If the Packers struggle without Rodgers, is it an indictment on Ted Thompson?

[RoellPreston88]

4 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

You're a fool if you think what you said means what you think it does. He didn't get any extra money that he wouldn't have if he was just signed once. 

You're talking like we gave him twice him the money because we got signed and cut twice.

Is that what you think happened?

Trust me, I can review rebut any of your arguments. That doesn't mean they don't make me laugh sometimes.

If that’s not what happened then I am mistaken 

[Norm]

7 minutes ago, RoellPreston88 said:

If that’s not what happened then I am mistaken 

This isn't like going to the store and buying something, throwing it away then going and buying it again.

He didn't really hurt anything doing it the second time. I don't recall how all his guaranteed salary exception deal went though. 

[spilltray]

Nick Perry was a better pick than Harrison Smith and they needed both. MD Jennings did show flashes that gave you hope he'd be ok, and oddly enough, I'd consider him on the "Micah Hyde" level. Yes it was a weakness but there aren't always good options to fix everything. McMillan had the tools and you hoped he could step up because you have to trust your coaches. He couldn't handle it obviously but there were no easy solutions. 

 

Every year it seems like half the league is hurting at S. It's a common problem.

[th87]

3 hours ago, NormSizedMidget said:

My issue is that every team starts guys that at times. You just don't pay attention to every team or care enough to notice.

Whether that's true or not, I don't often see other teams get bounced from the playoffs every year because they were spammed to death at their position of weakness. 

Also, this MDJ/JM weakness didn't need to exist. There was no compelling reason to have it. 

[Norm]

29 minutes ago, th87 said:

Whether that's true or not, I don't often see other teams get bounced from the playoffs every year because they were spammed to death at their position of weakness. 

Also, this MDJ/JM weakness didn't need to exist. There was no compelling reason to have it. 

Why do they get bounced then? Of course they lose for similar reasons. You just aren't looking close enough. Not to mention they don't all constantly make the playoffs. And now you say they don't all have Rodgers. So I guess what was the point of this post lol

Sure. I guess it didn't. I don't know why I bother though. If we switch that pick to Smith then maybe it moves to pass rush. And we sign someone there and now maybe we lose idk Bak because we don't have the money and we need a lt 

The game can be endless idk. It's a little weird how long ago this was and it's talked about weekly. 

 

This is my issue. 

I like people who give credit and blame. Your type will go wow what a clown not getting an all pro safety after losing one. But no credit for having that kind of guy but losing him to a career ender.

We say wow we trusted Fackrell and got "lucky" to sign Brooks. Like it was an accident and we didn't see Kyler was an issue at that point and went to address it.

Its all negative all the time. I'm sorry. I can't take that seriously.

It's some ego based thing that desires to be right all the time and picking us to fail at winning the SB every year is a pretty easy way to be right.

[TheOnlyThing]

40 minutes ago, th87 said:

Whether that's true or not, I don't often see other teams get bounced from the playoffs every year because they were spammed to death at their position of weakness. 

Also, this MDJ/JM weakness didn't need to exist. There was no compelling reason to have it. 

Sure there was a compelling reason for the weakness at Safety to exist throughout 2013.

After sending Woodson packing after the 2012 season and ignoring the Safety position in the 2013 draft, General Manager Ted Thompson declared "I'm confident in those young men," in reference to to M.D. Jennings and Jerron McMillian.

[CWood21]

41 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said:

Sure there was a compelling reason for the weakness at Safety to exist throughout 2013.

After sending Woodson packing after the 2012 season and ignoring the Safety position in the 2013 draft, General Manager Ted Thompson declared "I'm confident in those young men," in reference to to M.D. Jennings and Jerron McMillian.

I've got some magic beans to sell you while we're at it...if you're going to believe EVERYTHING that comes out of McCarthy's or TT's mouth, you're a fool.  They're not going to publicly blast their own players in the media.  That's a great way to make Green Bay an even less appealing destination.

[Pugger]

7 hours ago, th87 said:

Whether that's true or not, I don't often see other teams get bounced from the playoffs every year because they were spammed to death at their position of weakness. 

Also, this MDJ/JM weakness didn't need to exist. There was no compelling reason to have it. 

That's becausewe are one of only 2 teams have made the playoffs every year for the past 8 years.  

[th87]

10 hours ago, NormSizedMidget said:

Why do they get bounced then? Of course they lose for similar reasons. You just aren't looking close enough. Not to mention they don't all constantly make the playoffs. And now you say they don't all have Rodgers. So I guess what was the point of this post lol

Sure. I guess it didn't. I don't know why I bother though. If we switch that pick to Smith then maybe it moves to pass rush. And we sign someone there and now maybe we lose idk Bak because we don't have the money and we need a lt 

The game can be endless idk. It's a little weird how long ago this was and it's talked about weekly. 

 

This is my issue. 

I like people who give credit and blame. Your type will go wow what a clown not getting an all pro safety after losing one. But no credit for having that kind of guy but losing him to a career ender.

We say wow we trusted Fackrell and got "lucky" to sign Brooks. Like it was an accident and we didn't see Kyler was an issue at that point and went to address it.

Its all negative all the time. I'm sorry. I can't take that seriously.

It's some ego based thing that desires to be right all the time and picking us to fail at winning the SB every year is a pretty easy way to be right.

I do bask in the positives outside, but would never log in to declare what a good job people are doing. That's not what I use this place for.

My entire point of discussion is to identify issues, talk about them, and figure out how to prevent them. Maybe it becomes the zeitgeist and the team starts to notice (I can dream).

So I'm sorry you and this forum have to deal with negatives only from me. I just want this team to be better, and think it isn't living up to its potential. 

[Norm]

Just now, th87 said:

I do bask in the positives outside, but would never log in to declare what a good job people are doing. That's not what I use this place for.

My entire point of discussion is to identify issues, talk about them, and figure out how to prevent them. Maybe it becomes the zeitgeist and the team starts to notice (I can dream).

So I'm sorry you and this forum have to deal with negatives only from me. I just want this team to be better, and think it isn't living up to its potential. 

Why?

One issue I have is when people use forums as a pillow to scream in. I get people need to vent but then you have to live with the reputation of being that type of poster. I don't think that's unfair. If I felt like you weighed positives with negatives more you'd have an easier time getting more even responses. 

I think we all agree on the last. At the end of the day, even the most negative fan (I hope!) wants what we all want, just to be better. That I can always get on board with. I just sometimes wish it didn't feel like they needed to make every single thing, and the tiniest things, giant indictments of how bad we are as an org, which I just don't agree with.

[th87]

9 hours ago, CWood21 said:

I've got some magic beans to sell you while we're at it...if you're going to believe EVERYTHING that comes out of McCarthy's or TT's mouth, you're a fool.  They're not going to publicly blast their own players in the media.  That's a great way to make Green Bay an even less appealing destination.

Either way, it's unflattering. Either the FO thought those guys were good, or they let that position languish unnecessarily. 

[Norm]

1 minute ago, th87 said:

Either way, it's unflattering. Either the FO thought those guys were good, or they let that position languish unnecessarily. 

They obviously thought they had promise and neither were any good. That's not a good thing. It's also not a sign of complete incompetence either. That's what I was trying to get at in here at some point. Sometimes you have to have faith young guys are gonna get better and become what you think they can with the athletic gifts etc they have. Sometimes they don't. You can't have high end FAs and high picks at every position. Every set of 22 starters on every team is gonna have a spot where "wow we should have tried to get better there" at season's end. Even SB winners. Nobody is immune from that.

[th87]

5 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

Why?

One issue I have is when people use forums as a pillow to scream in. I get people need to vent but then you have to live with the reputation of being that type of poster. I don't think that's unfair. If I felt like you weighed positives with negatives more you'd have an easier time getting more even responses. 

I think we all agree on the last. At the end of the day, even the most negative fan (I hope!) wants what we all want, just to be better. That I can always get on board with. I just sometimes wish it didn't feel like they needed to make every single thing, and the tiniest things, giant indictments of how bad we are as an org, which I just don't agree with.

I guess that's fair, but I don't feel like I have much to add on the positive end. Those voices are covered pretty well, so I think I'd be redundant.

On the negative end, I feel I have more unique angles. The whole roster weakness thing, I'd like to think I'm one of the early complainers; Capers' records, etc.

[Norm]

1 minute ago, th87 said:

I guess that's fair, but I don't feel like I have much to add on the positive end. Those voices are covered pretty well, so I think I'd be redundant.

On the negative end, I feel I have more unique angles. The whole roster weakness thing, I'd like to think I'm one of the early complainers; Capers' records, etc.

I haven't liked Capers for ages. But I think for different reasons than others. Just seems like the players don't respond to him to me. Maybe he's just out of touch with them even though there are times I like the things he does (obviously times where I wonder wth is going on his mind), it seems like the players get down very quickly when things go wrong. 

I get those "voices are covered" but I think there's value in trying to be balanced. When you don't appear balanced I just personally wonder where your perspective lies.

[th87]

3 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

They obviously thought they had promise and neither were any good. That's not a good thing. It's also not a sign of complete incompetence either. That's what I was trying to get at in here at some point. Sometimes you have to have faith young guys are gonna get better and become what you think they can with the athletic gifts etc they have. Sometimes they don't. You can't have high end FAs and high picks at every position. Every set of 22 starters on every team is gonna have a spot where "wow we should have tried to get better there" at season's end. Even SB winners. Nobody is immune from that.

I agree, but we have a disconnect on how bad is tolerable.

I think our starters (and important role players) are generally good across the board, but then drops off hard (too much so) at the bottom. I don't think it's a roster reality thing necessarily. That year AJ Hawk and Brad Jones made like 10 mil combined (not sure if they could've restructured).