Do you want Ted Thompson to be extended?· Page 11

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

I will simply counter with this.. the depth the Packers had won us a Superbowl. That isn't a fallacy, injury after injury was plugged with another player.

I get it.. you want a GM that gambles more in Free Agency. Look, I am not happy with the recent performance of the defense.. never have been happy with Campen's offensive lines. But before throwing out the baby with the bathwater, one also has to look at the overall job Mike McCarthy and Ted have done. I say that combined because they have been a team for most of the tenure and honestly how do you split the credit.

Since 2006

We are in the top five in win %, offensive pts.. and top 10 in points allowed. You don't do that without consistent rosters, depth and play. Speaks to the talent level year after year in a salary cap era. Talent is not the issue.. my opinion.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z

I completely disagree with your conclusions...this is a function of having one of the best QB's, if not best ever, under center...and Favre was okay, too.

Again, you have talked about TEAM when we've been carried by our HOF QB's who "always give us a chance".

Posting offensive numbers, only, when our O is controlled largely by the play of ONE position bears that out.

There is much more to a TEAM than offensive numbers There's ST's and D. We have been poor at both over the years. ST's is one spot that is very reflective of depth...been subpar for way too long on ST's.

It is a Packer fan fallacy that we're a team of depth... looking at QB driven offensive numbers and using that as validation we're full of depth proves that.

You may or may not acknowledge TT's failures when/if he's done in 2015 with one ring and one other playoff win vs. Joe Webb and the Vikings at Lambeau. It'll be awfully hard for you to justify how deep we were under Ted Thompson with only one good playoff run in his time here.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

Pack93z
Select Member

10 years ago

#102

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Who drafted the QB? Who filled the cupboard for him with offensive weapons? Ted's limited adventures into FA have been somewhat mixed, but you cannot overlook the chance he took on Woodson. Pickett was solid for the duration. We can go on and on.

You make this sound like winning a Superbowl is easy. Most teams in the league go through peaks and valleys and cannot sustain winning. Making the playoffs gives you a chance every single season. To discount the ability year in and out to be a playoff team with a shot of challenging for a Superbowl is foolish.

You point to last season as an indictment of our lack of depth, yet completely ignore the SB on band aids. First the game continues to change, it is more and more geared towards passing and scoring. Securing a franchise QB is job number one. I will agree the gamble on a fact of veteran depth cost us. Lesson learned with Flynn in fold again.

But for reference.. here are the games lost to injury for all teams. Your choice of the Bears is telling.. Packers in total lost 211 more games to injury by their players than the Bears. There is attrition.. and then there is injury plagued.

2013GamesLost.JPG You have insufficient rights to see the content.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

StarrMax1
Registered

10 years ago

#103

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

So you are already saying 2014 and 2015 are lost seasons because Ted Thompson may or may not leave after the 2015 season.

If that's true, is it safe to say, until the end of 2015 you will continue your fallacy posts on how Ted Thompson is not a good GM, on how the rest of us fans refuse to take off our Green and Gold Glasses, because we disagree with your stance?

Why, if you already have The Packers failing the next 2 years do you have to subject the rest of us with your negative views?

Wouldn't be easier for you to come back after the 2015 season and scream as loud as you can "SEE I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!" ?

I know it sure would be easier for the members here who like to discuss Packer Football, without being called "homers" and such.

I do have a question, since you seem to be(in your mind) THE MOST INTELLIGENT football fan ever.

There is 1 and only 1 stat that through the years has proven to be the most important for any football team, no matter what level, or what era, this 1 stat determines the winners from the losers, whether it be week to week , year to year, decade to decade.l

This is easy,

I am not going to offend any of the long standing members here by asking any of them to give the answer, but you, I'm not convinced you are as smart as you say you are.

So what is the answer?

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#104

Originally Posted by: Pack93z

This is the heart of my argument from the beginning... I DO NOT like the idea of shooting to be good year in year out hoping against hope you may get lucky and get a SB run out of it. I much prefer the idea of going for it and taking a step back to get there, if need be. A consistent team that makes the playoffs and loses in Round 1 year after year because it's only aim is to be good and have a chance doesn't work for me. I said it earlier...divisional titles are laughable to me. Those who purchase gear to promote that fact really cause me to shake my head. The goal is winning the SuperBowl not your division...yes, not mutually exclusive but it would seem to me that our objective is to win divisional titles and take our chances in the playoffs. I would prefer to load up trying to win it all not just make the playoffs as some kind of monumental achievement.

It is very hard for most to swallow the fact that this team has been what it is for all these years not because of TT's steady hand or even MM's rather they've had one of the best QB's to ever suit up guiding the offense. Aaron Rodgers covers a multitude of sins. Ted Thompson can hide behind him with the fans we have of this team who are happy bragging to their Bears and Vikings fan brethren that they're the class of the NFCN.

Shoot to be GREAT not good. We don't do that. We hide behind Aaron Rodgers and just hope and hope he'll be good enough to carry us instead of doing the job of building a great team around him. Two more years of this and hopefully a new guy who gets it comes in and realizes we only have Rodgers for a few more years and loads it up. Might be too little too late by then but we might have two more divisional championships to celebrate and keep us warm at night.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#105

LOL at the turnovers accusation.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

Pack93z
Select Member

10 years ago

#106

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

So now you go away from the depth issue.. but fail to acknowledge the in 2011 we went 15-1 when we lost only 143 games in injury. Fact is we can't stay healthy the past two seasons. Should some of that blame be put on Ted? Yes.. but some of it is bad luck.. some is on the players. Combination of a number of things.

Point is, yes Aaron covers sins.. but so does the depth of the roster assembled. Guys like Boykin stepped up with backup QB's big time.

I guess I don't understand how you think we don't shoot for the Superbowl every season? Should we spend like Dan Schneider? I agree we could be more active in Free Agency.. but there is a cost to doing so. You erode quality depth by increasing the cap load on starters. Teams like the Seahawks and Niners had a number of season of lows to load up on young stars with low cap numbers and then add in pricy veterans. Now that Cap and Russell are getting high dollar deals you will see that depth of talent taper off.

But your comment of taking a step back is interesting.. you want us to tank? Really? I couldn't wait to hear the gripes when we tank to a 6-10 season. lol.

Simply put; I personally don't think Ted walks on water.. I disagree with some of his choices, especially sitting still at times with players that would seemingly help this team. But I don't have all the information at my disposal.. I don't have a staff of scouts.. access to league reports on players. All I can do is look at the roster assembly each year and objectively look at the makeup and our ability year after year to retain our developing talent and stars or have decent players coming in to fill. Are there areas in which he struggles to fill. Yes. A compliment to Matthews comes to mind. Safeties to replace Collins injury.. to fill the center position. For a while.. it was the running back position. But all in all, throughout the roster we have a pretty good bevy of players manning spots.

Anyway.. it is pretty clear that you hold a very strong opinion of Thompson.. which is fine. Each to there own.. me, I personally am satisfied with his overall job. Would I like some things different.. sure.. but regardless of the man in the seat that would be true. My opinion his batting average is higher than most in personnel decisions... and year after year seems to make more correct calls on aging players and gambles on young talent. Not perfect.. but certainly not poor.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#107

I kind of liked that chart on games lost to injury...I realize that's a wonderful excuse...I've used it myself.

However, isn't it interesting to see where the Broncos fit on that list and what they've accomplished? 3 straight trips to divisional playoffs and a SB loss.

I'll take Denver's approach to ours...they loaded up when Manning arrived realizing how special he is and how short his time is. This offseason they loaded it up, again. Winning divisional titles to the Broncos and their fans is not satisfactory. This team has the pedal to the metal in pursuit of a ring. I LOVE that about them. Sold out for the SuperBowl. Won playoff game vs. Pittsburgh with Tim Tebow... NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Tebow is out and enter Peyton Manning because they want to WIN IT ALL not just make it to the playoffs.

Meanwhile, we're actually having a debate where you're trying to paint me as some kind of idiot for being anti Ted Thompson and his slow go approach that has failed us 3 years in a row after the one lucky run where Aaron played out of his mind in the Atlanta and Pittsburgh games. The breaks we received were incredible. Having to hold on vs. the Bears 3rd string QB who went to HS a few miles down the road from me. The very lucky Des Bishop clip of DeSean Jackson... What an improbable run...nobody would tell you different. "Bandaids" is what I believe it was called above. We got one lucky run and have only beaten Joe Webb's Vikings since. No great team produces those kind of results. Flash in the pan as far as greatness is concerned. Yes, but we're consistently good. Try that in Denver. I lived there, twice... those fans ain't like Packers fans. Ted Thompson wouldn't work for them. They're far too passionate about being winners not just in the regular season like Packers fans.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

Pack93z
Select Member

10 years ago

#108

I'll take Denver's approach to ours...they loaded up when Manning arrived realizing how special he is and how short his time is. This offseason they loaded it up, again. Winning divisional titles to the Broncos and their fans is not satisfactory. This team has the pedal to the metal in pursuit of a ring. I LOVE that about them. Sold out for the SuperBowl.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

First.. not trying to paint you as anything. Just rebutting the arguments you present then shift.

Do the Broncos have a choice? They have Peyton on a very limited time frame and are going to be in cap hell after this run. But he doesn't have another 5 or 6 years in him.. he has maybe 1 more. BTW.. did they win the Superbowl? Or did a team with a similar approach to ours hoist the Lombardi?

Now for Green Bay.. Aaron is just turned 30.. has a number of years ahead of him. Sure.. you can load up and make a run for a year or two.. and then discard a couple when we have to reload. Or we can try and balance it out and give ourselves a chance for a longer duration.. maybe we stay healthy. Maybe a star or two emerge on defense to pair together. Different philosophies.. but is there a science to it? Does loading up ensure a championship?

Like happens every year.. the variables of this league are so great that no one philosophy is a lock for success. For every team that has success with loading up.. another one fails. So does the develop and maintain.. every the mighty Pats are in the middle of not winning it with a projected HOF QB.

I want to win it all every year.. but I also enjoy making a playoff appearance each year where we can get hot and make a run because we are there.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

Pack93z
Select Member

10 years ago

#109

I kind of liked that chart on games lost to injury...I realize that's a wonderful excuse...I've used it myself.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Presenting a fact is propping it up as an excuse.. check. And I am the one trying to paint another.. gotcha.

What is interesting is the better run franchises seemingly are able to overcome the injuries.. whereas even when healthy the poorly ran clubs continue to struggle. I think that speaks to the importance of depth on a club.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#110

Originally Posted by: Pack93z

Of course the argument is going to shift... we weren't looking at games lost to injury charts... good debates are varied and cover a lot of ground not just a single track.

Seattle does NOT have a similar approach to us... Do you say that because one of our former guys is out there? Ted Thompson is not trading 1st overalls for ascending YOUNG talent. He's NEVER done it in Green Bay...not once...not even close to doing it. Seattle adds key pieces via FA. We don't. I would say that Pickett and Woodson were big contributors during our SB run. Where are the guys like them now? Guion and Peppers are Pickett and Woodson? I don't know. A middling DL and a nearly finished DE who is switching positions doesn't inspire a ton of confidence.

You have acknowledged and admitted my exact point. Denver acts according to the idea that Peyton's time is short. There is urgency....but before there was urgency they made the playoffs and beat a real playoff team (PIttsburgh) which is something Green Bay hasn't done since winning the SB. Was winning a playoff game in thrilling fashion, I might add, good enough for the Broncos? No, it wasn't...but it would be in Green Bay. I can't imagine the Tebow gear in Packerland had he been one of ours and beaten a team in the divisional round of the playoffs. Ted Thompson would've NEVER moved on from Tebow....good would've been just good enough for him and for you. You said it...you like the "always have a chance" mode of thinking. I don't.

Green Bay should operate as Denver does realizing it has a special talent at QB and he's not going to be around forever. Hoping to get one shot out of the remaining years with Aaron vs. what Denver is doing with Peyton is light years apart.

And for the last time, Seattle does NOT have Green Bay's approach. Russell Wilson wouldn't have started as a rookie in Green Bay... he would've had to develop nice and slow for a few years first. There would be no Harvin or Rice in Green bay. No Avril, no Michael Bennett. Chris Harper wouldn't have been cut as a 4th rounder like Seattle did to him had he been with Green Bay. Seattle and Green Bay are NOT the same...not even close. Another Packer Fan fallacy as if anyone ever worked for the Packers each and every one of them thinks exactly the same as TT. Not even close to the way it is.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

beast (4h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (9h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (10h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (20h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (21h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (21h) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS