Favre, Thompson, Rogers. The End.

[superfan]

Using our 1st round pick on Rogers was a mistake that year. Why?

Thompson is building this team around a strong Defense, not a good QB. Considering as how Thompson is building this team around a strong defense, an average QB with enough smarts to manage the game is all that you need. Not to hard to find in Free Agency......if you have the balls to use it.

Rogers has not started a single game in the two years he has been here, and might not start one for another year or more. Had Thompson used that pick on any other player at any other position, chances are, we would have had a starter at that position by now.

Most Thompson supporters/apologist do not like to admit that Picking Rogers was a mistake. They seem to think that when Rogers gets his start, their faith in, and loyalty to Thompson will be vindicated. That it will make everyone else forget the mistake, or at the very least, that they will no longer have to make excuses for said mistake.

Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with Rogers as a person or a player. Again, to me, he is just one more, in a long line, of Brett Favre's back-ups. Did I see improvement in Rogers against the Steelers? Hell yeah I did. But he is still just the back up QB, not the starter. If Thompson and M3 are planning on building this team around a strong Defense, and not a HOF QB, then damned near any QB will work to simply manage the game.

First, it is way too early to call the pick of Aaron Rodgers a mistake. We have no idea yet whether he is a first round pick caliber of player or not. When he was taken, it was not with the intention of challenging Favre's starting job, it was insurance in case Favre decided to hang up the cleats after the 2005 season. If Favre had done so, and if we had passed on Rodgers, there would have been lots of second guessing. The defense was nowhere near as strong as it is now, and most Packer fans I know were fully expecting a return to the dark ages if Favre retired with no Plan B at QB other than Nall and Sullivan. I would guess most of us still feel that way.

You can certainly argue that they could've or should've taken somebody else who could have provided more help in the short term. But none of us know yet if the Rodgers pick was a mistake. Brunell didn't do anything in a Packer uniform, would you call drafting him a mistake? He has gone on to have a productive career.

Second, although I agree with your statement that Thompson is building a strong defense, I infer that your meaning is that he is building a strong defense at the expense of the offense, and that his blueprint is a team like the Dilfer led Baltimore SB team. I don't see that. The one consistent thing I've seen out of Thompson is that he is building for the long term, not the short term. Considering the state of the defense since he took over the team, his moves have had a greater short term impact on improving the defense. But based on what he has done he is hardly neglecting the offense. He spent a first round pick on Rodgers. He has spent high picks on Jennings, Jones, Jackson, Colledge, Spitz. The common thread that I see with his moves, including the Harrell pick, is drafting for the future and for value, not immediate need and defensive focus. His approach is debatable, but to suggest that he is only trying to build a strong defense seems inaccurate.

Two examples of winning teams that had great defenses but lacked great QBs were the 2000 Ravens (Dilfer) and 2002 Buccaneers (Brad Johnson). These teams tend to be the exception, not the norm, and you usually need a balanced team to win the SB. If the goal is to build a great defense but punt the QB position, then Thompson would be making a huge mistake.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well said, superfan.

[Bretsky]

Over the past ten years the Super Bowl Winner has averaged over 26 points per game in the regular season. Source was ESNP Mort. Interesting tidbit.

[SkinBasket]

I really have to wonder, just what in the fuck is your problem? I see all sorts of intelligent posts from other people in this thread. Hell, some of the people, I dont even agree with at all at times, and yet they at least state their own opinions in an intelligent and well thought out manner. All I have seen from you is your pompous remarks about posts that I have made, with nothing at all from you of your own opinions, nothing intelligent, nothing thought out. Just stupid assed sarcasm with nothing to add.

Let's travel back in time a short distance, my friend, to when you said this:

Say a few bad things about Ted Thompson or Aaron Rogers, and just look at all the fun you can have playing with the Douche bags that go into attack mode.

For someone who seems to revel in having fun "playing with the Douche bags that go into attack mode," you certainly have thin skin. You see, I don't have a problem with you. I don't know you. Although you do seem to take things very personally, all I know about you is what you post here and from my perspective, what you've posted in this thread, for the most part, has been unfounded, dim-witted prattle.

When I see said unfounded, dim-witted prattle, my first inclination is to ask said poster to provide some basis for the garbage they are spewing from their pie-hole. I asked that of you. You replied with nonsense, accusations of misquoting, taking your words out of context, backpedaling, circular (though I cringe to use the word as it implies there was some kind of form to your thinking) arguments asking me to refer to your admittedly unfounded basis as proof of your ranting, and eventually after asking me to stop insulting you by insulting me, an admission that you were completely wrong, or as you put it, after finally educating yourself to a very small degree of the subject you were so ardently arguing about:

Kinda blows my argument all to shit doesn't it.

So I thought maybe you might have learned something. Until you immediately chose a new subject for your senseless banter. And I was a little sad.

From your very first post in this thread, you have done nothing but challenge me and demand explanations that you simply ignore anyway. You quote me as having said things that I did not say, and when I prove it, your warped little mind cant handle it, so you disapear for a while only to pop up again later, demanding more proof or explanations about shit that I have already gone over.

Well god forbid I ask you to defend what you assert as truth. As we already saw in our discussion about the offensive line in 05, it did you a lot of good to have someone challenge you. You learned you were not as completely and absolutely right in all your assumptions as you thought you were. You did some reading. When you tried to find proof for your opinion, you found evidence you were wrong, despite your multiple and mind-numbing assertions otherwise. You learned something, I thought at the time, and had much higher expectations for your future posts. It's unfortunate that you seemed to forget what you had learned by the next day however.

So, yes, this thread is turning into a highlight reel of sorts, and anyone that wants to go back and look through this thread will have no problem figuring out where I stand on the issues that the title of the thread suggests. Favre, Thompson, and Rogers. The only person I can see that should be embarrassed by their posts, is you. Every post that you have put into this thread has been no more than a sentence or two demanding proof of something, making smart-assed comments about something that I or someone else posted, or just plain and simple ranting. Hell man, people that I dont agree with at all have made me question my stand a number of times. They usually throw together a few paragraphs of well thought out material. Unlike you, again, anyone wanting to go back and look at your posts, is only going to see one or two sentences of sarcastic, smart assed shit.

Don't forget, Mr. Angry-Pants, that you are the one making assertions in this thread. You are the one trying to make some kind of point. I'm not a Ted supporter nor do I feel particularly strong feelings for Rogers. I simply don't agree with your opinions, so I challenge them. At which point you seem to fly off the handle, go berserk-o, and lose all sense of what point you were even trying to make. You make accusations, offer no support for your thoughts, and generally do a piss poor job of making a constructive argument, which is why I'm here - to discuss, dispute, and argue points about the Packers. Not to listen to wildly uninformed opinions being advanced as truth and then have you go all nutty when someone asks you to back up your nonsense with something -anything really - that would pass as fact or evidence or contextual support. It's a simple thing really, and a basic tenant of debating anything.

Feel free to continue throwing words like "retardosity" at me, and demanding explanations that have already been given, but that you choose time and time again to ignore, it will fall on deaf ears. This is the last time that I will be responding to your negative BS. Get help, because to be honest with you buddy, I really pity you.

I'm deeply touched that you pity me. I will continue to use words like retardosity when what I see is a bonanza of retarded thought being thrown at me like some kind of squirming worm ball of confusion and ignorance. It's too bad that you feel unable to defend yourself and your ideas to the degree you are simply going to ignore anyone who challenges them, but it's not entirely uncommon in the world of internet forums, so don't feel too bad.

I really have to wonder, just what in the fuck is your problem?

I hope this has helped you in your wondering. My problem is with your "arguments," for lack of a better term, not you, and think it's unfortunate you seem unable to separate the two.

[PackerBlues]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20050226/ai_n11828388

This article, is a compelling argument that the Packers would not have been able to sign Wahle in 2005. My opinion/argument was that contracts could have been restructured, and Wahle's contract could be back loaded. I have admitted, that after reading this article, that my opinion/argument may have been shot to hell, and furthermore, it was Shermans fault that the Packers were taking a bigger cap hit from Wahle than they would have had to take, had Sherman offered the correct tender to Wahle. Which by the way, is the same reason that KGB ended up with the huge contract that he had gotten, Sherman offered the wrong tender, The Eagles made KGB an offer, and GB had to offer more to keep KGB. Both mistakes, Shermans fault.

I do not have a problem with admitting that I am wrong. However when faced with my opinion against someone elses, I will continue to try to find ways to argue my side until I see facts/proof, that prove me wrong. In this case, I found what would amount to enough proof to prove me wrong, or at the very least to tear my opinion/argument all to hell. I did not wait for someone else to find the article, I posted it myself, and admitted I may be wrong. Here is what made me at the very least question my belief that Whale could have been signed from the above linked article:

Wahle probably is looking at a signing bonus of $10 million or more once he hits the open market.

Green Bay will have to release Wahle by the start of the league year Wednesday because his cap salary for 2005 would be an exorbitant $11.375 million. By doing so, the Packers would gain $11 million in cap room.

If cut, Wahle would head the list of available guards.

Early in the unrestricted signing period in March 2003, Wahle turned down an offer to play right tackle for Kansas City and signed a six-year, $18.4 million deal with the Packers. The deal looked good on paper for the agent, but in reality it was a three-year, $7.5 million deal because in 2005 his base salary skyrocketed to $5 million in addition to a $6 million roster bonus.

If the Packers had been willing to give Wahle more than $2.25 million in signing bonus at the time, the deal wouldn't have had the drop-dead point of March 2005. The team basically had Wahle at a reasonable rate for the last three seasons but always looming in the distance was the inevitable release of an outstanding player.

Barring unexpected events, that sad day for the Packers will arrive Wednesday.

Again, I posted this article myself. I have no problem admitting that I may be wrong when faced with something more than another persons opinion. There are some here though that will get very defensive in taking the other side of the arguemnt. People such as Skinbasket that when faced with an argument/opinion they do not agree with, will attack by calling another persons opinion "unfounded retardosity", or say such things as "My position is that you're full of shit" , rather than come up with anything of value to back up their own opinion or side of an argument.


Even though I freely admit that the above linked article does poke some pretty huge holes in my belief that Wahle could have been signed, we are still faced with the facts that in 2001, the Packers were approx $20 million over the salary cap, and managed to work it out, and that in 2006, the Packers topped the league in salary cap room by being $35 million dollars under the cap. Knowing this, I dont think anyone could say that it is a FACT that Wahle could not have been signed, just that it was not probable.


Now, why did I want to try to argue that Wahle could have been signed? Ted Thompson admitted that not shoring up the O-line before the 2005 season may have been his biggest mistake to date. The 2005 O-line was a subject that had been debated heatedly in these forums time and again before Thompson made that comment. Again, for myself personally, I am always going to be loyal to Brett Favre. Seeing the pocket collapse in front of Brett time and time again in 2005, pissed me off. Seeing Brett's old body take the beatings that he had been taking in 2005 pissed me off. Seeing Brett continually have to scramble the way he had to in 2005 pissed me off. Seeing Brett's interceptions skyrocket as a result of the O-line in 2005 pissed me off. Seeing that Brett's biggest weapon, Donald Driver, was usually double teamed and the rest of his weapons were either inexperienced or simply could not catch a damned ball without tippin it, or in Fergys case HANDING it to a defender pissed me off. Not having a second reciever such as Walker pissed me off.

So, who can I blame for all of those things in 2005 that pissed me off? Well, naturally, I looked to blame Thompson. I looked for any excuse I could, to lay the blame on him, and I admit that freely. I tried to argue that Wahle could have been signed, and while I do not believe that anyone can step up and claim that it is a fact that Wahle could not have been signed, I myself admit that it was not very probable. It is still my opinion that Thompson not only could have done a better job at shoring up the O-line before the 2005 season (say for instance by using his first round pick on something other than a backup QB), but that he also did not see the importance of having experienced guards. I believe someone else here quoted Thompson as having said that "guards are a dime a dozen in the NFL", while I vaguely remember hearing that myself, I do not have a direct quote to back that up.

There are many other things about Thompson that I have strong opinions on, that I will continue to debate. I will freely admit, that someone may prove me wrong on any one of these things. But that is why we all come to these forums. Not just to stay updated on current Packer news, but to debate past history in an attempt to sway others towards our opinion or point of view as to what happened, or as to why something happened a certain way. Again, I do not claim that I am always right, or that my opinion is the only one that matters. For instance, not all of, but some of the things that Justin Harrell writes, comes off as being overly optimistic to me. Yet I still enjoy reading his opinions, and I respect the way he thinks things out and the way he comes across in debating his point of view. The things he writes are well thought out and you can see his enthusiasm in his writing. I respect that, and will always enjoy reading his posts, irregardless as to weather I agree with him or not. However, I have no respect whatsoever for people like Skinbasket, with their simple response of one or two sentences that challenge a post without taking a stand on their point of view at all. I have no respect for a person who instead of trying to point out what is wrong with my opinion, will simply attack in a sarcastic or demeaning way.

I apologize to everyone here (other than skinbasket) for blowing up on him the way that I did. In case anyone had not noticed, I have got an awful temper, not a short fuse, just a temper that I do not control very well once the fuse has been lit. I look forward to reading more posts from all of you and debating the issues that we as Packer fans, so enjoy debating.
Again, I am sorry for the blowup, and I will try harder to ignore the negativity of people like Skinbasket.

[Scott Campbell]

You (Skin) quote me as having said things that I did not say........

Where did he misquote you?

So where did he misquote you?

[Scott Campbell]

People such as Skinbasket that when faced with an argument/opinion they do not agree with, will attack by calling another persons opinion "unfounded retardosity", or say such things as "My position is that you're full of shit" , rather than come up with anything of value to back up their own opinion or side of an argument.

First off, Skin talks that way to his friends. What makes you think he's going to cut you any slack?

Secondly, you've lost your temper with people who pointed out your "facts" were flawed. You've initiated insults. I don't really buy into the "PackerBlues is a victim of meanies" logic.

It helps to have a thick skin around here, because some of us are just naturally sarcastic.

[Packnut]

Offense

Using our 1st round pick on Rogers was a mistake that year. Why?

Thompson is building this team around a strong Defense, not a good QB. Considering as how Thompson is building this team around a strong defense, an average QB with enough smarts to manage the game is all that you need. Not to hard to find in Free Agency......if you have the balls to use it.

Rogers has not started a single game in the two years he has been here, and might not start one for another year or more. Had Thompson used that pick on any other player at any other position, chances are, we would have had a starter at that position by now.

Most Thompson supporters/apologist do not like to admit that Picking Rogers was a mistake. They seem to think that when Rogers gets his start, their faith in, and loyalty to Thompson will be vindicated. That it will make everyone else forget the mistake, or at the very least, that they will no longer have to make excuses for said mistake.

Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with Rogers as a person or a player. Again, to me, he is just one more, in a long line, of Brett Favre's back-ups. Did I see improvement in Rogers against the Steelers? Hell yeah I did. But he is still just the back up QB, not the starter. If Thompson and M3 are planning on building this team around a strong Defense, and not a HOF QB, then damned near any QB will work to simply manage the game.

First, it is way too early to call the pick of Aaron Rodgers a mistake. We have no idea yet whether he is a first round pick caliber of player or not. When he was taken, it was not with the intention of challenging Favre's starting job, it was insurance in case Favre decided to hang up the cleats after the 2005 season. If Favre had done so, and if we had passed on Rodgers, there would have been lots of second guessing. The defense was nowhere near as strong as it is now, and most Packer fans I know were fully expecting a return to the dark ages if Favre retired with no Plan B at QB other than Nall and Sullivan. I would guess most of us still feel that way.

You can certainly argue that they could've or should've taken somebody else who could have provided more help in the short term. But none of us know yet if the Rodgers pick was a mistake. Brunell didn't do anything in a Packer uniform, would you call drafting him a mistake? He has gone on to have a productive career.

Second, although I agree with your statement that Thompson is building a strong defense, I infer that your meaning is that he is building a strong defense at the expense of the offense, and that his blueprint is a team like the Dilfer led Baltimore SB team. I don't see that. The one consistent thing I've seen out of Thompson is that he is building for the long term, not the short term. Considering the state of the defense since he took over the team, his moves have had a greater short term impact on improving the defense. But based on what he has done he is hardly neglecting the offense. He spent a first round pick on Rodgers. He has spent high picks on Jennings, Jones, Jackson, Colledge, Spitz. The common thread that I see with his moves, including the Harrell pick, is drafting for the future and for value, not immediate need and defensive focus. His approach is debatable, but to suggest that he is only trying to build a strong defense seems inaccurate.

Two examples of winning teams that had great defenses but lacked great QBs were the 2000 Ravens (Dilfer) and 2002 Buccaneers (Brad Johnson). These teams tend to be the exception, not the norm, and you usually need a balanced team to win the SB. If the goal is to build a great defense but punt the QB position, then Thompson would be making a huge mistake.

For the life of me, I can't fathom how anyone can defend Thompson when it comes to the offense. If your not seeing it, than your not paying attention. Teddy is a very poor evaluator when it comes to offense. The facts support that view. He virtually gave a way a blue chip WR that keeps a D honest.

Anyone with just a little understanding of the game knows you must either have a passing game that can stretch the field or a running game that can keep the D honest. We have NEITHER and several of you are gonna learn just exactly what that means.

This offense is going to struggle AGAIN. Just how many years do we have to rank at the bottom in RZ effieiency and points scored before it becomes obvious that Teddy has NO CLUE when it comes to building an offense?

Also this slow cautious approach that some of you seem to be so proud of, does not guarentee success nor does it make a GM out to be a genious. The NFL is modeled to build a team much quicker than in the past. Some of you are so quick to except mediocrity, that's it's down-right funny.

[PackerBlues]

[quote="Scott Campbell"]

You (Skin) quote me as having said things that I did not say........

Where did he misquote you?

If you are so interested, look it up yourself. Skinbasket misquoted me as saying that the packers could have signed Sharper and either Wahle or Rivera. What I had actually written was that I recalled Sherman making a statement that HE thought that we could probably sign Sharper and possibly either Rivera or Wahle. I do not have a direct quote to that, so I cannot prove that Sherman said it, or that he said it that way. To my recollection, we had Longwell, Sharper, Wahle, and Rivera to sign, and he may have even worded it that we may be able to keep either Longwell or Sharper and Wahle or Rivera.

Irregardless, Skinbasket misquoted me in a sarcastic and intentionally demeaning way as having said myself, that "we could have kept Sharper and either Wahle and Rivera". He misquoted me as if I was a complete idiot for saying such a thing.......when I never said it at all.
That would be in addition to taking things out of context in a negative way as well.

[Scott Campbell]

Re: Offense

Teddy is a very poor evaluator when it comes to offense. The facts support that view.

The facts? Well maybe some of them do support that notion, but certainly not all of them:

1) Jennings
2) Colledge
3) Spitz
4) Jones (it's early, but the reviews so far are promising. I believe this was the pick you or somebody said something like "this is Ted trying to prove he's smarter than everyone else".

[Carolina_Packer]

At what point do you say enough arguing about this stuff, and just let it go?

Why don't we argue about about whether we should have traded for John Hadl back in the 70's?

Why don't we argue about whether we should have drafted Ronnie Lott instead of Rich Campbell in 1981?

Why don't we argue whether we should have drafted Barry Sanders instead of Tony Mandarich in 1989?

It doesn't rise to the level of getting so worked up. Let's argue about what's in front of us...this season. Good discourse, discussion is one thing, but at some point, you gotta get off the topic train at the station somewhere instead of riding it endlessly.

[SkinBasket]

If you are so interested, look it up yourself. Skinbasket misquoted me as saying that the packers could have signed Sharper and either Wahle or Rivera. What I had actually written was that I recalled Sherman making a statement that HE thought that we could probably sign Sharper and possibly either Rivera or Wahle. I do not have a direct quote to that, so I cannot prove that Sherman said it, or that he said it that way. To my recollection, we had Longwell, Sharper, Wahle, and Rivera to sign, and he may have even worded it that we may be able to keep either Longwell or Sharper and Wahle or Rivera.

Irregardless, Skinbasket misquoted me in a sarcastic and intentionally demeaning way as having said myself, that "we could have kept Sharper and either Wahle and Rivera". He misquoted me as if I was a complete idiot for saying such a thing.......when I never said it at all.
That would be in addition to taking things out of context in a negative way as well.

I guess I'm just going to be ignored in a very passive-aggressive sort of way now. Well, here's where we all began this arduous journey:

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.

You are assuming that the Packers had a salary cap problem that could not be fixed in any other way, other than the way that Thompson fixed it. Just as much as I am assuming that based on what Sherman had said, the O-line did not need to be torn apart the way that it was.

In other words, you were basing your argument off what Sherman said. Or is this somehow another misquote? I wouldn't want to demean you in any way by relying on your own words, or maybe something like... oh I don't know... changing your username to something supposedly demeaning whenever I quote you because that would just be downright terrible and go against everything you stand for. Right?

Please, ignore away.

[SkinBasket]

It doesn't rise to the level of getting so worked up. Let's argue about what's in front of us...this season. Good discourse, discussion is one thing, but at some point, you gotta get off the topic train at the station somewhere instead of riding it endlessly.

That would be going against almost everything that this site was built upon. We need one of these every now and again to reaffirm why the good times are good.

[Carolina_Packer]

Skinbasket,

Is that a reject Teletubbie in your signature picture?

[PackerBlues]

Re: Offense

Using our 1st round pick on Rogers was a mistake that year. Why?

Thompson is building this team around a strong Defense, not a good QB. Considering as how Thompson is building this team around a strong defense, an average QB with enough smarts to manage the game is all that you need. Not to hard to find in Free Agency......if you have the balls to use it.

Rogers has not started a single game in the two years he has been here, and might not start one for another year or more. Had Thompson used that pick on any other player at any other position, chances are, we would have had a starter at that position by now.

Most Thompson supporters/apologist do not like to admit that Picking Rogers was a mistake. They seem to think that when Rogers gets his start, their faith in, and loyalty to Thompson will be vindicated. That it will make everyone else forget the mistake, or at the very least, that they will no longer have to make excuses for said mistake.

Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with Rogers as a person or a player. Again, to me, he is just one more, in a long line, of Brett Favre's back-ups. Did I see improvement in Rogers against the Steelers? Hell yeah I did. But he is still just the back up QB, not the starter. If Thompson and M3 are planning on building this team around a strong Defense, and not a HOF QB, then damned near any QB will work to simply manage the game.

First, it is way too early to call the pick of Aaron Rodgers a mistake. We have no idea yet whether he is a first round pick caliber of player or not. When he was taken, it was not with the intention of challenging Favre's starting job, it was insurance in case Favre decided to hang up the cleats after the 2005 season. If Favre had done so, and if we had passed on Rodgers, there would have been lots of second guessing. The defense was nowhere near as strong as it is now, and most Packer fans I know were fully expecting a return to the dark ages if Favre retired with no Plan B at QB other than Nall and Sullivan. I would guess most of us still feel that way.

You can certainly argue that they could've or should've taken somebody else who could have provided more help in the short term. But none of us know yet if the Rodgers pick was a mistake. Brunell didn't do anything in a Packer uniform, would you call drafting him a mistake? He has gone on to have a productive career.

Second, although I agree with your statement that Thompson is building a strong defense, I infer that your meaning is that he is building a strong defense at the expense of the offense, and that his blueprint is a team like the Dilfer led Baltimore SB team. I don't see that. The one consistent thing I've seen out of Thompson is that he is building for the long term, not the short term. Considering the state of the defense since he took over the team, his moves have had a greater short term impact on improving the defense. But based on what he has done he is hardly neglecting the offense. He spent a first round pick on Rodgers. He has spent high picks on Jennings, Jones, Jackson, Colledge, Spitz. The common thread that I see with his moves, including the Harrell pick, is drafting for the future and for value, not immediate need and defensive focus. His approach is debatable, but to suggest that he is only trying to build a strong defense seems inaccurate.

Two examples of winning teams that had great defenses but lacked great QBs were the 2000 Ravens (Dilfer) and 2002 Buccaneers (Brad Johnson). These teams tend to be the exception, not the norm, and you usually need a balanced team to win the SB. If the goal is to build a great defense but punt the QB position, then Thompson would be making a huge mistake.

For the life of me, I can't fathom how anyone can defend Thompson when it comes to the offense. If your not seeing it, than your not paying attention. Teddy is a very poor evaluator when it comes to offense. The facts support that view. He virtually gave a way a blue chip WR that keeps a D honest.

Anyone with just a little understanding of the game knows you must either have a passing game that can stretch the field or a running game that can keep the D honest. We have NEITHER and several of you are gonna learn just exactly what that means.

This offense is going to struggle AGAIN. Just how many years do we have to rank at the bottom in RZ effieiency and points scored before it becomes obvious that Teddy has NO CLUE when it comes to building an offense?

Also this slow cautious approach that some of you seem to be so proud of, does not guarentee success nor does it make a GM out to be a genious. The NFL is modeled to build a team much quicker than in the past. Some of you are so quick to except mediocrity, that's it's down-right funny.

I think that part of the reason so many people ignore the Packers lack of a deep threat (other than a double teamed Donald Driver), is because they look at GB's 8-8 record as being something to be proud of, as opposed to the 4-12 record from 2005.

Our 8 wins:

Week 3 against the Lions. 31-24
The Lions ended the season 3-13, and at this point in the season, GB had not won a game yet. This was a close game against a shit team.

Week 7 against Miami. 34-24
The Dolphins ended the season 6-10, this win put the Packers at 2-4, coming off a buy week.

Week 8 against the Cardinals. 31-14
The Cardinals ended the season 5-11, this win put the Packers at 3-4.

Week 10 against the Vikings. 23-17
The Vikings ended the season at 6-10, this win put the Packers at 4-5.

Week 14 against SanFran. 30-19
SanFran ended the season at 7-9. This win comes off of a 3 game losing streak, and put the Packers at 5-8 for the season.

Week 15 against the Lions. 17-9
again, the Lions ended the season 3-13. Packers are now 6-8

Week 16 against the Vikings. 9-7
again, the vikings ended the season at 6-10. Packers are now 7-8

Week 17 against the Bears. 26-7
The Bears ended the season at 13-3. This win put the Packers at 8-8


None of the teams that the Packers beat last year even had a .500 winning percentage, other than the Bears, who already had the division locked up, and were in the playoffs with a buy week irregardless of the outcome of their game against the Packers.

We know that a HUGE part of the problem was scoring in the red zone. Did Thompson address that?