WOW! Bust out your hip waders!!!!!

[Scott Campbell]

Perhaps to feel more welcome a newer poster shouldn't come on and

.. call other posters "LAAMMMMMEE"
refer to anyone with an opposite opinion as "a delusional half witted idiot"

Just a thought!

ROFL

Poor Noob.

[Scott Campbell]

That said, I think there should be consideration just so we can have a welcoming forum to newbs. AFter 100 posts you're fair game though That's just my opinion

Kind of like the Noob Protection Act?

I dunno. I think ideas should stand on their own merit, regardless of the perceived pedigree of the poster - or lack therof.

[mraynrand]

His record as a GM was woeful.

.667 winning percentage regular season, three straight division championships, 3 straight playoff appearances (1-3 post season), two pro bowl draft picks - this is woeful?

[mraynrand]

Re: Sherman

Sherman benefitted immensely from playing 6 games each year against Chicago, MN and Detroit. None of them had a winning record during the Sherman years.

You forgot 2000, when the Packers not only went into Minnesota and beat them, but Holliday injured Culpepper, which effectively doomed MNs chances in the NFC Championship game. Wouldn't you say it was tough for GB to beat even relatively poor MN teams in MN? Yet Sherman won there multiple times. The Packers also beat Tampa in 2000. You also forgot 2001 - Chicago was 13-3 (technically, that counts as a winning record) - and GB beat them twice that year. GB under Sherman was 9-7, 12-4, 12-4, 10-6 (before Thompson). OK, perhaps all the 43 wins were against weak teams and all 21 losses were to good teams, but Sherman was able to beat the defending Superbowl champ 3 years in a row. GB suffered dismal losses to St. Louis and Atlanta, but injuries were a huge factor in 2002 (9 starters lost to injury). circumstances do count.

I have to wonder about your perspective if you can so easily forget the 2000 Vikings, the 2001 Bears, and the intense rivalry and difficulty of winning in Minnesota.

Most teams with 10-6, 11-5, 12-4 records get there by more often than not beating the weaker teams, and losing on the road and to the better teams.

[SD GB fan]

His record as a GM was woeful.

.667 winning percentage regular season, three straight division championships, 3 straight playoff appearances (1-3 post season), two pro bowl draft picks - this is woeful?

the two pro bowl picks is sherman's work as a GM. the other part is mostly coaching and having a solid team. brett favre and ahman green were younger then and we had a working oline. woeful was sherman's efforts to p maintain its future talent. when TT took over, the depth at each position was horrible as seen by the 4-12 season when injury hit the team hard.

[Patler]

Re: Sherman

Sherman benefitted immensely from playing 6 games each year against Chicago, MN and Detroit. None of them had a winning record during the Sherman years.

You forgot 2000, when the Packers not only went into Minnesota and beat them, but Holliday injured Culpepper, which effectively doomed MNs chances in the NFC Championship game. Wouldn't you say it was tough for GB to beat even relatively poor MN teams in MN? Yet Sherman won there multiple times. The Packers also beat Tampa in 2000. You also forgot 2001 - Chicago was 13-3 (technically, that counts as a winning record) - and GB beat them twice that year. GB under Sherman was 9-7, 12-4, 12-4, 10-6 (before Thompson). OK, perhaps all the 43 wins were against weak teams and all 21 losses were to good teams, but Sherman was able to beat the defending Superbowl champ 3 years in a row. GB suffered dismal losses to St. Louis and Atlanta, but injuries were a huge factor in 2002 (9 starters lost to injury). circumstances do count.

I have to wonder about your perspective if you can so easily forget the 2000 Vikings, the 2001 Bears, and the intense rivalry and difficulty of winning in Minnesota.

Most teams with 10-6, 11-5, 12-4 records get there by more often than not beating the weaker teams, and losing on the road and to the better teams.

No, I did not forget those seasons, and I was not referring to specific games or specific seasons. What I meant was that cummulatively over the span of the Sherman coaching years each Detroit, MN and Chicago did not have winning records. I did not mean they had losing records every single season. Heck, even Detroit had a winning record in 2000. In the six Sherman seasons, MN was 48-48, in spite of being 11-5 in 2000. Chicago was 45-51 even with being 13-3 in 2001 and 11-5 in 2005. Detroit was 30-66. Overall, during the 6 seasons, they were not very good teams

I have to wonder about your perspective if you can not comprehend that from 2000 to 2004, when Sherman was winning all those games, he had very little competition from his own division. I am surprised that you seemingly can not understand that with six games each year in a weak division, plus a few others against weak teams outside of the division, getting to 8-8 was not a huge challenge. Contrast that with a team that wins a division that has 2 or 3 strong teams. My point is that while Sherman's teams may have had won loss records among the best in the league, realistically they were not as good as teams with worse records that won divisions that were strong.

Check Sherman's record against teams that had winning records. He started out OK, but got worse with each season, indicating that the team was decliining relative to the rest of the league, inspite of their final record. His performance in the playoffs supports that as well.

[Patler]

In 2004, GB finished at 10-6. They did not beat a single team with a winning record. Not one. They barely squeaked by MN twice, Detroit once and Houston once. Those were not good teams, and the Packers could have just as easily been 5-11. Three of their losses were to Chicago (5-11) the Giants (6-10) and TN (5-11). If the Packers were really any good that year, they would have one at least a couple of those. They also lost to Jacksonville, who was just 9-7. The only decent teams GB playeed that year were Indy (12-4) and Philly (13-3)

2004 was a warning for what was to happen in 2005 when things did not fall their way, such as losing twice to MN on fieldgoals instead of winning twice on fieldgoals, etc.

[PackerBlues]

I

2004 was a warning for what was to happen in 2005 when things did not fall their way, such as losing twice to MN on fieldgoals instead of winning twice on fieldgoals, etc.

IN 2004:
One year after erasing the franchise rushing record, most of the same personnel established the team marks for total offense and net passing. The season's peak came on Christmas Eve in Minnesota, when the team captured the division title with a 34-31 win over the Vikings. However, just two weeks later the same Vikings avenged the loss with a 31-17 win in a Wild Card playoff at Lambeau Field.

taken from http://www.packers.com/history/birth...end/#chapter13

Yeah, that hurt. Very painful ending.

By the way Patler, why is it that when you call me out....

Perhaps to feel more welcome a newer poster shouldn't come on and

.. call other posters "LAAMMMMMEE"
refer to anyone with an opposite opinion as "a delusional half witted idiot"

Just a thought!

I actually feel bad about it? (The roster WAS decimated though. )

Its probably because all that time I was reading other peoples posts and not posting anything myself.......I always enjoyed reading yours. You kind of come off as the kind of guy who wouldnt say something unless he believed it and was sure he could back it up. Not to mention, I dont think you ever called anyone an idiot or lame, lol.

So, I am sorry that I referred to the people that refused to take note of the decimated roster in 2004 as "delusional, half-witted idiots". Or "Lame". I promise that I will hardly ever do it again. (Never is a long time dude, I dont think I could have went that long, and I didnt wanna lie to ya.)

[Fritz]

Ted's first first round pick for the Packers: Aaron Rogers. TT's way of saying "Hey Brett, I want you gone, and I am not going to do anything to help this offense."

Teds third first round pick for the Packers: Justin Harrell. Another "safe" pick? Not exactly......a little injury history here. Was there another "silent message" sent to Favre? I think so.

Those are two absurd and ridiculous comments.

PackerBlues, you do realize that you are suggesting that an NFL general manager has been deliberately undermining his own team by choosing players that would encourage a hall-of-fame quarterback to retire, right?

Listen, I am happy to go back and forth about draft picks, free agents (or lack thereof), Shermy vs. TT, and on and on. Heck, I'm not too sure about the Harrell pick myself - I'm concerned that this guy has an injury history. I also am open to debate about taking a guy like James Jones in the third round, or whether Aaron Rouse is too stiff to play safety. I think Thompson is open to questioning on those counts, though I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But to suggest that Thompson is deliberately undermining the Green Bay Packers because he wants Brett Favre to retire - well, you've got to have a lot better proof than you've shown so far.

[Packnut]

Re: Sherman

I still believe and always will that he should have been fired after the Philly game. I'm the first to admit that I'm not as forgiving as some here are. I believe that these guys get paid good money and don't have the "right" to make mistakes. Excuses are for losers and success in the NFL is judged by winning plain and simple.

Some people see the world in black and white, and struggle with ambiguity. Generally they don't run football teams.

Well, how much time was wasted on Sherman AFTER that game? Seeing things in black and white makes them less complicated.

[PackerBlues]

PackerBlues, you do realize that you are suggesting that an NFL general manager has been deliberately undermining his own team by choosing players that would encourage a hall-of-fame quarterback to retire, right?


But to suggest that Thompson is deliberately undermining the Green Bay Packers because he wants Brett Favre to retire - well, you've got to have a lot better proof than you've shown so far.

Oh, I am sure Ted has the Packers best interests at heart. I have no doubt of that. However, I am also sure that he cannot wait to clear Brett Favre's salary off the books. One thing stands out ever since he took over as GM. Offense really doesnt matter to him. What has he done to improve the offense since coming to GB?

2005 draft. Aaron Rogers
Junius Coston

2005 F.A. Noah Herron
Tory Humphry
Donald Lee

2006 draft. Daryn Colledge
Greg Jennings
Jason Spitz
Ingle Martin
Tony Moll

2006 Trades Carlton Brewster
Vernand Morencey

2006 F.A. Zac Alcorn , Calvin Russell
Todd Bouman , Adam Stenavich
Josh Bourke , Orrin Thompson
Chris Francies , Tyson Walter,
Travis Leffew
Ruvell Martin
Brandon Miree
P.J. Pope


2007 Draft. RB Brandon Jackson D2
WR James Jones D3a
WR David Clowney D5
RB DeShawn Wynn D7a
TE Clark Harris D7b

2007 F.A. None?


That sums up all of the offensive players that Thompson has added to the team in his tenure currently on the roster. Are you impressed?

http://www.packers.com/team/how_built/

[HarveyWallbangers]

2005 draft. Aaron Rogers
Junius Coston

2005 F.A. Noah Herron
Tory Humphry
Donald Lee

He spent a second round pick on WR Terrence Murphy--who looked good before he got injured. Murphy had never gotten injured while at Texas A&M, so it's hard to put the blame on him for that.

In 2006, he signed Koren Robinson and picked up Ruvell Martin. He brought in a ton of WRs during his time.

In 2005, he brought in Samkon Gado at RB--who looked like a real find. He just didn't fit the new scheme the next year.

His TEs didn't look like a weakness until this year when Bubba fell off dramatically. Sure, the team needs a field stretching TE, but more than half the teams in the NFL do. They aren't that common. There was exactly one available in this draft, and there may not have been any in FA.

I'm impressed that he went after a QB of the future, spent at least two 2nd, one 3rd, one 4th, and one 5th round pick at WR, and rebuilt the OL in two years. We'll see about RB. Morency was a good find, and I like the looks of Brandon Jackson. Not sure about Pope, Beach, or Wynn yet.

[Fritz]

PackerBlues, you do realize that you are suggesting that an NFL general manager has been deliberately undermining his own team by choosing players that would encourage a hall-of-fame quarterback to retire, right?


But to suggest that Thompson is deliberately undermining the Green Bay Packers because he wants Brett Favre to retire - well, you've got to have a lot better proof than you've shown so far.

Oh, I am sure Ted has the Packers best interests at heart. I have no doubt of that. However, I am also sure that he cannot wait to clear Brett Favre's salary off the books. One thing stands out ever since he took over as GM. Offense really doesnt matter to him. What has he done to improve the offense since coming to GB?

2005 draft. Aaron Rogers
Junius Coston

2005 F.A. Noah Herron
Tory Humphry
Donald Lee

2006 draft. Daryn Colledge
Greg Jennings
Jason Spitz
Ingle Martin
Tony Moll

2006 Trades Carlton Brewster
Vernand Morencey

2006 F.A. Zac Alcorn , Calvin Russell
Todd Bouman , Adam Stenavich
Josh Bourke , Orrin Thompson
Chris Francies , Tyson Walter,
Travis Leffew
Ruvell Martin
Brandon Miree
P.J. Pope


2007 Draft. RB Brandon Jackson D2
WR James Jones D3a
WR David Clowney D5
RB DeShawn Wynn D7a
TE Clark Harris D7b

2007 F.A. None?


That sums up all of the offensive players that Thompson has added to the team in his tenure currently on the roster. Are you impressed?

http://www.packers.com/team/how_built/

Let me say first that I agree with Harvey - you neglected TT's drafting of Terraqnce Murphy in the second round, and his signing of Koren Robinson.

However, it's the statement that is in bold above that I'd like to address briefly. It's hard to fathom any general manager to whom offense does not matter. Some gm's might lean more toward defense and others toward opffense, but I can't imagine there's a single NFL gm that thinks offense doesn't matter.

[Lurker64]

However, it's the statement that is in bold above that I'd like to address briefly. It's hard to fathom any general manager to whom offense does not matter. Some gm's might lean more toward defense and others toward opffense, but I can't imagine there's a single NFL gm that thinks offense doesn't matter.

Plus, you know, that team that he built in Seattle certainly manages a lot better on offense than Defense. In his five years drafting for the Seahawks, the man did spend four first round picks on offensive guys (Alexander, Hutchinson, KoRo, and Stevens), so I'd be hard pressed to justify "Thompson doesn't care about offense."

[woodbuck27]

Ted's first first round pick for the Packers: Aaron Rogers. TT's way of saying "Hey Brett, I want you gone, and I am not going to do anything to help this offense." I sure am glad Ted used this pick on a QB, Rogers sure has come in handy since Teddy drafted him hasnt he <---SARCASM!!!

Teds second first round pick for the Packers: A.J. Hawk. Easily the safest pick in the draft and not a pick that makes TT a genius, it just makes him the GM that took the safest pick this year. Also not a guy that was going to help put points on the board. Am I happy we have him? Yes. Were there other players that could have improved our offense? Yes, without a doubt. Again, a silent message is sent to Favre.

Teds third first round pick for the Packers: Justin Harrell. Another "safe" pick? Not exactly......a little injury history here. Was there another "silent message" sent to Favre? I think so.

I can tell you one thing, If I were the starting QB for the Packers from the time that TT took over up til now.........I would have been cut for sure.
I dont think any GM would put up with his QB walking into his office and Bitch Slapping the living shit out of him. Lucky for Teddy that Favre has a much nicer temperment than me.

No kidding !!!

The way that TT has treated our franchise QB is obvious neglect and deplorable to me as a Packer fan that see's such a man in Brett Favre that I totally respect.

How Brett Favre can sum up the strength, to not retire between now and TC is beyond me.

Ted Thompson has treated Brett Favre and our offense and coaching staff and every Packer fan with total neglect. 12-20 and the fact it will go from bad to worse this season is and will be the proof.

The farce that is Ted Thompson is fully exposed now and it's a shame that so many are still fooled or in denial.

If any of you really believe that after this horrid off season that Ted Thompson is our future then may you be bless'd by your HIGHER POWER.

GO PACKERS !!!

PS: Please. . soon go without Ted Thompson.