Comparing the rosters (When TT took over to now)

[RashanGary]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20100508/PKR07/100508022/1058/PKR01/Vandermause-Packers-better-now-than-05

[RashanGary]

Very interesting topic. Some of the reasoning is splitting hairs, but overall a well educated, reasonable opinion of both teams.



I think it's pretty easy to see Thompson has improved this team. I think the harder part to see, and the part that even this article didn't really do justice to, is how long most of our good players are going to be around for and how great our financial situation is.

Just comparing the two teams heads up, I agree we're better now. But I think this team is just barely scratching the surface, where that team was ready to cave. I think 5 years from now, Ted Thompson is going to be a hero in Green Bay. I picture a champion.

[RashanGary]

Several of our best players:

Aaron Rodgers
Greg Jennings
Nick Collins
Clay Matthews
Josh Sitton

These guys are going to be here for a long time.

Back then, Javon Walker, Aaron Kampman were the only two young players to turned into probowl talent that Sherman left. The rest was aging and the cap was a disaster.


And we have several more young players who could step into the top tier class over the next few years. None of Sherman's guys did.

Some people still don't see it and maybe I'm wrong here, but I think the Packers are on the brink. I don't know the other teams as well as I know our own, but I think there is a good chance we're the best team in the league and can be for many more years to come.

Barring bad camp injuries, I see this as being the year for the Packers. I've been optimistic in the past, but never thought we were SB caliber. This is the year I think we're elite.

[Pugger]

If you read the comments by readers of this article you'll find a good number of them still hate TT and think our roster today stinks. It is rather tiresome to read those bozos' comments most of the time. :roll:

[Fred's Slacks]

If you read the comments by readers of this article you'll find a good number of them still hate TT and think our roster today stinks. It is rather tiresome to read those bozos' comments most of the time. :roll:

I can't read those anymore. I found myself getting pissed off everytime I did. Finally I thought to myself, why do I read this garbage? So I stopped. That was probably about a year ago.

[Bretsky]

Hey, I think I just posted about same article in another thread....I think you beat him to the punch....I was just too lazy to click on the url in here earlier today.

I'd agree with the author with just about everything; future looks bright

[Fritz]

I liked Naill Diggs. I thought he was a pretty good linebacker.

You look at the rest of the defense and you wonder how they went 10-6. Kampman, Sharper, yes. But Hannibal Navies? Bawoh Jue? Mark Roman? Cletidus Hunt?

Ouch.

[Patler]

Overall I think it is a reasonably fair assessment, but you know me, I have to nitpick it at least a little! :lol:

Running back: Ahman Green was in his prime and coming off a fifth consecutive 1,000-yard season (1,163 yards, 4.5 average). Ryan Grant’s rushing numbers are similar (1,253, 4.4), but Green was a bigger pass-catching threat (40 receptions compared to Grant’s 25). WORSE

Green wasn't really in his prime, he was beyond his prime moving toward the end of the road. 2004 was the least productive of his 5 years in Green Bay in both rushing and receiving yards. He had nagging injuries, one of which culminated in the tear he suffered to end his season the next year. He was entering his 8th year and was never again the same, even though he managed 1000 yards in 2006. I'm not sure that Ryan Grant is that far behind the 2005 edition of Ahman Green that Thompson inherited.

Green was a better blocker and receiver, I will agree with that, but as a reliable back, not that much different for Green going in to 2005. Grant gets points for ball security over Green.


Left guard: Daryn Colledge hasn’t come close to filling Mike Wahle’s shoes. If Wahle was a size 12, Colledge wears a size 9. WORSE

Right guard: Thompson has been chastised for letting Marco Rivera go in 2005, but it was the right move. I favor a youthful Josh Sitton over a long-in-the-tooth Rivera. BETTER


I agree with the player discussions, but think these are non-comparable positions. Thompson did not inherit a team with Rivera on it. Rivera was a free agent. Technically, he inherited Wahle sort of, but with a roster bonus so sizable he had no way of paying it without renegotiations. Basically, Thompson took over a team that had no guards on it, because the existing ones were not under contracts for 2005, the cap made signing either an almost impossibility, and there were no backups in place. He was given nothing to work with, so he was really building from scratch.

[Fritz]

My biggest beef with the "Why didn't he keep Wahle" faction is that people forget that when Shermy signed Wahle to his last contract, the last year was one of those ridiculous years that get inserted to inflate the seeming value of a contract when it's announced.

From the perspective of paying for particular positions, it would not have done the team any good to pay what Wahle eventually got from Carolina as Thompson tried to impose some financial common sense on the team's salary structure. Had Wahle been the left tackle it might have been different.

I wanted them to try to keep Wahle, but understood that Thompson's hands were tied to some extent. Sure, they could have kept him, but at the expense of someone else who would not have been able to have been signed.

When I look at the rosters, today's version seems more talented with more upside. Let's hope year two of the Capers program will find the defense more comfortable with the system. Let's hope Underwood and Lee and Jones can step up. And let's hope the injury bug does not bite the Packers unduly.

[RashanGary]

And Darryn Sharper was in the same situation. He was due a huge salary in his last year.

Both players were perfect candidates to lock up a year early, but Sherman made it almost impossible with how he structured contracts and his reactive nature to building a team rather than proactive. That's partially Andrew Brandt's fault too.

[RashanGary]

I think we can all agree, Sherman inherited a good, young roster from Wolf, did everything he could to win during his 4 years. The price he paid? The price was that when he left, there was almost no good young talent, a horrible cap situation, a lot of aging talent about to fall off the cliff, some veteran talent with horrible contract situations and a photo of him sleeping at the combine to remember him by.


Not only is Thompson's team better now than the one's Sherman inherited from Wolf (what we're really looking at here), but it's poised to take off, not crumble (what we should be comparing if we look at Sherman and Thompson)

Can't wait to see the egg on the doubters faces. If they can't see what happened yet, they'll never see it.

[rbaloha1]

Sherman always overvalued roster talent and gambled too much with boom or bust players.

The Nazi back loaded too many contracts forcing a huge roster overhaul.

On the other hand, TT is much more practical and believes in building a solid roster with manageable cap space.

[mraynrand]

This is lame. Of course the current roster is better than 2005. Sherman only won 66.7% of his games as a GM. That's not good enough. You need to win championships. He had a win now, go for broke attitude, probably based on an over valuation of Favre. Perhaps that was just his mentality. It is unsustainable. Nevertheless, without the injury bug in 2002, he might have pulled it off. He blew a #2 pick to move up to get Walker, and (eventually) 2 #4s to get Glenn, and brought in Johnson to replace Reynolds who already was looking like a bust. At 8-1, the Packers were looking good and Favre was playing like an MVP, even with the loss of Taucher and Johnson. Losing Favre's knee, losing Glenn, Green, Davenport, and the final major blow of Clifton (effectively killing two positions - center and LT) finished the Packers off. But Sherman came to play. He just sucked at drafting and didn't look long term.

TT is great at drafting and looking long term. He may not have enough of a risk taker in him to make enough moves in one season to get over the hump. Woodson and Pickett (and Chillar - LOL) are not enough for 6 years of FA and pro player acquisitions. TT needs to do more to fill holes and win now. Although the 2005 Seahawks were mostly assembled through the draft, key players (notably Hasselbeck, Jurevicious, Engram, Dyson, Wistrom) were obtained through FA and trades. TT has to be willing to bring guys in for a season or two to make that Superbowl run. Can he do it?

[bobblehead]

I would dispute the cornerback ranks.

We should have compared al harris as the #1 back then to woodson now....slight improvement. then compared al harris now to carrol....improvement.

[RashanGary]

TT is great at drafting and looking long term. He may not have enough of a risk taker in him to make enough moves in one season to get over the hump. Woodson and Pickett (and Chillar - LOL) are not enough for 6 years of FA and pro player acquisitions. TT needs to do more to fill holes and win now. Although the 2005 Seahawks were mostly assembled through the draft, key players (notably Hasselbeck, Jurevicious, Engram, Dyson, Wistrom) were obtained through FA and trades. TT has to be willing to bring guys in for a season or two to make that Superbowl run. Can he do it?

TT's brought more impact through UFA than Shermhead ever did. Woodson alone is better than the combined UFA impact in Sherhead's whole GM career.

[retailguy]

Can't wait to see the egg on the doubters faces. If they can't see what happened yet, they'll never see it.

:P You can't be serious.

[RashanGary]

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/2001_roster.htm

Here's the 2001 roster that was handed to Shermhead. There is nothing more to say. Every person in this room knows why the teams of the early 2000's were successful.

Ted is still getting more production out of 33-35 year old players left to him from Wolf than he did in half a decade of Shermsaster.

[retailguy]

That would be the same team that Ray Rhodes took to 8-8 and got canned after one season, right?

[RashanGary]

Can't wait to see the egg on the doubters faces. If they can't see what happened yet, they'll never see it.

:P You can't be serious.

Remember your mea culpa?

Keep digging, chum :P

[retailguy]

Can't wait to see the egg on the doubters faces. If they can't see what happened yet, they'll never see it.

:P You can't be serious.

Remember your mea culpa?

Keep digging, chump :P

My mea culpa was followed by 6-10... :shock:

also - you never have acknowledged the difference in the philosopy between what Sherman was drafting for, and what Thompson was drafting for. The goals were different, and thus the method was different.

rand sums it up well.

But if you can't see that now, then I guess you'll never see it, now will you? :wink:

[retailguy]

Can't wait to see the egg on the doubters faces. If they can't see what happened yet, they'll never see it.

:P You can't be serious.

Remember your mea culpa?

Keep digging, chump :P

My mea culpa was followed by 6-10... :shock:

also - you never have acknowledged the difference in the philosopy between what Sherman was drafting for, and what Thompson was drafting for. The goals were different, and thus the method was different.

rand sums it up well.

But if you can't see that now, then I guess you'll never see it, now will you? :wink:

[RashanGary]

Whatever, chum :P

[RashanGary]

Retailguy, you're a riot :P

[retailguy]

Whatever, chum :P

yet again. no acknowledgement. the blinders are still firmly attached. :whist:

[RashanGary]

Have a good day, retail. We've been here before. Pretend i didn't respond to your jab.

[Fritz]

Okay, you two knuckleheads. You disagree. Let's leave it at that.

You both make good points, I think. Different strategies, different ideas - Shermy seemed to think he had to do it right now (and who is to say he was right or not?) and TT seems to be working for the long term. Both approaches can be frustrating especially if one style does not fit your own style.

Few people would say the Packer roster now is not fairly strong. Many of us are excited about the coming season. But as MM has said, success is the hardest thing to handle. Let's see if this team starts reading the press clippings or if this team is hungry for a Super Bowl.

And as Packer fans, we all hope that the injury bug doesn't hit us too bad this year.

[retailguy]

Have a good day, retail. We've been here before. Pretend i didn't respond to your jab.

You mean my initial response to your jab?

Ok, that works.

[retailguy]

Okay, you two knuckleheads. You disagree. Let's leave it at that.

You both make good points, I think. Different strategies, different ideas - Shermy seemed to think he had to do it right now (and who is to say he was right or not?) and TT seems to be working for the long term. Both approaches can be frustrating especially if one style does not fit your own style.

Few people would say the Packer roster now is not fairly strong. Many of us are excited about the coming season. But as MM has said, success is the hardest thing to handle. Let's see if this team starts reading the press clippings or if this team is hungry for a Super Bowl.

And as Packer fans, we all hope that the injury bug doesn't hit us too bad this year.

Agree with you Fritz, except for the injury part. We should be able to sustain injuries (well a normal amount anyhow) if the "depth" is as good advertised...

There is no reason that this should not be an excellent team, and I like the prospects, as long as we are not slow getting out of the gate again...

[Tarlam!]

Woodson and Pickett (and Chillar - LOL) are not enough for 6 years of FA and pro player acquisitions. TT needs to do more to fill holes and win now.

TT's brought more impact through UFA than Shermhead ever did. Woodson alone is better than the combined UFA impact in Sherhead's whole GM career.

I agree with JH, but I wanted to ask who TT should have recruited as a FA that would have been good value, a good locker room fit and willing to come to GB?

The people screaming for TT to do better in FA need look only to Chicago to get an idea of how not to build a sustainable, successful NFL roster. Personally, I am delighted TT doesn't break the bank on any one player.

If anything, TT should have, in my humble opinion, taken a few 2011 picks and drafted a couple of blue chippers in rounds one and 2 of the 2010 draft. If he'd have come away with for starting calibre rookies instead of the couple he seems to have gotten, it might have made more sense for this season.

[RashanGary]

Have a good day, retail. We've been here before. Pretend i didn't respond to your jab.

You mean my initial response to your jab?

Ok, that works.

That's true.

We'll see how it all plays out.

[mraynrand]

TT is great at drafting and looking long term. He may not have enough of a risk taker in him to make enough moves in one season to get over the hump. Woodson and Pickett (and Chillar - LOL) are not enough for 6 years of FA and pro player acquisitions. TT needs to do more to fill holes and win now. Although the 2005 Seahawks were mostly assembled through the draft, key players (notably Hasselbeck, Jurevicious, Engram, Dyson, Wistrom) were obtained through FA and trades. TT has to be willing to bring guys in for a season or two to make that Superbowl run. Can he do it?

TT's brought more impact through UFA than Shermhead ever did. Woodson alone is better than the combined UFA impact in Sherhead's whole GM career.

OK, but that wasn't my major point. I compared TT to both Sherman and to TT when he was in Seattle. Clearly, TT is much less aggressive in GB on the pro player side than he was in Seattle. Woodson is a great pickup, but so was Hasselbeck in Seattle. However, in Seattle, they added a lot more guys, especially when they were gunning for the championship. Sherman too was gunning for a championship in 2002, and picked up Johnson, Glenn, and Walker - but spent a lot to do it. I maintain that without the injury blitz, they had a really good shot. But that strategy hurt them long term. Every year, Sherman was chasing the championship, dealing draft picks ( a #2 for Harris in 2003, and another #4 for Glenn, picks to move up, etc.) for 'instant starters.' Because he was also had a poor success rate in the draft, the cupboard went bare quickly.

Still, what interests me the most is whether TT will pull the trigger on FAs or trades (versus moving up in the draft) to bring in a guy or two to get over the hump, or whether he will stick to a strategy that almost exclusively relies on the draft.

[Fritz]

Okay, you two knuckleheads. You disagree. Let's leave it at that.

You both make good points, I think. Different strategies, different ideas - Shermy seemed to think he had to do it right now (and who is to say he was right or not?) and TT seems to be working for the long term. Both approaches can be frustrating especially if one style does not fit your own style.

Few people would say the Packer roster now is not fairly strong. Many of us are excited about the coming season. But as MM has said, success is the hardest thing to handle. Let's see if this team starts reading the press clippings or if this team is hungry for a Super Bowl.

And as Packer fans, we all hope that the injury bug doesn't hit us too bad this year.

Agree with you Fritz, except for the injury part. We should be able to sustain injuries (well a normal amount anyhow) if the "depth" is as good advertised...

There is no reason that this should not be an excellent team, and I like the prospects, as long as we are not slow getting out of the gate again...

My theory is that most Super Bowl winners have extraordinary luck with injuries. You can sustain a couple but not many.

[retailguy]

Okay, you two knuckleheads. You disagree. Let's leave it at that.

You both make good points, I think. Different strategies, different ideas - Shermy seemed to think he had to do it right now (and who is to say he was right or not?) and TT seems to be working for the long term. Both approaches can be frustrating especially if one style does not fit your own style.

Few people would say the Packer roster now is not fairly strong. Many of us are excited about the coming season. But as MM has said, success is the hardest thing to handle. Let's see if this team starts reading the press clippings or if this team is hungry for a Super Bowl.

And as Packer fans, we all hope that the injury bug doesn't hit us too bad this year.

Agree with you Fritz, except for the injury part. We should be able to sustain injuries (well a normal amount anyhow) if the "depth" is as good advertised...

There is no reason that this should not be an excellent team, and I like the prospects, as long as we are not slow getting out of the gate again...

My theory is that most Super Bowl winners have extraordinary luck with injuries. You can sustain a couple but not many.

and I agree with that theory, as expressed by Rand in this thread about the 2001 packers team.

There was a tongue in cheek meaning to my comment as well, and that was, that if our roster from 1-53 is "solid", "improved", "great depth", or whatever you want to call it, then, the team should be able to sustain injuries better than the normal squad also....

but, hey, you get my point and I agree with you. :wink:

[Scott Campbell]

I remember a LOT of talk about how quickly Sherman would land another NFL HC or GM gig. 5 years later, I think the 32 NFL teams have made it pretty clear what they think of Mike Sherman.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jG7uIJAXCcM/RsBpO6gOp1I/AAAAAAAAAjQ/8-bDeWi-ecE/s400/mike_sherman_sleeping.jpg

[mraynrand]

I was waiting for that picture. Poor Mike Sherman - I think he is still the only person in professional sports not named Billy Martin to be fired by the same team two years in a row. And he's clinging on for dear life at Texas A&M. I suspect he will be a postiion coach within the next 5 years.

[Scott Campbell]

I know you and RG really stuck up for him. And he seems to be a pretty good guy outside of the power trip rumors. But he's been dead to me since 4th and 1.

[Bretsky]

I know you and RG really stuck up for him. And he seems to be a pretty good guy outside of the power trip rumors. But he's been dead to me since 4th and 1.


:knll:

for making that point; I thought I was the only one to think 4th and 26 is near worthless

It never happens with a different call on 4th and one IMO

[RashanGary]

OK, but that wasn't my major point. I compared TT to both Sherman and to TT when he was in Seattle. Clearly, TT is much less aggressive in GB on the pro player side than he was in Seattle. Woodson is a great pickup, but so was Hasselbeck in Seattle. However, in Seattle, they added a lot more guys, especially when they were gunning for the championship. Sherman too was gunning for a championship in 2002, and picked up Johnson, Glenn, and Walker - but spent a lot to do it. I maintain that without the injury blitz, they had a really good shot. But that strategy hurt them long term. Every year, Sherman was chasing the championship, dealing draft picks ( a #2 for Harris in 2003, and another #4 for Glenn, picks to move up, etc.) for 'instant starters.' Because he was also had a poor success rate in the draft, the cupboard went bare quickly.

Still, what interests me the most is whether TT will pull the trigger on FAs or trades (versus moving up in the draft) to bring in a guy or two to get over the hump, or whether he will stick to a strategy that almost exclusively relies on the draft.

It will be interesting to see play out. I've seen several unbalanced teams win a SB. If Thompson just keeps building based on what's available, it's probably always going to be unbalanced. . .

But, nobody complained when the Steelers won 2 SB's with an average passing game, a great defense and a good running game. Nobody complained when the Giants won the SB, largely on the strength of their DL (to me the biggest example of one unit just dominating their way to a championship). Nobody complained about the Ravens SB, or the Buccaneers who won on the strength of their defense.

Is it better to be stronger overall, or more balanced? Do you try to force it because you feel the time is right, or do you try to take advantage of good opportunties as they arise?

I tend to think being opportunistic and open minded is more likely to take advantage of what is available when it's available than being focused on one narrow vision.

[RashanGary]

There have been as many different types of SB winners as their are SB's played. Each time it's done a little differently, sometimes a lot differently. I tend to think there is a lot of value in trying to build hte strongest, most impactfull roster possible, get some flexible coaches and see what happens.

[mraynrand]

Interesting point about balance - or lack thereof. Still, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether you can build a Superbowl team almost exclusively through the draft. TT might actually pull it off this year...

[RashanGary]

Interesting point about balance - or lack thereof. Still, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether you can build a Superbowl team almost exclusively through the draft. TT might actually pull it off this year...

I think the lure of UFA is that you can plug a hole with a quality player. So using UFA less, I think tends to lead to a more unbalanced roster, although you do have more money to spend, so maybe you end up being stronger overall.

Tough to say which is better, to spend your money wiser and have more overall talent, or to not spend it quite as well, have less overall talent, but have less glaring weaknesses.

I tend to lean toward having the most overall talent and I think avoiding UFA, for the most part, allows a team to fit more overall talent under the cap. It takes time to get there. We just got out of that 5 year building stage. It seems like now is the time.

[RashanGary]

Let's make an arbitrary number, call it production per dollar.


Let's assume when you draft your own and resign them, you have a better feel for their medical, so the odds of big blunders go down and your average production per dollar goes up because you don't have the suprise medical blunders weighting you down.

Let's assume you ahve a better feel for what kind of person, how hard of a worker they are. Let's say your production per dollar is higher by dealing with your own because you don't have the surprise character problem weighing you down.

Let's assume you have more negotiating power when you resign your own because you have tags and tenders to keep competition out. Let's say your production per dollar goes up because you don't have to pay as much for your own.

Let's assume there is a salary cap or a budget that you can afford on players salary. Let's assume most teams have a similar number, in cap years it's exactly the same.



Now let's say you spend 100 million dollars, mostly drafting and signing your own. Because of said inherent advantages, let's say you average 0.05 production points per dollar.

Now lets say another team spends their 100 million, but does it with more UFA's. Lets say they get 0.04 production points per dollar.

100,000,000 * 0.05 = 5 million production points
100,000,000 * 0.04 = 4 million production points


With the idea that there are advantages in contract negotiations and in risk that come with drafting and resigning, you end up with a stronger overall team.

I tend to think more talent is better and good coaches will flex to fit the strengths. I tend to think UFA's can be fools gold. You think you're getting something, but you're giving up money that could have been better spent if you had drafted well and resigned your own. I've come to realize this is a highly unoriginal thought. I went back to find where I said these things 5 years ago, and what did I find? I found Patler said them first. I just bought in and over time, I've used it as my own.


You can win both ways. I tend to think there are more advantages to leaning stronger toward the draft or at least waiting for the right opportunity rather than forcing the issue.

[Cleft Crusty]

That post above hurt my head. The sixteen aspirin and five Advil didn't help much. Perhaps Clefty needs to research this issue. It may have to wait a while since I have an interview lined up with Brett Favre's Bowflex machine later this week.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I believe that a team is built through the draft and then once built, honed through free agency and using the draft for depth. The challenge of a GM is to understand what point the team is actually at. Sherman (the GM) overestimated the team's talent and leaped to fill specific holes, rather than rebuild for a while and then take a shot. Let's see how TT did this year by targeting specific holes after years of rebuilding.

[Pugger]

Free agency is great if there is anyone out there that a GM - I mean any GM, not just TT - thinks is better than the players currently on their roster.

[swede]

Now let's say you spend 100 million dollars, mostly drafting and signing your own. Because of said inherent advantages, let's say you average 0.05 production points per dollar.

Now lets say another team spends their 100 million, but does it with more UFA's. Lets say they get 0.04 production points per dollar.

100,000,000 * 0.05 = 5 million production points
100,000,000 * 0.04 = 4 million production points


These numbers are so fraudulent that Stephen Hawking took one look at them and retired from thinking.
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z236/dsteenswede44/monicastephen.jpg

[Fritz]

If you've got a woman with the body that the one on the left does, thinking - with your large head - becomes immediately difficult, don't you think?

[pbmax]

If you've got a woman with the body that the one on the left does, thinking - with your large head - becomes immediately difficult, don't you think?
Its almost like a sitcom episode imagining the girls forgetting he is lying there in the sun as he get progressively more sun and Vitamin D throughout the day.

"Weekend At Stephen's"

[Fritz]

He's got what we used to call a shit-eating grin.

[MJZiggy]

He's got what we used to call a shit-eating grin.

Looking at him, you're right. He probably does need changing.

[Iron Mike]

Poor guy can't even hold his own drink.....

[Fritz]

Yup, how 'bout that Packer roster?

[Pugger]

If you've got a woman with the body that the one on the left does, thinking - with your large head - becomes immediately difficult, don't you think?

The woman on the left looks kinda skinny to me...