Why not 10 wins

[pyledriver80]

LOLOLOLOL.....Actually I agreed that MS should be accountable. You never held TT accountable, surprisingly.


So if it was a shared effort why is TT still here and MS gone?

Because TT is the boss. Sherman got a great serverance check and now has the job he his qualified for. What's the problem?

Thank you, you now admitted TT used Sherman as a scapegoat. Congratulations.

 

[cheesey]

Pyle said:"9-7 in 2000, 12-4 in 2001 and '02, 10-6 in 2003 and '04. It seems pretty balanced to me. It seems the true regression started when TT took over."

The team was on a decline. That had nothing to do with Thompson. If you look at last year, they were close in all but a few of the games. Sherman had 6 years to get the Packers deep into the playoffs, and failed. He coached the only 2 playoff losses at Lambeau field EVER. That wasn't TT's fault.
TT to me at least deserves time to prove himself or prove as you seem to think that he's a bumbling idiot.
I'm really trying to understand WHY you hate the guy so much, when he really hasn't had much of a chance to show what he can, or can't do.
I'm just willing to give the guy a chance before saying OFF WITH HIS HEAD! If he proves to be a failure, then fine, then i say fire him. But he really has not had a chance yet. The Packer's hired him, so they must have some faith in him. I'm just trying to see what he does. If he does fail, like i said, i will THEN say get rid of him. I don't love or hate him. I don't have enough factual info to make a decision yet is all.
Maybe he will prove you right. I hope not, cause that will mean the Pack will stink for many years.

 

[tromadz]

Pyle said:"9-7 in 2000, 12-4 in 2001 and '02, 10-6 in 2003 and '04. It seems pretty balanced to me. It seems the true regression started when TT took over."

The team was on a decline. That had nothing to do with Thompson. If you look at last year, they were close in all but a few of the games. Sherman had 6 years to get the Packers deep into the playoffs, and failed. He coached the only 2 playoff losses at Lambeau field EVER. That wasn't TT's fault.

:agree:

 

[DakotaT]

Pyle said"9-7 in 2000, 12-4 in 2001 and '02, 10-6 in 2003 and '04. It seems pretty balanced to me. It seems the true regression started when TT took over."

The team was on a decline. That had nothing to do with Thompson. If you look at last year, they were close in all but a few of the games. Sherman had 6 years to get the Packers deep into the playoffs, and failed. He coached the only 2 playoff losses at Lambeau field EVER. That wasn't TT's fault.

agree

Pyle's blood pressure just went up, Tromadz is in the house!

Pyle I didn't use the word scapegoat, but you did. Now in your mind I said he was a scapegoat and we can register it as a fact right?

 

[digsthepack]

I already answered the question, we have more talent and depth, but some of it is still a little raw.

To emphasize my point, I offer an example. If I had to choose, I would take a young Javon Walker over an aging Antonio Freeman any day of the week. Free might be more immediately productive, but JW, for all his inexperience, offers much, much more.

You asked "more talent, more depth with an equal amount of experience". Agree? Yes, if our current talent had an "equal amount of experience", which they do not, they would be superior to the team two years ago. As it stands, we lack experience, which will probably not allow us to win as many games as two years ago, but will have us in better position for the next several years and much beyond than we had at that time.

The key here is that we had boatloads of offense back then, we have boatloads (what I believe) of defense right now. The pendulum has kinda swung, but I think defense is where winners are built. Perhaps this is where the confusion comes in.

Hope this fits the bill!!

 

[pack_in_black]

My god. Thank you digs. I'm @ work, so I don't have time to launch into the unequal experience point. I guess it just takes a thorough, long explanation to get anything across with some people.

 

[TomAllen]

uhhh..digs..

I don't know how to break this to you, but the Packers don't have Javon Walker on the squad anymore.

TT caved in to his demands and lost him to Denver for some inexperienced, rookie guards who are having a hard time breaking into the lineup!

 

[digsthepack]

I am assuming that was sarcasm, Tom, because we do not have Freeman either. It was an ANALOGY. How about this, I would rather have a young and inexperienced Hawk and Hodge than a maxxed out Diggs or Thomas. Better? Is the point any more clear with a current roster reference?

 

[DaBearsrule4ever]

Looking at your schedule, I honestly had the Packers down for 5 wins. Just remember though that every year there is always atleast one suprise team in the league.

 

[pyledriver80]

I already answered the question, we have more talent and depth, but some of it is still a little raw.

To emphasize my point, I offer an example. If I had to choose, I would take a young Javon Walker over an aging Antonio Freeman any day of the week. Free might be more immediately productive, but JW, for all his inexperience, offers much, much more.

You asked "more talent, more depth with an equal amount of experience". Agree? Yes, if our current talent had an "equal amount of experience", which they do not, they would be superior to the team two years ago. As it stands, we lack experience, which will probably not allow us to win as many games as two years ago, but will have us in better position for the next several years and much beyond than we had at that time.

The key here is that we had boatloads of offense back then, we have boatloads (what I believe) of defense right now. The pendulum has kinda swung, but I think defense is where winners are built. Perhaps this is where the confusion comes in.

Hope this fits the bill!!

Sorry it does not because it is inaccurate. You are basing your opinion on Talent that is unknown Vs. Talent that is proven. You can't say we have more talent because in 2004 we had guys who had TALENT. Ahmad Carroll had talent. Joey Thomas had talent. BJ Sander had talent. Nick Barnett had talent.Every player on he roster had TALENT. Hell, Cletidus Hunt had talent.


It's like saying my Ex-Wife was uglier than my Future wife. The question that was posed by DePack was is this team better than the 2004 team. If you say it is than they should win 11+ Games. Using future references is lame. These guys could be Nick Barnett OR Joey Thomas.


You can't use something unknown vs. something proven. You can say the unknown is GREAT and it will fit your argument. Going on what we know as of today, this team is definitely worse than the 2004 team.



As far as overall team experience, this team has more than the 2004 team had. We had Carroll, Barnett, Thomas,etc who were all young.

Here are some facts for you. In 2004 the opening day roster had 229 years of experience and 15 of them were from Bryan Barker. The Projected 2006 starting Roster contains 235 year total experience.


So now we have more TALENT, more DEPTH, more EXPERIENCE and a better defense which you say wins championships.

You based on your judgement on lack of experience. The FACT is we have MORE exerience then the 2004 Packers have so now what excuse do we turn to. Judging by your own thinking this should be a SUPERIOR team compared to the 2004 Packers, yet you won't predict 11 wins?

 

[pack_in_black]

You can't use something unknown vs. something proven. You can say the unknown is GREAT and it will fit your argument. Going on what we know as of today, this team is definitely worse than the 2004 team.

If we bar the unknown from this discussion, it defeats the purpose of having it at all. You talk about facts. The thread asks for what people think (ie. their opinion) You don't know how much talent is on this team. Good point. 2004 team had a level of proven talent. this year, we dont know, but you say this team is definitely worse?

i think im getting dizzy....

 

[DePack]

After 6 pages my question went unaddressed. The usual subjects used it to bash Sherman. Whatever. The bottomline to me is. I will support TT and MM but we better win THIS YEAR. We got rid of a coach who won 10 games two years ago with a team that was apparently less-talented. If it wasn't less talented than TT has been sitting with his thumb up his **** for the past two years.

 

[pyledriver80]

After 6 pages my question went unaddressed. The usual subjects used it to bash Sherman. Whatever. The bottomline to me is. I will support TT and MM but we better win THIS YEAR. We got rid of a coach who won 10 games two years ago with a team that was apparently less-talented. If it wasn't less talented than TT has been sitting with his thumb up his **** for the past two years.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[digsthepack]

DePack, I had said earlier that I do not believe that we will win 10 games this year. That was the question, wasn't it? Reasons...too much drop off in talent on the offensive side of the ball, and while our defense should be much improved, I think the offense will shoot itself in the foot a few times this year. Our offensive starters are not as talented as 2 years ago. BUT, as a team, we are more talented.

This is what this stupid, circuitous 6 pages is all about. From top to bottom...1st - 3rd stringers...we are more talented that 2 years ago. But our starters are not on the offensive side of the ball, which has been the strength of this team in recent years. That said, I will take this roster over 2 years ago because of the depth of talent that will grow into much more than the roster from 2 years ago could have ever hoped.

I hope this puts an end to this increasingly ridiculous thread.

 

[DePack]

OK....A or B??

 

[pyledriver80]

You asked "more talent, more depth with an equal amount of experience". Agree? Yes, if our current talent had an "equal amount of experience", which they do not, they would be superior to the team two years ago. As it stands, we lack experience, which will probably not allow us to win as many games as two years ago, but will have us in better position for the next several years and much beyond than we had at that time.

This is the reason I can't take anything you say serious. Your position wavers like a politician.


Notice the statement made by you - "Yes, if our current talent had an "equal amount of experience", which they do not, they would be superior to the team two years ago"


Now notice that this team has 6 years more experience than the 2004 team. Actually 15 years from the 2004 roster was Bryan Barker. So actually 15-20 years more total.


So according to you we were not going to get 10 wins because we had less experience. Now that I have shown you we have MORE experience I guess it's fair to say that you are predicting this team to win at least 12 games?

 

[digsthepack]

Read your own words...you are the one that mentioned "equal talent, depth and experience". I am conceding that our starters are not more talented, but that out team as a whole is.

Dude, are you tallying the entire roster for the total team's years of experience in the league, which is what it is sounding like, or are you doing an analysis of units or positions, particularly the key ones?

 

[DakotaT]

You asked "more talent, more depth with an equal amount of experience". Agree? Yes, if our current talent had an "equal amount of experience", which they do not, they would be superior to the team two years ago. As it stands, we lack experience, which will probably not allow us to win as many games as two years ago, but will have us in better position for the next several years and much beyond than we had at that time.

This is the reason I can't take anything you say serious. Your position wavers like a politician.


Notice the statement made by you - "Yes, if our current talent had an "equal amount of experience", which they do not, they would be superior to the team two years ago"


Now notice that this team has 6 years more experience than the 2004 team. Actually 15 years from the 2004 roster was Bryan Barker. So actually 15-20 years more total.


So according to you we were not going to get 10 wins because we had less experience. Now that I have shown you we have MORE experience I guess it's fair to say that you are predicting this team to win at least 12 games?

But Pyle, are Favre and Henderson better players from this experience, or are they deteriorating physically with their experience. You get too hung up on black and white when everything is gray!

I don't think we will win ten games either, but I believe our division is more
evenly talented than it was in 2004. In 04 the Bears couldn't event tie their own shoes and now look at their defense. You have to consider the competition out there, not just your own team. Didn't we run the table in our division in 06, do you even think that's possible now?


Joust away

 

[Packnic]

DePack, I had said earlier that I do not believe that we will win 10 games this year. That was the question, wasn't it? Reasons...too much drop off in talent on the offensive side of the ball, and while our defense should be much improved, I think the offense will shoot itself in the foot a few times this year. Our offensive starters are not as talented as 2 years ago. BUT, as a team, we are more talented.

This is what this stupid, circuitous 6 pages is all about. From top to bottom...1st - 3rd stringers...we are more talented that 2 years ago. But our starters are not on the offensive side of the ball, which has been the strength of this team in recent years. That said, I will take this roster over 2 years ago because of the depth of talent that will grow into much more than the roster from 2 years ago could have ever hoped.

I hope this puts an end to this increasingly ridiculous thread.

how this statment doesnt end it ... ill never know.

and pyle your experience stat is ridiculous. but i guess since you coach midget football... your know more about the nfl than we do. my bad

 

[porky88]

But Pyle, are Favre and Henderson better players from this experience, or are they deteriorating physically with their experience.

They're not as good as they once were.

 

[TomAllen]

Yet they're not as bad as some people are making them!

 

[yooperfan]

You asked "more talent, more depth with an equal amount of experience". Agree? Yes, if our current talent had an "equal amount of experience", which they do not, they would be superior to the team two years ago. As it stands, we lack experience, which will probably not allow us to win as many games as two years ago, but will have us in better position for the next several years and much beyond than we had at that time.

This is the reason I can't take anything you say serious. Your position wavers like a politician.


Notice the statement made by you - "Yes, if our current talent had an "equal amount of experience", which they do not, they would be superior to the team two years ago"


Now notice that this team has 6 years more experience than the 2004 team. Actually 15 years from the 2004 roster was Bryan Barker. So actually 15-20 years more total.


So according to you we were not going to get 10 wins because we had less experience. Now that I have shown you we have MORE experience I guess it's fair to say that you are predicting this team to win at least 12 games?

Pyle,
I'm just curious, when you say this team has 6 more years experience are you counting the 53 man 2004 roster against the 75 or more players we have at this time?
I think that when the 2006 53 man roster is settled, the 2006 team will have far fewer years of experience as compared to the 53 man roster of 2004.

 

[porky88]

Yet they're not as bad as some people are making them!

They're definately no where near as good either. Favre's best days are behind him and it's a shame Henderson's are probably as well because he got screwed every year in the Pro Bowl voting by that running back Mike Alstott.

 

[digsthepack]

Lost in this discussion, and the reason aggregate years of service is useless in evaluation of a team, is that football is the ultimate team sport. A team can have a significantly higher level of experience, but if one critical area is weak, all that experience is rendered useless.

On offense, the actions of the OL, TEs, WRs, QB and RBs are orchestrated to make a play work. If one of those areas breaks down, or shows itself as a weak link...and I think we agree that the OL is the area of greatest concern....... it does not matter how much experience the unit as a whole has...it will struggle.

The Packers lack experience at a critical area in the OL and, argueably, at WR. This is what will hold us back from achieving the success we all hope for this year (the magic 10 wins), unless something really special happens in the next month.

Is this where all the confusion is coming from..the term "lacking experience" was applied to the entire team rather than a critical few positions?

People, we need to improve the communication skills here!! LOL

 

[pyledriver80]

I'm sorry for actually reading what you say, my bad I guess. When I read the following


"Yes, if our current talent had an "equal amount of experience", which they do not, they would be superior to the team two years ago"


It seems pretty Black and White to me.


So I guess we are reverting to somthing different than what you originally said. Now you are saying the STARTERS have less experience. There you will find the problem with this team and my problem with one Ted Thompson. Instead of using veteran guys so we can go 10-6 again while STILL developing the young guys, he has chosen to go with a 4-12 roster while ruining the confidence of guys like Colledge and putting Brett in danger of being decapitated. On top of this he appoints a rookie head coach to lead these young men.



So to be clear, we have more Talent, Depth, and Experience but we will be worse than the 2004 team who had less? Sounds crazy to me, sorry.


The truth is we do not have more talent - If we did we would be better, period. You are tossing around the word TALENT a little to freely. Every player in the NFL has talent. Some reach the full potential of thier talent, some do not. Until they do, thier TALENT means very little.

We do not have more Depth as a team. If we did we would not be forced to start rookies and then, by your own admission, go 10-6.