You gotta go deep in the NFL - Packers?

[woodbuck27]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/10193430

You gotta go deep in this league

By Pat Kirwan
NFL.com Senior Analyst


(May 23, 2007) -- NFL teams have May thru July to fortify the back end of their rosters, and there's no time to lose. As any NFL fan knows, the 16-game season is a war of attrition. It doesn't take long for teams to call on their roster depth to move forward. Where would the Eagles have been in 2006 if Jeff Garcia wasn't on the roster? Garcia, a former starting QB who bounced around the league in recent years, was grabbed up by a smart Philadelphia franchise and he was good enough to keep the team on its winning path.


The Broncos can weather injuries at tight end, thanks to Stephen Alexander.

The Eagles had one of my very best preseason depth charts headed into 2006 and will be good again in 2007. On the other hand, for a number of teams the depth on the roster isn't good enough to keep the winning going when a few choice starters go down with injury.

Which clubs lead the way in the roster depth issue?

Well, a list of critical questions should lead you to understand if your favorite team is ready for the injuries and holdouts that will start to mount up during organized team activities. For example, the Broncos lost second-year tight end Tony Scheffler for a few months with a broken foot, but their roster depth with Daniel Graham and Stephen Alexander makes the loss less significant than it could have been.

You would hope your team has an answer for all of these questions, but not even the best teams can check off all of the critical components to the depth issue. Keep in mind these players need the experience, talent or both to perform without a lot of practice time until they are called upon. (There's a 2006 example behind each depth question).

OFFENSIVE QUESTIONS

1. An experienced backup quarterback who can win more than half the games he may have to start. (Jeff Garcia)
2. A running back who can come off the bench and deliver 1,000 yards. (Ladell Betts)
3. A third wide receiver who can step up to a starter's spot and deliver five to six receptions a game. (Reche Caldwell)
4. A swing tackle who can stop a pass rush on either the left or right side. (Roman Oben )
5. An inside lineman who can play center or guard ... or at least give the line coach the flexibility to change the combination inside. (Floyd Womack)
6. A second tight end who does not reduce the offensive package. (Stephen Alexander)

DEFENSIVE QUESTIONS

1. A third defensive end who can rush the passer. (Trent Cole)
2. A third defensive tackle who can create a rotation inside to keep the D-line fresh. (Alfonso Boone)
3. At least two backup linebackers with big contributions on special teams. (Larry Izzo )
4. A third corner to build a nickel defense and start when needed. (Philip Buchanon)
5. A third safety to build a dime defense and be versatile enough to play strong or free safety in a pinch. (Chris Harris )

When I look at roster depth, I start with the backup quarterback before any other position. With that in mind, only half the league really has a backup QB with a chance to keep the winning happening.

After one question, the league is cut in half. For example, the Colts and Patriots would really struggle if they lost their franchise signal-callers. Neither team has a "Jeff Garcia" backing up the starter.

After the quarterback issue is solved, it's on to backup running back.

Is there a 1,000-yard rusher on the bench waiting to take over? Ladell Betts did it for Washington and it looks like Michael Turner would keep the Chargers rolling along -- which is the reason A.J. Smith kept him even though some team apparently offered a first-round pick for him.

After the running back question, the depth issue reduced the league to 11 teams.


The Redskins have some outstanding depth at running back with Ladell Betts.

A swing offensive tackle, a guard/center, a third wide receiver, and a second tight end are all required offensive players for any team thinking about playing meaningful games in December and January.

The Eagles, Bears, Redskins and Rams look pretty good when the offensive questions are asked and answered.

After the offensive depth is addressed, it's on to the defense where team need a third defensive end with specialty pass rush skills, a third defensive tackle to keep the rotation going, two backup linebackers who are core players on special teams, a nickel corner and a dime safety.

Naturally, some teams look better prepared to withstand the rigors of an NFL season if the defensive depth is challenged

Once again, the Eagles are high on the list and are joined by the Cowboys, Buccaneers, Steelers and Patriots.

Philadelphia still has depth questions on the back end of its defense, but look at this list of nonstarters on its roster: Quarterbacks Kelly Holcomb and A.J. Feeley; running backs Correll Buckhalter and Tony Hunt, tight end Matt Schobel; offensive tackle Winston Justice; guard Max Jean-Gilles; and wide receiver Greg Lewis. That is quality depth.

A team like the Redskins may be sitting in the middle of the pack in the NFC, but if injuries become a critical factor around the league, Washington has a very good chance of surviving.

Quarterback Mark Brunell, running back Ladell Betts, wide receiver Antwaan Randle El, offensive tackle Jason Fabini, guard/center Ross Tucker, defensive end Renaldo Wynn, defensive tackle Joe Salave'a, cornerback Fred Smoot, safety Pierson Prioleau and linebacker Lemar Marshall make up an impressive group of nonstarters on the team's roster.

Comment woodbuck27:

Now do y'all see just the real shape our team is in? What if we lose Brett Favre or Donald Driver?

How do we stand up at RB?

How do we stand up at TE?

Do we have the proven depth at LBer and in our secondary?

I believe we are like the hunter that enters the woods in need of food and armed with a rifle and only one bullet.

NOT in good shape with our starters and depth?

What depth?

[The Leaper]

We don't have depth...because Sherman drafted mostly a bunch of crap from 2002-2004. Thompson has tried to build up depth as well as he can in the draft, but it will still take another 2 years for the team to really have a strong roster of guys with 3-5 years of experience backing up the starters.

Cut it any way you want to...but the lack of depth on this squad is ENTIRELY the fault of Mike Sherman. There is little Thompson could do to fix it within 2-3 years beyond what he has done...which is draft 10+ guys every year.

This is EXACTLY why the people who view 2007 as a season where Green Bay should push into the playoffs are off their rocker. This team simply isn't there yet...and depth is the main evidence of that.

[woodbuck27]

We don't have depth...because Sherman drafted mostly a bunch of crap from 2002-2004. Thompson has tried to build up depth as well as he can in the draft, but it will still take another 2 years for the team to really have a strong roster of guys with 3-5 years of experience backing up the starters.

Cut it any way you want to...but the lack of depth on this squad is ENTIRELY the fault of Mike Sherman. There is little Thompson could do to fix it within 2-3 years beyond what he has done...which is draft 10+ guys every year.

This is EXACTLY why the people who view 2007 as a season where Green Bay should push into the playoffs are off their rocker. This team simply isn't there yet...and depth is the main evidence of that.

I agree with you.

I'm not sure what TT's PLAN is but everyone on this forum should read and understand this article as it speaks mountains in terms of the direction a NFL teams GM needs to be focused.

Being a GM of an NFL team isn't exactly Rocket Science.He has to be committed daily to improving his roster across the board. Always looking for the upgrade at any position.

That team must have an excellent Scouting Dept. in place, to enable success through recruitment.

[The Leaper]

Being a GM of an NFL team isn't exactly Rocket Science.He has to be committed daily to improving his roster across the board. Always looking for the upgrade at any position.

That team must have an excellent Scouting Dept. in place, to enable success through recruitment.

That is where you miss the boat Woodbuck.

The team isn't primed for a postseason run...so Thompson doesn't have much to offer to potential free agents. Just because you identify someone as being an "upgrade" doesn't mean it will be easy to get them, even if you have gobs of cap space available.

Are you willing to drastically overspend for guys to simply "upgrade" the roster slightly here and there?

Until the team DOES become a team with adequate depth that has the making of a team with a future, it will be extremely difficult for Thompson to draw any free agents to Green Bay. The city doesn't offer much in the way of "incentives" that players might consider as fringe benefits, such as nice weather year round or an active urban lifestyle. That might not be the answer you want to hear...but it is a fact. Green Bay isn't anywhere close to the top of most wanted lists...and it actually is very near the bottom.

[packinpatland]

We don't have depth...because Sherman drafted mostly a bunch of crap from 2002-2004. Thompson has tried to build up depth as well as he can in the draft, but it will still take another 2 years for the team to really have a strong roster of guys with 3-5 years of experience backing up the starters.

Cut it any way you want to...but the lack of depth on this squad is ENTIRELY the fault of Mike Sherman. There is little Thompson could do to fix it within 2-3 years beyond what he has done...which is draft 10+ guys every year.

This is EXACTLY why the people who view 2007 as a season where Green Bay should push into the playoffs are off their rocker. This team simply isn't there yet...and depth is the main evidence of that.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this. Why would any team NOT 'push' into the playoffs? And isn't it our job, as fans, to expect them to?

[woodbuck27]

Being a GM of an NFL team isn't exactly Rocket Science.He has to be committed daily to improving his roster across the board. Always looking for the upgrade at any position.

That team must have an excellent Scouting Dept. in place, to enable success through recruitment.

That is where you miss the boat Woodbuck.

The team isn't primed for a postseason run...so Thompson doesn't have much to offer to potential free agents. Just because you identify someone as being an "upgrade" doesn't mean it will be easy to get them, even if you have gobs of cap space available.

Are you willing to drastically overspend for guys to simply "upgrade" the roster slightly here and there?

Until the team DOES become a team with adequate depth that has the making of a team with a future, it will be extremely difficult for Thompson to draw any free agents to Green Bay. The city doesn't offer much in the way of "incentives" that players might consider as fringe benefits, such as nice weather year round or an active urban lifestyle. That might not be the answer you want to hear...but it is a fact. Green Bay isn't anywhere close to the top of most wanted lists...and it actually is very near the bottom.

Actually.

I believe that we agree exactly on this.

