PI-CRISTL--Thompson has to try something brash at some point

[mraynrand]

Keith Jackson was (to me, at least, in hindsight) obvious. You knew exactly what he could do and how you would use him. He was hired to beat the Cowboys and Johnson's defense down the middle.

Which didn't really matter since they didn't beat the Cowboys during Jackson's tenure.

Oh so true. But I do remember during the first half of game 7 out of 26 in a row at Texas Stadium that Jackson was giving fits to the MLB (was it Strickland?) and SS. Loved it until we fell way behind on damn field goals.

Looked it up: Packers - Jackson 7-98 in that game.

Jackson got the ball that game because Brooks was out for the season, Freeman was out with a broken arm and Chmura was out with a arch problem. There was literally no one else to throw to. This doesn't diminish Jackson's impact (especially in 2005), but the reality is this: Wolf brought in Jackson because he screwed up the Jackie Harris situation. He blew a #2 pick on a guy that gave them 1.5 years and he's applauded for it because they won a superbowl. But he should have found a way to keep Harris, because he was at the top off his game, and had his most productive years after leaving Green Bay.

[Patler]

WCO - "any competent QB can do it well"????

Wow, are you out there on that one... Jeff Garcia can't lift his hands for all of the SB rings on them, right???

I want to win SB's, not just flounder around 9-7 for the next decade... to do that, utilizing the WCO, you have to - repeat, have to - have a HOF/All-pro QB.

The only QB to win a SB in the WCO that wasn't a HOF'er was Brad Johnson... but, of course, their offense really had nothing to do with winning that SB - they did it with defense. The best that could be said of Johnson in that situation is that he didn't screw it up.

In no way do I ever see the Packers having a strong enough defense to carry them to a SB - so that leaves us with the offense doing it... and trust me, they're not going to do it with just a "competent QB".

Sorry, but I think my position is entirely supportable... while yours is way out there - "any competent QB"???

Montana, Young, and Favre are the only QB's to win SB's in the WCO - were they just "competent"???

If you assume the defense will not be good, and the team will be successful only if the offense is dominating, then of course you need a very good QB.

MM has said his offense will be predicated on a successful running game (near 50% of the plays in his mind) and a ball control, short passing game. That does not require a HOF QB. It requires a controlled QB willing to take what is there and continually move the chains.

If you build a dominating defense and a controlled offense that uses the clock, does not make a lot of mistakes and scores a few poiints, you can be very successful. Of course, if you just dismiss the option of a strong defense, as you have, and base everything on offense, the Packers are incapable of winning a SB even with Favre. He can not carry this team anymore. He is still good, but not dominating anymore. Favre's ability to carry the team ended about 3 years ago. DOesn't mean he isn't an important part of the team, but to really challenge in the playoffs, the strength of this team has to be elsewhere.

[the_idle_threat]

Keith Jackson was (to me, at least, in hindsight) obvious. You knew exactly what he could do and how you would use him. He was hired to beat the Cowboys and Johnson's defense down the middle.

Which didn't really matter since they didn't beat the Cowboys during Jackson's tenure.

Oh so true. But I do remember during the first half of game 7 out of 26 in a row at Texas Stadium that Jackson was giving fits to the MLB (was it Strickland?) and SS. Loved it until we fell way behind on damn field goals.

Looked it up: Packers - Jackson 7-98 in that game.

Jackson got the ball that game because Brooks was out for the season, Freeman was out with a broken arm and Chmura was out with a arch problem. There was literally no one else to throw to. This doesn't diminish Jackson's impact (especially in 2005), but the reality is this: Wolf brought in Jackson because he screwed up the Jackie Harris situation. He blew a #2 pick on a guy that gave them 1.5 years and he's applauded for it because they won a superbowl. But he should have found a way to keep Harris, because he was at the top off his game, and had his most productive years after leaving Green Bay.

Not really, man. Harris is a great poster child for the dangers of free agency. He had 2 very good years with the Packers in '92 and '93, and one good year with Tampa Bay in '95. Those were the best years of his career. He had some injury-marred years (e.g. '94, '96, '97, '99) and he generally wasn't as productive after he left.

Still, the Packers did try to keep him, naming him their transition player after the '93 season. They simply failed to match Tampa Bay's high offer. I seem to recall that he wanted out of Green Bay too, because he wanted to play in warmer weather. (I know this was the case with Jackson, but I think Harris expressed similar sentiment upon leaving for Tampa Bay.)

