clenz wrote:DGAF. Rodgers is that whole team. We see it every time he goes out. Aaron changes that because of the bullshit he can pull out of his ass. He is the ultimate band aid. The anti-Brady so to speak. New England has shown they can still win games without Brady (11-5 in 08 and 3-1 under his suspension last year).
Green Bay record since 2008 with Rodgers starting: 94-47 (68.8%)
Green Bay record since 2008 w/out Rodgers starting: 5-10-1 (34.4%)
Outside of Rodgers that franchise isn't really that great. He's just so good it makes up for it. Proof that the rest of the team sucks without him? How in the flying **** do they have 1 title with him? He's literally one of the 3 best QB's of the 2008-2017 era. It's him Brees and Brady. The fact they've only parlayed his ability into 1 title is **** astonishing. Any semblance of an offensive line that wasn't garbage. Any defense. Any run game. Anything and they have 3 or 4 titles. Since Rodgers took over for Favre in 08 they have 5 division titles, the Vikings are on their way to their 4th. The QB's Minnesota has rolled out since 07?
Kelly Holcomb
Brooks Bollinger
90 year old Gus Frerotte
Tavaris Jackson
Joe Webb
Drunk and overweight Donovan McNabb
693 year old Brett Favre
Christian Ponder
Matt Cassel
Josh Freeman
Teddy Bridgewater
Fragile Bradford
Case Keenum
They have literally nothing without him. The same can/should be said for Favre in Green Bay.
That is a franchise with 2 of the top 5-7 QBs in NFL history and in 26 combined seasons with the two of them there is 2 total Super Bowl titles. How is that possible? Brad Johnson, Mark Rypien, Jeff Hostetler, Doug Williams, Phil Sims, Jim McMahan, and Trent **** Dilfer has as many titles as Rodgers and Favre do.
If Green Bay beats Minnesota, in Green Bay, in December with the massive chip on their shoulder they are going to have because the fan base is mentally weak and it's shown with how the Rodgers injury was handled then so be it. At this point, that's literally all of they have to play for.
The difference in QB play between the two franchises is astonishing. Yet the difference in overall quality of the franchises isn't that different outside of the QB play. Imagine Rodgers getting help from the defenses Minnesota has put out there. Having a running back like AP to take pressure off of him. That franchise is not well run. They just happened to "luck" into Favre turning into what he did and then Rodgers falling like he did in the draft. The win % in Green Bay if one of those two isn't on the field isn't good. It's Detroit Lions level bad. They better hop Rodgers can play another decade of they luck into their 3rd straight top 5 all time QB.
2 Super Bowls in 26 years, how many teams would like to have that? You just went on and on about how bad Green Bay is without a great QB and then asked why they just won 2 Super Bowls and not more. 2 is fine. I do remember Rodgers going 6-10 his first season.
The Skins have won more SBs in the last 26 years than the Vikings
Gil Dobie wrote:
2 Super Bowls in 26 years, how many teams would like to have that? You just went on and on about how bad Green Bay is without a great QB and then asked why they just won 2 Super Bowls and not more. 2 is fine. I do remember Rodgers going 6-10 his first season.
The Skins have won more SBs in the last 26 years than the Vikings
I was at that Super Bowl, in the face of Minnesota fans, at the Metrodome.
clenz wrote: How in the flying **** do they have 1 title with him? He's literally one of the 3 best QB's of the 2008-2017 era. It's him Brees and Brady. The fact they've only parlayed his ability into 1 title is **** astonishing.
Doesn't Brees only have one Super Bowl Title too during that time? I think you're being harsh, there's only two QB's in that 2008-2017 timeframe that have more than one Super Bowl title and that's Brady and Eli Manning and they both only have two titles in that timeframe.
Many NFL pundits have pointed out that Green Bay has essentially "wasted" the Rogers years the same way the Colts wasted the Manning years and Dolphins the Marino years...
Point being:
If you have arguably one of the top 5 QB's of all time
You should be holding at least two Lombardi trophy's before he limps off into the sunset
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
Gil Dobie wrote:
2 Super Bowls in 26 years, how many teams would like to have that? You just went on and on about how bad Green Bay is without a great QB and then asked why they just won 2 Super Bowls and not more. 2 is fine. I do remember Rodgers going 6-10 his first season.
The Skins have won more SBs in the last 26 years than the Vikings
Chizzang wrote:Many NFL pundits have pointed out that Green Bay has essentially "wasted" the Rogers years the same way the Colts wasted the Manning years and Dolphins the Marino years...
Point being:
If you have arguably one of the top 5 QB's of all time
You should be holding at least two Lombardi trophy's before he limps off into the sunset
How many Super Bowl titles did Steve Young win? I'm just saying that making the delineation to be two is kinda arbitrary. Rothlisberger has two, but he was god awful in his first one and the defense and team (and refs) gave him that title.
Chizzang wrote:Many NFL pundits have pointed out that Green Bay has essentially "wasted" the Rogers years the same way the Colts wasted the Manning years and Dolphins the Marino years...
Point being:
If you have arguably one of the top 5 QB's of all time
You should be holding at least two Lombardi trophy's before he limps off into the sunset
How many Super Bowl titles did Steve Young win? I'm just saying that making the delineation to be two is kinda arbitrary. Rothlisberger has two, but he was god awful in his first one and the defense and team (and refs) gave him that title.
Has anyone argued Young and Rothlesburger a top 5 QB all time?
In 15 years in the NFL Young had the same record Rodgers has in 7 years
Chizz's point is correct. If you have a top 5 QB of all time, it is/should be a massive let down if you only get 1 title with him. It shows how poor the rest of the team was build. To have back to back QBs like Favre and Rodgers and get 2 in 27 years is even more damming for building a franchise to more than just the star that can pull shit of no where
The same can be said about Young's years in SF being a massive disappointment
Chizzang wrote:Many NFL pundits have pointed out that Green Bay has essentially "wasted" the Rogers years the same way the Colts wasted the Manning years and Dolphins the Marino years...
Point being:
If you have arguably one of the top 5 QB's of all time
You should be holding at least two Lombardi trophy's before he limps off into the sunset
How many Super Bowl titles did Steve Young win? I'm just saying that making the delineation to be two is kinda arbitrary. Rothlisberger has two, but he was god awful in his first one and the defense and team (and refs) gave him that title.
It's not in the context of what's being talked about.
It is showing how poorly the Packers are at building teams outside of their star. The fact the Packers have won like they have with Rodgers says everything about him as a player - as much as I think he's a fucking jack wagon. They've done literally zero to help him win. The Steelers put together a defense and talent around Ben to compliment him.
The Packers have done zero to help him, it shows how imcometent their front office is, or how bad of a coach McCarthy is. Green Bay wins so many games because Rodgers runs around in an attempt to save his life all game every game and chucks the ball blindly down field and it works. Nothing about that is because his franchise has helped him.
You're trying to argue something completely difference
bandl wrote:
The Skins have won more SBs in the last 26 years than the Vikings
Please. Go be a Washington cunt somewhere else.
Why? I'm trying to help you guys feel better. At least you're not the Cowboys or have a QB with downs, amirite?!?!
BTW, is this true?
Eagles are 2-2 against teams that are .500 or better this season.
The other 8 teams they've beaten have combined for only 25 wins this season.
93henfan wrote:
Please. Go be a Washington cunt somewhere else.
Why? I'm trying to help you guys feel better. At least you're not the Cowboys or have a QB with downs, amirite?!?!
BTW, is this true?
Eagles are 2-2 against teams that are .500 or better this season.
The other 8 teams they've beaten have combined for only 25 wins this season.
93henfan wrote:
Please. Go be a Washington cunt somewhere else.
Why? I'm trying to help you guys feel better. At least you're not the Cowboys or have a QB with downs, amirite?!?!
BTW, is this true?
Eagles are 2-2 against teams that are .500 or better this season.
The other 8 teams they've beaten have combined for only 25 wins this season.
bandl wrote:
Why? I'm trying to help you guys feel better. At least you're not the Cowboys or have a QB with downs, amirite?!?!
BTW, is this true?
Eagles are 2-2 against teams that are .500 or better this season.
The other 8 teams they've beaten have combined for only 25 wins this season.
bandl wrote:
Why? I'm trying to help you guys feel better. At least you're not the Cowboys or have a QB with downs, amirite?!?!
BTW, is this true?
Eagles are 2-2 against teams that are .500 or better this season.
The other 8 teams they've beaten have combined for only 25 wins this season.
Either way, that adds up to 10-2.
Teams always have worse records when you beat them. I suppose if we lost more then the opponents would have better records.
GannonFan wrote:
Teams always have worse records when you beat them. I suppose if we lost more then the opponents would have better records.
Vikings own the 1 seed because of the SoS tie break.
Eagles opponents win% is .375
Vinings opponents win% is .467
Vikings probably lose a bunch of games yet this year, but when comparing 2 10-2 teams it's worth noting I guess.
After this next weekend they'll have played enough common opponents (Rams, Panthers, Bears, and Redskins) to qualify for that tiebreaker (which comes before the winning percentage of either teams complete opponents). Both are 3-0 against that group of teams so far.
GannonFan wrote:
How many Super Bowl titles did Steve Young win? I'm just saying that making the delineation to be two is kinda arbitrary. Rothlisberger has two, but he was god awful in his first one and the defense and team (and refs) gave him that title.
It's not in the context of what's being talked about.
It is showing how poorly the Packers are at building teams outside of their star. The fact the Packers have won like they have with Rodgers says everything about him as a player - as much as I think he's a **** jack wagon. They've done literally zero to help him win. The Steelers put together a defense and talent around Ben to compliment him.
The Packers have done zero to help him, it shows how imcometent their front office is, or how bad of a coach McCarthy is. Green Bay wins so many games because Rodgers runs around in an attempt to save his life all game every game and chucks the ball blindly down field and it works. Nothing about that is because his franchise has helped him.
You're trying to argue something completely difference
I'm fine with 2 Super Bowls with Favre and Rodgers. When you consistently win, you consistently get a tougher schedule each year, and consistently get lower draft picks. Packers have shored up receiving and offensive lines for Favre and Rodgers. The years the Pack won, they had a great defensive player with Reggie White or Charles Woodson. Claymaker is good, but not in the same class as the previous 2. Heck, look at Fran Tarkenton, one of the all-time best QB's, one of the all-time best D-Lines with the Purple People Eaters, 0-3 in Super Bowls. McCarthy isn't the best coach and the Packers GM, Thompson is pretty cheap, but they got their rings. Hall of Fame Coach for the Minnesota Vikings, Bud Grant 0-3 with Hall of Fame GM Jim Finks 0-2 in Super Bowls. Winning the Super Bowl just isn't that easy, unless you have the right combo of players, coaches and front office, like the current New England Patriots, 49ers in the 1980's, Steelers of the 1970's and Packers of the 1960's.
clenz wrote:
It's not in the context of what's being talked about.
It is showing how poorly the Packers are at building teams outside of their star. The fact the Packers have won like they have with Rodgers says everything about him as a player - as much as I think he's a **** jack wagon. They've done literally zero to help him win. The Steelers put together a defense and talent around Ben to compliment him.
The Packers have done zero to help him, it shows how imcometent their front office is, or how bad of a coach McCarthy is. Green Bay wins so many games because Rodgers runs around in an attempt to save his life all game every game and chucks the ball blindly down field and it works. Nothing about that is because his franchise has helped him.
You're trying to argue something completely difference
I'm fine with 2 Super Bowls with Favre and Rodgers. When you consistently win, you consistently get a tougher schedule each year, and consistently get lower draft picks. Packers have shored up receiving and offensive lines for Favre and Rodgers. The years the Pack won, they had a great defensive player with Reggie White or Charles Woodson. Claymaker is good, but not in the same class as the previous 2. Heck, look at Fran Tarkenton, one of the all-time best QB's, one of the all-time best D-Lines with the Purple People Eaters, 0-3 in Super Bowls. McCarthy isn't the best coach and the Packers GM, Thompson is pretty cheap, but they got their rings. Hall of Fame Coach for the Minnesota Vikings, Bud Grant 0-3 with Hall of Fame GM Jim Finks 0-2 in Super Bowls. Winning the Super Bowl just isn't that easy, unless you have the right combo of players, coaches and front office, like the current New England Patriots, 49ers in the 1980's, Steelers of the 1970's and Packers of the 1960's.
Not really in disagreement, just the one thing bolded about the schedule. With the current format, teams in the same division play 14 of the same teams in a 16 game schedule, so only two games (the ones against a team from each of the other two divisions that they are not playing a full division slate against) are ever different. Sure, the first place team in the prior year gets to face the first place team in the other division from the prior year, but given how much turnover there is in division winners that rarely holds up as a reliable adder to toughness of the schedule.
Gil Dobie wrote:
I'm fine with 2 Super Bowls with Favre and Rodgers. When you consistently win, you consistently get a tougher schedule each year, and consistently get lower draft picks. Packers have shored up receiving and offensive lines for Favre and Rodgers. The years the Pack won, they had a great defensive player with Reggie White or Charles Woodson. Claymaker is good, but not in the same class as the previous 2. Heck, look at Fran Tarkenton, one of the all-time best QB's, one of the all-time best D-Lines with the Purple People Eaters, 0-3 in Super Bowls. McCarthy isn't the best coach and the Packers GM, Thompson is pretty cheap, but they got their rings. Hall of Fame Coach for the Minnesota Vikings, Bud Grant 0-3 with Hall of Fame GM Jim Finks 0-2 in Super Bowls. Winning the Super Bowl just isn't that easy, unless you have the right combo of players, coaches and front office, like the current New England Patriots, 49ers in the 1980's, Steelers of the 1970's and Packers of the 1960's.
Not really in disagreement, just the one thing bolded about the schedule. With the current format, teams in the same division play 14 of the same teams in a 16 game schedule, so only two games (the ones against a team from each of the other two divisions that they are not playing a full division slate against) are ever different. Sure, the first place team in the prior year gets to face the first place team in the other division from the prior year, but given how much turnover there is in division winners that rarely holds up as a reliable adder to toughness of the schedule.
The Packers have a gamebreaker in their WR core JEFF JANIS but they refuse to take advantage of his obvious talent of course one person will not a team make but hey give the guy the opportunity to showcase his skills if he were with any other team he would be a household name already.The game that put him on the NFL map was the 2015 playoff game vs Arizona in which he caught 7 passes gained 145 yds scored twice!!!
GannonFan wrote:
Not really in disagreement, just the one thing bolded about the schedule. With the current format, teams in the same division play 14 of the same teams in a 16 game schedule, so only two games (the ones against a team from each of the other two divisions that they are not playing a full division slate against) are ever different. Sure, the first place team in the prior year gets to face the first place team in the other division from the prior year, but given how much turnover there is in division winners that rarely holds up as a reliable adder to toughness of the schedule.
The Packers have a gamebreaker in their WR core JEFF JANIS but they refuse to take advantage of his obvious talent of course one person will not a team make but hey give the guy the opportunity to showcase his skills if he were with any other team he would be a household name already.The game that put him on the NFL map was the 2015 playoff game vs Arizona in which he caught 7 passes gained 145 yds scored twice!!!
GB's passing game doesn't matter without Rodgers. I've been benching Jordy Nelson for the last few weeks in favor of Cooper Kupp.
