Gil Brandt's comments on Ted Thompson

[Merlin]

I guess if you wait long enough for water to turn into wine, eventually something fermentable will end up in the water, that doesn't make it Chateau Lafite though, just a cheap drunk.

[Scott Campbell]

You need a reality check, all of the facts are out there and Thompson isn't winning us football games. Has nothing to do with "hate", it has to do with the facts.

Dude, the fact is, you were hating on Thompson during the 13-3 season. When it comes to you, it appears to have everything to do with hate.


Exhibit A: Your Jets avatar. It's pretty clear where your loyalty lies, and why you have an ax to grind.

Exhibits B-Q will be your posts from the 2007 season.

[Bossman641]

You need a reality check, all of the facts are out there and Thompson isn't winning us football games. Has nothing to do with "hate", it has to do with the facts. Bottom Line: Thompson isn't helping this team win football games. That is the reason the Packers play the game right? The reason you are a fan right?

Also, Bottom Line: Justin Harrell is a bust.
.
Remember folks, whatever you do, DO NOT have our own opinion, you will be tagged a "hater". Which of course is a convenient excuse for those that refuse to look at the facts.

Neither is Favre

[packers04]

you should be thanking ted thompson, ive heard he was a very integral part in mccarthy switching coordinators and going to the 3-4 defense. he realized bob sanders just wasnt cutting it... remember, ted thompson was a linebacker in the NFL for several years. he knows defense and he knows football.

[Fritz]

Re: Gil Brandt's comments on Ted Thompson

Eric, Bucks County 12:10 PM ET
If you owned a franchise who would you name as general manager and head coach? Who would you want as your quarterback? Gil Brandt, NFL.com

Gil Brandt:
Hi Eric. Well, I probably would want Bill Belichick as my head coach. I think I would want Ted Thompson of Green Bay as my general manager, and Peyton Manning as my quarterback.

gil brandt is one of the most respected, knowledgeable former personnel guys in the league.

i hope the packers fanbase realizes what we have in ole teddy.

Below .500 football during his run, some pretty good drafting and young players, a brand new defensive scheme after the first one didnt work, oh and ZERO superbowls... I'm a results person and so far they are not there.. the NFC championship game was nice, but if thats it... time to move on.

4-12 - I don't consider HIS fault...that's as much on Sherman as anyone
8-8 - Building blocks
13-3 - winning team ahead of schedule
6-10 - major injuries, faulty defensive calls, favre drama...

31-33 as a GM...take out the 4-12, and you're 27-21. as far as the new defensive scheme, um, HELLO...that's the Head Coaches job, NOT the GM's.

if you don't see what's he's truly done in building a solid young team for years to come, you need to move to Chicago and join their bandwagon. I just don't get how you don't see the benefits of what he's done here. I can't wait to revisit this thread at the end of next season, just to laugh at the anti-TT.

Normally I'm not a rub-your-face-in-it kind of guy (unless I'm house training a puppy), but the bile of the anti-
TT faction - some of it, anyway - is over the top. You can laugh at the anti-TT faction if the Packers do well this season, but already I have read one poster saying that even if the Packers do well this year, it will be sheer luck.

So the anti-TT faction, like most of us, will simply interpret the facts in a way that supports their world view.

[packers04]

i just wanted to say i slightly disagree with th87, as i thnk the packers and ted t. are now starting Phase 3. This culminates in being more picky in who they target in the draft. They'll look to get about 3-8 players throughout the draft that they love and go after them.

[Cheesehead Craig]

This certainly is a big year for TT. Time for his building project to show what it can do. The young roster is getting into their 3rd and 4th years so they need to start producing. The moves to bring Raji and Matthews in were huge and they need to be playmakers as this team really in need of some. I daresay that a non-playoff year will make a good portion of the natives restless.

[ThunderDan]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't agree with it. There are plenty of quarterbacks you could have plugged in and had similar success. A big reason for this success was Jennings. How many receivers could you plug in and get the kind of success Jennings had? Not many.

So are you saying that Brett Favre was a plug-in QB for the last 16 years with the Packers?

Obviously if you can find an average A Rodgers to pass for over 4,000 yards and 90+ QB rating we should have been able to find someone the last 16 years to replace that over-hyped Brett Favre.

Give me a break. Favre was special and A Rod gives me hope that we may have pulled off the SF Montana-Young transition.

[cpk1994]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.

No, only you, who has a Anti-Rodgers agfenda, would have a hard time ranking Rodgersas a blue chipper. Every one else in football disagrees with you.

[Partial]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.

No, only you, who has a Anti-Rodgers agfenda, would have a hard time ranking Rodgersas a blue chipper. Every one else in football disagrees with you.

Anti-Rodgers agenda? Hardly. I think he's a fine, above average quarterback. I don't understand why so many people seem to think there are 20 superstar QBs in the NFL. Rodgers is no where near Manning, Brady, Rivers, Brees, McNabb, Roethlisberger... I don't even think Rivers/Roethlisberger/Brees are necessary blue chippers.

Blue chip is a star. A bondafide top 3-4 player at their position in the league. I highly, highly, highly doubt that most people who watch football think Rodgers is a top 3-4 QB. Can you provide some sort of source stating otherwise?

As I have stated countless times, I'm a believer in that unless you have a top 3-4 guy at QB, you keep searching. It's too important of a position to settle for only the top 33%.

I'm not saying Rodgers is like Rex Grossman (I think he's significantly better), but lets not forget that Rodgers has played one season, had a dynamite supporting cast, and ended up with a 6-10 record. Rex led the league in games with a QB rating over 100 in 2005, was a borderline pro bowler (like Rodgers), but he took a team to the super bowl. I'm not saying we can expect Rodgers to fall off like Grossman, but it's foolish to put the buggy in front of the horses if you know what I mean. So far, he hasn't proven much, and speculating on him being spectacular seems... premature.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.

No, only you, who has a Anti-Rodgers agfenda, would have a hard time ranking Rodgersas a blue chipper. Every one else in football disagrees with you.

Anti-Rodgers agenda? Hardly. I think he's a fine, above average quarterback. I don't understand why so many people seem to think there are 20 superstar QBs in the NFL. Rodgers is no where near Manning, Brady, Rivers, Brees, McNabb, Roethlisberger... I don't even think Rivers/Roethlisberger/Brees are necessary blue chippers.

Blue chip is a star. A bondafide top 3-4 player at their position in the league. I highly, highly, highly doubt that most people who watch football think Rodgers is a top 3-4 QB. Can you provide some sort of source stating otherwise?

As I have stated countless times, I'm a believer in that unless you have a top 3-4 guy at QB, you keep searching. It's too important of a position to settle for only the top 33%.

I'm not saying Rodgers is like Rex Grossman (I think he's significantly better), but lets not forget that Rodgers has played one season, had a dynamite supporting cast, and ended up with a 6-10 record. Rex led the league in games with a QB rating over 100 in 2005, was a borderline pro bowler (like Rodgers), but he took a team to the super bowl. I'm not saying we can expect Rodgers to fall off like Grossman, but it's foolish to put the buggy in front of the horses if you know what I mean. So far, he hasn't proven much, and speculating on him being spectacular seems... premature.

Your scale seems to be moving depending on who you're measuring. Vince Young certainly isn't being held to the same standards.

[cpk1994]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.

No, only you, who has a Anti-Rodgers agfenda, would have a hard time ranking Rodgersas a blue chipper. Every one else in football disagrees with you.

Anti-Rodgers agenda? Hardly. I think he's a fine, above average quarterback. I don't understand why so many people seem to think there are 20 superstar QBs in the NFL. Rodgers is no where near Manning, Brady, Rivers, Brees, McNabb, Roethlisberger... I don't even think Rivers/Roethlisberger/Brees are necessary blue chippers.

Blue chip is a star. A bondafide top 3-4 player at their position in the league. I highly, highly, highly doubt that most people who watch football think Rodgers is a top 3-4 QB. Can you provide some sort of source stating otherwise?

As I have stated countless times, I'm a believer in that unless you have a top 3-4 guy at QB, you keep searching. It's too important of a position to settle for only the top 33%.

I'm not saying Rodgers is like Rex Grossman (I think he's significantly better), but lets not forget that Rodgers has played one season, had a dynamite supporting cast, and ended up with a 6-10 record. Rex led the league in games with a QB rating over 100 in 2005, was a borderline pro bowler (like Rodgers), but he took a team to the super bowl. I'm not saying we can expect Rodgers to fall off like Grossman, but it's foolish to put the buggy in front of the horses if you know what I mean. So far, he hasn't proven much, and speculating on him being spectacular seems... premature.

Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson and their Super Bowl rings say needing a a top guy at QB, especially to get to the SB, is BS.

[cpk1994]

I don't think thats an accurate assessment at all. One would have a very difficult time ranking Rodgers as a blue chipper. Jennings is without a doubt a blue chipper. Best player on the team by far.

No, only you, who has a Anti-Rodgers agfenda, would have a hard time ranking Rodgersas a blue chipper. Every one else in football disagrees with you.

Anti-Rodgers agenda? Hardly. I think he's a fine, above average quarterback. I don't understand why so many people seem to think there are 20 superstar QBs in the NFL. Rodgers is no where near Manning, Brady, Rivers, Brees, McNabb, Roethlisberger... I don't even think Rivers/Roethlisberger/Brees are necessary blue chippers.

Blue chip is a star. A bondafide top 3-4 player at their position in the league. I highly, highly, highly doubt that most people who watch football think Rodgers is a top 3-4 QB. Can you provide some sort of source stating otherwise?

As I have stated countless times, I'm a believer in that unless you have a top 3-4 guy at QB, you keep searching. It's too important of a position to settle for only the top 33%.

I'm not saying Rodgers is like Rex Grossman (I think he's significantly better), but lets not forget that Rodgers has played one season, had a dynamite supporting cast, and ended up with a 6-10 record. Rex led the league in games with a QB rating over 100 in 2005, was a borderline pro bowler (like Rodgers), but he took a team to the super bowl. I'm not saying we can expect Rodgers to fall off like Grossman, but it's foolish to put the buggy in front of the horses if you know what I mean. So far, he hasn't proven much, and speculating on him being spectacular seems... premature.

Your scale seems to be moving depending on who you're measuring. Vince Young certainly isn't being held to the same standards.

Niether is Jay Cutler.

[Partial]

Your scale seems to be moving depending on who you're measuring. Vince Young certainly isn't being held to the same standards.

I disagree. Nowhere did I say that Vince Young is a blue chipper or a top 3-4 qb. He isn't yet. I, emphasis on I, think that he will be. So far, he has shown as knack for the big play. He can hydrate himself with as much coffee as he'd like because he is a closer. One cannot like the mental issues that he's had, but I, again an emphasis on I, suspect he'll get over them and go on to have a very good NFL career.

He's not a blue chipper yet. I think he will be in time. I don't think Rodgers will be because he's not as athletic, as fast, or as big. Young will need to throw the ball significantly better if he wants to get to that level.

If I'm picking a team to win today, I'd probably pick Rodgers over Young for one game. If we're playing twenty times, I'd probably pick Young over Rodgers. If I'm playing 200 times over 10 years, I'm definitely picking Young.

[sharpe1027]

Blue chip is a star. A bondafide top 3-4 player at their position in the league. I highly, highly, highly doubt that most people who watch football think Rodgers is a top 3-4 QB. Can you provide some sort of source stating otherwise?

IIRC, blue chip is usually used to describe a low-risk and highly sought after recruit moving from one level (high-school/college) to the next (colleg/pros). I think Rodgers is thought of by most (or would be as a free agent) as highly sought after and low-risk.

What is the point of limitting your definition to at most 4 players at a position? It seems an overly restrictive and self-serving definition that few people would have arrived at. Seems pretty arbitrary and not a very partial analysis, IMHO. Maybe it is just me.