Ted Thompson Era Should Be Over

[PackAttack12]

LOL....which is why I asked what time frame the poster was referring to. I have no problem saying that in the last 17 or so years the Patriots have had the more overall successful franchise than the Packers and everyone else in the NFL, but I don't quite agree with it being as large of as a gap as him or you want to frame it in.

For me, I would compare the McCarthy/Rodgers era time frame against others.

Since Rodgers became a full time starter in 2008, the Patriots have been to 3 Super Bowls, won 1, and have competed in 6 AFC championship games, all of them consecutively.

The Packers on the other hand have been to 1 Super Bowl, won it, and have competed in 3 NFC championship games, none of those games were at Lambeau.

This team is close because of Rodgers, but is way far away in terms of overall talent and consistency in getting results.

 

[PackerDNA]

That last statement is totally hyperbolic, but I do agree that it's not accurate to just pick out the last ten years and make a judgement based on that. If one really wants to be fair, compare Thompson's tenure (12 years to date) to Belichick's first 12 years (2000-11). That would be Thompson with one appearance and one ring against Belichick with 5 appearances and 3 rings.

Nothing hyperbolic about it. As Casey Stengal used to say, "You can look it up."
Agree with the rest. In the end, it'll probably come down to the same as player comparisons; see where they stand when both their careers are over.

 

[Dantés]

Nothing hyperbolic about it. As Casey Stengal used to say, "You can look it up."
Agree with the rest. In the end, it'll probably come down to the same as player comparisons; see where they stand when both their careers are over.

I can't "look up" that the Packers are a pimple on the Patriots backside. That's a metaphor and an opinion. And an extreme one, in my opinion.

 

[PackerDNA]

I can't "look up" that the Packers are a pimple on the Patriots backside. That's a metaphor and an opinion. And an extreme one, in my opinion.

Whatever. Rather than acknowledging that the Patriots have been the more successful and better organization in this century, you choose to call reality and facts metaphor and extreme opinion. And you choose to do so while being obtuse under the guise of being professorial?
(How's that for a bunch of BS ?LOL!)
Again, whatever.

 

[Dantés]

Whatever. Rather than acknowledging that the Patriots have been the more successful and better organization in this century, you choose to call reality and facts metaphor and extreme opinion. And you choose to do so while being obtuse under the guise of being professorial?
(How's that for a bunch of BS ?LOL!)
Again, whatever.

I have acknowledged that. If you forgot, this conversation started because I quoted you to agree with you and further argue the case you're making that the Patriots are more successful than the Packers.

Love your passion though! Insult anyone who hints at not agreeing with everything you say-- it's a tried and true internet forum strategy.

 

[Mondio]

Hey, I insult people when i'm not on an internet forum too

 

[Dantés]

Hey, I insult people when i'm not on an internet forum too

It's just not nearly as cool though. You really want to reserve name calling for situations when you're behind a keyboard and don't know anything about the other person. There's a pro tip for you.

 

[PackerDNA]

I have acknowledged that. If you forgot, this conversation started because I quoted you to agree with you and further argue the case you're making that the Patriots are more successful than the Packers.

Love your passion though! Insult anyone who hints at not agreeing with everything you say-- it's a tried and true internet forum strategy.

You couldn't be more wrong, but I admit I can be grating some days. I enjoy your posts; welcome to the forum.

 

[PackerDNA]

It's just not nearly as cool though. You really want to reserve name calling for situations when you're behind a keyboard and don't know anything about the other person. There's a pro tip for you.

Probably my biggest beef here; happened again just yesterday. People telling me what I'm about and what I meant by their interpretations of what I posted- not by the post itself. But without the advantage of face to face, and just the typed word, misunderstandings will happen.

 

[Dantés]

Probably my biggest beef here; happened again just yesterday. People telling me what I'm about and what I meant by their interpretations of what I posted- not by the post itself. But without the advantage of face to face, and just the typed word, misunderstandings will happen.

Online discourse tempts everyone to do that. Myself included for sure. I try to keep it all level. I'm just here because I love talking football.

 

[Mondio]

Online discourse tempts everyone to do that. Myself included for sure. I try to keep it all level. I'm just here because I love talking football.

and so you don't get fined

 

[Packer Brother]

It is what it is. I'll agree to disagree with some posters. We all want a championship. The organization hasn't done what's needed ( Fix that mess on D) to get it done. Rodgers can't do it by himself.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So a team makes the NFCCG and he's supposed to crap over his GM? Gotcha. Ever think maybe he simply doesn't think TT is a horrible GM like alot of people?

He even said that the season was disappointing not winning the SB but he wouldn't call making the NFL version of the final 4 an epic failure so he shouldn't even open his mouth apparently.

Well, unfortunately Thompson standing pat instead of upgrading the cornerback position was the main reason the Packers didn't make it to the Super Bowl. Murphy should hold him accountable for failing to improve the roster.

LOL....which is why I asked what time frame the poster was referring to. I have no problem saying that in the last 17 or so years the Patriots have had the more overall successful franchise than the Packers and everyone else in the NFL, but I don't quite agree with it being as large of as a gap as him or you want to frame it in.

I prefer taking a look at the entire tenure of front office personnel or players. Belichick and Brady having won four Super Bowls and playing in their seventh on Sunday in 17 years presents a huge gap over Thompson having won the team's only Super Bowl appearance while having Favre and Rodgers starting at quarterback in 12 seasons.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I prefer taking a look at the entire tenure of front office personnel or players. Belichick and Brady having won four Super Bowls and playing in their seventh on Sunday in 17 years presents a huge gap over Thompson having won the team's only Super Bowl appearance while having Favre and Rodgers starting at quarterback in 12 seasons.

I agree, if you look at a 17 year time frame, there is a gap between Belichick/Brady teams and every other team in the NFL. Shows you the importance of a great GM/coach and having a great QB. While I don't think this gap between the Packers and the Patriots is as enormous and insurmountable from year to year as some want to say, Thompson better get busy in the next 5 years!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I agree, if you look at a 17 year time frame, there is a gap between Belichick/Brady teams and every other team in the NFL. Shows you the importance of a great GM/coach and having a great QB. While I don't think this gap between the Packers and the Patriots is as enormous and insurmountable from year to year as some want to say, Thompson better get busy in the next 5 years!

I guess that a lot of posters who are fine that there is no other team in the league having won more Super Bowls than the Packers since Rodgers became the starter tend to forget that the team has had the best quarterback in the league over that period and the most efficient one in league history.

Taking a look at the last 20 seasons it´s disappointing to have won only a single Super Bowl while having the combined second highest team passer rating in the league over that period while several other teams have won more than a single title.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I guess that a lot of posters who are fine that there is no other team in the league having won more Super Bowls than the Packers since Rodgers became the starter tend to forget that the team has had the best quarterback in the league over that period and the most efficient one in league history.

Taking a look at the last 20 seasons it´s disappointing to have won only a single Super Bowl while having the combined second highest team passer rating in the league over that period while several other teams have won more than a single title.

Haven't we won 2 Super Bowls in the last 20 years? (97 and 2010)

I do agree with you though, it has been a disappointment not to have more SB appearances/wins when you have back to back QB's like Favre and Rodgers behind center. If TT doesn't ever get another SB Title, it will forever be an asterix in his accomplishments. However, he will always be remembered as a GM that put a pretty successful team on the field almost every year, how much of that credit should be his, will forever be debated.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Haven't we won 2 Super Bowls in the last 20 years? (97 and 2010)

I do agree with you though, it has been a disappointment not to have more SB appearances/wins when you have back to back QB's like Favre and Rodgers behind center. If TT doesn't ever get another SB Title, it will forever be an asterix in his accomplishments. However, he will always be remembered as a GM that put a pretty successful team on the field almost every year, how much of that credit should be his, will forever be debated.

The Packers won the Super Bowl during the 1996 season therefore it didn´t happen within the last 20 seasons.

If the Packers don´t win another title with Thompson as the team´s general manager he will most likely be remembered as a successful GM overall who wasn´t able to provide the best quarterback in the league with enough resources to win more than a single title. Or as Ron Wolf once famously said, a fart in the wind.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

It isn't flawed or silly if what you're interested in is a GM's ability to identify viable talent after round one. That's what I chose to look at specifically. Trading up can be a great strategy on occasion, but it isn't sustainable. One cannot just always trade into the first round to find players. They have to be able to locate talent later in the draft. You are considering a separate issue. I don't know why that's so difficult to understand.

Because you are penalizing a team for identifying talent and having the skill to trade. At no point did i say it was sustainable but you are penalizing the team that moves up because they have traded two picks that would be considered in your scenario, therefore you are tilting your analysis against the team that made a good trade. You are removing their two draft picks and NOT including the results of those picks. That's an incomplete analysis.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The Packers won the Super Bowl during the 1996 season therefore it didn´t happen within the last 20 seasons.

LOL, ok, 20 years and 8 days. I thought we were using the accomplishments of both Favre and Rodgers in the discussion of how 2 HOF QB's were underutilized by Packer GM's to win SB's?

I think we are in agreement though on how TT's career may be remembered.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

LOL, ok. I thought we were using the accomplishments of both Favre and Rodgers in the discussion of how 2 HOF QB's were underutilized by Packer GM's to win SB's?

I just wanted to use a random time frame to prove a point at least once as well.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I just wanted to use a random time frame to prove a point at least once as well.

LOL....way to cherry pick the "randomness" to leave out that SB win in 97 LOL

But I'm on board with the general idea. Just don't let Wolf know you aren't counting that one! LOL

 

[Dantés]

Because you are penalizing a team for identifying talent and having the skill to trade. At no point did i say it was sustainable but you are penalizing the team that moves up because they have traded two picks that would be considered in your scenario, therefore you are tilting your analysis against the team that made a good trade. You are removing their two draft picks and NOT including the results of those picks. That's an incomplete analysis.

I'm not penalizing anyone for anything. I'm simply looking at a different data set than what you want to look at. If you don't see that, then that's OK. Literally, it does not matter.

 

[Half Empty]

LOL....way to cherry pick the "randomness" to leave out that SB win in 97 LOL

But I'm on board with the general idea. Just don't let Wolf know you aren't counting that one! LOL

Heck, I'm willing to go with the two SB wins. With precious little revision, everything still holds. Two decades of teams headed by one of the top few ever to play the game at the position of most importance, and being behind the Pats and Broncos while being tied with the Steelers, Ravens, and Giants just doesn't seem like the right proportions.

 

[JLW_51]

It is up to Thompson, if he stays with this scouting ways, the Packers won't improve, if he evolves, they have a chance to make back to the Super Bowl, your guys thoughts?

http://lastwordonprofootball.com/20...er-ted-thompson-needs-evolve-general-manager/

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It is up to Thompson, if he stays with this scouting ways, the Packers won't improve, if he evolves, they have a chance to make back to the Super Bowl, your guys thoughts?

http://lastwordonprofootball.com/20...er-ted-thompson-needs-evolve-general-manager/

I have been advocating for Thompson to selectively use free agency to upgrade obvious positions of need for several years. Unfortunately I don't see it happening this offseason either.