Who else think the Packers are the hottest team in football?

MDSKINSFAN · Post by **MDSKINSFAN** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 2:56 pm

I want Packers and Steelers today. I'm rooting for Rodgers.

I don't think I could take 2 weeks worth of Super Bowl hype and trash talk out of Rex Ryan's mouth.

If Bears win Fletcher and Orakpo go to the Pro Bowl so there is a positive for us if the Bears do win. I just can't stand Cutler so I hope they lose.

This is a good weekend of championship games, just like it should be. You can make a case for all 4 teams to win and not be wrong. As a fan I'm just glad their should be 2 great games today.

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:07 pm

LETS GO PITT, BEAT THE FUDGEPACKERS!!!!!

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Sun Jan 23, 2011 11:24 pm

Well, the Packers don't look so hot after today. Then again, neither do the Jets anymore. Pittsburgh is clearly the better team, so by default (since I like the underdog) I'm pulling for GB in two weeks.

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:13 am

Irn-Bru wrote:Well, the Packers don't look so hot after today. Then again, neither do the Jets anymore. Pittsburgh is clearly the better team, so by default (since I like the underdog) I'm pulling for GB in two weeks.

Sorry Bru, I don't want them to have 1 more ring than us. No sir, right now we're tied with them with 3 rings. (along wit Oak/NE/NYG)

so LETS GO PITT!!!!

VetSkinsFan · Post by **VetSkinsFan** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:06 am

BearSkins wrote:Packers don't have a complete football team yet. Bears for me, natch.

What are the Packers lacking?

grampi · Post by **grampi** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:15 am

langleyparkjoe wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:Well, the Packers don't look so hot after today. Then again, neither do the Jets anymore. Pittsburgh is clearly the better team, so by default (since I like the underdog) I'm pulling for GB in two weeks.

Sorry Bru, I don't want them to have 1 more ring than us. No sir, right now we're tied with them with 3 rings. (along wit Oak/NE/NYG)

so LETS GO PITT!!!!

You have problem with GB having one more ring than we have, but you're okay with the Steelers having 2, and now possibly 3 more than we have? What kind of goofiness is that?

grampi · Post by **grampi** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:21 am

Irn-Bru wrote:Well, the Packers don't look so hot after today. Then again, neither do the Jets anymore. Pittsburgh is clearly the better team, so by default (since I like the underdog) I'm pulling for GB in two weeks.

The Packers played good, they just didn't finish a lot of drives in this game. They still outplayed the Bears by miles more than the score showed. However, the steelers are better than the bears and the packers will have to finish their drives to beat them. Dont fool yourself into thinking the packers cant beat the steelers though....

grampi · Post by **grampi** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:25 am

KazooSkinsFan wrote:I'm rooting for the Pack to go all the way!!!

Second Bears, third Jets.

I don't hate the Steelers, but I'm sick of them

I'm with you on this one. The steelers have been there enough in the last few years. I get sick of the same teams winning all the time. If the steelers, pats, cowboys, and 49ers never won another SB it would okay with me....

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:09 am

grampi wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:Well, the Packers don't look so hot after today. Then again, neither do the Jets anymore. Pittsburgh is clearly the better team, so by default (since I like the underdog) I'm pulling for GB in two weeks.

The Packers played good, they just didn't finish a lot of drives in this game. They still outplayed the Bears by miles more than the score showed.

Aside from their second half collapse, I agree.

grampi · Post by **grampi** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:22 am

Irn-Bru wrote:
grampi wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:Well, the Packers don't look so hot after today. Then again, neither do the Jets anymore. Pittsburgh is clearly the better team, so by default (since I like the underdog) I'm pulling for GB in two weeks.

The Packers played good, they just didn't finish a lot of drives in this game. They still outplayed the Bears by miles more than the score showed.

Aside from their second half collapse, I agree.

The SB should be a good game then as the Steelers collapsed in the 2nd half as well....

JiveTurkee · Post by **JiveTurkee** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:05 pm

Packers and Steelers had a 37-36 slugfest last year. Ben had 500 yds passing and ARodgers had almost 400. I am looking forward to a great game.

grampi · Post by **grampi** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:45 pm

JiveTurkee wrote:Packers and Steelers had a 37-36 slugfest last year. Ben had 500 yds passing and ARodgers had almost 400. I am looking forward to a great game.

