Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

    I think that a team has to win multiple super bowls with the same core personnel before considering labeling them a 'dynasty'. The packers have a great team, and they do have the capacity to do it, but there are a lot of other teams out there who could do it too. I would wait to see if Rodgers can get his team one more championship before taking crazy.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

      [quote user="Joe Morrison"]


      [quote user="gumby742"]The reasons why the Giants won't be a dynasty or even really considered is because we stunk or were very average for 2 of the last 4-5 years. A dynasty wins consistently. We haven't been. The regular season is very important especially when it comes to public perception.[/quote]</P>


      And that's why he or she calls themselves Gumby, what team has been a winner every year except the Pats who play with the Jets, Dolphins, and Buffalo, if the GMEN played those 3 twice a year they would be winners every year to.</P>


      Super Bowls determine Champions, no matter how they get there, weren't the Packers a wild card when they won theirs, and who did they have to play, the Bears, Vikings, Lions, give me a break.</P>


      [/quote]</P>


      Different strokes for different folks. Being a dynasty is all about public perception. Honestly, the only year where I felt good about our chances going into the post season was 2008. Prior to that we kind of walked into the playoffs with our tails between our legs. We also had 4 straight one and dones.</P>


      Compare that to the likes of the Steelers and Patriots, who have been absolutely dominant pretty much for the majority of the last 10 years. Those teams win convincingly, we don't. The Giants give me a heartattack practically every game because we play down to the level of our competition.</P>

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

        I mean...the Giants are already closer than the Packers. Two in five seasons as opposed to the Packers who only have one in the last 15 seasons. If the Giants win another in the next year or two, one can argue that this is a dynasty...I guess it's a pretty subjective term, but 3 in 6 seasons is a dynasty as far as I'm concerned.

        We are getting ahead of ourselves here though...let's discuss it if it actually happens!

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

          If not Dynasty, we definetly have the Destiney label all sowed up. " No Toughness No Championships " " Finish " " All In "

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

            [quote user="gumby742"][quote user="Joe Morrison"]


            [quote user="gumby742"]The reasons why the Giants won't be a dynasty or even really considered is because we stunk or were very average *for 2 of the last 4-5 years.* A dynasty wins consistently.* We haven't been.* The regular season is very important especially when it comes to public perception.[/quote]</P>


            And that's why he or she calls themselves Gumby, what team has been a winner every year except the Pats who play with the Jets, Dolphins, and Buffalo, if the GMEN played those 3 twice a year they would be winners every year to.</P>


            Super Bowls determine Champions, no matter how they get there, weren't the Packers a wild card when they won theirs, and who did they have to play, the Bears, Vikings, Lions, give me a break.</P>


            [/quote]</P>


            Different strokes for different folks.* Being a dynasty is all about public perception.* Honestly, the only year where I felt good about our chances going into the post season was 2008.* Prior to that we kind of walked into the playoffs with our tails between our legs.* We also had 4 straight one and dones.</P>


            Compare that to the likes of the Steelers and Patriots, who have been absolutely dominant pretty much for the majority of the last 10 years.* Those teams win convincingly, we don't.* The Giants give me a heartattack practically every game because we play down to the level of our competition.</P>[/quote]

            We have NEVER had 4 straight "one and dones" in the playoffs, even going all the way to the beginning of the Super Bowl era, 45 years.

            And, in fact, under Eli-Coughlin era we have lost only 3 playoff games.

            The only playoff season that it could be said we "walked into" with "tails between our legs" in the LAST 19 YEARS was 2006, when we got in with an 8-8 record.

            In 1993, 97 (Division winner), 2000 (Division winner), 02, 05 (Division winner), 07, 08, and this year (Divison winner), we definitely did not "walk into the playoffs with our tails between our legs).

            While the Steelers have arguably been dominant for most of the past 8 years, they certainly did not win their Super Bowls "convincingly".

            In fact I would argue the only Super Bowl they have been involved in any "convincing" manner since 1979, has been their 2 LOSSES, in 1995 and 2010.

            Patriots have been, along with the Colts and Steelers to lesser extents, the cream of the NFL the past 11 years, true enough. And many regular season games have resulted in "convincing" wins, if you will, especially in 2007.

            But none--NONE-- of the 5 Super Bowls they have played in, have been won OR lost "convincingly". That is, if by "convincingly" you mean huge gaps in score differential.

            And, oh my, the past 2 seasons the Patriots were "one and done". And they missed the playoffs the year before that.

            Even more strange, including the 2007 Super Bowl the Patriots are 2-4 in playoffs and Super Bowls since 2007.

            While, oh my god, the Giants are 5-1 in playoffs and Super Bowls since 2007.

            How do you like THEM apples of "public perception"?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

              [quote user="gmen46"][quote user="gumby742"][quote user="Joe Morrison"]


              [quote user="gumby742"]The reasons why the Giants won't be a dynasty or even really considered is because we stunk or were very average for 2 of the last 4-5 years. A dynasty wins consistently. We haven't been. The regular season is very important especially when it comes to public perception.[/quote]</P>


              And that's why he or she calls themselves Gumby, what team has been a winner every year except the Pats who play with the Jets, Dolphins, and Buffalo, if the GMEN played those 3 twice a year they would be winners every year to.</P>


              Super Bowls determine Champions, no matter how they get there, weren't the Packers a wild card when they won theirs, and who did they have to play, the Bears, Vikings, Lions, give me a break.</P>


              [/quote]</P>


              Different strokes for different folks. Being a dynasty is all about public perception. Honestly, the only year where I felt good about our chances going into the post season was 2008. Prior to that we kind of walked into the playoffs with our tails between our legs. We also had 4 straight one and dones.</P>


              Compare that to the likes of the Steelers and Patriots, who have been absolutely dominant pretty much for the majority of the last 10 years. Those teams win convincingly, we don't. The Giants give me a heartattack practically every game because we play down to the level of our competition.</P>


              [/quote] We have NEVER had 4 straight "one and dones" in the playoffs, even going all the way to the beginning of the Super Bowl era, 45 years. And, in fact, under Eli-Coughlin era we have lost only 3 playoff games. The only playoff season that it could be said we "walked into" with "tails between our legs" in the LAST 19 YEARS was 2006, when we got in with an 8-8 record. In 1993, 97 (Division winner), 2000 (Division winner), 02, 05 (Division winner), 07, 08, and this year (Divison winner), we definitely did not "walk into the playoffs with our tails between our legs). While the Steelers have arguably been dominant for most of the past 8 years, they certainly did not win their Super Bowls "convincingly". In fact I would argue the only Super Bowl they have been involved in any "convincing" manner since 1979, has been their 2 LOSSES, in 1995 and 2010. Patriots have been, along with the Colts and Steelers to lesser extents, the cream of the NFL the past 11 years, true enough. And many regular season games have resulted in "convincing" wins, if you will, especially in 2007. But none--NONE-- of the 5 Super Bowls they have played in, have been won OR lost "convincingly". That is, if by "convincingly" you mean huge gaps in score differential. And, oh my, the past 2 seasons the Patriots were "one and done". And they missed the playoffs the year before that. Even more strange, including the 2007 Super Bowl the Patriots are 2-4 in playoffs and Super Bowls since 2007. While, oh my god, the Giants are 5-1 in playoffs and Super Bowls since 2007. How do you like THEM apples of "public perception"?[/quote]</P>


              Oh, I'm only talking about the last 10 years, because I think the OP was who is the next dynasty etc etc.</P>


              Ok, 3 straight one and dones then. When I say, with our tails between our legs, i mean that we weren't a very convincing team entering the playoffs. It's safe to say that even though we won our division, short of 2008, we weren't scaring anyone. And fair or not, imo, that's what the public perceives as being a great team. There was a reason why we never got any respect. </P>


              People down play the role of the regular season, but the regular season is still very important - especially when it comes to public perception as a team. When we won the SB, the talk was still on the Pats. Why? They were the dominant team in the regular season. When we won the SB in 2007, the talk was still on the Pats. Same deal. The Only time we got any respect from the media was in 2008. Even though we were 1 and done, the media were saying how we collapsed and how we were worn out. It was NOT how great the eagles played. The difference? We played great in the regular season.</P>


              lol. I don't control public perception. You can give all the reasons you want, but it's obvious we don't get much respect around the NFL - SB win or not.</P>

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

                We're talking about an ex Patriot, who has now seen His team go down in flames twice, in 4 years to the same team. These ex Pats on the tube, don't even try to hide their hate. Want more ? Before the 49 game that idiot on NFLN ( Heath whats His name ) said " I'd hate it if the Giants win. Me and my wife HATE Eli and the Giants. We would not want to have to hear about them for the next 2 weeks. Even the broad on NFLN said stop the Hating.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: McGinest Picks Packers For Dynasty Label

                  What do you expect from a former Patriot? The Giants don't get any respect from anyone in the media I certainly wouldn't expect them to get it from a former Patriot. Oh and as far as us keeping our players last I checked the Packers are subject to the same Cap constraints we are...

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X