Actually, I was just quoting the other guy (QCHuskerfan - ask him) who said "2nd best .......". I was kinda curious about that myself.

As for the question, neither now nor the late '90s team dominated quite like Lombardi's Packers, but then it's a lot bigger league now, among other differences. I could easily understand if the original guy saying "2nd best ....." lumped Holmgren/Favre's Packers and Sherman/McCarthy/Rodgers's Packers all together, as we basically have been on one LONG run of success going back to the early '90s.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

I've had enough. The vast majority of posters on here the last 72 hours have whined non stop about the actions of a team that has won the Super Bowl in the last few years, has been a consistent playoff team and has a MVP in his prime. You're frustrated that the Packers aren't doing what you think is necessary to get from being really good to World Champions. Like any of us know squat.

But the part that really annoys me is that some of you appear willing to sell out the future of the team for slightly improving the odds that the Packers win the Super Bowl. YOU WHINE LIKE 7 YR OLD GIRLS WHEN WE LOSE CLOSE PLAYOFF GAMES. THE THOUGHT THAT YOU WOULD BE OK WITH A 3-13 SEASON IS LAUGHABLE.

Either you all have only been fans for a few years or you have forgotten what the other side feels like. Rejoice because this is the 2nd greatest era of Packer football and it won't last. Then you'll really have something to complain about!

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

^ Packers football has been on a streak of relevancy for more than 20 years. I couldn't see how to divide it so I lumped it all together.

Some of you Johnny- Come- Lately's don't know what losing is like after the last 20 years. That's why you are so quick to criticize current efforts. You want bad? Look at the Starr/ Gregg/ Infante years. Then think about 2013. It'll lower your blood pressure. Suddenly Mike McCarthy & Ted Thompson seem better, don't they?

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

If they don't win they most definitely will care

Originally Posted by: cheeseheads123 

I don't think the Favre era Packers had the weaknesses that the Rodgers era Packers has. They (the Favre Packers) only won 1 championship as well but I think overall the team was better. That and it got better from day one. From the first year Favre got there you could see improvement right up until the loss in the SB to the Broncos.

With the current team there seems to be a fair amount of stagnation. They will always be "right up there" because of Rodgers but the Favre Packers were right up there because the team was more complete.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

Very good.
You call it stagnation, I call it being stuck in second gear.
Either description is sufficient.

Originally Posted by: yooperfan 

Football is a team sport. When one player is playing at a top level you can't place all the blame on him. Give me a player that plays at an all pro level and its very hard to consider him overpaid unless its a Revis type deal and Byrd got nothing like a Revis type deal.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

I don't think the Favre era Packers had the weaknesses that the Rodgers era Packers has. They (the Favre Packers) only won 1 championship as well but I think overall the team was better. That and it got better from day one. From the first year Favre got there you could see improvement right up until the loss in the SB to the Broncos.

With the current team there seems to be a fair amount of stagnation. They will always be "right up there" because of Rodgers but the Favre Packers were right up there because the team was more complete.

Originally Posted by: sschind