I am shocked!

[Sanguine camper]

that was my point and now with all those moves, that let's face it, if a kicker doesn't miss an extra point 2 weeks ago, there is a good chance they aren't even in this game today. But they were and they won. They've won exactly what Ted Thompson and the Green Bay Packers have already won. Everyone is claiming that Denver knows how to do it, Ted doesn't, yet they just now have done what Ted and GB already did. Except things look really, really, really tough for them going forward.

The last four Super Bowl teams all did what TT refuses to do. They went out and used free agency and or trades to fill in the holes in the team that draft and develop leaves. While I think it's a bad policy to break the bank on big name free agents you HAVE to fill the holes on a team like the Packers have had with a couple of veteran free agents. It was unconsciousable that TT went into the season with such rancid talent at TE. Once Jordy went down the Packers couldn't adjust
Due to lack of talent.

 

[Mondio]

The last four Super Bowl teams all did what TT refuses to do. They went out and used free agency and or trades to fill in the holes in the team that draft and develop leaves. While I think it's a bad policy to break the bank on big name free agents you HAVE to fill the holes on a team like the Packers have had with a couple of veteran free agents. It was unconsciousable that TT went into the season with such rancid talent at TE. Once Jordy went down the Packers couldn't adjust
Due to lack of talent.

whatever, and 5 years ago, Ted and GB did what all these other teams are trying to do and they didn't.

Ted has and will use FA to fill holes when need and value are there. WHO, Tell me right know, you have hindsight, WHO should have signed last year. Because you KNEW the offense was going to struggle like it did. Owen Daniels and his 2 catches per game and 3 TD's in a season? He would have done it? Oh wait, we should have traded for Vernon Davis, Denver did and i'm not sure he was even active for the game last night. It would be better if you could show me your posts from last March telling us all who, but I'll take a name now even. Gives you one hell of a head start.

so you're telling me last year and going into this season you just KNEW we didn't have team capable of a super bowl win? I was never huge on Quarless and he's as good as any TE available to us in FA last year and our rancid TE out performed all of those other guys this year

 

[Half Empty]

Didn't want to try and pick just one. Take your choice. http://www.bing.com/search?q=how+th...=-1&sk=&cvid=688BCA5DB8994139857C75EA6185B319

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While I am in full agreement that the Packers and TT could potentially be better served by dipping into the FA market a bit more, I don't think you can conclude that doing so guarantees squat.

How did the top spenders in 2015 fair this year?

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-nfl-free-agency-spending-by-team-2015-6

 

[PackerDNA]

While I am in full agreement that the Packers and TT could potentially be better served by dipping into the FA market a bit more, I don't think you can conclude that doing so guarantees squat.

How did the top spenders in 2015 fair this year?

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-nfl-free-agency-spending-by-team-2015-6

Doing nothing , however, does guarantee squat.
The point isn't how such ventures have turned out for other teams. The point is maximizing your teams chances to improve through the use of any and all means/tools to do so. Something Thompson has been clearly deficient at.

 

[Half Empty]

Doing nothing , however, does guarantee squat.
The point isn't how such ventures have turned out for other teams. The point is maximizing your teams chances to improve through the use of any and all means/tools to do so. Something Thompson has been clearly deficient at.

I was tempted to just hit 'agree' and move on, but, just as with the the post to which you replied, anytime I see 'guarantee' used in a sports forum discussion, what little hair I have stands on end. Any time absolutes are used, the give-and-take gets sidetracked. OK, now back to the point at hand.

 

[PackerDNA]

I was tempted to just hit 'agree' and move on, but, just as with the the post to which you replied, anytime I see 'guarantee' used in a sports forum discussion, what little hair I have stands on end. Any time absolutes are used, the give-and-take gets sidetracked. OK, now back to the point at hand.

Wasn't my intent, but you make a very good point.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This ends up being the same debate we have seen over and over again in various forms, "Should TT do more in the FA market ?" I understand many arguments on both sides of the coin. However, I am not buying into the argument "see, look how the Broncos won a SB, TT needs to go "all in" to win one too." If you look at the History of FA's and try to somehow correlate that to SB wins, I think you come up short, especially when you add the "all in" part.

 

[jrock645]

Its easy to say we need to sign FA's but answer this... Who was available the last 2 years that wouldve put us over the top?

Im in full agreement that Ted sitting on his hands is getting way old, but even i have to question exactly who weve missed out on.

 

[PackerDNA]

Its easy to say we need to sign FA's but answer this... Who was available the last 2 years that wouldve put us over the top?

Im in full agreement that Ted sitting on his hands is getting way old, but even i have to question exactly who weve missed out on.

Again- and not to single you out, jrock645- the hindsight/results of point isn't the point. Maximizing your chances to improve is.

 

[jrock645]

Again- and not to single you out, jrock645- the hindsight/results of point isn't the point. Maximizing your chances to improve is.

As i said, i dont disagree.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Again- and not to single you out, jrock645- the hindsight/results of point isn't the point. Maximizing your chances to improve is.

Going "all in" with FA's doesn't necessarily maximize your chance to improve, not only in the short run, but could prove to be disastrous in the long run. I know we all like to think that if we sign a high level FA, it automatically makes us a better team, but does it and at what cost in the future? We can all sit here and list FA's that helped a team, but FA busts might be even easier to find.

There was talk last year about trying to sign Suh. Albeit maybe he improves our defense, but does he raise it to a SB team? If he doesn't, how are we in regards to the cap to find that other missing piece?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

This ends up being the same debate we have seen over and over again in various forms, "Should TT do more in the FA market ?" I understand many arguments on both sides of the coin. However, I am not buying into the argument "see, look how the Broncos won a SB, TT needs to go "all in" to win one too." If you look at the History of FA's and try to somehow correlate that to SB wins, I think you come up short, especially when you add the "all in" part.

Last three Super Bowl winners have all had large parts of their teams built through free agency:

Seahawks best dlinemen are Avril and Bennett
Pats got Revis
Broncos got Manning, Ware and Talib

Free agency doesn't guarantee anything but if you're basing your analysis on what "wins the Super Bowl" the most, then nothing works, not even the draft. Because only one team wins each year and 31 other teams also drafted players and they didn't win.

 

[TJV]

Is that a threat? Are you saying that he has to admit to what you want "or else" you're move his thread?

I think what he is saying is if the OP is completely unrelated to the Packers, it doesn't belong in the Packers forum.

This is an old argument so I'll just add one question: Does Thompson get credit for signing future HOF Peppers? Or doesn't he count because he wasn't technically a UFA? Or because he avoided a bidding war to get him? Like many of you I would like to see Thompson use UFA more than he has but I do think he should get credit for signing Peppers.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Last three Super Bowl winners have all had large parts of their teams built through free agency:

Seahawks best dlinemen are Avril and Bennett
Pats got Revis
Broncos got Manning, Ware and Talib

Free agency doesn't guarantee anything but if you're basing your analysis on what "wins the Super Bowl" the most, then nothing works, not even the draft. Because only one team wins each year and 31 other teams also drafted players and they didn't win.

Basically........all the right moves......and throw in a little bit of luck. My point being, Free Agency is a tool, among many, that a team can use to try and improve itself each year. Some have used it with success and others have used it poorly. But in no way does signing a FA guarantee success in itself.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Basically........all the right moves......and throw in a little bit of luck. My point being, Free Agency is a tool, among many, that a team can use to try and improve itself each year. Some have used it with success and others have used it poorly. But in no way does signing a FA guarantee success in itself.

Agreed. However, if your team's GM can't use that tool correctly then that should be seen as a large negative. This is not a knock on Thompson, we've seen that he can use free agency effectively (though VEYR rarely). Should also point out that the best free agent signing under Thompson was actually driven and pushed through by Schneider (Charles Woodson signing).

 

[PackerDNA]

Going "all in" with FA's doesn't necessarily maximize your chance to improve, not only in the short run, but could prove to be disastrous in the long run. I know we all like to think that if we sign a high level FA, it automatically makes us a better team, but does it and at what cost in the future? We can all sit here and list FA's that helped a team, but FA busts might be even easier to find.

There was talk last year about trying to sign Suh. Albeit maybe he improves our defense, but does he raise it to a SB team? If he doesn't, how are we in regards to the cap to find that other missing piece?

Where did I say "all in"? I didn't. Be smart about it, but do it.
Every season, the goal is to win the SB. Who knows what situation your team will be in 3 or 4 years from now, and really, who cares? If- as this team and it's fan base proclaim to be- is a SB favorite or contender every year, then why not go for a get over the hump type move or two to try to accomplish that?
Want to point to moves that don't work for other teams, moves that set them back? Fine, although it's really another point and another argument- but talk about the teams that do it successfully, too. And in that regard, the most successful teams of recent seasons- the Pats, Seahawks and Broncos- all utilize all means of player procurement. Thompson and the Packers do not.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Agreed. However, if your team's GM can't use that tool correctly then that should be seen as a large negative. This is not a knock on Thompson, we've seen that he can use free agency effectively (though VEYR rarely). Should also point out that the best free agent signing under Thompson was actually driven and pushed through by Schneider (Charles Woodson signing).

Agreed. TT will never be accused of being a Riverboat Gambler when it comes to FA signings. The few high profile ones he has signed have done really well in GB. Could he sign more? Sure. But had he signed more in the last 10 years, would the Packers have won more SB's or found themselves among the teams struggling with the cap and wins? Nobody knows that answer with 100% surety. What we do know though is that under TT's management, the Packers have never had a cap issue and have fielded a very competitive team almost every year.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Where did I say "all in"? I didn't.

I was referring to the OP and his "win now" statement.

 

[PackerDNA]

I was referring to the OP and his "win now" statement.

My mistake, Poker. All good.

 

[Half Empty]

I think what he is saying is if the OP is completely unrelated to the Packers, it doesn't belong in the Packers forum.

This is an old argument so I'll just add one question: Does Thompson get credit for signing future HOF Peppers? Or doesn't he count because he wasn't technically a UFA? Or because he avoided a bidding war to get him? Like many of you I would like to see Thompson use UFA more than he has but I do think he should get credit for signing Peppers.

Not part of the "in TT I trust" group. However, certainly recognize this signing, as I do Woodson. However, I'd say much of the compliment revolves around finding old players with more in the tank than others realized. Don't remember the circumstances, so I can't comment on the UFA/bidding war, but other than the first year, which was team-friendly, I might question the contract. Also, had that turned out to be the move that brought home the Lombardi, I think it would have gotten more kudos.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Like I said in a few posts, I get both sides of the argument and fully agree TT needs to get involved more in the FA market, especially with a team that could be 1-2 players short of a real powerhouse. I'm just saying, doing so doesn't guarantee anything. Same with doing nothing in the FA market, it doesn't lock you into not going to the SB.

As much as we all were screaming for TT to sign an ILB last year, the 2014 Packers were 5 pathetically played minutes away from going to a SB that year, that they may have been favored to win. Hard to predict that it would be our 2015 offense that failed and cost us the opportunity for another SB trip. Should TT have signed a FA ILB in 2014? Maybe, but nothing really there. What moves should he have made in regards to FA's after the 2014 season?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

My mistake, Poker. All good.

It always is (all good)....healthy debate is good.

As we all know, TT reads this forum religiously and uses our brilliance to help shape the Packers.

 

[PackerDNA]

It always is (all good)....healthy debate is good.

As we all know, TT reads this forum religiously and uses are brilliance to help shape the Packers.

I knew it !!!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I knew it !!!

and of course.....I proved my brilliance by spelling "our"...."are" Forgive me Ted!