John Dorsey to take over for Ted Thompson?

[Pokerbrat2000]

Unfortunately Thompson mostly trying to address shortcomings on defense that way over the past six seasons hasn't worked out and I don't expect it to change in 2017.

Or....he doesn't see the shortcomings that you and I see

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Or....he doesn't see the shortcomings that you and I see

While that's most likely true Thompson has been wrong quite a bit about the team's weaknesses, that have been pointed out by several posters, over the past few years.

 

[Carl]

Murphy has done a masterful job of increasing the Packers revenue but he seems too complacent to make the most difficult decision as the team's president and hire a general manager on his own.



There's reason to question whether Thompson has done a good job on the defensive side of the ball since 2010 though.



The Packers had a terrible defense in 2011 that at some point was poised to doom the team at some point. While the 2014 squad was extremely close to making it to the Super Bowl it was the biggest weakness at inside linebacker everybody was well aware of entering the season that was mainly to blame for losing to Seattle.



Once again, Thompson made some great moves on offense this offseason but didn't address the team's biggest weaknesses in free agency.

Four turnovers and an awful offensive performance was a bigger part of the Giants lose than the defense.

With all of the the issues that happened vs. Seattle: two picks, Haha getting lost in coverage, onside kick, Hayward and Tramon getting burned in OT, Burnett sliding, and overall an epic collapse, I don't see how ILB was the main reason for the loss. We have argued about that before though so we can just disagree.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Four turnovers and an awful offensive performance was a bigger part of the Giants lose than the defense.

As I mentioned in another thread the offense definitely contributed to the 2011 playoff loss against the Giants but don't agree it was a bigger part than the defense.

With all of the the issues that happened vs. Seattle: two picks, Haha getting lost in coverage, onside kick, Hayward and Tramon getting burned in OT, Burnett sliding, and overall an epic collapse, I don't see how ILB was the main reason for the loss. We have argued about that before though so we can just disagree.

The inside linebackers were directly responsible for giving up 20 points in the NFCCG against the Seahawks though. Therefore I mostly blame the loss on a lack of talent at the position.

 

[Carl]

As I mentioned in another thread the offense definitely contributed to the 2011 playoff loss against the Giants but don't agree it was a bigger part than the defense.



The inside linebackers were directly responsible for giving up 20 points in the NFCCG against the Seahawks though. Therefore I mostly blame the loss on a lack of talent at the position.

Turnovers are one of the most important, if not the most important thing to winning games.

Four turnovers and only scoring 20 is much worse than the defensive performance, especially when one of them have the Giants the ball inside the 20.

The odds of winning with 4 turnovers are not very good at all.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Turnovers are one of the most important, if not the most important thing to winning games.

Four turnovers and only scoring 20 is much worse than the defensive performance, especially when one of them have the Giants the ball inside the 20.

The odds of winning with 4 turnovers are not very good at all.

While that's definitely true I don't understand why any Packers fan denies the defense giving up 37 points, including a hail mary just before half-time, was a major reason the team lost the 2011 playoff game vs. the Giants.

BTW it's possible to win a playoff game even with the offense turning the ball over more than four times. It requires having a defense keeping the team in the game though. Just take a look at the 2014 NFCCG.

 

[Carl]

While that's definitely true I don't understand why any Packers fan denies the defense giving up 37 points, including a hail mary just before half-time, was a major reason the team lost the 2011 playoff game vs. the Giants.

BTW it's possible to win a playoff game even with the offense turning the ball over more than four times. It requires having a defense keeping the team in the game though. Just take a look at the 2014 NFCCG.

I never said the defense wasn't a part of the loss, just turnovers were the biggest factor, especially with the good field position the Giants had, leading to points.

Here are turnovers that lead to great field position:
-GB 34 yard line (fumble) - FG
-NY 45 (downs) - FG
-GB 4 yard line - TD

Without those, the defense gives up an average 24 points.

Also, look at the Packers 2nd half drives: Fumble, FG, turnover on downs, fumble, TD, int. That's four turnovers on six drives, which is awful.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I never said the defense wasn't a part of the loss, just turnovers were the biggest factor, especially with the good field position the Giants had, leading to points.

Here are turnovers that lead to great field position:
-GB 34 yard line (fumble) - FG
-NY 45 (downs) - FG
-GB 4 yard line - TD

Without those, the defense gives up an average 24 points.

Also, look at the Packers 2nd half drives: Fumble, FG, turnover on downs, fumble, TD, int. That's four turnovers on six drives, which is awful.

There's no doubt the offense performed at a terrible level against the Giants in the 2011 divisional round but it would have been nice to have a defense capable of at least keeping the score close that day.

 

[longtimefan]

The timing of Dorsey leaving Chiefs seems very very interesting. Maybe Dorsey could get us over the hump?

https://www.fanragsports.com/nfl/packers/time-packers-ditch-ted-thompson-bring-john-dorsey/

Wrong