Ted Gains National Support

[SkinBasket]

From JSO:


"Ted Thompson, the general manager, is doing a great job," Fox studio analyst Jimmy Johnson said. "(So is) Mike McCarthy, the head coach. The key to winning in this league is not coaching. It's bringing in the talent. They fill in when they have an injury. They bring in another guy. You say, 'Who is this?' And they are winning with him."

This from an ex-coach, mind you.

[cpk1994]

You might want to send that to Merlin and Woody. If Jimmy JOhnson can't convince them, there is no hope. :)

[Deputy Nutz]

Don't try to reason with Merlin or Woody, they have egg on their face and are such slobs they can't even wipe it off, they wear it as a badge of honor. One word for guys like that, "retards".

[cheesner]

From JSO:


"Ted Thompson, the general manager, is doing a great job," Fox studio analyst Jimmy Johnson said. "(So is) Mike McCarthy, the head coach. The key to winning in this league is not coaching. It's bringing in the talent. They fill in when they have an injury. They bring in another guy. You say, 'Who is this?' And they are winning with him."

This from an ex-coach, mind you.
I heard this also.

He is not just an ex-coach. He is also an ex-GM from his days at Miami. Who would know better than someone who has done both?

[Carolina_Packer]

Don't try to reason with Merlin or Woody, they have egg on their face and are such slobs they can't even wipe it off, they wear it as a badge of honor. One word for guys like that, "retards".

I prefer the word dour. Plus, it might force them to look it up. OK, here it is:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/dour

Does it fit?

[mmmdk]

From JSO:


"Ted Thompson, the general manager, is doing a great job," Fox studio analyst Jimmy Johnson said. "(So is) Mike McCarthy, the head coach. The key to winning in this league is not coaching. It's bringing in the talent. They fill in when they have an injury. They bring in another guy. You say, 'Who is this?' And they are winning with him."

This from an ex-coach, mind you.

This 'who is this?' theory has major flaws; just count the times you, yourself, said: 'who is this?' about Taco, Gado plus many others during the Packer 2005/06 seasons. Coaching, preparation and mentality has loads to do with it. 80% of the players in the NFL have virtually the same talent; again coaching, preparation and mentality. Another 10% are scrubs and 10% are superior talents. You need a few superstars and coaches/leaders to show the way for the rest.

Coaching is paramount.

[SkinBasket]

From JSO:


"Ted Thompson, the general manager, is doing a great job," Fox studio analyst Jimmy Johnson said. "(So is) Mike McCarthy, the head coach. The key to winning in this league is not coaching. It's bringing in the talent. They fill in when they have an injury. They bring in another guy. You say, 'Who is this?' And they are winning with him."

This from an ex-coach, mind you.

This 'who is this?' theory has major flaws; just count the times you, yourself, said: 'who is this?' about Taco, Gado plus many others during the Packer 2005/06 seasons. Coaching, preparation and mentality has loads to do with it. 80% of the players in the NFL have virtually the same talent; again coaching, preparation and mentality. Another 10% are scrubs and 10% are superior talents. You need a few superstars and coaches/leaders to show the way for the rest.

Coaching is paramount.

You'll have to forgive me for going with Jimmy Johnson over a Euro on this one.

I remember plenty of "Who is this?" concerning Jennings, Jones, Grant, Bigby, and Crosby too. You can't just pick out the ones who didn't stick as evidence of your opinion.

[HarveyWallbangers]

You can coach guys all you want, but if they don't have talent and football intelligence they won't amount to jack. Sherman wasn't a bad coach. He didn't do himself any favors as GM though. Instead of finding Ruvell Martin, he found Taco Wallace.

[mraynrand]

You can coach guys all you want, but if they don't have talent and football intelligence they won't amount to jack. Sherman wasn't a bad coach. He didn't do himself any favors as GM though. Instead of finding Ruvell Martin, he found Taco Wallace.

I see your point, Harv, but this is a bad example. The difference was in the numbers. Sherman put his eggs into too few baskets - triangulating on specific players and blowing picks to move and get them. If you look at draft numbers, the percentages are pretty consistent - 30-40% of draft picks pan out. So if you increase your number of draft picks like TT, you just get more guys. Sherman actually did OK, but since he traded picks to move, his numbers were reduced to start and he didn't get enough guys. But that's only part of the Sherman failure story - I only wanted to make that one point, not rehash all of the Sherman 'legacy.'

[Carolina_Packer]

Right, I always said, Mike Sherman really was the one who fired himself as HC, by his overall performance as GM. How many times did moving up, or giving up picks work out for Sherman? You are lessening the number of chances you have to hit on a good player. I think TT is also better at finding the "who is that?" type guy than Sherman ever was.

[Fritz]

Being a TT supporter from the beginning, I am glad to see that he's getting some credit, cuz he sure took a lot of criticism for: 1) loving draft picks too much, 2) not renegotiating and re-signing Sharper, Wahle, Green, and Walker, 3) re-negotiating and resigning Bubba Franks, 4) not rtrading for Moss, and 5) not signing any big name free agents.

Some of the criticisms were valid, but TT seemed to generate an extraordinary amount of anger due perhaps to his tight-lipped demeanor. So it's nice to see him get some credit.

Heck, this team has way surpassed my expectations so far. I thought they'd be on a gradual uptick this season - went for a strong finish and a 9-7 record prediction. Oops. Glad to be wrong, though.

[SkinBasket]

I think TT is also better at finding the "who is that?" type guy than Sherman ever was.

Hell, Sherman had trouble picking "I know who that is" guys too. You know what they say, "Sweet dreams lead to bitter reality."

[mraynrand]

I think TT is also better at finding the "who is that?" type guy than Sherman ever was.

Hell, Sherman had trouble picking "I know who that is" guys too. You know what they say, "Sweet dreams lead to bitter reality."

That's the part I disagree with. Ok, so 2004 could have been a trend towards bad picks, but Sherman picked for 3 years and brought in some solid talent. Just not enough, because he didn't value picks enough. But Barnett, Kampman, Williams, Wells, Jenkins, and trading a #2 for Harris, gives him 6 solid starters on this squad (I know Williams isn't technically a starter, but effectively he is starting material). He also picked Walker and Davenport and brought in some effective "who is that" type guys like Fisher and Barry. Again, I don't know if his success with picks depended entirely on Hatley, and I don't know why he traded away picks to move up for guys that may have been around when he drafted - the bottom line is that he did bring in some pretty talented guys, but the bleeding away of numbers did hurt the Packer's depth - and 2004 was an absolute GM disaster of a year.

[MadtownPacker]

It's funny how all of you think Thompson give a damn about your support or if you are a "TT backer". Please, he would spit on you and ask you to bring his car from the parking garage.

[MJZiggy]

It's funny how all of you think Thompson give a damn about your support or if you are a "TT backer". Please, he would spit on you and ask you to bring his car from the parking garage.

I don't think he's letting any of us drive his car. Besides, last I heard he rides a bike most days. Don't know if he'd let any of us ride that either...

[3irty1]

I like TT and appreciate the talent he has collected but I think Coaching is still more important. I'd even go so far as to say hes the most important part of a team. There is no substitute for great schemes and great preparation. Would you rather have tons of talent and an idiot coach like the Chargers have?

[swede]

Talent or coaching, coaching or talent?

It's like asking whether the front wheel or the back wheel is more important to a bike in the Tour d'France.

I'll make talent the back wheel since you could probably finish the last hundred yards doing a wheelie if the front tire blew.

[billy_oliver880]

Think coaching is unimportant? Ya just ask the chargers. :?:

[Green Bud Packer]

Give credit where credit is due and this year there is plenty to go around. Next week Howie will be giving all the credit to Mac, then against Dallas Bradshaw will be putting all the success on Favre.

Johnson even says Mac is doing a fine job. The media is fleeting cuz thats the way most viewers want it.

Leave it to the Rasta Rat to be the voice of reason.

[The Leaper]

I think coaching is more than talent at most positions in the NFL. If you have great coaching, it can cover a lot of sins. Of course, having a stud like Favre can also cover a lot of sins.

The key with Thompson is that he recognizes the VALUE of young talent. Continually replenishing the roster with 8-10 young hungry guys every year will make for a healthy team...but you do also need a coaching staff capable of motivating and bringing the roster together as a unit.

[VegasPackFan]

There is much to be said for bringing in lots of young bodies each year vs signing high - priced FA's or hanging on to vets like some kind of security blanket after they have had their best years.

The young guys push the existing starters to raise their level of play to keep their jobs. Some vets stand up and actually become leaders. The young, "college attitude" guys fit in GB like a glove. They buy into the M3 system.

It has certainly worked for TT and the Green Bay Packers.

[Scott Campbell]

Talent or coaching, coaching or talent?


I'll take both please.

[Scott Campbell]

Some of the criticisms were valid, but TT seemed to generate an extraordinary amount of anger due perhaps to his tight-lipped demeanor. So it's nice to see him get some credit.


Maybe some of the fan reaction to him was due to his personality, or seeming lack thereof. But I think the majority of the resentment had to do with people not agreeing with his approach. Many wanted him to spend that cap money, sign big names, and solve all our problems overnight in the American traditon of instant gratification. And I have no problem with that. But I think characterizations of him not having ANY plan, him being cheap, him being decietful and unethical, him being stupid and him trying to force Brett to retire were simply untrue, unfair and unfortunate. People were lashing out simply because they didn't understand, or didn't agree with his methods. I think much of that critisism went way overboard when people began projecting character defects onto the guy just because they disagreed with his chosen methodology.

But that's just my opinion.

[RashanGary]

I'm a firm believer that it is talent.

Sherman looked good when he had talent. He looked like a bozo when he had none.

Shannahan won SB's with Elway and now struggles with average or young QB's.

Holmgren was the best coach in the league when he had the best talent. He was a good coach when he had good talent and now he's an average coach when he has average talent. Funny how that works.

Bellecheat was a disaster in Cleveland. Give him Tom Brady and 6 or 7 other HOFers and he's a genius.

Martz was teh mastermind of the greatest show on turf when he had Faulk, Bruce and Holt all in their prime. When the exited their prime, his genius wore off. NOw he's in Detroit and while they are doing well, they might not have a very good QB and their WR's might be big and fast, but they are not the HOF players that Bruce and Holt are. It's not the greatest show on Turf. That is in NE where the HOFers reside.



Talent reigns supreme in the NFL (and any other sport for that matter). If the coach was the most important piece, he'd be hiring teh GM and not the other way around.

Talent isn't being 6'2", 215 lbs and running a 4.4 like Ferguson
Talent is having a knack for catching the fucking football and punking DB's like JOnes.

The Packers have talent. McCarthy looks like a genious, but he could easily look like a moron if we took Jennings, Jones and Robinson away. How would he look if Fergy was running bad routes, dropping balls. How smart would he look if he didn't have one of the games greatest QB's throwing the ball 50 yds down the feild, hitting one of the games most natural deep route runners? He would'nt look like a genius at all. He would look like a hot air blowing fat head.

I'm a huge believer in talent. The GB Phoenix coach was on the fan saying the same thing as Jimmy Johnson. They said "how great is MM" and he responded by saying "I'm a coach and I hope my boss isn't listening, but it's all about talent. Ted Thompson is doing a great job, they are both doing a great job". He went out of his way to credit the GM when asked about the coach. He wasn't lead into it at all. The person asking the question seemed to think MM was a genious and was the reason for teh winning. The professional coach corrected him. It's a common theme if you listen to current and former coaches and it makes sense if you just use your noggan to piece together (easy to spot) patterns.

I thought TT was blowing sunshine up our rumps when he started talking about Packer people, pretty girls with curls and real tough guys that know how to play and love contact. I was wrong. The guy loves old sschool football players and take a look around the NFL; good teams have always sort of been that way.

[Scott Campbell]

I still think it takes both coaching and talent.

KGB looks much improved this year. Think its his talent?

The best coaches know how to play to their teams strengths, and minimize their weaknesses. They teach and develop. And they gameplan to take away other teams strengths.

Everything has to be clicking to get to 9-1.

[RashanGary]

I think coaching is 20%. Players are 80%.


KGB always got about 10 sacks per year. He also got run over and wore down becaue they didn't have Jenkins playing well untill last year.

Surely a case can be made for coaching, but I think the much stronger case is made for talent and the guys who did it for a living echo that sentiment consistantly.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think coaching is 20% inspiration, playing is 80% perspiration.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I still think it takes both coaching and talent.

KGB looks much improved this year. Think its his talent?

The best coaches know how to play to their teams strengths, and minimize their weaknesses. They teach and develop. And they gameplan to take away other teams strengths.

Everything has to be clicking to get to 9-1.

I don't think you'd classify this example as coaching. They simple finally found a guy to replace him on early downs, so they could use him in the role that fits him best. If Mike Montgomery was the backup to KGB, he'd be probably still be in the same role as he has been the last few years.

[Scott Campbell]

Well, Switzer won a Superbowl. So you guys may be right.

[RashanGary]

Who would you rather have?

Bellechek or Brady/moss
Shannahan or Elway/Davis
Holmgren or Reggie/brett
Manning/Harrison/Freeney or Dungy
Ray Lewis or Billick
Sapp/Brooks or Gruden

I'll bet you can plug 10 current coaches into any of the SB winning situations and they'll have similar success. I'll bet you can't plug 10 other players into Brady, Moss, Elway, Reggie, Manning or Lewis's spots and have similar results. Playmakers are not replacable. Coaches are. GM's gather playmakers, coaches are lucky enough to coach them.

[Scott Campbell]

Who would you rather have?

Bellechek or Brady/moss
Shannahan or Elway/Davis
Holmgren or Reggie/brett
Manning/Harrison/Freeney or Dungy
Ray Lewis or Billick
Sapp/Brooks or Gruden

I'll bet you can plug 10 current coaches into any of the SB winning situations and they'll have similar success. I'll bet you can't plug 10 other players into Brady, Moss, Elway, Reggie, Manning or Lewis's spots and have similar results. Playmakers are not replacable. Coaches are.


I'd take Lombardi over all of those guys combined.

[RashanGary]

I'd take Lombardi over all of those guys combined.

I'd take the Patriots right now with Marty Shottenheimer over the LIons with Lombardi.

[mmmdk]

I still think it takes both coaching and talent.

KGB looks much improved this year. Think its his talent?

The best coaches know how to play to their teams strengths, and minimize their weaknesses. They teach and develop. And they gameplan to take away other teams strengths.

Everything has to be clicking to get to 9-1.

Very well put...even for a non-Euro.

[mraynrand]

I think Yogi Bera said it best when he said "Coaching and talent is like eggs and bacon. Each tastes OK on it's own, but they're a lot better together. Also, can I have some OJ with that?"

[Carolina_Packer]

Have any of you ever seen a team that had mediocre talent, but a great coaching staff? How did they do?

Have you ever seen a team with great talent, but average or below average coaching? The first one that comes to mind is San Diego this year. I think part of that one comes from the front office decision to shake things up after a 14-2 finish last year. Sure, it can take players time to adjust to a new coach/system, but then look at Dallas. Those players went through the same kind of change, except they went from a more stern, task-master type coach to Wade Phillips.

I think you can over-achieve with less experienced, less developed talent, as long you have enough talent/coaching (Green Bay 2007).

Even with a good coaching staff and system, you gotta have talent, especially if you are going to go 9-1. Front Office, Coaching Staff and Players cannot luck into a 9-1 record. There has to be a lot of buy-in and good talent evaluation.

Front Office and Coaching/Players in harmony is like:

http://www.thepracticeofleadership.net/images/yin-yang.jpg

[mmmdk]

From JSO:


"Ted Thompson, the general manager, is doing a great job," Fox studio analyst Jimmy Johnson said. "(So is) Mike McCarthy, the head coach. The key to winning in this league is not coaching. It's bringing in the talent. They fill in when they have an injury. They bring in another guy. You say, 'Who is this?' And they are winning with him."

This from an ex-coach, mind you.

This 'who is this?' theory has major flaws; just count the times you, yourself, said: 'who is this?' about Taco, Gado plus many others during the Packer 2005/06 seasons. Coaching, preparation and mentality has loads to do with it. 80% of the players in the NFL have virtually the same talent; again coaching, preparation and mentality. Another 10% are scrubs and 10% are superior talents. You need a few superstars and coaches/leaders to show the way for the rest.

Coaching is paramount.

You'll have to forgive me for going with Jimmy Johnson over a Euro on this one.

I remember plenty of "Who is this?" concerning Jennings, Jones, Grant, Bigby, and Crosby too. You can't just pick out the ones who didn't stick as evidence of your opinion.

I am an American just like you and Danish too. Are you (even) American yourself Mr. Creepy? I don't know so I ask.

Let's say that those 6 Packer games decided by 7 points or less had gone 1-5 for the Packers. What would Jimmy boy say? This team ain't getting it done but the talent is there? HAHAHAHA! JJ would rip the talent and probably the GM and coach too. But aren't GJ, JJ, Grant, Bigby & co. the same talented guys even if the record was 4-6??? I think so. Let's say Norv Turner was our coach; where'd we be now?

Denmark won the soccer European Championship in 1992 and Greece in 2004 - with far lesser talent. Coaching and leadership are paramount; it's the difference making of 6-10 or 10-6 team in the NFL. I won't speculate how many percentages are talent or how much is coaching, preparation and mentality as that is nonsense.

...but next time you wanna go "Euro" with me...I'll be there Mr. Creepy. You set the tone.

[mmmdk]

Have any of you ever seen a team that had mediocre talent, but a great coaching staff? How did they do?

Have you ever seen a team with great talent, but average or below average coaching? The first one that comes to mind is San Diego this year. I think part of that one comes from the front office decision to shake things up after a 14-2 finish last year. Sure, it can take players time to adjust to a new coach/system, but then look at Dallas. Those players went through the same kind of change, except they went from a more stern, task-master type coach to Wade Phillips.

I think you can over-achieve with less experienced, less developed talent, as long you have enough talent/coaching (Green Bay 2007).

Even with a good coaching staff and system, you gotta have talent, especially if you are going to go 9-1. Front Office, Coaching Staff and Players cannot luck into a 9-1 record. There has to be a lot of buy-in and good talent evaluation.

Front Office and Coaching/Players in harmony is like:

http://www.thepracticeofleadership.net/images/yin-yang.jpg

Wow, you said it. :worship:

Agreed, talent is needed but coaching too. Teams like the Glanville Houston Oilers comes to mind. Super talented team but an ass coach. Glanville saw no talent in Favre either. A very important Part of the coaches job is to spot the talent and develop it. COACHING. You gotta utilize the talent and mold it. Talent with the right mentality is the coaches job to add and to a much lesser extend the player himself. There are exceptions though.

Many doubted Favre even in his first few years. Gannon was a nobody untill McCarthy gave him tools to develop into a MVP player. I think the list goes on...

[The Leaper]

Good coaches put players in position to succeed. Obviously, even the best coaches also need playmakers in order to be successful. No coach can build a winner with a bunch of stiffs. You can have all the talent in the world...if it isn't utilized properly, you won't win squat.

Just look at the New York Yankees.

[mmmdk]

Good coaches put players in position to succeed. Obviously, even the best coaches also need playmakers in order to be successful. No coach can build a winner with a bunch of stiffs. You can have all the talent in the world...if it isn't utilized properly, you won't win squat.

Just look at the New York Yankees.

True, stiffs are stiffs.

[SkinBasket]

I am an American just like you and Danish too. Are you (even) American yourself Mr. Creepy? I don't know so I ask.

You're so totally a Euro.


Let's say.....?

Well let's say the earth exploded six weeks ago. Then Jimmy also wouldn't be talking about the Packers... because we would all be dead. Come up with all the "what ifs" you want because they don't mean squat. Brett said it best when he said if his aunt had nuts she would be his uncle.


Denmark won the soccer European Championship in 1992 and Greece in 2004 - with far lesser talent. Coaching and leadership are paramount; it's the difference making of 6-10 or 10-6 team in the NFL. I won't speculate how many percentages are talent or how much is coaching, preparation and mentality as that is nonsense.

Well I coached my dog to shit outside. It didn't always work. I believe I had poor talent to work with. Others probably saw me as a bad coach. Either way, I sold her for glue.


...but next time you wanna go "Euro" with me...I'll be there Mr. Creepy. You set the tone.

I don't want to go Euro with you. Gay sex tends to cause too much chaffing.



The original point being I tend to agree with Johnson that a GM gives his coach a chance to win with the talent more often than a coach is able to elevate crappy players through schemes and teaching.

[The Shadow]

Do we really need a media analyst to legitimize what we all know?
Ted Thompson has put this 9-1 team together, and 'the proof is in the pudding'.

[Joemailman]

You can coach guys all you want, but if they don't have talent and football intelligence they won't amount to jack. Sherman wasn't a bad coach. He didn't do himself any favors as GM though. Instead of finding Ruvell Martin, he found Taco Wallace.

I agree with your general point Harv, but I believe Taco Wallace was a Thompson signing in the dreaded 2005 season.

[the_idle_threat]

I think Yogi Bera said it best when he said "Coaching and talent is like eggs and bacon. Each tastes OK on it's own, but they're a lot better together. Also, can I have some OJ with that?"

You can have some OJ, but it won't help you win championships. OJ will get you a ton of rushing yards, though, but watch out for the murderous rages.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Think coaching is unimportant? Ya just ask the chargers. :?:

You think GM is unimportant..ask the CHARGERS.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think coaching is 20%. Players are 80%.


KGB always got about 10 sacks per year. He also got run over and wore down becaue they didn't have Jenkins playing well untill last year.

Surely a case can be made for coaching, but I think the much stronger case is made for talent and the guys who did it for a living echo that sentiment consistantly.

Talent vs. coaching. Hmm.

Has to be talent. Barry Switzer won with talent.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Well, Switzer won a Superbowl. So you guys may be right.

Damn...just posted that, then I read yours.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Have any of you ever seen a team that had mediocre talent, but a great coaching staff? How did they do?

Have you ever seen a team with great talent, but average or below average coaching? The first one that comes to mind is San Diego this year. I think part of that one comes from the front office decision to shake things up after a 14-2 finish last year. Sure, it can take players time to adjust to a new coach/system, but then look at Dallas. Those players went through the same kind of change, except they went from a more stern, task-master type coach to Wade Phillips.

I think you can over-achieve with less experienced, less developed talent, as long you have enough talent/coaching (Green Bay 2007).

Even with a good coaching staff and system, you gotta have talent, especially if you are going to go 9-1. Front Office, Coaching Staff and Players cannot luck into a 9-1 record. There has to be a lot of buy-in and good talent evaluation.

Front Office and Coaching/Players in harmony is like:

http://www.thepracticeofleadership.net/images/yin-yang.jpg

While I would like to understand your point, using SD undermines it.

SD is not a hugely talented team. Marty got them to overachieve.

QB: Rivers is not a hugely talented QB. Average arm strength.
RB: Very talented
TE: Very Talented
WR: Way below average...maybe average with chambers.
Line: Ok

Defense...the DBs on that squad are very very average. Linebackers aren't great either.

So, actually i'm making your point. Marty got them to get as much out as he could. But, the reason they couldn't go far was TALENT. And, that remains today as it was last year.

[b bulldog]

Sherman was a very good coach when it came to preparation ect but his in game coaching skills are below average.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Have any of you ever seen a team that had mediocre talent, but a great coaching staff? How did they do?

Have you ever seen a team with great talent, but average or below average coaching? The first one that comes to mind is San Diego this year. I think part of that one comes from the front office decision to shake things up after a 14-2 finish last year. Sure, it can take players time to adjust to a new coach/system, but then look at Dallas. Those players went through the same kind of change, except they went from a more stern, task-master type coach to Wade Phillips.

I think you can over-achieve with less experienced, less developed talent, as long you have enough talent/coaching (Green Bay 2007).

Even with a good coaching staff and system, you gotta have talent, especially if you are going to go 9-1. Front Office, Coaching Staff and Players cannot luck into a 9-1 record. There has to be a lot of buy-in and good talent evaluation.

Front Office and Coaching/Players in harmony is like:

http://www.thepracticeofleadership.net/images/yin-yang.jpg

Wow, you said it. :worship:

Agreed, talent is needed but coaching too. Teams like the Glanville Houston Oilers comes to mind. Super talented team but an ass coach. Glanville saw no talent in Favre either. A very important Part of the coaches job is to spot the talent and develop it. COACHING. You gotta utilize the talent and mold it. Talent with the right mentality is the coaches job to add and to a much lesser extend the player himself. There are exceptions though.

Many doubted Favre even in his first few years. Gannon was a nobody untill McCarthy gave him tools to develop into a MVP player. I think the list goes on...

Let's not invent history. Glanville didn't like Favre, but never said he didn't have talent. Glanville didn't want Herock to draft Favre.

According to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution story, Glanville had four rules: 1) Be on time. 2) Prepare all week to play. 3) Spill your guts on the field. 4) Only accept victory.

"If he'd have got to 3 and 4, he'd have been fine," Glanville once told the paper. "But you had to get past 1 and 2."

Favre's behavior was immature and unprofessional. He stayed out late, he showed up late and fell asleep in meetings. As he once said, "I'm sure I didn't help my cause by trying to drink up Atlanta."

To this day, Herock doesn't know why Favre acted the way he did.

"He had a big ego," Herock said. "His comments to me in the locker room were, 'They need to play me. I'm better than those guys.' We had a Pro Bowl quarterback (Chris Miller) and I could see why he was still sitting, but he felt he was better than them. Why he was doing what he was doing, I have no idea. I think if you ask him he probably couldn't answer it either."


Oilers: Sorry, but to use them as example isn't right either. They used a gimmick offense and one that put a lot of pressure on the defense. You may remember them as being good, but their defense was never even in the top 10 in points allowed.

Spotting talent: Maybe in college, but not in the pros. THat is the GMs job. Why do you think coaches want that title. Those that don't have it have little or no say in the players being brought in.

Coaching: In the pros it is very little about developing talent. It is about using it the right way and schemes. Sorry, but you are flat out wrong. Case in point is Weiss at ND. His problems come from the fact that he is a poor talent evaluator and doesn't coach up his players. Why is this? Because it wasn't his job in the pros.

Favre: Doubted. Hardly. He was a second round choice. What they doubted was his dedication. Drinking and not paying attention in meetings.

Gannon: Do you make this up? McCarthy? Tools? LOL. You really think a coach gave him something at age 35? I've got some prime swampland for you.

Gannon was a long time pro. And, he was a marginally talented player. Gruden's SYSTEM took advantage of his skills and experience.

Stop using your memory and use FACTS.

99..Gannon threw a ton of balls to a HOF named Brown, to his fullback Ritchie and his TE Dudley. Second best WR was 39 catches from jett. 59 percent passing. Wahoo.

00- stunning 60 percent completion. Another year of pitch and catch to Brown and dump offs to the rb.

01-65 percent. Pitch and catch to Jerry Rice, Tim Brown and Charlie Garner.

02-67 percent. Garner leading receiver. Brown, Rice, and Porter.

What made him successful has a short passing game and they utilized his running/scrambling ability. AND NOT MAKING MISTAKES.

Same thing he is doing now with Jeff Garcia..and anyone who knows football knows Garcia has very little talent. He is a manager, not a game changer.