A different theory in How TED Views things

[Pack93z]

http://www.packerchatters.com/op-ed/view.php?id=1908

Decent article.

 

[Greg C.]

I think "value" is a very good word to sum up what Thompson is looking for. It's a sound approach, although it still depends on Thompson's ability to assess the value of players, and we don't yet know how good he is at that. Communication may be a weakness for Thompson, as I think sometimes players have been left guessing too much by Thompson's lack of communication, which has undermined their confidence. He could probably stand to improve in this area, although he will never be outgoing. That's just not his personality. Hopefully Thompson's results will begin to speak for themselves before too long, which will inspire real confidence in the players that the organization is moving in the right direction.

 

[cheesey]

I agree Greg. I think that once TT has a little time here, and the players can see how he DOES get things done, they will be more comfortable with the guy. He's still pretty new as a GM here.

 

[chibiabos]

:thumbsup: Probably as good a theory of TT's approach as possible. IT also tends toward limiting major snafus in drafting big time busts and FA overpay! If GB shows improvement this season over last, and I'm not necessarily saying, play-offs; it should go a long way towards validating TT's methods.

 

[pyledriver80]

I had a nice chuckle reading that article. TT's tenure is now being judged by complex mathematics. All the sudden building a team is based on friggin algebra equasions?

Reality check, what matters is how many games you win and how many games you lose. It's really quite simple.

This is football, a place where pencilneck geeks are not welcome. You line up and you smash the ball down the other teams throat. There is no stupid blueprint on how to do it. You get guys who are capable of improving your team. If you pay them a little more than they are worth so be it.

You are givin a certain amount of cap room to put the best 53 guys on the field as you possibly can. The make-up of those players salaries is irrelevant. You either win or you don't. They don't give out Lombardi Trophies to teams who have the fairest contracts and they don't give Rings to teams who best used the cap space. You win or you don't. It's the foundation of competition.

 

[longtimefan]

I had a nice chuckle reading that article. TT's tenure is now being judged by complex mathematics. All the sudden building a team is based on friggin algebra equasions?

Reality check, what matters is how many games you win and how many games you lose. It's really quite simple.

This is football, a place where pencilneck geeks are not welcome. You line up and you smash the ball down the other teams throat. There is no stupid blueprint on how to do it. You get guys who are capable of improving your team. If you pay them a little more than they are worth so be it.

You are givin a certain amount of cap room to put the best 53 guys on the field as you possibly can. The make-up of those players salaries is irrelevant. You either win or you don't. They don't give out Lombardi Trophies to teams who have the fairest contracts and they don't give Rings to teams who best used the cap space. You win or you don't. It's the foundation of competition.

I thought it was odd to use that type of example for value..

But Pyle, the author doesnt say that is what Ted is doing..

"He might not use a specific model but I believe he at a minimum thinks along those lines."

I think it would be pretty odd for a GM of ANY SPORT to use a formula such as that, but I would not find it odd if they use some sort of chart to determine who is worth a risk and who isnt..

 

[chibiabos]

:rotflmao: Good Lord! Of course TT as well as other GMs use some sort of method for determining, or if you will, charting their course. Whether it be an actual mathematical formula or not; the math in the example could underlie whatever method they would use. And I'm sure that all GMs have a very good way of rating whatever prospects they look at. Personally I found the example rather entertaining and perhaps even useful.

 

[robkeg]

I concur pyledriver80 wins and loses is all that counts. Pee Wee league is over. It is not about having fun and everyone gets to play. You either win or lose. If you money left over in the cap and miss the playoffs what good does that do for you? I think anything short of winning your division and not going deep into the the playoffs is a bust of a season.

 

[cheesey]

I concur pyledriver80 wins and loses is all that counts. Pee Wee league is over. It is not about having fun and everyone gets to play. You either win or lose. If you money left over in the cap and miss the playoffs what good does that do for you? I think anything short of winning your division and not going deep into the the playoffs is a bust of a season.

I agree.
And the Packers were NOT in a position of strength when TT took over as GM.
Now, that was the 4-12 season. You can't honestly blame TT for that.
Last year, they IMPROVED to 8-8 after only ONE season as GM for TT.
If you don't see that as improvement, then i think you are VERY bad at math.
Now, if they go totally in the crapper next season (barring unforseen huge injuries, like Favre or Driver or along those lines) THEN i would say there is a big reason to question what is going on in GB.
Just my opinion of course.

 

[pyledriver80]

I concur pyledriver80 wins and loses is all that counts. Pee Wee league is over. It is not about having fun and everyone gets to play. You either win or lose. If you money left over in the cap and miss the playoffs what good does that do for you? I think anything short of winning your division and not going deep into the the playoffs is a bust of a season.

I agree.
And the Packers were NOT in a position of strength when TT took over as GM.
Now, that was the 4-12 season. You can't honestly blame TT for that.
Last year, they IMPROVED to 8-8 after only ONE season as GM for TT.
If you don't see that as improvement, then i think you are VERY bad at math.
Now, if they go totally in the crapper next season (barring unforseen huge injuries, like Favre or Driver or along those lines) THEN i would say there is a big reason to question what is going on in GB.
Just my opinion of course.

Let me get this straight.

TT made moves in the 2005 off-season that resulted in a 10-6 team going 4-12 and this was Sherman's Fault

and then

TT made moves in the 2006 season that resulted in the 4-12 team going 8-8 and this is a credit to TT

That's quite strange. So TT wasn't responsible for going 4-12 even though he made the off-season moves on a 10-6 team 7 months earlier?

Fast forward to 2006 and now he becomes responsible for improving that 4-12 team to 8-8.

Odd logic, but whatever works for you I guess

 

[cheesey]

Yes, they were 10-6 the year before. But the team did not improve because of the previous GM's goof ups.
They had a whole new coaching group, and there were many changes in the offense and defense with the new staff.
So there were other things that added into the reason that they went 4-12 then just a GM change.
To be honest you have to take ALL changes into account when you view the overall results.
I prefer to do that.
If you just want to point at the negatives, then you will see the glass as "half empty" instead of half full.
Pyle, to me it's ok that you choose to look at things that way, it's your own feelings, and theres nothing wrong with that. I don't think you are stupid for you opinions. I'm just trying to show you there IS a different way of viewing it is all. Time will show which opinion turns out to be the correct one. I of course am hoping it's mine. NOT so i can say "I told you so", but because i want the Packers to win.
To me that is whats important here. And i honestly believe you want them to suceed too!
That is why you are so passionate in your postings!

 

[pyledriver80]

Yes, they were 10-6 the year before. But the team did not improve because of the previous GM's goof ups.
They had a whole new coaching group, and there were many changes in the offense and defense with the new staff.
So there were other things that added into the reason that they went 4-12 then just a GM change.
To be honest you have to take ALL changes into account when you view the overall results.
I prefer to do that.
If you just want to point at the negatives, then you will see the glass as "half empty" instead of half full.
Pyle, to me it's ok that you choose to look at things that way, it's your own feelings, and theres nothing wrong with that. I don't think you are stupid for you opinions. I'm just trying to show you there IS a different way of viewing it is all. Time will show which opinion turns out to be the correct one. I of course am hoping it's mine. NOT so i can say "I told you so", but because i want the Packers to win.
To me that is whats important here. And i honestly believe you want them to suceed too!
That is why you are so passionate in your postings!

I agree Cheesey. I think there are tons of ways to look at it. However, I try to take off my Packers glasses when doing so.

I wish I felt the way you do. I wish I had optimism but sadly I don't. I feel this way because what I have seen from Ted.

The Packers were 10-6. No matter if you think they over-acheived or declining they were competitive. Since Ted took over I have witnessed a 4-12 season followed by an 8-8 one. I refuse to be exited over either. Injuries were a big factor in the 4-12 year. We stayed healthy in 05 and played a cake schedule. We are an average team in 2005 and again in 2006 and Ted is doing nothing to improve that same average team in 2007

 

[cheesey]

I honestly don't see through "Packer glasses". I am trying to look at things from a nuetral viewpoint. Could TT have done other things? Yes. But does that necessarly mean the team would be that greatly improved over what he has done so far? I really don't know for sure. I DO believe 100% that his goal IS for the Packers to be winners, as that would cement his job position as well.
I just haven't seen anything to make me adopt a "doom and gloom" feeling for the team so far. Maybe in the next 2 years or so he will prove me wrong, and i will then have to give up on what he is trying to do. But right now i just don't see that happening. It may happen, but i don't see it yet.
Like i said, i hope he ends up deserving my support, as that would mean the Packers are doing well.
Someday we will know for certain if his approach is right. He did pretty good in his run at Seattle. He sure hasn't shown that he is Matt Millen in my view.

 

[chibiabos]

I concur pyledriver80 wins and loses is all that counts. Pee Wee league is over. It is not about having fun and everyone gets to play. You either win or lose. If you money left over in the cap and miss the playoffs what good does that do for you? I think anything short of winning your division and not going deep into the the playoffs is a bust of a season.

You should have been around during the pre-Lombardi era, then you could justifiably cry in your beer! I doubt or at least hope the Pack will not see anything again like those days. :beersign:

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Argue all you like about how TT handled the 2005 season, but there's no denying that we didn't have quality replacements for key players. Klemm and Witt for Wahle and Rivera. Taco Wallace to replace Javon Walker -- Enough said.