2004 Green Bay Packers

[Cliff]

The 2004 Packers was the last team that Mike Sherman had total control of in Green Bay. If you look at the 2004 Packers they were definately better than the 2006 Packers.

For starters the 2004 Packers were 3-3 vs playoff teams and were a respectable 4-4 @ Lambeau.

Brett Favre had over 4,000yds passing with 30tds and only 17ints.

Ahman Green rushed for over 1,100yds with Najah Davenport and Tony Fisher backing up with over 500yds combined.

Javon Walker had 89 catches and Donald Driver 84 catches.

Ryan Longwell was a perfect 48 for 48.

KGB had 13.5 sacks.

No one is saying Rome was built in 1 day but to this point Ted Thompson hasn't built a better team than he has inherited.

 

[Zero2Cool]

The 2004 Packers was the last team that Mike Sherman had total control of in Green Bay. If you look at the 2004 Packers they were definately better than the 2006 Packers.

For starters the 2004 Packers were 3-3 vs playoff teams and were a respectable 4-4 @ Lambeau.

Brett Favre had over 4,000yds passing with 30tds and only 17ints.

Ahman Green rushed for over 1,100yds with Najah Davenport and Tony Fisher backing up with over 500yds combined.

Javon Walker had 89 catches and Donald Driver 84 catches.

Ryan Longwell was a perfect 48 for 48.

KGB had 13.5 sacks.

No one is saying Rome was built in 1 day but to this point Ted Thompson hasn't built a better team than he has inherited.

Perfect example of someone trying to use stats to pad their point.

Yeah, Longwell was 48 for 48, on EXTRA POINTS!

Field Goals he was 24-28.

 

[tromadz]

wow....Cliff should be a journalist with that type of stuff.

 

[Cliff]

Yeah, Longwell was 48 for 48, on EXTRA POINTS!

Field Goals he was 24-28.

In 2006 Dave Raynor was 31/32 on extra points and 26/35 on field goals.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Yeah, Longwell was 48 for 48, on EXTRA POINTS!

Field Goals he was 24-28.

In 2006 Dave Raynor was 31/32 on extra points and 26/35 on field goals.

Rayner. Seriously, this is getting embarrassing.

The 2004 Packers was the last team that Mike Sherman had total control of in Green Bay. If you look at the 2004 Packers they were definately better than the 2006 Packers.

No kidding. Ted, 2 years one of which with a HC in an uncomfortable position. Sherman had the luxury of working directly with Ron Wolf while also having four years to assemble that team.
How about giving Ted the same amount of time to make it fair, before we try to analyze.

If not, ask yourself this.
Who would you rather take over a team from?
A team built by Ron Wolf an Mike Holmgren(Rhodes didn't do much good in his single year)
or
a team built with a few Ron Wolf guys an the rest Mike Sherman guys?

Holmgren moved on, Wolf retired and Sherman was demoted. Hmm ... tough call there.

 

[tromadz]

put the gloves back on, Zero

 

[Cdnfavrefan]

He can be so smart (or just point out ignorance) it's scary. Don't mess with the Zenmaster. LOL

 

[porky88]

What's this proving? That a 10-6 division championship is better than an 8-8 team that missed the playoffs. Isn't that kind of like saying the sky is blue.

The team Thompson inherited was a veteran team on decline with a poor cap situation. Thompson had to fix the cap and in result it hurt the team significantly. Thompson has only been here for 2 off seasons so to expect him to fix the cap and then rebuild in one year is asking for to much in my opinion. This will be his 3rd off season. I think most are assuming that this is the make or break year for Ted Thompson. That the 2007 Green Bay Packers will give us a sneak peak of things to come. Of course this is barring any injuries. I would agree with that assumption. However in my opinion Ted Thompson is the best GM we’ve had since Ron Wolf and I think this team is heading in the right direction.

 

[Zero2Cool]

1999

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

2004

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[all about da packers]

Porky said it best.

