Ya, guilty as charged, I can be wordsy; but Uffda in this thread you’ve used 10x more words than I and have only said, “TT in my subjective opinion is average.” [Remember: when pointing your finger at someone there’s three painting back at you] Sorry, just havin’ a little harmless/banter fun...LOL
I respect what you write and read it and try to understand it and that is why I have not answered your question, because it has not been posed until now and given my purported, as you say, “brilliance,” I’m not omniscient. But, yes I believe Ted Thompson is stellar.
Perhaps I am omniscient! I gaze into my crystal ball and see the future: you quibbling over that answer...LOL
Your position in attacking the MJS article is largely the byproduct of a logical fallacy called the “strawman.” You are using the word “stellar” by applying a myopic definition of it that was never intended by the writer; you then attack the writer’s position based on that myopic definition. Good communication is like a contract; there must be a meeting of the minds. Years ago “gay” meant happy; “bad” meant bad. Today “bad” can mean good and “gay” probably means homosexual. Also, the words in our language are often loaded w/ connotation, which are sometimes intentionally implied by the writer or erroneously inferred [or not inferred] by the reader. One cannot know what a writer is implying [or not implying] or his meaning behind various words until we read them in CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. In the subject article there is nothing to suggest “stellar” = preeminent; clearly, the writer is using “stellar” more colloquially to mean very good or outstanding. And to be 100% clear this is the context as to which I am using the word.
No one would have trouble using “stellar” to refer to Ted Williams’ 1941 .400 batting average; except his subjective, emotional and irrationally angry [irrationality only refers to her disgust toward the achievement-TW was an absolute tool] ex-wife; yet he failed 6 of 10 times. As stated above TW’s and TT’s performances cannot be measured independently; they can ONLY be measured relative to the performances of others. If the average baseball player is hitting .700, then .400 stinks.
Good drafting is 99% dependent on a high quality draft board and please absorb this: drafting is not only about who you draft; but who you DON’T draft. Imagine if the Lions DIDN’T draft Titus Young; but drafted Cobb instead. And who you DON’T draft has everything to do with UDFA success. A good draft board and UDFA success are inextricably tied together. TT’s draft board identified, EG, Shields and Tramon as draftable players; BUT Ted Thompson knew who to draft and who not to draft in the late rounds. EG. in 2010, in the 6th and 7th Ted Thompson drafted Starks and Wilson; but NOT Shields. Ted Thompson knew Elliot’s relationship was gonna bring in Sam and that no other team was gonna pick him. In 2006, Ted Thompson drafted some good quality players [Tollefson, Culver, Jolly] in 6th and 7th; but NOT Tramon. Ted Thompson knew TW was going to sign w/ HTN; Ted Thompson knew HTN had Faggins, Sanders, Robinson, McCleon, Buchanon, Stone, etc and would cut TW; so Ted Thompson DIDN’T draft TW and just waited to pounce.
Is Ted Thompson the best at knowing who and who not to draft? Who cares and it’s futile to try to answer. Is Ted Thompson really good, outstanding as a drafter/nondrafter? Without question! Who is better? I don’t know any. One guy that was really good was Scot McCloughan; until he succumb to addictions and using his draft board even a dope like Baalke could look good for a year or 2. Schneider using TT’s draft board looked stellar [LOL]; but over the years as Schneider became privy to less and less of TT’s draft board, his drafts have steadily become worse and now he’s in full pissant panic mode.
Uffda, I’ll bet you’re one of those guys that incessantly whines about Ted Thompson underutilizing free agency. Let me explain something. NE uses the same D &D philosophy as TT; but because of recent draft failures at CB [Dowling, Ebner, Dennard and Logan] and S [Wilson and Harmon] so McCourty could play CB; BB had to go get Revis and Browner. If BB drafted better, he would not have needed to delve into FAs.
While minimally supplementing draft failures with FAs, our 2014 roster was so talented it dominated Seattle on both LOSs and finished in the final four. If we are just as or more talented than NE, Seattle and/or Indy; but have not signed nearly as many FAs; does this not by definition mean Ted Thompson drafted/nondrafted better than the other teams? It is the ONLY explanation.