Bigbyfan
8 years ago
Which tightend available last offseason, via free agency or the draft, would have given the Packers the weapon you guys are looking for? Would you have thrown all that money at Clay or Cameron? Both completely underwhelmed this past season.

Not bashing anyone's opinion. Just curious who you guys have in mind.
blank
Zero2Cool
8 years ago

Which tightend available last offseason, via free agency or the draft, would have given the Packers the weapon you guys are looking for? Would you have thrown all that money at Clay or Cameron? Both completely underwhelmed this past season.

Not bashing anyone's opinion. Just curious who you guys have in mind.

Originally Posted by: Bigbyfan 



They will just look at the 2015 stats and then answer you, because that's what folks do with their brilliant wisdom aka hindsight.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
8 years ago

When Dakota speaks on Rodgers like this, here is what I see:

Ted Thompson sitting in a comfy chair in the grotto wearing his safari hat and sunglasses, a smoking jacket over his silk pajamas, puffing on a pipe, drinking a Dos Equis and two slightly plumb pasty white Wisconsin chicks clad in cheese foam bras and panties sitting on each arm of his chair each with one arm on his shoulder.

He snaps his fingers and says, “Chives, go get me Gronkowski!”

He then turns to Dakota and says, "I don’t find TEs very often, but when I do I find me some Gronkowskis."

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



And you write novels saying nothing and think you're brilliant. Sorry, not going to agree that Ted Thompson is doing a good job. He's getting more Shermanlike by the year.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
8 years ago
I'm going to simply assume at this point that people simply enjoy complaining about Ted Thompson/in general and find expressing their opinion with even a tiny amount of detail regarding what they would do differently is just completely irrational of me. Holy shit, do I need to get on my knees and beg people to tell me who you would have picked, what would we have signed him for/given up for him, and what impact do you think he would have on the team?

Bigby, want to beg with me? Tough crowd, I've never seen anybody so reluctant to express their opinion.
sschind
8 years ago

Which tightend available last offseason, via free agency or the draft, would have given the Packers the weapon you guys are looking for? Would you have thrown all that money at Clay or Cameron? Both completely underwhelmed this past season.

Not bashing anyone's opinion. Just curious who you guys have in mind.

Originally Posted by: Bigbyfan 



As much as I disagree with Dakota and Ufda much of the time I will say this. I'm not sure its fair to put them on the spot with these types of questions. Who would you have signed? How much should we have paid them? Who would you have let go? etc. They are not the GMs and they do not know any more about any given player or situation than we do (I mean that in a good way guys, honest) Their position is that we are weak at certain positions and that Ted Thompson has not taken appropriate steps to improve those positions. To them, almost anyone would be an improvement and by sticking with the guys we have Ted Thompson is not doing all he can. It is not their responsibility to identify those players who would improve the position. That is the responsibility of the GM and in their mind the GM is failing. I do not necessarily agree with their assessment but but I do understand it. They do not have access to all the tools an NFL GM has so to expect them to have some sort of ESP to know which players may have helped is not fair. That works against them in some ways however in that Ted does have access to all those tools and in his opinion there was no one worth the risk. Whose opinion is more valid?

Still, Ted does not have ESP either so when Jordy went down I am sure he didn't foresee the failure of the rest of the receiving corps. I'm sure if he had he would have went out and signed someone. Who? I don't know but I'm sure he would have identified someone and brought him in. As far as TE goes I doubt Ted Thompson or Mike McCarthy see RR as the failure that you guys do. Again, your opinion vs. theirs. If they felt the way you do I have no doubt they would have made changes.
sschind
8 years ago

They will just look at the 2015 stats and then answer you, because that's what folks do with their brilliant wisdom aka hindsight.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



It works both ways. We can look at a lower tier signee who made a big impact an say "We should have signed him" or we can look at a big name signee who flopped and say "You would have had us sign him?" Either way we look at stats to prove our point and we will ignore those players whose results don't fit our philosophy.

Zero2Cool
8 years ago

It works both ways. We can look at a lower tier signee who made a big impact an say "We should have signed him" or we can look at a big name signee who flopped and say "You would have had us sign him?" Either way we look at stats to prove our point and we will ignore those players whose results don't fit our philosophy.

Originally Posted by: sschind 



Are you sure about that? I mean, I really don't think anyone is subjectively bias towards their train of thought over that of someone else. 🙄

Regarding Richard Rodgers -- I would like for him to be fine. The thing he does have going for him (if you want to go there) is the offensive output was one of the worst ever for Mike McCarthy. I can't fault him for that. There were a combination of things like the loss of Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb playing with injuries, Davante Adams buckling when thrown into a WR1 type role, new playcaller, WR/QB coached by one dude ... I just think there are too many factors involved to say Richard Rodgers is absolutely not the guy.

If Vernon Davis is a free agent, I would like the Packers to ink him instead of Andrew Quarless. Year 3 for Richard Rodgers will be quite telling. Packers are going back to their original play caller, going back to split QB/WR coaching duties and hopefully Aaron Rodgers knee won't be bothering him.


2015 season was just a weird crapfest and after how the Packers lost the NFC Championship game, I believe most of us were figuring the team would either steamroll the hell out of the league OR the opposite. It seems the latter happened.

The Packers made some radical changes. They swung and missed and have corrected it. I'm encouraged even if the Packers do not sign a player that wasn't wanted by their team anymore.
UserPostedImage
Porforis
8 years ago

As much as I disagree with Dakota and Ufda much of the time I will say this. I'm not sure its fair to put them on the spot with these types of questions. Who would you have signed? How much should we have paid them? Who would you have let go? etc. They are not the GMs and they do not know any more about any given player or situation than we do (I mean that in a good way guys, honest) Their position is that we are weak at certain positions and that Ted Thompson has not taken appropriate steps to improve those positions. To them, almost anyone would be an improvement and by sticking with the guys we have Ted Thompson is not doing all he can.

Originally Posted by: sschind 



Expressing that almost anybody would be an improvement is an example of providing detail on one's opinion, which is something that has not been happening. Simply saying "They aren't doing enough" doesn't really say anything.

It is not their responsibility to identify those players who would improve the position. That is the responsibility of the GM and in their mind the GM is failing. I do not necessarily agree with their assessment but but I do understand it. They do not have access to all the tools an NFL GM has so to expect them to have some sort of ESP to know which players may have helped is not fair. That works against them in some ways however in that Ted does have access to all those tools and in his opinion there was no one worth the risk. Whose opinion is more valid?

Originally Posted by: sschind 



Nobody is asking anybody to have a crystal ball and determine who would have done what. I'm simply trying to promote discussion, rather than the typical "Ted is awesome!" "Ted's a tightwad" back and forth without any sort of actual conversation. If you're not explaining WHY you believe what you believe (that Ted isn't doing enough to help the team win), what exactly are people supposed to talk about?
musccy
8 years ago

As much as I disagree with Dakota and Ufda much of the time I will say this. I'm not sure its fair to put them on the spot with these types of questions. Who would you have signed? How much should we have paid them? Who would you have let go? etc. They are not the GMs and they do not know any more about any given player or situation than we do (I mean that in a good way guys, honest)

Originally Posted by: sschind 



I disagree. I don't want to read about people's fantasy land filled with unicorns and cheap All Pros growing on trees, or a bunch of "Ted should only acquire good players, not the bad ones" arguments.

It's a fair question, if you're going to whine about position then you must have some other plan in mind. I wanted Gresham last year...probably a good thing I'm not the Packers' GM.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
8 years ago

I'm going to simply assume at this point that people simply enjoy complaining about Ted Thompson/in general and find expressing their opinion with even a tiny amount of detail regarding what they would do differently is just completely irrational of me. Holy shit, do I need to get on my knees and beg people to tell me who you would have picked, what would we have signed him for/given up for him, and what impact do you think he would have on the team?

Bigby, want to beg with me? Tough crowd, I've never seen anybody so reluctant to express their opinion.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



Porforis, I'm not going to repeat everything I just said in another thread. But I do want to repeat one thing:

There is a difference about pointing out one or two (or even one or two years) of non-acquisitions (the kind of criticism to which your response is on point) and pointing out a sustained period of time of insufficient performance by the GM (where they are not). IMO, uffda's and Dakota's criticisms of Thompson have been primarily of the latter sort.

My primary criticism of Ted, and I think theirs, has never really been "Ted didn't make (or made) this one or two or five acquisitions/draft picks that I thought he should have made (or not have made)." My primary criticism, and theirs, has been that Ted has been GM for a decade and that tenure has been marked by several cases where there has been insufficient improvement over several years running. OL to name one. ILB to name another. Indeed the middle of the field on defense at all levels (NT, ILB, S). And, apropos of this thread in particular, TE.

That kind of thing is what makes Ted just an average-to-okay GM to my mind. I'm not ready to have him be fired quite yet, because for some reason, despite his track record over a decade, I still think he iis *capable of* greatness, and because I don't know anyone who might be available who is. But until he finds a way improve areas of the team that need improvement but without regularly taking a half decade to do so, I'm going to continue to bitch, criticize, and mouth off.

Sorry. 😁


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)
Fan Shout
packerfanoutwest (14m) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (4h) : Merry Christmas!
beast (13h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (21h) : 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
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
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 / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17h / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

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

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