Rumors: Rodgers may hand off to Westbrook

[Brandon494]

I don't have insider on ESPN but it seems Westbrook has not been getting many offers and GB might bring in him cheap for a one year deal. I wouldn't mind this at all, I think Westbrook still has a lot of value as a 3rd down back.

[Bretsky]

somebody sent me a blurp of that article today; would not get too excited yet. The just was........the longer Westbook sits out there..the more likely it is TT will bring him in for a visit.

[Brandon494]

somebody sent me a blurp of that article today; would not get too excited yet. The just was........the longer Westbook sits out there..the more likely it is TT will bring him in for a visit.

Agreed, I believe teams are just waiting until after the draft but TT should jump on a deal for Westbrook before someone else takes him. Westbrook is a high character guy and could be a nice change of pace back with Ryan Grant. Would much rather have Westbrook on a screen play than Grant.

[rbaloha1]

This would be a nice pick-up by providing another dimension to an already potent offense.

[ND72]

Yes please.

[mission]

Yes please.

This. :D

Seems like a TT move as he waits for interest...

[red]

if we could keep him from being hit at all this would be a decent signing

otherwise we would be putting our eggs in a basket that probably won't make it out of preseason.

[Fritz]

The thread title is off. Wouldn't Rodgers be more likely to throw a screen pass to Westbrook?

[bobblehead]

the thing no one has mentioned that would benefit the packers is....veteran presence in the locker room.

If he can return kicks and punts, and be a positive influence for some young guys his value would be huge.

[Sparkey]

the thing no one has mentioned that would benefit the packers is....veteran presence in the locker room.

If he can return kicks and punts, and be a positive influence for some young guys his value would be huge.

With his concussion history, he would be the last guy who should return punts/kicks.

[mission]

the thing no one has mentioned that would benefit the packers is....veteran presence in the locker room.

If he can return kicks and punts, and be a positive influence for some young guys his value would be huge.

With his concussion history, he would be the last guy who should return punts/kicks.

ya i can't imagine that's the job of a long-time vet...

[Brandon494]

Yea I don't think he is durable enough to be a return man.

[Pugger]

With Westbrook's history of concussions I'd pass. If the Packers want a veteran RB presense in the lockerroom all they have to do is make a call to Mr. Green teaching over at De Pere High School. :wink:

[PlantPage55]

This is the type of "big name" FA that I would like to see the Packers sign. Someone that hasn't garnered much attention and thus would come cheap, but has a chance of proving himself to be a useful and wily, experienced veteran.

Other teams can keep overpaying for overrated talent. This? This sort of thing, I like.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't really care where they go at RB. I wouldn't mind a younger guy, wouldn't mind Ahman (mainly because I like him so much), and this is intriguing to me also. Westbrook, when healthy, would give a different dimension than Grant can give the team. How about we resign Ahman, sign Westbrook, and go with four RBs.
:D

[Fritz]

Damnit, Harv, we're gonna need that fourth spot for the third fullback!

[Joemailman]

Didn't the Packers finish last season with 4 running backs with Grant, Jackson Green and Wynn? Or was Wynn on IR?

[The Leaper]

I wouldn't mind picking him up...but I don't think it would really make that much of an impact on the offense, as he's on the downside of his career at this point. He's a reasonable insurance policy if we can't get any young back with skills as a receiver out of the backfield.

[pbmax]

Yes, Wynn went on IR at the same time that Ahman was signed.

[channtheman]

Didn't the Packers finish last season with 4 running backs with Grant, Jackson Green and Wynn? Or was Wynn on IR?

When isn't that useless sack of crap on IR? I don't know why we keep such a useless player that doesn't care around every single season.

[Gunakor]

Didn't the Packers finish last season with 4 running backs with Grant, Jackson Green and Wynn? Or was Wynn on IR?

When isn't that useless sack of crap on IR? I don't know why we keep such a useless player that doesn't care around every single season.

A little harsh there, wouldn't you say? He's only been around for 3 years - granted he was here for every single one of them. He was a 7th round draft pick, which isn't the most glowing endorsement of one's football abilities to begin with. Has he contributed less than you'd expect any other 7th round pick to contribute? Has he performed more poorly than you'd expect any other 7th round pick to perform? Aren't they all useless sacks of crap with very few exceptions?

Anyways, he's not going to be on our roster this year.

[mission]

Didn't the Packers finish last season with 4 running backs with Grant, Jackson Green and Wynn? Or was Wynn on IR?

When isn't that useless sack of crap on IR? I don't know why we keep such a useless player that doesn't care around every single season.

A little harsh there, wouldn't you say? He's only been around for 3 years - granted he was here for every single one of them. He was a 7th round draft pick, which isn't the most glowing endorsement of one's football abilities to begin with. Has he contributed less than you'd expect any other 7th round pick to contribute? Has he performed more poorly than you'd expect any other 7th round pick to perform? Aren't they all useless sacks of crap with very few exceptions?

Anyways, he's not going to be on our roster this year.

The point is: shit or get off the pot!

It's not: oh, he's decent for a 7th round pick... he didn't contribute as much as Brad Jones. About 1/30th of that.

So um... yeah, cut him. Who cares. He had his chance.

3 years is a year too many for a 7th round pick to show any sign of consistency or contribution. We've had no problem cutting higher draft picks so why not Wynn? I think the message remains... the coaching staff has an inflated view of this guy.

[sharpe1027]

The point is: shit or get off the pot!

It's not: oh, he's decent for a 7th round pick... he didn't contribute as much as Brad Jones. About 1/30th of that.

So um... yeah, cut him. Who cares. He had his chance.

3 years is a year too many for a 7th round pick to show any sign of consistency or contribution. We've had no problem cutting higher draft picks so why not Wynn? I think the message remains... the coaching staff has an inflated view of this guy.

It's not an "inflated view" unless there was a better option that they let go. Otherwise, he's just the best of the rest, which doesn't say very much.

There simply is no reason to cut him right now. They brought in Green last year and I would expect that they keep looking for someone to take his spot.

[Gunakor]

Didn't the Packers finish last season with 4 running backs with Grant, Jackson Green and Wynn? Or was Wynn on IR?

When isn't that useless sack of crap on IR? I don't know why we keep such a useless player that doesn't care around every single season.

A little harsh there, wouldn't you say? He's only been around for 3 years - granted he was here for every single one of them. He was a 7th round draft pick, which isn't the most glowing endorsement of one's football abilities to begin with. Has he contributed less than you'd expect any other 7th round pick to contribute? Has he performed more poorly than you'd expect any other 7th round pick to perform? Aren't they all useless sacks of crap with very few exceptions?

Anyways, he's not going to be on our roster this year.

The point is: shit or get off the pot!

It's not: oh, he's decent for a 7th round pick... he didn't contribute as much as Brad Jones. About 1/30th of that.

So um... yeah, cut him. Who cares. He had his chance.

3 years is a year too many for a 7th round pick to show any sign of consistency or contribution. We've had no problem cutting higher draft picks so why not Wynn? I think the message remains... the coaching staff has an inflated view of this guy.

He once beat out a 2nd round pick at RB for a starting spot, which would have likely remained his if he stayed healthy or if Grant wouldn't have stepped up in the second half of the season. Nobody has spoken so strongly about Brandon Jackson, the useless sack of crap that was beat out by DeShawn Wynn for a starting spot in 2007.

But that's besides the point I was making anyway. You can call just about any 7th round pick a useless waste of a player. To be so adamantly strong in making that statement seems redundant, almost to the point of disrespectful. It's like making fun of the kids on the short bus.

[VermontPackFan]

Has anyone heard anything about Greg Lumpkin? If he can stay healthy, I think he should be someone we watch for. He is a north-south type runner who can knock people over but also has some speed. He has shown flashes of his ability but has always gotten hurt.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Has anyone heard anything about Greg Lumpkin? If he can stay healthy, I think he should be someone we watch for. He is a north-south type runner who can knock people over but also has some speed. He has shown flashes of his ability but has always gotten hurt.

I kind of like Kregg Lumpkin. However, like Wynn, he has never stayed healthy.

[mission]

I bash Wynn and get multiple people defending him ??? Not even worth a counter, we obviously have different views of the RB position. Probably the same people that expect Grant to give us 1200+ for the next 4 years ... Heh.

[sharpe1027]

I bash Wynn and get multiple people defending him ??? Not even worth a counter, we obviously have different views of the RB position. Probably the same people that expect Grant to give us 1200+ for the next 4 years ... Heh.

Complaining about Wynn is like complaining about Brett Swain. Sure he isn't that good, but who ever said he was?

Technically, you also bashed TT/MM for overvaluing him. I don't think anyone said he was that good. He is what he is, a 7th round 3rd or 4th stringer that actually had a good game or two but will probably not make the team this year.

[mission]

I bash Wynn and get multiple people defending him ??? Not even worth a counter, we obviously have different views of the RB position. Probably the same people that expect Grant to give us 1200+ for the next 4 years ... Heh.

Complaining about Wynn is like complaining about Brett Swain. Sure he isn't that good, but who ever said he was?

Technically, you also bashed TT/MM for overvaluing him. I don't think anyone said he was that good. He is what he is, a 7th round 3rd or 4th stringer that actually had a good game or two but will probably not make the team this year.

How are those comparisons even close?

Wynn was drafted in the 7th round because
of work ethic / character / weight concerns. It was considered a good pick because of his potential upside if he was able to motivate himself.

Swain has NOT been on the roster bubble
for three years in the exact same spot. He was first
on PS and then beat out everyones favorite for a roster spot last year. That's improvement regardless of whether you like swain or not (I really don't)

Wynn has not done anything differently... showed signs, had a few
good runs, got challenged
by staff, never really fast enough to see real playing time, got
injured, ended up on IR...

What has happened differently? Why is my 'shit or get
off the pot' comment off base? Three years, no progression whatsoever. I'm not complaining about Wynn, I'm just saying there is nothing new.
For people to still be holding out hope, come on... that's like tt/mm thinking bush is the man. At a certain point you're better off with a new 7th round pick who has a red flag or two and seeing if he can overcome them.

Stop grasping at straws with "stabs at TT" and all that... It's almost annoying having to explain this (on my phone so sorry for any errors)

[The Leaper]

Wynn is mediocre...why waste effort arguing over a guy who has about a 2% chance of making the roster next year?

The coaching staff doesn't have an inflated view of the guy...they don't have anyone else on the roster good enough to make them cut Wynn. Our RB depth is not all that great...proven by the fact we had to go out and bring Ahman Green back after we let him go a few years ago. If we had someone good enough to take Wynn's spot, he'd have been gone a long time ago.

I think Thompson is well aware of the problem he has at RB, and will take steps to address it in this draft.

[Gunakor]

I bash Wynn and get multiple people defending him ??? Not even worth a counter, we obviously have different views of the RB position. Probably the same people that expect Grant to give us 1200+ for the next 4 years ... Heh.

I'm not defending Wynn. I'm merely pointing out the irrelevance in bashing him. Again, it's like calling the kids on the short bus stupid. It just isn't necessary, and is rather disrespectful IMO.

[swede]

I bash Wynn and get multiple people defending him ??? Not even worth a counter, we obviously have different views of the RB position. Probably the same people that expect Grant to give us 1200+ for the next 4 years ... Heh.

I'm not defending Wynn. I'm merely pointing out the irrelevance in bashing him. Again, it's like calling the kids on the short bus stupid. It just isn't necessary, and is rather disrespectful IMO.

I see your point, Gunny.

Mission can't wait to see Wynn gone.

You see Wynn as a player who has tried his best and may not make the team. No need to kick a guy when he's down.

It's a Wynn-Wynn situation.

[Gunakor]

It's a Wynn-Wynn situation.

I believe DeShawn will be released prior to the start of the season, leaving us only one Wynn on the roster. It's just a Wynn situation.

Anyone else a bit skeptical of our chances of making the postseason with just one Wynn?

[mission]

I bash Wynn and get multiple people defending him ??? Not even worth a counter, we obviously have different views of the RB position. Probably the same people that expect Grant to give us 1200+ for the next 4 years ... Heh.

I'm not defending Wynn. I'm merely pointing out the irrelevance in bashing him. Again, it's like calling the kids on the short bus stupid. It just isn't necessary, and is rather disrespectful IMO.

Uh... I'm driving across the country right now so I'm lacking sleep...

But it's not like out of no where I started insulting Wynn. Disrespectful?? Are you kidding me? This is a message board where we discuss the merits
of certain players. Someone suggested that one day, back in the day, he beat out a second string rb --> yippee.

"downright disrespectful" is more insulting of my 4+ years of contributing generally accurate analysis of our players. You might not like my style but you'll have a hard time pointing out numerous times of me not knowing what I'm talking about. if I took the time the time and effort to straddle the politcal line here then I wouldn't have people reaching for arguments everytime I say something pointed.

If you guys wanna go back and forth on this just because it's a slow offseason then that's fair an I understand. If you actually *believe* I was being "downright disrespectful" then maybe it's time to shut off the computer and spend some time with your family.

I'm gonna just keep telling it like it is... No one bothered to respond to my Swain reasoning ... just attacking my style.

Doesn't bother me, guys who know what they're
talking about know I know what I'm talking about. Peace, good will, and all that stuff :)

[Gunakor]

I bash Wynn and get multiple people defending him ??? Not even worth a counter, we obviously have different views of the RB position. Probably the same people that expect Grant to give us 1200+ for the next 4 years ... Heh.

I'm not defending Wynn. I'm merely pointing out the irrelevance in bashing him. Again, it's like calling the kids on the short bus stupid. It just isn't necessary, and is rather disrespectful IMO.

Uh... I'm driving across the country right now so I'm lacking sleep...

But it's not like out of no where I started insulting Wynn. Disrespectful?? Are you kidding me? This is a message board where we discuss the merits
of certain players. Someone suggested that one day, back in the day, he beat out a second string rb --> yippee.

"downright disrespectful" is more insulting of my 4+ years of contributing generally accurate analysis of our players. You might not like my style but you'll have a hard time pointing out numerous times of me not knowing what I'm talking about. if I took the time the time and effort to straddle the politcal line here then I wouldn't have people reaching for arguments everytime I say something pointed.

If you guys wanna go back and forth on this just because it's a slow offseason then that's fair an I understand. If you actually *believe* I was being "downright disrespectful" then maybe it's time to shut off the computer and spend some time with your family.

I'm gonna just keep telling it like it is... No one bothered to respond to my Swain reasoning ... just attacking my style.

Doesn't bother me, guys who know what they're
talking about know I know what I'm talking about. Peace, good will, and all that stuff :)

I wasn't attacking you. I never called YOU disrespectful, since you weren't the one who made the disrespectful comment that began this back and forth.

The bash I have been referring to was the one where it was said that DeShawn Wynn is a useless sack of crap, and to me that is akin to calling a retarded kid stupid. Wynn was a 7th round draft pick who we took a flier on, someone who nobody expected to contribute much during his career. Compared to other NFL RB's - even other NFL RB's that happen to appear on the Packers roster - he's one of the retarded kids riding the short bus. To say he's a useless sack of crap is exactly like calling one of those retarded kids an idiot. It's simply rubbing in the blatantly obvious in a highly mean spirited manner. That to me is disrespectful even on a message board like this one. Does the fact that he probably won't read anything posted here make it any less disrespectful?

But I suppose to see it from my perspective you have to hold the opinion I do that all 7th round draft picks come into the NFL riding the short bus. Anybody drafted in the 7th round sucks until proven otherwise. You don't need to SAY they are a useless sack of garbage. Just assume that they won't contribute much. And as far as Wynn is concerned, he's contributed more than most other players drafted around him, which makes the original bash that much more disrespectful IMO.

I know you weren't the one who made that original slam I commented on, you were simply the one who responded to my response to that comment. And the only part of my response to you directed at your comment specifically is the part about him beating out Jackson for a starting gig - it was meant to counter your argument that he hasn't contributed anything during his time here. That the coaches and management must have an overinflated view of Wynn to have held onto a roster spot for him because he hasn't contributed anything to have earned one. The fact that he beat out Jackson for the starting job in 2007 is a perfectly good reason for us to have held a roster spot for him up until this point. It counts as a pretty significant contribution. And since you've been here as long as you have, I'm sure you can remember the start to the 2008 season when many here were calling for Jackson to be demoted and Wynn to be the #2 behind Grant. Wynn was hardly on a roster bubble. The decision to retain him as part of our roster was not a bad one, it's just a shame it didn't work out for Wynn.

Again Mission, I'm sorry if you took this the wrong way. I wasn't attacking you. I was attacking the comment I had responded to, the one you were trying to defend.

[Fritz]

"The bash I have been referring to was the one where it was said that DeShawn Wynn is a useless sack of crap, and to me that is akin to calling a retarded kid stupid."

So Gun, aren't you kinda saying that Wynn is a useless sack of crap, but you'd rather people didn't use that term? Are you saying it would be better if someone just called Wynn a very fringe NFL backup who will likely not even be in the league this year?

Now mind you, I am the president of the DeShawn Wynn fan club - where everyone's a Wynner.

[Gunakor]

"The bash I have been referring to was the one where it was said that DeShawn Wynn is a useless sack of crap, and to me that is akin to calling a retarded kid stupid."

So Gun, aren't you kinda saying that Wynn is a useless sack of crap, but you'd rather people didn't use that term? Are you saying it would be better if someone just called Wynn a very fringe NFL backup who will likely not even be in the league this year?

Now mind you, I am the president of the DeShawn Wynn fan club - where everyone's a Wynner.

I didn't make this personal to Wynn. All 7th round draft picks are useless sacks of crap until they prove otherwise. That much should just be assumed, so there's no need to drag a guy through the mud over it.

About Wynn specifically, no, I don't feel that way about him anymore. A useless sack of crap would never beat out anybody for a starting gig on any NFL team at any point in their careers. It was at that point that he had proven himself greater than a useless sack of crap. Now I can agree that his short career has taken a nose dive, but to say he hasn't ever contributed anything to warrant a roster spot is inaccurate. I was cool with him being given a second chance to rebound from injury. It hasn't worked in Wynn's favor, so I don't think he'll be given a roster spot again this year.

[Fritz]

Perhaps we can compromise and say he was a useful sack of crap.

[sharpe1027]

I bash Wynn and get multiple people defending him ??? Not even worth a counter, we obviously have different views of the RB position. Probably the same people that expect Grant to give us 1200+ for the next 4 years ... Heh.

Complaining about Wynn is like complaining about Brett Swain. Sure he isn't that good, but who ever said he was?

Technically, you also bashed TT/MM for overvaluing him. I don't think anyone said he was that good. He is what he is, a 7th round 3rd or 4th stringer that actually had a good game or two but will probably not make the team this year.

How are those comparisons even close?

Wynn was drafted in the 7th round because
of work ethic / character / weight concerns. It was considered a good pick because of his potential upside if he was able to motivate himself.

Swain has NOT been on the roster bubble
for three years in the exact same spot. He was first
on PS and then beat out everyones favorite for a roster spot last year. That's improvement regardless of whether you like swain or not (I really don't)

Wynn has not done anything differently... showed signs, had a few
good runs, got challenged
by staff, never really fast enough to see real playing time, got
injured, ended up on IR...

What has happened differently? Why is my 'shit or get
off the pot' comment off base? Three years, no progression whatsoever. I'm not complaining about Wynn, I'm just saying there is nothing new.
For people to still be holding out hope, come on... that's like tt/mm thinking bush is the man. At a certain point you're better off with a new 7th round pick who has a red flag or two and seeing if he can overcome them.

Stop grasping at straws with "stabs at TT" and all that... It's almost annoying having to explain this (on my phone so sorry for any errors)
How are they the similar?

Swain is a borderline backup that can easily be replaced.
Wynn is a borderline backup that can easily be replaced.

Swain is a 7th round pick.
Wynn is a 7th round pick.

Swain barely made the field other than special teams.
Wynn played significant minutes and even started.

You stated that the staff had an "overinflated" view of him. I disagreed and gave a reasonable explanation for why I disagreed. Who is the one grasping at straws?

Wynn isn't that good. He's probably not making the team this year. You have some need to tell everyone how bad he is. I get it.

To quote you "guys who know what they're talking about know I know what I'm talking about." I think that applies here. :roll:

[sharpe1027]

Perhaps we can compromise and say he was a useful sack of crap.

He was more useful than some sacks of crap and less useful than others. He falls comfortably in the middle of the spectrum of crap sacks.

[Gunakor]

Perhaps we can compromise and say he was a useful sack of crap.

Deal.

:D

[Fritz]

Now that we'reet there, how about the Packers draft Dexter McCluster (f*ck) instead of signing Westbrook?

[mission]

Gun - my bad, I see the convo flow now

Sharpe - I explained the differences from a progression standpoint regarding swain and wynn. Not much I can do about you completely ignoring my point ... just add an eye roll in there and you have a good argument. I'm wrong.

One of my older married friends gave me great advice as a new father and husband: "Tony, do you want to be happy or do you want to be right?"

:noroll:

[sharpe1027]

Gun - my bad, I see the convo flow now

Sharpe - I explained the differences from a progression standpoint regarding swain and wynn. Not much I can do about you completely ignoring my point ... just add an eye roll in there and you have a good argument. I'm wrong.

One of my older married friends gave me great advice as a new father and husband: "Tony, do you want to be happy or do you want to be right?"

:noroll:

Mission - I stated that there was no reason to cut Wynn right now, but that he's probably gone this year regardless.

I made a comparison between Swain and Wynn and you made some comment about me grasping at straws and statements about how the smart people who know agree with you (a poor attempt at a dig if I ever saw one).

I explained the similarities between them because you asked and say I ignored your post. I didn't comment further on your argument because most of what you said isn't much different than what I was saying all along.

Bottom line, if you are wrong about Wynn not being good than I am wrong too.

[Pugger]

I suspect a lot of other teams are wary of Westbrook's history of concussions and that is why he is still available. He might be signed by some team desparate for a RB between now and TC but I doubt it will be GB.

[green_bowl_packer]

Packers interested in Brian Westbrook
Posted by Michael David Smith on April 12, 2010 7:30 PM ET
Brian Westbrook has been looking for work for more than a month, since the Philadelphia Eagles confirmed they would release him in late February.

The Green Bay Packers may be the team to finally offer him a job.

Tom Silverstein of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports, citing two sources, that the Packers are exploring the possibility of adding Westbrook.

Per Silverstein, Westbrook would be expected to fill a role similar to what veteran running back Ahman Green did over the second half of the 2009 season. The Packers also like the leadership Westbrook would bring to the offense.

In 2009 Westbrook had 61 carries for 274 yards and 25 catches for 181 yards while missing half the season and dealing with concussions and knee and ankle injuries.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/04/12/packers-interested-in-brian-westbrook/

[Freak Out]

Packers interested in Brian Westbrook
Posted by Michael David Smith on April 12, 2010 7:30 PM ET
Brian Westbrook has been looking for work for more than a month, since the Philadelphia Eagles confirmed they would release him in late February.

The Green Bay Packers may be the team to finally offer him a job.

Tom Silverstein of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports, citing two sources, that the Packers are exploring the possibility of adding Westbrook.

Per Silverstein, Westbrook would be expected to fill a role similar to what veteran running back Ahman Green did over the second half of the 2009 season. The Packers also like the leadership Westbrook would bring to the offense.

In 2009 Westbrook had 61 carries for 274 yards and 25 catches for 181 yards while missing half the season and dealing with concussions and knee and ankle injuries.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/04/12/packers-interested-in-brian-westbrook/

# DeVoodoo says: April 12, 2010 7:39 PM

His head has been pretty much reduced to cheese anyway.


:lol:

[Bretsky]

Called this one early on as a potential great FA signing; never though it would happen then.........but still hope it does.

[Freak Out]

Ha.....just noticed the sig Bretsky.......so will it become known as the "Curse of the Bikini Girls" now? :lol:

[Bretsky]

Ha.....just noticed the sig Bretsky.......so will it become known as the "Curse of the Bikini Girls" now? :lol:

YES, I'VE PROBABLY JUST DOOMED ALL THREE :!:

[Brandon494]

Ha.....just noticed the sig Bretsky.......so will it become known as the "Curse of the Bikini Girls" now? :lol:

YES, I'VE PROBABLY JUST DOOMED ALL THREE :!:

As long as you don't doom Kindle...I'm not so sold on the other two.

[Tony Oday]

Ha.....just noticed the sig Bretsky.......so will it become known as the "Curse of the Bikini Girls" now? :lol:

YES, I'VE PROBABLY JUST DOOMED ALL THREE :!:

As long as you don't doom Kindle...I'm not so sold on the other two.

Isnt the Ipad the Kindle killer? ;)

[Noodle]

If it's between signing Westbrook and bringing back Green, I'd opt for Green. Green knows the system, and I have to think he's a great locker room guy. Plus, he can bring a toughness and physicality that I don't think Westbrook has.

Westbrook is a couple years younger, but, as others have mentioned, he's been dinged pretty good. Stick with our vet.

[Brandon494]

If it's between signing Westbrook and bringing back Green, I'd opt for Green. Green knows the system, and I have to think he's a great locker room guy. Plus, he can bring a toughness and physicality that I don't think Westbrook has.

Westbrook is a couple years younger, but, as others have mentioned, he's been dinged pretty good. Stick with our vet.

You might as well put a fork in Green, he is done.

Westbrook would be a huge upgrade over Green IMO

I'll be pissed if Green is on the roster to start the season.

[steve823]

While you guys bring up a good point, I still say we let Green retire a Packer. I think he's earned the right to. Also, whether it was him or not, once he was signed Grant's performance did get better if I'm not mistaken.

[Bretsky]

Man, I like Green and I'd be fine with him on the roster

But the upside of Westbrook is just too dam good to pass up

I was really hoping the Vikes would not get him; if he ends up in GB that's even better

[Gunakor]

While you guys bring up a good point, I still say we let Green retire a Packer. I think he's earned the right to.

We already brought him back. That doesn't mean we have to hold a roster spot for him indefinitely. He can retire this offseason and do so a Packer. If he wants to keep his career going with another team that's his choice to make. Green Bay isn't trading him this time, so the choice is his.

I agree with Bretsky that as long as Westbrook isn't put into a starting role on our team he'd be a bigger asset than Green would be. He's not going to get many concussions if he's only seeing 10 or so snaps a game when healthy.

[RashanGary]

I also think Westbrook would be a great addition to this team. Ryan Grant is good, even very good as a pure runner.


Westbrook can catch. In the spread sets with Jennings, Finley, Driver, Nelson or Jones and a running back, it's really helpful to have that extra weapon that can catch. It gives Rodgers a reliable outlet instead of taking sacks and once Westbrook gets the ball, he's a threat to turn 5 yards into 50 every time.


Also, if Westrook takes 25% of Grants carries, it ends up saving us money on Grant's incentive laden deal.

I see a lot of upside with Westbrook and not a lot of risk if the contract is right. 4 Mil per year for a guy like Westrook would be well worth as long as we have him for 10 regular season games and the playoffs. I think there is a good bet we could get that out of him.

[mission]

Ha.....just noticed the sig Bretsky.......so will it become known as the "Curse of the Bikini Girls" now? :lol:

YES, I'VE PROBABLY JUST DOOMED ALL THREE :!:

As long as you don't doom Kindle...I'm not so sold on the other two.

Hmm I'm not so sold on Kindle but like the other two... what don't you like about Hughes and Graham? Their (shorter) frames?

EDIT - (off topic, sorry)

[Lurker64]

Hmm I'm not so sold on Kindle but like the other two... what don't you like about Hughes and Graham? Their (shorter) frames?

EDIT - (off topic, sorry)

Oh, Hughes would be a great pick for the Packers. He has speed to threaten the corner on every play, he's explosive out of a two point stance, he has great balance when going around the corner, he's got good hand technique and good length, he has a good violent bull rush as a counter to his outside speed rush, he's good at finding the ball in the run game, he's good at getting off blocks, and his pad level is consistently low.

The only things I can find wrong with him as a prospect is that he's not that great at anticipating the snap count, and I don't believe anybody has seen him cover.

Graham is more of an undersized power, strength, and tenacity guy. He's got a good first step, but his speed isn't top notch. He's got good technique, balance, and instincts but I think Hughes' edge speed makes him more dangerous.

[Brandon494]

Ha.....just noticed the sig Bretsky.......so will it become known as the "Curse of the Bikini Girls" now? :lol:

YES, I'VE PROBABLY JUST DOOMED ALL THREE :!:

As long as you don't doom Kindle...I'm not so sold on the other two.

Hmm I'm not so sold on Kindle but like the other two... what don't you like about Hughes and Graham? Their (shorter) frames?

EDIT - (off topic, sorry)

Out of those three I believe Kindle is the most ready to play LB in the 3-4 defense since he played a similiar style in college. Hughes and Graham have never played LB in their career and would be projects. People think you can just take athletic DE and move them to outside LB and they will be the next D Ware but thats no always the case. (Vernon Gholston)

[MJZiggy]

For a minute I thought I accidentally clicked into a Romper Room discussion comparing e-book readers. If anyone has any recommendations...

[Gunakor]

Also, if Westrook takes 25% of Grants carries, it ends up saving us money on Grant's incentive laden deal.

I don't want Westbrook taking 25% of Grants carries. I want Westbrook on the field on 3rd down or other obvious passing situations and that's it. I don't trust Westbrook to stay healthy if being given any significant amount of carries, and I don't trust Grant to be nearly as effective if losing any significant amount of carries. I want the ratio of carries between Grant and whoever he's splitting carries with to remain the same. If he earns his incentives then I'd have no problem paying him for doing so. More importantly, I'd hate to piss him off by eliminating his opportunity to earn those incentives.

[Noodle]

Gunakor's observations are why I say stick with Green. If you have Westbrook, you're going to have to play him. Whereas Green is fine with a 3rd down role or any other role you give him.

I just don't see the disparity in talent between the two. As I recall, Green knew how to catch a ball pretty well. I'd also bet Green is faster, and he's certainly more physical.

[Brandon494]

Gunakor's observations are why I say stick with Green. If you have Westbrook, you're going to have to play him. Whereas Green is fine with a 3rd down role or any other role you give him.

I just don't see the disparity in talent between the two. As I recall, Green knew how to catch a ball pretty well. I'd also bet Green is faster, and he's certainly more physical.

Green faster than Westbrook? Its not 2004 anymore.

Also its nothing wrong with playing Westbrook to take some of the load off Grant.

[Bretsky]

Gunakor's observations are why I say stick with Green. If you have Westbrook, you're going to have to play him. Whereas Green is fine with a 3rd down role or any other role you give him.

I just don't see the disparity in talent between the two. As I recall, Green knew how to catch a ball pretty well. I'd also bet Green is faster, and he's certainly more physical.


IMO

I like Green more in terms of loyalty

But Westbrook is the better receiver
Westbrook still has home run/take it to the house ability
Westbrook can still create matchup problems on 3rd down situations

This all assumes Westbrook has a clean bill of healthy....but he's just a better player

[Lurker64]

This all assumes Westbrook has a clean bill of healthy....but he's just a better player

That's a big, big, big assumption. Not only did he miss a significant portion of last year with recurring concussions, he's also had knee and ankle injuries every year for the past 2-3 years that prevented him from practicing during the week.

I'm not even convinced Westbrook could pass a physical.

[Brandon494]

This all assumes Westbrook has a clean bill of healthy....but he's just a better player

That's a big, big, big assumption. Not only did he miss a significant portion of last year with recurring concussions, he's also had knee and ankle injuries every year for the past 2-3 years that prevented him from practicing during the week.

I'm not even convinced Westbrook could pass a physical.

Thats true, I just know I don't want Ahman Green back next year because that would mean we did nothing to improve at the RB position.

In my perfect world we would sign Westbrook to a one year deal and draft someone like Charles Scott from LSU in the later rounds.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm okay with either but I wouldn't mind drafting somebody either and carrying four.

Grant could get cut this offseason. We might need a long-term replacement. Jackson is good in pass pro. Draft somebody groom them to be the long-term solution. Green has lost a lot, but he's still solid when healthy. I just like Ahman, so there are emotional reasons I'd want him back. Plus, I think he brings something to the locker room. I think I'd prefer Westbrook because he'd bring a different dimension to the offense.

[Gunakor]

What makes you believe that Grant could get cut this offseason? Typically a proven back has to show significant signs of decline before they are released outright, and Grant has been a model of consistency for several years now. No decline at all. I would think the Packers would be elated to have him back next year.

[Scott Campbell]

Grant could get cut this offseason.


He's definitely the Rodney Dangerfield of 7th leading rushers in the NFL.

[Brandon494]

No chance Grant gets cut, I don't know what your thinking.

[Bretsky]

What makes you believe that Grant could get cut this offseason? Typically a proven back has to show significant signs of decline before they are released outright, and Grant has been a model of consistency for several years now. No decline at all. I would think the Packers would be elated to have him back next year.


My guess is Harv meant Grant could be cut next offseason. If he has another decent year I think GB owed him a 7 Million Dollar bonus on a certain day. This is going off memory so I'm not 100% sure of that. I think it's in question as to whether TT would pay that.

[Gunakor]

What makes you believe that Grant could get cut this offseason? Typically a proven back has to show significant signs of decline before they are released outright, and Grant has been a model of consistency for several years now. No decline at all. I would think the Packers would be elated to have him back next year.


My guess is Harv meant Grant could be cut next offseason. If he has another decent year I think GB owed him a 7 Million Dollar bonus on a certain day. This is going off memory so I'm not 100% sure of that. I think it's in question as to whether TT would pay that.

I'd be mad as hell if he were cut simply because TT decided he wasn't worth the money he had earned. If the guy has another 1250 yard 14 TD season you pay the man. Thompson loses A LOT of cool points in my book if he decided to play it that way. I don't believe in overpaying, but they're not overpaying if he's already earned it.

Besides, he's as important to this offense as Greg Jennings is. More important in my opinion, given the fact that we could endure the loss of Jennings far better than losing Grant. Yet nobody complained about Jennings when he got his money. I think it goes back to the old argument that, stats be damned, Grant just doesn't LOOK like a top 10 back and thus shouldn't be paid like one. Horseshit IMO, and I'd think Teddy would agree with me there. If Grant puts together another top 10 season I doubt very highly that Thompson would release him rather than pay his bonus.

[retailguy]

Thompson would cut his mother if he could get out of paying her.

Gun, don't know what you're thinking. This is the way Ted does business. He doesn't look at it as "money already earned", he looks going forward and evaluates if they are "worth" that in the future.

Your thinking is backwards, but I agree with you. :wink:

[Gunakor]

Thompson would cut his mother if he could get out of paying her.

Gun, don't know what you're thinking. This is the way Ted does business. He doesn't look at it as "money already earned", he looks going forward and evaluates if they are "worth" that in the future.

Your thinking is backwards, but I agree with you. :wink:

It's not always the way he does business. He could have let Drivers contract expire years ago but didn't. He could have let Harris' contract expire but didn't. Both of these guys have far less left in the tank than Grant has. Thompson will pay for production, and as long as Grant is producing I believe Thompson will be the one paying him for that production.

[retailguy]

Thompson would cut his mother if he could get out of paying her.

Gun, don't know what you're thinking. This is the way Ted does business. He doesn't look at it as "money already earned", he looks going forward and evaluates if they are "worth" that in the future.

Your thinking is backwards, but I agree with you. :wink:

It's not always the way he does business. He could have let Drivers contract expire years ago but didn't. He could have let Harris' contract expire but didn't. Both of these guys have far less left in the tank than Grant has. Thompson will pay for production, and as long as Grant is producing I believe Thompson will be the one paying him for that production.

no one 'always' does things a certain way. plenty of examples where it has played out just as described on both sides. 7m is a lot of money. Green better be damn good or he'll never see it. your stats from above probably aren't enough if Ted thinks he can replace "most" of the production elsewhere.

[Gunakor]

Ted better be sure he can. 1250 yards and 14 TD's with 0 fumbles aren't run of the mill season stats. They're well above average. No matter what anyone says that kind of production is tough to replace in one season. I suppose I couldn't fault him if he knew he had someone better waiting in the wings, but as I said, he better be pretty damned sure of it.

[Tarlam!]

What we know about Grant is that he isn't self motivated. So far, he has been motivated by the big payday, the incentives in his contract and most recently, by the addition of Green.

There's nothing wrong with any of that; as long as TT continues to push the right buttons, Grant should continue his production.

I have faith in TT, that he'll restructure that contract long term, add more guaranteed new money, but also incentive laden.

So, unless Grant refuses a restructure that ensures TT's leverage, I don't see any issues.

[sharpe1027]

Thompson would cut his mother if he could get out of paying her.

Gun, don't know what you're thinking. This is the way Ted does business. He doesn't look at it as "money already earned", he looks going forward and evaluates if they are "worth" that in the future.

Your thinking is backwards, but I agree with you. :wink:

Any GM that has to cut their mother wasn't that very good to begin with, but at least they are not against correcting their mistakes. Why was she on the team in the first place?

Seriously though, when is that last time TT had to cut a player because of salary?

[pbmax]

What we know about Grant is that he isn't self motivated. So far, he has been motivated by the big payday, the incentives in his contract and most recently, by the addition of Green.

There's nothing wrong with any of that; as long as TT continues to push the right buttons, Grant should continue his production.

I have faith in TT, that he'll restructure that contract long term, add more guaranteed new money, but also incentive laden.

So, unless Grant refuses a restructure that ensures TT's leverage, I don't see any issues.
Does that make him different that 95% of the rest of the NFL? Threatening jobs and money has motivated a lot of professionals, and not just football players. The idea that has taken hold this offseason that the Packers believe they must have serious competition behind him to motivate him* seems dubious.

If that were true, the Packers would not have had Ahman Green behind him last year. And they wouldn't be considering Westbrook this year. Neither is an every down back anymore.

* I remember seeing the "Packers feel they need to motivate Grant through competition" twice this offseason. The last mention was the Westbrook coverage. Don't remember the first. Does anyone know where this original story surfaced? I remember speculation here that Green would motivate Grant last year after the pickup, but this site also believes Joe Thomas is on the trading block. :D

[pbmax]

Thompson would cut his mother if he could get out of paying her.

Gun, don't know what you're thinking. This is the way Ted does business. He doesn't look at it as "money already earned", he looks going forward and evaluates if they are "worth" that in the future.

Your thinking is backwards, but I agree with you. :wink:

It's not always the way he does business. He could have let Drivers contract expire years ago but didn't. He could have let Harris' contract expire but didn't. Both of these guys have far less left in the tank than Grant has. Thompson will pay for production, and as long as Grant is producing I believe Thompson will be the one paying him for that production.

no one 'always' does things a certain way. plenty of examples where it has played out just as described on both sides. 7m is a lot of money. Green better be damn good or he'll never see it. your stats from above probably aren't enough if Ted thinks he can replace "most" of the production elsewhere.
Grant's scenario is no different than KGB, except that KGB actually was less than mediocre. He will play unless he can be replaced by something just as good and cheaper barring injury. Harvey's scenario makes sense if his replacement lands on the roster this year. But that guy isn't here yet.

[sharpe1027]

Grant's scenario is no different than KGB, except that KGB actually was less than mediocre. He will play unless he can be replaced by something just as good and cheaper barring injury. Harvey's scenario makes sense if his replacement lands on the roster this year. But that guy isn't here yet.

KGB couldn't play in the NFL anymore, period. He probably could have been near the minimum salary and he still would have been cut. Did any other team even bother to take a flyer on him at the Vet minimum? That's a bit different from cutting a guy that is a starter.

[retailguy]

Thompson would cut his mother if he could get out of paying her.

Gun, don't know what you're thinking. This is the way Ted does business. He doesn't look at it as "money already earned", he looks going forward and evaluates if they are "worth" that in the future.

Your thinking is backwards, but I agree with you. :wink:

Any GM that has to cut their mother wasn't that very good to begin with, but at least they are not against correcting their mistakes. Why was she on the team in the first place?

Seriously though, when is that last time TT had to cut a player because of salary?

"had to" or "chose to"? I side with the latter. That was my point.

[Lurker64]

Seriously though, when is that last time TT had to cut a player because of salary?

Sharper and Wahle.

Since then? Nobody.

[sharpe1027]

"had to" or "chose to"? I side with the latter. That was my point.

Take your pick. All GMs make that type of move once in awhile. You seem to think TT is particularly prone to those types of moves, but I just don't see much evidence to support your opinion.

[sharpe1027]

Seriously though, when is that last time TT had to cut a player because of salary?

Sharper and Wahle.

Since then? Nobody.

Yeah, but in his defense that was a direct result of the Sherman-caused cap hell situation.

[HarveyWallbangers]

My guess is Harv meant Grant could be cut next offseason.

Correct. Sounds like he'll have a huge bonus coming to him, if he has another solid year. Personally, I think RBs are kind of a dime a dozen, so I can't see playing Grant big money. Hopefully, they'd rework his deal and keep him.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Thompson would cut his mother if he could get out of paying her.

What? Thompson is no different than any other GM in that he'll judge the money he'll give out based on what he thinks he'll get out of a player. That's called being a good GM. Not sure what else you are trying to get at. He'd just rather go the draft and develop route over the FA signing route. Rodgers, Grant, Jennings, Driver, Tauscher, Pickett, Jenkins, Barnett, Harris, Woodson, Collins, etc. have all gotten paid by Thompson.

[Freak Out]

Thompson would cut his mother if he could get out of paying her.

Gun, don't know what you're thinking. This is the way Ted does business. He doesn't look at it as "money already earned", he looks going forward and evaluates if they are "worth" that in the future.

Your thinking is backwards, but I agree with you. :wink:

Did he key your Benz when we were in GB? :lol:

[falco]

Thompson > Wolf = True

[Joemailman]

Thompson > Wolf = True

Maybe. Someday. But based on what's happened so far=false.

[falco]

Thompson > Wolf = True

Maybe. Someday. But based on what's happened so far=false.

I respectfully disagree, but maybe its an unfair comparison, since things were done differently during Wolf's tenure.

[Brandon494]

Way too early to say Thompson is better than Wolf but he seems to be on his way.

[Brando19]

Thompson > Wolf = True

Maybe. Someday. But based on what's happened so far=false.

I respectfully disagree, but maybe its an unfair comparison, since things were done differently during Wolf's tenure.

Not true...when TT wins a Super Bowl...we'll talk. But I agree that he is on his way to being better than Wolf. I believe TT will win a couple Super Bowls in the near future...but right now...Wolf >Thompson.

[mission]

Just hitting on AR was so huge... forget the other positives. I think, we, as Packer Nation, completely underestimate this and take it for granted. Hopefully AR can take his next steps in the playoffs and then this will all become more obvious.

[Tarlam!]

Just hitting on AR was so huge... forget the other positives. I think, we, as Packer Nation, completely underestimate this and take it for granted. Hopefully AR can take his next steps in the playoffs and then this will all become more obvious.

Totally agree, although if A-Rod had been asked to play as a rookie I doubt he would have been an instant success.

My favourite TT move is the Mathews pick. That was a grand slam home run.

[falco]

Just hitting on AR was so huge... forget the other positives. I think, we, as Packer Nation, completely underestimate this and take it for granted. Hopefully AR can take his next steps in the playoffs and then this will all become more obvious.

Hitting on Rodgers and also signing Woodson, who was the defensive MVP this year. I also think the Mike McCarthy signing is greatly underestimated. McCarthy wasn't on anyone's radar when Thompson picked him up, and I think he deserves more credit as a coach than most on here give.

Thompson has clearly had some bad picks, but every GM does. I think Wolf was great, but Thompson is better.

[Tarlam!]

I also think the Mike McCarthy signing is greatly underestimated. McCarthy wasn't on anyone's radar when Thompson picked him up, and I think he deserves more credit as a coach than most on here give.

Thompson has clearly had some bad picks, but every GM does. I think Wolf was great, but Thompson is better.

Or, you could argue TT passed up Sean Peyton who is the reigning World Champion....

Wolf had some terrible picks, too. That Jamaal Reynolds pick was on his shift.

Unless the Pack wins a SB, Wolf will always be considered the better, I think.

[mission]

I also think the Mike McCarthy signing is greatly underestimated. McCarthy wasn't on anyone's radar when Thompson picked him up, and I think he deserves more credit as a coach than most on here give.

Thompson has clearly had some bad picks, but every GM does. I think Wolf was great, but Thompson is better.

Or, you could argue TT passed up Sean Peyton who is the reigning World Champion....

Wolf had some terrible picks, too. That Jamaal Reynolds pick was on his shift.

Unless the Pack wins a SB, Wolf will always be considered the better, I think.

Reggie White was/is as big as it gets and where ever be from an impact standpoint. There are some close seconds but the stars aligned before and after that. It was Jesus, it was fate, it was done. :lol:

[Bretsky]

Thompson > Wolf = True


don't agree at all

win a title and then come back to make the argument

some will say Wolf won in a different era

All of the GM's were playing under the same rules as Wolf

[Bretsky]

Thompson > Wolf = True

Maybe. Someday. But based on what's happened so far=false.

I respectfully disagree, but maybe its an unfair comparison, since things were done differently during Wolf's tenure.


things were done differently in Wolf's era....by all of the GM's who were competing with Wolf...........just like now when TT is trying to bring us a champ...with a different set of rules....that all GM's have to abide by

[Tarlam!]

What Bretsky said...

[pbmax]

Grant's scenario is no different than KGB, except that KGB actually was less than mediocre. He will play unless he can be replaced by something just as good and cheaper barring injury. Harvey's scenario makes sense if his replacement lands on the roster this year. But that guy isn't here yet.

KGB couldn't play in the NFL anymore, period. He probably could have been near the minimum salary and he still would have been cut. Did any other team even bother to take a flyer on him at the Vet minimum? That's a bit different from cutting a guy that is a starter.
His last year, yes. After failing to recover from an injury and the subsequent surgery.

But in the 3 years prior to that, everyone had KGB getting his walking papers as his contract number kept going up and his production slackened. It was the same story we have seen every year since, just fill in the disappointing vet. This offseason it was AJ Hawk. There was one vet getting the same coverage each year since Thompson took over.

The problem lies in the misunderstanding. Each beat writer thinks Thompson will pay for value only. And they will eventually become convinced that Thompson has "changed". Just like the veteran leadership angle when Clifton and Tauscher got resigned. Suddenly they divined that Thompson learned from his past mistakes on leadership. Never stopping to think about the il-logic of applauding the same veteran leadership in 2010 that they blamed the 2008 failures.

But KGB, Hawk and others are examples where he will live with overpaying his own players. Either for continued development or lack of suitable replacements at a position. They also mistake Thompson letting Wahle, Rivera and Sharper walk as evidence he will not overpay, instead of evidence that he wanted the cap situation straightened out first.

It has never occurred to them that with a favorable cap and contracts that leave the Packers in control, he is willing to spend money to keep the band together.

[pbmax]

Thompson > Wolf = True

Maybe. Someday. But based on what's happened so far=false.

I respectfully disagree, but maybe its an unfair comparison, since things were done differently during Wolf's tenure.


things were done differently in Wolf's era....by all of the GM's who were competing with Wolf...........just like now when TT is trying to bring us a champ...with a different set of rules....that all GM's have to abide by
I don't think its quite the same. Very few teams had the cap figured out like Wolf had. That left a lot of players available to choose from. It was like having the USFL fold every year for four years.

Thompson does not enjoy that advantage now. Half the team's in the league now employ former cap guys as GMs.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I like the path Thompson is on. This team feels like it's about to arrive--like the mid 90s teams.

[Bretsky]

Completly agree; ten years from now I think we'll have one to two more championships

[falco]

win a title and then come back to make the argument

I get your point but don't agree. Only one team can win the championship every year, and it requires a perfect alignment of many variables. Especially in the climate the NFL operates in today.

But I do agree that it will take another 4-5 years to judge. But I'm saying my mind is made up now; and I'm also saying that if in 5 years, if we don't have another championship, that still doesn't mean that Wolf was better.

[falco]

Also will be interesting to see how Thompson adapts to the changing rules now. The NFL environment is going to be very dynamic the next few years.

[falco]

I also think Thompson deserves extra credit for taking a competitive but aging team and re-building it; especially in having to transition from HOF QB to possible future HOF QB.

[sharpe1027]

Grant's scenario is no different than KGB, except that KGB actually was less than mediocre. He will play unless he can be replaced by something just as good and cheaper barring injury. Harvey's scenario makes sense if his replacement lands on the roster this year. But that guy isn't here yet.

KGB couldn't play in the NFL anymore, period. He probably could have been near the minimum salary and he still would have been cut. Did any other team even bother to take a flyer on him at the Vet minimum? That's a bit different from cutting a guy that is a starter.
His last year, yes. After failing to recover from an injury and the subsequent surgery.

But in the 3 years prior to that, everyone had KGB getting his walking papers as his contract number kept going up and his production slackened. It was the same story we have seen every year since, just fill in the disappointing vet. This offseason it was AJ Hawk. There was one vet getting the same coverage each year since Thompson took over.

The problem lies in the misunderstanding. Each beat writer thinks Thompson will pay for value only. And they will eventually become convinced that Thompson has "changed". Just like the veteran leadership angle when Clifton and Tauscher got resigned. Suddenly they divined that Thompson learned from his past mistakes on leadership. Never stopping to think about the il-logic of applauding the same veteran leadership in 2010 that they blamed the 2008 failures.

But KGB, Hawk and others are examples where he will live with overpaying his own players. Either for continued development or lack of suitable replacements at a position. They also mistake Thompson letting Wahle, Rivera and Sharper walk as evidence he will not overpay, instead of evidence that he wanted the cap situation straightened out first.

It has never occurred to them that with a favorable cap and contracts that leave the Packers in control, he is willing to spend money to keep the band together.

I agree. Too often the analysis is only skin deep. Dig a little deeper and you can see that overpaying is only relevant when it results in cuts somewhere else. Since first year, the cap has been handled so that they can "overpay" for a few guys and still keep everyone around.

I can't see Grant being cut unless his production falls off the cliff or they find a couple really solid backs to take over.

[Bretsky]

I also think Thompson deserves extra credit for taking a competitive but aging team and re-building it; especially in having to transition from HOF QB to possible future HOF QB.


How successful were the Packers before Ron Wolf arrived ?

[Joemailman]

I think Ted Thompson has put together a Super Bowl caliber roster. Whether or not he matches/exceeds Wolf will depend on whether he has hired a Super Bowl caliber coach. Wolf did with Holmgren. The jury is still out with McCarthy.

[falco]

I also think Thompson deserves extra credit for taking a competitive but aging team and re-building it; especially in having to transition from HOF QB to possible future HOF QB.


How successful were the Packers before Ron Wolf arrived ?

You are missing my point. Obviously the team wolf inherited was much worse.

[red]

I also think Thompson deserves extra credit for taking a competitive but aging team and re-building it; especially in having to transition from HOF QB to possible future HOF QB.


How successful were the Packers before Ron Wolf arrived ?

i think you're mistaken
the packers felt like it was unfair for them to compete in the nfl after super bowl 2, they were just too good. so Lombardi agreed to leave the game forever and move to a small island near bermuda, where to this day he sinks ships and messes with planes by using his brain waves.

the rest of the team then agreed to disband and spread out to all corners of the world in order that their combined power wouldn't upset the space time continuem

it was only in 1991 that the people of green bay felt that the world was in need of a true champion once again and lit the giant G spotlight in the south endzone of lambeau field

ron wolf, with the help of god (to my knowledge Curly lambeau) assembled the team that would go on to win another super bowl. only to let denver win the following year due to fears that they were becoming too strong once again

thats the way i understand things

[Joemailman]

win a title and then come back to make the argument

I get your point but don't agree. Only one team can win the championship every year, and it requires a perfect alignment of many variables. Especially in the climate the NFL operates in today.

But I do agree that it will take another 4-5 years to judge. But I'm saying my mind is made up now; and I'm also saying that if in 5 years, if we don't have another championship, that still doesn't mean that Wolf was better.

I guess I don't understand your criteria for judging that Thompson is better. If you base it on championships, Wolf is better. If you base it on producing a consistent winner, Wolf is also better. The Packers never had a losing season with Wolf here, even though he inherited one of the worst teams in the league.

[falco]

I guess I don't understand your criteria for judging that Thompson is better

First of all, I don't claim to be an expert on the subject, just an opinionated fan.

My argument is that a perpetual contender is a better criteria than championships, for the reason I mentioned before.

However, I think Thompson faced more struggles than Wolf did (he had to rebuild a successful but old team, had to transition from a HOF QB, had much higher expectations versus Wolf's when he started, there is more parity in the league now, etc).

I hope people don't think I'm discounting Wolf. I'm just saying if Thompson is a 10, Wolf is a 9.9. They are both top notch, and I think we've been lucky to have each. I guess what I'm saying is that if you had to pick one to take over your team right now, I'm going with Thompson.

[swede]

I also think Thompson deserves extra credit for taking a competitive but aging team and re-building it; especially in having to transition from HOF QB to possible future HOF QB.


How successful were the Packers before Ron Wolf arrived ?



The first step in making the Green Bay Packers successful again was not Ron Wolf, it was unloading Judge Parins for Bob Harlan. He upgraded the organization and created a culture devoted to professionalism and winning in a new era.

Ron was a really good GM, though.

I already think TT may have an edge over Wolf, but it would be great if he would drive the point home for me by arranging for one more kickass draft next week.

[Fritz]

Was Judge Parrins really a judge?

[pbmax]

Was Judge Parrins really a judge?
Yep. A retired Brown County Circuit Judge.

[Patler]

What we know about Grant is that he isn't self motivated. So far, he has been motivated by the big payday, the incentives in his contract and most recently, by the addition of Green.

We know this? How?
I know of no cause and effect certainty for any of that, especially for the addition of Green.

I have a hard time saying a guy isn't self motivated when he hangs around as a PS/IR member for a couple years with one team and fights his way up from the bottom of the roster on another to become a starter.

A player who was not drafted becomes a starter and he isn't self-motivated? Who forced him into it?

If you followed his career at ND, they were always trying to replace him, first with one player, than with another. He had nagging injuries. They never seemed to want him as their back. He made them play him, just as he did in Green Bay. He graduated in four years with a double major. He had opportunity after opportunity in college and for three years as a pro to say heck with it. No one was motivating him to do all that. It was all from within him, his own desire to get where he has gotten.

Ryan Grant does not have immense talent. He's not a big bruiser, he's not overly fast. He's not real shifty. Face it, nothing about him stood out enough for him to even get drafted. He probably gets more from what he has than many players in the NFL. That, in my mind, is exactly what self-motivation is all about.

[MJZiggy]

Patlerized.

[pbmax]

What we know about Grant is that he isn't self motivated. So far, he has been motivated by the big payday, the incentives in his contract and most recently, by the addition of Green.

We know this? How?
I know of no cause and effect certainty for any of that, especially for the addition of Green.

I have a hard time saying a guy isn't self motivated when he hangs around as a PS/IR member for a couple years with one team and fights his way up from the bottom of the roster on another to become a starter.

A player who was not drafted becomes a starter and he isn't self-motivated? Who forced him into it?

If you followed his career at ND, they were always trying to replace him, first with one player, than with another. He had nagging injuries. They never seemed to want him as their back. He made them play him, just as he did in Green Bay. He graduated in four years with a double major. He had opportunity after opportunity in college and for three years as a pro to say heck with it. No one was motivating him to do all that. It was all from within him, his own desire to get where he has gotten.

Ryan Grant does not have immense talent. He's not a big bruiser, he's not overly fast. He's not real shifty. Face it, nothing about him stood out enough for him to even get drafted. He probably gets more from what he has than many players in the NFL. That, in my mind, is exactly what self-motivation is all about.

He is also currently doing MMA training with Jay Glazer and Randy Coture.

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=20394

[Patler]

I also think the Mike McCarthy signing is greatly underestimated. McCarthy wasn't on anyone's radar when Thompson picked him up, and I think he deserves more credit as a coach than most on here give.

Thompson has clearly had some bad picks, but every GM does. I think Wolf was great, but Thompson is better.

Or, you could argue TT passed up Sean Peyton who is the reigning World Champion....

Wolf had some terrible picks, too. That Jamaal Reynolds pick was on his shift.

Unless the Pack wins a SB, Wolf will always be considered the better, I think.

But is that really justified? As they say, even a blind squirrel....
Now, I'm not saying Wolf was the equivalent of a blind squirrel, but on the negative side for Wolf:

He had Favre all those years and managed just one SB win and just two appearances. Many GMs with elite QBs have done much better than that. For me, the gloss of that one win is very much tarnished by not getting more out of the Favre years than he did. He had a lot of foundation work done for a semi-dynasty, but managed to get very little out of it.

He hired Ray Rhodes.

He recommended Sherman to be the GM.

[Patler]

Thompson > Wolf = True


don't agree at all

win a title and then come back to make the argument

some will say Wolf won in a different era

All of the GM's were playing under the same rules as Wolf

I understand the importance of a title, but I think too much is made of that for Wolf. I think it is a huge negative for Wolf that he won ONLY one title while having a QB as talented as Favre. Getting to only two with Favre is also a negative, in my opinion.

The build up to '96 was long, but reasonable, but the fall was sudden and never recovered from, though Wolf himself abandoned ship shortly thereafter. I have this inkling of a feeling that his sudden and unexpected retirement had a bit of a motivation from his desire to retain his image. Did he maybe realize the Packers were not going to get back to legitimate SB contention anytime soon, and he did not want to be associated with it?

I respect Wolf for what he did, but the pedestal I put him on is not real tall. TT's pedestal is under construction. Whether it is ever installed, and the final dimensions are yet to be determined.

[Brandon494]

TT is good but he is not quite as good as Wolf.

Favre > Rodgers
R. White > Woodson
Bulter > Collins

[Patler]

I also think Thompson deserves extra credit for taking a competitive but aging team and re-building it; especially in having to transition from HOF QB to possible future HOF QB.


How successful were the Packers before Ron Wolf arrived ?

I think the talent inherited by Wolf was as good or better than the talent inherited by Thompson. Sharpe, Butler, Paup, Cecil, Ruettgers, Majkowski, Holland, Bennett, Harris, Jacke, Moran, Hallstrom etc. were all there before Wolf arrived. There was a lot of young talent that Infante had not gotten much out of. Not saying they were all great players, but some were.

TT inherited a few too, but most were entering the second halves of their careers. TT inherited older players that would have to be replaced, Wolf inherited younger players with which he could build.

Wolf had to rebuild an image and attitude. No small project. But Wolf had a fair number of young players to work with. I think TT had more of a roster re-building project.

[Patler]

I also think Thompson deserves extra credit for taking a competitive but aging team and re-building it; especially in having to transition from HOF QB to possible future HOF QB.


How successful were the Packers before Ron Wolf arrived ?

You are missing my point. Obviously the team wolf inherited was much worse.

I don't think it was, from a roster perspective.

[Fritz]

Thompson > Wolf = True


don't agree at all

win a title and then come back to make the argument

some will say Wolf won in a different era

All of the GM's were playing under the same rules as Wolf

I understand the importance of a title, but I think too much is made of that for Wolf. I think it is a huge negative for Wolf that he won ONLY one title while having a QB as talented as Favre. Getting to only two with Favre is also a negative, in my opinion.

The build up to '96 was long, but reasonable, but the fall was sudden and never recovered from, though Wolf himself abandoned ship shortly thereafter. I have this inkling of a feeling that his sudden and unexpected retirement had a bit of a motivation from his desire to retain his image. Did he maybe realize the Packers were not going to get back to legitimate SB contention anytime soon, and he did not want to be associated with it?

I respect Wolf for what he did, but the pedestal I put him on is not real tall. TT's pedestal is under construction. Whether it is ever installed, and the final dimensions are yet to be determined.

It was a fast fall. After the Super Bowl there was the Denver debacle - it was complete anguish to watch that defense get shredded so easily. When Wolf made his infamous "fart in the wind" comment, my sense was that he was not looking to the future any more. After all, had they gone back a third year in a row or even one year after and won, all would have been fine.

But I think Holmgren's impending departure damaged the entire organization badly. It was not so much that he was going to leave - it was clear that he wanted to run the whole show - it was that Wolf and Holmgren could not come to an agreement that would allow Holmgren to step in once Wolf left, which was not too far away, and two, that it was abundantly clear Holmgren was leaving through the final third or so of that season. It made it difficult for everyone to focus on football. And the loss to San Fran was the proverbial stake in the heart to that team.

I'll give Wolf a break on the Rhodes hire - he dumped his mistake quickly - but I fault him for giving so much authority up to Sherman so quickly - and Sherman was untested as a coach, much less as a GM, at that time.

Finally, there was the mess that was the Jamaal Reynolds/Robert Ferguson draft. Wolf left the organization with a team that had some veteran parts in place (the offensive line, Favre, Driver) but in other places was clearly heading south.

[DonHutson]

He had Favre all those years and managed just one SB win and just two appearances. Many GMs with elite QBs have done much better than that.

But then Wolf had Favre only because he went out and got him. Ted got his franchise QB, too. But there was a huge element of pure dumb luck to Rodgers falling that far. I give Ted all the credit in world for pulling the trigger, but Rodgers never should've been there.

The team Wolf put together was certainly good enough to win two titles in a row. I don't think you can pin that Bronco loss on personnel. You can always have more good players, but that team was good enough.

I would also give Wolf bonus points because he engineered a total 180 on the perception surrounding Green Bay at the time (the start of FA) when it mattered most. Ted inherited a team that was already considered one of the class acts in the NFL, because of the work that guys like Wolf and Bob Harlan did.

I guess my point is that it's difficult to assign credit and blame with any degree of accuracy in terms of wins and losses and whether a player pans out or busts. But the change in attitude in and toward Green Bay is a tangible thing that Wolf can clearly hang his hat on.

[Fritz]

He had Favre all those years and managed just one SB win and just two appearances. Many GMs with elite QBs have done much better than that.

But then Wolf had Favre only because he went out and got him. Ted got his franchise QB, too. But there was a huge element of pure dumb luck to Rodgers falling that far. I give Ted all the credit in world for pulling the trigger, but Rodgers never should've been there.

The team Wolf put together was certainly good enough to win two titles in a row. I don't think you can pin that Bronco loss on personnel. You can always have more good players, but that team was good enough.

I would also give Wolf bonus points because he engineered a total 180 on the perception surrounding Green Bay at the time (the start of FA) when it mattered most. Ted inherited a team that was already considered one of the class acts in the NFL, because of the work that guys like Wolf and Bob Harlan did.

I guess my point is that it's difficult to assign credit and blame with any degree of accuracy in terms of wins and losses and whether a player pans out or busts. But the change in attitude in and toward Green Bay is a tangible thing that Wolf can clearly hang his hat on.

DH, I don't know that I disagree with the bold-faced line above. But what do you think did happen that allowed Denver to so badly whip the Green Bay defense? It was a complete beat down.

[CaptainKickass]

Speaking of Defense.....

I can only say 2 words regarding the Wolf/Holmgren era that have yet to be chewed on in this particular thread:

Fritz Shurmur.

[Patler]

Rodgers fell to TT as much as Favre did to Wolf. Favre dropped to the 2nd round, came in with no fanfare and made no mark at all in Atlanta for whatever reasons. Rodgers feel in the draft for whatever reasons. Wolf saw something in Favre, and TT saw something in Rodgers that apparently failed to impress others who could have had either player.

They both deserve credit for getting their QBs. Finding a QB is crucial for any GM. Both GMs risked a 1st round pick they could have used for immediate help elsewhere. Both had established pro-bowl QBs on their rosters when they made the moves for another. Neither Favre nor Rodgers was a certainty when reeled in.

[falco]

They both deserve credit for getting their QBs.

+1

[falco]

I don't think it was, from a roster perspective.

Point taken.

[Tarlam!]

Patlerized.

The closest thing to being knighted on Packer Rats!

Though I stand my opinion. Call it what you like, the guy needs an outside influence to perform to a higher standard. The fact that he performs is the primary concern.

Take a guy like Al Harris by comparison, or Driver or Woodson, even guys like T-O- and Larry Fitzgerald. Pure self motivation. These guys strive to be the best they can be.

Sorry, I don't see that dedication in Grant without there being some outside leverage. And, neither does the free sporting press.

[Joemailman]

He had Favre all those years and managed just one SB win and just two appearances. Many GMs with elite QBs have done much better than that.

But then Wolf had Favre only because he went out and got him. Ted got his franchise QB, too. But there was a huge element of pure dumb luck to Rodgers falling that far. I give Ted all the credit in world for pulling the trigger, but Rodgers never should've been there.

The team Wolf put together was certainly good enough to win two titles in a row. I don't think you can pin that Bronco loss on personnel. You can always have more good players, but that team was good enough.

I would also give Wolf bonus points because he engineered a total 180 on the perception surrounding Green Bay at the time (the start of FA) when it mattered most. Ted inherited a team that was already considered one of the class acts in the NFL, because of the work that guys like Wolf and Bob Harlan did.

I guess my point is that it's difficult to assign credit and blame with any degree of accuracy in terms of wins and losses and whether a player pans out or busts. But the change in attitude in and toward Green Bay is a tangible thing that Wolf can clearly hang his hat on.

This is a huge point. Wolf's greatest challenge when he came to Green Bay was changing a losing atmosphere. Many were questioning whether it was still possible to have success in little Green Bay. You can argue whether Wolf or Thompson inherited the better roster. However, there is no doubt that that Thompson inherited a more stable franchise situation than the one Wolf inherited.

[falco]

However, there is no doubt that that Thompson inherited a more stable franchise situation than the one Wolf inherited.

That is true, but also Thompson has played a major role in the continuity of the franchise's success. Had Rodgers been a bust and we turned in several losing seasons, things would be different. I still maintain that Wolf had the bar set much lower when he arrived.

[Tarlam!]

Unless the Pack wins a SB, Wolf will always be considered the better, I think.

But is that really justified? As they say, even a blind squirrel....

It's tough to say today. We'll need to measure the entire body of work before we can genuinely say, TT outmanaged Wolf, or not.

Personally, I am a huge TT fan, but an even bigger Harlan fan. I think Harlan really put the Packers back on the map.

[Patler]

Unless the Pack wins a SB, Wolf will always be considered the better, I think.

But is that really justified? As they say, even a blind squirrel....

It's tough to say today. We'll need to measure the entire body of work before we can genuinely say, TT outmanaged Wolf, or not.

Personally, I am a huge TT fan, but an even bigger Harlan fan. I think Harlan really put the Packers back on the map.

I agree with that 100%. No matter how much credit Harlan gets, in my opinion it is deserved, and perhaps not enough. He engineered the structure and brought in the people to turn the franchise around, and Wolf was a big part of that. Changing the perception of GB was a bigger success for Wolf than his single SB win, in my opinion. Shelling out the $ for White was a big part of that, and Harlan had enough sense to approve it and let Wolf do what he thought was right. (Personally, no matter what Reggie said, I don't think God had a lot to do with it! :lol: )

[DonHutson]

He engineered the structure and brought in the people to turn the franchise around, and Wolf was a big part of that.

Structure being a key word, not just in terms of the organizational structure, but in terms of the physical structures. Getting an indoor practice facility and state of the art locker rooms, weight rooms, training facilities, etc. had a lot to do with making a good first impression for prospective players.

The financial benefits of the stadium renovation speak for themselves.

[DonHutson]

DH, I don't know that I disagree with the bold-faced line above. But what do you think did happen that allowed Denver to so badly whip the Green Bay defense? It was a complete beat down.

It wasn't one of Holmy's better coaching days (didn't they leave themselves shorthanded on the DL. then there was an injury?), but overall, it wasn't like they got their asses kicked. It was a highly competitive game that could have gone either way. Yeah, the D got pushed around but the offense was moving the ball on Denver as well.

If Denver had vastly superior personnel you could argue Wolf didn't build a good enough team to win that year. I don't think that was the case. Any number of minor things could've gone differently to result in a Packer win in that game. It was two pretty equal teams, and somebody had to lose.

[Bretsky]

Thompson > Wolf = True


don't agree at all

win a title and then come back to make the argument

some will say Wolf won in a different era

All of the GM's were playing under the same rules as Wolf

I understand the importance of a title, but I think too much is made of that for Wolf. I think it is a huge negative for Wolf that he won ONLY one title while having a QB as talented as Favre. Getting to only two with Favre is also a negative, in my opinion.

The build up to '96 was long, but reasonable, but the fall was sudden and never recovered from, though Wolf himself abandoned ship shortly thereafter. I have this inkling of a feeling that his sudden and unexpected retirement had a bit of a motivation from his desire to retain his image. Did he maybe realize the Packers were not going to get back to legitimate SB contention anytime soon, and he did not want to be associated with it?

I respect Wolf for what he did, but the pedestal I put him on is not real tall. TT's pedestal is under construction. Whether it is ever installed, and the final dimensions are yet to be determined.


The reason Wolf gets a nice pedastal from me is he brought me the only title I witnessed in professional sports as a fan

He turned around a losing organizaton that nobody wanted to come to into a winning one that could land free agents.

He went out and made the bold move of giving up a first round draft pick for a drinking partying burnout who was drafted in round two.

And I disagree that is equivilent to TT watching Rodgers free fall and selecting him. Great move by TT. And incredibly smart. But not nearly as bold as what Wolf did.

I agree many of Wolf's later moves were piss poor...Rhodes...Sherman as GM...the final draft.

But he still got a title; Miami never got one with Dan Marino. We can make a decent Hall of Fame List of QB's who were absent a title. We got one.

The day TT brings us a championship, and I think the blocks are aligned pretty well for us to get one soon, then I will start compariing him to Ron Wolf.

Bring two titles and he'll get his own pedastal above Wolf.

[Bretsky]

He had Favre all those years and managed just one SB win and just two appearances. Many GMs with elite QBs have done much better than that.

But then Wolf had Favre only because he went out and got him. Ted got his franchise QB, too. But there was a huge element of pure dumb luck to Rodgers falling that far. I give Ted all the credit in world for pulling the trigger, but Rodgers never should've been there.

The team Wolf put together was certainly good enough to win two titles in a row. I don't think you can pin that Bronco loss on personnel. You can always have more good players, but that team was good enough.

I would also give Wolf bonus points because he engineered a total 180 on the perception surrounding Green Bay at the time (the start of FA) when it mattered most. Ted inherited a team that was already considered one of the class acts in the NFL, because of the work that guys like Wolf and Bob Harlan did.

I guess my point is that it's difficult to assign credit and blame with any degree of accuracy in terms of wins and losses and whether a player pans out or busts. But the change in attitude in and toward Green Bay is a tangible thing that Wolf can clearly hang his hat on.

DH, I don't know that I disagree with the bold-faced line above. But what do you think did happen that allowed Denver to so badly whip the Green Bay defense? It was a complete beat down.

I've watched that game several times...demoralizing. As crappy as our D played one of the key plays in that game was a third down pass when Favre was running to his left scrambling and he made a horrific pass to a wide open Antonio Freeman who had a lot of green running space ahead of him. If he makes that pass it's possible Denver never even gets the ball back for the go ahead TD.

My point....as bad as our game plan seemed to be....we still had a shot to win two in a row . We had the personnell to do it; we were 12pt favorites and laid a bad egg on the grand stage.

[Bretsky]

Rodgers fell to TT as much as Favre did to Wolf. Favre dropped to the 2nd round, came in with no fanfare and made no mark at all in Atlanta for whatever reasons. Rodgers feel in the draft for whatever reasons. Wolf saw something in Favre, and TT saw something in Rodgers that apparently failed to impress others who could have had either player.

They both deserve credit for getting their QBs. Finding a QB is crucial for any GM. Both GMs risked a 1st round pick they could have used for immediate help elsewhere. Both had established pro-bowl QBs on their rosters when they made the moves for another. Neither Favre nor Rodgers was a certainty when reeled in.


Disagree; Rodgers feel to TT and give TT credit for a great pick there

Wolf went out and took a big gamble by trading a 1st round pick for a partying burnout at the time. There wasn't much falling IMO when it was clear Favre was on a crash course toward not a whole lot of good in Atlants. Huge Gamble...many fans, at the time, were not fone of trading a 1st for a past 2nd round draft pick who had no success up to that point.

[Bretsky]

Patlerized.

The closest thing to being knighted on Packer Rats!

Though I stand my opinion. Call it what you like, the guy needs an outside influence to perform to a higher standard. The fact that he performs is the primary concern.

Take a guy like Al Harris by comparison, or Driver or Woodson, even guys like T-O- and Larry Fitzgerald. Pure self motivation. These guys strive to be the best they can be.

Sorry, I don't see that dedication in Grant without there being some outside leverage. And, neither does the free sporting press.


Not sure I agree here Tarlem, and I'm not a huge fan of Grant being great or anything. He's a solid top 12 or so back IMO.

Have you heard about how some players are reaching out to Jay Glazer for help with their agility, strenth and speed through Mixed Martial Arts ?

Jared Allen gave kudos to Glazer for his improvements last year. Reportedly he kills himself fighting/training with Glazer.

Guess who spent some time with Glazer lately training ?

Ryan Grant. A lot of players are buying into these workouts/training as a way to step up their fitness and improve in areas such as agility...lateral movements....in RB's....shake and baking and making people miss.

I hope it works.

[falco]

Wolf went out and took a big gamble by trading a 1st round pick for a partying burnout at the time.

While I agree about this, you cannot diminish the fact that TT drafted a QB in the first round when we had a future HOF qb at the helm, and many were upset that we didn't make a move to draft an immediate contributor.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Disagree; Rodgers feel to TT and give TT credit for a great pick there

Wolf went out and took a big gamble by trading a 1st round pick for a partying burnout at the time. There wasn't much falling IMO when it was clear Favre was on a crash course toward not a whole lot of good in Atlants. Huge Gamble...many fans, at the time, were not fone of trading a 1st for a past 2nd round draft pick who had no success up to that point.

While I agree that trading a 1st for Favre was a bolder move than drafting Rodgers, I think trading for Favre gets slightly overrated and drafting Rodgers gets slightly underrated. Here's why I think that way. Favre was a top 10 talent,. The main reason he dropped in the draft was because of the car crash his senior year. He was considered a first round pick before that happened, so I think the trade is overrated because people think Wolf gambled on a nobody--when, in fact, Favre had all of the talent/leadership in the world. People were concerned about his character issues. The thing that Wolf did guess right on was that Favre would settle down in tiny Green Bay. He did--although it took several years. The talent was always there.

Rodgers did fall to Green Bay, but the concerns about him were legit. He was a Tedford QB. He had a funny delivery. He wasn't quite as sturdy as you like your QB. There were legit reasons why he fell. Personally, I hated that he fell to us and we drafted him. I said so in the draft thread. I didn't think he'd be any good. I give Thompson credit for either 1) guessing right on what little film he probably watched (considering he may have thought Rodgers wouldn't be there), or 2) scouting a guy that wasn't supposed to be there enough to feel comfortable drafting him. Also, Favre had hinted about retirement, but he was also in the middle of playing GM, so you knew he'd be unhappy with the drafting of a QB. It's hard to go against an icon like Favre.

[Patler]

Rodgers did fall to Green Bay, but the concerns about him were legit. He was a Tedford QB. He had a funny delivery. He wasn't quite as sturdy as you like your QB. There were legit reasons why he fell. Personally, I hated that he fell to us and we drafted him. I said so in the draft thread. I didn't think he'd be any good. I give Thompson credit for either 1) guessing right on what little film he probably watched (considering he may have thought Rodgers wouldn't be there), or 2) scouting a guy that wasn't supposed to be there enough to feel comfortable drafting him. Also, Favre had hinted about retirement, but he was also in the middle of playing GM, so you knew he'd be unhappy with the drafting of a QB. It's hard to go against an icon like Favre.

Well said. It's only in retrospect that picking Rodgers has become a no-brainer for most people. If he fell into TT's lap as some now argue, there would have been wild cheering and glee among the Packer fans at the time, and I sure don't remember it being that way.

The comment about risking antagonizing Favre is excellent, especially with TT being new on the scene. And it did have that effect with Favre. But TT needed to plan for the future, and took a bold step right away.

[Scott Campbell]

Wolf never made a move as bold as trading away Favre for somebody completely unproven.

[Patler]

Wolf never made a move as bold as trading away Favre for somebody completely unproven.

Another solid point.
In many ways, TT risked what Wolf had built.

[Bretsky]

Wolf never made a move as bold as trading away Favre for somebody completely unproven.


Many would argue that Favre's actions, lack of class, selfishness, and immaturity forced TT's hand so it wasn't that much of a risk at all.....just time to move on

Actually, wouldn't you argue that ?

[Scott Campbell]

Wolf never made a move as bold as trading away Favre for somebody completely unproven.


Many would argue that Favre's actions, lack of class, selfishness, and immaturity forced TT's hand so it wasn't that much of a risk at all.....just time to move on

Actually, wouldn't you argue that ?


Not in this thread.



If you have any doubt which was bolder, ask yourself which move prompted more public backlash.

[Tarlam!]

Have you heard about how some players are reaching out to Jay Glazer for help with their agility, strenth and speed through Mixed Martial Arts ? ....

Guess who spent some time with Glazer lately training ?

Ryan Grant.

No, Mate, I don't know anything about Glazer.

The fact is, though, that Grant is due a massive pay hike next season. That is, if he's on the roster.

The names I put out there have been doing abnormaly tough training regimes for years, not days. Grant isn't one of them.

I'm glad he can be motivatred, I'm glad he performs so well, I am not down on the guy at all. My only point is that while others are motivated to be the best they can be for that reason alone, Grant has other things that motivate him.

[cheesner]

Rodgers did fall to Green Bay, but the concerns about him were legit. He was a Tedford QB. He had a funny delivery. He wasn't quite as sturdy as you like your QB. There were legit reasons why he fell. Personally, I hated that he fell to us and we drafted him. I said so in the draft thread. I didn't think he'd be any good. I give Thompson credit for either 1) guessing right on what little film he probably watched (considering he may have thought Rodgers wouldn't be there), or 2) scouting a guy that wasn't supposed to be there enough to feel comfortable drafting him. Also, Favre had hinted about retirement, but he was also in the middle of playing GM, so you knew he'd be unhappy with the drafting of a QB. It's hard to go against an icon like Favre.

Well said. It's only in retrospect that picking Rodgers has become a no-brainer for most people. If he fell into TT's lap as some now argue, there would have been wild cheering and glee among the Packer fans at the time, and I sure don't remember it being that way.

The comment about risking antagonizing Favre is excellent, especially with TT being new on the scene. And it did have that effect with Favre. But TT needed to plan for the future, and took a bold step right away.My memory is that TT said that 2 weeks before the draft the realized there was a chance that AR would be available, so they went back and scouted him in detail. It wasn't a 'lucky' pick IMHO.

[Bretsky]

Wolf never made a move as bold as trading away Favre for somebody completely unproven.


Many would argue that Favre's actions, lack of class, selfishness, and immaturity forced TT's hand so it wasn't that much of a risk at all.....just time to move on

Actually, wouldn't you argue that ?

Not in this thread.
If you have any doubt which was bolder, ask yourself which move prompted more public backlash.


So your arguments would flip depending on the thread ? :lol:

It would be interesting to get the facts on which move was more popular with the majority of Packer fans.

Boldness aside, I think a stronger % of Packer Fans Favored TT trading him away at that point than the % that thought Wolf made a good deal when he acquired him.

[Bretsky]

Just as a FYI on Grant

•RB Ryan Grant is in Hollywood doing some cross-MMA training with Fox Sports "reporter" Jay Glazer and MMA legend Randy Couture. Glazer said on Sirius NFL Radio today that they're working on Grant's knees and opening up his hips. His lack of fluidity has been a problem for him on the second level. "You can't believe how one of his hips was much tighter than his other side," Glazer said. He also trained Cardinals QB Matt Leinert, so the proof will be in the pudding.


Jared Allen worked out with Glazer much of off season and reportedly has spoken very highly of them to other players in the NFL

[Scott Campbell]

Wolf never made a move as bold as trading away Favre for somebody completely unproven.


Many would argue that Favre's actions, lack of class, selfishness, and immaturity forced TT's hand so it wasn't that much of a risk at all.....just time to move on

Actually, wouldn't you argue that ?

Not in this thread.
If you have any doubt which was bolder, ask yourself which move prompted more public backlash.


So your arguments would flip depending on the thread ? :lol:


That ain't what I said. Re-read your question B.

[Scott Campbell]

It would be interesting to get the facts on which move was more popular with the majority of Packer fans.


I don't remember any t-shirts, billboards or rallies held against Wolf to denounce his bold move.

[Tarlam!]

Just as a FYI on Grant

Kudos. His 7 million paycheck for the 2011 season mandates that he's on the roster, obviously.

Just as obviously, there's an NFL draft starting Thursday coming with a few RB's in it that may or may not be selected by TT and if selected, may or may not make that 7 million hit to next year's (most likely capped) roster expense voidable.

We can do this all day, but the evidence that, when pushed, Grant performs better, is abundantly present.

[Bretsky]

Just as a FYI on Grant

Kudos. His 7 million paycheck for the 2011 season mandates that he's on the roster, obviously.

Just as obviously, there's an NFL draft starting Thursday coming with a few RB's in it that may or may not be selected by TT and if selected, may or may not make that 7 million hit to next year's (most likely capped) roster expense voidable.

We can do this all day, but the evidence that, when pushed, Grant performs better, is abundantly present.


Hmmm; I do see that view with the timing. I just don't agree with it.

When Grant arrived I thought he was a diligent worker. The holdout sucked as did the injury that followed. But as I remember he was not like some who show up out of shape and get injured trying to work themselves back into shape.

What has he done in the past to make us think he's lazy or not a hard worker ?

I guess I'm just taking the glass half full view on Ryan Grant.

And I really doubt he sees that huge bonus; I'm thinking if he does well TT rewrites his contract.

[pbmax]

While I can see how some interpret Grant's second half of the season as a tribute to Green, this statement seems indefensible:


The names I put out there have been doing abnormaly tough training regimes for years, not days. Grant isn't one of them.

How do you know how Ryan Grant has been training? For that matter, how do you know how Woodson or Driver trained? Other than their longevity, do we know how they did it?

Grant came back to training camp looking as in shape and ripped as a player could be the season of Favre-a-palooza. He did that work before the contract and he looked even in better shape in 2009. Now even from looking at them, we can't know how they trained, or how dedicated they were. So how on earth can we know they didn't train hard, like you claim with Grant?

[Tarlam!]

PB, I only know what I read in the press, obviously, just as we all do. I highly doubt your sources are any different than mine. (I will give you and anyone else here the advantage of actually watching the game. It's still too fast for me to see who did what and when).

I find it revealing that some people get press for their off season workout programmes while others don't. Suddenly, a presser comes up about Grant being at Glazer's place. I make my conclusions based on what I read and what is reported, as do you and Bretsky.

I still don't see anything wrong with Grant. I haven't said a negative thing about him. I just don't believe he does this to be the best. I think it's a job to him.

[Bretsky]

While I can see how some interpret Grant's second half of the season as a tribute to Green, this statement seems indefensible:


The names I put out there have been doing abnormaly tough training regimes for years, not days. Grant isn't one of them.

How do you know how Ryan Grant has been training? For that matter, how do you know how Woodson or Driver trained? Other than their longevity, do we know how they did it?

Grant came back to training camp looking as in shape and ripped as a player could be the season of Favre-a-palooza. He did that work before the contract and he looked even in better shape in 2009. Now even from looking at them, we can't know how they trained, or how dedicated they were. So how on earth can we know they didn't train hard, like you claim with Grant?


It's been pretty well reported that Drivers regiments are well more intense than the rest over the years. People within the professoin have noted Driver puts himself though Jerry Rice type workouts and have told stories about how Packer players will come over and did Drivers full workout and noted how they were so sore the following days they would never do it again. Freeman was one of them.

[Tarlam!]

When Grant arrived I thought he was a diligent worker....

What has he done in the past to make us think he's lazy or not a hard worker ?


I never said he wasn't diligent, nor did I claim he wasn't a hard worker.

What I am claiming is, he is motivated by something other than just being the best. As long as he's motivated and as long as he gets the job done, I have zero issues with it.

BTW, as I posted earlier on another thread, Charles Woodson's contract with the Packers saw to it that he was motivated to play as many games as possible. Suddenly, he was there every Sunday. Since M3's 2nd year at least, CW has been a vocal leader and attended all VOTAs. The initial monetary motivation has given way to an idealistic one, and that earned him DMVP last season.

I'd be delighted to see Grant make that same transition, but I don't see it today.

[MJZiggy]

Rodgers fell to TT as much as Favre did to Wolf. Favre dropped to the 2nd round, came in with no fanfare and made no mark at all in Atlanta for whatever reasons. Rodgers feel in the draft for whatever reasons. Wolf saw something in Favre, and TT saw something in Rodgers that apparently failed to impress others who could have had either player.

They both deserve credit for getting their QBs. Finding a QB is crucial for any GM. Both GMs risked a 1st round pick they could have used for immediate help elsewhere. Both had established pro-bowl QBs on their rosters when they made the moves for another. Neither Favre nor Rodgers was a certainty when reeled in.


Disagree; Rodgers feel to TT and give TT credit for a great pick there

Wolf went out and took a big gamble by trading a 1st round pick for a partying burnout at the time. There wasn't much falling IMO when it was clear Favre was on a crash course toward not a whole lot of good in Atlants. Huge Gamble...many fans, at the time, were not fone of trading a 1st for a past 2nd round draft pick who had no success up to that point.

I believe the Favre decision to be less of a gamble than you think. Wolf wanted Favre from the get go and Favre was picked by Atlanta just before Wolf's turn to pick. Wolf knew the potential that he was getting and that it was possible to drill into his head that if Favre ever wanted to see the field, he'd best shape up or he'd cut him. He probably could have gotten a much better bargain had Atlanta not been aware of how bad Wolf wanted Favre on his team.

B, cut Scott a little slack. I think his point is that he's trying to behave outside the Favre thread.

[Tarlam!]

Ziggy is 100% on the money. It's well documented that Wolf wanted to draft Favre at his previous employer.

What she forgot to point out is that Wolf threw the tape of Favre on TT's desk and asked for an evaluation. In fact, it was one of TT's first duties with his first stint with the Pack. TT was enamoured.

[Bretsky]

Ziggy is 100% on the money. It's well documented that Wolf wanted to draft Favre at his previous employer.

What she forgot to point out is that Wolf threw the tape of Favre on TT's desk and asked for an evaluation. In fact, it was one of TT's first duties with his first stint with the Pack. TT was enamoured.


interesting and thanks for noting; I never knew that

[pbmax]

PB, I only know what I read in the press, obviously, just as we all do. I highly doubt your sources are any different than mine. (I will give you and anyone else here the advantage of actually watching the game. It's still too fast for me to see who did what and when).

I find it revealing that some people get press for their off season workout programmes while others don't. Suddenly, a presser comes up about Grant being at Glazer's place. I make my conclusions based on what I read and what is reported, as do you and Bretsky.

I still don't see anything wrong with Grant. I haven't said a negative thing about him. I just don't believe he does this to be the best. I think it's a job to him.
But that is exactly the point, Tar. The one mention in the press (that I am aware of, if you have seen others, please pass them along) is a mock draft defending a RB pick for the Pack because they believed (unsourced) that the Packers believed Grant needs someone to push him. Other than that, we have only the feeling on this board by some who thought the presence of Green would push Grant to be better. I don't buy that line of reasoning as the Packers have been better at running in the 2nd half of the season since McCarthy took over, not just when Grant has competition.

So to denigrate his commitment, motivation or training based on those two dubious claims seems to be premature.

Now its possible the Packers have concluded this. But if that was the case before midseason in 09, then they wouldn't have waited to sign Green. They probably would have signed someone better, earlier. And no one has produced reporting to that effect yet.

[pbmax]

While I can see how some interpret Grant's second half of the season as a tribute to Green, this statement seems indefensible:


The names I put out there have been doing abnormaly tough training regimes for years, not days. Grant isn't one of them.

How do you know how Ryan Grant has been training? For that matter, how do you know how Woodson or Driver trained? Other than their longevity, do we know how they did it?

Grant came back to training camp looking as in shape and ripped as a player could be the season of Favre-a-palooza. He did that work before the contract and he looked even in better shape in 2009. Now even from looking at them, we can't know how they trained, or how dedicated they were. So how on earth can we know they didn't train hard, like you claim with Grant?


It's been pretty well reported that Drivers regiments are well more intense than the rest over the years. People within the professoin have noted Driver puts himself though Jerry Rice type workouts and have told stories about how Packer players will come over and did Drivers full workout and noted how they were so sore the following days they would never do it again. Freeman was one of them.

But how does that compare to what Grant does? We don't have any basis for comparison unless Free works out with Ryan. The point is, we have little information to base a conclusion on Grant's commitment or work habits.

[Bretsky]

While I can see how some interpret Grant's second half of the season as a tribute to Green, this statement seems indefensible:


The names I put out there have been doing abnormaly tough training regimes for years, not days. Grant isn't one of them.

How do you know how Ryan Grant has been training? For that matter, how do you know how Woodson or Driver trained? Other than their longevity, do we know how they did it?

Grant came back to training camp looking as in shape and ripped as a player could be the season of Favre-a-palooza. He did that work before the contract and he looked even in better shape in 2009. Now even from looking at them, we can't know how they trained, or how dedicated they were. So how on earth can we know they didn't train hard, like you claim with Grant?


It's been pretty well reported that Drivers regiments are well more intense than the rest over the years. People within the professoin have noted Driver puts himself though Jerry Rice type workouts and have told stories about how Packer players will come over and did Drivers full workout and noted how they were so sore the following days they would never do it again. Freeman was one of them.

But how does that compare to what Grant does? We don't have any basis for comparison unless Free works out with Ryan. The point is, we have little information to base a conclusion on Grant's commitment or work habits.


If we are allowed to use media as being credible.....statements like Driver has one of the hardest workout regiments in the NFL says something. Then statements from his teammates about his workout program. And then just noticing how ripped he is in comparion to other players.....that's all secondary evidence that would seem reasonable to use.

I have no idea of Grant is lazy, casual, or a hard worker on offseason.
But the media has never pointed out anything on Grant being GB's hardest worker.

That is all of the information that any of us has and heck if we can't use the media to formulate views seeing none of us are direct witnesses what other source is their to form views ?

[MJZiggy]

Ziggy is 100% on the money. It's well documented that Wolf wanted to draft Favre at his previous employer.

What she forgot to point out is that Wolf threw the tape of Favre on TT's desk and asked for an evaluation. In fact, it was one of TT's first duties with his first stint with the Pack. TT was enamoured.

How could I have forgotten that? Didn't Wolf say having TT scout that tape was his evaluation to decide whether to keep him (TT) back then?

[Tarlam!]

Didn't Wolf say having TT scout that tape was his evaluation to decide whether to keep him (TT) back then?

Is that true? Damned, I didn't know that.

PB, your points are well noted, respected and appreciated. I have seen a few publicatations cite Grant to work hard given the outside impact, but, I don't save anything. I just rely on my memory - I'll never ever be a Patler or Scott Campbell.

At any rate, this is the first mention that I know of that Grant is doing some extra curricula activity and I, as a true blue Packer fan, appluad it. Just like I love Finley and a few others doing boxing.

I think the team wants more than they've achieved. Guys are pushing harder this year, according to what we get to read. I love that. I want them all to want to be the best. I want the draftees to be challenged to even make the team, from #23 to pick #230.

I love being a fan, I really do.

[Fritz]

I think these days working out is a full time job for these guys in the offseason. I suspect most of them workout nearly all the time.

[get louder at lambeau]

I have seen a few publicatations cite Grant to work hard given the outside impact, but, I don't save anything. I just rely on my memory - I'll never ever be a Patler or Scott Campbell.

Here ya go-
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andrew_lawrence/07/09/grant/index.html

[HarveyWallbangers]

Found this while researching the Thompson scouting Favre angle. I hadn't read this before, but the guy makes some good points.

Right or wrong, it might be how Thompson felt. Others think he should have gone the route the Vikings have with Favre. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. I guess it all depends on whether the Packers or Vikings win a title before Thompson leaves Green Bay and Favre retires. I do think the other reason Thompson didn't kiss Favre's butt is that he liked ARod and didn't want to risk losing him.

http://www.green-bay-packer.com/2008/08/10/quartback-autopsy-part-1-ted-thompson/


Thompson cleared out the cap mess, and as is most often the case when someone new is put in charge of an operation held together with duct tape, the adhesive gave way and the team fell to the ground, going 4-12. Thompson had seen enough and cleaned house of the coaching staff, sending Mike Sherman and his ice cream bandits far away from Lambeau.

But the thing that remained a constant, before Sherman, after Sherman and before Thompson was Brett Favre. Now maybe playing linebacker for 10 years hard codes an expectation of mental toughness in you. Never being on the glory side of the football or playing a skill position, you feel a little resentment for all those guys on your team that played offense; they got all the big money, the media requests, they were the ones scoring all the tuna. Fuckers. “I bust my ass every year an what do I get? A busted ass. These guys get the honey, the money and the fame” might have been a few of the thoughts Thompson had as a player. Thoughts that may well have carried into his post-playing days, having to work with the egos of stars players.

So when the rumors of Brett Favre retiring started floating in early 2005 and grew in intensity and duration each successive year, maybe Thompson wondered what was wrong with this Favre guy. The pouting and indecision just didn’t compute for a former linebacker, and frankly, it pissed him off. Guy’s got everything but it isn’t enough - he wants a “voice” in personnel decisions, drapes the franchise in a wet woolen blanket with the threat of retirement. Prima donna.

[pbmax]

I have seen a few publicatations cite Grant to work hard given the outside impact, but, I don't save anything. I just rely on my memory - I'll never ever be a Patler or Scott Campbell.

Here ya go-
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andrew_lawrence/07/09/grant/index.html
The defense rests! :lol:

[pbmax]

Found this while researching the Thompson scouting Favre angle. I hadn't read this before, but the guy makes some good points.

Right or wrong, it might be how Thompson felt. Others think he should have gone the route the Vikings have with Favre. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. I guess it all depends on whether the Packers or Vikings win a title before Thompson leaves Green Bay and Favre retires. I do think the other reason Thompson didn't kiss Favre's butt is that he liked ARod and didn't want to risk losing him.

http://www.green-bay-packer.com/2008/08/10/quartback-autopsy-part-1-ted-thompson/


Thompson cleared out the cap mess, and as is most often the case when someone new is put in charge of an operation held together with duct tape, the adhesive gave way and the team fell to the ground, going 4-12. Thompson had seen enough and cleaned house of the coaching staff, sending Mike Sherman and his ice cream bandits far away from Lambeau.

But the thing that remained a constant, before Sherman, after Sherman and before Thompson was Brett Favre. Now maybe playing linebacker for 10 years hard codes an expectation of mental toughness in you. Never being on the glory side of the football or playing a skill position, you feel a little resentment for all those guys on your team that played offense; they got all the big money, the media requests, they were the ones scoring all the tuna. Fuckers. “I bust my ass every year an what do I get? A busted ass. These guys get the honey, the money and the fame” might have been a few of the thoughts Thompson had as a player. Thoughts that may well have carried into his post-playing days, having to work with the egos of stars players.

So when the rumors of Brett Favre retiring started floating in early 2005 and grew in intensity and duration each successive year, maybe Thompson wondered what was wrong with this Favre guy. The pouting and indecision just didn’t compute for a former linebacker, and frankly, it pissed him off. Guy’s got everything but it isn’t enough - he wants a “voice” in personnel decisions, drapes the franchise in a wet woolen blanket with the threat of retirement. Prima donna.
Having a backup plan would tend to make one braver to fold the tent on the current plan. Sherman did not have a Plan B, nor had Holmgren once Brunell left.

But this article reads like a fever dream. If Thompson is really this emotionally clouded, I can't see how he has had much success. Parcells, maybe, or Schottenheimer. I highly doubt its veracity for Thompson. The retire/unretire indecision was nothing really new (except for the publicity) and as others have pointed out (Christl), Thompson had seen or heard them play out before. Ruettgers, etc. Its a power play, as long as you know the team wants you, you can just bide your time. Thompson did play this the patient way for three years.

BTW, I think the Favre tape was Thompson's audition, not final test. Six months after evaluating that tape, he got a permanent gig. I think the Favre tape was the first thing he was asked to look at after Reinfeldt recommended him.

[Guiness]

Thompson cleared out the cap mess, and as is most often the case when someone new is put in charge of an operation held together with duct tape, the adhesive gave way and the team fell to the ground, going 4-12. Thompson had seen enough and cleaned house of the coaching staff, sending Mike Sherman and his ice cream bandits far away from Lambeau.


Kind of OT to this subject, but he gave Sherman an extension before running him off. I never understood that.

Meh. Maybe it was smart, gave Sherman a chance to succeed. If he hadn't extended him, he would've been a lame duck coach and had no shot at all.

[Joemailman]

Found this while researching the Thompson scouting Favre angle. I hadn't read this before, but the guy makes some good points.

Right or wrong, it might be how Thompson felt. Others think he should have gone the route the Vikings have with Favre. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. I guess it all depends on whether the Packers or Vikings win a title before Thompson leaves Green Bay and Favre retires. I do think the other reason Thompson didn't kiss Favre's butt is that he liked ARod and didn't want to risk losing him.

http://www.green-bay-packer.com/2008/08/10/quartback-autopsy-part-1-ted-thompson/


Thompson cleared out the cap mess, and as is most often the case when someone new is put in charge of an operation held together with duct tape, the adhesive gave way and the team fell to the ground, going 4-12. Thompson had seen enough and cleaned house of the coaching staff, sending Mike Sherman and his ice cream bandits far away from Lambeau.

But the thing that remained a constant, before Sherman, after Sherman and before Thompson was Brett Favre. Now maybe playing linebacker for 10 years hard codes an expectation of mental toughness in you. Never being on the glory side of the football or playing a skill position, you feel a little resentment for all those guys on your team that played offense; they got all the big money, the media requests, they were the ones scoring all the tuna. Fuckers. “I bust my ass every year an what do I get? A busted ass. These guys get the honey, the money and the fame” might have been a few of the thoughts Thompson had as a player. Thoughts that may well have carried into his post-playing days, having to work with the egos of stars players.

So when the rumors of Brett Favre retiring started floating in early 2005 and grew in intensity and duration each successive year, maybe Thompson wondered what was wrong with this Favre guy. The pouting and indecision just didn’t compute for a former linebacker, and frankly, it pissed him off. Guy’s got everything but it isn’t enough - he wants a “voice” in personnel decisions, drapes the franchise in a wet woolen blanket with the threat of retirement. Prima donna.

I think McCarthy's role in this is often overlooked. I think McCarthy probably made the decision to go with Arod, and Thompson supported the decision.

[swede]

Found this while researching the Thompson scouting Favre angle. I hadn't read this before, but the guy makes some good points.

Right or wrong, it might be how Thompson felt. Others think he should have gone the route the Vikings have with Favre. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. I guess it all depends on whether the Packers or Vikings win a title before Thompson leaves Green Bay and Favre retires. I do think the other reason Thompson didn't kiss Favre's butt is that he liked ARod and didn't want to risk losing him.

http://www.green-bay-packer.com/2008/08/10/quartback-autopsy-part-1-ted-thompson/


Thompson cleared out the cap mess, and as is most often the case when someone new is put in charge of an operation held together with duct tape, the adhesive gave way and the team fell to the ground, going 4-12. Thompson had seen enough and cleaned house of the coaching staff, sending Mike Sherman and his ice cream bandits far away from Lambeau.

But the thing that remained a constant, before Sherman, after Sherman and before Thompson was Brett Favre. Now maybe playing linebacker for 10 years hard codes an expectation of mental toughness in you. Never being on the glory side of the football or playing a skill position, you feel a little resentment for all those guys on your team that played offense; they got all the big money, the media requests, they were the ones scoring all the tuna. Fuckers. “I bust my ass every year an what do I get? A busted ass. These guys get the honey, the money and the fame” might have been a few of the thoughts Thompson had as a player. Thoughts that may well have carried into his post-playing days, having to work with the egos of stars players.

So when the rumors of Brett Favre retiring started floating in early 2005 and grew in intensity and duration each successive year, maybe Thompson wondered what was wrong with this Favre guy. The pouting and indecision just didn’t compute for a former linebacker, and frankly, it pissed him off. Guy’s got everything but it isn’t enough - he wants a “voice” in personnel decisions, drapes the franchise in a wet woolen blanket with the threat of retirement. Prima donna.
Having a backup plan would tend to make one braver to fold the tent on the current plan. Sherman did not have a Plan B, nor had Holmgren once Brunell left.

But this article reads like a fever dream. If Thompson is really this emotionally clouded, I can't see how he has had much success. Parcells, maybe, or Schottenheimer. I highly doubt its veracity for Thompson. The retire/unretire indecision was nothing really new (except for the publicity) and as others have pointed out (Christl), Thompson had seen or heard them play out before. Ruettgers, etc. Its a power play, as long as you know the team wants you, you can just bide your time. Thompson did play this the patient way for three years.


I completely agree, Max.

TT is not emotional or vindictive. He is Vulcan. He weighs the pros and the cons and he makes a decision.

He told the unretiring Brett, honestly, that the team had moved on; it would be awkward to bring him back.

And yeah, Rodgers was a big chunk of data that had to be processed. Frankly, ARod would have shown himself to be a very weak leader if he had said, "Sure...I'll step down and hold the clipboard quietly again for the good of the team." I don't think he would have either. ARod would have been pissed. Harvey alluded to this above.

TT had to decide between damaging the team's relationship with ARod or damaging the team's relationship with Favre. I believe he made that decision on the basis of a cold calculation. He doesn't make decisions any other way.

[pbmax]

Thompson cleared out the cap mess, and as is most often the case when someone new is put in charge of an operation held together with duct tape, the adhesive gave way and the team fell to the ground, going 4-12. Thompson had seen enough and cleaned house of the coaching staff, sending Mike Sherman and his ice cream bandits far away from Lambeau.


Kind of OT to this subject, but he gave Sherman an extension before running him off. I never understood that.

Meh. Maybe it was smart, gave Sherman a chance to succeed. If he hadn't extended him, he would've been a lame duck coach and had no shot at all.
Agree with your last point. He didn't want Sherman to lose the lockerroom over contract speculation. No way to avoid it entirely, but the extension helped keep the volume down.

[HarveyWallbangers]

But this article reads like a fever dream. If Thompson is really this emotionally clouded, I can't see how he has had much success. Parcells, maybe, or Schottenheimer. I highly doubt its veracity for Thompson. The retire/unretire indecision was nothing really new (except for the publicity) and as others have pointed out (Christl), Thompson had seen or heard them play out before. Ruettgers, etc. Its a power play, as long as you know the team wants you, you can just bide your time. Thompson did play this the patient way for three years.

I think there might be a shred of truth to this. Ruettgers was a bit player. Favre had become bigger than the franchise. Yes, Thompson seems emotionally detached, but any GM is going to want his type of players on his team. Maybe he thought Favre was a prima donna. Or more likely, he thought Favre was a prima donna and felt like Rodgers would be better for the team than Favre in the very near future.

Then again, I agree with the poster that said they thought McCarthy played a role in it. He might have been the one, more than Thompson, that wanted his type of player on his team. Either way, they came to an agreement that having Favre at his age wasn't in the best interests of the team compared to Rodgers at his age. It might have come down to play on the field in the comparison, but I have a feeling some of the off-the-field stuff came into play.

[Gunakor]

The day TT brings us a championship, and I think the blocks are aligned pretty well for us to get one soon, then I will start compariing him to Ron Wolf.

Bring two titles and he'll get his own pedastal above Wolf.

I think you put too much emphasis on the GM for winning and losing. GM's don't play. They don't coach. They don't even put together the puzzle. They bring in the pieces, others put the picture together.

A good analogy I used once before went like this: GM's order the parts to fix your automobile, but they are not mechanics. Meaning a GM won't, can't, and isn't going to fix very much all by himself. All he can do is provide for a better chance that someone else can fix what's wrong.

You can set up the scenario where 2 teams have exactly the same players on their roster, all brought in by the same GM. One wins a title, the other does not. Why would that happen? Because players do not finish their careers at the same talent or production level at which they began. Good coaching makes for improvement, poor coaching makes for decline. All of that factors into wins and losses and title contention far more than roster makeup.

Okay, but the GM hires the coaches too, right? Yes they do. We could have a GM like Jerry Jones who would spare no expense at all to bring in a world class head coach like Bill Parcells and still not have a title to show for it. Not even a single post season win. So that isn't the answer either.

So what's the answer then? LUCK. A tremendous amount of LUCK goes into winning a a title, something GM's don't have a whole lot of control over. It's why a wild card team like the New York Giants can defeat a previously unbeaten New England Patriots to win a Super Bowl. It's why a first time Super Bowl participant like the New Orleans Saints can defeat a very confident, dominating team with a world of playoff experience like the Indianapolis Colts. It's why a team like the Denver Broncos can enter as 2TD underdogs and come away with a win against perhaps one of the best constructed teams in NFL history.

I guess the point of this rant is simply that an abundance of things must all align perfectly to win a World Championship, and the GM isn't solely responsible for all of those things. A GM is responsible for providing an opportunity to win a title. He is not, however, solely responsible for winning it. As such, judging a GM based on titles alone is a very poor measurement IMO.

[Tarlam!]

Good post Gun and I agree it may not be fair to judge a GM on titles, but the reality is that they are.

I wasn't a fan the last time the Packers won a title, but judging by the emotion that is still apparent from the fans that were I'd say nothing is more endearing or has more longevity in clouding objective views than a Super Bowl win.

Think about it. The Jamal Reynolds pick is often cited as actually being a Sherman pick. No way the Super Bowl winng GM would make that pick /sarcasm.

It is what it is.

[Gunakor]

It's funny how winning a championship hinges on your players producing at the peak of their ability, yet not winning one rests on the shoulders of the General Manager. Reggie White gets 3 sacks and Desmond Howard returns a kickoff 97 yards for a TD, and the Packers win a Super Bowl because it's top producers throughout the season came through when it mattered most. Al Harris can't handle Plax and Ryan Grant can't get anything going on the ground, and the Packers can't even get to a Super Bowl because it's top producers throughout the season laid an egg when it mattered most. And some here think the GM is responsible? In both cases, the answer is no. The teams that played on the field those days were responsible for their own fates. But in both cases they had the opportunity set perfectly at their feet, which is all the GM is responsible for. While one team failed and the other succeeded, both Wolf AND Thompson met their end of the bargain.

They are equals IMO.

[sharpe1027]

What about comparing a GMs moves and stratgeys against their competitor GMs, rather than counting the number of super bowls?

I give Wolf a lot of credit for being a step ahead of most GMs in his use free agency and the salary cap. TT is using many tricks that Wolf never used, but there are other GMs that do similar tricks as TT. I think Wolf may have given the Packers more of an edge (compared to other GMs at the time) than TT does.

It's just so subjective. In the end, I liked what Wolf did (wasn't perfect) and I like what TT has done (also not perfect).

[BlueBrewer]

This thread has mutated into a Thompson vs Wolf argument. I keep checking in thinking Westbrook signed, WTF get your own thread.

[Patler]

"In reference to Ryan Grant, he has been most pleasing in not only his performance but his attitude. I am a big person on attitude, how a young man works at doing anything that he attempts to do. Ryan really wants to be a great player, and he works every day toward that goal. So it's exciting when you have a young man that has that kind of attitude.

He's not limited by attitude. He has some ability, too. It's exciting to work with him and kind of incorporate him into our total offense.”

—Tyrone Willingham

[Pugger]

I think it was more MM than TT that ultimately caused the break between #4 and GB. It was MM that #4 had those marathon talks with that fateful August and who #4 couldn't convince he was 100% committed to play for the Packers again and why he was traded to NY. In his teary PC BF even admitted he had given all he could to the Packers and he had nothing more to give. Do we really want a player with that mindset on the roster?

[Tarlam!]

If you followed his career at ND, they were always trying to replace him, first with one player, than with another. He had nagging injuries. They never seemed to want him as their back. He made them play him, just as he did in Green Bay. He graduated in four years with a double major. He had opportunity after opportunity in college and for three years as a pro to say heck with it. No one was motivating him to do all that. It was all from within him, his own desire to get where he has gotten.

If that isn't outside influence, I really don't know what is.

Incidentally, why was such a high character guy not drafted? Why didn't Tyrone call some GM and say "ya gotta take this guy"?

[Patler]

Incidentally, why was such a high character guy not drafted? Why didn't Tyrone call some GM and say "ya gotta take this guy"?

You ask that as if we know that Willingham did not. I don't know if he did or didn't, but perhaps that is why the Giants signed him as a FA.

[pbmax]

If you followed his career at ND, they were always trying to replace him, first with one player, than with another. He had nagging injuries. They never seemed to want him as their back. He made them play him, just as he did in Green Bay. He graduated in four years with a double major. He had opportunity after opportunity in college and for three years as a pro to say heck with it. No one was motivating him to do all that. It was all from within him, his own desire to get where he has gotten.

...If that isn't outside influence, I really don't know what is....
If you read the SI article, working hard is not something Grant discovered at Notre Dame.

[Tarlam!]

OK. I'll leave it alone, but I stand by my opinion. Heck, it's just an opinion!

[Bretsky]

What about comparing a GMs moves and stratgeys against their competitor GMs, rather than counting the number of super bowls?

I give Wolf a lot of credit for being a step ahead of most GMs in his use free agency and the salary cap. TT is using many tricks that Wolf never used, but there are other GMs that do similar tricks as TT. I think Wolf may have given the Packers more of an edge (compared to other GMs at the time) than TT does.

It's just so subjective. In the end, I liked what Wolf did (wasn't perfect) and I like what TT has done (also not perfect).


:bclap: :bclap: :bclap:

[mission]

This is a massive thread that really has nothing to do with Brian Westbrook or Aaron Rodgers :lol:

[pbmax]

What about comparing a GMs moves and stratgeys against their competitor GMs, rather than counting the number of super bowls?

I give Wolf a lot of credit for being a step ahead of most GMs in his use free agency and the salary cap. TT is using many tricks that Wolf never used, but there are other GMs that do similar tricks as TT. I think Wolf may have given the Packers more of an edge (compared to other GMs at the time) than TT does.

It's just so subjective. In the end, I liked what Wolf did (wasn't perfect) and I like what TT has done (also not perfect).


:bclap: :bclap: :bclap:

Oh, quit being so wishy washy and take a stand!

New Coke or Classic Coke?

[Tony Oday]

What about comparing a GMs moves and stratgeys against their competitor GMs, rather than counting the number of super bowls?

I give Wolf a lot of credit for being a step ahead of most GMs in his use free agency and the salary cap. TT is using many tricks that Wolf never used, but there are other GMs that do similar tricks as TT. I think Wolf may have given the Packers more of an edge (compared to other GMs at the time) than TT does.

It's just so subjective. In the end, I liked what Wolf did (wasn't perfect) and I like what TT has done (also not perfect).


:bclap: :bclap: :bclap:

Oh, quit being so wishy washy and take a stand!

New Coke or Classic Coke?

New Coke...Everyone thinks that the past is great but just like an ex girlfriend in a picture you never see the times when she is yelling and throwing things at you! ;)

[sharpe1027]

Oh, quit being so wishy washy and take a stand!

New Coke or Classic Coke?

I liked Classic Coke because it was one of the original pioneer soft drinks; however, towards the end, right before New Coke came along, Classic Coke had begun to lose some of its luster as a lot of other soft drinks began to mimic and improve on Classic Coke.

So, Classic Coke was better than New Coke during its heyday, but by the time New Coke came along, New Coke was was necessary, and better, because all the other soft drinks had caught up to Classic Coke.

[Bretsky]

What about comparing a GMs moves and stratgeys against their competitor GMs, rather than counting the number of super bowls?

I give Wolf a lot of credit for being a step ahead of most GMs in his use free agency and the salary cap. TT is using many tricks that Wolf never used, but there are other GMs that do similar tricks as TT. I think Wolf may have given the Packers more of an edge (compared to other GMs at the time) than TT does.

It's just so subjective. In the end, I liked what Wolf did (wasn't perfect) and I like what TT has done (also not perfect).


:bclap: :bclap: :bclap:

Oh, quit being so wishy washy and take a stand!

New Coke or Classic Coke?


Coke Classic is the bomb; has that strong sturday taste to it

New Coke moves more toward tasting like Pepsi

Be Different :!:

[green_bowl_packer]

I have seen a few publicatations cite Grant to work hard given the outside impact, but, I don't save anything. I just rely on my memory - I'll never ever be a Patler or Scott Campbell.

Here ya go-
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andrew_lawrence/07/09/grant/index.html
The defense rests! :lol:

Donald Driver workout - http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/nfl/specials/preview/2005/08/02/nfl.workout.driver0808/

Ryan Grant workout -
http://www.packers.com/news/stories/2010/04/19/1/

If this is what brought this up in the first place - apologies I only waded back so far and didn't see it. Evidently some team mates don't like working out with him because its too difficult.

Grant's alright in my book, we need another RB though regardless. The fad now is to have two dependable RBs to wear the defense down we don't have that. If a new guy pushes Grant all the better. Big year for Grant anyways and I'm sure he knows it. His contract number is huge in 2011, he be about 30 by then too, if it can happen to LT and Edgerin James it can happen to him. His numbers have been decent and if he has a good 2010 it won't be an easy decision - look at Shonn Green and Thomas Jones. Green showed down the stretch, despite Jones 1400 yds and 14 tds. Adios TJ.

Wynn, Lumpkin have had their chance and after 2-4 seasons we'd know by now if they are going to contribute - they're not. Jackson is getting better, he's still young. So there's Spiller, Best, and McCluster to compliment Grant or Ryan Matthews, (exact same as Ryan Grant?),Ben Tate, Dwyer, or Montario Hardesty. Or Vargas from OAK? Or Westbrook? (tho I don't think he'll pass a physical).

This is one of the best draft seasons as a fan I can remember in a long time. No frickin clue what's gonna happen - stay put, trade up, trade back.

Up Close: Grant's Offseason Workout
by Mike Spofford, Packers.com
posted 04/19/2010

The Packers' offseason strength and conditioning program just completed its fifth week, with players scheduled to take this week off before returning for another four-week stretch.

To give fans a glimpse into the weight room and a look at how one of the team's key players prepares himself for the upcoming season, Packers.com chronicled -- diary-style and with accompanying video highlights -- one workout of running back Ryan Grant last week.

Some of the lifts and exercises may seem a bit unconventional, but that's a reflection of how Grant tailors his workout to his position and its physical demands.

"I do a lot of different stuff than the norm, try to change things up with my exercises and try to hit the muscles differently," Grant said. "I want it to be related and movement-based to what I do on the field."

So here's his workout from start to finish, with comments from a post-workout interview with Grant spliced in where appropriate:

10:05 a.m. (gymnasium)
After receiving instructions from strength and conditioning coordinator Mark Lovat on the five-minute warm-up exercises for the day, Grant begins a series of exercises that includes lateral step-overs, shuffles, medicine balls throws, step-to-jump-ups, side lunges, and medicine ball raises from a lunging position. Then it's off to the weight room, grabbing a bottle of water along the way.

10:11 a.m. (weight room)
He starts with squats. First, it's a warm-up set of five reps at 135 pounds. Then Lovat adds resistance bands to the bar. The bands hook around the ends of the barbell where the weights are stacked and are secured to the base of the squat rack. With the bands not at full tension, Grant does a warm-up set of five reps at 185 pounds.

Then things get tougher. The bands are adjusted to a stronger tension, and Grant begins trading sets with defensive back Derrick Martin. A set of five reps at 225 pounds, followed by another set at 275. After each set, Grant does a series of two-foot jumps onto a three-foot-high ledge to keep his legs loose, and works in some sips of water as well.

"I squatted today with the bandwork to try and change it up a little bit," Grant said. "You drop down on the weight a little bit but you do a little bandwork for resistance, to get more of a 'pop.' I've been trying to do it the last couple weeks with chains and bands."

The last set is four reps at 315 pounds, with a spot from strength and conditioning assistant Thaddeus Jackson. As he heads over to his next exercise, Grant catches a glimpse of offensive lineman Evan Dietrich-Smith squatting 455 pounds on a free bar. How close 315 with the resistance bands comes to that isn't clear.

"I don't know exactly how much weight (it adds), but it's definitely resistance," Grant said of the bands. "You can ask Derrick Martin. I try to bring some of the other guys along and do certain things with me, and they usually don't like it. They like what they get out of it, but they don't like how it feels.

"It's different. You have to stabilize more, because you have rubber bands pulling you down and everything, so you really have to have control. When you squat and have control, a lot of it has to do with your core strength. Every exercise you do, you want to be in control. It works that explosion and works that control and that power, which is my job, being able to explode up and control it down.

"I have to be able to be stabilized when people hit me and jump on my back and tackle me and all that, and at the same time be able to explode through and burst out of those tackles."

10:26 a.m.
Next up is the incline bench press. Getting a spot from fellow running back Brandon Jackson, Grant does two sets of six reps each at 225 pounds. In between and after, he lays down flat on his back, with a strength assistant standing on an elevated ledge above him, throwing a medicine ball down at his chest. Grant has to catch the medicine ball and fire it straight up. Two sets of 10 throws each.

Then, in between doing some stretching exercises for his shoulder along the wall and with an exercise ball, Grant works in a quick set on a standing leg-press machine with a chain/pulley system. There appears to be around 200 pounds of weight added to the machine, and Grant does one-legged squats, five on each leg.

10:40 a.m.
Grant throws on two weighted vests and grabs a pair of 30-pound dumbbells. He takes 12 lunging strides through the middle of the weight room, stops to do some more stretching on an exercise ball, and then does 12 more lunging strides, this time with 40-pound dumbbells in addition to the weighted vests.

10:48 a.m.
Next, an alternating series of two exercises. For the first, Grant balances on one leg on a half-ball base. With a 40-pound dumbbell in one hand, he bends over and straightens up again, maintaining his balance for five reps on each leg.

"For me, a lot of positions I'm in are off-balance positions," Grant said. "So I need to do a lot of things that help stabilize my core and improve my balance and make sure that I'm strong off-balance. I want to be mobile and strong in unbalanced states. So I do a lot of single-leg stuff, a lot of single-leg dumbbell exercises."

He alternates those sets with a set on what can best be described as an inverted or reverse sit-up machine. With his stomach facing the ground, Grant locks his legs into the machine and proceeds to lower his torso from being perpendicular to the ground to being parallel, and then back up again, seven times in all. It looks excruciatingly difficult.

"It's called glute-ham, which means your glutes and your hamstrings," Grant said. "It's tough and it's all about control as well. You can change it up a little bit with your hands. Sometimes I had my hands out (in front), sometimes my hands (were by the head). It just changes the exercise a little bit, makes it a little harder. You literally can feel that isolate on your hamstrings and your butt.

"You get that pain, that burn, but it's a good burn."

Working in some hamstring stretches here and there, Grant goes back to the balance half-ball and does five more reps on each leg, with 45-pound dumbbells this time. Then it's back to glute-ham for seven reps. His last sets on the half-ball are with 50-pound dumbbells, followed by one more set of seven on glute-ham.

At this point, Grant takes about a five-minute break for some water and a brief chat with offensive tackle Chad Clifton.

11:04 a.m.
Back to some more bench work, this time with dumbbells. Grant does 10 reps with 95-pound dumbbells and then another set of 10 with 100-pounders. In between and after, he does some more shoulder work with the training staff, sitting against a wall and pushing straight up against some resistance. One of the exercises is done by holding a stick in both hands above his head.

"I make sure to do the pre-hab and rehab stuff, just keeping the little muscles in my shoulders strong," Grant said. "We do a lot of different exercises that don't look that bad, but trust me, they hurt, with no weight."

11:20 a.m.
Medicine ball work. With Thaddeus Jackson assisting, Grant does a set of 15 sit-ups while a medicine ball is thrown at his chest, requiring him to fire it back with a two-hand chest pass. On his next set of 15 sit-ups, he catches the medicine ball and then throws it back two-handed from above his head.

Next, sitting down while keeping his legs extended but above the ground, Grant lofts the medicine ball 15 times off his left hip, with Jackson catching it and tossing it back. Then it's 15 off the right hip.

For the last two sets, Grant is lying on his back. He puts the medicine ball between his feet and raises it up to Jackson, who is standing behind his head and pushes his legs back down. After 15 of those, Jackson moves to the area beyond Grant's feet and soft-tosses the medicine ball as Grant kicks it back, two-footed, 15 times.

Another water break and some stretches for his back precede the final portion of the workout.

11:30 a.m.
The jump rope finishes things up. Switching up between jumping with both feet, one at a time, alternating, side to side, etc., Grant jumps a sequence of four rounds of 30 seconds on, 30 seconds rest. Getting sips of water in between, he does two more sequences of four rounds apiece.

"That's a little cardio," Grant said. "You get out of it what you put into it. For me, the jump rope is something to help improve foot speed, make myself quicker, especially for my position. I try to incorporate different drills. I was acting like I was jumping around the box, do high knees, jump rope one foot, back and forth, quarter turns, ... different things to try to incorporate some other types of conditioning drills we do.

"I try to push myself as much as possible on the jump rope, so that I come out exhausted regardless. If I hit the rope, I get right back into it, which is hard. That makes you tired as well. Because when you hit the rope, it drains you a little bit like that.

"But I like it, because I think it does improve foot speed. I think jumping rope is one of the best places to make yourself quicker, make your feet quicker."

11:45 a.m.
Grant is done for the day, and makes his way over to the break area where he drops a banana, some water and protein powder into a blender for a post-workout smoothie.

"A little whey protein, nothing special," he said. "Just a little whey protein to help rebuild what I just ripped up during that workout, to help myself recover a little quicker."

The next workout is coming the very next day.

[Patler]

What about comparing a GMs moves and stratgeys against their competitor GMs, rather than counting the number of super bowls?

I give Wolf a lot of credit for being a step ahead of most GMs in his use free agency and the salary cap. TT is using many tricks that Wolf never used, but there are other GMs that do similar tricks as TT. I think Wolf may have given the Packers more of an edge (compared to other GMs at the time) than TT does.

It's just so subjective. In the end, I liked what Wolf did (wasn't perfect) and I like what TT has done (also not perfect).


:bclap: :bclap: :bclap:

Wolf was able to do what many others couldn't because the Packers had a superior cap condition.
The cap condition of the Packers was because of Mike Reinfeldt, who was solely responsible for contract negotiations.
Mike Reinfeldt was hired by Bob Harlan the year before Wolf was hired.

Harlan described many times that he established Reinfeldt's position as the sole authority on contract negotiations. Agents who tried to go around Reinfledt to Harlan or the GM were simply directed back to Reinfeldt. Reinfeldt had final say on all contract terms.

Wolf made some great decisions on who to bring in. He was able to do it because of what Reinfeldt had done with the new environment of the salary cap. Reinfeldt was there and had the authority he had because of Harlan.

[Tarlam!]

Forget it. I got it mixed up. :oops:

[sharpe1027]

Wolf was able to do what many others couldn't because the Packers had a superior cap condition.
The cap condition of the Packers was because of Mike Reinfeldt, who was solely responsible for contract negotiations.
Mike Reinfeldt was hired by Bob Harlan the year before Wolf was hired.

Harlan described many times that he established Reinfeldt's position as the sole authority on contract negotiations. Agents who tried to go around Reinfledt to Harlan or the GM were simply directed back to Reinfeldt. Reinfeldt had final say on all contract terms.

Wolf made some great decisions on who to bring in. He was able to do it because of what Reinfeldt had done with the new environment of the salary cap. Reinfeldt was there and had the authority he had because of Harlan.

Patlerized. Or do I need someone else to acknowledge it before it is official?

[Tarlam!]

Patlerized. Or do I need someone else to acknowledge it before it is official?

Consider it to be like a knighthood.

It's fair to say Harlan was the true mastermind behind the team's comeback to prominence. However, Harlan must take responsibility for Sherman the GM and the cap nightmare TT inherited also happened on his watch. But his whole body of work is incredible. Imagine the balls it took to pull out a decision to cancel your succession plans just days before they were to be executed - after years of grooming!

Isn't there a commemorive to Harlan on the main entrance to the Atrium in between the two big statues of Curly and Vince?

[Patler]

Patlerized. Or do I need someone else to acknowledge it before it is official?

Consider it to be like a knighthood.

It's fair to say Harlan was the true mastermind behind the team's comeback to prominence. However, Harlan must take responsibility for Sherman the GM and the cap nightmare TT inherited also happened on his watch. But his whole body of work is incredible. Imagine the balls it took to pull out a decision to cancel your succession plans just days before they were to be executed - after years of grooming!

Isn't there a commemorive to Harlan on the main entrance to the Atrium in between the two big statues of Curly and Vince?

Guys, I just offered my understanding of the situation. I usually try to give my reasons for an opinion/understanding.

Harlan did good things and not so good things, just like any President or CEO. In the late '90s as the "business" got more and more complex, he reorganized again with the GM being placed in charge of all football operations. They established a position for a director of player finance (like Brandt) who reported not to Harlan but to the GM. I understand from that point forward that the "negotiator" works out the details, but the general terms of the contract are determined by the GM. Since then I believe Wolf (for a couple years), Sherman and now TT deserve the credit and blame for the Packers cap situations.

Harlan has pretty well admitted that giving Sherman the dual responsibility of GM and HC was a mistake. He even stated once that he knew better at the time, but went against his own best judgment.

I imagine it was a bit of a predicament:
Sherman was there only 1 year as HC.
Sherman had done well, and was respected as a coach.
Harlan wanted Sherman to stay, but he would have to give control of that to the new GM.
A new GM saddled with someone else's coach can have problems (as did TT and MS).
The easy way out was to give Sherman the GM job too. It kept him as HC and eliminated possible personal conflicts of a new GM with the old GM's HC.

In the end, Harlan had to do what he should have done in the first place. Hire a real GM and let him do with the HC as he sees best.

[Tarlam!]

I imagine it was a bit of a predicament:
Sherman was there only 1 year as HC.
Sherman had done well, and was respected as a coach.
Harlan wanted Sherman to stay, but he would have to give control of that to the new GM.
A new GM saddled with someone else's coach can have problems (as did TT and MC).

Add to that, that Holmgren had left, because he didn't get the dual role.
Add to that Wolf recommended the move.

[Patler]

Imagine the balls it took to pull out a decision to cancel your succession plans just days before they were to be executed - after years of grooming!

Ya, the easy thing to do would have been to amble off into retirement and not worry about it.

Harlan made mistakes, but he worked at correcting them as soon as he realized that they were mistakes.

[Brando19]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/04/24/westbrook.physical.ap/index.html

Looks like he had a physical with the Rams today. If TT's gonna do something, whether it be Westbrook or make a trade for Marshawn...I hope he does it soon.

[CaliforniaCheez]

This won't happen before November and the Packers would have to have multiple injuries at RB.

Highly unlikely. Don't believe everything you hear from the media!!!!!

[Gunakor]

This won't happen before November and the Packers would have to have multiple injuries at RB.

Highly unlikely. Don't believe everything you hear from the media!!!!!

Having drafted that kid from Buffalo I think you're right. Starks has proven himself a reliable pass catcher out of the backfield which is all we really were looking at Westbrook for in the first place.