1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Why this draft made no sense at all

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Oannes, May 5, 2007.

  1. Oannes
    Offline

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    It is fun to read and speculate on our new crop of Packers and what the future holds for them. What isn't speculation, though, troubles me a great deal.

    What philosophy would you say Ted Thompson subscribes to?.... "Win now" or.... "build for the future"? I think the majority of Packer fans would say he's definitely building for the future. Many hearty Favre fans are disgusted with TT's inablity to go for the throat on one of, if not, Brett's last season.

    If we can all agree that Ted Thompson is building for the future then I have a question that needs careful thought. Why didn't Ted Thompson make that deal with the Cleveland Browns? TT could've picked up a nearly certain extra Top 10, if not Top 5, pick in the '08 draft. We're probably going to be picking in the Top 15, so we'd be looking at likely 2 picks in the Top 15. That's almost unheard of in the draft.

    Imagine if Ted had made that deal... We'd be set up unbelievably well for 2008, which is exactly what someone who is building for the future would be doing. Here's what likely would've happened in this draft had Ted made that deal.

    Picking 3rd in Round 2, Ted would've had his pick of Dwayne Jarrett and Sidney Rice and any RB not named Lynch or Peterson. I suspect he would've added Jarrett as the speculation is we traded down because both Rice and Jarrett were off the board. So, we have Jarrett in Round 2. We likely could've traded down in Round 3 for an extra pick like he did in Round 2 and still gotten Brandon Jackson.

    The way Day 1 shaped up was.... 1) Justin Harrell
    2) Brandon Jackson
    3) James Jones
    4) Aaron Rouse

    The way it likely would've shaped up with the Cleveland deal...

    2) Dwayne Jarrett
    3) Brandon Jackson and a likely extra pick for the 4th round with a trade down where we could've still landed Rouse. Shoot, we could've taken Eric Weddle if we wanted.


    What would you rather have had? I'd rather have Jarrett and Jackson and an extra 1st rounder in '08...IF... I'm building for the future.


    This is what confuses me.... TT is building for the future and not trying to win now. We did nothing in FA. I know, I know... we tried and lost. Well, we had the money but didn't spend it.

    We don't add Randy Moss, which is a "win now" move keep both picks in Round 3 and add James "Round 3 Tragedy" Jones and Aaron Rouse who reportedly can't cover a jar.

    Can someone explain our overall philosophy? Is it "win now" or "build for the future"? The moves of this off-season really make me wonder what we're trying to accomplish.... I'm sure that I'm not alone. Again, there's no way a person building for the future doesn't make that deal, like there's no way someone who is trying to win now doesn't trade a 3rd for Randy Moss at a position of great need. It appears to me that things definitely didn't go as TT planned and he scrambled and left us with what we're now all debating.

    Leaders have plans and unless he's operating at a genius level that I just can't comprehend, we need a new leader with a clear direction.
  2. billv
    Offline

    billv Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    363
    Location:
    Sidney, MT
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Thompson did a great job with the draft last year so let's not judge him until we see this year's players perform.
  3. Oannes
    Offline

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I agree with your statement, but that's not germane to the point I was making. What direction is this team headed in? It sure doesn't look like "win now", so not trading with Cleveland makes little sense to me.
  4. Zero2Cool
    Offline

    Zero2Cool Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,902
    Location:
    Green Bay, WI
    Ratings Received:
    +7 / 1 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    Doesn't make sense because you're not thinking it through.


    Gamble to win now and mortgage the future right? Yeah, that's smart. How many teams has that been working for? It was only getting the Packers one and done in the playoffs.
  5. Greg C.
    Offline

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Location:
    Marquette, Michigan
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    The philosophy is "build for the future," but it's the near future, not the distant future. Hopefully the Packers can be back to contender status in 2008, and if that's the case, Thompson would rather have a DT anchoring the middle with a year of experience under his belt. Also, good DT's have been hard to find in the draft lately, so Thompson did not want to pass up the opportunity to get one who has a lot of potential.

    Sometimes things are as simple as they seem. A player was available who Thompson liked a lot, so he kept the pick and took the player. There's no need for elaborate theories about Thompson's motivations. We will have plenty of opportunity to judge his draft picks when they actually step onto the playing field.
  6. Oannes
    Offline

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Mortgaging the future? Gambling? What?

    The bigger gamble and mortgaging of the future was taking James Jones instead of adding Randy Moss. Is this even debatable? Moss cost 3 million.

    Ted spent 10 mil up front for an injured Charles Woodson.

    TT obviously likes his draft picks. I guess he can sit and wait an hour with a trade down but not a year.

