Ty is ON THE RECORD

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty has stated since the beginning of the season that this was a 9 or 10 win team. Ty has NEVER wavered on this. Didn't waver and readjust when many were drinking preseason Kool Aid. Didn't waver when we lost to the Vikes or TB.

Ty is willing to stand by his statements. Here they are. Ty is laughing at certain posts..you know who you are.


playoffs: Ty have never once stated they were a playoff team. They are a 9-10 win team. That may or may not be good enough for the playoffs.

5-3: You don't think we can win 4 games to reach 9 wins? Sorry, but i see us winning Lions, 49ers, Seahawks, Bears, and Cards to get to 10. And the cowboys aren't any better than us.


Bears: our d has been getting better and better. No reason to think we can't win.
49s: at home. 49ers play hard, but they aren't a good team or better than us.
Lions: C'mon.
Cards: They aren't great. Just lost to Carolina today.
Seahawks: C'mon.

Cowboys. I didn't pick us to win, but they aren't some sort of world beaters. No reason to think we can't beat them.


Ty made a prediction. There is nothing optimistic in thinking you can beat a team you already beat at home (bears). Please explain why it is optimistic to think we will beat a 2-5 Hawks team. Nothing optimistic about thinking we can beat the Cards who just lost to carolina...and a team that may be resting its players/not focused as pack angling to get in the playoffs...as they have already clinched, most likely, a playoff spot (if you would actually think it would help). Nothing optimistic about thinking we beat the Niners at home..considering that they have won just one road game this year.

See, it ain't optimism, it is called analyzing and having a reason for your beliefs. Try it sometime.

[PlantPage55]

For the record, I said we would win 12 games. :oops:

But hey...technically...it's still attainable. :P

[Tyrone Bigguns]

For the record, I said we would win 12 games. :oops:

But hey...technically...it's still attainable. :P

You going on the record that they are going 6-0! C'mon...MAKE THE CALL!!!

[channtheman]

For the record, I said we would win 12 games. :oops:

But hey...technically...it's still attainable. :P

I've said 12 wins as well. I honestly don't see why we can't beat the Steelers or the Ravens, 2 games a lot are worried about.

[mraynrand]

I'm on the record saying they would win 11. I think they still can:



The Packers have a tough second half, but by the time they get Dallas at home, Romo should be freaking out and the Cowboy run defense will be worse. The Niners are tough, but you can neutralize their talent. Toughests games are Ravens, Steelers, Cards, but if the Steelers can lose to Shitcago, they can lose to us, the Ravens typically play like shit at GB, and the Cards will be resting. The losses to the Vikings - in MN is to be expected; in GB - who knows? Without Finley and the Favre freakout factor - that's just an emotional kind of one-in-an epoch type of loss. Wouldn't surprise me if they come out flat next week at Tampa. The difficult thing will be that the Packers are unlucky - every time they start to get things worked out, they suffer one or two or more devastating injuries - like in 2002. I'm always waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[sharpe1027]

I picked 10-6 overall, but my per game picks were not even close. Might as well have just flip coins. 10-6 is still reasonable in my book though. They can win any one of their last games, with Pitt being the toughest, but still possible. They won't win them all, just four of them to get to 10-6. :wink:


Week 1: Green Bay Packers VS Chicago Bears - W
Week 2: Green Bay Packers VS Cincinnati Bengals - W
Week 3: Green Bay Packers AT St. Louis Rams - L
Week 4: Green Bay Packers AT Minnesota Vikings - L
Week 5: Open Date
Week 6: Green Bay Packers VS Detroit Lions - W
Week 7: Green Bay Packers AT Cleveland Browns - W
Week 8: Green Bay Packers VS Minnesota Vikings - W
Week 9: Green Bay Packers AT Tampa Bay Buccaneers -W
Week 10: Green Bay Packers VS Dallas Cowboys - L
Week 11: Green Bay Packers VS San Francisco 49ers - W
Week 12: Green Bay Packers AT Detroit Lions - W
Week 13: Green Bay Packers VS Baltimore Ravens - L
Week 14: Green Bay Packers AT Chicago Bears - W
Week 15: Green Bay Packers AT Pittsburgh Steelers - W
Week 16: Green Bay Packers VS Seattle Seahawks - L
Week 17: Green Bay Packers AT Arizona Cardinals - L

10-6

[hoosier]

I'm going on the record as saying that the Pack is going to run the table. I will duly disappear for a week if and when they lose their next regular season game.

[Scott Campbell]

For the record, I said we would win 12 games. :oops:

But hey...technically...it's still attainable. :P

I've said 12 wins as well. I honestly don't see why we can't beat the Steelers or the Ravens, 2 games a lot are worried about.


I love your enthusiasm. But I'm still reminded of the team that lost to Tampa.

[pbmax]

I said 12-3-1. I'm with chann. 12-4 is doable.

[Fosco33]

I was pretty close preseason. I'll said 11 but it feels like 10. We'll need to catch a few breaks and play teams at the right time (i.e, does Zona need the last game).



Week 1: Green Bay Packers VS Chicago Bears W (75%)
Week 2: Green Bay Packers VS Cincinnati Bengals W (80%)
Week 3: Green Bay Packers AT St. Louis Rams W (70%)
Week 4: Green Bay Packers AT Minnesota Vikings L (75%)
Week 5: Open Date
Week 6: Green Bay Packers VS Detroit Lions W (99%)
Week 7: Green Bay Packers AT Cleveland Browns W (70%)
Week 8: Green Bay Packers VS Minnesota Vikings W (75%)
Week 9: Green Bay Packers AT Tampa Bay Buccaneers L (70%)
Week 10: Green Bay Packers VS Dallas Cowboys L (55%)
Week 11: Green Bay Packers VS San Francisco 49ers W (75%)
Week 12: Green Bay Packers AT Detroit Lions W (80%)
Week 13: Green Bay Packers VS Baltimore Ravens W (70%)
Week 14: Green Bay Packers AT Chicago Bears L (75%)
Week 15: Green Bay Packers AT Pittsburgh Steelers L (85%)
Week 16: Green Bay Packers VS Seattle Seahawks W (75%)
Week 17: Green Bay Packers AT Arizona Cardinals W (55%)


Mark it down (confidence in parenthesis).

11-5 (home 7-1, away 4-4)

[pbmax]

If there was ever a year to play the Ravens and Steelers this decade, this is it.

[mraynrand]

I said 12-3-1. I'm with chann. 12-4 is doable.

Anyone who predicts a tie should be flogged. What were you drinking?

[sharpe1027]

I said 12-3-1. I'm with chann. 12-4 is doable.

Anyone who predicts a tie should be flogged. What were you drinking?

Ties are stupid. For clarification, I mean the game ending nobody wins ties not necessarily the PR poster Ty.

I hate to see what happens in the Super Bowl or I hate to see what happens in the playoffs. You have to settle with a tie.

[AtlPackFan]

I said 8-8. I'm standing by that...especially now with Harris and - to a lesser degree - Kampman gone for the season.

[mraynrand]

I said 12-3-1. I'm with chann. 12-4 is doable.

Anyone who predicts a tie should be flogged. What were you drinking?

Ties are stupid. For clarification, I mean the game ending nobody wins ties not necessarily the PR poster Ty.

I hate to see what happens in the Super Bowl or I hate to see what happens in the playoffs. You have to settle with a tie.

????? I don't understand

http://www.thehouseofties.com.au/images/mens-ties.jpg

[pbmax]

I said 12-3-1. I'm with chann. 12-4 is doable.

Anyone who predicts a tie should be flogged. What were you drinking?
Not sure. Got it from a Bear fan in a bar on Rush St. Funny to mention it, but I have had vision trouble ever since that trip.

Wanted to predict 13-3. But not even Pre-Season Kool Aid was that strong. And, in case by now it wasn't obvious, I don't take predictions too seriously. :)

[pbmax]

I said 12-3-1. I'm with chann. 12-4 is doable.

Anyone who predicts a tie should be flogged. What were you drinking?

Ties are stupid. For clarification, I mean the game ending nobody wins ties not necessarily the PR poster Ty.

I hate to see what happens in the Super Bowl or I hate to see what happens in the playoffs. You have to settle with a tie.
You do know Donovan, that they continue with Sudden Death in the playoffs?

[mraynrand]

I said 12-3-1. I'm with chann. 12-4 is doable.

Anyone who predicts a tie should be flogged. What were you drinking?

Ties are stupid. For clarification, I mean the game ending nobody wins ties not necessarily the PR poster Ty.

I hate to see what happens in the Super Bowl or I hate to see what happens in the playoffs. You have to settle with a tie.
You do know Donovan, that they continue with Sudden Death in the playoffs?

Me no likey you, PBMAX

http://a.espncdn.com/i/mag/2008issues/121508/lifeofreilly.jpg

Here come the hex!

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Oct-04-Sat-2003/photos/mcnabb.jpg

[sharpe1027]

I said 12-3-1. I'm with chann. 12-4 is doable.

Anyone who predicts a tie should be flogged. What were you drinking?

Ties are stupid. For clarification, I mean the game ending nobody wins ties not necessarily the PR poster Ty.

I hate to see what happens in the Super Bowl or I hate to see what happens in the playoffs. You have to settle with a tie.

????? I don't understand

http://www.thehouseofties.com.au/images/mens-ties.jpg

I know, right? With so many choices it is nearly impossible to predict a tie.

[Fritz]

I am on record for predicting 10 or 11 wins.

However, I am also on record as being really, really pissed after the Tampa game and beginning to question MM as a head coach.

[pbmax]

I am on record for predicting 10 or 11 wins.

However, I am also on record as being really, really pissed after the Tampa game and beginning to question MM as a head coach.
Don't tell me you have flopped on Campen and Slocum!? :shock:

[hoosier]

That is why my running the table is really a sign of my profound pessimism: it will allow MM and his staff to hide their ineptitude.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I can see them winning 4 or 5 of the last 6, but MM better have them prepared to play. I'd rather see them peaking late, rather than early.

[Bretsky]

Based on the preseason and how pretty much everything went wrong last yr IMO 8-10 wins was a pretty conservative call

Those predicting 6 and under or 12 or over showed stones

[bobblehead]

I can't recall exactly what I predicted (I think it was 12-4), but I will say that I'm going to claim I knew all along it would turn out this way.

And for the record Ty is on something, but I don't think its "the record"...relax ty, I'm having fun with the image you portray.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I am on the record guaranteeing that the Packers will not lose next Sunday. You can bookmark this!

[ThunderDan]

I am on the record guaranteeing that the Packers will not lose next Sunday. You can bookmark this!

Psst... they play on Thursday!

[Cheesehead Craig]

I am on the record guaranteeing that the Packers will not lose next Sunday. You can bookmark this!

Psst... they play on Thursday!

Exactly. I stand 100% behind my statement.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Based on the preseason and how pretty much everything went wrong last yr IMO 8-10 wins was a pretty conservative call

Those predicting 6 and under or 12 or over showed stones

Predicting 3 or 4 more wins was conservative? :lol:

Have you talked with Retail? We hadn't fixed the OL, our Dline sucked, our LBs sucked, we have no backups at OL, our RBs suck, our coaches suck, etc.

[imscott72]

We may get 10 wins, but lets be realistic. Other than the Saints and Vikings, the NFC just sucks. There are so many teams that are below average this season it seems. I still think we're no more than an average team, but we're fortunate it's a year where there are many other average teams. How else do you explain losing to a team like Tampa, then whipping Dallas at home? On the AFC side the Ravens are bad, and the Steelers have problems.
I don't want to call it all luck, but deep down I think most of us realize we just happen to be catching a lot of teams at the right time. Great teams like the Vikings and Saints seem to just steamroll everybody. That being said, you know what they always say. Just get in and see what happens. This is a Packer team that could end up with 12 wins, but ending up with 8 wins wouldn't shock me either.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Well, folks, imscott with another rationalization. We are lucky..but the other playoff contenders aren't. Lol

We see how your brain works....records above 500 are now average teams. ravens and steelers have problems and suck..yet, just weeks ago there was no way we could beat those juggernauts. We were all crazy for thinking that.

No, most of us don't think like you. We don't realize that we are lucky. good teams lose to bad teams all the time..or should we now say the Bengals suck since they lost to the raiders.

Shouldn't have expected you to man up. That would be too hard.

almost exactly how i predicted it...must really suck for you. :lol:

[imscott72]

Well, folks, imscott with another rationalization. We are lucky..but the other playoff contenders aren't. Lol

We see how your brain works....records above 500 are now average teams. ravens and steelers have problems and suck..yet, just weeks ago there was no way we could beat those juggernauts. We were all crazy for thinking that.

No, most of us don't think like you. We don't realize that we are lucky. good teams lose to bad teams all the time..or should we now say the Bengals suck since they lost to the raiders.

Shouldn't have expected you to man up. That would be too hard.

almost exactly how i predicted it...must really suck for you. :lol:

Not really surprising you would argue, but I could care less. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I could care less what someone like you thinks.

[ThunderDan]

Well, folks, imscott with another rationalization. We are lucky..but the other playoff contenders aren't. Lol

We see how your brain works....records above 500 are now average teams. ravens and steelers have problems and suck..yet, just weeks ago there was no way we could beat those juggernauts. We were all crazy for thinking that.

No, most of us don't think like you. We don't realize that we are lucky. good teams lose to bad teams all the time..or should we now say the Bengals suck since they lost to the raiders.

Shouldn't have expected you to man up. That would be too hard.

almost exactly how i predicted it...must really suck for you. :lol:

Not really surprising you would argue, but I could care less. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I could care less what someone like you thinks.

So no NFC wins count except against Minn and NO?

Who have NO and MINN beat in the NFC then? By that logic they have only beaten creampuffs, ergo they are really creampuffs who have been lucky to beat the other creampuffs and have a better record.

[imscott72]

Well, folks, imscott with another rationalization. We are lucky..but the other playoff contenders aren't. Lol

We see how your brain works....records above 500 are now average teams. ravens and steelers have problems and suck..yet, just weeks ago there was no way we could beat those juggernauts. We were all crazy for thinking that.

No, most of us don't think like you. We don't realize that we are lucky. good teams lose to bad teams all the time..or should we now say the Bengals suck since they lost to the raiders.

Shouldn't have expected you to man up. That would be too hard.

almost exactly how i predicted it...must really suck for you. :lol:

Not really surprising you would argue, but I could care less. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I could care less what someone like you thinks.

So no NFC wins count except against Minn and NO?

Who have NO and MINN beat in the NFC then? By that logic they have only beaten creampuffs, ergo they are really creampuffs who have been lucky to beat the other creampuffs and have a better record.

Of course all of those wins count. My point is there are way more poor teams than there good to great teams this year, which I believe gives us a false sense of security of how good our team is. I'm not trying to rain on the parade, but I am being realistic. We played the Vikings twice and got owned each time. Does anyone really think we'd beat the Saints? We've beaten the Browns, Lions, Bears, Rams, 49ers, and Cowboys who are all average or below average teams. I'm just not ready to drink the kool-aid yet.

[Partial]

NFL as a whole is down because college football is also down.

There are only a few dominant teams this year. The Vikes and Saints are the two in the NFC, and I'm still not convinced the Saints are. I still think the NFC favorite to get to the super bowl is the Eagles.

Couldn't tell you who the good AFC teams are besides NE and Indy. One of those two or Pitt will be in the big game. Three best QBs in the AFC.

[sharpe1027]

Of course all of those wins count. My point is there are way more poor teams than there good to great teams this year, which I believe gives us a false sense of security of how good our team is. I'm not trying to rain on the parade, but I am being realistic. We played the Vikings twice and got owned each time. Does anyone really think we'd beat the Saints? We've beaten the Browns, Lions, Bears, Rams, 49ers, and Cowboys who are all average or below average teams. I'm just not ready to drink the kool-aid yet.

So unless you would beat the best two teams you are average at best? I honestly think your conclusion based upon opinion/emotion and runs contrary to common sense.

IMHO, consistently beating average/below average teams means you are an above average team, plain and simple. Right now the Packers are above average. Sure they could end up worse depending on how they play from here on out, but right I'd say they have conclusively established that they are above average.

[imscott72]

Of course all of those wins count. My point is there are way more poor teams than there good to great teams this year, which I believe gives us a false sense of security of how good our team is. I'm not trying to rain on the parade, but I am being realistic. We played the Vikings twice and got owned each time. Does anyone really think we'd beat the Saints? We've beaten the Browns, Lions, Bears, Rams, 49ers, and Cowboys who are all average or below average teams. I'm just not ready to drink the kool-aid yet.

So unless you would beat the best two teams you are average at best?

yes that's correct. It's called a "signature win". When you beat average teams, then get whipped by a top team twice, then lose to a winless team, I'd say you're no more than average yes. You can spin it however you want, but that's the way it is imo.

[packerbacker1234]

12-4 isn't happening. We just lost harris who is one of the best at what he does in the game for the season, and a solid kampman. Were gonna lose 1 or 2 more games minimum.

10 - 6 is more reasonable, the way things shake out.

[sharpe1027]

yes that's correct. It's called a "signature win". When you beat average teams, then get whipped by a top team twice, then lose to a winless team, I'd say you're no more than average yes. You can spin it however you want, but that's the way it is imo.

Eh...I'd argue a lot more spinning is required for your take. Not a big deal, but if you have a .600 record, I'd say that by definition that is above average. Right or wrong, spin is what is required to come to a different conclusion.

Are the Packers disappointing compared to where many of us hoped? Probably. Are they frustrating to watch be cause of the sloppy mistakes? Yes. Still, absent spin, they're still above average.

[imscott72]

yes that's correct. It's called a "signature win". When you beat average teams, then get whipped by a top team twice, then lose to a winless team, I'd say you're no more than average yes. You can spin it however you want, but that's the way it is imo.

Eh...I'd argue a lot more spinning is required for your take. Not a big deal, but if you have a .600 record, I'd say that by definition that is above average. Right or wrong, spin is what is required to come to a different conclusion.

Are the Packers disappointing compared to where many of us hoped? Probably. Are they frustrating to watch be cause of the sloppy mistakes? Yes. Still, absent spin, they're still above average.

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you took this same team and put it in the NFC 2-3 seasons ago, I don't think we'd be much better than 8-8 simply because the competition was better. I know that's apples and oranges compared to where the other teams are today, but I thought that might get my point across easier.

[sharpe1027]

I guess what I'm trying to say is if you took this same team and put it in the NFC 2-3 seasons ago, I don't think we'd be much better than 8-8 simply because the competition was better. I know that's apples and oranges compared to where the other teams are today, but I thought that might get my point across easier.

Yeah, I think I understand what you are getting at, and it's subjective so you may be right. But, my point was that they are still an above average team this year.

Also, I feel that while 2-3 seasons ago there might have been a more clear distinctions top to bottom, that doesn't necessarily mean that the level of competition is higher.

How about an analogy...if most everyone but you takes a step forward, you may look like you took a step back. I think that's what's going on. The above-average teams are having a harder time because most other teams are improving. Hell, the Rams nearly beat the best team in football, what does that say about the overall level of play? :lol:

[ThunderDan]

Of course all of those wins count. My point is there are way more poor teams than there good to great teams this year, which I believe gives us a false sense of security of how good our team is. I'm not trying to rain on the parade, but I am being realistic. We played the Vikings twice and got owned each time. Does anyone really think we'd beat the Saints? We've beaten the Browns, Lions, Bears, Rams, 49ers, and Cowboys who are all average or below average teams. I'm just not ready to drink the kool-aid yet.

Minnesota has beaten:

Cleveland 1-9
Detroit 2-8
SF 4-6
GB 6-4
STL 1-9
BAL 5-5 (missed last second FG for win)
GB 6-4
DET 2-8
SEA 3-7

Other than GB, Minnestoa hasn't beaten a team with a record over .500.

NO has beaten:
DET 2-8
PHI 6-4
BUF 3-7
NYJ 4-6
NYG 6-4
MIA 5-5
ATL 5-5
CAR 4-6
STL 1-9
TB 1-9

Only two teams with a record over .500.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Well, folks, imscott with another rationalization. We are lucky..but the other playoff contenders aren't. Lol

We see how your brain works....records above 500 are now average teams. ravens and steelers have problems and suck..yet, just weeks ago there was no way we could beat those juggernauts. We were all crazy for thinking that.

No, most of us don't think like you. We don't realize that we are lucky. good teams lose to bad teams all the time..or should we now say the Bengals suck since they lost to the raiders.

Shouldn't have expected you to man up. That would be too hard.

almost exactly how i predicted it...must really suck for you. :lol:

Not really surprising you would argue, but I could care less. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I could care less what someone like you thinks.

yet you felt compelled to post in this thread without mentioning your "record' predictions...just more hedging.

And, then felt compelled to reply to my post.

Your logic is so ridiculous that it is stultifying. Great teams. LOL Why are the Vikes a great team? They have beaten exactly one team with a winning record.

[Bossman641]

Of course all of those wins count. My point is there are way more poor teams than there good to great teams this year, which I believe gives us a false sense of security of how good our team is. I'm not trying to rain on the parade, but I am being realistic. We played the Vikings twice and got owned each time. Does anyone really think we'd beat the Saints? We've beaten the Browns, Lions, Bears, Rams, 49ers, and Cowboys who are all average or below average teams. I'm just not ready to drink the kool-aid yet.

Minnesota has beaten:

Cleveland 1-9
Detroit 2-8
SF 4-6
GB 6-4
STL 1-9
BAL 5-5 (missed last second FG for win)
GB 6-4
DET 2-8
SEA 3-7

Other than GB, Minnestoa hasn't beaten a team with a record over .500.

NO has beaten:
DET 2-8
PHI 6-4
BUF 3-7
NYJ 4-6
NYG 6-4
MIA 5-5
ATL 5-5
CAR 4-6
STL 1-9
TB 1-9

Only two teams with a record over .500.

:bclap: :bclap:

[mraynrand]

Well, folks, imscott with another rationalization. We are lucky..but the other playoff contenders aren't. Lol

We see how your brain works....records above 500 are now average teams. ravens and steelers have problems and suck..yet, just weeks ago there was no way we could beat those juggernauts. We were all crazy for thinking that.

No, most of us don't think like you. We don't realize that we are lucky. good teams lose to bad teams all the time..or should we now say the Bengals suck since they lost to the raiders.

Shouldn't have expected you to man up. That would be too hard.

almost exactly how i predicted it...must really suck for you. :lol:

Not really surprising you would argue, but I could care less. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I could care less what someone like you thinks.

yet you felt compelled to post in this thread without mentioning your "record' predictions...just more hedging.

And, then felt compelled to reply to my post.

Your logic is so ridiculous that it is stultifying. Great teams. LOL Why are the Vikes a great team? They have beaten exactly one team with a winning record.

Exactly. Fuck the Vikings. They barely beat us that second game. Rodgers throws to Jennings on that 3rd and 8 - who knows? I'd like to see them again after Favre's been hopefully ragdolled by Carolina, Arizona, and NYG through December. I think Favre will be very cold for that Dec 28 game in Soldier Field. Brrrrrr.....very COLD!!! Keep hope alive!

[PlantPage55]

It takes a good team to go 9-1.

HOWEVER - a great team should have a couple dominating wins against the shitty teams that they feasted on. I've watched most Viking games and it seems to me that last week against Seattle was the first game that they didn't let their opponent hang with them for the first half. It was the first time, if I am remembering correctly, that they absolutely teabagged an opponent.

Ergo, I'm not as scared of the Vikings as their 9-1 record would warrant I be.

[channtheman]

I said before the second game that we aren't as bad as people think and the Vikings aren't as good as people think. I think if we can get to the playoffs and face the Vikings the result will be different.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It takes a good team to go 9-1.

HOWEVER - a great team should have a couple dominating wins against the shitty teams that they feasted on. I've watched most Viking games and it seems to me that last week against Seattle was the first game that they didn't let their opponent hang with them for the first half. It was the first time, if I am remembering correctly, that they absolutely teabagged an opponent.

Ergo, I'm not as scared of the Vikings as their 9-1 record would warrant I be.

ty called that blowout win. Less about the vikes and more about a defeated Hawks team. The loss at the Cards...blowing the lead they did...it was pretty obvious the letdown they were gonna have. Emotionally, they were done.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Folks, just one more bone to chew on. Imscott has referenced how the pack would do 2 or 3 years ago.

2 years ago, the seahawks won their division with a 9-7 record. :lol: