I would consider 2007 a Failure IF

[Bretsky]

Going the other route with this poll

[the_idle_threat]

None of the above. :?

[Bretsky]

None of the above. :?

Feel free to suggest a criteria and I'll try to add it

For those who love the Snapper I'd be interested in seeing them post what they voted for

[Packnut]

For me, as I've stated before, it's pretty basic. If Thompson has this team headed in the right direction, we should improve upon 8-8. Also, anyone with half a brain can see we have had problems scoring points. The red zone anemia has to be fixed period. No more BS standard pat answers from MM or TT.

Another thing that must be improved upon are the # of drops from our receiving corps. A GM's job is to fix known problems in order that they do not repeat themselves.

[the_idle_threat]

I would vote for the 4th choice if it said "Green Bay is NOT competitive and finishes with 5-7 wins."

Really, all I ask for is that they are competitive. If they can't do that, they're a failure in my book, and TT would bear a great deal of responsibility for it. If they are competitive but manage to win just 6 or 7 games due to some close losses, I'm not gonna get all bent outta shape and call them a failure. Other teams are expected to be competitive too.

I think the way a team competes in games and the degree to which they appear to be improving over time are the true measures of success, especially for a young team. Win-loss record is not irrelevant, but it's not my primary criterion.

[wist43]

If they don't win the SB... and, of course, they have no chance of winning the SB.

After Favre is gone, they'll have no chance for many, many years... at least as long as it takes them to find another franchise QB.

[Bretsky]

I would vote for the 4th choice if it said "Green Bay is NOT competitive and finishes with 5-7 wins."

Really, all I ask for is that they are competitive. If they can't do that, they're a failure in my book, and TT would bear a great deal of responsibility for it. If they are competitive but manage to win just 6 or 7 games due to some close losses, I'm not gonna get all bent outta shape and call them a failure. Other teams are expected to be competitive too.

I think the way a team competes in games and the degree to which they appear to be improving over time are the true measures of success, especially for a young team. Win-loss record is not irrelevant, but it's not my primary criterion.


I'd like to see some sort of measurables myself.

P.S.- I'd love to have your grading system as my teacher :wink:

[packinpatland]

If they don't win the SB... and, of course, they have no chance of winning the SB.

After Favre is gone, they'll have no chance for many, many years... at least as long as it takes them to find another franchise QB.

Positive attitude. Yup, that's what we need. :roll:

[MJZiggy]

PIPL, this is Wist. It's like having Eeyore on the forum.

[Zool]

http://crystal.typepad.com/crystalclear/images/eeyore.jpg

Wist is Eeyore Rat?

[packinpatland]

Thanks for noticing.

[wist43]

I do my best... and, surely I must get bonus pts for consistency!!! 8-)

[Guiness]

Eeyore Rat! I like it. Mad, this is an official request to change Wist's rat name...

[Spaulding]

Year Three - gotta expect at least .500 or better given the weak division we're in. I'm in for 9-7 with no home blowouts. If that's good enough to make the playoffs - fine. If not I'm okay with a winning record and respectibility at home.

[MadtownPacker]

Whats funny is that it isnt the first time Wist was called a jackass. :D

7-9 or worse would be a failure. Also the OL not gelling and protecting giving #4 time would be a failure IMO.

I dont see the defense being the reason why woudl fail so basically the offense sucks, TT failed.

[wist43]

How can that be... I'm not a democrat??? :?

[pack4to84]

My vote for failure is if they don't sweep there division. No one in this division scares me at all . and I mean period.

[packinpatland]

My vote for failure is if they don't sweep there division. No one in this division scares me at all . and I mean period.

Now, that's a statement! :glug:

[The Leaper]

On offense:

Failure would be not improving red zone scoring...16 for 49 last year, one of the worst in the league. If this team can't score TDs again in the red zone, then Thompson deserves a lot of criticism...because Favre is a solid red zone QB and he desperately called for more help in that regard, and TT did nothing about it.

On defense:

Failure would be not increasing the number of big game-changing plays...this defense is going to have to carry the team, and nearly every major "high impact" addition in FA and the draft the last 2 years has been on defense. That means the defense should be able to win some games on its own this year.

[woodbuck27]

I would consider this season a failure if we don't win at least 4 games in the NFCN.

and also. . .

I would consider this season a failure if we are blown out in more than 3 games. I consider a blowout a loss by 10 or more pt's.

and also. . .

I want the team to average at least 23 pt's of offense per game at seasons end.I believe we averaged about 19 pt's last season. (see next paragraph)

Ted Thompson is on record as saying that he believes in his RB's and that our TE's will bounce back. He made no real moves to cover his ass there. So he's to be held accountable for any more failure in our running game and the incorporation of our TE's in the offense.

I'm sick of the excuses we went through with our secondary last season. Part of the real problem was the fact that players like Woodson and Harris have to be in the camps and ready to go on game one Vs. the Eagles.It's time for the teams management to lay on the wood if players refuse camps.

GO PACKERS !!

[MJZiggy]

Part of the real problem was the fact that players like Woodson and Harris have to be in the camps and ready to go on game one Vs. the Eagles.It's time for the teams management to lay on the wood if players refuse camps.



I thought OTA's were supposed to be optional. Not much they can do if a player decides to train elsewhere and quite frankly, Harris and Woodson were arguably the strongest position on the team last year. (and I'm sure someone will argue... :P )

[packinpatland]

from woodbuck27:

Ted Thompson is on record as saying that he believes in his RB's and that our TE's will bounce back. He made no real moves to cover his ass there. So he's to be held accountable for any more failure in our running game and the incorporation of our TE's in the offense.


How come he gets the RB's and we get the TE's?

[Brohm]

If they go 7-9, without the obscene shut-outs they had last year (be competitive) I think it would be a successful season, given the schedule.

[woodbuck27]

Part of the real problem was the fact that players like Woodson and Harris have to be in the camps and ready to go on game one Vs. the Eagles.It's time for the teams management to lay on the wood if players refuse camps.



I thought OTA's were supposed to be optional. Not much they can do if a player decides to train elsewhere and quite frankly, Harris and Woodson were arguably the strongest position on the team last year. (and I'm sure someone will argue... :P )

Harris had a very slow start MJ. That was clearly demonstrated when Torry Holt of the Rams burnt him so badly in our game Vs. them. I thought he was not at all himself up to and including that game but came on after that.

Reason was that he wasn't prepared (not in game shape).

Woodson as well took awhile to gain some consistency.

Alot of the blame was going to our secondary coaching or system when it certainly appeared to me that the problem was on players being prepared and in the case of Marquand Manuel and Nick Collins capable.

As the season progressed things went better with Woodson ,Harris and Collins but Marquand Manuel has to step it up in TC. I don't believe he (MM) has the talent to be a starter on our team and I look for another player to step in for him.

I want our TC to be an all out fight for a position on the roster and no DAM politics. We need the very best on our roster to have any reasonable chance this season.

GO PACKERS !!

We need such player (slash) leaders in all our camps, whether they are optional or not is no excuse for the Packers that have so much to prove in 2007.

[Bretsky]

Note:

55% feel the season is a failure if GB has a worse record than 06

They were in great fiscal position going into free agency; I'm quite surprised the percentage is not higher.

[Joemailman]

Some people may have bought into the theory that due to the schedule, the Packers could be better but have a worse record. I don't buy it.

[BallHawk]

I think that, as a team, regardless of your talent level, you always aim to improve of what you did last year. If you won 8, you want to win 9 or 10. If you got the wild card, you aim to win the division. You don't aim for mediocrity.

[Bretsky]

Some people may have bought into the theory that due to the schedule, the Packers could be better but have a worse record. I don't buy it.


Maybe it's right, but to them I ALSO remind them that GB had the 5th most cap space going into this year's free agency.

So regardless of how he uses it, we should expect TT to move this team forward and use those resources to improve last year's record.

That's reasonable to hope for out of a Turtle

[Bretsky]

I think that, as a team, regardless of your talent level, you always aim to improve of what you did last year. If you won 8, you want to win 9 or 10. If you got the wild card, you aim to win the division. You don't aim for mediocrity.

AMEN

[HarveyWallbangers]

Note:

55% feel the season is a failure if GB has a worse record than 06

They were in great fiscal position going into free agency; I'm quite surprised the percentage is not higher.

For me, it's due to the fact that we were 4-12 two years ago. We improved to 8-8 last year, but I think anybody that was honest with themselves would admit they weren't really that good last year. They had a relatively cupcake schedule. Things look A LOT tougher this year. We could be 7-9 this year, and there's a good chance that I'd feel that we'd be closer to legitimately competing than I do right now. Thus, it's hard for me to quantify what I feel would be a success. I'll watch them play, and judge afterwards. I feel last year was pretty successful. We got back on track a bit after a disastrous 2005 season, and we had a good draft class.

[Charles Woodson]

I think that, as a team, regardless of your talent level, you always aim to improve of what you did last year. If you won 8, you want to win 9 or 10. If you got the wild card, you aim to win the division. You don't aim for mediocrity.


of course, i mean i doubt any team goes in the next year saying we want to do the same as last year; but i can understand if a team got 8-8 with a easy schedule, and 7-9 with a much harder schedule. I think espiceally with the packers and with them being a relatively young team as long as theres improvement and the record is about the same, if not better than last year i will call it a success

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Rams were 8-8 last year, and lost two heartbreakers to Seattle on long last-second FGs. Talent wise, they look very good. If I was a Rams fan, I'd say nothing less than the playoffs would be a failure. The two 8-8 seasons weren't really comparable in my book.

[Rastak]

Note:

55% feel the season is a failure if GB has a worse record than 06

They were in great fiscal position going into free agency; I'm quite surprised the percentage is not higher.

For me, it's due to the fact that we were 4-12 two years ago. We improved to 8-8 last year, but I think anybody that was honest with themselves would admit they weren't really that good last year. They had a relatively cupcake schedule. Things look A LOT tougher this year. We could be 7-9 this year, and there's a good chance that I'd feel that we'd be closer to legitimately competing than I do right now. Thus, it's hard for me to quantify what I feel would be a success. I'll watch them play, and judge afterwards. I feel last year was pretty successful. We got back on track a bit after a disastrous 2005 season, and we had a good draft class.


I would agree with that accessment for sure. I'm not 100% sure on the draft class but I thought the team had a cupcake schedule BUT did show improvement, unlike my Vikes who sank without a trace. I'm really not sure what to predict on GB this year. My gut says 7-9 but 9-7 really wouldn't surprise me.

[Bretsky]

Note:

55% feel the season is a failure if GB has a worse record than 06

They were in great fiscal position going into free agency; I'm quite surprised the percentage is not higher.

For me, it's due to the fact that we were 4-12 two years ago. We improved to 8-8 last year, but I think anybody that was honest with themselves would admit they weren't really that good last year. They had a relatively cupcake schedule. Things look A LOT tougher this year. We could be 7-9 this year, and there's a good chance that I'd feel that we'd be closer to legitimately competing than I do right now. Thus, it's hard for me to quantify what I feel would be a success. I'll watch them play, and judge afterwards. I feel last year was pretty successful. We got back on track a bit after a disastrous 2005 season, and we had a good draft class.


Well, regardless of how you shake it we were the 2nd best team in our division last year......in our division I think we were a 7-8 win team.

And our division was shit and still is shit

We should still go 4-2 there; not predicting it to happen but surely that should be our expectations.

Unless we accept our competitors gaining ground on us.

And we had a ton of cap space to use as we so chose; if we didn't need anybody or didn't choose to play and we go down because of it, somebody needs to be held accountable.

Time to get the red pen out on this team and start setting up some expectations.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well, regardless of how you shake it we were the 2nd best team in our division last year......in our division I think we were a 7-8 win team.

And our division was shit and still is shit

We should still go 4-2 there

And we had a ton of cap space to use as we so chose; if we didn't need anybody or didn't choose to play and we go down because of it, somebody needs to be held accountable.

Time to get the red pen out on this team and start setting up some expectations.

As much as FAs got this offseason, and with the extensions we signed for our people, we could have afforded two FAs. Which two FAs do you think would have made the difference this year in being 8-8 again or competing for the Super Bowl?

[Bretsky]

Well, regardless of how you shake it we were the 2nd best team in our division last year......in our division I think we were a 7-8 win team.

And our division was shit and still is shit

We should still go 4-2 there

And we had a ton of cap space to use as we so chose; if we didn't need anybody or didn't choose to play and we go down because of it, somebody needs to be held accountable.

Time to get the red pen out on this team and start setting up some expectations.

As much as FAs got this offseason, and with the extensions we signed for our people, we could have afforded two FAs. Which two FAs do you think would have made the difference this year in being 8-8 again or competing for the Super Bowl?

Who said anything about the Super Bowl ? If there is no Super Bowl does that make it OK not to play in FA ?

I like Deon Grant for one. Griffith surely would help; there were RB's. Help was out there; we're fooling ourselves if we say it was not

[Joemailman]

The Rams were 8-8 last year, and lost two heartbreakers to Seattle on long last-second FGs. Talent wise, they look very good. If I was a Rams fan, I'd say nothing less than the playoffs would be a failure. The two 8-8 seasons weren't really comparable in my book.

The Packers were 8-8 and lost a heartbreaker to the Rams. Every team can point to a couple of games they could have won.

[Rastak]

And our division was shit and still is shit


Hmmm, I'm not convinced of that.

Vikes: If either Tarvaris Jackson or Chilly really suck then the Vikings are doomed. They also have HUGE question marks at WR......BUT they also have a bunch of young guys with alot of talent.

Bears: If Grossman get's hit by a bus the North could be in trouble. Briggs or not, I think Chicago will win plenty of games this year. Superbowl? Probably not.

Lions: They are a wildcard. I honestly think they are a very talented team. They didn's show it last year but they did have some injuries.....(of course so did the Vikes.....)

[Bretsky]

The Rams were 8-8 last year, and lost two heartbreakers to Seattle on long last-second FGs. Talent wise, they look very good. If I was a Rams fan, I'd say nothing less than the playoffs would be a failure. The two 8-8 seasons weren't really comparable in my book.

The Packers were 8-8 and lost a heartbreaker to the Rams. Every team can point to a couple of games they could have won.

Buffalo was tough; GB should have beaten the Bills and could easily have beaten the Rams. If we win one of those two games we are in the playoffs I think

[Bretsky]

And our division was shit and still is shit


Hmmm, I'm not convinced of that.

Vikes: If either Tarvaris Jackson or Chilly really suck then the Vikings are doomed. They also have HUGE question marks at WR......BUT they also have a bunch of young guys with alot of talent.

Bears: If Grossman get's hit by a bus the North could be in trouble. Briggs or not, I think Chicago will win plenty of games this year. Superbowl? Probably not.

Lions: They are a wildcard. I honestly think they are a very talented team. They didn's show it last year but they did have some injuries.....(of course so did the Vikes.....)


It's the GM's job to make progress in the division; I don't know if he has or not but I'm not willing to give him a free pass anymore........well........not that I ever have :lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Packers were 8-8 and lost a heartbreaker to the Rams. Every team can point to a couple of games they could have won.

No question. We also won a lot of close games against poor teams. We beat Detroit twice, Minnesota twice, San Fran, Miami, and Arizona. And the Bears in a game that didn't matter for them. We lost a couple of close ones against average teams. We got crushed by almost every good team we played. We got outscored by 65 points cumulative. Hell, we didn't get outscored by that much in our 4-12 season.

AND we stayed healthy. It's unlikely the team will stay anywhere near as healthy was we stayed last year.

[BallHawk]

I think that, as a team, regardless of your talent level, you always aim to improve of what you did last year. If you won 8, you want to win 9 or 10. If you got the wild card, you aim to win the division. You don't aim for mediocrity.


of course, i mean i doubt any team goes in the next year saying we want to do the same as last year;

The Super Bowl teams do. :wink:

[wist43]

I think it's perfectly plausible for them to be a better team, and not win as many games...

They won 8 games last year, but I've never regarded them as an 8-8 team... it's certainly valid to take into consideration the weak sisters they played, etc...

When they play a good team, I still fully expect them to get waxed.

[swede]

I couldn't find a poll question that fit my definition of failure. It would be disappointing to lose more than we won next year, but I wouldn't sign up for the lynch mob as long as we played well in a few close losses.

Sloppy play, bad defense in the secondary, and the ability of TT haters to crow about a bad running game and a lack of big plays from WR's would make the season a failure for me--even if we went 8-8 or 9-7.

[Charles Woodson]

I think that, as a team, regardless of your talent level, you always aim to improve of what you did last year. If you won 8, you want to win 9 or 10. If you got the wild card, you aim to win the division. You don't aim for mediocrity.


of course, i mean i doubt any team goes in the next year saying we want to do the same as last year;

The Super Bowl teams do. :wink:
ha, fine one out of 32 teams do

[Bretsky]

New Update

Amazes me that 45% would deem 5-7 wins or feel that wins do not matter at all to consider the season unsuccessful

Gosh I wish I'd have had that grading system when I was in school.

Maybe if I had a harder teacher in grade six than I had in grade five my falling grades would have been just fine and dandy :lol:

[RashanGary]

New Update

Amazes me that 45% would deem 5-7 wins or feel that wins do not matter at all to consider the season unsuccessful

Gosh I wish I'd have had that grading system when I was in school.

Maybe if I had a harder teacher in grade six than I had in grade five my falling grades would have been just fine and dandy :lol:

You just didnt' have Mike Sherman and 10 years of low drafts to bring down the curve for you :)

[RashanGary]

Also, 8-8 is average so that is a C grade; hardly an F where ever you went to school.

I want the team to be better than last year. 8-8 is minimum for me to not be disappointed. As far as it being a success, I want 9 wins.

[Bretsky]

Also, 8-8 is average so that is a C grade; hardly an F where ever you went to school.

I want the team to be better than last year. 8-8 is minimum for me to not be disappointed. As far as it being a success, I want 9 wins.


Justin,

While I don't consider you an extreme Turtle apologist, you are a strong Snapper supporter. I wanted to point out that I have the utmost respect for the fact that you are willing to state your view and give some parameters to judge TT by.

You have stated a few times that for next year to be successful you want to see improvement in the record and if you don't see that you will begin to see the dark side with me.

What I don't get it those who want to give TT a free pass. Blind faith and no parameters whatsoever from which to judge him by. We can debate whether or not individuals improve forever, but it's TT's job to go forward to field a winning team. It's frickin time to make the playoffs. That simple

I do take into account the harder schedule, but I also take into account that GB had more money than 27 other teams entering free agency. It's Ted's decision how to spend it...via free agency or signing his own....but that fiscal flexibility to improve at least evens out the tougher schedule IMO.

He is accountable; he needs to also show accountability and that boils back to wins losses. His free passes should be over.

I hope he is making all the correct decisions for this team to become a contender.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Ye of Little Faith!

[Bretsky]

Also, 8-8 is average so that is a C grade; hardly an F where ever you went to school.

I want the team to be better than last year. 8-8 is minimum for me to not be disappointed. As far as it being a success, I want 9 wins.


My point is we witnessed a 8-8 record.

Yet many are willing to accept 5-7 wins if they see general improvements. If we win 5-7 we are not improving.

If I get 8 out of 16 questions right in the 5th grade Math end of year exam, and then 6 out of 16 questions right one year later in the end of the year 6th grade Math exam, clearly I don't think I'm moving forward.

[Bretsky]

Ye of Little Faith!

I would not say I have little faith

But Free pass time is flipping over

I'd predict 7-9 wins at this point, but it's time to start calling for success from the Snapper and I don't understand why so many are afraid to do so.

[HarveyWallbangers]

In my mind, it's year 2 of the rebuilding process. I know it's his 3rd year, but Thompson took over a team coming off a 10-6 record. He couldn't start the rebuilding process right away--because of that 10-6 record. I think a lot of us knew it wasn't a legit 10-6 team (close victories, blowout losses, easy schedule, and embarassing playoff loss), the team was getting old, and the team was about to lose some serious talent (Sharper, Wahle, Rivera) because of a poor cap situation. Thus, I count 2006 as year 1 in the rebuilding process. Sorry if you disagree, but that's my take. He'll sort of get a free pass until next year from me.

I hope they do well, and show continuing signs of improvement. Hopefully, a more legit 8-8 this year. Next year, they are in great shape not to lose anybody, and will have had two years of adding serious young talent.

That doesn't mean I don't think they can do better. That just means it's one year too early for me to hang Thompson--whether you try to guilt people into putting artifical parameters on the team or not.
:D

[Bretsky]

In my mind, it's year 2 of the rebuilding process. I know it's his 3rd year, but Thompson took over a team coming off a 10-6 record. He couldn't start the rebuilding process right away--because of that 10-6 record. I think a lot of us knew it wasn't a legit 10-6 team (close victories, blowout losses, easy schedule, and embarassing playoff loss), the team was getting old, and the team was about to lose some serious talent (Sharper, Wahle, Rivera) because of a poor cap situation. Thus, I count 2006 as year 1 in the rebuilding process. Sorry if you disagree, but that's my take. He'll sort of get a free pass until next year from me.

I hope they do well, and show continuing signs of improvement. Hopefully, a more legit 8-8 this year. Next year, they are in great shape not to lose anybody, and will have had two years of adding serious young talent.

That doesn't mean I don't think they can do better. That just means it's one year too early for me to hang Thompson--whether you try to guilt people into putting artifical parameters on the team or not.

How the Mighty have fallen :lol:

You've watched his antics and now have accepted his slow process and have adjusted your expectations to fit his slow motion style.

TT had 35+ Million last year and 25+ Million this year. Two clean years to attack free agency as he chose. I'm not blaming him for anything now, but he's chosen clear paths to improve. Three drafts in which he built through adding picks . He started cleaning out and rebuilding the day he entered the house.

In our piss poor division in which we were 5-1 and should be 4-2 a .500 record in the NFC was fair for us last year. We could have won 6 and we could have won 10 easily. We finished where we should in the NFC. Not the playoffs, but not terrible either. We were average.

Ted has had his time; just because he's slow does not mean we need to lower our expectations and be as patient as him. Not having expectations frustrates me.

I expect measurable improvement, and in a weak NFC that is entirely practical to expect IMO.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Three drafts, but the first was with low draft order, his 1st round pick won't play until Favre retires, and his second round pick got a career-ending injury.

[Bretsky]

Three drafts, but the first was with low draft order, his 1st round pick won't play until Favre retires, and his second round pick got a career-ending injury.

Hey, give him a bit of mercy for the Murphy pick, but the rest were his choices
He gets no free pass. That's the draft his trading down madness started.

11 picks that year that included AROD and
M HAWKINS
M MONTGROMER
C BRAGG
K CAMPBELL
W WHITTAKER
J COSTON

I don't know why he'd get a free pass from his first draft in which he traded down quite a few times to get a boatload of picks....many of which did not appear to work out.

We glorify him for last year, and this year is TBD

But his method of draft madness has been going for three years now
Two years of infinite free agency funds

It's time

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rodgers, Collins, Underwood, Poppinga could all turn out to be decent starters, so it's too early to judge that draft. Who knows? Coston might even contribute. Murphy very likely would have helped, so chalk that up to bad luck. If Rodgers turns into a good QB, that's a good draft.

[MJZiggy]

A gift for B:

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41DPM5K415L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

[Bretsky]

A gift for B:

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41DPM5K415L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

Don't get it, but that's OK.

You're a chick so I'm not suppose to understand anything from you :lol:

[woodbuck27]

Three drafts, but the first was with low draft order, his 1st round pick won't play until Favre retires, and his second round pick got a career-ending injury.

but,but. . . BUT.

The but's need to stop.

It's clear to me that the majority of members on this forum expect at least an 8-8 record this season.

I'm certainly not seeing that yet.

Our starters look either weak or unproven on the offense (exception at QB and WR) and our depth is non existent.

The pressure on MM and his staff of coach's is heavy.

[The Leaper]

My point is we witnessed a 8-8 record.

Yet many are willing to accept 5-7 wins if they see general improvements. If we win 5-7 we are not improving.

I disagree.

If our schedule next year proves more difficult, then 6 or 7 wins can easily be viewed as equivalent to 8 wins...possibly even better considering all factors involved.

Let's review. We won 5 games in our division last year against two AWFUL teams (Minnesota with NO offense, Detroit with NO defense) and were handed a game by Chicago because they had NO stake in the game. Our other 3 wins came against the rest of the WORST teams in the league. Against the strong teams, we often were embarrassed...or just flat out SHUTOUT. Our record at Lambeau was dismal.

So yes...it is VERY EASY for me to envision how a 6 or 7 win season could be seen as improvement. Were we always competitive...as opposed to last year? Did we put up a greater fight at home...as opposed to last year? Were we successful getting the job done in crunch time...as opposed to last year? Were we able to convert in the red zone better than 16 out of 49 times?

You people who view last year as some kind of evidence that this team is on the cusp of playoff contention need to go back and take a SERIOUS look at just how bad the team played against anyone who wasn't mediocre at best. If we played in the AFC last year, we would've been lucky to get 5 wins.

[Bretsky]

My point is we witnessed a 8-8 record.

Yet many are willing to accept 5-7 wins if they see general improvements. If we win 5-7 we are not improving.

I disagree.

If our schedule next year proves more difficult, then 6 or 7 wins can easily be viewed as equivalent to 8 wins...possibly even better considering all factors involved.

Let's review. We won 5 games in our division last year against two AWFUL teams (Minnesota with NO offense, Detroit with NO defense) and were handed a game by Chicago because they had NO stake in the game. Our other 3 wins came against the rest of the WORST teams in the league. Against the strong teams, we often were embarrassed...or just flat out SHUTOUT. Our record at Lambeau was dismal.

So yes...it is VERY EASY for me to envision how a 6 or 7 win season could be seen as improvement. Were we always competitive...as opposed to last year? Did we put up a greater fight at home...as opposed to last year? Were we successful getting the job done in crunch time...as opposed to last year? Were we able to convert in the red zone better than 16 out of 49 times?

You people who view last year as some kind of evidence that this team is on the cusp of playoff contention need to go back and take a SERIOUS look at just how bad the team played against anyone who wasn't mediocre at best. If we played in the AFC last year, we would've been lucky to get 5 wins.

In the NFC this team, last year, was what it should be. 8-8. Nobody, nobody is arguing we are a contender.

Not a contender in any form of the imagination. We beat bad teams and didn't beat the good ones. Buffalo and the Rams could have went either way. A couple of our wins could have went either way.

But we had mega bucks in FA this year. How he chooses to utilize it is up to the GM

I'm saying it's TT's job to show improvement on the record.

[Bretsky]

Let's review. We won 5 games in our division last year against two AWFUL teams (Minnesota with NO offense, Detroit with NO defense) and were handed a game by Chicago because they had NO stake in the game. Our other 3 wins came against the rest of the WORST teams in the league.


We play those same horrid teams again this year BTW, as well as having a couple supposed soft games. If we are moving forward and improving as much or more than the others, then we improve. Not that impractical IMO

[swede]

Winning only 6 or 7 or even 8 games would be disappointing, but it wouldn't necessarily mean a failure of a season. In this league of ultra-parity, Super Bowl teams have quite often sprung from similar, mediocre records in the prior season.

If the Packers win six games this year and go the the NFC championship next year than how could the season be thought a failure?

If they win six this year and six the next I'll pick up a pitchfork and join the rest of the haters.

[The Leaper]

In the NFC this team, last year, was what it should be. 8-8. Nobody, nobody is arguing we are a contender.

To improve on 8-8 is to become a contender.

If you honestly believe that Chicago would not have trounced us in week 17 if they gave even 80% effort, you are mistaken.

We were a 7 win team...with none of those wins coming against teams with winning records. Against halfway competitive talent, we often found ways to shoot ourselves in the foot at the end. And we did all this with a relatively healthy roster. A couple key injuries this year, and there is no possible way we get back to 8 wins.

So, if we avoid embarrassing shutouts...are competitive in every game...see improvement in the running game...see improvement in the red zone offense...I think you can say this year was an improvement, even if we don't get back to 8 wins again.


I'm saying it's TT's job to show improvement on the record.

I would generally agree...but simply because you have a wad of cash does not mean that players want to come to Green Bay right now. There weren't many free agents that would've made a true difference on this team.

Improvement should be seen in terms of the level of play from year to year. Thompson is banking on the thought that the young guys will continue to improve and get better. That likely won't make us significantly better this year, but likely would pay off in 2-3 more years.

So, for Thompson to be correct, guys like Jennings, Hawk, Colledge, Spitz, Moll, Rodgers, and Collins should show measureable improvement in 2007. If they do...REGARDLESS of Green Bay's record...then I think we can say the season at least shows promise for the future.

In terms of Thompson's decisions THIS OFFSEASON, I think it hinges more on the play of guys on OTHER teams. Do several of the 2nd tier guys he passed on targeting in the 2nd round perform notably better than Jackson and Jones in 2007? Does Moss have a solid year in NE? If Thompson's lack of ability to pull the trigger to obtain more "premier" guys caused us to miss potential impact players, then he should be criticized for not doing all that he could to improve the team.

I certainly agree with you in the regard that it seems very likely that Thompson will have some answering to do following the season.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Three drafts, but the first was with low draft order, his 1st round pick won't play until Favre retires, and his second round pick got a career-ending injury.

but,but. . . BUT.

The but's need to stop.

The buts stop next year. You can't overlook the fact that he inherited an old team with little salary cap room, and you can't overlook that fact that he couldn't start the rebuilding until year 2. You also can't overlook the fact he inherited a 35-year-old QB that he needed to find a replacement for. So, he almost had to choice but to spend his first 1st round pick on a guy who hasn't played yet. You also can't overlook the fact that his first 2nd round pick got a career-ending injury. To me, the clock started with his 2006 offseason. This year is another building year. Next year, the team needs to show tangible results.