diener34 Show full post »
icons
Wizzler wrote:


Schlitzdog wrote:


Mr_mike527 wrote:


ICONS wrote:


Mr_mike527 wrote:


ICONS wrote:


How do you people get away with the name calling on a regular basis here?

But anyway....the bolded area pretty much tells the world that you have not a clue to what you are talking about. Too bad because your first couple paragraphs probably impressed someone who has not been paying attention. But you just had to blame the playoff losses on Brett...and that blew your entire arguement.


I let things that attack the opinion go. He didn't say you're an idiot, I interpreted it as him saying your argument is idiocy.

The type of things that you're arguing just make you sound like you have no response to what people are saying to you. Someone presents an argument to you and your response is essentially "Nuh-uh."

I believe he means to say the '02, '03, '05, and '08 playoff losses. Here's Favre's statlines in those games:

2001 @ St Louis: 26-44, 59.1%, 281 Yards, 6.89 Y/A, 2 TDs, 6 Interceptions (2nd TD came down 45-10)
[Opposition: Kurt Warner 18-30, 216-2-1]
2002 ATLANTA: 20-42, 47.6%, 247 Yards, 5.88 Y/A, 1 TD, 2 Interceptions (TD came down 24-0)
[Opposition: Michael Vick 13-25, 117-1-0)
2005 MINNESOTA: 22-33, 66.7%, 216 Yards, 6.55 Y/A, 1 TD, 4 Interceptions
[Opposition: Dante Culpepper 19-29, 284-4-0]
2008 NEW YORK: 19-35, 54.3%, 236 Yards, 6.74 Y/A, 2 TD, 2 Interceptions (Unable to move the offense at all in 4th Quarter and OT)
[Opposition: Eli Manning 21-40, 252-0-0]

The bottom line is that in most of those games (although the final is very arguable), Favre was outplayed and probably could have been considered the goat. Against Minnesota and St. Louis, I have an extremely hard time saying Favre didn't very strongly have a negative impact on his team. Against Vick and the Falcons, Favre couldn't move the offense until the 2nd half. Against the Vikings, he was heartily outplayed by Culpepper in a poor-weather game.

You have pretty much stated the rest of the players on the team have let Favre down, and supported that sentiment with nothing but the fact that the team lost the game. Favre did as much as anybody to lose every playoff loss of the Sherman era with the exception of the '04 Eagles game (4th and 23). So I'm interested to see if you have anything to back up your statements other than filling in the mindless ad-lib of excuses. "Nope. Obviously, he was worse because (the Defense put him in bad spots/he had bad receivers/the fans didn't cheer hard enough) and besides, did you see (the weather/how awesome the other teams were/his gray hair)?!"


Firstly "your idiocy" is far from attacking the argument. I am pretty certain that you know that.

Secondly....a person can pull all sorts of numbers out of a hat to back their opinions no matter what side of an argument you are on. I could list a crapload of numbers to back my opinion that Favre was not the biggest reason we lost all those playoff games. He was pathetic against the Rams and that is indefensible but can anyone truly say he lost the Giants game? Missed FG's, an awful performance from Al Harris and ZERO running game had nothing to do with it right? Come on....who actually thinks that way?

No matter how you dice it though....it has very little to do with my orignal contention that the Packers lost in the playoffs on a routine basis because they were not that good in the first place. With most any other player at QB...it is very likely that most of those teams would not have even been in the playoffs to begin with.


I would like to see the crapload of numbers, please. You have defended one game, the Giants game, which wasn't even in the Sherman era.

Let's see the crapload of numbers. It does have a lot to do with your contention. The reason that the Packers dropped off so badly in the playoffs is because Favre dropped off badly in the playoffs. Let's be clear here--you also haven't really disputed that Favre had a pretty good supporting cast around him. He had a very good Offensive Line for most of the Sherman years, decent WRs, and at least an above-average offense.

Did Favre elevate the team's play? Yes. But its not like he was performing miracles year-in and year-out. He took teams that would be 9-7 with a normal QB in a normal Division and made them 11-5 or 12-4 in a below-average Division.

I agree with you. The Packers you thought were so good at the time were lousy at best!! It's funny how you guys are now tearing apart Packer history to try and prove Favre sucks cause your other lameass arguements hold no water!!


So you think Favre is god too. Not one person, me, Mr. Mike, Top Notch, Etc said Favre sucked. We are actually looking at this in an objective nature. Favre was great, he sucked sometimes in the playoffs and he surely had more than "marginal talent." Remember between 2002 and 2005 10 of 11 Packer's regular offensive players made the pro bowl, that is every position but Mark Tauscher. Icons has given the counter argument of I am right because I say so. That actually holds water? It would be great if some people would actually try to separate fact from legend.


Actually...I am the one being objective while others are playing the role of die hard Packer fans. I have not disagreed that the Packers had quite a few pro bowlers.....but I also know that the Pro Bowl is a popularity contest. How many fans vote for their favorite players deservedly or not?


Quote 0 0
sportsfan12
ICONS, it's time to support your opinion with some actual data. Other than that, you have no argument. All the rolling smileys and back handed comments in the world don't help your argument.
Quote 0 0
riseagainst
First off, In reference to the St. Louis playoff game, if you remember the week before that the packers beat the 49ers in a pretty close wild card game 25-15. Favre was 22 of 29 for 2 tds and 1 int (16 of 21 for 226 yards in the 2nd half). It's probably a safe bet to say that if it wasn't for Favre's performance in that game, the packers wouldn't even have had an opportunity to play St. Louis....just saying.

Secondly, favre stunk in the st louis game, but who even knows if they could have won if he played a decent game. To just expect that the packers would beat that stacked St. Louis team and pin the loss squarely on favre's performance is kind of irrational. Packer's receivers and RBs fumbled in that game too that set up scores, there was just too big of a mountain to climb for the packers to realistically beat St. Louis.

And finally, for those saying that favre is overrated and that if he hadn't won super bowl XXXI he'd be the biggest choker ever, and saying that he had so much talent around him, etc., let me just ask you something. From that stretch of 1993-1998 which saw the packers reach the playoffs all 6 years, with 3 NFC champsionship game appearances, 2 Super Bowl appearances, and 1 World Championship, do you honestly think any of that would have happened if your starting quarterback had been ty detmer, doug peterson, or matt hasselback?...... I didn't think so.

University of Wisconsin Track and Field
Quote 0 0
mrmike527
ICONS wrote:


Stop it Mike. The numbers have been hashed and rehashed so so many times over the years. Will not even begin to waste my time digging up 16 years of numbers to prove a point. Just remember that Bill Schroeder was a 1,000 yard WR with Brett throwing to him. Now I admit that he was a pretty damn good WR [rotfl]....but a 1,000 yards WR (and he damn near got 1,000 twice)?

People can stop pretending that the Packers were SB contenders year in and year out and Brett lost it in the playoffs for them. The truth is that most seasons they were barely playoff contenders and their weaknesses were exposed year in and year out in the playoffs. After the SB seasons....it was steadily downhill for Green Bay and none of the teams after the last SB truly had SB talent (barring a crapload of luck i.e. Arizona Cardinal luck) during playoff time.


I guess it isn't surprising. You're right, the numbers have been hashed and rehashed "so many times," what's the point of supporting an argument with facts anymore? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, that's the exact same thing you said when you were getting your butt kicked in the Tom Brady arguments.

Again, I showed you that, yes, their weaknesses were exposed many times in the playoffs, and often those "weaknesses" were Brett Favre's tendencies to make mistakes and force throws in big games. You can say the team was marginally talented, but you really haven't said anything to back that up. Will not begin to use stats to prove your point? Its not 16 years, its about 6 years of Sherman, and it didn't take me too long to dig up Brett Favre's poor playoff games in the Sherman era.

Marcus Robinson had 1400 yards with Shane Matthews as the Bears leading passer. Was Marcus Robinson decent? Yes, but was he a 1400 yard receiver? No. That doesn't mean Shane Matthews receives the credit for the 6 wins and is mostly absolved of the ten losses. What's your point? That he made Schroeder better? That's what good QBs do, and I don't think anybody is disputing Favre was a good QB.

The point is that Favre elevated the play of the team, but he didn't "make" the team. The team was pretty good, and its not like you can point your finger at his teammates and say "you really let him down" when in most of the losses he put his teammates into bad spots. Really, I blame Sherman for allowing Favre to "gunsling" in the big games--look at Favre's stats with and without Sherman and you'll see just how terrible Sherman was handling Favre--but Favre still did it.
Quote 0 0
topnotch1
ICONS wrote:


sportsfan wrote:


ICONS, it's time to support your opinion with some actual data. Other than that, you have no argument. All the rolling smileys and back handed comments in the world don't help your argument.


LOL...I am 110% correct on this. I am pretty sure that you already know that but the Packer fan in you refuses to accept it. But look no further than all the playoff teams the Packers have had since the SB's. Now look and see how many of those teams advanced to the SB again.

Not hard to add them up is it? Yet all those teams were great teams? Is it just plain flat out that the Packers were cursed by the Broncos? Just bad luck?

Or is it that those teams were actually not SB caliber? Was it because those teams were very very average but somehow magically made the playoffs each season?

My side of the argument is easy. You do not have to look very hard to see it...you just have to forget that you are a Packer fan for a few minutes. Try it....

Edit: You did not like my smiley laugh at Bill Schroeder? Tough to argue my point on that one also though isnt it?


1) I would like you to show me one person who said all the Sherman-era Packers teams were "great". The people on the logical side of the argument said they were good teams led by a good quarterback who frequently failed in the playoffs. The people on your side think they were terrible teams (Marginally talented) who were carried into the playoffs on the strength of an amazing quarterback.

2) I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with the Bill Schroeder comments. Yes, he barely led the Packers in one receiving category for a couple years. Guess what? The Packers missed the playoffs in 1999 and 2000! When the Packers surrounded Favre with some more talented WR options - Donald Driver, Javon Walker, and Bubba Franks, to name a few - The Packers were in the playoffs year in and year out again.

3) Not only is your complete lack of stats getting annoying, but so are your half replies. Here's what's been happening: You make some completely ridiculous statements with nothing to back them up, someone like myself or Wizzler or mr mike prove you wrong in every way, then you pick out one subjective comment in our entire reply and use it for a whole new post of ridiculous statements, while ignoring the rest of our rebuttal completely.

4) If the Packers were so terrbile all those years, but salvaged by Favre, I would like you to tell me exactly, by name, which players we needed to replace, at which positions. Especially on offense. You tell us the Pro Bowl is just a popularity contest. Fine. By your own evaluations, which offensive players were not good enough?
Ricky Rubio will be a Pamela Anderson sized bust.

6/28/2009

Quote 0 0
icons
Top Notch wrote:


ICONS wrote:


sportsfan wrote:


ICONS, it's time to support your opinion with some actual data. Other than that, you have no argument. All the rolling smileys and back handed comments in the world don't help your argument.


LOL...I am 110% correct on this. I am pretty sure that you already know that but the Packer fan in you refuses to accept it. But look no further than all the playoff teams the Packers have had since the SB's. Now look and see how many of those teams advanced to the SB again.

Not hard to add them up is it? Yet all those teams were great teams? Is it just plain flat out that the Packers were cursed by the Broncos? Just bad luck?

Or is it that those teams were actually not SB caliber? Was it because those teams were very very average but somehow magically made the playoffs each season?

My side of the argument is easy. You do not have to look very hard to see it...you just have to forget that you are a Packer fan for a few minutes. Try it....

Edit: You did not like my smiley laugh at Bill Schroeder? Tough to argue my point on that one also though isnt it?


1) I would like you to show me one person who said all the Sherman-era Packers teams were "great". The people on the logical side of the argument said they were good teams led by a good quarterback who frequently failed in the playoffs. The people on your side think they were terrible teams (Marginally talented) who were carried into the playoffs on the strength of an amazing quarterback.

2) I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with the Bill Schroeder comments. Yes, he barely led the Packers in one receiving category for a couple years. Guess what? The Packers missed the playoffs in 1999 and 2000! When the Packers surrounded Favre with some more talented WR options - Donald Driver, Javon Walker, and Bubba Franks, to name a few - The Packers were in the playoffs year in and year out again.

3) Not only is your complete lack of stats getting annoying, but so are your half replies. Here's what's been happening: You make some completely ridiculous statements with nothing to back them up, someone like myself or Wizzler or mr mike prove you wrong in every way, then you pick out one subjective comment in our entire reply and use it for a whole new post of ridiculous statements, while ignoring the rest of our rebuttal completely.

4) If the Packers were so terrbile all those years, but salvaged by Favre, I would like you to tell me exactly, by name, which players we needed to replace, at which positions. Especially on offense. You tell us the Pro Bowl is just a popularity contest. Fine. By your own evaluations, which offensive players were not good enough?


How do I prove my point that the Packers were marginally talented and would not have even been in the playoffs some seasons without Brett? It is not as if we can go back in time and take Brett out of the equation (although some here would love that). This is an OPINION that no amount of stats and numbers can confirm or reject what I have stated. Any numbers I throw out would be as totally meaningless as the numbers you and others are throwing out.

Sooooo...it pretty simple. Either you agree with my opinion or you do not. Throwing fits and tossing out numbers make no difference whatsoever in this case.

But I will say again...you know I am right on this....


Edit: Please do not insult the intellligence of anyone on this board by saying that the Pro-Bowl is not a popularity contest. Fans vote with their hearts and not their heads. I suppose it is possible that the Packer players are always voted solely on merit. But...that would kind of fly in the face of common sense since the Packers have a crapload of fans around the world. I am pretty damn certain those millions of fans would vote Ahman Green in if they could.
Quote 0 0
wizzler
Popularity contest or not, when was the last time a truly average player made the pro bowl? It is ridiculous to think that when 9 of 11 starters make it to the pro bowl in a 4 year stretch none of them were better than average.

Quote 0 0
sportsfan12
ICONS wrote:


How do I prove my point that the Packers were marginally talented and would not have even been in the playoffs some seasons without Brett? It is not as if we can go back in time and take Brett out of the equation (although some here would love that). This is an OPINION that no amount of stats and numbers can confirm or reject what I have stated. Any numbers I throw out would be as totally meaningless as the numbers you and others are throwing out.

Sooooo...it pretty simple. Either you agree with my opinion or you do not. Throwing fits and tossing out numbers make no difference whatsoever in this case.

But I will say again...you know I am right on this....


Edit: Please do not insult the intellligence of anyone on this board by saying that the Pro-Bowl is not a popularity contest. Fans vote with their hearts and not their heads. I suppose it is possible that the Packer players are always voted solely on merit. But...that would kind of fly in the face of common sense since the Packers have a crapload of fans around the world. I am pretty damn certain those millions of fans would vote Ahman Green in if they could.


No one does. You thinking it does not make it so.
Quote 0 0
mrmike527
ICONS wrote:


Top Notch wrote:


1) I would like you to show me one person who said all the Sherman-era Packers teams were "great". The people on the logical side of the argument said they were good teams led by a good quarterback who frequently failed in the playoffs. The people on your side think they were terrible teams (Marginally talented) who were carried into the playoffs on the strength of an amazing quarterback.

2) I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with the Bill Schroeder comments. Yes, he barely led the Packers in one receiving category for a couple years. Guess what? The Packers missed the playoffs in 1999 and 2000! When the Packers surrounded Favre with some more talented WR options - Donald Driver, Javon Walker, and Bubba Franks, to name a few - The Packers were in the playoffs year in and year out again.

3) Not only is your complete lack of stats getting annoying, but so are your half replies. Here's what's been happening: You make some completely ridiculous statements with nothing to back them up, someone like myself or Wizzler or mr mike prove you wrong in every way, then you pick out one subjective comment in our entire reply and use it for a whole new post of ridiculous statements, while ignoring the rest of our rebuttal completely.

4) If the Packers were so terrbile all those years, but salvaged by Favre, I would like you to tell me exactly, by name, which players we needed to replace, at which positions. Especially on offense. You tell us the Pro Bowl is just a popularity contest. Fine. By your own evaluations, which offensive players were not good enough?


How do I prove my point that the Packers were marginally talented and would not have even been in the playoffs some seasons without Brett? It is not as if we can go back in time and take Brett out of the equation (although some here would love that). This is an OPINION that no amount of stats and numbers can confirm or reject what I have stated. Any numbers I throw out would be as totally meaningless as the numbers you and others are throwing out.

Sooooo...it pretty simple. Either you agree with my opinion or you do not. Throwing fits and tossing out numbers make no difference whatsoever in this case.

But I will say again...you know I am right on this....


Edit: Please do not insult the intellligence of anyone on this board by saying that the Pro-Bowl is not a popularity contest. Fans vote with their hearts and not their heads. I suppose it is possible that the Packer players are always voted solely on merit. But...that would kind of fly in the face of common sense since the Packers have a crapload of fans around the world. I am pretty damn certain those millions of fans would vote Ahman Green in if they could.


Strangely, he actually agreed with you that the Pro Bowl is a popularity contest. To quote: "You say the Pro Bowl is a popularity contest. Fine." He has not assaulted anybody's intelligence.

This is not how it works. I don't know what sort of debate you learned about, but it isn't simply people saying "It's this way, because I believe its this way!" and "No, its that way, because I believe its that way!" and then agreeing to disagree.

When your case for it is "either you agree with my opinion or you do not," while others are giving actual data and statistics to support their opinions, there's a good chance you're probably wrong. Obviously you don't think you're wrong, but I'm just saying--usually when someone has trouble backing up their opinions with facts, they're wrong. Or at least, their thinking is flawed.
Quote 0 0
topnotch1
ICONS wrote:


Top Notch wrote:


ICONS wrote:


sportsfan wrote:


ICONS, it's time to support your opinion with some actual data. Other than that, you have no argument. All the rolling smileys and back handed comments in the world don't help your argument.


LOL...I am 110% correct on this. I am pretty sure that you already know that but the Packer fan in you refuses to accept it. But look no further than all the playoff teams the Packers have had since the SB's. Now look and see how many of those teams advanced to the SB again.

Not hard to add them up is it? Yet all those teams were great teams? Is it just plain flat out that the Packers were cursed by the Broncos? Just bad luck?

Or is it that those teams were actually not SB caliber? Was it because those teams were very very average but somehow magically made the playoffs each season?

My side of the argument is easy. You do not have to look very hard to see it...you just have to forget that you are a Packer fan for a few minutes. Try it....

Edit: You did not like my smiley laugh at Bill Schroeder? Tough to argue my point on that one also though isnt it?


1) I would like you to show me one person who said all the Sherman-era Packers teams were "great". The people on the logical side of the argument said they were good teams led by a good quarterback who frequently failed in the playoffs. The people on your side think they were terrible teams (Marginally talented) who were carried into the playoffs on the strength of an amazing quarterback.

2) I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with the Bill Schroeder comments. Yes, he barely led the Packers in one receiving category for a couple years. Guess what? The Packers missed the playoffs in 1999 and 2000! When the Packers surrounded Favre with some more talented WR options - Donald Driver, Javon Walker, and Bubba Franks, to name a few - The Packers were in the playoffs year in and year out again.

3) Not only is your complete lack of stats getting annoying, but so are your half replies. Here's what's been happening: You make some completely ridiculous statements with nothing to back them up, someone like myself or Wizzler or mr mike prove you wrong in every way, then you pick out one subjective comment in our entire reply and use it for a whole new post of ridiculous statements, while ignoring the rest of our rebuttal completely.

4) If the Packers were so terrbile all those years, but salvaged by Favre, I would like you to tell me exactly, by name, which players we needed to replace, at which positions. Especially on offense. You tell us the Pro Bowl is just a popularity contest. Fine. By your own evaluations, which offensive players were not good enough?


How do I prove my point that the Packers were marginally talented and would not have even been in the playoffs some seasons without Brett? It is not as if we can go back in time and take Brett out of the equation (although some here would love that). This is an OPINION that no amount of stats and numbers can confirm or reject what I have stated. Any numbers I throw out would be as totally meaningless as the numbers you and others are throwing out.

Sooooo...it pretty simple. Either you agree with my opinion or you do not. Throwing fits and tossing out numbers make no difference whatsoever in this case.

But I will say again...you know I am right on this....


Edit: Please do not insult the intellligence of anyone on this board by saying that the Pro-Bowl is not a popularity contest. Fans vote with their hearts and not their heads. I suppose it is possible that the Packer players are always voted solely on merit. But...that would kind of fly in the face of common sense since the Packers have a crapload of fans around the world. I am pretty damn certain those millions of fans would vote Ahman Green in if they could.


I didn't even ask for stats, I know you won't provide any because there are no stats to back up your opinion.

I asked for names. Which key players of the Sherman era were "marginally talented"? There must be loads of them, considering how terrible you think the teams were.

I also find it amusing how your tune has changed. Here you say:

"No amount of numbers and stats can confirm or reject what I have stated"

when just a few posts back in a conversation with mr mike you claimed:

"I could list a crapload of numbers to back my opinion that Favre was not the biggest reason we lost all those playoff games."

And shortly after that:

"The numbers have been hashed and rehashed so so many times over the years. Will not even begin to waste my time digging up 16 years of numbers to prove a point."
[i][/i]
Apparently the numbers used to be there, available for you to use, but you just didn't have time to dig them up. Now it seems that there are no numbers that can help prove your point. Hmmm. Interesting.

Mr_mike said you obviously believe what you're saying. I disagree. I think you're blowing smoke and arguing just for the heck of it. But maybe I just give the benefit of the doubt too often. Maybe you really are that misguided.
Ricky Rubio will be a Pamela Anderson sized bust.

6/28/2009

Quote 0 0
legendoflambeau
sportsfan wrote:


ICONS wrote:


How do I prove my point that the Packers were marginally talented and would not have even been in the playoffs some seasons without Brett? It is not as if we can go back in time and take Brett out of the equation (although some here would love that). This is an OPINION that no amount of stats and numbers can confirm or reject what I have stated. Any numbers I throw out would be as totally meaningless as the numbers you and others are throwing out.

Sooooo...it pretty simple. Either you agree with my opinion or you do not. Throwing fits and tossing out numbers make no difference whatsoever in this case.

But I will say again...you know I am right on this....


Edit: Please do not insult the intellligence of anyone on this board by saying that the Pro-Bowl is not a popularity contest. Fans vote with their hearts and not their heads. I suppose it is possible that the Packer players are always voted solely on merit. But...that would kind of fly in the face of common sense since the Packers have a crapload of fans around the world. I am pretty damn certain those millions of fans would vote Ahman Green in if they could.


No one does. You thinking it does not make it so.


Well, I think he is right.
Keep Calm Chive On
Twitter: @Lumberstotle
Quote 0 0
pinetar
ICONS wrote:


Top Notch wrote:


ICONS wrote:


sportsfan wrote:


ICONS, it's time to support your opinion with some actual data. Other than that, you have no argument. All the rolling smileys and back handed comments in the world don't help your argument.


LOL...I am 110% correct on this. I am pretty sure that you already know that but the Packer fan in you refuses to accept it. But look no further than all the playoff teams the Packers have had since the SB's. Now look and see how many of those teams advanced to the SB again.

Not hard to add them up is it? Yet all those teams were great teams? Is it just plain flat out that the Packers were cursed by the Broncos? Just bad luck?

Or is it that those teams were actually not SB caliber? Was it because those teams were very very average but somehow magically made the playoffs each season?

My side of the argument is easy. You do not have to look very hard to see it...you just have to forget that you are a Packer fan for a few minutes. Try it....

Edit: You did not like my smiley laugh at Bill Schroeder? Tough to argue my point on that one also though isnt it?


1) I would like you to show me one person who said all the Sherman-era Packers teams were "great". The people on the logical side of the argument said they were good teams led by a good quarterback who frequently failed in the playoffs. The people on your side think they were terrible teams (Marginally talented) who were carried into the playoffs on the strength of an amazing quarterback.

2) I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with the Bill Schroeder comments. Yes, he barely led the Packers in one receiving category for a couple years. Guess what? The Packers missed the playoffs in 1999 and 2000! When the Packers surrounded Favre with some more talented WR options - Donald Driver, Javon Walker, and Bubba Franks, to name a few - The Packers were in the playoffs year in and year out again.

3) Not only is your complete lack of stats getting annoying, but so are your half replies. Here's what's been happening: You make some completely ridiculous statements with nothing to back them up, someone like myself or Wizzler or mr mike prove you wrong in every way, then you pick out one subjective comment in our entire reply and use it for a whole new post of ridiculous statements, while ignoring the rest of our rebuttal completely.

4) If the Packers were so terrbile all those years, but salvaged by Favre, I would like you to tell me exactly, by name, which players we needed to replace, at which positions. Especially on offense. You tell us the Pro Bowl is just a popularity contest. Fine. By your own evaluations, which offensive players were not good enough?


How do I prove my point that the Packers were marginally talented and would not have even been in the playoffs some seasons without Brett? It is not as if we can go back in time and take Brett out of the equation (although some here would love that). This is an OPINION that no amount of stats and numbers can confirm or reject what I have stated. Any numbers I throw out would be as totally meaningless as the numbers you and others are throwing out.

Sooooo...it pretty simple. Either you agree with my opinion or you do not. Throwing fits and tossing out numbers make no difference whatsoever in this case.

But I will say again...you know I am right on this....


Edit: Please do not insult the intellligence of anyone on this board by saying that the Pro-Bowl is not a popularity contest. Fans vote with their hearts and not their heads. I suppose it is possible that the Packer players are always voted solely on merit. But...that would kind of fly in the face of common sense since the Packers have a crapload of fans around the world. I am pretty damn certain those millions of fans would vote Ahman Green in if they could.


good point...and how many pro bowls did Favre go to during this stretch?...and remember...it's just a popularity contest and he was voted in because of his popularity...he was a marginally good QB at best right...I mean based on your reasoning?
Quote 0 0
pinetar
Legend of Lambeau wrote:


sportsfan wrote:


ICONS wrote:


How do I prove my point that the Packers were marginally talented and would not have even been in the playoffs some seasons without Brett? It is not as if we can go back in time and take Brett out of the equation (although some here would love that). This is an OPINION that no amount of stats and numbers can confirm or reject what I have stated. Any numbers I throw out would be as totally meaningless as the numbers you and others are throwing out.

Sooooo...it pretty simple. Either you agree with my opinion or you do not. Throwing fits and tossing out numbers make no difference whatsoever in this case.

But I will say again...you know I am right on this....


Edit: Please do not insult the intellligence of anyone on this board by saying that the Pro-Bowl is not a popularity contest. Fans vote with their hearts and not their heads. I suppose it is possible that the Packer players are always voted solely on merit. But...that would kind of fly in the face of common sense since the Packers have a crapload of fans around the world. I am pretty damn certain those millions of fans would vote Ahman Green in if they could.


No one does. You thinking it does not make it so.


Well, I think he is right.


and I think you are wrong...so I'm right
Quote 0 0
wizzler
Pinetar wrote:


Legend of Lambeau wrote:


sportsfan wrote:


ICONS wrote:


How do I prove my point that the Packers were marginally talented and would not have even been in the playoffs some seasons without Brett? It is not as if we can go back in time and take Brett out of the equation (although some here would love that). This is an OPINION that no amount of stats and numbers can confirm or reject what I have stated. Any numbers I throw out would be as totally meaningless as the numbers you and others are throwing out.

Sooooo...it pretty simple. Either you agree with my opinion or you do not. Throwing fits and tossing out numbers make no difference whatsoever in this case.

But I will say again...you know I am right on this....


Edit: Please do not insult the intellligence of anyone on this board by saying that the Pro-Bowl is not a popularity contest. Fans vote with their hearts and not their heads. I suppose it is possible that the Packer players are always voted solely on merit. But...that would kind of fly in the face of common sense since the Packers have a crapload of fans around the world. I am pretty damn certain those millions of fans would vote Ahman Green in if they could.


No one does. You thinking it does not make it so.


Well, I think he is right.


and I think you are wrong...so I'm right


Ahh, now it all makes sense.

Quote 0 0
wissportsnet

Boys Basketball Alumni Round-up: February 21st, from @ColtonWilson23 #wisbb -- https://t.co/0K6CZzZWpf https://t.co/715tfpBGVS

wissportsnet

WSN15: Boys Basketball Top Teams #12 -- Two NCAA Division I players at one WIAA Division 4 school = state champions… https://t.co/1MThqzce9L

wissportsnet

Predicting winners of every state wrestling title plus a look By The Numbers, from @Nate_Woelfel -… https://t.co/HgU1bLP7d6

wissportsnet

Join the free Boys Basketball Playoff Pick 'Em Contest; Staff picks coming Tuesday #wisbb -- https://t.co/Y6yTA3OgP8 https://t.co/hA6Uyw9uje