Suddenly, I'm Really Down On This Team

[HarveyWallbangers]

I didn't have high hopes before. I predicted 7-9, but the developments of the last few days have really gotten me down on this team. The demotion of Colledge wreaks of panic, and tells me not to expect any better play out of the interior OL than last year. The one position (OT) where we had good starters and decent depth is suddenly a question mark. Clifton is hampered by an injury, Tauscher is not taking to the new scheme, and we lost Barry and Klemm for the season. We lost a rising safety that likely would have played this year. I have a bad feeling Favre is going to be running for his life. As bad as the OGs were last year, at least they were big enough to hold up somewhat to the likes of Shaun Rogers, Tommie Harris, and Pat Williams--although they were pathetic in the running game. This OL could be worse--as they now have to learn a new scheme. For as bad as the OL was run blocking last year, they were okay pass blocking. This OL could struggle in both departments. Woodson has a lazy attitude. Manuel has been injured. Harris looks old. Collins hasn't made a play. No DE has stepped up. The DTs are decent, but not dominating. The WRs are pedestrian. If Ahman Green isn't healthy all year, this team will be lucky to win 6 games. The only really good things to come out of this camp have been the play of Aaron Rodgers and possibly Greg Jennings.

I'm not ready to give up on them long-term because I think there is some good, young talent on the team--and I like what Thompson is starting and I like what I see in McCarthy, but I'm thinking something like 5-11 and 6-10 is more likely for this season. I'd be ecstatic for 8-8 right now. Looking at McGinn's analysis of the roster, doesn't paint a pretty picture. Christl also said something that stood out. We read the daily Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down, but bottom line, he said, is that this team has been practicing like they played on Saturday night. That's a scary thought.

[MJZiggy]

Good God, Harv, it was one game. Let's see how they respond to this challenge before we doom them for the season. I don't think moving people on the line this week is tantamount to panic, I see it more as adjusting according to the game performance. I mean, really, if Colledge couldn't handle the position, get him out of there and put him where he's more effective and where we need the backup. If Moll stepped up, he deserved to be in there. As to the rest of it, give them the rest of training camp before you just give up for the year.

[Packgator]

Hopefully things will get better each week of the preseason (as they should). What we need to see now is improvement each week. Seeing no improvement week to week will give me my biggest cause for concern. Lets see how we feel after this weeks game.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Good God, Harv, it was one game. Let's see how they respond to this challenge before we doom them for the season. I don't think moving people on the line this week is tantamount to panic, I see it more as adjusting according to the game performance. I mean, really, if Colledge couldn't handle the position, get him out of there and put him where he's more effective and where we need the backup. If Moll stepped up, he deserved to be in there. As to the rest of it, give them the rest of training camp before you just give up for the year.

That's the way I felt last year, and it turned out to be a train wreck. I have a bad feeling that I'd just be drinking too much Kool-Aid if I thought they were going to be better. If San Francisco had this roster, I'd say they'd win 5 games. The only reasons I can see that we might do better are Brett Favre and Ahman Green. Tony Friggin' Moll starting? If Colledge is playing so poorly that the coaches felt the need to bench him for Moll, then I'd say expecting the OL to be better than last year is a reach.

[MJZiggy]

We'll see. It really is too soon to tell. I also want to see who TT brings in. Can't wait for cutdowns.

[GBRulz]

I like the fact that M3 isn't afraid to go in and make some immediate changes. One game and suddenly Colledge isn't our starter anymore.

Perhaps changes like this is a good discipline-like move for the players, it shows that if you can't perform, you'll be replaced with someone who can. You can't tell me that if Colledge gets another shot to start that he won't step up his game just one more notch.

[pbmax]

I'm not ready to give up on them long-term because I think there is some good, young talent on the team--and I like what Thompson is starting and I like what I see in McCarthy, but I'm thinking something like 5-11 and 6-10 is more likely for this season. I'd be ecstatic for 8-8 right now. Looking at McGinn's analysis of the roster, doesn't paint a pretty picture. Christl also said something that stood out. We read the daily Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down, but bottom line, he said, is that this team has been practicing like they played on Saturday night. That's a scary thought.
I agree with you here. I like most of TT's roster turnover so far (except for Wahle and Walker, and not sure Walker was worth it) But the biggest issue facing the team is the run game. If they can block the run game and find someone to run it, then the passing game will be OK.

If Favre has to carry this team by passing then it will be like last year all over again. Not all Favre's fault, but he is not going to play like you could bully Brad Johnson or Rex Grossman into playing.

Its on Jags and Philbin, Colledge, Spitz, Moll and Coston. Maybe White and Wells.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Well, at least you've got some company in your opinion Harv. Overall, I'm down on this team and I don't see how you can be excited. The biggest problem I see is overall depth. Too many busted drafts by Sherman. I think TT has drafted relatively well (2005 was spotty, but is starting to come around; a fair number of the players of the class of 2006 look to be players for years to come--we got lucky with such a GREAT draft!!!!!). We can't afford to have ANY injuries to the lines, secondary, WR corps (throw in the RB corps, since they're already somewhat banged up), or QB position (that goes without saying for virtually every team). This team is as fragile as an egg right now. A few more serious cracks (injuries) and it could break.

I think we have lots of talent at key positions on the surface, but the waters are VERY shallow underneath.

Let's see where we stand at the beginning of presesaon. If we can avoid injuries and get some chemistry in the ranks, there may be something to cheer about. Contrary to Zig's view, I really don't think cutdowns will provide us with much hope. Anyone we bring in will take some time to get acclimated to our system, especiallly if they're offensive lineman that aren't used to our cutblock scheme.

tyler

[Partial]

Good God, Harv, it was one game. Let's see how they respond to this challenge before we doom them for the season. I don't think moving people on the line this week is tantamount to panic, I see it more as adjusting according to the game performance. I mean, really, if Colledge couldn't handle the position, get him out of there and put him where he's more effective and where we need the backup. If Moll stepped up, he deserved to be in there. As to the rest of it, give them the rest of training camp before you just give up for the year.

That's the way I felt last year, and it turned out to be a train wreck. I have a bad feeling that I'd just be drinking too much Kool-Aid if I thought they were going to be better. If San Francisco had this roster, I'd say they'd win 5 games. The only reasons I can see that we might do better are Brett Favre and Ahman Green. Tony Friggin' Moll starting? If Colledge is playing so poorly that the coaches felt the need to bench him for Moll, then I'd say expecting the OL to be better than last year is a reach.

Part of me can't help but think they're not too optimistic about Clifton's injury and are hoping Moll can be effective starting. That way, in a pinch they can play Colledge at LT

[Packnut]

I think a lot depends on Green. This kind of scheme was made for him. If he can stay healthy, things will not be as bad as they seem now.

[jack's smirking revenge]

I think a lot depends on Green. This kind of scheme was made for him. If he can stay healthy, things will not be as bad as they seem now.

But not if our line can't stay healthy or step up to the challenge of a new scheme. Green is not a scatback that can make things happen with zero holes. He's great once he gets past the line, especially with a screen, but isn't very effective at making things happen on his own.

I worry about our line. Yes, it was one game. I'm intrigued by the fact that Moll stoned Merriman for most of the game though. There's a glimmer of hope with that fact. Overall, I think the influx of new players and a brand new scheme will lead to lots of growing pains with this offense.

And the death of Favre if things don't turn around.... (he doesn't have the health to survive being sacked 4 or 5 times a game)

tyler

[Packnut]

I think a lot depends on Green. This kind of scheme was made for him. If he can stay healthy, things will not be as bad as they seem now.

But not if our line can't stay healthy or step up to the challenge of a new scheme. Green is not a scatback that can make things happen with zero holes. He's great once he gets past the line, especially with a screen, but isn't very effective at making things happen on his own.

I worry about our line. Yes, it was one game. I'm intrigued by the fact that Moll stoned Merriman for most of the game though. There's a glimmer of hope with that fact. Overall, I think the influx of new players and a brand new scheme will lead to lots of growing pains with this offense.

And the death of Favre if things don't turn around.... (he doesn't have the health to survive being sacked 4 or 5 times a game)

tyler

But with Green's burst, the hole does'nt have to be that big. How many times have we seen him run the sweep and it look's like nothings there and all of a sudden he explodes through? He does'nt dance around. He looks for 1 opening and he takes it. I also always thought he never got enough credit for his cutting back against the grain ability.

[woodbuck27]

Harvey:

I too went out on a limb many weeks ago with "an all puffed up" prediction of :

7-9 for 2006. Today that looks very optimistic, well ridiculous.

The reality of NFL football dictates this:

OUR GM - Ted Thompson and the HC and Coachs have to somehow provide an OL , that will protect the QB and RB or we go nowhere on Offense. Without a running game, we loose the advantage of the play action pass and we loose the battle of the clock. OUR DEFESE gets run over and wears out by mid season.

We must win the possession game, and hearing Mike McCarthy spout off about the Offensive play ratio going to be something like 55% - 45% in favor of some passing play - smacks of his naievity.

Come On !!!!! That is absolute BULLSHIT !!

I can't believe my eyes reading such crap. If that is his real thinking, starting out as OUR Head Coach ? if he's really into believing that will work ? Then if that's actually the case, he will soon be out of a job forever as an NFL Head Coach. Few team's can be successful over the long run in the NFL if they can't run the ball well. That depends on a solid OL and a dedication to team blocking.

This is still what I'm seeing. Ted Thompson wants his man in there to get his QB in there. Aaron Rodgers and they are designing an Offense specifically for Aaron Rodgers not Brett Favre. Anyone not seeing this. . well. . . too much can only be explained by Ted Thompson's Off season in this agenda. Out with Brett Favre and Ahman Green and the Old regieme and on with the wonders of Ted Thompson.

It makes me sick. It's too obvious.

As long as we - as fans of the Green Bay Packers don't intelligently discern what is going on inside of OUR team - happenings off the field. We can't as Packer fans influence proper direction.

Proper direction to me means a REAL opportunity to win a Super Bowl not act as " the doormat - doorman ".

Right now as a Packer fan !! I'm calling OUR GM Ted Thompson, to get more done, with his every means. Either get something done or resign. The Green Bay Packers need help today on the OL, but we need help all over.

We need help at RB at WR at TE at DE at CB. After Favre - Aaron Rodgers? What a joke. A joke on poor Aaron Rodgers and Ted Thompson acts like he's frozen. Have any of you got any clue why Jim Bates left as he did, and got payed for leaving?

Think !!!!!

Sorry but I hate the direction we are going in since Ted Thompson arrived.

I'm sick of this:

His inability of a quick and decive response to obvious adversity all over on OUR team with his well it will take time approach. We don't deserve to play horribly as we did in 2005. I'll chalk that one up to adversity weighted heavily against us, but he see's OUR need now, and what in "H" is he going to do about it?

Ted Thompson spent way too much money on Charles Woodson, that could have been used to really assist OUR OL, or maybe a solid RB or WR. He's sitting on alot of money now below OUR CAP, that could be used to bring in WR Jerry Porter; and it would only take a third round pick to attain WR Ashley Lelie (maybe a player as well?). He can't sit back in his office and come out on the field and cover his face anymore.

Some will argue - why bring in another RB or WR when the basic problem lies in an OL in disarray? OUR OL sucks !!!! Well I challenge all of you Packer fans, to explain to me why Ted Thompson waited for "the DRAFT" to do anything with OUR OL? THE DRAFT ?????

What was that supposed to do for Brett Favre's and Ahman Green's and Donald Driver's and Bubba Franks's and Chad Clifton's and Mark Tauscher's and William Henderson's . . .

hopes to give their team and their fans team - WINS ????

Ted Thompson has to start just being a full time GM of the Green Bay Packers. Either that - or he's lost this Packer fans realistic support.

End of that story !

[woodbuck27]

Good God, Harv, it was one game. Let's see how they respond to this challenge before we doom them for the season. I don't think moving people on the line this week is tantamount to panic, I see it more as adjusting according to the game performance. I mean, really, if Colledge couldn't handle the position, get him out of there and put him where he's more effective and where we need the backup. If Moll stepped up, he deserved to be in there. As to the rest of it, give them the rest of training camp before you just give up for the year.


" Dreamer - Your nothing but a dreamer " . . Supertramp.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Woodbuck, you make some very good points.

We diverge on Favre though. I don't think its folly to gear this whole team toward the Rodgers future. Favre is NOT the future. Honestly, beyond the money, I don't know why he's hanging on. Love of the game? Perhaps. Money? Probably. Records? Most likely. I'm not disappointed that he is still our QB, but the "intelligent" Packer fans all know that Favre is just around for records. There's no Super Bowl team right here and Brett knew it when he decided to come back. Rodgers is the future BF (beyond Favre). We're a team in transition, a team rebuilding. "Retooling" is just a marketing spin to cover up the fact that the team is going in a different direction. It's changing ALL OVER the place--lines, schemes, personnel. This is a drastically different team than even a year ago.

There are two schools of thought around Favre: TT should throw money at building the best team possible so he can have his last show and/or TT is not going to mortgage the future just so Favre can have one more shot. I for one am content that TT is doing what he can to build this team back up. There is much damage throughout, much more than a single offseason and a huge cap can fix. In my opinion, 2007 may offer Favre the chance to return to the Super Bowl if he can hang on this year. We're starting to get some really talented depth AND we'll have a nice cap number next year to go after some more free agents.

Build through the draft. Plan for a dynasty with youth. Augment with reasonably-priced free agents.

Unfortunately, Favre is probably not part of that picture unless he sticks around until next year.

tyler

[Packnut]

woodbuck- I am also not a big fan of TT's. I have not and never will get over the Wahle blunder. Yet everytime I mention it, someone responds about the cap situation at the time. Well as it turns out, several players could have been asked to re-structure because the money to pay them is there now and my point is there was no effort at all.

If you look at the guys TT brought in last season, he clearly has a hard time evaluating O line talent but more disturbingly, under-estimates the importance of the O line.

[jack's smirking revenge]

I'd love to have Porter, but I'm glad the Packers aren't giving up a high draft pick for him. The Raiders hold all of the cards here. They are demanding a high draft pick AND a team to pick up his multi-million dollar salary. That's crazy! You can't criticize the Woodson pickup--which was acceptable because we had cap space and it did NOT cost a draft pick--yet criticize TT for not getting Porter. TT is smart for waiting for the Raiders to drop their price. They're probably demanding a first-rounder, for a guy whose numbers are comparable to Rod Gardner! Yes, he's got upside and potential, but not at a first-round pick price. Second, maybe. Third, definitely.

As for Lelie, I think there's a reason why NO team in the league is fighting over each other to pick him up. Have you considered that? Have you considered that maybe he's just a one-trick pony? His time in Denver was decent, but woefully unimpressive. If TT broke the bank on Lelie, just because we need another receiver (which we don't if TEs were incorporated better), then I would be GREATLY disappointed. Lelie was good at the long ball in Denver, that was it.

Have you considered that TT may be doing what he can given the free agent market and current cap situation? TT has given us the following players: Rodgers, Collins, Underwood, Poppinga, Coston, Hawkins, Hawk, Jennings, Hodge, Spitz, Colledge, Rodgers, Moll, Culver, and possibly Blackmon when he's recovered.

How many of those young names do you see in the starting (or at least practicing with the first team) ranks?

tyler

[MJZiggy]

That's the way I felt last year, and it turned out to be a train wreck. I have a bad feeling that I'd just be drinking too much Kool-Aid if I thought they were going to be better. If San Francisco had this roster, I'd say they'd win 5 games. The only reasons I can see that we might do better are Brett Favre and Ahman Green. Tony Friggin' Moll starting? If Colledge is playing so poorly that the coaches felt the need to bench him for Moll, then I'd say expecting the OL to be better than last year is a reach.

Part of me can't help but think they're not too optimistic about Clifton's injury and are hoping Moll can be effective starting. That way, in a pinch they can play Colledge at LT

That may be, Partial, they do have to have an effective backup for Clifton even if he were healing wonderfully. If Colledge struggled during that game, Moll performed well, and Colledge's natural position is Tackle what would you do? Does anyone think that they really shouldn't have rewarded Moll for a superior performance and not give Colledge a shot at playing the position he earned his round 2 pick with? Coach said this isn't necessarily a permanent change. They just want to see how they perform/improve. I don't see what's so horrible about that. My gut is still feeling far better about things this year than last year.

[prsnfoto]

[quote="jack's smirking revenge"]Woodbuck, you make some very good points.

We diverge on Favre though. I don't think its folly to gear this whole team toward the Rodgers future. Favre is NOT the future. Honestly, beyond the money, I don't know why he's hanging on. Love of the game? Perhaps. Money? Probably. Records? Most likely. I'm not disappointed that he is still our QB, but the "intelligent" Packer fans all know that Favre is just around for records. There's no Super Bowl team right here and Brett knew it when he decided to come back. Rodgers is the future BF (beyond Favre). We're a team in transition, a team rebuilding. "Retooling" is just a marketing spin to cover up the fact that the team is going in a different direction. It's changing ALL OVER the place--lines, schemes, personnel. This is a drastically different team than even a year ago.

There are two schools of thought around Favre: TT should throw money at building the best team possible so he can have his last show and/or TT is not going to mortgage the future just so Favre can have one more shot. I for one am content that TT is doing what he can to build this team back up. There is much damage throughout, much more than a single offseason and a huge cap can fix. In my opinion, 2007 may offer Favre the chance to return to the Super Bowl if he can hang on this year. We're starting to get some really talented depth AND we'll have a nice cap number next year to go after some more free agents.

Build through the draft. Plan for a dynasty with youth. Augment with reasonably-priced free agents.

Unfortunately, Favre is probably not part of that picture unless he sticks around until next year.

Tom Brady could be our QB and with TT intelligence for building a OL he would look like crap. What I don't get is TT is staking his future on this OL he drafted and will not spend a nickel on any vets I have no doubt if Clifton and Tauscher were not locked up he would let them walk, earth to Ted if you are not 8-8 this year 9-7 next and 10-6 the next your gone. Thank god this team pulls the plug much faster then it did in the 70s and 80s. I'm not giving up yet but damn lets see some hope that Seattle was not a fluke and he knows what the fuck he is doing.

[jack's smirking revenge]

woodbuck- I am also not a big fan of TT's. I have not and never will get over the Wahle blunder. Yet everytime I mention it, someone responds about the cap situation at the time. Well as it turns out, several players could have been asked to re-structure because the money to pay them is there now and my point is there was no effort at all.

If you look at the guys TT brought in last season, he clearly has a hard time evaluating O line talent but more disturbingly, under-estimates the importance of the O line.

I agree with you that TT should've addressed the OLine situation better in 2005 when Wahle and Rivera stepped out of the picture. He didn't. But he's not a bad Oline evaluator. He did get us three decent prospects this year in Colledge, Spitz and Moll.

And, when he was VP of Football Ops (similar post he has now) in Seattle, he drafted the following Oline players:

Chris McIntosh
Steve Hutchinson
Floyd Womack
Wayner Hunter
Sean Locklear
Matt Hill

Most of these guys are or were starters. Hunter and Locklear are still part of the Seattle Oline. McIntosh, Hutch and Womack are studs. He also benefitted from inheriting Walter Jones.

So, I don't think we can really criticize his Oline knowledge. Not yet. Not after one bad preseason game. Moll evidentally did pretty well in the game after Colledge was demoted and Clifton's injury complicates things. We lack quality depth at the position and, as evidenced by the 2006 draft, I think he's working on it.

tyler

[GBRulz]

I think it was Partial who brought up the point about Clifton's injury.....

I've been thinking about that as well. Are they worried more than they are letting on to? I really thought he'd be ready to go by now.

[RIPackerFan]

It is way too early to jump ship. It was the first preseason game, with a new coaching staff and new players. While there was a lot to dislike about the game, there were some positives.

I watched the game again and like some of the previous posters said – the O-line didn’t do as bad as I thought it did. Colledge was definitely the poorest – so the coaching staff decided to make a change. I think it was too early to do that, but if it pans out, the O-line has more time in the preseason to gel (as opposed to changing the starting line-up one week before the regular season).

Also, San Diego also threw a bunch of stuff at us – including tons of blitz packages and several different offensive looks (the Chargers home announcers even said so). While I agree that we should have played better, I saw more thinking than playing by the players – probably because they hadn’t practiced a lot against all the looks the Chargers were giving to them – and were thinking about what they needed to do. Remember – they had only practiced for two weeks prior to this game – two weeks to implement a new scheme and get the rooks ready. To me, this explains all the thinking. As time goes by and they have more time to practice – they will think less, since it will become second nature.

To be honest – I would prefer this loss over a win where the other team played a vanilla defense and offense. A win over vanilla will produce a false sense of accomplishment – a loss over something complex shows the team (and coaches) they need to prepare more and be ready for everything.

I guess we will see this weekend if anything sunk in.

[RIPackerFan]

Clifton said after the 20 plays in the SD game - he felt pretty good - so I am hoping that it is better than it looked.

[woodbuck27]

woodbuck- I am also not a big fan of TT's. I have not and never will get over the Wahle blunder. Yet everytime I mention it, someone responds about the cap situation at the time. Well as it turns out, several players could have been asked to re-structure because the money to pay them is there now and my point is there was no effort at all.

If you look at the guys TT brought in last season, he clearly has a hard time evaluating O line talent but more disturbingly, under-estimates the importance of the O line.

I really believe as Packer fans we have this forum to get to the TRUTH. That means to not be disallutioned by the promise of things to come - reliant on one man's eforts free of any criticism. I am not easy on Ted Thompson, because I feel he didn't spend OUR money wisely in this Off Season.

Oh yes ! He wanted Brett Favre to return? To what????

More failure - when we all know he will give his heart and soul as a football player, and the man he obviously is? What a sham.

If OUR GM Ted Thompson wanted Brett Favre really to return, he needed to provide tools for Brett Favre and the other vet's on OUR offense to really have a chance to win with. This talk of Favre and records is BS, because without the tools to win games it all falls apart.

Brett Favre wants to win. Ahman Green wants to win, as does every really decent player on OUR team that are "in fact" the vet's.

Ted Thompson has sacrificed all OUR vet's aspirations in their twilight, to his ego, his inexperience and I'll fall short of saying his overall incompetence, to ever being a decent GM.

When Ted Thompson does something decent I'm there to comment favorably, but this Off Season he failed in his job and we'll (the fans and OUR Vet players) will all suffer 2006 for just that.

He didn't do nearly enough there.

Ted Thompson in my sight doesn't give a hoot about 2006. He's retiring Brett Favre and Ahman Green. I suffer for that - the manner in which he's allowing their final fall. Has he no conscience? Is he really competent?

This is all plainly and painfully obvious to me. So what will he do today and tomorrow to help the Green Bay Packers - not just himself?

This season will be 100% on Ted Thompson - from the Head Coach he chose and that Coaching Staff, to losing a fine Defensive Co-Ordinator in Jim Bates, and the negatives will go on and on as this season progress's.That is my honest feeling. I can't escape my observations.I can't paint a false picture or act like it's all really OK anymore.

I have Faith. Yes I do. Yet, that faith has to be rewarded by competence in the GM of the Green Bay Packers and his staff. It's certainly not happening in 2006 as I view it now.

We need HELP !

Do something Ted Thompson - fast. Do anything REAL!!!

It's right in front of us dedicated Packer fans (on this site) and we need to push him to do more and smarten up as Packer fans deserve alot more from his hire.

This is OUR team - not Ted Thompson's.

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH for 2006 !!

[LaFours]

[quote=jack's smirking revenge]Woodbuck, you make some very good points.

We diverge on Favre though. I don't think its folly to gear this whole team toward the Rodgers future. Favre is NOT the future. Honestly, beyond the money, I don't know why he's hanging on. Love of the game? Perhaps. Money? Probably. Records? Most likely. I'm not disappointed that he is still our QB, but the "intelligent" Packer fans all know that Favre is just around for records. There's no Super Bowl team right here and Brett knew it when he decided to come back. Rodgers is the future BF (beyond Favre). We're a team in transition, a team rebuilding. "Retooling" is just a marketing spin to cover up the fact that the team is going in a different direction. It's changing ALL OVER the place--lines, schemes, personnel. This is a drastically different team than even a year ago.

If he doesn't value OL talent then I guess we can close the books on any speculation that he had anything to do with getting Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson in Seattle. Hutchinson (a guard) was drafted in the first round. Wasn't TT heading up those drafts?

There are two schools of thought around Favre: TT should throw money at building the best team possible so he can have his last show and/or TT is not going to mortgage the future just so Favre can have one more shot. I for one am content that TT is doing what he can to build this team back up. There is much damage throughout, much more than a single offseason and a huge cap can fix. In my opinion, 2007 may offer Favre the chance to return to the Super Bowl if he can hang on this year. We're starting to get some really talented depth AND we'll have a nice cap number next year to go after some more free agents.

Build through the draft. Plan for a dynasty with youth. Augment with reasonably-priced free agents.

Unfortunately, Favre is probably not part of that picture unless he sticks around until next year.

Tom Brady could be our QB and with TT intelligence for building a OL he would look like crap. What I don't get is TT is staking his future on this OL he drafted and will not spend a nickel on any vets I have no doubt if Clifton and Tauscher were not locked up he would let them walk, earth to Ted if you are not 8-8 this year 9-7 next and 10-6 the next your gone. Thank god this team pulls the plug much faster then it did in the 70s and 80s. I'm not giving up yet but damn lets see some hope that Seattle was not a fluke and he knows what the fuck he is doing.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Yes, that first preseason game was horrible, but there was some good to take from it. The defense, which I agree did play poorly, still only gave up 17 points. I think there is to much talent on the defense that, with a little more time, will be fixed. As for the offense, everyone has to admit that the WRs played fairly well. Driver, Gardner, and Ferguson all played well and I think any one of them could easliy start athe season and preform well. Jennings showed that he could handle the NFL and start as a rookie with some of the nice catches that he made. He did have some drops, but I don't think that this will be a presistent problem because all the reports out of camp up until now have been about how good his hands are. The biggest concern of mine and of everyone esles is the o-line. Now with three preseason games left there is still some time to find out who can play and who can't. CC and MT we know can play and will be fine, and I have not hread anything negative on wells yet. That leaves the guards. If spiltz can continue to devlop in the next few games I think he will be fine. And if Moll plays well against Atlanta on saturday I have a feeling everyone is going to feel a lot better about the team. The main thing right now is not to panic and to keep the hope alive.

[woodbuck27]

Yes, that first preseason game was horrible, but there was some good to take from it. The defense, which I agree did play poorly, still only gave up 17 points. I think there is to much talent on the defense that, with a little more time, will be fixed. As for the offense, everyone has to admit that the WRs played fairly well. Driver, Gardner, and Ferguson all played well and I think any one of them could easliy start athe season and preform well. Jennings showed that he could handle the NFL and start as a rookie with some of the nice catches that he made. He did have some drops, but I don't think that this will be a presistent problem because all the reports out of camp up until now have been about how good his hands are. The biggest concern of mine and of everyone esles is the o-line. Now with three preseason games left there is still some time to find out who can play and who can't. CC and MT we know can play and will be fine, and I have not hread anything negative on wells yet. That leave the guards. If spiltz can continue to devlop in the next few games I think he will be fine. And if Moll plays well against Atlanta on saturday I have a feeling everyone is going to feel a lot better about the team. The main thing right now is not to panic and to keep the hope alive.

Good post PaCkFan_n_MD.

GO PACKERS !

[woodbuck27]

What will Bretsky's response be here?

Looking for that.

GO PACKERS ! Come On Ted !!!!

[LaFours]

Wasn't Colledge given the starting Left Guard job immediately after he was drafted? McCarthy and TT have said time and again that they believe in creating a competitive environment. Colledge obviously didn't get it done on Sat. so why not throw some adversity his way and see how he responds? This, in my opinion, is a wise move. Moll played well and Colledge did not, based on the abbreviated history with each guy, Colledge needs challenged and Moll needs rewarded. I don't see what the big issue with this move is.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Let's consider the Brett situation and TT for a second:

1. Could TT actually tell Brett not to come back? No. He couldn't. Not the face of the Packers. Not the man whom every Packer fan thinks the world of and rallies around. TT didn't have an option with the Favre scenario. It was always "up to Favre". If he took a stand with Favre, he would've alienated the Packer nation and he understood that, so you have to give him props for not being a hard ass.

2. Could Favre have decided not to come back? Yes. He's a smart football player and a business man. He knows what's going on. He understands that he's not the future of the franchise anymore. He probably realizes that the team isn't going to rebuild itself to get Favre another ring. But he did decide to come back, regardless of circumstances. He has his own reasons and we'll get the "Favre-spin", but we'll really never know the truth of why he came back.

3. Is TT obligated to retool the team just for Favre? No. He's not. The Packers are a business. They are not a monarchy. The franchise will exist long beyond Favre. I disagree with the idea that he needs to break the bank to give Favre one last shot. The odds are slim that such an activity would wreap Super Bowl rewards and could set the franchise back even further in its quest to get back to the big game. There are few guarantees in the game of football, but if you get your team into cap trouble, your team is guaranteed to suffer.

So, don't dump the problems of the Pack squarely on TT. He is doing his job. He has brought in free agents in an attempt to make the team better. Some of them weren't flashy, some weren't the top of the heap of the market. He has drafted relatively well. The future should tell us more about his ability to draft for the Packers.

Yesterday woodbuck, you posted that I speak "the Truth". Well, I don't buy the anti-TT spin as truth, whether its coming from you or anyone else.

This team has lots of problems right now and they aren't all TT's fault.

tyler

[wist43]

What's disheartening is that both lines are very poor. OT and DT are OK, not great, but OK.

The interior OL is, as everyone knows, an absolute mess; and, the DE's are overpaid and generally unproductive. You can't win in the NFL if you can't compete in the trenches.

I started my prediction at 6-10, drank some Kool-Aid and went up to 7-9... but, realistically, 3-13/4-12 is much more likely. I fully expect the Packers to be competing for the #1 pick next year.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

jack's smirking revenge-

I agree with your take on not putting it all on TT. He did make am effort this offseason to sign some good free agents, and not to mention many players that he had to resign ( Green, Kampman, etc.). But I guess were I differ from everyone else is that I just don't think this team is that bad. There are some very good players on that defense that could possibly make it to the pro bowl this year. And on offense there are many former pro bowlers, who just need a few second year players and rookies to step up.

[woodbuck27]

Wasn't Colledge given the starting Left Guard job immediately after he was drafted? McCarthy and TT have said time and again that they believe in creating a competitive environment. Colledge obviously didn't get it done on Sat. so why not throw some adversity his way and see how he responds? This, in my opinion, is a wise move. Moll played well and Colledge did not, based on the abbreviated history with each guy, Colledge needs challenged and Moll needs rewarded. I don't see what the big issue with this move is.

That move seems justified and logical LaFours.

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH in 2006 !!

[LaFours]

Let's consider the Brett situation and TT for a second:

1. Could TT actually tell Brett not to come back? No. He couldn't. Not the face of the Packers. Not the man whom every Packer fan thinks the world of and rallies around. TT didn't have an option with the Favre scenario. It was always "up to Favre". If he took a stand with Favre, he would've alienated the Packer nation and he understood that, so you have to give him props for not being a hard ass.

2. Could Favre have decided not to come back? Yes. He's a smart football player and a business man. He knows what's going on. He understands that he's not the future of the franchise anymore. He probably realizes that the team isn't going to rebuild itself to get Favre another ring. But he did decide to come back, regardless of circumstances. He has his own reasons and we'll get the "Favre-spin", but we'll really never know the truth of why he came back.

3. Is TT obligated to retool the team just for Favre? No. He's not. The Packers are a business. They are not a monarchy. The franchise will exist long beyond Favre. I disagree with the idea that he needs to break the bank to give Favre one last shot. The odds are slim that such an activity would wreap Super Bowl rewards and could set the franchise back even further in its quest to get back to the big game. There are no guarantees in the game of football, but if you get your team into cap trouble, your team is guaranteed to suffer.

So, don't dump the problems of the Pack squarely on TT. He is doing his job. He has brought in free agents in an attempt to make the team better. Some of them weren't flashy, some weren't the top of the heap of the market. He has drafted relatively well. The future should tell us more about his ability to draft for the Packers.

Yesterday woodbuck, you posted that I speak "the Truth". Well, I don't buy the anti-TT spin as truth, whether its coming from you or anyone else.

This team has lots of problems right now and they aren't all TT's fault.

tyler

I agree with this...plus everyone seems to think that the only way to give Brett one more chance to win a championship is by giving him tools on offense. I disagree with this. Yes, providing Brett with offensive tools (i.e. more accomplished receivers & a healthier running back corps) would be one way to try and provide him one more chance but so will revamping the defense.

Last year the defense kept us in the game time and time again only to see the offense fall short in the end. Doesn't it make sense to think that all of the additions to this defense should allow us to not be in that situation week in and week out? Isn't there a chance that the work being done on the defensive side of the ball could possibly enable Brett to have one more shot at it by keeping opposing offenses from getting ahead continually in the first place?

This is not to say that these predictions will become reality but you cannot ignore the fact that TT focused on upgrading the defense in the offseason and that quite possibly, he is approaching Brett's "final hurrah" in a more unconventional way...improving the defense so opposing offenses aren't as big of a factor in the game's outcome. Maybe I'm blind to his deficiencies but I think in an age where offense has become much more glamorous that defense (to the vast majority of fans) that TT chose to buck the contemporary trend in favor of his own path and build a defense. Brett can make our offense function even if it isn't as efficient as the offenses we have grown accustomed to watching during his tenure with GB. TT knows what "magic" Brett can bring and decided to supplement that with a stronger defense. I, for one, am excited to see what Brett can do with a stronger defense. No he won't be throwing touchdowns to A.J. Hawk or Marquand Manual (but he might to Woodson) but to say that they cannot help his chances of getting there one more time is to discount the fundamental makeup of this sport...it still boils down to the team and last I checked a football team was comprised of an offense and a defense, not just a quarterback, his receivers and running backs.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

These are my exact thoughts.....

[Creepy]

woodbuck,
just about every post you make it is the same old thing. TT this or TT that, and there fgoing down in flames. Should have signed TO, Hutchinson, Arrington, and any other big name big cost FA to get Favre to the SB.

Give it a rest. Gb willplay well and move forward. Looking at the pre-season the Lions will sweep the North the Vikings and Bears will fight for losing 3d place finish and GB will find it hard to beat a local HS team.

It is one game and thats all. Starters came out before the ned of the 1st quarter, they did move the ball but because of a dropped pass and a little overthrown ball, GB easily culd have been up 10 to 7. There were posiitves andthere were negatives, but nothing that makes me want to give up the ship. If it is too hard for you to watch then go watch another team. Get behidn them or get off the road.

Your truth is your own drivel and it means squat. Other players could have been restructured to make room for Wahle. What players? Sharper? Nope, he had to be cut. KGB? Nope, he was not taking a cut in pay either and would have been a bigger cap hit than Wahle. The money wasn't there so they had to let Wahle go. Get over it and move on.

I expect GB to field a competitive teamthisyear and withte North it is still anybodys division. Neither the Vikings, Lions or even Bears have improved so much that GB can't come back. So for one last time, "Get behind them or get off the road!"

[jack's smirking revenge]

jack's smirking revenge-

I agree with your take on not putting it all on TT. He did make am effort this offseason to sign some good free agents, and not to mention many players that he had to resign ( Green, Kampman, etc.). But I guess were I differ from everyone else is that I just don't think this team is that bad. There are some very good players on that defense that could possibly make it to the pro bowl this year. And on offense there are many former pro bowlers, who just need a few second year players and rookies to step up.

I agree with you PaCKFan. I do believe that we have some great talent on the surface at some positions. With luck, we could have some Pro Bowlers. Depth is our big problem across the board. Injuries could make this a very difficult year, in my opinion. We've got young depth--which can lead to great things as that youth gets experience, but can also lead to growing pains and a disappointing year.

tyler

[LaFours]

These are my exact thoughts.....

I saw where you beat me to the general idea...we must be on the same wavelength.

[Willard]

I like the move to change-up the starters on the OL. I will feel worse (downright panicked) if we still don't have established starters after the CIN game. Reason for optimism? These guys still haven't learned the ZBS. The SD game was their first and only chance to test out the new scheme and they didn't get it done. Is this unusual? Not according to Jags. I take some solace in reading Jags' recollection of the first pre-season game in Atlanta in which the OL was equally inept. Read the following exerpt from today's PackersNews article:

Jagodzinski said Saturday night was similar to his first exhibition game with Atlanta in 2004, when the Falcons' new coaching staff also was putting in the same Alex Gibbs zone-blocking scheme the Packers are implementing now. In the first exhibition game for coach Jim Mora and his staff in '04, also against a 3-4 defensive scheme facing the Baltimore Ravens, the Falcons had a disastrous offensive performance. They gained 134 yards in total offense, averaged 2.6 yards a carry, had only eight first downs and lost 24-0.

The Packers on Saturday gained 218 yards in total offense, averaged 2.4 yards a carry, had 11 first downs and lost 17-3.

Atlanta that season ended up winning its division, advancing to the NFC championship game and leading the NFL in rushing. The parallel only goes so far, because Atlanta had the singular running talent of quarterback Mike Vick to fall back on that season. But Jagodzinski has seen this debut dynamic before.

"It's discouraging, but you keep getting better," he said. "That's what we're going to do here."


I'm sure the Falcons were very disappointed after that first pre-season blow-out, but they got it figured out in time to have a good season. Lets look for continuous improvement against ATL & CIN. If we don't see serious progress by that point then I'll start to mentally prepare for a long depressing season.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Unfortunately, Favre is probably not part of that picture unless he sticks around until next year.

I think he might end up doing so--if he sees some improvement this year. I don't understand people that say Favre is retarding Rodgers development. The best thing for Rodgers is sitting on the bench for two, maybe three years. It worked for Matt Hasselbeck, Mark Brunell, Steve Young, and many other QBs. It's better than him going in this year, getting pounded, and losing all of his confidence. My hope is that we can show improvement this year. Anything close to .500 ball would be fine. Then, with a good offseason and maybe a couple of FA acquisitions, we send the Old Warhorse off on a high note. People that think it takes four or five years to rebuild have no clue about today's NFL. Hell, by that time your young guys start to become free agents. I can see them rebuilding in a couple of years--which means they could start contending next year. I'm glad Favre came back because I will enjoy it if he takes some NFL records from Dan Marino.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Very encouraging post Willard......... :smile:

[jack's smirking revenge]

Unfortunately, Favre is probably not part of that picture unless he sticks around until next year.

I think he might end up doing so--if he sees some improvement this year. I don't understand people that say Favre is retarding Rodgers development. The best thing for Rodgers is sitting on the bench for two, maybe three years. It worked for Matt Hasselbeck, Mark Brunell, Steve Young, and many other QBs. It's better than him going in this year, getting pounded, and losing all of his confidence. My hope is that we can show improvement this year. Anything close to .500 ball would be fine. Then, with a good offseason and maybe a couple of FA acquisitions, we send the Old Warhorse off on a high note. People that think it takes four or five years to rebuild have no clue about today's NFL. Hell, by that time your young guys start to become free agents. I can see them rebuilding in a couple of years--which means they could start contending next year. I'm glad Favre came back because I will enjoy it if he takes some NFL records from Dan Marino.

That is what is keeping me grounded now. I think this year will be all about growing pains and frustrating games, but there are pieces in place to make 2007 a much more successful year (minus injuries). If we get Colledge, Moll and Spitz--in any combination on our line--a year of experience, next year we will be having different discussions. It took some time for Wahle and Rivera to grow into studs on our line. It will take time for those three to grow as well.

And defense? Think of next year when Hawk, Hodge, and Manuel have had a year in the Packer system. We could have an AMAZING LB corps and a lights-out secondary. Add some free agents on both lines and through the draft and BAM! We're back in the hunt.

This year....too much youth, too much inexperience, too much change.

tyler

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I have to admit it is exciting to think about next year being a year in which your just adding to the team. If I was TT, next year my first three picks in the draft would be , in this order, DE, Dt, CB. And I would only get one big time free agent, a WR.

[HarveyWallbangers]

That is what is keeping me grounded now. I think this year will be all about growing pains and frustrating games, but there are pieces in place to make 2007 a much more successful year (minus injuries). If we get Colledge, Moll and Spitz--in any combination on our line--a year of experience, next year we will be having different discussions. It took some time for Wahle and Rivera to grow into studs on our line. It will take time for those three to grow as well.

And defense? Think of next year when Hawk, Hodge, and Manuel have had a year in the Packer system. We could have an AMAZING LB corps and a lights-out secondary. Add some free agents on both lines and through the draft and BAM! We're back in the hunt.

This year....too much youth, too much inexperience, too much change.

Good post, and I agree. That's why I'm not down on the long-term prospects of the team. I just hope to see guys develop this year. My hope is that they'll be a lot better at the end of the year than the beginning of the year.

[GBRulz]

I'm glad Favre came back because I will enjoy it if he takes some NFL records from Dan Marino.

I'm with you there! The only record that is probably out of reach is passing yards.

There is a poll on SI right now about whether or not Favre is tarnishing his reputation by playing "too long". 68% currently say yes. Well, let's see that poll again after he's rewritten basically every QB record in the book.

[woodbuck27]

Let's consider the Brett situation and TT for a second:

1. " Could TT actually tell Brett not to come back? No. He couldn't. Not the face of the Packers. Not the man whom every Packer fan thinks the world of and rallies around. TT didn't have an option with the Favre scenario. It was always "up to Favre". If he took a stand with Favre, he would've alienated the Packer nation and he understood that, so you have to give him props for not being a hard ass." tyler

Comment woodbuck27:

tyler:

I am going to give you full props here. I'm not pounding any sand up your ass, but Man, I certainly respect the Philosophical analytical style in which you post here. You do a fine job.

I believe when it came right down to it. Ted Thompson had to support a return of Brett Favre. The polls certainly supported Favre's return for 2006. Packer fans felt that Brett Favre, had to make his own mind up to enter 2006 with all that was 2005.

Certain things had to weigh in favor of Favre's decision. Did Brett Favre give all that he could in the first half of last season? Overall - the facts support that he did very well as OUR QB, under the worst set of circumstances, or not having alot of support on OUR offense.

Adversity took a heavy toll on OUR "O" in 2005. Despite that Brett Favre kept doing what he does best. Try to keep us in games. Keep OUR hopes alive for a win. That cannot be disputed, given the facts.

Still - even Brett Favre ran out of gas and he gave it up. We all witnessed that fact as well. Favre admitted, at last season's end mentally he was finished -retired and Mike Sherman asked him to be patient with himself. to give himself a break and not just utter the word - Retirement. Last season was HELL !

Favre decided to return, as that was obviuosly his choice and he still has solid skills to be OUR starting QB, and now we await this season, to see what the consequences will be for his decision.

I dread those consequences. I do believe that Brett Favre will still demonstrate proper leadership, and give more of what he needs, to to allow us any success, but the odds weigh in favor of failure, if the OL doesn't get there prematurely. The blame for OUR OL's condition, that all things winning depends on - falls clearly in the lap of Ted Thompson.

That is purely fundamentle football Philosophy. It's not a news flash !

Will OUR OL suddenly step up and provide proper support for the offence overall?

Do I think that will happen? I have to say now - NO !

2. " Could Favre have decided not to come back? Yes. He's a smart football player and a business man. He knows what's going on. He understands that he's not the future of the franchise anymore. He probably realizes that the team isn't going to rebuild itself to get Favre another ring. But he did decide to come back, regardless of circumstances. He has his own reasons and we'll get the "Favre-spin", but we'll really never know the truth of why he came back." tyler

Comment woodbuck27:

tyler:

Favre came back because he loves the game of football and playing just for the Packers. Brett Favre certainly knows OUR team is in sorry shape, unless all things go near perfect. He knows that if Ted Thompson does his job, then he really believes that he can get the job done as OUR starting QB.

Favre is a Packer first, and we have way too much evidence to support otherwise. Maybe we'll get the TRUTH of why he came back this season but Ted Thompson has work yet to do.

I believe that Brett Favre is insurance against an Aaron Rodgers flop - not the other way around. Brett Favre is set up !

Oh yea!! Aaron Rodgers is OUR future? If Brett Favre can't get it done with OUR offence? Does anyone seriously believe that Aaron Rodgers will ?

It's all about the running game (tyler and Packer fans).

That hinges on a successful OL and solid team blocking. Favre will be out there blocking and so will Bubba Franks (hopefully) and Donald Driver and William Henderson and Ahman Green (hopefully) but we need the OL to take the Lions share of that chore.

Either that or we loose alot more than we win.



3. " Is TT obligated to retool the team just for Favre? No. He's not. The Packers are a business. They are not a monarchy. The franchise will exist long beyond Favre. I disagree with the idea that he needs to break the bank to give Favre one last shot. The odds are slim that such an activity would wreap Super Bowl rewards and could set the franchise back even further in its quest to get back to the big game. There are no guarantees in the game of football, but if you get your team into cap trouble, your team is guaranteed to suffer. " tyler

Comment woodbuck27:

tyler:

Is the team in CAP trouble with the money Ted Thompson has spent in this Off season?

NO ! It's certainly not there.

Neither is OUR Offense. Certainly TT didn't weigh in - on OUR offense for 2006 so he hasn't given of himself as a GM for this season to the Offense we have to use to protect OUR Defense.

We live with nothing more than a wish and a prayer for OUR small "O" offense. After Favre will it be really fine? Haaaaa !!

" So, don't dump the problems of the Pack squarely on TT. He is doing his job. He has brought in free agents in an attempt to make the team better. Some of them weren't flashy, some weren't the top of the heap of the market. He has drafted relatively well. The future should tell us more about his ability to draft for the Packers. " tyler


Comment woodbuck27:

tyler:

I certainly dump the condition OUR OL is in - OUR Offense will demonstrate it's in this season - squarely on one man. Ted Thompson.

He didn't have to retool in this off season for Brett Favre, and any personal gains some desire to attribute to Brett Favre, that arn't supported by Favre's character and personality. Dam it ! We have watched Brett Favre play for too long, not to appreciate just who he is.

This hasn't got to do with Brett Favre anything!!!

Yet, he certainly doesn't / didn't deserve Ted Thompson and his pure neglect of OUR needs on the offensive side of the ball. That neglect is obvious tyler.

OUR team doesn't deserve that - forget just Brett Favre. He's only a part of the team. OUR TEAM !!!


"Yesterday woodbuck, you posted that I speak "the Truth". Well, I don't buy the anti-TT spin as truth, whether its coming from you or anyone else.

This team has lots of problems right now and they aren't all TT's fault.
tyler tyler

comment woodbuck27:

tyler:

Ted Thompson is OUR GM and it's on his plate to do what he can to enable the Packers to win; not fall further away from the leading teams in the NFL. That isn't acceptable anymore. I will not accept 5 years of losing after Favre.

When a GM doesn't have the common sense to understand priorities in supplying talent to OUR team, that concerns me alot.

OUR OL is that FIRST PRIORITY. That really bothers me that ted thompson took a stop gap approach there of bringing in Rookies from this syear's draft.

ALSO !!! When I read that OUR first year Head Coach, is adopting a policy of more pass's - on a approximate 55-45 % ratio - I am certainly to be alarmed and concerned. That policy will certainly with OUR talent on the OL fail miserably. In fact, what will Mike Mccarthy have, given that as OUR OL will be certainly not ready till well into the season but with no RUN just the pass.

Then with that, we are dead in the water. Defences will smoke us.

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH in 2006 !!

Come On Ted Thompson - Get BUSY.

[woodbuck27]

What's disheartening is that both lines are very poor. OT and DT are OK, not great, but OK.

The interior OL is, as everyone knows, an absolute mess; and, the DE's are overpaid and generally unproductive. You can't win in the NFL if you can't compete in the trenches.

I started my prediction at 6-10, drank some Kool-Aid and went up to 7-9... but, realistically, 3-13/4-12 is much more likely. I fully expect the Packers to be competing for the #1 pick next year.

Noway that we win 6 games in 2006.

[MJZiggy]

Woodbuck, you're reading that backward. M3 wants to pound the RUN 55%. He wants to get away from panicking and passing and push the RUN more.

[Partial]

What's disheartening is that both lines are very poor. OT and DT are OK, not great, but OK.

The interior OL is, as everyone knows, an absolute mess; and, the DE's are overpaid and generally unproductive. You can't win in the NFL if you can't compete in the trenches.

I started my prediction at 6-10, drank some Kool-Aid and went up to 7-9... but, realistically, 3-13/4-12 is much more likely. I fully expect the Packers to be competing for the #1 pick next year.

Noway that we win 6 games in 2006.

Woody, when did you become a cynic? Normally it's all hold the faith whoo go packers, now you're down in the dumps. That's it, i've decided on a rat name :razz:

[jack's smirking revenge]

Very good points Woodbuck! The only thing I would say is that we really DON'T know what TT sees as priority positions for this team. We all agree that the Oline is a priority. But, with so many problems in so many areas, he had to prioritize. Free Agency didn't give him many Oline solutions. Hutch and Bentley? Too expensive for their positions! Beyond those two, there weren't many gamebreaking Olinemen out there. My guess is he intended to address that problem through the draft, knowing there would be growing pains but understanding that he could shore up other areas of need. 25% of his draft was focused on the Oline. That's a decent percentage!

I'm a defense guy, so I applaud the strides he made in free agency and in the draft to better our D. Our 7th ranking last year was a mirage and he understood that. He went out and worked hard on the LBs and the secondary. Maybe the lines weren't a priority this year for him, given our draft position, the way the draft shook out and the players that were available in FA. I think he went about getting the best player available...for the price! We have cap space now and that's not a bad thing at all!

As a GM, his task is to look at the team from a thousand-foot view. As fans, we only know what's happening on the ground, what the media tells us and what we see for ourselves in camps. He has to understand where the team is and where he wants it to be, make up the difference between the two, chart us a course to get to the big game. But he also knows how the busines of football works. He knows he doesn't have a blank check of years to return success to GB. The NFL is a brutal business for players and execs alike. I think he understands that he has a small window to make this happen. Yet, if that means he has to step closer to the big game incrementally, while keeping the best interests of the Packer business in mind, then I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt. In the 2006 offseason, he worked on the defense, given the best available and reasonable options. In 2007, maybe he attacks the offense.

So next year, when the two pieces are polished, the thousand foot view is in the shape of a Lombardi trophy.

tyler

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Actually, next year I hope he (TT) stays on the defense. Can you imagine the defense we will have with two more additions on the d-line and one in the secdonary. I think if Brett comes back next year, the offense will be fine. If next year we go out and get new o-line men, either by draft or by free agents, it won't help much. I think if they can just settle on five o-linemen this year and let them play the whole year together, that part of the team will almost fix itself.

[woodbuck27]

"woodbuck,
just about every post you make it is the same old thing. TT this or TT that, and there fgoing down in flames. Should have signed TO, Hutchinson, Arrington, and any other big name big cost FA to get Favre to the SB. " Creepy

Find any post where I have stated that? Any ???

You'll look a long time man.

I refuse to go into this season as a Packer fan, with my head in the clouds, Creepy. I always post as I feel, deep inside.

I don't post for me here. I post as a loyal Packer fan. Your criticisms are unfair to me. Unfounded.

I really wanted Ted Thompson to do, nomore, than more for OUR Offense than he has done this off season. I am very disappointed, that he didn't find us the playmaker on Offense that we needed. As a Packer fan I don't have to be ALL Ted Thompson.

Be ALL ya ya Ted. :mrgreen:

Now, I challenge you Creepy - to back yourself up and post any response from me that said that I wanted Ted Thompson to go for any player other than a Terrell Owens, or possibly a solid WR that is presently and possibly available, like maybe Jerry Porter or possibly Ashley Lelie.

You can't post back to this forum, what you claim in your post against me Creepy.

I challenge you Creepy to do so, but I'll advise that

you'll be waisting your time looking Creepy. :mrgreen:

GO FOR IT Creepy !!

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH in 2006 !!

[woodbuck27]

Woodbuck, you're reading that backward. M3 wants to pound the RUN 55%. He wants to get away from panicking and passing and push the RUN more.

Find your source for me then MJ - PLEASE. :mrgreen:

I certainly hope that you can.

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH in 2006 !!

[woodbuck27]

What's disheartening is that both lines are very poor. OT and DT are OK, not great, but OK.

The interior OL is, as everyone knows, an absolute mess; and, the DE's are overpaid and generally unproductive. You can't win in the NFL if you can't compete in the trenches.

I started my prediction at 6-10, drank some Kool-Aid and went up to 7-9... but, realistically, 3-13/4-12 is much more likely. I fully expect the Packers to be competing for the #1 pick next year.

Noway that we win 6 games in 2006.

Woody, when did you become a cynic? Normally it's all hold the faith whoo go packers, now you're down in the dumps. That's it, i've decided on a rat name :razz:

Partial:

I swear to you and all members here.I am certainly not down in the dumps all of a sudden.

I have always felt that maybe we might have 7 wins tops but that was given to alot going right.

I really believe that 7 wins would be a solid season for us now. Eight wins outstanding. :mrgreen:

GO Packers ! Hold The Faith in 2006 !!

Do anything REAL TT.

[Partial]

psssh, Woody you were the constant optimist. This preseason game has changed your ways :sad:

From now on, you're the cynical rat :mrgreen:

[mmmdk]

I see...dead rats. All painted Green'n'Gold but still dead rats. :razz:

[woodbuck27]

psssh, Woody you were the constant optimist. This preseason game has changed your ways :sad:

From now on, you're the cynical rat :mrgreen:

Being a realist is a long ways from being cynical. Being a realist builds strength, in what we have today - to get to a better tomorrow, Partial. :mrgreen:

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH FOR 2006 !!!

[jack's smirking revenge]

Being a realist is a long ways from being cynical. Being a realist builds strength, in what we have today - to get to a better tomorrow, Partial. :mrgreen:


Best thing I've heard all day. It is true. You guys may think I sound like Chicken Little with my anti-Packer rants today, but I'm really not signaling Armageddon. The sky is still there; it just looks cloudy right now to me.

All will be fine in time.

tyler

[mmmdk]

OK, let's see your true colors. My guess is that more than a few of you play fantasy football. So in which rounds are you picking Packer Players? I've drafted 2 teams already and I got Favre in round 9??? Crazy. The other team I got Driver in round 4 then grabbed Franks as my #2 TE in round 12. That's it, I've drafted 3 Packer players on 2 teams. I tried to get Green but got beat each time (around round 5/6).

Not many drafters have faith in Packer FP. Not a biggie but still.

[woodbuck27]

That is what is keeping me grounded now. I think this year will be all about growing pains and frustrating games, but there are pieces in place to make 2007 a much more successful year (minus injuries). If we get Colledge, Moll and Spitz--in any combination on our line--a year of experience, next year we will be having different discussions. It took some time for Wahle and Rivera to grow into studs on our line. It will take time for those three to grow as well.

And defense? Think of next year when Hawk, Hodge, and Manuel have had a year in the Packer system. We could have an AMAZING LB corps and a lights-out secondary. Add some free agents on both lines and through the draft and BAM! We're back in the hunt.

This year....too much youth, too much inexperience, too much change.

Good post, and I agree. That's why I'm not down on the long-term prospects of the team. I just hope to see guys develop this year. My hope is that they'll be a lot better at the end of the year than the beginning of the year.

That's all we have Harvey. Realistically, we get through this season and we loose some Vet's for sure, and we pick up the pieces and the experience and move forward.

I just don't want to see an embarassment for OUR team. I don't want to see worse than 4-12, and right now we are 4 wins away from 4-12. I hoped I'd be siting here realistically banking on 8-9 wins, but that sure looks remote today.

I don't expect the playoffs or Favre to smash Dan Marino's record. I did expect that Ted Thompson would do what was necessary to help "the Packers" gain respect. Those two things then would have taken care of one another.

I just don't see that happening, and it certainly has Dick all with anything that transpired against the Chargers last Sat night.

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH FOR 2006 !!

[woodbuck27]

Being a realist is a long ways from being cynical. Being a realist builds strength, in what we have today - to get to a better tomorrow, Partial. :mrgreen:


Best thing I've heard all day. It is true. You guys may think I sound like Chicken Little with my anti-Packer rants today, but I'm really not signaling Armageddon. The sky is still there; it just looks cloudy right now to me.

All will be fine in time.

tyler

In that we have HOPE - TRUST, tyler. :mrgreen:

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH for 2006 !!

[woodbuck27]

Woodbuck, you're reading that backward. M3 wants to pound the RUN 55%. He wants to get away from panicking and passing and push the RUN more.

I'm searching for that quote on the run-pass-run ratio that M3 talked about adopting,MJ and in the process found this:

Aug.6, 2006

Coach Mike McCarthy gave the run game a chance playing against the No. 2 defense, but on three possessions the starters didn't get much of anything on the ground. Starter Samkon Gado and backup Noah Herron combined for seven carries for only 22 yards. The Brett Favre-led offense had two three-and-outs with the first five being runs, though later, in a 2-minute drill, Gado scored on a 10-yard run.

It's not unusual for a team to struggle running early in a game and then pick up later. In fact, McCarthy and offensive coordinator Jeff Jagodzinski, who brought the zone scheme from Atlanta, have preached that their run game is predicated on accepting several short gains early in the game. Their philosophy is that the 1- and 2-yard runs early at least will keep the offense out of second- and third-and-long, and those short runs will turn into 8-yard or longer runs in the second half.

"Running the football is a commitment, running the football is a four-quarter journey," McCarthy said.

"It's not very often you come out in this league ripping people with the run game," McCarthy said. I didn't look at it all that the run game struggled, and we had the run at the end there that Samkon scored on.

"The biggest thing running the football is you don't want negative runs, you want to keep hammering away at the defense for a four-quarter commitment. It was our first opportunity for live work, cut blocking and things like that. I thought we got off to a solid start."

With the run game quiet, the starting offense didn't score against the No. 2 defense until its third possession, when quarterback Brett Favre hit Donald Driver with a 48-yard pass over defensive backs Ahmad Carroll and Tyrone Culver setting up a score.

Sill looking. :mrgreen:

[pbmax]

Unfortunately, Favre is probably not part of that picture unless he sticks around until next year.

I think he might end up doing so--if he sees some improvement this year. I don't understand people that say Favre is retarding Rodgers development. The best thing for Rodgers is sitting on the bench for two, maybe three years. It worked for Matt Hasselbeck, Mark Brunell, Steve Young, and many other QBs. It's better than him going in this year, getting pounded, and losing all of his confidence. My hope is that we can show improvement this year. Anything close to .500 ball would be fine. Then, with a good offseason and maybe a couple of FA acquisitions, we send the Old Warhorse off on a high note. People that think it takes four or five years to rebuild have no clue about today's NFL. Hell, by that time your young guys start to become free agents. I can see them rebuilding in a couple of years--which means they could start contending next year. I'm glad Favre came back because I will enjoy it if he takes some NFL records from Dan Marino.
I find either argument that there is one preferential way to develop a QB as an exercise in futility.

There are too many situations that resulted in success and failure for both methods for one to be called the better plan.

People thought Marvin Lewis was crazy to start and stick with carson Palmer in year two. Aikman started right away. Marino started mid-way through his first year, Kosar same thing. Elway within two years.

Favre stumbled through his rookie year like it was a frat house and then started mid second year.

Staubach spent five years in the Navy then waited on Meredith and Craig Morton. McNair had to wait two or three seasons behind Chris Chandelier.

Steve Young played professional football in the USFL and Tampa before "waiting" for his turn in San Fran.

Very few teams have the patience to wait for the five year plan. In most cases it was a nice story with little relation to reality until Marino and Elway blew it up completely. QBs start when you have no other choice or they are obviously better than the alternative.

Rodgers looks better this year. He doesn't look better than Favre. Will it retard his development, probably. Should that mean he starts ahead of Favre?

No.

[woodbuck27]

Maybe, it's time to read this again?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp06/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2539218

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH in 2006 !!

[woodbuck27]

Woodbuck, you're reading that backward. M3 wants to pound the RUN 55%. He wants to get away from panicking and passing and push the RUN more.

Ziggy.

I have looked back ten pages looking for that quote - and "it's harder than rock salt" to find. :mrgreen:

Mike McCarthy's statement of the ratio wasn't exactly 55% Pass and 45% Run Plays, but I could have sworn he weighted it in favor of the pass which really surprised me.

Of course, I may be mistaken. I'll try really hard to find it.

It's not any big deal, as game plans are adjusted to suit the opposition all the time anyway, and it's not always the plan to stick with the same Offense, unless your team is very strong with the run to control the clock. Rest your Defense.

Once we had that advantage, but not any longer, I'm thinking.

Later MJ.

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH FOR 2006 !!

[Terry]

We need help at RB at WR at TE at DE at CB. After Favre - Aaron Rodgers? What a joke. A joke on poor Aaron Rodgers and Ted Thompson acts like he's frozen. Have any of you got any clue why Jim Bates left as he did, and got payed for leaving?

Think !!!!!


Think about what, Woodbuck? Bates wanted to be head coach, that's all. He could have stayed as DC.

I think you need to think more. It's pretty obvious that you've painted a bullseye on Thompson - rarely do you post without bringing him up. I think others have also tried to point that out. It just might be that your perspective is skewed a wee bit because of your issues with Thompson.

But, ok, fine. Maybe you're right. Even so, you could talk about something else now and then. Time will tell. If we don't win more than 7 games, then I would agree that there is a problem at the top - we can argue then about whether it's Thompson or McCarthy (of course, if it's the latter, that falls on Thompson's head as well). Meanwhile, there's not a lot Thompson can do today. So let's get on with it. Back off of Thompson for a few weeks - you're not going to forget your views, but it might be less offputting for others. You want to be careful that you don't begin to effect people like a Chinese water torture. People might be far more amenable to being convinced if you let things unfold and there really is a train wreck.

For what it's worth.

[Willard]

Regarding the run:pass ratio McCarthy said the following (I am paraphrasing, and I don't have the link, but I think it was from one of the videos on Packers.com):

A lot of coaches think that a balanced offense, 50% run & 50% pass, is the ideal to shoot for. We definitely want to establish a strong running game, but in this league you need to score a lot of points. I think 45% run & 55% pass provides a good balance as well as the explosiveness to score the points necessary to win in the NFL.

[woodbuck27]

We need help at RB at WR at TE at DE at CB. After Favre - Aaron Rodgers? What a joke. A joke on poor Aaron Rodgers and Ted Thompson acts like he's frozen. Have any of you got any clue why Jim Bates left as he did, and got payed for leaving?

Think !!!!!


Think about what, Woodbuck? Bates wanted to be head coach, that's all. He could have stayed as DC.

I think you need to think more. It's pretty obvious that you've painted a bullseye on Thompson - rarely do you post without bringing him up. I think others have also tried to point that out. It just might be that your perspective is skewed a wee bit because of your issues with Thompson.

But, ok, fine. Maybe you're right. Even so, you could talk about something else now and then. Time will tell. If we don't win more than 7 games, then I would agree that there is a problem at the top - we can argue then about whether it's Thompson or McCarthy (of course, if it's the latter, that falls on Thompson's head as well). Meanwhile, there's not a lot Thompson can do today. So let's get on with it. Back off of Thompson for a few weeks - you're not going to forget your views, but it might be less offputting for others. You want to be careful that you don't begin to effect people like a Chinese water torture. People might be far more amenable to being convinced if you let things unfold and there really is a train wreck.

For what it's worth.

Thank YOU Terry, for your criticism of me. It's duly noted.

I'm not always the negative critic Terry.

This is nothing about Ted Thompson personally, but me wanting him to focus on priorities. To me that is now. I want the Packers to be in every game.

I believe I am one of the realists here and I am analytical by nature. I have a bigger purpose here than to BASH Ted Thompson. I am sorry Man.

I don't trust him. That may change in time, but I expect alot from the GM of the Green Bay Packers. Ted Thompson enables us as winners or losers and that is a fact. He has a heavy responsibility and some fans like me will be his watchdog.

I don't feel threatened by posters that take exception to my views. I'm a Canadian. I'm a Canadian Packer fan. I'm a Packer fan.

I post honestly, in terms of searching for direction as a Packer fan. I have like you been a Packer fan for a very long time Terry, and I don't want younger Packer fans to suffer two and a half decades of losing.

I also and foremost, don't want to see Packers that have offered us so much for the past ten years (more), trashed on the field and OUR team in the press.

I expect Ted Thompson to do more for OUR team soon. We need help badly. It's not too late. :mrgreen:

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH FOR 2006 !!

[woodbuck27]

Regarding the run:pass ratio McCarthy said the following (I am paraphrasing, and I don't have the link, but I think it was from one of the videos on Packers.com):

A lot of coaches think that a balanced offense, 50% run & 50% pass, is the ideal to shoot for. We definitely want to establish a strong running game, but in this league you need to score a lot of points. I think 45% run & 55% pass provides a good balance as well as the explosiveness to score the points necessary to win in the NFL.

Thank You so much Willard. I appreciate that.

I hunted and hunted for it this afternoon.

Thanks alot. :mrgreen:

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH FOR 2006 !!

[Brainerd]

I'm glad Favre came back because I will enjoy it if he takes some NFL records from Dan Marino.

I'm with you there! The only record that is probably out of reach is passing yards.

There is a poll on SI right now about whether or not Favre is tarnishing his reputation by playing "too long". 68% currently say yes. Well, let's see that poll again after he's rewritten basically every QB record in the book.

The only thing that SI poll shows is that 68% of those who watch football are idiots.

[woodbuck27]

I'm glad Favre came back because I will enjoy it if he takes some NFL records from Dan Marino.

I'm with you there! The only record that is probably out of reach is passing yards.

There is a poll on SI right now about whether or not Favre is tarnishing his reputation by playing "too long". 68% currently say yes. Well, let's see that poll again after he's rewritten basically every QB record in the book.

The only thing that SI poll shows is that 68% of those who watch football are idiots.

Way to stand in there for OUR Man ! :mrgreen:

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH FOR 2006 !!

[woodbuck27]

Bump . . . for Bretsky. :mrgreen:

[Bretsky]

First off, it's ludicrous to discredit Favre to staying too long for the records.

Marino, that was a guy who stayed two years too long. He'd lost a third of his arm strength by the time he retired.

Favre is 2x as talented now than Marino when he took his ice pack off his arm.

That polls crap

[Bretsky]

Bump . . . for Bretsky. :mrgreen:

I've tried not to comment because I agree with much of Harvey's views.

Let's step back from our Packer Homerism.

Our expectations were VERY HIGH with how that 35,000,000 would be utilized to win this year and in the future.

Ted Thompson could have done more and chose not to, or he failed to attract players he really wanted to sign.

He left us bare on the OL and I've said from Day one the OL will determine our 2006 success.

Maybe he sees immense talent in the youngyans, maybe he's overvalued his own ability to find young NFL ready players, or maybe he's willing to go through more immense growing pains....aka...struggles...aka....losses.

Either way IMO he should have done more. And MOST of you would agree with me if you'd think about your expectations of how GB was going to spend the 35MIL and now reflect on how he did it................well........28MIL of it at least..........much of it frontloaded into Woodsen's contract because ........well.......we had to find a way to spend it

[Iron Mike]

http://images8.fotki.com/v124/photos/4/401361/1417006/spaceballs-vi.jpg

[woodbuck27]

" Let's see where we stand at the beginning of presesaon. If we can avoid injuries and get some chemistry in the ranks, there may be something to cheer about. . . . "

" I really don't think cutdowns will provide us with much hope. Anyone we bring in will take some time to get acclimated to our system, especiallly if they're offensive lineman that aren't used to our cutblock scheme. "

tyler

Sobering thoughts by tyler

I awoke this AM thinking about this thread. Does it suck - blow ? I hope most will agree it's more about venting.

There was alot of heartfelt emotion spent on this thread, but no insults felt no anger released by any poster. Sure it started a fire that spread to other threads on this board. I don't see that as bad. We had things to get off OUR chests.

I went back in the thread and looked for something to follow up on, and I found the above quotes from tyler.

Maybe if we look at it this way - if we win 8 games this season that is OUR Super Bowl?

Seven games won, is 75% better than last season's four wins. Four wins is FOUR very hard fought and successful games away. I'm going to enjoy every win, and I'll be patient for the first one.

My mantra.

Eight wins in 2006 - OUR Super Bowl.

GO PACKERS !

HOLD FAITH FOR A BETTER 2006 . . . 2007. . . .

[Terry]

...I believe I am one of the realists here and I am analytical by nature. I have a bigger purpose here than to BASH Ted Thompson. I am sorry Man.

I don't trust him. That may change in time, but I expect alot from the GM of the Green Bay Packers. Ted Thompson enables us as winners or losers and that is a fact. He has a heavy responsibility and some fans like me will be his watchdog....

...I post honestly, in terms of searching for direction as a Packer fan. I have like you been a Packer fan for a very long time Terry, and I don't want younger Packer fans to suffer two and a half decades of losing...


No offense, my friend. I'm one of your biggest fans. I didn't mean for my post to come off as being particularly critical exactly. But, as I reread my own post, I realize that it sounded that way. Maybe my problem is that I tend to take the good for granted and only pipe in when I spot something - maybe if I were more complimentary on a regular basis, I wouldn't appear so critical when I take issue with something. Well, sigh, I'm unlikely to change my ways. But since I read here more than other forums at which I've been a regular for years but now give short shrift and since you are so prolific a poster, that alone ought to be some indication that I like your stuff.

Anyway, I agree with your take on Thompson's importance. I suppose the only difference is that I'm waiting to see, still, before I turn sour on him or on McCarthy. You said in another post that 8-8 would be like our SuperBowl. Well, to me, I expect 8-8 minimum - THIS year! Perhaps you and others will see 7-9 as improvement, but I'll see it as failure and in football, I ALWAYS blame failure on the top. If we don't hit 7-9, I'll no longer be patient, but rather one of those guys who will be hard to convince that there is anything redeeming in Packer management/coaching.

Maybe I'm spoiled. I missed almost all of those two and a half decades you refer to. For most of them, I was out of touch with the Packers. For the first half a dozen years, I was drinking, chasing women, and living for show biz. So, in a way, I went straight from Lombardi to Holmgren. Almost. So I'm probably NOT a realist - I expect the best and I'm optimistic.

For Sherman, I mentally gave him a lot of space because of winning seasons. I had early misgivings, but kept my mouth shut because of how the wind was blowing. The postseason play/coaching dismayed me, but I gave even that some leeway, until the notorious Eagle's game. From then on, I had little positive to say about Sherman, until finally the majority view caught up with that sentiment. I never forgave Holmgren for the Bronco's SuperBowl, though I did feel he deserved respectful treatment for what he had done previously.

You might find that I'm more dubious of TT and MM 6 months from now than even you are at the time. We'll see. But right now, I don't have much to say about either of them. That's really all there is in the difference. However, I do put EVERYTHING down to the coaching. After the countless posts I've read here and elsewhere about the O-Line, I was stunned that someone somewhere actually made a reference to the O-Line coaching. I actually wrote "Hallelujah" in reply. :)

Anyway, back to our subject, my purpose (consciously) was to make a suggestion, that's all. Not a judgement or an admonishment. But regardless of how you go forward, it will not dampen my positive sense of your insights and contributions.

[jack's smirking revenge]

" Let's see where we stand at the beginning of presesaon. If we can avoid injuries and get some chemistry in the ranks, there may be something to cheer about. . . . "

" I really don't think cutdowns will provide us with much hope. Anyone we bring in will take some time to get acclimated to our system, especiallly if they're offensive lineman that aren't used to our cutblock scheme. "

tyler

Sobering thoughts by tyler

I awoke this AM thinking about this thread. Does it suck - blow ? I hope most will agree it's more about venting.

There was alot of heartfelt emotion spent on this thread, but no insults felt no anger released by any poster. Sure it started a fire that spread to other threads on this board. I don't see that as bad. We had things to get off OUR chests.

I went back in the thread and looked for something to follow up on, and I found the above quotes from tyler.

Maybe if we look at it this way - if we win 8 games this season that is OUR Super Bowl?

Seven games won, is 75% better than last season's four wins. Four wins is FOUR very hard fought and successful games away. I'm going to enjoy every win, and I'll be patient for the first one.

My mantra.

Eight wins in 2006 - OUR Super Bowl.

GO PACKERS !

HOLD FAITH FOR A BETTER 2006 . . . 2007. . . .

Thanks for the playbay Woodbuck. I thought about my comments on this forum a lot over the last day. I am/was pessimistic and I can't sugar coat that. When I was a naive football fan, only watching the Packers and glued to my radio for every preseason game, praying that they'd just WIN BABY!, it was easy to be optimistic. I didn't understand the inner workings of the league or the team. It was very easy to expect playoffs or SB every year. There was an excitement that I haven't felt since I danced in the snow-covered streets in Green Bay in January 1997. Perhaps I became a fan during an era which really spoiled me. I became a fan in 1988 after returing to the U.S. from Europe. Like others, the "dark time" is a bit of a fairy tale to me. I've been allied to this team ever since and allied to one of the most successful teams of the last 15 years (2005 aside). It truly is difficult for me to NOT be filled with Kool-Aid.

But, over time, as fantasy football made me understand the league and the game better, I became more critical. Of everything in the game. Sure, blame it on fantasy football. Its the root of all evil (but DAMN FUN!). There is definitely a part of me that can't just look at this team with Green&Gold goggles on, accepting everything the team does as right. I have a problem with the concept of "0-0" prior to the season, even though it is a very logical perspective.

This is a troubled team. After thinking about it more, I think my own perspective is taking a bit of a turn. I used to give MM and TT a bit of breathing room, more benefit of the doubt. But as the "troubles" were unveiled yesterday and were visible on the screen, I couldn't help but wonder how it got this bad. Some definitely can be blamed on Sherman's reign (depth), but the blame for preparedness and current roster fall on the shoulders of MM and TT.

There is time for them to turn it around, but I don't think time will really fix the problems. The problem is that we need some new players. This roster can't bear many more injuries to the starters. Not this year anyway. Even the Vikes have better depth than we do, though not by much.

So, yes, this thread has probably gone from suck to blow. My long-ass rants have helped stretch it to epic proportions (but, hey, I am ticking closer to 1,000 posts!). All of this reflection has helped me get to a place where I am comfortable with the Packers achieving "incremental" success this year. Some will disagree, come back to the 0-0 preseason concept, but in the end I can't help but look at 2006 as a rebuilding year. I'm not telling people how to prepare for 2006 because I don't know any better than anyone else how this year will turn out.

But I think the problems are problems, ones that will involve growing pains throughout the team. Growing pains lead to losses, but they also lead to experience. Experience that will be invaluable in 2007. I haven't written off 2006, but I don't expect success. In fact, I am expecting much disappointment and many disheartening games. Another 4-12 year is very possible. Perhaps the only way I can drink the Kool-Aid is by swallowing the bitter pill along with it.

Packer fan, through and through. Realist to a fault.

tyler

[Creepy]

Didn't have to dig far Woodbuck,

You wrote,

"Ted Thompson spent way too much money on Charles Woodson, which could have been used to really assist OUR OL, or maybe a solid RB or WR. He's sitting on a lot of money now below OUR CAP, that could be used to bring in WR Jerry Porter; and it would only take a third round pick to attain WR Ashley Lelie (maybe a player as well?). He can't sit back in his office and come out on the field and cover his face anymore.

Some will argue - why bring in another RB or WR when the basic problem lies in an OL in disarray? OUR OL sucks !!!! Well I challenge all of you Packer fans, to explain to me why Ted Thompson waited for "the DRAFT" to do anything with OUR OL? THE DRAFT ????? "

Like you I generalized the available players for these signings to position. Lets see you want the Ol fixed (guards) only one decent guard available was Hutchinson, the RB you want so bad was who, Bennett, Alexander or please tell me the other FA signing he could have made that was better than what we had, WR you claim Lelie & Porter, but you know you wanted TO. It is easy to sit back and say get this and buy that and not name names. When you start looking at the names you see that it wouldn’t have been cheap and we could ill afford these players.

I do agree in signing a big FA if your on the cusp of a SB chance, but not a single player mentioned would have made GB a SB contender. So he drafts the players he wants and builds with young players who may or may not work out. It is a better way than spending gobs of money on FAs who may or may not make GB a better team. Just because the cap jumped up, doesn't mean you need to put yourself deeper in debt.

Doom and gloom because of a pre-season game is BS. If they don't improve and they start getting waxed in the regular season, then you can tell me how smart you were about it. GB has done the right thing this year, they have improved the defense and the offense will be better than last years as long as they keep the turnovers down.

Your correct it is hard to go back in your posts and see who GB should have taken in FA. Pretty easy to say get somebody but not who. That way whoever GB gets you can degrade. Why? Because you don’t like TT, and that is it. Nothing more or less.

Your, "Oh woe is me" attitude about the coming season is crap. All it takes is a couple of wins and moving in the right direction and a 4-12 team becomes a 12-4 team. Talent GB has, and how they respond is where they will be. There will be growing pains, but I can see GB going 11-5 or as low as 7-9, and may be the difference between a fumble or int in a game.

[MJZiggy]

Nice post, Creepy.

[woodbuck27]

...I believe I am one of the realists here and I am analytical by nature. I have a bigger purpose here than to BASH Ted Thompson. I am sorry Man.

I don't trust him. That may change in time, but I expect alot from the GM of the Green Bay Packers. Ted Thompson enables us as winners or losers and that is a fact. He has a heavy responsibility and some fans like me will be his watchdog....

...I post honestly, in terms of searching for direction as a Packer fan. I have like you been a Packer fan for a very long time Terry, and I don't want younger Packer fans to suffer two and a half decades of losing...


No offense, my friend. I'm one of your biggest fans. I didn't mean for my post to come off as being particularly critical exactly. But, as I reread my own post, I realize that it sounded that way. Maybe my problem is that I tend to take the good for granted and only pipe in when I spot something - maybe if I were more complimentary on a regular basis, I wouldn't appear so critical when I take issue with something. Well, sigh, I'm unlikely to change my ways. But since I read here more than other forums at which I've been a regular for years but now give short shrift and since you are so prolific a poster, that alone ought to be some indication that I like your stuff.

Anyway, I agree with your take on Thompson's importance. I suppose the only difference is that I'm waiting to see, still, before I turn sour on him or on McCarthy. You said in another post that 8-8 would be like our SuperBowl. Well, to me, I expect 8-8 minimum - THIS year! Perhaps you and others will see 7-9 as improvement, but I'll see it as failure and in football, I ALWAYS blame failure on the top. If we don't hit 7-9, I'll no longer be patient, but rather one of those guys who will be hard to convince that there is anything redeeming in Packer management/coaching.

Maybe I'm spoiled. I missed almost all of those two and a half decades you refer to. For most of them, I was out of touch with the Packers. For the first half a dozen years, I was drinking, chasing women, and living for show biz. So, in a way, I went straight from Lombardi to Holmgren. Almost. So I'm probably NOT a realist - I expect the best and I'm optimistic.

For Sherman, I mentally gave him a lot of space because of winning seasons. I had early misgivings, but kept my mouth shut because of how the wind was blowing. The postseason play/coaching dismayed me, but I gave even that some leeway, until the notorious Eagle's game. From then on, I had little positive to say about Sherman, until finally the majority view caught up with that sentiment. I never forgave Holmgren for the Bronco's SuperBowl, though I did feel he deserved respectful treatment for what he had done previously.

You might find that I'm more dubious of TT and MM 6 months from now than even you are at the time. We'll see. But right now, I don't have much to say about either of them. That's really all there is in the difference. However, I do put EVERYTHING down to the coaching. After the countless posts I've read here and elsewhere about the O-Line, I was stunned that someone somewhere actually made a reference to the O-Line coaching. I actually wrote "Hallelujah" in reply. :)

Anyway, back to our subject, my purpose (consciously) was to make a suggestion, that's all. Not a judgement or an admonishment. But regardless of how you go forward, it will not dampen my positive sense of your insights and contributions.

Terry:

I only grow from criticism. Your post, called on me to examine myself, and I spent alot of time doing that since your post. I am a little bit tough on OUR GM. I'm also pulling for him, as I must. He's the MAN !!

Sincerely Terry. Thank You. :mrgreen:

GO PACKERS ! HOLD FAITH FOR 2006 AND BEYOND !!

[woodbuck27]

Packer fan, through and through. Realist to a fault.

tyler

DITTO ! :mrgreen:

Now I have to deal with more from Creepy and his cheering section,MJZiggy.

Life's a trip . :mrgreen:

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH !!

[woodbuck27]

Didn't have to dig far Woodbuck,

You wrote,

"Ted Thompson spent way too much money on Charles Woodson, which could have been used to really assist OUR OL, or maybe a solid RB or WR. He's sitting on a lot of money now below OUR CAP, that could be used to bring in WR Jerry Porter; and it would only take a third round pick to attain WR Ashley Lelie (maybe a player as well?). He can't sit back in his office and come out on the field and cover his face anymore.

Some will argue - why bring in another RB or WR when the basic problem lies in an OL in disarray? OUR OL sucks !!!! Well I challenge all of you Packer fans, to explain to me why Ted Thompson waited for "the DRAFT" to do anything with OUR OL? THE DRAFT ????? "

Like you I generalized the available players for these signings to position. Lets see you want the Ol fixed (guards) only one decent guard available was Hutchinson, the RB you want so bad was who, Bennett, Alexander or please tell me the other FA signing he could have made that was better than what we had, WR you claim Lelie & Porter, but you know you wanted TO. It is easy to sit back and say get this and buy that and not name names. When you start looking at the names you see that it wouldn’t have been cheap and we could ill afford these players.

I do agree in signing a big FA if your on the cusp of a SB chance, but not a single player mentioned would have made GB a SB contender. So he drafts the players he wants and builds with young players who may or may not work out. It is a better way than spending gobs of money on FAs who may or may not make GB a better team. Just because the cap jumped up, doesn't mean you need to put yourself deeper in debt.

Doom and gloom because of a pre-season game is BS. If they don't improve and they start getting waxed in the regular season, then you can tell me how smart you were about it. GB has done the right thing this year, they have improved the defense and the offense will be better than last years as long as they keep the turnovers down.

Your correct it is hard to go back in your posts and see who GB should have taken in FA. Pretty easy to say get somebody but not who. That way whoever GB gets you can degrade. Why? Because you don’t like TT, and that is it. Nothing more or less.

Your, "Oh woe is me" attitude about the coming season is crap. All it takes is a couple of wins and moving in the right direction and a 4-12 team becomes a 12-4 team. Talent GB has, and how they respond is where they will be. There will be growing pains, but I can see GB going 11-5 or as low as 7-9, and may be the difference between a fumble or int in a game.

Alot of writing there Creepy. Did you back yourself up based on your claims against my posts based on the FA's you claim I said I wanted ?

Did YOU ?

Lots of rhetoric - PROOF ?

If that's all that matters - that your right?

Then - Creepy BE RIGHT !!! :mrgreen:

GO PACKERS ! HOLD FOR FAITH in 2006 and BEYOND !!

[Bretsky]

...I believe I am one of the realists here and I am analytical by nature. I have a bigger purpose here than to BASH Ted Thompson. I am sorry Man.

I don't trust him. That may change in time, but I expect alot from the GM of the Green Bay Packers. Ted Thompson enables us as winners or losers and that is a fact. He has a heavy responsibility and some fans like me will be his watchdog....

...I post honestly, in terms of searching for direction as a Packer fan. I have like you been a Packer fan for a very long time Terry, and I don't want younger Packer fans to suffer two and a half decades of losing...


No offense, my friend. I'm one of your biggest fans. I didn't mean for my post to come off as being particularly critical exactly. But, as I reread my own post, I realize that it sounded that way. Maybe my problem is that I tend to take the good for granted and only pipe in when I spot something - maybe if I were more complimentary on a regular basis, I wouldn't appear so critical when I take issue with something. Well, sigh, I'm unlikely to change my ways. But since I read here more than other forums at which I've been a regular for years but now give short shrift and since you are so prolific a poster, that alone ought to be some indication that I like your stuff.

Anyway, I agree with your take on Thompson's importance. I suppose the only difference is that I'm waiting to see, still, before I turn sour on him or on McCarthy. You said in another post that 8-8 would be like our SuperBowl. Well, to me, I expect 8-8 minimum - THIS year! Perhaps you and others will see 7-9 as improvement, but I'll see it as failure and in football, I ALWAYS blame failure on the top. If we don't hit 7-9, I'll no longer be patient, but rather one of those guys who will be hard to convince that there is anything redeeming in Packer management/coaching.

Maybe I'm spoiled. I missed almost all of those two and a half decades you refer to. For most of them, I was out of touch with the Packers. For the first half a dozen years, I was drinking, chasing women, and living for show biz. So, in a way, I went straight from Lombardi to Holmgren. Almost. So I'm probably NOT a realist - I expect the best and I'm optimistic.

For Sherman, I mentally gave him a lot of space because of winning seasons. I had early misgivings, but kept my mouth shut because of how the wind was blowing. The postseason play/coaching dismayed me, but I gave even that some leeway, until the notorious Eagle's game. From then on, I had little positive to say about Sherman, until finally the majority view caught up with that sentiment. I never forgave Holmgren for the Bronco's SuperBowl, though I did feel he deserved respectful treatment for what he had done previously.

You might find that I'm more dubious of TT and MM 6 months from now than even you are at the time. We'll see. But right now, I don't have much to say about either of them. That's really all there is in the difference. However, I do put EVERYTHING down to the coaching. After the countless posts I've read here and elsewhere about the O-Line, I was stunned that someone somewhere actually made a reference to the O-Line coaching. I actually wrote "Hallelujah" in reply. :)

Anyway, back to our subject, my purpose (consciously) was to make a suggestion, that's all. Not a judgement or an admonishment. But regardless of how you go forward, it will not dampen my positive sense of your insights and contributions.

Terry:

I only grow from criticism. Your post, called on me to examine myself, and I spent alot of time doing that since your post. I am a little bit tough on OUR GM. I'm also pulling for him, as I must. He's the MAN !!

Sincerely Terry. Thank You. :mrgreen:

GO PACKERS ! HOLD FAITH FOR 2006 AND BEYOND !!


GREAT; SO NOW YOU'VE TURNED INTO A WUSS ABOUT HOLDING TT ACCOUNTABLE :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :wink:

IMO you are not too tough on the GM.

[woodbuck27]

...I believe I am one of the realists here and I am analytical by nature. I have a bigger purpose here than to BASH Ted Thompson. I am sorry Man.

I don't trust him. That may change in time, but I expect alot from the GM of the Green Bay Packers. Ted Thompson enables us as winners or losers and that is a fact. He has a heavy responsibility and some fans like me will be his watchdog....

...I post honestly, in terms of searching for direction as a Packer fan. I have like you been a Packer fan for a very long time Terry, and I don't want younger Packer fans to suffer two and a half decades of losing...


No offense, my friend. I'm one of your biggest fans. I didn't mean for my post to come off as being particularly critical exactly. But, as I reread my own post, I realize that it sounded that way. Maybe my problem is that I tend to take the good for granted and only pipe in when I spot something - maybe if I were more complimentary on a regular basis, I wouldn't appear so critical when I take issue with something. Well, sigh, I'm unlikely to change my ways. But since I read here more than other forums at which I've been a regular for years but now give short shrift and since you are so prolific a poster, that alone ought to be some indication that I like your stuff.

Anyway, I agree with your take on Thompson's importance. I suppose the only difference is that I'm waiting to see, still, before I turn sour on him or on McCarthy. You said in another post that 8-8 would be like our SuperBowl. Well, to me, I expect 8-8 minimum - THIS year! Perhaps you and others will see 7-9 as improvement, but I'll see it as failure and in football, I ALWAYS blame failure on the top. If we don't hit 7-9, I'll no longer be patient, but rather one of those guys who will be hard to convince that there is anything redeeming in Packer management/coaching.

Maybe I'm spoiled. I missed almost all of those two and a half decades you refer to. For most of them, I was out of touch with the Packers. For the first half a dozen years, I was drinking, chasing women, and living for show biz. So, in a way, I went straight from Lombardi to Holmgren. Almost. So I'm probably NOT a realist - I expect the best and I'm optimistic.

For Sherman, I mentally gave him a lot of space because of winning seasons. I had early misgivings, but kept my mouth shut because of how the wind was blowing. The postseason play/coaching dismayed me, but I gave even that some leeway, until the notorious Eagle's game. From then on, I had little positive to say about Sherman, until finally the majority view caught up with that sentiment. I never forgave Holmgren for the Bronco's SuperBowl, though I did feel he deserved respectful treatment for what he had done previously.

You might find that I'm more dubious of TT and MM 6 months from now than even you are at the time. We'll see. But right now, I don't have much to say about either of them. That's really all there is in the difference. However, I do put EVERYTHING down to the coaching. After the countless posts I've read here and elsewhere about the O-Line, I was stunned that someone somewhere actually made a reference to the O-Line coaching. I actually wrote "Hallelujah" in reply. :)

Anyway, back to our subject, my purpose (consciously) was to make a suggestion, that's all. Not a judgement or an admonishment. But regardless of how you go forward, it will not dampen my positive sense of your insights and contributions.

Terry:

I only grow from criticism. Your post, called on me to examine myself, and I spent alot of time doing that since your post. I am a little bit tough on OUR GM. I'm also pulling for him, as I must. He's the MAN !!

Sincerely Terry. Thank You. :mrgreen:

GO PACKERS ! HOLD FAITH FOR 2006 AND BEYOND !!


GREAT; SO NOW YOU'VE TURNED INTO A WUSS ABOUT HOLDING TT ACCOUNTABLE :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :wink:

IMO you are not too tough on the GM.

Ted! Ted!! It's all about Ted !!! :mrgreen:

GO PACKERS ! HOLD THE FAITH - It's ALL ABOUT TED !! :mrgreen: