Article
I'd like to discuss this front page article. I think there's a lot to look at in some detail in this lengthy article.
- I'm not sure the depiction of TT as above criticism in the public opinion is accurate. Seems to me TT has been one of the most scrutinized, criticized, and dare I say - despised, GM's in team history. The article makes it sound as though TT got a free pass for the past 4+ years. Not my perception of events.
- "But, as the season ended at home with a late-game interception, the blame for not making the Super Bowl landed on one set of shoulder pads, and they weren’t Ted Thompson’s."
The fact that Favre took more blame for losing the NFC Championship Game is logical enough to me. The team TT assembled had the talent to win it all. TT did not throw any int's. In both the Bears and Giants games, Favre folded. We all saw it.
- "Thompson could have stepped forward to defend Sherman, Favre, Sander, or anyone else who was getting the brunt of the criticism, but was content to quietly stay in the shadows until the end of the season."
I think this is an interesting point. But again, it requires the view that everyone but TT was targeted for most of the criticism.
- "I don’t think he’s a genius, but what I would call him is very conservative. He is deliberate. He has his plan and he sticks to it like glue. He would rather develop from inside the organization than take risks on proven (but expensive) talent from the outside. He works from what he knows best, which is scouting and evaluating college talent from the draft."
I'd say this is quite accurate. For better and worse.
- "The other tidbit we need to revisit is the fact that Thompson was often credited for building the Seattle team that went to the Super Bowl in 2005, a reason to believe in his mantra. However, since that Super Bowl, the Seahawks have gone 9-7, 10-6, 4-12, and now stand at 1-3 this season, with perhaps the worst offensive line in the league. If you were building a team through the draft that was intended to challenge every year, wouldn’t you think they should have avoided the bottom dropping out from under them?"
Possibly, but not necessarily. Too many unknown variables to make any judgments either way. I do think that TT's credit for the Seattle SB team may be exaggerated.
- "Is the problem the scheme? Doubtful. The scheme is just the recipe you use in the kitchen to make your meal. The coaching is the chef and the talent are your ingredients. But even if it is the scheme, Thompson is the guy who was standing guard over both scheme changes (zone blocking and the 3-4)."
I like this analogy. But I think the scheme is fair game for scrutiny. My initial gut response to both the ZBS and the 3-4 was skepticism, but there were valid reasons to try both schemes.
- "If the problem is the coaching, Thompson is the guy who hired Mike McCarthy and, according to both, they talk every day and back each other up. If Thompson hired the wrong guy, or cannot get his guy to take more accountability for the fundamentals and execution on the field, that mistake is on Thompson, too.
And if the problem lies with a lack of talent…well, there’s nowhere else to look anymore, is there?"
Hard to argue with that. There's one factor that is getting over looked IMO. That is the possibility that on an individual levels, players are under performing and not executing. We most often hear that this is the fault of poor coaching, but at what point do the players bear responsibility if a good staff if supplying a good scheme and solid coaching and the players fail to live up to their end of the bargain? I think players get a free pass far too often in these issues. They are making the most $ out of anyone, short of owners.
One of the more thought provoking articles lately.
PackerChatters > PackerChatters > Green Bay Packers News Talk > Mark Murphy, Ted Thompson, Mike McCarthy, and Aaron Rodgers
I am not a TT defender but maybe not all the blame should fall on his shoulders. I say this because I do not believe that he is totally responsible for the players. The head coach and at least the coordinators probably have a significant input to at least the type of player that they are looking for. I say this for a couple of reasons.
1. It was not TT who decided to go with the ZBS but MM.
3. It was not TT who got rid of the coaching staffs but MM.
3. It was not TT who decided to change from the 4-3 to the 3-4 defense but MM.
Perhaps TT is just trying to get players that best meet the requirements for the schemes that MM is trying to install. It’s very difficult to determine whether the talent isn’t there or the coaching isn’t there but reading between the lines, i.e. when Rodgers commented about how sloppy the practice was the week before the Cinncy game, it seems more like it is coaching rather than the GM. Other signs that point to coaching are the large amount of penalties, poor technique, etc., and the “we’ll get it fixed this week” comments. These problems should be addressed and fixed during training camp. It seems that MM is in over his head as HC.
On the other hand, TT is responsible for hiring MM.
1. It was not TT who decided to go with the ZBS but MM.
3. It was not TT who got rid of the coaching staffs but MM.
3. It was not TT who decided to change from the 4-3 to the 3-4 defense but MM.
Perhaps TT is just trying to get players that best meet the requirements for the schemes that MM is trying to install. It’s very difficult to determine whether the talent isn’t there or the coaching isn’t there but reading between the lines, i.e. when Rodgers commented about how sloppy the practice was the week before the Cinncy game, it seems more like it is coaching rather than the GM. Other signs that point to coaching are the large amount of penalties, poor technique, etc., and the “we’ll get it fixed this week” comments. These problems should be addressed and fixed during training camp. It seems that MM is in over his head as HC.
On the other hand, TT is responsible for hiring MM.
I still feel like the Packers are more talented than their play demonstrates -- they're like a smart kid who flunks tests.
Anyhow, at the very core of this is the fact that some people will always hate TT for the whole Favre thing and will find fault in the things he does because of that hatred (I mean, do you really "blame" a GM when your team ends up a play away from the Superbowl?).
Anyhow, at the very core of this is the fact that some people will always hate TT for the whole Favre thing and will find fault in the things he does because of that hatred (I mean, do you really "blame" a GM when your team ends up a play away from the Superbowl?).
QUOTE (Skyshadow @ Oct 12 2009, 12:45 PM) 
(I mean, do you really "blame" a GM when your team ends up a play away from the Superbowl?).
The one where Al Harris was burnt by Burress?
QUOTE (BigBudman @ Oct 12 2009, 09:51 AM)
The one where Al Harris was burnt by Burress?
That's why I smile when I picture Plaxico chilling in prison right now.
QUOTE (Skyshadow @ Oct 12 2009, 12:05 PM)
That's why I smile when I picture Plaxico chilling in prison right now.
is there even such a thing?
I thought Mark Chmura (of all people) made a great point on his show, the Miller Lite football show this past weekend on the radio. He said that he's sick of hearing how the Packers are, "the youngest team in football." He said that simply means we're also the dumbest -- in terms of football anyway.
The fact is Ted Thompson values young players that run faster, jump higher and come cheaper than a veteran guy who knows the subtle nuances of the game and that would provide veteran leadership.
I don't want to get too deep in to the whole free agency thing, but sometimes Ted, ya get what you pay for.
With more than 20 million sitting in the bank, I think we're seeing evidence of that on the field right now. Certainly no one is asking for an Albert Haynesworth-type player(contract), but if you're going to throw all your eggs into the draft basket, then you better damn well hit more often than not.
So far, he hasn't. And the record shows it.
The fact is Ted Thompson values young players that run faster, jump higher and come cheaper than a veteran guy who knows the subtle nuances of the game and that would provide veteran leadership.
I don't want to get too deep in to the whole free agency thing, but sometimes Ted, ya get what you pay for.
With more than 20 million sitting in the bank, I think we're seeing evidence of that on the field right now. Certainly no one is asking for an Albert Haynesworth-type player(contract), but if you're going to throw all your eggs into the draft basket, then you better damn well hit more often than not.
So far, he hasn't. And the record shows it.
QUOTE (Heatseeker @ Oct 12 2009, 01:56 PM)
I thought Mark Chmura (of all people) made a great point on his show, the Miller Lite football show this past weekend on the radio. He said that he's sick of hearing how the Packers are, "the youngest team in football." He said that simply means we're also the dumbest -- in terms of football anyway.
The fact is Ted Thompson values young players that run faster, jump higher and come cheaper than a veteran guy who knows the subtle nuances of the game and that would provide veteran leadership.
I don't want to get too deep in to the whole free agency thing, but sometimes Ted, ya get what you pay for.
With more than 20 million sitting in the bank, I think we're seeing evidence of that on the field right now. Certainly no one is asking for an Albert Haynesworth-type player(contract), but if you're going to throw all your eggs into the draft basket, then you better damn well hit more often than not.
So far, he hasn't. And the record shows it.
The fact is Ted Thompson values young players that run faster, jump higher and come cheaper than a veteran guy who knows the subtle nuances of the game and that would provide veteran leadership.
I don't want to get too deep in to the whole free agency thing, but sometimes Ted, ya get what you pay for.
With more than 20 million sitting in the bank, I think we're seeing evidence of that on the field right now. Certainly no one is asking for an Albert Haynesworth-type player(contract), but if you're going to throw all your eggs into the draft basket, then you better damn well hit more often than not.
So far, he hasn't. And the record shows it.
He would be one to know dumb!!
And I met him at a golf tourney this fall,
I'm not a Chewy hater!
And the Packers actually have a veteran roster when you look at our starters.
Although I'm sure that average has gone down with the injuries.
Go Pack!!
QUOTE (Heatseeker @ Oct 12 2009, 02:56 PM)
I thought Mark Chmura (of all people) made a great point on his show, the Miller Lite football show this past weekend on the radio. He said that he's sick of hearing how the Packers are, "the youngest team in football." He said that simply means we're also the dumbest -- in terms of football anyway.
The fact is Ted Thompson values young players that run faster, jump higher and come cheaper than a veteran guy who knows the subtle nuances of the game and that would provide veteran leadership.
I don't want to get too deep in to the whole free agency thing, but sometimes Ted, ya get what you pay for.
With more than 20 million sitting in the bank, I think we're seeing evidence of that on the field right now. Certainly no one is asking for an Albert Haynesworth-type player(contract), but if you're going to throw all your eggs into the draft basket, then you better damn well hit more often than not.
So far, he hasn't. And the record shows it.
The fact is Ted Thompson values young players that run faster, jump higher and come cheaper than a veteran guy who knows the subtle nuances of the game and that would provide veteran leadership.
I don't want to get too deep in to the whole free agency thing, but sometimes Ted, ya get what you pay for.
With more than 20 million sitting in the bank, I think we're seeing evidence of that on the field right now. Certainly no one is asking for an Albert Haynesworth-type player(contract), but if you're going to throw all your eggs into the draft basket, then you better damn well hit more often than not.
So far, he hasn't. And the record shows it.
Agreed!
Well, at least nobody can blame it on the mythical "cap hell"
QUOTE (Packer Backer NY @ Oct 12 2009, 12:08 PM)
Agreed!
Well, at least nobody can blame it on the mythical "cap hell"
Well, at least nobody can blame it on the mythical "cap hell"
Remember, however, that a goodly portion of that cap space will likely be used to retain players -- who specifically depends on what happens with the potential uncapped year, of course.
QUOTE (PatS4 @ Oct 13 2009, 02:01 AM)
He would be one to know dumb!!
And I met him at a golf tourney this fall,
I'm not a Chewy hater!
And the Packers actually have a veteran roster when you look at our starters.
Although I'm sure that average has gone down with the injuries.
Go Pack!!
And I met him at a golf tourney this fall,
I'm not a Chewy hater!
And the Packers actually have a veteran roster when you look at our starters.
Although I'm sure that average has gone down with the injuries.
Go Pack!!
Dont you think we miss veteran depth at some very key positions. THAT is the issue.
QUOTE (PatS4 @ Oct 12 2009, 03:01 PM)
And I met him at a golf tourney this fall,
Not the prom?
QUOTE (Packer Backer NY @ Oct 12 2009, 01:17 PM)
Not the prom?
Nice.
For me, I dont look within, I look around to make my judgements. Dont judge our drafts against what Sherman did. Judge our drafts on what the Giants and Patriots do. Do yourself a favor and check out the Giants last 3 or 4 drafts and then check out ours. Which brings me to my first peeve. "We are going to build through the draft" That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Doesnt every team get 7 picks every year ? Groundbreaking strategy considering every team builds through the draft every year.
The whole free agency "what do you want us to do - become the Redskins" analogy is old and tired. There are pleny of teams that have used it wisely and with much success. Atlanta turned their fortunes in one season with the signing of Michael Turner. John Abraham is a quality acquisition as well. Look at how the Jets defense is doing and how it was built. The PAtriots are always players in FA and suck the final drops of quality talent out of many veterans.
Bottom line is that there are a lot of teams that have caught up to and passed us the last couple years. San Francisco is the latest.
Someone within that organization has to open their eyes and look around at how other teams are doing it. We are simply treading water - and as each pre-Thompson veteran leaves we get weaker and weaker. Stick another $40 million dollar contract in the LB's Ted while refusing any high priced OL to protect your franchise. Best thing is that our LB's cant play the 4-3 or the 3-4. Overpay the LB's and they suck. Underpay the OL and they suck. Thats not good. Why spend all those early draft picks on wide receivers if your QB cant complete a 3 step drop to get them the ball without having his head caved in ? Cart before the horse much ?
Watching this team has actually become painful for me as of late. We should not be horrible at any position 5 years in and we are. TT's plan ? My only guess on what that is would be that he gets a % of how much we are under the cap and gets to pocket it. I dont see a plan - other than to build the cheapest team possible.
Browse some of the other rosters - look how other teams have been built - then ask yourself why
The whole free agency "what do you want us to do - become the Redskins" analogy is old and tired. There are pleny of teams that have used it wisely and with much success. Atlanta turned their fortunes in one season with the signing of Michael Turner. John Abraham is a quality acquisition as well. Look at how the Jets defense is doing and how it was built. The PAtriots are always players in FA and suck the final drops of quality talent out of many veterans.
Bottom line is that there are a lot of teams that have caught up to and passed us the last couple years. San Francisco is the latest.
Someone within that organization has to open their eyes and look around at how other teams are doing it. We are simply treading water - and as each pre-Thompson veteran leaves we get weaker and weaker. Stick another $40 million dollar contract in the LB's Ted while refusing any high priced OL to protect your franchise. Best thing is that our LB's cant play the 4-3 or the 3-4. Overpay the LB's and they suck. Underpay the OL and they suck. Thats not good. Why spend all those early draft picks on wide receivers if your QB cant complete a 3 step drop to get them the ball without having his head caved in ? Cart before the horse much ?
Watching this team has actually become painful for me as of late. We should not be horrible at any position 5 years in and we are. TT's plan ? My only guess on what that is would be that he gets a % of how much we are under the cap and gets to pocket it. I dont see a plan - other than to build the cheapest team possible.
Browse some of the other rosters - look how other teams have been built - then ask yourself why
sdn40, you talk as if TT has never improved the team via free agency. That's obviously not the case, and your suspicion that TT is somehow pocketing cap money is just ludicrous. The Packers have gone into the last few seasons with cap room and then they've spent it extending their players -- they're not simply hoarding the money for TT to roll around in during his off hours.
Frankly, I think you're getting a bit too carried away.
Frankly, I think you're getting a bit too carried away.
QUOTE (BigBudman @ Oct 12 2009, 09:51 AM)
The one where Al Harris was burnt by Burress?
No, when Harris was burned by the refs on the sideline interception against Burress.
Everyone knows where the blame goes at the end of the day for the last few seasons.
Ted has failed to deliver a quality product on the field. He has masked numerous poor moves with 2 or 3 good FA signings but at the end of the day those 2 or 3 players dont play every position on the team.
Ted has failed to deliver a quality product on the field. He has masked numerous poor moves with 2 or 3 good FA signings but at the end of the day those 2 or 3 players dont play every position on the team.
QUOTE (sdn40 @ Oct 12 2009, 03:34 PM)
For me, I dont look within, I look around to make my judgements. Dont judge our drafts against what Sherman did. Judge our drafts on what the Giants and Patriots do. Do yourself a favor and check out the Giants last 3 or 4 drafts and then check out ours. Which brings me to my first peeve. "We are going to build through the draft" That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Doesnt every team get 7 picks every year ? Groundbreaking strategy considering every team builds through the draft every year.
The whole free agency "what do you want us to do - become the Redskins" analogy is old and tired. There are pleny of teams that have used it wisely and with much success. Atlanta turned their fortunes in one season with the signing of Michael Turner. John Abraham is a quality acquisition as well. Look at how the Jets defense is doing and how it was built. The PAtriots are always players in FA and suck the final drops of quality talent out of many veterans.
Bottom line is that there are a lot of teams that have caught up to and passed us the last couple years. San Francisco is the latest.
Someone within that organization has to open their eyes and look around at how other teams are doing it. We are simply treading water - and as each pre-Thompson veteran leaves we get weaker and weaker. Stick another $40 million dollar contract in the LB's Ted while refusing any high priced OL to protect your franchise. Best thing is that our LB's cant play the 4-3 or the 3-4. Overpay the LB's and they suck. Underpay the OL and they suck. Thats not good. Why spend all those early draft picks on wide receivers if your QB cant complete a 3 step drop to get them the ball without having his head caved in ? Cart before the horse much ?
Watching this team has actually become painful for me as of late. We should not be horrible at any position 5 years in and we are. TT's plan ? My only guess on what that is would be that he gets a % of how much we are under the cap and gets to pocket it. I dont see a plan - other than to build the cheapest team possible.
Browse some of the other rosters - look how other teams have been built - then ask yourself why
The whole free agency "what do you want us to do - become the Redskins" analogy is old and tired. There are pleny of teams that have used it wisely and with much success. Atlanta turned their fortunes in one season with the signing of Michael Turner. John Abraham is a quality acquisition as well. Look at how the Jets defense is doing and how it was built. The PAtriots are always players in FA and suck the final drops of quality talent out of many veterans.
Bottom line is that there are a lot of teams that have caught up to and passed us the last couple years. San Francisco is the latest.
Someone within that organization has to open their eyes and look around at how other teams are doing it. We are simply treading water - and as each pre-Thompson veteran leaves we get weaker and weaker. Stick another $40 million dollar contract in the LB's Ted while refusing any high priced OL to protect your franchise. Best thing is that our LB's cant play the 4-3 or the 3-4. Overpay the LB's and they suck. Underpay the OL and they suck. Thats not good. Why spend all those early draft picks on wide receivers if your QB cant complete a 3 step drop to get them the ball without having his head caved in ? Cart before the horse much ?
Watching this team has actually become painful for me as of late. We should not be horrible at any position 5 years in and we are. TT's plan ? My only guess on what that is would be that he gets a % of how much we are under the cap and gets to pocket it. I dont see a plan - other than to build the cheapest team possible.
Browse some of the other rosters - look how other teams have been built - then ask yourself why
We have not been routed (45-10)at home(or away), by any team this year
and 3 of our 4 opponents have as good a record as SF if not better.
Don't watch then.
Watching a Packer loss isn't as painful as reading some of the whiners here!!
Go Pack!!
QUOTE (PatS4 @ Oct 12 2009, 05:11 PM)
We have not been routed (45-10)at home(or away), by any team this year
and 3 of our 4 opponents have as good a record as SF if not better.
Don't watch then.
Watching a Packer loss isn't as painful as reading some of the whiners here!!
Go Pack!!
and 3 of our 4 opponents have as good a record as SF if not better.
Don't watch then.
Watching a Packer loss isn't as painful as reading some of the whiners here!!
Go Pack!!
Excuse us for wanting a quality product on the field.
All I know is this, if we get another 6-10 season, one of three things has to change, and thats Thompson or McCarthy or Rodgers. And it sure as heck aint' going to be Rodgers. One of those other two guys are going to have to take the fall. One playoff appearance in five years deserves no excuse making.
QUOTE (PatS4 @ Oct 12 2009, 06:11 PM)
We have not been routed (45-10)at home(or away), by any team this year
and 3 of our 4 opponents have as good a record as SF if not better.
Don't watch then.
Watching a Packer loss isn't as painful as reading some of the whiners here!!
Go Pack!!
and 3 of our 4 opponents have as good a record as SF if not better.
Don't watch then.
Watching a Packer loss isn't as painful as reading some of the whiners here!!
Go Pack!!
Some of us have higher expectations than you do.
As Luvda said.. We want a better quality product.
Especially since our current GM is not living up to what we expected of him. Remember, this is the guy that was so supposed to help us take the next step.
Not rebuild year after year after year.........
Let's see how this season plays out. But it ain't looking to good.
Where is that Super bowl thread???
QUOTE (LuvdaPack36 @ Oct 12 2009, 05:21 PM)
Excuse us for wanting a quality product on the field.
I don't see how you could think I don't want the Packers to do well.
I don't feel the constant mantra of "fire Ted" brings anything to this board.
Several posters here have nothing else to add.
Go Pack!!
(Doesn't say go Ted, does it??)
QUOTE (PatS4 @ Oct 12 2009, 05:41 PM)
I don't see how you could think I don't want the Packers to do well.
I don't feel the constant mantra of "fire Ted" brings anything to this board.
Several posters here have nothing else to add.
Go Pack!!
(Doesn't say go Ted, does it??)
I don't feel the constant mantra of "fire Ted" brings anything to this board.
Several posters here have nothing else to add.
Go Pack!!
(Doesn't say go Ted, does it??)
I havent seen fire ted posts. What I have seen though is posts talking about certain changes that need to be made in the front office or the coaching staff.
I have also seen posts from people wanting to keep Ted but wanting him to realize that free agency is a valuable tool and it needs to be utilized.
QUOTE (LuvdaPack36 @ Oct 12 2009, 05:44 PM)
Everyone knows where the blame goes at the end of the day for the last few seasons.
Ted has failed to deliver a quality product on the field. He has masked numerous poor moves with 2 or 3 good FA signings but at the end of the day those 2 or 3 players dont play every position on the team.
Ted has failed to deliver a quality product on the field. He has masked numerous poor moves with 2 or 3 good FA signings but at the end of the day those 2 or 3 players dont play every position on the team.
The last few seasons? I'm not sure who's fault 2007 was, but I think a good portion of the blame for our current problems can be placed on MM's shoulders for sticking with the ZBS even though our OL has been unable execute it since day 1. Either the ZBS or the OL coaching staff should have been scrapped at least a year ago.
I thought this was an interesting quote from one of Pete Dougherty's current articles posted on the greenbaypressgazette site. This is an opposing scout who's responsible for covering the Packers
QUOTE
“I have a lot of respect for how (Thompson) is trying to build something,” the scout said. “But my god, they’re so damn close. You’ve wasted two years trying to build an offensive line when you could have signed somebody off the street.”
I couldn't agree more. TT is hardly blameless when it comes to the teams weaknesses, but despite what the author of the FP article seems to think, the team has plenty of talent overall. If TT would have actually managed a FA move or two to solidify the OL in the off-season, we'd be in a much different situation right now. His stubbornness regarding FA's could very well end up being his downfall.
QUOTE (PatS4 @ Oct 12 2009, 03:41 PM)
I don't see how you could think I don't want the Packers to do well.
I don't feel the constant mantra of "fire Ted" brings anything to this board.
Several posters here have nothing else to add.
Go Pack!!
(Doesn't say go Ted, does it??)
I don't feel the constant mantra of "fire Ted" brings anything to this board.
Several posters here have nothing else to add.
Go Pack!!
(Doesn't say go Ted, does it??)
I don't think there a whole lot of people who want to fire Ted right now during the season. But the unrest is building. These next 12 games may decide whether Ted remains employed with the Packers. And that might not be fair, but its part of the business. If they finish this year like last year, that will make 1 playoff appearance in the 5 years that Thompson has been here. Thats hard to justify, even with the amateur that he had to take over for.
QUOTE (Heatseeker @ Oct 12 2009, 06:56 PM)
I thought Mark Chmura (of all people) made a great point on his show, the Miller Lite football show this past weekend on the radio. He said that he's sick of hearing how the Packers are, "the youngest team in football." He said that simply means we're also the dumbest -- in terms of football anyway.
The fact is Ted Thompson values young players that run faster, jump higher and come cheaper than a veteran guy who knows the subtle nuances of the game and that would provide veteran leadership.
I don't want to get too deep in to the whole free agency thing, but sometimes Ted, ya get what you pay for.
With more than 20 million sitting in the bank, I think we're seeing evidence of that on the field right now. Certainly no one is asking for an Albert Haynesworth-type player(contract), but if you're going to throw all your eggs into the draft basket, then you better damn well hit more often than not.
So far, he hasn't. And the record shows it.
The fact is Ted Thompson values young players that run faster, jump higher and come cheaper than a veteran guy who knows the subtle nuances of the game and that would provide veteran leadership.
I don't want to get too deep in to the whole free agency thing, but sometimes Ted, ya get what you pay for.
With more than 20 million sitting in the bank, I think we're seeing evidence of that on the field right now. Certainly no one is asking for an Albert Haynesworth-type player(contract), but if you're going to throw all your eggs into the draft basket, then you better damn well hit more often than not.
So far, he hasn't. And the record shows it.
I was going to give my opinion but Heatseeker pretty well covered it.
I don't blame TT for having a young team, not signing enough FA, etc. Frankly, it's all about results. If he can make this team a SB contender by having all 22 year olds, more power to him.
The Vikings have built a SB contender at roughly the same time TT has been in charge. He made Grant our feature back, Vikes got Peterson. We got Harrell, they got Allen. They rebuilt their O line into a very solid unit, TT has not. You can go on and on. The Vikings have out-drafted TT, and have hit big time in the FA market.
If you're not even the best GM in your own division, you have problems.
The Vikings have built a SB contender at roughly the same time TT has been in charge. He made Grant our feature back, Vikes got Peterson. We got Harrell, they got Allen. They rebuilt their O line into a very solid unit, TT has not. You can go on and on. The Vikings have out-drafted TT, and have hit big time in the FA market.
If you're not even the best GM in your own division, you have problems.
QUOTE (VoiceofReason @ Oct 14 2009, 08:33 AM)
I don't blame TT for having a young team, not signing enough FA, etc. Frankly, it's all about results. If he can make this team a SB contender by having all 22 year olds, more power to him.
The Vikings have built a SB contender at roughly the same time TT has been in charge. He made Grant our feature back, Vikes got Peterson. We got Harrell, they got Allen. They rebuilt their O line into a very solid unit, TT has not. You can go on and on. The Vikings have out-drafted TT, and have hit big time in the FA market.
If you're not even the best GM in your own division, you have problems.
The Vikings have built a SB contender at roughly the same time TT has been in charge. He made Grant our feature back, Vikes got Peterson. We got Harrell, they got Allen. They rebuilt their O line into a very solid unit, TT has not. You can go on and on. The Vikings have out-drafted TT, and have hit big time in the FA market.
If you're not even the best GM in your own division, you have problems.
Win now or at least give it a helluva shot and they have a new stadium and the Vikes stay in MN. The only thing Ted is working for is his job.
QUOTE (VoiceofReason @ Oct 14 2009, 08:33 AM)
I don't blame TT for having a young team, not signing enough FA, etc. Frankly, it's all about results. If he can make this team a SB contender by having all 22 year olds, more power to him.
The Vikings have built a SB contender at roughly the same time TT has been in charge. He made Grant our feature back, Vikes got Peterson. We got Harrell, they got Allen. They rebuilt their O line into a very solid unit, TT has not. You can go on and on. The Vikings have out-drafted TT, and have hit big time in the FA market.
If you're not even the best GM in your own division, you have problems.
The Vikings have built a SB contender at roughly the same time TT has been in charge. He made Grant our feature back, Vikes got Peterson. We got Harrell, they got Allen. They rebuilt their O line into a very solid unit, TT has not. You can go on and on. The Vikings have out-drafted TT, and have hit big time in the FA market.
If you're not even the best GM in your own division, you have problems.
VOR - How many playoff games have the Vikings won in the last 3 years?
It appears that you and others here are crowning the Vikings today when there are 11-12 games left. As of today we have the most recent playoff victory(s) and the Vikes have under achieved. After the preseason the Pack was a SuperBowl contender with almost every pundit that can get his mug in front of a camera. Now after the first quarter of the season the Vikes are SB contenders.
Man, people sure are wishy washy, what have you done for me lately. What if the Pack beats Detroit and Cleveland and Minny loses to Ravens and Steelers. Then are we all of the sudden contenders again and the Vikes are pretenders in the span of two weeks?
QUOTE (mazrimiv @ Oct 12 2009, 08:27 PM)
The last few seasons? I'm not sure who's fault 2007 was, but I think a good portion of the blame for our current problems can be placed on MM's shoulders for sticking with the ZBS even though our OL has been unable execute it since day 1. Either the ZBS or the OL coaching staff should have been scrapped at least a year ago.
I thought this was an interesting quote from one of Pete Dougherty's current articles posted on the greenbaypressgazette site. This is an opposing scout who's responsible for covering the Packers
I couldn't agree more. TT is hardly blameless when it comes to the teams weaknesses, but despite what the author of the FP article seems to think, the team has plenty of talent overall. If TT would have actually managed a FA move or two to solidify the OL in the off-season, we'd be in a much different situation right now. His stubbornness regarding FA's could very well end up being his downfall.
I thought this was an interesting quote from one of Pete Dougherty's current articles posted on the greenbaypressgazette site. This is an opposing scout who's responsible for covering the Packers
I couldn't agree more. TT is hardly blameless when it comes to the teams weaknesses, but despite what the author of the FP article seems to think, the team has plenty of talent overall. If TT would have actually managed a FA move or two to solidify the OL in the off-season, we'd be in a much different situation right now. His stubbornness regarding FA's could very well end up being his downfall.
I agree with that this team has talent. How is it being utilized? The entire OL seems to have to think about every play. GB needs to stop this madness and simplify the entire OL scheme. It should not be that difficult. As to getting 1 OL in FA, I also agree and this is one area that Mr. Thompson needs to show something more.
QUOTE (Lambeau5 @ Oct 14 2009, 08:20 AM)
VOR - How many playoff games have the Vikings won in the last 3 years?
It appears that you and others here are crowning the Vikings today when there are 11-12 games left. As of today we have the most recent playoff victory(s) and the Vikes have under achieved. After the preseason the Pack was a SuperBowl contender with almost every pundit that can get his mug in front of a camera. Now after the first quarter of the season the Vikes are SB contenders.
Man, people sure are wishy washy, what have you done for me lately. What if the Pack beats Detroit and Cleveland and Minny loses to Ravens and Steelers. Then are we all of the sudden contenders again and the Vikes are pretenders in the span of two weeks?
It appears that you and others here are crowning the Vikings today when there are 11-12 games left. As of today we have the most recent playoff victory(s) and the Vikes have under achieved. After the preseason the Pack was a SuperBowl contender with almost every pundit that can get his mug in front of a camera. Now after the first quarter of the season the Vikes are SB contenders.
Man, people sure are wishy washy, what have you done for me lately. What if the Pack beats Detroit and Cleveland and Minny loses to Ravens and Steelers. Then are we all of the sudden contenders again and the Vikes are pretenders in the span of two weeks?
Unless Favre somehow defies the distinct trend he's demonstrated in every one of the last five years and continue to produce at a high level, the Vikings are going to fall apart in November. They clearly can't win on AP's back alone.
I'm really not all that worried about them, 5-0 or not.
The key for the Packers will be to get the 3-4 fully installed -- it's obviously still immature, and no team can win reliably when opponents are allowed to score 30+ points. If the Packers can improve that one point by November, the season looks a lot more promising than the 2-2 start might indicate.
QUOTE (Lambeau5 @ Oct 14 2009, 10:20 AM)
VOR - How many playoff games have the Vikings won in the last 3 years?
It appears that you and others here are crowning the Vikings today when there are 11-12 games left. As of today we have the most recent playoff victory(s) and the Vikes have under achieved. After the preseason the Pack was a SuperBowl contender with almost every pundit that can get his mug in front of a camera. Now after the first quarter of the season the Vikes are SB contenders.
Man, people sure are wishy washy, what have you done for me lately. What if the Pack beats Detroit and Cleveland and Minny loses to Ravens and Steelers. Then are we all of the sudden contenders again and the Vikes are pretenders in the span of two weeks?
It appears that you and others here are crowning the Vikings today when there are 11-12 games left. As of today we have the most recent playoff victory(s) and the Vikes have under achieved. After the preseason the Pack was a SuperBowl contender with almost every pundit that can get his mug in front of a camera. Now after the first quarter of the season the Vikes are SB contenders.
Man, people sure are wishy washy, what have you done for me lately. What if the Pack beats Detroit and Cleveland and Minny loses to Ravens and Steelers. Then are we all of the sudden contenders again and the Vikes are pretenders in the span of two weeks?
Of course it's a "what have you done for me lately" league. Every GM and coach knows this and accepts this when they take a job in the NFL.
You called me wishy washy, but never answered the question. Have the Vikings or Packers done a better job building their current teams?
I'm not Dennis Greene and I'm not crowning anybody.
QUOTE (Skyshadow @ Oct 12 2009, 11:05 PM)
That's why I smile when I picture Plaxico chilling in prison right now.
Karma's a b*tch! lol
QUOTE (VoiceofReason @ Oct 14 2009, 10:07 AM)
You called me wishy washy, but never answered the question. Have the Vikings or Packers done a better job building their current teams?
I would argue that the Packers are a more talented team than the Vikings.
Adrian Peterson's clearly the best RB in the league right now and will quite possibly go down as one of the best ever -- that's hard to argue. Jared Allen is an excellent pass rusher. Brett Favre is still a good QB, although his ability to go late into the season is open to a lot of well-founded doubt.
On the other hand, Greg Jennings is easily the best WR in the division. Finley is going to be, if not already, its best TE. Aaron Rodgers may or may not be the best QB (don't want to start a Favre flamewar) and is certainly the best "QB of the future". The Packers have the best pair of CBs in the league in Harris and Woodson.
The Pack's biggest problem right now is that they're implementing a new defensive scheme, and wishful thinking aside, installing a new D takes a while. That D has given up more than 30 points in the Packers two losses. Once this D matures and starts reliably limiting teams to more respectable numbers (and I see no reason to think anything else will happen), the Packers will start winning more.
Harvin: 18 for 233 and 2 TDs
Shiancoe: 13 for 116 and 3 TDs
Total: 31 for 349 and 5 TDs
Jennings: 11 for 240 and 1 TD
Finley: 11 for 190 and 1 TD
Total: 22 for 430 and 2 TDs
The numbers seem fairly equitable to me. I don't know that Finley is the best TE in the division what with Olsen and Shiancoe but that's just an opinion. I just wonder where GBs talent is that the vikings dont match?
Their O-Line is better
Their RBs are better
Their D-Line is better
Our receivers are better
Our Secondary is better
The linebackers are about the same
The quarterbacks are about the same (now, ignoring Favres eventual slide into senility)
Looks to me that while we may have better talent at the skill positions they blow us out of the water in the trenches. That's my issue with the whole thing.
Shiancoe: 13 for 116 and 3 TDs
Total: 31 for 349 and 5 TDs
Jennings: 11 for 240 and 1 TD
Finley: 11 for 190 and 1 TD
Total: 22 for 430 and 2 TDs
The numbers seem fairly equitable to me. I don't know that Finley is the best TE in the division what with Olsen and Shiancoe but that's just an opinion. I just wonder where GBs talent is that the vikings dont match?
Their O-Line is better
Their RBs are better
Their D-Line is better
Our receivers are better
Our Secondary is better
The linebackers are about the same
The quarterbacks are about the same (now, ignoring Favres eventual slide into senility)
Looks to me that while we may have better talent at the skill positions they blow us out of the water in the trenches. That's my issue with the whole thing.
QUOTE (Skyshadow @ Oct 14 2009, 01:38 PM)
I would argue that the Packers are a more talented team than the Vikings.
Then how would you describe what happeened when we faced them? Did they get lucky when they beat us?
QUOTE
Adrian Peterson's clearly the best RB in the league right now and will quite possibly go down as one of the best ever -- that's hard to argue. Jared Allen is an excellent pass rusher. Brett Favre is still a good QB, although his ability to go late into the season is open to a lot of well-founded doubt.
On the other hand, Greg Jennings is easily the best WR in the division. Finley is going to be, if not already, its best TE. Aaron Rodgers may or may not be the best QB (don't want to start a Favre flamewar) and is certainly the best "QB of the future". The Packers have the best pair of CBs in the league in Harris and Woodson.
On the other hand, Greg Jennings is easily the best WR in the division. Finley is going to be, if not already, its best TE. Aaron Rodgers may or may not be the best QB (don't want to start a Favre flamewar) and is certainly the best "QB of the future". The Packers have the best pair of CBs in the league in Harris and Woodson.
I would say they clearly have better players at the DL, S, RB, OL and overall better ST's. This is an indication of why they won the division last year and should repeat this year as well.
I also think they have better coaches and a better GM calling the shots.
QB is clearly a toss up. Rodgers is young and has a ton of talent but Favre knows the game very well and is not a Pro Bowler and HOF QB for nothing.
QUOTE
The Pack's biggest problem right now is that they're implementing a new defensive scheme, and wishful thinking aside, installing a new D takes a while. That D has given up more than 30 points in the Packers two losses. Once this D matures and starts reliably limiting teams to more respectable numbers (and I see no reason to think anything else will happen), the Packers will start winning more.
Our biggest problem is not just defensive scheme and time to learn and master, but holes on defense at key positions and our OL. Unless we address the OL significantly in the offseason, we are in for more headaches next year.
I think, with just cause, that Minnesota has done a better job of drafting and aquiring Free Agent talent than we have. That is why they beat us. We could very well beat them in a few weeks, but I still think they are an overall better ball club at this point.
QUOTE (Packer Backer NY @ Oct 14 2009, 10:59 AM)
Then how would you describe what happeened when we faced them? Did they get lucky when they beat us?...
Our biggest problem is not just defensive scheme and time to learn and master, but holes on defense at key positions and our OL. Unless we address the OL significantly in the offseason, we are in for more headaches next year.
Our biggest problem is not just defensive scheme and time to learn and master, but holes on defense at key positions and our OL. Unless we address the OL significantly in the offseason, we are in for more headaches next year.
I agree the o-line is a problem and prevents us from scoring more points than we could with a good one, but I maintain that the reason we lost against the Bengals and Vikings was because of our D. The o-line may be a more visible problem, but it's not the biggest reason we're losing.
You can't give up 30+ points in a game and win reliably.
The 3-4 is clearly still being implemented. Until it is, I have a hard time evaluating defensive players in it. Maybe you're seeing something I'm not that speaks to you specifically on the talent of individual players, but from where I'm sitting I still see a lot of thinking about the plays rather than playing the sort of fluid, intuitive ball needed to be really effective in the NFL.
I am not surprised by this, because everyone with experience in shifting schemes has said this sort of transition takes time. Preseason faked a lot of people out.
QUOTE (Skyshadow @ Oct 14 2009, 12:38 PM)
On the other hand, Greg Jennings is easily the best WR in the division.
Megatron called. He disagrees.
Finley is going to be, if not already, its best TE.
I'd still take Greg Olsen 10 times out of 10
Aaron Rodgers may or may not be the best QB (don't want to start a Favre flamewar) and is certainly the best "QB of the future". The Packers have the best pair of CBs in the league in Harris and Woodson.
The Pack's biggest problem right now is that they're implementing a new defensive scheme, and wishful thinking aside, installing a new D takes a while. That D has given up more than 30 points in the Packers two losses. Once this D matures and starts reliably limiting teams to more respectable numbers (and I see no reason to think anything else will happen), the Packers will start winning more.
Agreed here. I'd say actually, that their single biggest, is the O-line, but the D is right there with it. I honestly think the talent on the Packers has been severely overrated. I think Rodgers is awesome and Woodson is amazing. Besides that, I don't see a single guy who isn't expendable -- including everyone's golden boy, Greg Jennings. I said last off season that I thought the Packers should trade Jennings when his stock was sky high for either a D-linemen, rush linebacker or LT. Right now, would anyone have a problem with that?
Look at what the Giants and Colts are doing (destroying everyone in their path) with a great QB and for the Colts, two rookies and for the Giants, the likes of Mario Manningham, another rookie (Nicks). The only real offensive stud in that WR group is Steve Smith.
Megatron called. He disagrees.
Finley is going to be, if not already, its best TE.
I'd still take Greg Olsen 10 times out of 10
Aaron Rodgers may or may not be the best QB (don't want to start a Favre flamewar) and is certainly the best "QB of the future". The Packers have the best pair of CBs in the league in Harris and Woodson.
The Pack's biggest problem right now is that they're implementing a new defensive scheme, and wishful thinking aside, installing a new D takes a while. That D has given up more than 30 points in the Packers two losses. Once this D matures and starts reliably limiting teams to more respectable numbers (and I see no reason to think anything else will happen), the Packers will start winning more.
Agreed here. I'd say actually, that their single biggest, is the O-line, but the D is right there with it. I honestly think the talent on the Packers has been severely overrated. I think Rodgers is awesome and Woodson is amazing. Besides that, I don't see a single guy who isn't expendable -- including everyone's golden boy, Greg Jennings. I said last off season that I thought the Packers should trade Jennings when his stock was sky high for either a D-linemen, rush linebacker or LT. Right now, would anyone have a problem with that?
Look at what the Giants and Colts are doing (destroying everyone in their path) with a great QB and for the Colts, two rookies and for the Giants, the likes of Mario Manningham, another rookie (Nicks). The only real offensive stud in that WR group is Steve Smith.
QUOTE (Skyshadow @ Oct 14 2009, 02:07 PM)
I agree the o-line is a problem and prevents us from scoring more points than we could with a good one, but I maintain that the reason we lost against the Bengals and Vikings was because of our D. The o-line may be a more visible problem, but it's not the biggest reason we're losing.
You can't give up 30+ points in a game and win reliably.
You can't give up 30+ points in a game and win reliably.
It also prevents us from controlling the clock and allows defenses, when they do score on us and get a lead, to tee off on our passing game. We are not bad against the blitz, butu Rodgers struggles a bit when they drop back 6-7 guys and rush with 4. Especially when those 4 are getting to him or causing him to move. Controlling the clock keeps our defense on the bench and rested. And healthy!
QUOTE
The 3-4 is clearly still being implemented. Until it is, I have a hard time evaluating defensive players in it. Maybe you're seeing something I'm not that speaks to you specifically on the talent of individual players, but from where I'm sitting I still see a lot of thinking about the plays rather than playing the sort of fluid, intuitive ball needed to be really effective in the NFL.
I am not surprised by this, because everyone with experience in shifting schemes has said this sort of transition takes time. Preseason faked a lot of people out.
I am not surprised by this, because everyone with experience in shifting schemes has said this sort of transition takes time. Preseason faked a lot of people out.
It is certainly being implimented. We will have gowing pains but when I see guys like Martin and Bush on the field, I tend to think that in addition to scheme adjustment, we lack the proper talent at said positions. I also think our LB corp does better in the 4-3 when they have big support upfront. Neither Hawk nor Barnett are really impressing me. And I like Barnett in the 4-3. I thought he was just fine there!
I think you are right about the Preseason. Myself included.
QUOTE (Packer Backer NY @ Oct 14 2009, 11:37 AM)
It is certainly being implimented. We will have gowing pains but when I see guys like Martin and Bush on the field, I tend to think that in addition to scheme adjustment, we lack the proper talent at said positions. I also think our LB corp does better in the 4-3 when they have big support upfront. Neither Hawk nor Barnett are really impressing me. And I like Barnett in the 4-3. I thought he was just fine there!
Well, Martin and Bush are also backups -- you seldom want to see backups out there.
I wouldn't object if TT were to go out and trade for more help on the line here in the next couple of days.
QUOTE (Skyshadow @ Oct 14 2009, 02:55 PM)
Well, Martin and Bush are also backups -- you seldom want to see backups out there.
I wouldn't object if TT were to go out and trade for more help on the line here in the next couple of days.
I wouldn't object if TT were to go out and trade for more help on the line here in the next couple of days.
True, but I am not sold on Bigby. If for nothing more than he just can't stay healthy enough. He has some skills and is better than the other two I mentioned, but I thnk an upgrade here is needed.
I would like to see him draft a young guy in the first round and go out via Free Agency and get a bonafide stud.
Rodgers is good, if not great. He deserves a running game and some protection. It will take us everywhere!
QUOTE (Packer Backer NY @ Oct 14 2009, 12:19 PM)
I would like to see him draft a young guy in the first round and go out via Free Agency and get a bonafide stud.
My trouble is, I always think that about every position where we don't already have a pro-bowler.
It's going to be important to address the o-line, but I also think it's easier to get away with average talent there than safety or CB (two positions I'm worried about).
QUOTE (Skyshadow @ Oct 14 2009, 03:56 PM)
It's going to be important to address the o-line, but I also think it's easier to get away with average talent there than safety or CB (two positions I'm worried about).
Yeah, seems to me that CB this year is like LT last year. Just about a year or so from being completely exposed by lack of depth.
I find myself wondering if we'll all look back on 2006-2009 as a time when a large amount of talent was utterly wasted by the inability or unwillingness of the GM to aggressively plug a few gaping holes. I mean, we have awesome receivers, a great QB, a good enough RB, most teams would kill to have two starting CBs like ours, let alone 3 with Williams. Some nice pieces on the DL too. It's not easy to get players like that but GB has them. That's a combination that will take you pretty far but you need competent units everywhere else. You don't need a star studded OL to make it work, just a generally competent and consistent group that knows what they're doing and can grind out some yards when they need to.
Anyway, that's as much as I'll say for right now. I'm not going to start bitching and lamenting now. I wait too long from Feb-September for football to start so I'm damn well going to enjoy it while it's around. I won't judge this season until it's over, but when I do it's going to be judged as part of a larger 5 year pattern. We'll see what those results look like in a couple months.
QUOTE (Skyshadow @ Oct 14 2009, 01:07 PM)
I am not surprised by this, because everyone with experience in shifting schemes has said this sort of transition takes time. Preseason faked a lot of people out.
Tell the Broncos how much time it takes. That's not a good excuse anymore in today's NFL. It's not like in the past where players show up for camp and play ball. It has become a 12 month job, and these guys have had play books for months before camp. Then there's OTAs, meetings with coaches throughout the summer...training camp, pre-season games. This idea that the the 3-4 is so complicated it takes two years to fully grasp is hogwash.
Bottom line, Barnett and Hawk are not very good LB. I'll grant you Kampman needs time adjusting to playing LB, and Matthews is a rookie, so it may take a bit of time. But overall, if this team isn't prepared to play at a high level in the 3-4, there's no good excuse for that.
Finally, let me say I'm not too sure the Packers secondary is better than the Vikings- closer to a push in my opinion. With or without Bigby.
QUOTE (VoiceofReason @ Oct 14 2009, 12:07 PM)
Of course it's a "what have you done for me lately" league. Every GM and coach knows this and accepts this when they take a job in the NFL.
You called me wishy washy, but never answered the question. Have the Vikings or Packers done a better job building their current teams?
I'm not Dennis Greene and I'm not crowning anybody.
You called me wishy washy, but never answered the question. Have the Vikings or Packers done a better job building their current teams?
I'm not Dennis Greene and I'm not crowning anybody.
For the record I did not call you wishy washy, sorry. It was a general statement about how people think a team is a SB contender one week and then after one or two mediocre performances they leap off that bandwagon. Then the finger pointing starts.
As for answering your question I will answer at the end of the season. Whichever team makes a deep run in the playoffs did the better job. Not who is better after 5 games.
However, I do feel TT is truly building a team and the Vikes just patched a huge hole with a once great QB. If Favre retires after this season without winning it all then I think the Vikes did more harm than good to their team. They then just plugged a dike. I dont believe you build with rent-a-players.
QUOTE (Lambeau5 @ Oct 14 2009, 03:59 PM)
For the record I did not call you wishy washy, sorry. It was a general statement about how people think a team is a SB contender one week and then after one or two mediocre performances they leap off that bandwagon. Then the finger pointing starts.
As for answering your question I will answer at the end of the season. Whichever team makes a deep run in the playoffs did the better job. Not who is better after 5 games.
However, I do feel TT is truly building a team and the Vikes just patched a huge hole with a once great QB. If Favre retires after this season without winning it all then I think the Vikes did more harm than good to their team. They then just plugged a dike. I dont believe you build with rent-a-players.
As for answering your question I will answer at the end of the season. Whichever team makes a deep run in the playoffs did the better job. Not who is better after 5 games.
However, I do feel TT is truly building a team and the Vikes just patched a huge hole with a once great QB. If Favre retires after this season without winning it all then I think the Vikes did more harm than good to their team. They then just plugged a dike. I dont believe you build with rent-a-players.
Well, the Vikings have failed miserably in finding a long term solution at QB. But at least you have to give them credit for trying to plug that hole until they get it right. I'd like to see Ted do something similar with our O-line, take a chance on a guy in FA for once.
I am losing faith in TT and his build through the draft philosophy. Here are some moves that I think would have made us a 4-0 team at this point. Nothing earth shattering, but would have plugged some holes.
OL - TT decides to go with an aging, injured LT and with no proven RT. 2 moves. First move, cut Clifton. Then, sign Tra Thomas who was out in Philly. He would have provided a stop gap for a couple of years, but he would be a solid LT. Second move, sign RT Tony Pashos. He was let go by Jax in a salary cap move. Young and experienced, he would have been a huge up-grade. Total on both - maybe 8 million.
LB - As much as it would hurt, trade Kampman. Lets say, to Philly for pick #53. Subtract his $5 million plus salary from the books. Even after the trade for Matthews, we have a 2nd round pick and maybe draft, Phil Loadholt, Glenn Coffee, or Shon Greene. All with solid futures. With the savings, make the bold move and trade a #1 next year for Julius Peppers. Offer him 3yrs/36 million and he would have been happy. Back at OLB and playing for his old coaches.
S - Instead of signing Anthony Smith - that was apparently a terrible mistake, take a chance on the home state boy Jim Leonhard. He would have been affordable, was experienced in the 3-4 and as Rex Ryan tells it - "is a coach on the field." An immediate up-grade at safety. Gotta think he would have jumped at an offer. A fan favorite for years to come.
When I read a JS article quoting scouts from other teams saying the Packers are so close and short in a couple of areas, it makes me wonder about TT's game plan. Those moves I put out there would have shored up our weak areas and we would be 4-0 right now. And they would not have broken the bank.
OL - TT decides to go with an aging, injured LT and with no proven RT. 2 moves. First move, cut Clifton. Then, sign Tra Thomas who was out in Philly. He would have provided a stop gap for a couple of years, but he would be a solid LT. Second move, sign RT Tony Pashos. He was let go by Jax in a salary cap move. Young and experienced, he would have been a huge up-grade. Total on both - maybe 8 million.
LB - As much as it would hurt, trade Kampman. Lets say, to Philly for pick #53. Subtract his $5 million plus salary from the books. Even after the trade for Matthews, we have a 2nd round pick and maybe draft, Phil Loadholt, Glenn Coffee, or Shon Greene. All with solid futures. With the savings, make the bold move and trade a #1 next year for Julius Peppers. Offer him 3yrs/36 million and he would have been happy. Back at OLB and playing for his old coaches.
S - Instead of signing Anthony Smith - that was apparently a terrible mistake, take a chance on the home state boy Jim Leonhard. He would have been affordable, was experienced in the 3-4 and as Rex Ryan tells it - "is a coach on the field." An immediate up-grade at safety. Gotta think he would have jumped at an offer. A fan favorite for years to come.
When I read a JS article quoting scouts from other teams saying the Packers are so close and short in a couple of areas, it makes me wonder about TT's game plan. Those moves I put out there would have shored up our weak areas and we would be 4-0 right now. And they would not have broken the bank.
QUOTE (VoiceofReason @ Oct 14 2009, 04:39 PM)
Tell the Broncos how much time it takes. That's not a good excuse anymore in today's NFL. It's not like in the past where players show up for camp and play ball. It has become a 12 month job, and these guys have had play books for months before camp. Then there's OTAs, meetings with coaches throughout the summer...training camp, pre-season games. This idea that the the 3-4 is so complicated it takes two years to fully grasp is hogwash.
Might be time to consider changing your moniker.
Because DEN has had more early success than we've had, the notion that it will take some time to adjust to the 3-4 is hogwash? Yea, that's reasonable. We have a lot of solid players, but with Kampman now out of his element our front seven is sorely lacking in difference makers, especially at OLB. That is where DEN has us beat. Our defense will continue to be mediocre at best until we find an elite OLB. Put Dumervil on our roster and the defense would instantly perform at a much higher level.
QUOTE (Bob_Nelson @ Oct 14 2009, 07:05 PM)
Well, the Vikings have failed miserably in finding a long term solution at QB. But at least you have to give them credit for trying to plug that hole until they get it right. I'd like to see Ted do something similar with our O-line, take a chance on a guy in FA for once.
$12,000,000.00 Plug. They must shop at NASA.
QUOTE (Heatseeker @ Oct 12 2009, 02:56 PM)
I thought Mark Chmura (of all people) made a great point on his show, the Miller Lite football show this past weekend on the radio. He said that he's sick of hearing how the Packers are, "the youngest team in football." He said that simply means we're also the dumbest -- in terms of football anyway.
The fact is Ted Thompson values young players that run faster, jump higher and come cheaper than a veteran guy who knows the subtle nuances of the game and that would provide veteran leadership.
The fact is Ted Thompson values young players that run faster, jump higher and come cheaper than a veteran guy who knows the subtle nuances of the game and that would provide veteran leadership.
I never thought about it like that. Would a company boast that none of their competitors had such a young group of:
1) computer programmers?
2) welders?
3) managers?
4) truck drivers?
5) sales representatives?
6) accountants?
7) virtually anything?
When we look at it from an "inexperience = not a desirable trait" perspective, then the "youngest team in the NFL" statement is completely turned on it's head.
Interesting...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.