Jump to content

Mike Pettine Defense


squire12

Recommended Posts

Just now, packfanfb said:

Problem is this is only half of the question. Name a single GM who did less than Thompson to fill in gaps on the roster created by his draft busts....

No, that's NOT half the question.  I have frequently acknowledged that Thompson sucked at this.  The reason I get so frustrated with TOT is that he WILL NEVER STOP bringing up Thompson's busts and he acts like Thompson sucked because of them.  I have had to read him bring up Thornton and Fackrell and other busts ad nauseum and he has never once taken me up on the offer to find any GM that had less busts.  When he relentlessly brings up draft picks, I am going to relentlessly challenge him to name someone better at drafting.

The truth of the matter is that Thompson, in spite of his faults (and he had plenty) was probably the best-drafting GM of this era of football considering where he frequently drafted and the amount of hits he drafted.  He lived and died by the draft, yes.  He did not suck at it, he thrived at it on an unprecedented level.  He was proof that teams cannot compete on draft and develop alone because Thompson was the very best at drafting.  If you disagree, prove me wrong on a hit/bust comparison. 

Maybe the failure had a little to do with McCarthy and Capers on the development end.  We all see how well Thompson's DBs do on different teams after all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted reminds me of a less extreme Ron Wolf.

Not for his forays (or lack of) into free agency, but in the way that his round one picks had a high bust rate, while later picks were unusually successful. Not entirely surprising as TT served under RW. It was because Ted was less awful than RW in round one picks (though he wasn't good there), I called him less extreme. 

Ted was more extreme in the commitment to roster building by D&D though (no, that isn't Dungeons and Dragons, you Orc). Looking at the last five years of drafting (not the Packers best stretch), a New York Post article ranked the Packers 8th. The Patriots, by comparison were 29th. It tells you how good BB is at the rest of the head coach duties, when the Patriots were as successful as they were, despite a terrible ranking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're talking about draft busts then we're considering the first three rounds I'd assume, yes? If that's the case then I'd have to say Kevin Colbert for the Steelers did very well between 2007 and 2014. They hit on 20 players from the first three rounds during that period of time while we only hit on 12 guys. Also, by "hitting" I mean that the players contributed to the team during their time in Pittsburgh as several players have moved on to other teams and have been successful.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

Ted reminds me of a less extreme Ron Wolf.

Not for his forays (or lack of) into free agency, but in the way that his round one picks had a high bust rate, while later picks were unusually successful. Not entirely surprising as TT served under RW. It was because Ted was less awful than RW in round one picks (though he wasn't good there), I called him less extreme. 

Ted was more extreme in the commitment to roster building by D&D though (no, that isn't Dungeons and Dragons, you Orc). Looking at the last five years of drafting (not the Packers best stretch), a New York Post article ranked the Packers 8th. The Patriots, by comparison were 29th. It tells you how good BB is at the rest of the head coach duties, when the Patriots were as successful as they were, despite a terrible ranking.

Big part of it is high impact position emphasis. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2018 at 9:55 AM, packfanfb said:

Which GM would you rather have -- A GM who misses on 7 picks but then signs 4 guys to plug a few holes or TT who has 5 busts/misses and signs no one to plug the holes created by those busts/misses. That was TT's M.O. for years and our roster looks the way it does today versus 2009-2011 because of it. 

Your assumption that the GM who signs FA fixes all the holes is a faulty assumption.  We saw the Packers sign Jeff Saturday, and calling him a serviceable center is probably a stretch.  They're not filling all the holes in FA with 100% success rate like you're implying.  The extreme draft and develop formula works, we've seen it work.  The problem is that it requires you to draft a higher rate than standard success.  If that success rate goes down, your issues get magnified.  That's the issue.  Neither one of them is inherently better than the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

The extreme draft and develop formula works, we've seen it work.  ... Neither one of them (extreme draft and develop versus willingness to add veterans via trade and free agency) is inherently better than the other.

If by "we've seen it work" you mean that a team with the best QB (or 2nd best QB) in football over a period of 9 years can win a single SB in year 2 and never appear in another one, then yes the previous GM's "extreme draft and develop" approach to roster building was a smashing success.

