Eliot Wolf name mentioned to Browns

[PackAttack12]

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.

Exactly.

 

[GleefulGary]

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.

The idea that we have a horrible team surround Rodgers, is positively riddled with the false bias that you want to see. In fact, in your next paragraph, you even explain why. 1 SB, 4 NFC championship games...you don't do that with a horrible team. We have certain weaknesses. We have certain coaching deficiencies. That is absolutely true. It could not be more false that TT is a bad GM though. It could not be more false that Rodgers has been surrounded by "horrible" teams. Wake up and look around the NFL for a bit.

As for the Vikings, they certainly have a lot of talent. Very good team, very good coach. Pretty young. We'll see what happens when they have to start to pay for everybody. That's when it gets tough.

 

[Carl 2]

"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 s

I agree it isn't always, but just looking at the standings and each teams QB shows how much a good QB means.

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.

Once again for some reason the time BB was a head coach prior to Brady doesn't count.

As of 2013, BB was 51-65 prior without Brady. That's not good.

We can just agree to disagree overall.

 

[gonzozab]

The idea that we have a horrible team surround Rodgers, is positively riddled with the false bias that you want to see. In fact, in your next paragraph, you even explain why. 1 SB, 4 NFC championship games...you don't do that with a horrible team. We have certain weaknesses. We have certain coaching deficiencies. That is absolutely true. It could not be more false that TT is a bad GM though. It could not be more false that Rodgers has been surrounded by "horrible" teams. Wake up and look around the NFL for a bit.

As for the Vikings, they certainly have a lot of talent. Very good team, very good coach. Pretty young. We'll see what happens when they have to start to pay for everybody. That's when it gets tough.

5-12-1

2-5-1 in 2013. 2-5 in 2017. Two NFC Championship games in between. So what happened? They were terrible in 2013, got good again for three years and got horrible again this year? The only common denominator is Rodgers' availability so yes, you can play in championship games with a horrible team when your quarterback is all world. The record is fact. If that inconvenient truth isn't enough to convince the fanboys then there's nothing else I can do and we're done here. Facts don't care about feelings.

 

[Carl 2]

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.

With how much talent the Superbowl team had in 2010 with one of the best offenses and defenses in the league, it's ridiculous to say TT was just riding Rodgers that season.

There's a difference between criticism for TT in recent years and exaggerating by saying TT has only rode Rodgers.

Forget that it was the defense and team around Rodgers that got them past the Bears in the NFC Championship?

At least give credit to TT for clearly building that team.

 

[AmishMafia]

The Browns will be meaningfully improved next season.

It takes time. Its not just the GM, its the whole front office. If Wolf takes over for TT, he inherits a very strong front office. This gives him a huge leg up. This front office is a well oiled effective team - and that is a huge credit to TT.

The Browns front office is dead last in about everyone's opinion. They have the smallest and lightliest regarded (on a whole) staffs in the NFL. Mike Holmgren wanted GM power. He lasted a few months before he realized he was entirely not up to the task. He began looking for his replacement and a saving-face-exit from the organization. I just googled the Browns front office and I recognize a few new names, so they are making some strides. But Dorsey still is going to have his work cut out for him. If they increase his budget, it will be a few years before the staff is up to speed.

Look at another TT Protege, Reggie McKenzie. Raiders sucked and got worse under his leadership for several years. Al Davis always ruled with an iron fist and would make moves completely contrary to the scouts opinions. Even his long-term scouts were no longer dedicated and interested in their work, thinking no matter what they did, Al was going to look at the 40s times and take their number 7th ranked WR while the top 6 were still on the board. Anyway, it took Reggie several years just to get the front office on the same page and dedicated to a common focus. Now, the roster is taking off.

My prediction on Dorsey, he gets quits or is fired in 6 years. Browns will show a little promise here or there, but will never surpass mediocrity.

 

[Carl 2]

It takes time. Its not just the GM, its the whole front office. If Wolf takes over for TT, he inherits a very strong front office. This gives him a huge leg up. This front office is a well oiled effective team - and that is a huge credit to TT.

The Browns front office is dead last in about everyone's opinion. They have the smallest and lightliest regarded (on a whole) staffs in the NFL. Mike Holmgren wanted GM power. He lasted a few months before he realized he was entirely not up to the task. He began looking for his replacement and a saving-face-exit from the organization. I just googled the Browns front office and I recognize a few new names, so they are making some strides. But Dorsey still is going to have his work cut out for him. If they increase his budget, it will be a few years before the staff is up to speed.

Look at another TT Protege, Reggie McKenzie. Raiders sucked and got worse under his leadership for several years. Al Davis always ruled with an iron fist and would make moves completely contrary to the scouts opinions. Even his long-term scouts were no longer dedicated and interested in their work, thinking no matter what they did, Al was going to look at the 40s times and take their number 7th ranked WR while the top 6 were still on the board. Anyway, it took Reggie several years just to get the front office on the same page and dedicated to a common focus. Now, the roster is taking off.

My prediction on Dorsey, he gets quits or is fired in 6 years. Browns will show a little promise here or there, but will never surpass mediocrity.

The one way for a quick turnaround would be for them to find a good QB right away.

They'd be a good team right now with Wentz, Goff, or Watson but have been content to pass on these guys.

Of course, Cleveland is where QB careers go to die, so it's no guarantee those QBs would have been any good in Cleveland though.

 

[AmishMafia]

The one way for a quick turnaround would be for them to find a good QB right away.

They'd be a good team right now with Wentz, Goff, or Watson but have been content to pass on these guys.

Of course, Cleveland is where QB careers go to die, so it's no guarantee those QBs would have been any good in Cleveland though.

Very true. They could also hit the jackpot on the next Belichek as well. Actually, Belicheck was once the coach of the Browns and they canned him. I'm not sure a great QB and a great coach added to this team is enough to cover the stink of ineptness that is the Browns.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It takes time. Its not just the GM, its the whole front office. If Wolf takes over for TT, he inherits a very strong front office. This gives him a huge leg up. This front office is a well oiled effective team - and that is a huge credit to TT.

Is it, though? It's a disciplined outfit but the results are not not very impressive. Commentary in these pages tends to the extremes when the results indicate mediocrity.

 

[PackAttack12]

Once again for some reason the time BB was a head coach prior to Brady doesn't count.

As of 2013, BB was 51-65 prior without Brady. That's not good.

We can just agree to disagree overall.

What in the world does Bill Belichick's record prior to joining the Patriots have to do with our conversation? You just threw that in there, for what reason I'm not sure. But the thing that I do know for sure is that you didn't address a single one of my points in this post.

I brought up what two teams were able to do in place of their hall of fame quarterback while they were out for injury, and you bring me Bill Belichick's record as a head coach 20+ years ago.

But hey. Since you couldn't address/refute the point I was making, I'll play along and switch the conversation around. You want to tell me the last time the Cleveland Browns won 11 or more games? Also, would you like to tell me the last time that the Cleveland Browns won a playoff game? That would happen to be when Bill Belichick was their head coach twenty three years ago. How often in the history of the Cleveland Browns have they been relevant? They are the most poorly run NFL franchise now and historically that I can think of.

But you want to try to diminish his coaching ability. The man has won at the highest level as a head coach AND a coordinator. Got the sorry Browns to the playoffs and actually WON a playoff game. And he's 14-6 without Tom Brady since he's been the head coach of the New England Patriots. Give me a break.

What about the Steelers? Are we just going to dismiss what they have been able to do without Big Ben?

 

[HardRightEdge]

My prediction on Dorsey, he gets quits or is fired in 6 years. Browns will show a little promise here or there, but will never surpass mediocrity.

Dorsey will be the beneficiary of what is currently $58 million in cap space. That jumps to $109 million with the guys under contract for 2018. They will have two first rounders (including Houston's) and three second rounders (including Houston's again) in the 2018 draft.

Dorsey is in a good position for building a five year plan. And he's not shy about making changes. During his first year in KC he turned over 32 roster spots, albit only one or two starters. With an o-fer team he'll be free to cut deep. His biggest challenges will be (1) finding a QB of course, the big challenge for any GM and (2) managing upward to his owner.

 

[GleefulGary]

5-12-1

2-5-1 in 2013. 2-5 in 2017. Two NFC Championship games in between. So what happened? They were terrible in 2013, got good again for three years and got horrible again this year? The only common denominator is Rodgers' availability so yes, you can play in championship games with a horrible team when your quarterback is all world. The record is fact. If that inconvenient truth isn't enough to convince the fanboys then there's nothing else I can do and we're done here. Facts don't care about feelings.

It's a disingenuous argument, and you know it.

Rodgers gets hurt, Seneca Wallace comes in. Packers lose. First game Wallace starts, he has to leave after the first possession due to injury. The great Scott Tolzien then comes in. Packers lose. Tolzien starts the next week. Packers lose. So the backup and the 3rd stringer are 0-2. Tolzien starts again, gets benched in the 3rd for Matt Flynn down 23-7. Ends up a tied game, 26-26. Flynn starts the next 4 games, going 2-2. So the backup and 3rd stringer combine for an 0-2 record, the 4th string QB goes 2-2.

So yeah, 2-5-1 while using a backup, 3rd string, and 4th string QB. How many teams do you expect to do really well in that situation?

This year, Hundley, who is quite awful, is our backup. Now TT and McCarthy definitely shoulder some blame here for not realizing he's not good, but I hope you understand their situation. Teams don't go live in practice anymore. Outside of preseason, you don't get a chance to see how your QB reacts to pressure. Hundley has a good arm, he can move, he knows the offense, he just cannot handle pressure. You don't know that until he gets in the game. It would've been nice if there was a better option, but idk if there is. I'm certain they'll work on finding one after this year is done. It's funny though, somehow a horrible team has managed to win 2 games this year with one of the worst QB's (most important position on the field). So either the coaching is a lot better than people want to say, or maybe we're not a horrible team. Or we're just really friggin lucky.

I'll end with this. Ted Thompson has been in GB for 13 years. He has a 124-79-1 record. 10-8 in the playoffs. You don't get a 61% regular season and 55% post season record over 13 years if you're a bad GM. You cannot be lucky for that long. And keep in mind that record is low because of his initial years. We haven't had a below .500 season since 2008!! So at least 8 consecutive winning seasons, potentially 9 this year. And you wanna say we have a bad GM? Get real.

Oh yeah, facts, not feelings, right guys?

 

[Half Empty]

I'll end with this. Ted Thompson has been in GB for 13 years. He has a 124-79-1 record. 10-8 in the playoffs. You don't get a 61% regular season and 55% post season record over 13 years if you're a bad GM. You cannot be lucky for that long. And keep in mind that record is low because of his initial years. We haven't had a below .500 season since 2008!! So at least 8 consecutive winning seasons, potentially 9 this year. And you wanna say we have a bad GM? Get real.

Some of us still think it doesn't take all that much to get those stats after his first draft pick. Bad, almost certainly not. Frustratingly not good, perhaps.

 

[rodell330]

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.

We’ve noticed.

 

[PackAttack12]

It's a disingenuous argument, and you know it.

Rodgers gets hurt, Seneca Wallace comes in. Packers lose. First game Wallace starts, he has to leave after the first possession due to injury. The great Scott Tolzien then comes in. Packers lose. Tolzien starts the next week. Packers lose. So the backup and the 3rd stringer are 0-2. Tolzien starts again, gets benched in the 3rd for Matt Flynn down 23-7. Ends up a tied game, 26-26. Flynn starts the next 4 games, going 2-2. So the backup and 3rd stringer combine for an 0-2 record, the 4th string QB goes 2-2.

So yeah, 2-5-1 while using a backup, 3rd string, and 4th string QB. How many teams do you expect to do really well in that situation?

This year, Hundley, who is quite awful, is our backup. Now TT and McCarthy definitely shoulder some blame here for not realizing he's not good, but I hope you understand their situation. Teams don't go live in practice anymore. Outside of preseason, you don't get a chance to see how your QB reacts to pressure. Hundley has a good arm, he can move, he knows the offense, he just cannot handle pressure. You don't know that until he gets in the game. It would've been nice if there was a better option, but idk if there is. I'm certain they'll work on finding one after this year is done. It's funny though, somehow a horrible team has managed to win 2 games this year with one of the worst QB's (most important position on the field). So either the coaching is a lot better than people want to say, or maybe we're not a horrible team. Or we're just really friggin lucky.

I'll end with this. Ted Thompson has been in GB for 13 years. He has a 124-79-1 record. 10-8 in the playoffs. You don't get a 61% regular season and 55% post season record over 13 years if you're a bad GM. You cannot be lucky for that long. And keep in mind that record is low because of his initial years. We haven't had a below .500 season since 2008!! So at least 8 consecutive winning seasons, potentially 9 this year. And you wanna say we have a bad GM? Get real.

Oh yeah, facts, not feelings, right guys?

Is Thompson a bad GM? No. Could he be much better, absolutely. The Patriots and Steelers have shown that when your HOF quarterback goes down with an injury, you don't have to go from perennial super bowl contenders to bottom dwellers immediately. But that's the frustrating reality with the Packers. When Rodgers has went down, the Packers have struggled to stay above water. Beaten two really bad teams this year, and defeated a bad Falcons team in 2013, along with the definition of an average football team in the Cowboys that same year.

 

[GleefulGary]

The Patriots have the best Coach/GM of all time. They also had better backups than we did. Makes a difference. Should we expect TT to be that good? I don't think that's realistic.

Of course he could be better. I've said that. He's still in the top third of GM's in the NFL.

Some of us still think it doesn't take all that much to get those stats after his first draft pick. Bad, almost certainly not. Frustratingly not good, perhaps.

Then some of you still don't understand the game of football. It doesn't take all that much to win after drafting a great QB? Two problems with that statement. It absolves him of any credit for getting Rodgers, and two, it shows a complete ignorance towards the team effort that is football.

He's not bad, we agree. Not good though? You think he's average?! Pah. TT is a great GM, has a great tree of GM's, and has a great history. You don't get that way by being average.

 

[Mondio]

Can I give 2 winners on the same page of the same thread by the same author? I just ****ing did

 

[swhitset]

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

Already did above I'm not going to bother writing it all over again. You seem to think that every team that doesn't repeat the Patriots success is a failure ... I find that to be ridiculously unrealistic.

 

[PackAttack12]

The Patriots have the best Coach/GM of all time. They also had better backups than we did. Makes a difference. Should we expect TT to be that good? I don't think that's realistic.

Already did above I'm not going to bother writing it all over again. You seem to think that every team that doesn't repeat the Patriots success is a failure ... I find that to be ridiculously unrealistic.

Why are both of you grasping soley onto the point about the Patriots but totally ignoring the point about the Steelers? It's the same damn argument.

 

[swhitset]

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.

All of your arguments are based on what I contend is a false premise... that the team has no talent. I'm glad you are so in love with the Vikings ... but I would point out that until very recently:.. they were a team with a very good defense and no offense at all that has not even been making the playoffs...

 

[swhitset]

Why are both of you grasping soley onto the point about the Patriots but totally ignoring the point about the Steelers? It's the same damn argument.

It's one more example .. when was the last time the Steelers won it all again??

 

[GleefulGary]

Why are both of you grasping soley onto the point about the Patriots but totally ignoring the point about the Steelers? It's the same damn argument.

It's a similar scenario.

1) Better backups than what we had. 2013 we were on a 4th string QB, 2017 Hundley has been unprecedently bad.

2) Look at how we did when we had a decent backup in Flynn. Flynn had a 3-3 record with the Packers. If you can go .500 with a backup in the NFL, your team is not horrid. Your team is not lacking in talent.

3) The Steelers are a great orginazation. Consistently good with a lot of talent. They have a better defense and a better DC than we do. Again, you can partially blame TT for that.

4) You are acting like this is just because of Rodgers. This year, we have had more combinations of our starting OL than any other team. I think it's 11 different starting lineups? Something like that. Would you say that might have played a role too? Mike Daniels was injured for a lot of the year. Kenny Clark. Kevin King. Ty Montgomery. It wasn't just Rodgers who got hurt, it was a pile of people. That has an effect. I can't say who was or wasn't hurt for the Pats or Steelers, but I can make a pretty good bet they didn't have 11 different starting OL units out there.

5) we went 2-5-1 using a backup, a third string and a 4th string QB in 2013. Continuing to use that as an argument in your favor is showing a large amount of bias and ignorance.

 

[PackAttack12]

It's one more example .. when was the last time the Steelers won it all again??

But you totally ignored it the first time around. haha. Okay.

The Steelers have appeared in 3 Super Bowls in the last 11 years. A little better than what the Packers have done I would say. Which is sad because we have had the better quarterback, but considerably less talented teams.

 

[GleefulGary]

Find me any other average GM who has a 61% record over 13 years. And a winning record in the playoffs.

I greatly anticipate your findings.

 

[GleefulGary]

This considerably less talented team almost beat those Steelers with our awful backup QB.

Something ain't making sense here...