Thompson vs. Gutekunst

[Mr Bad Example]

On 3/4/2021 at 10:46 AM, SSG said:

Because Ron Wolf built a raging dumpster fire into one of the NFL's most dominate franchises under his leadership.  Prior to Wolf, Green Bay had made the playoffs just twice since SB II and one of those seasons was the strike shortened 82 season.  Thompson on the other hand inherited a talent rich Packers squad that had missed the playoffs just twice in the previous 12 years.  Not taking anything away from Thompson but they inherited entirely different caliber football teams.  

I feel like GB's roster had been draining for the entire "Sherman as GM" fiasco....so while Ron Wolf had more heavy lifting to do, let's not act like Thompson was coasting along. GB's top 10 or 15 players were indeed very good but beyond that ugh. 

[Mr Bad Example]

On 3/4/2021 at 6:39 PM, ThatJerkDave said:

Sherman gets a lot of unfair criticism IMO.  The hiccup was Ray Rhodes as HC.  Sherman made the playoffs 4 straight seasons, and won the NFCN 3 straight seasons.  He is the prime example of what people clamoring for "help for Rodgers" would want.  He had a short turnaround from the slump of 99 and 00.  He was the "win now" guy.  It didn't work out.  Was he an outstanding drafter? No.  I think he was trying to win one more while the iron was hot.  I feel like people tend to put him as some bottom tier GM, when he isn't even the worst Packers GM.  He was a middle of the road guy, who would probably have been better off as HC only.  Also, the end of his tenure was really bad  

Sherman was a very good coach (I compare him to Marty Schottenheimer)....Sherman was a TERRIBLE GM. If he'd been able to truly maintain success, TT wouldn't even have been brought in. 

[Mr Bad Example]

On 3/5/2021 at 12:31 AM, TransientTexan said:

It’s not necessarily crying wolf, it’s just that their evaluation could be wrong, and may have been wrong on other players. you’re so invested in your confirmation bias that you are unwilling to allow for any other factors. 
 

He is certainly responsible for Bostick being on the roster. Duh. Blame already exists. But your tidbit changes nothing without context. 

Which coaches, for that matter? If your TE/OC are saying "this guy will never be more than a fringe TE, we can get someone better" but he's a core ST guy who the ST coach likes, that fits the narrative of "coaches were saying cut this guy" while leaving a good reason to have him off the roster out of the discussion. 

[Mr Bad Example]

On 3/6/2021 at 12:17 PM, CWood21 said:

How quickly people forget Demaryius Thomas roasting him on national TV IIRC.  He was absolutely abused in that game which was when he was asked to play boundary corner.  He was a damn good slot CB with an injury history.  He ended up having a better career with the Chargers.  Same with Hyde.  We had two good safeties, and Hyde played corner both out of need and because he wasn't going to unseat HHCD or Burnett.  Not a problem in talent evaluation.

I wanted Hyde to stay, but it was because he was solid and versatile, not because I saw him being a Pro Bowl S. 

[ThatJerkDave]

11 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said:

Sherman was a very good coach (I compare him to Marty Schottenheimer)....Sherman was a TERRIBLE GM. If he'd been able to truly maintain success, TT wouldn't even have been brought in. 

What I am saying though, is people wanting all of the FA moves and "going all in for one last shot with Rodgers," should love Sherman.  I also don't think he was at terrible level.  That is reserved for the Matt Millens and Bill O'Briens.  I think Sherman was probably below average.  He had a pretty good starting unit, but his poor drafting and subsequent over pays to keep the team good depleted the depth, and when the injuries and contracts finally caught up, the bottom fell out.  

I still maintain that drafting BJ Sander was one of the worst moves of all time though.  How you can trade up in the third round for a punter, who can't even punt, is beyond me.  Then he kept Sander on the roster eating a roster spot so he wouldn't get signed away.  

[ThatJerkDave]

11 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said:

I wanted Hyde to stay, but it was because he was solid and versatile, not because I saw him being a Pro Bowl S. 

As much as I can claim to like Hayward, I never liked Hyde.  I thought he was slow, and often out of position.  I did think he had nice hands for a DB, but he was burnt toast so much that it didn't make up for it.  

[Refugee]

3 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

As much as I can claim to like Hayward, I never liked Hyde.  I thought he was slow, and often out of position.  I did think he had nice hands for a DB, but he was burnt toast so much that it didn't make up for it.  

He was miscast here. I really liked (and like) his all around game. MM used to say he’s a “football player” and as funny as that was, he was right. Solid tackler, understands the situation, good hands and anticipation with enough burst to be an effective returner. 
 

For the money he got, we had to let him go but I was a fan. He did not have top flight speed and I have a friend that always brings up the interception that should have been in the playoff game vs. SF but he just couldn’t quite get there. Anyway, Buffalo just extended him so I’m happy he’s in a place that puts his skills to use. 

[CWood21]

16 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said:

Sherman was a very good coach (I compare him to Marty Schottenheimer)....Sherman was a TERRIBLE GM. If he'd been able to truly maintain success, TT wouldn't even have been brought in. 

This.  Sherman was a good HC.  He had no business making personnel decisions.

[Mr Bad Example]

10 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

What I am saying though, is people wanting all of the FA moves and "going all in for one last shot with Rodgers," should love Sherman.  I also don't think he was at terrible level.  That is reserved for the Matt Millens and Bill O'Briens.  I think Sherman was probably below average.  He had a pretty good starting unit, but his poor drafting and subsequent over pays to keep the team good depleted the depth, and when the injuries and contracts finally caught up, the bottom fell out.  

