Do you want Ted Thompson to be extended?· Page 20

Pack93z
Select Member

10 years ago

Objectively... most here have stated a number of times, we wish for Thompson to become more active in free agency. More aggressive so to speak.

But objectively as well.. most can see that we have been highly successful of building through the draft on an overall scale. Not many boast a better winning percentage over the past decade.

Objectively most here know that there is more to winning it all than just the talent level. How can one truly measure how much talent this team has the past two seasons when we have been banged up more than any other franchise. Some might objectively argue to even make the playoffs the last two seasons is a statement of the talent depth. Remember, this is a team that lost 2 games in 2011.

For me, the argument if this.. objectively.. his successes of building a roster outweigh his failures in building a team. At least until it is proven there is a better available option at building a championship team available.

The best in the business as many claim.. Billy the Cheat, hasn't won in what 5 or 6 years? San Fran and Denver have hoisted none in there tenure. Hell.. only the Giants have won it more than once.. and would anyone argue beyond doubt that Eli is elite?

You see it has we haven't done everything we can to win a Superbowl every year... without looking past that year. I agree. It is a more measured approach that has netted the same amount or more trophies than any team out there. in the same time frame save one.

To me.. objectively.. states that our approach is comparable or better than most. So why risk falling off without a clear reason to do so.

BTW.. last time I checked.. the defensive failures do not lie alone upon the GM. Objectively speaking of course.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

Pack93z
Select Member

10 years ago

#192

There aren't many Reggie White's...but supposedly we were in for Randy Moss, Tony Gonzalez and Marshawn Lynch and each time wouldn't give up high enough picks to bring the guys in. All 3 of those guys would've been worth a pick higher up the food chain to get them in here.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

So was a Peppers.

I think Tony Dungy has much of the same philosophy in obtaining a player for his team. One in which there has to be a complete fit not just talent.

“I gave my honest answer, which is that I felt drafting him would bring much distraction to the team,” Dungy says.

Moss.. was is and always will be a cancer once the ball didn't go his way. Always has been and was through the Patriot years. Many reasons for the pass.

I wanted the Lynch move personally.. I wanted it when he came out of college. But he also has a number of red flags that surround him. His reputation is a loner.. not the best locker room guy. His antics at the SB media this last year proves it.

In terms of Tony G.. other than being long in the tooth, hard to argue why not trade if the price was truly a 3rd. But we also had a youngster in Finley drafted the prior year.. so that may have factored.

The point is there is always more to the story than just obtaining a player.. and costs that go into it. Like if we traded our 2nd or 3rd for Tony G.. would we have had enough ammo to move up and get Matthews?

Not saying you don't know any of this.. just illustrating that there is a flip side to every lack of move.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#193

For the most part Marshawn, Moss, and Gonzalez worked out, but the Packers stuck to what they thought was the right value for S. Jackson last offseason and thank God we didn't get him because the Packers are in a MUCH better place at RB than ATL right now.

Ted is not trying to waste Aaron's years, he's all about sticking to his guns on the value he assigns players. That doesn't mean he's not aggressive, he has moved up in the draft when he felt the value was correct (e.g. CM3) and periodically spent in FA, but again, when it's at the right value. If anything I feel that's BETTER for Aaron, you're not making any hasty moves to jeopardize good years. What if we pissed away big dollars on Paul Kruger, S. Jackson? Would you or Rodgers want that dead weight on the team right now?

Like zero said, this is not a competition to see how many of Mel Kiper's or ESPN's top rated FAs you can add to your roster each season.

EDIT: Also, as to your quotes about every franchise QB getting more support - would you rather have had the Patriot's or Packer's receiving group last year?

Originally Posted by: musccy

You keep talking about "good years" ? Aaron's "good years" started a few years back and are nearing their end. Please, don't tell me you think he's not hit is peak yet. He did that in his MVP season.

I'll answer your Packers/Patriots question this way...I'd rather have had the Patriots team. Don't overvalue our WR corps. It isn't 3 years ago. Our WR corps is eroding. We don't have a clue what we really have beyond Jordy and Randall... let's see Boykin with Rodgers this year and whomever else makes the cut. I love Amendola and Edelman. Gronk sure helps that WR corps out with his presence at TE. Kenbrell Thompkins ain't too shabby either. No question they need to add another piece at WR and I'm not sure Brandon LaFell was enough. I would've taken our WR corps last year but them with Gronk makes them almost as formidable.

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."

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#194

So, it's okay to be happy with what we've accomplished because relative to other franchises we've been very successful? If you have the best QB in the NFL and you can't win playoff games beyond one run and a win over Joe Webb there's a failing somewhere. I don't care where we fit over the last x amount of years. We have the QB to win us multiples but we rest on how we perform relative the the rest of the league? If we have the best QB we should be the pace setting franchise not one celebrating being good relative to the others. That is a loser mentality to me. EDIT: That's like the Vike fans saying in AD's prime that they'd be happy having a running game that rates up there with the best of them. With AD they should be the dominant rushing franchise and should settle for nothing less than that. If you were Viking fans you'd all be congratulating yourselves and this franchise for being among the best at running the ball while I would be going nuts saying there is so much more than just being among the best...we should be the best. WE SHOULD BE THE BEST... We have Aaron freaking Rodgers. All world. Give him a freaking supporting cast. It took years to get him a Lacy. Now, we finally have a running game and now we have no TE and a thinning WR corps and a brand new C. The D is still likely to be a bottom feeder. It's just simply depressing but that's okay...we're still good. Tick, tick, tick goes Aaron's career. He knows it... I know it...the non Packer fan who knows the NFL knows it.

Honestly, I wonder how you'll be as fans when Aaron is done. Will you lament how his career went or will you be celebrating his one SB appearance and win?

Brett's years weren't as successful as they should've been, either. Putting Mike Sherman as conductor of the Packers train was idiotic. Ron Wolf's lament will be TT's only much stronger.

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

#195

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

My point with the Patriots was to counter you bringing up the PFT comment and insinuating the Packers are one of the only franchises not supporting a top-tier QB. The Patriots were an easy example of how they, in a well publicized way, didn't support a franchise QB in his prime as he would have liked. In Indy, for much of his career Peyton didn't have a great RB and iffy defenses. The Saints recently let Reggie Bush go. We could go on with examples, but point being, I don't see how the Packers have squandered Aaron's past or future seasons. Pack93z just had a great post about the right fit and that there's a lot more than meets the eye.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#196

Originally Posted by: musccy

More than meets the eye? What meets the eye is the total contentment on display from the fan base on this forum. Good is good enough...we should be content because we're the poor pitiful Packers from tiny poor Green bay. How wonderful it is we can win division titles being so insignificant. Wow! We don't need to go for it... Ted Thompson is right, his fanbase is tickled with how it is losing 3 years in a row in the playoffs getting blown off the field in 2 of those and they weren't even conference championships. Getting absolutely blown to bits in the post season two years in a row should've brought major changes to this franchise. It didn't. Now, 3 in a row soon to be 4 in a row and the at least we're good excuses will flow in earnest.

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

#197

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Do you read anything I post? I have said probably 4 times that this is not about "good being good enough." I along with many others were swearing up a storm in recent performances against the Giants and 49ers, or vs. Detroit on Thanksgiving. The Packers have had plenty of dud performances as a team, and plenty of questionable moves from Ted as a GM.

I can also see the forest from the trees though, and recognize the Packers aren't the ONLY team that loses big, who have holes, who have questionable GM moves or miss in the draft. I recognize it's coaches, player execution, injuries, and sometimes just bad luck. It is so much more than whether or not Ted spent a lot in F.A.

In baseball, you don't have to have a power hitter who can hit the ball out of the stadium to win. The Ichiros of the world who get on base consistently and put you in position to score runs can be every bit, and debatably more effective than the power hitter who may get you 4 quick runs with 1 swing, but just as likely may strike out all 4 times at the plate. Ted's methodical calculated approach does not mean he's satisfied with Division titles. It means he doesn't want to risk a big failure.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#198

Originally Posted by: musccy

You say it isn't about good not being good enough but you sure trot out excuse after excuse to excuse it. Geesh.

We have the best QB in the NFL or do we not? I think you would agree with that. I don't drink the koolaid and I think that.

