Packers talking to James... Tory James CB

pyledriver80 · Apr 19, 2007

pyledriver80 said:

porky88 said:

Lare said:

You have a valid point aadp, but I think in order to use the progression theory we also have to take into account the fact that the team went from 10-6 to 4-12 under TT's first year of control. Sure, there's many factors that went into that but we can't just ignore it either.

I did not look this one up myself. Someone else posted the records of the teams the Pack beat in 2004 and not one had a winning records. So the decline begun at least a year prior to Ted Thompson arriving and perhaps that is a reason why Mike Sherman was dismissed from General Manager and Ted Thompson was brought in.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb2004.htm

This plus the lost to the 8-8 Vikings, 2004 was very deceiving by just looking at the standings.

This makes no sense. They were declining in talent because they beat bad teams like they should of?

So fast forward to 05 when we went 4-12. If the 2004 team was declining in talent what the hell happened in 2005?

How about they couldn't beat the teams that had talent. Like Philadelphia, Jacksonville, and Indianapolis. The Eagles crushed them that year and that was the NFC representative in the Super Bowl. How about they were embarrassed in the playoffs against the 8-8 Minnesota Vikings. To me that was the start of the “end” and it carried over in 2005. Haven’t you used that exact same argument to criticize the current Green Bay Packers who went 8-8 and beat one team with a winning record. You can’t bash the Packers for not beating a team with a winning record this year and then praise them in 2004 for doing the exact same thing.

Amazing. I love it when you make points for me. So 10-6 they were declining because they couldn't beat teams with winning records yet they are improving now that they go 8-8 and can't beat teams with winning records? Uhhhhhhhh, WTF?

pyledriver80 · Apr 19, 2007

If your the Saints ... not that long.

Please rethink this statement

porky88 · Apr 19, 2007

porky88 said:

pyledriver80 said:

porky88 said:

Lare said:

You have a valid point aadp, but I think in order to use the progression theory we also have to take into account the fact that the team went from 10-6 to 4-12 under TT's first year of control. Sure, there's many factors that went into that but we can't just ignore it either.

I did not look this one up myself. Someone else posted the records of the teams the Pack beat in 2004 and not one had a winning records. So the decline begun at least a year prior to Ted Thompson arriving and perhaps that is a reason why Mike Sherman was dismissed from General Manager and Ted Thompson was brought in.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb2004.htm

This plus the lost to the 8-8 Vikings, 2004 was very deceiving by just looking at the standings.

This makes no sense. They were declining in talent because they beat bad teams like they should of?

So fast forward to 05 when we went 4-12. If the 2004 team was declining in talent what the hell happened in 2005?

How about they couldn't beat the teams that had talent. Like Philadelphia, Jacksonville, and Indianapolis. The Eagles crushed them that year and that was the NFC representative in the Super Bowl. How about they were embarrassed in the playoffs against the 8-8 Minnesota Vikings. To me that was the start of the “end” and it carried over in 2005. Haven’t you used that exact same argument to criticize the current Green Bay Packers who went 8-8 and beat one team with a winning record. You can’t bash the Packers for not beating a team with a winning record this year and then praise them in 2004 for doing the exact same thing.

Amazing. I love it when you make points for me. So 10-6 they were declining because they couldn't beat teams with winning records yet they are improving now that they go 8-8 and can't beat teams with winning records? Uhhhhhhhh, WTF?

Pyle, I've said a few times now and even in this thread that I thought they overachieved last year. If you have problems with other members opinions take it out on them but do not categorize me as the consensuses. They are improving from 2005 no question and they are the youngest team in the NFL currently. There is far more optimism with a younger team than there is an older team with players nearing retirement and at the pinnacle of their careers. I'm not having to much trouble understanding the fact that your criticizing the current Packers yet your often praise the 2004 team who ironically were in a very similar situation as the current team. It‘s pretty clear. The difference in my opinion is youth and potential. Whether or not that potential is reached is yet to be seen but I certainly expect flashes of it this year.

pyledriver80 · Apr 19, 2007

pyledriver80 said:

porky88 said:

pyledriver80 said:

porky88 said:

Lare said:

You have a valid point aadp, but I think in order to use the progression theory we also have to take into account the fact that the team went from 10-6 to 4-12 under TT's first year of control. Sure, there's many factors that went into that but we can't just ignore it either.

I did not look this one up myself. Someone else posted the records of the teams the Pack beat in 2004 and not one had a winning records. So the decline begun at least a year prior to Ted Thompson arriving and perhaps that is a reason why Mike Sherman was dismissed from General Manager and Ted Thompson was brought in.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb2004.htm

This plus the lost to the 8-8 Vikings, 2004 was very deceiving by just looking at the standings.

This makes no sense. They were declining in talent because they beat bad teams like they should of?

So fast forward to 05 when we went 4-12. If the 2004 team was declining in talent what the hell happened in 2005?

How about they couldn't beat the teams that had talent. Like Philadelphia, Jacksonville, and Indianapolis. The Eagles crushed them that year and that was the NFC representative in the Super Bowl. How about they were embarrassed in the playoffs against the 8-8 Minnesota Vikings. To me that was the start of the “end” and it carried over in 2005. Haven’t you used that exact same argument to criticize the current Green Bay Packers who went 8-8 and beat one team with a winning record. You can’t bash the Packers for not beating a team with a winning record this year and then praise them in 2004 for doing the exact same thing.

Amazing. I love it when you make points for me. So 10-6 they were declining because they couldn't beat teams with winning records yet they are improving now that they go 8-8 and can't beat teams with winning records? Uhhhhhhhh, WTF?

Pyle, I've said a few times now and even in this thread that I thought they overachieved last year. If you have problems with other members opinions take it out on them but do not categorize me as the consensuses. They are improving from 2005 no question and they are the youngest team in the NFL currently. There is far more optimism with a younger team than there is an older team with players nearing retirement and at the pinnacle of their careers. I'm not having to much trouble understanding the fact that your criticizing the current Packers yet your often praise the 2004 team who ironically were in a very similar situation as the current team. It‘s pretty clear. The difference in my opinion is youth and potential. Whether or not that potential is reached is yet to be seen but I certainly expect flashes of it this year.

When does all this potential translate into wins? What happens next year or the year after when Brett retires and we have to RELY on potential at the QB spot?

I guess I don't understand the plan like you all do.

Ok we are building for the future, someone please tell me how long this will take? What if it never happens. Then we wasted 5-6 years "rebuilding". Then we will have to start the process over again. Isn't that the same as signing players for a SB push and strapping yourself for the next few years, minus actually being able to contend?

Zero2Cool · Apr 20, 2007

So... who did Tory James sign with anyway?

gopackgo · Apr 20, 2007

So... who did Tory James sign with anyway?

The Patriots

Zero2Cool · Apr 20, 2007

Zero2Cool said:

So... who did Tory James sign with anyway?

The Patriots

Damn, they be signing everyone! Maybe their is some truth to the rumor that Bill is thinking of calling it quits this year and they are selling the house to win big this year?????

Packers talking to James... Tory James CB

pyledriver80 Cheesehead

pyledriver80 Cheesehead

porky88 Cheesehead

pyledriver80 Cheesehead

Zero2Cool Cheesehead

gopackgo Cheesehead

Zero2Cool Cheesehead

Share This Page

Packers talking to James... Tory James CB

pyledriver80 Cheesehead

pyledriver80 Cheesehead

porky88 Cheesehead

pyledriver80 Cheesehead

Zero2Cool Cheesehead

gopackgo Cheesehead

Zero2Cool Cheesehead

Share This Page

Useful Searches