>The Packers have seldom if ever had a defense like
>Baltimore's and maybe once had a complete team like New
>England and the Steelers had in their title years. That goes
>to show the importance of the QB position to me. Largely on
>their strength at one position they have been as successful as
>literally ANY other franchise during that time span with a
>lone exception (NE, who also has had 15 years of HOF QB play
>plus Bledsoe before that). On top of that, they have been very
>competitive in years where they haven't one. This is just a
>hating-ass post. You'd fuck a whole stable full of donkeys in
>the ass for the Bears to have FIVE years of HOF QB play. I
>mean, the more I think about it, the more ironic this post is,
>given that the Bears haven't had a QB worth a shit since Sid
>Luckman and managed to waste the careers of tons of great
>players at other positions. Don't nobody remember the steps to
>the Super Bowl shuffle 30 years on, bruh.

The Bears are terrible. Why even bring them up in a post about what, I am told, is one of the NFL's greatest organizations, top-to-bottom?

When someone starts talking about Spygate does anyone bring up the Jaguars futility?

When questioning Peyton Manning's postseason failures, is it relevant to start talking about the Tennessee Titans lack of playoff wins?

Aaron Rodgers has been terrible in three straight NFCCG.


FLAT OUT TERRIBLE


If the Packers organizational goal was to be better than the Bears, then of course, this post would be pointless. I am working off the assumption that the Green Bay Packers have the bar set a little higher than that but hey, what do i know?