Concerns for 2010 (No Particular Order)

[RashanGary]

If the Packers stink, my opinion changes. Up until now and going forward it all seems to be pointing up and staying up for some time.

[Joemailman]

retailguy = fail

If you closely examine the results of your player evaluations and your prognosticating talent, this is the nicest thing you could have said to me. It virtually guarantees that my predictions will be without fail.

What is your prediction?

Well, there have been a number in this thread, but lets stick with 2 for now, ok?

19-0

This team goes as far as the OL takes them.

No, this team goes as far as the defense takes them. Despite all the sacks last year, the Packers still had one of the top offenses in the league. They failed to make it to the Super Bowl because they couldn't stop the good passing offenses. No matter how well the offensive line protects Rodgers, they won't make it to the Super Bowl unless the pass defense improves.

[retailguy]

Here you go RG, I'll go on record. Assuming there is not a serious rash of injuries or a multi-game injury to Rodgers or Woodson, I will be disappointed with anything less than 11-5 and at least one playoff win. I was gonna say anything less than a trip to the NFCCG but decided to go with a playoff win instead. My reason being that I see this team similar to the mid 90's Packers teams in that I will give them a few years to progress from playoff experience to a playoff win to a SB trip.

that's a good prediction. hope we do better than that.

[retailguy]

If the Packers stink, my opinion changes. Up until now and going forward it all seems to be pointing up and staying up for some time.

Then, in the meantime, lets quit trying to moderate the expectations.

Enjoy the ride Justin. It's gonna be fun.

[Bossman641]

Here you go RG, I'll go on record. Assuming there is not a serious rash of injuries or a multi-game injury to Rodgers or Woodson, I will be disappointed with anything less than 11-5 and at least one playoff win. I was gonna say anything less than a trip to the NFCCG but decided to go with a playoff win instead. My reason being that I see this team similar to the mid 90's Packers teams in that I will give them a few years to progress from playoff experience to a playoff win to a SB trip.

that's a good prediction. hope we do better than that.

I too hope we do better, but if it needs to be broken down into satisfied/disappointed then that's where I will draw the line.

[RashanGary]

Back in 2005 and 2006 when nobody saw this coming, we were predicting the Packers were making the types of decisions that would pay off in the long term.

The long term is here. While you doomed and gloomed, we thought this was coming. Now it's here. We have several years to be SB competitive.


No need to make any bold predictions. They already came true.

[RashanGary]

Retail, everyone sees through the charade.

Enjoy the season too.

[Tarlam!]

Retail, everyone sees through the charade.

Nope, not this puppy. I think the animosity by some posters shown towards RG on this thread have clouded it for me so much that I can't see or follow the thinking.

I don't get RG's message, by the same token, I don't get you calling him out, Nick.

[retailguy]

Retail, everyone sees through the charade.

Enjoy the season too.

This is hilarious Justin. You keep claiming alterior motives. Not sure how I'd pull those off. Not less than a month ago, I said that I believed that my good buddy Ted would not be fired if the Packers had a bad season. I think I even used 6-10 as in our 2008 season, which I referred to above.

Here is exactly what I did yesterday. Listen closely. I fed back to you and a few others, almost exactly the words you have used to describe the team over the last 4 years. I talked about the same outcomes, the excitement about the players and the success it translated to on the field. I talked about a "stacked" team with few holes, and how there wasn't any reason the team would be competitive.

I "enhanced" it a bit with the 19-0 talk, but realistically, if you look at the schedule, there isn't a game they shouldn't be competitive in, and there isn't a game that on paper they cannot win.

Justin - I was upfront in this thread that I still don't like Ted, but this is his team now, and it should win. THIS YEAR. Truthfully, I expect them to win, and I believe that they can win all their games and they will go to the Super Bowl. That was not hype. I kept saying that, but you still don't believe me. The vicious attacks were really priceless. Not ONE legitimate reason why the team can't succeed, just repeated statements that "my expectations were too high". Yeah.

It was very entertaining for me to "feed back" the exact thoughts and in some cases the exact words you guys used over the last 4 years. I was told I was essentially "over exhuberant", which hysterically is what a lot of us told YOU over the past 3 years. Watching you curb your excitement and lower the expectations was priceless. When you talked about a championship within the next 5 years, I almost lost it.

In the end, Justin, I expect the team to be very very good this year. I will be very very disappointed if they are not. I certainly will not claim credit for anything, and barring 2-14 with no injuries will probably not be calling for Ted's head, since it is largely pointless at this juncture.

Your conspiracy theory kills me. I'm sincerely laughing out loud.

[mraynrand]

That was a pretty shameful display, Retail. You are admitting that you were playing a game. You were also dishonest: You wrote: "The vicious attacks were really priceless. Not ONE legitimate reason why the team can't succeed, just repeated statements that "my expectations were too high". Well, I and various people pointed out legitimate reasons why the team might not succeed. Most, responding to the original intent of the thread, addressed the concerns in a thoughtful, legitimate manner. I'm very sorry to say that you poisoned the process by playing a dishonest 'gotcha' game (actually, thinking about it, it's not so much dishonest as it is like a troll technique - pushing buttons in a way that you know you're likely to get a knee-jerk emotional response). You could have just stated your opinion about the team, Thompson, etc. without the (accurately described by JH) charade. Your disagreement with those who like the Thompson strategy would have been welcome (or not) but it would have been far better if presented honestly and openly. I was sorry to see you choose the route you did.

BTW, This is how I would critique Thompson writing from the anti--Thompson perspective: "Many have supported the Thompson strategy of concentrating on the draft and coaching up internally, rather than signing free agents. Based on some of the gaps in the roster - defensive back, possibly pass rush, depth at LB and OT - it seems to me that Thompson needed to jump into free agency to address at least one of these areas. If the team suffers for it (dropping out of the playoffs early), it will be a significant repudiation of the Thompson strategy - at the very least so far as making a Superbowl run is concerned."

[ThunderDan]

I worry every year about the pass rush except when we had Dave Roller.

[pbmax]

C'mon RG. I know you take abuse occasionally for being contrarian on Thompson and the OL. But if you go out of your way to call people foolish and cowardly, is it going to help?

State your piece and stick by your guns. Your posts are good enough to not need the agitation.

And that's enough Stuart Smiley for today.

[cheesner]

Retail, everyone sees through the charade.

Nope, not this puppy. I think the animosity by some posters shown towards RG on this thread have clouded it for me so much that I can't see or follow the thinking.

I don't get RG's message, by the same token, I don't get you calling him out, Nick.

I don't think that some posters understand what RG is trying to say. Being a long-time extreme TT critic; stating that the Packers are now very talented; and still making sarcastic cracks ridiculing TT's capabilities are contradictions.

If you ask me RG is on some level disappointed and frustrated that the Packers are looking so good and he was wrong about TT and his team-building strategy.

[sharpe1027]

I worry every year about the pass rush except when we had Dave Roller.

Bring back Tim Harris.

[retailguy]

That was a pretty shameful display, Retail. You are admitting that you were playing a game. You were also dishonest: You wrote: "The vicious attacks were really priceless. Not ONE legitimate reason why the team can't succeed, just repeated statements that "my expectations were too high". Well, I and various people pointed out legitimate reasons why the team might not succeed. Most, responding to the original intent of the thread, addressed the concerns in a thoughtful, legitimate manner. I'm very sorry to say that you poisoned the process by playing a dishonest 'gotcha' game (actually, thinking about it, it's not so much dishonest as it is like a troll technique - pushing buttons in a way that you know you're likely to get a knee-jerk emotional response). You could have just stated your opinion about the team, Thompson, etc. without the (accurately described by JH) charade. Your disagreement with those who like the Thompson strategy would have been welcome (or not) but it would have been far better if presented honestly and openly. I was sorry to see you choose the route you did.

BTW, This is how I would critique Thompson writing from the anti--Thompson perspective: "Many have supported the Thompson strategy of concentrating on the draft and coaching up internally, rather than signing free agents. Based on some of the gaps in the roster - defensive back, possibly pass rush, depth at LB and OT - it seems to me that Thompson needed to jump into free agency to address at least one of these areas. If the team suffers for it (dropping out of the playoffs early), it will be a significant repudiation of the Thompson strategy - at the very least so far as making a Superbowl run is concerned."

Gee thanks Dad.

Let's be real straightforward. I don't believe that there are legitimate reasons for this team not to succeed. We have one starting position in a bit of flux for the first several weeks of the season. Harris will be back. Is he over the hill? Hope not. But I don't know. You have to believe that McCarthy & Thompson DO know or they would have done something. It makes the dime weak. Nickel too, but again, when a starter is out, you expect that. It is certainly something you expect them to play through and to compensate for with safety help.

Pass rush? Is it a concern? I don't think they believe it to be. I hope the defense has been largely vanilla. If it isn't, defensively the team will take a step back. But realistically, they can afford a step back and still be competitive and successful. A secondary concern compared to the holes of the past 3 seasons.

As to your second paragraph, I agree with it, however, it isn't realistic, AND more importantly it's been said many times. It isn't appropriate for this season, maybe next, but likely two years out before you can say that with any validity. I could have chose to shoot it down with the same rhetoric we've all heard before but I'll spare you the agony, since you might ground me.

The only intangible that really remains, is, does Ted alter his approach if they make a run and it doesn't work (ie - loss in the NFCC or the divisional round), and they "tool up" next year and make another run. Does that "tool up" happen with young guys, or older established veterans via free agency?

I think Ted believes he can get over the hump with almost all drafted players. I don't know if he can, but IF he can, this seems to be the year to do it.

When the biggest complaints are the pass rush, and the 3rd cornerback, and the fear of injury? Hell rand, this team is stacked. With Ted's players.

What I said about my predictions of the season stands. It wasn't and isn't a game. What I said about Ted stands, it wasn't or isn't a game. The method of delivery? Sure. I mimicked several personalities and conveyed EXACTLY what they said in response to your point #2 over the last 3 years. And we got the same responses that we gave them over the last 3 years...