uffda udfa
9 years ago

Ron Wolf HAD to be bold in pursuit of REggie White. Given the over all decades long culture of losing, combined with the weather and what happened to James Lofton, NO black players in the league wanted to come to Green Bay, if they didn't have to.

Wolf knew he had to change that. It wasn't just about "boldly" going after players.

Ted didn't have that challenge. His challenge was taking the team back from the QB who thought it was his place to run the franchise.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



Any franchise would've needed to be bold to land Reggie. He didn't come to Green Bay for the weather or the tradition or even Brett Favre as he claimed...it was the money...the richest contract in the history of the NFL at the time. I remember where I was when I got the news Reggie was a Packer. A momentous occasion. There has never been a moment in the entire Ted Thompson regime outside of the drafting of Aaron Rodgers that came anywhere near that level of excitement for me personally.

No Moss, no Marshawn, no Gonzalez, no Jared Allen...never a big time gamechanger...a brokedown Woodson that nobody wanted who amazingly resurrected himself in Green bay and old man Peppers who never played LB in his NFL career. That is the entirety of TT's brilliance in his time longer than Wolf. Ron did more than that in the SB season alone.

I enjoyed the old battle regarding this where many of you finally admitted you were more interested in competing for the division year after year than you were about winning a SB. That is one of the major differences in me and some others here and the majority of you. You just wanna be good... I prefer greatness. The Packers are run way too much like a business over the game that it truly is. In a game the object is to be champion...in business, it is to make money. Pursuing long term viability over winning makes your business strong and winning secondary. That is what you are supporting under TT's watchful hand.


UserPostedImage
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
9 years ago

You took this a bit too far.

Your ability to NEVER blame Ted Thompson for ANYTHING amazes me.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 


😱

UserPostedImage
UserPostedImage
Bigbyfan
9 years ago

You took this a bit too far. Murphy should've moved on from Ted Thompson and our new GM should've moved on from MM.

However, since Ted Thompson was retained it was HIS call to extend MM. He chose to do so knowing Dom was his D. coord and all the failures on that side of the ball over the years. If Ted Thompson had such an issue with our ineffective defense, he could've brought in a new coaching staff. He didn't.

Your ability to NEVER blame Ted Thompson for ANYTHING amazes me.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



I've criticized Ted Thompson plenty. My recent posts have less to do with defending Ted Thompson and more to do with taking issue with your poor arguments.
blank
uffda udfa
9 years ago

I've criticized Ted Thompson plenty. My recent posts have less to do with defending Ted Thompson and more to do with taking issue with your poor arguments.

Originally Posted by: Bigbyfan 



There's nothing poor about this argument.

UserPostedImage
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."


Barfarn
9 years ago



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.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Wade you put together a nice argument; but you’re comparing between 2 dissimilar eras!!!

The repercussions of a bad move for Wolf paled in comparison to a bad move for TT. Note how as the cap took greater effect through the 90’s, Wolf signed less and less expensive FAs because the risk got much higher.

Wolf’s risk on Reggie was ZERO!!!! ZERO!!!! In 1993 White signed a contract for 4 yr 17M/4.5M SB and 1.5M roster bonus; BUT, all bonus money was EXEMPT from Cap [which started in 1994] if contract was signed b4 December ’93. If the Pack cut White the day after signing or any other time the dead money would be ZERO!

If Reggie didn’t work out Wolf could have just cut him and got someone else, But if Reggie was signed last year and cut; the dead money from that cut would have cost us Bulaga, Cobb, Daniels and/or Hayward.

(Note: in my research noticed Todd Boles was on Player personnel staff)

So, White, Winters, Taylor, Galbreath and Prior signed in 93 or before were ZERO risk.

Sean Jones, probably signed a decent contract in 94, that would have been a risk.

Dotson: was 4th DT behind, Sapp, Wheeler and Culpepper so he was just a notch above scrap heap. Little risk if any.

Robinson: in 96 was in 12th year; was a starter but tackles declining; he was a notch above scrap heap. Little risk if any.

Rison-was cut by J’ville. Scrap heap –no risk

Howard, scrap heap no risk.

That other OLman was Gary Brown was like Gilbert Brown, drafted in '94 by another [Pitt], but only made roster in GB [94-96].

Wilkerson, scrap heap no risk Note: signed as a back-up but maybe we don’t win SB if he’s not on the team. Wolf in his book talks about how the cap will prevent teams from having experienced vets as back-ups because you can’t afford to pay them and they block the development of the younger players. And Wolf wrote this long before practice time was reduced by 80%, so it is even harder for youngsters to get reps than Wolf imagined.

Beebe, scrap heap no risk

Landeta, scrap heap punter

Again, you must imagine the situation Wolf was in 1994. Imagine if cap started in 2015.

ONE: ALL the guys on our roster have bonus $$ that doesn't count against cap.

TWO: The Cap will go up 50% in 5 years and double in 8. Comparatively, in 5 years the Cap will be 215M in 8 it’ll be 286M.

THREE: [1994 was year zero there was no dead money from previous year] We have no dead money on books.

FOUR: [Teams didn’t experience dead money until guys w/ bonuses money from contracts signed in ‘94 or later were cut. Ergo, dead money was minimal for the first 2-3-4 years of the Cap] We wont have any dead money for 2 years and very little years 3-4-5

FIVE: Imagine Ted Thompson signing Aaron Rodgers and CM3 in 2014 to LT contracts and their bonus $$ wouldn’t count against the Cap. Look at how much easier it'd be to sign FAs and if one got hurt or turned to suck you could just cut ‘em and see no dead money.

AND SIX: AND this is a Biggie-There was collusion. Wolf didn’t pay as much for his FAs. The Packers wanted to pack bonus $$ in Reggie’s contract reducing the base pay that would count against cap. Even w/ this artificial boost of bonus money only 26% of Reggie’s contract was guaranteed for 10.3% of cap; Suh's contract: 13.3% of cap and 52% fully guaranteed. Plus, mediocre players only got a small relative fraction of the cap back then, no way House gets over 4.5% of cap in the 1990s and accomplished player like Keith Jackson only got 2.5% of cap.

Wolf was not a gambler; he was just a stellar TT-like GM. And yes the ’92 Favre trade surprised me too; but just because we were flummoxed by it doesn’t mean the move was risky. We just didn’t know Wolf had Favre rated a by far #1 and a 1 in 10 year player. Any GM that had a chance to trade a clear #1 player in the ’91 draft [a 1 in 10 year player] for a #19 in 1992 and didn’t would be called stupid; not conservative; Right? If you call that a risky move; then you’d have to say that the Giants trading their #19 pick in 2013 for Andrew Luck would be risky. The Giants would have done that in a heartbeat and the front office of Indy would have been immediately jailed.

No one can evaluate Ted Thompson against Wolf, Lombardi or any other GM outside of the Cap era [late 90’s to present day]; you have to compare Ted Thompson to a real live cap era GM not a fictitious/imaginary one named Harvey.
uffda udfa
9 years ago
So, if I find a stock that I think is a once in a lifetime opportunity and pour my life savings into it, it's not a risk because "I think" it's a once in a lifetime opportunity? Ron Wolf took a tremendous risk on his belief in Brett Favre. You minimize it because it worked out. Ron Wolf also stayed up all night heading into the 2nd day of the old draft fearing someone would take his can't miss OL prospect, Bill Ferrario, from UW. That didn't work out so well for Ron so his feelings don't have any relevance whatsoever when it comes to risk.

One could only truly evaluate Ted Thompson vs. another GM who would hypothetically run the Packers org. Ozzie Newsome works within the confines of the Ravens org with their variables. You can't compare what Ozzie does THERE vs. what Ted Thompson does HERE. You can look at what Ted Thompson does and has done and like it or not like it. A performance review includes what YOU did not what anyone else does somewhere else. Looking at what Ted Thompson has done, here, vs. what he could've and should've done leaves him a middling GM.

BTW, Santana Dotson wasn't behind Brad freaking Culpepper and it's questionable if he was behind Wheeler. That move was bigger than the Ryan Pickett move that Ted Thompson apologists just love to cite as proof he does wonderful things via FA. TT's ONLY moves of renown as far as FA go are Charles Woodson whom no one wanted and sat on the market for weeks after the start of FA and Julius Peppers who was at the end of his career. Scrap heap for both of those guys. You can't comeback with ...well, Woody won DPOY. Yup...and Desmond Howard was SB MVP.

Ron vs. Ted. Seriously? That's not even fair. One is a gung ho sold out to win WINNER vs. a middle of the road let's not rock the boat and try staying competitive long term bean counter kind of a guy.
UserPostedImage
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
9 years ago
Guy who wrote this is a genius... Yes, put it under a microscope. I dare ya... and YES, oh, how Aaron Rodgers masks many a deficiency.

(SportsNetwork.com) - Ted Thompson has the great draft rep but a lot of his recent history in the first round has come up snake eyes. The three-year stint before Ha Ha Clinton-Dix in 2014 produced Derek Sherrod, Nick Perry and Datone Jones, not exactly a murderer's row.

Point being, the sterling reputation as a talent evaluator may not be all that it's cracked up to be when you put it under the microscope. Thompson was certainly right back in 2005, though, when he selected Aaron Rodgers with the 24th overall pick out of Cal and that one selection has masked many a deficiency in recent years.
UserPostedImage
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."


greengold
9 years ago
In 1992 and 1993 Ron Wolf had NOTHING to lose. This team had been so far down for so long, it wouldn't have mattered if the Favre trade or White signing had failed miserably. The fans would have loved him anyway for trying.

The Desmond Howard signing was similar to Woodson. Gilbert Brown was similar to (even less than) Guion. Rison never gets signed if Brooks doesn't get injured. Nobody wanted the Bad Moon. Keith Jackson was at the very end of his career.
Ted Thompson could try to buy a SB win. You still have to play the games though. No guarantee of a SB win but those big contracts WILL destroy your cap and force a dismantling of the team you built.
uffda udfa
9 years ago

In 1992 and 1993 Ron Wolf had NOTHING to lose. This team had been so far down for so long, it wouldn't have mattered if the Favre trade or White signing had failed miserably. The fans would have loved him anyway for trying.

The Desmond Howard signing was similar to Woodson. Gilbert Brown was similar to (even less than) Guion. Rison never gets signed if Brooks doesn't get injured. Nobody wanted the Bad Moon. Keith Jackson was at the very end of his career.

Ted Thompson could try to buy a SB win. You still have to play the games though. No guarantee of a SB win but those big contracts WILL destroy your cap and force a dismantling of the team you built.

Originally Posted by: greengold 


Ted Thompson could try buying a SB win? It would be nice to actually see he's going balls out to win. When has he ever done that? Never. Just play conservative like in Seattle at the end. I'm tired of a team that isn't a take charge dominator. It should be with our QB.

So, the fans wouldn't love Ted Thompson for trying? I don't like him for not trying hard enough.

If someone told you you had 10 years to live would you be thinking a bunch about what you were going to do in the 9th year? Ted Thompson would. Instead of focusing on maximizing every minute of life Ted Thompson would be thinking how he'd be spending his final year. Gimme the guy who recognizes how precious life is and wants to squeeze every ounce out of it over the guy just plodding along thinking about the future. Aaron Rodgers is your 10 years. Squeeze every ounce out of winning as many championships as you can year by year... stop worrying about 5 years from now about whether you might be competitive for the NFCN crown. Soon, Aaron will be gone and the chance of ever getting to a bowl will be greatly diminished. EVERYONE agrees winning the SB ain't easy...so, why wouldn't you load up when you have the one advantage over every other team in the NFL? You have the best QB going and you aren't going to do EVERYTHING to win SB's? You are going to just plod along? Again, do you think our odds of winning another SB are going to go up or down when Aaron is done? Obviously, they're going to go down, so NOW is the time. NOW...not later. What are we waiting for? Is a NFCN crown in 5 years going to matter? NO. A SB victory this year WILL matter forever. Focus is all wrong with you guys and TT. WIN...NOW. Your window is closing.

UserPostedImage
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."


RaiderPride
9 years ago

Guy who wrote this is a genius... Yes, put it under a microscope. I dare ya... and YES, oh, how Aaron Rodgers masks many a deficiency.

(SportsNetwork.com) - Ted Thompson has the great draft rep but a lot of his recent history in the first round has come up snake eyes. The three-year stint before Ha Ha Clinton-Dix in 2014 produced Derek Sherrod, Nick Perry and Datone Jones, not exactly a murderer's row.

Point being, the sterling reputation as a talent evaluator may not be all that it's cracked up to be when you put it under the microscope. Thompson was certainly right back in 2005, though, when he selected Aaron Rodgers with the 24th overall pick out of Cal and that one selection has masked many a deficiency in recent years.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 




Time Out.

Sorry, Pardon The Thread Interruption...

But I Gotta Know? What is with this "UFFDA UDFA" Moniker?

"UFFDA UDFA." Really?

Sounds to me Zero.. You are debating an I.S.I.S. Suicide Bomber.

Be Careful Kevin.





""People Will Probably Never Remember What You Said, And May Never Remember What You Did. However, People Will Always Remember How You Made Them Feel."
Fan Shout
packerfanoutwest (6m) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (7m) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (19m) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (2h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (2h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (2h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (2h) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (2h) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (2h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (2h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (2h) : 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 (3h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (4h) : 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 (4h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (4h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (4h) : 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 (4h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (5h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (5h) : 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 (5h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (6h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (6h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (6h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (6h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (6h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (6h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (8h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (8h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (8h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (8h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (9h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (9h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (9h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (9h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (9h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (9h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (9h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (9h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (9h) : 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 (9h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (9h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (9h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (9h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (9h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (9h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (9h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (9h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (9h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (9h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (9h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

8h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.