Better GM...Thompson or Wolf

[Joemailman]

The league is different now than it was then. Going into the 1996 you just knew it would be a whirlwind. Outside of a pathetic loss to the Colts, I think, the team dominated most of the year. I'm not sure 1996 was more fun, but it was more predictable. New England wasn't given much of a chance against us in the Super Bowl, and the game played out that way.

1997 was like watching a different team. Holmgrens impending departure really changed the vibe, I think. After that loss in the Super Bowl, the Broncos replaced the Bears as my most hated NFL team.

Actually, the loss to the Colts occurred in 1997. The losses in 1996 were an early season loss to Minnesota (Packers rarely won in Minnesota back then), and midseason losses to Kansas City and Dallas when their receiver corp was decimated with injuries. Your overall point is correct however. The Packers were a dominant team in 1996 and were expected by many if not most to make it to the Super Bowl. I was at the Super Bowl and the feeling was that we were there for the coronation. The thought of possibly losing to the Patriots was barely there.

[Deputy Nutz]

Most didn't think the Packers were going to lose against Denver

[bobblehead]

Look, I've been bitching about the OL since, well, hell froze over. I'm still not "impressed" but it is way better than it has ever been under Thompson. Right now, it is impossible to say it is not "good enough". When it counted, it was good enough.

But, you can't overlook Rodgers concussion history, and the OL is the best medicine to keep that under control. Developing a standout left guard and replacing Clifton are the two biggest priorities on this team right now, if you ask me. Plenty of young talent to try out, and hopefully Ted has improved at drafting line talent (Sitton not withstanding, who is most excellent).

Finally, the kool-aid is definitely flowing around here. That's not a bad thing. I've enjoyed a little myself. I learned a long time ago that forecasting is a tricky business, but I'm down for 19-0 next season.... lol

You weren't so bad last year. You predicted 16-0 and a superbowl title saying TT put together a roster that should have a good shot to win every game if I recall. We had a good shot to win every game and did win the superbowl....I'll take it.

[mraynrand]

Wolf is esteemed more highly at this point due to his long tenure in the league, success with multiple teams, and his magician's trick of pulling the Packers from NFL extinction with the mythical trade for Favre and the signing of Reggie White and Mike Holmgren. That's a hell of a lot for TT to compete with - but once he's more than a fart in the wind - assuming it comes to pass - he'll probably even have Wolf conceding he's the better man.

[Gunakor]

You base your judgement on one player in one draft? How about you count titles first then we will revist the 2009 draft.

Give me 5 years. Then we'll count titles.

[Gunakor]

All kool-aid aside, certainly more than 20 teams with they had Thompson, but 31? No. He's not everybody's cup of tea. I cannot see him and Danny boy Snyder co-existing. Or him and Jerry Jones. New England would never pick him over Belicheat.

Your point is somewhat solid. Plenty of teams would be interested, but some wouldn't be. And that's ok with me.

Dan Snyder isn't interested in titles anyway. He's interested in attendance. But point taken. Certainly teams who have owners that like to play General Manager wouldn't want a guy like Ted. Teams with owners that like to play General Manager will never reach dynasty status though. The problem is with them, not Thompson.

[Smeefers]

One of you threw something out there that captivates me. To paraphrase: Wolf's team truly dominated the league, while TT's doesn't. I wasn't a fan of the NFL back then, so I have way to compare.

Was it more fun being a Packer fan when they won under Wolf or under TT? Let your answers, if you'd be so kind, be influenced by the "domination" factor. I'd really be thankful for your views.

It was absolutely awesome watching the 96 packers play. You knew from the very first game. We were hand over fist better than everyone else. It was like the pack was playing against a bunch of college teams, and the college teams had in their second string. Even when we lost to the buc's (who sucked super big one at the time), we all collectively shrugged our shoulders, said "ehh, we can't win them all" and then went on to pound the piss out of the league. I'm talking about 35 to nothing in the 3rd quarter pounding. I'm talking about second stringers coming in the third quarter and still beating the crap out of the opposing team.

That said, trying to compare the superbowls is damn near impossible for me. For me, the euphoria lasted all year in 96. In 10, I was more just surprised every week that we were still in it. I always knew we had a chance to win, but I never put all my eggs in one basket. When we won it all, I was still sort of surprised that we even got to the big game, let alone won it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

It was absolutely awesome watching the 96 packers play. You knew from the very first game. We were hand over fist better than everyone else. It was like the pack was playing against a bunch of college teams, and the college teams had in their second string. Even when we lost to the buc's (who sucked super big one at the time), we all collectively shrugged our shoulders, said "ehh, we can't win them all" and then went on to pound the piss out of the league. I'm talking about 35 to nothing in the 3rd quarter pounding. I'm talking about second stringers coming in the third quarter and still beating the crap out of the opposing team.

We didn't lose to the Bucs. We lost at Minnesota, at Kansas City, and at Dallas that year. Minnesota always had our number at the Dome back then. Our receiving corps was decimated in the other two losses. I believe both starting WRs (Brooks, Freeman) and the starting TE (Chmura) were out. That's when Beebe had his big game vs. San Fran and it also drove Wolf to sign Rison.

We did lose to the Colts in '97, and they were terrible that year. They were like 0-10-1 or something close to it when we lost to them. The next year the Colts drafted Peyton Manning.

[Deputy Nutz]

Give me 5 years. Then we'll count titles.

You don't have five years, you made a statement regarding the present, not five years from now. The Patriots have been the closest thing to a dynasty sinces the Cowboys of the 90s. There has been a ten year gap between dynasties. The Patriots have fallen back into the pack of contenders the last couple of years but they are still a favorite almost every year to make it into the Super Bowl. I still take Belichick right now, and probably in 5 years if he is still with the Pats.

[Patler]

You don't have five years, you made a statement regarding the present, not five years from now. The Patriots have been the closest thing to a dynasty sinces the Cowboys of the 90s. There has been a ten year gap between dynasties. The Patriots have fallen back into the pack of contenders the last couple of years but they are still a favorite almost every year to make it into the Super Bowl. I still take Belichick right now, and probably in 5 years if he is still with the Pats.

I wonder how much Belichik relied on Pioli? Pioli left and the Patriots have dropped back a little, but that was bound to happen anyway. On the other hand, Pioli seems to be making things change in KC.

[Brandon494]

Pats haven't won a title in 7 years and Brady will be 39 in 5 years. You can take the Pats but I guarntee Packers will be the better team in 5 years.

[Brandon494]

I wonder how much Belichik relied on Pioli? Pioli left and the Patriots have dropped back a little, but that was bound to happen anyway. On the other hand, Pioli seems to be making things change in KC.

You have to also factor in that they have had to rebuild they defense the past couple of years.

[Patler]

You have to also factor in that they have had to rebuild they defense the past couple of years.

That's why I stated, "...the Patriots have dropped back a little, but that was bound to happen anyway. "

A "dynasty" or as close as the NFL gets to one now days usually happens with a slug of young, similarly aged players contributing a lot early and continuing to do so for a solid chunk of their careers. Eventually free agency, age, injuries, etc. get to them so they are no longer the team they once were, but the really good "dynasties" tend to overachieve a little at the beginning and at the end of their times in the sun. Typically, replacements are found a bit more slowly due to luck, low draft positions, etc. The team necessarily becomes more "mortal". The question is, after falling back somewhat will they go back up again, continue a gradual decay, or suddenly crash and burn? I'm not sure where the Patriots are right now along the typical evolutionary path.

Can Belichik turn them back up again without Pioli? Was Pioli more important to that operation than was thought? Was Belichik just more visible? Hard to tell. Clearly his abilities as a coach are top notch, but alone is he the GM we think he is? Probably.

[hoosier]

Re. the Patriots and their trajectory, the last couple of drafts have yielded several new potential superstars on defense (Mayo and McCourtney) as well as some productive players on offense (the two rookie TEs). Bellichick seems to be doing what is needed to renew their core talent. The proof will be in whether their older stars (Brady, Wilfork) can stay healthy. During the '10 regular season they certainly didn't look like a team in decline. Are their recent postseason struggles the result of declining talent or just a matter of bad luck?

[Brandon494]

Their postseason struggles to me point directly to their defense which was one of the worst last season. No offense to Fylnn but look what he did against them.