How Do You Evaluate GM Performance?

[Scott Campbell]

There's plenty of threads around here centered around the merits of Ted's job performance. And there's plenty of heated opinions on both sides with many on the fence, and a loose network of "facts" being used to support the pros and cons of Ted's performance, or lack of performance as some would say.

So how should a GM truly be judged? What criteria do you use? How much time should be given to adequately judge whether a guy has "it" or not?

[CaptainKickass]

That's a great f-ing question.

[The Shadow]

You ask yourself 1 question : Is the team on the way up or down?
I think the evidence points to a Packer team on the way up.

[packinpatland]

Don't you think he should be given the same consideration as a player or a coach? If there's no production, then there's no contract renewal.

Sherman was given 5 years. TT's clock is ticking.

[retailguy]

You ask yourself 1 question : Is the team on the way up or down?


I think the evidence points to a Packer team on the way up.


I think the evidence points to the way down.... :wink:

At least in the short term. But, that's why they play the games. :P

[Bretsky]

1. Draft (overall above average here)

2. Free Agency (average at best)

3. Trades (average here- Non existent in acquiring short term help or making bold decisions to move up in the draft, but effective in gathering up a gross of draft picks every year to increase our odds of finding players)

4. Personnell Decisions and Hires (to be determined)

5. Wins and Losses (to be determined, 12-20 so far)


To me those are the main points of judgment.

Truly, there is no way to judge the Turtle yet, but the above points are my current take)

As much as many try to call me a TT hater, I'd still give the Snapper a C+
I'd have given him a better grade right after the 2006 season ended.


Cheers,
B

[MJZiggy]

TT's rope is as long as the Board gives him. They may lose patience or decide that they like his style and keep him forever to the horror of many of the folks around here.

I think you judge a GM by the manner in which he handles the circumstances he is given, how he manages the roster and the financial details of that roster and whether the team shows the potential to be a contender and the growth and improvement to back it up.

[packinpatland]

1. Draft (overall above average here)

2. Free Agency (average at best)

3. Trades (average here- Non existent in acquiring short term help or making bold decisions to move up in the draft, but effective in gathering up a gross of draft picks every year to increase our odds of finding players)

4. Personnell Decisions and Hires (to be determined)

5. Wins and Losses (to be determined, 12-20 so far)


To me those are the main points of judgment.


Bottom line still has to be whether or not we're in the playoffs or not.

Truly, there is no way to judge the Turtle yet, but the above points are my current take)

As much as many try to call me a TT hater, I'd still give the Snapper a C+
I'd have given him a better grade right after the 2006 season ended.


Cheers,
B

[Bretsky]

TT's rope is as long as the Board gives him. They may lose patience or decide that they like his style and keep him forever to the horror of many of the folks around here.

I think you judge a GM by the manner in which he handles the circumstances he is given, how he manages the roster and the financial details of that roster and whether the team shows the potential to be a contender and the growth and improvement to back it up.

Pretty general recipe for trying to keep a guy around forever :lol:

After about 4-5 years it's about wins and losses. Bring us a Super Bowl or get the hell out of here

[packinpatland]

1. Draft (overall above average here)

2. Free Agency (average at best)

3. Trades (average here- Non existent in acquiring short term help or making bold decisions to move up in the draft, but effective in gathering up a gross of draft picks every year to increase our odds of finding players)

4. Personnell Decisions and Hires (to be determined)

5. Wins and Losses (to be determined, 12-20 so far)


To me those are the main points of judgment.


Bottom line still has to be whether or not we're in the playoffs or not.

Truly, there is no way to judge the Turtle yet, but the above points are my current take)

As much as many try to call me a TT hater, I'd still give the Snapper a C+
I'd have given him a better grade right after the 2006 season ended.


Cheers,
B

Where'd my post go???
What I wanted to say is this:
The bottom line is whether the team makes it into the playoffs and beyond.

[MJZiggy]

TT's rope is as long as the Board gives him. They may lose patience or decide that they like his style and keep him forever to the horror of many of the folks around here.

I think you judge a GM by the manner in which he handles the circumstances he is given, how he manages the roster and the financial details of that roster and whether the team shows the potential to be a contender and the growth and improvement to back it up.

Pretty general recipe for trying to keep a guy around forever :lol:

After about 4-5 years it's about wins and losses. Bring us a Super Bowl or get the hell out of here

Go back to the "growth and improvement" part. If each year is an improvement over the last, then the wins will come.

[Merlin]

In today's world, patience for anything by anyone just doesn't happen. The NFL with free agency is designed to keep teams competitive, especially small market teams like Green Bay. Unfortunately we have not seen that success because of the philosophy of TT. I think the number of wins has a lot to do with how "well" they do their job. It's measurable, it's real and it's the focus of the fans. The questions is, how long do we give him? Sherman got 4 years and had good records but choked in the playoffs. Wolfe had 9 years and produced 2 Super Bowl teams after 5 years of "building". Wolfe also got solid free agent pickups to address the immediate needs of the team. But, his coaching mistake with Rhodes cost him the last two seasons of his career with the Packers.

Will we endure 4 ~ 8-8 (if we can do that of course) type seasons before we end up a serious super bowl threat? Or do we take a serious look at the performance of this year and make the call when it's all said and done?

Ron Wolfe started in Green Bay in late 1991 during a dismal 4-12 season.

Record by years:
1992: 9-7 (Trades for Favre, Hires Holmgren) No Playoffs
1993: 9-7 (Reggie White is signed) Playoffs
1994: 9-7 (Sterling Sharpe's Career is over) Playoffs
1995: 11-5 NFC Championship Loss
1996: 13-3 Super Bowl Champs
1997: 13-3 Super Bowl Runner Up
1998: 11-5 Playoffs
1999: 8-8 (Ray Rhodes era)
2000: 9-7 Playoffs (Mike Sherman Hired - Wolfe's last year as GM)

Wolf: Never a losing season

Mike Sherman:
2001: 12-4 Playoffs
2002: 12-4 Playoffs
2003: 10-6 Playoffs
2004: 10-6 Playoffs

Sherman: Never a losing season

Ted Thompson
2005: 4-12
2006: 8-8 (McCarthy Hired)

Ted Thompson: Awaiting first winning season.

[Bretsky]

1. Draft (overall above average here)

2. Free Agency (average at best)

3. Trades (average here- Non existent in acquiring short term help or making bold decisions to move up in the draft, but effective in gathering up a gross of draft picks every year to increase our odds of finding players)

4. Personnell Decisions and Hires (to be determined)

5. Wins and Losses (to be determined, 12-20 so far)


To me those are the main points of judgment.


Bottom line still has to be whether or not we're in the playoffs or not.

Truly, there is no way to judge the Turtle yet, but the above points are my current take)

As much as many try to call me a TT hater, I'd still give the Snapper a C+
I'd have given him a better grade right after the 2006 season ended.


Cheers,
B

Where'd my post go???
What I wanted to say is this:
The bottom line is whether the team makes it into the playoffs and beyond.

AGREE completely

He gets a free pass for 2-3 years

After that it's just win

[The Leaper]

I think you have to give a guy 4 years minimum to put his own team on the field. In Thompson's case, he is in a difficult situation...because Favre will leave right about the time people start to try to evaluate his work.

A GM needs to show his abilities from day one. Many of Ron Wolf's boldest moves were made in the first 2-3 years he was in place in Green Bay. What bold moves has Thompson made?

Championship caliber GMs...or any position for that matter...must be able to make bold moves when necessary. As Lombardi stated, in great efforts it is glorious even to fail. Right now, I haven't seen any great efforts taken on by Thompson...which makes me wonder if he is capable of taking one on.

[Bretsky]

I think you have to give a guy 4 years minimum to put his own team on the field. In Thompson's case, he is in a difficult situation...because Favre will leave right about the time people start to try to evaluate his work.

A GM needs to show his abilities from day one. Many of Ron Wolf's boldest moves were made in the first 2-3 years he was in place in Green Bay. What bold moves has Thompson made?

Championship caliber GMs...or any position for that matter...must be able to make bold moves when necessary. As Lombardi stated, in great efforts it is glorious even to fail. Right now, I haven't seen any great efforts taken on by Thompson...which makes me wonder if he is capable of taking one on.

I wonder the same thing; I need a clapper emoticon. Lots of good posts lately in these debates.

[Packnut]

Don't you think he should be given the same consideration as a player or a coach? If there's no production, then there's no contract renewal.

Sherman was given 5 years. TT's clock is ticking.


BINGO! In this day of free agency and a huge cap, no excuse if you can't produce a SB contending team in 5 yrs. I think it should be done sooner, but hey that's just me. I think the big difference in opinions here come from a difference in philosophy. The old way is the boring step by step no risk build through the draft method . For those Thompson is perfect. It also is very painfull for most fans. Some of us prefer a little more excitement and some risk and if the right moves are made a much quicker pay-off.

Another big point of contention is Brett Favre. How you feel about Brett has a bearing on your view of Thompson. I believe you don't waste a HOF's last years. I believe risks should have been taken in order to give Brett a shot at going out on top. From blowing it with Walker to not providing Brett with any weapons, I say Thompson has been a total failure in that regard.

Moves could have been made at giving Favre a shot right now. Eric Johnson would have cost 2 million for a year and had no future risk associated with it. Favre would have had a RZ target. Moss would have cost, what a 4th rd choice? Favre would have had a deep threat. Again, look at what NE paid and there was no future risk or cost associated with that move. The Thompson camp says no move for Brett should be made that hurts the future. Well those 2 simple moves would'nt have.

Griffith was signed by Oakland for what 3 mill? A very good ZBS FB with experience. Again, another move that would not hurt the future cap. There really is no excuse for Thompson and his un-willingness to provide Favre with what he deserves. Brett has EARNED the right to have some moves made on his behalf. He's giving everything to the Green Bay Packers and he's busted his ass for us. He's played with pain when other guys would never have even suited up. One thing we as fans knew, that when we hurt after a loss, you damn well better believe #4 did too. I find it apalling that some here have been willing to toss Favre on the garbage heap so easily. It's also very sad..........

[Merlin]

The QB change will make a big impact on our record. Right now it looks like TT is banking on Rodgers being an elite QB the day Favre hangs em up. I just don't see it!

[The Shadow]

".....I believe risks should have been taken in order to give Brett a shot at going out on top."

Why, exactly?


Personally, I think we should be taking risks to make sure Atari Bigby goes out on top.

[Freak Out]

Winning. Period.
If we do not have a CONTENDER in the next three seasons he should be fired. There should be NO drop off after Favre leaves. Rogers or whoever should be ready and Sherman can no longer be used as an excuse. 2008/2009 should be a year that we fight for the title imho.
Winning is the only thing!

[Merlin]

Don't you think he should be given the same consideration as a player or a coach? If there's no production, then there's no contract renewal.

Sherman was given 5 years. TT's clock is ticking.


BINGO! In this day of free agency and a huge cap, no excuse if you can't produce a SB contending team in 5 yrs. I think it should be done sooner, but hey that's just me. I think the big difference in opinions here come from a difference in philosophy. The old way is the boring step by step no risk build through the draft method . For those Thompson is perfect. It also is very painfull for most fans. Some of us prefer a little more excitement and some risk and if the right moves are made a much quicker pay-off.

Another big point of contention is Brett Favre. How you feel about Brett has a bearing on your view of Thompson. I believe you don't waste a HOF's last years. I believe risks should have been taken in order to give Brett a shot at going out on top. From blowing it with Walker to not providing Brett with any weapons, I say Thompson has been a total failure in that regard.

Moves could have been made at giving Favre a shot right now. Eric Johnson would have cost 2 million for a year and had no future risk associated with it. Favre would have had a RZ target. Moss would have cost, what a 4th rd choice? Favre would have had a deep threat. Again, look at what NE paid and there was no future risk or cost associated with that move. The Thompson camp says no move for Brett should be made that hurts the future. Well those 2 simple moves would'nt have.

Griffith was signed by Oakland for what 3 mill? A very good ZBS FB with experience. Again, another move that would not hurt the future cap. There really is no excuse for Thompson and his un-willingness to provide Favre with what he deserves. Brett has EARNED the right to have some moves made on his behalf. He's giving everything to the Green Bay Packers and he's busted his ass for us. He's played with pain when other guys would never have even suited up. One thing we as fans knew, that when we hurt after a loss, you damn well better believe #4 did too. I find it apalling that some here have been willing to toss Favre on the garbage heap so easily. It's also very sad..........

Not so much Favre going out on top but utilizing his value as a player to win those super bowls. Favre and Mannings don't grow on trees. Brady has been surrounded by pro-bowl talent this year. If the Pats don't win the Super Bowl, something ain't right. And Brady is only what? 5 or 6 years into his career and Favre is still putting up numbers competitive with his? So we surround Favre with Video Game Boy and Taco Stand Kid?

[Scott Campbell]

Here's how I think Tank made up his mind:


Q) How long do you give the guy to prove himself?

A) No more than 45 seconds.


Q) What criteria do you use to evaluate his performance on?

A) Hair color.

[retailguy]

Sincerely, I think you evaluate him each and every day. You take each decision he makes, and look for the patterns in them that are similar. This gives you a window in who that individual is as a person. Are they truthful? Are they sincere? Are they deceitful? Are they guarded? Do they make reasonable decisions or jump to conclusions?

You evaluate continually the performance in the direction of the goal, and assess progress.

This is the domain of the Board of Directors.

I like what Ted Thompson has done, WITH THE EXCEPTION, of the lack of focus on the short term plan. I personally believe that some common sense free agents could have been brought here, (even those "overpaid" guys with "flaws") to make this team a bit more competitive in the short run, without creation of future cap problems, or lack of playing time for developing players.

It is very clear to me that Ted disagrees with me.