Fix This Article - Silverstein, UFA and Leadership

[pbmax]

Find the article here. (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/88882752.html)

Tom believes that the reason Thompson signed so many veteran players this year is that, while he won't admit it, the team had a leadership vacuum in 2008 after Brett left. I think Tom rewrites history in order for it to fit his current critique of Thompson's actions.

So let's help Tom rediscover some critical thinking skills. Here is the offending paragraph, by Tom Silverstein, JSOnline, retrieved Mar 23, 2010 at 12:40 PM:


Thompson has resisted admitting that he left the 2008 team with a leadership void after the departure of quarterback Brett Favre, but his actions this off-season would seem reflect otherwise. He's paying $21 million this year for three guys who could hit the wall just like that and wind up spending more time on injured reserve than on the field.

Exactly which of its own UFAs did Thompson not resign for 2008, causing the leadership vacuum?

[get louder at lambeau]

OK, here are my corrections-


Thompson has resisted admitting that he left the 2008 team with a leadership void after the departure of quarterback Brett Favre, but I refuse to accept that. I prefer to claim that everything he does in the future is an admission that he was wrong in the past. It makes me feel more smarter than him.

He's paying $21 million this year for three guys who could hit the wall just like that and wind up spending more time on injured reserve than on the field. If they don't hit the wall or get injured, I'll just pretend I never said this, but if they DO, I can say I saw it coming.

I know I have previously whined like a spoiled little bitch when he fielded the youngest team in the league, but now I'm going to switch to whining that he is signing players over 30. I'm just an annoying little fag that way. It's my job as a journalist for the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

[Tony Oday]

lol he basically said our team last year sucked and this year are just paper tigers...nice.

[swede]

Favre was a great leader on the field; next to the big arm, his leadership On the field is perhaps his strongest characteristic as a player.

Off the field and in the locker room, not so much. He was a towel-snapper.

There was something missing when Favre left, but it wasn't off the field leadership.

[Lurker64]

Wait, I'm confused.

If the team lacked leadership in 2008, why would bringing back three players who were on the roster in 2008 improve the leadership situation? If these guys magically gained leadership abilities during the leadership void, wouldn't that vindicate Thompson completely?

Anyway, BRING BACK ROB DAVIS!

[red]

Wait, I'm confused.

If the team lacked leadership in 2008, why would bringing back three players who were on the roster in 2008 improve the leadership situation? If these guys magically gained leadership abilities during the leadership void, wouldn't that vindicate Thompson completely?

Anyway, BRING BACK ROB DAVIS!

exactly

those guys that weren't "leaders" in 2008 are now somehow capably of being leaders

it must have been kampman, he was bringing down the leadership abilities of everyone else on the team. thats why ted let him go :roll:

[Tony Oday]

Wait, I'm confused.

If the team lacked leadership in 2008, why would bringing back three players who were on the roster in 2008 improve the leadership situation? If these guys magically gained leadership abilities during the leadership void, wouldn't that vindicate Thompson completely?

Anyway, BRING BACK ROB DAVIS!

exactly

those guys that weren't "leaders" in 2008 are now somehow capably of being leaders

it must have been kampman, he was bringing down the leadership abilities of everyone else on the team. thats why ted let him go :roll:

Nope Rob Davis just cast such a HUGE shadow ;)

[pbmax]

I think it is exactly age that he is commenting on. Losing Favre and Davis doesn't leave you with much to hang your critical hat on when Rodgers plays well. It doesn't explain the decline. Ah, but leadership covers everything nicely with a thin layer of obtuseness and inexactitude.

Its another form of calling out Thompson for changing his approach by spending money on vets. Like Bedard, he ignores the sign your own tenet, (almost ignores) the uncapped year and the valuable positions they play. They also both intentionally ignore that pay as you go means not burying money into future contract years where it becomes liability if the player falters.

Thompson like Wolf obviously values certain positions over others. Left tackle is one. On a 3-4 defense, Nose Tackle would be another. He has paid for CBs and QBs. The odd duck was signing a safety to a big contract. but between All-Pro level play and the uncapped year, it was a nice luxury for a playoff run. Tauscher might also fit under this category, but he is still a tackle on a team in need of them, playing for average starting money.

They are trying to use this year as proof that Thompson's system needed to be modified. They aren't there yet.

[PlantPage55]

for three guys who could hit the wall just like that and wind up spending more time on injured reserve than on the field.

WHAT?!

As if any player couldn't just up and miss the whole season due to injury. This is WAY beyond reaching for these writers. They're writing ghost stories - not newspaper articles.

[RashanGary]

They are trying to use this year as proof that Thompson's system needed to be modified. They aren't there yet.

Good point. I didn't really catch that, but they've been writing as if they knew what the Packer should be doing all this time. Now, rather than admitting they never saw this coming, they're spinning it as if Thompson learned some valuable lesson :) :)

Uh, Patler called this 4 years ago, Tom. . . He pretty much laid this whole thing out, a vision for spending when it warranted, giving the Packers several shots at a championship, rather than just one. . .


haha. It's nice that most hard cores know what a crock of crap these guys are. Seriously, I'd have a lot more respect if they just admitted they were wrong, and moved on. This just shows foolish stubborness or complete inability to see what happened even after it happened. I really don't think they get it, even now.

[RashanGary]

What do you think these dumb-asses will write if Thompson wins a SB?

[Zool]

What do you think these dumb-asses will write if Thompson wins a SB?

That he could have won it faster had he listened to their all-knowing wisdom. They are only writing for a newspaper because they are waiting for the exact right GM/HC/Starting QB job to come along.

[Fritz]

I think "Get Louder" had it right: for some time the complaint has been that Thompson insists (as if he does) on fielding the youngest team in the league - now, suddenly, it's what the hell is he doing signing these vets who could hit the wall at any moment and maybe not even play?

Here's the other line in the article that just made me gag up a little: "He could very well have a rookie left tackle capable of pushing Clifton out of a job." He "could very well"? Which of the prospective left tackle draftees look capable of pushing Clifton out in their rookie year? Is there a Joe Thomas in the bunch? If so, would Thompson trade - or be able to trade - far enough up to get that guy? Cuz it sure won't be Bruce Campbell or Charles Brown, at least not according to scouting reports. Nor that Rutgers guy.

Do these guys even re-read their work before they send it on?

[sharpe1027]

I think "Get Louder" had it right: for some time the complaint has been that Thompson insists (as if he does) on fielding the youngest team in the league - now, suddenly, it's what the hell is he doing signing these vets who could hit the wall at any moment and maybe not even play?

Here's the other line in the article that just made me gag up a little: "He could very well have a rookie left tackle capable of pushing Clifton out of a job." He "could very well"? Which of the prospective left tackle draftees look capable of pushing Clifton out in their rookie year? Is there a Joe Thomas in the bunch? If so, would Thompson trade - or be able to trade - far enough up to get that guy? Cuz it sure won't be Bruce Campbell or Charles Brown, at least not according to scouting reports. Nor that Rutgers guy.

Do these guys even re-read their work before they send it on?

Wow, that would be horrible. Having both a young starter-caliber LT and a capable veteran. The horror!