PDA

View Full Version : More like 1996 or 2002?



LL2
10-30-2007, 12:46 AM
Those were the last two times the Packers started 6-1. In 96 we all know what happened...they won the SB. In 2002 they were 1 and done in the playoffs on one of the worst games they ever played in the playoffs.

I say they are somewhere in between and the next 9 games will determine how good they are. The 2002 team was ravaged by injuries by the time they got to the playoffs. With the NFC being very weak they have a chance, but there is no way they can beat the Colts or Patriots.

woodbuck27
10-30-2007, 12:49 AM
Those were the last two times the Packers started 6-1. In 96 we all know what happened...they won the SB. In 2002 they were 1 and done in the playoffs on one of the worst games they ever played in the playoffs.

I say they are somewhere in between and the next 9 games will determine how good they are. The 2002 team was ravaged by injuries by the time they got to the playoffs. With the NFC being very weak they have a chance, but there is no way they can beat the Colts or Patriots.

If we get a running game up on some consistency then anything might happen.

My biggest concern is Favre and him running out of the good energy.

He was well rested and really a Shark out there tonight. Into it BIG !

HarveyWallbangers
10-30-2007, 12:52 AM
We were decimated by injuries by the end of 2002. We won't win the Super Bowl, but we have a good shot at winning a playoff games. I'll say somewhere in between.

The Leaper
10-30-2007, 08:52 AM
I think this team compares to what the Packers were in 1994/1995. Lots of talented kids with some solid veterans sprinkled in. Can they become what the 1996 team was? We'll have to wait on that...I don't see that happening this year.

The 2002 squad rode a relatively easy schedule to a good record...but injuries took away a chance to make a strong postseason run. That team wasn't as talented IMO as either the 1996 or 2007 team. They got some breaks and took advantage of them to their credit...but then ran out of luck.

MadtownPacker
10-30-2007, 09:16 AM
The 2002 D was a bunch of veteran players that had reached their peak and where breaking down already. This years young team has much more improvement ahead.

LL2
10-30-2007, 10:04 AM
Another key difference was that the 96 defense was really good. This defense is good but not quite there yet. I think the D could've done better last night.

FritzDontBlitz
10-30-2007, 12:16 PM
When the safeties come around the defense will be stellar. Bigby probably had his worst game of the season, and stonehanded Nick Collins dropped TWO interceptions that he could have taken all the way back untouched.

I dont compare this season to 1996 for one simple reason: in '96 Green Bay was picked to win it all and even made the cover of SI as their lock to be the NFC representative. I dont compare it to 2002 for similar reasons: they had records of 9-7 in 2000 and 12-4 in 2001 so expectations were already leaning toward them making the playoffs.

Remember what expectations for this season were before opening day? Hardly anyone in the media even expected Green Bay to have a winning record. In fact, many of the predictions claimed that 2007 would be as bad or even worse than 2005, the year the Pack finished 4-12. They pointed to the inexperience of their second year head coach, lack of activity in free agency, TT's focus on soldifying a defense that had already began to improve instead of "known playmakers" on draft day, the loss of Ahman Green and the overall youth and inexperience of the team to indicate Brett and co. were gonna be in for a woeful winter. Yet, here we are at midseason, Green Bay is 6-1 and they still don't even know if they have a running game yet.

I say that so far 2007 stands head and shoulders above 1996 and 2002 because in spite of all the odds and expectations the Packers are exceeding beyond everyone's wildest dreams.

Harlan Huckleby
10-30-2007, 12:27 PM
they have a better QB now than in 96 and 02

LL2
10-30-2007, 01:38 PM
they have a better QB now than in 96 and 02

We always had Favre...so do you mean Aaron Rodgers?

HarveyWallbangers
10-30-2007, 01:50 PM
Ummm... I think it was a joke.

Harlan Huckleby
10-30-2007, 02:44 PM
I was suggesting that Favre is actually better now than in those other years.

I'm not sure if it is true or not, but he's putting together a nice season. It was sort of a joke.

MJZiggy
10-30-2007, 02:55 PM
I think he's making better decisions; playing with maturity and handling the game very well...