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!
    Dismiss Notice

Reinfeldt praises Thompson's strategy

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by tromadz, Feb 25, 2008.

  1. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    linky

    Notebook: Reinfeldt praises Thompson's strategy

    By Pete Dougherty
    pdougher@greenbaypressgazette.com

    INDIANAPOLIS -- When the Green Bay Packers hired Ted Thompson as general manager in January 2005, former Packers vice president Mike Reinfeldt not surprisingly hailed the move.

    The two have been close friends since their playing days with the Houston Oilers, and Reinfeldt got Thompson his first NFL scouting job when he convinced former Packers GM Ron Wolf to give Thompson a tryout in 1992.

    But if Reinfeldt is surprised at how quickly Thompson rebuilt the Packers into championship contention by last season, he nevertheless said Thompson has succeeded so far because of the qualities Reinfeldt saw while working with him with the Packers and when both moved on to the Seattle Seahawks.

    Reinfeldt said Thompson has an excellent temperament for the job because he’s self assured and stays even-keeled in the face of bad times and criticism.

    “He stuck with what he believed in, he didn’t waver,” Reinfeldt said at the NFL scouting combine over the weekend. “Sometimes I think what happens, there are lots of ways to build a good football team, lots of different paths you can take. Too many times in this league we waver, we get criticized and go halfway down one path and then try another path.

    "The reality is, you need to stay on one path, and that’s what he had the perseverance to do.”

    The Packers were 4-12 in 2005, Thompson’s first year as GM. Just two seasons later, they went 13-3 and advanced to the NFC championship game.

    Coming up short

    Though Virginia Tech cornerback Brandon Flowers appears likely to be a late first-round draft pick, there’s a good chance he’ll get knocked off the Packers’ draft board because he stands only 5-foot-9¾.

    Ever since Wolf became GM in 1992, the Packers have had a minimum height requirement for cornerbacks that started at 5-11, was lowered to 5-10½, and is 5-10 with Thompson as GM.

    The Packers are likely to draft at least one cornerback this year, and there probably are four or five cornerback prospects who could be available and of interest to them at their No. 30 pick. Flowers is in that group.

    But at the combine today, Flowers measured in at 5-9¾, so chances are Thompson won’t consider drafting him if he’s still available.

    Test results

    Arkansas halfback Darren McFadden helped his chances of being at least a top-10 pick, and perhaps a top-five pick, by running at the combine today. McFadden blazed the 40-yard dash in 4.27 seconds and 4.31 seconds.

    While keeping in mind that the times are unofficial and can vary slightly from team to team, and that not all top prospects run at the combine, the 4.27 seconds nevertheless is faster than any 40 run at the combine since at least 2000, according to the website nfldraftscout.com. The previous fastest time at the combine since 2000 was 4.28 seconds by receiver Jerome Mathis in 2005.

    Illinois halfback Rashard Mendenhall also improved his chances of getting selected in the top 20 picks by the running the 40 in 4.37.

    DeSean Jackson of California had the fastest 40 time among receivers at 4.35. However, he reportedly weighed in at an incredibly light 169 pounds, which could damage his chances of getting selected in the first round.

    Florida’s Andre Caldwell, a possible second-round pick, tied for the second-fastest 40 among receivers at 4.37.

    --------------------------------------------
     
  2. bigfog

    bigfog Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    242
    Ratings:
    +0
    I had no idea that Green Bay had height requirement for corners. Interesting. I can see the upside, but what if the short guy performs much higher due to a slight towards his stature? I'd take a 5' 9 3/4" guy with tons of motivation over a 6' unmotivated individual.

    I'm also wondering why corners tend to be on the short side? Could you imagine a 6' 4" corner?
     
  3. IronBMike

    IronBMike Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    73
    Ratings:
    +0
    haha so I read "Pete Dougherty" right as I'm listening to The Libertines!
     
  4. Zombieslayer

    Zombieslayer Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    4,338
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yeah, kind of seems silly. Steve Smith is 5'9" yet he regularly outjumps people way taller than him and when the ball is in the air, he comes down with it.

    I'd much rather have a guy who gets results. I think that's the thing we need to look at.

    Maybe it was all because of Ah**n Ca***l.
     
  5. paxvogel

    paxvogel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    503
    Ratings:
    +0
    I really like the Cromartie kid. Young but can be groomed by two of the best and all the numbers are there. However, next to WR I think CB is the toughest position to evaluate.
     
  6. grabthar

    grabthar Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    76
    Ratings:
    +0
    No, not because of Carroll. It was because of Terrell Buckley. Notice it says Wolf even had that requirement in place. After getting burned by Buckley in 1992, he put that in place.
     
  7. bigfog

    bigfog Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    242
    Ratings:
    +0
    Most of the mock draft out there have him being picked by Green Bay. Not too sure how much that is worth, how many mocks had Green Bay talking Harrell last year? Heck, I thought Greg Olsen was ours!
     
  8. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Couldn't you have added asterisks to the name like Zombie did? You almost made me crap myself.
     
  9. Raider Pride

    Raider Pride Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,868
    Ratings:
    +2
    Sometimes it is not the asterisk that is there that is satisfying. It is the asterisk that IS NOT there that is most satisfying.

    Be thankful for one asterisk that is no longer there. The asterisk that would have been there forever, if the Pats won the Superbowl.

    In fact. I think the Super Bowl was slighted, There was a reason Eli was given a chance and not called down in the grasp on the play. They gave him every chance because it was good for the NFL to get rid of the asterisk that would have lingered forever.

    The NFL said Let's get rid of that Asterisk that would hang over us for ever.. A Giants win and a Payton to Payton brother "Back To back" MVP Super Bowl Championship is better history five years from now.

    Also, as a bonus it would give pay back to the Pat's for the call they should not have got, that stupid "Tuck Rule" that keeps coming up as bad press for the NFL. You remember "The Tuck" that robbed the Raiders from their 4th Superbowl, and started this damn cheating dynasty in N.E.

    "Just Karma Baby!" And No astricks are good sometimes.
     
  10. Core

    Core Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Messages:
    50
    Ratings:
    +0
    You can coach / motivate players to have a different approach to training/playing. You can train and become better at jumping, running, etc. However, it is quite hard to get people to grow in height.
     
  11. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    So you say.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. dannychau22

    dannychau22 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    211
    Ratings:
    +0
    lol
    damn thats pretty kinky :p haha
     

Share This Page