Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More like 1996 or 2002?

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    More like 1996 or 2002?

    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.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: More like 1996 or 2002?

    Originally posted by LL2
    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 !
    ** Since 2006 3 X Pro Pickem' Champion; 4 X Runner-Up and 3 X 3rd place.
    ** To download Jesus Loves Me ring tones, you'll need a cell phone mame
    ** If God doesn't fish, play poker or pull for " the Packers ", exactly what does HE do with his buds?
    ** Rather than love, money or fame - give me TRUTH: Henry D. Thoreau

    Comment

    • #3
      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.
      "There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted Thompson

      Comment

      • #4
        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.
        My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?

        Comment

        • #5
          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.

          Comment

          • #6
            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.

            Comment

            • #7
              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.
              Always respect your opponent, even when you're kicking the crap outta him.

              Comment

              • #8
                they have a better QB now than in 96 and 02

                Comment

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Harlan Huckleby
                  they have a better QB now than in 96 and 02
                  We always had Favre...so do you mean Aaron Rodgers?

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Ummm... I think it was a joke.
                    "There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted Thompson

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      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.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        I think he's making better decisions; playing with maturity and handling the game very well...
                        "Greatness is not an act... but a habit.Greatness is not an act... but a habit." -Greg Jennings

                        Comment

                        Previous template Next
                        Working...
                        X