Thompson v. McGinn Round 12

[Patler]

His repeated questioning (after it had been answered repeatedly) stating that Thompson should expect Rodgers to be solely responsible for multiple championships came off as ignorant of the reality of the game and arrogantly dismissive of Thompson's previous responses IMO.

His assertion that Thompson has undoubtedly thought about being in the Hall of Fame "Or won't you admit it?" was unnecessarily nloaded, confrontational and uncalled for IMO. Numerous better ways to elicit a more valuable response to reflections on his career accomplishments.

The framing of his question about friction with McCarthy shut Thompson right up - and see Patler's demonstration of the logical incongruence that McGinn states as fact.

His assertion that Thompson is not adequately prepared on the pro side of scouting is baseless and offensive in nature, as is his confrontational assertion that they've inappropriately dismissed coaches and held others back IMO.

He could get a lot more about an interviewee's philosophy by asking him about his philosophy rather than accusing him of being incompetent.

I agree completely. How much more insight could he have gotten if he asked the question this way; "John Schneider, Reggie McKenzie and John Dorsey grew up as executives under you, and have gone on to successful or at least initially successful jobs as GMs. (I think there are a couple scouts he could mention, too.) In the past year, it has been reported that you refused to let X, Y and Z interview for open positions. Can you help the fans understand what factors enter in to your decisions on when to allow someone to interview, and when you deny that request?"

Follow-up questions:
"It had been reported thatReggie McKenzie was denied interviews several times before finally leaving for Oakland. Is it a matter of when you think the person is ready?"

"The three I mentioned all left within just a few years. Your first obligation is to do what is best for the Packers. Does the frequency of departures enter in to your decision? Are you waiting to build experience farther down the chain so there is competent succession when someone leaves?"


It's not so much that he would give an in-depth answer; from what we have seen from TT he probably wouldn't. But, at least it might encourage him to talk a little, instead of just clamming up.

[pbmax]

I agree the questions were direct but contentious (basically containing the critique rather than just asking for comment on event). I don't count the Rodgers' championships one against him though. Current sports coverage and the Packers own comments have brought that one on their heads (McCarthy admitted not long ago that he thinks in terms of Rodgers remaining career). That question is going to happen no matter who is seated opposite Thomspon. Packers would be better off not answering like Ted did rather than engage like M3 did.

But here is a bet: Dougherty and Wilde/Demovsky will get a similar sit down. We'll see if they have any more luck with friendlier questioning. Dougherty has done OK. Wilde gets lost in very long winded questions. I bet they get less.