Thompson Optimistic About 2007

trippster

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
1,405
Reaction score
2
Location
Kenosha
I believe Favre said somthing to the effect of "put Driver, Jennings, AND Moss out on the filed at the same time in a 3 reciever set and I think most teams would view that as intimidating". That in NO way is dissing his current recievers. It is simply adding to the quality.

lets's not get our undies in a bunch over piddly stuff. Moss wanted to go to a bonifide SB contender for one year so he can get the last big contract of his career next year. We can live with out him and will do fine. I think that Jackson out of the backfield and the TE's applying stick'em to their gloves will make us a much better ball club. If the defense has to respect the backfield that opens up the whole field for Brett AND the recievers...


And who gives a Rat's a** who predicted what????
 

Arles

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 9, 2007
Messages
304
Reaction score
0
I've said it before and I'll say it again. if all it takes is a third WR for this team to be dangerous in Favre's eyes, we must be pretty close to dangerous already.
 

Packnic

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
2,454
Reaction score
6
Location
Salisbury, NC
I've said it before and I'll say it again. if all it takes is a third WR for this team to be dangerous in Favre's eyes, we must be pretty close to dangerous already.

i agree. a better defense, special teams, and dangerously close offense sounds like a good plan to me.
 
OP
OP
Zero2Cool

Zero2Cool

I own a website
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
4
Location
Green Bay, WI
I've said it before and I'll say it again. if all it takes is a third WR for this team to be dangerous in Favre's eyes, we must be pretty close to dangerous already.

Three WR of the caliber of Driver, Moss and Jennings is dangerous, not the entire team. It would open up the running game if you use a one back set (SIDE NOTE: one back set is what Barry Sanders preferred) and those three WR.

It wouldn't help the defense or special teams much at all. So when he says they are dangerous, he's talking about the passing game, not the entire Packers team. At least that's my guess.
 

Cory

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
959
Reaction score
0
Arles said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. if all it takes is a third WR for this team to be dangerous in Favre's eyes, we must be pretty close to dangerous already.

Three WR of the caliber of Driver, Moss and Jennings is dangerous, not the entire team. It would open up the running game if you use a one back set (SIDE NOTE: one back set is what Barry Sanders preferred) and those three WR.

It wouldn't help the defense or special teams much at all. So when he says they are dangerous, he's talking about the passing game, not the entire Packers team. At least that's my guess.

Actually it very well could help the defense. Moss could have helped with scoring and keeping drives alive to keep the defense off the field longer. The amount of rest a good offense can give a defense means fresher legs in january.
 
OP
OP
Zero2Cool

Zero2Cool

I own a website
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
4
Location
Green Bay, WI
Zero2Cool said:
Arles said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. if all it takes is a third WR for this team to be dangerous in Favre's eyes, we must be pretty close to dangerous already.

Three WR of the caliber of Driver, Moss and Jennings is dangerous, not the entire team. It would open up the running game if you use a one back set (SIDE NOTE: one back set is what Barry Sanders preferred) and those three WR.

It wouldn't help the defense or special teams much at all. So when he says they are dangerous, he's talking about the passing game, not the entire Packers team. At least that's my guess.

Actually it very well could help the defense. Moss could have helped with scoring and keeping drives alive to keep the defense off the field longer. The amount of rest a good offense can give a defense means fresher legs in january.

I said it wouldn't help them much, meaning it would help, but not as much as it would the offense. It would make the team better, but when Brett is saying it would be intimidating, he's talking about the offense, not the entire team.
 

Cory

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
959
Reaction score
0
Cory said:
Zero2Cool said:
Arles said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. if all it takes is a third WR for this team to be dangerous in Favre's eyes, we must be pretty close to dangerous already.

Three WR of the caliber of Driver, Moss and Jennings is dangerous, not the entire team. It would open up the running game if you use a one back set (SIDE NOTE: one back set is what Barry Sanders preferred) and those three WR.

It wouldn't help the defense or special teams much at all. So when he says they are dangerous, he's talking about the passing game, not the entire Packers team. At least that's my guess.

Actually it very well could help the defense. Moss could have helped with scoring and keeping drives alive to keep the defense off the field longer. The amount of rest a good offense can give a defense means fresher legs in january.

I said it wouldn't help them much, meaning it would help, but not as much as it would the offense. It would make the team better, but when Brett is saying it would be intimidating, he's talking about the offense, not the entire team.

Well you phrased it 'much at all' as I took it to mean it wouldn't help the defense....much at all. I think it would help the defense quite a bit.
 
OP
OP
Zero2Cool

Zero2Cool

I own a website
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
4
Location
Green Bay, WI
Zero2Cool said:
Cory said:
Zero2Cool said:
Arles said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. if all it takes is a third WR for this team to be dangerous in Favre's eyes, we must be pretty close to dangerous already.

Three WR of the caliber of Driver, Moss and Jennings is dangerous, not the entire team. It would open up the running game if you use a one back set (SIDE NOTE: one back set is what Barry Sanders preferred) and those three WR.

It wouldn't help the defense or special teams much at all. So when he says they are dangerous, he's talking about the passing game, not the entire Packers team. At least that's my guess.

Actually it very well could help the defense. Moss could have helped with scoring and keeping drives alive to keep the defense off the field longer. The amount of rest a good offense can give a defense means fresher legs in january.

I said it wouldn't help them much, meaning it would help, but not as much as it would the offense. It would make the team better, but when Brett is saying it would be intimidating, he's talking about the offense, not the entire team.

Well you phrased it 'much at all' as I took it to mean it wouldn't help the defense....much at all. I think it would help the defense quite a bit.

It could also hurt the defense. If the offense is not staying on the field for long stretches the defense will get worn out.

It goes both ways, which is why I say not 'much at all'.
 

warhawk

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,922
Reaction score
17
Location
Gulf Shores, Al
Lare Wrote:

[
quote="Lare"]So Mike Sherman wasted Brett's last years. Funny, I don't seem to remember Brett ever being upset about the competitiveness and direction of the team back when Mike Sherman was here like he has EVERY YEAR that Ted Thompson has been here.

Geez, I remember very well seeing Favre look very "grumpy" over there on the sidelines in '03 and '04 when he would look up after a hard fought TD drive only to see that the other team had already scored.

Lare, did you really ever have the feeling over those years that we were getting "closer" to that ring for Favre because I got to tell you starting about '03 it just seemed farther and farther away to me.

I mean were we heading right between say '02 and '04 cause I got to tell I saw a SLIDE in those three years.

When the solution was bringing in Slowick vs. any new player personnel on the "D" side of the ball I really didn't see us having a chance and didn't think it would until that changed.
 
OP
OP
Zero2Cool

Zero2Cool

I own a website
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
4
Location
Green Bay, WI
Lare said:
So Mike Sherman wasted Brett's last years. Funny, I don't seem to remember Brett ever being upset about the competitiveness and direction of the team back when Mike Sherman was here like he has EVERY YEAR that Ted Thompson has been here.

Geez, I remember very well seeing Favre look very "grumpy" over there on the sidelines in '03 and '04 when he would look up after a hard fought TD drive only to see that the other team had already scored.

Lare, did you really ever have the feeling over those years that we were getting "closer" to that ring for Favre because I got to tell you starting about '03 it just seemed farther and farther away to me.

I mean were we heading right between say '02 and '04 cause I got to tell I saw a SLIDE in those three years.

When the solution was bringing in Slowick vs. any new player personnel on the "D" side of the ball I really didn't see us having a chance and didn't think it would until that changed.

After the Philly game, I felt we were years away from getting that close again :( I think that was our best chance and we failed.
 

cheesey

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 25, 2005
Messages
1,000
Reaction score
3
Location
Wisconsin
cheesey said:
Pyle......here is where you lose me......and probably 95% of the people on this site. You predicted the Pack at 5-11 at BEST last year, and Zero picked right on the mark at 8-8. No one here said that was "Super Bowl" like. Yet instead of being a man and admitting straight out that you were wrong and he was right, you just keep going.
It takes a bigger man to admit being wrong, then one that won't "man up".
I have made mistakes on here, and KNOW I'm not in any way even CLOSE to perfect. Yet you are confronted with your own words showing proof that you were wrong, yet you still can't face it and admit it.
They did MUCH better then you said they would.
They didn't do as good as i thought they would. I was wrong.
Now YOU try those 3 simple words.....can you do it?
Just admit you were wrong......without adding a bunch of "Thats the Super Bowl to you" comments?
Lets see what you are made of.


Uhhh, do I need to admit I was wrong? Isn't it right there in black and white?

How wrong was I? They were better because they played losing teams IMO. Thats why I think they will be 8-8 again at best, BUT perhaps I'm wrong.
Uhhhh......yes,......it IS in black and white.
Yes.......everyone KNOWS you are wrong.
But that doesn't stop you from making your dumb arguments.
You were i'd say.........100% wrong. You said 5-11 AT BEST. That would be taking all things into account......schedule and all.
You were not even CLOSE.
So i will use your obvious inability to admit defeat, and your constant patting of yourself on your back, even when your own words prove you wrong, as a measuring stick against anything you say in the future.
I was actually starting to doubt TT's abililty.......but now, after seeing your reactions once again on here, i feel renewed. If you are THAT sure he's bad, he MUST be great.
Just had to look at your track record, an bet accordingly.
 

Lare

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
705
Reaction score
0
Location
Packwalking, WI
Lare Wrote:

[
quote="Lare"]So Mike Sherman wasted Brett's last years. Funny, I don't seem to remember Brett ever being upset about the competitiveness and direction of the team back when Mike Sherman was here like he has EVERY YEAR that Ted Thompson has been here.

Geez, I remember very well seeing Favre look very "grumpy" over there on the sidelines in '03 and '04 when he would look up after a hard fought TD drive only to see that the other team had already scored.

Lare, did you really ever have the feeling over those years that we were getting "closer" to that ring for Favre because I got to tell you starting about '03 it just seemed farther and farther away to me.

I mean were we heading right between say '02 and '04 cause I got to tell I saw a SLIDE in those three years.

When the solution was bringing in Slowick vs. any new player personnel on the "D" side of the ball I really didn't see us having a chance and didn't think it would until that changed.

That's a valid point warhawk, and I certainly wasn't always a keen supporter of the Sherman/Rossley play calling, but their continually high offensive rankings during those years and the overall win/loss records speak for themselves.

Where we improving or declining during those years? I don't know, but I just think that we at least had a shot at the ring almost every year, and I think that is what Brett is getting at with his media antics lately.

Some teams have made it to the Super Bowl by imroving their defense (the Thompson way), some by improving their offense (the Sherman way). Neither one's guaranteed, it's what works for a given team in a given year.

We can all argue why Sherman's way didn't get any of his teams to the Super Bowl. It remains to be seen if Thompsons way ever does.
 

Cory

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
959
Reaction score
0
Cory said:
Zero2Cool said:
Cory said:
Zero2Cool said:
Arles said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. if all it takes is a third WR for this team to be dangerous in Favre's eyes, we must be pretty close to dangerous already.

Three WR of the caliber of Driver, Moss and Jennings is dangerous, not the entire team. It would open up the running game if you use a one back set (SIDE NOTE: one back set is what Barry Sanders preferred) and those three WR.

It wouldn't help the defense or special teams much at all. So when he says they are dangerous, he's talking about the passing game, not the entire Packers team. At least that's my guess.

Actually it very well could help the defense. Moss could have helped with scoring and keeping drives alive to keep the defense off the field longer. The amount of rest a good offense can give a defense means fresher legs in january.

I said it wouldn't help them much, meaning it would help, but not as much as it would the offense. It would make the team better, but when Brett is saying it would be intimidating, he's talking about the offense, not the entire team.

Well you phrased it 'much at all' as I took it to mean it wouldn't help the defense....much at all. I think it would help the defense quite a bit.

It could also hurt the defense. If the offense is not staying on the field for long stretches the defense will get worn out.

It goes both ways, which is why I say not 'much at all'.

Well without him we may not stay on the field much. I think more often then not a TD or scoring drive in general comes from a longer drive rather than a big play.
 
OP
OP
Zero2Cool

Zero2Cool

I own a website
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
4
Location
Green Bay, WI
Moss isn't really a possession receiver who's going to help you stay on the field. Although, the flip side is he does get first down catches. Bummer we won't know until next season when he cashes in on his payday and dons the green uniform. :)
 

Cory

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
959
Reaction score
0
Moss isn't really a possession receiver who's going to help you stay on the field. Although, the flip side is he does get first down catches. Bummer we won't know until next season when he cashes in on his payday and dons the green uniform. :)

You are correct he isn't a possession reciever, but he can still help you stay on the field longer than normal.
 
OP
OP
Zero2Cool

Zero2Cool

I own a website
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
4
Location
Green Bay, WI
Zero2Cool said:
Moss isn't really a possession receiver who's going to help you stay on the field. Although, the flip side is he does get first down catches. Bummer we won't know until next season when he cashes in on his payday and dons the green uniform. :)

You are correct he isn't a possession reciever, but he can still help you stay on the field longer than normal.

Yep, that's the point I was alluding to with that he does make first down catches. A first down means you get a new set of downs and each down when played takes time.
 

cheesey

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 25, 2005
Messages
1,000
Reaction score
3
Location
Wisconsin
Moss isn't really a possession receiver who's going to help you stay on the field. Although, the flip side is he does get first down catches. Bummer we won't know until next season when he cashes in on his payday and dons the green uniform. :)
Green uniform???
 

Staff online

Members online

Latest posts

Top