Wolf's Impact on the '09 Squad

[Fritz]

I don't want to get into any Ron Wolf myth-making - he had his fair share of busts, including first-rounders (John Michels, Antwan Edwards) - but it it impressive that this Packer offense features key players that were acquired by Wolf what seems eons ago.

There's Driver, Clifton, Tauscher, and Green. And of course Wolf acquisitions Favre and Sharper and Longwell are still playing at a high level for other teams.

It's just weird because when we talk Wolf we often seem to refer to that whole time as a distant, long past era - yet several of his guys are still high-level contributors in the NFL and particularly on the Packers' offense.

[TravisWilliams23]

As a Packer fan, I will be forever thankful for Ron Wolf. I had the pleasure of following the Lombardi teams during the 60's and the misery of watching the teams of the 70's and 80's.

Wolf's decisions turned this franchise around for a very long time in terms of football success. However, I'm sure Ron would agree that just one Super Bowl championship was not enough. I believe he referred to the Pack as just a "fart in the wind" after Denver defeated Green Bay in SB 32.

Most of the NFL draft is a crap shoot. Some GM's have that ability to find talent and others not so much. Part of Wolf's problem was that because the team was always good, they always picked near the bottom of the draft. Hard to find pro bowl talent there every year but it can be done. Ron also regrets not drafting Randy Moss and giving Favre that weapon that probably would have added one or two more championships for GB.

Clifton and Tauscher saved the day for this years team. Drive is still a very good receiver and Green added another piece to the puzzle. As important as Ron Wolf has been to this organization, I can't forget he left us with Mike Sherman as GM!!!

[bobblehead]

As important as Ron Wolf has been to this organization, I can't forget he left us with Mike Sherman as GM!!!

A wise man once told me "never let your top guy name his own successor". His theory was that your top guy would want to name someone who was good, but not as good as himself for fear of tarnishing his own legacy.

My gripe with the situation was this....Ron had to know he was a year away, yet he let Holmgren walk instead of working out a deal to have him take full control in a year, then he handed full control to an unknown like sherman.

[Patler]

My gripe with the situation was this....Ron had to know he was a year away, yet he let Holmgren walk instead of working out a deal to have him take full control in a year, then he handed full control to an unknown like sherman.

That bothered me too, at the time, but not now looking back at it. Holmgren proved in Seattle that he was no more capable of handling both jobs than Sherman was in Green Bay.

Wolf has said several times that his decision to retire was sudden, and that he wasn't even contemplating it when Holmgren left. But, like you, I wonder if there wasn't a deep seeded desire to make sure Holmgren didn't have the chance to show that it was he and not Wolf that turned the Packers around.

[Administrator]

My gripe with the situation was this....Ron had to know he was a year away, yet he let Holmgren walk instead of working out a deal to have him take full control in a year, then he handed full control to an unknown like sherman.

That bothered me too, at the time, but not now looking back at it. Holmgren proved in Seattle that he was no more capable of handling both jobs than Sherman was in Green Bay.

Wolf has said several times that his decision to retire was sudden, and that he wasn't even contemplating it when Holmgren left. But, like you, I wonder if there wasn't a deep seeded desire to make sure Holmgren didn't have the chance to show that it was he and not Wolf that turned the Packers around.

I have always believed this. Well said Patler.

[channtheman]

Sherman was 44-20 as GM. Everyone always talks about records but they love to leave that one out. Everyone says Sherman was running the team into the ground but still, when he was GM, he won. I don't think you can fault Sherman for the 4-12 year because no doubt he would have done something about the offensive line. I honestly do not see how people say Sherman was incapable of both coaching and being GM when he had such a good record during that time. Maybe someone could enlighten me.

[mraynrand]

Wolf had some dud years as GM, but overall very very good. Possibly his finest year was 2000: trade for Green, and draft Tauscher, Clifton, Franks, KGB, and Diggs - not to mention Joey Jamison. Seriously, other than the Brett Favre trade, when did Wolf have a year any better than this?

[mraynrand]

Sherman was 44-20 as GM. Everyone always talks about records but they love to leave that one out. Everyone says Sherman was running the team into the ground but still, when he was GM, he won. I don't think you can fault Sherman for the 4-12 year because no doubt he would have done something about the offensive line. I honestly do not see how people say Sherman was incapable of both coaching and being GM when he had such a good record during that time. Maybe someone could enlighten me.

Sherman never surrounded Favre with the talent he needed to win. Minnesota did.

[ThunderDan]

Sherman was 44-20 as GM. Everyone always talks about records but they love to leave that one out. Everyone says Sherman was running the team into the ground but still, when he was GM, he won. I don't think you can fault Sherman for the 4-12 year because no doubt he would have done something about the offensive line. I honestly do not see how people say Sherman was incapable of both coaching and being GM when he had such a good record during that time. Maybe someone could enlighten me.

With what cap space??

[hoosier]

Sherman was 44-20 as GM. Everyone always talks about records but they love to leave that one out. Everyone says Sherman was running the team into the ground but still, when he was GM, he won. I don't think you can fault Sherman for the 4-12 year because no doubt he would have done something about the offensive line. I honestly do not see how people say Sherman was incapable of both coaching and being GM when he had such a good record during that time. Maybe someone could enlighten me.

As a GM Sherman hit big or at least had decent success on a few draft picks, like Barnett, Kampman, Walker, Wells and Williams. But his draft strategy was terrible for replenishing and bolstering the team's depth. That is why TT was put in the position of rebuilding whereas, when Shermy assumed the GM position back in 2000-01, he had been in the position of reloading. Shermy's downfall as a GM was that he was always trying to hit it big with one guy in the draft, when what the team really needed at that point was an influx of youth. In other words, I don't necessarily think that his approach to team building was flawed in general, but it was definitely a bad fit with that aging Packer team of the early 2000s.

[Patler]

Sherman was 44-20 as GM. Everyone always talks about records but they love to leave that one out. Everyone says Sherman was running the team into the ground but still, when he was GM, he won. I don't think you can fault Sherman for the 4-12 year because no doubt he would have done something about the offensive line. I honestly do not see how people say Sherman was incapable of both coaching and being GM when he had such a good record during that time. Maybe someone could enlighten me.

There are a lot of things to be said, all of which I have detailed in the past, so now I will just summarize my responses:

- I think you can separate his success as a coach from his failures as a GM. Basically, he won with Ron Wolf's team, and the quality of the roster continually decayed under him as a GM.

- During the Sherman years, no other team in the NFC North had a winning record. Therefore, he had six very winnable games built into his schedule each year. That said, I didn't dislike him as a coach, because he did win the games that he should have, But I also recognize that his record against other teams with winning records went down year after year.

I do blame Sherman the GM for the O-line mess his last season, because:
- he created a cap situation with little flexibility and some real long-term issues.
- he signed contracts with his two starting guards that had extreme financial hurdles in the same season.
- he had no alternatives available as backups already on the roster, even though the River/Wahle issue was known.

To me, the issues that arose in the O-line very clearly pointed out the problem with Sherman, and probably most guys who wear both hats. Their desire to succeed now as a coach can blind them to the long-term needs of the team. He had committed very large contracts to every one of the O-line starters, with Rivera's expiring and Wahle having a huge bonus in the same year. Flanagan's came due the next year. The cap was not healthy enough to keep them, yet there was no backup plan. Contrast this with Wolf, who often times had to let very good players leave, but always seemed to have a capable replacement already on the roster. He planned a couple years in advance, Sherman didn't seem to.

I wonder if Sherman had remained GM if he would have picked Rodgers or not. If the desire to help himself more immediately as the coach would have outweighed the need to find a replacement for Favre. Maybe he would have taken Rodgers, but I wonder.

[channtheman]

Sherman was 44-20 as GM. Everyone always talks about records but they love to leave that one out. Everyone says Sherman was running the team into the ground but still, when he was GM, he won. I don't think you can fault Sherman for the 4-12 year because no doubt he would have done something about the offensive line. I honestly do not see how people say Sherman was incapable of both coaching and being GM when he had such a good record during that time. Maybe someone could enlighten me.

There are a lot of things to be said, all of which I have detailed in the past, so now I will just summarize my responses:

- I think you can separate his success as a coach from his failures as a GM. Basically, he won with Ron Wolf's team, and the quality of the roster continually decayed under him as a GM.

- During the Sherman years, no other team in the NFC North had a winning record. Therefore, he had six very winnable games built into his schedule each year. That said, I didn't dislike him as a coach, because he did win the games that he should have, But I also recognize that his record against other teams with winning records went down year after year.

I do blame Sherman the GM for the O-line mess his last season, because:
- he created a cap situation with little flexibility and some real long-term issues.
- he signed contracts with his two starting guards that had extreme financial hurdles in the same season.
- he had no alternatives available as backups already on the roster, even though the River/Wahle issue was known.

To me, the issues that arose in the O-line very clearly pointed out the problem with Sherman, and probably most guys who wear both hats. Their desire to succeed now as a coach can blind them to the long-term needs of the team. He had committed very large contracts to every one of the O-line starters, with Rivera's expiring and Wahle having a huge bonus in the same year. Flanagan's came due the next year. The cap was not healthy enough to keep them, yet there was no backup plan. Contrast this with Wolf, who often times had to let very good players leave, but always seemed to have a capable replacement already on the roster. He planned a couple years in advance, Sherman didn't seem to.

I wonder if Sherman had remained GM if he would have picked Rodgers or not. If the desire to help himself more immediately as the coach would have outweighed the need to find a replacement for Favre. Maybe he would have taken Rodgers, but I wonder.

Thank you. That is actually very interesting to read that from someone who knows a lot more about what's going on than I do.

I suppose then when people are clamoring for TT to resign all sorts of players that perhaps he will let some of them walk and we will all wonder why, only for a 2nd year player to fill his shoes.

[Patler]

I suppose then when people are clamoring for TT to resign all sorts of players that perhaps he will let some of them walk and we will all wonder why, only for a 2nd year player to fill his shoes.

That happened regularly under Wolf, and particularly at guard and in the O-line generally. He always seemed to have another one ready to go, and was willing to go with a different starting combination almost every year. Aaron Taylor was drafted and after missing a season was ready to start. Harry Galbreath left and Adam Timmerman stepped in. Taylor left and Rivera was ready. Timmerman left and he had Verba and Wahle around. Verba was ultimately expendable because Wahle came around as a guard and Clifton was at LT. When Dotson faded, Tauscher stepped in.

When Wahle and Rivera left, Sherman had planned ahead and stocked the team with .........

You could see it elsewhere on the team under Wolf, too. Very good players left, and others stepped in, most having been around a year or so already. During the '90s the Packer also lost free agents like Chuck Cecil, Tootie Robbins, Tony Bennett, Bryce Paup, Doug Evans, etc. and for the most part (not always) had replacements on hand.

We are starting to see some of that depth on the roster now, where a free agent loss or an injury to a starter isn't completely devastating.

[Scott Campbell]

Re: Wolf's Impact on the '09 Squad

I don't want to get into any Ron Wolf myth-making - he had his fair share of busts, including first-rounders (John Michels, Antwan Edwards) - but it it impressive that this Packer offense features key players that were acquired by Wolf what seems eons ago.

There's Driver, Clifton, Tauscher, and Green. And of course Wolf acquisitions Favre and Sharper and Longwell are still playing at a high level for other teams.

It's just weird because when we talk Wolf we often seem to refer to that whole time as a distant, long past era - yet several of his guys are still high-level contributors in the NFL and particularly on the Packers' offense.

Didn't Wolf hire Ted for his first stint here?

[vince]

Yeah, he has cited Wolf as his mentor in the past. Obviously, Wolf did an outstanding job building the Packers team to be the winningest franchise in the league for a period of about a dozen years or so, but it's hard to say his impact on THIS mostly young team is any more significant than other team's nine-year+ veteran players.

You've got Driver, Clifton and Tausch as key players on this team from the Wolf era, but I don't think you can really count Green as a key player today, and he's been re-signed by Thompson after being away, so he's not really a Wolf signing any more even if you did want to count him as a key guy. So three nine-year vets on the same team probably isn't any more significant than most teams in the league, although I haven't done the research to verify that.

It's been hashed and rehashed, but the big problem (to the extent that there have been problems) with the Packers to this point over the last four years or so has been the relative low number of key veterans from the Sherman GM era.

Ideally, the heart of the team would be comprised of veterans in the prime of their careers, and there is a shortage of those guys still on this team. Here are the guys from that Sherman broght in:

Kampman, Barnett, Wells, Harris, Jenkins

So there are three (maybe four depending on your perspective on Harris, who had five years or so when Sherman brought him in) key guys from past GMs who are in the twilight of their careers and five (or 4) from past GMs who would appear to be in the midst of their prime years. That's not a lot (hence why the team has been the youngest in the league three years running). You could add Wood and Pickett to the list of guys in their prime as signings from the current GM.

It all adds up to why many (including me) see the future of this playoff-bound team should be bright in Green Bay for the foreseeable future. If Thompson can plug a couple holes of those aging vets at CB and OT and add some depth in a few other areas (return man/change of pace RB) it should be pretty tough to find any weaknesses in the coming years.