PDA

View Full Version : Horrible wording or is TT an idiot?



Chester Marcol
02-09-2007, 01:29 PM
I was just reading the latest story over at jsonline, and pulled a Lewis Black after reading the following line from that story:

Thompson said he didn't make Favre any promises that he'd upgrade the offense and that Favre didn't ask for any.

Did Thompson really say he wouldn't promise he'd upgrade the offense????

I know in the following paragraph he goes on to talk about improving the team whether thru free agency or whatever, but that line stood out as a WTF moment.

cheesner
02-09-2007, 01:49 PM
I was just reading the latest story over at jsonline, and pulled a Lewis Black after reading the following line from that story:

Thompson said he didn't make Favre any promises that he'd upgrade the offense and that Favre didn't ask for any.

Did Thompson really say he wouldn't promise he'd upgrade the offense????

I know in the following paragraph he goes on to talk about improving the team whether thru free agency or whatever, but that line stood out as a WTF moment.

Is TT an idiot? No. You are just anal.

MadtownPacker
02-09-2007, 01:50 PM
I think it's called "not showing your hand". :P

I completely believe that a good GM doesnt say anything about what he is gonna do and in fact lies whenever it is to his advantage.

Chester Marcol
02-09-2007, 02:00 PM
Is TT an idiot? No. You are just anal.

That maybe, but sometimes you read something and it just looks funny. That was one of those times. I didn't try to take it out of context, but that line alone just doesn't sound like something you want your GM to ever say in any context.

Zool
02-09-2007, 02:30 PM
I'm sure it was more about him not promising to get player A or player B. No GM ever says "we arent going to upgrade anything in the offseason". That would be like a QB saying he didnt prepare for a game because he was distracted.

K-town
02-09-2007, 02:44 PM
I'm sure it was more about him not promising to get player A or player B. No GM ever says "we arent going to upgrade anything in the offseason". That would be like a QB saying he didnt prepare for a game because he was distracted.

Yeah, what kind of an ass-hat would say he was distracted and didn't prepare for a regular season game....oh, wait. Nevermind.

red
02-09-2007, 02:48 PM
I'm sure it was more about him not promising to get player A or player B. No GM ever says "we arent going to upgrade anything in the offseason". That would be like a QB saying he didnt prepare for a game because he was distracted.

agreed. he didn't talk brett into coming back by saying, "if you come back, i'll get moss, and this guy and that guy and that other guy, and LT", etc

its the job of the GM to always try to improve your team

Chester Marcol
02-09-2007, 03:48 PM
its the job of the GM to always try to improve your team

I think that is a given. I don't think anyone for a minute thinks that TT is not trying to improve the offense. Many here will debate if his approach to improvent is right or not. That wasn't my point. That line just struck me funny if it actually left his lips or was it just misworded. I got carried away with using the word idiot. Maybe I should have called him Bush like in his comment.

Lurker64
02-09-2007, 04:59 PM
Don't forget, between the end of your season and draft day, essentially everything a front office person says ought to be taken with a considerable dose of salt. Even if Thompson promised he'd upgrade the offense, he'd say what he said above. After all, saying "I told Brett I'd do whatever it takes to get Randy Moss" isn't going to lower the price on any Raider WRs we want to trade for.

Lurker64
02-09-2007, 05:34 PM
I blame this double post on the fact that the site died mid-posting.

That, and the quality of officiating in this day and age.

Scott Campbell
02-09-2007, 10:41 PM
Thompson said he didn't make Favre any promises that he'd upgrade the offense and that Favre didn't ask for any.

Did Thompson really say he wouldn't promise he'd upgrade the offense????[/quote]


No. He said he didn't promise - not that he wouldn't promise as you go on to ask. It could simply mean that Favre didn't ask, so Ted didn't promise. It means nada.

the_idle_threat
02-09-2007, 11:35 PM
I blame this double post on the fact that the site died mid-posting.

That, and the quality of officiating in this day and age.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Fritz
02-10-2007, 10:04 AM
I'm sure it was more about him not promising to get player A or player B. No GM ever says "we arent going to upgrade anything in the offseason". That would be like a QB saying he didnt prepare for a game because he was distracted.

Hilarious.

Iron Mike
02-10-2007, 10:30 AM
Tell me that I'm not the only one that read the title of this thread and thought to self......."Tank's back!" :roll:

Fritz
02-10-2007, 11:02 AM
No, because Tank wouldn't even ask. His thread would just say "TT's an Idoit" (I'm imitating Tank's spelling there too).

jmbarnes101
02-10-2007, 12:02 PM
I'm sure it was more about him not promising to get player A or player B. No GM ever says "we arent going to upgrade anything in the offseason". That would be like a QB saying he didnt prepare for a game because he was distracted.

Yeah, what kind of an ass-hat would say he was distracted and didn't prepare for a regular season game....oh, wait. Nevermind.

You mean this guy?

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

Merlin
02-12-2007, 01:12 PM
Although I agree TT is an idiot, his words are nothing to be afraid of. It's the time of year where you never tip your hand about the direction the team is going. They try to hide that until free agency and the draft start.

Do I doubt that Favre made a pitch to get Moss? No. Do I think TT isn't going to address the offense? No. True to form TT will not say anything to anyone and then all of a sudden you will see Vanderjag(sp?) in Green and Gold.

TT is an idiot for one reason and one only: You can't continue to bring in young talent and have them perform as starters and do it well and expect to keep them around past their rookie contracts. This will be a disaster in a couple of years if it doesn't stop. We need to draft for need, not BPA. We need to sign good veterans to fill in the holes while the rookies get up to speed. We cannot keep starting 4-5 rookies a season and expect to get anywhere.

MJZiggy
02-14-2007, 07:15 AM
After watching the press conference, it appears to me that he was indicating that it was a very short phone call (just like last time) and that the topic wasn't discussed.

And I think Lewis has more interesting things to talk about... :P

Patler
02-14-2007, 08:23 AM
Although I agree TT is an idiot, his words are nothing to be afraid of. It's the time of year where you never tip your hand about the direction the team is going. They try to hide that until free agency and the draft start.

Do I doubt that Favre made a pitch to get Moss? No. Do I think TT isn't going to address the offense? No. True to form TT will not say anything to anyone and then all of a sudden you will see Vanderjag(sp?) in Green and Gold.

TT is an idiot for one reason and one only: You can't continue to bring in young talent and have them perform as starters and do it well and expect to keep them around past their rookie contracts. This will be a disaster in a couple of years if it doesn't stop. We need to draft for need, not BPA. We need to sign good veterans to fill in the holes while the rookies get up to speed. We cannot keep starting 4-5 rookies a season and expect to get anywhere.

In 2006 a bunch of rookies started, but how many rookies started in 2005, two I think? There is no trend there. I don't think you can expect 2006 to be repeated year after year. The idea is to build a solid base, and then not have to continually replace so many starters year after year. One. two or three retiring, leaving as FAs or replaced based on performance SHOULD happen each year for a controlled turnover of the roster. The Packers lost there solid base, and as the roster aged inadequate numbers of quality replacements were available.

Managed well, there will be no disaster in a few years. Roster sizes are limited, "long term" contracts generally range between about 4 and 6 years. Things even out over time as to the number needing to be redone.

However, all good teams lose good players. They are good because they have so many good players, too many to be able to keep. Look at all the players the Packers lost in the late 1990s. The really good teams allow a certain number to leave, and have adequate younger and cheaper replacements able to step in. That's the part Sherman missed on, sufficient numbers of younger and cheaper players ready to step in.

Fritz
02-14-2007, 09:20 AM
Ah, Patler. Bringing sanity to an often insane world. Thank you.