Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
15 Pages«<45678>»
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline cheeseheads123  
#76 Posted : Monday, July 14, 2014 8:11:38 AM(UTC)
cheeseheads123

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,044
Joined: 9/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 59
Applause Received: 91

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)
Online sschind  
#77 Posted : Monday, July 14, 2014 8:31:05 AM(UTC)
sschind

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 889
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: SE WISCONSIN

Applause Given: 99
Applause Received: 382

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
Posts: 2,705
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 1,761
Applause Received: 416

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

Posts: 3,026
Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 177
Applause Received: 331

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

Posts: 674
Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 101
Applause Received: 100

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

Posts: 674
Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 101
Applause Received: 100

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: 1st Round Draft Pick

Posts: 2,604
Joined: 10/5/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 150
Applause Received: 249

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

Posts: 3,026
Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 177
Applause Received: 331

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

Posts: 1,838
Joined: 6/12/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 217
Applause Received: 249

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)
Online sschind  
#85 Posted : Tuesday, July 15, 2014 8:11:28 AM(UTC)
sschind

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 889
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: SE WISCONSIN

Applause Given: 99
Applause Received: 382

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
Posts: 12,736
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 380
Applause Received: 1,017

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

Posts: 674
Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 101
Applause Received: 100

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.

Edited 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
Posts: 12,736
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 380
Applause Received: 1,017

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

Posts: 674
Joined: 4/25/2014(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 101
Applause Received: 100

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.

Edited 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
Posts: 12,736
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 380
Applause Received: 1,017

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)
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest, sschind, warhawk
15 Pages«<45678>»
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



Recent Topics
3m / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

11h / Random Babble / DakotaT

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / musccy

21h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Wade

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Dulak

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Jul / Random Babble / dhazer

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Tezzy

21-Jul / Around The NFL / musccy

21-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

21-Jul / Random Babble / wpr


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.