Historical perspective for the current 5-7 record

[Merlin]

What are you 5? I mean seriously? Apparently you didn't get enough attention the last time you attacked someone so you have to make a stink here too... How sad is that?

[sheepshead]

Currently it will take an awful lot for us to make the playoffs. The only stat that matters is the "W". Ted Thompson is currently 31-31 (30-30 regular season) to this point. If we win out, he will be 35-31 (34-30) with a high likelihood of missing the playoffs. He will have been our GM for 4 full seasons. By contrast, Mike Sherman was the GM for 4 seasons and his record was 46-24 (44-20 regular season). We all know that Sherman was not a well liked GM and to some people not a well liked coach. However you can't argue the success he had when he was here and that success wasn't good enough for him to keep his job. Make all the arguments you want about Sherman's reign but in the end the "W" is all that matters. He won a lot of games in Green Bay.

There has been one losing season in Green Bay since the Ron Wolf era began, under Thompson's watch. Fine it was his first season but it isn't something you forgive and forget. We now have the possibility of a second in 4 seasons under Thompson. Anyone want to bet that no matter what happens Thompson keeps his job? Why should he? Why are we accepting mediocrity? We booted Sherman out because he couldn't manage the cap and he couldn't win the big playoff games. But we keep Thompson who manages the cap (and you can argue that being so far under it is not managing it because you aren't winning) and can 't bring the one stat that matters, the "W". I get it, makes perfect sense, keep the guy who isn't winning because at some point in the "future" he might. That is some backasswards logic and what caused the 70's and 80's for the Packers.

I dont think it's the GM's fault. We have a pretty talented team. Mike Sherman, as evidenced by his fine career path, was in way over his head. The GM and HC aren't going anywhere anytime soon. I wouldn't waste any more pixel space on it.

[cpk1994]

What are you 5? I mean seriously? Apparently you didn't get enough attention the last time you attacked someone so you have to make a stink here too... How sad is that?

Im not making a stink. But what I am seeing from you is the same tired crap you have posted since TT was hired. You hate TT. We get it.
That said, Sherman got fired becuase he destroyed the depth of the team and had almost completely driven it into the ground. TT managed to turn that around and get the team into the NFC title game. How many did your boy Sherman make it to? I'll wait while you count them all up. Shouldn't take long as you only have to count to 0.

[Merlin]

I didn't get past the first line into your reply "But what I am seeing from you is the same tired crap you have posted since TT was hired. You hate TT. We get it. " Which is the same tired crap you spew every time I post. The numbers are right there, they don't lie, Thompson is not as successful of a GM as Sherman based upon the one indisputable stat that all sports is based off of WINS. Is our team "talented"? We seem to think so, but that talent isn't generating wins. That isn't "hate" that is reality. And Thompson is not held to the same standard and that isn't right either. As fans we should not accept this and we should be vocal about it.

Also, I never said I hated Thompson, I have been vocal about his mistakes and his accountability for those. I have also given him praise for certain things as well (not like you would ever acknowledge you are wrong). You confuse my passion for the Green Bay Packers with hate. You my friend are the one full of hate. You are attacking someone that you don't even know in an online forum. Do you feel like a big man now? Does it make you feel superior? What the hell man? Did your mother not breast feed you?

[pbmax]

I am pretty sure we booted out Sherman first because he struggled as a GM. As a coach, the team he inherited was already pretty talented, though young at key spots (O Line) and he did develop them nicely. He should receive the credit for that.

But for his second demotion, he clearly opposed the GMs decisions after Thompson arrived. Harlan has also indicated that Sherman had difficulty forging a working relationship with his new boss.

So he lost one job due to his own struggles, and a second one due to his own choice. Its possible Thompson wouldn't have kept a accommodating Sherman either. But his odds would have been better. I don't think the 4-12 season was even on the list of reasons.

As for Thompson, he choose to rebuild an older team. His record going in was not going to match Sherman's in the first year, obviously. As for his future, its all dependent on his coach and his players. Thompson will have his judgement day as well, it will be an extra couple of years though.

[Patler]

Currently it will take an awful lot for us to make the playoffs. The only stat that matters is the "W". Ted Thompson is currently 31-31 (30-30 regular season) to this point. If we win out, he will be 35-31 (34-30) with a high likelihood of missing the playoffs. He will have been our GM for 4 full seasons. By contrast, Mike Sherman was the GM for 4 seasons and his record was 46-24 (44-20 regular season). We all know that Sherman was not a well liked GM and to some people not a well liked coach. However you can't argue the success he had when he was here and that success wasn't good enough for him to keep his job. Make all the arguments you want about Sherman's reign but in the end the "W" is all that matters. He won a lot of games in Green Bay.

There has been one losing season in Green Bay since the Ron Wolf era began, under Thompson's watch. Fine it was his first season but it isn't something you forgive and forget. We now have the possibility of a second in 4 seasons under Thompson. Anyone want to bet that no matter what happens Thompson keeps his job? Why should he? Why are we accepting mediocrity? We booted Sherman out because he couldn't manage the cap and he couldn't win the big playoff games. But we keep Thompson who manages the cap (and you can argue that being so far under it is not managing it because you aren't winning) and can 't bring the one stat that matters, the "W". I get it, makes perfect sense, keep the guy who isn't winning because at some point in the "future" he might. That is some backasswards logic and what caused the 70's and 80's for the Packers.

In no particular order of importance, some errors I find in your argument are:

-Sherman the GM was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- no depth.
-Sherman the GM was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- unmanageable vet contracts.
-Sherman the GM was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- wasted cap dollars.
-Sherman the coach was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- laissez faire management of Favre's performance.
-Sherman was never TT's coach, he inherited him.
-Because of the above, TT was rightfully given a pass for "4-12".
-Sherman brought on his own firing by not accepting and working with his new boss.
-TT is part of a team that includes Murphy and McCarthy.
-when evaluating a GM short term, the reasons for "Ws & Ls" are important.
-when evaluating a GM the direction a program is headed is more important than short term "Ws & Ls".
-Sherman's program for the team was headed down.
-Sherman never put together a team considered a real playoff threat.
-TT appears to be building a program for the future, a team with a foundation.
-TT put together a team that was a game away from the Super Bowl.
-fans focus on short term wins and losses, usually just the season.
-team management also has to consider longer range issues, including whether starting over makes sense at the time.

That being said, a season of 7-9 or 6-10 will not sit well following 13-3. If it is followed by another poor performance in 2009, absent unusual circumstances TT could be on a short leash, and he should be. Making the NFC Championship game buys him a year of grace.

[Patler]

We booted Sherman out because he couldn't manage the cap and he couldn't win the big playoff games. But we keep Thompson who manages the cap (and you can argue that being so far under it is not managing it because you aren't winning) and can 't bring the one stat that matters, the "W".

I forgot one issue - please explain the above.

The cumulative impact of TT's cap management over four years is that they are just over $7 million short of spending every dollar allotted to them for the four years. Of the almost $415 million for salary caps in 2005 through 2008, he has spent about $408 million. How is he "so far under" the cap?

[cpk1994]

I didn't get past the first line into your reply "But what I am seeing from you is the same tired crap you have posted since TT was hired. You hate TT. We get it. " Which is the same tired crap you spew every time I post. The numbers are right there, they don't lie, Thompson is not as successful of a GM as Sherman based upon the one indisputable stat that all sports is based off of WINS. Is our team "talented"? We seem to think so, but that talent isn't generating wins. That isn't "hate" that is reality. And Thompson is not held to the same standard and that isn't right either. As fans we should not accept this and we should be vocal about it.

Also, I never said I hated Thompson, I have been vocal about his mistakes and his accountability for those. I have also given him praise for certain things as well (not like you would ever acknowledge you are wrong). You confuse my passion for the Green Bay Packers with hate. You my friend are the one full of hate. You are attacking someone that you don't even know in an online forum. Do you feel like a big man now? Does it make you feel superior? What the hell man? Did your mother not breast feed you?

Again, how many NFC title games did Sherman get to as GM? I'll wait while you count. Now how many has Thomspon gotten his team to? More than Sherman. That is why TT is given more leeway. Your TT hate makes you ignorant and once again you need to calm down becuase you are making an ass of yourself.

[Tarlam!]

We booted Sherman out because he couldn't manage the cap and he couldn't win the big playoff games. But we keep Thompson who manages the cap (and you can argue that being so far under it is not managing it because you aren't winning) and can 't bring the one stat that matters, the "W".

I forgot one issue - please explain the above.

The cumulative impact of TT's cap management over four years is that they are just over $7 million short of spending every dollar allotted to them for the four years. Of the almost $415 million for salary caps in 2005 through 2008, he has spent about $408 million. How is he "so far under" the cap?

Patlerized, baby. Take it like a man.

[Fritz]

Currently it will take an awful lot for us to make the playoffs. The only stat that matters is the "W". Ted Thompson is currently 31-31 (30-30 regular season) to this point. If we win out, he will be 35-31 (34-30) with a high likelihood of missing the playoffs. He will have been our GM for 4 full seasons. By contrast, Mike Sherman was the GM for 4 seasons and his record was 46-24 (44-20 regular season). We all know that Sherman was not a well liked GM and to some people not a well liked coach. However you can't argue the success he had when he was here and that success wasn't good enough for him to keep his job. Make all the arguments you want about Sherman's reign but in the end the "W" is all that matters. He won a lot of games in Green Bay.

There has been one losing season in Green Bay since the Ron Wolf era began, under Thompson's watch. Fine it was his first season but it isn't something you forgive and forget. We now have the possibility of a second in 4 seasons under Thompson. Anyone want to bet that no matter what happens Thompson keeps his job? Why should he? Why are we accepting mediocrity? We booted Sherman out because he couldn't manage the cap and he couldn't win the big playoff games. But we keep Thompson who manages the cap (and you can argue that being so far under it is not managing it because you aren't winning) and can 't bring the one stat that matters, the "W". I get it, makes perfect sense, keep the guy who isn't winning because at some point in the "future" he might. That is some backasswards logic and what caused the 70's and 80's for the Packers.

In no particular order of importance, some errors I find in your argument are:

-Sherman the GM was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- no depth.
-Sherman the GM was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- unmanageable vet contracts.
-Sherman the GM was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- wasted cap dollars.
-Sherman the coach was as responsible for "4-12" as was TT- laissez faire management of Favre's performance.
-Sherman was never TT's coach, he inherited him.
-Because of the above, TT was rightfully given a pass for "4-12".
-Sherman brought on his own firing by not accepting and working with his new boss.
-TT is part of a team that includes Murphy and McCarthy.
-when evaluating a GM short term, the reasons for "Ws & Ls" are important.
-when evaluating a GM the direction a program is headed is more important than short term "Ws & Ls".
-Sherman's program for the team was headed down.
-Sherman never put together a team considered a real playoff threat.
-TT appears to be building a program for the future, a team with a foundation.
-TT put together a team that was a game away from the Super Bowl.
-fans focus on short term wins and losses, usually just the season.
-team management also has to consider longer range issues, including whether starting over makes sense at the time.

That being said, a season of 7-9 or 6-10 will not sit well following 13-3. If it is followed by another poor performance in 2009, absent unusual circumstances TT could be on a short leash, and he should be. Making the NFC Championship game buys him a year of grace.

I agree with 99% of what you have written, Patler, but I was surprised that you claim Sherman never had a team considered a serious playoff contender. That 4th-and-26 team was, I thought anyway, a very strong Superbowl contender. A powerful running game, Brett Favre at QB and a defense that (and how I hate to say this) bent but did not break (much). I thought that was the best GB team I'd seen in a while, and maybe the best offense I'd seen including the Holmgren teams. Guess I liked the powerful run game and thought it was a team built for the playoffs. Not that they won, but I thought they were a serious contender.

[Tarlam!]

Except they could't get that yard and 4th & 26 destroy your observations, Fritz.

[Zool]

We booted Sherman out because he couldn't manage the cap and he couldn't win the big playoff games. But we keep Thompson who manages the cap (and you can argue that being so far under it is not managing it because you aren't winning) and can 't bring the one stat that matters, the "W".

I forgot one issue - please explain the above.

The cumulative impact of TT's cap management over four years is that they are just over $7 million short of spending every dollar allotted to them for the four years. Of the almost $415 million for salary caps in 2005 through 2008, he has spent about $408 million. How is he "so far under" the cap?

This is the exact point that some like to ignore. Money is either used right before the cutoff to resign someone, or moved forward to the next season via some very smart bonuses that cannot be met. Its not like every season there's $22mil just sitting there at the end of the season unused.

[Patler]

I agree with 99% of what you have written, Patler, but I was surprised that you claim Sherman never had a team considered a serious playoff contender. That 4th-and-26 team was, I thought anyway, a very strong Superbowl contender. A powerful running game, Brett Favre at QB and a defense that (and how I hate to say this) bent but did not break (much). I thought that was the best GB team I'd seen in a while, and maybe the best offense I'd seen including the Holmgren teams. Guess I liked the powerful run game and thought it was a team built for the playoffs. Not that they won, but I thought they were a serious contender.

Maybe, but I have felt that was one of Sherman's teams that was made to look better than it was due to fortunate scheduling. They finished at 10-6, and beat the Seahawks and Denver (last game of the year) who also finished at 10-6. Beyond that they split with the Vikings who finished 9-7, but beat no other team that finished with a winning record. They even lost one to the Lions (5-11) and also to Arizona (4-12). They were lucky to play both San Diego and Oakland (both 4-12). The best teams they played, K.C. (13-3), St. Louis (12-4) and Philly (12-4) all beat them. It may have been a play-off worthy team, but getting beyond the Wild Card game win would have been an upset, I think.

[cpk1994]

I agree with 99% of what you have written, Patler, but I was surprised that you claim Sherman never had a team considered a serious playoff contender. That 4th-and-26 team was, I thought anyway, a very strong Superbowl contender. A powerful running game, Brett Favre at QB and a defense that (and how I hate to say this) bent but did not break (much). I thought that was the best GB team I'd seen in a while, and maybe the best offense I'd seen including the Holmgren teams. Guess I liked the powerful run game and thought it was a team built for the playoffs. Not that they won, but I thought they were a serious contender.

Maybe, but I have felt that was one of Sherman's teams that was made to look better than it was due to fortunate scheduling. They finished at 10-6, and beat the Seahawks and Denver (last game of the year) who also finished at 10-6. Beyond that they split with the Vikings who finished 9-7, but beat no other team that finished with a winning record. They even lost one to the Lions (5-11) and also to Arizona (4-12). They were lucky to play both San Diego and Oakland (both 4-12). The best teams they played, K.C. (13-3), St. Louis (12-4) and Philly (12-4) all beat them. It may have been a play-off worthy team, but getting beyond the Wild Card game win would have been an upset, I think.

Also to note, in that San Diego game they were trailing in the 4th quarter, but were able to put 14 unanswered points on the board around a Grady Jackson forced fumble. Remember also that in the Seahawks game they had a 7 point lead, but the D was a sieve on the last drive of regulation and gave up the tiieing score. Add to that blowing a chnace to win the game in regulation after Sherman's called a rediculous shotgun draw after Longwell told him he needed 5 yards to get the FG. That team relied on a lot of luck the last month plus of the season. It wasn't as good as some are making out to be.

[Fritz]

Except they could't get that yard and 4th & 26 destroy your observations, Fritz.

I'm not sure two plays can destroy a general observation, Tar.

I think if there's a weakness to my argument it might be in the defense's ineffectiveness. That might've been the achilles heel.

As I said, I thought that offense was built for the playoffs. A stout offensive line, a stud running back and a HOF quarterback.