I just liked it, because the Packers are mentioned as a potential dynasty. Nice to see.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

Tramon Williams getting an INT vs Vick is lucky but Urlacher getting an INT on Rodgers in the Redzone is how it's supposed to happen I guess.

Originally Posted by: Stevetarded 

Phil Simms gushes about Jay Cutler in every interview he talks about him, so it's not surprising he would link the win and Cutler's injury together. I would point out that Dom Caper has Jay Cutler's number. Cutler's TD to INT ratio against Dom Capers in Green Bay is down right awful. In fact, if I'm a Bears fan, that is my No. 1 concern heading into the season. How does Cutler beat Capers?

With that said, I agree with the concept of luck. It does play a role and the Packers did get lucky at times last year. They were also unlucky, especially against Miami and Washington. I would argue that the best team in football did not win the Super Bowl a year ago. I would argue the hottest team won the Super Bowl. In many years, that is usually the case. However, if you win multiple Super Bowls as the Patriots have, you have more than just luck. The same will apply to Green Bay if they do it again.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

Although, I feel I understand the point that luck plays a role, I disagree with the Packers were not the best team in '10 and simply just got hot at the right time perception. Reason being, I'm not sure there were many more teams that were as consistent as the Packers. I believe the Packers never trailed by more than 7 points in any game, nor were they defeated by more than 4 points in any loss. That was luck? They were within a score of taking the lead in any game. They were within a score of winning any of their losses. How many other teams can say that throughout the season? I didn't even mention this was done with a high total of players injured and/or on injured reserve.

What team was better than the Packers in '10? Since the Packers beat the Eagles (#3), Falcons (#1), Bears (#2) all on the road, obviously, none of them. Surely can't be the Steelers because the Packers beat them without Charles Woodson, Sam Shields and Donald Driver in the second half of the Super Bowl. The Patriots maybe? Matt Flyn-led Packers almost took them out on their home turf.

If you're talking about the New Orleans Saints being the hottest team in '09 and not being the best team, I would agree, but I don't know much depth about the team so that claim holds no water. I think the Vikings were the better team in '09 ... God that hurts.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I think the Packers’ run compares to the Giants of 07. The Giants weren’t the best team throughout that season. They got hot at the right time and won the Super Bowl. The best team I saw in 07 was New England and they were the best team I saw in 2010. Many times, it depends on when you're playing somebody. I think the Pack caught the Giants at the right time last year. I think Miami and Washington caught the Packers at the right time.

That isn't to say the Packers didn't deserve to win or backed their way in. They won because of many factors, and if they win it again, that proves an even larger point. Still, I do not think the Packers were the absolute best team in football. They were in the discussion, but the Packers never dominated the competition. In fact, some argue the Packers won too soon, which might point to bigger problems for the rest of the NFL.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

The Patriots of '10 lost by 14 and 20 points and only topped a Matt Flynn led Packers by 4 points on their own home turf.

The Packers never lost by more than 4 and never trailed by more than 7 in any game of the season. They also made it to the Super Bowl and won. The Patriots couldn't win a single game in the post season.



I see why one would say a team that was 14 - 2 (best record in NFL) would be considered the best, but again, they didn't even win one game in the post season, when the games count the most. That's hardly the mark of the best team in the NFL.

Edit, wow, Tom Brady 36 TD's and only 4 INT's ... phenomena (Madden like) season lol

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool