Is Ted Thompson this bad or was he never that good?

[th87]

12 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

Everyone's golden god, invincible, cut my **** off to have their  team, the Patriots just lost to the Cutler Dolphins. ******* inept. Went 9 years with a SB win. Inept.

I swear to God you guys never pay attention to anything but GB and sports movies where the good guys always win. 

I'm 10000000% convinced you would cry as Pat's fans, not only that, you would have wanted Bill fired when they didn't WIN

WIN

WIN

WIN

WIN

WIN

WIN

WIN

... Get it? Win, for 9 years. And if you pull that bull**** that losing super bowls would keep you guys happy like usual, I swear...

So basically if:

Other people's success standards ≠ Norm's -> Other people have insane, unreasonable standards.

And that you're so sure of this is comical.

[Norm]

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

How good are most teams without their starting QB?

And truthfully, we haven't played a lot of mid tier teams in the Hundley era. The only one was the Lions. Everybody else has either been good (Ravens, Saints, Steelers) or bad (Bucs, Browns, Bears)

Unless you're looking to be negative, I don't see how you stake this team in one direction or the other. This looks like a 6-10/7-9 team to me without Rodgers. They're beating awful teams, losing to good teams. That's what medicore teams look like. If you're a 6-10 minus the best player in the world, you're not doing so awful.

I wish I could find an old post where someone argued Rodgers wins is +10 games than we would. We look like a 6 winner with a terrible QB. Guess according to THEM we should go undefeated every year. No wonder they get so mad when we don't. They expect it.

[ChaRisMa]

5th out of 32 since we won a Super Bowl. Why are we having this discussion? 

"But we're wasting Rodgers"

Ted drafted him. And we aren't close enough to the end of Rodgers' career to pull resources from future years to try to catch one more ring in any individual year. We want Rodgers to win three more, not just one. 

[Norm]

1 minute ago, th87 said:

So basically if:

Other people's success standards ≠ Norm's -> Other people have insane, unreasonable standards.

And that you're so sure of this is comical.

You're pretty much dead on. Basically all the standards you "guys" have isn't based on the realities of the NFL. It's just what you all made up in your heads is what should happen. Which doesn't mean we have never underachieved or haven't too much. I just don't think there's anything but 4 of 5 years with titles would keep you happy. Even then I think you would be angry and question why we missed that one. I truly believe that.

[Green19]

Why does it have to be Ted is god or Ted is the worst ever? Can’t it be a measured outlook that he has hit more than he has missed... but his misses tend to be 1st rounders (which isn’t good, but also interesting for a man that can pull Sitton, Lang, Bakhtiari, Daniels, etc consistently out of nowhere) and those misses tend to be on defense side of the field which has left it very undermanned over the years.

[th87]

35 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

How good are most teams without their starting QB?

And truthfully, we haven't played a lot of mid tier teams in the Hundley era. The only one was the Lions. Everybody else has either been good (Ravens, Saints, Steelers) or bad (Bucs, Browns, Bears)

Unless you're looking to be negative, I don't see how you stake this team in one direction or the other. This looks like a 6-10/7-9 team to me without Rodgers. They're beating awful teams, losing to good teams. That's what medicore teams look like. If you're a 6-10 minus the best player in the world, you're not doing so awful.

This is a good point.  However, I'd put the Ravens in the mediocre tier.

What tips it negative for me is that they showed very little against those mediocre to good teams (except the Steelers; so once in 5 games).  And they didn't even show much against the bad teams; just enough to squeeze by.  So if you believe in Justo's "close games are lucky"/50-50 theory (I don't necessarily), we've statistically overachieved by going 3-4 instead of 2-5.

[th87]

35 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

I wish I could find an old post where someone argued Rodgers wins is +10 games than we would. We look like a 6 winner with a terrible QB. Guess according to THEM we should go undefeated every year. No wonder they get so mad when we don't. They expect it.

6 winner?  If Hundley starts from day 1, we maybe go 4-12.  Bears, Bears, Bucs, Browns.  We lose to the Vikings x2, Lions x2, Seahawks, Falcons, Bengals, Cowboys, Saints, Ravens, Steelers, and Panthers.  Maybe we fluke out a win against a good team, and fluke out a loss against a bad team.

It's not unreasonable to say Rodgers gives us about 6-8 games.

[Shanedorf]

24 minutes ago, Green19 said:

 Can’t it be a measured outlook

NO.........

 

TT came from the Wolf tree and here's an old article with Ron Wolf talking about some of his first round picks. Thompson was in GB for the 90's picks, but he was in Seattle starting in 2000 and he was part of the trade that gave GB the Jamal Reynolds pick (10th) in exchange for Hasselbeck + (17) to Seattle

 

1992, CB Terrell Buckley (fifth overall selection): Buckley had three disappointing seasons in Green Bay, was nicknamed 'Toast', and was eventually released. Wolf had offensive lineman Bob Whitfield rated higher, but eventually settled on Buckley.

"The offense wanted a particular player, the defense wanted a particular player and I wanted a particular player," Wolf recalled. "And the end result, when it all broken down, the player I wanted is the player we should have taken. And the guy I wanted was Whitfield, and he's still playing (with Atlanta). That's one time I was probably right.

"We were never going to take (Eagles cornerback Troy) Vincent. If (Desmond) Howard and Buckley were gone, we were going to take Whitfield. But what happened with the pick of Buckley is suddenly, we all realized, you can't play with little defensive backs in Green Bay. You can't play with little people up there in November and December. It's too hard. We had to get big people and a certain kind of person. So maybe that failed, but in the end result, we won because of it."

1993, LB Wayne Simmons (15th overall selection): Simmons became a solid starter on a Super Bowl championship team, but was traded to Kansas City the following year.

"He filled a need," Wolf said of Simmons. "I don't know who the guys are we could have picked, but he filled a very, very important need right away and added toughness to our team. That was something our team needed and that's something that team still needs. Toughness."

1998, DE Vonnie Holliday (19th overall selection): Wolf traded up 10 spots, hoping to land safety Shaun Williams, but was delighted to find Holliday still on the board. Holliday has been a solid starter the last five years, but the unrestricted free agent recently signed with Kansas City.

"Really and truly, we made the deal to get Shaun Williams," Wolf said. "We figured Holliday would be gone. But fortunately, Vonnie was there. And that pick was easy."

2000, TE Bubba Franks (14th overall selection): Wolf narrowed his choices to Franks and linebacker Keith Bulluck, who went to Tennessee at No. 30. Franks, who has been to back-to-back Pro Bowls, was deemed more valuable because the Packers needed to replace Mark Chmura.

"I know that our feeling in the room was that it was between Franks and Bulluck," Wolf said. "And that was a tough decision. But you only had one pick out of 31 and you had to fill your needs and we thought Bubba was a good player and he's demonstrated that he is a good player."

2001, DE Jamal Reynolds (10th overall selection): Reynolds was Green Bay's highest pick since Buckley and has been an even bigger disappointment. Reynolds has done virtually nothing in his first two years, and his return in 2003 is in question.

"He's had the injury thing and that's unfortunate," Wolf said of Reynolds. "Again, say what you will but it's my fault because we jumped the board there and we should have never done that. We had (Carolina linebacker Dan) Morgan higher and we should have done that. Although Morgan hasn't exactly set the league on fire, either. He's hurt all the time. But we definitely made a mistake with Reynolds."

1996, OT John Michels (27th overall selection): Michels was brought in to replace Ken Ruettgers at left tackle, but lacked the strength and technique to succeed. Michels lasted just two years and is arguably Wolf's worst No. 1 pick.

"That's a case where you think you're a little bit smarter than you actually are," Wolf said. "We jumped the board and that's one thing I always preached in the room is you never jump the board. "And we jumped the board to take him, more out of need than anything else. And the guy we had rated higher was a guy named (Jacksonville defensive end Tony) Brackens and we should have taken Brackens. That pick was idiotic. That was stupid."

[th87]

34 minutes ago, Green19 said:

Why does it have to be Ted is god or Ted is the worst ever? Can’t it be a measured outlook that he has hit more than he has missed... but his misses tend to be 1st rounders (which isn’t good, but also interesting for a man that can pull Sitton, Lang, Bakhtiari, Daniels, etc consistently out of nowhere) and those misses tend to be on defense side of the field which has left it very undermanned over the years.

Yeah, and that's a fair argument.  He's been good, not great.  And average since 2011.  And maybe that's attributable to Capers.

But the use of "we're 3-4 without Rodgers" shouldn't be used as a feather in his cap.  He has plenty of other feathers; this shouldn't be one of them.

[Norm]

5 minutes ago, th87 said:

6 winner?  If Hundley starts from day 1, we maybe go 4-12.  Bears, Bears, Bucs, Browns.  We lose to the Vikings x2, Lions x2, Seahawks, Falcons, Bengals, Cowboys, Saints, Ravens, Steelers, and Panthers.  Maybe we fluke out a win against a good team, and fluke out a loss against a bad team.

It's not unreasonable to say Rodgers gives us about 6-8 games.

Lol.

If Hundley started week one we are lucky to win 0. Might as well say it and go all in if you're going to do this trash.

This is all garbage opinion trash. We won on a pace at 6 wins or better.. ******* deal with it. Playing "who I think will win" is pointless. You thought we'd lose them all with him I'm sure. So who cares what your game by game analysis is.

3-4.

Deal with it.

[th87]

41 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

You're pretty much dead on. Basically all the standards you "guys" have isn't based on the realities of the NFL. It's just what you all made up in your heads is what should happen. Which doesn't mean we have never underachieved or haven't too much. I just don't think there's anything but 4 of 5 years with titles would keep you happy. Even then I think you would be angry and question why we missed that one. I truly believe that.

So paint (and believe) your opposition to be frothing sub-humans to validate your position.  I guess it works in politics.

[Norm]

3 minutes ago, th87 said:

So paint (and believe) your opposition to be frothing sub-humans to validate your position.  I guess it works in politics.

With Hundley starting week one he would have started slow but it wouldn't have been an abrupt shift. We would have long accommodated him into the offense and what we think he does best. With that we would have focused more on the run game and a short quick game. With Hundley starting slow but going 2-5 we would win the same games he did, including Baltimore as he would have gotten comfortable earlier and felt less stress knowing Rodgers isn't coming back. With that confidence he does enough to get by Pittsburgh as well and gets by the up and down Panthers to win 78games.

There.

Just as ******* logical and thought out as WE'D LOSE TO EVERYONE I SAY WE WOULD dog crap argument I just read.

 

Both are garbage fantasy world crap. Neither have any basis. The difference is I don't pretend mine is real. You do.

 

3-4

It happened. Deal with it.

[AlexGreen#20]

3 minutes ago, th87 said:

So paint (and believe) your opposition to be frothing sub-humans to validate your position.  I guess it works in politics.

Gonna go ahead and call you out on the bull**** here. There was nothing about "sub-human" mentioned anywhere in Norm's post or posting history. This is a classic playing of the victim card, a far more "political" (if you want to use that term in the subversive sense) than anything Norm has posted.

[Norm]

Packers: 3-4 without Rodgers starting.

Fake Packers fans: this team could MAYBE win 4 games without him.

Lol they are sticking to it. Gotta give them that.

Not to mention if we had a freaking Josh mccown level backup... They are so lucky Brett is pretty bad.

[Norm]

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

Gonna go ahead and call you out on the bull**** here. There was nothing about "sub-human" mentioned anywhere in Norm's post or posting history. This is a classic playing of the victim card, a far more "political" (if you want to use that term in the subversive sense) than anything Norm has posted.

I think they lack perspective. It's what I've always said and it's what I believe. Their standard of winning isn't based on anything but what they THINK a team should do without a starting QB. Or drafting late in rounds is. Or what a, IDK 5th round pick should be. None of it is reality based and it drives me bananas.