One Exec "Packers Have Much Work To Do"

[Patler]

I wouldn't argue with it either. But it's fluid, and Tramon might have even showed up on it last year.

Yup, and by next year, Williams might be back on it if he has a rebound year, and Raji could drop off it if 2010 starts looking like the odd year, because his play in 2012 has looked more like 2011 (or 2009, for that matter).

[pbmax]

Can't argue with that list based on the roster today.

Oh, come on, sure you can! Its just a list! Attack the order its in

[swede]

I like that Raji and Matthews arrived in the same draft. Championship teams need a little draft day magic.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Yup, and by next year, Williams might be back on it if he has a rebound year, and Raji could drop off it if 2010 starts looking like the odd year, because his play in 2012 has looked more like 2011 (or 2009, for that matter).

I actually hesitated to include Raji, but guys like him are hard to find. When he plays well, it makes a huge difference for our defense. Really, I think Rodgers, Matthews, and Jennings are the top three--with the list being fluid for other guys (including Tramon, Sitton, Bulaga, Finley, etc.). I think Jennings importance is a bit underrated because people just expect Rodgers would overcome the loss of Jennings, but I don't think it would be that easy.

[woodbuck27]

Of course it is news to you, you have decided to have an argument based on a single statistic (last year's Pass D) and one cause (front seven QB pressure) of that stat. By that measure, the Packers have the worst Defense of all time (I think by one yard over the Patriots of '11). So to you, it is some kind of magic or statistical fluke that the Defense actually conceded the 19th most points in the League.

comment woodbuck27:

We were not last on 'D' in terms of the number of points allowed. The concern I have is in terms of our performance RE: 'pass rush' and how that has caused our 'D' to fall out of the upper echelon of NFL defenses in the 2009-10 seasons to where we found it last season.

Rank it in your own terms and was that decent? The obvious response is ...NO!

By your own statistic (points allowed) our 'D' ranked in the lower part of the second tier of NFL teams. @ 19th. Not good !
************************************************** ************************************************** *******

The obvious answer to your question is Raji, Pickett, Hawk and Matthews. And that, as was the point of the prior posts, is just the first rounders. Bishop can clearly play as well.

comment woodbuck27: I'm one of the Packer fans that isn't 'on' with AJ Hawk's play. He's not effective in pass coverage and that takes away from the fact he is one of the most consistent tacklers on our 'D'. Last seasonn one of the BIG concerns was that TT was on the hook for his CAP space and that wasn't considered a valued return for his play.

************************************************** ************************************************** ***

If you think the Giants game turned on the performance of the defense, then you have not absorbed the actual evidence of that game.

Comment woodbuck27:

We lost that game to the GIANTS because our offense sputtered BIG TIME. Where have ypu read a post from me that blames that loss tothe New York GIANTS on our 'D". Look and you'll look a long time as I recall my position on that.

************************************************** ************************************************** **

And, no, as has been discussed quite at length in dozens of posts, the worst defense moniker, when measured by total yards, is a horrible way to measure defensive success. So I do not think the Packers had the worst defense in the league. As for changing the water on the beans, see the next answer.


comment woodbuck27: Have your own way in regards to the debate pbmax. I'm not in any way even arguing the issue here in terms of Ted Thompson and his drafting skills in terms of our defenses performance.Ted Thompson cannot have any control over player injuries or character or NFL penalty issues. Has he drafted decently on the defensive side of the ball. He clearly has had far more success on the offensive side of the ball.

He didn't draft Ryan Pickett. He came to us as a FA. Even if I give you AJ Hawk and BJ Raji. Questionable at best as our roster now stands. He has contributed three quality defensive players to our starting 'D's' front seven.

************************************************** ************************************************** *******

Of course not. But that is the way the playoffs go these days. The best regular season team is not winning as often as 6th seeds. The Giants have done it twice, the Packers once plus the Steelers. That's four times in a decade. Twice in the last two years. You cannot credit the Giants success without acknowledging the similarities between the two teams.

And by the way, the problem the Packer had in the Lion game was not the defense.

comment woodbuck27: If you say so I would agree. I never ever said that we lost that regular season game in our Super Bowl championship Season because of a bad or worse 'D'. Did I!?

************************************************** **********************************************

Meaning that the entire point of this wist inspired tangent, that somehow Thompson has twice put together the talent for a top ten defense for Capers, yet does not know what he is doing, is limited in its scope to one year and a handful of games. And it is also where you and wist part ways. You think Thompson and the team's success was an anomaly in 2010 despite the Super Bowl, and that 2011 is the better measure.

Your differing standards of evidence depending on which side of the argument you occupy is interesting. Apparently, the Favre drama, the 2011 Giants playoff game and the Lions game of 2010 offer compelling evidence of Thompson's flaws.


Comment woodbuck: Be fair man. I do not in anyway refer to such in terms of any Ted Thompson flaws. See below a) to d).

a) I DO NOT bring anything Favre into it. Absoluteluy NOT !! What's with that accusatory stance pbmax?

b) I do not bring the NY GIANTS game into it. I really felt our team would lose to the GIANTS. Would you have bet your life on the Packers to defeat the GIANTS in that playoff game? Do so given the state of our 'D' in terms of a pass defense? I think not pbmax. Your way too smart.

In any case. I certainly wouldn't have.

But the Super Bowl win was a fluke ....pbmax

c) Find the post where I write that our Super Bowl win was ' fluke'. Good luck with that pbmax. I do not consider that Championship..'a FLUKE". Come on !! Where is all this coming from?

as are the most regular season victories and Rodgers presence on the team. . . . . pbmax

WOW ! 'D' man. . . . . . . Recall our 'D' pbmax?? It was lousy !! It sucked !!

Without the exceedingly awesome talent of Aaron Rodgers and our total offense we wouldn't have enjoyed a 15 win regular season


d) wist has a tenable position in the lack of D line roster success. Your position that Thompson is failing is not serious.

My position is certianly just this:

I agree with wist43.

Where do I post that Ted Thompson is failing? In this past season find the post pbmax. Fill your boots.

I'm full on with Ted Thompson. My position on Ted Thompson is clearly one of sincere support. Your possibly?... giving over the top too much acknowledgement to member Scott Campbell.

If so that should seriously concern you as a respected member here.

I'm disappointed at the tone of your post to me.

I've defended my position on all accounts.

Are you like member Scott Campbell and next going to try to make a claim that I hate Ted Thompson?

If you go there your mistaken. If you go there your seriously wasting your time....... like the man that comes into a conversation 'about another man' that ***you do not know and as they go out to lynch that man ... without consideration for your ignorance ...YOU troop right along with them.

** pbmax...You should certainly know that:

I'm over any bad feeling RE: Ted Thompson. I never hated Ted Thompson.

The person that claims that I do is simply put... 'out to lunch'. That's the person you are warned to most suspect is 'all about hatred'. That person if I'm correct is a certain hate mongerer. Is that person dangerous?

My feeling is NO! That person is 'just' simple. That person 'just' is so much 'in need of attention'. That person 'suffers greatly' for that need.

I do not post hatred. I fight those that do. I DO NOT HATE !

Have a lovely evening pbmax.

ohh ever see this before from me? Look innmediately below. If I didn't support our teams GM I wouldn't write it. I'm as straight up as it gets.

GO Ted Thompson! >>> GO PACK GO !

[pbmax]

OK pbmax I'm back. We suffered some on and off power failures where I'm at and those lasted up to 5-6 hours. I have other things to do in terms of analysis and matters here but I'll re-enter the discussion.

Have I entered the Packerrats 'twilight zone'?

I read the **last two parts of Jason Wilde's article and it does little NOT to support wist43.

** PACKERS PERSPECTIVE... Position analysis and Draft strategy:

Are there actually any Packerrats that don't agree with wist43? I mean get REAL please. wist43's position has been over the top substantiated...proven valid. Anybody here that has taken a stance Vs his is frankly deluded and that cannot be the case. Last or worst in the NFL is clearly not good.

Our defense certainly is coyote UGLY. Really really bad ! wist43 certainly informs us why that is 'a fact'.

wist43 doesn't attack the distinguished Ted Thompson in his analysis. So y'all can relax on that front. Maybe realize that Ted Thompson is like us all. He sinks when trying to walk on water.

Any analysis of TT's performance RE: drafting on 'D' has to unfortunately give TT a failing grade as an evaluator and selector of defensive prospects in the draft. Can anyone not see that's the case? If you don't just a suggestion.

Wood, I have to get a little pedantic here and I apologize. But we have strayed far afield and I need to give you the context of my critique of wist's critique of both the defense and of Thompson. Otherwise, we will be arguing about things we actually agree on.

Over time, wist has maintained a severe displeasure with the Packers defense. From coordinator to style, static to multiple, aggressive to passive, from drafting to coaching, wist has had an issue with the Packers Defense that is as deep as it is wide. That is not to say he has disliked everyone or everything, but if wist was a Securities Rating Agency like Standard and Poor, he would rate the Packers Defense of the last 20 years a CCC [Currently vulnerable and dependent on favorable business, financial and economic conditions to meet financial commitments.] wist should of course be the final arbiter of his own opinions, so he may disagree with my summation.

1. wist has maintained that Dom Capers, despite his resume, is too cautious and not aggressive enough when terms of the battle are against him.
2. wist has maintained that the Packers have an inability to draft for defense. That inability predates Ron Wolf's ascendency to the position of GM. If I recall correctly, he was concerned about Packer drafts for D during the Tom Braatz administration, if not earlier.
3. wist maintains that Packer scouts, in addition to front office types, have repeated demonstrated the inability to correctly evaluate and select effective defenders in the line, linebackers and secondary positions.
4. wist maintains that Thompson is too favorably disposed to drafting offensive talent over defensive talent. That he relies on a slew of 7th round picks to pretend he has addressed Defensive needs.
5. wist maintains that Thompson's philosophy of drafting the "BPA" means that defensive needs will go unmet since Thompson's preference for offensive performers will often leave him with a player on Offense rated higher than a player on Defense
6. wist has maintained that the Packers Super Bowl win was largely a happy coincidence
7. wist has maintained that the Packers performance last year on defense was terrible
8. wist has maintained that in the Packers front 7, only 2 front line starters are available

In this thread, wist has mentioned numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. And there was an oblique reference to number 3.

I think that it is self evident that in maintaining contentions 4, 5 and 6, wist is indeed denigrating Thompson. You may not consider this an attack. But as this thread is about the job the Packers personnel department has in front of it, I don't see how one can maintain Thompson is incapable of fixing his teams deficiencies and not construe the sum of the posts as less than an attack on the GMs ability to do his job. Hoping that the GM will suddenly see the error of his ways and heed the advice of message board posters is, if you think about it, a pretty damning conclusion.

If one were to focus solely on items 4 and 5, one could see that past evidence suggests that any differentiation in selecting O talent versus D talent is minimal at its worst.

If one were to focus solely on item 6, then one would be whistling past the graveyard about Packer defensive performance and talent.

But perhaps most importantly for the conversation that you and I are having woodbuck, if one were to focus solely on item 7 then one would see that the entire PackerRats community is in agreement.

[George Cumby]

This has been wist's point for a while. In fact, prior to this thread, wist felt the entire Packer org going back to Wolf has not drafted well for defense. He seems to have exempted the DBs in this thread.

But there is another contention in this thread, that Thompson actively ignores defense with his top picks and only seeks top talent on offense. Its demonstrably false, but that hasn't stopped the claim from being made.

There is an issue with Thompson and any one specific area of need. With his philosophy, an under performing unit will take time to remake since he tends not to draft for need. Something like this happened on the O line, which solved with time and a number of picks over 4 years (Sitton, Lang, Bulaga). Filling holes on the DL might take time, though unlike the O line, a single position, RDE, would do wonders for the unit.

Gotcha'. Thanks.

But again, had one fo the three horsemen of DL-Dysfunction panned out, Harrell, Jolly or Neal, we probably aren't talking about the front 7 being so dismal....

[Guiness]

There were some earlier mentions of Brandon Marshall as a top receiver...

Can I assume that was tongue in cheek? A top 5, or a top 10 receiver with 2 years left on his contract, does not get traded for a pair of 3rd round picks.

[Scott Campbell]

There were some earlier mentions of Brandon Marshall as a top receiver...

Can I assume that was tongue in cheek? A top 5, or a top 10 receiver with 2 years left on his contract, does not get traded for a pair of 3rd round picks.

Unless he has a lot of baggage.

He was 10th in the NFL - with Chad Henne and Matt Moore throwing to him.

[Guiness]

Unless he has a lot of baggage.

He was 10th in the NFL - with Chad Henne and Matt Moore throwing to him.

These are certainly exhibit 1a and 1b for him. Which carries more weight? I guess we know which does in Miami's eyes, but that franchise hasn't been a shinning example of good management, so *shrug*

[pbmax]

** Here's the crux of my position, pbmax.

Going back to the Detroit Lions regular season game in the latter portion of the 2010 season. Do you recall how you felt after that game? Do you recall the condition of our team in regards to the condition of adversity it was in? We're you totally confident that we were then playoff bound? Moreso bound to do as well as we did in the playoffs?

After that Detroit lions game were you sure that theb Green Bay Packers were going to that Super Bowl and actually become Super bowl Champs?

If you were confident after that Detroit Lions game? Please publish something for all of us to learn from.

Maybe if that was the case or your certain confidence? You might consider opening an NFL Psychic Hotline. I would certainly recommend you.

I won't compare that Packer playoff run and eventual Super Bowl Victory to 'the Miracle On Ice'. In many ways it's just too bizarre how we were able to accomplish all we did in 2010, given the circumstances. It had alot to do with a solid offense coming to full maturity and a locker room full of Packers that somehow played out of their minds - over their heads.

We may have won the SB, and the defense may have gotten away with gimmickry for a time, but I could certainly tell it was all smoke, mirrors, and guys playing way over their heads. I could clearly see the Packers had serious deficiencies in their front seven. Capers gimmicks could hold down the fort for only so long b/4 offenses caught up to it, and exposed our lack of talent.

That's what I clearly saw last offseason - winning the SB notwithstanding.

Winning the '10 SB was nothing short of stars aligning. ARod went into "beast mode"; the secondary played lights out; and teams hadn't caught up to Capers' 'Raji-10' defense yet... plus of course we still had Jenkins. His value, now that he's gone, should be obvious to everyone.

"bizarre", related in an unknown way to "Miracle on Ice", gimmicky defense with smoke and mirrors, guys playing over their heads, stars aligning and Rodgers Beast mode.

Yes, I think the thrust of these comments are people who seem to be saying that the Packers Super Bowl success cannot be repeated using the same techniques that got them there. Which I believe is the definition of "fluke". Also funny that no one mentions the talent that was missing on both sides of the ball due to injuries during that Super Bowl run. Because I think that is a testimony to Thompson's approach, not an exception to prove the rule.

[woodbuck27]

What is 'it'? Why is 'C' clearly defined? By whom? Is it really "clearly defined" when two fans disagree on the definition?

OK ....I'll try an example:

A = OUR NT is handled by just one opposition OLman

Resulting in:

B = The Opposition's Guards are free to pull through the trench or '3 man front' to lay out blocks on OUR OLman

Resulting in:

C = Creates deeper inside 'running lanes' with blocks on our OLman or lanes for greater ground gains Vs us.

[Scott Campbell]

I do not post hatred.

Yes you do.

I fight those that do.

Whining isn't the same thing as fighting.

I DO NOT HATE !

Sorry - not buying it. Or any of your other ridiculous claims - regardless of font size or color.

[sharpe1027]

OK ....I'll try an example:

A = OUR NT is handled by just one opposition OLman

Resulting in:

B = Oppositions Guards are free to pull through the trench or '3 man front' to lay out blocks on OUR OLman

Resulting in:

C = Creates deeper inside running lanes with blocks on our OLman

I might use other examples but in each case

And this relates to this thread how exactly?

[woodbuck27]

And this relates to this thread how exactly?

Dear GOD... Help us all.

You cannot be serious?