Better GM...Thompson or Wolf

[Patler]

Agree completely with just about everything you said Patler, expect I don't think you are giving Wolf enough credit when it comes to sustaining what he built. I mean you said it yourself Sherman had five years of bad drafts that killed the depth on those teams. Yet we still went out their and won during the 01-04 time period. Do you think we would have had all those 10-12 win seasons if it weren't for Wolf bringing in Favre, Green, Sharper, Mckenzie, T. williams, most of the o-line, Franks, etc. The core of those teams were still built by Wolf. I think that if he stayed Gm until 04-05 until TT took over that the roster would have been in very good shape and we may have even won another superbowl some time in that 01-04 period. Add two or three good drafts in 01, 02, and 03, to the 03 team that lost on 4th and 26 for example, and I think we win it all that year.

I just think that Wolf doesn't get credit for sustaining the roster because he left in a time of transition and not in a time of power. I have Wolf and TT equally ranked right now b/c they both have one superbowl championship. Until TT wins us another he will not past wolf IMHO.

The Packers had winning records after '97, but were never really legitimate Super Bowl contenders after that. The team was "OK" but never complete enough to be a contender.

As for what the status of the roster would have been had Wolf stayed on until TT came, its hard to tell. However, Wolf's draft record after '96 or so wasn't all that impressive, except for 2000 when he got 5 players who carried Sherman's teams.

[mraynrand]

The Packers had winning records after '97, but were never really legitimate Super Bowl contenders after that. The team was "OK" but never complete enough to be a contender.

I think Wolf would have gotten a lot of credit had they won in 2002, even though he was one year removed, because of the 2000 draft and the hold-overs. But Shermy went all in - two #4 picks and a #2 to revamp the WR corps and all that money for Joe Johnson. Without the injuries, I think they would have beaten TB and won it all. 2003, Wolf gets some credit, but less, and they were one play away from being at Carolina for the NFCC game. I'd call that a legitimate contender too. But, officially, Wolf would get no credit for those teams, so maybe you aren't including those teams at all in "Wolf cred"

[Patler]

I think Wolf would have gotten a lot of credit had they won in 2002, even though he was one year removed, because of the 2000 draft and the hold-overs. But Shermy went all in - two #4 picks and a #2 to revamp the WR corps and all that money for Joe Johnson. Without the injuries, I think they would have beaten TB and won it all. 2003, Wolf gets some credit, but less, and they were one play away from being at Carolina for the NFCC game. I'd call that a legitimate contender too. But, officially, Wolf would get no credit for those teams, so maybe you aren't including those teams at all in "Wolf cred"

I don't think they were legitimate contenders anymore than Seattle was this year. The Packers routinely got into the playoffs from a bad division and some very fortunate schedules. Seattle won a game this year in the playoffs, but were not legitimate contenders in my opinion. Neither were the Packers under Sherman. They routinely lost during the seasons to the better teams, especially as season after season passed, and clearly showed they were a step behind the better teams.

I never felt like "this could be the year" when the season started at anytime under Sherman, let alone when playoffs started. This year I did feel that way at the start of the season, but figured it was a real long shot at the time the playoffs started.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I have to disagree patler, b/c I honestly believe that the 02 and 03 teams were legit superbowl contenders. In 04 we had the offense but probably the wrost defense I have ever seen the packers have in the last 20 years. I think it was 02 were we lost the last game of the season to the Jets that put us as a wild card team instead of having home field throughout the playoffs. I would def say that team had as good a chance as any to make the superbowl.


I don't see how you can say the 03 team didn't have a chance? I took a miracle for philly to beat us and we move on to the panthers in the nfccg. If wolf was in charge of the drafts in 01 and 02 does he add enough to get us over the top? We will never know. But if I had to guess he would have done a better job than sherman which may have been the difference. But no way was it sherman and his 01 and 02 picks that got us in the playoffs those years.

[Patler]

I have to disagree patler, b/c I honestly believe that the 02 and 03 teams were legit superbowl contenders. In 04 we had the offense but probably the wrost defense I have ever seen the packers have in the last 20 years. I think it was 02 were we lost the last game of the season to the Jets that put us as a wild card team instead of having home field throughout the playoffs. I would def say that team had as good a chance as any to make the superbowl.


I don't see how you can say the 03 team didn't have a chance? I took a miracle for philly to beat us and we move on to the panthers in the nfccg. If wolf was in charge of the drafts in 01 and 02 does he add enough to get us over the top? We will never know. But if I had to guess he would have done a better job than sherman which may have been the difference. But no way was it sherman and his 01 and 02 picks that got us in the playoffs those years.

Sure they had a chance, but in my opinion they weren't legitimate contenders. Once you get to the playoffs, certainly you have a chance. But "woulda", "coulda", "shoulda" didn't get it done, did it? Contrast with this year, when they were legitimate contenders. They faced as much or more adversity than any Sherman team did, yet managed to win it all.

Sherman's teams got "close" (ie in the playoffs with a chance) because they were in a poor division. They ultimately failed because in reality they were not legitimate contenders.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Your argument makes sense in regard to the 04 team, but not 02 and 03. The 04 team was not a good team. We got in and I didn't feel the team was good enough to win it all. But to say the 02 and 03 teams were not legit contenders seems to base your whole argument simply on the end result. I felt more confident in the packers of 03 once the playoffs started than I did about the packers of 2010.

So if Tramon Williams slips and falls against the eagles in the wild card round and the eagles win and the packers were one and done, they were not legitmate contenders? Remember only ONE team wins it all. Sometimes its not the most talented team or the team that should win it. I understand we had injuries, but it was you who pointed out during the season that some of those injuries turned out to be a blessing. True that speaks for the depth on the team, but it doesn't change the fact that the team still needed good luck to win it all. If D. Jackson doesn't return that kick against the Gaints we are not even in the playoffs.

I honestly believe that we were the best team in the NFC in the playoffs in 2003. Thats why so many packer fans were heart broken by 4th and 26. If we were just getting by on luck and good health I don't think I would have been that disappointed once we were eliminated.

[mraynrand]

At one point in the 2002 season, the Packers were 8-1, and Favre was having as good a year as ever statistically. Nine starters were lost to injury if I recall, and Favre was beat to hell with a pretty severe knee injury. After what happened this year, people might shrug and say Injuries, Sminjuries, but they hurt that year. Let's review: Clifton, Tauscher, Joe Johnson, Driver, Green, Davenport, Sharper, Terry Glenn - were all gone halfway through the wildcard game with ATL. There were others as well, I just don't remember them all. It was a mess. 8-1 - they were contenders. If you don't agree, well, then, we don't agree. As to the question at hand in this thread, my personal opinion is that Wolf would have deserved a lot of credit had they won it all.

[Patler]

To me, 2002 and 2003 were both "mirage" teams, as was 2004. I don't recall GB being that highly regarded as a playoff contender either before or during any of the seasons.

2002 may have been their highest regarded year at the start. They built their fast start and overall impressive recording beating Chicago twice, Detroit twice and MN once. Collectively Chicago (4-12), Detroit (3-13) and MN (6-10) won 13 games in 2002. They had 3 other wins against teams who were 7-9 or 8-8. The team with the best record that they beat was SF at 10-6. They built an impressive record against a fortunate schedule that year. It's not their fault, they can only play who is scheduled; but as I recall their few wins against the better teams were not especially impressive, but a couple of their losses were, in a negative way. Of course, they ended it getting trashed by Atlanta at home in the playoffs.

I saw 2003 much the same way, although MN provided better competition at 9-7 as did Chcago. But the Packers again had a fortunate schedule and built a decent record against not the best competition.

2004 was even more of the same, in my opinion. They built a 10-6 record without beating a single team with a winning record for the season.

I have always felt the team under Sherman was never really as good as its record indicated. To their credit, they did generally beat the weaker teams that they should have, but good fortune gave them schedules allowing them to have impressive records.

[Patler]

Your argument makes sense in regard to the 04 team, but not 02 and 03. The 04 team was not a good team. We got in and I didn't feel the team was good enough to win it all. But to say the 02 and 03 teams were not legit contenders seems to base your whole argument simply on the end result. I felt more confident in the packers of 03 once the playoffs started than I did about the packers of 2010.

So if Tramon Williams slips and falls against the eagles in the wild card round and the eagles win and the packers were one and done, they were not legitmate contenders? Remember only ONE team wins it all. Sometimes its not the most talented team or the team that should win it. I understand we had injuries, but it was you who pointed out during the season that some of those injuries turned out to be a blessing. True that speaks for the depth on the team, but it doesn't change the fact that the team still needed good luck to win it all. If D. Jackson doesn't return that kick against the Gaints we are not even in the playoffs.

I honestly believe that we were the best team in the NFC in the playoffs in 2003. Thats why so many packer fans were heart broken by 4th and 26. If we were just getting by on luck and good health I don't think I would have been that disappointed once we were eliminated.

No, its not basing being a contender on the end result. I don't recall either the 2002 or 2003 teams being especially highly regarded going into the season. On the contrary, they were considered the best of an extremely poor division. They were generally picked to win the division, but I do not recall their SB chances being considered all that high. They weren't identified as a contender, and they proved it by finding ways to lose in the playoffs.

In 2010 they were identified as contenders before the season started and even into it until the injuries mounted. With the way they ended the season, many saw them as a team on a roll with a chance to win it all, and they proved it. Had they lost a game, they still would have been a contender in 2010, but one who lost for various reasons. As you correctly point out, contenders do lose.

On the other hand, the Packers under Sherman were not contenders just because they got into the playoffs, in my opinion.

[mraynrand]

To me, 2002 and 2003 were both "mirage" teams, as was 2004. I don't recall GB being that highly regarded as a playoff contender either before or during any of the seasons.

2002 may have been their highest regarded year at the start. They built their fast start and overall impressive recording beating Chicago twice, Detroit twice and MN once. Collectively Chicago (4-12), Detroit (3-13) and MN (6-10) won 13 games in 2002. They had 3 other wins against teams who were 7-9 or 8-8. The team with the best record that they beat was SF at 10-6. They built an impressive record against a fortunate schedule that year. It's not their fault, they can only play who is scheduled; but as I recall their few wins against the better teams were not especially impressive, but a couple of their losses were, in a negative way. Of course, they ended it getting trashed by Atlanta at home in the playoffs.

I saw 2003 much the same way, although MN provided better competition at 9-7 as did Chcago. But the Packers again had a fortunate schedule and built a decent record against not the best competition.

2004 was even more of the same, in my opinion. They built a 10-6 record without beating a single team with a winning record for the season.

I have always felt the team under Sherman was never really as good as its record indicated. To their credit, they did generally beat the weaker teams that they should have, but good fortune gave them schedules allowing them to have impressive records.

Way to address the injury situation in 2002. In 2010, the Packers didn't have a great record against good teams in the regular season. Surprisingly, they only won 10 games. Surprisingly, several of their losses were due at least in part to injury to their QB. 8-1 in 2002 - they were contenders, as was voiced over and over, by any analyst you listened to, in the week leading up to the game at Tampa, where Clifton got knocked out. That was after a slew of other injuries. I guess all those NFL analysts were wrong too. I think you are pursuing a flawed line of reasoning.

[Patler]

Way to address the injury situation in 2002. In 2010, the Packers didn't have a great record against good teams in the regular season. Surprisingly, they only won 10 games. Surprisingly, several of their losses were due at least in part to injury to their QB. 8-1 in 2002 - they were contenders, as was voiced over and over, by any analyst you listened to, in the week leading up to the game at Tampa, where Clifton got knocked out. That was after a slew of other injuries. I guess all those NFL analysts were wrong too. I think you are pursuing a flawed line of reasoning.

Injuries, what do you want me to say about it? Injuries happen all the time, and as I recall (I didn't check) one of the SB teams, perhaps even NE actually lost more "starter games" than GB did that year. (Or maybe it was one of the Championship game losers, I don't recall). In my opinion they were not a stronger SB contender beset by injuries, they were a good team that was beset by injuries and got to the playoffs, so the "had a chance".

I disagree about those seasons. I was never overly impressed with any of the 2002, 2003 or 2004 teams going into the season or during it. You obviously were. We can leave it at that. No point in us going around in circles, I have one opinion, you have another.

[bobblehead]

Injuries, what do you want me to say about it? Injuries happen all the time, and as I recall (I didn't check) one of the SB teams, perhaps even NE actually lost more "starter games" than GB did that year. (Or maybe it was one of the Championship game losers, I don't recall). In my opinion they were not a stronger SB contender beset by injuries, they were a good team that was beset by injuries and got to the playoffs, so the "had a chance".

I disagree about those seasons. I was never overly impressed with any of the 2002, 2003 or 2004 teams going into the season or during it. You obviously were. We can leave it at that. No point in us going around in circles, I have one opinion, you have another.

I was really in love with some of those teams. We would run it right down a teams throat and thye couldn't stop it. At the risk of starting a HUGE blowup of the thread I will say that a QB that protected the ball better may have had more success with that running game. I am sorry to bring that up, but it is the SOLE reason I had turned on Favre long before almost anyone else. It was also relevant to the conversation.

[retailguy]

Injuries, what do you want me to say about it? Injuries happen all the time, and as I recall (I didn't check) one of the SB teams, perhaps even NE actually lost more "starter games" than GB did that year. (Or maybe it was one of the Championship game losers, I don't recall). In my opinion they were not a stronger SB contender beset by injuries, they were a good team that was beset by injuries and got to the playoffs, so the "had a chance".

I disagree about those seasons. I was never overly impressed with any of the 2002, 2003 or 2004 teams going into the season or during it. You obviously were. We can leave it at that. No point in us going around in circles, I have one opinion, you have another.

I agree with you on 2003 and 2004, but not 2002. That team was pretty good, but couldn't sustain itself at the end of the year. Backups overachieved for a while, but by week 16 you could see they were in trouble. The 2003 team was pretty good, and managed to strike lightning in a bottle until 4th and 1, but were nowhere near as good as the 2002 team.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

As to the question at hand in this thread, my personal opinion is that Wolf would have deserved a lot of credit had they won it all.

Which was my point from the beginning. Wolf deserves credit for the success of those teams. I feel that in 02 and 03 we fielded very strong teams.

[Smidgeon]

I was really in love with some of those teams. We would run it right down a teams throat and thye couldn't stop it. At the risk of starting a HUGE blowup of the thread I will say that a QB that protected the ball better may have had more success with that running game. I am sorry to bring that up, but it is the SOLE reason I had turned on Favre long before almost anyone else. It was also relevant to the conversation.

I agree on this one. Wasn't this the year of the U-71 with Kevin Barry? The run game was unstoppable. Didn't Ahman have a 2000+ yardage year--the highest yardage by a RB to not win the rushing title (by the way, the only game I attended was the 2003 finale against the Broncos where Ahman had the 98 or 99 yard run)?

There was even a point where Farve said, "Everytime we're in the U-71 package, we run the ball. 100% of the time." He said it on a TV interview, and it was true...and other teams still couldn't stop it.