Packers "failures" since 2010

[Mags FTW]

DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS

We can talk about 30 years of HOF QB play and only 2 titles, but it's no coincidence that the D was great those 2 years.

[BUCKnation]

2014 was a gut punch, probably had the best defense since 2010 too and I think, like most, the Packers take that SB.

Not being able to assemble a competent defense is definitely the biggest flaw. Sure, we've lost some top tier guys in their primes like Collins, Shields, Bishop, etc. but the amount of high draft picks we've invested into the defense, a top 15 defense isn't too much to ask for.

[MickeyDavis]

It's the old saying

IF YOU SCORE YOU MAY WIN. IF THEY NEVER SCORE YOU WILL NEVER LOSE. DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS.

[M-C-G]

If we don't do any better this year, it'll really be time to take a look at Capers (been time since Kaepernick). If we do, it's likely because of TT's forays into free agency - something he should've been doing (for stopgap purposes) for the past 5 years. I've been saying this for that long.

?

I've been looking at PFF grades on the defense, and while I don't have a full list, I can see that Clay, Blake Martinez, Daniels, Kenny Clark Josh Jones and Morgan Burneet have been by far our most impactful defenders.

So maybe Ricky Jean, Ahmad Brooks, Dial, House end up there at the end of the season, but there is no evidence that TT forays into FA have done anything for us yet. The emergence of some young guys that have ascended to be our best defenders (so far), seems far more likely to be what makes us better or doesn't, not some depth guys we sprinkled in.

[RRyder823]

It's the old saying

IF YOU SCORE YOU MAY WIN. IF THEY NEVER SCORE YOU WILL NEVER LOSE. DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS.

I prefer the immortal words of Warren Sapp.

"The D can give you a chance at a championship. But it's the offense that has to go out n get it when it does"

I simply feel it's more accurate for a team sport

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

[rilamann]

Do you have a ranking for .700ish or above? This isn't such a meaningful stat as is - maybe they're really good against 8 and 9 win teams, and then below average for 10 and 11+.

One of my main gripes with the Packers over the past few years is how the Packers consistently beat bad and mediocre teams, but then seem to completely fall off a cliff when they play legit contending type of teams and can't even hang with them.

The Packer can beat most teams in the league by beating the bad and mediocre ones, but there are always those 4 or 5 teams where it will look like it's Madden and they're playing on rookie mode when they play the Packers.

[chuckleslove]

Do you have a ranking for .700ish or above? This isn't such a meaningful stat as is - maybe they're really good against 8 and 9 win teams, and then below average for 10 and 11+.

One of my main gripes with the Packers over the past few years is how the Packers consistently beat bad and mediocre teams, but then seem to completely fall off a cliff when they play legit contending type of teams and can't even hang with them.

The Packer can beat most teams in the league by beating the bad and mediocre ones, but there are always those 4 or 5 teams where it will look like it's Madden and they're playing on rookie mode when they play the Packers.

literally posted on the last page, most wins against Playoff teams in the league and 3rd highest winning percentage.

For point of reference the Packers record versus other playoff teams from last year, I believe,, in comparison to the league

Patriots: 4-1 (beat Dolphins, Texans, Steelers, Dolphins; lost to Seahawks)

Seahawks: 3-1 (beat Dolphins, Falcons, Patriots; lost to Packers)

Packers: 5-2 (beat Lions, Giants, Texans, Seahawks, Lions; lost to Cowboys, Falcons)

Cowboys: 3-2 (beat Packers, Steelers, Lions; lost to Giants, Giants)

Giants: 3-2 (beat Cowboys, Cowboys, Lions; lost to Packers, Steelers)

Chiefs: 3-2 (beat Raiders, Falcons, Raiders; lost to Texans, Steelers)

Falcons: 2-2 (beat Raiders, Packers; lost to Seahawks, Chiefs)

Steelers: 2-3 (beat Chiefs, Giants; lost to Dolphins, Patriots, Cowboys)

Texans: 2-3 (beat Chiefs, Lions; lost to Patriots, Raiders, Packers)

Dolphins: 1-3 (lost to Seahawks, Patriots, Patriots; beat Steelers)

Raiders: 1-3 (beat Texans; lost to Falcons, Chiefs, Chiefs)

Lions: 0-5 (lost to Packers, Texans, Giants, Cowboys, Packers)

[dools644]

Do you have a ranking for .700ish or above? This isn't such a meaningful stat as is - maybe they're really good against 8 and 9 win teams, and then below average for 10 and 11+.

One of my main gripes with the Packers over the past few years is how the Packers consistently beat bad and mediocre teams, but then seem to completely fall off a cliff when they play legit contending type of teams and can't even hang with them.

The Packer can beat most teams in the league by beating the bad and mediocre ones, but there are always those 4 or 5 teams where it will look like it's Madden and they're playing on rookie mode when they play the Packers.

literally posted on the last page, most wins against Playoff teams in the league and 3rd highest winning percentage.

For point of reference the Packers record versus other playoff teams from last year, I believe,, in comparison to the league

Patriots: 4-1 (beat Dolphins, Texans, Steelers, Dolphins; lost to Seahawks)

Seahawks: 3-1 (beat Dolphins, Falcons, Patriots; lost to Packers)

Packers: 5-2 (beat Lions, Giants, Texans, Seahawks, Lions; lost to Cowboys, Falcons)

Cowboys: 3-2 (beat Packers, Steelers, Lions; lost to Giants, Giants)

Giants: 3-2 (beat Cowboys, Cowboys, Lions; lost to Packers, Steelers)

Chiefs: 3-2 (beat Raiders, Falcons, Raiders; lost to Texans, Steelers)

Falcons: 2-2 (beat Raiders, Packers; lost to Seahawks, Chiefs)

Steelers: 2-3 (beat Chiefs, Giants; lost to Dolphins, Patriots, Cowboys)

Texans: 2-3 (beat Chiefs, Lions; lost to Patriots, Raiders, Packers)

Dolphins: 1-3 (lost to Seahawks, Patriots, Patriots; beat Steelers)

Raiders: 1-3 (beat Texans; lost to Falcons, Chiefs, Chiefs)

Lions: 0-5 (lost to Packers, Texans, Giants, Cowboys, Packers)

Yes, and it's misleading. Look at the Packers schedule last year. There isn't a signature win in any of the 10 until they go to Dallas in the playoffs. Their best win was crushing Seattle, who by that point had lost Earl Thomas and was a total shell of what they used to be. But that's a win against a "playoff team." In their defense, there were hardly any signature opponents last year. Yet they lost six games including a bevy to mediocre teams. Beating the Redskins and Colts would have earned them a bye.

Go back to 2015. Again, there's no signature win. This time, they have a few signature games. They lost them all. The Cardinals twice. The Panthers. An embarrassment in Denver. This is what people are talking about. They simply do not compete with the top guns. This is the barometer for a team with Aaron Rodgers, and they aren't meeting it.

Honestly, removing the divisional game last year, this team's last signature win was the game against New England in 2014. That was the last time I remember watching a game and thinking, that was impressive, this team is for real. They need to start winning games like that again. Going into Dallas and winning again would be a start. The SNF game at Pittsburgh would be better.

[RRyder823]

"Can't beat the good teams in the league"

Post record against .500 or better records to prove that false

"That number is misleading. It can include average teams. I'm talking about the top teams in the league"

Post record versus actual PO teams to once again prove narrative false.

"No I'm talking about signature wins like the one in Dallas in the POs or against NE ."

Like wtf does that even mean? Move the goal posts back some more. You orginal tried to say "the Packers have a tendacy to wet the bed against the best teams". This narrative is pretty much proven false just from the stats at least if you think they do it significantly more than literally any other team in the league

The Seattle game where they mopped them up didn't count because of Thomas being out. Didn't realize he played offense because the D turned Wilson into a TO machine that day. Giants dont count either. Beating the Lions when it mattered the most? Doesn't count. Giants in the PO? OBJ screwed them. Doesn't count. Dallas in the PO? Doesn't count. They came back and made us need a last minute drive....... Atlanta? "SEE OMG I TOLD YOU WE CAN'T PLAY WITH THE GOOD TEAMS"

Apparently every PO team we play is mediocre despite them being ya know...... An actuall PO team.

Like good lord the fact that we played nearly half of our games last season against PO teams kinda hurts this narrative but nope..... signature wins now apparently and apparently a record versus actuall PO teams is considered misleading because narratives



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

[thomchatt3rton]

Some people asked about some of this stuff.

Beginning with the 2011 season (which I consider the start of this era of the team)...

GB's record vs "good" teams (teams finishing the reg season .500 or better) is:

36-26 (.580) total.
31-20 (.607) reg season.
5-6 (.450) post season.


For an interesting comparison, Beginning with the 2011 season:

NE's record vs "good" teams(teams finishing the reg season .500 or better) is:

46-20 (.696) total
35-16 (.686) reg season
11-4 (.733) post season

Since 2011, in the regular season:
NE played 51 "good" opponents. Those "good" opponents averaged a .613 win % (NE was .686 vs them)
GB played 51 "good" opponents. Those "good" opponents averaged a .633 win % (GB was .607 vs them).

Of those "good" opponents faced:
NE played a .500 team 21 times and won 17/21.
GB played a .500 team 13 times and won 11/13.

Of those "good" opponents faced:
NE played a >.700 team 8 times and won 3/8
GB played a >.700 team 10 times and won 3/10.

Against "good" teams in the regular season, it's only 4 more wins over 6 seasons that separate GB from mighty NE. Thats not too much.
Plus...
It's interesting that over that span, NE played 8 more teams that finished right at .500 than GB did (accounting for 6 more wins than GB)
It's very interesting that over that span, NE and GB have a very similar record and the same number of wins (3) vs teams that finished >.700.


There's a major caveat though regarding this 6 year regular season span...

Of GBs 31 regular season wins over "good" teams since 2011:

10 wins were in 2011 (10-0 vs "good" teams), and
7 wins were in 2016 (7-3 vs "good" teams).

That means that for 4 of those 6 years, we were only 14-17 vs "good" teams.

Still, you can't take those wins away from GB and you can't say they haven't earned this overall 6-year record, because it exists. But also, you can't NOT note it was basically a 4 year period of mediocrity bookended by 2 very good years.

[thomchatt3rton]

Do you have a ranking for .700ish or above? This isn't such a meaningful stat as is - maybe they're really good against 8 and 9 win teams, and then below average for 10 and 11+.

I don't have the full rankings, but in the post I made above, I note that since 2011, Green Bay is 3-10 vs teams that finished better than .700
Interestingly enough, during that same span, New England is 3-8 vs >.700 teams.

I didn't do any other teams, but I figure a comparison to the likely cream of the crop is probably pretty telling on it's own.

ETA: PIT is 5-9 vs >.700 teams in the same span.

[M-C-G]

"Can't beat the good teams in the league"

Post record against .500 or better records to prove that false

"That number is misleading. It can include average teams. I'm talking about the top teams in the league"

Post record versus actual PO teams to once again prove narrative false.

"No I'm talking about signature wins like the one in Dallas in the POs or against NE ."

Move the goal posts back some more. You original tried to say "the Packers have a tendency to wet the bed against the best teams". This narrative is pretty much proven false just from the stats at least if you think they do it significantly more than literally any other team in the league
]

Whatever "it" is, you just nailed.

[dools644]

"Can't beat the good teams in the league"

Post record against .500 or better records to prove that false

"That number is misleading. It can include average teams. I'm talking about the top teams in the league"

Post record versus actual PO teams to once again prove narrative false.

"No I'm talking about signature wins like the one in Dallas in the POs or against NE ."

Like wtf does that even mean? Move the goal posts back some more. You orginal tried to say "the Packers have a tendacy to wet the bed against the best teams". This narrative is pretty much proven false just from the stats at least if you think they do it significantly more than literally any other team in the league

The Seattle game where they mopped them up didn't count because of Thomas being out. Didn't realize he played offense because the D turned Wilson into a TO machine that day. Giants dont count either. Beating the Lions when it mattered the most? Doesn't count. Giants in the PO? OBJ screwed them. Doesn't count. Dallas in the PO? Doesn't count. They came back and made us need a last minute drive....... Atlanta? "SEE OMG I TOLD YOU WE CAN'T PLAY WITH THE GOOD TEAMS"

Apparently every PO team we play is mediocre despite them being ya know...... An actuall PO team.

Like good lord the fact that we played nearly half of our games last season against PO teams kinda hurts this narrative but nope..... signature wins now apparently and apparently a record versus actuall PO teams is considered misleading because narratives



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

I know what you're doing, and you know what you're doing, and you keep doing this lunatic act, but the fact of the matter is if they were as good as you say they are they would have more than one title in the last 20 years. Point blank, end of argument. When you have HOF QBs every year for that stretch you better GET to more than one Super Bowl.

They have choked time and time again in the playoffs. Teams better than them, teams they should beat, you name it. You expect to lose here and there but with the scope and way they have lost games. Literally a historically underperforming defense and an offense that has to score 40 or pack up for the season.

I never asked for you to compile a list of .500 teams. That doesn't prove **** to me, it proves you built a stat that's like 75% based off beating 8 and 9 win teams. Which isn't what anyone criticizing them is saying. That's the PROBLEM. That's their ceiling.

They don't show up against top teams. I've given you a dozen examples.

Not only do they not show up, they embarrass themselves. They are Atlanta's donkey at the moment, and that prime time against the soon-to-be champion Broncos in 2015 was a total **** show. They made Rodgers look like Rex Grossman.

The same season they got obliterated by Carolina, who won the NFC, and rallied in garbage time to make the score respectable.

With a QB like Rodgers they need to be in a class with NE, Denver and Pitt every year. A realistic CHANCE at a title, EVERY year is what they owe #12. With the exception of 2-3 seasons they haven't done that. They are 5-11 team that Rodgers Harry Potters to the playoffs every year.

For some reason it's like a fun game for them to make life as hard on him as possible. That he just won his first OT game two weeks ago IMO is very telling.

But you guys seem content with that which is probably why they keep doing it. I've never met a group of fans so happy to lose in the playoffs every year with arguably the greatest player in his sport of all time.

[RRyder823]

"Can't beat the good teams in the league"

Post record against .500 or better records to prove that false

"That number is misleading. It can include average teams. I'm talking about the top teams in the league"

Post record versus actual PO teams to once again prove narrative false.

"No I'm talking about signature wins like the one in Dallas in the POs or against NE ."

Like wtf does that even mean? Move the goal posts back some more. You orginal tried to say "the Packers have a tendacy to wet the bed against the best teams". This narrative is pretty much proven false just from the stats at least if you think they do it significantly more than literally any other team in the league

The Seattle game where they mopped them up didn't count because of Thomas being out. Didn't realize he played offense because the D turned Wilson into a TO machine that day. Giants dont count either. Beating the Lions when it mattered the most? Doesn't count. Giants in the PO? OBJ screwed them. Doesn't count. Dallas in the PO? Doesn't count. They came back and made us need a last minute drive....... Atlanta? "SEE OMG I TOLD YOU WE CAN'T PLAY WITH THE GOOD TEAMS"

Apparently every PO team we play is mediocre despite them being ya know...... An actuall PO team.

Like good lord the fact that we played nearly half of our games last season against PO teams kinda hurts this narrative but nope..... signature wins now apparently and apparently a record versus actuall PO teams is considered misleading because narratives



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

I know what you're doing, and you know what you're doing, and you keep doing this lunatic act, but the fact of the matter is if they were as good as you say they are they would have more than one title in the last 20 years. Point blank, end of argument. When you have HOF QBs every year for that stretch you better GET to more than one Super Bowl.

They have choked time and time again in the playoffs. Teams better than them, teams they should beat, you name it. You expect to lose here and there but with the scope and way they have lost games. Literally a historically underperforming defense and an offense that has to score 40 or pack up for the season.

I never asked for you to compile a list of .500 teams. That doesn't prove **** to me, it proves you built a stat that's like 75% based off beating 8 and 9 win teams. Which isn't what anyone criticizing them is saying. That's the PROBLEM. That's their ceiling.

They don't show up against top teams. I've given you a dozen examples.

Not only do they not show up, they embarrass themselves. They are Atlanta's donkey at the moment, and that prime time against the soon-to-be champion Broncos in 2015 was a total **** show. They made Rodgers look like Rex Grossman.

The same season they got obliterated by Carolina, who won the NFC, and rallied in garbage time to make the score respectable.

With a QB like Rodgers they need to be in a class with NE, Denver and Pitt every year. A realistic CHANCE at a title, EVERY year is what they owe #12. With the exception of 2-3 seasons they haven't done that. They are 5-11 team that Rodgers Harry Potters to the playoffs every year.

For some reason it's like a fun game for them to make life as hard on him as possible. That he just won his first OT game two weeks ago IMO is very telling.

But you guys seem content with that which is probably why they keep doing it. I've never met a group of fans so happy to lose in the playoffs every year with arguably the greatest player in his sport of all time.

Lists have been compiled in this thread of their record versus PO teams, which show the narrative false, and lists in this thread of their record versus teams with a .700 or better which show that even when stacked with the mighty Patriots they're right there. Not as good but not horribly so. So the narrative that they don't show up against the best teams, and that it's an issue for the Packers more so than any other elite team, is proven false in comparison.

As was my point. They're pretty much on par with the other top teams in the league when facing the other top teams in the league and fans, namely ones that push your narrative, remember the failures instead of the success. The stats show this but you continue to ignore it.

Your examples are are simply proving my point as they gloss over the actuall results as a whole with cherry picked examples, (as I mentioned your simply remembering the failures and not the success), in a effort to make your point regardless of how it's relative to the other top teams in the league

Thruthfully this is something that posters like rileman, and now yourself, do. Make a proclamation but then when confronted with the actuall statistical evidence refuse to acknowledge and then double down as if it somehow strengthens their claim.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

[Ron Swanson]

We're all frustrated by the fact that we haven't won more championships with Rodgers, but this "they're not consistently contenders" stuff is BS. They've had a "realistic chance" every year since 2009. Saying that they're a "2nd round playoff team" is nothing more than non-sensical confirmation bias.

As if a team that consistently advances in a single elimination playoff format isn't a contender only by confirmation that they lose in the division or conference title round.

[dools644]

Yeah they stack up with the Patriots just great!

Since losing to Green Bay in the Super Bowl, the Pats have played in 11 AFCCGs. 7 Super Bowls.

You have Denver, who was good historically on the defensive side, but realized that problem and added gimpy Peyton Manning who was pretty much awful the year they won it, but still got them to the big one twice.

You have Pittsburgh, who's inferior QB has played in three Super Bowls to Rodgers one, but what does he have? Oh, that's right, a defense that isn't Pop Warner quality.

Stop it. Call it whatever you want. But the notion I'm merely "remembering their failures more" is just nonsense. Nobody loses playoff games in the manner that the Packers have as consistently as they do. Because I don't believe in curses, I look at the one aspect of the team that is almost always terrible, and it's that defense. It's inexcusable to be this inept in January with Rodgers at QB. Totally inexcusable.

[dools644]

We're all frustrated by the fact that we haven't won more championships with Rodgers, but this "they're not consistently contenders" stuff is BS. They've had a "realistic chance" every year since 2009. Saying that they're a "2nd round playoff team" is nothing more than non-sensical confirmation bias.

As if a team that consistently advances in a single elimination playoff format isn't a contender only by confirmation that they lose in the division or conference title round.

This is baloney. Look at their PA in the playoffs. More than half those teams did not have a realistic chance. Almost every year, they had to play a team like Denver or Carolina or SF that had a real defense and once Rodgers was neutralized they couldn't compete.

It's completely false to say they've had a chance every year since 2009. It's been very easy for most people to tell this team had a one-and-done ceiling and was a paper tiger in most of those seasons. A team that can't play defense or run the ball and needs Rodgers to have six bowls of Wheaties to have any realistic shot in the playoffs. My god, even the year they did win was historic and magical and outrageously more difficult than it had to be.

[dools644]

Teams that have been getting to multiple Super Bowls are so much worse than Rodgers at QB, it's embarrassing. If Rodgers retires with fewer SB appearances than Russell Wilson and the version of Peyton Manning that can't turn his head, it's just ridiculous.

All they've had to be during Rodgers career is mediocre on defense and they haven't done it. Maybe this is the year, finally.

[th87]

Win records while facing teams that finish the season .500 or better since 2013

1 Patriots 30-20 (.600)
2 Steelers 29-24 (.547)
3 Packers 27-27 (.500)
4 Broncos 27-33 (.450)
5 Seahawks 24-31 (.436)
6 Saints 23-31 (.426)
7 Colts 25-36 (.410)
8 Cardinals 21-32-1 (.398)
9 Falcons 21-32 (.396)
10 Bengals 23-37-1 (.385)
11 Cowboys 22-36 (.379)
12 Eagles 19-34 (.358)
13 Ravens 21-38 (356)
14 Chiefs 18-34 (.346)
15 Texans 20-39 (.339)
16 Chargers 18-38 (.321)
17 Dolphins 18-39 (.316)
18 49ers 19-42 (.311)
19 Vikings 17-42-1 (.292)
20 Panthers 17-44-1 (.282)
21 Raiders 17-44 (.279)
22 Giants 16-42 (.276)
23 Redskins 14-39 (.264)
24 Rams 15-48-1 (.242)
25 Jets 12-38 (.240)
26 Bears 15-50 (.231)
27 Titans 14-48 (.226)
28 Bills 13-47 (.217)
29 Buccaneers 11-44 (.200)
30 Jaguars 8-55 (.127)
31 Lions 7-53 (.117)
32 Browns 7-61 (.103)


I know I doesn't speak to PO failures. Just wanted to point it out to the people that feel like we generally lose to the better teams in the league that that it's not really the case.

Not suprising the Pats run away at #1

Edit:Not since 2013. My bad. These are records against .500 or better teams since Stafford started QBing for the Lions

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Do you have a ranking for .700ish or above? This isn't such a meaningful stat as is - maybe they're really good against 8 and 9 win teams, and then below average for 10 and 11+.

Well like I said I got that from another site but truthfully I don't thing I've ever seen a stat for record versus teams that finish 12-4 or better. It might be out there though. Still I hold to the people tend to Remer the losses more than the wins point


.500 is generally used because at that point your generally talking PO teams or teams that are just missing them.

For point of reference the Packers record versus other playoff teams from last year, I believe,, in comparison to the league

Patriots: 4-1 (beat Dolphins, Texans, Steelers, Dolphins; lost to Seahawks)

Seahawks: 3-1 (beat Dolphins, Falcons, Patriots; lost to Packers)

Packers: 5-2 (beat Lions, Giants, Texans, Seahawks, Lions; lost to Cowboys, Falcons)

Cowboys: 3-2 (beat Packers, Steelers, Lions; lost to Giants, Giants)

Giants: 3-2 (beat Cowboys, Cowboys, Lions; lost to Packers, Steelers)

Chiefs: 3-2 (beat Raiders, Falcons, Raiders; lost to Texans, Steelers)

Falcons: 2-2 (beat Raiders, Packers; lost to Seahawks, Chiefs)

Steelers: 2-3 (beat Chiefs, Giants; lost to Dolphins, Patriots, Cowboys)

Texans: 2-3 (beat Chiefs, Lions; lost to Patriots, Raiders, Packers)

Dolphins: 1-3 (lost to Seahawks, Patriots, Patriots; beat Steelers)

Raiders: 1-3 (beat Texans; lost to Falcons, Chiefs, Chiefs)

Lions: 0-5 (lost to Packers, Texans, Giants, Cowboys, Packers)

Looks like my theory still holds up. I mean last year we beat more PO teams then literally anyone else in the league with the 3rd highest winning percentage against them.

At what point can the "Packers don't win against the best teams" argument get put to rest? I truly want to know how far back the goalposts are. I mean all I'm arguing against is the seemingly ingrained belief that they have a tendacy to falter against the better/best teams while getting fat on the lower portion. This would seem to prove that narrative false

(Can't wait for the "yeah but look we lost to the Cowboys and Falcons and I said elite" argument while neglecting us beating Dallas in the PO)






Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using RealGM mobile app

Metrics I'm interested in:

- Win percentage ranking against teams with 11 wins or more
- QB rating forced against Top 7 QBs, versus their season averages
- Ranking of opponent PPG (playoffs) relative to other top QBs

[rilamann]

Teams that have been getting to multiple Super Bowls are so much worse than Rodgers at QB, it's embarrassing. If Rodgers retires with fewer SB appearances than Russell Wilson and the version of Peyton Manning that can't turn his head, it's just ridiculous.

But...but....but.....we beat all the 9-7 teams you big jerk!!!



Having this discussion with some Packer fans is like trying to explain to a person who is in a cult, that they're in a cult...lol.