What do you mean by "the Packers won too soon"? That is a very vague statement.

---

And we won 9-0 against the Jets at their place, while the Patriots lost against them both at home and on the road.

You recall the minor incident in the Lions game, don't you? The one where our star QB got knocked out after just 11 passes. You can say what you want about his passer rating at that point, but that one interception should've been a completion and he should've been 8/11 at that point. He wasn't doing that bad.

Matt Flynn obviously just wasn't ready.

Then you come in the next week and play like that against the Patriots with your back-up QB.

I don't know if it's fair to say that the Pats are the dominant team and the Pack aren't. The Packers have just been managing to hang on in every single game they've been in for the last three years or so.

Degrees on your definition of dominance, I guess. The Pats beat the Dolphins by nearly 30 points one week, and lose to the Browns the next. They absolutely dominate the Jets by 42 points, but lose to them twice that season. Apart from 2007, where they were consistently dominant, this team just has so many up and down games.

I believe that, had Rodgers not been injured, we'd be at least 11-5. Big chance that we would've caught the Pats, as well, giving us a 12-4 record and them a 13-3 one and all of a sudden they're not that dominant anymore.

But yeah, that's just pure speculation that won't help us one bit.

I think you guys overthink yourselves sometimes. Go back and watch each game of the playoffs. And if you can convince yourselves any of the teams that we beat shouldn't have been blown out by larger margins, then you can have this discussion of tangents, but simply put, the cream rose to the top last year. Get ready for a long ride where everyone hates our guts.

---

Whoa. I'm once again agreeing with DakotaT.

---

First, 14-win teams don’t have as many downs as ups. New England scored 30-plus in eight consecutive games. Their defense allowed fewer than 10 in four of their final five games. Still, I didn’t mean to imply they were dominating. I meant to imply they dominated Miami, which I thought I did. I think they were a flawed football team that benefited from a weak 2010 AFC field. I think the Packers also benefited from a weak 2010 NFC field.

Detroit manhandled the Packers throughout that game. Rodgers was not having a strong day because Green Bay’s offensive line could not handle the Detroit defensive line. In fact, the Packer OL played its worst game of the season that year. It isn’t coincidental they played one of their best games against New England a week later. They definitely were challenged throughout that week.

Would the Packers have won had Rodgers stayed in the game? Possibly, but perhaps Rodgers injures himself more severely. That is all speculation, but that was never my point anyways.

Frankly, I don't see the controversy in stating the team got hot last year, but did not separate themselves from another contender. By the way, that was my point. For the record, I'm not saying they were a pushover champion. They were among the best if not the best. I understand the argument. Nonetheless, they were not the 1996 Packers. They were not the 1994 49ers. They were not the 1999 Rams or even the 03-04 Patriots. They weren't the 98 Broncos either. Nobody outside of Green Bay fandom will compare the 2010 Packers with those teams.

They will go down compared to the 97 Broncos, 05 Steelers, and 07 Giants among others. I used 07 because it was more modern day, but the 88 49ers work too.

What happen then in 89?

It’s not any different from 1997, when the Packers and many of their fans felt like they were better than the 97 Broncos. Of course, there is no push back then. 🙄 I still believe 07 Green Bay was better than 07 New York. Sometimes the ball bounces your way or a LB sticks out his hand and trips up a dynamic receiver. I will be very disappointed if this is the only title the Packers win in the next five years. I hope that 2010 goes down as the origin story, but things are going to have to align right as well. It takes more than raw talent, which Green Bay proved last year.

---

Two things unrelated to where the conversation is going:

1.) He forgot the Packers of the 30s (won in 29, 30, 31, 36, and 39)

2.) The Giants blowing that late lead against the Eagles had no effect on our playoff berth. Had the Giants won, they would have won the division and the Eagles would have been 9-7 sitting at home watching the Pack play. Why is this so hard to get for these "experts?"

---

lol didn't the Bronco's win again the following year and didn't you say winning two in a row ... oh nevermind. I'm so confused ... haha

---

Top teams in the next decade in no particular order: 1. Packers 2. Falcons 3. Buccaneers 4. Steelers 5. Rams (yeah!)

---

SUCH a great statement.

---

Once the playoffs began, I don't think there was a team in the NFL that was better or could beat the Green Bay Packers in 2010. I don't really care about the regular season, just so long as they make the playoffs. Everyone starts over starting wild card week.