Ron Wolf: Legend. Ted Thompson: Failure.· Page 6

DoddPower
Veteran Member

9 years ago

No. Ted Thompson has already surpassed 9 seasons and didn't make it to back to back bowls. RW wins.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Who cares? They still both won a single championship. The rest is splitting hairs. At that point, one might as well compare games won, too. And divisional championships. All of those things mean the same or possibly even more than a Super Bowl loss. Not sure why a Super Bowl loss is so important to you.

I think Ted Thompson's Packers will win another championship and cement their legacy. I doubt they will win more than one additional Super Bowl, though.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

9 years ago

#52

Not true: what about 2010 and [15-1] 2011? There are 2 teams in history that have started a season w/ 13 wins and did not win a PO game: 2005 Colts; 2011 Packers. They had one thing in common: a coach's son commits suicide late in the season [though Philbin's boy was later judged accidental]. Practice the week before Giants game was a mess and many players attended the funeral on Fri B4 Sunday's game. A sociopath may not be capable of producing empathy to understand how this can mess up a football player from focusing; but most of us either know or can understand what occurred on that team when the son of a close friend/business associate dies. But for this tragedy, GB would have squashed Giants and 49ers in Lambeau.

Then we were one Bosticide away from going to another; that'd be 3 in 5 years!

Of course we were decimated by injuries in 2012-13. In 2013 we took SF to the brink w/ Palmer and Datone Jones paying OLB 'cause there was no more and a slew of other injuries.

Ted Thompson has built 5 consecutive rosters that were capable of winning the SB. There's only one other team that sits in this stellar class: NE.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn

The more you think you know me...

The irony in this post. Too much. I said for years the reason we lost to the Giants may have been in large part to the loss of Joe Philbin's son. I'm a huge intangibles guy. It cast a pall over the entire org rendering football meaningless where it probably should be in our lives. It shouldn't be the idol it is for many of you and the loss of his son woke the org out of the coma that football really isn't that important...just a GAME that most of you will only ever watch on a TV.

We have been in ONE Superbowl under Ted Thompson with Aaron Rodgers at QB. Guy is the best to ever play and we've been there... once. Totally and utterly unacceptable but keep making excuses. The Bostic play happened. A poorly coached player or a poorly added player by management. You decide. The Jerry Rice thing had nothing to do with the Packers doing anything wrong... screwed as bad as the fail mary play in Seattle. A pitiful call that cost us another big win in SF.

Honestly, it's shameful how this team has performed with Rodgers at QB...the rest of the team is not and hasn't been and will likely never be what it should be under our current director. It's too bad we don't and won't ever get to see what a Parcells or Jimmy Johnson could do if they had a guy like Rodgers. We get stuck with the Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy duo where good is good enough while people fail realizing that we should be seeing greatness year after year.

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

9 years ago

#53

Oh,and about that 15-1 season...again, so illustrative of the disconnect between you and me. Why were were we 15-1 and failures beyond the Philbin tragedy?

Ummmm...we had the worst pass defense in the history of the NFL. Our D was simply atrocious. We had one of the best offensive performances wasted because Ted Thompson couldn't field an even adequate defense that year. He's a GM, right? He let Cullen Jenkins walk for peanuts. A move that was haunting but rarely comes up because the sycophants really don't follow the team that closely. They see and regurgitate things they feel in the right about due to things like 15-1, we're winning division titles, etc...all the while never ever looking too deeply into what really went on and why things are how they are. Record is good, so Ted Thompson must be good. Never considering that the record should be better than it is and Ted Thompson is a big reason it isn't. So short sighted and snow blindness. See what you want to see or what you need to see. I get childish insults hurled about why I'm not a cult follower of Ted Thompson like the masses... I'm mad about Brett? That is my favorite by far. I've been a huge Favre detractor for many many years long before the trade of him. Mad about Bostic? I was no fan of TT's long before that debacle. The geniuses here don't understand that my opinion comes out of nothing other than studying him and what he's done year after year. It's not been enough. We've been shortchanged as Packers fans while you sit blissfully exclaiming how Ted Thompson brought you heaven on earth. Oh, the masses, how you almost never find the real truth by following them. Deception is their calling card...such victims all because they can not or will not think for themselves. I'm going with can not.

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."

Wade
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#54

The point is on that is he did something perceived as CRAZY. Did a single soul on this forum or elsewhere envision what Brett Favre became for our franchise? No. Brett, himself, didn't.

Ron had a balls out approach to winning that landed us in back to back bowls and if not for the non Rice fumble we were probably going back for a 3rd time. We were a dominant franchise over those years with Reggie on D and Brett on O.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

1. I thought the trade for Favre was flat out insane at the time. I remember thinking it was cool that the Packers had two first rounders that year, and then Wolf traded for "who????"

2. Wolf's goal was not just winning. It was domination. And he knew that domination required major risk-taking from time to time. Going after and getting Reggie White was a major risk. Trading a first rounder for an Atlanta benchwarmer was a major risk. Trading for Keith Jackson, who was outspoken about not playing in GB, was a semi-major risk.

Thompson, right or wrong, has never been willing to take those kind of risks. He does take risks -- but they are different kinds of risks than the kind that theWhite, Favre, and, to a lesser extent Jackson acquistions required.

In one way, his biggest risk taking comes in following as heavy a draft-and-develop approach as he does. Because he takes far less risk in trades and free agency than other teams, because he relies so much on the draft, he needs to get a substantially higher return on his draft investment than other GMs do. One less hit in free agency requires one more hit in the draft.

I personally think Thompson has had three major hits in veteran free agency: Pickett, Woodson, and Peppers. (I don't consider picking up "free agents" like Tramon Williams anything like the same kind of thing -- Pickett, Woodson, and Peppers all had performed for years in the NFL at a high level. All came with risks, but a very different kind of risk than that posed by a drafted-and-released or never-drafted player. In a decade.

One cannot say that its a different era now than Wolf's era. Of course. But three in ten years is more than just "free agency is different today than it used to be." Three in ten years reflects a fundamental difference in what kinds of risks are worth taking and what kinds are not.

IMO Wolf's Packers simply would not have made the Super Bowl had Wolf relied on the draft as heavily, and on veteran free agents as lightly, as Thompson does. Wolf's overall drafts were arguably good, but they weren't good enough for that. Thompson to my mind is slightly better at drafting than Wolf was.

Is he good enough? I want a team that strives not just to win, but to dominate. I criticize the Packer leadership as much as I do, from Murphy to Thompson to McCarthy to the assistant coaches, not because I think they are "bad" at what they do. I criticize them as much as I do because I don't think they strive enough to dominate.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

nerdmann
Premier Member

9 years ago

#55

Originally Posted by: Wade

Ted also lined up a trade for Marshawn Lynch, which was rescinded at the last moment by the other team.

Also, if you want to talk about risks, let's talk about Justin Harrell. Hell, taking Aaron was a risk. Everyone else had serious doubts. Remember when he traded back up into the first round to take Clay Matthews? Think that was a sure thing?

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

9 years ago

#56

Thompson, right or wrong, has never been willing to take those kind of risks.

Originally Posted by: Wade

What about that trade for Clay Matthews? Trading a 2nd and two 3rd rounders for a 1st and 5th rounder aren't as risky as trading one of your two first rounders for a QB that had all the physical tools being paired with a QB guru?

Signing Charles Woodson for the contract he got was a huge risk too considering he didn't want to come to Green Bay and was coming off two injury shortened seasons.

Trading Brett Favre (after having one of his best seasons in '07) for the unproven Aaron Rodgers wasn't risky?

I liked Ron Wolf. I like Ted Thompson. I'm thankful for both and appreciate what both have done for my Green Bay Packers.

steveishere
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#57

Why exactly was Reggie White a huge risk?

mi_keys
Senior Member

9 years ago

#58

Why exactly was Reggie White a huge risk?

Originally Posted by: steveishere

No free agent is guaranteed. They could get injured; not settle into their new surroundings, system, team, coaches; become complacent; etc. so there's always some risk. That said, I don't think there has ever been another free agent of his pedigree so relative to other expensive free agents I'd say his risk relative to his expected return was minimal.

Born and bred a cheesehead

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

9 years ago

#59

Originally Posted by: mi_keys

Without Reggie, Brett ends his career with no SB appearances. Thank GOD our GM at the time realized we needed to go for it with our special QB. Thank GOD he could actually build a defense. Had he just hoped for a comp pick who might be good 3 years later our Favre years would've ended with no SB appearances. Thank GOD Ted Thompson was NOT our GM during a huge chunk of the Favre years. He would've completely wasted him...thankfully, for TT, Aaron is better than Brett and is able to overcome his lack of going for it almost singlehandedly.

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."

Wade
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#60

Read what I said more carefully.

I never said that Ted didn't take risks. I didn't even say he didn't take big risks. What I said was that he doesn't take big risks when it comes to veteran free agents. Not like Wolf did.

As to why Reggie White was a risk? He was 32 years old. How many times have we heard regarding big name free agents over the age of 32 that its too risky to overspend for them?

Consider Julius Peppers, but not Julius Peppers in 2014. Consider the Julius Peppers of free agency in 2010. The Julius Peppers that was only thirty years old when the Bears signed him. THAT was the kind of move Wolf made with Reggie White, and a 32-year. DE probably brings more risk than a 30-year old one.

Be clear, I'm not saying here that Peppers in 2010 was worth the salary he got from the Bears. What I'm saying is that Ron Wolf was willing to take bigger risks and more risks in veteran free agency than Ted Thompson is.

And I don't you can just explain it away by the restrictions of salary cap management.

I mean, look just at the D-Line on Wolf's championship team. How many veteran free agents were there? White. Jones. Dotson. (Arguably Gilbert Brown, though to me that's not the same kind of veteran pickup since unlike Jones and Dotson and White, Brown never did much of anything before coming to GB.) Add Eugene Robinson and Mike Prior and you have 5 of the top 12 defensive players coming via veteran free agency.

And on offense: Jackson, obviously. But there were also Winters, Wilkerson, Rison, and another backup OL I can't remember.

And lets not forget Desmond Howard.

Every GM takes risks.

But GM Thompson takes different kinds of risks than GM Ron Wolf.

Limit stud players take risks; but they are far different risks than a pot limit Omaha player takes.
Omar Bradley and Frank Clark and even William Westmoreland took risks. But not the kind Ike took, much less the kind Patton and Billy Mitchell would take.

I'd not complain if Thompson were the GM equivalent of Bradley.

I'd rather play poker against Wolf than against Thompson. But I don't think poker-playing skills are as important in the GM world -- poker's more about finesse than dominance, and as I've said many times, I want team's leadership focusing on dominance not on finessing the game.

And when I'm feeling down on the Packers' prospects, though, I fear the analogy of Thompson isn't to Bradley, or even to Westmoreland. It's to Westmoreland's boss, Robert McNamara.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

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 (5h) : 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 (11h) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (21h) : 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