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.

    Sign Up 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!

GM has improved Packers, but by how much?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Zero2Cool, Feb 10, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
     
  2. Raider Pride

    Raider Pride Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,868
    Ratings:
    +2
    "But in no particular order, he’ll be looking to:

    # Upgrade from Manuel at starting safety;
    # Find a No. 3 cornerback;
    # Find a receiver for a spot in the top-three rotation;
    # Find a running back good enough to share time with Green or be the starter if Green doesn’t re-sign;
    # Find a tight end who’s a quality receiving threat."

    Zero,

    Do you know if this is actually the key areas T.T. stated he wants to address? Or is this Pete Dougherty's suggestion on what T.T. should do.

    The way Pete Dougherty wrote it I am not sure if this is something T.T. said to Pete or if it is Pete's suggestion.

    RP
     
  3. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    I truly doubt any GM would tell the specifics areas he needs to upgrade. It would kind of hinder them during draft and free agency. I am confident this list is soley that of Pete, not Ted.
     
  4. packedhouse01

    packedhouse01 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,560
    Ratings:
    +1
    I think he nailed it right on the head. Those are the needs the Packers have to fill. If they can do that. They will be competitive next year. I still think Rogers is going to be a quality starting quarterback one day. My hope is that during the pre-season this year he will show what he's got. I'm not one of those guys who is going to panic when Favre pulls the trigger and retires. I think we're much better off with Favre, but I think at the very least Rogers will be servicable, better than Grossman.
     
  5. Cliff

    Cliff Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    197
    Ratings:
    +0
    A factor in the NFC North for years to come??? LMAO.... Big Deal!

    What about a NFC Championship and a trip to the Super Bowl?
     
  6. Cliff

    Cliff Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    197
    Ratings:
    +0
    Tell us that if and when Rodgers gets the Packers into a Super Bowl.
     
  7. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Theres no guarentees no matter WHO is at the QB position. Look at Peyton Manning. He's been at QB since i believer 1998, and it took him till now to get a SB ring. And i think he's pretty darn good. Look at Dan Marino. Put up some pretty good numbers, yet the only SB he was in was his rookie year. He lost that one, and never got back there.
    To me, if we can get a few important holes filled, we will be in the running next year. And winning in our division is VERY important to getting to the playoffs, which is where you have to get too if you want a shot at the SB.
     
  8. slackerbacker

    slackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +0
    “You have to be able to play defense, and you have to be able to run the ball,” Thompson said. “Normally, those teams are the ones that - even though other teams are kind of successful in the playoffs - can hang in in the playoffs.”

    So when is he going to address the running game??

    I'm well aware that I'm in the minority on this topic, and I'm quite sure TT will once again mortgage next season on the backs of our ineffective OL. Their inconsistent play severly hampered our ability to compete for a playoff spot this season and if not upgraded will again next year.

    All the stats in the world won't change my mind on this. I watched the games and it was plain to see we couldn't consistently run the ball when we needed it most. We finished 23rd in rushing which makes it very hard for us to dictate the pace of a game, and close out games in the 2nd half not to mention harder to score in the Red Zone where we ranked almost dead last in the league. Likewise, throwing the ball 35 - 50 times a game hardly helps keep the INTs chances down.

    Even though they finished 5th in the NFL for the fewest sacks allowed, they gave up 15 of the 24 against playoff teams in just 5 games. Likewise, most every knowledgable fan knows we had to keep @ least 1/2 of our receivers in to block on any one pass play. That hardly puts any pressure on our opponents Def.

    IMO, an upgrade of one of the OG spots is needed. Improvements @ TE and FB would go a long way toward improving our overall running game as well.
     
  9. packedhouse01

    packedhouse01 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,560
    Ratings:
    +1
    I shudder to think how many super bowls Favre would have been in GM Sherman had done a better job of surrounding him with better talent. I think that is the key for whoever follows Brett. If you surround him Rogers with enough talent and a great defense he'll do a good job. Look at Grossman, this guy made it to the Superbowl because there was enough talent around him. Now he wasn't good enough to carry them, but he got them there.

    I'm just glad we got Brett back. I was seriously hoping that we would be able to get him to sign on for two more years though because I think we'll be better next year, but I think the next year might be the year we can seriously challenge. Much like our teams of the early 90's, we had some talent but those guys had to learn how to win, how to gear it up a notch. Once they learned that they became a pretty good team.
     
  10. slackerbacker

    slackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm not a big Sherman fan, but at least he tried to give Favre weapons even to a fault. He seemed to understand that the time to try and win was w/ the core group they had assembled. The mis-conception is that Wolf did a great job of this, but he missed on quite a few draft picks as well, and has admitted on more than one occassion that he failed to do what you are suggesting.

    Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time J. Reynolds and Joe Johnson liked to be solid choices; they just didn't work out to say the least. I'd say the Ferguson pick over Chambers and Carroll over Chris Gamble hurt the team more. Couple those moves w/ the break down of the MM fiasco, and Sherman's fate was easily forseen IMO.
     
  11. Mackie2001

    Mackie2001 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    106
    Ratings:
    +0
    Am I the only that thinks that Manuel will make a good safety? Considering he was coming of an injury, missed most of training camp, he did well as the season wore on, as did the rest of the defense, including the rest of the secondary.

    I'm not directing the following at anyone but only a fool thinks that any given team has, or should have, the best players at every position. It's not a practical point of view.
     
  12. Cliff

    Cliff Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    197
    Ratings:
    +0
    Interesting point which deserves merit. Manuel will more than likely remain in Green Bay for 2007.
     
  13. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    And there is nothing wrong with that.

    He has been bad, but he is also a veteran. If nothing else, he doesn't bring with him the baggage of a Sean Taylor. He will have competition next year, but finding a veteran safety to fill that role for the price tag of Manuel will be next to impossible this offseason.

    Collins, Underwood, Culver are a real talented young duo. The oldest player is Underwood at only 24 years of age. You need some veteran player to at least point out some stuff.

    People are assuming that Manuel will remain starter, but last year I ask you who was better than Manuel? Culver has so much talent but in his brief periods of playing time he looked lost. Underwood will round out a formidable group of talent, but you still need a veteran to teach the young guys some stuff.
     
  14. Mackie2001

    Mackie2001 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    Messages:
    106
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm addressing your last sentence. Manuel was brought in because he knows the game. His performance had to be because of injury, new coach and new system. The breakdowns in the secondary decreased as time went on and because Carroll was released.

    I always thought the Carroll should have been tried at safety because he'd have everything in front of him and because he's a good tackler. He never was afraid to stick his nose in there to make a tackle. He wasn't one of the grab tacklers that opponents run over, under, around and through.
     
  15. Cliff

    Cliff Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    197
    Ratings:
    +0
    The problem on this forum is that people interpret posts wrong. If I was the Packers GM I would have already sent Manuel on his way. I never said Manuel would start in 2007 only that he will remain in Green Bay.
     
  16. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Very true. Manuel was much better in the later part of the season, and I must say he is a real big hitter. When I think of big hits during the Packer season, off the top of my head I can think of a couple of hits that Manuel laid.

    Simply put, I think it is too early to be saying that Manuel should be cut. He may come good yet, but if he doesn't, it isn't the end of the world because Manuel may yet have an important role of the veteran to play in the young Safety group of the Packers. Given Manuel's track record of being a good person and not doing stupid things off the field, I'll gladly take him to try and teach these players a veteran's perspective.
     
  17. Cliff

    Cliff Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    197
    Ratings:
    +0
    Manuel will stay in Green Bay primarily because Ted Thompson is not going admit to a double mistake. He was involved with drafting Manuel and then brings him to Green Bay.

    In any event we will have to make the best of it because Manuel will get another shot in 2007.
     
  18. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Manuel was Drafted by the Bengals.
    Ted worked for the Bengals in 2002?


     
  19. Cliff

    Cliff Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    197
    Ratings:
    +0
    LMAO...too bad it was Mike Holmgren who was the GM in Seattle 2000 thru 2004 and was the one who made Seattle's draft picks. Thompson was an errand boy.
     
  20. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    The point of my post was that it is too early to be declaring Manuel a mistake. There is still too much football left in him for you to make that claim.
     
  21. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Would you mind providing the evidence to back that claim?

    After all, Mike Holmgren himself said Ted Thompson was in charge of running his drafts.

    You'll have to excuse me if I take the word of a head coach who would have no reason to lie, over your claims which have not been backed up with proof.
     
  22. Cliff

    Cliff Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Messages:
    197
    Ratings:
    +0
    Would you mind providing the evidence to back that claim?
     
  23. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    So as 'errand boy' Ted assisted the Bengals in drafting Manuel?
    If he was an 'errand boy' how did he help bring Manuel to the Seahawks?

    You say people don't interpret posts correctly.
    Although in your case, it's plain ignorance. You say Ted is helping when he brings in sub par players, but when its mentioned he helped build the team that went to the three straight playoff appearances you say he was an 'errand boy'. Interseting to say the least.

    While avoiding the whole point, which was Ted did not help the Bengals draft Marquand Manuel while he was staffed (as you call him "errand boy") as the Seattle Seahawks.
     
  24. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Larry McCarrens chat, a question was asked, and then McCarren replied:

    It was being discussed in this thread.

    Now, if it isn't too much trouble, would you mind stating evidence to back your claim?
     
  25. CaliforniaCheez

    CaliforniaCheez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Just to throw some gas on the fire.....

    The Packers were a 10-6 team regularly making the playoffs when Ted Thompson took over in January 2005.

    After missing the playoffs for 2 years how has the team improved?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page