I would consider 2007 a Failure IF

[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

[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.

[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.

ha, fine one out of 32 teams do