Loyalty Test

[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

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.

[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!

[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!

[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!

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