Offensive Identity......

[pbmax]

There were like 18 teams in the league during the lombardi years so showing the % of teams each era was better than would me more accurate than the #. Does tha tmake sense?

Excellent point NC.

Sherman 28/32= 0.875

Holmgren 27/30= 0.900

Lombardi 12/14= 0.857

I could have taken the time to divide out each year, as Holmgren coached in a 28 and 30 team league and Lombardi coached with 12-15 teams in the league. But, eh.

Actually, Sherman came out ahead of where I thought he would in both cases. 2002 was the year of a rediscovered running game derailed by injuries and culminating in the loss to the Falcons. 2003 was the best year for offense under Sherman and was the 4th and 26 year.

What I remember most about these two regular seasons was watching the Eagles reg season game in 2003 and seeing the Eagles blitz us all day and we couldn't pull our offense together until the 4th quarter. Was my first solid clue that Sherman's game plan/game day management might have some holes.

[b bulldog]

Great, we had a dominant O until playoff time. 4th and 1, does D really win championships, I guess it does.

[RashanGary]

It's funny, you can manufacture points on offense but if your defense sucks the opposition is going to run all over you. There really isn't a way to cover it. Not even for a quarter let alone a full game.

Defense really does win championships.

[Joemailman]

People tend to forget that The Packers had a 14 point lead in the playoff game vs. Philly. A good defense would have made that stand up, especially considering how banged up the Eagles were.

[MadtownPacker]

I dont have any hard feelings towards Sherman anymore. He did what he felt was best to field a winning team and for most of the regular season he did just that. His downfall was the playoffs and what could have been, what should have been (4th and 1).

I see M3's offense playing ball control like most have mentioned. It will give the D time to catch its breath while keeping Favre level headed and avoiding costly INTs. That will neagte the effect of having so many untested receivers and a new star will be born (Jennings?).

Good things will happen on O in 2006.

[Green Bud Packer]

how ironic that sherman's g.m.skills slit the throat of his coaching ability. i'm glad he's gone. if mac can make football fun for b.favre again look out bears.

[b bulldog]

I have lots and lots of hard feelings towards Mike Sherman, our former GM who is now a OLINE COACH

[Kiwon]

I don't have any hard feelings against Sherman, especially when you consider that only 4 out of 14 Packer HC have winning records.

He's an OL and assistant Head Coach this year and probably will be offered a HC position next year if the HC turnover rate stays similiar to the recent past. He made his share of personnel mistakes as GM, but so does every team.

Both Seattle or Pittsburgh fans wanted new HCs just a few years ago, but management stood by Holmgren and Cower and their teams became competitive again (yes, yes, TT-lovers, I know that TT's drafting genius was the reason Seattle went to the Super Bowl. I only talking about Sherman as HC, not GM).

[Partial]

I think MM's identity will be a strong running game with a punishing defense. I think they realize without Walker they're going to have a hard time moving the ball vertically, especially post-favre.