Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
11 Pages«<23456>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline cheeseheads123  
#76 Posted : Monday, July 14, 2014 8:11:38 AM(UTC)
cheeseheads123

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 72
Applause Received: 117

How come people are so quick to use San Fran and Seattle as the business model? Besides being loud and obnoxious, what have they done recently that the Packers haven't? The 49ers repeatedly come up short just like the Packers, but at least the Packers won a Superbowl recently. Yes, Seattle won it all last year, but so what? They could easily travel the same path as the Packers or even worse after winning their first championship. At least let them win a one or two more before crowning them kings and making them the business model.
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 2 applause.
Yerko on 7/14/2014(UTC), DoddPower on 7/14/2014(UTC)
Offline sschind  
#77 Posted : Monday, July 14, 2014 8:31:05 AM(UTC)
sschind

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: SE WISCONSIN

Applause Given: 123
Applause Received: 450

Originally Posted by: cheeseheads123 Go to Quoted Post
How come people are so quick to use San Fran and Seattle as the business model? Besides being loud and obnoxious, what have they done recently that the Packers haven't? The 49ers repeatedly come up short just like the Packers, but at least the Packers won a Superbowl recently. Yes, Seattle won it all last year, but so what? They could easily travel the same path as the Packers or even worse after winning their first championship. At least let them win a one or two more before crowning them kings and making them the business model.


People are quick to use them as the business model because A) the 49ers have had the Packers number of late. 2) the Seahawks won it all last year and lastly they are viewed as the top two teams in the NFC. All of which may be true but that does not mean it will remain true in 2014.

I usually hate the what if game but what would happen if Packers won the SB this season and defeated the Seahawks and 49ers in the process? I'll tell you what would happen. People would be looking at the Packers as the business model and the Seahawks and 49ers would be relegated to the better try harder next season column.
I respect your right to have your opinion but that doesn't mean I agree with it or respect you for having it.
Offline DoddPower  
#78 Posted : Monday, July 14, 2014 12:47:48 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,093
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
I don't disagree with your point, but why even respond and fuel the fire then? It's like saying Bears are mean animals and then going up to one, poking it and then complain that it chased after you.

If someone says something "dumbass"-like, ignore it and move on. Why is this so difficult for us to do?


That's a good point. As I referenced in another post, we aren't perfect. Sometimes the fingers just get the best of us. But most of us learn how certain posters are and just let them do their thing. It's not worth the annoying headache, for sure (although not that I think about it for one second longer than I spend on this forum). But when it's littered across multiple topics, it gets harder to ignore. But I'm getting better and better at scrolling right over certain posters comments. For the most part, I can predict what they are going to say before they even say it, anyway.
Offline porky88  
#79 Posted : Monday, July 14, 2014 3:14:07 PM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: Pro Bowl

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 194
Applause Received: 409

I cannot believe that we’re still debating Ted Thompson after four division titles, six playoff appearances, and a record (including playoffs) of 92-62-1. And there’s this little thing called the Super Bowl that the team won in 2010. Ted Thompson should and will stay as long as he likes.

As for the makeup of the current teams, I feel good. I guess I’m in the minority. I don’t know. It appears there’s worry here. I did not like the team last year. Maybe it was my Spidey Sense (if I have one) that told me to be pessimistic. I had the Packers going 9-7 in my NFL preview that year.

For whatever it’s worth, I have the Pack going 12-4. Frankly, I could see 13 or 14 wins. People are all on Seattle and San Francisco, but I think Green Bay and New Orleans are going to remind everybody that those are the two NFC teams with the best quarterbacks in the conference. I’m more concerned about whether the team can remain healthy. If they do, then they are Super Bowl contenders.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 7/14/2014(UTC)
Offline uffda udfa  
#80 Posted : Monday, July 14, 2014 3:25:04 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 149
Applause Received: 150

Originally Posted by: cheeseheads123 Go to Quoted Post
How come people are so quick to use San Fran and Seattle as the business model? Besides being loud and obnoxious, what have they done recently that the Packers haven't? The 49ers repeatedly come up short just like the Packers, but at least the Packers won a Superbowl recently. Yes, Seattle won it all last year, but so what? They could easily travel the same path as the Packers or even worse after winning their first championship. At least let them win a one or two more before crowning them kings and making them the business model.


I didn't say Seattle of SF were the model...I used them in relation to us not being the model a team needs to follow. It seems many assume the slow go Ted Thompson approach is correct. It did win one SB. It has won very little eles outside of division championships.

SF and Seattle have gone for it the past couple of seasons. SF was in the bowl and not for a terrible non call on Crabtree probably wins it two years ago, and Seattle blew up Denver to win it last year. SF got to the NFC Championship in back to back seasons. Green Bay has been, outside of winning a game against Joe Webb and the Vikes, a one and done org with Ted Thompson save for our one run. The "chance" we have to win isn't very good when you routinely go out in Round 1. I'd rather be a team like SF who gets to NFC Championship games and SB's or a Seattle who wins one. They don't take our approach and most would tell you they're the class of the NFL, not Green bay. Joe Montana thinks Seattle is a dynasty in the making and Aaron Rodgers has fawned all over the prowess of the Seattle D model.

Do you truly believe Aaron Rodgers is happy he's stuck in the Ted Thompson model vs. what he could be in with SF or SEA? I'd say you're out of your mind if a competitor like him is happy being restrained as our org is.

The question is pretty simple beyond all you want to talk to around the central issue... Does Green Bay go for it IE: trying to win SB's like SF or SEA? Nope. They don't. Packer way is to "have a chance" and we do... a very good chance of being one and done again and again and having a D that is not good enough and not enough studs for Aaron on O.

How many years would you like to "have a chance" of really not having a very good chance of winning another one? Tick, tick, tick on Aaron's career.

UserPostedImage

It's one heckuva drug.
Offline uffda udfa  
#81 Posted : Monday, July 14, 2014 3:28:15 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 149
Applause Received: 150

Originally Posted by: porky88 Go to Quoted Post
I cannot believe that we’re still debating Ted Thompson after four division titles, six playoff appearances, and a record (including playoffs) of 92-62-1. And there’s this little thing called the Super Bowl that the team won in 2010. Ted Thompson should and will stay as long as he likes.

As for the makeup of the current teams, I feel good. I guess I’m in the minority. I don’t know. It appears there’s worry here. I did not like the team last year. Maybe it was my Spidey Sense (if I have one) that told me to be pessimistic. I had the Packers going 9-7 in my NFL preview that year.

For whatever it’s worth, I have the Pack going 12-4. Frankly, I could see 13 or 14 wins. People are all on Seattle and San Francisco, but I think Green Bay and New Orleans are going to remind everybody that those are the two NFC teams with the best quarterbacks in the conference. I’m more concerned about whether the team can remain healthy. If they do, then they are Super Bowl contenders.


Your entire post can be countered with: Mike Sherman had a better winning % as GM than Ted Thompson has now. Did you want him to stay on as GM. I didn't. I don't on Ted Thompson despite his almost better winning % than Mike Sherman.


UserPostedImage

It's one heckuva drug.
Offline beast  
#82 Posted : Monday, July 14, 2014 4:35:46 PM(UTC)
beast

Rank: Pro Bowl

Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 259
Applause Received: 320

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
Your entire post can be countered with: Mike Sherman had a better winning % as GM than Ted Thompson has now. Did you want him to stay on as GM. I didn't. I don't on Ted Thompson despite his almost better winning % than Mike Sherman.



Which is very misleading... which is why you can't fairly look at it that way. It takes two or more (they say it takes 3 years to judge a draft class)... but Sherman's GM winning % is more because of Wolf as GM players than Sherman's... giving undue credit there... to Sherman when it was Wolf's players.

And Thompson GM years had a couple of bad years to start out because of the bad job Sherman did as GM of keeping players... GM's aren't able to change things right away... so the whole Sherman has a better winning % as GM is redherring bull...


America's team Of the people by the people for the people Packer People
UserPostedImage
~ madeby ~ pack93z ~
thanks Post received 1 applause.
porky88 on 7/14/2014(UTC)
Offline porky88  
#83 Posted : Monday, July 14, 2014 5:31:27 PM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: Pro Bowl

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 194
Applause Received: 409

Originally Posted by: beast Go to Quoted Post
Which is very misleading... which is why you can't fairly look at it that way. It takes two or more (they say it takes 3 years to judge a draft class)... but Sherman's GM winning % is more because of Wolf as GM players than Sherman's... giving undue credit there... to Sherman when it was Wolf's players.

And Thompson GM years had a couple of bad years to start out because of the bad job Sherman did as GM of keeping players... GM's aren't able to change things right away... so the whole Sherman has a better winning % as GM is redherring bull...

To get into some of the specifics as to what you're eluding to...

Ron Wolf built the offensive line, which was the foundation of the Mike Sherman Era. Wolf drafted Chad Clifton, Mark Tauscher, Marco Rivera, Mike Wahle, and Mike Flanagan. Wolf traded for Brett Favre and Ahman Green. He drafted Donald Driver and Bubba Franks. That pretty much sums up the offense during Mike Sherman’s tenure as general manager. Defensively, Wolf drafted Darren Sharper and KGB, who were the two most productive defensive players in that time.

Speaking of Wolf, he was GM for nine seasons in Green Bay and the Packers were 92-52. Thompson just finished his ninth season with 86 regular-season wins. Each won one Super Bowl. Does anybody think it was a good thing for Wolf to step down when he did?
thanks Post received 2 applause.
DoddPower on 7/14/2014(UTC), beast on 7/15/2014(UTC)
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#84 Posted : Monday, July 14, 2014 6:48:11 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: sschind Go to Quoted Post
People are quick to use them as the business model because A) the 49ers have had the Packers number of late. 2) the Seahawks won it all last year and lastly they are viewed as the top two teams in the NFC. All of which may be true but that does not mean it will remain true in 2014.

I usually hate the what if game but what would happen if Packers won the SB this season and defeated the Seahawks and 49ers in the process? I'll tell you what would happen. People would be looking at the Packers as the business model and the Seahawks and 49ers would be relegated to the better try harder next season column.


They have not really had the Packers number of late. The last game was won by a FG after a dropped INT that would have sealed it.

With half the D injured.

The 49ers have edged the Packers lately. They have not owned them or dominated them. The Packers actually had 4th quarter leads in the last 2 games.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 7/14/2014(UTC)
Offline sschind  
#85 Posted : Tuesday, July 15, 2014 8:11:28 AM(UTC)
sschind

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: SE WISCONSIN

Applause Given: 123
Applause Received: 450

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
They have not really had the Packers number of late. The last game was won by a FG after a dropped INT that would have sealed it.

With half the D injured.

The 49ers have edged the Packers lately. They have not owned them or dominated them. The Packers actually had 4th quarter leads in the last 2 games.


I agree with all your excuses but to me it comes down to the fact that the last 4 games were 4 losses for the Packers. Were they close? Sure. Have the Packers had chances to win a few of them? Yes. Did they? No. To me that means San Fran has their number. To you it doesn't. So be it. Eventually (hopefully starting in 2014) it will swing the other way for a while. That's the way it goes. It's not a big deal unless you are one of those who like to rub it in to other fans that we beat them x number of times in a row and are afraid to admit it when your team goes on a losing streak against a particular team.

I respect your right to have your opinion but that doesn't mean I agree with it or respect you for having it.
thanks Post received 2 applause.
DoddPower on 7/15/2014(UTC), uffda udfa on 7/15/2014(UTC)
Offline Pack93z  
#86 Posted : Tuesday, July 15, 2014 9:29:02 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 399
Applause Received: 1,078

To the OP.. hell yes. Next question. Big Grin
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 7/15/2014(UTC)
Offline uffda udfa  
#87 Posted : Tuesday, July 15, 2014 10:56:20 AM(UTC)
uffda udfa

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 149
Applause Received: 150

Originally Posted by: porky88 Go to Quoted Post
To get into some of the specifics as to what you're eluding to...

Ron Wolf built the offensive line, which was the foundation of the Mike Sherman Era. Wolf drafted Chad Clifton, Mark Tauscher, Marco Rivera, Mike Wahle, and Mike Flanagan. Wolf traded for Brett Favre and Ahman Green. He drafted Donald Driver and Bubba Franks. That pretty much sums up the offense during Mike Sherman’s tenure as general manager. Defensively, Wolf drafted Darren Sharper and KGB, who were the two most productive defensive players in that time.

Speaking of Wolf, he was GM for nine seasons in Green Bay and the Packers were 92-52. Thompson just finished his ninth season with 86 regular-season wins. Each won one Super Bowl. Does anybody think it was a good thing for Wolf to step down when he did?


I went over this... Where were the Packers 3 years after Sherman was fired as GM? In an NFC Championship game they lost by a FG in OT. So, who is responsible for the team that was on the field that day? It can't be Ted Thompson if it takes 3 years blah, blah, blah...it would be Mike Sherman's team on the field as he left 3 years before that game. Ted Thompson would not get credit for it under your formula of waiting 3 years to judge. Sherman gets the credit for that NFC Championship appearance under your scenario. So, with Ted's team, we had one magical SB run, which was no doubt glorious, and one win vs. a Joe Webb Viking led team in the playoffs. We've made the playoffs that many times with TT's team and have gone one and done way too often. Our team obviously doesn't have a very good chance if the majority of it's playoff appearances ended in one and done. Being one and done is a major failure...one that should be unacceptable. When the same team ends your season, twice in a row, when you have the better QB is even more of a failure.

No way on this earth I extend Ted Thompson until after this season... if we bow out in Round 1...or don't make the playoffs it's time for both Mike McCarthy and Ted Thompson to go. 4 straight years of playoff failure is not good enough.

Tom Brady has 4 SuperBowl appearances and SIX AFC Championship appearances.

I think many of us feel Aaron is Brady's equal if not superior in terms of talent. Clearly, our TEAM isn't very good around Aaron or he'd be wracking up the kind of numbers Brady has in the post season. Aaron has ONE NFC Championship appearance as a starter under TT. Brady has SIX. Brady was a 3 time SB winner before he was 28. Aaron is 30 now and has but one appearance in a SB or Conference championship as a starter. Again, Brady 4 Rodgers 1 in SB's. Brady 6 Rodgers 1 in championship game appearances.

Meanwhile, I believe many Packers fans have overestimated our "greatness" one Conference championship vs. 6 of Tom Brady. Further, Colin Kaepernick has been to 2 NFC championships in back to back years...already more than Aaron Rodgers. How you think we should stick with this plan we're on is baffling to me...Aaron's career will be over soon and we'll all get to talk about one SB like we did with Brett. Spare me the talk about how tough it is to get to the SB. Brady has been there 4 times... Big Ben has been there several times. Rodgers...ONCE. Not good enough...not even close. Ted Thompson has failed with the greatest passer of all time to give him a team to get to 2nd SB much less get out of the first freaking round. How you're content and happy with this stuff is mindboggling. Again, NFC Championship appearances as a starter... Kaepernick 2 Rodgers 1.

Message modified by user Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:49:07 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

UserPostedImage

It's one heckuva drug.
Offline Pack93z  
#88 Posted : Tuesday, July 15, 2014 11:58:04 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 399
Applause Received: 1,078

Here is what I would like to see happen in Green Bay over the next ~ 5 - 7 years.

Being the Thompson is only 61 years old.. have him man the ship for at least 5 more years.

Continue the maturation of Eliot Wolf with him taking the reigns after Thompson's departure. Eliot is currently 31 years old and been scouting players since 14, set the table up with a strong staff around him and let him assume control.

Wolf to Thompson and back to a Wolf. Stability and philosophy developed over generations of leadership.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Zero2Cool on 7/15/2014(UTC)
Offline uffda udfa  
#89 Posted : Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:44:44 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 149
Applause Received: 150

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
Here is what I would like to see happen in Green Bay over the next ~ 5 - 7 years.

Being the Thompson is only 61 years old.. have him man the ship for at least 5 more years.

Continue the maturation of Eliot Wolf with him taking the reigns after Thompson's departure. Eliot is currently 31 years old and been scouting players since 14, set the table up with a strong staff around him and let him assume control.

Wolf to Thompson and back to a Wolf. Stability and philosophy developed over generations of leadership.


Do we know what Eliot Wolf's philosophy is? It may not be anything like TT's or his father's.

I'll take the potential instability a non Wolf can bring us if it can bring us to one more ring before Aaron hangs'em up which is one more than I think we'll see for the rest of the time Ted Thompson is around.

EDIT: I'm going to guess the answer to the question...Is the Ted Thompson era considered successful to you regardless of what happens this year and next...is YES. Just because of one SB win, Ted Thompson has immunity from the majority of fans. Vince Lombardi would laugh at that. Winning one SB in all his years and never getting close to another would have to be considered a failure by Vince. Why the fans of the Green Bay Packers would ever be content with anything but "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" is something I truly do not understand. Good is settled for way too easily. I don't want the Packers to be good for the next "x" years, I want them to win a SB and that will require more than just being good. The TEAM has to be great not just it's QB.

Message modified by user Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:54:58 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

UserPostedImage

It's one heckuva drug.
Offline Pack93z  
#90 Posted : Tuesday, July 15, 2014 1:32:04 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 399
Applause Received: 1,078

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
Do we know what Eliot Wolf's philosophy is? It may not be anything like TT's or his father's.

I'll take the potential instability a non Wolf can bring us if it can bring us to one more ring before Aaron hangs'em up which is one more than I think we'll see for the rest of the time Ted Thompson is around.


And you are basing this on what exactly? Have we made the playoffs the last 5 years winning it once in that span. That winning season was exception when looking at how many injuries that team overcame. The last couple season, one can argue we have been just as injury plagued.

Do I know Eliot's philosophy? No.. but I know this that he had been part of Thompson's staff and has continued to rise through it. I would hedge my money towards him following along with the likes of Schneider and Dorsey.. and if that is the case, you see much of the same philosophy as the elder Wolf and Thompson at play. Look at the growth of those teams under current leadership.. I am cool with anything similar.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post

EDIT: I'm going to guess the answer to the question...Is the Ted Thompson era considered successful to you regardless of what happens this year and next...is YES. Just because of one SB win, Ted Thompson has immunity from the majority of fans. Vince Lombardi would laugh at that. Winning one SB in all his years and never getting close to another would have to be considered a failure by Vince. Why the fans of the Green Bay Packers would ever be content with anything but "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" is something I truly do not understand. Good is settled for way too easily. I don't want the Packers to be good for the next "x" years, I want them to win a SB and that will require more than just being good. The TEAM has to be great not just it's QB.


I don't give him immunity whatsoever, but I think year in and out he assembles one of the deepest rosters in the NFL, manages the cap very well and other than his lack of information.. very competent at his craft.

If anything, I would argue that Mike McCarthy and his reluctantly refusal to cut dead weight in his staff being more of a downfall of this team than or composition of roster year in and out. How long does one have to see Campen fail to build a solid NFL does it take.. now he has gotten directly involved last season. This year.. it is the defense.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 7/15/2014(UTC)
Offline cheeseheads123  
#91 Posted : Tuesday, July 15, 2014 2:02:37 PM(UTC)
cheeseheads123

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 72
Applause Received: 117

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post


No way on this earth I extend Ted Thompson until after this season... if we bow out in Round 1...or don't make the playoffs it's time for both Mike McCarthy and Ted Thompson to go. 4 straight years of playoff failure is not good enough.

Tom Brady has 4 SuperBowl appearances and SIX AFC Championship appearances.

I think many of us feel Aaron is Brady's equal if not superior in terms of talent. Clearly, our TEAM isn't very good around Aaron or he'd be wracking up the kind of numbers Brady has in the post season. Aaron has ONE NFC Championship appearance as a starter under TT. Brady has SIX. Brady was a 3 time SB winner before he was 28. Aaron is 30 now and has but one appearance in a SB or Conference championship as a starter. Again, Brady 4 Rodgers 1 in SB's. Brady 6 Rodgers 1 in championship game appearances.

Meanwhile, I believe many Packers fans have overestimated our "greatness" one Conference championship vs. 6 of Tom Brady. Further, Colin Kaepernick has been to 2 NFC championships in back to back years...already more than Aaron Rodgers. How you think we should stick with this plan we're on is baffling to me...Aaron's career will be over soon and we'll all get to talk about one SB like we did with Brett. Spare me the talk about how tough it is to get to the SB. Brady has been there 4 times... Big Ben has been there several times. Rodgers...ONCE. Not good enough...not even close. Ted Thompson has failed with the greatest passer of all time to give him a team to get to 2nd SB much less get out of the first freaking round. How you're content and happy with this stuff is mindboggling. Again, NFC Championship appearances as a starter... Kaepernick 2 Rodgers 1.


Put the Packers in the AFC. Problem solved.

UserPostedImage
Offline DoddPower  
#92 Posted : Tuesday, July 15, 2014 2:05:39 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,093
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post
If anything, I would argue that Mike McCarthy and his reluctantly refusal to cut dead weight in his staff being more of a downfall of this team than or composition of roster year in and out. How long does one have to see Campen fail to build a solid NFL does it take.. now he has gotten directly involved last season. This year.. it is the defense.


This. I certainly place more blame on McCarthy, Dom Capers, Campen, and a few others than Ted Thompson. That's not to say he has "immunity," which is a silly hyperbolic thing to say anyway, but I think those guys are simply more to blame than Ted Thompson. If the Packers could somehow find a way to stay relatively healthy, they have a realistic chance to beat any team in the league. For the most part, Thompson is doing a pretty damn good job. He could definitely do better. But if the injury bug cuts the Packers a break, things quickly start looking a lot different. If Bulaga and Sherrod can stay healthy and compete, the Packers offensive line looks a lot different. If Finley wouldn't have suffered what appears to be a career ending injury, the tight end group looks pretty good. If Clay Mathews, Nick Perry, Mike Neal, Casey Hayward, Datone Jones, Mike Daniels, and others stayed relatively healthy collectively, I am confident the defense would be much better. I'm sure they would have been better over the past several years if Nick Collins wasn't lost. For the most part, a team can only suffer so many injuries and remain competitive. There are always exceptions, but they are just that: exceptions to the norm. Thompson usually assembles a nice talent base, they just need to stay healthy. Someone out there could probably do better, but one thing's for certain, there are MANY others that would do much worse.
Offline porky88  
#93 Posted : Tuesday, July 15, 2014 3:18:13 PM(UTC)
porky88

Rank: Pro Bowl

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 194
Applause Received: 409

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
I went over this... Where were the Packers 3 years after Sherman was fired as GM? In an NFC Championship game they lost by a FG in OT. So, who is responsible for the team that was on the field that day? It can't be Ted Thompson if it takes 3 years blah, blah, blah...it would be Mike Sherman's team on the field as he left 3 years before that game. Ted Thompson would not get credit for it under your formula of waiting 3 years to judge. Sherman gets the credit for that NFC Championship appearance under your scenario. So, with Ted's team, we had one magical SB run, which was no doubt glorious, and one win vs. a Joe Webb Viking led team in the playoffs. We've made the playoffs that many times with TT's team and have gone one and done way too often. Our team obviously doesn't have a very good chance if the majority of it's playoff appearances ended in one and done. Being one and done is a major failure...one that should be unacceptable. When the same team ends your season, twice in a row, when you have the better QB is even more of a failure.

No way on this earth I extend Ted Thompson until after this season... if we bow out in Round 1...or don't make the playoffs it's time for both Mike McCarthy and Ted Thompson to go. 4 straight years of playoff failure is not good enough.

Tom Brady has 4 SuperBowl appearances and SIX AFC Championship appearances.

I think many of us feel Aaron is Brady's equal if not superior in terms of talent. Clearly, our TEAM isn't very good around Aaron or he'd be wracking up the kind of numbers Brady has in the post season. Aaron has ONE NFC Championship appearance as a starter under TT. Brady has SIX. Brady was a 3 time SB winner before he was 28. Aaron is 30 now and has but one appearance in a SB or Conference championship as a starter. Again, Brady 4 Rodgers 1 in SB's. Brady 6 Rodgers 1 in championship game appearances.

Meanwhile, I believe many Packers fans have overestimated our "greatness" one Conference championship vs. 6 of Tom Brady. Further, Colin Kaepernick has been to 2 NFC championships in back to back years...already more than Aaron Rodgers. How you think we should stick with this plan we're on is baffling to me...Aaron's career will be over soon and we'll all get to talk about one SB like we did with Brett. Spare me the talk about how tough it is to get to the SB. Brady has been there 4 times... Big Ben has been there several times. Rodgers...ONCE. Not good enough...not even close. Ted Thompson has failed with the greatest passer of all time to give him a team to get to 2nd SB much less get out of the first freaking round. How you're content and happy with this stuff is mindboggling. Again, NFC Championship appearances as a starter... Kaepernick 2 Rodgers 1.

Super Bowl wins as a starter... Rodgers 1 Kaepernick 0

Three years isn’t some sort of bulletproof philosophy. I’m pretty sure you could’ve judged Clay Matthews after year No. 2 and I’m pretty sure you can judge Eddie Lacy right now. Regardless, by 2007, many of Sherman’s draft picks flunked out of the league. They weren’t on that 2007 team or any other, so I don’t know why you’re giving him credit for that season. Thompson enacted an incredible rebuilding project. He gutted the team in his first season as general manager. This is what started the animosity between Favre and Thompson.

Ryan Grant, Greg Jennings, James Jones, Daryn Colledge, Jason Spitz, Ryan Pickett, Charles Woodson, Atari Bigby, Nick Collins, A.J. Hawk, and Brady Poppinga were all players signed, acquired, or drafted by Thompson. That’s half the starting lineup.

Sherman drafted Aaron Kampman, Nick Barnett, Corey Williams and Scott Wells. He brought in Cullen Jenkins and Al Harris. Six players in three years isn't very good.

Look at Ron Wolf, though. He drafted Donald Driver, Mark Tauscher, Chad Clifton, and Bubba Franks. He also traded for Brett Favre. KGB played a big role on that team as a pass rush specialist. Wolf drafted him as well. By ‘07, Wolf was out of the game for six years, and he still had as big as an impact on the ‘07 team as Sherman did. Thompson, of course, had the biggest.

As far as the Patriots go, they played in three Super Bowls before Thompson became Green Bay’s general manager, and before Rodgers was even in the NFL. They actually have zero Super Bowl titles since Thompson's been GM of the Packers. Brady has one Super Bowl appearance above the age of 30. Who’s to say Rodgers won’t have two or three?

Based on your logic, in the 1970s, you would’ve been clamoring for the Raiders, Cowboys, and Dolphins to blow things up because they weren’t the Steelers. The ‘90s Packers weren’t the Cowboys, but I don’t recall many people wishing away Wolf. It seems to me that your case against Thompson is that Green Bay's not winning the Super Bowl every year (or every other), so the Pack need a change at the top. That is not how the top NFL franchises operate. Who does that? Dallas (post Jimmy Johnson), Washington (Daniel Snyder Era), and Oakland (90s-present) come to mind.
thanks Post received 3 applause.
StarrMax1 on 7/15/2014(UTC), earthquake on 7/15/2014(UTC), DoddPower on 7/15/2014(UTC)
Offline DoddPower  
#94 Posted : Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:10:13 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,093
Applause Received: 530

Don't get sucked into the black hole Porky!!
thanks Post received 2 applause.
StarrMax1 on 7/15/2014(UTC), uffda udfa on 7/15/2014(UTC)
Offline Dexter_Sinister  
#95 Posted : Tuesday, July 15, 2014 5:48:08 PM(UTC)
Dexter_Sinister

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 292
Applause Received: 266

Originally Posted by: sschind Go to Quoted Post
I agree with all your excuses but to me it comes down to the fact that the last 4 games were 4 losses for the Packers. Were they close? Sure. Have the Packers had chances to win a few of them? Yes. Did they? No. To me that means San Fran has their number. To you it doesn't. So be it. Eventually (hopefully starting in 2014) it will swing the other way for a while. That's the way it goes. It's not a big deal unless you are one of those who like to rub it in to other fans that we beat them x number of times in a row and are afraid to admit it when your team goes on a losing streak against a particular team.


They edged the Packers. When the D was crippled.

I wouldn't say that makes them a better team. Don't confuse luck with talent. That would be a huge mistake.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.

Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Offline DoddPower  
#96 Posted : Tuesday, July 15, 2014 7:02:39 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,093
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister Go to Quoted Post
They edged the Packers. When the D was crippled.

I wouldn't say that makes them a better team. Don't confuse luck with talent. That would be a huge mistake.


I don't know, if I was being objective, I would have to say the better team won each of the four recent games. At least on that given Sunday, which is all that actually matters. I absolutely think the Packers can and should beat the 49'ers, but the reality is they haven't. It needs to happen. The past few seasons, the 49'ers have been better when both teams are on the same playing field. I certainly don't view their victories or all the yards they gained as "luck." It wasn't "luck" that Hyde dropped that interception. It was lack of execution on his part. Teams and players have to execute to be "good."

The Packers came close, but they still haven't won in a while. Anything beyond that is an excuse.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
uffda udfa on 7/15/2014(UTC)
Offline uffda udfa  
#97 Posted : Tuesday, July 15, 2014 8:50:18 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 149
Applause Received: 150

Originally Posted by: Pack93z Go to Quoted Post

I don't give him immunity whatsoever, but I think year in and out he assembles one of the deepest rosters in the NFL, manages the cap very well and other than his lack of information.. very competent at his craft.

If anything, I would argue that Mike McCarthy and his reluctantly refusal to cut dead weight in his staff being more of a downfall of this team than or composition of roster year in and out. How long does one have to see Campen fail to build a solid NFL does it take.. now he has gotten directly involved last season. This year.. it is the defense.


I think this is another Packer fan fallacy. "Deepest rosters"? We were 2-5-1 last year after Aaron went down...that reflects the exact opposite of depth. I think the fact we've had so much stability has masked just how poor the teams around our HOF QB's have been. Yes, we won the SB with half the world on IR but other than Finley I'm not so sure that we missed any of them. Aha, you say! I get where you might go with that. I think that speaks to our starters not being all that good in the first place and easily replaceable by backups. That isn't depth to me...it's just a bunch of mediocrity masked by a star QB. Don't I account for injuries? Sure, but there is no way to measure what impact they've had. Last year had Cobb and Matthews not gone down, I would bet we're still 2-5-1. Maybe, we win one of those 5 we lost. 3-4-1.

The Bears lose Cutler every single year. That team was pretty dynamic with a guy like McCown running the show. Too bad for them their D was worse than ours. Stafford is also a glass man... Our only advantage in our own division is our QB's have been healthy and are better even when all of them are.

Two more years of Ted. I'll bet you there isn't another playoff win during the rest of his tenure and his legacy will be hailed by the fans here for years to come. In fact, it's so highly thought of it seems most of you hope we stay the same for years after he's gone. I really don't get it.

BTW: It is hysterical to read about the Niners don't really own us? Really? We sent our D staff down to College Station to try and learn about the read option to stop Kaepernick. Our whole offseason was geared toward stopping Kaepernick and beating the Niners. Anquan Fossil Boldin went for over 200 that game and we gave up a boatload of points, again, and lost...again. We once owned SF when Young was the QB...I'm sure Niners fans thought they were really the better team but we beat them something like 9 out of 10 times. I believe it was 8 in a row at one point. I'm sure when Terrell Owens ended our chance for a 3rd straight SB appearance all the Niners fans said...See, I told you, we've been better all this time. Finally. LMAO. That is what anyone who is defending LOSING to the Niners 4 STRAIGHT and TWICE IN A ROW in the playoff is doing. It's unbecoming. We're owned until we beat them. That may be a few years off but I know some here will still be saying we're better. That Kool Aid is a heckuva drug.
UserPostedImage

It's one heckuva drug.
Offline beast  
#98 Posted : Tuesday, July 15, 2014 9:06:27 PM(UTC)
beast

Rank: Pro Bowl

Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 259
Applause Received: 320

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
I went over this... Where were the Packers 3 years after Sherman was fired as GM? In an NFC Championship game they lost by a FG in OT. So, who is responsible for the team that was on the field that day?


You just don't get the simple reason that it's players and coaches responsibility... AND the GMs that put the players and coaches there... IN OTHER WORDS... it's not one GMs..... as Wolf brought guys that team, Sherman brought guys to that team and Thompson brought guys to that team.

Your idea that it's only the current GM when there was a recent transitions is just plain stupid... Sherman as GM won at first before of the people Wolf put on the team... and Sherman did a pretty bad job which is why they got worse... but he did add some good players as well... then Thompson took over with players from both Wolf and Sherman....


It other words it complex ... it's not as simple as one guy sat here with this name title ... so everything happen is his doing. Sherman nor Thompson put Favre on this team yet they got help from his success (at least while he was with the team). Does Sherman and Thompson get responsible for Favre being on the team? ... they shouldn't... it was Wolf who put him on the team.

So that success of that 2007 year really did have shades of Wolf, Sherman and Thompson... were 2005 was mainly just Wolf and Sherman as Thompson new guys hadn't had time to develop yet.
America's team Of the people by the people for the people Packer People
UserPostedImage
~ madeby ~ pack93z ~
Offline nerdmann  
#99 Posted : Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:55:09 AM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,709
Applause Received: 664

Originally Posted by: beast Go to Quoted Post
You just don't get the simple reason that it's players and coaches responsibility... AND the GMs that put the players and coaches there... IN OTHER WORDS... it's not one GMs..... as Wolf brought guys that team, Sherman brought guys to that team and Thompson brought guys to that team.

Your idea that it's only the current GM when there was a recent transitions is just plain stupid... Sherman as GM won at first before of the people Wolf put on the team... and Sherman did a pretty bad job which is why they got worse... but he did add some good players as well... then Thompson took over with players from both Wolf and Sherman....


It other words it complex ... it's not as simple as one guy sat here with this name title ... so everything happen is his doing. Sherman nor Thompson put Favre on this team yet they got help from his success (at least while he was with the team). Does Sherman and Thompson get responsible for Favre being on the team? ... they shouldn't... it was Wolf who put him on the team.

So that success of that 2007 year really did have shades of Wolf, Sherman and Thompson... were 2005 was mainly just Wolf and Sherman as Thompson new guys hadn't had time to develop yet.


Ted didn't let Favre run the franchise.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline Pack93z  
#100 Posted : Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:40:07 AM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 399
Applause Received: 1,078

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa Go to Quoted Post
I think this is another Packer fan fallacy. "Deepest rosters"? We were 2-5-1 last year after Aaron went down...that reflects the exact opposite of depth. I think the fact we've had so much stability has masked just how poor the teams around our HOF QB's have been. Yes, we won the SB with half the world on IR but other than Finley I'm not so sure that we missed any of them. Aha, you say! I get where you might go with that. I think that speaks to our starters not being all that good in the first place and easily replaceable by backups. That isn't depth to me...it's just a bunch of mediocrity masked by a star QB. Don't I account for injuries? Sure, but there is no way to measure what impact they've had. Last year had Cobb and Matthews not gone down, I would bet we're still 2-5-1. Maybe, we win one of those 5 we lost. 3-4-1.


I will simply counter with this.. the depth the Packers had won us a Superbowl. That isn't a fallacy, injury after injury was plugged with another player.

I get it.. you want a GM that gambles more in Free Agency. Look, I am not happy with the recent performance of the defense.. never have been happy with Campen's offensive lines. But before throwing out the baby with the bathwater, one also has to look at the overall job Mike McCarthy and Ted have done. I say that combined because they have been a team for most of the tenure and honestly how do you split the credit.

Since 2006

We are in the top five in win %, offensive pts.. and top 10 in points allowed. You don't do that without consistent rosters, depth and play. Speaks to the talent level year after year in a salary cap era. Talent is not the issue.. my opinion.

Message modified by user Wednesday, July 16, 2014 8:02:19 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Pack93z attached the following image(s):
LeagueSince2006.JPG (32kb) downloaded 0 time(s).
NFCSince2006.JPG (30kb) downloaded 0 time(s).
Pts scored Since 2006.JPG (36kb) downloaded 0 time(s).
Points Allowed Since 2006.JPG (49kb) downloaded 0 time(s).

You cannot view/download attachments. Try to login or register.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 4 applause.
DoddPower on 7/16/2014(UTC), StarrMax1 on 7/16/2014(UTC), porky88 on 7/16/2014(UTC), beast on 7/16/2014(UTC)
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
11 Pages«<23456>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dyeah_gb

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / polargrizz

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / porky88

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / warhawk

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Rios39

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

25-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

24-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

24-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

24-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

24-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower