Rockmolder
15 years ago

I might be an idiot, but rebuilding with one of the youngest team, a new QB (following a legend) and having a schedule that puts us against all of last years Nr 1s.... .500 doesn't seem that bad to me.

We've been spoiled these last couple of years. We went 9-24 AT HOME between 86-92, till Brett started, followed by a SB in 96. Rebuilding at a .500 level doens't seem all that bad.

Not saying I wouldn't want my Pack to do better, ofcourse, but these inconsistencies are obviously coming with inexperience.

"greenwhiteandnogold" wrote:



Yeah, I agree 5-6 isn't that bad coming off a 13-3 season.

Why get something done today when you can do it tomorrow. Hence, why make a run at the SB with the same players? Get rid of them all and start fresh. That formula we had last year was just luck. Let's throw out that recipe for success and being the mad scientist we are, let's get even younger players and totally mix everything up. Then you can make a run at it 3-4 years from now. That's Ted Thompson's genius. Favre was obviously on the decline (all washed up) and we couldn't have gotten one more good year out of him. He totally sucked in 2007 and wouldn't have done anything for us in 2008. It was the right choice to move on. The Train left the station and it was all Favre's fault. Old man shouldn't have retired for three months.

"Rockmolder" wrote:



I never said Favre was washed up. We didn't have a choice though. It was either getting him back for a year, maybe two, or having Aaron stay hear. I bet Ted Thompson would've been killed in the media in 3 years, if we had Grossman at QB or something.

t might be a personnel problem, I agree with you there, Favre sees the rush coming and other things you just gain through experience. Rodgers doesn't have all that yet, so the O-line looks like they would with any quarterback except for Nr. 4, the magician.

I would like to know who else you're talking about though, when you're refering to 'taking away all the old players and start over fresh'. We pretty much have the same team as last year, with one big change.

I think you just want someone to have the blame for our record, and you're free to do that, obviously. I don't think it's Thompson's fault though, and as we get more experienced, I see us winning a SB with most of this team.
greenwhiteandnogold
15 years ago

I might be an idiot, but rebuilding with one of the youngest team, a new QB (following a legend) and having a schedule that puts us against all of last years Nr 1s.... .500 doesn't seem that bad to me.

We've been spoiled these last couple of years. We went 9-24 AT HOME between 86-92, till Brett started, followed by a SB in 96. Rebuilding at a .500 level doens't seem all that bad.

Not saying I wouldn't want my Pack to do better, ofcourse, but these inconsistencies are obviously coming with inexperience.

"Rockmolder" wrote:



Yeah, I agree 5-6 isn't that bad coming off a 13-3 season.

Why get something done today when you can do it tomorrow. Hence, why make a run at the SB with the same players? Get rid of them all and start fresh. That formula we had last year was just luck. Let's throw out that recipe for success and being the mad scientist we are, let's get even younger players and totally mix everything up. Then you can make a run at it 3-4 years from now. That's Ted Thompson's genius. Favre was obviously on the decline (all washed up) and we couldn't have gotten one more good year out of him. He totally sucked in 2007 and wouldn't have done anything for us in 2008. It was the right choice to move on. The Train left the station and it was all Favre's fault. Old man shouldn't have retired for three months.

"greenwhiteandnogold" wrote:



I never said Favre was washed up. We didn't have a choice though. It was either getting him back for a year, maybe two, or having Aaron stay hear. I bet Ted Thompson would've been killed in the media in 3 years, if we had Grossman at QB or something.

t might be a personnel problem, I agree with you there, Favre sees the rush coming and other things you just gain through experience. Rodgers doesn't have all that yet, so the O-line looks like they would with any quarterback except for Nr. 4, the magician.

I would like to know who else you're talking about though, when you're refering to 'taking away all the old players and start over fresh'. We pretty much have the same team as last year, with one big change.

I think you just want someone to have the blame for our record, and you're free to do that, obviously. I don't think it's Thompson's fault though, and as we get more experienced, I see us winning a SB with most of this team.

"Rockmolder" wrote:



You say that "we didn't have a choice". Who is we? We as fans didn't have a choice, but Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy sure did. Do you forget that Favre wanted to come back as the starter and that Ted Thompson told the media that "he could come back, but that he would not be the starter"; hence, a backup to Rodgers. So yes, we DID have a choice.

And as for Rodgers, he wasn't in high demand before the season started as he had PROVED NOTHING. How do you know that he would have left at the end of 2008. The Packers still could have given him a contract at the end of 2008 if they felt that strongly about him. Which obviously they with choosing him as the starter over BF. Heck, he got a huge contract after winning only 5 games. I just don't buy that Rodgers was going to leave town if he didn't get to be a starter this year. I would have had no problem with him holding a clipboard for another year and then giving him a contract when he goes free agent. As a free agent with only a couple of games under his belt, he wouldn't have gotten more than 4 million a year in free agency, and that's on the high end - we just gave him 8 million/yr. No team would have looked at an unproven rookie and thrown 8 million their way without seeing him play at least 7-8 full games. Back in August he had no claim for the throne and had no real leverage, we could have gotten him even cheaper in free agency.

Problem is the choice was Favre as starter, release him, or play a game of chicken over the reinstatement papers to see who would flinch first. We all know that Ted Thompson won that poker game. The choice was made to trade away a legend.

I believe in accountability - you make your bed you've got to lie in it. Ted Thompson gambled and lost (barring a miraculous run to the SB). If the Packers were 8-3 right now, I'd say good for you TT, you deserve credit. You can't have it both ways. You can't give him all of the credit when the team wins and make excuses for him when they don't. Management is ultimately responsible and in the NFL they either get the credit or the blame.
blank
longtimefan
15 years ago

No team would have looked at an unproven rookie and thrown 8 million their way without seeing him play at least 7-8 full games. Back in August he had no claim for the throne and had no real leverage, we could have gotten him even cheaper in free agency.

.

"greenwhiteandnogold" wrote:



Yup no team would do that

unproven rookie 

Ryan became the second top draft choice to sign when he accepted a six-year, $72 million contract that included $34.75 million in guarantees

IronMan
15 years ago

No team would have looked at an unproven rookie and thrown 8 million their way without seeing him play at least 7-8 full games. Back in August he had no claim for the throne and had no real leverage, we could have gotten him even cheaper in free agency.

.

"longtimefan" wrote:



Yup no team would do that

unproven rookie 

Ryan became the second top draft choice to sign when he accepted a six-year, $72 million contract that included $34.75 million in guarantees

"greenwhiteandnogold" wrote:


Apples and oranges IMO. Matt Ryan was the #1 overall pick. He gets a big contract by default.
longtimefan
15 years ago

I think with what he has had to work with he's done a decent job. Although I think his evaluation on OL is terrible and I also think he needs to take a risk every now and then. I think ted kind of waits for things to fall into his lap instead of reaching out and getting it at times.

I'm actually more concerned with McCarthy than Thompson.

"dhazer" wrote:



The last part there Zero got me thinking and looking back, Maybe we all pointed the offseason circus at Brett vs. Ted Thompson maybe it was Mike McCarthy pulling the strings and Ted Thompson is just the puppet. We never did hear from Ted Thompson but it was always Mike McCarthy saying the train left blah blah blah. Don't get me wrong i still don't think Ted Thompson is that great of a GM but maybe Mike McCarthy is trying to make it his team and have his stamp on it. I still don't like the fact you never see Ted Thompson with anything on that has the Packer logo on it.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:


I have said that numerous times on Bretts site..That Mike McCarthy just might have been the one not wanting BF back because he wouldnt stop with the gunslinger antics

In fact the whole 6 hour meeting?
Mike McCarthy asking BF to let go of his hatred for Ted Thompson and to concentrate on being the q/b

BF insisted on non stop bashing of Ted Thompson in the meeting..BF didnt want to discuss competing, or scenerios with MM, just wanted to bash Ted Thompson
Now that is according to Gary Ellerson on WSSP as he said that stuff on the air.

Then there was a report that Ted Thompson came into the meeting and said thats it your done...



But I do know this for a fact..

Bak in JULY Brett was told he would never play in GB
longtimefan
15 years ago

No team would have looked at an unproven rookie and thrown 8 million their way without seeing him play at least 7-8 full games. Back in August he had no claim for the throne and had no real leverage, we could have gotten him even cheaper in free agency.

.

"IronMan" wrote:



Yup no team would do that

unproven rookie 

Ryan became the second top draft choice to sign when he accepted a six-year, $72 million contract that included $34.75 million in guarantees

"longtimefan" wrote:

"greenwhiteandnogold" wrote:


Apples and oranges IMO. Matt Ryan was the #1 overall pick. He gets a big contract by default.



SO?

What did he do other than play good in college??

At least Aaron Rodgers studied under Bf, ran the scout team for 3 years, and knew the play book

Make more sense now?

I truly fing hate how rooks get those deals with out even looking at a NFL playbook
IronMan
15 years ago

No team would have looked at an unproven rookie and thrown 8 million their way without seeing him play at least 7-8 full games. Back in August he had no claim for the throne and had no real leverage, we could have gotten him even cheaper in free agency.

.

"longtimefan" wrote:



Yup no team would do that

unproven rookie 

Ryan became the second top draft choice to sign when he accepted a six-year, $72 million contract that included $34.75 million in guarantees

"IronMan" wrote:

"longtimefan" wrote:


Apples and oranges IMO. Matt Ryan was the #1 overall pick. He gets a big contract by default.

"greenwhiteandnogold" wrote:



SO?

What did he do other than play good in college??

At least Aaron Rodgers studied under Brett Favre, ran the scout team for 3 years, and knew the play book

Make more sense now?

I truly fing hate how rooks get those deals with out even looking at a NFL playbook


Good point.
porky88
15 years ago

We had the T. Gonzalez trade finalized, but the Chiefs backed out on us. I think we had a round 2 draft pick for him but they backed out in the final minutes...

"go.pack.go." wrote:



We thought Tony G for a 3rd was the deal.

The Packers had the papers made up. Carl Peterson calls up and asks for a 2nd rounder instead and the Packers back out as they aren't going to give that up.

Pretty much Thompson was wiling to part with a 3rd, but not a 2nd.

His last three 2nd round picks have been Brandon Jackson, Brian Brohm, and Pat Lee. Nothing that real special although Jackson has played his role well. We're already getting an extra 2nd at least from the Favre trade too.
bozz_2006
15 years ago
Jordy Nelson was a second rounder
UserPostedImage
go.pack.go.
15 years ago
I'm not sure I really wanted the Packers to get Gonzalez...

IMO, he has gotten too old. I mean, he's still good and all, but we could probably get a pretty good TE in the draft if we really even need one.

I say go for a DT or OL or something.
UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    dfosterf (8h) : Maybe
    Mucky Tundra (8h) : Yes
    Zero2Cool (10h) : No.
    Mucky Tundra (12h) : End of a Degu-era
    dhazer (12h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
    Zero2Cool (15h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
    Zero2Cool (16h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
    dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
    Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
    beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
    Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
    dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
    buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
    Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
    dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
    Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
    Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
    Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
    beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
    dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2023 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Falcons
    Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
    SAINTS
    Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
    LIONS
    Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
    Raiders
    Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
    RAMS
    Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
    CHARGERS
    Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
    CHIEFS
    Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
    BUCCANEERS
    Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
    Panthers
    Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
    Vikings
    Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
    Cowboys
    Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
    49ers
    Recent Topics
    3h / Around The NFL / beast

    8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

    28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

    28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.