pyledriver80
Cheesehead
- Joined
- May 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,391
- Reaction score
- 0
pyledriver80 said:porky88 said:Lare said:You have a valid point aadp, but I think in order to use the progression theory we also have to take into account the fact that the team went from 10-6 to 4-12 under TT's first year of control. Sure, there's many factors that went into that but we can't just ignore it either.
I did not look this one up myself. Someone else posted the records of the teams the Pack beat in 2004 and not one had a winning records. So the decline begun at least a year prior to Ted Thompson arriving and perhaps that is a reason why Mike Sherman was dismissed from General Manager and Ted Thompson was brought in.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb2004.htm
This plus the lost to the 8-8 Vikings, 2004 was very deceiving by just looking at the standings.
This makes no sense. They were declining in talent because they beat bad teams like they should of?
So fast forward to 05 when we went 4-12. If the 2004 team was declining in talent what the hell happened in 2005?
How about they couldn't beat the teams that had talent. Like Philadelphia, Jacksonville, and Indianapolis. The Eagles crushed them that year and that was the NFC representative in the Super Bowl. How about they were embarrassed in the playoffs against the 8-8 Minnesota Vikings. To me that was the start of the “end” and it carried over in 2005. Haven’t you used that exact same argument to criticize the current Green Bay Packers who went 8-8 and beat one team with a winning record. You can’t bash the Packers for not beating a team with a winning record this year and then praise them in 2004 for doing the exact same thing.
Amazing. I love it when you make points for me. So 10-6 they were declining because they couldn't beat teams with winning records yet they are improving now that they go 8-8 and can't beat teams with winning records? Uhhhhhhhh, WTF?