Since when has Brett been so committed to us??

[Patler]

Re: Favre

Yes, but as history has proven time and time again, finding the next QB will be a very painful process.......

Proof????

I always assumed that Montana to Young was proof that it ain't always the case.

Even on the Packers, the transition from Majkowski to Favre was painless (except for the growing pains with Favre!) The transition from Dickey to Majkowski as the #1 QB had just one full year of Randy Wright . The following year Majkowski was on the scene and progressively took over.

[Scott Campbell]

Re: Favre

Excellent point.

Maybe we can ask PackNut to change is post to:

Yes, but as history has proven sometimes and sometimes again, finding the next QB may, or may not be a very painful process......

[gureski]

I just want to say that all the little kids are safe now. Favre made a statement that he wants to be on the team and that he likes his teammates. I know Bulldog and some others out there were seriously worried about the social ramifications Favre's comments were having on little children. :P

It's okay now. The children are safe again...

[gureski]

Re: Favre

Excellent point.

Maybe we can ask PackNut to change is post to:

Yes, but as history has proven sometimes and sometimes again, finding the next QB may, or may not be a very painful process......

This is a little off-topic but I've been meaning to write this and you have left me a great opening...

Here is why I can't hate what Thompson has done thus far by ignoring offense and concentrating on defense....

Who knows who the next successful QB in G.B. will be OR how long it will take to get to that point? It's a total crap-shoot. It could take years and years or it could take one game. The bottom line is that there will be a transition to whomever takes over from Favre and the best way for the Green Bay Packers to successfully weather that change is to build a stud defense that can keep the team in games regardless what the offense does. We know that a stud defense can win a title. The Ravens proved that and the Bears went to the Superbowl just last year by riding defense. By building the defense right now, Thompson is ensuring the team will be competative now and in the future. Favre has proven that he can carry an offense. Favre can keep the O afloat and if Favre can keep things going long enough for Thompson to get his defensive pieces in place, then the team will be in damn good shape going forward, after Favre leaves. The problem with that is Favre is being used and Favre knows it. Just having Favre on the field makes the line better, the WR's better, and the RB's better. His ability to scramble and get rid of the ball makes the line look better than it is. His ability to throw the ball a mile, make plays out of nothing, and make plays in general makes the WR's look better. His ability to pass makes the RB's better by forcing the defense to respect the pass. No matter how you look at things, Favre makes the players around him better so it's understandable that THompson may be thinking that he can spend his time on defense right now. He can worry about offense later, after Favre is gone. In my opinion, this is why Favre is pissed. He knows Thompson is taking him for granted and isn't planning on giving Favre much of a push before he retires. He may get the pieces in place for one title run for Favre but it's not a given.

I have trouble with this because I want to see that run for Favre but I also want to see long-term success for the team. Yeah, I get pissed at Thompson but is it right to get pissed at him if he's doing the right thing by keeping this team competative over the long haul?

I'm torn. That's why this Moss question has really sparked my interest. IF Thompson had Moss and just didn't pull the trigger than he's gone beyond just building for the future and is stiffling any moves aimed at today. I'm okay with building for the future but not at the cost of today. You should still win now, if you can. You should still add players that can contribute now, if you have an opening. AN example of this would be safety. Two years ago, after Thompson took over, I was furious that he didn't sign a safety. There were multiple safeties out there and the team could've picked one up. HOW MANY games has the safety position cost this team over the past two years? How much of the defense has been bottled up because the coaches have to call plays designed to cover the weakness of the safety (Roman/Manuel) that is on the field? Had Thompson signed a guy like Kennedy or D.Smith or some of the other players that were out there then maybe the team could've had a few more wins. Last year alone, one win would've been the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs. A better safety couldn't have helped finish off the Saints after we were up by 3 TD's? And how would have adding a safety hurt the youth movement? It wouldn't have. But Thompson didn't sign a guy. We still, today, have no answer at safety. Safety is an example of a position Thompson has screwed up by his 'build for tomorrow' methodology. You can take that too far. There's nothing wrong with signing a stop-gap until you find the right rookie to plug in and groom. Signing veteran stop-gap players to hold spots down until younger players were ready is one of the things Ron Wolf did best. If he didn't have a player on the bench, ready to take over then he would go get a vet like a Fred Strickland or a Don Beebe to do the job. Wolf was great at this. Thompson isn't proving so well in this area.

So, there....I've been wanting to say that. Thompson is really doing well by building the defense. It's the key to keeping the team from bottoming out after Favre leaves but still.....don't we all want to see Favre make another run at a title? And if we do....at what cost do we want that? 1 losing season? 2 losing seasons in the future? How much of the future do we want to give up to see another run? It's one tough question.

[retailguy]

Re: Favre

I'm torn. That's why this Moss question has really sparked my interest. IF Thompson had Moss and just didn't pull the trigger than he's gone beyond just building for the future and is stiffling any moves aimed at today. I'm okay with building for the future but not at the cost of today. You should still win now, if you can. You should still add players that can contribute now, if you have an opening. AN example of this would be safety. Two years ago, after Thompson took over, I was furious that he didn't sign a safety. There were multiple safeties out there and the team could've picked one up. HOW MANY games has the safety position cost this team over the past two years? How much of the defense has been bottled up because the coaches have to call plays designed to cover the weakness of the safety (Roman/Manuel) that is on the field? Had Thompson signed a guy like Kennedy or D.Smith or some of the other players that were out there then maybe the team could've had a few more wins. Last year alone, one win would've been the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs. A better safety couldn't have helped finish off the Saints after we were up by 3 TD's? And how would have adding a safety hurt the youth movement? It wouldn't have. But Thompson didn't sign a guy. We still, today, have no answer at safety. Safety is an example of a position Thompson has screwed up by his 'build for tomorrow' methodology. You can take that too far. There's nothing wrong with signing a stop-gap until you find the right rookie to plug in and groom.

I've made a habit out of letting your posts go by, but can't do it with this one.

The bolded sections above were largely what I said (very emphatically) over the loss of Ahman Green. You told me that I was a FOOL because I essentially didn't understand "short term value", then set down a "proposed list of rules" to negotiate on, and then told me the story of the "worth" of a TACO. Remember?

I offically nominate you for the title of "FLIP FLOP RAT". You've earned it.

BTW - I largely agree with this version. Thanks for clearing up your perspective.

[Scott Campbell]

Re: Favre

Here is why I can't hate what Thompson has done thus far by ignoring offense and concentrating on defense....

The rest of your post was terrific. But I disagree with the above.


Ignoring the offense?

He replace a 3rd round pick (Green) with a 2nd round pick (Jackson).

He drafted:

2 RB's
2 WR's
1 OT
1 TE
1 LB that he's converting to a TE

So drafting 7 players for the offense in a 7 round draft is ignoring the offense?

[woodbuck27]

Re: Favre

Excellent point.

Maybe we can ask PackNut to change is post to:

Yes, but as history has proven sometimes and sometimes again, finding the next QB may, or may not be a very painful process......

This is a little off-topic but I've been meaning to write this and you have left me a great opening...

Here is why I can't hate what Thompson has done thus far by ignoring offense and concentrating on defense....

Who knows who the next successful QB in G.B. will be OR how long it will take to get to that point? It's a total crap-shoot. It could take years and years or it could take one game. The bottom line is that there will be a transition to whomever takes over from Favre and the best way for the Green Bay Packers to successfully weather that change is to build a stud defense that can keep the team in games regardless what the offense does. We know that a stud defense can win a title. The Ravens proved that and the Bears went to the Superbowl just last year by riding defense. By building the defense right now, Thompson is ensuring the team will be competative now and in the future. Favre has proven that he can carry an offense. Favre can keep the O afloat and if Favre can keep things going long enough for Thompson to get his defensive pieces in place, then the team will be in damn good shape going forward, after Favre leaves. The problem with that is Favre is being used and Favre knows it. Just having Favre on the field makes the line better, the WR's better, and the RB's better. His ability to scramble and get rid of the ball makes the line look better than it is. His ability to throw the ball a mile, make plays out of nothing, and make plays in general makes the WR's look better. His ability to pass makes the RB's better by forcing the defense to respect the pass. No matter how you look at things, Favre makes the players around him better so it's understandable that THompson may be thinking that he can spend his time on defense right now. He can worry about offense later, after Favre is gone. In my opinion, this is why Favre is pissed. He knows Thompson is taking him for granted and isn't planning on giving Favre much of a push before he retires. He may get the pieces in place for one title run for Favre but it's not a given.

I have trouble with this because I want to see that run for Favre but I also want to see long-term success for the team. Yeah, I get pissed at Thompson but is it right to get pissed at him if he's doing the right thing by keeping this team competative over the long haul?

I'm torn. That's why this Moss question has really sparked my interest. IF Thompson had Moss and just didn't pull the trigger than he's gone beyond just building for the future and is stiffling any moves aimed at today. I'm okay with building for the future but not at the cost of today. You should still win now, if you can. You should still add players that can contribute now, if you have an opening. AN example of this would be safety. Two years ago, after Thompson took over, I was furious that he didn't sign a safety. There were multiple safeties out there and the team could've picked one up. HOW MANY games has the safety position cost this team over the past two years? How much of the defense has been bottled up because the coaches have to call plays designed to cover the weakness of the safety (Roman/Manuel) that is on the field? Had Thompson signed a guy like Kennedy or D.Smith or some of the other players that were out there then maybe the team could've had a few more wins. Last year alone, one win would've been the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs. A better safety couldn't have helped finish off the Saints after we were up by 3 TD's? And how would have adding a safety hurt the youth movement? It wouldn't have. But Thompson didn't sign a guy. We still, today, have no answer at safety. Safety is an example of a position Thompson has screwed up by his 'build for tomorrow' methodology. You can take that too far. There's nothing wrong with signing a stop-gap until you find the right rookie to plug in and groom. Signing veteran stop-gap players to hold spots down until younger players were ready is one of the things Ron Wolf did best. If he didn't have a player on the bench, ready to take over then he would go get a vet like a Fred Strickland or a Don Beebe to do the job. Wolf was great at this. Thompson isn't proving so well in this area.

So, there....I've been wanting to say that. Thompson is really doing well by building the defense. It's the key to keeping the team from bottoming out after Favre leaves but still.....don't we all want to see Favre make another run at a title? And if we do....at what cost do we want that? 1 losing season? 2 losing seasons in the future? How much of the future do we want to give up to see another run? It's one tough question.

Outstanding post gureski.

[Patler]

Re: Favre

Excellent point.

Maybe we can ask PackNut to change is post to:

Yes, but as history has proven sometimes and sometimes again, finding the next QB may, or may not be a very painful process......

This is a little off-topic but I've been meaning to write this and you have left me a great opening...

Here is why I can't hate what Thompson has done thus far by ignoring offense and concentrating on defense....

Who knows who the next successful QB in G.B. will be OR how long it will take to get to that point? It's a total crap-shoot. It could take years and years or it could take one game. The bottom line is that there will be a transition to whomever takes over from Favre and the best way for the Green Bay Packers to successfully weather that change is to build a stud defense that can keep the team in games regardless what the offense does. We know that a stud defense can win a title. The Ravens proved that and the Bears went to the Superbowl just last year by riding defense. By building the defense right now, Thompson is ensuring the team will be competative now and in the future. Favre has proven that he can carry an offense. Favre can keep the O afloat and if Favre can keep things going long enough for Thompson to get his defensive pieces in place, then the team will be in damn good shape going forward, after Favre leaves. The problem with that is Favre is being used and Favre knows it. Just having Favre on the field makes the line better, the WR's better, and the RB's better. His ability to scramble and get rid of the ball makes the line look better than it is. His ability to throw the ball a mile, make plays out of nothing, and make plays in general makes the WR's look better. His ability to pass makes the RB's better by forcing the defense to respect the pass. No matter how you look at things, Favre makes the players around him better so it's understandable that THompson may be thinking that he can spend his time on defense right now. He can worry about offense later, after Favre is gone. In my opinion, this is why Favre is pissed. He knows Thompson is taking him for granted and isn't planning on giving Favre much of a push before he retires. He may get the pieces in place for one title run for Favre but it's not a given.

I have trouble with this because I want to see that run for Favre but I also want to see long-term success for the team. Yeah, I get pissed at Thompson but is it right to get pissed at him if he's doing the right thing by keeping this team competative over the long haul?

I'm torn. That's why this Moss question has really sparked my interest. IF Thompson had Moss and just didn't pull the trigger than he's gone beyond just building for the future and is stiffling any moves aimed at today. I'm okay with building for the future but not at the cost of today. You should still win now, if you can. You should still add players that can contribute now, if you have an opening. AN example of this would be safety. Two years ago, after Thompson took over, I was furious that he didn't sign a safety. There were multiple safeties out there and the team could've picked one up. HOW MANY games has the safety position cost this team over the past two years? How much of the defense has been bottled up because the coaches have to call plays designed to cover the weakness of the safety (Roman/Manuel) that is on the field? Had Thompson signed a guy like Kennedy or D.Smith or some of the other players that were out there then maybe the team could've had a few more wins. Last year alone, one win would've been the difference between making the playoffs and not making the playoffs. A better safety couldn't have helped finish off the Saints after we were up by 3 TD's? And how would have adding a safety hurt the youth movement? It wouldn't have. But Thompson didn't sign a guy. We still, today, have no answer at safety. Safety is an example of a position Thompson has screwed up by his 'build for tomorrow' methodology. You can take that too far. There's nothing wrong with signing a stop-gap until you find the right rookie to plug in and groom. Signing veteran stop-gap players to hold spots down until younger players were ready is one of the things Ron Wolf did best. If he didn't have a player on the bench, ready to take over then he would go get a vet like a Fred Strickland or a Don Beebe to do the job. Wolf was great at this. Thompson isn't proving so well in this area.

So, there....I've been wanting to say that. Thompson is really doing well by building the defense. It's the key to keeping the team from bottoming out after Favre leaves but still.....don't we all want to see Favre make another run at a title? And if we do....at what cost do we want that? 1 losing season? 2 losing seasons in the future? How much of the future do we want to give up to see another run? It's one tough question.

Outstanding post gureski.

HORRIBLE post gureski. I haven't even read it, but I thought SOMEONE should rpovide the opposite view!

[woodbuck27]

Certain people oughta be locked in a room and forced to watch 24 hrs straight of Scott Hunter, Scott Campbell, Randy White, and Jerry T just to name a few. Then again the minority opinion is usually off the wall which is why it's the MINORITY opinion. The great number of Packer fans appreciate and respect Favre and only a complete idiot would dispute that.

Most people who express minority opinions usually do so just to get a reaction...........

People have differing opinions all the time and despite you're common insultes, people here have remained civil and reasonable toward you. You can make a point without calling someone an idiot. Acctually, people would probably take your point a lot mroe seriously because name calling really does turn poeple off.

Shut up and grow some thicker skin. If a little name calling hurts your feeilngs then you may want to go to the kiddie thread. Give me a break. This was the biggest overstatement about someone going personal that I've ever heard. The guy used the word 'idiot' and now he's Imus-P.R. style?

With that said, I can't believe the crap I'm reading in this thread on a subject in which NOBODY even knows what Favre really said about being traded! Anonymous sources? That's all the story about Favre asking for a trade was based on.

I always find it amusing when so many of you line up and open your mouth before you know what has even happened.

Here is what we know:

Favre criticized the Packers for not signing Randy Moss. He inferred that the offense needs help and that management isn't providing that help despite having the cap room to do so.

Anonymous sources said Favre demanded a trade.

That's it. That's all we know.

Shouldn't what was really said, and the context it was said in, matter?

Hypothetically, what if Favre and Thompson were in a heated argument in which Thompson was acting like an A-hole? What if, in that same argument, Thompson insulted Favre and Favre turned around and told him to trade him?

Would that be viewed differently than Favre just calling up, out of the blue, and demanding a trade?

I'm merely asking whether the actual facts and the context of what was said matters to some of you? To me, it does. To some of you, I don't think it matters. You just want to attack, attack, attack.... And I've seen this not only with Favre. There is a camp that hates Favre and wants to attack him. There is a camp that hates THompson and wants to attack him. There is a camp that hates Sherman and likes to attack him. It's crazy sometimes to see it happen but some of you just want to attack despite the facts.

If criticizing the GM is wrong than every single one of you guys out there that have griped about the Packers off-season and draft need to condemn yourself too. Are you going to tell me that Favre can't rip the GM but you can? What the GM does actually has a real life affect on Favre and his life.

There are two things that I thought of when this happened. Make it three...

1. God, I hope this isn't true.

2. The people who ripped Favre for speaking on Walker (I was not one of those guys) can now legitimately take a shot at Favre and say that had Favre kept his mouth shut that he'd have the big play WR that he so badly desires in J.Walker. It's a valid point for those that ripped Favre about ripping Walker. The Packers wouldn't have needed Moss if they hadn't been forced into an ugly situation that led to trading Walker and Favre helped push Walker out of G.B..

3. Favre isn't saying anything that many fans haven't also been saying about Thompson.

Those were my thoughts. I sat and listened to guys on the radio say how Favre has earned everything and should be given anything he wants. I listened to guys talking about how dumb Thompson is and how he dropped the ball and should be fired. I listened to people rip Favre and say how disgusted they are with him. I listened to fans list player after player that they wished we would've signed and I just shook my head. It's all so stupid. The comments are so stupid. All of them, on both sides of the issue.

First, nobody knows what was really said. Why haven't we learned that anonymous sources aren't reliable? How many times in the past have anonymous sources proven to be garbage in the end?

But that doesn't stop some people from taking the comments from anonymous sources and running with it. Bulldog was rather passionate in his comments but if you look at everything he said, it will become very clear, very fast that he has an agenda. Bulldog doesn't like Favre right now. He talks about how Favre loves the attention he gets when the retirement topic comes up every year. How does Bulldog know that Favre enjoys that? Doesn't the fact that Bulldog is taking such an overly biased stance on Favre that he dramatically jumps to the point of ripping his leadership abilities and questioning what Favre's comments do to little kids.....doesn't that call into question the legitimacy of Bulldog's comments? We don't even fully know what Favre said yet Bulldog is sure it will hurt little kids. That's just crazy! Bulldog doesn't even respect the context of Favre's comments that we do know Favre made! I see a guy, in Bulldog, who is pissed at #4 and is letting it all out because he thinks he has an issue. It doesn't matter if the issue is real, he just wants to get his shots in and lead as many others to his view as possible. He doesn't need evidence. This backs up what he's thought for a while. That's all the evidence he needs. I can understand him going off the way he is but what's the excuse of many of the rest of you?

On to Ted Thompson...

According to Favre, the only thing standing in the way of the Packers getting Moss was Thompson guaranteeing $3 million in the first year. Favre says he called and offerred to have the $3 million taken out of his contract. IF that's true, than Thompson deserves some heat right now and this is probably the real root of this issue with Favre. Just thinking about this and the best information we have right now.... Favre says he offerred to take the $3 million out of his own deal to pay for Moss. Favre says the deal fell through because Thompson refused to guarantee the $3 million. IF Thompson was willing to deal a pick for Moss and the only thing standing in the way was $$$ AND IF Favre was willing to pay the money himself, out of his own deal, than what excuse does Thompson have for not making the deal? It would appear as if Thompson really did something questionable that goes against making the team better. What risk was present in finishing the deal for Moss IF Favre was fronting the cash? IF Thompson had an offer on the table for Moss than that means that he was prepared to have him on the team so it's no longer an issue of whether Moss would kill the locker room or other questions like that.....IF it all came down to money and Favre was willing to underwrite the deal......why would Thompson shoot that down?

For me, that's the million dollar question. That's what I want to know more about. I want to know if Thompson screwed Favre (and all the fans) over. I want to know if Favre was out there recruiting Moss, with the blessing of management, and being told that the team wanted to do the deal only to watch Thompson literally refuse to do the deal when he had the chance. IF that happened, I want to know why and Packer fans deserve to know why. We spend our money on this team. We faithfully follow this team. IF Thompson had a deal in place for Moss in which Favre was willing to take money out of his contract to get the deal done.....than Thompson owes us an explanation. We need to known if there is truth to the, 'Thompson wants Favre gone' conspiracy theory. It's always been hanging there and now, if this happened the way Favre says it did, than this is a potential bit of evidence that Thompson is actually trying to force an end to the Favre era. I know it's ridiculous but you have to go where the facts take you. WHY would Thompson not pull the trigger on the deal if there was no risk? When you offer a draft pick for a player, you've already decided you want the player on your team. The only thing in the way of the deal being closed was money and Favre, according to his own comments, offerred to be the source of that money. What excuse does Thompson have for not doing the deal and giving the team another legitimate weapon? It doesn't make sense.

On Favre....

IF he was screwed over by Thompson and lied to or if Favre knows something we don't about the way Thompson is going about doing business than I can't fault Favre for criticizing Thompson. People are lining up to rip Favre yet lost in the emotion is the fact that Favre was willing to put his own money on the line in order to make the team better! Packer fans have had the luxary of watching Favre over the past 15 years so we known what he's all about. His personality and moral structure is one of the chief reasons people love Favre. Why would he suddenly turn into a turd? It doesn't make sense. Something is up. Favre saying something is a sign that something larger is going on here. He's NOT a 'me' player. Even in this situation, Favre offerred to give Thompson the money to make the Moss deal work. Isn't that one of the ultimate sacrifices a player can make? Isn't that the ultimate team player? By offerring money to Thompson so that Thompson can improve the team AND by physically picking up the phone and recruiting a player to come to G.B.....isn't that the ultimate help a guy can give the GM?

Something doesn't jive right now and the only thing I know for sure is that I trust Favre. I've watched Favre for well over a decade. From the little bit I've seen from Ted Thompson, he makes me feel like I can't trust him. I know Thompson knows talent. I know Thompson can draft and I know he is doing a great job with the salary cap. I don't know if Thompson is doing everything he can to make this team the best it can be right now. I don't know if the cap room Thompson is creating is being used properly. I think everything he is doing is geared towards the future, at the cost of the past 2 seasons and maybe this season. Creating cap room is only good if you use it to improve the team. I've been patient and a defender of Thompson, still now believing there wasnt' much in free agency this year for Thompson to go after and I did NOT want to see him overpay for some of the leftovers that were out there but if Thompson had a deal in place for Moss and Favre's money to help ease the financial ramifications then Thompson has no excuse. He will have purposely screwed Favre and the team and if I'm Favre.....and IF I believe that my boss lied to me and isn't trying to make the team better......then I'd speak up too. If you thought your boss had lied to you and if you thought, in the world of professional sports, that your boss wasn't trying to make the team better than you'd speak up too. Instead of ripping Favre for comments he may or may not have said I think all of us should be begging reporters to get more information on what really happened so we can find out if our GM is really trying to win.

This is a controversy but not the one people are caught up in. The controversy isn't Favre or even whether he asked for a trade. It's THompson. What is he doing and why is he doing it? What's going on behind the scenes with Thompson? Is he purposely driving Favre away? Did Thompson lie? What were Thompson's motives, if he did? What are the ramifications if Thompson is running the show in a less than ethical manner? Will players steer away from G.B. because of Thompson? Is Thompson really trying to improve this team and give players like Favre the tools to win? This is the controversy. It's not Favre. Get your heads out of your ass long enough to realize that Favre has, and still is, the ultimate team player! In this story he offerred his own money to get the deal done to help the team! He's always been like that. It's why the entire NFL loves the guy and wants to play with him. If something is up between Thompson and Favre then I'd be more prone to question Thompson than I would to question Favre. 15 years of watching the guy buys him some benefit of the doubt, in my mind. I'm not relieving Favre of any criticism, (I said the Walker people have a right to Rip Favre hard right now) but I am willing to give this some time before I start taking hard stances about how Favre is wrong and is hurting little kids. We don't know yet who is right or wrong.

The bottom line is that we need more information and I really hope the right questions are asked. This isn't about Favre being traded. This is about Thompson and what happened. We need to know what happened.

Another great post guerski.

I believe that for anyone who is open minded and really wants to see into the truth that you have covered it all here.

I like you, only want the facts.

TT may have had a legitimate shot at acquiring Randy Moss (say for a 3rd) at no cost to the team as Favre would cover that cost (gurantees) and TT pass's?

Is that the case?

We are only talking an acquisition of Randy Moss for the 2007 season with low low risk and tons of upside. Not a 2-3 season commitment for Ted Thompson and the Packers.

Surely we re-call the stuff on TT telling Favre to keep out of it or keep his mouth shut last week. Was that a fact? If so,what was that about?

We are aware that TT went to the board to discuss acquiring randy Moss. Why then, if he felt he had to go there to make a move would he discourage Brett Favre in the recruiting process?

The precedent was set in the FA period last season for it's OK for Favre to talk to potential FA's. about what a fine move it would be for that FA to become a Packer. We will recall that was the case.

It appears to me that it's a where there's smole there's fire situation here.

Ted Thompson by the latest reports offered a 5th to acquire Moss.Was that a serious offer or merely postering on behalf of Ted Thompson?

Favre was going to cover the guranteed money end of the deal to bring him in. We were aware of that as a rumor before the draft.

We were aware that Favre wanted Moss and aware that the rumor was that sources said that he (Favre) was 100% sure that Randy Moss would be a Packer for the 2007 season.

As Packer fans and members of this board we deserve to make efforts to acquire the truth. Without just that or the TRUTH, we have no right of judgement on Brett Favre or Ted Thompson or otherwise.

[woodbuck27]

Re: Favre

Here is why I can't hate what Thompson has done thus far by ignoring offense and concentrating on defense....

The rest of your post was terrific. But I disagree with the above.


Ignoring the offense?

He replace a 3rd round pick (Green) with a 2nd round pick (Jackson).

He drafted:

2 RB's
2 WR's
1 OT
1 TE
1 LB that he's converting to a TE

So drafting 7 players for the offense in a 7 round draft is ignoring the offense?

They are all ROOKIES !! Any of those acquisitions named Randy Moss Scott ?

Let's try to keep on track here please.

[Scott Campbell]

Re: Favre

Here is why I can't hate what Thompson has done thus far by ignoring offense and concentrating on defense....

The rest of your post was terrific. But I disagree with the above.


Ignoring the offense?

He replace a 3rd round pick (Green) with a 2nd round pick (Jackson).

He drafted:

2 RB's
2 WR's
1 OT
1 TE
1 LB that he's converting to a TE

So drafting 7 players for the offense in a 7 round draft is ignoring the offense?

They are all ROOKIES !! Any of those acquisitions named Randy Moss Scott ?

Let's try to keep on track here please.

I must have missed the memo that you can't count rooks.

[gureski]

Re: Favre

Here is why I can't hate what Thompson has done thus far by ignoring offense and concentrating on defense....

The rest of your post was terrific. But I disagree with the above.


Ignoring the offense?

He replace a 3rd round pick (Green) with a 2nd round pick (Jackson).

He drafted:

2 RB's
2 WR's
1 OT
1 TE
1 LB that he's converting to a TE

So drafting 7 players for the offense in a 7 round draft is ignoring the offense?

I'm referring to the impact moves Thompson has made that have improved the team right away. First round picks, throughout his tenure, have gone defense every year except Rodgers. Free Agent signings of starting calibur players have gone by far to defense. If you look at the units where Thompson has placed his chips, he has placed them on defense, more then offense.

On offense, off the top of my head, Thompson brought in Morency, drafted Jackson. At QB, Thompson picked up A.Rodgers in the draft. WR saw Murphy, Jennings, Jackson (this years pick who is a S.Sharpe clone) and he brought in K.Robinson. TE, nothing but a couple of late round picks. O-line....Thompson drafted Colledge and Mohl and Spitz last year. He also picked up a couple of younger development type guys.

Thompson also saw Green, Henderson, Martin, Whale, Rivera, Flanagan, Nall, Davenport, Fisher, and J.Walker out of G.B.. Not that any/all those weren't good or necessary moves....I'm just saying that this is what Thompson's move list looks like on offense as far as players sent packing and players brought in. In many of the above instances, the players taking over for the players leaving weren't as good.

Now, on defense...

Thompson brought in or drafted the following: N.Collins, A.J. Hawk, C.Woodson, R.Pickett, M.Manuel, B.Taylor, Harrell, M.Underwood was a draft pick, Poppinga was a Thompson pick in 2005, A.Hodge was a draft pick in 2006, W.Blackmon in 2006, and A.Rouse in 2007. The only FA signing this year was a CB, F.Walker.

Who did Thompson usher out of G.B. on defense that you could say mattered? D.Sharper? Not G.Jackson. N.Diggs? A.Carroll? Who was that third round pick Carroll got into a fight with? He got dumped too. Joey Thomas. What else did Thompson lose on defense that wasn't replaced with an immediate improvement? I'm remembering more as I go. ... C.Hunt was dumped. Who was the kid from Oregon that we just got rid of? He's gone.

The impact of the players picked up on defense is far greater then the players picked up on offense. Most of the offensive players acquired needed time to develop. Most of the defensive players were ready to start and were improvements the moment they took the field.

If you compare what was lost and signed on defense with what was lost and signed on offense you can't help but come to the conclusion that Thompson gave more to the defense thus far in his tenure then he has to the offense.

[FritzDontBlitz]

the thing that gets me about all of this is how there has been nothing but disinformation about the pack this entire offseason. at least brett was man enough to step up today and say he let his emotions get the best of him. as far as the trade rumor goes, i will file it away with the gazillion reports about a "done deal" to trade moss to the pack. apparently the predraft confusion stoked by all the trade rumors got the best of brett as well.

still, its interesting to see how brett favre can be such a polarizing figure, even among pack fans....

[Scott Campbell]

Re: Favre

If you look at the units where Thompson has placed his chips, he has placed them on defense, more then offense.

I completely agree with this assessment and the rest of your post. My disagreement with your earlier statement of "ignored the offense" was strictly in the sense that it was too strong a statement. "Less emphasis" is more accurate than "completely ignored".

[Patler]

Re: Favre

First round picks, throughout his tenure, have gone defense every year except Rodgers.

"Throughout his tenure" in that statement of course means twice. If he had drafted an offensive player this year I guess we could have said:

"First round picks, throughout his tenure, have gone offense every year except Hawk."

Then we wouldn't have had to have this debate becausee TT would obviously have been emphasizing the offense in the draft! Everyone knows the other rounds don't matter!