The top two teams in the North both laid major eggs today.

But, I hesitantly say, they were both somewhat expected.

Look at the terrible weather conditions they both had to play in.

Look how they both had to play on the road.

Look at how they both had to play a division rival who for years has made beating them one of their team priorities.



OK, OK, that was tongue in cheek.

Which loss was more painful to its teams fans.

I would have to say the Pack. They lost badly to a team that had not been playing very good football and really had nothing to play for. The Vikings lost to a team fighting for its playoff life.

I'm going to play optimist here and say the game might be a blessing in disguise for the Pack. Not because they may have to go to Dallas, but because it makes next weeks game meaningless and they can rest a lot of the walking wounded for most, if not all, of next weeks game and use the bye to get healthy and hopefully prepared for the round 2 game.

quote:

of next weeks game and use the buy to get healthy and hopefully prepared for the round 2 game

What are they going to buy?

Sorry Mrs. Barth. I fixed it now.

Didn't the Bears have to play in the crappy weather too??

quote:

Originally posted by justanotherpackerfan:
Which loss was more painful to its teams fans.

I would have to say the Pack. They lost badly to a team that had not been playing very good football and really had nothing to play for. The Vikings lost to a team fighting for its playoff life.

Is this part tongue-in-cheek, too?

I think the relative importance of the two games should be the major indicator of which loss was more painful. The Packers lost a road game that cost them a No. 1 seed they needed help next week to get anyway. The Vikings lost a home game that probably knocked them out of the playoffs entirely. Pretty major difference.

Packers fans are left to lament a loss to a division rival. I think we'll all get over it somewhere during that divisional playoff game at Lambeau Field. The Vikings were going to be "The playoff team no one wanted to face." Now they're pretty much toast.

Is there some kind of hiding message in this first post of this thread? Like some how the Vikings rivalry is suppose to be more important then the Bears?

Max,nice post and pretty much dead on.

I don't think they should rest anyone. They lack focus and confidence right now. They need to destroy the Lions to get back on track IMO.

The game vs the Lions means absolutely nothing. IMHO they will not show up either. We will win regardless of who we play (1st/2nd/3rd stringers) out there. That let's you have 3 weeks to get anyone who his not fully healthy, healthy. Let's not jeopardize the playoffs by playing people this coming week un-necessarily.....

quote:

Originally posted by Lord Benzene:
I don't think they should rest anyone. They lack focus and confidence right now. They need to destroy the Lions to get back on track IMO.

Easy to say, but people would change their tune pretty quickly if we got Favre or Grant injured in a meaningless football game. A lot of FANS lack confidence. I don't think that's true of the players.

Favre plays into the second quarter at most. I wouldn't care if Grant didn't play a snap. We need those guys for a game that means something.

Brandon Jackson/Craig Nall era better begin next Sunday.

quote:

Originally posted by justanotherpackerfan:

OK, OK, that was tongue in cheek.

should have stuck to the post it notes

quote:

Originally posted by Max:
A lot of FANS lack confidence. I don't think that's true of the players.

Dude you should like have your own show.
I agree, any sphincter clenching is much ado about nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Caveman:
Didn't the Bears have to play in the crappy weather too??

True, but if the wind is going to nullify a teams passing game....which of the two teams would be hurt most by that?

Sure the Bears played in the same weather...but it was an equalizing factor. The Bears were hurt less by not being able to throw the ball down field than the Packers were. Is that not obvious?

quote:

Originally posted by justanotherpackerfan:

quote:

Originally posted by Caveman:
Didn't the Bears have to play in the crappy weather too??

True, but if the wind is going to nullify a teams passing game....which of the two teams would be hurt most by that?

Sure the Bears played in the same weather...but it was an equalizing factor. The Bears were hurt less by not being able to throw the ball down field than the Packers were. Is that not obvious?

It only nullified it when they did not use it. They actually looked more affected by not doing it than when they tried. There are many on that team who had not played in bad conditions, this should have been their baptism. No time like a meaningless (now anyway) game to learn the ropes of playing in crappy weather.

quote:

Originally posted by Max:

quote:

Originally posted by justanotherpackerfan:
Which loss was more painful to its teams fans.

I would have to say the Pack. They lost badly to a team that had not been playing very good football and really had nothing to play for. The Vikings lost to a team fighting for its playoff life.

Is this part tongue-in-cheek, too?

I think the relative importance of the two games should be the major indicator of which loss was more painful. The Packers lost a road game that cost them a No. 1 seed they needed help next week to get anyway. The Vikings lost a home game that probably knocked them out of the playoffs entirely. Pretty major difference.

Packers fans are left to lament a loss to a division rival. I think we'll all get over it somewhere during that divisional playoff game at Lambeau Field. The Vikings were going to be "The playoff team no one wanted to face." Now they're pretty much toast.

I was upset into the 3rd quarter when I switched to the other game(?). We had the family Christmas event and Santa came early when during cleanup I turned on the tv just in time to see the Queens had choked (too much inhaled?) once again.
Sorry JAPF but the Queens loss was a brutal admission that they are still chokers where as the Pack will learn and live to win again. It is colder or should I say Chilly in the twin cities and I'm not talking Loretta/Draper.

Clearly the Vikings losing was more significant in the grand scheme of things because they are no longer in control of their destiny.

All Washington has to do is win and they are in. Minnesota needs to win and have the Redskins lose. That's not a good scenario for the Purple considering the way Washington is playing right now.

It was almost the same thing with Cleveland. They had everything to gain by winning but they really came up small against a bad Cincinnati team.

GB losing actually might be a good thing for them. They needed to be humbled a little bit and you'd rather see it happen now than 2-3 weeks from now when they host their opponent at Lambeau.

quote:

Originally posted by Tschmack:
Clearly the Vikings losing was more significant in the grand scheme of things because they are no longer in control of their destiny.

Don't even get me started.

The Packers might have indirectly knocked the Vikings out of the playoffs !!

The Cokeboys now have nothing to play for....GO SKINS !!!

quote:

Originally posted by Packdog:
The Packers might have indirectly knocked the Vikings out of the playoffs !!

The Cokeboys now have nothing to play for....GO SKINS !!!

And there it is...the silver lining in all this!

quote:

Originally posted by Caveman:
Didn't the Bears have to play in the crappy weather too??

No.

quote:

Originally posted by CHEEZE:

I agree, any sphincter clenching is much ado about nothing.

I'm as loose as a goose and sportin' diapers.

Merry Christmas.

The Lions game may mean nothing, but they cannot play the way they did in Chicago. I'm afraid if they play like crap (but win a close game) they will set themselves up to play like that in the playoffs. If they do, they will not make it past their first game.