Q&A with Ted Thompson

[mraynrand]

"A. I saw a big man that can play big. He has instincts on the interior. Plus, he's a good guy. It's difficult to say he will be exactly like Dan Wilkinson. I think we have a pretty good group of defensive linemen and he'll be a good addition. "
------

Let's hope he's not like Big Daddy "play when I want to" Wilkinson.

[Rastak]

Re: Q&A with Ted Thompson

I think TT has done okay and I'm not a TT hater, but if he were the ultimate scout would he have signed Freeman, Little, Klemm, O'Dwyer, etc etc etc?

Sure he would, given the circumstances of last year. I'm amazed at the number of people who seem to think that the signings of Freeman, Little and O'Dwyer meant anything at all. These signings cost the Packers virtually nothing. All were minimum salary type signings. Same with Raynoch Thompson. You bring in a bunch of players with starting experience and see if anyone is better than what you have, If not, you let them go. What did it cost the Packers to have Freeman, O'Dwyer and Thompson in camp? Virtually nothing. Each received a $25,000 bonus. That's all. Little cost virtually nothing even for the time he was on the roster because he qualified for the veterans reduction.

Klemm was the "big" signing, and all he got was $800,000 in bonus over 2 years, along with just more than minimum allowable veterans salaries. Again, not much of an investment.

The 2005 roster was so thin, and cap money a bit scarce, that it made sense to bring in minimum wage veterans to see if any could help. If they could, great. If not, it doesn't hurt the salary cap.

I think we are talking about different things here Patler, I'm not arguing the cost/benefit of these moves, they were very low risk. I'm only saying he isn't the ultimate scout or he wouldn't be signing guys that do nothing to help the team regardless of cost. It's easy to sign no-risk guys, there's thousands of them. I'm also not ripping the guy, I'm only saying it's a little early to declare him a great scout.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think he's proven he's a great scout by what he did here under Wolf and by what he did in Seattle. You don't often become a GM without being a good scout. Whether he can succeed in Green Bay as GM given the circumstances is a different question.

[Patler]

Re: Q&A with Ted Thompson

I think we are talking about different things here Patler, I'm not arguing the cost/benefit of these moves, they were very low risk. I'm only saying he isn't the ultimate scout or he wouldn't be signing guys that do nothing to help the team regardless of cost. It's easy to sign no-risk guys, there's thousands of them. I'm also not ripping the guy, I'm only saying it's a little early to declare him a great scout.

No, I know your not arguing the cost/benefit. I really wasn't either except as a reason for why those players were signed. He didn't sign them thinking they would solve a problem, but they were worth an evaluation at least. In that way, I think we are talking about the same thing. The greatest GM/scout in the world will sign a lot of players, and draft a lot of players who will flop. He will sign some that he knows won't help long term. He will sign some he hopes plug a hole in the roster for a year or so until he can get someone better. I'm not suggesting Wolf was the best, but he was petty darn good, and he signed and drafted a lot of players who never helped, some as free agents.

My point is that making any judgment about TT based on having signed Freeman, Little, Klemm and Thompson to the contracts he signed them to doesn't really make a lot of sense, in my opinion. Better to judge him on the players he has drafted and the signings that impact the cap. The others are just fill-ins, if that.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Patler, on top of that I hardly doubt he's scouting a lot of these players anymore. I'd say he's more likely to scout the draft picks and big name FAs. I doubt, as GM, he has the time to scout every low budget and street FA out there. That's what Reggie McKenzie and those guys are for.

[Rastak]

Patler, on top of that I hardly doubt he's scouting a lot of these players anymore. I'd say he's more likely to scout the draft picks and big name FAs. I doubt, as GM, he has the time to scout every low budget and street FA out there. That's what Reggie McKenzie and those guys are for.

That's a valid point. Although he has ultimate responisbility so he must cross check everything.

[HarveyWallbangers]

No question, but I think he's proven he can scout players. We'll see if he can be a successful GM (that means scouting, organizing a scouting department, hiring coaches, etc.).

[Patler]

Patler, on top of that I hardly doubt he's scouting a lot of these players anymore. I'd say he's more likely to scout the draft picks and big name FAs. I doubt, as GM, he has the time to scout every low budget and street FA out there. That's what Reggie McKenzie and those guys are for.

Very true HW.

Some time ago Wolf explained how it worked on his staff. The pro scouting group was responsible for keeping tabs on available veteran players, their whereabouts, injuries, etc.. If a need arose for the Packers because of injuries at a position, the staff would give Wolf reports and tape on several they thought to be the best candidates. He would review the reports and tape, talk to the players, and make a decision within a few days.

Basically the scouts narrowed it down and he decided among the ones they recomended. He often said he relied very heavily on the recommendations from McKenzie when it came to signing run-of-the-mill veteran replacements. It's probably similar in the off season, just with less of a time constraint to the final decision. Basically, these types are not significant enough for the GM to invest a lot of time in. You can shuffle a whole bunch in and out if need be, somewhat like what was done at WR last year.

[Patler]

No question, but I think he's proven he can scout players. We'll see if he can be a successful GM (that means scouting, organizing a scouting department, hiring coaches, etc.).

"hiring coaches". That's a big one right now. If TT got it wrong this time, the whole operation will be set back by what ever time MM is given to fail.

[the_idle_threat]

The article was posted to JSO Packer Insider on July 29th. You need a paid subscription to access it, so I'm not sure a link will work, although you can try here:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=477824

This sentence is in the 3rd paragraph of the article itself: "Thompson is in the midst of a rebuilding campaign that he discussed at length Friday afternoon in a telephone interview with Journal Sentinel beat writer Bob McGinn."

[RashanGary]

Nice points Patler and HW.

Thompson took a very cavalier approach to molding this team into his own. He takes a big picure look and isn't panic stricken by the urge to achieve short term success. Sherman was the polar opposite so it was a very harsh transition. Sherman had alot of guys that were helping in the short turn but negatively effecting the long run. Thompson tore that down and started over from scratch. That is how I see it anyway.

I made a thread a long time ago and to this day, I consider it the thread I'm most proud of. I think it was sometime during the season but it was something like "Going from a GM who borrows from the future to a GM to plans for it is like taking it in the butt. OUCH!!"

Anyway, the main premise of that thread was that Sherman had very a very short sighted approach and was willing to win at all costs today. Most successfull coaches have that thinking. It helps win games and focus on teh right now. Unfortunatly, each financial year in teh NFL rolls into the next and eventually that mentality of focusing on today starts to borrow from tomorrow and the next day. A hole begins to be formed and digging out becomes overwealming. Sherman didn't quite reach that level of no return, but TT stepped in just before he ran himself into the wall. The team depth was horrible, as evidence of how poor the team was last year after losing a few starters. He traded away draft picks and for the most part ended up with nothing in return. It was starting to catch up. TT could have kept Sharper who had maybe one or 2 years left. He could have resigned Wahle which loooks like a mistake, but the thinking was OG's are replacable in teh draft and life would go on. Walker and Green went down and wham bam jiggity slam it's 4-12.

It was a quick, harsh transition with little concern for the short term. I don't see long term negativity, but rather a result of bad drafting for many years and some contracts that were good for a few years but were just starting to take an ill effect. ie Hunt, Sharper. They were slapped against the cap and instead of taking small short term gains, they looked at the big picture and made moves that they believed would benefit the Packers most looking back 10 years from now instead of just looking back 10 months from now. Sherman was the exact opposite and the transition was hell.

Anyway, nobody loved the thread and it never really got serious response becuase of the nature of the title, but I still look at that thread as maybe the most insightfull thread I've ever created. Time might make me look like and idiot because TT could fall on his face. I don't see that happening. I really believe in TT and I really believe in this transition theory to why the Packers suffered so bad last year. Whatever, this is getting to long. Point is, I believe TT is one of the leagues most capable GM's. His overall approach to building a team as well as his knack for finding talent are his strengths. I believe those are the two most improtant qualities in a GM. That's my story and I'm stickin to it till I'm proven wrong. As a fan, I hope that doesnt' happen but if it does, I'll get one of those awakenings that makes me realize I don't know shit