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

[Packerraymond]

Just now, ChaRisMa said:

Ted gave Mike the opportunity, seemingly senselessly. They won a ring together. They are always on the same page with talking points. Never throw each other shade. 

Isnt MM better off with whoever Ted picks in that situation than an outsider who will want his own guy? They are so loyal to each other it isn’t even worth the thought. That’s been one of the reasons for sustained success. Always be loyal, even if that loyalty means allowing someone to leave for a better job.

I think it's more Mike preferring someone like Wolf/Gute who will probably be more aggressive like the younger guys that have left here.

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, packfanfb said:

Of course we still make the playoffs with 12, thats basically a guarantee and part of my point. When you have 12, making the playoffs shouldnt be a celebration, but an expectation. That's why I couldnt care less about our playoff appearance record under TT and MM. I care about championships and even SB appearances. That's the only goal here. That's where we consistently fall short and where some bolder moves could mean the difference. 

Regarding Richardson, I wouldnt have wanted him anyways bc our Dline was fine but imagine getting a Richardson caliber OLB or CB, the positions we needed (and still need). Imagine giving up a 2nd-3rd round pick for a guy like that. Sorry if I dont care about Rollins or Fackrell losing snaps because I made that type of move. And if we have to miss out on Josh Jones or Mont Adams to do it, darn. 

Who was the "Richardson Caliber" edge rusher this year? I forget, what was your stance on Julius Peppers? He was the closest thing.

[squire12]

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

6 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

To recap, my issue isn't with wanting Schneider.  It's those who are adamant that Schneider is this great GM who use the 2010-2012 drafts to defend their stance are the same posters who will conveniently ignore his drafts since 2013.  It's the same posters who have been hyper critical of TT's drafts since 2011.

So much ******* this

I think this whole better GM thing is really splitting hairs.  

Every GM will go throw a few years of missing more than hitting and vice versa.   The draft in the end is a pretty big crap shoot when it comes to projecting players growth and development.

That said, I do feel that there are some fundamentals on position value, premium position and some other "draft vs production metrics" (not sure that is the best phrase, but that is what comes to mind to describe what I am thinking) that should be investigated and employed to increase the likelihood of being even slightly more successful than the other 31 teams/GM's

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, Green19 said:

I’m not putting faith in anything. I’m merely stating that drafting/trading/etc all inherently has the same risks of hitting and missing. And if a management group chosen to use picks to get veterans you must judge everything together.

I would also say like picks, veterans need time to adjust. Clearly Pete and John felt if they got Richardson in the door and with their defensive group he would restart his career.

Do I personally think he will? Odds aren’t likely to me, but I can easily be wrong.

Better question can anyone say using a 2nd rounder on a guy that played mostly college basketball and only one year of football in the draft isn’t as risky?

You think Free Agency and Drafting has the same risk?

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Of course we still make the playoffs with 12, thats basically a guarantee and part of my point. When you have 12, making the playoffs shouldnt be a celebration, but an expectation. That's why I couldnt care less about our playoff appearance record under TT and MM. I care about championships and even SB appearances. That's the only goal here. That's where we consistently fall short and where some bolder moves could mean the difference. 

Regarding Richardson, I wouldnt have wanted him anyways bc our Dline was fine but imagine getting a Richardson caliber OLB or CB, the positions we needed (and still need). Imagine giving up a 2nd-3rd round pick for a guy like that. Sorry if I dont care about Rollins or Fackrell losing snaps because I made that type of move. And if we have to miss out on Josh Jones or Mont Adams to do it, darn. 

So unless you believe that acquiring Sheldon Richardson or Duane Brown would somehow prevent Rodgers from breaking his collar-bone, you have to roll with the concept that Rodgers missed most of his year.  So the Packers just traded their 2nd and 3rd round picks in this year's draft for a starting RT and pending FA.  That's a terrible gamble to make.  We're armed with our highest draft pick in years, and we're forced to trade down because we made a couple of short-sighted moves.  That hampers your flexibility to put a great franchise out there.  You want them to make bold moves, and ignore any kind of risk.  That's the kind of logic I can't stand.  I'm not opposed to making bold moves, but you make calculated bold moves.  Trading a 2nd round pick for a pending FA that isn't an QB, EDGE, CB, or LT is a terrible idea.

Sheldon Richardson wasn't even that good.  And you talk about the EDGE or CB of his caliber being available, tell me in the last decade which EDGE or CBs have been traded for a Day 1 or Day 2 pick.  Please list them.  They don't become available very often.

[skibrett15]

If the seahawks can keep richardson, I would argue that it was a steep price to pay, but that's not a bad move in a vacuum.  They will be moving on from both Avril and Chancellor (who won't be playing football anymore) and they are staring down a vastly deteriorated Richard Sherman or no Sherman at all.

Their strength is now: Bennett/Clark/Richardson/Reed along with Wright/Wagner/Thomas

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, squire12 said:

I think this whole better GM thing is really splitting hairs.  

Every GM will go throw a few years of missing more than hitting and vice versa.   The draft in the end is a pretty big crap shoot when it comes to projecting players growth and development.

Very much this.  I really have no issue if you're against TT due to his lack of activity in FA sans a couple of years.  But don't use half-assed logic to defend one guy and praise another guy using different logic.

[TransientTexan]

4 hours ago, Mazrimiv said:

Fixed  I'm a petulant idiot.

Fixed.

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, squire12 said:

I think this whole better GM thing is really splitting hairs.  

Every GM will go throw a few years of missing more than hitting and vice versa.   The draft in the end is a pretty big crap shoot when it comes to projecting players growth and development.

That said, I do feel that there are some fundamentals on position value, premium position and some other "draft vs production metrics" (not sure that is the best phrase, but that is what comes to mind to describe what I am thinking) that should be investigated and employed to increase the likelihood of being even slightly more successful than the other 31 teams/GM's

Agree with this completely.

But in the eternal civil war of this Packer forum, it boggles my mind that the same group who wanted Thompson fired, is now advocating for Schneider.

It's like hating the engine performance in your Hyundai so you go out and buy a KIA.

Their Wikipedia Entries would look identical

• Early Years Free Agency Success
• Early Years Drafting Success
• Hiring of the Head Coach
• Drafting your Franchise QB
• Winning the Superbowl
• Poor middle and end tier drafting
• Mixed Free Agency Results
• Missing the Playoffs
• Firing???

[ChaRisMa]

4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I think it's more Mike preferring someone like Wolf/Gute who will probably be more aggressive like the younger guys that have left here.

Yeah and I’m down with that too. I was specifically talking about the rumor Mike will QUIT if Ball is the guy.

Whoever it is, they can’t possibly be less aggressive than Ted.... Right?? Right?????

[TransientTexan]

3 hours ago, packfanfb said:

If you believe for one second that MM and Rodgers would be okay with another GM who isnt going to go all in and at least try making big moves, I think you're blind. It couldnt be more obvious and logical that MM and Rodgers want a Ron Wolf/Schneider guy, not a TT guy. 

If you believe for one second that "big moves" are easy to make with a salary cap and limited draft capital (prior to now), I think you're blind. 

[AlexGreen#20]

2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

If the seahawks can keep richardson, I would argue that it was a steep price to pay, but that's not a bad move in a vacuum.  They will be moving on from both Avril and Chancellor (who won't be playing football anymore) and they are staring down a vastly deteriorated Richard Sherman or no Sherman at all.

Their strength is now: Bennett/Clark/Richardson/Reed along with Wright/Wagner/Thomas

You think Bennett is coming back as an effective player or even coming back?

At the moment that defense has a solid Defensive Line duo, one edge rusher, a pair of good linebackers linebackers, and a great safety. Tell me I didn't just describe your 2017 Green Bay Packers (a rich man's version)?

[Pugger]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So unless you believe that acquiring Sheldon Richardson or Duane Brown would somehow prevent Rodgers from breaking his collar-bone, you have to roll with the concept that Rodgers missed most of his year.  So the Packers just traded their 2nd and 3rd round picks in this year's draft for a starting RT and pending FA.  That's a terrible gamble to make.  We're armed with our highest draft pick in years, and we're forced to trade down because we made a couple of short-sighted moves.  That hampers your flexibility to put a great franchise out there.  You want them to make bold moves, and ignore any kind of risk.  That's the kind of logic I can't stand.  I'm not opposed to making bold moves, but you make calculated bold moves.  Trading a 2nd round pick for a pending FA that isn't an QB, EDGE, CB, or LT is a terrible idea.

Sheldon Richardson wasn't even that good.  And you talk about the EDGE or CB of his caliber being available, tell me in the last decade which EDGE or CBs have been traded for a Day 1 or Day 2 pick.  Please list them.  They don't become available very often.

I want us to stay at #14.  We haven't had the opportunity to draft this high in eons.  Let's take advantage of it.  We have extra picks so we can move up in later rounds if we want to also.

[Leader]

Just now, Pugger said:

I want us to stay at #14.  We haven't had the opportunity to draft this high in eons.  Let's take advantage of it.  We have extra picks so we can move up in later rounds if we want to also.

Yup. Only movement is UP to snag a "We gotta have this guy" talent.

[squire12]

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

You think Bennett is coming back as an effective player or even coming back?

At the moment that defense has a solid Defensive Line duo, one edge rusher, a pair of good linebackers linebackers, and a great safety. Tell me I didn't just describe your 2017 Green Bay Packers (a rich man's version)?

I would add Griffen to the secondary as very solid building pieces.  From what I saw, he played really well.   Was hoping GB would draft him in 2017, but he went higher to Seattle than I had him slotted.