Comparing the rosters (When TT took over to now)

[mraynrand]

TT is great at drafting and looking long term. He may not have enough of a risk taker in him to make enough moves in one season to get over the hump. Woodson and Pickett (and Chillar - LOL) are not enough for 6 years of FA and pro player acquisitions. TT needs to do more to fill holes and win now. Although the 2005 Seahawks were mostly assembled through the draft, key players (notably Hasselbeck, Jurevicious, Engram, Dyson, Wistrom) were obtained through FA and trades. TT has to be willing to bring guys in for a season or two to make that Superbowl run. Can he do it?

TT's brought more impact through UFA than Shermhead ever did. Woodson alone is better than the combined UFA impact in Sherhead's whole GM career.

OK, but that wasn't my major point. I compared TT to both Sherman and to TT when he was in Seattle. Clearly, TT is much less aggressive in GB on the pro player side than he was in Seattle. Woodson is a great pickup, but so was Hasselbeck in Seattle. However, in Seattle, they added a lot more guys, especially when they were gunning for the championship. Sherman too was gunning for a championship in 2002, and picked up Johnson, Glenn, and Walker - but spent a lot to do it. I maintain that without the injury blitz, they had a really good shot. But that strategy hurt them long term. Every year, Sherman was chasing the championship, dealing draft picks ( a #2 for Harris in 2003, and another #4 for Glenn, picks to move up, etc.) for 'instant starters.' Because he was also had a poor success rate in the draft, the cupboard went bare quickly.

Still, what interests me the most is whether TT will pull the trigger on FAs or trades (versus moving up in the draft) to bring in a guy or two to get over the hump, or whether he will stick to a strategy that almost exclusively relies on the draft.

[Fritz]

Okay, you two knuckleheads. You disagree. Let's leave it at that.

You both make good points, I think. Different strategies, different ideas - Shermy seemed to think he had to do it right now (and who is to say he was right or not?) and TT seems to be working for the long term. Both approaches can be frustrating especially if one style does not fit your own style.

Few people would say the Packer roster now is not fairly strong. Many of us are excited about the coming season. But as MM has said, success is the hardest thing to handle. Let's see if this team starts reading the press clippings or if this team is hungry for a Super Bowl.

And as Packer fans, we all hope that the injury bug doesn't hit us too bad this year.

Agree with you Fritz, except for the injury part. We should be able to sustain injuries (well a normal amount anyhow) if the "depth" is as good advertised...

There is no reason that this should not be an excellent team, and I like the prospects, as long as we are not slow getting out of the gate again...

My theory is that most Super Bowl winners have extraordinary luck with injuries. You can sustain a couple but not many.

[retailguy]

Okay, you two knuckleheads. You disagree. Let's leave it at that.

You both make good points, I think. Different strategies, different ideas - Shermy seemed to think he had to do it right now (and who is to say he was right or not?) and TT seems to be working for the long term. Both approaches can be frustrating especially if one style does not fit your own style.

Few people would say the Packer roster now is not fairly strong. Many of us are excited about the coming season. But as MM has said, success is the hardest thing to handle. Let's see if this team starts reading the press clippings or if this team is hungry for a Super Bowl.

And as Packer fans, we all hope that the injury bug doesn't hit us too bad this year.

Agree with you Fritz, except for the injury part. We should be able to sustain injuries (well a normal amount anyhow) if the "depth" is as good advertised...

There is no reason that this should not be an excellent team, and I like the prospects, as long as we are not slow getting out of the gate again...

My theory is that most Super Bowl winners have extraordinary luck with injuries. You can sustain a couple but not many.

and I agree with that theory, as expressed by Rand in this thread about the 2001 packers team.

There was a tongue in cheek meaning to my comment as well, and that was, that if our roster from 1-53 is "solid", "improved", "great depth", or whatever you want to call it, then, the team should be able to sustain injuries better than the normal squad also....

but, hey, you get my point and I agree with you.

[Scott Campbell]

I remember a LOT of talk about how quickly Sherman would land another NFL HC or GM gig. 5 years later, I think the 32 NFL teams have made it pretty clear what they think of Mike Sherman.

[mraynrand]

I was waiting for that picture. Poor Mike Sherman - I think he is still the only person in professional sports not named Billy Martin to be fired by the same team two years in a row. And he's clinging on for dear life at Texas A&M. I suspect he will be a postiion coach within the next 5 years.

[Scott Campbell]

I know you and RG really stuck up for him. And he seems to be a pretty good guy outside of the power trip rumors. But he's been dead to me since 4th and 1.

[Bretsky]

I know you and RG really stuck up for him. And he seems to be a pretty good guy outside of the power trip rumors. But he's been dead to me since 4th and 1.

for making that point; I thought I was the only one to think 4th and 26 is near worthless

It never happens with a different call on 4th and one IMO

[RashanGary]

OK, but that wasn't my major point. I compared TT to both Sherman and to TT when he was in Seattle. Clearly, TT is much less aggressive in GB on the pro player side than he was in Seattle. Woodson is a great pickup, but so was Hasselbeck in Seattle. However, in Seattle, they added a lot more guys, especially when they were gunning for the championship. Sherman too was gunning for a championship in 2002, and picked up Johnson, Glenn, and Walker - but spent a lot to do it. I maintain that without the injury blitz, they had a really good shot. But that strategy hurt them long term. Every year, Sherman was chasing the championship, dealing draft picks ( a #2 for Harris in 2003, and another #4 for Glenn, picks to move up, etc.) for 'instant starters.' Because he was also had a poor success rate in the draft, the cupboard went bare quickly.

Still, what interests me the most is whether TT will pull the trigger on FAs or trades (versus moving up in the draft) to bring in a guy or two to get over the hump, or whether he will stick to a strategy that almost exclusively relies on the draft.

It will be interesting to see play out. I've seen several unbalanced teams win a SB. If Thompson just keeps building based on what's available, it's probably always going to be unbalanced. . .

But, nobody complained when the Steelers won 2 SB's with an average passing game, a great defense and a good running game. Nobody complained when the Giants won the SB, largely on the strength of their DL (to me the biggest example of one unit just dominating their way to a championship). Nobody complained about the Ravens SB, or the Buccaneers who won on the strength of their defense.

Is it better to be stronger overall, or more balanced? Do you try to force it because you feel the time is right, or do you try to take advantage of good opportunties as they arise?

I tend to think being opportunistic and open minded is more likely to take advantage of what is available when it's available than being focused on one narrow vision.

[RashanGary]

There have been as many different types of SB winners as their are SB's played. Each time it's done a little differently, sometimes a lot differently. I tend to think there is a lot of value in trying to build hte strongest, most impactfull roster possible, get some flexible coaches and see what happens.

[mraynrand]

Interesting point about balance - or lack thereof. Still, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether you can build a Superbowl team almost exclusively through the draft. TT might actually pull it off this year...

[RashanGary]

Interesting point about balance - or lack thereof. Still, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether you can build a Superbowl team almost exclusively through the draft. TT might actually pull it off this year...

I think the lure of UFA is that you can plug a hole with a quality player. So using UFA less, I think tends to lead to a more unbalanced roster, although you do have more money to spend, so maybe you end up being stronger overall.

Tough to say which is better, to spend your money wiser and have more overall talent, or to not spend it quite as well, have less overall talent, but have less glaring weaknesses.

I tend to lean toward having the most overall talent and I think avoiding UFA, for the most part, allows a team to fit more overall talent under the cap. It takes time to get there. We just got out of that 5 year building stage. It seems like now is the time.

[RashanGary]

Let's make an arbitrary number, call it production per dollar.


Let's assume when you draft your own and resign them, you have a better feel for their medical, so the odds of big blunders go down and your average production per dollar goes up because you don't have the suprise medical blunders weighting you down.

Let's assume you ahve a better feel for what kind of person, how hard of a worker they are. Let's say your production per dollar is higher by dealing with your own because you don't have the surprise character problem weighing you down.

Let's assume you have more negotiating power when you resign your own because you have tags and tenders to keep competition out. Let's say your production per dollar goes up because you don't have to pay as much for your own.

Let's assume there is a salary cap or a budget that you can afford on players salary. Let's assume most teams have a similar number, in cap years it's exactly the same.



Now let's say you spend 100 million dollars, mostly drafting and signing your own. Because of said inherent advantages, let's say you average 0.05 production points per dollar.

Now lets say another team spends their 100 million, but does it with more UFA's. Lets say they get 0.04 production points per dollar.

100,000,000 * 0.05 = 5 million production points
100,000,000 * 0.04 = 4 million production points


With the idea that there are advantages in contract negotiations and in risk that come with drafting and resigning, you end up with a stronger overall team.

I tend to think more talent is better and good coaches will flex to fit the strengths. I tend to think UFA's can be fools gold. You think you're getting something, but you're giving up money that could have been better spent if you had drafted well and resigned your own. I've come to realize this is a highly unoriginal thought. I went back to find where I said these things 5 years ago, and what did I find? I found Patler said them first. I just bought in and over time, I've used it as my own.


You can win both ways. I tend to think there are more advantages to leaning stronger toward the draft or at least waiting for the right opportunity rather than forcing the issue.

[Cleft Crusty]

That post above hurt my head. The sixteen aspirin and five Advil didn't help much. Perhaps Clefty needs to research this issue. It may have to wait a while since I have an interview lined up with Brett Favre's Bowflex machine later this week.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I believe that a team is built through the draft and then once built, honed through free agency and using the draft for depth. The challenge of a GM is to understand what point the team is actually at. Sherman (the GM) overestimated the team's talent and leaped to fill specific holes, rather than rebuild for a while and then take a shot. Let's see how TT did this year by targeting specific holes after years of rebuilding.

[Pugger]

Free agency is great if there is anyone out there that a GM - I mean any GM, not just TT - thinks is better than the players currently on their roster.