naughty & nice - Vikings game

[red]

Don't blame the fans, they were just injured.

yeah, in the head

[Patler]

i really is amazing, whenever you question any player, someone on here(not just you patler), will blame injuries

wr's can't get open - because of injuries
a-rod throws 30 feet over guys heads often early in the season- its because the wr's were injured

eddy lacy is fat- because he's injured

fat mike designs terrible game plans earlier this year and for most of last year - all injury related

no pass rush- injuries

special teams suck- too many injured players

guys drop balls that hit them right in the hands- they must be injured

yeti is right, its the default excuse among packer fans when something doesn't go right

How was I excusing Cobb due to injuries? I just pointed out that he seems to be injured all the time. As I said, that is part of the problem with him. The other problem with Cobb (which I didn't bother to delve into in my last post, but argued at length before he signed) is what the JSO article pointed out last year, he seems to be effective mostly only in extended/broken plays. I think WRs are grossly overpaid as a group, and Cobb more so than most.

Lacy? Frankly I don't know what the team expected for weight, if he hit or missed it. Mostly, I don't care. All I know is that he was very effective before he was injured, so why should I bitch about it and demean him? Based on what?

I complained about Rodgers' play last year already and most on here told me I was nuts. It wasn't until halfway through this year that it became "fashionable" to criticize AR. Heck, there is a thread on here in which I went play by play on the last drive in the playoff loss to Seattle, and pointed out that AR made several very poor decisions.

It amazes me how many think that unless you hitch CONSTANTLY, about absolutely EVERYTHING, you are making excuses for them.

It also amazes me how many seem to think players should be perfect in absolutely everything, and that any mistake is "inexcusable". Really?

It doesn't matter that the guy playing major snaps was the 4th or 5th in line to start the season, or is FA off the street. There is no excuse for him not being just as effective as the #1 guy.

[RashanGary]

The Packers are first in the NFC in total wins since 1990 or since 2000.

They've had more wins since 1990 than every team except pit. And they've had 6 more wins. Indy, NE and pit have had more wins since 2000.

Still, the Packers are the most successful NFC team of the last 25 years. And really any 10 year stretch in there including Thompson/MM's last 10.

Some fans do have a positive view of the Packers in recent years. I'd call it intelligent and realistic, definitely grounded in wins.

[bobblehead]

no packer player has ever under performed, they were just injured

TT has also never drafted a non-pro bowler, some guys just don't make it due to injuries

i really is amazing, whenever you question any player, someone on here(not just you patler), will blame injuries

secondary sucks- its because of injuries
guys get healthy and the secondary still sucks - its because they were hurt

wr's can't get open - because of injuries
a-rod throws 30 feet over guys heads often early in the season- its because the wr's were injured

eddy lacy is fat- because he's injured

fat mike designs terrible game plans earlier this year and for most of last year - all injury related

no pass rush- injuries

special teams suck- too many injured players

guys drop balls that hit them right in the hands- they must be injured

yeti is right, its the default excuse among packer fans when something doesn't go right

Team tears up a 5 game win streak and is poised to enter playoffs hottest team in entire NFL...lucky, and TT sucks.

[Rutnstrut]

Don't forget Red that if you are a realist and don't see EVERYTHING through green and gold glasses. You either aren't a true fan or are a troll.

[red]

How was I excusing Cobb due to injuries? I just pointed out that he seems to be injured all the time. As I said, that is part of the problem with him. The other problem with Cobb (which I didn't bother to delve into in my last post, but argued at length before he signed) is what the JSO article pointed out last year, he seems to be effective mostly only in extended/broken plays. I think WRs are grossly overpaid as a group, and Cobb more so than most.

Lacy? Frankly I don't know what the team expected for weight, if he hit or missed it. Mostly, I don't care. All I know is that he was very effective before he was injured, so why should I bitch about it and demean him? Based on what?

