Moderators: NCF, salmar80, BF004, APB, Packfntk
- I think your memory is off. Those Packers certainly did struggle post- Lombardi, but they only finished last in the division 4 times between 1969 and 1992. That's only 4 out of 23. And in 2 of those last place seasons, they were tied with the Bears, the others were 1 or 2 games back of 3rd place.Scott4Pack wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023 15:40Makes up for all of the post-Lombardi years when we did finish last. Sometimes not even a respectable last.
Sure. That is four times more than we have seen since 1993?BSA wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023 17:48- I think your memory is off. Those Packers certainly did struggle post- Lombardi, but they only finished last in the division 4 times between 1969 and 1992. That's only 4 out of 23. And in 2 of those last place seasons, they were tied with the Bears, the others were 1 or 2 games back of 3rd place.Scott4Pack wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023 15:40Makes up for all of the post-Lombardi years when we did finish last. Sometimes not even a respectable last.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/
Lucky for those Packer teams, the hapless Buccaneers were placed in the same NFC Central division upon their creation in 1976 to save the Packers from several more last place finishes.BSA wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023 17:48- I think your memory is off. Those Packers certainly did struggle post- Lombardi, but they only finished last in the division 4 times between 1969 and 1992. That's only 4 out of 23. And in 2 of those last place seasons, they were tied with the Bears, the others were 1 or 2 games back of 3rd place.Scott4Pack wrote: ↑12 Mar 2023 15:40Makes up for all of the post-Lombardi years when we did finish last. Sometimes not even a respectable last.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/
Damn, wanted Reed too.
That's OK, we have Wyatt!
Only proves my theory that 75% of NFL GMs are actual special Olympics rejects.
I'd love to be wrong, but I'd put the odds of this at < 1%
I don’t think anyone will either. He’s not that good, a team would have to give up a 2nd, and pay him a deal.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023 08:02I'd love to be wrong, but I'd put the odds of this at < 1%
People just patently ignoring the difference and history of restricted free agents by comparing it to the OT deals happening in unrestricted free agency.
Good value, I think.
No one ignoring it, no one predicting it. Yet if there was a time it could happen, one could connect the dots in this situation.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023 08:02I'd love to be wrong, but I'd put the odds of this at < 1%
People just patently ignoring the difference and history of restricted free agents by comparing it to the OT deals happening in unrestricted free agency.
Sorry, I was describing a lot of twitter reaction and like Peter Burkowski commentary in my comment, not this board necessarily.BF004 wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023 08:26No one ignoring it, no one predicting it. Yet if there was a time it could happen, one could connect the dots in this situation.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023 08:02I'd love to be wrong, but I'd put the odds of this at < 1%
People just patently ignoring the difference and history of restricted free agents by comparing it to the OT deals happening in unrestricted free agency.
Free advice: avoid Pete bukkaskiYoHoChecko wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023 08:44Sorry, I was describing a lot of twitter reaction and like Peter Burkowski commentary in my comment, not this board necessarily.BF004 wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023 08:26No one ignoring it, no one predicting it. Yet if there was a time it could happen, one could connect the dots in this situation.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑15 Mar 2023 08:02I'd love to be wrong, but I'd put the odds of this at < 1%
People just patently ignoring the difference and history of restricted free agents by comparing it to the OT deals happening in unrestricted free agency.
