RealGM

This is such a well written article that sums up my view of this whole situation perfectly. Thompson and McCarthy have done a great job assembling a team built for long term success and everyone is losing sigh of that. All actual Packer fans will realize that this is actually the case and though it's hard they will move forward without Favre much easier. Take a read of this article and take a look at the truth behind what Thompson has actually done here for this teams future.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingc ... id=3523451

If this is already somewhere else just lock it but I thought it should have its own thread because it's such a good article for Packer fans not Favre fans.

Very good article and in Ted/McCarthy I trust.

I posted this in the big thread. Page 12.

Ted is without question a vast vast vast upgrade over Sherman as a GM, the current roster has much more talent, overall depth, and is younger than the one TT took over.

With that said, fairly or not, a lot of Thompson's future IMO is tied into the health of Rodgers. If Aaron doesn't stay healthy this year, our season could nosedive and the media will then shred Thompson. Hopefully the past injuries with Aaron were fluke and not a sign of a future being fragile.

If Rodgers stays healthy, i think we win 10-12 games, if not we could finish under .500 depending on how many games he missed. If that worst case happened and Brett plays well in NY, the media and many fans will likely overlook all the positives Thompson has brought and will be like a pack of wild dogs on a wounded animal and savage him.

I wonder if he'll use more of the cap room now that Brett's gone.

El Duderino wrote:If Rodgers stays healthy, i think we win 10-12 games, if not we could finish under .500 depending on how many games he missed. If that worst case happened and Brett plays well in NY, the media and many fans will likely overlook all the positives Thompson has brought and will be like a pack of wild dogs on a wounded animal and savage him.

Agreed. Without Rodgers there will be far too much pressure on the running game. While the running game last season produced some explosive runs, these are definitely not the Ahman Green days where we could pretty much line up and say, "here it is. try and stop it." and churn out 5-7 yards a pop consistently even if the other team loaded up the box.

Wade-A-Holic wrote:these are definitely not the Ahman Green days where we could pretty much line up and say, "here it is. try and stop it." and churn out 5-7 yards a pop consistently even if the other team loaded up the box.

Mark Tauscher said they actually did that in the 2003 season. They would come up to the line and he would tell the defense, "we're going left". They'd run the ball to the left and get 5 yards.

much of what ted has tried to do or accomplish will be viewed on how well the packers do this year without favre. if the packers remain successful, thompson will receive a lot of accolades for buildig a great team, just like Wolfe did. if the packers suffer a losing season, people will point to favre as the reason for the team's past success and not to thompson. if the jets make the play-offs and the packers don't , Tt will be sent packing I'm not saying that's fair. but the mavs firing Avery wasn't fair either. if the packers don't win, it will be TT and not rogers who will be made the scapegoat. Expectations of rogers have never been real high. So if he flounders his first year as starter, it will be Tt who takes the brunt of critisism for drafting him in the first place when we didn't need a Qb 3 years ago, and on Tt for deciding to go with rogers when he and McCarthy both publically admitted favre gave the team a better chance of winning. I don't blame Tt for trading favre as much as i blame him for admitting that favre gave the team a better chance at winning and then trading him.

for better or worse, Tt will be remembered for trading favre. Kind of like grunfeld and karl for trading Allen and big Dog. it didn't work for karl. And he was the scapegoat, not Payton.

Gms never seem to stay in one place for more than 5 years. it's the business of the game.

Even if we have a poor season (lets say 7-9), I can't see Thompson being fired.

Ayt wrote:Even if we have a poor season (lets say 7-9), I can't see Thompson being fired.

Totally agree. TT's job is safe for years. It would take a couple 3-12 years to get TT fired. And even then M3 would be gone first. Coach always goes first.

Now that the Favre saga is over, Thompson needs to address the needs of the team. We now have another 12 million in cash sitting around, so money is not an issue. We also have extra draft picks for next year. Thompson has stockpiled good young talent at many positions, but what is he going to do with our lack of depth at defensive tackle? Also if Rodgers goes down, who is going in? Brohm has hardly been inspiring, and Flynn is a green rookie.
Thompson is the GM, he has to know these 2 important postions are a potential weakness.

The packers fired Sherman. they fired that other guy when his team went 8-8. after saying they n o longer needed Favre, if Mc Carthy doesn't produce at least a 9-7 season, he'll join the ranks of coaches wh o were made scapegoat'ss for their Gm's bad decisions.

And eventually the packers will go back to a G M who believes in winning now and signing free agents every year. Winning now is not a bad philosophy. Building a team for the future often takes 30 years before they ever win anything. 1968 .... 1996 .... 2024.

MajorDad wrote:The packers fired Sherman. they fired that other guy when his team went 8-8. after saying they n o longer needed Favre, if Mc Carthy doesn't produce at least a 9-7 season, he'll join the ranks of coaches wh o were made scapegoat'ss for their Gm's bad decisions.

And eventually the packers will go back to a G M who believes in winning now and signing free agents every year. Winning now is not a bad philosophy. Building a team for the future often takes 30 years before they ever win anything. 1968 .... 1996 .... 2024.

Even a 1-15 season would not cost either TT or M3 their jobs. They'd be under pressure and criticsm but still employed.

MajorDad wrote:The packers fired Sherman. they fired that other guy when his team went 8-8. after saying they n o longer needed Favre, if Mc Carthy doesn't produce at least a 9-7 season, he'll join the ranks of coaches wh o were made scapegoat'ss for their Gm's bad decisions.

And eventually the packers will go back to a G M who believes in winning now and signing free agents every year. Winning now is not a bad philosophy. Building a team for the future often takes 30 years before they ever win anything. 1968 .... 1996 .... 2024.

They weren't going to win now with Favre.

Why don't you go to the Redskins or Vikings board and cheer for some teams that sign a ton of free agents. Looks like it was real successful for them.

When you are on the doorstep of winning it all you can make a big splash in FA. There wasn't **** available at a decent price on the market this year that wanted to come here.

Now, I'm a huge Thompson fan but I will say I wish he did spend on a few more guys (not much more, just a few stopgaps in our real shallow spots), but spending a ton is a very risky move. Building through the draft is a much easier way to build a SB contender. Using free agency then is OK.

I don't think we were a super bowl contender with an uncommitted Favre, and when he retired we threw all plans of bringing in any vets out the window. Had he committed to offseason workouts right away I think Ted would have tried to sign at least a few guys that were available.

Look at Ron Wolf. He didn't make too many major signings until we were right there.

WHAT???

Ron Wolf made the biggest free agency signing ever by getting Reggie White in 93'. That was after a season the Packers didn't even make the playoffs.

He then followed that up by signing Sean Jones in 94'. Wolf didn't wait until we were 12-4 and then try and get some free agents. He signed them before we got good.

I can't even think of the last team to buy a Super Bowl with free agents. Maybe it was the Packers.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "buy" a Super Bowl and how many free agents constitute buying a S.B.

We have already talked about the New England Patriots bringing in a lot of new guys when they won their first S.B.

The Raiders were pretty much made up of free agents when they went to the S.B. against the Bucs.

Baltimore was another team that had a lot of FAs. It just depends on how many FAs you consider buying a Super Bowl.

The usual recipe is to have most of your talent on offense to be homegrown and then spend money on the defensive side of the ball.