It's pretty easy to see why people are evaluating the two teams differently. It just requires that people take off the homer glasses:
The Packers played a tougher schedule, went 15-1, were on the second longest winning streak in league history, and are coming off of a Super Bowl victory.
The Patriots haven't won a playoff game since 2007, have looked bad in the last two playoff losses, and, so far, are repeating last year's basic pattern only with a worse defense.
Deus, I agree that Green Bay has earned the right *as a team* to be given a little slack. They have some cache for the reasons you mentioned. But my original post goes after a very specific issue. People are saying New England is almost certainly going to fall short because they have a terrible defense (ranked 31st in yards allowed). Never mind the fact that they have the 15th ranked defense by points allowed...which is better than many of the teams in the playoffs. But forget that for a minute. My beef is that NOBODY dismisses Green Bay - nobody - even though, statistically, their defense is *WORSE* than New England's - both in yards allowed and points allowed. By either measure, New England had the better defense this year.
Yes, Green Bay had a really good defense last year, but as we know in the NFL, things can change dramatically from year to year. Take Pittsburgh, 2008-10.
2008 (12-4; won the SB)
#1 rank pts allowed
#1 rank yds allowed
8.2 dSRS
2009 (9-7; missed playoffs)
#12 rank pts allowed
#5 rank yds allowed
0.7 dSRS
2010 (12-4; lost in the SB)
#1 rank pts allowed
#2 rank yds allowed
7.7 dSRS
They were still really good in 2009, but they weren't nearly as good in 2009 as they were in either 2008 or 2010.
Or take New England, 2004-2006
2004 (14-2; won SB)
#2 rank pts allowed
#9 rank yds allowed
6.5 dSRS
2005 (10-6; lost in 2nd round of playoffs)
#17 rank pts allowed
#26 rank yds allowed
-0.5 dSRS
2006 (12-4; lost in AFCCG)
#2 rank pts allowed
#6 rank yds allowed
5.9 dSRS
Not saying this happens all the time, but it certainly can be the case. Heck, even the mighty Ravens dealt with it, from 2006-2008:
2006 (13-3)
#1 rank pts allowed
#1 rank yds allowed
7.8 dSRS
2007 (5-11)
#22 rank pts allowed
#6 rank yds allowed
-1.8 dSRS
2008 (11-5)
#3 rank pts allowed
#2 rank yds allowed
5.6 dSRS
You get the idea. Even what is normally a great defense can have a pretty bad year the very next year after a great performance the previous year. Last year Green Bay was really good on defense: #2 pts, #5 yds, 7.9 dSRS. This year, not so much: #19 pts, #32 yds, -0.1 dSRS.
I think it's fair to give GB as a team the benefit of the doubt. But if you (generic you, not Deus specifically) are going to argue that the Pats really don't have much of a chance *BECAUSE OF THEIR DEFENSE*, then that very same exact criticism HAS to be applied to Green Bay. UNLESS, that is, Green Bay's offense is unbelievable, while New England's is not. Well, we certainly know that GB's offense is unbelievable (#1 pts, #3 yds), but so is New England's (#3 pts, #2 yds). So what carries GB (incredible offense led by a SB-winning, MVP caliber QB putting up insane numbers, and having HFA throughout the playoffs) is *exactly* the same thing that carries NE (incredible offense led by a SB-winning, MVP caliber QB putting up insane numbers, and having HFA throughout the playoffs).
But NE also has this advantage, IMO: They don't have New Orleans in their conference. GB may have to go through what is quite possibly the best overall team in the league, top to bottom. NE wouldn't have to deal with that until the Super Bowl.
So your point is understood (by me anyway). But I think it's not quite fair to the criticisms I have raised of Banks' thought process (and of others like him).