I just don't buy the "there's never been anyone who isn't too expensive" argument.

I learned my lesson in this regard when the Packers signed Reggie White. I had opined at great length about how the Packers could not afford the ridiculous money that White was going to demand. Yet Wolf and Holmgren pulled it off.

And, yes, I know, Reggie White's salary was chump change compared to what free agents today pull in. But heck, it's chump change compared to what high draft choices, who have never played a down in the league, get. Are we saying that if the Packers were to draft #5, as they did just a few years ago (when we needed OL help), that the Packers "couldn't afford" to draft in the #5 slot?

Do people really want to argue that there have been no quality OL available in free agency during the Daryn Colledge/Jason Spitz era?

As Foster says, if you put all your eggs in the draft basket, you have to be a Hall of Fame drafter. Being a "good" drafter isn't enough. You have to be Hall of Fame quality.

I've been wrong on many free agents I wanted -- Alan Faneca, for example. But the fact that a lot of free agents don't pan out is not an argument against using free agency. Just because Dan Snyder is a moron, just because fans don't know what they are talking about for this or that individual player, doesn't mean you should minimize in general a key source of potential personnel.

Not unless you are out-of-this world good at the other ways.

---

Why do so many people feel the Packers need "that one guy" or that great FA to "put us over the top?"

I know it happened for us with Reggie but I see teams winning SB's and see the top say 4 teams left every year and they didn't ALWAYS get some guy that put them over the top.

It's supposed to be a dogfight in the NFC with us, The Boys, and, Saints. What player did either of those teams go out and get that puts them over the top?

I see this more like the Pats when they were winning everything. Strong top to bottom, deep, and holding on to all the key players. In fact, it was when they started going after some top FA's that they started to not be as good as they had been.

There are rare times when a team is already loaded (Packers/Reggie, Vikes/Favre) but it takes already being loaded and deep and an extrordinary IMPACT player.

Sorry, but I haven't seen anybody available that was so good that they would greatly change the dynamics of the team on either side of the ball. One of the reasons why we are picked so high is this team already has more impact type players than most anybody eles.

---

Because we don't hear about the Packers going after free agents, that means, they aren't? Interesting theory.

We know the Packers go after free agents. They do not go aggressively in the first week of free agency, which is very wise no matter how look at it. How many free agent signings have really panned out? Oh, you want to throw that out? That's not a wise decision. You don't learn how to improve your future by ignoring the past.

There's players I think we should go after more strongly and yes overpay a little. However, there's teams out there that overpay a LOT to get that talent and that's foolish.

People continue to say we should land a free agent, we should be bringing guys in! But yet where are the names, where is the proof they were available to the Packers? We gonna make another list of players who weren't truly available in free agency?

The method the Packers are using have made us a contender and also landed what appears to be another franchise QB. Ask the Lions, Vikings, Bears, Browns, 49ers, etc if they'd like a GM that could get them a franchise QB and solid roster that provides a chance to win anytime they are on the field.

---

Obviously Reggie White brought the Lombardi trophy home but he was hardly the one free agent that put us over the top. He was signed in 1993 and we didn't win until 1996. Impact players added after him include Levens, Dotson, Freeman, Aaron Taylor, Timmerman, William Henderson...

In football one player just can't make that much difference. There has to be building over a number of years. Yes, perhaps Ted could use free agency a little more, but right now with as good of a young team that we have, I'm not complaining.

---

Tell that to the Favre fellators. To hear them tell the tale, he's a lean, mean, one-man ring-winning machine.

---

I think the point of all the "love" threads coming from various football minds pretty much sums up the fact Ted Thompson has put a very talented team together. Good enough in many's opinion to win the whole deal.

Rodgers may go down as the best first pick for a team as GM ever along with other All-Pro calibers like Collins, Jennings, Mathews, and this year more than likely Finley. Heck, the guy before him couldn't even draft a dang starter let alone an All-Pro caliber player.

I mean think about it. He brought in Woodson and drafted Rodgers who are two of the very best football players in the NFL. It's not a question of whether or not he can or will bring in excellent players as it is picking and choosing who and when that happens.

Hell, ever knowledgeble fan for other clubs out there no matter how good they are will all say they could use one or two key FA's. Then again, I see teams that do land some of these guys and people jump on their bandwagon at the beginning of the year and they end up not doing squat.

Ted's done his job. It's up to McCarthy now. It's that simple.

---

I'm calling this year's Jets as that team.

---

I want a GM that cares more about winning in the post season, rather than the off season. I don't need the sexy free agent signings to be happy. I need playoff wins. Right now, we've got one with Ted. We'll get three more this year.

---

Nor was Reggie the only significant part of the Super Bowl teams that came via something other than the draft.

The biggest difference in the Thompson approach to player personnel is his approach to free agency. I've never claimed (or intended to claim, anyway) that he eschewed free agency entirely. One only need point to Pickett and WOodson to see that he does play in the waters. But he does not play with the same attention Ron Wolf did or that others do.

Thompson is a bargain hunter. Fine. I get that. He wants to make sure he doesn't overpay. Fine. I get that. He doesn't want to take the kinds of risks that come with "big" or "semi-big" signings very often (if at all). Fine. I get that, too.

But building through the draft comes with major risks, too. Different kinds of risks. Instead of risking getting someone whose best years are behind him (free agency), you're risking getting someone who never has good years (draft). Instead of risking experienced players whose bodies may be about to break (free agency), you risk inexperienced players who may be injury prone or blow out a knee on the first day of season. Instead of risking mercenary head cases who will dog it after they've got their mega signing bonus, you risk developmental players that don't show any signs of value until their contract year and then sign as free agents with someone else.

Player acquisition and development is a world where you cannot succeed without taking major risks along the way.

If I had 100 million to invest in risky assets, I expect I'd tend to favor a particular investment strategy. But I'd also diversify. I might put a lot of dough in oil/gas/strategic minerals, but I wouldn't put my entire portfolio there. I'd also put a big chunk in companies that will be investing in senior health care. And I'd put chunks in Chinese/South Asian/Southeast Asia.
I'd do it because I know, even though all those have some big risks, they aren't well-correlated risks. I diversify, and I limit my exposure.

I might still lose big. But I've insured myself against some loss.

On the other hand, I could invest 90 percent of my 100 million to start a small school that sells education a new way, the way I think is the way of the future. I can still win big (assuming I'm right); but I've got a lot bigger margin of error. I have to roll a lot of sevens in a row. I have to be not just good, I have to be near on perfect.

I haven't run the numbers -- I'm a fan, after all, not a pro personnel expert -- but my read of Ted's free agency record is closer to the second story than it is to the first.

My concern with him has never been that he considers the draft the most important leg in the player personnel stool. It's that he seems to put 90 percent of his effort into that leg. That he's trying very hard to acquire cabinet-quality oak and teak via the draft, but that he's only going to bid seriously for that oak and teak at garage sales and sheriff's auctions.

It's a legitimate investment approach. But it's about as risky as putting your kid's college funds in penny stocks.

People liked to talk about Favre as a "riverboat gambler" type during his Packer tenure. (Some still do, but who cares about what Viking quarterbacks are. 🙂 ) But compared to Thompson, Favre may be a little old lady playing the slots.

---

---