I am noticing a lot of chatter on other boards (e.g., ESPN) about how the Packers 2011 are better than the Pats 2007. What do you guys think? I think its all a bit premature but since we don't really have anything to complain or argue about lately, might as well make it this!
The Packers schedule is kind of weak IMO. That is the why the comparisons between the Pats 2007 v. Packers 2011 seem kind of off to me. The Pats that year, I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, played the Colts, the Ravens, the Chargers, the Cowboys, the Giants, the Eagles and Steelers, who all made the playoffs (and I think the Browns and Bengals were good that year too and they played them too). The Packers 2011 quality wins are the Saints, the Lions, the Bears, the Falcons and Giants with our AFC opponent being the AFC West (we played the Broncos, the only decent team when they were crap).
Perfection is perfection certainly but I think the Pats 2007 comparisons are off (at least in the regular season). It is not the Packers fault that the schedule is weak and I think the Pats were in closer games than the Packers were but I think if you strictly are judging the better regular season team, I'd say the Pats just because to beat all those teams is pretty darn impressive. I think offenses are pretty similar between the two but I think their D was better.
But if the Packers win the Super Bowl and are 19-0, they are without a doubt the better team as they did it and the Pats could not. So I think that will really end the whole debate. And I don't see any reason why we are not at least in the Super Bowl. The NFC is weak, the only semi-threat I can think of is the Giants and they might not even make the playoffs. I think its a cakewalk to the Super Bowl but we will slug it out there as it will probably be the Ravens, Steelers or Pats.
I can't believe we're even talking 19-0 right now, I still remember this board after we lost to the Lions and the Pats last year in Week 13 and 14!
Originally Posted by: RedSoxExcel