I couldn't agree more. +1 to you.

I really hope the head of the training program we hire has an aggressive but sensible strategy: Gets them in tough game shape to avoid injuries in the regular season. If that means risking a few more injuries in preseason, perhaps that's what necessary. I think the strategy of sparing players in the preseason only postpones the injuries and delays revealing weaknesses until the players are needed for games. I'm not saying preseason needs to be full contact, but I do think a little more hitting (within circumscribed limits, of course) would toughen up bodies more.

I also hope the incoming trainer focuses on the other aspects of physical fitness: flexibility and body composition. Studies show that the vast majority of running injuries occur during pre-race static stretches, not during competition itself. Flexibility is enhanced more from post-race than pre-race stretching. I would like to see the trainer ensure that the players are thoroughly warmed up prior to stretching, as well institute a program of post-game stretching. Body composition is also crucial. I'd like to see some of the fatties on our team directed to cut down on the fat (perhaps even body-composition clauses inserted in their contracts) or face being cut. It bothers me watching all the jiggly bellies on the lines. It's one thing to have an enlarged belly from power lifting; it's another to just be fat.

---

Greg C., I have no problem with Thompson being asked tough questions after a 6-10 season. I do have a problem with the way the questions were asked. I hate leading questions coming from a reporter, period. They show an appalling lack of creativity and critical thinking, and they betray the reporter's lack of objectivity. Reporters who root around for the sensational one-liner annoy me. An experienced, incisive interviewer doesn't have to shoehorn his subject into saying what he wants him to say. Rather, he makes his subject comfortable enough to feel free genuinely expressing his opinions.

Don't ask the guy, "Do you think that was a mistake?" Ask him, "How do you feel about that decision in light of what happened this season?" Let him express his own opinion -- don't try to get him to agree or disagree with what you think. That's not an interview; it's an interrogation. And it's boring as hell to read. It makes the reporter sound petty and snide.

I agree that Thompson handled the interview well. Most of his answers were as vapid as the questions deserved. I'm sure he would have been much more forthcoming had the reporter allowed him the freedom to say what he wanted to say. On the other hand, a lot of the questions attempted to delve into areas no good general manager would disclose publicly. Revealing your bargaining strategy, for example, would be foolish.

---

nonstop...

Dont you think that Tom had to show his questions to pr, then they approved them, made him edit them, or got rid of them all together?

I think the interview was sort of staged and Tom was just not allowed to ask like he wanted.

But I could be wrong

It's entirely possible, LT. Though most people don't realize it, when guests appear on radio or television talk shows, the questions the hosts ask are typically scripted by the guests' designated PR staff, arriving in press packets before the interview. If the guest is on a talk show tour and you watch their appearances on various shows, you'll notice the questions they're asked from show to show are essentially identical. After all, the last thing a public figure wants is to be confronted with a potentially embarrassing question for which he's not prepared. So when the host attempts to slyly slip in a question for which the guest has no scripted answer, smart guests simply evade it.

Often when the host says something like, "My favorite part of the book was . . ." -- that's all scripted too. More often than not, the host has never seen the book they're discussing, much less actually read it. The choice of guests is in the hands of the producers, just as the topical analysis is in the hands of staff researchers and writers. All the "talents" do is literally read the TelePrompter, most of the time never having seen the script before they go on air, which is why when there are technical problems, they instantly go to break. They want to ensure the audience never sees the "talents" fumbling for words and showing their utter ignorance of the topic at hand.

Contrary to the image spun by the networks for which they work, on-air "talents" are rarely trained journalists in any sense of the word, much less subject-matter experts in the fields they are paid to analyze. Most often they are failed actors who have managed to resurrect their careers in the field of journalism (usually through the efforts of savvy agents). They're entertainers, and they act like it, which is why I can't stand the average interview these days. Their main job is to provoke arguments and fights to titillate the baser instincts of their audiences. It's embarrassing.

---

One thing I'd like to comment: normally Ted is a pretty up beat guy when talking about younger players, you'll usually get a "we think he'll be a good player for us" comment (or some variety).

Notice that not once in the transcript did Ted say something along the lines of "we still think Justin can be good player for us"...

I think the personnel people, and Ted, are just interested in seeing Justin get back to good health, and if they get something consistent out of him then it's an added bonus. Basically I think Ted's at the point now where he thinks whatever Harrell gives the team next year is an added bonus.

That may anger some, but it's a really classy thing. Harrell the person should come before Harrell the player, even if Harrell is a first round pick; if Ted and the personnel staff think this way than I applaud them all.

I wonder if Ted's vagueness on Harrell's future and a general absence of the "we think he'll be a good player" comment is the closest Ted will come to saying a player is a bust.

---

I noticed this too. I think the Packers organization will do what it can to avoid having to pay Harrell an injury settlement, then send him on his merry way to enjoy his guaranteed money. Absent a nearly miraculous recovery, if he manages to make the final cut next season, I can only assume that means the Packers haven't drafted or traded for solid talent.

---

Someone needs to photoshop this! Thompson, with an evil Ted on one shoulder and a good Ted on the other. LOL

edit: Then post the picture and let people caption it. That would be fun!

On topic, I thought Ted Thompson handled the interview well; as he always does. I agree with Nonstop as far as the questions go. I wish reporters would ask more creative questions. Especially in press conferences or when they interview players after the game. Same old boring questions over and over again.

After reading hundreds of these formulaic stories over the years, Ironman, and analyzing the recurring patterns I see, I've become convinced that reporters have rough drafts of their stories prepared before the games are even played -- probably one for each possible outcome. Then as the game progresses, they flesh out their drafts with juicy tidbits as they arise. After the game is already over, with their stories all but complete, they head into the press conferences entrenched in their preconceived opinions (and with a completely closed mind), determined to get a few choice words of corroboration to put in quotation marks and lend the stories an added bit of legitimacy. That's the only logical explanation for the inevitable and perpetual train of don't you agree's and don't-you-think's to which we're subjected.

I wish I could be a team press coordinator for just one season. I would rule the press conferences with an iron fist. Reporters would be allowed to ask whatever penetrating questions they wanted, but no leading questions whatsoever. Reporters who continually attempted to skirt the rules would simply be denied access. Grow a pair and demonstrate some journalistic integrity or stay the hell out of my pressers.

Last weekend I watched an on-air "talent" grill Senator Barney Frank (D-Mass) over the economic stimulus package debacle. He cut the senator off at every turn, never letting him complete a sentence. Finally, Sen. Frank snapped back, "You brought me on to hear what I have to say. If you won't let me say what I think, this interview is over." Now I despise Barney Frank -- I think he's a corrupt legislator and an embarrassment to our nation -- and I think a grilling over the failed TARP is well deserved, but I actually jumped up and (in my Army Combat Uniform, mind you) cheered out loud. I was so happy to see an interviewee stand up for himself.

---

oskarliminga, spare us the personal attacks, if you please.

---

Come on buddy. That was obviously a tongue in cheek statement.

---