Thompson Yearly Preseason Q&A with McGinn

[pbmax]

Packer's GM Looks Forward (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=781501)

Highlights, Thompson denies or refuses to comment on most of Bob's talking points this offseason. He didn't ask for a special review of the defense under Bob Sanders, he didn't ask for a special review of the running game or play calling in the Giants game and on Favre he justed punted it back to previous statements.

There is plenty of wiggle room in discussing philosophy on defense, running and play calling. But he seemed to shut the door tightest on speculation that he questioned McCarthy's run tactics (ZBS) and the wisdom of keeping Bob Sanders. Nonthing new on what the Braintrust thought about Favre after their yearly player review.

Most surprising? Thompson seems dismissive of the Ari Fleischer presence and hasn't seen him around. Must be a M3 and MM deal.

[The Leaper]

Bob McGinn must feel like he has several hours he'll never get back. Thompson is one of the worst interviews out there.

[Joemailman]

I thought McGinn took it easy on TT compared to last year's interview. Of course, last year TT was coming off an 8-8 season, not 13-3. I agree that TT revealed nothing.

[sheepshead]

What is it that we really dont know that we have known in previous years?

[mraynrand]

I hope this doesn't violate the copyright infringement deal but here goes:

Bob: If this was a football decision, and you are the leader in that department, put aside the rhetoric for a moment and explain your decision as a GM to make this change at quarterback.

Thompson: We’ve gone through this. We understand the passion of the readers that contact you. This is an unbelievable place. Fans love Brett Favre, as well they should and as we do. This was a complicated thing that we tried to work our way through. We reached the best solution we could possibly get to in our judgment. Other than that, it’s time for us to get ready for the season.
-------

Thanks for explaining your decision, Ted. Totally annoying. Bob had prefaced it with a bunch of considerations, like age, play in the Giants game, wavering about retirement, etc. Favre is gone. Ted could have been specific about what considerations were uppermost in his mind. Pretty lame.

[Fred's Slacks]

Bob McGinn must feel like he has several hours he'll never get back. Thompson is one of the worst interviews out there.

True, he is a boring interview but that's part of what makes him a good GM. He not going to give anything away, and more importantly he's not going to give the media any fuel to roast his staff and players.

[cheesner]

-------

Thanks for explaining your decision, Ted. Totally annoying. Bob had prefaced it with a bunch of considerations, like age, play in the Giants game, wavering about retirement, etc. Favre is gone. Ted could have been specific about what considerations were uppermost in his mind. Pretty lame.

Pretty classy if you ask me. Why point out Brett's short comings at this point in the whole mess.

[sheepshead]

Yeah, Ted's got a locker room to protect. A legend he is fond of. It's too soon, he can spill the beans when he retires and writes a book. It's clear (has been for a while) Brett has diminishing skills and ARod is ready.

[Bretsky]

I FIND THESE QUESTIONS INTERESTING AND I CAN SEE MCGINN MAY HAVE THE SAME VIEW ON BOB SANDERS AS I DO

Q.Plaxico Burress ate up Al Harris when Harris basically lined up across from Burress using inside technique and played man-to-man with no help. Shouldn’t adjustments have been made? Did the answers you received from the coaching staff satisfy you?

A. Yeah, I think so. A lot of those plays were real rat-a-tat. They were close. Al was with him most of the time. Plaxico had a remarkable game and Eli (Manning) put the ball exactly where he had to put it several times. That’s the nature of our defense. We like to play that way. On that day they got the better of us, but we don’t think there were any fundamental errors made.

Q.The Giants’ defensive coordinator, Steve Spagnuolo, was able to hold the Patriots to 14 points in the Super Bowl thanks to tremendous play by his defensive line but also by outguessing Tom Brady with a varied blitz package. Does Bob Sanders have the creativity in his scheme plus the nerve that it takes for a team to go all the way?

A. Yeah, we like our coaching staff. To answer our question, yes we do. We’re very comfortable with Bob Sanders and his approach, and our entire defensive staff.

Q.In the days and weeks after that game, did you either ask McCarthy to make a change or consider making a change at defensive coordinator?

A. No.

Q.I keep coming back to Sanders. In practice Friday night the blitz package was sensational. Can you see a scenario in which this defense comes of age and actually starts dominating good opponents?

A. Yes. I think we have a very, very good defense. We have to get all our horses to the starting gate. This team will win because of our defense and other aspects of our team. Just like everybody else, we’re going to do different packages. As we go along in our building process, we’re going to have more and more people do more and more different things. We don’t talk a lot of trash here about dominating, but we have the defense to hold up.

[MJZiggy]

Yes, B, he may have the same view of Sanders as you do, but you're not supposed to know McGinn's views by reading the interview. Did he really think he was going to get Ted Thompson to throw the DC under the bus? Please. Ted Thompson is not going to publicly disparage anyone and McGinn has been around long enough to know that, so in reality asking that type of question is wasting his own time as well at Thompson's and ours. Also, he should know by now not to ask Thompson a 4-part question because he'll only answer one part of it. Thompson may be a boring interview, but in this case, I lay a lot of the responsibility for that on McGinn. He could have done a much better job. (and who wrote up that article that doesn't know the difference between 'there' and 'their?' These people are supposed to be professional writers--that means grammar, usage, and spelling, Bob.)

[bobblehead]

I FIND THESE QUESTIONS INTERESTING AND I CAN SEE MCGINN MAY HAVE THE SAME VIEW ON BOB SANDERS AS I DO

Q.Plaxico Burress ate up Al Harris when Harris basically lined up across from Burress using inside technique and played man-to-man with no help. Shouldn’t adjustments have been made? Did the answers you received from the coaching staff satisfy you?

A. Yeah, I think so. A lot of those plays were real rat-a-tat. They were close. Al was with him most of the time. Plaxico had a remarkable game and Eli (Manning) put the ball exactly where he had to put it several times. That’s the nature of our defense. We like to play that way. On that day they got the better of us, but we don’t think there were any fundamental errors made.

Q.The Giants’ defensive coordinator, Steve Spagnuolo, was able to hold the Patriots to 14 points in the Super Bowl thanks to tremendous play by his defensive line but also by outguessing Tom Brady with a varied blitz package. Does Bob Sanders have the creativity in his scheme plus the nerve that it takes for a team to go all the way?

A. Yeah, we like our coaching staff. To answer our question, yes we do. We’re very comfortable with Bob Sanders and his approach, and our entire defensive staff.

Q.In the days and weeks after that game, did you either ask McCarthy to make a change or consider making a change at defensive coordinator?

A. No.

Q.I keep coming back to Sanders. In practice Friday night the blitz package was sensational. Can you see a scenario in which this defense comes of age and actually starts dominating good opponents?

A. Yes. I think we have a very, very good defense. We have to get all our horses to the starting gate. This team will win because of our defense and other aspects of our team. Just like everybody else, we’re going to do different packages. As we go along in our building process, we’re going to have more and more people do more and more different things. We don’t talk a lot of trash here about dominating, but we have the defense to hold up.

I've been very critical of sanders in the past, but I have watched the NFCC several times now and TT is dead on. Manning and Burress were in a zone that game. Harris was all over him on several plays, just like the vincent jackson TD vs. san diego in week 3, perfect pass and catch, nothing al could do. He also sent Hawk and others blitzing in the second half a lot. That day we did what we do, and the giants were unbelievable. I would play that game 10 times and we would win 7 imo.

[Bretsky]

Yes, B, he may have the same view of Sanders as you do, but you're not supposed to know McGinn's views by reading the interview. Did he really think he was going to get Ted Thompson to throw the DC under the bus? Please. Ted Thompson is not going to publicly disparage anyone and McGinn has been around long enough to know that, so in reality asking that type of question is wasting his own time as well at Thompson's and ours. Also, he should know by now not to ask Thompson a 4-part question because he'll only answer one part of it. Thompson may be a boring interview, but in this case, I lay a lot of the responsibility for that on McGinn. He could have done a much better job. (and who wrote up that article that doesn't know the difference between 'there' and 'their?' These people are supposed to be professional writers--that means grammar, usage, and spelling, Bob.)


McGinn- Is the Wall Tan ?

TT- Well it certainly might be. We like that wall regardless of the exact color. Some might think it's tan and some might call it white. The answer may be somewhere in between.

Either way we're confident in that wall going forward and feel it can be competitive with the rest of the walls in the league

:lol:

[MJZiggy]

If McGinn had been bright enough to ask that question, he might have gotten an answer.

Step 1. Know who you're interviewing.

[pbmax]

If McCarthy and Thompson refuse to address why this decision happened, then they box themselves into a corner as they cannot stop the speculation that still rages today here and in Bob McGinn's inbox.

It would seem that to spare Packer fans, Favre or to insulate themselves against being judged wrong (maybe Favre can still play effectively), the Packer Organization suffers from a self-inflicted wound.

Or was it none of that, and they simply didn't want another weapon floating around the NFC North? The only reason to ignore Christl's advice to release him would be to stymie the Vikings. Are McCarthy and Thompson that competitive? Usually I would consider that an unreservedly good thing. but while pushing for this advantage, they also shot a hole in their public reputation.


Thanks for explaining your decision, Ted. Totally annoying. Bob had prefaced it with a bunch of considerations, like age, play in the Giants game, wavering about retirement, etc. Favre is gone. Ted could have been specific about what considerations were uppermost in his mind. Pretty lame.

[MJZiggy]

Who gives a shit about the PR hit right now? They got a possible 3rd round pick that Christl would have denied them which is the first thing they wanted. They also got Favre as far away from them as possible which they also accomplished. They turn that pick into something and play well, and they will be fine.

[Joemailman]

I think they honestly believe that Rodgers' play will vindicate their decision over time. As long as Favre wanted to play, making the switch to Rodgers probably could not be done in a way to make Favre fans happy.

[pbmax]

Well I mostly agree with you wist, I mean Bretsky :lol: and hopefully McGinn is onto something with the noticeable pickup in blitzing during Family Night.

One thing about Plaxico and Harris. Plaxico wears out the Eagles D as well and the Giants have had their way with the Eagles for a while now. So Harris' struggles with Plaxico are to some degree universal for Eagle cornerbacks.

But remember that the Eagles under Jim Johnson play the same type of blitzing, changeup defense that everyone seems to want. But the Eagles have trouble beating the Giants at home as well.

Despite their troubles, the Packers D held the Giants O to twenty points in regulation. I am more concerned now with our third down pass rush.


I FIND THESE QUESTIONS INTERESTING AND I CAN SEE MCGINN MAY HAVE THE SAME VIEW ON BOB SANDERS AS I DO

[pbmax]

I don't. I would rather deny the Vikings or Bears a weapon. But the Packer Execs need to sell good will, merchandise and burgers to fans and visitors.

If you take a hit with your own fans (forget the national media) then you are playing with fire. Winning solves that. But this plan is probably not about more wins this year.


Who gives a shit about the PR hit right now? They got a possible 3rd round pick that Christl would have denied them which is the first thing they wanted. They also got Favre as far away from them as possible which they also accomplished. They turn that pick into something and play well, and they will be fine.

[MJZiggy]

The Packer execs are probably the ones in the NFL who need to worry about PR among their own fans the least. The list for tickets is still 30 years long, people will still buy the dogs and beers and if they ever want the Favre questions to stop, they're going to have to start refusing to answer them which is just what Ted Thompson does. McCarthy actually answered that question and apparently no one listened to him anyway, because they're still asking it.

[Patler]

Any statement by TT about the reasons for moving away from Favre would be viewed as criticism of Favre, blaming him for the loss to the Giants, etc. It would be more of a PR nightmare than saying nothing. When has TT been openly critical of any player, let alone Favre?

McGinn knew TT would not answer the questions, especially in the way asked, as MJZiggy has pointed out. He asked them for his own future purposes, to be able to criticize TT for not being forthright and open about issues of great interest to the fans, and to cover his own butt with fans who are critical of him not asking what the fans want to know.

I actually find it humorous that some fans would expect TT or any GM to answer the Favre questions. An icon as Favre has become among Packer fans, and the GM is going to say, "Well, the guy is so dang old that he gets chilled to the bone below 20 degrees. His skills have diminished some, not to the point that he is not good, but to the point that they do not support the gunslinger mentality that he can't give up. As a result, he makes critical mistakes in big games at the wrong time. We just thought it was time to go to the younger guy, more in control, because our team is good enough to win with a QB who limits mistakes, and doesn't need a QB to carry the team. That's why we let him go." No GM in his right mind is going to say that about Favre even if he is convinced of it.

[texaspackerbacker]

I, for one, am glad that Thompson played it close to the vest with this all out media dipshit.

I hate these assholes like God damned McGinn presuming to speak for the fans--when they are shit-spewing outsiders who value their stinking "objectivity" over loyalty to the Packers.

Make no mistake about it, people, Thompson/McCarthy are the ones who build OUR team to the great level it is, and THEY are the ones who represent us--NOT the God damned IDIOTS of the media.

Yeah, we need information, statistics, etc. What we don't need is editorializing by imbeciles like McGinn and STUPID questions like the disrespect the dumbass showed for Sanders, etc. Get off the blitzing crap already--I suppose McGinn indeed, DOES represent some forum fools on that one.

[Patler]

You have a point Tex.

Besides, some questions are just stupid. Is TT really expected to say, "Yes, we discussed firing Sanders for a long time. I wanted him gone, but Mike likes him. We finally agreed to give him one year to show development and variation in the defense. If he doesn't, he's gone after this season."

or, "You bet I'm worried about age catching up to our CBs. If it does, we are in deep trouble because our backups are good as backups, but none has shown the makeup of a starter yet."

[pbmax]

You paint an ugly picture TPB. The only thing uglier is for your fan representatives (T2/M3) to work without every having to explain themselves publicly. I don't expect them to be given truth serum and a lie detector, but I expect that they answer hostile questions when warranted.

Since I doubt T2 and M3, as my representatives, are going to come to my house to answer questions or call me on my cell phone, I am happy with another surrogate in place, McGinn or Wilde.

If they want these eyeballs to keep watching and the pockets to keep buying whatever, then they need to be ready for public explanations. So I not only am happy to tolerate the media dip----s, I encourage them whenever possible. People exposed to no scrutiny perform less well than those who receive it.

That isn't to say the media are infallible or that McGinn's information is correct, but I want him there asking those questions. Any other position in my mind is asking to be served less than well.

[pbmax]

I will not argue that McGinn might have phrased the questions better as Patler and Zig point out. Especially four part questions that end with the GM's favorite out clause. And I doubt he expected an answer to the DC question, but it should be asked regardless for the record if McGinn has info that Thompson and other football people were concerned.

My main point is that I think they were served less well by refusing to comment since the beginning on why they preferred Favre to stay home. Contrary to Patler's implication of criticism of Favre, team's have let icons go and have succeeded in not falling off the map. Letting a player go a year early is better than a year late used to be an accepted fact in the NFL.

The 49ers traded Montana when he clearly preferred to stay. Marino was no longer wanted in Miami. Namath and Unitas were traded. This is not uncharted territory. Not commenting and hoping for the best was wishful thinking after Favre began the almost inevitable backtrack.

Saying we are ready for the next phase, Favre needs to win the job, taking him back and then trading him, in hindsight, would have been more straightforward.


You have a point Tex.

Besides, some questions are just stupid. Is TT really expected to say, "Yes, we discussed firing Sanders for a long time. I wanted him gone, but Mike likes him. We finally agreed to give him one year to show development and variation in the defense. If he doesn't, he's gone after this season."

or, "You bet I'm worried about age catching up to our CBs. If it does, we are in deep trouble because our backups are good as backups, but none has shown the makeup of a starter yet."

[Patler]

.

My main point is that I think they were served less well by refusing to comment since the beginning on why they preferred Favre to stay home. Contrary to Patler's implication of criticism of Favre, team's have let icons go and have succeeded in not falling off the map. Letting a player go a year early is better than a year late used to be an accepted fact in the NFL.

The 49ers traded Montana when he clearly preferred to stay. Marino was no longer wanted in Miami. Namath and Unitas were traded. This is not uncharted territory. Not commenting and hoping for the best was wishful thinking after Favre began the almost inevitable backtrack.

Saying we are ready for the next phase, Favre needs to win the job, taking him back and then trading him, in hindsight, would have been more straightforward.


Sure teams have moved on from the great QBs you mentioned, and it has always been done without criticism of the icon, just simple statements about "going new directions", "moving on" etc. Never with a critique of the old QBs performance.

[MJZiggy]

But PB, they didn't refuse to comment. They explained their position in detail, more than once. Why would TT have to explain it again? And Favre didn't help the team to do what you suggested. How can you say Favre needs to win a job that he publicly refuses to compete for?

Why would he have to ask the DC question? If they were concerned, they're certainly not going to admit it as Patler mentioned.

The Niners traded Montana and I'm sure that people disagreed with that choice, but the team survived just fine, just like the Colts survived trading Johnny Unitas. For some reason, people still buy Colts uniforms. There are even 20 or so people left on the planet who buy Dolphins gear and I would suspect that with the Pennington signing, that number might reach 30 by the end of the week!

McGinn could have made something good out of that interview as the fans have been paying so much attention to Favre that we really are behind in getting to know the rest of the team. Where were the questions about how the new kids are doing? Where was the discussion of the choice not to have the annual kicking and punting competitions, and why have we already chosen a long snapper? How does the elimination of NFLE affect the way he structures the team lacking those exemptions? How is the struggle for the #3 WR spot playing out? Thank you, McGinn, you had a chance to educate me on the status of my beloved team and you tanked.

[Patler]

If they want these eyeballs to keep watching and the pockets to keep buying whatever, then they need to be ready for public explanations. So I not only am happy to tolerate the media dip----s, I encourage them whenever possible. People exposed to no scrutiny perform less well than those who receive it.


Interestiing. I really could not care less than I do about their reasons for the decisions they make. I only care about the results in terms of the quality of the entertainment the team provides. I don't feel any right to hear their explanations.

[hoosier]

I've been very critical of sanders in the past, but I have watched the NFCC several times now and TT is dead on. Manning and Burress were in a zone that game. Harris was all over him on several plays, just like the vincent jackson TD vs. san diego in week 3, perfect pass and catch, nothing al could do. He also sent Hawk and others blitzing in the second half a lot. That day we did what we do, and the giants were unbelievable. I would play that game 10 times and we would win 7 imo.

In the several times that you've watched it, how many have GB won? :P

[pbmax]

Quite possibly true in some cases. Although I recall some pretty ugly stories out of San Fran, but I must admit those were about the relationship between Montana and Young.

However, in few cases does the team rely upon the retirement of the icon to provide the cover for the move they wish to make. Once that cover was blown, it would have been better to be open about changing the QB. Because until that point, they had not publicly indicated they no longer wished to have Favre as QB. Even today, T2/M3 have made it seem like timing gave them no other choice. Which leaves them open to criticism over stalling the comeback.


Sure teams have moved on from the great QBs you mentioned, and it has always been done without criticism of the icon, just simple statements about "going new directions", "moving on" etc. Never with a critique of the old QBs performance.

[pbmax]

I agree completely that McGinn's questions could have been improved. But as I replied to Patler, the explanation so far has been retirement, putting us in a bad position in late June (timing) and your head doesn't seem to be on straight. All quite plausible.

If indeed these were the only things going through their minds, then accepting Favre back on the day he filed for reinstatement and then trading him is a better option than hoping he would stay retired. Having to have Favre come to Green Bay was unnecessary. This is all hindsight, I grant you. I can't claim to have thought of this at the time.

My suspicion is more along the lines of McGinn, that a football decision had been made. After retirement became an afterthought, it still would have made more sense to have him back then trade him. Favre doesn't get to pick how much he practices.

This approach is not without risk, as the locker room and as Dungy pointed out, the coach's leadership, would be tested. But the alternative seemed to be kabuki theatre.


But PB, they didn't refuse to comment. They explained their position in detail, more than once. Why would TT have to explain it again? And Favre didn't help the team to do what you suggested. How can you say Favre needs to win a job that he publicly refuses to compete for?

[mraynrand]

If they want these eyeballs to keep watching and the pockets to keep buying whatever, then they need to be ready for public explanations. So I not only am happy to tolerate the media dip----s, I encourage them whenever possible. People exposed to no scrutiny perform less well than those who receive it.


Interestiing. I really could not care less than I do about their reasons for the decisions they make. I only care about the results in terms of the quality of the entertainment the team provides. I don't feel any right to hear their explanations.

True, but it's pretty boring. Guess the best advice is to just not read/listen to the GM. In response to your sensible post about finding it humorous that fans would expect TT to describe why they chose Rodgers over Favre. I see your point. After reviewing some of the copy, especially McGinn's litany of reasons the Packers would favor Rodgers, I was under the impression McGinn was getting that stuff from the inside (not a 'leak,' but just through good reporting). Thompson's best response probably is "I'm not going to discuss our decision making process on the Rodgers/Favre situation." It's obvious they think they are making the best decision for the team. I disagree, but I hope they're right. I am a bit skeptical about McGinn - I think he needs to be a bit more careful about identifying what is his opinion and what is coming from sources within the packer organization (or I need to be more careful reading his stuff).

[mraynrand]

I hate these assholes like God damned McGinn presuming to speak for the fans--when they are shit-spewing outsiders who value their stinking "objectivity" over loyalty to the Packers.

Why should McGinn be 'loyal' to the Packers? And if so, how should that loyalty influence his reporting?

[pbmax]

On the JSO website, Gerry Howard (sp?) has a piece describing in detail what makes a piece opinion and what is a news report on the sports page. He goes so far as to describe how to tell the difference by the byline and picture.

Given that McGinn's Favre Decision article was a column (I assume this since its in Packer Insider, I haven't seen the ink on page edition) its possible Mr. Rand has a point. McGinn might not have had the "Football People" decision from the right sources to make it a reported fact. Interesting.

[CaliforniaCheez]

I thought after the embarassment of last year's interview there would never be another one.