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

[mraynrand]

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

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

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

[Brohm]

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

[texaspackerbacker]

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

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

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

Excellent prediction/conclusion, aynrand.

[Lurker64]

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

[PackerBlues]

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

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

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

[bobblehead]

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

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

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

[texaspackerbacker]

Good analysis, Harlan.

This seems to be shaping up as a parity season.

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

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

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

uhhhh..no

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

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

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

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

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

[sheepshead]

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

[Gunakor]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lurker64]

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

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

[The Leaper]

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

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

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

[texaspackerbacker]

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

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

[Gunakor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chevelle2]

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

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

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

Wow, wonderfully said.

[sheepshead]

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

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

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

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