TT Confidence Meter

[RashanGary]

I voted 7-8. I think the Packers are very close, but Ted still has to completely prove it before I give him an elite grade.

[SkinBasket]

This is one of the dumbest polling scales we've ever seen.

I vote 8-9. Oh, that's right I can't. Well, in that case, I'll vote 11.

http://citifield.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/spinaltap-11.jpg

[Joemailman]

Agreed. Packers should be a consistent playoff contender under Ted Thompson. Whether his teams can make the jump to Super Bowl contender remains to be seen. Part of being a great GM is hiring the right coach. The jury is still out on that.

[ThunderDan]

I voted 7-8 and may have voted 9-10 if not for our O-line issues, our punter and special teams.

[Lurker64]

If you're going to have only 5 choices, why not make it a 1-5 scale instead of a 1-10 scale?

[Scott Campbell]

You've got to accomplish more than he has to move into the Top 5. I voted 7-8.

[Joemailman]

I think Roman Numerals would have been better.

[sheepshead]

No two men have received more crap in the last 8 years than George W. Bush and Ted Thompson. Amazing.

[sheepshead]

Name 5 GMs better than Ted.

[Brandon494]

No two men have received more crap in the last 8 years than George W. Bush and Ted Thompson. Amazing.

Yea but only one deserved it

[Scott Campbell]

Name 5 GMs better than Ted.


The Saints GM
The Steelers GM
The Giants GM
The Indy GM
The Pats GM


Can't argue with Superbowl winners.

[Freak Out]

This is one of the dumbest polling scales we've ever seen.

I vote 8-9. Oh, that's right I can't. Well, in that case, I'll vote 11.

http://citifield.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/spinaltap-11.jpg

I think you should post some cock in this thing so it will get moved to the GC where we can really abuse it.

I vote 7.23478

[gbgary]

if he was a little more active (or should i just say active) in FA i'd rate him higher.

[Smidgeon]

if he was a little more active (or should i just say active) in FA i'd rate him higher.

What if he was active but got duds?

He has gotten Woodson and Pickett in FA. Doesn't that count as being "active"?

[MJZiggy]

Why does that poll look like it's flipping me off????

[gbgary]

Why does that poll look like it's flipping me off????

lol

[RashanGary]

Why does that poll look like it's flipping me off????

It's not flipping "you" off :) :)

But yeah, it sort of makes a point, doesn't it? Some people want their opinions to be accepted as relevant when they're not really. I guess that's insulting to people, to realize nobody takes them seriously. Maybe I should be more PC and pretend like I and others understand their view :)

[gbgary]

if he was a little more active (or should i just say active) in FA i'd rate him higher.

What if he was active but got duds?

He has gotten Woodson and Pickett in FA. Doesn't that count as being "active"?

i was being facetious. yes they count. a little more of that would have been great.

[RashanGary]

if he was a little more active (or should i just say active) in FA i'd rate him higher.

What if he was active but got duds?

He has gotten Woodson and Pickett in FA. Doesn't that count as being "active"?

i was being facetious. yes they count. a little more of that would have been great.


What about trading for Grant, trading up for Matthews and resigning Rodgers, Jennings and Barnett before their deals were done?

What about giving more money to Tausch and Harris near the end of their contracts and extending Driver? Those helped the team.

Woodson, Pickett and Chillar were active additions.

Firing Shermhead for MM was active.

Does active mean wasting money on an over the hill DE like Joe Johnson. Sherman was never labeled as "inactive" even though he never made as many good, active moves as TT has. It's strange, I think peoples view of TT's inactivity is a myth with no merit.

If active is another word for being a bad GM, then no, Ted hasn't been a bad GM.

[RashanGary]

I think a more accurate view of Ted Thompson's approach would be:


Ted builds the core of his team through the draft and then supplements good drafts with good free agents, trades and smart resignings. He is known for having the foresight to make moves that nobody understands at the time, but begin to understand over time. He's one of the few GMs always trying to add elite veteran talent and has had success doing it with Charles Woodson along with near misses, but is always among the most active in trying to add elite talent.

I think it would be accurate to say that some of the people who didn't understand Ted's approach haven't yet realized that his moves have worked out. It would be accurate to say these people with closed minds are still here saying Ted is, "inactive" when, in fact, he's been both active and successful in his activity.

[gbgary]

if he was a little more active (or should i just say active) in FA i'd rate him higher.

What if he was active but got duds?

He has gotten Woodson and Pickett in FA. Doesn't that count as being "active"?

i was being facetious. yes they count. a little more of that would have been great.


What about trading for Grant, trading up for Matthews and resigning Rodgers, Jennings and Barnett before their deals were done?

What about giving more money to Tausch and Harris near the end of their contracts and extending Driver? Those helped the team.

Woodson, Pickett and Chillar were active additions.

Firing Shermhead for MM was active.

Does active mean wasting money on an over the hill DE like Joe Johnson. Sherman was never labeled as "inactive" even though he never made as many good, active moves as TT has. It's strange, I think peoples view of TT's inactivity is a myth with no merit.

:wink: calm down sir. i agree with all that. i wasn't saying throw tons of money away but we've been way under the cap for several years in a row and being a little more aggressive might have paid off. it's water under the bridge now but we're not that far away at this point. we're very young and a move here and there might push us over the finish line...as it did in '96. i'm not a TT hater.

[RashanGary]

:wink: calm down sir. i agree with all that. i wasn't saying throw tons of money away but we've been way under the cap for several years in a row and being a little more aggressive might have paid off. it's water under the bridge now but we're not that far away at this point. we're very young and a move here and there might push us over the finish line...as it did in '96.


Yeah. I do understand that.


Here's what I think many Packer fans believe happened and why our views of Ted are more positive than yours is:


- From 2001 to 2004 the Packers ended up with only 5 core young players in the draft (one of which blew up, Javon Walker).

- Instead of resigning his guys early when the prices were down, Sherman chose to blow his wad on an aging vet from another team with no discount.

- When Ted took over, the cap was strapped and Ted had to make moves just to be under the cap.

- Now we released a few vets to get under the cap and a couple of our key vets aged over the hill (rivera, flanagan, green). Ted correctlly moved on from them.

- Now we're supposed to have a new core of good players, but since we only drafted 5 in 4 years, we have almost no body

- Now there is a ton of money to be spent because we correctly let some vets go and don't have anyone on the roster to pay.

- Now is the point where you wish he would have spent more money.


What he did though, was keep making good high priced decisions (barnett, Rodgers, Jennings, Woodson), solid mid priced decisions (PIckett, Jenkins Chillar, Grant, Harris, Driver, Tauscher) and a couple blah lower price, lower risk decisions (Franks, Poppinga, Manual). He kept adding talent in the draft, kept building the core of the roster.

Now we're at a point where we've built the team from ground up, added value all across the board. Instead of trying to take one stab that probably wouldn't have worked out, he's got this team poised to be good for many years. The ceiling is dynasty and the floor seems to be a really good team for several years.

Do you think that now, with hindsight, we can start seeing the merit in those tough decisions Ted made, that it was the surest way to give us a legit chance at a championship? Do you think that Rather than viewing him not spending every penny as soon as he had it as being a negative, do you think maybe we can view his ability to wait until the time was right as being the tougher and better thing to do? I don't know, I think the things he's accused of being weak at are actually the things that have gotten this team on the brink of greatness. Now let's see if the baker can finish of the decorations and put on the "just right" final touches. He hasn't proven that yet, but he's taken a shit situation to a really good one. Most Packer fans give him credit for that. I'm surprised there are even a few that don't see that. The poll shows most people see it similarly, but what fun is it to sit around and pat each others butt's about how much we agree. It's more fun ot seek out the differing opinion and try to come to an understanding.

[gbgary]

:wink: calm down sir. i agree with all that. i wasn't saying throw tons of money away but we've been way under the cap for several years in a row and being a little more aggressive might have paid off. it's water under the bridge now but we're not that far away at this point. we're very young and a move here and there might push us over the finish line...as it did in '96. i'm not a TT hater.


Yeah. I do understand that.


Here's what I think many Packer fans believe happened and why our views of Ted are more positive than yours is:


- From 2001 to 2004 the Packers ended up with only 5 core young players in the draft (one of which blew up, Javon Walker).

- Instead of resigning his guys early when the prices were down, Sherman chose to blow his wad on an aging vet from another team with no discount.

- When Ted took over, the cap was strapped and Ted had to make moves just to be under the cap.

- Now we released a few vets to get under the cap and a couple of our key vets aged over the hill (rivera, flanagan, green). Ted correctlly moved on from them.

- Now we're supposed to have a new core of good players, but since we only drafted 5 in 4 years, we have almost no body

- Now there is a ton of money to be spent because we correctly let some vets go and don't have anyone on the roster to pay.

- Now is the point where you wish he would have spent more money.


What he did though, was keep making good high priced decisions (barnett, Rodgers, Jennings, Woodson), solid mid priced decisions (PIckett, Jenkins Chillar, Grant, Harris, Driver, Tauscher) and a couple blah lower price, lower risk decisions (Franks, Poppinga, Manual). He kept adding talent in the draft, kept building the core of the roster.

Now we're at a point where we've built the team from ground up, added value all across the board. Instead of trying to take one stab that probably wouldn't have worked out, he's got this team poised to be good for many years. The ceiling is dynasty and the floor seems to be a really good team for several years.

Do you think that now, with hindsight, we can start seeing the merit in those tough decisions Ted made, that it was the surest way to give us a legit chance at a championship? Do you think that Rather than viewing him not spending every penny as soon as he had it as being a negative, do you think maybe we can view his ability to wait until the time was right as being the tougher and better thing to do? I don't know, I think the things he's accused of being weak at are actually the things that have gotten this team on the brink of greatness. Now let's see if the baker can finish of the decorations and put on the "just right" final touches. He hasn't proven that yet, but he's taken a shit situation to a really good one. Most Packer fans give him credit for that. I'm surprised there are even a few that don't see that. The poll shows most people see it similarly, but what fun is it to sit around and pat each others butt's about how much we agree. It's more fun ot seek out the differing opinion and try to come to an understanding.

good points on the sherman repair job. i am mostly thinking of the mm years.

[Gunakor]

Name 5 GMs better than Ted.


The Saints GM
The Steelers GM
The Giants GM
The Indy GM
The Pats GM


Can't argue with Superbowl winners.

Giants didn't win any Super Bowls because of a great GM. They won a Super Bowl because they got hot at the right time. Halfway through that season it appeared the Giants wouldn't even make the playoffs. On the final week of the season they snuck in as a 9-7 wildcard. Hardly an inspiring job done by the GM, if using records as the barometer.

If the Packers had beaten the Cardinals this year, then the Saints, then the Vikings, then the Colts for a ring... Would you replace the Saints GM with Thompson on your list simply due to the fact that the Packers won and the Saints didn't? If the Vikings would have beaten the Saints and then beaten the Colts, would Zigi then be considered a top 5 GM suddenly? What if the Colts had won, who would your #5 be then?

4 better GM's. Thompson is #5 behind Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, New England and New Orleans. Remember the mess he was left with to start, and the relatively short time he took to nearly completely turn over the roster and return the team to respectability after the Ron Wolf built roster was dismantled. Not to mention the phenomenal job he's done getting payroll under control. Don't sell the man short. He's done a tremendous job.

[Tony Oday]

I voted he is one of the best. Took an old declining team and restocked it with talent. We will be playoff contenders for a while, barring major injury to a player I will not name due to karma.

A GM gets you to the playoffs a Coaching Staff and Players win it all.

[Patler]

if he was a little more active (or should i just say active) in FA i'd rate him higher.

What if he was active but got duds?

He has gotten Woodson and Pickett in FA. Doesn't that count as being "active"?

i was being facetious. yes they count. a little more of that would have been great.

Ya, if only he had used free agency more, like for a starting safety and another cornerback. Maybe another linebacker and tight end. Perhaps a starting fullback.

Oh, wait....Bigby, Williams, Chillar, Lee and Kuhn were also free agents. :lol:

So, the starting fullback, tight end (perhaps now "ex-starter"), nose tackle, both corners at the end of the year and one safety, plus a quasi starting linebacker were all signed as free agents; but Thompson doesn't sign enough free agents?

[sheepshead]

Name 5 GMs better than Ted.


The Saints GM
The Steelers GM
The Giants GM
The Indy GM
The Pats GM


Can't argue with Superbowl winners.

Give me a break. Name the guys and why. Tell me about their superior staffs, trades and draft choices.

[Brandon494]

Name 5 GMs better than Ted.


The Saints GM
The Steelers GM
The Giants GM
The Indy GM
The Pats GM


Can't argue with Superbowl winners.

Give me a break. Name the guys and why. Tell me about their superior staffs, trades and draft choices.

IF you watch football you pretty much know the moves those GMs have done. Off the top of my head the moves the current SB champs made that put him over TT.

Saints GM- brought in Sean Payton, Drew Brees, Colston inthe 7th round, traded for Shockey, signed Sharper, signed Vilma, signed undrafted Pierre Thomas, brought in Greg Williams as DC

[sheepshead]

So you think , on paper, the Saints are head and shoulders a far better team than the Packers? on paper?

[Patler]

IF you watch football you pretty much know the moves those GMs have done. Off the top of my head the moves the current SB champs made that put him over TT.

Saints GM- brought in Sean Payton, Drew Brees, Colston inthe 7th round, traded for Shockey, signed Sharper, signed Vilma, signed undrafted Pierre Thomas, brought in Greg Williams as DC

Some very interesting parallels:

Payton/McCarthy
sign Brees/draft Rodgers
draft Colston/draft Jennings
trade for Shockey/draft Finley
sign Sharper/sign Woodson
sign Vilma/draft Mathews
sign undrafted Pierre Thomas/trade a 7th for undrafted Ryan Grant

Some are advantage -Saints, some advantage-Packers. SOme are a toss-up or too close to tell.

One big difference in the results for the Saints and the Packers. The Saints played in the NFC Championship game against Favre, the Packers played in the NFC Championship game with Favre. :lol: :lol: (Patler now ducking for cover!)

[pbmax]

Name 5 GMs better than Ted.


The Saints GM
The Steelers GM
The Giants GM
The Indy GM
The Pats GM


Can't argue with Superbowl winners.
Oh, I think I can argue with the Bruce Allen/Jon Gruden combo in Tampa. There is no one measurement that can tell you who is a good GM.

And after signing Mr. Brady then abandoning his strategy of low cost veteran free agents, how is the GM in New England doing these days Super Bowl wise? Nothing stays the same.

[Brandon494]

So you think , on paper, the Saints are head and shoulders a far better team than the Packers? on paper?

No, I don't believe thats what I said.

[Brandon494]

Name 5 GMs better than Ted.


The Saints GM
The Steelers GM
The Giants GM
The Indy GM
The Pats GM


Can't argue with Superbowl winners.
Oh, I think I can argue with the Bruce Allen/Jon Gruden combo in Tampa. There is no one measurement that can tell you who is a good GM.

And after signing Mr. Brady then abandoning his strategy of low cost veteran free agents, how is the GM in New England doing these days Super Bowl wise? Nothing stays the same.

Well losing their franchise QB to a knee injury the 1st game and still going 11-5 should show you how well the GM has put that team together.

[Brandon494]

IF you watch football you pretty much know the moves those GMs have done. Off the top of my head the moves the current SB champs made that put him over TT.

Saints GM- brought in Sean Payton, Drew Brees, Colston inthe 7th round, traded for Shockey, signed Sharper, signed Vilma, signed undrafted Pierre Thomas, brought in Greg Williams as DC

Some very interesting parallels:

Payton/McCarthy
sign Brees/draft Rodgers
draft Colston/draft Jennings
trade for Shockey/draft Finley
sign Sharper/sign Woodson
sign Vilma/draft Mathews
sign undrafted Pierre Thomas/trade a 7th for undrafted Ryan Grant

Some are advantage -Saints, some advantage-Packers. SOme are a toss-up or too close to tell.

One big difference in the results for the Saints and the Packers. The Saints played in the NFC Championship game against Favre, the Packers played in the NFC Championship game with Favre. :lol: :lol: (Patler now ducking for cover!)

:lol:

[pbmax]

Name 5 GMs better than Ted.


The Saints GM
The Steelers GM
The Giants GM
The Indy GM
The Pats GM


Can't argue with Superbowl winners.
Oh, I think I can argue with the Bruce Allen/Jon Gruden combo in Tampa. There is no one measurement that can tell you who is a good GM.

And after signing Mr. Brady then abandoning his strategy of low cost veteran free agents, how is the GM in New England doing these days Super Bowl wise? Nothing stays the same.

Well losing their franchise QB to a knee injury the 1st game and still going 11-5 should show you how well the GM has put that team together.
But according to Mr. Campbell, Super Bowls are the measuring stick. Unless winning one gives you a lifetime pass to the top five.

[Brandon494]

Name 5 GMs better than Ted.


The Saints GM
The Steelers GM
The Giants GM
The Indy GM
The Pats GM


Can't argue with Superbowl winners.
Oh, I think I can argue with the Bruce Allen/Jon Gruden combo in Tampa. There is no one measurement that can tell you who is a good GM.

And after signing Mr. Brady then abandoning his strategy of low cost veteran free agents, how is the GM in New England doing these days Super Bowl wise? Nothing stays the same.

Well losing their franchise QB to a knee injury the 1st game and still going 11-5 should show you how well the GM has put that team together.
But according to Mr. Campbell, Super Bowls are the measuring stick. Unless winning one gives you a lifetime pass to the top five.

I don't know about winning one, but winning three should.

[sheepshead]

So you think , on paper, the Saints are head and shoulders a far better team than the Packers? on paper?

No, I don't believe thats what I said.

Well thats the job of the GM.....

[Brandon494]

So you think , on paper, the Saints are head and shoulders a far better team than the Packers? on paper?

No, I don't believe thats what I said.

Well thats the job of the GM.....

The job of a GM to win a title, not to be paper champions

[sheepshead]

So you think , on paper, the Saints are head and shoulders a far better team than the Packers? on paper?

No, I don't believe thats what I said.

Well thats the job of the GM.....

The job of a GM to win a title, not to be paper champions

I might argue, that the job of the GM is to put the best players on the field and its the job of the HC and his staff to win games. I think we have one of the best GMs in the business and a HC that should be on a short leash because his learning curve is just about over.

[Smidgeon]

So you think , on paper, the Saints are head and shoulders a far better team than the Packers? on paper?

No, I don't believe thats what I said.

Well thats the job of the GM.....

The job of a GM to win a title, not to be paper champions

I might argue, that the job of the GM is to put the best players on the field and its the job of the HC and his staff to win games. I think we have one of the best GMs in the business and a HC that should be on a short leash because his learning curve is just about over.

I agree that the GM provides the talent and the HC coaches up the victories. But in some regards (i.e. QB regards) this team is very young and only mildly experienced. M3 now has a QB that hasn't developed the trend of losing important games with bad throws. He has lost one, but it isn't a trend and the future looks bright. I would personally give M3 a longer leash that you seem to (not much longer, but longer) in order to see what he can do with his developing QB and young Talent.

[Brandon494]

So you think , on paper, the Saints are head and shoulders a far better team than the Packers? on paper?

No, I don't believe thats what I said.

Well thats the job of the GM.....

The job of a GM to win a title, not to be paper champions

I might argue, that the job of the GM is to put the best players on the field and its the job of the HC and his staff to win games. I think we have one of the best GMs in the business and a HC that should be on a short leash because his learning curve is just about over.

I can agree with that

[gbgary]

if he was a little more active (or should i just say active) in FA i'd rate him higher.

What if he was active but got duds?

He has gotten Woodson and Pickett in FA. Doesn't that count as being "active"?

i was being facetious. yes they count. a little more of that would have been great.

Ya, if only he had used free agency more, like for a starting safety and another cornerback. Maybe another linebacker and tight end. Perhaps a starting fullback.

Oh, wait....Bigby, Williams, Chillar, Lee and Kuhn were also free agents. :lol:

So, the starting fullback, tight end (perhaps now "ex-starter"), nose tackle, both corners at the end of the year and one safety, plus a quasi starting linebacker were all signed as free agents; but Thompson doesn't sign enough free agents?

now you're being facetious because i know you know what i'm getting at.

[Patler]

if he was a little more active (or should i just say active) in FA i'd rate him higher.

What if he was active but got duds?

He has gotten Woodson and Pickett in FA. Doesn't that count as being "active"?

i was being facetious. yes they count. a little more of that would have been great.

Ya, if only he had used free agency more, like for a starting safety and another cornerback. Maybe another linebacker and tight end. Perhaps a starting fullback.

Oh, wait....Bigby, Williams, Chillar, Lee and Kuhn were also free agents. :lol:

So, the starting fullback, tight end (perhaps now "ex-starter"), nose tackle, both corners at the end of the year and one safety, plus a quasi starting linebacker were all signed as free agents; but Thompson doesn't sign enough free agents?

now you're being facetious because i know you know what i'm getting at.

Maybe a little, that was the reason for the: :lol:

But I also wanted to make a point. Free agency isn't just about signing expensive free agents. Its about going out and finding players that can improve your team, and TT has done that. Starters are starters, regardless of whether they were expensive FAs or inexpensive FAs.

Since TT got there, the Packers also have been able to re-sign or extend a lot of players, like Rodgers, Grant, Jennings, Kampman, Wells, Jenkins and probably a few others who don't come to mind right now. Had a bunch of expensive FAs been signed, some of these may have left. After the first year when the salary cap was an issue, what good FAs of their own have the Packers lost?

In my opinion, a GM's record on free agency includes signing the cheapies who become important and re-signing your own good ones; not just signing someone else's expensive FA.

[gbgary]

if he was a little more active (or should i just say active) in FA i'd rate him higher.

What if he was active but got duds?

He has gotten Woodson and Pickett in FA. Doesn't that count as being "active"?

i was being facetious. yes they count. a little more of that would have been great.

Ya, if only he had used free agency more, like for a starting safety and another cornerback. Maybe another linebacker and tight end. Perhaps a starting fullback.

Oh, wait....Bigby, Williams, Chillar, Lee and Kuhn were also free agents. :lol:

So, the starting fullback, tight end (perhaps now "ex-starter"), nose tackle, both corners at the end of the year and one safety, plus a quasi starting linebacker were all signed as free agents; but Thompson doesn't sign enough free agents?

now you're being facetious because i know you know what i'm getting at.

Maybe a little, that was the reason for the: :lol:

But I also wanted to make a point. Free agency isn't just about signing expensive free agents. Its about going out and finding players that can improve your team, and TT has done that. Starters are starters, regardless of whether they were expensive FAs or inexpensive FAs.

Since TT got there, the Packers also have been able to re-sign or extend a lot of players, like Rodgers, Grant, Jennings, Kampman, Wells, Jenkins and probably a few others who don't come to mind right now. Had a bunch of expensive FAs been signed, some of these may have left. After the first year when the salary cap was an issue, what good FAs of their own have the Packers lost?

In my opinion, a GM's record on free agency includes signing the cheapies who become important and re-signing your own good ones; not just signing someone else's expensive FA.

no argument with any of that...it's just when there's an impact guy that you really want, a difference maker, don't let something like money get in the way. don't take no for an answer.

[Patler]

...it's just when there's an impact guy that you really want, a difference maker, don't let something like money get in the way. don't take no for an answer.

I can not agree with that. Money is always a factor in the purchase of anything, including the purchase of a free agent's services. For a good GM, how badly he wants a player SHOULD depend in part at least on how much that player will cost.

[gbgary]

...it's just when there's an impact guy that you really want, a difference maker, don't let something like money get in the way. don't take no for an answer.

I can not agree with that. Money is always a factor in the purchase of anything, including the purchase of a free agent's services. For a good GM, how badly he wants a player SHOULD depend in part at least on how much that player will cost.

in general yes...but Packers specific, being so far under the cap, it shouldn't be a concern.

[Patler]

in general yes...but Packers specific, being so far under the cap, it shouldn't be a concern.

The idea held by some, that the Packers have been so far under the cap that money was no concern, is not realistic, in my opinion. Could they have signed an expensive FA or two? Sure, they could have. But it also would have impacted other long term things they have done, like extending their own players.

That's why there is always a cost/benefit evaluation when considering free agents. TT seemed willing to sign a few, at certain prices, but not beyond his level.

[RashanGary]

Let's say your goal is win a better home and gardens "Best Home of the Month under $5,000". Let's say Better Homes and Gardens goes on month after month and to win, you have to prove everything you bought fit under the cap.


Let's say you needed a sofa, love seat, two end tables, a TV, a washer, Dryer, Kitchen table and some decorations.

You can't go out and get probowl everything, clearly 5,000 doesn't by the best. You have a budget and to win, you're going to have to be better than the stiff competition. You're going to have to get some bang for your buck.


You can take the approach that you're going to go out right now and spend every penny today for your best shot to win this months award. But what are the odds that the best values for all of the items you need are available right now? Odds are slim and your competition might have been patiently building their home for several months, getting value after value. You on the other hand, bought some new appliences and furniture, but then had to go to garage sales for your End tables and kitchen table because you ran out of dough.

Sure, you gave yourself the best shot for that one month, but probably you're going to lsoe to someone who's been making good decisions for longer, someone who got better things for less money and has a champion.

Ted took the other approach, he did research for each item and continues to buy them on sale and when it's a buyers market.



This isn't about being the best you can be today unless the best you can be today is the champ. Ted's approach isn't the quick approach, but it's the high ceiling, championship approach.

Like Patler said, there is an opportunity cost for every decision made. Spend here, take away from there. If you can get more for your money, you can afford more talent. By being patient diligent in his work, Ted has slowly built this core to something pretty formidable and still has a ton of money left to put it over the top. That doesn't happen in one year. This situation took 5 years to get to.

[Fritz]

"it's just when there's an impact guy that you really want, a difference maker, don't let something like money get in the way. don't take no for an answer."

gbgary = Dan Snyder

[gbgary]

"it's just when there's an impact guy that you really want, a difference maker, don't let something like money get in the way. don't take no for an answer."

gbgary = Dan Snyder

:lol: he signs everyone. i'm talking one guy.

[Gunakor]

"it's just when there's an impact guy that you really want, a difference maker, don't let something like money get in the way. don't take no for an answer."

gbgary = Dan Snyder

:lol: he signs everyone. i'm talking one guy.

Honestly, nobody Snyder signs makes an impact anyway.

[Smidgeon]

"it's just when there's an impact guy that you really want, a difference maker, don't let something like money get in the way. don't take no for an answer."

gbgary = Dan Snyder

:lol: he signs everyone. i'm talking one guy.

Honestly, nobody Snyder signs makes an impact anyway.

Yeah. Where are all the people who were clamoring for Haynesworth?

[swede]

We need a clamoring emoticon.

I've clamored a few times myself. Usually over coaches.

I didn't clamor for Ryan Pickett or Brandon Chillar.

I did clamor for the player that spurned us and we ended up signing Woodson. Was that LaVar Arrington?

TT is better off not listening to the clamor.

[Brandon494]

We need a clamoring emoticon.

I've clamored a few times myself. Usually over coaches.

I didn't clamor for Ryan Pickett or Brandon Chillar.

I did clamor for the player that spurned us and we ended up signing Woodson. Was that LaVar Arrington?

TT is better off not listening to the clamor.

Yes it was LaVar Arrington.

Also look at the Skins, they try to buy a championship each offseason and they get the same results. Signing FAs each season does not guarntee success. TT is doing it the right way, thru the draft and building team chemistry. Yes we have a few holes but what team doesnt? All I know is we have the youngest team in the league and the future looks very bright in Green Bay.

[Fritz]

"it's just when there's an impact guy that you really want, a difference maker, don't let something like money get in the way. don't take no for an answer."

gbgary = Dan Snyder

:lol: he signs everyone. i'm talking one guy.

But he often signs the "one guy" people clamor for - Albert Haynesworth being the best example of a big name, an "impact guy...a difference maker."

[Scott Campbell]

"it's just when there's an impact guy that you really want, a difference maker, don't let something like money get in the way. don't take no for an answer."

gbgary = Dan Snyder

:lol: he signs everyone. i'm talking one guy.

But he often signs the "one guy" people clamor for - Albert Haynesworth being the best example of a big name, an "impact guy...a difference maker."


He signed a safety a few years back that everybody thought was the bomb, and he bombed. But I can't remember the guys name right now.

[pbmax]

Actually, I have read that Danny has been flat out restrained for him in the two seasons prior to Haynesworth. So that eruption was bound to happen. And he has built a pretty good defense and a solid secondary. I think at least one CB is a FA back there. He's learning. Slowly, like Jerry did. :lol:

Now he just needs Shanahan to lay off the tanning bed long enough to reverse his prior performance as GM in Denver.

I second the call for a clamoring emoticon. We need more clamoring. Clamoring is essential to the fabric of a free society. Thompson ignores this at his peril. :lol:

[wootah]

He signed a safety a few years back that everybody thought was the bomb, and he bombed. But I can't remember the guys name right now.

Adam Archuletta, who then was traded to da Bears and didn't play a whole lot better over there. Nice wife, though.

[sheepshead]

...it's just when there's an impact guy that you really want, a difference maker, don't let something like money get in the way. don't take no for an answer.

I can not agree with that. Money is always a factor in the purchase of anything, including the purchase of a free agent's services. For a good GM, how badly he wants a player SHOULD depend in part at least on how much that player will cost.

in general yes...but Packers specific, being so far under the cap, it shouldn't be a concern.

Its not quite that simple. TT especially, has come out and said this. He is very aware of his locker room. He takes into consideration how a guys salary will upset the pecking order , if you will. Also, I am certain while he has some give and take in his approach, he only has so much money allocated at various positions and a few guys that he'll pay no matter what, like Rodgers. If a FA's looking for dough way outside of those limits, he is probably going to look elsewhere.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Why does that poll look like it's flipping me off????

now THAT'S funny!!

[cheesner]

I had to go with #1 because I cannot think of 5 GMs who are better.

As for the argument that the last few SB champs, the GM should hold the title - TT has not been around as long as some of them. IND, PIT, NYG had many of their pieces were acquired before the TT era, so how can you compare him?

Maybe I am right, or maybe I am wrong, - but other than NO, I don't think any team in the NFL is looking better for the upcoming decade. And we have TT to thank for that.

[The Shadow]

I had to go with #1 because I cannot think of 5 GMs who are better.

As for the argument that the last few SB champs, the GM should hold the title - TT has not been around as long as some of them. IND, PIT, NYG had many of their pieces were acquired before the TT era, so how can you compare him?

Maybe I am right, or maybe I am wrong, - but other than NO, I don't think any team in the NFL is looking better for the upcoming decade. And we have TT to thank for that.

Agree wholeheartedly!

[The Leaper]

Maybe I am right, or maybe I am wrong, - but other than NO, I don't think any team in the NFL is looking better for the upcoming decade. And we have TT to thank for that.

Nah. I'll thank Aaron Rodgers for that.

Thompson has been lucky just as much as he has been good IMO. He got lucky that Rodgers fell into his lap...if Thompson is sitting 7-8 spots higher, does he pull the trigger on Rodgers? Probably not. Getting Woodson was luck too...Chuck wasn't coming here, other than no one else wanted him.

Thompson is a solid GM...I'm not putting him in the top 5 just yet. In terms of purely evaluating talent, I think he is top 5. However, there is more than just talent evaluation...you need to know how to assemble the talent into a cohesive unit using all avenues available to you. In some respects, Thompson hasn't passed that test with flying colors yet. He is still living off Ron Wolf's OTs...or his OL would be abysmal. His stable of RBs have been mediocre. The punting situation...yeah, that's a black mark. He's also had some difficulty finding enough capable guys in the secondary...he's been hit and miss back there.

IMO, this team remains 3-4 players away from being a true title contender. We need a strong young LT...we need a more complete/game changing RB...we need another pass rushing LB...we need another starting caliber DB.

[Fritz]

I think Harris, Woodson, Williams and Collins are better than most teams' top three corners and top safety. I think if you're calling Thompson "lucky" then do you call the other 23 teams that passed on Rodgers "unlucky"?

If you call Woodson's acquisition "lucky" do you call all those other teams that didn't want him "unlucky"?

Why do you call his good moves "luck" then bash him for other areas?

[Gunakor]

we need a more complete/game changing RB....

I still fail to understand why everyone is so down on Ryan Grant. The guy is a top 10 back in the NFL. That's what he is. 2 years in a row now, in a pass happy offense. Since week 9 of the 2007 season, the week Grant became the regular starter in our pass happy offense, ONLY Adrian Peterson has gained more yards rushing. But unlike Peterson, Grant doesn't fumble the ball. What does a guy have to do to earn respect around here?

What we need is Ryan Grant to do what Ryan Grant does. We need a better line in front of him. We need a better line in front of Rodgers. We need a better line, period. There is nothing wrong with any of the skill positions on offense.

[Tony Oday]

we need a more complete/game changing RB....

I still fail to understand why everyone is so down on Ryan Grant. The guy is a top 10 back in the NFL. That's what he is. 2 years in a row now, in a pass happy offense. Since week 9 of the 2007 season, the week Grant became the regular starter in our pass happy offense, ONLY Adrian Peterson has gained more yards rushing. But unlike Peterson, Grant doesn't fumble the ball. What does a guy have to do to earn respect around here?

What we need is Ryan Grant to do what Ryan Grant does. We need a better line in front of him. We need a better line in front of Rodgers. We need a better line, period. There is nothing wrong with any of the skill positions on offense.

I would say a better line will help him break explosive runs...that is really why he isnt considered an elite back in my opinion.

[Smidgeon]

we need a more complete/game changing RB....

I still fail to understand why everyone is so down on Ryan Grant. The guy is a top 10 back in the NFL. That's what he is. 2 years in a row now, in a pass happy offense. Since week 9 of the 2007 season, the week Grant became the regular starter in our pass happy offense, ONLY Adrian Peterson has gained more yards rushing. But unlike Peterson, Grant doesn't fumble the ball. What does a guy have to do to earn respect around here?

What we need is Ryan Grant to do what Ryan Grant does. We need a better line in front of him. We need a better line in front of Rodgers. We need a better line, period. There is nothing wrong with any of the skill positions on offense.

I would say a better line will help him break explosive runs...that is really why he isnt considered an elite back in my opinion.

Well, that and he doesn't utilize a second move or break many tackles on the second level...

[retailguy]

I think Harris, Woodson, Williams and Collins are better than most teams' top three corners and top safety. I think if you're calling Thompson "lucky" then do you call the other 23 teams that passed on Rodgers "unlucky"?

If you call Woodson's acquisition "lucky" do you call all those other teams that didn't want him "unlucky"?

Why do you call his good moves "luck" then bash him for other areas?

I'm not sure what your complaint is with Leapers post. I think he was incredibly fair. He never mentioned Adrian Klemm, or Matt O'Dwyer, or Marquand Manuel. See, if you want to crown Ted as a "genius", then you have to categorize these moves too.

Leaper said he was "top 5" in talent acquisition, and even I'd be hard pressed to disagree. But the guy isn't perfect. Nobody is. He is, and always will be an abysmal communicator. That's part of his job. He's surely not top 5 in that department. (I recognize that some of you think that saying nothing is a "skill". I do not agree.)

He said that Ted got "lucky" with Woodson. That's true. Not because he didn't know Woodson was a good player, hell even I knew that, it's because he didn't want to come here. If ANYONE else wanted Woodson, he'd be there today. In that sense, Ted got damn lucky.

He inherited Al Harris, from <gasp> Mike Sherman. Resigning him could have been accomplished with a chimpanzee leading the team.

He gets credit for Williams, that's pretty clear. If you recall, he put Williams (an undrafted free agent who was waived by Houston his rookie year) on the practice squad near the end of the 2006 season, and someone on staff developed him.

The whole "talent" thing is overblown in my opinion. Every single player that gets into an NFL training camp has the "talent" to succeed. Whether they have the rest of the tools to succeed is quite a different matter.

Finally, as to Rodgers, I do have to also agree with leaper. Had we drafted 15th, would we have taken him? I don't think so. Rodgers fell for a reason. People were scared of his delivery, and were also worried about Tedfords history. Rodgers only started for one season at Cal if I recall correctly, and only played on the team for two seasons having started in junior college. I don't think Ted would have been much more willing to risk a high draft pick on him than anyone else was. Lots of unknowns at that point.

Why you gotta argue, Fritz? It's all good. We're coming off the playoffs, expectations are high, Ted bought some job security and his "warts" are all hidden. Life is good.

[Scott Campbell]

He said that Ted got "lucky" with Woodson. That's true. Not because he didn't know Woodson was a good player, hell even I knew that, it's because he didn't want to come here. If ANYONE else wanted Woodson, he'd be there today. In that sense, Ted got damn lucky.



Hmmmmmmm.

If it was such a universal truth that Woodson was a good player, why is it that nobody else wanted him?

[retailguy]

He said that Ted got "lucky" with Woodson. That's true. Not because he didn't know Woodson was a good player, hell even I knew that, it's because he didn't want to come here. If ANYONE else wanted Woodson, he'd be there today. In that sense, Ted got damn lucky.



Hmmmmmmm.

If it was such a universal truth that Woodson was a good player, why is it that nobody else wanted him?

Because of his knee injury... If you recall there were questions about whether or not he'd be the same player... too old to regain movement, that's why they wanted to move him to safety in Tampa. It was a low risk move for Ted. You bring him in as a corner, which is what he wanted to do, and if he doesn't make it, you move him to safety... :idea:

And this invalidates the rest of my post? please. stop stirring up shit.

[Scott Campbell]

I think Harris, Woodson, Williams and Collins are better than most teams' top three corners and top safety. I think if you're calling Thompson "lucky" then do you call the other 23 teams that passed on Rodgers "unlucky"?



And was Ted just unlucky with Justin Harrell?


I think the truth is that there is both skill and luck involved in player evaluation and acquisition tactics. And that will always be true as long as players like Marques Colsten and Donald Driver are drafted in the 7th round. Though if you're not a fan of Ted's communication skills or hair color, I suppose you might be inclined to credit his good moves to luck, and his bad moves to stupidity, or my personal favorite - ego.

[Scott Campbell]

And this invalidates the rest of my post? please. stop stirring up shit.


:lol: Are you trying to lump me in with that known troublemaker Fritz? Why do you cry "unfair" anytime somebody sticks up for Ted?

Before the summer of 08 drama, Ted was the most divisive topic on this board - by far. All the best ugly arguments centered around Ted. Just because he's no longer the most divisive subject on this board, it doesn't mean that he's not a divisive figure. He is, and probably will be for his entire GB tenure.

People are going to argue about Ted, and that's not a problem if we don't let it become a problem.

Dismissing the Woodson acquisition as a no brainer is not fully giving credit for getting one right in the same manner that we see Ted skewered for completely whiffing on a guy like Manuel. It's just not accurate. IMO.

[Scott Campbell]

Finally, as to Rodgers, I do have to also agree with leaper. Had we drafted 15th, would we have taken him? I don't think so. Rodgers fell for a reason.


Your reasons are valid, but you omitted the part where the teams immediately ahead of us had no need for a first round QB. That played a bigger role in him falling to us. I'm as certain as I can be that we would have taken him in the 15th slot.

[RashanGary]

I'll compare being an NFL GM to being a good poker player.


To play good poker, you need to know the odds of your hands preflop (the players skills and warts), the amount you have to bet to see the flop (the cost of the player) and then you can pick up tells (the personnel issues with the player).

A good poker player is balancing this out with every hand and a good GM is balancing this out with every decision. Nothing is a sure bet, nothing concrete, but over time if you can balance several factors in a way that makes your decisions more sound than your opponents and your mistakes fewer, you're going to win over time.

You can call Ted Thompson lucky that so many of his moves have panned out and that this team has grown so much during his reign just like you can call Dan Harrington lucky for being a championship poker player and a very rich man at a sport many people consider gambling. Nobody knows what will come after the flop, but I believe the ablility to weigh risk and reward is both skill and knowledge. The ability to avoid donking out on a dumb move in a 4,000 person tournament and making it to the end is far from luck, especially when it's done consistently.


There's a luck factor, sure, just like calling a 1:8 bet and catching your open ended straight draw on the river could be consdiered luck, but when you consider you have a 1:5 chance of hitting that card, the risk justified taking the chance on the reward. If it was a 1:2 bet, you'd be a donkey. In football terms, Mike Sherman.

In summary, it's good to take a chance sometime, but the reward has to outweight the risk and like Patler has tried to communicate many times, price is a big factor in the risk. Over time luck goes away. Ted's no more lucky than anyone else. HE's more skilled.

[Fred's Slacks]

With these definitions on what makes a move luck or skill, it would seem that the only moves that involve skill is when you pay a high price for a player. So we'll give credit to TT for Clay Matthews but all other moves were luck, good or bad? :?:

[Smidgeon]

With these definitions on what makes a move luck or skill, it would seem that the only moves that involve skill is when you pay a high price for a player. So we'll give credit to TT for Clay Matthews but all other moves were luck, good or bad? :?:

Apparently that's the way it goes. No accountability. Except when you want to get rid of somebody... :roll:

[Scott Campbell]

With these definitions on what makes a move luck or skill, it would seem that the only moves that involve skill is when you pay a high price for a player. So we'll give credit to TT for Clay Matthews but all other moves were luck, good or bad? :?:

Apparently that's the way it goes. No accountability. Except when you want to get rid of somebody... :roll:



It's a bottom line business. With no real threat to his job status during his 5 year tenure, I think its safe to say that the Executive Council is happy enough with him - up till this point in time anyway.

[sharpe1027]

I'm not sure what your complaint is with Leapers post. I think he was incredibly fair. He never mentioned Adrian Klemm, or Matt O'Dwyer, or Marquand Manuel. See, if you want to crown Ted as a "genius", then you have to categorize these moves too.

I agree. Where I come down is that either he was both luck and unlucky, or he was "genius" for several moves and "stupid" for several moves. What I do like is that even his unlucky/stupid moves haven't hamstrung the team financially for several years.



Leaper said he was "top 5" in talent acquisition, and even I'd be hard pressed to disagree. But the guy isn't perfect. Nobody is. He is, and always will be an abysmal communicator. That's part of his job. He's surely not top 5 in that department. (I recognize that some of you think that saying nothing is a "skill". I do not agree.)

Personally, I don't give two sh##s what the guy says to the media as long as it doesn't hurt the team. You can, of course, feel that talking to the media has some bearing on his job performance. That's perfectly within your right. I don't see much advantage to a sliver tongue other than making some fans feel all warm and cozy... :lol:



He said that Ted got "lucky" with Woodson. That's true. Not because he didn't know Woodson was a good player, hell even I knew that, it's because he didn't want to come here. If ANYONE else wanted Woodson, he'd be there today. In that sense, Ted got damn lucky.

The fact that he initially did not want to come to GB speaks volumes about TT's success. Look at it this way, there is a cut-throat business in which 32 teams can compete for the services of a group of FA players. The GM of a particular team performs his evaluations and then goes after a particular player, which any of the other teams can sign (and would if they thought it would help their team). This GM gets the player and he turns out to be the best of all the available players. This is, quite frankly, the opposite of luck. There really is nothing "lucky" about it. It was an open competition in which one GM was better than 31 other GMs. What is lucky about that?



He inherited Al Harris, from <gasp> Mike Sherman. Resigning him could have been accomplished with a chimpanzee leading the team.

Yet, somehow I suspect that had Al taken a downward turn due to age (as some had suggested might happen) you would be complaining about it. You can't really have it both ways. Even if it seemed a straight forward move to you, there was plenty of consideration that went into it. Hindsight is always 20/20.

Maybe a chimpanzee could have done the same. I suppose that is why Sherman got fired, he blew so much cap money that he would often not have enough money to make these kind of re-signings.



He gets credit for Williams, that's pretty clear. If you recall, he put Williams (an undrafted free agent who was waived by Houston his rookie year) on the practice squad near the end of the 2006 season, and someone on staff developed him.

Good point. Which guy in the organization is ultimately responsible for putting together the staff that included that "someone on the staff" to develop him? Shouldn't we give that guy some credit? :wink:



The whole "talent" thing is overblown in my opinion. Every single player that gets into an NFL training camp has the "talent" to succeed. Whether they have the rest of the tools to succeed is quite a different matter.

Not sure what you mean. I would generally think that "talent" includes the tools needed for success. Are you talking about physical talent vs. mental talent?



Finally, as to Rodgers, I do have to also agree with leaper. Had we drafted 15th, would we have taken him? I don't think so. Rodgers fell for a reason. People were scared of his delivery, and were also worried about Tedfords history. Rodgers only started for one season at Cal if I recall correctly, and only played on the team for two seasons having started in junior college. I don't think Ted would have been much more willing to risk a high draft pick on him than anyone else was. Lots of unknowns at that point.

If Rodgers fell for all those reasons, then doesn't TT deserve even more credit for seeing past what all those other teams couldn't?

I don't mean to be rah rah TT, and I don't mean to completely rip on your post retail. I agree that TT, and any GM, can improve. I just don't agree why you dismiss his good moves.

I think he should be judged by how well the team does on a consistent basis. I am not one of those people that think that a team has to win the SB almost every year for the GM to be successful.

IMHO, the odds of improving the team by getting rid of TT are very small. So he should stay. He's good and I like that his system seems setup to keep the Packers in contention over a long period of time. IMO, you need type of system because no matter what type of team you put together in preseason, you can never, ever guarantee a SB victory. You might as well give yourself many shots at it over many different years.

[retailguy]

I just don't agree why you dismiss his good moves.



I really didn't think I was "dismissing" his good moves. Quite honestly, I think that's the most pro-Ted post I've ever made.

It is just sickening to read that he "can do no wrong". Everything he gets "right" gets magnified and everything he does "wrong" gets minimized. I'm sure it works the opposite way if you borrow Justin Harrell's glasses.

While we're on that topic, please note that not once did I mention the player that goes by that name, nor did I mention waiving Jon Ryan either. There are several other things I could have brought up if my goal was to bash the guy. It wasn't. I was merely pointing out that he has benefited from some no brainer moves while he's been here, just like everyone else in the league. We can't give him too much credit for some moves, but he's not completely to blame on others either.

Every move the guy makes is not "money in the bank". But when it comes to personnel moves, he gets more right than he gets wrong. As leaper pointed out, there is more to the job than just personnel. I think he isn't very good at those things. Maybe he'll improve, I don't know. We all have to grow into a job.

Expounding on the Rodgers point, I agree with what you said, with one exception. As a player falls, the "price" falls too. At some point, just like a commodity on a store shelf, the player becomes "too good of a value" to pass up. I think that's what happened to Rodgers at 24. That is the best reason why I think he would not have been picked by Green Bay at 15. Others in that draft would have been a better value with less risk at 15. Rodgers became a great value at 24, notwithstanding "need". Plenty of teams pick with limited need when the value gets "good" enough. Hope that clarifies my point.

[Scott Campbell]

It is just sickening to read that he "can do no wrong".



Well that would sicken me too. Except I've never read that.

Check out the poll results. Most of this forum doesn't put him in the Top 5, including me.

I think it's fine for you to not like Ted. I get it. He rubs you wrong, and it's been that way since he hired back on. But I think you need to acknowledge that it affects the way you view his accomplishments.

And for the record, I think that his cutting of Ryan was a completely boneheaded move. I can see why they wanted to go another direction, but there was no excuse for the lousy timing. That's totally on Ted. He's also on the hook for not providing us with a decent punter, or decent return man. I'd be a lot more pissed at him over the O-line situation if he hadn't brought Tauscher back in to shore it up. That move went from being horrible to merely suspect.

[Smidgeon]

It is just sickening to read that he "can do no wrong".



Well that would sicken me too. Except I've never read that.

Check out the poll results. Most of this forum doesn't put him in the Top 5, including me.

I think it's fine for you to not like Ted. I get it. He rubs you wrong, and it's been that way since he hired back on. But I think you need to acknowledge that it affects the way you view his accomplishments.

And for the record, I think that his cutting of Ryan was a completely boneheaded move. I can see why they wanted to go another direction, but there was no excuse for the lousy timing. That's totally on Ted. He's also on the hook for not providing us with a decent punter, or decent return man. I'd be a lot more pissed at him over the O-line situation if he hadn't brought Tauscher back in to shore it up. That move went from being horrible to merely suspect.

You mean a second return man? Blackman was pretty good when healthy...

[pbmax]

Any drafter/GM is simply playing the odds. Trying to avoid known factors that cause trouble and trying to maximize those attributes that mark future success. No one knows anything for certain or Ryan Leaf, Tim Couch and Kenneth Sims would have been All-Pros.

Thompson almost certainly would not have traded up to get Rodgers at 24 since he still had Favre under contract for five years and had a rebuilding project underway. To take a QB for a team with no talent at backup QB makes sense; to spend two picks on that QB makes far less sense. And he very well may not have taken him at 15 with the other needs of the team. But neither scenario is a good test of a GM. Any GM who falls in love with specific players will be out on his ear in four years. Ask Sherman.

And ask Thompson. Hawk seems to be as close to a Thompson favorite/sure thing as we have seen. And had Thompson paid extra to get him, then the limited upside he has shown would have been even more painful to witness.

And as for using all available avenues for player acquisition, I give you Orlando Pace, Stacy Andrews and Adrian Klemm. Good luck sorting the wheat from the chaff. FA is as much a crapshoot as drafting these days as teams finally stopped boxing themselves in with the cap and could keep their best players.

And Woodson had a broken leg, not a knee injury in 2005. He may have had a knee prior to that, but his last season in Oakland ended with the break.

[Scott Campbell]

It is just sickening to read that he "can do no wrong".



Well that would sicken me too. Except I've never read that.

Check out the poll results. Most of this forum doesn't put him in the Top 5, including me.

I think it's fine for you to not like Ted. I get it. He rubs you wrong, and it's been that way since he hired back on. But I think you need to acknowledge that it affects the way you view his accomplishments.

And for the record, I think that his cutting of Ryan was a completely boneheaded move. I can see why they wanted to go another direction, but there was no excuse for the lousy timing. That's totally on Ted. He's also on the hook for not providing us with a decent punter, or decent return man. I'd be a lot more pissed at him over the O-line situation if he hadn't brought Tauscher back in to shore it up. That move went from being horrible to merely suspect.

You mean a second return man? Blackman was pretty good when healthy...


I have two problems with Blackman. He can't stay healthy, and he can't play DB worth a lick.

[Gunakor]

we need a more complete/game changing RB....

I still fail to understand why everyone is so down on Ryan Grant. The guy is a top 10 back in the NFL. That's what he is. 2 years in a row now, in a pass happy offense. Since week 9 of the 2007 season, the week Grant became the regular starter in our pass happy offense, ONLY Adrian Peterson has gained more yards rushing. But unlike Peterson, Grant doesn't fumble the ball. What does a guy have to do to earn respect around here?

What we need is Ryan Grant to do what Ryan Grant does. We need a better line in front of him. We need a better line in front of Rodgers. We need a better line, period. There is nothing wrong with any of the skill positions on offense.

I would say a better line will help him break explosive runs...that is really why he isnt considered an elite back in my opinion.

Well, that and he doesn't utilize a second move or break many tackles on the second level...

And as we all complain about that, he averaged 4.5 ypc en route to 1253 yards and 11 TD's on the season. Here's my question. Who cares about a second move or breaking tackles at the second level when he's getting the yards, moving the chains, and scoring the points? I could care less about breaking tackles at the second level as long as he's consistently falling forward for 4. That leaves 3rd and 2. That moves the chains, keeps the clock running, and wears out the defense. I'll take that all afternoon, every Sunday in Autumn.

We run a form of ZBS. Lets get our zone blockers out on the second level guys and throw a block so Grant doesn't have to break so many goddamn tackles. That'd help too.

[Gunakor]

He's also on the hook for not providing us with a decent punter, or decent return man.

Ted has provided us with an exceptional return man. Blackmon just can't stay healthy anymore. Tramon Williams has proven more than adequate returning punts as well, but hasn't been asked to do it very often recently with his increased playing time on defense.

A better punter would be nice, though. Preferably, however, I'd rather our offense get the ball to at least midfield on most of their possessions so that we don't need the strongest legged punter in the NFL.

[Scott Campbell]

Ted has provided us with an exceptional return man. Blackmon just can't stay healthy anymore.


As opposed to when?

He's slightly more durable the Justin Harrell. The only decent return man on the team is Woodson, and that just isn't going to happen.

[pbmax]

What I would really like to know is if the same evaluation process led Thompson to trade up for Matthews and Jeremy Thompson. Matthews was a need, I would like to know what it was about Thompson. My gut tells me Waldo would tell us it was measurables, but in each case why trade up?

It would be an interesting insight that we probably won't get to hear until Thompson retires.

[Smidgeon]

we need a more complete/game changing RB....

I still fail to understand why everyone is so down on Ryan Grant. The guy is a top 10 back in the NFL. That's what he is. 2 years in a row now, in a pass happy offense. Since week 9 of the 2007 season, the week Grant became the regular starter in our pass happy offense, ONLY Adrian Peterson has gained more yards rushing. But unlike Peterson, Grant doesn't fumble the ball. What does a guy have to do to earn respect around here?

What we need is Ryan Grant to do what Ryan Grant does. We need a better line in front of him. We need a better line in front of Rodgers. We need a better line, period. There is nothing wrong with any of the skill positions on offense.

I would say a better line will help him break explosive runs...that is really why he isnt considered an elite back in my opinion.

Well, that and he doesn't utilize a second move or break many tackles on the second level...

And as we all complain about that, he averaged 4.5 ypc en route to 1253 yards and 11 TD's on the season. Here's my question. Who cares about a second move or breaking tackles at the second level when he's getting the yards, moving the chains, and scoring the points? I could care less about breaking tackles at the second level as long as he's consistently falling forward for 4. That leaves 3rd and 2. That moves the chains, keeps the clock running, and wears out the defense. I'll take that all afternoon, every Sunday in Autumn.

We run a form of ZBS. Lets get our zone blockers out on the second level guys and throw a block so Grant doesn't have to break so many goddamn tackles. That'd help too.

I was only commenting on why he isn't considered elite. He doesn't create. That's why he's not considered elite.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Gunakor, will you marry me? :D :hrt:

[sharpe1027]

I really didn't think I was "dismissing" his good moves. Quite honestly, I think that's the most pro-Ted post I've ever made.


Fine, calling his good moves "lucky". I don't really want to get into semantics. My main point was that calling good moves luck seems to be a biased view.



It is just sickening to read that he "can do no wrong". Everything he gets "right" gets magnified and everything he does "wrong" gets minimized. I'm sure it works the opposite way if you borrow Justin Harrell's glasses.

You say you are being misrepresented regarding "dismissed" and then do the same right back to me. Nobody is saying he "can do no wrong."



While we're on that topic, please note that not once did I mention the player that goes by that name, nor did I mention waiving Jon Ryan either. There are several other things I could have brought up if my goal was to bash the guy. It wasn't. I was merely pointing out that he has benefited from some no brainer moves while he's been here, just like everyone else in the league. We can't give him too much credit for some moves, but he's not completely to blame on others either.

No, what you did is call his good moves "lucky" or something a "chimpanzee" could do. When you brought up some of his bad moves, I generally agreed with you. I have no idea what he was thinking with John Ryan, but a have a guess he listened too much to a certain special teams coach. If that is the case I put it even more on TT, it is his job to do the evaluations of both the players and the coaches.



Every move the guy makes is not "money in the bank". But when it comes to personnel moves, he gets more right than he gets wrong. As leaper pointed out, there is more to the job than just personnel. I think he isn't very good at those things. Maybe he'll improve, I don't know. We all have to grow into a job.

I just personally don't care that he isn't able to spin stuff to the media. You do. That's fine.



Expounding on the Rodgers point, I agree with what you said, with one exception. As a player falls, the "price" falls too. At some point, just like a commodity on a store shelf, the player becomes "too good of a value" to pass up. I think that's what happened to Rodgers at 24. That is the best reason why I think he would not have been picked by Green Bay at 15. Others in that draft would have been a better value with less risk at 15. Rodgers became a great value at 24, notwithstanding "need". Plenty of teams pick with limited need when the value gets "good" enough. Hope that clarifies my point.

Yeah, that makes sense, but I don't really see the point of that hypothetical. IMHO, it was a damn good pick regardless. If I use that logic, I could just as easily argue that TT was unlucky with Harrell. If TT was drafting at a higher position he probably would have drafted someone else...so I hope you can see why I don't really take a lot of stock in that type of analysis.

[CaliforniaCheez]

I have the upmost confidence in the Packers General Manager, Ted Thompson. Higher than any of the categories in the poll.

1) The cap/payroll is in great shape with

2) The team being competitive.

The Packers are well positioned for the uncapped year.

In a forum like this it is all too easy to point out some choices that did not work out successfully.

On the whole the averages work out. In a year when they draft late such as this one it is better to think of it as them not having a 1st round pick. Consider their first as a secnd and so forth.

Things will work well and as always there a few worthwhile free agents to consider.

[cheesner]

Maybe I am right, or maybe I am wrong, - but other than NO, I don't think any team in the NFL is looking better for the upcoming decade. And we have TT to thank for that.

Nah. I'll thank Aaron Rodgers for that.

Thompson has been lucky just as much as he has been good IMO. He got lucky that Rodgers fell into his lap...if Thompson is sitting 7-8 spots higher, does he pull the trigger on Rodgers? Probably not. Getting Woodson was luck too...Chuck wasn't coming here, other than no one else wanted him.

Thompson is a solid GM...I'm not putting him in the top 5 just yet. In terms of purely evaluating talent, I think he is top 5. However, there is more than just talent evaluation...you need to know how to assemble the talent into a cohesive unit using all avenues available to you. In some respects, Thompson hasn't passed that test with flying colors yet. He is still living off Ron Wolf's OTs...or his OL would be abysmal. His stable of RBs have been mediocre. The punting situation...yeah, that's a black mark. He's also had some difficulty finding enough capable guys in the secondary...he's been hit and miss back there.

IMO, this team remains 3-4 players away from being a true title contender. We need a strong young LT...we need a more complete/game changing RB...we need another pass rushing LB...we need another starting caliber DB.
Lets see, he has AR, Collins, Jennings, Finley and CMIII to his credit as 5 diffence makers in 5 drafts. And I suspect more will emerge in the near future.

Who was better drafting? Not NO. They got lucky on every single draft pick. Certainly not Indy, they got lucky on Manning, Gonzalez, etc. and pretty much every pick they have ever made.

WHat the hell? It is ridiculous to not give TT credit where credit is due. His drafting record has been better or at least equal to, any GM in the NFL. To call it luck is foolish at best.

[Gunakor]

Ted has provided us with an exceptional return man. Blackmon just can't stay healthy anymore.


As opposed to when?

He didn't miss a game in 2008. How quickly we forget.

36 punt returns for 400 yards and 2 TD's ain't too shabby. 55 kick returns for almost 1200 yards ain't horrible either. If he comes back and can stay healthy he's all the return man we need.

[Brandon494]

I hate when people say TT got lucky with picking Rodgers. You think that was a easy pick to make when you have Favre at QB? He had to know he was going to take a lot of heat for using a 1st round pick on a QB.

An example of a lucky pick would be the Cavs winning the draft lottery getting the #1 pick and selecting a no brainer in Lebron James.

[Joemailman]

Taking Rodgers in 2005 was anything but a no-brainer. The Packers had the NFL's #3 offense and #25 defense in 2004. The conventional wisdom would have been go with the best defensive player in the 1st round.

Odell Thurman was available. Right, Bretsky? :wink:

[Bossman641]

I voted 7-8 in the poll.

Sure, Thompson has had a few misses along the way (the OL, Jon Ryan, Harrell) but when you look at the overall body of work it speaks for itself. And I think characterizing any move as "lucky" or a "no brainer" is ridiculous. Is the "luck" of Rodgers balanced out against the "unluckiness" of Harrell? If TT doesn't get credit for Woodson because it was a no-brainer, does he instead get credit for not signing any of the dozens of high-priced FA's who didn't live up to their contracts?

[cheesner]

I voted 7-8 in the poll.

Sure, Thompson has had a few misses along the way (the OL, Jon Ryan, Harrell) but when you look at the overall body of work it speaks for itself. And I think characterizing any move as "lucky" or a "no brainer" is ridiculous. Is the "luck" of Rodgers balanced out against the "unluckiness" of Harrell? If TT doesn't get credit for Woodson because it was a no-brainer, does he instead get credit for not signing any of the dozens of high-priced FA's who didn't live up to their contracts?
Great point. Some of TT's best moves were moves he didn't make.

Every player in the draft carries a risk of bust. If its because of attitude, it can be prevented. If its because of injury, like in Harrell, there isn't o much you can do about it. Still, attitude problems are still worth it. Finley slipped to the 4th round in part because he was very immature. At the 4th round TT felt the high risk was worth the potential reward. His rookie season he was looking like a probable failure. His attitude and throwing his QB under the bus, looked to me like he wasn't going to make it. Surprisingly, he matured fast and TT and the Packers are cashing in on that pick.

Do you want to call it luck?

Its like poker, you can play any hand you want, if you play your pocket aces, you will win heads up 80% of the time. You aren't guaranteed to win, but the odds are in your favor. If you play your 2-7 off, your odds are way down, but you will still win some. The idea is to put yourself in the best odds of success as often as you can. To an uneducated eye, what appears as luck is actually careful and intelligent planning and risk management. To me, TT appears to be a master at this.

[Guiness]

Taking Rodgers in 2005 was anything but a no-brainer. The Packers had the NFL's #3 offense and #25 defense in 2004. The conventional wisdom would have been go with the best defensive player in the 1st round.

Odell Thurman was available. Right, Bretsky? :wink:

Ouch, that was cheap Joe. Poor Bretsky's taken one holy hell of a beating for liking that guy!

[Scott Campbell]

Ted has provided us with an exceptional return man. Blackmon just can't stay healthy anymore.


As opposed to when?

He didn't miss a game in 2008. How quickly we forget.


32 games out of 64 possible in his career. He's durable only if you're comparing him to Justin Harrell.

[Scott Campbell]

At the 4th round TT felt the high risk was worth the potential reward.


3rd round.

[Scott Campbell]

Taking Rodgers in 2005 was anything but a no-brainer. The Packers had the NFL's #3 offense and #25 defense in 2004. The conventional wisdom would have been go with the best defensive player in the 1st round.

Odell Thurman was available. Right, Bretsky? :wink:

Ouch, that was cheap Joe. Poor Bretsky's taken one holy hell of a beating for liking that guy!



Things are looking up for B. Meacham finally did something.

[gbgary]

we need a more complete/game changing RB....

I still fail to understand why everyone is so down on Ryan Grant. The guy is a top 10 back in the NFL. That's what he is. 2 years in a row now, in a pass happy offense. Since week 9 of the 2007 season, the week Grant became the regular starter in our pass happy offense, ONLY Adrian Peterson has gained more yards rushing. But unlike Peterson, Grant doesn't fumble the ball. What does a guy have to do to earn respect around here?

What we need is Ryan Grant to do what Ryan Grant does. We need a better line in front of him. We need a better line in front of Rodgers. We need a better line, period. There is nothing wrong with any of the skill positions on offense.

I would say a better line will help him break explosive runs...that is really why he isnt considered an elite back in my opinion.

Well, that and he doesn't utilize a second move or break many tackles on the second level...

And as we all complain about that, he averaged 4.5 ypc en route to 1253 yards and 11 TD's on the season. Here's my question. Who cares about a second move or breaking tackles at the second level when he's getting the yards, moving the chains, and scoring the points? I could care less about breaking tackles at the second level as long as he's consistently falling forward for 4. That leaves 3rd and 2. That moves the chains, keeps the clock running, and wears out the defense. I'll take that all afternoon, every Sunday in Autumn.

We run a form of ZBS. Lets get our zone blockers out on the second level guys and throw a block so Grant doesn't have to break so many goddamn tackles. That'd help too.

I was only commenting on why he isn't considered elite. He doesn't create. That's why he's not considered elite.

fwiw...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/346112-green-bay-packers-position-analysis-volume-ii-running-backs

[Smidgeon]

we need a more complete/game changing RB....

I still fail to understand why everyone is so down on Ryan Grant. The guy is a top 10 back in the NFL. That's what he is. 2 years in a row now, in a pass happy offense. Since week 9 of the 2007 season, the week Grant became the regular starter in our pass happy offense, ONLY Adrian Peterson has gained more yards rushing. But unlike Peterson, Grant doesn't fumble the ball. What does a guy have to do to earn respect around here?

What we need is Ryan Grant to do what Ryan Grant does. We need a better line in front of him. We need a better line in front of Rodgers. We need a better line, period. There is nothing wrong with any of the skill positions on offense.

I would say a better line will help him break explosive runs...that is really why he isnt considered an elite back in my opinion.

Well, that and he doesn't utilize a second move or break many tackles on the second level...

And as we all complain about that, he averaged 4.5 ypc en route to 1253 yards and 11 TD's on the season. Here's my question. Who cares about a second move or breaking tackles at the second level when he's getting the yards, moving the chains, and scoring the points? I could care less about breaking tackles at the second level as long as he's consistently falling forward for 4. That leaves 3rd and 2. That moves the chains, keeps the clock running, and wears out the defense. I'll take that all afternoon, every Sunday in Autumn.

We run a form of ZBS. Lets get our zone blockers out on the second level guys and throw a block so Grant doesn't have to break so many goddamn tackles. That'd help too.

I was only commenting on why he isn't considered elite. He doesn't create. That's why he's not considered elite.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/346112-green-bay-packers-position-analysis-volume-ii-running-backs

The article says he's good at taking what's given to him (which I agree he is), but he still doesn't make anything out of nothing which is why he isn't considered elite. He isn't a threat to score everytime he touches the ball. He's incredibly consistent and doesn't turn the ball over.

I like Grant. Maybe he pairs well with AR in that neither really ever turn the ball over. Maybe he's more ideal for the system than I think. But that wasn't the point of my statement. The point of my statement is that he isn't considered elite because he doesn't create.

He is a very good running back and I'm happy Green Bay has him over Morency or Gado or Herron, etc. He's effective for what he has to do. He could be upgraded, but there are definitely more pressing needs this offseason.

[channtheman]

we need a more complete/game changing RB....

I still fail to understand why everyone is so down on Ryan Grant. The guy is a top 10 back in the NFL. That's what he is. 2 years in a row now, in a pass happy offense. Since week 9 of the 2007 season, the week Grant became the regular starter in our pass happy offense, ONLY Adrian Peterson has gained more yards rushing. But unlike Peterson, Grant doesn't fumble the ball. What does a guy have to do to earn respect around here?

What we need is Ryan Grant to do what Ryan Grant does. We need a better line in front of him. We need a better line in front of Rodgers. We need a better line, period. There is nothing wrong with any of the skill positions on offense.

I would say a better line will help him break explosive runs...that is really why he isnt considered an elite back in my opinion.

Well, that and he doesn't utilize a second move or break many tackles on the second level...

And as we all complain about that, he averaged 4.5 ypc en route to 1253 yards and 11 TD's on the season. Here's my question. Who cares about a second move or breaking tackles at the second level when he's getting the yards, moving the chains, and scoring the points? I could care less about breaking tackles at the second level as long as he's consistently falling forward for 4. That leaves 3rd and 2. That moves the chains, keeps the clock running, and wears out the defense. I'll take that all afternoon, every Sunday in Autumn.

We run a form of ZBS. Lets get our zone blockers out on the second level guys and throw a block so Grant doesn't have to break so many goddamn tackles. That'd help too.

I was only commenting on why he isn't considered elite. He doesn't create. That's why he's not considered elite.

fwiw...

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/346112-green-bay-packers-position-analysis-volume-ii-running-backs

That really makes a good point about Grant. Mainly, because he doesn't have the long 60 yard TD runs, his average of 4.4 is truly pretty accurate. Instead of often getting 2-3 yards/carry and then busting off a 60 yarder to bump that average up, Grant really is a consistent 4 ypc guy.

[Gunakor]

Ted has provided us with an exceptional return man. Blackmon just can't stay healthy anymore.


As opposed to when?

He didn't miss a game in 2008. How quickly we forget.


32 games out of 64 possible in his career. He's durable only if you're comparing him to Justin Harrell.

Beside the point. You said Ted Thompson hasn't provided us a decent return man. 2 years ago Will Blackmon was an exceptional return man for us (nice job omitting the return stats I posted from that year in your response btw), and he was brought in by Ted Thompson. I offered the Tramon Williams example as a decent return man also. That's 2 more than decent return men Ted has provided us with.

[Tony Oday]

Ted has provided us with an exceptional return man. Blackmon just can't stay healthy anymore.


As opposed to when?

He didn't miss a game in 2008. How quickly we forget.


32 games out of 64 possible in his career. He's durable only if you're comparing him to Justin Harrell.

Beside the point. You said Ted Thompson hasn't provided us a decent return man. 2 years ago Will Blackmon was an exceptional return man for us (nice job omitting the return stats I posted from that year in your response btw), and he was brought in by Ted Thompson. I offered the Tramon Williams example as a decent return man also. That's 2 more than decent return men Ted has provided us with.

I STILL think that return men are only as good as the blocking...Cribs and Mel Gray maybe the exceptions :)

[Gunakor]

Ted has provided us with an exceptional return man. Blackmon just can't stay healthy anymore.


As opposed to when?

He didn't miss a game in 2008. How quickly we forget.


32 games out of 64 possible in his career. He's durable only if you're comparing him to Justin Harrell.

Beside the point. You said Ted Thompson hasn't provided us a decent return man. 2 years ago Will Blackmon was an exceptional return man for us (nice job omitting the return stats I posted from that year in your response btw), and he was brought in by Ted Thompson. I offered the Tramon Williams example as a decent return man also. That's 2 more than decent return men Ted has provided us with.

I STILL think that return men are only as good as the blocking...Cribs and Mel Gray maybe the exceptions :)

If the return man is only as good as his blocking then why do Tramon Williams and Will Blackmon excel where Jordy Nelson does not? Vision and explosiveness matter when returning kicks. Nelson has neither.

Can't wait to get Blackmon back.

[Tony Oday]

not going to keep quoting :)

that being said, I think that you have to for sure have a knack for returning however you also need good blocking to have any explosive returns.

[Bretsky]

I'm in the majority and am surprised there are not more posters in the top level. I consider TT safely in the top six to eight GM's. I've warmed to TT and I hope my opinion of him goes up each year.