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!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Packers Managment

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Zero2Cool, May 9, 2007.

  1. vikesrule

    vikesrule Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,933
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: Packers & Oannes

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: Packers & Oannes


    I understand how important timing is... I get that. For me to say the Pack was lucky to be 8-8 is completely true. Why? Had we not been playing a team in safe mode the last week of the season we were nearly certain to lose that game making us 7-9. That is all I'm saying. I understand the point on Seattle getting Hasselbeck back right in time for us. That isn't the same thing. Chicago's mentality was completely different the last week of the season than at any other time during the year. That's all I'm saying.

    7-9 or 8-8 it's hardly worth arguing about. Both those records left us out of the playoffs and our season ended that final night.

    Congrats to CHEESEY on his award.
     
  3. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Re: Packers & Oannes

    LOLOL!!! Thanks! Mister "R-tick-you-lit".......yup, that be ME!!!
    (Thanks Vikes!!!) :rotflmao: :thumbsup:
     
  4. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: Packers & Oannes

    You'll never convince me the bears didn't try to win. They wen't for a fake punt on their side of the field. They were throwing deep well into the third quarter. They eventually gave up and sat their starters, but not until very late in the game. Just because Rex was bad doesn't mean the Bears didn't try and win that game. Otherwise why were guys like Urlacher and Briggs playing THAT LATE into the game?

    This happens to every team every single year. I mean literally every single team. We also beat Miami in Miami. That same Miami team behind Joey Harrington that beat the bears pretty bad in in Chicago. I don't understand what the prior weeks have to do with THAT sunday.

    Can you just imagine how angry Bears fans would have been if Urlacher, Briggs, Andersen, Brown, Tillman, Jones, Benson, Muhammed had gotten hurt in a game with no incentive to win? I mean they had lost their starters Tommie harris and Mike Brown for the season so why are they throwing caution to the win in such a "meaningless" game?
     
  5. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: Packers & Oannes

    Hey Cory...

    Here's what those 2 previous games had to do with Chicago. The victory over Chicago is being used as an exlcamation point, a validation, if you will, about how much we improved toward the end of the season.

    My point is that we didn't all of a sudden go from a team that barely beat two horrible teams on our home field to one that could trounce a Bears team that was actually trying.

    I know we beat them. I enjoyed the game a whole bunch. My son enjoys it when I don't try my best at something and he wins.

    I do understand your point and agree that week to week things vary incredibly in the NFL. You, and most if not all of the others, see more in a regular season win in Chicago than I ever will. We both have our rights to see it however we choose and can try and convince each other of our viewpoints but there's been no give from either side.

    Here's what I think about the boasting over that victory by our fans. It's kind of like when there's that undefeated BCS team in college that has played NOBODY all year long. The fans of that school truly believe they belong on the field with teams like Florida and Ohio State. The reality is they would get crushed by the superior competition. It's an unfounded presumption based on real events. Green Bay won...yes...but there was much more to it than meets the eye. Just like a 12-0 season by a team like a Utah who plays nobody in their conference all year thinks that entitles them to play with the big boys. It doesn't.
     
  6. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Re: Packers & Oannes

    And it all comes full circle now. The excuse he uses with his son was the same used by Lovie Smith so he sides with that.

    Now it all makes sense. :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader:
     
  7. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: Packers & Oannes

    I don't know about other people and I agree it is not somehow a "coming out" party for the Packers improvement, nor do I feel like it is a glimpse into how this upcoming season will go. Over the last 4 games in the season I saw major improvement on the D end. I know, I know the Vikes had a rook from division 2 starting for the first time. But holding a team to 104 total yards and 3 first downs is a great performance no matter how ya slice it.

    My whole argument was about the Bears somehow viewing it as a meaningless game and not trying to win. I do believe they tried to win that game. As far as total improvment? I have no idea how to guage that.

    While I agree it is more the exception than the rule itself, Boise State did beat Oklahoma this past bowl season. I understand the comparison, but the talent level in the NFL is much closer than at the college level. If I had to use that comparison I'd say we were like the Tennessee and the Bears were like UF.
     
  8. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,743
    Ratings:
    +2,983
    Re: Packers & Oannes

    That was me that said Lovie wanted to beat the Pack..

    I am not saying the Bears tried their hardest, but I do believe from the get go they wanted nothing more then to beat the snot out of them..

    But after getting down by 2 tds in the 1st q that is probably when more then a few players decided not to give it their all. The way our D was playing, I dont think their offense could have done to much better...Their D might have been able to step it up and do something nutts like that Ariz game, but they prob just didnt try as hard after the half..
     
  9. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: Packers & Oannes


    You know what, you're objectivity is blinding you to the circumstances surrounding that game.

    We had won 3 in a row... it must have built SOME confidence in our youngsters, allowed them to play a little bit more freely, to play better because they weren't so worried about not messing up, etc.


    Also, I'm sure the players knew the last game (against any team) may very well have been Favre's last game. I don't know about you, but judging from the Oakland game on MNF a few years back, I'd think that the players would dig down a little deeper to try and win one for Favre...

    Those two things together certainly would have have given the Packers a shot at winning the game against any team, regardless of if they were trying or not.

    Also, the game I watched against the Bears... I saw a Packers TEAM play relatively MISTAKE free football. Regardless, if you keep down your mistakes (which the Packers did), play some fundamentally sound football (which the Packers did), and have players step up that hadn't before (WRs Martin with 100+ yards receiving/Holiday with 87 yards receiving, DT Pickett with 2 knockdowns + getting double teamed, FS Collins with 7 tackles + 2 INTs, CB Woodson with 1 INT + playing amazing football going into the game, etc.) then you are more likely than not going to win the game.


    You claim to be big on objectivity... well objectively look at all the positives surrounding the Packers as they came into the game. Yes objectively will cause you to look at the negatives, but the "objectivity" you are using is causing you to completely downplay the positives the Packers had going on. You can't do that, not when those positives had resulted in a 3 game winning streak, and almost led us to winning the Bills game.
     
  10. arrowgargantuan

    arrowgargantuan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    3,645
    Ratings:
    +4
    Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

    2/3 of the Bears players were playing at 75% for the first half of the game, while the last 1/3 were only at 1/2 capacity...they were 100% focused for the entire game.

    im not sure if any of you guys are taking these things into account while making your arguments.

    it's like....whew!
     
  11. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: Packers & Oannes

    [/quote]
    You claim to be big on objectivity... well objectively look at all the positives surrounding the Packers as they came into the game. Yes objectively will cause you to look at the negatives, but the "objectivity" you are using is causing you to completely downplay the positives the Packers had going on. You can't do that, not when those positives had resulted in a 3 game winning streak, and almost led us to winning the Bills game.[/quote]

    I think if you read what I've said on this game you'd realize that I've covered nearly every single "positive" from that game.

    I said Green Bay was playing for Favre. I made the comment that..."the motivational arrows were pointing in vastly different directions... Chicago's way down, and ours way up. I know Favre has played very well in Chicago throughout his career. I also said that we really wanted to show that we had come along since getting SHUT OUT at home and really wanted some revenge for that. So, I've pointed out tons of positives for OUR play. That isn't the issue. US isn't the issue...it's THEM.

    I sat up an watched the first half of the Monday Nighter Chicago at Arizona last night. Grossman was putrid and the Bears were totally uninspired playing a team that was jacked out of their minds. Arizona hadn't been on MNF in years. They had a brand new stadium and the place was in a frenzy unlike anything I've ever seen from the ARIZONA Cardinals. What was the result of that 1st half? 20-0 Arizona. Did Arizona win that game...No. The Bears, IMO, were putting a lot more into winning that game that actually helped their cause, and would help keep them undefeated, yet they totally sucked in the first half because they were UNINSPIRED. An even less inspired team took the field against our boys who like you said were really cranked up. That is a recipe for exactly what took place on that field the last week of the season. You're surprised and or encouraged by that?

    It is simple... The game meant the world to us and meant nothing to them. That adds up to 26-7 in my book. As I also have pointed out something that Z2C is trying to discredit by making some statement about Lovie that I can't find anyhwhere. That something is that the Bears did the EXACT same thing the previous year when they had nothing to play for. The Bears had dismantled the Vikes 28-3 earlier in the year, only to lose to them 34-10 the last week of the season when they had nothing to play for because they'd already clinched a first round bye and couldn't get the #1 seed by winning. That would be precedent in my book for exactly what I've said about the Packers game.

    Besides, you know how badly the Pack wants to beat Minnesota. If you'd like I'll go out and find that article that said when asked who Packer players considered their biggest rivalry most of them said THE VIKINGS not THE BEARS.

    Remember, at the time we played Minnesota the Bears game hadn't been announced as the flex scheduling game meaning our boys had no way of knowing it would be on national TV. So, the Viking game was Brett Favre's potential LAST GAME ON NATIONAL TV. We win that game, BARELY, by a count of 9-7. and YES it sure in the heck matters that a rookie D2 QB was under center. To read anything from our defensive performance against a guy like that is nothing short of ridiculous IMO.
     
  12. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Re: Packers & Oannes

    Good thing players don't get jacked up for playing in front of a national audience, if so the Cardinals may have won.
    :kickcan:
     
  13. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,743
    Ratings:
    +2,983
    Re: Packers & Oannes

    but if they guy would have an okay day or a solid day, people would be all over the pack D for allowing it to happen..

    So only counts when it supports someones stance..

    The Pack D did what was EXPECTED to do agaisnt a q/b like that..

    Someone keeps forgetting how many dropped balls Franks had in that game as well.
     
  14. vikesrule

    vikesrule Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    1,933
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: Packers & Oannes

    And we still lost :rubeyes:

    Week 16 -

    "Franks had one of the worst games played by an NFL player in quite some time. The lowlights: he dropped successive passes early on, he fumbled a ball out of bounds, he fumbled at the goal line to cost his team a touchdown (and almost the game), and was called for a holding penalty on what would have been a first down screen pass to Ahman Green that would’ve set up first and goal at the four. Instead, the Franks hold backed the team up to the 27 yard line, and Dave Rayner’s 44 yard field goal bailed out Franks. "
     
  15. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
  16. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

    So wait, the players being pumped up for Brett wouldn't have translated to another game?

