texaspackerbacker
12 years ago

You don't always get CM III. You just get a better chance of finding him in the higher rounds not in the 6th or 7th.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



hahahahahahahaha how many CMIIIs do you want anyway? You wake up a few years later with a headache of how to keep them and still fit with the salary cap hahahahaha.

I tend to agree with you, but I can't fire Ted Thompson and hire you just yet. Wait for him to have 5 or 10 years of bad teams, then I'll back you all the way hahahahaha.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago

It doesn't work like that though. Ted Thompson isn't sitting there simply going "man I just want more picks even though there's some great players on the board, I'll just trade back anyways" If the players aren't there to get you cannot get them simple as that. Ted Thompson trusts the board and the scouts/evaluators. If the board says there's a bunch of guys of the same quality and no standout players then he's going to trade back and get one of those same quality players and add more chances late in the draft.

He's shown that if there's a significant player to trade up for he WILL do it so you cannot really claim he's avoiding that situation. You don't just trade up to get a player because "higher round picks have a better chance to work out" if your board doesn't say those players are worth it. On top of that each draft is different. Just because one year had a bunch of studs in the 2nd round doesn't mean the next year every 2nd rounder will be a stud ( they may all be a bust).

Originally Posted by: steveishere 



never did I say that Ted will always trade back. never did I say he avoids that situation. Obviously he has traded up several times. The point is he has traded back many more times than he has traded up.

You can't say that Ted "WILL do it" (trade up). He has done so so few times in his time as GM. No doubt the other franchises may have been asking for more than he was willing to give. As I said and then you said Ted puts more value on having 10 low level picks than on having 2-3 very higher picks. In his first couple of years when GB was in cap space hell. It made sense.

You are correct that every draft is different. I never said it wasn't. We only have to look at 2006 to see that when GB picked Hawk. He is not a bad player and fans would like him a whole lot better if GB got him in the 3rd round instead of #5 overall.

As for what the board says, you don't know what is on Ted's board. Some of the players that go in the early rounds are on his board. I never said he must trade up and give away every single low round draft pick every single year for me to be happy. I said Ted tends to go with lower picks more often than not. AND more often than not the lower round picks are not as good as the higher round picks.
If you want to be a winner put winners on the team. There are more winners in the higher rounds than in the lower ones.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago

hahahahahahahaha how many CMIIIs do you want anyway? You wake up a few years later with a headache of how to keep them and still fit with the salary cap hahahahaha.

I tend to agree with you, but I can't fire Ted Thompson and hire you just yet. Wait for him to have 5 or 10 years of bad teams, then I'll back you all the way hahahahaha.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



OH MY!!! let's not stock the team with quality players. We may have to pay them money some day down the road in 3-4 years.

I don't want the job. "If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve."

To answer your question- I want 22 CM 3 type players.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago
To tie my rant back in to Zero's title- I want a team that wins in the playoffs not one that merely shows up and then goes home a week or two later. I guess some of you are happy with it. I am ok with you liking a form of mediocrity.
I measure success by championships.
UserPostedImage
texaspackerbacker
12 years ago

To tie my rant back in to Zero's title- I want a team that wins in the playoffs not one that merely shows up and then goes home a week or two later. I guess some of you are happy with it. I am ok with you liking a form of mediocrity.
I measure success by championships.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



What's that expression: "Don't let good be the enemy of great" or something like that ....... I empathize completely with your point of view, but I'm pretty damn happy with the type of "mediocrity" we have had also. Ted Thompson seems to be trying for a middle course - going for it all with a minimum risk of dropping off from the great place we already are. This might just be the year we really do have it ALL.

And my half serious point about too many CMIIIs was that you bump up against the salary cap if you have too many superstars to get re-signed.


Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
steveishere
12 years ago

To tie my rant back in to Zero's title- I want a team that wins in the playoffs not one that merely shows up and then goes home a week or two later. I guess some of you are happy with it. I am ok with you liking a form of mediocrity.
I measure success by championships.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



That's nice and all but every team but 2 goes home a week or two later every year. I guess the sooner you realize the team you like isn't going to be one of the 2 out of 32 teams that makes the big game every single year (no matter what team you like) the easier it will be for you. You are putting up unrealistic expectations. Obviously every fan want's their team to win the Superbowl every year, wanting that doesn't make you special but demanding that makes you irrational.
DakotaT
12 years ago

see THAT is the point. Get rid of the more or less useless low round picks and spend them on quality higher round picks. You get so much more value with higher picks. You get what you pay for.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



Uncle Ted gave us a championship with the multiple draft pick system and you question it? Drafting in the late 20's in every round every year and still being a top team annually comes from having a very skilled GM. Maybe we should all just kiss his ass a little more instead of questioning his methods and pouting about more championships.

We had a GM that always thought we were 1 or 2 players away and that didn't pan out too well.
UserPostedImage
nerdmann
12 years ago

That's nice and all but every team but 2 goes home a week or two later every year. I guess the sooner you realize the team you like isn't going to be one of the 2 out of 32 teams that makes the big game every single year (no matter what team you like) the easier it will be for you. You are putting up unrealistic expectations. Obviously every fan want's their team to win the Superbowl every year, wanting that doesn't make you special but demanding that makes you irrational.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 



If we played above our abilities and still lost in the NFCC, that would be cool.

But when we are the superior team and we shit ourselves, it disgusts me.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago



And my half serious point about too many CMIIIs was that you bump up against the salary cap if you have too many superstars to get re-signed.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 



wouldn't THAT be a great problem to have? I would never worry about it. The answer is simple. Use them while you have them and then let a few or most walk when the time comes. No worries.

To everyone else- HA! You are getting WAY to worked up over this. Like Dakota mentioned we are only talking about a 1-2 maybe 3 player difference in the team and you are pummeling me for nothing.

I do not hate Uncle Teddy. I think he has done a heck of a job. however we have been discussing in general. Let's get specific. Who feels that it would have been better to have Darius Butler, Derek Cox and Brandon Tate on the Packers instead of Clay? Oops Clay AND Jamon Meredith. Certainly Butler, Cox and Tate have had decent careers. For the most part. Nothing spectacular. But they line up and play week end and week out. Moving up in the draft gives you a better chance at a Pro Bowl caliber player than moving down in the draft. Not a one of you can disagree with that. Just look at the wiki drafts for the past 10 years. More All Pro and Pro Bowl players are taken in the early rounds than the later ones.

Since Uncle Ted does a great job of stocking the team the need to pluck a couple of studs from time to time in lue of 10 more guys who are just passing through is required.

As for the line about measuring success based on championships- is that not Mike Mc Carthy's quote? or a paraphrased version of it?
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
12 years ago
If we are going to "blame" the composition of the roster for our post season failure.. then we best remember it was those same type of players that netted us a ring in 2010.

We have talent up and down this roster.. talent is not the problem.

I still maintain.. I will continue to, point most of the blame of our post season failures on our imbalance in offensive play calling.. IE, failing to develop a running game to balance our offense and our team.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (3h) : The menu you expanded to log in, it's the first icon under "PackersHome" .. maybe i should add text to it
dfosterf (3h) : Feelin' pfowish can't find the sun. No big deal, will drag a laptop out when the time comes
Zero2Cool (3h) : if you're on mobile, open the menu and its the "sun" icon
dfosterf (3h) : Can't find the toggle, lol
dfosterf (3h) : I can find that the Microsoft lady rep for Titletown Tech is the philanthropy boss for the entire Microsoft corporation, but. .
Zero2Cool (3h) : There's a toggle for light/dark theme. Super easy.
dfosterf (3h) : The white background beta was hard to read, especially the quotes
dfosterf (4h) : Hopefully the color scheme remains the same
dfosterf (4h) : *Friday*
dfosterf (4h) : 100 million would be 539 million as of Fridsy
dfosterf (4h) : Heck, they could have taken a hundred milliion and invested in DAVE inc. last year (semi random, humor, but real)
dfosterf (4h) : Beer brat and ticket is where the money comes from
dfosterf (4h) : The 40th is Titletown Tech itself. This is a pet project of both Ed Policy and Mark Murphy
Zero2Cool (4h) : New site coming along nicely. The editor is better than what we have here. Oh yeah!
dfosterf (4h) : No profit that I know of. 0 for 40
dfosterf (4h) : The woke reference has to do with the makeup and oftentimes objectives of the companies they invested in
packerfanoutwest (4h) : beer and brats woke? say whom?
beast (4h) : I don't want to get into politics, but how is, beers and brats considered to be "woke"? Food is food...
beast (4h) : That being said, I'm not saying all 100% should be that way, but not surprised if majority are Wisconsin based
beast (4h) : And if everyone has heard of them, then it it probably has less growth potential and less community based
beast (4h) : Well isn't the investing person supposed to invest the money?
dfosterf (5h) : I swear if I were to discover that one of them has invented a virtue signalling transmitter I will not be surprised, lol
dfosterf (5h) : 39 companies so far that I bet no one has ever heard of.
dfosterf (5h) : -Not saying woke, but should- borderline philanthopist venture capital excercise
dfosterf (5h) : Well for one, they are pouring resources into Title Town Tech. Investing beer, brat, hot dog, ticket money into what is pretty much...
beast (11h) : Wow, 95% drop in investment revenue? Would be interesting to hear the details of why...
dfosterf (25-Jul) : It's my one day deal complaint dept. on shareholder meeting day
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Probably a homer access credential intimidation kinda thing
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Meathead "journalists" skip this, concentrating on operational revenue when convenient. They switch when net revenue is more favorable.
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Resulting in an actual drop of net revenue of 12.5%. She is from Minnesota. Just sayin'
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Any plans to hold Maureen Smith (CFO) accountable for a 95% drop in investment revenue?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : In your face, HBO!
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @ByRyanWood Mark Murphy: “A great source of pride of mine is that we were never on Hard Knocks.”
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : *years
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @mattschneidman Mark Murphy says he anticipates “many Packers games” being played in Germany, Ireland and/or the U.K. over the next 5-10 yea
dfosterf (25-Jul) : *cafeteria* I have hit my head also, so I sympathize
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Possibly hit his head leaning into the glass protecting the food in the cafateria
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Maybe a low flying drone
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Did Savion Williams run into a goalpost or something?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : also, no bueno when a guy starts getting concussions right off the bat in his career
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Concussion is worse. Banks probably vet off day via back booboo claim
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @AndyHermanNFL Jordy Nelson out at camp today. No word if he’s in play for one of the two open roster spots ; )
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Is that better or worse than Banks bad back?
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Savion concussion ... not good.
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Who's Theo?
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : How is Theo alliteration?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
3h / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jul / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

25-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.