-
-
I don't really agree with this.
Hawk has been a solid starter, just not as good as a top 5 player should be.
Harrell is a walking injury.
Brohm is a QB, QBs take time.
Lee is starting a second year in a new system behind two premiere corners.
Jackson played behind one of the best runners in the game in 2007 and that guy obviously got the go ahead in 2008, but Jackson looked good in limited opportunities.
Rodgers looks much improved in year two as a starter and looks like he'll be a top 10 QB.
Jennings is a top 10 wideout.
Collins is a top safety in the NFL.
Jordy Nelson would be a #3 worst case scenario on most teams, a #2 on some. It takes receivers a while. -
He lost me when he pointed to Forte and Williams as signs of the Bears' superior drafting.
Forte - OK
Williams missed all last year and hasn't proved a thingGo PACKComment
-
Forte is pretty damn good. I'd take him over any RB in the division accept for AP obviously.Originally posted by Bossman641Comment
-
I think it's fair to say that the top of Thompson's drafts in 2007 and 2008 look like they'll be below average, but the story seems to be a reach.
1) He was good at the top of the draft in 2005 and 2006 and has potential to have a big bounce back in 2009.
2) I never understood why you'd just analyze the top picks. I think you need to look at the entirety of the draft. On those accounts, it's too early to judge 2007 and 2008. I'd say 2008 might not look so bad in a few years when you look at Finley, Thompson, Sitton, Flynn, Giacomini to go along with Nelson. It's too early to write off Lee, Brohm, and even Swain. Heck, 2007 might not even look so bad down the line with Jackson, Jones, Rouse, Barbre, Bishop, Crosby, and Wynn.
If you judged a GM on his top picks, Ron Wolf would have been the worst GM ever."There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted ThompsonComment
-
I don't think he was saying Forte is just OK. He's saying OK he can agree that Forte was a good pick.Originally posted by Partial"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted ThompsonComment
-
One just has to look at tt's record of bringing super bowl wins to the teams he's ran. I mean just look at Seattle's ______ super bowl wins and now all the playoff appearances/super bowl wins he's brought to GB in the 4+ years he's fail....erm... been here.The Bottom Line:
Formally Numb, same person, same views of M3Comment
-
The Numb List of Qualified GMs:
1. Bill Belicheck
2. Scott Pioli
3. Jerry Reese
4. John Gruden
5. Ozzie Newsome
6. Charley Armey
7. Ron Wolf
8. Kevin Colbert
I look forward to Chucky being elevated to GM and receive the Numb Seal of Substituting Cause for Effect. This award was previously known as Tank's Confusion on Correlation Versus Causation.Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.Comment
-
Seattle went to the Super Bowl mostly with the talent that Thompson brought in. Green Bay was an errant Brett Favre pass from making the Super Bowl.Originally posted by Numb"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted ThompsonComment
-
Both of you two weiners knock it off with the bullshit propaganda. You both know what your saying is complete and utter bullshit, so just stop. K?Originally posted by HarveyWallbangersComment
-
I'd appreciate it if you didn't reply to my posts, K?Originally posted by Partial"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted ThompsonComment
-
Hey, I'm not the one posting asinine things and thread crapping, now am I. As you can see, my response was fair. Yours and the other guys are both off topic and assbag-esque.Originally posted by HarveyWallbangersComment
-
Really, I like to hold firm to the "don't grade a draft until it's three years old". So if last year's draft and the one from the year before that look substandard, wait a year or two to be sure.
So far the top of 2005 looks good: (Rodgers and Collins, lost Murphy to an injury nobody could have predicted, but he looked good up until this point)
The top of 2006 looks good: (Hawk is solid, if unspectacular, Jennings is a bonafide superstar in the making, and Colledge is our best offensive lineman).
2007? 2008? Early signs aren't promising but who knows?
This also raises the question of "how many picks does a GM need to hit on, for a given draft to be considered a success." Since the vast majority of draft picks aren't going to work out for the teams that drafted them, the answer has to be something like "you're happy with one potential star, one solid starter, and a couple of role players" right?</delurk>Comment
-
Ron Wolf used to saya draft was solid if you got three starters--I'm assuming three solid starters. It also depends on draft position.Originally posted by Lurker64"There's a lot of interest in the draft. It's great. But quite frankly, most of the people that are commenting on it don't know anything about what they are talking about."--Ted ThompsonComment
-
Sure he missed on a couple, but it looks like he hit on the one that mattered most, Aaron Rodgers. To go from a future hall of famer one year to a young QB first year starter who passes for 4,000+ yards, 28 TDs and 13 ints is worth more than a single "hit" on a draft pick evaluation. If Rodgers continues with those types of performances, Thompson will have been successful in his most crucial player acquisition. To have stability at QB is extremely important for franchise success.
Even if Cutler works out for the Bears, it cost two first round picks to get him.Comment
Tweet
Comment