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

[wist43]

I think there's a decent chance the Packers will be above .500 in the next few years... I'm not saying they'll be a sub .500 team.

But I think our goals are different... I want to win SB's. You guys seem happy just to be plodding along... 10-6 in perpituity is fine with you guys - not so with me.

[mraynrand]

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 think your brain power is running a bit low. Time to wake up the hamster!

[Zool]

I don't recall any single person here saying they would be okay with perpetual 10-6. I totally get what you're saying about the D though. I don't think the D will dominate this year but if they can draft well a top 10 D will go a long ways towards the SB plans.

[Gunakor]

Wake up dude, the team is basically the same if not worse than when he got here.

Really? Explain what you mean. TT year 1 = 4-12 with Brett Favre starting 16 games at QB. TT year 4 = 6-10 with Aaron Rodgers starting 16 games at QB. IMO the team is not basically the same OR worse than it was when he got here.

[cheesner]

Wake up dude, the team is basically the same if not worse than when he got here.

Really? Explain what you mean. TT year 1 = 4-12 with Brett Favre starting 16 games at QB. TT year 4 = 6-10 with Aaron Rodgers starting 16 games at QB. IMO the team is not basically the same OR worse than it was when he got here.

1. 4-12
2. 8-8
3. 12-4
4. 6-10

To me there is a definate trend here and it is up. The last season is one of those, what you call, statistical outliers.

The crux of the argument is was last year an aberration or was the trend from the first 3 years the aberration or an illusion?

To know for sure will just take some time to see. To determine the likely answer, you need to look at the roster and ask yourself, 'Is there more talent here than when TT started?' I am not sure how you can look at the roster of 5 years ago and say there was more talent. Top to bottom at nearly all positions, the current roster is significantly more talented than the team that TT started with.

I for one, am looking forward to some great seasons for the Packers coming up. As long as TT continues along with his plan, the Packers are in great hands.

[TheCheese]

Wake up dude, the team is basically the same if not worse than when he got here.

Really? Explain what you mean. TT year 1 = 4-12 with Brett Favre starting 16 games at QB. TT year 4 = 6-10 with Aaron Rodgers starting 16 games at QB. IMO the team is not basically the same OR worse than it was when he got here.

1. 4-12
2. 8-8
3. 12-4
4. 6-10

To me there is a definate trend here and it is up. The last season is one of those, what you call, statistical outliers.

The crux of the argument is was last year an aberration or was the trend from the first 3 years the aberration or an illusion?

To know for sure will just take some time to see. To determine the likely answer, you need to look at the roster and ask yourself, 'Is there more talent here than when TT started?' I am not sure how you can look at the roster of 5 years ago and say there was more talent. Top to bottom at nearly all positions, the current roster is significantly more talented than the team that TT started with.

I for one, am looking forward to some great seasons for the Packers coming up. As long as TT continues along with his plan, the Packers are in great hands.

Year 3 is actually 13-3

[Partial]

Wake up dude, the team is basically the same if not worse than when he got here.

Really? Explain what you mean. TT year 1 = 4-12 with Brett Favre starting 16 games at QB. TT year 4 = 6-10 with Aaron Rodgers starting 16 games at QB. IMO the team is not basically the same OR worse than it was when he got here.

6-10 is still awful dude. Teets barely has a winning record. I like the way he approaches things, but I don't think this team is any better now than when he got here. It's younger, sure, but better? I don't know about that, and the record since he's been here basically backs up the claim.

I'm very surprised so many people jumped on my comment. I don't understand it. Where is the positive direction? We didn't end the year with any positive momentum at all, so I'm not sure where this positive up swing is coming from.

I know its the popular thing to jump on Partial's posts and call him dumb because that is what the cool kids do... but I have yet to see anyone post a bit of contrary evidence while calling me dumb. So, if you're going to be a big man, at least provide some evidence of this upswing.

And saying well, we have up and comers like Jennings(love him as a player, not knocking him at all) on the roster now that we didn't have before... Big whoop. We had up and comers like Driver and Walker before he took over.

I see the talent level as largely the same as we have the same # of blue and red chippers now as we did in 2004. In 2004, we had Favre as a Blue chipper, and Clifton, Green, Walker as Red Chippers. In 2009, we have Jennings as the lone Blue chipper, and Kampman, Woodson, and Collins as the red chippers. That's why we're not a dramatically better or worse team, because we have largely the same amount of excellent players.

The way that I see it is, is we have a good amount of young depth now that we didn't have before. We had a bunch of old depth before. I don't think either group is any more or less talented than the other.

After watching this season, it's pretty clear to me that the anomaly is 2007, and that Teets' average record for the other 3 seasons is 6-10. Recall that in 2006, we went into week 13 with a 4-12 record, and we really happened to get hot at the end, which carried over into the hot start of 2007. It's not like we were consistently good in 2006.

[Gunakor]

Wake up dude, the team is basically the same if not worse than when he got here.

Really? Explain what you mean. TT year 1 = 4-12 with Brett Favre starting 16 games at QB. TT year 4 = 6-10 with Aaron Rodgers starting 16 games at QB. IMO the team is not basically the same OR worse than it was when he got here.

6-10 is still awful dude. Teets barely has a winning record. I like the way he approaches things, but I don't think this team is any better now than when he got here. It's younger, sure, but better? I don't know about that, and the record since he's been here basically backs up the claim.

I'm very surprised so many people jumped on my comment. I don't understand it. Where is the positive direction? We didn't end the year with any positive momentum at all, so I'm not sure where this positive up swing is coming from.

I know its the popular thing to jump on Partial's posts and call him dumb because that is what the cool kids do... but I have yet to see anyone post a bit of contrary evidence while calling me dumb. So, if you're going to be a big man, at least provide some evidence of this upswing.

And saying well, we have up and comers like Jennings(love him as a player, not knocking him at all) on the roster now that we didn't have before... Big whoop. We had up and comers like Driver and Walker before he took over.

The way that I see it is, is we have a good amount of young depth now that we didn't have before. We had a bunch of old depth before. I don't think either group is any more or less talented than the other.

After watching this season, it's pretty clear to me that the anomaly is 2007, and that Teets' average record for the other 3 seasons is 6-10. Most statistical methods of analyzing data would point to 2007 being the anomaly as well.

If the talent is the same but the team is younger, that means the team is better. The old team TT was left with had maxed out their potential. The young team TT brought in only has room to keep improving.

You are right, we didn't end the year with any positive momentum. Just a win against the lowly Lions. Good thing that season ended. Our guys will get healthy and get back at it. Why are you so certain that the momentum from last December is going to carry over into this coming September?

Years 1 and 4 were in fact anomolies. The reason those are anomalies is that both seasons were wrought with injury. More players at more key positions were put on IR than most other teams in teh NFL in both seasons. 2005 was without a doubt the worst season in terms of injuries I can remember in a long time - we were down to our fifth RB to start the last game, and you remember who the WR's were to end that season. Last year I think only the Seahawks were bit worse by the injury bug than we were. And look where they're picking tomorrow.

2007 wasn't the norm by any means either, in fact I have said so numerous times that we were just a 10 win team that year who stole 3 wins on sheer luck. I still think this is a 10 win team.

[Partial]

I don't think that younger necessarily means the team is better off. I think it means just that, that they're a younger team. This could pay dividends in the form of them staying healthier, having faster recovery, etc. I'm not sure how much that matters or means to a pro team.

I'm not sure how I feel about the injuries last year because I feel that a lot of them seemed to occur to back-ups. When Al went down, Tramon stepped in and we didn't really miss a beat. When Jenkins went down, that hurt, but he was largely ineffective the previous year according to coaches due to injury, so I'm not sure how much of an impact that had. Losing Barnett hurt, no doubt. You can't just plug someone else into the vocal leader of the defenses spot, and the only "tough, nasty guy" we have, and expect to not skip a beat.

I guess at some point you have to wonder if having Tramon at the starting corner ultimately made a big difference to the way teams played their third receiver, etc. I'd venture a guess they did take advantage of the matchup more often when a less qualified defender was covering, but I don't have an accurate answer to this.

[SnakeLH2006]

I don't think that younger necessarily means the team is better off. I think it means just that, that they're a younger team. This could pay dividends in the form of them staying healthier, having faster recovery, etc. I'm not sure how much that matters or means to a pro team.

I'm not sure how I feel about the injuries last year because I feel that a lot of them seemed to occur to back-ups. When Al went down, Tramon stepped in and we didn't really miss a beat. When Jenkins went down, that hurt, but he was largely ineffective the previous year according to coaches due to injury, so I'm not sure how much of an impact that had. Losing Barnett hurt, no doubt. You can't just plug someone else into the vocal leader of the defenses spot, and the only "tough, nasty guy" we have, and expect to not skip a beat.

I guess at some point you have to wonder if having Tramon at the starting corner ultimately made a big difference to the way teams played their third receiver, etc. I'd venture a guess they did take advantage of the matchup more often when a less qualified defender was covering, but I don't have an accurate answer to this.

Wow...Partial...Snake agrees overall with this post. Fuck injuries. They happen to all teams. We in 2008 were not much different than most. Sick of excuses. Big draft. Many say fuck if we are gonna get a starter....that's ok, but TT better hope we go 10-6 at least. Bottom line= wins equal GM status. Let's see it yo. Snake gets sick having a dream we go 6-10 again.

[Gunakor]

I don't think that younger necessarily means the team is better off. I think it means just that, that they're a younger team. This could pay dividends in the form of them staying healthier, having faster recovery, etc. I'm not sure how much that matters or means to a pro team.

I'm not sure how I feel about the injuries last year because I feel that a lot of them seemed to occur to back-ups. When Al went down, Tramon stepped in and we didn't really miss a beat. When Jenkins went down, that hurt, but he was largely ineffective the previous year according to coaches due to injury, so I'm not sure how much of an impact that had. Losing Barnett hurt, no doubt. You can't just plug someone else into the vocal leader of the defenses spot, and the only "tough, nasty guy" we have, and expect to not skip a beat.

I guess at some point you have to wonder if having Tramon at the starting corner ultimately made a big difference to the way teams played their third receiver, etc. I'd venture a guess they did take advantage of the matchup more often when a less qualified defender was covering, but I don't have an accurate answer to this.

Well, especially concerning the Jenkins injury last year, he finished the season in the top 5 on the team in sacks - having only played a couple games. I think it made a huge impact, considering there was nobody else on the roster who could get pressure opposite Kampman all season long.

One can't downplay the nagging injury to KGB either. In 2007 he gave us 9 and a half sacks, in 2008 he completely disappeared. Again, no pressure opposite Kampman.

Injuries to backups: You are right, but backups don't get injured when the starters are in the game. Rouse doesn't get injured if Collins and Bigby are healthy, for example. Now we are down to Charlie Peprah at safety - how many games do you expect to win? This reminds me of Noah Herron going in for an injured Samkon Gado, who went in for an injured Tony Fisher, who went in for an injured Najeh Davenport, who went in for an injured Ahman Green. It makes my head spin!

[wist43]

I don't think that younger necessarily means the team is better off. I think it means just that, that they're a younger team. This could pay dividends in the form of them staying healthier, having faster recovery, etc. I'm not sure how much that matters or means to a pro team.

I'm not sure how I feel about the injuries last year because I feel that a lot of them seemed to occur to back-ups. When Al went down, Tramon stepped in and we didn't really miss a beat. When Jenkins went down, that hurt, but he was largely ineffective the previous year according to coaches due to injury, so I'm not sure how much of an impact that had. Losing Barnett hurt, no doubt. You can't just plug someone else into the vocal leader of the defenses spot, and the only "tough, nasty guy" we have, and expect to not skip a beat.

I guess at some point you have to wonder if having Tramon at the starting corner ultimately made a big difference to the way teams played their third receiver, etc. I'd venture a guess they did take advantage of the matchup more often when a less qualified defender was covering, but I don't have an accurate answer to this.

Well, especially concerning the Jenkins injury last year, he finished the season in the top 5 on the team in sacks - having only played a couple games. I think it made a huge impact, considering there was nobody else on the roster who could get pressure opposite Kampman all season long.

One can't downplay the nagging injury to KGB either. In 2007 he gave us 9 and a half sacks, in 2008 he completely disappeared. Again, no pressure opposite Kampman.

Injuries to backups: You are right, but backups don't get injured when the starters are in the game. Rouse doesn't get injured if Collins and Bigby are healthy, for example. Now we are down to Charlie Peprah at safety - how many games do you expect to win? This reminds me of Noah Herron going in for an injured Samkon Gado, who went in for an injured Tony Fisher, who went in for an injured Najeh Davenport, who went in for an injured Ahman Green. It makes my head spin!

Your Jenkins comment... doesn't that tell you that we have exactly zero pass rushers from the LB position??? What did we produce as a team??? 28 sacks, I think??? And yet, all of you TT guys are saying we have everything we need on defense to transition to a 3-4??? Nick Barnett couldn't rush a Wal-Mart on the day after T-Giving.

Beyond that... TT maintains that all we need is better depth - not sure what his exact quote was, but the gist of it was that he isn't looking for any starters out of this draft... so, in his mind, we are Superbowl ready with our current starting roster??? Do you, and the other cheereleaders in here really believe that???

As I've said, I think we have different goals... if TT thinks his starting roster is set, then I can only conclude that his goal is to field a decent team, w/o much care for winning a Superbowl - b/c, quite frankly, I don't think anyone can look at the roster as it is currently configured and think we're a legitimate Superbowl contender.

All we need is depth??? That's nuts, yet that is TT's line... does that mean that he will bypass a guy at 9 that would beat out one of his beloved, in favor of a guy that has to be developed, but will offer no immediate impact???

Beginning to think the guy might have a screw loose.

[Fritz]

What if? What if, though, TT really likes...Sanchez?? And he's sitting there at #9?

Me, I say no - Rogers is too young to take Sanchez. Even if you develop Sanchez, you're not going to get more than that #9 pick you took him at. And if he's insurance in case Rogers gets hurt, that's too expensive for insurance.

Just a thought. We've "what-iffed" so many scenarios, I thought I'd toss this one out there.

If you are Thompson and your really, really think Crabtree is HOF material, why on earth would you draft an okay guy at some other position instead?

[Gunakor]

Your Jenkins comment... doesn't that tell you that we have exactly zero pass rushers from the LB position??? What did we produce as a team??? 28 sacks, I think??? And yet, all of you TT guys are saying we have everything we need on defense to transition to a 3-4??? Nick Barnett couldn't rush a Wal-Mart on the day after T-Giving.

Beyond that... TT maintains that all we need is better depth - not sure what his exact quote was, but the gist of it was that he isn't looking for any starters out of this draft... so, in his mind, we are Superbowl ready with our current starting roster??? Do you, and the other cheereleaders in here really believe that???

As I've said, I think we have different goals... if TT thinks his starting roster is set, then I can only conclude that his goal is to field a decent team, w/o much care for winning a Superbowl - b/c, quite frankly, I don't think anyone can look at the roster as it is currently configured and think we're a legitimate Superbowl contender.

All we need is depth??? That's nuts, yet that is TT's line... does that mean that he will bypass a guy at 9 that would beat out one of his beloved, in favor of a guy that has to be developed, but will offer no immediate impact???

Beginning to think the guy might have a screw loose.

Jenkins comment: Jenkins is not a LB, first of all. And on top of that, none of our LB's were asked to rush very often last season. The only LB in this year's 3-4 alignment that was asked to rush the passer last season is Aaron Kampman. He'll get plenty of sacks and pressures from the OLB position this year.

Super Bowl ready: Maybe not this year, but the team is young and improving. Just because this roster might not win a Super Bowl this year doesn't mean it's not the roster that can win one next year or the year after that. Or, maybe it's the same team that was a play away from a Super Bowl a couple years ago - maybe they really are Super Bowl ready.

Immediate impact: I addressed this in another thread too. I don't expect rookies to make immediate impacts. In fact, I'd prefer to sit them for a year to get up to NFL speed. Do you not realize just how few rookies are NFL ready when drafted? If you are lucky enough to get a rookie that makes an immediate impact, that's a bonus. But it shouldn't be an expectation. Here's a better expectation for you, one that is far less likely to disappoint you - the majority of our starters from last season should be expected to continue to improve, making this a better quality team overall with or without an impact rookie.

[SnakeLH2006]

Your Jenkins comment... doesn't that tell you that we have exactly zero pass rushers from the LB position??? What did we produce as a team??? 28 sacks, I think??? And yet, all of you TT guys are saying we have everything we need on defense to transition to a 3-4??? Nick Barnett couldn't rush a Wal-Mart on the day after T-Giving.

Beyond that... TT maintains that all we need is better depth - not sure what his exact quote was, but the gist of it was that he isn't looking for any starters out of this draft... so, in his mind, we are Superbowl ready with our current starting roster??? Do you, and the other cheereleaders in here really believe that???

As I've said, I think we have different goals... if TT thinks his starting roster is set, then I can only conclude that his goal is to field a decent team, w/o much care for winning a Superbowl - b/c, quite frankly, I don't think anyone can look at the roster as it is currently configured and think we're a legitimate Superbowl contender.

All we need is depth??? That's nuts, yet that is TT's line... does that mean that he will bypass a guy at 9 that would beat out one of his beloved, in favor of a guy that has to be developed, but will offer no immediate impact???

Beginning to think the guy might have a screw loose.

Jenkins comment: Jenkins is not a LB, first of all. And on top of that, none of our LB's were asked to rush very often last season. The only LB in this year's 3-4 alignment that was asked to rush the passer last season is Aaron Kampman. He'll get plenty of sacks and pressures from the OLB position this year.

Super Bowl ready: Maybe not this year, but the team is young and improving. Just because this roster might not win a Super Bowl this year doesn't mean it's not the roster that can win one next year or the year after that. Or, maybe it's the same team that was a play away from a Super Bowl a couple years ago - maybe they really are Super Bowl ready.

Immediate impact: I addressed this in another thread too. I don't expect rookies to make immediate impacts. In fact, I'd prefer to sit them for a year to get up to NFL speed. Do you not realize just how few rookies are NFL ready when drafted? If you are lucky enough to get a rookie that makes an immediate impact, that's a bonus. But it shouldn't be an expectation. Here's a better expectation for you, one that is far less likely to disappoint you - the majority of our starters from last season should be expected to continue to improve, making this a better quality team overall with or without an impact rookie.

Snake hates to piss on a parade, but FUCK YEAAHAHHAHAHAHHH!!!!!! My initial post that started this huge ass thread is vindicated. We got not one, but two guys that will most likely start and produce THIS YEAR!! FUCK YEAHH!!!! Snake is pretty damn happy. It isn't like we could fill EVERY hole this year with the draft (OT looks shaky)...but getting BJ (did not Snake preach n' predict that) to be a big ass Warren Sapp is HUGE! Scouts have been saying he's prob. the best pass-rushing NT in the league RIGHT NOW...and a beast to boot in the run. That was just awesome.

Clay Matthews, pretty good deal. Overall...just gave up a 3rd in retrospect (yes GB gave up a 2nd, 2 3rds, for the 1st and a 5th....so in essence it's like giving up 1 3rd and filler)...If they reallly like him (as Snake did...what awesome bloodlines too...) sobeit.

Both guys start immediately (BJ goes to NT and Pickett will be a DE...TT made reference to the fact that Pickett can play End in the JSO blogs). Matthews will most likely supplant Poops as the other OLB, unless he fails in camp.

Snake is quite happy we got not one but 2 likely starters in our front D 7, which WAS a big weakness.

Crabby might be great, but thank god TT reads PackerRats and avoided the Curse of Bretsky and took Snake's Take to heart. The curse is broken unless BJ becomes the Curse of Snake.

BTW, Snake is really Ted Thompson, General Manager of the Green Bay Packers...I was just testing you all, and thanks for the great insight on getting 2 starters with my draft, instead of hoarding picks. Crabby will be a Sterling Sharpe if SF ever gets a QB, but we felt everyone would love a BJ, and Ted likes a good BJ too, obviously. With our second pick in the first, Clay was too hard to pass up. We are now happy with our 3-4 for next year as we are much improved. Pickett will be our DE. Our LB's are nuts and BJ is a beast out the gate. And oh yea, Mission, don't be trying to get Raji to smoke with ya at our training camp in GB this summer. Thanks. Love Ted.