Thompson coming up short on top picks

[pbmax]

All indications from today's practice are Hawk is now a two down player once Barny is back.

Hawk has been a two down player without Barnett back full-time for the majority of the week. I think your prediction is safe. Chillar took his spot in nickel several times this week.

[bobblehead]

I just read the article again, and the premise is really kind of dumb. The title implies an indictment of TT's overall work in early rounds; yet it acknowledges that TT did well in 2005 and 2006. It ignores 2009, for the most part. It is an analysis of an injured 1st rounder, and four second rounders, two of which (Lee and Brohm) were not intended or expected to be early contributors.

2005 - Rodger, Collins Murphy. No real misses there. Murphy's injury came out of no where. Rogers could turn out to be a very big "hit" for TT.

2006 - Hawk, Colledge, Jennings. Three starters, one emerging star. Could he have done better than Hawk? Sure, but Hawk filled a huge need on the team at the time and has been a starter from day 1.

2007 - Harrell, Jackson. Harrell counts as a miss. The injury history was known. Thompson took a chance (which I agree with) and came up short, so far. Jackson is a contributor, but not a big one. How much TT failed in this draft really depends on who else was taken in those rounds. Who could he have taken? Not guys who came from no where, but the guys with 1st and 2nd round grades that were available for Thompson. If the article had addressed that question, it would have more value, in my opinion.

2008 - Nelson, Brohm, Lee - Kind of early to judge this, but again the real question is who else was available with 1st or 2nd round grades? Should he have traded out of the first round? In essence, his first round pick that year along with his fifth round pick were used for Jordy Nelson and Jeremy Thompson. Nelson seems like an OK pick. Thompson is an unknown so far. Neither Brohm nor Lee were expected to contribute yet, and haven't.

2009 - Raji, Mathews. Who knows? Expected to be two starters as rookies. If Mathews is a "miss" eventually, it bears a bigger value because he cost multiple picks to get.

Looking at the list, I would like to see more out of 2006 and 2007; but I can't say that his overall performance is bad.

As usual Patler's analysis is better than those who get paid to do it.

The one thing that I disagree with is that Murphy had a predisposed spinal condition that I believe was brought to the GM's attention at the Combine of that year.

Source please as I recall it differently that no one had a clue and he passed every physical at the combine with no red flags....obviously one of is letting his predisposed ideas taint his memory; if its me I'd like to know for sure.

[Scott Campbell]

I just read the article again, and the premise is really kind of dumb. The title implies an indictment of TT's overall work in early rounds; yet it acknowledges that TT did well in 2005 and 2006. It ignores 2009, for the most part. It is an analysis of an injured 1st rounder, and four second rounders, two of which (Lee and Brohm) were not intended or expected to be early contributors.

2005 - Rodger, Collins Murphy. No real misses there. Murphy's injury came out of no where. Rogers could turn out to be a very big "hit" for TT.

2006 - Hawk, Colledge, Jennings. Three starters, one emerging star. Could he have done better than Hawk? Sure, but Hawk filled a huge need on the team at the time and has been a starter from day 1.

2007 - Harrell, Jackson. Harrell counts as a miss. The injury history was known. Thompson took a chance (which I agree with) and came up short, so far. Jackson is a contributor, but not a big one. How much TT failed in this draft really depends on who else was taken in those rounds. Who could he have taken? Not guys who came from no where, but the guys with 1st and 2nd round grades that were available for Thompson. If the article had addressed that question, it would have more value, in my opinion.

2008 - Nelson, Brohm, Lee - Kind of early to judge this, but again the real question is who else was available with 1st or 2nd round grades? Should he have traded out of the first round? In essence, his first round pick that year along with his fifth round pick were used for Jordy Nelson and Jeremy Thompson. Nelson seems like an OK pick. Thompson is an unknown so far. Neither Brohm nor Lee were expected to contribute yet, and haven't.

2009 - Raji, Mathews. Who knows? Expected to be two starters as rookies. If Mathews is a "miss" eventually, it bears a bigger value because he cost multiple picks to get.

Looking at the list, I would like to see more out of 2006 and 2007; but I can't say that his overall performance is bad.

As usual Patler's analysis is better than those who get paid to do it.

The one thing that I disagree with is that Murphy had a predisposed spinal condition that I believe was brought to the GM's attention at the Combine of that year.

Source please as I recall it differently that no one had a clue and he passed every physical at the combine with no red flags....obviously one of is letting his predisposed ideas taint his memory; if its me I'd like to know for sure.

Agreed. My memory is that Murphy's condition was not diagnosed until after he was injured.

[bobblehead]

TT should just trade away all 1st, 3rd rounders for 2s and everything else. That is where he earns his money anyways. First round has been shit for him other than Rodgers and he doesnt get credit for that one because he had to pick him.

Again, my memory fails me. I thought that Sherman and Favre were against taking rodgers as they wanted someone to help now. i even recall most boards slamming him for not getting a player to "get us over the hump" as most fans are ALWAYS convinced their team is one player away and a backup rookie QB isn't that guy, but whoever kiper is pimping must be the next jerry rice.

I think TT is the only one who felt he "had" to take Rodgers.

[bobblehead]

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.

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.

Really??? Just one Favre pass? I gues you just watched overtime of the championship game. Being such a big Packer fan, and a football fan I would have expected you to watch the whole NFC Championship game of 2007.

Agreed. Favre would have never been in that position if McCarthy hadn't given up on the run.

Yea, how could you give up on something that was working this well:

R. Grant 13 29 2.2 0 13

[MadtownPacker]

TT should just trade away all 1st, 3rd rounders for 2s and everything else. That is where he earns his money anyways. First round has been shit for him other than Rodgers and he doesnt get credit for that one because he had to pick him.

According to who? Did you forget the outrage how Rodgers was a wasted pick?

According to me. As I watched the draft picks before him being selected and ARod falling I knew he was going to the Pack. It was by far the most logical pick for value and the long term. There was no way TT could pass on a player at a spot he needed soon basically being handed to him. Yes some moaned and groaned. Hell Im sure I did some too but I also knew it was the right thing to do.

[MichiganPackerFan]

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.

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.

Really??? Just one Favre pass? I gues you just watched overtime of the championship game. Being such a big Packer fan, and a football fan I would have expected you to watch the whole NFC Championship game of 2007.

Agreed. Favre would have never been in that position if McCarthy hadn't given up on the run.

Yea, how could you give up on something that was working this well:

R. Grant 13 29 2.2 0 13

It only takes one breakaway to change those stats. Grant had run the well all year long. The game became one-dimensional. NY could drop eleven into coverage. Even if your success will only come from the pass, you still have to run the ball to keep the defense honest. Especially In the Playoffs. In December. In Green Bay. In Lambeau.

[Partial]

All indications from today's practice are Hawk is now a two down player once Barny is back.

Hawk has been a two down player without Barnett back full-time for the majority of the week. I think your prediction is safe. Chillar took his spot in nickel several times this week.

Good to know. I haven't seen that written.

[Deputy Nutz]

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.

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.

Really??? Just one Favre pass? I gues you just watched overtime of the championship game. Being such a big Packer fan, and a football fan I would have expected you to watch the whole NFC Championship game of 2007.

Agreed. Favre would have never been in that position if McCarthy hadn't given up on the run.

Yea, how could you give up on something that was working this well:

R. Grant 13 29 2.2 0 13

I think Bobblehead answered my question, if it was even a question. The running game was horrible, the offensive line fell apart, Favre was falling into a deep freeze the longer the game went on. The defense couldn't stop the Giants on 3rd down. The Giants began to run the ball at will in the second half, Al Harris got his ass handed to him by Plaxico, and every time the Packers defense breathed on a Giant receiver it was pass interference or defensive holding. The only thing that kept the Packers in the game was that the Giant's kicker missed two field goals that would have won the game in regulation.

So, for all of you that love to say the Packers were one bad Favre pass away from going to the Super Bowl better get their facts straight. That game should have been lost by the Packers in regulation.

The Packers Coaching Staff getting out coached in that game should also factor into the loss as well.

[mraynrand]

the decisive interception against the Giants came on 2nd and 8,

http://s453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/?action=view&current=favreslastGBtoss.flv

the decisive interception against the Eagles came on 1st and 10.

http://s453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/?action=view&current=favremoonshot.flv

Hardly desperate situations. That has been one of my criticisms through out Favre's career, and my reply to the arguments of Favre just "trying to make a play". To me it is doubly foolish to make risky throws on early downs. If you are protective of possession, you will have another down, another opportunity. Particularly the interception against the Eagles was foolish; he just threw it up for grabs on 1st and 10.

http://s453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/?action=view&current=favremoonshot.flv

It doesn't matter that better decisions could have been made by the coach earlier in the game. Favre's interceptions was a colossal blunder at that stage of the game, on that down.

http://s453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/?action=view&current=favremoonshot.flv

Against the Giants on 2nd and 8, I would have preferred him trying to make a safer play than a long out route to a receiver that hadn't totally shaken coverage. The chance of a miscue on that is greater than on some of the other available options.

http://s453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/?action=view&current=favreslastGBtoss.flv

QBs are paid the big bucks to make good decisions and good plays in critical situations. In some of the biggest situations, Favre has often come up short in the decision making part of the equation even when his playmaking ability bails him out, let alone those times when it has not. I guess that's what makes him entertaining.

good post.

[mraynrand]

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.

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.

Really??? Just one Favre pass? I gues you just watched overtime of the championship game. Being such a big Packer fan, and a football fan I would have expected you to watch the whole NFC Championship game of 2007.

Agreed. Favre would have never been in that position if McCarthy hadn't given up on the run.

Yea, how could you give up on something that was working this well:

R. Grant 13 29 2.2 0 13

I think Bobblehead answered my question, if it was even a question. The running game was horrible, the offensive line fell apart, Favre was falling into a deep freeze the longer the game went on. The defense couldn't stop the Giants on 3rd down. The Giants began to run the ball at will in the second half, Al Harris got his ass handed to him by Plaxico, and every time the Packers defense breathed on a Giant receiver it was pass interference or defensive holding. The only thing that kept the Packers in the game was that the Giant's kicker missed two field goals that would have won the game in regulation.

So, for all of you that love to say the Packers were one bad Favre pass away from going to the Super Bowl better get their facts straight. That game should have been lost by the Packers in regulation.

The Packers Coaching Staff getting out coached in that game should also factor into the loss as well.

There were other unlucky factors as well:

http://s453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/?action=view&current=lostfumblechance.flv

[sharpe1027]

I think Bobblehead answered my question, if it was even a question. The running game was horrible, the offensive line fell apart, Favre was falling into a deep freeze the longer the game went on. The defense couldn't stop the Giants on 3rd down. The Giants began to run the ball at will in the second half, Al Harris got his ass handed to him by Plaxico, and every time the Packers defense breathed on a Giant receiver it was pass interference or defensive holding. The only thing that kept the Packers in the game was that the Giant's kicker missed two field goals that would have won the game in regulation.

So, for all of you that love to say the Packers were one bad Favre pass away from going to the Super Bowl better get their facts straight. That game should have been lost by the Packers in regulation.

The Packers Coaching Staff getting out coached in that game should also factor into the loss as well.

The facts are that the game was a single play (i.e., an interception) from the Packers going to the superbowl. No amount of argument changes that fact. It is what it is.

I think the point of that statement is how close the team was to going to the superbowl. You seem to be arguing as if someone said that Favre was the only reason they lost the game. No, no and no. Go back and look at the context of the statement.

[Scott Campbell]

So, for all of you that love to say the Packers were one bad Favre pass away from going to the Super Bowl better get their facts straight.

While all your examples of poor play are true, none of them excuse Brett for being so careless. That play was the back breaker in a game that was right there for the taking - despite everything that had gone wrong.

The biggest name in football choked one away.

[MadtownPacker]

The facts are that the game was a single play (i.e., an interception) from the Packers going to the superbowl. No amount of argument changes that fact. It is what it is.

I think the point of that statement is how close the team was to going to the superbowl. You seem to be arguing as if someone said that Favre was the only reason they lost the game. No, no and no. Go back and look at the context of the statement.

The same could easily be said about what it took to get there in the first place. All the close finishes during the regular season and Favre having to dig them out of a hole vs Seattle. The old man had nothing left. Turns out that "great" team didn't either.

[Deputy Nutz]

So, for all of you that love to say the Packers were one bad Favre pass away from going to the Super Bowl better get their facts straight.

While all your examples of poor play are true, none of them excuse Brett for being so careless. That play was the back breaker in a game that was right there for the taking - despite everything that had gone wrong.

The biggest name in football choked one away.

I am not excusing the throw, it was shit. What blows my mind is some of the simpletons around here and all over this shit hole state that don't know shit about the game of football breaking that whole fucking meltdown of a game down to one play.

Let me ask all of you a question, were the Packers going to win that football game in overtime handing the ball off to Ryan Grant? Were they going to win that game by playing stout defense in overtime? Were they going to win the game on field management? no because our punter couldn't kick the ball 35 yards and the Packers were backed inside the twenty anyways.

The Packers had one option and that was Favre and his receiving corps. He messed up, and the Packers lost a game they had no right winning anyways.

It sucked it was a huge heartbreaker, for me especially, but to listen to all of you try to rewrite history to make you feel better about your beloved organization really sucks balls.