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]

Re: Historical perspective for the current 5-7 record

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]

Re: Historical perspective for the current 5-7 record

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]

Re: Historical perspective for the current 5-7 record

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]

Re: Historical perspective for the current 5-7 record

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"!

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.