you make some good points there british ...

I think its more along the lines is that we (packers fans) feel left out when it comes to certain moves ie like in free agency etc ... we really dont do much with it compared to some of the other teams.

I certainly share that frustration, last year I was furious we didn't land Chris Canty as I thought our DL was not at all ready for the 3-4.

But you say we feel we miss out compared to fans of other teams, but those other teams are usually crappy and desperate (Bears, Redskins).

I wonder if fans of the Pittsburgh Steelers and Indy Colts worry about how few free agents they sign (to be honest they're fans, so they probably do). But those teams have been two of the most consistent over the last decade or so, winning 3 Superbowls in the last few years.

---

I bolded what I think is the most important point - it makes little to no sense to get worked up over Thompson not picking up players that a) aren't all that great or b) the team doesn't need. The best UFA position looks to be receiver, and the Packers aren't hurting at that position. There's maybe - maybe one safety that could be helpful, but he's not a slam dunk. The Packers signed the best UFA offensive tackle out there.

I will disagree on the cost of picking up a restricted free agent - if you're looking to add at tackle, why spend the 23 pick on someone who might make a difference after a year or so of being coached up when you can spend it on a Bushrod or someone who's proven they can play at an NFL level? I know people don't like to lose draft picks, but I think if you know you have a need and there's a remedy to that need, you get the remedy.

All of which is not to say that I'm convinced that's the play to make - I just think it's worth considering depending on the need.

---

Of all the year people could rag on Thompson and his FA strategy, this isn't one of them. We're close to being contenders and one or two pieces could be all it takes to put us over the top, but those pieces are not available in this year's free agency. Not unless you want to overspend on a RFA and ship some team a 2nd rounder.

Fans feel left out because Thompson isn't a big player in FA yet I hear on the NFL Channel Lombardi saying the teams winning in FA so far are the ones that haven't paid.

VERY SELDOM does FA work from the standpoint of one or two guys that puts a team over the top. It worked with Reggie and in the same segment I spoke of above they talked about that very issue.

Most teams that get heavy into FA are DESPERATE teams. I pegged the Bears do to exactly what they did because they sold out on the draft and aren't very good and there are guys trying to save their butts.

So teams in that position force the cost up in FA and teams less desperate teams have to decide if they want to wade into that aligator pond or not. Look whose been the big players so far. Teams like the Bears and Detroit.

I think this will be a big draft for Thompson and can see a strong 45 on the game day roster when the season kicks off. Our D has a year under it's belt and there are several guys poised to perform at a higher level than a year ago having gained more experience.

The plan works for me.

---

There is a difference between going into free agency and taking a risk there than starting a former first-round pick at QB and hiring Mike McCarthy.

I of course am talking strictly free agency. Woodson is the only one and that was four years ago. Most of Thompson's signings have been safe. Chiller was a safe deal as was Ryan Pickett's. Even Marquand Manuel was a relatively cheap contract.

---

So what do you want him to do?

Take risky deals or take deals that work out?

He could have signed Pickett and Chillar at the start of free agency to 'risky' high priced contracts. They would have then been seen as 'aggressive' moves that 'paid off'. The fact he got them for good value just shows he knows what he's doing.

A GM shouldnt be judged on how many risky moves he makes but on how many of the moves he makes are successful.

Al Davis and Daniel Snyder make risky moves in free agency and they are morons.

How many blockbuster 'risky'free agents have been signed in the league since Ted Thompson was Packers GM and gone on to live up to the hype?

---

Taking a shot at Bushrod or Gaither this year. Maybe take a look at Khalif Barnes or Jon Stinchcomb last year.

Now, not all of them are realistic, but just try to make a move ot finish the team.

In the end, you're not going to push a team over the top by signing role players like Chillar. Signing guys like Woodson obviously does. When a team is as close to finished as we are now, you need to sign a good FA or two to really put the team over the top. If we could get a steal at T in the draft, get a safety in the 2nd round and sign a "risky" FA like Porter, we could be going far this year.

How many 'risky' free agents did the Steelers sign before their last two superbowls or the Colts before theirs?

(I actually don't know, they may have gone on a spending spree back then, although I suspect not).

The idea that a team 'must' sign a risky free agent to win a superbowl is nothing more than an opinion based, I suspect, more on a fans desire to see big names, rather than evidence.

If anything risky free agents condemn a team to mediocrity rather then lead to superbowl wins.

---

I honestly wouldn't be shocked to see a trade this offseason - odd as that sounds, the uncapped year and associated retention of guys who would otherwise be UFA seems to have opened up the trade routes a little. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Thompson had at least talked to teams like the Saints, just to see what they'd take for a Bushrod (or if they think he's the future, a Jammal Brown) - being tendered second round doesn't mean they wouldn't take something lower.

Beyond that, I'm with Porky and Rockmolder - not to say Thompson sucks because he doesn't make bigger moves in FA, but there are times that it at least appears he's not exhausting all possible avenues when improving the team. Dude's done a damn good job so far, with the glaring exception of the offensive line - why not recognize that you haven't drafted terribly well at that position and try something different?

Believe me - overall, I'm not one of those fans who cries his way through the early offseason yelling "Why didn't Ted pick up Peppers and T.O.?!" I'm quite glad we don't have to deal with that crap (and my Bears fan friends aren't even a little convinced all those signings will help, for the record). It's the almost total lack of any activity that bothers me a little - especially when you have to think a tackle-heavy team like the Saints would be willing to talk.

**Edited to add: On the specific topic of Porter, I don't know what folks are smoking - if you're going to take on "risk", there'd better be production to match it, and dude hasn't produced like that in years. IMO, Porter would be a weak play. Switch Rock's scenario to drafting a rush LB and working a trade for someone like Bushrod and I think he's got a point. Trying to draft the LT and picking up Porter seems like a poor play to me.

---