Mike Vandermause: Thompson gaffes contribute to down year· Page 2

Greg C.
Registered

15 years ago

I am always wary of this kind of criticism. I try to remember what I thought about the decision at the time it was made, instead of the easy way to go, which is 20/20 hindsight. I read this article twice, the second time reminding myself of what I have just stated here. Hindsight is a large part of what we do on these forums, but that doesn't lessen my irritation at this type of critique, as Yondermouse doesn't post here, he "posts" in a world heavily populated with Ted Thompson haters...the haters that will continue to blindly hate due to the decision as regards a certain HOF quarterback, and he knows it.

"dfosterf" wrote:

I don't have a problem with it, because I don't see Vandermause making any claims about having predicted that these moves would turn out bad. He even said that the Corey Williams trade "appeared shrewd at the time." This is just an analysis of what went wrong. And yes, a lot of these moves were widely criticized at the time they were made anyway.

blank

dfosterf
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#12

Here is what I said about the punter decision at the time: (Another forum)

Sep 4 2008, 07:48 AM
Post #12

Veteran
***

Group: Members
Posts: 793
Joined: 9-March 07
From: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Member No.: 1,978

I found this move "off the wall". Heck, Jon was our leading rusher last week. We got trench trouble, and this is what gets done? Hodge goes, Bush stays? I'm not seein' it, unless it's a Ted Thompson 50/50 move or something... total disruption of the punting game, coupled with the retention of a semi-qualified Bush as ST player. I don't really give a crap about directional punting when my punter's butt is hanging over the back of his own end zone, and no one can tell me this new aquisition is superior in that situation.

My point is that my point got missed. Read the commentary in the JS Online or the GBP Gazette... More often than not, it seems like the article wasn't even read by the people posting, but rather is used as a vehicle for the "airing of the grievances". I don't doubt Ironman's objectivity for one second, but I DO doubt the objectivity of about 99% of the readers that take the time to respond to whatever MV. writes, and I feel like this type of critique only feeds a very tragic fire.

I will be happy to also find what I said (and say) about JH, but it is also irrelevant to my point.

Greg C.
Registered

15 years ago

#13

My point is that my point got missed. Read the commentary in the JS Online or the GBP Gazette... More often than not, it seems like the article wasn't even read by the people posting, but rather is used as a vehicle for the "airing of the grievances". I don't doubt Ironman's objectivity for one second, but I DO doubt the objectivity of about 99% of the readers that take the time to respond to whatever MV. writes, and I feel like this type of critique only feeds a very tragic fire.

I will be happy to also find what I said (and say) about JH, but it is also irrelevant to my point.

"dfosterf" wrote:

I occasionally glance at those comments from readers after the articles, and most of them are ridiculous. Both newspapers could improve their web sites by eliminating reader comments. I doubt very much that the writers let those comments affect what they write, though. The lunatic fringe can never be placated.

blank

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member

15 years ago

#14

Vandermause only praised the Rodgers decision after it became obvious it was going to pan out well (and the retraction he posted after the season was over was weak, at best). Before the season, he ripped Thompson ceaselessly for choosing Rodgers over Favre, among other decisions. Like most "sports analysts," Vandermause is a lame frontrunner. He'll heap all the team's successes on Thompson one week when the team wins, they blame all their problems on Thompson's decisions the next week when they lose. He doesn't take a season-long perspective.

mi_keys
Senior Member

15 years ago

#15

1.) It was a 5 game slide, not a 7 game slide. I get really annoyed when people get paid to write or talk about sports and they can't get simple facts like this right.

"Greg C." wrote:

I did a double-take on that one too, then I realized what he meant: The Packers slid from 13 wins in 2007 to 6 wins in 2008.

I think this is a pretty accurate breakdown of the major things that went wrong from a GM standpoint. A lot of it is just hindsight, of course, but there are some that looked bad right from the beginning. The decision to cut Jon Ryan is an obvious one. Also, he lowballed Ryan Grant, which might have made sense had he stuck to it, but then he ended up signing Grant to a big contract anyway.

It was a tough year for Ted. I sure hope he has another good run in him. For a couple years there, he was shitting little gold coins.

"mi_keys" wrote:

Ah, well if he did indeed mean it that way than my apologies for correcting him. I also hate it when people correct others who were correct to begin with, lol.

Born and bred a cheesehead

warhawk
Senior Member

15 years ago

#16

If Thompson is guilty of anything it's not going deep enough with the "what if" game and dealing with the scenario of "what if Jenkins goes down and KGB is done?" Now there are other contributing factors such as Harrell not being ready for many games and Jolly not performing at his best either.

The truth is all teams have weak points where if things don't go well in those areas with injuries that team is going to suffer. NO team is so strong and so deep in every segment of the game this won't happen.

IMO our two areas were EXACTLY what happened along the DL and #2 would have been if Arod went down.

To Thompson's credit if a DB or CB got hurt, which they did, that was covered. If a LB went down we were alright. A RB or WR? No big problem. A couple of decent shuffle moves could be made along the OL.

The hammer came down on the nail that happened to seal the coffin holding the cold body of our seasons fate when Jenkins went down and KGB failed to perform.

I look at it this way. It was unfortunate but it can be fixed. Between a new scheme and couple of new faces along the DL I look for way better next year.

"The train is leaving the station."

zombieslayer
Registered

15 years ago

#17

Yet, Vandermause has said over and over again that Thompson made the right decision going with Rodgers. Mike Vandermause is not a Ted basher.

And as far as hindsight goes; several people, including myself, questioned at the time, his decision to draft an injured DT in the 1st round, and his decision to, a week before the regular season, cut Jon Ryan, who's 37.6 net average in 2007, was the best by a Packers punter in 38 years, and then replaces him with a guy that didn't even have a try out. That was a terrible decision. And several people said so at the time of the decision.

"IronMan" wrote:

That's the thing. Yes, several of us did at the time question those 2 moves. I also questioned at the time getting rid of Corey Williams because Ted Thompson had faith in his first round bust of a DT.

So it's not always hindsight.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

15 years ago

#18

Let's get something clear here. Williams was gone no matter what. He was not going to settle for anything less than twice what he was worth. We got something for NOTHING when we made the trade with the Browns.

Even with what happened, I wouldn't have paid him what he's getting now because he is not the player his salary implies he is. He would not have made that much of a difference as some people think he would.

Again, Williams was GONE and we snagged a 2nd rounder for him and then (in my opinion and I feel we need two more years for it to be a 'true' one at that) blew it away on Brohm.

Does anyone remember Williams kneeling down after the Seahawks game and getting emotional as if it he knew it was his last game at Lambeau?

Stop playing the hindsight game and blasting a GM who got something for nothing. Remember this quote? "I wanted out of Green Bay and I'm glad Cleveland called me".

Let's quit the if we had Williams talk because he didn't want to be here, and we were not going to spend the money on him that he wanted. He was not and is not worth the amount he's getting. He produced fairly decent stats because KGB and Kampman took quite a bit of attention and let's not forget having a stout secondary.

I am glad we didn't waste the money on him, but I am not glad we picked up Brohm and we didn't have an insurance plan worth a damn if/when Harrell got injured/flopped.

Sometimes you just don't have the resources to cover every single base. Sometimes you hit, sometimes you miss. We missed on our DL.

all_about_da_packers
Senior Member

15 years ago

#19

Does anyone remember Williams kneeling down after the Seahawks game and getting emotional as if it he knew it was his last game at Lambeau?

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

I think that was because Williams realized that may, keyword may, have been his last game as a Packer, at Lambeau.

If I remember correctly, when asked about the kneeling down after the Giants (not Seahawks) game at Lambeau, Williams admitted he got emotional realizing it may be the end of the line for him (and probably a little upset at coming so close and losing it like they did).

Let's quit the if we had Williams talk because he didn't want to be here, and we were not going to spend the money on him that he wanted.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Actually, I'm going to say that Williams was pissed because he got franchised. The reason he didn't want to come back was because he felt the Packers were in the wrong limiting his options by franchising him when they clearly stated they wouldn't meet his demands during contract negotiations.

Once again, after the NFC Championship game, Williams said something along the lines of being open to a return to Green Bay (signing a new contract with the team), but realizing that any thing can happen in the business side of things in the NFL.

He was not and is not worth the amount he's getting. He produced fairly decent stats because KGB and Kampman took quite a bit of attention and let's not forget having a stout secondary.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

Williams value has to be more than just a pass rusher. Especially in the playoffs last year, he was outstanding at getting penetration and forcing the RB out side, at times even tackling the RB for a loss.

Williams won one on one match-ups, and considering this past year's lack of that his value was important.

I agree with the overpaying part, he deserved good money, but the contract he got was a lot bigger than he deserved.

The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.

MassPackersFan
Member

15 years ago

#20

Well that's the entire purpose of franchising a player - to limit their offers from other teams. It's kind of silly that players keep getting mad about it. Look at New England and Asante Samuel. They clearly weren't going to match the high offers in 2008 after franchising him in '07.

The thing is, Samuel is one of the best CB's in the league when it comes to zone defenses. Hard to say the same thing about C. Williams at DT, as much as I liked the guy. He was definitely demanding far more than he was worth.

I also don't think releasing Corey Williams had anything to do with "relying on a 1st round bust" to replace him. There were plenty of other DT's on the roster, and I assumed it was common knowledge even among those OUTSIDE of the organization that Harrell is a project. Nobody thought he would suddenly emerge in '08 after his '07 injury/surgery history.

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 (17m) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (26m) : 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 (38m) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (1h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (1h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (1h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (3h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (3h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (3h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (3h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (4h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (4h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (4h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (4h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (4h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (4h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (4h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (4h) : 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 (4h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (4h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (4h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (4h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (4h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (4h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (5h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (5h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (5h) : Packers will get in

beast (5h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (5h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (5h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (6h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (8h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (8h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (8h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (9h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (17h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (18h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (18h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (21h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

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 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS