TT Confidence Meter

[gbgary]

Why does that poll look like it's flipping me off????

lol

[RashanGary]

Why does that poll look like it's flipping me off????

It's not flipping "you" off

But yeah, it sort of makes a point, doesn't it? Some people want their opinions to be accepted as relevant when they're not really. I guess that's insulting to people, to realize nobody takes them seriously. Maybe I should be more PC and pretend like I and others understand their view

[gbgary]

if he was a little more active (or should i just say active) in FA i'd rate him higher.

What if he was active but got duds?

He has gotten Woodson and Pickett in FA. Doesn't that count as being "active"?

i was being facetious. yes they count. a little more of that would have been great.

[RashanGary]

if he was a little more active (or should i just say active) in FA i'd rate him higher.

What if he was active but got duds?

He has gotten Woodson and Pickett in FA. Doesn't that count as being "active"?

i was being facetious. yes they count. a little more of that would have been great.

What about trading for Grant, trading up for Matthews and resigning Rodgers, Jennings and Barnett before their deals were done?

What about giving more money to Tausch and Harris near the end of their contracts and extending Driver? Those helped the team.

Woodson, Pickett and Chillar were active additions.

Firing Shermhead for MM was active.

Does active mean wasting money on an over the hill DE like Joe Johnson. Sherman was never labeled as "inactive" even though he never made as many good, active moves as TT has. It's strange, I think peoples view of TT's inactivity is a myth with no merit.

If active is another word for being a bad GM, then no, Ted hasn't been a bad GM.

[RashanGary]

I think a more accurate view of Ted Thompson's approach would be:


Ted builds the core of his team through the draft and then supplements good drafts with good free agents, trades and smart resignings. He is known for having the foresight to make moves that nobody understands at the time, but begin to understand over time. He's one of the few GMs always trying to add elite veteran talent and has had success doing it with Charles Woodson along with near misses, but is always among the most active in trying to add elite talent.

I think it would be accurate to say that some of the people who didn't understand Ted's approach haven't yet realized that his moves have worked out. It would be accurate to say these people with closed minds are still here saying Ted is, "inactive" when, in fact, he's been both active and successful in his activity.

[gbgary]

if he was a little more active (or should i just say active) in FA i'd rate him higher.

What if he was active but got duds?

He has gotten Woodson and Pickett in FA. Doesn't that count as being "active"?

i was being facetious. yes they count. a little more of that would have been great.

What about trading for Grant, trading up for Matthews and resigning Rodgers, Jennings and Barnett before their deals were done?

What about giving more money to Tausch and Harris near the end of their contracts and extending Driver? Those helped the team.

Woodson, Pickett and Chillar were active additions.

Firing Shermhead for MM was active.

Does active mean wasting money on an over the hill DE like Joe Johnson. Sherman was never labeled as "inactive" even though he never made as many good, active moves as TT has. It's strange, I think peoples view of TT's inactivity is a myth with no merit.

calm down sir. i agree with all that. i wasn't saying throw tons of money away but we've been way under the cap for several years in a row and being a little more aggressive might have paid off. it's water under the bridge now but we're not that far away at this point. we're very young and a move here and there might push us over the finish line...as it did in '96. i'm not a TT hater.

[RashanGary]

calm down sir. i agree with all that. i wasn't saying throw tons of money away but we've been way under the cap for several years in a row and being a little more aggressive might have paid off. it's water under the bridge now but we're not that far away at this point. we're very young and a move here and there might push us over the finish line...as it did in '96.

Yeah. I do understand that.


Here's what I think many Packer fans believe happened and why our views of Ted are more positive than yours is:


- From 2001 to 2004 the Packers ended up with only 5 core young players in the draft (one of which blew up, Javon Walker).

- Instead of resigning his guys early when the prices were down, Sherman chose to blow his wad on an aging vet from another team with no discount.

- When Ted took over, the cap was strapped and Ted had to make moves just to be under the cap.

- Now we released a few vets to get under the cap and a couple of our key vets aged over the hill (rivera, flanagan, green). Ted correctlly moved on from them.

- Now we're supposed to have a new core of good players, but since we only drafted 5 in 4 years, we have almost no body

- Now there is a ton of money to be spent because we correctly let some vets go and don't have anyone on the roster to pay.

- Now is the point where you wish he would have spent more money.


What he did though, was keep making good high priced decisions (barnett, Rodgers, Jennings, Woodson), solid mid priced decisions (PIckett, Jenkins Chillar, Grant, Harris, Driver, Tauscher) and a couple blah lower price, lower risk decisions (Franks, Poppinga, Manual). He kept adding talent in the draft, kept building the core of the roster.

Now we're at a point where we've built the team from ground up, added value all across the board. Instead of trying to take one stab that probably wouldn't have worked out, he's got this team poised to be good for many years. The ceiling is dynasty and the floor seems to be a really good team for several years.

Do you think that now, with hindsight, we can start seeing the merit in those tough decisions Ted made, that it was the surest way to give us a legit chance at a championship? Do you think that Rather than viewing him not spending every penny as soon as he had it as being a negative, do you think maybe we can view his ability to wait until the time was right as being the tougher and better thing to do? I don't know, I think the things he's accused of being weak at are actually the things that have gotten this team on the brink of greatness. Now let's see if the baker can finish of the decorations and put on the "just right" final touches. He hasn't proven that yet, but he's taken a shit situation to a really good one. Most Packer fans give him credit for that. I'm surprised there are even a few that don't see that. The poll shows most people see it similarly, but what fun is it to sit around and pat each others butt's about how much we agree. It's more fun ot seek out the differing opinion and try to come to an understanding.

[gbgary]

calm down sir. i agree with all that. i wasn't saying throw tons of money away but we've been way under the cap for several years in a row and being a little more aggressive might have paid off. it's water under the bridge now but we're not that far away at this point. we're very young and a move here and there might push us over the finish line...as it did in '96. i'm not a TT hater.

Yeah. I do understand that.


Here's what I think many Packer fans believe happened and why our views of Ted are more positive than yours is:


- From 2001 to 2004 the Packers ended up with only 5 core young players in the draft (one of which blew up, Javon Walker).

- Instead of resigning his guys early when the prices were down, Sherman chose to blow his wad on an aging vet from another team with no discount.

- When Ted took over, the cap was strapped and Ted had to make moves just to be under the cap.

- Now we released a few vets to get under the cap and a couple of our key vets aged over the hill (rivera, flanagan, green). Ted correctlly moved on from them.

- Now we're supposed to have a new core of good players, but since we only drafted 5 in 4 years, we have almost no body

- Now there is a ton of money to be spent because we correctly let some vets go and don't have anyone on the roster to pay.

- Now is the point where you wish he would have spent more money.


What he did though, was keep making good high priced decisions (barnett, Rodgers, Jennings, Woodson), solid mid priced decisions (PIckett, Jenkins Chillar, Grant, Harris, Driver, Tauscher) and a couple blah lower price, lower risk decisions (Franks, Poppinga, Manual). He kept adding talent in the draft, kept building the core of the roster.

Now we're at a point where we've built the team from ground up, added value all across the board. Instead of trying to take one stab that probably wouldn't have worked out, he's got this team poised to be good for many years. The ceiling is dynasty and the floor seems to be a really good team for several years.

Do you think that now, with hindsight, we can start seeing the merit in those tough decisions Ted made, that it was the surest way to give us a legit chance at a championship? Do you think that Rather than viewing him not spending every penny as soon as he had it as being a negative, do you think maybe we can view his ability to wait until the time was right as being the tougher and better thing to do? I don't know, I think the things he's accused of being weak at are actually the things that have gotten this team on the brink of greatness. Now let's see if the baker can finish of the decorations and put on the "just right" final touches. He hasn't proven that yet, but he's taken a shit situation to a really good one. Most Packer fans give him credit for that. I'm surprised there are even a few that don't see that. The poll shows most people see it similarly, but what fun is it to sit around and pat each others butt's about how much we agree. It's more fun ot seek out the differing opinion and try to come to an understanding.

good points on the sherman repair job. i am mostly thinking of the mm years.

[Gunakor]

Name 5 GMs better than Ted.

The Saints GM
The Steelers GM
The Giants GM
The Indy GM
The Pats GM


Can't argue with Superbowl winners.

Giants didn't win any Super Bowls because of a great GM. They won a Super Bowl because they got hot at the right time. Halfway through that season it appeared the Giants wouldn't even make the playoffs. On the final week of the season they snuck in as a 9-7 wildcard. Hardly an inspiring job done by the GM, if using records as the barometer.

If the Packers had beaten the Cardinals this year, then the Saints, then the Vikings, then the Colts for a ring... Would you replace the Saints GM with Thompson on your list simply due to the fact that the Packers won and the Saints didn't? If the Vikings would have beaten the Saints and then beaten the Colts, would Zigi then be considered a top 5 GM suddenly? What if the Colts had won, who would your #5 be then?

4 better GM's. Thompson is #5 behind Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, New England and New Orleans. Remember the mess he was left with to start, and the relatively short time he took to nearly completely turn over the roster and return the team to respectability after the Ron Wolf built roster was dismantled. Not to mention the phenomenal job he's done getting payroll under control. Don't sell the man short. He's done a tremendous job.

[Tony Oday]

I voted he is one of the best. Took an old declining team and restocked it with talent. We will be playoff contenders for a while, barring major injury to a player I will not name due to karma.

A GM gets you to the playoffs a Coaching Staff and Players win it all.

[Patler]

if he was a little more active (or should i just say active) in FA i'd rate him higher.

What if he was active but got duds?

He has gotten Woodson and Pickett in FA. Doesn't that count as being "active"?

i was being facetious. yes they count. a little more of that would have been great.

Ya, if only he had used free agency more, like for a starting safety and another cornerback. Maybe another linebacker and tight end. Perhaps a starting fullback.

Oh, wait....Bigby, Williams, Chillar, Lee and Kuhn were also free agents.

So, the starting fullback, tight end (perhaps now "ex-starter"), nose tackle, both corners at the end of the year and one safety, plus a quasi starting linebacker were all signed as free agents; but Thompson doesn't sign enough free agents?

[sheepshead]

Name 5 GMs better than Ted.

The Saints GM
The Steelers GM
The Giants GM
The Indy GM
The Pats GM


Can't argue with Superbowl winners.

Give me a break. Name the guys and why. Tell me about their superior staffs, trades and draft choices.

[Brandon494]

Name 5 GMs better than Ted.

The Saints GM
The Steelers GM
The Giants GM
The Indy GM
The Pats GM


Can't argue with Superbowl winners.

Give me a break. Name the guys and why. Tell me about their superior staffs, trades and draft choices.

IF you watch football you pretty much know the moves those GMs have done. Off the top of my head the moves the current SB champs made that put him over TT.

Saints GM- brought in Sean Payton, Drew Brees, Colston inthe 7th round, traded for Shockey, signed Sharper, signed Vilma, signed undrafted Pierre Thomas, brought in Greg Williams as DC

[sheepshead]

So you think , on paper, the Saints are head and shoulders a far better team than the Packers? on paper?

[Patler]

IF you watch football you pretty much know the moves those GMs have done. Off the top of my head the moves the current SB champs made that put him over TT.

Saints GM- brought in Sean Payton, Drew Brees, Colston inthe 7th round, traded for Shockey, signed Sharper, signed Vilma, signed undrafted Pierre Thomas, brought in Greg Williams as DC

Some very interesting parallels:

Payton/McCarthy
sign Brees/draft Rodgers
draft Colston/draft Jennings
trade for Shockey/draft Finley
sign Sharper/sign Woodson
sign Vilma/draft Mathews
sign undrafted Pierre Thomas/trade a 7th for undrafted Ryan Grant

Some are advantage -Saints, some advantage-Packers. SOme are a toss-up or too close to tell.

One big difference in the results for the Saints and the Packers. The Saints played in the NFC Championship game against Favre, the Packers played in the NFC Championship game with Favre. (Patler now ducking for cover!)