    The 3 game winning streak wouldn't have counted if we faced another team instead of the Bears?

    The great performance of our D coming into the game wouldn't have mattered if we faced another team?

    It would have. All those factors give the Packers a shot at winning. It sure as hell doesn't guarantee them a win, but it certainly doesn't mean that because of the reasons above, the Packers would be (as you said) "nearly certain to loose" against any other team.

    I take issue with that.
     
  17. Bruce

    Bruce Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: Packers & Oannes

    While I generally agree with your larger point, relying upon "others in the industry's" spin is NOT significantly different than listening to informed fans.

    How many saw St Louis coming in 2000 esp after there QB went down?

    How man saw Baltimore coming in 2001?

    Virtually NO one saw New England turning a losing franchise into the dominate team of the 2000's in 2002.

    Ditto on the wild card Pittsburgh Steelers...

    Who saw NO rising from worst to first???

    Please don't misunderstand, I am not predicting a Super Bowl for Green Bay. But for God's Sake there is a reason the games are won and lost on the field, verses awarded by the paper hype of the offseason
     
  18. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

    Yes, that is why we play the game! :)
     
  19. Obi1

    Obi1 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,110
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: Packers & Oannes

    FINALLY a voice of reason! Way to go BRUCE... Not bad for a rookie...LOL
     
  20. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    Re: Packers & Oannes

    Excellent post overall, but here is the point I think is lost on both sides of the current Packer Divide... that there are knowledgeable fans on both sides.

    It comes down to your basic belief in strategy and patience. That is where most people differ on the current dealings of the Packers.

    Point all you want to facts, trends, should've or would've type stances... one thing is for certain... it is history and not future.

    Neither stance is less credible nor less knowledgeable.
     
  21. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: Oannes' = Mike Sherman??


    ====I'm really perplexed by what you're taking issue with? I never said the Packers would have trouble beating any one that final week. I think they very well could've beaten most teams the final weekend. I'd exclude the good teams like NE, INDY and any team with nothing to play for. All I said is Chicago laid down that game. If we had played them week 13 as opposed to 16 we wouldn't have done what we did to them. I say week 13 because this is considered the start of our great turnaround and 4 game win streak.

    ====Oh.... and a response to someone who doesn't quite seem to get things and is one of the least informed here... National TV is a motivator for a team who hasn't been on MNF for many, many years. Green Bay is usually on it 3 times a year. Old hat for us. Plus, check our recent record on National TV...not good. And to further the point... Sunday Night football ain't quite the same as being the ONLY game on that day like MNF. Continue to cling to what that game meant. As I said, my kid probably thinks he's destined for greatness one day because pops let's him win once in awhile.

    And to Cory... The Boise State vs. Oklahoma isn't exactly what I was referencing. I feared someone would bring that game up. Oklahoma isn't the type of team I was referring to. Oklahoma, although in a BCS game, wasn't a national championship type team. Have Boise State play Florida. ...then it would make sense. I'd love to see that happen. I love Boise State. I love Boise and the entire state of Idaho. I would be rooting for them but Florida would've destroyed them. Unless, it was meaningless for Florida to beat them. :)
     
  22. MassPackersFan

    MassPackersFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    803
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: Packers & Oannes

    So why all of the "Fire TT!" "Kill TT!" "TT is an *******!" talk around here?
     
  23. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Re: Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

    Who's clinging? You're putting words in my mouth. I'm jus giving the other side of the spectrum that you are failing to mention.

    Your son kicking your *** has absolutely nothing to do with the NFL, none. Maybe you should understand it meant more to win for him than it did you and thats why he kicked your ***. Lots of times the winner is who wanted it more and who it meant more for.
     
  24. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

    The last line is the best line I've ever read from you.

    It is often who wants it more. It was as if there was a juicy steak on the line just sitting there during that last week of the season. The Bears came to the game after going through the best buffet in Chicago and stuffed themselves. The Packers came in on a 3 day fast. Who wants the steak more?

    Chicago had no hunger that game. Take out the fact they had nothing to play for. They toyed with us Week 1. How inspired would they have been anyway? Even if they hadn't clinched, I'm sure they would've played down to their competition because how fired up can you be to play a team you shutout? I'm sure we very well might have jumped out on them early, regardless of my argument they had nothing to play for, but they would've found something like they did in Arizona and beaten us.

    If you've ever played sports, you'd realize, or admit, that playing a team you know is inferior to you doesn't make you bring your A game. The reverse is also true. So... We bring our A game because we're the inferior opponent and Chicago brings their Z game because they know we suck and they shut us the F out...throw a little "we got nothing to play for" into the mix and you get what happened on that Sunday night.
     
  25. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,743
    Ratings:
    +2,983
    Re: Oannes' = Mike Sherman??

    We can debate this for the rest of our lives, but no one will ever truly know
     

Share This Page