PDA

View Full Version : Q&A with Ted Thompson



the_idle_threat
07-30-2006, 12:56 AM
From JSO:

Q&A: Packers GM believes Packers on road to recovery

Green Bay - You'd probably have to return to Lindy Infante and the dark days of the early 1990s to find the last time that expectations entering a season were as low as they are now for the Green Bay Packers.

Mike Sherman is gone, essentially the victim of his own mistakes in personnel during a four-year run as general manager. His successor, Ted Thompson, dumped Sherman as coach in early January, then put his personal stamp on the organization by hiring Mike McCarthy as the 14th head coach in the club's 88-year history.

Thompson is in the midst of a rebuilding campaign that he discussed at length Friday afternoon in a telephone interview with Journal Sentinel beat writer Bob McGinn. He spoke with guarded optimism on the chances of a turnaround, the rationale behind some of his major moves in the off-season and what the Packers must do to erase the sting of 4-12 in 2005.

Q.Considering 2005 was the worst collapse from one year to the next in franchise history, did you feel like a failure after going 4-12 in your first season?

A. I felt disappointed that we didn't fare better. I've said all along that I think we all share in it. We are what we are. Ron (Wolf) always said that. But we're moving on.

Q.You inherited a team afflicted by many personnel decisions that went awry. When you judge yourself, are you able to reflect on the mistakes of others that you had no control over?

A. You factor everything in. You just try to assess your team as well as you can and go about improving it any way you can. I don't think you worry about how your team got to be that way.

Q. When you examine your pro board and all the depth charts, just how far are the Packers behind the Pittsburghs and New Englands and maybe Carolina and Seattle just in terms of personnel?

A. It's hard to tell. That fluctuates yearly as you've seen from some teams recently. You just never know. Certainly in terms of brand names of players, I think we're a little bit behind in some areas. But that doesn't mean some of our new fellas or some of the fellas we're developing on our team don't step in and raise that level. That's what we're hoping for.

Q.I'm sure you and Ron would look at the Packers' board a decade ago and it looked pretty darn good, didn't it?

A. Yeah. I remember sitting with Ron in New Orleans where we had all week waiting for the Super Bowl game. I think it was on Thursday or Friday that week. He was sitting at his desk in this huge ballroom, which was his office. We kind of walked down our roster and I said, "This is one hell of a team you put together." And it was. It was a remarkable team. That's a pretty high standard, but we're giving it a shot.

Q.I understand you have to be positive for the sake of fans and the morale of the team. But can you come up with a scenario in which Green Bay is a playoff team in '06?

A. Sure. Certainly it can happen. You see it every year. There's a few teams at the top that probably will be successful no matter how the ball bounces. I think we're one of those teams that needs to catch a break, needs to stay healthy. Some guys need to show fruit from their development. All the positive things that start to happen when you get it going. I think it's important to understand you have to be a little bit lucky in this game, too.

Q.What is the winning equation in the NFL? There's players, coaching, front office, chemistry, intangibles. How do you see it?

A. It's so all tied together that it's hard to separate. I guess if you had enough great players, you could function without the other things. But how do they work together if you don't have a really good coaching staff? How did you assemble those guys if you didn't have a good personnel staff? No. 1, you need the players. But I think they need an environment to perform well. They need to be instructed properly. Organizationally, you have to have a base and an understanding for players that this is solid ground.

Q.During your first year on the job, was the feeling within the building a plus?

A. When you lose some games and things start going bad, it's sort of easy to get into that desperation mode. I think that happens with any team, certainly with one that's not accustomed to losing.

Q.On offense, I'm not sure it adds up. You have an all-time quarterback but he's also an aging quarterback. You've got a couple beat-up running backs. You've got three new interior starters in the line. You've lost an impact wide receiver. And you don't have a whole lot of veteran replacements. How are you going to put up a sufficient number of points?

A. Well, if you recall, when Sterling Sharpe was injured it was like the world's coming to an end. And Robert Brooks stepped in and he became the guy. Then he got hurt early during our Super Bowl season and Antonio Freeman stepped in. One of the good things about a, quote-unquote, West Coast offense is you can put people in and they can perform even though you don't know what their names are. I'm not saying anybody can do it. I am saying people step up, and we'll have to have some people step up.

Q.On defense, it seems to make more sense. The defense last year was somewhat soft but still ranked a misleading seventh because all the stars were aligned right. But you've imported more players there. Do you see this unit as perhaps being very stout?

A. We have a chance to be pretty good as a group. We have some individual players that are good. But I think the group is sometimes better than the sum of the parts. On defense, we have a chance to be pretty solid at defensive line, linebacker and the secondary.

Q.The special teams ranked last in the league a year ago. Your kicker and punter are unproven, you don't have a return guy you can count on, your long snapper is good and your holding situation is up in the air. Could it be a real problem?

A. I don't necessarily think we were 32nd in special teams based on just the kickers. A lot of that had to do with suffering through so many injuries. It's overlooked, but I think injuries affect special teams more than any other facet. Guys that weren't on the team end up playing on special teams. There will be competition at all those spots. We think we've got some talented guys at kicker and punter. We also think we have some interesting young fellas to lend a hand on the return thing. But the proof's in the pudding.

Q.Brett Favre is coming off his poorest season. He said in May that he doesn't regret the way he plays and doesn't feel he could change. Later in the summer, he questioned his own confidence level. Does he still have to carry this team? What kind of player can he still be as he approaches his 37th birthday?

A. He has to lead this team. He doesn't have to carry this team. The fact he's 37 is almost immaterial. I don't see any real physical drop-off. I see gray whiskers in his beard but I don't see that his physical ability to play the game has diminished. Brett, like myself and everyone else here, had a tough year. And we're hoping to bounce back.

Q.Charles Woodson is an older cornerback and has had significant injuries. It seems like there should be red flags waving all over this player. I know you had a ton of cap room but I doubt that's why you signed him. What did you see of him on tape that led you to do this?

A. Anybody can have injuries from time to time. The tape that we watched, Charles Woodson is a very good player. He never shut down Darrin Charles in a high school game, but he's physical. He's crafty. He's a good tackler. He's that caliber of player. Sure, there's a risk. It's a violent sport.

Q.Kenderick Allen has ideal size. The coaches appear extremely high on him He didn't play much in New York but perhaps he could be the key to your defensive line. What did you see in him? Could he perform to the level that, say, Dan Wilkinson did last year in Detroit?

A. I saw a big man that can play big. He has instincts on the interior. Plus, he's a good guy. It's difficult to say he will be exactly like Dan Wilkinson. I think we have a pretty good group of defensive linemen and he'll be a good addition.

Q.In March, you said that you wanted Ryan Pickett more than any other defensive tackle in free agency. Why did you take him over guys like Gerard Warren and Maake Kemoeatu and Rocky Bernard and Larry Tripplett and Sam Adams and Kendrick Clancy?

A. We felt he was still young and had a good year. He's got the ability to get down the line of scrimmage. He can make tackles outside his immediate area.

Q.You tried last year at guard with two second- or third-tier UFAs (unrestricted free agents) and a couple mid to late draft choices. The pressures allowed by the guards in 2005 tripled what the total was in '04. Was it more your fault for who you brought in or for finding a way to retain Mike Wahle?

A. I don't know. You could just say it was my fault. You can decide. That didn't work out the way we wanted it to.

Q. This year, you could have spent a lot of money on a guard like (Steve) Hutchinson or LeCharles (Bentley). There wasn't much out there after them. Did you simply not want to do that at guard?

A. I drafted Hutchinson. I think he's a great player. I wish he was somewhere besides Minnesota. That was kind of a funny little deal they did there. With the other fellas, we felt they really weren't good fits in terms of salary and their ability to play.

Q.So then it got late and you knew you had to do it in the draft. You took Daryn Colledge, a good athlete who played tackle at Boise State, and Jason Spitz from Louisville. Do you feel you have a better chance to solidify the guards this year than last year? Can they play well this year in conjunction with (Junius) Coston?

A. Oh sure. We've added a lot of young guys to our offensive line. I think we have a chance to have a pretty good foundation going forward. By the time we get to the regular season we'll have a pretty good group of guys.

Q.This organization could have gotten Ryan Longwell done a couple years ago. When it came down to it, he got a $3 million signing bonus from the Vikings and left. You must not have thought he was really worth that kind of money. Isn't that true?

A. No, I wouldn't say that.

Q.The Packers have had Chris Jacke or Ryan Longwell kicking since 1989 and the results have been exceptional. There were a couple really good kickers available after Longwell departed; they're not in Green Bay. Is this going to be a problem this season?

A. We don't know. We like the way our two guys have kicked this spring, but you never know how it will work out. As with every other position, we're watching where there's going to be good competition on other teams. We have high hopes for these guys.

Q.You may not like comparisons but they're a fact of life. Why is the change in head coaches going to be beneficial for the Green Bay Packers?

A. The change in head coaches is a complicated matter. I just felt like we needed a change. I feel very confident in Mike McCarthy and his staff. They have good energy. I think the players have responded well to them. Every head coach at one time was in his first year. So we're not concerned with that.

Q.McCarthy, a first-year head coach himself, hired Bob Sanders, a first-year defensive coordinator, and Jeff Jagodzinski, a first-year offensive coordinator. When he did that, did you blanch a bit and wish he would have hired at least one experienced NFL coordinator?

A. No. They don't have experience as coordinators in the NFL but these are both experienced coaches. I have an extremely high regard for Bob Sanders and how he approaches his business. I actually worked with both of them.

Q.From a schematic standpoint, would you expect the offense to be better because of the zone run game or McCarthy's play-calling or his total influence on the attack?

A. I think we were a little bit underachievers last year on offense. Now we had some injuries, granted, but we could and should play better. I think all our players would say they played below their standards. Right there it makes you a better team. I think there's a lot of room for improvement there. I don't think any of us did as well as we should have last year.

Q.The Packers made a long, hard run at LaVar Arrington in April. From your perspective, why isn't he in Green Bay? Would you rather have had Arrington or Woodson? And did you offer him more money than what he took from the Giants?

A. Well, we pursued several free agents that didn't work. But that's free agency. The reason given to me was that LaVar decided to go there (New York Giants) because it's closer to his home and for his family. I wouldn't know the money to be sure. That's water under the bridge, but we were in there pitchin', I'll say that.

Q.It might be before your time, but some people know what it was like around here in the 1970s and 1980s when some players either didn't want to stay here or come here. There's been a Mike McKenzie, a Javon Walker, Arrington if you will. Have those been hits to the Packers' reputation and are you always on-guard in this area?

A. I don't know about being on-guard. We try as an organization to make this as player-friendly a place as is humanly possible. I think when you're winning and you're rolling it makes it a little bit easier to recruit free agents. When you have an off year like we did, it makes it a little more difficult.

Q.You've acquired one player via trade, linebacker Robert Thomas, in your 18-month tenure. Wide receiver Eric Moulds went from Buffalo to Houston in early April for a fifth-round pick. You needed a wide receiver. Why aren't you more active? Was the Moulds deal one of many you've considered and just didn't do?

A. We talk to people all the time about trades. We talked to people today about trading. You make 150 phone calls and you might do one trade. You've got to find the right match. We don't like to trade picks as a rule. We will do it. We treat our ability to draft as something that is very valuable. I'm sure we had some conversations on him (Moulds) but I don't know if we were ever in the ball game.

Q.You spoke quite highly of Aaron Rodgers at the stockholders meeting. What evidence is there from your perspective to think he will be a solid starter?

A. He has visible requirements. He throws the ball very well. He handles himself well. I think he's very bright. I think he understands his place in the world. He wants to be good and he thinks he can be good. And he has always been a good player. I have no reason to think he's not going to be a good player.

Q.Some scouts said what A.J. Hawk would give a team around the building and off-the-field will almost be as important as what he does on the field. Are you hoping with a smart, tough and committed player that he could change some of the culture in your building?

A. It's not only him. Certainly with his pedigree and his upbringing and the kind of kid he is it should be a positive influence among our players.

Q.Do you read the riot act at times to people who work for you?

A. I don't know if that would be proper to say. If I have a problem with somebody I bring it up. I don't let it sit and we get it fixed right away. I'm not a vicious taskmaster, though. If something gets out of whack we try to get it back in whack so there's no festering.

Q.Can you ever have a good relationship again with Mike Sherman?

A. I would like to think so. Certainly we did before and certainly last January put a big hole in it. But we still speak when we see each other in Indianapolis or the Senior Bowl or wherever.

Q.Fans in Green Bay had a 13-year run that included 10 trips to the playoffs. Is it time now to dig in for some tough times?

A. I don't know that. I wouldn't necessarily assume that. I'm not a predictor. I think we have the makings of a group that might come together a little bit faster than what people think. I also think last year was a little bit of an aberration. We were 4-12, but we're done with that. We're moving on and looking forward to the future.

Q.When you look at your board, which clubs in the NFC are those to watch?

A. It looks like everybody in our division has improved. A lot of people like Carolina. Seattle is a very good team. The NFC will be pretty good this year. Everything I read leads me to believe our division will be tougher. And it was pretty tough last year for us.

Q.This team was minus-24 in turnover differential, the worst in club history. It also had 119 penalties, the most since '87. Turnovers and penalties make for ugly, almost unwatchable football. Did that get you last year right where you live? Will the Packers play better football this season?

A. Well, we're putting a lot of energy into doing that. Sometimes you just have a bad run of luck. But you certainly can't win in the NFL losing the turnover battle every week. You can't win consistently by beating yourself with penalties. Our coaching staff has been stressing that from the get-go.

Brainerd
07-30-2006, 01:18 AM
Q. This year, you could have spent a lot of money on a guard like (Steve) Hutchinson or LeCharles (Bentley). There wasn't much out there after them. Did you simply not want to do that at guard?

A. I drafted Hutchinson. I think he's a great player. I wish he was somewhere besides Minnesota. That was kind of a funny little deal they did there. With the other fellas, we felt they really weren't good fits in terms of salary and their ability to play.

What does he mean by that? Is he crying foul?

Partial
07-30-2006, 01:22 AM
This is fake. Definitely has Tank influence in it

the_idle_threat
07-30-2006, 01:38 AM
It is cut-and-paste from Journal-Sentinel Online. I added one sentence just to see if people are paying attention, but that's it.

Noodle
07-30-2006, 10:08 AM
"He never shut down Darrin Charles in a high school game . . .."

Very clever. The questioning here was unusually direct, and I thought effective and fair. I also thought TT did a good job giving the usual GM answers. Who did the interview?

Patler
07-30-2006, 11:46 AM
Is it my imagination or are we seeing more interviews and question/answer reports from TT this off season than we did last year? He commented earlier that he needed to allow fans to get to know him better, and it appears he is making a conscious effort to do that. Last summer there were criptic remarks at most from him. Not much like this one.

GBRulz
07-30-2006, 11:57 AM
I'd say yes to that, Patler. However, up until the OTA's started, he still was pretty hush hush about everything. In fact, he didn't make himself accessible to the fans at Fan Fest this year, either. Which IMO, is a big turn off.

Maybe he is just starting to feel a little more comfortable too...the draft is done, the picks are signed....we're ready for some football.

woodbuck27
07-30-2006, 02:29 PM
This is fake. Definitely has Tank influence in it

the_idle_threat:

PLEASE provide the link and the date of this interview if the link doesn't provide same.

Thank You.

GO PACKERS !

Partial
07-30-2006, 02:31 PM
This is fake. Definitely has Tank influence in it

the_idle_threat:

PLEASE provide the link and the date of this interview if the link doesn't provide same.

Thank You.

GO PACKERS !

It's in the paper, he's right. He added a line about Tank that just happened to be the one question I read when skimming the thread.

woodbuck27
07-30-2006, 03:14 PM
I thought it was cool. My post was to eliminate ALL anxiety to anything else.

PEACE OUT !

RashanGary
07-30-2006, 05:53 PM
TT - "We treat our ability to draft as something that is very valuable."

He is a very confident GM. He has a plan and a vision. I believe Thompson is one of the best scouts in the NFL. He was a big part of the scouting staff that put together the mid 90's superbowl runs here and he was a part of Seattle's rise to success. You don't hear the rah rah all the time and this comment wasn't something that really stood out, but if you listen to Thompson speak occasionally you'll find a bit that shows he truely believes he is a great NFL scout. Time will tell but I have all the confidence in the world in his approach. There is a little luck involved with finding playmakers but as long as you have the base laid, your bound to fall into a great player or two over time.

Will they compete right now? I don't know but over time, I have complete confindence in this team.

Rastak
07-30-2006, 05:57 PM
TT - "We treat our ability to draft as something that is very valuable."

He is a very confident GM. He has a plan and a vision. I believe Thompson is one of the best scouts in the NFL. He was a big part of the scouting staff that put together the mid 90's superbowl runs here and he was a part of Seattle's rise to success. You don't hear the rah rah all the time and this comment wasn't something that really stood out, but if you listen to Thompson speak occasionally you'll find a bit that shows he truely believes he is a great NFL scout. Time will tell but I have all the confidence in the world in his approach. There is a little luck involved with finding playmakers but as long as you have the base laid, your bound to fall into a great player or two over time.

Will they compete right now? I don't know but over time, I have complete confindence in this team.


I think TT has done okay and I'm not a TT hater, but if he were the ultimate scout would he have signed Freeman, Little, Klemm, O'Dwyer, etc etc etc? I think he's doing fine, but he hasn't shown me that he is the top dog in the NFL otr anything like that. He likes to build through the draft and it'll take a while to see how that pans out.

Patler
07-30-2006, 06:37 PM
I think TT has done okay and I'm not a TT hater, but if he were the ultimate scout would he have signed Freeman, Little, Klemm, O'Dwyer, etc etc etc?

Sure he would, given the circumstances of last year. I'm amazed at the number of people who seem to think that the signings of Freeman, Little and O'Dwyer meant anything at all. These signings cost the Packers virtually nothing. All were minimum salary type signings. Same with Raynoch Thompson. You bring in a bunch of players with starting experience and see if anyone is better than what you have, If not, you let them go. What did it cost the Packers to have Freeman, O'Dwyer and Thompson in camp? Virtually nothing. Each received a $25,000 bonus. That's all. Little cost virtually nothing even for the time he was on the roster because he qualified for the veterans reduction.

Klemm was the "big" signing, and all he got was $800,000 in bonus over 2 years, along with just more than minimum allowable veterans salaries. Again, not much of an investment.

The 2005 roster was so thin, and cap money a bit scarce, that it made sense to bring in minimum wage veterans to see if any could help. If they could, great. If not, it doesn't hurt the salary cap.

Partial
07-30-2006, 06:55 PM
TT - "We treat our ability to draft as something that is very valuable."

He is a very confident GM. He has a plan and a vision. I believe Thompson is one of the best scouts in the NFL. He was a big part of the scouting staff that put together the mid 90's superbowl runs here and he was a part of Seattle's rise to success. You don't hear the rah rah all the time and this comment wasn't something that really stood out, but if you listen to Thompson speak occasionally you'll find a bit that shows he truely believes he is a great NFL scout. Time will tell but I have all the confidence in the world in his approach. There is a little luck involved with finding playmakers but as long as you have the base laid, your bound to fall into a great player or two over time.

Will they compete right now? I don't know but over time, I have complete confindence in this team.

Put perfectly. I agree with you and my faith lies in TT

mraynrand
07-30-2006, 06:58 PM
"A. Anybody can have injuries from time to time. The tape that we watched, Charles Woodson is a very good player. He never shut down Darrin Charles in a high school game, but he's physical. He's crafty. He's a good tackler. He's that caliber of player. Sure, there's a risk. It's a violent sport. "

---

LOL

mraynrand
07-30-2006, 06:59 PM
"A. I saw a big man that can play big. He has instincts on the interior. Plus, he's a good guy. It's difficult to say he will be exactly like Dan Wilkinson. I think we have a pretty good group of defensive linemen and he'll be a good addition. "
------

Let's hope he's not like Big Daddy "play when I want to" Wilkinson.

Rastak
07-30-2006, 07:09 PM
I think TT has done okay and I'm not a TT hater, but if he were the ultimate scout would he have signed Freeman, Little, Klemm, O'Dwyer, etc etc etc?

Sure he would, given the circumstances of last year. I'm amazed at the number of people who seem to think that the signings of Freeman, Little and O'Dwyer meant anything at all. These signings cost the Packers virtually nothing. All were minimum salary type signings. Same with Raynoch Thompson. You bring in a bunch of players with starting experience and see if anyone is better than what you have, If not, you let them go. What did it cost the Packers to have Freeman, O'Dwyer and Thompson in camp? Virtually nothing. Each received a $25,000 bonus. That's all. Little cost virtually nothing even for the time he was on the roster because he qualified for the veterans reduction.

Klemm was the "big" signing, and all he got was $800,000 in bonus over 2 years, along with just more than minimum allowable veterans salaries. Again, not much of an investment.

The 2005 roster was so thin, and cap money a bit scarce, that it made sense to bring in minimum wage veterans to see if any could help. If they could, great. If not, it doesn't hurt the salary cap.


I think we are talking about different things here Patler, I'm not arguing the cost/benefit of these moves, they were very low risk. I'm only saying he isn't the ultimate scout or he wouldn't be signing guys that do nothing to help the team regardless of cost. It's easy to sign no-risk guys, there's thousands of them. I'm also not ripping the guy, I'm only saying it's a little early to declare him a great scout.

HarveyWallbangers
07-30-2006, 07:52 PM
I think he's proven he's a great scout by what he did here under Wolf and by what he did in Seattle. You don't often become a GM without being a good scout. Whether he can succeed in Green Bay as GM given the circumstances is a different question.

Patler
07-30-2006, 07:54 PM
I think we are talking about different things here Patler, I'm not arguing the cost/benefit of these moves, they were very low risk. I'm only saying he isn't the ultimate scout or he wouldn't be signing guys that do nothing to help the team regardless of cost. It's easy to sign no-risk guys, there's thousands of them. I'm also not ripping the guy, I'm only saying it's a little early to declare him a great scout.

No, I know your not arguing the cost/benefit. I really wasn't either except as a reason for why those players were signed. He didn't sign them thinking they would solve a problem, but they were worth an evaluation at least. In that way, I think we are talking about the same thing. The greatest GM/scout in the world will sign a lot of players, and draft a lot of players who will flop. He will sign some that he knows won't help long term. He will sign some he hopes plug a hole in the roster for a year or so until he can get someone better. I'm not suggesting Wolf was the best, but he was petty darn good, and he signed and drafted a lot of players who never helped, some as free agents.

My point is that making any judgment about TT based on having signed Freeman, Little, Klemm and Thompson to the contracts he signed them to doesn't really make a lot of sense, in my opinion. Better to judge him on the players he has drafted and the signings that impact the cap. The others are just fill-ins, if that.

HarveyWallbangers
07-30-2006, 07:56 PM
Patler, on top of that I hardly doubt he's scouting a lot of these players anymore. I'd say he's more likely to scout the draft picks and big name FAs. I doubt, as GM, he has the time to scout every low budget and street FA out there. That's what Reggie McKenzie and those guys are for.

Rastak
07-30-2006, 07:59 PM
Patler, on top of that I hardly doubt he's scouting a lot of these players anymore. I'd say he's more likely to scout the draft picks and big name FAs. I doubt, as GM, he has the time to scout every low budget and street FA out there. That's what Reggie McKenzie and those guys are for.


That's a valid point. Although he has ultimate responisbility so he must cross check everything.

HarveyWallbangers
07-30-2006, 08:03 PM
No question, but I think he's proven he can scout players. We'll see if he can be a successful GM (that means scouting, organizing a scouting department, hiring coaches, etc.).

Patler
07-30-2006, 08:40 PM
Patler, on top of that I hardly doubt he's scouting a lot of these players anymore. I'd say he's more likely to scout the draft picks and big name FAs. I doubt, as GM, he has the time to scout every low budget and street FA out there. That's what Reggie McKenzie and those guys are for.

Very true HW.

Some time ago Wolf explained how it worked on his staff. The pro scouting group was responsible for keeping tabs on available veteran players, their whereabouts, injuries, etc.. If a need arose for the Packers because of injuries at a position, the staff would give Wolf reports and tape on several they thought to be the best candidates. He would review the reports and tape, talk to the players, and make a decision within a few days.

Basically the scouts narrowed it down and he decided among the ones they recomended. He often said he relied very heavily on the recommendations from McKenzie when it came to signing run-of-the-mill veteran replacements. It's probably similar in the off season, just with less of a time constraint to the final decision. Basically, these types are not significant enough for the GM to invest a lot of time in. You can shuffle a whole bunch in and out if need be, somewhat like what was done at WR last year.

Patler
07-30-2006, 08:45 PM
No question, but I think he's proven he can scout players. We'll see if he can be a successful GM (that means scouting, organizing a scouting department, hiring coaches, etc.).

"hiring coaches". That's a big one right now. If TT got it wrong this time, the whole operation will be set back by what ever time MM is given to fail.

the_idle_threat
07-30-2006, 11:18 PM
The article was posted to JSO Packer Insider on July 29th. You need a paid subscription to access it, so I'm not sure a link will work, although you can try here:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=477824

This sentence is in the 3rd paragraph of the article itself: "Thompson is in the midst of a rebuilding campaign that he discussed at length Friday afternoon in a telephone interview with Journal Sentinel beat writer Bob McGinn."

RashanGary
07-31-2006, 12:16 AM
Nice points Patler and HW.

Thompson took a very cavalier approach to molding this team into his own. He takes a big picure look and isn't panic stricken by the urge to achieve short term success. Sherman was the polar opposite so it was a very harsh transition. Sherman had alot of guys that were helping in the short turn but negatively effecting the long run. Thompson tore that down and started over from scratch. That is how I see it anyway.

I made a thread a long time ago and to this day, I consider it the thread I'm most proud of. I think it was sometime during the season but it was something like "Going from a GM who borrows from the future to a GM to plans for it is like taking it in the butt. OUCH!!"

Anyway, the main premise of that thread was that Sherman had very a very short sighted approach and was willing to win at all costs today. Most successfull coaches have that thinking. It helps win games and focus on teh right now. Unfortunatly, each financial year in teh NFL rolls into the next and eventually that mentality of focusing on today starts to borrow from tomorrow and the next day. A hole begins to be formed and digging out becomes overwealming. Sherman didn't quite reach that level of no return, but TT stepped in just before he ran himself into the wall. The team depth was horrible, as evidence of how poor the team was last year after losing a few starters. He traded away draft picks and for the most part ended up with nothing in return. It was starting to catch up. TT could have kept Sharper who had maybe one or 2 years left. He could have resigned Wahle which loooks like a mistake, but the thinking was OG's are replacable in teh draft and life would go on. Walker and Green went down and wham bam jiggity slam it's 4-12.

It was a quick, harsh transition with little concern for the short term. I don't see long term negativity, but rather a result of bad drafting for many years and some contracts that were good for a few years but were just starting to take an ill effect. ie Hunt, Sharper. They were slapped against the cap and instead of taking small short term gains, they looked at the big picture and made moves that they believed would benefit the Packers most looking back 10 years from now instead of just looking back 10 months from now. Sherman was the exact opposite and the transition was hell.

Anyway, nobody loved the thread and it never really got serious response becuase of the nature of the title, but I still look at that thread as maybe the most insightfull thread I've ever created. Time might make me look like and idiot because TT could fall on his face. I don't see that happening. I really believe in TT and I really believe in this transition theory to why the Packers suffered so bad last year. Whatever, this is getting to long. Point is, I believe TT is one of the leagues most capable GM's. His overall approach to building a team as well as his knack for finding talent are his strengths. I believe those are the two most improtant qualities in a GM. That's my story and I'm stickin to it till I'm proven wrong. As a fan, I hope that doesnt' happen but if it does, I'll get one of those awakenings that makes me realize I don't know shit :)