It's TT's main job to change that. That 'fact of change' shows up most in the 'W' column.

Something not familiar for him and us since he became our GM.

GO PACKERS !

[PackerBlues]

We don't have depth...because Sherman drafted mostly a bunch of crap from 2002-2004. Thompson has tried to build up depth as well as he can in the draft, but it will still take another 2 years for the team to really have a strong roster of guys with 3-5 years of experience backing up the starters.

Cut it any way you want to...but the lack of depth on this squad is ENTIRELY the fault of Mike Sherman. There is little Thompson could do to fix it within 2-3 years beyond what he has done...which is draft 10+ guys every year.

This is EXACTLY why the people who view 2007 as a season where Green Bay should push into the playoffs are off their rocker. This team simply isn't there yet...and depth is the main evidence of that.


Thats funny. It really is. Whereas Sherman kept filling holes through Free Agency and the draft and also by restructuring contracts. Thompson has gone in the opposite direction by cutting costs irregardless of the talent and without any real attempt to restructure any contracts. Thompson's ego wont allow him to use Free Agency, even with all the freakin cap room he managed to get us by cutting all of our depth. Sherman fielded playoff teams. Thompson has been in charge for 3 years now, and has fielded complete shit. Sherman wanted to win "now", and Thompson .........well, I guess we will see.........some day.........in the future.

3 years into Thompson's Tenure as GM. Blaming Sheman for the teams lack of depth is as pathetic as the Bush administration blaming Clinton for the war in Iraq.

[The Leaper]

Thats funny. It really is. Whereas Sherman kept filling holes through Free Agency and the draft and also by restructuring contracts.

Which holes did Sherman fill successfully? I must have missed something somewhere. Restructuring contracts? As in overpaying KGB and Hunt, and in creating a contract for Wahle that basically guaranteed we would not be able to keep him following 2004?


Thompson has gone in the opposite direction by cutting costs irregardless of the talent and without any real attempt to restructure any contracts.

So Thompson did not resign or restructure deals with Kampman, Harris, Driver or Barnett? Apparently Thompson was also not responsible for signing Woodson or Pickett last year. I'm not sure who the guy was in the organization who is responsible for these things, but we should congratulate him or her.


Thompson has been in charge for 3 years now, and has fielded complete shit. Sherman wanted to win "now", and Thompson.........well, I guess we will see.........some day.........in the future.

Well, what exactly did Sherman win? Some regular season games that included a period of time where the NFC North was one of the weakest divisions ever seen in the entire history of the NFL? Sherman got LUCKY that the Vikings annually threw away the season the last 5 or 6 weeks...or he would have rarely even reached the playoffs despite having a talented roster of players.


3 years into Thompson's Tenure as GM. Blaming Sheman for the teams lack of depth is as pathetic as the Bush administration blaming Clinton for the war in Iraq.

Sherman's drafts from 2002-2004...how many current starters did they produce? How does that compare to the rest of the league? Most starters in the NFL have 3-8 years of experience...or roughly the exact time frame in the league from when Sherman was in charge. So...please let us know...what did Sherman give us to work with at this time?

The only thing pathetic in this discussion is Sherman's job function as GM. He was fortunate to hit on three guys in the draft (Kampman, Walker, Barnett) and pretty much whiffed on every other player he selected over a 4+ year period. I'm pretty sure a monkey flinging crap at a draft dartboard could rack up a better track record. His only trade/free agency acquisition of note that I can recall was Harris.

[PackerBlues]

Which holes did Sherman fill successfully? I must have missed something somewhere. Restructuring contracts? As in overpaying KGB and Hunt, and in creating a contract for Wahle that basically guaranteed we would not be able to keep him following 2004?



Sherman's drafts from 2002-2004...how many current starters did they produce? How does that compare to the rest of the league? Most starters in the NFL have 3-8 years of experience...or roughly the exact time frame in the league from when Sherman was in charge. So...please let us know...what did Sherman give us to work with at this time?

The only thing pathetic in this discussion is Sherman's job function as GM. He was fortunate to hit on three guys in the draft (Kampman, Walker, Barnett) and pretty much whiffed on every other player he selected over a 4+ year period. I'm pretty sure a monkey flinging crap at a draft dartboard could rack up a better track record. His only trade/free agency acquisition of note that I can recall was Harris.

For some reason, Ferguson is still on the current roster from Shermans 2001 draft. David Martin from that same draft was worth keeping, just not at the salary that Miami gave him.......not that Thompson even tried to get him to stay.

In 2002, Sherman replaced Freeman and Shroeder with Terry Glenn and Javon Walker. He used draft picks to get those two guys, and they could both be considered to have been great pick ups. That same year, he took risks by picking up Eric Metcalf, Bryant Westbrook, and Hardy Nickerson, all (aging) Free Agents. On a side note, we also lost Santana Dotson before the 2002 season. Still, in 2002, Green Bay overcame an injury-plagued season to tie for the league's best record, 12-4. Despite injured starters missing 63 combined games, the Packers clinched their division, the inaugural NFC North title, on December 1, earlier than any NFL team, and any other year in franchise history (four games remaining). Favre finished two votes shy of a fourth MVP.

You will get no argument from me about Shermans 2003 offseason. It was pretty tame. Nick Barnett, Al Harris and Kevin Barry are the only guys left from that off-season. Harris was picked up in a trade, and Barry as a Free Agent. You could argue that picking up Hunter Hillenmeyer in the 5th round was not bad, considering that he played as a starter for the Bears when they went to the Super Bowl. Still, the Packers were very competitive that year. A little more on the 2003 Seasosn from
http://www.packers.com/history/birth_of_a_team_and_a_legend/#chapter14

"A return to the NFC Championship slipped painfully through the Packers' fingers in 2003. Donovan McNabb led the Eagles to a come-from-behind, 20-17 overtime win to end an emotional Packers run in the Divisional playoffs.

The loss snapped a memorable five-game winning streak. The stretch included changes to three of the most-revered records in Packers history (Forrest Gregg's 33-year-old consecutive-games streak, broken by Favre; Jim Taylor's 41-year-old season rushing record, Green; and Don Hutson's 58-year-old career scoring mark, Ryan Longwell). One day after the death of his father, Favre turned in the best game of his career, throwing for four TDs in a 41-7 win at Oakland. Then, Green Bay captured an improbable division title in the last two minutes of the season, when Arizona upset Minnesota and the Lambeau Field crowd broke the news to the Packers. Green Bay was in position to pass the Vikings thanks to its 7-2 record after the bye.

Green spearheaded the best running offense in Packers history, as the club captured nearly every franchise rushing mark. Favre led the NFL in TD passes a fourth time to tie a league record, throwing 19 of his 32 scores with a broken right thumb."

The 2004 draft was a mess, thanks in part to Mike Mckienze (i could care less if i spelled that shitbags name right or not), Sherman drafted two CB's due to need. Ahmad Carroll and Joey Thomas, we all know how that turned out. We do however still have Corey Williams, a sixth round pick, and Scott Wells, a 7th round pick on the current roster. DT Colin Cole and
DE Cullen Jenkins were free agent pick ups by Sherman from that year who are also still on the roster.

In 2005, your boy Teddy took over, cut as many large salaries as he could, and threw the team into a downward spiral. His only great pick up worth noting so far has been the "no-brainer" pick of A.J. Hawk, who we would not have been able to get if not for our 4-12 season the year before (Thanks Ted). Otherwise, Greg Jennings makes a much better #3 reciever than Fergy, and Nick Collins has shown "flashes" of being great.

Whats really really really funny here, is that Thompson makes defending Sherman way to easy, lol. Sherman was not afraid to take risks in Free Agency to "fill holes". Thompson is a complete chicken-shit when it comes to free agency. Sure, we had to put up with crap like Joe Johnson, but at least Sherman tried to keep his teams competitive, his players saw that, and they appreciated it. Free Agents saw that Sherman was all about winning NOW, and didnt mind coming to GB. Under Thompson, that has turned around completly hasnt it?

[Charles Woodson]

We don't have depth...because Sherman drafted mostly a bunch of crap from 2002-2004. Thompson has tried to build up depth as well as he can in the draft, but it will still take another 2 years for the team to really have a strong roster of guys with 3-5 years of experience backing up the starters.

Cut it any way you want to...but the lack of depth on this squad is ENTIRELY the fault of Mike Sherman. There is little Thompson could do to fix it within 2-3 years beyond what he has done...which is draft 10+ guys every year.

This is EXACTLY why the people who view 2007 as a season where Green Bay should push into the playoffs are off their rocker. This team simply isn't there yet...and depth is the main evidence of that.

I agree with you.

I'm not sure what TT's PLAN is but everyone on this forum should read and understand this article as it speaks mountains in terms of the direction a NFL teams GM needs to be focused.

Being a GM of an NFL team isn't exactly Rocket Science.He has to be committed daily to improving his roster across the board. Always looking for the upgrade at any position.

That team must have an excellent Scouting Dept. in place, to enable success through recruitment.

But it may start becoming TT's problem. Yes, hes doing pretty good drafting wise, but he needs to utilize free agency which is what he hasnt done

[the_idle_threat]

Kirwan sets the standard so high that what ... maybe two teams in the league can reach it? Kind of a pointless article.

Due to free agency, retirements and declining players, most teams have to worry about filling starting roles from season to season, which means few have the luxury of having "quality" depth at every position too. And where would you rather have your team spend its cap dollars? On starters or on backups?

Go ahead and use this article to support an agenda of bashing TT, but at best it is a recipe for mediocrity. Sure ... teams like Washington and Tampa Bay have the depth so that if a starter goes down, a backup can step right in and the team will still be ... crappy. :P

And speaking of "quality" depth ... Correll Buckhalter (one of the worst injury risks in the league) and Tony Hunt (a rookie 3rd rounder)? Greg Lewis (Ruvell Martin-like numbers as a #3 last season; 561 yards and 1 TD as a 16 game starter in '05)? If this is quality depth, then the Packers are better off than the doubters might think.

[PackerBlues]

But it may start becoming TT's problem. Yes, hes doing pretty good drafting wise, but he needs to utilize free agency which is what he hasnt done


Considering as how Thompson has drafted at least 11 players in each of his three drafts so far, I again have to quote a buddy of mine and say "even a blind squirrell finds an acorn every once in a while."
Until Thompson can improve this team using Free Agency and Trades as well as trying to find an "acorn" in the draft.........he just is not going to get the respect that some feel that he deserves.

[the_idle_threat]

Until Thompson can improve this team using Free Agency and Trades ...

I swear, some of you run from the the facts as if they are the plague.

Free agency- Charles Woodson, Ryan Pickett

Trades- Vernand Morency

Just because TT hasn't used these outlets lately, it does not mean he never ever uses them or is unwilling to do so. Just because he is more choosy about who he adds to the team than some of us fantasy football players doesn't mean he is incompetent.

[PackerBlues]

Until Thompson can improve this team using Free Agency and Trades ...

I swear, some of you run from the the facts as if they are the plague.

Free agency- Charles Woodson, Ryan Pickett

Trades- Vernand Morency

Just because TT hasn't used these outlets lately, it does not mean he never ever uses them or is unwilling to do so. Just because he is more choosy about who he adds to the team than some of us fantasy football players doesn't mean he is incompetent.

And just because he found a few good players in the draft out of what, 34 draft picks?..........does not mean that he is competent.

[the_idle_threat]

If TT only finds "a few" players in 3 years of drafts, that would make him as awful as Mike Sherman at talent evaluation.

And now that it's years later, Sherman's drafts can be appropriately judged. The same cannot be said for TT's drafts. Most of the guys are rookies and 2nd year players.

If anything, a few good players emerging earlier than can be expected is a positive sign for TT.

[PackerBlues]

If TT only finds "a few" players in 3 years of drafts, that would make him as awful as Mike Sherman at talent evaluation.

And now that it's years later, Sherman's drafts can be appropriately judged. The same cannot be said for TT's drafts. Most of the guys are rookies and 2nd year players.

If anything, a few good players emerging earlier than can be expected is a positive sign for TT.

Yes, and now that its a few years later, we can also see that Sherman kept his teams in the playoff hunt, and "TT" has not. Two different styles of management with two very different results.

[the_idle_threat]

Sherman kept his teams in the playoff hunt due to the players and cap flexibility he inherited from Ron Wolf. TT hasn't had that luxury on either count.

[The Leaper]

Sherman kept his teams in the playoff hunt due to the players and cap flexibility he inherited from Ron Wolf. TT hasn't had that luxury on either count.

Sherman never kept his team in the hunt...Favre did. Sherman only crushed his team's playoff chances by making horrific gameday decisions such as the ones in Philly.

[PackerBlues]

Sherman kept his teams in the playoff hunt due to the players and cap flexibility he inherited from Ron Wolf. TT hasn't had that luxury on either count.

That is such a crock of shit, that I dont even know where to start. It also seems to be the favorite cop-out of every TT lover in these forums.

Thompson inherited just as good of a team as Sherman did. Sherman inherited an aging O-line just like Thompson. He had to work around Earl "The Pearl" Dotson, and his back problems, Frank Winters age, and Flanigans back problems. Lets not forget, Clifton and Taucher were rookies at that time, not pro bowl players. So dont go brushing that off as Ron Wolf being a genius and giving Sherman everything he needed to work with, because you are just over simplifiying things to fit your own personal theories.

At WR, Sherman had two aging players in Freeman and Shroeder. Otherwise, he had Donald Driver, who at that time was nothing more than a 7th round draft pick with two starts under his belt in two seasons. Again, not the Pro Bowl player of today, wich would make your argument credible if he had been, but he was in fact just a raw talent that Sherman had the smarts to keep around.

At RB Sherman inherited Dorsey Levens, again, an aging player who's time in the NFL was pretty much over with. Then he also had Ahman Green. Again, not a Pro Bowler. Just a guy that had a history of fumbling. Sherman to his credit kept him around. If Sherman was the idiot that you claim that he was, Green would have been cut long before Thompson showed up.

The defense was an ever changing thing under Sherman. He inherited an aging D-line as well. With Gilbert Brown and Santana Dotson at the end of their careers, he was left with Vonnie Holliday, a soon to be Free Agent, Cletidus Hunt, a guy with two years of experience, and KGB, who played in seven games in 2000, his rookie year, primarily as a situational pass rusher and on special teams, after spending the first six weeks of the season on the Packers practice squad. Not exactly a guy your gonna bet the farm on at that point of his career.

At LB, Sherman inherited Diggs, Harris, and Nate Wayne. Diggs was a 4th round pick from the year before, with 24 tackles under his belt from playing in 13 games. Harris and Wayne.........again, aging players at the end of their careers.

You paint such a rosy picture of the team that Sherman inherited. The facts just do not back it up though, do they?

[Fred's Slacks]

I don't like to rip on Mike Sherman because I think he is a good man and I believe he gave his best effort to make this team as good as possible. That said I don't understand how people can actually defend him as a GM. He's been available for two offseasons and he still is neither a GM nor a Head coach so that should tell you something. Some have tried to defend his drafts saying they "aren't that bad". Maybe not, but they weren't good. Sure he wasn't afraid to take a risk but he got burned far to often.

As for Thompson, I am not ready to anoint him savior yet, but I do like the direction the team is headed. We are young and have lots of potential. We don't over value other team's players and we (hopefully - time will tell) draft well. This is the same formula the Pats, Eagles, and Steelers used when they were building their rosters just before they all became prenial winners. I am willing to give him more time.

And as for the comment saying that the team would like to see him go out and spend money on players, that's only true for a hand full of guys. What about the guys whose jobs they'd be taking. It doesn't speak much for TT's cofidence in them. Do you think Morency would have had as great an offseason if we had traded our draft away for AP or Burner Turner? Do you think Blackmon and Dendy would have worked as hard if we had signed Nate Clements to a mega deal? Yes those would have been upgrades in talent but at what cost? Instead of their talent, we have a group of young guys who are motivated to improve because they feel this organization has confidence in them. It may work, it may not, but I am excited to find out.

[PackerBlues]

I certainly can appeciate your point of view Fred's Slacks. In all honesty, how many players picked up through the draft actually make it in the NFL? People that defend Thompson usually tend to rip on Sherman. During Shermans tenure as GM, I was one of them. Looking back however, I have come to the conclusion that Sherman didnt do that bad of a job altogether as a GM. His way of doing things was the exact opposite of Thompsons it seems. Perhaps in a few more years, I will look back at what Thompson has accomplished and change my views on him as well. However, again if you read my previous post, Sherman did not inherit that great of a team. A lot of the players he inherited went on to be very good starters and pro bowlers, but they were mostly rookies and raw talent that he and his coaching staff helped to mold into the great players that they became. chances are that many of these guys never would have had a chance to develope if they had played for any other team.
Sherman used the draft to win NOW, he took risks in Free Agency and with trades to win NOW. Looking back at his record, nobody can argue that he did a good job of fielding winning teams. The same cannot be said of Thompson. 3 years on the job, and we are still waiting.

[Fred's Slacks]

I agree that Sherman did well with the players he inherited. Despite a few questionable game time decisions I always felt that he was a good if not very good coach. He just made too many mistakes in the form of bad signings/re-signings and draft day trade ups and that resulted in filling our roster with other teams rejects.

I was disappointed that Thompson and Sherman couldn't work together because I thought they could be a good combination. It's not suprising that they couldn't because of their difference in philosophy but if one had to go, I guess I was glad it was Sherman. He had his shot and couldn't get it done. Now I am willing to give Thompson his.

[BallHawk]

Haven't seen you around before, Fred. Welcome to the forum.

[packinpatland]

With 3 posts to your name, you are a newbie, Welcome!
FYI, MZiggy has 6085 posts and will never be equaled. :lol:

[MJZiggy]

I've been caught up to before. Welcome to the forum Fred. You will find M2 to be a very hot topic around here as I'm sure he his in most forums. He had his time, but I'm kinda likin' the whole "Zen of M3" they've got going on up there right now. They seem focused and determined. We shall see where it gets them.

[Fred's Slacks]

Thanks for the welcome. I've been a reader for a while now just never posted before. I have been impressed with the knowledge of some of the posters here. Hope I can add something.

[Bretsky]

Thanks for the welcome. I've been a reader for a while now just never posted before. I have been impressed with the knowledge of some of the posters here. Hope I can add something.

Welcome to Packerrats Freds Slacks

[the_idle_threat]

"Fred's Slacks is a Winner!"

Welcome to the forum, Fred's Slacks, and I must say I agree with you on all counts.

In response to other comments ...

I am not a Sherman hater---I just think he was a bad GM. He was a pretty good coach---especially in the area of developing and motivating talent. But I think he needed someone else to get him the talent.

Left to his own devices, I think Sherman outsmarted himself when drafting players, believing he could reach and motivate physically talented guys like Donnell Washington, Joey Thomas and James Lee who simply were not football players. Many people view B.J. Sander as the defining draft pick of the Sherman era (and it was pretty darn bad), but I think it's James Lee---the guy whose own reaction to being drafted was "Holy shit---I got drafted?!?!?" Sherman traded up 18 spots to get him in the 5th round. Source. (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=137378)

I am not a TT lover---I just think he inherited a team that was virtually devoid of young talent on both sides of the ball. Sherman at least inherited from Ron Wolf all of the guys who became his league-leading offense, except for Javon Walker. (What was that about a blind squirrel ... ?) TT didn't have that luxury, because Sherman gave away too many draft picks, and most of the picks he did make failed.

IMO, TT has done the necessary job of restocking the young talent, and I like the direction the team is headed. I'm hopeful for the future---including the near future. If guys fall on their faces and good things fail to materialize, then TT will be judged as harshly as Sherman (the GM) was. There will be plenty of time for that, but I think now is too soon.

[MJZiggy]

Why does everyone seem to think that if you like what TT is doing, then you must necessarily hate Sherman, or if you support anything Sherman ever did then you hate TT? Would it be terrible to see the differences between them and what each brought to the table?

[Bretsky]

Why does everyone seem to think that if you like what TT is doing, then you must necessarily hate Sherman, or if you support anything Sherman ever did then you hate TT? Would it be terrible to see the differences between them and what each brought to the table?

Why are you up at 4 in the morning ?

[Zool]

Why does everyone seem to think that if you like what TT is doing, then you must necessarily hate Sherman, or if you support anything Sherman ever did then you hate TT? Would it be terrible to see the differences between them and what each brought to the table?

Because there are no shades of gray?

[woodbuck27]

Welcome Fred's Slacks. :)

[cheesner]

. . .

Being a GM of an NFL team isn't exactly Rocket Science.He has to be committed daily to improving his roster across the board. Always looking for the upgrade at any position.

That team must have an excellent Scouting Dept. in place, to enable success through recruitment.
Upgrading a position does not necessarily make your team better. Many of the players who would have been upgrades in FA this season, would not have made the Packers a better team.

For example, we could have signed DB Nate Clements at $7.5M to be our #3 CB. Clearly a big upgrade over last season. This would improve our nickel defense package. Reducing our cap by that much will prevent us from resigning a perhaps more important emerging player next year, or going after a more significant FA that will help out far more than a nickel back. I know cap will go up next year and Favre retiring will create even more cap space - but this is a zero sum game. There is a finite amount of money, and spending it to improve your team the most is a very complicated economic decision.

[CaliforniaCheez]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/10193430

You gotta go deep in this league

By Pat Kirwan
NFL.com Senior Analyst


(May 23, 2007) -- NFL teams have May thru July to fortify the back end of their rosters, and there's no time to lose. As any NFL fan knows, the 16-game season is a war of attrition. It doesn't take long for teams to call on their roster depth to move forward. Where would the Eagles have been in 2006 if Jeff Garcia wasn't on the roster? Garcia, a former starting QB who bounced around the league in recent years, was grabbed up by a smart Philadelphia franchise and he was good enough to keep the team on its winning path.


The Broncos can weather injuries at tight end, thanks to Stephen Alexander.

The Eagles had one of my very best preseason depth charts headed into 2006 and will be good again in 2007. On the other hand, for a number of teams the depth on the roster isn't good enough to keep the winning going when a few choice starters go down with injury.

Which clubs lead the way in the roster depth issue?

Well, a list of critical questions should lead you to understand if your favorite team is ready for the injuries and holdouts that will start to mount up during organized team activities. For example, the Broncos lost second-year tight end Tony Scheffler for a few months with a broken foot, but their roster depth with Daniel Graham and Stephen Alexander makes the loss less significant than it could have been.

You would hope your team has an answer for all of these questions, but not even the best teams can check off all of the critical components to the depth issue. Keep in mind these players need the experience, talent or both to perform without a lot of practice time until they are called upon. (There's a 2006 example behind each depth question).

OFFENSIVE QUESTIONS

1. An experienced backup quarterback who can win more than half the games he may have to start. (Jeff Garcia)
2. A running back who can come off the bench and deliver 1,000 yards. (Ladell Betts)
3. A third wide receiver who can step up to a starter's spot and deliver five to six receptions a game. (Reche Caldwell)
4. A swing tackle who can stop a pass rush on either the left or right side. (Roman Oben )
5. An inside lineman who can play center or guard ... or at least give the line coach the flexibility to change the combination inside. (Floyd Womack)
6. A second tight end who does not reduce the offensive package. (Stephen Alexander)

DEFENSIVE QUESTIONS

1. A third defensive end who can rush the passer. (Trent Cole)
2. A third defensive tackle who can create a rotation inside to keep the D-line fresh. (Alfonso Boone)
3. At least two backup linebackers with big contributions on special teams. (Larry Izzo )
4. A third corner to build a nickel defense and start when needed. (Philip Buchanon)
5. A third safety to build a dime defense and be versatile enough to play strong or free safety in a pinch. (Chris Harris )

When I look at roster depth, I start with the backup quarterback before any other position. With that in mind, only half the league really has a backup QB with a chance to keep the winning happening.

After one question, the league is cut in half. For example, the Colts and Patriots would really struggle if they lost their franchise signal-callers. Neither team has a "Jeff Garcia" backing up the starter.

After the quarterback issue is solved, it's on to backup running back.

Is there a 1,000-yard rusher on the bench waiting to take over? Ladell Betts did it for Washington and it looks like Michael Turner would keep the Chargers rolling along -- which is the reason A.J. Smith kept him even though some team apparently offered a first-round pick for him.

After the running back question, the depth issue reduced the league to 11 teams.


The Redskins have some outstanding depth at running back with Ladell Betts.

A swing offensive tackle, a guard/center, a third wide receiver, and a second tight end are all required offensive players for any team thinking about playing meaningful games in December and January.

The Eagles, Bears, Redskins and Rams look pretty good when the offensive questions are asked and answered.

After the offensive depth is addressed, it's on to the defense where team need a third defensive end with specialty pass rush skills, a third defensive tackle to keep the rotation going, two backup linebackers who are core players on special teams, a nickel corner and a dime safety.

Naturally, some teams look better prepared to withstand the rigors of an NFL season if the defensive depth is challenged

Once again, the Eagles are high on the list and are joined by the Cowboys, Buccaneers, Steelers and Patriots.

Philadelphia still has depth questions on the back end of its defense, but look at this list of nonstarters on its roster: Quarterbacks Kelly Holcomb and A.J. Feeley; running backs Correll Buckhalter and Tony Hunt, tight end Matt Schobel; offensive tackle Winston Justice; guard Max Jean-Gilles; and wide receiver Greg Lewis. That is quality depth.

A team like the Redskins may be sitting in the middle of the pack in the NFC, but if injuries become a critical factor around the league, Washington has a very good chance of surviving.

Quarterback Mark Brunell, running back Ladell Betts, wide receiver Antwaan Randle El, offensive tackle Jason Fabini, guard/center Ross Tucker, defensive end Renaldo Wynn, defensive tackle Joe Salave'a, cornerback Fred Smoot, safety Pierson Prioleau and linebacker Lemar Marshall make up an impressive group of nonstarters on the team's roster.

Comment woodbuck27:

Now do y'all see just the real shape our team is in? What if we lose Brett Favre or Donald Driver?

How do we stand up at RB?

How do we stand up at TE?

Do we have the proven depth at LBer and in our secondary?

I believe we are like the hunter that enters the woods in need of food and armed with a rifle and only one bullet.

NOT in good shape with our starters and depth?



I think we all sweat the offseason too much because too little is going on.
I wonder if Pat Kirwan still believes in the teams mentioned? Writers like names they know. Ted Thompson likes talent.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Ironically, we don't look so bad if you look at this.


1. An experienced backup quarterback who can win more than half the games he may have to start. (Jeff Garcia)

ARod.


2. A running back who can come off the bench and deliver 1,000 yards. (Ladell Betts)

We don't have a starter that can deliver 1000 yards.


3. A third wide receiver who can step up to a starter's spot and deliver five to six receptions a game. (Reche Caldwell)

James Jones, Koren Robinson, AND Ruvell Martin.


4. A swing tackle who can stop a pass rush on either the left or right side. (Roman Oben )

We have pass blocking depth at LT and RT with the versatility of Colledge and Moll.


5. An inside lineman who can play center or guard ... or at least give the line coach the flexibility to change the combination inside. (Floyd Womack)

Jason Spitz.


6. A second tight end who does not reduce the offensive package. (Stephen Alexander)

Bubba was having a good year--until he got hurt.


1. A third defensive end who can rush the passer. (Trent Cole)

KGB.


2. A third defensive tackle who can create a rotation inside to keep the D-line fresh. (Alfonso Boone)

Corey Williams.


3. At least two backup linebackers with big contributions on special teams. (Larry Izzo )

Tracy White and Desmond Bishop are good special teams players.


4. A third corner to build a nickel defense and start when needed. (Philip Buchanon)

Probably not, but Bush was solid the first few games, had a rough couple of games, and hasn't been torched the last few games.


5. A third safety to build a dime defense and be versatile enough to play strong or free safety in a pinch. (Chris Harris )

Aaron Rouse?

[Brohm]

We don't use a dime really. Sanders keeps Barnett and Hawk on passing downs. A stud nickle developing into a future starter would be nice.

Rouse would be a good rover in a dime though.