Packers Managment

[Pack93z]

Re: Packers & Oannes

Neither stance is less credible nor less knowledgeable.

So why all of the "Fire TT!" "Kill TT!" "TT is an *******!" talk around here?

One could turn that around and state why all the "Ted is God" talk around here. Of course not all hold that opinion, just as not all hold the "Lynch TT talk".

Find one place I have ever stated fire TT?

I haven't, am I critical... HELL YES. Was I of Sherman... HELL YES.

I try not to pretend I could do better, but I have opinions of things I would have preferred done differently for my team.

 

[MassPackersFan]

Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

It's wrong to assume the team we saw in Week 1 is the "normal" Packers too. Rookie head coach. 4 rookie starters, including 2 on the O-line. A poor start and slow, steady improvement was expected, even predicted.

 

[Pack93z]

Re: Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

It's wrong to assume the team we saw in Week 1 is the "normal" Packers too. Rookie head coach. 4 rookie starters, including 2 on the O-line. A poor start and slow, steady improvement was expected, even predicted.

Correct... or I would choose the New England or Jets game... they displayed a weaker team than the one on opening week.

Personally... I don't care about the week 16 game, the week 12 game or week 1... I try to look collectively at the entire season. Not just the last four games... or not just the first four... one can point to the final four and say look at the growth of the team. If that is your stance fine... but one could look at the month of November and say they regressed with the losses to Buf, NE, and NYJ.

Point is, this team should grow and become better. But to look solely at the final 4 weeks as progress isn't completely accurate either.

 

[warhawk]

Re: Packers & Oannes

Oannes wrote:

I understand how important timing is... I get that. For me to say the Pack was lucky to be 8-8 is completely true. Why? Had we not been playing a team in safe mode the last week of the season we were nearly certain to lose that game making us 7-9. That is all I'm saying.

Ok I get it now. It's obvious that the Packers would have never had a chance against the mighty Bears had we not been so very fortunate to catch them in that "safe mode" at the end of the season.

Now I'm sure your going to tell me that this "safe mode" with the Bears started WEEKS before the season was over as kind of a new philosophy that they were testing out.

Because it's obvious the mighty Bears HAD to go into this safe mode PRIOR to week freaking FOURTEEN when they barely escaped another juggernaut, those tough *** BUCCANEERS 34-31 in OT, and week FIFTEEN when they beat the **** out of the LIONS 26-21.

Yes it's much clearer to me now that I understand that the Bears took a three week time out from playing football.

But at the end of they day, even though you have enlightened me with this information, I am going to stay with my gut which tells me the Bears were beatable on any given Sunday by any given team and we just happened to do that when we did.

I don't know where you come up with the Bears being ALL THAT but I recall MANY NFL GUYS talking about how the Bears were NOT really very good and if they didn't fix the GROSSMAN problem they were staring at one and out two years in a row.

So maybe you should go roll your little "we were CERTAIN to lose to the Bears" ball somewhere else.

For me I call ********.

 

[Bertram]

Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

The Bears is my pick for this years NFC team to crash and go down in flames .

 

[Timmons]

Re: Packers & Oannes

Oannes wrote:

I understand how important timing is... I get that. For me to say the Pack was lucky to be 8-8 is completely true. Why? Had we not been playing a team in safe mode the last week of the season we were nearly certain to lose that game making us 7-9. That is all I'm saying.

Ok I get it now. It's obvious that the Packers would have never had a chance against the mighty Bears had we not been so very fortunate to catch them in that "safe mode" at the end of the season.

Now I'm sure your going to tell me that this "safe mode" with the Bears started WEEKS before the season was over as kind of a new philosophy that they were testing out.

Because it's obvious the mighty Bears HAD to go into this safe mode PRIOR to week freaking FOURTEEN when they barely escaped another juggernaut, those tough *** BUCCANEERS 34-31 in OT, and week FIFTEEN when they beat the **** out of the LIONS 26-21.

Yes it's much clearer to me now that I understand that the Bears took a three week time out from playing football.

But at the end of they day, even though you have enlightened me with this information, I am going to stay with my gut which tells me the Bears were beatable on any given Sunday by any given team and we just happened to do that when we did.

I don't know where you come up with the Bears being ALL THAT but I recall MANY NFL GUYS talking about how the Bears were NOT really very good and if they didn't fix the GROSSMAN problem they were staring at one and out two years in a row.

So maybe you should go roll your little "we were CERTAIN to lose to the Bears" ball somewhere else.

For me I call ********.

<Followed by a standing ovation>

 

[cheesey]

Re: Packers & Oannes

There is only one FACT that truely mattered to me........the Packers kicked the Bears collective ***** the last game of the regular season. THAT was what mattered.
AND....for those that say the game didn't matter for the Bears......didn't the Packers still have an outside chance of making the playoffs then? Tell me that knocking the Packers out for certain by beating them isn't incentive? I think it was.
Also.....the Bears kicked us around week one........the Packers were NOT ready for the season at that time. They flat out stunk. By the last game, they knew what they were doing, and had improved alot. Thye were coming together nicely by then.

 

[Oannes]

Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

Gee Warhawk... you're right. The Bears circumstance had nothing to do with their level of interest and intensity, just like it had nothing to do with ours.

That most certainly is BS.

Gee, when did the Bears have the division sewn up? How about home field? Saints finished with the 2nd seed at 10-6. Had the Bears lost the TWO games you're referencing they're STILL the team with homefield advantage. I would think that proves my point more than it does yours. The Bears walloped Detroit 34-7 earlier in the year. The squeak by over a bad Tampa team shows you how little intensity they were bringing at the end of the season. It really is a wonder how we could beat a fired up team like the Bears that last week.

So, what did Chicago play for the last 3 weeks of the season?

Keep calling BS... No one will ever pick up the other end of the line. No...wait... you're going to get a busy signal because of all the other misguided fans dialing the same number.

You don't think the Bears would rather face a Packers team they SHUT OUT vs. any other possible team that could've made the playoffs? I'd rather face a team I know I could beat.

 

[Cory]

Re: Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

I do find it ironic that Oannes is now the most popular guy on the board lol(not a cheapshot at you just an observation).

I just don't get why the Bears would play their coveted starters so long into a game that had "no incentive" for them when they had already lost two pro bowl starters from their defense for the season. Especially with Lovie Smith in a contract year knowing fell well had he lost a guy like an urlacher or a briggs going into the playoffs from a meaningless game Lovie would have been tarred and feathered.

 

[Packnic]

Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

if that game didnt mean anything. none of the games meant anything.
every game counts. period. we went 8-8 and beat the bears. get the hell over it. Oannes.

 

[Oannes]

Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

Can't or won't do it, Packnic. I'm sure Lovie did feel pressure to play his starters given the way they went one and done the year before. Just because his starters PLAYED does NOT mean they gave FULL effort. There's a huge leap in logic that since the starters played, that they tried.

Do you think Brett Favre is playing with the same level of intensity in the pre-season as he is during the season? No. Okay... I hear the argument that it's two different seasons. Okay. Is Brett Favre playing with the same level of intensity if we're up by 28? Is he playing with the same level of intensity if we're down by 28? No.

The irrefutable point is the Bears were NOT in the same mindset as the team that rocked us in Week 1. That is not debatable.

That game did mean something. We needed to win it. I'm glad we did. The Bears didn't need to win it and had they it would've really reflected poorly on us.

 

[warhawk]

Re: Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

Gee Warhawk... you're right. The Bears circumstance had nothing to do with their level of interest and intensity, just like it had nothing to do with ours.

That most certainly is BS.

Gee, when did the Bears have the division sewn up? How about home field? Saints finished with the 2nd seed at 10-6. Had the Bears lost the TWO games you're referencing they're STILL the team with homefield advantage. I would think that proves my point more than it does yours. The Bears walloped Detroit 34-7 earlier in the year. The squeak by over a bad Tampa team shows you how little intensity they were bringing at the end of the season. It really is a wonder how we could beat a fired up team like the Bears that last week.

So, what did Chicago play for the last 3 weeks of the season?

Keep calling BS... No one will ever pick up the other end of the line. No...wait... you're going to get a busy signal because of all the other misguided fans dialing the same number.

You don't think the Bears would rather face a Packers team they SHUT OUT vs. any other possible team that could've made the playoffs? I'd rather face a team I know I could beat.

Gee, and I have heard from so many Head Coaches of the NFL how important it is to have momentum and to be playing your best football going into the playoffs.

Those lying bastards!

Now i find out you can take WEEKS off and then just snap your fingers and expect to play good football. DAMN.

I'm sure Lovie wasn't concerned whatsoever that they could have easily entered the playoffs on a four game losing streak and hadn't played a good football game in a month.

It made other teams tremble as well.

But I do want to congratulate you Oannes because you have now OFFICIALLY come up with more excuses for why the Bears lost that game then all of the Bears players and coaches combined.

Let's hear it for Oannes!

 

[Oannes]

Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

Yes. That loss hurt the Bears so much they wound up in the SuperBowl. I'll bet if the Bears had only hunkered down and beaten us like they should've they would've beaten the Colts!

I hate the Bears. I love it when they lose but you have to be honest about what happened on that field that night.

Oh...and I wouldn't want to use some more facts to prove my point because they are meaningless to most, but I'll try again...

Let's flash back to the last game of 2005. Hmmm. Similar. Green Bay closes out their 4-12 season with SEATTLE!!!! We BEAT Seattle at home. Interesting. Hmmmm. Was Seattle not in the same situation as the Bears last year? Hmmm. Yes. Wow. We WON that game over a SUPERIOR Seahawks team that didn't appear interested in carrying momentum into the post-season and they parlayed their poor performance at Lambeau into a SuperBowl appearance just like the Bears.

I would call that game/set/match or Checkmate...but the objective voices here will be sure to disagree. By the way, how'd that beating of Seattle help us in the start of our next season? We got SHUTOUT...and got off to a pitiful start. Why? That game was MEANINGLESS just like the Bears game. Man!!!!

Wait... Warhawk... You are onto something... the team that lays down for Green Bay in the final week the past two seasons LOST the SuperBowl because they didn't try against us. Let that be a lesson for the team who plays us last in 2007!

 

[Oannes]

Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

Cricket...cricket...cricket...cricket...cricket...cricket...

Did I finally "win"?

 

[Cory]

Re: Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

Cricket...cricket...cricket...cricket...cricket...cricket...

Did I finally "win"?

I just think it's gotten to a point where everyone realizes that no one is going to convince the other that the opposite of what they believe is true. Now we all move on to the next topic at hand.

 

[Oannes]

Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

But... I did "win" right?

I admit it... I broke the rules on that "cricket" post. That was the definition of baiting. Sorry. I do think that point on the Seattle game is the reason the thread ended. What can someone honestly say about that? ...and I'm not trying to bait. I just don't see how anyone can argue against that.

 

[Cory]

Re: Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

But... I did "win" right?

I admit it... I broke the rules on that "cricket" post. That was the definition of baiting. Sorry. I do think that point on the Seattle game is the reason the thread ended. What can someone honestly say about that? ...and I'm not trying to bait. I just don't see how anyone can argue against that.

I, in all honesty, did no see any posts on the seattle game. Frankly, I care way too little and am way too lazy to go look it up lol.

 

[cheesey]

Re: Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

Cricket...cricket...cricket...cricket...cricket...cricket...

Did I finally "win"?

I just think it's gotten to a point where everyone realizes that no one is going to convince the other that the opposite of what they believe is true. Now we all move on to the next topic at hand.

Amen Cory! :thumbsup:

 

[Oannes]

Re: Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

You don't have to look anything up. We beat Seattle 23-17 and Favre waved wildly as he walked off the field.

Beating Seattle was akin to our win over the Bears.

Anyway, I see people are tired of me hammering on this issue that really doesn't matter.

I do have to say had you all continued hammering me and I had nothing else to say because I really had nothing I could counter with I would tell you that you were right and mean it.

I really hoped warhawk would respond. I even PM'ed him hoping to get an answer to the Seattle situation. I do think it makes it kind of hard to argue the opposing view.

Bottom line... I enjoyed this. Look forward to more "bickering" or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Cory]

Re: Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

You don't have to look anything up. We beat Seattle 23-17 and Favre waved wildly as he walked off the field.

Beating Seattle was akin to our win over the Bears.

Anyway, I see people are tired of me hammering on this issue that really doesn't matter.

I do have to say had you all continued hammering me and I had nothing else to say because I really had nothing I could counter with I would tell you that you were right and mean it.

I really hoped warhawk would respond. I even PM'ed him hoping to get an answer to the Seattle situation. I do think it makes it kind of hard to argue the opposing view.

Bottom line... I enjoyed this. Look forward to more "bickering" or whatever you want to call it.

What does beating Seattle have to do with beating Chicago?

 

[Oannes]

Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

Oh...No!!!!!! I hope you said that just to needle me!

 

[Cory]

Re: Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

Oh...No!!!!!! I hope you said that just to needle me!

In a way yes I can already tell what point you would be trying to make with that one. I can already say I disagree so let's just save ourselves some time on that one lol.

 

[Oannes]

Re: Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

Agreed.

 

[Cory]

Re: Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

Agreed.

Crap. We agreed again. This CANNOT become habit understand? lol jk.

 

[pyledriver80]

Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

It's pointless. Who cares if we were 8-8 or not. It means nothing