Loyalty Test

[Tarlam!]

I demand to know if PackerRats.com is just a bunch of fair weather fans, or die hard CHEESEHEADS willing to endure the worst in the name of The Team!

Where's the cut-off line for YOU?

[Brainerd]

Season Record is 0-16. I will want TT's and M3's heads, but I'll still be here...

[the_idle_threat]

0-16 would be a hell of a ride, but on the bright side, I'd be interested in who we'd get in the draft next April.

[Terry]

I think everyone is a diehard packer fan. At least I hope so. Maybe a more appropriate poll would be a test of loyalty to the coach or GM. What is the cutoff point for wanting MM's head? Is there even such a point this year? What about Thompson and does he have a cutoff point this year? Are the two of them joined together like siamese twins - that is, does one have a different cutoff point than the other?

I've also been wondering what Thompson has really been thinking - and I mean non-judgementally, that is, without regard to whether one thinks he is right or wrong, whether one things he is just wrong headed. He's clearly opting for youth more often than not - even in the waiver wire pickups, they seem to be the type that one thinks about long term rather than immediately as helpful. It's all very curious to me.

[Brainerd]

0-16 would be a hell of a ride, but on the bright side, I'd be interested in who we'd get in the draft next April.

At 0-16 anyone we wanted. If TT survived the disaster he would probably trade down to get more picks holding steadfast in the belief that the lack of quality players caused the downfall and not his handpicked, underqualified and wholly inadequate coaching staff. Especially the DC.

He would then release more proven vets that other teams seem to think can play and continue to fill the roster with more unproven rookies and street FA's that no other team seems to want.

This scenario would likely continue year after year until the tradition of players giving kids rides to practice on their bikes will be deemed superfluous since the players themselves will be the kids. Youth above experience at all costs unless the youth and inexperience is on the coaching staff.

[the_idle_threat]

0-16 would be a hell of a ride, but on the bright side, I'd be interested in who we'd get in the draft next April.

At 0-16 anyone we wanted.

:roll:

Well, duh! I was thinking more about the rounds other than the first. Picking at the top of each round (and/or trading down some) means you get a large infusion of talent. Of course, going 0-16 means you need it!

You're pretty down on the coaching staff. Why not relax, and let the team play a few games that actually count before issuing so harsh a verdict?

[Brainerd]

You're pretty down on the coaching staff. Why not relax, and let the team play a few games that actually count before issuing so harsh a verdict?
I'm relaxed. I simply don't buy into the count reasoning when there is so much evidence to the contrary. Like history and stuff.

[the_idle_threat]

You're pretty down on the coaching staff. Why not relax, and let the team play a few games that actually count before issuing so harsh a verdict?
I'm relaxed. I simply don't buy into the count reasoning when there is so much evidence to the contrary. Like history and stuff.

What history? Most of these guys are first-time coaches in the positions they hold right now. They don't have any history.

[GBRulz]

looks like hell will freeze over before any of us become a Queens fan, that's always positive :wink:

[Brainerd]

You're pretty down on the coaching staff. Why not relax, and let the team play a few games that actually count before issuing so harsh a verdict?
I'm relaxed. I simply don't buy into the count reasoning when there is so much evidence to the contrary. Like history and stuff.

What history? Most of these guys are first-time coaches in the positions they hold right now. They don't have any history.

Sure they do.

Bob Sanders has a history of being passed over for the DC position on more than one occasion when he was in the college ranks. Why? Because the HC didn't think he was qualified. Since his ego couldn't take it he decided to cash checks his talent couldn't afford. He entered the ranks of the NFL where he ended up with us. Lucky ain't we? In Green Bay he has a history of coaching the weakest link in the Packers D, the defensive line. What do we do? We promote him to DC. And what are the reasons? Only one. For consistency. So I guess we want a consistently bad defense.

Mike McCarthy has a history of being the OC of the worst offense in the league. His only season as OC. When questioned by reporters about said offense his response was, "we played not to lose". Lovely ain't it? Is that the pep talk you want him to give before a game to your Green Bay Packers? "Listen guys, Lets go out there and not lose to the Chicago Bears, ok guys, please. Don't lose. What do you say? Lets go out there and not lose one for the gipper".

I could go on but i'm even boring myself.

[falco]

I wouldn't question the loyalty of anyone here, but I think there are a ton of fair weather fans out there. Having a QB like Brett Favre and a winning streak like we did, that brings in a lot of people. Losing a QB like Brett Favre and a couple losing seasons will weed out most of them.

[Joemailman]

You're pretty down on the coaching staff. Why not relax, and let the team play a few games that actually count before issuing so harsh a verdict?
I'm relaxed. I simply don't buy into the count reasoning when there is so much evidence to the contrary. Like history and stuff.

What history? Most of these guys are first-time coaches in the positions they hold right now. They don't have any history.

Sure they do.

Bob Sanders has a history of being passed over for the DC position on more than one occasion when he was in the college ranks. Why? Because the HC didn't think he was qualified. Since his ego couldn't take it he decided to cash checks his talent couldn't afford. He entered the ranks of the NFL where he ended up with us. Lucky ain't we? In Green Bay he has a history of coaching the weakest link in the Packers D, the defensive line. What do we do? We promote him to DC. And what are the reasons? Only one. For consistency. So I guess we want a consistently bad defense.

Mike McCarthy has a history of being the OC of the worst offense in the league. His only season as OC. When questioned by reporters about said offense his response was, "we played not to lose". Lovely ain't it? Is that the pep talk you want him to give before a game to your Green Bay Packers? "Listen guys, Lets go out there and not lose to the Chicago Bears, ok guys, please. Don't lose. What do you say? Lets go out there and not lose one for the gipper".

I could go on but i'm even boring myself.


You left out the fact that McCarthy Was OC in New Orleans from 2000-2004, during which time New Orleans had a very respectable offense. I'm not sure if you didn't know that, or if you left it out because it doesn't fit into your argument. At any rate, whether McCarthy succeeds will depend on how good a leader he is, not how good an OC he was. You can bash McCarthy before he has had a chance to coach a game as HC if you want. Just don't get run over trying to jump back on the bandwagon later.

[Brainerd]

You're pretty down on the coaching staff. Why not relax, and let the team play a few games that actually count before issuing so harsh a verdict?
I'm relaxed. I simply don't buy into the count reasoning when there is so much evidence to the contrary. Like history and stuff.

What history? Most of these guys are first-time coaches in the positions they hold right now. They don't have any history.

Sure they do.

Bob Sanders has a history of being passed over for the DC position on more than one occasion when he was in the college ranks. Why? Because the HC didn't think he was qualified. Since his ego couldn't take it he decided to cash checks his talent couldn't afford. He entered the ranks of the NFL where he ended up with us. Lucky ain't we? In Green Bay he has a history of coaching the weakest link in the Packers D, the defensive line. What do we do? We promote him to DC. And what are the reasons? Only one. For consistency. So I guess we want a consistently bad defense.

Mike McCarthy has a history of being the OC of the worst offense in the league. His only season as OC. When questioned by reporters about said offense his response was, "we played not to lose". Lovely ain't it? Is that the pep talk you want him to give before a game to your Green Bay Packers? "Listen guys, Lets go out there and not lose to the Chicago Bears, ok guys, please. Don't lose. What do you say? Lets go out there and not lose one for the gipper".

I could go on but i'm even boring myself.


You left out the fact that McCarthy Was OC in New Orleans from 2000-2004, during which time New Orleans had a very respectable offense. I'm not sure if you didn't know that, or if you left it out because it doesn't fit into your argument. At any rate, whether McCarthy succeeds will depend on how good a leader he is, not how good an OC he was. You can bash McCarthy before he has had a chance to coach a game as HC if you want. Just don't get run over trying to jump back on the bandwagon later.

I stand corrected on SF being his first OC stint. Thanks. He asked for history so I gave him some history, from memory. I've stated in other posts that I'm willing to give both MM and Jag a year. At least I'm trying to provide facts to back up my complete lack of faith in this staff, not some homer, rah-rah, kool-aid drinking, everything is fine, the players suck rant.

What you consider bashing I consider analysis. If you're not interested in what I have to say then ignore me. Correcting me is appreciated but save your bandwagon cracks for the trolls. Thanks again.

[chewy-bacca]

no matter what, this is my squad. no if ands or buts.

[MasonCrosby]

You're pretty down on the coaching staff. Why not relax, and let the team play a few games that actually count before issuing so harsh a verdict?
I'm relaxed. I simply don't buy into the count reasoning when there is so much evidence to the contrary. Like history and stuff.

What history? Most of these guys are first-time coaches in the positions they hold right now. They don't have any history.

Sure they do.

Bob Sanders has a history of being passed over for the DC position on more than one occasion when he was in the college ranks. Why? Because the HC didn't think he was qualified. Since his ego couldn't take it he decided to cash checks his talent couldn't afford. He entered the ranks of the NFL where he ended up with us. Lucky ain't we? In Green Bay he has a history of coaching the weakest link in the Packers D, the defensive line. What do we do? We promote him to DC. And what are the reasons? Only one. For consistency. So I guess we want a consistently bad defense.

Mike McCarthy has a history of being the OC of the worst offense in the league. His only season as OC. When questioned by reporters about said offense his response was, "we played not to lose". Lovely ain't it? Is that the pep talk you want him to give before a game to your Green Bay Packers? "Listen guys, Lets go out there and not lose to the Chicago Bears, ok guys, please. Don't lose. What do you say? Lets go out there and not lose one for the gipper".

I could go on but i'm even boring myself.

i think he meant that playing not to lose in San Francisco was one of the negative aspects of that team and season last year, not that he actually plays to not lose and he doesn't want to be in that situation this year

i dunno i'm just trying to look at it from the other side...

[ahaha]

This is a thread that should be on a New England Patriots forum. I think most of the TRULY fair weather Packer fans left after the '99 season, and if not, they're definately gone after last year.

[pack4to84]

Im here 4 the ride even if 0-16 and if that happens I would volunteer to take over 4 TT. I could do no worse.

[oregonpackfan]

looks like hell will freeze over before any of us become a Queens fan, that's always positive :wink:

Amen to that sentiment, Sister GBRulz! I would rather be blinded, castrated, or worse yet, share a bedroom with my mother-in-law than become a Queens fan!

Packer fans need to look at the big picture for this season. With an almost all new coaching staff, and many rookies on the squad it could be a very rough going for the next 1-2 years. Yes, the Packers ARE rebuilding!

For the big picture, however, the Packers are building a solid core for the future. We need to maintain our loyalty and have patience.

OPF

[RIPackerFan]

I have been brainwashed from an infant to love the Packers, regardless of what they do. I have also been taught to talk about the good times when they stink.

So regardless of what they do, I will always love the Pack and proudly wear it on my sleeve.

[Lurker64]

I'm okay with 0-16 without calling for M3 or TT's heads. It would be a little silly to chase out your coach after one year and your GM after two.

I think I'd be a Packer fan barring pretty much everything except the team leaving Green Bay.

[red]

if they go 0-16 i'll still be a fan, but i would be pissing and moaning every step of the way

i would demand much more from this franchise. and if we did go 0-16, or even if we do the same or worse then last year. then i would probably say its time for TT to go. at that point i would say the experiment had failed

[Scott Campbell]

If we go 0-16 I'm blaming Tarlam for bringing it up in the first place.

I'm not big on predictions, but I'll tell you this. We are NOT going 0-16.

[RashanGary]

0-16 but I'm pissed off and gripeing every single week.

[GrnBay007]

0-16 = the state of Wisconsin being at the mercy of surrounding states to contract out additional drug and alcohol treatment facilities. :razz:

[Willard]

Wholesale corruption, debauchery, contempt for the fans, the flaunting of non-effort would make me start to question my allegiance (temporarily), but my loyalty could certainly withstand a 0-16 record. There is a sort of poetic perfection is a completely winless seaon, don't you think? Anyway, its not goona happen. This will be a moot point after Sunday! :wink:

[Terry]

Bob Sanders has a history of being passed over for the DC position on more than one occasion when he was in the college ranks. Why? Because the HC didn't think he was qualified. Since his ego couldn't take it he decided to cash checks his talent couldn't afford. He entered the ranks of the NFL where he ended up with us. Lucky ain't we? In Green Bay he has a history of coaching the weakest link in the Packers D, the defensive line. What do we do? We promote him to DC. And what are the reasons? Only one. For consistency. So I guess we want a consistently bad defense.

Mike McCarthy has a history of being the OC of the worst offense in the league. His only season as OC. When questioned by reporters about said offense his response was, "we played not to lose". Lovely ain't it? Is that the pep talk you want him to give before a game to your Green Bay Packers? "Listen guys, Lets go out there and not lose to the Chicago Bears, ok guys, please. Don't lose. What do you say? Lets go out there and not lose one for the gipper".


First I'll say that I agree with what you said to Joemailman. His comments were disrespectful to you. On the last bit, about playing not to lose, I agree with nbarnett56. My impression was almost that it was a situation out of his control - that the decision to play that way was not his. I dunno, of course, I wasn't there and I couldn't begin to say whether it was HE who played that way and meant that he had no choice because of the way the games went; or if he meant someone else was making the decisions; or if he's just plain ducking responsibility.

Here's what Packers.com has to say about New Orleans while MM was there as OC:

The following year, McCarthy began a successful five-year stint as the offensive coordinator of the New Orleans Saints. It became the most prolific offensive era in the team's four decades, as the Saints set 10 offensive team records and 25 individual marks.

Among the more notable accomplishments, the Saints led the NFC with 432 points and 49 touchdowns in 2002, both team records. In his first season in 2000, McCarthy was chosen NFC Assistant Coach of the Year by USA Today.

Of course it's packers.com, which has good info but which also doubles as one of the team's main PR arms. I wonder if that bit about the four decades isn't a bit of hyperbole, actually. It takes too long to delve very deeply into it, but certainly under the team had some pretty ok offenses, at least in terms of offensive rankings for points and for yards. For instance, in 1987, they ranked 2nd in the NFL for points. As many as three other saints' teams were in the top ten rankings for points under Mora. For rankings of yards, they also had some excellent years under Nolan, if you want to go back that far. So I truly wonder about that "four decades" comment.

Still, all in all, there's no denying that the saints did much better in offensive team rankings (for yards) under McCarthy than they had the previous decade, especially the previous 5 years. In the previous 5 years, the saints only broke the top TWENTY once, but under MM, they never fell below 20th and they rose to the top ten three times. Right after he left, they fell to twentieth again, the worst they'd been since 1999, the year before MM arrived, when they were also 20th.

In rankings for points, under MM they were always in the top fifteen, two of those times in the top ten and one of those times in the top five (3rd). Right after he left, they dropped to 31st rank in points scored. And in the five years prior to MM, they were, dating backwards, 29th, 21st, 30th, 29th, 20th. But to be fair, only one of those years was under Mora as HC (Mora's last). Before that, going back for 5 years, all under Mora, they weren't half bad, floating around 10th, give or take one, for four of those five years.

Also to be fair, the years before MM included three under Ditka. But Ditka also destroyed their draft, so that would have had an impact on the first couple of years under MM, but he still fared pretty well. It's impossible to say whether the offensive success of the Saints during MM's time there was due more to MM or due to Haslett. We only have one year of Haslett since MM left, but certainly the offensive rankings for points and yards dropped pretty heavily that year (31st and 20th, respectively, in 2005).

So last year, in SF, I'm not too concerned. What concerns me is whether MM can make the leap to HC from OC. That's a different proposition. After all, Phil Bengston was Lombardi's defensive genius (never mind the incredible talent on that side of the ball), but as HC, things didn't pan out so well, as we all know. (Nitschke thought that was due to the loss of Chandler as FG kicker more than the coaching, so who knows?) In this sense, I'm not too enamoured of his hirings. I agree with you about Sanders - he WAS hired because of all the changes in DC the team had undergone over recent years and the hope was that it would provide consistancy. Not to my mind, nor to your's apparently, a very solid foundation for a decision - especially considering the line play, as you point out. It was assumed, probably correctly, that he was familiar with Bates' system. That also leads to the assumption that he could keep it going, which is a slightly more dodgy proposition than the previous assumption. The main problem with it all is the assumption that Sanders can make the transition from a position coach to a coordinator. I'm not at all sure we can assume that, but it's not exactly all that unusual in the NFL either. People get their shots at one time or another. I am nervous about it, especially since it was the defense I had the most confidence in prior to the preseason games and now it's the side of the ball that has me the most concerned. Besides special teams, that is.

I also have serious questions about Schottenheimer and Stock. It may be that MM will turn out to be a terrific HC, except for a glaring weakness in staff hiring - which would be huge, granted. If the Packers truly do suck this year, I'll be most interested in what happens to the coaching staff in the offseason. I think that will tell us something, quite aside from our usual analysis of playing talent.

I do think also that what we see late in the season will tell us things. Not everything, of course. Bill Walsh needed a couple of years to gather the talent for his system before it took off - the first two years were desperate (2-14 his first year, 6-10 his second, and then he never again had a losing season, not counting the strike shortened year).

[wpony]

I seen Bart Star play I was here for Jerry Taggy LOL through the good and the BAD " Devine"to me he was the worst!
I wall always love the pack when we were down you just had to pick a player you liked and really root for him it was really fun watching Brockington.and others to many to mention
0-16 no fun but still our pack

[Tarlam!]

If we go 0-16 I'm blaming Tarlam for bringing it up in the first place.

You SOB!

That was BOMNF!

[Packers4Ever]

I'm okay with 0-16 without calling for M3 or TT's heads. It would be a little silly to chase out your coach after one year and your GM after two.

I think I'd be a Packer fan barring pretty much everything except the team leaving Green Bay.

Perish the thought, Lurker! I really don't think that'll ever
come about though.
Back to jumping ship etc...what really toasts me is hearing
our fans in the stands booing before halftime or whenever.
If that's a typical reaction to our guys then they belong at home! :mad:

[GrnBay007]

Back to jumping ship etc...what really toasts me is hearing
our fans in the stands booing before halftime or whenever.
If that's a typical reaction to our guys then they belong at home! :mad:

2004 Monday night game against the Titans. Couldn't believe I witnessed Packer fans booing. :sad:

[Packers4Ever]

Back to jumping ship etc...what really toasts me is hearing
our fans in the stands booing before halftime or whenever.
If that's a typical reaction to our guys then they belong at home! :mad:

2004 Monday night game against the Titans. Couldn't believe I witnessed Packer fans booing. :sad:

Yep - we heard 'em. Not frequently but a little
is enough. Just hope if things go really bad
this year, the new young guys won't think it's all
for them, it'll be for 2 other head honcho's...

[wpony]

I hate to say this some of the youngsters just have to be educated what packer pride and loyalty is all about remember they have never had a devine as a coach there worst was sherman and he was not that bad,they have never had a bad QB I mean think about it they are trying to say farve is old and washed up he was better than QBs we had for better than 10 yrs or so back before majik remeber the revolving doors at QB lets just try and be nice and do our best to try and show them what its like to be really packer backers :) GO PACK GO

[Rastak]

Back to jumping ship etc...what really toasts me is hearing
our fans in the stands booing before halftime or whenever.
If that's a typical reaction to our guys then they belong at home! :mad:

2004 Monday night game against the Titans. Couldn't believe I witnessed Packer fans booing. :sad:


And streaming out of the stadium by the thousands too.

[GrnBay007]

Back to jumping ship etc...what really toasts me is hearing
our fans in the stands booing before halftime or whenever.
If that's a typical reaction to our guys then they belong at home! :mad:

2004 Monday night game against the Titans. Couldn't believe I witnessed Packer fans booing. :sad:


And streaming out of the stadium by the thousands too.

I stayed till the bitter end. :cry:

Crazy night afterward though. :twisted: lol

[pbmax]

0-16, not a problem. Climbing higher on the season ticket waiting list? OK by me.

Not that I advocate losing, mind you :wink:

[Mazzin]

Okay, I don't mind us going 0-16 but I honestly think we will fair a little better, and I will want TT's head (somewhat) But Mike is doing all he can with this P.O.S. offensive line that TT has built, but I do like TT finding Nick Collins, And Greg Jennings!

[Tony Oday]

I might not even want them tar and feathered ;)

[RashanGary]

If you answer anything but 0-16, your not a fan of a team. You're a fan of football.

Packer fans are Packer fans. There is no jumping ship.

[the_idle_threat]

I hate to say this some of the youngsters just have to be educated what packer pride and loyalty is all about remember they have never had a devine as a coach there worst was sherman and he was not that bad,they have never had a bad QB I mean think about it they are trying to say Favre is old and washed up he was better than QBs we had for better than 10 yrs or so back before majik remeber the revolving doors at QB lets just try and be nice and do our best to try and show them what its like to be really packer backers :) GO PACK GO

This is an excellent post! I'm quoting it because I think people should read it twice.

[HarveyWallbangers]

And streaming out of the stadium by the thousands too.

Regular happenstance at Metrodome. It's shocking when it happens at Lambeau.

[HarveyWallbangers]

If you answer anything but 0-16, your not a fan of a team. You're a fan of football.

Packer fans are Packer fans. There is no jumping ship.

Maybe I misread the poll. This isn't really about Packer Loyalty. This is about loyalty to the GM or something, isn't it?

Tarlam, this was really a confusing poll. Not one of your better efforts.

[mraynrand]

I lived through the three word Forresstt Grregg press conferences ("You saw it") following terrible losses in the Metrodome with Randy Wright fainting in the huddle. I'll follow them round Good Hope, and round the Horn, and round the Norway Maelstrom, and round perdition's flames before I give them up!

[CyclonePackFan]

I think for the most part (at least the people who care enough to post in a Packer forum) are gonna be die-hards. Hell, if you're a Brewer fan, I think it's established that you can handle watching poor teams :cry: Even if some of our fans are fair-weather, to hell with them, I'll get my season tickets sooner.

There are very few things that anger me more than people who leave a football game early

[Packers4Ever]

Back to jumping ship etc...what really toasts me is hearing
our fans in the stands booing before halftime or whenever.
If that's a typical reaction to our guys then they belong at home! :mad:

2004 Monday night game against the Titans. Couldn't believe I witnessed Packer fans booing. :sad:


And streaming out of the stadium by the thousands too.



I stayed till the bitter end. :cry:

Crazy night afterward though. :twisted: lol

I would have stayed too, if I was ever lucky
enough to actually watch a game at Lambeau !
Hope the crazy night made up for it.... :wink:

[Brainerd]

First I'll say that I agree with what you said to Joemailman. His comments were disrespectful to you. On the last bit, about playing not to lose, I agree with nbarnett56. My impression was almost that it was a situation out of his control - that the decision to play that way was not his. I dunno, of course, I wasn't there and I couldn't begin to say whether it was HE who played that way and meant that he had no choice because of the way the games went; or if he meant someone else was making the decisions; or if he's just plain ducking responsibility.
You both have points. Someone once said something to the effect that its a mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without necessarily accepting it. I think that quote reflects the position you and nbarnett56 have taken.


Here's what Packers.com has to say about New Orleans while MM was there as OC:

The following year, McCarthy began a successful five-year stint as the offensive coordinator of the New Orleans Saints. It became the most prolific offensive era in the team's four decades, as the Saints set 10 offensive team records and 25 individual marks.

Among the more notable accomplishments, the Saints led the NFC with 432 points and 49 touchdowns in 2002, both team records. In his first season in 2000, McCarthy was chosen NFC Assistant Coach of the Year by USA Today.
I knew he was with NO as OC but for some reason it came out in the previous post that I thought it was his first OC tenure. I meant to say that it was his first year with SF as OC. Which was on topic. However, I wrote it so I accepted the correction.

I would like to state again that I know MM isn't completely devoid of talent like Sanders and does deserve some time. He has earned it. I never said he didn't deserve a chance. MM attempts to innovate, Sanders is a copycat and a poor one at that.

But one thing has always bugged me about MM and I've never been able to shake it off. Even with all the statistical success that NO had during his tenure the team was dogged with one overriding label year after year. The label of underachievers.

Although there are exceptions, ie Hunt, an underachieving player is an undercoached player. A player treated as a commodity not a person. NO was a team of underachievers. Not a small handful of spoiled athletes.

Haslett and his staff, which included MM, took alot of heat for the team's lack of real success when on paper NO was full of talent. It eventually cost Haslett his job.


Still, all in all, there's no denying that the saints did much better in offensive team rankings (for yards) under McCarthy than they had the previous decade, especially the previous 5 years. In the previous 5 years, the saints only broke the top TWENTY once, but under MM, they never fell below 20th and they rose to the top ten three times. Right after he left, they fell to twentieth again, the worst they'd been since 1999, the year before MM arrived, when they were also 20th.

In rankings for points, under MM they were always in the top fifteen, two of those times in the top ten and one of those times in the top five (3rd). Right after he left, they dropped to 31st rank in points scored. And in the five years prior to MM, they were, dating backwards, 29th, 21st, 30th, 29th, 20th. But to be fair, only one of those years was under Mora as HC (Mora's last). Before that, going back for 5 years, all under Mora, they weren't half bad, floating around 10th, give or take one, for four of those five years.

Also to be fair, the years before MM included three under Ditka. But Ditka also destroyed their draft, so that would have had an impact on the first couple of years under MM, but he still fared pretty well. It's impossible to say whether the offensive success of the Saints during MM's time there was due more to MM or due to Haslett. We only have one year of Haslett since MM left, but certainly the offensive rankings for points and yards dropped pretty heavily that year (31st and 20th, respectively, in 2005).
All very encouraging.


I am nervous about it, especially since it was the defense I had the most confidence in prior to the preseason games and now it's the side of the ball that has me the most concerned. Besides special teams, that is.
I agree. Concerned is putting it mildly for me. If its the same defensive scheme and Sanders was promoted to DC for consistency then why are they playing so poorly in meaningless preseason games? You'd think it would be routine for them and they would be out there having fun not looking puzzled and confused on every third down.


I also have serious questions about Schottenheimer and Stock. It may be that MM will turn out to be a terrific HC, except for a glaring weakness in staff hiring - which would be huge, granted. If the Packers truly do suck this year, I'll be most interested in what happens to the coaching staff in the offseason. I think that will tell us something, quite aside from our usual analysis of playing talent.
For consistency's sake Schottenheimer or Stock will be promoted to DC assuming the worst happens this season. :smile:


I do think also that what we see late in the season will tell us things. Not everything, of course. Bill Walsh needed a couple of years to gather the talent for his system before it took off - the first two years were desperate (2-14 his first year, 6-10 his second, and then he never again had a losing season, not counting the strike shortened year).
Agreed. The end of the year will be more telling than the beginning. I'm on the fence when it comes to talent or lack thereof. If the majority of the vets released or not resigned these last two years were out of the league and not playing for other teams in any capacity I would feel alot better about riding the supposed lack of talent bandwagon. Was Pittsburgh loaded with talent and future Hall of Famers at every position or were they simply well coached? But if TT wants to go the youth route fine. Its his job on the line not mine.

[Packers4Ever]

I hate to say this some of the youngsters just have to be educated what packer pride and loyalty is all about remember they have never had a devine as a coach there worst was sherman and he was not that bad,they have never had a bad QB I mean think about it they are trying to say Favre is old and washed up he was better than QBs we had for better than 10 yrs or so back before majik remeber the revolving doors at QB lets just try and be nice and do our best to try and show them what its like to be really packer backers :) GO PACK GO

wpony, I think the kids who grew up in a family of Packer fans and probably
spent every Sunday afternoon watching them, develop some built-in pride for our team. Sure, there are those who will pick the team apart in bad times but as a rule many grow up pretty proud of having been a fan X number of years. We see it here every day....

[the_idle_threat]

First I'll say that I agree with what you said to Joemailman. His comments were disrespectful to you.

Joe's comments were spot on! Brainy comes on here with the most irritating kind of attitude for a message board: the know-it-all who doesn't actually know what he's talking about!

Joe corrected Brainy's obvious error regarding M3 as an OC, and reiterated the point that we have no idea how M3 will turn out as a head coach. Again, M3 has NO history in that capacity.

With regards to Bob Sanders and the following:



Bob Sanders has a history of being passed over for the DC position on more than one occasion when he was in the college ranks. Why? Because the HC didn't think he was qualified. Since his ego couldn't take it he decided to cash checks his talent couldn't afford. He entered the ranks of the NFL where he ended up with us. Lucky ain't we? In Green Bay he has a history of coaching the weakest link in the Packers D, the defensive line. What do we do? We promote him to DC. And what are the reasons? Only one. For consistency. So I guess we want a consistently bad defense.

I'm betting you didn't get that bio from the Packers media guide ... LOL. Seriously ... did he not call you in the morning or something? You couldn't slant things more negatively if you tried! Well, I suppose you could say he molests children and kills adorable puppies for fun ...

The guy is a first-time DC. It's scary, I know ... but all DCs were given a chance somewhere. At this point, the decision has been made and we fans have little choice but to give him a chance here. If he turns out to be another Slowik, then fire away! But for Buddha's sake, let the team play a few games first!

[Brainerd]

First I'll say that I agree with what you said to Joemailman. His comments were disrespectful to you.

Joe's comments were spot on! Brainy comes on here with the most irritating kind of attitude for a message board: the know-it-all who doesn't actually know what he's talking about!

Joe corrected Brainy's obvious error regarding M3 as an OC, and reiterated the point that we have no idea how M3 will turn out as a head coach. Again, M3 has NO history in that capacity.

With regards to Bob Sanders and the following:



Bob Sanders has a history of being passed over for the DC position on more than one occasion when he was in the college ranks. Why? Because the HC didn't think he was qualified. Since his ego couldn't take it he decided to cash checks his talent couldn't afford. He entered the ranks of the NFL where he ended up with us. Lucky ain't we? In Green Bay he has a history of coaching the weakest link in the Packers D, the defensive line. What do we do? We promote him to DC. And what are the reasons? Only one. For consistency. So I guess we want a consistently bad defense.

I'm betting you didn't get that bio from the Packers media guide ... LOL. Seriously ... did he not call you in the morning or something? You couldn't slant things more negatively if you tried! Well, I suppose you could say he molests children and kills adorable puppies for fun ...

The guy is a first-time DC. It's scary, I know ... but all DCs were given a chance somewhere. At this point, the decision has been made and we fans have little choice but to give him a chance here. If he turns out to be another Slowik, then fire away! But for Buddha's sake, let the team play a few games first!
Its quite ironic that this kind of vile is spewed in this thread. I never made any claim to be all knowing or all seeing.

You and joemailman have followed me around in several threads where the quality of coaching was called into question. Called into question by others and not just me. It seems you have to be a part of the club for your opinion to count around here. Where others have simply ignored me you two has chosen to attack me personally.

The both of you have called me out on my opinions and I tried to answer. When I responded with facts to support my opinion you let the thread die. Fine I thought. Now in this thread you've both decided that you've had enough and are attacking me personally. I can only assume that its because of my minor error. You finally got the ammunition to prove me a fool. I'm in awe of your obvious perfection.

I'll refrain from posting any more of my opinions on this board not because of you but in spite of you. Life is too short to deal with this kind of immature behavior. Congratulations to the both of you. You've won. Now you can both continue your circle jerk without any annoying dissenting opinions.

May I recommend the following disclaimer when a new user registers on this forum:

No matter how much you love the Green Bay Packers, no matter how long you've been supporting the Green Bay Packers there are some on this board who will simply not allow any opinion other than their own unless you've been selected into the club. They will hound you from thread to thread until any joy obtained from using this board will be stripped away.

Dramatic I know. But what the heck.

BTW, Brainerd is a city, not an indication of any self-proclaimed intelligence.

[KYPack]

[
BTW, Brainerd is a city, not an indication of any self-proclaimed intelligence.

Ain't that where the whorehouse was in Fargo?

[Green Bud Packer]

Crazy night afterward though. :twisted: lolsex after a packer loss (p.l.s.) is always good sex. :cool:

[jack's smirking revenge]

If I lose faith in the Pack, the next step is trading in football altogether. It's all just entertainment anyway...

tyler

[the_idle_threat]

Brainy to Packerrats: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

I guess I'm the bad guy for calling out somebody's uninformed opinion. I can live with that. :mrgreen:

[Scott Campbell]

May I recommend the following disclaimer when a new user registers on this forum:

No matter how much you love the Green Bay Packers, no matter how long you've been supporting the Green Bay Packers there are some on this board who will simply not allow any opinion other than their own unless you've been selected into the club. They will hound you from thread to thread until any joy obtained from using this board will be stripped away.

Dramatic I know. But what the heck.


Disclaimer this:

It's a football forum. We argue a bit. Big deal. Many of us are immature, which shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Have you seen the commercials they run at halftime? Do they look like they're targeted at the tea and crumpet crowd?

Now go change out of your dress and come join us when you get a thicker skin. Nobody gets to wear the red jersey in here.

In my opinion.

[Rastak]

May I recommend the following disclaimer when a new user registers on this forum:

No matter how much you love the Green Bay Packers, no matter how long you've been supporting the Green Bay Packers there are some on this board who will simply not allow any opinion other than their own unless you've been selected into the club. They will hound you from thread to thread until any joy obtained from using this board will be stripped away.

Dramatic I know. But what the heck.


Disclaimer this:

It's a football forum. We agrue a bit. Big deal. Many of us are immature, which shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Have you seen the commercials they run at halftime? Do they look like they're targeted at the tea and crumpet crowd?

Now go change out of your dress and come join us when you get a thicker skin. Nobody gets to wear the red jersey in here.


Hmmm, never had a crumpet...but I don't like tea....maybe beer and crumpets? I could join that crowd....

[Packers4Ever]

Crazy night afterward though. :twisted: lolsex after a packer loss (p.l.s.) is always good sex. :cool:

All RIGHT, 007, is there any other kind? :razz:

[Packers4Ever]

Brainerd wrote:

Bob Sanders has a history of being passed over for the DC position on more than one occasion when he was in the college ranks. Why? Because the HC didn't think he was qualified. Since his ego couldn't take it he decided to cash checks his talent couldn't afford. He entered the ranks of the NFL where he ended up with us. Lucky ain't we? In Green Bay he has a history of coaching the weakest link in the Packers D, the defensive line. What do we do? We promote him to DC. And what are the reasons? Only one. For consistency. So I guess we want a consistently bad defense.

_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Through 4 pre-season games, how much blitzing has been called for?
Doesn't he know what 3rd and 11 means ??? :twisted: Grrrrrrrrrr......

[MJZiggy]

True, he hasn't blitzed a whole lot. Nobody expects them to blitz right now. No one's expecting them to do anything besides what they've done in the preseason. Nobody. Including Chicago. Not expecting defense. They haven't shown any in the preseason so they wouldn't have a defense show up now. Hmmmm. Lovie has no clue of what to expect. Not in any aspect of this game.

[Tarlam!]

Tarlam, this was really a confusing poll. Not one of your better efforts.

Well thanks, Harv. I'm delighted to receive feedback from you, even if it is negative critique.....

[GrnBay007]

Crazy night afterward though. :twisted: lolsex after a packer loss (p.l.s.) is always good sex. :cool:

All RIGHT, 007, is there any other kind? :razz:

Hold up!! I didn't say anything about sex!! :wink:

[Packers4Ever]

True, he hasn't blitzed a whole lot. Nobody expects them to blitz right now. No one's expecting them to do anything besides what they've done in the preseason. Nobody. Including Chicago. Not expecting defense. They haven't shown any in the preseason so they wouldn't have a defense show up now. Hmmmm. Lovie has no clue of what to expect. Not in any aspect of this game.

Ahhhhh, I see, they've been saving it all for Sunday. Sept 10th
and then all hell will break loose ??? I'm READY, how about you guys? :smile:

[Rastak]

Tarlam, this was really a confusing poll. Not one of your better efforts.

Well thanks, Harv. I'm delighted to receive feedback from you, even if it is negative critique.....

I'm just glad I have eleven recruits..... :mrgreen:

[MJZiggy]

Don't count your recruits 'til the season's done, Hon.

[Joemailman]

May I recommend the following disclaimer when a new user registers on this forum:

No matter how much you love the Green Bay Packers, no matter how long you've been supporting the Green Bay Packers there are some on this board who will simply not allow any opinion other than their own unless you've been selected into the club. They will hound you from thread to thread until any joy obtained from using this board will be stripped away.

Dramatic I know. But what the heck.


Disclaimer this:

It's a football forum. We argue a bit. Big deal. Many of us are immature, which shouldn't be that big of a surprise. Have you seen the commercials they run at halftime? Do they look like they're targeted at the tea and crumpet crowd?

Now go change out of your dress and come join us when you get a thicker skin. Nobody gets to wear the red jersey in here.

In my opinion.


Actually, I kind of miss the old SOV vs. Scott Campbell arguments, even though Scott once got mad at me for criticizing something he said to SOV.

By the way, what is The club of which Brainerd speaks? How come no one told me I was a member? Hope my dues aren't overdue.