Quote Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker View Post
That's pretty weak - blaming it on "draft position" - in light of posting about "Belichickism", etc. and other teams building up overall strength way more than the Packers under similar or not much worse circumstances.

The stupid take is clinging to the crap that Ted Thompson was responsible rather than a drag on Packer success.
Well I see you've upped the ante on stupidity. First, if you just want to compare to Belichick then fine - you will be disappointed. Because he's the best - by far. It's like an innovator saying if I can't be like Edison or Jobs, then I suck.

Second, Thompson was more successful - bottom line - than all but two or three of his contemporary GMs. So saying he's a drag on Packer success is just stubborn idiocy. He brought in the coach who developed the offense and the QB that GB ran to great success. You can't separate him from those results and cast them onto Rodgers in isolation (well you can, but you look the fool). He brought in the parts that worked with Rodgers - Jennings, Jones, Nelson, Finley, and the O-line (which when healthy was considered one of the best in the NFL - certainly based on FA his O-linemen were well-regarded; e.g. Lang and Sitton). Despite the hatred of Capers and the defense, he did bring in the parts that kept them competitive for many years.

Show me the teams that built up 'overall strength' 'way better' than the Packers over TT's run. And how do you argue that without considering how their bottom line compares in regular season and playoff wins, playoff appearances, and championships. You know, the things that matter.