Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Worth reading: MM's and TT's future, possible GM candidates
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 557032"><p>Right, and Thompson is not about to tell all; itemizing the pros and cons of a decision is certainly not his style, and especially not now with attempts at a Favre rapprochement in progress.</p><p></p><p>Like you, I question the unstated "and" in Brandt's retelling. I don't doubt that Rodgers was their highest-value player on the board at the time of the pick "and"....</p><p></p><p>Thompson is nothing if not risk averse. Or perhaps the better way to put it is that a risk/reward calculus is applied to each personnel move. That he would not perceive the high risk associated with having all eggs in the Favre QB basket would be out of character, and in fact quite foolish, not to put too fine a point on it.</p><p></p><p>In addition to examining the matter with 20/20 hindsight, when this most recent (of many) iteration of this time honored debate began pre-draft, I attempted to illustrate the point using New England as a prospective example.</p><p></p><p>Brady will be 37 at the start of the season. New England was interviewing a few QB's projected to the upper rounds, including Manziel and Garoppolo.</p><p></p><p>I argued that New England spending a high pick now on a QB they liked would make perfect sense.</p><p></p><p>Mallett will be a free agent after 2014 and though we don't know precisely what Belichick might think of him, there is the distinct risk that whatever Mallett might have brought to the table initially is in the process of irreparably decaying on the bench. I can't imagine they will re-sign him with the distinct possibility that he will not have played competitive football for 6, 7, 8 years when Brady is most likely to hang it up.</p><p></p><p>Now would be a good time for New England to start looking for a potential successor, I argued. This would be a guy available to start no later than his 4th. year (at which time Brady will be 40). Further, by picking a provisional successor now, time serves as insurance against a mistake. If a draftee taken this year is not developing as expected by year 2, there is likely still time for a second shot in the draft.</p><p></p><p>This argument made so much sense, in fact, New England did draft Garoppolo in the second round.</p><p></p><p>The point I've been making is this: If one chooses to believe that Rodgers was merely a "trust the board" pick with no specific plan as to how this first round pick might be used before he went to seed on the bench, then one should be disappointed at the shortsightedness of the principals involved in the decision, and at the same time regard Favre's tearful retirement as a lucky happenstance. Personally, I don't see it that way; the point being one can't have it both ways.</p><p></p><p>I believe that once Packer management had sufficient confidence that Rodgers could keep the team competitive, they seized the opportunity to exit the Favre era when he, Favre, presented them with the somewhat predictable opportunity. Had Rodgers shown bust-like characteristics by year 2, they would have in the hunt for a second shot at a successor.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 557032"] Right, and Thompson is not about to tell all; itemizing the pros and cons of a decision is certainly not his style, and especially not now with attempts at a Favre rapprochement in progress. Like you, I question the unstated "and" in Brandt's retelling. I don't doubt that Rodgers was their highest-value player on the board at the time of the pick "and".... Thompson is nothing if not risk averse. Or perhaps the better way to put it is that a risk/reward calculus is applied to each personnel move. That he would not perceive the high risk associated with having all eggs in the Favre QB basket would be out of character, and in fact quite foolish, not to put too fine a point on it. In addition to examining the matter with 20/20 hindsight, when this most recent (of many) iteration of this time honored debate began pre-draft, I attempted to illustrate the point using New England as a prospective example. Brady will be 37 at the start of the season. New England was interviewing a few QB's projected to the upper rounds, including Manziel and Garoppolo. I argued that New England spending a high pick now on a QB they liked would make perfect sense. Mallett will be a free agent after 2014 and though we don't know precisely what Belichick might think of him, there is the distinct risk that whatever Mallett might have brought to the table initially is in the process of irreparably decaying on the bench. I can't imagine they will re-sign him with the distinct possibility that he will not have played competitive football for 6, 7, 8 years when Brady is most likely to hang it up. Now would be a good time for New England to start looking for a potential successor, I argued. This would be a guy available to start no later than his 4th. year (at which time Brady will be 40). Further, by picking a provisional successor now, time serves as insurance against a mistake. If a draftee taken this year is not developing as expected by year 2, there is likely still time for a second shot in the draft. This argument made so much sense, in fact, New England did draft Garoppolo in the second round. The point I've been making is this: If one chooses to believe that Rodgers was merely a "trust the board" pick with no specific plan as to how this first round pick might be used before he went to seed on the bench, then one should be disappointed at the shortsightedness of the principals involved in the decision, and at the same time regard Favre's tearful retirement as a lucky happenstance. Personally, I don't see it that way; the point being one can't have it both ways. I believe that once Packer management had sufficient confidence that Rodgers could keep the team competitive, they seized the opportunity to exit the Favre era when he, Favre, presented them with the somewhat predictable opportunity. Had Rodgers shown bust-like characteristics by year 2, they would have in the hunt for a second shot at a successor. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Staff online
PikeBadger
Moderator
Members online
PikeBadger
ExpatPacker
scheeler
4Ever4Favre
weeds
GreenBaySlacker
Latest posts
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: Thirteen Below
10 minutes ago
Draft Talk
2024 3rd round #88 MarShawn Lloyd RB
Latest: PikeBadger
36 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Bucks v. Pacers
Latest: weeds
48 minutes ago
Milwaukee Bucks Forum
2024 2nd Rd pick #58 Javon Bullard S
Latest: Thirteen Below
50 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
2024 3rd Rd #91 Ty’Ron Hopper LB
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 12:04 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Worth reading: MM's and TT's future, possible GM candidates
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top