Do you want Ted Thompson to be extended?· Page 18

musccy
Veteran Member

10 years ago

I'm not sure the 6 defensive picks is a sign of anything other than that's how the board worked as Ted Thompson would say. The following draft, after getting destroyed by Kaepernick, we drafted offense with 4 out of our first 5 picks.

You honestly believe the way to handle huge defensive issues is by plugging ROOKIES in when it has been well established, here, that it takes about 3 years before you know what you have with a rookie. Why would we attempt to fill massive holes on D with rookies when the need is NOW and it'll be 3 years before they're going to be who they're going to be in most cases. That makes no sense at all and belies the whole...good is good enough...we just want to stay good but not great. Meanwhile, Denver goes out and gets DeMarcus Ware (much younger than Peppers), TJ Ward from the Browns, Aqib Talib and Emmanuel Sanders...after adding high profile guys the previous year like Wes Welker. That is aggressive and going for it.

We failed with Dinosaur Dom not being able to adjust and devise a D to stop some new age football so we send the SAME failed D Coord to College Station? We don't bring in a new defensive staff? We got DRILLED two straight years in the playoffs and did next to nothing to fix it but add rookies and make a trip to college station. Wow. That is your definition of aggressive?

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Lacy, CM3, and Hayward all come to mind as rookies who made a pretty substantial impact. Yeah it takes 3-4 years to assess a draft effectively, but that doesn't mean you have to wait 3-4 years for a class to positively impact your team.

I don't see how Denver's approach this year guarantees they'll be any more successful. The Vikes swooped up Bishop and Jennings last year and what did that do for them? Jennings has already been quoted as saying he's fine with the #2 role behind their #1 pick of last year. Daniel Snyder's track record has been repeatedly brought up in this thread. What did Philly gain from their aggressive push with Namdi, Cullen, and Vince Young? Different sport, but how close to 7 titles did the Big 3 in Miami get to?

Being aggressive in F.A. isn't the only way to fix a team. I don't dispute that safety and the D in general have been a series of swings and misses via the draft, but what FA moves are fail-proof? At least via the draft it's a cheaper risk than, say, signing an Haynesworth, Joe Johnson, Hardy Nickerson, or someone other FA that could bust.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#172

How many times do I need to be told FA isn't the only way and answer that I know this is true but the other 31 teams are ALL using our method in consort with others to get better. There isn't a team in the modern history of the NFL that doesn't use draft and develop. Not one.

A FA move with a talented player has an infinitely better chance of succeeding than plugging in rookies that were either drafted or undrafted.

If you weren't a Packers fan and could get out of the mindset you feel you need to represent here you would see that Ted Thompson has not done enough. He hasn't. Here's a quote from a recent article on profootballtalk.com that rated us 5th in the NFL...

They’d be even higher if Rodgers had the help that other franchise quarterbacks enjoy. Specifically on defense. And everyone knows it. Maybe that’s why recent remarks from Rodgers that easily could have been interpreted as a slap at the front office and/or the locker room didn’t ruffle many feathers.

Yeah, Ted Thompson woke right up and added a bunch of rookies, Guion and position switched a 34 yeard old DE who is in decline. Solution! LOL. ...and yet another year ticks off Aaron's career. I asked a question earlier...nobody answered. What approach do you think Rodgers favors? Denver's or ours? Manning's head would've blown up if he'd been saddled with a GM like Ted Thompson.

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."

nerdmann
Premier Member

10 years ago

#173

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

If this team could stay healthy, they'd win it all every year.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#174

If this team could stay healthy, they'd win it all every year.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann

We lost at SF in the opener with everyone healthy save for Burnett if memory serves. Was his absence the reason Boldin went 13 for 208?

This team spent an ENTIRE offseason trying to figure out how to stop SF. It gave up THIRTY FOUR points and lost the opener. No concern, though, right? If only we had Burnett?

If...If...If...If... that is one of the buzz words. I wish the team would stay healthier. At some point you have to get players who can stay healthy if they're going to be continually injured.

We should be fully healthy for the opener at Seattle. If we get rocked...then what will you say? It's just the opener and if we get the chance to comeback in January for a playoff game it will be different? Why would it be different? I think Green Bay can win that opener...I'm one of the few who posted in the record section who believes that way. You all are just a bunch of negative nellies. 😆

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."

musccy
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#175

A FA move with a talented player has an infinitely better chance of succeeding than plugging in rookies that were either drafted or undrafted.

Yeah, Ted Thompson woke right up and added a bunch of rookies, Guion and position switched a 34 yeard old DE who is in decline. Solution! LOL. ...and yet another year ticks off Aaron's career. I asked a question earlier...nobody answered. What approach do you think Rodgers favors? Denver's or ours? Manning's head would've blown up if he'd been saddled with a GM like Ted Thompson.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

How do you know that a FA pick up is infinitely better? There are a lot of draft picks that don't pan out, but they're cheap - if you include UDFA you can add 15-some players in May for the cost of 1 or 2 high priced F.A. The Browns just paid $8 mil for Kruger's 4.5 sacks last year. Datone Jones damn near did that for fractions of the cost. The Packers nearly signed Steven Jackson but ended up with Lacy instead...how'd that work out last year and going forward?

As for what would Rodgers prefer? If I were him, I wouldn't want to have salary cap hell on the horizon, during my peak years, in the hopes that a few vets pan out.

Furthermore, what else would you like to have seen Ted do in F.A. this year. I'm not even a fan of him getting Peppers to be honest, but what should have been done, and to add to that, do you KNOW that the FA(s) you wanted would have signed here? I read in excess of 6 teams (likely approaching 10) wanted Byrd...maybe Ted even matched N.O's offer but he didn't want to play in the cold. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean reasonable efforts weren't made.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#176

How do you know that a FA pick up is infinitely better? There are a lot of draft picks that don't pan out, but they're cheap - if you include UDFA you can add 15 players in May for the cost of 1 high priced F.A. The Browns just paid $8 mil for Kruger's 4.5 sacks last year. Datone Jones damn near did that for fractions of the cost. The Packers nearly signed Steven Jackson but ended up with Lacy instead...how'd that work out last year and going forward?

As for what would Rodgers prefer? If I were him, I wouldn't want to have salary cap hell on the horizon, during my peak years, in the hopes that a few vets pan out.

Furthermore, what else would you like to have seen Ted do in F.A. this year. I'm not even a fan of him getting Peppers to be honest, but what should have been done, and to add to that, do you KNOW that the FA(s) you wanted would have signed here? I read in excess of 6 teams (likely approaching 10) wanted Byrd...maybe Ted even matched N.O's offer but he didn't want to play in the cold. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean reasonable efforts weren't made.

Originally Posted by: musccy

How do I know that a FA pick up is infinitely better? Well, let me see... I said a TALENTED FA pick up. Why? A talented FA has PROVEN he can play and play at a high level in the NFL. There is not one rookie or UDFA you can say the same of. That automatically makes the odds heavily in the favor of the talented/proven FA over a rookie unknown. How can you not see that? Yes, there are things that don't work out in FA but that doesn't mean the odds of them being a lot more successful over a rookie isn't true.

We debated Jimmy Graham to death. I'll take him over any of our TE's and there isn't one of you who is being honest who wouldn't do the same if all things were equal. We've chosen at this point to replace Finley with... Quarless, Rodgers or Lyerla. A JAG and two rookies. We've continually chosen to replace Nick Collins with rookies and UDFA's. We've continually tried rookies opposite Clay Matthews...until this year.

Who would've had better odds at helping us opposite Clay a few years ago...Nick Perry or Julius Peppers? Clearly, the odds would be in Peppers favor. Perry has been nothing for us but IF he could stay healthy he might. If, if, if....

To say Rodgers wouldn't prefer Denver's approach is dishonest to me. What years are you referring to being ruined? His peak years? Um, hello...those are going on RIGHT NOW...not 3 or 4 years from now when he's 34 years old. How do you not understand that? Rodgers prime years are over in a few years. You operate with the mindset he'll be at this level for the next 7 years. Today matters. Tomorrow just seems to matter more to most of you.

EDIT: I guess the EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT from the profootballtalk.com article doesn't apply to a lot of you here. EVERYBODY knows the Packers are rated 5th in the NFL because of Aaron Rodgers and aren't higher because of what Aaron has around him. My point is, has been, and will remain that Ted Thompson has ridden and hidden behind ONE draft pick, Aaron Rodgers. He's not done his job of helping the best QB in the NFL.

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."

musccy
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#177

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Namdi, Jenkins, Steven Jackson, Albert Haynesworth, Matt Flynn (for Sea/Oak), Kruger, Javon Walker, Jeff Saturday, Joe Johnson... were they all "untalented" FA pickups? Weren't they all proven to some extent? There is a risk/reward to every single player in the NFL, drafted or FA. You referenced Graham, Peppers, and FA safety help in this post. Well if the Packers addressed that via FA, you're looking in excess of 30 million for those three players, and since you referenced Peppers in his prime, you're talking even more $. Add Rodgers to the mix and you have about 50 mil, or roughly 40% of your cap gone with 49 other roster spots to fill. If you dabble in FA, you better be damn sure you have a good exit strategy with the contract, or they sure better fulfill the needs and at the playing level you're paying them for. It is much more costly for a FA to fail than a draft pick.

How do you know Denver's strategy will work right now? Will all those FAs stay healthy? Will they all perform to the level of their contract? Do you know the Hyde experiment at S or Worthy coming back from injury won't work in GB?

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#178

Originally Posted by: musccy

Are you serious with the list you assembled? Most of those guys were at or near the end of their careers. Matt Flynn was proven? A meaningless game vs. Detroit and a solid effort vs. New England? Matt Flynn is a proven decent backup QB... we FINALLY added him after rolling with guys like Graham freaking Harrell and BJ Coleman...two giant mistakes. If you want to bring up Seneca, I'll just say...D O N E...that is what he was. We like either guys who are green as grass or old and begging for someone to pay them. Ted Thompson always bargain shopping. I'm all for bargain shopping some...but not all the freaking time.

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."

nerdmann
Premier Member

10 years ago

#179

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Well Datone wasn't healthy, as I recall.

Anyway, I attribute that loss to lack of ToP. We gave them far too many snaps. But then it's really only one game. This team almost always shits itself early in the season.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

musccy
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#180

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Yes, I am serious. I'm too lazy to look up specifics, but off of memory, most if not all of the players I listed were around 30 if not younger. I could list many other FA failures too, but my point is I don't see how FA is this silver bullet that you seem to be making it out to be.

As for bargain shopping, I like Vic Ketchman's article on Packers.com. I admit he's basically paid to write green and gold frosted articles, but one of the things he said during the Jarius Byrd situation is that the Packers are not an ideal destination for FAs - it's cold, small town, income tax unlike a few states with NFL teams - so to get a FA, in all likelihood you'll have to outbid most if not everyone else. Neither you nor I can know that for sure, but I tend to believe that he's correct, and under that assumption, in order to consistently dip into FA you'll be overpaying consistently as well. That's not a healthy way to sustain a franchise and long term success. Consequently, bargain hunting and green guys as you put it are a necessitated strategy in a market/franchise like Green Bay.

As for Seneca, no, I was not a fan of that or what Ted did with the backup last year. You're always going to have calculated risks on every team at some position, though. You're just not going to have All Pros at every position in a capped league. Last year was QB, this year it's center in my opinion and we have to hope it pans out.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

bboystyle (10m) : 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 (19m) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (39m) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (48m) : 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 (1h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (1h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (1h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (2h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (3h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (3h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (4h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (4h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (4h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (4h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (4h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (4h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (4h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (4h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (4h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (4h) : 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

Zero2Cool (4h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (4h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (4h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (4h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (5h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (5h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (5h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (5h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (5h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (5h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (5h) : Packers will get in

beast (5h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (5h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (5h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (7h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (8h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (8h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (8h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (9h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (18h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (18h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (22h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (22h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS