[Bette]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Why not? See, that's what I keep asking people, but I haven't heard a good answer yet. Why such faith in the Packers sans Favre?

Because Favre was only part of the team, not the whole thing. He didnt catch the ball himself, he most certainly didnt run the ball, and he didnt do a whole lot of blocking. And he surely wasnt part of one of the best defenses out there. Its the same hungry young team, with the same mix and the same coach. So a better question is Why not??

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by Bette

Because Favre was only part of the team, not the whole thing. He didnt catch the ball himself, he most certainly didnt run the ball, and he didnt do a whole lot of blocking. And he surely wasnt part of one of the best defenses out there. Its the same hungry young team, with the same mix and the same coach. So a better question is Why not??

Because they have zero leadership under center, because Rodgers is overrated and will quickly prove himself uneffective, because defenses will be able to key on the running game and shut down Grant, and because I'm still not sold on their defense, especially when it comes to shutting down a guy like Peterson. How does that work for you?

[Bette]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Because they have zero leadership under center, because Rodgers is overrated and will quickly prove himself uneffective, because defenses will be able to key on the running game and shut down Grant, and because I'm still not sold on their defense, especially when it comes to shutting down a guy like Peterson. How does that work for you?

They have just as much leadership under center as the Vikings do, and unless you have a magic crystal ball you cant know that Rodgers is going to be uneffective, and the Vikings had a few weak spots that I am not all that sure they have filled, and they only have to face Peterson twice.

[bears9]

Originally Posted by Bette

They have just as much leadership under center as the Vikings do, and unless you have a magic crystal ball you cant know that Rodgers is going to be uneffective, and the Vikings had a few weak spots that I am not all that sure they have filled, and they only have to face Peterson twice.

The difference is the Vikings have leadership in other places, like the whole defense. The Packers are a .500 team.

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by Bette

They have just as much leadership under center as the Vikings do, and unless you have a magic crystal ball you cant know that Rodgers is going to be uneffective, and the Vikings had a few weak spots that I am not all that sure they have filled, and they only have to face Peterson twice.

Well, I guess we'll find out which one of us is closer to right this fall, eh, Bette?

[Bette]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Well, I guess we'll find out which one of us is closer to right this fall, eh, Bette?

Whew! a tie. At least I didnt totally lose this one.

[Lefty Noob]

Originally Posted by Bette

Whew! a tie. At least I didnt totally lose this one.

Quite the contrary. You make a very convincing argument. No matter how flawed the fundamental logic behind it is.

[Bette]

Originally Posted by bears9

The difference is the Vikings have leadership in other places, like the whole defense. The Packers are a .500 team.

What? Driver, Harris, Woodson arent veteran leaders?

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

Quite the contrary. You make a very convincing argument. No matter how flawed the fundamental logic behind it is.

Touche! You got me and we are even now.

[Weird harold]

I think when you look at the whole teams, the Packers, and Vikings are pretty much even. What it's going to come down to is how Rodgers, and Jackson play. We don't know what Rodgers will do. Some people will look at Jackson, and say he is a proven looser. Jackson has about one year experience under his belt on the field. A lot of other quarterbacks had much better second years. I really think who wins NFC north is a coin toss between these two teams. Only thing I'm sure of is who ever comes out on top, they will beat Dallas.

[Bette]

Originally Posted by Weird harold

I think when you look at the whole teams, the Packers, and Vikings are pretty much even. What it's going to come down to is how Rodgers, and Jackson play. We don't know what Rodgers will do. Some people will look at Jackson, and say he is a proven looser. Jackson has about one year experience under his belt on the field. A lot of other quarterbacks had much better second years. I really think who wins NFC north is a coin toss between these two teams. Only thing I'm sure of is who ever comes out on top, they will beat Dallas.

Good thing you had the smiley face there wh. Otherwise I might have thought you were seriously dissing my Boys.

[Bryan88]

Originally Posted by Weird harold

I think when you look at the whole teams, the Packers, and Vikings are pretty much even. What it's going to come down to is how Rodgers, and Jackson play. We don't know what Rodgers will do. Some people will look at Jackson, and say he is a proven looser. Jackson has about one year experience under his belt on the field. A lot of other quarterbacks had much better second years. I really think who wins NFC north is a coin toss between these two teams. Only thing I'm sure of is who ever comes out on top, they will beat Dallas.

LOL, I like that one!

I think the point about Jackson and this only being his second season as a starter is being missed by a lot of people, he is going to be better than last year.

[Seahawker 562]

IM gunna bring up this thread again once the packers win the north once again. There record wont change that dramatically because favre has retired. a .500 team? I dont think so.

[Bette]

Originally Posted by Seahawker 562

IM gunna bring up this thread again once the packers win the north once again. There record wont change that dramatically because favre has retired. a .500 team? I dont think so.

Yeah, and I'm going to help you.

[Weird harold]

We have prediction threads, and those are stickied, but we need a special place to put predictions that we make day to day, so we can find them later, and laugh hysterically.

Note I include my own predictions as possibly laughable in the future.

[Weird harold]

Originally Posted by Bette

Good thing you had the smiley face there wh. Otherwise I might have thought you were seriously dissing my Boys.

I put it there basically to get your gander up.