PDA

View Full Version : You don't run Mickey Mouse out of Disneyland....



CaptainKickass
07-21-2009, 03:00 PM
Interesting opinion piece that seems to support or at least regurgitate some of the same thoughts about TT on this board. Plus - I have to admit I haven't seen the humorous Brett Favre = Mickey Mouse metaphor as of yet.

From Here:

http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2009/07/20/local_sports/doc4a65274014c63102456575.txt



PETER JACKEL: Thompson needs a big season
BY PETER JACKEL
pjackel@journaltimes.com
Monday, July 20, 2009 9:56 PM CDT


As we breathlessly await a puff of smoke to be emitted from the Metrodome a week from today to herald the return of Brett Favre (will a marching band clad in purple and gold enhance the moment with a rendition of “Gonna Fly Now?”), I just wonder what Ted Thompson is thinking.

My guess is that the Green Bay Packers’ much maligned general manager will be too consumed with the business at hand to give our favorite drama queen a second thought.

Nevertheless, heat will not be necessary for his Lambeau Field office even when Green Bay’s weather digs in its heels this winter if these Packers fail in this most crucial of seasons. And if Favre’s Minnesota Vikings set sail while these Packers plunge into the depths — and no one can rule out that set of circumstances — Thompson might want to consider leaving Green Bay under the cover of darkness.

And that’s really too bad. Not too much mystifies me after so many years in this business, but this utter contempt for Thompson from so many quarters sure does.

I recall listening to a Packers call-in show last September when the Favre soap opera was at its zenith. After one woman called to say, “Thompson has to go for what he did to Brett!,” the radio host patiently explained that Thompson made a reasonable business decision based on Favre’s advancing age and his heightening flair for the annual offseason dramatics.

And what was this women’s response? “Well, you just don’t run Mickey Mouse out of Disneyland!”

Okaaaaay, now that we have that settled ...

In Thompson’s case, I prefer to deal with facts and not emotional issues, the likes of which have no place in the cold reality of the National Football League. And from where I sit, the facts simply don’t support that Thompson is lacking as a general manager.

When he was hired to replace Mike Sherman — the Scooter McLean of Packers general managers — in January 2005, he inherited a team with a talent base that had been eroded to a sliver of soap by Sherman’s disastrous personnel decisions. And when the Packers were forced to field the remnants of Sherman’s failed vision in 2005 — dare I remind you of Mark Roman, Ahmad Carroll, Robert Thomas, Paris Lenon, Robert Ferguson and B.J. Sander? — they skidded to a 4-12 record.

Since Thompson had the opportunity to bulldoze away that rubble, the Packers have gone 27-20 and advanced to the NFC championship game in January 2008. On that Packers team, incidentally, 12 starters and 32 of 45 players active in the championship game against the eventual Super Bowl champion New York Giants were acquired under Thompson’s watch.

As the Packers prepare to get down to business for this season, they will led by Aaron Rodgers, only the second quarterback in NFL history to pass for more than 4,000 yards in his first season as a starter. And they will be stocked with other Thompson-acquired difference makers the likes of Greg Jennings, Nick Collins, Tramon Williams, Charles Woodson, Ryan Grant and a quality haul of rookies led by B.J. Raji and Clay Matthews Jr.

So what’s the problem?

That Thompson has seemingly wasted high draft picks on Justin Harrell (can we really write this man off after just two years?) and A.J. Hawk (who just might flourish in the Packers’ new 3-4 defense)?

That the Packers collapsed last season after losing three crucial defensive players to injury (and, no, I won’t conveniently neglect to mention that two of these players, Cullen Jenkins and Nick Barnett, were acquired by Sherman)?

That Thompson is somewhat clandestine and not nearly as personable as the great Ron Wolf?

That he hasn’t pulled a Daniel Snyder and thrown Monopoly money at the latest sensation on the free-agent market?

Or is it that he ran Mickey Mouse out of Disneyland?

So what would have happened if Mickey Mouse would have been allowed to stay in his magic kingdom last year? Jenkins and Barnett still would have been hurt. Favre’s arm would have still frayed, as it did during his one season with the New York Jets.

And Thompson would have been forced to either pin his hopes this year on a soon-to-be 40-year-old quarterback — after another offseason of melodramatics, that is — or what would have been a completely unproven Rodgers.

I will be the first to admit this season is crucial for Thompson. This will be his fifth season running the show and his team is in place.

With the personnel Thompson has acquired coupled with an easier schedule, I just can’t see these Packers not being in a mix with the elite this December.

And I’ll be the first to admit I was wrong.

Peter Jackel is a reporter for The Journal Times. You can reach him by calling (262) 634-3322, Ext. 323 or by e-mailing him at: peter.jackel@lee.net

woodbuck27
07-21-2009, 03:28 PM
'' So what would have happened if Mickey Mouse would have been allowed to stay in his magic kingdom last year? Jenkins and Barnett still would have been hurt. Favre’s arm would have still frayed, as it did during his one season with the New York Jets. '' Fr. article posted above.

I wonder if keeping Favre might have changed alot of things for the positive?

The question:

Can't one change dictate a whole different picture or serios of events to take place? There is a good discussion and I wonder what the likes of Patler and pbmax might contribute on that question?

hoosier
07-21-2009, 04:19 PM
'' So what would have happened if Mickey Mouse would have been allowed to stay in his magic kingdom last year? Jenkins and Barnett still would have been hurt. Favre’s arm would have still frayed, as it did during his one season with the New York Jets. '' Fr. article posted above.

I wonder if keeping Favre might have changed alot of things for the positive?

The question:

Can't one change dictate a whole different picture or serios of events to take place? There is a good discussion and I wonder what the likes of Patler and pbmax might contribute on that question?

I think you can speculate just as well as anyone about whether having Favre in GB last year would have created a new set of circumstances in which Grant, Jenkins and Barnett don't get hurt.

Packnut
07-21-2009, 04:30 PM
Way to much dwelling on Favre, Thompson and the past both around here and in the media. It serves no purpose except for writers to re-hash the same things over and over which really requires little talent.

I really could care less about it. I really wish we would see more stories about how good this offense can be IF some things fall into place. Or how our D has no where to go but up after hitting rock bottom last season.

There are way to many positve things to hope for.......... :wink:

woodbuck27
07-21-2009, 04:43 PM
Way to much dwelling on Favre, Thompson and the past both around here and in the media. It serves no purpose except for writers to re-hash the same things over and over which really requires little talent.

I really could care less about it. I really wish we would see more stories about how good this offense can be IF some things fall into place. Or how our D has no where to go but up after hitting rock bottom last season.

There are way to many positve things to hope for.......... :wink:

Yes. Forward thinking and with the times. Hurt and bad feelings are for weak people.

sharpe1027
07-21-2009, 05:15 PM
What if there are strong indications that Mickey Mouse is pissed off at Walter Disney's replacement and has every intention of leaving for Warner Brothers? :twisted:

Freak Out
07-21-2009, 05:59 PM
Has the teacup ride been setup in the north end zone yet?

ND72
07-21-2009, 09:04 PM
actually, last week on my honeymoon at Walt Disney World, we almost did run Mickey out of town....Minnie wasn't too happy she didn't have a ring on her finger, and she let Mickey know...as my wife & I were standing watching.

maybe you had to be there, but it was funny.

DonHutson
07-21-2009, 09:27 PM
People go to Disney World for thrills and fond memories, not some dude in an outfit.

Me personally, I say the same goes for Lambeau Field.

MJZiggy
07-21-2009, 09:42 PM
Well played... :)

PlantPage55
07-21-2009, 09:45 PM
Michael Eisner has been trying to force Mickey out ever since he was hired!

Fritz
07-22-2009, 10:48 AM
People go to Disney World for thrills and fond memories, not some dude in an outfit.

Me personally, I say the same goes for Lambeau Field.

Ah, but if there were not dudes in outfits, there'd be no Disney. Or Lambeau.

It's more a question as to whether Disney could get by if they were led by the young, up-and-coming characters like Wall-E or Shrek.

ThunderDan
07-22-2009, 10:56 AM
People go to Disney World for thrills and fond memories, not some dude in an outfit.

Me personally, I say the same goes for Lambeau Field.

Ah, but if there were not dudes in outfits, there'd be no Disney. Or Lambeau.

It's more a question as to whether Disney could get by if they were led by the young, up-and-coming characters like Wall-E or Shrek.

Shrek's at DreamWorks not Pixar.

Pugger
07-22-2009, 12:42 PM
What if there are strong indications that Mickey Mouse is pissed off at Walter Disney's replacement and has every intention of leaving for Warner Brothers? :twisted:

sharpe1027 might have hit upon the truth here. I truly believe Mickey wanted to leave Disney World/Land ever since Walt hired MM!!

Fritz
07-22-2009, 11:13 PM
People go to Disney World for thrills and fond memories, not some dude in an outfit.

Me personally, I say the same goes for Lambeau Field.

Ah, but if there were not dudes in outfits, there'd be no Disney. Or Lambeau.

It's more a question as to whether Disney could get by if they were led by the young, up-and-coming characters like Wall-E or Shrek.

Shrek's at DreamWorks not Pixar.

Well Dammit if Daniel Snyder owned Pixar he'd trade for Shrek!

mraynrand
07-23-2009, 07:00 AM
I don't know about the whole Mickey/Disneyland analogy for Favre and the Packers, but The Viking coaching staff kinda reminds me of the Apple Dumpling Gang.