13-1

[wolverine304]

Lmao :'(

 

[bestisbest]

Ya... That's right

 

[wolverine304]

Eh I didn't care much for the whole undefeated season. Too much stress on a team. I actually wanted to break the pats winning streak more than actually going 16-0.


Plus Rodgers and the Packers seem like a team who will come back pissed and play much better.

 

[bestisbest]

Ya.... I'm sure.

 

[wolverine304]

I've been saying before they played detroit I didn't care.

All I care about is home field and people getting healthy

 

[Mitchrapp]

Its like Rocky IV. " You see? You see? He's not a machine, he's a man, he's a man".

 

[grandy]

Your hopes are still alive...13-1 with a possible super bowl win is better than 18-1

 

[wolverine304]

Exactly. Much rather go 10-6 and win the sb like last year than 18-1 like the pats.

 

[wolverine304]

Mitch[/color]]Its like Rocky IV. " You see? You see? He's not a machine, he's a man, he's a man".

Are you trying to say that we're only good cause we're on steroids! Lol

 

[Mitchrapp]

No.

 

[beez]

I think it's good for GB to lose. I'd be more confident going into the playoffs 13-3 then 16-0 I think.

 

[wolverine304]

I have mixed feelings about it. There would have been a ton of pressure on them if they finished 16-0.

Its been a year since they've felt how bad a loss is. Now they feel it and hopefully its another year before they feel it again.

I just want them to get healthy

 

[Mitchrapp]

I remember when the Colts were 14-0 and pulled Manning against the jets and finished 14-2 and did jack in the playoffs, ironically losing to the same Jets. Same year Saints went 13-0, rested Drew Brees and bam, win the SB. Curious what route the Packers take.

 

[wolverine304]

Now that the streaks over id liked them to just get home field and start resting players in the 4th. But idk if that'll happen

 

[Mitchrapp]

The 4th I would think a no brainer. Obvious with SF playing Seattle, and if they win -- Rodgers and the rest play all day against the Bears. If SF loses, just to get the stink out they play against Chicago throughout as well. But come week 17 I don't see them playing past quarter 2. Going against Detroit, who took out Rodgers last year, people think they're dirty and coaching staff might not want a late hit on Rodgers so he plays little.

 

[wolverine304]

That's what I want. But won't be shocked if starters play a lot. Unless it turns out like the raiders game where rodgers sat the 4th, but I don't see that happening

 

[byco42]

The NFL has chunks of one-loss teams losing in the post season in its stool.

 

[Thumb]

14-2 after tomorrow

 

[turok]

Many if not most of each NFL team's fans would "kill" to have even a small sample of the Superbowl-era's success that fans of the Packers have enjoyed, with perhaps the exceptions being fans of the 49ers, Steelers, Cowboys, and to perhaps a slightly lesser degree, fans of the Patriots and the Raiders.

We (esp. older)Lions fans, at least up to this season , have only had primarily several RBs seasonal success to enjoy and anticipate, being of course, the Barry Sanders 90s, and to a lesser degree, the injury-shortened early-80s Billy Sims era, and for some of us, also the late 60s Mel Farr years...somewhat.

The Lions have not ever had anyone who could be considered a truly "elite" QB during the Superbowl era. When one of their allegedly "best" QBs (statistically) in...ugh..Scott Mitchell...finally has his TD and passing yards in a season team records broken this year, after nearly two decades have "passed" by since then, by Stafford...well...that fact obviously has a LOT to do with why the Lions teams have won just one playoff game, and have not played in a Superbowl yet, much less win one.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Dexter Bussey, bub