Best team ever!

[b bulldog]

While I was working out today, ESPN was showing tape of Brett saying that his current team is the best team he has ever played on. This is very debateable but I think the 96-97 team was his best but .......

[esoxx]

Get back to me when the Vikings are #1 in the league in both offense and defense like the '96 team was. Then we'll talk.

[mmmdk]

I want all at FavreRats.com to be happy.

Go Bert !

[denverYooper]

Get back to me when the Vikings are #1 in the league in both offense and defense like the '96 team was. Then we'll talk.

Amen to that.

[mmmdk]

While I was working out today, ESPN was showing tape of Brett saying that his current team is the best team he has ever played on. This is very debateable but I think the 96-97 team was his best but .......

Yeah, but the most talented team BF played on were Packers. :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

More blabbing from the traitor.

[Chevelle2]

Well, logically this would mean if the Vikings DONT go 13-3 and win the SB, it is Brett Favre's fault.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Just when you think you've run out of reasons to despise Bert he comes through.

What a complete douchebag.

[channtheman]

Well, logically this would mean if the Vikings DONT go 13-3 and win the SB, it is Brett Favre's fault.

Good point. I guess he's going all out right now. Anything less than a Super Bowl from the Vikings would be a disappointment now.

[Brandon494]

Get back to me when the Vikings are #1 in the league in both offense and defense like the '96 team was. Then we'll talk.

No shit, and exactly who have they played? Lions, Browns, Rams, 49ers, and Packers. They should have lost to the 49ers and if not for our horrible line play I think we would have beaten them. The injury to Clifton made us change 3 guys on the line which already has three new starters.

[Deputy Nutz]

Scumbags

[pbmax]

Which year this decade did he say the Packers team was the most talented team he had ever played on?

[MJZiggy]

2000-2008

[bobblehead]

Well, logically this would mean if the Vikings DONT go 13-3 and win the SB, it is Brett Favre's fault.

14-2 actually was his best season with the pack.

[retailguy]

Well, logically this would mean if the Vikings DONT go 13-3 and win the SB, it is Brett Favre's fault.

14-2 actually was his best season with the pack.

I don't think so. 13-3, twice, I think. 96 & 97. never went 14-2...

edit - and 2007 too. so that makes 3.

[Pugger]

So BF is singing that tune yet again? I guess that's what happens when you get old and start repeating yourself... :wink:

[GrnBay007]

So BF is singing that tune yet again? I guess that's what happens when you get old and start repeating yourself... :wink:

.....and still winning! :D

[Pugger]

So BF is singing that tune yet again? I guess that's what happens when you get old and start repeating yourself... :wink:

.....and still winning! :D

You shouldn't be so happy about that if you are a Packer fan. With him as the starting QB of a divisional rival if he is winning that ain't good for the Packers. :?

[mmmdk]

So BF is singing that tune yet again? I guess that's what happens when you get old and start repeating yourself... :wink:

.....and still winning! :D

You shouldn't be so happy about that if you are a Packer fan. With him as the starting QB of a divisional rival if he is winning that ain't good for the Packers. :?

She's not a Packer fan first. Like a lot of people in here. I really don't care but quit lying. I mostly here for Packer info anyways as Packers comes first.

[Deputy Nutz]

So BF is singing that tune yet again? I guess that's what happens when you get old and start repeating yourself... :wink:

.....and still winning! :D

You shouldn't be so happy about that if you are a Packer fan. With him as the starting QB of a divisional rival if he is winning that ain't good for the Packers. :?

She's not a Packer fan first. Like a lot of people in here. I really don't care but quit lying. I mostly here for Packer info anyways as Packers comes first.

Good for you. I am proud of you. You are a sincere person. you will be rewarded.

[Deputy Nutz]

So BF is singing that tune yet again? I guess that's what happens when you get old and start repeating yourself... :wink:

.....and still winning! :D

You shouldn't be so happy about that if you are a Packer fan. With him as the starting QB of a divisional rival if he is winning that ain't good for the Packers. :?

Why do we have to support a GM and a franchise for making a personnel move that we don't agree with? Are we sheep? "Bossman says, good enough for me."

Packers deserve everything they get, positive and negative. The deserved the ass kicking they got from Favre in the Metro Dome, they simply haven't done enough in 2009 to compete with the Vikings in week 4 of the nfl season. Does that mean the Packers won't win in a couple of weeks? No, it means currently they are not good enough.

[Bossman641]

So BF is singing that tune yet again? I guess that's what happens when you get old and start repeating yourself... :wink:

.....and still winning! :D

You shouldn't be so happy about that if you are a Packer fan. With him as the starting QB of a divisional rival if he is winning that ain't good for the Packers. :?

Why do we have to support a GM and a franchise for making a personnel move that we don't agree with? Are we sheep? "Bossman says, good enough for me."

Packers deserve everything they get, positive and negative. The deserved the ass kicking they got from Favre in the Metro Dome, they simply haven't done enough in 2009 to compete with the Vikings in week 4 of the nfl season. Does that mean the Packers won't win in a couple of weeks? No, it means currently they are not good enough.

Regardless of whether you agree with the moves or not, a real fan would want them to win. They wouldn't want the team to struggle or play poorly because they "deserve" it.

[retailguy]

Regardless of whether you agree with the moves or not, a real fan would want them to win. They wouldn't want the team to struggle or play poorly because they "deserve" it.

Where did he say he didn't want them to win? I've read everything he's posted in the past couple of weeks and come to a very different conclusion.

I think what he is saying is "you reap what you sow". He's not surprised when they lose or when the play poorly, but less disappointed than he used to be.

Nutz - am I close?

[Bossman641]

Regardless of whether you agree with the moves or not, a real fan would want them to win. They wouldn't want the team to struggle or play poorly because they "deserve" it.

Where did he say he didn't want them to win? I've read everything he's posted in the past couple of weeks and come to a very different conclusion.

I think what he is saying is "you reap what you sow". He's not surprised when they lose or when the play poorly, but less disappointed than he used to be.

Nutz - am I close?

I guess you missed his repeated posts where he outright admitted he wanted the Vikings to beat the Packers, or his posts during the offseason where his dream scenario would be the Packers and Vikings meeting in the NFCCG and the Vikings going to the SB and winning it all.

*EDIT

Just look at the topic 2 down, "Excuses by packer fans..."


I have already heard a number of Packer fans on this board claim that this game is not that important, it is an early season game, bla bla bla. Nice way to set up a Packer loss.

I can't wait till Monday when the Vikings and Favre run all over the Packers.

Really sounds like someone pulling for the Packers huh?

[retailguy]

Look if you want to "cherry pick" statements, you can find any proof that you want, at any time you want. There are a few folks here, and that's all that they do. Don't add yourself to that list. It is infamy that you don't want. Next thing you know, you'll think you are an "expert" at anything you type.

I remember the comment, and I also remember the frustration around it. It had ZERO to do with wanting the Packers as a team to lose, and had everything to do about showing the GM who he is not fond of that he'd made what Nutz considered a mistake. Poor way to express that? Perhaps. But Nutz is clearly frustrated. That's clearly apparent. I attempted to answer the "why" part.

If you keep things in the proper context, and remove that frustration (that we all get once in a while), you arrive at the conclusion that I came to (I think).

We'll see what Nutz has to say...

[Bossman641]

Look if you want to "cherry pick" statements, you can find any proof that you want, at any time you want. There are a few folks here, and that's all that they do. Don't add yourself to that list. It is infamy that you don't want. Next thing you know, you'll think you are an "expert" at anything you type.

I remember the comment, and I also remember the frustration around it. It had ZERO to do with wanting the Packers as a team to lose, and had everything to do about showing the GM who he is not fond of that he'd made what Nutz considered a mistake. Poor way to express that? Perhaps. But Nutz is clearly frustrated. That's clearly apparent. I attempted to answer the "why" part.

If you keep things in the proper context, and remove that frustration (that we all get once in a while), you arrive at the conclusion that I came to (I think).

We'll see what Nutz has to say...

Agree to disagree. Regardless, it doesn't really matter to me what he says or whether he does or doesn't want them to win or lose. I just think it's a strange place to be at as a fan.

[Deputy Nutz]

Really both you two cut it out, I am beginning to blush :oops: .

Both of you are right. I no longer bleed Gold and Green. 1/8th of the time I want the Packers to lose this season, maybe one game in the playoffs as well. I don't support what Thompson is doing. If he is successful I have no problems admitting that I am wrong. I just don't think what he is doing to this point is successful, sure he has had some moments of success but he certainly has not brought stability to this franchise during his reign has GM.

If I knew the right answers I would most certainly not be posting here, and the very least I would be on some shitty blog right now, at the very most I would be running a CFL franchise, lets face it the NFL is all about who you know.

Hate the Packers, no. I just simply find them amusing.

[Deputy Nutz]

Look if you want to "cherry pick" statements, you can find any proof that you want, at any time you want. There are a few folks here, and that's all that they do. Don't add yourself to that list. It is infamy that you don't want. Next thing you know, you'll think you are an "expert" at anything you type.

I remember the comment, and I also remember the frustration around it. It had ZERO to do with wanting the Packers as a team to lose, and had everything to do about showing the GM who he is not fond of that he'd made what Nutz considered a mistake. Poor way to express that? Perhaps. But Nutz is clearly frustrated. That's clearly apparent. I attempted to answer the "why" part.

If you keep things in the proper context, and remove that frustration (that we all get once in a while), you arrive at the conclusion that I came to (I think).

We'll see what Nutz has to say...

Agree to disagree. Regardless, it doesn't really matter to me what he says or whether he does or doesn't want them to win or lose. I just think it's a strange place to be at as a fan.

Why should you question why I am here, I could leave and then this place would be down to 21 regular posters.

[Bossman641]

Look if you want to "cherry pick" statements, you can find any proof that you want, at any time you want. There are a few folks here, and that's all that they do. Don't add yourself to that list. It is infamy that you don't want. Next thing you know, you'll think you are an "expert" at anything you type.

I remember the comment, and I also remember the frustration around it. It had ZERO to do with wanting the Packers as a team to lose, and had everything to do about showing the GM who he is not fond of that he'd made what Nutz considered a mistake. Poor way to express that? Perhaps. But Nutz is clearly frustrated. That's clearly apparent. I attempted to answer the "why" part.

If you keep things in the proper context, and remove that frustration (that we all get once in a while), you arrive at the conclusion that I came to (I think).

We'll see what Nutz has to say...

Agree to disagree. Regardless, it doesn't really matter to me what he says or whether he does or doesn't want them to win or lose. I just think it's a strange place to be at as a fan.

Why should you question why I am here, I could leave and then this place would be down to 21 regular posters.

Strange place mentally - rooting against the team you loved for however many years.

That's what I meant.

[mngolf19]

Get back to me when the Vikings are #1 in the league in both offense and defense like the '96 team was. Then we'll talk.

No shit, and exactly who have they played? Lions, Browns, Rams, 49ers, and Packers. They should have lost to the 49ers and if not for our horrible line play I think we would have beaten them. The injury to Clifton made us change 3 guys on the line which already has three new starters.

First, stats can't answer this question, it's subjective. It's his opinion right or wrong. Second, "and if not for our horrible line play I think we would have beaten them."?????? :roll: Wow.

[bobblehead]

Well, logically this would mean if the Vikings DONT go 13-3 and win the SB, it is Brett Favre's fault.

14-2 actually was his best season with the pack.

I don't think so. 13-3, twice, I think. 96 & 97. never went 14-2...

edit - and 2007 too. so that makes 3.

My bad then...for some reason the year we LOST the super bowl I thought we went 14-2....thats my revisionist history classes at work.

[DannoMac21]

It still absolutely baffles me to see people behind #4. The starting quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings. The guy ran HIS show. Favre wanted to play for the Vikings. He didn't want to be in Green Bay. If he didn't want to be here, why do people still continue to cheer for him and support him? After EVERYTHING the fans have done for him. And he doesn't wanna be here. He's pretty much giving every Packer fan the bird.

[bobblehead]

Really both you two cut it out, I am beginning to blush :oops: .

Both of you are right. I no longer bleed Gold and Green. 1/8th of the time I want the Packers to lose this season, maybe one game in the playoffs as well. I don't support what Thompson is doing. If he is successful I have no problems admitting that I am wrong. I just don't think what he is doing to this point is successful, sure he has had some moments of success but he certainly has not brought stability to this franchise during his reign has GM.

If I knew the right answers I would most certainly not be posting here, and the very least I would be on some shitty blog right now, at the very most I would be running a CFL franchise, lets face it the NFL is all about who you know.

Hate the Packers, no. I just simply find them amusing.

I understand it Nutz (better now a couple weeks later) and the only difference between you and me is that I would hope to high hell that I'm wrong. I don't do that often as my ego would usually rather be proven right, but when it comes to the pack I would like nothing more than Babre to turn into a complete stud and prove me wrong...which is what happened with Collins a year ago...it clicked, he went from looking clueless to beastly. Now, when we are talking politics (specifically economics) I'm so sure of my convictions based on history and area of expertise, that yes, I want America to suffer under Obama. The long term damage he is doing outweighs any short term satisfaction that we get due to normal recession recovery.

[MOBB DEEP]

Favre wanted to play for the Vikings. He didn't want to be in Green Bay

when did YOU start following the charade? This summer? :roll:

[MOBB DEEP]

Brett saying that his current team is the best team he has ever played on.

That boy not right....

[gex]

I've noticed that the younger (age and emotionally) posters seem to be taking the split the hardest and are still holding the negative feelings in.

[MadtownPacker]

Wow bulldog, you dont show your avatar for a long time then come in just to start this thread?? Pathetic that you start a thread about Favre when you cried about it before. Where you been at anyways?

[Partial]

I think Favre may have a point. Green was great, but Peterson is out of this world. Jared Allen is very, very good and I think it's probably a toss-up between the GB line of 1996 and the Vikings line with the Williams and Allen. Winfield is gotta be better than either Evans or Newsome, but I don't think they have quality safeties, their LBs are solid and fast. Their OL is good. The receivers are good enough as Favre makes them better. Can't match up at TE.

He could be right when you think about it. Different NFL today so tough to compare the #1 rankings, especially when Favre is referring to the team around him being the most talented (thus not including himself, which was a huge reason for the #1 offense of 1996... hof in prime of career)

That said, I'm very tired of all the "YOU'RE NOT A FAN UNLESS YOU..." talk. Shut up. Being a fan of something means you enjoy something. Who are you to tell anyone else what brings them joy or how to experience it? I'm really turned off by the delusional cult-esque chatter about how if I want to be a Packer fan I have to do this, and this, and that. It's stupid.

[packers11]

For some reason whenever Favre said he had the best team they never went to the Super Bowl...

So there can only be two conclusions...

1) Hes delusional as hell

2) Hes holding his team back from the big game

[GrnBay007]

That said, I'm very tired of all the "YOU'RE NOT A FAN UNLESS YOU..." talk. Shut up. Being a fan of something means you enjoy something. Who are you to tell anyone else what brings them joy or how to experience it?

:tup:

I started thinking there was this special private school some went to in order to get their degree and job in deciding who is or is not a Packer fan and who is worthy. :P

[th87]

There are different degrees of fandom:

Group 1: People who have a casual "it's just entertainment" approach and the Packers are a fun pastime to enjoy, but football takes a backseat to other, far more important things in life.

Group 2: People who view the Packer nation as almost a real nation. They represent your city and state against "them". This leads to a fierce nationalism of sorts, where the fandom is far more raucous, and probably less reasonable.

I probably fall under Group 2. Packers football is not just entertainment to me - it represents a large part of my life. I can never ever ever ever ever root for the Vikings unless it benefited the Packers (and even then I'd feel really weird about it). This is why I could never root for Brett Favre ever again and why I consider him a traitor (unless he tanked the Vikings season on purpose and told Childress he's a Packer for life).

It is the lack of understanding between these two groups that cause most of the misunderstandings in here.

[channtheman]

There are different degrees of fandom:

Group 1: People who have a casual "it's just entertainment" approach and the Packers are a fun pastime to enjoy, but football takes a backseat to other, far more important things in life.

Group 2: People who view the Packer nation as almost a real nation. They represent your city and state against "them". This leads to a fierce nationalism of sorts, where the fandom is far more raucous, and probably less reasonable.

I probably fall under Group 2. Packers football is not just entertainment to me - it represents a large part of my life. I can never ever ever ever ever root for the Vikings unless it benefited the Packers (and even then I'd feel really weird about it). This is why I could never root for Brett Favre ever again and why I consider him a traitor (unless he tanked the Vikings season on purpose and told Childress he's a Packer for life).

It is the lack of understanding between these two groups that cause most of the misunderstandings in here.

Good post. I think what happened is people were in group 2 and the Packers meant everything. But after the TT/Favre split (where face it, there is no "correct" side, it comes down to everyone's own opinion) people may have switched over to group 1 with a sub group being "Favre" fan. Which is fine. And they can still be Packer fans and Favre fans.

I've seen people say "you can be a Favre fan, but don't you dare say you are also a Packer fan." That's bullshit and everyone knows it.

As for me, I'm in group 2, and always will be.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I think Favre may have a point. Green was great, but Peterson is out of this world. Jared Allen is very, very good and I think it's probably a toss-up between the GB line of 1996 and the Vikings line with the Williams and Allen. Winfield is gotta be better than either Evans or Newsome, but I don't think they have quality safeties, their LBs are solid and fast. Their OL is good. The receivers are good enough as Favre makes them better. Can't match up at TE.

He could be right when you think about it. Different NFL today so tough to compare the #1 rankings, especially when Favre is referring to the team around him being the most talented (thus not including himself, which was a huge reason for the #1 offense of 1996... hof in prime of career)

That said, I'm very tired of all the "YOU'RE NOT A FAN UNLESS YOU..." talk. Shut up. Being a fan of something means you enjoy something. Who are you to tell anyone else what brings them joy or how to experience it? I'm really turned off by the delusional cult-esque chatter about how if I want to be a Packer fan I have to do this, and this, and that. It's stupid.

Nice post.

[MichiganPackerFan]

:tup:

I started thinking there was this special private school some went to in order to get their degree and job in deciding who is or is not a Packer fan and who is worthy. :P

Nope. Just have to ask me for my judgment call. And pro/anti- Favre has NOTHING to do with it!

[mmmdk]

I think Favre may have a point. Green was great, but Peterson is out of this world. Jared Allen is very, very good and I think it's probably a toss-up between the GB line of 1996 and the Vikings line with the Williams and Allen. Winfield is gotta be better than either Evans or Newsome, but I don't think they have quality safeties, their LBs are solid and fast. Their OL is good. The receivers are good enough as Favre makes them better. Can't match up at TE.

He could be right when you think about it. Different NFL today so tough to compare the #1 rankings, especially when Favre is referring to the team around him being the most talented (thus not including himself, which was a huge reason for the #1 offense of 1996... hof in prime of career)

That said, I'm very tired of all the "YOU'RE NOT A FAN UNLESS YOU..." talk. Shut up. Being a fan of something means you enjoy something. Who are you to tell anyone else what brings them joy or how to experience it? I'm really turned off by the delusional cult-esque chatter about how if I want to be a Packer fan I have to do this, and this, and that. It's stupid.

Nice post.

Acually a nice post. But it's week 6 so let's see. No doubt AD & Jared Allen are monster players, so Partial is on to something just like Bert is :D

[MichiganPackerFan]

There are different degrees of fandom:

Group 1: People who have a casual "it's just entertainment" approach and the Packers are a fun pastime to enjoy, but football takes a backseat to other, far more important things in life.

Group 2: People who view the Packer nation as almost a real nation. They represent your city and state against "them". This leads to a fierce nationalism of sorts, where the fandom is far more raucous, and probably less reasonable.

I probably fall under Group 2. Packers football is not just entertainment to me - it represents a large part of my life. I can never ever ever ever ever root for the Vikings unless it benefited the Packers (and even then I'd feel really weird about it). This is why I could never root for Brett Favre ever again and why I consider him a traitor (unless he tanked the Vikings season on purpose and told Childress he's a Packer for life).

It is the lack of understanding between these two groups that cause most of the misunderstandings in here.

I'm probably under #2 as well. I was a Packers fan as a young kid before Favre, I was during Favre, and I'm a packers fan post-Favre. I wish he wasn't in the division, but I can understand his struggle with deciding to quit his life's work before the age of 40. The Packers went with the future and upside, and Im glad to cheer for #12 on sundays.

[mmmdk]

:tup:

I started thinking there was this special private school some went to in order to get their degree and job in deciding who is or is not a Packer fan and who is worthy. :P

Nope. Just have to ask me for my judgment call. And pro/anti- Favre has NOTHING to do with it!

You're right. There's no school for being a fan, take BF though, and you have got to take into the equation that he's another person too - not just a sports star.

At least 20% of all "great" leaders / public figures have psychopathically traits that helps them get what they want by hurting others. The Favre debacle is on a tiny, tiny scale compared to Stalin or W. - just stating the latter to emphasize this notion.

So be a fan but be objective and honest about it too.

[FavreChild]

Then people should "be objective" about TT, too.

This is what TT has done - totally divided this "Packer Nation" that TH87 speaks about.

There are no "two groups" anymore. I was a member of group 2, and not anymore. How does that happen suddenly? I don't even believe in this "group 2" idea anymore. I never thought there would be a day when I didn't support the Packers 100%, but that happened. And I will not be able to support the organization fully until Thompson is gone.

I agree with everything Nutz has posted in the recent weeks. And I'm not the only one. I just don't see the point in debating it with people who won't change their mind, just like I won't change mine.

The way I see it, Ted Thompson hasn't ruined the Packers. He has ruined Packer Nation.

[ThunderDan]

Then people should "be objective" about TT, too.

This is what TT has done - totally divided this "Packer Nation" that TH87 speaks about.

There are no "two groups" anymore. I was a member of group 2, and not anymore. How does that happen suddenly? I don't even believe in this "group 2" idea anymore. I never thought there would be a day when I didn't support the Packers 100%, but that happened. And I will not be able to support the organization fully until Thompson is gone.

I agree with everything Nutz has posted in the recent weeks. And I'm not the only one. I just don't see the point in debating it with people who won't change their mind, just like I won't change mine.

The way I see it, Ted Thompson hasn't ruined the Packers. He has ruined Packer Nation.

Do we really want to start down this road again. There are dozens and dozens of threads you can look at about this.

[Bossman641]

Then people should "be objective" about TT, too.

This is what TT has done - totally divided this "Packer Nation" that TH87 speaks about.

There are no "two groups" anymore. I was a member of group 2, and not anymore. How does that happen suddenly? I don't even believe in this "group 2" idea anymore. I never thought there would be a day when I didn't support the Packers 100%, but that happened. And I will not be able to support the organization fully until Thompson is gone.

I agree with everything Nutz has posted in the recent weeks. And I'm not the only one. I just don't see the point in debating it with people who won't change their mind, just like I won't change mine.

The way I see it, Ted Thompson hasn't ruined the Packers. He has ruined Packer Nation.

Really? TT has ruined the Packers? Do half of you people that hate Thompson realize that it was primarily McCarthy's call to not let Favre come back?

[sharpe1027]

I think Favre may have a point. Green was great, but Peterson is out of this world. Jared Allen is very, very good and I think it's probably a toss-up between the GB line of 1996 and the Vikings line with the Williams and Allen. Winfield is gotta be better than either Evans or Newsome, but I don't think they have quality safeties, their LBs are solid and fast. Their OL is good. The receivers are good enough as Favre makes them better. Can't match up at TE.

He could be right when you think about it. Different NFL today so tough to compare the #1 rankings, especially when Favre is referring to the team around him being the most talented (thus not including himself, which was a huge reason for the #1 offense of 1996... hof in prime of career)


Two words that will sink them regardless: Brad Childress.

[ThunderDan]

Then people should "be objective" about TT, too.

This is what TT has done - totally divided this "Packer Nation" that TH87 speaks about.

There are no "two groups" anymore. I was a member of group 2, and not anymore. How does that happen suddenly? I don't even believe in this "group 2" idea anymore. I never thought there would be a day when I didn't support the Packers 100%, but that happened. And I will not be able to support the organization fully until Thompson is gone.

I agree with everything Nutz has posted in the recent weeks. And I'm not the only one. I just don't see the point in debating it with people who won't change their mind, just like I won't change mine.

The way I see it, Ted Thompson hasn't ruined the Packers. He has ruined Packer Nation.

Actually, I will address this.

I went to the UW when Don Morton was the coach. The UW sucked but I rooted for UW to win because I am a fan. I wanted Morton gone but I still loved UW so much that I wanted them to win every game or even 5 games even if it kept Morton's job.

Alvarez came in a wasn't great to start. It wasn't until his 3rd year that we won a conference game. I was rooting for him to win. Then we went to the Rose Bowl etc.

Now UW hired Bert Bielema. I can't stand him. But I am rooting for the UW to win every game even if that keeps Bert as our head coach for 10 years.

I am a UW Fan just like I am a Packer Fan.

And it doesn't matter who the GM or coach is I am rooting for a Packer win every week. During games where I have tickets my ass will be in them even if we are 1-7 at the time. Nothing will stop me being a Packer fan.

[FavreChild]

Really? TT has ruined the Packers? Do half of you people that hate Thompson realize that it was primarily McCarthy's call to not let Favre come back?

Funny, I don't recall mentioning Favre at all in my post. :lol:

That's the way I see it, like I said. Packer fans have always disagreed about various things - personnel, game day strategy, etc. But I have never seen, nor did I think I would ever see, Packer fans so ripped apart. And hostile. Thanks, but I'd rather hang out with Philly fans at this point. They're friendlier.

This happened under Ted's watch.

Not gonna argue about it. But a lot of fans see it my way. They just don't say it here, because we don't want to fight with and insult and belittle fellow Packer fans. To me, THAT'S what being a Packer fan is all about.

[hoosier]

Then people should "be objective" about TT, too.

This is what TT has done - totally divided this "Packer Nation" that TH87 speaks about.

There are no "two groups" anymore. I was a member of group 2, and not anymore. How does that happen suddenly? I don't even believe in this "group 2" idea anymore. I never thought there would be a day when I didn't support the Packers 100%, but that happened. And I will not be able to support the organization fully until Thompson is gone.

I agree with everything Nutz has posted in the recent weeks. And I'm not the only one. I just don't see the point in debating it with people who won't change their mind, just like I won't change mine.

The way I see it, Ted Thompson hasn't ruined the Packers. He has ruined Packer Nation.

Of all the posters who feel that TT wrecked Packer Nation, I wonder how many were Packer fans before the Favre era. My guess is that most if not all became fans after 1993 and, in large part, because of Favre. Whereas those of us who followed the Packers in the long decades BF (Before Favre) have other experiences and memories to draw on, and probably have an easier time envisioning the Packers without Brett.

I'm not saying this to belittle anyone. If you are of a generation that has only known the Packers with Favre as their icon, I can kind of understand why it would seem that something fundamental is now missing, and it would be harder to understand why TT or McCarthy would have taken the direction they did.

[FavreChild]

[ Nothing will stop me being a Packer fan.

Me neither.

Including the people who tell me I can't be a Packer fan anymore. :wink:

[ThunderDan]

[ Nothing will stop me being a Packer fan.

Me neither.

Including the people who tell me I can't be a Packer fan anymore. :wink:

According to your earlier post TT has.

[Bossman641]

Really? TT has ruined the Packers? Do half of you people that hate Thompson realize that it was primarily McCarthy's call to not let Favre come back?

Funny, I don't recall mentioning Favre at all in my post. :lol:

That's the way I see it, like I said. Packer fans have always disagreed about various things - personnel, game day strategy, etc. But I have never seen, nor did I think I would ever see, Packer fans so ripped apart. And hostile. Thanks, but I'd rather hang out with Philly fans at this point. They're friendlier.

This happened under Ted's watch.

Not gonna argue about it. But a lot of fans see it my way. They just don't say it here, because we don't want to fight with and insult and belittle fellow Packer fans. To me, THAT'S what being a Packer fan is all about.

So, you blame TT for the split that occurred between Packer fans, but want to pretend the hostility is not over Favre? I didn't know there were so many Packer fans so emotional about the decision not to keep Noah Herron in 2008.

[sharpe1027]

It seems pretty clear that Favre wanted out so he could play for Minnesota and that MM and TT knew it. Favre didn't like TT and maybe he didn't like MM either. Maybe he was justified. Either way, Favre admitted he couldn't commit 100% to the team, MM and TT told him they weren't 100% committed to him and that he'd have to compete (of course what player doesn't have to compete).

In any event, it is foolish to be continue to be so pissed off at either side when the they both were sick of each other and wanted to move on. Smart decision both ways.

One side might look more or less right to different people, but it still was a mutual parting. Nothing to see here folks. Moving on... :beat: :beat:

[Pugger]

It seems pretty clear that Favre wanted out so he could play for Minnesota and that MM and TT knew it. Favre didn't like TT and maybe he didn't like MM either. Maybe he was justified. Either way, Favre admitted he couldn't commit 100% to the team, MM and TT told him they weren't 100% committed to him and that he'd have to compete (of course what player doesn't have to compete).

In any event, it is foolish to be continue to be so pissed off at either side when the they both were sick of each other and wanted to move on. Smart decision both ways.

One side might look more or less right to different people, but it still was a mutual parting. Nothing to see here folks. Moving on... :beat: :beat:

+1

I believe it was more MM than TT in the BF saga. If BF wasn't 100% committed to GB would we really want him in there? It is clearly evident that Favre has wanted to go to MN for a while now. I'm sure he got real pissed at management when they wouldn't give him his unconditional release after he 'retired' and that was the driving force behind BF going on Fox and airing dirty laundry. You may be right, both parties have had enough. Mortensen of BSPN even hinted that Packers' management wanted to take control of the franchise after Favre retired.

[swede]

...Favre retired...

It's like abstract art, those two words together. Real and unreal. Representative, yet mutually exclusive. Transitive, connected and disconnected, ebony and irony, April Fool's and Halloween III, Glocks and chimps.

[Lurker64]

While I was working out today, ESPN was showing tape of Brett saying that his current team is the best team he has ever played on. This is very debateable but I think the 96-97 team was his best but .......

Yeah, I would say that the 96 Packers had a better defense than the current Vikings, and a better passing game. The Vikes have the edge in the running game, but that defense for the superbowl team was world-class. The Vikings defense this year has already given up 20 or more points as many times as the 96 Packers defense did all year.

[Deputy Nutz]

Then people should "be objective" about TT, too.

This is what TT has done - totally divided this "Packer Nation" that TH87 speaks about.

There are no "two groups" anymore. I was a member of group 2, and not anymore. How does that happen suddenly? I don't even believe in this "group 2" idea anymore. I never thought there would be a day when I didn't support the Packers 100%, but that happened. And I will not be able to support the organization fully until Thompson is gone.

I agree with everything Nutz has posted in the recent weeks. And I'm not the only one. I just don't see the point in debating it with people who won't change their mind, just like I won't change mine.

The way I see it, Ted Thompson hasn't ruined the Packers. He has ruined Packer Nation.

Really? TT has ruined the Packers? Do half of you people that hate Thompson realize that it was primarily McCarthy's call to not let Favre come back?

Learn how to read. She said he hasn't ruined the Packers, just Packer Nation. I agree with you, it was mostly McCarthy's call, but they both hated Favre because he was successful and they want their names in the bright lights.

[Deputy Nutz]

Then people should "be objective" about TT, too.

This is what TT has done - totally divided this "Packer Nation" that TH87 speaks about.

There are no "two groups" anymore. I was a member of group 2, and not anymore. How does that happen suddenly? I don't even believe in this "group 2" idea anymore. I never thought there would be a day when I didn't support the Packers 100%, but that happened. And I will not be able to support the organization fully until Thompson is gone.

I agree with everything Nutz has posted in the recent weeks. And I'm not the only one. I just don't see the point in debating it with people who won't change their mind, just like I won't change mine.

The way I see it, Ted Thompson hasn't ruined the Packers. He has ruined Packer Nation.

Of all the posters who feel that TT wrecked Packer Nation, I wonder how many were Packer fans before the Favre era. My guess is that most if not all became fans after 1993 and, in large part, because of Favre. Whereas those of us who followed the Packers in the long decades BF (Before Favre) have other experiences and memories to draw on, and probably have an easier time envisioning the Packers without Brett.

I'm not saying this to belittle anyone. If you are of a generation that has only known the Packers with Favre as their icon, I can kind of understand why it would seem that something fundamental is now missing, and it would be harder to understand why TT or McCarthy would have taken the direction they did.

Funny how all of you TT backers want to know about my past as a Packer fan. Goofy bastards. I was a Packer fan in the late 1980s can't remember much before that.

[hoosier]

Then people should "be objective" about TT, too.

This is what TT has done - totally divided this "Packer Nation" that TH87 speaks about.

There are no "two groups" anymore. I was a member of group 2, and not anymore. How does that happen suddenly? I don't even believe in this "group 2" idea anymore. I never thought there would be a day when I didn't support the Packers 100%, but that happened. And I will not be able to support the organization fully until Thompson is gone.

I agree with everything Nutz has posted in the recent weeks. And I'm not the only one. I just don't see the point in debating it with people who won't change their mind, just like I won't change mine.

The way I see it, Ted Thompson hasn't ruined the Packers. He has ruined Packer Nation.

Of all the posters who feel that TT wrecked Packer Nation, I wonder how many were Packer fans before the Favre era. My guess is that most if not all became fans after 1993 and, in large part, because of Favre. Whereas those of us who followed the Packers in the long decades BF (Before Favre) have other experiences and memories to draw on, and probably have an easier time envisioning the Packers without Brett.

I'm not saying this to belittle anyone. If you are of a generation that has only known the Packers with Favre as their icon, I can kind of understand why it would seem that something fundamental is now missing, and it would be harder to understand why TT or McCarthy would have taken the direction they did.

Funny how all of you TT backers want to know about my past as a Packer fan. Goofy bastards. I was a Packer fan in the late 1980s can't remember much before that.

I guess you are the exception then. But we already knew that. :lol:

[Partial]

While I was working out today, ESPN was showing tape of Brett saying that his current team is the best team he has ever played on. This is very debateable but I think the 96-97 team was his best but .......

Yeah, I would say that the 96 Packers had a better defense than the current Vikings, and a better passing game. The Vikes have the edge in the running game, but that defense for the superbowl team was world-class. The Vikings defense this year has already given up 20 or more points as many times as the 96 Packers defense did all year.

Better defense, maybe a little better, but it's not like the Vikings are bad on D. There DL may not be as good but it's gotta be pretty close. KWill is a unique, special type of talent. Maybe not White good but a notch below, and Allen is probably better than Jones. I suspect they'll be near the top when all is said and done if they stay healthy.

O you kind of have to throw out the window because Favre is referring to his teammates, not himself. Thus, it's tough to compare a 1996 Favre in his physical prime leading a dynamic passing attack to the 40 year old one leading a slightly less dynamic passing attack because the QB plays such an integral role in the equation.

That said, the Vikes might be the better team because their running game is just so much better than the Pack's was. You can't really look at points, yardage etc as the Vikes are a field position, pound the ball and play good defense team, where as the 1996 pack were slinging the ball.

[retailguy]

I've been a Packer fan since, well, forever. I remember Dan Devine as a coach. Most of my early memories come from Bart Starr being coach.

Been a fan since before Ted was a player, and will be a fan long after he is canned.

I really am not a fan of either McCarthy or Thompson, but don't hate them for getting rid of Favre. I had tired of "will he, won't he", long before he "retired".

McCarthy is "just a guy", Sherman was a better coach. But he's good at taking orders and parroting the company line, so he'll be here barring a total meltdown.

Thompson, I'm not a fan. Has great ability to find talent, but the other areas of the job, he is just average. Maybe. Communication skills are simply awful. Almost embarrassing. When he's let go, and he will be (but not for a few years), we will miss his evaluation skills, but appreciate the next guy (if he can communicate).

I'll be a packer fan long after these guys are gone. I was a Packer fan long before they were here.

[Rastak]

While I was working out today, ESPN was showing tape of Brett saying that his current team is the best team he has ever played on. This is very debateable but I think the 96-97 team was his best but .......

Yeah, I would say that the 96 Packers had a better defense than the current Vikings, and a better passing game. The Vikes have the edge in the running game, but that defense for the superbowl team was world-class. The Vikings defense this year has already given up 20 or more points as many times as the 96 Packers defense did all year.


I would say that's fair. Hell, the season isn't even half over, how can we really make any comparisons? Too much football to be played. Too much story to be written.

[b bulldog]

Reggie is better than Allen
Jones is better than Edwards
Williams is better than Dotson
Williams and Brown are a TIE,

Henderson is better than Koonce /Cox
Simmons is better than Greenway
BWilliams is better than Lieber,
Winfield better than CNew
Evans better than Griffin
Butler and Robinson are both better than Vikings S's,

K's are even
P's are even
Howard better than Vikings return game,
Freeman, Brooks, Rison better than top 3 Vikings wr's
Chewey, Jackson better than Shianco
Peterson better than Bennett
Levens better than Vikings FB,

Winters the better C
Timmermen and Taylor a draw with Hutchuinson and other G
T's are a draw also

[ThunderDan]

Reggie is better than Allen
Jones is better than Edwards
Williams is better than Dotson
Williams and Brown are a TIE,

Henderson is better than Koonce /Cox
Simmons is better than Greenway
BWilliams is better than Lieber,
Winfield better than CNew
Evans better than Griffin
Butler and Robinson are both better than Vikings S's,

K's are even
P's are even
Howard better than Vikings return game,
Freeman, Brooks, Rison better than top 3 Vikings wr's
Chewey, Jackson better than Shianco
Peterson better than Bennett
Levens better than Vikings FB,

Winters the better C
Timmermen and Taylor a draw with Hutchuinson and other G
T's are a draw also

That's a pretty good list.

[Partial]

Reggie is better than Allen
Jones is better than Edwards
Williams is better than Dotson
Williams and Brown are a TIE,

Henderson is better than Koonce /Cox
Simmons is better than Greenway
BWilliams is better than Lieber,
Winfield better than CNew
Evans better than Griffin
Butler and Robinson are both better than Vikings S's,

K's are even
P's are even
Howard better than Vikings return game,
Freeman, Brooks, Rison better than top 3 Vikings wr's
Chewey, Jackson better than Shianco
Peterson better than Bennett
Levens better than Vikings FB,

Winters the better C
Timmermen and Taylor a draw with Hutchuinson and other G
T's are a draw also

That's a pretty good list.

Yeah, it's a fair list and when looking at it on paper. I think the two matching up would be a really good game with 96 Pack winning largely due to the TEs.

Pack DE's can't tee off because they have to respect Adrian on 1st and 2nd, and then the screen to Harvin and Taylor on third down.

Defensively I think the Vikes could cause the 96 Pack some problems as I think they'd still be able to get a decent pass rush against the OL and certainly stop the run. I think their TE's would carve up the vikes safeties, though.

[b bulldog]

Reggie and Co shut down Sanders, they could do the same to AP.

[b bulldog]

One more thing, the 96 team is head and shoulders better than our current team, WHILE OUR CURRENT TEAM ONLY LOST BY 7 TO THESE VIKINGS.

[Rastak]

One more thing, the 96 team is head and shoulders better than our current team, WHILE OUR CURRENT TEAM ONLY LOST BY 7 TO THESE VIKINGS.


Who were up big and let the foot off the gas.

[retailguy]

One more thing, the 96 team is head and shoulders better than our current team, WHILE OUR CURRENT TEAM ONLY LOST BY 7 TO THESE VIKINGS.


Who were up big and let the foot off the gas.

yup.

we got competitive in garbage time. It wasn't as close as 7 pts.

But it would've been, except for two things, the OL & the DL. No pass rush by the DL and no protection by the OL.... neither of which is likely to change before the next meeting.

[Partial]

Reggie and Co shut down Sanders, they could do the same to AP.

Right, but then they're going to get burned by Favre like we did. They can't go after him full speed or they'll get burned with the screen as both Harvin and Taylor are very good at it. I guess they could send 4 and try there luck.

The vikes are good. They don't have many holes.

[gex]

Then people should "be objective" about TT, too.

This is what TT has done - totally divided this "Packer Nation" that TH87 speaks about.

There are no "two groups" anymore. I was a member of group 2, and not anymore. How does that happen suddenly? I don't even believe in this "group 2" idea anymore. I never thought there would be a day when I didn't support the Packers 100%, but that happened. And I will not be able to support the organization fully until Thompson is gone.

I agree with everything Nutz has posted in the recent weeks. And I'm not the only one. I just don't see the point in debating it with people who won't change their mind, just like I won't change mine.

The way I see it, Ted Thompson hasn't ruined the Packers. He has ruined Packer Nation.

Of all the posters who feel that TT wrecked Packer Nation, I wonder how many were Packer fans before the Favre era. My guess is that most if not all became fans after 1993 and, in large part, because of Favre. Whereas those of us who followed the Packers in the long decades BF (Before Favre) have other experiences and memories to draw on, and probably have an easier time envisioning the Packers without Brett.

I'm not saying this to belittle anyone. If you are of a generation that has only known the Packers with Favre as their icon, I can kind of understand why it would seem that something fundamental is now missing, and it would be harder to understand why TT or McCarthy would have taken the direction they did.

Packer fan since late 70's. Die-hard well before Favre got here. FC speaks the truth about the rift TT and his poor communication skills have caused.Most folks up here in da nortwoods will not shed any tears when he is shown the door. Then the healing of Packer Nation can finally begin. 8-)

[denverYooper]

One more thing, the 96 team is head and shoulders better than our current team, WHILE OUR CURRENT TEAM ONLY LOST BY 7 TO THESE VIKINGS.


Who were up big and let the foot off the gas.

I seem to remember them throwing a deep go when they were "up big". Seems to me like they tried to stomp on the accelerator and missed.

[Rastak]

One more thing, the 96 team is head and shoulders better than our current team, WHILE OUR CURRENT TEAM ONLY LOST BY 7 TO THESE VIKINGS.


Who were up big and let the foot off the gas.

I seem to remember them throwing a deep go when they were "up big". Seems to me like they tried to stomp on the accelerator and missed.


Yes, one play....that would have finished it so point well taken.....just missed it too.

[channtheman]

One more thing, the 96 team is head and shoulders better than our current team, WHILE OUR CURRENT TEAM ONLY LOST BY 7 TO THESE VIKINGS.


Who were up big and let the foot off the gas.

I seem to remember them throwing a deep go when they were "up big". Seems to me like they tried to stomp on the accelerator and missed.

I'm liking the sig you got goin on right now. Isn't it amazing too how many people tuned into MNF to see his debut? I think we have a star on hand!

[Bossman641]

Way way too early to even think of comparing the Vikings to the 96 Packers. Teams have been moving the ball on the Vikings. To their credit, they have stopped teams from scoring points but it's hard to play that way all year long.

[b bulldog]

The Vikings aren't even the best team in football this year. The Giants are clearly better, not even close, and the Saints and Colts are probably as well. As noted earlier also, the 96 Pack ranked number one is both offense and defense. The Vikings are a Dre Bly drop away from having a loss already and they will lose two of their next three.

[pbmax]

Then people should "be objective" about TT, too.

This is what TT has done - totally divided this "Packer Nation" that TH87 speaks about.

There are no "two groups" anymore. I was a member of group 2, and not anymore. How does that happen suddenly? I don't even believe in this "group 2" idea anymore. I never thought there would be a day when I didn't support the Packers 100%, but that happened. And I will not be able to support the organization fully until Thompson is gone.

I agree with everything Nutz has posted in the recent weeks. And I'm not the only one. I just don't see the point in debating it with people who won't change their mind, just like I won't change mine.

The way I see it, Ted Thompson hasn't ruined the Packers. He has ruined Packer Nation.

Of all the posters who feel that TT wrecked Packer Nation, I wonder how many were Packer fans before the Favre era. My guess is that most if not all became fans after 1993 and, in large part, because of Favre. Whereas those of us who followed the Packers in the long decades BF (Before Favre) have other experiences and memories to draw on, and probably have an easier time envisioning the Packers without Brett.

I'm not saying this to belittle anyone. If you are of a generation that has only known the Packers with Favre as their icon, I can kind of understand why it would seem that something fundamental is now missing, and it would be harder to understand why TT or McCarthy would have taken the direction they did.

Packer fan since late 70's. Die-hard well before Favre got here. FC speaks the truth about the rift TT and his poor communication skills have caused.Most folks up here in da nortwoods will not shed any tears when he is shown the door. Then the healing of Packer Nation can finally begin. 8-)
But how many people must be affected for a true divide to exist?

I have a friend who has been a Packer fan all his life. Native-born WI. His TV room is essentially a Packer shrine with a good percentage of the stuff being Favre-related. During the Viking's first drive he pulled down all the Favre stuff and at the first commercial put it in a closet. Its coming back out when Favre retires for good. And this is a man, who after a few cold ones will get misty-eyed talking about the games he has witnessed Favre play in. Season ticket holder, the whole nine yards.

He couldn't care less about Bob Harlan, Ted Thompson, Murphy of McCarthy. Its the Packers all the time. No one gets in the way of that. Not Favre. Not Thompson. The Packers. With or against, no one is bigger than the Packers.

Gex, FC and Nuts and others are no doubt aggrieved. But I am not sure the percentage is high enough to consider the fanbase divided. Certainly over the job Thompson's done, but not over the Franchise.

And I say this with respect for Nuts' point of view. This is my second team. The Browns left Cleveland and I couldn't stomach rooting for a different uniform. I adopted the Packers late. My allegiance is not the same level as my friend's. Its much easier for me to separate out the emotion from the rooting interest now. But for those I know whose emotions are still tied directly to the franchise, Favre has merely caused a headache.

[Scott Campbell]

Then people should "be objective" about TT, too.

This is what TT has done - totally divided this "Packer Nation" that TH87 speaks about.

There are no "two groups" anymore. I was a member of group 2, and not anymore. How does that happen suddenly? I don't even believe in this "group 2" idea anymore. I never thought there would be a day when I didn't support the Packers 100%, but that happened. And I will not be able to support the organization fully until Thompson is gone.

I agree with everything Nutz has posted in the recent weeks. And I'm not the only one. I just don't see the point in debating it with people who won't change their mind, just like I won't change mine.

The way I see it, Ted Thompson hasn't ruined the Packers. He has ruined Packer Nation.


Respectfully, I don't agree with you. Ted did the best he could in a really difficult situation. And that doesn't has to reflect on his overall job performance. I think he handled the Favre thing about as well as anyone could, but that's just a small part of building the roster.

In many ways Favre became bigger than the team. As ugly as the divorce has been, I think its good that were finally beyond that.

[ThunderDan]

Way way too early to even think of comparing the Vikings to the 96 Packers. Teams have been moving the ball on the Vikings. To their credit, they have stopped teams from scoring points but it's hard to play that way all year long.

Honestly,

I think the 09 Vikes would have been 4th or 5th best in the 1996 NFC.

You had SF 49ers, Carolina and Dallas also that were beasts.

[Deputy Nutz]

Way way too early to even think of comparing the Vikings to the 96 Packers. Teams have been moving the ball on the Vikings. To their credit, they have stopped teams from scoring points but it's hard to play that way all year long.

Honestly,

I think the 09 Vikes would have been 4th or 5th best in the 1996 NFC.

You had SF 49ers, Carolina and Dallas also that were beasts.

You are probably wrong, San Fran was not a "great" team, good but that was one of the first times that Young had got concussed. Dallas was getting old very fast and losing to Carolina was proof of that. Carolina was a long shot to even be in the NFC Championship game. A younger team with some talent, but I don't even think they made the playoffs in 1997, neither did Dallas.

[ThunderDan]

Way way too early to even think of comparing the Vikings to the 96 Packers. Teams have been moving the ball on the Vikings. To their credit, they have stopped teams from scoring points but it's hard to play that way all year long.

Honestly,

I think the 09 Vikes would have been 4th or 5th best in the 1996 NFC.

You had SF 49ers, Carolina and Dallas also that were beasts.

You are probably wrong, San Fran was not a "great" team, good but that was one of the first times that Young had got concussed. Dallas was getting old very fast and losing to Carolina was proof of that. Carolina was a long shot to even be in the NFC Championship game. A younger team with some talent, but I don't even think they made the playoffs in 1997, neither did Dallas.

Maybe I am. Here are the D stats:

GB 13.1 ppg 260 ypg
Car 13.6 ppg 298 ypg
Dallas 15.6 ppg 273 ypg
SF 16.1 ppg 291 ypg

Those are the top 4 scoring Ds in the NFL that year. Good luck winning if your D can only give up 2 TDs.

[SMACKTALKIE]

Way way too early to even think of comparing the Vikings to the 96 Packers. Teams have been moving the ball on the Vikings. To their credit, they have stopped teams from scoring points but it's hard to play that way all year long.

Honestly,

I think the 09 Vikes would have been 4th or 5th best in the 1996 NFC.

You had SF 49ers, Carolina and Dallas also that were beasts.

Maybe this can help you decide:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/4668/measuring-minnesotas-potential

Minnesota Vikings: 1998 vs. 2009
'98 OFFENSE '09 OFFENSE
34.8 Points/G 31.2
51 Third down % 49
2.56 Pass TDs/G 1.5
3.88 +20-yard pass/G 2.80
1.31 +40-yard pass/G 0.40
101.5 Passer rating 104.5
28.1 Rushing att./G 28.6
0.88 +20-yard rush/G 0.80
0.31 +40-yard rush/G 0.20
1.06 Rush TDs/G 1.60
1.25 Turnovers/G 0.80
'98 DEFENSE '09 DEFENSE
18.5 Points/G 18.0
34 Third down % 33
2.25 Takeaways/G 2.4
2.38 Sacks/G 3.60


It's the only compairson to another team I can find.

Oh yeah, 5 PAGES OF REPLIES?! HILARIOUS!

[Deputy Nutz]

Way way too early to even think of comparing the Vikings to the 96 Packers. Teams have been moving the ball on the Vikings. To their credit, they have stopped teams from scoring points but it's hard to play that way all year long.

Honestly,

I think the 09 Vikes would have been 4th or 5th best in the 1996 NFC.

You had SF 49ers, Carolina and Dallas also that were beasts.

You are probably wrong, San Fran was not a "great" team, good but that was one of the first times that Young had got concussed. Dallas was getting old very fast and losing to Carolina was proof of that. Carolina was a long shot to even be in the NFC Championship game. A younger team with some talent, but I don't even think they made the playoffs in 1997, neither did Dallas.

Maybe I am. Here are the D stats:

GB 13.1 ppg 260 ypg
Car 13.6 ppg 298 ypg
Dallas 15.6 ppg 273 ypg
SF 16.1 ppg 291 ypg

Those are the top 4 scoring Ds in the NFL that year. Good luck winning if your D can only give up 2 TDs.

You're gay.

[channtheman]

Oh yeah, 5 PAGES OF REPLIES?! HILARIOUS!

WHy is that hilarious?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Best Team Ever?

1962 Packers -- 13 and 1, NFL Champs

OFFENSE

Bart Starr
Paul Hornung
Jim Taylor
Boyd Dowler
Max McGee
Ron Kramer
Bob Skoronski
Fuzzy Thurston
Jim Ringo
Jerry Kramer
Forrest Gregg

DEFENSE

Willie Davis
Dave Hanner
Henry Jordan
Bill Quinlan
Dan Currie
Ray Nitschke
Bill Forester
Herb Adderley
Jesse Whittenton
Hank Greminger
Willie Wood

K - Jerry Kramer
P - Boyd Dowler
PR - Willie Wood
KR - Herb Adderley

EAT YOUR HEART OUT, FAVRE!!

[Pugger]

Best Team Ever?

1962 Packers -- 13 and 1, NFL Champs

OFFENSE

Bart Starr
Paul Hornung
Jim Taylor
Boyd Dowler
Max McGee
Ron Kramer
Bob Skoronski
Fuzzy Thurston
Jim Ringo
Jerry Kramer
Forrest Gregg

DEFENSE

Willie Davis
Dave Hanner
Henry Jordan
Bill Quinlan
Dan Currie
Ray Nitschke
Bill Forester
Herb Adderley
Jesse Whittenton
Hank Greminger
Willie Wood

K - Jerry Kramer
P - Boyd Dowler
PR - Willie Wood
KR - Herb Adderley

EAT YOUR HEART OUT, FAVRE!!

+1

[SnakeLH2006]

While I was working out today, ESPN was showing tape of Brett saying that his current team is the best team he has ever played on. This is very debateable but I think the 96-97 team was his best but .......

AHAHHAAHHAAA.....Yeah, my buddy told me about that quote. Didn't Brett say that his 2008 Jets were the "most talented" team he's played on too? Just classics from Brettie. It really paid off as his top guys said how much of a bitch he was too after the season, no? I like Brett the player, but goddamn if you can take a word he says nowadays seriously. Nixon anyone? Damn.

[MOBB DEEP]

That said, I'm very tired of all the "YOU'RE NOT A FAN UNLESS YOU..." talk. Shut up. Being a fan of something means you enjoy something. Who are you to tell anyone else what brings them joy or how to experience it?

:tup:

I started thinking there was this special private school some went to in order to get their degree and job in deciding who is or is not a Packer fan and who is worthy. :P

HILARIOUS double 0

And spot-on Partial

[MOBB DEEP]

Then people should "be objective" about TT, too.

This is what TT has done - totally divided this "Packer Nation" that TH87 speaks about.

There are no "two groups" anymore. I was a member of group 2, and not anymore. How does that happen suddenly? I don't even believe in this "group 2" idea anymore. I never thought there would be a day when I didn't support the Packers 100%, but that happened. And I will not be able to support the organization fully until Thompson is gone.

I agree with everything Nutz has posted in the recent weeks. And I'm not the only one. I just don't see the point in debating it with people who won't change their mind, just like I won't change mine.

The way I see it, Ted Thompson hasn't ruined the Packers. He has ruined Packer Nation.

Of all the posters who feel that TT wrecked Packer Nation, I wonder how many were Packer fans before the Favre era. My guess is that most if not all became fans after 1993 and, in large part, because of Favre. Whereas those of us who followed the Packers in the long decades BF (Before Favre) have other experiences and memories to draw on, and probably have an easier time envisioning the Packers without Brett.

I'm not saying this to belittle anyone. If you are of a generation that has only known the Packers with Favre as their icon, I can kind of understand why it would seem that something fundamental is now missing, and it would be harder to understand why TT or McCarthy would have taken the direction they did.

Packer fan since late 70's. Die-hard well before Favre got here. FC speaks the truth about the rift TT and his poor communication skills have caused.Most folks up here in da nortwoods will not shed any tears when he is shown the door. Then the healing of Packer Nation can finally begin. 8-)

Now, this is interesting. Gex and I agree on alot when it comes to the "division" in the Nation (GREAT points, btw, FC). Yet Gex and I differ in how we became diehards. I came on board strictly because of Favre and Sharpe. Before then I was idolizing Sweetness. Yet when I fell for the pack I fell hard! I ate, slept, and drank the G&G like nobody's business; depressed for days after losses

So I agree with you Hossier and appreciate your understanding; it DOES feel like something fundamental is missing and I wish it wern't so. We fans have NO control over these moves so who else we gonna blame other than GMs? Im not walking around bashing TT like SO many bash Bert, Ive just identified the source of my angst as I continually ask "what if...."

Im certainly in to the whole nostalgia phenomenon (i even miss the era of banter about Sherman, etc at JSO) so the Nation carrying on sans a 2009-PRO-BOWL-MAKING #4 intially hurt to the core. Life goes on but Dayum...!!!

[bobblehead]

Did Miami fans go through this when Jimmy Johnson basically forced Marino into retirement.

I wonder what the San Fran fans were like when Young took over for Montana.

Chicago fans are too dumb to have been offended when tubby got the rock at the one in the superbowl thus disrespecting one of the all time greats the game will ever see.

[woodbuck27]

Just when you think you've run out of reasons to despise Bert he comes through.

What a complete douchebag.

and a winner. Over the past three seasons to date:

27 W - 12 L (** including 14W - 7L since being a Packer).

The Packers since Favre @ 8 W - 12 L. Painful.

[woodbuck27]

I havn't seen the video including this quote fr. Favre yet, but it would be 'in fact' my opinion a tad early to make such a statement. It might be Rah Rah stuff if 'in fact' it's true. :D

The Vikings need to improve their pass defense.

[woodbuck27]

These are the facts Re: wins and zero loss's seasons and 'Favre' and 'the Vikings':

Favre has made the Vikings' decision to place their short-term success in his hands a good one, as he is off to the best start of his career in terms of wins.

He had twice before gone 4-0, doing so in 1998 and 2007 with Green Bay, and both of those seasons resulted in playoff appearances.

One day after his 40th birthday, Favre threw for 232 yards with a touchdown pass in last Sunday's 38-10 victory over St. Louis. In winning their sixth straight game dating back to last season, the Vikings remained up on second- place Chicago in the NFC North. The Bears are 3-1.

Minnesota hasn't won seven games in a row since it began 2000 by going 7-0.

[gex]

Then people should "be objective" about TT, too.

This is what TT has done - totally divided this "Packer Nation" that TH87 speaks about.

There are no "two groups" anymore. I was a member of group 2, and not anymore. How does that happen suddenly? I don't even believe in this "group 2" idea anymore. I never thought there would be a day when I didn't support the Packers 100%, but that happened. And I will not be able to support the organization fully until Thompson is gone.

I agree with everything Nutz has posted in the recent weeks. And I'm not the only one. I just don't see the point in debating it with people who won't change their mind, just like I won't change mine.

The way I see it, Ted Thompson hasn't ruined the Packers. He has ruined Packer Nation.

Of all the posters who feel that TT wrecked Packer Nation, I wonder how many were Packer fans before the Favre era. My guess is that most if not all became fans after 1993 and, in large part, because of Favre. Whereas those of us who followed the Packers in the long decades BF (Before Favre) have other experiences and memories to draw on, and probably have an easier time envisioning the Packers without Brett.

I'm not saying this to belittle anyone. If you are of a generation that has only known the Packers with Favre as their icon, I can kind of understand why it would seem that something fundamental is now missing, and it would be harder to understand why TT or McCarthy would have taken the direction they did.

Packer fan since late 70's. Die-hard well before Favre got here. FC speaks the truth about the rift TT and his poor communication skills have caused.Most folks up here in da nortwoods will not shed any tears when he is shown the door. Then the healing of Packer Nation can finally begin. 8-)

Now, this is interesting. Gex and I agree on alot when it comes to the "division" in the Nation (GREAT points, btw, FC). Yet Gex and I differ in how we became diehards. I came on board strictly because of Favre and Sharpe. Before then I was idolizing Sweetness. Yet when I fell for the pack I fell hard! I ate, slept, and drank the G&G like nobody's business; depressed for days after losses

So I agree with you Hossier and appreciate your understanding; it DOES feel like something fundamental is missing and I wish it wern't so. We fans have NO control over these moves so who else we gonna blame other than GMs? Im not walking around bashing TT like SO many bash Bert, Ive just identified the source of my angst as I continually ask "what if...."

Im certainly in to the whole nostalgia phenomenon (i even miss the era of banter about Sherman, etc at JSO) so the Nation carrying on sans a 2009-PRO-BOWL-MAKING #4 intially hurt to the core. Life goes on but Dayum...!!!

I dont see what the big deal is anyways, its not like THIS is the year the Pack is going all the way. TT prolly wants to tank 2-3 more years and get those high draft picks and THEN make a run for the Super Bowl. Let the old man get another ring and ride off into the sunset. We can always tell the Minny fans that they needed our HOF to get them their 1st Lombardi trophy! :lol:

[gex]

Then people should "be objective" about TT, too.

This is what TT has done - totally divided this "Packer Nation" that TH87 speaks about.

There are no "two groups" anymore. I was a member of group 2, and not anymore. How does that happen suddenly? I don't even believe in this "group 2" idea anymore. I never thought there would be a day when I didn't support the Packers 100%, but that happened. And I will not be able to support the organization fully until Thompson is gone.

I agree with everything Nutz has posted in the recent weeks. And I'm not the only one. I just don't see the point in debating it with people who won't change their mind, just like I won't change mine.

The way I see it, Ted Thompson hasn't ruined the Packers. He has ruined Packer Nation.

Of all the posters who feel that TT wrecked Packer Nation, I wonder how many were Packer fans before the Favre era. My guess is that most if not all became fans after 1993 and, in large part, because of Favre. Whereas those of us who followed the Packers in the long decades BF (Before Favre) have other experiences and memories to draw on, and probably have an easier time envisioning the Packers without Brett.

I'm not saying this to belittle anyone. If you are of a generation that has only known the Packers with Favre as their icon, I can kind of understand why it would seem that something fundamental is now missing, and it would be harder to understand why TT or McCarthy would have taken the direction they did.

Packer fan since late 70's. Die-hard well before Favre got here. FC speaks the truth about the rift TT and his poor communication skills have caused.Most folks up here in da nortwoods will not shed any tears when he is shown the door. Then the healing of Packer Nation can finally begin. 8-)

Now, this is interesting. Gex and I agree on alot when it comes to the "division" in the Nation (GREAT points, btw, FC). Yet Gex and I differ in how we became diehards. I came on board strictly because of Favre and Sharpe. Before then I was idolizing Sweetness. Yet when I fell for the pack I fell hard! I ate, slept, and drank the G&G like nobody's business; depressed for days after losses

So I agree with you Hossier and appreciate your understanding; it DOES feel like something fundamental is missing and I wish it wern't so. We fans have NO control over these moves so who else we gonna blame other than GMs? Im not walking around bashing TT like SO many bash Bert, Ive just identified the source of my angst as I continually ask "what if...."

Im certainly in to the whole nostalgia phenomenon (i even miss the era of banter about Sherman, etc at JSO) so the Nation carrying on sans a 2009-PRO-BOWL-MAKING #4 intially hurt to the core. Life goes on but Dayum...!!!

I dont see what the big deal is anyways, its not like THIS is the year the Pack is going all the way. TT prolly wants to tank 2-3 more years and get those high draft picks and THEN make a run for the Super Bowl. Let the old man get another ring and ride off into the sunset. We can always tell the Minny fans that they needed our HOF to get them their 1st Lombardi trophy! :lol:

[gex]

Then people should "be objective" about TT, too.

This is what TT has done - totally divided this "Packer Nation" that TH87 speaks about.

There are no "two groups" anymore. I was a member of group 2, and not anymore. How does that happen suddenly? I don't even believe in this "group 2" idea anymore. I never thought there would be a day when I didn't support the Packers 100%, but that happened. And I will not be able to support the organization fully until Thompson is gone.

I agree with everything Nutz has posted in the recent weeks. And I'm not the only one. I just don't see the point in debating it with people who won't change their mind, just like I won't change mine.

The way I see it, Ted Thompson hasn't ruined the Packers. He has ruined Packer Nation.

Of all the posters who feel that TT wrecked Packer Nation, I wonder how many were Packer fans before the Favre era. My guess is that most if not all became fans after 1993 and, in large part, because of Favre. Whereas those of us who followed the Packers in the long decades BF (Before Favre) have other experiences and memories to draw on, and probably have an easier time envisioning the Packers without Brett.

I'm not saying this to belittle anyone. If you are of a generation that has only known the Packers with Favre as their icon, I can kind of understand why it would seem that something fundamental is now missing, and it would be harder to understand why TT or McCarthy would have taken the direction they did.

Packer fan since late 70's. Die-hard well before Favre got here. FC speaks the truth about the rift TT and his poor communication skills have caused.Most folks up here in da nortwoods will not shed any tears when he is shown the door. Then the healing of Packer Nation can finally begin. 8-)

Now, this is interesting. Gex and I agree on alot when it comes to the "division" in the Nation (GREAT points, btw, FC). Yet Gex and I differ in how we became diehards. I came on board strictly because of Favre and Sharpe. Before then I was idolizing Sweetness. Yet when I fell for the pack I fell hard! I ate, slept, and drank the G&G like nobody's business; depressed for days after losses

So I agree with you Hossier and appreciate your understanding; it DOES feel like something fundamental is missing and I wish it wern't so. We fans have NO control over these moves so who else we gonna blame other than GMs? Im not walking around bashing TT like SO many bash Bert, Ive just identified the source of my angst as I continually ask "what if...."

Im certainly in to the whole nostalgia phenomenon (i even miss the era of banter about Sherman, etc at JSO) so the Nation carrying on sans a 2009-PRO-BOWL-MAKING #4 intially hurt to the core. Life goes on but Dayum...!!!

I dont see what the big deal is anyways, its not like THIS is the year the Pack is going all the way. TT prolly wants to tank 2-3 more years and get those high draft picks and THEN make a run for the Super Bowl. Let the old man get another ring and ride off into the sunset. We can always tell the Minny fans that they needed our HOF to get them their 1st Lombardi trophy! :lol:

oops :oops: dp

[Deputy Nutz]

Did Miami fans go through this when Jimmy Johnson basically forced Marino into retirement.

I wonder what the San Fran fans were like when Young took over for Montana.

Chicago fans are too dumb to have been offended when tubby got the rock at the one in the superbowl thus disrespecting one of the all time greats the game will ever see.

I thought that was Dave Wanstedt or Mr. Mustache.

[3irty1]

We're already comparing the 09 Queens to the 96 pack?! I think its more likely that they've played some of the worst teams fielded in recent history rather than that they are one of the best. I mean the Browns brought the fire sale to the NFL. After week 4. The Lions are a few months removed for being the first team in history to lose every game, and the Rams are simply awful. The Packers have limped out of the gate and right now beating them is no huge feat. Plus anything can happen in a division game. Their best win was probably the 49ers who are a middle of the road team that they beat by a miracle.

We'll have an idea of how good they are this week. Right now I have no reason not to believe that the 96 Packers would destroy them in every aspect of the game.

[b bulldog]

Well Vikings fans, change your mind yet??? The best thing about the 09 Vikings is how predictable their collapse was :lol: What a pathetic organization, the NFL's ultimate fraud!!!!!

[cheesner]

Well Vikings fans, change your mind yet??? The best thing about the 09 Vikings is how predictable their collapse was :lol: What a pathetic organization, the NFL's ultimate fraud!!!!!A little harsh?

Although I also predicted a Viking collapse, they still remain a team with a lot of dangerous weapons. I do want to play them again, because I think we can beat them, whether they are at their best or not.

[mngolf19]

Well Vikings fans, change your mind yet??? The best thing about the 09 Vikings is how predictable their collapse was :lol: What a pathetic organization, the NFL's ultimate fraud!!!!!

This was not a Vikings fan's opinion, it was Favre's. And how exactly was it predictable? And if they finish 12-4 is that really a collapse? :roll:

[Cheesehead Craig]

Playoff seeding and performance in the playoffs will determine if this was a collapse or not.

[Lurker64]

While Bulldog might be being a little harsh, I think it should be clear to everybody at this point that the 2009 Vikings are not in the same league as the 1996 Packers. Even the QB was better for the 96 Packers ;)

[mraynrand]

I kinda liked that 1984 Vikings squad.

[swede]

Why does Brett forget that the best team he ever played on was the '91 Atlanta Falcons? He had Rison, Dixon, Pritchard and Haynes to throw to, and Le Bel was a good tight end. Brad Daluiso was a fine kicker. That dumbass Chris Miller got all the quarterback snaps in practice so Favre had to practice throwing to himself--which came in handy since he both threw and caught the first pass he ever tossed in a game.

That team won its first playoff game and then lost to the eventual champions, the Washington Redskins. Favre's recollections of that fine, fine team may be a bit clouded by the fact that his regular season contribution to the team was 4 attempts, zero completions, and two interceptions.

[mraynrand]

Why does Brett forget that the best team he ever played on was the '91 Atlanta Falcons? He had Rison, Dixon, Pritchard and Haynes to throw to, and Le Bel was a good tight end. Brad Daluiso was a fine kicker. That dumbass Chris Miller got all the quarterback snaps in practice so Favre had to practice throwing to himself--which came in handy since he both threw and caught the first pass he ever tossed in a game.

That team won its first playoff game and then lost to the eventual champions, the Washington Redskins. Favre's recollections of that fine, fine team may be a bit clouded by the fact that ...

he was on the sauce.

"Where's #4?" - Jerry Glanville

[mmmdk]

Well Vikings fans, change your mind yet??? The best thing about the 09 Vikings is how predictable their collapse was :lol: What a pathetic organization, the NFL's ultimate fraud!!!!!A little harsh?

Although I also predicted a Viking collapse, they still remain a team with a lot of dangerous weapons. I do want to play them again, because I think we can beat them, whether they are at their best or not.

I don't know about that; Jared Allen & BF had MVP games vs Packers...take those stats away and they're just [pretty] good. :wink: It would only work if Packers actually beat the Vikings the third time around. I simply couldn't stand another loss vs Bert - and Bert seems poised for killing our Green'n'Gold this season. It would be extremely sweet though but the horror, the horror lurks. Just an opinion.