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

[Partial]

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

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

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

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

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

*sigh*



Lets take a look at those defenses[b] iregarding PA:[/b]

sigh

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

That view is very incomplete and narrow-sighted.

[texaspackerbacker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who else ?

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

[boiga]

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

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

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

[ThunderDan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who else ?

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

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

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

[texaspackerbacker]

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

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

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

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

[boiga]

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

But to say we are the odds on favorite to win the NFCC this year is an overstatement as well. We have a good shot but the team's going to have to work hard and get a little lucky as well.

[esoxx]

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

[packerbacker1234]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[MOBB DEEP]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

GREAT point about other teams not being intimidated by arod

[Partial]

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

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

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

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

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

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

C'mon.