I would give you a +10 for this if I could.

---

big fish, little pond.

---

After looking at the numbers, it seems to me virtually indisputable that one of the major factors in the Patriots' and Steelers' recent sustained runs of success has been realignment. Both of these teams' records skyrocketed after realignment. Both were key beneficiaries of the new division formats. (Hint: They each had a key division rival leave for another division that year.)


Numbers in parentheses after season records are division standings.

For all you people who have been blathering about the glory years in which we could count on a postseason berth every year, look at the numbers. The Packers have AVERAGED second place over the past 21 years. Even more interesting, despite the past four years of mediocrity, the Packers' average standing in the division has actually IMPROVED. That goes to show how weak the division has been.

Finally, these numbers show unequivocally what I've been pointing out on the board for months: Success -- for even the best of teams -- comes in spurts. Most of you guys have an exaggerated sense of relative deprivation because you're entirely too focused on the past four or five years. In the past 21 years, both the Patriots and the Steelers have had their peaks and their troughs -- one might argue even more than the Packers have.

Start taking a broader view of the situation. Even pre-alignment, the Steelers' regular season record looked pretty damn good, but did they win a single SuperBowl during that period? Not to my knowledge. Their SuperBowls have all come post-realignment. The same for the Patriots -- in fact, they were downright pathetic for an extended stretch there.

Would it be nice to win a playoff game this year? Yes. Should our management be on the hotseat if we don't? Absolutely not.

Stand up on your own two feet and that molehill suddenly won't look so menacing.

Oh, and for godsake, people, stop scoffing when the pundits compare the Packers' management style to that of the Patriots and Steelers. Judging by the numbers I posted above, you should be absolutely thrilled that they are starting to get this acclamation. It bodes well for the future of this franchise.

---

So if there are "peaks and troughs", as you say.

What makes Ted Thompson better than Mike Sherman, in your view?

It certainly can't be Thompson's record.

If Thompson isn't on the "hot seat", then why was Sherman, according to your logic?

I guess you'd rather have a GM that's a CPA and can balance the books rather than putting together a winning team, right?

That's pretty screwy, imo.

---

You COMPLETELY evaded the point I was making, but that's par for your course.

Let me spell it out for you, since you seem incapable of capturing inferences.

Since 1969, the Pittsburgh Steelers have had 3 -- count 'em, THREE -- head coaches. In that period, they have won an NFL record 6 -- count 'em, SIX -- Super Bowls. Chuck Noll won four of them. Then between 1980 and 1988, he never made the playoffs once. Yet was he fired? No, he retired in 1992.

Then in came Bill Cowher, who made the Super Bowl his third year (sounds eerily like a head coach of ours, but for a certain untimely interception), but did not win a ring until 10 years later -- yet amazingly enough, he wasn't fired either. In his 13th season, he notched the franchise's fifth Super Bowl. One Super Bowl in 13 seasons. Imagine how quickly he would have been fired if the Steelers' ownership listened to fans like you.

And now they have Mike Tomlin, who has lead the Steelers to yet another Super Bowl victory, largely on the back of the team handed to him by Bill Cowher.

Coaches and general managers don't always win right away. Tom Landry lead the Cowboys to 5 consecutive losing seasons -- including a disastrous 0-11-1 campaign -- before leading the Cowboys to 20 consecutive winning seasons.

But if you're not a student of history, you wouldn't realize these things.

---

Yeah, having an above .500 in a weak ass division rocks. Then you go to the playoffs and have your teeth kicked by a legitimate playoff team. But those NFC North numbers look good on the walls, because nobody remembers anything.

---

Why was Sherman fired then?

Or Ray Rhodes, for that matter?

You are totally illogical. I love it.

---

I will not dignify your strawmen with a response until you have the politeness and intellectual honesty to address the central argument I am making. If you refuse to do that, you are trolling, plain and simple, and I refuse to waste time with you.

---

I carved your argument to shreds. That's why you won't respond.

Ted NEVER put a team over the top, and he won't in Green Bay.

By your argument, Mike Sherman never should have been fired, by TED.

Man, is that all you got?

---

Can you now seek and tell me what stocks to buy.. 😉

---