Sorry Pittsburgh, New York, and Chicago (1 Viewer)

[Evilgrin 72]

I know, I know. I expect the whining every time the Steelers win but when it gets to the games being fixed they have gone too far...

Most of them do it just to get a rise out of us. I had the hardest time resisting for years, but recently, it amuses me where it used to aggravate me. They've gone to the same well too many times with me, and it lost its effectiveness.

Im not trying to get a rise, and im not trying to rain on Steelers fans parade. As a Bills fan i would gladly take a AFC championship birth no matter how i got there. Im sure some here are doing it for a rise, but isnt it possible that some people(especially those who are not fans of either team) honestly think the Refs might have cost the Ravens the game? Why cant i post what i thought really happened without it being to get a rise or being a "hater"?

Did I ever say either of those things about you? Sounds like you're lumping yourself into the "most of them" category... unless you were referring to others making those comments.And to your question, if it happened once in a while, then you wouldn't get this kind of response. When it happens in every important game, you basically have to expect to either be ignored, or have people bite back at you. Seriously, you don't expect Steelers fans to fire back when you post things like "I may not even watch the game, I can't stand to watch the refs hand Pittsburgh the game again"? By saying that, you're not only implying that the refs are biased towards Pittsburgh, but you indirectly invalidate their accomplishments. Surely you understand this, so you probably shouldn't be shocked that you get a reaction.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I would have loved to see a healthy Packer Team against a healthy Pittsburgh team. The Packers have unquestionably lost more impact players by total number, but Pitts loses in the critical unit of the O-line have been very significant.The Packers have come through a tough road recently with Giants, Bears, Eagles, and Falcons. They have found at least the threat of a running game which has also reinvigorated their slant game. With Cullen Jenkins back they have some d-line rotation and should be improved against the run and the pass. I like their chances this week and against the AFC champ should they get so far, but realistically I have to agree with the oddsmakers, the Packers are not yet the favorites, but they have a good chance.As for the Bears, well lets just say that I do not yet believe.As for the Jets, I think they have to hide their Q.B., and while defense and running may win championships having to hide one's Q.B. does not bode well.All four teams deserve kudos and if anything I have posted upsets a fan of a particular team just blow it off, I am a fan, not a nuetral prognasticator as some like to posture. I am definately biased.

You could call the Steelers a bunch of parasol-toting weenies who lucked their way into the playoffs and I'd still love you.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Do sacks often lead to fumbles? Hmmm..... Roethlisberger was sacked 32 times and lost 3 fumbles in 12 games. For a team that rushes the passer so well and can play man coverage on the outside....that's a TO waiting to happen.Man, I didn't think I'd have to spell out how any semblance of a running game should take pressure off the passing game. It's Football 101.You seem to be taking all of this a bit personally.....and you are adamantly defending the Steelers. The picture is becoming clear....

Ya he gets personal in the Brady/Roethlisberger thread too because I don't agree with him. For a guy who claims to "not be a Steelers fan"...he sure does get emotional over it.Anyways I see Pittsburgh as the favorite with Green Bay a close second. Chicago - might have a shot against Green Bay, mostly due to their defense's ability to slow down Green Bay's offense. These two teams always seem to play it tight. NYJ - Both have quality defenses, but the Steelers is better. I just think Roethlisberger is so much better than Sanchez....and that's going to be the difference in that game. If it does end up being Green Bay-Pittsburgh it's a toss up to me. Rodgers seems to be lights out in domes recently but who knows against that Pittsburgh defense. I don't think it'll be like the last game where Roethlisberger threw a TD in the closing seconds in a high scoring matchup. Ugh...tough call.

You quoted someone else but attributed my name to the quote.

 

[Godsbrother]

I just think it is premature to predict a winner of a game before you even know the participants of the game.

But what the heck:

Sorry rest of NFL teams, the Detroit Lions will be the Super Bowl XCIX champs. How is THAT for prognostication?

Man, I've never really had much interaction with Steelers fans on a message board since my team's in the NFC but you guys are quite a sensitive bunch, huh?The guy made a prediction. It's a football message board. Calm down.

It was supposed to be a joke

I don't think he was referring to that part of your post.Every year thousands upon thousands of people place bets on who will win the Super Bowl......IN AUGUST. I'm choosing 1 of 4. I don't see why that's so taboo.

okay, you are on record as taking the Packers. I am ready to move on.

 

[Fensalk]

The Packers flaw is that their record when leading at halftime this year was 8-5. 5 times their defense blew 4th quarter leads. That's an awful lot. I just think somewhere down the road this stat will come back to bite them. I think its in Chicago, but I wouldn't be shocked to see Ben lead the Steelers to a 4th quarter win on the Packer defense, either.

Except this wasn't the case -- they've only had four 4th quarter leads that they've lost. Also, any of these "leads" at half time that they lost, the leads were never bigger than a touchdown. Moreover, their defense seems hardly at fault:

In CHI, Jones fumbled the ball on GB's 46 setting up the winning kick.

In WAS, Rogers threw a pick that set up the winning kick.

In DET, GB had a 3 point lead, in a game that finished 7-3.

In NE, their lead was 3 points and they were playing with their backup QB.

This idea that GB's defense hasn't played well this year, or somehow collapses under pressure, is a figment of one's imagination.

How is any of that not the defense's fault?

 

[doowain]

I just think it is premature to predict a winner of a game before you even know the participants of the game.

But what the heck:

Sorry rest of NFL teams, the Detroit Lions will be the Super Bowl XCIX champs. How is THAT for prognostication?

Man, I've never really had much interaction with Steelers fans on a message board since my team's in the NFC but you guys are quite a sensitive bunch, huh?The guy made a prediction. It's a football message board. Calm down.

It was supposed to be a joke

I don't think he was referring to that part of your post.Every year thousands upon thousands of people place bets on who will win the Super Bowl......IN AUGUST. I'm choosing 1 of 4. I don't see why that's so taboo.

okay, you are on record as taking the Packers. I am ready to move on.

Please do...

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I would like to stop worrying about Feb and focus on the Jets.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

The Packers flaw is that their record when leading at halftime this year was 8-5. 5 times their defense blew 4th quarter leads. That's an awful lot. I just think somewhere down the road this stat will come back to bite them. I think its in Chicago, but I wouldn't be shocked to see Ben lead the Steelers to a 4th quarter win on the Packer defense, either.

Except this wasn't the case -- they've only had four 4th quarter leads that they've lost. Also, any of these "leads" at half time that they lost, the leads were never bigger than a touchdown. Moreover, their defense seems hardly at fault:

In CHI, Jones fumbled the ball on GB's 46 setting up the winning kick.

In WAS, Rogers threw a pick that set up the winning kick.

In DET, GB had a 3 point lead, in a game that finished 7-3.

In NE, their lead was 3 points and they were playing with their backup QB.

This idea that GB's defense hasn't played well this year, or somehow collapses under pressure, is a figment of one's imagination.

How is any of that not the defense's fault?

I suppose I'm failing to see the point of your post. If you're trying to establish that GB has given up points in the 4th quarter, that's pretty obvious. They have. They have also given up points in the first and second quarters. Points aren't weighted as to when they are scored.So one can only presume that you're suggesting GB has a defense that buckles when the game is on the line, or that they are unreliable.

Yet I've established that:

A) the GB leads under scrutiny have been tiny;

B) in those instances, the GB offense has put their defense in some very bad situations;

and on top of that;

C) the defense is harder pressed in the 4th quarter because the other team is prone to gamble (no punting) and more pass plays (so more plays, in general, because the clock stops)

So for a team that is 2nd in the league in scoring defense, you're making a big deal over them giving up a few 3-point leads? If this is the worst one can say about GB, I think they are well on their way to the Superbowl.

 

[cr8f]

And a couple weeks ago people were saying the Patriots were unbeatable. Green Bay does look good but they still have to beat the Bears on the road and then beat the AFC champs so let's wait a couple weeks before we give them the Lombardi.

Chicago poses a bigger problem for Green Bay than most acknowledge. The defense Chi runs has given McCarthy problems since he's coached Green Bay, for the most part. If Chicago develops any kind of a running game Green Bay may be in trouble. I know Rodgers played lights out against Atlanta, but they won't be playing in a dome in Chicago. Bad weather + a good Chicago defense will make this a very interesting game. As of right now I don't think it's supposed to snow, but it's definitely not going to be dome conditions.Add on to that, Pittsburgh has the best defense in the league. The Jets held GB to 3 field goals (albeit a very windy day) and I wouldn't go handing that Lombardi trophy over just yet.Lot's of football left to play.

Prediction is 23 degrees. You do know Green Bay is north of chicago don't you and that is good weather up here?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I would have loved to see a healthy Packer Team against a healthy Pittsburgh team. The Packers have unquestionably lost more impact players by total number, but Pitts loses in the critical unit of the O-line have been very significant.The Packers have come through a tough road recently with Giants, Bears, Eagles, and Falcons. They have found at least the threat of a running game which has also reinvigorated their slant game. With Cullen Jenkins back they have some d-line rotation and should be improved against the run and the pass. I like their chances this week and against the AFC champ should they get so far, but realistically I have to agree with the oddsmakers, the Packers are not yet the favorites, but they have a good chance.As for the Bears, well lets just say that I do not yet believe.As for the Jets, I think they have to hide their Q.B., and while defense and running may win championships having to hide one's Q.B. does not bode well.All four teams deserve kudos and if anything I have posted upsets a fan of a particular team just blow it off, I am a fan, not a nuetral prognasticator as some like to posture. I am definately biased.

You could call the Steelers a bunch of parasol-toting weenies who lucked their way into the playoffs and I'd still love you.

Are you suggesting that the Steelers players have prehensile weiners capable of gripping umbrellas? My god that is the most intimidating trash talk I have ever heard! Hide the women and children, and hell, me too if it starts raining because that is a show I do not want to see.

 

[Bayhawks]

Do sacks often lead to fumbles? Hmmm..... Roethlisberger was sacked 32 times and lost 3 fumbles in 12 games. For a team that rushes the passer so well and can play man coverage on the outside....that's a TO waiting to happen.

Do sacks often lead to fumbles? No-they CAN lead to fumbles, bu they don't OFTEN lead to fumbles. You demonstrated this yourself in your next sentence. "Roethlisberger was sacked 32 times and lost 3 fumbles." 3/32 DOES NOT equal OFTEN.

Man, I didn't think I'd have to spell out how any semblance of a running game should take pressure off the passing game. It's Football 101.

Again, you should really check your facts before you post. You claimed the Packers have a "new-found running game" earlier. Now you claim that you mean "any semblance of a running game should take pressure off the passing game." The Packers don't have a "new-found running game" that "should take pressure off the passing game." They averaged 3.9 YPC in the regular season, and their "new found running game that "should take pressure off the passing game" is actually averaging 3.7 YPC.

You seem to be taking all of this a bit personally.....and you are adamantly defending the Steelers. The picture is becoming clear....



I'm not defending the Steelers at all. I'm merely point out that your reasons for apologizing to the other 3 playoff teams and concluding that the Packers are favorites to win the SB are either very weak, or flat-out wrong.

 

[Bayhawks]

Ya he gets personal in the Brady/Roethlisberger thread too because I don't agree with him. For a guy who claims to "not be a Steelers fan"...he sure does get emotional over it.

Just for curiosity's sake, how am I "getting emotional" in either this thread or the other. I enjoy these MB more so than team message boards because team message boards are always full of homers and bias. I pointed out the logical flaws in arguments in that thread and this one. If you (or anyone else) wants to take me (or anyone else) pointing out flaws in your thinking (especially when they are as easily seen as those posted by the OP in this thread), perhaps more care should be taken before you post things like the other 3 playoff QBs are prone to turnovers, when in fact, Rodgers is just as, if not more, prone to commit turnovers as 2 of the other 3.

 

[Bayhawks]

Do sacks often lead to fumbles? Hmmm..... Roethlisberger was sacked 32 times and lost 3 fumbles in 12 games. For a team that rushes the passer so well and can play man coverage on the outside....that's a TO waiting to happen.

Man, I didn't think I'd have to spell out how any semblance of a running game should take pressure off the passing game. It's Football 101.

The Packers had less than 100 yards rushing last week and averaged 3.0 ypc. James Starks has had exactly one good game in his career. The Steelers, Jets and Bears all have pretty good defenses against the run. I am not getting where you think GB's running game is going to be the difference.You want to give the Lombardi to the Packers today, the rest of us just want to watch the games play out.

Why is it that I don't want to watch the games play out? I'm predicting (and hoping) that the Packers win the SB. Sorry you don't share my sentiments.I'm not saying their running game will be the difference, but it's certainly better than when Brandon Jackson was carrying the load. THAT is why it's "better" than it has been all season....IMO of course. And it'll keep the Packers from having to be so one dimensional....LIKE THEY HAVE ALL SEASON.

It seems that everyone just wants to nitpick wording and project what they THINK I meant onto those words. At no point did I say that their running game was setting the world on fire or that it would be the reason they win out. Is it part of the equation that I think makes the GB offense suddenly unstoppable? Sure. But, the larger reason is the depth and level of talent they have at WR. You can say that their opponents will take the pass away, but how do you expect to do that? Jennings, Driver, Jones, Nelson.....you can't cover them all.....and if you try, I hope you can get pressure on Rodgers playing nickel all game.

But it's not better, it's actually worse. If you had bothered to look up the numbers, you'd know this.

 

[sho nuff]

But it's not better, it's actually worse. If you had bothered to look up the numbers, you'd know this.

Id like you to look at some things.Don't just take his aggregate numbers in there.Starks is simply a better runner and a bigger threat.Most would agree there.

 

[Bayhawks]

Do sacks often lead to fumbles? Hmmm..... Roethlisberger was sacked 32 times and lost 3 fumbles in 12 games. For a team that rushes the passer so well and can play man coverage on the outside....that's a TO waiting to happen.Man, I didn't think I'd have to spell out how any semblance of a running game should take pressure off the passing game. It's Football 101.

The Packers had less than 100 yards rushing last week and averaged 3.0 ypc. James Starks has had exactly one good game in his career. The Steelers, Jets and Bears all have pretty good defenses against the run. I am not getting where you think GB's running game is going to be the difference.You want to give the Lombardi to the Packers today, the rest of us just want to watch the games play out.

Why is it that I don't want to watch the games play out? I'm predicting (and hoping) that the Packers win the SB. Sorry you don't agree.

I just think it is premature to predict a winner of a game before you even know the participants of the game. But what the heck: Sorry rest of NFL teams, the Detroit Lions will be the Super Bowl XCIX champs. How is THAT for prognostication?

Man, I've never really had much interaction with Steelers fans on a message board since my team's in the NFC but you guys are quite a sensitive bunch, huh?The guy made a prediction. It's a football message board. Calm down.

The guy gave reasons why he was predicting the Packers would win the SB. Other posters questioned those reasons. It's a football message board. Calm down.

 

[bucksoh]

Packer-Steeler SB with Steelers winning bye 10

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I would have loved to see a healthy Packer Team against a healthy Pittsburgh team. The Packers have unquestionably lost more impact players by total number, but Pitts loses in the critical unit of the O-line have been very significant.The Packers have come through a tough road recently with Giants, Bears, Eagles, and Falcons. They have found at least the threat of a running game which has also reinvigorated their slant game. With Cullen Jenkins back they have some d-line rotation and should be improved against the run and the pass. I like their chances this week and against the AFC champ should they get so far, but realistically I have to agree with the oddsmakers, the Packers are not yet the favorites, but they have a good chance.As for the Bears, well lets just say that I do not yet believe.As for the Jets, I think they have to hide their Q.B., and while defense and running may win championships having to hide one's Q.B. does not bode well.All four teams deserve kudos and if anything I have posted upsets a fan of a particular team just blow it off, I am a fan, not a nuetral prognasticator as some like to posture. I am definately biased.

You could call the Steelers a bunch of parasol-toting weenies who lucked their way into the playoffs and I'd still love you.

Are you suggesting that the Steelers players have prehensile weiners capable of gripping umbrellas? My god that is the most intimidating trash talk I have ever heard! Hide the women and children, and hell, me too if it starts raining because that is a show I do not want to see.

And this is why.....

 

[kwille]

Are you suggesting that the Steelers players have prehensile weiners capable of gripping umbrellas? My god that is the most intimidating trash talk I have ever heard! Hide the women and children, and hell, me too if it starts raining because that is a show I do not want to see.

new sig. thanks.

 

[Debeucci]

Are you suggesting that the Steelers players have prehensile weiners capable of gripping umbrellas? My god that is the most intimidating trash talk I have ever heard! Hide the women and children, and hell, me too if it starts raining because that is a show I do not want to see.

new sig. thanks.

I hear that Rodgers is so good, he doesn't need an Oline!Truth!

 

[The Westin]

Do sacks often lead to fumbles? Hmmm..... Roethlisberger was sacked 32 times and lost 3 fumbles in 12 games. For a team that rushes the passer so well and can play man coverage on the outside....that's a TO waiting to happen.

Man, I didn't think I'd have to spell out how any semblance of a running game should take pressure off the passing game. It's Football 101.

The Packers had less than 100 yards rushing last week and averaged 3.0 ypc. James Starks has had exactly one good game in his career. The Steelers, Jets and Bears all have pretty good defenses against the run. I am not getting where you think GB's running game is going to be the difference.You want to give the Lombardi to the Packers today, the rest of us just want to watch the games play out.

Why is it that I don't want to watch the games play out? I'm predicting (and hoping) that the Packers win the SB. Sorry you don't share my sentiments.I'm not saying their running game will be the difference, but it's certainly better than when Brandon Jackson was carrying the load. THAT is why it's "better" than it has been all season....IMO of course. And it'll keep the Packers from having to be so one dimensional....LIKE THEY HAVE ALL SEASON.

It seems that everyone just wants to nitpick wording and project what they THINK I meant onto those words. At no point did I say that their running game was setting the world on fire or that it would be the reason they win out. Is it part of the equation that I think makes the GB offense suddenly unstoppable? Sure. But, the larger reason is the depth and level of talent they have at WR. You can say that their opponents will take the pass away, but how do you expect to do that? Jennings, Driver, Jones, Nelson.....you can't cover them all.....and if you try, I hope you can get pressure on Rodgers playing nickel all game.

But it's not better, it's actually worse. If you had bothered to look up the numbers, you'd know this.

People who are saying the Packers are much better off with Starks than they were with Brandon Jackson are watching the actual games. When Starks first played against SF he gained like 70 yards or something in that area....but it was how he did it. People were liking what they saw from Starks way before his 100yd performance against the Eagles. Watch the tape. The Packers don't need a dominating run game to be good....they just need something resembling a decent running game.

 

[Debeucci]

Do sacks often lead to fumbles? Hmmm..... Roethlisberger was sacked 32 times and lost 3 fumbles in 12 games. For a team that rushes the passer so well and can play man coverage on the outside....that's a TO waiting to happen.

Man, I didn't think I'd have to spell out how any semblance of a running game should take pressure off the passing game. It's Football 101.

The Packers had less than 100 yards rushing last week and averaged 3.0 ypc. James Starks has had exactly one good game in his career. The Steelers, Jets and Bears all have pretty good defenses against the run. I am not getting where you think GB's running game is going to be the difference.You want to give the Lombardi to the Packers today, the rest of us just want to watch the games play out.

Why is it that I don't want to watch the games play out? I'm predicting (and hoping) that the Packers win the SB. Sorry you don't share my sentiments.I'm not saying their running game will be the difference, but it's certainly better than when Brandon Jackson was carrying the load. THAT is why it's "better" than it has been all season....IMO of course. And it'll keep the Packers from having to be so one dimensional....LIKE THEY HAVE ALL SEASON.

It seems that everyone just wants to nitpick wording and project what they THINK I meant onto those words. At no point did I say that their running game was setting the world on fire or that it would be the reason they win out. Is it part of the equation that I think makes the GB offense suddenly unstoppable? Sure. But, the larger reason is the depth and level of talent they have at WR. You can say that their opponents will take the pass away, but how do you expect to do that? Jennings, Driver, Jones, Nelson.....you can't cover them all.....and if you try, I hope you can get pressure on Rodgers playing nickel all game.

But it's not better, it's actually worse. If you had bothered to look up the numbers, you'd know this.

People who are saying the Packers are much better off with Starks than they were with Brandon Jackson are watching the actual games. When Starks first played against SF he gained like 70 yards or something in that area....but it was how he did it. People were liking what they saw from Starks way before his 100yd performance against the Eagles. Watch the tape. The Packers don't need a dominating run game to be good....they just need something resembling a decent running game.

Which they still don't have.2/3 of the run game isn't the rb, it's the Oline. Last i checked, there Oline blocking for the run game is still pretty mediocre.

 

[The Westin]

Which they still don't have.2/3 of the run game isn't the rb, it's the Oline. Last i checked, there Oline blocking for the run game is still pretty mediocre.

Actually I'm going to agree with you. They're streaky at best. Some games where Jackson did "awful" his Oline was soley to blame. Atlanta (the first time) comes to mind. I don't expect Green Bay to have much, if any, run game against Chicago. It's going to rest soley on Aron Rodgers, as it has the whole season. But if they do get a running game going, it's going to be with Starks.

 

[fred_1_15301]

I know, I know. I expect the whining every time the Steelers win but when it gets to the games being fixed they have gone too far...

Most of them do it just to get a rise out of us. I had the hardest time resisting for years, but recently, it amuses me where it used to aggravate me. They've gone to the same well too many times with me, and it lost its effectiveness.

Im not trying to get a rise, and im not trying to rain on Steelers fans parade. As a Bills fan i would gladly take a AFC championship birth no matter how i got there. Im sure some here are doing it for a rise, but isnt it possible that some people(especially those who are not fans of either team) honestly think the Refs might have cost the Ravens the game? Why cant i post what i thought really happened without it being to get a rise or being a "hater"?

Did I ever say either of those things about you? Sounds like you're lumping yourself into the "most of them" category... unless you were referring to others making those comments.And to your question, if it happened once in a while, then you wouldn't get this kind of response. When it happens in every important game, you basically have to expect to either be ignored, or have people bite back at you. Seriously, you don't expect Steelers fans to fire back when you post things like "I may not even watch the game, I can't stand to watch the refs hand Pittsburgh the game again"? By saying that, you're not only implying that the refs are biased towards Pittsburgh, but you indirectly invalidate their accomplishments. Surely you understand this, so you probably shouldn't be shocked that you get a reaction.

If you don't think he was trying to get a rise out of Steelers fan, you should read some of his posts in the Balt/Pitts game thread. He's a troll....plain and simple.

 

[RudeDog]

This is just another example of the Packer fan's "Manifest Destiny" attitude. Where's Dennis Green when you need him

 

[Andrew Garda]

This is just another example of the Packer fan's "Manifest Destiny" attitude. Where's Dennis Green when you need him

 

[doowain]

I have to admit, even as a fan who has found himself rooting for Atlanta....watching Aaron Rodgers absolutely dismantle the Falcons IN ATLANTA Saturday was a thing of beauty. We already knew Aaron Rodgers was top shelf, but there is absolutely no one playing better right now. Considering the options at WR (imagine if Finley was healthy, gah) and the new found running game, the offense looks absolutely unstoppable.

The other half of the equation....which is what I think makes them the favorite, is their defense. Each of the remaining playoff teams have QBs with a penchant for turning the ball over (some more than others). With two shutdown corners and an impressive pass rush, we're likely to see a major turnover differential in favor of GB in next week's NFC Championship game (hello Cutler) and in the Super Bowl. Aaron Rodgers/Clay Matthews Co-Super Bowl MVPs? I think so....

Rodgers officially leaves Favre's shadow this season.

NOTE: I say this as a completely unbiased football fan.

I don't typically like to pat myself on the back, but since this seemed to ruffle so many feathers....why not.Aaron Rodgers plays lights out and is named MVP. check

"we're likely to see a major turnover differential in favor of GB"

Roethlisberger throws 2 picks (1 pick 6). Steelers with 3 turnovers total. check

What happened to Rodgers having more of a penchant for turning the ball over than Ben? Hmmm....

Packers are your Super Bowl champs.

If only I bet on sports

Again, my apologies Pittsburgh, New York, and Chicago.

 

[Bayhawks]

I have to admit, even as a fan who has found himself rooting for Atlanta....watching Aaron Rodgers absolutely dismantle the Falcons IN ATLANTA Saturday was a thing of beauty. We already knew Aaron Rodgers was top shelf, but there is absolutely no one playing better right now. Considering the options at WR (imagine if Finley was healthy, gah) and the new found running game, the offense looks absolutely unstoppable.

The other half of the equation....which is what I think makes them the favorite, is their defense. Each of the remaining playoff teams have QBs with a penchant for turning the ball over (some more than others). With two shutdown corners and an impressive pass rush, we're likely to see a major turnover differential in favor of GB in next week's NFC Championship game (hello Cutler) and in the Super Bowl. Aaron Rodgers/Clay Matthews Co-Super Bowl MVPs? I think so....

Rodgers officially leaves Favre's shadow this season.

NOTE: I say this as a completely unbiased football fan.

I don't typically like to pat myself on the back, but since this seemed to ruffle so many feathers....why not.Aaron Rodgers plays lights out and is named MVP. check

"we're likely to see a major turnover differential in favor of GB"

Roethlisberger throws 2 picks (1 pick 6). Steelers with 3 turnovers total. check

What happened to Rodgers having more of a penchant for turning the ball over than Ben? Hmmm....

Packers are your Super Bowl champs.

If only I bet on sports

Again, my apologies Pittsburgh, New York, and Chicago.

Congratulations on making a bold prediction that turned out to be correct.