Favre, Thompson, Rogers. The End.

[GrnBay007]

Rodgers has convinced me of nothing... his moving the ball against burger flippers does not put me all atwitter.

You crack me up wist...too funny!!!

[Packnut]

Debate

I had a big list of about 15 young players earlier in this thread. They are all good players now, but they'll be better players tomorrow and they'll need to get paid. That is the core of our team and the hard workers on that list will be rewarded with pay days. We have a lot of space now, but if TT's guys pan out, it's going to get hard to afford them some day. EVentually there will be a climax of talent. This is the year year the climb should start.

Hawk
Collins
Rodgers
Jennings
Poppinga
Spitz
Colledge
Moll
Woodson
Pickett
Jolly
Jenkins
Kampman
Barnett
Jackson
Harris extend
Driver extend
Crosby
Ryan even looks good now
Jones
We didn't draft Huff

You can't say that these guys are good players. Some of them are good, some of them show potential; but, relative to teams that have playoff/SB calibur rosters - this list doesn't get us close.

Entirely too many people have anointed Colledge and Spitz as being potential world beaters - they are both substandard G's at this point. We all see the potential for upside there, but is that pro bowl potential??? I don't see that.

Collins and Jennings have flashed, but there's a huge chasm between flashing ability, and putting it on display on an every day basis.

Rodgers has convinced me of nothing... his moving the ball against burger flippers does not put me all atwitter.

All TT has accomplished to this point, in the zero sum game, is to jettison two pro bowl calibur players in their prime, and bring in a ton - several tons actually - of young guys; and, out of that multitude, TT is hoping some will turn out.

TT has done some good things, but this team is woefully underpowered compared to the elite teams in the league. They have a long way to go.

That is the whole problem with this "debate" from Harrell and others when they defend Thompson. They annoint all the young guys as potential pro-bowl players when in reality they have done NOTHING to date.

Not one of them has produced on the field. Yep, Jennings did- for about 5 games. Colledge and Spitz show POTENTIAL but this also has not translated onto the field as of yet.

Now it look's as though Hodge is useless. It's one thing to blow a #4,5 or 6 round pick but now Teddy has blown a #3 and we still don't have a damn TE. Some teams have 3 freaking TE's(Denver) and we have NONE!

Also, let me tell you Thompson backers something. This great defense? How many are from the Sherman era?????????????

[Green Bud Packer]

Thompson is not allowed credit for Hawk. . It was a no brainer. .

It pays to be good and lucky.

[Zool]

Re: Debate

Also, let me tell you Thompson backers something. This great defense? How many are from the Sherman era?????????????

Ok if thats the game, how many of Sherman's O were from Wolfs era?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Re: Debate

Also, let me tell you Thompson backers something. This great defense? How many are from the Sherman era?????????????

Ok if thats the game, how many of Sherman's O were from Wolfs era?

Looks like 5 starters from Sherman (Kampman, Williams, Jenkins, Barnett, Harris) and 6 starters from Thompson (Pickett, Woodson, Hawk, Collins, Poppinga, Manuel). Considering Thompson is going on his third year, and Sherman was GM for 3-4 years and Sherman's players should be hitting their prime, it's not a great stat to point out. On offense, there are 4 starters from Wolf (Favre, Driver, Tauscher, Clifton), 1 starter from Sherman (Wells), and 6 starters from Thompson (Jackson/Morency, Jennings, Lee, Colledge, Spitz, Miree).

I don't know that this is surprising or unusual. New GMs tend to turn over their roster--especially when the roster is old and many players are hitting FA. More interesting is that out of the 22 starters, many didn't hit their strides until their 2nd or 3rd year in the league. Some even longer. Favre, Wells, Driver, Kampman, Williams, Jenkins, Harris all took a year or two to become good players. That's where the hope lies for me. Maybe some of these guys that haven't proven themselves yet, but that have shown some potential, produce this year. RB has me worried, but I think we'll be okay there. TE is a mess. I would expect we pick up somebody before the start of the season, but we'll see.

[Zool]

Re: Debate

Also, let me tell you Thompson backers something. This great defense? How many are from the Sherman era?????????????

Ok if thats the game, how many of Sherman's O were from Wolfs era?

Looks like 5 starters from Sherman (Kampman, Williams, Jenkins, Barnett, Harris) and 6 starters from Thompson (Pickett, Woodson, Hawk, Collins, Poppinga, Manuel). Considering Thompson is going on his third year, and Sherman was GM for 3-4 years and Sherman's players should be hitting their prime, it's not a great stat to point out. On offense, there are 4 starters from Wolf (Favre, Driver, Tauscher, Clifton), 1 starter from Sherman (Wells), and 6 starters from Thompson (Jackson/Morency, Jennings, Lee, Colledge, Spitz, Miree).

I don't know that this is surprising or unusual. New GMs tend to turn over their roster--especially when the roster is old and many players are hitting FA. More interesting is that out of the 22 starters, many didn't hit their strides until their 2nd or 3rd year in the league. Some even longer. Favre, Wells, Driver, Kampman, Williams, Jenkins, Harris all took a year or two to become good players. That's where the hope lies for me. Maybe some of these guys that haven't proven themselves yet, but that have shown some potential, produce this year. RB has me worried, but I think we'll be okay there. TE is a mess. I would expect we pick up somebody before the start of the season, but we'll see.

I was actually leaning towards the 2001-2004 roster, but point taken anyways.

These arguments are cyclical, because they are filled with opinion and conjecture.

Whether or not Sherm was actually making the picks 2001 was an awful draft. 2002 produced Walker, Davenport and Kampman. 2003, produced Barnett and nothing else. 2004 got Williams and Wells.

2002 was a great draft IMO. The rest were sub par. The Al Harris trade was great. The Hardy Nickerson/Joe Johnson pickups were terrible. Terry Glenn trade turned out bad.

Picks by year going back.

1993 - 9
1994 - 9
1995 - 10
1996 - 8
1997 - 8
1998 - 7
1999 - 12
2000 - 13
2001 - 6
2002 - 6
2003 - 9
2004 - 6
2005 - 11
2006 - 12
2007 - 11

Sherman had quite a few compensatory picks to work with, but you can see how his average picks per year is much lower than RW and TT.

What does all this mean? It means my workday is slow.

[cpk1994]

The time to judge whether Thompson was right about the TE and RB positions will come later, not after 1 pre-season game. My sense is that the so-called TT supporters are perhaps a bit more patient than his detractors. He is into his 3rd season as GM. If he has made the right moves, we should start to see the benefits this year. If the team does not progress, I think most on here will judge him accordingly.

They are. The detratctors source of TT hate stems from...... Brett Favre. Most of the detractors are overly loyal to Brett because Its all about getting him another SB ring. They also had this irrational belief that the Pack was 1 or 2 players away for the SB when in reeality that had been in decline for Shermans last 3 seasons. It shows up the most in the erosion of depth and nowhere was that more apparent then in 2005 when they had all the injuries You put that togetrher and combine the fact that TT doesn't see the team they way they did, they hate his guts. The supportrers understand that Favres chance for a SB ring is gone and the team needs serious repair. that means they are more patient. Incidentyl the TT is the soucre of about 99.9% of the Aaron Rodgers hate, but thats for another post.

[PackerBlues]

The entire debate over draft picks is very misleading. The reason being, Sherman actually used every means at his disposal to grab talent that he hoped would help the team immediately. If Sherman had a weak spot in his roster, he looked for veteran talent to fill the immediate need, then found young guys to bring up. Very different from Thompson who does not seem to look at what the team needs to improve, but simply picks the best player available in the draft. Hence we have Rogers, who has not started a single game in the two years he has been with the team, and Harrell, another first rounder that Thompson picked, at a position that the team was already strong in. Furthermore, Thompson does not appear to be into trading unless he is giving away our talent for draft picks. Sherman and Thompsons methods of improving the team are almost opposite of each other.

It is easy to see why Thompson supporters bring up the draft when they want to point out what a good job Thompson is supposedly doing. Its pretty much the only way Thompson has tried to improve the team. Thing is, I am not the least bit impressed with Thompsons draft record.

In 2001, Sherman and the Packers had the 28'th overall pick, Sherman moved up 8 spots by trading his 1st and 2nd round pick to Seattle, for their 1st and 5th round picks. If this didnt show balls by Sherman, I dont know what did. He got the guy he wanted, Javon Walker, in the 1st round, then managed to pick up Kampman in the 5th. While Thompson's supporters enjoy giving him credit for extending Kampmans contract, it was a no brainer, any GM would have done his best to keep Kampman. But since the supporters want to give Thompson credit for Shermans 5th round pick, then Thompson should also be given credit for not being able to negotiate with Walker, and sending him to Denver for a 2nd round pick. Thompson has had two drafts and two off-seasons to replace Walkers talent at WR, and he still has not done it.


Thompson's supporters also like to point out that Thompson made such a great move by picking up A.J. Hawk in 2006. Many of us think that pick was a no brainer, especially since we had the 5th overall pick. When was our other great LB Barnett picked up? In 2003, Sherman took Barnett with the 29th overall pick in the 1st round. I find that much more impressive than Thompsons gimme pick at #5.


Thompsons highest picking position in the draft was in 2005. This would be before Thompson dismantled our Offense, and Sherman had enough to work with to still give the Packers a winning record. Thompson took over the draft though, and with the 24th overall pick, Thompson went with a guy that everyone was suprised to see fall so far, Aaron Rogers. The Supporters of Thompson will tell you that with Favre's imminent retirement, this was the move to make, and the man to pick. A first round pick, used on a guy who has not had a single start in the two seasons since he was picked. Thompsons supporters continue to defend this pick, and get visibly upset if anyone talks about what a wasted pick it was.


Sherman was not afraid to look for trades, or to go after Veteran help. He had some busts, but a few of the trades worked out pretty good. In 2002, Sherman traded two 4th round picks to New England for Terry Glenn. The Packers were, in a lot of ways, in the same boat that they are in now. They had Donald Driver as the #1 reciever, but after that it was just young guys that were unproven. Walker was drafted that year, and Ferguson the year before. So, unlike Thompson, Sherman got veteran help by trading for Terry Glenn. It was not a bust of a trade as some Thompson supporters would suggest. Terry Glenn was there to fill a hole in our Offense, while the rookies learned the system. That year, Glenn had 56 receptions for 817 yards. After the season, he was traded to Dallas, he had served his purpose in GB, and it was time to let the rookies play. (Which by the way, I find to be a hell of a lot better way to bring up a rookie, when compared to Thompson's half-assed idea of throwing a bunch of rookies on the field during a regular season game and letting them "compete" for the position)

Again, anyone thinking that Terry Glenn was a shit move by Sherman, take into consideration Glenn's 56 receptions and 817 yards that year......then take a look at Robert Fergusons SIX YEARS
with the team, the best he has done in any season was in 2003 when he had 38 receptions for 520 yards. Again, I have to ask.....why is he still here?

Who has Thompson brought to this team via trade or free agency? The only guy that stands out so far,is Woodson. In the meantime, he has let Ahman Green and Randy Moss slip through his fingers while renewing the contract of Bubba Franks........uggg!

Sherman via trade or free agency, brought us Al Harris, Allen Rossum, Russell Maryland, Wesley Walls,Grady Jackson, and also re-signed Gilbert Brown and Antonio Freeman. The supporters of Thompson will always point out the signings of Joe Johnson and the contracts of Hunt and KGB. As far as Johnson goes, everyone was excited about that pick, and at that time, everyone thought that Johnson was what this team needed to improve our Defense. Everyone was wrong, not just Sherman. At least he tried, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for Thompson. As for Hunt, he got his big contract, and like many other lazy fat bastards, let himself go as soon as he had his money. No way that Sherman could have foreseen that. KGB was Shermans mistake, not because he gave him to much money, but because he put the wrong tender on KGB, and had to match the Eagles offer in order to keep him.....very sad.

Overall though, you really only have to look at the teams record to determine who was more successful. Sherman gave the team winning records until Thompson took over as GM and dismantled the Offense, from that point on, the teams record has been on
Thompsons shoulders and the best we have seen is 8-8. Not very impressive at all.

[Zool]

So we should discount the fact that Sherm had Favre, Green and pieces in place for the best O-line in football when he got here? Talk about misleading.

Sherman also had quite a few compensatory picks each year, but always ended up trading up. He was not a good GM IMO and it will be impossible for you to ever convince me otherwise.

[SkinBasket]

[quote="PackerBlues"]

I have always been pissed off about the O-line in 2005. I have never once bought into the theory that we were just to strapped for cash to sign the guys on our O-line. To me, that was just a cop-out to explain Thompson's desire to get younger by weeding out older players. Did we need to get younger on the O-line? Yes, but we did not necessarily have to do it all at once like Thompson did. I do not think there is any excuse that Thompson himself or anyone else for that matter could give to explain the pathetic line that Thompson sent our team into the 2005 season with. Even after Thompson himself admitted that it was one of his biggest mistakes, people still try to defend that mistake by blaming Sherman for supposed cap problems.

I may have missed it in the 1032 argumentative threads about this issue, but I have yet to see someone explain how we would have realistically been able to keep one, much less both, of those guys and still been able to sign or draft picks. Not sure how not having dick for money under the cap that year translates to "supposed cap problems." Seems pretty real to me.

[PackerBlues]

[quote="SkinFlute"]

I have always been pissed off about the O-line in 2005. I have never once bought into the theory that we were just to strapped for cash to sign the guys on our O-line. To me, that was just a cop-out to explain Thompson's desire to get younger by weeding out older players. Did we need to get younger on the O-line? Yes, but we did not necessarily have to do it all at once like Thompson did. I do not think there is any excuse that Thompson himself or anyone else for that matter could give to explain the pathetic line that Thompson sent our team into the 2005 season with. Even after Thompson himself admitted that it was one of his biggest mistakes, people still try to defend that mistake by blaming Sherman for supposed cap problems.

I may have missed it in the 1032 argumentative threads about this issue, but I have yet to see someone explain how we would have realistically been able to keep one, much less both, of those guys and still been able to sign or draft picks. Not sure how not having dick for money under the cap that year translates to "supposed cap problems." Seems pretty real to me.

It has been explained. It has been explained repeatedly. While Sherman was still in charge, before Thompson took over and dismantled the Offense, Sherman stated that the cap was tight. That he was not going to be able to sign everyone. I believe he even stated that he would probably be able to keep Darren Sharper, and either Wahle or Rivera, but not both. So, there was room to maneuver, and that is not even counting the fact that at that time, the salary cap was expected to take a huge jump the following year.

If Sherman could have done it, then Thompson could have too. I dont think that anyone is suggesting that Thompson could have kept the entire O-line intact, but at the same time, I dont think anyone really believes that Thompson needed to go fuckin nuts and let every single big name, big money veteran go the way that he did. What I myself find upsetting, is that we obviously could have kept either Wahle or Rivera for another couple of years. It would have been less of a dropoff in talent on the O-line, and allowed young guys to be brought up more slowly. Instead, Thompson let the O-line go, only to admit just recently, that he screwed up by doing so, without a plan in place to shore up the O-line by the start of the season. The 4-12 record that year was all the proof that most of us needed, yet others still act like nothing bad ever happened, even though Thompson has admitted it. The 4-12 record by the way, was the worst dropoff from one year to the next in Franchise history. Way to start your tenure Teddy!

[woodbuck27]

Re: Thompson

All I know is that the FACTS and NUMBERS speak for themselves. It's funny how the Thompson backers seldom if ever argue with facts. It's always blind loyalty filled with wishful thinking.

I'm neither a Thompson lover/backer or hater. I try to analyze each situation differently. I wasn't a Sherman lover, so I don't feel the need to rip Thompson on almost every move. Nor was I a Sherman hater, so I don't praise Thompson for every move. Same with Favre and Rodgers or whatever other motives might be at play. To say something like this is just laughable and condescending, and I doubt it wins many people over. Seems to me, you need to look in the mirror when you make accusations like this. I'm not the one spewing the over-the-top hyperbole. Most of the others that are for or against Thompson's approach don't do it either. I know of a few that do, and those are the ones that are the most defensive when people challenge them. They are the ones that do the most complaining about "the other" group. Let's give folks a little credit here. Many of their arguments are just as valid as yours or mine.

Bottom line: I hope to hell that Thompson builds a championship caliber team--just like I hoped Sherman would. I'm not ready to write off his approach, and I don't think that makes me some kind of blind supporter of him.

I don't believe that you are a blind supporter of TT Harvey. I believe that you are a reasonable and competent peson who is strong as a Packer fan and in your background knowledge of football in general and the NFL.

Your a Packer fan who aims for fairness Harvey, but I'll remind you that you promised yourself that things have to change by the completion of 2007 or you will re-assess GM Ted Thompson in light of our future as Packer fans.

We have to win in 2007!

NFL and Packer fans deserve to be very proud of our team. Most important is this:

It's manner of being run from a standpoint of management and coaching and it's success on the field of play in terms of our W-L record.

I have been down the tube with most here at Packerrats. Going back to JSO (before our new home was established) and the earliest days of Ted Thompson as our GM. I have only written well of him when he deserved praise.He got off to a poor start with me.

I will admit this again.

To understand me please simply understand that I want to see the Packers win. and. . .

I totally support Favre (in the sense of the fact that by nature I'm a person who asserts loyality and trust only when deserved). That extends to the Packer vet players (of the recent past and present) that retain the skills to contribute reality to winning. I supported Ahman Green as well as other Packers that TT allowed or elected to leave Green bay.

I didn't support TT's choice of AR as our first pick on TT's watch. We had more pressing needs than another clip board carrier and the selection of a QB that more that two score other teams passed on.

TT made that selection of AR without being properly cognizant of AR's true value for us. That was arguably a frivalous pick and whether or not Aaron Rodgers will be any real service to us winning remains to be seen. The cost of that wait has been high.

TT had better options to serve present needs in April 2005.

Now history repeats itself in last April's draft with the selection of Justin Harrell. We will not plow through that anymore. It's done !

I will remind all here of this. It's not news to y'all.

The greatest predictor of the future is to understand the past.

In my humble experience. People generally have a real challenge to change for the better and to grow. I see that challenge, not being met in our GM's ways and personality. and the real clout lies here.

I believe the NFL is aware of the flaws in Ted Thompson that is too obvious in 2007 or three years under his care and trust.

The proof of dissatisfaction lies in the pudding. Too many Packer fans are growing more dissatisfied with Ted Thompson's ways and lack of success in protecting our offense in terms of it being a success.

I make no excuses for a GM that neglects one side of our team (the 'O'). No excuses can sit with me as to the reason for that reality we again face as Packer fans in 2007.

Whether it's neglect on TT's part as a matter of an agenda, is merely speculative (the conspiracy theory or it's simply his degree of inexperience and a measure of a lack of competence in trems of his manner or personality is up in the air.

I trust that we are all very concerned to be fair to Ted Thompson, but how far do we go and at what overall expense? it's a fact of life for Packer fans and for any of us ( as mutual and supportive packer fans ) to deny that we are in trouble offensively now, isn't a matter mere blind faith in Ted Thompson as GM but fr. my viewpoint more a delusion.

We are going to be very bad in 2007 running the ball, at the TE position and possibly as well at FB. We need players at those positions with the skills and experience to advance tha ball and protect our QB. We don't see nor have that in place and that fall on Ted Thompson and noone else given that Mike McCarthy will do all he can with his staff to develop the talent that TT allows him.

This season I see a lot of the same stuff that TT allowed Mike Sherman. History is repeating itself.

Will our record in 2007 reflect just that?

It's a daily concern that's very frustrating for me as a Packer fan. My only consolation, thanks to Packerrats and fr. visiting other sources that support the Green Bay Packer fan base.I'm not alone.

I share this frustration with a large proportion of other Packer fans.

As always and foremost. . .

GO PACKERS !

[woodbuck27]

Greg Olsen would of looked good in Green and Gold, right about now.

I felt that you didn't like him as a possible choice before the draft BH.

Was I confused?

He seems to be doing v. well in the Bears camp and may make a huge difference to the flexibility in their 'O' and growth in Grossman as a young QB.

[SkinBasket]

It has been explained. It has been explained repeatedly. While Sherman was still in charge, before Thompson took over and dismantled the Offense, Sherman stated that the cap was tight. That he was not going to be able to sign everyone. I believe he even stated that he would probably be able to keep Darren Sharper, and either Wahle or Rivera, but not both. So, there was room to maneuver, and that is not even counting the fact that at that time, the salary cap was expected to take a huge jump the following year.

And this is just as ambiguous an "explanation" as I've ever seen. To sum up: Sherman said we might be able to do it, therefore we definitely could do it. Convincing stuff.

[PackerBlues]

It has been explained. It has been explained repeatedly. While Sherman was still in charge, before Thompson took over and dismantled the Offense, Sherman stated that the cap was tight. That he was not going to be able to sign everyone. I believe he even stated that he would probably be able to keep Darren Sharper, and either Wahle or Rivera, but not both. So, there was room to maneuver, and that is not even counting the fact that at that time, the salary cap was expected to take a huge jump the following year.

And this is just as ambiguous an "explanation" as I've ever seen. To sum up: Sherman said we might be able to do it, therefore we definitely could do it. Convincing stuff.

As opposed to your ambiguous viewpoint that says "If Teddy thinks it will work, then it will definitely work." Just because Thompson does something his way, does not mean that its the only way.