Wolf and Thompson - JSO Article

[Fritz]

It's not a "convenient argument." It's asking you - or anyone who thinks TT should've signed a free agent - to say who that free agent is, and why you think that FA would be an improvement on Brad Jones on Brandon Underwood.

So, do you think it would've been worth the risk to bring in Jason Taylor and ask CMIII to switch sides? What indicators do you think suggest A. Thomas would be productive this year? Which d-back would be better than Brandon Underwood?

I'm asking for names and reasons they'd be improvements. I'm not unwilling to listen.

Fritz, I think it is a convenient argument too. Help doesn't just have to come from starters, it can come from more solid backup folks too.

I don't have to "name names" to know that there is better depth out there than the depth we have at cornerback. There is better depth out there than what we had on the OL, though there is little room with two promising youngsters. How about depth at OLB? Nobody is better than what we have? Really?

I just don't buy it, when we're bringing in undrafted folks to "see" if they might help 3 years from now.

The whole "name names" crap is just that, crap. There are always folks out there who are better than what you have. If it's a priority you plug them in, if it isn't, you pass. We typically pass, and that's how we had a 7th round draft pick starting at OLB last season after our starter went down (he played well, but got exposed along with the rest of the defense in the playoff game), and it is also one of the many reasons that our OL was so abysmal in the first half of the year.

We passed, relied on the young guys, and paid a price for that. The OL probably made the difference between the wild card and a division title. In the end, did it make a difference? Who knows, but to say because we didn't "name names" we're wrong is ridiculous.

Asking people to provide evidence and explanation is "crap"?

I'm willing to listen. But saying it's crap to have to offer examples and arguments is....crap. If you're unwilling to provide evidence then how can anybody convince anyone of anything?

[retailguy]

Asking people to provide evidence and explanation is "crap"?

I'm willing to listen. But saying it's crap to have to offer examples and arguments is....crap. If you're unwilling to provide evidence then how can anybody convince anyone of anything?

So, what you're really saying is that nobody is better? Here is the old trick, where you get someone to "name a name", then you come up with 20 reasons why that person wouldn't work out. It's simple and it ignores the real point.

The last several years there have been players that are better than what we have. We have purposely chosen to stand pat and not bring in those players.

It is reasonable to conclude that we could have improved depth at certain given positions without risking the cap, the finacial well being of the organization, the the overall "plan" of the organization.

Wolf used to tell players all the time - "You're good enough until I find somebody better". Shouldn't Jarrett Bush be hearing that, and further, facing competition other than a rookie FA?

You may be right and TT should have went after a FA this spring but I can't think of a OLB or CB that was available that was appreciably better than what we already have on the roster .

So you are really maintaining that there are no players available that would have provided an immediate upgrade to Jarrett Bush, Josh Bell, Will Blackmon, Brady Poppinga, Cyril Obizor, and Desmond Bishop. Really?

The majority of these players have been around for several offseasons. So, say, in the past three years, NONE of them were replacable? (I ignored the OL, which would have produced another 4 or 5 names over the last 3 years). In fact, we were so enamored with our LB depth that we elected to start a 7th round rookie over the "experienced" backups we had.... and no FA is better?

Is that what you two are maintaining? That's the opposite side of the argument of "name me a name"....

[mraynrand]

It's not a "convenient argument." It's asking you - or anyone who thinks TT should've signed a free agent - to say who that free agent is, and why you think that FA would be an improvement on Brad Jones on Brandon Underwood.

So, do you think it would've been worth the risk to bring in Jason Taylor and ask CMIII to switch sides? What indicators do you think suggest A. Thomas would be productive this year? Which d-back would be better than Brandon Underwood?

I'm asking for names and reasons they'd be improvements. I'm not unwilling to listen.

Fritz, I think it is a convenient argument too. Help doesn't just have to come from starters, it can come from more solid backup folks too.

I don't have to "name names" to know that there is better depth out there than the depth we have at cornerback. There is better depth out there than what we had on the OL, though there is little room with two promising youngsters. How about depth at OLB? Nobody is better than what we have? Really?

I just don't buy it, when we're bringing in undrafted folks to "see" if they might help 3 years from now.

The whole "name names" crap is just that, crap. There are always folks out there who are better than what you have. If it's a priority you plug them in, if it isn't, you pass. We typically pass, and that's how we had a 7th round draft pick starting at OLB last season after our starter went down (he played well, but got exposed along with the rest of the defense in the playoff game), and it is also one of the many reasons that our OL was so abysmal in the first half of the year.

We passed, relied on the young guys, and paid a price for that. The OL probably made the difference between the wild card and a division title. In the end, did it make a difference? Who knows, but to say because we didn't "name names" we're wrong is ridiculous.

Asking people to provide evidence and explanation is "crap"?

I'm willing to listen. But saying it's crap to have to offer examples and arguments is....crap. If you're unwilling to provide evidence then how can anybody convince anyone of anything?

Hear, Hear! Retail, Fritz has you dead to rights. If you are making the argument that TT could and should be doing more to improve the situation at CB or OL, then you are obligated to provide some sort of strategy he should follow. Who are the prospects he could get? Should he trade someone on the roster to get a CB or OLineman? If so who? If you don't have a plan, then you should limit yourself to "TT needs to do better to win a superbowl." Then your either right or wrong based on whether they win it all this year. As it currently stands, all you are doing is complaining.

[retailguy]

Hear, Hear! Retail, Fritz has you dead to rights. If you are making the argument that TT could and should be doing more to improve the situation at CB or OL, then you are obligated to provide some sort of strategy he should follow. Who are the prospects he could get? Should he trade someone on the roster to get a CB or OLineman? If so who? If you don't have a plan, then you should limit yourself to "TT needs to do better to win a superbowl." Then your either right or wrong based on whether they win it all this year. As it currently stands, all you are doing is complaining.

I know you haven't been around much, but I did what you're asking in THIS VERY THREAD. Go back and read the lovely responses.... I'm making the point that naming names doesn't work because of that... all you get is a bunch of excuses as to "why that won't work". What it all means is that there "is nobody better than what we have". That's my point.

Thanks for sharing.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I agree that the bottom of the roster (ie "depth") could certainly be improved. I cant imagine that there is NOT a player available who is the same cost as bush with at least equivalent skills and more upside. I am not a scout and I dont know the league's personnel well enough to name specif names, but logic leads me to believe that there has to be SOMEONE or more than someone who is better. Just because TT hasn't identified those players yet, does not mean he won't make some changes when he identifies them.

I personally love how TT has built the team and developed youth. SOOO much better than the sherman years where he continuously reached for talent, sacrificing picks and the future. The only question now, is can he take a shot at winning without completely devastating the future.

[Joemailman]

It's not a "convenient argument." It's asking you - or anyone who thinks TT should've signed a free agent - to say who that free agent is, and why you think that FA would be an improvement on Brad Jones on Brandon Underwood.

So, do you think it would've been worth the risk to bring in Jason Taylor and ask CMIII to switch sides? What indicators do you think suggest A. Thomas would be productive this year? Which d-back would be better than Brandon Underwood?

I'm asking for names and reasons they'd be improvements. I'm not unwilling to listen.

Fritz, I think it is a convenient argument too. Help doesn't just have to come from starters, it can come from more solid backup folks too.

I don't have to "name names" to know that there is better depth out there than the depth we have at cornerback. There is better depth out there than what we had on the OL, though there is little room with two promising youngsters. How about depth at OLB? Nobody is better than what we have? Really?

I just don't buy it, when we're bringing in undrafted folks to "see" if they might help 3 years from now.

The whole "name names" crap is just that, crap. There are always folks out there who are better than what you have. If it's a priority you plug them in, if it isn't, you pass. We typically pass, and that's how we had a 7th round draft pick starting at OLB last season after our starter went down (he played well, but got exposed along with the rest of the defense in the playoff game), and it is also one of the many reasons that our OL was so abysmal in the first half of the year.

We passed, relied on the young guys, and paid a price for that. The OL probably made the difference between the wild card and a division title. In the end, did it make a difference? Who knows, but to say because we didn't "name names" we're wrong is ridiculous.

I'll give you the argument on the OL. The Packers went into the season praying that Clifton wouldn't get hurt, and that Barbre could do the job, and their prayers were not answered. The DB situation was different though. Their depth at CB was fine until they lost 3 guys to injuries. Any team would have been affected by that. The only way the Packers would have been okay there would have been if they started with 6 or 7 quality experienced CB's. No team has that.

[sharpe1027]

I agree with Retail that in principle, the Packers could have improved their team through Free Agency. I would even go so far as to say that they might have been able to make the difference in making it to the superbowl.

That doesn't mean that they necessarily should have gone out and grabbed more FAs.

In a perfect world, the Packers could have known exactly which FAs would be gold and which would be wastes of money and a roster spot. The Packers could also have known which of their existing backups would have realized their potential and which would have failed to improve.

The world's not perfect and neither are the Packer talent evaluators. It's a tough call, but I'm OK with them moving forward with a long-term strategy that gives them a good shot year in and year out. I only hope that's what they have going.

[bobblehead]

Hear, Hear! Retail, Fritz has you dead to rights. If you are making the argument that TT could and should be doing more to improve the situation at CB or OL, then you are obligated to provide some sort of strategy he should follow. Who are the prospects he could get? Should he trade someone on the roster to get a CB or OLineman? If so who? If you don't have a plan, then you should limit yourself to "TT needs to do better to win a superbowl." Then your either right or wrong based on whether they win it all this year. As it currently stands, all you are doing is complaining.

I know you haven't been around much, but I did what you're asking in THIS VERY THREAD. Go back and read the lovely responses.... I'm making the point that naming names doesn't work because of that... all you get is a bunch of excuses as to "why that won't work". What it all means is that there "is nobody better than what we have". That's my point.

Thanks for sharing.

Actually I can refute your point pretty easily:

there is no one that we can get to sign and come to green bay, without paying them way to much, that we could bring in to improve. Since you accept your assertion as a fact, i am accepting mine.

Now, ball is back in your court, you have to prove me wrong.

On a side note, I don't disagree with you that its possible TT could do those things, I am simply going to judge the man on W/L and being in a position to win the big one. So far his overall W/L is pretty solid, and we were in the NFCC once, and the playoffs twice in the last 3 years. This year I expect to be deeper into the playoffs and winning 12 games or more. I also hope to win the North. If we do those things I don't care how TT goes about his business (short of signing a bunch of Michael Irvin types).

[bobblehead]

I agree that the bottom of the roster (ie "depth") could certainly be improved. I cant imagine that there is NOT a player available who is the same cost as bush with at least equivalent skills and more upside. I am not a scout and I dont know the league's personnel well enough to name specif names, but logic leads me to believe that there has to be SOMEONE or more than someone who is better. Just because TT hasn't identified those players yet, does not mean he won't make some changes when he identifies them.

I personally love how TT has built the team and developed youth. SOOO much better than the sherman years where he continuously reached for talent, sacrificing picks and the future. The only question now, is can he take a shot at winning without completely devastating the future.

Focusing on Bush is crap....he was a last resort after 3 guys ahead of him got hurt. He is on the roster because he plays ST well. If ANY team loses their 2,4, and 5 CB's, they will have Jarret Bush on the field. Focusing on BJones is fair, but I think he played ok. Not great, but ok, like a backup is supposed to. This year he has to improve and play like a starter (although I suspect Chillar works at that position in camp this year and takes the job).

[retailguy]

Actually I can refute your point pretty easily:

there is no one that we can get to sign and come to green bay, without paying them way to much, that we could bring in to improve. Since you accept your assertion as a fact, i am accepting mine.

Now, ball is back in your court, you have to prove me wrong.

On a side note, I don't disagree with you that its possible TT could do those things, I am simply going to judge the man on W/L and being in a position to win the big one. So far his overall W/L is pretty solid, and we were in the NFCC once, and the playoffs twice in the last 3 years. This year I expect to be deeper into the playoffs and winning 12 games or more. I also hope to win the North. If we do those things I don't care how TT goes about his business (short of signing a bunch of Michael Irvin types).

Bobblehead, that is my point. You just stated it.

For the past several seasons we've had the same damn argument. Every single time someone lamented that we might have been able to improve a position, someone would shout from the back of the room, "WHO"? If you're so damned smart, tell us "WHO".

Some well meaning soul would offer up a name, and there would be 20 reasons "why that wouldn't work". sometimes valid, sometimes not valid. (See this thread for a clear discussion of that.) You can name ANY NAME, it doesn't matter who it is, and there will be the same standard justifications of why either that person is not better, the money wasn't right, they wouldn't come to Green Bay, Free Agency is not a viable tool any longer, only used washed up talent is out there, everyone does a better job managing the cap yadda, yadda, yadda...

So today, the standard disclaimer for "we should have signed someone to improve that position", becomes "WHO?". That "assertion" is now the fact. But, the by-product of the "WHO?" argument says that nobody is better (for dozens of reasons), and that simply isn't true.

There are better available players out there, and for many reasons they are not Packers today. Doesn't mean that we couldn't have improved the team. Doesn't mean that "all free agents are worse". It simply means that they aren't Packers, and Ted elected not to improve the team and stand pat with what he had.

If he keeps winning, everyone is happy, but that doesn't mean the criticism is unfair. Quite the opposite actually.

[bobblehead]

I'll give you the argument on the OL. The Packers went into the season praying that Clifton wouldn't get hurt, and that Barbre could do the job, and their prayers were not answered. The DB situation was different though. Their depth at CB was fine until they lost 3 guys to injuries. Any team would have been affected by that. The only way the Packers would have been okay there would have been if they started with 6 or 7 quality experienced CB's. No team has that.

Actually, prior to facing JAllen with no practice at LT, college had performed like most backup LT's in the league....Let me give you a hint, there are ZERO good backup LT's in the league and only about 20 good starters. Lang played about like a normal backup LT....serviceable, but not good.

RT is a different story. I have trouble believing that they didn't know that NIETHER Babre or Giocominni could even get in the way. When they pulled Babre FINALLY and MERCIFULLY they didn't even turn to the SECOND year player who was the backup....they turned to Lang, the rookie, who hadn't taken many snaps at RT. Why was Giocominni even on the roster?? If he breaks camp with the Packers this year it almost better be as the starter at RT cuz he looks so brilliant in camp this year....I can't even think of another argument for keeping him around as a backup (that you won't use).

[bobblehead]

Ted elected not to improve the team and stand pat with what he had.

This is the fallacy of your argument...neither you or I know if he elected to or couldn't. Ted has brought in many guys, but he hasn't sunk money on ONE FA BUST yet. He HAS however signed a defensive MVP.

Could he have signed Nate Clement, Albert Haynesworth, Julius Peppers?? I guess, but how much good has that done those teams so far??

How about when he wouldn't cave to Walker or CWilliams....those guys went on to be prosperous huh??

How about the most active teams in FA...Washington, Cleveland, et all. Every year a team sells out and 95% of the time it fails (and handicaps them for years).

In 2007 the Patriots sold out. They made the superbowl in part due to randy moss(who was considered washed up) and Wes Welker. Both TRADES. TT was right in the hunt for moss til the end. The other guys for the most part have been cut or underperformed (but the cash strapped Pats did have to trade Richard Seymour and look less dominant every year). The FA signings of Donte Stallworth and Adalius Thomas....both off the roster already. Moss is already back to his old ways.

2007 the giants were inactive in FA. A couple rookies no one heard of (and fans likely bitched about when they could have gotten AT) stepped up big and the Giants beat the Patriots in the Superbowl.

So what is the goal...superbowls....then 31 GM's fail yearly, and the ones that succeed do it predominately through the draft. Is the goal being competitive for the superbowl?? then TT is right on track and has been pretty successful.

[bobblehead]

I hate the man

Why is that? What exactly did he do to you?

Seriously, he wrote all that and THAT is what you took from it??

Nutz, I don't agree with you on TT, but I'm glad to see you back making good football posts.

LP, you dont' have to be personally affected to hate a guy. BF has never done a thing to me, but I can't stand him. Same for Reggie Jackson.

I even had a boss once that was really good to me (cuz I have talent), but was just a cocksucker to some of the kids who weren't quite as sharp as me. I despised him (not that I ever told him that).

[hoosier]

I'll give you the argument on the OL. The Packers went into the season praying that Clifton wouldn't get hurt, and that Barbre could do the job, and their prayers were not answered. The DB situation was different though. Their depth at CB was fine until they lost 3 guys to injuries. Any team would have been affected by that. The only way the Packers would have been okay there would have been if they started with 6 or 7 quality experienced CB's. No team has that.

Actually, prior to facing JAllen with no practice at LT, college had performed like most backup LT's in the league....Let me give you a hint, there are ZERO good backup LT's in the league and only about 20 good starters. Lang played about like a normal backup LT....serviceable, but not good.

RT is a different story. I have trouble believing that they didn't know that NIETHER Babre or Giocominni could even get in the way. When they pulled Babre FINALLY and MERCIFULLY they didn't even turn to the SECOND year player who was the backup....they turned to Lang, the rookie, who hadn't taken many snaps at RT. Why was Giocominni even on the roster?? If he breaks camp with the Packers this year it almost better be as the starter at RT cuz he looks so brilliant in camp this year....I can't even think of another argument for keeping him around as a backup (that you won't use).

New Orleans begs to differ. Of course nobody outside of NO could have told you that last year before Jammal Brown went down. But either Bushrod is far more talented than anybody recognized or else New Orleans had him prepared to step up, which would mean that their line coaching might be vastly superior to Green Bay's. The truth is probably somewhere in between those two extremes.

[Tarlam!]

I don't think playing Bush and Bishop lost the Packers the playoffs. I think Capers was outcoached. I don't think if Kampy and Harris had played that the result would have been any different.

The most significant mistakes were by the Packers offense. The scheme Capers played, I read a lot of analysis from the more knowledgable Rats to come to the conclusion that it sucked that afternoon.

I think the Cards wanted it more. That defensive play to end the game in OT was huge. Neither Bush nor Bishop were on the paddock on that play.