a team that didn't quite make it to the top a few years ago?

Minnesota? With mediocrity if not much worse at QB and a couple of serious losses in their probably already overrated defense?

Who else ?

You people saying the Packers are "a leading contender" for the Super Bowl are basically saying ALL OF THE ABOVE and maybe a couple of other really longshots zre actually BETTER than the Packers! That's so unbelievable that it just plain stinks for presumably Packer fans to claim it.

[boiga]

The poll is worded "a leading contender". 29 people actually think the Packers are not among the top NFC teams? It doesn't say "the" leading contender, just one of them. By implication, you people are claiming the Packers are not even in the top 3 or 4 or 5 NFC teams! I just have to ask, WHO do you see as better?

The problem is that word "leading." The only leading contenders to win the super bowl are the Patriots (and that's assuming Brady is healthy).

Sure the Packers are contenders, but to call them the leading contenders is getting cocky. They're in the running, but considering the injury situation it's hard to argue that they are at the front of the race.

[ThunderDan]

It's up to 17-29 AGAINST the Packers now? And you people call yourselves PACKER FANS? Didn't you learn anything last season?

The poll is worded "a leading contender". 29 people actually think the Packers are not among the top NFC teams? It doesn't say "the" leading contender, just one of them. By implication, you people are claiming the Packers are not even in the top 3 or 4 or 5 NFC teams! I just have to ask, WHO do you see as better?

The Cowboys? Maybe better than the Packers by a small margin, but with a recent history of fading in the stretch run.

The fluky Giants? With their personnel losses, not to mention numerous positions where they just aren't very good?

Tampa? They won their division virtually by default--no decent teams in it?

Seattle? With a steady erosion of talent from a team that didn't quite make it to the top a few years ago?

Minnesota? With mediocrity if not much worse at QB and a couple of serious losses in their probably already overrated defense?

Who else ?

You people saying the Packers are "a leading contender" for the Super Bowl are basically saying ALL OF THE ABOVE and maybe a couple of other really longshots zre actually BETTER than the Packers! That's so unbelievable that it just plain stinks for presumably Packer fans to claim it.

Go to a Betting website and see what odds you get in the NFC.
Cowboys - 2/1
Giants - 4/1
Packers - 5/1
Seahawks - 6/1

I'd say we have a good chance to win the NFC but not a leading contender.

[texaspackerbacker]

The poll is worded "a leading contender". 29 people actually think the Packers are not among the top NFC teams? It doesn't say "the" leading contender, just one of them. By implication, you people are claiming the Packers are not even in the top 3 or 4 or 5 NFC teams! I just have to ask, WHO do you see as better?

The problem is that word "leading." The only leading contenders to win the super bowl are the Patriots (and that's assuming Brady is healthy).

Sure the Packers are contenders, but to call them the leading contenders is getting cocky. They're in the running, but considering the injury situation it's hard to argue that they are at the front of the race.

Not to split hairs or anything, but the poll didn't say "the" leading contender, and it didn't say "win" the Super Bowl--which makes the Patriots, Colts, and the rest of the AFC irrelevant.

[boiga]

Not to split hairs or anything, but the poll didn't say "the" leading contender, and it didn't say "win" the Super Bowl--which makes the Patriots, Colts, and the rest of the AFC irrelevant. But to say we are the odds on favorite to win the NFCC this year is an overstatement as well. We have a good shot but the team's going to have to work hard and get a little lucky as well.

[esoxx]

Not to nitpick, but I thought the score of the NFC Championship game against Carolina was 30-13.

[packerbacker1234]

good news! pro foootball prospectus author aaron schatz states this on espn first take. WOW...

he points to the youth, improved D (front 7 will be even better), and stacked roster as reasons why they will succeed even w/o lord favre


says that as long as arod is average we have the line, running game, and wr's to have great offense

also says giants will miss playoffs and cowgirls "are not superbowl contenders, jus another good team..."

We need to worry about the vikings first, and winning our division. Super bowl leading contendor? Yeah.... right. It's not just about not having a guy who was a big part of our run, it's also that again, our starting offensive line isn't set, and really we got WEAKER at the DL position in the offseason. Our veterans got a year older (harris and woodson, specifically) and without #4, at least mentally for even bad teams, everyone will think they have a chance against us.

Meh - a contendor... possible. A leading contendor? Yeah... right.

[MOBB DEEP]

good news! pro foootball prospectus author aaron schatz states this on espn first take. WOW...

he points to the youth, improved D (front 7 will be even better), and stacked roster as reasons why they will succeed even w/o lord favre


says that as long as arod is average we have the line, running game, and wr's to have great offense

also says giants will miss playoffs and cowgirls "are not superbowl contenders, jus another good team..."

We need to worry about the vikings first, and winning our division. Super bowl leading contendor? Yeah.... right. It's not just about not having a guy who was a big part of our run, it's also that again, our starting offensive line isn't set, and really we got WEAKER at the DL position in the offseason. Our veterans got a year older (harris and woodson, specifically) and without #4, at least mentally for even bad teams, everyone will think they have a chance against us.

Meh - a contendor... possible. A leading contendor? Yeah... right.


GREAT point about other teams not being intimidated by arod

[Partial]

The Giants won the Super Bowl last year. Their defense ranked 17th in PA at 21.9.

The Colts won the Super Bowl in 2006. Their defense ranked 23rd in PA at 22.5.

We know it takes a great all-around team to win the Super Bowl, but teams have gotten it done without having a dominating defense. We're not even talking about a failure to get to the Super Bowl, but a failure to even get to the NFC Championship Game more than once. To be fair, those defenses played better in the postseason. Most of the blame for the playoff failures falls on the defense or injuries. However, some of the blame goes on Favre. He had chances to extend two or three of those seasons, but he didn't get it done. Before 2001, he was mostly a stud in the postseason. Since 2001, he's been mostly a dud--although all of it isn't his fault. I'd say overall he's been an above average QB in the playoffs, but he hasn't been the all-time great that he's been during the regular season.

Don't get me wrong. If Favre were 30, 32, or even 35, I'd still love him to be the QB on the Packers over anybody else. However, he's about to turn 39, and I'm okay with moving on.

Balogna. Last year the Giants defense started clicking in the playoffs and had an unstoppable pass rush. They shut down the best offense ever. Held them to 14 points. The Pats beat most opponents by far more than 14 points, let alone only scoring that many.

Indy's defense was lights out come playoff time. Bob Sanders was the big story across the league during the post season and how they went from a bottom of the barrel defense to dominating.

C'mon.