Draft and Develop· Page 2

mi_keys
Senior Member

9 years ago

My point is this... Yes, we "draft and develop" but so does every other team in the NFL. There isn't a team in the NFL who doesn't participate in the NFL draft year after year and there isn't a team who gets rid of all the guys they draft every single year.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

There isn't a single person on this forum that has alleged otherwise. sschind, in the very post you quoted, agreed that every team participates in the draft.

By definition, all teams...draft...and...develop.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

If you want to define it strictly literally, then yes. But that's not the context in which people use the phrase. Again, as sschind laid out, people talk about teams such as the Packers being draft and develop when the focus is on that aspect of roster building.

That is almost exclusively what Ted relies on.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

We know. That's why people talk about the Packers as a "draft and develop" team.

I simply don't like it.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

We know. You tell us this in almost every single thread you post in.

I also do not like adding multiple FA's every single year.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Cool. Something we agree on.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Bold added for emphasis and underlined word added full stop. That's the point you never represent accurately: you always represent the potential for failure in drafting and never represent the potential for failure in FA. No free agent is a sure thing. Lots and lots of them flop horrifically. Some do okay but don't live up to expectations. Others light it up. But it is never a guarantee.

You also always insist on phrasing the draft route as strictly 3 to 4 years down the road. Sure, some do take time to develop. Others make an impact right away.

I think that is ridiculously wrong. He wants to save money and is always thinking about years down the road and misses too much of what is going on right now with his robotic plodding approach that, btw, only works if you have an all world QB.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

And your usual straw man about how he's only worried about the future or saving money. No, he has a philosophical difference as to how create the best odds at winning the most number of titles. That's it. Maybe he's wrong overall, and he certainly has been on individual players or moves (as all GMs have been), but you harping on and on and on about your philosophical differences and rehashing the same strawman argument incessently does nothing to show if, and how, he might be wrong.

I admire teams for going for it and trying. People always want to point to the teams that don't win the SB while using FA. Well, our team has been there 1 time this century using draft and develop. See, look at what a failure it is! One SB appearance in 15 years. It's really odd how people look at what they want to see and turn blind eye to reality. Again, I will always admire a team/GM who GOES FOR IT, not one who just plods along hoping and wishing.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Ted Thompson has been here 10 years. Not sure what 5 years of Sherman incompetence has to do with him. Hell, Sherman was someone who would go for it from time to time and wiffed horribly with bums like Hardy Nickerson and Joe Johnson. TT's overseen 1 Super Bowl title in 10 years. Considering there are 32 teams, that's not a failure.

By the way, with 32 teams, the average expected number of years between Super Bowl appearances is 16 years. So even your grouping Sherman's failures in with Ted Thompson doesn't make Green Bay's performance over that tenure an outright failure.

The rest of your "blind eye to reality", "go for it", and "plodding along" comments are rhetorical fluff.

The draft and develop approach views the risk of heavy activity in free agency as outweighing the expected return. It's that simple. You spend big on a free agent and you might not have the capspace to retain your young talent. And if that free agent doesn't pan out you've now bled away some of your young talent for a bust or you've cut said bust and you're now carrying dead cap space. That's the potential failure of free agency.

The draft and develop approach is most assuredly not a philosophy of not giving a shit. That's a strawman.

Born and bred a cheesehead

Barfarn
Senior Member

9 years ago

#12

What I do like is adding a difference maker and we rarely ever do such a thing and that is a major frustration when we have a QB like we have now. Ted Thompson would rather wait 3 or 4 years to see if we might have a blue chipper rather than spend, now, to get one immediately. I think that is ridiculously wrong.
I admire teams for going for it and trying. People always want to point to the teams that don't win the SB while using FA. Well, our team has been there 1 time this century using draft and develop. See, look at what a failure it is! One SB appearance in 15 years. It's really odd how people look at what they want to see and turn blind eye to reality. Again, I will always admire a team/GM who GOES FOR IT, not one who just plods along hoping and wishing.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

"blind eye to reality?"
Dude, That's YOU! Everyone else is talking concrete facts and real examples, BUT YOU.

Meanwhile you spout these verbal Escher diagrams.

Do you think Ted Thompson can sitting back pluck difference making FAs like ordering a McDouble from McDonalds? There is typically no more than 1or 2 in any year and sometimes there are NONE! Then there's the alternative costs for these 1-2, if ya pay them trillions, like, who gets cut or not signed as a result? And sometimes a guy that otherwise might be a difference maker on the football field, isn't; because of personal issues like, he is unhappy living away from family or his wife/kids are unhappy they had to be transplanted.

True, all teams draft and develop, it's just that few, if any, are a disciplined about it as TT. So just like everyone lies; one who is identified as a liar is one who does it often.

In last 5 years, TT's D&D methods provided Mike McCarthy with a roster for 3 SB appearances [if not for a Bosticide and of a death of a coach's son] and perhaps more if not for a plague of injuries; 4 div champs; 5 PO appearances.

And i know what yer thinking...about the 3 SB appearance comment. But, getting to SB is a confluence of SEVERAL things. The issue at hand is about whether TT's D&D methods provide SB rosters, not if other factors prevented those rosters from getting to SB. If other factors stopped the SB appearances the subject rosters were destined to deliver, it is outright stupid to change the part of the confluence that works. STUPID!

And to change it to the "going for it" method that is proven not to work is certifiably STUPID.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#13

Originally Posted by: Barfarn

The going for it method has proven not to work? Oh, you mean like New England last year? ...or Seattle the year before?

The average span of being in or winning a SB is 16 years? Tell that to Detroit, Philly, Cleveland, Arizona, etc. Heck, tell that one to New England. We have Aaron Rodgers at QB and Favre before him. I think we should've been there a little more than we have if we had the GM'ing/Coaching that we believe we have, but we don't.

I find it hysterical to see that Ted Thompson has a philosophical difference on how to create the best odds at winning the most number of titles. The titles you must be referring to have to be divisional because you sure can't mean Super Bowl. Barfarn...I know that wasn't you.

The truth is and will remain that we've had back to back two of the better QB's to ever play the game and we've been to the SB 3 times. New England has won more than that over less time because why? They are the better organization. Plain and simple. Our GM/GM's and coaching just isn't as good as theirs nor have our total team talent either.

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."

mi_keys
Senior Member

9 years ago

#14

The average span of being in or winning a SB is 16 years? Tell that to Detroit, Philly, Cleveland, Arizona, etc. Heck, tell that one to New England. We have Aaron Rodgers at QB and Favre before him. I think we should've been there a little more than we have if we had the GM'ing/Coaching that we believe we have, but we don't.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Lol, so there's teams that have done better and teams that have done worse than the average? Wow. Thanks for that grand insight. Do you know what an average is?

Born and bred a cheesehead

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#15

Lol, so there's teams that have done better and teams that have done worse than the average? Wow. Thanks for that grand insight. Do you know what an average is?

Originally Posted by: mi_keys

Yes. I also know what it means for us to have a QB who is better everyone else's and not capitalizing on those rare years in franchise history. The comfort level with just winning the division is really sad considering how special our guy under center is. It's okay...stay on cruise control and drive 55...we'll never get to the ultimate destination but I'm sure there'll be some pretty scenery along the way that will be comforting to many of the passengers.

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."

Barfarn
Senior Member

9 years ago

#16

The going for it method has proven not to work? Oh, you mean like New England last year? ...or Seattle the year before?

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Why do you try to make points through snarky loaded questions? Why cant you just state an OPINION in a scholarly, respectful and honorable way?

31 other teams "go for it." If two of the 31 make SB, it's either just random luck or other factors caused that result beside "go[ing] for it." Either way this approach doesn't help your argument. It like betting on all the horses in the Kentucky Derby; and jumping up and down cheering because ya picked the winner.

FA acquisitions have destroyed Seattle. A brilliant core of 1st contract studs from 2010-12 [using TT's draft board] producing only 1 SB worthy roster [given the Bosticide], which for that one appearance the ONLY reason is the 1st contract studs and done DESPITE FA moves. If Bradford and Palmer don't get hurt Seattle misses POs in 2014; And no playoffs for Seapigeons in 2015. 29M in dead cap over 2 years because of numerous FA signings and their only 2 contributing FAs [Bennett and Avril] played 19 games in 2014 and got eleven (11) sacks on OLman named other than Sherrod.

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#17

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

There's a lot of validity to what you say. It's basically a matter of degree regarding the "draft and develop" thing compared to rampant pursuit of other teams' free agents.

On the one hand, for as ardent a Ted Thompson detractor as you are, the Packer success you yourself describe make him look like a damn genius. On the other hand, it comes down to cause and effect. Is Ted Thompson and the emphasis on draft and development indeed the CAUSE of success? Or is the cause those two magnificent items of good fortune - one under Wolfe, one under Thompson - the extreme skill or dumb luck, take your pick - of getting those two great QBs?

I'm not the hater of Thompson you are, but I do indict him for failing to maximize the situation - being so extreme in his dedication to "draft and develop" that he hasn't put the best team he could have on the field to support his superstar.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

mi_keys
Senior Member

9 years ago

#18

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

When all else fails, just rehash the same baseless accusation that others don't want to win a title.

Born and bred a cheesehead

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#19

When all else fails, just rehash the same baseless accusation that others don't want to win a title.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys

Oh, his lack of going for it in free agency is the exact opposite of "baseless" but you can think otherwise if you wish.
Ted Thompson is not going all out or "all in" as it were in each individual season. I know you think he does.

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."

RaiderPride
Senior Member

9 years ago

#20

Yes. I also know what it means for us to have a QB who is better everyone else's and not capitalizing on those rare years in franchise history. The comfort level with just winning the division is really sad considering how special our guy under center is. It's okay...stay on cruise control and drive 55... we'll never get to the ultimate destination but I'm sure there'll be some pretty scenery along the way that will be comforting to many of the passengers.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

"We'll never get to the ultimate destination."

Never? Really?

I have to ask?

Were you in a medically induced coma when Aaron drove away with that sick Chevrolet Camaro for being the MVP after reaching the ultimate destination?

""People Will Probably Never Remember What You Said, And May Never Remember What You Did. However, People Will Always Remember How You Made Them Feel."

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 (4h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it

beast (6h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done

Zero2Cool (12h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!

beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (24-Dec) : 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.

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

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS