Ted Thompson Era Should Be Over

[PackerfaninCarolina]

That's water under the bridge, of course.

So, once again we can look forward to yet another attempt to replicate the 2009 Saints: just outscore everybody.

I don't think our defense this last year was even that good or 2011 good. The 2009 Saints D wasn't good on paper, but they forced like what ... 8 turnovers or something like that on the Vikings in that NFCCG? The Saints in part had that to thank for getting to the SB that year so ... yeah call on a unit to pick their game up when the other is struggling and that's what happened in that game.

Right now the goal for us to get a unit at least that competent is going to be filling in the injury void. Hence, the ball in Ted Thompson's court status. Likely the critics aren't going to give him a pass if results stay the same but talent is upgraded and injuries are less, but I'm willing to. We really need to see if 2010 was an anomaly, or if Capers's units can get back on track if personnel issues are addressed.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The 2009 Saints D wasn't good on paper, but they forced like what ... 8 turnovers or something like that on the Vikings in that NFCCG? The Saints in part had that to thank for getting to the SB that year so ... yeah call on a unit to pick their game up when the other is struggling and that's what happened in that game..

The Saints forced a total of eight turnovers during their Super Bowl run in 2009 with five of them coming in the NFCCG against the Vikings.

 

[Packer Brother]

The Saints forced a total of eight turnovers during their Super Bowl run in 2009 with five of them coming in the NFCCG against the Vikings.

Peterson fumbled and lost a few balls. With that said, Vikings had better offensive numbers. Saints were a Favre brain fart away from losing.

 

[Packer Brother]

I don't think our defense this last year was even that good or 2011 good. The 2009 Saints D wasn't good on paper, but they forced like what ... 8 turnovers or something like that on the Vikings in that NFCCG? The Saints in part had that to thank for getting to the SB that year so ... yeah call on a unit to pick their game up when the other is struggling and that's what happened in that game.

Right now the goal for us to get a unit at least that competent is going to be filling in the injury void. Hence, the ball in Ted Thompson's court status. Likely the critics aren't going to give him a pass if results stay the same but talent is upgraded and injuries are less, but I'm willing to. We really need to see if 2010 was an anomaly, or if Capers's units can get back on track if personnel issues are addressed.

Doesn't matter if the " critics" give him a pass. What matters is Murphy continuing to give him a pass.

Mark my words and quote it everybody: The Green Bay Packers will not make another SB with Ted Thompson as General Manager.

 

[GBkrzygrl]

The Saints forced a total of eight turnovers during their Super Bowl run in 2009 with five of them coming in the NFCCG against the Vikings.

Yeah, but wasn't that when they started investigating Bountygate?

My point is that they took alot of cheap shots.

If memory serves me correctly the 2010 Packers defense wasn't afraid to tackle and looked pretty assignment sure. I am still puzzled as to why not even the assistant coaches are looked at.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yeah, but wasn't that when they started investigating Bountygate?

My point is that they took alot of cheap shots.

You're right about that.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

The Saints forced a total of eight turnovers during their Super Bowl run in 2009 with five of them coming in the NFCCG against the Vikings.

Ahh I knew the number would come in from you soon enough, but still 5 turnovers against an offense that had rarely turned that ball over all year is pretty big.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Saints forced a total of eight turnovers during their Super Bowl run in 2009 with five of them coming in the NFCCG against the Vikings.

Yeah, and the Vikes still scored 28 points and took it to OT.

My point regarding the Saints goes to their scoring in their final 2 regular season games and 3 playoff games:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/schedule/_/name/no/year/2009

One thing to note about the 3 playoff wins: 14 points total surrendered in the second halves. So while the defense was not statistically strong that season, they did hold the line when it counted.

So, admittedly it is more than "just outscoring" the opponent, though the points scored were bounteous. It's having a defense that can close. Always be closing.

But this is the closest parallel in the last decade to a championship team that parallels the Packers MO, sans the closing part of course.

Fire Capers.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Ever since the loss to the Falcons, the one stat that has been sticking in my head is that since 2007, in the Packers 8 playoff losses, the Packers defense has given up an average of 34.63 points per game. Everybody is screaming about Super Bowls, but how do you make a Super Bowl when the defense you take into the playoffs can't stop a good offense? Since 2000, the Patriots have lost 9 playoff games, in those losses, their defense gave up that many points once!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Ever since the loss to the Falcons, the one stat that has been sticking in my head is that since 2007, in the Packers 8 playoff losses, the Packers defense has given up an average of 34.63 points per game. Everybody is screaming about Super Bowls, but how do you make a Super Bowl when the defense you take into the playoffs can't stop a good offense? Since 2000, the Patriots have lost 9 playoff games, in those losses, their defense gave up that many points once!

That number gets even worse when taking a look at Capers tenure as the Packers have given up an average of 36.3 points in seven playoff losses under the current defensive coordinator.

 

[rmontro]

Doesn't matter if the " critics" give him a pass. What matters is Murphy continuing to give him a pass.

Very true, although Murphy's job is a lot safer as long as Ted gets positive reviews. If critics are unhappy with TT, then that starts to turn up the heat on Murphy. For whatever reason however, there seems to exist some sort of protective shield around the status quo in Green Bay. I can think of another message board where this conversation would have been shut down a long time ago, so I find the way this one is being moderated quite refreshing.

As long as the Packers keep making the playoffs, Murphy isn't going to make any changes.

Ever since the loss to the Falcons, the one stat that has been sticking in my head is that since 2007, in the Packers 8 playoff losses, the Packers defense has given up an average of 34.63 points per game. Everybody is screaming about Super Bowls, but how do you make a Super Bowl when the defense you take into the playoffs can't stop a good offense? Since 2000, the Patriots have lost 9 playoff games, in those losses, their defense gave up that many points once!

Stats like this are so revealing. There's a similar one, that goes like this: Rodgers' Packers have lost three playoff games where the other team has scored 44 or more points. Tom Brady has played 271 games for the Patriots, and they have not given up that many points in any game.

Why is this acceptable? When you see stats like this, it makes you wonder why does McCarthy support Capers so strongly? And how much of the problem is Capers and how much is Thompson?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Stats like this are so revealing. There's a similar one, that goes like this: Rodgers' Packers have lost three playoff games where the other team has scored 44 or more points. Tom Brady has played 271 games for the Patriots, and they have not given up that many points in any game.

It's amazing that the Packers have given up 44 or more points in three of 16 playoff games (18.75%) since Capers became the team's defensive coordinator but only allowed that many in two of 128 regular season games (1.28%) during his tenure.

 

[PikeBadger]

I've been asked to prove that I'm unwilling to be objective in regards to Ted Thompson because I seldom bash him, so here goes my rant on Thompson.

1. Justin Harrell - terrible pick! Should have traded back and used at least one of the extra picks to apply to my third complaint.

2. B.J. Raji - I hold Thompson responsible for not vetting this guy more thoroughly. I believe in my heart there had to be red flags in his past at Boston College or in his interviews that would have revealed his lack of work ethic. I don't think you should gamble with the 9th pick.

3. Legacy picks - You had perfect opportunities to bank legacy picks in at least 4 different drafts, 2013 being the most recent. Imo, you should have traded one of those picks back into the next draft for a one round earlier pick and eventually parlayed that into a 1st or 2nd round pick. You knew in your heart you were building a perennial playoff team and the only feasible way to get up to the top shelf of the draft was to trade with a loser franchise to get their high picks.


So there. Three strikes and your out Ted. Your fired!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I've been asked to prove that I'm unwilling to be objective in regards to Ted Thompson because I seldom bash him, so here goes my rant on Thompson.

1. Justin Harrell - terrible pick! Should have traded back and used at least one of the extra picks to apply to my third complaint.

2. B.J. Raji - I hold Thompson responsible for not vetting this guy more thoroughly. I believe in my heart there had to be red flags in his past at Boston College or in his interviews that would have revealed his lack of work ethic. I don't think you should gamble with the 9th pick.

3. Legacy picks - You had perfect opportunities to bank legacy picks in at least 4 different drafts, 2013 being the most recent. Imo, you should have traded one of those picks back into the next draft for a one round earlier pick and eventually parlayed that into a 1st or 2nd round pick. You knew in your heart you were building a perennial playoff team and the only feasible way to get up to the top shelf of the draft was to trade with a loser franchise to get their high picks.


So there. Three strikes and your out Ted. Your fired!

There's no doubt that Harrell was Thompson's worst draft pick during his tenure. The other points you listed wouldn't even come close to cracking my top 10 of his failures.

 

[Mondio]

I seldom "bash" because there isn't really reason to. He's very good at his job, he's not perfect. There are very, very few decisions that have been made that I can't find reason to understand why it was approached like it was. I can not like a decision, but understand why it was made. Why would anyone rant about a decision they can understand? Apparently there's more than a few around here that can't understand that. But that doesn't surprise me

If he was terrible at his job, then the situation changes, but he's not. No matter what those that can't connect 2 dots on an otherwise blank piece of paper would like to believe.

The biggest gripe outside of those that think everything he does is terrible, from how he talks, to how he walks, to how he dresses and how he runs a team, is his use of FA, all the while forgetting that every year they toss out names that would have sunk this team years ago, and continue tossing out new ones in the new year. They think just using it will make a difference, and they're probably right, but that difference isn't always positive.

So while I'd like to see someone new brought in once and a while, I can understand why he uses it when it makes the most sense. And while I might not be happy about it, I can at lease respect the job they've done enough, to lay off the rants that act like I just "know" how everything would have been had he just listened to me, like so many others seem to think is appropriate.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I seldom "bash" because there isn't really reason to. He's very good at his job, he's not perfect. There are very, very few decisions that have been made that I can't find reason to understand why it was approached like it was. I can not like a decision, but understand why it was made. Why would anyone rant about a decision they can understand? Apparently there's more than a few around here that can't understand that. But that doesn't surprise me

If he was terrible at his job, then the situation changes, but he's not. No matter what those that can't connect 2 dots on an otherwise blank piece of paper would like to believe.

The biggest gripe outside of those that think everything he does is terrible, from how he talks, to how he walks, to how he dresses and how he runs a team, is his use of FA, all the while forgetting that every year they toss out names that would have sunk this team years ago, and continue tossing out new ones in the new year. They think just using it will make a difference, and they're probably right, but that difference isn't always positive.

So while I'd like to see someone new brought in once and a while, I can understand why he uses it when it makes the most sense. And while I might not be happy about it, I can at lease respect the job they've done enough, to lay off the rants that act like I just "know" how everything would have been had he just listened to me, like so many others seem to think is appropriate.

Overall Thompson has done a fine job during his tenure as the Packers' general manager. That doesn't change the fact that his reluctancy to address obvious positions in need of an upgrade in a timely manner by using all methods available has most likely hugely contributed to the team not having won a Super Bowl over the last six seasons while having the best player at by far the most important position on a football team.

 

[Pkrjones]

1. Justin Harrell - terrible pick! Should have traded back and used at least one of the extra picks to apply to my third complaint.

3. Legacy picks - You had perfect opportunities to bank legacy picks in at least 4 different drafts, 2013 being the most recent. Imo, you should have traded one of those picks back into the next draft for a one round earlier pick and eventually parlayed that into a 1st or 2nd round pick. You knew in your heart you were building a perennial playoff team and the only feasible way to get up to the top shelf of the draft was to trade with a loser franchise to get their high picks.

Pretty ballsy post, Pike!
- No arguments from anyone (on earth!) that the Harrell pick was a disaster.
- Raji was far, far from a bad pick. For a couple of years the guy played 80%+ snaps/game and while not a perennial Pro Bowler did what was asked of him. He was a stout inside defender who routinely plugged the middle against double-teams. Those first 4 years just badly wore him down to the point of limiting him to 55-60% of snaps didn't help.
- Legacy picks... TT had some banked and used them all up to move up and get CM3. Great use of "extra picks" (from Favre trade) to move up and get a play-maker. Problem is TT hasn't done it, since.

2006 TT traded back w/ New England & was able to get both G. Jennings and J. Spitz.
2008 TT traded back w/ Jets & was able to get Jordy Nelson & Jeremy Thompson (injury retirement ).
2012 TT traded UP w/ New England and got Casey Hayward & Jerrel Worthy.

Most of TT's other draft moves have been sliding up or back within a round. He hasn't done much player trading for picks since 2008, as he felt the need to clean-house & boost the team-talent early on. I liked the early TT more than the current less-gambly TT.

 

[Dantés]

I seldom "bash" because there isn't really reason to. He's very good at his job, he's not perfect. There are very, very few decisions that have been made that I can't find reason to understand why it was approached like it was. I can not like a decision, but understand why it was made. Why would anyone rant about a decision they can understand? Apparently there's more than a few around here that can't understand that. But that doesn't surprise me

If he was terrible at his job, then the situation changes, but he's not. No matter what those that can't connect 2 dots on an otherwise blank piece of paper would like to believe.

The biggest gripe outside of those that think everything he does is terrible, from how he talks, to how he walks, to how he dresses and how he runs a team, is his use of FA, all the while forgetting that every year they toss out names that would have sunk this team years ago, and continue tossing out new ones in the new year. They think just using it will make a difference, and they're probably right, but that difference isn't always positive.

So while I'd like to see someone new brought in once and a while, I can understand why he uses it when it makes the most sense. And while I might not be happy about it, I can at lease respect the job they've done enough, to lay off the rants that act like I just "know" how everything would have been had he just listened to me, like so many others seem to think is appropriate.

Nice post. I basically agree with you. I recognize that Thompson has shortcomings, especially in his unwillingness to use the FA market a little more. But he's been one of the best, all things considered. His tenure has led the Packers to the 4th most wins in the league and one championship. The success rate has been basically identical to Wolf's era, which is held up as a golden age.

I think some Packer fans lack perspective when they talk about TT. I don't mean to say that anyone who criticizes him is in that group. I am all for those posters with legitimate critiques. But some will go out of their way to try and prove that he's never done anything good for the team at any point. Basically they don't think he can tie his shoes. They do some serious mental gymnastics to try and argue that his success is really not attributable to him and he's just gotten lucky a lot for 12 years. I mean, the fact that there is a parody account just to make fun of Thompson is crazy to me given how successful he is. It's myopic.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Raji was far, far from a bad pick. For a couple of years the guy played 80%+ snaps/game and while not a perennial Pro Bowler did what was asked of him. He was a stout inside defender who routinely plugged the middle against double-teams. Those first 4 years just badly wore him down to the point of limiting him to 55-60% of snaps didn't help.

I liked the early TT more than the current less-gambly TT.

It's true that Raji wasn't a terrible pick but he only played up to his draft status for the first two seasons of his career. I agree that Thompson was more successful early during his tenure.

 

[PikeBadger]

It's true that Raji wasn't a terrible pick but he only played up to his draft status for the first two seasons of his career. I agree that Thompson was more successful early during his tenure.

imo, the biggest problem with Raji was the team was counting heavily that he would continue to progress given his natural ability. He absolutely failed the team from 2011 on. His lack of professionalism and work ethic really had an adverse effect on the entire defensive performance in those years. I don't think Pickett was a very good mentor to him as well.

 

[Dantés]

Maybe there were red flags with Raji's work ethic before the draft. Maybe there weren't. I don't recall hearing of any rumors to that effect. Why do we assume one way or another? Why should we "believe in our heart" that that was the case?

 

[Mavster]

Well actually Raji did have some concerns. He missed the entire 2007 season due to poor academics, had maturity issues, and couldn't control his weight during his time in college.

Nothing terrible, but it's hardly surprising he flamed out of the league.

 

[Dantés]

Well actually Raji did have some concerns. He missed the entire 2007 season due to poor academics, had maturity issues, and couldn't control his weight during his time in college.

Nothing terrible, but it's hardly surprising he flamed out of the league.

Thanks for the answer.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

I seldom "bash" because there isn't really reason to. He's very good at his job, he's not perfect. There are very, very few decisions that have been made that I can't find reason to understand why it was approached like it was. I can not like a decision, but understand why it was made. Why would anyone rant about a decision they can understand? Apparently there's more than a few around here that can't understand that. But that doesn't surprise me

If he was terrible at his job, then the situation changes, but he's not. No matter what those that can't connect 2 dots on an otherwise blank piece of paper would like to believe.

The biggest gripe outside of those that think everything he does is terrible, from how he talks, to how he walks, to how he dresses and how he runs a team, is his use of FA, all the while forgetting that every year they toss out names that would have sunk this team years ago, and continue tossing out new ones in the new year. They think just using it will make a difference, and they're probably right, but that difference isn't always positive.

So while I'd like to see someone new brought in once and a while, I can understand why he uses it when it makes the most sense. And while I might not be happy about it, I can at lease respect the job they've done enough, to lay off the rants that act like I just "know" how everything would have been had he just listened to me, like so many others seem to think is appropriate.

My biggest problem is when people make stupid statements about the Packers never winning another SB in the TT era, or that "X" year is Rodgers's last chance to do it when there is no such plan for Rodgers to retire the next year or move on. My word to them would be just please leave this forum and quit calling yourself a realist because there's no realism in what you just said. We came close this last year and there's no reason IMO to say all the sudden the team's going to barrel downwards.

Having said that, yeah TT should have his feet held to the fire if we don't see some depth added to the roster, or if something isn't done to add to S&C coaching to minimize injuries. But I feel like if for once we can go without loading down our IR spaces, we got a good chance to make a run all the way through.

 

[Quientus]

Given how most seasons have played out, and taking into consideration the injuries the Pack has experienced over the seasons, being able to keep the team in contention despite of the injuries reflects positive on TT and the coaching staff. And even though I've been a TT critic since TT started I must concede TT has done very well. I dont agree on his (seemingly) unwillingness to utilize FA more, however, so far what TT has done does work ... You really cannot rail and overtly critize a GM who has been able to put together a team that makes it to the NFCCG 3 times with 1 super Bowl win, in 11 years, without sounding just a little bit naive ...