There are four teams left and the Green Bay Packers are one of the four and some still want to say they are not a contender? Are you trucking kiddin me here?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I'm still trying to figure out what took people so long to acknowledge that the Packers were contenders. It was obvious all season long, imo. A bad game here or there doesn't change that. Overall, the Packers aren't "Dominate," but they most certainly have been and are "contenders."

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

I'm still trying to figure out what took people so long to acknowledge that the Packers were contenders. It was obvious all season long, imo. A bad game here or there doesn't change that. Overall, the Packers aren't "Dominant," but they most certainly have been and are "contenders."

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

The three losses to Seahawks, Lions and Saints were uninspiring performances. At 6 - 3 I was certainly leaning towards pretender and said if they beat the Eagles and Patriots, they'd be contenders. Not only did they beat the Eagles they thoroughly dominated them at all three phases and then beat the Patriots in a good tough game. Those two games outweighed the previously mentioned three losses in my eyes.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

They have proven to be "contenders" but they certainly aren't "dominant".

Originally Posted by: yooperfan 

After the NE win, the way for them to be true contenders was to secure HFA which they squandered in Buffalo relegating them to pretender status, again.

How bad are the Seahawks going to drill the Packers on Sunday? That will define just how much we were or weren't contenders. I say we get beaten by at least as much as last time, and I expect it to be more. A route.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

You seem to imply that if the Packers had HFA they could beat the Seahawks. If a team is good enough to win at home, I think at the bare minimum you should consider them to be good enough to be competitive, if not "contend" for a win on the road. I don't dispute HFA that exists, especially with the 12th man, but you're still acknowledging they could beat the Seahawks under certain circumstances, so how wouldn't you then be considered a contender?

Ultimately who cares? They're not handing out Lombardis for who we think are the real contenders.

Originally Posted by: musccy 

I believe terribly inferior teams can beat excellent teams when they inferior team is at home. I can't recall a brutal team beating a superior team in the superior team's yard. That stuff rarely happens. However, inferior teams beat superior ones all the time when they are playing at HOME.

Rodgers on one leg is going to have a tough time beating a lot of teams...Dallas for one. The fact Rodgers isn't Rodgers actually allows me to stomach the fact we blew HFA because we're unlikely to beat Seattle anywhere without our 2 legged QB.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa