Thompson coming up short on top picks

[Partial]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090819/PKR07/90819167/1058/PKR01/Thompson-coming-up-short-with-top-picks&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL

[Partial]

I don't really agree with this.

Hawk has been a solid starter, just not as good as a top 5 player should be.

Harrell is a walking injury.

Brohm is a QB, QBs take time.

Lee is starting a second year in a new system behind two premiere corners.

Jackson played behind one of the best runners in the game in 2007 and that guy obviously got the go ahead in 2008, but Jackson looked good in limited opportunities.

Rodgers looks much improved in year two as a starter and looks like he'll be a top 10 QB.

Jennings is a top 10 wideout.

Collins is a top safety in the NFL.

Jordy Nelson would be a #3 worst case scenario on most teams, a #2 on some. It takes receivers a while.

[Bossman641]

He lost me when he pointed to Forte and Williams as signs of the Bears' superior drafting.

Forte - OK
Williams missed all last year and hasn't proved a thing

[Partial]

He lost me when he pointed to Forte and Williams as signs of the Bears' superior drafting.

Forte - OK
Williams missed all last year and hasn't proved a thing

Forte is pretty damn good. I'd take him over any RB in the division accept for AP obviously.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think it's fair to say that the top of Thompson's drafts in 2007 and 2008 look like they'll be below average, but the story seems to be a reach.

1) He was good at the top of the draft in 2005 and 2006 and has potential to have a big bounce back in 2009.
2) I never understood why you'd just analyze the top picks. I think you need to look at the entirety of the draft. On those accounts, it's too early to judge 2007 and 2008. I'd say 2008 might not look so bad in a few years when you look at Finley, Thompson, Sitton, Flynn, Giacomini to go along with Nelson. It's too early to write off Lee, Brohm, and even Swain. Heck, 2007 might not even look so bad down the line with Jackson, Jones, Rouse, Barbre, Bishop, Crosby, and Wynn.

If you judged a GM on his top picks, Ron Wolf would have been the worst GM ever.

[HarveyWallbangers]

He lost me when he pointed to Forte and Williams as signs of the Bears' superior drafting.

Forte - OK
Williams missed all last year and hasn't proved a thing

Forte is pretty damn good. I'd take him over any RB in the division accept for AP obviously.

I don't think he was saying Forte is just OK. He's saying OK he can agree that Forte was a good pick.

[Jimx29]

One just has to look at tt's record of bringing super bowl wins to the teams he's ran. I mean just look at Seattle's ______ super bowl wins and now all the playoff appearances/super bowl wins he's brought to GB in the 4+ years he's fail....erm... been here.

[pbmax]

The Numb List of Qualified GMs:

1. Bill Belicheck
2. Scott Pioli
3. Jerry Reese
4. John Gruden
5. Ozzie Newsome
6. Charley Armey
7. Ron Wolf
8. Kevin Colbert

I look forward to Chucky being elevated to GM and receive the Numb Seal of Substituting Cause for Effect. This award was previously known as Tank's Confusion on Correlation Versus Causation.

[HarveyWallbangers]

One just has to look at tt's record of bringing super bowl wins to the teams he's ran. I mean just look at Seattle's ______ super bowl wins and now all the playoff appearances/super bowl wins he's brought to GB in the 4+ years he's fail....erm... been here.

Seattle went to the Super Bowl mostly with the talent that Thompson brought in. Green Bay was an errant Brett Favre pass from making the Super Bowl.

[Partial]

One just has to look at tt's record of bringing super bowl wins to the teams he's ran. I mean just look at Seattle's ______ super bowl wins and now all the playoff appearances/super bowl wins he's brought to GB in the 4+ years he's fail....erm... been here.

Seattle went to the Super Bowl mostly with the talent that Thompson brought in. Green Bay was an errant Brett Favre pass from making the Super Bowl.

Both of you two weiners knock it off with the bullshit propaganda. You both know what your saying is complete and utter bullshit, so just stop. K?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Both of you two weiners knock it off with the bullshit propaganda. You both know what your saying is complete and utter bullshit, so just stop. K?

I'd appreciate it if you didn't reply to my posts, K?

[Partial]

Both of you two weiners knock it off with the bullshit propaganda. You both know what your saying is complete and utter bullshit, so just stop. K?

I'd appreciate it if you didn't reply to my posts, K?

Hey, I'm not the one posting asinine things and thread crapping, now am I. As you can see, my response was fair. Yours and the other guys are both off topic and assbag-esque.

[Lurker64]

Really, I like to hold firm to the "don't grade a draft until it's three years old". So if last year's draft and the one from the year before that look substandard, wait a year or two to be sure.

So far the top of 2005 looks good: (Rodgers and Collins, lost Murphy to an injury nobody could have predicted, but he looked good up until this point)

The top of 2006 looks good: (Hawk is solid, if unspectacular, Jennings is a bonafide superstar in the making, and Colledge is our best offensive lineman).

2007? 2008? Early signs aren't promising but who knows?

This also raises the question of "how many picks does a GM need to hit on, for a given draft to be considered a success." Since the vast majority of draft picks aren't going to work out for the teams that drafted them, the answer has to be something like "you're happy with one potential star, one solid starter, and a couple of role players" right?

[HarveyWallbangers]

This also raises the question of "how many picks does a GM need to hit on, for a given draft to be considered a success." Since the vast majority of draft picks aren't going to work out for the teams that drafted them, the answer has to be something like "you're happy with one potential star, one solid starter, and a couple of role players" right?

Ron Wolf used to saya draft was solid if you got three starters--I'm assuming three solid starters. It also depends on draft position.

[Patler]

Sure he missed on a couple, but it looks like he hit on the one that mattered most, Aaron Rodgers. To go from a future hall of famer one year to a young QB first year starter who passes for 4,000+ yards, 28 TDs and 13 ints is worth more than a single "hit" on a draft pick evaluation. If Rodgers continues with those types of performances, Thompson will have been successful in his most crucial player acquisition. To have stability at QB is extremely important for franchise success.

Even if Cutler works out for the Bears, it cost two first round picks to get him.

[Lurker64]

Ron Wolf used to saya draft was solid if you got three starters--I'm assuming three solid starters. It also depends on draft position.

Which is interesting, especially when you look at this year's draft. Certainly Raji and Matthews are being groomed to be starters at key positions, and T.J. Lang and Quinn Johnson are likely to compete for starting roles down the line, and by many accounts Meredith was a 2nd round talent taken in the 5th who has NFL LT skills and physical ability. So it's not entirely implausible to say that we might end up with FIVE starters from the 2009 draft. Does that excuse a couple of bad ones before?

I also think that when grading a draft, if you do land on a truly great player, it doesn't really matter what you did anywhere else, it was a good draft. Who cares whether or not Hawk is as dominant as we hoped, he's a good player and Greg Jennings is one of the NFL elite at his position. Who cares whether Sidney Rice, Marcus McCauley, and Brian Robison are any good, the 2007 draft was a success for the Vikings because they got Adrian Peterson; if they had stopped there, that one would have been a resounding success in retrospect.

[packerbacker1234]

We have flopped with top picks lately. People forget rodgers was selected like, 5 years ago.

Harrel is a complete bust, brohm is disapointing (being beaten out by a QB picked much later), AJ Hawk hasn't been impressive. He's been... ok, at best. Not worth a top 5 pick.

BJ Raji looks like a stud, but base don our recent history I'll hold.

[Patler]

I just read the article again, and the premise is really kind of dumb. The title implies an indictment of TT's overall work in early rounds; yet it acknowledges that TT did well in 2005 and 2006. It ignores 2009, for the most part. It is an analysis of an injured 1st rounder, and four second rounders, two of which (Lee and Brohm) were not intended or expected to be early contributors.

2005 - Rodger, Collins Murphy. No real misses there. Murphy's injury came out of no where. Rogers could turn out to be a very big "hit" for TT.

2006 - Hawk, Colledge, Jennings. Three starters, one emerging star. Could he have done better than Hawk? Sure, but Hawk filled a huge need on the team at the time and has been a starter from day 1.

2007 - Harrell, Jackson. Harrell counts as a miss. The injury history was known. Thompson took a chance (which I agree with) and came up short, so far. Jackson is a contributor, but not a big one. How much TT failed in this draft really depends on who else was taken in those rounds. Who could he have taken? Not guys who came from no where, but the guys with 1st and 2nd round grades that were available for Thompson. If the article had addressed that question, it would have more value, in my opinion.

2008 - Nelson, Brohm, Lee - Kind of early to judge this, but again the real question is who else was available with 1st or 2nd round grades? Should he have traded out of the first round? In essence, his first round pick that year along with his fifth round pick were used for Jordy Nelson and Jeremy Thompson. Nelson seems like an OK pick. Thompson is an unknown so far. Neither Brohm nor Lee were expected to contribute yet, and haven't.

2009 - Raji, Mathews. Who knows? Expected to be two starters as rookies. If Mathews is a "miss" eventually, it bears a bigger value because he cost multiple picks to get.

Looking at the list, I would like to see more out of 2006 and 2007; but I can't say that his overall performance is bad.

[SkinBasket]

Both of you two weiners knock it off with the bullshit propaganda. You both know what your saying is complete and utter bullshit, so just stop. K?

I'd appreciate it if you didn't reply to my posts, K?

Hey, I'm not the one posting asinine things and thread crapping, now am I. As you can see, my response was fair. Yours and the other guys are both off topic and assbag-esque.

Partial, your lame insult of two posters was a bigger reach than anything in this article. They were both talking about Thompson. What the fuck other direction do you think a thread about Thompson was going to take? Chill the fuck out.


As far as the article, I agree with Wallbanger. You judge a draft in it's entirety unless the team is in financial trouble due to big rookie contracts paid out to failed picks.

There's been a lot of injury involved in those picks. A few could have been foreseen but the upside was there. Others are just bad luck. I would think it takes a trip to the playoffs to keep Ted's job safe this season though. I have no idea who you replace him with who would be clearly better, but change for the sake of change seems to be the industry standard these days.

[sheepshead]

:beat: :beat: :beat:

Come on.

[PackerTimer]

I just read the article again, and the premise is really kind of dumb. The title implies an indictment of TT's overall work in early rounds; yet it acknowledges that TT did well in 2005 and 2006. It ignores 2009, for the most part. It is an analysis of an injured 1st rounder, and four second rounders, two of which (Lee and Brohm) were not intended or expected to be early contributors.

2005 - Rodger, Collins Murphy. No real misses there. Murphy's injury came out of no where. Rogers could turn out to be a very big "hit" for TT.

2006 - Hawk, Colledge, Jennings. Three starters, one emerging star. Could he have done better than Hawk? Sure, but Hawk filled a huge need on the team at the time and has been a starter from day 1.

2007 - Harrell, Jackson. Harrell counts as a miss. The injury history was known. Thompson took a chance (which I agree with) and came up short, so far. Jackson is a contributor, but not a big one. How much TT failed in this draft really depends on who else was taken in those rounds. Who could he have taken? Not guys who came from no where, but the guys with 1st and 2nd round grades that were available for Thompson. If the article had addressed that question, it would have more value, in my opinion.

2008 - Nelson, Brohm, Lee - Kind of early to judge this, but again the real question is who else was available with 1st or 2nd round grades? Should he have traded out of the first round? In essence, his first round pick that year along with his fifth round pick were used for Jordy Nelson and Jeremy Thompson. Nelson seems like an OK pick. Thompson is an unknown so far. Neither Brohm nor Lee were expected to contribute yet, and haven't.

2009 - Raji, Mathews. Who knows? Expected to be two starters as rookies. If Mathews is a "miss" eventually, it bears a bigger value because he cost multiple picks to get.

Looking at the list, I would like to see more out of 2006 and 2007; but I can't say that his overall performance is bad.

As usual Patler's analysis is better than those who get paid to do it.

[Deputy Nutz]

One just has to look at tt's record of bringing super bowl wins to the teams he's ran. I mean just look at Seattle's ______ super bowl wins and now all the playoff appearances/super bowl wins he's brought to GB in the 4+ years he's fail....erm... been here.

Seattle went to the Super Bowl mostly with the talent that Thompson brought in. Green Bay was an errant Brett Favre pass from making the Super Bowl.

Really??? Just one Favre pass? I gues you just watched overtime of the championship game. Being such a big Packer fan, and a football fan I would have expected you to watch the whole NFC Championship game of 2007.

[Deputy Nutz]

I just read the article again, and the premise is really kind of dumb. The title implies an indictment of TT's overall work in early rounds; yet it acknowledges that TT did well in 2005 and 2006. It ignores 2009, for the most part. It is an analysis of an injured 1st rounder, and four second rounders, two of which (Lee and Brohm) were not intended or expected to be early contributors.

2005 - Rodger, Collins Murphy. No real misses there. Murphy's injury came out of no where. Rogers could turn out to be a very big "hit" for TT.

2006 - Hawk, Colledge, Jennings. Three starters, one emerging star. Could he have done better than Hawk? Sure, but Hawk filled a huge need on the team at the time and has been a starter from day 1.

2007 - Harrell, Jackson. Harrell counts as a miss. The injury history was known. Thompson took a chance (which I agree with) and came up short, so far. Jackson is a contributor, but not a big one. How much TT failed in this draft really depends on who else was taken in those rounds. Who could he have taken? Not guys who came from no where, but the guys with 1st and 2nd round grades that were available for Thompson. If the article had addressed that question, it would have more value, in my opinion.

2008 - Nelson, Brohm, Lee - Kind of early to judge this, but again the real question is who else was available with 1st or 2nd round grades? Should he have traded out of the first round? In essence, his first round pick that year along with his fifth round pick were used for Jordy Nelson and Jeremy Thompson. Nelson seems like an OK pick. Thompson is an unknown so far. Neither Brohm nor Lee were expected to contribute yet, and haven't.

2009 - Raji, Mathews. Who knows? Expected to be two starters as rookies. If Mathews is a "miss" eventually, it bears a bigger value because he cost multiple picks to get.

Looking at the list, I would like to see more out of 2006 and 2007; but I can't say that his overall performance is bad.

As usual Patler's analysis is better than those who get paid to do it.

The one thing that I disagree with is that Murphy had a predisposed spinal condition that I believe was brought to the GM's attention at the Combine of that year.

[Partial]

Ron Wolf used to saya draft was solid if you got three starters--I'm assuming three solid starters. It also depends on draft position.

Which is interesting, especially when you look at this year's draft. Certainly Raji and Matthews are being groomed to be starters at key positions, and T.J. Lang and Quinn Johnson are likely to compete for starting roles down the line, and by many accounts Meredith was a 2nd round talent taken in the 5th who has NFL LT skills and physical ability. So it's not entirely implausible to say that we might end up with FIVE starters from the 2009 draft. Does that excuse a couple of bad ones before?

I also think that when grading a draft, if you do land on a truly great player, it doesn't really matter what you did anywhere else, it was a good draft. Who cares whether or not Hawk is as dominant as we hoped, he's a good player and Greg Jennings is one of the NFL elite at his position. Who cares whether Sidney Rice, Marcus McCauley, and Brian Robison are any good, the 2007 draft was a success for the Vikings because they got Adrian Peterson; if they had stopped there, that one would have been a resounding success in retrospect.

The Adrian Peterson point is good. Would you trade an entire draft to get an elite super star top 5 player in the NFL type talent?

[Deputy Nutz]

Ron Wolf used to saya draft was solid if you got three starters--I'm assuming three solid starters. It also depends on draft position.

Which is interesting, especially when you look at this year's draft. Certainly Raji and Matthews are being groomed to be starters at key positions, and T.J. Lang and Quinn Johnson are likely to compete for starting roles down the line, and by many accounts Meredith was a 2nd round talent taken in the 5th who has NFL LT skills and physical ability. So it's not entirely implausible to say that we might end up with FIVE starters from the 2009 draft. Does that excuse a couple of bad ones before?

I also think that when grading a draft, if you do land on a truly great player, it doesn't really matter what you did anywhere else, it was a good draft. Who cares whether or not Hawk is as dominant as we hoped, he's a good player and Greg Jennings is one of the NFL elite at his position. Who cares whether Sidney Rice, Marcus McCauley, and Brian Robison are any good, the 2007 draft was a success for the Vikings because they got Adrian Peterson; if they had stopped there, that one would have been a resounding success in retrospect.

The Adrian Peterson point is good. Would you trade an entire draft to get an elite super star top 5 player in the NFL type talent?

Well the Saints did if for Ricky Williams. It was probably a huge mistake because you are putting all of your chips into one player regardless of the talent of that player coming out of college you never know what type of pro they are going to turn out to be. Lots of people probably would have thought it a good idea to trade their entire draft for Reggie Bush. Doing something like that would really deplete your roster depth. I guess if the team had a big free agent spending spree, but still never a great idea.

[pbmax]

The one thing that I disagree with is that Murphy had a predisposed spinal condition that I believe was brought to the GM's attention at the Combine of that year.
Nutz, do you have a link for that? I know at this point its unlikely, but I don't remember reading Murphy having "stingers" in college or camp. And repeated stingers and loss of feeling/functionality in your arms are what usually triggers an MRI and the diagnosis (spinal stenosis). At least in the cases I recall.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Murphy's spine condition wasn't found out until after the injury per Packers.com

http://www.packers.com/news/stories/2007/06/05/1/

[Fritz]

Some of Ron Wolf's early rounders:

Antwan/Antoine/Antuan Edwards

John Michels

Derrick Mayes

Jamaal Reynolds

Robert Ferguson

He seemed to do better early on in his GM career, rather than later....

Therefore, Ron Wolf = Ted Thompson.

Or something.

[TheRaven]

A GM's drafting ability shouldn't be graded on his top picks. Everyone knows what a complete crapshoot the process is in the first round. There is so much hype on the wrong attributes that it can be difficult to wade through the BS.

The true value of a GM comes from finding the hidden value in those that others could not see. Sure, it can be classified as luck. But the best GMs find flawed players that match up well with their system and exploit their strengths.

[bobblehead]

I can't be bothered to judge a GM by his success in X rounds...Look at the body of work.

I was huge on TT's bandwagon as I like his approach to building a team. I have gotten off it slightly for a handful of reasons, but I still like his approach. We improved over 3 seasons as he rebuilt the roster, then took a big step back last year. His drafting on the defensive side SEEMS inadequate to me at this point. Nevermind where players were drafted, our defenses best players weren't procured by TT. Some of that is because he has focused more on offense, but some is that his guys haven't worked out.

Hopefully this will be the year of Tramon, Bigby and whoever else looks promising of "his" guys. Hopefully our kicker won't miss 2 makeable game winners. Hopefully there won't be phantom holding calls in clutch moments and mind reading ref's calling intentional grounding cuz they know what rodgers saw and what he didn't. I'm hoping for 11 wins, or I will be somewhat disappointed, but if we get 10 and win the north I will still be standing behind TT.

[Lurker64]

It's also important to realize that some drafts are simply bad, either all the way through or at certain "tiers" of players. Hawk may be slightly disappointing, but isn't he less disappointing when you realize that of the rest of the top 15 taken in this draft, only Mario Williams and Haloti Ngata have been resounding successes for the teams that took them? The flop with Harrell is somewhat lessened by the fact that when you look at the 2006 draft, you don't see a lot of names drafted after him that have made more impact than he has, particularly on the defensive line. I mean, is Harrell really a worse pick, as a player who is hurt a lot, but looks good when he plays, than someone like Jarvis Moss (the player the Broncos traded up for since they couldn't get Harrell), who the Broncos were recently shopping for a 7th round pick and got no takers?

[hoosier]

It's also important to realize that some drafts are simply bad, either all the way through or at certain "tiers" of players. Hawk may be slightly disappointing, but isn't he less disappointing when you realize that of the rest of the top 15 taken in this draft, only Mario Williams and Haloti Ngata have been resounding successes for the teams that took them? The flop with Harrell is somewhat lessened by the fact that when you look at the 2006 draft, you don't see a lot of names drafted after him that have made more impact than he has, particularly on the defensive line. I mean, is Harrell really a worse pick, as a player who is hurt a lot, but looks good when he plays, than someone like Jarvis Moss (the player the Broncos traded up for since they couldn't get Harrell), who the Broncos were recently shopping for a 7th round pick and got no takers?

Didn't Jarvis Moss recently walk out of the Broncos TC under the cloud of possible retirement? If that happens, at least the Broncos would get back a portion of his signing bonus. In that case, the Packers definitely got the worse end of the stick. :lol:

[Lurker64]

Didn't Jarvis Moss recently walk out of the Broncos TC under the cloud of possible retirement? If that happens, at least the Broncos would get back a portion of his signing bonus. In that case, the Packers definitely got the worse end of the stick. :lol:

He did, but he came back. I think he decided to just take the paycheck, even though he's woefully miscast in the Broncos defense and never showed anything in the NFL anyway.

[Pugger]

Isn't the problem with Harrell NOW his back, which he injured in the Packers' weight room?

[Scott Campbell]

A GM's drafting ability shouldn't be graded on his top picks. Everyone knows what a complete crapshoot the process is in the first round. There is so much hype on the wrong attributes that it can be difficult to wade through the BS.

The true value of a GM comes from finding the hidden value in those that others could not see. Sure, it can be classified as luck. But the best GMs find flawed players that match up well with their system and exploit their strengths.


I don't care how we get em - as long as we get em.

[MadtownPacker]

TT should just trade away all 1st, 3rd rounders for 2s and everything else. That is where he earns his money anyways. First round has been shit for him other than Rodgers and he doesnt get credit for that one because he had to pick him.

[Gunakor]

TT should just trade away all 1st, 3rd rounders for 2s and everything else. That is where he earns his money anyways. First round has been shit for him other than Rodgers and he doesnt get credit for that one because he had to pick him.

Don't we get an opportunity to evaluate Raji and Matthews before jumping to this conclusion?

[MadtownPacker]

TT should just trade away all 1st, 3rd rounders for 2s and everything else. That is where he earns his money anyways. First round has been shit for him other than Rodgers and he doesnt get credit for that one because he had to pick him.

Don't we get an opportunity to evaluate Raji and Matthews before jumping to this conclusion?Well Raji is looking good but the injury curse is already biting Matthews.

[Merlin]

Some of Ron Wolf's early rounders:

Antwan/Antoine/Antuan Edwards

John Michels

Derrick Mayes

Jamaal Reynolds

Robert Ferguson

He seemed to do better early on in his GM career, rather than later....

Therefore, Ron Wolf = Ted Thompson.

Or something.

Draft pick success aside, doesn't winning football games count for anything? Out of the last 3 GM's, Wolfe, Sherman, and Thompson, who has the better winning percent? He can hit on draft picks all day long (and has done a little better than average), but if that doesn't put up W's, then is he little better than a very good scout? Not trying to start anything here, but this comparison can go on all day long and Thompson is well short in the W column.

[Bossman641]

TT should just trade away all 1st, 3rd rounders for 2s and everything else. That is where he earns his money anyways. First round has been shit for him other than Rodgers and he doesnt get credit for that one because he had to pick him.

According to who? Did you forget the outrage how Rodgers was a wasted pick?

[Scott Campbell]

Draft pick success aside, doesn't winning football games count for anything? Out of the last 3 GM's, Wolfe, Sherman, and Thompson, who has the better winning percent? He can hit on draft picks all day long (and has done a little better than average), but if that doesn't put up W's, then is he little better than a very good scout? Not trying to start anything here, but this comparison can go on all day long and Thompson is well short in the W column.


It's a bottom line business, so you can't discount this logic. Time to win some games Ted.

On the bright side, I do like our roster - especially the depth.

[Partial]

All indications from today's practice are Hawk is now a two down player once Barny is back.

[MichiganPackerFan]

One just has to look at tt's record of bringing super bowl wins to the teams he's ran. I mean just look at Seattle's ______ super bowl wins and now all the playoff appearances/super bowl wins he's brought to GB in the 4+ years he's fail....erm... been here.

Seattle went to the Super Bowl mostly with the talent that Thompson brought in. Green Bay was an errant Brett Favre pass from making the Super Bowl.

Really??? Just one Favre pass? I gues you just watched overtime of the championship game. Being such a big Packer fan, and a football fan I would have expected you to watch the whole NFC Championship game of 2007.

Agreed. Favre would have never been in that position if McCarthy hadn't given up on the run.

[Patler]

One just has to look at tt's record of bringing super bowl wins to the teams he's ran. I mean just look at Seattle's ______ super bowl wins and now all the playoff appearances/super bowl wins he's brought to GB in the 4+ years he's fail....erm... been here.

Seattle went to the Super Bowl mostly with the talent that Thompson brought in. Green Bay was an errant Brett Favre pass from making the Super Bowl.

Really??? Just one Favre pass? I gues you just watched overtime of the championship game. Being such a big Packer fan, and a football fan I would have expected you to watch the whole NFC Championship game of 2007.

Agreed. Favre would have never been in that position if McCarthy hadn't given up on the run.

Let me preface my comment by saying I am not overly critical of the interception against the Giants. It wasn't a horribly bad decision, even if there were better options perhaps. It was just somewhat poorly thrown. That happens.

It's easy to make excuses for Favre; however, the decisive interception against the Giants came on 2nd and 8, the decisive interception against the Eagles came on 1st and 10. Hardly desperate situations. That has been one of my criticisms through out Favre's career, and my reply to the arguments of Favre just "trying to make a play". To me it is doubly foolish to make risky throws on early downs. If you are protective of possession, you will have another down, another opportunity. Particularly the interception against the Eagles was foolish; he just threw it up for grabs on 1st and 10. It doesn't matter that better decisions could have been made by the coach earlier in the game. Favre's interceptions was a colossal blunder at that stage of the game, on that down. Against the Giants on 2nd and 8, I would have preferred him trying to make a safer play than a long out route to a receiver that hadn't totally shaken coverage. The chance of a miscue on that is greater than on some of the other available options.

QBs are paid the big bucks to make good decisions and good plays in critical situations. In some of the biggest situations, Favre has often come up short in the decision making part of the equation even when his playmaking ability bails him out, let alone those times when it has not. I guess that's what makes him entertaining.

[ThunderDan]

All indications from today's practice are Hawk is now a two down player once Barny is back.

Where did you get that from???

[pbmax]

All indications from today's practice are Hawk is now a two down player once Barny is back.
Hawk has been a two down player without Barnett back full-time for the majority of the week. I think your prediction is safe. Chillar took his spot in nickel several times this week.

[bobblehead]

I just read the article again, and the premise is really kind of dumb. The title implies an indictment of TT's overall work in early rounds; yet it acknowledges that TT did well in 2005 and 2006. It ignores 2009, for the most part. It is an analysis of an injured 1st rounder, and four second rounders, two of which (Lee and Brohm) were not intended or expected to be early contributors.

2005 - Rodger, Collins Murphy. No real misses there. Murphy's injury came out of no where. Rogers could turn out to be a very big "hit" for TT.

2006 - Hawk, Colledge, Jennings. Three starters, one emerging star. Could he have done better than Hawk? Sure, but Hawk filled a huge need on the team at the time and has been a starter from day 1.

2007 - Harrell, Jackson. Harrell counts as a miss. The injury history was known. Thompson took a chance (which I agree with) and came up short, so far. Jackson is a contributor, but not a big one. How much TT failed in this draft really depends on who else was taken in those rounds. Who could he have taken? Not guys who came from no where, but the guys with 1st and 2nd round grades that were available for Thompson. If the article had addressed that question, it would have more value, in my opinion.

2008 - Nelson, Brohm, Lee - Kind of early to judge this, but again the real question is who else was available with 1st or 2nd round grades? Should he have traded out of the first round? In essence, his first round pick that year along with his fifth round pick were used for Jordy Nelson and Jeremy Thompson. Nelson seems like an OK pick. Thompson is an unknown so far. Neither Brohm nor Lee were expected to contribute yet, and haven't.

2009 - Raji, Mathews. Who knows? Expected to be two starters as rookies. If Mathews is a "miss" eventually, it bears a bigger value because he cost multiple picks to get.

Looking at the list, I would like to see more out of 2006 and 2007; but I can't say that his overall performance is bad.

As usual Patler's analysis is better than those who get paid to do it.

The one thing that I disagree with is that Murphy had a predisposed spinal condition that I believe was brought to the GM's attention at the Combine of that year.

Source please as I recall it differently that no one had a clue and he passed every physical at the combine with no red flags....obviously one of is letting his predisposed ideas taint his memory; if its me I'd like to know for sure.

[Scott Campbell]

I just read the article again, and the premise is really kind of dumb. The title implies an indictment of TT's overall work in early rounds; yet it acknowledges that TT did well in 2005 and 2006. It ignores 2009, for the most part. It is an analysis of an injured 1st rounder, and four second rounders, two of which (Lee and Brohm) were not intended or expected to be early contributors.

2005 - Rodger, Collins Murphy. No real misses there. Murphy's injury came out of no where. Rogers could turn out to be a very big "hit" for TT.

2006 - Hawk, Colledge, Jennings. Three starters, one emerging star. Could he have done better than Hawk? Sure, but Hawk filled a huge need on the team at the time and has been a starter from day 1.

2007 - Harrell, Jackson. Harrell counts as a miss. The injury history was known. Thompson took a chance (which I agree with) and came up short, so far. Jackson is a contributor, but not a big one. How much TT failed in this draft really depends on who else was taken in those rounds. Who could he have taken? Not guys who came from no where, but the guys with 1st and 2nd round grades that were available for Thompson. If the article had addressed that question, it would have more value, in my opinion.

2008 - Nelson, Brohm, Lee - Kind of early to judge this, but again the real question is who else was available with 1st or 2nd round grades? Should he have traded out of the first round? In essence, his first round pick that year along with his fifth round pick were used for Jordy Nelson and Jeremy Thompson. Nelson seems like an OK pick. Thompson is an unknown so far. Neither Brohm nor Lee were expected to contribute yet, and haven't.

2009 - Raji, Mathews. Who knows? Expected to be two starters as rookies. If Mathews is a "miss" eventually, it bears a bigger value because he cost multiple picks to get.

Looking at the list, I would like to see more out of 2006 and 2007; but I can't say that his overall performance is bad.

As usual Patler's analysis is better than those who get paid to do it.

The one thing that I disagree with is that Murphy had a predisposed spinal condition that I believe was brought to the GM's attention at the Combine of that year.

Source please as I recall it differently that no one had a clue and he passed every physical at the combine with no red flags....obviously one of is letting his predisposed ideas taint his memory; if its me I'd like to know for sure.


Agreed. My memory is that Murphy's condition was not diagnosed until after he was injured.

[bobblehead]

TT should just trade away all 1st, 3rd rounders for 2s and everything else. That is where he earns his money anyways. First round has been shit for him other than Rodgers and he doesnt get credit for that one because he had to pick him.

Again, my memory fails me. I thought that Sherman and Favre were against taking rodgers as they wanted someone to help now. i even recall most boards slamming him for not getting a player to "get us over the hump" as most fans are ALWAYS convinced their team is one player away and a backup rookie QB isn't that guy, but whoever kiper is pimping must be the next jerry rice.

I think TT is the only one who felt he "had" to take Rodgers.

[bobblehead]

One just has to look at tt's record of bringing super bowl wins to the teams he's ran. I mean just look at Seattle's ______ super bowl wins and now all the playoff appearances/super bowl wins he's brought to GB in the 4+ years he's fail....erm... been here.

Seattle went to the Super Bowl mostly with the talent that Thompson brought in. Green Bay was an errant Brett Favre pass from making the Super Bowl.

Really??? Just one Favre pass? I gues you just watched overtime of the championship game. Being such a big Packer fan, and a football fan I would have expected you to watch the whole NFC Championship game of 2007.

Agreed. Favre would have never been in that position if McCarthy hadn't given up on the run.

Yea, how could you give up on something that was working this well:

R. Grant 13 29 2.2 0 13

[MadtownPacker]

TT should just trade away all 1st, 3rd rounders for 2s and everything else. That is where he earns his money anyways. First round has been shit for him other than Rodgers and he doesnt get credit for that one because he had to pick him.

According to who? Did you forget the outrage how Rodgers was a wasted pick?According to me. As I watched the draft picks before him being selected and ARod falling I knew he was going to the Pack. It was by far the most logical pick for value and the long term. There was no way TT could pass on a player at a spot he needed soon basically being handed to him. Yes some moaned and groaned. Hell Im sure I did some too but I also knew it was the right thing to do.

[MichiganPackerFan]

One just has to look at tt's record of bringing super bowl wins to the teams he's ran. I mean just look at Seattle's ______ super bowl wins and now all the playoff appearances/super bowl wins he's brought to GB in the 4+ years he's fail....erm... been here.

Seattle went to the Super Bowl mostly with the talent that Thompson brought in. Green Bay was an errant Brett Favre pass from making the Super Bowl.

Really??? Just one Favre pass? I gues you just watched overtime of the championship game. Being such a big Packer fan, and a football fan I would have expected you to watch the whole NFC Championship game of 2007.

Agreed. Favre would have never been in that position if McCarthy hadn't given up on the run.

Yea, how could you give up on something that was working this well:

R. Grant 13 29 2.2 0 13

It only takes one breakaway to change those stats. Grant had run the well all year long. The game became one-dimensional. NY could drop eleven into coverage. Even if your success will only come from the pass, you still have to run the ball to keep the defense honest. Especially In the Playoffs. In December. In Green Bay. In Lambeau.

[Partial]

All indications from today's practice are Hawk is now a two down player once Barny is back.
Hawk has been a two down player without Barnett back full-time for the majority of the week. I think your prediction is safe. Chillar took his spot in nickel several times this week.

Good to know. I haven't seen that written.

[Deputy Nutz]

One just has to look at tt's record of bringing super bowl wins to the teams he's ran. I mean just look at Seattle's ______ super bowl wins and now all the playoff appearances/super bowl wins he's brought to GB in the 4+ years he's fail....erm... been here.

Seattle went to the Super Bowl mostly with the talent that Thompson brought in. Green Bay was an errant Brett Favre pass from making the Super Bowl.

Really??? Just one Favre pass? I gues you just watched overtime of the championship game. Being such a big Packer fan, and a football fan I would have expected you to watch the whole NFC Championship game of 2007.

Agreed. Favre would have never been in that position if McCarthy hadn't given up on the run.

Yea, how could you give up on something that was working this well:

R. Grant 13 29 2.2 0 13

I think Bobblehead answered my question, if it was even a question. The running game was horrible, the offensive line fell apart, Favre was falling into a deep freeze the longer the game went on. The defense couldn't stop the Giants on 3rd down. The Giants began to run the ball at will in the second half, Al Harris got his ass handed to him by Plaxico, and every time the Packers defense breathed on a Giant receiver it was pass interference or defensive holding. The only thing that kept the Packers in the game was that the Giant's kicker missed two field goals that would have won the game in regulation.

So, for all of you that love to say the Packers were one bad Favre pass away from going to the Super Bowl better get their facts straight. That game should have been lost by the Packers in regulation.

The Packers Coaching Staff getting out coached in that game should also factor into the loss as well.

[mraynrand]

the decisive interception against the Giants came on 2nd and 8,
http://s453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/?action=view&current=favreslastGBtoss.flv
the decisive interception against the Eagles came on 1st and 10.
http://s453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/?action=view&current=favremoonshot.flv
Hardly desperate situations. That has been one of my criticisms through out Favre's career, and my reply to the arguments of Favre just "trying to make a play". To me it is doubly foolish to make risky throws on early downs. If you are protective of possession, you will have another down, another opportunity. Particularly the interception against the Eagles was foolish; he just threw it up for grabs on 1st and 10.
http://s453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/?action=view&current=favremoonshot.flv
It doesn't matter that better decisions could have been made by the coach earlier in the game. Favre's interceptions was a colossal blunder at that stage of the game, on that down.
http://s453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/?action=view&current=favremoonshot.flv
Against the Giants on 2nd and 8, I would have preferred him trying to make a safer play than a long out route to a receiver that hadn't totally shaken coverage. The chance of a miscue on that is greater than on some of the other available options.
http://s453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/?action=view&current=favreslastGBtoss.flv
QBs are paid the big bucks to make good decisions and good plays in critical situations. In some of the biggest situations, Favre has often come up short in the decision making part of the equation even when his playmaking ability bails him out, let alone those times when it has not. I guess that's what makes him entertaining.

good post.

[mraynrand]

One just has to look at tt's record of bringing super bowl wins to the teams he's ran. I mean just look at Seattle's ______ super bowl wins and now all the playoff appearances/super bowl wins he's brought to GB in the 4+ years he's fail....erm... been here.

Seattle went to the Super Bowl mostly with the talent that Thompson brought in. Green Bay was an errant Brett Favre pass from making the Super Bowl.

Really??? Just one Favre pass? I gues you just watched overtime of the championship game. Being such a big Packer fan, and a football fan I would have expected you to watch the whole NFC Championship game of 2007.

Agreed. Favre would have never been in that position if McCarthy hadn't given up on the run.

Yea, how could you give up on something that was working this well:

R. Grant 13 29 2.2 0 13

I think Bobblehead answered my question, if it was even a question. The running game was horrible, the offensive line fell apart, Favre was falling into a deep freeze the longer the game went on. The defense couldn't stop the Giants on 3rd down. The Giants began to run the ball at will in the second half, Al Harris got his ass handed to him by Plaxico, and every time the Packers defense breathed on a Giant receiver it was pass interference or defensive holding. The only thing that kept the Packers in the game was that the Giant's kicker missed two field goals that would have won the game in regulation.

So, for all of you that love to say the Packers were one bad Favre pass away from going to the Super Bowl better get their facts straight. That game should have been lost by the Packers in regulation.

The Packers Coaching Staff getting out coached in that game should also factor into the loss as well.

There were other unlucky factors as well:

http://s453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/?action=view&current=lostfumblechance.flv

[sharpe1027]

I think Bobblehead answered my question, if it was even a question. The running game was horrible, the offensive line fell apart, Favre was falling into a deep freeze the longer the game went on. The defense couldn't stop the Giants on 3rd down. The Giants began to run the ball at will in the second half, Al Harris got his ass handed to him by Plaxico, and every time the Packers defense breathed on a Giant receiver it was pass interference or defensive holding. The only thing that kept the Packers in the game was that the Giant's kicker missed two field goals that would have won the game in regulation.

So, for all of you that love to say the Packers were one bad Favre pass away from going to the Super Bowl better get their facts straight. That game should have been lost by the Packers in regulation.

The Packers Coaching Staff getting out coached in that game should also factor into the loss as well.

The facts are that the game was a single play (i.e., an interception) from the Packers going to the superbowl. No amount of argument changes that fact. It is what it is.

I think the point of that statement is how close the team was to going to the superbowl. You seem to be arguing as if someone said that Favre was the only reason they lost the game. No, no and no. Go back and look at the context of the statement.

[Scott Campbell]

So, for all of you that love to say the Packers were one bad Favre pass away from going to the Super Bowl better get their facts straight.


While all your examples of poor play are true, none of them excuse Brett for being so careless. That play was the back breaker in a game that was right there for the taking - despite everything that had gone wrong.

The biggest name in football choked one away.

[MadtownPacker]

The facts are that the game was a single play (i.e., an interception) from the Packers going to the superbowl. No amount of argument changes that fact. It is what it is.

I think the point of that statement is how close the team was to going to the superbowl. You seem to be arguing as if someone said that Favre was the only reason they lost the game. No, no and no. Go back and look at the context of the statement.The same could easily be said about what it took to get there in the first place. All the close finishes during the regular season and Favre having to dig them out of a hole vs Seattle. The old man had nothing left. Turns out that "great" team didn't either.

[Deputy Nutz]

So, for all of you that love to say the Packers were one bad Favre pass away from going to the Super Bowl better get their facts straight.


While all your examples of poor play are true, none of them excuse Brett for being so careless. That play was the back breaker in a game that was right there for the taking - despite everything that had gone wrong.

The biggest name in football choked one away.

I am not excusing the throw, it was shit. What blows my mind is some of the simpletons around here and all over this shit hole state that don't know shit about the game of football breaking that whole fucking meltdown of a game down to one play.

Let me ask all of you a question, were the Packers going to win that football game in overtime handing the ball off to Ryan Grant? Were they going to win that game by playing stout defense in overtime? Were they going to win the game on field management? no because our punter couldn't kick the ball 35 yards and the Packers were backed inside the twenty anyways.

The Packers had one option and that was Favre and his receiving corps. He messed up, and the Packers lost a game they had no right winning anyways.

It sucked it was a huge heartbreaker, for me especially, but to listen to all of you try to rewrite history to make you feel better about your beloved organization really sucks balls.

[Deputy Nutz]

The facts are that the game was a single play (i.e., an interception) from the Packers going to the superbowl. No amount of argument changes that fact. It is what it is.

I think the point of that statement is how close the team was to going to the superbowl. You seem to be arguing as if someone said that Favre was the only reason they lost the game. No, no and no. Go back and look at the context of the statement.The same could easily be said about what it took to get there in the first place. All the close finishes during the regular season and Favre having to dig them out of a hole vs Seattle. The old man had nothing left. Turns out that "great" team didn't either.

No you are wrong, Favre was just lucky in those games

[Patler]

I am not excusing the throw, it was shit. What blows my mind is some of the simpletons around here and all over this shit hole state that don't know shit about the game of football breaking that whole fucking meltdown of a game down to one play.

Let me ask all of you a question, were the Packers going to win that football game in overtime handing the ball off to Ryan Grant? Were they going to win that game by playing stout defense in overtime? Were they going to win the game on field management? no because our punter couldn't kick the ball 35 yards and the Packers were backed inside the twenty anyways.

The Packers had one option and that was Favre and his receiving corps. He messed up, and the Packers lost a game they had no right winning anyways.

It sucked it was a huge heartbreaker, for me especially, but to listen to all of you try to rewrite history to make you feel better about your beloved organization really sucks balls.

The part I've never understood with Favre is why with a big game on the line and the team relying on him and the passing game, he got it into his head that he needed a freak play, a Herculean effort to win. Yet in the middle of a game, even the same game, he could move the team with good throws on good decisions. It almost seemed like he approached every one of those as if he needed to get it done within 30 seconds, even if he was in overtime and time was absolutely no factor.

[Scott Campbell]

I am not excusing the throw, it was shit. What blows my mind is some of the simpletons around here and all over this shit hole state that don't know shit about the game of football breaking that whole fucking meltdown of a game down to one play.

Let me ask all of you a question, were the Packers going to win that football game in overtime handing the ball off to Ryan Grant? Were they going to win that game by playing stout defense in overtime? Were they going to win the game on field management? no because our punter couldn't kick the ball 35 yards and the Packers were backed inside the twenty anyways.

The Packers had one option and that was Favre and his receiving corps. He messed up, and the Packers lost a game they had no right winning anyways.

It sucked it was a huge heartbreaker, for me especially, but to listen to all of you try to rewrite history to make you feel better about your beloved organization really sucks balls.

The part I've never understood with Favre is why with a big game on the line and the team relying on him and the passing game, he got it into his head that he needed a freak play, a Herculean effort to win. Yet in the middle of a game, even the same game, he could move the team with good throws on good decisions. It almost seemed like he approached every one of those as if he needed to get it done within 30 seconds, even if he was in overtime and time was absolutely no factor.


The Philly OT pick seemed inexplicable.

[The Shadow]

I am not excusing the throw, it was shit. What blows my mind is some of the simpletons around here and all over this shit hole state that don't know shit about the game of football breaking that whole fucking meltdown of a game down to one play.

Let me ask all of you a question, were the Packers going to win that football game in overtime handing the ball off to Ryan Grant? Were they going to win that game by playing stout defense in overtime? Were they going to win the game on field management? no because our punter couldn't kick the ball 35 yards and the Packers were backed inside the twenty anyways.

The Packers had one option and that was Favre and his receiving corps. He messed up, and the Packers lost a game they had no right winning anyways.

It sucked it was a huge heartbreaker, for me especially, but to listen to all of you try to rewrite history to make you feel better about your beloved organization really sucks balls.

The part I've never understood with Favre is why with a big game on the line and the team relying on him and the passing game, he got it into his head that he needed a freak play, a Herculean effort to win. Yet in the middle of a game, even the same game, he could move the team with good throws on good decisions. It almost seemed like he approached every one of those as if he needed to get it done within 30 seconds, even if he was in overtime and time was absolutely no factor.


The Philly OT pick seemed inexplicable.

Considering the track record, not really.

[Fritz]

How many of Favre's picks ever were explicable? At least the ones he threw straight into a linebacker's arms.