"Potential"

[Pacopete4]

Is anyone else sick of the word "potential"? Not only do u hear it out of the Packer organization, but u hear it in everyday life. Oh, we kept this guy because of his potential. Oh, what happened to you since high school, you showed had so much potential?

I just find the word overused today. If a lot of u read my post on Favre well, he was given a chance on potential which kind gives this post another meaning.

I find that in "our" (our meaning, Packer organization) organization, we rely on potential so much, that we dont use what is right in front of our nose. Instead of keeping a guy that is working his ass off with the talent that he has, we keep a guy that shows great potential that may, or may not ever show up in the NFL.

I just find this to be the wrong way to go out things as a GM. I like what TT has done in ways, but in other ways, I think he needs a good kick to the nuts. TT let Davenport go because he didnt feel he fits our system, but then keeps a guy like Martin (WR), who shows potential over a guy like Gardner. (Might be a bad example, but hey, I'm drunk and pooring what I think out)

I guess, I just wouldnt mind seeing some responses on why we use the word potential so much, and how we go about judging it. To me, it is getting out of control.

[Tarlam!]

Good post.

I think we brought in guys like Marquand and Woodson based on what they demonstrated, not on potential.

But, with the cap, resources are limited, so I believe guys MUST be signed based on potential, cause we can't afford to sign 53 vets that are hitting their full potential!

Sought of disgreeing with your thoughts a bit, but, not totally!

[the_idle_threat]

Oh, what happened to you since high school, you showed had so much potential?


You seem kind of bitter about this line ... :razz:

It's part of a GM's job to keep some guys based upon "potential." Young players take time to develop ... some reach their potential, some don't. It's the ones that don't develop and yet tease enough to hang around that become frustrating.

David Martin teases us with potential, but has never developed into a quality starter. The same can be said of Robert Ferguson, and such recent cuts as Michael Hawkins and Najeh Davenpoop. These guys had talent, but couldn't put it together. Injuries have been a major contributing factor, but they also had other weaknesses in their games.

But some guys do manage to develop. We kept such guys as Mike Wahle, KGB, Mike Flanagan, and Donald Driver around despite early setbacks due to injury or weaknesses in their games, and they developed. You acknowledge that Ron Wolf traded for Brett Favre based upon his potential ... he had shown almost nothing in his time down in Atlanta.

So I don't have a problem with having a few guys like Jason Hunter, Ingle Martin, Charlie Peprah, etc. around despite the fact that they will likely contribute little this season. As long as they're young and have upside, they're better than veterans with the same level of skill and no room to improve. Maybe in 3 years, we'll have a starter or two from this group. But if it's season 3 and they're still nothing more than teases, it's time to look for younger replacements ... guys with "potential."

Would you rather they keep guys with no potential? :wink:

[Chubbyhubby]

I agree. Potential has been overused alot. However we have a young team and with a young team with lack of experience we will suffer setbacks. However the point is that with Mistakes comes learning. To what you learn from them makes you a better player and how you learn from it that will determine how good a player you can become. The question becomes who would you rather have young "potenial" players who can grow into stars or over the hill used up vets that will only get worse over time.

You have to remember that this 2006 team is not built around "lets win now" approach "its lets BUILD FOR THE FUTURE" approach.

In my opinon, this is good because we will be dominate like we did in the '90s within the next 4-5 years. People don't like hearing it be we are "starting over" Going 4-12 the only way to go is UP!

Some say that they get tired of "waiting" Our Packers truly has not gotten a face lift since Brett Favre has been our QB for the past 15 years. Its time to start. That begins this year.

I truely believe that we will dominate again!

KEEP THE FAITH!!

[ahaha]

The word may be overused, but it's the driving force behind success in the NFL. Every good player needs time to develop their "potential". Some can contribute right away, but most need a few years to learn and refine their game. The Redskins, under George Allen, tried your approach in the 70's. He made a lot of trades to get quality veterens in return for draft picks. He had some success, but never won a Superbowl. I don't think this approach is as feasable in the salary cap era. Teams need some younger, and cheaper alternatives in order to stay under the salary cap.

[RashanGary]

When working within a salary cap and in an NFL that relys on stars, it's always great to hit on potential. It's like a risk reward venture. In football, you need to hit big every now and again. You'd rather take 10 risks and hit on one or two then have 10 decent guys.

As a team, the Packers are between GM's. Thompson is just starting to build his team. Each year will probably look better than the last for a few years. Eventually, we will have alot of guys performing and a few guys being groomed...Well, hopefully.

[pbmax]

Potential is much better when its "Upside Potential" like ESPN draft talking heads use in for the draft.

Because you might get confused about a player if they are looking for some "Downside Potential". :lol:

[Bretsky]

Potential Schmotential; Mike Hawkins was all about potential. Let's get football players. I think the 2006 draft was a start.

[woodbuck27]

I think I'm getting it?

Ted Thompson brings in players that have upside potentiial until that potential turns to downside potential, and the potential risk is greater than the original potential.

Suddenly, the potential to be NFL unemployed reach's it's full potentil.
ie NOT a punter today - BJ Sander.

Football guys with potential to retain upside potential and actually reach their potential are retained ie WR Ruvell Martin, in a bid to potentially deliver the potential the Packers will potentially deserve.

So. . . it looks potentially good regarding OUR potential. :mrgreen:

[red]

the team has to use the word potential. if they didn't have that word to hang their hat on we would just be left with a bunch of guys that sucked

[woodbuck27]

the team has to use the word potential. if they didn't have that word to hang their hat on we would just be left with a bunch of guys that sucked

Yea and that has "NO" potential. :mrgreen:

We ride "that potential" to a win tomorrow. :mrgreen:

GO PACK GO. FAN FAITH !!

[Bretsky]

the team has to use the word potential. if they didn't have that word to hang their hat on we would just be left with a bunch of guys that sucked

Well, the way we've looked lately.........we may be a bunch of guys that collectively suck.

I'm pumped; ready to talk some trash with some f'ckin Bear Lovers tomorrow at Lambeauuuuuuuu

[woodbuck27]

the team has to use the word potential. if they didn't have that word to hang their hat on we would just be left with a bunch of guys that sucked

Well, the way we've looked lately.........we may be a bunch of guys that collectively suck.

I'm pumped; ready to talk some trash with some f'ckin Bear Lovers tomorrow at Lambeauuuuuuuu

First Game At Lambeau this Season!

ONLY WAY TO BE B. :mrgreen: