I would consider 07 successful if GB

[Bretsky]

An interesting question to ponder

[Packnut]

9-7

Just go 9-7.

[BallHawk]

Yeah, 9-7 would be good. And, knowing the NFC, that just could be good enough to get you into the playoffs.

[Joemailman]

Finishing above .500 would be the next logical step up. Actually, finishing above .500 and making the playoffs are probably the same thing in the NFC.

[MJZiggy]

I'll measure success at the moment by the defense tightening up and not giving up the big or stupid plays and the offense showing improvement in the line, fewer drops and less questionable decisions. If they do that, the wins will materialize.

[Bretsky]

Yeah, 9-7 would be good. And, knowing the NFC, that just could be good enough to get you into the playoffs.

So is that the measuring bar for succcess for you ?

[Bretsky]

I'll measure success at the moment by the defense tightening up and not giving up the big or stupid plays and the offense showing improvement in the line, fewer drops and less questionable decisions. If they do that, the wins will materialize.

This is what I figured; there are only a couple TT extremists in here IMO and they will never want any meaurables to be on record so there is always a way out. I was curious about this question; the failure thread intrigues me a heck of a lot more.

[packinpatland]

I think 9 and 7 is doable.

As long as two of those 9 include the Bears.

[Bretsky]

I think 9 and 7 is doable.

As long as two of those 9 include the Bears.

Yes, that would be nice

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Can't vote, their is no win the super bowl option.









Ok really, a successful season would be:

1) As MJ said, the D not give up the big plays.
2) The defense being top 5 in the league (the only weakness I see is safety)
3) The O-line improves to the point were they don't need to max protect every play.
4) Favre throwing less than 15 picks.
5) Driver still being Driver.
6) lots of improvement from our young guys.
7) Favre having fun and coming back next year.
8) Going at least 10-6. (After three years of building a team, 10-6 should be attainable if your a good GM).

[MJZiggy]

I'll measure success at the moment by the defense tightening up and not giving up the big or stupid plays and the offense showing improvement in the line, fewer drops and less questionable decisions. If they do that, the wins will materialize.

This is what I figured; there are only a couple TT extremists in here IMO and they will never want any meaurables to be on record so there is always a way out. I was curious about this question; the failure thread intrigues me a heck of a lot more.

My answer had nothing at all to do with TT. You wanted to know how I would measure success. Well, success is improvement and I thought of the areas that needed improvement and if the schedule is as difficult as you guys keep telling me it is, then W-L becomes less of an accurate benchmark for measuring improvement from our "pansy" schedule last year. You didn't give me the option I wanted in the failure thread.

[The Leaper]

It is all about improvement at this point.

Can we avoid embarrassing shutouts in 2007?

Can we make Lambeau more of a HFA in 2007?

Can the running game and blocking scheme show marked improvement in year #2?

Can young kids drafted in the last 3 years continue to improve in 2007?

We went 8-8 last year solely because our division was one of the weakest in the NFL and we went 5-1 in it. We often fell on the sword in crunch time. I hardly view this team as a legitimate playoff contender, and would be very surprised if we finished better than 8-8. There is still far too much inexperience on this team...both players and coaching staff...to win consistently.

[retailguy]

then W-L becomes less of an accurate benchmark for measuring improvement

Tell that to Mike Sherman.

[retailguy]

We went 8-8 last year solely because our division was one of the weakest in the NFL and we went 5-1 in it.

Kind of puts 2006 into perspective, doesn't it? We got one game from the playoffs largely BECAUSE - we beat the Lions who have been hapless since 2000, and have the WORST record in the NFL since that point, AND we beat up on the Vikings who didn't have ANY KIND OF OFFENSE, in 2006, at all. Also, we got a "garbage time" win over the Bears, who completely sucked that game, but really had very little, except pride, to play for.

So, in terms of the rest of the NFL, in 2006, we won THREE GAMES.

Wow. Those of you who think that this team is "playoff ready" really need to ponder this.

[LL2]

We went 8-8 last year solely because our division was one of the weakest in the NFL and we went 5-1 in it.

Kind of puts 2006 into perspective, doesn't it? We got one game from the playoffs largely BECAUSE - we beat the Lions who have been hapless since 2000, and have the WORST record in the NFL since that point, AND we beat up on the Vikings who didn't have ANY KIND OF OFFENSE, in 2006, at all. Also, we got a "garbage time" win over the Bears, who completely sucked that game, but really had very little, except pride, to play for.

So, in terms of the rest of the NFL, in 2006, we won THREE GAMES.

Wow. Those of you who think that this team is "playoff ready" really need to ponder this.

Things can change from one season to the next. Just look at last years Saints. The Pack could easily go 9-7 this year or better, but they could just as easity repeat an 8-8 season or do worse. I’m not a big believer that how a team finish the previous one will translate into success or failure from one season to the next. There is too much time between seasons and often a lot of personal changes (but not too much in the Packers case). I do think we will go at least 9-7 for the reason that all of the teams young players, which consisted of about 50% of the team, now has 1-2 years under their belt. Throw in some success from one or two players from this year’s rookie class, perhaps Harrell or Jackson, and we have a continuing improving team.