Favre, Thompson, Rogers. The End.

[PackerBlues]

I was reading another post by Woodbuck which made me think about the division in these forums. Different people with different points of view, and different opinions.

Favre lovers, Favre Haters. Teddy Lovers, Teddy haters. Rogers lovers, Rogers haters. All of the Bashers, lol.

I agree with Woodbuck in the fact that "Hate" is to strong of a word to use for the way that most people actually feel about any one of these guys. Perhaps "love" is too.


Favre has been with us as our starting QB in GB for 16 seasons. Personally, I know that I am loyal to Brett Favre to a fault. (Which is kind of funny, because I was pissed when Favre took over for the Majik man) I know that Favre may have slowed a little in reading the Defense. I know that Favre might not be as agile as a younger QB. We have all, always known that Favre is a gunslinger, and that he will try to thread the needle if he thinks he can do it, no matter what the coverage.
The thing is, I do not care about all of that, because in my opinion, with the right people around him, I still feel that Brett Favre is every bit as good of a QB as Manning or Brees, or Brady.........if not better.

Aaron Rogers is entering his third season in GB. To me, he is just one more of Favre's back-ups. According to wikipedia, since Favre started in GB, 178 other QB's have started in the NFL, and 11 of them were back-ups to Favre at one time. Why should I feel anything more for Aaron Rogers than I did for any of the other guys that played as Favre's back up? Hey, I liked Marc Brunell and Aaron Brooks, but I didn't want to see them take Favre's job away from him. As far as I am concerned, Teddy could cut Rogers tomorrow, and I could care less, as long as Thompson has another guy in mind to take Rogers place........as the back up QB. We have not needed much from a back-up QB for over 16 years now, and I have seen enough from Rogers to know that he is already a serviceable backup, beyond that, I dont care. Simply put, when Favre retires, I will be his replacements biggest cheerleader (if he proves worthy in a regular season game, lol), but his back-up, is just his back-up. Thats it, thats all.


Ted Thompson has got everyone confused. He keeps saying that he wants to win now, but does not do a whole lot to prove it. I am sure that everyone is really happy with Thompsons draft picks. ( :roll: maybe not everyone, lol ) Thompson passes up proven veteran talent in free agency while proclaiming that his way, is to build young, through the draft.
We the fans, are left to decide if Teds way is the best way.

I have already said that I am loyal to Favre, so it should be no big suprise, that I am pissed at Thompson for not putting more effort into improving our Offense. What I see, is more of Teds ego ruining what might have been.
Ted had a 10 year career playing LB for the Houston Oilers. Is it just an ironic coincidence then that Thompson put more effort into improving GB's LB core and the DT position than any other position of pressing need?

(For those of you who just have not thought about that, having a good core of big DT's, allows your LB's to move more freely, and to therefore, make more plays. Is Ted trying to relive his LB days in Houston?)

Is this where Thompsons team building skills end, at the LB position? There were so many different ways that this team could have been improved. I am not saying that Thompsons way is wrong, the team is improved in that area quite well, but when I look at the ironic coincidence mentioned above, it does not take much of a leap of faith, or to much assumption, to think that Thompson ignored the fact that he had a Hall of Fame QB in Brett Favre, a Pro Bowler of a WR in Donald Driver, and a Pro Bowl RB in Ahman Green to build around, and yet he instead chose to concentrate on improving the LB and DT positions.
Even when our team was already strong in the DT position, Thompson used a first round pick on Justin Harrell. To Thompson, tweaking an already strong position, DT, was more important than improving any other part of the team that needed improving. Irregardless as to weather or not Harrell proves to be a deserving starter, the team was already strong in that posittion and weak at so many others.
I see what Thompson had a hand in building in Seattle, but my guess is that Holmgrem had a large input as to how Seattle's Offense was built. Who do we have in GB to compliment Thompson like Holmgren did in Seattle?

[Packnut]

The facts support my opinion that Thompson is a defensive orientated GM. That is where his strength lies. When it comes to offense, he just sadly does'nt have a clue. From his famous quote of "guards are a dime a dozen" to his clueless approach to our TE position, to his stupidity in the Walker fiasco, to his "we're comfortable with Morency as our #1 back" foolishness.

All I know is that the FACTS and NUMBERS speak for themselves. It's funny how the Thompson backers seldom if ever argue with facts. It's always blind loyalty filled with wishful thinking. I always thought this was suppossed to be about what is best for the Green Bay Packers, not what is easiest for Ted Thompson.

I do find it amusing that even the most loyal and blinded are starting to finally realize how truly screwed we are at the TE position. The reality is finally setting in that ain't no miracle gonna cure Bubba's drops. Lee is not a good enough receiver to forgive his lack of blocking skills. Alcorn is'nt even an option and Harris will be cut soon enough.

Yet let's not forget Teddy's "no one in free agency is better than the talent we have now" statement. Where is this talent at TE?

WE have 13 mill in cap space, yet there was'nt one TE FA better than what we have now? :roll:

[HarveyWallbangers]

All I know is that the FACTS and NUMBERS speak for themselves. It's funny how the Thompson backers seldom if ever argue with facts. It's always blind loyalty filled with wishful thinking.

I'm neither a Thompson lover/backer or hater. I try to analyze each situation differently. I wasn't a Sherman lover, so I don't feel the need to rip Thompson on almost every move. Nor was I a Sherman hater, so I don't praise Thompson for every move. Same with Favre and Rodgers or whatever other motives might be at play. To say something like this is just laughable and condescending, and I doubt it wins many people over. Seems to me, you need to look in the mirror when you make accusations like this. I'm not the one spewing the over-the-top hyperbole. Most of the others that are for or against Thompson's approach don't do it either. I know of a few that do, and those are the ones that are the most defensive when people challenge them. They are the ones that do the most complaining about "the other" group. Let's give folks a little credit here. Many of their arguments are just as valid as yours or mine.

Bottom line: I hope to hell that Thompson builds a championship caliber team--just like I hoped Sherman would. I'm not ready to write off his approach, and I don't think that makes me some kind of blind supporter of him.

[PackerBlues]

I think that as far as our offense goes, especially at TE, our best hope for this season is that we will see Ted make a trade, or that another team will cut someone worth picking up. Even then, it will take a while for any new acquisition to become familiar with our playbook.
The running back by committee does not bother me nearly as much as our trouble at TE. Our WR core also bothers me a great deal. Javon Walker was a #1 WR, and one hell of a weapon when combined with Donald Driver. Beyond that, he was young enough to still have a few more years in him when Donald eventually retires. I cannot fault Thompson for having to trade Walker, but it is the same situation to me as with the O-line in 2005.........He dismantled our O-line without having a plan in place to shore it up before the start of the regular season, and he traded Walker off without any plan in place for replacing him with comparable talent. After Driver, I see a lot of #2 and #3 receivers. None of the receivers would get my vote as a replacement for Driver should he get injured. So in a way, its not just RB by committee, after Driver, its also WR by committee.

[Joemailman]

The time to judge whether Thompson was right about the TE and RB positions will come later, not after 1 pre-season game. My sense is that the so-called TT supporters are perhaps a bit more patient than his detractors. He is into his 3rd season as GM. If he has made the right moves, we should start to see the benefits this year. If the team does not progress, I think most on here will judge him accordingly.

[BallHawk]

Greg Olsen would of looked good in Green and Gold, right about now.

[KYPack]

All I know is that the FACTS and NUMBERS speak for themselves. It's funny how the Thompson backers seldom if ever argue with facts. It's always blind loyalty filled with wishful thinking.

I'm neither a Thompson lover/backer or hater. I try to analyze each situation differently. I wasn't a Sherman lover, so I don't feel the need to rip Thompson on almost every move. Nor was I a Sherman hater, so I don't praise Thompson for every move. Same with Favre and Rodgers or whatever other motives might be at play. To say something like this is just laughable and condescending, and I doubt it wins many people over. Seems to me, you need to look in the mirror when you make accusations like this. I'm not the one spewing the over-the-top hyperbole. Most of the others that are for or against Thompson's approach don't do it either. I know of a few that do, and those are the ones that are the most defensive when people challenge them. They are the ones that do the most complaining about "the other" group. Let's give folks a little credit here. Many of their arguments are just as valid as yours or mine.

Bottom line: I hope to hell that Thompson builds a championship caliber team--just like I hoped Sherman would. I'm not ready to write off his approach, and I don't think that makes me some kind of blind supporter of him.

You can take Harvey's reply, chip it in granite, and make it double for me.

Thompson has faults, and they are many. He's also made mistakes, but he's upgraded the roster and that's what I care about.

Don't we kinda need to wait and see if this plan works?

Why love Sherman, or rip Thompson?, all teams have screw-ups.

It looks to me that the general flow of talent is on the uptick. Let's see if it translates into victory.

[Spaulding]

The time to judge whether Thompson was right about the TE and RB positions will come later, not after 1 pre-season game. My sense is that the so-called TT supporters are perhaps a bit more patient than his detractors. He is into his 3rd season as GM. If he has made the right moves, we should start to see the benefits this year. If the team does not progress, I think most on here will judge him accordingly.

Dead on Joe.

It's not about Thompson's supposed secret motives, his supposed desire to push Favre to retirement, etc. - it's his belief in rebuilding through the draft and always taking the best players available in the draft skewed with an eye for need. Obviously in this past draft he took Harrell because he believe he was the best player available and well ahead of the players available for our need positions (RB, WR, TE, S). Do I agree with this? Not necessarily but I have to trust that he and the scouting staff know a hell of a lot more about player evaluation than I do and that taking Harrell was a better long term move than picking Greg Olsen/Reggie Nelson/Meachem/Bowe/etc. Do I think he's intending to relieve his glory days by drafting linemen clogging DT's to free up our LB's? Gimme a break.

As mentioned prior, it's all about patience. Some of us are blindly loyal, some are full of doom and gloom, some just don't give a damn how the team is formed as long as it produces on the field.

The 3rd year is the barometer and where most should pass judgement. This team should be markedly better than it was in 2005 and 2006 and if that doesn't happen then I wouldn't be surprised to see the pitchforks come out.

We're all entitled to our opinion but it's the posts by rational tempered individuals that suggest thoughts, provide facts that are insightful, etc. and not ones looking to push their agenda/propaganda on others that make this board worthwhile.

[Green Bud Packer]

I know that Favre may have slowed a little in reading the Defense.
How do you know this? Most who actually do know say Favre reads d's better now than ever. As I rermember Detmer saying, Brett didn't even know what a dime "d" was his first couple of years.

[packrat]

TT is not brain dead on offense. The guards he drafted are looking good. The receivers he drafted look a lot better than Fergie. He has a better back up QB than Sherman ever found. The jury is out on the RB, though I'd like to see more options there. TE is a mess, which WILL get straightened out. Meanwhile, the defense which was a mess under Sherman (4th & 26, anyone?) is reaching the point where it allows us to win games when the offense is not hitting on all cylinders. The mere fact that defense seems to be getting priority is a compliment to him--defense wins games and when you look at Superbowl teams it is a lot easier to find winners where the defense bailed out a weak offense than it is to find teams with lousy defenses that pulled it out.

[Lurker64]

Greg Olsen would of looked good in Green and Gold, right about now.

Only if you want to see Favre in the hospital.

[Packnut]

TT is not brain dead on offense. The guards he drafted are looking good. The receivers he drafted look a lot better than Fergie. He has a better back up QB than Sherman ever found. The jury is out on the RB, though I'd like to see more options there. TE is a mess, which WILL get straightened out. Meanwhile, the defense which was a mess under Sherman (4th & 26, anyone?) is reaching the point where it allows us to win games when the offense is not hitting on all cylinders. The mere fact that defense seems to be getting priority is a compliment to him--defense wins games and when you look at Superbowl teams it is a lot easier to find winners where the defense bailed out a weak offense than it is to find teams with lousy defenses that pulled it out.

See, it's more of the same-" The TE situation will get straightened out". Some of us don't believe in the wishful thinking/Thompson point of view. Some of us would actually like to see results on the field........

[Bretsky]

Greg Olsen would of looked good in Green and Gold, right about now.


So would that trade with Cleveland; we could have given up one of the picks and moved up to have Olsen, and had Cleveland and Green Bay's first round pick to boot next year

[RashanGary]

Thompson took over the team that Sherman built and the salary cap problems that Sherman created. He's coming into his third season and more and more it's his team as opposed to Shermans mess.

I'm looking forward to this year when the evidence can be used. I think we have a really good, young team. It should be a fun year to watch Packer football.

[BEARMAN]

Greg Olsen would of looked good in Green and Gold, right about now.

You can NOT have him, either ! :butt:

[Bretsky]

Thompson took over the team that Sherman built and the salary cap problems that Sherman created. He's coming into his third season and more and more it's his team as opposed to Shermans mess.

I'm looking forward to this year when the evidence can be used. I think we have a really good, young team. It should be a fun year to watch Packer football.


I agree; I'm sick of tassling

It's time to get to the wins and losses

Weak one will be a huge test and we're playing the Eagles at the right time with McNabb coming off a torn ACL

[RashanGary]

I agree; I'm sick of tassling

It's time to get to the wins and losses

Weak one will be a huge test and we're playing the Eagles at the right time with McNabb coming off a torn ACL

:glug:

Most Thompson supporters have one thing in common that I see. We all think the situation Thompson inherited was horrible and we judge him on improvement from where he started. The Thompson bashers or whatever, think he could have and should have fielded a playoff team each year so far. We just have a fundemental disagreement for what is considered progress so the arguement will never stop.

Most everyone agrees that Thompson is on the hook this year. Let's watch the games and see what Thompson has assembled. The lines aren't black and white but they are much more clear than they were a year or two ago. We have expectations this year, all of us do. This season can't start soon enough.

[Green Bud Packer]

I agree; I'm sick of tassling

It's time to get to the wins and losses

Weak one will be a huge test and we're playing the Eagles at the right time with McNabb coming off a torn ACL

:glug:

Most Thompson supporters have one thing in common that I see. We all think the situation Thompson inherited was horrible and we judge him on improvement from where he started. The Thompson bashers or whatever, think he could have and should have fielded a playoff team each year so far. We just have a fundemental disagreement for what is considered progress so the arguement will never stop.

Most everyone agrees that Thompson is on the hook this year. Let's watch the games and see what Thompson has assembled. The lines aren't black and white but they are much more clear than they were a year or two ago. We have expectations this year, all of us do. This season can't start soon enough.
Well put J.H.
Many Thomps bashers whom I know are Wolf era fans. Guys who didn't give a rats ass about the Pack til the return to glory and then they were driving around with Packer flags on their pickup trucks.
On the other hand most guys I know who were die hard fans during the Starr, Gregg/Braatz, Infante,and so on eras feel Ted has the team going in the right direction.
Only time will tell and noone knows how the season will play out. I"m giving Thompson his 3rd year before I pass judgment on his G.M. abilities and I'll be surprised if I'm disappointed. Go Pack.

[PackerBlues]

It seems to me, that the majority of the people that have a "wait and see" approach when judging the job done by Thompson, consider themselves to be Thompson supporters, not because of anything that he has done so far, but more because of what he may have done, may do, or basically, just because they have faith in him.


Then, there are those of us that judge Thompson by what he has failed to do, and by the mistakes that we feel that he has already made. Those of us that question Thompsons job performance and mistakes and would like to see him held accountable are labeled as Bashers, or haters.


When Thompson dismantled the O-line in 2005, the Thompson supporters claimed that it had to be done. It was the only way. It was not Ted's fault that he had to do it that way, it was what he inherited. I myself, and many others thought that all of that was BS. There are always other options. In this case, some contracts could have been restructured while back-loading others. Its nothing new, and its done all the time in the NFL.
Thompson admitted that he made a mistake by not shoring up the O-line before the start of the 2005 season. So much for all of that unnecessary support.

How about the thought going around that Thompson cannot negotiate a deal? We heard about the trade that never happened with Cleveland. Before that, Thompson was not able to negotiate with Javon Walker either, (nor has he replaced Walker's talent at WR). Thompson ended up trading Javon off for shit. Keep in mind, that Sherman traded his 1'st and 2'nd round draft picks to Seattle for their 1'st and 5'th round picks, to move up and get Walker. Thompson gave Walker to Denver for a 2'nd round pick.
After that, Thompson also was not able to get deals done with Ahman Green or with Randy Moss/The Raiders. Perhaps the real reason Ted dismisses free agents, is because he has no idea how to negotiate a deal.

[Bretsky]

I agree; I'm sick of tassling

It's time to get to the wins and losses

Weak one will be a huge test and we're playing the Eagles at the right time with McNabb coming off a torn ACL

:glug:

Most Thompson supporters have one thing in common that I see. We all think the situation Thompson inherited was horrible and we judge him on improvement from where he started. The Thompson bashers or whatever, think he could have and should have fielded a playoff team each year so far. We just have a fundemental disagreement for what is considered progress so the arguement will never stop.

Most everyone agrees that Thompson is on the hook this year. Let's watch the games and see what Thompson has assembled. The lines aren't black and white but they are much more clear than they were a year or two ago. We have expectations this year, all of us do. This season can't start soon enough.

This is pretty close to spot on in my case, although I'd modify one thing.

I knew we were screwed in the 4-12 season. The cap ran dry (much of Sherman's fault) and we lost solid players. I thought we were a six to seven win team that year.....then all the injuries piled on and on and we were screwed. Absolutely screwed. But those players would come back from injury next year.....so....

Going into FA with a clean cap and a loot of about 35,000,000 my bright eyes happy plan plan would have involved signing more impact players than Pickett and Woodsen.....such as Hope/Weatherspoon in addition to a great draft.

My kool aide masterplan would have put us in the playoffs and an early exit most likely last year.........a serious contender this year......and Super Bowl next year.....Favre's last year. Who knows how any of it would have turned out; an impatient guy like me can only dream.

Bring on the season !!!


Cheers,
B

[Bretsky]

I agree; I'm sick of tassling

It's time to get to the wins and losses

Weak one will be a huge test and we're playing the Eagles at the right time with McNabb coming off a torn ACL

:glug:

Most Thompson supporters have one thing in common that I see. We all think the situation Thompson inherited was horrible and we judge him on improvement from where he started. The Thompson bashers or whatever, think he could have and should have fielded a playoff team each year so far. We just have a fundemental disagreement for what is considered progress so the arguement will never stop.

Most everyone agrees that Thompson is on the hook this year. Let's watch the games and see what Thompson has assembled. The lines aren't black and white but they are much more clear than they were a year or two ago. We have expectations this year, all of us do. This season can't start soon enough.
Well put J.H.
Many Thomps bashers whom I know are Wolf era fans. Guys who didn't give a rats ass about the Pack til the return to glory and then they were driving around with Packer flags on their pickup trucks.
On the other hand most guys I know who were die hard fans during the Starr, Gregg/Braatz, Infante,and so on eras feel Ted has the team going in the right direction.


I don't buy the Wolf era only stuff one bit; myself, I suffered through Starr, Greg, Infante, Braatz. I remember when just being respectable against Da Bears seemed like an accomplishment. I attended a Dallas 42-14 asskicking game at Lambeau where our only lead was Steve Odom returning a punt for a TD and we were so desperate Bart Starr then called for an onside kick. But we were so terrible none of it mattered. Nightmares of Alphonzo Carraeker, David Whitehurst, Eric Torkelson, Mike Butler,Barty Smith, George Cumby, Estus Hood..etc....they are there for many of us.

IMO if you are enough of a whack to be posting on a Packer forum board in all probability you are probably a far greater fan that a wagon jumper.

The 96 squad was the first title I ever witnessed; many years of suffering came before that.

[Green Bud Packer]

Focusing only on someones failures would make any man look bad. Write a book on Bill Belichicks tenure in Cleveland and the man looks like a bozo, if you fail to mention the rest of his career. Thomps has keep #4 in a Packer jersey,He brought in Woodson to give the Pack a top tandem at corner.He drafted Hawk. He has put together a top tier defense. The Pack went 5-1 in they're division last season.
The Pack had one wheel in the ditch under sherman and righting the course takes time.
Thats why I'm waiting and seeing for one more season.

[KYPack]

[quote="Green Bud Packer"][quote="JustinHarrell"][quote=Bretsky]


Nightmares of Alphonzo Carraeker, David Whitehurst, Eric Torkelson, Mike Butler,Barty Smith, George Cumby, Estus Hood..etc....they are there for many of us.

IMO if you are enough of a whack to be posting on a Packer forum board in all probability you are probably a far greater fan that a wagon jumper.

The 96 squad was the first title I ever witnessed; many years of suffering came before that.

Kindly remove big Mike Butler from this list. His career didn't last as long as it should, but Mike wasn't nothin' but a stud.

[Bretsky]

Focusing only on someones failures would make any man look bad. Write a book on Bill Belichicks tenure in Cleveland and the man looks like a bozo, if you fail to mention the rest of his career. Thomps has keep #4 in a Packer jersey,He brought in Woodson to give the Pack a top tandem at corner.He drafted Hawk. He has put together a top tier defense. The Pack went 5-1 in they're division last season.
The Pack had one wheel in the ditch under sherman and righting the course takes time.
Thats why I'm waiting and seeing for one more season.


completely agree; even though I'm not nearly as patient as most, I'm ready to let the record speak for itself and judge from there.

[RashanGary]

Well, PB, We've all gone through this mulitple times. The cap situation was bad. Thompson probably could have kept one of the two guards, I agree with that. He made a mistake. It's part of the job really. Mistakes happen, but long, lingering, expensive ones are the mistakes that usually cost GM's their jobs. Thompson got the OG thing cleared up and going into 2007 it's like it never happened. The Walker situation probably had a mixture of things, some of which were Ted's fault. Walker did come back to play but got injured and from there there was quite a bit of ill will and who knows if Walker was even willing to sign on the dotted line at that point. I don't know too many people that think Thompson is perfect. Acctually, we and he know that mistakes have been made.

I think the good outnumber the bad.

Hawk
Collins
Rodgers
Jennings
Poppinga
Spitz
Colledge
Moll
Woodson
Pickett
Jolly
Jenkins
Kampman
Barnett
Jackson
Harris extend
Driver extend
Crosby
Ryan even looks good now
Jones
We didn't draft Huff ;)


There were a couple mistakes and you can choose to dwell on them. I've gone over the positives many times. I enjoy the conversation, but I don't think there is much that you can say that hasn't already been said that is going to sway my opinion. I don't think much that I say will sway you.

This year is Thompsons first year on the hook for the record. I'm pretty excited to see how things shake out. I'm sure we'll get a better idea of where this team is heading in about a month or two.

[cheesner]

It seems to me, that the majority of the people that have a "wait and see" approach when judging the job done by Thompson, consider themselves to be Thompson supporters, not because of anything that he has done so far, but more because of what he may have done, may do, or basically, just because they have faith in him.

Then, there are those of us that judge Thompson by what he has failed to do, and by the mistakes that we feel that he has already made. Those of us that question Thompsons job performance and mistakes and would like to see him held accountable are labeled as Bashers, or haters.
. . .

I guess I am a 'wait and see' fan. My issue is with fans who continually rip on TT without understanding the move. How many called for TT's head when he drafted Jones? Where are they now that Jones is looking very promising.

From what I see TT inherited a team on a plateau. We could have signed some FAs and still maintained a 9-7 maybe 10-6 and got whipped early in the playoffs. To me, that isn't good enough.

Right now we are sitting with the youngest roster in the NFL. We have rising young players like Hawk, Jennings, College, Collins, Jenkins, Barnett and Kampman. All of these either drafted or a retained FA. Some of these players are going to be stars.

Think about this, if TT had resigned Wahle and Rivera, we would still be short a guard at this point, and we would have eaten up $25M in salary cap. As we only have $15M in salary cap right now, which of the FAs above would you not have liked to keep? And if you say back load the contracts, you are still going to have to pay that sooner or later. And having kept we would not have competed for the SB - there are still too many holes.

And please explain one more thing to me, why do you say TT has an ego that is limiting his judgement? I have seen nothing from him so far other than a humble nature.

[Bretsky]

It seems to me, that the majority of the people that have a "wait and see" approach when judging the job done by Thompson, consider themselves to be Thompson supporters, not because of anything that he has done so far, but more because of what he may have done, may do, or basically, just because they have faith in him.

Then, there are those of us that judge Thompson by what he has failed to do, and by the mistakes that we feel that he has already made. Those of us that question Thompsons job performance and mistakes and would like to see him held accountable are labeled as Bashers, or haters.
. . .

I guess I am a 'wait and see' fan. My issue is with fans who continually rip on TT without understanding the move. How many called for TT's head when he drafted Jones? Where are they now that Jones is looking very promising.

From what I see TT inherited a team on a plateau. We could have signed some FAs and still maintained a 9-7 maybe 10-6 and got whipped early in the playoffs. To me, that isn't good enough.

Right now we are sitting with the youngest roster in the NFL. We have rising young players like Hawk, Jennings, College, Collins, Jenkins, Barnett and Kampman. All of these either drafted or a retained FA. Some of these players are going to be stars.

Think about this, if TT had resigned Wahle and Rivera, we would still be short a guard at this point, and we would have eaten up $25M in salary cap. As we only have $15M in salary cap right now, which of the FAs above would you not have liked to keep? And if you say back load the contracts, you are still going to have to pay that sooner or later. And having kept we would not have competed for the SB - there are still too many holes.

And please explain one more thing to me, why do you say TT has an ego that is limiting his judgement? I have seen nothing from him so far other than a humble nature.


I've seen no evidence that TT has an ego either

Although I must admit that McGinn's most inappropriate question of " "is there enough wisdom in the room" made me wonder if there is an ego there

[GBRulz]

I am still borderline on Thompson. Like many, I think he has a great sense for evaluating talent. I think drafting is one of his strengths. My biggest problem is that he did nothing to address our horrible red zone offense from last year. If anything, without a proven RB, it could have actually taken a step backward. I will judge that after the season, not 1 pre-season game. Being one of the most pissed off people around that he didn't resign Green, that is very hard for me to say :wink:

As far as his dealing with FA, or lack of... I guess I would be more upset if we were only 1 or 2 positions away from being a serious contender and he did nothing. Certainly I would like to see him more active than he's been, but I'm not ready to write him off or claim that he's trying to drive Favre out of town type of things. BTW, if you go to Favre's official site, those people clearly believe that. They make our kool-aid drinkers here look like devils!

One thing though, some of you give TT credit for straighting out our cap mess. Come on now...the cap took a huge increase going into his 2nd season here. No teams are really in any cap trouble at all. That is one thing that I refuse to give him credit for.

[PackerBlues]

One thing though, some of you give TT credit for straighting out our cap mess. Come on now...the cap took a huge increase going into his 2nd season here. No teams are really in any cap trouble at all. That is one thing that I refuse to give him credit for.

I have always been pissed off about the O-line in 2005. I have never once bought into the theory that we were just to strapped for cash to sign the guys on our O-line. To me, that was just a cop-out to explain Thompson's desire to get younger by weeding out older players. Did we need to get younger on the O-line? Yes, but we did not necessarily have to do it all at once like Thompson did. I do not think there is any excuse that Thompson himself or anyone else for that matter could give to explain the pathetic line that Thompson sent our team into the 2005 season with. Even after Thompson himself admitted that it was one of his biggest mistakes, people still try to defend that mistake by blaming Sherman for supposed cap problems.

By the way, JH, I value your opinion, and I really enjoy your enthusiasm, but showing me a list of guys that we have on our team by the grace of Thompson, really does not mean a whole hell of a lot to me when I look at all of the talent that this team has lost since Thompson has joined us. When I see a winning record from this team, feel free to point out how talented we are thanks to Thompson, because from what I have seen, we have lost just as much talent thanks to Thompson, as we have gained thanks to Thompson.

[RashanGary]

PB, showing me a small list of good, aging players that we lost is far less important than the good, young players we've added.

Now, Thompson did attempt to please his lady with some unconventional ideas :shock: I know he wasn't exactly generous with the lube :cry: but I also have some vision and I see where it's all heading :five: I think you know what I'm trying to say ;)

[PackerBlues]

PB, showing me a small list of good, aging players that we lost is far less important than the good, young players we've added.

Now, Thompson did attempt to please his lady with some unconventional ideas :shock: I know he wasn't exactly easy on the lube :cry: but I also have some vision and I see where it's all heading :five: I think you know what I'm trying to say ;)

ummmm........actually, I dont have a clue what you are trying to say......in fact, your scaring me. :)

[Rastak]

PB, showing me a small list of good, aging players that we lost is far less important than the good, young players we've added.

Now, Thompson did attempt to please his lady with some unconventional ideas :shock: I know he wasn't exactly easy on the lube :cry: but I also have some vision and I see where it's all heading :five: I think you know what I'm trying to say ;)

ummmm........actually, I dont have a clue what you are trying to say......in fact, your scaring me. :)



Ummm, it's vintage JH....and yes, at times it can be scary.

[swede]

The Optimistic Realists are back!

Next meeting Saturday, August 18th.

Bretsky is fined three Brownie Points for excessive brooding but remains a member in good standing since FA concerns are protected under the Defensible Realism Act of 2005.

[PackerBlues]

PB, showing me a small list of good, aging players that we lost is far less important than the good, young players we've added.

Now, Thompson did attempt to please his lady with some unconventional ideas :shock: I know he wasn't exactly generous with the lube :cry: but I also have some vision and I see where it's all heading :five: I think you know what I'm trying to say ;)

OK, let me take a stab at this. are you trying to say that Thompson tried to please Packer fans (his lady?)by telling us he was not rebuilding(unconventional ideas?) ........ while bending our Offense over and F#@#ing it in the A$$ with out the courtesy of lube :shock: or a reach around :bs: ? And that someday, we will all look back at what Ted has done as a good thing??

Am I close? :mrgreen:

[Bretsky]

The Optimistic Realists are back!

Next meeting Saturday, August 18th.

Bretsky is fined three Brownie Points for excessive brooding but remains a member in good standing since FA concerns are protected under the Defensible Realism Act of 2005.


The Defensive Realism Act of 2005; LMAO. That's a good one. Kudos :knll: :knll:

[wpony]

I said give him some time when he started. this is his year if at the end of this year we are not challenging for the playoffs it will be time to look at a replacement. I dont post very much but I do read this board every day and enjoy all of your company. I do believe the packers have improved in many places ,but I really dont understand why he has not helped the offence more.

[RashanGary]

OK, let me take a stab at this. are you trying to say that Thompson tried to please Packer fans (his lady?)by telling us he was not rebuilding(unconventional ideas?) ........ while bending our Offense over and F#@#ing it in the A$$ with out the courtesy of lube :shock: or a reach around :bs: ? And that someday, we will all look back at what Ted has done as a good thing??

Am I close? :mrgreen:

EXACTLY!!

I probably misphrased, he is using lube otherwise I'm pretty sure there is no chance that it will be looked back upon as a good thing :)

[Carolina_Packer]

As a GM, you're probably always building, but towards what?

We are building towards having a winning/contending team again.

When we get there, how will the team continue to be built (assuming the best happens and Thompson's plan works)?

Do you keep trading down and amassing more and more draft picks like he has the past three drafts, or do you think that curtails once we solidify more and more positions and the strategy changes as we have less holes to fill?

I assume we're always going to have the UFA's after the draft and at various times throughout the year. The diamonds in the rough.

Do you think TT's methods of selecting talent will change as the team gets away from "rebuilding mode" (not saying we're done, just curious what you all think).

[RashanGary]

He talked her into it by saying it wouldnt' hurt too badly (we're not rebuilidng)

He then proceeded to hurt the hell out of her, however, he knew it was in her best interest becuase she'll see how good things get after the initial pain investment is over.

:tup: :wave: :rs: :hrt:

[Joemailman]

As a GM, you're probably always building, but towards what?

We are building towards having a winning/contending team again.

When we get there, how will the team continue to be built (assuming the best happens and Thompson's plan works)?

Do you keep trading down and amassing more and more draft picks like he has the past three drafts, or do you think that curtails once we solidify more and more positions and the strategy changes as we have less holes to fill?

I assume we're always going to have the UFA's after the draft and at various times throughout the year. The diamonds in the rough.

Do you think TT's methods of selecting talent will change as the team gets away from "rebuilding mode" (not saying we're done, just curious what you all think).

In every draft TT has conducted, he has ended up with more picks than he went in with. I suspect that won't change. There could be certain situations where he would deviate from that, but not often.

[Bretsky]

As a GM, you're probably always building, but towards what?

We are building towards having a winning/contending team again.

When we get there, how will the team continue to be built (assuming the best happens and Thompson's plan works)?

Do you keep trading down and amassing more and more draft picks like he has the past three drafts, or do you think that curtails once we solidify more and more positions and the strategy changes as we have less holes to fill?

I assume we're always going to have the UFA's after the draft and at various times throughout the year. The diamonds in the rough.

Do you think TT's methods of selecting talent will change as the team gets away from "rebuilding mode" (not saying we're done, just curious what you all think).

In every draft TT has conducted, he has ended up with more picks than he went in with. I suspect that won't change. There could be certain situations where he would deviate from that, but not often.


agree at this point

[RashanGary]

I had a big list of about 15 young players earlier in this thread. They are all good players now, but they'll be better players tomorrow and they'll need to get paid. That is the core of our team and the hard workers on that list will be rewarded with pay days. We have a lot of space now, but if TT's guys pan out, it's going to get hard to afford them some day. EVentually there will be a climax of talent. This is the year year the climb should start.

[Brainerd]

Focusing only on someones failures would make any man look bad. Write a book on Bill Belichicks tenure in Cleveland and the man looks like a bozo, if you fail to mention the rest of his career. Thomps has keep #4 in a Packer jersey,He brought in Woodson to give the Pack a top tandem at corner.He drafted Hawk. He has put together a top tier defense. The Pack went 5-1 in they're division last season.
The Pack had one wheel in the ditch under sherman and righting the course takes time.
Thats why I'm waiting and seeing for one more season.
Not to single you out but can we all just agree that anyone and I mean even someone like me who is not very adept at picking college talent would have picked Hawk at 5. Thompson is not allowed credit for Hawk. Sorry. I'm just tired of TT getting credit for the Hawk pick. It was a no brainer. Hawk is a beast and everyone knew it.

I agree on Belechick. He was Cleveland's Mike Sherman.

[wist43]

PB, showing me a small list of good, aging players that we lost is far less important than the good, young players we've added.

Now, Thompson did attempt to please his lady with some unconventional ideas :shock: I know he wasn't exactly generous with the lube :cry: but I also have some vision and I see where it's all heading :five: I think you know what I'm trying to say ;)

OK, let me take a stab at this. are you trying to say that Thompson tried to please Packer fans (his lady?)by telling us he was not rebuilding(unconventional ideas?) ........ while bending our Offense over and F#@#ing it in the A$$ with out the courtesy of lube :shock: or a reach around :bs: ? And that someday, we will all look back at what Ted has done as a good thing??

Am I close? :mrgreen:

Great stuff man... I was going to lob a grenade or two at JH, but this is pretty entertaining stuff. :lol:

:drma: :drma: :drma:

[wist43]

I had a big list of about 15 young players earlier in this thread. They are all good players now, but they'll be better players tomorrow and they'll need to get paid. That is the core of our team and the hard workers on that list will be rewarded with pay days. We have a lot of space now, but if TT's guys pan out, it's going to get hard to afford them some day. EVentually there will be a climax of talent. This is the year year the climb should start.

Hawk
Collins
Rodgers
Jennings
Poppinga
Spitz
Colledge
Moll
Woodson
Pickett
Jolly
Jenkins
Kampman
Barnett
Jackson
Harris extend
Driver extend
Crosby
Ryan even looks good now
Jones
We didn't draft Huff


You can't say that these guys are good players. Some of them are good, some of them show potential; but, relative to teams that have playoff/SB calibur rosters - this list doesn't get us close.

Entirely too many people have anointed Colledge and Spitz as being potential world beaters - they are both substandard G's at this point. We all see the potential for upside there, but is that pro bowl potential??? I don't see that.

Collins and Jennings have flashed, but there's a huge chasm between flashing ability, and putting it on display on an every day basis.

Rodgers has convinced me of nothing... his moving the ball against burger flippers does not put me all atwitter.

All TT has accomplished to this point, in the zero sum game, is to jettison two pro bowl calibur players in their prime, and bring in a ton - several tons actually - of young guys; and, out of that multitude, TT is hoping some will turn out.

TT has done some good things, but this team is woefully underpowered compared to the elite teams in the league. They have a long way to go.

[GrnBay007]

Rodgers has convinced me of nothing... his moving the ball against burger flippers does not put me all atwitter.



You crack me up wist...too funny!!! :lol:

[Packnut]

I had a big list of about 15 young players earlier in this thread. They are all good players now, but they'll be better players tomorrow and they'll need to get paid. That is the core of our team and the hard workers on that list will be rewarded with pay days. We have a lot of space now, but if TT's guys pan out, it's going to get hard to afford them some day. EVentually there will be a climax of talent. This is the year year the climb should start.

Hawk
Collins
Rodgers
Jennings
Poppinga
Spitz
Colledge
Moll
Woodson
Pickett
Jolly
Jenkins
Kampman
Barnett
Jackson
Harris extend
Driver extend
Crosby
Ryan even looks good now
Jones
We didn't draft Huff


You can't say that these guys are good players. Some of them are good, some of them show potential; but, relative to teams that have playoff/SB calibur rosters - this list doesn't get us close.

Entirely too many people have anointed Colledge and Spitz as being potential world beaters - they are both substandard G's at this point. We all see the potential for upside there, but is that pro bowl potential??? I don't see that.

Collins and Jennings have flashed, but there's a huge chasm between flashing ability, and putting it on display on an every day basis.

Rodgers has convinced me of nothing... his moving the ball against burger flippers does not put me all atwitter.

All TT has accomplished to this point, in the zero sum game, is to jettison two pro bowl calibur players in their prime, and bring in a ton - several tons actually - of young guys; and, out of that multitude, TT is hoping some will turn out.

TT has done some good things, but this team is woefully underpowered compared to the elite teams in the league. They have a long way to go.

That is the whole problem with this "debate" from Harrell and others when they defend Thompson. They annoint all the young guys as potential pro-bowl players when in reality they have done NOTHING to date.

Not one of them has produced on the field. Yep, Jennings did- for about 5 games. Colledge and Spitz show POTENTIAL but this also has not translated onto the field as of yet.

Now it look's as though Hodge is useless. It's one thing to blow a #4,5 or 6 round pick but now Teddy has blown a #3 and we still don't have a damn TE. Some teams have 3 freaking TE's(Denver) and we have NONE!

Also, let me tell you Thompson backers something. This great defense? How many are from the Sherman era?????????????

[Green Bud Packer]

Thompson is not allowed credit for Hawk. . It was a no brainer. .
It pays to be good and lucky.

[Zool]

Also, let me tell you Thompson backers something. This great defense? How many are from the Sherman era?????????????

Ok if thats the game, how many of Sherman's O were from Wolfs era?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Also, let me tell you Thompson backers something. This great defense? How many are from the Sherman era?????????????

Ok if thats the game, how many of Sherman's O were from Wolfs era?

Looks like 5 starters from Sherman (Kampman, Williams, Jenkins, Barnett, Harris) and 6 starters from Thompson (Pickett, Woodson, Hawk, Collins, Poppinga, Manuel). Considering Thompson is going on his third year, and Sherman was GM for 3-4 years and Sherman's players should be hitting their prime, it's not a great stat to point out. On offense, there are 4 starters from Wolf (Favre, Driver, Tauscher, Clifton), 1 starter from Sherman (Wells), and 6 starters from Thompson (Jackson/Morency, Jennings, Lee, Colledge, Spitz, Miree).

I don't know that this is surprising or unusual. New GMs tend to turn over their roster--especially when the roster is old and many players are hitting FA. More interesting is that out of the 22 starters, many didn't hit their strides until their 2nd or 3rd year in the league. Some even longer. Favre, Wells, Driver, Kampman, Williams, Jenkins, Harris all took a year or two to become good players. That's where the hope lies for me. Maybe some of these guys that haven't proven themselves yet, but that have shown some potential, produce this year. RB has me worried, but I think we'll be okay there. TE is a mess. I would expect we pick up somebody before the start of the season, but we'll see.

[Zool]

Also, let me tell you Thompson backers something. This great defense? How many are from the Sherman era?????????????

Ok if thats the game, how many of Sherman's O were from Wolfs era?

Looks like 5 starters from Sherman (Kampman, Williams, Jenkins, Barnett, Harris) and 6 starters from Thompson (Pickett, Woodson, Hawk, Collins, Poppinga, Manuel). Considering Thompson is going on his third year, and Sherman was GM for 3-4 years and Sherman's players should be hitting their prime, it's not a great stat to point out. On offense, there are 4 starters from Wolf (Favre, Driver, Tauscher, Clifton), 1 starter from Sherman (Wells), and 6 starters from Thompson (Jackson/Morency, Jennings, Lee, Colledge, Spitz, Miree).

I don't know that this is surprising or unusual. New GMs tend to turn over their roster--especially when the roster is old and many players are hitting FA. More interesting is that out of the 22 starters, many didn't hit their strides until their 2nd or 3rd year in the league. Some even longer. Favre, Wells, Driver, Kampman, Williams, Jenkins, Harris all took a year or two to become good players. That's where the hope lies for me. Maybe some of these guys that haven't proven themselves yet, but that have shown some potential, produce this year. RB has me worried, but I think we'll be okay there. TE is a mess. I would expect we pick up somebody before the start of the season, but we'll see.I was actually leaning towards the 2001-2004 roster, but point taken anyways.

These arguments are cyclical, because they are filled with opinion and conjecture.

Whether or not Sherm was actually making the picks 2001 was an awful draft. 2002 produced Walker, Davenport and Kampman. 2003, produced Barnett and nothing else. 2004 got Williams and Wells.

2002 was a great draft IMO. The rest were sub par. The Al Harris trade was great. The Hardy Nickerson/Joe Johnson pickups were terrible. Terry Glenn trade turned out bad.

Picks by year going back.

1993 - 9
1994 - 9
1995 - 10
1996 - 8
1997 - 8
1998 - 7
1999 - 12
2000 - 13
2001 - 6
2002 - 6
2003 - 9
2004 - 6
2005 - 11
2006 - 12
2007 - 11

Sherman had quite a few compensatory picks to work with, but you can see how his average picks per year is much lower than RW and TT.

What does all this mean? It means my workday is slow.

[cpk1994]

The time to judge whether Thompson was right about the TE and RB positions will come later, not after 1 pre-season game. My sense is that the so-called TT supporters are perhaps a bit more patient than his detractors. He is into his 3rd season as GM. If he has made the right moves, we should start to see the benefits this year. If the team does not progress, I think most on here will judge him accordingly.

They are. The detratctors source of TT hate stems from...... Brett Favre. Most of the detractors are overly loyal to Brett because Its all about getting him another SB ring. They also had this irrational belief that the Pack was 1 or 2 players away for the SB when in reeality that had been in decline for Shermans last 3 seasons. It shows up the most in the erosion of depth and nowhere was that more apparent then in 2005 when they had all the injuries You put that togetrher and combine the fact that TT doesn't see the team they way they did, they hate his guts. The supportrers understand that Favres chance for a SB ring is gone and the team needs serious repair. that means they are more patient. Incidentyl the TT is the soucre of about 99.9% of the Aaron Rodgers hate, but thats for another post.

[PackerBlues]

The entire debate over draft picks is very misleading. The reason being, Sherman actually used every means at his disposal to grab talent that he hoped would help the team immediately. If Sherman had a weak spot in his roster, he looked for veteran talent to fill the immediate need, then found young guys to bring up. Very different from Thompson who does not seem to look at what the team needs to improve, but simply picks the best player available in the draft. Hence we have Rogers, who has not started a single game in the two years he has been with the team, and Harrell, another first rounder that Thompson picked, at a position that the team was already strong in. Furthermore, Thompson does not appear to be into trading unless he is giving away our talent for draft picks. Sherman and Thompsons methods of improving the team are almost opposite of each other.

It is easy to see why Thompson supporters bring up the draft when they want to point out what a good job Thompson is supposedly doing. Its pretty much the only way Thompson has tried to improve the team. Thing is, I am not the least bit impressed with Thompsons draft record.

In 2001, Sherman and the Packers had the 28'th overall pick, Sherman moved up 8 spots by trading his 1st and 2nd round pick to Seattle, for their 1st and 5th round picks. If this didnt show balls by Sherman, I dont know what did. He got the guy he wanted, Javon Walker, in the 1st round, then managed to pick up Kampman in the 5th. While Thompson's supporters enjoy giving him credit for extending Kampmans contract, it was a no brainer, any GM would have done his best to keep Kampman. But since the supporters want to give Thompson credit for Shermans 5th round pick, then Thompson should also be given credit for not being able to negotiate with Walker, and sending him to Denver for a 2nd round pick. Thompson has had two drafts and two off-seasons to replace Walkers talent at WR, and he still has not done it.


Thompson's supporters also like to point out that Thompson made such a great move by picking up A.J. Hawk in 2006. Many of us think that pick was a no brainer, especially since we had the 5th overall pick. When was our other great LB Barnett picked up? In 2003, Sherman took Barnett with the 29th overall pick in the 1st round. I find that much more impressive than Thompsons gimme pick at #5.


Thompsons highest picking position in the draft was in 2005. This would be before Thompson dismantled our Offense, and Sherman had enough to work with to still give the Packers a winning record. Thompson took over the draft though, and with the 24th overall pick, Thompson went with a guy that everyone was suprised to see fall so far, Aaron Rogers. The Supporters of Thompson will tell you that with Favre's imminent retirement, this was the move to make, and the man to pick. A first round pick, used on a guy who has not had a single start in the two seasons since he was picked. Thompsons supporters continue to defend this pick, and get visibly upset if anyone talks about what a wasted pick it was.


Sherman was not afraid to look for trades, or to go after Veteran help. He had some busts, but a few of the trades worked out pretty good. In 2002, Sherman traded two 4th round picks to New England for Terry Glenn. The Packers were, in a lot of ways, in the same boat that they are in now. They had Donald Driver as the #1 reciever, but after that it was just young guys that were unproven. Walker was drafted that year, and Ferguson the year before. So, unlike Thompson, Sherman got veteran help by trading for Terry Glenn. It was not a bust of a trade as some Thompson supporters would suggest. Terry Glenn was there to fill a hole in our Offense, while the rookies learned the system. That year, Glenn had 56 receptions for 817 yards. After the season, he was traded to Dallas, he had served his purpose in GB, and it was time to let the rookies play. (Which by the way, I find to be a hell of a lot better way to bring up a rookie, when compared to Thompson's half-assed idea of throwing a bunch of rookies on the field during a regular season game and letting them "compete" for the position)

Again, anyone thinking that Terry Glenn was a shit move by Sherman, take into consideration Glenn's 56 receptions and 817 yards that year......then take a look at Robert Fergusons SIX YEARS
with the team, the best he has done in any season was in 2003 when he had 38 receptions for 520 yards. Again, I have to ask.....why is he still here?

Who has Thompson brought to this team via trade or free agency? The only guy that stands out so far,is Woodson. In the meantime, he has let Ahman Green and Randy Moss slip through his fingers while renewing the contract of Bubba Franks........uggg!

Sherman via trade or free agency, brought us Al Harris, Allen Rossum, Russell Maryland, Wesley Walls,Grady Jackson, and also re-signed Gilbert Brown and Antonio Freeman. The supporters of Thompson will always point out the signings of Joe Johnson and the contracts of Hunt and KGB. As far as Johnson goes, everyone was excited about that pick, and at that time, everyone thought that Johnson was what this team needed to improve our Defense. Everyone was wrong, not just Sherman. At least he tried, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for Thompson. As for Hunt, he got his big contract, and like many other lazy fat bastards, let himself go as soon as he had his money. No way that Sherman could have foreseen that. KGB was Shermans mistake, not because he gave him to much money, but because he put the wrong tender on KGB, and had to match the Eagles offer in order to keep him.....very sad.

Overall though, you really only have to look at the teams record to determine who was more successful. Sherman gave the team winning records until Thompson took over as GM and dismantled the Offense, from that point on, the teams record has been on
Thompsons shoulders and the best we have seen is 8-8. Not very impressive at all.

[Zool]

So we should discount the fact that Sherm had Favre, Green and pieces in place for the best O-line in football when he got here? Talk about misleading.

Sherman also had quite a few compensatory picks each year, but always ended up trading up. He was not a good GM IMO and it will be impossible for you to ever convince me otherwise.

[SkinBasket]

[quote=GBRulz]I have always been pissed off about the O-line in 2005. I have never once bought into the theory that we were just to strapped for cash to sign the guys on our O-line. To me, that was just a cop-out to explain Thompson's desire to get younger by weeding out older players. Did we need to get younger on the O-line? Yes, but we did not necessarily have to do it all at once like Thompson did. I do not think there is any excuse that Thompson himself or anyone else for that matter could give to explain the pathetic line that Thompson sent our team into the 2005 season with. Even after Thompson himself admitted that it was one of his biggest mistakes, people still try to defend that mistake by blaming Sherman for supposed cap problems.

I may have missed it in the 1032 argumentative threads about this issue, but I have yet to see someone explain how we would have realistically been able to keep one, much less both, of those guys and still been able to sign or draft picks. Not sure how not having dick for money under the cap that year translates to "supposed cap problems." Seems pretty real to me.

[PackerBlues]

[quote=GBRulz]I have always been pissed off about the O-line in 2005. I have never once bought into the theory that we were just to strapped for cash to sign the guys on our O-line. To me, that was just a cop-out to explain Thompson's desire to get younger by weeding out older players. Did we need to get younger on the O-line? Yes, but we did not necessarily have to do it all at once like Thompson did. I do not think there is any excuse that Thompson himself or anyone else for that matter could give to explain the pathetic line that Thompson sent our team into the 2005 season with. Even after Thompson himself admitted that it was one of his biggest mistakes, people still try to defend that mistake by blaming Sherman for supposed cap problems.

I may have missed it in the 1032 argumentative threads about this issue, but I have yet to see someone explain how we would have realistically been able to keep one, much less both, of those guys and still been able to sign or draft picks. Not sure how not having dick for money under the cap that year translates to "supposed cap problems." Seems pretty real to me.

It has been explained. It has been explained repeatedly. While Sherman was still in charge, before Thompson took over and dismantled the Offense, Sherman stated that the cap was tight. That he was not going to be able to sign everyone. I believe he even stated that he would probably be able to keep Darren Sharper, and either Wahle or Rivera, but not both. So, there was room to maneuver, and that is not even counting the fact that at that time, the salary cap was expected to take a huge jump the following year.

If Sherman could have done it, then Thompson could have too. I dont think that anyone is suggesting that Thompson could have kept the entire O-line intact, but at the same time, I dont think anyone really believes that Thompson needed to go fuckin nuts and let every single big name, big money veteran go the way that he did. What I myself find upsetting, is that we obviously could have kept either Wahle or Rivera for another couple of years. It would have been less of a dropoff in talent on the O-line, and allowed young guys to be brought up more slowly. Instead, Thompson let the O-line go, only to admit just recently, that he screwed up by doing so, without a plan in place to shore up the O-line by the start of the season. The 4-12 record that year was all the proof that most of us needed, yet others still act like nothing bad ever happened, even though Thompson has admitted it. The 4-12 record by the way, was the worst dropoff from one year to the next in Franchise history. Way to start your tenure Teddy!

[woodbuck27]

All I know is that the FACTS and NUMBERS speak for themselves. It's funny how the Thompson backers seldom if ever argue with facts. It's always blind loyalty filled with wishful thinking.

I'm neither a Thompson lover/backer or hater. I try to analyze each situation differently. I wasn't a Sherman lover, so I don't feel the need to rip Thompson on almost every move. Nor was I a Sherman hater, so I don't praise Thompson for every move. Same with Favre and Rodgers or whatever other motives might be at play. To say something like this is just laughable and condescending, and I doubt it wins many people over. Seems to me, you need to look in the mirror when you make accusations like this. I'm not the one spewing the over-the-top hyperbole. Most of the others that are for or against Thompson's approach don't do it either. I know of a few that do, and those are the ones that are the most defensive when people challenge them. They are the ones that do the most complaining about "the other" group. Let's give folks a little credit here. Many of their arguments are just as valid as yours or mine.

Bottom line: I hope to hell that Thompson builds a championship caliber team--just like I hoped Sherman would. I'm not ready to write off his approach, and I don't think that makes me some kind of blind supporter of him.

I don't believe that you are a blind supporter of TT Harvey. I believe that you are a reasonable and competent peson who is strong as a Packer fan and in your background knowledge of football in general and the NFL.

Your a Packer fan who aims for fairness Harvey, but I'll remind you that you promised yourself that things have to change by the completion of 2007 or you will re-assess GM Ted Thompson in light of our future as Packer fans.

We have to win in 2007!

NFL and Packer fans deserve to be very proud of our team. Most important is this:

It's manner of being run from a standpoint of management and coaching and it's success on the field of play in terms of our W-L record.

I have been down the tube with most here at Packerrats. Going back to JSO (before our new home was established) and the earliest days of Ted Thompson as our GM. I have only written well of him when he deserved praise.He got off to a poor start with me.

I will admit this again.

To understand me please simply understand that I want to see the Packers win. and. . .

I totally support Favre (in the sense of the fact that by nature I'm a person who asserts loyality and trust only when deserved). That extends to the Packer vet players (of the recent past and present) that retain the skills to contribute reality to winning. I supported Ahman Green as well as other Packers that TT allowed or elected to leave Green bay.

I didn't support TT's choice of AR as our first pick on TT's watch. We had more pressing needs than another clip board carrier and the selection of a QB that more that two score other teams passed on.

TT made that selection of AR without being properly cognizant of AR's true value for us. That was arguably a frivalous pick and whether or not Aaron Rodgers will be any real service to us winning remains to be seen. The cost of that wait has been high.

TT had better options to serve present needs in April 2005.

Now history repeats itself in last April's draft with the selection of Justin Harrell. We will not plow through that anymore. It's done !

I will remind all here of this. It's not news to y'all.

The greatest predictor of the future is to understand the past.

In my humble experience. People generally have a real challenge to change for the better and to grow. I see that challenge, not being met in our GM's ways and personality. and the real clout lies here.

I believe the NFL is aware of the flaws in Ted Thompson that is too obvious in 2007 or three years under his care and trust.

The proof of dissatisfaction lies in the pudding. Too many Packer fans are growing more dissatisfied with Ted Thompson's ways and lack of success in protecting our offense in terms of it being a success.

I make no excuses for a GM that neglects one side of our team (the 'O'). No excuses can sit with me as to the reason for that reality we again face as Packer fans in 2007.

Whether it's neglect on TT's part as a matter of an agenda, is merely speculative (the conspiracy theory :) or it's simply his degree of inexperience and a measure of a lack of competence in trems of his manner or personality is up in the air.

I trust that we are all very concerned to be fair to Ted Thompson, but how far do we go and at what overall expense? it's a fact of life for Packer fans and for any of us ( as mutual and supportive packer fans ) to deny that we are in trouble offensively now, isn't a matter mere blind faith in Ted Thompson as GM but fr. my viewpoint more a delusion.

We are going to be very bad in 2007 running the ball, at the TE position and possibly as well at FB. We need players at those positions with the skills and experience to advance tha ball and protect our QB. We don't see nor have that in place and that fall on Ted Thompson and noone else given that Mike McCarthy will do all he can with his staff to develop the talent that TT allows him.

This season I see a lot of the same stuff that TT allowed Mike Sherman. History is repeating itself.

Will our record in 2007 reflect just that?

It's a daily concern that's very frustrating for me as a Packer fan. My only consolation, thanks to Packerrats and fr. visiting other sources that support the Green Bay Packer fan base.I'm not alone.

I share this frustration with a large proportion of other Packer fans.

As always and foremost. . .

GO PACKERS !

[woodbuck27]

Greg Olsen would of looked good in Green and Gold, right about now.

I felt that you didn't like him as a possible choice before the draft BH.

Was I confused?

He seems to be doing v. well in the Bears camp and may make a huge difference to the flexibility in their 'O' and growth in Grossman as a young QB.

[SkinBasket]

It has been explained. It has been explained repeatedly. While Sherman was still in charge, before Thompson took over and dismantled the Offense, Sherman stated that the cap was tight. That he was not going to be able to sign everyone. I believe he even stated that he would probably be able to keep Darren Sharper, and either Wahle or Rivera, but not both. So, there was room to maneuver, and that is not even counting the fact that at that time, the salary cap was expected to take a huge jump the following year.

And this is just as ambiguous an "explanation" as I've ever seen. To sum up: Sherman said we might be able to do it, therefore we definitely could do it. Convincing stuff.

[PackerBlues]

It has been explained. It has been explained repeatedly. While Sherman was still in charge, before Thompson took over and dismantled the Offense, Sherman stated that the cap was tight. That he was not going to be able to sign everyone. I believe he even stated that he would probably be able to keep Darren Sharper, and either Wahle or Rivera, but not both. So, there was room to maneuver, and that is not even counting the fact that at that time, the salary cap was expected to take a huge jump the following year.

And this is just as ambiguous an "explanation" as I've ever seen. To sum up: Sherman said we might be able to do it, therefore we definitely could do it. Convincing stuff.

As opposed to your ambiguous viewpoint that says "If Teddy thinks it will work, then it will definitely work." Just because Thompson does something his way, does not mean that its the only way.

[GBRulz]

[quote=GBRulz]I have always been pissed off about the O-line in 2005. I have never once bought into the theory that we were just to strapped for cash to sign the guys on our O-line. To me, that was just a cop-out to explain Thompson's desire to get younger by weeding out older players. Did we need to get younger on the O-line? Yes, but we did not necessarily have to do it all at once like Thompson did. I do not think there is any excuse that Thompson himself or anyone else for that matter could give to explain the pathetic line that Thompson sent our team into the 2005 season with. Even after Thompson himself admitted that it was one of his biggest mistakes, people still try to defend that mistake by blaming Sherman for supposed cap problems.

I may have missed it in the 1032 argumentative threads about this issue, but I have yet to see someone explain how we would have realistically been able to keep one, much less both, of those guys and still been able to sign or draft picks. Not sure how not having dick for money under the cap that year translates to "supposed cap problems." Seems pretty real to me.

um, I didn't say that !

[SkinBasket]

It has been explained. It has been explained repeatedly. While Sherman was still in charge, before Thompson took over and dismantled the Offense, Sherman stated that the cap was tight. That he was not going to be able to sign everyone. I believe he even stated that he would probably be able to keep Darren Sharper, and either Wahle or Rivera, but not both. So, there was room to maneuver, and that is not even counting the fact that at that time, the salary cap was expected to take a huge jump the following year.

And this is just as ambiguous an "explanation" as I've ever seen. To sum up: Sherman said we might be able to do it, therefore we definitely could do it. Convincing stuff.

As opposed to your ambiguous viewpoint that says "If Teddy thinks it will work, then it will definitely work." Just because Thompson does something his way, does not mean that its the only way.

Find me a quote where I say or even infer anything like this. Just because you're in the habit of posting unfounded retardosity that you can't support doesn't mean you get to project your idiocy on the rest of us for convenience's sake.

I asked you a simple question. If you can't answer it, just admit it. We'll accept that you didn't know WTF you were talking about and move on. Don't try to be a hard-on about it and lash out like a little girl in a cat fight..

[SkinBasket]

um, I didn't say that !

yeah, something seems to have happened to our reliable quote system somewhere back there.

[cheesner]

I had a big list of about 15 young players earlier in this thread. They are all good players now, but they'll be better players tomorrow and they'll need to get paid. That is the core of our team and the hard workers on that list will be rewarded with pay days. We have a lot of space now, but if TT's guys pan out, it's going to get hard to afford them some day. EVentually there will be a climax of talent. This is the year year the climb should start.

Hawk
Collins
Rodgers
Jennings
Poppinga
Spitz
Colledge
Moll
Woodson
Pickett
Jolly
Jenkins
Kampman
Barnett
Jackson
Harris extend
Driver extend
Crosby
Ryan even looks good now
Jones
We didn't draft Huff


You can't say that these guys are good players. Some of them are good, some of them show potential; but, relative to teams that have playoff/SB calibur rosters - this list doesn't get us close.

Entirely too many people have anointed Colledge and Spitz as being potential world beaters - they are both substandard G's at this point. We all see the potential for upside there, but is that pro bowl potential??? I don't see that.

Collins and Jennings have flashed, but there's a huge chasm between flashing ability, and putting it on display on an every day basis.

Rodgers has convinced me of nothing... his moving the ball against burger flippers does not put me all atwitter.

All TT has accomplished to this point, in the zero sum game, is to jettison two pro bowl calibur players in their prime, and bring in a ton - several tons actually - of young guys; and, out of that multitude, TT is hoping some will turn out.

TT has done some good things, but this team is woefully underpowered compared to the elite teams in the league. They have a long way to go.

That is the whole problem with this "debate" from Harrell and others when they defend Thompson. They annoint all the young guys as potential pro-bowl players when in reality they have done NOTHING to date.

Not one of them has produced on the field. Yep, Jennings did- for about 5 games. Colledge and Spitz show POTENTIAL but this also has not translated onto the field as of yet.

Now it look's as though Hodge is useless. It's one thing to blow a #4,5 or 6 round pick but now Teddy has blown a #3 and we still don't have a damn TE. Some teams have 3 freaking TE's(Denver) and we have NONE!

Also, let me tell you Thompson backers something. This great defense? How many are from the Sherman era?????????????
This is a very young team. It is rare for a player to come directly from college and be a star. Maybe 2-5 rookies a year at most. At this stage of their career all you can look at is potential, and the young guys listed have strong potential. Look at the difference say between Jennings and Fergy. Both were mid 2nd round picks. Fergy did okay, but didn't stand out - I never thought he had what it takes to be a star - thus limited potential. Jennings has strong potential and has flashed excellence often. I would not be surprised if he stays healthy, if he doesn't get some Pro-bowl consideration in a few years.

As far as giving TT credit for the Hawk pick, there are at least 2 GMs who probably wish they had taken him. There are always choices for a GM, I do recall some on this site strongly pushing for Vernon Davis and some for Huff. Although I agree, it would have been an easy choice for me.

[PackerBlues]

I may have missed it in the 1032 argumentative threads about this issue, but I have yet to see someone explain how we would have realistically been able to keep one, much less both, of those guys and still been able to sign or draft picks. Not sure how not having dick for money under the cap that year translates to "supposed cap problems." Seems pretty real to me.

You are assuming that the Packers had a salary cap problem that could not be fixed in any other way, other than the way that Thompson fixed it. Just as much as I am assuming that based on what Sherman had said, the O-line did not need to be torn apart the way that it was. My assumption is based on what I have heard from Sherman, your opinion is based on what? Facts? Lets hear your side of it then Skin. See if you can try to sell your viewpoint without name calling and childish rants.




And this is just as ambiguous an "explanation" as I've ever seen. To sum up: Sherman said we might be able to do it, therefore we definitely could do it. Convincing stuff.

Again, as opposed to your blind faith that Thompson did the only possible thing that he could have done? Is that your opinion or view point Skin? If so, defend your position for once. Lets hear your explanation of what did happen. Or should we just sum it up as another example of your blind faith in Teddy?




Find me a quote where I say or even infer anything like this. Just because you're in the habit of posting unfounded retardosity that you can't support doesn't mean you get to project your idiocy on the rest of us for convenience's sake.

I asked you a simple question. If you can't answer it, just admit it. We'll accept that you didn't know WTF you were talking about and move on. Don't try to be a hard-on about it and lash out like a little girl in a cat fight..

I have already defended my position, yet I have not heard anything but name calling and childish rants from you. Get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? Somebody piss in your Wheaties? That time of the month?
Do you even have a point of view of your own, or are you just here to name call and argue?

[RashanGary]

I think TT also said after letting Wahle go that you don't make bad decisisons based on money. He made it sould like he could have done something. He recently said it was one of his bigger mistakes.


I know Thompson makes mistakes. That was a big one. Walker was a mistake. Walker did come back but got injured and thigns spiraled down from there. Franks was a mistake. Manuel looks like a mistake, but with the injury and lack of time with the team, that might work out.


We're all friends here, in a long-time internet forum sort of way, let's stick together and not get all insulting just because the tone changes a little.

[woodbuck27]

OK, let me take a stab at this. are you trying to say that Thompson tried to please Packer fans (his lady?)by telling us he was not rebuilding(unconventional ideas?) ........ while bending our Offense over and F#@#ing it in the A$$ with out the courtesy of lube :shock: or a reach around :bs: ? And that someday, we will all look back at what Ted has done as a good thing??

Am I close? :mrgreen:

EXACTLY!!

I probably misphrased, he is using lube otherwise I'm pretty sure there is no chance that it will be looked back upon as a good thing :)

I think that he' s leaving too much lube on to hang onto a phone to make some sort of deal to help ensure this season isn't a toss.

I just want the son of a gun to stop with the DAMN BS and get down to dealing with our needs. To stop making light of matters that many of us clearly are concerned over.

To stop telling us he can't understand why certain players elected to go to another team when his offer and pitch was just swell in his mind.

Has Ted Thompson any ego issue? YES!

I just can't determine if it's either too big or too small. The man is 'a really weird animal'. :) Tough, tough to figure out.

His style of managing wouldn't have given him three years in the NHL but we get him for five in Green Bay. It's like imagining a steady ration of prison food and 90% of the time spent in solitary. Painful !!

If you want to maintain your vehicle and it needs a new part you somehow find it. You don't neglect the cars general maintenance and replacement of the important parts. . . ie the battery.

If that part is essential for the smooth running and efficiency of your car you don't neglect replacing it, then go on to claim it's all good, or worse.

Announce that you expect that the car must run better now.

It's simple. You get out what you put in.

If we fail this season then TT has to be shown the door. It's a win-lose proposition for Ted Thompson. No excuses for Ted Thompson with $13 Million of CAP space and all the need we presently see on 'O' and all of those evident to us long before the draft and FA.

We the fans see those needs (saw those needs) and TT has no excuse to not see them (very clearly) being the Packer GM.

You see it then YOU fix it. You certainly give it a real try not behave as TT has this off season.

It's been total BS of late, after total neglect and failure this off season and please don't swell all up on him over hope for his April 07's draft success. We can't measure that.

[RashanGary]

I hear ya woody. We'll see how it goes. Hopefully it's a good season. I see some good things. You see some bad things. That's why the season should be fun.

:glug: to a great 2007 (hopefully, I have $100 on it :) )

[Zool]

I think that he' s leaving too much lube on to hang onto a phone to make some sort of deal to help ensure this season isn't a toss.

No words....i am speechless

[SkinBasket]

I may have missed it in the 1032 argumentative threads about this issue, but I have yet to see someone explain how we would have realistically been able to keep one, much less both, of those guys and still been able to sign or draft picks. Not sure how not having dick for money under the cap that year translates to "supposed cap problems." Seems pretty real to me.

You are assuming that the Packers had a salary cap problem that could not be fixed in any other way, other than the way that Thompson fixed it. Just as much as I am assuming that based on what Sherman had said, the O-line did not need to be torn apart the way that it was. My assumption is based on what I have heard from Sherman, your opinion is based on what? Facts? Lets hear your side of it then Skin. See if you can try to sell your viewpoint without name calling and childish rants.




And this is just as ambiguous an "explanation" as I've ever seen. To sum up: Sherman said we might be able to do it, therefore we definitely could do it. Convincing stuff.

Again, as opposed to your blind faith that Thompson did the only possible thing that he could have done? Is that your opinion or view point Skin? If so, defend your position for once. Lets hear your explanation of what did happen. Or should we just sum it up as another example of your blind faith in Teddy?




Find me a quote where I say or even infer anything like this. Just because you're in the habit of posting unfounded retardosity that you can't support doesn't mean you get to project your idiocy on the rest of us for convenience's sake.

I asked you a simple question. If you can't answer it, just admit it. We'll accept that you didn't know WTF you were talking about and move on. Don't try to be a hard-on about it and lash out like a little girl in a cat fight..

I have already defended my position, yet I have not heard anything but name calling and childish rants from you. Get out of bed on the wrong side this morning? Somebody piss in your Wheaties? That time of the month?
Do you even have a point of view of your own, or are you just here to name call and argue?


Oh for f*ck's sake hoser, you're the one who made the argument, not me. I asked you to defend it and you failed... miserably. You didn't "defend your position." You ignored the question. My position is that you're full of shit and you've done nothing to diminish that position.

Maybe we can try again. What do you propose the Packers should have done to find the money to sign Rivera and Wahle?

[woodbuck27]

I hear ya woody. We'll see how it goes. Hopefully it's a good season. I see some good things. You see some bad things. That's why the season should be fun.

:glug: to a great 2007 (hopefully, I have $100 on it :) )

Do yourself a real service and don't place a lot of money on our team this season.

We certainly won't win 8 games and I will most likely predict 5-6 wins at best. I just want to see how TT and MM handle Favre in the next two preseason games.

If he see's as little action as he did in TC 2005, then I believe that the Packers (we) are screwed big time in 2007.

Brett Favre needs work, and YES he has to be protected too.

The OL has that as a primary assignment. If Brett Favre goes down and the records don't fall. Then TT will feel more heat than any man should or deserve.

[Jerry Tagge]

Greg Olsen would of looked good in Green and Gold, right about now.

You can NOT have him, either ! :butt:
Packers don't need a TE that can't block. You can keep him.

[PackerBlues]

Oh for f*ck's sake hoser, you're the one who made the argument, not me. I asked you to defend it and you failed... miserably. You didn't "defend your position." You ignored the question. My position is that you're full of shit and you've done nothing to diminish that position.

Maybe we can try again. What do you propose the Packers should have done to find the money to sign Rivera and Wahle?

Nope, I am sorry, but I did state my position. It is pretty obvious that you only read what you want to read and retain what you want to retain. Need proof? I never once said that we could have kept both Wahle and Rivera. So, either you are making shit up just to continue your one-sided argument, or you dont actually pay attention to what you read. Dont back track on me now. I asked you to state your point of view without the name calling and the childish ranting. If you cannot do it on your own, ask your mommy for help.


:crazy:

[PackerBlues]

Brett Favre needs work, and YES he has to be protected too.

The OL has that as a primary assignment. If Brett Favre goes down and the records don't fall. Then TT will feel more heat than any man should or deserve.

Yeah, I was not to happy with the limited amount of snaps that our #1 Offense recieved. It always seemed to me, that a lot of times, Favre needed at least as many snaps as he got in the 1st preseason game, just to get settled down. Short of that, he always seemed to perk up after taking a good hit too. I prefer the extra snaps.

As far as the O-line, and everything else for that matter, this is the year that Teddy is going to get graded on. Up till now, the apologist and faithfull supporters of Thompsosn have been able to say "only time will tell", and "just wait and see". This is it, this coming season. If our Offense can find a way to score points, it may be a very enjoyable year. If not........my guess is that even Ted's supporters will take part in riding Ted out of town on a rail.

[woodbuck27]

Brett Favre needs work, and YES he has to be protected too.

The OL has that as a primary assignment. If Brett Favre goes down and the records don't fall. Then TT will feel more heat than any man should or deserve.

Yeah, I was not to happy with the limited amount of snaps that our #1 Offense recieved. It always seemed to me, that a lot of times, Favre needed at least as many snaps as he got in the 1st preseason game, just to get settled down. Short of that, he always seemed to perk up after taking a good hit too. I prefer the extra snaps.

As far as the O-line, and everything else for that matter, this is the year that Teddy is going to get graded on. Up till now, the apologist and faithfull supporters of Thompsosn have been able to say "only time will tell", and "just wait and see". This is it, this coming season. If our Offense can find a way to score points, it may be a very enjoyable year. If not........my guess is that even Ted's supporters will take part in riding Ted out of town on a rail.

The best thing is don't expect a lot then anything that's good will be a bonus.

I will be very surprized if we do well this season. That means 8 wins on my scale.

Sadly. It's just not in the cards.

I'm not down with the hand we were dealt by TT.

[RashanGary]

:glug:

To whatever comes. We're all Packer fans. Hey, I think TT's doing good and it might prove to be groundless. You think he took over and hurt the team more than he helped it. That's why the games are played and that's why it's so much fun to watch sports. Woodbuck, PB, me, everyone. . . We just agree to disagree.

[woodbuck27]

I hear ya woody. We'll see how it goes. Hopefully it's a good season. I see some good things. You see some bad things. That's why the season should be fun.

:glug: to a great 2007 (hopefully, I have $100 on it :) )

Do yourself a real service and don't place a lot of money on our team this season.

We certainly won't win 8 games and I will most likely predict 5-6 wins at best. I just want to see how TT and MM handle Favre in the next two preseason games.

If he see's as little action as he did in TC 2005, then I believe that the Packers (we) are screwed big time in 2007.

Brett Favre needs work, and YES he has to be protected too.

The OL has that as a primary assignment. If Brett Favre goes down and the records don't fall. Then TT will feel more heat than any man should or deserve.

So as a reality check here is where we are on Aug.14,2007 after our first preseason game (a WIN !!!!) over the Steelers:

Brett Favre tells jokes

Favre kiddingly said Tuesday, "I may play five more years."

In reality, though, Favre acknowledged he is at a point in his 17-year pro career where he can't wait on the young receivers, running backs and tight ends to blossom in five years.

"I want to win now. I hope everyone else does, too," Favre said. "Talent alone, I've said that so many times, does not get you championships. Chemistry does. It's hard for me to tell stories (about the successes of Green Bay teams) when these guys were in high school. We have to find it fast."

The youth and accompanying inexperience coursing through the lineup have contributed to alignment and assignment breakdowns that are affecting Favre's decision making on throws.

"I'm having to maybe anticipate or be a little more apprehensive or reluctant or a little timid," he said.

"It's hard to anticipate a throw downfield when I'm a little unsure if he's going to break (the route) off where I think he is. It's hard to play that way. But that's the way it is."

Driver, a ninth-year Packer with whom Favre says he has a trust factor, understands the frustration his quarterback felt Saturday.

"I think everyone has to realize that everyone is not a rookie anymore. Just because we're a young team, you have to be a veteran in this group," Driver said.

"Right now, if we don't improve as an offense, it's going to be a long ride for us. So, we want to make sure that it's not a long season for us."

[SkinBasket]

Oh for f*ck's sake hoser, you're the one who made the argument, not me. I asked you to defend it and you failed... miserably. You didn't "defend your position." You ignored the question. My position is that you're full of shit and you've done nothing to diminish that position.

Maybe we can try again. What do you propose the Packers should have done to find the money to sign Rivera and Wahle?

Nope, I am sorry, but I did state my position. It is pretty obvious that you only read what you want to read and retain what you want to retain. Need proof? I never once said that we could have kept both Wahle and Rivera. So, either you are making shit up just to continue your one-sided argument, or you dont actually pay attention to what you read. Dont back track on me now. I asked you to state your point of view without the name calling and the childish ranting. If you cannot do it on your own, ask your mommy for help.


:crazy:


You're bad at this. Really, really bad. Ask Harlan for some pointers. He does what you're trying to do, but without looking like a clueless wingbat.

[Fritz]

Back on page three someone wrote that Hawk was a "no-brainer." That defies the spirited debate on this board that spring, when many, many posters felt that Vernon Davis, the TE, would be a much better pick for this team.

Whoever said that it appears TT supporters are willing to be more patient than the detractors seems to have hit the nail on the head.

As for Favre, I didn't hear the interview, but from what I've read he seems a bit grumpy or sad or something. But when you are the old dog, most of your former running buddies gone, and a whole new, young cast of co-workers surrounds you, lots of old-timers get a little grumpy or nostalgic for earlier days. That's pretty natural.

[Bretsky]

Whoever said that it appears TT supporters are willing to be more patient than the detractors seems to have hit the nail on the head.


Absolutely right

[Fritz]

The question is, how long does TT have?

I say if the team doesn't finish strong this year and show some real muscle, then TT is in hot water. If though the team finishes well, the offense begins to gel, the defense looks top five-ish, then TT gets next year to finish it and get them into the playoffs.

[Bretsky]

The question is, how long does TT have?

I say if the team doesn't finish strong this year and show some real muscle, then TT is in hot water. If though the team finishes well, the offense begins to gel, the defense looks top five-ish, then TT gets next year to finish it and get them into the playoffs.

His free pass is over in my book; he chose not to go FA with all the money.
The record needs to improve, at a bare minimum.

[The Shadow]

I think that this 'new' Packers team may very well need one more season of conditioning. The O-line, in particular.
An 8-8 record - if the growth continues - would not be a major disappointment for me.
I can be patient when it's clear the path is steadily upward.
I would like to see Rodgers inherit a team with a very effective defense & excellent pass protection.

[wist43]

The question is, how long does TT have?

I say if the team doesn't finish strong this year and show some real muscle, then TT is in hot water. If though the team finishes well, the offense begins to gel, the defense looks top five-ish, then TT gets next year to finish it and get them into the playoffs.

TT will be in the captains chair for several years to come - regardless of record.

I expect McCarthy will be extended in the middle of the '08 season. Nobody is going anywhere - regardless of record.

[PackerBlues]

Here is something to think about in regards to Thompsons job. Due to his concentrating on mainly just building the Defense up with free agency and the draft, our offense is so questionable that many of the records that Favre should break this year, may not be attainable. Fritz brought up a good point in the fact that Ted could have just as easily have picked TE Vernon Davis instead of A.J. Hawk. That by the way, would have also have been a no-brainer pick (a pick nobody would have questioned). Moot point since Ted has focused so much more attention on Defense. I am not suggesting that it will be a deciding factor, but it is one more thing to grate on the nerves of Packer fans.


Favre is closing in on several more NFL records:

Second all-time in career passing touchdowns, with 414 (Marino, 420)

Needing only 7 TD's to take this record, how long do you think it will take with the Offense that Thompson is fielding this year? I doubt that anyone would worry about it if Thompson had put any effort into signing Moss.

Second all-time in career passing yards, with 57,500 (Marino, 61,361)

Less than 4,000 yards to surpass this record, yet with Thompson thinking its ok to turn a HOF QB into a Dilfer clone, getting this record is very questionable.

Second all-time in career pass attempts, with 8,223 (Marino, 8,358)

This one should be gravy, Favre has led the league the last two seasons in passing attempts. With Running back by committee, I have no doubt that M3 is going to have to cut Favre lose enough times to let Favre surpass this record by a country mile and then some.

Second all-time in single stadium passing yards, with 25,765 (Elway, 27,889)

Favre would need over 2,000 yards passing at home to get this record. i do not see it happening in just this year alone. I would say it was possible, just not with Thompsons Offense. (I wonder if the Milwaukee games counted towards this record)

Second all-time in career points by a quarterback, with 2,562 (Marino, 2,574)

As good as done! First game of the year?

Second all-time in career interceptions thrown by a quarterback, with 273 (George Blanda, 277)

This should be no problem at all. It should be easy for this Offense to continue to fall so far behind their opponents, that M3 will be forced once again to ask Favre to carry the Offense.........nothing new. It will also help if Ferguson and Franks are playing, to tip the ball to, or in Fergusons case, hand the ball to, a defender.

Second all-time in career record and wins by a starting quarterback regular season and playoffs combined, at 158-99 (Elway, 162-90-1)

Anyone think Favre may have to play one more season for this record? :roll:

Second all-time in most career 20 touchdown seasons by a quarterback, with 12 (Marino, 13)

This record was close to being tied last year, Favre had 18 TD's, Since I do not see any real significant improvement to this Offense over last years, I have my doubt that Favre will get this record.

Tied - Second all-time in career regular season record by a starting quarterback, at 147-90 (Elway, 148-82-1; Marino, 147-93)

Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels! :D

Tied - Second all-time in career regular season wins by starting quarterback, with 147 (Elway, 148; Marino, 147)

Gravy

Third all-time in career starts by an NFL quarterback, with 237 (Marino, 147-93; Tarkenton, 125-109-6 Both had 240)

Gravy

Third all-time in career consecutive starts by an NFL player, with 237 (Mick Tingelhoff, 240; Jim Marshall, 270)

Even if he played one more season beyond this year, he would be just shy of taking this record from Marshall.

Third all-time in career games by a quarterback, with 241 (Marino, 242; Tarkenton, 246)(Earl Morrall, 255 and George Blanda, 340 played more games, but most of their games were as kickers only)

wow

Some of these record will have nothing to do with the Offense that Thompson has given the Packers this year, others, will have people talking all year long.

[Spaulding]

This year is the litmus test I would think/hope. If the team in it's 3rd year under Thompson doesn't show substantial improvement I'd pray that TT's job would be up in the air or at least definitely on the line in 2008.

With regard to guard decisions in 2005 - he miscalculated and screwed up but things really went South with all the injuries. With regard to JWalk, I think there was fault on both sides and that if he'd have been healthy in 2005 that TT would have anted up and given him a raise for playing but when he got hurt things spiraled down from there. I thought 2006 was an encouraging year with the exception of the home blowouts which hurt and glaringly show how poor we are compared to decent teams outside the NFC North (initial Bears blowout not withstanding as it was 9-0 at the half and two blown coverages in the 2nd half sealed the fate).

His draft this year left me scratching my head a bit and his failure to address the TE position I see as another mistake but I think the safety and running back positions will work themselves out successfully in time for the regular season.

If the team is competitive this year and makes strides I fully expect TT to sign an impact FA this coming offseason to put us over the hump.

If the team isn't competitive or if the team is but still has holes that TT doesn't at least somewhat address through FA then I'll leave the fence and join in on the rants against the polar bear.

For all the anti-TT people though, what GM's do a consistantly better job? Going into last year the NE WR situation was a mess and it remainded that way throughout the season. Add to that their lack of depth in the secondary and being forced to play Troy Brown at times suggest a lack of the GM to address needs of Brady for playmakers and overall team depth and yet they produce.

Way too much is slammed against TT when he should be gauged just as much on his choice of head coach and the fact he will live and die with his performance almost as much as the players he drafts and FA moves he does or doesn't make.

Who knows what goes on behind closed doors where maybe McCarthy tells TT that he's happy with the TE situation and thus TT doesn't address that. We have no idea. Then again for that fact maybe McCarthy does voice his concern about TE play and it unfortunately falls on TT's deaf ears.

Just love the posts where people make statements that suggest it's the word of God and not just their rightful input versus others with more tempered posts trying to dry debate and not arguments.

[PackerBlues]

Just love the posts where people make statements that suggest it's the word of God and not just their rightful input versus others with more tempered posts trying to dry debate and not arguments.

I enjoyed reading your post, looks like you have been around these forums longer than I have, but I have not seen to many of your posts. I will be looking forward to reading more of them.

[Spaulding]

Thanks PB. You originally from Richland Center? If not, my condolences are I used to live in Muscoda a long, long, long time ago and remember well heading to the "big city" of Richland Center. Nice people, nice area but not a lot going on. Then again living in SE Minnesota isn't much of a treat. Nothing like getting down with TA (Trans Am) lingo, considering it a blessing to be talking to somebody with a full set of teeth, having almost as many Walmarts as liquor stores and thinking Nascar and World Wrestling Federation are on par with the NFL. Then again I'm speaking about Viking fans (sorry Rastak, I consider you the exception) so I guess little should surprise me.

[PackerBlues]

LOL, I actually live in Muscoda right now, at the time that I joined these forums, I was living in RC, just never bothered to change it on my profile. Dont feel to bad, your not missing much from this area. Muscoda is still lame as all hell, and Richland Center still has a 10 to 1 ratio of churches to bars. The 3 bars in RC are also lame as all hell, lol.

[Spaulding]

Still 1099 on the population sign?? I assume it's greater as I went back there about 20 years ago and noticed they had built houses on the cornfields and woods my Brother and I used get in trouble in.

At least it's on the Wisconsin River for camping/fishing/boating. Plus you get the Packers/Badgers broadcast out of Madison I assume. Had to resort to setting up a slingbox at a family members house in Wisconsin to catch half the Packer and Badger games.

[PackerBlues]

Heh heh, not sure what the population is now offhand, but it is still a very small town. All along the main street, there are quite a few empty buildings for rent, and the town mainly consists of 3 gas stations, 3 bars, 1 parts store, 1 hardware store, the grocery store, the police/fire station and the post office. I go to RC for pretty much everything I do, or to Madison for anything I cant do in RC. After living in Muscoda for nearly a year now, I was suprised to find out last week, that they actually have a swimming pool in town here, lol.

[hoosier]

[What do you propose the Packers should have done to find the money to sign Rivera and Wahle?

IMO arguing over whether Thompson could or couldn't have found the money to resign Wahle is missing the point. Let's assume he could have found a way, even though it might have involved creating more cap problems for himself down the road. Then the real question is, what would have been the medium-term cost? Would there be money two years later, money he used to sign Woodson, resign Kampmann, extend Driver and Barnett? Would you rather keep an established star on a team in decline or have the freedom to sign an emerging star when the team is rebuilding?

I think Thompson decided that the O-line Wolf built was all ready to fall apart (at least the Rivera and Flanagan two-fifths of it) and that, given that the wheels were starting to fall off, overpaying Wahle, while it may have been possible, wasn't worth it. So it's not could we or couldn't we, it's should we or shouldn't we.

[Spaulding]

Good point hoosier.

Whether TT has a done a good job as a GM is up for debate. In my eyes he's made mistakes but has also done a good job learning from them (importance of guard play and thus the picks in 2006 to address, the Walker contract fiasco and thus the extensions for Driver, Harris, etc.) and I strongly believe the overall depth of the team is far better this year than in 2005. He problems lie in his conservatism in FA (sometimes this is a good thing - i.e. no Joe Johnson, no LaVar Arrington, etc. and sometimes obviously a bad thing in that our TE slot is a mess and likely our lack of experience at RB could come back to bite us) which my gut tells me will change in the 2007/2008 off season if we're close to being a contender.

The question I have is how does TT stack up against the other GM's in the league? Some teams are perennial losers (Lions, Cards, etc.) and some teams just seem to find a way to consistently win since 2000 (Pats, Seahawks, Eagles, Broncos, Colts, etc.). How much credit goes to the GM and how much goes to the coach for each teams success? It seems to me that looking at these teams it's really the coaches that mostly receive credit and rightly so. Any roster can look substantially better with solid coaching and team chemistry and somewhat hide mediocre draft choices or average FA signings. What it can't handle is lots of dead money and thankfully we don't have much of that.

So far from what I've seen I like McCarthy and the no nonsense approach he has and they way he's even keeled and is task oriented.

[SkinBasket]

IMO arguing over whether Thompson could or couldn't have found the money to resign Wahle is missing the point.

I agree to the extent that I don't believe there even is an argument. We didn't have the money, and everyone who has ever claimed otherwise has been at a loss to explain where that money would have, could have, or should have, come from. This thread is no different. Of course, most of the time, as is evidenced here, the reply is usually along the lines of "Well we could have done it and Ted is a big fat idiot for not doing it." Of course no one ever has an answer as to what "it" was, outside of spending money they didn't have.

Oh well. A lot of people like to argue from the perspective that they are incontrovertibly right and then try to find evidence after the fact instead of looking at the evidence to formulate an opinion that might be right and go from there. This forum wouldn't be half as fun if there wasn't so much dimwittedness.

[SkinBasket]

Oh, and by "some people," I meant PackerBlues.

[Rastak]

IMO arguing over whether Thompson could or couldn't have found the money to resign Wahle is missing the point.

I agree to the extent that I don't believe there even is an argument. We didn't have the money, and everyone who has ever claimed otherwise has been at a loss to explain where that money would have, could have, or should have, come from.


To be honest, there are ways of getting money....you start cutting people. Now maybe that ends up worse than losing the original guy....but there are ways to do it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Wahle was due a ridiculous bonus though. Wasn't it like $8-$10M? They would have had to cut several players. A lot of times cutting a player doesn't help either. That's why a few years ago, it would have cost cap room to cut Brett Favre. (Not that they would have done it.) Now, he's played long enough on his current contract that they would actually gain cap room. Cutting a guy like KGB at that time wouldn't have gained them cap room. Remember, at the time, the Packers had zero available money. In fact, they had to clear cap room just to have enough money to sign their draft picks that year. That's why Sharper and Rivera had to go along with Wahle.

[Partial]

Why are we still debating Wahle? It's been two years now. He's no spring chicken anymore anyway.

[PackerBlues]

Brandt works to make cap fit Packers; Wahle, Rivera, Franks are top
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Feb 3, 2005 by ROB REISCHEL


Andrew Brandt has been asked repeatedly if he's anticipating his most challenging off-season to date.

Brandt, Green Bay's vice president of player finance who has handled free agent negotiations for the Packers the past seven years, knows this year's hurdles are formidable. But when he loses faith for even the slightest second, all he has to do is think back to 2001.

That year, the Packers were roughly $20 million over the salary cap. Safety Darren Sharper and Ryan Longwell were coming off big seasons and set to become unrestricted free agents. A new deal was being worked out for quarterback Brett Favre. And players such as Dorsey Levens, Antonio Freeman, Earl Dotson, Santana Dotson and LeRoy Butler were all being asked to restructure their contracts. Somehow, Brandt made it all work.

"It's hard to classify one (off-season) as the toughest or a toughest," Brandt said earlier this week. "It's always a challenge for one reason or another. But (2001) was a tough one."

The class of 2005 probably won't be as tricky. But it certainly has its substantial share of potential potholes.

Guards Mike Wahle and Marco Rivera along with tight end Bubba Franks head the list of Green Bay's 10 unrestricted free agents. Restricted free agents such as defensive end Aaron Kampman, tackle Kevin Barry and running back Najeh Davenport also could attract some interest.

Brandt and the Packers have only begun negotiations with these players. But in the next month, as the pressure intensifies to get several of these deals done, Brandt will be largely responsible for keeping the Packers viable under the salary cap and competitive on the field.

"We're going through our internal decision making priorities with (new general manager) Ted Thompson, with coach (Mike) Sherman, the personnel staff," Brandt said. "And we're presenting a lot of different scenarios. And as we always say, it's all for the greater good of the Packers. No one individual negotiation will detract from the greater good."

Brandt and the Packers took care of one potential restricted free agent near the end of the 2004 season, when they signed running back Tony Fisher to a one-year, $660,000 extension. Fisher, whose contract would have expired in March, received a $200,000 signing bonus and a $460,000 base salary in 2005.

The contract, signed in late December, allowed the Packers to pro- rate $100,000 of the signing bonus onto their 2004 cap and count the other half in 2005.

"It was an idea to store a little bit of that money away in 2004 when we had some cap room and saving a little bit in '05," Brandt said. "And also giving him cash to let him know how we feel about him and taking him off the restricted free agent market."

What lies ahead, though, for Brandt & Co. will make Fisher's deal look simple.

Wahle, arguably one of the top five guards in football, undoubtedly has to be a top priority. But whether the Packers can afford him remains to be seen.

Wahle turns 28 next month and is in his prime. The two sides are still feeling each other out, but Wahle indicated late in the year he expects this to be his blockbuster contract.

"I plan on it," Wahle told Packer Plus. "I think I'm one of the top (guards), no doubt about it. I'm pretty high. There's a lot of good players in this league, but honestly, I don't think there's a lot that do what I can do as far as moving around. What separates a lot of players is what they can do in space. And if I'm not one of the top guys, I don't know who is."

Rivera, who turns 33 in April, has been named to three consecutive Pro Bowls and is a favorite of Sherman. Rivera also switched agents recently from Ralph Cindrich to Jimmy Sexton.

Sexton has a long history of getting deals done with Green Bay, including those of left tackle Chad Clifton and defensive tackle Cletidus Hunt on the eve of free agency the past two years. But Brandt said such a move doesn't necessarily increase the chances of Green Bay and Rivera getting a deal done.

"Our offensive line are all special guys," Brandt said. "And what I'll say about that group is we're fortunate we've had them together for as many years as we have and we'll do our best to answer that challenge again."

Franks provides an interesting challenge as well. While he doesn't rank among the game's elite at the position, he's certainly in the top third. And Green Bay has no one ready to replace him. Whether the Packers allow Franks to test his value on the open market or lock him up before that will be intriguing.

Brandt will have a better idea of his budget when the salary cap is set in mid-February. Brandt is anticipating a jump to the $85 million range, up from this year's $80.49 mark.

"It's a double-edged sword if it comes in higher," Brandt said. "It allows us more room, but it also created a spending frenzy last year because teams felt that they almost got free money. So it's hard to say if you're rooting for more cap room or not, just depending on where it goes."

Until then, Brandt and the Packers' brass are outlining several possible scenarios -- often times drawing them out on a grease board. Whether things break how they hope will be determined in the next month.

"It's a lot of planning, it's a lot of scenarios," Brandt said. "It's trying to be best prepared for our common goal, which is to have the team we want and stay viable under the cap. Because again, you're always trying to do what's best short term and long term and sometimes those are competing interests. That's the challenge."

FREE AGENTS

UNRESTRICTED

1. Mike Wahle LG

2. Marco Rivera RG

3. Bubba Franks TE

4. Hannibal Navies LB

5. Bhawoh Jue S

6. David Martin TE

7. Brad Bedell OL

8. Doug Pederson QB

9. Torrance Marshall LB

10. Bryan Barker P

RESTRICTED

1. Aaron Kampman DE

2. Najeh Davenport RB

3. Kevin Barry OT

4. Craig Nall QB

5. J.T. OSullivan QB

6. R-Kal Truluck DE

7. Paris Lenon LB

Source:ASSOCIATED PRESS

Andrew Brandt has plenty to do as he works to re-sign key players for the Packers.

[PackerBlues]

My argument all along has been that the way Ted handled things in 2005 simply was not the only way that it could have been handled. Some people refuse to accept that, and would rather just bash my opinion and name call. By some people I mean SkinFlute.

I never once suggested that we could or should have kept both Wahle and Rivera. I have simply suggested that perhaps, contracts could have been restructured, and a contract for Wahle could have been back-loaded, knowing that the salary cap was going to go up in the following year. Saying that Whale is no spring chicken now is a moot point. He was just turning 28 two years ago, Rivera was going on 33, and still had a pro-bowl in him after leaving GB. If we had been able to keep Wahle, its my opinion, that our O-line would not have suffered as great of a loss, and a young guy could have been brought up slowly to replace him by now, or by whatever time Wahle proves to be unable to perform. I have stated this same argument as clearly as I could, while some people (SkinFlute) continue to bash me for it all the while not once telling me why it could not have been done this way.

I have simply been trying to point out that there is always more than one way to skin a cat, and Teds way is not the only way.

[RashanGary]

I agree PB. He made a mistake. Hindsight says he should have signed Wahle and let Bubba go.

Done is done though, we have two good guards now so the mistake only really hurt for a year. We ended up with Hawk becuase of it too so sometimes a step back helps you take a step forward if you take advantage of everything that comes your way.

I'll be the first to agree that Thompson makes mistakes. Wahle was probalby the biggest.

[SkinBasket]

I never once suggested that we could or should have kept both Wahle and Rivera.


I believe he even stated that he would probably be able to keep Darren Sharper, and either Wahle or Rivera


What I myself find upsetting, is that we obviously could have kept either Wahle or Rivera for another couple of years


Okay. Let me rephrase. What do you propose the Packers should have done to find the money to keep Sharper and resign Rivera or Wahle? Hell, even suggest what we could have done to keep just one of the linemen. It would be a start.



I have simply suggested that perhaps, contracts could have been restructured, and a contract for Wahle could have been back-loaded, knowing that the salary cap was going to go up in the following year.... I have stated this same argument as clearly as I could, while some people (SkinFlute) continue to bash me for it all the while not once telling me why it could not have been done this way.

Actually you've suggested nothing of the sort. You suggested that based upon what you thought you remembered Sherman saying at some interminable time in the past, you thought that obviously we could have both kept Sharper and one of the two linemen. That was it. Nothing about restructuring. Nothing about contracts. Nothing but, "Sherman said we could do it." And now you finally offer up such wisdom as "we could have restructured contracts and backloaded a deal for Wahle." Well that's about as likely to have happened as Ted shanking a leprechaun and using his gold to restructure every deal on the team with maximum signing bonuses to clear cap room. Why would Wahle take a backloaded contract? Who would have restructure enough to clear that kind of cap room? Do you also propose we should not have signed any of our rookies that year?



I have simply been trying to point out that there is always more than one way to skin a cat, and Teds way is not the only way.

You've been trying to point out that there's more than one way to skin a cat, only problem is you won't say what that is. Don't forget, you're the one "trying" to make the point, not me.

[PackerBlues]

Actually you've suggested nothing of the sort. You suggested that based upon what you thought you remembered Sherman saying at some interminable time in the past, you thought that obviously we could have both kept Sharper and one of the two linemen. That was it. Nothing about restructuring. Nothing about contracts. Nothing but, "Sherman said we could do it." And now you finally offer up such wisdom as "we could have restructured contracts and backloaded a deal for Wahle."


Well SkinFlute, I guess this proves my point. That you read what you want to read, and retain what you want to retain. On the very first page of this thread, I said:


When Thompson dismantled the O-line in 2005, the Thompson supporters claimed that it had to be done. It was the only way. It was not Ted's fault that he had to do it that way, it was what he inherited. I myself, and many others thought that all of that was BS. There are always other options. In this case, some contracts could have been restructured while back-loading others.

Try reading an entire post for once SkinFlute, rather than just bashing the parts that you dont agree with.

[SkinBasket]

You are completely hopeless.

[SkinBasket]

And put some pants on that avatar you pervert.

[PackerBlues]

Ya know SkinFlute I have no idea what your problem is. I could care less. I have stated my position, and you continue to misquote me while not adding anything yourself. For the record, I never said that I wanted to keep Sharper and Wahle. I said that I recalled Sherman making a statement that he thought we could perhaps keep Sharper and maybe Wahle or Rivera. If anyone is hopeless here it is you. Considering as how the Packers entered the 2006 offseason with a league best $32 million available under the salary cap, I do not understand why anyone, would find it so hard to believe that Wahle could have been signed in 2005.
On top of that, if you had read the article I posted earlier, you would have seen that the Packers were roughly $20 million over the salary cap in 2001, and they managed to keep things together. So what makes you think that it would have been so impossible to make things work in 2005?

[SkinBasket]

You'll have to forgive me. I have a tendency to overestimate people - to believe in hope rather than reality, and sometimes that leads me to believe people are playing a part, when in fact, it is simply who they are.

I'm a disturbed person, but I guess that what I'm saying is that even a lowly person as I have lines that I feel I shouldn't cross. Demeaning the retarded is one of them and I fully and wholeheartedly apologize. Please carry on and God bless your little heart.

[Rastak]

You'll have to forgive me. I have a tendency to overestimate people - to believe in hope rather than reality, and sometimes that leads me to believe people are playing a part, when in fact, it is simply who they are.

I'm a disturbed person, but I guess that what I'm saying is that even a lowly person as I have lines that I feel I shouldn't cross. Demeaning the retarded is one of them and I fully and wholeheartedly apologize. Please carry on and God bless your little heart.


Dude, live and let live.

[SkinBasket]

Dude, live and let live.

Right on, Rastak, right on!

[Scott Campbell]

I have stated my position, and you continue to misquote me ..........



Where have you been "misquoted"?

[Bretsky]

I think that this 'new' Packers team may very well need one more season of conditioning. The O-line, in particular.
An 8-8 record - if the growth continues - would not be a major disappointment for me.
I can be patient when it's clear the path is steadily upward.
I would like to see Rodgers inherit a team with a very effective defense & excellent pass protection.

I'd agree they might need one more year of conditioning
Some of this is due to the strategy TT has taken

I don't buy for a minute fans should not expect an improved record. TT has chosen his pathway; if that means choosing to neglect free agency because what you have is fine....or for whatever reason.....so be it......but let the judging start. Accountability measured by win loss record. That's what I'll look at.

[PackerBlues]

I give up :bs2: :bs2: :bs2:

[Bretsky]

Wahle was due a ridiculous bonus though. Wasn't it like $8-$10M? They would have had to cut several players. A lot of times cutting a player doesn't help either. That's why a few years ago, it would have cost cap room to cut Brett Favre. (Not that they would have done it.) Now, he's played long enough on his current contract that they would actually gain cap room. Cutting a guy like KGB at that time wouldn't have gained them cap room. Remember, at the time, the Packers had zero available money. In fact, they had to clear cap room just to have enough money to sign their draft picks that year. That's why Sharper and Rivera had to go along with Wahle.


The bonus was 6,000,000 if memory serves me right. It was possible, but make no mistake it would not have been easy at all. It would almost have had to include cutting Bubba, who at the time was still well thought of. And plenty of restructuring.

[RashanGary]

I'm not going to freak out about 8-8 either. I want 9-7 and the playoffs and I think it's very possible but if we're 8-8 and we're competitive against all teams and obviously on the upswing, I'm OK.

I don't think we'll have to settle for that though. I think the D is good enough and the O has enough talent to get it together by the season midpoint.

[Bretsky]

My argument all along has been that the way Ted handled things in 2005 simply was not the only way that it could have been handled. Some people refuse to accept that, and would rather just bash my opinion and name call. By some people I mean SkinFlute.

I never once suggested that we could or should have kept both Wahle and Rivera. I have simply suggested that perhaps, contracts could have been restructured, and a contract for Wahle could have been back-loaded, knowing that the salary cap was going to go up in the following year. Saying that Whale is no spring chicken now is a moot point. He was just turning 28 two years ago, Rivera was going on 33, and still had a pro-bowl in him after leaving GB. If we had been able to keep Wahle, its my opinion, that our O-line would not have suffered as great of a loss, and a young guy could have been brought up slowly to replace him by now, or by whatever time Wahle proves to be unable to perform. I have stated this same argument as clearly as I could, while some people (SkinFlute) continue to bash me for it all the while not once telling me why it could not have been done this way.

I have simply been trying to point out that there is always more than one way to skin a cat, and Teds way is not the only way.


IMO the only way to keep Wahle at that time was to pay his roster bonus of $ 6,000,000. He was going FA if we didn't do that. It was possilbe IMO, but very very hard.

Cliff Cristl believed in the star theory and said you just can't let your stars get away. He classified Wahle and Javon Walker as stars.

TT does not buy into that theory; in fact one of the good posters here (Tarlem) pointed out how TT took an approach early that did not place a ton of value on guards in the ZBS.

All water under the bridge now; TT admitted he did a shit job in 2005 of replacing the OG's and it's apparent that was true.

Now we just need this OL to grow up a heck of a lot faster than might be reasonable to expect.

Cheers,
B

[Bretsky]

I'm not going to freak out about 8-8 either. I want 9-7 and the playoffs and I think it's very possible but if we're 8-8 and we're competitive against all teams and obviously on the upswing, I'm OK.

I don't think we'll have to settle for that though. I think the D is good enough and the O has enough talent to get it together by the season midpoint.


A while back you stated quite clearly 9-7 was the mark

[RashanGary]

I've stated that 9-7 is what I expect and what I would be clearly happy with but if you go to your "what is a failure" thread, you'll see that I said I'd be OK with 8-8 but I really want 9-7.

[Bretsky]

I've stated that 9-7 is what I expect and what I would be clearly happy with but if you go to your "what is a failure" thread, you'll see that I said I'd be OK with 8-8 but I really want 9-7.


Measuring success; a thread I believe I created a long time ago. Pretty sure you clearly stated 9-7 was your stick.

Shadow has been consistent forever; he is patient enough to let GB do whatever and still keep the faith in TT

I'll be the fist to admit I'm an impatient prick...probably in real life and in judging pro teams :lol:

[Scott Campbell]

Cliff Cristl believed in the star theory and said you just can't let your stars get away. He classified Wahle and Javon Walker as stars.


I don't buy Wahle, or any guard as a star. I just don't. Hutchinson is a better guard than Wahle and he wasn't much of a difference maker in Minny.

[Bretsky]

Cliff Cristl believed in the star theory and said you just can't let your stars get away. He classified Wahle and Javon Walker as stars.


I don't buy Wahle, or any guard as a star. I just don't. Hutchinson is a better guard than Wahle and he wasn't much of a difference maker in Minny.


Hmm; I won't argue Hutchinson hasn't had much of an impact yet. I do think he's better, but I think they are in the same quality of player. Wahle was in his prime and one of the top OG's in the game when he left. I think he still is

[PackerBlues]

Wahle, Rivera coveted; Packers in danger of losing both guards
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Feb 26, 2005 by BOB McGINN


Indianapolis A thin crop of free-agent guards, their own tight salary cap and the reputations of Mike Wahle and Marco Rivera have left the Green Bay Packers in danger of losing not just one but both of their starting guards.

If neither player has a contract with Green Bay by the start of the signing period Wednesday, the Packers can forget about re- signing Wahle and probably will have a much more difficult time re- signing Rivera than they thought originally.

At 27, Wahle is five years younger than Rivera, but age isn't the only factor making Wahle the more attractive commodity in the eyes of many National Football League teams.

Despite the fact that Rivera has been voted to the last three Pro Bowls and Wahle has never gone, scouts covet Wahle because of his extraordinary athletic ability and less problematic medical history.

The Packers have been trying to re-sign Wahle but might be fighting a losing battle. Wahle probably is looking at a signing bonus of $10 million or more once he hits the open market.

"I really want to stay out of it as far as letting people know what's going on until things happen," Wahle said Friday. "I'm trying not to think about it."

Green Bay will have to release Wahle by the start of the league year Wednesday because his cap salary for 2005 would be an exorbitant $11.375 million. By doing so, the Packers would gain $11 million in cap room.

One would think the club could turn around and use that money to re-sign Rivera, especially given the tremendous loyalty he has shown for the organization. But Jimmy Sexton, his new agent, emphatically said loyalty wouldn't preclude Rivera from testing the market for the first time in his career as an unrestricted free agent.

"Having said that, he likes it in Green Bay a lot," Sexton said. "But just because you like it somewhere doesn't mean you don't look. You have to look."

Rivera parted ways with Ralph Cindrich, his prominent Pittsburgh- based agent for his entire 10-year career, shortly after the season ended. Cindrich said he made one final attempt at negotiating a deal for Rivera late in the season.

One source said one reason why Rivera selected Sexton was his track record for successfully negotiating contracts with Packers management, including vice president Andrew Brandt. Among Sexton's clients over the years were Reggie White, Harry Galbreath, Cletidus Hunt and Chad Clifton.

Also, it was Sexton who landed guard Randy Thomas a seven-year, $28 million free-agent contract from Washington in March 2003 that contained a $7 million signing bonus.

"We're in constant communication but neither side has sort of laid a deal on the table yet," Sexton said at the combine. "We'll do that in the next few days here."

If cut, Wahle would head the list of available guards. Despite being 32 with bad knees, Rivera might be No. 2 over Philadelphia's Jermane Mayberry, New England's Joe Andruzzi, former Denver Bronco Dan Neil and Pittsburgh's Keydrick Vincent.

Although some scouts have tossed about the possibility of a $3 million to $5 million signing bonus, it could be substantially higher if several teams join the bidding. Last year, the unrestricted guard market included Damien Woody getting a $9 million signing bonus from Detroit, Jeno James getting a $4.25 million bonus from Miami, Mike Goff getting a $3.5 million bonus from San Diego and Chris Villarrial getting a $2.875 million bonus from Buffalo.

"He's clearly the leader of that offensive line from an emotional, spiritual, however you want to say it standpoint," Sexton said about Rivera. "I think those guys are hard to come by. I think that's where he has value to teams in the league. I think teams that feel like they have a window in the next three to four years will be interested in a guy like him."

How did the Packers get into such an untenable situation with Wahle in the first place?

Early in the unrestricted signing period in March 2003, Wahle turned down an offer to play right tackle for Kansas City and signed a six-year, $18.4 million deal with the Packers. The deal looked good on paper for the agent, but in reality it was a three-year, $7.5 million deal because in 2005 his base salary skyrocketed to $5 million in addition to a $6 million roster bonus.

If the Packers had been willing to give Wahle more than $2.25 million in signing bonus at the time, the deal wouldn't have had the drop-dead point of March 2005. The team basically had Wahle at a reasonable rate for the last three seasons but always looming in the distance was the inevitable release of an outstanding player.

Barring unexpected events, that sad day for the Packers will arrive Wednesday.

Copyright 2005, Journal Sentinel Inc. All rights reserved. (Note: This notice does not apply to those news items already copyrighted and received through wire services or other media.)



Kinda blows my argument all to shit doesn't it. Still if they were $20Million over the cap in 2001 and were able to pull it off........maybe. :roll:

[RashanGary]

I can't find it B. You got a link?

[Scott Campbell]

A while back you stated quite clearly 9-7 was the mark

I "expect" the Packers to win the division. It's been 3 years. That doesn't mean that I think it will happen. It means I'll be dissapointed if we don't.

If we don't win the division, I'll be less likely to cut Ted slack. I may not be ready to fire him for a new guy. But I'll be wondering if Ted is the answer.

[Scott Campbell]

Cliff Cristl believed in the star theory and said you just can't let your stars get away. He classified Wahle and Javon Walker as stars.


I don't buy Wahle, or any guard as a star. I just don't. Hutchinson is a better guard than Wahle and he wasn't much of a difference maker in Minny.


Hmm; I won't argue Hutchinson hasn't had much of an impact yet. I do think he's better, but I think they are in the same quality of player. Wahle was in his prime and one of the top OG's in the game when he left. I think he still is


I like Wahle, and think he's a terrific player - same zip code as Hutch. But I don't think you can build your team around a guard the way you can around a stud RB, WR or QB. So I understand wanting to save that money for the difference making positions.

[PackerBlues]

I can't find it B. You got a link?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20050226/ai_n11828388

[Bretsky]

I can't find it B. You got a link?

OK, I'll go hunting again; last time only took me 20 minutes :)

If you haven't noticed, any time a pro TT person gives any fair level of success to be measured by I tend to pay special attention.

[Scott Campbell]

I can't find it B. You got a link?

OK, I'll go hunting again; last time only took me 20 minutes :)

If you haven't noticed, any time a pro TT person gives any fair level of success to be measured by I tend to pay special attention.


I think I've been very consistent on my requirments of the team this year. Win the division. As Tank used to say "check my archives".

:D

[PackerBlues]

I like Wahle, and think he's a terrific player - same zip code as Hutch. But I don't think you can build your team around a guard the way you can around a stud RB, WR or QB. So I understand wanting to save that money for the difference making positions.

I understand what your saying. I just never forgave Thompson for going into the 2005 season with that O-line. I hate bringing it up, but he himself admitted that it was probably his biggest mistake. I was pissed off watching Brett Favre, our HOF QB, having to scramble and run for his life. I have a hard time believing that Thompson couldn't have done something differently to make that O-line better.

[RashanGary]

GM's make mistakes. It's sort of part of the gig just like QB's throw INT's. I try to judge him on the whole picture rather than the three mistakes, sort of the same way you judge Favre.

You have fun with it though and people get into with with you, arguing details of which you usually have the upper hand. You have the exact personality of the hacker. I could care less if you are, but there is a clear reminance that we've seen before. You're personality is eerily familiar.

[GrnBay007]

GM's make mistakes. It's sort of part of the gig just like QB's throw INT's. I try to judge him on the whole picture rather than the three mistakes, sort of the same way you judge Favre.

You have fun with it though and people get into with with you, arguing details of which you usually have the upper hand. You have the exact personality of the hacker. I could care less if you are, but there is a clear reminance that we've seen before. You're personality is eerily familiar.

Those that don't like TT = Hackers???? :shock: :shock:

...come to think of it, I always wondered about Bretsky. :P

[Bretsky]

I can't find it B. You got a link?

OK, I'll go hunting again; last time only took me 20 minutes :)

If you haven't noticed, any time a pro TT person gives any fair level of success to be measured by I tend to pay special attention.


HERE IS OUR OLD EXCHANGE; WAY BACK FROM MAY

JustinHarrell wrote:
Also, 8-8 is average so that is a C grade; hardly an F where ever you went to school.

I want the team to be better than last year. 8-8 is minimum for me to not be disappointed. As far as it being a success, I want 9 wins.



Justin,

While I don't consider you an extreme Turtle apologist, you are a strong Snapper supporter. I wanted to point out that I have the utmost respect for the fact that you are willing to state your view and give some parameters to judge TT by.

You have stated a few times that for next year to be successful you want to see improvement in the record and if you don't see that you will begin to see the dark side with me.

What I don't get it those who want to give TT a free pass. Blind faith and no parameters whatsoever from which to judge him by. We can debate whether or not individuals improve forever, but it's TT's job to go forward to field a winning team. It's frickin time to make the playoffs. That simple

I do take into account the harder schedule, but I also take into account that GB had more money than 27 other teams entering free agency. It's Ted's decision how to spend it...via free agency or signing his own....but that fiscal flexibility to improve at least evens out the tougher schedule IMO.

He is accountable; he needs to also show accountability and that boils back to wins losses. His free passes should be over.

I hope he is making all the correct decisions for this team to become a contender.

[RashanGary]

Something about the tone. Has nothing to do with TT.

[RashanGary]

I'll be disappointed with 7-9 and consider it a success with 9-7. 8-8 is a draw. I never really painted myself in a corner. I'll be disappointed with 7-9 as a fan but if there is a ton of injuries I won't blame it on TT. You set the parameters as they relate to TT in the rigid ways you view them, not me :)

Being disappointed in the season and hanging the GM out to dry are two different things. I did say many times that if this team is clearly not improving by now I'll jump off. Clearly not improving can be a part of a 7-9 record but it's not as rigid as you want to make it.

[Bretsky]

I can't find it B. You got a link?

OK, I'll go hunting again; last time only took me 20 minutes :)

If you haven't noticed, any time a pro TT person gives any fair level of success to be measured by I tend to pay special attention.


I think I've been very consistent on my requirments of the team this year. Win the division. As Tank used to say "check my archives".

:D


You've been quite upfront; I'm not sure you fall into the TT at all costs group. Many are in the wait and see group to different extremes. You may have a pro bias, but you are definitely in the wait and see group.

I think you are a bit harsh though; GB is not as good as the Bears. I'd be fine with an improved record or wildcard. In a sad NFC, 9 wins will probably get us to the playoffs.

[Bretsky]

GM's make mistakes. It's sort of part of the gig just like QB's throw INT's. I try to judge him on the whole picture rather than the three mistakes, sort of the same way you judge Favre.

You have fun with it though and people get into with with you, arguing details of which you usually have the upper hand. You have the exact personality of the hacker. I could care less if you are, but there is a clear reminance that we've seen before. You're personality is eerily familiar.

Those that don't like TT = Hackers???? :shock: :shock:

...come to think of it, I always wondered about Bretsky. :P


Now just because we like the same porn sites doesn't mean I've attached a trojan virus to your PC and watch the videos with you :lol: :lol:

If only I wasn't a PC idiot I could be a hacker

[GrnBay007]

If only I wasn't a PC idiot I could be a hacker

yeah, yeah, you just pretend you don't know how to post a pic or change your avatar. :P

[Bretsky]

I'll be disappointed with 7-9 and consider it a success with 9-7. 8-8 is a draw. I never really painted myself in a corner. I'll be disappointed with 7-9 as a fan but if there is a ton of injuries I won't blame it on TT. You set the parameters as they relate to TT in the rigid ways you view them, not me :)

I just appreciate it when people actually set parameters; most TTers avoid them like a plague. I think there were other comments about this from you that led me to my comment....maybe I'm wrong......I had to go back to May to find those and I don't have it in me to keep looking.

[Scott Campbell]

You've been quite upfront; I'm not sure you fall into the TT at all costs group. Many are in the wait and see group to different extremes. You may have a pro bias, but you are definitely in the wait and see group.

I think you are a bit harsh though; GB is not as good as the Bears. I'd be fine with an improved record or wildcard. In a sad NFC, 9 wins will probably get us to the playoffs.


I won't assume he's stupid. I won't assume he's inept. I won't assume he doesn't have a plan. I won't assume that he's not desperately trying to upgrade the roster at the RB, S and TE positions.

What I will assume is that there is a lot going on behind the scenes that the general public will never know about. And many of these things could very well explain why the players that we want are not the players that we got.

Now if he trades up to draft a BJ Sander in the 3rd, then I'll just assume he's an idiot.

[RashanGary]

Haha, B.

I'm not going to paint TT into a record expectation because so much goes into it. I expect TT to keep this team improving and we should be at least 8-8 if we improve, but I'm not going to give up on TT if the record falls short an other things show signs of being on the up and up.

I will give up if the team shows it's not getting better. If we take steps back and it's clear we're not competitive. I've said that before and I've promised to jump off TT's wagon if that happened. I've never promised to jump off based on the record. Too much goes into it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What I don't get it those who want to give TT a free pass. Blind faith and no parameters whatsoever from which to judge him by.

You talking to me?
:D

Whether you agree with it or not, I've said several times that I give Thompson a free pass for 2005. He took over a team that was 10-6, but it was pretty obvious to any fair-minded person that he took over an old team that got weak off a shitty division. A team that had a terrible salary cap situation. He couldn't rebuild that year--since the team WAS coming off a 10-6 season. To me, I started really judging him starting in 2006. I like the forward progress. He's made plenty of mistakes, but he now has a team that has a lot of young talent and has a REALLY healthy salary cap situation for the foreseeable future--and not just because the cap has gone up. I think he made a good, if "unsexy," choice for head coach. There are guys that I wish he would have gone after, but I'm not privy to the practices, so I don't know enough to know whether he should have had as much faith on his young players as he does. I expect him to do more (e.g. next year) once this team truly becomes chamionship caliber to put them over the top. For now, I'd like to see them build off last year. I'm not that big on wins and losses. I'd like to see them beat the teams they should and hang with the upper echelon teams.

This is year 2 in the rebuilding process. I give him 3 years to complete it.

[Bretsky]

What I don't get it those who want to give TT a free pass. Blind faith and no parameters whatsoever from which to judge him by.

You talking to me?
:D

Whether you agree with it or not, I've said several times that I give Thompson a free pass for 2005. He took over a team that was 10-6, but it was pretty obvious to any fair-minded person that he took over an old team that got weak off a shitty division. A team that had a terrible salary cap situation. He couldn't rebuild that year--since the team WAS coming off a 10-6 season. To me, I started really judging him starting in 2006. I like the forward progress. He's made plenty of mistakes, but he now has a team that has a lot of young talent and has a REALLY healthy salary cap situation for the foreseeable future--and not just because the cap has gone up. I think he made a good, if "unsexy," choice for head coach. There are guys that I wish he would have gone after, but I'm not privy to the practices, so I don't know enough to know whether he should have had as much faith on his young players as he does. I expect him to do more (e.g. next year) once this team truly becomes chamionship caliber to put them over the top. For now, I'd like to see them build off last year. I'm not that big on wins and losses. I'd like to see them beat the teams they should and hang with the upper echelon teams.


No was not referring to you at all; you are in the wait and see group. We probably have several similar views; I'm just less patient...I think. And I'll probably consider wins and losses more.....guess that's the main difference

[PackerBlues]

What I don't get it those who want to give TT a free pass. Blind faith and no parameters whatsoever from which to judge him by.

You talking to me?
:D

Whether you agree with it or not, I've said several times that I give Thompson a free pass for 2005. He took over a team that was 10-6, but it was pretty obvious to any fair-minded person that he took over an old team that got weak off a shitty division. A team that had a terrible salary cap situation. He couldn't rebuild that year--since the team WAS coming off a 10-6 season. To me, I started really judging him starting in 2006. I like the forward progress. He's made plenty of mistakes, but he now has a team that has a lot of young talent and has a REALLY healthy salary cap situation for the foreseeable future--and not just because the cap has gone up. I think he made a good, if "unsexy," choice for head coach. There are guys that I wish he would have gone after, but I'm not privy to the practices, so I don't know enough to know whether he should have had as much faith on his young players as he does. I expect him to do more (e.g. next year) once this team truly becomes chamionship caliber to put them over the top. For now, I'd like to see them build off last year. I'm not that big on wins and losses. I'd like to see them beat the teams they should and hang with the upper echelon teams.


No was not referring to you at all; you are in the wait and see group. We probably have several similar views; I'm just less patient...I think

Like I have said, I am loyal to Favre to a fault. I was so pissed off watching the beatings Favre took when his scrambling wasnt enough. It was a tough season to watch. :( Mix that with losing Walker (which may have been out of his hands also), I have become more upset by the fact that he has not found a reciever of equal talent in two years.

So not only am I less patient, I am also a lot less forgiving.

[HarveyWallbangers]

No was not referring to you at all; you are in the wait and see group. We probably have several similar views; I'm just less patient...I think. And I'll probably consider wins and losses more.....guess that's the main difference

I thought real games would help calm things down, but some people are still in offseason mode. What did you think of the first game? You have to admit it was a much better effort then we've seen in the first preseason game for about the last seven years. I know the first team offense struggled, but that's happened plenty of times before with Favre. This first home preseason game is usually when he starts showing something. The whole 1st team offense was off, but it was a lot of little things that are correctable. Personally, I was afraid we'd see another typical preseason opener against a blitzing 3-4 defense, and not just with the first team. I was somewhat pleasantly surprisdes--although I realize it's just a preseason game and means nothing. Glad there were no serious injuries--more than anything. I think the depth is better. Last year, I felt like we had about a half dozen or more question marks. This year, I'm only worried about three positions (S, TE, RB). My concern with Jackson isn't his running ability or his pass catching. Have to hope he is adequate in pass protection. Unlike you, I do think Morency has to play a solid role on the team this year for us to have a chance at the playoffs.

[GrnBay007]

I thought real games would help calm things down, but some people are still in offseason mode.


I did too!! ...esp. a win!!! Now I'm hoping it's a regular season game that does the trick.

[Bretsky]

No was not referring to you at all; you are in the wait and see group. We probably have several similar views; I'm just less patient...I think. And I'll probably consider wins and losses more.....guess that's the main difference

I thought real games would help calm things down, but some people are still in offseason mode. What did you think of the first game? You have to admit it was a much better effort then we've seen in the first preseason game for about the last seven years. I know the first team offense struggled, but that's happened plenty of times before with Favre. This first home preseason game is usually when he starts showing something. The whole 1st team offense was off, but it was a lot of little things that are correctable. Personally, I was afraid we'd see another typical preseason opener against a blitzing 3-4 defense, and not just with the first team. I was somewhat pleasantly surprisdes--although I realize it's just a preseason game and means nothing. Glad there were no serious injuries--more than anything. I think the depth is better. Last year, I felt like we had about a half dozen or more question marks. This year, I'm only worried about three positions (S, TE, RB). My concern with Jackson isn't his running ability or his pass catching. Have to hope he is adequate in pass protection. Unlike you, I do think Morency has to play a solid role on the team this year for us to have a chance at the playoffs.


I've gave some of my kool aide views on the game in a different thread, but here they are

1. I saw talent in Jackson; as you know I'm not a Morency guy but I see upside in Jackson and first impressions are good

2. The DL looks rock solid. Jenkins...impressive

3. The OL has plenty of improving to do still

4. Rodgers played an excellent game; jury still out, but I'm higher on him than I have been in the past

5. Jones has good hands, Holiday looks like he should make it. Fraud needs to pack his bags

6. The safeties still do not look good. Underwood needs to go on the PUP or IR and get fully recovered from the looks of it

7. I think Blackmond is improving

8. Favre is not a big concern, but once he has a bad game or two I see certain people blowing up the forum with the Rodgers cries

9. We really need to scour the waiver wire for the TE's or make a trade happen.

10. Crosby looks really good.

[PackerBlues]

8. Favre is not a big concern, but once he has a bad game or two I see certain people blowing up the forum with the Rodgers cries


Using our 1st round pick on Rogers was a mistake that year. Why?

Thompson is building this team around a strong Defense, not a good QB. Considering as how Thompson is building this team around a strong defense, an average QB with enough smarts to manage the game is all that you need. Not to hard to find in Free Agency......if you have the balls to use it.

Rogers has not started a single game in the two years he has been here, and might not start one for another year or more. Had Thompson used that pick on any other player at any other position, chances are, we would have had a starter at that position by now.

Most Thompson supporters/apologist do not like to admit that Picking Rogers was a mistake. They seem to think that when Rogers gets his start, their faith in, and loyalty to Thompson will be vindicated. That it will make everyone else forget the mistake, or at the very least, that they will no longer have to make excuses for said mistake.

Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with Rogers as a person or a player. Again, to me, he is just one more, in a long line, of Brett Favre's back-ups. Did I see improvement in Rogers against the Steelers? Hell yeah I did. But he is still just the back up QB, not the starter. If Thompson and M3 are planning on building this team around a strong Defense, and not a HOF QB, then damned near any QB will work to simply manage the game.

[Scott Campbell]

Most Thompson supporters/apologist do not like to admit that Picking Rogers was a mistake. They seem to think that when Rogers gets his start, their faith in, and loyalty to Thompson will be vindicated.



I think you have a hard enough time keeping track of what you yourself are thinking, much less anyone else. Why don't you let people speak for themselves?

[PackerBlues]

I think you have a hard enough time keeping track of what you yourself are thinking, much less anyone else. Why don't you let people speak for themselves?

Feel free to speak for yourself, I just did. Anytime you want to voice your own opinion, go right ahead. They say that there is a first time for everything, but in your case, I won't hold my breath.

[SkinBasket]

Feel free to speak for yourself, I just did. Anytime you want to voice your own opinion, go right ahead. They say that there is a first time for everything, but in your case, I won't hold my breath.

Yes, because SC is known for not voicing his opinion.

[woodbuck27]

A while back you stated quite clearly 9-7 was the mark

I "expect" the Packers to win the division. It's been 3 years. That doesn't mean that I think it will happen. It means I'll be dissapointed if we don't.

If we don't win the division, I'll be less likely to cut Ted slack. I may not be ready to fire him for a new guy. But I'll be wondering if Ted is the answer.

We're about as likely to win the NFCN in 2007 as we are to see hummingbirds in a salt shaker.

[woodbuck27]

PackerBlues.

Slap some good sense into them. :worship: :bclap:

:glug:

[cheesner]

8. Favre is not a big concern, but once he has a bad game or two I see certain people blowing up the forum with the Rodgers cries


Using our 1st round pick on Rogers was a mistake that year. Why?

Thompson is building this team around a strong Defense, not a good QB. Considering as how Thompson is building this team around a strong defense, an average QB with enough smarts to manage the game is all that you need. Not to hard to find in Free Agency......if you have the balls to use it.

Rogers has not started a single game in the two years he has been here, and might not start one for another year or more. Had Thompson used that pick on any other player at any other position, chances are, we would have had a starter at that position by now.

Most Thompson supporters/apologist do not like to admit that Picking Rogers was a mistake. They seem to think that when Rogers gets his start, their faith in, and loyalty to Thompson will be vindicated. That it will make everyone else forget the mistake, or at the very least, that they will no longer have to make excuses for said mistake.

Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with Rogers as a person or a player. Again, to me, he is just one more, in a long line, of Brett Favre's back-ups. Did I see improvement in Rogers against the Steelers? Hell yeah I did. But he is still just the back up QB, not the starter. If Thompson and M3 are planning on building this team around a strong Defense, and not a HOF QB, then damned near any QB will work to simply manage the game.
When Rodgers was drafted, Favre was already in a 'this may be my last year mode'. TT had no idea on when he would need to replace Favre. Whether you can win or not with an average QB, the wins come much easier with a good QB, because it allows you to do so much more. For instance, what good is a WR who can 'stretch the field' when your QB can only throw 25 yards? There have been some great teams with only average QBs, but they would have been even greater with a great QB. Whenever you can get a very good QB, you do it - especially when there are question marks on your roster as there was for the Packers.

[PackerBlues]

I understand that people were speculating that Favre would retire that year, however one could still argue that QB was not so pressing of a need that we needed to use a first round pick on Rogers. We had J.T O'Sullivan as our 3rd string QB, and Craig Nall as our 2nd string. I always thought that Nall looked pretty good, and he did have enough experience to start.
Nall had started for the Scottish Claymores of NFL Europe in 2003 and was the league's leading passer. In 2004 Nall played in 5 games as Brett Favre's backup. He completed 23 of 33 passes for 314 yards and 4 touchdowns, with no interceptions, and a passer rating of 139.4.
Between Rogers and Nall, I would think that Nall would have gotten the starting position anyway, if Favre had retired before the 2005 season.

[SkinBasket]

I always thought that Nall looked pretty good, and he did have enough experience to start.
Nall had started for the Scottish Claymores of NFL Europe in 2003 and was the league's leading passer. In 2004 Nall played in 5 games as Brett Favre's backup. He completed 23 of 33 passes for 314 yards and 4 touchdowns, with no interceptions, and a passer rating of 139.4.
Between Rogers and Nall, I would think that Nall would have gotten the starting position anyway, if Favre had retired before the 2005 season.


Nall is super-awesome - as is evidenced by the way his career has SKYROCKETED since leaving GB.

[PackerBlues]

I always thought that Nall looked pretty good, and he did have enough experience to start.
Nall had started for the Scottish Claymores of NFL Europe in 2003 and was the league's leading passer. In 2004 Nall played in 5 games as Brett Favre's backup. He completed 23 of 33 passes for 314 yards and 4 touchdowns, with no interceptions, and a passer rating of 139.4.
Between Rogers and Nall, I would think that Nall would have gotten the starting position anyway, if Favre had retired before the 2005 season.


Nall is super-awesome - as is evidenced by the way his career has SKYROCKETED since leaving GB.

Yeah, kinda like Rogers career has SKYROCKETED. Going from being Brett Favre's backup in 2005 to being.........Brett Favre's backup in 2007. :wow:

[cheesner]

I always thought that Nall looked pretty good, and he did have enough experience to start.
Nall had started for the Scottish Claymores of NFL Europe in 2003 and was the league's leading passer. In 2004 Nall played in 5 games as Brett Favre's backup. He completed 23 of 33 passes for 314 yards and 4 touchdowns, with no interceptions, and a passer rating of 139.4.
Between Rogers and Nall, I would think that Nall would have gotten the starting position anyway, if Favre had retired before the 2005 season.


Nall is super-awesome - as is evidenced by the way his career has SKYROCKETED since leaving GB.

Yeah, kinda like Rogers career has SKYROCKETED. Going from being Brett Favre's backup in 2005 to being.........Brett Favre's backup in 2007. :wow:You got me there. If a guy can't unseat one of the greatest QBs of all time within 3 years, he obviously must suck. I don't understand you PB, you openly admit you think Favre is great, yet you expect a young inexperienced QB to unseat him? Something missing in the logic.

[PackerTimer]

I always thought that Nall looked pretty good, and he did have enough experience to start.
Nall had started for the Scottish Claymores of NFL Europe in 2003 and was the league's leading passer. In 2004 Nall played in 5 games as Brett Favre's backup. He completed 23 of 33 passes for 314 yards and 4 touchdowns, with no interceptions, and a passer rating of 139.4.
Between Rogers and Nall, I would think that Nall would have gotten the starting position anyway, if Favre had retired before the 2005 season.


Nall is super-awesome - as is evidenced by the way his career has SKYROCKETED since leaving GB.

Yeah, kinda like Rogers career has SKYROCKETED. Going from being Brett Favre's backup in 2005 to being.........Brett Favre's backup in 2007. :wow:

Except Nall has been playing second fiddle to J.P. Losman. If he can't beat out J.P. fricken Losman, how did you expect him to take over in Green Bay?

[PackerBlues]

Did it matter at all, in the least, who was Brett Favre's backup in GB the last two years. Again, I am looking at it from the point of view that Rogers was a wasted draft pick. Nall and Rogers are both back ups right now, and wondering which one of them is a better QB is a moot point, because again, they are both nothing more than backups.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Haha, B.

I'm not going to paint TT into a record expectation because so much goes into it. I expect TT to keep this team improving and we should be at least 8-8 if we improve, but I'm not going to give up on TT if the record falls short an other things show signs of being on the up and up.

I will give up if the team shows it's not getting better. If we take steps back and it's clear we're not competitive. I've said that before and I've promised to jump off TT's wagon if that happened. I've never promised to jump off based on the record. Too much goes into it.

For this season to be a success, for me it's all about the playoffs. I expect NO LESS than 9 wins and absolutely no games were we are completely blown out from start to finish.

[Rastak]

I always thought that Nall looked pretty good, and he did have enough experience to start.
Nall had started for the Scottish Claymores of NFL Europe in 2003 and was the league's leading passer. In 2004 Nall played in 5 games as Brett Favre's backup. He completed 23 of 33 passes for 314 yards and 4 touchdowns, with no interceptions, and a passer rating of 139.4.
Between Rogers and Nall, I would think that Nall would have gotten the starting position anyway, if Favre had retired before the 2005 season.


Nall is super-awesome - as is evidenced by the way his career has SKYROCKETED since leaving GB.


How much playing time has he had? Wasn't Losman a pretty high draft pick himself?

[Bretsky]

Most hear know I detested Rodgers as a draft pick for Green Bay; main reason was I wanted to win one more title before Favre left and I felt after Favre retired there is alwaya serviceable QB to grab via free agency (little did I know about Turtleology then) that we could sign as a stop gap before we use a high draft pick to find one.

But I'm willing to give Rodgers a chance when it occurs and admit he's looked better this year.

[SkinBasket]

Did it matter at all, in the least, who was Brett Favre's backup in GB the last two years. Again, I am looking at it from the point of view that Rogers was a wasted draft pick. Nall and Rogers are both back ups right now, and wondering which one of them is a better QB is a moot point, because again, they are both nothing more than backups.

Oh, so now it's a point of view thing again, and a moot point at that. Very convenient. This thread is turning into a highlight reel of sorts for you Blues. Not one I would want to watch if I were you, but entertaining nonetheless.


How much playing time has he had? Wasn't Losman a pretty high draft pick himself?

If he was good enough, in at least one person's ill-formed opinion, to replace Favre, I'm sure he should have been good enough to beat out a disappointing Losman. There's a reason why guys like Nall don't get more playing time, and it's not because they are good players. High draft pick or no, teams don't tend to sit the better QB the way they might other positions.

[Partial]

Did it matter at all, in the least, who was Brett Favre's backup in GB the last two years. Again, I am looking at it from the point of view that Rogers was a wasted draft pick. Nall and Rogers are both back ups right now, and wondering which one of them is a better QB is a moot point, because again, they are both nothing more than backups.

Oh, so now it's a point of view thing again, and a moot point at that. Very convenient. This thread is turning into a highlight reel of sorts for you Blues. Not one I would want to watch if I were you, but entertaining nonetheless.


How much playing time has he had? Wasn't Losman a pretty high draft pick himself?

If he was good enough, in at least one person's ill-formed opinion, to replace Favre, I'm sure he should have been good enough to beat out a disappointing Losman. There's a reason why guys like Nall don't get more playing time, and it's not because they are good players. High draft pick or no, teams don't tend to sit the better QB the way they might other positions.

So was Grossman. People picked a Favre successor just about every year since 2002-2003 that they could gamble on in the 1st and develop.

[PackerBlues]

Oh, so now it's a point of view thing again, and a moot point at that. Very convenient. This thread is turning into a highlight reel of sorts for you Blues. Not one I would want to watch if I were you, but entertaining nonetheless.


I really have to wonder, just what in the fuck is your problem? I see all sorts of intelligent posts from other people in this thread. Hell, some of the people, I dont even agree with at all at times, and yet they at least state their own opinions in an intelligent and well thought out manner. All I have seen from you is your pompous remarks about posts that I have made, with nothing at all from you of your own opinions, nothing intelligent, nothing thought out. Just stupid assed sarcasm with nothing to add.
From your very first post in this thread, you have done nothing but challenge me and demand explanations that you simply ignore anyway. You quote me as having said things that I did not say, and when I prove it, your warped little mind cant handle it, so you disapear for a while only to pop up again later, demanding more proof or explanations about shit that I have already gone over.

So, yes, this thread is turning into a highlight reel of sorts, and anyone that wants to go back and look through this thread will have no problem figuring out where I stand on the issues that the title of the thread suggests. Favre, Thompson, and Rogers. The only person I can see that should be embarrassed by their posts, is you. Every post that you have put into this thread has been no more than a sentence or two demanding proof of something, making smart-assed comments about something that I or someone else posted, or just plain and simple ranting. Hell man, people that I dont agree with at all have made me question my stand a number of times. They usually throw together a few paragraphs of well thought out material. Unlike you, again, anyone wanting to go back and look at your posts, is only going to see one or two sentences of sarcastic, smart assed shit.

Feel free to continue throwing words like "retardosity" at me, and demanding explanations that have already been given, but that you choose time and time again to ignore, it will fall on deaf ears. This is the last time that I will be responding to your negative BS. Get help, because to be honest with you buddy, I really pity you.

[Scott Campbell]

You (Skin) quote me as having said things that I did not say........



Where did he misquote you?

[superfan]

Using our 1st round pick on Rogers was a mistake that year. Why?

Thompson is building this team around a strong Defense, not a good QB. Considering as how Thompson is building this team around a strong defense, an average QB with enough smarts to manage the game is all that you need. Not to hard to find in Free Agency......if you have the balls to use it.

Rogers has not started a single game in the two years he has been here, and might not start one for another year or more. Had Thompson used that pick on any other player at any other position, chances are, we would have had a starter at that position by now.

Most Thompson supporters/apologist do not like to admit that Picking Rogers was a mistake. They seem to think that when Rogers gets his start, their faith in, and loyalty to Thompson will be vindicated. That it will make everyone else forget the mistake, or at the very least, that they will no longer have to make excuses for said mistake.

Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with Rogers as a person or a player. Again, to me, he is just one more, in a long line, of Brett Favre's back-ups. Did I see improvement in Rogers against the Steelers? Hell yeah I did. But he is still just the back up QB, not the starter. If Thompson and M3 are planning on building this team around a strong Defense, and not a HOF QB, then damned near any QB will work to simply manage the game.

First, it is way too early to call the pick of Aaron Rodgers a mistake. We have no idea yet whether he is a first round pick caliber of player or not. When he was taken, it was not with the intention of challenging Favre's starting job, it was insurance in case Favre decided to hang up the cleats after the 2005 season. If Favre had done so, and if we had passed on Rodgers, there would have been lots of second guessing. The defense was nowhere near as strong as it is now, and most Packer fans I know were fully expecting a return to the dark ages if Favre retired with no Plan B at QB other than Nall and Sullivan. I would guess most of us still feel that way.

You can certainly argue that they could've or should've taken somebody else who could have provided more help in the short term. But none of us know yet if the Rodgers pick was a mistake. Brunell didn't do anything in a Packer uniform, would you call drafting him a mistake? He has gone on to have a productive career.

Second, although I agree with your statement that Thompson is building a strong defense, I infer that your meaning is that he is building a strong defense at the expense of the offense, and that his blueprint is a team like the Dilfer led Baltimore SB team. I don't see that. The one consistent thing I've seen out of Thompson is that he is building for the long term, not the short term. Considering the state of the defense since he took over the team, his moves have had a greater short term impact on improving the defense. But based on what he has done he is hardly neglecting the offense. He spent a first round pick on Rodgers. He has spent high picks on Jennings, Jones, Jackson, Colledge, Spitz. The common thread that I see with his moves, including the Harrell pick, is drafting for the future and for value, not immediate need and defensive focus. His approach is debatable, but to suggest that he is only trying to build a strong defense seems inaccurate.

Two examples of winning teams that had great defenses but lacked great QBs were the 2000 Ravens (Dilfer) and 2002 Buccaneers (Brad Johnson). These teams tend to be the exception, not the norm, and you usually need a balanced team to win the SB. If the goal is to build a great defense but punt the QB position, then Thompson would be making a huge mistake.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well said, superfan.
:bclap:

[Bretsky]

Over the past ten years the Super Bowl Winner has averaged over 26 points per game in the regular season. Source was ESNP Mort. Interesting tidbit.

[SkinBasket]

I really have to wonder, just what in the fuck is your problem? I see all sorts of intelligent posts from other people in this thread. Hell, some of the people, I dont even agree with at all at times, and yet they at least state their own opinions in an intelligent and well thought out manner. All I have seen from you is your pompous remarks about posts that I have made, with nothing at all from you of your own opinions, nothing intelligent, nothing thought out. Just stupid assed sarcasm with nothing to add.

Let's travel back in time a short distance, my friend, to when you said this:


Say a few bad things about Ted Thompson or Aaron Rogers, and just look at all the fun you can have playing with the Douche bags that go into attack mode.

For someone who seems to revel in having fun "playing with the Douche bags that go into attack mode," you certainly have thin skin. You see, I don't have a problem with you. I don't know you. Although you do seem to take things very personally, all I know about you is what you post here and from my perspective, what you've posted in this thread, for the most part, has been unfounded, dim-witted prattle.

When I see said unfounded, dim-witted prattle, my first inclination is to ask said poster to provide some basis for the garbage they are spewing from their pie-hole. I asked that of you. You replied with nonsense, accusations of misquoting, taking your words out of context, backpedaling, circular (though I cringe to use the word as it implies there was some kind of form to your thinking) arguments asking me to refer to your admittedly unfounded basis as proof of your ranting, and eventually after asking me to stop insulting you by insulting me, an admission that you were completely wrong, or as you put it, after finally educating yourself to a very small degree of the subject you were so ardently arguing about:


Kinda blows my argument all to shit doesn't it.

So I thought maybe you might have learned something. Until you immediately chose a new subject for your senseless banter. And I was a little sad.



From your very first post in this thread, you have done nothing but challenge me and demand explanations that you simply ignore anyway. You quote me as having said things that I did not say, and when I prove it, your warped little mind cant handle it, so you disapear for a while only to pop up again later, demanding more proof or explanations about shit that I have already gone over.

Well god forbid I ask you to defend what you assert as truth. As we already saw in our discussion about the offensive line in 05, it did you a lot of good to have someone challenge you. You learned you were not as completely and absolutely right in all your assumptions as you thought you were. You did some reading. When you tried to find proof for your opinion, you found evidence you were wrong, despite your multiple and mind-numbing assertions otherwise. You learned something, I thought at the time, and had much higher expectations for your future posts. It's unfortunate that you seemed to forget what you had learned by the next day however.


So, yes, this thread is turning into a highlight reel of sorts, and anyone that wants to go back and look through this thread will have no problem figuring out where I stand on the issues that the title of the thread suggests. Favre, Thompson, and Rogers. The only person I can see that should be embarrassed by their posts, is you. Every post that you have put into this thread has been no more than a sentence or two demanding proof of something, making smart-assed comments about something that I or someone else posted, or just plain and simple ranting. Hell man, people that I dont agree with at all have made me question my stand a number of times. They usually throw together a few paragraphs of well thought out material. Unlike you, again, anyone wanting to go back and look at your posts, is only going to see one or two sentences of sarcastic, smart assed shit.

Don't forget, Mr. Angry-Pants, that you are the one making assertions in this thread. You are the one trying to make some kind of point. I'm not a Ted supporter nor do I feel particularly strong feelings for Rogers. I simply don't agree with your opinions, so I challenge them. At which point you seem to fly off the handle, go berserk-o, and lose all sense of what point you were even trying to make. You make accusations, offer no support for your thoughts, and generally do a piss poor job of making a constructive argument, which is why I'm here - to discuss, dispute, and argue points about the Packers. Not to listen to wildly uninformed opinions being advanced as truth and then have you go all nutty when someone asks you to back up your nonsense with something -anything really - that would pass as fact or evidence or contextual support. It's a simple thing really, and a basic tenant of debating anything.



Feel free to continue throwing words like "retardosity" at me, and demanding explanations that have already been given, but that you choose time and time again to ignore, it will fall on deaf ears. This is the last time that I will be responding to your negative BS. Get help, because to be honest with you buddy, I really pity you.

I'm deeply touched that you pity me. I will continue to use words like retardosity when what I see is a bonanza of retarded thought being thrown at me like some kind of squirming worm ball of confusion and ignorance. It's too bad that you feel unable to defend yourself and your ideas to the degree you are simply going to ignore anyone who challenges them, but it's not entirely uncommon in the world of internet forums, so don't feel too bad.



I really have to wonder, just what in the fuck is your problem?

I hope this has helped you in your wondering. My problem is with your "arguments," for lack of a better term, not you, and think it's unfortunate you seem unable to separate the two.

[PackerBlues]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20050226/ai_n11828388

This article, is a compelling argument that the Packers would not have been able to sign Wahle in 2005. My opinion/argument was that contracts could have been restructured, and Wahle's contract could be back loaded. I have admitted, that after reading this article, that my opinion/argument may have been shot to hell, and furthermore, it was Shermans fault that the Packers were taking a bigger cap hit from Wahle than they would have had to take, had Sherman offered the correct tender to Wahle. Which by the way, is the same reason that KGB ended up with the huge contract that he had gotten, Sherman offered the wrong tender, The Eagles made KGB an offer, and GB had to offer more to keep KGB. Both mistakes, Shermans fault.

I do not have a problem with admitting that I am wrong. However when faced with my opinion against someone elses, I will continue to try to find ways to argue my side until I see facts/proof, that prove me wrong. In this case, I found what would amount to enough proof to prove me wrong, or at the very least to tear my opinion/argument all to hell. I did not wait for someone else to find the article, I posted it myself, and admitted I may be wrong. Here is what made me at the very least question my belief that Whale could have been signed from the above linked article:

Wahle probably is looking at a signing bonus of $10 million or more once he hits the open market.

Green Bay will have to release Wahle by the start of the league year Wednesday because his cap salary for 2005 would be an exorbitant $11.375 million. By doing so, the Packers would gain $11 million in cap room.

If cut, Wahle would head the list of available guards.

Early in the unrestricted signing period in March 2003, Wahle turned down an offer to play right tackle for Kansas City and signed a six-year, $18.4 million deal with the Packers. The deal looked good on paper for the agent, but in reality it was a three-year, $7.5 million deal because in 2005 his base salary skyrocketed to $5 million in addition to a $6 million roster bonus.

If the Packers had been willing to give Wahle more than $2.25 million in signing bonus at the time, the deal wouldn't have had the drop-dead point of March 2005. The team basically had Wahle at a reasonable rate for the last three seasons but always looming in the distance was the inevitable release of an outstanding player.

Barring unexpected events, that sad day for the Packers will arrive Wednesday.

Again, I posted this article myself. I have no problem admitting that I may be wrong when faced with something more than another persons opinion. There are some here though that will get very defensive in taking the other side of the arguemnt. People such as Skinbasket that when faced with an argument/opinion they do not agree with, will attack by calling another persons opinion "unfounded retardosity", or say such things as "My position is that you're full of shit" , rather than come up with anything of value to back up their own opinion or side of an argument.


Even though I freely admit that the above linked article does poke some pretty huge holes in my belief that Wahle could have been signed, we are still faced with the facts that in 2001, the Packers were approx $20 million over the salary cap, and managed to work it out, and that in 2006, the Packers topped the league in salary cap room by being $35 million dollars under the cap. Knowing this, I dont think anyone could say that it is a FACT that Wahle could not have been signed, just that it was not probable.


Now, why did I want to try to argue that Wahle could have been signed? Ted Thompson admitted that not shoring up the O-line before the 2005 season may have been his biggest mistake to date. The 2005 O-line was a subject that had been debated heatedly in these forums time and again before Thompson made that comment. Again, for myself personally, I am always going to be loyal to Brett Favre. Seeing the pocket collapse in front of Brett time and time again in 2005, pissed me off. Seeing Brett's old body take the beatings that he had been taking in 2005 pissed me off. Seeing Brett continually have to scramble the way he had to in 2005 pissed me off. Seeing Brett's interceptions skyrocket as a result of the O-line in 2005 pissed me off. Seeing that Brett's biggest weapon, Donald Driver, was usually double teamed and the rest of his weapons were either inexperienced or simply could not catch a damned ball without tippin it, or in Fergys case HANDING it to a defender pissed me off. Not having a second reciever such as Walker pissed me off.

So, who can I blame for all of those things in 2005 that pissed me off? Well, naturally, I looked to blame Thompson. I looked for any excuse I could, to lay the blame on him, and I admit that freely. I tried to argue that Wahle could have been signed, and while I do not believe that anyone can step up and claim that it is a fact that Wahle could not have been signed, I myself admit that it was not very probable. It is still my opinion that Thompson not only could have done a better job at shoring up the O-line before the 2005 season (say for instance by using his first round pick on something other than a backup QB), but that he also did not see the importance of having experienced guards. I believe someone else here quoted Thompson as having said that "guards are a dime a dozen in the NFL", while I vaguely remember hearing that myself, I do not have a direct quote to back that up.

There are many other things about Thompson that I have strong opinions on, that I will continue to debate. I will freely admit, that someone may prove me wrong on any one of these things. But that is why we all come to these forums. Not just to stay updated on current Packer news, but to debate past history in an attempt to sway others towards our opinion or point of view as to what happened, or as to why something happened a certain way. Again, I do not claim that I am always right, or that my opinion is the only one that matters. For instance, not all of, but some of the things that Justin Harrell writes, comes off as being overly optimistic to me. Yet I still enjoy reading his opinions, and I respect the way he thinks things out and the way he comes across in debating his point of view. The things he writes are well thought out and you can see his enthusiasm in his writing. I respect that, and will always enjoy reading his posts, irregardless as to weather I agree with him or not. However, I have no respect whatsoever for people like Skinbasket, with their simple response of one or two sentences that challenge a post without taking a stand on their point of view at all. I have no respect for a person who instead of trying to point out what is wrong with my opinion, will simply attack in a sarcastic or demeaning way.

I apologize to everyone here (other than skinbasket) for blowing up on him the way that I did. In case anyone had not noticed, I have got an awful temper, not a short fuse, just a temper that I do not control very well once the fuse has been lit. I look forward to reading more posts from all of you and debating the issues that we as Packer fans, so enjoy debating.
Again, I am sorry for the blowup, and I will try harder to ignore the negativity of people like Skinbasket. :oops:

[Scott Campbell]

You (Skin) quote me as having said things that I did not say........



Where did he misquote you?




So where did he misquote you?

[Scott Campbell]

People such as Skinbasket that when faced with an argument/opinion they do not agree with, will attack by calling another persons opinion "unfounded retardosity", or say such things as "My position is that you're full of shit" , rather than come up with anything of value to back up their own opinion or side of an argument.



First off, Skin talks that way to his friends. What makes you think he's going to cut you any slack?

Secondly, you've lost your temper with people who pointed out your "facts" were flawed. You've initiated insults. I don't really buy into the "PackerBlues is a victim of meanies" logic.

It helps to have a thick skin around here, because some of us are just naturally sarcastic.

[Packnut]

Using our 1st round pick on Rogers was a mistake that year. Why?

Thompson is building this team around a strong Defense, not a good QB. Considering as how Thompson is building this team around a strong defense, an average QB with enough smarts to manage the game is all that you need. Not to hard to find in Free Agency......if you have the balls to use it.

Rogers has not started a single game in the two years he has been here, and might not start one for another year or more. Had Thompson used that pick on any other player at any other position, chances are, we would have had a starter at that position by now.

Most Thompson supporters/apologist do not like to admit that Picking Rogers was a mistake. They seem to think that when Rogers gets his start, their faith in, and loyalty to Thompson will be vindicated. That it will make everyone else forget the mistake, or at the very least, that they will no longer have to make excuses for said mistake.

Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with Rogers as a person or a player. Again, to me, he is just one more, in a long line, of Brett Favre's back-ups. Did I see improvement in Rogers against the Steelers? Hell yeah I did. But he is still just the back up QB, not the starter. If Thompson and M3 are planning on building this team around a strong Defense, and not a HOF QB, then damned near any QB will work to simply manage the game.

First, it is way too early to call the pick of Aaron Rodgers a mistake. We have no idea yet whether he is a first round pick caliber of player or not. When he was taken, it was not with the intention of challenging Favre's starting job, it was insurance in case Favre decided to hang up the cleats after the 2005 season. If Favre had done so, and if we had passed on Rodgers, there would have been lots of second guessing. The defense was nowhere near as strong as it is now, and most Packer fans I know were fully expecting a return to the dark ages if Favre retired with no Plan B at QB other than Nall and Sullivan. I would guess most of us still feel that way.

You can certainly argue that they could've or should've taken somebody else who could have provided more help in the short term. But none of us know yet if the Rodgers pick was a mistake. Brunell didn't do anything in a Packer uniform, would you call drafting him a mistake? He has gone on to have a productive career.

Second, although I agree with your statement that Thompson is building a strong defense, I infer that your meaning is that he is building a strong defense at the expense of the offense, and that his blueprint is a team like the Dilfer led Baltimore SB team. I don't see that. The one consistent thing I've seen out of Thompson is that he is building for the long term, not the short term. Considering the state of the defense since he took over the team, his moves have had a greater short term impact on improving the defense. But based on what he has done he is hardly neglecting the offense. He spent a first round pick on Rodgers. He has spent high picks on Jennings, Jones, Jackson, Colledge, Spitz. The common thread that I see with his moves, including the Harrell pick, is drafting for the future and for value, not immediate need and defensive focus. His approach is debatable, but to suggest that he is only trying to build a strong defense seems inaccurate.

Two examples of winning teams that had great defenses but lacked great QBs were the 2000 Ravens (Dilfer) and 2002 Buccaneers (Brad Johnson). These teams tend to be the exception, not the norm, and you usually need a balanced team to win the SB. If the goal is to build a great defense but punt the QB position, then Thompson would be making a huge mistake.


For the life of me, I can't fathom how anyone can defend Thompson when it comes to the offense. If your not seeing it, than your not paying attention. Teddy is a very poor evaluator when it comes to offense. The facts support that view. He virtually gave a way a blue chip WR that keeps a D honest.

Anyone with just a little understanding of the game knows you must either have a passing game that can stretch the field or a running game that can keep the D honest. We have NEITHER and several of you are gonna learn just exactly what that means.

This offense is going to struggle AGAIN. Just how many years do we have to rank at the bottom in RZ effieiency and points scored before it becomes obvious that Teddy has NO CLUE when it comes to building an offense?

Also this slow cautious approach that some of you seem to be so proud of, does not guarentee success nor does it make a GM out to be a genious. The NFL is modeled to build a team much quicker than in the past. Some of you are so quick to except mediocrity, that's it's down-right funny.

[PackerBlues]

[quote=PackerBlues]You (Skin) quote me as having said things that I did not say........



Where did he misquote you?


If you are so interested, look it up yourself. Skinbasket misquoted me as saying that the packers could have signed Sharper and either Wahle or Rivera. What I had actually written was that I recalled Sherman making a statement that HE thought that we could probably sign Sharper and possibly either Rivera or Wahle. I do not have a direct quote to that, so I cannot prove that Sherman said it, or that he said it that way. To my recollection, we had Longwell, Sharper, Wahle, and Rivera to sign, and he may have even worded it that we may be able to keep either Longwell or Sharper and Wahle or Rivera.

Irregardless, Skinbasket misquoted me in a sarcastic and intentionally demeaning way as having said myself, that "we could have kept Sharper and either Wahle and Rivera". He misquoted me as if I was a complete idiot for saying such a thing.......when I never said it at all.
That would be in addition to taking things out of context in a negative way as well.

[Scott Campbell]

Teddy is a very poor evaluator when it comes to offense. The facts support that view.


The facts? Well maybe some of them do support that notion, but certainly not all of them:

1) Jennings
2) Colledge
3) Spitz
4) Jones (it's early, but the reviews so far are promising. I believe this was the pick you or somebody said something like "this is Ted trying to prove he's smarter than everyone else".

[Carolina_Packer]

At what point do you say enough arguing about this stuff, and just let it go?

Why don't we argue about about whether we should have traded for John Hadl back in the 70's?

Why don't we argue about whether we should have drafted Ronnie Lott instead of Rich Campbell in 1981?

Why don't we argue whether we should have drafted Barry Sanders instead of Tony Mandarich in 1989?

It doesn't rise to the level of getting so worked up. Let's argue about what's in front of us...this season. Good discourse, discussion is one thing, but at some point, you gotta get off the topic train at the station somewhere instead of riding it endlessly.

[SkinBasket]

If you are so interested, look it up yourself. Skinbasket misquoted me as saying that the packers could have signed Sharper and either Wahle or Rivera. What I had actually written was that I recalled Sherman making a statement that HE thought that we could probably sign Sharper and possibly either Rivera or Wahle. I do not have a direct quote to that, so I cannot prove that Sherman said it, or that he said it that way. To my recollection, we had Longwell, Sharper, Wahle, and Rivera to sign, and he may have even worded it that we may be able to keep either Longwell or Sharper and Wahle or Rivera.

Irregardless, Skinbasket misquoted me in a sarcastic and intentionally demeaning way as having said myself, that "we could have kept Sharper and either Wahle and Rivera". He misquoted me as if I was a complete idiot for saying such a thing.......when I never said it at all.
That would be in addition to taking things out of context in a negative way as well.

I guess I'm just going to be ignored in a very passive-aggressive sort of way now. Well, here's where we all began this arduous journey:



I may have missed it in the 1032 argumentative threads about this issue, but I have yet to see someone explain how we would have realistically been able to keep one, much less both, of those guys and still been able to sign or draft picks. Not sure how not having dick for money under the cap that year translates to "supposed cap problems." Seems pretty real to me.

It has been explained. It has been explained repeatedly. While Sherman was still in charge, before Thompson took over and dismantled the Offense, Sherman stated that the cap was tight. That he was not going to be able to sign everyone. I believe he even stated that he would probably be able to keep Darren Sharper, and either Wahle or Rivera, but not both. So, there was room to maneuver, and that is not even counting the fact that at that time, the salary cap was expected to take a huge jump the following year.

If Sherman could have done it, then Thompson could have too. I dont think that anyone is suggesting that Thompson could have kept the entire O-line intact, but at the same time, I dont think anyone really believes that Thompson needed to go fuckin nuts and let every single big name, big money veteran go the way that he did. What I myself find upsetting, is that we obviously could have kept either Wahle or Rivera for another couple of years.


You are assuming that the Packers had a salary cap problem that could not be fixed in any other way, other than the way that Thompson fixed it. Just as much as I am assuming that based on what Sherman had said, the O-line did not need to be torn apart the way that it was.

In other words, you were basing your argument off what Sherman said. Or is this somehow another misquote? I wouldn't want to demean you in any way by relying on your own words, or maybe something like... oh I don't know... changing your username to something supposedly demeaning whenever I quote you because that would just be downright terrible and go against everything you stand for. Right?

Please, ignore away.

[SkinBasket]

It doesn't rise to the level of getting so worked up. Let's argue about what's in front of us...this season. Good discourse, discussion is one thing, but at some point, you gotta get off the topic train at the station somewhere instead of riding it endlessly.

That would be going against almost everything that this site was built upon. We need one of these every now and again to reaffirm why the good times are good.

[Carolina_Packer]

Skinbasket,

Is that a reject Teletubbie in your signature picture?

[PackerBlues]

Using our 1st round pick on Rogers was a mistake that year. Why?

Thompson is building this team around a strong Defense, not a good QB. Considering as how Thompson is building this team around a strong defense, an average QB with enough smarts to manage the game is all that you need. Not to hard to find in Free Agency......if you have the balls to use it.

Rogers has not started a single game in the two years he has been here, and might not start one for another year or more. Had Thompson used that pick on any other player at any other position, chances are, we would have had a starter at that position by now.

Most Thompson supporters/apologist do not like to admit that Picking Rogers was a mistake. They seem to think that when Rogers gets his start, their faith in, and loyalty to Thompson will be vindicated. That it will make everyone else forget the mistake, or at the very least, that they will no longer have to make excuses for said mistake.

Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with Rogers as a person or a player. Again, to me, he is just one more, in a long line, of Brett Favre's back-ups. Did I see improvement in Rogers against the Steelers? Hell yeah I did. But he is still just the back up QB, not the starter. If Thompson and M3 are planning on building this team around a strong Defense, and not a HOF QB, then damned near any QB will work to simply manage the game.

First, it is way too early to call the pick of Aaron Rodgers a mistake. We have no idea yet whether he is a first round pick caliber of player or not. When he was taken, it was not with the intention of challenging Favre's starting job, it was insurance in case Favre decided to hang up the cleats after the 2005 season. If Favre had done so, and if we had passed on Rodgers, there would have been lots of second guessing. The defense was nowhere near as strong as it is now, and most Packer fans I know were fully expecting a return to the dark ages if Favre retired with no Plan B at QB other than Nall and Sullivan. I would guess most of us still feel that way.

You can certainly argue that they could've or should've taken somebody else who could have provided more help in the short term. But none of us know yet if the Rodgers pick was a mistake. Brunell didn't do anything in a Packer uniform, would you call drafting him a mistake? He has gone on to have a productive career.

Second, although I agree with your statement that Thompson is building a strong defense, I infer that your meaning is that he is building a strong defense at the expense of the offense, and that his blueprint is a team like the Dilfer led Baltimore SB team. I don't see that. The one consistent thing I've seen out of Thompson is that he is building for the long term, not the short term. Considering the state of the defense since he took over the team, his moves have had a greater short term impact on improving the defense. But based on what he has done he is hardly neglecting the offense. He spent a first round pick on Rodgers. He has spent high picks on Jennings, Jones, Jackson, Colledge, Spitz. The common thread that I see with his moves, including the Harrell pick, is drafting for the future and for value, not immediate need and defensive focus. His approach is debatable, but to suggest that he is only trying to build a strong defense seems inaccurate.

Two examples of winning teams that had great defenses but lacked great QBs were the 2000 Ravens (Dilfer) and 2002 Buccaneers (Brad Johnson). These teams tend to be the exception, not the norm, and you usually need a balanced team to win the SB. If the goal is to build a great defense but punt the QB position, then Thompson would be making a huge mistake.


For the life of me, I can't fathom how anyone can defend Thompson when it comes to the offense. If your not seeing it, than your not paying attention. Teddy is a very poor evaluator when it comes to offense. The facts support that view. He virtually gave a way a blue chip WR that keeps a D honest.

Anyone with just a little understanding of the game knows you must either have a passing game that can stretch the field or a running game that can keep the D honest. We have NEITHER and several of you are gonna learn just exactly what that means.

This offense is going to struggle AGAIN. Just how many years do we have to rank at the bottom in RZ effieiency and points scored before it becomes obvious that Teddy has NO CLUE when it comes to building an offense?

Also this slow cautious approach that some of you seem to be so proud of, does not guarentee success nor does it make a GM out to be a genious. The NFL is modeled to build a team much quicker than in the past. Some of you are so quick to except mediocrity, that's it's down-right funny.

I think that part of the reason so many people ignore the Packers lack of a deep threat (other than a double teamed Donald Driver), is because they look at GB's 8-8 record as being something to be proud of, as opposed to the 4-12 record from 2005.

Our 8 wins:

Week 3 against the Lions. 31-24
The Lions ended the season 3-13, and at this point in the season, GB had not won a game yet. This was a close game against a shit team.

Week 7 against Miami. 34-24
The Dolphins ended the season 6-10, this win put the Packers at 2-4, coming off a buy week.

Week 8 against the Cardinals. 31-14
The Cardinals ended the season 5-11, this win put the Packers at 3-4.

Week 10 against the Vikings. 23-17
The Vikings ended the season at 6-10, this win put the Packers at 4-5.

Week 14 against SanFran. 30-19
SanFran ended the season at 7-9. This win comes off of a 3 game losing streak, and put the Packers at 5-8 for the season.

Week 15 against the Lions. 17-9
again, the Lions ended the season 3-13. Packers are now 6-8

Week 16 against the Vikings. 9-7
again, the vikings ended the season at 6-10. Packers are now 7-8

Week 17 against the Bears. 26-7
The Bears ended the season at 13-3. This win put the Packers at 8-8


None of the teams that the Packers beat last year even had a .500 winning percentage, other than the Bears, who already had the division locked up, and were in the playoffs with a buy week irregardless of the outcome of their game against the Packers.

We know that a HUGE part of the problem was scoring in the red zone. Did Thompson address that?

[SkinBasket]

Skinbasket,

Is that a reject Teletubbie in your signature picture?

That is the one and only Prince from the world of Katamari Damacy, son of the King of All Cosmos. and he carries much more distinction than a "reject teletubbie!"



http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/bombtrak/king_cosmos.jpg
King of All Cosmos: This sky is not pretty at all. It's rough and masculine. Possibly sweaty.

King of All Cosmos: We broke it. Yes, we were naughty. Completely naughty. So, so very sorry. But just between you and us, it felt quite good.

King of All Cosmos: We are moved to tears by the size of this thing.

[swede]

I think that part of the reason so many people ignore the Packers lack of a deep threat (other than a double teamed Donald Driver), is because they look at GB's 8-8 record as being something to be proud of, as opposed to the 4-12 record from 2005.

Our 8 wins:

Week 3 against the Lions. 31-24
The Lions ended the season 3-13, and at this point in the season, GB had not won a game yet. This was a close game against a shit team.

Week 7 against Miami. 34-24
The Dolphins ended the season 6-10, this win put the Packers at 2-4, coming off a buy week.

Week 8 against the Cardinals. 31-14
The Cardinals ended the season 5-11, this win put the Packers at 3-4.

Week 10 against the Vikings. 23-17
The Vikings ended the season at 6-10, this win put the Packers at 4-5.

Week 14 against SanFran. 30-19
SanFran ended the season at 7-9. This win comes off of a 3 game losing streak, and put the Packers at 5-8 for the season.

Week 15 against the Lions. 17-9
again, the Lions ended the season 3-13. Packers are now 6-8

Week 16 against the Vikings. 9-7
again, the vikings ended the season at 6-10. Packers are now 7-8

Week 17 against the Bears. 26-7
The Bears ended the season at 13-3. This win put the Packers at 8-8


None of the teams that the Packers beat last year even had a .500 winning percentage, other than the Bears, who already had the division locked up, and were in the playoffs with a buy week irregardless of the outcome of their game against the Packers.

We know that a HUGE part of the problem was scoring in the red zone. Did Thompson address that?

See, now that was a pretty good post!

But since I continue to be rather optimistic about the team over the next three to five years I would like to use your evidence to prove another point:

Your incontrovertible facts demonstrate that, in all likelihood given the early tough schedule, a Green Bay record of 8-8 at the conclusion of this year would be a benchmark of growth and improvement rather than stagnation--especially if any more than one or two of the 8 wins come against teams with winning records.

Lay down your anger, brother, and enjoy the ride as this team gets better.

You don't want the team to lose games just to prove you're smarter, do you?

[PackerBlues]

See, now that was a pretty good post!

But since I continue to be rather optimistic about the team over the next three to five years I would like to use your evidence to prove another point:

Your incontrovertible facts demonstrate that, in all likelihood given the early tough schedule, a Green Bay record of 8-8 at the conclusion of this year would be a benchmark of growth and improvement rather than stagnation--especially if any more than one or two of the 8 wins come against teams with winning records.

Lay down your anger, brother, and enjoy the ride as this team gets better.

You don't want the team to lose games just to prove you're smarter, do you?

I started another post yesterday, that did not seem to catch on, whereas I pointed out that you can now go to www.nfl.com, and look at video clips of highlights of every game from last year. (perhaps even from years before, dunno, didnt look)
What suprised me, looking at some of those clips, was that some of our young guys last year did in fact show some real promise. I really enjoyed looking back at Favre threading the needle while passing to these young WR's. It gave me a hell of a lot more hope for the upcoming season, than watching a "watered down" offense in a preseason game.

[woodbuck27]

Haha, B.

I'm not going to paint TT into a record expectation because so much goes into it. I expect TT to keep this team improving and we should be at least 8-8 if we improve, but I'm not going to give up on TT if the record falls short an other things show signs of being on the up and up.

I will give up if the team shows it's not getting better. If we take steps back and it's clear we're not competitive. I've said that before and I've promised to jump off TT's wagon if that happened. I've never promised to jump off based on the record. Too much goes into it.

For this season to be a success, for me it's all about the playoffs. I expect NO LESS than 9 wins and absolutely no games were we are completely blown out from start to finish.

Then don't get too close to a hangman's knot. :)

[PackerBlues]

[quote=JustinHarrell]
For this season to be a success, for me it's all about the playoffs. I expect NO LESS than 9 wins and absolutely no games were we are completely blown out from start to finish.

I think that those are reasonable benchmarks, I myself would add, no less than 20 TD passes for Brett Favre. (he had 18 last year, and needs 20 TD's to tie Marino's record of 13 seasons with 20 or more TD's)

[superfan]

Teddy is a very poor evaluator when it comes to offense. The facts support that view. He virtually gave a way a blue chip WR that keeps a D honest.

Javon pulled a MikeMac, and once he started down that ugly road, there was virtually no chance to get fair market value for him in trade. He was an underpaid star player who wanted to get paid, and while I understand his frustration and agree that he deserved to get paid, that is a dangerous precedent to set, to give in to any player who threatens to hold out for more money.

I don't think it is fair to hang Walker leaving entirely on Thompson's head. If the Packer front office operates like any other corporation, I assume Thompson, Harlan, and the rest of the brain trust had many meetings about what to do with Walker, and it was likely a group decision. I could be completely wrong, I have no connections within the organization.

Walker, McKenzie, Fraud, Moss, Iverson and KG in the NBA - once it is general knowledge that a player is on his way out the door, the trade market value drops significantly. If TT is one of the reasons why Walker wanted out, then sure, I would blame him for that. But considering that every team in the league knew it was a fire sale, what are the other options?


Anyone with just a little understanding of the game knows you must either have a passing game that can stretch the field or a running game that can keep the D honest. We have NEITHER and several of you are gonna learn just exactly what that means.

No argument from me here, except that to be a really good offense you need to have a passing game that can stretch the field AND a running game that can keep the D honest.


This offense is going to struggle AGAIN.

Seems to be little doubt about that. Agreed.


Just how many years do we have to rank at the bottom in RZ effieiency and points scored before it becomes obvious that Teddy has NO CLUE when it comes to building an offense?

I think the brutal Red Zone efficiency is a direct result of the decimation of the interior OL (Wahle, Rivera, Flanagan) several years ago. Plus, Ahman Green has been battling injuries the last couple years. We entered last season with an incredibly inexperienced interior line, probably one of the lowest rated lines in the entire league. As a result, max protect was called on a high percentage of plays, which means fewer targets available to catch passes. I don't disagree with the decision to use the max protect so frequently, considering the state of the OL. Gotta protect the franchise behind center.

All of this amounts to a domino effect - inexperienced line + aging superstar QB + banged up aging RB = max protect and ineffective running game = lousy red zone offense. Oops, forgot to carry the TE who suddenly forgot how to play football. :bang:

But I fail to see how this proves that Thompson knows nothing about building an offense. Will Whitticker was obviously no superstar, and Klemm and O'Dwyer were lousy signings, but Jennings looks like he has the potential to be special. Colledge and Spitz could be fixtures on the line for years. Wells is at least an average NFL center, maybe above average, with some upside. Jones at least hasn't disappointed. Clowney hasn't shown much yet, but he is a guy that the "draft experts" had projected higher than a 5th round pick, so he's a decent value gamble at that point.

Sure, I wish we had a better offense, and I wish we were able to sign some playmakers (MOSS!) in FA, but I don't have a lot of complaints with the draft picks. Nobody hits on every, or even most, draft picks and signings.

I do have some serious issues with how FA was handled this year, particularly in regards to the weakest positions - TE, S, RB after Ahman was not resigned. It's inexcusable that no help was found in those areas.


Also this slow cautious approach that some of you seem to be so proud of, does not guarentee success nor does it make a GM out to be a genious. The NFL is modeled to build a team much quicker than in the past. Some of you are so quick to except mediocrity, that's it's down-right funny.

I favor the building approach over the "sacrifice the future to save my job today" approach, but it is nothing to be proud (or ashamed) of, nor does it guarantee success or make the GM out to be a genius. And as far as accepting mediocrity goes, isn't that what we were doing in the early 2000s, with playoff "one and dones"? Backloading contracts, signing FAs, whatever duct tape we could throw together to keep that playoff contender going, even though those teams had no real SB aspirations. I would argue that this approach is more aggressive - sacrifice the present for a better chance at a Super Bowl ring in the future. That's not accepting mediocrity, that is taking a serious risk.

Biggest flaws I see now is that this may not be the right approach considering the time is ticking with Favre, and if it is agreed that this is inherently a risky approach, then the front office should be taking more chances in FA then going out on a limb to sign CB Frank Walker. :roll:

[PackerTimer]

[quote=JustinHarrell]
For this season to be a success, for me it's all about the playoffs. I expect NO LESS than 9 wins and absolutely no games were we are completely blown out from start to finish.

I think that those are reasonable benchmarks, I myself would add, no less than 20 TD passes for Brett Favre. (he had 18 last year, and needs 20 TD's to tie Marino's record of 13 seasons with 20 or more TD's)

So, if we finish 10-6 and Farve only throws 10 touchdowns, the season is a failure? It's highly unlikely that we win 10 games if Brett doesn't throw 20 scores, but if it happens the season will be a great success.

[PackerBlues]

wow, there is something wrong with the quote thingy. :?:

[woodbuck27]

Teddy is a very poor evaluator when it comes to offense. The facts support that view. He virtually gave a way a blue chip WR that keeps a D honest.

Javon pulled a MikeMac, and once he started down that ugly road, there was virtually no chance to get fair market value for him in trade. He was an underpaid star player who wanted to get paid, and while I understand his frustration and agree that he deserved to get paid, that is a dangerous precedent to set, to give in to any player who threatens to hold out for more money.

I don't think it is fair to hang Walker leaving entirely on Thompson's head. If the Packer front office operates like any other corporation, I assume Thompson, Harlan, and the rest of the brain trust had many meetings about what to do with Walker, and it was likely a group decision. I could be completely wrong, I have no connections within the organization.

Walker, McKenzie, Fraud, Moss, Iverson and KG in the NBA - once it is general knowledge that a player is on his way out the door, the trade market value drops significantly. If TT is one of the reasons why Walker wanted out, then sure, I would blame him for that. But considering that every team in the league knew it was a fire sale, what are the other options?


Anyone with just a little understanding of the game knows you must either have a passing game that can stretch the field or a running game that can keep the D honest. We have NEITHER and several of you are gonna learn just exactly what that means.

No argument from me here, except that to be a really good offense you need to have a passing game that can stretch the field AND a running game that can keep the D honest.


This offense is going to struggle AGAIN.

Seems to be little doubt about that. Agreed.


Just how many years do we have to rank at the bottom in RZ effieiency and points scored before it becomes obvious that Teddy has NO CLUE when it comes to building an offense?

I think the brutal Red Zone efficiency is a direct result of the decimation of the interior OL (Wahle, Rivera, Flanagan) several years ago. Plus, Ahman Green has been battling injuries the last couple years. We entered last season with an incredibly inexperienced interior line, probably one of the lowest rated lines in the entire league. As a result, max protect was called on a high percentage of plays, which means fewer targets available to catch passes. I don't disagree with the decision to use the max protect so frequently, considering the state of the OL. Gotta protect the franchise behind center.

All of this amounts to a domino effect - inexperienced line + aging superstar QB + banged up aging RB = max protect and ineffective running game = lousy red zone offense. Oops, forgot to carry the TE who suddenly forgot how to play football. :bang:

But I fail to see how this proves that Thompson knows nothing about building an offense. Will Whitticker was obviously no superstar, and Klemm and O'Dwyer were lousy signings, but Jennings looks like he has the potential to be special. Colledge and Spitz could be fixtures on the line for years. Wells is at least an average NFL center, maybe above average, with some upside. Jones at least hasn't disappointed. Clowney hasn't shown much yet, but he is a guy that the "draft experts" had projected higher than a 5th round pick, so he's a decent value gamble at that point.

Sure, I wish we had a better offense, and I wish we were able to sign some playmakers (MOSS!) in FA, but I don't have a lot of complaints with the draft picks. Nobody hits on every, or even most, draft picks and signings.

I do have some serious issues with how FA was handled this year, particularly in regards to the weakest positions - TE, S, RB after Ahman was not resigned. It's inexcusable that no help was found in those areas.


Also this slow cautious approach that some of you seem to be so proud of, does not guarentee success nor does it make a GM out to be a genious. The NFL is modeled to build a team much quicker than in the past. Some of you are so quick to except mediocrity, that's it's down-right funny.

I favor the building approach over the "sacrifice the future to save my job today" approach, but it is nothing to be proud (or ashamed) of, nor does it guarantee success or make the GM out to be a genius. And as far as accepting mediocrity goes, isn't that what we were doing in the early 2000s, with playoff "one and dones"? Backloading contracts, signing FAs, whatever duct tape we could throw together to keep that playoff contender going, even though those teams had no real SB aspirations. I would argue that this approach is more aggressive - sacrifice the present for a better chance at a Super Bowl ring in the future. That's not accepting mediocrity, that is taking a serious risk.

Biggest flaws I see now is that this may not be the right approach considering the time is ticking with Favre, and if it is agreed that this is inherently a risky approach, then the front office should be taking more chances in FA then going out on a limb to sign CB Frank Walker. :roll:

"I don't think it is fair to hang Walker leaving entirely on Thompson's head." Superfan

I agree. Javon got his 'Fruit of the Looms' in a twist and wanted the $ or out.

TT had to hold right and in this case wait and see for another half seaason or more before an extention, certainly not buckle to the incipant one's demands.

[PackerBlues]

"I don't think it is fair to hang Walker leaving entirely on Thompson's head." Superfan

I agree. Javon got his 'Fruit of the Looms' in a twist and wanted the $ or out.

TT had to hold right and in this case wait and see for another half seaason or more before an extention, certainly not buckle to the incipant one's demands.

It seems to me, that Thompson is building up a history of not being able to get deals done. Ferguson being the most recent.

Walker, Moss/Raiders, Ahman Green, and now we find out that the Texans have an interest in Ferguson. Rather than quietly make a deal with the Texans, it was announced that the Packers would be looking to trade Ferguson, but that they would cut him if a trade could not be made. A trade with anyone became impossible as soon as it was announced that Fergy would be cut. :doh:

[Scott Campbell]

A trade with anyone became impossible as soon as it was announced that Fergy would be cut. :doh:


A trade was impossible becuase Fergeson sucked and had no trade value, and had one of Mike Sherman's patented overinflated contracts. No amount of posturing was going to change that.

Over the next few weeks hundereds of players are going to be cut from among all the NFL teams. And almost all of them will be let go for nothing in return. And like this transaction, it will mean absolutely nothing.

[PackerBlues]

Javon pulled a MikeMac, and once he started down that ugly road, there was virtually no chance to get fair market value for him in trade. He was an underpaid star player who wanted to get paid, and while I understand his frustration and agree that he deserved to get paid, that is a dangerous precedent to set, to give in to any player who threatens to hold out for more money.

I don't think it is fair to hang Walker leaving entirely on Thompson's head. If the Packer front office operates like any other corporation, I assume Thompson, Harlan, and the rest of the brain trust had many meetings about what to do with Walker, and it was likely a group decision. I could be completely wrong, I have no connections within the organization.

Walker, McKenzie, Fraud, Moss, Iverson and KG in the NBA - once it is general knowledge that a player is on his way out the door, the trade market value drops significantly. If TT is one of the reasons why Walker wanted out, then sure, I would blame him for that. But considering that every team in the league knew it was a fire sale, what are the other options?


Good points, and well said. I think its a shame that punks like Walker and McKienze get away with the posturing and shit that they do to get out of a contract. They sign a contract, and they should be held to it.

I joined the military, and hated it, but I had signed a four year contract. If I had pissed and moaned about it and said "fuck you, I dont like it here, release me from my contract or I will not work for you any more", I would have ended up sitting in a jail cell.

In cases like this, the NFL needs to step up and make examples of people like Walker. Here is just a few ideas of how I would like to see people like Walker dealt with:

Give them a full year suspension without pay.

Allow them to break their contract, but put them into a new salary bracket for a set amount of time that is less than the veterans minimum.

As soon as a player starts demanding a trade or anything of that kind, give the team the option of voiding the players contract. Then, make it so that any team wanting to sign that player, would have to give up exactly what it cost the original team to get him in the first place. In Walkers case, his contract would have been voided and the Packers would have to recieve a first round pick and the difference between a 2nd and 5th from any team wanting to sign him.

Everything about the Walker situation was bad for the Packers organization. What it cost us to get him in the first place, the time he spent wasting a roster spot, what the Packers ended up getting for him. Nothing good came from having Walker in GB, and I think its a shame that the NFL does not have the balls to step in on situations like this. You see players and coaches getting fined all the time for doing or saying things that the NFL finds as negative to the NFL, why wont they step in on situations like this?

[PackerTimer]

Javon pulled a MikeMac, and once he started down that ugly road, there was virtually no chance to get fair market value for him in trade. He was an underpaid star player who wanted to get paid, and while I understand his frustration and agree that he deserved to get paid, that is a dangerous precedent to set, to give in to any player who threatens to hold out for more money.

I don't think it is fair to hang Walker leaving entirely on Thompson's head. If the Packer front office operates like any other corporation, I assume Thompson, Harlan, and the rest of the brain trust had many meetings about what to do with Walker, and it was likely a group decision. I could be completely wrong, I have no connections within the organization.

Walker, McKenzie, Fraud, Moss, Iverson and KG in the NBA - once it is general knowledge that a player is on his way out the door, the trade market value drops significantly. If TT is one of the reasons why Walker wanted out, then sure, I would blame him for that. But considering that every team in the league knew it was a fire sale, what are the other options?


Good points, and well said. I think its a shame that punks like Walker and McKienze get away with the posturing and shit that they do to get out of a contract. They sign a contract, and they should be held to it.

I joined the military, and hated it, but I had signed a four year contract. If I had pissed and moaned about it and said "fuck you, I dont like it here, release me from my contract or I will not work for you any more", I would have ended up sitting in a jail cell.

In cases like this, the NFL needs to step up and make examples of people like Walker. Here is just a few ideas of how I would like to see people like Walker dealt with:

Give them a full year suspension without pay.

Allow them to break their contract, but put them into a new salary bracket for a set amount of time that is less than the veterans minimum.

As soon as a player starts demanding a trade or anything of that kind, give the team the option of voiding the players contract. Then, make it so that any team wanting to sign that player, would have to give up exactly what it cost the original team to get him in the first place. In Walkers case, his contract would have been voided and the Packers would have to recieve a first round pick and the difference between a 2nd and 5th from any team wanting to sign him.

Everything about the Walker situation was bad for the Packers organization. What it cost us to get him in the first place, the time he spent wasting a roster spot, what the Packers ended up getting for him. Nothing good came from having Walker in GB, and I think its a shame that the NFL does not have the balls to step in on situations like this. You see players and coaches getting fined all the time for doing or saying things that the NFL finds as negative to the NFL, why wont they step in on situations like this?

I have no problem with any of these ideas. However, I'm pretty sure the NFLPA would say a big hell no if the NFL tried to write anything like this into the next collective bargainning agreement.

[Badgerinmaine]

Skinbasket,

Is that a reject Teletubbie in your signature picture?

That is the one and only Prince from the world of Katamari Damacy, son of the King of All Cosmos. and he carries much more distinction than a "reject teletubbie!"



http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y250/bombtrak/king_cosmos.jpg
.
Reject teletubbie? No. More like Bill Cowher as an exotic dancer.

[PackerBlues]

Anyone else find themselves wishing that Thompson had gone through the trouble of picking up an extra veteran WR or RB last night?

[The Leaper]

Anyone else find themselves wishing that Thompson had gone through the trouble of picking up an extra veteran WR or RB last night?

If Thompson is going to acquire someone in free agency, they should be an IMPACT player...not some guy who represents a marginal upgrade over a young improving player.

I just didn't see many impact players available at RB or WR this offseason. Lots of old/injured guys, but not many impact players.

[The Leaper]

I don't think it is fair to hang Walker leaving entirely on Thompson's head.

As I and others have pointed out, Walker had no leverage when he made his initial hissy fit. Thompson's decision to not put an offer on the table for Walker to either take or leave is ridiculous to me.

I don't care about precedent...I care about keeping IMPACT PLAYERS like Walker happy. You can sit here and poo-poo whether or not he was proven, but the bottom line is that Walker was a guy with elite size and speed who had performed at an All Pro level for 24 games at that point. He was a guy who would look DAMN GOOD right now in a Packer uniform.

When you have a QB the caliber of Brett Favre, you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER skimp on providing weapons for him...for ANY reason. Walker was a holdout with no leverage...and Thompson was the one who had Walker squarely by the nutsack. There was no reason for him to play hardball and risk losing an elite WR.

[PackerBlues]

I don't think it is fair to hang Walker leaving entirely on Thompson's head.

As I and others have pointed out, Walker had no leverage when he made his initial hissy fit. Thompson's decision to not put an offer on the table for Walker to either take or leave is ridiculous to me.

I don't care about precedent...I care about keeping IMPACT PLAYERS like Walker happy. You can sit here and poo-poo whether or not he was proven, but the bottom line is that Walker was a guy with elite size and speed who had performed at an All Pro level for 24 games at that point. He was a guy who would look DAMN GOOD right now in a Packer uniform.

When you have a QB the caliber of Brett Favre, you NEVER, NEVER, NEVER skimp on providing weapons for him...for ANY reason. Walker was a holdout with no leverage...and Thompson was the one who had Walker squarely by the nutsack. There was no reason for him to play hardball and risk losing an elite WR.

I agree with everything that you said Leaper. The sad part of it though, is that short of getting Walker signed to a long term contract, we may have had to sit through watching him prove what a punk he was, by just going through the motions until his contract was over.
While I still think that Thompson lacks skill in negotiating the important contracts, I would not put this one completely on his head. I would however hold him accountable for not replacing Walker with someone of similar talent. For anyone to look at our line up of recievers behind Driver as being acceptable in any way is a joke to me.

(edited to add:) Don't get me wrong, I am very happy with these young WR's that we have, and look forward to seeing them move into the starting positions. But lets face it, every big name WR we have ever had, either worked their way up slowly over time, or was brought in as a proven veteran with known skills. These young guys need time to develop.

[RashanGary]

I had a big list of about 15 young players earlier in this thread. They are all good players now, but they'll be better players tomorrow and they'll need to get paid. That is the core of our team and the hard workers on that list will be rewarded with pay days. We have a lot of space now, but if TT's guys pan out, it's going to get hard to afford them some day. EVentually there will be a climax of talent. This is the year year the climb should start.

This was three years ago. Three years later, Jennings, Rodgers and Collins are signed to big contracts, the Packers are growing into a veteran team and all of the tightwad Ted crap is dispelled.

Things like this are not surprising if you really listen and think. The Packers are starting to peak. Many of us saw this coming years ago. Many of us knew he wasn't cheap, but rather had no talent to pay after Sherman left.

[RashanGary]

I've tried over and over and over to explain how price paid has an ultimate effect on the other talent you can afford. Patler has tried many times too.

Many understand it. Many don't. Those who understand it and had an accurate evaluation of the situation three years ago, envisioned this day. Those who couldn't see it, had no clue this day would ever come. We could dig up conversation after conversation after conversation, but this thing played out exactly as many of as predicted years before it happened.