Talk:Green Bay Packers: Difference between revisions

--> The article states: However, since its inception in 1961, the Packer's "G" has been redesigned several times and now looks like Georgia's original 1964 "G." Aaron is a snaz.

The logo image caption says "Packers logo 1961-present".

If the "G" has been redesigned several times, the logo image caption is (slightly) misleading. It would be good to see a few examples (either photos of logos, or drawn) of these redesigned "G"'s to see how it changed.

142.36.45.136 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article who talk about who designed the original G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kramer14 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing... The "G" actually stands for "Greatness". Here's a link to a reference: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreammaker182 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference above for the "G" standing for "Greatness" is circular. That reference references back to an earlier incarnation of this page.

There is NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE, other than internet hearsay and gossip, that it ever stood for anything other than "Green Bay", officially. It is not verifiable. Unofficially and somewhat humorously, it probably has been referred to as standing for "Greatness", or a good deal of other words or phrases beginning with "G". In fact, a Packers fan page suggests that it stands for "God's Chosen Team".

Please correct this and make note that Tiki Barber, in doing his piece for Yahoo "News", did not do his homework on sources. All he accomplished was making some Packer players look foolish for no reason whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twintwelve1484 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's now doubly circular, since the Sioux City Journal article uses Barber's video and "a google question search" as evidence. A Google search which returns this Wikipedia article and all the various sites which cut-and-paste Wiki content to pad their text. Which means that the source for the assertion is now a newspaper website which cites this article as proof. I'm going to remove the citation, and consequently the assertion. SixFourThree (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Instead of removing the citation, maybe we could put that Barber made the assertion, but is not verified by a reliable source, since it would help remedy the disinformation. Maybe something like "Although commonly believed to stand for "greatness" after a Tiki Barber segment, no official source states that it stands for anything other than "Green Bay"--Jeff (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it means anything, I was always taught (and I'll admit it is by definition unverifiable) that the line was given by the organization's president, or someone of similar position, at the end of the 1961 season, after Lombardi had brought them back to world champion status for the first time in well over a decade; something about a question as to whether it stood for "Green", or "Green Bay". Its real meaning is, just like the C for the Bears, the city name, as was basically the league standard of the time. --Chr.K. (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrol Dale was a wide receiver,not a running back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.58.238 (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I type, the Packers are playing, and, apparently, they fired Mason Crosby for poor performance against Carolina, and, now, they have a new punter. Uzumaki Dude (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Mason Crosby is a kicker not a punter and he was not fired u dumbass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flatriderboy (talk • contribs) 01:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is locked so I can't do this myself. The Packers have gone to the playoffs 24 times, the following years...

1936, 1938, 1939, 1941, 1944, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1972, 1982, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.60.40 (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a lot more citations. It has very similar content to the Bears page, but the Bears page is a featured article because it has 3 times as many citations! A LOT of this needs to be officially verified. I do not have any books or anything here where I would be able to cite much, but someone who does have this can do so. Splent (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revise this paragraph:

The Packers have 12 league championships, the most in the NFL, including three Super Bowls. The Packers are also the only team to win three straight NFL titles, which they did twice (1929–1931 and 1965–67). The run of 1965–1967 did not include the Super Bowls played after the 1966 and 1967 seasons when the AFL and NFL were still two separate leagues. For those four years, the Super Bowl winner generally used the title "World Champions."

That last claim is dubious. The Packers consider their twelve NFL championships to be "World Championships"[2], as has been common throughout history - NFL champs have been considered "World Champions"[3][4] or "world's professional champions"[5] going back to the early days of the League. "World Champions" was hardly created for the winner of the first four Super Bowls - instead, the NFL Championship was downgraded to just that and the Super Bowl took over from the NFL Championship Game as deciding the World Champs. For this section, I'm going to use World Champions with a link to the Packers' site, and remove that unsourced notion about use of the term. SixFourThree (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

