Historical perspective for the current 5-7 record

[Patler]

There sometimes seems to be a perception that after Wolf and Holmgren arrived the Packers were immediately dominant. This, of course is not true, and others already have pointed out that the Packers were little more than average for three years, at 9-7 in 1992, '93 and '94. Some of the details:

In 1992 the Packers started out 3-6, finished 6-1 to end up 9-7.
In 1993 they started 1-3, went to 4-4 and ended at 9-7.
In 1994 they were 6-7 before finishing at 9-7.
In 1995 they were 5-4, then finished 6-1 to end at 11-5.

It was really the middle of 1995 before they figured out how to win on a regular basis, how to win close games regularly, how to put together winning streaks of more than just a few games. They were a young, inconsistent team for three and a half seasons.

I think we are seeing a young, inconsistent team this season similar to the Packers of '92, 93, 94 and early '95. Good enough to compete with the good teams, but not experienced enough to pull out victories on a regular basis.

[hoosier]

There sometimes seems to be a perception that after Wolf and Holmgren arrived the Packers were immediately dominant. This, of course is not true, and others already have pointed out that the Packers were little more than average for three years, at 9-7 in 1992, '93 and '94. Some of the details:

In 1992 the Packers started out 3-6, finished 6-1 to end up 9-7.
In 1993 they started 1-3, went to 4-4 and ended at 9-7.
In 1994 they were 6-7 before finishing at 9-7.
In 1995 they were 5-4, then finished 6-1 to end at 11-5.

It was really the middle of 1995 before they figured out how to win on a regular basis, how to win close games regularly, how to put together winning streaks of more than just a few games. They were a young, inconsistent team for three and a half seasons.

I think we are seeing a young, inconsistent team this season similar to the Packers of '92, 93, 94 and early '95. Good enough to compete with the good teams, but not experienced enough to pull out victories on a regular basis.

Interesting comparison, and tend to agree that the 2008 Packers are suffering from inexperience more than lack of talent. The mid-1990's teams had a chance to gel because they were able to keep their core players together and relatively healthy for three, four or five years. It will be interesting to see if TT and MM are able to achieve and enjoy the same continuity that Wolf and Holmgren had.

[denverYooper]

There sometimes seems to be a perception that after Wolf and Holmgren arrived the Packers were immediately dominant. This, of course is not true, and others already have pointed out that the Packers were little more than average for three years, at 9-7 in 1992, '93 and '94. Some of the details:

In 1992 the Packers started out 3-6, finished 6-1 to end up 9-7.
In 1993 they started 1-3, went to 4-4 and ended at 9-7.
In 1994 they were 6-7 before finishing at 9-7.
In 1995 they were 5-4, then finished 6-1 to end at 11-5.

It was really the middle of 1995 before they figured out how to win on a regular basis, how to win close games regularly, how to put together winning streaks of more than just a few games. They were a young, inconsistent team for three and a half seasons.

I think we are seeing a young, inconsistent team this season similar to the Packers of '92, 93, 94 and early '95. Good enough to compete with the good teams, but not experienced enough to pull out victories on a regular basis.

That's a good point, and the best answer I've seen to the question a lot of the media seem to be asking--"how come this talented team can't win any close games?"

[CaliforniaCheez]

The trouble is things are getting worse; not better.

The Packers have lost 4 of their last 5 games.

You see players giving up and not trying.

Unfortunately, many players will be not motivated the rest of the season.



Wil the post Favre era be much different than the pre Favre era?

[sharpe1027]

The trouble is things are getting worse; not better.

The Packers have lost 4 of their last 5 games.

You see players giving up and not trying.

Unfortunately, many players will be not motivated the rest of the season.

Wil the post Favre era be much different than the pre Favre era?

I didn't see players giving up, but that is not saying it didn't happen. They still have playoff chances, I don't see why they will not be motivated. I hope, for all of our sakes, that you are wrong.

[KYPack]

The trouble is things are getting worse; not better.

The Packers have lost 4 of their last 5 games.

You see players giving up and not trying.

Unfortunately, many players will be not motivated the rest of the season.



Wil the post Favre era be much different than the pre Favre era?

That record is since the bye, 1-4. They are 0-5, in close games this season. You outta be 2-3 or 3-2 in the close ones.

It's the mirror of last year, when we had 6 comebacks wins.

With some luck, we should be 6-6 or 7-5, at least.

[Patler]

The trouble is things are getting worse; not better.

The Packers have lost 4 of their last 5 games.

You see players giving up and not trying.

Unfortunately, many players will be not motivated the rest of the season.

Wil the post Favre era be much different than the pre Favre era?

Didn't seem to happen this past week. The Packers came back to take the lead twice in the fourth quarter. The just didn't hold it.

A lot will be learned in the next 4 weeks, with several games they should win if they are a good team. If they don't win them, well......

[PackerBlues]

There sometimes seems to be a perception that after Wolf and Holmgren arrived the Packers were immediately dominant. This, of course is not true, and others already have pointed out that the Packers were little more than average for three years, at 9-7 in 1992, '93 and '94. Some of the details:

In 1992 the Packers started out 3-6, finished 6-1 to end up 9-7.
In 1993 they started 1-3, went to 4-4 and ended at 9-7.
In 1994 they were 6-7 before finishing at 9-7.
In 1995 they were 5-4, then finished 6-1 to end at 11-5.

It was really the middle of 1995 before they figured out how to win on a regular basis, how to win close games regularly, how to put together winning streaks of more than just a few games. They were a young, inconsistent team for three and a half seasons.

I think we are seeing a young, inconsistent team this season similar to the Packers of '92, 93, 94 and early '95. Good enough to compete with the good teams, but not experienced enough to pull out victories on a regular basis.

Three straight years at 9-7 = inconsistant???
While I expect that Rogers will only get better over time, the rest of the team has a looooooooong way to go.

All things considered, Al Harris has already stated publicly that he expects the team to dump him due to his age more than anything. If he feels that way, I would think that at least a couple of the other veterans on the team must feel the same way.

I agree that for the most part, this is a young and inconsistant team, but we are going to lose our veterans in some skilled positions within the next couple of years, and I have to wonder......considering the O-line and the D-line alone, if Thompson has not been able to shore up those two areas in 4 years....................

[Patler]

Three straight years at 9-7 = inconsistant???
While I expect that Rogers will only get better over time, the rest of the team has a looooooooong way to go.

All things considered, Al Harris has already stated publicly that he expects the team to dump him due to his age more than anything. If he feels that way, I would think that at least a couple of the other veterans on the team must feel the same way.

I agree that for the most part, this is a young and inconsistant team, but we are going to lose our veterans in some skilled positions within the next couple of years, and I have to wonder......considering the O-line and the D-line alone, if Thompson has not been able to shore up those two areas in 4 years....................

Of course three years at 9-7 shows inconsistency. As I noted in the details of each season, they had winning streaks and losing streaks in each season, which ends up in a record very near .500. They performed inconsistently within each season for four years. I suppose you could describe those seasons collectively as "consistently inconsistent"! :lol:

I am not ready to throw in the towel on TT's O-line just yet. I am starting to think some of the pieces are there with Spitz, Sitton and Colledge. Even Tony Moll has bounced back this year to show promise, and could be the eventual replacement for Tauscher as was talked about a couple years ago. But, as much as I hate to say it, for the line to really come together, Wells and Clifton, maybe even Tauscher, probably have to be replaced. The O-line has been very "fluid" for four years. 2009 is probably when the pieces for the future should be put in place, and that very well could be Colledge, Barbre, Spitz, Sitton and Moll. The really good lines always tell you that they have to play together, at their positions, for a couple years before it really starts to click for them.

[dissident94]

If we end strong I will buy your argument. But if we keep falling apart it doesn't really hold up. we are 3-7 since starting 2-0. Its looking really bad. Can we really expect to finish 4-0.

[denverYooper]

The trouble is things are getting worse; not better.

The Packers have lost 4 of their last 5 games.

You see players giving up and not trying.

Unfortunately, many players will be not motivated the rest of the season.

Wil the post Favre era be much different than the pre Favre era?

Didn't seem to happen this past week. The Packers came back to take the lead twice in the fourth quarter. The just didn't hold it.

A lot will be learned in the next 4 weeks, with several games they should win if they are a good team. If they don't win them, well......

Yeah, they'll finally be getting some more teams with losing records and/or tougher years.

Their losses came to Dallas (8-4), Tampa Bay (9-3), Atlanta(8-4), Tennessee (11-1), Minnesota (7-5), New Orleans (6-6) and Carolina (9-3).

We can argue which of these games they should or should not have won, but none of the teams they lost to are under .500. The Saints, at .500 are the worst team in a surprisingly strong NFC South. So throw into the mix the fact that they've been losing to teams that have played well this year. So far, anyway.

[Patler]

If we end strong I will buy your argument. But if we keep falling apart it doesn't really hold up. we are 3-7 since starting 2-0. Its looking really bad. Can we really expect to finish 4-0.

I really don't have an argument, just discussion. As I wrote in another of my posts in this thread, a lot will be learned in the next 4 games. If they go 1-3 against the remaining schedule it will say one thing. Going 3-1 or 4-0 says something totally different. If they go 2-2 we will be left scratching our heads.

However, in those early seasons under Holmgren, things looked kind of bleak during the middle part of the season, too. The 2008 team has to show us what they are in the next four games.

[denverYooper]

In fact, they've only played 2 teams under .500 -- the Seahawks and the Lions. They're 2-6 against teams > .500, 1-1 against teams @.500 and 2-0 vs. teams under .500.

Opponent Record Result
Vikings 7-5 W
Lions 0-12 W
Cowboys 8-4 L
Bucs 9-3 L
Falcons 9-3 L
Seahawks 2-10 W
Colts 8-4 W
Titans 11-1 L
Vikings 7-5 L
Bears 6-6 W
Saints 6-6 L
Panthers 9-3 L
Texans 5-7
Jaguars 4-8
Bears 6-6
Lions 0-12

[Merlin]

Currently it will take an awful lot for us to make the playoffs. The only stat that matters is the "W". Ted Thompson is currently 31-31 (30-30 regular season) to this point. If we win out, he will be 35-31 (34-30) with a high likelihood of missing the playoffs. He will have been our GM for 4 full seasons. By contrast, Mike Sherman was the GM for 4 seasons and his record was 46-24 (44-20 regular season). We all know that Sherman was not a well liked GM and to some people not a well liked coach. However you can't argue the success he had when he was here and that success wasn't good enough for him to keep his job. Make all the arguments you want about Sherman's reign but in the end the "W" is all that matters. He won a lot of games in Green Bay.

There has been one losing season in Green Bay since the Ron Wolf era began, under Thompson's watch. Fine it was his first season but it isn't something you forgive and forget. We now have the possibility of a second in 4 seasons under Thompson. Anyone want to bet that no matter what happens Thompson keeps his job? Why should he? Why are we accepting mediocrity? We booted Sherman out because he couldn't manage the cap and he couldn't win the big playoff games. But we keep Thompson who manages the cap (and you can argue that being so far under it is not managing it because you aren't winning) and can 't bring the one stat that matters, the "W". I get it, makes perfect sense, keep the guy who isn't winning because at some point in the "future" he might. That is some backasswards logic and what caused the 70's and 80's for the Packers.

[cpk1994]

Currently it will take an awful lot for us to make the playoffs. The only stat that matters is the "W". Ted Thompson is currently 31-31 (30-30 regular season) to this point. If we win out, he will be 35-31 (34-30) with a high likelihood of missing the playoffs. He will have been our GM for 4 full seasons. By contrast, Mike Sherman was the GM for 4 seasons and his record was 46-24 (44-20 regular season). We all know that Sherman was not a well liked GM and to some people not a well liked coach. However you can't argue the success he had when he was here and that success wasn't good enough for him to keep his job. Make all the arguments you want about Sherman's reign but in the end the "W" is all that matters. He won a lot of games in Green Bay.

There has been one losing season in Green Bay since the Ron Wolf era began, under Thompson's watch. Fine it was his first season but it isn't something you forgive and forget. We now have the possibility of a second in 4 seasons under Thompson. Anyone want to bet that no matter what happens Thompson keeps his job? Why should he? Why are we accepting mediocrity? We booted Sherman out because he couldn't manage the cap and he couldn't win the big playoff games. But we keep Thompson who manages the cap (and you can argue that being so far under it is not managing it because you aren't winning) and can 't bring the one stat that matters, the "W". I get it, makes perfect sense, keep the guy who isn't winning because at some point in the "future" he might. That is some backasswards logic and what caused the 70's and 80's for the Packers.And now that the Paclkers are struggling, Merlin crwals from under his rock, and as per usual, spewing the same tired rethoric. :roll:

[Merlin]

What are you 5? I mean seriously? Apparently you didn't get enough attention the last time you attacked someone so you have to make a stink here too... How sad is that?

[sheepshead]

Currently it will take an awful lot for us to make the playoffs. The only stat that matters is the "W". Ted Thompson is currently 31-31 (30-30 regular season) to this point. If we win out, he will be 35-31 (34-30) with a high likelihood of missing the playoffs. He will have been our GM for 4 full seasons. By contrast, Mike Sherman was the GM for 4 seasons and his record was 46-24 (44-20 regular season). We all know that Sherman was not a well liked GM and to some people not a well liked coach. However you can't argue the success he had when he was here and that success wasn't good enough for him to keep his job. Make all the arguments you want about Sherman's reign but in the end the "W" is all that matters. He won a lot of games in Green Bay.

There has been one losing season in Green Bay since the Ron Wolf era began, under Thompson's watch. Fine it was his first season but it isn't something you forgive and forget. We now have the possibility of a second in 4 seasons under Thompson. Anyone want to bet that no matter what happens Thompson keeps his job? Why should he? Why are we accepting mediocrity? We booted Sherman out because he couldn't manage the cap and he couldn't win the big playoff games. But we keep Thompson who manages the cap (and you can argue that being so far under it is not managing it because you aren't winning) and can 't bring the one stat that matters, the "W". I get it, makes perfect sense, keep the guy who isn't winning because at some point in the "future" he might. That is some backasswards logic and what caused the 70's and 80's for the Packers.


I dont think it's the GM's fault. We have a pretty talented team. Mike Sherman, as evidenced by his fine career path, was in way over his head. The GM and HC aren't going anywhere anytime soon. I wouldn't waste any more pixel space on it.

[cpk1994]

What are you 5? I mean seriously? Apparently you didn't get enough attention the last time you attacked someone so you have to make a stink here too... How sad is that?Im not making a stink. But what I am seeing from you is the same tired crap you have posted since TT was hired. You hate TT. We get it.
That said, Sherman got fired becuase he destroyed the depth of the team and had almost completely driven it into the ground. TT managed to turn that around and get the team into the NFC title game. How many did your boy Sherman make it to? I'll wait while you count them all up. Shouldn't take long as you only have to count to 0.

[Merlin]

I didn't get past the first line into your reply "But what I am seeing from you is the same tired crap you have posted since TT was hired. You hate TT. We get it. " Which is the same tired crap you spew every time I post. The numbers are right there, they don't lie, Thompson is not as successful of a GM as Sherman based upon the one indisputable stat that all sports is based off of WINS. Is our team "talented"? We seem to think so, but that talent isn't generating wins. That isn't "hate" that is reality. And Thompson is not held to the same standard and that isn't right either. As fans we should not accept this and we should be vocal about it.

Also, I never said I hated Thompson, I have been vocal about his mistakes and his accountability for those. I have also given him praise for certain things as well (not like you would ever acknowledge you are wrong). You confuse my passion for the Green Bay Packers with hate. You my friend are the one full of hate. You are attacking someone that you don't even know in an online forum. Do you feel like a big man now? Does it make you feel superior? What the hell man? Did your mother not breast feed you?

[pbmax]

I am pretty sure we booted out Sherman first because he struggled as a GM. As a coach, the team he inherited was already pretty talented, though young at key spots (O Line) and he did develop them nicely. He should receive the credit for that.

But for his second demotion, he clearly opposed the GMs decisions after Thompson arrived. Harlan has also indicated that Sherman had difficulty forging a working relationship with his new boss.

So he lost one job due to his own struggles, and a second one due to his own choice. Its possible Thompson wouldn't have kept a accommodating Sherman either. But his odds would have been better. I don't think the 4-12 season was even on the list of reasons.

As for Thompson, he choose to rebuild an older team. His record going in was not going to match Sherman's in the first year, obviously. As for his future, its all dependent on his coach and his players. Thompson will have his judgement day as well, it will be an extra couple of years though.

[Patler]

Currently it will take an awful lot for us to make the playoffs. The only stat that matters is the "W". Ted Thompson is currently 31-31 (30-30 regular season) to this point. If we win out, he will be 35-31 (34-30) with a high likelihood of missing the playoffs. He will have been our GM for 4 full seasons. By contrast, Mike Sherman was the GM for 4 seasons and his record was 46-24 (44-20 regular season). We all know that Sherman was not a well liked GM and to some people not a well liked coach. However you can't argue the success he had when he was here and that success wasn't good enough for him to keep his job. Make all the arguments you want about Sherman's reign but in the end the "W" is all that matters. He won a lot of games in Green Bay.

There has been one losing season in Green Bay since the Ron Wolf era began, under Thompson's watch. Fine it was his first season but it isn't something you forgive and forget. We now have the possibility of a second in 4 seasons under Thompson. Anyone want to bet that no matter what happens Thompson keeps his job? Why should he? Why are we accepting mediocrity? We booted Sherman out because he couldn't manage the cap and he couldn't win the big playoff games. But we keep Thompson who manages the cap (and you can argue that being so far under it is not managing it because you aren't winning) and can 't bring the one stat that matters, the "W". I get it, makes perfect sense, keep the guy who isn't winning because at some point in the "future" he might. That is some backasswards logic and what caused the 70's and 80's for the Packers.

In no particular order of importance, some errors I find in your argument are:

-Sherman the GM was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- no depth.
-Sherman the GM was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- unmanageable vet contracts.
-Sherman the GM was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- wasted cap dollars.
-Sherman the coach was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- laissez faire management of Favre's performance.
-Sherman was never TT's coach, he inherited him.
-Because of the above, TT was rightfully given a pass for "4-12".
-Sherman brought on his own firing by not accepting and working with his new boss.
-TT is part of a team that includes Murphy and McCarthy.
-when evaluating a GM short term, the reasons for "Ws & Ls" are important.
-when evaluating a GM the direction a program is headed is more important than short term "Ws & Ls".
-Sherman's program for the team was headed down.
-Sherman never put together a team considered a real playoff threat.
-TT appears to be building a program for the future, a team with a foundation.
-TT put together a team that was a game away from the Super Bowl.
-fans focus on short term wins and losses, usually just the season.
-team management also has to consider longer range issues, including whether starting over makes sense at the time.

That being said, a season of 7-9 or 6-10 will not sit well following 13-3. If it is followed by another poor performance in 2009, absent unusual circumstances TT could be on a short leash, and he should be. Making the NFC Championship game buys him a year of grace.

[Patler]

We booted Sherman out because he couldn't manage the cap and he couldn't win the big playoff games. But we keep Thompson who manages the cap (and you can argue that being so far under it is not managing it because you aren't winning) and can 't bring the one stat that matters, the "W".

I forgot one issue - please explain the above.

The cumulative impact of TT's cap management over four years is that they are just over $7 million short of spending every dollar allotted to them for the four years. Of the almost $415 million for salary caps in 2005 through 2008, he has spent about $408 million. How is he "so far under" the cap?

[cpk1994]

I didn't get past the first line into your reply "But what I am seeing from you is the same tired crap you have posted since TT was hired. You hate TT. We get it. " Which is the same tired crap you spew every time I post. The numbers are right there, they don't lie, Thompson is not as successful of a GM as Sherman based upon the one indisputable stat that all sports is based off of WINS. Is our team "talented"? We seem to think so, but that talent isn't generating wins. That isn't "hate" that is reality. And Thompson is not held to the same standard and that isn't right either. As fans we should not accept this and we should be vocal about it.

Also, I never said I hated Thompson, I have been vocal about his mistakes and his accountability for those. I have also given him praise for certain things as well (not like you would ever acknowledge you are wrong). You confuse my passion for the Green Bay Packers with hate. You my friend are the one full of hate. You are attacking someone that you don't even know in an online forum. Do you feel like a big man now? Does it make you feel superior? What the hell man? Did your mother not breast feed you?Again, how many NFC title games did Sherman get to as GM? I'll wait while you count. Now how many has Thomspon gotten his team to? More than Sherman. That is why TT is given more leeway. Your TT hate makes you ignorant and once again you need to calm down becuase you are making an ass of yourself.

[Tarlam!]

We booted Sherman out because he couldn't manage the cap and he couldn't win the big playoff games. But we keep Thompson who manages the cap (and you can argue that being so far under it is not managing it because you aren't winning) and can 't bring the one stat that matters, the "W".

I forgot one issue - please explain the above.

The cumulative impact of TT's cap management over four years is that they are just over $7 million short of spending every dollar allotted to them for the four years. Of the almost $415 million for salary caps in 2005 through 2008, he has spent about $408 million. How is he "so far under" the cap?

Patlerized, baby. Take it like a man.

[Fritz]

Currently it will take an awful lot for us to make the playoffs. The only stat that matters is the "W". Ted Thompson is currently 31-31 (30-30 regular season) to this point. If we win out, he will be 35-31 (34-30) with a high likelihood of missing the playoffs. He will have been our GM for 4 full seasons. By contrast, Mike Sherman was the GM for 4 seasons and his record was 46-24 (44-20 regular season). We all know that Sherman was not a well liked GM and to some people not a well liked coach. However you can't argue the success he had when he was here and that success wasn't good enough for him to keep his job. Make all the arguments you want about Sherman's reign but in the end the "W" is all that matters. He won a lot of games in Green Bay.

There has been one losing season in Green Bay since the Ron Wolf era began, under Thompson's watch. Fine it was his first season but it isn't something you forgive and forget. We now have the possibility of a second in 4 seasons under Thompson. Anyone want to bet that no matter what happens Thompson keeps his job? Why should he? Why are we accepting mediocrity? We booted Sherman out because he couldn't manage the cap and he couldn't win the big playoff games. But we keep Thompson who manages the cap (and you can argue that being so far under it is not managing it because you aren't winning) and can 't bring the one stat that matters, the "W". I get it, makes perfect sense, keep the guy who isn't winning because at some point in the "future" he might. That is some backasswards logic and what caused the 70's and 80's for the Packers.

In no particular order of importance, some errors I find in your argument are:

-Sherman the GM was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- no depth.
-Sherman the GM was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- unmanageable vet contracts.
-Sherman the GM was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- wasted cap dollars.
-Sherman the coach was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- laissez faire management of Favre's performance.
-Sherman was never TT's coach, he inherited him.
-Because of the above, TT was rightfully given a pass for "4-12".
-Sherman brought on his own firing by not accepting and working with his new boss.
-TT is part of a team that includes Murphy and McCarthy.
-when evaluating a GM short term, the reasons for "Ws & Ls" are important.
-when evaluating a GM the direction a program is headed is more important than short term "Ws & Ls".
-Sherman's program for the team was headed down.
-Sherman never put together a team considered a real playoff threat.
-TT appears to be building a program for the future, a team with a foundation.
-TT put together a team that was a game away from the Super Bowl.
-fans focus on short term wins and losses, usually just the season.
-team management also has to consider longer range issues, including whether starting over makes sense at the time.

That being said, a season of 7-9 or 6-10 will not sit well following 13-3. If it is followed by another poor performance in 2009, absent unusual circumstances TT could be on a short leash, and he should be. Making the NFC Championship game buys him a year of grace.

I agree with 99% of what you have written, Patler, but I was surprised that you claim Sherman never had a team considered a serious playoff contender. That 4th-and-26 team was, I thought anyway, a very strong Superbowl contender. A powerful running game, Brett Favre at QB and a defense that (and how I hate to say this) bent but did not break (much). I thought that was the best GB team I'd seen in a while, and maybe the best offense I'd seen including the Holmgren teams. Guess I liked the powerful run game and thought it was a team built for the playoffs. Not that they won, but I thought they were a serious contender.

[Tarlam!]

Except they could't get that yard and 4th & 26 destroy your observations, Fritz.

[Zool]

We booted Sherman out because he couldn't manage the cap and he couldn't win the big playoff games. But we keep Thompson who manages the cap (and you can argue that being so far under it is not managing it because you aren't winning) and can 't bring the one stat that matters, the "W".

I forgot one issue - please explain the above.

The cumulative impact of TT's cap management over four years is that they are just over $7 million short of spending every dollar allotted to them for the four years. Of the almost $415 million for salary caps in 2005 through 2008, he has spent about $408 million. How is he "so far under" the cap?

This is the exact point that some like to ignore. Money is either used right before the cutoff to resign someone, or moved forward to the next season via some very smart bonuses that cannot be met. Its not like every season there's $22mil just sitting there at the end of the season unused.

[Patler]

I agree with 99% of what you have written, Patler, but I was surprised that you claim Sherman never had a team considered a serious playoff contender. That 4th-and-26 team was, I thought anyway, a very strong Superbowl contender. A powerful running game, Brett Favre at QB and a defense that (and how I hate to say this) bent but did not break (much). I thought that was the best GB team I'd seen in a while, and maybe the best offense I'd seen including the Holmgren teams. Guess I liked the powerful run game and thought it was a team built for the playoffs. Not that they won, but I thought they were a serious contender.

Maybe, but I have felt that was one of Sherman's teams that was made to look better than it was due to fortunate scheduling. They finished at 10-6, and beat the Seahawks and Denver (last game of the year) who also finished at 10-6. Beyond that they split with the Vikings who finished 9-7, but beat no other team that finished with a winning record. They even lost one to the Lions (5-11) and also to Arizona (4-12). They were lucky to play both San Diego and Oakland (both 4-12). The best teams they played, K.C. (13-3), St. Louis (12-4) and Philly (12-4) all beat them. It may have been a play-off worthy team, but getting beyond the Wild Card game win would have been an upset, I think.

[cpk1994]

I agree with 99% of what you have written, Patler, but I was surprised that you claim Sherman never had a team considered a serious playoff contender. That 4th-and-26 team was, I thought anyway, a very strong Superbowl contender. A powerful running game, Brett Favre at QB and a defense that (and how I hate to say this) bent but did not break (much). I thought that was the best GB team I'd seen in a while, and maybe the best offense I'd seen including the Holmgren teams. Guess I liked the powerful run game and thought it was a team built for the playoffs. Not that they won, but I thought they were a serious contender.

Maybe, but I have felt that was one of Sherman's teams that was made to look better than it was due to fortunate scheduling. They finished at 10-6, and beat the Seahawks and Denver (last game of the year) who also finished at 10-6. Beyond that they split with the Vikings who finished 9-7, but beat no other team that finished with a winning record. They even lost one to the Lions (5-11) and also to Arizona (4-12). They were lucky to play both San Diego and Oakland (both 4-12). The best teams they played, K.C. (13-3), St. Louis (12-4) and Philly (12-4) all beat them. It may have been a play-off worthy team, but getting beyond the Wild Card game win would have been an upset, I think.Also to note, in that San Diego game they were trailing in the 4th quarter, but were able to put 14 unanswered points on the board around a Grady Jackson forced fumble. Remember also that in the Seahawks game they had a 7 point lead, but the D was a sieve on the last drive of regulation and gave up the tiieing score. Add to that blowing a chnace to win the game in regulation after Sherman's called a rediculous shotgun draw after Longwell told him he needed 5 yards to get the FG. That team relied on a lot of luck the last month plus of the season. It wasn't as good as some are making out to be.

[Fritz]

Except they could't get that yard and 4th & 26 destroy your observations, Fritz.

I'm not sure two plays can destroy a general observation, Tar.

I think if there's a weakness to my argument it might be in the defense's ineffectiveness. That might've been the achilles heel.

As I said, I thought that offense was built for the playoffs. A stout offensive line, a stud running back and a HOF quarterback.

[Tarlam!]

I'm not sure two plays can destroy a general observation, Tar.

You're right of course. Two plays do not a team make.

But, losing to Atlanta and the Vikings in the first round certainly don't add up to teams being built for the playoffs. Heck, last years team was a Favre INT away from the big dance. Shermies 4th and 26 team also lost on hail Mary INT from Favre, but that wasn't the title game.

I guess I'm just too anti Sherman to concede he built anything remarkable.

[bobblehead]

But, losing to Atlanta and the Vikings in the first round certainly don't add up to teams being built for the playoffs. Heck, last years team was a Favre INT away from the big dance. Shermies 4th and 26 team also lost on hail Mary INT from Favre, but that wasn't the title game.



I'm thinking that last 8-9 years we were a favre interception away from winning playoff games. Jets fans be warned.

[Fritz]

I'm not sure two plays can destroy a general observation, Tar.

You're right of course. Two plays do not a team make.

But, losing to Atlanta and the Vikings in the first round certainly don't add up to teams being built for the playoffs. Heck, last years team was a Favre INT away from the big dance. Shermies 4th and 26 team also lost on hail Mary INT from Favre, but that wasn't the title game.

I guess I'm just too anti Sherman to concede he built anything remarkable.

Please, Tarlam. Stop with the factual information already. Let me live in my fantasy world and force everyone else to do so as well.