Why did McCarthy fire most of the staff?

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/37094594.html

Interesting read. They speculate that Mike Nolan is the leading candidate, and that McCarthy fired everybody that had roots in Sanders scheme. They speculate that the Packers will bring in somebody that runs a completely different system, and then that DC will bring in guys that can teach that system.

I'd prefer somebody that runs a 4-3 blitzing scheme or even a 3-4, if they think they can make the personnel work. The more I think about it, Kampman might be the one guy that won't fit well. Our smaller DL (Hunter, Thompson) seem like they might be able to fit a 3-4 as pass rushing OLBs. Please, no Marinelli. I don't want any part of the Tampa cover 2 (or its many variations).

[Fritz]

I hope not. That sets the team back by a year, at least. You've got to draft a whole 'nother kind of player, and then teach it and practice it and all that.

[Lurker64]

I hope not. That sets the team back by a year, at least. You've got to draft a whole 'nother kind of player, and then teach it and practice it and all that.

Is Mike Nolan definitely a 3-4 guy? As I recall, in San Francisco they were running a combination of 4-3 looks and 3-4 looks. Running 3-4 occasionally as a wrinkle, and not as a base defense, might not be the worst thing in the world.

[Fritz]

Don't really know, lurker. I thought I'd read he was a 3-4 guy. I could be wrong.

[Bossman641]

I think Lurker is right. I'm not sure what Nolan's base defense was, but I thought he used 3-4 and 4-3.

[Cleft Crusty]

I hope not. That sets the team back by a year, at least. You've got to draft a whole 'nother kind of player, and then teach it and practice it and all that.

I wouldn't worry so much about that. The Packers, even totally healthy on D are only about average really. They need some new guys in there that can play line and linebacker. Good players will make most decent schemes look very good, even in the first year.

[Fritz]

I used to coach a little basketball, back in the day, and the thinking then was to use a system that fit the talent at hand. Adapt the scheme to the players.

[sheepshead]

This seems like a good place to bring up Chuck Cecil. Not a DC but on the sideline in green and gold in some capacity.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Pure speculation, but what if it is the 3-4 defense? Jenkins can play in it as a DE. I personally think Pickett would be fine as the NT. Kampman is a question mark. Can he get big enough for DE and become the Packers Aaron Smith? Possibly. Is he athletic enough to play pass rushing OLB? Probably not. Hunter and Thompson seem to have ideal qualities as pass rushing OLBs. I don't see Montgomery fitting the scheme, and he'd likely be gone. He's about as big as Kampman is now, but he's not nearly as stout in the run game. Could Jolly and Harrell fit as DEs in a 3-4?

Barnett and Chillar are question marks. I think Hawk could play in the 3-4. I think Poppinga could play in the 3-4. If the Packers go to a 3-4, I could see a the big Boston College NT or the USC LB as being the pick at #9. Bart Scott is available in UFA.

[retailguy]

I posted this in the Gullickson thread, think it applies here as well. We'll see. I still think Moss ends up being the guy....


Prepare Three Envelopes

A fellow had just been hired as the new CEO of a large high tech corporation. The CEO who was stepping down met with him privately and presented him with three numbered envelopes. "Open these if you run up against a problem you don't think you can solve," he said.

Well, things went along pretty smoothly, but six months later, sales took a downturn and he was really catching a lot of heat. About at his wit's end, he remembered the envelopes. He went to his drawer and took out the first envelope. The message read, "Blame your predecessor."

The new CEO called a press conference and tactfully laid the blame at the feet of the previous CEO. Satisfied with his comments, the press -- and Wall Street - responded positively, sales began to pick up and the problem was soon behind him.

About a year later, the company was again experiencing a slight dip in sales, combined with serious product problems. Having learned from his previous experience, the CEO quickly opened the second envelope. The message read, "Reorganize." This he did, and the company quickly rebounded.

After several consecutive profitable quarters, the company once again fell on difficult times. The CEO went to his office, closed the door and opened the third envelope.

The message said, "Prepare three envelopes."

McCarthy just opened envelope #2....

[retailguy]

Pure speculation, but what if it is the 3-4 defense? Jenkins can play in it as a DE. I personally think Pickett would be fine as the NT. Kampman is a question mark. Can he get big enough for DE and become the Packers Aaron Smith? Possibly. Is he athletic enough to play pass rushing OLB? Probably not. Hunter and Thompson seem to have ideal qualities as pass rushing OLBs. I don't see Montgomery fitting the scheme, and he'd likely be gone. He's about as big as Kampman is now, but he's not nearly as stout in the run game. Could Jolly and Harrell fit as DEs in a 3-4?

Barnett and Chillar are question marks. I think Hawk could play in the 3-4. I think Poppinga could play in the 3-4. If the Packers go to a 3-4, I could see a the big Boston College NT or the USC LB as being the pick at #9. Bart Scott is available in UFA.

Since I know virtually nothing about defensive schemes, I'll throw out a question that puzzles me. Could GB adapt to a 3-4 and continue to use the "bump & run" secondary with Harris/Woodson? Or does moving to a 3-4 necessitate a change in secondary coverage?

[Harlan Huckleby]

I was listening to Chmura talk about the D coordinator on his radio show last week. Chmura's take is that schemes are not the problem. He wants to see a more firey personality in the position, preferably a guy who has played in the NFL before (he mentioned Ron Rivera) who the players will be more movitated and excited by.

Maybe that's right. There are a couple different ways to skin a cat, (altho most methods start with an abdominal incisision) For instance, Jim Jones in Philly is no firebrand. But maybe the team needs a kick.

Watching Minnesota play defense yesterday was impressive.

[Cleft Crusty]

This seems like a good place to bring up Chuck Cecil. Not a DC but on the sideline in green and gold in some capacity.

He would be a quality assassin - or a personal body guard for Ted Thompson. The job descriptions are the same.

[Partial]

I posted this in the Gullickson thread, think it applies here as well. We'll see. I still think Moss ends up being the guy....


Prepare Three Envelopes

A fellow had just been hired as the new CEO of a large high tech corporation. The CEO who was stepping down met with him privately and presented him with three numbered envelopes. "Open these if you run up against a problem you don't think you can solve," he said.

Well, things went along pretty smoothly, but six months later, sales took a downturn and he was really catching a lot of heat. About at his wit's end, he remembered the envelopes. He went to his drawer and took out the first envelope. The message read, "Blame your predecessor."

The new CEO called a press conference and tactfully laid the blame at the feet of the previous CEO. Satisfied with his comments, the press -- and Wall Street - responded positively, sales began to pick up and the problem was soon behind him.

About a year later, the company was again experiencing a slight dip in sales, combined with serious product problems. Having learned from his previous experience, the CEO quickly opened the second envelope. The message read, "Reorganize." This he did, and the company quickly rebounded.

After several consecutive profitable quarters, the company once again fell on difficult times. The CEO went to his office, closed the door and opened the third envelope.

The message said, "Prepare three envelopes."

McCarthy just opened envelope #2....

Good story. I like it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Since I know virtually nothing about defensive schemes, I'll throw out a question that puzzles me. Could GB adapt to a 3-4 and continue to use the "bump & run" secondary with Harris/Woodson? Or does moving to a 3-4 necessitate a change in secondary coverage?

Yes and no. Like a 4-3, depending on the scheme, you can use man (bump or off) or zone (off) coverage. Tampa cover 2 has the corners playing mostly zone/off. The Dallas cover 2 (or whatever it's called) has the corners playing mostly man/bump. Similarly, in a 3-4, you can play either zone or man (bump or off). I think the best defenses can mix it up, but you have to play to your strengths. Woodson could play either system. Harris would get killed playing off coverage.

[Partial]

I'm really surprised they kept Moss. Why? If they're going to let the entire defensive staff go so the coordinator can start fresh, why keep that guy?

Also, why let Lionel Washington go? From all accounts, the players LOVE him and will gladly fight for him. Isn't that the exact result you want from players? The secondary performed pretty well this year, and the players loved playing for Washington. Just seems like an odd move to me.

[retailguy]

Since I know virtually nothing about defensive schemes, I'll throw out a question that puzzles me. Could GB adapt to a 3-4 and continue to use the "bump & run" secondary with Harris/Woodson? Or does moving to a 3-4 necessitate a change in secondary coverage?

Yes and no. Like a 4-3, depending on the scheme, you can use man (bump or off) or zone (off) coverage. Tampa cover 2 has the corners playing mostly zone/off. The Dallas cover 2 (or whatever it's called) has the corners playing mostly man/bump. Similarly, in a 3-4, you can play either zone or man (bump or off). I think the best defenses can mix it up, but you have to play to your strengths. Woodson could play either system. Harris would get killed playing off coverage.

What about Williams?

[Cleft Crusty]

I was listening to Chmura talk about the D coordinator on his radio show last week. Chmura's take is that schemes are not the problem.

I agree for the most part. Players are the problem. Packers had a run 'o the mill group before the injuries, and after the injures, they had a lousy front 7. You can't win with crapola, no matter what scheme you invent. Eventually you have to block and tackle.

[HarveyWallbangers]

For instance, Jim Jones in Philly is no firebrand. But maybe the team needs a kick.

Jim Jones? Nice. Johnson isn't a fiery personality, but his schemes are aggressive. I think that's one way to get an aggressive/fiery defense. Sanders is neither a fiery personality nor does he have an aggressive scheme.

[Zool]

I was listening to Chmura talk about the D coordinator on his radio show last week. Chmura's take is that schemes are not the problem.

I agree for the most part. Players are the problem. Packers had a run 'o the mill group before the injuries, and after the injures, they had a lousy front 7. You can't win with crapola, no matter what scheme you invent. Eventually you have to block and tackle.

But you cant fire the entire front 7, and someone had to be the scapegoat.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What about Williams?

Hard to say, for me. He looked pretty good playing bump, and he has the atheltic ability for any scheme. However, a lot of the best zone corners are smart players and good tacklers. Think Ronde Barber and Antoine Winfield. I can't say one way or the other whether he fits that description.

[Cleft Crusty]

I was listening to Chmura talk about the D coordinator on his radio show last week. Chmura's take is that schemes are not the problem.

I agree for the most part. Players are the problem. Packers had a run 'o the mill group before the injuries, and after the injures, they had a lousy front 7. You can't win with crapola, no matter what scheme you invent. Eventually you have to block and tackle.

But you cant fire the entire front 7, and someone had to be the scapegoat.

This is true. And McCarthy can't fire Thompson or bad luck.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't know why people think this is going to be easy, the PAckers will have winning seasons every year.

the team tanks to 6-9 in an injury-filled season, and suddenly management is on the hot seat. Bill Cowher was on the griddle until he became a genius. All the coaches and GMs have down cycles.

I think you got to look at a 5 year history to judge. TT has been in a senior position for long enough, I suppose. Most say he has outstanding track record.

[mission]

I don't know why people think this is going to be easy, the PAckers will have winning seasons every year.

the team tanks to 6-9 in an injury-filled season, and suddenly management is on the hot seat. Bill Cowher was on the griddle until he became a genius. All the coaches and GMs have down cycles.

I think you got to look at a 5 year history to judge. TT has been in a senior position for long enough, I suppose. Most say he has outstanding track record.

MM is not a genius...

[Cleft Crusty]

TT has been in a senior position for long enough, I suppose. Most say he has outstanding track record.

He is credited with much of Seattle's personnel success, specifically in the draft.

In four years as Packer GM he is 32-32 regular season and 1-1 in one postseason.


Is that outstanding?


edit: I gave TT credit for one too many wins. He is 31-33 in the regular season.

[Harlan Huckleby]

TT is an excellent drafter.

His overly-conservative shortcomings are well documented.

I think he is gonna prove himself. But he does have to get the team to the promised land in the next three years.

[AV David]

I believe this means Winston Moss is the new DC and wants to run a new system. How can you bring in a new DC and make him take WM, who could be seen as a real threat to the new DC and whom is being groomed for "something" apparently. I suppose he could make room for him as ST coach or on offense, but that sees unlikely. Can you really keep him around if he is NOT the DC?

As to the 3-4, it is in substantial essence the Oklahoma 5-2 used in high school and college. The "ends" tend to be more like tackles in size and duties. The OLB spots are the most difficult positions because they have to act as a hybrid DE and a hybrid OLB. The OLB have to be fast, they are responsible for the edge. The ILB have to be relatively big, fast is a bonus. The Guard or OT are generally assigned to block the ILB and tend to have a pretty clean shot at them. They have to stand up to an "Iso" lead block by the FB. An ILB HAS to be able to stand up to blocks by O linemen. The DE is often tasked (running plays) with chucking the OT to disrupt his block on the ILB.

I don't see Kampman as a good fit at OLB. You really have to be pretty fast. I can see Picket as the NT. I can see Jenkins as a DE. I don't know where J Thompson or Kampman fit in a 3-4/5-2.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hunter is 6'4" 270 and can run like the wind (he ran 4.55 coming out). I'm sure he could slim down a bit. Merriman, Porter, Woodley, Suggs, Shaun Phillips are all 3-4 OLBs who are in the 260 range. Hunter might fit perfectly as an OLB in a 3-4 defense. Thompson is 6'4" 270 and ran 4.7 coming out. Not sure if that is fast enough or not. Poppinga has slimmed down, but was a DE in college. A lot of people thought he'd be a 3-4 LB.

LE Kampman?
NT Pickett
RE Jenkins
OLB Poppinga, Chillar, Hunter, Thompson?
ILB Hawk, Barnett?

[cpk1994]

I believe this means Winston Moss is the new DC and wants to run a new system. How can you bring in a new DC and make him take WM, who could be seen as a real threat to the new DC and whom is being groomed for "something" apparently. I suppose he could make room for him as ST coach or on offense, but that sees unlikely. Can you really keep him around if he is NOT the DC?

As to the 3-4, it is in substantial essence the Oklahoma 5-2 used in high school and college. The "ends" tend to be more like tackles in size and duties. The OLB spots are the most difficult positions because they have to act as a hybrid DE and a hybrid OLB. The OLB have to be fast, they are responsible for the edge. The ILB have to be relatively big, fast is a bonus. The Guard or OT are generally assigned to block the ILB and tend to have a pretty clean shot at them. They have to stand up to an "Iso" lead block by the FB. An ILB HAS to be able to stand up to blocks by O linemen. The DE is often tasked (running plays) with chucking the OT to disrupt his block on the ILB.

I don't see Kampman as a good fit at OLB. You really have to be pretty fast. I can see Picket as the NT. I can see Jenkins as a DE. I don't know where J Thompson or Kampman fit in a 3-4/5-2.Or it could just be that McCarthy doesn't want to fire a guy under consideration for a head job.

[Partial]

TT is an excellent drafter.

TT has been an OK drafter. He has done well in later rounds and had less success early on. Too soon to tell imo.

[Guiness]

I was listening to Chmura talk about the D coordinator on his radio show last week. Chmura's take is that schemes are not the problem.

I agree for the most part. Players are the problem. Packers had a run 'o the mill group before the injuries, and after the injures, they had a lousy front 7. You can't win with crapola, no matter what scheme you invent. Eventually you have to block and tackle.

But you cant fire the entire front 7, and someone had to be the scapegoat.

This is true. And McCarthy can't fire Thompson or bad luck.

CC agreeing with someone. Careful, you might lose your curmudgeon rat title. The holiday's must've been nice to you after you got that turkey bone dislodged from your throat!

[swede]

I believe this means Winston Moss is the new DC and wants to run a new system.
Or it could just be that McCarthy doesn't want to fire a guy under consideration for a head job.

Maybe.

Here are some possible scenarios.

*He's going to stay on as a position coach under another guy. Unlike the other coaches Winston Moss is an assistant HC and I don't think it is an undue burden on another new DC to keep just one position coach the HC likes.

*He's the new DC. The only reason not to announce him now is that the Rams HC interview is still in the works. (See AC David above)

*Meet the new coach of the St. Louis Rams.

*You're butt is fired as soon as we know you're not HC of the Rams. (See CPK above)

[texaspackerbacker]

Since I know virtually nothing about defensive schemes, I'll throw out a question that puzzles me. Could GB adapt to a 3-4 and continue to use the "bump & run" secondary with Harris/Woodson? Or does moving to a 3-4 necessitate a change in secondary coverage?

Yes and no. Like a 4-3, depending on the scheme, you can use man (bump or off) or zone (off) coverage. Tampa cover 2 has the corners playing mostly zone/off. The Dallas cover 2 (or whatever it's called) has the corners playing mostly man/bump. Similarly, in a 3-4, you can play either zone or man (bump or off). I think the best defenses can mix it up, but you have to play to your strengths. Woodson could play either system. Harris would get killed playing off coverage.

You definitely can play a 3-4 either with mostly man coverage or mostly zone.

The question is, which do you choose? I don't think it's so much a matter of what Woodson or Harris or Williams can do. It's a matter of which type of coverage works best in an absolute sense. And THAT clearly is man coverage. You give up the bread and butter of the Packers--generating turnovers/interceptions if you go to zone.

As for personnel, I really think Kampman would be suited for the 3-4 if it comes to that. He used to be primarily a run stopper, and his mobility should be as valuable a tool as extra size would be. I would think Harrell if healthy (otherwise Cole) would be decent rotating with Pickett at nose tackle, and Jolly and Montgomery would be decent backups. Barnett and Hawk would seem ideal at ILB--Barnett having established himself as an excellent MLB, and Hawk thought by many to be better suited for the inside. That leaves Bishop, Popinga, and Chillar, all of whom should flourish on the outside, along with Hunter and maybe Thompson.

All in all, we have plenty of suitable personnel, and if anything, a move to 3-4 negates the possible need to sign somebody like Haynesworth or the "need" perceived by some to draft a rush DE.

I could get psyched up to support a move to 3-4--provided it is done with primarily man coverage, and provided it is done with a minimum of blitzing.

[rbaloha1]

Based on keeping Moss, MM probably wants to keep the scheme.

Agree with Chewy -- the scheme is sound. requires refining and more blitzing. Maybe MM wants Moss to be the assistant dc.

3-4 is too much of a change which prevents the Packers reaching the playoffs in 09.

[AV David]

I am open to the 3-4 or a different variant of the 4-3 because sometimes change, even if it is just for the sake of change, is good. It seems like you can either coach the blitz effectively or you cannot. There seems to be no middle ground. The packers haven't been able to blitz effectively for a hell of a long time. I want a DC that knows how to get them home, even if they only blitz a small part of the time.

[Bossman641]

TT is an excellent drafter.

TT has been an OK drafter. He has done well in later rounds and had less success early on. Too soon to tell imo.

We might have different definitions of "success" and "early." I'm looking at rounds 1-3.

2005 - Rodgers in 1, Collins in 2, Murphy in 2 (looked like he'd be good), no 3rd rounds

2006 - Hawk in 1, Colledge and Jennings in 2, Hodge and Spitz in 3

2007 - Harrell in 1, Jackson in 2, Jones and Rouse in 3

2008 - Nelson, Brohm and Lee in 2, Finley in 3

It's definitely to judge to judge the 2008 class, and I'd say it's even too early to judge the 2007. I know everyone expects the GM to hit on every pick, but honestly I'm not sure what else you could expect from TT here.

Rodgers, Jennings, and Collins are Pro-Bowlers (or close). Hawk, Colledge, and Spitz have been up and down. Murphy was unfortunate. The worst pick from the 05 and 06 classes is Hodge. How funny! He was the pick everyone was the most excited about.

Even if you wanna look at the 07 class. Jackson looked 1000% better in year 2, Jones looked good as a rookie and got bit by the injury bug in 08. I can't really defend Harrell other than to say I hope he will finally be healthy next year.

That's a pretty good batting percentage in my book.

[Partial]

He's hit big on Jennings so far. I'm not 100% sold on Collins being a star, but its possible.

The goal is to get three solid starters out of a draft. Part of my concern with the guys picked early is that while a lot of them *are* starters, they're not exactly solid or irreplaceable. So far, they have been inconsistent, or haven't shown much to be particularly solid. I'll go into more details below.

So far, he's done alright at the top. We wouldn't be 6-10 if his drafts were "excellent".

Collins played well his first year, was a player that most wanted replaced in years two and three, and played well in his 4th year. Not consistent enough to know exactly what we're getting yet.

Jennings is a stud, no doubt about it. His production did drop off in the latter part of this year though when he was getting double teamed. That is something that is a bit of a concern to me, as he won't have the room to run after the catch when doubled. Outside of the shoot out NO, he didn't have a particularly strong second half of the year. I'm confident he'll over come it, though.

A-Rod has played about as expected in his 4th year. He's a average to slightly above average quarterback. No where near pro bowl level, but we're not having that discussion in this thread.

Colledge has been awful his first two years, and played better this year. Still, he's too inconsistent to consider him to be great or anything yet. He's average to slightly above average.

Spitz hasn't shown to be anything better than average yet, but I think he has a spot carved out at center.

Hodge is a bust. Never contributed, cut. Bust.

Rouse thus far has been a bust. He has shown a lot of promise, but it seems the coaches don't think he'll be anything more than a back-up safety. Not good for a first day pick. He has boat loads of potential, but it would be hard to justify this as a pick that has contributed to this point.

Murphy got hurt and never played. A poor draft pick when all is said and done (yes, its not his fault the guy got hurt, I get that. Still, picks come down to production and that pick is not producing).

Harrrell has been a collossal bust thus far.

Jackson hasn't exactly lit the world on fire, though I think he has potential. Thus far, he hasn't contributed much more than being an average third down back. You expect more production out of a second round pick.

Jones has shown potential and flashed, but he didn't contribute anything this year, and contributed as a third wideout for about half of last year. Once he hit the wall he didn't do much. I like this guy long term, but I'm not certain the coaches do.

Hawk played about average his first year, had a very solid year last year, and a very poor year this year. That's not exactly consistent, and certainly dissapointing for a top 5 pick. Long term, I think his chances of being a star aren't very good, but I think he'll be solid. Again, very very disappointing for the 5th pick.

Far too soon to judge the 08 group, but Jordy doesn't look like a star, but he looks like he'll be a solid #2 and a good value pick. Hopefully one of the quarterbacks becomes a true star, then our team will be in very good shape.

[HarveyWallbangers]

He's confusing Thompson with Ron Wolf.

[Bossman641]

Rodgers is no where near a pro bowler. Collins is good. Jennings is good. Colledge is ok.

So far, he's done alright at the top. We wouldn't be 6-10 if his drafts were "excellent"

Nowhere near a Pro-Bowler? Look at his stats and play compared to the rest of the league. Not what you "feel" or what you "think." He was in the top 1/4 in almost every passing category in the league.

Did I say excellent? You said he made OK selections in the early round. I think they are far from OK. I'd guess they compare favorably against most teams over the same period.

We also wouldn't have been 6-10 if we weren't trotting out a defense full of 2nd and 3rd stringers.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rodgers is no where near a pro bowler

LOL

Pro Bowl QB (Eli) = 60.3 %, 3238 yards, 6.8 yards/attempt, 21 TDs, 10 interceptions, 86.4 rating

Rodgers = 63.6 %, 4038 yards, 7.5 yards/attempt, 28 TDs, 13 interceptions, 93.8 rating

I guess we only look at win/loss record because stats are meaningless. Thus, Drew Brees is an avergae QB.

[Partial]

Rodgers is no where near a pro bowler

LOL

Pro Bowl QB (Eli) = 60.3 %, 3238 yards, 6.8 yards/attempt, 21 TDs, 10 interceptions, 86.4 rating

Rodgers = 63.6 %, 4038 yards, 7.5 yards/attempt, 28 TDs, 13 interceptions, 93.8 rating

I guess we only look at win/loss record because stats are meaningless. Thus, Drew Brees is an avergae QB.

Not the thread for this. I won't discuss it any further in this thread. We all know that you're a homer and where you stand. NFL scouts support my opinion. It seems only homers around here support yours. Anyway, its not the time or the place. I don't really care one way or another about Aaron. He's played ok. I could bring up his 4th quarter quarterback rating, but again, you'll blabber on and on about how he is so good, and got the team in position to win in the 4th quarter despite only scoring 3-6 points in the second half :lol: With that said, I am requesting not to further this discussion in this thread as not to detract from the topic at hand.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I could bring up his 4th quarter quarterback rating, but again, you'll blabber on and on about how he is so good, and got the team in position to win in the 4th quarter despite only scoring 3-6 points in the second half

Ummm... the Packers led the NFL in 4th quarter points.

Rodgers rating on the season = 93.8 rating
Rodgers rating in close games = 93.4 rating
Rodgers rating in games close/late = 93.7 rating
Rodgers rating in the 4th quarter = 87.8 rating (which is considerably higher than Favre's 79.6 rating for his CAREER)

Your perception is clouded.

I will agree Rodgers sucked in the final two minutes, but he had a lot of games where he played great late--just not in the last two minutes. I have faith that will change. He would have been a hero in many games (Minnesota, Chicago, Houston, Carolina, Jacksonville, perhaps Tennessee), if the defense didn't suck so bad. In all of those games, he put the Packers in a position to win late.

[Gunakor]

TT is an excellent drafter.

TT has been an OK drafter. He has done well in later rounds and had less success early on. Too soon to tell imo.

He ran drafts in Seattle too. Shawn Alexander, Marcus Trufant, Darrell Jackson, and Ken Hamlin were all guys Thompson had drafted.

I mentioned this in another thread. Shawn Alexander was NFL MVP the year Seattle went to the Super Bowl, and Aaron Rodgers put up MVP type numbers this year (If you buy into Peyton Manning winning MVP this year anyway). Those were both first round selections. I'd say he's had plenty of success early on. One bad Harrell pick does not amount to an overall poor record early in drafts.

[Partial]

TT is an excellent drafter.

TT has been an OK drafter. He has done well in later rounds and had less success early on. Too soon to tell imo.

He ran drafts in Seattle too. Shawn Alexander, Marcus Trufant, Darrell Jackson, and Ken Hamlin were all guys Thompson had drafted.

I mentioned this in another thread. Shawn Alexander was NFL MVP the year Seattle went to the Super Bowl, and Aaron Rodgers put up MVP type numbers this year (If you buy into Peyton Manning winning MVP this year anyway). Those were both first round selections. I'd say he's had plenty of success early on. One bad Harrell pick does not amount to an overall poor record early in drafts.

Shawn Alexander was great. Traufant was great. Jackson and Hamlin are just guys. They have floated around to several different teams now. I wanted Hamlin in FA but I'm glad we did not opt to go that route.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

Rodgers is no where near a pro bowler

LOL

Pro Bowl QB (Eli) = 60.3 %, 3238 yards, 6.8 yards/attempt, 21 TDs, 10 interceptions, 86.4 rating

Rodgers = 63.6 %, 4038 yards, 7.5 yards/attempt, 28 TDs, 13 interceptions, 93.8 rating

I guess we only look at win/loss record because stats are meaningless. Thus, Drew Brees is an avergae QB.

Not the thread for this. I won't discuss it any further in this thread. We all know that you're a homer and where you stand. NFL scouts support my opinion. It seems only homers around here support yours. Anyway, its not the time or the place. I don't really care one way or another about Aaron. He's played ok. I could bring up his 4th quarter quarterback rating, but again, you'll blabber on and on about how he is so good, and got the team in position to win in the 4th quarter despite only scoring 3-6 points in the second half :lol: With that said, I am requesting not to further this discussion in this thread as not to detract from the topic at hand.

You know Partial, pride is a sin. Failing to acknowledge it can be an even bigger one. Not acknowledging the fact Rodgers is a pro-bowl caliber QB statistics wise is either prideful or ignorant. Since the quarterback has such a direct influence on how the defense and special teams play that puts him out of the running for pro bowl consideration. :lol:

[Partial]

There isn't anything to admit. He didn't make the pro bowl, therefore he is not a pro bowl quarterback. He didn't deserve to make the pro bowl, or he would be there.

This has been beaten into the dirt. There isn't any sense in going over it again. Clearly my opinion differs from the vast majority here, so I guess we'll agree to disagree.

[Gunakor]

TT is an excellent drafter.

TT has been an OK drafter. He has done well in later rounds and had less success early on. Too soon to tell imo.

He ran drafts in Seattle too. Shawn Alexander, Marcus Trufant, Darrell Jackson, and Ken Hamlin were all guys Thompson had drafted.

I mentioned this in another thread. Shawn Alexander was NFL MVP the year Seattle went to the Super Bowl, and Aaron Rodgers put up MVP type numbers this year (If you buy into Peyton Manning winning MVP this year anyway). Those were both first round selections. I'd say he's had plenty of success early on. One bad Harrell pick does not amount to an overall poor record early in drafts.

Shawn Alexander was great. Traufant was great. Jackson and Hamlin are just guys. They have floated around to several different teams now. I wanted Hamlin in FA but I'm glad we did not opt to go that route.

Jackson was very good for awhile. He spent I believe it was 9 years in Seattle before going to San Fransisco. He was their go to guy for a long time, not some journeyman that bounces around the league year to year.

Hamlin is very good too. He's no journeyman either, he's only with his second team. And last year he earned a Pro Bowl selection with the Cowboys. In July of last year, he signed a 6 year contract extension with the Cowboys, so he's not going anywhere soon. He's not the greatest safety in the league, but he's still very, very good.

[Gunakor]

There isn't anything to admit. He didn't make the pro bowl, therefore he is not a pro bowl quarterback. He didn't deserve to make the pro bowl, or he would be there.

This has been beaten into the dirt. There isn't any sense in going over it again. Clearly my opinion differs from the vast majority here, so I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Cmon P. There's guys who deserve to go every year that don't make it - how long was it before Fred Taylor made it (as an alternate)?

There's also guys who DO make it that don't deserve to go every year.

The argument "he wasn't selected so he doesn't deserve to be there" doesn't hold any water whatsoever.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Jackson and Hamlin are just guys.

I'd say any GM would be THRILLED to draft a guy in the 3rd round who gives them this kind of production.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5109/career;_ylt=AkIPfZEnRppWXmTZEHUGm_r.uLYF

I'd say any GM would be THRILLED to draft a guy in the 2nd round who turned out to be a long-time starter and a Pro Bowler (2007).

Ridiculous statement. When you draft a long-time, solid starter after the 1st round, that's a good pick.

[HarveyWallbangers]

There isn't anything to admit. He didn't make the pro bowl, therefore he is not a pro bowl quarterback. He didn't deserve to make the pro bowl, or he would be there.

He said a Pro Bowler (or close). Thus, you can't change the argument to try to fit your viewpoint.

[Partial]

Jackson and Hamlin are just guys.

I'd say any GM would be THRILLED to draft a guy in the 3rd round who gives them this kind of production.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/players/5109/career;_ylt=AkIPfZEnRppWXmTZEHUGm_r.uLYF

I'd say any GM would be THRILLED to draft a guy in the 2nd round who turned out to be a long-time starter and a Pro Bowler (2007).

Ridiculous statement. When you draft a long-time, solid starter after the 1st round, that's a good pick.

Jackson was good for a few years. He has better stats than I thought. That is a pretty good pick in round 3.

Hamlin is still just a guy imo. I don't like him as a player very much because he is a liability in coverage. I think his pro bowl berth last year was the result of a ton of talent around him. How many 'boys made the bowl last year? Furthermore, he was the 42nd pick. He's expected to contribute. He's been an OK pick. Remember, Seattle let him walk and replaced him with the Jags safety. They clearly didn't think too highly of him. They got two years of pretty good service out of him, and let him walk after his rookie year contract was up. That's not a very good pick imo.

[Fritz]

I'd rather have Ted drafting for the Packers than any other GM out there, excepting maybe the Pioli/Belichik combo.

I think the draft is the guy's strong suit. And if he can land another FA or two worth their salt, and manage to re-up Collins and Jennings, this team is in good shape, I think, for awhile.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Both were very good picks.

Here were the 10 players drafted after Hamlin:


43 Pisa Tinoisamoa OLB Hawaii St. Louis Rams
44 Taylor Jacobs WR Florida Washington Redskins
45 Bethel Johnson WR Texas A&M New England Patriots
46 Drayton Florence CB Tuskegee San Diego Chargers
47 Kawika Mitchell MLB South Florida Kansas City Chiefs
48 Chris Kelsay DE Nebraska Buffalo Bills
49 Eddie Moore LB Tennessee Miami Dolphins
50 Bruce Nelson C Iowa Carolina Panthers
51 Terry Pierce LB Kansas State Denver Broncos
52 Chaun Thompson LB West Texas A&M Cleveland Browns

[HarveyWallbangers]

Here were the 10 guys drafted after Darrell Jackson:


81 Reuben Droughns RB Oregon Detroit Lions
82 Leander Jordan G Indiana (PA) Carolina Panthers
83 Damion McIntosh T Kansas State San Diego Chargers
84 Ben Kelly CB Colorado Miami Dolphins
85 Greg Wesley SS Arkansas-Pine Bluff Kansas City Chiefs
86 Jeff Ulbrich LB Hawaii San Francisco 49ers
87 Dustin Lyman TE Wake Forest Chicago Bears
88 Doug Chapman RB Marshall Minnesota Vikings
89 Corey Moore OLB Virginia Tech Buffalo Bills
90 Nate Webster LB Miami (Fla.) Tampa Bay Buccaneers

[Partial]

I'd rather have Ted drafting for the Packers than any other GM out there, excepting maybe the Pioli/Belichik combo.

I think the draft is the guy's strong suit. And if he can land another FA or two worth their salt, and manage to re-up Collins and Jennings, this team is in good shape, I think, for awhile.

It's his strong suit no doubt. He's very skilled at it as a whole. I'm just sort of burned on our two top picks that should be playmakers are turning into colossal busts.

He needs to hit on a true 100% superstar. The guy that comes to mind is a Tommie Harris or an Urlacher. Both are genuine superstars. I don't think that we have a guy that is the best at his position in the league(in his prime).

We did with Favre. That works out remarkably well and your team will be very good for a LONG time when you achieve this at QB. I'll settle for any position!

Chuck might be the best in the league, and he has been lights out. I just wish he was 22 instead of 32 :D

[TennesseePackerBacker]

We'll agree to disagree, and you're right, we don't have one bonafide superstar anymore. In my personal opinion we'll go with a playmaker with one of our top 3 picks. The offense is good and I don't see too many problems with it other than upgrading the offensive line, but we NEED NEED NEED an explosive playmaker. I thought Jennings was the guy but whether it was injuries or defensive scheming against him he just didn't produce in the spotlight.

[Gunakor]

I'd rather have Ted drafting for the Packers than any other GM out there, excepting maybe the Pioli/Belichik combo.

I think the draft is the guy's strong suit. And if he can land another FA or two worth their salt, and manage to re-up Collins and Jennings, this team is in good shape, I think, for awhile.

It's his strong suit no doubt. He's very skilled at it as a whole. I'm just sort of burned on our two top picks that should be playmakers are turning into colossal busts.

He needs to hit on a true 100% superstar. The guy that comes to mind is a Tommie Harris or an Urlacher. Both are genuine superstars. I don't think that we have a guy that is the best at his position in the league(in his prime).

We did with Favre. That works out remarkably well and your team will be very good for a LONG time when you achieve this at QB. I'll settle for any position!

Chuck might be the best in the league, and he has been lights out. I just wish he was 22 instead of 32 :D

Oh I absolutely agree with some of what you say here Partial. Yet it has been proven that teams have won SB's without a player on their roster who is unquestionably the best at his position in the entire league. The Giants from last year, for example. They had a roster full of very good players, and a few elite ones, but nobody on that roster was the best at their respective position. The whole was greater than the sum of it's parts. That works too.

We as fans don't have to become so greedy as to demand of our GM a player who is the very best at his position. All we should expect is a team that stays competitive with the very best teams in the league. Even with a 6-10 record this year, I don't think we are too far away - we beat a couple of playoff teams this year, and took a couple others (2 teams that had earned first round byes, by the way) right down to the wire. All without a single player on our roster who could honestly say he's the very best in the NFL at what he does.

And I agree about Woodson too, but, it doesn't make sense to complain about our veteran stars if we are complaining about the youth movement at the same time. If Woodson was 22 rather than 32, yet made the exact same contribution to the team that he has this year, people would still bitch about our team being too young. No veteran leadership. FFS TT, why don't you bring in a 29/30/31 year old with experience! That's what people would say. So while I wish he was a bit younger too, I'm not going to bitch about it. Besides, he still plays like he's 25 anyway, so there's not a whole lot to complain about in the first place.

And, to be honest, only one of our top 3 picks have turned out to be busts. Our 3 highest picks during the TT era have been Aaron Rodgers (#24 overall), AJ Hawk (#5) and Justin Harrell (#16). Harrell is getting close to being labelled a bust, but I'll give him one more year to prove me wrong. Hawk is no bust - perhaps not as great as #5 overall would suggest, but certainly no bust either. Rodgers... You have a point in his late, late game performances, but regardless, 4k yards with a 2:1 TD to INT ratio? Not a bust, not even close. The only other guy to put up numbers like that in his first year starting was 2 time MVP Kurt Warner.

So assuming you call Harrell one of the top 2 picks who have become big time busts, who is the other one you were thinking of?

[Lurker64]

There isn't anything to admit. He didn't make the pro bowl, therefore he is not a pro bowl quarterback. He didn't deserve to make the pro bowl, or he would be there.

This is an odd line of reasoning. You claim essentially that since Rodgers did not make the pro bowl he is not a "pro bowl quarterback" and hence not a particularly good one. Yet for this to make sense, the pro bowl would have to accurately represent which players are the best at their positions, and I've never seen any evidence that this is true. Regularly, the pro-bowl elects the players who are most popular at their positions, and I would agree with you that Rodgers is insufficiently popular to win the popularity contest that is "being elected to the pro bowl." But seriously, Mike Alstott was elected to the pro bowl six times at a position he didn't even play because he was a very large guy who ran with the ball and scored more TDs than other people his size, so he was clearly the "best" fullback. Because Alstott was on sportscenter regularly seeing him run for TDs, guys who were actually better FBs who did the dirty unglamorous work of the fullback like William Henderson and Mack Strong were regularly passed up. So no, the best players don't make the pro-bowl. The most popular players do, and there's a significant bias for the big market teams, as well.

So since Rodgers cannot yet win a popularity contest in his first year, he's not particularly good? Alternatively, are you just paying way more attention to the pro bowl than it deserves.

I mean, hell, Drew Brees didn't make the pro bowl this year. Do you really think that the Pro Bowl with any reliability selects the players who are having the best years at their positions? No QB had a better year than Drew Brees this year.