LOMBARDI

[red]

pretty much every single person on this site knows just how great st. vincent was

but for those of you that somehow still have doubts, read this and beam with pride that he was our coach

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/03/vince-lombardi-accepted-gay-players-on-his-team/

[MJZiggy]

There is no way Vince would have tolerated discrimination of any kind. Yeah. Totally proud he was a Packer great!

[woodbuck27]

Thanks red... that's an illuminating article.

Who knew. Did that ..... 'really' matter?

Women love GAY Men. Their often hilarious. Good spirited.

They learned to be because laughter sure beats crying/moaning.

Why can't we all simply get to >>> it is ...what... it is. Accept it!?

I know why that policy doesn't dominate/rule. Here's a hint:

There are three things that I was raised to never discuss;

1) Religion 2) Politics 3) Sex

Never discuss all three with anyone that I didn't know very very well.

I've never known anyone>>>very very well.

[gbgary]

he supported interracial marriages on the team too. he was true greatness and way ahead of his time.

[MJZiggy]

Another stand up dude. http://www.todaystmj4.com/sports/green-bay-packers/205905321.html

[woodbuck27]

Another stand up dude. http://www.todaystmj4.com/sports/green-bay-packers/205905321.html

There you go:

There are three things that I was raised to never discuss;

1) Religion 2) Politics 3) Sex

[The Shadow]

I get the distinct feeling that Coach Lombardi is being co-opted by progressive revisionists seeking to advance a cultural agenda. Vince could very well have been somewhat ahead of his times, but to make him a lightning rod advocate for gays is - at least in my opinion - stretching things a lot.

[MJZiggy]

I get the distinct feeling that Coach Lombardi is being co-opted by progressive revisionists seeking to advance a cultural agenda. Vince could very well have been somewhat ahead of his times, but to make him a lightning rod advocate for gays is - at least in my opinion - stretching things a lot.

Read When Pride Still Mattered again. I can't remember whether Jerry Kramer touched on it in his book as well.

[Iron Mike]

Hell yeah, VL was ahead of his time:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/577655_590871027604827_271651200_n.jpg

[hoosier]

There is something goofy at the bottom left of that GBP letterhead: Western Division Champions 1938-1960???? That would have been quite a run.

[KYPack]

There is something goofy at the bottom left of that GBP Western Division Champions 1938-1960???? That would have been quite a run.

It meant GBP "won" the Western Division championship in 1938, lost to the Giants for the championship.

"Won" the Western Division championship in 1960, lost to the Eagles for the championship.

Factual, but worded pretty badly.

(The notation should have read, VL:hn cc GOD)

[hoosier]

It meant GBP "won" the Western Division championship in 1938, lost to the Giants for the championship.

"Won" the Western Division championship in 1960, lost to the Eagles for the championship.

Factual, but worded pretty badly.

(The notation should have read, VL:hn cc GOD)

I dunno, that looks more like a dash than a comma to me. But even if it is a comma, they won the Western in 1936, '39, and '44 too. Why not list those years as well? ('39 and '44 were NFL championship years, but '36 wasn't, so at least '36 should be listed there too if it is a comma).

[KYPack]

I dunno, that looks more like a dash than a comma to me. But even if it is a comma, they won the Western in 1936, '39, and '44 too. Why not list those years as well? ('39 and '44 were NFL championship years, but '36 wasn't, so at least '36 should be listed there too if it is a comma).

Yeah, yer right but I think the idea was to list the WD championships.

'36 was a Championship team,'60 we should have won the championship that year.

[hoosier]

I'm wrong, they were NFL champs in '36. It even shows up on the banners on the bottom right. I guess that makes your original explanation the winner.

[KYPack]

Hoosier, is your avatar from MIB III?

Saw that flick today and laughed when I saw it.

[hoosier]

Nah, it came from a Science article on the ugliest animals in the world. The author was trying to refute the idea that nature makes sure the young are cute so their parents won't abandon (or devour) them. For some reason that idea resonated deeply with my experience with three to five year olds.