Announcement PH Beta → Check it out! Click Me! (you might be see "unsafe", but it is safe)
Porforis
9 years ago

Not necessarily, no. You build a roster operating under the constraints of a 53 man roster and a salary cap. In a hypothetical world, maybe you can sign 1 free agent each year without risk of losing young talent due to roster spots and salary being tied up; but if each successive free agent increases the risk of losing young talent, you face diminishing returns with more and more activity in free agency.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 



Some are under the erroneous impression that you can get a few free agents that are known, quality commodities, use them for a few years, and then trade them for someone that's the same quality as when you first got them or close enough that some of the rookies you drafted in year 1 and somehow kept on the roster with no playing time are starting quality by the time the free agents leave.
uffda udfa
9 years ago

Ah, so you agree I didn't change the subject. Glad that's sorted.

I said it was nonsense to hold that if someone dislikes conservatism in one job (coaching) that person must also dislike conservatism in a completely different job (GM'ing).



So we should hire a cheerleader for a GM? Maybe TO can give Ted Thompson some advise on pom pom techniques.



Who here denies Ted Thompson is conservative in his approach to team building? No one's avoiding that statement. Ted Thompson is not aggressive and no one in this forum has ever said as much as far as I can recall.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 



Yes, but nobody ever acknowledges Ted Thompson is a conservative vs. aggressive guy. Those same people who don't acknowledge that go nuts on this forum that the Packers themselves aren't aggressive enough, our D isn't aggressive enough, Mike McCarthy plays to lose not to win, etc. If Ted Thompson is doing the exact same things how is he hailed as some hero of this forum? Oh, those are now mutually exclusive because you do like aggression in football but realize Ted Thompson doesn't have it and have to now say that liking aggression on the field vs. off is not the same thing? Right. Okay. You can't love one mindset for the same game and then not love it within the same game.

Teams take on the characteristics of their leaders...our leaders in the GM and HC world aren't aggressive. I freaking hate it. You guys seem to love winning the division with our wrong approach that isn't maximizing 12's talents. I freaking hate it. It's all entertainment but it's just a shame to see it happen and then see you guys champion the approach because we make the playoffs most years. ANY team with ANY HC and ANY GM should make the playoffs with Aaron Rodgers at the helm. Show me all the teams with QB's like Aaron Rodgers that don't make the playoffs almost annually.

I'm sure if you worked at a job where your boss didn't maximize your personal and company potential it would drive you crazy, if you could see just how great you could be with a different mindset. Wouldn't you want to work somewhere where your superior was sold out to be the very best and you could just feel that? Under our current regime, if I was working there, I would be incredibly frustrated. I get the sense most of you would just love your day to day experience falling short of expectation because you had a job with a good company. That is where being laid back and conservative vs. being aggressive's difference comes into play. I actually tire of talking about this. I know the audience here and how they see things. I just don't see it like most of you do and I find your replies humorous and off the mark almost every single time I read one. You think you address what I type but when I read it I seriously wonder if you are just trying to continue debating for debates sake.
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

Yes, but nobody ever acknowledges Ted Thompson is a conservative vs. aggressive guy. Those same people who don't acknowledge that go nuts on this forum that the Packers themselves aren't aggressive enough, our D isn't aggressive enough, Mike McCarthy plays to lose not to win, etc. If Ted Thompson is doing the exact same things how is he hailed as some hero of this forum? Oh, those are now mutually exclusive because you do like aggression in football but realize Ted Thompson doesn't have it and have to now say that liking aggression on the field vs. off is not the same thing? Right. Okay. You can't love one mindset for the same game and then not love it within the same game.

Teams take on the characteristics of their leaders...our leaders in the GM and HC world aren't aggressive. I freaking hate it. You guys seem to love winning the division with our wrong approach that isn't maximizing 12's talents. I freaking hate it. It's all entertainment but it's just a shame to see it happen and then see you guys champion the approach because we make the playoffs most years. ANY team with ANY HC and ANY GM should make the playoffs with Aaron Rodgers at the helm. Show me all the teams with QB's like Aaron Rodgers that don't make the playoffs almost annually.

I'm sure if you worked at a job where your boss didn't maximize your personal and company potential it would drive you crazy, if you could see just how great you could be with a different mindset. Wouldn't you want to work somewhere where your superior was sold out to be the very best and you could just feel that? Under our current regime, if I was working there, I would be incredibly frustrated. I get the sense most of you would just love your day to day experience falling short of expectation because you had a job with a good company. That is where being laid back and conservative vs. being aggressive's difference comes into play. I actually tire of talking about this. I know the audience here and how they see things. I just don't see it like most of you do and I find your replies humorous and off the mark almost every single time I read one. You think you address what I type but when I read it I seriously wonder if you are just trying to continue debating for debates sake.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



Wouldn't it make more sense to root for a team with a front office that does things your way? So you could be happy? Find that team with the "aggressive" front office, whether it be the Saints, Eagles, Redskins, whoever... Root for that team. Be happy!

I have a feeling that rooting for the Packers doesn't make you happy. Even when they win it all, like in 2010, it is just an aberration. They got lucky. Should've done it your way. Unhappy Uffda.

uffda udfa
9 years ago
At least I don't pretend like kinda has to be done.

I'm happy, brother, just not with the way our guy doesn't do a couple of little things to get us there. Adding Peppers was the kind of thing I refer to as liking, even though Julius was past his prime by a long shot. I want to see guys like Peppers added when they're actually difference makers once in awhile. We've never done that...ever...under TT. Woodson wasn't added when it was known he was still a difference maker. He was a major surprise.

Oh, you can bet I was happy when Wolf was GM. Thrilled. Thrilled with Holmgren, also, in his later years. Took him awhile to find his way.

I still love the Packers show...just not happy with the cast changes over the years as far as the behind the scenes director. The show could be so much better with a better director directing or executive producing.
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
This is about draft and develop.
UserPostedImage
greengold
9 years ago

This is about draft and develop.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Draft and develop is what the Packers do. Some people like that. Some people don't. /thread over?

DarkaneRules
9 years ago
Then the next questions are:

Do you like who they draft? - The scouts and general manager
Do you like who they hire to develop the players? - The coaching staff
Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance
uffda udfa
9 years ago

Draft and develop is what the Packers do. Some people like that. Some people don't. /thread over?

Originally Posted by: greengold 



No. As long as you're firmly in the group who loves that phrase and praises our GM for using it this thread could go on ad infinitum. Thanks, Ted. ad nauseam Of course, I'm the one who goes on and on not the ones who praise Ted Thompson at every turn.

Question it and dislike it...there's an issue. You can be one person against the 20 who are for it and the 1 is going on and on but the 20 aren't.

Yes, draft and develop is ONE method for building a team used by ALL teams. There are multiple approaches. The great teams use all available resources to build a champion. I think back to the great Niners and Cowboys teams who would fight over Deion Sanders. New England got Revis last year...they won it all. Our guy shuns adding difference makers that could help the team go over the top. In fact, just this off-season he offered Revis 9.5mil per reports knowing that was nowhere near enough to get him to come here. He loses out on a difference maker like Revis by offering a pitiful deal to him, per reports, and then proceeds to blow our first two draft picks on DB's because he didn't/couldn't get Revis. If Randall and Rollins flop completely and are never good players in the NFL, it will be a major waste of our top 2 picks and it will have wasted a few more years of Rodgers career playing DB's nowhere near the level of Revis who could actually help us win a championship. There's your draft and develop vs. adding a difference maker approach right there. As bad as Ted Thompson has been drafting defensive players, I don't hold out much hope we've gotten anyone near Revis' ability in Randall or Rollins.

Do the Patriots use draft and develop? Are they crazy in FA? Nope...they balance the two. Look at how many rings they have with Brady. I would say they've maximized him over the years with their BETTER approach than Ted Thompson's who has...one SB appearance. So, draft and develop is not a better approach than what New England uses. Say that Ted Thompson should be doing more and you're some idiot who blathers on and on, meanwhile, teams that use a varied approach and actually win a lot of rings shouldn't be brought up because our approach brings us to division championships as if that's some justification it works so well.

EDIT: Denver was brought up... Denver wins their division almost every year. I read on this forum that Denver failing to win a SB after adding some great FA's last off season is proof that adding FA's doesn't work. What? Didn't Denver win their division just like Packers? Didn't Denver not make the SB just like the Packers? If you're going to crap all over Denver's approach, why aren't you crapping over Ted Thompson's approach, also? Neither approach got their team to a title, right? The Patriots are a smart org...that's always close to winning a title because of Brady. See any similarities with the Packers? Some team adding Revis that is nowhere near ready to compete for a championship is nowhere near what I'm referring to with adding FA's. When you're close due to having a superstar QB you need to do that one thing that elevates you above other teams who might have great QB's. If New England has a great QB and we do also, and they add a superstar defensive player and we don't who did more? Yes, we added Julius PAST HIS PRIME but that is the mentality of a winner... adding that one big thing that is needed. Where is TT's Reggie White or New England's Revis, or the Seahawks Harvin the year they won it? Where? It is ironic that we got as close as we've been to a SB by adding Peppers. Add a true stud to this team and see what happens not some former stud on his last legs.
You all seem to think when I speak to adding difference makers I'm speaking to adding scrub FA's like an Erik Walden, Evan Diettrich Smith etc to plug holes. No. I'm talking about adding players like a Jimmy Graham at a position of need on a team that is close to being a winner. Julius Peppers is the closest Ted Thompson has ever been to doing that but, again, Julius was not the star he's been in the past. We need to get one of those guys. Let Bulaga walk and give that extra money to Revis. Instead, we chose to keep some decent player at a high cost. Revis and Shields at CB? Are you kidding? Instead, we get Bulaga at RT instead of Barclay or Tretter. Bulaga ain't gonna be the difference in us winning a SB or not...Revis very well could be. No aggression from our GM. Just play it safe sign your own don't bring in a guy from the outside who changes the game. Instead, GAMBLE that a 1st or 2nd round pick MIGHT be the answer opposite Shields when you could've locked that thing down tight and all but ensure your D would be strong enough to carry you to a title. Now, when the guy opposite Sam is getting torched you can all hail Ted Thompson and his conservative approach for the 10th straight off season again.
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."


9 years ago

Do the Patriots use draft and develop? Are they crazy in FA? Nope...they balance the two. Look at how many rings they have with Brady. I would say they've maximized him over the years with their BETTER approach than Ted Thompson's who has...one SB appearance. So, draft and develop is not a better approach than what New England uses. Say that Ted Thompson should be doing more and you're some idiot who blathers on and on, meanwhile, teams that use a varied approach and actually win a lot of rings shouldn't be brought up because our approach brings us to division championships as if that's some justification it works so well.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



Your theory is that Ted Thompson doesn't maximize the team around the "all world" qb Aaron Rodgers. You claim Ted Thompson is wasting away Rodgers prime. Think back to how Rodgers performed against San Fran two years ago and how he performed against Seattle last year. That team last year had more than enough talent to win the Super Bowl. All the "all world" qb had to do was have an average game against the Seahawks and the Packers would of took home the Lombardi last year.

I love Rodgers as much as the next Packers fan but he hasn't helped his prime by how he has performed in the playoffs the last couple years.
UserPostedImage
uffda udfa
9 years ago
I have. The Niners DL ate our OL's lunch those years. Our D was also terrible vs. SF in case you've forgotten. Hyde drops a game ending INT in the one game it actually held up okay.

As for Seattle, their secondary was WAY better than our Cobb, Nelson, RICHARD RODGERS/ANDREW QUARLESS, Rookie Adams WR's. It would've been nice if we had a HC who knew Richard Sherman was injured. Yeah, Rodgers is to blame...he's playing on one leg vs. the best D in the NFL with no legit TE or 3rd WR. Pin it on him because it fits with Ted Thompson being all world as a GM. The one SB we did win was due to Rodgers playing out of his mind.

There is NO excuse not to add a difference maker to this team but keep making them. Draft and develop us right to one SB appearance in the Rodgers era.


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."


Fan Shout
beast (2h) : I was rooting for the Bears to win and hurt their draft pick status
Zero2Cool (2h) : Forgot there was even a game last night haha
TheKanataThrilla (2h) : That was terrible.
TheKanataThrilla (2h) : Watching that game in its entirety yesterday is proof positive that I am a football addict.
beast (2h) : And horrible time management multiple times... and not being able to score more than 3 points on a team with talent
beast (2h) : Realizing the Bears didn't fix it from the previous week and do the same thing, getting the game to overtime
beast (2h) : They probably are not tanking, but they've absolutely mismanagement some things, such as Vikings seeing the Packers blocked FG and realizing
Zero2Cool (3h) : Crazy of Bears to have that mindset that is
Zero2Cool (4h) : Hail Mary stop away from 5 - 2. Not sure how that flips to tanking. Crazy mindset if true
beast (4h) : I've quietly questioned if Bears are tanking on purpose... they suddenly got a lot worse with some simple concepts like 101 clock management
wpr (6h) : Watching bares fans melt down over how putrid their team is, so enjoyable. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
Mucky Tundra (14h) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago
beast (14h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years
Zero2Cool (21h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.
packerfanoutwest (21h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it
beast (22h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done
Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.
Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!
beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : 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
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
12m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

14m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

1h / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

10h / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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