The W
Views: 99097704
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.9.14 0925
The W - Football - SUPER BOWL XLV: Green Bay Packers 31, Pittsburgh Steelers 25 (Page 3)
This thread has 7 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.43
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
(338 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (48 total)
hansen9j
Andouille








Since: 7.11.02
From: Riderville, SK

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#41 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.59
One thing that I've discovered over the last few years, with losing two Grey Cups in a row and now winning the Super Bowl, is that losing is worse than winning. Losing *sucks*. (But winning does have its positives, such as preventing future threads such as this.)



It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects.
"Well. Shit." -hansen9j
Go Pack Go! (Champs!)
Let's Go Riders!
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 7 hours
#42 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.33
So how do you guys compare the two modern Super Bowls you've won? Ours were with basically the same core of players so I see them as part of the same continuum. I'm sure it's probably like choosing between your children. They were both young, talented teams that put it all together. Was the '96 one more special because it was the first in forever? This one because of all the injuries and 6th seed path? Does everything with Favre color how you view either one?
hansen9j
Andouille








Since: 7.11.02
From: Riderville, SK

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 14 hours
#43 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.59
It's a better question for our older Packers brethren, but I'll answer anyway. In 1996, they had only been my favorite team for a couple of years, because I liked the idea of them being community owned (like the Saskatchewan Roughriders), and I loved that in the first year of real free agency a city smaller than *Regina* got the A+, rock-solid, must-have free agent (Reggie White). So while I appreciated the win, and was upset when they lost the next year, it wasn't even on the radar compared to how I felt about championships and near-missed by the Riders (and the Blue Jays for that matter, although that feeling has since faded).

In the last 10 years, my caring about the NFL has increased exponentially (and especially the last 5 years when I started playing fantasy football). That was met with an even greater caring about the Packers. I still remember clear as day how loud my profanity was when Ryan Grant fumbled for the second time against the Seahawks, how sick to my stomach I was when Lawrence Tynes made the overtime field goal, how terrified I was of Adrian Peterson when no Packer could stop him.

Then Favre happened. I didn't hate Favre when he went to the Jets, I just wished that he had walked off into the sunset. I felt that the Packers probably made the right choice (my primary basis was the 2007 Cowboys game that Favre got knocked out of), but I knew that I would be *devastated* if Rodgers flopped. I very quickly felt comfortable with the decision. Then Favre happened again. I truly evolved into having an actual raw, passionate hatred for Favre (to go with my raw, passionate hatred for the Vikings). I became *invested* in Rodgers. Every touchdown he threw was a middle finger to Favre, saying "see, we didn't need you, and we didn't want you". The Cardinals game killed me; not just because the Packers lost, but because Rodgers had one of the greatest postseason games ever, and all the seemed to matter to people was the L. I then celebrated the Saints beating the Vikings like I would have celebrated the Packers making the Super Bowl (well, at least that what I thought at the time).

Then Twitter happened. Suddenly I was able to spend an entire offseason following the team that I loved with the amount of passion and information that it deserved. I followed training camp, I followed the exhibition games, I followed the cuts. I knew names like Zombo, and Starks, and Shields. And then *everybody broke*. The team kept playing well. I noticed that every time the Packers lost, it was close, and every time they won, they were dominant (at least until they almost pissed away the game, like in the Eagles game). Rodgers got knocked out the Lions game (in a game that he was terrible in anyway), and Flynn played decent. Only 3 points, but he had something like 170 yards in a half against a highly underrated pass rush). I spent the entire next week telling anyone who would listen that Flynn would be alright against New England (since there wasn't the same pass rush), and that the rest of the team was good enough to keep it close. People thought I was crazy, and then the Packers damn near won. By the end of the game, I was finally able to change my opinion of the Packers from "damn they'll be great next year" to "damn they're great right now", even if nobody else would believe me.

And even with all that, if the Packers had somehow lost on Sunday (*especially* with the big lead that they had; I was having terrible flashbacks to the 2008 Grey Cup), I would have *died*. For me, it was more important that Rodgers not be named a choker (rightly or wrongly) than it was for him to be anointed. It was more important that the ride not be one big joke than it was to have a positive payoff. It was more important that preconceptions about not winning the big one not be confirmed than to be disproven.

On a side note, I have no idea when I'm going to be okay with Favre, or to what degree I'll be okay with him. I don't know if I'll be okay with him by the time his number is retired, or when he's in the Hall of Fame.



It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects.
"Well. Shit." -hansen9j
Go Pack Go! (Champs!)
Let's Go Riders!
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#44 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.54
My feelings are somewhat similar to Hansen. I became a Packers fan just in 1992, so their win at Super Bowl 31 wasn't the culmination of a big journey for me. In fact, between that win and the Blue Jays' two World Series victories, I was pretty fat and happy as a sports fan.

But then, the Pack lost SB32, the Jays went into limbo and the Maple Leafs continued their mediocrity. So I felt this Super Bowl meant more, not just because I'm a bigger Green Bay fan now, but also because it means more to my overall sports fandom experience.



"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." --- Bart Giamatti, on baseball
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 419 days
Last activity: 380 days
#45 Posted on
Long story short, I think the '96 win was better. As you say, 30 years without a Super Bowl victory, most of that spent in mediocrity when Green Bay was the place where coaches threatened to trade players if they got out of line. When the Green Bay - Tampa Bay games became known as the "Bay of Pigs" game because they both sucked.

I'm excited about the victory, but I'm looking forward. Concerns have to be in the places where they have the older players: WR (not sure how you can be sold on Nelson or Jones with the drops they had), OL, and CB. And hopefully they can figure out why the special teams went to crap. I know it's probably out of line to fire someone after a Super Bowl victory, but I've not been impressed with Shawn Slocum at all.
Phoenix138
Medisterpoelse








Since: 10.2.11

Since last post: 1318 days
Last activity: 1314 days
#46 Posted on
I also view it similar as Hansen. Both are special, and I imagine if you asked a much older fan 1996 would have been far greater due to the amount of time spent wandering in the wilderness prior, but for me I was far more appreciative of this most recent one.

Growing up in the 80's I simply didn't have high expectations for the Packers. Going to the playoffs and winning championships were for other teams like the 49ers and Giants. So when 1992 happened I was skeptical, and I remained skeptical all the way up to the end of the NFC Championship (the Super Bowl was just a formality at that time in the NFL). On top of that, my family and I had moved away from Wisconsin in 1990. Without NFL Sunday Ticket or the internet it wasn't so easy to follow your team on a weekly (or rather now, daily) basis. I had only seen a couple of games from the 1996 season. It wouldn't be until I graduated college at the end of 2000 that I had the time/resources to follow them like I do now.

In those first couple of years of being able to watch every single game, and discuss the team with other fans online, I lived and died with each win and loss. And they had some really good years in the early part of the decade. Lots of wins, which would then end in some of the most spectacular ways possible in the playoffs. Basically, the amount of time that I'd devoted to the team from 2001 on completely dwarfs the 21 years prior. I remember thinking back then that if they could just win another championship, how much more gratifying it would be to me.

And while I don't hold much animosity toward Favre (though I do enjoy laughing at his more recent exploits), he plays a role in this too. Primarily because this wasn't supposed to happen. Once Favre retired, the Packers were supposed to go back into the wilderness for another 30 years. They certainly weren't supposed to have more success 3 years after he left than they had had in his final 12 years with the team.

Finally, like Hansen, it was gratifying because of Aaron. He had played so well from the moment he became a starter, and was let down by his surrounding cast so many times. That first season was just absurd in how the team would find ways to lose despite Aaron playing so well. It would have been so fitting for him to play as flawlessly as he did only to be undone by a ridiculous number of drops by his receivers and the defense allowing Roethlisberger to drive the field in the final 2 minutes. So for that to not happen, and for Aaron to already have a Super Bowl ring as part of his legacy this early as a starter-- it's just such a relief to have this behind him for the rest of his career. Now, any success moving forward in the near future is gravy.
Sec19Row53
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Oconomowoc, WI

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 1 day
Y!:
#47 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.26
I guess I'm the old guy :-) I'll reminisce a bit - skip to the bottom for the actual response to your question, Justin.

Growing up, the "Glory Years" for me were winning the Division Title in 1972. Then that stupid Dan Devine not seeing the Redskins playing a 5-man defensive line against us so that we couldn't run the ball, yet imploring his o-line to 'block harder, men'.

We hired Bart Starr too soon to be a head coach, and fired him when he was finally learning how to coach. Yes, that was too long in between, but that's what happens.

The Super Bowl in '96 was great, but had a touch of regret to it in that we didn't knock off the hated Cowboys to get there. Dallas had knocked us out of the playoffs the last 3 or 4 years, consistently beat us in the regular season (even with a third string QB on Thanksgiving).

The '96 team was one of the few that scored the most points in the league while simultaneously allowing the fewest. When the team stumbled with a couple of losses and injuries, Ron Wolf went out and got Andre 'Bad Moon' Risen, who played like a choir boy. Hell, he even ran onto the field in the playoff game against SF because he saw we were a man down on the second half kickoff (Desmond Howard hadn't changed into a dry uniform in time).

The '96 team didn't do anything else, though. It was a 'fart in the wind' according to Ron Wolf, because you could never get a grip on them. They read their press clippings all the next year, and got beat by a cheating Broncos team in the Super Bowl (they circumvented the salary cap -- that's the source of Shanahan's greatness).

--------------------------------------------------
Justin asked: "So how do you guys compare the two modern Super Bowls you've won? Ours were with basically the same core of players so I see them as part of the same continuum. I'm sure it's probably like choosing between your children. They were both young, talented teams that put it all together. Was the '96 one more special because it was the first in forever? This one because of all the injuries and 6th seed path? Does everything with Favre color how you view either one?"

Me - As soon as Super Bowl XXXI was over, I felt nervous about the next year more so than feeling happy about having won the game. In hindsight, I was right, but wished I had enjoyed it more. The team became instant folk heroes, and were equally loved by the 60s players. There were stories of Bart Starr and Brett Favre being buddies; the same with Willie Davis and Reggie White.

I've more thoroughly enjoyed this one, because it wasn't expected. There were injuries that just seemed to doom the season, and yet street free agents (hello, Erik Walden) stepped up and played great. My wife made me go to the Lambeau celebration on Tuesday, because (in her words) 'you'll be 58 the next time this happens if it takes another 13 years - you won't want to sit in the cold then'.

Favre and his shenanigans don't cloud '96. They mean that I don't have his autographed picture on my wall of Packers right now (Starr, White, Hornung, Sharpe, Chmura, and Butler are there). He'll get his spot back eventually.

Go Pack! NFL - I want next season as scheduled, dammit.
The Thrill
Banger








Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 157 days
Last activity: 3 days
#48 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.25
Welcome home, men of the 2nd Bn, 127th Infantry, 32d "Red Arrow" Brigade, WI Army National Guard! Job well done in Iraq!

Wow, some great responses here. Good stuff. Heck, it could be its own thread!

This is gonna sound weird, but...even after being on the sidelines for Super Bowl XLV and touching the darned Lombardi Trophy on the field afterwards...to me, it still feels like Super Bowl XXXI was more special.

It could just be that I had a lot of work to do covering XLV, or perhaps it's because this time the title drought was only 14 years (w/ only 13 in-between title game appearances), as opposed to 29...and back during XXXI, I had just started my TV career and was stil part-fan.

Or maybe it's because the 1990s erased the 1968-71 and 1973-91 perception that the Packers always sucked. Harlan, Wolf and Holmgren flipped the script, and left Packer fans expecting their team to be GOOD. That's such a paradigm shift from when I was little, I can't even explain it to y'all.

Then, it could also be the looming CBA demise. :-(

Granted, I wouldn't trade my experience shooting XLV for anything. Bucket list = check. But part of it just doesn't seem real yet. Maybe if I get a ring.

Maybe it will if a new CBA gets done and we see an even better 2011 Pack take the field. You know, a team with a legit RB in Ryan Grant and the NFL's best TE in TGIFinley.





NWA Wisconsin...Live, Local Pro Wrestling!
Now on Facebook! And Twitter!

Pages: Prev 1 2 3
Thread rated: 6.43
Pages: Prev 1 2 3
Thread ahead: Tressel Suspended
Next thread: Super Bowl 1 tape found.
Previous thread: Deion Sanders, Marshall Faulk, 5 others to be part of Hall of Fame class of '11
(338 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
evilwaldo said: I'm not sure the O-line is completely to blame here.
- tarnish, Take That, Mike Martz (2002)
Related threads: Super Bowl prop bet contest - SUPER BOWL XLV: Pittsburgh Steelers vs. Green Bay Packers - predict! - Super Bowl 45's Halftime Act Is... - More...
The W - Football - SUPER BOWL XLV: Green Bay Packers 31, Pittsburgh Steelers 25 (Page 3)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.112 seconds.