Wolf and Thompson - JSO Article

[Pugger]

Is Taylor still as effective now as he was earlier in his career? I suspect TT thinks Jones has more of an upside with his youth and is cheaper.

[retailguy]

I think you're making assumptions based on what you want to read, Dan. I may be splitting hairs again, but I think you're picking a fight on a personal basis and not arguing against the content. RG is certain, he says. Nowhere has he said he knows anything for certain.

He acknowledges that he can't know for certain and underlines it by stating he is purely speculating. Yet you feel the need to attack him personally.

You're obviously an intelligent and articulate poster and you offer some really good insights which I tend to enjoy. And you don't back off of a point if you feel strongly about it - you're not to be intimidated. I respect that.

But your personal vendetta doesn't make you look very objective and does you no justice.

Thanks Tar. You captured the essense of what I was trying to say perfectly and I appreciate it very much.

Okay, Retail, I found your earlier post mentioning Taylor and Thomas. I commented on Taylor and I would like to hear you talk about how you envisioned him signing up with the Pack - what his motivations might be (maybe he's been talking publicly about wanting to go to a winner?), and I'd like to hear you talk about why you think a switch of sides for him or for CMII could work well. Maybe it's not as hard to switch sides as I seem to think.

So help me understand. I'm not close-minded on this. I just would like you or someone to explain how Taylor at this point in his career might have been a good fit that TT failed to see. Cuz maybe he did. Maybe I'd like it better than Obiozor as a backup. Maybe because it's an uncapped year it could've gotten done. Convince me or at least convince me it was a reasonable idea. I'm open to listening to your case.

Fritz, when I saw your post this morning I wanted to take some time to think about how I wanted to respond. Then I read Dan's post and decided that how I responded doesn't matter.

You found my original post. You also then should have found the other posts discussing why I'm a complete lunatic and can't think clearly. You, by now, should have also read Dan's post this AM about how "certain" I am about all of this stuff.

I tried to have this discussion several days ago. It didn't work. It won't work this time, as it is more fun to ridicule me personally, and bash me for presenting a "name free agent" than it is to consider the subtstance of what I'm trying to say.

The picture is bigger than Taylor or Thomas. You focused on Taylor, I focus on Thomas. Taylor has already been signed by the Jets. He probably wouldn't have considered Green Bay even if Ted made overtures, which is unlikely.

I think that Thomas is different. I believe he's got something left in the tank. I also believe he's got attitude issues. But, I think he's clearly better than anything else we've got except for CMIII, and Jones clearly has more upside. So, bringing him in would be a low risk move, PROVIDED, he's willing to fight for a starting role, and WILLINGLY accept a backup role if he doesn't get it. But, we don't consider those things. It doesn't fit the model.

The model is really where my focus lies, instead of on individual players. I've been talking about the same things for many years now related to the OL. It seemed pointless to focus the discussion there with this latest effort. We focused on the OL in the draft this year, and have promising young guys again that we need to develop. There is no longer room for veteran backups. I am fine with that, because I was NOT fine with most of the talent we had there at the beginning of last season. We played with holes there last year, PURPOSELY. We relied on someone stepping up, with both Barbre and Sitton, and had a 50% success rate. We also relied on Clifton not getting injured, which didn't happen. We got burned there too. Yet, the discussion gets diverted from "why do we play with holes?" to all this other crap.

The fact is that folks still justify Colledge and his performance when in reality he has only had 1/2 of 1 good season (out of FOUR) baffles me. Every single season under McCarthy the line has stunk the first half of the season. In 2008, Colledge lit it up for the latter part of the season. Other than that, he's a dud. We talk about this over and over and over, but never talk about WHY we got into that position in the first place.

It's a philosophy difference between Thompson and Wolf. As I've stated elsewhere, this season should show us which is better. This team is almost exactly where the 1995 Packers team was. Wolf brought in lots of different faces both before the season and during the season. This year has been different so far, and is likely to stay that way. Polar opposite philosophy should allow some stark comparisons.

What would have happened last year if this team didn't suck on the OL the first half of the season? Would they have won the division? Would they have had a different path in the playoffs? Would they have had greater momentum going into this year? And most importantly, how would an improved OL have changed last seasons performance?

We don't get answers to those questions, but most in these rooms, including you, are more interested in defending every single thing that Ted Thompson does, so we don't talk about these things. When they are brought up, we demand "NAME FUCKING NAMES YOU COMPLAINING ASSHOLE". And down the rabbit trail goes the discussion.

I'm not playing in the "name names" game any longer. Quite honestly, after re-reading the hatchet jobs in this thread, and Dan's lovely missive this morning, I'm probably done voicing my opinions again for a while. I'm quite tired of having individual words taken from what I write out of context, and heading down the rabbit trail yet again. I'm tired of being ridiculed because I played along and named names, and then get the obligitory gutless "WHO ME?" bullshit when I call them out on it.

Quite honestly, I don't give a damn what the Packers do right now, as much as it pains me to say that. Please don't be offended when I don't respond to you, I'm really done with this thread. It's pointless to continue this
discussion.

Do any of you guys ever wonder where the folks are that don't agree with what you write? Do you even notice that they are gone?

[falco]

Do any of you guys ever wonder where the folks are that don't agree with what you write? Do you even notice that they are gone?

Wow.. I actually get the point your trying to make RG - I think there are arguments both for and against TT's mentality. I get that it may make sense to bring in some veteran backups; it doesn't have to be Peppers or Haynesworth; it could be more guys just like Chillar. Perhaps if there was a guy like that at CB that we could have picked up / traded for, we would have been much better down the stretch.

But I don't see where anybody is attacking you, at least in this thread. You're digging pretty deep just to be able to cry foul...

And for what its worth, you're just as much a divisive figure on this board with your haughty attitude and smug remarks; there is plenty of blame to go around for why some people aren't here anymore.

[RashanGary]

It's a philosophy difference between Thompson and Wolf. As I've stated elsewhere, this season should show us which is better. This team is almost exactly where the 1995 Packers team was. Wolf brought in lots of different faces both before the season and during the season. This year has been different so far, and is likely to stay that way. Polar opposite philosophy should allow some stark comparisons.

And you don't want to name names because you know the FA climate has changed. You know the names aren't out there and the failures are abound. Nobody likes to play that game because in hindsight, they know the odds are 2:1 that the guy they want is a massive failure and you'll be eating crow yet again. Teams don't tend to let good players go in todays FA market.

In the last 15 years, the 1996 Packers were one of the exceptions that built decent portions of their team with UFA. Thompson was director of pro personnel at that time, but I digress. . . . It was the early years of the CBA and Wolf's philosophy took advantage of a lot of GM's that just didn't know how to handle the new rules of free agency.

Fast forward to now. You're trying to use a philosophy that worked 15 years ago in a completely different environment and also being the exception to recent championship models. . . You're talking in a room of Packer fans who saw it happen 15 years ago and are the most likely football fans to assume that it's likely to happen that way again. With that, you keep some small levels of support, but the strong football posters here don't agree. They want you to name names, so next year at this time, we can see if you were right.

That offends you, but it shouldn't. Every year, the Thompson haters want a win it all now or nothign proposition. The problem with that, the Packers have a great chance to win it for many years. Sit back, enjoy the Thompson era. He's not going anywhere and despite your efforts to judge him on what he took over, he's going to be judged on what he's built and that time has just begun.

[Fritz]

Okay, Retail, I don't expect you to respond as you said you would not. But I do like the discussion of players - that's what I like here - so I'd like to take up the Adalius Thomas discussion.

Okay, three sacks last year and 26 tackles in 14 games. He seems like a big guy so no problem holding up physically against the run. That's all I know so far.

[hoosier]

Per NFP the Jets are expected to be interested in Thomas. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...us-Thomas.html

It is very difficult for the average fan to get any real insight into what NFL execs really think of specific players. There are plenty of rumors floating around about how Thomas's refusal to fit into the Patriots system destroyed his reputation around the league. This article (by Aaron Wilson) seems to suggest that Thomas simply might not have been a good fit for Belichick's system becuase BB wanted to pigeon hole him in one position whereas (according to Ryan) Thomas's greatest strength is his versalitility and his ability to creat confusion.

Let's imagine for a minute that the reports about Thomas's crappy attitude are overblown and that it was really just a bad fit with the Pats. Put Thomas on a different team that has a solid base and he'll do fine. In that scenario, Ryan on Adalius Thomas does sound a bit like the C Woodson we saw last year, and that might make you think that he's worth taking a shot at. But for a defense that already has that element of unpredictability in Woodson do you really need another one? Or is installing a reliable, assignment sure guy to play LOLB more important than finding a second guy who (according to Ryan, who knows him better than anyone) needs to be given free reign in order to maximize his potential?

[sharpe1027]

On one side it is frustrating to have people basically saying "you prove your point or I'm right."

On the other side of the argument, it is difficult to discuss an opinion when anything other than a generic discussion is deemed a rabbit hole.

As I said before, my opinion is that the Packers certainly could have improved their team with the right FA pickups. Maybe even to the point of a Superbowl win. I'm not so sure that anyone would have had enough foresight/scouting ability/luck to necessarily make all the right pickups.

I'm OK with them not being one of the more active FA teams so long as they keep the players they need and replenish/upgrade the ranks somehow.

[Tarlam!]

So when RG says He's CERTAIN 3 times in a paragraph he isn't CERTAIN?

That makes no sense.

I may only be "Australian" and my grammar skills might be inferior to yours, but I think my reading comprehension might grade out slightly higher than yours in this instance. I suggest you re-read the correct interpretation I provided.

Your emotional investment in calling out RG is making you blind.

[Pugger]

Do any of you guys ever wonder where the folks are that don't agree with what you write? Do you even notice that they are gone?

Wow.. I actually get the point your trying to make RG - I think there are arguments both for and against TT's mentality. I get that it may make sense to bring in some veteran backups; it doesn't have to be Peppers or Haynesworth; it could be more guys just like Chillar. Perhaps if there was a guy like that at CB that we could have picked up / traded for, we would have been much better down the stretch.

But I don't see where anybody is attacking you, at least in this thread. You're digging pretty deep just to be able to cry foul...

And for what its worth, you're just as much a divisive figure on this board with your haughty attitude and smug remarks; there is plenty of blame to go around for why some people aren't here anymore.

He jumped all over me because I asked about a particular player and it really caught me off guard. He called me out thinking I was directing my comment about folks thinking a name FA has to be better than what's on our roster at him. He told me to get off my high horse and try to think outside of my small brain. This type of behavor isn't endearing by any stretch. I may have snapped at him but it was because I wasn't expecting to be chastised like that for bringing up a player for discussion.

[Tarlam!]

He jumped all over me because I asked about a particular player and it really caught me off guard. He called me out thinking I was directing my comment about folks thinking a name FA has to be better than what's on our roster at him. He told me to get off my high horse and try to think outside of my small brain. This type of behavor isn't endearing by any stretch. I may have snapped at him but it was because I wasn't expecting to be chastised like that for bringing up a player for discussion.

Pugger, you're obviously insulted, but he rightly called you out. Your post was clearly directed at his post where he suggested names only for you to ridicule his suggestion. He provided clear and damning evidence when you asked him to and you responded petulantly.

Then, he let you have it. He torched you, because your conduct was hypocritical.

Now, was he too heavy handed? Yeah, no doubt; a poster like Patler would have made you look ridiculous in a much more gentlemanly manner. Either way, you looked ridiculous, because RG's critism was backed up with cold, hard quotes that, no matter how hard you try, you can't deny came from you.

So, while the possie to lynch RG is forming, don't count me in. He's one of the more polarizing personalities around here for sure, but recently, I haven't seen too much evidence to conclude he initiates personal attacks. Don't expect him to back down once someone levies one against him, though. RG aint no Patler.

[ThunderDan]

So when RG says He's CERTAIN 3 times in a paragraph he isn't CERTAIN?

That makes no sense.

I may only be "Australian" and my grammar skills might be inferior to yours, but I think my reading comprehension might grade out slightly higher than yours in this instance. I suggest you re-read the correct interpretation I provided.

Your emotional investment in calling out RG is making you blind.

Huh, and your emotional investment of backing RG on every argument is making you blind.

I said RG had no idea what goes on at the GB HQ just like I don't. Isn't that a fact?

Just like I stated what Thomas's and Taylor's contracts were. But somehow that is a personal attack also.

I read his post just fine, thank you for your concern about my reading comprehension.

[Tarlam!]

I said RG had no idea what goes on at the GB HQ just like I don't. Isn't that a fact? Yes, it is a fact that RG pointed out himself as a matter-of-fact.

Just like I stated what Thomas's and Taylor's contracts were. But somehow that is a personal attack also.

I read his post just fine, thank you for your concern about my reading comprehension. Then, you admit it was your intention to attack him and not respond to the content of his post, because anybody with fundamental comprehension skills knows the grammatical difference between the statements "I know for certain" and I am certain".

[Bretsky]

So when RG says He's CERTAIN 3 times in a paragraph he isn't CERTAIN?

That makes no sense.

I may only be "Australian" and my grammar skills might be inferior to yours, but I think my reading comprehension might grade out slightly higher than yours in this instance. I suggest you re-read the correct interpretation I provided.

Your emotional investment in calling out RG is making you blind.

Huh, and your emotional investment of backing RG on every argument is making you blind.

.

Actually this seems to be an extreme exaggeration; I don't recall too many times Tarlem backing Retailguy. I think most on here would consider Tarlem to be one of the more level headed guys in this joint that see both sides of each argument.

[Bretsky]

I just read a rope on this thread and will be happy to offer suggestions on who TT might have looked at later per Fritz's original response to my post about six pages ago

Fritz, I don't lump you in here or direct that post at you....but my original response, in my opinion, has been argued over and over regarding TT. When I've thrown out players in the past the standard seems to be how do we know he'd have come here as I noted. Or is he really worht the money. It ends up opening a can of worms just as often.

I was big on Will Weatherspoon (loved that guy) and Chris Hope long ago. That was a year we had a loot of money and I thought TT might be aggressive.

I really don't look at it as.....who out there is better than Brad Jones, or Bigby, for instance . We can also look at it as who is better than Bush or Brett Swain. We don't have to only look for starters; the Saints were a prime example the past couple years of how they can trade for and pick up some very key pieces in free agency where their depth is weak that will help them win a title. They nabbed starters and backups that worked quite well in addition to solid drafting.

I'm no longer convinced TT's way is wrong; we're set up to compete for many years to come. But as I keep noting there are two ways to skin a cat.

But my original post...long ago.....the copout one......I think rings very true as to past reactions I have had when in my free agency tassles. It can make one a bit gunshy about throwing names out there as freely as one used to

[cheesner]

Someone posed the question above, where have contrary view posters gone?

So where is all the anti-TT crowd? As I recall there were those who wanted him fired after his first draft pick, Aaron Rodgers, or was it his 2nd pick, Nick Collins because both of those players where sure to be failures. Or was it before when he didn't sign either of the uber-stud FAs that season, John Abraham or Andre Carter? (IIRC) Most, I suspect have stopped posting for 1 of 2 reasons. They either stopped posting in shame, or they re-signed up under new usernames so they could now profess to be TT fans all along.

The Packers are poised to become an elite team this season and many people are recognizing that. They recognize that nearly every single one of the FAs they clamored for have been failures for the teams that they eventually signed for - or at least not worth it. They see that TT has filled this roster with impressive young talent that is the envy of the league. Therefore, they are reduced to having to admit they were wrong, try to stick to the old 'well TT got lucky with many of those draft picks', or continue to bash TT and say that "sure he is doing great, but he could do even better if he . . ."

Personally, I don't feel sorry for a single one of them. Many of them posted the most vile, hateful, and degrading comments ad nauseam about Thompson that they should feel ashamed. Not just attacking his decisions, by assailing his character, intentions, and personal life. It is like they forget he is a human being doing his best to improve the Packers the best way he can. But, considering the comments posted here, you would think he was the evil egomaniac bent on destroying the Packers in any way he can.

Many of these posters simply refuse to see the other side. Take free agency for example. There are some ramifications of signing FAs that make it unattractive. Team chemistry, player development, salary cap, etc can all be negatively affected. Most teams that go after FAs suffer because of it, and I for one would prefer TT didn't sign any, or maybe one or two of only the highest character players.