I would expect far fewer yards by both QBs in this game as both defenses are much better than they were last year....

JiveTurkee · Post by **JiveTurkee** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 1:03 pm

True. Very true.

It's Dom Capers vs Dick LeBeau. DC was the first DC for Cowher and LeBeau was the Secondary coach on that same staff. Should be a great matchup.

grampi wrote:
JiveTurkee wrote:Packers and Steelers had a 37-36 slugfest last year. Ben had 500 yds passing and ARodgers had almost 400. I am looking forward to a great game.

I would expect far fewer yards by both QBs in this game as both defenses are much better than they were last year....

SKINFAN · Post by **SKINFAN** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:13 pm

This will be a game decided on who runs the ball better.

grampi · Post by **grampi** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:07 pm

SKINFAN wrote:This will be a game decided on who runs the ball better.

I wouldn't bet on that. The Steelers have a good overall D, but the secondary can be exposed. Brady burned them bad, and Rodgers can do the same thing....

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:49 pm

grampi wrote:
SKINFAN wrote:This will be a game decided on who runs the ball better.

I wouldn't bet on that. The Steelers have a good overall D, but the secondary can be exposed. Brady burned them bad, and Rodgers can do the same thing....

I agree with you grampi. Neither won their last game because of their running game

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 9:02 am

grampi wrote:
langleyparkjoe wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:Well, the Packers don't look so hot after today. Then again, neither do the Jets anymore. Pittsburgh is clearly the better team, so by default (since I like the underdog) I'm pulling for GB in two weeks.

Sorry Bru, I don't want them to have 1 more ring than us. No sir, right now we're tied with them with 3 rings. (along wit Oak/NE/NYG)

so LETS GO PITT!!!!

You have problem with GB having one more ring than we have, but you're okay with the Steelers having 2, and now possibly 3 more than we have? What kind of goofiness is that?

No goofiness.. Pitt has 6.. dallas/sf have 5.. I'd rather let pitt have their 7th and that still give us the chance to be the ONLY team with 4. Da hell a AFC with 7 rings has to do with us vs a NFC team beating us to the punch??? My vote, AFC pretty much always.. exception was that Arizona team. Any team with less rings than my boys I root for in the NFC.. simple, plain, and not that hard to comprehend. Skins 1st, everyone else last.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:41 am

langleyparkjoe wrote:
grampi wrote:
langleyparkjoe wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:Well, the Packers don't look so hot after today. Then again, neither do the Jets anymore. Pittsburgh is clearly the better team, so by default (since I like the underdog) I'm pulling for GB in two weeks.

Sorry Bru, I don't want them to have 1 more ring than us. No sir, right now we're tied with them with 3 rings. (along wit Oak/NE/NYG)

so LETS GO PITT!!!!

You have problem with GB having one more ring than we have, but you're okay with the Steelers having 2, and now possibly 3 more than we have? What kind of goofiness is that?

No goofiness.. Pitt has 6.. dallas/sf have 5.. I'd rather let pitt have their 7th and that still give us the chance to be the ONLY team with 4. Da hell a AFC with 7 rings has to do with us vs a NFC team beating us to the punch??? My vote, AFC pretty much always.. exception was that Arizona team. Any team with less rings than my boys I root for in the NFC.. simple, plain, and not that hard to comprehend. Skins 1st, everyone else last.

No way. Go Packers! No seventh ring for Pittsburgh!

You can't count those 1st two SBs against them, they named the trophy after their coach. :wink:

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:50 am

Deadskins wrote:
langleyparkjoe wrote:
grampi wrote:
langleyparkjoe wrote:
Irn-Bru wrote:Well, the Packers don't look so hot after today. Then again, neither do the Jets anymore. Pittsburgh is clearly the better team, so by default (since I like the underdog) I'm pulling for GB in two weeks.

Sorry Bru, I don't want them to have 1 more ring than us. No sir, right now we're tied with them with 3 rings. (along wit Oak/NE/NYG)

so LETS GO PITT!!!!

You have problem with GB having one more ring than we have, but you're okay with the Steelers having 2, and now possibly 3 more than we have? What kind of goofiness is that?

No goofiness.. Pitt has 6.. dallas/sf have 5.. I'd rather let pitt have their 7th and that still give us the chance to be the ONLY team with 4. Da hell a AFC with 7 rings has to do with us vs a NFC team beating us to the punch??? My vote, AFC pretty much always.. exception was that Arizona team. Any team with less rings than my boys I root for in the NFC.. simple, plain, and not that hard to comprehend. Skins 1st, everyone else last.

No way. Go Packers! No seventh ring for Pittsburgh!

You can't count those 1st two SBs against them, they named the trophy after their coach.

GARBAGE!!! LOL!!!

Ok how's this than; there are currently 3 teams with more SBs than us.. YOU GUYS WANT THERE TO BE 4 TEAMS NOW?????

:hmm:

I just don't understand?

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:55 am

langleyparkjoe wrote:Ok how's this than; there are currently 3 teams with more SBs than us.. YOU GUYS WANT THERE TO BE 4 TEAMS NOW?????

I just don't understand?

No, I don't want there to be 4 teams, but I want Pittsburgh to get a seventh even less.

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:59 am

Deadskins wrote:
langleyparkjoe wrote:Ok how's this than; there are currently 3 teams with more SBs than us.. YOU GUYS WANT THERE TO BE 4 TEAMS NOW?????

I just don't understand?

No, I don't want there to be 4 teams, but I want Pittsburgh to get a seventh even less.

Well, ok I guess..

Does anyone out there agree with me? Seems like I'm on Gilligan's Island all alone here. O well, ;furious;

ya'll.. I want my Skins to be the only team with 4, not tied with GB with 4.

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:02 pm

langleyparkjoe wrote:Ok how's this than; there are currently 3 teams with more SBs than us.. YOU GUYS WANT THERE TO BE 4 TEAMS NOW?????

I just don't understand?

I don't really get why it's a big deal how many Super Bowls other teams have won. I care how many we won, but not compared to other specific teams.

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:06 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
langleyparkjoe wrote:Ok how's this than; there are currently 3 teams with more SBs than us.. YOU GUYS WANT THERE TO BE 4 TEAMS NOW?????

I just don't understand?

I don't really get why it's a big deal how many Super Bowls other teams have won. I care how many we won, but not compared to other specific teams.

If I can brag to smeagel fans how they have ZERO, than I'd be ignorant to myself to not expect GB fans to be like.. "dude, you have three.. shut up".. Nope, I want to be the one to say "we have four, shut up".. simple as that

KazooSkinsFan · Post by **KazooSkinsFan** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:12 pm

langleyparkjoe wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
langleyparkjoe wrote:Ok how's this than; there are currently 3 teams with more SBs than us.. YOU GUYS WANT THERE TO BE 4 TEAMS NOW?????

I just don't understand?

I don't really get why it's a big deal how many Super Bowls other teams have won. I care how many we won, but not compared to other specific teams.

If I can brag to smeagel fans how they have ZERO, than I'd be ignorant to myself to not expect GB fans to be like.. "dude, you have three.. shut up".. Nope, I want to be the one to say "we have four, shut up".. simple as that

Well, you can be happy that you can still say we're 3-0 to the Smeogles and the packers can only say 4-3 if they win. It's not really that intimidating to say we won 4 you only won 3. That's in the "get a life" category." You can still say the Smeogles are blanked, a lot more dominating.

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:16 pm

KazooSkinsFan wrote:
langleyparkjoe wrote:
KazooSkinsFan wrote:
langleyparkjoe wrote:Ok how's this than; there are currently 3 teams with more SBs than us.. YOU GUYS WANT THERE TO BE 4 TEAMS NOW?????

I just don't understand?

I don't really get why it's a big deal how many Super Bowls other teams have won. I care how many we won, but not compared to other specific teams.

If I can brag to smeagel fans how they have ZERO, than I'd be ignorant to myself to not expect GB fans to be like.. "dude, you have three.. shut up".. Nope, I want to be the one to say "we have four, shut up".. simple as that

Well, you can be happy that you can still say we're 3-0 to the Smeogles and the packers can only say 4-3 if they win. It's not really that intimidating to say we won 4 you only won 3. That's in the "get a life" category." You can still say the Smeogles are blanked, a lot more dominating.

yea I tend to take skins life waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too serious.. oh well, still.. ;furious;

gb