PDA

View Full Version : PI-CRISTL--Thompson has to try something brash at some point



Bretsky
03-20-2007, 11:21 PM
Thompson has to try something brash at some point
Posted: March 20, 2007

Before Brett Favre ever played a down with the Green Bay Packers, the mere act of trading for him marked a watershed moment in the franchise's history.

It was a bold and daring act unlike anything the Packers had done for 20 years or more. By trading a first-round draft pick for a loose-canon quarterback who had been chosen in the second round the year before and done nothing to increase his value, former general manager Ron Wolf not only staked his future on the deal, but jolted the Packers out of a perpetual state of organizational inertia.

Under Tom Braatz, who ran the team's draft for five years before Wolf, there was some progress made on the personnel front. Braatz missed big on Tony Mandarich, but also drafted Sterling Sharpe in the first round, LeRoy Butler in the second and Don Majkowski in the 10th, just to name a few. In Braatz's last draft, he snagged Tony Bennett, Butler, Jackie Harris and Bryce Paup, an impressive catch all in one year.

Braatz had played in the NFL for four years and had spent more than 20 years working in Atlanta's personnel department. He had an eye for talent and also had drafted well for the Falcons, hitting the jackpot on the likes of quarterback Steve Bartkowski, tight end Junior Miller, offensive linemen Bill Fralic and Mike Kenn, and running backs Gerald Riggs and William Andrews, among others.

A perennial also-ran for the first 12 years of their existence, the Falcons made the playoffs three times in a five-year period from 1978-'82 thanks in large part to players that Braatz targeted in the draft. In 1980, the Falcons were young, talented and the No. 1 seed in the NFC playoffs, only to get bumped by Dallas, 30-27, in the divisional playoffs.

And, thereafter, the Falcons just never got over the hump.

A native of Wisconsin, Braatz was conservative by nature and it was reflected in how he ran a franchise. Both in Atlanta and Green Bay, he adhered to a by-the-book, build-through-the-draft philosophy.

In theory, it's the only philosophy that has ever been truly successful in the NFL since the draft came into being in 1936. That said, it's still necessary to deviate from the norm and take some chances on occasion. In other words, a team just can't build through the draft alone.

Former Dallas coach Jimmy Johnson once compared the playoffs to poker. "You can not play with scared money," he said. "You play with scared money, you lose."

The same applies to stocking a roster. Sometimes a general manager just has to try something brash. And if it means flying in the face of his own blueprint, so be it.

Wolf did it at least twice. One was the Favre trade; the other was the Keith Jackson trade. Wolf relinquished a second-round draft pick for Jackson, who said he would rather retire than play in Green Bay and sat out three months before he finally reported. Favre led the Packers to 13 straight non-losing seasons and their first Super Bowl victory in 29 years. And the Packers won Super Bowl XXXI in Jackson's only full season with the team, which might have been more than just a coincidence.

Now might not be the time. Randy Moss might not be the player. And free agency might never be the solution.

But at some point in the not too distant future, Thompson might have to target a particular player or two and go for broke.

He's entering his third season as general manager and has done a good job of improving the infrastructure of his roster. But that alone won't be enough to win a Super Bowl.

Most Super Bowl champions started their uphill climb after years of losing or after hitting rock bottom.

The fortunes of the reigning champion Indianapolis Colts turned around after back-to-back 3-13 seasons in 1997 and '98, the first of which yielded Peyton Manning in the draft. The Dallas Cowboys won three Super Bowls in the 1990s after finishing 3-13 in 1988 and 1-15 in 1999, and drafting Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith. It was a 4-12 finish by the New York Giants in 1980 that allowed them to draft Lawrence Taylor and a 3-12-1 finish three years later that led to the selection of fellow linebacker Carl Banks, two moves that helped propel them to Super Bowl victories in 1986 and 1990.

Before winning three Super Bowls in the 1980s, the San Francisco 49ers finished 2-14 in both 1978 and '79. They wasted their No. 1 picks both years, but also uncovered Joe Montana and five solid starters in the two drafts that followed those dismal seasons. The Pittsburgh Steelers finished 1-13 in 1969 and took quarterback Terry Bradshaw No. 1 in the following draft. Bradshaw led them to four Super Bowl titles over the next decade.

The 2002 Super Bowl champion Tampa Bay Buccaneers were just six years removed from the last of a string of 14 consecutive losing seasons. The 2000 Baltimore Ravens were a fifth-year expansion team that had never before had a winning season. The 1999 St. Louis Rams won the Super Bowl after nine straight losing years, including six in which they won five or fewer games.

The 1996 Packers started their climb four years earlier following a 24-year drought during which they had only five winning seasons. The 1966 and '67 Packers, winners of the first two Super Bowls, still had five key starters, including three Hall of Famers, who were drafted during another of the franchise's dreadful droughts in the 1950s.

There have been a handful of Super Bowl winners that never sank to the depths of the teams mentioned above, but even most of those benefited from a down year and a high draft pick.

The 2005 Steelers finished 6-10 two years earlier and drafted quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. The New England Patriots, winners of three Super Bowls since 2001, finished 5-11 in 2000 and selected Richard Seymour, their best defensive player during that span, with the sixth pick.

On the flip side, teams that don't sink to the cellar or experience years of losing often get stuck in ruts where they become perpetually mediocre.

The Philadelphia Eagles have finished with a winning record in 17 of the last 29 seasons, but haven't won a Super Bowl. True, they fell to 3-13 in 1998 and benefited from drafting Donovan McNabb. But that was one of only two times in the last 11 years that they've had a top 10 draft pick.

The New York Jets last won a Super Bowl following the 1968 season. In the 27 years that the NFL has played a 16-game schedule, dating to 1978 minus two strike-shortened years, the Jets have won between six and 10 games 19 times. The Kansas City Chiefs last won a Super Bowl following the 1969 season. They've won between six and 10 games 20 times in the years of a 16-game schedule.

Both the Jets and Chiefs have had some talented players and also their share of high draft picks. But it's probably instructive that each team has drafted a quarterback in the top 10 only once in more than 35 years.

The Chiefs took Todd Blackledge seventh in 1983; the Jets chose Richard Todd sixth in 1976. Blackledge was a bust; Todd had two good years out of six as a starter.

Should the Packers continue to hover between six and 10 wins and not get another crack or two at the top one to maybe five draft picks, Thompson, in all likelihood, is either going to have to be extremely lucky or gamble on some blockbuster move.

Should he choose to do so, it won't guarantee success. The Eagles learned that in 2004 when they traded for the league's biggest pain in the you-know-what, Terrell Owens, and spent lavishly to sign free agent Jevon Kearse, although they did come a step closer to winning the Super Bowl.

And let's face it, Wolf was daring but also lucky when he traded for Favre. How many times in league history has a young quarterback with that kind of raw talent ever been available?

Thompson doesn't figure to be so lucky. But it also doesn't figure that he can play it safe and only by-the-book year after year and expect to succeed.

HarveyWallbangers
03-20-2007, 11:22 PM
By Tom Silverstein
For Sporting News
March 18, 2007

PERSONNEL ANALYSIS

The Randy Moss trade rumors continue to swirl, but the truth of the matter is that the club isn't going to get involved unless it can obtain the veteran receiver for a low draft pick or after his release. There are too many variables for the club to give up a first-day pick--Moss' personal baggage, his $10 million salary, his decline in speed--and G.M. Ted Thompson values draft choices like bars of gold. If the Raiders cut Moss, the club will go after him. If they offer him up for a reasonable price, they'll consider it. Right now, they're trying to wait out the Raiders, figuring if they don't get Moss they can address the position in the draft.

The club's only free-agent signing, cornerback Frank Walker, could turn out to be a valuable addition. The defense lacked a reliable third cornerback to complement Al Harris and Charles Woodson last season and as a result, teams often threw away from the two corners. Walker is a physical player with some decent ball skills who could man a corner position in the nickel and dime and allow Woodson to move to the slot. The club likes its corners to play physical bump coverage, and Walker should be able to handle that assignment. He'll have to beat out second-year draft pick Will Blackmon for that position. A solid No. 3 corner was badly needed last season and the addition of one could greatly improve the pass defense.

Bretsky
03-21-2007, 12:01 AM
I agree on the Moss stuff; Teddy's going to sit on the sidelines til either the price goes down or he decides to pass. And I like our chances of trading for Moss for a pick better than Teddy signing him via free agency anyways.

I hope Walker is better than Dendy.

gbpackfan
03-21-2007, 06:51 AM
No risk, no reward.

KYPack
03-21-2007, 08:33 AM
Ever notice how Cliffy writes a LOTTA articles about when Braatz was GM like it was some kinda "Golden Era"? I mean most GM's make a few good draft picks, if only by accident.

Silverstein is right. Other teams OC's picked on our slot defenders, espec. when a backer had the slot.

pbmax
03-21-2007, 08:35 AM
This article is 2000 words of obvious. Find a difference maker and do whatever it takes to get him. And the sun shall rise in the East.

Trading for Favre was a materstroke of vision. Keith Jackson was (to me, at least, in hindsight) obvious. You knew exactly what he could do and how you would use him. He was hired to beat the Cowboys and Johnson's defense down the middle.

It would be a better use of Cristl's time if he broke down Moss and decided whether or not he still has it.

Or if he dug around to find out how much the Raiders wish to move him, or how big a stink Moss is willing to put up to get himself a ticket out of town.

Sorry, a little cranky this morning.

LL2
03-21-2007, 08:56 AM
I think TT is following the Patriots model. This year is an aberration for the Patriots with them signing and trading for a bunch of players. They built their team through the draft and signing solid B+ role players. They never went for the big FA until this year, but that is because they have a solid core of good players and have a couple more years to make solid runs at the SB. I think TT is wise to build another year through the draft. If they finish better than 8-8 this year, and he doesn’t get a little aggressive next year then I will be pissed.

esoxx
03-21-2007, 10:01 PM
Keith Jackson was (to me, at least, in hindsight) obvious. You knew exactly what he could do and how you would use him. He was hired to beat the Cowboys and Johnson's defense down the middle.



Which didn't really matter since they didn't beat the Cowboys during Jackson's tenure.

pbmax
03-21-2007, 10:45 PM
Keith Jackson was (to me, at least, in hindsight) obvious. You knew exactly what he could do and how you would use him. He was hired to beat the Cowboys and Johnson's defense down the middle.



Which didn't really matter since they didn't beat the Cowboys during Jackson's tenure.
Oh so true. But I do remember during the first half of game 7 out of 26 in a row at Texas Stadium that Jackson was giving fits to the MLB (was it Strickland?) and SS. Loved it until we fell way behind on damn field goals.

Looked it up: Packers - Jackson 7-98 in that game.

Kiwon
03-22-2007, 01:20 AM
Thompson has to try something brash at some point
Posted: March 20, 2007

Before Brett Favre ever played a down with the Green Bay Packers, the mere act of trading for him marked a watershed moment in the franchise's history.

It was a bold and daring act unlike anything the Packers had done for 20 years or more.


But it also doesn't figure that he can play it safe and only by-the-book year after year and expect to succeed.

The most brash thing TT could do would be to commit the ultimate heresy - trade Farve and continue to build on the foundation of the youngest team in the league.

It won't and shouldn't happen but if TT really wanted to do something brash and make his mark as a risk-taking GM then the biggest wager would be to part ways with the greatest Packer ever.

That said, Farve, as player and Packer ambassador, is more valuable to the team than the GM is. Farve has earned the right to write his own ticket. Hopefully it will be to retire as Packer #4 sometime in the future.

wist43
03-22-2007, 07:40 AM
I don't ever see TT swinging for the fences on any FA...

Even if breaking the bank, or trading a high pick meant a guarenteed SB win - he wouldn't do it. He's simply too rigid.

The only chance we'll have for a championship during TT's tenure will be if he gets lucky on a QB somewhere in the draft who turns out to a Tom Brady or Joe Montana.

The Packers offensive system necessitates having an All-pro calibur QB in order to compete for a championship... Rodgers ain't that guy - and TT will never trade for "that guy"; so, he's going to have to get lucky in the draft.

Patler
03-22-2007, 08:46 AM
The Packers offensive system necessitates having an All-pro calibur QB in order to compete for a championship... Rodgers ain't that guy - and TT will never trade for "that guy"; so, he's going to have to get lucky in the draft.

That's not supportable. How do you even know what the Packers offensive system is? What they played last year certainly isn't what MM said his offense would be. Not even close.

If MM plays the offense he said he will, strong running game, traditional (throughback) WC passing game any competant QB can do well in it. It won't require an All-Pro, it will make one.

Rodgers might actually be better suited to it than Favre. Before Holmgren's offense evolved to better utilize Favre's skills, Favre struggled at times because he was not disciplined enough for a traditional WC conservative passing game. Rodgers will not have that problem, because he plays with great discipline and control.

IF, and I emphasize "IF" MM plays the offense he said he will, Rodgers could be a perfect QB for it, based on his performance in college.

MadtownPacker
03-22-2007, 08:50 AM
Rodgers might actually be better suited to it than Favre.Dont do it! Dont go there man!! Theres no coming back once you cross that line! :D

I see what you mean though. Rodgers appear to be a very smart guy and M3's O requires that.

wist43
03-22-2007, 10:00 AM
The Packers offensive system necessitates having an All-pro calibur QB in order to compete for a championship... Rodgers ain't that guy - and TT will never trade for "that guy"; so, he's going to have to get lucky in the draft.

That's not supportable. How do you even know what the Packers offensive system is? What they played last year certainly isn't what MM said his offense would be. Not even close.

If MM plays the offense he said he will, strong running game, traditional (throughback) WC passing game any competant QB can do well in it. It won't require an All-Pro, it will make one.

Rodgers might actually be better suited to it than Favre. Before Holmgren's offense evolved to better utilize Favre's skills, Favre struggled at times because he was not disciplined enough for a traditional WC conservative passing game. Rodgers will not have that problem, because he plays with great discipline and control.

IF, and I emphasize "IF" MM plays the offense he said he will, Rodgers could be a perfect QB for it, based on his performance in college.

WCO - "any competent QB can do it well"????

Wow, are you out there on that one... Jeff Garcia can't lift his hands for all of the SB rings on them, right???

I want to win SB's, not just flounder around 9-7 for the next decade... to do that, utilizing the WCO, you have to - repeat, have to - have a HOF/All-pro QB.

The only QB to win a SB in the WCO that wasn't a HOF'er was Brad Johnson... but, of course, their offense really had nothing to do with winning that SB - they did it with defense. The best that could be said of Johnson in that situation is that he didn't screw it up.

In no way do I ever see the Packers having a strong enough defense to carry them to a SB - so that leaves us with the offense doing it... and trust me, they're not going to do it with just a "competent QB".

Sorry, but I think my position is entirely supportable... while yours is way out there - "any competent QB"???

Montana, Young, and Favre are the only QB's to win SB's in the WCO - were they just "competent"???

FritzDontBlitz
03-22-2007, 11:20 AM
didnt tt already demonstrate his unwillingness to go against his own formula when he let ahman walk?

heh. :wink:

mraynrand
03-22-2007, 11:43 AM
Keith Jackson was (to me, at least, in hindsight) obvious. You knew exactly what he could do and how you would use him. He was hired to beat the Cowboys and Johnson's defense down the middle.



Which didn't really matter since they didn't beat the Cowboys during Jackson's tenure.
Oh so true. But I do remember during the first half of game 7 out of 26 in a row at Texas Stadium that Jackson was giving fits to the MLB (was it Strickland?) and SS. Loved it until we fell way behind on damn field goals.

Looked it up: Packers - Jackson 7-98 in that game.

Jackson got the ball that game because Brooks was out for the season, Freeman was out with a broken arm and Chmura was out with a arch problem. There was literally no one else to throw to. This doesn't diminish Jackson's impact (especially in 2005), but the reality is this: Wolf brought in Jackson because he screwed up the Jackie Harris situation. He blew a #2 pick on a guy that gave them 1.5 years and he's applauded for it because they won a superbowl. But he should have found a way to keep Harris, because he was at the top off his game, and had his most productive years after leaving Green Bay.

Patler
03-22-2007, 11:47 AM
WCO - "any competent QB can do it well"????

Wow, are you out there on that one... Jeff Garcia can't lift his hands for all of the SB rings on them, right???

I want to win SB's, not just flounder around 9-7 for the next decade... to do that, utilizing the WCO, you have to - repeat, have to - have a HOF/All-pro QB.

The only QB to win a SB in the WCO that wasn't a HOF'er was Brad Johnson... but, of course, their offense really had nothing to do with winning that SB - they did it with defense. The best that could be said of Johnson in that situation is that he didn't screw it up.

In no way do I ever see the Packers having a strong enough defense to carry them to a SB - so that leaves us with the offense doing it... and trust me, they're not going to do it with just a "competent QB".

Sorry, but I think my position is entirely supportable... while yours is way out there - "any competent QB"???

Montana, Young, and Favre are the only QB's to win SB's in the WCO - were they just "competent"???

If you assume the defense will not be good, and the team will be successful only if the offense is dominating, then of course you need a very good QB.

MM has said his offense will be predicated on a successful running game (near 50% of the plays in his mind) and a ball control, short passing game. That does not require a HOF QB. It requires a controlled QB willing to take what is there and continually move the chains.

If you build a dominating defense and a controlled offense that uses the clock, does not make a lot of mistakes and scores a few poiints, you can be very successful. Of course, if you just dismiss the option of a strong defense, as you have, and base everything on offense, the Packers are incapable of winning a SB even with Favre. He can not carry this team anymore. He is still good, but not dominating anymore. Favre's ability to carry the team ended about 3 years ago. DOesn't mean he isn't an important part of the team, but to really challenge in the playoffs, the strength of this team has to be elsewhere.

the_idle_threat
03-22-2007, 12:01 PM
Keith Jackson was (to me, at least, in hindsight) obvious. You knew exactly what he could do and how you would use him. He was hired to beat the Cowboys and Johnson's defense down the middle.



Which didn't really matter since they didn't beat the Cowboys during Jackson's tenure.
Oh so true. But I do remember during the first half of game 7 out of 26 in a row at Texas Stadium that Jackson was giving fits to the MLB (was it Strickland?) and SS. Loved it until we fell way behind on damn field goals.

Looked it up: Packers - Jackson 7-98 in that game.

Jackson got the ball that game because Brooks was out for the season, Freeman was out with a broken arm and Chmura was out with a arch problem. There was literally no one else to throw to. This doesn't diminish Jackson's impact (especially in 2005), but the reality is this: Wolf brought in Jackson because he screwed up the Jackie Harris situation. He blew a #2 pick on a guy that gave them 1.5 years and he's applauded for it because they won a superbowl. But he should have found a way to keep Harris, because he was at the top off his game, and had his most productive years after leaving Green Bay.

Not really, man. Harris is a great poster child for the dangers of free agency. He had 2 very good years with the Packers in '92 and '93, and one good year with Tampa Bay in '95. Those were the best years of his career. He had some injury-marred years (e.g. '94, '96, '97, '99) and he generally wasn't as productive after he left.

Still, the Packers did try to keep him, naming him their transition player after the '93 season. They simply failed to match Tampa Bay's high offer. I seem to recall that he wanted out of Green Bay too, because he wanted to play in warmer weather. (I know this was the case with Jackson, but I think Harris expressed similar sentiment upon leaving for Tampa Bay.)

Packers dodged a bullet if you ask me, since Chmura turned out OK and Jackson was a decent pickup, if perhaps overpriced at the cost of a 2nd-round pick.

Source: http://archive.sportingnews.com/nfl/players/859/stats.html

Patler
03-22-2007, 12:13 PM
Harris put up good numbers when he was healthy through out his career. But he always seemed to be banged up after he left GB, even some while he was still in GB.

Definately had the ability for a better career than what he had. Losing him seemed bad at the time, but in the long run was proably for the best.

Now losing Paup, Timmerman, Hentrich; not so good. They managed to overcome the loss of Timmerman with the likes of Rivera and Wahle, but he was a young guy at the time with a very long, very productive career ahead of him.

wist43
03-22-2007, 12:48 PM
Patler,

I guess it's possible that the Packers could have a dominant defense running the system they have - but, just as it's a long shot to make it to the SB w/o an All-pro at QB given the offensive system they run - I think it is equally unlikely that they could have a dominant defense b/c the scheme they run calls for dominant DE's. And Reggie White type DE's are just as hard to come by as franchise QB's.

What are the odds of landing players with that kind of talent??? I would much rather use scheme to generate pressure.

The number one prerequisite for a defense to be dominant is pressure... given the system the Packers run, the only way they can generate consistent pressure is if they had a DL similar to the one they had in the SB years.

Kampman is a nice player, but he's never going to strike fear in an opposition... overall, the Packers DL is decent - above average I would argue - but, are they dominant??? Of course not.

So, to be a dominant unit they would have to augment their good DL with the blitz - which, of course, is not a staple of the scheme. Not only is not a integral part of the scheme, the scheme itself calls for different types of players in the back seven, i.e. coverage, pursuit, tackle LB's and safeties... so by the nature of the scheme, blitzing is never going to be a strength of any of the players in the back seven.

So no, I think it is just as much of a long shot that the defense can be a dominant unit, as the idea that a medicore QB could lead us to a SB.

The defense can be good, the offense can be good... but, can either one of them be exceptional, to the point of bringing the Lombardi Trophy home??? I seriously doubt it... not unless we hit the jackpot more than once, i.e. find a Reggie White on defense, and Joe Montana/Brett Favre/Tom Brady on offense.

The odds of those things happening are long indeed... and that's why I've argued that different philosophies and schemes should be in place. I think we're set up to be one of those 9-7 to 10-6 teams that really never has a chance to win it all. And in my view, it's about championships, not just being competitive.

Patler
03-22-2007, 01:02 PM
I was surprised at the pressure generated by the line last year. Jenkins when healthy and Williams were a bit better than I expected them to be, and Kampman was quite a bit better than I expected against the pass. This line would look completely different with one of the better DTs. Its a good line now, but a Tommie Harris, Kevin Williams type player would put a whole new complexion on the line. Sometimes you can get lucky and get a DT that performs like that for a few year, even if he doesn't make a career out of it.

mraynrand
03-23-2007, 06:45 PM
Jackie Harris' stats
Year team G recpt yards av TD
| 1990 gnb | 16 | 12 157 13.1 0 |
| 1991 gnb | 16 | 24 264 11.0 3 |
| 1992 gnb | 16 | 55 595 10.8 2 |
| 1993 gnb | 12 | 42 604 14.4 4 |
| 1994 tam | 9 | 26 337 13.0 3 |
| 1995 tam | 16 | 62 751 12.1 1 |
| 1996 tam | 13 | 30 349 11.6 1 |
| 1997 tam | 12 | 19 197 10.4 1 |
| 1998 ten | 16 | 43 412 9.6 2 |
| 1999 ten | 12 | 26 297 11.4 1 |
| 2000 dal | 16 | 39 306 7.8 5 |
| 2001 dal | 13 | 15 141 9.4 2 |


here are the numbers for Harris INjuries aside (who knows if he would have been healthy with GB), he had 5 years more following Jackson's retirement. You can judge whether he was more productive or not, and also guess whether he would have been more productive in the Packer offense 95-97 than with TB (during Favre's three MVP years), TN, or Dallas.
The pont about Wolf is that he used a #2 pick on a guy who effectively played 1.5 years. That seems like a poor return to me EXCEPT I acknowledge that you can ignore moves like that if you win the Superbowl.