**Not-so-offical Green Bay Packers Off-season Thread** (1 Viewer)

[Ookie Pringle]

Driver will re negotiate.

Why? They re-did his deal two years in a row. (2005 & 2006) Driver isn't going anywhere. The thought that he could be cut or traded was made up by fans who don't like Thompson. There is absolutely ZERO substance to this rumor.

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......

Tom Silverstein writes in today's JSOnline, opining about the growing impact of Greg Jennings and, perhaps, the eventual fade of Donald Driver.

"When you lose games, everything happens," Driver said. "Players lose their jobs, coaches lose their jobs. Some people stay, some people go. It's part of life. It's always business in the National Football League.

"Everybody talks about me getting ready to be 34. I don't see my career winding down. Things will happen. Maybe it comes to that, that point where I'm getting old, maybe they want to keep their young receiver group. I love this organization, I love this team. I would never want to play somewhere else. But you never know what will happen."

Given general manager Ted Thompson's emphasis on youth, Jennings has reason to be concerned that his receiving partner might not be here next year.

This is the first time I've heard about Donald Driver being the fall guy for the season, but when you read Silverstein (and reflect on Thompson's approach to building the team by shedding veterans), it shapes into an uncomfortable reality.

Unlike most of the other positional groups on the team, Thompson appears to have prepared for the departure of Driver. While there didn't appear to be any plan in place to deal with the loss of such veterans as Ryan Longwell, Darren Sharper, Marco Rivera, Mike Wahle, or Ahman Green, Thompson has shored up the receiving ranks with sharp young talent. In fact, he has invested a first-day draft choice on a wide receiver in each of his four drafts.

It is exactly that kind of thinking, with a squad of Jennings, Nelson, Jones, and Martin potentially established as a solid 1-4 on the depth chart, that makes Driver expendable. In other words, this may be one of the times in which Thompson could shed a veteran and actually have the guys to replace him.

http://packerchatters.com/op-ed/view.php?id=5734

 

[Kleck]

The Packers don't really need a LB, but I'm a fan of Curry. Maualuga looks like quite a beast as well....

I haven't looked at anything yet draft wise. But after finishing in the bottom third of the NFL in most defensive stats, how can you say they don't really need one. Hawk has been a disappointment. He's no better now than he was as a rookie. He failed to impress inside and he's kind of a one trick pony. He can tackle, but he just isn't really an impact player. Barnett isn't getting any younger and he seemed like he took a step back this year. He can't fight through traffic very well at his size. He needs two big boys up front. Poppinga is a situational player.

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.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Driver isn't going anywhere. He's a fan favorite, played great most of the year (again) and I doubt Jennings would have such good stats with any of the other WRs starting alongside him instead of Driver. As far as geezer WRs go, I'd rather have Driver than TO in 2009

I don't check this board much in the off-season but I'll try to keep up with this thread. Some good stuff here already.

 

[packersfan]

RB is the least of this team's problems in my opinion. I like Grant a lot and feel he's a quality starting RB. What I'd like to see is McCarthy show more of a consistent commitment to him. There are glaring holes nearly everywhere else unfortunately so there's a lot of work that needs to be done to stop the massive regression the team showed this season. I'd love to see Thompson do a 180 and pursue FA's like Peppers or Haynesworth and throw a ton of money at them but Thompson has been very passive in free agency so unfortunately I doubt that will occur. He'll keep building through the draft but as I posted in another thread his draft record has not been strong thus far. That doesn't lend confidence to the hope he'll land a major impact player at 9. I think the team is strong at WR and RB and with the starting QB (depth there could remain a major issue). I'd identify every other position on the team as being a need of various degrees.

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.

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]

RB is the least of this team's problems in my opinion. I like Grant a lot and feel he's a quality starting RB. What I'd like to see is McCarthy show more of a consistent commitment to him.

There are glaring holes nearly everywhere else unfortunately so there's a lot of work that needs to be done to stop the massive regression the team showed this season. I'd love to see Thompson do a 180 and pursue FA's like Peppers or Haynesworth and throw a ton of money at them but Thompson has been very passive in free agency so unfortunately I doubt that will occur. He'll keep building through the draft but as I posted in another thread his draft record has not been strong thus far. That doesn't lend confidence to the hope he'll land a major impact player at 9.

I think the team is strong at WR and RB and with the starting QB (depth there could remain a major issue). I'd identify every other position on the team as being a need of various degrees.

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.

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.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/36914219.html

Green Bay - Though not ruling out the possibility of taking part in free agency this offseason, Green Bay Packers general manager Ted Thompson said the team's 6-10 record would not change his philosophy about building through the draft.

The Packers added just one free agent last year - linebacker Brandon Chillar - and for the third straight year were the youngest team in the National Football League. Still, Thompson, speaking as a guest on coach Mike McCarthy's TV show, said his priority would remain improving the players he has acquired through the draft.

"We're going to try to improve this team like we always do," Thompson said. "People talk about free agency, draft. We'll use whatever avenues we can to try to improve this team. But again, I'm still going to preach the thing we've always preached: The best way to get better, the most consistent way to get better, is to improve from within.

"Some of our freshmen are going to be sophomores and some of our sophomores are going to be juniors. These guys are going to have to develop into better players. In order to be successful in the NFL long term, that's how you have to do it."

Several veterans have said they would like to see Thompson add some free agents this offseason in an attempt to improve the team. Thompson wasn't asked if he heard those requests but he has never swayed from his fiscally conservative philosophy on building a football team.

Thompson stood up to quarterback Brett Favre when Favre raised a stink in 2006 about the Packers not adding enough free-agent talent and it's unlikely he would succumb to such pressure this time around. Contrary to popular belief, however, he said he was not trying to continually have the youngest team in the league.

"It's just the way it's kind of worked out," Thompson said. "First of all, we accumulated draft picks over the last several years, and we feel like these players are good players. I think we're getting older every year because these guys are continuing on with our team.

"There wasn't a lot of turnover this year from our team. We don't do youth for youth's sake. At the same time we feel using the draft and adding players to our core is the proper way to go with the team."

Thompson said the Packers' No. 9 pick next spring will be an important part of the process in improving the team, but he said it went well beyond that one selection. Thompson said he expected this to be a normal draft year, but draft experts are predicting that the large influx of juniors will make it one of the best in some time.

"Picking as high as we do, we should get an impact player," Thompson said. "Not only is that nice in the first round, it's even nicer in the later rounds because the player you get in the top of the third round is a lot better than what you get at the bottom of the third round."

The Packers will have four picks in the first 100, their first, a second and two thirds.

 

[packersfan]

Can't say I'm surprised.

If Thompson's draft record was stronger, I could understand his position. But he hasn't drafted well, he appears too stubborn to pursue other avenues to acquire premium talent and his teams (other than 2007) haven't been very good. I can't figure this guy out at all. I hope things get better next year but if they don't, I hope he's bounced out of town because thus far his approach has not been a success. As bad as things got under Sherman, he only had one losing season. The guy was a horrible GM but thus far the team has been worse under Thompson. One great season isn't enough to wipe away the stench of two bad seasons and one mediocre year.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

RB is the least of this team's problems in my opinion. I like Grant a lot and feel he's a quality starting RB. What I'd like to see is McCarthy show more of a consistent commitment to him. There are glaring holes nearly everywhere else unfortunately so there's a lot of work that needs to be done to stop the massive regression the team showed this season. I'd love to see Thompson do a 180 and pursue FA's like Peppers or Haynesworth and throw a ton of money at them but Thompson has been very passive in free agency so unfortunately I doubt that will occur. He'll keep building through the draft but as I posted in another thread his draft record has not been strong thus far. That doesn't lend confidence to the hope he'll land a major impact player at 9. I think the team is strong at WR and RB and with the starting QB (depth there could remain a major issue). I'd identify every other position on the team as being a need of various degrees.

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.

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.

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.

 

[packersfan]

I'm not going to debate the Favre thing again. It's been discussed ad nauseum. But you'll forgive me if I find anything correct about turning a Super Bowl contender into a terrible team in less than a year. Thompson had a horrible year as a GM in my opinion and his team's lack of success reflected that. Sure we can point to this play or that play but every team can do that. The bottom line is whether you win or lose and this team lost.

And lost and lost and lost and lost some more.

This was a bad season and the bottom line is that with the exception of 2007, Thompson's resume with the Packers has been filled with more losses than wins. I can appreciate his convictions but it is fair to question whether a GM who refuses to alter his approach in the face of more defeats than victories is a man of conviction or too stubborn to change even if it means possibly improving his team as a result.

I think this summer is a major period for Ted Thompson and his future as the GM of the Packers. This team got significantly worse this season and if significant improvement isn't made I hope he's shown the door. Other Packer fans may want to celebrate losing seasons but I'm not one of them.

 

[Phase of the Game]

RB is the least of this team's problems in my opinion. I like Grant a lot and feel he's a quality starting RB. What I'd like to see is McCarthy show more of a consistent commitment to him. There are glaring holes nearly everywhere else unfortunately so there's a lot of work that needs to be done to stop the massive regression the team showed this season. I'd love to see Thompson do a 180 and pursue FA's like Peppers or Haynesworth and throw a ton of money at them but Thompson has been very passive in free agency so unfortunately I doubt that will occur. He'll keep building through the draft but as I posted in another thread his draft record has not been strong thus far. That doesn't lend confidence to the hope he'll land a major impact player at 9. I think the team is strong at WR and RB and with the starting QB (depth there could remain a major issue). I'd identify every other position on the team as being a need of various degrees.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Man in the yellow hat]

It won't break my heart to see Stock gone. I'll even help him pack his bags. We can also upgrade from Sanders so I won't have any ill feelings if he is let go either. Hopefully McCarthy is already watching game tapes and learning from repeated mistakes the team made this year.

The team lacks veteran leadership already, so I'm not in favor of cutting Harris or Driver.

With James Jones missing a lot of time due to injury, Nelson still learning and Martin being a FA, I'd like to see the Packers hang onto Driver as both an offensive weapon and for his leadership. I like what I've seen from Jones and Nelson, but neither are ready to take over Driver's spot yet. Maybe they will be soon, but I don't think it's worth the risk and Driver is still playing well enough for defensive coordinators to have to respect what he brings each game.

Harris and Woodson have stated this week that they would like to see more veteran leadership and players on the defense, and that the lack of defensive veterans showed in a few close losses this year. I couldn't agree more. I'd really like to have a defensive player that puts some serious fear into offenses. The Packers haven't had that since Reggie. They do have some solid defensive guys, but none that will keep offensive coordinators up all night trying to figure out how they can get around them. I know this kind of a player is rare, but it tops my wish list.

Injuries are going to happen, from TT on down to the assistant coaches, they need to do a better job of preparing for them. It's nice to get young guys some playing time, but there are no bonus points for being the youngest team in the NFL (I'm really sick of hearing that). I like the philosophy of building through the draft, but you have to know where you are weak and bring in some FAs to fill those holes. If a young player steps up, even better. Now you have great depth.

If a good RB falls to the Packers and brings something different to the table than they have now I'd be OK with it. I don't think they need one though if they can keep the group of Grant, Jackson, Wynn (FA) and Lumpkin (injury, ERFA). Improving the run blocking of the Oline I believe would be more of a help than finding a better #1 RB. I'd also be open to the idea scrapping the ZBS.

I've always had a soft spot for Tausch. I hope he recovers well and would like to see him get the most money he can. I wouldn't mind the injury possibly keeping other teams from going after him and allowing the Packers to resign him at a good price though. The draft seems top heavy and fairly deep at OT this year, and the Packers are in good position to land one of the top OTs at #9.

There are no DTs I like in the draft at #9. At DE I'm not completely sold on Orakpo yet. I see his potential and it's an area we could use some good speed so I wouldn't argue against the pick, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he's gone by #9. I'm also not sure about Michael Johnson yet. Lots of hype on this guy because of his physical abilities. He'll be a workout warrior and a monster at the combine. I would feel safer using the #9 on him if had shown more production at GT, but if he did people would be including his name in top 5 talks. Huge boom or bust, and if he booms that is exactly the kind of player I think the Packers need.

The Packers don't really need a LB, but I'm a fan of Curry. Maualuga looks like quite a beast as well. Mays and CBs Jenkins and Davis look promising too. Finding talent at #9 shouldn't be a problem. I think the Packers could drop down a few spots and still get a great player, but I don't want to see them drop too far and miss out on an impact player. Either way, I'm excited for the draft.

I haven't looked at anything yet draft wise. But after finishing in the bottom third of the NFL in most defensive stats, how can you say they don't really need one. Hawk has been a disappointment. He's no better now than he was as a rookie. He failed to impress inside and he's kind of a one trick pony. He can tackle, but he just isn't really an impact player. Barnett isn't getting any younger and he seemed like he took a step back this year. He can't fight through traffic very well at his size. He needs two big boys up front. Poppinga is a situational player.

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

By Greg A. Bedard of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: Dec. 30, 2008

No, coach Mike McCarthy has not yet named his defensive coordinator for next season. But whether Bob Sanders is retained, assistant head coach/linebackers Winston Moss is promoted or someone else is brought in, things are going to change.

And it's going to start at one of the Packers' most stable positions: linebacker.

"Everybody is in play now," Moss said Monday.

And he means everyone.

The Packers have entered the past three training camps with a pretty good idea which player was going to be at each linebacker spot: Nick Barnett would man the middle; A.J. Hawk was on the weak side; and Brady Poppinga helped clog up running lanes on the strong side.

No more.

Everyone will be evaluated for a position change, according to Moss. Desmond Bishop will be given a legitimate shot to win a starting job. Brandon Chillar will be given every opportunity to be an every-down player as well.

"There's going to be a great offseason to evaluate and then put together a group that can get on the field," Moss said. "Whoever comes out of that group as a top three, I'm going to be very happy about that because I think we've got some guys that can truly rebound from this year and have a great year next year."

Moss - if he and the scheme are back next season - can only hope that's the case because his unit, in his words, was one of the most "disappointing" in the 6-10 campaign.

With Barnett coming off a near-Pro Bowl season, Hawk two years removed from being the fifth overall pick in the draft and Poppinga having survived a camp battle with Chillar, a lot was expected of Moss' group.

Didn't happen.

"I thought there were some adequate individual performances that we executed well," Moss said. "But as a group, going into the season, anticipating being impactful and being difference-makers on our defense, that didn't happen. So we're going to have to take a look at that this offseason and find out why and have some answers and come back in '09 with the resolve that if you're put in a position to make plays, let's get that done."

As for changes for next season, Barnett might be an automatic one because there is no guarantee he will rebound from the torn anteroior cruciate knee ligament he suffered on Nov. 9. Normal recovery time is seven to nine months. The optimistic date would have Barnett ready for the start of training camp in late July. But some players don't regain their original burst for some time after that. And Barnett is a player who relies on his speed.

"I think that's going to be very tough," Moss said. "He's not going to have an offseason from a football standpoint. By the time he truly gets into actually practicing, it's probably going to be very, very late into our development as far as the offseason is concerned. Hopefully we can get him enough reps wherever he is at and see how he does and just take it as a progression. It's going to be a process."

While Barnett is rehabilitating, Bishop will likely get a look in the middle. And Hawk, with six starts there to finish the season, has proved capable of moving full time to a position where some thought he should have been all along.

"I believe he can (be a starting middle linebacker) but we're still going to go through that process to find out long term if that going to be the best for our football team," Moss said. "That has not been determined right now. Haven't event talked about it."

The Packers will also determine where best to use Chillar, who quickly established himself as the team's best cover linebacker. He did struggle to find consistency but Moss said that was because of the many things the Packers asked the free-agent signee to do.

"We put a lot on his plate," Moss said. "He had to do sub (packages), base (package), switch positions (from strong to weak) and switch positions in certain situations. I think sometimes there was a little case of being overwhelmed. I take the blame for that."

Nevertheless, Moss expects Chillar to be a force in '09.

"He's going to be great next year, whatever capacity," Moss said.

And then there's Poppinga, who had 68 tackles after posting 70 and 76 the previous two seasons. Not only did Moss not back down from his earlier statement that Poppinga was in the midst of a "very good" season, he indicated that Poppinga was the unit's top performer.

"He's maxing himself out," Moss said. "Is there room to get better? I believe he can from a pass-rush standpoint, from an impact standpoint. I still think that he is always going to evolve and continue to get better as long as he's on that football field. But this year, I thought he was one of the bright spots in our unit."

That Moss thought that highly of Poppinga's season - which was solid overall but characterized by some crucial missed tackles - might illustrate just how poorly the linebackers performed.

Perhaps the determining factor in all the position battles will be which player can win his battle in crucial situations.

"I think we're going to have to be on top of winning those one-on-ones," Moss said. "We were disappointing as unit and what I mean is we lost those one-on-ones in critical situations where if we would have won those one-on-ones at the end of the game, I would have felt better about our situation at linebacker."

 

[scott72]

Another question is do we make any major changes to the schemes (3-4 or getting rid of zone blocking)?

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.

 

[scott72]

Questions to be answered...

-Does Jennings get a new contract?

Yes

-Does Taucher and Clifton come back?

Yes

-Does Sanders get canned?

Yes

-Does Stock come back as special teams coach?

No

-Do Driver and Al Harris fit into Thompson's younger team philosophy?

They stay

-Do they pick up any free agents to fill in the gaps (OL, DL, and LB)?

Yes - but not Haynesworth

-Who are they picking at 9?

They trade down

Others?

I sure hope that TT doesn't trade down at #9. It seems most of the Packers beat writers fell the same way. He needs to get some impact players and stop loading up on 2nd day picks.

Has he ever traded down in the first?

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..

 

[scott72]

Driver will re negotiate.

Yeah I believe he stays as well. DD is great veteran leadership and he's wonderful for the community.

 

[scott72]

I am in the minority, I do not think they should throw big money at Jennings.

You are in the minority. Jennings is a stud, and a great guy and needs to be signed.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I like the core group of talent on this team. I expect that with the youth gaining experience they will grow as players from this year to the next and that this will be reflected in wins. I like that Thompson has not been afraid to make hard decisions, and I like that he has had a plan, has executed that plan, and has the Packers in a position to grow.

That said, at some point his propensity of seeking quantity in the draft must give way, IMO, to targeting holes and seeking impact players in those holes. Depth and general talent are great, but you get no points for having the best second string, third string, and practice squad. Competent subs are needed in this league, but I want to see some impact guys. I would be very happy to see the Packers pursue Haynesworth who would improve the run defense, would drive the pocket backwards on passing plays and would help free up the D.E.'s to rush more effectively. He would keep O-linemen away from Barnett and Hawk's feet improving their play, and would help the D.B.'s by reducing the time they have to stay manned up by about two tenths of a second, an eternity really.

I would like Thompson to realize that his plan has in essence worked, but that there are limits to that plan. It is not weakness to change.

I want to see this draft be very heavy in big bodies. I want to see it dominated by D-line and O-line help. I am hopeful this can happen.

I believe we will see real growth in Rodgers, Jennings, Jones, Nelson, and Finley. I believe we will see growth in the interior O-line. I worry about both Tackles aging too fast in place and I worry about the C.B's doing the same, in spite of their great year. With the c.B.'s though, I do see growth in their backups so I am not too worried. Clifton and Tauscher are another story.

Lastly I am worried about the fate of Jolly. The guy really ####ed up and I am not convinced he won't be in jail come next fall. The D-line whose rotation was a strength early last year was a problem this year, and if Jolly departs to the pen or league suspension the glaring weakness can become worse. On the other hand if he goes that is just more salary to throw Haynesworths way.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I do want to see Jennings get some reward. He has done it right and is saying the right things now. He is the anti-Javon and I want him rewarded. I also believe Driver needs to be shown some love and respect, but not the keys to the vault.

 

[Phase of the Game]

I would like Thompson to realize that his plan has in essence worked, but that there are limits to that plan. It is not weakness to change.

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.

 

[packersfan]

I would like Thompson to realize that his plan has in essence worked, but that there are limits to that plan. It is not weakness to change.

That is a great comment. He does appear to be very stupporn to show people his system works. He is correct that they 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.

 

[Kleck]

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

By Greg A. Bedard of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: Dec. 30, 2008

No, coach Mike McCarthy has not yet named his defensive coordinator for next season. But whether Bob Sanders is retained, assistant head coach/linebackers Winston Moss is promoted or someone else is brought in, things are going to change.

And it's going to start at one of the Packers' most stable positions: linebacker.

"Everybody is in play now," Moss said Monday.

And he means everyone.

The Packers have entered the past three training camps with a pretty good idea which player was going to be at each linebacker spot: Nick Barnett would man the middle; A.J. Hawk was on the weak side; and Brady Poppinga helped clog up running lanes on the strong side.

No more.

Everyone will be evaluated for a position change, according to Moss. Desmond Bishop will be given a legitimate shot to win a starting job. Brandon Chillar will be given every opportunity to be an every-down player as well.

"There's going to be a great offseason to evaluate and then put together a group that can get on the field," Moss said. "Whoever comes out of that group as a top three, I'm going to be very happy about that because I think we've got some guys that can truly rebound from this year and have a great year next year."

Moss - if he and the scheme are back next season - can only hope that's the case because his unit, in his words, was one of the most "disappointing" in the 6-10 campaign.

With Barnett coming off a near-Pro Bowl season, Hawk two years removed from being the fifth overall pick in the draft and Poppinga having survived a camp battle with Chillar, a lot was expected of Moss' group.

Didn't happen.

"I thought there were some adequate individual performances that we executed well," Moss said. "But as a group, going into the season, anticipating being impactful and being difference-makers on our defense, that didn't happen. So we're going to have to take a look at that this offseason and find out why and have some answers and come back in '09 with the resolve that if you're put in a position to make plays, let's get that done."

As for changes for next season, Barnett might be an automatic one because there is no guarantee he will rebound from the torn anteroior cruciate knee ligament he suffered on Nov. 9. Normal recovery time is seven to nine months. The optimistic date would have Barnett ready for the start of training camp in late July. But some players don't regain their original burst for some time after that. And Barnett is a player who relies on his speed.

"I think that's going to be very tough," Moss said. "He's not going to have an offseason from a football standpoint. By the time he truly gets into actually practicing, it's probably going to be very, very late into our development as far as the offseason is concerned. Hopefully we can get him enough reps wherever he is at and see how he does and just take it as a progression. It's going to be a process."

While Barnett is rehabilitating, Bishop will likely get a look in the middle. And Hawk, with six starts there to finish the season, has proved capable of moving full time to a position where some thought he should have been all along.

"I believe he can (be a starting middle linebacker) but we're still going to go through that process to find out long term if that going to be the best for our football team," Moss said. "That has not been determined right now. Haven't event talked about it."

The Packers will also determine where best to use Chillar, who quickly established himself as the team's best cover linebacker. He did struggle to find consistency but Moss said that was because of the many things the Packers asked the free-agent signee to do.

"We put a lot on his plate," Moss said. "He had to do sub (packages), base (package), switch positions (from strong to weak) and switch positions in certain situations. I think sometimes there was a little case of being overwhelmed. I take the blame for that."

Nevertheless, Moss expects Chillar to be a force in '09.

"He's going to be great next year, whatever capacity," Moss said.

And then there's Poppinga, who had 68 tackles after posting 70 and 76 the previous two seasons. Not only did Moss not back down from his earlier statement that Poppinga was in the midst of a "very good" season, he indicated that Poppinga was the unit's top performer.

"He's maxing himself out," Moss said. "Is there room to get better? I believe he can from a pass-rush standpoint, from an impact standpoint. I still think that he is always going to evolve and continue to get better as long as he's on that football field. But this year, I thought he was one of the bright spots in our unit."

That Moss thought that highly of Poppinga's season - which was solid overall but characterized by some crucial missed tackles - might illustrate just how poorly the linebackers performed.

Perhaps the determining factor in all the position battles will be which player can win his battle in crucial situations.

"I think we're going to have to be on top of winning those one-on-ones," Moss said. "We were disappointing as unit and what I mean is we lost those one-on-ones in critical situations where if we would have won those one-on-ones at the end of the game, I would have felt better about our situation at linebacker."

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.

 

[fatkid]

I would like Thompson to realize that his plan has in essence worked, but that there are limits to that plan. It is not weakness to change.

That is a great comment. He does appear to be very stupporn to show people his system works. He is correct that they 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.

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

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

thus far, Thompson's drafts haven't been very good.

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?

 

[JFT Ben]

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

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.

 

[Kleck]

I would like Thompson to realize that his plan has in essence worked, but that there are limits to that plan. It is not weakness to change.

That is a great comment. He does appear to be very stupporn to show people his system works. He is correct that they 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.

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

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.

 

[Kleck]

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

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.

You both might be right here. One article I saw listed the final year being voidable and worth $9M.

 

[scott72]

I would like Thompson to realize that his plan has in essence worked, but that there are limits to that plan. It is not weakness to change.

That is a great comment. He does appear to be very stupporn to show people his system works. He is correct that they 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.

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

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.

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.

 

[griz145389]

thus far, Thompson's drafts haven't been very good.

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?

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.

 

[GreenNGold]

thus far, Thompson's drafts haven't been very good.

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 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)

 

[scott72]

thus far, Thompson's drafts haven't been very good.

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 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.

Completely agree..TT had to make that pick..

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

He "had to" make that pick according to his own draft strategy. If your method of drafting adds star players to the team, it's not (or at least not only) "luck," it's good drafting.

Otherwise, you'd say he would have "had to" take Alex Smith at #26 as well. If he had done that, and Smith played as poorly in GB as he has in SF, would we be calling that a bad pick by Thompson... or "bad luck"?

I agree that there are positions that the staff is not good at evaluating and/or they are just looking for the wrong type of players for those spots (o- and d-line).

 

[GreenNGold]

He "had to" make that pick according to his own draft strategy. If your method of drafting adds star players to the team, it's not (or at least not only) "luck," it's good drafting.

Otherwise, you'd say he would have "had to" take Alex Smith at #26 as well. If he had done that, and Smith played as poorly in GB as he has in SF, would we be calling that a bad pick by Thompson... or "bad luck"?

I agree that there are positions that the staff is not good at evaluating and/or they are just looking for the wrong type of players for those spots (o- and d-line).

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.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

If you think that then why do you even care who is GM. Someone with a more favorable astrological chart, perhaps?

 

[Phase of the Game]

If you think that then why do you even care who is GM. Someone with a more favorable astrological chart, perhaps?

 

[Kleck]

thus far, Thompson's drafts haven't been very good.

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 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.

Completely agree..TT had to make that pick..

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.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Not to harp on this for too long, but... replacing Favre was supposed to be impossible, and now that Thompson and his staff have done it as well as anyone could have possibly hoped or imagined, some of you guys are writing it off as luck. This baffles me. Rodgers was drafted specifically to start at QB for the Packers one day. It's not like you can plan to trade a 1st round player down the road for value. So yeah, I think Thompson's regime absolutely deserves credit for correctly evaluating Rodgers' talent (which is what you want your GM to do!).

 

[packersfan]

thus far, Thompson's drafts haven't been very good.

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 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.

 

[scott72]

Not to harp on this for too long, but... replacing Favre was supposed to be impossible, and now that Thompson and his staff have done it as well as anyone could have possibly hoped or imagined, some of you guys are writing it off as luck. This baffles me. Rodgers was drafted specifically to start at QB for the Packers one day. It's not like you can plan to trade a 1st round player down the road for value. So yeah, I think Thompson's regime absolutely deserves credit for correctly evaluating Rodgers' talent (which is what you want your GM to do!).

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.

 

[Phurfur]

thus far, Thompson's drafts haven't been very good.

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 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.

Completely agree..TT had to make that pick..

thus far, Thompson's drafts haven't been very good.

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 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.

Completely agree..TT had to make that pick..

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.

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.

 

[bcr8f]

Not to harp on this for too long, but... replacing Favre was supposed to be impossible, and now that Thompson and his staff have done it as well as anyone could have possibly hoped or imagined, some of you guys are writing it off as luck. This baffles me. Rodgers was drafted specifically to start at QB for the Packers one day. It's not like you can plan to trade a 1st round player down the road for value. So yeah, I think Thompson's regime absolutely deserves credit for correctly evaluating Rodgers' talent (which is what you want your GM to do!).

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.

Guessing what Ted would pick is an exercise in futility. at you guys thinking you knew who TT would pick.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

packersfan, I agree with pretty much everything you're saying here, just that if you compare the Packers' hit/miss rate with draft picks under Thompson versus the rest of the league, I think looks pretty good, and certainly not below average. The teams whose drafts look better in comparison are probably mostly those who have managed to draft "impact players" at the positions where GB can't find them.

Michael Lombardi has written some great pieces on nationalfootballpost.com looking at the recent drafts by certain teams. Have you seen any of those? Usually when I read them I feel like the Packers have done well in comparison.

(And -- I think there 6 or 8 teams who are just straight-up BAD at drafting, and the Packers aren't one of them.)

 

[scott72]

thus far, Thompson's drafts haven't been very good.

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 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.

Completely agree..TT had to make that pick..

thus far, Thompson's drafts haven't been very good.

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 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.

Completely agree..TT had to make that pick..

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.

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.

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.

 

[packersfan]

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.

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

 

[bcr8f]

packersfan, I agree with pretty much everything you're saying here, just that if you compare the Packers' hit/miss rate with draft picks under Thompson versus the rest of the league, I think looks pretty good, and certainly not below average. The teams whose drafts look better in comparison are probably mostly those who have managed to draft "impact players" at the positions where GB can't find them.Michael Lombardi has written some great pieces on nationalfootballpost.com looking at the recent drafts by certain teams. Have you seen any of those? Usually when I read them I feel like the Packers have done well in comparison.(And -- I think there 6 or 8 teams who are just straight-up BAD at drafting, and the Packers aren't one of them.)

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.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Uhm, TT didn't trade up to draft Rodgers when he started slipping out of the top ten. He fell so far he was too good of a value to pass up, and greatly benefited from years on the bench and growing to a new system, as well as the very solid YAC the Green Bay WR's have been putting up. It's not as if TT engineered Rodgers' fall to them in any way. In retrospect it proves to be a valuable choice for the team, but the entire narrative of the 05 draft was the Rodgers/Smith paradigm, and the Packers are lucky in that they got one and not the other.

 

[Phase of the Game]

Not to harp on this for too long, but... replacing Favre was supposed to be impossible, and now that Thompson and his staff have done it as well as anyone could have possibly hoped or imagined, some of you guys are writing it off as luck. This baffles me. Rodgers was drafted specifically to start at QB for the Packers one day. It's not like you can plan to trade a 1st round player down the road for value. So yeah, I think Thompson's regime absolutely deserves credit for correctly evaluating Rodgers' talent (which is what you want your GM to do!).

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.

Guessing what Ted would pick is an exercise in futility. at you guys thinking you knew who TT would pick.

"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.htm

 

[packersfan]

packersfan, I agree with pretty much everything you're saying here, just that if you compare the Packers' hit/miss rate with draft picks under Thompson versus the rest of the league, I think looks pretty good, and certainly not below average. The teams whose drafts look better in comparison are probably mostly those who have managed to draft "impact players" at the positions where GB can't find them.Michael Lombardi has written some great pieces on nationalfootballpost.com looking at the recent drafts by certain teams. Have you seen any of those? Usually when I read them I feel like the Packers have done well in comparison.(And -- I think there 6 or 8 teams who are just straight-up BAD at drafting, and the Packers aren't one of them.)

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.

 

[scott72]

Not to harp on this for too long, but... replacing Favre was supposed to be impossible, and now that Thompson and his staff have done it as well as anyone could have possibly hoped or imagined, some of you guys are writing it off as luck. This baffles me. Rodgers was drafted specifically to start at QB for the Packers one day. It's not like you can plan to trade a 1st round player down the road for value. So yeah, I think Thompson's regime absolutely deserves credit for correctly evaluating Rodgers' talent (which is what you want your GM to do!).

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.

Guessing what Ted would pick is an exercise in futility. at you guys thinking you knew who TT would pick.

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.

 

[griz145389]

packersfan, I agree with pretty much everything you're saying here, just that if you compare the Packers' hit/miss rate with draft picks under Thompson versus the rest of the league, I think looks pretty good, and certainly not below average. The teams whose drafts look better in comparison are probably mostly those who have managed to draft "impact players" at the positions where GB can't find them.Michael Lombardi has written some great pieces on nationalfootballpost.com looking at the recent drafts by certain teams. Have you seen any of those? Usually when I read them I feel like the Packers have done well in comparison.(And -- I think there 6 or 8 teams who are just straight-up BAD at drafting, and the Packers aren't one of them.)

They definitely aren't in the bottom 8, but they aren't in the top 8 either.

 

[scott72]

Not to harp on this for too long, but... replacing Favre was supposed to be impossible, and now that Thompson and his staff have done it as well as anyone could have possibly hoped or imagined, some of you guys are writing it off as luck. This baffles me. Rodgers was drafted specifically to start at QB for the Packers one day. It's not like you can plan to trade a 1st round player down the road for value. So yeah, I think Thompson's regime absolutely deserves credit for correctly evaluating Rodgers' talent (which is what you want your GM to do!).

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.

Guessing what Ted would pick is an exercise in futility. at you guys thinking you knew who TT would pick.

"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.htm

Thank you. This is what I was trying to say. He had to make that pick in that situation.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

Okay, I don't know how that Thompson quote invalidates the decision he made.

 

[scott72]

packersfan, I agree with pretty much everything you're saying here, just that if you compare the Packers' hit/miss rate with draft picks under Thompson versus the rest of the league, I think looks pretty good, and certainly not below average. The teams whose drafts look better in comparison are probably mostly those who have managed to draft "impact players" at the positions where GB can't find them.Michael Lombardi has written some great pieces on nationalfootballpost.com looking at the recent drafts by certain teams. Have you seen any of those? Usually when I read them I feel like the Packers have done well in comparison.(And -- I think there 6 or 8 teams who are just straight-up BAD at drafting, and the Packers aren't one of them.)

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.

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.