Ted Thompson is no Ron Wolf...

[Zero2Cool]

If Ron Wolf had not aggressively gone after Brett Favre, Brett may have drank and partied his way right out of the league. People screamed that Wolf was nuts to give up a first rounder for this undisciplined third stringer from Atlanta -- wouldn't that have been a ******** for everyone involved if Favre would have stayed playing the clown for the Falcons?

Almost like how everyone is saying TT is nuts for not spending $34,999,999.95 of the $35,000,000.00 cash he has on overhyped FA.

 

[PackFaninBucLand]

Agreed, Bruce. I do give credit to Wolf and Holmgren for one, recognizing Favre, and two, transforming him from the "clown" to the prince.

I think, though, that TT is in the unenviable position of dealing with Favre's departure whether it be this year or two years from now. I never forgave Selig for not surrounding Robin Yount with talent and giving him another run, despite his promise to do so. Selig's failure seemed somehow more deliberate. I'm still giving Thompson the benefit of the doubt but I agree that he is looking a little silly at this point. I would love nothing more than for him to prove us all wrong.

On another note, I don't think anyone can say that Sherman didn't try to bring in talent but his results in that respect were mostly disastrous despite a few lucky hits with guys like Grady Jackson. I've cooled a bit on the "bring in the names" and the Super Bowl will come theories.

 

[gopackgo4]

Is this topic even neccasary I mean we all know he isnt Ron wolf....................then again who is

 

[all about da packers]

Bruce, I respect you a great deal and totally agree with what you have said. Ted is a smart guy, and I'm sure he is aware of the fact that fans must be growing restless. TT has his own way of doing things, but that doesn't mean they won't work. Success can be achieved through many different ways. I think TT was a good choice to be GM, but to an extent I will agree with you that he can still grow in that role.

I think if TT can rebuild the depth of this football team through the draft and minor FA signings, and get this team back on track by having a successful season or two, his reputation will change. People will listen more because they will be forced to admit that TT knows what he is talking about. You are correct in saying that TT needs to find a way to get agents to listen to him in the next couple of years if the Packers don't do well.

On a slightly off topic note, Bruce mentioned how TT stayed silent on the Favre commenting on Walkers holdout issue. It got me thinking, if TT had said something, or anything, would things have worked out differently? Hm, it does make me wonder.

 

[Bruce]

Bruce, I respect you a great deal and totally agree with what you have said. Ted is a smart guy, and I'm sure he is aware of the fact that fans must be growing restless. TT has his own way of doing things, but that doesn't mean they won't work. Success can be achieved through many different ways. I think TT was a good choice to be GM, but to an extent I will agree with you that he can still grow in that role.

I think if TT can rebuild the depth of this football team through the draft and minor FA signings, and get this team back on track by having a successful season or two, his reputation will change. People will listen more because they will be forced to admit that TT knows what he is talking about. You are correct in saying that TT needs to find a way to get agents to listen to him in the next couple of years if the Packers don't do well.

On a slightly off topic note, Bruce mentioned how TT stayed silent on the Favre commenting on Walkers holdout issue. It got me thinking, if TT had said something, or anything, would things have worked out differently? Hm, it does make me wonder.

Ted is a smart man and it is my sincere desire that he succeed. Having said that I can also say that Bart Starr was a very smart man too and he failed as a GM and as a Coach. You usually do not get a GM job if you are not a smart man -- Ditka and Gregg being exceptions to the rule -- but being smart is not all it takes to succeed.

It takes leadership, it takes being a good manager on many levels -- including of people. It takes earning respect and trust. It takes being a great salesman. It also takes having great intuition.

I hope Ted Thompson can rise to the challenge -- sadly some of his actions make it hard for me to see him doing so.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

DePack: We've been through this before. I'm not trying to rewrite history. Technically Thompson could've fired Sherman the day he got the job, but realistically this was not an option, because Harlan was very public in saying that he hired Thompson in large part because he (naively) thought that he and Sherman could work together. I suspect that Harlan stated in the interview that he wanted Thompson to work with Sherman.

I suppose we could debate the details endlessly, but clearly this was not as clean of a situation as Wolf walked into. Not even close. There was a lot of baggage. I do agree that Thompson's contract extension for Sherman was really crappy, considering that he fired him later, although again I have to wonder if Harlan exerted some pressure there as well.

Greg made the whole point right here. TT wasn't hired because he was the best man for the job -- he was hired to work with Sherman because Sherman had led the team to 3 straight division titles.

TT has a lot of work to do and luckily he has a lot of money to do it. Yes, there is the lingering question of Favre, but TT already has Rodgers in house -- so that should be a non-issue when it comes to signing FAs. With or without Favre, we need to improve the OL, running game and defense.

The frustrating part of everything right now is that TT obviously is looking to acquire 2nd - 3rd tier FAs cheap. TT has the money to get the best, but instead he settles when he could make this team great again.

 

[DePack]

Bobby.......If this is true then Harlan is an idiot(which we know he is not). "TT wasn't hired because he was the best man for the job--he was hired to work with Sherman--". Well Sherman is gone. So how about getting the "best man for the job" now. If he was hired to work with sherman....how did that go?

C'mon guys.....I continue to support TT as our GM but don't start defending the man to the point where he is treated with kid gloves. The man is going to have to stand on his record and hopefully he'll build a formidible one in the near future. But the more excuses you guys make for his moves the harder the TT bashers will charge.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Bobby.......If this is true then Harlan is an idiot(which we know he is not). "TT wasn't hired because he was the best man for the job--he was hired to work with Sherman--". Well Sherman is gone. So how about getting the "best man for the job" now. If he was hired to work with sherman....how did that go?

Obviously in being hired to work with Sherman, it has completely failed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't Harlan's intention: (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=292988)

"When he first went out in search of a general manager, personnel men like New England's Scott Pioli, Philadelphia's Tom Heckert and Baltimore's Phil Savage were on his list. But none appealed to him as much as Thompson because they had not been part of the Packers' tradition.

"I didn't think any of them would be as smooth as this," Harlan said. "I thought this would be less of a jolt to Mike than the other way.""

So it wasn't that TT was the best man for the job compared to these other candidates, it was that TT would create a smoother transition for Mike.

 

[IPBprez]

The biggest difference Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson is that they are on opposite ends of Favre's career. Without Favre, Wolf or Holmgren would be no where near the celebrity they are today - but that's not saying they didn't have a hand in it.

Ron Wolf - knew that the "impression" of Green Bay had to change, or else!
(and that became his mission statement - making all other things possible)

Think about the timeline for a sec - Brett initially played how many games in a semi-stellar career; got slammed to the ground, by a future Packer and then the Summer of 1993 came along, with Free Agency..

Bruce - I got that right? I think I do, for the most part....

1992 wasn't all THAT great of a Season, either, was it? Uh... no, don't think so!
Then again, neither was 1993 - remember those INT's..?

What's more, this is just as Reggie's joined the Team - we know he's a damn fine football player, but he's only one guy. The rest of the nucleus was yet to be created.

So, right at this exact spot on the timeline - what does Green Bay look like? What does Brett Favre actually look like? How well is he actually holding up (the truth)....? Sure, he's many many moons younger, but what type of protection is he getting from the O-Line? What's causing all those INT's...?

You guys see where this is going? Think about it.... Are we right back at almost that same point in the timeline?

I'm not real happy with the way Holmgren ended up respecting the Packers, as he left for the Left Coast - but I gotta hand it to him in how he corraled Favre and molded him into a better football player - without Holmgren THAT would have never happened - look how they handled him in Atlanta...

Like any other Player - Favre is a product of the Coaches who were around him, as he learned how to be: An NFL-caliber PLayer

Just how I see it guys..... Maybe what we're seeing is Ted Thompson out there trying to find his own Brett Favre.... (hmmmmm).

 

[Bruce]

The biggest difference Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson is that they are on opposite ends of Favre's career. Without Favre, Wolf or Holmgren would be no where near the celebrity they are today - but that's not saying they didn't have a hand in it.

Ron Wolf - knew that the "impression" of Green Bay had to change, or else!
(and that became his mission statement - making all other things possible)

Think about the timeline for a sec - Brett initially played how many games in a semi-stellar career; got slammed to the ground, by a future Packer and then the Summer of 1993 came along, with Free Agency..

Bruce - I got that right? I think I do, for the most part....

1992 wasn't all THAT great of a Season, either, was it? Uh... no, don't think so!
Then again, neither was 1993 - remember those INT's..?

Actually, Brett Favre was outstanding in 1992. Taking over a team that was 4 - 12 the season before -- and without much of a talent base -- he had a QB rating that is essentially the same as his career Ave 85.3 (86 is his career average) and led them to a 9 - 7 -- beating out Packer Hall of famer Majik Man in the process.

Essentially a rookie (first time getting any practice reps and playing time) in 1992 when he played in 15 games and started 13, here were his numbers:


Att - comp - % - yards - ypca - lg - tds - int - QB rating
471 - 302 - 64.1, 3227 - 6.85 - 76 - 18 - 13 -- 85.3

compare that to 16 games and 16 starts of last season (2005)

Att - comp - % - yards - ypca - lg - tds - int - QB rating
607 - 372 - 61.3, 3881 - 6.39 - 59 - 20 - 29 -- 70.9


Brett has had three bad seasons as a Pro -- 1993, 1999 (his only under MM) and 2005

IPBPrez is right -- Brett was doing this with swiss cheese for an offensive line and without much of a running game.

Brett Favre was an essential ingredient -- and he achieved this high level of success in his first playing time, not after some magical tutoring from Holmgren. His acquisition was key to turning a franchise that had been a league doormat into the winningest franchise of his era. That was accomplished by a bold move by Ron Wolf.

 

[digsthepack]

Bruce, your knowledge never ceases to amaze me.

 

[BACKIN-PACKIN]

Bobby.......If this is true then Harlan is an idiot(which we know he is not). "TT wasn't hired because he was the best man for the job--he was hired to work with Sherman--". Well Sherman is gone. So how about getting the "best man for the job" now. If he was hired to work with sherman....how did that go?

Obviously in being hired to work with Sherman, it has completely failed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't Harlan's intention: (http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=292988)

"When he first went out in search of a general manager, personnel men like New England's Scott Pioli, Philadelphia's Tom Heckert and Baltimore's Phil Savage were on his list. But none appealed to him as much as Thompson because they had not been part of the Packers' tradition.

"I didn't think any of them would be as smooth as this," Harlan said. "I thought this would be less of a jolt to Mike than the other way.""

So it wasn't that TT was the best man for the job compared to these other candidates, it was that TT would create a smoother transition for Mike.

Where did you guys come up with this TT was hired to work with Sherman crap. If that was the case it was one of Harlan's biggest blunders, next to making Sherman GM and HC. The truth of the matter is Harlan hired a GM who, by the way, was recommended by Ron Wolf, not to rub ***** with Sherman, but to give him some help, and reestablish some sense to the draft and improve talent evaluation. The problem was not how well TT could work with Sherman, but Sherman's inability to work with TT. Such a tandem team didn't work out. By Harlan's own admission, this hasn't worked out for the best of the GB Packers. Why? As quiet as it is kept, Sherman has difficulty working with other people as far as taking suggestions and working on any advice. This has been seen with some of his former coaches. If all this is true to a greater degree, rather than a lesser degree, then one may very well conclude that Sherman has a problem with being headstrong. And since this is a hindrance in the direction the way TT is moving, Sherman just had to go. Sherman literally screwed himself out of Green Bay, and not the other way around!

 

[digsthepack]

Very well put, BACKIN. This has been Sherman's M.O. for the last several years...stubbornness, single minded and unwilling to solicit outside opinions, etc. Why is TT assumed to be the bad guy when it is MS who had the history of "not playing well with others"?

Sure, TT made the choice to let him go, but my guess is that it was based in large part on Sherman pouting his way through the season, miffed at the loss of his dictatorship.

 

[Bruce]

Sherman is gone and I am more than ready to let him fade into Packer history, but the above two posts are * *EDITED BY AADP - disagree in a civilized manner like adults!

Bates says he loved working with Sherman, so did Donatell, despite being fired by him.

Thompson gave Sherman a $6.4 million dollar guaranteed extension, the majority of which will come from the Packers coffers this year and next -- minus his Texan salary (which is structured to increase in year 3).

Sherman never whined once. Thompson says he agonized over making the decision and Sherman left with class, saying he loved the opportunity and not saying a bad word about anyone.

Some of you guys railed on Sherman all the way through his tenure, others only after he won a couple of division championships. BTW BACKIN-PACKIN Ron Wolf hired Sherman as his HC and recommended him as the only choice for GM.

Like I said, Mike Sherman is gone. But he was a loyal part of the Packer family while he worked tirelessly to deliver a winner from a team that was in FAR worse CAP Hell and coming off missing the playoffs and its worst record in many years with a roster that was depleted and that Butler called the softest he had ever played with.

You do not have to honor this ex-Coach, but to continue to denigrate him says far more about you than anything he did or did not accomplish during his time in Green Bay.

Let it go -- he is now just a part of the Green Bay Packers Proud History.

 

[IPBprez]

Thanks for the homework, Bruce ----

Although I'm more of the Camp that thinks things didn't really turn around until Reggie White got a few close friends to join him on the Defense.

And, yes - that 1993 still sticks in my mind... hated it! It seriously could have gone quite the other way, with Favre on his way out.

Sometimes I ponder how it would have been had Majik Man NOT gotten hurt like he did - we already had a somewhat better Team, from 1991 and he was making a resurgence from his Shoulder injury. (it's just a pondering...)

Thanks for the stats....

 

[Zero2Cool]

Bruce, your knowledge never ceases to amaze me.

Not to discredit Bruce, I'm sure he is very knowledgable. But Google.com my boy, Google.com

 

[Bruce]

Bruce, your knowledge never ceases to amaze me.

Not to discredit Bruce, I'm sure he is very knowledgable. But Google.com my boy, Google.com

Google may be a good thing, but it helps if you know the facts about football and about players -- it saves having to wade through mountains of material. I certainly do not need to do an internet search to know when Brett had his poor years any more than I would need to do one for his MVP years.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Bruce, your knowledge never ceases to amaze me.

Not to discredit Bruce, I'm sure he is very knowledgable. But Google.com my boy, Google.com

Google may be a good thing, but it helps if you know the facts about football and about players -- it saves having to wade through mountains of material. I certainly do not need to do an internet search to know when Brett had his poor years any more than I would need to do one for his MVP years.

No. But Google helps you with the exact stats

 

[gopackgo4]

This is not fair at all. You can't compare everyone to the greatest ever and if they arent the best they suck.

 

[P@ck66]

IPB Prez said...

"Like any other Player - Favre is a product of the Coaches who were around him, as he learned how to be: An NFL-caliber PLayer

Just how I see it guys..... Maybe what we're seeing is Ted Thompson out there trying to find his own Brett Favre.... (hmmmmm)."


I like how "some" of you guys think NFL HOF QB's grow on trees....

There's a little something called "talent" and "innate ability" that separates the great ones from the rest.....

Look around the NFL....how many "Brett Favres" are out there....

Oh..there are some guys with talent..But it's a big step from being a guy with talent (like a Drew Brees), and a legend.....like Brett Favre..Dan Marino...Montana...Elway..Young...Aikman..Bradshaw..etc....

This is something that you will find out..(maybe sooner) rather than later...and you will wish the GB Packers had done a little more to surround Favre with the talent to take them all the way again...and (sorry Bruce)...you will see how the inept, over their head, team of Rossley and Sherman really squandered a true GB legends remaining years in the NFL....

 

[Bruce]

IPB Prez said...

"Like any other Player - Favre is a product of the Coaches who were around him, as he learned how to be: An NFL-caliber PLayer

Just how I see it guys..... Maybe what we're seeing is Ted Thompson out there trying to find his own Brett Favre.... (hmmmmm)."


I like how "some" of you guys think NFL HOF QB's grow on trees....

There's a little something called "talent" and "innate ability" that separates the great ones from the rest.....

Look around the NFL....how many "Brett Favres" are out there....

Oh..there are some guys with talent..But it's a big step from being a guy with talent (like a Drew Brees), and a legend.....like Brett Favre..Dan Marino...Montana...Elway..Young...Aikman..Bradshaw..etc....

This is something that you will find out..(maybe sooner) rather than later...and you will wish the GB Packers had done a little more to surround Favre with the talent to take them all the way again...and (sorry Bruce)...you will see how the inept, over their head, team of Rossley and Sherman really squandered a true GB legends remaining years in the NFL....

Don Shula was one of the greatest Coaches in NFL history -- yet Marino (another all time great QB) only got to one Super Bowl and never got a ring under Shula.

Barry Sanders and Walter Payton were clearly two of the greatest running backs of all time. Barry never got to a Super Bowl and Walter got to one -- where I am very glad he got a ring.

It is over-simplifiying to blame coaches as you do.

The Packers were lost to Denver as heavy favorites in their 2nd Super Bowl appearance. The next year they were knocked from the playoffs in there first game against San Fransico. The year that followed that they were 8-8 and not in the playoffs. All of that happened without Sherman or Rossley -- but you are a creative young man, I am sure you will find a way to blame those failures to get Brett a second ring on them too.

One thing I like about you 66 is your unwavering love of and support for your favorite player -- I respect that.

I think you are still working on shaking your obsession with Sherman, but it will come eventually. After all, we are all just human and we are all working on something.

 

[P@ck66]

Well Bruce..

That's because I know that a player of Favre's caliber only comes along once in awhile....and it was what...30 years for the Pack to get another QB since Starr?

Although..I thought Majkowski could have had a great career if he didn't get hurt, and if he had better Packer teams to play on....

Well...once Favre rides off into the sunset...I will still root for the Pack.....

(but it won't be the same Packer team...and I anticipate it being much like the 70's and 80's...which was fun in it's own way....drinking Gennesee Cream Ales and screaming at the TV for ****ey to get rid of the ball...)

I just don't want to see the FAvre chapter in GB close just yet.....(although i'm convinced that some here wouldn't mind at all....)

 

[Bruce]

Well Bruce..

That's because I know that a player of Favre's caliber only comes along once in awhile....and it was what...30 years for the Pack to get another QB since Starr?

Although..I thought Majkowski could have had a great career if he didn't get hurt, and if he had better Packer teams to play on....

Well...once Favre rides off into the sunset...I will still root for the Pack.....

(but it won't be the same Packer team...and I anticipate it being much like the 70's and 80's...which was fun in it's own way....drinking Gennesee Cream Ales and screaming at the TV for ****ey to get rid of the ball...)

I just don't want to see the FAvre chapter in GB close just yet.....(although i'm convinced that some here wouldn't mind at all....)

I am in no hurry to see it close either. Players like Favre are rare treats that should be savored.


Great teams can still be built here in GB, the Packers could fall back into that hole -- but I hope not and hanve no intention of sitting silent if they do.

The age of Free Agency has brought the age of parity, there would be NO excuse for Green Bay falling into the doldrums of the 70's or the medicrity of the 80's.

 

[IPBprez]

You're entitled to your opinion - and so are all of the rest of us, Pack66....

You write your posts as if you don't think life should be lived in that way....

Let's take another pretty damn good example ---- Matt Hasselbeck!

Does anyone here really think that Matt would have turned into the QB he "now" is... without the help of Jim Zorn......? Anyone?

I just luv the way P@ck will get specific, and then go away trying to generalize when the tables are turned.....

Another Example: Our 2004 Defense, versus the 2005 Defense!
(does anyone really need to lay this one out for you..?)

It "is" a matter who the Coaches might be... whether you like it or not.

One thing (for Bruce) - If someone 'wants' to imply my posts are blaming or assuming that Coaches are the end all-be all - that's their business... I don't exactly say THAT in my post(s).

Let's just imagine a very young Brett Favre, with Mike SHERMAN as the HC....!
Now, let's think of the year 1993.... does 1994 get any better? I think not.
NOT WITHOUT the likes of an HC in the caliber of Holmgren, as opposed to Sherman.
Wasn't Sherman prone to sending Memos to Favre during the game thru his Assistants? YES, he was.....

Personally, if it had been Sherman instead of Holmgren, I have no difficulty at all viewing Favre as a 'crash & burn' type QB, in a very similar fashion of how we've watched Aaron Brooks fail in New Orleans.

Brooks never could get a handle on controlling his decisions much like Favre circa '93. I see that as a Coaching issue.... for Brooks, maybe this change from the Saints will be a good thing for him... we won't know for awhile yet.

That's just my take, Bruce.....

 

[Bruce]

You're entitled to your opinion - and so are all of the rest of us, Pack66....

You write your posts as if you don't think life should be lived in that way....

Let's take another pretty damn good example ---- Matt Hasselbeck!

Does anyone here really think that Matt would have turned into the QB he "now" is... without the help of Jim Zorn......? Anyone?

I just luv the way P@ck will get specific, and then go away trying to generalize when the tables are turned.....

Another

One thing (for Bruce) - If someone 'wants' to imply my posts are blaming or assuming that Coaches are the end all-be all - that's their business... I don't exactly say THAT in my post(s).

That's just my take, Bruce.....

First, I never criticized your post(s) or implied that you were simple minded or single pointed. So I not really sure where you are coming from.

Brett would have been a great QB under any coach with the sense to utilize his talents -- and Sherman certainly had that sense -- perhaps to a fault. But Brett could have been a crash and burn QB under an idiot like Jerry Glanville or a petty coach who could not recogize talent.

Ron Wolf recognized that talent and went and got Favre to be this franchise's QB -- he made it quite clear to Holmgen. Holmgren is a extremely bright and talented offensive coach -- schooled by Walsh (an offensive genius). But Holmgen also recognized that he did not have the patience to coach Brett -- and brought in personal coaches to buffer their relationship.

Perhaps I was not clear in responding to you -- while I may disagree with you at times, I think you are a fine poster with solid football sense. So there is no problem between us from where I am sitting.