Better GM...Thompson or Wolf

[bobblehead]

Ok, people complained about a lack of topics and Patler suggested one close to my heart so here goes.

I vote TT. To make it even more controversial I don't honestly think its that close. I have felt this way for a long time, but had to bite my tongue, much like I was sick of Brett Favre back in 2004 but had to wait for things to play out.

TT built the Seahawks into the team that went to the Superbowl (only to have the franchise take a dump after he left) and he has now built the packers into a Superbowl champion that is primed for multiple opportunities.

Wolf had the benefit of being able to buy a lot of proven veterans to vault his team to primetime, whereas TT hasn't had that many opportunities in todays FA market. Wolfs prize FA catch was the greatest DE of all time, and everyone KNEW he was the greatest when we signed him. TT's prize FA catch was a CB who was considered washed up as a CB and ready to be moved to safety.

Parallels and similarities are many. TT's first move as GM was drafting a franchise QB then hiring a westcoast coach who was hungry. Wolfs was hiring a hungry westcoast coach and then trading for a franchise QB.

Wolf struggled to assemble a solid line, whiffing on 2 LT's early on. TT struggled to assemble a solid line whiffing on a handful of guards, but when he drafts early he seems to have better success than Wolf did.

Both GM's paid a lot of attention to the defense and talked about the importance and both eventually put a marquee product on the field.

The main reason I give TT the edge is his ability to find gems in undrafted FA's, and trades. Guys like Tramon, Shields, Grant were all guys that no one really desired but all have turned into exceptional players.

I also give the nod to TT for constantly stressing chemistry and not taking in the NFL's problem children like Andre Rison and Keith Jackson.

I'll leave it at that and open up the discussion to my dysfunctional rat family.

[red]

it really hurts my pride to say this, but i agree that right now TT looks like the better GM. the team looks like a force to be reckoned with for along time, and its a team entirely built by him with very few exceptions.

wolf put together one of the best teams of all time (best offense and best defense in the nfl), but it got old and he failed to maintain it.

and as far as drafting, its not even close, TT just seems to have a knack for it with very few flops. not only did TT assemble a super bowl winner, he had to rebuild that team during the season with other teams cast offs and still made it all work

and 2 or 3 years ago, i would be first in line to bash TT

[sharpe1027]

I see it as too close to call.

I don't think you can say that Wolf had it easier because free agency was different. There were still 32 other teams playing by the same free agency rules. Also, many people thought the Packers were going to be a dynasty after they won with Favre. Therefore, don't think it would be fair to give TT credit for the future since nobody really knows.

In the end, both have one SB win. Wolf took over a team that was, outside of the Cardiac Pack year, consistently crappy and NFL players avoided it like the plague. TT took over an aging roster with serious salary cap issues.

[vince]

Notwithstanding sharpe's cautions against projecting the future, I think Thompson will ultimately prove to be a better GM, so I guess that means I think he's a better GM now. All the pieces appear to be there, and that's really the GM's job. Now it's up to the players and coaches. Thompson's strong convictions and ability to stick to his guns in the face of strong criticism and pressure have been very impressive IMO.

Realistically, I'd say Sherrod effectively manning the left side for the next decade will go a long way toward completing Thompson's legacy. Rodgers having a shortened career or not fulfilling his promise as a premier QB due to getting hit too much would obviously drop Thompson's stock.

[KYPack]

I'd give the slight edge to TT.

Before last season, it would've been the Wolfman.

Wolf had a tendency to hold grudges, I think from his days at the feet of Al Davis.

I always felt Wolf got better NFL street FA's. Until last season, that is. Then TT pulled in Walden, Green, Francois, and some others. TT simply likes to go with the young guys with high ceilings as opposed to vets who are known quantities.

I was (and am) pissed at Wolf for participating in the farce of naming Sherman as HC/GM. That set us back and was done purely to piss off Holmgren.

TT is Wolf's superior in organization building. Our scouting staff is the envy of 31 teams.

[red]

the one big difference is the character issue, like bobble mentioned.

wolf would draft or go after guys that had talent but also came with character concerns, or players with big egos

you can go back and look at almost all of TT's draft pick and i promise you that in the scouting report you'll see that the guy was a leader and a team player, with a high character

wolf put together a roster full of good players while TT seems to have put together a good cohesive single unit

[Joemailman]

TT has a good chance of surpassing Wolf, but he hasn't done it yet. I think judging Wolf has to take into account what he inherited. Green Bay was the bottom of the barrel as far as the NFL goes. When he traded a 1st round pick for Favre (seemed like a slightly crazy idea at the time), and convinced White to come here, that transformed this franchise in a way that TT didn't have to do. The Packers hadn't had a losing season in 13 years when TT took over. That said, TT has drafted better in the early rounds than Wolf, and has more impact players than Wolf had. Therefore, his chances of surpassing Wolf are very good.

[HarveyWallbangers]

TT has a good chance of surpassing Wolf, but he hasn't done it yet. I think judging Wolf has to take into account what he inherited. Green Bay was the bottom of the barrel as far as the NFL goes. When he traded a 1st round pick for Favre (seemed like a slightly crazy idea at the time), and convinced White to come here, that transformed this franchise in a way that TT didn't have to do. The Packers hadn't had a losing season in 13 years when TT took over. That said, TT has drafted better in the early rounds than Wolf, and has more impact players than Wolf had. Therefore, his chances of surpassing Wolf are very good.

+1

[Deputy Nutz]

I think Wolf built his team to win a Super Bowl in 1996 and 1997 and he failed to refill the talent tank during and after the Super Bowl run. He might have been burnt out, he had his internal struggles with Holmgren who left after the 1998 season. But I also look at where Wolf started from. He had jack shit. He had a great wide receiver and a mediocre offensive line. Nothing on defense, and a turnstyle at QB.

Ted Thompson had salary cap issues, and a depleted roster, but he still had a hall of fame QB, Clifton and Tauscher as book end tackles, an all pro running back, and a below average defense.

Wolf never had a losing season as GM, the worst was an 8-8 season, Thompson had two.

I thought Wolf should have done more to give Favre weapons after the 1997 season, where as TT has given Rodgers a high performance offense around him. Jennings, Murphy(injured), Nelson were all second round picks, along with Jones as a 3rd rounder. TT has also recognized positions of need before the bottom drops out.

Right now TT is in position with a younger team to repeat and win more championships then Wolf's teams after 1997. Wolf won by recuiting and trading for veteran players, especially on defense. Reggie White, Santana Dotson, Sean Jones, Seth Joyner, Eugene Robinson, Keith Jackson, Andre Rison, Desmond Howard, Don Beebe.

Totally different ways of creating a roster, but at this point with the same result one Super Bowl. I would imagine TT will have more chances for his team to win another Super Bowl, but you can't count your chickens, ala the Favre years after 1997.

[Deputy Nutz]

I think Wolf built his team to win a Super Bowl in 1996 and 1997 and he failed to refill the talent tank during and after the Super Bowl run. He might have been burnt out, he had his internal struggles with Holmgren who left after the 1998 season. But I also look at where Wolf started from. He had jack shit. He had a great wide receiver and a mediocre offensive line. Nothing on defense, and a turnstyle at QB.

Ted Thompson had salary cap issues, and a depleted roster, but he still had a hall of fame QB, Clifton and Tauscher as book end tackles, an all pro running back, and a below average defense.

Wolf never had a losing season as GM, the worst was an 8-8 season, Thompson had two.

I thought Wolf should have done more to give Favre weapons after the 1997 season, where as TT has given Rodgers a high performance offense around him. Jennings, Murphy(injured), Nelson were all second round picks, along with Jones as a 3rd rounder. TT has also recognized positions of need before the bottom drops out.

Right now TT is in position with a younger team to repeat and win more championships then Wolf's teams after 1997. Wolf won by recuiting and trading for veteran players, especially on defense. Reggie White, Santana Dotson, Sean Jones, Seth Joyner, Eugene Robinson, Keith Jackson, Andre Rison, Desmond Howard, Don Beebe.

Totally different ways of creating a roster, but at this point with the same result one Super Bowl. I would imagine TT will have more chances for his team to win another Super Bowl, but you can't count your chickens, ala the Favre years after 1997.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Wolf never had a losing season as GM, the worst was an 8-8 season, Thompson had two.

I give Wolf full credit for the 4-12 season. He left Thompson with major salary cap woes--which didn't allow him to turn over a old, overrated roster. He knew when to get out, and he let it fall on somebody else. That leaves Wolf with one 4-12 season and Thompson one 6-10 season. That 6-10 season was an extraordinary chain of events. Distractions galore, First year starter at QB who had a ton of pressure, and a bunch of close losses (blame the QB at times, but mostly blame the defense and kicker). Thompson has a couple of NFC championship appearances and a Super Bowl title after 6 years. If he keeps up the pace, he'll pass Wolf easily. As it stands now, I give the edge to Wolf. It all likely depends on the health of Aaron Rodgers. I have more faith already in Thompson to put people around a future Hall of Fame QB (if he stays health) than I did with Wolf. That's saying a lot--because Wolf was an excellent GM.

[Smeefers]

Red had it right about the talent level that's for sure. The roster Wolf put together during the hay day was far far superior to anything that TT will ever throw together IMO. We were dominant in ways rarely seen through the league. We'd blow through teams 35 to 7 without even breaking a sweat. I agree with a majority of the posters here that TT will be able to bring more championships to the Pack which I think in the end is what we judge everyone on.

[sharpe1027]

Notwithstanding sharpe's cautions against projecting the future, I think Thompson will ultimately prove to be a better GM, so I guess that means I think he's a better GM now. All the pieces appear to be there, and that's really the GM's job. Now it's up to the players and coaches. Thompson's strong convictions and ability to stick to his guns in the face of strong criticism and pressure have been very impressive IMO.

Realistically, I'd say Sherrod effectively manning the left side for the next decade will go a long way toward completing Thompson's legacy. Rodgers having a shortened career or not fulfilling his promise as a premier QB due to getting hit too much would obviously drop Thompson's stock.

I tend to agree agree. I also thought that the 96 SB was going to be the first in a string of SBs. I don't trust my fortune telling abilities anymore. ;)

[KYPack]

I give Wolf full credit for the 4-12 season. He left Thompson with major salary cap woes--which didn't allow him to turn over a old, overrated roster. He knew when to get out, and he let it fall on somebody else. That leaves Wolf with one 4-12 season and Thompson one 6-10 season. That 6-10 season was an extraordinary chain of events. Distractions galore, First year starter at QB who had a ton of pressure, and a bunch of close losses (blame the QB at times, but mostly blame the defense and kicker). Thompson has a couple of NFC championship appearances and a Super Bowl title after 6 years. If he keeps up the pace, he'll pass Wolf easily. As it stands now, I give the edge to Wolf. It all likely depends on the health of Aaron Rodgers. I have more faith already in Thompson to put people around a future Hall of Fame QB (if he stays health) than I did with Wolf. That's saying a lot--because Wolf was an excellent GM.

Point of order, Harv.

Wouldn't the Sherman administration get the blame for TT's cap woes. Or are you blaming Sherman as the "Son of the Wolfman"?

[HarveyWallbangers]

You are right, Colonel. I thankfully forgot about Sherman's 2-3 year run as GM. Give Wolf 0 losing seasons. He did have four 9-7 and one 8-8 season amongst his 10 in Green Bay. About half the time he had around a .500 team. He did turn over a terrible roster though, and his best teams were better than Thompson's best teams (so far). I think Thompson will be able to maintain a championship caliber team longer though, but until that happens it's just conjecture. Give Wolf the edge now, but Thompson has at least a decent chance of surpassing him.

[Joemailman]

Who gets the blame for the 2001 draft? Wolf or Sherman? Officially it was Wolf's last draft, but some feel Sherman was actually calling the shots. If it was Wolf's draft, al least he knew when to retire.

RD SEL # PLAYER POSITION SCHOOL
1 10 Jamal Reynolds DE Florida State
2 41 Robert Ferguson WR Texas A&M
3 71 Bhawoh Jue SS Penn State
3 72 Torrance Marshall LB Oklahoma
4 105 Bill Ferrario G Wisconsin
6 198 David Martin TE Tennessee

[vince]

The succession plan had already been announced at the time of the draft if I recall correctly. My perception of Wolf is that he would have probably overseen the setting of the board and then deferred the final draft-day decisions at that point to Sherman, but we'll likely never know the truth.

Like I give Thompson a complete pass for his first year's record based on what he inherited and how he went about rebuilding the team for the future, I'd give Wolf a pass for that last draft based on what he knew about his decision and the future direction of the franchise.

Brutal draft though - consistent with most of the drafts for the next 4 years or so after that.

[Deputy Nutz]

Wolf's team's missed playoffs 3 times in his 8 years as GM. Thompson has missed the playoffs three times in his 6 years as GM.

[Deputy Nutz]

You can't give GM's passes in this comparison. Both GM's started with an empty cupboard, the slight difference is that Thompson had to deal with a cruddy salary cap situation left by Sherman.

[Patler]

What Wolf inherited for a roster was not nearly so bleak as many remember. It was a roster that Infante got nothing out of.

Ruettgers was in the middle of his career. Wolf also inherited competent guards in Hallstrom and Moran, and a center in Campan. Ed West, Jackie Harris, Sharpe and Majkowski gave him players to be decent with.

On defense he inherited Butler, Paup, Cecil, Tony Bennett, Johnny Holland, Brian Noble, Matt Brock.

Chris Jacke was there as well.

Not a great roster to be sure, and many were with Wolf only a couple years due to FA, etc. But he inherited a mixture of young and old competent players good enough to put 8-8 or 9-7 in reach with good coaching, better attitudes and a few new players.

[Bretsky]

What Wolf inherited for a roster was not nearly so bleak as many remember. It was a roster that Infante got nothing out of.

Ruettgers was in the middle of his career. Wolf also inherited competent guards in Hallstrom and Moran, and a center in Campan. Ed West, Jackie Harris, Sharpe and Majkowski gave him players to be decent with.

On defense he inherited Butler, Paup, Cecil, Tony Bennett, Johnny Holland, Brian Noble, Matt Brock.

Chris Jacke was there as well.

Not a great roster to be sure, and many were with Wolf only a couple years due to FA, etc. But he inherited a mixture of young and old competent players good enough to put 8-8 or 9-7 in reach with good coaching, better attitudes and a few new players.


You threw several JAG's who were starting for GB in there with guys Wolf inherited IMO. If Sharpe had a whole career in GB I think we win more than one title. But I don't disagree that he was left with talent that might mirror a .500 team with top of the notch level coaching........hmmmm....which he got right off the bat I think...as opposed to MM...who had to weed his way through some of his rejects. But that prolly doesn't fall to the GM anyways since there are assistants.

[Bretsky]

TT has a good chance of surpassing Wolf, but he hasn't done it yet. I think judging Wolf has to take into account what he inherited. Green Bay was the bottom of the barrel as far as the NFL goes. When he traded a 1st round pick for Favre (seemed like a slightly crazy idea at the time), and convinced White to come here, that transformed this franchise in a way that TT didn't have to do. The Packers hadn't had a losing season in 13 years when TT took over. That said, TT has drafted better in the early rounds than Wolf, and has more impact players than Wolf had. Therefore, his chances of surpassing Wolf are very good.

I'd probably go with this too; but I fully expect TT to pass Wolf

[Patler]

You threw several JAG's who were starting for GB in there with guys Wolf inherited IMO. If Sharpe had a whole career in GB I think we win more than one title. But I don't disagree that he was left with talent that might mirror a .500 team with top of the notch level coaching........hmmmm....which he got right off the bat I think...as opposed to MM...who had to weed his way through some of his rejects. But that prolly doesn't fall to the GM anyways since there are assistants.

At least they were all guys who could play in the league. Every .500 team has JAGs. As I said, not all great by any means; but he didn't have to work miracles to get to .500 either.

Wolf had an advantage that is often ignored. He was hired and spent time with the Packers before the end of 1991. He got to see his roster in practice in person and be familiar with what he was inheriting heading into the off season before his first "real" season. He even mentioned it as an advantage for him.

TT came in after the season, just shortly before free agency hit. He once mentioned that he knew very little about the players he inherited, and holed up in his office for a couple weeks watching game tapes from the previous year. Just before the draft he commented that after reviewing tapes the roster was not quite what he expected it would be. He evaded further questions directly, but implied that their roster didn't live up to their record.

[Deputy Nutz]

Thompson was hired on to replace Sherman who was still the head coach. It was an awkward situation. Wolf was able to hire his own coach right away.

[Iron Mike]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RnB6zCpc18Y/TLyaeG1w7RI/AAAAAAAACXU/Fh_yJ21nJ-A/s400/mike_sherman_sleeping.jpg

[cheesner]

TT has a good chance of surpassing Wolf, but he hasn't done it yet. I think judging Wolf has to take into account what he inherited. Green Bay was the bottom of the barrel as far as the NFL goes. When he traded a 1st round pick for Favre (seemed like a slightly crazy idea at the time), and convinced White to come here, that transformed this franchise in a way that TT didn't have to do. The Packers hadn't had a losing season in 13 years when TT took over. That said, TT has drafted better in the early rounds than Wolf, and has more impact players than Wolf had. Therefore, his chances of surpassing Wolf are very good.
Wolf made some great moves, that is for sure, but TT has built a team that is much positioned to have long term success. The future looks much better now after the first SB win than it did for Wolf after his first SB win. I think that both GMs inherited situations with their own issues. TT inherited a legend at QB who was no longer able to win the big one. The level of difficulty that imposed upon him cannot be understated. He has almost entirely turned over his roster in the time that he has been here, so he really did not have the pieces he needed when he took over.

Right now I would rate TT an entire notch above Wolf, with TT having the opportunity to become an all-time elite GM.

[sharpe1027]

TT certainly chose to completely overhaul the roster, but I think that Wolf should get credit for being able to evaluate and use the guys already on the roster. Different approaches, similar results to date. We'll know in a few years if TT's approach really is sustainable.

[bobblehead]

One thing no one mentioned that I was hoping someone would. If TT had won a superbowl with Favre instead of Rodgers I would say that Wolf still gets the nod. The fact that TT had to find and develope his own marquee QB and win with him puts him on equal footing with Wolf. Add his better success in finding impact guys through the draft and putting so much chemistry together is what puts him over the top.

Many GM's can take over a team with a Tom Brady or a Peyton Manning and win. How many could have had the stones to cut ties with a HOF QB to insert his own unproven guy and then win a superbowl 3 seasons later? Wolf gets huge props from me because when he made the favre trade I said "who the fuck trades a first round pick in a deep draft for a QB that went in the 2nd round the year before in a weak draft? To top it off the guy did NOTHING in his first season to upgrade his value" That and trading a draft pick for a coach. I wasn't a wolf fan early, but the man proved his merit. I think TT did that as well and then some.

[Scott Campbell]

Ted hasn't yet trained a young GM protege that takes us to another Superbowl victory.

[Tony Oday]

Well win one more SB then the discussion is moot

[Joemailman]

Ted hasn't yet trained a young GM protege that takes us to another Superbowl victory.

He's working on it. His name is Wolf. http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110611/PKR01/110611051/1058/Personnel-man-Eliot-Wolf-gets-jump-his-father-s-career-path

[Fritz]

Of course they are both excellent, but Wolf really fudged up at the end of his tenure by granting an unknown tight ends coach complete control of the organization. That set the franchise back several years, as there was no orderly, sensible succession plan in place. At the same time, TT has yet to deal with a coach whose ego grows bigger than king kong's penis. (I'm assuming King Kong had a big penis. Didn't he?) But Wolf dealt with that situation by letting his anger drive his actions. I don't know that TT will do that when or if that time comes.

I give the edge to TT, but as others have said, the state in which he leaves the organization will tell a lot.

As for that last draft, if Wolf was still the guy who had the "GM" sign on his door, then it was his draft. That's how I see it. If he didn't want it to be his draft he shoulda walked away beforehand.

[Patler]

At the same time, TT has yet to deal with a coach whose ego grows bigger than king kong's penis. (I'm assuming King Kong had a big penis. Didn't he?) But Wolf dealt with that situation by letting his anger drive his actions. I don't know that TT will do that when or if that time comes.

Sure he did; with Mike Sherman, in a little different way. Sherman let his ego get in the way of building a working relationship with TT. TT cut him lose, even after having given him an extension just a few months earlier, to avoid the "lame duck" problems and to try to ease the impact of the demotion. Sherman wasn't fired because of the 4-12 season, he was fired for not accepting the situation with TT.

TT weathered some very difficult situations; a salary cap that was $11 million over the max of $85 million when he came, a successful head coach demoted from being the GM, the ongoing Favre saga.

[Bretsky]

I'm not sure I'd consider Sherman to have a huge ego. One might say he had philosophy differences with TT. It was a good move by TT not to allow him to be lame duck and good when he let him go. I just don't think Sherman had the same beliefs on building a program as TT did.

[MJZiggy]

I'm not sure I'd consider Sherman to have a huge ego. One might say he had philosophy differences with TT. It was a good move by TT not to allow him to be lame duck and good when he let him go. I just don't think Sherman had the same beliefs on building a program as TT did.

They were absolute opposite in how they viewed team building.

[Patler]

I'm not sure I'd consider Sherman to have a huge ego. One might say he had philosophy differences with TT. It was a good move by TT not to allow him to be lame duck and good when he let him go. I just don't think Sherman had the same beliefs on building a program as TT did.

I don't know, some of the stories that have come out make it sound like Sherman had a huge ego, which prevented him from delegating authority, listening to and accepting opinions of his scouts regarding the draft, accepting the hiring of TT. Ego, control fanatic, whatever.

[bobblehead]

They were absolute opposite in how they viewed team building.

As in....one was really good at it and the other sucked.

[MJZiggy]

As in....one was really good at it and the other sucked.

Not quite what I was thinking, but it works...

[Deputy Nutz]

In Sherman's case he took a huge shot to his pride and ego when he was replaced as GM. As a coach it was difficult to watch two pro bowl caliber offensive linemen sign with all teams along with your pro bowl free safety. Sherman could have easily turned around and blamed TT for not providing him with the talent to win games. Foolish.

Both Thompson and Wolf built their team the same way. Coach, and QB as the base, then build up around that. They both spent money on top notch, coaching staffs, especially on the defensive side, Thompson and McCarthy signed Dom Capers, and Wolf and Holmgren got the gum chewer and Fritz. A lot of organizations refuse to spend quality dollars on their coaching staff and it hurts in the long run. Thompson and Wolf weren't afraid to spend money on the organization as a whole. They both sign their own players when free agency comes.

Thompson is a bit more conservative in free agency and in trading for veteran players, where Wolf made his bones in free agency and turning around the Packers from an organization that players dreaded going, it was like being traded to the North Pole to a franchise where players sought out the Packers to play with players like Favre, Sharpe, and White, and play for coaches like Holmgren and Fritz Shermur. Holmgren's coaching tree is pretty amazing.

[Patler]

In Sherman's case he took a huge shot to his pride and ego when he was replaced as GM. As a coach it was difficult to watch two pro bowl caliber offensive linemen sign with all teams along with your pro bowl free safety. Sherman could have easily turned around and blamed TT for not providing him with the talent to win games. Foolish.

Sherman the coach had no one to blame for the loss of all three players other than Sherman the GM.

[Smeefers]

In Sherman's case he took a huge shot to his pride and ego when he was replaced as GM. As a coach it was difficult to watch two pro bowl caliber offensive linemen sign with all teams along with your pro bowl free safety. Sherman could have easily turned around and blamed TT for not providing him with the talent to win games. Foolish.

Both Thompson and Wolf built their team the same way. Coach, and QB as the base, then build up around that. They both spent money on top notch, coaching staffs, especially on the defensive side, Thompson and McCarthy signed Dom Capers, and Wolf and Holmgren got the gum chewer and Fritz. A lot of organizations refuse to spend quality dollars on their coaching staff and it hurts in the long run. Thompson and Wolf weren't afraid to spend money on the organization as a whole. They both sign their own players when free agency comes.

Thompson is a bit more conservative in free agency and in trading for veteran players, where Wolf made his bones in free agency and turning around the Packers from an organization that players dreaded going, it was like being traded to the North Pole to a franchise where players sought out the Packers to play with players like Favre, Sharpe, and White, and play for coaches like Holmgren and Fritz Shermur. Holmgren's coaching tree is pretty amazing.

:bclap:

Holmgren's coaching tree is amazing. You're going to see the same thing with McCarthy and I honestly don't know if you can give the credit to McCarthy like people give the credit to Holmgren. I think the Credit will more fall with TT on this coaching crew. I think with Holmgren he was more the leader and McCarthy is more a man among peers.

[Pugger]

Wolf and TT both got their coach and QB but Wolf assembled a lot of his SB winning team using FA where TT mainly used the draft. You aren't gonna find the likes of White, Jones, Joyner, Howard, Jackson, Bebee, Rison, Robinson, etc., in FA these days.

[Patler]

Wolf and TT both got their coach and QB but Wolf assembled a lot of his SB winning team using FA where TT mainly used the draft. You aren't gonna find the likes of White, Jones, Joyner, Howard, Jackson, Bebee, Rison, Robinson, etc., in FA these days.

As far as their play on the field, taking charge in critical situations, etc. I'm not sure that White did much more for the Packers than Woodson has. The aspect of White that was so key was changing the image of the team to one that top players will go to willingly. Of course, the situations surrounding their free agent status were totally different. Everyone wanted White, no one wanted Woodson. But in the end their impacts on the field were very similar.

Signing Pickett was similar to signing Sean Jones, with similar impacts on the team.

As for all the other FA signings by Wolf, TT had as many free agents with similar impacts, but his other free agents just had somewhat different backgrounds. The TT free agents of Tramon Williams, Sam Shields, Charlie Peprah, Howard Green, Frank Zombo, Eric Walden, John Kuhn, etc. have been just as key as the ones you mentioned that Wolf signed, maybe even more so when you think about what Williams and Shields meant to the defense.

In my book, a free agent is a free agent whether he is a well-known veteran, a lesser known veteran or an unknown inexperienced player. He is an available unsigned player that any team can sign, and TT has picked some good ones who played key roles on a Super Bowl Champion.

[Smidgeon]

:bclap:

Holmgren's coaching tree is amazing. (1) You're going to see the same thing with McCarthy and I honestly don't know if you can give the credit to McCarthy like people give the credit to Holmgren. (2) I think the Credit will more fall with TT on this coaching crew. I think with Holmgren he was more the leader and McCarthy is more a man among peers.

(1) Who do you anticipate following this path?
(2) I don't find any basis to agree with this. Did TT hire Capers, coach up McAdoo, Bennett, etc, or was it McCarthy and his structure?

(And this following is not a shot at you; it's just a generalization of which I've been reminded lately.) I think people are selling McCarthy short. He just won a SuperBowl with 15 players on IR including his stud TE and starting RB. He also gave the Patriots a run for their money with a backup QB having no real live-action experience besides the game the week previous. Yes, he has a good GM to work with, but he's nothing to sneeze at himself...

[Deputy Nutz]

What White did for the Packers is he became the Packers leader in recruiting guys to play on defense. Santana Dotson was a top 5 defensive tackle, Sean Jones was a top ten defensive end and both said that the reason they came to Green Bay was to play with Reggie White. White had a huge impact on players around the league.

[Smeefers]

(1) Who do you anticipate following this path?
(2) I don't find any basis to agree with this. Did TT hire Capers, coach up McAdoo, Bennett, etc, or was it McCarthy and his structure?

(And this following is not a shot at you; it's just a generalization of which I've been reminded lately.) I think people are selling McCarthy short. He just won a SuperBowl with 15 players on IR including his stud TE and starting RB. He also gave the Patriots a run for their money with a backup QB having no real live-action experience besides the game the week previous. Yes, he has a good GM to work with, but he's nothing to sneeze at himself...

1 I can see Winston Moss, Kevin Green and Darren Perry. Moss is already being considered for HC positions. Green and Perry could both go on to be DC's and who knows in the future. Well, then there's the power house of Shawn Slocum. That man is going to coach the entire NFL one day!
2 I think TT brought in an already good coach in Capers and Tragovac and brought in a darn good rookie coach in Kevin Green.

I'm not trying to snub McCarthy, but it's coming off that way. I just don't think he's as much of a teacher to coaches as Holmgren was. I also don't think he'll spawn as many HC's as MH did.

Bah, I've tried to explain myself ten times and keep erasing it. I guess it's just a feeling and I can't give you solid concrete reasons for a gut instinct.

[Smidgeon]

I guess I'm asking how you know it was TT who brought in Capers and Trgovac instead of M3 bringing them in?

Also, from ESPN's "Best Franchise in Sports" piece (out of 122 total teams):

The Packers also ranked fourth overall in “bang for the buck,” and fifth overall in the categories “coaching” and “ownership.”

[Zool]

What White did for the Packers is he became the Packers leader in recruiting guys to play on defense. Santana Dotson was a top 5 defensive tackle, Sean Jones was a top ten defensive end and both said that the reason they came to Green Bay was to play with Reggie White. White had a huge impact on players around the league.

God told Reggie to go to GB. Shouldn't God be given the credit for the resurgence?

[mraynrand]

God told Reggie to go to GB. Shouldn't God be given the credit for the resurgence?

And everything else, really.

[Bretsky]

:bclap:

Holmgren's coaching tree is amazing. You're going to see the same thing with McCarthy and I honestly don't know if you can give the credit to McCarthy like people give the credit to Holmgren. I think the Credit will more fall with TT on this coaching crew. I think with Holmgren he was more the leader and McCarthy is more a man among peers.


MM (or TT if you pass the coaches to him) also has a tree of bad hires....aka...fires as asst coaches as well as a group over very good ones recently.

[bobblehead]

As far as their play on the field, taking charge in critical situations, etc. I'm not sure that White did much more for the Packers than Woodson has. The aspect of White that was so key was changing the image of the team to one that top players will go to willingly. Of course, the situations surrounding their free agent status were totally different. Everyone wanted White, no one wanted Woodson. But in the end their impacts on the field were very similar.

Signing Pickett was similar to signing Sean Jones, with similar impacts on the team.

As for all the other FA signings by Wolf, TT had as many free agents with similar impacts, but his other free agents just had somewhat different backgrounds. The TT free agents of Tramon Williams, Sam Shields, Charlie Peprah, Howard Green, Frank Zombo, Eric Walden, John Kuhn, etc. have been just as key as the ones you mentioned that Wolf signed, maybe even more so when you think about what Williams and Shields meant to the defense.

In my book, a free agent is a free agent whether he is a well-known veteran, a lesser known veteran or an unknown inexperienced player. He is an available unsigned player that any team can sign, and TT has picked some good ones who played key roles on a Super Bowl Champion.

Close but not quite. I think a FA that you don't pay big bucks for and hasn't proven to be a stud NFL player is a much better signing than say, Andre Rison who has a ton of talent and is a locker room cancer. Just my opinion.

[bobblehead]

God told Reggie to go to GB. Shouldn't God be given the credit for the resurgence?

God often is drawn to the highest bidder. Thats why Bill Gates is going to heaven.

[woodbuck27]

Notwithstanding sharpe's cautions against projecting the future, I think Thompson will ultimately prove to be a better GM, so I guess that means I think he's a better GM now. All the pieces appear to be there, and that's really the GM's job. Now it's up to the players and coaches. Thompson's strong convictions and ability to stick to his guns in the face of strong criticism and pressure have been very impressive IMO.

Realistically, I'd say Sherrod effectively manning the left side for the next decade will go a long way toward completing Thompson's legacy. Rodgers having a shortened career or not fulfilling his promise as a premier QB due to getting hit too much would obviously drop Thompson's stock.

TT cannot control injuries. If we were to lose Aaron Rodgers in the next season would that have a bearing on the job he's managed so far as our GM? Having raised that question. Isn't it too early to judge TT's career in Green Bay Vs Wolf's?

[Scott Campbell]

TT cannot control injuries. If we were to lose Aaron Rodgers in the next season would that have a bearing on the job he's managed so far as our GM? Having raised that question. Isn't it too early to judge TT's career in Green Bay Vs Wolf's?

No.

[Deputy Nutz]

9 seasons 6 season. no, both are the longest tenured GMs in the last 20 years.

[Fritz]

It'll be fun to see what the Packers can do in the next two years, before MM decides he needs to have more say in player personnel or Thompson decides he wants to have an actual private life.

[ThunderDan]

TT cannot control injuries. If we were to lose Aaron Rodgers in the next season would that have a bearing on the job he's managed so far as our GM? Having raised that question. Isn't it too early to judge TT's career in Green Bay Vs Wolf's?

It depends if we have a Hasselback on the bench behind ARod or a Craig Nall.

[MJZiggy]

It'll be fun to see what the Packers can do in the next two years, before Thompson decides he wants to have an actual private life.

HA! This is his private life. I just hope he doesn't burn out...

[Joemailman]

It'll be fun to see what the Packers can do in the next two years, before MM decides he needs to have more say in player personnel or Thompson decides he wants to have an actual private life.

As long as TT is here, I don't think MM will want more say. I think he has quite a bit of input now, but doesn't have to deal with the headaches a GM does. If TT leaves, he'll probably take over as GM and bring Favre in to coach.

[Gunakor]

It depends if we have a Hasselback on the bench behind ARod or a Craig Nall.


Flynn isn't so bad. It's too early to compare him apples to apples with Hasselbeck, though I think his ceiling could be every bit as high. I can state with absolute certainty however that we do not have a Craig Nall backing up AR. He's somewhere inbetween the two right now.

Having said that, and answering to Woody's post, if we were to lose AR to injury I absolutely would think that would have a great deal of bearing on the job TT has done as our GM. And I think it would be extremely favorable for him. While a GM cannot control injuries, he will be held accountable for plan B. And while plan B is never preferred, our plan B is one of the best in the league. So I think Thompson would be given high marks from his peers and most fans should the unthinkable happen and we're forced to go to plan B.

[Gunakor]

If TT leaves, he'll probably take over as GM and bring Favre in to coach.


I'd just hope it's still MM running the QB school. While Favre was exciting to watch as a player, I'd hope like hell that he isn't coaching the next crop of QB's to do it his way.

I don't think MM becomes GM anyway. Mike seems to be an x's and o's guy, not a personnel guy. I honestly think he'd miss coaching too much.

[woodbuck27]

As long as TT is here, I don't think MM will want more say. I think he has quite a bit of input now, but doesn't have to deal with the headaches a GM does. If TT leaves, he'll probably take over as GM and bring Favre in to coach.

I will be surprized to see Favre as an NFL coach. I think that Favre will coach in some capascity but more likely as his Father did at the High School level.

[Brandon494]

Favre a coach? Lmao. I believe he would make a good NFL analysis on one of the pregame shows but coaching from a guy who hates to practice? Like saying Allen Iverson would make a good coach.

[woodbuck27]

Favre a coach? Lmao. I believe he would make a good NFL analysis on one of the pregame shows but coaching from a guy who hates to practice? Like saying Allen Iverson would make a good coach.

I watched Brett Favre in a video coaching some 7 on 7 football in Hattisburg, Mississippi. He was asked if he was definitely retired fr. the NFL and he responded..YES! He certainly has alot of knowledge as to how to play offense. How many times did we hear commentators remark that he was like another coach on the field. He looked in pretty good shape in this video that's on the ESPN Viking Website under ' Viking Clubhouse ' as I recall it.

[Scott Campbell]

I watched Brett Favre in a video coaching some 7 on 7 football in Hattisburg, Mississippi. He was asked if he was definitely retired fr. the NFL and he responded..YES! He certainly has alot of knowledge as to how to play offense. How many times did we hear commentators remark that he was like another coach on the field. He looked in pretty good shape in this video that's on the ESPN Viking Website under ' Viking Clubhouse ' as I recall it.


Maybe he could get a gig from some team desperate enough to look past his off the field baggage.

But I doubt McCarthy would want anything to do with the guy - he's a cancer.

[woodbuck27]

Maybe he could get a gig from some team desperate enough to look past his off the field baggage.

But I doubt McCarthy would want anything to do with the guy - he's a cancer.



NO No NO! Favre has a Bday in October.

[ThunderDan]

Flynn isn't so bad. It's too early to compare him apples to apples with Hasselbeck, though I think his ceiling could be every bit as high. I can state with absolute certainty however that we do not have a Craig Nall backing up AR. He's somewhere inbetween the two right now.

Having said that, and answering to Woody's post, if we were to lose AR to injury I absolutely would think that would have a great deal of bearing on the job TT has done as our GM. And I think it would be extremely favorable for him. While a GM cannot control injuries, he will be held accountable for plan B. And while plan B is never preferred, our plan B is one of the best in the league. So I think Thompson would be given high marks from his peers and most fans should the unthinkable happen and we're forced to go to plan B.

I agree 100%, right now Flynn has shown in his 1 start that he can play pretty well.

My point is that after this year Flynn probably leaves to get a shot at starting somewhere else. At that point TT needs to dig up another QB with talent and let MM coach him up. Flynn has done well, Brohm not so much.

Wolf got us backup QBs like Brunnel, Hasselbeck, and Brooks. All starters on the teams they went to after the Pack. I am hoping that TT can continue that streak as GM.

[Pugger]

As far as their play on the field, taking charge in critical situations, etc. I'm not sure that White did much more for the Packers than Woodson has. The aspect of White that was so key was changing the image of the team to one that top players will go to willingly. Of course, the situations surrounding their free agent status were totally different. Everyone wanted White, no one wanted Woodson. But in the end their impacts on the field were very similar.

Signing Pickett was similar to signing Sean Jones, with similar impacts on the team.

As for all the other FA signings by Wolf, TT had as many free agents with similar impacts, but his other free agents just had somewhat different backgrounds. The TT free agents of Tramon Williams, Sam Shields, Charlie Peprah, Howard Green, Frank Zombo, Eric Walden, John Kuhn, etc. have been just as key as the ones you mentioned that Wolf signed, maybe even more so when you think about what Williams and Shields meant to the defense.

In my book, a free agent is a free agent whether he is a well-known veteran, a lesser known veteran or an unknown inexperienced player. He is an available unsigned player that any team can sign, and TT has picked some good ones who played key roles on a Super Bowl Champion.

Yes, TT has used free agency but his FAs for the most part are unproven guys like Tramon, Kuhn, Shields and Zombo as compared to White, Sean Jones, Keith Jackson and Eugene Robinson.

[Fritz]

I could see Favre doing pre-game banter kind of shit. Maybe send Bradshaw some dick pics during the broadcast.

[Scott Campbell]

I could see Favre doing pre-game banter kind of shit. Maybe send Bradshaw some dick pics during the broadcast.


On Cinemax maybe.

[mission]

Tiebreaker goes to TT since Wolf hired Sherman ?

[RashanGary]

I'm going TT.

Wolf sold out, won one, came close in another and then was never truly top notch before or since.


I think this TT assembled team is going to be at the top a lot longer and has a great chance to win another title in the next couple years. They're great now, and unlike the Wolf teams, they're only getting better.

[Smeefers]

I'm going TT.

Wolf sold out, won one, came close in another and then was never truly top notch before or since.


I think this TT assembled team is going to be at the top a lot longer and has a great chance to win another title in the next couple years. They're great now, and unlike the Wolf teams, they're only getting better.

Not to mention TT helped bring the Seahawks to the big game as well. He left and they crumbled. That's two successful franchises.

[Iron Mike]

Holmgren's coaching tree is amazing.

http://fansided.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1992-coaches.jpg

[HarveyWallbangers]

While it may never be in Holmgren's class, I see McCarthy having some of the same success with his assistants. I think there are several coaches on the team that will eventually be coordinators or head coaches elsewhere.

[Deputy Nutz]

Flynn isn't so bad. It's too early to compare him apples to apples with Hasselbeck, though I think his ceiling could be every bit as high. I can state with absolute certainty however that we do not have a Craig Nall backing up AR. He's somewhere inbetween the two right now.

Having said that, and answering to Woody's post, if we were to lose AR to injury I absolutely would think that would have a great deal of bearing on the job TT has done as our GM. And I think it would be extremely favorable for him. While a GM cannot control injuries, he will be held accountable for plan B. And while plan B is never preferred, our plan B is one of the best in the league. So I think Thompson would be given high marks from his peers and most fans should the unthinkable happen and we're forced to go to plan B.

Well Wolf, Sherman, and Thompson have been lucky in regard to injury to their starting QB. Over the past 19 years the Packers have started exactly 4 QBs. Majik, Favre, Rodgers, Flynn. You can't really compare that to any other franchise in terms of minimal QBs for maximum amount of Starts. Maybe Indy while Manning has been at the helm. When you have reliable starts from your QB it makes it easier to win ball games week in and week out. The GM has nothing to do with that, it is luck.

[Smeefers]

While it may never be in Holmgren's class, I see McCarthy having some of the same success with his assistants. I think there are several coaches on the team that will eventually be coordinators or head coaches elsewhere.

With that, time will tell. I would say Winston Moss is a product of MM. I wouldn't say Whitt, Greene or Perry are though. Those two are linked directly to Capers.

[Deputy Nutz]

I'm going TT.

Wolf sold out, won one, came close in another and then was never truly top notch before or since.


I think this TT assembled team is going to be at the top a lot longer and has a great chance to win another title in the next couple years. They're great now, and unlike the Wolf teams, they're only getting better.

Wolf took over as GM when the two greatest Dynasties in the NFL were in the game. The Dallas Cowboys, and the San Francisco 49ers who won 5 Championships combine in the 90s. Wolf missed the playoffs twice and failed only once to win a playoff game in a season as GM. Three NFC Championship games, two NFC titles, two Super Bowl appearances and one win. Building a franchise from the ashes is hardly calling a GM a sell out.

He didn't have the time or learning curve that Thompson has had. Harlan brought Wolf in to win and win now. The Packer franchise was on thin ice, losing interest in the current generation, sure the Packers still had the attention of our grandfathers and fathers who remembered the Lombardi years, but I was more interested in watching the game of the week verse tuning into the Packers. The Packers were losing their fan base and income to compete, similar to what is taking place currently in Buffalo. The early 90s was a completely different playing field with the onset of free agency then it is today, next to Jerry Jones Wolf did the next best job of building a franchise using the capabilities of free agency.

[Patler]

With that, time will tell. I would say Winston Moss is a product of MM. I wouldn't say Whitt, Greene or Perry are though. Those two are linked directly to Capers.

What does Capers have to do with Joe Whitt? MM hired Whitt the year before he hired Capers. Before that Whitt was in Atlanta, and before that he was in college. I don't think Whitt had any exposure to Capers until Capers came to the Packers. MM had the foresight to keep Whitt when he otherwise purged the defensive staff, long before he decided on Capers as his new DC.

[Smeefers]

I suppose I could be wrong about whitt. I thought I heard somewhere that he played in the 3-4 and him and capers were pretty tight. Fine. Now I actually have to do some stupid research...

Okay, I was wrong. He didn't play in a 3-4 and MM did pull Whitt in as a quality control coach. I would like to say in my defense that it was only after Capers came to town that he moved over to CB coach. He's actually had quite an impressive career. It's worth a read checking out what he's done over at packers.com.

[Patler]

Smeefers:

FYI, Darren Perry is the guy who played in the 3-4 and had a background coaching it as well. He played two years under Capers in Pittsburgh, but is more tied to Dick LeBeau than he is Capers. Lebeau was his position coach for his first 3 seasons and the DC for his next two. He got his first coaching job from LeBeau when LeBeau was a HC of the Bengals, and later coached under LeBeau in Pittsburgh.

[Brandon494]

Smeefers:

FYI, Darren Perry is the guy who played in the 3-4 and had a background coaching it as well. He played two years under Capers in Pittsburgh, but is more tied to Dick LeBeau than he is Capers. Lebeau was his position coach for his first 3 seasons and the DC for his next two. He got his first coaching job from LeBeau when LeBeau was a HC of the Bengals, and later coached under LeBeau in Pittsburgh.

I believe Darren Perry will make a great DC and would be my first choice if Capers left and we were to promote someone on the current staff.

[Patler]

I believe Darren Perry will make a great DC and would be my first choice if Capers left and we were to promote someone on the current staff.

He does seem to be headed that way.

[Smidgeon]

I believe Darren Perry will make a great DC and would be my first choice if Capers left and we were to promote someone on the current staff.

Agreed. I like the pedigree of Trgovac, but Perry would be my first choice too.

[KYPack]

Agreed. I like the pedigree of Trgovac, but Perry would be my first choice too.

It'd be Turgo's second DC gig. Any team that isn't looking at Darren Perry just ain't paying attention.

[bobblehead]

Well Wolf, Sherman, and Thompson have been lucky in regard to injury to their starting QB. Over the past 19 years the Packers have started exactly 4 QBs. Majik, Favre, Rodgers, Flynn. You can't really compare that to any other franchise in terms of minimal QBs for maximum amount of Starts. Maybe Indy while Manning has been at the helm. When you have reliable starts from your QB it makes it easier to win ball games week in and week out. The GM has nothing to do with that, it is luck.

I disagree with that last statement a little bit. Both TT and Wolf REALLY realized the importance of a quality LT and OL in general. Both struggled at times, but stuck with it. Also, both GM's hired coaches that believed in getting rid of the ball quickly. That helps QB's stay healthy as well. Some luck you help along. I agree there is a luck factor, but its tempered by decisions.

[Patler]

It'd be Turgo's second DC gig. Any team that isn't looking at Darren Perry just ain't paying attention.

...and he resigned from the one he had. He said it was taking more out of his personal life than he wanted to give because he was obsessed by it even when he was with his family. He might not ever want that again. Then again, maybe he just needed a break for a few years.

[RashanGary]

Wolf took over as GM when the two greatest Dynasties in the NFL were in the game. The Dallas Cowboys, and the San Francisco 49ers who won 5 Championships combine in the 90s. Wolf missed the playoffs twice and failed only once to win a playoff game in a season as GM. Three NFC Championship games, two NFC titles, two Super Bowl appearances and one win. Building a franchise from the ashes is hardly calling a GM a sell out.


Right now, Wolf has done more. But. . . . He came into a situation where a team had a TON of cap space. He went out, spent money like a wild man, got the right QB and right coach. . . . He was a great Packer GM.

Ted so far as two NFCC games, one SB win and three playoff appearances in 6 years. But. . . . The thing that might be most overlooked is how aged and cap stricken the Packers were when Thompson took over. Had he taken over the team Wolf did, he wouldn't have had to go backwards to square one. He would have already been there and been able to start building right away.

I see the argument for Wolf over Thompson right now. My gut tells me this Packer team has a lot of great success ahead of them. If I had to lay a bet, I'd lay it on Thompson being the more accomplished GM 5 years from now. No proof, just a feel for how things are going.

[Deputy Nutz]

Find me one offensive player Wolf landed that was a big name free agent? Honestly I consider three big free agent signings, White, Santana Dotson, and Sean Jones, these were players still in their prime, not over the hill like Seth Joyner, or Bruce Wilkerson.

I think some of his free agents signings have been blown out of proportion in comparison to all the talent that Wolf brought in through the draft and trades. Free agency isn't as valuable a tool in todays game as it was when it was first introduced in the early 90s.

I have yet to determine if Thompson is a better GM than Wolf. The future isn't written at this point for Thompson and Wolf's career as a Gm is over.

[Deputy Nutz]

I disagree with that last statement a little bit. Both TT and Wolf REALLY realized the importance of a quality LT and OL in general. Both struggled at times, but stuck with it. Also, both GM's hired coaches that believed in getting rid of the ball quickly. That helps QB's stay healthy as well. Some luck you help along. I agree there is a luck factor, but its tempered by decisions.

one season ago Rodgers was the most sacked QB in the NFL. Favre's best offensive line came under Sherman, the best offensive line the Packers had was under Sherman. Favre had to run for his life in the early stages of his career, Rodgers became a good scrambler because he was inexperienced like Favre, but also because he was getting hammered. Favre is the iron man of the NFL, and Rodgers is no slouch considering the punishment he took in his first two years as a starter.

A lot of what you mentioned is true, but isn't it true for most coaching staffs and GMs?

[RashanGary]

The points for Wolf make sense. He did a great job.


Will the Packers win another SB under Thompson? I guess the odds are no. Winning a SB each year is a 1 in 32 proposition. I have a hunch though, I think the Packers are for real and will be for some time. I like our chances.

[MJZiggy]

The points for Wolf make sense. He did a great job.


Will the Packers win another SB under Thompson? I guess the odds are no. Winning a SB each year is a 1 in 32 proposition. I have a hunch though, I think the Packers are for real and will be for some time. I like our chances.
Winning the SuperBowl is not a 1 in 32 proposition. To suggest so, would indicate that the Bills, Panthers and Raiders have an equal shot to the Packers. In theory they do, but reality, you have to take talent, coaching ability, depth, chemistry and a host of other factors into consideration that do not deal all the teams the same hand. Not every team has a Clay Matthews. Or a Finley, or a Jennings, and the teams that don't do not have the same shot.

[Gunakor]

Well Wolf, Sherman, and Thompson have been lucky in regard to injury to their starting QB. Over the past 19 years the Packers have started exactly 4 QBs. Majik, Favre, Rodgers, Flynn. You can't really compare that to any other franchise in terms of minimal QBs for maximum amount of Starts. Maybe Indy while Manning has been at the helm. When you have reliable starts from your QB it makes it easier to win ball games week in and week out. The GM has nothing to do with that, it is luck.

You need to have a plan B whether you're forced to go to it or not. GM's are responsible for their teams regardless of who gets injured and when. So it's important to have quality backups at key positions regardless of whether or not they'll ever play a down in your uniform. Wolf got it right at QB even though he didn't need one. Thompson got it right at QB and most other positions, and a good thing too because he absolutely did need them. 16 at season's end, plus 2 in the second half of the Super Bowl. That's a hell of a plan B. That's not luck. That's genius.

[Gunakor]

It'd be Turgo's second DC gig. Any team that isn't looking at Darren Perry just ain't paying attention.


Carolina's defense while Trgo was there was pretty damn good. Trgo left on his own accord. It's been downhill in Carolina ever since.

I think the first offer would be made to Trgo, which he may or may not accept. He had his reasons for resigning and could very well decline an offer from Green Bay. I'd still make him the top offer. Nothing against Perry, I'd be very happy with him as well. But Trgovac is already proven. If he'd be willing to take over when Capers leaves, the job should be his.

[Patler]

I think Capers could be in GB for a long time, perhaps another 8-10 years. He's only 61. Dick LeBeau is going strong as a DC at 74. There are only two things that would take him from GB, another HC job or if he just doesn't like GB. I think the first is unlikely, given that he will be 62 next year. Head Coaching has become a younger man's job. I don't know about the second, but he seems to have a pretty good thing going in GB.

If Capers stays that long, Perry and Whitt likely will be long gone before GB has an opening, either for jobs as DCs or other jobs that seem to move them up the coaching ladder. Either way, they could be ideally prepared to step in for him, maybe even better than if they stayed in GB the entire time. Of course, either or both could be in or on their way to HC jobs as well. If Trgovac is interested in being a DC again, or maybe even a HC, it will likely happen before then, too. Trgovac has made some "for now" type comments about his job that make me think he could be looking for something else in a year or two. Doesn't mean that he, too, couldn't be a candidate to come back.

But, if Capers does stay for 8-10 years, chances are he will be replaced by someone we aren't even thinking of right now, perhaps hired by a HC the Packers don't have right now.

[Smeefers]

Find me one offensive player Wolf landed that was a big name free agent? Honestly I consider three big free agent signings, White, Santana Dotson, and Sean Jones, these were players still in their prime, not over the hill like Seth Joyner, or Bruce Wilkerson.

I think some of his free agents signings have been blown out of proportion in comparison to all the talent that Wolf brought in through the draft and trades. Free agency isn't as valuable a tool in todays game as it was when it was first introduced in the early 90s.

I have yet to determine if Thompson is a better GM than Wolf. The future isn't written at this point for Thompson and Wolf's career as a Gm is over.

Andre Rison, Keith Jackson, Don Beebe (I know, I'm stretching it, but he was a big name...). Just sayin.

[bobblehead]

Find me one offensive player Wolf landed that was a big name free agent? Honestly I consider three big free agent signings, White, Santana Dotson, and Sean Jones, these were players still in their prime, not over the hill like Seth Joyner, or Bruce Wilkerson.

I think some of his free agents signings have been blown out of proportion in comparison to all the talent that Wolf brought in through the draft and trades. Free agency isn't as valuable a tool in todays game as it was when it was first introduced in the early 90s.

I have yet to determine if Thompson is a better GM than Wolf. The future isn't written at this point for Thompson and Wolf's career as a Gm is over.

Keith Jackson, Andre Rison, Don Beebe off the top of my head.

[bobblehead]

one season ago Rodgers was the most sacked QB in the NFL. Favre's best offensive line came under Sherman, the best offensive line the Packers had was under Sherman. Favre had to run for his life in the early stages of his career, Rodgers became a good scrambler because he was inexperienced like Favre, but also because he was getting hammered. Favre is the iron man of the NFL, and Rodgers is no slouch considering the punishment he took in his first two years as a starter.

A lot of what you mentioned is true, but isn't it true for most coaching staffs and GMs?

Rodgers was holding the ball way too long early on as a starter....almost all new starters in the NFL do that. I predicted it when he took the reigns. Wolf drafted LT's in consecutive drafts in an attempt to protect Favre, and if I recall he also drafted a guard in the first. He also drafted Wahle in a supplemental draft and Clifton in the second. Revamping an OL is difficult because most of these guys have to let their bodies mature before they are NFL ready.

I think we are in agreement though. Luck played a factor, but its not like TT or Wolf left it all to chance. Both have been proactive in trying to assemble a good OL.

[bobblehead]

Andre Rison, Keith Jackson, Don Beebe (I know, I'm stretching it, but he was a big name...). Just sayin.

Damn, I really have to read to the bottom before responding.

[Deputy Nutz]

Keith Jackson, Andre Rison, Don Beebe off the top of my head.

Rison was picked up off waivers, Don Beebe was a free agent pick but so was Mike Prior, and Keith Jackson was trade to the Packers by the Miami Dolphins for a 2nd round draft pick. Don Beebe started several games, but he was never supposed to be more than a 4th wide out for the Packers.

[RashanGary]

Rison was picked up off waivers, Don Beebe was a free agent pick but so was Mike Prior, and Keith Jackson was trade to the Packers by the Miami Dolphins for a 2nd round draft pick. Don Beebe started several games, but he was never supposed to be more than a 4th wide out for the Packers.

I think the biggest contrast between Wolf and Thompson is Wolf sold out to, "win now" with several veteran players via trade, free agency, waivers and otherwise. The cap was already becoming a problem in 1997 when Wolf was being forced to make (this guy or that guy) choices. Thompson has taken more of a build from within approach.

That's the big reason I think Thompson will have more success when it's all said and done. Everything he's done, the key players are all younger. The cap (assuming it comes back and i looks like it is) is in excellent shape. We have several young players looking to make the next step as well as stars who will be here for a long time and very few aging players. And the aging players we do have, we have good young replacements in line.

These Packers, unlike the 96 Packers have more long term pieces in place and a better cap situation. My gut tells me these Packers are going to win a championship or two, more.

[RashanGary]

Reggie White
Charles Woodson

Sean Jones
Chad Clifton

Keith Jackson
Donald Driver


Reggie White was replaced with nobody
Charles Woodson, could he be replaced with Shields going forward? YTBD

Sean Jones was replaced with nobody
Could Clifton be replaced with bulaga or Sherrod?

Kieth Jackson was replaced with nobody
Could Driver be replaced with Nelson/Cobb?


There were some key players being lost shortly after we won the superbowl in 1996. Losing players happens. It happened then and it's happening now. I think the big difference is that Thompson has good replacements in line and superstars developing at other positions to pick up the slack (see Raji, Matthews and Finley.)

Another interesting note, the best young backup we had in 1996 was Doug Peterson. That team had very few injuries. They were very lucky because at most positions they had garbage backups. This team had a ton of injuries and several very good backups.

[Deputy Nutz]

Well the Packers lost Brooks for the season in game 4, and lost Freeman for a month with a broken forearm. Ken Ruettgers was supposed to be the starting LT but never made it off of IR and had to retire.

you have to look at the fact that under Wolf the Packers went to three straight NFC championship games. The window was open for championships for three straight years. I would hardly call it selling out for a chance to when three Super Bowls.

Wolf's job became difficult when he lost the best coach in the game in a very turbulant departure from green bay. Thats half the battle lost right there. imagine the rebuilding that Thompson would have to do if McCarthy left Green Bay?

[Deputy Nutz]

Wolf admits that he didn't do enough and his biggest mistake after the Super Bowl run was not building up the talent, especially around the prime years of Brett Favre. Something that Thompson was smart enough to learn from. Thompson and McCarthy are building a juggernut of an offense around Rodgers, using high picks on offensive linemen, wide outs, running backs, and tight ends.

[vince]

Both guys had pretty big rebuilding projects to do. Thompson probably had a tad more work to do to get the roster in Super Bowl shape given the utter lack of young talent he had to work with.

Wolf had an easier time getting top-tier free agents on board, particularly after signing Reggie, for which he deserves a ton of credit. Reggie was God in Green Bay. And the Favre trade is one of the biggest steals of all time. 16 straight years of toughness at QB slinging it all over the place with success is nothing to sneeze about. Even taking into account his glorious year of futility as a Viking last year, Favre goes down as one of the greatest QB’s of all time who broke just about every record in the book as a Packer.

Thompson has done a better job of building a younger team that looks very good for the long haul. Ironically, one of his best moves is getting rid of the same guy that is one of Wolf’s best acquisitions. Sticking to his guns through that fiasco took serious cojones.

You have to give Thompson credit for signing Woodson too, but you also have to say based on what Charles has said about his free agent experience that if every other GM in the league wouldn’t have shit the can on Woodson and shown even some interest, he likely wouldn’t be a Packer. It doesn’t quite measure up to White, and there isn’t another free agent move or trade that rivals the Favre trade. But Thompson has more than made up for those shortcomings with his drafting and UDFA signings.

His drafting of Rodgers, Matthews in a trade-up stealing him from under Hoodie’s nose, Raji, Collins, Jennings, Finley, Sitton, Bishop, and others; combined with his UDFA gems especially Tramon Williams put his overall strength of personnel at the same level as Wolf's. Both are/were elite overall.

I think Thompson has the lead in coaching staff strength at this point in their tenures. A couple years ago Wolf would have had a substantial lead in this area though. Wolf’s hire left at this point in his tenure, and took a significant portion of the coaching and scouting staff with him. Then his last two hires’ contributions proved to be bad on balance for the franchise.

Wolf won a championship in 5 years. Thompson in 6. Both guys got it done once and got very close another time. Wolf’s team was dominant in every way. Thompson’s team barely got it done, but they did it in unbelievable fashion by overcoming one obstacle after another. Equally sweet either way I’d say.

I think Thompson is at the very least tied with Wolf as it stands and it looks like Thompson is well positioned moving into his 7th year while Wolf stumbled big time in his 7th year and he never really recovered from there save a few playoff appearances in which the team stumbled badly when it counted most.

[vince]

.

[Patler]

You have to give Thompson credit for signing Woodson too, but you also have to say based on what Charles has said about his free agent experience that if every other GM in the league wouldn’t have shit the can on Woodson and shown even some interest, he likely wouldn’t be a Packer. It doesn’t quite measure up to White, and there isn’t another free agent move or trade that rivals the Favre trade. But Thompson has more than made up for those shortcomings with his drafting and UDFA signings.

Or, instead of blaming the other GMs, you could give credit to Thompson for seeing in Woodson what no other GM did, including the one he was playing for. But, even if they had, no guarantee Woodson wouldn't have ended up in GB anyway. White had no intention of coming to GB either, and wasn't even going to visit, but did so out of courtesy. God and the largest contract offer might have gotten Woodson, just as it did White.

I really don't see much difference between Wolf trading a 1st round draft pick for Favre and TT using his for Rodgers. Wolf only used one pick for a QB he believed in, just as TT did.

[vince]

Agreed. Thompson has matched a few free agent offers in signing his own guys, but pretty much the only time he's signed a guy with the "highest" bid is when there haven't been any other bids. In that regard, his management of the cap has been far more shrewd than Wolf's, although he has the benefit of time and experience.

[Joemailman]

Thompson deserves credit for recognizing that Woodson could still play CB at a high level. Woodson was coming off a stretch of 4 years in which he had missed 24 starts. There were reports that teams thought Woodson needed to be moved to safety to finish out his career. With Al Harris on one side, Thompson recognized what an impact Woodson could make by solidifying the other side.

[vince]

I really don't see much difference between Wolf trading a 1st round draft pick for Favre and TT using his for Rodgers. Wolf only used one pick for a QB he believed in, just as TT did.
Rodgers is perhaps equal to Favre at this point in their careers which is saying a lot. Rodgers has probably played the most efficient quarterback ever thus far while Favre had won 3 MVP's by this point in their respective careers - a feat that had never been accomplished before.

Rodgers will have to continue to play at the highest level for quite a few more years to become a cinch first-ballot Hall of Famer as Favre did as a Packer.

[Patler]

Rodgers is perhaps equal to Favre at this point in their careers which is saying a lot. Rodgers has probably played the most efficient quarterback ever thus far while Favre had won 3 MVP's by this point in their respective careers - a feat that had never been accomplished before.

Rodgers will have to continue to play at the highest level for quite a few more years to become a cinch first-ballot Hall of Famer as Favre did as a Packer.

I was referring to the investment each made in a franchise QB. Each invested their 1st round pick in the guy they thought could do it. The GM's job is done at that point. It is then up to the player and coaches. In that way, Wolf and TT did the same things. They identified the player to build around, and used a 1st round pick to get him.

[RashanGary]

Wolf admits that he didn't do enough and his biggest mistake after the Super Bowl run was not building up the talent, especially around the prime years of Brett Favre. Something that Thompson was smart enough to learn from. Thompson and McCarthy are building a juggernut of an offense around Rodgers, using high picks on offensive linemen, wide outs, running backs, and tight ends.


His defense is better than his offense too. Matthews, Raji, Woodson, Williams, Collins. . . There aren't many teams in the league with that type of talent on defense.

Thompson has a great young team all the way around. Not just offense. He has talent everywhere, and it's mostly young. He has cap space to keep it together and he has arguably one of the deepest rosters in the history of the league. The number of injuries we had and still won the SB was special, maybe unprecedented.

Rodgers is that steady, champion type QB. Aikman, Montana, Brady, Starr. . . . All steady guys. Rodgers has the temperament of a champion, the work ethic and the tools.

McCarthy and Capers are a great tandem of coaches. . . .

The whole package is elite right now and it seems like it will be that way for some time. That's why I think people are higher on Thompson than Wolf at times. It looks like we can win a couple championships here. Well, if coaching, talent, QB, young playmakers and cap space mean anything to winning, that is.

[RashanGary]

And here is one last reason to kiss Thompson's ring. . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK0VmrZIGSI This guy is a superstar. Big, vision, breaks tackles, acceleration, durability, great hands, worked his way from the bottom up to get here. RB's have short shelf lives, but right now, we're in our window. It's the perfect time to add a star back. His prime (age 22 to 28) coincides with our window (next 5 years)

[Joemailman]

The Packers appear poised to have a great shot at a couple more titles, given the youth of their core players. It's a very tough thing to win the Super Bowl though. The Packers of 1996 also had a young group of talented players, yet never won another one:

Brett Favre 27
Edgar Bennett 27
William Henderson 25
Robert Brooks 26
Antonio Freeman 24
Mark Chmura 27
Aaron Taylor 25
Adam Timmerman 25
Gilbert Brown 25
Craig Newsome 25
Doug Evans 26
Santana Dotson 27
Gabe Wilkins 25
Wayne Simmons 27

Perhaps the think that gives this team a better shot at multiple titles is the likelihood that they won't lose their HC 2 years after winning the Super Bowl.

[Gunakor]

That's an impressive list, but still doesn't compare to the list of young talents TT has assembled on this roster. Josh Sitton, for example, is far more talented IMO than Adam Timmerman was at that age. Jennings and Nelson would beat the pants right off of Brooks and Freeman. Craig Newsome couldn't shake a stick at Tramon Williams. Wayne Simmons isn't nearly in Clay Matthews' league.

I think the reason these Packers have a better shot at multiple titles than those Packers had is the fact that the young core of our roster is miles ahead of where our young core was back then. Miles and miles. Not in the same ballpark, hell, not even in the same time zone. Wolf's strength was, as has been mentioned, picking up proven veterans either via trade or free agency. Building a roster comprised mostly of proven players vs. drafting and developing homegrown superstars. Thompson doesn't ever stop drafting and developing superstars. Ever. Win the Super Bowl, then get a new LT, new WR, new RB... each of whom will be starting on a championship football team within the next 3 years, each of whom have Pro Bowl potential. There's a real benefit to doing it Thompson's way. More difficult, bigger gamble... but when it works, dynasties are born and sustained.

I don't hope for multiple titles from this group. I expect it. I'd be highly disappointed if it didn't happen. This roster has dynasty written all over it. Anything less from this group is a major disappointment IMO. After all, the first of many was won with a number of players from our Junior Varsity squad. The window is wide open - that is to say, they broke the damn window. There's no window there to be closed on us anymore. Just a mammoth hole to funnel Lombardi Trophies through for years to come.

16 players on IR wasn't enough to stop this train. Imagine how good we'll be when we don't have 16 players on IR.

[Iron Mike]

Sean Jones was replaced with nobody


Sean Jones was replaced by Gabe Wilkins. Remember? The guy with a bigger mangina than Jay Cutler??

[Smeefers]

I have such a difficult time with this post. For me, it's not an either or for these two guys. Both of them are awesome. And hell, everyone's been talking about who replaced who and continuation, but you guys forget... Wolf left us TT. Sure, it was a round about way of getting here, but he did and TT always points to Wolf, giving him credit for what we're doing even now. More than once I've heard him say "we're all disciples of Ron Wolf, we're just doing what he taught us to do." It's the same thing when you start mentioning the best QB's of all time. No one can come down to a #1. The reason is, when you get to that level, one is just as good as the other. If you had to choose between Marino, montana, Starr or Manning, who would you pick to win your game? Who cares, it's a personal choice. Same thing between TT and RW.

[Deputy Nutz]

That's an impressive list, but still doesn't compare to the list of young talents TT has assembled on this roster. Josh Sitton, for example, is far more talented IMO than Adam Timmerman was at that age. Jennings and Nelson would beat the pants right off of Brooks and Freeman. Craig Newsome couldn't shake a stick at Tramon Williams. Wayne Simmons isn't nearly in Clay Matthews' league.

I think the reason these Packers have a better shot at multiple titles than those Packers had is the fact that the young core of our roster is miles ahead of where our young core was back then. Miles and miles. Not in the same ballpark, hell, not even in the same time zone. Wolf's strength was, as has been mentioned, picking up proven veterans either via trade or free agency. Building a roster comprised mostly of proven players vs. drafting and developing homegrown superstars. Thompson doesn't ever stop drafting and developing superstars. Ever. Win the Super Bowl, then get a new LT, new WR, new RB... each of whom will be starting on a championship football team within the next 3 years, each of whom have Pro Bowl potential. There's a real benefit to doing it Thompson's way. More difficult, bigger gamble... but when it works, dynasties are born and sustained.

I don't hope for multiple titles from this group. I expect it. I'd be highly disappointed if it didn't happen. This roster has dynasty written all over it. Anything less from this group is a major disappointment IMO. After all, the first of many was won with a number of players from our Junior Varsity squad. The window is wide open - that is to say, they broke the damn window. There's no window there to be closed on us anymore. Just a mammoth hole to funnel Lombardi Trophies through for years to come.

16 players on IR wasn't enough to stop this train. Imagine how good we'll be when we don't have 16 players on IR.

The 1996 and 1997 Freeman was a top 5 receiver in the league, and Brooks caught 92 balls in 1995 before being injured, and then coming back in 1997 to have a 1000 yard receiving season. Jennings is a terrific WR, reminds me a lot of Robert Brooks probably better than Brooks if he can stay away from a season ending knee injury(explosion). Nelson is not a Freeman or a Brooks in their prime.

Timmerman and Taylor were very good offensive guards. Timmerman was a very solid football player considering he was a 6th round pick, and turned into a big time free agent signing of the Rams.

Expecting another Super Bowl Championship is a bit foolish considering the talent in the NFL. Jets, Pats, Colts might have something to say about expecting another title. I like McCarthy's take on it "entitlement is our enemy."

Expecting or feeling entitled to another Championship in the near future is foolish.

[bobblehead]

Rison was picked up off waivers, Don Beebe was a free agent pick but so was Mike Prior, and Keith Jackson was trade to the Packers by the Miami Dolphins for a 2nd round draft pick. Don Beebe started several games, but he was never supposed to be more than a 4th wide out for the Packers.

Your memory is better than mine grasshopper. I forgot we dished a 2nd for Jackson. I still consider Rison on this list though, waiver/FA....about the same. Beebe wasn't supposed to be much, but he was huge in a few playoff games. Think if TT had pulled the trigger and traded a 2nd for Tony Gonzalez....the parallels would be freaky.

[bobblehead]

I think the biggest contrast between Wolf and Thompson is Wolf sold out to, "win now" with several veteran players via trade, free agency, waivers and otherwise. The cap was already becoming a problem in 1997 when Wolf was being forced to make (this guy or that guy) choices. Thompson has taken more of a build from within approach.

That's the big reason I think Thompson will have more success when it's all said and done. Everything he's done, the key players are all younger. The cap (assuming it comes back and i looks like it is) is in excellent shape. We have several young players looking to make the next step as well as stars who will be here for a long time and very few aging players. And the aging players we do have, we have good young replacements in line.

These Packers, unlike the 96 Packers have more long term pieces in place and a better cap situation. My gut tells me these Packers are going to win a championship or two, more.

I agree with you largely, but TT may have to make a few "this or that guy" choices soon enough. He has simply drafted too well.

[bobblehead]

The 1996 and 1997 Freeman was a top 5 receiver in the league, and Brooks caught 92 balls in 1995 before being injured, and then coming back in 1997 to have a 1000 yard receiving season. Jennings is a terrific WR, reminds me a lot of Robert Brooks probably better than Brooks if he can stay away from a season ending knee injury(explosion). Nelson is not a Freeman or a Brooks in their prime.

Timmerman and Taylor were very good offensive guards. Timmerman was a very solid football player considering he was a 6th round pick, and turned into a big time free agent signing of the Rams.

Expecting another Super Bowl Championship is a bit foolish considering the talent in the NFL. Jets, Pats, Colts might have something to say about expecting another title. I like McCarthy's take on it "entitlement is our enemy."

Expecting or feeling entitled to another Championship in the near future is foolish.

Your points are valid, but one thing about Freeman was that I could see the "andre rison effect" loud and clear. He became a punk and started self promoting and acting like a prick. I won a $20 bet with a friend when I bet that he wouldn't be a packer within 3 years. Brooks was great, one of my all time favorites, but the knee did him in. Same with Brian Williams as I recall.

I have to say that this thread has changed my mind a bit. Wolf was right there with TT at the time. Career changing injuries and Holmgrens ego may have done him in. Its unfair to put TT ahead of him just yet, but my feeling is that his and MM's ego are such that winning is paramount. I also won't back down on saying wolf "sold out' a bit more than TT did. He depleted the GB slush fund of cash on hand to bring in Reggie and others. He traded higher picks than TT would dream of trading. He never had to overcome 16 injuries to win a superbowl. All that said though, some real bad luck could still deal TT the same fate that Wolf suffered.

[RashanGary]

Wolf had like three injuries in the 1996 season and still won the SB. It's nothing like the Thompson Packers who have depth at almost every position. Go down the Packers 1996 roster. Outside of the couple backup WR's that covered for Brooks and Freeman, they didn't have one good young backup getting ready to replace the older guys. Doug Peterson is the only memorable name.

Like this years Brewers, they had starting talent, but no depth, nothing that makes you think it's long lasting.

These Packers have at least 15 players in backup positions that will have long, quality NFL careers, many with the Packers in the coming years.


There are points to Wolfs' accomplishments and maybe he'll go down as the better GM. I have my money on Ted though. I read the evidence that way and we'll find out in a couple years how it works out. My feeling is these Packers are deeper and longer lasting that Wolf's, but only time will tell. Until then, Nutz or anyone else's arguments stand just as mine stands.

We're at an agree to disagree standstill. Nobody is changing their mind. Only time can do that. SB victories change that.

[MadScientist]

Wolf had an easier time getting top-tier free agents on board, particularly after signing Reggie, for which he deserves a ton of credit. Reggie was God in Green Bay.

I can't let that one go. Do you even remember the Packers pre-Wolf? Green Bay was a place you were sent to for punishment (see Jefferson, John). Nobody wanted to come here. Wolf changed that with some serious butt kissing and enough money to convince god to tell Reggie to come to GB. Even after that, it still wasn't easy to change attitudes. The trade for Kieth Jackson showed that. Jackson said he was going to retire instead of coming to Green Bay. It was only a lot of lobbying and a good record that convinced him to show up.

More than anything that can be quantified, Wolf changed the attitudes towards Green Bay, and the culture of the Packers. That pushes him from great GM to beatification. To reach the same level of reverence, TT will have to put together multiple championship teams. I think he can, and hope he does.

[Patler]

More than anything that can be quantified, Wolf changed the attitudes towards Green Bay,.......

Somewhat, but it is fleeting and not as encompassing as some suggest. Woodson didn't want to come to GB. Vernon Davis didn't want GB to draft him. GB often fails to make the "I will go to lists" that FAs give their agents, and still makes the "I prefer not list". Wolf got it past being the location of last resort for everyone, but so long as the Packers play outside, and for so long as GB remains a small rural area, a lot of players simply will not want to play there.

White gave it credibility, but the facilities upgrades have the longest lasting effect.

[vince]

I can't let that one go. Do you even remember the Packers pre-Wolf? Green Bay was a place you were sent to for punishment (see Jefferson, John). Nobody wanted to come here. Wolf changed that with some serious butt kissing and enough money to convince god to tell Reggie to come to GB. Even after that, it still wasn't easy to change attitudes. The trade for Kieth Jackson showed that. Jackson said he was going to retire instead of coming to Green Bay. It was only a lot of lobbying and a good record that convinced him to show up.

More than anything that can be quantified, Wolf changed the attitudes towards Green Bay, and the culture of the Packers. That pushes him from great GM to beatification. To reach the same level of reverence, TT will have to put together multiple championship teams. I think he can, and hope he does.
I agree with what you're saying. You can read about player resistance to Green Bay going all the way back to the Lombardi era and before. I was referring to the fact that top-tier free agents were more common in general at that time than they are in today's era, and the fact that Wolf bought those free agents more than Thompson has done. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with that. It obviously worked very well for Wolf at that point in time in Green Bay.

[Deputy Nutz]

Wolf had like three injuries in the 1996 season and still won the SB. It's nothing like the Thompson Packers who have depth at almost every position. Go down the Packers 1996 roster. Outside of the couple backup WR's that covered for Brooks and Freeman, they didn't have one good young backup getting ready to replace the older guys. Doug Peterson is the only memorable name.

Like this years Brewers, they had starting talent, but no depth, nothing that makes you think it's long lasting.

These Packers have at least 15 players in backup positions that will have long, quality NFL careers, many with the Packers in the coming years.


There are points to Wolfs' accomplishments and maybe he'll go down as the better GM. I have my money on Ted though. I read the evidence that way and we'll find out in a couple years how it works out. My feeling is these Packers are deeper and longer lasting that Wolf's, but only time will tell. Until then, Nutz or anyone else's arguments stand just as mine stands.

We're at an agree to disagree standstill. Nobody is changing their mind. Only time can do that. SB victories change that.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing on anything yet. The fact is Thompson has one Super Bowl, Wolf has one Super Bowl. The roster as of now has a lot of young players that saw a lot of time last year. Just like in 1997 we thought Holmgren was the toast of the town, he could do no wrong, and the same with Wolf. They finally brought a championship back to Green Bay, but then slowly the wheels fell off with the loss to the Broncos in 1997 and the emergence of a high power offense in Minnesota in 1998, and a last second catch by TO. Holmgren jumps ship, and Ron Wolf fucks up and gives the head job to the "Gum Chewer". His drafts were sub par in the last two or three years, simply because he lost the passion, probably through age.

Thompson built his team differently then Wolf. He has a lot of young players that won a Super Bowl. For a minute don't think that a lot of these young players cant regress a season after a Super Bowl title. We all think Mike McCarthy is a swell fucker, but don't think he wouldn't think about taking another job, one that would give him full reign over the roster and title of Vice Prez. and GM. I guess my point is that we are still just predicting that TT is a better GM than Wolf, and hoping that all this young talent is going to keep winning football games. Bad shit happens to good football teams sometimes and even though the Packers over came 16 injuries that sent players to the IR it would be unlikely that it could happen a second time.

[Brandon494]

TT is the better GM IMO. He made a move that most would not dream of doing if they were the GM of the Packers. He received a shit load of hate for it from half the fans, I don't care who you are that had to get to him. He stuck to his guns and now the Pack are the World Champs! Unlike the Green Bay teams of the late 90 we don't have a gunslinger at QB anymore who blow ass in the playoffs with bone head turnovers. This team he has built is special and as much as I love that 97 team the way this team won with all the injuries is more impressive. Also building thru the draft is more difficult to me then signing FAs, especially in today's NFL.

[Deputy Nutz]

TT is the better GM IMO. He made a move that most would not dream of doing if they were the GM of the Packers. He received a shit load of hate for it from half the fans, I don't care who you are that had to get to him. He stuck to his guns and now the Pack are the World Champs! Unlike the Green Bay teams of the late 90 we don't have a gunslinger at QB anymore who blow ass in the playoffs with bone head turnovers. This team he has built is special and as much as I love that 97 team the way this team won with all the injuries is more impressive. Also building thru the draft is more difficult to me then signing FAs, especially in today's NFL.

You be ignorant. This is a good way to kill a thread. This has been one of the more productive threads on this forum in a long time and you have to go bring up this shit.

[RashanGary]

Another thing to note, did anyone notice the year Ted went to Seattle was the year the Packer drafts fell to shit adn the year he came back was the year it turned back to gold. . . .


Just sayin.

[Deputy Nutz]

Ted can draft. He has to because he refuses to get caught up in free agency. He sticks to his strong points which is important.

[vince]

http://www.tundravision.com/2011/06/my-humble-opinion-ted-thompson-ron-wolf.html

My Humble Opinion: Thompson > Wolf

But I have been a critic of Thompson for quite some time. Some of it stemmed back to my disapproval of how he handled certain situations, such as leaving lame-duck head coach Mike Sherman in the lurch until late August before signing him to an extension. I thought it further eroded his credibility after having just been stripped of his GM duties to begin with, and was further inflamed when he was fired just five months later.

I stated that summer, that following January, and still state now: he should have let him go right away. Clean break, let Sherman get a fresh start somewhere else. Instead, he became the fall guy for a miserable 2005 campaign which we now recognize as a cap-clearing year.

And I criticized him for stating he was "in it to win today" in 2005, when a certain quarterback was essentially running for his life behind "starters" named Klemme and Whitaker, while handing the ball off a guy named "Gado" and throwing to a guy named "Taco".

I also criticized him for Favregate, and while I completely supported his decision to "move on" in March of 2008, I thought he unnecessarily created a schism among the Packer fan base by allowing the story to drag out throughout the summer instead of finding a quick and quiet end to it all. Not to say The Quarterback Formerly Known As #4 was clear of any blame, completely the opposite. But Thompson had the ability to pull the pin, grant a release right away, and let the chips fall where they may.

While many disagreed with me then, and still do today, it's pretty clear that giving Favre his release when he first requested it likely would not have added any Lombardi Trophies to the Vikings' display case, nor removed the one the Packers just won this past season. And the momentum from 2007 might have carried over to 2008 instead of imploding.

And, of course, I criticized Thompson's approach to building a team. I questioned the draft-only mentality, the eschewing of free agents, and the proclivity to sign people off the street...rather than invest a draft pick in trade for known value. And I thought I was right.

And I was wrong.

Oh, I still won't cry defeat on how Ted handled some in-house personnel moves, and I think even he would be gracious enough to admit that he probably wishes he could go back in time and do some things differently. But when it comes to building a team, I have to admit that Thompson broke the mold...specifically, the mold that I had set as the ultimate measuring stick that should obviously equal a Super Bowl victory: the measuring stick of Ron Wolf.

And I'm here to tell you that I believe, despite all of my previous ambivalence towards the job he's done, that Thompson not only lived up to the long shadow cast by Wolf, he may have exceeded it. What irony, when so many of us thought the longest shadow was going to the one left by Brett Favre for Aaron Rodgers. In the end, I was far more accepting of Rodgers not being Brett than I was forgiving of Thompson not being Wolf.

And in the end, Thompson may actually have accomplished more in getting his Super Bowl ring. Oh, time will tell the final tale in a decade or so, but in my opinion, Thompson changed the rules and succeeded in a far more difficult set of circumstances.

Looking back on the great Ron Wolf, there is a reason his name is emblazoned on the stadium wall at Lambeau Field. He was the mastermind who brought together some of the biggest Packer Legends Of All Time via trade and free agency, and built a solid core through the draft. A Lombardi Trophy sealed the culmination of his five-year plan.

But...

...what if Wolf actually underachieved, given the hand he had been dealt. Oh, I know, this is heresy, but I have long been of the opinion that if it weren't for the dastardly Dallas Cowboys choosing that exact moment to have a dynasty in the early 1990's, the Packers might have more than doubled their Lombardi Trophy count.

You see, Wolf was a great GM, but he took over the Packers during the perfect storm. [If I ever write a book about Wolf's dominant GM skills, that would be the title of it: The Packers' Perfect Storm]. Green Bay had, for decades, been the Siberia of the NFL, in a league without free agency, a salary cap, or revenue sharing. The Packers would draft players in the top ten of the first round who would jump to the CFL rather than play with the unlovable losers of Green Bay. The Packers were long chided for sitting on a pot of money, refusing to break the bank to bring in top-notch talent.

The shifts in fortune actually started with the 1987 NFL strike, which ended with a favorable ruling for the owners that would have kept the Packers in their cycle of being the NFL's AA farm club. But, subsequent decertification of the players union and class action lawsuits brought the two parties back to the table in 1989. The two sides agreed to fundamentally change the structure of the league, allowing free agency after a delay of a few years. They also agreed to revenue sharing, a salary cap, and perhaps most importantly for the Packers, a salary floor.

Plan B free agency started right away, but soon evolved after litigation by players and became full unrestricted free agency in 1992. And, as we all know, this was the first year Ron Wolf took the reins for the Green Bay Packers.

The Packers were forced to spend their money now, and with revenue sharing, had the cushion to open the coffers and do it. Wolf was an expert at finagling his draft picks and attracting free agents, but with a clean salary cap (and few big contracts), they were in prime position to make a run for the biggest name in free agency: Reggie White.

Within a few short years, Wolf put together a team that never missed the playoffs after his first season. But, it was the Cowboys who ended the Packers' playoff drives in 1993, 1994, and 1995. The Packers continued to sign veteran free agents to get them over the "Cowboy Hump". In 1996, the Cowboys finally declined, and the team that Ron Wolf built to beat the former dynasty easily ran roughshod through the regular season and through the playoffs.

In a way, that time period from 1992 (the beginning of unrestricted free agency) to around 1997 (when salary cap hell began decimating teams) was the perfect time to be a smart general manager for the Packers. Wolf had the capital, the salary cap room, and was able to sell the storied tradition to potential free agents. The question is, could the Packers have done even more?

When you look at the 1995 team that lost to the Cowboys in the NFC championship game, you see a team that was on the verge, that (without Dallas in the way) would have likely beaten the Steelers in the Super Bowl. Conversely, the Packers could of (and in many of our minds, should have) beaten the Broncos in 1997, too. Both the 1995 Dallas loss and the Denver Super Bowl loss were very winnable games, with a late Favre interception setting up the game-sealing Dallas touchdown. And, some questionable strategy in in the Super Bowl allowing Terrell Davis to score late in the game was a hole the Packers couldn't dig themselves out of.

Who knows what might have been if the Packers had selected Barry Sanders instead of Tony Mandarich. The Packers had at least a three-year window from 1995-1997 and took one Super Bowl trophy out of it.

[vince]

.
Now, on to Thompson. For years, I evaluated Thompson by what he didn't do as Wolf had done. He didn't sign a huge free agent to build the team around. He didn't trade away draft picks for stars of the future. And most of all, he traded down in the draft to bring in quantities of players that were supposed to compete and allow the cream to rise to the top.

All it is going to do, I said, is turn the Packers into a team that would never do particularly poorly, but would never have what it takes to get over the hump and go deep into the playoffs. And had you asked me about six months ago, I would have repeated it again convincingly.

But Thompson matched Wolf in what would have to be considered the most imperfect storm. He took over a bloated roster from Mike Sherman that, while not in salary cap "hell", didn't allow much wiggle room. The league has normalized unrestricted free agency through trial and error, resigning the best of the best to cap-friendly deals, while allowing only flawed players to actually reach the market, making them far greater risks for the money.

But, most of all, the league has far more parity. While you can win a Super Bowl with far less talent than the dynasty-level teams of the past, it's a lot harder to get there (and often requires a bit of good fortune along the way).

Hey, you put the 1996 Packers up against the 2010 Packers, who do you honestly think would win? Reggie, Gilbert, Sean, and Santana going up against our offensive line without a consistent running game? The 90's were the last of the dynasty teams: Dallas, Green Bay, Denver, and New England.

In retrospect, Thompson didn't have nearly the tools Wolf did, yet he won a Super Bowl in his sixth season just the same. Wolf wrote the script. Thompson reviewed it, kept just the parts he wanted, and then rewrote it to make it contemporary with the times.

Wolf took advantage of free agency and cap space. Thompson avoided the risks that modern-day free agency came with and built a team almost purely through the draft. Just when you thought you had him pegged as a conservative glorified scout, he blew your mind by trading the farm to take Clay Matthews in the first round in 2009. No, not every pick or move has worked out, and the number of times he left positional groups woefully understaffed has been the cause of some justified consternation over the years.

But, in the end, and despite overwhelming odds, Ted Thompson matched Ron Wolf's Lombardi Trophy total. No matter how you slice it, you can't emphasize how much more difficult of a job this was in today's times, that in an era designed to prevent dynasties, the Packers now appear to have the makings of one.

The years leading up to Ron Wolf's Super Bowl were a slow build, each year improving on the last until 1996 hit with a fever pitch with expectations so high anything less than a Super Bowl would be a disappointment.

Ted Thompson's prelude to a Trophy was anything but a slow build, with amazing highs and disappointing depths. While the Packers may have come in to this season with predictions of "Super Bowl or Die", they were quickly muted when a slough of injuries decimated the team. Super Bowl teams were supposed to dominate their games against mediocre opponents, not win or lose them by single-digits week after week.

But the team that Thompson built was designed for this era: a flexible, fluid team with interchangeable parts and a coaching staff willing to redraw the schemes week-to-week to accommodate the players filling the roles. In the end, season-ending injuries were compensated for with a long bench of talented young players once overlooked.

If the 1996 Packers had, early on, lost their starting playmaking tight end (Keith Jackson), their starting MLB (George Koonce), their starting strong safety (LeRoy Butler), their starting running back (Edgar Bennett), their veteran starter right tackle (Earl Dotson), and starting weak-side linebacker (Brian Williams), would they have persevered to the end with backups? And having to win all their playoff games on the road?

It's hard to say, because these are two different teams, from two different eras. But in the end, both teams brought impassioned fans a trophy (though it was more of a pleasant surprise this past year). It's a testament to the foresight and planning that Thompson had to break the mold and traditional road map the many Packer fans had in our heads, and created a team that could survive parity with depth.

The Packers are poised with the return of many injured players (and a strong draft) to come back even better than they were last year. But, as we've done with Ron Wolf, we can't evaluate a man's legacy until we can look back on it with an unbiased eye a decade or so later.

But I will put it on paper now: even if Thompson's Packers don't win another Super Bowl, he achieved the same outcome against far greater odds than Wolf had. I may never admit to "liking" Thompson, but I have a ton of respect for what he's done as the GM of the Green Bay Packers.

[bobblehead]

Another thing to note, did anyone notice the year Ted went to Seattle was the year the Packer drafts fell to shit adn the year he came back was the year it turned back to gold. . . .


Just sayin.

I mentioned that years ago. I also mentioned that when Mark Hatley (I think was his name) died that Shermy's drafts started resembling a 10 year old at the helm.

[RashanGary]

Nice explanation of the two GMs, Vince. That's a long read, but a really good summary. The biggest points were this:

1. While Thompson and Wolf both took over less than stellar rosters, the big difference between Wolf's and Thompson's situations was that Wolf took over one of the lowest spending teams and now had a boatload of revenue sharing cash and a ton of salary cap space. Thompson took over a team pressed against the cap with little to no depth.

2. Wolf took advantage of the times in 1992, but Thompson's approach is more effective in 2010. The depth and lasting power seems stronger in Ted's team than was in Ron's

I also liked how he showed that Wolf's teams easily could have won 3 SB's. The way he built the team though, with aging star players, little depth and blowing his cap wad all in a couple years. . . . It wasn't built to last. Three years at the top is nice, winning one in three is great. . . It seems to me though, Thompson has this team poised for more than 3 shots. This team seems poised for half a dozen shots or more.

Another ring, I know how hard they are to get, but it almost seems likely the way this team is set up. I know people say, "it is what it is." but sometimes what it is, is more than surface accomplishments. If that were the case, brilliant prognosticators wouldn't be getting filthy rich predicting what's to come, not what's already been.

[mraynrand]

I mentioned that years ago. I also mentioned that when Mark Hatley (I think was his name) died that Shermy's drafts started resembling a 10 year old at the helm.

Except that Hatley died on July 27, 2004. He was around for every Sherman draft, as he was hired in May, 2001. Some try to credit Shermy with the 2001 draft, but Wolf was still in charge of that one, and Thompson was in charge in 2005. Perhaps Hatley was already dying when he allowed the selections of Ahmad Carroll and Joey Thomas.

[Lurker64]

(I'm assuming King Kong had a big penis. Didn't he?)

Well an adult male gorilla is about 5'5"-5'9" tall and has a penis that is about 1.5"-2" long when erect. The most recent film version of King Kong was given as 25 feet tall. Extrapolating that would say that King Kong's penis would be about 6.5"-9.5" when erect.

So I would say "as big as King Kong's penis" is not the best metaphor in the world.

(I know this is a few pages late, but I actually knew this one!)

[MJZiggy]

Well an adult male gorilla is about 5'5"-5'9" tall and has a penis that is about 1.5"-2" long when erect. The most recent film version of King Kong was given as 25 feet tall. Extrapolating that would say that King Kong's penis would be about 6.5"-9.5" when erect.

So I would say "as big as King Kong's penis" is not the best metaphor in the world.

(I know this is a few pages late, but I actually knew this one!)I'm afraid to ask how...

[Brandon494]

You be ignorant. This is a good way to kill a thread. This has been one of the more productive threads on this forum in a long time and you have to go bring up this shit.

That post had nothing to do with you. You do realize you were not the only one bashing Ted for making that move right? You can call me ignorant all you want but I'm not the one who picked a player over the team then ran back as soon as they started winning games.

[Fritz]

I stand corrected and educated on gorilla penis size.

It was...big of you to correct my assumption, Lurk.

[Gunakor]

Expecting or feeling entitled to another Championship in the near future is foolish.


I don't look at it as an entitlement. I look at it as the reward for having one of the hardest working, most knowledgeable, most talented GM's in the game. 31 other teams are wishing they had a Ted Thompson running their show right now. Most wish they had a Ted Thompson in charge at ANY point in the history of their franchise. That includes the Jets and the Colts.

[Gunakor]

http://mlblogsthehappyyoungster.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/curly20lambeau20statue-thumb-375x5001.jpg?w=375&h=500 http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5133/5466729741_b3d4ebec3c.jpg


These are the 2 best General Managers in the history of our franchise. 10 to 15 years from now there will be a third statue there. It will not be a statue of Ron Wolf.

That's what I think regarding the topic of this thread.

[Joemailman]

I doubt there will be a 3rd statue. Curly and Vince have statues for more than just the jobs they did as GM. One founded the team, and the other was maybe the best coach ever. TT may well end up in the ring of honor, which ain't bad.

[KYPack]

I doubt there will be a 3rd statue. Curly and Vince have statues for more than just the jobs they did as GM. One founded the team, and the other was maybe the best coach ever. TT may well end up in the ring of honor, which ain't bad.

Yep.

To get a statue, you have to be the coach and GM for 5 NFL titles.

TT won't do that, but if he leads this club to 2 more, I'll join the chorus.

[Lurker64]

Yep.

To get a statue, you have to be the coach and GM for 5 NFL titles.

TT won't do that, but if he leads this club to 2 more, I'll join the chorus.

I'm not sure if TT would want a statue, no matter how many titles he wins. Ted's not a glory-seeking kind of guy, if they asked him about putting up a statue of him he'd probably suggest they put up statues of some of the players who actually played in those games, or the coaches or something. I think TT wants to stay as far out of the spotlight as he can manage and still do his job.

[KYPack]

I'm not sure if TT would want a statue, no matter how many titles he wins. Ted's not a glory-seeking kind of guy, if they asked him about putting up a statue of him he'd probably suggest they put up statues of some of the players who actually played in those games, or the coaches or something. I think TT wants to stay as far out of the spotlight as he can manage and still do his job.

Another qualification for getting a statue is that you be dead for 30 years or so. That's probably a pretty good idea. Ask the St Louis Cardinals what they are going to do with the Mark McGwire statue they have in a garage someplace. They sure aren't going to put it up in front of their stadium.

[RashanGary]

Those guys were strong figures. Ted's a bit of a pussy in the traditional sense. Obviously he stands by his guns, but he's a very awkward guy. A statue of Ted would just look retarded. No thanks.

I look at Vince and Curly as inspiring figures, more than just what they accomplished. Ted is not inspiring at all. McCarthy is. I'd rather see a statue of McCarthy with his strong demeanor than Ted with his shit grin. Not because I relate more to MM, but because it's not practical to put a trophy of a guy like Ted up. Wolf either. He's a dorky looking, arrogant, d-bag. No thanks.

MM and Holmgren were leaders of men. MM even more-so than Holmrgren IMO. Holgmren was more arrogant. Vince and Curly don't radiate arrogance. They radiate strength. That's what MM radiates too. Those three are inspiring figures to me.

Ted is evidence of the strength of the quite guy. That means a lot to me, but I'm perfectly happy to have those who were wise enough to see it know and those who weren't go on their merry way, never gaining wisdom from the world around them.

[Gunakor]

I absolutely DO think it's possible for Green Bay to win 4 more titles by the end of the decade. I think it's far more likely we'll win 5 here while TT is in charge than it is for any other team to win even 3 while TT is in charge here. For most teams, hell, maybe all teams, 5 in a decade in today's NFL is more than unlikely. It's impossible. The same can't be said of this Packers team. And we're the only ones who that can't be said about.

Before Vince Lombardi came along, it was unthinkable that anybody could be mentioned in the same breath as Curly Lambeau. Now, it's unthinkable that anybody could be mentioned in the same breath as Lambeau and Lombardi. What will TT make us think about 15 years from now?

This isn't some knee-jerk reaction to winning a title. Anybody who remembers me from when I came to PR back in 2008 knows I've been beating this drum loudly this whole time. Even in a dismal 6-10 season I would tell anybody who would listen that Thompson was building the next NFL dynasty, not simply the next NFL Champion, and that we weren't far away. "Fire TT" they said. "It's a win now league" they said. Well now we've won. And the patience shown during our journey to get where we are today will be rewarded with many more Lombardi Trophies. When that happens, and I fully expect it will, I think we'll have to consider putting Thompson in the same company as Lambeau and Lombardi. I think that deserves a statue.

[Brandon494]

It's no doubt we are the next dynasty in the NFL. We are not only young but we have the most complete roster in the NFL. Seriously I can't think of one weakness we have on this team. Maybe another pass rushing OLB to pair with Clay but that's about it.

[hoosier]

Your memory is better than mine grasshopper....Beebe wasn't supposed to be much, but he was huge in a few playoff games.

Memory problems again. Beebe did nothing in the 96-97 postseason. His hugeness in '96 came all at once, in that OT win over San Fran when Brooks got hurt. Other than that he was just a guy.

[hoosier]

Or, instead of blaming the other GMs, you could give credit to Thompson for seeing in Woodson what no other GM did, including the one he was playing for. But, even if they had, no guarantee Woodson wouldn't have ended up in GB anyway.

Woodson was a gamble that TT could afford to make given the cap flexibility he had created for himself. I don't think he "saw" anything in CW that anyone else couldn't see. In Woodson's first years with GB he wasn't playing quite at the level that he rose to in '08, '09 and '10. It seems to me that the credit for Charles Woodson gets divided into three: one, for TT and his salary guru for creating the salary cap space to give him a front loaded contract; two, to Woodson for bringing his level of play back up after several years of injury and reported indifference in Oakland; and three to McCarthy and his staff for creating a positive work environment.

[mraynrand]

Seriously I can't think of one weakness we have on this team.

I can

http://buscoscience.wikispaces.com/file/view/concussion_2.jpg/33412671/concussion_2.jpg

[RashanGary]

It's no doubt we are the next dynasty in the NFL. We are not only young but we have the most complete roster in the NFL. Seriously I can't think of one weakness we have on this team. Maybe another pass rushing OLB to pair with Clay but that's about it.


I like our chances.

[Deputy Nutz]

I don't look at it as an entitlement. I look at it as the reward for having one of the hardest working, most knowledgeable, most talented GM's in the game. 31 other teams are wishing they had a Ted Thompson running their show right now. Most wish they had a Ted Thompson in charge at ANY point in the history of their franchise. That includes the Jets and the Colts.

What about the Patriots?

[Deputy Nutz]

That post had nothing to do with you. You do realize you were not the only one bashing Ted for making that move right? You can call me ignorant all you want but I'm not the one who picked a player over the team then ran back as soon as they started winning games.

You are a fucking moron. I explained my position on the Packers a 100 times on this place and you either don't read what I write, or you simply can't comprehend what I write. Which one is it? I never came running back to the Packers and if you or anyone else thinks that, you're as stupid as your avatar looks.

I never faulted Ted for going with Rodgers. I think if you can figure out the search engine of this place you can find posts where I never faulted Thompson, just the way he went about it.

Calling Thompson a better GM for handling the Favre situation in 2008 is fruitless effort considering Wolf never had to deal with a situation even close to the explosive nature Favregate was.

[Tarlam!]

What about the Patriots?

Ouch!

[Gunakor]

What about the Patriots?

One of the biggest reasons we're having this conversation today is Thompson stole Clay Matthews right from under Hoodie's nose. I think the Patriots might be wishing they could take that one back. Like I said, 31 other teams wish they had a Ted Thompson in charge right now. Including New England.

[Tarlam!]

No way, Gunnie. Hoodie is the man in NE, make no mistake. Is it Kraft that owns them? Anyway, the owner, would no way drop Hoodie for TT, no way. Not after everything he's done up there. They are a perpetual powerhosue and a even when Brady was lost, didn't they find a way to win what, 11?

OK, TT nabbed CMIII, but Hoodie's been doing it for years.

[Smeefers]

It's no doubt we are the next dynasty in the NFL. We are not only young but we have the most complete roster in the NFL. Seriously I can't think of one weakness we have on this team. Maybe another pass rushing OLB to pair with Clay but that's about it.

I worry about our offensive line. Our running game is weak and I'm not sure if that's a product of our RB's or of our OL. I like Ryan Grant to a point, but I'm really excited to see the combo of Grant, starks and this new rook that JH is trying to sell everyone on. I'd love to have someone like Amahn Green back. That guy was invisible to the rest of the league, but man he could pound the turf. I also worry about our special teams. I'm actually starting to buy the whole, "the injuries we've had have hurt the special teams the most" theory from last year. If Slocum doesn't get canned, I think I may be convinced that the ST woes we had last year weren't his fault.

I guess what I worry about the most is all this confidence floating around. People are talking about winning 5, 6 titles. Seriously? I think I might shit myself if we actually pull off one more title this decade. A SB victory is so very rare. That's why it's so amazing to win one. I don't expect us to win one next year or the year after that. Good night, there's so many good teams out there. Last year, the Superbowl Champions lost to the Bears(11-5), the Redskins(6-10), the Dolphins(7-9), the Falcons(13-3), the Lions(6-10), and the Patriots(14-2). You can point to any number of excuses to why we lost, but that's just part of the game. We'll face those same difficulties or difficulties just like them in the coming years. At any point in time (not just during a game), Rodgers could blow out his knee and his career could be over. Finley could demand a trade. Mathews could bust hot for roids. Someone might cut AJ's hair and his muscles could deflate. I'm just preaching caution. The pride comith before the fall and all that shit. I like how our team looks too and we're built to have a shot at the title for years to come, but I by no means expect it.

[Deputy Nutz]

I worry about our offensive line. Our running game is weak and I'm not sure if that's a product of our RB's or of our OL. I like Ryan Grant to a point, but I'm really excited to see the combo of Grant, starks and this new rook that JH is trying to sell everyone on. I'd love to have someone like Amahn Green back. That guy was invisible to the rest of the league, but man he could pound the turf. I also worry about our special teams. I'm actually starting to buy the whole, "the injuries we've had have hurt the special teams the most" theory from last year. If Slocum doesn't get canned, I think I may be convinced that the ST woes we had last year weren't his fault.

I guess what I worry about the most is all this confidence floating around. People are talking about winning 5, 6 titles. Seriously? I think I might shit myself if we actually pull off one more title this decade. A SB victory is so very rare. That's why it's so amazing to win one. I don't expect us to win one next year or the year after that. Good night, there's so many good teams out there. Last year, the Superbowl Champions lost to the Bears(11-5), the Redskins(6-10), the Dolphins(7-9), the Falcons(13-3), the Lions(6-10), and the Patriots(14-2). You can point to any number of excuses to why we lost, but that's just part of the game. We'll face those same difficulties or difficulties just like them in the coming years. At any point in time (not just during a game), Rodgers could blow out his knee and his career could be over. Finley could demand a trade. Mathews could bust hot for roids. Someone might cut AJ's hair and his muscles could deflate. I'm just preaching caution. The pride comith before the fall and all that shit. I like how our team looks too and we're built to have a shot at the title for years to come, but I by no means expect it.

+1

[Deputy Nutz]

One of the biggest reasons we're having this conversation today is Thompson stole Clay Matthews right from under Hoodie's nose. I think the Patriots might be wishing they could take that one back. Like I said, 31 other teams wish they had a Ted Thompson in charge right now. Including New England.

You base your judgement on one player in one draft? How about you count titles first then we will revist the 2009 draft.

[retailguy]

One of the biggest reasons we're having this conversation today is Thompson stole Clay Matthews right from under Hoodie's nose. I think the Patriots might be wishing they could take that one back. Like I said, 31 other teams wish they had a Ted Thompson in charge right now. Including New England.

All kool-aid aside, certainly more than 20 teams with they had Thompson, but 31? No. He's not everybody's cup of tea. I cannot see him and Danny boy Snyder co-existing. Or him and Jerry Jones. New England would never pick him over Belicheat.

Your point is somewhat solid. Plenty of teams would be interested, but some wouldn't be. And that's ok with me.

[retailguy]

I worry about our offensive line. Our running game is weak and I'm not sure if that's a product of our RB's or of our OL. I like Ryan Grant to a point, but I'm really excited to see the combo of Grant, starks and this new rook that JH is trying to sell everyone on. I'd love to have someone like Amahn Green back. That guy was invisible to the rest of the league, but man he could pound the turf. I also worry about our special teams. I'm actually starting to buy the whole, "the injuries we've had have hurt the special teams the most" theory from last year. If Slocum doesn't get canned, I think I may be convinced that the ST woes we had last year weren't his fault.

I guess what I worry about the most is all this confidence floating around. People are talking about winning 5, 6 titles. Seriously? I think I might shit myself if we actually pull off one more title this decade. A SB victory is so very rare. That's why it's so amazing to win one. I don't expect us to win one next year or the year after that. Good night, there's so many good teams out there. Last year, the Superbowl Champions lost to the Bears(11-5), the Redskins(6-10), the Dolphins(7-9), the Falcons(13-3), the Lions(6-10), and the Patriots(14-2). You can point to any number of excuses to why we lost, but that's just part of the game. We'll face those same difficulties or difficulties just like them in the coming years. At any point in time (not just during a game), Rodgers could blow out his knee and his career could be over. Finley could demand a trade. Mathews could bust hot for roids. Someone might cut AJ's hair and his muscles could deflate. I'm just preaching caution. The pride comith before the fall and all that shit. I like how our team looks too and we're built to have a shot at the title for years to come, but I by no means expect it.

Look, I've been bitching about the OL since, well, hell froze over. I'm still not "impressed" but it is way better than it has ever been under Thompson. Right now, it is impossible to say it is not "good enough". When it counted, it was good enough.

But, you can't overlook Rodgers concussion history, and the OL is the best medicine to keep that under control. Developing a standout left guard and replacing Clifton are the two biggest priorities on this team right now, if you ask me. Plenty of young talent to try out, and hopefully Ted has improved at drafting line talent (Sitton not withstanding, who is most excellent).

Finally, the kool-aid is definitely flowing around here. That's not a bad thing. I've enjoyed a little myself. I learned a long time ago that forecasting is a tricky business, but I'm down for 19-0 next season.... lol

[Tarlam!]

One of you threw something out there that captivates me. To paraphrase: Wolf's team truly dominated the league, while TT's doesn't. I wasn't a fan of the NFL back then, so I have way to compare.

Was it more fun being a Packer fan when they won under Wolf or under TT? Let your answers, if you'd be so kind, be influenced by the "domination" factor. I'd really be thankful for your views.

[hoosier]

One of you threw something out there that captivates me. To paraphrase: Wolf's team truly dominated the league, while TT's doesn't. I wasn't a fan of the NFL back then, so I have way to compare.

Was it more fun being a Packer fan when they won under Wolf or under TT? Let your answers, if you'd be so kind, be influenced by the "domination" factor. I'd really be thankful for your views.

To date there is no question (in my mind at least) that Wolf accomplished more as far as team building goes than TT has. TTs SB win was great because it came in the face of so much adversity. But Wolf built a team that dominated for two straight seasons* and screwed up big time in one big game. If there is an argument to be made for TT being as good or better than Wolf, it is because his plan has put the Packers in position to dominate for the next few years. We kind of almost expect that to happen. If it does not, I think you will see the Wolf:TT comparisons fade quickly. If it does happen, you will see TT rise to the level of Wolf, or even higher, depending on how many SBs the Packers win in the 2010s.

*Edit: They didn't really dominate in 1997, they kind of sputtered their way through the regular season (as much as a team can sputter to a 13-3 record) and then really turned it on against San Fran in the NFC championship game. They were a dominant team but they didn't always play that way, if you can say that.

[retailguy]

One of you threw something out there that captivates me. To paraphrase: Wolf's team truly dominated the league, while TT's doesn't. I wasn't a fan of the NFL back then, so I have way to compare.

Was it more fun being a Packer fan when they won under Wolf or under TT? Let your answers, if you'd be so kind, be influenced by the "domination" factor. I'd really be thankful for your views.

The league is different now than it was then. Going into the 1996 you just knew it would be a whirlwind. Outside of a pathetic loss to the Colts, I think, the team dominated most of the year. I'm not sure 1996 was more fun, but it was more predictable. New England wasn't given much of a chance against us in the Super Bowl, and the game played out that way.

1997 was like watching a different team. Holmgrens impending departure really changed the vibe, I think. After that loss in the Super Bowl, the Broncos replaced the Bears as my most hated NFL team.

[Joemailman]

The league is different now than it was then. Going into the 1996 you just knew it would be a whirlwind. Outside of a pathetic loss to the Colts, I think, the team dominated most of the year. I'm not sure 1996 was more fun, but it was more predictable. New England wasn't given much of a chance against us in the Super Bowl, and the game played out that way.

1997 was like watching a different team. Holmgrens impending departure really changed the vibe, I think. After that loss in the Super Bowl, the Broncos replaced the Bears as my most hated NFL team.

Actually, the loss to the Colts occurred in 1997. The losses in 1996 were an early season loss to Minnesota (Packers rarely won in Minnesota back then), and midseason losses to Kansas City and Dallas when their receiver corp was decimated with injuries. Your overall point is correct however. The Packers were a dominant team in 1996 and were expected by many if not most to make it to the Super Bowl. I was at the Super Bowl and the feeling was that we were there for the coronation. The thought of possibly losing to the Patriots was barely there.

[Deputy Nutz]

Most didn't think the Packers were going to lose against Denver

[bobblehead]

Look, I've been bitching about the OL since, well, hell froze over. I'm still not "impressed" but it is way better than it has ever been under Thompson. Right now, it is impossible to say it is not "good enough". When it counted, it was good enough.

But, you can't overlook Rodgers concussion history, and the OL is the best medicine to keep that under control. Developing a standout left guard and replacing Clifton are the two biggest priorities on this team right now, if you ask me. Plenty of young talent to try out, and hopefully Ted has improved at drafting line talent (Sitton not withstanding, who is most excellent).

Finally, the kool-aid is definitely flowing around here. That's not a bad thing. I've enjoyed a little myself. I learned a long time ago that forecasting is a tricky business, but I'm down for 19-0 next season.... lol

You weren't so bad last year. You predicted 16-0 and a superbowl title saying TT put together a roster that should have a good shot to win every game if I recall. We had a good shot to win every game and did win the superbowl....I'll take it.

[mraynrand]

Wolf is esteemed more highly at this point due to his long tenure in the league, success with multiple teams, and his magician's trick of pulling the Packers from NFL extinction with the mythical trade for Favre and the signing of Reggie White and Mike Holmgren. That's a hell of a lot for TT to compete with - but once he's more than a fart in the wind - assuming it comes to pass - he'll probably even have Wolf conceding he's the better man.

[Gunakor]

You base your judgement on one player in one draft? How about you count titles first then we will revist the 2009 draft.


Give me 5 years. Then we'll count titles.

[Gunakor]

All kool-aid aside, certainly more than 20 teams with they had Thompson, but 31? No. He's not everybody's cup of tea. I cannot see him and Danny boy Snyder co-existing. Or him and Jerry Jones. New England would never pick him over Belicheat.

Your point is somewhat solid. Plenty of teams would be interested, but some wouldn't be. And that's ok with me.

Dan Snyder isn't interested in titles anyway. He's interested in attendance. But point taken. Certainly teams who have owners that like to play General Manager wouldn't want a guy like Ted. Teams with owners that like to play General Manager will never reach dynasty status though. The problem is with them, not Thompson.

[Smeefers]

One of you threw something out there that captivates me. To paraphrase: Wolf's team truly dominated the league, while TT's doesn't. I wasn't a fan of the NFL back then, so I have way to compare.

Was it more fun being a Packer fan when they won under Wolf or under TT? Let your answers, if you'd be so kind, be influenced by the "domination" factor. I'd really be thankful for your views.

It was absolutely awesome watching the 96 packers play. You knew from the very first game. We were hand over fist better than everyone else. It was like the pack was playing against a bunch of college teams, and the college teams had in their second string. Even when we lost to the buc's (who sucked super big one at the time), we all collectively shrugged our shoulders, said "ehh, we can't win them all" and then went on to pound the piss out of the league. I'm talking about 35 to nothing in the 3rd quarter pounding. I'm talking about second stringers coming in the third quarter and still beating the crap out of the opposing team.

That said, trying to compare the superbowls is damn near impossible for me. For me, the euphoria lasted all year in 96. In 10, I was more just surprised every week that we were still in it. I always knew we had a chance to win, but I never put all my eggs in one basket. When we won it all, I was still sort of surprised that we even got to the big game, let alone won it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

It was absolutely awesome watching the 96 packers play. You knew from the very first game. We were hand over fist better than everyone else. It was like the pack was playing against a bunch of college teams, and the college teams had in their second string. Even when we lost to the buc's (who sucked super big one at the time), we all collectively shrugged our shoulders, said "ehh, we can't win them all" and then went on to pound the piss out of the league. I'm talking about 35 to nothing in the 3rd quarter pounding. I'm talking about second stringers coming in the third quarter and still beating the crap out of the opposing team.

We didn't lose to the Bucs. We lost at Minnesota, at Kansas City, and at Dallas that year. Minnesota always had our number at the Dome back then. Our receiving corps was decimated in the other two losses. I believe both starting WRs (Brooks, Freeman) and the starting TE (Chmura) were out. That's when Beebe had his big game vs. San Fran and it also drove Wolf to sign Rison.

We did lose to the Colts in '97, and they were terrible that year. They were like 0-10-1 or something close to it when we lost to them. The next year the Colts drafted Peyton Manning.

[Deputy Nutz]

Give me 5 years. Then we'll count titles.

You don't have five years, you made a statement regarding the present, not five years from now. The Patriots have been the closest thing to a dynasty sinces the Cowboys of the 90s. There has been a ten year gap between dynasties. The Patriots have fallen back into the pack of contenders the last couple of years but they are still a favorite almost every year to make it into the Super Bowl. I still take Belichick right now, and probably in 5 years if he is still with the Pats.

[Patler]

You don't have five years, you made a statement regarding the present, not five years from now. The Patriots have been the closest thing to a dynasty sinces the Cowboys of the 90s. There has been a ten year gap between dynasties. The Patriots have fallen back into the pack of contenders the last couple of years but they are still a favorite almost every year to make it into the Super Bowl. I still take Belichick right now, and probably in 5 years if he is still with the Pats.

I wonder how much Belichik relied on Pioli? Pioli left and the Patriots have dropped back a little, but that was bound to happen anyway. On the other hand, Pioli seems to be making things change in KC.

[Brandon494]

Pats haven't won a title in 7 years and Brady will be 39 in 5 years. You can take the Pats but I guarntee Packers will be the better team in 5 years.

[Brandon494]

I wonder how much Belichik relied on Pioli? Pioli left and the Patriots have dropped back a little, but that was bound to happen anyway. On the other hand, Pioli seems to be making things change in KC.

You have to also factor in that they have had to rebuild they defense the past couple of years.

[Patler]

You have to also factor in that they have had to rebuild they defense the past couple of years.

That's why I stated, "...the Patriots have dropped back a little, but that was bound to happen anyway. "

A "dynasty" or as close as the NFL gets to one now days usually happens with a slug of young, similarly aged players contributing a lot early and continuing to do so for a solid chunk of their careers. Eventually free agency, age, injuries, etc. get to them so they are no longer the team they once were, but the really good "dynasties" tend to overachieve a little at the beginning and at the end of their times in the sun. Typically, replacements are found a bit more slowly due to luck, low draft positions, etc. The team necessarily becomes more "mortal". The question is, after falling back somewhat will they go back up again, continue a gradual decay, or suddenly crash and burn? I'm not sure where the Patriots are right now along the typical evolutionary path.

Can Belichik turn them back up again without Pioli? Was Pioli more important to that operation than was thought? Was Belichik just more visible? Hard to tell. Clearly his abilities as a coach are top notch, but alone is he the GM we think he is? Probably.

[hoosier]

Re. the Patriots and their trajectory, the last couple of drafts have yielded several new potential superstars on defense (Mayo and McCourtney) as well as some productive players on offense (the two rookie TEs). Bellichick seems to be doing what is needed to renew their core talent. The proof will be in whether their older stars (Brady, Wilfork) can stay healthy. During the '10 regular season they certainly didn't look like a team in decline. Are their recent postseason struggles the result of declining talent or just a matter of bad luck?

[Brandon494]

Their postseason struggles to me point directly to their defense which was one of the worst last season. No offense to Fylnn but look what he did against them.

[hoosier]

Their postseason struggles to me point directly to their defense which was one of the worst last season. No offense to Fylnn but look what he did against them.

Their formula all season long was to overwhelm opponents with their potent offense. The defense wasn't horrible (outsiders has it ranked 18th overall: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef) and most of the time it was good enough. What changed against the Jets in the playoffs was that NE couldn't move the ball. Was that the Jets playing great defense or Brady having a(nother) bad postseason game?

[Deputy Nutz]

Pats haven't won a title in 7 years and Brady will be 39 in 5 years. You can take the Pats but I guarntee Packers will be the better team in 5 years.
I Words just confuse you. You missed the entire premis in regards to "5 years". THE PRESENT!!!!

Gunakor believes their is no GM as good as Thompson and I mentioned Belichik who has 3 Super Bowl Titles in the last 12 years and 4 total appearance. When you compare wins and trophys to this point, Thompson has a ways to go before he catches Belichik as the best GM in the game. When was the last time Belichik had a lossing record?

Gunakor believe that the Packers under Thompson will win 3 Super Bowls in the next 5 years. Hence making him superior to Belichik.

I really have to explain everything to you.

I usually don't point this out because it is petty, but you had three post in a row with gramatical errors in them. congrats.

[Gunakor]

You don't have five years, you made a statement regarding the present, not five years from now. The Patriots have been the closest thing to a dynasty sinces the Cowboys of the 90s. There has been a ten year gap between dynasties. The Patriots have fallen back into the pack of contenders the last couple of years but they are still a favorite almost every year to make it into the Super Bowl. I still take Belichick right now, and probably in 5 years if he is still with the Pats.


The Pats didn't win all 3 of their titles in one season... If they needed half a decade to reach that achievement, I think it's fair to give the same to Green Bay.

[Brandon494]

Well you are a petty mother fucka so thanks for pointing it out. I don't even know what I said to get make start acting like a bitch. Does the whole Farve/ Ted situation really get you this upset. You must be one of those fans that wear those half Viking half Packers jerseys. Anyhow thanks for explaining everything to me, you knows I can't read all that good.

[mraynrand]

Well you are a petty mother fucka so thanks for pointing it out. I don't even know what I said to get make start acting like a bitch. Does the whole Farve/ Ted situation really get you this upset. You must be one of those fans that wear those half Viking half Packers jerseys. Anyhow thanks for explaining everything to me, you knows I can't read all that good.


Nigga here now! Wazzzup? Don't be getting all up in his grill fo' shizzle!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_DrLRJ_5dc&feature=related

[Brandon494]

What does that even mean?

[Deputy Nutz]

Well you are a petty mother fucka so thanks for pointing it out. I don't even know what I said to get make start acting like a bitch. Does the whole Farve/ Ted situation really get you this upset. You must be one of those fans that wear those half Viking half Packers jerseys. Anyhow thanks for explaining everything to me, you knows I can't read all that good.

What the hell does this even mean?


Ok I took the time to decipher, I ain't a fan of any team. My heart turned cold, and now I just like to comment and report my opinions. The Packers are the easiest team to follow and I hate enough of you here to make life interesting enough on this forum. I bust balls about certain things here but I still like this place the best.

You still can't comprehend real good.

I think Ted is a good gm. I think Favre was still a good QB. I think and always thought Rodgers was going to be a good QB.

[Deputy Nutz]

The Pats didn't win all 3 of their titles in one season... If they needed half a decade to reach that achievement, I think it's fair to give the same to Green Bay.

I don't think you understand the concept here. I ain't giving anyone anything. I am not projecting Super Bowls, I am comparing Super Bowl wins and The Hoody is 3 for 4 and Thompson is 1 for 1. The Patriots were/are a dynasty, the Packers have won exactly one under Thompson. You made a comment that Thompson was currently the best GM, I debated your point by suggesting Belichik.

[Tarlam!]

You made a comment that Thompson was currently the best GM, I debated your point by suggesting Belichik.

Not quite. Gunnie suggested 31 other teams wished they had TT as their GM. You mentioned Patriots, to which I agreed. That's when achiement comparisons came ito it, so the dispute was unwittingly caused by me. Other posters also suggested some team owners would definitely not want TT out of personality clash reasons.

Maybe TT is the best current GM, but no way do 31 teams wish they had him, IMHO.

[bobblehead]

Not quite. Gunnie suggested 31 other teams wished they had TT as their GM. You mentioned Patriots, to which I agreed. That's when achiement comparisons came ito it, so the dispute was unwittingly caused by me. Other posters also suggested some team owners would definitely not want TT out of personality clash reasons.

Maybe TT is the best current GM, but no way do 31 teams wish they had him, IMHO.

31 other teams wish they had his season....well, the final results anyway. I doubt those 31 would want 15+ guys on the DL.

[esoxx]

Wolf

[Patler]

We all know what Wolf accomplished in restoring the Packers to status as an every-year contender. A top franchise in the league. It's hard to disagree with those who say he rescued the franchise

I think in his own way TT also rescued the franchise. I have documented several times how the record under Sherman was sort of a sham. No team in the NFC North had a winning record during Sherman's years. The Packers seemingly automatically had 5 or 6 wins in their division each year just by being "OK". If you look at Sherman's records against teams that had winning records, the Packers declined over Sherman's tenure. Several years they had almost unbelievably weak schedules. I think in 2005 the Packers were standing on the edge of a cliff with an old roster, very few young replacements on the roster due to horrible draft results, and a bad salary cap situation. The Packers weren't a bad team under Sherman-the-GM, but they were poised to become one. I think TT came in the nick of time.

TT's accomplishments in 2010 are remarkable in their own way. Not only did they lose 3 starters on offense and 3 on defense from their opening day lineup, they also lost arguably their best d-lineman from 2009 (Jolly) before the season even started. They weathered the decline of a starting WR (due to injuries) and his early loss in the SB. The got past losing a top-line reserve/specialist in Chiller. A top rookie (Neal) contributed almost nothing due to injury. Then, in the SB they lose their elder-statesman defensive leader who was just a year removed from DPOY recognition, and their third corner as well. TT's nonstop efforts to rebuild the roster from what Sherman created were magnified in the SB.

At this point, I don't think either is a clear superior to the other. They both rebuilt the team from what they inherited and accomplished the ultimate goal in winning the SB. However, Wolf did not sustain what he built. It remains to be seen if TT can. We will know by the time his contract runs out.

[KYPack]

That's about right P.

(Essox gets the 2011 PR brevity award, BTW)

TT really built the organization. He was instrumental in finding Harlan's replacement (Bob, not the nutty poster, sort of founder guy) which looks like a great hire. Now the MM hire looks brilliant and Ball has done a great job of managing the cap minus the self promoting Brandt focused on.

One of the big things TT did was turn the roster over and value solid depth, something way off Sherman's radar screen.

Sherm had run us into the sand bar, and TT got the ship sailing properly in pretty short time.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

We all know what Wolf accomplished in restoring the Packers to status as an every-year contender. A top franchise in the league. It's hard to disagree with those who say he rescued the franchise

I think in his own way TT also rescued the franchise. I have documented several times how the record under Sherman was sort of a sham. No team in the NFC North had a winning record during Sherman's years. The Packers seemingly automatically had 5 or 6 wins in their division each year just by being "OK". If you look at Sherman's records against teams that had winning records, the Packers declined over Sherman's tenure. Several years they had almost unbelievably weak schedules. I think in 2005 the Packers were standing on the edge of a cliff with an old roster, very few young replacements on the roster due to horrible draft results, and a bad salary cap situation. The Packers weren't a bad team under Sherman-the-GM, but they were poised to become one. I think TT came in the nick of time.

TT's accomplishments in 2010 are remarkable in their own way. Not only did they lose 3 starters on offense and 3 on defense from their opening day lineup, they also lost arguably their best d-lineman from 2009 (Jolly) before the season even started. They weathered the decline of a starting WR (due to injuries) and his early loss in the SB. The got past losing a top-line reserve/specialist in Chiller. A top rookie (Neal) contributed almost nothing due to injury. Then, in the SB they lose their elder-statesman defensive leader who was just a year removed from DPOY recognition, and their third corner as well. TT's nonstop efforts to rebuild the roster from what Sherman created were magnified in the SB.

At this point, I don't think either is a clear superior to the other. They both rebuilt the team from what they inherited and accomplished the ultimate goal in winning the SB. However, Wolf did not sustain what he built. It remains to be seen if TT can. We will know by the time his contract runs out.

Agree completely with just about everything you said Patler, expect I don't think you are giving Wolf enough credit when it comes to sustaining what he built. I mean you said it yourself Sherman had five years of bad drafts that killed the depth on those teams. Yet we still went out their and won during the 01-04 time period. Do you think we would have had all those 10-12 win seasons if it weren't for Wolf bringing in Favre, Green, Sharper, Mckenzie, T. williams, most of the o-line, Franks, etc. The core of those teams were still built by Wolf. I think that if he stayed Gm until 04-05 until TT took over that the roster would have been in very good shape and we may have even won another superbowl some time in that 01-04 period. Add two or three good drafts in 01, 02, and 03, to the 03 team that lost on 4th and 26 for example, and I think we win it all that year.

I just think that Wolf doesn't get credit for sustaining the roster because he left in a time of transition and not in a time of power. I have Wolf and TT equally ranked right now b/c they both have one superbowl championship. Until TT wins us another he will not past wolf IMHO.

[esoxx]

That's about right P.

(Essox gets the 2011 PR brevity award, BTW)



Well, brevity is the soul of wit ya know.

Wolf only by a whisker right now, in part based on two SB appearances. I fully expect TT will get to two and possibly more.

Both inherited difficult situations. I lean towards Wolf getting the harder task coming off the abysmal Infante era. The organization was in big disaray and in an obvious state of decline. They didn't have the world class training and pratice facilities and the place was considered football Siberia. Also, some of the framework Wolf put in place still existed at the time TT took over, including McKenzie in player personnel. In essence, Wolf was starting from complete scratch with a losing culture and mindset that had become engrained. Packer football wasn't special by the end of the Infante era. Wolf was instrumental in awaking a sleeping giant, which was a monumental task.

That's not to diminish in any way what TT has done, just gives more insight in to my take of "Wolf."

[Patler]

Agree completely with just about everything you said Patler, expect I don't think you are giving Wolf enough credit when it comes to sustaining what he built. I mean you said it yourself Sherman had five years of bad drafts that killed the depth on those teams. Yet we still went out their and won during the 01-04 time period. Do you think we would have had all those 10-12 win seasons if it weren't for Wolf bringing in Favre, Green, Sharper, Mckenzie, T. williams, most of the o-line, Franks, etc. The core of those teams were still built by Wolf. I think that if he stayed Gm until 04-05 until TT took over that the roster would have been in very good shape and we may have even won another superbowl some time in that 01-04 period. Add two or three good drafts in 01, 02, and 03, to the 03 team that lost on 4th and 26 for example, and I think we win it all that year.

I just think that Wolf doesn't get credit for sustaining the roster because he left in a time of transition and not in a time of power. I have Wolf and TT equally ranked right now b/c they both have one superbowl championship. Until TT wins us another he will not past wolf IMHO.

The Packers had winning records after '97, but were never really legitimate Super Bowl contenders after that. The team was "OK" but never complete enough to be a contender.

As for what the status of the roster would have been had Wolf stayed on until TT came, its hard to tell. However, Wolf's draft record after '96 or so wasn't all that impressive, except for 2000 when he got 5 players who carried Sherman's teams.

[mraynrand]

The Packers had winning records after '97, but were never really legitimate Super Bowl contenders after that. The team was "OK" but never complete enough to be a contender.

I think Wolf would have gotten a lot of credit had they won in 2002, even though he was one year removed, because of the 2000 draft and the hold-overs. But Shermy went all in - two #4 picks and a #2 to revamp the WR corps and all that money for Joe Johnson. Without the injuries, I think they would have beaten TB and won it all. 2003, Wolf gets some credit, but less, and they were one play away from being at Carolina for the NFCC game. I'd call that a legitimate contender too. But, officially, Wolf would get no credit for those teams, so maybe you aren't including those teams at all in "Wolf cred"

[Patler]

I think Wolf would have gotten a lot of credit had they won in 2002, even though he was one year removed, because of the 2000 draft and the hold-overs. But Shermy went all in - two #4 picks and a #2 to revamp the WR corps and all that money for Joe Johnson. Without the injuries, I think they would have beaten TB and won it all. 2003, Wolf gets some credit, but less, and they were one play away from being at Carolina for the NFCC game. I'd call that a legitimate contender too. But, officially, Wolf would get no credit for those teams, so maybe you aren't including those teams at all in "Wolf cred"

I don't think they were legitimate contenders anymore than Seattle was this year. The Packers routinely got into the playoffs from a bad division and some very fortunate schedules. Seattle won a game this year in the playoffs, but were not legitimate contenders in my opinion. Neither were the Packers under Sherman. They routinely lost during the seasons to the better teams, especially as season after season passed, and clearly showed they were a step behind the better teams.

I never felt like "this could be the year" when the season started at anytime under Sherman, let alone when playoffs started. This year I did feel that way at the start of the season, but figured it was a real long shot at the time the playoffs started.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I have to disagree patler, b/c I honestly believe that the 02 and 03 teams were legit superbowl contenders. In 04 we had the offense but probably the wrost defense I have ever seen the packers have in the last 20 years. I think it was 02 were we lost the last game of the season to the Jets that put us as a wild card team instead of having home field throughout the playoffs. I would def say that team had as good a chance as any to make the superbowl.


I don't see how you can say the 03 team didn't have a chance? I took a miracle for philly to beat us and we move on to the panthers in the nfccg. If wolf was in charge of the drafts in 01 and 02 does he add enough to get us over the top? We will never know. But if I had to guess he would have done a better job than sherman which may have been the difference. But no way was it sherman and his 01 and 02 picks that got us in the playoffs those years.

[Patler]

I have to disagree patler, b/c I honestly believe that the 02 and 03 teams were legit superbowl contenders. In 04 we had the offense but probably the wrost defense I have ever seen the packers have in the last 20 years. I think it was 02 were we lost the last game of the season to the Jets that put us as a wild card team instead of having home field throughout the playoffs. I would def say that team had as good a chance as any to make the superbowl.


I don't see how you can say the 03 team didn't have a chance? I took a miracle for philly to beat us and we move on to the panthers in the nfccg. If wolf was in charge of the drafts in 01 and 02 does he add enough to get us over the top? We will never know. But if I had to guess he would have done a better job than sherman which may have been the difference. But no way was it sherman and his 01 and 02 picks that got us in the playoffs those years.

Sure they had a chance, but in my opinion they weren't legitimate contenders. Once you get to the playoffs, certainly you have a chance. But "woulda", "coulda", "shoulda" didn't get it done, did it? Contrast with this year, when they were legitimate contenders. They faced as much or more adversity than any Sherman team did, yet managed to win it all.

Sherman's teams got "close" (ie in the playoffs with a chance) because they were in a poor division. They ultimately failed because in reality they were not legitimate contenders.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Your argument makes sense in regard to the 04 team, but not 02 and 03. The 04 team was not a good team. We got in and I didn't feel the team was good enough to win it all. But to say the 02 and 03 teams were not legit contenders seems to base your whole argument simply on the end result. I felt more confident in the packers of 03 once the playoffs started than I did about the packers of 2010.

So if Tramon Williams slips and falls against the eagles in the wild card round and the eagles win and the packers were one and done, they were not legitmate contenders? Remember only ONE team wins it all. Sometimes its not the most talented team or the team that should win it. I understand we had injuries, but it was you who pointed out during the season that some of those injuries turned out to be a blessing. True that speaks for the depth on the team, but it doesn't change the fact that the team still needed good luck to win it all. If D. Jackson doesn't return that kick against the Gaints we are not even in the playoffs.

I honestly believe that we were the best team in the NFC in the playoffs in 2003. Thats why so many packer fans were heart broken by 4th and 26. If we were just getting by on luck and good health I don't think I would have been that disappointed once we were eliminated.

[mraynrand]

At one point in the 2002 season, the Packers were 8-1, and Favre was having as good a year as ever statistically. Nine starters were lost to injury if I recall, and Favre was beat to hell with a pretty severe knee injury. After what happened this year, people might shrug and say Injuries, Sminjuries, but they hurt that year. Let's review: Clifton, Tauscher, Joe Johnson, Driver, Green, Davenport, Sharper, Terry Glenn - were all gone halfway through the wildcard game with ATL. There were others as well, I just don't remember them all. It was a mess. 8-1 - they were contenders. If you don't agree, well, then, we don't agree. As to the question at hand in this thread, my personal opinion is that Wolf would have deserved a lot of credit had they won it all.

[Patler]

To me, 2002 and 2003 were both "mirage" teams, as was 2004. I don't recall GB being that highly regarded as a playoff contender either before or during any of the seasons.

2002 may have been their highest regarded year at the start. They built their fast start and overall impressive recording beating Chicago twice, Detroit twice and MN once. Collectively Chicago (4-12), Detroit (3-13) and MN (6-10) won 13 games in 2002. They had 3 other wins against teams who were 7-9 or 8-8. The team with the best record that they beat was SF at 10-6. They built an impressive record against a fortunate schedule that year. It's not their fault, they can only play who is scheduled; but as I recall their few wins against the better teams were not especially impressive, but a couple of their losses were, in a negative way. Of course, they ended it getting trashed by Atlanta at home in the playoffs.

I saw 2003 much the same way, although MN provided better competition at 9-7 as did Chcago. But the Packers again had a fortunate schedule and built a decent record against not the best competition.

2004 was even more of the same, in my opinion. They built a 10-6 record without beating a single team with a winning record for the season.

I have always felt the team under Sherman was never really as good as its record indicated. To their credit, they did generally beat the weaker teams that they should have, but good fortune gave them schedules allowing them to have impressive records.

[Patler]

Your argument makes sense in regard to the 04 team, but not 02 and 03. The 04 team was not a good team. We got in and I didn't feel the team was good enough to win it all. But to say the 02 and 03 teams were not legit contenders seems to base your whole argument simply on the end result. I felt more confident in the packers of 03 once the playoffs started than I did about the packers of 2010.

So if Tramon Williams slips and falls against the eagles in the wild card round and the eagles win and the packers were one and done, they were not legitmate contenders? Remember only ONE team wins it all. Sometimes its not the most talented team or the team that should win it. I understand we had injuries, but it was you who pointed out during the season that some of those injuries turned out to be a blessing. True that speaks for the depth on the team, but it doesn't change the fact that the team still needed good luck to win it all. If D. Jackson doesn't return that kick against the Gaints we are not even in the playoffs.

I honestly believe that we were the best team in the NFC in the playoffs in 2003. Thats why so many packer fans were heart broken by 4th and 26. If we were just getting by on luck and good health I don't think I would have been that disappointed once we were eliminated.

No, its not basing being a contender on the end result. I don't recall either the 2002 or 2003 teams being especially highly regarded going into the season. On the contrary, they were considered the best of an extremely poor division. They were generally picked to win the division, but I do not recall their SB chances being considered all that high. They weren't identified as a contender, and they proved it by finding ways to lose in the playoffs.

In 2010 they were identified as contenders before the season started and even into it until the injuries mounted. With the way they ended the season, many saw them as a team on a roll with a chance to win it all, and they proved it. Had they lost a game, they still would have been a contender in 2010, but one who lost for various reasons. As you correctly point out, contenders do lose.

On the other hand, the Packers under Sherman were not contenders just because they got into the playoffs, in my opinion.

[mraynrand]

To me, 2002 and 2003 were both "mirage" teams, as was 2004. I don't recall GB being that highly regarded as a playoff contender either before or during any of the seasons.

2002 may have been their highest regarded year at the start. They built their fast start and overall impressive recording beating Chicago twice, Detroit twice and MN once. Collectively Chicago (4-12), Detroit (3-13) and MN (6-10) won 13 games in 2002. They had 3 other wins against teams who were 7-9 or 8-8. The team with the best record that they beat was SF at 10-6. They built an impressive record against a fortunate schedule that year. It's not their fault, they can only play who is scheduled; but as I recall their few wins against the better teams were not especially impressive, but a couple of their losses were, in a negative way. Of course, they ended it getting trashed by Atlanta at home in the playoffs.

I saw 2003 much the same way, although MN provided better competition at 9-7 as did Chcago. But the Packers again had a fortunate schedule and built a decent record against not the best competition.

2004 was even more of the same, in my opinion. They built a 10-6 record without beating a single team with a winning record for the season.

I have always felt the team under Sherman was never really as good as its record indicated. To their credit, they did generally beat the weaker teams that they should have, but good fortune gave them schedules allowing them to have impressive records.

Way to address the injury situation in 2002. In 2010, the Packers didn't have a great record against good teams in the regular season. Surprisingly, they only won 10 games. Surprisingly, several of their losses were due at least in part to injury to their QB. 8-1 in 2002 - they were contenders, as was voiced over and over, by any analyst you listened to, in the week leading up to the game at Tampa, where Clifton got knocked out. That was after a slew of other injuries. I guess all those NFL analysts were wrong too. I think you are pursuing a flawed line of reasoning.

[Patler]

Way to address the injury situation in 2002. In 2010, the Packers didn't have a great record against good teams in the regular season. Surprisingly, they only won 10 games. Surprisingly, several of their losses were due at least in part to injury to their QB. 8-1 in 2002 - they were contenders, as was voiced over and over, by any analyst you listened to, in the week leading up to the game at Tampa, where Clifton got knocked out. That was after a slew of other injuries. I guess all those NFL analysts were wrong too. I think you are pursuing a flawed line of reasoning.


Injuries, what do you want me to say about it? Injuries happen all the time, and as I recall (I didn't check) one of the SB teams, perhaps even NE actually lost more "starter games" than GB did that year. (Or maybe it was one of the Championship game losers, I don't recall). In my opinion they were not a stronger SB contender beset by injuries, they were a good team that was beset by injuries and got to the playoffs, so the "had a chance".

I disagree about those seasons. I was never overly impressed with any of the 2002, 2003 or 2004 teams going into the season or during it. You obviously were. We can leave it at that. No point in us going around in circles, I have one opinion, you have another.

[bobblehead]

Injuries, what do you want me to say about it? Injuries happen all the time, and as I recall (I didn't check) one of the SB teams, perhaps even NE actually lost more "starter games" than GB did that year. (Or maybe it was one of the Championship game losers, I don't recall). In my opinion they were not a stronger SB contender beset by injuries, they were a good team that was beset by injuries and got to the playoffs, so the "had a chance".

I disagree about those seasons. I was never overly impressed with any of the 2002, 2003 or 2004 teams going into the season or during it. You obviously were. We can leave it at that. No point in us going around in circles, I have one opinion, you have another.

I was really in love with some of those teams. We would run it right down a teams throat and thye couldn't stop it. At the risk of starting a HUGE blowup of the thread I will say that a QB that protected the ball better may have had more success with that running game. I am sorry to bring that up, but it is the SOLE reason I had turned on Favre long before almost anyone else. It was also relevant to the conversation.

[retailguy]

Injuries, what do you want me to say about it? Injuries happen all the time, and as I recall (I didn't check) one of the SB teams, perhaps even NE actually lost more "starter games" than GB did that year. (Or maybe it was one of the Championship game losers, I don't recall). In my opinion they were not a stronger SB contender beset by injuries, they were a good team that was beset by injuries and got to the playoffs, so the "had a chance".

I disagree about those seasons. I was never overly impressed with any of the 2002, 2003 or 2004 teams going into the season or during it. You obviously were. We can leave it at that. No point in us going around in circles, I have one opinion, you have another.

I agree with you on 2003 and 2004, but not 2002. That team was pretty good, but couldn't sustain itself at the end of the year. Backups overachieved for a while, but by week 16 you could see they were in trouble. The 2003 team was pretty good, and managed to strike lightning in a bottle until 4th and 1, but were nowhere near as good as the 2002 team.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

As to the question at hand in this thread, my personal opinion is that Wolf would have deserved a lot of credit had they won it all.

Which was my point from the beginning. Wolf deserves credit for the success of those teams. I feel that in 02 and 03 we fielded very strong teams.

[Smidgeon]

I was really in love with some of those teams. We would run it right down a teams throat and thye couldn't stop it. At the risk of starting a HUGE blowup of the thread I will say that a QB that protected the ball better may have had more success with that running game. I am sorry to bring that up, but it is the SOLE reason I had turned on Favre long before almost anyone else. It was also relevant to the conversation.

I agree on this one. Wasn't this the year of the U-71 with Kevin Barry? The run game was unstoppable. Didn't Ahman have a 2000+ yardage year--the highest yardage by a RB to not win the rushing title (by the way, the only game I attended was the 2003 finale against the Broncos where Ahman had the 98 or 99 yard run)?

There was even a point where Farve said, "Everytime we're in the U-71 package, we run the ball. 100% of the time." He said it on a TV interview, and it was true...and other teams still couldn't stop it.

[RashanGary]

4th and 26 was a legit contender. We were going to smoke Carolina and go to the SB that year. Our OL would have neutralized Peppers, Jenkins and . . . . I forget who they had, but they had another legit DE.

[mraynrand]

4th and 26 was a legit contender. We were going to smoke Carolina and go to the SB that year. Our OL would have neutralized Peppers, Jenkins and . . . . I forget who they had, but they had another legit DE.

One play away from the final four. If being in the NFC championship doesn't make you a contender, what does?

I coulda been a contender!

http://www.geekestateblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/waterfront75.jpg

[mraynrand]

Injuries, what do you want me to say about it? Injuries happen all the time, and as I recall (I didn't check) one of the SB teams, perhaps even NE actually lost more "starter games" than GB did that year. (Or maybe it was one of the Championship game losers, I don't recall). In my opinion they were not a stronger SB contender beset by injuries, they were a good team that was beset by injuries and got to the playoffs, so the "had a chance".

I disagree about those seasons. I was never overly impressed with any of the 2002, 2003 or 2004 teams going into the season or during it. You obviously were. We can leave it at that. No point in us going around in circles, I have one opinion, you have another.


OK

[Fritz]

That running game from those years was impressive and heartening. It was my favorite part of those teams - moreso than the passing game or the defense. Or the ST. They could run the damn ball, for sure.

[RashanGary]

I'll agree with Patler that under Sherman the roster was slowly depleting. BUT! Sherman had Ahman Green, Brett Favre, Chad Clifton, Mark Tauscher, Mike Flannagan, Marco Rivera, Mike Wahle, Donald Driver, Javon Walker, Aaron Kampman, KGB, Kampman, Sharper, McKenzie, Diggs, Navies, Holliday and I'm sure a few others I'm missing off the top of my head.

While they absolutely lacked depth and staying power (it's kind of sick how little depth or cap room they had) they did not lack in a contending starting roster. Had they stayed healthy even one of those 4 years, they could have won the SB.

Obviously Ted has done a better job than Sherman did assembling both a top end roster and a back end roster.

I still think those Packer teams could have won it. I just got really pissed at Sherman when I saw it all starting to crash down. The year we lost Walker and Green to injury right out of the gate. . . . That team was so star dependent. Nobody could come off the bench to help. It was over and I blamed Sherman for that. In hindsight, he did his best, he just wasn't qualified to be an NFL GM. He'd never been and will never be again.

Sherman's final grade is a D+ from me. He had the Packers consistently in position to win the SB if they stayed perfectly healthy. He had stars and at least serviceable players at most other starting positions for the majority of his stay in GB. Most of the players were Wolf players, but Sherman put those final pieces in place, that had they had the magical healthy season, they could have rolled. The reason it's so low is because the cap, developmental players and depth were completely overlooked. He thought he needed a 22 man roster and that was his glaring weakness. More credit from those teams goes to Wolf. 80% of Shermans good players in his tenure were passed down to him.

[vince]

Those defenses were on the soft side by my recollection, particularly against good teams and when it counted most.

[Tarlam!]

Well, I have read all 8 pages. I think Wolf gets the nod, because his task was to form a team in a town nobody wanted to play in. That must have been a challenge.
TT did a great job, no doubt, but the place is not Siberia. The last guy that was openly miffed about coming to GB was Charles Woodson and he is today one of the towns strongest ambassadores!

The poster that said Wold had a "win now" mandate while TT had a "fix this mess" mandate nailed it. It would have been better for Wolf if he'd stayed interested for a couple more years.

[bobblehead]

Well, I have read all 8 pages. I think Wolf gets the nod, because his task was to form a team in a town nobody wanted to play in. That must have been a challenge.
TT did a great job, no doubt, but the place is not Siberia. The last guy that was openly miffed about coming to GB was Charles Woodson and he is today one of the towns strongest ambassadores!

The poster that said Wold had a "win now" mandate while TT had a "fix this mess" mandate nailed it. It would have been better for Wolf if he'd stayed interested for a couple more years.

95% of the players that actually GET to GB become huge ambassadors. Its getting past that preconceived notion that is the challenge. Wolf also had the war chest built up from all those years of selling out games, NFL revenue sharing, and jersey sales while not paying many good players. Wolf burned through that pretty quick in bringing in all that talent (and a few busts). Once the cash was gone and Holmgren was gone, Wolf was pretty quick to get out while his legacy was intact....Just my opinion.

That being said I don't want to discount what he did either. I just prefer TT's method of not overpaying guys, building through the draft and setting up a team for the long haul while making the tough choices at the same time. Letting go of guys like Hendo, Sharper, taking a strong stand with Walker. Those are unpopular choices, but they must be made to maintain excellence.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

4th and 26 was a legit contender. We were going to smoke Carolina and go to the SB that year. Our OL would have neutralized Peppers, Jenkins and . . . . I forget who they had, but they had another legit DE.

My thoughts exactly. We had 7-8 pro bowlers on offense alone, how is that not a contender? Favre, Green, Franks, Driver, Walker, Henderson, and all five offensive lineman (except Tauscher) were problowers sometime during their career. Actually thats 10 probowlers. That defense under Ed donetell was not to bad either. They had Sharper and Mckenzie in their primes. In 2003 we traded for Al Harris. Diggs was decent and Barnett wasn't a bad rook in 03 either. The d-line had Holliday, Kampman, KGB at defensive end (Joe Johnson was on IR just about every year), Grady Jackson came in 03, and Hunt had a decent year were he had 6 sacks if I recall correctly. We also had a reliable kicker in Longwell. Thats a pretty dam good team if you ask me.

The difference between those teams and the one in 2010 is that the 2010 team had backups like Bishop, JJ, Nelson, Peprah, Shields, Zombo, Starks, and Bulaga that came in and replaced injured players without losing much. Yet almost all the players I mentioned were not considered starters before the season or expected to even play all that much. Nobody predicted Zombo, Starks, Shields, and Peprah would be considered reliable starters come seasons end. The 02 and 03 teams on paper looked every bit as impressive as the 2010 team IMHO.

Wolf was a dam good gm. Better than TT? RIGHT NOW I will say probably yes just b/c wolf made the team competitve all 10 years or so he was GM and for almost 5 years after he left. TT has basically accomplished what wolf did in his first 6 years. Can he equal or better what wolf did in the next 8-10 years? Thats yet to be determined, but sure looks like it if Rodgers stays healthy.

[Smidgeon]

My thoughts exactly. We had 7-8 pro bowlers on offense alone, how is that not a contender? Favre, Green, Franks, Driver, Walker, Henderson, and all five offensive lineman (except Tauscher) were problowers sometime during their career. Actually thats 10 probowlers. That defense under Ed donetell was not to bad either. They had Sharper and Mckenzie in their primes. In 2003 we traded for Al Harris. Diggs was decent and Barnett wasn't a bad rook in 03 either. The d-line had Holliday, Kampman, KGB at defensive end (Joe Johnson was on IR just about every year), Grady Jackson came in 03, and Hunt had a decent year were he had 6 sacks if I recall correctly. We also had a reliable kicker in Longwell. Thats a pretty dam good team if you ask me.

The difference between those teams and the one in 2010 is that the 2010 team had backups like Bishop, JJ, Nelson, Peprah, Shields, Zombo, Starks, and Bulaga that came in and replaced injured players without losing much. Yet almost all the players I mentioned were not considered starters before the season or expected to even play all that much. Nobody predicted Zombo, Starks, Shields, and Peprah would be considered reliable starters come seasons end. The 02 and 03 teams on paper looked every bit as impressive as the 2010 team IMHO.

Wolf was a dam good gm. Better than TT? RIGHT NOW I will say probably yes just b/c wolf made the team competitve all 10 years or so he was GM and for almost 5 years after he left. TT has basically accomplished what wolf did in his first 6 years. Can he equal or better what wolf did in the next 8-10 years? Thats yet to be determined, but sure looks like it if Rodgers stays healthy.

Pro bowlers do not equal good team. See the Cowboys every year.

[Patler]

My thoughts exactly. We had 7-8 pro bowlers on offense alone, how is that not a contender? Favre, Green, Franks, Driver, Walker, Henderson, and all five offensive lineman (except Tauscher) were problowers sometime during their career. Actually thats 10 probowlers. That defense under Ed donetell was not to bad either. They had Sharper and Mckenzie in their primes. In 2003 we traded for Al Harris. Diggs was decent and Barnett wasn't a bad rook in 03 either. The d-line had Holliday, Kampman, KGB at defensive end (Joe Johnson was on IR just about every year), Grady Jackson came in 03, and Hunt had a decent year were he had 6 sacks if I recall correctly. We also had a reliable kicker in Longwell. Thats a pretty dam good team if you ask me.

The difference between those teams and the one in 2010 is that the 2010 team had backups like Bishop, JJ, Nelson, Peprah, Shields, Zombo, Starks, and Bulaga that came in and replaced injured players without losing much. Yet almost all the players I mentioned were not considered starters before the season or expected to even play all that much. Nobody predicted Zombo, Starks, Shields, and Peprah would be considered reliable starters come seasons end. The 02 and 03 teams on paper looked every bit as impressive as the 2010 team IMHO.

Wolf was a dam good gm. Better than TT? RIGHT NOW I will say probably yes just b/c wolf made the team competitve all 10 years or so he was GM and for almost 5 years after he left. TT has basically accomplished what wolf did in his first 6 years. Can he equal or better what wolf did in the next 8-10 years? Thats yet to be determined, but sure looks like it if Rodgers stays healthy.

So you would give Wolf credit for 2003 if they had succeeded? He left after the 2000 season. Vonnie Holliday was in KC in 2003, not GB. Green, Walker, Kampman, Harris, Barnett, Grady Jackson, Anderson and Navies (who started that game) were all brought in by Sherman, perhaps Ferguson too (responsibility for the 2001 draft has been hotly debated); as were Kevin Barry, Davenport, Fisher, Walls, Chatman, and most of the other reserves.

Did Wolf still have an imprint on the 2003 team? Sure, mostly on the offense. I said in an earlier post that his last successful draft in 2000 gave Sherman the nucleus to have winning teams through out his stay. But, would Wolf have been responsible for it? Not really.

[mraynrand]

Ahman Green is Wolf's doing. He traded Fred Vinson to Seattle for Green - and a fifth round pick - in 2000. It's very likely Sherman had something to do with it, as he was with Seattle while Green rode the pines, and was the rookie coach in 2000, but Wolf gets the GM credit.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Like mraynrand said I don't give sherman credit for Green. I give him credit for Harris, Kampman, Barnett, Walker, Jackson and a few others.

But obviously after 2-3 seasons even the wrost gm would hit on a few players. Navies, Anderson, and Ferguson were not very good players so to mention them as a credit to Sherman is the same as saying you need 53 players to field a team. Obviously he is going to bring in his own guys after a couple years, but the truely elite players on those teams were still Wolf's players. Walker started becoming a great player in 03, Kampman not until 05-06. Al Harris, Nick Barnett, and Grady Jackson, all players who weren't even with the team in 02, made the biggest immediate impact.

Favre, Green, Clifton, Trauscher, Whale, Rivera, Flanagan, Driver, Franks, Henderson, Mckenzie, Sharper, KGB, Diggs, and Hunt (5.5 sacks in 14 games in 02, and 4 sacks in 03) = 15 core players/starters brought in by Wolf. These players were not players past their prime either. Most of them were in their middle to late 20's. I'll give Sherman credit for Walker, Kampman, Harris, Barnett, Jackson, and patching up the rest of the team with so-so palyers. But like I said before Kampman in 02, 03, wasn't the Kampman of 06-09. Harris, Barnett, and Jackson were players Sherman gets the most credit for during that time period (01-03). It's hard ignore that Wolf kept that team a contender for many years after he left.

[mraynrand]

Wolf had his share of stinker drafts and GM years - '99 and '01 were both lousy, but 2000 was a thing of beauty - the draft and the trade for Green netted 5 high quality starters, including 4 pro bowlers. If either Reynolds or Joe Johnson had worked out (and barring an excess of injuries), I believe that the strength of that draft, and Shermy's revamp of the WR position should have propelled the team to a championship in 2002. Too bad it didn't.

[RashanGary]

Wolf has done more to this date.

To me, if I were a betting man, I'd bet TT finishes his career stronger and takes the cake.

[RashanGary]

You can look at things two ways. . . . where it's been and where it's going. After 6-10, Mark Murphy was starting to get on the hot seat about MM and TT. The cynics said, 4-12, 8-8, 13-3 and 6-10 wasn't very good.

31-33 was a average to below average team. Evidence such as context of the team Ted took over, context of the salary cap and context of the long term implications of drafting really well and frontloading contracts was thrown out the window. He was not building a team from ground up. He was pinching pennies. He was not young because the team he took over fell apart and he started sifting through the young talent until pieces stuck. He was young because he would always be young. He was young because he didn't want to sign and resign guys. All perspective was tossed out the window.

Mark Murphy looked at it a little different way. He said 4-12, 8-8, 13-3 looked like a trend. He said 6-10 looked like an outlier. He said he wanted to give it time because he felt like it was going in the right direction.

Two years later, the Packers get in the playoffs twice and win the SB once. Mark Murphy was right. He looked at where it was going, both in basic parts and in trend of improvement. Could he have been wrong? Sure. But people who can spot trends and put information together are right a whole lot more often than they're wrong.

With that in mind, I think Ted's going to be remembered as the better GM 10 years from not. Not because of what has been played out as of today, but because I'm looking at the blocks and the trends and I believe the Packers are just entering an era of greatness. I'm making a prediction of what's to come and for those who follow, you know I'm pretty good at it ;)

[mraynrand]

Reasonable analysis there, but you left out the F-bomb. That changed the equation in the 6-10 year, because TT really put his balls on the chopping block letting the F-bomb go. I would say that's a risky move, but I can't help but think that Murphy was on board for that one. Wonder where the board was....

[Patler]

Ahman Green is Wolf's doing. He traded Fred Vinson to Seattle for Green - and a fifth round pick - in 2000. It's very likely Sherman had something to do with it, as he was with Seattle while Green rode the pines, and was the rookie coach in 2000, but Wolf gets the GM credit.

Yup, you are right. I had a brain fart there. I remembered the story about the Hasselbeck trade, which both Wolf and Sherman said was Sherman's doing, and for some reason I related it to the Green trade when I wrote the comment. Completely wrong. :oops:

[RashanGary]

If I remember correctly, Sherman coached Green the year before in Seattle. I think he was influential in bringing Green to the Packers. But it was Wolf's move. Gotta give it to Wolf.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

You can look at things two ways. . . . where it's been and where it's going. After 6-10, Mark Murphy was starting to get on the hot seat about MM and TT. The cynics said, 4-12, 8-8, 13-3 and 6-10 wasn't very good.

31-33 was a average to below average team. Evidence such as context of the team Ted took over, context of the salary cap and context of the long term implications of drafting really well and frontloading contracts was thrown out the window. He was not building a team from ground up. He was pinching pennies. He was not young because the team he took over fell apart and he started sifting through the young talent until pieces stuck. He was young because he would always be young. He was young because he didn't want to sign and resign guys. All perspective was tossed out the window.

Mark Murphy looked at it a little different way. He said 4-12, 8-8, 13-3 looked like a trend. He said 6-10 looked like an outlier. He said he wanted to give it time because he felt like it was going in the right direction.

Two years later, the Packers get in the playoffs twice and win the SB once. Mark Murphy was right. He looked at where it was going, both in basic parts and in trend of improvement. Could he have been wrong? Sure. But people who can spot trends and put information together are right a whole lot more often than they're wrong.

With that in mind, I think Ted's going to be remembered as the better GM 10 years from not. Not because of what has been played out as of today, but because I'm looking at the blocks and the trends and I believe the Packers are just entering an era of greatness. I'm making a prediction of what's to come and for those who follow, you know I'm pretty good at it ;)

I agree with this. If TT's upcoming drafts are on par with what we have seen the last 6 years and the key players on the team (Rodgers, Matthews, etc.) stay relatively healthy, I could see us winning another 2-3 superbowls in the next 5-8 years. If that happens, I think superbowl championships have to trump all else = TT > Wolf.

As of right not though, they both have one championship and both won the superbowl after about 5 seasons of being GM. Plus TT looks to have built a team that is going to be a contender for many more years. Thus, as of right now I would say they are about even. Another superbowl win or two is what it is going to take to past wolf.