If you are going to put more emphasis than the average GM on draft-and-UDFA-and-develop than other teams, it isn't enough to have some draft and UDFA successes. You must have *MORE* draft and UDFA successes than GMs who also have a lot of "veteran FA" in their quiver.
Winning the division every year is cool. But remember who else is in the division. I mean, come on, we're talking the Bears and the Lions and the Vikings. It ain't close to enough.
I want to be *that* team. The team NO ONE wants to play.
Originally Posted by: Wade
You can't judge a GM solely on the big hits he had in FA or the draft. Ted stuck to his price point on Steven Jackson and look how that turned out, but does that specific example, and philosophy he utilizes routinely ever get recognized? Judge him on the totality - cap management, draft, UDFAs, who you retain, who you do and
don't sign/draft, what you pay, etc.
As far as division titles, nobody on here cares about that. However, the division titles are a reflection of the team being consistent contenders so that in any given year they can be "the hot team" in January, such as for 55 minutes in the NFCG or the SB year.
Trying to "dominate" didn't work for the Saints with Ricky Williams, Bears last year, Broncos went for broke to make it a round less in the playoffs, Eagles dream team, Jarius Byrd on the Saints?, Dan Snyder, etc. The Packers on the other hand have been in contention annually. I'm not claiming Ted is flawless, but he has kept this team consistently relevant.