It seems everything you read on the Pack over the last few weeks is negative despite winning 2 games in convincing fashion. There are threads on this forum say 'Never gonna win with this administration', and in general there is a lot of pessimism. So apparently when GB wins against bad teams it does not really count, by contrast even though the Vikings lost their first game Kevin Seifert of ESPN thinks it was actually a win because the win came on turnover returns.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id...nings-in-a-loss

So continuing this trend would like to add some more points:

- TT is awful and this team should fire the former NFL executive of the year for failing to put together a team capable of beating the Browns or Lions by 60 points.
- The Pack's 2 losses to teams that were to teams currently with a combined record of 11-3 should count double, heck triple. I mean really both games were lost bye a touchdown or less, just embarrassing.
- The defense if ranked third in the NFL, but that sucks because it is not as good as being ranked first.
- MM is probably the worst coach in the NFL, despite his winning record over the past 4 seasons, he should be demoted to ball boy.


I could go on, but really why bother it is obvious that the Packers are the worst team in the league and should probably not even show up to play for the rest of the season.

TT and MM should be fired immediately and AJ Hawk, Ryan Grant, James Jones and the entire offensive line should be benched, otherwise all the negative nellies might look silly when the Packers trounce the Vikings next weekend.

The attitude around here amongst a certain segment of the posters just confounds me... These guys would win the lottery and be back tomorrow complaining because the jackpot was only $100 million.

I also read that joke of an article by Seifert. That guy is such a homer, that he can't go five sentances without making an excuse for the Vikings.

As a GB fan I want nothing short of a Super Bowl win every year. GB needs to keep working to get better, still there is a lot to like about this team. As of right now it seems like the Pack should make the playoffs, and that means they at least have a chance at winning the Super Bowl. So in my world right now the Pack is on target.

Well, the guy wrote for the Vikings for like 8 years. Of course he still has a love fest with the Vikings. I personally just don't read the garbage he puts on anymore.

I would wager this might have something to do with it.

Sheese. I couldn't enjoy watching my team play with those expectations. Some posters here don't seem to be enjoying themselves rather consistently.

Not picking PET or anything, as there is a line between rooting for your team and giving yourself the right to have ridiculous expectations.

Mark who posts in the "how many years should xx get to win" threads. Its usually the same folks.

And of course some people just like to gripe on the internet.

Wow... Funny I started this thread to point out that there is a lot to be happy about with the team and how people seem not to be enjoying the wins, and now I am getting accused of doing that myself.

For the record it is my hopes that GB wins the super bowl every year, not an expectation...

Wasn't Mike Sherman fired for "only" winning the division and going 12-4 or 10-6 every year?

Interesting how the measuring stick changes....

LA, honest question, do you not think the Packers are set up right now to have a "Sherman-esque" run of success (with hopefully greater playoff success)...in what's arguably becoming a tougher, deeper division, no less?

Do you not think they have another franchise QB (a significant factor in Sherman's success, imo)?

Pessimism found its way into the optimism thread so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that realism is sneaking into the sarcasm thread.

BTW, I respect your opinion as much as any on this board and will be asking the tough questions as well if the team fails to deliver this season. I'm just not of the belief it will happen. I have confidence this team will be in the playoffs and will be a consistent threat for the forseeable future. I really do.

(Oh, and I thought Sherman was fired because he and Thompson weren't getting along. Apparently that happened with one of our former players, too.

No. Lack of team progress and player development is why Thompson moved on.

LOL...good one there at the end.

My comment was based on what was a general feeling following the Sherman firing...that good regular seasons weren't any good if you were one-and-done in the playoffs. I never quite understood that, but then, I became a Packer fan in the late 70's/early 80's, so perhaps my view of what success looks like is a little skewed.

Don't get me wrong...it was MS's time to move on, and I wish they had parted ways before the '05 season. I just wish that those folks who made the claims that winning the division was meaningless THEN would chime in NOW. 'Cause frankly, I think that you are looking to put a good product on the field that has a chance to win games and, if the stars align, go deep in the playoffs. I believed that in 2003, I believe it now.

As for your question, if I see this team ready to take on a Sherman-esque run, well, again, I ask what that is worth? I think that the competition within the division is better than it was in the early 2000's, so the Packers will have to be that much better to win the division. I think it has the potential to be that kind of team, but there are definite holes that have to be filled (TT), and there are fundamental execution errors that have to be fixed (MM). If we continue with aged, crippled veterans or mid-round draft picks trying to bookend our offensive line, and we can't stop having our penalty yards outstrip our rushing yards in most games, I can't see this team being the presumed division leader year in and year out. Will they be competitive? Sure.

For some fans, will that be enough? I don't know.