Why this draft made no sense at all

[Zero2Cool]

signing one big name FA i dont think is mortaging the future, of course it depends on the contract signed.


I think you have this notion theres a recipe for winning a SB. you do as much as you can for the upcoming season while keeping the seasons after the current one in mind. its really not that complicated to understand, but you're just trying to find a specific plan that works.

bro, i dont think ya gonna figure one out ...

Look, I know thier isn't a recipe for winning the Super Bowl but YOU make it sound like thier is. What would happen if GB made a push THIS YEAR by signing big time FA's similar to what NE is doing? You say thats mortgaging the future 3-4 years and you could be right. However if you take 4-5 years to build a winning team isn't that the same.

YOU said the approch was ignorant because you jeopardize the next few years. Are we not jeopardizing years right now building for the future?

So, once again how is it different?

I laugh because you think you're on to something here. Fact is, you're not. You're missing the point and even though its been laid out for you, you want it laid out again, in terms you can twist around and try to nitpick with. I'm not gonna fall for it bubba.

There's positives to both approaches it's the GM's job to find the medium and do whats best for the team NOW and the FUTURE. Personally, I'd like our GM to have signed some more Free Agents than he has, but what the hell do I know? I'm just a college studen working for dish network. I'm no pee wee league football team coach or nothing.

 

[Zero2Cool]

I'm trying to understand it. To build a team for the future you have to sacrifice a few years. Obviously Ted has the future in mind so he can't throw caution to the wind and go crazy signing FA's to win now. To me, that halfass wanting to win now.

Why even make a attempt to win now if you are just building for the future?

You are so aggravating. What are they supposed to do, forfeit their games?

GEEZ PEOPLE IT'S NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND

I'm aggravating because you can't answer this question. In 2 pages noone answered the original question presented by the poster. If Ted is building for the future why did we sign an old injury prone CB? Why didn't he tell Brett This? Why not make the trade with Cleveland for a #1 next year?

Its a legitimate question. The answer I got was Ted was trying to win now while still building for the future. To me, that says Ted is HALFASS trying to win now.

Charles Woodson? He's not old and he panned out good. Sometimes you have to take risks. We needed help in the secondary, desperately. He signed some help.

Why didn't he tell Brett? He works for the Packers, not Brett. Brett's said many times he knows what he's doing and he's fine with it. I don't see why the outcry of hell on this. Brett's not an idiot, he can see the team getting younger and younger. If he was bothered by it, he'd ask for a trade or he would retire. It's okay for Brett, why not you?

Packers didn't make the Browns trade because they didn't feel it benefited them in a manner they were comfortable. As Ted said, he doesn't know what pick that will be in 2008.

 

[Yared-Yam]

I'm aggravating because you can't answer this question. In 2 pages noone answered the original question presented by the poster. If Ted is building for the future why did we sign an old injury prone CB? Why didn't he tell Brett This? Why not make the trade with Cleveland for a #1 next year?

Its a legitimate question. The answer I got was Ted was trying to win now while still building for the future. To me, that says Ted is HALFASS trying to win now.

Last time I looked Favre wasn't the GM, so I TT doesn't have to tell or ask him anything.

When you are in a situation like the Packers were in you CAN'T have a "win now" philosophy. Horrible management of the team financially and personnel-wise just about crippled the team.

You don't ever have to leave the "build for the future" mode because teams should ALWAYS be building for the future. And when it's done right, you get the Patriots. When it's done wrong, you get the Browns and Cardinals.

 

[refpacker]

Thompson did a great job with the draft last year so let's not judge him until we see this year's players perform.

:rotflmao:

 

[Greg C.]

In 2 pages noone answered the original question presented by the poster.

I answered the question way back in the fifth post on this thread, but apparently my answer was not black-or-white enough to meet Packer Forum standards. Here's what I wrote:

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.

 

[nathanielgreenwood]

Does TT not want a solid safety tandem with a years worth of experience playing in 2008 then ?

 

[Arles]

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, K

eyshawn, 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.

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!

Again, I wasn't posting here a month before the draft. But, in my limited time here, I've said "run stuffing tackle" is a need.

I guess my question to you is if you think we needed a more stout set of tackles or if you are happy with the 06 rotation against the run.

 

[Pack93z]

Apparently all of Packer Nation is divided, not just here on... fan confidence isn't at a high for sure.

Oates: Packers' draft still hot topic

TOM OATES
608-252-6172
May 3, 2007

For fans and critics, it has become the draft that won't go away.

No matter how much they try to forget about the Green Bay Packers' performance in last weekend's NFL draft, people can't let it go. It seems everyone has a strong opinion on general manager Ted Thompson, though those opinions are deeply divided.

Some wanted Thompson to trade for wide receiver Randy Moss, some were violently opposed to it. Some wanted him to draft an offensive playmaker in the first round, some wanted him to take the best available player. Some wanted him to trade up for a halfback, some wanted him to trade down and gather additional picks.

The only thing people seem to agree on is that quarterback Brett Favre must be seething as he sits on his tractor in Mississippi and wonders why Thompson went a third straight year without adding a sure-fire playmaker to the offense.

Some think Favre should sue for non-support. Some think he should have called Thompson and retired on the spot.

But with all due respect to Favre, the greatest player in Packers history, it doesn't really matter what he thinks. It's not Thompson's job to make sure Favre is happy with every decision. It is, however, his job to maximize Favre's ability in the final years of his career.

Thompson fell down on the job again last weekend, but not because he didn't placate Favre. It was because he didn't give Favre the means to be fully productive at his age and diminished skill level. That affects the entire team, not just Favre.

Despite his timid approach to building a team, Thompson has done some good things in Green Bay. With a whopping 34 draft picks in three years, he has fortified a roster depleted by Mike Sherman's mismanagement of the draft.

The one thing Thompson has failed to do, however, is add game-breakers to a sluggish offense. Indeed, it has become increasingly apparent that Thompson is reading out of a 10-year-old playbook, one written by his mentor, former general manager Ron Wolf.

During the Packers' Super Bowl years, Wolf spent his money elsewhere and handed Favre mid-round draft picks at the skill positions. In 1996 and '97, Edgar Bennett (fourth round) and Dorsey Levens (fifth) were the halfbacks, Robert Brooks (third) and Antonio Freeman (third) were the wide receivers and Mark Chmura (sixth) was the tight end.

All of those players were good, but none was truly special. The Packers got away with it because Favre was such a dominant playmaker himself.

At 37, Favre simply isn't the playmaker he once was. Yet, Thompson is still trying to surround him with good but not great skill players. He doesn't seem to understand that Favre needs more help than he once did.

By refusing Saturday to trade for Cleveland's first-round pick in 2008, Thompson showed he wants to win now. That's why it's curious that he didn't give Favre more help. If Favre is going to be the quarterback, why not give him the weapons he needs at this point in his career?

Wolf has said often that his biggest regret is not putting enough weapons around Favre during his prime. Thompson is doing the same thing at a time when Favre needs them more than ever.

 

[Cory]

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.

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.

You can't base the judgement of a move like that off of another move that was made a year ago in free agency no less. Two different situations for two different positions.

 

[Cory]

Thompson did a great job with the draft last year so let's not judge him until we see this year's players perform.

:rotflmao:

What was wrong with the draft last year?

 

[pyledriver80]

signing one big name FA i dont think is mortaging the future, of course it depends on the contract signed.


I think you have this notion theres a recipe for winning a SB. you do as much as you can for the upcoming season while keeping the seasons after the current one in mind. its really not that complicated to understand, but you're just trying to find a specific plan that works.

bro, i dont think ya gonna figure one out ...

Look, I know thier isn't a recipe for winning the Super Bowl but YOU make it sound like thier is. What would happen if GB made a push THIS YEAR by signing big time FA's similar to what NE is doing? You say thats mortgaging the future 3-4 years and you could be right. However if you take 4-5 years to build a winning team isn't that the same.

YOU said the approch was ignorant because you jeopardize the next few years. Are we not jeopardizing years right now building for the future?

So, once again how is it different?

I laugh because you think you're on to something here. Fact is, you're not. You're missing the point and even though its been laid out for you, you want it laid out again, in terms you can twist around and try to nitpick with. I'm not gonna fall for it bubba.

There's positives to both approaches it's the GM's job to find the medium and do whats best for the team NOW and the FUTURE. Personally, I'd like our GM to have signed some more Free Agents than he has, but what the hell do I know? I'm just a college studen working for dish network. I'm no pee wee league football team coach or nothing.

I love it when you resort to personal attacks! It really shows you are backed in the corner.


You can't tell me the difference and I find that laughable. You say over and over and over again how signing big-time FA is "STUPID" but can't tell me the difference between doing that and being in cap hell for 4-5 years and rebuilding and losing 4-5 years. I guess that makes your statement paper thin.

 

[Oannes]

What a great irony here. It is true.... No one really answered the question in the original post. Getting a top flight 1st rounder in 2008 isn't trying to build for a distant future. It would fit in perfectly with building for the future. I think it's spin to say not trading with Cleveland is anything but foolish for a team that is clearly building for the future. What does the future mean? I don't think the upcoming season comes to mind. The upcoming season would be covered by the term WIN NOW. So, since we all agree that were not trying to win now, then not trading for Cleveland's first makes zero sense. Some want to say there's some strange gray area where he's building for the future by doing stupid things in the present.

The greatest irony is that I'll bet anything that those who are applauding Ted's conservative approach, are the same who love Brett's "gunslinger" throw up jump balls into triple coverage and see what happens approach. That is irony. We have a QB who is over the top trying to "win now" and a GM who is plodding along for the future. Hey, I couldn't care less what Favre thinks. I'm one who wished he'd hung up his cleats 4 years ago. My whole reason for posting was questioning the philosophy of this team vs. the choices it's made. They aren't congruent. We don't have a clearly defined plan and that's pathetic. Can we sign Trent Dilfer to play QB? He'd fit right in with our cautious approach to "trying to be competitive" instead of actually being competitive.

 

[Greg C.]

What a great irony here. It is true.... No one really answered the question in the original post.

I ANSWERED THE QUESTION and I am finished with this thread. Goodbye for now.

 

[Zero2Cool]

signing one big name FA i dont think is mortaging the future, of course it depends on the contract signed.


I think you have this notion theres a recipe for winning a SB. you do as much as you can for the upcoming season while keeping the seasons after the current one in mind. its really not that complicated to understand, but you're just trying to find a specific plan that works.

bro, i dont think ya gonna figure one out ...

Look, I know thier isn't a recipe for winning the Super Bowl but YOU make it sound like thier is. What would happen if GB made a push THIS YEAR by signing big time FA's similar to what NE is doing? You say thats mortgaging the future 3-4 years and you could be right. However if you take 4-5 years to build a winning team isn't that the same.

YOU said the approch was ignorant because you jeopardize the next few years. Are we not jeopardizing years right now building for the future?

So, once again how is it different?

I laugh because you think you're on to something here. Fact is, you're not. You're missing the point and even though its been laid out for you, you want it laid out again, in terms you can twist around and try to nitpick with. I'm not gonna fall for it bubba.

There's positives to both approaches it's the GM's job to find the medium and do whats best for the team NOW and the FUTURE. Personally, I'd like our GM to have signed some more Free Agents than he has, but what the hell do I know? I'm just a college studen working for dish network. I'm no pee wee league football team coach or nothing.

I love it when you resort to personal attacks! It really shows you are backed in the corner.


You can't tell me the difference and I find that laughable. You say over and over and over again how signing big-time FA is "STUPID" but can't tell me the difference between doing that and being in cap hell for 4-5 years and rebuilding and losing 4-5 years. I guess that makes your statement paper thin.

I have answered it. You choose not to read it for what it is. Instead you use selective reading and attack.

Signing a bunch of big name FA and putting yourself in cap hell for 4-5 years.
Rebuilding and losing 4-5 years.

Not much difference except with the FA you might win some games sooner than you would with rebuilding.

It all depends on WHO was signed and WHO was drafted. If you draft smart (ie the Saints last year) you can turn your ship around in one off season.




I think going out an signing a bunch of FA and putting yourself in cap hell is stupid be cause well they are Free Agents for a reason and just because they were good with someone elses team doesnt promise they will be for yours.

I believe its better to build a core team through the draft and add a few FA through the off season. And when I say a few, I mean more than Ted has already. One name that pops up is that Justin kid, the FB. Players like him we SHOULD have gotten in uniform.

I do not approve of everything Ted is doing or how. I don't blindly have faith in everything he does.

I see the moves he does or does not do and I try to figure out ... wtf happened there and I wait for what matters. When the games are played.

The young OL comes to mind. I thought that extremely moronic to go into the season with the rookies at G. I hoped for the best and they actually played 'ok'. I say okay because they didn't get Brett killed but we sacrificed Bubba Franks to do so. With that said I understand WHY we had to do it that way. We had to start somewhere.
It's a reason I think Bubba will be back to form this season too. He won't be blocking every other passing down.


cap hell 4-5 years VS losing for 4-5 years --- thats really a loaded question. Obviously the only way you could win is with cap hell because you already said losing 4-5 years rebuilding. It's obvious which answer you want, cap hell.


Question should be. Which provides the least amount of risk with greater reward? Signing FA that put your team in cap hell for years, or rebuilding through the draft with young guys.


Truth is, you need to do BOTH to win. (err thats my opinion, maybe not the truth)


If the Packers were a few FA away from being SB bound like the Patriots, I bet Teddy boy would have signed those FA to put us in the SB. Unfortunately the Packers are not a few FA away. We need a solid core of players.


pyle I don't mind debating with you because you have something i admire, passion, but you have go to stop twisting things around to make them fit your theory. I'm NOT calling you a woman, but when I read your comments, it reminds me of when my gf and I would argue. I know you're better than this. Show it.

 

[Oannes]

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.

My intention wasn't to aggravate you. You don't have to respond anymore but it was fair for me to lay out how the word "future" applies. You used the terms "near future" and "distant future". Taking 1 pick in Round 1 at 16 this year vs. 2 likely in the top 15 next year doesn't qualify as "distant future" to me. You're considering the 2008 season as the distant future and it isn't...that is the near future, which is why if you're "building for the future" you make that deal and we didn't.

I'm in total amazement about these claims of being in cap hell and mortgaging the future. Correct me if I'm wrong, we're in fine cap shape. We were in fine cap shape when we doled out 10 million to an underperforming injury riddled Charles Woodson. Adding Randy Moss was in no way shape or form either A) Mortgaging the future or...
B) Putting us in cap hell

We just need to understand we aren't a go for the throat organization any longer. We're an organization that is comfortable with "trying" to be competitive. I consider an 8-8 season last year a smashing success under the new direction we're going. 9-7 will be like a 12-4 and 10-6 will be like a perfect season for us.

 

[Zero2Cool]

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.

My intention wasn't to aggravate you. You don't have to respond anymore but it was fair for me to lay out how the word "future" applies. You used the terms "near future" and "distant future". Taking 1 pick in Round 1 at 16 this year vs. 2 likely in the top 15 next year doesn't qualify as "distant future" to me. You're considering the 2008 season as the distant future and it isn't...that is the near future, which is why if you're "building for the future" you make that deal and we didn't.

I'm in total amazement about these claims of being in cap hell and mortgaging the future. Correct me if I'm wrong, we're in fine cap shape. We were in fine cap shape when we doled out 10 million to an underperforming injury riddled Charles Woodson. Adding Randy Moss was in no way shape or form either A) Mortgaging the future or...
B) Putting us in cap hell

We just need to understand we aren't a go for the throat organization any longer. We're an organization that is comfortable with "trying" to be competitive. I consider an 8-8 season last year a smashing success under the new direction we're going. 9-7 will be like a 12-4 and 10-6 will be like a perfect season for us.

How did that underperforming injury riddled player perform for us? 8 int? 1 td?

Adding Moss wasn't mortaging the future, I don't think anyone is saying it would have. I personally feel that once Brett retired we'd have had to drop Moss because I don't think Moss would respect the next QB.

It could have put us in cap hell if the reports are true that he wasn't willing to restructure his contract for anyone other than the Patriots. I doubt it would have hurt us for YEARS though. I'd have liked to see him with Brett atleast for a year.

8 -8 Smashing success? We're not the Browns, lol. I think its more of a moderate improvement and a sign the team is moving in the right direction. This season is going to be a good tell all of whats going on with the Packers. Ted has had three off seasons to tool the team and the coaching staff has one solid year under its belt. I'm starting to like the coaching staff in the light that I see they are learning from their mistakes. That's one of the best things you get out of your coaching staff. Learn from where you went wrong and improve on it.

 

[Pack93z]

It could have put us in cap hell if the reports are true that he wasn't willing to restructure his contract for anyone other than the Patriots. I doubt it would have hurt us for YEARS though. I'd have liked to see him with Brett atleast for a year.

How is that... he could have been cut at the end of the year without any money against the cap and without any further compensation. No bonuses to incur or anything... the signing bonus from the contract was digested by the Raiders.

 

[Zero2Cool]

It could have put us in cap hell if the reports are true that he wasn't willing to restructure his contract for anyone other than the Patriots. I doubt it would have hurt us for YEARS though. I'd have liked to see him with Brett atleast for a year.

How is that... he could have been cut at the end of the year without any money against the cap and without any further compensation. No bonuses to incur or anything... the signing bonus from the contract was digested by the Raiders.

I said 'could'. I don't know what our rookies signed as, neither do you. (all unsigned) I don't know the details of Moss contract. I also said I doubt it would have hurt us for years.

From what I know, if we just picked up his contract, it'd been jus shy of $10 million against our cap this year and I think we could absorb that just fine.

 

[cheesey]

I'm aggravating because you can't answer this question. In 2 pages noone answered the original question presented by the poster. If Ted is building for the future why did we sign an old injury prone CB? Why didn't he tell Brett This? Why not make the trade with Cleveland for a #1 next year?

Its a legitimate question. The answer I got was Ted was trying to win now while still building for the future. To me, that says Ted is HALFASS trying to win now.

Last time I looked Favre wasn't the GM, so I TT doesn't have to tell or ask him anything.

When you are in a situation like the Packers were in you CAN'T have a "win now" philosophy. Horrible management of the team financially and personnel-wise just about crippled the team.

You don't ever have to leave the "build for the future" mode because teams should ALWAYS be building for the future. And when it's done right, you get the Patriots. When it's done wrong, you get the Browns and Cardinals.

Great points!!!

 

[cheesey]

signing one big name FA i dont think is mortaging the future, of course it depends on the contract signed.


I think you have this notion theres a recipe for winning a SB. you do as much as you can for the upcoming season while keeping the seasons after the current one in mind. its really not that complicated to understand, but you're just trying to find a specific plan that works.

bro, i dont think ya gonna figure one out ...

Look, I know thier isn't a recipe for winning the Super Bowl but YOU make it sound like thier is. What would happen if GB made a push THIS YEAR by signing big time FA's similar to what NE is doing? You say thats mortgaging the future 3-4 years and you could be right. However if you take 4-5 years to build a winning team isn't that the same.

YOU said the approch was ignorant because you jeopardize the next few years. Are we not jeopardizing years right now building for the future?

So, once again how is it different?

I laugh because you think you're on to something here. Fact is, you're not. You're missing the point and even though its been laid out for you, you want it laid out again, in terms you can twist around and try to nitpick with. I'm not gonna fall for it bubba.

There's positives to both approaches it's the GM's job to find the medium and do whats best for the team NOW and the FUTURE. Personally, I'd like our GM to have signed some more Free Agents than he has, but what the hell do I know? I'm just a college studen working for dish network. I'm no pee wee league football team coach or nothing.

I love it when you resort to personal attacks! It really shows you are backed in the corner.

You mean.............kind of like when you said I was a hypocrite?
That kind of personal attack?
I guess what goes around comes around.

 

[Lare]

Getting back to the question in your thread Oannes, the bottom line is that Ted Thompson fell in love with Justin Harrell. When he was still available when it came time for GBs pick at 16, TT was going to pick him and I doubt if there was much (within reason) that was going to sway his decision. It happens all the time with GMs, and being right in these situations usually differentiates between the successful GMs and the unsuccessful GMs.

As you say, he should have made that trade if was offered. And I'm guessing that if he had covered his bases by filling more holes in free agency, he very well may have done it.

 

[Oannes]

Thank you. A voice of reason. He certainly should have made that deal. To take your shot with an injury prone DT this year vs. taking two shots with nearly certain Top 15 picks is puzzling for a team that isn't going for it this season. It's more confusing given Harrell's injury history.

I'm frightened by the fact our GM fell in love with a guy he didn't talk to and didn't play over half the season last year.

Harrell better be ready to play the entire season and be highly productive or not making that deal will be as haunting as not making the Moss deal.

I long for the days of Wolf and Holmgren...those two inspired confidence. I don't get any of that from our current duo nor did I get it from Mike Sherman.

When was Green Bay dominant? When they had STRONG, SMART, leadership. Lombardi, Wolf/Holmgren. We certainly don't have that today.

 

[cheesey]

Thank you. A voice of reason. He certainly should have made that deal. To take your shot with an injury prone DT this year vs. taking two shots with nearly certain Top 15 picks is puzzling for a team that isn't going for it this season. It's more confusing given Harrell's injury history.

I'm frightened by the fact our GM fell in love with a guy he didn't talk to and didn't play over half the season last year.

Harrell better be ready to play the entire season and be highly productive or not making that deal will be as haunting as not making the Moss deal.

I long for the days of Wolf and Holmgren...those two inspired confidence. I don't get any of that from our current duo nor did I get it from Mike Sherman.

When was Green Bay dominant? When they had STRONG, SMART, leadership. Lombardi, Wolf/Holmgren. We certainly don't have that today.

How can you say we have weak leadership, when TT is only in his third draft? Because Moss decided he wanted to go somewhere else? TT made a play for him, Moss made the choice to go elsewhere. Even the great Wolf/Holmgren duo took more then 3 years to take the Packers to the Super Bowl. Were you one of the ones calling for Wolf's head when he made the trade for some unknown/unproven QB named Favre? I know there were alot of people that were screaming then, too. There were no "great" FA's out there this season that were worth the crazy money they were getting.
Besides........the season isn't here yet! He still may get some more things done.
If this Harrell kid is a big run stopper, he would be a huge pickup for us. It's not a "flashy" pick, but could be huge. Give it a chance before you judge. But i guess it's easy to sit back and judge, when you are not the one that has to pay the price, good or bad as the outcome may be.
If TT turns out to be right, he will flourish, and so will the Packers.
If not, he will end up unemployed. He's the one that really has the most to lose. Yet it seems some on here think he's out to destroy the team. Think about it......does that make ANY sense to any of you???

 

[Oannes]

Of course I don't think he's trying to destroy the team. He's doing his best. If teams were to hold a draft and make all 32 GM's eligible for it, where do you think TT would go? I think he'd go somewhere near the bottom of the round unless we were picking near the top.

I think if you can't see what a person is made of after 3 years you haven't been paying attention. Strong leadership is evident. You don't have to wait years to notice it.

When you mention teams with strong leadership, Green Bay isn't on the tip of anyone's tongue. It used to be.

This is a judgement year. Let's see how our boys perform this season. I honestly believe 8-8 last season was a fluke. That 4 game run at the end was vs. terrible competition and a Bears team in safe mode. I will be shocked if we win 8 this season, and I've been a fan for nearly 30 years. I'd love to see them win. Here's how little I believe in this team.... Last season, I didn't get NFL Sunday Ticket because I felt it wasn't worth it to watch bad football. I feel the same this season, even if it is Favre's last. Fair-weather fan? No. I'm just not going to pay to watch bad football. I'll watch all the games on national TV, but the team doesn't inspire me enough to pay. Just for some perspective, when we were dominant, I spent $300 for a ticket for the Frisco playoff game at Lambeau and then paid $330 for the following week vs. Carolina. The following year I spent nearly a grand flying out to Frisco to watch them play in the rain. If the product is headed in the right direction, I'll back it, if it isn't I'll criticize it. 8-8 last season ain't going in the right direction because it was a very weak puffed up 8-8. If we win 6 games this year I'd be impressed.

 

[cheesey]

Oannes........seems you at least have a level head about it.
I can understand people wringing their hands over the moves made (or not made). And I agree that this season is a big one. If TT wants to show that he in fact DOES know what he's doing, the team will have to prove it for him. Thats all I'm waiting for, before I throw TT under the bus. As I see it, there are lots worse GM's in the NFL then TT. Just putting a new guy in doesn't mean instant success. And I think it is just taking a little time for it all to come together. But I believe it's that way for ANY winner. It doesn't happen overnight, no matter how bad we fans want it to.
I just want to be fair before i make my final judgement of whether TT is good, or an idiot. He hasn't screwed things up enough by a long shot for me to say he's stupid.