RE:The Packers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message

Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 6:02:27 AM)

[quote="David Moufang"]The only measure I have to judge whether Packers fans support their team is the season ticket situation. The list is over 70,000 names long. [/quote] My comment was about supporting the team and the players through thick and thin. My experience is that as soon as things get "thin" the Packer fan base turns on their team like vultures. Specifically - Mike Sherman was doing pretty well. He turns in a 4-12 season and they talk about him like he's satan. Javon Walker asks for a bigger contract. He never holds out and, in fact, comes back without the contract and injures himself five minutes later, ending up on IR. Packer fans never forgave him for wanting a bigger contract, as if that was a sign of evil, and still wish bad things on him. Mike McKenzie - much like the above. Five years later and Packer fans STILL talk about him like he was some kind of traitor. Ryan Longwell sets some kicking records and gives the Packers something like 8 solid years. He goes to a rival team (but not until after he tells the Packers he'd like to stay there and THEY cut HIM), and now they can't whine enough about him. Darren Sharper - same as above. Brett Favre has an absolutely wretched season a couple of years ago and the fans are calling for the head of their God. A) I get this information from a message board and from conversations with Packer fans and B) I am not implying that fans of other teams always think everything is peachy keen with all of their players. My main point is that I've been told over and over and over again that Packer fans are different. That they have a closer connection with their team and would never diss a player or coach of their team. The hyperbole is ridiculous and doesn't bear up under examination. Yes - they buy season tickets even during the dreadful thirty years of mediocrity. They're just bad consumers.



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 6:05:17 AM)

[quote="Lane Meyer"] I have seats in section 129 and the african american couple sitting 2 seats down from me informed me that they had a great time, other than the outcome, as they were Viking fans. [/quote] I have to admit I got a little chuckle that the one example you gave to refute my claim were two VIKING fans. :D Listen - I'm sure there are blacks and hispanics that cheer for the Packers. I was just struck by what I saw, that's all.



Lane Meyer -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 6:05:17 AM)

I did not use the term but I think it is just as juvenile. David , I officially call you out. C'mon though, Butt Favor? Sorry though Lynn, I'd officially disagree with regard to the connection the team has to it's fans. I can give you the "I've been a season ticket holder since before I was born" story (true), and give you my own tale of woe. You wouldn't care one iota. However, there is a reason the Packers strike a resonant chord with the fans of every small town, that ever had a team, that played professionally way back when. The fan ownership is just the cherry on top of the proverbial football sundae.



Lane Meyer -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 6:13:48 AM)

[quote="Lynn G."][quote="David Moufang"]The only measure I have to judge whether Packers fans support their team is the season ticket situation. The list is over 70,000 names long. [/quote] Yes - they buy season tickets even during the dreadful thirty years of mediocrity. They're just bad consumers.[/quote] What grade would you give the Viking "consumers"?



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 6:17:33 AM)

Pretty good. When the team is doing badly, they stop buying tickets which sends a message to management that they better get their buns in gear and get a better team out there. And it works. We've never had a 30 year stretch of mediocrity. We've been in the playoffs more times than the Packers who are about 30 years OLDER than us. Heck, we've been in the playoffs more times than the Eagles - same story. Management just doesn't allow the team to stagnate for long because the consumers (ticket buyers) demand more. Why would the Packer management in the 70's and 80's have any incentive to field a better team when fans will pay money for tickets anyway?



Lane Meyer -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 6:23:15 AM)

[quote="Lynn G."]Pretty good. When the team is doing badly, they stop buying tickets which sends a message to management that they better get their buns in gear and get a better team out there. And it works. We've never had a 30 year stretch of mediocrity. We've been in the playoffs more times than the Packers who are about 30 years OLDER than us. Heck, we've been in the playoffs more times than the Eagles - same story. Management just doesn't allow the team to stagnate for long because the consumers (ticket buyers) demand more. Why would the Packer management in the 70's and 80's have any incentive to field a better team when fans will pay money for tickets anyway?[/quote] I agree entirely with the premise of the Packer management in the 70's era. However, your team has never delivered on the goal of winning the big game. In addition, do you prefer the game experience that the Metrodome provides? Your consumers, while smart by your measure, have also jeopardized the very future of the team in the Twin cities. And again, they have never delivered, even with all the playoff trips, not once have they brought home the Lombardi.



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 6:51:23 AM)

[quote="Lynn G."][quote="David Moufang"]The attendance at Lambeau yesterday was 70,945, a record for the stadium. [/quote] Serious question - if they claim they've sold out every game for x number of years, how could they have fit more people in the stadium on Sunday?[/quote] Probably has to do with boxes and promotional tickets. And then you sell all the seats in a stadium, but not everyone shows up. Scalpers, etc.



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 7:38:12 AM)

[quote="Lynn G."]Pretty good. When the team is doing badly, they stop buying tickets which sends a message to management that they better get their buns in gear and get a better team out there. But fairweatherness isn't a value held in high esteem amongst football fans. Rather, fairweather fans are derided for their lack of loyalty. No one assigns bonus points to fans who try to hit their teams in the wallet for poor play.
quote:

And it works. We've never had a 30 year stretch of mediocrity. We've been in the playoffs more times than the Packers who are about 30 years OLDER than us. Heck, we've been in the playoffs more times than the Eagles - same story.
First of all, you can't say there's a causal relationship between Vikings fans ditching their team and the team's playoff success. That doesn't make any sense. If that were true, the Milwaukee Brewers should have been winning World Series ten or so years ago, long after the fans started staying home. That didn't happen. They just kept getting worse and worse. I realize MLB is different than NFL, but the idea is the same. Also, not to nitpick, but since it's been done to me... Green Bay has appeared in the playoffs in 25 of 74 seasons 1932 - 2006 (34%); there were no NFL playoffs until 1932. Named NFL champions 1929* 1930* 1931* 1936* 1938 1939* 1941 1944* 1960 1961* 1962* 1963 1964 1965* 1966* 1967* 1972 1982 1993 1994 1995 1996* 1997 1998 2001 2002 2003 2004 Minnesota has appeared in the playoffs in 24 of 45 seasons 1961 - 2006 (53%) 1968 1969 1970 1971 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1980 1982 1987 1988 1989 1992 1993 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2004 Interesting that the decline of the Packers coincided with the rise of the Purple People Eaters. So yes, MN has appeared in the playoffs in a greater percentage of their seasons, by far. Which is good, of course, because many fans, given the choice, would rather have a regularly competitive team than a one-off Super Bowl win. Although I dare say that MN has abused that choice ;) They have more spectacular postseason failures than pretty much any team...
quote:

Management just doesn't allow the team to stagnate for long because the consumers (ticket buyers) demand more. Why would the Packer management in the 70's and 80's have any incentive to field a better team when fans will pay money for tickets anyway?
But even the lousy Vikings still sell out their games (or come very close with the help of local media). So are fans really hitting them where it hurts? It's a good question, but I think the answer is complicated. For one thing, most players want to win, as do coaches, who lose their jobs when things fall apart. Look at Packers coaches Dan Devine, Forrest Gregg, Bart Starr, Lindy Infante (combined record 127-182, .411). They all sucked and got canned (eventually). Compare with Lombardi (98-30, .766) and Mike Holmgren (73-36, .670). Finally, teams sell a hell of a lot more (very profitable) merchandise when they're doing well. Witness the shortage of Brett Favre jerseys immediately following the Oakland game after his dad died. It took three weeks to get the one my wife ordered for me.



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 3:33:47 PM)

[quote="Lane Meyer"] In addition, do you prefer the game experience that the Metrodome provides? Your consumers, while smart by your measure, have also jeopardized the very future of the team in the Twin cities. [/quote] First of all, I personally don't believe the future of the team in the Twin Cities is in danger. We've been here for 47 years and three football commissioners in a row have declared that the Vikings will not be moved. Second, you might be surprised to hear this, but in spite of the over-the-top praise, Lambeau is lacking in a lot of ways. Sure, there is a long history because your team is old, but for the fans, they haven't exactly bent over backwards to provide a comfortable experience. You guys sit on a block of concrete that has a metal bench bolted in the top. There is a number stamped on the top to designate the 15 inches on which you sit, but because all of your neighbors are wearing thick parkas and snowpants, you don't have one single inch to move. No back rest, so by the end of the game you're sore all over, and that metal that you're sitting on gets a wee bit cold. Or they scam you $6.00 on top of your ticket price to rent a fold-up seat so you can lean back. The leg room is about 1/3 of what we've got at the Metrodome, and I thought THAT was bad. If you can afford to pay for VIP seating in the suites - you're actually further from the field than anyone else in the stadium. All that money and your seats are HIGHER than the nosebleeds! I'll grant you that because of the renovation the concourse is nice and wide - but people are allowed to smoke out there, so you walk through a gauntlet of smoke on your way to the bathroom. Do the men still pee in the sinks there? Doesn't sound like such a good "experience" for the others in the restroom. I've been to Lambeau twice now, and it definitely does not measure up to the massive hype. It's kind of like when someone touts a movie and raves and raves about it and you go to it expecting the best movie you've ever seen - and it turns out to be "just a movie" and you're even more disappointed because of the build-up. I sit at Lambeau field and I think - "I know there's a lot of history here, but good gracious - it's just a football stadium." I've been more impressed with a couple of college stadiums to be honest. All that money for the renovations and the home team locker room looks like a palatial estate. Why couldn't they have spent some of that taxpayer money to make it more comfortable for the fans?



Duane Sampson -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 3:53:32 PM)

Favre's dad died? :shrug:



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 3:55:17 PM)

Let's not get into this childish discussion about what team's fans are better or any of this crap again, OK?



Trekgeekscott -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 4:15:45 PM)

[quote="Cheesehead Craig"]Let's not get into this childish discussion about what team's fans are better or any of this crap again, OK?[/quote] Too Late!



Jim Frenette -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 6:37:32 PM)

I'm willing to bet if a Viking hit Favre like Harris hit Peterson, a flag would have been thrown. That was a bad call on Udeze when he flew over him and his body hit the head. It wasn't like a helmet to helmet or a hand or elbow to the head. This look so unintentional but as soon as BF grabbed his head they threw the flag. I hate seening any player throw their body at the knees. That is 200+ lbs going at them.



Duane Sampson -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 6:59:16 PM)

quote:

Iron man Brett Favre didn’t have any ill effects Monday from a hit to the head he took in the Packers’ 34-0 win over Minnesota on Sunday. “(The medical staff) said he checked out fine. He’s not even on the medical list,” coach Mike McCarthy said. Favre was dazed by a shot to the back of the helmet from Vikings DE Kenechi Udeze late in the third quarter. Udeze drew a 15-yard penalty for the unintentional hit just as Favre slid to the turf on a scramble. “It was legit,” Favre said of the contact he absorbed. “I had people say, ‘Man, good job baiting them into the call.’ I can find better ways to draw the call." “I don’t want to say it was a concussion or anything; I’m not a doctor. But I was a little woozy. I was well aware of what was going on, but I was a little light on the foot. That’s the best way I can explain it.” Favre stayed in the game and went on to throw two of his three touchdown passes before being relieved by Aaron Rodgers for the first time this season in the final minutes of the rout.
What a crock. I've been hit harder than that by falling leaves. Favre's so full of himself it's sickening. "I'm not a doctor...." but you know your prescriptions, don't you, hillbilly boy?



Lane Meyer -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 8:03:26 PM)

[quote="Cheesehead Craig"]Let's not get into this childish discussion about what team's fans are better or any of this crap again, OK?[/quote] Craig, I'd never argue which team's fans are better. I am arguing that Lynn's claim that Packer fans are "bad consumers" and Vike's fans "pretty good" consumers is ridiculous and rather myopic. Ask 10 fans in any NFL city where they'd prefer to see a game, Lambeau or the Metrodome, and I'm sure the Merodome isn't coming out on top. You state Lynn, that you've attended a game @ Lambeau twice. This affords you the ability to determine Lambeau's relative merits? 2 games? Rather interesting. I've been to more than 2 games at the stadium a large portion of the NFL community seems to think of as Valhalla. Oops, sorry. Maybe we are all just missing what you've been able to discern in your 2 games. I doubt it, but it is possible. I simply responded to an initial statement made by Lynn, which seemed to intimate the Packer fans are accepting or at least tolerant of racist behavior and are lacking in the proper diversity where color is concerned. That statement is flat out wrong and I would love to see a demographic which supports such a strong indictment of another team's fan base. You may not think the team is in danger of leaving, but many folks do. This is in large measure because of the Metrodome and all the things it does not have. That is a fact. Or is the Vikings Stadium Drive thread for discussion of the Metrodome renovations? I have no need to argue a point such as "who's fans are better" and that was never my thrust. I've not insulted any Vike's fan but reading a post which takes my brethren to task in the way Lynn's did certainly is insulting. I have been and will continue to be respectful in my posting. However, posts which are so lacking in factual basis deserve to be challenged. I would like to think that respectful disagreement would be acceptable.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 9:56:35 PM)

I had no problem with your post Lane and in fact, I thought it very good. It's the petty bickering about fans in general that has no business here.



Trekgeekscott -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 10:02:35 PM)

[quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="Cheesehead Craig"]Let's not get into this childish discussion about what team's fans are better or any of this crap again, OK?[/quote] Craig, I'd never argue which team's fans are better. I am arguing that Lynn's claim that Packer fans are "bad consumers" and Vike's fans "pretty good" consumers is ridiculous and rather myopic. Ask 10 fans in any NFL city where they'd prefer to see a game, Lambeau or the Metrodome, and I'm sure the Merodome isn't coming out on top. You state Lynn, that you've attended a game @ Lambeau twice. This affords you the ability to determine Lambeau's relative merits? 2 games? Rather interesting. I've been to more than 2 games at the stadium a large portion of the NFL community seems to think of as Valhalla. Oops, sorry. Maybe we are all just missing what you've been able to discern in your 2 games. I doubt it, but it is possible. I simply responded to an initial statement made by Lynn, which seemed to intimate the Packer fans are accepting or at least tolerant of racist behavior and are lacking in the proper diversity where color is concerned. That statement is flat out wrong and I would love to see a demographic which supports such a strong indictment of another team's fan base. You may not think the team is in danger of leaving, but many folks do. This is in large measure because of the Metrodome and all the things it does not have. That is a fact. Or is the Vikings Stadium Drive thread for discussion of the Metrodome renovations? I have no need to argue a point such as "who's fans are better" and that was never my thrust. I've not insulted any Vike's fan but reading a post which takes my brethren to task in the way Lynn's did certainly is insulting. I have been and will continue to be respectful in my posting. However, posts which are so lacking in factual basis deserve to be challenged. I would like to think that respectful disagreement would be acceptable.[/quote] It seemed to me that Lynn was just pointing out her observations. But then I am probably biased. I have met her. and I really didn't like "Better Off Dead". Too bad about your girlfriend Beth dumping you...would you mind if I dated her? How's that cute french exchange student? Been skiing lately?



So.Mn.Fan -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 10:12:56 PM)

[quote="Trekgeekscott"][quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="Cheesehead Craig"]Let's not get into this childish discussion about what team's fans are better or any of this crap again, OK?[/quote] Craig, I'd never argue which team's fans are better. I am arguing that Lynn's claim that Packer fans are "bad consumers" and Vike's fans "pretty good" consumers is ridiculous and rather myopic. Ask 10 fans in any NFL city where they'd prefer to see a game, Lambeau or the Metrodome, and I'm sure the Merodome isn't coming out on top. You state Lynn, that you've attended a game @ Lambeau twice. This affords you the ability to determine Lambeau's relative merits? 2 games? Rather interesting. I've been to more than 2 games at the stadium a large portion of the NFL community seems to think of as Valhalla. Oops, sorry. Maybe we are all just missing what you've been able to discern in your 2 games. I doubt it, but it is possible. I simply responded to an initial statement made by Lynn, which seemed to intimate the Packer fans are accepting or at least tolerant of racist behavior and are lacking in the proper diversity where color is concerned. That statement is flat out wrong and I would love to see a demographic which supports such a strong indictment of another team's fan base. You may not think the team is in danger of leaving, but many folks do. This is in large measure because of the Metrodome and all the things it does not have. That is a fact. Or is the Vikings Stadium Drive thread for discussion of the Metrodome renovations? I have no need to argue a point such as "who's fans are better" and that was never my thrust. I've not insulted any Vike's fan but reading a post which takes my brethren to task in the way Lynn's did certainly is insulting. I have been and will continue to be respectful in my posting. However, posts which are so lacking in factual basis deserve to be challenged. I would like to think that respectful disagreement would be acceptable.[/quote] It seemed to me that Lynn was just pointing out her observations. But then I am probably biased. I have met her. and I really didn't like "Better Off Dead". Too bad about your girlfriend Beth dumping you...would you mind if I dated her? How's that cute french exchange student? Been skiing lately?[/quote] You ski the K-12 dude, and girls will go sterile just looking at you! :lol:



djskillz -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 10:26:27 PM)

I'm pretty sure that's my all-time favorite 80's movie. Or at least darn close. "Man, that's a damn shame folks be throwing away a perfectly good white boy like that."



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 10:33:48 PM)

This is pure snow! Do you have any idea what the street value of this mountain is? That was a funny movie.



djskillz -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 10:38:03 PM)

"It's got raisins in it.... You like raisins." (as the "jello" slithers across the table on its own)



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 10:56:49 PM)

Lane, Okay, I'll go back to Lambeau a couple more times and see if the seats get any more comfortable and the expensive suites get a little closer to the field. Those were my observations of the relative merits of the stadium itself. I'm not arguing with history - a lot of famous people have played there no doubt. Other than that - one of my favorite people in the whole world is a Packer fan (my husband), so I clearly think they've got some good ones in their midst. :viking:



Guest -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 11:48:32 PM)

[quote="Lane Meyer"] I simply responded to an initial statement made by Lynn, which seemed to intimate the Packer fans are accepting or at least tolerant of racist behavior and are lacking in the proper diversity where color is concerned. That statement is flat out wrong and I would love to see a demographic which supports such a strong indictment of another team's fan base. [/quote] ******************************************************* Not that it matters but can you name another team that has less people of color in attendance? Seriously, I've been to 11 different NFL venues, including Lambeau, and nothing compares. There's more color at a KKK rally. Now this isn't a poke at Packer fans, just an observation. It's geography, go north of Milwaukee and the rest of the state is very white.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/13/2007 11:50:56 PM)

[quote="Pete C"][quote="Lane Meyer"] I simply responded to an initial statement made by Lynn, which seemed to intimate the Packer fans are accepting or at least tolerant of racist behavior and are lacking in the proper diversity where color is concerned. That statement is flat out wrong and I would love to see a demographic which supports such a strong indictment of another team's fan base. [/quote] ******************************************************* Not that it matters but can you name another team that has less people of color in attendance? Seriously, I've been to 11 different NFL venues, including Lambeau, and nothing compares. There's more color at a KKK rally. Now this isn't a poke at Packer fans, just an observation. It's geography, go north of Milwaukee and the rest of the state is very white.[/quote] Much like Minnesota. Save for the Somali and Hmong groups in Minneapolis, there's not much of color here either.



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/14/2007 12:24:22 AM)

[quote="Lynn G."]First of all, I personally don't believe the future of the team in the Twin Cities is in danger. We've been here for 47 years and three football commissioners in a row have declared that the Vikings will not be moved. Well, the Twins were here for 40 years when a couple asshats tried to contract them. Longevity doesn't mean much. The Vikings are the lowest-performing team in the league in terms of revenue. As we all know, LA doesn't have a team. Now, that's not to say I actually want the Vikings to move, because who would I root against? Although they might broadcast every Packers game on TV here, instead of half of them.
quote:

Second, you might be surprised to hear this, but in spite of the over-the-top praise, Lambeau is lacking in a lot of ways. Sure, there is a long history because your team is old, but for the fans, they haven't exactly bent over backwards to provide a comfortable experience. You guys sit on a block of concrete that has a metal bench bolted in the top. There is a number stamped on the top to designate the 15 inches on which you sit, but because all of your neighbors are wearing thick parkas and snowpants, you don't have one single inch to move.
It's precisely because they're wearing thick parkas and snowpants that there aren't individual seats. You can fit a lot more people in the place with bleachers. Lambeau is definitely the coldest stadium in the league, so you need wiggle room for all the extra equipment you bring. I admit bleachers are uncomfortable, but . . .
quote:

No back rest, so by the end of the game you're sore all over, and that metal that you're sitting on gets a wee bit cold. Or they scam you $6.00 on top of your ticket price to rent a fold-up seat so you can lean back.
I brought my own the three times I've been there. Cheapie from Target.
quote:

The leg room is about 1/3 of what we've got at the Metrodome, and I thought THAT was bad. If you can afford to pay for VIP seating in the suites - you're actually further from the field than anyone else in the stadium. All that money and your seats are HIGHER than the nosebleeds! I'll grant you that because of the renovation the concourse is nice and wide - but people are allowed to smoke out there, so you walk through a gauntlet of smoke on your way to the bathroom.
At least they aren't smoking in the stands!
quote:

Do the men still pee in the sinks there? Doesn't sound like such a good "experience" for the others in the restroom.
Never saw anyone peeing in the sinks. And I hung out in the bathroom a bit during one game because it was freezing cold outside.
quote:

I've been to Lambeau twice now, and it definitely does not measure up to the massive hype. It's kind of like when someone touts a movie and raves and raves about it and you go to it expecting the best movie you've ever seen - and it turns out to be "just a movie" and you're even more disappointed because of the build-up. I sit at Lambeau field and I think - "I know there's a lot of history here, but good gracious - it's just a football stadium." I've been more impressed with a couple of college stadiums to be honest. All that money for the renovations and the home team locker room looks like a palatial estate. Why couldn't they have spent some of that taxpayer money to make it more comfortable for the fans?
And despite ALL these complaints, they still manage to fill the place for every game. Those stupid, stupid Packers fans. Really, if you don't like Lambeau, why even go? It's at least a five hour drive from the Twin Cities. The Metrodome is so much nicer, with its urinal troughs and endless rows of blue plastic seats. Maybe the 70s Vikings made it to the Super Bowl because they played in a real man's stadium.



Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode