RE: RE:The Packers (Full Version)

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



Message

Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/8/2008 9:16:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

Excellent find Ray!  I had forgotten about that clip.  Look at that, I was right about the WRs!
 
I think the Pack far exceeded any expectations anyone had.


Without a doubt this has been one of the most surprising seasons in Packer history. Other than a few that saw this team as a contender, most Packer fans realistically hoped for better than .500 and not much more. I will readily accept the record they achieved however.

It seems a little overwrought to say that if the Pack loses to Seattle that proves that they are mediocre, djskillz. I realize that you would not be counted amongst the countless throng of Packer Backers, but the club did make the playoffs as a top 2 seed, which , in the context of this season, should afford them more than "mediocre" status.

djskillz, don't get me wrong, I understand the Packers aren't loaded with Pro Bowlers[&:], but somehow they managed to win 13 games in the NFL. That should count for something.

If they were to lay an egg this Saturday, I'd be more inclined to agree. However, if the team should play well and win would that qualify them as a good team? (Somehow I don't think you and I are going to see eye to eye on this one! Big surprise, eh?)[;)]

I've not been around much of late and wanted to take the opportunity to wish all a Happy New Year and thank you for the great forum!



Jeff Jesser -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/8/2008 11:54:36 AM)

The Packers didn't over achieve.  They are good team and you don't "luck" in to 13 wins (or what ever some may try and say).  They may have exceeded somes expectations but that's about it.  They earned their #2 seed, and I hate that.



Guest -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/8/2008 12:11:41 PM)

Let me be clear about this:

Screw Bret Favrey, screw the Packers, screw anything Packer related.

My 2 favorite teams are the Vikings by a mile and anyone playing against the Packers.
[&:]




Cheesehead Craig -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/8/2008 12:18:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danimal

Let me be clear about this:

Screw Bret Favrey, screw the Packers, screw anything Packer related.

My 2 favorite teams are the Vikings by a mile and anyone playing against the Packers.
[&:]

Danimal, you just need to release your inner self every now and then.  Stop being so politically correct with your posts around here.[sm=thumb.gif]



djskillz -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/8/2008 6:11:45 PM)

"Lane" I'm just saying that it's a weak year to me.  The Packers achieved what they have, and I applaud them for that. 

Just saying that in a "decent" year of football, not the crap we've seen this year (the Pats excepted) the Packers are more like a 10-win, borderline playoff team, not a #2 seed in a conference.

Just my two cents.



Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/8/2008 8:45:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

"Lane" I'm just saying that it's a weak year to me.  The Packers achieved what they have, and I applaud them for that. 

Just saying that in a "decent" year of football, not the crap we've seen this year (the Pats excepted) the Packers are more like a 10-win, borderline playoff team, not a #2 seed in a conference.

Just my two cents.


What would you denote as the last "decent" year of NFL football?




djskillz -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/8/2008 8:49:46 PM)

It's been a couple years.  Not sure on a specific target, going by memory. 

I just know that, personally, I viewed it as a pretty inferior product on the field this year overall.  The same was true in college from the little I saw.



Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/8/2008 8:55:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

It's been a couple years.  Not sure on a specific target, going by memory. 

I just know that, personally, I viewed it as a pretty inferior product on the field this year overall.  The same was true in college from the little I saw.


Pretty vague don't you think?

What would be your reasons for describing a season as more than inferior?

It seems like a rather difficult position to defend. Some weeks were better than others, but I hardly sensed a decline in the quality of the product.

Again, what did you observe that makes you believe the league's level of play was less than in the past?



djskillz -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/8/2008 9:25:38 PM)

Sure, it's subjective either way what the product is. 

But personally I just saw no "great" teams outside of the Pats, a lot of pretty weak teams with lots of penalties and very ugly play overall.  Parody at its best really.  I just don't think that the "top" NFC teams could compete with top NFC teams of a couple years ago.

And hey, this isn't just some anti-Packers thing.  I say the same for the borderline playoff teams.  MN isn't an 8-8 team in a "good" year either.  They're more like 6-10. 

Just a very weak year on the whole, that's all.  The Packers are this year's 2006 Bears team to me.



Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/8/2008 9:56:38 PM)

I wondered if it was anything stat-wise that made you see things in that manner, that's all.
Heck, you folks saw an NFL rushing record set, that couldn''t have been too bad!

Favre did treat you guys to another All Time NFL record @ the Dome as well! I'd have thought the year was very exciting from the perspective of one who has watched the Vike's games.



djskillz -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/8/2008 10:17:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lane Meyer

I wondered if it was anything stat-wise that made you see things in that manner, that's all.
Heck, you folks saw an NFL rushing record set, that couldn''t have been too bad!

Favre did treat you guys to another All Time NFL record @ the Dome as well! I'd have thought the year was very exciting from the perspective of one who has watched the Vike's games.


Are you referring to the INT record, Lane?  I don't think that was against us.  [;)]

On the rushing thing, well, ya, AD's as good as anyone in rushing.  I think everyone acknowledges that.  And to have Chester as a backup is special.

But I really don't put much stock into stats in football or basketball.  Too many factors re: schemes, talent around you, unbalanced schedules, etc. that make stats halfway meaningless to me.  I know someone has brought up that QB play hasn't had a big dropoff stat-wise this year, but I seriously don't agree with that at all.  I think it's been pitiful on the whole, and that's one of the reasons for the dropoff in quality in the league.  These things run in cycles though, and I do believe there's a lot of young quality at QB out there, so I'm sure it will be back up in no time.  I just don't see it right now, personally.

Again, don't take it as an attack on the Packers, man.  It's really not intended as such.



Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/8/2008 10:20:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danimal



Screw Bret Favrey, screw the Packers, screw anything Packer related.





Except, I assume, for the Lombardi Trophy.[:D]



Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/8/2008 10:26:41 PM)

djskillz;

I don't see it as a rip on, or anti Packer at all. I'm not that sensitive![&o]

If you made mention of some reason, something tangible or something other than just not "seeing it" I'd be more inclined to agree. Lacking that however, I'd respectfully disagree with your assessment.

The level of play at certain positions may not be as strong as it has been, but overall, I see no great falloff in play.



Guest -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/10/2008 4:05:37 AM)

Again, another opinion based on someone who saw their team win 13 games......Your green and gold colored glasses are duly noted!!!!



Guest -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/10/2008 8:47:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lane Meyer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danimal



Screw Bret Favrey, screw the Packers, screw anything Packer related.





Except, I assume, for the Lombardi Trophy.[:D]


Worst name for a Championship Trophy in sports......

Buck toothed, beaver faced nimrod....

[&:]



Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/10/2008 8:07:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danimal

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lane Meyer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danimal



Screw Bret Favrey, screw the Packers, screw anything Packer related.





Except, I assume, for the Lombardi Trophy.[:D]


Worst name for a Championship Trophy in sports......

Buck toothed, beaver faced nimrod....

[&:]


Well he did win 5 Titles in 7 years. Makes him look pretty good to most football fans.



Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/10/2008 8:24:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

Again, another opinion based on someone who saw their team win 13 games......Your green and gold colored glasses are duly noted!!!!


I watch alot more than just Packer games, Ed. The fact that my team won 13 games is immaterial. My Packer allegiance disqualifies me from being able to assess what I watch? 

Again, I'll ask, what was the last year that was not plagued by league wide inferior play?



Guest -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/10/2008 9:01:59 PM)

stone age titles in the 50's dont count for squat



Guest -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/11/2008 12:49:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lane Meyer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

Again, another opinion based on someone who saw their team win 13 games......Your green and gold colored glasses are duly noted!!!!


I watch alot more than just Packer games, Ed. The fact that my team won 13 games is immaterial. My Packer allegiance disqualifies me from being able to assess what I watch? 

Again, I'll ask, what was the last year that was not plagued by league wide inferior play?


I never made the comment about league wide play....my comment was simply stated in the context that your opinion is bias.....completely bias....and based on what I read on your own forums (X4 specifically) Packer fans are oblivious to anything and everything outside of their own organization.  If something doesn't go their way weather it be a call, a game, a season...it's everyone elses fault.  There is never any accountability by Packer fans.....the impression I get is that most if not all Packer fans believe they are "owed" something by everyone else in the league.......



Todd M -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/11/2008 8:14:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danimal

stone age titles in the 50's dont count for squat



I think I hear Rube chat calling.

Yeah, lets discount SB I and II in the late 60's as I'm sure you would have if we won SB IV.



Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/11/2008 12:33:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danimal

stone age titles in the 50's dont count for squat



It was actually 5 titles in 7 years during the '60's...and, yes they do count.

If you are going to post insults, factually incorrect posts diminish credibility.


Geez Ed, maybe you're being just a tad overwrought? 

What kind of accountability are you looking for from Packer fans? What does that refer to?

You hate the Packers and their fans, and that's fine by me. Wake up every morning and take a good long swig from that cup. It will do you about as much good as complaining about "fan accountablility" or believing that Packer fans are just plain horrible folks.

Take a good long look through some of the threads and the amount of unhinged complaining that goes on here. Vike's fans are just better people though, right??

Frankly, I love that you hate the team I cheer for. It's a game and nothing more but when guys like yourself make claims about what terrible fans/people we Packer backers are, you've lost perspective.  Go ahead and despise us, although you may be just a little biased yourself as well.  While you're busying yourself hating the Pack, be sure to watch them in the playoffs.

Again, what are we Packer fans supposed to be held accountable for?



Duane Sampson -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/11/2008 12:52:26 PM)

If you are going to post insults, factually incorrect posts diminish credibility.
 
 
I must have missed the post where Danimal insulted you. Did you delete it?



Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/11/2008 1:26:53 PM)

Was it not an insult to the Packers/Packer fans to make a claim, erroneous as it may be, that their titles don't count?


If insult is too strong a term, my apologies, Duane. Perhaps I should have said,

"If it is your intention to diminish the achievements of the Packers, try to be factually correct otherwise your credibility will come into question."



djskillz -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/11/2008 1:46:23 PM)

The Packers are basically the Celtics.  Highly overrated based on a few good years in a weak league before a merger, with few teams and the collection of talent all on even fewer teams.



Lane Meyer -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/11/2008 1:59:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

The Packers are basically the Celtics.  Highly overrated based on a few good years in a weak league before a merger, with few teams and the collection of talent all on even fewer teams.


LOL

Whenever the Packers are winning it seems you believe the league is in a downturn. Coincidence? Perhaps not skillz.

The Packers won titles playing against the likes of Jim Brown, John Unitas, Len Dawson, Buck Buchanon, John Mackey, Bob Hayes, Jethro Pugh amongst others....no talent there, right?

Tell yourselves whatever you need guys, the league recognizes the Packers as 12 time League Champions. No one else in even in double digits are far as titles.

Still funny reading that djskillz.



Page: <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode