TTT Q and A..SERIOUSLY........some funny stuff in here

[SkinBasket]

Without hearing the actual interview it's difficult to say for sure, but the transcript does read like Ted is about 4x smarter than Bedard and is enjoying toying with him until the last quarter or so when he just gets bored and eventually finds something else to occupy his attention.

[pbmax]

I don't remember Bedard's stance on Favre-A-Palooza 2008, he does not get as many columns as McGinn and Silverstein. He does have the blog, but I don't remember his take.

He definitely does not get Thompson's approach to building a team, he has referenced that before. But I do not mind impertinent questions based on the inability to see the logic behind the moves nor do I care if Thompson laughs or refuses to answer. But in cases where he gets a response (Left Tackle, Colledge and Lang for instance) he failed to draw Thompson out on how he sees Colledge now, instead asking questions about veteran decisions that T2 is not going to revisit. It was a missed opportunity.

The only question that was a non-starter was AJ Hawk taking a paycut. Thompson has revealed little of himself but one of the things he has said is that he would consider a discussion of a topic like that to be a personal affront. And the reasoning behind the question is faulty. Its like they think this is 1995, 1998, or 2003 and the Packers are up against the cap. Get it through your head Greg, there will be no cap next year and even if there is, Hawk's contract fits.

He has just go to be smarter about what to ask. Its not reassuring when McGinn is the best questioner on this paper and he speaks to Thompson once a year.

[vince]

The only question that was a non-starter was AJ Hawk taking a paycut.

The following (at minimum) are all non-starters in my opinion for any GM. Thompson either either shouldn't answer them or there is only one way he can answer them, so why ask? Sure TT could deflect and go off on a tangent in response to them, but IMO these questions as posed are ignorantly crafted and/or shouldn't be answered direclty other than with the limited responses Thompson offered.

Q. You didn't think you could find some sort of veteran who could do better than Colledge?
A. Obviously not.

Q. Do you think those guys are coached up well enough?
A. (chuckling) Yeah. Yes I do.

Q. Because this isn't just a one-year problem. The struggles on the line have been going on for at least three years. These are the players you put in place. It seems like it's either the players or the coaching.
A. Well, yeah, we're not going to play the blame game.

Q. Are you actively trying to re-sign any of your unrestricted free agents?
A. We're having conversations with a lot of our guys.

Q. Will you make an effort to bring Green back?
A. I don't know. We'll work through that.

Q. So you think he can play in this league?
A. Sure.

Q. So you don't know yet if it was the players or the scheme?
A. I think it was all of us.

Q. So you think the game is important to him?
A. Sure.

Q. Do you want linebacker Aaron Kampman back?
A. Sure.

Q. Will you make an effort to bring him back?
A. Sure.

Q. You think he's a good 3-4 outside linebacker?
A. Yeah, he's a good player. You can never have too many good players.

Q. Will you definitely make him an offer?
A. I'm sure we will. But we don't talk business.

Q. Will you ask linebacker A.J. Hawk to take a pay cut?
A. (chuckling) I'm not going to talk about that. But I would never talk about anything like that about one of our players. I'm a little insulted you'd ask.

Q. What's the one area you think the Packers need to be better to be at a Super Bowl level?
A. There's probably a lot of areas.

Q. There's got to be one thing that's foremost in your mind.
A. I'm sure there is.

Q. You're not going to tell me, are you?
A. No.

Q. What's the biggest regret you have during your tenure?
A. Oh. (Didn't answer).

[Zool]

When you put together your 53-man roster, you were OK with Colledge backing up an aging Clifton, who hadn't started all 16 games since 2007.....



I guess you could say that about 85% of the players in the NFL. Reporters for newspapers are getting worse by the day.

That is a perfect question. Because its specific and relevant. T2 can choose to answer or not. But its begging to be asked and someone needs to ask it. Now if he chooses not to answer, then by all means dig for sources, look at his history, talk to coaches, see if anyone was surprised Colledge struggled so much, but you need to start by asking the source.

My point on this one is the ridiculousness of the questions wording. Clifton hadn't played a full season since 1 season ago? Any player who missed a single game in '08 is under that same scrutiny then. Its like he has as angry 12 year old writing down questions and he's just parroting them.

[pbmax]

The only question that was a non-starter was AJ Hawk taking a paycut.

The following (at minimum) are all non-starters in my opinion for any GM. Thompson either either shouldn't answer them or there is only one way he can answer them, so why ask? Sure TT could deflect and go off on a tangent in response to them, but IMO these questions as posed are ignorantly crafted and/or shouldn't be answered direclty other than with the limited responses Thompson offered.

Most of what you have listed here are follow ups and several are horrible, clearly when Bedard was frustrated. And I earlier pointed to one he blew with bad follow up questions. But each of the original questions and their topic is legit save one. In fact, each has probably been the topic of a thread here and at every other Packer message board. Bedard clearly is an unskilled interviewer. But I stand by what you quoted me on, the only non-starter was Hawk's contract.

Clifton's backups
Coaching versus talent on O Line
Negotiations with Packer UFAs
Ahman Green
Breno Giacomini on the roster despite not playing. Everyone agreed a second punter was a waste of a roster spot. Is it better to have a backup Right Tackle who cannot play rather than a second punter? Both have the same current usefulness.
Meltdowns versus Pittsburgh and Arizona.
Kampman
Area needing improvement

Worst topic is Hawk

Second worst was question on regret.

[superfan]

It appears safe to assume that Greg Bedard does not secretly have a PR account under the name "vince".

[RashanGary]

Nice post, Vince. These guys never get us anything, ever and it's obvious the questions they ask are a big part of the reason.

[pbmax]

I don't know about that JH. I have lived in other NFL cities and I have seen much worse coverage. Bedard may leave much to be desired as an interviewer, but McGinn and Wilde are not bad. McGinn is among the top beat writers in the league. And you have two papers (maybe three, I am unsure if the State Journal will continue to send a reporter to Green Bay after Wilde left) covering the team.

What would be fascinating is to see if Thompson could manage to evade answers like that in New York, Boston or Philly. Whether their coverage is better is debatable, but they drive the storyline and force teams to react unlike Chicago, Milwaukee, Green Bay or Minneapolis. I think he would need to compromise. Wolf had the personality to carry some of this off, Thompson has less margin for error.

Rosenthal, who covers the NFL for PFT and Rotoworld, doesn't think its lacking.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/01/25/nolan-turned-down-packers-gig-last-year/

[MJZiggy]

You can see over the course of that interview, Thompson's answers getting more curt, shorter and revealing less and less until they gave nothing at all. I for one would have liked to know where TT saw the biggest improvement in the team this year. If he thought this year's draft class was strong in cornerbacks, if considering that you're always looking to add the best players, there was any position he thought could use a little more depth, what implications the lack of a CBA would have on his offseason planning, whether he thought the owners/NFLPA might get a new deal worked out anytime soon, what his biggest point of pride was this season, why the kickers leaguewide seemed to miss more often this year--especially at critical moments, whether the fact that we have the youngest team for the last few years is a symptom of rebuilding, a point of pride or if his goal is to have the team stick together and mature as a team together. Who his pick was for the SB, his main offseason goal (get the team bigger, stronger, faster, what?) What he looks for when evaluating a young safety/runningback...

I think you get my point. What would you rather he'd asked?

[Maxie the Taxi]

You can see over the course of that interview, Thompson's answers getting more curt, shorter and revealing less and less until they gave nothing at all. I for one would have liked to know where TT saw the biggest improvement in the team this year. If he thought this year's draft class was strong in cornerbacks, if considering that you're always looking to add the best players, there was any position he thought could use a little more depth, what implications the lack of a CBA would have on his offseason planning, whether he thought the owners/NFLPA might get a new deal worked out anytime soon, what his biggest point of pride was this season, why the kickers leaguewide seemed to miss more often this year--especially at critical moments, whether the fact that we have the youngest team for the last few years is a symptom of rebuilding, a point of pride or if his goal is to have the team stick together and mature as a team together. Who his pick was for the SB, his main offseason goal (get the team bigger, stronger, faster, what?) What he looks for when evaluating a young safety/runningback...

I think you get my point. What would you rather he'd asked?

I noticed the deterioration too. Why not? It seemed Bedard's innuendo was getting more and more nasty as the interview went on. Came across very arrogant, vindictive and stupid.

Actually, some of the things he asked are legitimate and I would have liked to hear what TT had to say, but Bedard got snotty and TT clammed up.

I would have like to hear TT's explanation of the whole Anthony Smith saga. If Bedard would have asked: "Ted, would you mind sharing your thoughts on the reasons Anthony Smith was let go in the Spring?" Maybe he could have caught more answers with honey rather than vinegar. You can't treat an interviewee as an adversary and then expect cooperation.

I'd also be interested on Ted's take on Breno Giacomini and Pat Lee. I would have asked Ted to describe what attracted him to these players in the draft and how that compares/contrasts to their performance in the NFL.

If I wanted to stretch the envelope, I would have asked him about MM not using the running game and Dom not blitzing in the playoffs, but I would have not asked it directly. I would have asked TT for his thoughts on the current trends in the NFL...does he feel the league is becoming a passing league, or whether the 3-4 defense is the wave of the future and, if so, will it put a premium on certain types of players coming out of the draft.

I was always taught to ask open-ended questions, not questions that could be answered with a simple Yes/No.

[MJZiggy]

Exactly. 8th grade journalism--never ask a yes/no question in an interview and your favorite word is "why."

[Patler]

I wasn't going to read it, I skip a lot of what Bedard writes. But, I did, and, as usual, I have a lot to comment on. A golden opportunity to develop a trusting relationship seems to have been wasted. I don't think GM's expect kid glove treatment, but they do expect to be treated professionally and with courtesy even when hard questions are asked. This interview seemed to lack common courtesy.

The following is an example of why I believe Bedard is a poor interviewer. It seems he didn't do adequate research and let his own bias, opinion or ego get in the way of forming proper questions to gain information or insight. To top it off, he didn't listen to the answers and base follow ups on the answers:

Q. But obviously the offensive line was affected by the situation at left tackle, with Chad Clifton getting hurt and Daryn Colledge and T.J. Lang having to play there. When you put together your 53-man roster, you were OK with Colledge backing up an aging Clifton, who hadn't started all 16 games since 2007 and was coming off four surgeries?

A. Well, that was one of the plans. The thing that I think is overlooked sometimes is you can't have a left tackle ready to play that's sitting on the bench in the NFL. There's not that many of them. There's not 32 of them. We happen to have one and we actually have a couple of young guys, including T.J. Lang, that we think can play out there. But when you get hurt at a position as valuable as left tackle, you're going to take some lumps. Now, we've done that in the past and we've been able to play our way through it and win some games. We struggled a little bit more this year.

Q. But Colledge seemed to be your Plan A. . . .

A. Yeah, he's done it before. And we have several players on our line that played left tackle one way or the other. But it is what it is. If we would have had a better left tackle somewhere that we could have had on our 53, we would have had 'em.

Q. You didn't think you could find some sort of veteran who could do better than Colledge?

A. Obviously not.

Q. Who are the young guys that you think can play left tackle?

A. We think T.J. can.

Q. You do?

This is a bad line of questions that originated with a very poor initial question. The first question implied that TT should have known prior to the season that Clifton would miss games, because he "hadn't started all 16 games since 2007 and was coming off four surgeries". The lead-in question carries very negative implications based on inaccuracies, and I suspect it angered TT a bit, or at least put him on the defensive. The question is bad because:

- "since 2007" means he missed a start one season, 2008. That shows no trend. But it sounds worse than that.
- the surgeries were minor "clean-up" procedures.
- Clifton is getting up there, but at 33 with 10 years in he isn't ancient yet.
- in the 6 seasons since the Sapp-caused injury, Clifton missed 2 starts, neither one due to injury. He missed one game when he came down with the flu the morning of the game, and he missed the second due to an adverse reaction to an injection just before the game.
- Colledge played "OK" filling in during those misses. In fact, last year after the reaction wore off Clifton was cleared to play the second half, but didn't because the line was playing OK with Colledge at LT.
- Clifton had said he was rejuvenated by the surgeries, and had actually been practicing more than in recent years as a result.

Based on the facts, instead of implying that TT should have known better, he could have asked an "If you had known..." type question. For example, something like; "The offensive line was affected by the situation at left tackle when Chad Clifton got hurt early and missed multiple games for the first time in 7 years. When you put together your 53-man roster, if you had known that would happen, would you have done anything different? What could you have done?"

That may have gotten a weak answer about being OK with Colledge, since he had backed up there previously; but then the natural follow-up, which was never asked, is this; "Colledge seemed to play OK at LT a couple times in the past. Some have even suggested it might be his best position. What caused him to struggle there this year?" and after that..."Will Colledge be in your thinking for LT again, or do you now view him as only a guard?" and still further; "Long term you have to be thinking about tackles, is Colledge a consideration at RT? He played well at Detroit in 2008."

The follow-up questions he did use were as bad or worse than the initial question. TT suggested there are not even enough LTs to go around as starters, yet Bedard asked a question that seems to imply TT should have been able to find a capable vet as a backup. Bedard knew this would be a line of questioning. If he feels TT dropped the ball, he should have had a few names to offer, guys that were available when Clifton got hurt, or that were available in the off season and would have been satisfied with backup roles.

TT said they think Lang can play LT, then Bedard asked what young guys could play LT and seems surprised when TT again said Lang. It would have been better to just dig a little deeper. Is Lang just a capable fill-in at LT or could he be a starter at LT? He seems to lack some of the physical characteristics of the good LTs, what does he have that makes up for it?

He goes on to harp about Giacomini, but left out the obvious player to ask about on the line - Barbre.

My pick for the absolute worst question asked:

Q. Did the addition of Tauscher and running back Ahman Green - and their contributions in the locker room - open your eyes a little bit more to the value of veteran players?

Are you kidding me? He asked that question, in that way, to a man who played in the NFL for 10 years and has been involved in player acquisitions for 18 years? Tauscher and Green in a half season would "open your eyes"? Instead, why not a question like; "Tauscher and Green seemed to have a very positive effect on the team in the locker room, even beyond their contributions on the field. How do you personally weigh the choice between a grizzled old vet who can help with team chemistry, like Tauscher or Green, and the younger player who won't be a starter but can maybe give you a special teams body, or the real "project" like Giacomini seems to be?" "You seem to favor going young in those close situations, is that because you are looking for rare late bloomers, like Driver sort of was? How much does money factor in, a rookie minimum salary perhaps versus the close to a million that the veteran gets? Good businesses do not waste money, and it's not a small amount of money, especially if there are two or three positions decided that way. It could be several million dollars in difference. How much do you think about that?"

Instead of asking TT to "explain the decision" on Lee, which implies "justify it" why not just ask how long he thought Lee would be out at the time? It gets the information you want without putting they guy on the defensive. I would have asked where Lee would have fit in at corner, ahead of Blackmon? Behind?

Asking if the game is "important" to Lee? What was that about?

His line of questioning about Smith was confrontational as well for no good reason, and was not likely to get any kind of information in response. It's not like the guy is a real gem, St Louis didn't keep him and only played him in 2 games as it was. Bedard seems disbelieving that Smith was not a consideration before all the injuries and when others (like Martin) were available, but was a consideration as the ranks were depleted.

Rather than Smith, a better line of questions might have been about cutting Aaron Rouse just a few weeks later. Rouse started the last 8 games for the Giants. Rouse was cut before the trade deadline, did TT look for any trading partners?


A wasted opportunity, in my opinion.

[Patler]

Exactly. 8th grade journalism--never ask a yes/no question in an interview and your favorite word is "why."

Actually, I think yes/no questions can be a very useful tool, but not if used exclusively. Get the interviewee to commit to a position (Yes/no type question), THEN, force an explanation to be given.

The problem is Bedard seemed to approach this as a cross-examination, which usually focuses on yes/no type questions. That can be good to identify points of controversy for later argument, but it is not ever very informative in and of itself. It is designed to raise questions or doubts, not to provide information or explanations. A good news reporter asks our questions for us, or at least provides us with the information to answer our questions. All this interview did was raise more questions, in my mind.

This suggests a reporter with an agenda, not a reporter looking to provide objective information.

[pbmax]

Based on the facts, instead of implying that TT should have known better, he could have asked an "If you had known..." type question. For example, something like; "The offensive line was affected by the situation at left tackle when Chad Clifton got hurt early and missed multiple games for the first time in 7 years. When you put together your 53-man roster, if you had known that would happen, would you have done anything different? What could you have done?"

That may have gotten a weak answer about being OK with Colledge, since he had backed up there previously; but then the natural follow-up, which was never asked, is this; "Colledge seemed to play OK at LT a couple times in the past. Some have even suggested it might be his best position. What caused him to struggle there this year?" and after that..."Will Colledge be in your thinking for LT again, or do you now view him as only a guard?" and still further; "Long term you have to be thinking about tackles, is Colledge a consideration at RT? He played well at Detroit in 2008."

Follow-up questions 2-4 are great. But the first question gives the interviewee an out: "if you had known..."

I don't think that you can put the opt-out answer in your question. The simpler, the better. "Since 2007" is misleading but four surgeries are not minor. And Clifton, unlike the past, has been talking about wanting to play past this contract. I don't think much stock can be put in "four surgeries and I feel years younger". Of course he would say that, he wants another contract.

"Chad Clifton had just come off four surgeries and is a ten year vet. Has this experience changed your thinking about players switching positions to backup such an important position?"

I am not even a fan of that question, but at least he has to explain himself. I would prefer one similar to one of Patler's follow-ups:

"Were you surprised to see Colledge struggle so much at LT?"

"Do you see a future at LT for Colledge after seeing him in 2009?"

"Was it wise to not give Colledge LT snaps before releasing Plan C (Moll) and D (Meredith) at the position?"

"Does the difficulty of finding snaps for 4 Left Tackles argue to you for a veteran backup who may need less snaps to be ready?"

[mraynrand]

I think Chris Farley would have conducted a better interview.

"Ted, remember when you played for the Oilers?"

"Yes."

"And when you sacked Ken Anderson?"

"Yes."

"That was...AWESOME!"