Bulaga hurt?

[Zool]

Miss the good ol days, that's for sure

Did you just compare complaining on an NFL forum to purse snatching and attempted abduction of said snatchers?

[wist43]

Did you just compare complaining on an NFL forum to purse snatching and attempted abduction of said snatchers?

Who's complaining??

I'm the only complainer around here... you guys are all eyeball dilated on prozac

[Fritz]

You guys are certainly worth the price of admission, lol...

Conscientious objectors certainly talk a good game - push comes to shove, you run though, huh??

I'm sure that was one of you who got away the other day... my brother stopped by the house, left his windows down on his SUV, his wifes purse was on the seat. We watched these two punks walk by... then circle back, casually strolling - - they look around, see no one, one of them goes to reach in the truck to grab the purse.

I yelled, one ran, the other kept casually walking as if he had done nothing... I grabbed the biggest knife I had at easy disposal and bolted out the door and gave chase. Mr. Casual Walker ran like hell, lol...

Would have cut his throat if I'd have caught him - can't run well anymore though, the kid is lucky.

I suspect most of you would have cowered in fear, and called the cops

Do you guys wear pink panties too??

Why do you guys even watch football?? Shouldn't you be watching the communist plot that is soccer?? Picketing MLB stadiums demanding they go to T-ball b/c it's safer??

I love you guys

So if I understand all this correctly, winning a SB three years ago and being in contention each year is not enough - one's favorite team must be tough and punishing, running the ball in a manly way and being defensively aggressive and overly physical.

If a fan enjoys rooting for a very successful football franchise which does not possess these traits, said fan must be cowardly, liberal, and effeminate. And probably a thief, too.

That being said, I think Swede just stole your thunder.

Got it.

[Zool]

Who's complaining??

I'm the only complainer around here... you guys are all eyeball dilated on prozac

So yes

[hoosier]

And he wears pink panties.

[wist43]

So if I understand all this correctly, winning a SB three years ago and being in contention each year is not enough - one's favorite team must be tough and punishing, running the ball in a manly way and being defensively aggressive and overly physical.

If a fan enjoys rooting for a very successful football franchise which does not possess these traits, said fan must be cowardly, liberal, and effeminate. And probably a thief, too.

That being said, I think Swede just stole your thunder.

Got it.

Where you guys get it wrong, is you're so dreamy eyed about being competitive year-in/year-out with an elite passing attack, that you're willing to accept abysmal performance in other areas.

I thought our '96 team was light years better than our '10 team, yet they only won one championship too - and Ron Wolf had it right, "a fart in the wind". Appreciate his honesty.

I focus on what is wrong with the team - you guys focus on what is working. I guess by doing that, you don't ever have to think about what it takes to get better...

As I said in another post - we're becoming the Patriots of the NFC... elite QB keeps us competitve year-in/year-out, but overall team deficiencies keep them from winning it all again. That said, at least NE has won a few championships during their run - we've got our fart in the wind.

[wist43]

I have to show you guys how to do everything!!!

[hoosier]

Question: If the Patriots are too soft and QB-reliant, and the Packers are the Patriots of the NFC and also a fart in the wind, what team's recent history do you like better? Would you rather be San Fran, losing your last games of the year to teams you probably should have beaten? Or would you be the Seahawks, unable to get past the divisional round? Or the Giants, who either win the Superbowl or don't make the playoffs at all? Recent history says the manly teams that eschew the pink panties and go commando haven't fared any better than the Pack in the postseason.

[wist43]

Question: If the Patriots are too soft and QB-reliant, and the Packers are the Patriots of the NFC and also a fart in the wind, what team's recent history do you like better? Would you rather be San Fran, losing your last games of the year to teams you probably should have beaten? Or would you be the Seahawks, unable to get past the divisional round? Or the Giants, who either win the Superbowl or don't make the playoffs at all? Recent history says the manly teams that eschew the pink panties and go commando haven't fared any better than the Pack in the postseason.

Finally, a good post worthy of discussion

Firstly, I wouldn't say NE isn't a fart in the wind, b/c they've won 3 Championships in Brady's tenure.

Everyone hates Belichick though, and rightly so - wouldn't want to be a fan of that team b/c of him; and I do hate their offense - midget football?? Hate it!!!

The Seahawks are an ascending team - learning how to win, and had a rookie QB last year. Expect they'll be tough for quite a while.

I absolutely like the Niners and Giants better than the Packers in terms of their organizational philosophies. Even as I don't much care for Coughlin or Harbaugh.

I appreciate their approach to running the ball and playing defense.

The Giants need a shrink though... can't explain how they can be so severely inconsistent like that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The question then could be asked - would you rather be the Packers that sandwich a SB inbetween three embarrassing playoff ass-whippings??

Arizona 51 - GB 45
Gave up 531 yds

NYG 37 - GB 20
Game wasn't as close as score would indicate - were physically dominated.

SF 45 - GB 31
The 579 of course - game was never in doubt - where physically dominated.

So we have 1 Championship surrounded by 3 complete embarrassments.

You tell me, which teams track record you prefer??

The 1 Championship was nice - but it's 1 Championship... The Giants have 2 in recent memory; the Pats have 3; and Seattle and SF are 2 teams that are both much, much better than the Packers are right now.

We're not going to win the SB this year - it's a long shot unless we get hot, and other teams come back to us. We are a fundamentally flawed team - and it is those flaws that will prevent us from winning a championship this year.

[Freak Out]

Screw the Custard
Let's get Caramelized !

We can do both. So what are we shooting for?

[Fritz]

I have to show you guys how to do everything!!!

Finally, Wist, a good post.

[bobblehead]

SF 45 - GB 31
The 579 of course - game was never in doubt - where physically dominated.
.

Here is my problem with you and Rbaloha. This game was very close. Tied midway through the 3rd quarter. We were not physically dominated, we were out schemed....that almost sounds like a soft way to win....running a trick play the Eric Walden falls for everytime.

We ran the ball very effectively early, got a pick 6 early by our soft defense, and down one score at the midpoint of the 3rd we benched our only healthy running back and didn't run again.

That isn't soft, that is setting your QB up to be killed. If we run effectively this season and MM has confidence to keep calling it, we likely win the big game again. This despite our 2 first round OT's being out.

We are soft?? We have lost a big physical DE 1st round pick, 2 1st round physical OT's, and a big physical 1st round OLB to injury. Show me a team that does that and still wins. ONly one I bet.

We have been unlucky. MM having zero confidence to call run plays at clutch moments doesn't help...but soft?? I just don't buy it.

[Guiness]

Here is my problem with you and Rbaloha. This game was very close. Tied midway through the 3rd quarter. We were not physically dominated, we were out schemed....that almost sounds like a soft way to win....running a trick play the Eric Walden falls for everytime.

We ran the ball very effectively early, got a pick 6 early by our soft defense, and down one score at the midpoint of the 3rd we benched our only healthy running back and didn't run again.

That isn't soft, that is setting your QB up to be killed. If we run effectively this season and MM has confidence to keep calling it, we likely win the big game again. This despite our 2 first round OT's being out.

We are soft?? We have lost a big physical DE 1st round pick, 2 1st round physical OT's, and a big physical 1st round OLB to injury. Show me a team that does that and still wins. ONly one I bet.

We have been unlucky. MM having zero confidence to call run plays at clutch moments doesn't help...but soft?? I just don't buy it.

Good way to sum it up.

There are some losses that are tough to swallow. This is one of them, there just seemed to be no reason why the Pack continued to get carved up, and why they threw the ball down after down.

The loss to Arizona with the non-call of the helmet to helmet on Rodgers was another. The mother of all though was the Jerry Rice fumble.

[pbmax]

Did you just compare complaining on an NFL forum to purse snatching and attempted abduction of said snatchers?

I don't think he meant abduction. Pretty sure he wished to commit a homicide.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...218460911.html

McGinn with an upbeat, "the sky is not falling article. That's what I like about McGinn. He tries to offer a different perspective on things. And he's often right.

After watching last night's game, I'm calling BS on McGinn, at least 50%. David Bakhtiari really is all that, I'm a believer. But looking at the group, starters and depth, the offensive line has been greatly weakened. McGinn enjoys being a contrarian, and with all the doom and gloom talk, he over-corrected with the "what, me worry?" angle. No team is just fine losing #1, #1 and #4 draft picks at same position.

LT sure looks like Bakhtiari's natural home. Bulaga is probably a RT. Hope either Barclay or Newhouse are on upswing, and mostly I pray for no more injuries.