An unbiased look at Thompson's job.
Let me start off by saying, I am not trying to bash Thompson, or start an argument. While I am upset with the changes our team has gone through, and how slowly it is coming together, I admit that in a few more years, we will have a young and talented football team, that may well be dominating for years to come thereafter.
That being said, we have seen Thompson trade down to acquire more draft picks. It's sort of like a lottery, the more players he gets, the better chance he has of hitting on some talent to improve the team. That sums up his drafting technique. (other than "taking the best player available")
We also seem to see a trend with Thompson for his method of filling the holes in our roster that have not been addressed with his draft picks. When it comes to free agency and trades, I see 4 major criteria points that Thompson goes for.
1) The Player must be young.
2) The player must have potential, yet be unproven.
3) It must be a player that nobody else has ever heard of.(usually)
4) The player has to be very very very inexpensive to pick up.
(Yes, the one exception would be Woodson, a somewhat risky pick up that paid off in a great way)
After that, we have seen that Thompson has no qualms about going into the regular season with rookies and unproven players. We saw it in 2005 with the O-line after Thompson was quoted as saying "guards are a dime a dozen in the NFL", and we see it again this year with our WR and RB positions.
The "sink or swim" approach to determine a players ability to play at an NFL level, seems to be Thompson's method of finding starters out of all of his pick ups. He throws a bunch of rookies on the field, and lets them battle it out for the starting position. This method is a lot faster than trying to bring guys up slowly over time, and it makes Ted's job a lot easier. The team as a whole suffers for it in the short term though. I can only imagine what guys like Donald Driver must think, after having sat on the practice squad, and biding his time learning the position, and waiting for his chance to shine. For him and many like him to have to go into a regular season game with a bunch of unproven talent, it has to come off like a slap in the face. Knowing how much work he himself put in, while playing with guys who may not even belong on the same field as him.
The WR position is not bad itself though. Driver is our #1 guy, and him and Favre have trust in each other. Jennings has a full year under his belt, (minus time off for injuries), and can only be improved over last year. Jones looks to be a great upgrade from Ferguson, but just like with Martin and Holiday, we should expect to see some mistakes made. No knock against their talent, just a simple fact that they are still learning.
I myself cannot forgive Thompson's "RB by committee" idea. It reaked of the same mentality as "guards are a dime a dozen in the NFL." Many of us have been wanting to see a major upgrade at the position ever since Thompson let Green go. Instead, we have spent all this time since the departure of Green, being frustrated by the thought of going into the season with Morency, Herron, and Jackson. Now, we would probably see that as a luxury as opposed to what we now have. Now, we see our beloved Packers going into their first regular season game with Morency coming back from an injury, Herron on IR, and then what? Nothing to be excited or happy about, that is for sure.
Many of us have been pointing out that the RB position needed improving since the departure of Green, while getting blasted for saying it. In much the same way we complained about our O-line in 2005. It took two years to get our O-line to where it is now, and yet it is still questionable......improved since then, but questionable. Just as questionable as Thompson's statements that he would rather win now. A short time ago, one of the loyal Thompson supporters was mouthing off about how funny it was going to be comparing our running game to the Texans. The Texans have Green, Gado, and Ron Dayne. I do not think there will be anything to laugh at when comparing our running game to the Texans this year......... I think we may all end up feeling a bit of envy.
Not long from now, Favre will be retired. Our team will be young, but with experience. We will hopefully find ourselves with viable replacements for the old guys that we now have on our roster. Favre will be replaced by Rogers, and I am sure that Rogers will do fine. Our biggest worries will be at CB, and OT. By the time that Woodson, Harris, Taucsher, and Clifton are ready to leave though, I am sure Thompson will have found guys who can swim to replace them. We should all thank Thompson for providing us with something to look forward to in the future. A lot of you have been concentrating on that thought and I envy you for your ability to do so. I myself am still upset about the now, and have a hard time getting over how much better this team may have been this year with a couple of key free agent pick ups.
In the end, I think perhaps that is the biggest difference between those of us who question Thompson's every move, and those that support him openly. Some are willing to wait for that winning Packer team, and some of us are perhaps a little to impatient. We all want the same thing though, and that is what really counts. :glug:
:pack: :cow: :pack:
Re: An unbiased look at Thompson's job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PackerBlues
Let me start off by saying, I am not trying to bash Thompson, or start an argument. While I am upset with the changes our team has gone through, and how slowly it is coming together, I admit that in a few more years, we will have a young and talented football team, that may well be dominating for years to come thereafter.
That being said, we have seen Thompson trade down to acquire more draft picks. It's sort of like a lottery, the more players he gets, the better chance he has of hitting on some talent to improve the team. That sums up his drafting technique. (other than "taking the best player available")
We also seem to see a trend with Thompson for his method of filling the holes in our roster that have not been addressed with his draft picks. When it comes to free agency and trades, I see 4 major criteria points that Thompson goes for.
1) The Player must be young.
2) The player must have potential, yet be unproven.
3) It must be a player that nobody else has ever heard of.(usually)
4) The player has to be very very very inexpensive to pick up.
(Yes, the one exception would be Woodson, a somewhat risky pick up that paid off in a great way)
The title of the thread and the identity of the poster has given me quite a laugh this morning. Thanks.
I'll just address one issue:
Woodson is not the only 'exception'. What about Pickett? A former #1 draft choice, who was ranked highly as an available FA. Or how about Manuel? Yes, we could have done without him, but he was the starter on a SB team and played quite well. I don't see the 'haven't heard of' trend.
Re: An unbiased look at Thompson's job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PackerBlues
Many of us have been pointing out that the RB position needed improving since the departure of Green, while getting blasted for saying it.
I don't remember anyone getting blasted for saying that - especially the way you say it here. I think nearly everyone agrees. People were getting blasted for saying Thompson is stupid, or Thompson did this because of his ego, or Thompson is did this to send Brett a message to retire.
Re: An unbiased look at Thompson's job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Campbell
Quote:
Originally Posted by PackerBlues
Many of us have been pointing out that the RB position needed improving since the departure of Green, while getting blasted for saying it.
I don't remember anyone getting blasted for saying that - especially the way you say it here. I think nearly everyone agrees. People were getting blasted for saying Thompson is stupid, or Thompson did this because of his ego, or Thompson is did this to send Brett a message to retire.
Yeah, I forget that some people only pick out the part of a post they don't like, and blast a person for that part of the post, and not critique on the entirety.
Irregardless, numerous times, people have mentioned that losing Green was HUGE and were expecting a viable replacement. Instead we end up with a group of guys who altogether (by committee?) couldn't lift Green's Jock strap.
After seeing the mess we have now, was Green really to expensive to keep? Should the Packers have spent the money in Free Agency to get a proven veteran for the RB position? Perhaps say, someone who has played the position in the NFL and shown the ability to handle the work load for the entire season?
I can understand saying that the TE position couldn't be upgraded because there simply were not any TE's available that were any better than what we had. However, for anyone to claim that there were no RB's available better than what we ended up with since the departure of Green.......... that goes beyond laughable and into idiocy.
Re: An unbiased look at Thompson's job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PackerBlues
Yeah, I forget that some people only pick out the part of a post they don't like, and blast a person for that part of the post, and not critique on the entirety.
Some people? There are lots of us that do this. We pick out the items that we disagree with, or are factually incorrect and comment on them. I don't think there is anything wrong with that practice, and it's not against any rules.
For instance:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PackerBlues
I see 4 major criteria points that Thompson goes for.
1) The Player must be young.
2) The player must have potential, yet be unproven.
..........
You use the word "must". I think the word "should" would be more accurate because of the Woodson signing. It's not like I disagree with everything you say. But a subtle difference in the choice of words can significantly skew your intended meaning.
Re: An unbiased look at Thompson's job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PackerBlues
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Campbell
Quote:
Originally Posted by PackerBlues
Many of us have been pointing out that the RB position needed improving since the departure of Green, while getting blasted for saying it.
I don't remember anyone getting blasted for saying that - especially the way you say it here. I think nearly everyone agrees. People were getting blasted for saying Thompson is stupid, or Thompson did this because of his ego, or Thompson is did this to send Brett a message to retire.
Yeah, I forget that some people only pick out the part of a post they don't like, and blast a person for that part of the post, and not critique on the entirety.
Irregardless, numerous times, people have mentioned that losing Green...
Like "Irregardless"??? Which isn't a word... :rs:
Re: An unbiased look at Thompson's job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wist43
Quote:
Originally Posted by PackerBlues
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Campbell
Quote:
Originally Posted by PackerBlues
Many of us have been pointing out that the RB position needed improving since the departure of Green, while getting blasted for saying it.
I don't remember anyone getting blasted for saying that - especially the way you say it here. I think nearly everyone agrees. People were getting blasted for saying Thompson is stupid, or Thompson did this because of his ego, or Thompson is did this to send Brett a message to retire.
Yeah, I forget that some people only pick out the part of a post they don't like, and blast a person for that part of the post, and not critique on the entirety.
Irregardless, numerous times, people have mentioned that losing Green...
Like "Irregardless"??? Which isn't a word... :rs:
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Re: An unbiased look at Thompson's job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by falco
Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
I think this was the operative portion of the entry Falco.
Re: An unbiased look at Thompson's job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Campbell
Quote:
Originally Posted by falco
Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
I think this was the operative portion of the entry Falco.
Agreed. But for some reason the other part looked better in bold.