TT Confidence Meter

[pbmax]

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.

Oh, I think I can argue with the Bruce Allen/Jon Gruden combo in Tampa. There is no one measurement that can tell you who is a good GM.

And after signing Mr. Brady then abandoning his strategy of low cost veteran free agents, how is the GM in New England doing these days Super Bowl wise? Nothing stays the same.

[Brandon494]

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

No, I don't believe thats what I said.

[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.

Oh, I think I can argue with the Bruce Allen/Jon Gruden combo in Tampa. There is no one measurement that can tell you who is a good GM.

And after signing Mr. Brady then abandoning his strategy of low cost veteran free agents, how is the GM in New England doing these days Super Bowl wise? Nothing stays the same.

Well losing their franchise QB to a knee injury the 1st game and still going 11-5 should show you how well the GM has put that team together.

[Brandon494]

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!)

[pbmax]

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.

Oh, I think I can argue with the Bruce Allen/Jon Gruden combo in Tampa. There is no one measurement that can tell you who is a good GM.

And after signing Mr. Brady then abandoning his strategy of low cost veteran free agents, how is the GM in New England doing these days Super Bowl wise? Nothing stays the same.

Well losing their franchise QB to a knee injury the 1st game and still going 11-5 should show you how well the GM has put that team together.

But according to Mr. Campbell, Super Bowls are the measuring stick. Unless winning one gives you a lifetime pass to the top five.

[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.

Oh, I think I can argue with the Bruce Allen/Jon Gruden combo in Tampa. There is no one measurement that can tell you who is a good GM.

And after signing Mr. Brady then abandoning his strategy of low cost veteran free agents, how is the GM in New England doing these days Super Bowl wise? Nothing stays the same.

Well losing their franchise QB to a knee injury the 1st game and still going 11-5 should show you how well the GM has put that team together.

But according to Mr. Campbell, Super Bowls are the measuring stick. Unless winning one gives you a lifetime pass to the top five.

I don't know about winning one, but winning three should.

[sheepshead]

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

No, I don't believe thats what I said.

Well thats the job of the GM.....

[Brandon494]

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

No, I don't believe thats what I said.

Well thats the job of the GM.....

The job of a GM to win a title, not to be paper champions

[sheepshead]

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

No, I don't believe thats what I said.

Well thats the job of the GM.....

The job of a GM to win a title, not to be paper champions

I might argue, that the job of the GM is to put the best players on the field and its the job of the HC and his staff to win games. I think we have one of the best GMs in the business and a HC that should be on a short leash because his learning curve is just about over.

[Smidgeon]

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

No, I don't believe thats what I said.

Well thats the job of the GM.....

The job of a GM to win a title, not to be paper champions

I might argue, that the job of the GM is to put the best players on the field and its the job of the HC and his staff to win games. I think we have one of the best GMs in the business and a HC that should be on a short leash because his learning curve is just about over.

I agree that the GM provides the talent and the HC coaches up the victories. But in some regards (i.e. QB regards) this team is very young and only mildly experienced. M3 now has a QB that hasn't developed the trend of losing important games with bad throws. He has lost one, but it isn't a trend and the future looks bright. I would personally give M3 a longer leash that you seem to (not much longer, but longer) in order to see what he can do with his developing QB and young Talent.

[Brandon494]

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

No, I don't believe thats what I said.

Well thats the job of the GM.....

The job of a GM to win a title, not to be paper champions

I might argue, that the job of the GM is to put the best players on the field and its the job of the HC and his staff to win games. I think we have one of the best GMs in the business and a HC that should be on a short leash because his learning curve is just about over.

I can agree with that

[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.

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?

now you're being facetious because i know you know what i'm getting at.

[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?

now you're being facetious because i know you know what i'm getting at.

Maybe a little, that was the reason for the:

But I also wanted to make a point. Free agency isn't just about signing expensive free agents. Its about going out and finding players that can improve your team, and TT has done that. Starters are starters, regardless of whether they were expensive FAs or inexpensive FAs.

Since TT got there, the Packers also have been able to re-sign or extend a lot of players, like Rodgers, Grant, Jennings, Kampman, Wells, Jenkins and probably a few others who don't come to mind right now. Had a bunch of expensive FAs been signed, some of these may have left. After the first year when the salary cap was an issue, what good FAs of their own have the Packers lost?

In my opinion, a GM's record on free agency includes signing the cheapies who become important and re-signing your own good ones; not just signing someone else's expensive FA.

[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.

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?

now you're being facetious because i know you know what i'm getting at.

Maybe a little, that was the reason for the:

But I also wanted to make a point. Free agency isn't just about signing expensive free agents. Its about going out and finding players that can improve your team, and TT has done that. Starters are starters, regardless of whether they were expensive FAs or inexpensive FAs.

Since TT got there, the Packers also have been able to re-sign or extend a lot of players, like Rodgers, Grant, Jennings, Kampman, Wells, Jenkins and probably a few others who don't come to mind right now. Had a bunch of expensive FAs been signed, some of these may have left. After the first year when the salary cap was an issue, what good FAs of their own have the Packers lost?

In my opinion, a GM's record on free agency includes signing the cheapies who become important and re-signing your own good ones; not just signing someone else's expensive FA.

no argument with any of that...it's just when there's an impact guy that you really want, a difference maker, don't let something like money get in the way. don't take no for an answer.

[Patler]

...it's just when there's an impact guy that you really want, a difference maker, don't let something like money get in the way. don't take no for an answer.

I can not agree with that. Money is always a factor in the purchase of anything, including the purchase of a free agent's services. For a good GM, how badly he wants a player SHOULD depend in part at least on how much that player will cost.