Hi all!

After 2 months of revelling in the Packers' superbowl victory, getting married, revelling in the victory again, my mind has been firmly cast for the future.

The last time our beloved team won the superbowl (before this), we had to wait fifteen years. It seems like a lifetime ago doesn't it? Watching Reggie manhandle Bledsoe, watching the old man run around like a kid who just found a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

Which brings me to the current state of affairs.

Now, in my eyes, a lockout would be disastrous. Even though the term "Superbowl hangover" has been coined, I feel the Packers' nucleus is so solid, namely age and depth, that a strike-out season would dismantle a lot of the momentum our team has created through the emergence of key starters and a creative, swarming defense.

You can never predict what is to happen, especially in football, but I just have this feeling that Aaron Rodgers will retire with no less than 3 rings.

But, isn't this the same feeling I had with our former three time MVP gunslinger?

Yes.

What is different?

Alot. Mostly Ted Thompson.

Our 96' team, whilst arguably better than our current crop, wasn't built to maintain championship runs for an extended period of time, regardless of who was under center.

Many a time during the past fifteen years, I have felt so anxious and nervous come game day.

Two superbowl victories later, I am looking forward to football for years to come, and cannot wait to see the record book in ten years time, permitting I am still here! That being said, I think the years 97-01 taught me to be acceptant, not overly expectant.

Sigh.

I wish it were September already, and this lockout bullshizzle was well and truly over.

---

Welcome back dude! And congrats on marriage.



I'm excited to see the tattoo and to hear what the wife has to say bout it.

---

He has to get it on his forehead, right?

---

for getting married dude. Congrats!
IMO, what went wrong with the "Favre Dynasty" is that Wolf hired Ray Rhodes to replace Holmgren without doing due diligence. Rhodes was a great coach in Philly. But then there was that quote where he said losing a game at home was like "having someone break into your home and sodomize your family, and there's not anything you can do about it." LOL. Everyone was like, "WHOA, IT'S JUST A GAME DUDE." And they made him go and get counseling and shit. Ever since then, he's been a 9to5'er.
So Wolf had to come back and fire Rhodes after one year and at that time NO ONE wanted the job. Rhodes had handed over reigns of the team to Favre. No one would have been able to control Favre, as we saw with Sherman. Sherman was just a glorified TE coach at the time. I don't really think he was ready. Plus, Favre imo was already in a position where he would have just about any coach over a barrel.
Wolf also didn't handle the situation with Holmgren the best either. Before SB 32, Holmy was interested in the Seattle job, because he would also get to be GM. But Wolf wouldn't let him interview. Sometimes I think Holmgren even took a dive in that game. There are assistant coaches who have commented in the past that if Holmgren would have kept up max protect, we would have won that game easily.

---

I think we have to learn from the Steelers and words from Tomlin during the Super Bowl. "Just because you are built for it doesn't mean it's going to happen. You have to make it happen." It's going to be a fun journey defending our crown.

I disagree a little with saying they weren't built for multiple runs around '96. In fact I believe the sustained success of those teams support that it was built for long term success. Yes, they didn't win more rings, so to a degree your point is quite valid. But as you came to realize in 97-01, maybe my expectations had already been tempered and was already acceptant. This generation of the Ted Thompson Packer's is still the younger brother to the Ron Wolf Packer's in my opinion. I look forward to reevaluating that statement in a few years.

---

Another huge difference was that the old dynasty was built for power. The current team is built for speed. Ergo, we would get to the playoffs and have to go to Dallas and we would get beat. We would get lit up in domes. Remember the "dome curse?"
This is another huge advantage of the current scenario, imo.

---

Another difference:
Holmgren had peaked. McCarthy is still learning and improving his craft.

---

Pluses - we got a young team with the best QB in the NFL.

One serious minus - I've been saying that the Holy Trinity is Aaron, Charles, and Clay. When Charles went down, the Steelers were able to move the ball. It was like 2 different games. Aaron & Clay are young. Charles isn't, and he's been playing hurt every single game since he became a Packer (turf toe, which is nothing to scoff at).

So yes, it's in our best interest as Packers fans if there was an NFL season in 2011.

---

I say we give all the money we would possibly throw at Jenkins, Colledge, and Mason Crosby and sign Ashomugha, and let Woodson go to safety for a couple years. We'd have one hell of a dime package and ensure our secondary's domination for a decade. They had Roethlisburger looking like the dog shit he is until Woody and Shields went down.

---

I don't think it was the loss of Charles Woodson that gave an opening to the Steelers as they were driving pretty well on that drive with him in the lineup. I think it was more a combination of losing both Sam Shields and Charles Woodson that hurt the Packers most. If Shields was still healthy and on the field, I think the defense may have held up a tad better.

I also wonder how many players dug deeper (if thats possible in the Super Bowl) to try and win it for Charles Woodson, knowing he's older and wanted so badly to win a NFL Championship.

I think with an injury, there's more than just the loss of the player that should be factored into analysis.

---