1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Last season- myth or reality?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by pack_in_black, May 10, 2007.

  1. pack_in_black

    pack_in_black Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,876
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  2. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    A chance to rip my team some more...Hot Dog! I'm in!

    My take..

    Rams--- undetermined. That's a game that I think should've gone to overtime. Who knows what would've happened in the OT?

    Saints---Should've lost it worse than we did. Saints gaves us a gift of 14 points with silly turnovers and they turned around and outscored by 27 the rest of the game winning by 13.

    Eagles--- Even the BEST Packer team couldn't get it done in Philly. Anyone remember Longwell's miss?

    Vikes--- I hate them so it's hard to be objective. We're lucky to have won but we did. Vikes had 3 first downs for the game because that rook struggled so much. Favre pick could've been the difference.

    Bears---would've lost had the Bears needed the game.

    The record would've been 7-8 with the St. Louis game too close to call.

    I would've added the Bills game to this list. I feel we probably should've won that one. Bad break on an int returned for a TD the difference.
     
  3. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    17,826
    Ratings:
    +3,477
    I dont agree with the Philly game..Rams, and Saints I agree with.

    for me 8-8 is the record I feel they deserved.
     
  4. pack_in_black

    pack_in_black Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,876
    Ratings:
    +0
    Looking at the sched, I think we'll take the Philly game this year, albeit it is in Lambeau, not Philly.

    I think everyone can agree on the Bills game under these parameters, so I left it out.

    Add the Bills game, and you get 10-6.
     
  5. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    I agree with Oannes's assessment. I've heard so many fans say the Packers should've won that Saints game, but after a couple TD's off some early turnovers they were outplayed thoroughly. The Bills game was the one the Packers lost that they should've won.

    I think 8-8 was better than the Packers really were because of those last three wins. That one in San Francisco was solid, I thought, because the Niners were playing pretty well at the time. But to barely beat the Lions and Vikings at home was not impressive at all, because both those teams had pretty much folded up their tents at that time. And of course the Bears had everything clinched by the time they played that last game.
     
  6. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    "It's not how you play the game, it's if you win or lose."

    -Ozzy Osbourne

    We had an 8-8 record. I don't believe in could have been, should have been.

    As for da Bears, they could have brought their A-game and we still would have smoked them. We were hungry. They weren't. The Super Bowl was further proof of da Bears not being hungry.

    So...
    we started off horribly, we were bad in the middle, and in the end, we finished strong. A bad way to start, a good way to end. Hopefully this season we'll have a winning record.
     
  7. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
  8. gopackgo

    gopackgo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    730
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm pretty sure last season was real, although the Bears winning the NFC seemed like a myth to me, and I think in 8 games we scored more points than the other team. I also am fairly sure we scored less in 8 games. So...8-8.
     
  9. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    The INT wasn't returned for a TD. I think it got them within the 20 yard line? They basically walked it in like a hot knife through butter which makes it seem like it was returned for a TD, lol.



    It wasn't luck that beat the Vikings, it was a good win by the Packers.
    http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/live/NFL_20061221_MIN@GB

    They couldn't run, they couldn't get more than 7 points off Brett's two INT's (one i think was ran back). Rayner missed two FG's all Longwell had to do was make one to win the game for them. 3 first downs vs 19 first downs. thats ball control. Packers had the ball nearly 10 mins more than the vikings.


    I'm iffy on the Bears game. I know better to say they would've won if they 'needed' the game. They wanted it, but after the first half *** whooping it wasn't worth their time. I also think Bears would have came back an made it much closer if not beat us, but I donno. I think that game was just meant to be won by the Packers. Brett always does good against the Bears on their turf.
     
  10. retiredgrampa

    retiredgrampa Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    804
    Ratings:
    +0
    What's more important is the way the vets on this team view the last 4 games. If they truly believe that they were improving as a team, they will build on it this year because the believe they can. If they perceive themselves as lucky, or that the stars were aligned just right, they'll start out sputtering again this year. As usual, the first 4 games will say a lot about this team and how far they can go.
     
  11. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    The team was playing better and more cohesive towards the end of the season. They earned the wins, period. EVERY season you could say there are games they should have won or lost, but it IS what it IS.
    It was 8-8.
    If you try to explain away wins and losses, just look at the previous 4-12 season. They lost to the Browns 24-26, Tampa 16-17, Carolina 29-32, Minnesota 20-23, and 17-20, and Philadelphia 14-19.
    Thats 6 games by a grand total of 17 points! You could argue that they SHOULD have had one bounce each game go their way, and they COULD have been 10-6 instead of 4-12.
    But they also beat the Lions by 3, and the Seahawks by 6, when Seattle had "nothing" to play for.
    What if's arn't real. Whats real is the record at the end of the season.
     
  12. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Isn't it funny how the games we won are discredited, but the games we almost or should have won get ignored?
     
  13. Arles

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think this was a 7-9 or 8-8 team based on the team's ability. I don't really see a reason to "bump" them to 9-7 or 10-6.
     
  14. Bertram

    Bertram Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    532
    Ratings:
    +1
    We were 8 - 8. Nothing more nothing less, that is what the team managed and that is what happened.
     
  15. yooperfan

    yooperfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,900
    Ratings:
    +0
    It goes in the record books as 8-8, we drafted based on 8-8 so regardless of how we won or who we beat, we were 8-8.
    Alot of people don't think we can match or improve on that record due to a harder schedule this year. I think that's why the games are played, what it looks like on paper and how it shakes out on the field alot of times have different results.
     
  16. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    Very true... But... examine the schedule. It isn't even a matter of it being harder. It's a matter of playing a lot of teams the Packers have not done well against even when the Packers were really good.
     
  17. Bertram

    Bertram Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    532
    Ratings:
    +1
    the past doesn't matter for our chances to win against these teams.
     
  18. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    You use the 'have not done well against even when the packers were really good' theory HERE for boasting how 'bad' of a record they will have but when talking about the Packers/Bears it's not found at all pertaining to the victory.
     
  19. Green_Bay_Packers

    Green_Bay_Packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,640
    Ratings:
    +113
    hahahaha he is right
     
  20. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    I know....i was TRYING to make that point by showing the previous year. Guess my post wasn't clear or something. I think i had summed it up pretty well.
     
  21. BangTheDrum

    BangTheDrum Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    591
    Ratings:
    +0
    With all due respect, and remember I'm sayin with all due respect (haha) This is kind of a dumb question/statement... of course its a reality, every team should've won a few or should'nt have lost some but in REALITY the games happened and the outcomes were really recorded :rotflmao:
     
  22. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0

    I agree unless we are talking about Mike Sherman's teams. Then there is more to it.

    We were 8-8, period

    Who cares if its myth or reality, its utterly average either way
     
  23. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    770
    Ratings:
    +0
    Play the coulda woulda shoulda game all you like, but doing so we coulda/shoulda been 12-4 in 2005 in that we shoulda pulled out those close games. The fact is the team wasn't good enough to win those close games and we finished 4-12. Because the Pack were unable to win those games, whether they had a chance or not, they had a losing season.

    It's nice to have blow-out wins, but if your team can't win the close ones, then you aren't getting it done when it counts. The Pack earned their 8-8 record, the good and bad. Every week is a struggle, no matter if you're playing the Lions at home or the Pats on the road. It's all about getting the W. An ugly win means just as much as a pretty one.

    This year is a good one to get some ugly wins and earn a playoff spot!

    GO PACK GO!!!
     

Share This Page