Cliff's article; 9-26-06; No one scapegoat...

[woodbuck27]

There is so much I disagree with in that article, I don't even know where to begin.

Get busy MJ.

I really am interested in exactly what your criticisms will be? Seriously, enlighten us with your insight. Please.

GO PACK GO ! FAITH Vs. "the Eagles" calls for an excellent game plan.

[SudsMcBucky]

Of course that is full of "if's", but so is his entire article.

We call all play the "what if" game. Let me try. What if the Pack had lost 2 more games last year? We could have gotten Reggie Bush. What if we don't win any more games this year? We could get Calvin Johnson. What if we were able to hold on 4th and 26? We could have won another SB. What if Sherman went for it on 4th and 1? We might not have seen 4th and 26! What if the Packers change their "G" logo? A lot of people might be hospitalized.

There, that was fun.

[Bretsky]

Of course that is full of "if's", but so is his entire article.

We call all play the "what if" game. Let me try. What if the Pack had lost 2 more games last year? We could have gotten Reggie Bush. What if we don't win any more games this year? We could get Calvin Johnson. What if we were able to hold on 4th and 26? We could have won another SB. What if Sherman went for it on 4th and 1? We might not have seen 4th and 26! What if the Packers change their "G" logo? A lot of people might be hospitalized.

There, that was fun.

Now that was painful to read; I've blacked out much of that from my memory

[RashanGary]

Fair artical IMO...

I don't think Sherman did a very good job but then again, he always drafted late and hit big on his highest *low* picks. Even Carroll might be a good starter at a hard position. I like his toughness alot and Kampman is one of the Packers most dominate players.

This artical was written with a similar perspective to most of his work IMO. He is taking a (what has happened so far) approach. He's not projecting the future. He's not looking at what could happen but rather what has happened. If I had to use one sentence to sum up what Christl was trying to convey in this artical I would say "How the Packers went from 13 winning seasons to one of the worst in franchise history". I think he did a pretty good job relaying the past in relation to todays success without any real agenda and really found some gray area between the extremests here; TT lovers *Me, Shadow and others* and Sherm lovers *Retail Guy, Tank and others*. I think his discription has been better than most of ours, more complete and of course better organized.

There was a little issue with the depth of the team heading into last off season. He placed that squarely on Shermans shoulders but also looked at it in the context of where he was drafting. I think that is a pretty fair analysis of what happened over Shermans years and why losing 4 starters hurt so badly. NE lost a bunch and they are still competitive.

Thompson came in with his "big picture" approach. When speaking of managing a roster, big picture is just another way of saying "'m focused on winning the most games over the long haul" Sherman had the attitude of "I'm looking to win the most game right now" Both seem pretty extreme in polar opposite directions. I don't know that any GM traded as many picks away as Sherman did during his years and I don't know that many gave up as many guys who can play now or traded down as TT has during the last 2 years.

Christl tied together how Shermans *not all his fault, he had bad draft position* actions effected the depth and how Thompsons lack of regard for today effected the record and current state of the GB Packers. As far as describing what has happened up to this point, he did a better job than most and also left out pretty much any personal opinions or agendas. I guess his playmaker theory is kind of an agenda or belief but I believe in it so I can't call it a problem. I just think it's good understanding of sports.

As far as I'm concerned, I will judge Thompson over the long haul. Sherman made some good choices but he made more bad IMO. Thompson came in with a polar opposite attidude and he just let all the short term prospects go while Sherman held on to them for his dear life. It was a very harsh transition and had we known Thompsons intentions from teh start, it could have been predicted or expected. Now, we let Thompson live out his tenure and in 3 or 4 years Cliff will write something about where the Packers are then. What will be included in that story? I as a cocky fan have my thoughts and I see a good future. But I respect Cliffs approach hsi ability to not project any hopes, disappointments or agendas in his writing.

He did a good job of telling us what happened and because he knows his limits, he didn't even touch on where we're going.

[run pMc]

Thompson traded Walker for a second-round draft pick. He parlayed that choice into five picks. Those players turned out to be Daryn Colledge, Will Blackmon, Ingle Martin, Johnny Jolly and Tyrone Culver.

Does anybody believe that it will ever turn out to be an even exchange?

Tough to gauge, since they all play different positions. If half of these draft picks pan out into starters or quality backups, it's not a bad deal. Think about MIN getting a #2 for Culfumbler, and TT's deal looks pretty good.

The intent here isn't to blame only Thompson for the current state of the Packers. Or to even second-guess him for the trade. The circumstances involving the Walker mess might have been largely unavoidable and, in the end, trading him might have been the Packers' only recourse.

He should remember that when he starts whining about no JWalk.

Sherman was at least partly responsible for the erosion of the Packers' infrastructure. And as a result, they are not only short on playmakers, but also solid starters.

Exactly. If we had more depth, GB wouldn't have fallen quite so far last year and be looking at such a big rebuild job. Also, having better talent might have given GB better leverage dealing with JWalk.

Short-term, it's a real shame he was traded...he's a playmaker. Between his age, injury, attitude, and salary demands, it might not have been in the best long-term interests to keep him. The money he wanted could be used to sign or lock-up some other players.

The JWalker trade was as much about rebuilding roster depth and managing the salary cap as it was maintaining good chemistry on a young team.

[run pMc]

As far as the rest of Cliff's comments, some are on & some aren't...typical CC. Comparing Sherman to Shanahan & Belichick is interesting.

Shanahan has made a lot of bad draft picks (Marcus Nash, Willie Middlebrooks, Ashley Lelie, Maurice Clarett), had a few good picks (Al Wilson, DJ Williams, last year's DB's), and in between has benefited from a better defense and (last year) a very good year by Plummer and far less injuries than GB had to suffer through.

I didn't think Belichick did the drafting...I though Scott Pioli did. Anyway, the sportwriters have been falling over themselves for years, complimenting his genius & his ability to 'coach up' street players.

Given the choice, who would you pick as the best coach of the 3? I don't think many people would pick Sherman.

[prsnfoto]

Re: Fact

Ir-regardless of personel feelings, the fact is the Packers would be a better team right now with Walker. Anyone who denies that is totally football ignorant. TT blew this one big time and the FACTS speak for themselves. Walker made Denver a better team and that's a FACT!

Just like the eagles were a awesome team with Owens on their roster didn't they win five SB in a row with him? All you need to know about Chrissy's credibility is that he thinks Barnett is the best defensive player what a moron the way he is playing he is maybe the 5th best player. Bottom line Walker is gone Jennings looks good and asshole walker was good only one out of 5 years Jennings will surpass that in 2.