Pepe Silvia
Where's my mail?
- Joined:
- May 26, 2010
- Posts:
- 173
- Liked Posts:
- 16
are they the worst Super Bowl champs of all time?
- Joined:
- Apr 26, 2010
- Posts:
- 26,017
- Liked Posts:
- 3,297
- Location:
- Minnesota
My favorite teams
Yes, because they are the Packers.
- Joined:
- Jan 7, 2011
- Posts:
- 4,302
- Liked Posts:
- 1,402
- Location:
- Bandwagon
I would think so because, if my memory serves me correctly, they're the first 6th seeded team to even get to the Super Bowl, let alone win it. Could be wrong on that one though.
- Joined:
- Apr 23, 2010
- Posts:
- 5,227
- Liked Posts:
- 1,551
- Location:
- Rockford, IL
I dont think that is fair to say, The Packers eliminated the NFC #3, #2, and #1 seeds, they are lot better than they get credit for
- Joined:
- Jan 7, 2011
- Posts:
- 4,302
- Liked Posts:
- 1,402
- Location:
- Bandwagon
I think he means record-wise. I don't think anyone would argue that in reality they're much better than a number-six seed. It doesn't matter though, cause they're gonna lose and Aaron 'The Horrible F*g' Rodgers is gonna cry at some point.
Last edited:
- Joined:
- Jun 25, 2010
- Posts:
- 40,864
- Liked Posts:
- 27,801
well Record wise.. the 10-6 Giants won in 2007.
- Joined:
- Jun 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 45,381
- Liked Posts:
- 34,597
My favorite teams
Dude, the Packers, are like....legit.
WearShades
New member
- Joined:
- Jan 28, 2010
- Posts:
- 560
- Liked Posts:
- 47
The 2005 Steelers were also a 6th seed.
As for the question about the Packers being the worst super bowl champion ever if they were to win this year, I'd have to disagree. That team has a very good offense and a great defense. They're far better than their 10-6 regular season record would lead you to believe.
Last edited:
- Joined:
- Jan 7, 2011
- Posts:
- 4,302
- Liked Posts:
- 1,402
- Location:
- Bandwagon
Ok, well I wasn't certain about it. That's why I said I might be wrong. It felt good when I was writing it so I just went with it. Either way, Aaron Rodgers is still a horrible f*g.
WearShades
New member
- Joined:
- Jan 28, 2010
- Posts:
- 560
- Liked Posts:
- 47
A what?
- Joined:
- Jan 7, 2011
- Posts:
- 4,302
- Liked Posts:
- 1,402
- Location:
- Bandwagon
A horrible ***. As in, Aaron Rodgers is a horrible ***.
I didn't want to offend anyone's delicate sensibilities.
I didn't want to offend anyone's delicate sensibilities.
Minne
New member
- Joined:
- Jan 10, 2011
- Posts:
- 36
- Liked Posts:
- 10
should be a good game
WearShades
New member
- Joined:
- Jan 28, 2010
- Posts:
- 560
- Liked Posts:
- 47
I'd take him to be my quarterback, wouldn't you?
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 13,285
- Liked Posts:
- 7,400
- Location:
- North Carolina
My favorite teams
Rodgers is good but I stick with Cutler, he's our quarterback. He's been tainted by the Green and Yellow.
Ohio13State
The Future and Present.
- Joined:
- Sep 1, 2010
- Posts:
- 147
- Liked Posts:
- 16
Rodgers :jizz:
Pack were a favorite early in the season iirc
Pack were a favorite early in the season iirc
WearShades
New member
- Joined:
- Jan 28, 2010
- Posts:
- 560
- Liked Posts:
- 47
I'm not one of those who jumped on the Cutler is a pussy/sucks bandwagon after the NFC championship, but he doesn't hold a candle to Rodgers. I expect Cutler to improve but I don't see him reaching that level.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 13,285
- Liked Posts:
- 7,400
- Location:
- North Carolina
My favorite teams
He doesn't hold a candle to Rodgers because Aaron Rodgers has had the same OC for multiple seasons, he's had a great supporting cast, an awesome offensive line, WR's who know how to settle in a zone, WRs who know how to run a read-option route.
Put Cutler in that offense....or 2/3rds of the QB's in the NFL in that offense...and they could be successful as well.
You must remember, Cutler has had a new offensive coordinator 4 out of 4 seasons in the NFL. This season he played behind a shitty, terrible, awful offensive line with piss poor WR's who wouldn't see the field on most other NFL squads.
I know Rodgers is a great QB but when you have amazing talent surrounding you, with great coaching, success isn't that hard to come by. Comparing the two is foolish because the situations are 100% different.
Put Cutler in that offense....or 2/3rds of the QB's in the NFL in that offense...and they could be successful as well.
You must remember, Cutler has had a new offensive coordinator 4 out of 4 seasons in the NFL. This season he played behind a shitty, terrible, awful offensive line with piss poor WR's who wouldn't see the field on most other NFL squads.
I know Rodgers is a great QB but when you have amazing talent surrounding you, with great coaching, success isn't that hard to come by. Comparing the two is foolish because the situations are 100% different.
WearShades
New member
- Joined:
- Jan 28, 2010
- Posts:
- 560
- Liked Posts:
- 47
For starters that offensive line isn't awesome. It's OK. And while the supporting cast is pretty good it's Rodgers that makes that team go, not the other way around. What you're saying is two thirds of the NFL's quarterbacks could put up big numbers for Green Bay and that's just absurd. I know it's not the easiest thing to say but Rodgers is a really special player. Cutler isn't and probably will never be at that level.
While this is true, the "constantly changing offensive coordinator" argument is totally overrated. Tom Brady has gone through many playcallers over the years and it hasn't hurt him. Cutler should be able to play well regardless of how often the OC is replaced. And since you've compared Cutler to Rodgers, Rodgers was hit 50 times in 2009 and he performed far better than Cutler did this year after being hit 52 times. Part of that is due to having better weapons but the difference is mostly due to him being a better QB.
I think you're overplaying the quality of Rodgers surrounding pieces to take away from what he's done. Cutler wouldn't be doing nearly as well as Rodgers is in that system just because the surrounding pieces are better than what Cutler has now. Cutler had even better weapons in Denver (better line, running game, and receiving options) and he didn't perform at that level.
While Cutler will get better, he's probably not going to break into that top 5 QB territory. He probably doesn't have to for the Bears to be successful given that the defense and special teams are so strong, but let's not downplay how good Rodgers is just because he's a Packer.
- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2010
- Posts:
- 13,285
- Liked Posts:
- 7,400
- Location:
- North Carolina
My favorite teams
Let me rephrase that, I meant awesome offensive line in comparison to the shit stack that Cutler is expected to play behind. I believe Green Bay's supporting cast is amazing. A lot of people would put GB's WR corps as the league's best in the entire NFL.
Green Bay's offense doesn't rely 100% on pure, amazing, best in the league, talent. It's a masterfully created system offensively. Rodgers has compared the offense to playing 7-on-7 due to the blocking he receives and the crisp routes his WR's run. I am not saying Joe Webb could put up the same numbers or lead the same productivity levels, I am saying that with that system, the amount of times they throw the ball, the quality of the players surrounding the QB, I would not be surprised if there were many other QB's who would find the same success in Gold and Green. It's very easy for me to say Aaron Godgers is amazing. He's a Top 5 QB in the NFL, a category Cutler is not apart of. However I don't think it's fair to compare apples and oranges. The situations are wildly different.
I don't believe the offensive coordinator argument is overrated. To an extent it is, but the example you used was Tom Brady's changes. Tom Brady IS the best QB in the NFL, I would expect him to roll with the punches better then a guy surrounded by crap talent, a crapshoot offensive line, and lack of NFL developed mechanics. You could remove Brady's arm and he has enough experience and talent to play through it. Or for that matter, cut the ******'s hair
Rodgers is going into his 6th season currently. Cutler's performance in Denver is based off his first 3 years in the league. I don't think that is fair to bring up the fact that he had better talent in Denver because he clearly wasn't developed to the point where he could be wildly successful.
I am well aware Rodgers is Top 5 and Cutler isn't. However to compare the two isn't really fair in itself either. I think Rodgers is better, yes. However if you give me the option to keep one or the other, out of loyalty to my team, I still pick Cutler. I think with time, he can be creeping into the Rodgers category.
However he could also find himself sifting back to the bottom with Kyle Orton as well. Only time can tell.
Green Bay's offense doesn't rely 100% on pure, amazing, best in the league, talent. It's a masterfully created system offensively. Rodgers has compared the offense to playing 7-on-7 due to the blocking he receives and the crisp routes his WR's run. I am not saying Joe Webb could put up the same numbers or lead the same productivity levels, I am saying that with that system, the amount of times they throw the ball, the quality of the players surrounding the QB, I would not be surprised if there were many other QB's who would find the same success in Gold and Green. It's very easy for me to say Aaron Godgers is amazing. He's a Top 5 QB in the NFL, a category Cutler is not apart of. However I don't think it's fair to compare apples and oranges. The situations are wildly different.
I don't believe the offensive coordinator argument is overrated. To an extent it is, but the example you used was Tom Brady's changes. Tom Brady IS the best QB in the NFL, I would expect him to roll with the punches better then a guy surrounded by crap talent, a crapshoot offensive line, and lack of NFL developed mechanics. You could remove Brady's arm and he has enough experience and talent to play through it. Or for that matter, cut the ******'s hair
Rodgers is going into his 6th season currently. Cutler's performance in Denver is based off his first 3 years in the league. I don't think that is fair to bring up the fact that he had better talent in Denver because he clearly wasn't developed to the point where he could be wildly successful.
I am well aware Rodgers is Top 5 and Cutler isn't. However to compare the two isn't really fair in itself either. I think Rodgers is better, yes. However if you give me the option to keep one or the other, out of loyalty to my team, I still pick Cutler. I think with time, he can be creeping into the Rodgers category.
However he could also find himself sifting back to the bottom with Kyle Orton as well. Only time can tell.
- Joined:
- Jun 15, 2010
- Posts:
- 45,381
- Liked Posts:
- 34,597
My favorite teams
Rush, dude......