What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

*Semi-official Green Bay Packers Super Bowl Champs thread (2 Viewers)

Nice article on Ted Thompson

Green Bay Packers GM Ted Thompson has team on right path

The news keeps getting better and better for the Green Bay Packers.

Less than a week after they won the Super Bowl, team president Mark Murphy announced Friday that General Manager Ted Thompson had signed a contract extension that will keep him around for the foreseeable future.

Thompson is the architect of the Packers’ Super Bowl XLV title and has put the team in position to win multiple championships with a relatively young, talented roster. That Thompson is happy in Green Bay, enjoys his job and gets along well with his colleagues bodes well for the future of the team.

It appears only a matter of time before Thompson will make it official and hand coach Mike McCarthy a contract extension of his own. Unlike the 1990s, when coach Mike Holmgren departed for so-called greener pastures two years after winning the Super Bowl, it looks like Thompson and McCarthy could form a long-term partnership that points toward a promising future.

From early in Thompson’s tenure, it was apparent the Packers were in good hands because he placed so much value on draft choices. Unlike his predecessor, Mike Sherman, Thompson refused to compromise the team's future by squandering draft picks.

Thompson used the draft to build a solid foundation and form the blueprint for success. But that approach required patience, which some short-sighted fans were unwilling to offer.

My admiration for Thompson increased in the summer of 2008 when he had the courage to trade Brett Favre and hand the Packers’ quarterback reins to Aaron Rodgers. It took guts for Thompson to send the face of the franchise packing and stand up to unfair and often ridiculous criticism.

I remember Thompson wading through a sometimes angry mob of fans at the Packers' shareholders meeting at the Lambeau Field Atrium three years ago. He took his lumps but all along believed he was doing what was in the best interest of the team.

It was a sound football decision at the time and was confirmed by the Packers reclaiming the Vince Lombardi Trophy this season.

The Thompson critics who threw a temper tantrum three years ago over Favre’s departure have been silenced. What they need to do is stand up and apologize for their boorish, sometimes outlandish behavior.

For the record, I have no problem with someone criticizing Thompson, McCarthy or any Packers team member. The wide array of opinions and viewpoints regarding the Packers is part of their overwhelming popularity. Fans have every right to question and argue over decisions the team makes. What I object to is when that criticism turns into personal attacks or nonsensical rants.

I would like to see the 1,500 or so knuckleheads that signed a petition calling for Thompson’s firing in 2008 to publicly proclaim how wrong they were. I understand how difficult it must have been to see Favre go – no one can deny how much he meant to the Packers for 16 seasons. But that was no excuse to engage in the character assassination of Thompson.

It was petty, vindictive and downright shameful at times.

Thompson has survived with his dignity and class intact. He had zero interest in gloating or rubbing his critics’ noses in the Packers’ Super Bowl success last Sunday night.

When asked whether he felt any vindication, Thompson replied: “I don’t think in terms of that, I really don’t. I think in terms of what’s best for the team right this second. And the fact that we won the Super Bowl, I think most of the fans will be happy. You would like for all of them to agree with you most of the time, but they’re not, that’s not the way it works. And you can’t run the team trying to be a politician. You can’t try to get votes. You have to do what you have to do.”

That is why the Packers’ future looks so bright. The football decisions are being made by someone who won’t be swayed by which way the winds of popularity are blowing. Thompson sticks by his convictions no matter how angry some fans might get.

One national reporter suggested that Thompson had been through hell and back during the Favre saga and that surely the Packers’ victory in the Super Bowl had to provide some satisfaction. But Thompson was having none of it.

“No, life’s too short for that,” Thompson said. “We’re very happy to have won a world championship. That doesn’t happen all the time, and Aaron (Rodgers) is a good quarterback. We’re very happy he’s our quarterback. He was the MVP of the game, and certainly the MVP of our team this year and has been a dynamo down the stretch in these playoffs. But we don’t reflect back like that. It doesn’t work. It’s just, what’s next?”

Thompson already has started thinking about next season. The Packers’ first formal scouting meeting about the upcoming NFL combine took place at 7:30 a.m. Tuesday, less than 36 hours after the Super Bowl concluded.

During the height of the Thompson bashing following Favre’s departure, one of the most laughable claims was that the Packers’ GM made decisions based on his ego. According to that convoluted line of thinking, Thompson wanted to win with a quarterback he drafted rather than with Favre.

The fact is, Thompson wants to win, period, with players that give the Packers the best chance for success. Thompson spent an inordinate amount of time deflecting credit after the Packers’ victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers and couldn’t have been more glowing in his praise for his former boss and ex-Packers GM Ron Wolf.

When I asked Thompson what was the best lesson he learned from Wolf, who hired him in 1992, he replied: “I think 'Believe what you see, not necessarily what you hear.' He was a big believer in seeing players, in scouting them. He was also better at this than me. He was also very good at saying, admitting ‘OK, we might have made a mistake with this guy, we’re going to change out and get another.’ Ron, I was talking to him outside. He trained almost all the people in the personnel part of it for the Green Bay Packers. … almost to a man, every one of them. The things that we do are the things that he taught us what to do.”

Even at the height of his success, Thompson is quick to spread the credit around. That’s the mark of a true leader.

 
See my post immediately preceding this. You seem to live in a bizarre black-white world. Obviously the Pack could improve the team by developing a better return game. But that isn't the language above that you took issue with. Sabertooth said they didn't NEED that. Which is clearly true. For whatever reason, you disagree with simple logic and a nuanced view.
:goodposting: Simple logic? There is nothing logical about what Sabertooth wrote or that you agree with. Do you realize how whacked it is to think any team doesn't need to address a particular weakness because they won a championship.
Would it be ideal? Yes.Is it ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY? (e.g., will the sky fall if it doesn't happen?) Obviously not. I can't explain it in simpler terms than that.
As much as I hate to agree with Stratton and Phase I don't understand yours and Sabertooth's line of thinking. Using the logic that the Packers don't "need" to address special teams because they won the Superbowl makes no sense. Using this logic then the Packers have no needs. We all know this isn't true. Tthe Packers are in excellent shape for next year however the return game is a noticeable weakness and I for one hope Ted addresses this in the draft. 1. because it would be nice to give the Packers offense better starting field position...that's only going to help them put up more points and 2. I really don't like exposing a stud CB like Williams to more hits.
 
See my post immediately preceding this. You seem to live in a bizarre black-white world. Obviously the Pack could improve the team by developing a better return game. But that isn't the language above that you took issue with. Sabertooth said they didn't NEED that. Which is clearly true. For whatever reason, you disagree with simple logic and a nuanced view.
:confused: Simple logic? There is nothing logical about what Sabertooth wrote or that you agree with. Do you realize how whacked it is to think any team doesn't need to address a particular weakness because they won a championship.
Please explain why this is a NEED. Not a want, a NEED. Why do they NEED is and what happens if they fail to address it.
:hifive:
:lmao: at anyone agreeing with the logic that a team doesn't NEED to address a weakness just because they won a Super Bowl. What's next? You and Sabertooth telling us the Packers should trade Finely because they don't need him since they won a Super Bowl without him?
:lmao: at an adult who still doesn't understand what the word "need" means. My 2 1/2 year old has already figured out the difference between "need" and "want." Are you really this dense?
 
See my post immediately preceding this. You seem to live in a bizarre black-white world. Obviously the Pack could improve the team by developing a better return game. But that isn't the language above that you took issue with. Sabertooth said they didn't NEED that. Which is clearly true. For whatever reason, you disagree with simple logic and a nuanced view.
:confused: Simple logic? There is nothing logical about what Sabertooth wrote or that you agree with. Do you realize how whacked it is to think any team doesn't need to address a particular weakness because they won a championship.
Would it be ideal? Yes.Is it ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY? (e.g., will the sky fall if it doesn't happen?) Obviously not. I can't explain it in simpler terms than that.
As much as I hate to agree with Stratton and Phase I don't understand yours and Sabertooth's line of thinking. Using the logic that the Packers don't "need" to address special teams because they won the Superbowl makes no sense. Using this logic then the Packers have no needs. We all know this isn't true. Tthe Packers are in excellent shape for next year however the return game is a noticeable weakness and I for one hope Ted addresses this in the draft. 1. because it would be nice to give the Packers offense better starting field position...that's only going to help them put up more points and 2. I really don't like exposing a stud CB like Williams to more hits.
Another adult who can't differentiate between "need" and "want." America is in sadder shape than I realized.
 
:lmao: at an adult who still doesn't understand what the word "need" means. My 2 1/2 year old has already figured out the difference between "need" and "want." Are you really this dense?
:shrug: For someone that was whining about insults you sure seem to do it as well.Ted Thompson wants and knows it is a need for the Packers to improve in any way possible and that include special teams.
 
:lmao: at an adult who still doesn't understand what the word "need" means. My 2 1/2 year old has already figured out the difference between "need" and "want." Are you really this dense?
:shrug: For someone that was whining about insults you sure seem to do it as well.Ted Thompson wants and knows it is a need for the Packers to improve in any way possible and that include special teams.
Wait, are you a Packer fan? If so, I'll stop being an ###.Edit to add: we still seem to be talking around the difference between a "need" and a "want." I'm comfortable -- for the 1,000 time -- saying that it would be nice to have a better return game. Nobody would dispute that. But let's not pretend that the sky is falling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:lmao: at an adult who still doesn't understand what the word "need" means. My 2 1/2 year old has already figured out the difference between "need" and "want." Are you really this dense?
:shrug: For someone that was whining about insults you sure seem to do it as well.Ted Thompson wants and knows it is a need for the Packers to improve in any way possible and that include special teams.
Wait, are you a Packer fan? If so, I'll stop being an ###.Edit to add: we still seem to be talking around the difference between a "need" and a "want." I'm comfortable -- for the 1,000 time -- saying that it would be nice to have a better return game. Nobody would dispute that. But let's not pretend that the sky is falling.
:lmao: Who said the sky is falling?You and Sabertooth look like complete fools with your thinking the Packers don't need to do anything to improve in any area because they won the Super Bowl.
 
:lmao: at an adult who still doesn't understand what the word "need" means. My 2 1/2 year old has already figured out the difference between "need" and "want." Are you really this dense?
:lmao: For someone that was whining about insults you sure seem to do it as well.Ted Thompson wants and knows it is a need for the Packers to improve in any way possible and that include special teams.
Wait, are you a Packer fan? If so, I'll stop being an ###. I'm comfortable -- for the 1,000 time -- saying that it would be nice to have a better return game.
Yet...... you and Sabertooth have said there is no NEED for the team to try and improve in that area. :rolleyes: :unsure:
 
:) at an adult who still doesn't understand what the word "need" means. My 2 1/2 year old has already figured out the difference between "need" and "want." Are you really this dense?
:goodposting: For someone that was whining about insults you sure seem to do it as well.Ted Thompson wants and knows it is a need for the Packers to improve in any way possible and that include special teams.
Wait, are you a Packer fan? If so, I'll stop being an ###.Edit to add: we still seem to be talking around the difference between a "need" and a "want." I'm comfortable -- for the 1,000 time -- saying that it would be nice to have a better return game. Nobody would dispute that. But let's not pretend that the sky is falling.
:moneybag: Who said the sky is falling?You and Sabertooth look like complete fools with your thinking the Packers don't need to do anything to improve in any area because they won the Super Bowl.
Ok, so you aren't a Packer fan. Got it. And you don't understand the difference between NEED and WANT. Neither does Stratton. Got it.Carry on.
 
:lmao: at an adult who still doesn't understand what the word "need" means. My 2 1/2 year old has already figured out the difference between "need" and "want." Are you really this dense?
:moneybag: For someone that was whining about insults you sure seem to do it as well.Ted Thompson wants and knows it is a need for the Packers to improve in any way possible and that include special teams.
Wait, are you a Packer fan? If so, I'll stop being an ###. I'm comfortable -- for the 1,000 time -- saying that it would be nice to have a better return game.
Yet...... you and Sabertooth have said there is no NEED for the team to try and improve in that area. :) :goodposting:
It's amazing to see someone so consistently fail to comprehend.
 
Ok, so you aren't a Packer fan. Got it. And you don't understand the difference between NEED and WANT. Carry on.
You are really failing here and it is amusing. If a team has a weakness the GM will feel a NEED to improve that. He will also WANT to improve that weakness. That is what he is paid to do.You and Sabertooth seem to think that because they won the Super Bowl they don't need to do that. :goodposting: :lmao: :lmao:
 
Hawk will probably restructure in the form of an extension.Barnett is the one I think is the odd man out. Bishop's coverage skills improved dramatically and that was all Barnett had on him.Peprah needs to be kept. He's the perfect 3rd safety behind Collins and Burnett (maybe split with Burnett while the kid learns the trade).James Jones is the biggest piece. I don't think they can afford to let him go. He was on the radio the other day and it seemed like he knew something but couldn't say. I wouldn't be surprised to hear about him getting a contract extension before March 3.Jenkins will likely be gone. I don't think the Packers can afford him with all the money in the d-line and LBs already. My only worry is if Neal can stay healthy and Jolly can return to form after a year away. Harrell will be cut in camp, unless a miracle occurs.Someone no one talks about is Mason Crosby. If he were to be allowed to go it would create a huge hole in this team. He needs to stay as well. I know a lot of people are down on him, but it is very, very hard to find a good kicker. Crosby is a good kicker.Lang and Newhouse are the future of the right side of the line once Bulago moves to LT. I think College may or may not be kept. He'll probably be paid more by someone else though. Clifton will surprise everyone though and play injury free next year giving these guys an opportunity to get better before they are needed to step in. The future of the O-Line is bright.Some guys have to go and I'm sure Thomspon doesn't mind getting comp picks anyway.Brandon Chillar, Brad Jones, and Frank Zombo will be fighting for one spot in training camp after the Packers draft a pass rusher in the early rounds of the draft. Zombo probably wins.Brandon Jackson sniffs FA, but ends up back with the Pack as no one is interested.
Agree on Barnett and Jenkins and hope they keep James Jones. Do you think Bulaga could play LT? Not so sure after watching this season.
I do. He was only a rookie.My main concern about the Packers next season is the amount of growing the young players are going to miss out on with the CBA issues. Think about McCarthy's QB school. It's huge for Flynn. If Flynn went through the QB school I would honestly feel confident enough that if Rodgers were to go down with an injury for a long period of time that he would be a winning QB. Clearly he's very close already.I think the same about other positions as well. Bulaga will fit in where he plays the best and I've heard on the radio that the Packers believe he is their LT of the future. I have to believe that if they believe that it will happen. They see him every day so know what he can and cannot do. He's going to grow, he's going to learn and most importantly he's going to be a Pro Bowler like Sitton. It will be awesome to see and once the line is set then Thompson can go get his Shaun Alexander for Green Bay (if Starks hasn't proven he's the guy by then.)Color me excited.As far as the kick returner issue. Obviously it's a need. Field position is so important which is also why Masthay was brought up. Getting Rodgers past the 30 would add at least 50 more points to their season total. That's scary.The special teams is so critical to the Packer defense. Keeping an offense inside their 20 give the d confidence and just kills the offense's confidence when they are struggling every possession to get just a single first down. Seriously, not getting too far ahead. But if Thompson handles this the right way how good can this team get. I know there will be surprises, but next year's schedule is awesome. Obviously one of those teams that looks like an easy win will not be, but still even the "good" teams they have to play still have to play versus the packers.Please get the CBA done soon. This offseason is so critical to all of those that keep talking dynasty.
 
See my post immediately preceding this. You seem to live in a bizarre black-white world. Obviously the Pack could improve the team by developing a better return game. But that isn't the language above that you took issue with. Sabertooth said they didn't NEED that. Which is clearly true. For whatever reason, you disagree with simple logic and a nuanced view.
:bag: Simple logic? There is nothing logical about what Sabertooth wrote or that you agree with. Do you realize how whacked it is to think any team doesn't need to address a particular weakness because they won a championship.
Please explain why this is a NEED. Not a want, a NEED. Why do they NEED is and what happens if they fail to address it.
C'mon, Sabertooth. What is going on with you? If you really need someone to explain why the Packers need to improve on any weakness they have then you really shouldn't post about football.Do you expect the Packers to not do anything to try and make the team better just because they won the Super Bowl? Just stop because you are hitting new lows here.
Once again, your post provides no insight or information.
 
:lmao: at an adult who still doesn't understand what the word "need" means. My 2 1/2 year old has already figured out the difference between "need" and "want." Are you really this dense?
:bag: For someone that was whining about insults you sure seem to do it as well.Ted Thompson wants and knows it is a need for the Packers to improve in any way possible and that include special teams.
Wait, are you a Packer fan? If so, I'll stop being an ###.Edit to add: we still seem to be talking around the difference between a "need" and a "want." I'm comfortable -- for the 1,000 time -- saying that it would be nice to have a better return game. Nobody would dispute that. But let's not pretend that the sky is falling.
:confused: Who said the sky is falling?You and Sabertooth look like complete fools with your thinking the Packers don't need to do anything to improve in any area because they won the Super Bowl.
Nobody said this. Typical straw man agrument.
 
Ok, if the Packers NEED a better return game, what happens if they don't address this? Come on Stratton and Phase, drop some of that knowledge on us.

 
:lmao: at an adult who still doesn't understand what the word "need" means. My 2 1/2 year old has already figured out the difference between "need" and "want." Are you really this dense?
:confused: For someone that was whining about insults you sure seem to do it as well.Ted Thompson wants and knows it is a need for the Packers to improve in any way possible and that include special teams.
Wait, are you a Packer fan? If so, I'll stop being an ###. I'm comfortable -- for the 1,000 time -- saying that it would be nice to have a better return game.
Yet...... you and Sabertooth have said there is no NEED for the team to try and improve in that area. :rolleyes: :thumbdown:
I'll probably regret doing this, but having watched this back-n-forth for the last few days, I'll try to help you out:What's happening here is that Alex and Saber are talking about a "need" as verb for "something that MUST occur" versus a "want" as "something you'd like to occur". I think any rational Packer fan would agree that while we probably WANT a better return game, we could hardly claim it is NECESSARY or MUST OCCUR for the Packers to be successful, since they were already successful (the the greatest extent possible) this season without it.You are using the word "need" as a noun: a "point of weakness" for the team, which again, most Packer fans would agree that the return game is a team need used in this context.It would probably be accurate to say that the return game is a team need, but not something the team needs.Once you recognize the dual usage of the word "need" you'll do a bit better in this conversation.
 
See my post immediately preceding this. You seem to live in a bizarre black-white world. Obviously the Pack could improve the team by developing a better return game. But that isn't the language above that you took issue with. Sabertooth said they didn't NEED that. Which is clearly true. For whatever reason, you disagree with simple logic and a nuanced view.
:thumbdown: Simple logic? There is nothing logical about what Sabertooth wrote or that you agree with. Do you realize how whacked it is to think any team doesn't need to address a particular weakness because they won a championship.
Would it be ideal? Yes.Is it ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY? (e.g., will the sky fall if it doesn't happen?) Obviously not.

I can't explain it in simpler terms than that.
As much as I hate to agree with Stratton and Phase I don't understand yours and Sabertooth's line of thinking. Using the logic that the Packers don't "need" to address special teams because they won the Superbowl makes no sense. Using this logic then the Packers have no needs. We all know this isn't true. Tthe Packers are in excellent shape for next year however the return game is a noticeable weakness and I for one hope Ted addresses this in the draft. 1. because it would be nice to give the Packers offense better starting field position...that's only going to help them put up more points and 2. I really don't like exposing a stud CB like Williams to more hits.
Another adult who can't differentiate between "need" and "want." America is in sadder shape than I realized.
:confused: I agree because we're now arguing the semantics of needs vs wants. Do you really not pay attention to the NFL draft? Kiper, Mayock, etc all discuss a team's needs when analyzing a draft. A need in a football sense since in the grand scheme of things are technically wants.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:lmao: at an adult who still doesn't understand what the word "need" means. My 2 1/2 year old has already figured out the difference between "need" and "want." Are you really this dense?
:lmao: For someone that was whining about insults you sure seem to do it as well.Ted Thompson wants and knows it is a need for the Packers to improve in any way possible and that include special teams.
Wait, are you a Packer fan? If so, I'll stop being an ###. I'm comfortable -- for the 1,000 time -- saying that it would be nice to have a better return game.
Yet...... you and Sabertooth have said there is no NEED for the team to try and improve in that area. :rolleyes: :thumbup:
I'll probably regret doing this, but having watched this back-n-forth for the last few days, I'll try to help you out:What's happening here is that Alex and Saber are talking about a "need" as verb for "something that MUST occur" versus a "want" as "something you'd like to occur". I think any rational Packer fan would agree that while we probably WANT a better return game, we could hardly claim it is NECESSARY or MUST OCCUR for the Packers to be successful, since they were already successful (the the greatest extent possible) this season without it.You are using the word "need" as a noun: a "point of weakness" for the team, which again, most Packer fans would agree that the return game is a team need used in this context.It would probably be accurate to say that the return game is a team need, but not something the team needs.Once you recognize the dual usage of the word "need" you'll do a bit better in this conversation.
Perfect.
 
I'll probably regret doing this, but having watched this back-n-forth for the last few days, I'll try to help you out:What's happening here is that Alex and Saber are talking about a "need" as verb for "something that MUST occur" versus a "want" as "something you'd like to occur". I think any rational Packer fan would agree that while we probably WANT a better return game, we could hardly claim it is NECESSARY or MUST OCCUR for the Packers to be successful, since they were already successful (the the greatest extent possible) this season without it.You are using the word "need" as a noun: a "point of weakness" for the team, which again, most Packer fans would agree that the return game is a team need used in this context.It would probably be accurate to say that the return game is a team need, but not something the team needs.Once you recognize the dual usage of the word "need" you'll do a bit better in this conversation.
:)
 
The Packers have a "need" regarding special teams and they need to address that in the offseason. That isn't hard to figure out and TT isn't doing his job if he feels he doesn't need to address the team need in that area. Anyone that thinks they don't need to address this must not want the team to try and improve. I have a lot of faith in TT and know he will address this.

:thumbup: :mellow: :banned:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KingPrawn said:
Nice article on Ted Thompson

Green Bay Packers GM Ted Thompson has team on right path

The news keeps getting better and better for the Green Bay Packers.

Less than a week after they won the Super Bowl, team president Mark Murphy announced Friday that General Manager Ted Thompson had signed a contract extension that will keep him around for the foreseeable future.

Thompson is the architect of the Packers’ Super Bowl XLV title and has put the team in position to win multiple championships with a relatively young, talented roster. That Thompson is happy in Green Bay, enjoys his job and gets along well with his colleagues bodes well for the future of the team.

It appears only a matter of time before Thompson will make it official and hand coach Mike McCarthy a contract extension of his own. Unlike the 1990s, when coach Mike Holmgren departed for so-called greener pastures two years after winning the Super Bowl, it looks like Thompson and McCarthy could form a long-term partnership that points toward a promising future.

From early in Thompson’s tenure, it was apparent the Packers were in good hands because he placed so much value on draft choices. Unlike his predecessor, Mike Sherman, Thompson refused to compromise the team's future by squandering draft picks.

Thompson used the draft to build a solid foundation and form the blueprint for success. But that approach required patience, which some short-sighted fans were unwilling to offer.

My admiration for Thompson increased in the summer of 2008 when he had the courage to trade Brett Favre and hand the Packers’ quarterback reins to Aaron Rodgers. It took guts for Thompson to send the face of the franchise packing and stand up to unfair and often ridiculous criticism.

I remember Thompson wading through a sometimes angry mob of fans at the Packers' shareholders meeting at the Lambeau Field Atrium three years ago. He took his lumps but all along believed he was doing what was in the best interest of the team.

It was a sound football decision at the time and was confirmed by the Packers reclaiming the Vince Lombardi Trophy this season.

The Thompson critics who threw a temper tantrum three years ago over Favre’s departure have been silenced. What they need to do is stand up and apologize for their boorish, sometimes outlandish behavior.

For the record, I have no problem with someone criticizing Thompson, McCarthy or any Packers team member. The wide array of opinions and viewpoints regarding the Packers is part of their overwhelming popularity. Fans have every right to question and argue over decisions the team makes. What I object to is when that criticism turns into personal attacks or nonsensical rants.

I would like to see the 1,500 or so knuckleheads that signed a petition calling for Thompson’s firing in 2008 to publicly proclaim how wrong they were. I understand how difficult it must have been to see Favre go – no one can deny how much he meant to the Packers for 16 seasons. But that was no excuse to engage in the character assassination of Thompson.

It was petty, vindictive and downright shameful at times.

Thompson has survived with his dignity and class intact. He had zero interest in gloating or rubbing his critics’ noses in the Packers’ Super Bowl success last Sunday night.

When asked whether he felt any vindication, Thompson replied: “I don’t think in terms of that, I really don’t. I think in terms of what’s best for the team right this second. And the fact that we won the Super Bowl, I think most of the fans will be happy. You would like for all of them to agree with you most of the time, but they’re not, that’s not the way it works. And you can’t run the team trying to be a politician. You can’t try to get votes. You have to do what you have to do.”

That is why the Packers’ future looks so bright. The football decisions are being made by someone who won’t be swayed by which way the winds of popularity are blowing. Thompson sticks by his convictions no matter how angry some fans might get.

One national reporter suggested that Thompson had been through hell and back during the Favre saga and that surely the Packers’ victory in the Super Bowl had to provide some satisfaction. But Thompson was having none of it.

“No, life’s too short for that,” Thompson said. “We’re very happy to have won a world championship. That doesn’t happen all the time, and Aaron (Rodgers) is a good quarterback. We’re very happy he’s our quarterback. He was the MVP of the game, and certainly the MVP of our team this year and has been a dynamo down the stretch in these playoffs. But we don’t reflect back like that. It doesn’t work. It’s just, what’s next?”

Thompson already has started thinking about next season. The Packers’ first formal scouting meeting about the upcoming NFL combine took place at 7:30 a.m. Tuesday, less than 36 hours after the Super Bowl concluded.

During the height of the Thompson bashing following Favre’s departure, one of the most laughable claims was that the Packers’ GM made decisions based on his ego. According to that convoluted line of thinking, Thompson wanted to win with a quarterback he drafted rather than with Favre.

The fact is, Thompson wants to win, period, with players that give the Packers the best chance for success. Thompson spent an inordinate amount of time deflecting credit after the Packers’ victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers and couldn’t have been more glowing in his praise for his former boss and ex-Packers GM Ron Wolf.

When I asked Thompson what was the best lesson he learned from Wolf, who hired him in 1992, he replied: “I think 'Believe what you see, not necessarily what you hear.' He was a big believer in seeing players, in scouting them. He was also better at this than me. He was also very good at saying, admitting ‘OK, we might have made a mistake with this guy, we’re going to change out and get another.’ Ron, I was talking to him outside. He trained almost all the people in the personnel part of it for the Green Bay Packers. … almost to a man, every one of them. The things that we do are the things that he taught us what to do.”

Even at the height of his success, Thompson is quick to spread the credit around. That’s the mark of a true leader.
It's fun to read interviews like this one now with 20/20 hindsight.

Q. Sometimes to do big deals you have to think big and have vision. Most turn out just to be pipedreams. There are GMs that think big all the time. Are you just a grinder and can't see blockbuster opportunities?
Here's to our "grinder"-in-chief. :IBTL:

 
The issue on returns is not just one of "we need a better return guy", although that may be it. The return guys also need better holes.

I suspect I disagree that finding a reutrn guy should be a large off-season focus. Lots of players in the draft will have prospects in that area. Fill a more important need and keep an eye on players that might contribute there. If you have two RBs, WRs, DBs, or Ss who are about equal but one can return, and you perceive the position to be a need, pick the one who might be a better return guy.

Otherwise, just bump Finley and start farther back.

:IBTL:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If there's anything to worry about now it's that a Packer will probably be the cover star of the next Madden game. I mean you have to think it'll be Jennings.

 
If for the sake of argument we all agreed that punt and kickoff returns were the weakest point of the team, I would still not be willing to say that TT would be derelict in his duties by not trying to improve the situation in the offseason. You can't improve any position in a vacuum: any draft pick, cap dollar, or roster spot devoted to improving the KR game is a resource that can't be used improving, maintaining, or future-building at another position.

There has been criticizim of the logic that because the Packers won the whole burrito without a return game, they therefore don't need to improve the return game. But is just as fallacious to say that because the secondary or the the WR corps were a position of strength, we don't need to do anything at those positions in the offseason.

To me, having a legit threat at the KR position is the proverbial cherry on top. If you can be excellent in every other aspect of the game, simply being able to field punts (which Tra admittedly struggled with) and run KOs back to the 20 is sufficient. We have core guys that only have 1-3 years TOPS left in them at LT, CB, and WR, plus solid contributor FAs at WR, RB, and DE. I would rather see any and all of those positions addressed before going after a KR specialist. Hell, if I could pick and choose, I would like to see our kickoff coverage improved before even touching the return game.

Ideally, there is a guy out there who is a sort of talented project at WR or CB in a later round, and he can come in and return kicks right away. But if the kick return game is neglected at the expense of those other positions I mentioned, I won't begrudge TT a bit for it.

Lastly, thanks to Jersey35 for doing his part to facilitate communication between (theoretically) native english speakers. Think, people: "Am I trying to understand what the other guy is saying, or am I just trying to show how right I am and how stupid he is?" There is a lot of the latter going on here, which is just ridiculous considering it's mostly Packers fans going back and forth, and we just won it all.

 
Jersey35 said:
I'll probably regret doing this, but having watched this back-n-forth for the last few days, I'll try to help you out:What's happening here is that Alex and Saber are talking about a "need" as verb for "something that MUST occur" versus a "want" as "something you'd like to occur". I think any rational Packer fan would agree that while we probably WANT a better return game, we could hardly claim it is NECESSARY or MUST OCCUR for the Packers to be successful, since they were already successful (the the greatest extent possible) this season without it.You are using the word "need" as a noun: a "point of weakness" for the team, which again, most Packer fans would agree that the return game is a team need used in this context.It would probably be accurate to say that the return game is a team need, but not something the team needs.Once you recognize the dual usage of the word "need" you'll do a bit better in this conversation.
Finally. Somebody who gets it.
 
Eric Stratton said:
The Packers have a "need" regarding special teams and they need to address that in the offseason. That isn't hard to figure out and TT isn't doing his job if he feels he doesn't need to address the team need in that area. Anyone that thinks they don't need to address this must not want the team to try and improve. I have a lot of faith in TT and know he will address this. :lmao: :lmao: :bag:
:rant:
 
Eric Stratton said:
The Packers have a "need" regarding special teams and they need to address that in the offseason. That isn't hard to figure out and TT isn't doing his job if he feels he doesn't need to address the team need in that area. Anyone that thinks they don't need to address this must not want the team to try and improve. I have a lot of faith in TT and know he will address this. :thumbdown: :bag: :banned:
ST is different though.The return game, I agree that is something they should address...without getting into the whole need vs want debate.Overall ST. Its hard to say. So much depends on their own FAs and who they sign. Also, who is coming back off injury that might push some guys back to ST roles moreso than this year when they were more needed in the starting lineup.
 
Eric Stratton said:
The Packers have a "need" regarding special teams and they need to address that in the offseason. That isn't hard to figure out and TT isn't doing his job if he feels he doesn't need to address the team need in that area. Anyone that thinks they don't need to address this must not want the team to try and improve. I have a lot of faith in TT and know he will address this. :confused: :no: :banned:
ST is different though.The return game, I agree that is something they should address...without getting into the whole need vs want debate.Overall ST. Its hard to say. So much depends on their own FAs and who they sign. Also, who is coming back off injury that might push some guys back to ST roles moreso than this year when they were more needed in the starting lineup.
The return game is considered part of special teams.
 
Eric Stratton said:
The Packers have a "need" regarding special teams and they need to address that in the offseason. That isn't hard to figure out and TT isn't doing his job if he feels he doesn't need to address the team need in that area. Anyone that thinks they don't need to address this must not want the team to try and improve. I have a lot of faith in TT and know he will address this. :goodposting: :excited: :banned:
ST is different though.The return game, I agree that is something they should address...without getting into the whole need vs want debate.Overall ST. Its hard to say. So much depends on their own FAs and who they sign. Also, who is coming back off injury that might push some guys back to ST roles moreso than this year when they were more needed in the starting lineup.
The return game is considered part of special teams.
I don't recall saying it wasn't.I can see returner being something they should go after (actually really like the Leon Washington thought as a back too and they could let Jackson go).Just bringing up the point that overall special teams coverage has had its issues at times, and some of that can be attributed to changing personnel so much with the injuries that pushed guys into the starting lineup.And there are a few guys up for FA that can very well change what happens here (Korey Hall being one of them).I don't see us going for a guy like Weems because he does not add in anything other than returns. The Packers seem to like guys that can have the dual role and be able to contribute elsewhere.Really the last good returner we had was Rossum IMO (Blackmon was ok when healthy though).
 
Perhaps we could re-focus on which FAs we will attempt to re-sign and which will get too expensive.

From: http://www.profootballweekly.com/2010/11/2...e-agent-preview

GREEN BAY PACKERS

Potential FAs: CB Josh Bell (3), S Atari Bigby (5), ILB Desmond Bishop (4), OG Daryn Colledge (5), PK Mason Crosby (4), LS Brett Goode (3), FB Korey Hall (4), RB Brandon Jackson (4), DE Cullen Jenkins (7), DE Johnny Jolly (5), WR James Jones (4), FB John Kuhn (5), S Charlie Peprah (5), C Jason Spitz (5), LB Matt Wilhelm (8), CB Tramon Williams (4).

Analysis: GM Ted Thompson's m.o. of emphasizing the re-signing of valuable players on the cusp of becoming free agents and steering clear of the free-agent market remains unchanged. Williams, who has come on like gangbusters, very likely could get a well-deserved new contract in the near future. To a lesser extent, the Packers also could re-up not too far down the road with Jenkins, using the four-year, $24.9 million deal they gave fellow DE Ryan Pickett last March as a parameter. Bishop, Jackson and Peprah are playing well enough to have improved their stock and are probably good bets to be re-signed if they can keep it up. Jones' future in Green Bay could in great part hinge on just how much gas veteran Donald Driver has left in the tank. Crosby has a big leg but has been inconsistent. Expendable veterans whose releases could free up more money to take care of the aforementioned free-agents-to-be are OT Mark Tauscher and Driver. Also, because of the way Bishop has come on, ILBs Nick Barnett, who suffered a season-ending wrist injury earlier this season, and A.J. Hawk, whose current contract is structured to likely make him a free agent next year, could be expendable.

I know that Tramon Williams (5 years 38 million), Charles Woodson (5 years 55 million), and Nick Collins (4 years 27 million) all signed contracts in 2010 in the defensive backfield.

Jenkins sure plays well when healthy but is also older than I recalled (30). Barnett complains a lot about an extension, but he is also 29. Hawk would be a restricted FA IIRC, but that distinction may not matter any longer. I would imagine we need to hang on to either Bishop or Hawk.

Where do we invest our money and who will become too expensive?

 
From the list you had....Bishop and Tramon are already signed.

IMO, likely gone:

CB Josh Bell

S Atari Bigby

C Jason Spitz

LB Matt Wilhelm

Likely Staying:

PK Mason Crosby

LS Brett Goode (is he really set to be a FA?)

FB Korey Hall (one caveat there is where they really feel the progress of Quinn Johnson is...I have not seen much out of him to warrant keeping Johnson over Hall IMO...though, Hall struggled with injury this year)

FB John Kuhn

S Charlie Peprah

Now, the others:

DE Johnny Jolly...he applied for reinstatement and wants to be a Packer...though, I believe he will be restricted and not an unrestricted since that is what he was set to be next year. If they let him go, its purely on character reasoning.

OG Daryn Colledge...still has struggled and is inconsistent. But he has been around, shows up, hasn't missed much, if any, time due to injuries. If Lang is ready, I can see both he and Spitz gone (Spitz also depending on what they think of a guy like Dietrich-Smith)

RB Brandon Jackson...tries free agency and doesn't find much out there. Comes back unless they go in a direction like a guy like Leon Washington or someone else who can handle returns.

DE Cullen Jenkins...going to want a nice chunk of change and may get it elsewhere. If Jolly gets reinstated, I think they let Jenkins walk.

WR James Jones...part of me thinks someone might overpay him. Part of me really wants him back. Just has too much talent to let go (even with the drops). If they can keep this WR corps together at a modest price...lets do it. I don't see TT getting into any bidding war for him obviously.

 
Eric Stratton said:
The Packers have a "need" regarding special teams and they need to address that in the offseason. That isn't hard to figure out and TT isn't doing his job if he feels he doesn't need to address the team need in that area. Anyone that thinks they don't need to address this must not want the team to try and improve. I have a lot of faith in TT and know he will address this. :hophead: :excited: :banned:
:popcorn:
Are you actually :bag: your own alias here? :lmao:
 
From the list you had....Bishop and Tramon are already signed.IMO, likely gone:CB Josh BellS Atari Bigby C Jason SpitzLB Matt WilhelmLikely Staying:PK Mason CrosbyLS Brett Goode (is he really set to be a FA?)FB Korey Hall (one caveat there is where they really feel the progress of Quinn Johnson is...I have not seen much out of him to warrant keeping Johnson over Hall IMO...though, Hall struggled with injury this year)FB John KuhnS Charlie PeprahNow, the others:DE Johnny Jolly...he applied for reinstatement and wants to be a Packer...though, I believe he will be restricted and not an unrestricted since that is what he was set to be next year. If they let him go, its purely on character reasoning.OG Daryn Colledge...still has struggled and is inconsistent. But he has been around, shows up, hasn't missed much, if any, time due to injuries. If Lang is ready, I can see both he and Spitz gone (Spitz also depending on what they think of a guy like Dietrich-Smith)RB Brandon Jackson...tries free agency and doesn't find much out there. Comes back unless they go in a direction like a guy like Leon Washington or someone else who can handle returns.DE Cullen Jenkins...going to want a nice chunk of change and may get it elsewhere. If Jolly gets reinstated, I think they let Jenkins walk.WR James Jones...part of me thinks someone might overpay him. Part of me really wants him back. Just has too much talent to let go (even with the drops). If they can keep this WR corps together at a modest price...lets do it. I don't see TT getting into any bidding war for him obviously.
Well put, I also don't think anyone overpays for Jones. Brad Smith, Weems and Leon Washington(returners) are all free agents. If they sign Weems away from the Falcons it could be a slick move.
 
Jones highly publicized playoff drops may have diminished his value sufficiently for the Packers to keep his frustrating play around for a while longer. Driver is in decline. I don't think they can have that decline and the loss of Jones. True, Finley will be back, but at what effectiveness?

 
Brad Smith, Weems and Leon Washington(returners) are all free agents. If they sign Weems away from the Falcons it could be a slick move.
Not sure on Weems or Smith. They don't seem like they would add enough in other phases of the game for TT to be interested as he seems to value guys who can also contribute elsewhere on the field (which is why Leon makes more sense IMO) And neither of those two are punt returners...which IMO is a bigger "need" than kick returns (I just want Tramon off the punt return unit).
 
From the list you had....Bishop and Tramon are already signed.IMO, likely gone:CB Josh BellS Atari Bigby C Jason SpitzLB Matt WilhelmLikely Staying:PK Mason CrosbyLS Brett Goode (is he really set to be a FA?)FB Korey Hall (one caveat there is where they really feel the progress of Quinn Johnson is...I have not seen much out of him to warrant keeping Johnson over Hall IMO...though, Hall struggled with injury this year)FB John KuhnS Charlie PeprahNow, the others:DE Johnny Jolly...he applied for reinstatement and wants to be a Packer...though, I believe he will be restricted and not an unrestricted since that is what he was set to be next year. If they let him go, its purely on character reasoning.OG Daryn Colledge...still has struggled and is inconsistent. But he has been around, shows up, hasn't missed much, if any, time due to injuries. If Lang is ready, I can see both he and Spitz gone (Spitz also depending on what they think of a guy like Dietrich-Smith)RB Brandon Jackson...tries free agency and doesn't find much out there. Comes back unless they go in a direction like a guy like Leon Washington or someone else who can handle returns.DE Cullen Jenkins...going to want a nice chunk of change and may get it elsewhere. If Jolly gets reinstated, I think they let Jenkins walk.WR James Jones...part of me thinks someone might overpay him. Part of me really wants him back. Just has too much talent to let go (even with the drops). If they can keep this WR corps together at a modest price...lets do it. I don't see TT getting into any bidding war for him obviously.
Goode was signed to a 2 year extension during the season, so he's staying. But I mostly agree with your list. If Jenkins wasn't leaving before, I think the SB win likely pushed him out the door. Now that he has his ring, I think he'll put a bigger emphasis on money. He's 30 years old, so this would likely be last chance to score a big contract. Also, some have speculated he might be happier in a 4-3.I think James Jones is probably gone, too, as much for ego reasons as for money. In Green Bay he's the #3 option at best with Jennings and Finley clearly the top weapons. And he'll lose targets to Driver and Jordy as well. He'd have a chance to be "the man" somewhere else, or at worst a #2. IMO, they need to make keeping Brandon Jackson a priority. The guy is not as replacable as some Packers fans believe. He's invaluable in pass protection and very good in the passing game. An absolute perfect fit as a 3rd down RB for the Packers. I'm 50/50 on Jolly and Colledge. With Jolly it depends completely on how much he's changed. If there's any indication he's hanging with the same crowd, let him go. Colledge only if the price is right because I think he's pretty replaceable.
 
From the list you had....Bishop and Tramon are already signed.IMO, likely gone:CB Josh BellS Atari Bigby C Jason SpitzLB Matt WilhelmLikely Staying:PK Mason CrosbyLS Brett Goode (is he really set to be a FA?)FB Korey Hall (one caveat there is where they really feel the progress of Quinn Johnson is...I have not seen much out of him to warrant keeping Johnson over Hall IMO...though, Hall struggled with injury this year)FB John KuhnS Charlie PeprahNow, the others:DE Johnny Jolly...he applied for reinstatement and wants to be a Packer...though, I believe he will be restricted and not an unrestricted since that is what he was set to be next year. If they let him go, its purely on character reasoning.OG Daryn Colledge...still has struggled and is inconsistent. But he has been around, shows up, hasn't missed much, if any, time due to injuries. If Lang is ready, I can see both he and Spitz gone (Spitz also depending on what they think of a guy like Dietrich-Smith)RB Brandon Jackson...tries free agency and doesn't find much out there. Comes back unless they go in a direction like a guy like Leon Washington or someone else who can handle returns.DE Cullen Jenkins...going to want a nice chunk of change and may get it elsewhere. If Jolly gets reinstated, I think they let Jenkins walk.WR James Jones...part of me thinks someone might overpay him. Part of me really wants him back. Just has too much talent to let go (even with the drops). If they can keep this WR corps together at a modest price...lets do it. I don't see TT getting into any bidding war for him obviously.
Goode was signed to a 2 year extension during the season, so he's staying. But I mostly agree with your list. If Jenkins wasn't leaving before, I think the SB win likely pushed him out the door. Now that he has his ring, I think he'll put a bigger emphasis on money. He's 30 years old, so this would likely be last chance to score a big contract. Also, some have speculated he might be happier in a 4-3.I think James Jones is probably gone, too, as much for ego reasons as for money. In Green Bay he's the #3 option at best with Jennings and Finley clearly the top weapons. And he'll lose targets to Driver and Jordy as well. He'd have a chance to be "the man" somewhere else, or at worst a #2. IMO, they need to make keeping Brandon Jackson a priority. The guy is not as replacable as some Packers fans believe. He's invaluable in pass protection and very good in the passing game. An absolute perfect fit as a 3rd down RB for the Packers. I'm 50/50 on Jolly and Colledge. With Jolly it depends completely on how much he's changed. If there's any indication he's hanging with the same crowd, let him go. Colledge only if the price is right because I think he's pretty replaceable.
I don't think Jackson will be back. He wants a larger role in an offense and will likely seek that out. TT will be able to find another back to fill that role.
 
Jackson had his chance and didn't show much for a larger role.

Chester taylor is better-Waler has him ranked 19th free agent RB.

On Wednesday, president Mark Murphy, cornerback Charles Woodson, running back Ryan Grant and fullback John Kuhn will ring the Closing Bell of the New York Stock Exchange. at 4 p.m EST. According to the NYSE, a live webcast of the Closing Bell (beginning at 2:59 p.m. Milwaukee time) will be available on the homepage of nyse.com.

Also, Jarrett Bush, Daryn Colledge, Derrick Martin, Nick McDonald, Frank Zombo and former player William Henderson, along with assistant equipment manager Tom Bakken and head athletic trainer Pepper Burruss are presently overseas on a Navy MWR (Morale, Welfare and Recreation) trip, spending time with troops in the Middle East. The team's website, packers.com, has photos.

 
From the list you had....Bishop and Tramon are already signed.

IMO, likely gone:

CB Josh Bell

S Atari Bigby

C Jason Spitz

LB Matt Wilhelm

Likely Staying:

PK Mason Crosby

LS Brett Goode (is he really set to be a FA?)

FB Korey Hall (one caveat there is where they really feel the progress of Quinn Johnson is...I have not seen much out of him to warrant keeping Johnson over Hall IMO...though, Hall struggled with injury this year)

FB John Kuhn

S Charlie Peprah

Now, the others:

DE Johnny Jolly...he applied for reinstatement and wants to be a Packer...though, I believe he will be restricted and not an unrestricted since that is what he was set to be next year. If they let him go, its purely on character reasoning.

OG Daryn Colledge...still has struggled and is inconsistent. But he has been around, shows up, hasn't missed much, if any, time due to injuries. If Lang is ready, I can see both he and Spitz gone (Spitz also depending on what they think of a guy like Dietrich-Smith)

RB Brandon Jackson...tries free agency and doesn't find much out there. Comes back unless they go in a direction like a guy like Leon Washington or someone else who can handle returns.

DE Cullen Jenkins...going to want a nice chunk of change and may get it elsewhere. If Jolly gets reinstated, I think they let Jenkins walk.

WR James Jones...part of me thinks someone might overpay him. Part of me really wants him back. Just has too much talent to let go (even with the drops). If they can keep this WR corps together at a modest price...lets do it. I don't see TT getting into any bidding war for him obviously.
Goode was signed to a 2 year extension during the season, so he's staying. But I mostly agree with your list. If Jenkins wasn't leaving before, I think the SB win likely pushed him out the door. Now that he has his ring, I think he'll put a bigger emphasis on money. He's 30 years old, so this would likely be last chance to score a big contract. Also, some have speculated he might be happier in a 4-3.

I think James Jones is probably gone, too, as much for ego reasons as for money. In Green Bay he's the #3 option at best with Jennings and Finley clearly the top weapons. And he'll lose targets to Driver and Jordy as well. He'd have a chance to be "the man" somewhere else, or at worst a #2.

IMO, they need to make keeping Brandon Jackson a priority. The guy is not as replacable as some Packers fans believe. He's invaluable in pass protection and very good in the passing game. An absolute perfect fit as a 3rd down RB for the Packers.

I'm 50/50 on Jolly and Colledge. With Jolly it depends completely on how much he's changed. If there's any indication he's hanging with the same crowd, let him go. Colledge only if the price is right because I think he's pretty replaceable.
I don't think Jackson will be back. He wants a larger role in an offense and will likely seek that out. TT will be able to find another back to fill that role.
He may seek it out, but he won't find it. He's a 3rd down back. That's what he is and all he'll ever be. However, I think he's a very good one and probably has more value for the Packers than any other team. I'll be very disappointed if he's not resigned.
 
He may seek it out, but he won't find it. He's a 3rd down back. That's what he is and all he'll ever be. However, I think he's a very good one and probably has more value for the Packers than any other team. I'll be very disappointed if he's not resigned.
As Bob McGinn pointed out in a recent article, Jackson has not lost a fumble nor been flagged for a single penalty in four years. He played over 600 snaps this year and had over 1,100 yards from scrimmage. He has not been credited with allowing a sack in two seasons, having turned his biggest weakness as a rookie (pass pro) into his greatest strength. Almost never drops a ball, and while he rarely does anything creative or aggressive with the ball, he consistently gets every yard that is there for the taking on any given play. Jackson is a very mature, solid pro. I loved the way he grabbed Colledge's jersey on that touchdown against the Eagles in the playoff game - it showed how much he has grown and developed as a player in his time with Green Bay.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top