Harlan regrets giving Sherman both jobs

[Bretsky]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

Did Ted Thompson actually say something that specific ? That'd be one more thing that I've witnessed.

[Scott Campbell]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

All silliness aside,

Don't tell Campbell to 'put aside silliness' . He would no longer be able to post... :P

Hey, 3 of them have been serious.

[RashanGary]

Moved

[Joemailman]

At least he is big enough to admit he made a mistake. Sherman was a terrible GM. Only Matt Millan is a worse GM.

Not many GM/Coaches are successful. Sherman would probably be good at one or the other at the same time. He wasn't horrible, there are worse. He made mistakes but he also drafted some quality players and wasn't afraid to look to free agency.

My take is that Bob Harlan should show more class and not go down that road.

How long must Mike Sherman be the fall guy in Green Bay?

ENOUGH !!!!!

I don't think Harlan said this to make Sherman look bad. I think he did it to clear the air about the whole situation surrounding the Sherman firing. He is pointing out that a situation that he created (hiring Thompson but keeping Sherman as coach), wasn't working. He is essentially saying that Thompson tried to make the situation work, but in the end had no choice but to make a change. Harlan is about to leave his job, and I believe just wanted to clear the air before he does.

[Merlin]

Thompson wants to build a winning team that he can finish putting together after Favre is gone.

Yeah, I heard Ted say just the other day "I'd love to win a Superbowl, as long as it comes after Brett retires".

All silliness aside, I strongly disagree with the sentiments that Ted doesn't want the team to win until Brett is gone. The way I'm reading it, and the way I would personally want to do it, is that Ted wants to keep Brett around to carry the team on his shoulders for a few more years until Ted has managed to build a team that doesn't depend on a first ballot hall of fame quarterback for years to come.

Think of it this way, Favre can win games with a great defense behind him. Ingle Martin can also win games with a great defense behind him. Hell, even Rex Grossman was able to win games with a great defense behind him. On the other hand, if we invested a lot in developing an offense that's suited to Brett's particular talents, and then Favre retires next year, then suppose Ingle gets injured and Rodgers can't play worth a darn. What then?

You can win football games with a mediocre offense and a dominant defense (Bears, Ravens, Bucs historically). You can win football games with a dominant offense and a mediocre defense (Rams and Vikings during the 90's). You're not going to light the world on fire with a team that's merely "pretty good" on both sides of the ball. So considering we were mediocre (or worse) on both sides of the ball a couple years ago, which are you going to spend the most effort building? Suppose you can incrementally improve one unit and make the other unit dominant. Well, if you build a dominant offense then your offense is probably not quite so dominant when the inevitable switch at quarterback comes, and your performance as a team drops off dramatically. On the other hand, if you build a dominant defense, then Ingle can reap the benefits of it just as well as Brett can.

So I really don't think Thompson wants Brett gone, on the contrary I think Thompson wants Brett to hang around as long as he can play. For the simple reason that Brett is what's going to carry this franchise until this becomes A.J.'s team (or the team of whichever defensive leader really steps up.) A GMs job is easier the fewer questions you have at a position, and Brett instantly answers the question at quarterback.

I agree with Wood, you put a lot of thought into this and it makes sense. But it doesn't change my attitude that Thompson wants Favre gone. A subpar QB can cost you games as well. Grossman cost the Bears dearly. Also, those teams that won the super bowl with great defense, never repeated because they never had an offense. The teams that you mentioned still have great defense but haven't gotten back to the super bowl (accept the Bucs who were dismantled post super bowl). There is no doubt in my mind that the Packers great defense in the 90's won them games, but it was a consistent top 5 or 10 offense that kept them dominant in the 90's. For whatever reason, defenses win you games in the regular season, then in the playoffs, normally it's the team with an okay defense that goes the distance because the players step up. In the 00's, the Packers have not had a "good" defense and it cost them in the playoffs. If TT doesn't want Favre gone then explain why he has done nothing on offense? You don't take an aging QB and give him a bunch of no names on offense and expect him to carry the team. Favre still has a rocket for an arm and as last year proved, he is capable of making good decisions with the ball. However I have to question how far this team can go with Driver, Jennings and Morency as the only real threats on offense. It was painfully obvious last season that the WR's and Favre didn't sync well with the exception of Driver. So instead of getting veteran leadership into our WR corps, we got more rookies. Thompson may be building a team for the future and that's all fine and well, however he doesn't have a QB in camp that can step in for Favre and move the ball (which is needed in order to win). Martin won't get a shot until Rodgers is finally tagged as a bust.

[MJZiggy]

Merlin, firstly you're not suggesting that Favre is a subpar QB are you? Or that Ted Thompson thinks Aaron Rodgers is superior to him? TT does attend camps and workouts and it's never even been hinted at that Rodgers might even be close to the level that Brett Favre is on.

Secondly, what leads you to believe that TT is intentionally not giving Favre an offense. If you listened to Favre's press conference when he announced his return this season, he himself said he was excited about this young offense. What are the odds that TT actually believes in the offensive personnel that he has on the team? They may be young and largely unproven, but we have a #1 wideout and a #2 and a lot of guys to compete hard for the rest of the available spots. M3 is talking like he's just been given a new toy in Brandon Jackson, and said that the backs we have all have different styles, so they really could be a threat even with Green gone. It's just a matter of who steps into the role. He is not afraid to go with runningback by committee which means that none of them HAVE to be able to carry the full load. We'll see what the line's been able to accomplish in their offseason training, and Bob Sanders has stated that he's seen what the weaknesses in the line were last year and knows what it will take to correct the issues. Even if they don't, M3 showed last year a willingness to adjust and use a different tactic when he added more pulling plays to the mix at the end of the season because they were working better. We have an offense. The offense has been addressed last offseason and this offseason. And I also believe that if Martin beats out Rodgers in camp, he will get a shot at the #2 spot. They will do what is necessary for this team.

[Scott Campbell]

Wants Favre gone? Uh - ok.

I guess that's a conspiracy theory.

My guess is that if Ted really wanted Favre gone, that he would have just whispered in Brett's ear, and Brett would have bowed out gracefully and just retired.

[Bretsky]

Merlin, firstly you're not suggesting that Favre is a subpar QB are you? Or that Ted Thompson thinks Aaron Rodgers is superior to him? TT does attend camps and workouts and it's never even been hinted at that Rodgers might even be close to the level that Brett Favre is on.

Secondly, what leads you to believe that TT is intentionally not giving Favre an offense. If you listened to Favre's press conference when he announced his return this season, he himself said he was excited about this young offense. What are the odds that TT actually believes in the offensive personnel that he has on the team? They may be young and largely unproven, but we have a #1 wideout and a #2 and a lot of guys to compete hard for the rest of the available spots. M3 is talking like he's just been given a new toy in Brandon Jackson, and said that the backs we have all have different styles, so they really could be a threat even with Green gone. It's just a matter of who steps into the role. He is not afraid to go with runningback by committee which means that none of them HAVE to be able to carry the full load. We'll see what the line's been able to accomplish in their offseason training, and Bob Sanders has stated that he's seen what the weaknesses in the line were last year and knows what it will take to correct the issues. Even if they don't, M3 showed last year a willingness to adjust and use a different tactic when he added more pulling plays to the mix at the end of the season because they were working better. We have an offense. The offense has been addressed last offseason and this offseason. And I also believe that if Martin beats out Rodgers in camp, he will get a shot at the #2 spot. They will do what is necessary for this team.

I fall in between on this; some will throw TT under the bridge and some will put a pro TT spin on everything.

A few thoughts

TT does not want Favre gone; but he is building this team w/o taking into consideration that he has a superb QB with a couple years left. This is fine by some and not fine by others.

Using Favre's press conference when he announced that he is coming back to argue anything is going too far. What is Favre suppose to say ? He's going to put the rosy spin on everything and using his comments to argue anything is doing the same thing as well.

We have a #1 WR; there is no evidence we have a #2 that can stay healthy throughout a season. I do believe that we have a #2, but that's just my viewpoint. The other guys...maybe they will be just fine or maybe they will not.

All of these other points you make in paragraph two are pure speculation that you taint to support TT as best you can. That's fine if that's what you want to do; some in here choose to question things and not assume everything he does is the right way.

IMO we are not strong enough on offense and TT absolutely knows that; but he's chosen to build around the defense and there is nothing wrong with that.

[MJZiggy]

All of these other points you make in paragraph two are pure speculation that you taint to support TT as best you can. That's fine if that's what you want to do; some in here choose to question things and not assume everything he does is the right way.

How is quoting M3 speculation?

[Bretsky]

All of these other points you make in paragraph two are pure speculation that you taint to support TT as best you can. That's fine if that's what you want to do; some in here choose to question things and not assume everything he does is the right way.

How is quoting M3 speculation?

You didn't quote him; you paraphrased some of his views

BTW, isn't Bob Sanders the defensive coordinator ? I hope he isn't going to be correcting the OL issues; he needs to lead the defense

[MJZiggy]

I meant Philbin...

[Fritz]

For all those folks who believe that Thompson should throw everything at the wall in a last ditch effort to win a SB with Brett Favre, I would refer you to the Mike Sherman years.

Sherman tried just that - when Favre was younger and ostensibly a better QB than he is now. Sherman signed Wahle to a crazy contract that everyone knew had a "poison pill" in it that all but assured the Pack would have to let him go at some point. He threw lots of money at defenders like cletidus hunt and Joe Johnson and KGB, he traded up in draft after draft in an effort to get immediate, impact players. Sometimes this worked (Javon Walker) and often it didn't (Donnell Washington, James Lee, BJ Sander). He traded a second round pick for a proven corner (Al Harris) and traded a fourth rounder for a receiver he thought would be a huge asset for the offense (Terry Glenn).

This is not meant as a criticism of Sherman. It was what he thought was best for the organization, and he pursued a Super Bowl as he thought best. You can't argue with his reasons for acting as he did.

However, it did not work. It didn't even get the Packers into the NFC championship game.

Given that, and given the free agent class this year, I'm not sure how anyone can stand back and look at the situation and believe that signing some free agents and trading for Randy Moss (who by all reports was not terribly keen to come here) would get this club to a Super Bowl.

[Bretsky]

For all those folks who believe that Thompson should throw everything at the wall in a last ditch effort to win a SB with Brett Favre, I would refer you to the Mike Sherman years.

Sherman tried just that - when Favre was younger and ostensibly a better QB than he is now. Sherman signed Wahle to a crazy contract that everyone knew had a "poison pill" in it that all but assured the Pack would have to let him go at some point. He threw lots of money at defenders like cletidus hunt and Joe Johnson and KGB, he traded up in draft after draft in an effort to get immediate, impact players. Sometimes this worked (Javon Walker) and often it didn't (Donnell Washington, James Lee, BJ Sander). He traded a second round pick for a proven corner (Al Harris) and traded a fourth rounder for a receiver he thought would be a huge asset for the offense (Terry Glenn).

This is not meant as a criticism of Sherman. It was what he thought was best for the organization, and he pursued a Super Bowl as he thought best. You can't argue with his reasons for acting as he did.

However, it did not work. It didn't even get the Packers into the NFC championship game.

Given that, and given the free agent class this year, I'm not sure how anyone can stand back and look at the situation and believe that signing some free agents and trading for Randy Moss (who by all reports was not terribly keen to come here) would get this club to a Super Bowl.

Last year was the year to go all out; guys like Chris Hope; Weatherspoon. There were plenty of LB's and Safeties that he could have signed in addition to Woodsen if we didn't heavily frontload that deal.

I agree the free agent class was weak this year; but we could have done something.

Either way I've lowered my Super Bowl soon expecations and am resigned to see how this thing plays out.

[Fritz]

This may be the source of our disagreement, Bretsky: my thinking is that even if he'd signed Hope and Weatherspoon and maybe even kept Javon Walker, this still wouldn't have been a Super Bowl team.

But maybe I am wrong. We just don't know. Still, it's fun to see other perspectives.

[Scott Campbell]

For all those folks who believe that Thompson should throw everything at the wall in a last ditch effort to win a SB with Brett Favre, I would refer you to the Mike Sherman years.

Sherman tried just that - when Favre was younger and ostensibly a better QB than he is now. Sherman signed Wahle to a crazy contract that everyone knew had a "poison pill" in it that all but assured the Pack would have to let him go at some point. He threw lots of money at defenders like cletidus hunt and Joe Johnson and KGB, he traded up in draft after draft in an effort to get immediate, impact players. Sometimes this worked (Javon Walker) and often it didn't (Donnell Washington, James Lee, BJ Sander). He traded a second round pick for a proven corner (Al Harris) and traded a fourth rounder for a receiver he thought would be a huge asset for the offense (Terry Glenn).

This is not meant as a criticism of Sherman. It was what he thought was best for the organization, and he pursued a Super Bowl as he thought best. You can't argue with his reasons for acting as he did.

However, it did not work. It didn't even get the Packers into the NFC championship game.

Given that, and given the free agent class this year, I'm not sure how anyone can stand back and look at the situation and believe that signing some free agents and trading for Randy Moss (who by all reports was not terribly keen to come here) would get this club to a Super Bowl.

Last year was the year to go all out; guys like Chris Hope; Weatherspoon. There were plenty of LB's and Safeties that he could have signed in addition to Woodsen if we didn't heavily frontload that deal.

I agree the free agent class was weak this year; but we could have done something.

Either way I've lowered my Super Bowl soon expecations and am resigned to see how this thing plays out.

As long as were talking about hindsight, you left out LeCharles Bentley, who you lobbied for big time last year.