Packers dodged a bullet if you ask me, since Chmura turned out OK and Jackson was a decent pickup, if perhaps overpriced at the cost of a 2nd-round pick.

Source: http://archive.sportingnews.com/nfl/...859/stats.html

[Patler]

Harris put up good numbers when he was healthy through out his career. But he always seemed to be banged up after he left GB, even some while he was still in GB.

Definately had the ability for a better career than what he had. Losing him seemed bad at the time, but in the long run was proably for the best.

Now losing Paup, Timmerman, Hentrich; not so good. They managed to overcome the loss of Timmerman with the likes of Rivera and Wahle, but he was a young guy at the time with a very long, very productive career ahead of him.

[wist43]

Patler,

I guess it's possible that the Packers could have a dominant defense running the system they have - but, just as it's a long shot to make it to the SB w/o an All-pro at QB given the offensive system they run - I think it is equally unlikely that they could have a dominant defense b/c the scheme they run calls for dominant DE's. And Reggie White type DE's are just as hard to come by as franchise QB's.

What are the odds of landing players with that kind of talent??? I would much rather use scheme to generate pressure.

The number one prerequisite for a defense to be dominant is pressure... given the system the Packers run, the only way they can generate consistent pressure is if they had a DL similar to the one they had in the SB years.

Kampman is a nice player, but he's never going to strike fear in an opposition... overall, the Packers DL is decent - above average I would argue - but, are they dominant??? Of course not.

So, to be a dominant unit they would have to augment their good DL with the blitz - which, of course, is not a staple of the scheme. Not only is not a integral part of the scheme, the scheme itself calls for different types of players in the back seven, i.e. coverage, pursuit, tackle LB's and safeties... so by the nature of the scheme, blitzing is never going to be a strength of any of the players in the back seven.

So no, I think it is just as much of a long shot that the defense can be a dominant unit, as the idea that a medicore QB could lead us to a SB.

The defense can be good, the offense can be good... but, can either one of them be exceptional, to the point of bringing the Lombardi Trophy home??? I seriously doubt it... not unless we hit the jackpot more than once, i.e. find a Reggie White on defense, and Joe Montana/Brett Favre/Tom Brady on offense.

The odds of those things happening are long indeed... and that's why I've argued that different philosophies and schemes should be in place. I think we're set up to be one of those 9-7 to 10-6 teams that really never has a chance to win it all. And in my view, it's about championships, not just being competitive.

[Patler]

I was surprised at the pressure generated by the line last year. Jenkins when healthy and Williams were a bit better than I expected them to be, and Kampman was quite a bit better than I expected against the pass. This line would look completely different with one of the better DTs. Its a good line now, but a Tommie Harris, Kevin Williams type player would put a whole new complexion on the line. Sometimes you can get lucky and get a DT that performs like that for a few year, even if he doesn't make a career out of it.

[mraynrand]

Jackie Harris' stats
Year team G recpt yards av TD
| 1990 gnb | 16 | 12 157 13.1 0 |
| 1991 gnb | 16 | 24 264 11.0 3 |
| 1992 gnb | 16 | 55 595 10.8 2 |
| 1993 gnb | 12 | 42 604 14.4 4 |
| 1994 tam | 9 | 26 337 13.0 3 |
| 1995 tam | 16 | 62 751 12.1 1 |
| 1996 tam | 13 | 30 349 11.6 1 |
| 1997 tam | 12 | 19 197 10.4 1 |
| 1998 ten | 16 | 43 412 9.6 2 |
| 1999 ten | 12 | 26 297 11.4 1 |
| 2000 dal | 16 | 39 306 7.8 5 |
| 2001 dal | 13 | 15 141 9.4 2 |


here are the numbers for Harris INjuries aside (who knows if he would have been healthy with GB), he had 5 years more following Jackson's retirement. You can judge whether he was more productive or not, and also guess whether he would have been more productive in the Packer offense 95-97 than with TB (during Favre's three MVP years), TN, or Dallas.
The pont about Wolf is that he used a #2 pick on a guy who effectively played 1.5 years. That seems like a poor return to me EXCEPT I acknowledge that you can ignore moves like that if you win the Superbowl.