Dude, give it a rest.

"It's unreasonable to expect to get a FA that will become a hall of famer." Who said that? You did. No one said they were expecting that. So, get off it.

Originally Posted by: play2win 

Steven Jackson wanted to go to one and only place, Atlanta. Packers had no chance. I think it's important people understand that fact before blasting the Packers.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

and no one is cherry picking the failed FA signings to make their point?
After seeing the same players named time and time again p2w is simply giving you names of FA success stories. I believe it was Zero, among others, who yesterday was asking who the successful FAs were.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

The Packers' two super bowl runs can in part be attributed to FA signings - Andre Rison, Sean Jones, Eugene Robinson, Woodson, and Pickett all played integral roles in those teams.

You could argue FA is a necessary role in getting a team "over the edge."

We're starting to beat the dead horse, but the issue I had with this argument is that Ted didn't try FA, or that it's as easy as we think it is. Ted's drafts and FA pick ups turned out to be great 4-7 years ago. They've been subpar the last few years along with some unlucky breaks (Worthy, Sherrod, Cobb, Hayward injuries). Does it mean the philosophy doesn't work? No, it just hasn't been very good execution of the strategy of late.

Originally Posted by: musccy 

I don't think there's any strategy that is specifically necessary for getting a team "over the edge". You just need to get good players no matter how it's done. We've had some draft picks that didn't work out and some injurys to important players that lowered the quality of the team. It's easy to say in hindsight that we could have signed this or that player to help out but it's just as easy to say we could have signed players that would have sucked anyway and been a waste of money and resources. One thing I see is that teams that draft well tend to be the best teams no matter what they do otherwise. Our '11 draft put us in a bit of a hole IMO. I'm a little higher on our '12 draft than some around here and I think but '13 looks good too. We need another good draft this coming year and I can see a nice turnaround.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

The Packers' two super bowl runs can in part be attributed to FA signings - Andre Rison, Sean Jones, Eugene Robinson, Woodson, and Pickett all played integral roles in those teams.

Originally Posted by: musccy 

You could argue FA is a necessary role in getting a team "over the edge."

We're starting to beat the dead horse,

but the issue I had with this argument is that Ted didn't try FA, or that it's as easy as we think it is.

Ted's drafts and FA pick ups turned out to be great 4-7 years ago.

They've been subpar the last few years along with some unlucky breaks (Worthy, Sherrod, Cobb, Hayward injuries).

Does it mean the philosophy doesn't work? No, it just hasn't been very good execution of the strategy of late.

I agree with where everyone is headed. Ted Thompson did not provide starter depth 3 deep and it's because he did not delve deeply enough into FA. As if signign a few different FA would make a difference.

Looked at Denver's defense lately? Think they are winning games if Manning and Welker are out for an extended period? Think their fans are whining about depth? Of course not. They're not testing their depth.

Is Detroit leading the North if Stafford and Megatron are out for 5 games each? Who cares about their DL if those 2 are sitting?

Take the starting QB and #1 receiver from any playoff team. Then ask yourself if they would still be headed for the playoffs? Denver- Nope. Patriots- Nope. Bengals- Nope. Colts- Maybe, they lost Wayne already and their division sucks. Cowboys without Romo and Bryant- Nope. Think Seattle is 11-1 if Tarvaris Jackson had 5 starts? You get the idea.

There is too much parity in the NFL and the rosters are too small to survive injuries. It doesn't matter how you build your team if they get hurt. Lose your best player and you are probably done. Lose your best 2 or 3, you are done. Doesn't matter where the players come from.

On August 1, the Packers 3 most valuable players were QB, LT and OLB; meaning Rodgers, Bulaga, and Matthews. Those 3 have missed more than they have played. GB managed to survive Bulaga's loss. But you can't survive all 3. Throw in Cobb, who was probably #5 or #6 and Hayward at #10 or so. It's over. The fact that it technically isn't over is due to the aforementioned parity.

For those of you that insist Ted Thompson should have done more, what available FA could he have signed over the last 2 years that would have made up for losing Rodgers?

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

I agree with where everyone is headed. Ted Thompson did not provide starter depth 3 deep and it's because he did not delve deeply enough into FA. As if signign a few different FA would make a difference.

Looked at Denver's defense lately? Think they are winning games if Manning and Welker are out for an extended period? Think their fans are whining about depth? Of course not. They're not testing their depth.

Is Detroit leading the North if Stafford and Megatron are out for 5 games each? Who cares about their DL if those 2 are sitting?

Take the starting QB and #1 receiver from any playoff team. Then ask yourself if they would still be headed for the playoffs? Denver- Nope. Patriots- Nope. Bengals- Nope. Colts- Maybe, they lost Wayne already and their division sucks. Cowboys without Romo and Bryant- Nope. Think Seattle is 11-1 if Tarvaris Jackson had 5 starts? You get the idea.

There is too much parity in the NFL and the rosters are too small to survive injuries. It doesn't matter how you build your team if they get hurt. Lose your best player and you are probably done. Lose your best 2 or 3, you are done. Doesn't matter where the players come from.

On August 1, the Packers 3 most valuable players were QB, LT and OLB; meaning Rodgers, Bulaga, and Matthews. Those 3 have missed more than they have played. GB managed to survive Bulaga's loss. But you can't survive all 3. Throw in Cobb, who was probably #5 or #6 and Hayward at #10 or so. It's over. The fact that it technically isn't over is due to the aforementioned parity.

For those of you that insist Ted Thompson should have done more, what available FA could he have signed over the last 2 years that would have made up for losing Rodgers?

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan