brnt247
16 years ago
It's tough to build depth through the DLine. Most quality players aren't willing to sign contracts with teams that are looking to use them to build depth. They sign where they are truly needed and will get playing time, and if they aren't, then they probably aren't much better than Montgomery, Thompson, and Pettway.
blank
Greg C.
16 years ago

It's tough to build depth through the DLine. Most quality players aren't willing to sign contracts with teams that are looking to use them to build depth. They sign where they are truly needed and will get playing time, and if they aren't, then they probably aren't much better than Montgomery, Thompson, and Pettway.

"brnt247" wrote:



Yes, and that's why Corey Williams was traded. It would be hard to justify paying huge money for a player who was not even a starter. But the burden of finding good backups at a low price still falls on Thompson, and it hasn't worked out well this year.

Just for the record, here's what Mike Vandermause said in a chat when asked about this article:

[Comment From Andrew]
You've been accused of being a Ted Thompson apologist, but your article the other day was pretty tough on him. Did you have a change of heart or were you misunderstood most of the season?

[Vandermause]
I get a kick out of readers who, when I write something they don't like, immediately bring out the "you're in the tank for the Packers" accusations. I have no reason to be an apologist for the Packers, and I couldn't sleep at night if I was. I call it like I see it, good, bad or indifferent. Some may agree with my viewpoint, and others vehemently disagree. But when all is said and done, I don't worry about what others, including Packers management, might think when I write a column. I aim to be fair in offering my opinion. When Thompson does something right, I'll say it. When he screws something up, I'll say that too.
blank
Zero2Cool
16 years ago

It's tough to build depth through the DLine. Most quality players aren't willing to sign contracts with teams that are looking to use them to build depth. They sign where they are truly needed and will get playing time, and if they aren't, then they probably aren't much better than Montgomery, Thompson, and Pettway.

"Greg C." wrote:



Yes, and that's why Corey Williams was traded. It would be hard to justify paying huge money for a player who was not even a starter. But the burden of finding good backups at a low price still falls on Thompson, and it hasn't worked out well this year.

Just for the record, here's what Mike Vandermause said in a chat when asked about this article:

[Comment From Andrew]
You've been accused of being a Ted Thompson apologist, but your article the other day was pretty tough on him. Did you have a change of heart or were you misunderstood most of the season?

[Vandermause]
I get a kick out of readers who, when I write something they don't like, immediately bring out the "you're in the tank for the Packers" accusations. I have no reason to be an apologist for the Packers, and I couldn't sleep at night if I was. I call it like I see it, good, bad or indifferent. Some may agree with my viewpoint, and others vehemently disagree. But when all is said and done, I don't worry about what others, including Packers management, might think when I write a column. I aim to be fair in offering my opinion. When Thompson does something right, I'll say it. When he screws something up, I'll say that too.

"brnt247" wrote:



I can't recall a single person saying trading Williams was a mistake last year. It was known he was going to be gone. We weren't going to pay him that kind of jack for the role he played. Especially with the season Jolly was having up to when he was injured and using (wasting) a pick in the first round on another DT.

It was pretty well understood Williams was going to be gone in FA and when we got a 2nd round pick for him, people were accurately saying Ted got something for nothing.

Sadly, that 2nd round seems to be nothing, but its too early to make that assessment in my opinion.
UserPostedImage
brnt247
16 years ago
Trades for draft picks are based off of percentages. Most GM's make that trade a majority of the time, it just seemed like a smart move at the time. Trades like that happen in baseball all the time, sometimes the player pans out and sometimes the draft pick or minor leaguer becomes a star. Most of the time, another 2nd round draft pick would help us more than an expensive Corey Williams.

I remember last year our DLine depth was all the rave. We had a rotation that everyone was calling one of the best and deepest in the league, you can't blame someone for trading from what seemed to be an apparent strength to trade for the future.
blank
porky88
16 years ago

It's tough to build depth through the DLine. Most quality players aren't willing to sign contracts with teams that are looking to use them to build depth. They sign where they are truly needed and will get playing time, and if they aren't, then they probably aren't much better than Montgomery, Thompson, and Pettway.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Yes, and that's why Corey Williams was traded. It would be hard to justify paying huge money for a player who was not even a starter. But the burden of finding good backups at a low price still falls on Thompson, and it hasn't worked out well this year.

Just for the record, here's what Mike Vandermause said in a chat when asked about this article:

[Comment From Andrew]
You've been accused of being a Ted Thompson apologist, but your article the other day was pretty tough on him. Did you have a change of heart or were you misunderstood most of the season?

[Vandermause]
I get a kick out of readers who, when I write something they don't like, immediately bring out the "you're in the tank for the Packers" accusations. I have no reason to be an apologist for the Packers, and I couldn't sleep at night if I was. I call it like I see it, good, bad or indifferent. Some may agree with my viewpoint, and others vehemently disagree. But when all is said and done, I don't worry about what others, including Packers management, might think when I write a column. I aim to be fair in offering my opinion. When Thompson does something right, I'll say it. When he screws something up, I'll say that too.

"Greg C." wrote:



I can't recall a single person saying trading Williams was a mistake last year. It was known he was going to be gone. We weren't going to pay him that kind of jack for the role he played. Especially with the season Jolly was having up to when he was injured and using (wasting) a pick in the first round on another DT.

It was pretty well understood Williams was going to be gone in FA and when we got a 2nd round pick for him, people were accurately saying Ted got something for nothing.

Sadly, that 2nd round seems to be nothing, but its too early to make that assessment in my opinion.

"brnt247" wrote:



Yep the problem isn't that the Packers traded Corey Williams. They did get a 2nd round pick and that was fair value.

The problem is that the Packers didn't replace Corey Williams.

Thompson drafted a big bust with Justin Harrell. He also didn't sign anybody in free agency to at least compete or be depth. He could of gone out and got another player to improve the defense and he didn't. It's his judgment to make and one that he failed at. That's the responsibility Thompson needs to take for this.

On the flip side. Why are Johnny Jolley and Ryan Pickett playing much more poorly this year than last year?

I think that's on Bob Sanders and those players.

It leads back to my original point that this problem with the defensive line and the defense in general is bigger than just one person. You win as a team and you lose as a team. Pinpointing just Ted Thompson or just Bob Sanders or just the players would be a mistake in my opinion. Hopefully Thompson accepts this and changes his approach and perhaps works with McCarthy into changing the approach of the defense. The only way that can be done is if you change schemes and that means changing coordinators.
brnt247
16 years ago
What player? Which defensive tackle was there to be signed that was willing to be the 4th option? I say 4th because Jenkins was back and forth between tackle and defensive end. I understand your point, but it isn't as if there was a plethra of decent to good defensive tackles on the market last season that were willing to be backups. Harrell's job was to fill in, and because of injuries he hasn't been able to do so. I can't blame that on Thompson.
blank
macbob
16 years ago

I'm still not especially keen on Sanders as DC, but there are major personnel problems with the defense this year, as explained in this article. I did not realize that only 5 of our last 20 draft picks have been defensive players:

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081209/PKR07/81209184/1058/PKR01&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL 

"macbob" wrote:



Yeah, but Vandermause is conveniently picking his years to support his argument. The two preceding years (2005/2006) 12 of the 23 draft picks were defensive players, and there were two other defensive players acquired through draft-day/draft-pick trades, so we acquired a total of 14 defensive players out of 25 total during Thompson's first two drafts. Add them all up, and you've got 19 out of 45 picks went to defense in Thompson's first 4 drafts.

"Greg C." wrote:




Nice catch. But the lack of talent on the defensive line is obvious, regardless of the reasons for it. I still like our DB's and LB's, and I think this defense would be much better with a couple more quality players on the line.

"macbob" wrote:



Yeah, I agree, but that was more due to a wasted 1st rd draft pick rather than neglect. Thompson expected Harrell to step up and replace Corey Williams, and all he's done is replace Cletidus Hunt.

"Greg C." wrote:



Great. And now Hunt...er, Harrell looks to be injured once again. When you draft someone with the 16th pick in round 1, you expect the guy to be a starter immediately (else why did you draft him that high???). Here we are two years later, and we're still having trouble getting him on the field, much less a starter.

With his injury history in College (leg surgery, ankle injuries, biceps surgery that cost him all but 3 games of his senior season) Harrell was a risky pick that has no where near come through to paying off. At the time the pick was widely questioned, and as time as passed it appears appropriately so.
Greg C.
16 years ago

Why are Johnny Jolley and Ryan Pickett playing much more poorly this year than last year?

I think that's on Bob Sanders and those players.

"porky88" wrote:



That's a great question. I've been wondering about that all year. Pickett missed all of training camp, so I was expecting him to have a slow start, which he did. He's improved a bit as the season has gone on, but is still not playing as well as he did last year. And Johnny Jolly seems like just another guy this year. He's not making nearly as many plays as he used to. Could the legal troubles be distracting him?

I think that at least part of the problem is the loss of Cullen Jenkins and KGB. That right DE position is no longer a pass rushing threat, and it's made it a lot easier for opposing offensive lines to block everyone else.
blank
brnt247
16 years ago
It has to do with the rotation. Having a rotation like we did last year gave the lineman like Pickett and Jolly the ability to rest and be fresh when the entered the game. This season we have to rely on those two so much because they are really our only quality tackles. Cole isn't that awful, he doesn't make great plays but to be honest I think our team gets beat on outside runs more often than on the inside ones.
blank
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (2h) : Merry Christmas!
beast (10h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (18h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (23h) : 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.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

14h / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

21h / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.