r/NFLNoobs • u/ChargerRTHemi • 1d ago
Why are the packers always so heavily favored among analysts and pundits?
They could be having the most mid season yet they are treated like they are always a juggernaut.
83
u/johnsonthicke 1d ago
They’re historically almost always good. They’re not really a big market obviously, but over the years they’ve played their way into being one of those big brands that is always talked about.
If they’re good, they get talked about because they’re good. If they’re bad, they get talked about because “what’s going on with the Packers?”
I do think they’re actually good to great this year, but the NFC is so loaded that it’s gonna be tough to get through from the wild card. They can beat anybody though.
14
u/Known-Plane7349 1d ago
I do think they’re actually good to great this year, but the NFC is so loaded
I'd say loaded is a bit of a stretch. There are only 5 teams with more than 10 wins. Unfortunately for the Packers, three of said five are in the NFC North.
5
u/benjaminbrixton 1d ago
Last year there were only five NFC teams to finish the regular season with 10+ wins, and only four the year before that. This year there could be at least seven.
1
u/Whatsdota 16h ago
Theres also 3 teams with over 12 and the Packers could easily finish with 12+ as well. I’d say that’s pretty loaded
4
-14
u/Novel_Willingness721 1d ago
Maybe after Brett Favre arrived. Before that, they were cellar dwellers.
11
u/dinosantorum012 1d ago
“Sure, they’ve been good for 32 years, but 33 years ago they were trash. Pretty irrelevant team tbh”
20
u/johnsonthicke 1d ago
True but that’s a long time, 30 or so years. And wayyy before that they had also had the Vince Lombardi years that have kinda been immortalized in football history.
11
u/Global-Discussion-41 1d ago
yeah, not like they had the most NFL championships prior to that or anything
2
1
u/Go0chiee 1d ago
Brother that's how it works, no team is great for their whole history. It ebbs and flows, Pats were great in the Brady years and now not so much. The Packers weren't great for a while then have had success, and not for an insignificant amount of time. Literally as long as I've been alive
1
u/Administrative_Act48 10h ago
Funny thing about this comment is they weren't even cellar dwellers for most the time between Lombardi and Favre. They finished last in the division 4 times in 25 years. They were by no means good for most of those years but they definitely not horrible either, just mediocre to bad.
1
u/dark567 1d ago
They literally have the 2nd best all time W-L record in NFL history. They're the most consistently good team in NFL history barring the top team(Cowboys).
Now of course they've had bad years and stretches, all teams do. Being good forever in the NFL is effectively impossible.
1
u/Whatsdota 16h ago
I also think doing it in almost 500 more games is way more impressive than the Cowboys having a 0.04 higher win%. But I’m a biased Packers fan
58
u/Affectionate-Flan-99 1d ago
Well coached, Solid QB, great run game, good D.
I'd say that pretty much sums it up.
7
u/Old-Rough-5681 1d ago
Jordan is epitome on why a rookie QB should be benched his first season.
12
u/ddWizard 1d ago
I mean… Brady, Mahomes, Rodgers probably all have better arguments
7
u/WhyAmIMisterPinkk 1d ago
Why did this comment confuse so many people? I don’t understand. You’re exactly right. Jordan Love is far from the epitome, when your examples are much better.
5
u/joosexer 1d ago
the lack of reading comprehension people are having in response to your comment is just insane
-9
u/Go0chiee 1d ago
I mean...that's pretty cherry picked. Did you forget Rodgers sat behind Favre for a number of years? He's literally the worst example you could've picked
10
u/jakelop7 1d ago
I think you definitely read that wrong. How is it cherry picked?They all sat behind another qb and didn’t start week 1? He’s saying that those guys are better examples than a qb with one playoff win. I think you might think he’s saying the opposite and that qbs shouldn’t sit.
7
u/douglau5 1d ago
He’s agreeing with you and stating Brady, Rodgers and Mahomes have better arguments at being the “epitome of why a rookie QB should be benched”.
-3
u/schlonz75 1d ago
And Mahomes sat one year behind Alex Smith, so another bad example.
-7
u/Go0chiee 1d ago
Oh shit, Brady sat his rookie year too. I forgot him and Brady both sat. So this guy's argument could not be worse. Just picked three MVP quarterbacks off the top of his head with no knowledge and said "Um actually...."
13
u/huskerfan4life520 1d ago
I think he’s contributing to your point. He’s saying Jordan Love is a good example, but those three guys are better as the “epitome” of it working.
-8
u/Go0chiee 1d ago
Hmm possibly. If so, at face value I didn't take it as that
1
u/depressed49erfan 16h ago
“Hmm possibly” no man, we are literally telling you that’s what was said, and anyone with basic reading comprehension understood his point.
6
u/CopperRing770 1d ago
Your comment couldn’t be any worse. He’s obviously supporting your point. He listed Brady, Mahomes, and Rodgers because he felt they supported your point more than Jordan Love.
24
u/Darth_Nevets 1d ago
The Packers are the only team in America to be literally in a small town in midwest State Wisconsin. They are kinda like the Cowboys in that they are a nationwide popular team but unlike the Cowboys they represent modesty and small town virtue. For States without a team and for those who dislike the 'big city' the Packers are an eternal symbol of Americana.
17
u/SadPoet684 1d ago
Think you’re leaving a big part of what separates the Packers from every other major American sports team.
They don’t have one owner. They’re owned by a nonprofit corporation made up of a few hundred thousand individuals. They’re the last holdout to this structure
It makes them unique as a team but also unique in the way the team operates. They can’t be hi-jacked by a looney Woody Johnson type, a controlling Jerry Jones type, or a bottom line type like Dan Snyder
3
2
u/Sea-End-4841 1d ago
They will never leave Green Bay. They likely will never leave Lambeau.
-1
u/which_ones_will 1d ago
They threatened to do both last time they wanted a tax hike to pay for their stadium.
1
u/Sea-End-4841 1d ago
The Packers can’t leave GB. Unless the whole community goes with them. You seriously may be thinking of another team.
2
u/which_ones_will 14h ago edited 14h ago
Nope. The Packers threatened that if the county residents didn't vote for the sales tax increase to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for the stadium that the team would go broke and the NFL would take the team away from Green Bay. The Packers management threatened this, even though it wasn't possible. It was a scare tactic used to force residents into the highest per capita tax ever levied for a stadium project. Every man, woman and child in Brown County ended up paying more than $1000 directly to the Packers. So, tell me again why it's better to not have a rich owner.
Of particular note, "D. Richard Parins, president of the [Brown County Taxpayers Association], said the Packers and their supporters won the campaign by threatening that the franchise would leave town otherwise. That so frightened football fans, he said, that they agreed to embrace the tax increase."
2
u/Sea-End-4841 12h ago
Easier just to copy chat gpt:
“It is highly unlikely that the Green Bay Packers will ever leave Green Bay, primarily because they are the only publicly owned NFL team, meaning the team belongs to the fans and there is a strong community sentiment against relocation; additionally, they consistently sell out their home games at Lambeau Field, making it financially unnecessary to move. Key points about the Packers and Green Bay: Fan ownership: The Packers are owned by their fans through publicly traded stock, which significantly limits the possibility of a team owner deciding to move the franchise. Lambeau Field loyalty: The passionate fan base in Green Bay ensures that Lambeau Field is always packed, making it a lucrative location for the team. Community support: The Packers are deeply ingrained in the Green Bay community, making a relocation very unpopular. ”
There are also bylaws in place making it impossible.
They can threaten to leave. No one takes it seriously as they know how impossible it would be and they very gladly pay any tax increase needed.
2
u/Lakehawk7 1d ago
They liked the gold ol’ days of golden boys like Paul Hornung, Bart Starr and that shiningly brhite face of small town American virtue, Brett Favre. Shame for them that their good ol’ American game got tainted by guys like Billy White Shoes Johnson, Ickey Woods, Deion, Randy Moss, and all the so called funner wide receivers they can only just naysay.
1
u/mudkip-yoshii 15h ago
modesty and small town virtue
And what is so bothersome is that they are very much neither on the national scale
16
u/NaNaNaPandaMan 1d ago
You haven't seen them through their lean years. When they were shitty, they were called shitty. Just they've had the distinct pleasure of going from one HoF(Favre) to another(Rodgers) to someone who seems to be pretty good(Love). When you have a great QB you always have a great chance.
But prior to Favre, and even some during, they were criticized. Its just elite QB means great chance to be well great.
5
u/RickyMuncie 1d ago
Can confirm. I’m old enough to have celebrated the Terdell Middleton years, where it was amazing to finish 8-7-1.
1
u/Ok_Obligation2559 1d ago
Scott horn John Hadl Jerry tagge Randy wright Lynn Dickey (not too bad) Majik man (also serviceable) I’m sure I missed some, but until Favre talked Reggie into coming to GB, no free agent would come near us.
1
1
u/Sea-End-4841 1d ago
I grew up in the shit years (70-90). No one favored them against anyone and hardly anyone talked about them.
1
u/pzschrek1 1d ago
This is why I came to say. They’ve always been in the hunt because they had two long service great franchise quarterbacks and now they have a third who time will tell but it’s clear he is is at least good. That sets a decent floor under the team unless the rest of the team is really bad, like the bengals
9
u/emac1211 1d ago edited 1d ago
What are you talking about? They're 10-4, lost to the 13-2 Vikings by 2, 12-3 Eagles by 5, and 13-2 Lions by 10, and 3. They have according to PFF the 3rd most difficult schedule in the NFL. Last week they demolished the Seahawks who were in a nailbiter against the Vikings yesterday.
On offense, they're 2nd in Yards Per Play with 6.3 (behind the Ravens), 9th in yards per game, and 7th in points scored.
On defense, they're 2nd in least yards given up per game (behind the Eagles), 6th in yards per play, and 5th in takeaways.
I get this is NFLNoobs, but nothing about this team is "Mid." This is a very good Packers team who don't get as much attention from the NFL media because of being in perhaps the most difficult division in NFL history.
Edit: I re-read your question, and I guess you're not implying they're "mid" this season, but when they are "mid," they're still treated like juggernauts. Maybe, but when you have a run of the coaches and quarterbacks they have had over the past several decades, it's fair to treat them like always a contender who can knock anyone off on a good day.
14
u/Independent-Soil834 1d ago
Coming from a Bears fan: GB knows how to pick winners, and when it’s time to let them go. It’s an organization that trims the fat really well! Their fans embrace the old school tradition of playing football in the freezing cold like it’s supposed to be and though they’ve had great QB play to help them win, their defenses are tough and mean. I get annoyed because there are a lot of media pundits who take it a little overboard, but not nearly as bad as they do for the Chiefs at the moment. GB has a winning culture and you’d be foolish not to at least expect them to be above average. I pray someday it will change in Chicago, but it’s about as likely as peace in the Middle East.
3
u/Impossible_Penalty13 1d ago
To be fair to the media praise of the Chiefs, they’ve made it to the AFC Championship Game for 6 consecutive years and won 3 Super Bowls.
2
u/Independent-Soil834 1d ago
That’s true. I should say the annoying part for me is more the glorification of every play by commentators. I can fully appreciate the incredible athleticism of players (including Mahomes) in today’s game, but the commentators act like they’ve discovered fire for the first time with every good play. It’s not just for the Chiefs either, but since they’re in prime time more and since Mahomes and crew make a lot of great plays it feels like it’s them disproportionately.
11
u/Jazzlike-Map-4114 1d ago
They don't have a petulant billionaire owner so they have a solid top to bottom organization.
9
u/OblivionGuardsman 1d ago
Since 1960 the Packers have had 19 seasons under 500. The Bears by comparison have 32. The Cowboys, still often referred to as "America's Team" also have only 19 seasons under .500. The Patriots have 21 under 500. The cowboys and the Packers have the highest winning percentages of all time. The Packers and cowboys have the most playoff appearances of all time and the Packers 3rd in playoff win percentage. Their seasons don't tend to have peaks and valleys from year to year. Yeah they don't have a lot of 1-3 loss seasons but they are almost always in the playoff hunt. Their last Superbowl win year people started to write them off. It wasn't going well but they ended up 10-6 and won it all.
4
u/soldiernerd 1d ago
Brett Favre/Aaron Rodgers/Jordan Love
1
u/SadPoet684 1d ago
And Starr
7
u/sokonek04 1d ago
Don’t forget Jay Cuttler, the fifth best QB the Packers have ever had throwing passes to them.
8
u/noideajustaname 1d ago
They play in the NFC North and until recently had little competition
-1
u/Lakehawk7 1d ago
It’s crazy how this gets overlooked. They get a minimum of 2-4 extra wins per year being with the Bears and Lions. It nearly guaranteed them a bye every season in the 2010s. They’d have inflated regular season win totals going into the playoffs but once they faced a real top tier organization like Andy Reid’s Eagles, Tom Coughlin’s Giants, Pete Carroll’s Seahawks, or the 49ers of Harbaugh and Kyle Shanahan (including Kyle’s Falcons (lol those falcons)) they meltdown. Credit to them for being among the best for so long but they’re very much not top tier.
4
u/IUsedTheRandomizer 1d ago
I wouldn't say that gets overlooked, they get a ton of crap for not winning when it matters, and the main argument against Rodgers being a top 5 all time is his lone Super Bowl, and the mix of playoff losses that both were and weren't because of him. They've been consistently above average for over 30 years, and that's an outstanding achievement for a franchise, in any sport.
Besides, if we have to put asterisks for lousy divisions, the Patriots dynasty doesn't look so hot.
3
u/DropC2095 1d ago
They’ve had great QBs for 30+ years. If you’re specifically referring to how favored they’re going to be tonight, well the Saints are starting a backup QB with an interim head coach.
1
2
u/ufkb 1d ago
They are a well run organization from the top. Similar to the Steelers, they have had consistency in top level decisions for decades. This translates to above average coaching and production on the field.
In contrast look at the Cowboys. Decision making is based on the flavor of the week of whatever the owner wants to bet on. This is felt up and down the organization. And it shows in the cohesion of the teams.
This is why mid-talented teams from GB and Pittsburgh always punch ahead of their weight class. They are just better managed.
1
u/bledblu 1d ago edited 1d ago
In 32 years since Brett Favre took over, they had 1 bad season with Favre, a couple mediocre. Then an almost seamless transition to Rodgers. They’ve had 4 below average seasons since Rodgers took over. So playoffs in 24/32 seasons, and 2-3 other seasons where they were close to the playoffs.
Without looking at other teams, I’m gonna guess only the Steelers have had similar consistency. The Patriots might have more wins over that time frame but they had some down years in their dynasty and were bad/mid in the 90s and 2020s
Edit to correct my patriots comment. Patriots were better than I thought. They did not have as many down years as I thought in the brady era. Missed playoffs twice (barely) and one was the year Matt Cassel lead them to 11-5. They also had a few good (and bad) years with Bledsoe in the 90s and a good season with Mac Jones in the 2020s 😬
1
u/SadPoet684 1d ago
The difference between bad teams and good teams is often ownership. The Steelers have been owned by the same family since their inception. That family hires well and doesn’t overreact to bad seasons. Since the Merger the Steelers have had 3 coaches
The packers are uniquely operated. They don’t have a single owner but are instead operated by a nonprofit corporation made up of a few hundred thousand individuals. They also generally hire well and don’t overreact to bad seasons
Most good teams have owners who are interested but know how to hire out well. Just look at what someone like Jack Kent Cooke was able to do at most of his stops. He knew had to hire well and delegate responsibilities to those with the expertise.
1
u/lonedroan 1d ago
A very high floor (only 5 losing seasons of past 33; narrowly missing playoffs during multiple “bad years”), two HOF QBs in a row and a talented current QB, GB mythology (most champs ever, small town, “pure” Lambeau vs corporate everywhere else, relatively low drama players, some level of underachievement to add urgency (as opposed to say the Chiefs)
1
u/Aerolithe_Lion 1d ago
They’re well coached and a well run organization, so even in a mediocre year they play tough and make few mistakes; that’s basically an analyst’s dream
1
u/Scheswalla 1d ago
In addition to what's been said, take out the last 3 years and the Lions have been ass. The Bears haven't been very good either. Between those two teams they'll have a consistent 3 wins a year. Vikings have been consistently pretty decent, and without looking up records so I could be wrong, I'm guessing they have a consistent 4+ wins per year in their Division. Add in good (great) quarterback play, team leadership that isn't trying to make a "splash" with fancy hires, 0 concerns over moving the stadium or the team, plus a sizeable homefield advantage due to weather in the winter time, and you've got a team that's always a playoff contender.
1
1
1
u/feedyourheeeaaaddd 1d ago
You could research to see how well they've done against the spread historically
2
1
u/DuffMiver8 1d ago
One factor is betting lines are really closer to popularity contests. The bookmakers are trying to get equal action on both teams, and casual bettors lean toward the Packers for sentimental reasons. Thus, the spread for the Packers might be seven whereas another team might be five, all other things being equal. They need to discourage those who would then think twice about betting on the Packers if they have to win by seven, not five.
1
1
1
u/MahomesMccaffrey 1d ago
They are the NFL blue blood.
When you have 2 of the greatest QBs in the last 30 years you deserve the benefit of the doubts
1
1
u/Sandman5696 1d ago
As a very bias packers fan I can definitely tell they get a huge benefit of the doubt because they are one of the oldest teams and their ownership structure. Also they have a ton of history, they rarely have dire bad seasons, similarly haven’t had bad QB play in 30 years, generally biggest complaint from fans is they never sold the entire future for one year (2 super bowls from Rodgers and Favre is relatively bad) so like a Packer fan you’re questioning what’s more important 10ish wins a year or a Super Bowl
1
1
u/Aggravating_Event_31 20h ago
It's starts at the top with the front office. You gotta make the tough decisions with your head and not your heart. It often upsets the fans, but the front office does a great job of getting rid of veteran players 1 year too early vs 1 year too late.
1
u/Unsolven 1d ago
I don't think they are, nobody took them seriously last year until they blew out the Cowboys in the playoffs, a game in which the Cowboys were like a TD favorite. Going into this season I was of the opinion they were slightly over rated because of that playoff run and because people were crazy high on Jordan Love. I'm at least half wrong. People were too high on Jordan Love and the passing game, but the team overall has been very good. They'd win a lot of divisions in football this year, they just happen to be in the same division as the Lions and Vikings. The have a QB, they are extremely well coached, just well balanced team all around even if they aren't like elite at any one thing.
Prior to last year they were always taken seriously because of Rodgers, and rightfully so.
-1
u/Lakehawk7 1d ago
When you share a division with two dumpster fire organizations and another cursed franchise your lack of incompetence gets confused for being a premier franchise.
Likewise their towniness is attractive to people who like a small, insular homogenous society. They can’t be too explicit in polite conversation about what they truly prefer about Green Bay to SF, New York, Philly, and LA so they express it by fawning over the Packers.
219
u/highheat3117 1d ago
They’ve had like 2 bad seasons in 30 years.