Time for TT to hit a blue chipper

[Partial]

TT has done very well at hitting on solid players. I don't think he has landed a franchise quality one yet, though.

Is it time for TT to trade up into the top 10 and take another shot at a potential stud or should he stand pat with 3 top 60 picks and hope to get three solid players?

Last year I wanted to give up whatever it took to get Adrian Peterson, this year I think their is going to be phenomenal value in another running back at around the 12-17 spot. I would be willing to trade one of those seconds, our third and a first to move up into this area to select Jon Stewart. Also, I'd be willing to see the sell farm and give up all three of our top 60 picks plus our third to get Glenn Dorsey. I'd play him at defensive end on base downs and inside on third down. He is phenomenal in getting after the passer and causing mayhem up front.

[RashanGary]

I think every team should just do what you said and win a championship. Then we can say all of the NFL GM's know as much as Partial and give everyone a championship ring.

Either that or we can recognize that Thompson has a steady climb up and the trend looks to be continuing into this season where improvement would likely mean a SB appearance or win if a few things bounce our way.

[Deputy Nutz]

Didn't you already start a thread about this topic?

[arcilite]

"hey guys i want to mortgage our future to draft a 'blue-chipper;"


and then when said blue-chipper sucks i will make a post saying "i told you guys he would suck!!@!1one1!"



go root for the redskins or something

[RashanGary]

Nice post arcilite :)

[RashanGary]

I'll betchya neither Dorsey or Stuart are blue chippers.

[Lurker64]

Not a lot of eventual blue-chippers are the blue-chip players that come out of college, and vice versa a lot of the blue-chip players who come out of college don't transform into blue-chip players in the NFL (anybody seen Reggie Bush recently?)

No matter who you draft, some guys will turn out to be better than you expect and some guys will turn out to be worse.

Mortgaging your future for a player you "know" is going to be great can work, but more often than not it doesn't because nobody really knows the future. Tony Mandarich was the greatest "can't miss" prospect in history, we traded up a whole bunch of spots to get Jamal Reynolds, the Saints mortgaged the entire franchise to get Ricky Williams, the story goes on and on.

I would much rather Thompson keep drafting solid players who can develop into blue-chippers as they mature in the league (Jennings has this potential) than waste a lot of resources on "can't miss" picks.

[Patler]

I rather like the idea of having 3 of the top 61 picks in a draft that is deep at the positions of greatest need for the Packers.

[ND72]

I'm not the biggest fan of Dorsey, so I'll stay away from that area...but there are 2 guys I would trade up to get in this draft...Jake Long & Rashard Mendenhall. I think Mendenhall is the real deal, even more real than McFadden.

[RashanGary]

I'm not the biggest fan of Dorsey, so I'll stay away from that area...but there are 2 guys I would trade up to get in this draft...Jake Long & Rashard Mendenhall. I think Mendenhall is the real deal, even more real than McFadden.

A lot of people are in that boat. I'm one of them. Harry Sydney is another. McFadden is Reggie Bush with 10 lbs. Mendenhall is almost as fast, but if you watch the tape, he's packed a lot tighter and he delivers a punch.

[digitaldean]

I'm not the biggest fan of Dorsey, so I'll stay away from that area...but there are 2 guys I would trade up to get in this draft...Jake Long & Rashard Mendenhall. I think Mendenhall is the real deal, even more real than McFadden.

I wholeheartedly agree. Jake Long will be gone in the first 3 picks. But Mendenhall is a beast.

[Deputy Nutz]

I'm not the biggest fan of Dorsey, so I'll stay away from that area...but there are 2 guys I would trade up to get in this draft...Jake Long & Rashard Mendenhall. I think Mendenhall is the real deal, even more real than McFadden.

I wholeheartedly agree. Jake Long will be gone in the first 3 picks. But Mendenhall is a beast.

I think Jake Long is going to be "OK" I don't think he will be Robert Gallery, but I don't think he is going to be Joe Thomas either. He is most likely going to be a solid left tackle, but probably will perform better at right tackle.

Mendenhall, I just don't trust the fact that he is coming from the Illini. He has had one decent year there and I don't like backs coming out of the spread offense. I would still rather have the Razorback that ran a sub 4.4 forty.

[MadtownPacker]

So can we use this thread to virtual-backhand Partial??

I dont like the idea of trading up because you pin all your hopes on one player. There is strength in numbers and 3 first day picks have way better odds then 1.

[The Leaper]

Greg Jennings was a 2nd round pick. Is he not a blue-chipper? Why the need to forfeit picks to move up? Why the suggestion that only top 10 picks are potential blue-chippers?

I'll keep the three picks in the first 2 rounds, thank you very much.

[Ballboy]

I say we stand pat where we are and maybe only use our later picks combined with a current pick to move up a couple spots to get a targeted player.

The way I see it, 3 picks in the first 61 should allow us to fill the CB, OL and TE/DE with high quality players the should contribute this year. Sure, it would be nice if we pick up a DE or CB in FA, but as we all know that most likely won't happen!!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tyrone is with partial. Throw away all our picks for the #1.

tyrone always plays roulette in vegas.

Tyrone is funding his retirement by winnng the lotto.

[Deputy Nutz]

So can we use this thread to virtual-backhand Partial??

I dont like the idea of trading up because you pin all your hopes on one player. There is strength in numbers and 3 first day picks have way better odds then 1.

Sure the last time the Packers traded up in the first round they landed Walker, but they also traded up and got Jamal Reynolds. Trading up isn't really the answer, like Mad said it is better to spread your chances amongst more picks instead of hoping on just one.

[Lurker64]

I'm not the biggest fan of Dorsey, so I'll stay away from that area...but there are 2 guys I would trade up to get in this draft...Jake Long & Rashard Mendenhall.

Someone's going to draft Jake Long way too high to be their Right Tackle of the future. He's Robert Gallery all over again.

[b bulldog]

Lurker, I think he is good but nowhere near what joe Thomas brings to the table.

[packiowa]

Greg Jennings was a 2nd round pick. Is he not a blue-chipper? Why the need to forfeit picks to move up? Why the suggestion that only top 10 picks are potential blue-chippers?

I'll keep the three picks in the first 2 rounds, thank you very much.

Jennings is easily one of, if not "the", top young wr in the game. He's clearly ahead of Calvin Johnson right now (you know, the blue chipper)

[Partial]

I think every team should just do what you said and win a championship. Then we can say all of the NFL GM's know as much as Partial and give everyone a championship ring.

Either that or we can recognize that Thompson has a steady climb up and the trend looks to be continuing into this season where improvement would likely mean a SB appearance or win if a few things bounce our way.

You know what Neon Hawkins.. Or should we mention how you watched tape of Corey Rodgers and had a source who was positive he would be a star?

Your manlove of Ted Thompson is foolish. You think we're at the top already. I on the other hand would be equally surprised if we didn't make the playoffs as I would if we made them. We're sitting at being the 4th best team in the NFC right now. About 10th-20th overall depending on the day.

[MadtownPacker]

Sure the last time the Packers traded up in the first round they landed Walker, but they also traded up and got Jamal Reynolds. Trading up isn't really the answer, like Mad said it is better to spread your chances amongst more picks instead of hoping on just one.Dammit I dont understand why you would say..

Oh, you wait are agreeing with me. Well you're right. TT is going to address some big needs with all these picks. It is really the rich getting richer. For a team that was one game away from the SB having all these picks is almost unfair (but it isn't). For sure not as bad as the cheaters getting the #2 after losing the #31. Only difference is El Thompson worked the system to get his.

[Fritz]

Agreed with those who say keep the picks. If anything, in a draft this deep, I say trade down if you have a chance and don't have a player sitting at #30 who turns you on big-time. Grab another second and third or second and fourth. I wouldn't mind the Packers drafting a couple of corners, a linebacker, a QB, a tight end, a defensive end, and a guard and a tackle.

[RashanGary]

I agree. If we draft 9 or 10 guys, 7 or 8 have strong chance of sticking even with the deeper roster we have now.


CB
CB
OT
OG
WR
RB
DE
DT
LB
LB


That's 10 spots right now that we could easily add to our roster and not even blink. We're getting deeper but we're not there yet. We still need a lot of things and we could use a good player at any position.

[RashanGary]

Would anyone honestly complain if we upgraded Tony Palmer, Junius Coston, Daryn Colledge, Ruvell Martin, Bolston, Muir, Frank Walker, Jarrett Bush, Brady Poppinga, Tracy White, Jason Hunter, Michael Montgomery, #3 QB, John Kuhn, Deshawn Wynn, Vernand Morency or Koren Robinson? ?


Injuries happen every year. We're going to have to plug in reserves. There is nothign wrong with having a reserve compete with a starter. Hey, if the reserve is that good, it gives you flexiblity to trade the starter like what we did with Williams and good things start to stack on good things. Thompson is doing the right thing. We have 8 picks right now. I'm guessing we end up with 10 and our team will be better for it in the short term because we have better players and in the long term because we have better players. Better players have a timeless goodness about them. .

[BallHawk]

Ignore the fact that we have holes at other posititions, that we have a 1,000 yard back and we spent a 2nd on a RB last year.

Screw that. I want to go after whoever the hell Mel Kiper thinks is going to be a great player.

[Lurker64]

Tracy White is an ace special teamer, I doubt we will be able to upgrade him easily.

But realistically, who would complain if we upgraded any position on the roster?

[RashanGary]

Ignore the fact that we have holes at other posititions, that we have a 1,000 yard back and we spent a 2nd on a RB last year.

Screw that. I want to go after whoever the hell Mel Kiper thinks is going to be a great player.


I think if we packaged all of our picks we could move up into the top 6. You think Vernon Gohlston, Rashard Mendenhall or Leodis McKelvin are worth all of our draft picks? If they're anythign like AJ Hawk, I say screw the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th rounders and just move up and grab that stud muffin :lol:


Duh, I'm partial :eyes:

[Partial]

Ignore the fact that we have holes at other posititions, that we have a 1,000 yard back and we spent a 2nd on a RB last year.

Screw that. I want to go after whoever the hell Mel Kiper thinks is going to be a great player.

We don't have a thousand yard back. Playoffs don't count. Grant is solid but he is not a stud. Stewart is Ahman Green version 2. We would have won the super bowl with him!! Dorsey is a stud. Could be a Tommy Harris from inside or a Reggie White off of the edge. He's that good.

[Partial]

Ignore the fact that we have holes at other posititions, that we have a 1,000 yard back and we spent a 2nd on a RB last year.

Screw that. I want to go after whoever the hell Mel Kiper thinks is going to be a great player.


I think if we packaged all of our picks we could move up into the top 6. You think Vernon Gohlston, Rashard Mendenhall or Leodis McKelvin are worth all of our draft picks? If they're anythign like AJ Hawk, I say screw the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th rounders and just move up and grab that stud muffin :lol:


Duh, I'm partial :eyes:

Well, with your philosophy we'll see if we ever get to a super bowl. The only reason we made to the Championship game and got blown out is because of one superstar. After he's gone, we're a 9-7 team.

You know nothing about football and your only actual real opinion is whatever TT says is 100% correct. Me, I would rather win a super bowl than spend years and years exiting the playoffs in the first round. TT has never led a team to the super bowl, has never shown the ability to put together a team that can win the big game, and has drafted two good players in AJ Hawk and Greg Jennings, and a lot of unknowns.

Without adding an absolute stud this team is destined to be 9-6 - 10-6 annually despite its depth. It's funny how you can make all these claims when you yourself were infatuated with going with Vernon Davis and his superstar talent over the solid Hawk. My, how your tune has changed after TT's first winning season.

We're close while we have Favre. Why not get a guy to put us over the top? After all, if Rodgers doesn't pan out, we're a bottom 10 team in the league. Aaron Rodgers has yet to win a game.

When your window is short how it is in the NFL, you cannot be afraid to make a move. Wolf moved up for Vonnie Holliday, he traded a #1 for a 3rd string quarterback, and the year before the won the super bowl he signed stud players in Santana Dotson and Eugene Robisnon. Without us making daring moves to put us over the top, I see a first round exit from the playoffs.

[MJZiggy]

Would anyone honestly complain if we upgraded Tony Palmer, Junius Coston, Daryn Colledge, Ruvell Martin, Bolston, Muir, Frank Walker, Jarrett Bush, Brady Poppinga, Tracy White, Jason Hunter, Michael Montgomery, #3 QB, John Kuhn, Deshawn Wynn, Vernand Morency or Koren Robinson? ?


Injuries happen every year. We're going to have to plug in reserves. There is nothign wrong with having a reserve compete with a starter. Hey, if the reserve is that good, it gives you flexiblity to trade the starter like what we did with Williams and good things start to stack on good things. Thompson is doing the right thing. We have 8 picks right now. I'm guessing we end up with 10 and our team will be better for it in the short term because we have better players and in the long term because we have better players. Better players have a timeless goodness about them. .

This might be the part you're not understanding in TT's philosophy, but if he can find a player better than the player he has at ANY position, he will upgrade. He always has, and always will, choose the players for his team that he feels are the best players and the best fit (without paying more than a player is worth). At the end of the preseason he will keep the best players he has available to him. All this talk about upgrading positions is kinda futile.

[arcilite]

Ignore the fact that we have holes at other posititions, that we have a 1,000 yard back and we spent a 2nd on a RB last year.

Screw that. I want to go after whoever the hell Mel Kiper thinks is going to be a great player.


I think if we packaged all of our picks we could move up into the top 6. You think Vernon Gohlston, Rashard Mendenhall or Leodis McKelvin are worth all of our draft picks? If they're anythign like AJ Hawk, I say screw the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th rounders and just move up and grab that stud muffin :lol:


Duh, I'm partial :eyes:

Well, with your philosophy we'll see if we ever get to a super bowl. The only reason we made to the Championship game and got blown out is because of one superstar. After he's gone, we're a 9-7 team.

You know nothing about football and your only actual real opinion is whatever TT says is 100% correct. Me, I would rather win a super bowl than spend years and years exiting the playoffs in the first round. TT has never led a team to the super bowl, has never shown the ability to put together a team that can win the big game, and has drafted two good players in AJ Hawk and Greg Jennings, and a lot of unknowns.

Without adding an absolute stud this team is destined to be 9-6 - 10-6 annually despite its depth. It's funny how you can make all these claims when you yourself were infatuated with going with Vernon Davis and his superstar talent over the solid Hawk. My, how your tune has changed after TT's first winning season.

We're close while we have Favre. Why not get a guy to put us over the top? After all, if Rodgers doesn't pan out, we're a bottom 10 team in the league. Aaron Rodgers has yet to win a game.

When your window is short how it is in the NFL, you cannot be afraid to make a move. Wolf moved up for Vonnie Holliday, he traded a #1 for a 3rd string quarterback, and the year before the won the super bowl he signed stud players in Santana Dotson and Eugene Robisnon. Without us making daring moves to put us over the top, I see a first round exit from the playoffs.



And then what happens when we trade all our draft picks, and that player is a bust? You will be saying TT sucks and then you will complain about how the team has no depth.


Again, go root for the redskins, they like your philosophy.

[Partial]

Would anyone honestly complain if we upgraded Tony Palmer, Junius Coston, Daryn Colledge, Ruvell Martin, Bolston, Muir, Frank Walker, Jarrett Bush, Brady Poppinga, Tracy White, Jason Hunter, Michael Montgomery, #3 QB, John Kuhn, Deshawn Wynn, Vernand Morency or Koren Robinson? ?


Injuries happen every year. We're going to have to plug in reserves. There is nothign wrong with having a reserve compete with a starter. Hey, if the reserve is that good, it gives you flexiblity to trade the starter like what we did with Williams and good things start to stack on good things. Thompson is doing the right thing. We have 8 picks right now. I'm guessing we end up with 10 and our team will be better for it in the short term because we have better players and in the long term because we have better players. Better players have a timeless goodness about them. .

This might be the part you're not understanding in TT's philosophy, but if he can find a player better than the player he has at ANY position, he will upgrade. He always has, and always will, choose the players for his team that he feels are the best players and the best fit (without paying more than a player is worth). At the end of the preseason he will keep the best players he has available to him. All this talk about upgrading positions is kinda futile.

That, and this is from a guy who just a week ago posted about Cliff's superstar theory and how much he buys into it. Get a clue Harrell, you know nothing about football. What the hell difference does the bottom 4th of a roster make? None. And, you're a crazy mofo if you think 7-8 guys are guaranteed to make the roster. If our depth is as good as you claim, wouldn't these guys not to be top-tier players to beat out those guys?!?

Adding 3-4 guys who could become solid starters 3-4 years down the road and maybe a little sooner if you're lucky is not the way to win a superbowl when you're this close. As I reiterate, our chance is gone once Favre is gone unless Rodgers turns out to be a top 3-4 QB in the NFL. I don't see that happening, and as a result I say we go for broke this year.

IMO, we still don't have anything better than an OK running game. The pass still dictates keeping only 6-7 guys in the box, and than we have success. On days when the pass doesn't click like against the Bears, the Giants, etc. We have been downright terrible. Grand and Jackson would be excellent compliments to an absolute stud. I would gladly take a 21 year old stud at RB and have a run first offense and keep defenses honest at the end of games.

[Lurker64]

Stewart is Ahman Green version 2. We would have won the super bowl with him!! Dorsey is a stud. Could be a Tommy Harris from inside or a Reggie White off of the edge. He's that good.

Considering that you guaranteed that Ikegwuonu would be a top 10 pick early in the offseason, I don't think your evaluations of draft picks are quite as exhaustive as I'd hope our scouting department does.

You're not the only person to get lost in hype, after all Reggie Bush was supposed to be the greatest back in the history of the NFL before he was even drafted. I know a lot of Packer fans hoped we would trade up to get him. Does anybody still think that?

[Partial]

Stewart is Ahman Green version 2. We would have won the super bowl with him!! Dorsey is a stud. Could be a Tommy Harris from inside or a Reggie White off of the edge. He's that good.

Considering that you guaranteed that Ikegwuonu would be a top 10 pick early in the offseason, I don't think your evaluations of draft picks are quite as exhaustive as I'd hope our scouting department does.

You're not the only person to get lost in hype, after all Reggie Bush was supposed to be the greatest back in the history of the NFL before he was even drafted. I know a lot of Packer fans hoped we would trade up to get him. Does anybody still think that?

Ikegwuonu is a stud. He has been a shut-down corner. We'll never know since he got hurt. He was given a 2nd round grade by the NFL despite a season in which he was banged up and bored. Once the combine came around he would have rocketed WAY up. Maybe not top 10, but certainly top 20. I'm not saying he'd be a great NFL player, but I am saying he'd have been a high draft pick. There's a difference.

I don't get lost in any hype. I know a good football player when I see one.

Download some Oregon games and tell me you don't love what you see out of Jon Stewart. Do the same with LSU games and tell me you don't see Dorsey beating triple teams with a severely sprained Ankle. These two will be excellent, excellent players.

edit: I see Dorsey weighed in at 312. This must be combine weight. I find it a little hard to believe that he weighed that much at LSU. He won't have the speed to rush the passer off the edge at that weight. I would guess he played at about 280 at LSU.

[Lurker64]

I don't get lost in any hype. I know a good football player when I see one.

Every individual is the worst judge in the world as to whether or not that individual gets lost in hype and whether that individual is a good judge of talent. Of course you don't think you get lost in the hype and of course you think you can judge a good football player when you see one. Everybody thinks things like that. Some of them are right, some of them are not.

I have seen a fair bit of Stewart and Dorsey, and what I noticed is that Stewart looked better than he is because he played in the defense-light Pac-10 and Dorsey looked better than he is because he played in the offense-light SEC. Now, I'm not going to grade either of them out because I'm not a professional scout, but I trust the grades of professional scouts more than you, me, or anybody else on this message board.

Drafting is all about probability, since there's no certainty in anything. As amazing as someone looked in college or as certain as their NFL stardom appears to be, with every pick there's always the chance that he'll give you nothing. No matter how good a player looked, there's always the chance he could get hit by a meteor, blow out a knee, or simply not be able to transfer his college production to an environment with better competition. Really what separates the top 10 guys from the 2nd round guys is that the top 10 guys tend to either have a higher ceiling, or a greater probability of reaching their ceiling. But if you look at the actual NFL, you see that the blue chippers and stars come from all over the draft, not just the top 10 picks.

I would venture that you have a better chance at hitting a blue-chip player by drafting three times in the top 60 than by drafting once in the top 10.

[arcilite]

Ikegwuonu is a stud. He has been a shut-down corner. We'll never know since he got hurt. He was given a 2nd round grade by the NFL despite a season in which he was banged up and bored. Once the combine came around he would have rocketed WAY up. Maybe not top 10, but certainly top 20. I'm not saying he'd be a great NFL player, but I am saying he'd have been a high draft pick. There's a difference.

I don't get lost in any hype. I know a good football player when I see one.

Download some Oregon games and tell me you don't love what you see out of Jon Stewart. Do the same with LSU games and tell me you don't see Dorsey beating triple teams with a severely sprained Ankle. These two will be excellent, excellent players.

edit: I see Dorsey weighed in at 312. This must be combine weight. I find it a little hard to believe that he weighed that much at LSU. He won't have the speed to rush the passer off the edge at that weight. I would guess he played at about 280 at LSU.


Jamal Reynolds beat triple teams as well....

[BallHawk]

Ignore the fact that we have holes at other posititions, that we have a 1,000 yard back and we spent a 2nd on a RB last year.

Screw that. I want to go after whoever the hell Mel Kiper thinks is going to be a great player.

We don't have a thousand yard back. Playoffs don't count. Grant is solid but he is not a stud. Stewart is Ahman Green version 2. We would have won the super bowl with him!! Dorsey is a stud. Could be a Tommy Harris from inside or a Reggie White off of the edge. He's that good.

Hey, Partial, was Brandon Jacobs a stud? Was Eli a stud? Was Derrick Ward a stud? Was David Tyree a stud?

You don't need studs to win a SB, just ask the Cowboys. We would of win the SB with Stewart? Please, P, don't kid yourself. We could of had Walter Payton in our backfield against the Giants and it wouldn't of mattered. The coaches weren't giving Grant the ball, that's not his fault. If you want to call a guy that basically racked up 1,000 yards in half a season and then went on to rush for 200 yards and 3 TDs in a freakin' blizzard "solid" then you must have pretty high standards. Grant is not a stud, but he's a goddamn good back and he deserves something a bit higher than "solid."

And, Partial, drafting DL in the top 10 is idiotic. There is nothing more deceptive than a college DL playing in the right system when he's in college. There are a lot more Jamaal Reynolds than there are Julius Peppers.

[RashanGary]

This might be the part you're not understanding in TT's philosophy, but if he can find a player better than the player he has at ANY position, he will upgrade. He always has, and always will, choose the players for his team that he feels are the best players and the best fit (without paying more than a player is worth). At the end of the preseason he will keep the best players he has available to him. All this talk about upgrading positions is kinda futile.

I know, Zig. What I was trying to show is that it's not that hard to upgrade any position on our roster. We can take the BPA and if that player turns out to be worth his draft pick (which isn't gauranteed), he'll probably end up sticking. What I'm saying is if we add 10 picks, I think there is a good chance 8 of them can stick because the back end of our roster is just so/so.

[RashanGary]

If Corey Williams was our #5 DT, James Jones was our #5 WR, Jason Spitz was our #10 Olineman, Aaron Rodgers was our #3 QB, Brady Poppinga was our #6 LB, ect. . . . .

I could see looking at it as a situation where it would be hard to get better with 8 draft picks.

When you have guys like Frank Walker, Carl Bolston (if that's his name), Jason Hunter, Ruvell Martin, Deshawn Wynn, Tony Palmer, ect. . .. It's not too hard to upgrade. There are people saying we're not going to get that much better with a bunch of picks and I don't think it's to that point yet. Can it get there? Yeah, it can. It's really hard and really rare, but I do think it can. It's not even close yet. We can get a lot better.

[b bulldog]

I see it as your both correct, we definitely need some playmakers and we also need better players in certain positions that we can groom and will provide depth until they are called upon to start.

[Partial]

Ignore the fact that we have holes at other posititions, that we have a 1,000 yard back and we spent a 2nd on a RB last year.

Screw that. I want to go after whoever the hell Mel Kiper thinks is going to be a great player.


I think if we packaged all of our picks we could move up into the top 6. You think Vernon Gohlston, Rashard Mendenhall or Leodis McKelvin are worth all of our draft picks? If they're anythign like AJ Hawk, I say screw the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th rounders and just move up and grab that stud muffin :lol:


Duh, I'm partial :eyes:

Well, with your philosophy we'll see if we ever get to a super bowl. The only reason we made to the Championship game and got blown out is because of one superstar. After he's gone, we're a 9-7 team.

You know nothing about football and your only actual real opinion is whatever TT says is 100% correct. Me, I would rather win a super bowl than spend years and years exiting the playoffs in the first round. TT has never led a team to the super bowl, has never shown the ability to put together a team that can win the big game, and has drafted two good players in AJ Hawk and Greg Jennings, and a lot of unknowns.

Without adding an absolute stud this team is destined to be 9-6 - 10-6 annually despite its depth. It's funny how you can make all these claims when you yourself were infatuated with going with Vernon Davis and his superstar talent over the solid Hawk. My, how your tune has changed after TT's first winning season.

We're close while we have Favre. Why not get a guy to put us over the top? After all, if Rodgers doesn't pan out, we're a bottom 10 team in the league. Aaron Rodgers has yet to win a game.

When your window is short how it is in the NFL, you cannot be afraid to make a move. Wolf moved up for Vonnie Holliday, he traded a #1 for a 3rd string quarterback, and the year before the won the super bowl he signed stud players in Santana Dotson and Eugene Robisnon. Without us making daring moves to put us over the top, I see a first round exit from the playoffs.



And then what happens when we trade all our draft picks, and that player is a bust? You will be saying TT sucks and then you will complain about how the team has no depth.


Again, go root for the redskins, they like your philosophy.

No, I won't fault a team for going for broke. The difference between the Redskins and the Packers is that the Redskins were never this close, and did not have the depth moving forward. Will you not be dissapointed TT didn't try to do more when our window closes when Favre retires?

[Partial]

Ignore the fact that we have holes at other posititions, that we have a 1,000 yard back and we spent a 2nd on a RB last year.

Screw that. I want to go after whoever the hell Mel Kiper thinks is going to be a great player.

We don't have a thousand yard back. Playoffs don't count. Grant is solid but he is not a stud. Stewart is Ahman Green version 2. We would have won the super bowl with him!! Dorsey is a stud. Could be a Tommy Harris from inside or a Reggie White off of the edge. He's that good.

Hey, Partial, was Brandon Jacobs a stud? Was Eli a stud? Was Derrick Ward a stud? Was David Tyree a stud?

You don't need studs to win a SB, just ask the Cowboys. We would of win the SB with Stewart? Please, P, don't kid yourself. We could of had Walter Payton in our backfield against the Giants and it wouldn't of mattered. The coaches weren't giving Grant the ball, that's not his fault. If you want to call a guy that basically racked up 1,000 yards in half a season and then went on to rush for 200 yards and 3 TDs in a freakin' blizzard "solid" then you must have pretty high standards. Grant is not a stud, but he's a goddamn good back and he deserves something a bit higher than "solid."

And, Partial, drafting DL in the top 10 is idiotic. There is nothing more deceptive than a college DL playing in the right system when he's in college. There are a lot more Jamaal Reynolds than there are Julius Peppers.

I think Eli was playing like a stud, and I think Tuck and Osi were hell of finds in the draft. Rarely do you get lucky like that.

He's solid. Nothing more. He hasn't shown to be anything better than that. He was unable to create anything for himself when the passing game was not working.

You're kidding yourself if we would have had Walter Peyton and wouldn't have won. Seriously dude, gimme a break.

Jamal Reynolds was an undersized speed rusher. I don't think that really compares at all to a power interior rusher and occasional edge rusher. Furthermore, the prospects are not even comparable.

Archlite, please go find me video of Jamal Reynolds beating triple teams. Also, find a scouting report putting him in the same league as Dorsey.

There is not a single doubt in my head that if we had done what I wanted and traded up for Peterson instead of having Harrell and Jackson on the bench, that we would have won the super bowl.

[Partial]

If Corey Williams was our #5 DT, James Jones was our #5 WR, Jason Spitz was our #10 Olineman, Aaron Rodgers was our #3 QB, Brady Poppinga was our #6 LB, ect. . . . .

I could see looking at it as a situation where it would be hard to get better with 8 draft picks.

When you have guys like Frank Walker, Carl Bolston (if that's his name), Jason Hunter, Ruvell Martin, Deshawn Wynn, Tony Palmer, ect. . .. It's not too hard to upgrade. There are people saying we're not going to get that much better with a bunch of picks and I don't think it's to that point yet. Can it get there? Yeah, it can. It's really hard and really rare, but I do think it can. It's not even close yet. We can get a lot better.

Are those players going to make any difference though? You just went preaching that having a very good couple of players is better than having solid depth. I maintain you can fill you bottom 4th of your roster with any players around the league and see very minimal drop-off. These guys aren't going to have a huge impact on your team as they're primarily inactive.

I generally support TT but now that he has a young, deep team it is time to make some moves to put them over the top.

[RashanGary]

I see your point, Partial. It's one of the easiest things to do is go down each playoff team and say "hey, they're close. If they just do this they're over the top".


There is more to finding great players than just willing it to happen. If teams could just will great players onto their roster, every team would be doing it. It's tough work. You have to do your work, make good picks and if you're good enough you're going to get some playmakers like Osi and Tuck. There are other ways to do it as well. The Grant trade was fantastic. I just think you're assuming it's just a matter of going out and doing it when it's not that easy. Mike Reinfeldt had a comment recently saying you can't just go out and get better quickly any more. You have to do your homework, hit on yoru picks and keep your own. He said the beginning of UFA was different. I think that's why McGinn, Cristl and many here have a hard time seeing the change. It's not just going to happen in a big furry of moves anymore. It's going to happen over time if a GM makes enough good decisions in a row. That's a reoccuring theme around the NFL now if you listen. Cristl and McGinn saw the biggest UFA signing ever and they think that's how it's done. They talk to Wolf (a guy who's out of the circle) and he still thinks that's how it's done. If you look around, that's the exception now. In fact, a move like that was one of a kind. It's never happened before and never happened since.

[RashanGary]

Partial, we had the #5 pick in what TT has called a very good draft (talent wise).

We didn't end up with a playmaker with that pick and all LB's coming out are still measured against Hawk and none have been considered as high of a prospect as he was 3 years ago. As high as he was thought of, he still is not a stud.


I do think Mendenhall is a stud but I'm not going to go off of my hunch. If TT traded up for Mendenhall (NOT STUART), I'd be excited as hell because I believe he's a stud, maybe the best player in this draft. It's hard to move up like that though. I think he's going to go top 7 or 8. The guy is faster than a speeding bullet and more powerfull than a locomotive. On top of that, he has an extra shake and abilty to make guys miss that Stuart doesn't have. I love him. I'd love to have him on the team but I don't think I know enough to say "this should happen or that should happen". NFL GM's are wrong all of the time on top picks. I'd be a real idiot if I thought I was right with any level of certainty.

We'll see how it goes. I do know that moving up doesn't guarantee anything. It works out sometimes. More often than not, it seems like the team trading back wins.

[Lurker64]

There is not a single doubt in my head that if we had done what I wanted and traded up for Peterson instead of having Harrell and Jackson on the bench, that we would have won the super bowl.

We wouldn't have been able to get Peterson by trading our 1st and 2nd round picks last year. To get Peterson we would have had to trade up to 5 or 6 (5 is more likely, as Levi Brown was a need pick and likely could have been had later.) The #5 pick is worth 1700 points, the #16 pick is worth 1000 points, our original second rounder (we traded down later) was worth 420 points. Thus what you're offering is 280 points under what it would have took, and no team is EVER going to accept a trade out of the top 10 that where they're giving up value approximately equal to a late second early third round pick. That would be sheer stupidity.

To get Peterson, just going by the value chart, we would have needed to trade our first (Harrell), our original second (which was traded to the Jets for picks that became Brandon Jackson, Aaron Rouse, and Korey Hall), our our original third (James Jones), and our original fourth (traded to Pittsburgh for picks that became Allen Barbre and Desmond Bishop.)

In retrospect, maybe you consider trading Justin Harrell, Brandon Jackson, Aaron Rouse, James Jones, Korey Hall, and Desmond Bishop for Peterson. But on draft day when we're looking at a Packers squad with a (at the time) questionable offense and numerous needs on both sides of the ball, particularly given AP's injury history? Morever, considering that Green Bay was still considering trading one of those picks for Moss at the time, is it worth it when you think you might be losing Moss to get Peterson? Also consider that all of those players have only played one year and the book on their careers is not yet written. Peterson could have a career ending injury next year, while Harrell, Jones, Rouse, and Barbre could become all pros and play for this team for a decade. Neither you nor I know the future. NFL executives know that they don't know the future, and don't do things like their first four draft picks for a player because they know that everybody you draft is just as easily a bust as a hall of famer. If you trade your first four draft picks for a guy and he doesn't play well in his first year, you lose your job. If you trade your first four draft picks for a guy and he doesn't ever light the league on fire, you never get hired by an NFL team again.

But yes, if you're allowed to make unrealistic trades, we could have done things that would have all but guaranteed us winning the superbowl.

[twoseven]

I agree with Partial in the sense that we don't have a long list of chumps that we can cut if we find 8 players in this year's draft that stick. Just like a busy nightclub, one in-one out. Accumulating or hording as many picks as possible does little good when you are cutting a bunch of guys in August that were those picks, or those picks a year earlier. In this instance it does make sense to focus on quality. The last two years when we had several holes to fill the quantity idea worked well. We no longer have several holes to fill. If someone can list 8-10 completely worthless players from our current roster I'll buy into the mass accumulation of draftees again this year. But if those 8-10 are 2nd-3rd year guys that are just waiting to blossom (like Harrel or Bjack are still developing, right?), it seems foolish to cut them so early just to replace them with younger versions of themselves.

However, I also agree with others regarding the risk you take when you package 3 or more good picks to take a chance on one player. Unfortuantely we are sitting so low in the rounds we have to surrender a lot to move up. Ideally a guy like Stewart slides to 20 and we can trade our 30 and ONE of our seconds to move high enough. That probably won't happen, I cannot see trading both seconds with the first to get even higher, too risky. But to move up and get Stewart and still have our original second round pick would seem brilliant to me.

[Partial]

I see your point, Partial. It's one of the easiest things to do is go down each playoff team and say "hey, they're close. If they just do this they're over the top".


There is more to finding great players than just willing it to happen. If teams could just will great players onto their roster, every team would be doing it. It's tough work. You have to do your work, make good picks and if you're good enough you're going to get some playmakers like Osi and Tuck. There are other ways to do it as well. The Grant trade was fantastic. I just think you're assuming it's just a matter of going out and doing it when it's not that easy. Mike Reinfeldt had a comment recently saying you can't just go out and get better quickly any more. You have to do your homework, hit on yoru picks and keep your own. He said the beginning of UFA was different. I think that's why McGinn, Cristl and many here have a hard time seeing the change. It's not just going to happen in a big furry of moves anymore. It's going to happen over time if a GM makes enough good decisions in a row. That's a reoccuring theme around the NFL now if you listen. Cristl and McGinn saw the biggest UFA signing ever and they think that's how it's done. They talk to Wolf (a guy who's out of the circle) and he still thinks that's how it's done. If you look around, that's the exception now. In fact, a move like that was one of a kind. It's never happened before and never happened since.

No, I think you're not understanding what I want to do.

I want to trade up and get a premiere prospect. If they do a good job of scouting like they have done thus far, they could end up with a truly great player to put us over the top.

Were Osi and Tuck great players right away? No.

No one is suggesting signing a bunch of overpriced free agents. Or even selling the farm. It's saying their would be a benefit of picking a premiere player instead of 3 developmental players who in all likelyhood won't put us over the top this year.

The Grant trade was good but going into a season assuming you can win in the playoffs with Grant again is a mistake. They need to either improve the line or improve the back. History has shown its much harder to draft a stud linemen to step in and be a difference maker right away (Wahle, Rivera, Colledge, Spitz, etc). I am not interested in getting close and failing every year. Philadelphia did it annually it seemed but atleast they got TO and took a shot at it.

If we had a chance at Jason Taylor for a 2nd, I would do that in an instant. Even if it is only for two years. He could bring us a super bowl.

[RashanGary]

Right, this is just getting ridiculous. Sitting here in hindsight, we can all say we have the answers. There is some law of evidence in the court of common sense that says you can't use hindsight or unproven forsight as the basis of your arguement.


Here's what we do.

Glenn Dorsey is going somewhere in the top 5. We will have to give up two firsts, our two seconds, and probably a third to move up. We'll compare in 3 or 4 years how Dorsey did to these guys. We'll all be browsing around here for eternity so we'll have a chance to settle this.


Then Stuart is probably going top 15. We'll have to give up our first, one second and a third to move into that area. We can compare our first, the first 2nd and our third (whatever we get) to stuart. I'll bet Partial is wrong in both cases.


I've seen both of these guys play. They're both good. They're worthy of high picks but bluechippers are very rare. One or two come out of every draft. This thing won't be settled right now, but I will book mark this and I will bring it up when there is enough evidence to decide one way or the other. Problem is, people will whine and complain that we're fisting Partial in an unfair manner, but listen to Partial toss insults and claim he has answers with no evidence. The only way to solve it is when the evidence is in.

[Partial]

There is not a single doubt in my head that if we had done what I wanted and traded up for Peterson instead of having Harrell and Jackson on the bench, that we would have won the super bowl.

We wouldn't have been able to get Peterson by trading our 1st and 2nd round picks last year. To get Peterson we would have had to trade up to 5 or 6 (5 is more likely, as Levi Brown was a need pick and likely could have been had later.) The #5 pick is worth 1700 points, the #16 pick is worth 1000 points, our original second rounder (we traded down later) was worth 420 points. Thus what you're offering is 280 points under what it would have took, and no team is EVER going to accept a trade out of the top 10 that where they're giving up value approximately equal to a late second early third round pick. That would be sheer stupidity.

To get Peterson, just going by the value chart, we would have needed to trade our first (Harrell), our original second (which was traded to the Jets for picks that became Brandon Jackson, Aaron Rouse, and Korey Hall), our our original third (James Jones), and our original fourth (traded to Pittsburgh for picks that became Allen Barbre and Desmond Bishop.)

In retrospect, maybe you consider trading Justin Harrell, Brandon Jackson, Aaron Rouse, James Jones, Korey Hall, and Desmond Bishop for Peterson. But on draft day when we're looking at a Packers squad with a (at the time) questionable offense and numerous needs on both sides of the ball, particularly given AP's injury history? Morever, considering that Green Bay was still considering trading one of those picks for Moss at the time, is it worth it when you think you might be losing Moss to get Peterson? Also consider that all of those players have only played one year and the book on their careers is not yet written. Peterson could have a career ending injury next year, while Harrell, Jones, Rouse, and Barbre could become all pros and play for this team for a decade. Neither you nor I know the future. NFL executives know that they don't know the future, and don't do things like their first four draft picks for a player because they know that everybody you draft is just as easily a bust as a hall of famer. If you trade your first four draft picks for a guy and he doesn't play well in his first year, you lose your job. If you trade your first four draft picks for a guy and he doesn't ever light the league on fire, you never get hired by an NFL team again.

But yes, if you're allowed to make unrealistic trades, we could have done things that would have all but guaranteed us winning the superbowl.

And thats all good and nice, but now we have a very good foundation in place, and by adding another solid player to the mix isn't going to put us over the top. We need a STUD.

[Partial]

Right, this is just getting ridiculous. Sitting here in hindsight, we can all say we have the answers. There is some law of evidence in the court of common sense that says you can't use hindsight as the basis of your arguement.


Here's what we do.

Glenn Dorsey is going somewhere in the top 5. We will have to give up two firsts, our two seconds, and probably a third to move up. We'll compare in 3 or 4 years how Dorsey did to these guys. We'll all be browsing around here for eternity so we'll have a chance to settle this.


Then Stuart is probably going top 15. We'll have to give up our first, one second and a third to move into that area. We can compare our first, the first 2nd and our third (whatever we get) to stuart. I'll bet Partial is wrong in both cases.


I've seen both of these guys play. They're both good. They're worthy of high picks but bluechippers are very rare. One or two come out of every draft. This thing won't be settled right now, but I will book mark this and I will bring it up when there is enough evidence to decide one way or the other. Problem is, people will whine and complain that we're fisting Partial in an unfair manner, but listen to Partial toss insults and claim he has answers with no evidence. The only way to solve it is when the evidence is in.

If we win a super bowl this year, than none of this matters. That is the point. Do you want to sit at the top and never win one as long as Favre is there, than drop back down to 9-7 or 10-6 annually? I sure don't. We're close, so why not take a risk and move up and get there.

People criticize Jerry Jones for wanting McFadden but if he sells the farm for a super bowl or two, I don't think anyone will mind. That team is ready to win the big one, and their management has the stones to go out and get better at any price despite already nearly being the best.

This off-season is different than last off-season as no one thought we'd be that close. Now that we know we are, we need to keep adding pieces agressively to get over the hump before the window closes.

[RashanGary]

Parial, It's not a matter of sitting around doing nothing or making it happen like your moronically seem to think.

You gave a couple players that were studs. You claim TT should go up and get them. We have them in writing and in a couple years we'll find out if you were right.

As for now, you're claiming you have answers and solutions before the results are in.

We could sit back, review each draft and crucify 31 teams for not taking the three or four bluechippers in that draft. Of course it's complete hindsight and impossible to predict with any level of certainty when in a position of only having forsight. But that's what you're doing and it's a big empty arguement that reads more like a fairytale than reasonable discussion.

I'm done iwth this for now. When the evidence is in, we'll talk.

[Partial]

Well no shit. I am merely giving an example of two players that we should sell the farm to get that I am convinced will be excellent values and excellent players even at the cost we give up to get them. Use that melon for a change.

[KYPack]

If we had a chance at Jason Taylor for a 2nd, I would do that in an instant. Even if it is only for two years. He could bring us a super bowl.

That's what the losers do, Partial. Trade a first day pick for a guy on his last legs?

Lombardi used to do shit like that to teams like the Steelers (when they sucked.)

Taylor is not worth a 2. If you piss second round picks away for old guys, you won't improve your team in the long run.

[RashanGary]

Well no shit. I am merely giving an example of two players that we should sell the farm to get that I am convinced will be excellent values and excellent players even at the cost we give up to get them. Use that melon for a change.

Yeah, what you want to do is wait two years, name the top picks that did turn out to be studs and then claim TT didn't have the balls to go up and get them. You don't want to deal in the reality that finding them is very hard and moving up requires an incredible amount of risk and that it will probably fail. You've given your two examples that aren't using hindsight. AFter the results are in maybe this will be a lesson to you that it's not as easy as you think. You're a young kid. I was a dumb ass one day thinking neon Hawkins was a stud because he could run faster and explode harder than the other guys. I lived and learned. Hopefully you'll do the same.

[Lurker64]

Well no shit. I am merely giving an example of two players that we should sell the farm to get that I am convinced will be excellent values and excellent players even at the cost we give up to get them. Use that melon for a change.

The only players worth selling the farm to get are the players who professional NFL scouts and talent evaluators consider to be excellent values and excellent players at the cost it takes to get them.

Since nobody here is a scout, this is all completely irrelevant. None of us get paid to evaluate talent, and none of us watch all that much tape on 99% of all of the college players out there.

[Partial]

If we had a chance at Jason Taylor for a 2nd, I would do that in an instant. Even if it is only for two years. He could bring us a super bowl.

That's what the losers do, Partial. Trade a first day pick for a guy on his last legs?

Lombardi used to do shit like that to teams like the Steelers (when they sucked.)

Taylor is not worth a 2. If you piss second round picks away for old guys, you won't improve your team in the long run.

I'm thinking short term. Super bowl or bust this year. When Favre is gone this team is not going to be in super bowl contention imo.

[Partial]

Well no shit. I am merely giving an example of two players that we should sell the farm to get that I am convinced will be excellent values and excellent players even at the cost we give up to get them. Use that melon for a change.

The only players worth selling the farm to get are the players who professional NFL scouts and talent evaluators consider to be excellent values and excellent players at the cost it takes to get them.

Since nobody here is a scout, this is all completely irrelevant. None of us get paid to evaluate talent, and none of us watch all that much tape on 99% of all of the college players out there.

I don't care who he goes up and gets, I gave two examples of guys I think are great. If there is a guy that can get a super bowl, I say trade up and get him at any cost.

[Bretsky]

Ignore the fact that we have holes at other posititions, that we have a 1,000 yard back and we spent a 2nd on a RB last year.

Screw that. I want to go after whoever the hell Mel Kiper thinks is going to be a great player.

We don't have a thousand yard back. Playoffs don't count. Grant is solid but he is not a stud. Stewart is Ahman Green version 2. We would have won the super bowl with him!! Dorsey is a stud. Could be a Tommy Harris from inside or a Reggie White off of the edge. He's that good.

Hey, Partial, was Brandon Jacobs a stud? Was Eli a stud? Was Derrick Ward a stud? Was David Tyree a stud?

You don't need studs to win a SB, just ask the Cowboys. We would of win the SB with Stewart? Please, P, don't kid yourself. We could of had Walter Payton in our backfield against the Giants and it wouldn't of mattered. The coaches weren't giving Grant the ball, that's not his fault. If you want to call a guy that basically racked up 1,000 yards in half a season and then went on to rush for 200 yards and 3 TDs in a freakin' blizzard "solid" then you must have pretty high standards. Grant is not a stud, but he's a goddamn good back and he deserves something a bit higher than "solid."

And, Partial, drafting DL in the top 10 is idiotic. There is nothing more deceptive than a college DL playing in the right system when he's in college. There are a lot more Jamaal Reynolds than there are Julius Peppers.

Gosh right when I was getting bored I missed some actual football talk

Brandon Jacobs is a stud when he was healthy; take Jacobs numbers and use Ward's when he missed games and the Giants had a RB stud
So it Michael Strahan and the other DE.
The Giants had at least three playmakers last year

[Partial]

Bretsky, if you were the general manager of the Packers and you thought there is a player out there who could put your team over the top this year, would you do whatever it takes to get him, even if it means going 9-7 for a few years after Favre retires?

[twoseven]

It does seem odd to me that some seme to think TT can only do no wrong from the second to the seventh round. Have I missed something, or has he done pretty well with his first round picks too? Partial suggests that TT could also use his big brain to pick the best available up in the middle of the first round and suddenly it's a stupid risky move? Help me out. If TT were able to use that same great knowledge and talent evaluation of his to find a gem in later rounds, why would he struggle to evaluate those much higher up? I still don't agree with trading way up, but think it's equally ridiculous to suggest TT doesn't have a scouting report of players that may already be gone by mid first round.

[Bretsky]

I see your point, Partial. It's one of the easiest things to do is go down each playoff team and say "hey, they're close. If they just do this they're over the top".


There is more to finding great players than just willing it to happen. If teams could just will great players onto their roster, every team would be doing it. It's tough work. You have to do your work, make good picks and if you're good enough you're going to get some playmakers like Osi and Tuck. There are other ways to do it as well. The Grant trade was fantastic. I just think you're assuming it's just a matter of going out and doing it when it's not that easy. Mike Reinfeldt had a comment recently saying you can't just go out and get better quickly any more. You have to do your homework, hit on yoru picks and keep your own. He said the beginning of UFA was different. I think that's why McGinn, Cristl and many here have a hard time seeing the change. It's not just going to happen in a big furry of moves anymore. It's going to happen over time if a GM makes enough good decisions in a row. That's a reoccuring theme around the NFL now if you listen. Cristl and McGinn saw the biggest UFA signing ever and they think that's how it's done. They talk to Wolf (a guy who's out of the circle) and he still thinks that's how it's done. If you look around, that's the exception now. In fact, a move like that was one of a kind. It's never happened before and never happened since.

We've kept out own JH; TT has now had about 33 picks to restock the talent. We are a playoff team. TT will probably use another 8 plus picks this year after the trade downs.

You know deep down I agree with Partial that we need one or two playmakers to put us over the top. I see the TT method as one that keeps us decent for a long long time. I hope his method is one that can win a Super Bowl.

[Bretsky]

Bretsky, if you were the general manager of the Packers and you thought there is a player out there who could put your team over the top this year, would you do whatever it takes to get him, even if it means going 9-7 for a few years after Favre retires?

I'd go for the championship now and worry about two years from now in two years. But that' my mojo. I'd rather win one Super Bowl and be 9-7 for three years over make the NFC title game for four years and never win a Super Bowl.

But I'd make other moves in two years that would hopefully not allow us to fall back to 9-7.

[Partial]

Bretsky, if you were the general manager of the Packers and you thought there is a player out there who could put your team over the top this year, would you do whatever it takes to get him, even if it means going 9-7 for a few years after Favre retires?

I'd go for the championship now and worry about two years from now in two years. But that' my mojo. I'd rather win one Super Bowl and be 9-7 for three years over make the NFC title game for four years and never win a Super Bowl.

But I'd make other moves in two years that would hopefully not allow us to fall back to 9-7.

I agree. Now that we have a very solid foundation, its time to go for broke and get that ring.

[Bretsky]

It does seem odd to me that some seme to think TT can only do no wrong from the second to the seventh round. Have I missed something, or has he done pretty well with his first round picks too? Partial suggests that TT could also use his big brain to pick the best available up in the middle of the first round and suddenly it's a stupid risky move? Help me out. If TT were able to use that same great knowledge and talent evaluation of his to find a gem in later rounds, why would he struggle to evaluate those much higher up? I still don't agree with trading way up, but think it's equally ridiculous to suggest TT doesn't have a scouting report of players that may already be gone by mid first round.

TT has done well in his restocking process by adding mutliple picks that gve him room for error. The jury is still out on several of his picks that some assume will turn out.......etc....Colledge. Now that we are close, it will be interesting if he decides to roll the dice in the draft or free agency or continue the mojo of doing well by stockpiling knowing you will hit on some and not others.

I don't know how much credit I'd give TT on his firsts yet

Rodgers looks promising but time will tell
Hawk seemed to be no brainer
Jury is still out on Harrell as well

Hopefully they all turn out fine though

[KYPack]

I'm thinking short term. Super bowl or bust this year. When Favre is gone this team is not going to be in super bowl contention imo.

I know.

Real GM's don't have that luxury. This really isn't a team with one hole that needs to make a "bet the franchise deal" to make the Super bowl. We have a few holes. Thompson is making the right moves to plug those holes and develop a robust roster.

I'm saying your plan and logic are flawed.

TT's plan is to out scout the other teams and get players they overlook by drafting intelligently.

His plan, I like.

Yours, I don't.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Going for broke is for impatient losers.

It happens all the time at the trade deadline in all sports. It rarely works. Usually you don't win the title (it's hard to win the title) and also suffer the consequences later (and 9-7 isn't always the lowside of the consequences).

Who is the one guy to put us over the top? Jonathan Stewart? Give me a break. How about you Bretsky?

You never know who that one guy is. Reggie Bush? Ryan Grant?

Keep building this thing Ted. If there's a guy or two that you think will make a difference in FA, get him. Otherwise, trust your ability to evaluate talent.

[Partial]

Harv, so what happens when we get back to the championship and lose? We get stuck with low draft picks again, Favre retires, and Rodgers turns out to be average at best. Do you want to be 9-7 annually?!?

I would rather have the same end result but a super bowl. If it doesn't work, than at least he gave it his best effort.

At the very least, TT has shown us how quickly you can retool a franchise. I'd go for broke and retool if necessary.

[Lurker64]

What I'm wondering is, if this is such a good idea, of all of the various teams to win superbowls in the modern era, how many of them did so because they sold the farm to get a special player when they were already close.

I can't think of any team that has done this, but I haven't thought too much about it.

[Partial]

What I'm wondering is, if this is such a good idea, of all of the various teams to win superbowls in the modern era, how many of them did so because they sold the farm to get a special player when they were already close.

I can't think of any team that has done this, but I haven't thought too much about it.

I can't think of any, to be honest. One thing that I can think of though is how many teams that don't do anything consistently stay near the top but never win one. Indy squeaked one out despite years at the top. NE consistently restocked using FA and reloading for runs. The Eagles were close how many years but never won? At least they did something by signing TO to put them over the top.

One thing that is different is that thos teams best player is typically entering the prime of their career and they could sustain that for awhile. We probably have one more year with our best player.

[twoseven]

Maybe we can just all agree on everything like a bunch of sheep. One guy/gal can post something, then the rest of us can post 'I agree.' That sounds fun.

[Bretsky]

Maybe we can just all agree on everything like a bunch of sheep. One guy/gal can post something, then the rest of us can post 'I agree.' That sounds fun.

bingo; and kudos to those who question things

[KYPack]

Harv, so what happens when we get back to the championship and lose? We get stuck with low draft picks again, Favre retires, and Rodgers turns out to be average at best. Do you want to be 9-7 annually?!?

I would rather have the same end result but a super bowl. If it doesn't work, than at least he gave it his best effort.

At the very least, TT has shown us how quickly you can retool a franchise. I'd go for broke and retool if necessary.

If we don't make moves, we'll get back to the championship and lose?

How does that work?

You think one guy will make the difference. Who is he, Stewart?

What if he busts? That's happened a ton of times.

Look at Philly. They should be the envy of a lot of teams, but they've fallen short. Obviously, they should have "went for broke". Basically, you can't do it. You are always building your roster. Piss away all the draft picks and let it roll? That's gonna fail way more times than it will work.

One of our big difference guys was Grant. Got him for a 6. You never know where the people that fill out your roster are gonna come from. NE won the Super Bowl with Brady who was a marginal 6. Looks like 6th rounders are the big key. Maybe we should get 10 sixth round picks.

That sounds stupid, but so is trying to make the big splash. The formula is there, but it's boring. Draft 'em better, coach 'em up, & outplay 'em in the big games.

Takes time.

Fans are impatient. They want the big splash. But the big splash fails as often as any quick fix plan does. Your Stewart plan might set the team back a couple years. Thompson's way is boring, but far more sound than anything you propose.

[Partial]

I want to win now with Favre. Obviously, you can't do that long term.

[Bretsky]

Going for broke is for impatient losers.

It happens all the time at the trade deadline in all sports. It rarely works. Usually you don't win the title (it's hard to win the title) and also suffer the consequences later (and 9-7 isn't always the lowside of the consequences).

Who is the one guy to put us over the top? Jonathan Stewart? Give me a break. How about you Bretsky?

You never know who that one guy is. Reggie Bush? Ryan Grant?

Keep building this thing Ted. If there's a guy or two that you think will make a difference in FA, get him. Otherwise, trust your ability to evaluate talent.


I'm not a GM; I don't know who exactly that player is so it's worthles to try to bait me into naming that player. I haven't spent the past 365 days scouting college football players. TT has, and I'd agree that if TT thinks a player will give us a shot to win a title near term he should not hesitate to trade up and get him. Ditto for free agency. It's OK to take chances. And I've never been one to set back and agree with everything that happens; probably why I find myself debating a lot here and there.

I will say Partial was right last year with his call and he took criticism for singling out Adrian Peterson as the guy worth moving up for. Maybe he'll be right again this year.

[KYPack]

What I'm wondering is, if this is such a good idea, of all of the various teams to win superbowls in the modern era, how many of them did so because they sold the farm to get a special player when they were already close.

I can't think of any team that has done this, but I haven't thought too much about it.

The only example of this I can think of is Tampa Bay.

Tony had 'em close, but couldn't get the offense together to get 'em over the hump.

They blew 2#1's, 2 #2's and got Chucky to coach from Oak. That did it. They bet the franchise & won the ring. & the Glazers fucked the team. Tampa got nothing out of the draft for 3 years. & Crazy Al davis didn't do shit for Oak with 4 extra 1st day picks.

What's the moral of that one?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Harv, so what happens when we get back to the championship and lose?

Can happen to anybody. When you get to the Super Bowl, that game is almost a tossup. BTW, I wasn't calling you or Bretsky a loser. I re-read and it sounded like I was. What I meant is that the teams that try to sell the farm to get the one special player is usually a team that can't get over the hump. I'm not convinced this Green Bay can't get over the hump. I love Favre, but I'm not convinced that 1) we can't win with another QB if the roster keeps getting built like Thompson has been building, and 2) that Favre won't play two more years.

There have been a lot of times when a team sells the farm and that player isn't the right one to get them over the hump or their team wasn't close enough. Is there a player in the draft that I think gets us over the hump? Not really. I'd like to see us be active in FA, but I'm okay with sitting out the initial phase--when all guys are overpaid. You can say the market determines what a guy should get paid. I don't think so. I think the teams that have built from within and that have done the best not to overpay have been the ones that have been successful. Teams like Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, San Diego. People point to New England. However, they traded for Moss and Welker, and they actually got one of the few value deals last year in the signing of Adaluis Thomas. I wouldn't lump him in with most of the rest of these FAs that are getting overpaid. There haven't been a ton of consequences to overpaying in the last year or two, but history shows that eventually there will be. Also notice that their championship teams were mostly built from within. Lately, they've been going the FA route, and it hasn't worked. They haven't won the Super Bowl in the last few years--although they should have this year.

FA isn't over. I'm not convinced Thompson won't sign a couple of guys. I'm pretty convinced that he'll stay with his plan not to overpay though. I'm also convinced that he has a knack for evaluating talent.

[BallHawk]

The Giants had at least three playmakers last year

The Packers had "playmakers." Kampy, Favre, arguably the duo of Jennings and DD. There's a difference between a playmaker and a stud. I would say that the Packers only have one player falling under the category of "stud" and that's Kampman.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I will say Partial was right last year with his call and he took criticism for singling out Adrian Peterson as the guy worth moving up for. Maybe he'll be right again this year.

For one guy it might have worked. Adrian Peterson. That's yet to be determined. But remember that the knock on Peterson was that he was injury prone, and nothing that happened in year one says that won't be a problem. He got hurt again. He runs violently, so it's a possibility he'll continue to get injured. Also, if we have Peterson, we probably don't have Justin Harrell... wait... Justin Harrell, James Jones (probably would have had to trade that pick), and Ryan Grant (probably don't trade for him).

BTW, you're a damn good Wii bowler.
:D

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Giants had at least three playmakers last year

The Packers had "playmakers." Kampy, Favre, arguably the duo of Jennings and DD. There's a difference between a playmaker and a stud. I would say that the Packers only have one player falling under the category of "stud" and that's Kampman.

Favre was a stud. He finished second in the MVP voting.

[RashanGary]

Maybe we can just all agree on everything like a bunch of sheep. One guy/gal can post something, then the rest of us can post 'I agree.' That sounds fun.

I take exception to this and so should a lot of people here. Nobody is suggesting Partial shoudln't have differing opinions. It was frustrating initially that he was saying "you can do this or that" like it was black and white win or lose. It's obviously not that simple and everyone (even those in support of giving up something down the road to take a chance today) agree that it's not as simple as doing it or not doing it like the original posts here suggested.


Anyway, I think it's a great discussion and I love that it's so grey to so many people. Cleveland thinks they're taking those shots right now and I think they'll end up burrying their franchise. Not to be a prick, but I get satisfaction out of that becasue I know smart GM's (one of them who runs our team) will continue to exploit their mistakes and stay on top while bad teams continue to suck at the bottom. If it was black and white everyone would be the same and everyone woudl be 8-8 rather than having some 13-3 with a real shot and some 4-12 like SF who is going for broke. IF this wasn't so debatable, football would be a lot less fun. I'm just glad to see the conversation brought back to reality a little.

And yeah, I do think a lot of Ted Thompson. I love his approach. I think it's opportunistic and takes advantage of human weakness. This buisness has a lot of money circulating and a lot on the line but one thing you can always count on is desperation leading to doom and Thompsons approach lets people slit their throats while he consistantly moves toward the top.

[BallHawk]

The Giants had at least three playmakers last year

The Packers had "playmakers." Kampy, Favre, arguably the duo of Jennings and DD. There's a difference between a playmaker and a stud. I would say that the Packers only have one player falling under the category of "stud" and that's Kampman.

Favre was a stud. He finished second in the MVP voting.

I'd call him a borderline stud. He still has consistency issues, but without a doubt he's a top 3 QB.....


Ah, who am I kidding? Brett's a straight-up stud. :D

[MJZiggy]

I want to win now with Favre. Obviously, you can't do that long term.

Perhaps you need to read the article on the homepage and tuck a copy under your pillow tonight just to be sure the idea sinks in...

[Partial]

The Giants had at least three playmakers last year

The Packers had "playmakers." Kampy, Favre, arguably the duo of Jennings and DD. There's a difference between a playmaker and a stud. I would say that the Packers only have one player falling under the category of "stud" and that's Kampman.

Favre was a stud. He finished second in the MVP voting.

I'd call him a borderline stud. He still has consistency issues, but without a doubt he's a top 3 QB.....


Ah, who am I kidding? Brett's a straight-up stud. :D

And without him we don't have anything but a borderline team. You owe that guy to go get somebody that can give us a chance to win!!

[RashanGary]

And without him we don't have anything but a borderline team. You owe that guy to go get somebody that can give us a chance to win!!

Now you're reminding me of Adolf Partler playing of peoples fears and emotions. It works though. I can't say I've never been guilty of using the emotion of the public to rally support. Bravo!!

[Guiness]

...
Cleveland thinks they're taking those shots right now and I think they'll end up burrying their franchise. Not to be a prick, but I get satisfaction out of that becasue I know smart GM's (one of them who runs our team) will continue to exploit their mistakes and stay on top while bad teams continue to suck at the bottom.
...


No kidding, eh? Why are they making these moves? These are the moves you should see from a team that's close to having a good run, and needs a couple of pieces. The kind of shot NE took last year getting Moss, Stallworth and Seau.

OTOH Cleveland was close to making the playoffs. Maybe that's all they're hoping for :?

I think you're right. They may or may not make the playoffs next year, depending on whether or not injuries are good to them. But they don't have the depth to be good for a couple of years, and they're going to end up looking like the Redskins by the time 2010 comes around.

[HarveyWallbangers]

And without him we don't have anything but a borderline team. You owe that guy to go get somebody that can give us a chance to win!!

No matter who you trade for... you can't be sure that is the guy to put them over the top. I still think it's a safer bet to acquire draft picks because your chances on hitting on them are higher with more picks. Hell, more than half of the top 10 picks don't become Pro Bowl players--and these are the guys that are supposed to be the studs. It's a crapshoot. Sherman traded up. Thompson trades down. I like Thompson's strategy more.

[Partial]

I like Thompson's strategy more as well. C'mon, everyone knows I am not a big proponent of trading up. Never have been and never will be. But, when you're this close and in the last year with a legend (as opposed to most teams who's best player in typically in their prime), you've got to go for broke. If it fails and you don't get the Lombardi trophy, at least you have your pride knowing that you took a shot at it and it went wrong. If you don't make any moves and you fail, you'll always have to question whether you did enough.

It seems like a unique situation to me because I cannot remember the last time one of the NFL's biggest difference makers was 38-39 and on the cusp of retirement with a supporting cast that is deep and good.

[RashanGary]

I still think it's a safer bet to acquire draft picks because your chances on hitting on them are higher with more picks.

Carefull, Harv. I try to keep "safer" out of this becuase it's an explosive gas can around here. Try to say better for now and for the future. It just leaves less room for debate :)

And if you can, find a way to sprinkle in something about how it benefits Favre.



OK, back to your regular scheduled programming.

[Partial]

And without him we don't have anything but a borderline team. You owe that guy to go get somebody that can give us a chance to win!!

Now you're reminding me of Adolf Partler playing of peoples fears and emotions. It works though. I can't say I've never been guilty of using the emotion of the public to rally support. Bravo!!

Ummm that is kind of sadistic and no one is playing "fear" at all. Take a good hard look at this team, the schedule they face, etc. and can you honestly go in expecting more than 9 wins A-Rod and Nall as the quarterbacks?

[MJZiggy]

Partial, what are you going to do if Favre retires this week?

[Partial]

Partial, what are you going to do if Favre retires this week?

Retract my statements about going for Broke and hope that we hit on a super stud with the first three picks.

We have an ice cubes chance without Favre.

[MJZiggy]

We have an ice cubes chance without Favre.

I no longer believe that.

[Partial]

We have an ice cubes chance without Favre.

I no longer believe that.

I think Rodgers has the skills and shown that he can be alright, but he has not ever won a game, he hasn't stayed healthy for an entire game, etc. He has the P word but that isn't a sure thing.

Remember, without a strong passing game the running game was abysmal. 2.5 ypc-ish. Will Rodgers be able to provide as good of a passing game as Favre? Highly doubtful. Let's not forget that Favre has one of the best arms in NFL history. That's why he was 2nd in the MVP after 17 seasons.

[twoseven]

Maybe we can just all agree on everything like a bunch of sheep. One guy/gal can post something, then the rest of us can post 'I agree.' That sounds fun.
I take exception to this and so should a lot of people here.
Ok, sure. If you or anyone else want to 'take exception' with a post that DOES NOT have your name on it and DOES NOT point a finger at you, a post that simply remeinds everyone that deabte is healthy and also impossible without disagreement, by all means you go ahead and be offended Justin. :roll:

[RashanGary]

We have an ice cubes chance without Favre.

I'm very interested to see how this team does when he retires. I like to see the Packers win. I esspecially want to see them win now because it's sort of personal for me. I really believe in the way Ted Thompson goes about his buisness, so him seeing him succeed validates some of the things I believe in. But if he fails and the whole thing falls apart, I'm open to accepting that a lot of my ideas are wrong and either just accpeting I don't know or finding some new theories to test. Bottom line, if they win or lose, I could care less except to test my ideas and I have an ego so I have some stake in validating them too. Right now the idea I have is that opportunistic, value driven decisions backed by good talent evaluation and the wisdom to resist human weakness like desperation lead to good things. After Favre retires I really get to see that in action so I"m kind of looking forward to it. Win, lose or indifferent we're going to learn something and I look forward to that.

[BallHawk]

We have an ice cubes chance without Favre.

I no longer believe that.

I think Rodgers has the skills and shown that he can be alright, but he has not ever won a game, he hasn't stayed healthy for an entire game, etc. He has the P word but that isn't a sure thing.

Remember, without a strong passing game the running game was abysmal. 2.5 ypc-ish.

Let's wait until we go through a full season with an established RB until we make verdicts about the running game.

We saw against Dallas that A-Rod has the ability to manage the game and give this team a chance to win games. He's not going to give you the magic that Favre can bring (MNF in Denver is a great example) but then again he's not going to give you the "chuck 'em up" INTs that Favre throws (albeit they became fewer in number last year)

I'm not making the arguement that A-Rod is on the level that Favre is, but to say that we don't have a chance without Favre is foolish. Believe me, if A-Rod is the QB next season, we will win the division, and we will have a legit chance of making the SB.

[RashanGary]

]
Ok, sure. If you or anyone else want to 'take exception' with a post that DOES NOT have your name on it and DOES NOT point a finger at you, a post that simply remeinds everyone that deabte is healthy and also impossible without disagreement, by all means you go ahead and be offended Justin. :roll:

You must have a lot of happiness in your life :)

Hahaha, It's all in fun man. I love debate so I felt a little insulted because I was one of the ones leading the antipartial charge and you were defending it in a way that us who disagreed with him were tring to snub out his opinion. Maybe I read it wrong, but I try not to do that so I took offense.

[Partial]

We have an ice cubes chance without Favre.

I'm very interested to see how this team does when he retires. I like to see the Packers win. I esspecially want to see them win now because it's sort of personal for me. I really believe in the way Ted Thompson goes about his buisness, so him seeing him succeed validates some of the things I believe in. But if he fails and the whole thing falls apart, I'm open to accepting that a lot of my ideas are wrong and either just accpeting I don't know or finding some new theories to test. Bottom line, if they win or lose, I could care less except to test my ideas and I have an ego so I have some stake in validating them too. Right now the idea I have is that opportunistic, value driven decisions backed by good talent evaluation and the wisdom to resist human weakness like desperation lead to good things. After Favre retires I really get to see that in action so I"m kind of looking forward to it. Win, lose or indifferent we're going to learn something and I look forward to that.

I'm not going to go find the post where you said it, but to call Phil Savage a bad GM is foolish. He is known throughout NFL circles as one of the best in the biz at drafting. He was the architect behind those Baltimore teams.

[Bretsky]

I will say Partial was right last year with his call and he took criticism for singling out Adrian Peterson as the guy worth moving up for. Maybe he'll be right again this year.

For one guy it might have worked. Adrian Peterson. That's yet to be determined. But remember that the knock on Peterson was that he was injury prone, and nothing that happened in year one says that won't be a problem. He got hurt again. He runs violently, so it's a possibility he'll continue to get injured. Also, if we have Peterson, we probably don't have Justin Harrell... wait... Justin Harrell, James Jones (probably would have had to trade that pick), and Ryan Grant (probably don't trade for him).

BTW, you're a damn good Wii bowler.
:D


I still don't own Wiii; I've been discussing it with the other half for a while trying to shift it to being her idea that we should do this for the kids. Then after getting it I'll have to get intoxicated and do some Wiii Bowling practice in case we have a rematch :lol:

[MJZiggy]

We just got a wii. They're still really hard to get. But maybe this year I'll take you on...

[Bretsky]

I want to win now with Favre. Obviously, you can't do that long term.

Perhaps you need to read the article on the homepage and tuck a copy under your pillow tonight just to be sure the idea sinks in...

I don't understand what this means; when I read the article the focus I get out of it is nobdy believes Favre will retire and there would be great disappointment if he does.

I see a couple "maybe we'll be OK if he does" suggestions, but if that was suppose to be the focus point I bet several, including myself, would not agree with that point

[b bulldog]

We have a Wii and I really only like to play the WW2 type games and they are really hard to play on it. This is the first game system I've ever owned.

[Bretsky]

Partial, what are you going to do if Favre retires this week?

If Favre retires next week we aren't going to the Super Bowl next year; I'd think TT would want to bring in another QB to compete and continue to stock the pot as he has in the past. Maybe even bring in another 11 draft picks and if he goes for a free agent focus on the less established longer term guy who is not as good now but may develop in the next few years.

[Bretsky]

We just got a wii. They're still really hard to get. But maybe this year I'll take you on...

Do they have Wiii Mud Wrestling :?: :lol:

[MJZiggy]

Partial, what are you going to do if Favre retires this week?

If Favre retires next week we aren't going to the Super Bowl next year; I'd think TT would want to bring in another QB to compete and continue to stock the pot as he has in the past. Maybe even bring in another 11 draft picks and if he goes for a free agent focus on the less established longer term guy who is not as good now but may develop in the next few years.

Careful there, B. You were the one last year who insisted to me repeatedly that we couldn't possibly have a winning season because TT hadn't done anything in FA. We won a lot last year and it may not be probable, but a SB COULD happen.

And the point in me mentioning the article to Partial is just as a reminder to him that there is still a very real possibility that the QB he talks so definitely about having for another year, might not come back. That was the point of the article, that everything's been quiet about it because everyone is just assuming he'll be back and that may not be the case.

[Bretsky]

Partial, what are you going to do if Favre retires this week?

If Favre retires next week we aren't going to the Super Bowl next year; I'd think TT would want to bring in another QB to compete and continue to stock the pot as he has in the past. Maybe even bring in another 11 draft picks and if he goes for a free agent focus on the less established longer term guy who is not as good now but may develop in the next few years.

Careful there, B. You were the one last year who insisted to me repeatedly that we couldn't possibly have a winning season because TT hadn't done anything in FA. We won a lot last year and it may not be probable, but a SB COULD happen.

And the point in me mentioning the article to Partial is just as a reminder to him that there is still a very real possibility that the QB he talks so definitely about having for another year, might not come back. That was the point of the article, that everything's been quiet about it because everyone is just assuming he'll be back and that may not be the case.

You are misquoting me; I may have said I don't see how we can win the division or the NFC....but not a winning season. I formally predicated 8-8 and said we'd have between seven and nine wins. Nine wins is a winning season.

That being said, GB crushed the highest expectations I had for this squad.
You can pound the crap out of me with that point and I'll bend over (not literally) and take it. Much of that was due to a MVP like performance and another 16 games of health from our QB.

I can't see Rodgers taking us to the Super Bowl in his first year as the QB; if Favre retires I'd continue the rebuilding process with the most focus on the future.

And if my bold predications result on AROD taking up to the Super Bowl, I'll be very very happy to be wrong again.

[CaliforniaCheez]

1) Tauscher is a blue chipper worth an extension. Isn't his contract up after 2008?

2) Poppinga also done after 2008 is a red chipper.

3) Punter Ryan is a white chipper and his contract is over after 2008.

24 million less 5.5 to sign rookies and all three above can be done.

[Bretsky]

1) Tauscher is a blue chipper worth an extension. Isn't his contract up after 2008?

2) Poppinga also done after 2008 is a red chipper.

3) Punter Ryan is a white chipper and his contract is over after 2008.

24 million less 5.5 to sign rookies and all three above can be done.


I like Tauscher and it looks like he'll keep his play up for a while

We won't need to break any bank on Poppinga.

I'm not sure Ryan will be our punter two years from now; it would not surprise me if TT loads up on picks and takes a flyer on a punter

[Partial]

We have an ice cubes chance without Favre.

I no longer believe that.

I think Rodgers has the skills and shown that he can be alright, but he has not ever won a game, he hasn't stayed healthy for an entire game, etc. He has the P word but that isn't a sure thing.

Remember, without a strong passing game the running game was abysmal. 2.5 ypc-ish.

Let's wait until we go through a full season with an established RB until we make verdicts about the running game.

We saw against Dallas that A-Rod has the ability to manage the game and give this team a chance to win games. He's not going to give you the magic that Favre can bring (MNF in Denver is a great example) but then again he's not going to give you the "chuck 'em up" INTs that Favre throws (albeit they became fewer in number last year)

I'm not making the arguement that A-Rod is on the level that Favre is, but to say that we don't have a chance without Favre is foolish. Believe me, if A-Rod is the QB next season, we will win the division, and we will have a legit chance of making the SB.

We just went through an entire season and it became evident to me that we could not run without our passing game rocking the house.

To say that A-Rod won't chuck up dumb interceptions is idiotic. C'mon man, you're better than that. Favre makes mistakes but he is so good because he can read a defense like a book and is extremely accurate. If anything, he'll throw more.

I think if Favre is gone, Donald Lee is average, Jennings doesn't catch half the bombs for touch downs, Grant rushes for 3 ypc, etc.

[Partial]

I want to win now with Favre. Obviously, you can't do that long term.

Perhaps you need to read the article on the homepage and tuck a copy under your pillow tonight just to be sure the idea sinks in...

I don't understand what this means; when I read the article the focus I get out of it is nobdy believes Favre will retire and there would be great disappointment if he does.

I see a couple "maybe we'll be OK if he does" suggestions, but if that was suppose to be the focus point I bet several, including myself, would not agree with that point

Same here. Ryan Grants looks like a 6th round pick, and A-Rod is one of the most sacked QBs in the league.

[Partial]

Partial, what are you going to do if Favre retires this week?

If Favre retires next week we aren't going to the Super Bowl next year; I'd think TT would want to bring in another QB to compete and continue to stock the pot as he has in the past. Maybe even bring in another 11 draft picks and if he goes for a free agent focus on the less established longer term guy who is not as good now but may develop in the next few years.

Careful there, B. You were the one last year who insisted to me repeatedly that we couldn't possibly have a winning season because TT hadn't done anything in FA. We won a lot last year and it may not be probable, but a SB COULD happen.

And the point in me mentioning the article to Partial is just as a reminder to him that there is still a very real possibility that the QB he talks so definitely about having for another year, might not come back. That was the point of the article, that everything's been quiet about it because everyone is just assuming he'll be back and that may not be the case.

You are misquoting me; I may have said I don't see how we can win the division or the NFC....but not a winning season. I formally predicated 8-8 and said we'd have between seven and nine wins. Nine wins is a winning season.

That being said, GB crushed the highest expectations I had for this squad.
You can pound the crap out of me with that point and I'll bend over (not literally) and take it. Much of that was due to a MVP like performance and another 16 games of health from our QB.

I can't see Rodgers taking us to the Super Bowl in his first year as the QB; if Favre retires I'd continue the rebuilding process with the most focus on the future.

And if my bold predications result on AROD taking up to the Super Bowl, I'll be very very happy to be wrong again.

Bohica baby! Bohica!

[BallHawk]

We just went through an entire season and it became evident to me that we could not run without our passing game rocking the house.

To say that A-Rod won't chuck up dumb interceptions is idiotic. C'mon man, you're better than that. Favre makes mistakes but he is so good because he can read a defense like a book and is extremely accurate. If anything, he'll throw more.

I think if Favre is gone, Donald Lee is average, Jennings doesn't catch half the bombs for touch downs, Grant rushes for 3 ypc, etc.

If Rodgers is the QB next season he will throw about the same amount of INTs as Favre did this season, which was 15. I'd say Rodgers throws no more than 20. Rodgers does not have a big arm, MM knows that, the WRs know that, and most importantly, Aaron knows that. Our WRs can get the YAC if Aaron gets them the ball. I have confidence that he can do that. Not to mention, he has the ability to run which is intriguing.

I want Favre back, I pray that he comes back. If he doesn't come back, however, that is that and we move forward with Aaron. Move forward we will and succeed we will.

[Partial]

We just went through an entire season and it became evident to me that we could not run without our passing game rocking the house.

To say that A-Rod won't chuck up dumb interceptions is idiotic. C'mon man, you're better than that. Favre makes mistakes but he is so good because he can read a defense like a book and is extremely accurate. If anything, he'll throw more.

I think if Favre is gone, Donald Lee is average, Jennings doesn't catch half the bombs for touch downs, Grant rushes for 3 ypc, etc.

If Rodgers is the QB next season he will throw about the same amount of INTs as Favre did this season, which was 15. I'd say Rodgers throws no more than 20. Rodgers does not have a big arm, MM knows that, the WRs know that, and most importantly, Aaron knows that. Our WRs can get the YAC if Aaron gets them the ball. I have confidence that he can do that. Not to mention, he has the ability to run which is intriguing.

I want Favre back, I pray that he comes back. If he doesn't come back, however, that is that and we move forward with Aaron. Move forward we will and succeed we will.

How can you even think that? He isn't as accurate, and doesn't have nearly as strong of an arm or as quick of a release. Favre didn't make a lot of stupid throws this year.

He can run more than Favre, but defensive ends are faster as are linebackers. I don't think he's much of a threat on the ground.

Favre was the most valueable player to a team in the league this year. I predict 8-8 with Rodgers, with as low as 5-11.

[BallHawk]

Favre was the most valueable player to a team in the league this year. I predict 8-8 with Rodgers, with as low as 5-11.

Agree with your first sentence.

However, 8-8? Either you're saying we completely overachieved or Favre got us 5 more wins than we deserved.

Rodgers will manage the game if he becomes QB. He doesn't need to chuck bombs or make underhand flips. All he has to do is throw slants, dump offs, and the occasional long throw. He can be our Phillip Rivers without the attitude problem.

[Partial]

Except Phillip Rivers has a hall-of-fame running back (up to this stage in his career, he is arguably the best ever), and a menacing defense.

We have neither of those.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Except Phillip Rivers has a hall-of-fame running back (up to this stage in his career, he is arguably the best ever), and a menacing defense.

We have neither of those.

Add a couple of picks the defense and we might.

Plenty of teams have won with a good/great defense and a decent QB. That is what TT is doing.

Think Ravens. Think Steelers. Think Patriots.

[GrnBay007]

Plenty of teams have won with a good/great defense and a decent QB. That is what TT is doing.


IF Favre retires, I'd like to see Rodgers be a decent QB that can manage the game...........BUT....I don't see how TT can not get another good QB in there as A-Rod appears to be a bit fragile. Maybe things would change if he was starting every week ....only time will tell.

....and I'm still hoping we don't have to worry about that this next season...............COME BACK BRETT! :P

[MJZiggy]

That being said, GB crushed the highest expectations I had for this squad.
You can pound the crap out of me with that point and I'll bend over (not literally) and take it. Much of that was due to a MVP like performance and another 16 games of health from our QB.

I can't see Rodgers taking us to the Super Bowl in his first year as the QB; if Favre retires I'd continue the rebuilding process with the most focus on the future.

And if my bold predications result on AROD taking up to the Super Bowl, I'll be very very happy to be wrong again.

(So noted) You forgot that much of it was also due to the development of a great running game, an o-line that finally seemed to figure out how to protect the quarterback and a team that carried whoever might be having a rough day and won despite their problems.

And they don't have wii mud wrestling, but they do have wii boxing so I can beat you up this time. Sorry, last time I forgot you wanted me to abuse you...

[Fritz]

Quick note on Poppinga: he doesn't get much "love" here, as the players like to say, but I thought he played weill in the playoffs and is still improving. He may not be a world beater, but I think he's going to be a solid linebacker next year.

[RashanGary]

Ted Thompson says he beleives in using UFA to attack need areas on his team. Him bringing in Chillar says to me that he considers LB to be a weakness.

[BallHawk]

Sorry, last time I forgot you wanted me to abuse you...

Kinky.... :whist:

[KYPack]

I'm not sure Ryan will be our punter two years from now; it would not surprise me if TT loads up on picks and takes a flyer on a punter

I thought the same thing when they got the extra 1st day pick. Ryan was actually awful his first year. He hit many liners that were returned for a bunch. He was last in the league ave return per kick. He improved on this last season, but still had problems.

His Chicago game was like shock theatre. It wasn't all his fault, but he must learn to hit the ball better in bad weather. He doesn't kick the ball to the cover consistently and he still bangs punts from our 45 twenty yards out of the end zone. We play 8 games in Lambeau and a good punter can win you the odd game up there. So far, Ryan hasn't cut it.

I think you will see a punter drafted and/or a FA punter brought in.

[Partial]

That being said, GB crushed the highest expectations I had for this squad.
You can pound the crap out of me with that point and I'll bend over (not literally) and take it. Much of that was due to a MVP like performance and another 16 games of health from our QB.

I can't see Rodgers taking us to the Super Bowl in his first year as the QB; if Favre retires I'd continue the rebuilding process with the most focus on the future.

And if my bold predications result on AROD taking up to the Super Bowl, I'll be very very happy to be wrong again.

(So noted) You forgot that much of it was also due to the development of a great running game, an o-line that finally seemed to figure out how to protect the quarterback and a team that carried whoever might be having a rough day and won despite their problems.

And they don't have wii mud wrestling, but they do have wii boxing so I can beat you up this time. Sorry, last time I forgot you wanted me to abuse you...

I disagree with that. I think it was to the development of a great passing attack that really started clicking once Jennings became healthy.

[b bulldog]

Lb a weakness?? I would say it is. The three starters are solid but the depth behind those three is pretty weak.