To my mind, if you have an all-world QB, you should be pulling out the stops to win, period. Thinking that you'll have time because Peyton doesn't have as much in the tank as Rodgers is forgetting that BOTH of them are one injury away from becoming less-than-all-world. It only takes one severe shoulder injury or one concussion and Rodgers' time horizon is shortened by several years.

I've never liked Elway. But whatever else you might say about the guy, he has demonstrated his willingness to take major risks. And he got his team closer to the championship contention more quickly with less than Thompson has, and he looks to be doing more to try to keep his team there than Thompson has. IMO.

Overspending is relative. IMO committing a hundred million to a quarterback is overspending if you don't match it with a willingness to do what it takes to leverage that investment into becoming a serious championship contender (as opposed to a regular playoff wildcard/NFC North title winner).

Leveraging is about taking risks. Overspending somewhat isn't a vice if it yields championships. Insisting on never overspending before the contract works its way out isn't a virtue.

Yeah, Denver may end up being in cap hell sooner than GB. GB under Thompson may never enter cap hell at all. And that to me is irrelevant. What matters is what approach is likely to maximize the likelihood of having championship-quality teams for multiple years.

But apart from my desire as a fan for Elway, Manning, and company to fall on their ass, I think it is likely that this Denver team is likely to be more of a contender for longer before they end up in cap hell. And, apart from my desire as a Packer fan for this team to get to the SB every year, I don't see this team as close at all to being that consistent championship contender. Given the competition of the NFC North, the playoffs, sure. Get past one-and-done? -- I'd rather bet on drawing to an inside straight than draft-and-develop-and-insist-on-bargain-and-never-ever-overpay-for-anyone-else's-FAs.

Rodgers is a better quarterback than Manning ever has been. Ted Thompson and company should be doing everything they can do that he has more championship chances to prove it.

Are they?

Not in my opinion. Not so far in his tenure as GB's starting quarterback.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

Do you think that New Orleans will care how much they paid Byrd if he makes the pro bowl 3 or 4 years in a row.

Originally Posted by: sschind 

I've had enough. The vast majority of posters on here the last 72 hours have whined non stop about the actions of a team that has won the Super Bowl in the last few years, has been a consistent playoff team and has a MVP in his prime. You're frustrated that the Packers aren't doing what you think is necessary to get from being really good to World Champions. Like any of us know squat.

But the part that really annoys me is that some of you appear willing to sell out the future of the team for slightly improving the odds that the Packers win the Super Bowl. YOU WHINE LIKE 7 YR OLD GIRLS WHEN WE LOSE CLOSE PLAYOFF GAMES. THE THOUGHT THAT YOU WOULD BE OK WITH A 3-13 SEASON IS LAUGHABLE.

Either you all have only been fans for a few years or you have forgotten what the other side feels like. Rejoice because this is the 2nd greatest era of Packer football and it won't last. Then you'll really have something to complain about!

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

To my mind, if you have an all-world QB, you should be pulling out the stops to win, period. Thinking that you'll have time because Peyton doesn't have as much in the tank as Rodgers is forgetting that BOTH of them are one injury away from becoming less-than-all-world. It only takes one severe shoulder injury or one concussion and Rodgers' time horizon is shortened by several years.

I've never liked Elway. But whatever else you might say about the guy, he has demonstrated his willingness to take major risks. And he got his team closer to the championship contention more quickly with less than Thompson has, and he looks to be doing more to try to keep his team there than Thompson has. IMO.

Overspending is relative. IMO committing a hundred million to a quarterback is overspending if you don't match it with a willingness to do what it takes to leverage that investment into becoming a serious championship contender (as opposed to a regular playoff wildcard/NFC North title winner).

Leveraging is about taking risks. Overspending somewhat isn't a vice if it yields championships. Insisting on never overspending before the contract works its way out isn't a virtue.

Yeah, Denver may end up being in cap hell sooner than GB. GB under Thompson may never enter cap hell at all. And that to me is irrelevant. What matters is what approach is likely to maximize the likelihood of having championship-quality teams for multiple years.

But apart from my desire as a fan for Elway, Manning, and company to fall on their ass, I think it is likely that this Denver team is likely to be more of a contender for longer before they end up in cap hell. And, apart from my desire as a Packer fan for this team to get to the SB every year, I don't see this team as close at all to being that consistent championship contender. Given the competition of the NFC North, the playoffs, sure. Get past one-and-done? -- I'd rather bet on drawing to an inside straight than draft-and-develop-and-insist-on-bargain-and-never-ever-overpay-for-anyone-else's-FAs.

Rodgers is a better quarterback than Manning ever has been. Ted Thompson and company should be doing everything they can do that he has more championship chances to prove it.

Are they?

Not in my opinion. Not so far in his tenure as GB's starting quarterback.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

I've had enough. The vast majority of posters on here the last 72 hours have whined non stop about the actions of a team that has won the Super Bowl in the last few years, has been a consistent playoff team and has a MVP in his prime. You're frustrated that the Packers aren't doing what you think is necessary to get from being really good to World Champions. Like any of us know squat.

But the part that really annoys me is that some of you appear willing to sell out the future of the team for slightly improving the odds that the Packers win the Super Bowl. YOU WHINE LIKE 7 YR OLD GIRLS WHEN WE LOSE CLOSE PLAYOFF GAMES. THE THOUGHT THAT YOU WOULD BE OK WITH A 3-13 SEASON IS LAUGHABLE.

Either you all have only been fans for a few years or you have forgotten what the other side feels like. Rejoice because this is the 2nd greatest era of Packer football and it won't last. Then you'll really have something to complain about!

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

I started out by saying (I guess one of the other Dear Ted threads) that Ted had done a good job BUT .......

Hell yeah, the Packers are good - somebody mentioned "top 4-5 teams", we are THAT good right now - sorry defense, shaky O-Line, and all. WHY? Almost entirely because of Aaron Rodgers. The rest of the team - as I was probably the first to say, got exposed last season.

Nobody here wants Ted Thompson to plunge head first into the free agent market; Probably nobody here wants him fired; Probably most people here are on board for the most part with "draft and develop"; But Thompson's mania for not going after quality FAs to fill holes the team has is an absolute classic case of too much of a good thing.

Do you want people to NOT complain about the farting away of this "2nd Greatest Packer Era"?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

Im curious is the Rodgers Era better than the Starr Packers or the Favre Packers? As I see it the holmgren Packers were alot better than the Mike McCarthy Rodgers years. And the 60 Packers is by far the best Era

Originally Posted by: dhazer