The Seahawks are looking to win now. In 5 years they will be average and declining. The Packers will be good for the next 10 years. So which is better? I know that at some points there wont be a "super team" and thoes times are more than not in the current nfl. The packers will win again when, much like 2010, there isn't a super team. Just a team that's really good and will win

Originally Posted by: The_Green_Ninja 

Seattle has drafted a lot better than GB recently.

They overturned that whole roster when Pete got there.

It's not just Russell Wilson they have on the cheap, Sherman and others too.

THATS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DRAFT WELL

And ya know what? Players will leave, and cheap players will continue to come it because Jon is better than Ted.

Originally Posted by: RajiRoar 

QCHusker- Selecting FAs which is what Ted did in the first few years helped get GB to the SB. Moving away from it has not helped them get back there. A few more quality players at key positions would make a huge difference in this team even without Aaron. They don't have them. They have a bunch of kids with little or no experience trying to make the jump from NCAA to NFL and they are struggling.

I love how people who never want GB to pick up a FA always go for the highest profile players at the highest price in order to try and prove a point. In doing so you prove that you are not listening (or reading) what others are saying (or typing) The majority of people on this site at least that would like to see FA acquisitions that are 2nd tier even 3rd tier players. They won't put GB ion a financial bind and they can certainly add to the overall strength of the team.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

A lot better is kind of a stretch. They got a couple really good guys but most of their last three drafts arent really doing much.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

What Free Agents could the Packers have signed that would have made a difference? I can't recall anyone worth their signed salary that would have contributed much if at all.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Uhh

2010: Russell Okung
Earl Thomas
Kam Chancellor


2011: Richard Sherman (best corner in the league)
Malcom Smith
KJ Wright

2012: Bruce Irvin
Bobby Wagner (could have been DROY over kuechly)
Russell Wilson
Robert Turbine (fantasy owners keep an eye on this guy for when he replaces Lynch)
JR Sweezy (now an OG)


These are just the guys I know off the top of my head.

Originally Posted by: RajiRoar 

In 2013, Ted Thompson has signed the following 2nd and 3rd tier FA:
Tavecchio
Means
Mulligan
Cunningham
Young
Wilson
Wallace
Harper
Banjo
And several others that I didn't even recognize. And there were others such as Flynn and Bell that I left off due to the circumstances. The fact that most of these players did not contribute doesn't mean Ted Thompson isn't signing FA. They just represent your 2nd & 3rd tier players that are available.

In 2013, Ted Thompson brought in 2 different FA kickers (Tavecchio and Ramirez) to compete with/ inspire Crosby. Don't say he doesn't sign FA. It's just not true. He just hasn't signed the ones that will win the SB single handed.

In 2012, Ted Thompson signed Saturday and Benson. They were probably upper level 2nd tier. How'd that work out?

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

As I said before, I'm certainly not advocating massive free agent signings, but I think when people talk about "he should have done more ......", they mean something more like Charles Woodson every 2 or 3 years. I don't know he'd be considered lower first tier or upper second tier, but like that - not nobodies.

Yeah, Seattle has done better, and probably a lot of other teams too. Some of that can be attributed to Thompson's mania for trading down. What you end up with is more players - presumably more competition, but less quality. I'd rather have fewer but better players. And if we need competition, there is always UDFAs. Mulumba has been better than Palmer; Boykin has been decent; Same for various others.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker