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

packfanfb

packfanfb

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

I like Ron Wolf. But the endless lionization of Wolf gets a bit tiring after awhile. His methods were different or more aggressive or whatever adjective you want to give him - but his results were a fart in the wind. 1 SB win. And when he retired he said his way didn't work anymore.  I don't want a 1990's strategy in 2018

Ron did it his way, others do it a different way. But there isn't one best way in the NFL. ( other than serial cheating)

Wolf had Reggie White and Leroy Butler a top ranked defense and top offense + Favray. And he won exactly one 1 SB. And choked away another

Why is that now viewed as a model of awesomeness to follow ?

Don't forget, during the same time Wolf was building a dynasty in GB, a current dynasty already existed...in Dallas. The early to mid 90s Dallas team was one of the best franchises in history. Had we not had to go through them GB may have gone to at least 3 straight SBs in 95, 96 and 97.  Maybe 94 as well. 

The current Packers regime hasnt been faced with a similar foe. SF and Seattle have probably been the closest with some repeated success, but nothing like the mid-90s Dallas regime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cooters22

cooters22

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

I like Ron Wolf. But the endless lionization of Wolf gets a bit tiring after awhile. His methods were different or more aggressive or whatever adjective you want to give him - but his results were a fart in the wind. 1 SB win. And when he retired he said his way didn't work anymore.  I don't want a 1990's strategy in 2018

Ron did it his way, others do it a different way. But there isn't one best way in the NFL. ( other than serial cheating)

Wolf had Reggie White and Leroy Butler a top ranked defense and top offense + Favray. And he won exactly one 1 SB. And choked away another

Why is that now viewed as a model of awesomeness to follow ?

Well Ron was a public icon, people liked listening to him and he liked to talk and made himself available. Some people miss that. Ron wasn't afraid to make deals, heck he gave up a first for a 2nd round qb in Brett Favre. Then most importantly he brought in pieces to win a championship after he had a good solid chore. I'd put Don Beebe, Keith Jackson and Andre Rison in these categories. And this is what Ted lacked. Ted built a nice team, but he wasn't willing to go the extra mile and bring in some finishing pieces, especially once a guy got hurt. We lost a WR and he went out and got Andre Rison for the Super Bowl run. After 2 games I could tell you that Hundley wasn't the answer, and Ted still never brought anyone in. He was ok with losing and giving Hundley experience. Ron didn't get caught with his pants down and relied on a unknown qb. He always had that position covered. He brought the idea of winning back to Green Bay, something we didn't have here in a long long long time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mazrimiv

Mazrimiv

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said:

That seems to be the consensus, but nobody knows for sure. 

If Ball has been taking a bigger role (as has been suggested) in recent years, it seems to me that Ball is clearly not a TT clone.  GB has been noticeably more active in FA recently, and it seems like I remember a number of, "who replaced TT" jokes being made this past off-season after GB signed a number of FAs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
packfanfb

packfanfb

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, wgbeethree said:

I like to use poker analogies for front office moves.

Do you really think a few street free agents at CB are going to get us past Atlanta and New England last year? I certainly don't like the odds of that being the case.

It's like needing the next two cards to hit to pull off a winning hand. That's not the time to put more into the pot IMO. You call and hope for a miracle at that point and save your ammo for the next hand. 

Point is we didnt try. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
{Family Ghost}

{Family Ghost}

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

If Ball has been taking a bigger role (as has been suggested) in recent years, it seems to me that Ball is clearly not a TT clone.  GB has been noticeably more active in FA recently, and it seems like I remember a number of, "who replaced TT" jokes being made this past off-season after GB signed a number of FAs.

I was one of them .. this past offseason was totally out of character for the Thompson.  It could be though that he let Wolf and Gute have a little more say than usual.  We just don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mazrimiv

Mazrimiv

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

I like Ron Wolf. But the endless lionization of Wolf gets a bit tiring after awhile. His methods were different or more aggressive or whatever adjective you want to give him - but his results were a fart in the wind. 1 SB win. And when he retired he said his way didn't work anymore.  I don't want a 1990's strategy in 2018

Ron did it his way, others do it a different way. But there isn't one best way in the NFL. ( other than serial cheating)

Wolf had Reggie White and Leroy Butler a top ranked defense and top offense + Favray. And he won exactly one 1 SB. And choked away another

Why is that now viewed as a model of awesomeness to follow ?

2

Wolf is revered because he quickly turned a truly terrible franchise around with a couple of the best moves ever made by a GM.  I still remember the disbelief of hearing that Wolf had sent a RD1 pick to ATL for a backup QB with a terrible attitude, and the shock of hearing that Reggie White was signed by the Packers. I don't think modern GB fans can really appreciate how shocking it was for White to be signed by GB.  Growing up as a Packers fan in the 70's & 80's, it never occurred to me that GB could be a perennial contender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AlexGreen#20

AlexGreen#20

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Don't forget, during the same time Wolf was building a dynasty in GB, a current dynasty already existed...in Dallas. The early to mid 90s Dallas team was one of the best franchises in history. Had we not had to go through them GB may have gone to at least 3 straight SBs in 95, 96 and 97.  Maybe 94 as well. 

The current Packers regime hasnt been faced with a similar foe. SF and Seattle have probably been the closest with some repeated success, but nothing like the mid-90s Dallas regime.

That's somewhat disingenuous. By most measures, the Packers have faced teams just as good as those Cowboys teams.

Just going off of point differential you've got:

92 Cowboys +166

93 Cowboys +147

94 Cowboys +166

95 Cowboys +144

Compare that to the Seahawks of the current generation

Winning Superbowls as part of a weak AFC is what put the Cowboys and 49ers above the other teams as part of the current generation. 

15 Seahawks +146

14 Seahawks +140

13 Seahawks +186

12 Seahawks +167

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
davekenya

davekenya

Posted
Posted

Whoever replaces TT will be more agressive in FA; simply b/c they can't be less aggressive.  What's the right mix of D & D (extending own players) versus going after UFAs.

When TT began as GM, he inherited cap hell; which may have led him to having to not resign Wahle and Rivera among others.  The Joe Johnson fiasco was fresh.  So... that's TT's initial impressions of the value of managing a cap and UFAs.  Less risk = less reward.  There are few 'slam dunks' but he hit on a few (Wood, Pickett) without losing huge on any (perhaps this year with Bennett). 

Schneider in Seattle, initially benefited from superior drafting position (Okung #6 overall; Thomas #14 as examples).  Like most GMs, he has suffered more recently by 'regressing to the mean' when you draft later in the pecking order.  He did hit on Wilson and Sherman, for ex, with later picks but missed on top picks such as #15 Irvin, #25 Carpenter .  So overall, his drafting is not too bad in comparison.

However, I'd say he is clearly more aggressive in seeking FAs with mixed results.  Graham for a #1 and Unger has not panned out as planned; Graham is great at alley-oops but not at getting open when Wilson scrambles; now Graham's a UFA.

  • Paid a lot for 1 year of Richardson - now he's a UFA.
  • Paid a #1 for Harvin which was a disaster
  • Paid a lot for Flynn which was a miss (saved by Wilson)
  • Made no sense to get MN's crappy kicker this year (who, not surprisingly sucked)
  • Lynch, Bennett - great pickups
  • Avril solid pickup

I Seattle's O-line and RB failures have been consistent over the last 2-3 seasons.  2017 RB injuries plus poor drafting to fit Cable's zone-blocking scheme meant, for example 2016 5th rounder Collins was jettisoned quickly (and picked up 973 rushing yards with Baltimore this year); Lacy did nothing this year.  No matter what Schneider has done for the O-line over the last few years, nothing's worked -- and we're talking about multiple positions on the line.  (GB's O-line, by comparison, has weathered turnover quite well generally speaking the last two years you have to admit.)

Overall, with Schneider, GB would get someone whose draft results are fairly similar but who is far more aggressive in the FA market with a mixed bag of hits and misses.  It's moot anyway - I would HATE to have GB fork over a draft pick for Schneider when there are other candidates available that would be just as good. 

The 'wildcard' is assessing new GM fit with MM and how much Murphy weighs this factor.  It seems if the new GM and MM don't 'fit' that MM will be gone.  Starting over with a new coach is something I'm not interested in; MM's results have been strong; his leadership and ability to keep an even keel in the locker room great. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mazrimiv

Mazrimiv

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

That's somewhat disingenuous. By most measures, the Packers have faced teams just as good as those Cowboys teams.

Just going off of point differential you've got:

92 Cowboys +166

93 Cowboys +147

94 Cowboys +166

95 Cowboys +144

Compare that to the Seahawks of the current generation

15 Seahawks +146

14 Seahawks +140

13 Seahawks +186

12 Seahawks +167

 

 

I'm sorry, but I don't see the modern SEA teams hanging with those DAL teams.  I think those DAL o-lines would have manhandled the SEA front seven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
incognito_man

incognito_man

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mazrimiv said:

I'm sorry, but I don't see the modern SEA teams hanging with those DAL teams.  I think those DAL o-lines would have manhandled the SEA front seven.

These modern SEA teams were among the best (both years were top 5 all time I believe) in DVOA.

They were absolutely legit for a stretch there.

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...