BTW - if you are going to be content with the Packers loosing to a division rival AT HOME (like it happened in 2004), then hats off to you.

However, I would much rather have a team that is going to have a real shot to get deep into the playoffs, instead of being embarrassed at home.

Now you may reply that the injuries hurt the Packers, and that is why they lost. I agree with you. However, do correct me if I am wrong here, shouldn't the depth of a roster help to overcome injuries? Since the Packers failed, doesn't it mean the depth was inadequate.

If I remember correctly, was Mike Sherman not in charge of finding players to fill out the roster and provide adequate depth?

 

[longtimefan]

What's this proving? That a 10-6 division championship is better than an 8-8 team that missed the playoffs. Isn't that kind of like saying the sky is blue.

The team Thompson inherited was a veteran team on decline with a poor cap situation. Thompson had to fix the cap and in result it hurt the team significantly. Thompson has only been here for 2 off seasons so to expect him to fix the cap and then rebuild in one year is asking for to much in my opinion. This will be his 3rd off season. I think most are assuming that this is the make or break year for Ted Thompson. That the 2007 Green Bay Packers will give us a sneak peak of things to come. Of course this is barring any injuries. I would agree with that assumption. However in my opinion Ted Thompson is the best GM we’ve had since Ron Wolf and I think this team is heading in the right direction.

Where have I heard this b4??

:rubeyes: :shrug:

 

[DakotaT]

The 2004 Packers was the last team that Mike Sherman had total control of in Green Bay. If you look at the 2004 Packers they were definately better than the 2006 Packers.

For starters the 2004 Packers were 3-3 vs playoff teams and were a respectable 4-4 @ Lambeau.

Brett Favre had over 4,000yds passing with 30tds and only 17ints.

Ahman Green rushed for over 1,100yds with Najah Davenport and Tony Fisher backing up with over 500yds combined.

Javon Walker had 89 catches and Donald Driver 84 catches.

Ryan Longwell was a perfect 48 for 48.

KGB had 13.5 sacks.

No one is saying Rome was built in 1 day but to this point Ted Thompson hasn't built a better team than he has inherited.

Cliff, do you care to post some defensive stats other than KGB's sacks. I remember that season well. Everytime our defense stepped on the field, I cringed because I knew the opponent would be able to score from anywhere on the field. All we were was an imitation of the San Diego Chargers under Don Coryell. And I'm sorry, but that does not equate to good football or championships.

 

[tromadz]

no, Cliff enjoys to manipulate stats and how he uses them

 

[Zero2Cool]

no, Cliff enjoys to manipulate stats and how he uses them

Manipulating stats only works on those who are too lazy to do the research on their own. Unfortunately for him, PF.com has users who are not afraid to do some research.

 

[porky88]

What's this proving? That a 10-6 division championship is better than an 8-8 team that missed the playoffs. Isn't that kind of like saying the sky is blue.

The team Thompson inherited was a veteran team on decline with a poor cap situation. Thompson had to fix the cap and in result it hurt the team significantly. Thompson has only been here for 2 off seasons so to expect him to fix the cap and then rebuild in one year is asking for to much in my opinion. This will be his 3rd off season. I think most are assuming that this is the make or break year for Ted Thompson. That the 2007 Green Bay Packers will give us a sneak peak of things to come. Of course this is barring any injuries. I would agree with that assumption. However in my opinion Ted Thompson is the best GM we’ve had since Ron Wolf and I think this team is heading in the right direction.

Where have I heard this b4??

:rubeyes: :shrug:

I've said it about 20 times now. Since we have so many topics about it, I am thinking just copying and pasting from now on. :kickcan:

 

[longtimefan]

The 2004 Packers was the last team that Mike Sherman had total control of in Green Bay. If you look at the 2004 Packers they were definately better than the 2006 Packers.

For starters the 2004 Packers were 3-3 vs playoff teams and were a respectable 4-4 @ Lambeau.

Brett Favre had over 4,000yds passing with 30tds and only 17ints.

Ahman Green rushed for over 1,100yds with Najah Davenport and Tony Fisher backing up with over 500yds combined.

Javon Walker had 89 catches and Donald Driver 84 catches.

Ryan Longwell was a perfect 48 for 48.

KGB had 13.5 sacks.

No one is saying Rome was built in 1 day but to this point Ted Thompson hasn't built a better team than he has inherited.

3-3 vs playoff teams..2 of those wins came vs the vikings, but when it really counted AND AT HOME they got their a@@es handed to them..

Green was on the team in 2005, 2006, not Teds fault he got hurt in 2005 now is it??

Brett and KGB was here as well...

However someone on the D had more sacks than KGB in 2006..

2004 points given up 380
2006 points given up 366

15 t/o in 2004
33 in 2006

 

[longtimefan]

What's this proving? That a 10-6 division championship is better than an 8-8 team that missed the playoffs. Isn't that kind of like saying the sky is blue.

The team Thompson inherited was a veteran team on decline with a poor cap situation. Thompson had to fix the cap and in result it hurt the team significantly. Thompson has only been here for 2 off seasons so to expect him to fix the cap and then rebuild in one year is asking for to much in my opinion. This will be his 3rd off season. I think most are assuming that this is the make or break year for Ted Thompson. That the 2007 Green Bay Packers will give us a sneak peak of things to come. Of course this is barring any injuries. I would agree with that assumption. However in my opinion Ted Thompson is the best GM we’ve had since Ron Wolf and I think this team is heading in the right direction.

Where have I heard this b4??

:rubeyes: :shrug:

I've said it about 20 times now. Since we have so many topics about it, I am thinking just copying and pasting from now on. :kickcan:

I know, I think I have mine saved in microsoft word

LOL

 

[Zero2Cool]

For starters the 2004 Packers were 3-3 vs playoff teams and were a respectable 4-4 @ Lambeau.

3 - 3 vs playoff teams? I thought maybe you were counting the loss against the Vikings, but if you are, then the Packers were 4 - 5 at home with that train of thought.

Which damn game am I missing???



Our Schedule.
1 - September 13, 2004 Carolina Panthers W 24-14 Bank of America Stadium
2 - September 19, 2004 Chicago Bears L 10-21 Lambeau Field
3 + September 26, 2004 Indianapolis Colts L 31-45 RCA Dome
4 - October 3, 2004 New York Giants L 7-14 Lambeau Field
5 - October 11, 2004 Tennessee Titans L 27-48 Lambeau Field
6 - October 17, 2004 Detroit Lions W 38-10 Ford Field
7 - October 24, 2004 Dallas Cowboys W 41-20 Lambeau Field
8 - October 31, 2004 Washington Redskins W 28-14 FedEx Field
10 + November 14, 2004 Minnesota Vikings W 34-31 Lambeau Field
11 - November 21, 2004 Houston Texans W 16-13 Reliant Stadium
12 + November 29, 2004 St. Louis Rams W 45-17 Lambeau Field
13 + December 5 , 2004 Philadelphia Eagles L 17-47 Lincoln Financial Field
14 - December 12, 2004 Detroit Lions W 16-13 Lambeau Field
15 - December 19, 2004 Jacksonville Jaguars L 25-28 Lambeau Field
16 + December 24, 2004 Minnesota Vikings W 34-31 Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome
17 - January 2, 2005 Chicago Bears W 31-14 Soldier Field

Playoff Game
WC January 9, 2005 Minnesota Vikings L 17-31 Lambeau Field


Teams in the Playoffs in 2004
*yz-Pittsburgh
yz-New England
x-N.Y. Jets
y-Indianapolis
y-San Diego1
x-Denver

*yz-Philadelphia
y-Green Bay
x-Minnesota
yz-Atlanta
y-Seattle
x-St. Louis





Where the heck am I ******** up?? bah, im tired, im giong to bed, ill figure this out in the morning