Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Adversity Is The Packers' Identity

By Category

Adversity Is The Packers' Identity

“Adversity reveals genius; prosperity conceals it.” – Horace

Today, somewhere in America, football is being played on the gridiron, as two teams battle it out for the right to go to the Super Bowl.  The Green Bay Packers were expected…no, certified to be playing this weekend, if it weren’t for that loss to the Giants on their home turf last week.  The gamut of emotions ran all over the spectrum, from anger and rage, to sadness and blame.

And those emotions weren’t limited to just the fans.  Players, forced to face the press after the loss, showed many of the same reactions; public apologies to the fans, sound bites tinged with anger, but most of all, a sense of confusion and surprise.  This wasn’t supposed to happen.  We weren’t supposed to lose.  And I can even begin to tell you why.

But, as theories blasted through the blogosphere and radio talk shows (ranging from resting starters in Week 17 to poor fundamentals), the one guy who may have hit the nail squarely on the head was none other than head coach Mike McCarthy.

"We did not play to our identity," said McCarthy. "No excuses. There was nothing in our preparation that had led me to believe this was going to occur today."

What exactly is the Packers’ identity, and perhaps more specifically, what is the identity of a McCarthy Packer team?  In a nutshell, the Packers have always used adversity to light the fire underneath them, from the first day McCarthy took over as head coach.

This is the team that has always relied on the Big Play to make up for any deficiencies elsewhere on the team, making timely interceptions or quick-strike, down-the-field passing plays to thwart the other team’s efforts.  There was always that feeling that the Packers needed their back against the wall in order to dig down deep and leave it all out on the field, whether it be in one individual game or the course of an entire season.

We all remember the come-to-Jesus moment when the Packers lost to Tampa Bay in 2009, when the team hit rock bottom with the formidable Cowboys next on the docket.  The Packers were in serious trouble that week, but pulled together to pull off the upset and string together another six wins out of seven games to just eak into the playoffs as a wild card.  No one expected them to even be close to contention after that Buccaneer game, but that is the way this team has been wired.

Last season was the epitome of adversity, with injuries all but erasing all those pre-season expectations of “Super Bowl or Die”.  With a humiliating loss to the lowly Lions and the loss of quarterback Aaron Rodgers to a second concussion, with the formidable Patriots next on the docket, all again looked to be lost.

But Matt Flynn nearly led the upset over the Patriots, failing in just the last moments of the game.  That game was critical, however, for the Packers’ playoff hopes, even if it didn’t help them in the standings.  With momentum and playoff hopes in serious doubt, the rest of the team rose to the occasion, rallying around their young backup quarterback.  With the return of Rodgers the following week, and do-or-die games against the Giants and Bears, the whole team came together to pull off a series of inexplicable wins, often relying on Big Plays late in the game to preserve a win against a desperate opponent.

The Packers won a Super Bowl on that surge of never-say-die, facing adversity in the eye week-in and week-out, winning games not just on talent and execution, but a synergy and common purpose that you see when teams really are teams.

So, what happened in 2011?  The Packers were suddenly no longer under a microscope, no longer doubted, the presumptive favorite to return to the Super Bowl.  They rattled off a team-record thirteen straight wins to start the season, and the tickets for Indianapolis were as good as ordered.  No longer were the Packers playing with their back against the wall.  They were putting other teams’ backs against the wall.

Fans, despite the season of superiority, still found reasons to raise concerns...if nothing else, out of habit.  Why is the defense so porous?  Where is the running game?  Why are we dropping so many passes?  But criticism was quickly dismissed, any analysis dogged by “How can you be so negative when we’re undefeated!?”

But the adversity was gone.  And, if you weren’t able to put your finger on it then, and even if McCarthy can’t quite find the right words to explain why the Packers lost their identity now, you can’t deny this was a completely different season than last year.  This was a team of confidence, coming into each game with the expectation of winning…an expectation that grew larger and more ominous each week.

Perhaps the keystone of thriving under adversity was the man who was baptized into it in 2008.  Certainly, we’ve all seen ESPN’s E:60 feature on Aaron Rodgers, who, when asked for the one trait that helps define who he is, insisted it was keeping a chip on his shoulder.  He thrives on being doubted, and proving those doubters wrong.  He had no shortage of second-guessers when asked to step in for a disgraced Brett Favre, and handled himself perfectly while keeping his play on the field ever-efficient.

But you have to wonder if the Packers, who have seemingly taken on the persona of their quarterback, ran out of chips to keep putting on their shoulder this year.  How do you keep proving doubters wrong, when no one is doubting you anymore?   How do you reach deep inside to claw back out of the well when you’re on top of the world?

Simply put, the Packers have never thrived on efficient, consistent play, but by being opportunistic.  If made a mistake against the Packers…rushed a throw, took a risk…they made you pay.  You could even outplay the Packers and still lose the game, simply because the Packers took advantage of your errors, then made the Big Play when it counted.  At 15-1, the Packers tried to convince themselves they were a team like the Patriots: methodical, confident, and fundamentally sound, year in and year out.

But last Sunday, the Giants beat the Packers at their own game.  It was they who put the chip on their shoulder, went on the road to the #1 seed’s home field, and proceeded to take advantage of every mistake they made.   A couple Big Plays (like an impossible Hail Mary), and the Packers were trounced out of the playoffs by a team that, quite simply, had fought their way out of their rock bottom a mere month ago and came loaded for bear.

You saw the looks in the eyes of the Packers as the game went on, in their body language.  This wasn’t a team that looked beat…it was a team that looked confused.  They kept searching, waiting for what was supposed to happen.  Aaron Rodgers was supposed to hit some huge hail mary for a touchdown.  Charles Woodson was supposed to intercept a pass for a touchdown.  Defensive backs bit on play fakes when Eli Manning had six or seven seconds in the pocket, looking for phantom interceptions they were used to popping up last year.

But those plays never came, and the Packers looked like they didn’t know how to overcome their own mistakes.  When Mike McCarthy said the Packer lost their identity, he wasn’t kidding. A lot of us believed that the Packers were going to go all the way, and many of our irrational theses were blown out of the water.

We had stood and declared that, in today’s NFL, it didn’t matter if you had a porous defense in the playoffs, as long as you had an amazing passing game.  You can eschew the run game completely and just keep passing, mark it down.  No one in the playoff field should have even challenged us, because we had Aaron Rodgers.  We convinced ourselves that these were truths, when in essence, we should have known that defense wins championships and anyone can kick your arse on any given Sunday.  Always has been, always will be.

In the end, Aaron Rodgers didn’t lose this game for the Packers.  The Giants played Rodgers completely different than every other team this year, all of whom thought sending blitzes and containing Rodgers was the right plan.  New York, instead, rushed four and let Rodgers run, choosing instead to blanket his receivers and not give him anyone to pass to.  It worked.

The Packers didn’t lose this game because they rested their starters in Week 17.  The fear with resting starters is a loss of momentum, and quite honestly, the Packers had already been losing momentum on both sides of the ball since Thanksgiving.  The Packers were in a position to rest up and come back at full strength and start building some new momentum in the playoffs.

But, they couldn’t generate that momentum, or create a new come-to-Jesus epiphany, when they didn't feel like their backs were against the wall.  Adversity has always been the juice of the McCarthy Packers, and without it, they lost their identity.

While the 2012 season already holds its anxieties, waiting to see how general manager Ted Thompson plugs some holes and upgrades some positions in the draft, the larger onus may rest of Mike McCarthy.  He is going to have to find a way to make this team believe they have to put that chip back on their shoulder, to prove to the doubters they will fight and claw their way out of every tight spot.

Perhaps an embarrassing playoff loss at home is enough to restore that feeling of adversity, because prosperity didn’t guarantee nearly as much when playoff time rolled around.

  • Like Like
  • -3 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (56) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

cow42's picture

....or maybe it was just the three fumbles.

Oppy's picture


Wagszilla's picture

I agree. The Packers even with a deficient defense could have made a run.

Resting Aaron probably was a poor decision and Ted got a little cocky letting Jenkins go given Neal's injury history and lack of body of work.

tundravision's picture

...or the interception

...or the dozen missed tackles

...or the six dropped passes

...or the terrible pass coverage

Looking big picture here.

Oppy's picture

C.d.,Great article as always.

However, don't be so dismissive of Cow42's comment on this one.

While I agree on all fronts with your article, I do believe that Cow42's statement is probably more in-line with what Coach McCarthy means when he says that his team did not play to its identity.

Time and time again since being appointed the 14th Head Coach in Packers' History, MM has stood in front of the fans and the press and stated that his teams will always place the utmost emphasis on the offense protecting the ball and the defense taking the ball away. I don't believe there is another team that spends as much time practicing and drilling their players on ball security and stripping/picking the ball than the Packers do.. and historically under MM, the teams performance on sundays reflects that emphasis.

I do believe as simple as it may seem, "It could be the turnovers" is as accurate a synopsis of what MM was inferring by "not playing to our identity" as any, and it is just as "big picture" as you can get.

Packers football = Smart Football = Ball Security + Defensive take aways... MM has always preached that the most telling statistic in football as it relates to win/loss in any individual game is TO ratio.

CD Angeli's picture

Meant no disrespect to cow, and apologies if it came off that way. My point was that we all can (and have) come up with what we think is the silver bullet (resting starters, dropped passes, etc.), and I was think it was larger than a simple "we didn't execute in this area". WHY didn't we execute in this area, or a bunch of other areas?

Fumbles: the Packers coughed up the ball only nine times in 2010. They lost it only six times in this regular season. That's right up there at the top of the NFL.

The Packers also own a +34 turnover differential over the last two regular seasons, and certainly, stats have been show that when the Packers get turnovers, they win games.

Why didn't they do this in this one important game? And for that matter, why was Rodgers off, receivers dropping balls, defenders looking like they had their eyes closed going in for tackles, and DB playing ten yards away from the receiver, both before and after the snap?

There's a larger question in there other than execution.

cow42's picture

"Meant no disrespect to cow..."

-yes you did.

but that's ok.
i'm pretty used to it.

water off a duck's back, bro.

tundravision's picture

Peace out, cow. :)

packeraaron's picture

Actually, knowing CD, I'm pretty sure he didn't.

That said, his answer to you was no more disrespectful than you're silly, dismissive response to his well-thought out post.

cow42's picture

"That said, his answer to you was no more disrespectful than you’re silly, dismissive response to his well-thought out post."

yep - thought about that after i read what i wrote.
didn't mean to sound as "dickish" as i did.

PackersRS's picture

I fully understand your point, and I sensed complacency by the defense throughout the season.

But cow is right in this one (I know, I cannot believe it myself ;)). A team cannot survive 3 fumbles and 6 drops in the playoffs, moreso if said team is build around winning the turnover battle.

Hey, even Montana's 49ers got upset by the Giants in their run. We'll be in the heat again next year. We'll probably win it all.

It's been a ***** to look at the news and the games without the Packers playing, and until we win another SB, I'm not re-watching that game.

But what we're feeling is momentary. The future is still bright, we don't need many changes to reach where we want to and deserve to go.

Idiot Fan's picture

I couldn't agree more. As painful as it is to go through a loss like that, good organizations build for continued success, and in the grand scheme one disappointing year doesn't doom us. It was just one year ago that the Patriots had the league's best record at 14-2 and lost their first playoff game at home to the Jets. But here they are back again. I think we're poised for success for several years, and I look forward to it.

cincypackfan's picture

Good article, spot-on. BUT i have to add that history will be more kind to the 2011 Packers. This is a close-knit group and they had to experience the loss of one of their own, with the services right before the game. A loss much bigger than the Giants, a loss much bigger than football. i feel they will come back with that 'chip' in a big way in 2012.

Lynn Dickey 12's picture

I'm afraid that NFL history will forget this team, along with last year's 14-2 Patriots. We'll be the only ones that remember, and they will be difficult memories to hold with us.

PackersRS's picture

Not if we win next year.

Then it'll be 3 years of dominance with a terribly timed hickup, which will be remembered by Philbin's son passing away the week before the game.

Lynn Dickey 12's picture

Agreed. Let's discuss again in 54 weeks.

foundinidaho's picture

That's exactly how I felt watching the game. Confused. I could tell they felt the same way. I kind of felt we'd all lost our identity. We may very well have it back now, though.

Lynn Dickey 12's picture

Oh good. Just in time to watch the NFCC.

foundinidaho's picture

It will come in useful next year.

ricky's picture

Hey Los Angelis, just wondering why you've left PC to be here. No criticism, just curiousity.

Now, as to the meat of your article, the Packers came out and laid an egg against the Giants. Rodgers seemed rusty, the WR's dropped too many passes, and the offense gave up too many fumbles. MM coached badly, the offense was definitely offensive, and the defense was what it was all year- bad. However, I am truly sick and tired of this subject. Time to move on.

CD Angeli's picture

ricky, good to see you again! Loved my time at PC, just doing a lot more as a feature writer here and running a radio show.

You're right...and that's my point in that no one looked ready to play (other than Donald Driver)last Sunday.

Anthony's picture

But we can't expect Rodgers to be on fire in every single game he plays in. He obviously had one of his worst games of the season, even then still didn't look that bad. The #1 problem about this game, is that the Packers and fans took A-Rodgers amazing play as the norm, and the defense took that for granted most of all. The defense is what looked horrid all season long.

If we had a better defense, 16-0 was almost definite. If we had a better defense, going to the Super Bowl was almost definite.

Regardless of Rodgers' having a couple off games.

Rocky70's picture

"…or the dozen missed tackles

…or the six dropped passes

…or the terrible pass coverage"

Hasn't GB been doing this pretty much all season but yet they managed to win 15 of 16? They lost the playoff game because they gave the Giants 3 extra possessions due to 3 fumbles. You're trying to 'romanticize' something that can be simply explained --- 'Teams that decisively lose the turnover battle usually lose the game."

CD Angeli's picture

And I kind of touched on that, rocky...we've seen these "warning signs" much of the season. I've always believed that when you hit the playoffs, you have to be able to kick it up a notch, because anyone you're playing will be doing the same. The Packers seemed to be the opposite of 2010...instead of finishing strong, they started strong and just seemed to slowly flame out as the season closed.

You can win some games playing half-assed in the regular season, but you're not going to do that deep in the playoffs.

PackersRS's picture

I just think that the circumstances involving this loss, particularly with the death of Michael Philbin, are too singular, making it impossible to attribute a reason (outside the field) for it.

So, yes, there have been signs of bad play and potential doom the whole season. But despite of that they've won 15 games. Who's to say that, with their focus entirely on the Giants, the result wouldn't have been different? I know that publicly they're going to say (and already said) that the preparation was as good as always, but something as tragic as that to such a key member does take it's toll.

You don't just turn it off and focus on football.

If they didn't have those problems, if they were a dominant team both offensively and defensively, maybe they could've overcome it. But with such little margin of error in a time where parity is the norm, they couldn't.

NoWayJose's picture

"We had stood and declared that, in today’s NFL, it didn’t matter if you had a porous defense in the playoffs, as long as you had an amazing passing game."

The jury is still out on this one. There were three teams advancing this hypothesis this year. Brady & co can still get it done (and, in my opinion, are the favorites to do so). The Packers could have gotten it done to.

Not saying that they don't need a better D, but I do think the All-O championship is attainable in today's NFL.

CD Angeli's picture

We shall see, indeed. I think you would agree, though, that the Packer at least needed the opportunistic defense they had last year and the beginning of this season. They could deal with the yard and even the points if they could keep winning the turnover battle 3-0 or 4-1. But you can't give up those kind of yards and those kind of points and not force turnovers.

PackersRS's picture


Anthony's picture

Our defense was worse than the Patriots. Not only that, but we're facing stiffer competition with the Giants offense being much more tough than the Broncos... and even the Ravens offenses.

Plus, the Pats D has looked much more determined thus far in the playoffs. Our defense actually looked WORSE.

SherwoodSteve's picture

They didn't play to their identity because they had 2-3 weeks off which resulted in a lack of focus, lack of intensity and poor execution of fundamentals. Ask any serious golfer, three weeks off is a killer no matter how much you practice. That's what happened to the Packers and no matter how well they practiced, there's no way that you can have the same intensity and precision - especially going into a playoff game.

The only way to have a chance to overcome this is to have a super intensive week before the game and to NOT approach the game "the same way we have all season". You have to challenge the players in a way that forces them to focus more intently than in any other game.

PS - DD seemed to be focused and intense and he made plays. How did he do that and the rest of the team did not?

CD Angeli's picture

Good point, Steve, and while I still disagree on not resting the starters in Week 17, I will agree wholeheartedly (in hindsight) that something has to be done to mentally prepare the team for the second season, especially when they've been in steady decline since Thanksgiving anyway.

As for Driver, great question. Perhaps he was playing with the fervor of a man who knew, if he lost, it would be his last game at Lambeau Field. That just might have been some personal adversity that propelled him to perform like his life depended on it.

nerd's phone's picture

If by adversity you mean "playing down to their opponents" then I agree. The offense usually only shows up for two quarter every week, and yes they rely on big plays rather than establishing consistent play up and down the field.
But yeah, MM stresses "fundamentals."

Bob's picture

I thought one of the fundamentals of football was good defense. Along with run the ball and solid special teams. MM needs to reevaluate his methods if he thinks a pass happy no defense team can win championships. I was fooled also and believed that they would win at Home with their offense. History says this is not the way, asked the Fouts led Chargers or the Marino led Dolphins or the Brady Patriots (18-1). Your defense has to be able to make a stop and turn the ball over to the offense. I will be very surprised if TT doesn't force some changes on defense in players and assistant coaches.

Anthony's picture

Maybe Mike McCarthy knew that too -- that you need a defense. But what could he do? He put the best team on the field on defense he could week in and week out. If anything, it was Capers' fault.

This is our first huge surprise when it comes to disappointments in around 5 years. TT will probably change out a starter or two to make our team better. I really hope he does, too.

Nerd's Laptop's picture

What could he do? Really? How about being consistent rather than relying on the big play. Or paying more than lip service to the running game.
The problems on defense imo were personnel issues. It's more the offense that I've had problems with. However for the past year anytime I've criticized this, all I hear was IT'S GOOD ENOUGH TO WIN A SUPERBOWL.
How'd that work out?

Anthony's picture

You will NEVER win a Super Bowl with one of the worst defenses in NFL history. The Packers gave up so many yards and there's no excuse for that.

On the other hand, the offense was one of the best in NFL history. But you canNOT expect, week in and week out, to put a great performance in. Defense needed to step up when needed, but they could not.

Glorious80s's picture

> But you canNOT expect, week in and week out, to put a great performance in...<

But you can expect it in an important game like this with two weeks to work on it, with home field advantage. No excuses. This is the playoffs, not a regular season game. You're either champions or not.

redlights's picture

TT and MM will fix this this offseason; the D will DOMinate in 2012; win the SB; and have a majority of the team still tasting the 2011 playoffs to repeat a SB win in 2013!

cow42's picture

sounds good.
i have my doubts.
there's a lot to fix on that defense.

i can't think of a single starter on that side of the ball who i can say "if ------ plays in 2012 the way he did in 2011, we'll be in good shape."

an improvement or a replacement is needed at every single position.

i don't think this is something you can change in one offseason. the only realistic hope for the defense is that tt somehow finds an impact player that creates a ripple-effect, improving the play of everyone around him.

you can talk de, olb all you want. i think football is a lot like baseball in that you need to be strong up the middle. this team needs an ass-kicking middle lb. to have bishop be your best mlb is ok, to have him be your second best mlb would be awesome.

nantaze burfict.
dont'a hightower.

go get one, tt.

Anthony's picture

I think Matthews, Bishop, maybe even Burnett you could say that about. All 3 were our best players on defense this year.

Rocky70's picture

" this team needs an ass-kicking middle lb "

Besides Ray Lewis, I can't think of another ass-kicking middle LB who has led his team to a SB 'V' in the last 20 years.

PackersRS's picture


JoePackersNYC's picture

Most of the time those ass-kicking MLBs are in position to make big plays because the front 4 or 3 is doing their job.

It starts inside out. A stud 5 technique DE will greatly improve the defense.

Bearmeat's picture

I think ultimately GB just could not handle the vast majority of players on D who regressed. It's not losing an identity. It's not gaining one in the first place. Last year's D was nasty. This year's was nasty too - but in the opposite extreme.

Hawk. Woodson. Green. Raji. Whoever the ROLB was any given week. Collins being gone. Tramon. Shields.

Really, only Bishop and CM3 played well consistently.

TT messed up not resigning Jenkins. We can all agree on that one.

McGinn was absolutely brutal on TT and the D in his season ending analysis. Deservedly so. Now they have to fix the mess.

Jack's picture

Yeah, thank God for McGinn; his assessment of the team was refreshingly candid. Trouble is, he was singing TT's praises throughout most of the season, and wrote again and again in his chats and articles that the Packers (thanks to TT) were poised to win multiple championships in the future...I guess that as a beat writer (instead of a GM) he has the luxury of flip-flopping as often as he wants without having to pay the consequences.

packeraaron's picture

Well, that's not really a flip-flop. Both points are true. They are poised for multiple-championships - and TT screwed up by not bringing Jenkins and possibly Barnett back.

Sootofan97's picture

When TT drafts UNC LB Zach Brown, UCONN DE Kendall Reyes, Duke SS Matt Daniels, Coastal Car. CB Josh Norman, Regina DT Akiem Hicks and Merrimack MLB Shawn Loiseau we will have the top D to go with Top O and run the table next yr... in TT I trust

Cuphound's picture

Coach McCarthy has never been a powerful motivator on the psychological level. He finds his own inspiration internally and deals best when players do the same. I've always been on his case for that, but hell, let's look at the facts:

(1) We beat the Bears in last year's NFC Championship. Bragging rights for the next FIVE DECADES.

(2) We won last year's Super Bowl

(3) We went 15-1 this year.

Yeah, the guy is a technocrat and isn't going to manage the team's psyche so as to be able to handle three weeks off after a year of overwhelming, intoxicating victory. But as much as I love the Lombardi-type of coach, I had to eat my hat last year (and was grateful to do so). McCarthy did it, and he did it keeping our high-school O-Line coach. This finesse stuff can be made to work. Clearly there's more than one way to skin a cat.

I think Mr. Angeli is right. The Packers need that chip on their shoulder. I think this is especially true because McCarthy doesn't develop the sort of motivation that a coach like Lombardi did. They need the chip to stay self-motivated.

So maybe McCarthy leads us to a championship next year. We can tune up the defense in the off-season. Meanwhile, we went 15-1 in the regular season and Bears Still Suck. Life is good.

stanislaw's picture


You say: "Coach McCarthy has never been a powerful motivator on the psychological level. He finds his own inspiration internally and deals best when players do the same. I’ve always been on his case for that . . . "

How the heck do you know how McCarthy motivates? Are you in the locker room? Do you know how the players react?

Seriously, where do you get this stuff?

Pack66's picture

Well..well..well…Spud fell in the well….

Told you guys..ONE AND DONE this year!!!

He He….

Now if Favre had screwed the pooch like A-Rodge did and shit down his leg, you would be ALL OVER HIM..but not your “Golden Boy”, Aaron Rodgers…

That’s why I hate you Packers dooshes…You can’t admit that you turned on FAVRE and screwed him over…..Now you see that your hero is flawed and you can’t accept reality….

I’ve made the argument over and over that Favre had shit Packer teams to work with (and GM’s and Coaches) and none of you fools would admit to it. If Favre stayed in GB, he’d have had 2 more SB’s….but who could blame him for leaving…Do nothing Ted was happy with the 5-10 year plan…(now, don’t get me wrong..Ted did do one thing well..he got the best WR’s in the league for his butt-buddy, Golden boy, A-WAD)…and he wanted to do whatever it took to help him suceed, but not FAVRE…

Favre was the one who molded these WR’ took a few years for them to develop, and Brett didn’t have the time…so he moved on….and all of you traitors..stuck him in the back…

And now I’m laughing my ass off because you’re ONE AND DONE…(like the Saints), and probably won’t be back next year..


joshywoshybigfatposhy's picture

look kids, a vikings fan!

these fellas have been extinct since the team moved to L.A., but this one looks like the real thing, right down to the open embrace of a flawed ex-packer gone west to find warmer pastures in a dome.

joshywoshybigfatposhy's picture

seriously though, Deanna, give it up.

Rocky70's picture

Pack66's post is obviously trollish & abusive in nature & adds zero value to this blog.

I don't know what's worse ---- the post by Pack66 or the fact that CHTV allows it to exist for all to read.

packeraaron's picture

Pack66 has a long and storied history of coming to our site and making an ass out of himself. He's free to spout his ignorance just as freely as I am. :)

PackersRS's picture

Entertainement value.

It's nice to laugh at other people every once in a while. That's why people watch First Take.

PackersRS's picture

Here in Brazil, we have an expression for people exactly like you. I don't know how to say it in english. We call what you do "gozando com o pau dos outros".

I apologize in advance for the foul language. Have a nice day.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook



"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"The Bears still suck!"
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."