However, given that none of the organizations that have appeared in the past 7 Super Bowls adopted the Packers "extreme draft and develop formula," the notion that relying almost exclusively upon the draft is an approach that is inherently equal to one in which a GM also looks to improve the roster through player trades and free agency is simply, and demonstrably, false.

Good to see Gut rejecting (through his actions and words) his predecessor's unnecessarily rigid approach when it comes to adding veterans who have played for other organizations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^^ What he said. Extreme draft and develop literally approaches roster building from a single phase rather than utilizing all 3 phases (FA and trades). When you hit on a once in a generation player like Aaron Rodgers at QB, you'll skate by with "competitive" teams each year on a draft and develop-only approach. Is that a sound approach year after year? No way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with what Gute has done in FA. Nothing earth shattering, which is absolutely fine, but effort in all avenues is what most of us had been begging for from TT. If every one of Gutes signings fails, I will not hold it against him. The effort was there. And he did it in year one. He didn't have to purge the roster first. There has always been room for TT to do the same, he just refused, and yes, I will always hold that against him. Sue me. That doesn't mean I hate TT or disrespect what he did. I do challenge any fan to say they honestly never wonder of what could have been if only one or two key pieces had been added thru the years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As is always the case in these situations, the Packers were spending up to the cap every year of Thompson's career except the last one.

When there was cap available to spend, Thompson spent it.

The first few seasons of his tenure when he was clearing out bad contracts and had cap space to spend, he spent it.

There was a period in that next phase that the drafting was so exceptional that the free cap couldn't keep up with the guys needing to be resigned. 

Then you enter the third phase when the drafting cooled off and injuries really seemed to hit the team hard. we were bringing in lower tier free agents but weren't blessed with a ton of space because we'd signed guys to longer contracts.

The idea that Thompson was some kind of dragon sitting on a mound of cap space because he hated Free Agency is nonsensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

As is always the case in these situations, the Packers were spending up to the cap every year of Thompson's career except the last one.

When there was cap available to spend, Thompson spent it.

The first few seasons of his tenure when he was clearing out bad contracts and had cap space to spend, he spent it.

There was a period in that next phase that the drafting was so exceptional that the free cap couldn't keep up with the guys needing to be resigned. 

Then you enter the third phase when the drafting cooled off and injuries really seemed to hit the team hard. we were bringing in lower tier free agents but weren't blessed with a ton of space because we'd signed guys to longer contracts.

The idea that Thompson was some kind of dragon sitting on a mound of cap space because he hated Free Agency is nonsensical.

People just think if we don't sign 10 top tier players means we hate FA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, cannondale said:

I'm fine with what Gute has done in FA. Nothing earth shattering, which is absolutely fine, but effort in all avenues is what most of us had been begging for from TT. If every one of Gutes signings fails, I will not hold it against him. The effort was there. And he did it in year one. He didn't have to purge the roster first. There has always been room for TT to do the same, he just refused, and yes, I will always hold that against him. Sue me. That doesn't mean I hate TT or disrespect what he did. I do challenge any fan to say they honestly never wonder of what could have been if only one or two key pieces had been added thru the years

1. That's retarded.

2. What the hell are you talking about purging the roster?

We're going to have three new "when healthy" starters added by Gutekunst in his first year. Graham, a Free Agent TE, Alexander a 1st round CB, and Tramon a retread CB

This is the same damn off season on paper as last year when we had 3 new "when healthy" starters grabbed by Thompson in: Bennett, a Free Agent TE, King a "1st round" CB, and House a retread CB.

In fairness the difference being that Thompson also added a starting Guard in Evans and a backup pass rusher in Brooks where as Gute has added another TE in Lewis and a DL in Wilkerson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1. That's retarded.

2. What the hell are you talking about purging the roster?

We're going to have three new "when healthy" starters added by Gutekunst in his first year. Graham, a Free Agent TE, Alexander a 1st round CB, and Tramon a retread CB

This is the same damn off season on paper as last year when we had 3 new "when healthy" starters grabbed by Thompson in: Bennett, a Free Agent TE, King a "1st round" CB, and House a retread CB.

In fairness the difference being that Thompson also added a starting Guard in Evans and a backup pass rusher in Brooks where as Gute has added another TE in Lewis and a DL in Wilkerson.

1. You can be so endearing

2. Wilkerson and Graham in the same year.  Those are 2 solid efforts - 1 on each side of the ball who have a real chance to move the needle. When is the last time TT did something similar ? While the jury is out on Tramon for this year, his performance last year would hardly put him in the category of re-tread. Lewis is no slouch and an example where TT brings in a UDFA from Alaska Anchorage instead. And the offseason isn't over.

3. Even if TT was pulling the trigger last year, and there are people who say he wasn't, there were many years where he added zero when glaring holes were plainly evident

4. Voliatile topic as always, so I'll be fine to agree to disagree on TT's FA track record

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2018 at 11:10 AM, HorizontoZenith said:

No, that's NOT half the question.  I have frequently acknowledged that Thompson sucked at this.  The reason I get so frustrated with TOT is that he WILL NEVER STOP bringing up Thompson's busts and he acts like Thompson sucked because of them.  I have had to read him bring up Thornton and Fackrell and other busts ad nauseum and he has never once taken me up on the offer to find any GM that had less busts.  When he relentlessly brings up draft picks, I am going to relentlessly challenge him to name someone better at drafting.

The truth of the matter is that Thompson, in spite of his faults (and he had plenty) was probably the best-drafting GM of this era of football considering where he frequently drafted and the amount of hits he drafted.  He lived and died by the draft, yes.  He did not suck at it, he thrived at it on an unprecedented level.  He was proof that teams cannot compete on draft and develop alone because Thompson was the very best at drafting.  If you disagree, prove me wrong on a hit/bust comparison. 

Maybe the failure had a little to do with McCarthy and Capers on the development end.  We all see how well Thompson's DBs do on different teams after all...

You can also point to Belichick as an example of the success of the patch model to bolster your position. I'm fond of draft and develop, but at some point you gotta patch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

If by "we've seen it work" you mean that a team with the best QB (or 2nd best QB) in football over a period of 9 years can win a single SB in year 2 and never appear in another one, then yes the previous GM's "extreme draft and develop" approach to roster building was a smashing success.

However, given that none of the organizations that have appeared in the past 7 Super Bowls adopted the Packers "extreme draft and develop formula," the notion that relying almost exclusively upon the draft is an approach that is inherently equal to one in which a GM also looks to improve the roster through player trades and free agency is simply, and demonstrably, false.

Good to see Gut rejecting (through his actions and words) his predecessor's unnecessarily rigid approach when it comes to adding veterans who have played for other organizations.

By work, I mean the Packers have averaged 10.5 wins with Aaron Rodgers as their starting QB when he's played in 15+ games.  Instead, you choose to subscribe to the insane notion that the Packers became the Cleveland Browns of the NFL with the Rodgers injury.  Instead, you continue to spew your anti-TT rhetoric.  But let's take a second and assume that your assumption that winning a single Super Bowl and no other appearances enough, how many other franchises should overhaul their franchise?  It's nauseating.  Am I disappointed by the lack of success?  Absolutely, but I'm not blind enough to pretend that you could insert any other GM and feel that he's going to do a clearly better job than TT.

You want to be more active in FA?  You better be willing to give up those compensatory picks.  That means no Josh Sitton, Davon House, Mike Daniels, or Blake Martinez.  That's something you REFUSE to acknowledge or discuss.  You want TT to be in on every FA.  You want them to be active, you better be willing to make some concessions elsewhere.

But back to the draft and develop formula.  Name me a team in the last 20 years of the salary that has made a championship team that was made PRIMARILY of FA signings.  Draft and develop is the BACKBONE of creating a franchise.  Trades and FA signings are supplemental, and should in no way be considered a viable option to build a franchise.  If you want to argue that TT should have been a bit more active in FA, I don't think anyone would agree with you.  But arguing that he wasn't a successful drafter is a bold faced lie, and something you've refused to support your stance.  Not once.  It'd be nice if that changed, but I'm not holding my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, HyponGrey said:

You can also point to Belichick as an example of the success of the patch model to bolster your position. I'm fond of draft and develop, but at some point you gotta patch.

If you screw up the drafting and developing process, you have to work overtime to correct the situation.  If you didn't screw up the situation, you don't feel the need to correct the situation.  You can point to BB as someone whose willing to make other transactions to fix your roster, I'll point to his mediocre drafting history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...