No, I just read the part quoted in the thread. I usually don't follow the links outside of the forum, which is why I quote from articles when I post them.

---

Ah, I missed the Favre reference in the first sentence. I still don't have a problem with it, though. You can't just pretend that the Favre stuff didn't happen. It was a huge decision for Thompson.

---

Those complaining about Favre references in Packer/TT stories will have to get used to it. At least from the national media.

He's probably our most famous ex player and his departure is the context in which the work of Ted Thompson and Rodgers will be viewed, however dull and repetitive that is for us fans.

But as long as he doesnt win another superbowl that comparison will only go to highlight what a good decision that was.

---

yep. for a long, long time. it's like mentioning Wisconsin to the national media without saying "cheese, beer or cold"...just get used to it.

---

I think Ted is kind of a gambler on the draft. He gamble with Harlson, even when he had a history of being hurt and only 1 year of production. He picked Rodgers, which of course was awesome. He picked Collins, James Jones and Jackson way ahead of their predicted rounds. He gambled big time with his offensive line. Hoping late round picks would produce by being thrown into the fire and letting some veteran lineman go. Picking up career back ups and trying to make starters of them. Which he has stopped doing.

Some great gambles on some (Rodgers, Collins, and maybe James Jones)
A bust with Harell. His worst gamble is the offensive line. Letting Mike Wahl go. I am OK with Mark Rivera. Should have kept one vet and Wahl ws in his prime. Bringing in two back ups for starters (Klemm and O'dower?) Not drafting Oline for the future with the exception of Lang possibly in recent drafts. Some other limeman have worked out decent with Sitton, College and possibly Spitz if he can stay healthy. But none are considered great or arguably good by other teams. Servicable may be the better word.
I agreed 100 percent with letting Lord Favre go. It was one of Ted's biggest decisions of all time.

---

The decision wasn't solely Ted Thompson's to make, nor did he make it single handed, as has been discussed many times.

---

I don't think it is gambling. It is a strategy. Ted starts out with as many draft picks as he can. Not because he is gambling or doesn't want the higher talent, but because you need to get the depth. After a few drafts like that he starts to lessen the number of picks to get better talent then. In Seattle his first draft he was picking 11 or so, and his last there was down to the normal 7.

In GB he did the same, traded and got bodies to fill the roster, and is now in the area where he uses less picks and gets better talent.

---

Yes but because he is the General Manager of the team he has the biggest impact and is largely viewed as the person in charge of such a decision.

cajed wrote:
I think Ted is kind of a gambler on the draft. He gamble with Harlson, even when he had a history of being hurt and only 1 year of production. He picked Rodgers, which of course was awesome. He picked Collins, James Jones and Jackson way ahead of their predicted rounds. He gambled big time with his offensive line. Hoping late round picks would produce by being thrown into the fire and letting some veteran lineman go. Picking up career back ups and trying to make starters of them. Which he has stopped doing.

Some great gambles on some (Rodgers, Collins, and maybe James Jones)
A bust with Harell. His worst gamble is the offensive line. Letting Mike Wahl go. I am OK with Mark Rivera. Should have kept one vet and Wahl ws in his prime. Bringing in two back ups for starters (Klemm and O'dower?) Not drafting Oline for the future with the exception of Lang possibly in recent drafts. Some other limeman have worked out decent with Sitton, College and possibly Spitz if he can stay healthy. But none are considered great or arguably good by other teams. Servicable may be the better word.
I agreed 100 percent with letting Lord Favre go. It was one of Ted's biggest decisions of all time.

I don't think it is gambling. It is a strategy. Ted starts out with as many draft picks as he can. Not because he is gambling or doesn't want the higher talent, but because you need to get the depth. After a few drafts like that he starts to lessen the number of picks to get better talent then. In Seattle his first draft he was picking 11 or so, and his last there was down to the normal 7.

In GB he did the same, traded and got bodies to fill the roster, and is now in the area where he uses less picks and gets better talent.

So Harall was for depth? I didn't mention trading picks. I didn't actually mean he makes bets for money. It was a gamble to get Harall. It's more of a menatality. I don't think he has to go to gamblers annoymous.

How aoubt he likes to rolls the dice a bit? I am, as well as everybody else is aware of the more picks thing.

---

The name is Harrell.

---