Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
It has been brought up as a possibility by the media that covers that Packers. I don't think it will happen but don't sit there and state there is zero substance to it.and before you go screaming for a link like the uniformed TT supporters do......
http://packerchatters.com/op-ed/view.php?id=5734
It all starts in the trenches. I don't think the unit of Hawk, Barnett, Pop, Chillar and Bishop is horrible. Maybe a little overpaid, but I thought the LBs, minus Chillar who wasn't with them then, did a good enough job in 2007 when the Dline was playing well. Fix the line, and the rest of the defense will look a whole lot better, IMO. I'm not against adding LB talent, and I really do like Curry and Maualuga so I won't hate the pick. I'm just a trench guy who will always believe the line is the key to a solid defense.
I agree. The two most glaring needs on the team in my opinion are a strong pass rusher and a dominant inside run defender. The two most prominent defensive free agents just happen to fill those two needs. So I would very much like to see Thompson be aggressive in his pursuit of Peppers and Haynesworth. Unfortunately, I'm highly skeptical he'll do that. As you pointed out, he was more aggressive after the 4-12 season (signing Manuel as well who didn't pan out) but since then he's treated free agency like the plague and I think that has been a mistake. If you're not drafting well (and Thompson hasn't drafted well thus far) and you're not making major trades to acquire premium talent (and Thompson won't do that) then you need to be more aggressive in free agency to acquire major impact players who can improve your team. The Packers may or may not need a new GM. But I think they definitely need the current GM to alter his approach significantly.One thing I do not want to see is a belief that this was somehow a good team that just had a bad break or two (or 10). That's foolish in my opinion. As Ron Wolf often said, you are what you are. If you're a 6-10 team, then by definition you aren't very good and you need to act accordingly as opposed to wishing upon a star. The latter is the Bart Starr approach and that was nothing short of a joke. In my opinion, Thompson needs to view this team being what it is - a bad team which regressed significantly and played poorly despite being in the weakest division in the league. If he does that, perhaps the significant regression of this season will be stopped and the team will improve in 2009. If he fails to do that, he may be out of a job next year.Phase of the Game said:packersfan said:Thompson put himself in a position where he has to look at free agency differently this offseason like he did the year he added Pickett and Woodson.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/36914219.htmlI agree. The two most glaring needs on the team in my opinion are a strong pass rusher and a dominant inside run defender. The two most prominent defensive free agents just happen to fill those two needs. So I would very much like to see Thompson be aggressive in his pursuit of Peppers and Haynesworth. Unfortunately, I'm highly skeptical he'll do that. As you pointed out, he was more aggressive after the 4-12 season (signing Manuel as well who didn't pan out) but since then he's treated free agency like the plague and I think that has been a mistake. If you're not drafting well (and Thompson hasn't drafted well thus far) and you're not making major trades to acquire premium talent (and Thompson won't do that) then you need to be more aggressive in free agency to acquire major impact players who can improve your team. The Packers may or may not need a new GM. But I think they definitely need the current GM to alter his approach significantly.Phase of the Game said:packersfan said:Thompson put himself in a position where he has to look at free agency differently this offseason like he did the year he added Pickett and Woodson.
One thing I do not want to see is a belief that this was somehow a good team that just had a bad break or two (or 10). That's foolish in my opinion. As Ron Wolf often said, you are what you are. If you're a 6-10 team, then by definition you aren't very good and you need to act accordingly as opposed to wishing upon a star. The latter is the Bart Starr approach and that was nothing short of a joke.
In my opinion, Thompson needs to view this team being what it is - a bad team which regressed significantly and played poorly despite being in the weakest division in the league. If he does that, perhaps the significant regression of this season will be stopped and the team will improve in 2009. If he fails to do that, he may be out of a job next year.
I disagree. Certainly a coach or GM can't say it publicly (Starr's mistake), but the fact is that this team could easily have won 5 or 6 more games this season with a break here or there. If Crosby makes two reasonable field goals and the defense doesn't completely implode down the stretch against Houston and Carolina at home, the Packers would be 6-0 in the division and preparing for a home playoff game right now. Everyone would be talking about Aaron Rodgers' historic season - second only to Kurt Warner in NFL history for a first year starting QB. I've never seen anything like this season in terms of close losses. I expect Thompson to do as he has always done in the offseason - to sign or trade for a couple solid players (not just Pickett and Woodson, but referring to Chillar, Tramon Williams, Ryan Grant, Donald Lee, Ruvell Martin). I expect some coaching changes - certainly on the defensive staff, special teams and maybe get someone from Shannahan's staff who knows how to coach an OL and RB for the zone blocking scheme McCarthy seems enamored with. I think the Packers have a good outlook next season if they can stay reasonably healthy, with an easy schedule, a decent draft pick and a Favre-free training camp. One of the things we all have to respect with Thompson is that he has the balls to trust himself and stay true to his convictions. I remember the day he cut Joey Thomas one day after the awful Viking game - have loved Thompson's style ever since. The Favre move of course is a great example. He made a courageous decision this offseason which he knew would be unpopular with many fans, but of course has been proven correct.I agree. The two most glaring needs on the team in my opinion are a strong pass rusher and a dominant inside run defender. The two most prominent defensive free agents just happen to fill those two needs. So I would very much like to see Thompson be aggressive in his pursuit of Peppers and Haynesworth. Unfortunately, I'm highly skeptical he'll do that. As you pointed out, he was more aggressive after the 4-12 season (signing Manuel as well who didn't pan out) but since then he's treated free agency like the plague and I think that has been a mistake. If you're not drafting well (and Thompson hasn't drafted well thus far) and you're not making major trades to acquire premium talent (and Thompson won't do that) then you need to be more aggressive in free agency to acquire major impact players who can improve your team. The Packers may or may not need a new GM. But I think they definitely need the current GM to alter his approach significantly.One thing I do not want to see is a belief that this was somehow a good team that just had a bad break or two (or 10). That's foolish in my opinion. As Ron Wolf often said, you are what you are. If you're a 6-10 team, then by definition you aren't very good and you need to act accordingly as opposed to wishing upon a star. The latter is the Bart Starr approach and that was nothing short of a joke. In my opinion, Thompson needs to view this team being what it is - a bad team which regressed significantly and played poorly despite being in the weakest division in the league. If he does that, perhaps the significant regression of this season will be stopped and the team will improve in 2009. If he fails to do that, he may be out of a job next year.Phase of the Game said:packersfan said:Thompson put himself in a position where he has to look at free agency differently this offseason like he did the year he added Pickett and Woodson.
We can respect his style all we want but I want results. So far his results haven't been what I want as a Packer fan. I also believe that while Thompson has been with GB he has had the most draft picks in the NFL and the percentage of those players that are starting was among the lowest in the NFL compared to other GMs. I notice whenever you mention the Packers record you bring up two misses by Crosby but never mention that Rodgers failed in crunch time each time he had a chance to bring them back. He had a solid season and I am pleased with that. However, he needs to get that monkey off his back early on in 2009 because he doesn't need that added pressure if that trend continues next season.Thompson needs the Packers to get back to the playoffs next season. If they struggle again his job may be in jeopardy in 2010. If he has a good draft but the team continues to lack discipline, have a lot of penalties, and if McCarthy doesn't show some creativity on offense then Thompson will have to make a decision if McCarthy is the right person for that job. I think McCarthy is one of the reasons the Packers only won 6 games this year. Sanders and Stock need to go now.I disagree. Certainly a coach or GM can't say it publicly (Starr's mistake), but the fact is that this team could easily have won 5 or 6 more games this season with a break here or there. If Crosby makes two reasonable field goals and the defense doesn't completely implode down the stretch against Houston and Carolina at home, the Packers would be 6-0 in the division and preparing for a home playoff game right now. Everyone would be talking about Aaron Rodgers' historic season - second only to Kurt Warner in NFL history for a first year starting QB. I've never seen anything like this season in terms of close losses. I expect Thompson to do as he has always done in the offseason - to sign or trade for a couple solid players (not just Pickett and Woodson, but referring to Chillar, Tramon Williams, Ryan Grant, Donald Lee, Ruvell Martin). I expect some coaching changes - certainly on the defensive staff, special teams and maybe get someone from Shannahan's staff who knows how to coach an OL and RB for the zone blocking scheme McCarthy seems enamored with. I think the Packers have a good outlook next season if they can stay reasonably healthy, with an easy schedule, a decent draft pick and a Favre-free training camp. One of the things we all have to respect with Thompson is that he has the balls to trust himself and stay true to his convictions. I remember the day he cut Joey Thomas one day after the awful Viking game - have loved Thompson's style ever since. The Favre move of course is a great example. He made a courageous decision this offseason which he knew would be unpopular with many fans, but of course has been proven correct.I agree. The two most glaring needs on the team in my opinion are a strong pass rusher and a dominant inside run defender. The two most prominent defensive free agents just happen to fill those two needs. So I would very much like to see Thompson be aggressive in his pursuit of Peppers and Haynesworth. Unfortunately, I'm highly skeptical he'll do that. As you pointed out, he was more aggressive after the 4-12 season (signing Manuel as well who didn't pan out) but since then he's treated free agency like the plague and I think that has been a mistake. If you're not drafting well (and Thompson hasn't drafted well thus far) and you're not making major trades to acquire premium talent (and Thompson won't do that) then you need to be more aggressive in free agency to acquire major impact players who can improve your team. The Packers may or may not need a new GM. But I think they definitely need the current GM to alter his approach significantly.One thing I do not want to see is a belief that this was somehow a good team that just had a bad break or two (or 10). That's foolish in my opinion. As Ron Wolf often said, you are what you are. If you're a 6-10 team, then by definition you aren't very good and you need to act accordingly as opposed to wishing upon a star. The latter is the Bart Starr approach and that was nothing short of a joke. In my opinion, Thompson needs to view this team being what it is - a bad team which regressed significantly and played poorly despite being in the weakest division in the league. If he does that, perhaps the significant regression of this season will be stopped and the team will improve in 2009. If he fails to do that, he may be out of a job next year.Phase of the Game said:packersfan said:
Agree completely. Add to that the coaches saying it's going to be wide open for next season, and I can see LB being a potential round 1 target.Packers linebackers on notice
No major changes. We need athletic guys on the O line for the ZBS, and if Tausch and Cliffy are done or near done, then we can address that. No 3-4.
Not happenin..We'll pick at the 9 spot..I actually think there's a better chance we'd trade up if there was a can't miss DT that wouldn't make it to us..
Yeah I believe he stays as well. DD is great veteran leadership and he's wonderful for the community.
You are in the minority. Jennings is a stud, and a great guy and needs to be signed.
That is a great comment. He does appear to be very stupporn to show people his system works. He is correct that the way to build a team is through the draft. However, that doesn't mean you can't be flexible on how you handle free agency.I also thinks he tends to get too "cute" with this picks to try and find those hidden gems. I am not sure that has worked well for him so far.
I agree with all of this. I don't think there's anything wrong with building through the draft but if that's your primary way of building then you need to draft extremely well and thus far, Thompson's drafts haven't been very good. I pointed that out in another thread. To me, that's a huge concern because he appears inflexible when it comes to other avenues of improvement. As far as Jennings, I also believe he needs to be rewarded. He's the one big-time talent Thompson has drafted thus far and the Packers need to keep him.
I may be in the minority here, but I don't think Winston Moss is anything special. It wouldn't break my heart to see him go.
Which of the 3 WR should be used as a template for the Jennings Deal?Berrian - 6 Yr 43.4 Million with 24 Million in the first 3 yearsRoy Williams - 6 Yr 54 Million with 27 Million in first 3 years. Fitzgerald - 4 Yr 40 MillionI vote Roy Williams
Where do you rank Thompson's drafting vs. the rest of the league's over the past couple years? Are you telling me you don't think he's at least in the top half? Any credit for possibly drafting a franchise QB?
I think you'll see similar to Roy, but the numbers I saw were 5/$45 with $20 guaranteed. Jennings will be paid like an elite receiver... I see him very similar to Marvin in his prime.
Berrian's deal would be nice, but I think it will be closer to Williams too. Here's the next question: Since Jennings is signed through 2009, do you take your time and get something done during the season (Rodgers), or get it done ASAP before someone like Houshmandzadeh signs and possibly raises the bar?I see pros and cons with both.
You both might be right here. One article I saw listed the final year being voidable and worth $9M.
They need to get this done now. If they wait until FA the price is only going to go up. Jennings hasn't shot off his mouth like Walker and he's let his play speak for itself. He's done it the right way, time to pay the man.
He's not horrible at drafting, he's just not great. I would say he probably gets a b overall for his drafts. I would give him a c for everything except wide receiver, as that seems to be the only position he routinely does well on. Other than receivers, picks that have turned out well would be Rodgers and Collins. Some would argue Colledge, but I just don't see him as being all that good. A case could be made for Hawk as he is a decent linebacker, but for being the 5th overall pick, he is not that great.
I don't give TT much credit for drafting Rodgers. I think it is more luck of the draw than anything that Rodgers fell into TT's lap, and any GM in the Packers situation (not knowing how much longer Favre would be around, with no viable backup at the time) would have taken Rodgers there. Without knowing TT, everyone I was watching the draft with knew we were taking Rodgers as soon as it became our pick. It was just that much of a no-brainer. Worst case scenario, if Favre would still be with the Packers, Rodgers could have been traded similar to all the other backups before him (Hasselbeck, Brunell, Aaron Brooks)
If Alex Smith had fallen to #26, he would have taken him as well. And it would be considered bad luck, not a bad pick, IMO.
Rodgers was a "fall in the lap" pick, and it helped that quite a few teams in front of Green Bay didn't need a QB or already had a young prospect. I also remember saying the same things with guys I was watching the draft with too, and that Rodgers is the BPA and if Thompson sticks to that he's the pick. I'll be honest and say I didn't like the pick then since I wanted a defensive player, and I didn't start coming around on Rodgers until the summer of 2007.Completely agree..TT had to make that pick..
I don't know where Thompson would rank over the past four years. That's more work than I'm inclined to do at the present time.
I posted his draft results in another thread and the results were considerably less than inspiring. Yes I give him credit for Rodgers. I said in that thread he had drafted one clear standout player (Jennings) and another (Rodgers) who could be. I know Collins made the Pro Bowl this season but I'm not sure he was deserving. I don't view him as a Pro Bowl player though if the consensus around the league is that he is I'll obviously concede and add him to the list as well. My point is that if you're going to primarily build through the draft than your drafts need to generate more than 1-2 (maybe 3) major impact players. (Sidenote - I like Ryan Grant a lot and do give Thompson credit for trading to get him. That was a great trade by Thompson). The one thing I'd say Thompson does well as a drafter is he has a good eye for WR talent. But as we sit here today many of the team's best players remain ones he inherited from Sherman. I don't think that reflects well on Thompson's work as a GM.
The point is TT's draft plan wasn't to draft a QB with his 1st round pick, but with arguably the best QB in the draft falling all the way into the 20's, it was a no brainer for TT to make the pick.
How many of you were saying "Rodgers sucks and ca't play a whole season" in July? The truth is TT is the second best (ron wolfe) GM Green Bay has had since Vince Lombardi. That's 40 years if you are counting.Rodgers was a "fall in the lap" pick, and it helped that quite a few teams in front of Green Bay didn't need a QB or already had a young prospect. I also remember saying the same things with guys I was watching the draft with too, and that Rodgers is the BPA and if Thompson sticks to that he's the pick. I'll be honest and say I didn't like the pick then since I wanted a defensive player, and I didn't start coming around on Rodgers until the summer of 2007.
Guessing what Ted would pick is an exercise in futility.
at you guys thinking you knew who TT would pick.
I've always been a big supporter of Arod, and I actually got into a lot of arguments with other Packer fans at another Packer site I frequent over this issue. My argument was that he just needed a whole year to show what he can do, and turns out life is going to be ok without Favre after all.How many of you were saying "Rodgers sucks and ca't play a whole season" in July? The truth is TT is the second best (ron wolfe) GM Green Bay has had since Vince Lombardi. That's 40 years if you are counting.Rodgers was a "fall in the lap" pick, and it helped that quite a few teams in front of Green Bay didn't need a QB or already had a young prospect. I also remember saying the same things with guys I was watching the draft with too, and that Rodgers is the BPA and if Thompson sticks to that he's the pick. I'll be honest and say I didn't like the pick then since I wanted a defensive player, and I didn't start coming around on Rodgers until the summer of 2007.
I completely agree Thompson deserves credit for the Rodgers pick. It was heavily criticized at the time and after this season Rodgers certainly looks like he can be a quality starting QB going forward. That said, the Packers' winning percentage under Thompson is worse than it was under Sherman. So while some can argue (and I wouldn't entirely disagree) that Thompson is a superior GM (Sherman was awful in my opinion), the results on the field do not support that position. Not yet anyway. It's also faint praise to say anyone ranks second to Wolf in terms of Green Bay's GM since Lombardi. The Packers had 30 years of misery before Wolf came along. Right now the rankings would be:1. Lombardi2. WolfEveryone else
They were under Sherman. He never should have accepted the GM job.TT isn't the best but has been drafting pretty well. I hope he gets a player or two in free agency this year, hopefully linemen.
"New Green Bay general manager Ted Thompson said he was not intent on drafting someone to succeed Favre, who turns 36 in October."http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...gers-heir_x.htmGuessing what Ted would pick is an exercise in futility.
I haven't read them and I wouldn't say Thompson is a bad drafter. I'm saying that he hasn't drafted all that well and that becomes a problem when that's the primary (and often only) means you're using to build your team. For example, other GMs may have drafted worse, but they landed superior talent in free agency and/or trades. If Thompson was more aggressive in free agency and trades, then his draft work to date wouldn't be such an issue. But if that's going to be the main way he's going to build this team he needs to do a much better job of landing standout and Pro Bowl-caliber talent. And that has to start with the ninth pick in the draft next April.
I didn't know exactly who he would pick, however with defense such a huge need, somewhat like the D line is this year, you certainly didn't think he'd take a QB when it definitely appeared Favre had plenty left in the tank. If you were to compare it to this year, it would be potentially like the best WR falling to us at the 9th pick. Would TT pick that WR or go D line addressing a serious need? Again I think it would be a no brainer pick and TT would have to grab the WR.Guessing what Ted would pick is an exercise in futility.
They definitely aren't in the bottom 8, but they aren't in the top 8 either.
Thank you. This is what I was trying to say. He had to make that pick in that situation."New Green Bay general manager Ted Thompson said he was not intent on drafting someone to succeed Favre, who turns 36 in October."http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...gers-heir_x.htmGuessing what Ted would pick is an exercise in futility.
Thompson needs a bigtime draft, and he can't afford to sit by and not sign any FA's. There's no reason we need to be the youngest team in the NFL for the 4th year in a row. Youth cost us this year in the 4th quarter of many games. I'm not saying break the bank, but there's no reason to not take a chance on a couple guys that can potentially help us out.
