What the FUCK!!!!

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Sherman took chances in FA, sure. He also 'dismantled' the Pack as you are so fond of saying...

How is that?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Well just be glad Ted didn't listen to you and give $49M to the wrong Hutchinson. I think you meant Steve.

True. Still, thompson shouldve given $55 Mil to that Steve Hutchinson.

[MJZiggy]

Did he or did he not let Sharper go, who, by the way went on to a Pro-Bowl year for Minnesota and his replacement did not, in fact, make the Pro Bowl, so that makes Sherman just as culpable for that loss o performance as TT is for the loss of Wahle's performance. They're so they're even and you can no longer use the loss of Wahle to convince me of anything.

[Scott Campbell]

I think Tank is doing more for the Pro Thompson agenda than anyone here.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Did he or did he not let Sharper go, who, by the way went on to a Pro-Bowl year for Minnesota and his replacement did not, in fact, make the Pro Bowl, so that makes Sherman just as culpable for that loss o performance as TT is for the loss of Wahle's performance. They're so they're even and you can no longer use the loss of Wahle to convince me of anything.

Sharper was let go last year by no other than Mr. Polar Bear.

Sherman was the one who kept restructuring Sharpers contract so he could not only remain with GB but also help the team's finance. It might be understandable to let Sharper go if he was to count $21 Mil against the cap. Sharper did not count $21 Mil against the cap last year.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I think Tank is doing more for the Pro Thompson agenda than anyone here.

why that? because i mixed steve with chad?

[Joemailman]

I think Tank is doing more for the Pro Thompson agenda than anyone here.

Maybe Tank really is Thompson. By constantly "attacking" Thompson, he is trying to get people to rally behind Thompson.

[MJZiggy]

Did he or did he not let Sharper go, who, by the way went on to a Pro-Bowl year for Minnesota and his replacement did not, in fact, make the Pro Bowl, so that makes Sherman just as culpable for that loss o performance as TT is for the loss of Wahle's performance. They're so they're even and you can no longer use the loss of Wahle to convince me of anything.

Sharper was let go last year by no other than Mr. Polar Bear.

Sherman was the one who kept restructuring Sharpers contract so he could not only remain with GB but also help the team's finance. It might be understandable to let Sharper go if he was to count $21 Mil against the cap. Sharper did not count $21 Mil against the cap last year.

The Sharper fiasco is what got Mike Sherman fired as GM. If you will recall, Sherman tried to restructure the contract and Sharper wouldn't do it. Sherman couldn't get Sharper to take the pay cut. Sherman was worrying about what to do about Sharper instead of concentrating on upcoming playoff strategies to the point that he got fired.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Did he or did he not let Sharper go, who, by the way went on to a Pro-Bowl year for Minnesota and his replacement did not, in fact, make the Pro Bowl, so that makes Sherman just as culpable for that loss o performance as TT is for the loss of Wahle's performance. They're so they're even and you can no longer use the loss of Wahle to convince me of anything.

Sharper was let go last year by no other than Mr. Polar Bear.

Sherman was the one who kept restructuring Sharpers contract so he could not only remain with GB but also help the team's finance. It might be understandable to let Sharper go if he was to count $21 Mil against the cap. Sharper did not count $21 Mil against the cap last year.

The Sharper fiasco is what got Mike Sherman fired as GM. If you will recall, Sherman tried to restructure the contract and Sharper wouldn't do it. Sherman couldn't get Sharper to take the pay cut. Sherman was worrying about what to do about Sharper instead of concentrating on upcoming playoff strategies to the point that he got fired.

i dont mean to sound disrespectful, but as the thread title suggest, what the fuck? Show me the source of that. Sherman was not GM last year. Thompson is and the polar bear wanted sharper to take a pay cut, and thats why sharper bolted.

There is a hugh different between taking a paycut and restructuring your contract.

[MJZiggy]

Gimme a little while. I'll have to look it up again after dinner, but I warn you, it exists.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I think Tank is doing more for the Pro Thompson agenda than anyone here.

Maybe Tank really is Thompson. By constantly "attacking" Thompson, he is trying to get people to rally behind Thompson.

I'm not thompson, nor do i hate him personally. Football-wise I want him fired, or to resign before he put the Packers in more ruin.

[Scott Campbell]

why that? because i mixed steve with chad?

It seems more like you've mixed polar bear tranquilizers with alcohol.

[RashanGary]

Different things a GM can do that does not cost extra $$ but does improve the team:

1. Drafting the best possible player in your draft position *Example: if you pick 5th you will be paying the amount of $$ that is associated with the #5 draft slot in that years draft regardless of the players acctual production. If you select a star player you will pay him 4 mil per year. If you select a dud you will pay him 4 mil per year. By selecting a star you are getting good value for your $$. By selecting a dud you are still paying him but have to also pay another player to play the position he should be playing. Your team has less talent and less money for other talent because of this mistake ala Jamal Reynolds*

2. Consistantly over years drafting well. *By doing this your players develop a loyalty to the team that drafted them. They feel a sense of accomplishment and a sense of enjoyment for what they are contributing to. They feel appreciated because your team thought highly enough of them to pick them above all the other players available. It is just good on all levels. Because of this general feeling of good will players will often take fair contracts in order to build through the club who picked them. Also, tags such as Franchise and Transition can be used on star players to retain their services. There are also tenders that can be placed on young players who are exiting their rookie contracts. This allows you to keep your stars and good players without having to compete directly with other teams which would drive the prices up.

3. You do a great job evaluating the talent around the league and in other leagues or talent pools. When players get released or hit the market you are able to properly assess the players value and add young, cheap, effective talent to your roster. By filling a hole on your team with a good player who doesn't make big $$ you now have a hole filled and extra $$ to spend on your stars who you hopefully drafted earlier and now need to get paid.


The best teams do these things consistantly as well as take advantage of the FA market when players of value arise. Grady Jackson is an example of a good adition. Donald Lee is another example. High priced FA's who are unlikely to play to the level of their expected contracts like Joe Johnson are examples of how a team can get burned by taking a risk. If you make a mistake you are paying for a player and then have to also play for his replacement. It is the GM's job to calculate these risks and decide how much a player is worth. When deciding how much a player is worth a GM thinks about how good he is in relation to the rest of the league and projects his future value. If the value does not meet the price a good GM will let the player go and fill the hole using one of the alternate routes listed above. If you draft well consistantly and properly evaluate undrafted talent you won't have too many glaring holes so consistant good drafts is the main key to success.

Over the last 4 years preceding Thompson, Wolf and Sherman got 4 good players in 4 years of drafting. Carroll, Walker *who's leaving anyway*, Barnett and Kampman. Because of these horrible drafts the Packers have many glaring holes and in turn have a crappy team. You could minimize the bleeding today by filling the holes with over priced players but that would ultimately hurt the long term success of the team because those players are getting more than they are worth in relation to the league. The preferred option is to properly evaluate talent and draft well consistantly year after year. Keep yoru players to fair contracts like Wahle *was a mistake* and don't overspend on others. The reason I liek Thompson is because he beleives in building this way and I understand and agree with his direction. I do not know how he is going to do but based on his spoken direction I believe he will do well.

[pacfan]

No risk, no reward?

Arrington didn't want to play in Green Bay, period. He said that early on, but he needed a team with cap space to lure a better contract. He had zero intention of siging here. If his decision was based on Favre, then we are even better off w/o him here. Favre is done after next year, no matter what. then we are stuck with a mega-contract and mega-headache.

Owens, he would have been nice, but he already is ruffling feathers in Dallas. I don't think signing Owens would have put us over the top for SB 41.

Hutchinson, he would have been a nice signing. It would have been poetic since he was picked with the draft choice Wolf sent to SEA for Jamal Reynolds. But we don't need high-priced guards for the zone blocking scheme. Why spend big bucks when you don't have to?

Take a breath, tank, breath deep...I'm not done yet.

LeBently, I would have dropped some cash for him. The center is important in any blocking scheme and he would have been good for us. Young, healthy, etc... But if we are outbid, then we lose out. TT can't make them sign here.

The other part of the equation is, do they fit in here? Dropping big bucks on some 'big' names doesn't ensure that they will perform like they did. Arrington didn't fit the scheme and he paid Washington to leave. Peterson was a headache for SF. Woodson, he was a primadonna who forced the other coach to get canned (the wisconsin guy, before Turner-blanking on his name). Why inherit their problem?

but seriously......Mike Sherman?

and don't even try to say things were good with Sherman. How many trophys did he produce? I think he picked one pro-bowl player in his drafts. You are going to defend the guy that gave Cletidus his meal-ticket, Johnson his ganga, BJ a 300G sideline job. Trading UP to the third-round for a PUNTER!!! The man who gave us Bhwo Jue, Robert Ferguson OVER Chris Chambers. The guy had serious man-love for Tyrone Davis. He gave Wahle that silly backloaded contract that forced us to cut him.

4th and 1..... I...I need some air.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Different things a GM can do that does not cost extra $$ but does improve the team:

1. Drafting the best possible player in your draft position *Example: if you pick 5th you will be paying the amount of $$ that is associated with the #5 draft slot in that years draft regardless of the players acctual production. If you select a star player you will pay him 4 mil per year. If you select a dud you will pay him 4 mil per year. By selecting a star you are getting good value for your $$. By selecting a dud you are still paying him but have to also pay another player to play the position he should be playing. Your team has less talent and less money for other talent because of this mistake ala Jamal Reynolds*

2. Consistantly over years drafting well. *By doing this your players develop a loyalty to the team that drafted them. They feel a sense of accomplishment and a sense of enjoyment for what they are contributing to. They feel appreciated because your team thought highly enough of them to pick them above all the other players available. It is just good on all levels. Because of this general feeling of good will players will often take fair contracts in order to build through the club who picked them. Also, tags such as Franchise and Transition can be used on star players to retain their services. There are also tenders that can be placed on young players who are exiting their rookie contracts. This allows you to keep your stars and good players without having to compete directly with other teams which would drive the prices up.

3. You do a great job evaluating the talent around the league and in other leagues or talent pools. When players get released or hit the market you are able to properly assess the players value and add young, cheap, effective talent to your roster. By filling a hole on your team with a good player who doesn't make big $$ you now have a hole filled and extra $$ to spend on your stars who you hopefully drafted earlier and now need to get paid.


The best teams do these things consistantly as well as take advantage of the FA market when players of value arise. Grady Jackson is an example of a good adition. Donald Lee is another example. High priced FA's who are unlikely to play to the level of their expected contracts like Joe Johnson are examples of how a team can get burned by taking a risk. If you make a mistake you are paying for a player and then have to also play for his replacement. It is the GM's job to calculate these risks and decide how much a player is worth. When deciding how much a player is worth a GM thinks about how good he is in relation to the rest of the league and projects his future value. If the value does not meet the price a good GM will let the player go and fill the hole using one of the alternate routes listed above. If you draft well consistantly and properly evaluate undrafted talent you won't have too many glaring holes so consistant good drafts is the main key to success.

Over the last 4 years preceding Thompson, Wolf and Sherman got 4 good players in 4 years of drafting. Carroll, Walker *who's leaving anyway*, Barnett and Kampman. Because of these horrible drafts the Packers have many glaring holes and in turn have a crappy team. You could minimize the bleeding today by filling the holes with over priced players but that would ultimately hurt the long term success of the team because those players are getting more than they are worth in relation to the league. The preferred option is to properly evaluate talent and draft well consistantly year after year. Keep yoru players to fair contracts like Wahle *was a mistake* and don't overspend on others. The reason I liek Thompson is because he beleives in building this way and I understand and agree with his direction. I do not know how he is going to do but based on his spoken direction I believe he will do well.

What makes you think Thompson will draft "consistently" for the next 4 or 5 years? His first draft produced only 1 quality starter, Collins, and when you take into account the fact that he had 11 picks, it does not show any sign of consistency.

What are the odds of success here? A proven vet who is reaching his prime like Hutchinson or an unproven rookie like DBrickshaw Ferguson? We know that Hutchinson can play in the NFL; We know nothing about Ferguson. So if you are using a risk analysis, it would be wiser and less risky to sign Hutchinson, especially if you have $35 mil, then draft an unproven player like Ferguson. Ferguson could turn out to be a Pace, or he could turn out to be a Manderich. We dont know. But we do know Hutchinson is an all pro.

What makes you think Thompson is a great talent evaluator? This is the same Polar Bear who signed Arturo Freeman, Klemm, Navies, Thompson, Little and traded Johnson to the rams for Thomas. This is the same guy who released Wahle and Sharper. This is the same Polar Bear who, with $35 mil, passed up on Hutchinson, Arrington, Bentley, Peterson, Archulete, among others.

When you have $35 mil you can also afford to front load contracts to sign players who are near the end of their prime but are still productive like Woodson. Front loading contracts mean less cap hits in the latter years since most of the hits take place during the first couple of years when you have money. Thus, no cap hell.

In the NFL today, you can go 5-11 one season and the win the Super Bowl the next. That is, if you upgrade your team and keeps your core players intact. If Pack was going to rebuild, we need not rebuild until Favre retires. The team Sherman handed Thompson last year was a winner, with only a few more players away from being a contender. However, Thompson dismantled that very team. Now the Packers have more holes than before.

4-12 is the work of Thompson. Thompson is inconsistent, incompetent, incapable, inactive and a polar bear.