Jump to content

Ted Thompson to transition into a new role within the organization. GB will begin a search for a new GM.

marky mark

By marky mark
in Green Bay Packers

Recommended Posts

{Family Ghost}

{Family Ghost}

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, marshawn lynch said:

 

Bad in the public and speaking- He looks bad to the public eye. Reason for his hate isn't because he struggled. He had his mistakes as most GMs do but overall he was successful for the most part. He is just a bad public speaker and it often made the team look like a circus. He was a better GM than what was indicated into the public. This is probably the worst aspect of him.

You ever seen Ted Thompson in front of a camera?  This guy would be an improvement in that area ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
packfanfb

packfanfb

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

That's not really what I was getting at.  TOT implied that he wanted them to do EVERYTHING they could do to put themselves in the best possible position to win in 2018.  By doing so, that might risk that 2019, 2020, etc. season.  Are you willing to make that risk?  All in on one season at the expense of hurting other seasons.

I don't think that's what hes saying, not just ONE year or bust. You can build a team that is made for a 2-3-4 year run (i.e. Denver). No reason the first year of that run can't be 2018. Yes, you're possibly going to be in a worse off position in year 5 than if you did things TT's way. And yes, I'm willing to risk that so I can milk every single last ounce of Aaron Rodgers' magic while it's still there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWood21

CWood21

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I don't think that's what hes saying, not just ONE year or bust. You can build a team that is made for a 2-3-4 year run (i.e. Denver). No reason the first year of that run can't be 2018. Yes, you're possibly going to be in a worse off position in year 5 than if you did things TT's way. And yes, I'm willing to risk that so I can milk every single last ounce of Aaron Rodgers' magic while it's still there.

I'm just asking to what extent is he willing to go to be "all in".  Nothing more.  Are you willing to risk the final 3-4 years of Rodgers for 1-2 years of "improved" chances? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
packfanfb

packfanfb

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'm just asking to what extent is he willing to go to be "all in".  Nothing more.  Are you willing to risk the final 3-4 years of Rodgers for 1-2 years of "improved" chances? 

I'd argue we are "risking" Rodgers right now. We have been risking him the last few years by our complacency, watching his prime years go by. I'm not saying bankrupt the team by signing the entire Seattle secondary, Von Miller and Leveon Bell in the same year. I'm talking the occasional splash impact FA surrounded by several sound FA moves to fill holes we normally fill with UDFAs. I'm talking an Al Harris for a 2nd rd pick type of trade or a Keith Jackson type of trade once in a while to give up an unknown draft pick for a guy who has proven he can play right now. To me, those moves don't put us at "risk" but they dramatically improve our chances to win with a QB who justs needs a little help. If he gets it, look out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CWood21

CWood21

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, packfanfb said:

I'd argue we are "risking" Rodgers right now. We have been risking him the last few years by our complacency, watching his prime years go by. I'm not saying bankrupt the team by signing the entire Seattle secondary, Von Miller and Leveon Bell in the same year. I'm talking the occasional splash impact FA surrounded by several sound FA moves to fill holes we normally fill with UDFAs. I'm talking an Al Harris for a 2nd rd pick type of trade or a Keith Jackson type of trade once in a while to give up an unknown draft pick for a guy who has proven he can play right now. To me, those moves don't put us at "risk" but they dramatically improve our chances to win with a QB who justs needs a little help. If he gets it, look out.

And I think that's where the discussion comes in.  How much of this has been TT constantly looking ahead, and what's the happy medium between what some are suggesting and what TT did.  I mean, the Seahawks just traded a 2nd round pick to Sheldon Richardson, and they missed the playoffs.  That's a HUGE risk to make on any player, let alone one who was a pending FA.  There's more risk involved than those who are advocating it care to admit.  And the players who are reasonably priced and productive generally cost a fortune, or aren't available via trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spilltray

spilltray

Posted
Posted

I get the appeal of FA, but if the draft is a gamble, it's more like poker or blackjack, where a skilled player has a much better chance of coming ahead. FA is more like roulette or slot machines. The vast majority of big ticket FA signings don't live up to their deals. I fully support making fair offers, and I believe the Packers have been, but it just takes 1 of the other 31 teams to decide to pay more. I don't want bad deals trying to "go all in". It just isn't worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
packfanfb

packfanfb

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

And I think that's where the discussion comes in.  How much of this has been TT constantly looking ahead, and what's the happy medium between what some are suggesting and what TT did.  I mean, the Seahawks just traded a 2nd round pick to Sheldon Richardson, and they missed the playoffs.  That's a HUGE risk to make on any player, let alone one who was a pending FA.  There's more risk involved than those who are advocating it care to admit.  And the players who are reasonably priced and productive generally cost a fortune, or aren't available via trade.

I think with Rodgers having about 5 years left,  you start taking those shots and say "at least we tried" if you fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cooters22

cooters22

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, beveaux1 said:

That's true, but TT inherited a cap problem almost certainly of Sherman's making.  It took time to fix that problem.  It points to the dependence of TT and Murphy on Ball.  The fact that Brandt was not retained may or may not be an indictment of him.

Brandt left on his own free will. Ted didn't want him to leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
packfanfb

packfanfb

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, spilltray said:

I get the appeal of FA, but if the draft is a gamble, it's more like poker or blackjack, where a skilled player has a much better chance of coming ahead. FA is more like roulette or slot machines. The vast majority of big ticket FA signings don't live up to their deals. I fully support making fair offers, and I believe the Packers have been, but it just takes 1 of the other 31 teams to decide to pay more. I don't want bad deals trying to "go all in". It just isn't worth it.

To go off the same reference, this sounds like sitting at a poker table and just playing the blinds until someone raises, then folding. We've tried the "play it safe and grind it out" approach, waiting for that perfect hand to come. I would argue that perfect hand presented itself in 2010 when we had a good team but were undoubtedly helped in getting to the SB by getting to play the Bears in the NFCCG with a 3rd string QB for half of it. That was a once every decade dream matchup for GB. Those pocket aces hands don't happen often. Sooner or later you have to start gambling in order to win big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...