Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pyledriver80" data-source="post: 89310" data-attributes="member: 194">Here's where I take exception.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. Ahhhhh you seemed to have misquoted me. I stated with Murphy that it cannot be considered a good one like most here try to do. Was it good or bad, noone will ever know. Contribution for GB - 5 catches. Thats absurd, sorry. I like young guys as well but you don't draft RAW guys and have them start on your O-line. No team in the NFL does this. You draft veterans or refined guys and let them fill in til the youngsters gain experience</blockquote>  And the same thing every other NFL team does. It's the same thing MS tried to do. You get players from the draft, and free agency. You act like MS made these guys in a factory or something. The determining factor is how they play on the field. If you get guys that can play you go 10-6 like MS. If you don't you go 4-12 like TT. It's pretty simple logic.Now please answer the question at hand. I didn't dodge yours. If this team has more Talent and Depth with an equal amount of experience, It is fair to say this team will be equal to or better than the 2004 MS Packers who went 10-6?[/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 1,548 (members: 0, guests: 1,548)