One Exec "Packers Have Much Work To Do"

[pbmax]

** Here's the crux of my position, pbmax.

Going back to the Detroit Lions regular season game in the latter portion of the 2010 season. Do you recall how you felt after that game? Do you recall the condition of our team in regards to the condition of adversity it was in? We're you totally confident that we were then playoff bound? Moreso bound to do as well as we did in the playoffs?

After that Detroit lions game were you sure that theb Green Bay Packers were going to that Super Bowl and actually become Super bowl Champs?

If you were confident after that Detroit Lions game? Please publish something for all of us to learn from.

Maybe if that was the case or your certain confidence? You might consider opening an NFL Psychic Hotline. I would certainly recommend you.

I won't compare that Packer playoff run and eventual Super Bowl Victory to 'the Miracle On Ice'. In many ways it's just too bizarre how we were able to accomplish all we did in 2010, given the circumstances. It had alot to do with a solid offense coming to full maturity and a locker room full of Packers that somehow played out of their minds - over their heads.


We may have won the SB, and the defense may have gotten away with gimmickry for a time, but I could certainly tell it was all smoke, mirrors, and guys playing way over their heads. I could clearly see the Packers had serious deficiencies in their front seven. Capers gimmicks could hold down the fort for only so long b/4 offenses caught up to it, and exposed our lack of talent.

That's what I clearly saw last offseason - winning the SB notwithstanding.


Winning the '10 SB was nothing short of stars aligning. ARod went into "beast mode"; the secondary played lights out; and teams hadn't caught up to Capers' 'Raji-10' defense yet... plus of course we still had Jenkins. His value, now that he's gone, should be obvious to everyone.

"bizarre", related in an unknown way to "Miracle on Ice", gimmicky defense with smoke and mirrors, guys playing over their heads, stars aligning and Rodgers Beast mode.

Yes, I think the thrust of these comments are people who seem to be saying that the Packers Super Bowl success cannot be repeated using the same techniques that got them there. Which I believe is the definition of "fluke". Also funny that no one mentions the talent that was missing on both sides of the ball due to injuries during that Super Bowl run. Because I think that is a testimony to Thompson's approach, not an exception to prove the rule.

[woodbuck27]

What is 'it'? Why is 'C' clearly defined? By whom? Is it really "clearly defined" when two fans disagree on the definition?

OK ....I'll try an example:

A = OUR NT is handled by just one opposition OLman

Resulting in:

B = The Opposition's Guards are free to pull through the trench or '3 man front' to lay out blocks on OUR OLman

Resulting in:

C = Creates deeper inside 'running lanes' with blocks on our OLman or lanes for greater ground gains Vs us.

[Scott Campbell]

I do not post hatred.

Yes you do.



I fight those that do.

Whining isn't the same thing as fighting.



I DO NOT HATE !

Sorry - not buying it. Or any of your other ridiculous claims - regardless of font size or color.

[sharpe1027]

OK ....I'll try an example:

A = OUR NT is handled by just one opposition OLman

Resulting in:

B = Oppositions Guards are free to pull through the trench or '3 man front' to lay out blocks on OUR OLman

Resulting in:

C = Creates deeper inside running lanes with blocks on our OLman

I might use other examples but in each case

And this relates to this thread how exactly?

[woodbuck27]

And this relates to this thread how exactly?

Dear GOD... Help us all.

You cannot be serious?

[pbmax]

By your own statistic (points allowed) our 'D' ranked in the lower part of the second tier of NFL teams. @ 19th. Not good !
Not good is an understatement. But its a long way from being labeled the worst defense as has been done in this thread repeatedly. And going from 2nd in points allowed to 19th in points allowed is both much easier to explain and fix when compared to correcting a fall from #2 to #32.



I'm one of the Packer fans that isn't 'on' with AJ Hawk's play. He's not effective in pass coverage and that takes away from the fact he is one of the most consistent tacklers on our 'D'. Last seasonn one of the BIG concerns was that TT was on the hook for his CAP space and that wasn't considered a valued return for his play.
AJ Hawk is both an example of Thompson investing money and a high draft pick on the defensive front seven. Thompson's willingness to do either have been challenged in this thread. AJ Hawk is also an example of a good, assignment sure player that won't lose you a game. Since no one can afford a defense full of game changers, and since Hawk fits a need adequately, its better to have him than not. So he qualifies as an effective starter in the front seven.



We lost that game to the GIANTS because our offense sputtered BIG TIME. Where have ypu read a post from me that blames that loss tothe New York GIANTS on our 'D". Look and you'll look a long time as I recall my position on that.

{quote}woodbuck quote follows: (http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?23908-One-Exec-quot-Packers-Have-Much-Work-To-Do-quot&p=663601&viewfull=1#post663601)The Green Bay Packers have *'the worst ranked defense' in the NFL. What's the evidence of that fact...the TRUTH? That fact is published constantly. **Don't you believe it pbmax? **

The New York GIANTS certainly took advantage of *that fact* in a lopsided loss as we went one and out last season in the playoff's. The New York GIANTS IMO took advantage of certain Packer arrogance or over confidence in the face of having a defense that distinctly sucks. {unquote}



Have your own way in regards to the debate pbmax. I'm not in any way even arguing the issue here in terms of Ted Thompson and his drafting skills in terms of our defenses performance.Ted Thompson cannot have any control over player injuries or character or NFL penalty issues. Has he drafted decently on the defensive side of the ball. He clearly has had far more success on the offensive side of the ball.

Actually, one of the points that wist makes and I find compelling, or at least interesting enough to discuss, is success in drafting for defense, specifically, D lineman. I think you are saying here that you think its beyond discussion that Thompson has had more success on the Offensive side of the ball in the draft and that its so obvious, you are not willing to debate me over unpredictable injuries. That's fine. But I think Thompson's miss rate on the D line deserves a second look. He mentioned it in his press conference last week.

I am not sure Thompson has a worse success rate on the D line than other teams or if he has drafted fewer. Its worth a look.



He didn't draft Ryan Pickett. He came to us as a FA. Even if I give you AJ Hawk and BJ Raji. Questionable at best as our roster now stands. He has contributed three quality defensive players to our starting 'D's' front seven.

Ryan Pickett is an example of Thompson plugging a hole outside of the draft. He doesn't tell us anything about his drafting success, but it does tell us he recognizes good line play as well as his own teams shortcomings. Both of these qualities have been called into question. But Pickett is undoubtedly a starting caliber player on a winning D.

And the thread is about the task at hand, not about the draft.



[About Lions loss 2010] If you say so I would agree. I never ever said that we lost that regular season game in our Super Bowl championship Season because of a bad or worse 'D'. Did I!?

No. But you did point to this game to express the uncertainty over the quality of the team in 2010. That team had a championship caliber defense and an offense that got hot at the right time. The team then changed and it was a different story in 2011. But the guy that built that championship defense is still here. And outside of needing pass rusher, I have not seen compelling evidence offered that the GM of 2010 and 2011 is incapable of finding enough help to do it again.

What I would love to debate is if it will take him longer than other team because of either weaknesses in identifying D lineman or a BPA strategy that would seem to work against an all Defense top half of the 2012 draft.

[Bretsky]

Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin, and Roddy White are the only four players I'd clearly rate over Jennings, and Jennings may be close to Roddy. I'm not sure if he's top five but if he's not he's in the 6-8 range.

Honestly I think we're taking a huge step back if we let Jennings go. I like Jordy and all but IMO he's far easier to replace. Lose Jennings, put Jorday at #1==Houston we have a problem

Jennings IMO is one of the top route runners in the game.

[sharpe1027]

Dear GOD... Help us all.

You cannot be serious?

Shirley, I can be serious.

[Fritz]

The "what if" game is always a tough one to enter into, but I'll do it here for the sake of argument concerning Thompson's ability to draft d-linemen. If of the three - Harrell, Neal, and Jolly - only two had gone down (maybe even one?), we would not be discussing Thompson's poor defensive line draft choices.

Conversely, had Sitton and Lang been lost permanently, we'd still be talking about how badly Thompson evaluates offensive line personnel.

As for Wist's argument that the SB run was a matter of the stars aligning, I'd agree that there is an element of luck involved, but I'd argue that is true of every Super Bowl winner, period. It's not all luck, or the Leos would've won one by now, but once you get to the playoffs and have a certain level of talent, there is an unnameable quality that every team must have. The team must gell, must come together, must have some luck. Look at the Giants' two SB victories recently. Neither team looked terribly impressive in the regular season, but they put it together in separate seasons for SB runs.

[Scott Campbell]

The "what if" game is always a tough one to enter into, but I'll do it here for the sake of argument concerning Thompson's ability to draft d-linemen. If of the three - Harrell, Neal, and Jolly - only two had gone down (maybe even one?), we would not be discussing Thompson's poor defensive line draft choices.

Conversely, had Sitton and Lang been lost permanently, we'd still be talking about how badly Thompson evaluates offensive line personnel.

As for Wist's argument that the SB run was a matter of the stars aligning, I'd agree that there is an element of luck involved, but I'd argue that is true of every Super Bowl winner, period. It's not all luck, or the Leos would've won one by now, but once you get to the playoffs and have a certain level of talent, there is an unnameable quality that every team must have. The team must gell, must come together, must have some luck. Look at the Giants' two SB victories recently. Neither team looked terribly impressive in the regular season, but they put it together in separate seasons for SB runs.


I've always thought that the GM is supposed to give you a roster that can contend. And then it's up to the coaching staff, the players themselves and the football gods.

[sharpe1027]

I've always thought that the GM is supposed to give you a roster that can contend. And then it's up to the coaching staff, the players themselves and the football gods.

This. Nobody wins them all. Most don't win any. If you can be in contention almost ever year, you are doing your job. People that piss and moan about losing a playoff game a year removed from the superbowl, they'll never be happy.

[Smeefers]

I've always thought that the GM is supposed to give you a roster that can contend. And then it's up to the coaching staff, the players themselves and the football gods.

This.

TT has put us in the position to contend for a title for the forseeable future.

[pbmax]

Buluga is not going to earn top dollar. If Colts can hang onto for Peyton, Harrison, Wayne, and Freeney I see no reason why we will not be able to hang onto our guys. You guys keep acting that contacts like Woodson, Pickett, Driver, and maybe Collins aren't going to be off the books by the time we resign those guys. TT knows what he is doing and there is zero chance Jennings will leave, he's not that type of diva reciever who would leave to get mega dollars else where.

The Colts did do that and it hurt them on the defensive side eventually as injuries robbed them of established players. You can hang onto them but there is always a cost.

[George Cumby]

The "what if" game is always a tough one to enter into, but I'll do it here for the sake of argument concerning Thompson's ability to draft d-linemen. If of the three - Harrell, Neal, and Jolly - only two had gone down (maybe even one?), we would not be discussing Thompson's poor defensive line draft choices.

Conversely, had Sitton and Lang been lost permanently, we'd still be talking about how badly Thompson evaluates offensive line personnel.

As for Wist's argument that the SB run was a matter of the stars aligning, I'd agree that there is an element of luck involved, but I'd argue that is true of every Super Bowl winner, period. It's not all luck, or the Leos would've won one by now, but once you get to the playoffs and have a certain level of talent, there is an unnameable quality that every team must have. The team must gell, must come together, must have some luck. Look at the Giants' two SB victories recently. Neither team looked terribly impressive in the regular season, but they put it together in separate seasons for SB runs.

This whole post but bolded in particular.

And "luck" is the intersection of opportunity and preparation (I don't remember where I got that one, but it holds true).

[George Cumby]

Wood, I have to get a little pedantic here and I apologize. But we have strayed far afield and I need to give you the context of my critique of wist's critique of both the defense and of Thompson. Otherwise, we will be arguing about things we actually agree on.

Over time, wist has maintained a severe displeasure with the Packers defense. From coordinator to style, static to multiple, aggressive to passive, from drafting to coaching, wist has had an issue with the Packers Defense that is as deep as it is wide. That is not to say he has disliked everyone or everything, but if wist was a Securities Rating Agency like Standard and Poor, he would rate the Packers Defense of the last 20 years a CCC [Currently vulnerable and dependent on favorable business, financial and economic conditions to meet financial commitments.] wist should of course be the final arbiter of his own opinions, so he may disagree with my summation.

1. wist has maintained that Dom Capers, despite his resume, is too cautious and not aggressive enough when terms of the battle are against him.
2. wist has maintained that the Packers have an inability to draft for defense. That inability predates Ron Wolf's ascendency to the position of GM. If I recall correctly, he was concerned about Packer drafts for D during the Tom Braatz administration, if not earlier.
3. wist maintains that Packer scouts, in addition to front office types, have repeated demonstrated the inability to correctly evaluate and select effective defenders in the line, linebackers and secondary positions.
4. wist maintains that Thompson is too favorably disposed to drafting offensive talent over defensive talent. That he relies on a slew of 7th round picks to pretend he has addressed Defensive needs.
5. wist maintains that Thompson's philosophy of drafting the "BPA" means that defensive needs will go unmet since Thompson's preference for offensive performers will often leave him with a player on Offense rated higher than a player on Defense
6. wist has maintained that the Packers Super Bowl win was largely a happy coincidence
7. wist has maintained that the Packers performance last year on defense was terrible
8. wist has maintained that in the Packers front 7, only 2 front line starters are available

In this thread, wist has mentioned numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. And there was an oblique reference to number 3.

I think that it is self evident that in maintaining contentions 4, 5 and 6, wist is indeed denigrating Thompson. You may not consider this an attack. But as this thread is about the job the Packers personnel department has in front of it, I don't see how one can maintain Thompson is incapable of fixing his teams deficiencies and not construe the sum of the posts as less than an attack on the GMs ability to do his job. Hoping that the GM will suddenly see the error of his ways and heed the advice of message board posters is, if you think about it, a pretty damning conclusion.

If one were to focus solely on items 4 and 5, one could see that past evidence suggests that any differentiation in selecting O talent versus D talent is minimal at its worst.

If one were to focus solely on item 6, then one would be whistling past the graveyard about Packer defensive performance and talent.

But perhaps most importantly for the conversation that you and I are having woodbuck, if one were to focus solely on item 7 then one would see that the entire PackerRats community is in agreement.

Damn fine post.

[KYPack]

Man, there have been many fine posts on the forum in the last few days.

You all are makin' me think & shit.

That's good, I think.

[Smidgeon]

Man, there have been many fine posts on the forum in the last few days.

You all are makin' me think & shit.

That's good, I think.

Couldn't have said it better myself; thusly repped.

[woodbuck27]

The "what if" game is always a tough one to enter into, but I'll do it here for the sake of argument concerning Thompson's ability to draft d-linemen. If of the three - Harrell, Neal, and Jolly - only two had gone down (maybe even one?), we would not be discussing Thompson's poor defensive line draft choices.

Conversely, had Sitton and Lang been lost permanently, we'd still be talking about how badly Thompson evaluates offensive line personnel.

As for Wist's argument that the SB run was a matter of the stars aligning, I'd agree that there is an element of luck involved, but I'd argue that is true of every Super Bowl winner, period. It's not all luck, or the Leos would've won one by now, but once you get to the playoffs and have a certain level of talent, there is an unnameable quality that every team must have. The team must gell, must come together, must have some luck. Look at the Giants' two SB victories recently. Neither team looked terribly impressive in the regular season, but they put it together in separate seasons for SB runs.

That's exactly what the Packers did in 2010. Miraculously IMO put it together.

They looked 'dead in the water' after the Lions win over our team. Low and behold somehow the team got a win and another win and locker room morale went up (I imagine MM speech's and DD speechs and CW speeches helped).

The year before Aaron Rodgers had it snatched away by Arizona and he hungered for another real shot. Players like Walden played awesome and it just grew and grew to where I knew that team would win the NFC and the Super Bowl.

I knew that team would win just as strongly as I felt that our team was doomed this season. I was totally set to see the PACKERS go one and out in the playoffs. Our team was set to fall. They carried that billboard sign around certainly from midseason. How so many fans disregarded it was coming amazes me.

Is delusion related to intelligence?

There are actually idiot poster here that imagine I pull against my team and pull for my team to lose to reflect poorly on Ted Thompson. That's completely insane hate filled BULLSHIT. I was a Green Bay Packer fan before some of the 'know it alls' on this board were ever imagined and that likely stands for that posters parents as well.

Sure right on genious's. I'm going to have a real hatred for the man that secures the lifeblood for the Pro Team I love the most.

If you take that position with me. Your way beyond fricken' STUPID. Your moronic to 'carry that torch' sticking out of your ass.

[woodbuck27]

Wood, I have to get a little pedantic here and I apologize. But we have strayed far afield and I need to give you the context of my critique of wist's critique of both the defense and of Thompson. Otherwise, we will be arguing about things we actually agree on.

Over time, wist has maintained a severe displeasure with the Packers defense. From coordinator to style, static to multiple, aggressive to passive, from drafting to coaching, wist has had an issue with the Packers Defense that is as deep as it is wide. That is not to say he has disliked everyone or everything, but if wist was a Securities Rating Agency like Standard and Poor, he would rate the Packers Defense of the last 20 years a CCC [Currently vulnerable and dependent on favorable business, financial and economic conditions to meet financial commitments.] wist should of course be the final arbiter of his own opinions, so he may disagree with my summation.

1. wist has maintained that Dom Capers, despite his resume, is too cautious and not aggressive enough when terms of the battle are against him.
2. wist has maintained that the Packers have an inability to draft for defense. That inability predates Ron Wolf's ascendency to the position of GM. If I recall correctly, he was concerned about Packer drafts for D during the Tom Braatz administration, if not earlier.
3. wist maintains that Packer scouts, in addition to front office types, have repeated demonstrated the inability to correctly evaluate and select effective defenders in the line, linebackers and secondary positions.
4. wist maintains that Thompson is too favorably disposed to drafting offensive talent over defensive talent. That he relies on a slew of 7th round picks to pretend he has addressed Defensive needs.
5. wist maintains that Thompson's philosophy of drafting the "BPA" means that defensive needs will go unmet since Thompson's preference for offensive performers will often leave him with a player on Offense rated higher than a player on Defense
6. wist has maintained that the Packers Super Bowl win was largely a happy coincidence
7. wist has maintained that the Packers performance last year on defense was terrible
8. wist has maintained that in the Packers front 7, only 2 front line starters are available

In this thread, wist has mentioned numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. And there was an oblique reference to number 3.

I think that it is self evident that in maintaining contentions 4, 5 and 6, wist is indeed denigrating Thompson. You may not consider this an attack. But as this thread is about the job the Packers personnel department has in front of it, I don't see how one can maintain Thompson is incapable of fixing his teams deficiencies and not construe the sum of the posts as less than an attack on the GMs ability to do his job. Hoping that the GM will suddenly see the error of his ways and heed the advice of message board posters is, if you think about it, a pretty damning conclusion.

If one were to focus solely on items 4 and 5, one could see that past evidence suggests that any differentiation in selecting O talent versus D talent is minimal at its worst.

If one were to focus solely on item 6, then one would be whistling past the graveyard about Packer defensive performance and talent.

But perhaps most importantly for the conversation that you and I are having woodbuck, if one were to focus solely on item 7 then one would see that the entire PackerRats community is in agreement.

I've observed wist43 post for some 7 years and on the whole above I agree with your assessment.

I must up front also inform this board that IMO wist43 is a smart member of Packerrats and in terms of that valuable here. wist43 posts here with a certain respect as a gentleman and many here lack that skill and and tactful wisdom. wist43 is heds and shoulders a better football analyst than so many that might challenge his views that are generally accurate.

wist43 has been less than enamoured with the Packer defensive personnel at LBer for the past five years. Maybe I'm wrong here but I believe he may be less than pleased with the production we see from AJ Hawk. As a #5 1st Rd. pick he has disappointed many Packer fans who were so high on him out of College in making one Pro Bowl Team as an alternate.

I do NOT rate AJ Hawk as a 'Blue Chip' defensive front seven player.

I'm a today guy. I could give 'a Rat's ass' about 'any Ted Thompson this or that' in the past. I'm hoping for the BEST Ted Thompson performance RE: getting talent for our 'D' this week....for our future.

We have need all over on 'D'.

Yes this is what we enjoyed in our teams Super Bowl Champioship run two seasons ago. Did you read ** this article?

Ohh A WARNING ... Sorry all you Packerrats that shiver whenever this site is referenced. I do NOT want to add trauma .....'stress' to your lives. Sometimes things can be so traumatic to 'the sensative':

** http://bleacherreport.com/articles/584273-green-bay-packers-defense-is-it-as-good-as-advertised

Isn't that what we prefer to have written about our 'D'?

I too feel that given the present state of our team on defense. That TT has a huge challenge facing him come Thursday. I'm concerned that TT's 'best laid plan' normally... to go BPA in the early rounds won't trump going BPA on 'D'. Especially that concerning 'the pass rush'. Especially that as we consider issues like Nick Collins and an aging Charles Woodson.

We don't have need at WR;TE,FB and we have another year to see how things pan out at RB with present roster players in that position.

TT may 'of course' pick BPA for our OL and may indeed do the same if that QB he just loves is sitting thee to be plucked but I won't agree with that given other priority needs. I want Ted Thompson to load up on the front end of this draft on defense. First three rounds>>> 'D' 'D' 'D'. Why? That just makes too much common sense.

If he goes that way and misses I wil NOT fault the man. If he goes that way and miss's his entire Scouting team needs to get fired !

We havn't had a great pass rush IMO since we went to the Dom Caper's 3-4 defensive scheme. A certain solid DE in the 4-3 didn't transition to the 3-4. We had an excellent pass rush last in the 4-3.

Ted Thompson cannot be any different from wist43 and myself and others here that see the urgency for our teams GM to address a vital need on 'D.

That need wasn't reduced 'as a priority' with the release of LT Chad Clifton. The 'Silver Fox' has had a season to get set for this draft. We need him to ACE it.

So....... GO TED THOMPSON ! >>> GO PACKERS !

[Smeefers]

You don't pass on Aaron Rodgers to grab Louis Costillo (the next defensive player in the draft). Sure, if you have 3 guys who rate out the same and one of em happens to be defense, that's the one you pick, but if Trent Richardson fell to us, would you guys really say we should have picked defense? What about Micheal Floyd?

This year I don't think it's going to be a problem, every mock draft I look at has 25 defense first round talent to 7 offense first round talent and 4 of those offensive guys are going in the top 10. What sucks about that is there's going to be maybe 4 or 5 pro bowl defensive players out of that bunch and that's it. I hope the guy we pick is at least a decent contributer.

You draft for the future, not for the now. It's how you stay good.

[ND72]

You don't pass on Aaron Rodgers to grab Louis Costillo (the next defensive player in the draft). Sure, if you have 3 guys who rate out the same and one of em happens to be defense, that's the one you pick, but if Trent Richardson fell to us, would you guys really say we should have picked defense? What about Micheal Floyd?

This year I don't think it's going to be a problem, every mock draft I look at has 25 defense first round talent to 7 offense first round talent and 4 of those offensive guys are going in the top 10. What sucks about that is there's going to be maybe 4 or 5 pro bowl defensive players out of that bunch and that's it. I hope the guy we pick is at least a decent contributer.

You draft for the future, not for the now. It's how you stay good.

This also depends on what Thompson's board looks like. I still remember when we took Nick Collins, NO clue who the hell he was, and the ESPN people kept saying big mistake, Collins is a 4th round talent...then Thompson said Collins was his top 2nd round talent on his board. That worked out ok. I think it's fun to me listening to all these guys on NFL and ESPN talk about top talent, and so on, when each team, each GM, and each coach will view guys completely different. Some people say Nick Perry won't fit into a 3-4 defense, Thompson might think the exact same thing, therefore might not view him as a 1st round value or a pick to choose from.

[Scott Campbell]

I still remember when we took Nick Collins, NO clue who the hell he was, and the ESPN people kept saying big mistake, Collins is a 4th round talent..



I had to look up Bethune-Cookman just to see what state it was in.

[ND72]

I had to look up Bethune-Cookman just to see what state it was in.

Makes 2 of us. Although my Bethune-Cookman mini helmet signed by Collins is pretty sweet...

[Smeefers]

I heard on the radio that a big reason we took Nick is because he looked just like LeRoy Butler coming out of College. Boy did they hit that one on the head.

[ThunderDan]

That's exactly what the Packers did in 2010. Miraculously IMO put it together.

They looked 'dead in the water' after the Lions win over our team. Low and behold somehow the team got a win and another win and locker room morale went up (I imagine MM speech's and DD speechs and CW speeches helped).


No way.

They looked like a team who's starting quarterback went down for the game and the backup who got no reps during the week couldn't lead the team. Against a team who was playing it's "Super Bowl" against the Pack that day. The defense stoned DET all day long. If Jennings doesn't drop the bomb from Rodgers in the first half the Pack win anyway with Flynn playing like crap.

The next week we went to NE as a heavy underdog with Flynn starting and lost 31-27 because of a kick off return by a lineman for 60 plus yards.

The reality was the Packers had it turned around by week 7 in 2010. They finished the year 7-3 and should have been 9-1 heading into the playoffs. Then they extended their play for 4 more weeks and won the Super Bowl.

There was no "magic" or "luck" in 2010 other than overcoming injuries. 2010 was a great team that played excellent for the last 14 weeks of the season.

[ThunderDan]

PS- They extended that streak for another 13 games in 2011 before they lost to KC.

[Fritz]

This also depends on what Thompson's board looks like. I still remember when we took Nick Collins, NO clue who the hell he was, and the ESPN people kept saying big mistake, Collins is a 4th round talent...then Thompson said Collins was his top 2nd round talent on his board. That worked out ok. I think it's fun to me listening to all these guys on NFL and ESPN talk about top talent, and so on, when each team, each GM, and each coach will view guys completely different. Some people say Nick Perry won't fit into a 3-4 defense, Thompson might think the exact same thing, therefore might not view him as a 1st round value or a pick to choose from.

I agree here. Part of Thompson's skill, I think, is his ability to trust his evaluations and those of his scouts. I get a feeling other GM's get swayed some by outside opinion. So Ted develops his board his way, which I'm guessing is probably rather different than most other boards. That's why he surprises us. Collins is a great example. Would you have the balls to grab him in the second round when he's rated by the so-called experts as a fourth rounder? Would you grab Jennings and pass on Chad Jackson, who was rated much higher?

And yes, other GM's "reach" sometimes, too - but Ted's reaches often work out better than others' reaches. Heck, he mentioned that his board had Clay Matthews as a top-ten player, and the Pack almost chose him with that #10 pick.

The things that often aggravate us about Ted - his refusal to say much at all, his bland statements - these cover up his genius, which is simply his ability to evaluate talent combined with a belief in that ability, unswayed by outside opinions (opinions outside the organization, I mean. I hear he very much trusts his scouts).

[Scott Campbell]

No way.

They looked like a team who's starting quarterback went down for the game and the backup who got no reps during the week couldn't lead the team. Against a team who was playing it's "Super Bowl" against the Pack that day. The defense stoned DET all day long. If Jennings doesn't drop the bomb from Rodgers in the first half the Pack win anyway with Flynn playing like crap.

The next week we went to NE as a heavy underdog with Flynn starting and lost 31-27 because of a kick off return by a lineman for 60 plus yards.

The reality was the Packers had it turned around by week 7 in 2010. They finished the year 7-3 and should have been 9-1 heading into the playoffs. Then they extended their play for 4 more weeks and won the Super Bowl.

There was no "magic" or "luck" in 2010 other than overcoming injuries. 2010 was a great team that played excellent for the last 14 weeks of the season.


He just says that to diminish the accomplishment, because he hates Ted.

[ND72]

I agree here. Part of Thompson's skill, I think, is his ability to trust his evaluations and those of his scouts. I get a feeling other GM's get swayed some by outside opinion. So Ted develops his board his way, which I'm guessing is probably rather different than most other boards. That's why he surprises us. Collins is a great example. Would you have the balls to grab him in the second round when he's rated by the so-called experts as a fourth rounder? Would you grab Jennings and pass on Chad Jackson, who was rated much higher?

And yes, other GM's "reach" sometimes, too - but Ted's reaches often work out better than others' reaches. Heck, he mentioned that his board had Clay Matthews as a top-ten player, and the Pack almost chose him with that #10 pick.

The things that often aggravate us about Ted - his refusal to say much at all, his bland statements - these cover up his genius, which is simply his ability to evaluate talent combined with a belief in that ability, unswayed by outside opinions (opinions outside the organization, I mean. I hear he very much trusts his scouts).

What I wouldn't give to be a fly in that room...but Thompson probably makes sure they're all dead also.

I think I remember Thompson saying Raji was rated as the #4 player on his board and Clay was like #7 or something like that. Which is why I'm looking at tomorrow, and if there is a guy he knows he wants, I won't be shocked if he moves up to get him. I think we are fully at that point. Not reaching for a guy, but getting a guy he wants because it fits.

[Scott Campbell]

I get a feeling other GM's get swayed some by outside opinion.


And outside opinion includes fan sentiment.

[ND72]

And outside opinion includes fan sentiment.

Except Cam Cameron...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN3H6Gc3_SE

[Fritz]

Yes, I think to some extent that's true. I think that's partly why the Jest got Tebow.

As for TT reaching up to grab, I'm guessing - just guessing - that since he's loaded up later in the draft (three fourths, three sevenths), he'll move up, not necessarily from the #28 spot, but maybe from the late fourth to the early fourth, or the late third to the earlier third, giving up that one fourth he can trade, and giving up a fifth, or a sixth, and/or a seventh. The value of those picks might not move him far in the first or second round, but they might in the third or later, if TT sees a guy he really likes sitting out there in the mid-third or mid-fourth round.

I don't think TT will give up the second or third round picks to move up. This appears to be a fairly deep draft, and those rounds are gold in a deep draft. Besides, he needs another safety now.

[Smidgeon]

What I wouldn't give to be a fly in that room...but Thompson probably makes sure they're all dead also.

I think I remember Thompson saying Raji was rated as the #4 player on his board and Clay was like #7 or something like that. Which is why I'm looking at tomorrow, and if there is a guy he knows he wants, I won't be shocked if he moves up to get him. I think we are fully at that point. Not reaching for a guy, but getting a guy he wants because it fits.

I really can't imagine that Thompson admitted that. That level of glasnost seems to go against his modus operandi.

[Pugger]

Yes, I think to some extent that's true. I think that's partly why the Jest got Tebow.

As for TT reaching up to grab, I'm guessing - just guessing - that since he's loaded up later in the draft (three fourths, three sevenths), he'll move up, not necessarily from the #28 spot, but maybe from the late fourth to the early fourth, or the late third to the earlier third, giving up that one fourth he can trade, and giving up a fifth, or a sixth, and/or a seventh. The value of those picks might not move him far in the first or second round, but they might in the third or later, if TT sees a guy he really likes sitting out there in the mid-third or mid-fourth round.

I don't think TT will give up the second or third round picks to move up. This appears to be a fairly deep draft, and those rounds are gold in a deep draft. Besides, he needs another safety now.

:lol:

[wist43]

So your complaint is that TT doesn't draft enough front 7 players in the the fourth round?

Lurker, I remembered this disparaging eye poke of yours... the answer is yes, I do want more 3rd and 4th rd picks in the front seven.

The result of answering yes??

2012 NFL Draft, 4th round, Pick #132
Mike Daniels, DT, Iowa
6'1, 291 lbs
Primary role: Inside pass rush, rotation and sub package at DE.
Comment: If healthy, this guy will instantly upgrade our interior pass rush; and that alone will help every other struggling soul on that defense.

There, now was that so hard??