Why not 10 wins

[all about da packers]

Actually, I like the point has brought up. Something to consider none-the-less.

 

[DakotaT]

PD, he said nothing about experience, which is very important. But I think we have a good chance to win this division this yr. cause its awful

Where was the experience 2 years ago? Barnett was young, Carroll was a rookie,we had Hawthorne, Joey Thomas, etc.


This team is JUST as experienced or MORE experienced than it was 2 years ago.

I think the GM/Head Coach pissed off the experience enough that he had to be traded to New Orleans. I don't have Facts on this but it was a pretty well received idea.

 

[pyledriver80]

PD, he said nothing about experience, which is very important. But I think we have a good chance to win this division this yr. cause its awful

Where was the experience 2 years ago? Barnett was young, Carroll was a rookie,we had Hawthorne, Joey Thomas, etc.


This team is JUST as experienced or MORE experienced than it was 2 years ago.

I think the GM/Head Coach pissed off the experience enough that he had to be traded to New Orleans. I don't have Facts on this but it was a pretty well received idea.

Can we answer the question? Please tell me how we can have more TALENT and DEPTH and Equal Experience and not win more games? Someone, anyone, Beuhler,Beuhler

 

[DePack]

Thanks for taking over the mantel pyle but there is no answer to this. We should have a better record than two years ago or:

A) Mike Sherman did a better job at coaching than MM did. OR

B) The talent has actually declined since TT has arrived.


Not many people on this board want to admit to either. Personally, I think we will win at least 10 games and if not I would have to choose A.

 

[pyledriver80]

3-4 pages and noone answered it yet. I can see these guys stumbling over words to try to defend thier unwavering stance.


Actually you narrowed it down for them. All they have to do is select either A or B now.

 

[Packnic]

your right.... the packers freakin suck. they are the worst team ever assembled. they will never go above .500 again, and may never win another game. Mike Sherman was the next Lombardi, and TT is the worst GM in the business. there ya go "packer fans" i hope that helps you get off.

 

[pyledriver80]

Actually I would have preferred an answer not a TROMADZ like hissy fit

 

[DePack]

Actually I would have preferred an answer not a TROMADZ like hissy fit

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[DakotaT]

Actually I would have preferred an answer not a TROMADZ like hissy fit

C. None of the above.

Pyle don't pick on Tromadz, your behaviour in that little love nest was just deplorable. You didn't post a picture of a ******* named Pyledriver or anything, but you were far from innocent.

 

[krd005]

OK....Why are we all making exceptions because we have a rookie HC? Either he gets it done or he doesn't. I don't see why being a first year HC means anything. He's been a coach for some time.


It's still football isn't it....or does it become rocket science when you become a HC?????

Well......with this thought pattern, EVERY NFL team should be 16-0 EVERY year, right? NO team should EVER lose.
Maybe they should do like they do with kids today........just play, not keep score, and at the end of the year give EVERY team a "LOMBARDI TROPHY".
By the way.......i don't remember many first year head coaches that take their team to the SB. Even Lombardi didn't win the NFL title his first year.
HE didn't "get it done." He should have been fired too, right?
Sherman had several YEARS to get it done, and didn't. BIG difference.
I liked Sherman as a person. VERY nice man. But there were so many times where he let games get away with his play calling, or lack there of.
Just my opinion. You don't have to agree with me.

Well......with this thought pattern, EVERY NFL team should be 16-0 EVERY year, right? NO team should EVER lose.

there does seem to be this thought out there... that everything is cut and dry and that this whole head coach and GM thing is pie in the sky.

only one team wins the superbowl and not many rookie head coaches have ever won the superbowl. in fact i dont believe its ever happened. so if we fire him after one season how will you ever keep a head coach?
all great coaches are given a chance to prove their methods. and no one can do it in a single year.

I not pusing him out the door if he fails in season number one. I'm just asking why do first coaches seem to get a break? They should be held accountable. Most of them have coached alot of years. Most have been OC or DC before becoming HC. HC is just one part of the puzzle...you still need studs to win!!!

I agree winning the BIG GAME is a BIG deal....as is making the playoffs. I think making the playoffs on a regular basis is a feat. I don't care how weak the teams are.

 

[pyledriver80]

Actually I would have preferred an answer not a TROMADZ like hissy fit

C. None of the above.

Pyle don't pick on Tromadz, your behaviour in that little love nest was just deplorable. You didn't post a picture of a ******* named Pyledriver or anything, but you were far from innocent.

You are mistaken again Dakota. I never ONCE attacked Trom before he did me. I just disagreed, kind of like I do with you and Packnic. The difference is you don't send me INSANE PM's. I try to debate things with logic, I really do, but when we are 3-4 pages into a topic and noone has answered DePacks original question yet, it seems kind of odd. What's even stranger is these same people will go elsewhere and post "TT is doing Tremendous" over and over again.

I will answer questions you guys pose, because my stance is based on facts. You guys dodge them because your stances are based on could be's, what if's, might be's, should be's and look like's.

 

[Packnic]

OK....Why are we all making exceptions because we have a rookie HC? Either he gets it done or he doesn't. I don't see why being a first year HC means anything. He's been a coach for some time.


It's still football isn't it....or does it become rocket science when you become a HC?????

Well......with this thought pattern, EVERY NFL team should be 16-0 EVERY year, right? NO team should EVER lose.
Maybe they should do like they do with kids today........just play, not keep score, and at the end of the year give EVERY team a "LOMBARDI TROPHY".
By the way.......i don't remember many first year head coaches that take their team to the SB. Even Lombardi didn't win the NFL title his first year.
HE didn't "get it done." He should have been fired too, right?
Sherman had several YEARS to get it done, and didn't. BIG difference.
I liked Sherman as a person. VERY nice man. But there were so many times where he let games get away with his play calling, or lack there of.
Just my opinion. You don't have to agree with me.

Well......with this thought pattern, EVERY NFL team should be 16-0 EVERY year, right? NO team should EVER lose.

there does seem to be this thought out there... that everything is cut and dry and that this whole head coach and GM thing is pie in the sky.

only one team wins the superbowl and not many rookie head coaches have ever won the superbowl. in fact i dont believe its ever happened. so if we fire him after one season how will you ever keep a head coach?
all great coaches are given a chance to prove their methods. and no one can do it in a single year.

I not pusing him out the door if he fails in season number one. I'm just asking why do first coaches seem to get a break? They should be held accountable. Most of them have coached alot of years. Most have been OC or DC before becoming HC. HC is just one part of the puzzle...you still need studs to win!!!

I agree winning the BIG GAME is a BIG deal....as is making the playoffs. I think making the playoffs on a regular basis is a feat. I don't care how weak the teams are.

i agree with ya.... im not gonna be happy with him if we lose 12 games this year. but im also not gonna want his head on a platter. i realize that in pyleland... where there are no injurys and all packer head coaches win the superbowl in year one. but in real life it takes time to build and gel together a winning team. Hell Pittsburgh just now did it with Cower.

 

[pyledriver80]

OK....Why are we all making exceptions because we have a rookie HC? Either he gets it done or he doesn't. I don't see why being a first year HC means anything. He's been a coach for some time.


It's still football isn't it....or does it become rocket science when you become a HC?????

Well......with this thought pattern, EVERY NFL team should be 16-0 EVERY year, right? NO team should EVER lose.
Maybe they should do like they do with kids today........just play, not keep score, and at the end of the year give EVERY team a "LOMBARDI TROPHY".
By the way.......i don't remember many first year head coaches that take their team to the SB. Even Lombardi didn't win the NFL title his first year.
HE didn't "get it done." He should have been fired too, right?
Sherman had several YEARS to get it done, and didn't. BIG difference.
I liked Sherman as a person. VERY nice man. But there were so many times where he let games get away with his play calling, or lack there of.
Just my opinion. You don't have to agree with me.

Well......with this thought pattern, EVERY NFL team should be 16-0 EVERY year, right? NO team should EVER lose.

there does seem to be this thought out there... that everything is cut and dry and that this whole head coach and GM thing is pie in the sky.

only one team wins the superbowl and not many rookie head coaches have ever won the superbowl. in fact i dont believe its ever happened. so if we fire him after one season how will you ever keep a head coach?
all great coaches are given a chance to prove their methods. and no one can do it in a single year.

I not pusing him out the door if he fails in season number one. I'm just asking why do first coaches seem to get a break? They should be held accountable. Most of them have coached alot of years. Most have been OC or DC before becoming HC. HC is just one part of the puzzle...you still need studs to win!!!

I agree winning the BIG GAME is a BIG deal....as is making the playoffs. I think making the playoffs on a regular basis is a feat. I don't care how weak the teams are.

i agree with ya.... im not gonna be happy with him if we lose 12 games this year. but im also not gonna want his head on a platter. i realize that in pyleland... where there are no injurys and all packer head coaches win the superbowl in year one. but in real life it takes time to build and gel together a winning team. Hell Pittsburgh just now did it with Cower.

I love how you prove points for me Packnic. Let's talk about Bill Cowher.

Bill Cowher had a 6-10 season. Bill Cowher continually choked in the playoffs. Bill Cowher was often criticized for his play calling. Did it result in Bill Cowher being fired?


The Difference is that in Pittsburgh the owner didn't try to pin his short comings on Cowher.

Please whatever you do, quit talking out of both sides of your mouth. TT gets a pass on last year because of injuries but MS should be held responsible. Cowher was given time to build a Super Bowl winner, even through some losing years, but MS should be gone because of one. Man, do you think before you post or are you just to eager to type in "Pyleland" surrounded by a bunch of hypocritical nonsense?

 

[DakotaT]

Pyle didn't we agree last that season was a shared effort for TT and MS, or did misunderstand?

 

[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?

 

[all about da packers]

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

TT and MS couldn't work together. Simlpy put, I think MS resented him to some degree because he was given Sherma's old job.

And co-operation is essential between a coach and GM. Sherman was gone because TT was hire on the chain, and could fire Sherman.

 

[digsthepack]

MS had 6 years, TT had one. And from my perspective, playoffs or not, the team, particularly Brett Favre, was regressing as his term progressed. Quite the disparity, huh? But then again, by your logic, if AJ Hawk gets hurt, his pick when healthy is a bad one by TT. Oh, yeah...I forgot...he is already a bust for some because he didn't show well in his first ever NFL experience.

TT did not address the line adequately last year...on that we agree, but for different reasons. Why is that so difficult to get over..I prefer young players over aging or modestly talented vets whose shelf life is short and performance underwhelming. Big deal...there is more than one way to build a team...and, as far as the Cowher reference, those teams were built through the draft, with select vets brought in to push them over the top. The same thing we are doing now. With that said, does it not appear that neither of our positions are wholly correct, but merely a matter of personal preference.

 

[pyledriver80]

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

TT and MS couldn't work together. Simlpy put, I think MS resented him to some degree because he was given Sherma's old job.

And co-operation is essential between a coach and GM. Sherman was gone because TT was hire on the chain, and could fire Sherman.

Or Maybe MS resented him for giving him nothing to work with?

We didn't and still don't have an O-Line. That is the BIGGEST problem with this team and 95% of the reason I feel TT is incompetent. Sign Woodson, Favre, Lawrence Taylor, Singletary, Lott, etc and if you don't have a line it will never get you anywhere. Just go ask Barry Sanders.

 

[all about da packers]

And from my perspective, playoffs or not, the team, particularly Brett Favre, was regressing as his term progressed.

However, that could be argued as a mistake for Sherman the GM, as opposed to Sherman the coach. Sherman the GM left Sherman the coach with no depth, and to an extent as TO pointed out, Sherman the coach left Sherman the GM with back end draft positions.

 

[digsthepack]

I just did not see any in-game coaching...something Favre needs as much as, if not more than, most QBs in the league because of his risk taking mentality. That is my biggest gripe against MS and his staff...too in awe of #4 to coach the guy when he needed it.

 

[all about da packers]

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

TT and MS couldn't work together. Simlpy put, I think MS resented him to some degree because he was given Sherma's old job.

And co-operation is essential between a coach and GM. Sherman was gone because TT was hire on the chain, and could fire Sherman.

Or Maybe MS resented him for giving him nothing to work with?

I wouldn't put it exactly like that. You bring up a good point about MS the GM possibly going out and getting some other players that TT got, and perhaps that also created more of a rift between the two.

Ultimately, I can't blame TT for doing what he did, even though I think MS wasn't the problem. If I am a GM, heck if you are a GM pyle, you want your own guys in there, and guys that you feel comfortable working with. If you don't you get rid of they guy. That was Sherman's reason for being fired, simply because TT and MS couldn't establish a working relationship.

Heck I really do think if MS was the GM and TT was the coach, the same would have happened.

 

[pack_in_black]

Bill Cowher had a 6-10 season. Bill Cowher continually choked in the playoffs. Bill Cowher was often criticized for his play calling. Did it result in Bill Cowher being fired?


That's a pretty good analogy, Pyle. I'll say that the firing of MS may of been premature. Last season, I hated TT. But, after watching the draft, I'm willing to give him a shot. As far as MM is concerned, I'm only ready to accept one losing season-his first. After that, there aren't any excuses

 

[TomAllen]

Ahh Jeeez, not this again.

What he needed was someone who could get open and someone who could pass protect for longer than 2.0 seconds.

And a running game would have been nice as well. Add to that a defense.
And some play calling that wasn't predictable as the sun rising tomorrow.

Yeah..then maybe the Packers would have won some games.

I , for one, am not a fan of Sherman or TT, and I haven't seen enough of MM to make a decision yet!

 

[pyledriver80]

MS had 6 years, TT had one. And from my perspective, playoffs or not, the team, particularly Brett Favre, was regressing as his term progressed.

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.

But then again, by your logic, if AJ Hawk gets hurt, his pick when healthy is a bad one by TT.

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.

TT did not address the line adequately last year...on that we agree, but for different reasons. Why is that so difficult to get over..I prefer young players over aging or modestly talented vets whose shelf life is short and performance underwhelming.

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[/quote]

Big deal...there is more than one way to build a team...and, as far as the Cowher reference, those teams were built through the draft, with select vets brought in to push them over the top. The same thing we are doing now.

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?

 

[DakotaT]

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?