TT Confidence Meter

[cheesner]

I had to go with #1 because I cannot think of 5 GMs who are better.

As for the argument that the last few SB champs, the GM should hold the title - TT has not been around as long as some of them. IND, PIT, NYG had many of their pieces were acquired before the TT era, so how can you compare him?

Maybe I am right, or maybe I am wrong, - but other than NO, I don't think any team in the NFL is looking better for the upcoming decade. And we have TT to thank for that.

[The Shadow]

I had to go with #1 because I cannot think of 5 GMs who are better.

As for the argument that the last few SB champs, the GM should hold the title - TT has not been around as long as some of them. IND, PIT, NYG had many of their pieces were acquired before the TT era, so how can you compare him?

Maybe I am right, or maybe I am wrong, - but other than NO, I don't think any team in the NFL is looking better for the upcoming decade. And we have TT to thank for that.

Agree wholeheartedly!

[The Leaper]

Maybe I am right, or maybe I am wrong, - but other than NO, I don't think any team in the NFL is looking better for the upcoming decade. And we have TT to thank for that.

Nah. I'll thank Aaron Rodgers for that.

Thompson has been lucky just as much as he has been good IMO. He got lucky that Rodgers fell into his lap...if Thompson is sitting 7-8 spots higher, does he pull the trigger on Rodgers? Probably not. Getting Woodson was luck too...Chuck wasn't coming here, other than no one else wanted him.

Thompson is a solid GM...I'm not putting him in the top 5 just yet. In terms of purely evaluating talent, I think he is top 5. However, there is more than just talent evaluation...you need to know how to assemble the talent into a cohesive unit using all avenues available to you. In some respects, Thompson hasn't passed that test with flying colors yet. He is still living off Ron Wolf's OTs...or his OL would be abysmal. His stable of RBs have been mediocre. The punting situation...yeah, that's a black mark. He's also had some difficulty finding enough capable guys in the secondary...he's been hit and miss back there.

IMO, this team remains 3-4 players away from being a true title contender. We need a strong young LT...we need a more complete/game changing RB...we need another pass rushing LB...we need another starting caliber DB.

[Fritz]

I think Harris, Woodson, Williams and Collins are better than most teams' top three corners and top safety. I think if you're calling Thompson "lucky" then do you call the other 23 teams that passed on Rodgers "unlucky"?

If you call Woodson's acquisition "lucky" do you call all those other teams that didn't want him "unlucky"?

Why do you call his good moves "luck" then bash him for other areas?

[Gunakor]

we need a more complete/game changing RB....

I still fail to understand why everyone is so down on Ryan Grant. The guy is a top 10 back in the NFL. That's what he is. 2 years in a row now, in a pass happy offense. Since week 9 of the 2007 season, the week Grant became the regular starter in our pass happy offense, ONLY Adrian Peterson has gained more yards rushing. But unlike Peterson, Grant doesn't fumble the ball. What does a guy have to do to earn respect around here?

What we need is Ryan Grant to do what Ryan Grant does. We need a better line in front of him. We need a better line in front of Rodgers. We need a better line, period. There is nothing wrong with any of the skill positions on offense.

[Tony Oday]

we need a more complete/game changing RB....

I still fail to understand why everyone is so down on Ryan Grant. The guy is a top 10 back in the NFL. That's what he is. 2 years in a row now, in a pass happy offense. Since week 9 of the 2007 season, the week Grant became the regular starter in our pass happy offense, ONLY Adrian Peterson has gained more yards rushing. But unlike Peterson, Grant doesn't fumble the ball. What does a guy have to do to earn respect around here?

What we need is Ryan Grant to do what Ryan Grant does. We need a better line in front of him. We need a better line in front of Rodgers. We need a better line, period. There is nothing wrong with any of the skill positions on offense.

I would say a better line will help him break explosive runs...that is really why he isnt considered an elite back in my opinion.

[Smidgeon]

we need a more complete/game changing RB....

I still fail to understand why everyone is so down on Ryan Grant. The guy is a top 10 back in the NFL. That's what he is. 2 years in a row now, in a pass happy offense. Since week 9 of the 2007 season, the week Grant became the regular starter in our pass happy offense, ONLY Adrian Peterson has gained more yards rushing. But unlike Peterson, Grant doesn't fumble the ball. What does a guy have to do to earn respect around here?

What we need is Ryan Grant to do what Ryan Grant does. We need a better line in front of him. We need a better line in front of Rodgers. We need a better line, period. There is nothing wrong with any of the skill positions on offense.

I would say a better line will help him break explosive runs...that is really why he isnt considered an elite back in my opinion.

Well, that and he doesn't utilize a second move or break many tackles on the second level...

[retailguy]

I think Harris, Woodson, Williams and Collins are better than most teams' top three corners and top safety. I think if you're calling Thompson "lucky" then do you call the other 23 teams that passed on Rodgers "unlucky"?

If you call Woodson's acquisition "lucky" do you call all those other teams that didn't want him "unlucky"?

Why do you call his good moves "luck" then bash him for other areas?

I'm not sure what your complaint is with Leapers post. I think he was incredibly fair. He never mentioned Adrian Klemm, or Matt O'Dwyer, or Marquand Manuel. See, if you want to crown Ted as a "genius", then you have to categorize these moves too.

Leaper said he was "top 5" in talent acquisition, and even I'd be hard pressed to disagree. But the guy isn't perfect. Nobody is. He is, and always will be an abysmal communicator. That's part of his job. He's surely not top 5 in that department. (I recognize that some of you think that saying nothing is a "skill". I do not agree.)

He said that Ted got "lucky" with Woodson. That's true. Not because he didn't know Woodson was a good player, hell even I knew that, it's because he didn't want to come here. If ANYONE else wanted Woodson, he'd be there today. In that sense, Ted got damn lucky.

He inherited Al Harris, from <gasp> Mike Sherman. Resigning him could have been accomplished with a chimpanzee leading the team.

He gets credit for Williams, that's pretty clear. If you recall, he put Williams (an undrafted free agent who was waived by Houston his rookie year) on the practice squad near the end of the 2006 season, and someone on staff developed him.

The whole "talent" thing is overblown in my opinion. Every single player that gets into an NFL training camp has the "talent" to succeed. Whether they have the rest of the tools to succeed is quite a different matter.

Finally, as to Rodgers, I do have to also agree with leaper. Had we drafted 15th, would we have taken him? I don't think so. Rodgers fell for a reason. People were scared of his delivery, and were also worried about Tedfords history. Rodgers only started for one season at Cal if I recall correctly, and only played on the team for two seasons having started in junior college. I don't think Ted would have been much more willing to risk a high draft pick on him than anyone else was. Lots of unknowns at that point.

Why you gotta argue, Fritz? It's all good. We're coming off the playoffs, expectations are high, Ted bought some job security and his "warts" are all hidden. Life is good.

[Scott Campbell]

He said that Ted got "lucky" with Woodson. That's true. Not because he didn't know Woodson was a good player, hell even I knew that, it's because he didn't want to come here. If ANYONE else wanted Woodson, he'd be there today. In that sense, Ted got damn lucky.

Hmmmmmmm.

If it was such a universal truth that Woodson was a good player, why is it that nobody else wanted him?

[retailguy]

He said that Ted got "lucky" with Woodson. That's true. Not because he didn't know Woodson was a good player, hell even I knew that, it's because he didn't want to come here. If ANYONE else wanted Woodson, he'd be there today. In that sense, Ted got damn lucky.

Hmmmmmmm.

If it was such a universal truth that Woodson was a good player, why is it that nobody else wanted him?

Because of his knee injury... If you recall there were questions about whether or not he'd be the same player... too old to regain movement, that's why they wanted to move him to safety in Tampa. It was a low risk move for Ted. You bring him in as a corner, which is what he wanted to do, and if he doesn't make it, you move him to safety...

And this invalidates the rest of my post? please. stop stirring up shit.

[Scott Campbell]

I think Harris, Woodson, Williams and Collins are better than most teams' top three corners and top safety. I think if you're calling Thompson "lucky" then do you call the other 23 teams that passed on Rodgers "unlucky"?

And was Ted just unlucky with Justin Harrell?


I think the truth is that there is both skill and luck involved in player evaluation and acquisition tactics. And that will always be true as long as players like Marques Colsten and Donald Driver are drafted in the 7th round. Though if you're not a fan of Ted's communication skills or hair color, I suppose you might be inclined to credit his good moves to luck, and his bad moves to stupidity, or my personal favorite - ego.

[Scott Campbell]

And this invalidates the rest of my post? please. stop stirring up shit.

Are you trying to lump me in with that known troublemaker Fritz? Why do you cry "unfair" anytime somebody sticks up for Ted?

Before the summer of 08 drama, Ted was the most divisive topic on this board - by far. All the best ugly arguments centered around Ted. Just because he's no longer the most divisive subject on this board, it doesn't mean that he's not a divisive figure. He is, and probably will be for his entire GB tenure.

People are going to argue about Ted, and that's not a problem if we don't let it become a problem.

Dismissing the Woodson acquisition as a no brainer is not fully giving credit for getting one right in the same manner that we see Ted skewered for completely whiffing on a guy like Manuel. It's just not accurate. IMO.

[Scott Campbell]

Finally, as to Rodgers, I do have to also agree with leaper. Had we drafted 15th, would we have taken him? I don't think so. Rodgers fell for a reason.

Your reasons are valid, but you omitted the part where the teams immediately ahead of us had no need for a first round QB. That played a bigger role in him falling to us. I'm as certain as I can be that we would have taken him in the 15th slot.

[RashanGary]

I'll compare being an NFL GM to being a good poker player.


To play good poker, you need to know the odds of your hands preflop (the players skills and warts), the amount you have to bet to see the flop (the cost of the player) and then you can pick up tells (the personnel issues with the player).

A good poker player is balancing this out with every hand and a good GM is balancing this out with every decision. Nothing is a sure bet, nothing concrete, but over time if you can balance several factors in a way that makes your decisions more sound than your opponents and your mistakes fewer, you're going to win over time.

You can call Ted Thompson lucky that so many of his moves have panned out and that this team has grown so much during his reign just like you can call Dan Harrington lucky for being a championship poker player and a very rich man at a sport many people consider gambling. Nobody knows what will come after the flop, but I believe the ablility to weigh risk and reward is both skill and knowledge. The ability to avoid donking out on a dumb move in a 4,000 person tournament and making it to the end is far from luck, especially when it's done consistently.


There's a luck factor, sure, just like calling a 1:8 bet and catching your open ended straight draw on the river could be consdiered luck, but when you consider you have a 1:5 chance of hitting that card, the risk justified taking the chance on the reward. If it was a 1:2 bet, you'd be a donkey. In football terms, Mike Sherman.

In summary, it's good to take a chance sometime, but the reward has to outweight the risk and like Patler has tried to communicate many times, price is a big factor in the risk. Over time luck goes away. Ted's no more lucky than anyone else. HE's more skilled.

[Fred's Slacks]

With these definitions on what makes a move luck or skill, it would seem that the only moves that involve skill is when you pay a high price for a player. So we'll give credit to TT for Clay Matthews but all other moves were luck, good or bad?