The number of league championships lists 12, but is marked with the symbol † "Does not include the AFL or NFL Championships won during the same seasons as the AFL-NFL Super Bowl Championships prior to the 1970 AFL-NFL Merger" I find this confusing and on other team articles, league championships with the same indication omit those prior to the 1970 merger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.228.40.120 (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the symbol † to those NFL championship games from 1966 to 1970 that are not supposed to be counted in the over all stat I think that is the solution every one is looking for, and by the way Packers has now 13 overall titles.85.220.36.6 (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The symbol doesn't need to be repeated. Are you that unaware?Zoro 1234 20:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its defenetly not clear enough lots of pepole have complained about this on various talk pages (including this one). I can however see what your problem is you are an AFL fan boy and that explains your bad attitude towards my edits. DoctorHver (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly clear. The symbol acknowledges the afl and nfl championships from that 4 year span. Personal attacks will get you nowhere.Zoro 1234 21:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of 5 minutes ago, there are no nonexistant player pages on the roster.--Brandongilbert (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"but after the death of founder Lambeau in 1965, on September 11, 1965, the stadium was renamed Lambeau Field."  ???? someone fix please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.208.88 (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, my apologies. I will slap a citation needed tag on it forthwith. Maraniss should have this, if not him, at least one other, see Vince Lombardi. Being it September 11th and I am from New York, trust me, I got this one. The clinker in all this is that when they renamed City Field to Lambeau Field it absolutely enraged Lombardi(of course that statement should never ever go in Lambeau Field or Green Bay Packers - it is strictly a Lombardi factoid - which I have not put in yet because the Lombardi article is suffering tremendously from too much inclusion of the Ice Bowl which I have been working diligently on.

Good job here. Let's tackle the easy stuff first :) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. The article is locked :( 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i would love to know exactly what packers really mean.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.241.23 (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is there in the article: "The Green Bay Packers were founded on August 14, 1919 by former high-school football rivals Earl "Curly" Lambeau and George Whitney Calhoun. Lambeau solicited funds for uniforms from his employer, the Indian Packing Company. He was given $500 for uniforms and equipment, on the condition that the team be named for its sponsor." (emphasis added) Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Packers have made the playoff's in the 2009 season as a wildcard, and needs to be shown on the home page where it is not shown there

The Packers have made the playoff's in the 2009 season as a wildcard, and needs to be shown on the home page where it is not shown there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balooza (talk • contribs) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Packers article has been locked for as long as I can remember. Why exaclty does it remain locked forever.I don't see that with any other NFL team page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.120.209 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article could mention how the Packers were the Acme Packers for one season, which is where they got the name Packers. Also, it could mention how the uniform colors used to be blue and gold/yellow. These things were talked about at Lambeau Filed when I visited there.Kramer14 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Kramer14[reply]

Except they weren't ever officially the "Acme Packers." They wore the team sponsor name across their chests, but the club's name never changed. The Packers' site used to make this very clear, but they deleted most of their history with the recent re-design. The site still has this text (emphasis mine):

First (Lambeau and Calhoun) talked Lambeau's employer -- a war-time industry called the Indian Packing Company, where he worked as a shipping clerk for $250/month -- into putting up money for jerseys.

Because the company provided jerseys and permitted the use of its athletic field for practice, the club was identified in its early publicity as a project of the company. With this tie-in, the name "Packers" was a natural, and Packers they have been ever since, although the Indian Packing Company had practically faded out of the picture before that first season was half over.

The team has officially been the "Packers" since 1919. If "Acme Packers" was ever used to describe the team (and not the sponsor), it was an unofficial nickname. SixFourThree (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

It says the packers have won 12 championships but have really won 14 when counted, 11 nfl championships and 3 superbowls.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.213.53 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article basically separates the NFL Championship with the Super Bowl, as it probably should as the two aren't the same thing. In the intro it already specifies that they won 12 NFL championships and three super bowls; I don't think that we should combine the two, so I'm not sure that any changes need to be made. AlexiusHoratius 17:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Packers themselves say they have won 12 Championships. I agree that no change is necessary. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, its 12 because in 1966 and 1967 when they won NFL champiosip, the NFL champions went against AFL chanpions for super bowl. so you can't count them winning NFL chanmpionship in 1966 and 1967 and also the super bowl in those years as 2 different things. Gman124 ^talk 15:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the difference between World Championships and NFL Championships. For most of the League's history the two have been synonymous, as the NFL represented the highest competition of the sport. But the first few Super Bowls, played during the brief period after the NFL and AFL agreed to a merger but before it was official, were between the NFL and AFL champs to determine the World Champions. So a team like the 1969 Vikings could be NFL Champions but not World Champions, or the 1966 Packers could be both. Before 1966 and after 1969, "NFL Champion" means World Champion. The Packers list their titles as World Championships. SixFourThree (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

It made no sense for that to be the topic sentence of a paragraph discussing their losing/winning streaks. The sentence made more sense in the paragraph describing their history as an organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenfrequed (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following sentence:

The Packers' 13 consecutive non-losing seasons was an active NFL record until the team finally suffered a losing campaign in 2005.

I did it because either it's wrong (the 49ers put together 16 consecutive non-losing seasons from '83-'98) or the distinction the editor is trying to make isn't clear thus leading to a misleading sentence. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 21:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• THERE IS A PAINFULLY OBVIOUS inconsistency in the Green Bay Packers article. It says in the section on Curly founding the team that he received $500 for equipment and uniforms. In the Uniforms section, this number is $250. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.236.114 (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah which is it!? 24.63.12.51 (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's $500 according to the 2011 Packers Media Guide. The correction has been made. DrBear (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} The listing of the Packers' Super Bowl championship seasons is inconsistent. The first two it lists as Super Bowl I and II (correct) with the years 1967 and 1968 (technically correct as the games were played in January of those years). However for their third Super Bowl championship Super Bowl XXXI is cited (correct) with the year 1996. While Super Bowl XXXI was the championship game for the 1996 season the game was actually played on January 26th, 1997. To remain consistent with the listing of the first two Super Bowls it should say 1997. Notacynic (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notacynic (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the other NFL teams, and they're all done that way. I've posted a request to look at this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} The following text under the subhead 2010 refers to Johnny Jolly... He is suspened for the entire season.

The spelling should be corrected this way... He is suspended for the entire season.

Glsonn (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Good catch. CTJF83 chat 18:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no valid reference for this statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.208.29 (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reference... http://www.dinesh.com/history_of_logos/nfl_logos/green_bay_packers_logo_-_design_and_history.html Dreammaker182 (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which only repeats the information from this article. Word for word. So not a reliable source. SixFourThree (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

More like this article repeats that one word for word.Zoro 1234 02:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read what the author of the article says in the comments at the bottom. He "got it from Wikipedia". The only source I can find for "G standing for Greatness" is Tiki Barber's interviews with the Packers players... I think Tiki is joking. 24.69.71.254 (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now there's a new "source", where the author admits that it must be true, because a Google search verified Tiki's claims. Right. And those Google results lead? ...right back to this article, and the dozens of sites which routinely copy-and-paste from Wikipedia without attribution in an attempt to pad their content. Pathetic. SixFourThree (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

In the introductory paragraph, this article claims that the Packers are the third oldest team in the NFL. I am unable to verify this assertion, and would love for someone to substantiate it. The Cardinals are clearly oldest, having been founded in 1898. Who is the second oldest? The only candidate I can come up with is the Bears. But while the fact that the Bears were founded as the Staleys in 1919 is well documented, I have been utterly unable to lay my hands on a more specific date, and without said date it is impossible to tell if the Bears or Packers are older. If someone knows the answer to this, please email me: rich@world.std.com. (note that I am more interested in acquiring the datum than in advocating any particular changes for the Wikipedia pages). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.203.194 (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bears and Cardinals are definitely the two oldest teams, as they are the only current NFL teams on the original NFL Charter. The Packers, Giants, and Redskins all followed a few years later, but I am not sure in what order. (my source: "Papa Bear: The Life and Legacy of George Halas" by Jeff Davis.) Regardless, the intro paragraph now says they are the 'second oldest team' and this is clearly incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.202.200.144 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Packers were also founded in 1919, but, like the Cardinals, were originally founded as an amateur athletic club. The Packers did not actually join the NFL until 1921. IMO, I think the "controversy" comes into play when the Chicago Bears' official team and league records started to cite Halas as the "founder" as he took over control of the team in 1920, NOT when the Staleys were actually founded in 1919. I mean the Bears official site does not even mention one peep about their 1919 season,[6] while the Packers official site makes a big deal about their August 11, 1919 founding.[7] Therefore, I'm not at all surprised that there are no reliable sources that can give a specific date as to when the Staleys were founded in 1919... Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Even if the 1919 Staley team was the same as the one which eventually became the Bears (which the Bears deny), was that team founded before August 11? I think the Packers should be considered the second oldest unless and until some evidence can place the Staleys before that date. SixFourThree (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Another point, in another section of the article, "Today "Green Bay Packers" is the oldest team-name still in use in the NFL". The Cardinals have been the Cardinals since 1901, when they changed their name from the "Normals". They have moved cities, but their team-name has been the Cardinals since 1901, meaning they beat the Packers by a few years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.31.113.21 (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to the article, it says "Green Bay Packers" not just "Packers". So it is not referring to the actually name of the team, but the name of the team with the city they're in. So Cardinals wouldn't be the oldest because they moved cities, so they have a completely different name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.166.79 (talk) 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get legal and technical with the wording, the exact phrase that is currently cited on the Arizona Cardinals article is "the oldest continuously run professional American football club in the United States". Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that the Packers are the oldest same name/same city team in the US. I'm unsure whether the Packers or the Staleys were founded first. They both started their first season in late 1919.

Here's the scores printed in a Oct. 3, 1921 Rockford, IL newspaper:

• Green Bay Packers, 49; Rockford Olympics, 0.
• Rock Island Independents, 0; Detroit Tigers, 0.
• Staleys, 35; Waukegan, 0.
• Cardinals, 20; Minneapolis Marines, 0.
• Evanstons, 7; Rogers Parks, 0.
• Downers Gorve, 7; Logan Squares, 0.

(Note: Detroit Tigers are not related to the Detroit Lions.)

Dan20001 (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the fact that the Packers are the oldest team to have never relocated to another city. The original question is whether the Packers or the Bears are the second oldest continuously run team after the Cardinals. And if the Bears officially want to deny their first 1919 season, and we cannot find any reliable sources that cite a specific date of the Staleys' founding, then we should probably go with the Packers based on the "verifiability, not truth" rules of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Or just completely avoid the issue altogether and just mention their "never relocated to another city" record. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is as old as the hills, and is one cornerstone of the rivalry between the two teams. The Packers' entrance into the NFL was delayed by objections from the Bears (either over the quality of the Packers' club, a personal grudge of Halas', an argument over an unpaid debt, or some other cause depending on the myth believed.) The Packers, who had expected to be able to enter the NFL in 1920, failed to field a team that year after the NFL rejected their first application for membership. The Bears consider themselves the older franchise by virtue of having been continuously in operation since 1919, and by virtue of having entered the NFL as a charter member in 1920, while the Packers' entrance into the league was in dispute. Green Bay began continuous operation in 1921; but, prides itself on an earlier date of foundation, and on having been the unfair victim of the Bears' "dirty tricks." The trouble is finding sources for this -- there are few, if any, unbiased sources in this rivalry. Both teams' programs are famous for spreading misinformation regarding each other. The best thing to do is to remove all claims of precedence from Packers and Bears articles. This is how the NFL's own materials and websites currently treat the question. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your information is correct. The Packers "began continuous operation" in 1919, not 1921 (1921 is when they joined the NFL). The Packers' entrance into the NFL is not "in dispute" - league records clearly indicate that the Packers were granted a franchise in the league for the 1921 season. I think you're conflating the Packers' temporary expulsion from the NFL after the 1922 season for using college players in a game[8] (a common occurance at the time, even in Chicago). That expulsion was orchestrated by George Halas, and did indeed fuel the rivalry between himself and Lambeau. Finally, the Bears do not consider "1919" as their date of founding - they trace their own history back to 1920[9], which must mean they separate the earlier Decateur Staley team from the one which Halas ran. SixFourThree (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Packers were formed in 1919. Cardinals in 1898. Bears were also technically formed in 1919. People consider them second because of the fact that they were a founding team in the NFL while the Packers were not inducted until 1921. Giants were formed in 1925.

I've always thought the Packers were second oldest behind the Cardinals and did not realize the Bears were formed in 1919. I thought the Bears formed as the Decatur Staleys in 1920. 207.177.213.110 (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because, as I mentioned above, the Staleys/Bears seem to want to totally deny their 1919 season, and officially say they were "founded" by Halas in 1920. While on the other hand the Packers officially tout their 1919 establishment, even though they did not actually join the NFL until 1921. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There might actually be some justification for that on the Bears' part. Historian Larry Names has made the claim (unsuccessfully) that the 1919 Packers should be considered a continuation of the previous town team, and the founding date is properly a couple years earlier. That doesn't hold up, because although the 1919 Packers were Green Bay's "town team," they weren't the same team as the Green Bay Whales of the previous years. If the Staleys brought Halas in to replace their existing football team, not simply take it over, then the Bears can rightly say that their founding date was 1920 and their founder was Papa Bear. Halas's book does not make this point clear, and that seems to be the only evidence offered to "correct the Bears' mistake" on their Wiki page. SixFourThree (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

Why not call a truce and move it out of the introductory paragraph :) ? At least us readers can read for a little while in peace :) It looks like there is a fight over the definition of the word franchise and team. I would much rather get into an argument on what is the greatest rivalry in the history of the nfl than which team went first w unreliable sources all over the place :) Anyone want to (rhetorically speaking) get into a historical debate over whom the Packers biggest rivals (based on notable and reliable sources) are the Chicago Bears or the, whats those other 2 teams names in the Black and Blue Division? (i barely even watch football and I am certainly not a bear or packer fan :) ) 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence should be revised or eliminated. Even if one considers the 1920-present Staleys/Bears franchise to be a continuation of the 1919 Staleys (which is questionable for reasons others have already stated), no one has yet proven that the original Staleys were founded before August 11, 1919. So there is no apparent basis for claiming the Bears were founded before the Packers. The fact that the Staleys eventually joined the APFA before the Packers did is completely irrelevant to which franchise (or team, if you like) is older. So, at the very least, we don't know which franchise was founded first, which renders the article's description of the Packers as "the third-oldest franchise in the NFL" factually unsupported. Moreover, if we must break the tie somehow, the only principled way is to consider which team began play earlier in 1919. And the Packers played their first game in 1919 before the Staleys did (compare http://www.profootballarchives.com/1919greenb.html with http://www.profootballarchives.com/1919dec.html). The historical record may be incomplete if we look to dates of founding, but if we turn to actual football games, the Packers are older than the 1919 Staleys franchise. (And again, if the Bears want to claim Halas as their founder, then their franchise really only began with the 1920 Staleys.) So there are at least two reasons to consider the Packers the NFL's second-oldest franchise: The Bears' lineage does not include the 1919 Staleys, and even if it did, the Packers have been playing football for longer. Unless some new source surfaces to place the 1919 Staleys' founding before August 11 of that year, there is no reason whatsoever to imply that the Bears are older than the Packers. Therefore, absent new information, continuing to describe the Packers as the NFL's third-oldest franchise is indefensible. Someone needs either to change the disputed sentence to read "second-oldest," or get rid of it entirely on the ground that the 1919 Staleys' founding date is unknown. 128.84.233.195 (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}}

Can someone add that the "G" on Green Bay's helmets stands for GREATNESS? I don't see this explained anywhere, and I assume most people think it stands for Green Bay. Thanks. 67.197.163.163 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: Do you have any sources to prove that? Baseball Watcher 17:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The "source" is an interview with Tiki Barber and is not reliable for this change. -Atmoz (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a story on packers.com which stated that the G is indeed for "Greatness". But a site redo resulted in that page and others on the site to no longer be available. So the search continues for internet-available proof--although the Barber interview gained enough visibility that I wouldn't doubt the team would comment on it on their site sometime...

ANOTHER point, in another section of the article, "Today "Green Bay Packers" is the oldest team-name still in use in the NFL". The Cardinals have been the Cardinals since 1901, when they changed their name from the "Normals". They have moved cities, but their team-name has been the Cardinals since 1901, meaning they beat the Packers by a few years. While yes, they cover themselves with a bit of "legaleze" by saying it the oldest name AND location in the NFL, which while accurate makes the overall statement misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.31.113.21 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The team name is the "Arizona Cardinals", not just the "Cardinals". And therefore, the team name is relatively new.

Under ==Nickname, logo, and uniforms== This line: "the Packers have only done so only twice,"

Should read: "the Packers have only done so twice," OR "the Packers have done so only twice,"

Also, what about a citation for this fact?

Scotttroyer (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}}

In the "logo" section of the article on the Green Bay Packers, the logo "G" was created by GERALD "Dad" Braisher and not George "Dad" Braisher. Gerald Braisher was my great, great uncle, and the equipment manager for the Green Bay Packers for 20 years. He retired from the Green Bay packers in 1976 and prior to his death in 1982 he resided at the Union Hotel at 200 Broadway in DePere, WI, 54115. He is buried in Janesville, WI. The Milwaukee Sentinel from Friday, July 2nd 1982, the front cover of the sports section is an article of his life's highlights after his death on July 1st. This article lists his given name, Gerald, as well as verifies his 20 year career with the Green Bay Packers. This error likely stems from an article from October 30, 1975 in Ray Nitschke's Packer report, where he is on the cover and wrongly named as George. I assume the error occured because almost everyone called him "Dad" and not by his given name, Gerald.

Carrieandy112996 (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Baseball Watcher 23:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} The gentleman who designed the Packers "G" logo was named Gerald Braisher, nicknamed Dad. His name was not George. He was my great, great uncle. He designed the logo, and then Georgia copied it, not vice versa. See the link: http://www.packers.com/fan-zone/faq.html#historical

Gbraisherfan (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Baseball Watcher 22:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make this change myself, because it probably warrants discussion, but the dates listed for GB's Super Bowl wins in the sidebar say 1966, 1967, 1996, 2010. I'm ok with this because those reference the season years. However, the main article says they've won in 1967, 1968, 1996, and 2010. It's half and half. SO--are these dates supposed to be when the Super Bowl was played, or the season which was played prior? And if so, do we change the 1967 and 1968 in the main article to 1966 and 1967?

In either case, I think it's probably confusing to say that they "won" the Super Bowl in 1996 and 2010, when they actually didn't. The paragraph should be changed to mention that they won the Super Bowl following the 1996 and 2010 seasons.

Jayfr (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will Blackmon's name is misspelled in section re. 2009 season. Tfbrennan (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Towards the bottom on the introduction:

"Beginning with the 1992 season, the Packers had 13 consecutive winning seasons (their worst record being 8–8 in 1999)"

For all you sports fans out there, an 8-8 season isn't a winning season. It takes, by my calculations, 9 wins to have a winning record. If an 8-8 season is to be called a winning season, then isn't it just as much a losing season? Perhaps its time to remove this inane sentence before anyone thinks too hard about this paradox, and their mind explodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.96.192 (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just change it to non-losing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.68.211 (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pleassse add the super bowl xlv appearance were they —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.144.124 (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}}

The following needs to be updated. Strike the 'which is still an NFL record' phrase. Go Pack!

"In Super Bowl XXXI Green Bay defeated the New England Patriots 35–21 to win their 12th world championship, which is still an NFL record."

63.203.166.2 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -Atmoz (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In the Divisional round, the Packers went on to defeat the #1 seeded and heavily favored Atlanta Falcons 48-21 to reach the NFC Championship Game..."

- This is inaccurate, heading into the Playoffs the Falcons were favored to win the NFC, not heavily favored but favored. Several experts picked the Packers for the game, and the general consensus was the game could go either way. Accuscore favored the Packers 52% of the time, and the 'lines' had the Falcons favored by less than 3 (the home team typically gets 2.5 points, to reflect the home field advantage). The Falcons were the #1 seed, there's no need to play them up even more than that, it makes the Packers seem like no one a acknowledged their ability, when most were saying they were the most dangerous playoff team. It also comes off as though the Falcons were seen as unbeatable.

It should be changed to: "In the Divisional round, the Packers went on to defeat the #1 seeded Atlanta Falcons 48-21 to reach the NFC Championship Game..."

Accuscore: http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/packers-falcons

ESPN's Expert Picks: http://espn.go.com/nfl/picks/_/week/2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.184.78 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was estimated by the Milwaukee journal sentinel just before the Superbowl that if a person signed up today they would get the tickets an incredible 955 yearsItalic text from now!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.47.60 (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit semi-protected}} In the opening paragraph it says the Green Bay Packers are currently the 2nd oldest franchise. The Green Bay Packers are the 3rd oldest franchise behind the Chicago Bears and Arizona Cardinals. I received this information through many reliable sources such as KGB and numerous NFL fact webpages.

24.183.29.111 (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done:. That phrase is current tagged as "dubious/disputed", and is currently being discussed in the Third oldest team? Really? thread above. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article states in a couple places that the Packers have never worn throwbacks at home. That's not true - they wore their throwback blues at Lambeau Field in September of 1994 against Tampa Bay.[10] I'm going to remove the assertion. SixFourThree (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)SixFourThree[reply]

In the table of head coaching records, Mike Sherman has a regular season of 57-39, not 56-39. If the coach is after 1977, and doesn't include 1982, 1987, or fired mid-season, the total record needs to be divisible by 16.Toolkien (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a slightly picky point, but legitimate nonetheless, but a sentence in the article reads essentially that given the Packers ownership it is impossible to move them. That statement seems to be a bit of an over statement. No, it isn't "impossible" to move them, just highly unlikely. If shareholders voted for the team to move, it could move. I don't know why they would, and thus it is highly unlikely, but it's not as though it is actually impossible.Jdlund (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed James Jones from the Packers roster - this is a mistake, he was re-signed by the team to a 3-year contract. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.138.187 (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page currently states that President Barack Obama is a "minority owner". He is just an owner of one share of Packers stock. Singling out President Obama as a "minority owner" is silly because no Packers shareholder can own a majority share per the company bylaws (source: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=61&f=1809&t=3602864 and here: http://www.packers.com/community/shareholders.html). He doesn't even own a sizable amount of Packers stock. It's just not notable enough to place in the owner section of the personnel column. A comment can be made that Barack Obama was given an honorary piece of stock when the 2010 team visited the White House under the "Public Company" section of the article, which would be more in line with the actual relevance of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freenumber6 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and probably vandalism. This has been reverted. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the records section for all time Packers leaders the recieving needs to be changed from James Lofton to Donald Driver. Driver passed up Lofton in the game vs. Carolina this past weekend and now owns the record with 9,666 yards. His numbers will probably increase as the season goes, but as long as he is now named leader in reception yards it should be good. --LittleDuck17 (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the first section of the page, the Packer's Super Bowl wins are listed. However, it incorrectly lists 1997 as Super Bowl XXXI and as a Packer win. Later in the article this is contradicted (correctly) by listing 1996 Super Bowl XXXI and as a Packer win. Super Bowl XXXII (1997) was not a Packer win, although the Packers made it to the Super Bowl that year.

Thank you, 145.118.88.72 (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The years are correct in the article. Super Bowl XXXI was played in 1997, but was the championship game for the 1996 season. The years given in the first section are those in which the game was played, not the year that the football season began. In the NFL, the football season is named for the year in which it began, but the championship game is played in January or February of the following year. For example, the Packers are the reigning champions from the 2010 season, but the Super Bowl is correctly listed in the article intro as having occured in 2011. Sperril (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the public company section reads "The Packers are the only community-owned franchise in American professional sports major leagues." However, the citation provided only states that they are the only such franchise in the NFL, not for all major leagues. I think that this sentence should either be changed, or that a better citation needs to be found, if one exists. 216.80.140.25 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change Super Bowl Championships in the Championships column on the right side to 4 because it is currently listed as though the Packers have only won 2. They won Super Bowl I, II, XXXI and XLV. 1966 (Super Bowl I), 1967 (Super Bowl II), 1996 (Super Bowl XXXI) and 2010 (Super Bowl XLV). See http://www.packers.com/history/super-bowls-and-championships.html

Kurtiswitz (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Super Bowls I and II were held before the 1970 AFL-NFL merger, and so these games are listed in the line directly above that says "AFL-NFL Super Bowl Championships". Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Packers have reached the playoffs for 2011 by virtue of winning the NFC North. Their latest division title has been updated, but their playoff appearances have not been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.124.65 (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The maximum number of shares an individual can own posted here is inaccurate (200). Per the Packers website it is 200,000. http://www.packers.com/community/shareholders.html . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.27.52 (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the "Green Bay Packers Foundation" subsection, the following sentences are already stated a few paragraphs before: "In 1923, the Packers were incorporated in Wisconsin as a nonprofit corporation, with stipulations that if the Packers were sold, all assets would be transferred to the Sullivan-Wallen Post of the American Legion in order to build a "proper soldiers memorial." No shareholder can own more than 200 shares in the company." Is there any reason this information is duplicated in this subsection? Krohn211 (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The packers did not win 10 of their first 11 games. They went 4-0 losing to Chicago in week 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ligerman2004 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Packers did indeed start 4-0, then lost to Chicago to go 4-1, then went on to win the next 6 games... Of the 11 games they played to start the season, they won 10 of them. I think we can safely remove this comment from the Talk section. Krohn211 (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that there is no information regarding how many shares of stock have been sold so far for the December 2011 stock sale. Some information regarding the current number of stocks sold can be found here, with some more current information on the stock sale here. I am new to Wikipedia, so I apologize if this the incorrect procedure or format in suggesting new material.Zunkk (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please delete the sentence:«The Packers are the current NFL champions». V4aut (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]