TT and the Ruination of the Packers

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

TT is a good GM. No doubt about it. Is he perfect? No. But overall he is really good. But as I fan I am allowed to question his decisions and talk about them. That is the point of a Forum. I think TT should have traded for Lynch b/c I think it would have been a good move.

Just like I don't see the need for people to go on rant and bash every move TT has ever made when they disagree with something he has done, I don't think it is necessary to go over all his good moves to prove that his one wasn't a bad one.

He is not perfect and makes mistakes just like everyone else. Just b/c he has made a lot of good decisions doesn't mean this one was.

Personally, I wanted TT to bring in Lynch or Williams. But my point was that TT has been right more times than not when it comes to a controversial move. I wasn't trying to pick on the anti-TT crowd, but to encourage all Packer fans that hey, we may not agree with the details, but the big picture is looking mighty sweet.

And to say that TT is afraid to make the big move to put us over the top is very premature. It has taken 5 years but we are now, IMHO, an elite team who is a serious contender for the SB. Most teams can't say that including these teams that make the big moves. Is washington a better team with Haynesworth? I don't think so. He does well on the field but the entire team is suffering because of the personality clash. And that has an effect in the win/loss column more than his ability to collapse a pocket.

As far as TT not signing Reggie, he was working for Wolf at the time and was a strong proponent for the move.

I agree that we are an elite team that is why this move would make sense. You are right thoughnhe has been right more times than not when it comes to a controversial move. But this move just reminds so much of the Moss deal in 2007. You can get a good player for a fairly low draft pick. Consider Lynch our 3rd round pick in next years draft, thats how I look at it. Would be a nice transition from Grant in a year or two also. I thought that this move would make the team better for the next five years not just one year.

I hope Starks is a player and I shut the hell up.

[Fred's Slacks]

Very nice post dissident. I want to see him a little more aggressive also. It is not his fault Grant was injured and it is certainly was not his fault for not having two starting caliber running backs to start the season. Having one is a good job by him.
But if it is possible to get a starting running back for a 4th and a 6th why not? Even a 3rd and a 6th why not? He drafted Starks in the 6th who is 24 all ready and Lynch is only 24 now. Consider him a rookie you are drafting in the 3rd round. Just a couple years ago he wanted him in the 1st round. I would have no problem if he saw him play and decided he was wrong in 2007 and that Lynch is really not that good of a player, but the fact that he is still interested in him and tired to trade for him shows that he thinks the guy can play. So why not go and get him. Idnk about most people, but getting good players for low draft picks seems like a good idea to me.

Not saying we shouldn't have done it, but I wouldn't call a 3rd round pick a "low" draft pick.

[Scott Campbell]

The bottom line is that he thinks inside 'his own box'. Not in terms of how we feel and think.

Exactly. Ted operates inside of a vacuum cleaner.

[pbmax]

Number of Super Bowls won by Marshawn Lynch and Randy Moss combined: 0

Number of Super Bowls won by recent iterations of the Steelers and Patriots (prior to 2007 lunacy): 5

Those teams won with little activity in big name FA, dramatic trades for head cases or 40 year old QBs. The problem is not approach or aggressiveness. Its results. The current iteration of the Packers is not playing up to the level its capable of. Fix that, and Moss or Lynch will not be a concern.

[superfan]

Number of Super Bowls won by Marshawn Lynch and Randy Moss combined: 0

Number of Super Bowls won by recent iterations of the Steelers and Patriots (prior to 2007 lunacy): 5

Those teams won with little activity in big name FA, dramatic trades for head cases or 40 year old QBs. The problem is not approach or aggressiveness. Its results. The current iteration of the Packers is not playing up to the level its capable of. Fix that, and Moss or Lynch will not be a concern.

Amen, brother!

[dissident94]

Number of Super Bowls won by Marshawn Lynch and Randy Moss combined: 0

Number of Super Bowls won by recent iterations of the Steelers and Patriots (prior to 2007 lunacy): 5

Those teams won with little activity in big name FA, dramatic trades for head cases or 40 year old QBs. The problem is not approach or aggressiveness. Its results. The current iteration of the Packers is not playing up to the level its capable of. Fix that, and Moss or Lynch will not be a concern.

Number of Super Bowls Green Bay wins in the 90s without bold dramatic trades or moves: 0

No Super Bowl without the Favre trade
No Super Bowl without White, Jones, Jackson, Rison

You can build a solid team. But without impact players you cannot win. Sometimes you miss on the draft and need to pick up an impact player. Nothing wrong with it.

Patriots went out and got moss. They went undeafted and yes lost. But man Moss made that team nearly unstoppable.

If Green Bay pushed hard for Deangelo Williams. God this offense would be great.

[mraynrand]

Shermy spent a #2 on Harris, a #2 to move up for Walker, 2#4s for Glenn, and brought in Joe Johnson in FA. Was it worth it? Did it get the Packers over the hump. As we're learning, the Packers had plenty to start the season. As usual, luck (injuries) almost always decide the issue.

[cheesner]

Number of Super Bowls won by Marshawn Lynch and Randy Moss combined: 0

Number of Super Bowls won by recent iterations of the Steelers and Patriots (prior to 2007 lunacy): 5

Those teams won with little activity in big name FA, dramatic trades for head cases or 40 year old QBs. The problem is not approach or aggressiveness. Its results. The current iteration of the Packers is not playing up to the level its capable of. Fix that, and Moss or Lynch will not be a concern.

Number of Super Bowls Green Bay wins in the 90s without bold dramatic trades or moves: 0

No Super Bowl without the Favre trade
No Super Bowl without White, Jones, Jackson, Rison

You can build a solid team. But without impact players you cannot win. Sometimes you miss on the draft and need to pick up an impact player. Nothing wrong with it.

Patriots went out and got moss. They went undeafted and yes lost. But man Moss made that team nearly unstoppable.

If Green Bay pushed hard for Deangelo Williams. God this offense would be great.

Aaron Rodgers, Clay Matthews III, BJ Raji, Greg Jennings, Jermichal Finley, Nick Collins . . . It seems to me that TT has already assembled more impact players than most teams have. All added through the draft in his first 5 drafts.

[NewsBruin]

But I am not sure his teams will ever get over the hump and be a dominate team. While he has signed a few really good FA. He seems to be stuck in the retooling mode forever.

Think about the early 90s. Would Thompson have signed Reggie white. Maybe. What about Sean Jones, Keith Jackson, Andre Rison etc...

Dominant.

Dominant.

Anyway, free agency is less of a sure thing than it was before, and I don't know if it was ever a sure thing. With the franchise/transition tags (especially this uncapped season), it's easier for a team to keep a player for one more peak year. Also, teams now seem to be more proactive about extending their players before they get to market. It's not necessarily the same scenario that we saw in the first 10 years of free agency.

[packerbacker1234]

I'm not carrying a torch for TT anymore, he has been solid as the GM.

I will say, however, that calling us a legit SB contendor right now may be stretching it. Our defense is dropping like flies, we don't ahve a legit RB threat with Grant done, and our offense has hardly been in synch all season.

Just saying, we haven;t even played a good team yet, and were struggling.

We are Super Bowl contendors when we prove we can beat other contendors. Until then, we're pretenders.

[MichiganPackerFan]

After the news of losing Barnett for the season, TT's move NOT to get rid of Hawk seems better than getting Lynch. It's easier to replace a RB in a passing offense than a MLB. Hawk is no world beater by any means, but he's certainly better than what we would have to pluck of someone's practice squad if we had lost both Hawk and Barnett. Starks will be here soon and no one knows what Nance has to offer. I'm just thankful that we still have Hawk right now and hope that his play is top notch, because we need that a LOT

[retailguy]

The 2001 or 2002 team went 8-1, then lost 8 starters to injury, finished 12-4 and lost to Vick & the Falcons in the home playoff game.

I expect this season to look similar and also expect that there will be no trades. We will play with the guys we got. We will play next year with the guys we've got and the guys we draft. Maybe, if there is a really good deal to be had, we'll wind up with one other player, but only if it's a really good deal. If it's just an average deal we'll pass.

Injuries suck, but they happen. It gives us a chance to develop another young guy, though. Maybe we can turn Desmond Bishop into a linebacker in the next 12 games. We'll see.

[Smidgeon]

The 2001 or 2002 team went 8-1, then lost 8 starters to injury, finished 12-4 and lost to Vick & the Falcons in the home playoff game.

I expect this season to look similar and also expect that there will be no trades. We will play with the guys we got. We will play next year with the guys we've got and the guys we draft. Maybe, if there is a really good deal to be had, we'll wind up with one other player, but only if it's a really good deal. If it's just an average deal we'll pass.

Injuries suck, but they happen. It gives us a chance to develop another young guy, though. Maybe we can turn Desmond Bishop into a linebacker in the next 12 games. We'll see.

If you develop him right, you can trade him for a high draft pick when Barnett comes back healthy (a la Matt Cassel) and draft another backup ILB. It's the only good thing I could think that comes out of a season ending injury. But I'm not sure TT would let a good player go either.

[pbmax]

Number of Super Bowls won by Marshawn Lynch and Randy Moss combined: 0

Number of Super Bowls won by recent iterations of the Steelers and Patriots (prior to 2007 lunacy): 5

Those teams won with little activity in big name FA, dramatic trades for head cases or 40 year old QBs. The problem is not approach or aggressiveness. Its results. The current iteration of the Packers is not playing up to the level its capable of. Fix that, and Moss or Lynch will not be a concern.

Number of Super Bowls Green Bay wins in the 90s without bold dramatic trades or moves: 0

No Super Bowl without the Favre trade
No Super Bowl without White, Jones, Jackson, Rison

You can build a solid team. But without impact players you cannot win. Sometimes you miss on the draft and need to pick up an impact player. Nothing wrong with it.

Patriots went out and got moss. They went undeafted and yes lost. But man Moss made that team nearly unstoppable.

If Green Bay pushed hard for Deangelo Williams. God this offense would be great.

There are no longer FAs available like Reggie White. A completely different era.

And maybe I am missing something, but Lynch does not strike me as the Keith Jackson of his position.

And the 2010 Packer running back situation is very unlike the 1996 Packer WR situation. Both starters were hurt (one lost for the season, also lost their other TE for a couple of games) in '96 and that team relied on the pass nearly as much as this one does. A passing offense does not miss its starting RB like it misses its top two receivers.

The only 2010 positions that look like WR from 96 are LB and safety. A trade there I can understand. Though with Collins and Bigby likely to play this year, that only match might be LB if Chillar misses most of the season.

[dissident94]

Number of Super Bowls won by Marshawn Lynch and Randy Moss combined: 0

Number of Super Bowls won by recent iterations of the Steelers and Patriots (prior to 2007 lunacy): 5

Those teams won with little activity in big name FA, dramatic trades for head cases or 40 year old QBs. The problem is not approach or aggressiveness. Its results. The current iteration of the Packers is not playing up to the level its capable of. Fix that, and Moss or Lynch will not be a concern.

Number of Super Bowls Green Bay wins in the 90s without bold dramatic trades or moves: 0

No Super Bowl without the Favre trade
No Super Bowl without White, Jones, Jackson, Rison

You can build a solid team. But without impact players you cannot win. Sometimes you miss on the draft and need to pick up an impact player. Nothing wrong with it.

Patriots went out and got moss. They went undeafted and yes lost. But man Moss made that team nearly unstoppable.

If Green Bay pushed hard for Deangelo Williams. God this offense would be great.

There are no longer FAs available like Reggie White. A completely different era.

And maybe I am missing something, but Lynch does not strike me as the Keith Jackson of his position.

And the 2010 Packer running back situation is very unlike the 1996 Packer WR situation. Both starters were hurt (one lost for the season, also lost their other TE for a couple of games) in '96 and that team relied on the pass nearly as much as this one does. A passing offense does not miss its starting RB like it misses its top two receivers.

The only 2010 positions that look like WR from 96 are LB and safety. A trade there I can understand. Though with Collins and Bigby likely to play this year, that only match might be LB if Chillar misses most of the season.

I am not a Ted basher. I had my doubts about him in the past. I questioned his move with Rodgers over Favre and was wrong.

But to at least question his lack of making a move is not wrong. Many are and its already documented. Favre, Woodson, former scouts, Rodgers? etc..

To say that it may not be a fault of him is blindly looking at him. If you think this team is a potential super bowl team then you have to make a move.
The offense is not as good as hoped. The team needs a weapon running the football. If they really believe in Starks than I guess it may work out.

With the defense banged up it will be really nice to put up some points and plus keep the opposing team of the field by running it.