    We lost out on a potential, strong potential Top 5 pick in next years draft to stay at 16 in this draft on a team that most admit is building for the future. That will never make sense to me and you can criticize me all you like.

    Bill Belichick is no fool. He traded a 4th for Randy. I don't think anyone on this earth would accuse Bill Belichick of mortgaging the future or gambling yet I'm getting blasted for questioning the philosophy of our GM?
  7. MassPackersFan
    Offline

    MassPackersFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    803
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    We now know bringing up Moss is a hollow argument because he wasn't willing to restructure and NE was his top choice.

    Sit and watch James Jones play and compare him to the other rookies picked after him. If he does poorly, then you can say it was a failed pick.
  8. Yared-Yam
    Offline

    Yared-Yam Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,120
    Location:
    Fond du Lac, WI
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Sigh... I give up
  9. Lare
    Offline

    Lare Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    705
    Location:
    Packwalking, WI
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    The reason I don't think TT is a GM that can get a team to the Super Bowl is I just don't think he can pull the trigger on any move that has any risk involved whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I think he is an excellent "builder" of a team when it comes to the salary cap and adding depth. But I believe he doesn't have what it takes to get a team from that stage to the next level.

    Let's look at his time in Seattle. During that span he never traded up in the draft. They did rebuild the core of the team, but their record was under .500 during his tenure there. It wasn't until he left that they made a big splash in free agency (nine significant players signed, four of which were starters) which took them to the Super Bowl.

    Fast forward to his time in Green Bay. Same story, he's never traded up in the draft, no major moves unless you include the Woodson signing, but even that was done only at a time that was so late in free agency that he had to spend some of the salary cap somehow and there really wasn't anyone of any significance left available. And even that $10 million investment didn't reap any huge dividends when it came to improving the defensive pass defense rankings.

    Continually trading down in the draft does one thing, it dilutes the talent level of a team. Sure, there are diamonds in the rough that are found occasionally, but the vast majority of the time the players that are available in the later rounds of the draft are there for a reason. The end result is that you have the basis of a team that will stay average until you add the final playmaking pieces.

    Can TT do that? It remains to be seen. The fact is that he hasn't had the gonads to do it yet. And I think that also explains the decisions he made in this years draft.

    Safe, conservative, the turtle against the hare.
  10. Oannes
    Offline

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    That's a dogmatic statement. Moss wouldn't restructure? That is ONE of the reports out there. Let's assume this is true. It was reported also that TT felt Randy was theirs as late as Sunday morning. We paid 10 miil to Woodson. I think Moss was less of risk than him.

    Thank God TT isn't a real estate agent working for my company. I want closers.
  11. MassPackersFan
    Offline

    MassPackersFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    803
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Of all the situations that could have happened, do you think the reality is that Moss wanted to come here and restructure and TT turned him down? I just don't see it. And that's assuming a lot just so someone can quickly jump on the "TT is a bad GM" wagon.
  12. Lare
    Offline

    Lare Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    705
    Location:
    Packwalking, WI
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I'm guessing that the same thing that happened with almost every other player that was supposed to have been interested in coming to Green Bay this offseason, also happened with the Raiders and Randy Moss. Whatever that is, the result was the same.
  13. Oannes
    Offline

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Right... You don't see it. The most recent reports on this deal in the Packer news rags is that TT wanted to offer a FIFTH round pick.

    Here's what I honestly think...

    The report on draft day Saturday said NE was offering a 6th round pick for Moss. TT knew, or thought he knew, he was in a postion of strength because a 6th rounder was the best offer for Randy. He decided not to deal a 3rd for him because there was no reason to do that, he only had to beat NE's offer of a 6th. NE then thinks about it some more and decides they'll deal their 4th pick 110 overall and then what is Ted to do? Ted has pick 112 which is almost as good, but not quite as good as 110. Oakland takes the BETTER offer. TT is left holding the bag because he honestly thought he could steal Randy for a 5th instead of a 3rd. I appreciate him trying to be frugal and save a 3rd when he could give a 5th, but NE outfoxed him and we're arguing with a straight face that it's wrong for me to question taking James Jones instead of trading for Randy Moss? I'm the the one who is sighing here.
  14. MassPackersFan
    Offline

    MassPackersFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    803
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    The most recent word I heard is that TT offered the 5th round pick after Moss said he wouldn't restructure. I wonder if we'll ever heard the full true story.
  15. Oannes
    Offline

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I agree... We likely will never get the real story, and if we do, we won't know that it is the real story.

    Bottom line... We lost out on a game changing talent because...

    A) We wouldn't part with a 3rd rounder and, or....
    B) We wouldn't pay him enough.

    As a follower of this team, I can't leave with either of those.
  16. kmac
    Offline

    kmac Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Messages:
    849
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
  17. tromadz
    Offline

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings Received:
    +3 / 0 / -0
  18. Zero2Cool
    Offline

    Zero2Cool Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,902
    Location:
    Green Bay, WI
    Ratings Received:
    +7 / 1 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    I thought this Moss thing was settled? He's a Patriot, not a Packer. Moss would restructure for the Patriots, not the Packers.

    What's the deal?
  19. Arles
    Offline

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Oannes made a strong argument before he started going down the Moss trail (which has been widely discussed in other threads).

    I think the main point here is that GB needs a stable of 2-3 strong DTs to not only hold the POA at the line better against the run (something Cole, Jenkins and Williams were very inconsistent at) but also to free up our "big money" LBs in Hawk and Barnett.

    GB will sign another FA WR that will probably slide into the 3-4 spot (depending on how the young guys do) and I think Jackson will do very well at RB. However, good DT play is the key to us having a strong defense - esp against the run. Harrell was the 2nd best DT prospect in the draft and he should make a big impact on D.

    No. 3 WR is one of the easier spots in the NFL to add a solid vet. So far we've seen guys like Moss, Keyshawn, Drew Bennett, Eric Moulds and 2nd round draft picks like Jarrett, Steve Smith and Rice. There were 17 first day picks at WR and numerous more vets will be cut once teams feel good about their rookies. However, if you look at impact DTs, the only real options were Okoye or Harrell, or trying to pry DET's franchise player away in Cory Redding.

    I'd much rather take the impact DT at 16 - knowing that some options will open up at WR than go through another season with Cole, Jenkins and Corey Williams anchoring our run defense with Pickett (thereby leaving "el Matedor" KGB at end). Now, we finally have the talent at DT to move Jenkins out to DE full time and make KGB the situational pass rusher he should be.
  20. Zero2Cool
    Offline

    Zero2Cool Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,902
    Location:
    Green Bay, WI
    Ratings Received:
    +7 / 1 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    The philosophy is win as much as you can now while building a team that will remain strong in the future.
  21. Arles
    Offline

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I think the name "Favre" is causing a lot of confusion with this team. Look back at the play of this team in the final 4 games. You'll see a team that gave up an average of 10 PPG and played fairly strong pass defense. Over the 2nd half, you'll see a defense that struggled at times with the run but was still fairly strong against the pass. What you don't see, however, is a team that's "one guy away" from a dynamic offense (~16-17 PPG).

    Because we have Favre, everyone seems to think that if we brought in Randy Moss or a 1st round pick WR we could go back to being a top 10 passing offense. That's simply not the case. At this stage in his career, Favre is more like J.P. Losman than Carson Palmer - with an overall comparison close to Jon Kitna. So, if GB had Kitna at QB - would you think this team was one guy away from a great passing offense?

    What this team is close to, though, is a very dynamic defense. Kampman, Woodson and Harris are three of the best players in the league at their positions. Ryan Pickett is very solid and Hawk, Barnett, Jenkins and Collins are looking to be very promising young players. If we could add a strong DT and quality SS, we could easily be a top 10 defense. So, I would argue that by focusing on improving the defense (Harrell, Rouse, Frank Walker) we are putting the Packers in a better position to win than making "stop gap" moves at WR that sound good - but really don't improve our chances at Ws.

    For this team to win in 2007, it will need a strong front 7, above average special teams and a competant running game. This, IMO, is exactly what TT's moves have helped build so far. Now, would I like a vet at WR to compete with the young guys? You bet, but that's not the key to success for this team. The talent level is on the defense and that's the one area of the ball GB can be "special" in if guys continue to develop.
  22. pyledriver80
    Offline

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    This is what is hypocritical Zero. You say gambling now and mortgaging the future is a bad move. If we did that and failed we would be in bad cap space for 4-5 years to come. Now let's look at your way of thinking.

    Build a team through the draft, and hope that in a few years we can be good. Well, what if that fails? Didn't we just lose 5-6 years? Either way if you fail you fail and waste years.

    My point is why not take the chance NOW when you have Brett Favre instead of 3-4 years when we have a giant ? under center.
  23. pyledriver80
    Offline

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Welcome to PackerForum. I swear Ted has 30 kids and they all reside here.
  24. pyledriver80
    Offline

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    You know I love how EVERYONE wants to talk about how bad we needed a DT NOW when a month before the draft NOONE said DT was a concern. We had mock drafts with NOONE even thinking about Harrell. Now TT picks him and it was a GREAT CHOICE. WTF? Blind following, purely!
  25. tromadz
    Offline

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings Received:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    Statements like those are why you're ...a great poster.

Share This Page