Eliot Wolf name mentioned to Browns

[XPack]

http://packerswire.usatoday.com/2017/12/07/packers-exec-eliot-wolf-connected-to-browns-gm-opening/

Heck No!

Please tell me TT is retiring in 2018.

 

[longtimefan]

changed title...

 

[Mondio]

changed title...

Get ready to keep changing it because he'll be mentioned and connected to every opening that comes up.

I'm sure there's interest

 

[Ogsponge]

And Dorsey was just named browns gm

 

[gonzozab]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had an owner here that could fire a bad GM?

 

[GleefulGary]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had an owner here that could fire a bad GM?

We...

We don't have a bad GM.

 

[Mondio]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had an owner here that could fire a bad GM?

What difference would it make? Don't like the hire after 2018 already?

 

[gonzozab]

We...

We don't have a bad GM.

A 5-12-1 record when Rodgers doesn't play or is unable to finish a game and for years marginal talent at best says otherwise.

 

[GleefulGary]

A 5-12-1 record when Rodgers doesn't play or is unable to finish a game and for years marginal talent at best says otherwise.

Yeah. Can you believe a team built around one of the greatest QB's of all time (whom TT drafted) struggles when said QB is injured? Crazy.

Take a look around the league. It's easy to find bad GM's. Teddy has his flaws, but he's certainly not bad.

And marginal talent? Agree to disagree. We have had, and still have, a lot of good talent. But it's hard to keep a team good for a long time! It's really hard. Packer fans are spoiled, and you're kinda proving it here.

 

[Carl 2]

A 5-12-1 record when Rodgers doesn't play or is unable to finish a game and for years marginal talent at best says otherwise.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had an owner here that could fire a bad GM?

Marginally talented teams don't get to 2 conference championships in three years and bad GM's don't build Superbowl teams.

Yes, recently TT certainly hasn't been perfect, but over his whole career it's obvious he's not a bad GM.

 

[rmontro]

I don't know if Wolf is the guy the Packers have planned to succeed Thompson, but if he is:
I would be really irritated if they let him go just so TT can serve one more year (his contract is up after the 2019 draft, IIRC - I don't like the timing of that either, but that's another conversation).

 

[swhitset]

A 5-12-1 record when Rodgers doesn't play or is unable to finish a game and for years marginal talent at best says otherwise.

I'm so sick of this ridiculously reactionary and illogical argument. I actually think that it may be time for Thompson to retire, but I would never base my opinion of a GM on a mere 18 games played by various backup quarterbacks. This team has been built around Aaron Rodgers not a bunch of scrub backups. Is it an indictment on Ted that the backups suck? ... Probably, but I don't think his performance should be based solely on the performance of the backup QBs. Like it or not... his winning percentage is tied to Aaron Rodgers (and Favre)... I don't know how this team would have been built without Aaron... and neither does anyone else, but I actually believe that Ted has done fairly well. I could go on but what would be the point.

 

[rmontro]

I would never base my opinion of a GM on a mere 18 games played by various backup quarterbacks.

I don't think the question is so much about the performance of the backup quarterback (well, it is for some people). For me, it's more about why isn't the team around the quarterback stronger?

That said, not including the game that Rodgers got hurt in, Hundley is 2-4 as a starter. If the Packers win this week, he will be 3-4. I don't think that's devastatingly terrible for a backup quarterback. It's not great, especially when you compare it to what the Vikings are doing, and it will probably not be good enough to get us into a playoff spot, but they could be worse.

 

[AmishMafia]

A 5-12-1 record when Rodgers doesn't play or is unable to finish a game and for years marginal talent at best says otherwise.

So you are saying the problem with the team is Rodgers and his not being available? Or last season when he played awful for a 5 game stretch?

Should we trade him? See what we have in Hundley?

That's about as smart as getting rid of TT to see what we have in Wolf.

 

[G0P4ckG0]

So you are saying the problem with the team is Rodgers and his not being available? Or last season when he played awful for a 5 game stretch?

Should we trade him? See what we have in Hundley?

That's about as smart as getting rid of TT to see what we have in Wolf.

Apples to oranges

 

[AmishMafia]

Apples to oranges

Clearly you are okay with mediocrity. I am not. We need to trade Rodgers and move on from him. He makes mistakes and gets injured. We need to find a QB who doesn't.

Some day TT will retire and Wolf may take over. I wonder if you will be all over Wolf the first game they lose. The first time a rookie screws up or busts. Chances are good that Wolf will never win a SB while the Packers GM, the vast majority of GMs do not. He has the luxury of riding TTs coattails for a few years, but when push comes to shove and it is his team out there trying to compete, you think he will measure up? I put his chances of winning a SB as less than 15% . It would be under 10% but he is inheriting a strong program and a lot of talent. Maybe a 20% chance of being a 'strong' team; a 25% chance at being average; and 50% chance of being the Lions. Thats just the way it is.

 

[PackAttack12]

You can try rationalizing it any way that you wish, but the fact of the matter is that when the quarterback isn't playing all time great like Aaron Rodgers has done for the vast majority of his career, the team struggles. That is an indictment on either the talent or the coaching. Take your pick. Just because Aaron Rodgers is an all time great talent doesn't mean that, when he's not available, you should have to accept the team looking the way that it has consistently looked without him which is below average at best.

 

[HardRightEdge]

And Dorsey was just named browns gm

The Browns will be meaningfully improved next season.

 

[Carl 2]

You can try rationalizing it any way that you wish, but the fact of the matter is that when the quarterback isn't playing all time great like Aaron Rodgers has done for the vast majority of his career, the team struggles. That is an indictment on either the talent or the coaching. Take your pick. Just because Aaron Rodgers is an all time great talent doesn't mean that, when he's not available, you should have to accept the team looking the way that it has consistently looked without him which is below average at best.

Or that's just how teams with below average QBs tend to look.

Yes, I'll agree so far TTs pick in Hundley and the other back ups in 2014 before Flynn didnt work.

However, when teams don't have a good QB, they are usually not good overall.

 

[PackAttack12]

Or that's just how teams with below average QBs tend to look.

Yes, I'll agree so far TTs pick in Hundley and the other back ups in 2014 before Flynn didnt work.

However, when teams don't have a good QB, they are usually not good overall.

Please just stop.

The Patriots went 11-5 in 2008 with Matt Cassel at quarterback. Went 3-1 last year with their 2nd string quarterback and even won a game with their 3rd string quarterback. The Steelers are 9-6 without Big Ben since 2010. That's two hall of fame quarterbacks that have missed time over the years but their teams still managed to win football games. You're talking about multiple different seasons, multiple different quarterbacks.

The continual excuses made for this organization is just sickening. Like the Packers are the only team in the history of the NFL to lose a hall of fame quarterback to injury.

And again, if I'm to accept your premise about bad QB play, that's still an indictment on either talent, or coaching. Like I said in my original post. The GM is also responsible for making sure the team has a viable backup quarterback.

 

[ARPackFan]

What's the appeal of Elliott Wolf other than his last name? What evidence can you submit that he will not be TT part 2? He has not been in any organization except the Packers which I consider a negative. I would prefer the next GM be someone who has been on the staff for other teams and has seen other ways of running organizations both good and bad.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Or that's just how teams with below average QBs tend to look.

Yes, I'll agree so far TTs pick in Hundley and the other back ups in 2014 before Flynn didnt work.

However, when teams don't have a good QB, they are usually not good overall.

"Tend" and "usually". Not always. Take Keenum, for example.

It goes to illustrate that the roster building has been fairly mediocre, average, meh. Could be worse, could be better, in constructing something that "tends" toward the mean.

 

[PackAttack12]

.

Care to elaborate on just what it is in my post that you disagree with?

 

[gonzozab]

And I'm tired of the "Ted built this team around Aaron Rodgers" which is a euphemism for "I have the greatest quarterback in the world so if I build a horrible team around him it's ok because Rodgers will bail me out and make me look good." The "the Packers have won a Super Bowl and been to four NFC Championship games with Ted as GM" excuse is a good one too. Why is it so hard to admit that Teddy has been riding Rodgers' coattails his entire career? Without Rodgers the Packers don't sniff the playoffs except for maybe one year, two tops. Literally every national pundit I've heard either on television or radio has the same opinion as me, and they're even harsher on him than I am. But maybe I should see it the way internet chatroom fanboys see it.

And how is it that the Vikings can lose two quarterbacks in as many years along with a first ballot Hall of Fame running back and be in line to get home field advantage this year? I'll tell you why. They actually have lots of talent all around. We don't.

 

[El Guapo]

I must have the wrong address. Where can I talk about Elliott Wolf and John Dorsey running the Browns?