Another thread ruined by uffda

Originally Posted by: gbguy20 

This is for gbguy20...

Dang straight! Ted Thompson is the best GM in football. Why do you think we win the division every year? Duh, we have the best GM in the game. Our team is going to win it all after another infusion of talent drafted by Ted Thompson here next week. I feel sorry for the Bears, Vikings and Lions...they don't have Ted Thompson and that is what separates us from the other teams in the division.

It's great resting easy just knowing Ted Thompson makes stellar decision after stellar decision. Sure, he's not perfect but he's still the best. I mean, look at our record under him. 67-28-1 and that includes a 4-12 season when he cleaned up Sherman's mess. Wow, what a job he's done. No question he's a HOF GM when he walks away whenever that is because we know he can write his own ticket in Green Bay.

I lived through the 70's and 80's...TT has brought us heaven on earth and I don't want to go back to how it was back then. Thank your lucky stars Ted Thompson is here. I know he takes a lot of unwarranted criticism from those who just don't get it and I really can't understand why. He's AWESOME.

The guy is just good. Pack in capable hands. SB's aplenty coming. Thanks, Ted.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

I agree with yoop... completely. This thread has only been "ruined" because the cult like norm has been challenged and refuted which "ruins" your inaccurate perception of what you want to consider...truth.

Stellar? LMAO. Just LMAO.

Who is better? I haven't analyzed other GM's performances enough to type a truly informed reply so I'll refrain. What I have done is very closely monitored Ted Thompson over the years, and he's NOT stellar. Why does that truth make you so uncomfortable? The lie needs to be put to rest once and for all about him.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

I don't see that he has "ruined" any thread.
Just because he doesn't toe the company line on everything doesn't mean he doesn't give food for thought.
If everyone on this forum, or any other, just agreed on everything and posted the same thoughts over and over, there would be no sense coming to the forum much less participate.

Originally Posted by: yooperfan 

I hadn't followed this thread until just now. It seemed to be the only game in town.

I find it interesting that there is so much negativity toward uffda udfa - in this thread anyway. In some other ones, I could understand why. Saying he ruined the thread - this one anyway - is a bit over the top. The 2nd or 3rd post, I think - his first in this thread - was an intelligent rebuttal to a very shaky premise - that Ted Thompson is all that special as a GM or even as a drafter - removing from discussion the whole aspect that he stubbornly refuses to go after other teams' free agents to any significant degree. Beyond that, it seems to me, the "ruination" has been condemnation of uffda udfa and his responding to it.

In this particular case, I have to side with the basic premise of uffda udfa. One line of his really stands out. I paraphrase: "Where would Ted's teams be without Aaron Rodgers?" A big hell yeah to that!

It could easily be argued that drafting the best QB in the history of the world makes Ted a "stellar" drafter. It could just as easily be argued that he got lucky. It was a fairly obvious move at the time to draft a QB who had been speculated to have a 50/50 chance of being the overall number one pick when he was still there 20 or so picks later and Favre getting on in years - who knew he would remain good for so long. As uffda udfa said, you look at the team minus Aaron Rodgers, and you get a whole other picture - mediocre comes to mind rather than stellar.

And then there's the one Super Bowl won thing ...... I would suggest that if the GM had Aaron Rodgers and did a stellar or even above average job of building a team around him, we would have an all out dynasty - half a dozen or so SB wins in the years up to now with Rodgers as starter.

What I will give Ted credit for is that he is an excellent finder of UDFAs. The Packers have been way above average at finding and using them. They better be, because a LOT of those stellar draft picks have kinda fallen flat.

Many will also give Ted credit for keeping the Packers out of "cap hell" as the Niners and a few other teams over the years have ended up. I will give him limited positivity here, but not as much as many people. The fact is, Ted has played it too close to the vest - NOT maximizing the cap as much as he could have and arguably should have. There is limited cap space, yeah, but there are a lot of creative ways to stretch that which the Packers don't really do much of.

So all in all, it's easy to defend a GM who has brought us so many years of being near the top, but for the reasons I have stated, I don't buy the "stellar" thing. I don't even buy "above average". Ted has made a reputation based on benefiting from the greatness of Aaron Rodgers.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

I hadn't followed this thread until just now. It seemed to be the only game in town.

I find it interesting that there is so much negativity toward uffda udfa - in this thread anyway. In some other ones, I could understand why. Saying he ruined the thread - this one anyway - is a bit over the top. The 2nd or 3rd post, I think - his first in this thread - was an intelligent rebuttal to a very shaky premise - that Ted Thompson is all that special as a GM or even as a drafter - removing from discussion the whole aspect that he stubbornly refuses to go after other teams' free agents to any significant degree. Beyond that, it seems to me, the "ruination" has been condemnation of uffda udfa and his responding to it.

In this particular case, I have to side with the basic premise of uffda udfa. One line of his really stands out. I paraphrase: "Where would Ted's teams be without Aaron Rodgers?" A big hell yeah to that!

It could easily be argued that drafting the best QB in the history of the world makes Ted a "stellar" drafter. It could just as easily be argued that he got lucky. It was a fairly obvious move at the time to draft a QB who had been speculated to have a 50/50 chance of being the overall number one pick when he was still there 20 or so picks later and Favre getting on in years - who knew he would remain good for so long. As uffda udfa said, you look at the team minus Aaron Rodgers, and you get a whole other picture - mediocre comes to mind rather than stellar.

And then there's the one Super Bowl won thing ...... I would suggest that if the GM had Aaron Rodgers and did a stellar or even above average job of building a team around him, we would have an all out dynasty - half a dozen or so SB wins in the years up to now with Rodgers as starter.

What I will give Ted credit for is that he is an excellent finder of UDFAs. The Packers have been way above average at finding and using them. They better be, because a LOT of those stellar draft picks have kinda fallen flat.

Many will also give Ted credit for keeping the Packers out of "cap hell" as the Niners and a few other teams over the years have ended up. I will give him limited positivity here, but not as much as many people. The fact is, Ted has played it too close to the vest - NOT maximizing the cap as much as he could have and arguably should have. There is limited cap space, yeah, but there are a lot of creative ways to stretch that which the Packers don't really do much of.

So all in all, it's easy to defend a GM who has brought us so many years of being near the top, but for the reasons I have stated, I don't buy the "stellar" thing. I don't even buy "above average". Ted has made a reputation based on benefiting from the greatness of Aaron Rodgers.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

Its not just about having everyone agree. Several of us have tried to start different discussions in this thread with him but they have been ignored so he can just keep ranting about some editor using the word stellar. We could have had a good discussion on whether Ted is a good drafter or a bad drafter or even what it means to be a good drafter from page 1. We even tried to get a definition of what should be considered a stellar drafter. We didnt have those discussions though did we? Instead we just get paragraphs of bitching about the word stellar and Ted Thompson lovers and insults directed toward TT. Hence a thread with some good potential for discussion has indeed been "ruined"

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

I wouldn't consider Ted Thompson "stellar." Ozzie Newsome is stellar when it comes to the draft. John Schneider is stellar when it comes to the draft. I would put Thompson on a rung below those GMs. He has failed to fix our defense for years and for that I cannot in good conscience consider him "stellar."

Udffa, this is just sheer curiosity on my part, which GMs do you have ranked ahead of Ted?

Originally Posted by: Bigbyfan 

It's good to know how much I'm needed here. Discussions of any relevance can't take place unless I participate. Outstanding.

How quaint that I'm still getting blasted for what I haven't responded to, totally dismissing the FACT you, yourself, have dismissed SEVERAL questions posed by me... most of which could've been answered by a simple YES or NO. The answers aren't forthcoming because the last thing in the world most of you want is to examine your false and wrongly held opinions that you so desperately need others to validate.

I've now tired of Barfarn...he's all style and no substance. My goodness. Trype.

Nothing has been "ruined" except the safe little word you try to cling to where Ted Thompson is some master drafter which is not the case. I think there's a reason nobody chose to grade any of his drafts because if they were all stellar that would've been the first thing done here because the bloodthirsty cult crowd would've used it to validate their opinion. Sadly, it isn't there for them and they know that so one must turn to ME as the subject because there is nothing there for them to defend their false belief. Hammer uffda! Hammer him! Lynch him. That guy is so wrong. Really? Nah.

This thread has been derailed by truth and nothing more. The false train fell off the tracks when I started posing you questions regarding the actual topic. You wanted to ask questions that had nothing to do with my statements because my statements were correct.

Ted Thompson is not a stellar drafter and you know that. Go ahead and ask again who is more stellar. That wasn't the articles point. It was singular. The article itself didn't compare TT. It, in a vacuum, made proclamations that were ridiculous beyond the editor's title.

Delusion. Strong. Koolaid is good, though. Hard to resist.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa