The Viking Age is Upon Us

[Jordysghost]

Okay let me take a crack at this.
1.) Despite losing (mostly before the lions game) there are those in high places who still believe that very point you made that the packers are "SUPERAWESOME!" and Rodgers is the GOAT.

2.) If you guys did have the real Jordy no @#&@(# way you lose to the lions that's for sure.

3.) Most of the fan base here has given the Packers a lot of respect in this upcoming game, regardless if they deserve it, very few are questioning the rough patch as anything other than a whoopsie (even though we pray to Thor that AR caught an STD from Munn and is dying).

4.) Why the hell are you so defensive, how many division titles have you guys had in the last 15 years? R E L A X E X L A X and let the chips fall, if this is the Packers last gasp... Well good #### them.

5.) This Sunday will be the answer for most if the Packers are going to turn things around or if the purple kool-aid well doth spring eternal. Only time will tell. Like I try and tell these yahoos all the time, any team any day and nothing is certain. I would wish you GL Sunday... but you know #### Packers.

Count me among those who think the Packers are 'SUPERAWSOME' (Which probably means different things to different people, but imo can mean playoff caliber) and that Rodgers is the GOAT. (Going off sheer statistics there is almost no argument) This isn't the first time i've seen us slump, and it damn sure isn't the last.

I somewhat agree with your 2nd point, if we could have gotten the damn snap down clean we probably would have won as well, but that is neither here nor there as it simply did not happen, we lost and that is the reality of the situation.

Your 3rd point, I never said that that was the case.

Im not defensive, and im not happy to hear that I am coming off like that because that is truly not my intention. Your telling the wrong Packer fan to R-E-L-A-X, because im as level headed as it comes right about now, I think my Green and Gold brethren could do well to heed your advice, though.

I agree nothing is ever certain in the NFL, but I dont agree with the implication that a GB loss signals whether or not they will, or can turn it around this year, at all.

[Skoltastic_Voyage]

I agree nothing is ever certain in the NFL, but I dont agree with the implication that a GB loss signals whether or not they will, or can turn it around this year, at all.

Aha! that's my point in its entirety I have been trying to drive home across the board.

Outrageous fan logic says you lost against a last place lions team at home... instant #32 power rankings? Of course not! it's a week to week game and many factors come in every week. However there isn't any reason to think any game is an instant loss (for either team) as every week in the NFL that favored ship sinks over and over. Honestly I am VERY concerned about Sunday.

Edit: Didn't mean to confuse over the super awesome comment, however to me it means favored in 99% of matchups. For instance there are GB fans here who never watch games who always just assume GB will have a 75%+ of winning every game because they are bandwagon jag-ups.

[Jordysghost]

Aha! that's my point in its entirety I have been trying to drive home across the board.

Outrageous fan logic says you lost against a last place lions team at home... instant #32 power rankings? Of course not! it's a week to week game and many factors come in every week. However there isn't any reason to think any game is an instant loss (for either team) as every week in the NFL that favored ship sinks over and over. Honestly I am VERY concerned about Sunday.

Edit: Didn't mean to confuse over the super awesome comment, however to me it means favored in 99% of matchups. For instance there are GB fans here who never watch games who always just assume GB will have a 75%+ of winning every game because they are bandwagon jag-ups.

Here as in where? Im seriously curious, im never happy to here about bandwagoners 'rooting' for the Packers .

And yes, I agree, anything can happen any week, hell the Giants almost beat the Pats, and the Chiefs demolished the Broncos. That said, im also very worried about Sunday, and my team has given me plenty of reason for that, despite me generally not getting to high on wins and too low on losses.

[DK Sweets]

3.) Most of the fan base here has given the Packers a lot of respect in this upcoming game, regardless if they deserve it, very few are questioning the rough patch as anything other than a whoopsie (even though we pray to Thor that AR caught an STD from Munn and is dying).

Jesus, bro...

[Mothman]

Thing is Jim, I think the Packers are getting better too, now I know, that statement is whatever especially coming off the heels of a 3 game losing streak, but for 6 games this year you could have made a real argument that were by and large the best team in the league, we were the only team to be top 5 in both offense, and defense, and that was mighty encouraging being that we are (quite typically so) one of the youngest teams in the league, as is your squad.

Now of course, Denver happened and things started to come unglued a bit, the consistancy just isn't there, but what is encouraging, at least, depending on how you look at it, I don't believe we are that far off from our status quo, not one bit. Opportunitities are there, but we aren't taking an advantage of them like we typically do, dropping turnovers, Rodgers (Who I think is unjustifiably being cut too much slack for our recent slump) is missing touchdown passes, when he does put it on the money our WRs our dropping passes, running the wrong routes etc. etc. When we do right the ship and turn things around, its too little too late and we are forced to overcome large 4th quarter deficits, only to fall just short.

Injuries have really taken a toll imo, on both the progression of our Offense and Defense, our secondary was and is decimated (Playing decent despite this I might add) and our WR core seriously doesn't have one player on it who hasn't sustained an injury at some point this season, Cobb (Thank the Lord) has been able to play through his AC joint sprain, and im honestly terrified of what could have been had he not be able to that. Now don't get me wrong, im NOT using it as an excuse, Im a firm believer that injuries are a part of the game and something that must be overcome, I simply feel that injuries have coincided with inexperienced performances, and it has really schewed the numbers on what appeared to be, a fastly rising young unit, and it does not dissuade me from the belief that our D is chock full of young ascending players, because I truly believe it is.

In a less long winded way of putting things, I think we are an ascending young roster as well, who has hit there first obstacle on the path to success, and that will happen, the difference though, is that we have one of the greatest (The greatest, if your a sheer statistical out put kind of guy) QB in the history of the game to guide them through, but first he has to to break a funk of his own. (Not something unprecedented, mind you, as Aaron as great as he is hasn't been quite as infallible as the media occasionally makes it seem)

I think anytime a transcendial QB is in the division, it makes winning the division an uphill battle, unless you have one of your own, Brady, Manning, Marino, Montana, these guys didn't fall short of the division crown often, and with good reason. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think as long as Rodgers is our QB, there is only going to be one team in the division that takes home the NFCN Crown with any measure of consistancy, and that is us. Ill be interested to see if tbe Vikings or someone else can make me eat those words, but as of right now we have a more pressing, and concerning in my case, division battle/race to attend to.

I agree that having such a terrific QB makes Green Bay a likely competitor for the division title every year but I don't think it means they will continue to be the only team that takes home the division crown with any degree of consistency. As other teams in the division improve, that consistency will be harder to maintain. Quality and stability at QB is a big advantage, no doubt, but I don't think the advantage it provides is quite that big. After all, Green Bay has had a HOF-caliber at the helm for most of the past 25 years and I don't think they've won the division in even half of those years.

As always, we'll see...

[Jordysghost]

I agree that having such a terrific QB makes Green Bay a likely competitor for the division title every year but I don't think it means they will continue to be the only team that takes home the division crown with any degree of consistency. As other teams in the division improve, that consistency will be harder to maintain. Quality and stability at QB is a big advantage, no doubt, but I don't think the advantage it provides is quite that big. After all, Green Bay has had a HOF-caliber at the helm for most of the past 25 years and I don't think they've won the division in even half of those years.

As always, we'll see...

My point is that if we can continue to improve as well, we will have the inside track, imo.

Favre was great and all, but he wasn't on the level of Rodgers, or anyone I listed above. And yes, I concur, we shall see.

[IrishViking]

My point is that if we can continue to improve as well, we will have the inside track, imo.

Favre was great and all, but he wasn't on the level of Rodgers, or anyone I listed above. And yes, I concur, we shall see.

I am just glad that We are starting in on the backend Rodgers career 31 going on 32. Only 6 or 7 to go realistically.

[Jordysghost]

I am just glad that We are starting in on the backend Rodgers career 31 going on 32. Only 6 or 7 to go realistically.

Id like to see another 11.

[IrishViking]

Id like to see another 11.

I think Brady is going to set the "modern" standard for longevity. He is absolutely busting his #### trying to stay in peak condition. If he starts to taildive in the next couple of years I am pretty confident that Rodgers won't make it farther than him. No offense to Rodgers but just look at the crazy crap Brady is doing to stay in shape and durable. I feel its not a stretch to say he does the most prep work in that regard in the NFL.

[Mothman]

I think Brady is going to set the "modern" standard for longevity. He is absolutely busting his #### trying to stay in peak condition. If he starts to taildive in the next couple of years I am pretty confident that Rodgers won't make it farther than him. No offense to Rodgers but just look at the crazy crap Brady is doing to stay in shape and durable. I feel its not a stretch to say he does the most prep work in that regard in the NFL.

It's probably not a stretch. He certainly works very hard. I also think his accomplishments should put the brakes on talk of Rodgers being the "Greatest of All Time". I don't even think he's the best QB in the game today (and I'm familiar with the stats).

Brady might actually be the GOAT, although there are some other QBs who have a good claim on that title. He's certainly in the conversation. What he and the Pats have done is amazing and before they did it, most thought it was something that couldn't be done in the era of free agency.

[Jordysghost]

It's probably not a stretch. He certainly works very hard. I also think his accomplishments should put the brakes on talk of Rodgers being the "Greatest of All Time". I don't even think he's the best QB in the game today (and I'm familiar with the stats).

Brady might actually be the GOAT, although there are some other QBs who have a good claim on that title. He's certainly in the conversation. What he and the Pats have done is amazing and before they did it, most thought it was something that couldn't be done in the era of free agency.

Cheating scandals aside, I agree that Brady is in the conversation, and also think that Rodgers needs at least one more SB win to be considered the GOAT.

But honestly, its hard for me to put Brady at GOAT when there are numerous QBs with far greater statistical prowess, stats aren't the only measure, but if they were Rodgers would be with out any reasonable doubt the GOAT. Its just.. how can you be the greatest of all time when statistics bear out that there are others that are more productive than you?

[Jordysghost]

I think Brady is going to set the "modern" standard for longevity. He is absolutely busting his #### trying to stay in peak condition. If he starts to taildive in the next couple of years I am pretty confident that Rodgers won't make it farther than him. No offense to Rodgers but just look at the crazy crap Brady is doing to stay in shape and durable. I feel its not a stretch to say he does the most prep work in that regard in the NFL.

I think Rodgers is more then capable of such a thing, his natural athleticism and physical prowess far exceeds that of Bradys. The only thing that worries me is that Rodgers strikes me as a quit while your head type of guy.

[J. Kapp 11]

Favre was great and all, but he wasn't on the level of Rodgers ...

That's interesting because at this point, Rodgers has exactly the same number of Super Bowl rings as Favre, and he's gotten them to one fewer. Yet you say Favre isn't on Rodgers' level. If we're going by championships, your statement is patently false. They're at least on equal footing.

Also, there's the matter of how bare the cupboard was when each took over. Brett Favre came to a moribund franchise and turned it around, leading them to an 8-5-1 record his first year and to a winning record in 13 out of 16 seasons. Aaron Rodgers took over a pretty solid franchise that had just lost the NFC championship game in overtime and promptly went 6-10.

Rodgers may have better stats, and Favre may have been a loose cannon at times, but winning counts, dude, and Favre brought you 160. Plus, I've noticed that Green Bay fans tend to focus on the end of Favre's career and not the very, very long middle of it, a time when he was extremely successful (and drove Vikings fans absolutely freaking nuts). Y'all need to put your anger aside for a moment and remember all the good the guy did for your franchise.

They're both likely first-ballot HOFers, so to say Favre isn't on Rodgers' level is sort of ridiculous.

[Jordysghost]

That's interesting because at this point, Rodgers has exactly the same number of Super Bowl rings as Favre, and he's gotten them to one fewer. Yet you say Favre isn't on Rodgers' level. If we're going by championships, your statement is patently false. They're at least on equal footing.

Also, there's the matter of how bare the cupboard was when each took over. Brett Favre came to a moribund franchise and turned it around, leading them to an 8-5-1 record his first year and to a winning record in 13 out of 16 seasons. Aaron Rodgers took over a pretty solid franchise that had just lost the NFC championship game in overtime and promptly went 6-10.

Rodgers may have better stats, and Favre may have been a loose cannon at times, but winning counts, dude, and Favre brought you 160. Plus, I've noticed that Green Bay fans tend to focus on the end of Favre's career and not the very, very long middle of it, a time when he was extremely successful (and drove Vikings fans absolutely freaking nuts). Y'all need to put your anger aside for a moment and remember all the good the guy did for your franchise.

They're both likely first-ballot HOFers, so to say Favre isn't on Rodgers' level is sort of ridiculous.

Its not ridiculous, look at the stats, one is clearly a million times better then the other.

Bradshaw has 4 SBs and Marino has none, so who cares about if Favre has one more appearance? He also had consistently better teams (Take a look at 90s Ds in comparison to this decade) including his only SB winning team that allowed an NFL record low 19 TDs. Those 90s teams were stacked.

Never mind that fact that Favre was one of the biggest chokers ive ever seen in my life, playoff game after playoff game, game losing pick after game losing pick.

Favre was never close to Rodgers level, he isn't top 5, he barely makes top 10 all time, if at all.

The 2008 team didn't go 6-10 because of Rodgers, anything but, had Favre stayed on board i really doubt or Defense wouldnt have fallen completely to #### because of it.

[Mothman]

Its not ridiculous, look at the stats, one is clearly a million times better then the other.

Being a great QB isn't just about the stats.

Bradshaw has 4 SBs and Marino has none, so who cares about if Favre has one more appearance? He also had consistently better teams (Take a look at 90s Ds in comparison to this decade) including his only SB winning team that allowed an NFL record low 19 TDs. Those 90s teams were stacked.

Never mind that fact that Favre was one of the biggest chokers ive ever seen in my life, playoff game after playoff game, game losing pick after game losing pick.

Give Rodgers time. He's trying to catch up! Favre set the bar high but GB's record in playoff games since their Super Bowl-winning season in 2010 is 2-4 and Rodgers threw 4 picks in those losses.