Jesus, how many times do you think you have to tell everyone THAT YOU WANT TED THOMPSON GONE????

Fine, guess what, for now he is staying, you have an opinion, guess what, NOT MANY AGREE WITH YOU.

There is only 1 fan base happy at the end of every year, last year it was the Seahawks.

For you the grass is always greener on the other side of the road.

You know what replacing your GM and/or coach every 2 or 3 years gets you?

THE FUCKING CLEVELAND BROWNS!!!!!!

Now that's a franchise I want to get behind.

Tell me now if you are going to continue this completely assinnine spamming of the forum, if you are then, Hey buddy IT'S ALL YOURS.

I've only been here a few months, was really liking what I saw and read until you decided you were going to be THE SAVIOR OF ALL PACKER FANS and tell us what we should be thinking.

Spam on brother, blocking your posts, please do the same with mine, and if you see me posting my opinion on a subject, know this now, I don't fucking care what you have to say about it, so please ignore.

Originally Posted by: StarrMax1 

I kind of liked that chart on games lost to injury...I realize that's a wonderful excuse...I've used it myself.

However, isn't it interesting to see where the Broncos fit on that list and what they've accomplished? 3 straight trips to divisional playoffs and a SB loss.

I'll take Denver's approach to ours...they loaded up when Manning arrived realizing how special he is and how short his time is. This offseason they loaded it up, again. Winning divisional titles to the Broncos and their fans is not satisfactory. This team has the pedal to the metal in pursuit of a ring. I LOVE that about them. Sold out for the SuperBowl. Won playoff game vs. Pittsburgh with Tim Tebow... NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Tebow is out and enter Peyton Manning because they want to WIN IT ALL not just make it to the playoffs.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

3 straight trips to the divisional playoffs in the AFC. That isn't that impressive. The broncos would of been one and done if they had to face the 49ers in the first round. The 49ers would of whooped that ass.

Originally Posted by: cheeseheads123 

You got the numbers for when Clay and Randall and Jermichael were suited up as well or you gonna omit those major starters?

Originally Posted by: Kevin 

Do you know what team Denver beat in that game 3 years ago? Pittsburgh... the team we beat in the SB the previous season...and they did it with Tim Tebow. Not good enough and he was gone. Enter Peyton.

Pittsburgh did not get drilled at home after going 15-1. Broncos lost a game to Baltimore the next year on the ridiculous long horribly misplayed TD pass that led to OT...and then they went to the SB after setting records on offense.

Is our 3 year record more impressive? A win over Joe Webb and the Vikes at Lambeau a total ugly win kind of a game is the only victory we've tasted in the post season since our ring run. I get it, though, we're in the NFC where one and done is completely acceptable.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

Why are bringing up what they did 3 years ago? Your argument is that you prefer Denver's approach with Peyton. Peyton wasn't even on the Broncos 3 years ago. I am a little confused with your point about the broncos beating the Steelers a year after we beat them in the Super Bowl. No team is ever the same team year after year. If that were true than the Packers would of won it all every year since 2010. I never said one and done is acceptable. My point is that being the AFC is making Denver's approach look much more successful than it really is.

Originally Posted by: cheeseheads123 

Good thread. I just read the whole thing, and here are my thoughts.

1. Re: the OP's question: I don't know how I feel about Ted Thompson anymore.

I definitely think Ted Thompson is overrated. To my mind he has made two best-in-NFL-history type moves: Rodgers and Woodson. And several others I'd call home runs (Matthews, Pickett, Shields, Sitton). And a lot of others I really like (Tramon Williams, Cobb, G. Jennings, James Jones, Lacy). I'm looking forward to seeing Peppers and am cautiously hopeful about Clinton-Dix and Lyerla and Bradford (if they play him inside).

On the other hand, I have a hard time getting excited about the rest of this year's draft. I am very pessimistic for big improvement on defense, especially middle-of-the-field defense where the best player is A J Hawk and the rest goes by names like Raji, Jones, and Hyde/Burnett. And, everyone knows what I think about Thompson's approach and record with respect to offensive line players named Sitton.

2. Re: uffda: I don't understand why everyone is ragging on him so much.

Oh, okay, I know a lot of people don't like long posts. But if you don't like 'em, skip 'em. The world won't end if you do. (Me, I like them; but I would, wouldn't I?)

But, it seems to me he makes some good points:
1. Without the Rodgers grand slam, Thompson wouldn't be in the ballpark of "best GMs." AJ Hawk instead of Ngata or Hali or Vernon Davis? B J Raji? Colledge, Spitz, Bulaga, Bahktiari, Lang? Brad Jones? Perry? McMillian?

2. If you are going to put as many eggs in the "draft and develop" basket as the Packers have in the Thompson era, just having good drafts isn't enough. You need to have well-above average drafts. Hitting monster homeruns like Dave Kingman isn't enough. You need to hit homeruns like Kingman AND have Rod Carew's batting average AND steal bases like Rickey Henderson.

3. Being satisfied with good is not as good as striving to be great. Sorry, Shawn and others, but I disagree with you on this. I absolutely *hate* the Packers perennially being listed as playoff contenders and perennially showing themselves in the playoffs as being championship pretenders. "Getting to the playoffs" should never be a criterion of success for anyone who drafts in the bottom half of the first round. The goal for the Packers should be domination. Absolutely, complete, overwhelming domination.

Does this mean I think it is possible for a team to go to the Super Bowl every year? No, of course not. I know that's not going to happen. But I do *expect* and *want* a team that doesn't just try to finesse things, that isn't just satisfied when they outplay the other guys. I want a team that strives to destroy the other team on both sides of the ball. A team whose players, to a man, on every play, look at the guy on the other side of the line with eyes that say, "I'm coming. I'm coming, and I'm going to beat you, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. You may be stronger than me in the weight room. You may run away from me on the track. But right here, right now, my will is stronger than you, you pissant. And my will *will* be done!"

All those Lombardi-era Packers aren't in the Hall of the Fame because they were the strongest or the fastest or had the best intangibles. They're in the Hall of Fame because they had the strongest wills. With the possible exceptions of Willie Wood, Herb Adderley, and Dave Robinson, those Hall of Famers weren't the best physically -- Jordan wasn't, Davis wasn't, Gregg wasn't, Taylor wasn't, Nitschke wasn't, Starr sure as hell wasn't. They're there because they had an unparalleled will to win. A will that refused to be denied.

I don't know if the problem is Thompson, McCarthy, Capers, Campen, or the players themselves. But I just don't see enough of that will to dominate. Rodgers has it. Woodson had it. Sitton has it.

I don't want a team that is just trying to win. I want a team that strives to impose its will and dominate other teams. A team that refuses to believe the "any given Sunday" line when it is the Green Bay Packers playing.

Will. Not try. Not might. Not may. Not even can.

Will.

Originally Posted by: Wade