according to the writers at the Green Bay Press Gazette, the Packers record should be either 9-7 or 7-9.. Tell me how that is as good as 13-3 and one play away from the SuperBowl?  Go ahead, explain this to me.. only one of the writers, I believe, is even predicting the playoffs..  Now how is that an IMPROVEMENT OVER LAST YEAR?

Go ahead defenders..  show me, explain it to all of us, how that record and NO PLAYOFFS is better then last year..

and if this is the case.. especially 7-9  shouldn't heads ROLL?

in my mind they should..  No question about it.

that's the truth. 

the truth:

according to the writers at the Green Bay Press Gazette, the Packers record should be either 9-7 or 7-9.. Tell me how that is as good as 13-3 and one play away from the SuperBowl?  Go ahead, explain this to me.. only one of the writers, I believe, is even predicting the playoffs..  Now how is that an IMPROVEMENT OVER LAST YEAR?

Go ahead defenders..  show me, explain it to all of us, how that record and NO PLAYOFFS is better then last year..

and if this is the case.. especially 7-9  shouldn't heads ROLL?

in my mind they should..  No question about it.

that's the truth. 

I thought all the local papers were anti-Favre and pro-management?

Yeah heads should roll if they go 7-9.

 I'm thinking maybe we should let the season play out before we give up on the team already.

Just because some so called expert predicts doom & gloom you want to fire everyone in sight!

If they were to finish 7-9, the heads of McCarthy and Thompson will not roll (especially Thompson)

There could be a Sanders in there if the defense underperforms and is deemed the cause of multiple losses.

Perhaps a position coach or two depending on the unit's performance.

For either of the top two, they would have to win less than 4, I believe.  There would also need to be evidence of lockeroom cancer.

I believe the underlying comment here is the GB media sees the season like many do here, that is they weakened. Why is it the TT supporters believe the opposite? Its one thing to wish for the best which we all do but being realistic in assessing the team is frowned upon. Better write an editorial in the GB Press Gazette asking how so called Packer reporters are allowed to cover the team when they don't believe. Anti Packer bastages!

puddyellow:

If they were to finish 7-9, the heads of McCarthy and Thompson will not roll (especially Thompson)

There could be a Sanders in there if the defense underperforms and is deemed the cause of multiple losses.

Perhaps a position coach or two depending on the unit's performance.

For either of the top two, they would have to win less than 4, I believe.  There would also need to be evidence of lockeroom cancer.

As with any GM they can buy themself a year or two and blame others like the DC or OC but ultimately they did the hiring and are responsible. If they finish witha 7-9 record there will be such an outpouring of TT hatred, Murphy will distance himself from him leaving Ted on his own little island. Ted will have a year to right the ship.  

Does anyone else notice the responses from suppoters like Cheezer when they cannot refute the topic? Are they not insult filled, bullying, or just spin of the actual subject? Oops...almost forgot my favorite, grammar.

gbmickey:

I believe the underlying comment here is the GB media sees the season like many do here, that is they weakened. Why is it the TT supporters believe the opposite? Its one thing to wish for the best which we all do but being realistic in assessing the team is frowned upon. Better write an editorial in the GB Press Gazette asking how so called Packer reporters are allowed to cover the team when they don't believe. Anti Packer bastages!

So they do.  7-9 is not illogical.  I think the Bears fell further.

The question is what is likely:  There is a perception (back when the board was offering up their predictions) that the Packers were going to fall off the face of the Earth:

1 poster said 4-12, 1 said 5-11, and 2 said 6-10.  These were of the anti-TT people.  Of the other side: 2 said "playoffs" and 2 said 11-5, and another said "at least 10-6."  There was no in between.

For me: 

In short: 0-4 wins almost impossible; 5-6 with the help of injuries and poor play; 7-8 underperforming, but possible; 8-9 not good; not a surprise; 10-11 according to plan and expectation; 12-13 with some breaks, this would be tough to do; 14-16...like the 0-4, almost impossible.

Personally, I say 10-6.  I would like to see 11-5.  Obviously, anything higher is outstanding, just like last year.

Perhaps a thread will start in order to pin down those with the strong beliefs.

gbmickey:

puddyellow:

If they were to finish 7-9, the heads of McCarthy and Thompson will not roll (especially Thompson)

There could be a Sanders in there if the defense underperforms and is deemed the cause of multiple losses.

Perhaps a position coach or two depending on the unit's performance.

For either of the top two, they would have to win less than 4, I believe.  There would also need to be evidence of lockeroom cancer.

As with any GM they can buy themself a year or two and blame others like the DC or OC but ultimately they did the hiring and are responsible. If they finish witha 7-9 record there will be such an outpouring of TT hatred, Murphy will distance himself from him leaving Ted on his own little island. Ted will have a year to right the ship.  

That's possible.  Depends on how losses happen a little.  If the team were to rebound from such a season, say 11-5, he remains cemented.  If he were to repeat 7-9, it might get noisy, but still not a sure thing.  If an 09 team fell further than 7-9...that might do it.

wcheezer:

 

Posted this elsewhere, but it applies here as well. They're not only trolls, they are naysayers.  Found this short definition:

Naysayer: Someone with an aggressively negative attitude. 

Found an even better one at urbandictionary.com :

"naysayer:

One who frequently engages in excessive complaining, negative banter and/or a genuinely poor and downbeat attitude. Naysayers are distinguished by their tendency to consistently view the glass half empty, make frequent one-way trips to negative town, and constantly emphasize the worst of a situation. They have the capacity to rant and whine for hours on end about the most insignificant inconveniences. They tend to travel solo, but have the keen ability to spread their pessimistic attitude to a group of unsuspecting bystanders and encourage others to employ their mindset.

Naysayers tend to blend in with those around them rather well, granted they have learned over the years to adapt to their surroundings. However, when the opportunity arises, their true nature will be exposed and they will stop at nothing to exclude others or bring a general sense of negativity to any situation.

Not to be confused with non-naysayers who fight against the negativity brought forth by naysayers, make the best of a situation and are not afraid to call out a naysayer on the spot."

gbmickey:

I recognize that you and 'ol Shazzam Jammies are trying to play a game of "gotcha" for a later date, hectoring everybody for a prediction and then, using it is a cudgle if you happen to be correct.

13-3 was a bit of over-performance last year.  This year's strength of schedule may not lend itself to a 13-win season.  Of course, your gotcha game is predicated on the assumption that simply having "the dearly departed" in the line-up would have guaranteed a SB berth, and that not making the SB would be a supreme failure.  I believe it was "the dearly departed" himself that said that getting back to that game wasn't exactly a lock, and that led to his first decision to "depart."

That said, I do find the both of you to be "naysayers" (the kinds of pains in the @ss that no one likes to be around because of their virulent negativity and ability to suck the life out of most stuff.)

CheeseCityFan:

gbmickey:

I recognize that you and 'ol Shazzam Jammies are trying to play a game of "gotcha" for a later date, hectoring everybody for a prediction and then, using it is a cudgle if you happen to be correct.

13-3 was a bit of over-performance last year.  This year's strength of schedule may not lend itself to a 13-win season.  Of course, your gotcha game is predicated on the assumption that simply having "the dearly departed" in the line-up would have guaranteed a SB berth, and that not making the SB would be a supreme failure.  I believe it was "the dearly departed" himself that said that getting back to that game wasn't exactly a lock, and that led to his first decision to "depart."

That said, I do find the both of you to be "naysayers" (the kinds of pains in the @ss that no one likes to be around because of their virulent negativity and ability to suck the life out of most stuff.)

I've never said the dearly departed was our only means in which to get back. While I believe he played a vital role it takes all parts to make a team. That being said I feel we are weaker in our lines and qb. Its an honest assessment. I'm not saying you have to agree or I will insult you (like you and the TT cronies do)but just an opinion.

As far as strength of schedule it is harder how? You know this how? Many teams rise and fall from year to year and it never turns out as predicted. Just appears to me you guys build in excuses to cover the fallacy. So far it has been overachieved last year, injuries, and strength of schedule that will get us less wins. Before it is over I'm sure we will hear about some curse that plagued 1265.

Not one of you has stated that you expect the same results that we had last year. Why is that? Why would you settle for anything less? They are more experienced so shouldn't the team be better?  Could it be because you do not believe the rhetoric you spew either?

CheeseCityFan:

gbmickey:

I recognize that you and 'ol Shazzam Jammies are trying to play a game of "gotcha" for a later date, hectoring everybody for a prediction and then, using it is a cudgle if you happen to be correct.

13-3 was a bit of over-performance last year.  This year's strength of schedule may not lend itself to a 13-win season.  Of course, your gotcha game is predicated on the assumption that simply having "the dearly departed" in the line-up would have guaranteed a SB berth, and that not making the SB would be a supreme failure.  I believe it was "the dearly departed" himself that said that getting back to that game wasn't exactly a lock, and that led to his first decision to "depart."

That said, I do find the both of you to be "naysayers" (the kinds of pains in the @ss that no one likes to be around because of their virulent negativity and ability to suck the life out of most stuff.)

Last year to me was an awesome ride.  Losing to the Cowboys, and Bears really stunk out loud.  Losing in the NFC Championship game was worse.  However that being said, this team returns 21 of 22 starters to the field, in most places this would be considered a HUGE advantage.  One advantage that I have to give Charmin was that the O line was the same for about 3-4 years.  That helped out a lot.

This year is different.  The Packers have a new QB, while it is unknown territory, to me it is like sailing on a ship to the Persian Gulf for the first time.  It is scary, and unknown, but the reward is much greater than one can expect.  I believe that Rodgers will exceed many people expectations.  My belief is that at the end of the season, the bandwagon will be so full, I will be kicking off those who did not get on board at the beginning.

The only hope that TT haters/Favre apologists have is that this season stinks.  Its lame, and frankly quite nauseating.  Most asswipes like jaymo, ace, raven and truthy don't bother to investigate the real facts of NFL life.  These same asswipes think that because the Packers had a great year last year that they are entitled to the NFC Championship game.  The Packers are not.  There are a lot of things that go into a season that can derail a Championship run.  Just ask the Patriots.  They had the best regular season EVER, and got beat by a bunch of over achievers in the Super Bowl.  That's why they play the games.

Last year there were asswipes that were declaring the season over because the Patriots got Randy Moss, and that because we didn't give Ahman Green huge bank, we were going to have a crappy season.  Guess what, didn't happen.

How about letting Aaron play position of QB, and let TT play position of GM, and let MM play head coach, and let the chips fall where they may.  IF this team goes 4-12, there is definately going to be some complaining, and I am sure I will be right there at the head of the line.  But if this team goes 10-6 to 12-4, and Rodgers plays well, you won't hear a peep from the folks who are gunning to fail.  Why?  Because its easier to be a naysayer now, instead of having a set of balls and cheering for the best.  All so you can get a GM fired.  LAME!

wcheezer, the folks here on other boards who openly hope the Pack fails so TT will get fired really irk the h3ll out of me.  And not because I'm a fan of TT.  Its because I'm a fan of the 53 guys in the lockerroom at 1265.  I remember last summer everyone was so sure the Pack was going to flop because of the concerns on the offensive line.  If memory serves that O line did a pretty nice job, most of the time.  And why are some folks so sure our new QB stinks and is made of glass?  This crazy hate for Rodgers is really over the top.  This kid is just a football player - like the dearly departed - who only wants to play.  He isn't BF and we shouldn't expect him to be BF.  That is utterly unfair.  Good grief, let the kid play and show us what he's got.  Only then will we know what we have.