I am shocked!

[Sunshinepacker]

When do people start asking how much of the team's success is having Rodgers at QB? I've said it before but Peyton Manning kept mediocre coaches and GMs employed while he was a Colt for quite some time.

I personally think Thompson is good but that much of what made him terrific early in his tenure left when other teams started poaching front office talent. I don't think Thompson has replaced the talent that left or compensated for some of the voices that were in the room (e.g., Schneider being more forceful about free agents).

 

[XPack]

The draft and develop philosophy is sound and the backbone for this team's success. Could he enhance that? I believe that he could without making any radical changes to his M.O.

Think there is a big difference between strategic and tactical. We need a long time strategy and what we have now is perfect. Now that we have Rodgers we simply can't depend on 'long time' stuff and lose his prime, This is where we go in for tactical reinforcements in FA. Both aspects are critical for success and prevent team for being though building phase forever.

If we have to make a big investment on a 2 year player, then this is the perfect time for it. Go for big spends on short terms players without compromising on overall strategy is a delicate balance. We goofed it up last draft tbh and I hope we get that right time.

 

[tynimiller]

We goofed it up last draft tbh and I hope we get that right time.

Please explain? I honestly have nothing but praise for the picks TT did last year. If you bring up Dawson you do realize he isn't a cover ILB either?

 

[Mondio]

When do people start asking how much of the team's success is having Rodgers at QB? I've said it before but Peyton Manning kept mediocre coaches and GMs employed while he was a Colt for quite some time.

I personally think Thompson is good but that much of what made him terrific early in his tenure left when other teams started poaching front office talent. I don't think Thompson has replaced the talent that left or compensated for some of the voices that were in the room (e.g., Schneider being more forceful about free agents).

I don't know, how good was he last year? How many receivers did he miss? How many open receivers did he not even throw to?

he's good, he's like everyone else we're talking about, but he's not ****ing perfect. He's thrown ill timed INT's too, 2 in fact last year that helped keep us from a Superbowl and this year he was rather pedestrian as far as good QB's go and we still made it to round 2 of the playoffs, about like other teams with the 2nd tier of QB's and good teams.

When are people going to realize there's a million moving parts and having Rodgers, although nice, is just one piece. He has never, and can never do it all on his own. There are still pretty good pieces around him. Just like MM doesn't do all his own and Ted Thompson doesn't do it all on his own. Charles Woodson wouldn't have had half his CB blitz sacks if it wasn't for Hawk taking out his blockers. It's team, always has been always will be. I'm sure that TT could build a team if he didn't have Rodgers and his salary too, we'd just look different and it wouldn't happen overnight, which of course, most fans wouldn't understand.

 

[TJV]

When do people start asking how much of the team's success is having Rodgers at QB? I've said it before but Peyton Manning kept mediocre coaches and GMs employed while he was a Colt for quite some time. I personally think Thompson is good but that much of what made him terrific early in his tenure left when other teams started poaching front office talent. I don't think Thompson has replaced the talent that left or compensated for some of the voices that were in the room (e.g., Schneider being more forceful about free agents).

The argument of how much of the team's success is due to Rodgers would be much more important regarding an evaluation of Thompson IMO if he had inherited Rodgers. I give him a lot of credit for that pick. A pick 20-some GMs had the opportunity to make and didn’t. Beyond that we just can't know what would have happened if Rodgers weren't a Packer. How would the 2005 draft have proceeded – and every draft after that? How would that have affected the Favre cluster shtup of 2008? More to the point you made, if the Packers hadn’t had the kind of success they did, how much of the "brain drain" of front office talent would have occurred? I don’t have any question in my mind that the Packers FO suffered from the loss of Schneider, Dorsey, and McKenzie. And replacing that kind of talent and experience is incredibly difficult.

 

[sschind]

I like this merry go round

I think they overestimated the jump our TE would take, but i can't blame them either. We were setting records practically every year on offense and this year didn't start out any differently. Quarless had been as productive as pretty much any TE available to us last year and Rodgers was 1 year into his switch from WR to TE at the pro level, had shown pretty good hands and was expected to improve. Then Quarless got hurt, and I'm not ready to say Rodgers didn't improve as a TE, but he certainly wasn't what we needed at the position with everything else failing around him as well on the offensive side of the ball.

On the other hand, if everything hadn't failed around him we probably wouldn't be so critical of his performance. Yes he is slow and apparently can't break a tackle but he catches the ball. If we didn't need a TE to stretch the field and carry the team on his back because everyone else failed RRs season would not look so bad. Obviously I wouldn't mind a Gronk type TE and from what I hear of him I wouldn't mind drafting a guy like Hunter Henry, or signing Ladarius Green for that matter but to be honest, if the Packer WRs, as a group, can get back to the level they played at before this past season and if AR can get back what he seemed to have misplaced this past season, I wouldn't mind going into next year with RR as our #1 TE. I'll take a guy who can catch the ball when its thrown to him and move the chains if I have other guys that can make the big plays and if no one else is making the big plays how much of that can we blame on the TE who is doing everything that is asked of him'

That statement is a total myth.

On a whole I'd rather have a defense like Denver's than an offense like the Panthers. A smothering defense keeps things close and makes anything possible as we saw on Sunday. I guess a high powered offense with a weak defense keeps things close but more like 45-42 rather than 14-13.

I guess that depends on what one feels is the ultimate goal to be reached.

That's the key to much of this argument. The ultimate goal is a SB victory to be sure but barring that there are different levels of success. Some people feel anything short of a SB victory is a wasted season and others feel that a competitive team with a realistic chance (realistic is another argumentative term I realize) to win it all is preferable to an all in type situation with a potential risk to future competitiveness. Neither is right or wrong.

Unfortunately, as I've made clear elsewhere, it's the absolutes in posts that I do take literally (sort of "every single word" and dislike so much. Nobody can "guarantee" much of anything in sports, we know that not "every" draft will be good, we know there can't be an All-Pro at "every" position, et. al. If you had just reined it in a bit and said a top defense isn't necessary to win it all, I would have nodded in agreement and read on.

After finishing the thread, also have another communications gripe to add - anyone who ends a post with "period", "enough said", "game over", "discussion over" or the like. Since the vast majority of those end up with rebuttals, that's obviously not true.

OK, back to your regularly scheduled program.

On a related note on another forum one guy claims to be "objective" and to know the "truth." When those terms start to fly I usually tune out because its just evidence that the poster has a one track mind and is not willing to admit that there may be different ways to accomplish a given task and that his way is the only right way.

Mondio...I think even TT detractors would say he's better than pretty good just looking at success of his team...he's one of the best IMO. Great post.

I wouldn't be so sure. I've read plenty of posts on this and other forums that claim TT is average AT BEST.

The Packers don't need to break the bank with free agents but they would benefit from signing a few veterans to fill holes. Does anybody think that Owen Daniels is worse than molasses Richard Rodgers? With Aaron Rodgers as his qb he would have been an upgrade. What I am trying to show is that putting all of your eggs in one basket is too risky. For the Packers they over rely upon draft and develop. While the draft is the best way to build a team you still have to plug holes using all sources.

Not that I disagree with your underlying premise (TT could be more active in FA to fill holes) but related to what I said above I do not think Owen Daniels or Vernon Davis for that matter would have been an improvement over RR. To answer your direct question no I don't think he would have necessarily been worse but I don't think he would have necessarily been better either. Prior to last season I wouldn't have minded seeing Daniels brought in in just sort of a move you are talking about (same with Ladarius Green this year) because I thought he was a pretty good TE but after the fact I do not think he would have a significant, if any improvement. I do feel that Green could be however.

His contract didn't expire. He was released by the Bears.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000333172/article/julius-peppers-released-by-chicago-bears

Thus he was an unrestricted free agent. Free to sign with any team he wished and any team was free to vie for his services. At this point I consider any player who has played out their contract to be a free agent. Until franchise and transition tags are placed those players are in control of where they will, or perhaps more accurately, will not play next year. If TT signs Starks to a long term deal tomorrow IMO that will be a FA signing because as of right now Starks is not under contract for the 2016 season and is not obligated to play for the Packers. Peppers was an unrestricted free agent signing however.

 

[Mondio]

On the other hand, if everything hadn't failed around him we probably wouldn't be so critical of his performance. Yes he is slow and apparently can't break a tackle but he catches the ball. If we didn't need a TE to stretch the field and carry the team on his back because everyone else failed RRs season would not look so bad. Obviously I wouldn't mind a Gronk type TE and from what I hear of him I wouldn't mind drafting a guy like Hunter Henry, or signing Ladarius Green for that matter but to be honest, if the Packer WRs, as a group, can get back to the level they played at before this past season and if AR can get back what he seemed to have misplaced this past season, I wouldn't mind going into next year with RR as our #1 TE. I'll take a guy who can catch the ball when its thrown to him and move the chains if I have other guys that can make the big plays and if no one else is making the big plays how much of that can we blame on the TE who is doing everything that is asked of him'



.

I am in agreement with you. I think RR is a fine TE compared to the rest of the league outside of a few of the super stars. Although I expected "more" out of him, I think he's ok overall. He's not the guy that opens up an offense for anyone, few TE's are. But he's a big body that can catch. He needs to improve blocking. But I think he can Shed some of that weight that didn't help in the blocking anyway and become a bit more dynamic in his route running at least going forward. But 50-60 catches from a TE and 7-10 TD's on a year is not a "bad" player at the position. He's just not what this offense needed last year because everything else was failing. I don't hold that against him, just an observation.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't believe there was much at all at ILB in last years FA class and we had flexibility with Matthews and having some good rotation guys at OLB. I think that allowed us to put a pretty good defense on the field last year because we got to put our better players on the field. I think DB is far more important than ILB in this defense and I think we're in a much better position THIS year to address it than we have been in either of the 2 previous. Unless of course we lose 2 of our DL to FA, then I think it becomes much more important to bolster that position.

There may be a few ILB's available in FA this year depending on who is signed or not, but it looks better this year than it did last year. Will we get one? I'm guessing if opportunity, price and value are all there, yes.

The inside linebacker position has been in need of an upgrade for close to four years, the tight end position for nearly three years. I really have a hard time believing that there hasn´t been any opportunity for Thompson to upgrade the position at any point over that period.

On the other hand, if everything hadn't failed around him we probably wouldn't be so critical of his performance. Yes he is slow and apparently can't break a tackle but he catches the ball. If we didn't need a TE to stretch the field and carry the team on his back because everyone else failed RRs season would not look so bad. Obviously I wouldn't mind a Gronk type TE and from what I hear of him I wouldn't mind drafting a guy like Hunter Henry, or signing Ladarius Green for that matter but to be honest, if the Packer WRs, as a group, can get back to the level they played at before this past season and if AR can get back what he seemed to have misplaced this past season, I wouldn't mind going into next year with RR as our #1 TE. I'll take a guy who can catch the ball when its thrown to him and move the chains if I have other guys that can make the big plays and if no one else is making the big plays how much of that can we blame on the TE who is doing everything that is asked of him'

Rodgers doesn´t move the chain catching the ball though. He only had 27 first downs on 58 receptions which is a below average number for a tight end.

On a whole I'd rather have a defense like Denver's than an offense like the Panthers. A smothering defense keeps things close and makes anything possible as we saw on Sunday. I guess a high powered offense with a weak defense keeps things close but more like 45-42 rather than 14-13.

It doesn´t make a difference how a team wins. In recent history there have been Super Bowl champions with a below average defense, that´s what I was referring to.

 

[XPack]

Please explain? I honestly have nothing but praise for the picks TT did last year. If you bring up Dawson you do realize he isn't a cover ILB either?

More on releasing House and Williams. They should have planned the transition a bit better.

 

[tynimiller]

More on releasing House and Williams. They should have planned the transition a bit better.

How is that a failed draft though like stated?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

More on releasing House and Williams. They should have planned the transition a bit better.

Taking a look at what both Williams and House got paid it was the right decision to let them walk. The Packers depth chart included Shields, Hayward and Hyde, it´s awfully tough to be any deeper at the position going into an offseason.

 

[tynimiller]

Taking a look at what both Williams and House got paid it was the right decision to let them walk. The Packers depth chart included Shields, Hayward and Hyde, it´s awfully tough to be any deeper at the position going into an offseason.

We will be deeper going into this next season

 

[Jdeed]

If you do not go Win Now and grab up the better players you will run out time with Rodgers.

Of course you can hope drafting people pays off and maybe get lucky a bit.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If you do not go Win Now and grab up the better players you will run out time with Rodgers.

Of course you can hope drafting people pays off and maybe get lucky a bit.

And....if you go "Win now and grab up the better players" and Rodgers gets hurt or we don't win now, how does that bode for the future? I get fans dream of having the best players and winning a Super Bowl, but the cap today, the cap tomorrow and the cap years down the road always needs to be kept in perspective. Unless all you want to do is Go All In one year and to hell with the next 5-10 years.

 

[adambr2]

Here's the thing. Did the Broncos win the Super Bowl with their approach, yes they did. It still took some luck and circumstance, it's not like they just rolled over the entire NFL this year. But they won it, and yes, a Super Bowl championship justifies the moves they made.

But here's the other thing. The Packers won the Super Bowl with a draft and develop approach. The Giants and Steelers won 2 Super Bowls each over the last 10 years with a draft and develop approach. Clearly, what these teams did worked too. There's more than one approach that can get you there, and both involve getting some luck and circumstance in your favor .

So why is it that when a team that invested heavily in free agency finally wins one, the reaction is, 'Aha! See?' Why does the Broncos win make the approach of previous Super Bowl winners any less valid in their own right?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So why is it that when a team that invested heavily in free agency finally wins one, the reaction is, 'Aha! See?' Why does the Broncos win make the approach of previous Super Bowl winners any less valid in their own right?

Because some people like to say "I told you so" or use whatever argument possible to try and prove their point. Had the Packers beat the Broncos in the SB this year, some would have said "Aha! See? I told you that draft and develop is the way to win SB's!" As adambr and others have pointed out, there are many ways to assemble a SB winner, but I don't think one way is necessarily a guarantee or better then another.

 

[AmishMafia]

Because some people like to say "I told you so" or use whatever argument possible to try and prove their point. Had the Packers beat the Broncos in the SB this year, some would have said "Aha! See? I told you that draft and develop is the way to win SB's!" As adambr and others have pointed out, there are many ways to assemble a SB winner, but I don't think one way is necessarily a guarantee or better then another.

Exactly.

And heres the thing. Teams that invested heavily in recent FAs, Philly, Seattle, Jets, Miami, etc. are facing a lot of cap issues ahead. Even Denver can expect to lose heavily on FAs. If you don't win it, it becomes a big waste and your ability to even compete over the next few years diminishes.

 

[Carl]

Rodgers was off most of the year and the WR position was killed my injuries. It's very tough to overcome so many losses at one position, especially when passing the ball is such a huge part of today's game.

Nearly winning Arizona down their top 3-4 receivers and Rodgers not being Rodgers is a testimate of having a strong roster. Outside of Denver, I don't see another team in the league being able to do much better than the Packers did in Arizona with the same situation.

 

[sschind]

Rodgers doesn´t move the chain catching the ball though. He only had 27 first downs on 58 receptions which is a below average number for a tight end.



It doesn´t make a difference how a team wins. In recent history there have been Super Bowl champions with a below average defense, that´s what I was referring to.

Catching the ball is the main thing and I think he does that pretty well. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a better TE than Richard Rodgers but I don't think he is the worst we could have either. The Packers offensive output as we think it can be (pre 2015) should be such that even RR can be a productive and effective TE and if it gets back to that level I think he can be effective.

As far as the O vs D thing yeah having a stellar one or the other guarantees nothing. Just like signing high priced free agents means nothing. I was just saying that if I had my choice I would take a suffocating defense and an average offense over a high powered offense and an average defense. Of course a high powered offense and a suffocating defense would be a thing of beauty.

 

[RRyder]

Because some people like to say "I told you so" or use whatever argument possible to try and prove their point. Had the Packers beat the Broncos in the SB this year, some would have said "Aha! See? I told you that draft and develop is the way to win SB's!" As adambr and others have pointed out, there are many ways to assemble a SB winner, but I don't think one way is necessarily a guarantee or better then another.

I'd add that some people just want a team to be aggressive no matter what the situation. It makes them feel like the team is trying more for whatever reason.

Case in point if it's 4th and 20 they'd rather have their Defense blitz rather than play coverage even though one is more likely to be burned. Or how about say Arians throwing on 3rd down against us in the waning moments when running 40 extra seconds off would've been smarter. Or BB having Brady throw in a similar situation against the Chiefs only to have a pick 6 bounce off the defenders hands. Even in the SB I heard people saying how horrible it was for the Broncos to simply run time off the clock and putting the game in there defenses hands because they were playin "not to lose" instead of "playing to win"

While those are only on the field examples it speaks to how I believe alot of people see things in a vacuum and simply would prefer for a team to be aggressive in all things because they think it means they're "trying" more regardless of whether other ways can be just as effective and more so in other situations.

There are times to be aggressive and times to take a step back take a safer approach. It's not a one size fits all type of thing as has been mentioned there are 1000 moving parts in this equation

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But here's the other thing. The Packers won the Super Bowl with a draft and develop approach. The Giants and Steelers won 2 Super Bowls each over the last 10 years with a draft and develop approach. Clearly, what these teams did worked too. There's more than one approach that can get you there, and both involve getting some luck and circumstance in your favor .

There´s no doubt in my mind that building the core of your team through draft and develop is the only way to have success in the long run. But even the Giants and Steelers have used free agency to address some positions of need helping them get over the top and win the Super Bowl. Heck, even one of the Packers most important players on their Super Bowl run (Woodson) was brought in as a free agent.

I haven´t seen anyone here advocating for Thompson to go all-in, signing every high-price free agent out there. But some of us are tired of TT standing pat when it comes to selectively using free agency to improve obvious positions of need. Because of his approach upgrading some of these positions (ILB, TE, safety) takes several years and ends up coming back to haunt the team at some point of the past seasons.

 

[adambr2]

There´s no doubt in my mind that building the core of your team through draft and develop is the only way to have success in the long run. But even the Giants and Steelers have used free agency to address some positions of need helping them get over the top and win the Super Bowl. Heck, even one of the Packers most important players on their Super Bowl run (Woodson) was brought in as a free agent.

I haven´t seen anyone here advocating for Thompson to go all-in, signing every high-price free agent out there. But some of us are tired of TT standing pat when it comes to selectively using free agency to improve obvious positions of need. Because of his approach upgrading some of these positions (ILB, TE, safety) takes several years and ends up coming back to haunt the team at some point of the past seasons.

Sure, I'm on board. Peppers turned out well 2 years ago. I'd like to use all possible avenues to improve the team. But some years there just isn't a situation where there's a match for the need.

IIRC last year's ILB FA class was extremely weak. The biggest clamoring was probably for Spikes who we obviously had some concerns about which turned out to be well-founded.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I haven´t seen anyone here advocating for Thompson to go all-in, signing every high-price free agent out there.

I have seen shades of grey of this. People saying that "the time is now to get the best players possible while AR is still playing". Do they think TT isn't trying to get the best players possible, while also keeping an eye on the future? When people scream "TT needs to go!" and when a few of these people actually give a reason why, it is usually "he doesn't bring in big name free agents to win a SB".

Personally, I don't think the Packers need to bring in $15-$20M/year guys to elevate the current team, but I do agree it appears that a lower first tier FA at ILB and/or TE are the right moves, THIS year. A year ago (2015), I didn't see a need for any offensive FA's, we looked to be in great shape. The defense was a different story in regards to ILB and DB. But as Captain pointed out, who was out there at ILB? I also think TT had faith in Barrington and Palmer getting the job done. He appears to have successfully addressed the need at CB through the draft.

Hindsight of each passing season is easy, we should have been better stocked at WR and on the O line this year, but did any of us see that coming? Also few of us know what coaches and TT are thinking about in regards to the development of the current roster in the off season. What first, second year or PS players are ready to really step up?

This years off season needs seem pretty obvious to me, but maybe to the coaches and TT there is more to the story then we are privy to.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But some years there just isn't a situation where there's a match for the need. IIRC last year's ILB FA class was extremely weak.

Inside linebacker has been in need of an upgrade for four years running as of now. I really have a hard time believing there wasn´t any opportunity to improve the position over that period.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Inside linebacker has been in need of an upgrade for four years running as of now. I really have a hard time believing there wasn´t any opportunity to improve the position over that period.

This is a case where TT seems to have over valued his draft and develop philosophy. I'm not even going to list all the guys who have played ILB over the last 4 years, TT obviously whiffed in regards to developing quality ILB's. If some of the cast offs were going to other teams and lightening it up, I would put some of the blame on the coaching staff, but they aren't.

Ryan was really the first ILB even taken in recent drafts higher then 6th round. So maybe this is the year that we finally see the Packers invest in the position via FA or draft. But I do think most of us are in agreement, the time to do it was...... yesterday.