Ted Thompson's best move as Packers GM

[mission]

Those last two paragraphs are absolutely beautiful!

I forgot who mentioned this, but someone said TT was never going to use that 83rd pick on a player because he never wanted him to have the label of "the guy who they got for favre". When you look at it like King has above, it really makes me think we got the much better end of the stick on this one.

[Patler]

But what if he had not not not traded for Lynch...?

Seriously, though, that was a good non-move for the future of this club. Who would want Lynch, Grant, and Starks (not to mention Jackson) trying to fit into the same backfield next year? Ugh. And you still have that third rounder at your disposal.

Sure it was a good non-move. Not disputing that. But one of his 5 best moves or nonmoves? Ahead of trading up to get Matthews? Ahead of finding Williams and Shields? Ahead of drafting Collins, Jennings, Raji? Ahead of resigning Clifton this year? That was huge.

Even if he had traded for Lynch, he might have been able to get a draft pick back by trading him or Grant after the season.

Not trading for Lynch is just not of much consequence right now.

[Freak Out]

Man....Clifton and the boys need to have a good game this week. Stay healthy.

[Joemailman]

There was talk a couple of weeks ago about the Bears having been interested in James Starks. Seems they were also interested in Sam Shields.

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgaze...ects-exciting-

Two Packers scouts have ties to the football program because they attended school there. Alonzo Highsmith, an area college scout, had a distinguished career at Miami as a player, was a teammate of then-coach Randy Shannon, and has a son, A.J., who’s a quarterback at the school. Also, one of their assistant directors of pro personnel, Eliot Wolf, went to college at Miami and worked in the athletic department while a student.

Those ties helped the Packers’ trust their evaluation of Shields’ character, which checked out fine. Then immediately after the draft, Highsmith’s relationship with Shannon helped sell Shields and his agent that the Packers were his best option. On the evening the draft ended, Shields was on the telephone getting a persuasive pitch from a Chicago Bears scout when he got another call.

“I was like, ‘I might be in Chicago,’” Shields said. “Then my agent, Drew Rosenhaus, called me and said, ‘Packers.’”

Said Joe Whitt, the Packers’ cornerbacks coach, who had given Shields a first-round draft grade earlier that spring: “They called me in there and said we’ve got Shields. I was happy.”

[hoosier]

There was talk a couple of weeks ago about the Bears having been interested in James Starks. Seems they were also interested in Sam Shields.

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgaze...ects-exciting-

Two Packers scouts have ties to the football program because they attended school there. Alonzo Highsmith, an area college scout, had a distinguished career at Miami as a player, was a teammate of then-coach Randy Shannon, and has a son, A.J., who’s a quarterback at the school. Also, one of their assistant directors of pro personnel, Eliot Wolf, went to college at Miami and worked in the athletic department while a student.

Those ties helped the Packers’ trust their evaluation of Shields’ character, which checked out fine. Then immediately after the draft, Highsmith’s relationship with Shannon helped sell Shields and his agent that the Packers were his best option. On the evening the draft ended, Shields was on the telephone getting a persuasive pitch from a Chicago Bears scout when he got another call.

“I was like, ‘I might be in Chicago,’” Shields said. “Then my agent, Drew Rosenhaus, called me and said, ‘Packers.’”

Said Joe Whitt, the Packers’ cornerbacks coach, who had given Shields a first-round draft grade earlier that spring: “They called me in there and said we’ve got Shields. I was happy.”

After reading this it is hard to understand why Shields wasn't drafted. The failed drug test report turned out to be false, no? If there were still questions about his character, fine, draft him in the second day, but a first round grade at a key position who simply doesn't get drafted??

[Fritz]

Sure it was a good non-move. Not disputing that. But one of his 5 best moves or nonmoves? Ahead of trading up to get Matthews? Ahead of finding Williams and Shields? Ahead of drafting Collins, Jennings, Raji? Ahead of resigning Clifton this year? That was huge.

Even if he had traded for Lynch, he might have been able to get a draft pick back by trading him or Grant after the season.

Not trading for Lynch is just not of much consequence right now.

No, I don't think it was one of his five best, either. I agree with you. I just wanted to write "not" three times in a row, and rub it in a little for the people who were whining so vociferously a few months ago that TT was failing - again - because he refused to give up one of his beloved draft picks for a player the Packers obviously NEEDED right now. I also wanted to remind people that in truth, the GM's job is to do more than look at the next month or even the next season. It just would not have helped this team to go into camp with three guys who could be the number one back and none of whom was a speedster. It would've been a waste of a third round pick, in my opinion.

So no, it was not one of Thompson's five best. But it might've been one of Thompson's five best non-moves, if there could be such a category.

[HarveyWallbangers]

No, I don't think it was one of his five best, either. I agree with you. I just wanted to write "not" three times in a row, and rub it in a little for the people who were whining so vociferously a few months ago that TT was failing - again - because he refused to give up one of his beloved draft picks for a player the Packers obviously NEEDED right now. I also wanted to remind people that in truth, the GM's job is to do more than look at the next month or even the next season. It just would not have helped this team to go into camp with three guys who could be the number one back and none of whom was a speedster. It would've been a waste of a third round pick, in my opinion.

So no, it was not one of Thompson's five best. But it might've been one of Thompson's five best non-moves, if there could be such a category.

Essentially, it wasn't one of his five best moves, but it was a good one to put on this list to stick it in the faces of those that said Thompson was making a mistake for not trading a 3rd round pick for Lynch?

[gbgary]

After reading this it is hard to understand why Shields wasn't drafted. The failed drug test report turned out to be false, no? If there were still questions about his character, fine, draft him in the second day, but a first round grade at a key position who simply doesn't get drafted??

evidently shields was a terrible receiver (3 yrs.) and only ok as a db (no ints and only two passes defensed his senior yr) that's why he wasn't drafted. he was/is fast and was good at special teams at miami. it's the Packers that turned him into the player is now.

[RashanGary]

We'd be better right now and have a better chance win the SB with Lynch. I don't think the people who wanted Lynch were that far off. It's way more idiotic to have that on a top 5 list for Ted's moves.

Calling TT an idiot and saying we won't win the SB because of him and his style, yeah, that sounds pretty stupid now. But don't we all from time to time.

Before the 2005 season I remember being in a pissing match with you, HW, about how the Pack were in trouble. You aregued everything was fine and they'd win 10 or 12 games ilke they alwyas do. You're an optimist. Luckly for you the Packers are usually good. But you sound silly from time to time too. Maybe less so because your optimism is the reality, but if the Packer slump, the things you've said will look dumb too.

Not to rip ya, you've been a MVPoster lately, it's just that I know there were some good posters who liked the idea of Lynch and it wasn't that stupid after Grant went down.

[mraynrand]

No, I don't think it was one of his five best, either. I agree with you. I just wanted to write "not" three times in a row, and rub it in a little for the people who were whining so vociferously a few months ago that TT was failing - again - because he refused to give up one of his beloved draft picks for a player the Packers obviously NEEDED right now. I also wanted to remind people that in truth, the GM's job is to do more than look at the next month or even the next season. It just would not have helped this team to go into camp with three guys who could be the number one back and none of whom was a speedster. It would've been a waste of a third round pick, in my opinion.

So no, it was not one of Thompson's five best. But it might've been one of Thompson's five best non-moves, if there could be such a category.

I had one of my best non-moves this morning - that's why I took the Exlax.

[Guiness]

The non-trade for Lynch worked out, but I still think it would have been a good idea to get him. At the time that he was available, it had become apparent that BJack wasn't going to cut it as a feature back, and there was no way anyone knew Starks was going to break out.

Don't forget that after a good game against SF, he did nothing in Detoit, then didn't have a carry against NE or NYG. Against the Giants, Jackson got the carries through the game, and Nance was used at the end to run out the clock. In week 17, Starks got the ball only 5 times.

Yes, he's been playing well since then, but I think it would be quite a stretch to say they were counting on him.

[HarveyWallbangers]

We'd be better right now and have a better chance win the SB with Lynch. I don't think the people who wanted Lynch were that far off. It's way more idiotic to have that on a top 5 list for Ted's moves.

Calling TT an idiot and saying we won't win the SB because of him and his style, yeah, that sounds pretty stupid now. But don't we all from time to time.

Before the 2005 season I remember being in a pissing match with you, HW, about how the Pack were in trouble. You aregued everything was fine and they'd win 10 or 12 games ilke they alwyas do. You're an optimist. Luckly for you the Packers are usually good. But you sound silly from time to time too. Maybe less so because your optimism is the reality, but if the Packer slump, the things you've said will look dumb too.

Not to rip ya, you've been a MVPoster lately, it's just that I know there were some good posters who liked the idea of Lynch and it wasn't that stupid after Grant went down.

Don't you think 2005 is a terrible example? We were ravaged by injuries that year. This year is rare by the Packers. No team with at least 15 players on IR has won more than 6 games in a season in the last 10 years or longer. That 2005 team was hit as hard by injuries as this year's team.

Not sure why people seem to feel the need to attack me the last few days. I'm not a blind homer. I'm generally an optimist, but I'm not afraid to say when I feel Thompson has made a mistake (like drafting Aaron Rodgers, not signing some FAs). I'm not afraid to call out McCarthy's poor play calling when it costs us a game. I'm not afraid to call out a player for having a bad game. I just feel like you can do those things without saying McCarthy or Thompson is a buffoon or genius (depending on the outcome). I feel like I'm pretty guarded and grounded. When you were wrongly hawking Mike Hawkins or correctly hawking Sam Shields, I took a wait and see approach. When some call James Jones a playmaker with Pro Bowl potential while others call him a spaz for messing up so much, I tend to take the middle view that he's a solid player that makes mistakes and is pretty comparable to Jordy Nelson.

[mraynrand]

I just want to say, "Good luck, Starks, we're all counting on you"

[HarveyWallbangers]

The non-trade for Lynch worked out, but I still think it would have been a good idea to get him. At the time that he was available, it had become apparent that BJack wasn't going to cut it as a feature back, and there was no way anyone knew Starks was going to break out.

Don't forget that after a good game against SF, he did nothing in Detoit, then didn't have a carry against NE or NYG. Against the Giants, Jackson got the carries through the game, and Nance was used at the end to run out the clock. In week 17, Starks got the ball only 5 times.

Yes, he's been playing well since then, but I think it would be quite a stretch to say they were counting on him.

I don't think Lynch would have provided enough of an upgrade to give up a third round pick for (his one miracle run notwithstanding). He's a JAG, and I'd rather take the chance at finding a Josh Sitton or Jermichael Finley with that third round pick (even at the risk of drafting a bust).

[Guiness]

I don't think Lynch would have provided enough of an upgrade to give up a third round pick for (his one miracle run notwithstanding). He's a JAG, and I'd rather take the chance at finding a Josh Sitton or Jermichael Finley with that third round pick (even at the risk of drafting a bust).

It all comes down to what you thought of the team at the time. Were we playing well enough to go to the playoffs, but missing a critical piece? Or was the season a write-off because of injuries. If you thought we had a shot at the playoffs, he certainly seemed to be an upgrade over what we had on the field at the time.

The problem with that thinking, of course, is that it can lead you to thinking we should also have traded for a TE to plug a hole when Finley went down, and OLB when Brad Jones went down, a safety when Burnett went down, and on and on and on. You dig a hole pretty quick.