Interesting you should say this, CaliforniaCheez. I was just talking to my wife about this before the game. It's ridiculous to prattle on about the Packers being a cold-weather team when they practice almost exclusively indoors. If anything, they're at a disadvantage when they step onto the field because they're no more used to the cold than their opponents.

If the Packers organization wants to return the formidable homefield advantage to Lambeau Field that it enjoyed in the 1990s, the team needs to start doing regular cold-weather training. Until that happens, the Lambeau Field mystique is a load of bollocks.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

With all due respect, bigfog, what does that have anything to do with what I said? If anything, it supports my point: the homefield advantage this team enjoyed during the Holmgren era had little or nothing to do with its being a "cold-weather team" and was attributable mostly, if not solely, to the fact it was a great team overall.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

If the Packers organization wants to return the formidable homefield advantage to Lambeau Field that it enjoyed in the 1990s, the team needs to start doing regular cold-weather training.

Good point -- I phrased my statement very poorly. I feel embarrassed now.

What I meant to say is if they want to claim that the formidable homefield advantage they enjoyed in the 1990s was because they're a cold-weather team, they need to start doing regular cold-weather training.

Ever since I visited the indoor training facility in my early teens and saw how WARM it is inside, I've never understood why people considered it an advantage to the Packers to play outdoors in the winter.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote: