TT and the Ruination of the Packers

[cheesner]

TT has screwed up and missed out on improving the run game by adding Marshawn Lynch. He also F'd the pooch by missing out on Randy Moss a 2nd time.

I am amazed at the fan base and a few of the Packer beat writers who are convinced TT is failing the Packers in the two aforementioned situations. These are the same pundits who complained that TT messed up by (somewhat chronologically):

1. Drafted Aaron Rodgers after more than 20 teams passed him up. He was a Tedford QB with little hope of succeeding in the NFL.

2. He drafted Nick 'WHO!' Collins in the 2nd round. One draft publication had him as the 30th ranked DB in the draft. Most, didn't have him listed. TT has a huge ego and reaches for players to show everyone how smart he is.

3. He drafted Greg Jennings after trading down in the 2nd round instead of taking the much better Chad Jackson. TT, by trading down, is going after quantity rather than quality.

4. TT passed on Randy Moss. Randy came out and said he did not want to play for the Packers. Randy did not want to play for the raiders and was jogging his routes and changing his routes because 'field didn't look too good over there'. Would he have been as successful in GB as he was in NE? Doubtful. Besides TT had a deal in place, Al Davis took a better deal without letting TT know.

5. TT drafts Justin Harrell reaching way too soon on an injury prone players. Okay. Criticism is justified here. It was a bad pick.

6.TT trades up and pays way too much for a LB Matthews.

7. Continuously 'TT doesn't sign player 'X'. Truthfully, many of these players that get mentioned every FA season - do next to nothing for their new teams. For every Julius Peppers there are a dozen Haynesworths, Adailius Thomas's, Bernard Berrians, Lavaar Arrington, etc etc.


Just the big picture.

The Packers are a legitamite SB contending team and that doesn't happen by coincidence or accident. It was a very deliberately planned and carefully executed process of building this team up. Is this team perfect? Of course not, but it is as close to perfect or better than any other team in the NFL. Seriously, there are maybe 5 teams in the NFL that have a decent chance at the SB. And that is all to TT's credit.

I will be the first to admit he has made mistakes. A certain punter, lack of OT depth, etc, but that is the nature of the beast. But overall, TT has done an amazing job of assembling a lot of young talent that should carry the Packers to many victories this coming decade.

So lets give him a chance to see how his moves or non-moves pan out.

[sheepshead]

I've read all the TT bashing I ever want to read. Its comical sometimes. (he was blamed for the Bear game penalties on here) I usually have to scroll by it.

[cheesner]

5a. Trades away malcontent BF and expects a injury prone 'system' QB to be able to play well.



Please add some if you like.


Just trying to say, hey, TT seems to know what he is doing. No need to get alarmed at any lack of moves at this time. TT has shown to be right more than he is wrong.

[ND72]

Never signs any good big name free agents....Well, except Charles Woodson, Ryan Pickett...even a Brandon Chillar, and I'm not real sure if Tramon Williams was a Sherman find, or a Thompson find.

[Smidgeon]

The venom I've been reading lately after the Lynch trade to Seattle is ridiculous. Beat writers (not scouts, not GMs) are writing that he "should have traded this much," "should have offered this player," etc.

And the venom here has been off the charts in the last couple days. The team is 3-1 with a manageable schedule for the next few games. If they can get their offense on track without losing too many games, they'll be primed for a deep playoff run. This team isn't 0-4 or 1-3 or even 1-2. But now people are afraid of the Vikings because they picked up a talented WR? And that's TT's fault? <sigh>

Not to mention that it's TT's fault that there was no starting calibur RB behind Grant. <double sigh>

[Cheesehead Craig]

Thanks Smidgeon.

I'm done with this "sky is falling" crap now that the Vikes got Moss.

In case you all forgot, we got a pretty damn good offense too.

[ND72]

The venom I've been reading lately after the Lynch trade to Seattle is ridiculous. Beat writers (not scouts, not GMs) are writing that he "should have traded this much," "should have offered this player," etc.

And the venom here has been off the charts in the last couple days. The team is 3-1 with a manageable schedule for the next few games. If they can get their offense on track without losing too many games, they'll be primed for a deep playoff run. This team isn't 0-4 or 1-3 or even 1-2. But now people are afraid of the Vikings because they picked up a talented WR? And that's TT's fault? <sigh>

Not to mention that it's TT's fault that there was no starting calibur RB behind Grant. <double sigh>

We have a chance to be 7-1, 6-2, or maybe at worse 5-3 going into November IMO...time for us to start thinking that way and stop worrying about everyone else. There is nothing that says Moss is going to make Minny so much better...you never know how that will work, it could backfire.

[sheepshead]

The Redskins have a shit run and pass defense. Lets see if this game helps MM right this ship. I was very happy about the lack of penalties against the Lions.

correction: shit pass D mediocre Run D

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

TT is a good GM. No doubt about it. Is he perfect? No. But overall he is really good. But as I fan I am allowed to question his decisions and talk about them. That is the point of a Forum. I think TT should have traded for Lynch b/c I think it would have been a good move.

Just like I don't see the need for people to go on rant and bash every move TT has ever made when they disagree with something he has done, I don't think it is necessary to go over all his good moves to prove that his one wasn't a bad one.

He is not perfect and makes mistakes just like everyone else. Just b/c he has made a lot of good decisions doesn't mean this one was.

[imscott72]

Sounds like Woodson commented on the Lynch situation today on Jim Rome and said "the trade would have been logical". Bedard said other players told him off the record too that they're disappointed the trade wasn't made.

[dissident94]

While Thompson does really well retooling a team. He builds depth and his teams compete.

But I am not sure his teams will ever get over the hump and be a dominate team. While he has signed a few really good FA. He seems to be stuck in the retooling mode forever.

While he has moved up in the draft. He hasn't gone for it and made the big time move to put the team over the top which is needed at times.

Think about the early 90s. Would Thompson have signed Reggie white. Maybe. What about Sean Jones, Keith Jackson, Andre Rison etc...

These other moves made Green bay from a contender to a champion.

We may always be contenders, but does he have it in him to make this team into a champion?

[red]

we need to survive and win the next 2 weeks. then we get some nice talent back

harris and bigby make the secondary much better. and starks has a chance to be a damn good back if he can stay healthy

however wins are going to be very tough to come by after week 6, meanwhile the queens will have a much easier schedule over that period.

with or without moss, if minnie ever "clicks" they're going to be tough to beat

[woodbuck27]

Sounds like Woodson commented on the Lynch situation today on Jim Rome and said "the trade would have been logical". Bedard said other players told him off the record too that they're disappointed the trade wasn't made.

If TT wanted Marshawn Lynch? That's the first question we need to ask ourselves.

Early in that AJ Hawk to Buffalo RUMOR. WE read about all sorts of trade scenarios:

a) AJ Hawk srtraight up for M. Lynch wasn't going down. Reasons can be cited for that improbable transaction.

b) TE and a secondary player fr. us for Lynch. Maybe too steep for TT?

c) or one of those roster players and say a 5th or a 6th, too may have been over the top for TT?

The bottom line is that he thinks inside 'his own box'. Not in terms of how we feel and think.

Having written that. Wouldn't it be justified in OUR running back situation to grab Marshawn Lynch for a 3rd too.? A moot question as TT's the GM not any of us. Again TT may not have liked Lynch or placed him high in terms of the value he desired. Maybe the character issues of Lynch's past turned TT away? Who in this place knows exactly how he thinks or ticks?

Noone! So we 'just wait. WE just hope or have faith in him.

TT is OUR Packer Nation GOD! :idea:

GO TT GO !!

[cheesner]

TT is a good GM. No doubt about it. Is he perfect? No. But overall he is really good. But as I fan I am allowed to question his decisions and talk about them. That is the point of a Forum. I think TT should have traded for Lynch b/c I think it would have been a good move.

Just like I don't see the need for people to go on rant and bash every move TT has ever made when they disagree with something he has done, I don't think it is necessary to go over all his good moves to prove that his one wasn't a bad one.

He is not perfect and makes mistakes just like everyone else. Just b/c he has made a lot of good decisions doesn't mean this one was.

Personally, I wanted TT to bring in Lynch or Williams. But my point was that TT has been right more times than not when it comes to a controversial move. I wasn't trying to pick on the anti-TT crowd, but to encourage all Packer fans that hey, we may not agree with the details, but the big picture is looking mighty sweet.

And to say that TT is afraid to make the big move to put us over the top is very premature. It has taken 5 years but we are now, IMHO, an elite team who is a serious contender for the SB. Most teams can't say that including these teams that make the big moves. Is washington a better team with Haynesworth? I don't think so. He does well on the field but the entire team is suffering because of the personality clash. And that has an effect in the win/loss column more than his ability to collapse a pocket.

As far as TT not signing Reggie, he was working for Wolf at the time and was a strong proponent for the move.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Very nice post dissident. I want to see him a little more aggressive also. It is not his fault Grant was injured and it is certainly was not his fault for not having two starting caliber running backs to start the season. Having one is a good job by him.
But if it is possible to get a starting running back for a 4th and a 6th why not? Even a 3rd and a 6th why not? He drafted Starks in the 6th who is 24 all ready and Lynch is only 24 now. Consider him a rookie you are drafting in the 3rd round. Just a couple years ago he wanted him in the 1st round. I would have no problem if he saw him play and decided he was wrong in 2007 and that Lynch is really not that good of a player, but the fact that he is still interested in him and tired to trade for him shows that he thinks the guy can play. So why not go and get him. Idnk about most people, but getting good players for low draft picks seems like a good idea to me.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

TT is a good GM. No doubt about it. Is he perfect? No. But overall he is really good. But as I fan I am allowed to question his decisions and talk about them. That is the point of a Forum. I think TT should have traded for Lynch b/c I think it would have been a good move.

Just like I don't see the need for people to go on rant and bash every move TT has ever made when they disagree with something he has done, I don't think it is necessary to go over all his good moves to prove that his one wasn't a bad one.

He is not perfect and makes mistakes just like everyone else. Just b/c he has made a lot of good decisions doesn't mean this one was.

Personally, I wanted TT to bring in Lynch or Williams. But my point was that TT has been right more times than not when it comes to a controversial move. I wasn't trying to pick on the anti-TT crowd, but to encourage all Packer fans that hey, we may not agree with the details, but the big picture is looking mighty sweet.

And to say that TT is afraid to make the big move to put us over the top is very premature. It has taken 5 years but we are now, IMHO, an elite team who is a serious contender for the SB. Most teams can't say that including these teams that make the big moves. Is washington a better team with Haynesworth? I don't think so. He does well on the field but the entire team is suffering because of the personality clash. And that has an effect in the win/loss column more than his ability to collapse a pocket.

As far as TT not signing Reggie, he was working for Wolf at the time and was a strong proponent for the move.

I agree that we are an elite team that is why this move would make sense. You are right thoughnhe has been right more times than not when it comes to a controversial move. But this move just reminds so much of the Moss deal in 2007. You can get a good player for a fairly low draft pick. Consider Lynch our 3rd round pick in next years draft, thats how I look at it. Would be a nice transition from Grant in a year or two also. I thought that this move would make the team better for the next five years not just one year.

I hope Starks is a player and I shut the hell up.

[Fred's Slacks]

Very nice post dissident. I want to see him a little more aggressive also. It is not his fault Grant was injured and it is certainly was not his fault for not having two starting caliber running backs to start the season. Having one is a good job by him.
But if it is possible to get a starting running back for a 4th and a 6th why not? Even a 3rd and a 6th why not? He drafted Starks in the 6th who is 24 all ready and Lynch is only 24 now. Consider him a rookie you are drafting in the 3rd round. Just a couple years ago he wanted him in the 1st round. I would have no problem if he saw him play and decided he was wrong in 2007 and that Lynch is really not that good of a player, but the fact that he is still interested in him and tired to trade for him shows that he thinks the guy can play. So why not go and get him. Idnk about most people, but getting good players for low draft picks seems like a good idea to me.

Not saying we shouldn't have done it, but I wouldn't call a 3rd round pick a "low" draft pick.

[Scott Campbell]

The bottom line is that he thinks inside 'his own box'. Not in terms of how we feel and think.


Exactly. Ted operates inside of a vacuum cleaner.

[pbmax]

Number of Super Bowls won by Marshawn Lynch and Randy Moss combined: 0

Number of Super Bowls won by recent iterations of the Steelers and Patriots (prior to 2007 lunacy): 5

Those teams won with little activity in big name FA, dramatic trades for head cases or 40 year old QBs. The problem is not approach or aggressiveness. Its results. The current iteration of the Packers is not playing up to the level its capable of. Fix that, and Moss or Lynch will not be a concern.

[superfan]

Number of Super Bowls won by Marshawn Lynch and Randy Moss combined: 0

Number of Super Bowls won by recent iterations of the Steelers and Patriots (prior to 2007 lunacy): 5

Those teams won with little activity in big name FA, dramatic trades for head cases or 40 year old QBs. The problem is not approach or aggressiveness. Its results. The current iteration of the Packers is not playing up to the level its capable of. Fix that, and Moss or Lynch will not be a concern.

Amen, brother! :bclap: :bclap: :bclap:

[dissident94]

Number of Super Bowls won by Marshawn Lynch and Randy Moss combined: 0

Number of Super Bowls won by recent iterations of the Steelers and Patriots (prior to 2007 lunacy): 5

Those teams won with little activity in big name FA, dramatic trades for head cases or 40 year old QBs. The problem is not approach or aggressiveness. Its results. The current iteration of the Packers is not playing up to the level its capable of. Fix that, and Moss or Lynch will not be a concern.

Number of Super Bowls Green Bay wins in the 90s without bold dramatic trades or moves: 0

No Super Bowl without the Favre trade
No Super Bowl without White, Jones, Jackson, Rison

You can build a solid team. But without impact players you cannot win. Sometimes you miss on the draft and need to pick up an impact player. Nothing wrong with it.

Patriots went out and got moss. They went undeafted and yes lost. But man Moss made that team nearly unstoppable.

If Green Bay pushed hard for Deangelo Williams. God this offense would be great.

[mraynrand]

Shermy spent a #2 on Harris, a #2 to move up for Walker, 2#4s for Glenn, and brought in Joe Johnson in FA. Was it worth it? Did it get the Packers over the hump. As we're learning, the Packers had plenty to start the season. As usual, luck (injuries) almost always decide the issue.

[cheesner]

Number of Super Bowls won by Marshawn Lynch and Randy Moss combined: 0

Number of Super Bowls won by recent iterations of the Steelers and Patriots (prior to 2007 lunacy): 5

Those teams won with little activity in big name FA, dramatic trades for head cases or 40 year old QBs. The problem is not approach or aggressiveness. Its results. The current iteration of the Packers is not playing up to the level its capable of. Fix that, and Moss or Lynch will not be a concern.

Number of Super Bowls Green Bay wins in the 90s without bold dramatic trades or moves: 0

No Super Bowl without the Favre trade
No Super Bowl without White, Jones, Jackson, Rison

You can build a solid team. But without impact players you cannot win. Sometimes you miss on the draft and need to pick up an impact player. Nothing wrong with it.

Patriots went out and got moss. They went undeafted and yes lost. But man Moss made that team nearly unstoppable.

If Green Bay pushed hard for Deangelo Williams. God this offense would be great.

Aaron Rodgers, Clay Matthews III, BJ Raji, Greg Jennings, Jermichal Finley, Nick Collins . . . It seems to me that TT has already assembled more impact players than most teams have. All added through the draft in his first 5 drafts.

[NewsBruin]

But I am not sure his teams will ever get over the hump and be a dominate team. While he has signed a few really good FA. He seems to be stuck in the retooling mode forever.

Think about the early 90s. Would Thompson have signed Reggie white. Maybe. What about Sean Jones, Keith Jackson, Andre Rison etc...

Dominant.

Dominant.

Anyway, free agency is less of a sure thing than it was before, and I don't know if it was ever a sure thing. With the franchise/transition tags (especially this uncapped season), it's easier for a team to keep a player for one more peak year. Also, teams now seem to be more proactive about extending their players before they get to market. It's not necessarily the same scenario that we saw in the first 10 years of free agency.

[packerbacker1234]

I'm not carrying a torch for TT anymore, he has been solid as the GM.

I will say, however, that calling us a legit SB contendor right now may be stretching it. Our defense is dropping like flies, we don't ahve a legit RB threat with Grant done, and our offense has hardly been in synch all season.

Just saying, we haven;t even played a good team yet, and were struggling.

We are Super Bowl contendors when we prove we can beat other contendors. Until then, we're pretenders.

[MichiganPackerFan]

After the news of losing Barnett for the season, TT's move NOT to get rid of Hawk seems better than getting Lynch. It's easier to replace a RB in a passing offense than a MLB. Hawk is no world beater by any means, but he's certainly better than what we would have to pluck of someone's practice squad if we had lost both Hawk and Barnett. Starks will be here soon and no one knows what Nance has to offer. I'm just thankful that we still have Hawk right now and hope that his play is top notch, because we need that a LOT

[retailguy]

The 2001 or 2002 team went 8-1, then lost 8 starters to injury, finished 12-4 and lost to Vick & the Falcons in the home playoff game.

I expect this season to look similar and also expect that there will be no trades. We will play with the guys we got. We will play next year with the guys we've got and the guys we draft. Maybe, if there is a really good deal to be had, we'll wind up with one other player, but only if it's a really good deal. If it's just an average deal we'll pass.

Injuries suck, but they happen. It gives us a chance to develop another young guy, though. Maybe we can turn Desmond Bishop into a linebacker in the next 12 games. We'll see.

[Smidgeon]

The 2001 or 2002 team went 8-1, then lost 8 starters to injury, finished 12-4 and lost to Vick & the Falcons in the home playoff game.

I expect this season to look similar and also expect that there will be no trades. We will play with the guys we got. We will play next year with the guys we've got and the guys we draft. Maybe, if there is a really good deal to be had, we'll wind up with one other player, but only if it's a really good deal. If it's just an average deal we'll pass.

Injuries suck, but they happen. It gives us a chance to develop another young guy, though. Maybe we can turn Desmond Bishop into a linebacker in the next 12 games. We'll see.

If you develop him right, you can trade him for a high draft pick when Barnett comes back healthy (a la Matt Cassel) and draft another backup ILB. It's the only good thing I could think that comes out of a season ending injury. But I'm not sure TT would let a good player go either.

[pbmax]

Number of Super Bowls won by Marshawn Lynch and Randy Moss combined: 0

Number of Super Bowls won by recent iterations of the Steelers and Patriots (prior to 2007 lunacy): 5

Those teams won with little activity in big name FA, dramatic trades for head cases or 40 year old QBs. The problem is not approach or aggressiveness. Its results. The current iteration of the Packers is not playing up to the level its capable of. Fix that, and Moss or Lynch will not be a concern.

Number of Super Bowls Green Bay wins in the 90s without bold dramatic trades or moves: 0

No Super Bowl without the Favre trade
No Super Bowl without White, Jones, Jackson, Rison

You can build a solid team. But without impact players you cannot win. Sometimes you miss on the draft and need to pick up an impact player. Nothing wrong with it.

Patriots went out and got moss. They went undeafted and yes lost. But man Moss made that team nearly unstoppable.

If Green Bay pushed hard for Deangelo Williams. God this offense would be great.
There are no longer FAs available like Reggie White. A completely different era.

And maybe I am missing something, but Lynch does not strike me as the Keith Jackson of his position.

And the 2010 Packer running back situation is very unlike the 1996 Packer WR situation. Both starters were hurt (one lost for the season, also lost their other TE for a couple of games) in '96 and that team relied on the pass nearly as much as this one does. A passing offense does not miss its starting RB like it misses its top two receivers.

The only 2010 positions that look like WR from 96 are LB and safety. A trade there I can understand. Though with Collins and Bigby likely to play this year, that only match might be LB if Chillar misses most of the season.

[dissident94]

Number of Super Bowls won by Marshawn Lynch and Randy Moss combined: 0

Number of Super Bowls won by recent iterations of the Steelers and Patriots (prior to 2007 lunacy): 5

Those teams won with little activity in big name FA, dramatic trades for head cases or 40 year old QBs. The problem is not approach or aggressiveness. Its results. The current iteration of the Packers is not playing up to the level its capable of. Fix that, and Moss or Lynch will not be a concern.

Number of Super Bowls Green Bay wins in the 90s without bold dramatic trades or moves: 0

No Super Bowl without the Favre trade
No Super Bowl without White, Jones, Jackson, Rison

You can build a solid team. But without impact players you cannot win. Sometimes you miss on the draft and need to pick up an impact player. Nothing wrong with it.

Patriots went out and got moss. They went undeafted and yes lost. But man Moss made that team nearly unstoppable.

If Green Bay pushed hard for Deangelo Williams. God this offense would be great.
There are no longer FAs available like Reggie White. A completely different era.

And maybe I am missing something, but Lynch does not strike me as the Keith Jackson of his position.

And the 2010 Packer running back situation is very unlike the 1996 Packer WR situation. Both starters were hurt (one lost for the season, also lost their other TE for a couple of games) in '96 and that team relied on the pass nearly as much as this one does. A passing offense does not miss its starting RB like it misses its top two receivers.

The only 2010 positions that look like WR from 96 are LB and safety. A trade there I can understand. Though with Collins and Bigby likely to play this year, that only match might be LB if Chillar misses most of the season.


I am not a Ted basher. I had my doubts about him in the past. I questioned his move with Rodgers over Favre and was wrong.

But to at least question his lack of making a move is not wrong. Many are and its already documented. Favre, Woodson, former scouts, Rodgers? etc..

To say that it may not be a fault of him is blindly looking at him. If you think this team is a potential super bowl team then you have to make a move.
The offense is not as good as hoped. The team needs a weapon running the football. If they really believe in Starks than I guess it may work out.

With the defense banged up it will be really nice to put up some points and plus keep the opposing team of the field by running it.

[Gunakor]

With the defense banged up it will be really nice to put up some points and plus keep the opposing team of the field by running it.

Would it not be a better idea then to use our resources in trades to shore up the defense, rather than on a RB to hide the problems on the defensive side of the ball? Personally, I hope they use the picks/players that they would have traded for a RB on a safety or a linebacker. That way we don't have to score 30+ with a considerable advantage in TOP to win every week. The offense as is will continue to score points. We should be focused on improvements on defense to limit the number of points scored against us IMO.

[packrulz]

TT could sign Willie Parker, Larry Johnson, Ahman Green or Samkon Gado without giving up a draft pick but since the Pack is 3-1 and Starks is coming back soon, why waste the money? I just don't feel the urgency to sign a washed up RB.

[Patler]

Injuries suck, but they happen. It gives us a chance to develop another young guy, though. Maybe we can turn Desmond Bishop into a linebacker in the next 12 games. We'll see.

If you develop him right, you can trade him for a high draft pick when Barnett comes back healthy (a la Matt Cassel) and draft another backup ILB. It's the only good thing I could think that comes out of a season ending injury. But I'm not sure TT would let a good player go either.

If Desmond Bishop turns into a competent linebacker, next year he will replace Hawk (assuming there is a next year!). I can't see the Packers paying Hawk the gazillion dollars he is due next year under his existing contract.