Ty is ON THE RECORD

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Well, folks, imscott with another rationalization. We are lucky..but the other playoff contenders aren't. Lol

We see how your brain works....records above 500 are now average teams. ravens and steelers have problems and suck..yet, just weeks ago there was no way we could beat those juggernauts. We were all crazy for thinking that.

No, most of us don't think like you. We don't realize that we are lucky. good teams lose to bad teams all the time..or should we now say the Bengals suck since they lost to the raiders.

Shouldn't have expected you to man up. That would be too hard.

almost exactly how i predicted it...must really suck for you.

[imscott72]

Well, folks, imscott with another rationalization. We are lucky..but the other playoff contenders aren't. Lol

We see how your brain works....records above 500 are now average teams. ravens and steelers have problems and suck..yet, just weeks ago there was no way we could beat those juggernauts. We were all crazy for thinking that.

No, most of us don't think like you. We don't realize that we are lucky. good teams lose to bad teams all the time..or should we now say the Bengals suck since they lost to the raiders.

Shouldn't have expected you to man up. That would be too hard.

almost exactly how i predicted it...must really suck for you.

Not really surprising you would argue, but I could care less. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I could care less what someone like you thinks.

[ThunderDan]

Well, folks, imscott with another rationalization. We are lucky..but the other playoff contenders aren't. Lol

We see how your brain works....records above 500 are now average teams. ravens and steelers have problems and suck..yet, just weeks ago there was no way we could beat those juggernauts. We were all crazy for thinking that.

No, most of us don't think like you. We don't realize that we are lucky. good teams lose to bad teams all the time..or should we now say the Bengals suck since they lost to the raiders.

Shouldn't have expected you to man up. That would be too hard.

almost exactly how i predicted it...must really suck for you.

Not really surprising you would argue, but I could care less. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I could care less what someone like you thinks.

So no NFC wins count except against Minn and NO?

Who have NO and MINN beat in the NFC then? By that logic they have only beaten creampuffs, ergo they are really creampuffs who have been lucky to beat the other creampuffs and have a better record.

[imscott72]

Well, folks, imscott with another rationalization. We are lucky..but the other playoff contenders aren't. Lol

We see how your brain works....records above 500 are now average teams. ravens and steelers have problems and suck..yet, just weeks ago there was no way we could beat those juggernauts. We were all crazy for thinking that.

No, most of us don't think like you. We don't realize that we are lucky. good teams lose to bad teams all the time..or should we now say the Bengals suck since they lost to the raiders.

Shouldn't have expected you to man up. That would be too hard.

almost exactly how i predicted it...must really suck for you.

Not really surprising you would argue, but I could care less. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I could care less what someone like you thinks.

So no NFC wins count except against Minn and NO?

Who have NO and MINN beat in the NFC then? By that logic they have only beaten creampuffs, ergo they are really creampuffs who have been lucky to beat the other creampuffs and have a better record.

Of course all of those wins count. My point is there are way more poor teams than there good to great teams this year, which I believe gives us a false sense of security of how good our team is. I'm not trying to rain on the parade, but I am being realistic. We played the Vikings twice and got owned each time. Does anyone really think we'd beat the Saints? We've beaten the Browns, Lions, Bears, Rams, 49ers, and Cowboys who are all average or below average teams. I'm just not ready to drink the kool-aid yet.

[Partial]

NFL as a whole is down because college football is also down.

There are only a few dominant teams this year. The Vikes and Saints are the two in the NFC, and I'm still not convinced the Saints are. I still think the NFC favorite to get to the super bowl is the Eagles.

Couldn't tell you who the good AFC teams are besides NE and Indy. One of those two or Pitt will be in the big game. Three best QBs in the AFC.

[sharpe1027]

Of course all of those wins count. My point is there are way more poor teams than there good to great teams this year, which I believe gives us a false sense of security of how good our team is. I'm not trying to rain on the parade, but I am being realistic. We played the Vikings twice and got owned each time. Does anyone really think we'd beat the Saints? We've beaten the Browns, Lions, Bears, Rams, 49ers, and Cowboys who are all average or below average teams. I'm just not ready to drink the kool-aid yet.

So unless you would beat the best two teams you are average at best? I honestly think your conclusion based upon opinion/emotion and runs contrary to common sense.

IMHO, consistently beating average/below average teams means you are an above average team, plain and simple. Right now the Packers are above average. Sure they could end up worse depending on how they play from here on out, but right I'd say they have conclusively established that they are above average.

[imscott72]

Of course all of those wins count. My point is there are way more poor teams than there good to great teams this year, which I believe gives us a false sense of security of how good our team is. I'm not trying to rain on the parade, but I am being realistic. We played the Vikings twice and got owned each time. Does anyone really think we'd beat the Saints? We've beaten the Browns, Lions, Bears, Rams, 49ers, and Cowboys who are all average or below average teams. I'm just not ready to drink the kool-aid yet.

So unless you would beat the best two teams you are average at best?

yes that's correct. It's called a "signature win". When you beat average teams, then get whipped by a top team twice, then lose to a winless team, I'd say you're no more than average yes. You can spin it however you want, but that's the way it is imo.

[packerbacker1234]

12-4 isn't happening. We just lost harris who is one of the best at what he does in the game for the season, and a solid kampman. Were gonna lose 1 or 2 more games minimum.

10 - 6 is more reasonable, the way things shake out.

[sharpe1027]

yes that's correct. It's called a "signature win". When you beat average teams, then get whipped by a top team twice, then lose to a winless team, I'd say you're no more than average yes. You can spin it however you want, but that's the way it is imo.

Eh...I'd argue a lot more spinning is required for your take. Not a big deal, but if you have a .600 record, I'd say that by definition that is above average. Right or wrong, spin is what is required to come to a different conclusion.

Are the Packers disappointing compared to where many of us hoped? Probably. Are they frustrating to watch be cause of the sloppy mistakes? Yes. Still, absent spin, they're still above average.

[imscott72]

yes that's correct. It's called a "signature win". When you beat average teams, then get whipped by a top team twice, then lose to a winless team, I'd say you're no more than average yes. You can spin it however you want, but that's the way it is imo.

Eh...I'd argue a lot more spinning is required for your take. Not a big deal, but if you have a .600 record, I'd say that by definition that is above average. Right or wrong, spin is what is required to come to a different conclusion.

Are the Packers disappointing compared to where many of us hoped? Probably. Are they frustrating to watch be cause of the sloppy mistakes? Yes. Still, absent spin, they're still above average.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you took this same team and put it in the NFC 2-3 seasons ago, I don't think we'd be much better than 8-8 simply because the competition was better. I know that's apples and oranges compared to where the other teams are today, but I thought that might get my point across easier.

[sharpe1027]

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you took this same team and put it in the NFC 2-3 seasons ago, I don't think we'd be much better than 8-8 simply because the competition was better. I know that's apples and oranges compared to where the other teams are today, but I thought that might get my point across easier.

Yeah, I think I understand what you are getting at, and it's subjective so you may be right. But, my point was that they are still an above average team this year.

Also, I feel that while 2-3 seasons ago there might have been a more clear distinctions top to bottom, that doesn't necessarily mean that the level of competition is higher.

How about an analogy...if most everyone but you takes a step forward, you may look like you took a step back. I think that's what's going on. The above-average teams are having a harder time because most other teams are improving. Hell, the Rams nearly beat the best team in football, what does that say about the overall level of play?

[ThunderDan]

Of course all of those wins count. My point is there are way more poor teams than there good to great teams this year, which I believe gives us a false sense of security of how good our team is. I'm not trying to rain on the parade, but I am being realistic. We played the Vikings twice and got owned each time. Does anyone really think we'd beat the Saints? We've beaten the Browns, Lions, Bears, Rams, 49ers, and Cowboys who are all average or below average teams. I'm just not ready to drink the kool-aid yet.

Minnesota has beaten:

Cleveland 1-9
Detroit 2-8
SF 4-6
GB 6-4
STL 1-9
BAL 5-5 (missed last second FG for win)
GB 6-4
DET 2-8
SEA 3-7

Other than GB, Minnestoa hasn't beaten a team with a record over .500.

NO has beaten:
DET 2-8
PHI 6-4
BUF 3-7
NYJ 4-6
NYG 6-4
MIA 5-5
ATL 5-5
CAR 4-6
STL 1-9
TB 1-9

Only two teams with a record over .500.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Well, folks, imscott with another rationalization. We are lucky..but the other playoff contenders aren't. Lol

We see how your brain works....records above 500 are now average teams. ravens and steelers have problems and suck..yet, just weeks ago there was no way we could beat those juggernauts. We were all crazy for thinking that.

No, most of us don't think like you. We don't realize that we are lucky. good teams lose to bad teams all the time..or should we now say the Bengals suck since they lost to the raiders.

Shouldn't have expected you to man up. That would be too hard.

almost exactly how i predicted it...must really suck for you.

Not really surprising you would argue, but I could care less. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I could care less what someone like you thinks.

yet you felt compelled to post in this thread without mentioning your "record' predictions...just more hedging.

And, then felt compelled to reply to my post.

Your logic is so ridiculous that it is stultifying. Great teams. LOL Why are the Vikes a great team? They have beaten exactly one team with a winning record.

[Bossman641]

Of course all of those wins count. My point is there are way more poor teams than there good to great teams this year, which I believe gives us a false sense of security of how good our team is. I'm not trying to rain on the parade, but I am being realistic. We played the Vikings twice and got owned each time. Does anyone really think we'd beat the Saints? We've beaten the Browns, Lions, Bears, Rams, 49ers, and Cowboys who are all average or below average teams. I'm just not ready to drink the kool-aid yet.

Minnesota has beaten:

Cleveland 1-9
Detroit 2-8
SF 4-6
GB 6-4
STL 1-9
BAL 5-5 (missed last second FG for win)
GB 6-4
DET 2-8
SEA 3-7

Other than GB, Minnestoa hasn't beaten a team with a record over .500.

NO has beaten:
DET 2-8
PHI 6-4
BUF 3-7
NYJ 4-6
NYG 6-4
MIA 5-5
ATL 5-5
CAR 4-6
STL 1-9
TB 1-9

Only two teams with a record over .500.

[mraynrand]

Well, folks, imscott with another rationalization. We are lucky..but the other playoff contenders aren't. Lol

We see how your brain works....records above 500 are now average teams. ravens and steelers have problems and suck..yet, just weeks ago there was no way we could beat those juggernauts. We were all crazy for thinking that.

No, most of us don't think like you. We don't realize that we are lucky. good teams lose to bad teams all the time..or should we now say the Bengals suck since they lost to the raiders.

Shouldn't have expected you to man up. That would be too hard.

almost exactly how i predicted it...must really suck for you.

Not really surprising you would argue, but I could care less. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I could care less what someone like you thinks.

yet you felt compelled to post in this thread without mentioning your "record' predictions...just more hedging.

And, then felt compelled to reply to my post.

Your logic is so ridiculous that it is stultifying. Great teams. LOL Why are the Vikes a great team? They have beaten exactly one team with a winning record.

Exactly. Fuck the Vikings. They barely beat us that second game. Rodgers throws to Jennings on that 3rd and 8 - who knows? I'd like to see them again after Favre's been hopefully ragdolled by Carolina, Arizona, and NYG through December. I think Favre will be very cold for that Dec 28 game in Soldier Field. Brrrrrr.....very COLD!!! Keep hope alive!