Blind Faith: Is this TT's last year at GM?

[SnakeLH2006]

My favorite: irregardless.

I've tried to work "disirregardless" into my vocabulary, but I'm a pedant.

Lurker, Snake's loves your posts of late, but what? Do you support this you sick bastard? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G95qLIWMlMk

LMAO. Just fucking with ya.

But just to stir it up some more (as this topic has been getting pretty heated so far, as it just proves we as Rats are very passionate about our Packers...that's a good thing, no?....So why not bring out the big ass spatula to stir the soup up some more? Snake loves some good ass soup. And EVERYONE has an opinion on what ingredients make a good ass soup, lol.):

Snakey misses Shermy. Well Snake really misses winning teams and playoffs annually, actually.....

Shermy as GM: 53-27....0.06625 winning % = Average of 10.6 wins a year as GM.

TT as GM: 31-33...0.484375 winning % = Average of 7.75 wins a year as GM.

They both inherited teams coming off subpar years. Snake never meant to say Shermy was a good GM (a good coach though), but now after some years, it looks to be 3 less wins a year under TT.

Snake's Take:

TT better do something good for this year with the Draft this weekend. And Snakey loves the draft...Will DVR it and pore over it like Mel Kiper's illegitimate bastard son like EVERY year. But hey. Let's just fucking win already.

TT better sell his goddamn soul to the Draft Nazis and go nuts to get us a STARTING OT, Raji or Brace, and/or a passrusher ala Orapoko (however you spell it) or Larry English in the 2nd to solidify the pass rush. Some of those needs (stressing NEEDS)...need to be addressed. BPA is just an excuse to keep rebuilding over and over with an expressed excuse to keep "hoping" for next year, as Snake (and I'm sure ALL Rats) only want a winner....but after 13-3 to fall back to 6-10, the same tired ass excuses need to stop. A perrenial playoff team or bust. NO MORE EXCUSES that "we are getting better......Next year.....) Fuck that noise. Getting tired of it. This is HIS (TT's) team now. TT better bring his A-game and make some big ballin' playa type moves this weekend.

Either way though, Snake is like a kid in the candy store on Draft Weekend. I love it. Okay sorry, and Snake apologizes for ranting, but this is a helluva weekend for GB. Yes? Is Snake the only one who DVR's the draft then looks up bios online to see WHO we are getting, peeping their hilites on Youtube? Sorry, kinda giddy....The Draft in Snake's opinion is one of the best Sports Weekends of the year. Go Pack!

[wist43]

When have the Packers ever been a "grind you down and beat you with defense" team? Early Lombardi era?

The Packers are a "shred your pass defense" team and have been for a very long time.

You can't expect them to just change their identity.

I don't mind airing it out... my advocacy of a being a power running team has to with playing the odds.

I can't recall any team with that philosophy winning a Superbowl - that didn't have a HOF QB... and what are the odds that you're going to find a Tom Brady, or a Brett Favre, or John Elway, or a Joe Montana??? Those guys don't come along every day. Even Kurt Warner is going to make the HOF.

The Packers largely wasted Favres career b/c of their indifference to defense, the Miami Dolphins completely wasted Marino's career... on the other hand, power teams like Baltimore and Pittsburgh have won SB's with slugs like Trent Dilfer and Ben Rothliesberger under center. And that list is lengthy one... Hostetler, Brad Johnson, Doug Williams, et al.

Bottom line... running a fancy pants offense like the Packers run requires a HOF calibur QB in order for them to have a legitimate shot at a SB - the QB has to carry everything, has to be everything... hard top find those guys.

As for defense, it is non-negotiable IMO... defense has to be a constant. Just b/c you run a fancy pants offense, does that mean you have to turn up a snotty nose to playing defense??? Antuan Edwards, Ahmad Carroll, Nick Barnett, AJ Hawk... not going to win anything with puke like that on your defense.

And let's be honest... Wolfe bought himself a SB, by buying himself a defense. The entire SB defensive line was bought off the FA market. Had Wolfe not done that, and we left it to GB's vaunted scouting dept, we would be stareing at over 40 years of Super Bowl futility.

I have no problem with airing it out... as long as we have the QB, but as I said, defense has to be the bedrock.

Nothing wrong with winning games 13-6... would much rather have that than losing them 51-29.

[Fritz]

One of the threads running through this thread is that the "TT lovers" will excuse another bad season, explain it away....I don't think so. Even the most ardent TT supporters, myself included, are saying that TT probably gets this year and next, and that's about it. If he doesn't have this team in the playoffs and playing well in the playoffs in 2010, he'll be gone. And if this year turns into another 6-10 with a team that is not racked by injuries, well, it might be time for him to go after one year.

So he gets two years, max, by most supporters' accounts. I do think people don't know what to make of last year, but many TT supporters hope and believe it was an aberration. I think it was an aberration. I also see TT's first year - the 4-12 - as the chickens coming home to roost from Shermy's tenure as GM. I see the 8-8 year as TT beginning to re-stock the cupboard. I see the 13-3 as a bit of an overacheiving season. I see 6-10 as a frustrating mystery, though injuries might have played a bit of a role.

I would point out that one anti-TT poster has already stated that if the Packers do well this year, it will be sheer luck. So it seems the anti-TT people are more than willing to discount any success TT might have...

Could this be TT's last year? It could. He has stood by the talent on this team - he has said he likes this team, very much. So if the team goes relatively unscathed in terms of injury, but way underperforms, then Thompson might be gone. Or he might - might - get one more year if he cans MM.

However, I don't think either of those will happen. I see good things for this season, as long as the injury bug doesn't bite too hard.

[ThunderDan]

Snakey misses Shermy. Well Snake really misses winning teams and playoffs annually, actually.....

Shermy as GM: 53-27....0.06625 winning % = Average of 10.6 wins a year as GM.

TT as GM: 31-33...0.484375 winning % = Average of 7.75 wins a year as GM.

They both inherited teams coming off subpar years. Snake never meant to say Shermy was a good GM (a good coach though), but now after some years, it looks to be 3 less wins a year under TT.

The problem Snake is that you are wrong about what Sherman inherited. 3 years prior they win the SB. 2 years prior they make to the SB and lose to Denver. 1 year prior Ray Rhodes takes an incrediblely talented team and barely goes 8-8 and gets canned.

He also inherits a 3 time league MVP and HOF QB.

[sharpe1027]

One of the threads running through this thread is that the "TT lovers" will excuse another bad season, explain it away....I don't think so. Even the most ardent TT supporters, myself included, are saying that TT probably gets this year and next, and that's about it. If he doesn't have this team in the playoffs and playing well in the playoffs in 2010, he'll be gone. And if this year turns into another 6-10 with a team that is not racked by injuries, well, it might be time for him to go after one year.

So he gets two years, max, by most supporters' accounts. I do think people don't know what to make of last year, but many TT supporters hope and believe it was an aberration. I think it was an aberration. I also see TT's first year - the 4-12 - as the chickens coming home to roost from Shermy's tenure as GM. I see the 8-8 year as TT beginning to re-stock the cupboard. I see the 13-3 as a bit of an overacheiving season. I see 6-10 as a frustrating mystery, though injuries might have played a bit of a role.

I would point out that one anti-TT poster has already stated that if the Packers do well this year, it will be sheer luck. So it seems the anti-TT people are more than willing to discount any success TT might have...

Could this be TT's last year? It could. He has stood by the talent on this team - he has said he likes this team, very much. So if the team goes relatively unscathed in terms of injury, but way underperforms, then Thompson might be gone. Or he might - might - get one more year if he cans MM.

However, I don't think either of those will happen. I see good things for this season, as long as the injury bug doesn't bite too hard.

I couldn't agree more. I've said it before, if the Packers aren't in playoffs this year, I will be fine with getting rid of TT. Til then, it is a whole lot of hot air. He's not going anywhere this year. End of story.

[Waldo]

When have the Packers ever been a "grind you down and beat you with defense" team? Early Lombardi era?

The Packers are a "shred your pass defense" team and have been for a very long time.

You can't expect them to just change their identity.

I don't mind airing it out... my advocacy of a being a power running team has to with playing the odds.

I can't recall any team with that philosophy winning a Superbowl - that didn't have a HOF QB... and what are the odds that you're going to find a Tom Brady, or a Brett Favre, or John Elway, or a Joe Montana??? Those guys don't come along every day. Even Kurt Warner is going to make the HOF.

The Packers largely wasted Favres career b/c of their indifference to defense, the Miami Dolphins completely wasted Marino's career... on the other hand, power teams like Baltimore and Pittsburgh have won SB's with slugs like Trent Dilfer and Ben Rothliesberger under center. And that list is lengthy one... Hostetler, Brad Johnson, Doug Williams, et al.

Bottom line... running a fancy pants offense like the Packers run requires a HOF calibur QB in order for them to have a legitimate shot at a SB - the QB has to carry everything, has to be everything... hard top find those guys.

As for defense, it is non-negotiable IMO... defense has to be a constant. Just b/c you run a fancy pants offense, does that mean you have to turn up a snotty nose to playing defense??? Antuan Edwards, Ahmad Carroll, Nick Barnett, AJ Hawk... not going to win anything with puke like that on your defense.

And let's be honest... Wolfe bought himself a SB, by buying himself a defense. The entire SB defensive line was bought off the FA market. Had Wolfe not done that, and we left it to GB's vaunted scouting dept, we would be stareing at over 40 years of Super Bowl futility.

I have no problem with airing it out... as long as we have the QB, but as I said, defense has to be the bedrock.

Nothing wrong with winning games 13-6... would much rather have that than losing them 51-29.

I guess we do both agree on one thing. While the underlying methodology may be different, we need to do a better job running the ball. We need to be able to effectively run into 8 in the box. That is how you control games. It is absolutely a lost cause right now.

[wist43]

When have the Packers ever been a "grind you down and beat you with defense" team? Early Lombardi era?

The Packers are a "shred your pass defense" team and have been for a very long time.

You can't expect them to just change their identity.

I don't mind airing it out... my advocacy of a being a power running team has to with playing the odds.

I can't recall any team with that philosophy winning a Superbowl - that didn't have a HOF QB... and what are the odds that you're going to find a Tom Brady, or a Brett Favre, or John Elway, or a Joe Montana??? Those guys don't come along every day. Even Kurt Warner is going to make the HOF.

The Packers largely wasted Favres career b/c of their indifference to defense, the Miami Dolphins completely wasted Marino's career... on the other hand, power teams like Baltimore and Pittsburgh have won SB's with slugs like Trent Dilfer and Ben Rothliesberger under center. And that list is lengthy one... Hostetler, Brad Johnson, Doug Williams, et al.

Bottom line... running a fancy pants offense like the Packers run requires a HOF calibur QB in order for them to have a legitimate shot at a SB - the QB has to carry everything, has to be everything... hard top find those guys.

As for defense, it is non-negotiable IMO... defense has to be a constant. Just b/c you run a fancy pants offense, does that mean you have to turn up a snotty nose to playing defense??? Antuan Edwards, Ahmad Carroll, Nick Barnett, AJ Hawk... not going to win anything with puke like that on your defense.

And let's be honest... Wolfe bought himself a SB, by buying himself a defense. The entire SB defensive line was bought off the FA market. Had Wolfe not done that, and we left it to GB's vaunted scouting dept, we would be stareing at over 40 years of Super Bowl futility.

I have no problem with airing it out... as long as we have the QB, but as I said, defense has to be the bedrock.

Nothing wrong with winning games 13-6... would much rather have that than losing them 51-29.

I guess we do both agree on one thing. While the underlying methodology may be different, we need to do a better job running the ball. We need to be able to effectively run into 8 in the box. That is how you control games. It is absolutely a lost cause right now.

No argument here...

[wist43]

One of the threads running through this thread is that the "TT lovers" will excuse another bad season, explain it away....I don't think so. Even the most ardent TT supporters, myself included, are saying that TT probably gets this year and next, and that's about it. If he doesn't have this team in the playoffs and playing well in the playoffs in 2010, he'll be gone. And if this year turns into another 6-10 with a team that is not racked by injuries, well, it might be time for him to go after one year.

So he gets two years, max, by most supporters' accounts. I do think people don't know what to make of last year, but many TT supporters hope and believe it was an aberration. I think it was an aberration. I also see TT's first year - the 4-12 - as the chickens coming home to roost from Shermy's tenure as GM. I see the 8-8 year as TT beginning to re-stock the cupboard. I see the 13-3 as a bit of an overacheiving season. I see 6-10 as a frustrating mystery, though injuries might have played a bit of a role.

I would point out that one anti-TT poster has already stated that if the Packers do well this year, it will be sheer luck. So it seems the anti-TT people are more than willing to discount any success TT might have...

Could this be TT's last year? It could. He has stood by the talent on this team - he has said he likes this team, very much. So if the team goes relatively unscathed in terms of injury, but way underperforms, then Thompson might be gone. Or he might - might - get one more year if he cans MM.

However, I don't think either of those will happen. I see good things for this season, as long as the injury bug doesn't bite too hard.

I couldn't agree more. I've said it before, if the Packers aren't in playoffs this year, I will be fine with getting rid of TT. Til then, it is a whole lot of hot air. He's not going anywhere this year. End of story.

TT's not going anywhere, regardless of record... his slow and steady approach will play well with Murhpy and the board; and, none of them cares much about Packer Nation - we'll keep buying tickets and gear.

[PackerBlues]

TT's not going anywhere, regardless of record... his slow and steady approach will play well with Murhpy and the board; and, none of them cares much about Packer Nation - we'll keep buying tickets and gear.

Good Point.......but after reading the rest of the posts prior to this one, I'm confused. Is it a moot point? A mute point? Irregardless of being moot can it still be mute?..... regardless of the fact that irregardless is not a word (apparently)??

Disirregardless???

[sharpe1027]

TT's not going anywhere, regardless of record... his slow and steady approach will play well with Murhpy and the board; and, none of them cares much about Packer Nation - we'll keep buying tickets and gear.

Good Point.......but after reading the rest of the posts prior to this one, I'm confused. Is it a moot point? A mute point? Irregardless of being moot can it still be mute?..... regardless of the fact that irregardless is not a word (apparently)??

Disirregardless???

Unregardless of the disirregardlessness of the muted moot point, I hear a violin playing when I read Wist's post above. Poor fans, nobody cares about us.

I am sure that Murphy has no interest in a superbowl since he is only interested in the bottom line. The Packer's clearly make the same amount of money disirregardless of their W/L record. Why on Earth would he want to win a SB? I guess if Wist is right, then the only way to win a SB is to become like the Vikings fans and trash talk our team while we stop buying tickets and we wallow in our self-pity. It is a moot point for us to discuss this because as far as Murphy is concerned all fans are mute. I therefore conclude that the only true Packer fans are those that boycott the Packers unless they are wining.

[Fritz]

One of the threads running through this thread is that the "TT lovers" will excuse another bad season, explain it away....I don't think so. Even the most ardent TT supporters, myself included, are saying that TT probably gets this year and next, and that's about it. If he doesn't have this team in the playoffs and playing well in the playoffs in 2010, he'll be gone. And if this year turns into another 6-10 with a team that is not racked by injuries, well, it might be time for him to go after one year.

So he gets two years, max, by most supporters' accounts. I do think people don't know what to make of last year, but many TT supporters hope and believe it was an aberration. I think it was an aberration. I also see TT's first year - the 4-12 - as the chickens coming home to roost from Shermy's tenure as GM. I see the 8-8 year as TT beginning to re-stock the cupboard. I see the 13-3 as a bit of an overacheiving season. I see 6-10 as a frustrating mystery, though injuries might have played a bit of a role.

I would point out that one anti-TT poster has already stated that if the Packers do well this year, it will be sheer luck. So it seems the anti-TT people are more than willing to discount any success TT might have...

Could this be TT's last year? It could. He has stood by the talent on this team - he has said he likes this team, very much. So if the team goes relatively unscathed in terms of injury, but way underperforms, then Thompson might be gone. Or he might - might - get one more year if he cans MM.

However, I don't think either of those will happen. I see good things for this season, as long as the injury bug doesn't bite too hard.

I couldn't agree more. I've said it before, if the Packers aren't in playoffs this year, I will be fine with getting rid of TT. Til then, it is a whole lot of hot air. He's not going anywhere this year. End of story.

TT's not going anywhere, regardless of record... his slow and steady approach will play well with Murhpy and the board; and, none of them cares much about Packer Nation - we'll keep buying tickets and gear.

Wist, I like ya and all, but sometimes you write things that make no sense at all. The italicized line above is one of those things. Please. This ain't Detroit. If TT doesn't have a winning record in the next two years, don't tell me he won't get canned. And don't tell me Murphy doesn't care about winning a SB as long as the team makes money. Come on.

[RashanGary]

Not only that, Fritz, but the majority of fans support the direction that Thompson has this team. It's the vocal minority that hate him.

[Partial]

The direction that Thompson has this team? Wake up dude, the team is basically the same if not worse than when he got here. I like his approach and think that if he starts drafting better the team could be very good, but facts are facts.

I really don't see the super positive direction that you do. I see a team full of ups and downs. Very young and very inconsistent.

[Zool]

Well which is it? Is the team the same as when he got here, or is it an up and down young team? He inherited a pretty old team.

[Fritz]

What Zool said.