Is TT content with what we have?

lambeaulambo

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
2,548
Reaction score
699
Location
Rest Home
It sounds like you don't know the meaning of the word "implied". By posting "Here is an idea…" and by posting "Find some players who…" you are implying that Thompson hasn't had that idea and isn't attempting to find players to fix obvious problems. Obviously Thompson is more aware of the problems on the team than you are. Obviously he's trying to find players to succeed with every player acquisition he makes. Do you think your posts stating the obvious are adding to the conversation? IMO it's similar to suggesting Thompson find all pros at LT and at every level on the defense. The trick, which apparently eludes you, is not in telling Thompson to find good/great players, it's actually identifying those players.

'Hey I know: How 'bout Thompson picking a great player at #26?!!' Thanks for that, Mr. Obvious.
LOL....nice rant....albeit benign.
 

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
TT loves the draft. We are hamstrung in FA this year and next because of the expected cap hit to resign 2 players, most noticeably#12. A novel thought. Redo Matthews long term and next year at this time, TRADE Rodgers to someone else for him to get the $. Would need to acquire his replacement this year. I would expect maybe at best a 2014 1 & 3 and a 2015 1 & 2 to get the deal done. Otherwise I foresee a return to 10 years ago with Favre not having a great team around him, just good enough to get to the playoffs but not enough horses around him to win it (let's avoid turning this in to a Favre debate again.) Peyton had the same problem in Indy, best Qb in the league with only 1 SB win at the time. Jake Delhomme, Rex Grossman, Trent Dilfer all made the SB with a good team around them and none would be in the discussion of top 20 QB's since 2000. Eli has 2 rings because of his team. He is at best an above average QB. What good is the best QB in the league for 10 years if all you expect is to get to the playoffs and hope for the best? A dominant TEAM should get to the conference championship several years running.

Favre n Peyton sucked in the playoffs bc they like to throw picks. That's why they only won a single SB
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
I get so tired of hearing about how a team is just doing enough to get to the playoffs but not enough to win it all. Like signing certain free agents is going to be the difference between winning and losing those playoff games.

There are no magic beans that will keep you from losing in the playoffs. Most of the time, it's not even the best team on paper that ends up winning it all, and everything you do all year can be lost in one poorly played game. That's the NFL.

People just seem to fall into the old trap of thinking that if we don't surround Rodgers with big named free agents, we're blowing our chances to win him more than 1 ring in his prize, and that's simply not true. Peyton Manning has 1 ring, Marino never got one. It's very hard to do no matter what you do or how your team looks going into the year. Guys like Brady are the rare exception, and they didn't get their rings by their team acquiring a ton of FA's.

Those demanding a dynasty -- it isn't the 80's or 90's anymore. The NFL has changed, and it's now parity-driven and designed to have a level playing field. We are at a position in our franchise where we can look forward to making the playoffs every year and therefore get the chance to go all the way. That's all you can ask for. More than ever, winning in the playoffs involves a lot more luck and momentum than it was in the past.
 

Spanish Rose

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Messages
430
Reaction score
15
I get so tired of hearing about how a team is just doing enough to get to the playoffs but not enough to win it all. Like signing certain free agents is going to be the difference between winning and losing those playoff games.

There are no magic beans that will keep you from losing in the playoffs. Most of the time, it's not even the best team on paper that ends up winning it all, and everything you do all year can be lost in one poorly played game. That's the NFL.

People just seem to fall into the old trap of thinking that if we don't surround Rodgers with big named free agents, we're blowing our chances to win him more than 1 ring in his prize, and that's simply not true. Peyton Manning has 1 ring, Marino never got one. It's very hard to do no matter what you do or how your team looks going into the year. Guys like Brady are the rare exception, and they didn't get their rings by their team acquiring a ton of FA's.

Those demanding a dynasty -- it isn't the 80's or 90's anymore. The NFL has changed, and it's now parity-driven and designed to have a level playing field. We are at a position in our franchise where we can look forward to making the playoffs every year and therefore get the chance to go all the way. That's all you can ask for. More than ever, winning in the playoffs involves a lot more luck and momentum than it was in the past.
I get so tired of hearing about how a team is just doing enough to get to the playoffs but not enough to win it all. Like signing certain free agents is going to be the difference between winning and losing those playoff games.

There are no magic beans that will keep you from losing in the playoffs. Most of the time, it's not even the best team on paper that ends up winning it all, and everything you do all year can be lost in one poorly played game. That's the NFL.

People just seem to fall into the old trap of thinking that if we don't surround Rodgers with big named free agents, we're blowing our chances to win him more than 1 ring in his prize, and that's simply not true. Peyton Manning has 1 ring, Marino never got one. It's very hard to do no matter what you do or how your team looks going into the year. Guys like Brady are the rare exception, and they didn't get their rings by their team acquiring a ton of FA's.

Those demanding a dynasty -- it isn't the 80's or 90's anymore. The NFL has changed, and it's now parity-driven and designed to have a level playing field. We are at a position in our franchise where we can look forward to making the playoffs every year and therefore get the chance to go all the way. That's all you can ask for. More than ever, winning in the playoffs involves a lot more luck and momentum than it was in the past.
I agree with most of all your saying with a couple exceptions.. The patriots are players in free agency and they were also a dynasty earlier in this decade.. I still believe believing you can't be one is a losers mentality. No Super Bowl winners believe they can't follow one up with another because they think dynasty's are impossible.. Why can't we want one? Because they aren't probable?
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
Couple things on that.

I don't think that a dynasty is impossible today, nor do I think there is anything wrong with wanting one. I just think many fans have unrealistic expectations of what it takes, and how much luck and circumstance is involved. Yes, the Patriots were the closest thing to a dynasty that we have seen in recent history - although they havent won one in 9 years now, even though they have still been good. I do think the league has become even more parity driven since then, and especially since the 90's era of NFC dominance. For awhile in the 90s until the Broncos broke through, if you werent the Cowboys, 49ers, or Packers, your chances were slim. It isnt like that anymore. Even in the 3 that the Patriots won, two Adam Vinateri missed FGs might have their fans asking today why Brady has only won the big one once. Like I said, a lot of luck and circumstance involved.

For example - the Packers of the late 90's were plenty good enough to be a dynasty. They had it all -coaching, offense, defense, and special teams. They were 14 point favorites to repeat against Denver and lost a close one. They couldn't hold a 4th quarter lead against Dallas in '95 in the NFC Championship, and then the Rice fumble was called wrong in '98 and they went home. Thats all it took for them to go from a potential dynasty to a 1 year wonder.

My point is this - there is nothing more that Ron Wolf could have done in the 90s to build a dynasty. There isnt a move he missed or opportunity he botched. It just didn't happen. Likewise today, of course the Packers are doing everything they can to win a Super Bowl every year - that is the goal, and of course we all want that. As does every team He's making moves that allow us to be consistently competitive every year, and that's all we can demand. There's no one free agent that is going to put us over the top, so to speak.
 

Spanish Rose

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 28, 2009
Messages
430
Reaction score
15
Couple things on that.

I don't think that a dynasty is impossible today, nor do I think there is anything wrong with wanting one. I just think many fans have unrealistic expectations of what it takes, and how much luck and circumstance is involved. Yes, the Patriots were the closest thing to a dynasty that we have seen in recent history - although they havent won one in 9 years now, even though they have still been good. I do think the league has become even more parity driven since then, and especially since the 90's era of NFC dominance. For awhile in the 90s until the Broncos broke through, if you werent the Cowboys, 49ers, or Packers, your chances were slim. It isnt like that anymore. Even in the 3 that the Patriots won, two Adam Vinateri missed FGs might have their fans asking today why Brady has only won the big one once. Like I said, a lot of luck and circumstance involved.

For example - the Packers of the late 90's were plenty good enough to be a dynasty. They had it all -coaching, offense, defense, and special teams. They were 14 point favorites to repeat against Denver and lost a close one. They couldn't hold a 4th quarter lead against Dallas in '95 in the NFC Championship, and then the Rice fumble was called wrong in '98 and they went home. Thats all it took for them to go from a potential dynasty to a 1 year wonder.

My point is this - there is nothing more that Ron Wolf could have done in the 90s to build a dynasty. There isnt a move he missed or opportunity he botched. It just didn't happen. Likewise today, of course the Packers are doing everything they can to win a Super Bowl every year - that is the goal, and of course we all want that. As does every team He's making moves that allow us to be consistently competitive every year, and that's all we can demand. There's no one free agent that is going to put us over the top, so to speak.
Point taken and well played my friend.. A lot of fans lose sight of that and I've been guilty of it myself. We win that Arizona game and I "believe" we would have been called repeat champs the following year but as luck would have it, we didn't..it's all heresay but there's nothing ANYBODY could have done, not mm, not TT, not any specific player, that would've changed the horrible call and non call that occurred.."luck" wasn't with us then, lets hope it is now though!! Go pack go!!!
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
Very true...they call that face mask on Rodgers in the Arizona game, who knows what happens. I also thought the Rams of the early 2000's had a shot at a mini-dynasty. The "greatest show on turf" looked head and shoulders above the rest of the league for a few years there, but after they got shocked by the Patriots they never got back. I don't remember exactly when or how things started falling apart for them.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top