To have the best QB in the NFL and fail over and over and get one ring is not enough. Brady had 3 rings by this point in his career. Ben had been to multiple SuperBowls. Rodgers should not be a one hit wonder but I'm horribly concerned that is exactly what he'll be and you'll all be happy with it in the end because you saw the forest for the trees?????? You saw it? What you're going to see is some terrible football once we stop having two of best QB's in the history of the game under center. Welcome back to the Randy Wright era. To not try to milk this current era for every stinking drop is criminal. Just der der der'ing along like the good times in Green Bay are never going to end. I just don't get it. We may and likely will head right back to 80's football once Rodgers is over. I would hope we have more rings to celebrate when the times are lean than the one I believe we'll have to talk about.

Oh, the charge will come...if you think we aren't going to win why don;'t you do us a favor and .... I could have said the same thing when you believed we were going to win it all only to be blown out by the NYG and then the Niners the following year. I could've asked how can you watch this team and expect good things after being trounced mercilessly in the playoffs two years in a row? We watch for the same reasons...the hope that we might win. I just have a whole less hope than you because our GM is content to ride Aaron Rodgers because it worked ONCE.

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."

Pack93z
Select Member

10 years ago

#199

Oh, the charge will come...if you think we aren't going to win why don;'t you do us a favor and .... I could have said the same thing when you believed we were going to win it all only to be blown out by the NYG and then the Niners the following year. I could've asked how can you watch this team and expect good things after being trounced mercilessly in the playoffs two years in a row? We watch for the same reasons...the hope that we might win. I just have a whole less hope than you because our GM is content to ride Aaron Rodgers because it worked ONCE.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

A couple of reasons:

1. Better health
2. Alterations in coaching decisions
3. Development of younger players
4. Because I am a fan. Do I expect to win it all. Yes. Do I think this roster, with QB is tow, can win it all. Yes I have seen the basic core do it. But like any team, the variables are so deep that laying the issue on the GM alone is not being... wait for it.. wait.... objective. (There that is tired out).

Personally.. I think there are better teams with more overall talent on them. I think we have several holes that are greater than a handful of teams out there. But I also know that every year the most talented team does not always hoist the trophy. Actually, they rarely do. It is the generally the team that overcomes and develops as the season wears on that plays the best in the playoffs.

I am also envious of teams that can sustain an attacking style defense over the course of a season.. or a team that when they have to can run the ball at will. A solid situational football team that can win in a magnitude of ways.. I just don't think that all falls at the feet of the GM. We also have had success relying on just the pass.. much to my chagrin. But that is the direction of the coach.. and is reflective upon the roster up until Mike McCarthy seen the light of balance. lol.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#200

Originally Posted by: Pack93z

Ted Thompson has two more years. He will leave with one ring, IMO. Who knows, though? Maybe, Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick will both suffer season ending injuries and no other team will rise up over our good talent level? Maybe, we'll get some lucky bounces or official's calls? See, it's sad to rely on things like that when you have the best QB in the game. You should come into the season thinking every team in the NFL will be lucky to compete with you. It's the opposite.

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."

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

Zero2Cool (51m) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (51m) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (1h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (1h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (1h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (2h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (2h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (2h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (2h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (2h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (2h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (2h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (2h) : 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 (2h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (2h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (2h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (2h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (2h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (2h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (2h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (2h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (2h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (2h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (2h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (2h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (2h) : Packers will get in

beast (2h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (3h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (3h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (4h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (6h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (6h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (6h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (6h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (15h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (16h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (16h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (19h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (19h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (19h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (19h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks

Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak

beast (21-Dec) : So far the college playoffs have sucked... One team absolutely dominates the other

beast (21-Dec) : Well even if you weren't positive towards a guy, you wouldn't nessarily want to tell the media that (if they don't know about it)

Martha Careful (21-Dec) : I think MLF want Love to look past the end half issues, and feel good about his play. Our coaches generally keep a very positive tone.

beast (21-Dec) : I think a great running game will do that for most QBs

packerfanoutwest (21-Dec) : Coach Matt LaFleur has said quarterback Jordan Love is playing the best football of his career.

beast (21-Dec) : Oh, that's how you keep beating buckeye, with cheating

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 @ 12:00 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS