Thompson Yearly Preseason Q&A with McGinn

[Joemailman]

I think they honestly believe that Rodgers' play will vindicate their decision over time. As long as Favre wanted to play, making the switch to Rodgers probably could not be done in a way to make Favre fans happy.

[pbmax]

Well I mostly agree with you wist, I mean Bretsky and hopefully McGinn is onto something with the noticeable pickup in blitzing during Family Night.

One thing about Plaxico and Harris. Plaxico wears out the Eagles D as well and the Giants have had their way with the Eagles for a while now. So Harris' struggles with Plaxico are to some degree universal for Eagle cornerbacks.

But remember that the Eagles under Jim Johnson play the same type of blitzing, changeup defense that everyone seems to want. But the Eagles have trouble beating the Giants at home as well.

Despite their troubles, the Packers D held the Giants O to twenty points in regulation. I am more concerned now with our third down pass rush.

I FIND THESE QUESTIONS INTERESTING AND I CAN SEE MCGINN MAY HAVE THE SAME VIEW ON BOB SANDERS AS I DO

[pbmax]

I don't. I would rather deny the Vikings or Bears a weapon. But the Packer Execs need to sell good will, merchandise and burgers to fans and visitors.

If you take a hit with your own fans (forget the national media) then you are playing with fire. Winning solves that. But this plan is probably not about more wins this year.

Who gives a shit about the PR hit right now? They got a possible 3rd round pick that Christl would have denied them which is the first thing they wanted. They also got Favre as far away from them as possible which they also accomplished. They turn that pick into something and play well, and they will be fine.

[MJZiggy]

The Packer execs are probably the ones in the NFL who need to worry about PR among their own fans the least. The list for tickets is still 30 years long, people will still buy the dogs and beers and if they ever want the Favre questions to stop, they're going to have to start refusing to answer them which is just what Ted Thompson does. McCarthy actually answered that question and apparently no one listened to him anyway, because they're still asking it.

[Patler]

Any statement by TT about the reasons for moving away from Favre would be viewed as criticism of Favre, blaming him for the loss to the Giants, etc. It would be more of a PR nightmare than saying nothing. When has TT been openly critical of any player, let alone Favre?

McGinn knew TT would not answer the questions, especially in the way asked, as MJZiggy has pointed out. He asked them for his own future purposes, to be able to criticize TT for not being forthright and open about issues of great interest to the fans, and to cover his own butt with fans who are critical of him not asking what the fans want to know.

I actually find it humorous that some fans would expect TT or any GM to answer the Favre questions. An icon as Favre has become among Packer fans, and the GM is going to say, "Well, the guy is so dang old that he gets chilled to the bone below 20 degrees. His skills have diminished some, not to the point that he is not good, but to the point that they do not support the gunslinger mentality that he can't give up. As a result, he makes critical mistakes in big games at the wrong time. We just thought it was time to go to the younger guy, more in control, because our team is good enough to win with a QB who limits mistakes, and doesn't need a QB to carry the team. That's why we let him go." No GM in his right mind is going to say that about Favre even if he is convinced of it.

[texaspackerbacker]

I, for one, am glad that Thompson played it close to the vest with this all out media dipshit.

I hate these assholes like God damned McGinn presuming to speak for the fans--when they are shit-spewing outsiders who value their stinking "objectivity" over loyalty to the Packers.

Make no mistake about it, people, Thompson/McCarthy are the ones who build OUR team to the great level it is, and THEY are the ones who represent us--NOT the God damned IDIOTS of the media.

Yeah, we need information, statistics, etc. What we don't need is editorializing by imbeciles like McGinn and STUPID questions like the disrespect the dumbass showed for Sanders, etc. Get off the blitzing crap already--I suppose McGinn indeed, DOES represent some forum fools on that one.

[Patler]

You have a point Tex.

Besides, some questions are just stupid. Is TT really expected to say, "Yes, we discussed firing Sanders for a long time. I wanted him gone, but Mike likes him. We finally agreed to give him one year to show development and variation in the defense. If he doesn't, he's gone after this season."

or, "You bet I'm worried about age catching up to our CBs. If it does, we are in deep trouble because our backups are good as backups, but none has shown the makeup of a starter yet."

[pbmax]

You paint an ugly picture TPB. The only thing uglier is for your fan representatives (T2/M3) to work without every having to explain themselves publicly. I don't expect them to be given truth serum and a lie detector, but I expect that they answer hostile questions when warranted.

Since I doubt T2 and M3, as my representatives, are going to come to my house to answer questions or call me on my cell phone, I am happy with another surrogate in place, McGinn or Wilde.

If they want these eyeballs to keep watching and the pockets to keep buying whatever, then they need to be ready for public explanations. So I not only am happy to tolerate the media dip----s, I encourage them whenever possible. People exposed to no scrutiny perform less well than those who receive it.

That isn't to say the media are infallible or that McGinn's information is correct, but I want him there asking those questions. Any other position in my mind is asking to be served less than well.

[pbmax]

I will not argue that McGinn might have phrased the questions better as Patler and Zig point out. Especially four part questions that end with the GM's favorite out clause. And I doubt he expected an answer to the DC question, but it should be asked regardless for the record if McGinn has info that Thompson and other football people were concerned.

My main point is that I think they were served less well by refusing to comment since the beginning on why they preferred Favre to stay home. Contrary to Patler's implication of criticism of Favre, team's have let icons go and have succeeded in not falling off the map. Letting a player go a year early is better than a year late used to be an accepted fact in the NFL.

The 49ers traded Montana when he clearly preferred to stay. Marino was no longer wanted in Miami. Namath and Unitas were traded. This is not uncharted territory. Not commenting and hoping for the best was wishful thinking after Favre began the almost inevitable backtrack.

Saying we are ready for the next phase, Favre needs to win the job, taking him back and then trading him, in hindsight, would have been more straightforward.

You have a point Tex.

Besides, some questions are just stupid. Is TT really expected to say, "Yes, we discussed firing Sanders for a long time. I wanted him gone, but Mike likes him. We finally agreed to give him one year to show development and variation in the defense. If he doesn't, he's gone after this season."

or, "You bet I'm worried about age catching up to our CBs. If it does, we are in deep trouble because our backups are good as backups, but none has shown the makeup of a starter yet."

[Patler]

.

My main point is that I think they were served less well by refusing to comment since the beginning on why they preferred Favre to stay home. Contrary to Patler's implication of criticism of Favre, team's have let icons go and have succeeded in not falling off the map. Letting a player go a year early is better than a year late used to be an accepted fact in the NFL.

The 49ers traded Montana when he clearly preferred to stay. Marino was no longer wanted in Miami. Namath and Unitas were traded. This is not uncharted territory. Not commenting and hoping for the best was wishful thinking after Favre began the almost inevitable backtrack.

Saying we are ready for the next phase, Favre needs to win the job, taking him back and then trading him, in hindsight, would have been more straightforward.

Sure teams have moved on from the great QBs you mentioned, and it has always been done without criticism of the icon, just simple statements about "going new directions", "moving on" etc. Never with a critique of the old QBs performance.

[MJZiggy]

But PB, they didn't refuse to comment. They explained their position in detail, more than once. Why would TT have to explain it again? And Favre didn't help the team to do what you suggested. How can you say Favre needs to win a job that he publicly refuses to compete for?

Why would he have to ask the DC question? If they were concerned, they're certainly not going to admit it as Patler mentioned.

The Niners traded Montana and I'm sure that people disagreed with that choice, but the team survived just fine, just like the Colts survived trading Johnny Unitas. For some reason, people still buy Colts uniforms. There are even 20 or so people left on the planet who buy Dolphins gear and I would suspect that with the Pennington signing, that number might reach 30 by the end of the week!

McGinn could have made something good out of that interview as the fans have been paying so much attention to Favre that we really are behind in getting to know the rest of the team. Where were the questions about how the new kids are doing? Where was the discussion of the choice not to have the annual kicking and punting competitions, and why have we already chosen a long snapper? How does the elimination of NFLE affect the way he structures the team lacking those exemptions? How is the struggle for the #3 WR spot playing out? Thank you, McGinn, you had a chance to educate me on the status of my beloved team and you tanked.

[Patler]

If they want these eyeballs to keep watching and the pockets to keep buying whatever, then they need to be ready for public explanations. So I not only am happy to tolerate the media dip----s, I encourage them whenever possible. People exposed to no scrutiny perform less well than those who receive it.

Interestiing. I really could not care less than I do about their reasons for the decisions they make. I only care about the results in terms of the quality of the entertainment the team provides. I don't feel any right to hear their explanations.

[hoosier]

I've been very critical of sanders in the past, but I have watched the NFCC several times now and TT is dead on. Manning and Burress were in a zone that game. Harris was all over him on several plays, just like the vincent jackson TD vs. san diego in week 3, perfect pass and catch, nothing al could do. He also sent Hawk and others blitzing in the second half a lot. That day we did what we do, and the giants were unbelievable. I would play that game 10 times and we would win 7 imo.

In the several times that you've watched it, how many have GB won? :P

[pbmax]

Quite possibly true in some cases. Although I recall some pretty ugly stories out of San Fran, but I must admit those were about the relationship between Montana and Young.

However, in few cases does the team rely upon the retirement of the icon to provide the cover for the move they wish to make. Once that cover was blown, it would have been better to be open about changing the QB. Because until that point, they had not publicly indicated they no longer wished to have Favre as QB. Even today, T2/M3 have made it seem like timing gave them no other choice. Which leaves them open to criticism over stalling the comeback.

Sure teams have moved on from the great QBs you mentioned, and it has always been done without criticism of the icon, just simple statements about "going new directions", "moving on" etc. Never with a critique of the old QBs performance.

[pbmax]

I agree completely that McGinn's questions could have been improved. But as I replied to Patler, the explanation so far has been retirement, putting us in a bad position in late June (timing) and your head doesn't seem to be on straight. All quite plausible.

If indeed these were the only things going through their minds, then accepting Favre back on the day he filed for reinstatement and then trading him is a better option than hoping he would stay retired. Having to have Favre come to Green Bay was unnecessary. This is all hindsight, I grant you. I can't claim to have thought of this at the time.

My suspicion is more along the lines of McGinn, that a football decision had been made. After retirement became an afterthought, it still would have made more sense to have him back then trade him. Favre doesn't get to pick how much he practices.

This approach is not without risk, as the locker room and as Dungy pointed out, the coach's leadership, would be tested. But the alternative seemed to be kabuki theatre.

But PB, they didn't refuse to comment. They explained their position in detail, more than once. Why would TT have to explain it again? And Favre didn't help the team to do what you suggested. How can you say Favre needs to win a job that he publicly refuses to compete for?