Rumors: Rodgers may hand off to Westbrook

[swede]

Found this while researching the Thompson scouting Favre angle. I hadn't read this before, but the guy makes some good points.

Right or wrong, it might be how Thompson felt. Others think he should have gone the route the Vikings have with Favre. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. I guess it all depends on whether the Packers or Vikings win a title before Thompson leaves Green Bay and Favre retires. I do think the other reason Thompson didn't kiss Favre's butt is that he liked ARod and didn't want to risk losing him.

http://www.green-bay-packer.com/2008/08/10/quartback-autopsy-part-1-ted-thompson/

Thompson cleared out the cap mess, and as is most often the case when someone new is put in charge of an operation held together with duct tape, the adhesive gave way and the team fell to the ground, going 4-12. Thompson had seen enough and cleaned house of the coaching staff, sending Mike Sherman and his ice cream bandits far away from Lambeau.

But the thing that remained a constant, before Sherman, after Sherman and before Thompson was Brett Favre. Now maybe playing linebacker for 10 years hard codes an expectation of mental toughness in you. Never being on the glory side of the football or playing a skill position, you feel a little resentment for all those guys on your team that played offense; they got all the big money, the media requests, they were the ones scoring all the tuna. Fuckers. “I bust my ass every year an what do I get? A busted ass. These guys get the honey, the money and the fame” might have been a few of the thoughts Thompson had as a player. Thoughts that may well have carried into his post-playing days, having to work with the egos of stars players.

So when the rumors of Brett Favre retiring started floating in early 2005 and grew in intensity and duration each successive year, maybe Thompson wondered what was wrong with this Favre guy. The pouting and indecision just didn’t compute for a former linebacker, and frankly, it pissed him off. Guy’s got everything but it isn’t enough - he wants a “voice” in personnel decisions, drapes the franchise in a wet woolen blanket with the threat of retirement. Prima donna.

Having a backup plan would tend to make one braver to fold the tent on the current plan. Sherman did not have a Plan B, nor had Holmgren once Brunell left.

But this article reads like a fever dream. If Thompson is really this emotionally clouded, I can't see how he has had much success. Parcells, maybe, or Schottenheimer. I highly doubt its veracity for Thompson. The retire/unretire indecision was nothing really new (except for the publicity) and as others have pointed out (Christl), Thompson had seen or heard them play out before. Ruettgers, etc. Its a power play, as long as you know the team wants you, you can just bide your time. Thompson did play this the patient way for three years.

I completely agree, Max.

TT is not emotional or vindictive. He is Vulcan. He weighs the pros and the cons and he makes a decision.

He told the unretiring Brett, honestly, that the team had moved on; it would be awkward to bring him back.

And yeah, Rodgers was a big chunk of data that had to be processed. Frankly, ARod would have shown himself to be a very weak leader if he had said, "Sure...I'll step down and hold the clipboard quietly again for the good of the team." I don't think he would have either. ARod would have been pissed. Harvey alluded to this above.

TT had to decide between damaging the team's relationship with ARod or damaging the team's relationship with Favre. I believe he made that decision on the basis of a cold calculation. He doesn't make decisions any other way.

[pbmax]

Thompson cleared out the cap mess, and as is most often the case when someone new is put in charge of an operation held together with duct tape, the adhesive gave way and the team fell to the ground, going 4-12. Thompson had seen enough and cleaned house of the coaching staff, sending Mike Sherman and his ice cream bandits far away from Lambeau.

Kind of OT to this subject, but he gave Sherman an extension before running him off. I never understood that.

Meh. Maybe it was smart, gave Sherman a chance to succeed. If he hadn't extended him, he would've been a lame duck coach and had no shot at all.

Agree with your last point. He didn't want Sherman to lose the lockerroom over contract speculation. No way to avoid it entirely, but the extension helped keep the volume down.

[HarveyWallbangers]

But this article reads like a fever dream. If Thompson is really this emotionally clouded, I can't see how he has had much success. Parcells, maybe, or Schottenheimer. I highly doubt its veracity for Thompson. The retire/unretire indecision was nothing really new (except for the publicity) and as others have pointed out (Christl), Thompson had seen or heard them play out before. Ruettgers, etc. Its a power play, as long as you know the team wants you, you can just bide your time. Thompson did play this the patient way for three years.

I think there might be a shred of truth to this. Ruettgers was a bit player. Favre had become bigger than the franchise. Yes, Thompson seems emotionally detached, but any GM is going to want his type of players on his team. Maybe he thought Favre was a prima donna. Or more likely, he thought Favre was a prima donna and felt like Rodgers would be better for the team than Favre in the very near future.

Then again, I agree with the poster that said they thought McCarthy played a role in it. He might have been the one, more than Thompson, that wanted his type of player on his team. Either way, they came to an agreement that having Favre at his age wasn't in the best interests of the team compared to Rodgers at his age. It might have come down to play on the field in the comparison, but I have a feeling some of the off-the-field stuff came into play.

[Gunakor]

The day TT brings us a championship, and I think the blocks are aligned pretty well for us to get one soon, then I will start compariing him to Ron Wolf.

Bring two titles and he'll get his own pedastal above Wolf.

I think you put too much emphasis on the GM for winning and losing. GM's don't play. They don't coach. They don't even put together the puzzle. They bring in the pieces, others put the picture together.

A good analogy I used once before went like this: GM's order the parts to fix your automobile, but they are not mechanics. Meaning a GM won't, can't, and isn't going to fix very much all by himself. All he can do is provide for a better chance that someone else can fix what's wrong.

You can set up the scenario where 2 teams have exactly the same players on their roster, all brought in by the same GM. One wins a title, the other does not. Why would that happen? Because players do not finish their careers at the same talent or production level at which they began. Good coaching makes for improvement, poor coaching makes for decline. All of that factors into wins and losses and title contention far more than roster makeup.

Okay, but the GM hires the coaches too, right? Yes they do. We could have a GM like Jerry Jones who would spare no expense at all to bring in a world class head coach like Bill Parcells and still not have a title to show for it. Not even a single post season win. So that isn't the answer either.

So what's the answer then? LUCK. A tremendous amount of LUCK goes into winning a a title, something GM's don't have a whole lot of control over. It's why a wild card team like the New York Giants can defeat a previously unbeaten New England Patriots to win a Super Bowl. It's why a first time Super Bowl participant like the New Orleans Saints can defeat a very confident, dominating team with a world of playoff experience like the Indianapolis Colts. It's why a team like the Denver Broncos can enter as 2TD underdogs and come away with a win against perhaps one of the best constructed teams in NFL history.

I guess the point of this rant is simply that an abundance of things must all align perfectly to win a World Championship, and the GM isn't solely responsible for all of those things. A GM is responsible for providing an opportunity to win a title. He is not, however, solely responsible for winning it. As such, judging a GM based on titles alone is a very poor measurement IMO.

[Tarlam!]

Good post Gun and I agree it may not be fair to judge a GM on titles, but the reality is that they are.

I wasn't a fan the last time the Packers won a title, but judging by the emotion that is still apparent from the fans that were I'd say nothing is more endearing or has more longevity in clouding objective views than a Super Bowl win.

Think about it. The Jamal Reynolds pick is often cited as actually being a Sherman pick. No way the Super Bowl winng GM would make that pick /sarcasm.

It is what it is.

[Gunakor]

It's funny how winning a championship hinges on your players producing at the peak of their ability, yet not winning one rests on the shoulders of the General Manager. Reggie White gets 3 sacks and Desmond Howard returns a kickoff 97 yards for a TD, and the Packers win a Super Bowl because it's top producers throughout the season came through when it mattered most. Al Harris can't handle Plax and Ryan Grant can't get anything going on the ground, and the Packers can't even get to a Super Bowl because it's top producers throughout the season laid an egg when it mattered most. And some here think the GM is responsible? In both cases, the answer is no. The teams that played on the field those days were responsible for their own fates. But in both cases they had the opportunity set perfectly at their feet, which is all the GM is responsible for. While one team failed and the other succeeded, both Wolf AND Thompson met their end of the bargain.

They are equals IMO.

[sharpe1027]

What about comparing a GMs moves and stratgeys against their competitor GMs, rather than counting the number of super bowls?

I give Wolf a lot of credit for being a step ahead of most GMs in his use free agency and the salary cap. TT is using many tricks that Wolf never used, but there are other GMs that do similar tricks as TT. I think Wolf may have given the Packers more of an edge (compared to other GMs at the time) than TT does.

It's just so subjective. In the end, I liked what Wolf did (wasn't perfect) and I like what TT has done (also not perfect).

[BlueBrewer]

This thread has mutated into a Thompson vs Wolf argument. I keep checking in thinking Westbrook signed, WTF get your own thread.

[Patler]

"In reference to Ryan Grant, he has been most pleasing in not only his performance but his attitude. I am a big person on attitude, how a young man works at doing anything that he attempts to do. Ryan really wants to be a great player, and he works every day toward that goal. So it's exciting when you have a young man that has that kind of attitude.

He's not limited by attitude. He has some ability, too. It's exciting to work with him and kind of incorporate him into our total offense.”

—Tyrone Willingham

[Pugger]

I think it was more MM than TT that ultimately caused the break between #4 and GB. It was MM that #4 had those marathon talks with that fateful August and who #4 couldn't convince he was 100% committed to play for the Packers again and why he was traded to NY. In his teary PC BF even admitted he had given all he could to the Packers and he had nothing more to give. Do we really want a player with that mindset on the roster?

[Tarlam!]

If you followed his career at ND, they were always trying to replace him, first with one player, than with another. He had nagging injuries. They never seemed to want him as their back. He made them play him, just as he did in Green Bay. He graduated in four years with a double major. He had opportunity after opportunity in college and for three years as a pro to say heck with it. No one was motivating him to do all that. It was all from within him, his own desire to get where he has gotten.

If that isn't outside influence, I really don't know what is.

Incidentally, why was such a high character guy not drafted? Why didn't Tyrone call some GM and say "ya gotta take this guy"?

[Patler]

Incidentally, why was such a high character guy not drafted? Why didn't Tyrone call some GM and say "ya gotta take this guy"?

You ask that as if we know that Willingham did not. I don't know if he did or didn't, but perhaps that is why the Giants signed him as a FA.

[pbmax]

If you followed his career at ND, they were always trying to replace him, first with one player, than with another. He had nagging injuries. They never seemed to want him as their back. He made them play him, just as he did in Green Bay. He graduated in four years with a double major. He had opportunity after opportunity in college and for three years as a pro to say heck with it. No one was motivating him to do all that. It was all from within him, his own desire to get where he has gotten.

...If that isn't outside influence, I really don't know what is....

If you read the SI article, working hard is not something Grant discovered at Notre Dame.

[Tarlam!]

OK. I'll leave it alone, but I stand by my opinion. Heck, it's just an opinion!

[Bretsky]

What about comparing a GMs moves and stratgeys against their competitor GMs, rather than counting the number of super bowls?

I give Wolf a lot of credit for being a step ahead of most GMs in his use free agency and the salary cap. TT is using many tricks that Wolf never used, but there are other GMs that do similar tricks as TT. I think Wolf may have given the Packers more of an edge (compared to other GMs at the time) than TT does.

It's just so subjective. In the end, I liked what Wolf did (wasn't perfect) and I like what TT has done (also not perfect).