Packnic
Cheesehead
why do you post on an internet site about a team you hate?
Packnic said:why do you post on an internet site about a team you hate?
pyledriver80 said:Bobby Roberts said:pyledriver80 said:Last year we should have lost to Detroit and the Seahawks were resting there starters.
This makes TT 2-14 last year and 0-2 this year.
And the Packers should have beat the Browns, Bucs, Panthers, Vikings (twice), and Eagles. You could even argue that they should have beat the Lions week 1 and the Bears on Christmas. So with your logic, GB was actually 10-6 or 12-4 last season.
Should have lost the game but won is as much BS as should have won the game but lost. Should have is meaningless and the result is what counts. So it's almost as pathetic, but the Packers were 4-12 last year not 2-14.
TT's record thusfar is 4-14. This is pathetic enough, so why try to argue that it's actually worse?
I agree Bobby, but this is the same logic they use when judging Sherman. They state Sherman got his wins against "gravy teams" and his record was better than the team actually was. That logic can be used for any team to ever play in the NFL. Hence the "ridiculous" 2-14 notion.
Buckeyepackfan said:tromadz said:pyledriver80 said:tromadz said:if thinking the 2005 saints are the same are the 2006 saints is a FACT....then you are not living in reality, and I would then understand why people say such stupid things on this site.
Trom.....YOU GOT IT!
It's fair to say the Saints are IMPROVED! If they are Improved and we destroyed them last year than we are either:
A. The Same
B. Worse than our 2-14 campaign
The saints are better. They won. We are also starting a lot more younger players this year, with a rookie coach...
but dont take too many things into consideration, it might hurt your point that you're not a packers fan, i mean that the packers suck.
Trom,
Last year it was YOU who *****ed abour every move that was made and said there were no excuses for losing, now some on this forum are questioning the same about TT and "we are not Packer fans".
Your football allegence and ignorance shows up daily, keep it coming.
porky88 said:Mike McCarthy will be no Mike Holmgrem.
I find myself longing for the Holmgrme/Wolf years.
Zero2Cool said:pyledriver80 said:tromadz said:if thinking the 2005 saints are the same are the 2006 saints is a FACT....then you are not living in reality, and I would then understand why people say such stupid things on this site.
Trom.....YOU GOT IT!
It's fair to say the Saints are IMPROVED! If they are Improved and we destroyed them last year than we are either:
A. The Same
B. Worse than our 2-14 campaign
2 - 14?? I thought we went 4 - 12 cuz ya know that sounds SOOO much better.
Cham, why didn't you mention the Packers shopped for LaVar Arrington or any of the others the Packers went for and they chose to go elsewhere?
Slip your mind?
Cory said:porky88 said:Mike McCarthy will be no Mike Holmgrem.
I find myself longing for the Holmgrme/Wolf years.
Well Holmgren lost to Tampa Bay in his second game 31-3 and was on his way to losing his third until Majik got hurt.
Zero2Cool said:pyledriver80 said:tromadz said:if thinking the 2005 saints are the same are the 2006 saints is a FACT....then you are not living in reality, and I would then understand why people say such stupid things on this site.
Trom.....YOU GOT IT!
It's fair to say the Saints are IMPROVED! If they are Improved and we destroyed them last year than we are either:
A. The Same
B. Worse than our 2-14 campaign
2 - 14?? I thought we went 4 - 12 cuz ya know that sounds SOOO much better.
Cham, why didn't you mention the Packers shopped for LaVar Arrington or any of the others the Packers went for and they chose to go elsewhere?
Slip your mind?
majikman said:Zero2Cool said:pyledriver80 said:tromadz said:if thinking the 2005 saints are the same are the 2006 saints is a FACT....then you are not living in reality, and I would then understand why people say such stupid things on this site.
Trom.....YOU GOT IT!
It's fair to say the Saints are IMPROVED! If they are Improved and we destroyed them last year than we are either:
A. The Same
B. Worse than our 2-14 campaign
2 - 14?? I thought we went 4 - 12 cuz ya know that sounds SOOO much better.
Cham, why didn't you mention the Packers shopped for LaVar Arrington or any of the others the Packers went for and they chose to go elsewhere?
Slip your mind?
What I want to know is why didn't TT try to sign more offensive FA's?
I think the guy is too enamored with Defense, and he neglected the offense, imo.
porky88 said:Cory said:porky88 said:Mike McCarthy will be no Mike Holmgrem.
I find myself longing for the Holmgrme/Wolf years.
Well Holmgren lost to Tampa Bay in his second game 31-3 and was on his way to losing his third until Majik got hurt.
True but McCarthy is just not in the same league as Holmgrem was. Holmgrem was the offensive coordinator for the 49ers. He was on winning teams. He was on Big time coaching staffs. McCarthy is a unknown guy who really might be in over his head. Whether he is remains to be seen. Expecting McCarthy to be Mike Holmgrem though isn't fair to Mike McCarthy.
Packnic said:exactly coaching takes time its not usually a one game and your in.
people that call for coaching heads after 2 games = stupid
calicheesehead said:If anything I think MM is getting f'd by TT. MM said I want zone blocking and to run. TT said great, I'll give you 2 rookie guards, two old school tackles, and I'll get rid of all our RB's and a FB. Best of luck Mike.
pyledriver80 said:Packnic said:gravy teams or not.... if you look at the sherms playoff record. there are no qualifiers needed. he didnt win in the playoffs, ya know....when it counts.
At least he was in the playoffs. You must be real awful to make the playoffs every year.......so this makes MM how bad???
smlutz said:pyledriver80 said:Packnic said:gravy teams or not.... if you look at the sherms playoff record. there are no qualifiers needed. he didnt win in the playoffs, ya know....when it counts.
At least he was in the playoffs. You must be real awful to make the playoffs every year.......so this makes MM how bad???
HE HAS COACHED FOR TWO GAMES, IN WHICH WE DRASTICALLY IMPROVED FROM ONE WEEK TO THE NEXT! SHUT UP ALREADY!
Cory said:porky88 said:Mike McCarthy will be no Mike Holmgrem.
I find myself longing for the Holmgrme/Wolf years.
Well Holmgren lost to Tampa Bay in his second game 31-3 and was on his way to losing his third until Majik got hurt.
DePack said:smlutz said:pyledriver80 said:Packnic said:gravy teams or not.... if you look at the sherms playoff record. there are no qualifiers needed. he didnt win in the playoffs, ya know....when it counts.
At least he was in the playoffs. You must be real awful to make the playoffs every year.......so this makes MM how bad???
HE HAS COACHED FOR TWO GAMES, IN WHICH WE DRASTICALLY IMPROVED FROM ONE WEEK TO THE NEXT! SHUT UP ALREADY!
First of all I have nothing against MM so far but DRASTICALLY IMPROVED? How about our competition DRASTICALLY GOT WORSE. If you think our defense improved one bit then you're nuts.
WE LOST TO THE F***ING SAINTS AT LAMBEAU. LAST YEARS SCORE:
GREEN BAY 52
NEW ORLEANS 3
smlutz said:pyledriver80 said:Packnic said:gravy teams or not.... if you look at the sherms playoff record. there are no qualifiers needed. he didnt win in the playoffs, ya know....when it counts.
At least he was in the playoffs. You must be real awful to make the playoffs every year.......so this makes MM how bad???
HE HAS COACHED FOR TWO GAMES, IN WHICH WE DRASTICALLY IMPROVED FROM ONE WEEK TO THE NEXT! SHUT UP ALREADY!
tromadz said:I agree. IF there was no improvement at all, I would be scared\worried\upset that MM is a bust.
But there WAS improvement, on several levels(except pass D)