Hold the other team to less than 20 points a game consistently. That is what wins championships.

...

I said keep them under 20 points offensively and that they can give up 300 or 400 yards a game.

28 teams kept teams between 300 and 400 yards on average.

6 teams kept teams below 20 points against. (I don't know if that is what the defense gave up so it could be less/more)

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I am no Capers fan, but I do agree our talent has slipped drastically. Any DC would struggle with the piss poor play and all the injuries this group has displayed.

Tramon, Shields, Daniels, Hyde. These four players are the exception. The rest could be cut tomorrow without much loss. What does that say?

Clay Matthews has to be on the field, as when healthy he makes a difference. I get the two broken thumbs, but hammy issues every year make him somewhat unreliable. Josh Boyd gets a mention as a player with some promise, as does Andy Mulumba.

So that's 4 key contributors + 3 positive mentions. Wow. That makes 4 positions on this D without a decent player. What does that say?

Originally Posted by: play2win 

Burnett has done it in the past. Kind of feel like this staff is F'ing him up a bit.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

I don't like calling for coaches to lose their job. I'm not sure why this is, as my default is to see coaches the way I see quarterbacks -- i.e., they're mostly assholes.

I think part of the reason, though, is that old cliche about how coaches don't lose games, players lose games. Coaches are like middle-management -- they're necessary, but you can have the greatest middle managers in the world, but if the people at the top suck, or if the people on the assembly line lack competence, it doesn't matter. Your company is going to be somewhere between bad and slightly above average.

So for me, the problem is either at the bottom or at the top, or both. And I have to say I'm looking at the top, particularly at the people in charge of identifying and acquiring talent.

I've said it for years (save for a brief hiatus in 2011 after the super bowl win). If Ted Thompson insists on the balance between draft and free agency/trading that he does, i.e., emphasis on the former and bargain negotiating for the latter, he has to be well above average every year in his drafting.

And I just don't think he has been. Oh, there are some positions he is really good at, most notably WR, and he's had some home runs elsewhere (Rodgers of course, Shields, Sitton, Matthews, Lacy). But with the exception of the Rodgers out-of-the-park grand slam, every GM has some home runs.

Thompson insists as part of his personnel approach on not overpaying in free agency. And not just avoiding overpayment, but avoiding it to the extent that your acquisitions (Woodson, Pickett) only come from waiting until late, getting a bargain price, or both.

Be clear: I am *not* saying said approach can't work. That's why I put a personal moratorium on criticizing Thompson for awhile after the Super Bowl win (other than my usual "OL OL OL!" chanting at draft time).

But to *sustain* the Thompson approach, you have to be significantly better than your peers on draft day. And I'm not sure he is.

Woodson and Pickett were absolutely critical in the Super Bowl year. But Woodson is gone and, unfortunately, my man Pickett looks to be sliding as well. And the two most significant free agent acquisitions since Woodson and Pickett are?

Maybe we'll see Ted Thompson getting lucky and picking up their equivalent late in free agency this year, maybe we won't. I'm not holding my breath, because I don't see Ted Thompson ready to make a basic change in his philosophy and the likelihood of getting the level of a Pickett or a Woodson, much less both, is pretty small.

And that means, drafting in the last third of the round, Ted Thompson has to consistently be middle third in his draft choices.

I remember growing up watching Dave Kingman playing for the Cubbies. He hit some monster home runs. And he struck out hundreds of times, ending up being, what, a 0.240 lifetime hitter? I also remember watching the person I consider the greatest hitter of my lifetime, Rod Carew. Hit just 92 homeruns, but was in 18 consecutive all-star games, batting .300 in 15 straight, and under .280 just once.

With his approach, Ted Thompson needs to be Rod Carew. But, IMO, he hasn't been.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

I'll add the danger Ted falls into holding to his "re-sign your own players" mantra, as it can cloud your vision, as in the re-signing of Brad Jones last offseason. That was stupid money that he signed him for, and it did and will set us back. Jones had done not one damn thing to earn that contract. He just happened to be one of Ted's guys.

Thank God Raji didn't jump his offer to him… $8M per year...

Originally Posted by: play2win