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: 557180"><p>I already highlighted that point...twice. I don't know why you don't understand the concept of the risk involved with the mercurial Favre who could leave you holding your d*ck for the next half decade provided you're not fired first. The signs and symptoms were already present in 2005. Clearly there was a point in 2008 when Favre <em><strong>could not</strong></em> return after he retired. Rodgers' 3 years of preparation for the job afforded that opportunity.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's another point that continues to elude you. I wasn't disappointed in being wrong. I was disappointed in Brandt's retelling, taken at face value, evidencing lack of organizational foresight. You missed the hint of sarcasm in that disappointment as well, even after I flagged it for you. Foresight is a hallmark of good decision makers. So I noted twice the fact you can't have it both ways...you can't claim foresight while maintaining blind adherence to the board. Besides, you've failed to consider the possibility of the unspoken "and" considerations in Brandt's comments; there would be very good reasons why Brandt would not want to highlight them if he were privy to them.</p><p></p><p>Besides, if memory serves you've commented on past occasions that you believe need may be introduced when constructing the board. That presents you with a problem.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, that didn't happen. If qualifications and nuance are not understandable in your newly found binary definition of "need" I can't help that. I'm amused that you introduced the "immediate" qualifier mid-course. It was you who keeps shifting his definition.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There are those pesky qualifiers again. What happen to your binary "need"/"no need" point from yesterday? You seem to understand the concept that need resides on spectrum and has different aspects but can't seem to apply it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If Rodgers Jr. presented himself in the draft today, Thompson would not take him. He might find somebody hot for a QB who would trade for the pick, and that's as far as it goes. By the time his 4 year rookie deal was up, without having seen much of the field, his trade value would be nil...a wasted pick.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would note that Thompson's lack of loquaciousness in the press extends to the war room. I was watching the war room feed off and on in this last draft and did not see Thompson utter a single word. There's a lot going on between his ears that he does not talk about...to anybody...as if I need to tell you that. We've probably expended more words on this topic in the last 2 days than Thompson utters in an average week. I would not necessarily believe that Brandt is privy to the whole story. In fact, as noted previously, I simply cannot hold the incredulous opinion that Thompson would be so lacking in foresight because of the implications.</p><p></p><p>No questions were posed above. This is a rare treat...somebody granting me the last word.</p><p></p><p>Thanks for that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 557180"] I already highlighted that point...twice. I don't know why you don't understand the concept of the risk involved with the mercurial Favre who could leave you holding your d*ck for the next half decade provided you're not fired first. The signs and symptoms were already present in 2005. Clearly there was a point in 2008 when Favre [I][B]could not[/B][/I] return after he retired. Rodgers' 3 years of preparation for the job afforded that opportunity. That's another point that continues to elude you. I wasn't disappointed in being wrong. I was disappointed in Brandt's retelling, taken at face value, evidencing lack of organizational foresight. You missed the hint of sarcasm in that disappointment as well, even after I flagged it for you. Foresight is a hallmark of good decision makers. So I noted twice the fact you can't have it both ways...you can't claim foresight while maintaining blind adherence to the board. Besides, you've failed to consider the possibility of the unspoken "and" considerations in Brandt's comments; there would be very good reasons why Brandt would not want to highlight them if he were privy to them. Besides, if memory serves you've commented on past occasions that you believe need may be introduced when constructing the board. That presents you with a problem. Well, that didn't happen. If qualifications and nuance are not understandable in your newly found binary definition of "need" I can't help that. I'm amused that you introduced the "immediate" qualifier mid-course. It was you who keeps shifting his definition. There are those pesky qualifiers again. What happen to your binary "need"/"no need" point from yesterday? You seem to understand the concept that need resides on spectrum and has different aspects but can't seem to apply it. If Rodgers Jr. presented himself in the draft today, Thompson would not take him. He might find somebody hot for a QB who would trade for the pick, and that's as far as it goes. By the time his 4 year rookie deal was up, without having seen much of the field, his trade value would be nil...a wasted pick. I would note that Thompson's lack of loquaciousness in the press extends to the war room. I was watching the war room feed off and on in this last draft and did not see Thompson utter a single word. There's a lot going on between his ears that he does not talk about...to anybody...as if I need to tell you that. We've probably expended more words on this topic in the last 2 days than Thompson utters in an average week. I would not necessarily believe that Brandt is privy to the whole story. In fact, as noted previously, I simply cannot hold the incredulous opinion that Thompson would be so lacking in foresight because of the implications. No questions were posed above. This is a rare treat...somebody granting me the last word. Thanks for that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
swhitset
Team Ronny
ExpatPacker
Green_Bay_Packers
Sanguine camper
PackerinSD
tynimiller
scheeler
Latest posts
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: Sanguine camper
6 minutes ago
Draft Talk
2024 3rd Rd #91 Ty’Ron Hopper LB
Latest: Thirteen Below
53 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 3rd round #88 MarShawn Lloyd RB
Latest: tynimiller
54 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Bucks v. Pacers
Latest: weeds
Today at 1:27 PM
Milwaukee Bucks Forum
2024 2nd Rd pick #58 Javon Bullard S
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 1:25 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