How long was the inside linebacker position ignored, because we had awesome players in AJ Hawk and Brad Jones? Stupidity like that costs you championships. You don't get players like Aaron Rodgers every day. Isn't it the responsibility of the GM to put forth the very best team he can assemble and not go into each season with glaring holes?
The tight end position is weak, and our OT position is sketchy. And I've been praying for a Megatron/Dez Bryant type of talent at WR for a long time, just to make Rodgers' job easier.

We have a smaller window with Rodgers than people want to admit to. Basically 2011 through 2015 were pissed away. How many more will be like that. Like I've said, I've watched this movie before with Favre's career.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Since this thread is now completely off topic.
Who's your whooping boys going to be for the next 9 years?
My favorite player on defense now is Sam Barrington.

Go ahead and blame him and the other ILB,s for every loss The Packers have the next 8 years.

Knowing Sam is now my favorite player will make It O so much more satisfying to you.

Originally Posted by: buckeyepackfan 

From the reactions of a few, I think we are spot-on topic. Freaking out over things they wanted to happen, but don't know what specific things or even the how to make them happen or the consequences or even IF they were tried and impossible. Good news, we have seen jus ONE pre-season game. Just wait until we start 2-2 again! The fun is coming for long time!!!

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Careful there... if you don't expect this team to go 19-0 that means that you don't want them to be 19-0.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

You have calculated risks at numerous positions due to the reality of the cap. Agreed that Hawk/Jones were letdowns, the depth at TE doesn't look appealing now, and I'm iffy on DL depth. That said, the vast majority of this roster was 4 minutes of "self shitting" away from the SB, yet I read is that the sky is falling.

There are going to be "glaring holes" on any roster when you're capped. C last year, CB this year were among those holes and as of now, those seem to have at least adequate personnel.

I'm not a Ted Thompson apologist, I just recognize this is a really deep team with the exception of a few positions...the Seahawks and Pats were weak at WR the last two years, it happens. I'd rather comment on specific situations (e.g. I would have liked to see Gresham here) than blanket generalizations about how Ted has floundered an organization that just went 12-4.

Originally Posted by: musccy 

Welcome to THIS year. This team could miss the playoffs THIS year. It ain't last year or the year before that. Past performance never guarantees future results. We do have the QB so there's a good chance you can rest easy in that statement.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

And the team could win everything THIS year and I know a certain handful who would still come here whining, bitching and crying about things they haven't a clue about while the rest of us are hungover from celebrating the Super Bowl Victory!!!!

[cheers] [bdance] [rock]

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Welcome to THIS year. This team could miss the playoffs THIS year. It ain't last year or the year before that. Past performance never guarantees future results. We do have the QB so there's a good chance you can rest easy in that statement.

I'm not freaking out about a pre season game...I'm disappointed in what didn't happen since we lost to Seattle. No TE. Still. Wolf had Chmura and went out and grabbed ANOTHER star. We have nothing at the position and added nothing...Oh, wait... I forgot about Backman, Henry and Spears...my bad.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

This is NOT meant to be a blanket endorsement of Ted Thompson, as there are things about his GMship that I'm not totally pleased with, however: the overriding fact is that the Packers have continued to be at or near the top of the NFL for about a generation now. True, we haven't won enough Super Bowls in that time, but BFD. If the team is playing winning football consistently for a long period of time, I'll take that. There are 32 teams in the league; A lot of them play "boom and bust" - sell out to load up, then sink to the bottom as they rebuild - the Giants come to mind in that. I would MUCH rather have a team that is CONSISTENTLY near the top.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

In the salary cap era, you can't have the best of everything everywhere, and settling just a bit at TE ain't that bad.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

Winning while we have the greatest QB in the NFL - probably ever: First of all, we ARE winning - consistently. Some of us can remember over 20 years between Lombardi and Holmgren when we were not. Secondly, a LOT of teams have had great QBs - not that much below Rodgers and Favre, and also did not win a lot of Super Bowls; Some did not even win consistently in the sense of staying near the top. Elway, Marino, and P. Manning come to mind. In addition, there have been a LOT of QBs who were "great" in terms of their paycheck, but never came through and earned the big money (dontcha wish we had the GMs that paid people like Cutler, Flacco, Stafford, etc.?)

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

So in summary, things could always be better, but they have been pretty damn good for a long time.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

By your logic in the first paragraph, we shouldn't assume that Pruitt will be the answer for the Vikes because his college success doesn't predict the future. You and I both know past is a good indicator, and much of the 12-4 team returns.

We don't have to do every single thing Wolf did. Yes he brought in Jackson, Rison, and Eugene - big success. What did Ware, Talib, and TJ Ward get for the Broncos? An earlier exit from the playoffs.

Again, you have to take some calculated gambles at positions, TE depth is certainly among them. I'm cautiously optimistic that RR and AQ (post suspension) can be decent as a tandem. Maybe Ted and I are wrong, though...I acknowledge that possibility. However, this still comes back to what were the alternatives, e.g. the cost of Jimmy G, or who you give up in your draft for a TE. It's why I'll always say I wish we could have convinced Gresham to come up here since he is low cost, low risk, and isn't at the expense of another draft pick.

Originally Posted by: musccy