24 Quarters to History [Archive]

yooperfan

12-14-2011, 04:27 PM

It was about this time last year that the Packers had to win out in order to become a champion. If I remember right McCarthy had broken down the rest of the season in quarters to reach their goal. Is there a similiar plan this year?

The Packers are fairly healthy, the depth of the team is coming through again when needed, Rogers is on a historic tear, seeing the end of the tunnel will bring out the best in this team.

I'm excited and nervous.

24 quarters.................another photo on the wall..........

This team is just getting started!

denverYooper

12-14-2011, 04:57 PM

24 quarters.................another photo on the wall..........

I wonder if Nick Barnett will tweet about it.

Tarlam!

12-14-2011, 05:06 PM

RashanGary

12-14-2011, 05:39 PM

Perfect season = Makes Packer legacy stronger = Tons of new fans = Tons of stock sales = Tons of kids of the new fans being fans some day = Grand kids of the kids of the new fans being packer fans some day = very, very, very significant thing for the right now, but expecially the long term sustainability of the Packers in Green Bay. The most unique franchise in pro sports has a chance to add to its awesomeness.

SB is great. Perfect season is a bigger deal than I think most people let on.

Joemailman

12-14-2011, 06:16 PM

Winning back-to-back Super Bowls would make this a memorable team. Doing it undefeated would be historic. Becoming the 1st team to win 3 consecutive Super Bowls, ( as well as the 1st team since the 65-67 Packers to win 3 NFL Titles in a row) would make them one of the NFL's legendary teams.

MJZiggy

12-14-2011, 06:21 PM

I wonder if Nick Barnett will tweet about it. Count on it.

Joemailman

12-14-2011, 06:40 PM

Good thought behind this thread.

Only issue I see is that Rodgers plays better indoors and the Packers have no running game of any notoriety. Having two Lambeau games last should do something in the way of conditioning the team. Also, the additional income for the club is welcome(speaking as a shareholder).

Can't wait to get Jennings back. he's like my secutity blankett.

Packers are fine in the cold. Since 2009 they're 6-0 at Lambeau in December and January, winning by about 22 ppg. Rodgers has averaged 290 yards passing with 14 TD's and 4 INT's. Packers have averaged about 115 yards rushing in those games. Bears are the only team that has been able to shut them down much.

I think people are still a little haunted by the NFCCG against the Giants a few years ago. Favre froze up in the 2nd half of that game. Rodgers won't.

mission

12-14-2011, 07:29 PM

mission

12-14-2011, 07:32 PM

Packers are fine in the cold. Since 2009 they're 6-0 at Lambeau in December and January, winning by about 22 ppg. Rodgers has averaged 290 yards passing with 14 TD's and 4 INT's. Packers have averaged about 115 yards rushing in those games. Bears are the only team that has been able to shut them down much.

I think people are still a little haunted by the NFCCG against the Giants a few years ago. Favre froze up in the 2nd half of that game. Rodgers won't.

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing radio people talk about the Packers not built for cold weather because of their playoff performance last year. The Packers are built to 'be better than you' and the weather won't matter where the hell they're better. I've seen the argument for the 49ers in Lambeau and I really doubt any team is going to run their way to the Super Bowl. This ain't your daddy's NFL.

Plus all you had to do was see Favre's face in that NFCCG to know he didn't want to be there. That was pathetic, even before his season-ending interception.

Smidgeon

12-14-2011, 07:45 PM

Doing it undefeated would make them legendary. Doing it three times in a row would make them The Best Team Ever during the modern era IMO.

Fixed

yooperfan

12-14-2011, 07:52 PM

SB is great. Perfect season is a bigger deal than I think most people let on.

That's what make things so nerve racking and exciting at the same time. but not losing a game for a full year is just astounding and can't help but just enjoy this.

during the modern era

It is very difficult to compare eras. The '62 team had more dominating wins, but only had to win once after the regular season to win the championship.

mission

12-14-2011, 08:20 PM

Fixed

They would beat the shit out of any team from the old days (at the very least) due to size differences.

denverYooper

12-14-2011, 10:22 PM

They would beat the shit out of any team from the old days (at the very least) due to size differences.

That, and they'd be sober.

Packgator

12-14-2011, 11:17 PM

the additional income for the club is welcome(speaking as a shareholder)

Typical owner :)

Packgator

12-14-2011, 11:27 PM

all you had to do was see Favre's face in that NFCCG to know he didn't want to be there. That was pathetic, even before his season-ending interception.

Very obvious.

Tarlam!

12-14-2011, 11:41 PM

I think people are still a little haunted by the NFCCG against the Giants a few years ago. Favre froze up in the 2nd half of that game. Rodgers won't.

Plus all you had to do was see Favre's face in that NFCCG to know he didn't want to be there. That was pathetic, even before his season-ending interception.

Very obvious.

It was painful. I think that look was the icing on the cake for TT take make the transition. I know he looked great in '09, in a dome. But he looked totally out of place in Lambeau in late January in '07. surprising, cause the week before, he looked All-World.

channtheman

12-15-2011, 12:10 AM

It was painful. I think that look was the icing on the cake for TT take make the transition. I know he looked great in '09, in a dome. But he looked totally out of place in Lambeau in late January in '07. surprising, cause the week before, he looked All-World.

It was the freezing cold sucky games that Favre hated. Just a few weeks before that at Chicago when we lost 35-7 I think, you could tell Favre didn't want to be out there either. Looking back, MM probably should have put Rodgers in the Giants game, but there was no way he could have done that if Favre was healthy.

Tarlam!

12-15-2011, 01:08 AM

Looking back, MM probably should have put Rodgers in the Giants game, but there was no way he could have done that if Favre was healthy.

Agree fully. Back then, favre was the Franchise and had rodgers lost that game, I doubt the present day franchise would look as it does. Still, one has to wonder how the game would have played out if M3 HAD benched Favre in the 4th.

Kiwon

12-15-2011, 02:18 AM

Whatever. Just so Rodgers is healthy and ready to go come the playoffs.

yooperfan

12-15-2011, 08:41 AM

Awww, really, this turned into a Favre discussion..........

Good article on JsOnline about the players wanting it...

"The entire team felt the sting of unfulfilled objectives when it lost a wild overtime playoff game against Arizona two years ago. It had to spend an entire off-season wondering what could have been.

Driver said nobody wants to feel that way again.

"Those type of games make you come back the next year and know you can't leave it out there," he said. "That's what happened. Last year, we thought about losing that game and (we) come back as the sixth seed and go out and run the whole thing. We knew those opportunities are slim."

Smidgeon

12-15-2011, 10:30 AM

They would beat the shit out of any team from the old days (at the very least) due to size differences.

But are they comparatively better? True while the size and speed (and soberness) is better these days, so is everyone's. I'm not going to assume that the present Packers team is simply the most dominating of all time. Especially with a porous defense.

12-15-2011, 01:51 PM

That, and they'd be sober.

I think this begs the question, 'Who is the better reciever while drunk: Jerry Rice or Max McGee?'

Tarlam!

12-15-2011, 01:59 PM

But are they comparatively better? True while the size and speed (and soberness) is better these days, so is everyone's. I'm not going to assume that the present Packers team is simply the most dominating of all time. Especially with a porous defense.

That Vic guy over at Packers.com has a lot of minuses, but his insight on the different eras is good value for a relatively new fan such as myself.

He recently informed that O-linemen were caoched to grab their own jerseys at the snap, because until 1970 something, it was illegal for them to block using their hands. He said if Vince were magically to reappear, his first words would be "Hey, those linemen are all holding!".

So my point is, to have two teams from different eras magically face off, there needs to be a set of rules in place that does not give one era an advantage.

yooperfan

12-15-2011, 02:29 PM

I think this begs the question, 'Who is the better reciever while drunk: Jerry Rice or Max McGee?'

McGee hands down!!! or at least hung over......

Upnorth

12-15-2011, 03:16 PM

When comparing apples to apples the lombardi teams are the most dominante in history, and until someone gets close (say 4 in 5 championships) there should not be a discussion. Each team plays within their era's rules, so you have to compare to contemporary teams. No one has had that kind of dominance before or since.

For a single year there can be comparisons, but not for a time period.

Tarlam!

12-15-2011, 08:44 PM

Valid, well thought out argument, IMHO, Upnorth. Are you getting enough sleep?

pbmax

12-16-2011, 09:31 AM

That Vic guy over at Packers.com has a lot of minuses, but his insight on the different eras is good value for a relatively new fan such as myself.

He recently informed that O-linemen were caoched to grab their own jerseys at the snap, because until 1970 something, it was illegal for them to block using their hands. He said if Vince were magically to reappear, his first words would be "Hey, those linemen are all holding!".

So my point is, to have two teams from different eras magically face off, there needs to be a set of rules in place that does not give one era an advantage.

Some of it balances out. Vince might also wonder why no D lineman are using a head slap on the holding O lineman.

Kiwon

12-16-2011, 10:09 AM

Are we going to have in-game updates through this thread? 24 quarters to history....23.....22.....21......20.....

Pugger

12-16-2011, 12:05 PM

Yeah, I'm tired of hearing radio people talk about the Packers not built for cold weather because of their playoff performance last year. The Packers are built to 'be better than you' and the weather won't matter where the hell they're better. I've seen the argument for the 49ers in Lambeau and I really doubt any team is going to run their way to the Super Bowl. This ain't your daddy's NFL.

Plus all you had to do was see Favre's face in that NFCCG to know he didn't want to be there. That was pathetic, even before his season-ending interception.

And was probably one of the reasons why MM was so eager to move on with AR once #4 "retired". ;-)

Upnorth

12-16-2011, 12:42 PM

Valid, well thought out argument, IMHO, Upnorth. Are you getting enough sleep?

So to clarify my confusing points;

1. Vince lombardi's run in the 60's has never been close to equalled. Winning 5 in 7 years and three in a row is absolutley amazing and I feel a team would have tow in 4 championships in 5 years to even be compared to this team.

2. On a single year basis you could compare other teams in terms of dominance, say against the 1965 team or which ever. That is the only way you could compare any other teams to the 60's packers, no others can come close over an extended time period.

3. When you do compare teams from different era's it is hard to make them apples to apples comparisons as the rules and styles vary greatly over different era's.

Finally yes I am quit tired, the new baby sleeps 20ish hours a day, but likes to play at 2 ish in the morning and 6ish, so I wake at 6 and get all the kids ready for the day. Its the 2am crying that really exhausts me though.

mraynrand

12-16-2011, 01:03 PM

1. Vince lombardi's run in the 60's has never been close to equalled. Winning 5 in 7 years and three in a row is absolutley amazing and I feel a team would have tow in 4 championships in 5 years to even be compared to this team.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Y-DbBvf7R5Y/R5zVRt8V00I/AAAAAAAAI00/UP9WXZ3ZiYU/s400/89e5a0e001d481a3d4c026820592dcff.jpg

AAFC Champion (1946, 1947, 1948, 1949)
NFL Champion (1950, 1954, 1955)

Upnorth

12-16-2011, 01:07 PM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Y-DbBvf7R5Y/R5zVRt8V00I/AAAAAAAAI00/UP9WXZ3ZiYU/s400/89e5a0e001d481a3d4c026820592dcff.jpg

AAFC Champion (1946, 1947, 1948, 1949)
NFL Champion (1950, 1954, 1955)

Oh yeah, the Paul Brown's. Sorry forgot about them. Luckily I can pretend that AAFC championships don't matter and then say you don't have a valid point because I am being pig headed.

AAFC chapionships don't matter so you are wrong, nyah.

(they do and I think that the Lombardi Packers are the only ones which might compare to them)

mraynrand

12-16-2011, 01:13 PM

Oh yeah, the Paul Brown's. Sorry forgot about them. Luckily I can pretend that AAFC championships don't matter and then say you don't have a valid point because I am being pig headed.

AAFC chapionships don't matter so you are wrong, nyah.

(they do and I think that the Lombardi Packers are the only ones which might compare to them)

They played in 6 straight NFL championship games, 10 straight championships overall, winning 7. And the NFL championships validated that the AAFC teams were the best in football.

Upnorth

12-16-2011, 01:32 PM

They played in 6 straight NFL championship games, 10 straight championships overall, winning 7. And the NFL championships validated that the AAFC teams were the best in football.

While I will agree with you stating that Cleveland was the best in football for a decade, I do not agree that the AAFC was superior to the NFL. The NFL as a whole was better than the AAFC from what I have read, but Cleveland was at a whole different level.

Is there a team as dominant as Cleveland was in any sport? The closest in Hockey is the habs with 5 in a row and 7 in 10 but they did not make the final in 3 years. How many did the celtics win in bb?