But how many of his moves - draft OR FA - worked out? It was back to the 80s level of "if you can't stick in Green Bay, you can't play in the league." I think his FA signings weren't there to push us over the top, they were there to correct his draft screw-ups. Which is a bad strategy even if the FA signings DO work out. Most of the starting group was inherited from Wolf. 

[SpeightTheVillain]

3 hours ago, Mr Bad Example said:

But how many of his moves - draft OR FA - worked out? It was back to the 80s level of "if you can't stick in Green Bay, you can't play in the league." I think his FA signings weren't there to push us over the top, they were there to correct his draft screw-ups. Which is a bad strategy even if the FA signings DO work out. Most of the starting group was inherited from Wolf. 

I was interested so I broke down his drafts:

2002

RD 1 - Javon Walker - Hit

RD 3 - Marques Anderson - Don't remember this guy at all - looks like he was out of football by 2005 so I guess miss.

RD 4 - Najeh Davenport - Solid Back up RB and infamous closet pooper. Hit.

RD 5 - Aaron Kampman - Massive Hit

RD 5 - Craig Nall - Fine. Nothing spectacular but not a huge failure.

RD 6 - Mike Houghton - Cut his rookie year - Miss

2003

RD 1 - Nick Barnett - Hit

RD 3 - Kenny Peterson - Played until 2009 but never really offered much besides being a below average rotation piece - Miss

RD 5-7 - James Lee; Hunter Hillenmeyer; Brennan Curtin; Chris Johnson; DeAndrew Rubin; Carl Ford; Steve Josue - I don't remember any of these people besides Hillenmeyer but that was mostly for the Bears. All misses.

2004

Ahmad Carroll - Ole grabby smurf. Miss.

Joey Thomas - Miss

Donell Washington - Miss

BJ Sander - Miss

Corey Williams - Hit

Scott Wells - Hit.

So yeah, started out decent but went downhill fast. 2003 and 2004 were rough.

[JBURGE]

15 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

As much as I can claim to like Hayward, I never liked Hyde.  I thought he was slow, and often out of position.  I did think he had nice hands for a DB, but he was burnt toast so much that it didn't make up for it.  

Hayward and Hyde had such different reactions. We were all pissed when Hayward signed for what he did, but all laughed and said you can have him Buffalo for what they paid him. Obviously in hindsight we should have paid both of them and just used them better

As Cwood said before, I remember Hayward getting smoked by DT and we were all calling for his head. I wonder if we see something similar to that happen with King. 

Edited March 12, 2021 by JBURGE

[ThatJerkDave]

9 minutes ago, JBURGE said:

Hayward and Hyde had such different reactions. We were all pissed when Hayward signed for what he did, but all laughed and said you can have him Buffalo for what they paid him. Obviously in hindsight we should have paid both of them and just used them better

As Cwood said before, I remember Hayward getting smoked by DT and we were all calling for his head. I wonder if we see something similar to that happen with King. 

I think King being a good CB all relies on him being healthy.  Is he a Pro-Bowl CB like Hayward? Perhaps.  His 2019 season compares pretty well to Hayward's 16 and 17 Pro Bowl seasons in INTs, PDs, and tackles.  2019 is also the only season where King missed less than a full quarter of the season. The biggest issue with King is that he has played in 41 of 64 possible regular season games.  That is a tough sell for a team up against the salary cap, even at a low price.  

[ThatJerkDave]

1 hour ago, SpeightTheVillain said:

I was interested so I broke down his drafts:

 

So yeah, started out decent but went downhill fast. 2003 and 2004 were rough.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/draft.htm

 

What do we consider a hit and miss as far as guys like Hunter Hillenmeyer or Chris Johnson, who played in 101, and 77 games respectively, but none of it was for the team that drafted them?  If we want to go for a TT example, we can pull Tyrone Culver and Dave Toleffson.  I just wondered what others think.  If we are making a baseball analogy, is it like a sac fly, or bunting to advance a runner?

 

 

I also wonder what we think about guys that start.  A lot of people railed on Will Whitticker back in 2005.  But he did start 14 games for us at RG.  Is that a hit or a miss? Someone has to play the position, and he did it.  He wasn't very good, but he did beat out bargain bin FAs Klemm and O'Dwyer (I think that was his name), so was that a miss, or a hit?

[ThatJerkDave]

Another example.  TT drafted Clark Harris in 2007.  Who? He has been the Bengals long snapper since 2009, and even made a Pro Bowl in 2017.  Was that a good pick?

[TransientTexan]

The fairest way to rate the players (in terms of evaluating the GM) would be taking into account their draft position. So anybody in rounds 5-7 that manages to stick around in the league, in whatever fashion, could be seen as a hit. I think the last time I looked, those rounds are generally coin-flip odds to be cut before the end of their rookie contracts.

whereas you’d grade a 1st-rounder harder.

draft probabilities are generally a lot lower than most fans think.  For instance, Fackrell’s performance during his rookie contract was probably in the top-33% of guys taken in that same range as a late 3rd-rounder. And even his performance in his 1st 2 years was at least average compared to similar round picks, even though he was treated as a punchline. Same with Marshall Newhouse. 

Edited March 12, 2021 by TransientTexan