I think you are confusing goals with reasonable expectations. See my response to Reignman, right above here.
Originally Posted by singersp
Yes, the GOAL is always to win the Super Bowl. But it is far from reasonable to EXPECT that every year. Some years, you are even expected to get worse.
That's a great definition. Works for me. Problem there is, if we had been expected to go farther than that, I would not really consider that successful. 1998 was a failure, since we were expected to go to the big game and did not make it there. Lots of great things to remember, but not a success.
I still believe we had a successful season because we made the playoffs & finished with a good record.
I have to disagree with this. It's not about improvement one year to the next. It's about what was predicted for that one year only, regardless of what came before. Unless you are expected to win the Super Bowl, you can always do better that expected.
I don't base success on how much we improved over last year or that we exceeded what some fans or analysts predicted. If we did that then we would reach a point where we couldn't improve any further.
Not applicable. When we get to preseason and start making predictions, then we can talk. Whatever those expectations end up being, that's what I will measure our results against. Not this year's result, next years expectation. See the difference?
Using your logic, now that we are 10-6 instead of last years 3-13, how much do we have to improve next year over this years 10-6 record to have it be deemed a successful year?
Yes. Simple, by my definition. A success, but not as much of one as what we actually did achieve.
Using your logic, that the Vikings were expected to improve, but not by all that much, remaining a sub-.500 team, had we finished 8-8, 3rd in the division, would you consider that a successful season?
Probably very few. But their definitions are not mine. And remember too that successful (marginally in this case) does not equal satisfying.
There again, the consensus of fans & analysts expected us to be sub 500, say 6-10. Had we met those expectations & finished 6-10 how many of those people would have claimed we had a successful season?
By my definition, yes. They failed.
By the same token, many fans & analysts predicted the Packers to win the SB. The Packers lost & will not win it. Did they have an "unsuccessful season"?
I completely agree. My definition isn't the same as everyone else's, but it is just as valid. So is yours, and so is Reign's, and so is everyone else's. That is why I felt I had to define my terms before answering the original question.
"Success" is very subjective to every individual.
I don't base my team being successful on what they did or didn't do last year.
If fans & analysts predict us to improve but still be unsuccessful or mediocre at best with a sub-500 record, I wouldn't claim we had a successful year because we met those expectations.
If you feel our team was successful because you felt we accomplished more than what many thought, then in your eyes we were successful & there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
All we can do is each offer up what we each feel success is.
So we both feel, for different reasons, that this was a successful, although less than entirely satisfying, season. I can live with that. And I'll hope that we both feel more satisfied next year.