Steve...you ask what 15 GM's are better? Not indicated by my post. Go look at these "stellar" drafts of his and grade them individually. Come back and tell me how he's "stellar". It is beyond ridiculous to say he's "stellar" at drafting. He's very very good at UDFA players. His draft grades are NOT consistently above average. Stellar would indicate, to me, he's consistently excellent...the biggest homer would have to admit he's not been.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

No it's ridiculous to claim that he's "clearly nothing more than average" without even comparing him to his peers. If he's nothing more than average then that means that about half the league has been better than him at drafting so who are all these teams/ GMs that have such a better track record?

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

stellar
[stel-er]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
adjective
1.
of or relating to the stars; consisting of stars.
2.
like a star, as in brilliance, shape, etc.
3.
pertaining to a preeminent performer, athlete, etc.

--- I'm going to stop being baffled at your replies. The title of the article includes the word "stellar" in relation to Ted Thompson and his drafting prowess. That is an unadulterated misrepresentation of reality.

Now, you want him graded on a curve... that is not the article's focus...it is him being STELLAR. He is NOT.

Keep going tangential it's unbecoming, especially of you, Steve. I expect that from Buck and his ilk but not you.

Is Ted Thompson "stellar"...it's a YES or NO question. Somehow, most of you couldn't answer that without getting diarrhea of the fingers. The answer is...NO.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

If you paid such close attention to what I wrote then it is YOU who should be proving he has been "stellar". I asked each person to grade his drafts individually and then come back here and tell me he's been "stellar". Why would I need to do that? I've already admitted he's not been stellar. That article was about a big of a joke as I've ever seen in a "major"newspaper. No wonder the industry is failing. Looks like Buck wrote it.

Of course, you and most others won't go near the question of whether he's been "stellar"? I understand. I do.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

Did you read that article? Brandon Jackson was highlighted in one of his drafts? Are you kidding me?

TJ Lang was dubbed, "elite"? Are you joking?

Finley was called "elite"? He had elite talent but never elite production.

Brad Jones was cited????

AJ Hawk was never ever close to living up to being the 5th pick in the draft.

Colledge and Spitz cited? What?

Richard Rodgers had an impressive year? To who?

---I love the Pack but the person who wrote this is worse than a homer. The view of TT's drafts is very flawed.

I'm honestly surprised Demetri Goodson wasn't touted from our last draft the way this guy assessed things.

Just a pure propaganda piece. Zero objectivity save for the comment on Hawk.

EDIT: I just read the comments below the article at JSO...wow, some actual sane Packers fans who are objective. I was shocked. It looks like most of them realize how ridiculous that puff piece was and Ted Thompson is barely middle of the road. I really, really, loved the commenter who pointed out you have to hit every single year to build a juggernaut if you're not going to explore FA. Ted Thompson has had some absolutely BRUTAL drafts...furthest thing in the world from "stellar".

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

If Ted Thompson drafts 40 HOFers in 8 drafts and 31 other teams each drafted more, Ted Thompson stinks. If Ted Thompson drafted 4 quality players in 8 drafts and no other team drafted more than 3, then Ted Thompson is a genius. It is impossible to say Ted Thompson is good or bad w/o comparing his success to that of other GMs.

I've noticed one characteristic possessed by the vocal minority that criticize TT: they tend to compare Ted Thompson to some fictitious wayward wet-dream of a GM, who is 100% perfect. Steve is 100% correct, berating a GM w/out comparing him to his peers is, IMHO, pure poppycock.

Again you may be correct, my mind is open; please provide argument supported by facts and cogent reasoning that other GMs are better and perhaps you can convince me.

Or you can continue to fully substantiate everything you say with your own subjective opinions. Now, there's nothing wrong with that; but, in the words of Jack Nicholson, "if that did it for me, I'd be the luckiest man alive."

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

As far as if Ted is Stellar or not I don't know, I would not personally use that word. I think he is one of the best, is that "stellar"? If he's not stellar then who is? If nobody is then what would it take for one to be considered stellar?

Originally Posted by: steveishere