I am so pissed off at Ted Thompson...

[brandon2348]

Nice try... but you replied to a post and reframed the argument to suit your opinion. I don't disagree with your opinion btw, but my reply was specifically aimed at Cap's assertion that unless we find another Bellichick we have failed.

I don't think it would take a Belichick to get us over the hump. I think we just need to find someone willing to make some more aggressive moves in regards to filling immediate needs.

 

[swhitset]

Well, unfortunately I'm not convinced Thompson is an above average general manager anymore. He mainly relies on his draft and develop philosophy but unfortunately hasn't been elite in selecting players in the draft for several years running.

I actually agree with that. I think Thompson has been a good GM for the Packers, but I also think his time may have passed. I agree that the Packers may need to find somebody who is willing to take a few more risks. My only dispute with you is that while it would be great to find another Bellichick, that may be unrealistic. So.. far he seems to be a one of a kind.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't disagree with your opinion btw, but my reply was specifically aimed at Cap's assertion that unless we find another Bellichick we have failed.

My only dispute with you is that while it would be great to find another Bellichick, that may be unrealistic. So.. far he seems to be a one of a kind.

I would be fine with the Packers hiring a general manager taking more risks, he doesn't have to be as great as Belichick although I want the team to strive for the best.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think many of us have come to the realization that TT drafted AR and AR turned into the gold standard of QB's. Somewhere along the way, it felt like TT became a little bit too complacent on risk taking, because he did have AR and when you have AR, you can probably afford to take fewer risks. Remove AR from the Packers and you most likely are looking at a .500 or worse team. So maybe those of us who are frustrated (on different levels, myself included), are watching the clock tick, some draft picks fail and waiting for Ted Thompson to realize that the Packers are probably not going to win SB's just resting on the laurels of Aaron Rodgers and drafting and developing. It might take a few more moves similar to signing Marty Bennett on TTs part to change that.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think he was resting on laurels at all though. They probably works while he sleeps, which would explain some of his interviews, but the guy doesn't just sit back and not work. And having Rodgers probably did make him a bit more risk averse, which isn't a terrible strategy. It's not as if he put crap around him. This team still has some pretty good players, but taking risks could easily have ate up 2,3,4 years of trying to make up for ones that didn't work as easily as they may have worked, but then for some reason HOF players were telling other very high quality players after a 6 turnover day on defense to lay down rather than return another INT for a score.

you never know what's going to happen, but generational Qb probably shouldn't need a bunch of risk taking on FA's to put them over the hump. I think our real window was 2014 and 15, we didn't get it done, but those teams were stacked and they still didn't get it done in 14 and in 15 circumstances made things difficult all year and still we were right in it till the end.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't think he was resting on laurels at all though. They probably works while he sleeps, which would explain some of his interviews, but the guy doesn't just sit back and not work. And having Rodgers probably did make him a bit more risk averse, which isn't a terrible strategy. It's not as if he put crap around him.

The defense has been mostly crap for the last six seasons.

 

[brandon2348]

I don't think he was resting on laurels at all though. They probably works while he sleeps, which would explain some of his interviews, but the guy doesn't just sit back and not work. And having Rodgers probably did make him a bit more risk averse, which isn't a terrible strategy. It's not as if he put crap around him. This team still has some pretty good players, but taking risks could easily have ate up 2,3,4 years of trying to make up for ones that didn't work as easily as they may have worked, but then for some reason HOF players were telling other very high quality players after a 6 turnover day on defense to lay down rather than return another INT for a score.

you never know what's going to happen, but generational Qb probably shouldn't need a bunch of risk taking on FA's to put them over the hump. I think our real window was 2014 and 15, we didn't get it done, but those teams were stacked and they still didn't get it done in 14 and in 15 circumstances made things difficult all year and still we were right in it till the end.

How is bringing a no.1 corner in taking a "bunch of risks"? Especially when your no.1 had his career cut due to injury?

Please explain this to me?

 

[OldSchool101]

I think many of us have come to the realization that TT drafted AR and AR turned into the gold standard of QB's. Somewhere along the way, it felt like TT became a little bit too complacent on risk taking, because he did have AR and when you have AR, you can probably afford to take fewer risks. Remove AR from the Packers and you most likely are looking at a .500 or worse team. So maybe those of us who are frustrated (on different levels, myself included), are watching the clock tick, some draft picks fail and waiting for Ted Thompson to realize that the Packers are probably not going to win SB's just resting on the laurels of Aaron Rodgers and drafting and developing. It might take a few more moves similar to signing Marty Bennett on TTs part to change that.

Agreed. While we have several positional holes to fill, I feel like we missed at finding a second FA Corner to offset Sam Shields. IMO, we didn't even need an elite player (like Sherman) to be competitive and get marked results. A guy that could get us $5 million in results in this secondary would've been huge because it would've let us focus on other positions such as OL and RB.
The key this draft Then would've been to employ a similar draft trade strategy to the Spriggs draft move last year. However, rather than picking Offense go after the 2 best Defensive picks in the top 45 or so at say..OLB and CB.
Rather than trading multiple picks this year to move up, we could consiser balancing the trade with at least one pick from next year because we'll have more than the usual # of picks next year with roughly 4 comp picks from recent position departures.
This idea isn't necessarily to get multiple day #1 starters. That seems to be a hasty final conclusion I've seen multiple times in here. The fact remains that the earlier a player gets into a system and the higher his ranking the higher the probability of their 1st year snao count and the higher the probability they will contribute or the faster we find out if they sink or swim.
Time is a precious commodity. We are slowly losing the ability to practice prudence and there needs to be an offset.
Losing more experienced players than we sign is a recipe for disaster with an aging Hall of Fame level QB. We still have a decent hand because Aaron is our Ace we're dealt each round. Time to put some chips in IMO.

 

[Mondio]

How is bringing a no.1 corner in taking a "bunch of risks"? Especially when your no.1 had his career cut due to injury?

Please explain this to me?

I'm not speaking to this year only. And outside of Gilmore, who I giving the benefit of the doubt to because the pats play him 2xs yearly and signed him, I don't think there was anybody at Sam Shields level. So while I can agree signing a number 1 corner, I'm not convinced that just because we had the cash and a want meant there was the product we were looking for.

And I'm not if the opinion the younf DBs are nearly as bad as they looked last year either so I'm also not of the belief that somebody, anybody would be better than what we had going forward either

 

[OldSchool101]

I'm not speaking to this year only. And outside of Gilmore, who I giving the benefit of the doubt to because the pats play him 2xs yearly and signed him, I don't think there was anybody at Sam Shields level. So while I can agree signing a number 1 corner, I'm not convinced that just because we had the cash and a want meant there was the product we were looking for.

And I'm not if the opinion the younf DBs are nearly as bad as they looked last year either so I'm also not of the belief that somebody, anybody would be better than what we had going forward either

I believe Randall and Rollins will play better this year barring injury. It's not outlandish to think 1 or the other or even both will step their game up in their 3rd year.
While I agree that there wasn't much of a FA selection this year, the net result is we still lost a $10M talent. If we couldn't find a #1 then find another guy that's at least a #2 CB. This would've bought us time to draft another 1st or 2nd day pick without the pressure of needing him to start out of the gate.
Not to mention the emphasis could've been diverted to OLB, RB or O Line needs earlier in this draft instead of spreading a teaspoon of mayonnaise across 4 pieces of bread. Makes for a sandwich but kinda hard to swallow

 

[n4t]

Hi. First post. I happen to like TTs approach to risk/value.

The cornerback situation for the Packers is complex, and I'm sure many people in the front office and coaching staff bear responsibility for the team's shortfall. It may be a bit single-minded to blame Thompson. Also I do not agree that you can just 'buy' a starting CB to replace Shields. You are talking about a significant risk to the team's future dealing with 1st tier FAs. And we can only guess at the 'behind the scenes' aspects of FA.

 

[rmontro]

I believe Randall and Rollins will play better this year barring injury. It's not outlandish to think 1 or the other or even both will step their game up in their 3rd year.
While I agree that there wasn't much of a FA selection this year, the net result is we still lost a $10M talent.

In Ted's world, that's a $10 million dollar gain. But it does look like Thompson, at least, is expecting Randall and/or Rollins to take that step up - he has a history of believing in his picks. Some say to a fault. You can't replace a corner like Shields with a rookie draft pick, they take time to develop.

The mistake with the secondary was letting it get so thin in the first place. I know TT wants to save money, but IMO he never should have let Hayward go.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The mistake with the secondary was letting it get so thin in the first place. I know TT wants to save money, but IMO he never should have let Hayward go.

I don't think it was a matter of letting it get too thin, after all, the CB position looked pretty strong going into 2016 with Shields, Randall, Rollins and Gunther. Maybe just a matter of overestimating the abilities of the rookies and not foreseeing the loss of Shields. I'm not blaming TT for letting Hayward go, at the time, it looked like the right move.

 

[elcid]

Well we can look at last year as an example.

Wentz (2), Bosa (3), Elliott (4), Ramsey (5), Stanley (6), Buckney (7), Conklin (8), Floyd (9), Apple (10), Hargreaves (11), Tunsil (13), Joseph (14), Decker (16), Neal (17), Kelly (18), Lee (20), and Fuller (21) all made pretty immediate and (to varying degrees) positive contributions as rookies. But after that group, it becomes much more sparse. Certainly some guys came on as the season progressed (e.g. Kenny Clark or Artie Burns), but they weren't playing major snaps out of the gate.

But how many rookies from the 2017 draft could have contributed first day when being drafted by a team with a glaring hole at a position similar to our own at CB? There's definetely some sitting idle every year on every NFL roster. (I'd like to add that this is the same reason why I never fully understand the BPA approach. Sure, if there has been a significant dropoff at your position of need and you are on the clock, but why take a prospect which is ranked higher on your board, if only by the slightest, over a prospect which plays a position at which we immediately need help, especially if the draft is the sole thing we rely on to create a roster?)

I think many of us have come to the realization that TT drafted AR and AR turned into the gold standard of QB's. Somewhere along the way, it felt like TT became a little bit too complacent on risk taking, because he did have AR and when you have AR, you can probably afford to take fewer risks. Remove AR from the Packers and you most likely are looking at a .500 or worse team. So maybe those of us who are frustrated (on different levels, myself included), are watching the clock tick, some draft picks fail and waiting for Ted Thompson to realize that the Packers are probably not going to win SB's just resting on the laurels of Aaron Rodgers and drafting and developing. It might take a few more moves similar to signing Marty Bennett on TTs part to change that.

Exactly. Maybe its that Im used to the huge spending sprees of soccer clubs in Europe, but for once I'd like to see TT try to win the SB by trying a little too hard instead of a little too less.

Agreed. While we have several positional holes to fill, I feel like we missed at finding a second FA Corner to offset Sam Shields. IMO, we didn't even need an elite player (like Sherman) to be competitive and get marked results. A guy that could get us $5 million in results in this secondary would've been huge because it would've let us focus on other positions such as OL and RB.
The key this draft Then would've been to employ a similar draft trade strategy to the Spriggs draft move last year. However, rather than picking Offense go after the 2 best Defensive picks in the top 45 or so at say..OLB and CB.
Rather than trading multiple picks this year to move up, we could consiser balancing the trade with at least one pick from next year because we'll have more than the usual # of picks next year with roughly 4 comp picks from recent position departures.
This idea isn't necessarily to get multiple day #1 starters. That seems to be a hasty final conclusion I've seen multiple times in here. The fact remains that the earlier a player gets into a system and the higher his ranking the higher the probability of their 1st year snao count and the higher the probability they will contribute or the faster we find out if they sink or swim.
Time is a precious commodity. We are slowly losing the ability to practice prudence and there needs to be an offset.
Losing more experienced players than we sign is a recipe for disaster with an aging Hall of Fame level QB. We still have a decent hand because Aaron is our Ace we're dealt each round. Time to put some chips in IMO.

Conclusion: Time is ticking. Just kick Jason's tires already Ted! Hell, I'd still even like to see him sniff around NO or PHI and just try if we can get Anthony or Kendricks on the cheaps. Just try something to get this defense consistent for a season.

Hi. First post. I happen to like TTs approach to risk/value.

The cornerback situation for the Packers is complex, and I'm sure many people in the front office and coaching staff bear responsibility for the team's shortfall. It may be a bit single-minded to blame Thompson. Also I do not agree that you can just 'buy' a starting CB to replace Shields. You are talking about a significant risk to the team's future dealing with 1st tier FAs. And we can only guess at the 'behind the scenes' aspects of FA.

For this reason alone I'd might not want Ted to pursuit Anthony or Kendricks, but surely either Burnett, HCD or Adams is gonna have a down year which would result in loss of cash flow on their part? Considering the situation, I am fine with the Pack not competing for Gilmore's signature, but Ryan was within budget and would have helped immensely. McCourty still can. We'd still be able to roll a decent amount of cap over. I'd say that is a small risk contract (which will also result in us not having to pursuit needs as agressively in the draft). The world belongs to the brave, but nowhere does it say that we have to be extremely brave

 

[swhitset]

Without making any judgements about any particular poster's opinions, I would like to point out a couple of situations. There are many here that have spent a lot of time desparaging Brett Favre saying that he was not nearly as good of a QB as his reputation because of his propensity to take risks. He was not afraid to throw into double coverage on a regular basis, and consequently, he managed to add the record for most interceptions to his resume'. We all know that he would also complete some crazy passes because of this. Personally, I have always been a fan of Favre and I was willing to take the good with the bad. Why is this relevant to the current discussion? I am just wondering how many people here hated Favre for taking risks while simultaneously hating Thompson for refusing to....and vice versa.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While I agree that there wasn't much of a FA selection this year, the net result is we still lost a $10M talent. If we couldn't find a #1 then find another guy that's at least a #2 CB.

In my opinion a lot of posters ignore that while it's possible there wasn't a true shotdown cornerback available in free agency there's absolutely no doubt the team could have found an upgrade over the players currently on the roster. In addition a veteran would have helped to develop the youngsters.

Also I do not agree that you can just 'buy' a starting CB to replace Shields. You are talking about a significant risk to the team's future dealing with 1st tier FAs.

There wouid have been a significantly higher chance of signing an adequate, immediate replacement for Shields in free agency than using the draft to upgrade the position.

The mistake with the secondary was letting it get so thin in the first place. I know TT wants to save money, but IMO he never should have let Hayward go.

I don't agree with this statement at all as the secondary was a perceived strength entering the 2016 season. Unfortunately losing Shields in week 1 revealed that the young cornerbacks weren't ready to take on bigger roles. Thompson should have made a move once he realized that. Unfortunately he has mostly been standing pat at the position ever since.

Conclusion: Time is ticking. Just kick Jason's tires already Ted! Hell, I'd still even like to see him sniff around NO or PHI and just try if we can get Anthony or Kendricks on the cheaps. Just try something to get this defense consistent for a season.

The Packers don't have a pressing need to improve at inside linebacker, especially as Kendricks would eat up a significant portion of the Packers' remaining cap space. Anthony has been disappointing so far therefore Thompson shouldn't be interested in him at all.

Without making any judgements about any particular poster's opinions, I would like to point out a couple of situations. There are many here that have spent a lot of time desparaging Brett Favre saying that he was not nearly as good of a QB as his reputation because of his propensity to take risks. He was not afraid to throw into double coverage on a regular basis, and consequently, he managed to add the record for most interceptions to his resume'. We all know that he would also complete some crazy passes because of this. Personally, I have always been a fan of Favre and I was willing to take the good with the bad. Why is this relevant to the current discussion? I am just wondering how many people here hated Favre for taking risks while simultaneously hating Thompson for refusing to....and vice versa.

In my opinion there's a huge difference between taking unneccesary risks by repeatedly throwing into double coverage and being more aggressive in addressing obvious positions of need on the roster though.

 

[n4t]

There wouid have been a significantly higher chance of signing an adequate, immediate replacement for Shields in free agency than using the draft to upgrade the position.

I don't see any reason to believe this statement is true. Significant expenditure, significant risk, sure. Was there a guy worth the risk who would come to GB? I do not know that.

In hindsight letting Hayward go looks like a mistake. Maybe the organization was drinking their own "Joe Whitt the UDFA-whisperer cool-aid" and it came back to bite them. Oh well. Time to move one.

I like both Randall and Gunther. Add House, a draft pick, and a possible post-draft vet FA and that will be the top competition for boundary corner. Might not be ****, but I'll watch it play out with at least a little optimism.

 

[Half Empty]

Without making any judgements about any particular poster's opinions, I would like to point out a couple of situations. There are many here that have spent a lot of time desparaging Brett Favre saying that he was not nearly as good of a QB as his reputation because of his propensity to take risks. He was not afraid to throw into double coverage on a regular basis, and consequently, he managed to add the record for most interceptions to his resume'. We all know that he would also complete some crazy passes because of this. Personally, I have always been a fan of Favre and I was willing to take the good with the bad. Why is this relevant to the current discussion? I am just wondering how many people here hated Favre for taking risks while simultaneously hating Thompson for refusing to....and vice versa.

Really amazing how much discussion that last sentence can (will?) generate. Don't know if I can hit all the points that immediately popped into my head, but here are a few.

I don't hate either guy, but I certainly have disparaging thoughts about both. I was mostly on board with Favre's craziness because it was exciting and the "he'll win some some should have lost and lose some he should have won" situations seemed to even out - except, of course, for the really important games like the playoffs. My negatives on Favre are mostly for his off-field antics late in his career. My problems with Thompson are two-fold. One is not using all the options at his disposal and the other is not filling obvious holes in a timely manner - I believe both of this have been addressed ad nauseum, so no need to elaborate here.

If we watch game film of Favre and freeze it as he releases, there are, as noted, a lot of both "you idiot, how can you...wow, great throw!" and "you idiot, even I could see that would be picked off" scenarios. Rarely did we fault him for just not throwing. Thompson's draft picks are much the same as Favre's passes - some we think are terrible, and some of them are, while others pan out. The difference is that moves Thompson doesn't make are a source of aggravation for a lot of us.

Then there's timing. Favre's recklessness came at game speed, they were all his, and the results were immediate. Thompson has a staff, time to prepare, and a comfortable desk from which to make his decisions.

There are other factors, I'm sure, but the point is intended to be that Favre's recklessness and Thompson's are apples and oranges.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't see any reason to believe this statement is true. Significant expenditure, significant risk, sure. Was there a guy worth the risk who would come to GB? I do not know that.

It takes most cornerbacks drafted at the end of the first round several years to develop into decent starters at the pro level if they ever make it that far. Therefore suggesting a veteran free agent that has performed at a decent level for several season wouldn't have been better suited to move atop the Packers' depth chart at the position is out of touch with reality.

 

[Sky King]

I don't agree with this statement at all as the secondary was a perceived strength entering the 2016 season. Unfortunately losing Shields in week 1 revealed that the young cornerbacks weren't ready to take on bigger roles. Thompson should have made a move once he realized that. Unfortunately he has mostly been standing pat at the position ever since.

Quite true. And a large part of that former optimism was built upon the relatively respectable rookie seasons of Randall and Rollins. Nobody had predicted that they would actually slip as badly as they did in their sophomore seasons. Even a repeat of their rookie performances would have been far better than what we actually did see from them in 2016.

Based upon what has transpired in the personnel department since last season ended one has to conclude that TT & Co. really must believe the most recent performances of these once prized rookies was an aberration and not an accurate projection of their futures. I hope he's right because the only place that improvement is likely to come from anymore will be through the draft and faith that Randall and Rollins will stay healthy and improve. And he certainly cannot count on any Sitton-type surprise FAs dropping into his lap just prior to the opening of the season, regardless of position.

TT may be averse to being moderate to highly active in free-agency but he's sure not risk averse when it comes to having faith in the 2017 version of his defensive backfield. Counting on further player development combined with any help from the upcoming draft is certainly putting it out there.

 

[PikeBadger]

Quite true. And a large part of that former optimism was built upon the relatively respectable rookie seasons of Randall and Rollins. Nobody had predicted that they would actually slip as badly as they did in their sophomore seasons. Even a repeat of their rookie performances would have been far better than what we actually did see from them in 2016.

Based upon what has transpired in the personnel department since last season ended one has to conclude that TT & Co. really must believe the most recent performances of these once prized rookies was an aberration and not an accurate projection of their futures. I hope he's right because the only place that improvement is likely to come from anymore will be through the draft and faith that Randall and Rollins will stay healthy and improve. And he certainly cannot count on any Sitton-type surprise FAs dropping into his lap just prior to the opening of the season, regardless of position.

TT may be averse to being moderate to highly active in free-agency but he's sure not risk averse when it comes to having faith in the 2017 version of his defensive backfield. Counting on further player development combined with any help from the upcoming draft is certainly putting it out there.

I think Davon House is expected to be the guy to provide some stability to the cornerback group. Imo, it's why he was signed.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think Davon House is expected to be the guy to provide some stability to the cornerback group. Imo, it's why he was signed.

While I understand that thought there's no reason to believe House is capable of covering opposing top receivers.

 

[Dantés]

It takes most cornerbacks drafted at the end of the first round several years to develop into decent starters at the pro level if they ever make it that far. Therefore suggesting a veteran free agent that has performed at a decent level for several season wouldn't have been better suited to move atop the Packers' depth chart at the position is out of touch with reality.

It's a little weird to me that I see this argument offered regularly for why TT ought to have signed a player like Gilmore, but it's basically rejected when some suggests that Randall and/or Rollins could make a positive impact through development.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It's a little weird to me that I see this argument offered regularly for why TT ought to have signed a player like Gilmore, but it's basically rejected when some suggests that Randall and/or Rollins could make a positive impact through development.

That's because Gilmore has partly performed at an elite level during his time in the NFL while Randall and Rollins have struggled mightily without a veteran #1 cornerback on the field, even during their respectable rookie season.

 

[PackAttack12]

I think Davon House is expected to be the guy to provide some stability to the cornerback group. Imo, it's why he was signed.

IMO, he was simply signed as a replacement to Micah Hyde. While I certainly believe that provides something of an upgrade, it's extremely minuscule, and there's no way that I could possibly suggest that it's enough to bring the defense from the lows it suffered last season to respectability, let alone top 5-10 caliber.