A really failed GM would be an obvious continual losing pattern with no hope in sight. That is what cost Mullen his job. KC was another recent example where a GM got replaced (the guy from N.E. got the job). But generally speaking and I think you must agree, these GM's don't move like the coaches typically do. If you read sports commentaries from folks who know something about the game, TT is generally given high marks for his ability to evaluate talent and build a team. He may not have been directly responsible for what happened in Seattle, but he did play a role. Most would agree that he has done a good job rebuilding our team. Remember when Elway retired and Denver fell off the tracks. Denver is one of the better run organizations in the league, and yet they haven't been continuous winners. GB is positioned to make a run this coming season, not just because they might have a easy schedule, but because this team has a lot of talented players. Many of these guys are TT acquisitions.
I know you don't want the Packers run like the Chiefs or Lions and neither do I. You ridiculed my expectation that the Packers win at least 13 games and appear in the Superbowl. But if TT acquisitions are as talented as you believe and if last year was a fluke (and not TT's norm) then why would it be unreasonable to expect? Why in the world would anyone say that it is unreasonable to require TT to prove that 2007 wasn't the fluke?
As for coaches being moved more than GMs, you are right. This is what happens. GMs hire the coaches. When things start to go wrong, many times the GMs save their jobs for awhile by successfully convincing ownership that it was the coaches fault. But inevitably ownership hires a new GM. This is exactly what happened in Detroit, but it is a repeating pattern throughout the NFL. I don't want to see GB play that silly game to the end. It ends up wasting years and helps to cement a culture of losing.