I used to like Ted, but I have grown to despise him... Naw, just kidding. I never had a problem with him and have always like his big picture, dynastic approach. Kind of a blend of the Steelers and Jimmy Johnson's cowboys.

I don't watch him for entertainment. That is what I have you guys for.

I don't give a rip about his personality either way because we are not winning or losing games because or in-spite of it. It is a total non factor for me.

---

Rick Spielman may be up there too...

and the Bears got Tim Ruskell :pukeright:

---

Here is an article in Thursday, August 5, 2010 Green Bay Press-Gazette by PG sports editor Mike Vandermause entitled "GM takes pressure in Stride


http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100804/PKR07/100804146/Mike-Vandermause-column-GM-Thompson-takes-pressure-in-stride 

Because the Packers defense need to generate a pass rush from someone other than Clay Matthews, and seeing as how Jones is designated as the OLB opposite Clay, we are hoping Jones can perform @ a high level.

I read recently that Chillar is being moved to OLB while Jones is injured which could lead to more playing time for Bishop @ ILB

---

One opportunity he misseed is not pulling the trigger on the Moss trade. Had we had Moss I see no way the Giants would have beaten us. It would have opened up our running and short passing game. I believe it cost us a Lombardi Trophy. Hopefully he learned from that.

---

The Raiders did not give the Packers an opportunity to match or sweeten the Patriots offer, therefore the Packers had no chance.

The Packers made an offer, the Raiders were considering it, then the Patriots came in with a better offer and the Raiders had to take it or leave it. They could have risked the Packers backing out, then the Patriots retracking their offer and being stuck with Moss then having to cut him.

The Raiders simply got a better offer and didn't want to mess around and took it right away.

And Moss would not have made a difference. Our WR were hardly the problem in '07.

---

The change of scheme takes 2 years. This is year 2. It will be better. (Sack totals, etc)

---

The Patriots got him for a 4th round , we could have done the same thing. Oakland would have taken our trade because it was a higher pick. Favre wanted Moss, Moss was willing to play in GB because of Favre. Favre has allluded to his being disappointed that trade wasn't made. All we were risking, player wise, was a 4th pick, that's a good reward to risk ratio. Moss was no problem in Oakland other than saying he wanted to be traded, pretty understandable. If he did become a problem here, boot him, so we lose a number 4 pick.

---

Willing, yes. Of course he was. There weren't all that many teams in the market for him, and he wanted to play somewhere. Based on snide comments he made after the trade went down, however, I don't get the impression he was all that eager to play in Green Bay, Favre or no Favre. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if he had discussions with Green Bay mainly to drive up bidding for his services. He ended up in New England, which is, I'm guessing, exactly where he wanted to go in the first place. Playing in New England offered him the chance to return to the superstar status he had experienced in Minnesota, which wasn't as likely to happen in Green Bay.

I don't think our failure to acquire him had any substantive effect on our season.

---

Hardly the problem, yes.

But Moss still would've made the team better. As good as Jennings and Driver were, what about Moss, Jennings, and then Driver?

Not to mention the defense was making plays left and right.

Put Moss on the 2007 Packers, and I'm sure the Patriots would not have gone undefeated, and Tom Brady wouldn't throw 50 TD's. In fact, Favre probably wouldn't have finished 2nd in MVP voting and a 2nd Super Bowl ring.

I know anything can happen in the NFL, but I'm 100% positive that would be the result. Favre + Moss would generate more NFL hype than Brady + Moss.

---