Do you want Ted Thompson to be extended?· Page 14

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

2011 - We dominated that season.. we trailed very little the entire season. Almost absurdly.

2012 and 2013 we have simply been banged up.. the numbers prove this out.

Did our talent all of a sudden fall off completely? Or did the injuries contribute? Probably a combination of both.

Again.. do I wish to win every season.. absolutely. I firmly believe the Packers do as well.

I just have a hard time laying all the blame upon a GM that has kept just about every talented player we have developed in Green Bay or had a realistic backup plan in place. That does not mean he has done everything perfect. Not even close.

But at the end of the day, this team wins at a better clip the most other teams over the past decade. You don't do that without talent.. you just don't.

There is no excuses being made.. none.. but looking at the totality of work done, it has been pretty impressive overall. Postseason success.. very disappointing.

If there is one complaint.. it is the lack of impact players on the defensive side of the ball.. ones that can stay healthy anyway. Could be said for almost the entire team.

At the end of the day.. I see it this way, I would rather be winning over the course of many seasons in which the composition of the roster continually is tweaked over putting all the eggs in a basket ala the Broncos and trying to make a 1 or 2 year run. Again, the Broncos example is a poor one.. they have no choice.. Mannning is near the end at 38. Rodgers is 30.. his windows has a potential to be open for 5 to 6 more years.

I say.. try to continue to put a roster core in place for that duration and add with deals that make sense. I do wish we would add a piece here and there in free agency more.. but that doesn't ensure victory either. San Fran nor Denver has hoisted a SB either.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z

The simple answer to your post is that you don't see that ONE man, Aaron Rodgers, carries our offense. If you didn't realize that, you weren't watching last season. You complain about the D, as we all do... the D is terrible because it doesn't have an Aaron Rodgers and the one guy closest is wearing out like a bar of soap.

You have bought the idea that this team is deep and strong when it is Rodgers brilliance that's carrying the day. His brilliance is not usually enough to carry us all the way. You either really don't see it or you just really don't want to. I'm not sure why you don't? You look at the fact we are winning "at a pretty good clip" but fail to look at WHY we're winning at a pretty good clip...ONE MAN'S BRILLIANCE. It ain't enough.

Broncos example is an EXCELLENT one... they have the one thing we should have...URGENCY. Nope, not in Green Bay we have YEARS for guys who were drafted to be developed. Total insanity yet you are "good" with it. No one who is sold out for winning is on board with that approach. No one.

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."

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

10 years ago

#132

The simple answer to your post is that you don't see that ONE man, Aaron Rodgers, carries our offense. If you didn't realize that, you weren't watching last season.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

What were the numbers for the offense when Rodgers, Cobb, Lacy and Finley were playing and then without. Because I can think of a certain QB who once threw six TD's in a game and nearly 500 yards that defies your statement that Aaron Rodgers carries the offense.

beast
Select Member

10 years ago

#133

All this talk about it's mainly the QB for the Packers.... HELLO!!! It's mainly the QB for all NFL offenses... it's not just the Packers, it's the NFL.... when talking about how a GM would do in the NFL... we should compare them to the NFL standards... and lots of GMs have tried to get QBs.... a lot of GM have used a lot higher picks on QB.... and yet Thompson weather it was skill or pure luck got a great QB for his team... that's like the #1 check-off thing for GMs to do and Thompson did it, and now people are saying with out he's poor...

Well look at the Vikings and Lions... they got some good talent on their offense... yet they don't have great QBs t push them to the next level... Thompson got that done.

Also last year the Packers didn't miss JUST Rodgers... they missed, Rodgers, Cobb, Finley, Bulaga on offense... that's their best player on the team, best QB, best OL, 2 of their best 3 receivers... I don't know but if you take that away from more offenses they're going to struggle. That's not even going into all the injuries at OLB which is the most important position of a 3-4 defense...

Is Thompson the best GM in the NFL? Probably not... is he one of the best GMs in the NFL... I honestly don't understand how someone could say no when talking about the depth of the roster.... instead the style/personality of how he gets it done... he's an unlikable robot... who does his function well and better than most (aka better than 16) of the human GMs...

If I had any complaints about him, it'd be

1) his coaching selection as I think there were better choices (Sean Peyton)... but Thompson said he picked the best person for the job (which might mean there was better coaches)... (Sean Peyton has gotten into a number of scandals while with the Saints, including accused to have been stealing pain meds from the Saints and maybe illegal giving them to players and/or keeping them for himself or others and the bounty scandal and I think there are one of two more as well).

I haven't really like some of the defensive schemes but they've draft players to fit those schemes...

2) Lack of length on some of their defenders...don't get me wrong they don't have to all be long... Daniels isn't ad he's a good player... but it's be nice if some of them are... but the Packers have seemed to go for the shorter/less long armed guys a number of times on the DL... and I've wondered if maybe that's what the coaches asked for, the DL coach has talked about it being length vs leverage and someone prefers leverage (shorter getting down lower) but length can help a lot specially when dealing with those OTs... which the 3-4 DEs have had to do at times...

And yes with out a doubt every GM has made some big mistake but that's the natural of the NFL draft... no body bats .500... my wild guess is few to none bat .300 in the draft... and Thompson drafts have had a lot of bust, but what GM hasn't? ... and despite a lot of injuries to important players, they came one drop (Hyde's INT drop) moving on in the playoffs.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#134

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

You're referring to the MEANINGLESS Detroit Lions game at Lambeau by Matt Flynn? Detroit hasn't won in Lambeau since I was in my 20's and they were playing a near meaningless game for them in frigid windy conditions. We were in full blown rest mode. That game was a glorified scrimmage. The Lions were already in the playoffs as a WC. Winning made them a 5 seed and losing a potential 6. Had Detroit won they would've ensured they played outside vs. the NYG instead of being inside a Dome. Stafford threw for over 500 and 5 TD's in that one also. Has Flynn ever come close to replicating that performance? He hasn't had a 300 yard game in his career outside of that one vs. Detroit. Oh, he did throw for 299 and 4 TD's vs. the worst D in the NFL after they took the foot off the gas in that Dallas game.

So, Matt Flynn can operate our offense as well as Aaron Rodgers because Rodgers is tied with him at 480 yards in a single game along with being tied with 6 TD's in a single game? Seattle made the mistake of buying the Flynn hype off of one meaningless game that I would argue was less important than a pre-season game where guys are going all out trying to make a team.

We should've dealt Aaron Rogders for precious 1st round picks seeing we had a better QB already on the roster. We did it with Favre...should've done it with Rodgers.

BTW, Jermichael Finley caught Flynn's final TD pass in the 45-41 glorified scrimmage.

EDIT beast, go take a look at the WR's and RB's Tom Brady had during his 3 ring winning runs. Tell me who he had? Yes, it is about the QB on offense. That's DUH type thing. Why are we hailing Ted Thompson for having one of the greatest of all time at the QB position yet continually failing in the playoffs. We've had ONE run under TT's leadership and win over Joe Webb's Vikings. Are you kidding me? That's a great GM? One who builds a team who has who I think is the best ever to one SB and a bunch of one and dones? It would be different if we were making NFC Championship appearances and getting back to SB's, but we're not and for that not to be alarming and okay with Packers fans is shameful to me. Good is good enough for some...not for me and not for anyone who is obsessed with winning. Any non SB winning season is a waste. We watch for the illusion that one day we'll get there. The illusion has been really built in Green Bay because we've had Rodgers and Favre for all these years...always a chance...rarely, a good chance.

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."

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

10 years ago

#135

In other words, your statement that the entire offense is carried by Aaron Rodgers has effectively been debunked. 😉

beast
Select Member

10 years ago

#136

EDIT beast, go take a look at the WR's and RB's Tom Brady had during his 3 ring winning runs. Tell me who he had? Yes, it is about the QB on offense. That's DUH type thing. Why are we hailing Ted Thompson for having one of the greatest of all time at the QB position yet continually failing in the playoffs. We've had ONE run under TT's leadership and win over Joe Webb's Vikings. Are you kidding me? That's a great GM? One who builds a team who has who I think is the best ever to one SB and a bunch of one and dones? It would be different if we were making NFC Championship appearances and getting back to SB's, but we're not and for that not to be alarming and okay with Packers fans is shameful to me. Good is good enough for some...not for me and not for anyone who is obsessed with winning. Any non SB winning season is a waste. We watch for the illusion that one day we'll get there. The illusion has been really built in Green Bay because we've had Rodgers and Favre for all these years...always a chance...rarely, a good chance.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Go look it up your own damn self... I'm nobody stat boy and certainly nobody's bitch... so don't be telling me what the hell to do.

I'm not hailing no body as the greatest of all time... just saying he's been better than most GMs and that's basically a fact weather you like it or not. Just because you want better doesn't mean you could do any better or find anybody better if you were the Packers president... yes you're standard are higher, but that probably because you don't realize how hard it is and that all of them do....

Case in point, you said you'd prefer Elway method... well what in the hell has Elway done differently really? ... He signed Peyton because it's a QB league... Thompson already drafted his QB with Rodgers, so he didn't need to sign him.... oh yeah Elway also signed a 3rd WR in Wes Welker and cut his 2nd best pass rusher for him.... Thompson went the other way and signed Peppers and let James Jones go... really that's not that big of a difference...

You're not really complaining about Thompson ... you're complaining about the fan hype of Thompson and the results of the season... which lately have had more to do more directly with coaches, players and injuries... and yes other than the injuries they're suppose to be under Thompson control... but HELLO... you can't control everything... SHIT HAPPENS!!!

If Hyde had caught that INT the Packers very well could of been in the NFC Championship game... is it really Thompson fault that Hyde didn't make the catch?

Can things be improved? YES... but year in and year out very few teams have had good of chances as the Packers going into seasons to maybe win it. And they've come up short, which is why they call it the game of inches... it's not half as easy as you think just to change something and suddenly it's all better.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#137

In other words, your statement that the entire offense is carried by Aaron Rodgers has effectively been debunked. ;-)

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

If they're MEANINGLESS games, then... yes.

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."

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

10 years ago

#138

If they're MEANINGLESS games, then... yes.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

The Patriots game in 2010 meaningless to?

The Lions didn't want the sixth seed, you do know that right? You do know they wanted 5th seed, right? OF course you don't, but now you do, so now you know it was not meaningless for the Lions. It was for the Packers who had Matthews, Woodson and Rodgers all sitting out. And yet, still, STILL a QB named Matt Flynn tossed it all over.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#139

Originally Posted by: beast

Highlighted text is textbook IRONY. I shouldn't tell you what to do, but you'll tell me what I really mean?

Have you looked at Denver's approach... How dare I ask you to look. You are making statements that the approaches are similar when it couldn't be further from the truth. If you're referring to Elvis Dumervil being cut you have left out a HUGE part of the story...a paperwork error caused his release. They didn't want to have to release him. My goodness. You have completely butchered what happened there and ignored completely what Denver has done this off season.

Further, I have to assume you already know the type of talent Brady played with at WR and RB when he was winning his SB's. Right, you don't need to look it up, but if you knew it was good and helped your argument you would surely use it. New England was a TEAM... a very good team...so much more than "just Brady". Sadly, you can't say that about the Green Bay Packers...they are nowhere near the team New England was and New England had that team with Brady QB'ing. We trot out a brutal D year after year and our OL has been anything but fantastic. Trotting out Marshall Newhouse in Aaron's MVP year? Are you kidding me? Aaron overcame a brutal OL on the way to winning an MVP. That MVP is that much more special considering the dregs he lined up behind. One of the many reasons I think he will go down as the best ever. Yet, we rely on him and do little to help him while he's in his prime. Shamefully wasteful.

Our approach is non-aggressive toward winning it all and all about long term stability in having a chance. Some of you are on record saying that's what you favor. I favor an all out assault at WINNING IT ALL. Denver is doing that this year despite you not realizing it. Soon our long term stability model will go by the wayside when Aaron is done. You will regret, as a fan, that your GM didn't go for it more with the greatest of all time while we had him. You'll see.

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

#140

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

The Lions wanted to play the Giants outside in the elements where they perform terribly almost every single time they're in them over playing indoors at New Orleans? New Orleans beat them down earlier in the season, but there ain't no way those players wanted to go play in frigid conditions in NJ. The Falcons got that ticket punched by claiming the 5 seed and their high powered O put up ZERO points there. Your argument is Detroit was going balls out to win at Lambeau? No...I will bet you anything they were thrilled they didn't have to go play outside in the elements over being in a climate controlled dome.

Oh, the game we lost and he choked at the end? That one? 251 yards passing. Did we win that one? How'd he do vs. the Lions the previous week that made that New England game such a big one for us?

Are you really trying to say you believe and it's correct that Matt Flynn is Aaron's equal? Sounds like you're trying to drive that one home pretty hard.

Additionally, you are leaving out the giant intangible that loomed over that game. Do you think the New England Patriots were worried about the Packers with Matt Flynn? Do you think they came with the same intensity had Aaron been the starter? If you do, let's talk about some ideas I have for you that will make you a lot of money. We ran the ball THIRTY EIGHT times that night. 38.

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

packerfanoutwest (49m) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (2h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (12h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (12h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (12h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (12h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (12h) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (16h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (16h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (16h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (19h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (19h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (19h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (19h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (19h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (19h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (19h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (19h) : 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 (20h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (20h) : 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 (20h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (20h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (21h) : 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 (21h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (21h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (21h) : 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 (21h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (22h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (22h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (22h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (22h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (22h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23h) : 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

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

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