1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Big Announcement Coming for 2015 Football Season!!

    Be on the look out for a big Packer Forum announcement when the schedule is released. Full details coming soon...

Would you be satisfied if the Packers went 9-7?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by wizard 87, May 25, 2009.

?

Would you be satisfied if the Packers went 9-7?

Poll closed Aug 23, 2009.
  1. Yes

    13 vote(s)
    34.2%
  2. No

    25 vote(s)
    65.8%
  1. buckyb

    buckyb Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3
    Ratings:
    +0
  2. doughsellz

    doughsellz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2008
    Messages:
    301
    Ratings:
    +2
    I think it's setting expectations way too high to believe the D will click immediately, therefore winning the division could be tougher than usual. However, I don't expect Cutler to have an immediate impact & if #4 starts for MN then they are also set up for a slow start. Introducing new elements to team sports doesn't always equate to immediate success. DET will struggle as usual so no surprises out of that situation.

    If things unfold as I've stated above the division is up for grabs. Each team has placed themselves into scenarios that have big question marks. I give GB the edge because they will essentially have the same players on D & that should be the difference.

    Where that leaves the '09 Packers in the W-L column I have no idea. Schedules have a way looking favorable compared to the previous season's results but always wind up being different, sometimes drastically. I can envsion a 4-4 start, maybe 6-2 if a couple of bounces go our way. A late season surge instead of a slide like in '08 is more likely to happen since the offense should be hitting it's stride early & maintaining it all season, the potential loss of Tauscher & who replaces him being the only unknown.

    3 of the last 4 on the road is tough for any team on a stretch run for the playoffs. If they do make the playoffs, they'll definitely be ready for an extended stay.

    My prediction is 10-6 with losses @ MN, @ CLE, @ TAM, at home to BAL, @ PIT & @ AZ.

    I couldn't envision an 8-0 record at home & BAL seems like the likliest home loss.

    If that's good enough to win the NFC North remains to be seen. I'd say it's a good chance GB wins the division.

    I will not be satisfied with 9-7 even if they qualify for the playoffs. AZ was the first team since the 16-game season began in '78 to reach the SB at 9-7. Those are not favorable odds. If the goal is to win the SB every season, then an under-achieving 9-7 record with mild success early & heart-breaking defeat later in the playoffs (like the early '90s Packers) isn't satisfactory. This is year 5 of the TT experiment. Win now!
     
  3. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    Most "experts" say MN and CHI are the favorites battling for the division. And only some see us even making the wildcard. I say let 'em talk! I'd rather be the underdog that takes everyone by surprise, than the favorite that fails miserably. Those so called experts have really short memory, anyway. That happens EVERY year. 05, who thought about the Steelers? 06, the bears? 07, the Giants? And who can honestly say they predicted AZ would reach it last season??? And I'm only listing teams that went to the SB...
     
  4. dansz15

    dansz15 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +35
    With the schedule, if the team plays up to potential they can go to 10-6. I think the players have the potential to be 13-3. Defense has got that lights out possibility and offensively top 5 in football, esp if Grant has a good camp I think.

    They are, on paper the best team in the North. A playoff birth and being 12-4 would be what I would hope, anything less could be a dissapointment, esp if they are 9-7. Last year they could/should of been 11-5 maybe 10-6 but it wasn't clicking. Without Days in Our Lives starring Brett Favre, the season long commercial free soap special, the team can concentrate on themselves. Last year was poor timing. They will be on all cylinders in 09.
     
  5. cyoung

    cyoung Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ratings:
    +2
    I agree I think they'll be fine in the transition, but immediatley be good and dominate i'm not so sure about that.
     
  6. bp65

    bp65 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    Messages:
    8
    Ratings:
    +0
    This is not a 9-7 team our defence if healthy should be one of the best in the NFL and our offense if we can get a running game this year that doesent require 32 carries to get Ryan Grant to 100 yards then we will have one of the best offense in the NFC right up there with the Saints
     
  7. Hauschild

    Hauschild Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,104
    Ratings:
    +11
    Green Bay has a cupcake of a schedule, so 9-7 would be a major disappointment - unless the 6-10 record last season wasn't a fluke.
     
  8. sdfc87

    sdfc87 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2009
    Messages:
    4
    Ratings:
    +0
    im hoping we make at least ten with the schudule we got
     
  9. D.Levens

    D.Levens Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    167
    Ratings:
    +1
    Love all of the excuses for mediocrity here.

    Ask yourself this, if Favre was still here, would you be happy that the Packers went 9-7, or would be ripping him a new a**hole?

    Then why not rip TT and AROD one then for going 9-7?
     
  10. cyoung

    cyoung Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ratings:
    +2
    A-Rod is not the problem, it's the transitioning defense and the running game I question.
     
  11. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    I think you'll find more people that enjoy your insightful opinion in this site: Vikings Message Board.Com • Index page
     
  12. shiftysdad

    shiftysdad Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    342
    Ratings:
    +0
    It's an improvement, and an improvement is good.

    I am not denying that it would be nice if the Pack did even better, but we have to be realistic about this.

    The Pack are in an odd position. We have talent and skills, but our team is lacking a bit of chemistry (which I would say was a big factor in Aaron's lack of success this last season.)
     
  13. cyoung

    cyoung Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,276
    Ratings:
    +2
    I agree the team just didn't seem to work together well, that and the defense struggled with injuries.
     
  14. D.Levens

    D.Levens Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    167
    Ratings:
    +1
    Why not just say it was "all Favre's fault". I'm sure it would make you feel better.

    I'm sure you all wouldn't be soooo understanding of that kind of record if Favre was still here...

    Do you people even hear yourselves?

    Do you hear what you're saying?

    How many damn years does TT get to turn this team around anyway?

    5...10....20? Does it even matter if he ever does?

    Wow. I don't get you people.
     
  15. dansz15

    dansz15 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    600
    Ratings:
    +35

    I hope the Vikes pick up Favre then we can talk about sinking teams later in a career.
     
  16. doughsellz

    doughsellz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2008
    Messages:
    301
    Ratings:
    +2

    I've asked myself & also posed these very same sentiments many times to an extremely unreceptive group of responders both here & many other forums.

    Bob Harlan claims that performance was in no way the reason why he sought to seperate the two jobs (HC/GM) again, just that he thought the pressure of both jobs was too much for one person.

    Cap issues notwithstanding, Mike Sherman won 32 games in the 3 years he held down the HC/GM position for GB.

    Does that imply that TT has failed in the 3 years that he's held the GM position since Sherman departed? 27-21 is respectable but still falls 5 wins short of his predecessor, who was also doing MM's job from '02-'04.

    Given Coach Sherman's performance (53-27) prior to TT's arrival, I find it hard to comprehend why TT canned him after one lousy season (4-12, '05), which may or may not have been a ploy to undermine the 2nd winningest coach in team history.

    TT is being given more latitude than his predecessor got even though the results don't compare favorably to his predecessor's.

    Is mediocrity becoming tolerable in Titletown?
     
  17. doughsellz

    doughsellz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2008
    Messages:
    301
    Ratings:
    +2
    I forgot to point out that Sherman was canned after slipping from 10 wins to 4 wins from '04 to '05.

    From '07 to '08 MM went from 13 wins to 6 wins, an even larger differential. Should he have been canned?

    Most people blame the '08 losing season on injuries. The same could be said for '05 as well. TT doesn't have the cap to blame for losing quality players anymore so it was either the injuries or something more substantial that was responsible for such a decline in the W column.

    The same defensive coaching staff that was heralded in '07 took the fall for lackluster performances one year later. Was that justified? We shall see.
     
  18. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    Yeah, but Sherman got a great part of the Wolf team. IMO he was a very good HC and a poor GM, but anyway he's gone, that discussion is over...
     
  19. shiftysdad

    shiftysdad Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    342
    Ratings:
    +0
    What's with this D.Levens guy and throwing the Favre-card out there?

    I never mentioned Favre, it's not his fault for leaving, he has every right to.

    We couldn't expect him to stay forever, and we knew that when he left we would have a bit of a problem with Aaron Rodger's leadership.

    It's not a fault, it's a predicament.
     
  20. doughsellz

    doughsellz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2008
    Messages:
    301
    Ratings:
    +2

    That "poor GM" drafted two Pro Bowl players in his first attempt at running his own draft.

    Ho Hum, right? Well considering it was his first attempt at any type of personnel decision making at this level it's impressive.

    On the other hand TT has been in the personnel business for many years & has drafted only one Pro Bowl player in 3 attempts, '08 draft not being considered yet.

    As far as keeping the $$$ in order I'll give you that one. Sherman was all in every year & thought as long as there were checks in the checkbook he could spend them.

    Personally I admire Sherman for his efforts. Why he's despised by so many "loyal" Packer fans disturbs me.
     
  21. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +979
    Despised not by me. Saying he was a poor gm in my opinion is not to despise him... Like I said, I liked his coaching. Specially regarding the OL. I hate this ZBS... But then again, he's not and will not be our HC for a long time.
     
  22. shiftysdad

    shiftysdad Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    342
    Ratings:
    +0
    I never minded Sherman that much.
     
  23. nelanator

    nelanator Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Messages:
    142
    Ratings:
    +0
    After a 6-10 season and the changing of a defensive scheme, 9-7 is incredibly optimistic even in the same crap division that they managed to finish 6-10 last year. I'd say it is more likely that they finish 6-10 again or worse than 8-8 or higher.
     
  24. shiftysdad

    shiftysdad Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    342
    Ratings:
    +0
    Sorry, "worse than 8-8 or higher"?

    It is late, so I may not be reading this right, but it sure sounds like you have a little bipolarity in that brain of yours.
     
  25. nelanator

    nelanator Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Messages:
    142
    Ratings:
    +0
    You read it wrong, but a comma or two would have helped. They are more likely to "finish 6-10 again, or worse, than 8-8 or better."

    So I am saying that they are more likely to have 6 or less wins than they are 8 or more.
     

Share This Page