pack_in_black
Cheesehead
Well, I think it's a little wierd and kind of unkind that we have a thread initiated in the name of calling out a single poster on this site, who, though offering different views than the norm, is still obviously an avid Packerfan.
I just thought that mmayyyybe we could move the admittedly good discussion of whether or not the Packers 06 record was valid into a different thread.
Maybe, maybe not, but give it a shot folks.
Alright, so here's the ish:
These games are debatable: Rams, Saints, Eagles, Queens pt II and Bears pt II.
My take:
Rams-should've won it.
Saints-should've won it.
Eagles- could've won it, but wouldn't have last year. This year's team closes that game out.
Queens- Division II, 4, or -98, it doesn't matter. Jackson's thier starter, and our D gets to eat him alive twice a year.
Bears- fine, I'll concede a loss.
That puts the Packers 06 record at 9-7, thus making the playoffs.
I just thought that mmayyyybe we could move the admittedly good discussion of whether or not the Packers 06 record was valid into a different thread.
Maybe, maybe not, but give it a shot folks.
Alright, so here's the ish:
These games are debatable: Rams, Saints, Eagles, Queens pt II and Bears pt II.
My take:
Rams-should've won it.
Saints-should've won it.
Eagles- could've won it, but wouldn't have last year. This year's team closes that game out.
Queens- Division II, 4, or -98, it doesn't matter. Jackson's thier starter, and our D gets to eat him alive twice a year.
Bears- fine, I'll concede a loss.
That puts the Packers 06 record at 9-7, thus making the playoffs.