This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Because it is being debated whether or not the Packers were in this game.
Nothing like giving all the facts to the game. One reason the Packers came back from being out of the game was Brett Favre. That hardly defines being in the game. Except for less than two minutes of the game, the Packers were never in that game.Porkskank is getting owned in his Favre thread so now he wants to debate this.This is the only thing he may get right.
They were in 15 of 16. If they weren't in this game, it could be 14 of 16, as this is the only other game (other than Baltimore) that anyone has been able to come up with that they weren't in.
The question is if they were in that game. As I've said in multiple places now, Favre certainly kept them in the game in the second half. I'm not putting any blame on him for that. The debate is whether or not the Packers were in this game.
Nothing like giving all the facts to the game. One reason the Packers came back from being out of the game was Brett Favre. That hardly defines being in the game. Except for less than two minutes of the game, the Packers were never in that game.
Porkskank is getting owned in his Favre thread so now he wants to debate this.
This is the only thing he may get right.
FlaVVEd. The premise of the Favre thread is that the Packers were competitive this year, and to suggest that with better play at qb, they could have won more games. The ONLY game other than the Baltimore game which anyone has been able to reveal the Packers weren't in was the Carolina game. I'm simply trying to find out if they were in the game or not.God you're a tool.The funny thing is that this poll supports the exact opposite premise of his Favre thread. That Favre is the reason they lost all their games yet in this case Favre was one main reason they "got back into the game".
I voted NO because of your premises that Favre sucks and he would have thrown an INT to end the game.FlaVVEd. The premise of the Favre thread is that the Packers were competitive this year, and to suggest that with better play at qb, they could have won more games. The ONLY game other than the Baltimore game which anyone has been able to reveal the Packers weren't in was the Carolina game. I'm simply trying to find out if they were in the game or not.God you're a tool.
Nowhere have I said that Favre sucks. I've only stated that in his prime, and that other current qb's could have taken this year's team to more victories. You can say the same for virtually every great qb that ever played. That at the end of their careers they weren't as good as they were in their prime, and that there are other qb's that are better than them. Favre certainly doesn't suck. Their are multiple qb's in the league right now that wouldn't have even gotten four wins this year as the qb for the Pack.
