So they didn't belong in the NFL huh???

[pyledriver80]

You tell me how we become a playoff team with players that cannot start on other teams? i would love to hear the strategy there.

Is this your argument? I mean Really?


It seems to me we were a playoff team WITH these guys before last year. They were DEPTH! TT didn't resign Wahle or Rivera. Walker was hurt, and now he is gone as well. This is the reason we did not sniff the Playoffs last year.


I don't have a problem with TT replacing quality depth with young talent at all. The problem comes up when you replace bothe QUALITY DEPTH and QUALITY STARTERS with young "so-called" potential. TT replacing Fisher is OK, but TT trying to replace FISHER,WAHLE,RIVERA,CHATMAN,WALKER,DIGGS,LONGWELL,ROMAN,etc with "potential" all at the same time is a recipe for disaster.

What don't you get. TT has dismantled this teams whole foundation in favor of young CHEAP potential. Other teams gradually replace broken parts and gradually get them NFL ready. TT just throws em to the wolves and the result is what we have seen all last year and preseason.

A sloppy team with holes all over the place.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

The subject hasn't changed a damn bit. No, I don't think Cincy is a bad team but I can tell you if they do get to the SB this year it aint A. Chatman that get's them there. O.K.?

They have BUILT a team around solid players and can now add a guy here or there.

You tell me how we become a playoff team with players that cannot start on other teams? i would love to hear the strategy there.

If i remember correctly Roman was let go when we did so that he could have a chance to catch on with another team. I never once heard TT say he didn't think the guy belonged in the NFL.

I think he's right where he should be. A backup on another team. I would rather have Culver and his upside and get him some experience anyday. Your telling me you would rather see Roman there backing up meaning we let Culver go?

We go with thinking like that and we'll never see this team in the SB again.

I never said take Roman over Culver. Roman was cut before TC even started. There was no reason to cut him at that time. Now we go into the season with only 3 safeties because we can't find a capable 4th! Keeping Manuel, Collins, Culver, Underwood and Roman for TC would have added insurance for injury -- Underwood. It also would have given Roman a chance to earn his spot. Then at the end of TC, evaluate the best direction to go.

Same problem with Chatman. TT assumed that Rogers or Blackmon would be better than Chatman at PR. Blackmon was injured all of TC, so we don't know. Rogers couldn't catch a punt in good weather.

IMO, when you have solid, experienced players already on the roster, you shouldn't treat them like trash because you want to upgrade. You bring in guys to push them and win the job while giving those other players a chance to stay with the team.

In TT's opinion, you cut experienced depth in favor of young potential without knowing if the young potential will be better.

 

[DePack]

The subject hasn't changed a damn bit. No, I don't think Cincy is a bad team but I can tell you if they do get to the SB this year it aint A. Chatman that get's them there. O.K.?

They have BUILT a team around solid players and can now add a guy here or there.

You tell me how we become a playoff team with players that cannot start on other teams? i would love to hear the strategy there.

If i remember correctly Roman was let go when we did so that he could have a chance to catch on with another team. I never once heard TT say he didn't think the guy belonged in the NFL.

I think he's right where he should be. A backup on another team. I would rather have Culver and his upside and get him some experience anyday. Your telling me you would rather see Roman there backing up meaning we let Culver go?

We go with thinking like that and we'll never see this team in the SB again.

We don't need backups? Are you going to tell me that Chatman can be a backup at Cincy but not here? I'm not even blaming TT for making these moves. I'm just saying don't rip Bruce for bringing it up!

 

[warhawk]

You tell me how we become a playoff team with players that cannot start on other teams? i would love to hear the strategy there.

Is this your argument? I mean Really?


It seems to me we were a playoff team WITH these guys before last year. They were DEPTH! TT didn't resign Wahle or Rivera. Walker was hurt, and now he is gone as well. This is the reason we did not sniff the Playoffs last year.


I don't have a problem with TT replacing quality depth with young talent at all. The problem comes up when you replace bothe QUALITY DEPTH and QUALITY STARTERS with young "so-called" potential. TT replacing Fisher is OK, but TT trying to replace FISHER,WAHLE,RIVERA,CHATMAN,WALKER,DIGGS,LONGWELL,ROMAN,etc with "potential" all at the same time is a recipe for disaster.

What don't you get. TT has dismantled this teams whole foundation in favor of young CHEAP potential. Other teams gradually replace broken parts and gradually get them NFL ready. TT just throws em to the wolves and the result is what we have seen all last year and preseason.

A sloppy team with holes all over the place.

A sloppy team with holes all over the place?

A perfect description of the '04 Packers defense. Going into '05 we were going to win with guys like Paris, Digg's, Carroll, Roman? And who by the way did we have to back THOSE guys up. NOBODY.

Why don't you get it! TT didn't dismantle anything. That was already done for him. How many times do I have to say that we went from the most talented team in the NORTH to not having TWO guys that could start on the Bears defense. Do you argue with this?

Harris and Barnett. That's it. And Barnett would have his hands full.

And as far as '05 goes the BEST he could have done was somehow, someway, pulled Wahle out of a hat. Don't even tell me he had a shot at both those guys or anybody else for that matter. The 2mil he had would have been long gone.

 

[pyledriver80]

A sloppy team with holes all over the place?

A perfect description of the '04 Packers defense. Going into '05 we were going to win with guys like Paris, Digg's, Carroll, Roman? And who by the way did we have to back THOSE guys up. NOBODY.

The 04 team made the playoffs. So I guess MS's SLOPPY team was alot better that TT's SLOPPY team. Going into 05' we had TT's plan in place. Diggs, Lenon,Carrol,Roman were on that same team in 2004 and we made the playoffs.

Defense wasn't the problem last year the OFFENSE was. MS didn't NOT resign Wahle, TT did. That is why the Offense struggled last year. Sure we had injuries but the RB spot has the same guys it had last year so this obviously wasn't the problem. Javon was hurt but he's not on this team anymore. Do you think Jennings is some massive Upgrade over Fergie? It's the same damn team.

The problem wasn't the Defense, The RB's or young WR's. It was the fact that we couldn't run because we had no O-Line, couldn't pass because Brett had no time. Our Defense kept us in games that we could had won if we had any sort of offense. The Offense struggled because of the O-Line, which was TT's neglect!

Why don't you get it! TT didn't dismantle anything. That was already done for him. How many times do I have to say that we went from the most talented team in the NORTH to not having TWO guys that could start on the Bears defense. Do you argue with this?

Harris and Barnett. That's it. And Barnett would have his hands full.

The Defense again wasn't the biggest problem with this team last year. If we only had two guys that could have started last year, how many do we have now? Woodson sure hasn't looked very good and Hawk is a Rookie. Where is the upgrade?

And as far as '05 goes the BEST he could have done was somehow, someway, pulled Wahle out of a hat. Don't even tell me he had a shot at both those guys or anybody else for that matter. The 2mil he had would have been long gone.

Yeah, and that would have made a world of difference! Take into account Wahle would still be with this team this year when we HAD money available. We could have went out and signed another veteran OG and we'd be looking at a whole different season!

 

[umair]

alittle off topic but where was the run defence ranked in 05???

 

[Bruce]

I want to start by being clear that I think that our LB corp is greatly improved. This is not about whether TT should have re-signed this player.

Is that clear enough?

But everyone who continues to disrespect Lenon -- who was a hard-working, hard-studying free agent who earned his playing time on defense and on special teams the old fashion way -- by working his *** off and earning it might find it interesting to note.

Paris Lenon, who was signed as a FA by the Lions has earned the starting SAM linebacking spot on a fairly stout defense.

I simply am pointing this out as an interesting fact, not about regrets, because LB is one of the few positions that TT took serious action on upgrading, but because the kid has more talent than some of you seem to understand.

 

[tromadz]

i liked lenon. ill never forget how he covered moose down the field last year and broke up a play. that was awesome of him.

but our LBs now are MONEY.

 

[NDPackerFan]

I liked that play too...now our LB's will cover Moose down the middle and pick it off!!!! MONEY

 

[Bruce]

Just another interesting tidbit from the where are they now category.

Na'il Diggs is the starting WILL LB on a very talented Carolina defense.

 

[tromadz]

yeah but i dont think ANYONE (christl,fans here,etc) said Diggs didnt belong in the NFL.

Diggs was a cool dude and a solid player.

but once again....our LBs are money this year.

 

[Bruce]

yeah but i dont think ANYONE (christl,fans here,etc) said Diggs didnt belong in the NFL.

Diggs was a cool dude and a solid player.

but once again....our LBs are money this year.

No, you're right, they certainly did not -- which of course is why he was not in the original article and I was so clear in stating that it was just a case of sharing an interesting tidbit of information from the area of "where-are-they now?"

 

[TomAllen]

OK Bruce,

I think all of this started because I said Fergie "sucked", and I still stand by that. Oh, he has talent, but you definitely have to say the guy has underachieved. And if Sherman didn't give him all that money to do so, Javon Walker might not have been so pissed and may still be with Green Bay.

That being said, Ferguson better show me something this year or I hope they cut his *** midseason!

 

[warhawk]

Just another interesting tidbit from the where are they now category.

Na'il Diggs is the starting WILL LB on a very talented Carolina defense.

....and that's great and he might fit well with what they do there. We, on the other hand, now have LB's that fit very well in what the scheme calls for here.

I don't see anyone ******* these guys. For a player to perform at their highest level they need to be in a system that works to their strengths. I don't think that was the case here for Lenon or Diggs.

Plus, Diggs was hurt ALL the time which may have also hampered him somewhat here.

Our poor run defense last year had as much to do with the LB's as it did with the DL. The whole front seven has a job to do and way to often last year there were guys five yards down field before anyone put a helmet on them.

 

[Bruce]

OK Bruce,

I think all of this started because I said Fergie "sucked", and I still stand by that. Oh, he has talent, but you definitely have to say the guy has underachieved. And if Sherman didn't give him all that money to do so, Javon Walker might not have been so pissed and may still be with Green Bay.

That being said, Ferguson better show me something this year or I hope they cut his *** midseason!

Tom: no it didn't. You are far from the only person who says players suck, or they are punks, pukes, sissies, dogs, bums...

The intent of writing this article was to generate discussion and to hopefully get people to think before impulsively saying ignorant things about young men pursuing their dreams.

As fans they may disappoint you, but they deserve more respect for their hard work and efforts than some seem willing to give.

Fergie has underachieved, but it has never been for lack of trying or effort. Every time he starts to seem to break through he has been injured. Not because he is not tough -- the guy is a monster on special teams and one of the best blocking WR in the game (and he would play with a broken neck if the coaches would let him). The hit in Jacksonville took a big toll, and the injury he suffered in the first MN game should have landed him on the injured reserve at that time -- but he played through because the team needed him too.

Like all players luck plays a factor, and he may never achieve up to his ability -- I hope that is not true -- but no one could have foreseen the string of bad breaks he has had each time he starts to emerge.

But I have to say that internet tough guys who call guys who hold on to the ball taking hits that shatter their face mask sissys...

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

... are laughable!

 

[Bruce]

Just another interesting tidbit from the where are they now category.

Na'il Diggs is the starting WILL LB on a very talented Carolina defense.

....and that's great and he might fit well with what they do there. We, on the other hand, now have LB's that fit very well in what the scheme calls for here.

I don't see anyone ******* these guys. For a player to perform at their highest level they need to be in a system that works to their strengths. I don't think that was the case here for Lenon or Diggs.

Plus, Diggs was hurt ALL the time which may have also hampered him somewhat here.

Our poor run defense last year had as much to do with the LB's as it did with the DL. The whole front seven has a job to do and way to often last year there were guys five yards down field before anyone put a helmet on them.

We don't know how our young LB will perform, but if you read what I wrote I clearly complimented TT on (what I believe) is a significant upgrading our LB corp -- including depth.

 

[TomAllen]

Bruce said,

We don't know how our young LB will perform, but if you read what I wrote I clearly complimented TT on (what I believe) is a significant upgrading our LB corp -- including depth.

I find it kind of funny that TT used to be a linebacker in the NFL, and that's the one postion people seem happy with, and where there is depth.

The other positions, especially the offense, are huge question marks, imo.

and Bruce, I never questioned Fergie's toughness..just his underachieving.

 

[warhawk]

Just another interesting tidbit from the where are they now category.

Na'il Diggs is the starting WILL LB on a very talented Carolina defense.

....and that's great and he might fit well with what they do there. We, on the other hand, now have LB's that fit very well in what the scheme calls for here.

I don't see anyone ******* these guys. For a player to perform at their highest level they need to be in a system that works to their strengths. I don't think that was the case here for Lenon or Diggs.

Plus, Diggs was hurt ALL the time which may have also hampered him somewhat here.

Our poor run defense last year had as much to do with the LB's as it did with the DL. The whole front seven has a job to do and way to often last year there were guys five yards down field before anyone put a helmet on them.

We don't know how our young LB will perform, but if you read what I wrote I clearly complimented TT on (what I believe) is a significant upgrading our LB corp -- including depth.

I know that Bruce. I wasn't trying to be arguementative in any way. Just pointing out that the reality of holding onto certain players is determined by a lot of variables.

I also don't think Roman would have wanted to stick around under the circumstances for example.

Ideally we would have more seasoned vets in certain spots and some young bucks coming up but in many cases we don't and money, both now and in the future, must be considered as well.

Holding on to some of these guys, Fisher for expample, with his experience as a third down back would be great but we don't want to get in a position where we jeopordize being able to hold onto key players because our payroll for positional players and backups is higher than it needs to be.

We are going to have to deal with Harris and Barnett sooner than later. As I pointed out before I would expect we will probably be hunting a RB next year and a pass rushing DL or DE as well. We certainly need another WR which will probably come before anything else.

We won't be in position to address these issues if somewhere along the line we don't get the money right to hold onto or add guys when it needs to be addressed.

The cap position we are in will allow for those issues to be addressed but I have seen the cap get in a bad place pretty quickly. It's a tricky system to control and a few moves can change it drastically.

 

[Bruce]

Bruce said,

We don't know how our young LB will perform, but if you read what I wrote I clearly complimented TT on (what I believe) is a significant upgrading our LB corp -- including depth.

I find it kind of funny that TT used to be a linebacker in the NFL, and that's the one postion people seem happy with, and where there is depth.

The other positions, especially the offense, are huge question marks, imo.

and Bruce, I never questioned Fergie's toughness..just his underachieving.

Again, Tom I wrote this as an article for Packer Chatters front page, it is not intended or targeted for you.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Zero: I know you can read, look at my post and tell me where I claimed that Ted Thompson said any such thing>

It's obvious I can read.
Why the staff allows such childish rubish like that is beyond me.

Some writers like Christl and a good many posters lavished great praise upon Ted Thompson for cutting ties with players like Tony Fischer, Antonio Chatman, Mark Roman... declaring that they did not belong in the NFL.

I'll start over. Where are you getting the 'declaring they did not belong in the NFL?' Who is saying that? Implied by the lack of resigning said players or cutting them?

It's vague leaving the reader(atleast myself) to assume it was Ted, maybe Christl, maybe 'good many' posters or perhaps the lack of keeping them on the team.

The article I wrote starts with:

"Some writers like Christl and a good many posters lavished great praise upon Ted Thompson for cutting ties with players like Tony Fischer, Antonio Chatman, Mark Roman... declaring that they did not belong in the NFL."

I fail to see how the subject of the above sentence (the first in my reprinted article) is vague or unclear, but here I have underlined it for you. How saying that you should go back and read the post and explain to me where I wrote Ted Thompson said this is a legitimate question, esp. since you were questioning and asking me to produce proof that Ted Thompson did. I am not sure what is confusing about "cutting ties either, especially since I already acknowledged that Fisher left as an UFA but maybe that is just me.

You are a nice young man who makes solid contributions to this site, which I have gone out of my way to praise. Why you would be looking for a fight with me and bringing in the moderators is as beyond me as the subject in the first sentence seems to be to you
? :wink:

My apologies if I came off as if I were looking for a fight. I'm just looking for clarity on the "So they didn't belong in the NFL huh???" title.

So they didn't belong in the NFL huh??? <-- Is your thread topic.
Where does that statement come from? Who or what is to say they do not belong in the NFL? You said 'declaring' that's ... to me implying it was said. All I am asking is by whom? You may have said so in your post, obviously I don't have your level of IQ to figure it out. So sir could you please take it out of your day a few seconds to tell me? It would be appreciated

You're a very intelligent writer who knows how to word things to favor your perception. I guess I jus don't like the bias I sense from your writings. Doesn't mean I don't like you, or anything of that nature.

As per "solid contributions" I'm glad atleast you noticed. Seems some of the higher ups could give two rats ***. The only contributions from this old guy are gonna be reduced to only posts. Again, I appreciate that you noticed. Thank you.

For whoever said something about Driver and Jennings and size.
Chatman was 5'8" give or take an inch. Jennings is 5'11" and Driver 6'.


The 'bigger WR' comment could have been a polite way of saying 'we think he sucks' I don't know. Going off what they said as the reason for letting him go. 3 inchs is a lot in the NFL. If Chatman produced as PR/KR he'd still be here.

Driver has PRODUCED before Ted got there and Mike. Why let him go or get rid of him?
Jennings ... We'll see. Things look positive for the young man.


Is the 'size of WR' an excuse? Who knows? If it is, its a good one because it makes sense with their moves. If you're intelligent enough to make the connection of course.

 

[Bruce]

Zero: I am not trying to be obscure or gamey. Christl (who I have defended on occasion here) wrote it, Havel (who I have very little respect for, I just didn't feel like giving him any ink) wrote it and plenty of ignorant fans who often show how little they know about what it takes to play this game at a high level posted it fairly frequently - especially when TT decided not to resign them. Before anyone gets paranoid here – remember I wrote this as an opinion piece for publication elsewhere with no single poster in mind.

I had no agenda in writing this article other than to challenge group thinking (esp. related to non-star players) and to generate discussion -- which my article seems to have achieved here and at packers chatter. It also was intended to be filler for the front page until the final cuts were announced.

You seem to be implying that I have a secret agenda - I do not. I want the Packers to succeed, which means I want Ted Thompson to succeed, Mike McCarthy to succeed and every single player wearing green and gold to succeed PERIOD.

We have this strange split going on in Packerland and in our nation. This split plays out in some very troubling ways. It seems that dissent and questioning has been reframed/renamed as hating or being a hater. Nothing could be further from the truth and such over-simplified, dichotomous thinking is dangerous and destructive. Questioning and open debating are not only healthy they are the only way to ever achieve greatness.

I hate no one. I have repeatedly declared that I think Ted Thompson has a very solid football mind and is an excellent evaluator of young talent. I also have pointed out that he is a first time GM and has learning curves and growth areas that he will need to address -- which is not surprising. One of the areas that I think he is having to learn as he goes is in contingency planning and not just assuming that Plan A is going to solve the problem.

Specifically to each of these players, I would have been trying to upgrade each of these positions and it logically follows that might mean replacing each of them. This was Ted Thompson’s goal in not re-signing them and I agree with the basic premise of this goal. Where I believe Ted erred was in assuming that it would be easy to upgrade. At running back the packers are vulnerable in depth and questionable in talent other than Green who is an aging elite player who is coming back from serious injury that few RB of his age could achieve. This hardly seems like the time to gamble with depth, yet TT drafted no RB, made no FA pickups at this position and enters the season with two undrafted street free agent pickups with questionable pedigrees. Herron is a hard worker who gets the most out of his limited athletic ability (which I admire) but may be the worst #2 HB on any roster in the NFL and does not have much upside. Gado has upside, but let’s face it, there is a reason he could not crack the lineup at Liberty College. Ted assumed that Green and Davenport would fully recover and he could gamble with Gado or Herron as 3rd string depth – that did not happen. Fisher will never be a star, but he had great hands, was as assignment ready as any player you will ever see, ran the screen very well and was an outstanding blocker, especially picking up the blitz. He clearly would be an upgrade over either Herron or Gado had he been brought back to compete for a job.

A similar thing happened at WR, but at least here TT tried. He drafted Jennings (a great pick and I said so at the time) and Rodgers (a head scratching pick and I said so at the time) which seems to be part of the plan in upgrading this position. He also signed several free agents hoping to upgrade including Rod Gardner, a former first-round pick who finished 2005 with the Packers and Marc Boerigter who once produced in the NFL pre-injury. Unfortunately these moves (plan A) failed when Cory Rodgers’s poor fundamentals and limited learning capacity blew up and when it became obvious that Gardner and Boerigter had lost the speed that got them to the big game and could neither get separation anymore nor hold on to the football when it hit them in awful places like in the hands. Again, Chatman would have not only made this squad if he had been given the opportunity to compete, he would have provided stabiltiy at two positions.

Ted gambled that Safety would be covered by signing Manuel (who was coming back from serious injury) and by Underwood’s improved play when he let Roman go. In a perfect World Plan A would have worked. In the real world injuries happen (you would think Thompson may have gotten this lesson down last season) and career backups coming back from injuries may not perform the way you hope.

Having written all of this – I must now say they are gone. The team must move on and play with the players they have. All who know me know that I am optimistic and competitive by nature. I think the Packers can compete and succeed (but once again more vulnerable to injury than they needed to be) and I expect them to do so.

I hope this clears up any questions you had.

I don’t know about you, but I am ready for some FOOTBALL!!!!!!! Bring on da bears!

Zero: I know you can read, look at my post and tell me where I claimed that Ted Thompson said any such thing>

It's obvious I can read.
Why the staff allows such childish rubish like that is beyond me.

Some writers like Christl and a good many posters lavished great praise upon Ted Thompson for cutting ties with players like Tony Fischer, Antonio Chatman, Mark Roman... declaring that they did not belong in the NFL.

I'll start over. Where are you getting the 'declaring they did not belong in the NFL?' Who is saying that? Implied by the lack of resigning said players or cutting them?

It's vague leaving the reader(atleast myself) to assume it was Ted, maybe Christl, maybe 'good many' posters or perhaps the lack of keeping them on the team.

The article I wrote starts with:

"Some writers like Christl and a good many posters lavished great praise upon Ted Thompson for cutting ties with players like Tony Fischer, Antonio Chatman, Mark Roman... declaring that they did not belong in the NFL."

I fail to see how the subject of the above sentence (the first in my reprinted article) is vague or unclear, but here I have underlined it for you. How saying that you should go back and read the post and explain to me where I wrote Ted Thompson said this is a legitimate question, esp. since you were questioning and asking me to produce proof that Ted Thompson did. I am not sure what is confusing about "cutting ties either, especially since I already acknowledged that Fisher left as an UFA but maybe that is just me.

You are a nice young man who makes solid contributions to this site, which I have gone out of my way to praise. Why you would be looking for a fight with me and bringing in the moderators is as beyond me as the subject in the first sentence seems to be to you
? :wink:

My apologies if I came off as if I were looking for a fight. I'm just looking for clarity on the "So they didn't belong in the NFL huh???" title.

So they didn't belong in the NFL huh??? <-- Is your thread topic.
Where does that statement come from? Who or what is to say they do not belong in the NFL? You said 'declaring' that's ... to me implying it was said. All I am asking is by whom? You may have said so in your post, obviously I don't have your level of IQ to figure it out. So sir could you please take it out of your day a few seconds to tell me? It would be appreciated

You're a very intelligent writer who knows how to word things to favor your perception. I guess I jus don't like the bias I sense from your writings. Doesn't mean I don't like you, or anything of that nature.

As per "solid contributions" I'm glad atleast you noticed. Seems some of the higher ups could give two rats ***. The only contributions from this old guy are gonna be reduced to only posts. Again, I appreciate that you noticed. Thank you.

For whoever said something about Driver and Jennings and size.
Chatman was 5'8" give or take an inch. Jennings is 5'11" and Driver 6'.


The 'bigger WR' comment could have been a polite way of saying 'we think he sucks' I don't know. Going off what they said as the reason for letting him go. 3 inchs is a lot in the NFL. If Chatman produced as PR/KR he'd still be here.

Driver has PRODUCED before Ted got there and Mike. Why let him go or get rid of him?
Jennings ... We'll see. Things look positive for the young man.


Is the 'size of WR' an excuse? Who knows? If it is, its a good one because it makes sense with their moves. If you're intelligent enough to make the connection of course.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Christl said it? What a ******. (It's safe to call him that on this board, right?)

I actually used him on my final exam essay. I did my report on inaccurate writers who use stats to favor their opinion instead of focus on getting out a balanced article.

Thank you for replying to my non sense of a question