I complained about Rodgers' play last year already and most on here told me I was nuts. It wasn't until halfway through this year that it became "fashionable" to criticize AR. Heck, there is a thread on here in which I went play by play on the last drive in the playoff loss to Seattle, and pointed out that AR made several very poor decisions.

It amazes me how many think that unless you hitch CONSTANTLY, about absolutely EVERYTHING, you are making excuses for them.

It also amazes me how many seem to think players should be perfect in absolutely everything, and that any mistake is "inexcusable". Really?

It doesn't matter that the guy playing major snaps was the 4th or 5th in line to start the season, or is FA off the street. There is no excuse for him not being just as effective as the #1 guy.

i didn't read the last line of your original post. you take that away, and it seems like you were just using the injury excuse for cobb, like my list states. it really is amazing how one line can change the tone of a post

and the other list was more of a joke/ really what i've read/heard from other people over the last year or so

[red]

The Packers are first in the NFC in total wins since 1990 or since 2000.

They've had more wins since 1990 than every team except pit. And they've had 6 more wins. Indy, NE and pit have had more wins since 2000.

Still, the Packers are the most successful NFC team of the last 25 years. And really any 10 year stretch in there including Thompson/MM's last 10.

Some fans do have a positive view of the Packers in recent years. I'd call it intelligent and realistic, definitely grounded in wins.

and i would say the only number that anyone should really care about over those 25 years is 2

and is 2 really enough for one of the 2 best teams over the last 25 years

imo, no, its not. and thats where the team failed

in 25 years, no one is gonna give a shit who one the nfc north in 2016 but lost in the conference championship

[Patler]

Don't forget Red that if you are a realist and don't see EVERYTHING through green and gold glasses. You either aren't a true fan or are a troll.

...and unless you bitch and moan constantly, complain about everything, dismiss the positive as " accidental" or just "luck" and, most importantly, call players, coaches and administrators by derogatory names, you are an apologist who continuously makes excuses and sees everything through green and gold glasses.

[texaspackerbacker]

It's NOT merely about Super Bowl wins. It's about wins and losses in general - that's what will be remembered 25 years later or whatever. Of course, we as Packer fans remember the two SB wins, but do any or many of us remember who had how many wins, etc. among teams we basically don't care about? No - but if we're asked about who in general has been the best teams/has the most wins over that time period, that's an easy one - THAT is what people remember most.

That being said, though, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with "seeing everything through green and gold glasses". Realism and Homerism are NOT mutually exclusive, and if your team is good, which ours certainly has been, that Homerism comes a lot closer to Realism that being negative all the time and basically being too timid or whatever to come out and brag about how good our side is. In a lot of cases, maybe most, it really is "luck" or "accident" or whatever when things go wrong. That, of course, applies to a whole lot more than just the Packers.

[George Cumby]

The Apocalypse is nigh.

I actually like and agree with TPB's post.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Everyone is a realist, just on their own side of the fence.

[Zool]

...and unless you bitch and moan constantly, complain about everything, dismiss the positive as " accidental" or just "luck" and, most importantly, call players, coaches and administrators by derogatory names, you are an apologist who continuously makes excuses and sees everything through green and gold glasses.

Yup. There couldn't possibly be any sort of grey area. Either agree with me or you're a moron for I am a savant whose football acumen has yet to be discovered by any team at any level.

[Joemailman]

and i would say the only number that anyone should really care about over those 25 years is 2

and is 2 really enough for one of the 2 best teams over the last 25 years

imo, no, its not. and thats where the team failed

in 25 years, no one is gonna give a shit who one the nfc north in 2016 but lost in the conference championship

Please provide a list of the number of teams that have won more than 2 over the last 25 years. I'll even help you out. 1 is New England.

[King Friday]

Please provide a list of the number of teams that have won more than 2 over the last 25 years. I'll even help you out. 1 is New England.

2 Denver

[red]

Please provide a list of the number of teams that have won more than 2 over the last 25 years. I'll even help you out. 1 is New England.

the good old argument, as long as no other team has done it, then its ok that we don't

has any other team in the nfl had 2 HOF Qb's for 25 years straight?