FanNation

"Packers weren't going anywhere in '08"

Just like the Giants weren't going to win the SB this year....moron.

PackBrew42 | 03/04/08, 05:09 PM

And just like the Saints would be the Aints in 2006-2007. Why not let the 2008 season play out before proclaiming from ahigh what the Packer's record will be. Essentially the same team is in place as last season, Rodgers looked good in Dallas, and any of these "tough" games next season can be easy wins. For all you know, Romo and Manning will break their legs before they play the Packers.

PackBrew42 | 03/04/08, 05:13 PM

It's rare that one can be so sure that a blog is moronic without even reading it. Nice job, Perloff.

Curly Lambeau | 03/04/08, 05:15 PM

No. He retired because he was tired mentally, his retirement says nothing about the team.

Second, they actually had a very hard schedule, playing the Cowboys, Chargers, Giants (i dont care if their defense wasnt set yet), chiefs, denver.

This team is only going to get better even without brett, it is the youngest team and will be one of the best teams next year.

CiA is Retired | 03/04/08, 05:20 PM

perloff is quickly turning into the isiah thomas of sportswriters. at first i hated him and wanted him fired, but now i actually look forward to observing the train-wreck that has become his career. its enjoyable to watch him trump his own stupidity with each column.

fulltime161 | 03/04/08, 05:28 PM

Who is this idiot? Why even bother playing the 2008 season since the packers don't have a chance of going better than 7-9 or 10-6 or 3-13 or 4-12 or 8-8. Geez, my dead cat could write a better article.?

morrfavre | 03/04/08, 05:41 PM

Perloff may be right and may be wrong. Either way lets not count the eggs in the basket too soon. I won't go as far as to say that the Pack will be as good next year as they were this year, but lets not not say they will be worse either. If statistics were counted for points the Pats would be 19-0, but the games are played one at a time.

GB_Pack | 03/04/08, 05:49 PM

your argument about the AFC West is only relevant and true in hindsight. The Broncos and, oh yea, the CHARGERS were expected to have great seasons, and even the Chiefs weren't predicted to fall apart as they did. In retrospect, it's very easy to say whatever you want about their schedule. You assume that if he came back next year, they'd lose most of their non-conference games. How many people picked the Pack to reach the NFC Champ game last year? Last season was wacky at best, and even worse for the fantasy football season. Don't try and fool us by saying you can make definitive predictions about something purely hypothetical that, as we now see, will never be realized.

DasFreeark | 03/04/08, 06:05 PM

The Bears going 5-11? That's hysterical considering they have Rex Grossman at the helm, no WRs, a pathetic O line, a weak RB and a nursing home aged defense. You, my friend, are truly a moron. The Packers will repeat as NFC North champs as long as Rodgers stays healthy. Their only competition is the Queens and I'm still not sold on them.

Thanks for the amazing career Brett...we'll miss you!

londonwpr | 03/04/08, 06:49 PM

Looks like someone wants Dr. Z's job. Since it is apparent that poor quality and off the mark writing are qualifications, Perloff could be the heir apparent.

MaximumSport | 03/04/08, 06:57 PM

They weren't going anywhere in 08' just like they weren't even going to win the NFC North in 07', how they had no running game, Favre was too old, and had no weapons. Fast forward to January and Favre is a top 3 QB in the NFL, Ryan Grant was 2nd in the league in rushing the 2nd half of the season only behind LDT, Driver has another Pro Bowl season and Greg Jennings is in the teens for TD's and oh yeah....those Packers made it to the NFC Championship game.

Now tell me again they're not going anywhere in 08.

cameroncrazies02 | 03/04/08, 06:57 PM

You're all just a bunch of obnoxious fanboys praising an overrated team led by an overrated quarterback. This is the NFL, where teams go from Super Bowl Champions to 4-12 trainwrecks. Just because they had tremendous regular season success last year doesn't mean they'll duplicate it next year. If anything, it's an indication that they'll come back down to earth, with the way things go in this league. If GB goes 2-14 next year will Perloff still be an idiot? What if they go 14-2? Both may seem unlikely, but he's not just shoveling crap, he's basing his assertions on a rigorous '08 schedule.
They definitely have a better shot with Aaron Rodgers, though. Brett Favre was good about 10 years ago, but not anymore. Smart decision to walk away.

Bruinsfan4life | 03/04/08, 07:21 PM

Well now that I look at it.....and maybe if this falls right....no way it happens with that schedule......

All was said last year when looking ahead to the 2007 Season...now the same questions emerge.

@ DEN, @ KC, @ NYG, CHI x2, @ STL are probably 6 games that at the begining of the year, most would have said, "Oh thats a loss". And miracle or not, the Packers succeeded, and played well. It seems that no matter what, credit is not given when its due.

Devil Doc | 03/05/08, 12:05 AM

While I have a tough time seeing the Packers matching last year's record with Aaron Rogers (who I really like), it's a bit early to start predicting records. How about we at least wait for free agency and the draft to be done before we write the Pack off? Just once, I'd like to see a writer re-publish his pre-season picks AT THE END OF THE SEASON, so we can underscore what a crap shoot it is.

One thing I will say about Rogers - The Pack executed their game plan much better with him at the helm. Farve was the greatest, but one wonders if the Giants would have won if Rogers had played instead.

Patsfan54 | 03/05/08, 12:08 AM

No one can ever replace Favre, but one thing you can attempt to replace is the success the organization had has a team. Can Rodgers be the one? Will it be another 3 years before the Pack finds another QB that can? I think the only time you can say that Rodgers looked better than Favre is the short time Rodgers played at Dallas. And honestly, I chuck that up to Favre trying to prove something, instead of playing the style of game that had them at a 10-1 record. Rodgers came in and executed and did what needed to be done. To wonder what it would have been like to have him in against the Giants instead of Favre......shame on you.

Devil Doc | 03/05/08, 12:13 AM

This guy is an idiot...

tbs740 | 03/05/08, 12:28 AM

this is easily the worst blog I've ever read; of course a 13-3 team is going to lose "at least 2 games" to four teams with worse records than them...it only makes logical sense, right? Seriously, maybe you should have somebody else read your writing before posting so you don't come off looking so ridiculous.

aweibz | 03/05/08, 04:02 AM

Convoluted logic at best, it is hard to fathom SI actually paid you to write this. I'm thinking Peter King must be your uncle. Nepotism would be the only explanation for having someone with such limited ability on the payroll.

TwoDogs | 03/05/08, 07:35 AM

I have never bothered responding to Perloffs blog before but my sentiments have always been the same as a lot of the people who have posted already. I too used to think this clown should be shown the door but like someone else said it is actually amusing reading the trash he comes up with.

BigBlueNJ | 03/05/08, 08:03 AM

It would be a waste of time for me to try to expound any further on what an idiot Perloff is. All the above comments sum it up pretty well (except for Bruinsfan, who obviously didn't see Bret play last season).
I'll only add this: Perloff, I'm saving this article in a file, I'll email it back to you in December.

Packers1 | 03/05/08, 10:26 AM