Favre to Peppers: “Beat the Packers”

You may not be prepared to acknowledge that your points can be refuted, but I would submit (as an example) that it is well within my capacity to do so, and we could argue about that also. I choose not to, have read everything you have written (actually, pretty much everything written on this entire board over the last several years) -

I'm sorry that you must "wade amongst the Packtards", ( a sort of paraphrasing) as you perceive them.

When you win one, I for one promise to be here for your full explanation of the who, where, what and why. I'm sure it will be glorious, and will have and reflect the Vikings fan version of all of the elements of those things we both respect greatly, e.g. the long suffering Lions fans, etc.

That's the best I can do. B)

Quote:

---

Look, I'm not going to tell you how to cheer..

---

Good. Because this has nothing to do with cheering and believe me I am not cheering for the packers, just grudgingly admitting that they have been successful at things that we have failed to do. Period.

Quote:

---

.I'm simply pointing out that except for a few breaks one way or the other, Minnesota hasn't done as poorly as you make it sound like.

---

Those few breaks are the things that separate the successful from the missed it by that much crowd.

Quote:

---

Since the addition of the NFC Championship game (1970), we've been there EIGHT times. Only Dallas, San Fransisco, and the LA/St. Louis Rams have been there more times.

---

And every one of them has won at least 1 super bowl while the Vikings have a goose egg.

Quote:

---

And, since the advent of that game, we've won it 3 times....just like Green Bay (Who's only managed to make it there 5 times).

---

If you are talking conference championships then yes. If you are talking about Super bowls then no.

Quote:

---

So, while their win% may be better, and they have more Superbowls, WE have had more positive seasons than they have...and that's worth something in itself.

---

I generally have a hard time taking a season as a positive when it doesn't end with a SB. Maybe I just have too high of a standard.

Quote:

---

My POINT is that you stated that Green Bay has a "far and away a more successful organization than the vikings"...and I've shown that they, in fact, do NOT. You can continue to look at championships before the modern NFL, or judge us solely by Superbowl wins...but if that's the criteria, then Pittsburgh is far and away the greatest team ever, followed by Dallas and San Fransisco...and we all might as well jump on their bandwagons. Furthermore, since the 49'ers have never LOST a Superbowl, they must be "far and away a more successful organization" than the Vikings AND the Packers, right?

---

I would agree. I would certainly consider Pittsburgh to be the elite franchise in the NFL. I would also put Dallas and SF right behind them along with New England. I would Put Green Bay right behind them ( Sorry Defroster;) )

I don't think anyone except a purple shaded rube would put the Vikings as an organization up there with any of those teams. Does that mean they are not my favorite team or that I don't cheer for them? Hell no but it would be delusional to put the Vikings in the same category as the teams above. Hopefully one day they will be right there but right now they aren't.

Quote:

---

Of course, looking at the Niners right now, that's going to be a hard sell.

---

It is only about right now? Teams will cycle up and down but they did put together a string of seasons that put them into elite status IMHO. Maybe they never get back there but you cannot take away what they did.

Quote:

---

And that's the POINT. Superbowls are "A" measure of success. And every team aspires to win one. But if they're your ONLY measure of success, then you're missing quite a bit of the picture.

---

Winning isn't every thing- It's the only thing.

Hell, if winning a SB wasn't that big of a deal we could have just as well kept Childress on as the coach. After all he just "Missed it by that much"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1089431

Quote:

---

Look, I'm not going to tell you how to cheer..

---

Good. Because this has nothing to do with cheering and believe me I am not cheering for the packers, just grudgingly admitting that they have been successful at things that we have failed to do. Period.

Quote:

---

.I'm simply pointing out that except for a few breaks one way or the other, Minnesota hasn't done as poorly as you make it sound like.

---

Those few breaks are the things that separate the successful from the missed it by that much crowd.

Quote:

---

Since the addition of the NFC Championship game (1970), we've been there EIGHT times. Only Dallas, San Fransisco, and the LA/St. Louis Rams have been there more times.

---

And every one of them has won at least 1 super bowl while the Vikings have a goose egg.

Quote:

---

And, since the advent of that game, we've won it 3 times....just like Green Bay (Who's only managed to make it there 5 times).

---

If you are talking conference championships then yes. If you are talking about Super bowls then no.

Quote:

---

So, while their win% may be better, and they have more Superbowls, WE have had more positive seasons than they have...and that's worth something in itself.

---

I generally have a hard time taking a season as a positive when it doesn't end with a SB. Maybe I just have too high of a standard.

Quote:

---

My POINT is that you stated that Green Bay has a "far and away a more successful organization than the vikings"...and I've shown that they, in fact, do NOT. You can continue to look at championships before the modern NFL, or judge us solely by Superbowl wins...but if that's the criteria, then Pittsburgh is far and away the greatest team ever, followed by Dallas and San Fransisco...and we all might as well jump on their bandwagons. Furthermore, since the 49'ers have never LOST a Superbowl, they must be "far and away a more successful organization" than the Vikings AND the Packers, right?

---

I would agree. I would certainly consider Pittsburgh to be the elite franchise in the NFL. I would also put Dallas and SF right behind them along with New England. I would Put Green Bay right behind them ( Sorry Defroster;) )

I don't think anyone except a purple shaded rube would put the Vikings as an organization up there with any of those teams. Does that mean they are not my favorite team or that I don't cheer for them? Hell no but it would be delusional to put the Vikings in the same category as the teams above. Hopefully one day they will be right there but right now they aren't.

Quote:

---

Of course, looking at the Niners right now, that's going to be a hard sell.

---

It is only about right now? Teams will cycle up and down but they did put together a string of seasons that put them into elite status IMHO. Maybe they never get back there but you cannot take away what they did.

Quote:

---

And that's the POINT. Superbowls are "A" measure of success. And every team aspires to win one. But if they're your ONLY measure of success, then you're missing quite a bit of the picture.

---

Winning isn't every thing- It's the only thing.

Hell, if winning a SB wasn't that big of a deal we could have just as well kept Childress on as the coach. After all he just "Missed it by that much"

---

Purple, you just make a lot of sense. I would hope the Viking owners and coaches don't share the same opinion as the previous author. Failure to identify failure and recognize success is the hallmark of a losing teams coach.

By contrast, I would not classify the Steelers as a losing team, they may have lost this SB, but they are no doubt winners. Anybody happen to catch the interview with HC Mike Tomlin said after the SB loss? He didn't make excuses, he didn't say his team played poorly, losers love to use that line. Instead he gave credit to the Packers. In my opinion, thats the mark of a past and future winner. If a person can't recognize the componants of a winning team, how will they know how to put a winning team together.

I could not agree with you more, The only successuful season is when you win the superbowl, anything other than that, and you have set your sights too low.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "Caine" #1089412

Are you serious? You honestly believe that Green Bay is a "much more successful" franchise?

Let's consider a few "truths" here:

Since 1961:

Green bay has a combined regular season record of 408-337-13. A 53.8% overall victory rating.

Minnesota has a combined regular season record of 413-336-9. A 54.4% overall victory rating.

Bear in mind, that these numbers include our formative years, when while Green Bay had already had 39 years of play in which to build their franchise.

Since 1961:

Green Bay has won 13 NFC North or NFC Central titles.

Minnesota has won 18.

Also, keep in mind that 5 of Green Bay's Division titles were won between 1961 and 1967...while we were still building.

Since 1961:

Green Bay has won 8 NFL Championship games. Three of which occurred in 1961, 1962, and 1965. Two of which occurred in 1966 and '67.

Minnesota has won 4, starting in 1969.

Since 1961:

Green Bay has had 11 Players inducted into the Hall of Fame (players who went in for playing prior to 1961 were not counted).

Minnesota has had 13.

Since 1961:

Green Bay has won 4 Superbowls. Two of which actually occurred PRIOR to the NFL-AFL merger, but which get counted anyway.

Minnesota has won none.

This is the ONLY stat in which Green Bay significantly outranks us. That's it.

So, again, I say that if you truly believe they have a ""much more successful franchise", then perhaps you need to take a long hard look at the franchise you CLAIM to be a supporter of. Despite starting off 40 years AFTER the Packers, the Vikings have been a very successful franchise during our 50 year run.

And while it is true that capturing a Superbowl victory has eluded us, we have been neck and neck with them (Green Bay). In fact, our overall series record is 48-51-1 (currently in their favor...thanks to Childress and his fewkin KAO), while our all time Play-off record is 1-0 in our favor.

I know it's easy to lose sight of the truth when faced with a Packer Superbowl win. But, when you look past that, at the CORE of the teams, you see a slightly different picture. And despite the fact taht we are faced with yet another rebuilding period (Again, thanks to Chiller and his colossal mismanagement), keep in mind that one season does not define a franchise.

And, yeah, I buy the stuff I'm selling...refute it if you can.

Caine

---

LOL, good thing we don't do that childish "Owned" thing on this site. :laugh:

Excellent post and classic Caine. Good to see you coming around now that you know who is gone. :P

Major props to coach Tomlin in his post game interview.

That is an absolute class organization, and their fanbase has treated me with total class as well. I am in midway between Steeler country and Eagle country, leaning Steeler way, but it is also Packer country, as a plan B for both sets of fans, to a large degree.

It's a blue collar, "dad was a Packer fan", hate "x" team on the eastern seaboard, etc. etc. etc. thing.

I have seen it all over the world.

It is not just a Wisconsin Minnesota thing, by any means, although (apparently) that particular aspect is brutal to Viking fans presently...

That aspect is a collective two-state provincialism, and there is no fix, nor is one needed. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "jrjohn" #1089457

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1089431

Quote:

---

Look, I'm not going to tell you how to cheer..

---

Good. Because this has nothing to do with cheering and believe me I am not cheering for the packers, just grudgingly admitting that they have been successful at things that we have failed to do. Period.

Quote:

---

.I'm simply pointing out that except for a few breaks one way or the other, Minnesota hasn't done as poorly as you make it sound like.

---

Those few breaks are the things that separate the successful from the missed it by that much crowd.

Quote:

---

Since the addition of the NFC Championship game (1970), we've been there EIGHT times. Only Dallas, San Fransisco, and the LA/St. Louis Rams have been there more times.

---

And every one of them has won at least 1 super bowl while the Vikings have a goose egg.

Quote:

---

And, since the advent of that game, we've won it 3 times....just like Green Bay (Who's only managed to make it there 5 times).

---

If you are talking conference championships then yes. If you are talking about Super bowls then no.

Quote:

---

So, while their win% may be better, and they have more Superbowls, WE have had more positive seasons than they have...and that's worth something in itself.

---

I generally have a hard time taking a season as a positive when it doesn't end with a SB. Maybe I just have too high of a standard.

Quote:

---

My POINT is that you stated that Green Bay has a "far and away a more successful organization than the vikings"...and I've shown that they, in fact, do NOT. You can continue to look at championships before the modern NFL, or judge us solely by Superbowl wins...but if that's the criteria, then Pittsburgh is far and away the greatest team ever, followed by Dallas and San Fransisco...and we all might as well jump on their bandwagons. Furthermore, since the 49'ers have never LOST a Superbowl, they must be "far and away a more successful organization" than the Vikings AND the Packers, right?

---

I would agree. I would certainly consider Pittsburgh to be the elite franchise in the NFL. I would also put Dallas and SF right behind them along with New England. I would Put Green Bay right behind them ( Sorry Defroster;) )

I don't think anyone except a purple shaded rube would put the Vikings as an organization up there with any of those teams. Does that mean they are not my favorite team or that I don't cheer for them? Hell no but it would be delusional to put the Vikings in the same category as the teams above. Hopefully one day they will be right there but right now they aren't.

Quote:

---

Of course, looking at the Niners right now, that's going to be a hard sell.

---

It is only about right now? Teams will cycle up and down but they did put together a string of seasons that put them into elite status IMHO. Maybe they never get back there but you cannot take away what they did.

Quote:

---

And that's the POINT. Superbowls are "A" measure of success. And every team aspires to win one. But if they're your ONLY measure of success, then you're missing quite a bit of the picture.

---

Winning isn't every thing- It's the only thing.

Hell, if winning a SB wasn't that big of a deal we could have just as well kept Childress on as the coach. After all he just "Missed it by that much"

---

Purple, you just make a lot of sense. I would hope the Viking owners and coaches don't share the same opinion as the previous author. Failure to identify failure and recognize success is the hallmark of a losing teams coach.

By contrast, I would not classify the Steelers as a losing team, they may have lost this SB, but they are no doubt winners. Anybody happen to catch the interview with HC Mike Tomlin said after the SB loss? He didn't make excuses, he didn't say his team played poorly, losers love to use that line. Instead he gave credit to the Packers. In my opinion, thats the mark of a past and future winner. If a person can't recognize the componants of a winning team, how will they know how to put a winning team together.

I could not agree with you more, The only successuful season is when you win the superbowl, anything other than that, and you have set your sights too low.

---

Wow, talk about missing the point completely. Short of using very small words, I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Your statement was that Green Bay's franchise is "far and away a more successful organization than the vikings"...

But by which measuring stick?

If you base this SOLELY upon Superbowl wins, then you might as well toss in the towel.

If you base it solely upon the results of last season, then you're ignoring a 50 year history.

Our Franchise is in rough shape RIGHT NOW...that's a given. Hell, after spending 4 1/2 years railing about how bad of a decision the hiring of Childress was, I'm not about to pretend everything is peachy-keen because he's gone. Is this "Failure to identify failure and recognize success"? Not even close.

...but I'm not going to throw my dignity into the crapper and start gushing about how wonderful my opponents are either. Mostly because I don't think they really are.

Green Bay put together the right team for last season. Their depth was impressive. They have a fantastic QB who was fortunate enough to enter the league having one of the best WR Corps in the NFL to throw to. And they put together a Defense that confounded people. And, most importantly, they got hot when they needed to...


...Last season.

Of course, people wrote all sorts of glowing reviews about the Saints the year before. Where are they now?

People talked about how impressive the Giants were 3 years ago...where are they now?

People tried to compare the '06 Bear Defense to the '85 Bears defense...and what happened?

I wonder how long you two have been fans? I'd surmise in the case of jrjohn it's been fairly recent. I wonder if you remember the stretch between 1973 and 1995 when the Packers couldn't BUY a Division title? Or how from 1973 to 1992, Green Bay made the Play offs ONCE...and only because of a Strike Shortened season.

Minnesota, meanwhile, won the Division Eleven times during that stretch...including a run of 6 consecutive seasons. WE played in 3 Superbowls while they could barely string together a winning season!!

Again, the POINT is that they have a current advantage - on paper. And, also "on paper", we look to be in a lot of trouble. Due to mismanagement and poor coaching, we are hanging on the edge and could easily fall either way.


But does that make them "far and away a more successful organization than the vikings"?

Not in this lifetime.

Caine

The Packers have been built for next season, not this past season.

It's slow and irritating to the (other) fanbase when done through the draft to an extraordinary degree, but why lie now or fool yourself about the reality of it?

That's the truth of the matter, and it has to do with our offensive line.

The cognoscenti know this, Vikes fans are going to think the Pack has reverted or regressed on that line...just watch and learn.

The poundage is going to increase dramatically, along with the speed...

Ted was late to the party, but he has made up for lost time and bad decisions, imo

It's been frustrating for Packer fans, except we got "lucky" this year, with about a half a roster tied behind our back...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1089476

The Packers have been built for next season, not this past season.

It's slow and irritating to the (other) fanbase when done through the draft to an extraordinary degree, but why lie now or fool yourself about the reality of it?

That's the truth of the matter, and it has to do with our offensive line.

The cognoscenti know this, Vikes fans are going to think the Pack has reverted or regressed on that line...just watch and learn.

The poundage is going to increase dramatically, along with the speed...

Ted was late to the party, but he has made up for lost time and bad decisions, imo

It's been frustrating for Packer fans, except we got "lucky" this year, with about a half a roster tied behind our back...

---

I won't say that the Packers are a bad team. They aren't. But let's be completely honest here, of the reported 15 IR players, how many of them are TRULY impact players?

Barnett? Maybe. Although much has been said about him allegedly falling off.

Burnett? Possibly. Although you only got a glimpse of him, and he was a rookie.

Chillar? He wasn't a starter anyway.

Finley? Yeah...having 2 dangerous TE's is a decided advantage.

Grant? Maybe...although I've never been sold on him.

Tauscher? You guys have been trying for YEARS to replace him.

Who else was REALLY an impact player?

Fact is, you had a lot of injuries, but not a lot of them were game breakers. I'm not saying it didn't make life difficult...but it certainly didn't hamstring your team.

For example, you didn't lose your #1 and #2 receivers. Imagine life without Jennings and Driver? Since Rodgers and the Packers live on the big pass play, how well would you have done without the deep threat of Jennings and the possession threat of Driver?

So, while I agree you have a GOOD team, I hesitate to say you have a Dynasty in the making.

IMO, your tackles are getting older, and you haven't found true replacements YET (unless you're ready to anoint Bulaga?).

Your running game is still weak. I've never been a fan of Grant, and we all saw how little confidence your team has in Jackson (Must be the name?).

Your Defense was hot this season, but Matthews didn't finish as strong as he started. People are figuring him out.

Your secondary is streaky, but how long will Woodson keep it up? He's 34. Do you have solid Corners ready to step in? Can Williams keep it up?

Again, I've seen too many teams "anointed" to buy the hype. I remember people gushing over the Bears Defense in '06, yapping about how young they were, and how they were all under contract for the next 4 years...and then the Bears sucked in '07, '08, and '09.

I grant you that Thompson has drafted well...this seasons results confirm that. But with no NFC team repeating in 13 seasons - ironically Green Bay was the last team to do so - it remains an uphill fight.

Further, no one will underestimate Green Bay next season. Everyone will have their gaze planted firmly on the Packers, looking to knock them off. 6 teams did it this past season, while Green Bay flew under the radar due to Chicago's lead...but that's over.

And let's not forget about Atlanta, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Tampa Bay, and - yes, I hate to say it - New York and Dallas. These are other teams that many thought would go far this season, or - in the case of Tampa - started showing some fire. They're not going to quietly roll over and die just because the Bleacherreport says the Packers are a Dynasty.

Hell, even Detroit might bite you in the ass next season.

That's why they play the games....

Caine

Now Caine, that's good stuff.

Finally.

I need you to look more closely at Grant, though--

8th game of the 2007 season when Grant went in to the 3 plays preceding when he went out this year. Those stats would scare you when attached to the rest of this team going forward based on what they did without them this year.

No one is assigning any dynasty to anyone. It's like you are bringing the trailer park bar room bullshit from some bumf#ck town in Wisconsin to this forum for (me?) to argue against.

I would say we have a better shot than stats suggest, at least that 10 teams in 10 years one from the NFC, and that is all I'm suggesting, and it IS legitimate (my argument)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1089485

Now Caine, that's good stuff.

Finally.

I need you to look more closely at Grant, though--

8th game of the 2007 season when Grant went in to the 3 plays preceding when he went out this year. Those stats would scare you when attached to the rest of this team going forward based on what they did without them this year.

No one is assigning any dynasty to anyone. It's like you are bringing the trailer park bar room bullshit from some bumf#ck town in Wisconsin to this forum for (me?) to argue against.

I would say we have a better shot than stats suggest, at least that 10 teams in 10 years one from the NFC, and that is all I'm suggesting, and it IS legitimate (my argument)

---

Here's my thing about Grant:

I happen to believe that he benefits from a pass happy offense. Defense are playing Rodgers and that Receiver corps. You HAVE to. Green Bay is rightfully proud of their top 4 receivers. We haven't had that since we had Carter, Reed, and Moss, with Chris Walsh thrown in for good measure.

The difference is that we also had Robert Smith then, and he was a proven commodity.

Grant never seems to take a game over. His consistency just isn't there. He rushes for 148 yards versus Cleveland (in '09), then gets only 30 versus Minnesota the following week. Versus San Fran, Detroit, and Baltimore (again, in '09) he had 21, 20, and 18 carries resulting in 129, 61, and 41 yards respectively.

Where's the consistency?

I'm not saying he's a BAD RB...he isn't. But he isn't the guy you turn a game over to like Ahman Green was back in '03 (One of Favre's least prolific seasons in Green Bay). In fact, once he got hurt, Green Bay struggled to find that durable workhorse back to take his place.

And, from where I sit, they're still looking.

Let's face it, in only 5 games last season did Green Bay have the games leading rusher. Hell, three times it was the opposing QUARTERBACK!!! (Weeks 1, 3, and 4. Vick, Cutler, and Shaun Hill). And in only 1 of the game that GB had the leading rusher did that rusher go over 100 yards.

Let's face it, right now, your team lives by the shootout. And that means that other teams prepare to defend the shootout. And in that situation, the RB has a LOT of opportunities.

Yet in '09, Grant only had three 100+ yard games. This despite having seven games with 20 or more carries.

And THAT is why I don't think Grant is "The Guy". He's never stepped up and TAKEN it. Like Mewelde Moore when he was here...he never TOOK it.

If you ever find a RB who will take over, we're in trouble. But, until you do, you'll be forced to continue to live by the shoot out...

...and that makes you vulnerable.

Caine