Ted Thompson Era Should Be Over

[PackerDNA]

Because of injuries and the failure to augment the roster through the use of free agency. Those are the two biggest culprits as I see them.

I'd add a GM who always has this team in the middle of a 5 year plan to get the SB. Are we a contender or not? If not , keep making decisions based on next year and years after. If we are, act like it; make over the hump moves to bring in veteran impact players.

 

[Dantés]

I'd add a GM who always has this team in the middle of a 5 year plan to get the SB. Are we a contender or not? If not , keep making decisions based on next year and years after. If we are, act like it; make over the hump moves to bring in veteran impact players.

It will be interesting to see if he genuinely adjusts his approach as Rodgers ages. Perhaps as he feels that QB window closing, he will be more willing to spend on the current team even if it isn't a long term sustainable strategy.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It will be interesting to see if he genuinely adjusts his approach as Rodgers ages. Perhaps as he feels that QB window closing, he will be more willing to spend on the current team even if it isn't a long term sustainable strategy.

Selectively using free agency and trades to upgrade the current team doesn't automatically endanger a team's long term sustainability if used in a smart way. Just take a look at the Patriots which have significantly more cap space than the Packers entering next offseason.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It will be interesting to see if he genuinely adjusts his approach as Rodgers ages. Perhaps as he feels that QB window closing, he will be more willing to spend on the current team even if it isn't a long term sustainable strategy.

That is assuming TT is still around when that AR window begins to close faster. At 33, barring some kind of major injury or freak reversal of fortunes, AR has some good years ahead and I think he will still be a Packer well past the time TT is GM.

 

[Dantés]

Selectively using free agency and trades to upgrade the current team doesn't automatically endanger a team's long term sustainability if used in a smart way. Just take a look at the Patriots which have significantly more cap space than the Packers entering next offseason.

I agree with you. But I imagine that part of TT's philosophy in not using FA is that HE doesn't think it's a long term approach in terms of sustainability.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I agree with you. But I imagine that part of TT's philosophy in not using FA is that HE doesn't think it's a long term approach in terms of sustainability.

That might be true but the Patriots prove that he's wrong about it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Selectively using free agency and trades to upgrade the current team doesn't automatically endanger a team's long term sustainability if used in a smart way. Just take a look at the Patriots which have significantly more cap space than the Packers entering next offseason.

So true, can you send that memo to TT?

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

 

[Dantés]

That might be true but the Patriots prove that he's wrong about it.

Right, and as I say I agree with you.

 

[Packer Brother]

I hope this guy leaves asap. Hate that he's still the GM.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

@Sunshinepacker

The point of comparing the records outside of round one between other teams was to assess how they stacked up in ability to find talent later in the draft. Thus including a 1st round pick who was drafted because a team packaged lower picks does not help us.

Well, the Vikings managed to find a first round talent using their second and fourth picks. The analysis make more sense if you just look at how post-first round picks are used, otherwise you're unfairly penalizing teams that do a good job of trading picks.

 

[Packer Brother]

http://www.jsonline.com/story/sport...rphy-packers-had-pretty-good-season/97381696/

This is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Dantés]

Well, the Vikings managed to find a first round talent using their second and fourth picks. The analysis make more sense if you just look at how post-first round picks are used, otherwise you're unfairly penalizing teams that do a good job of trading picks.

The initial discussion was regarding Thompson's ability to find talent after the first round. I posited that he's one of the better GM's in the league at finding good players outside of round 1, and that was challenged. So I compiled those lists as one small illustration of my point, encouraging others to look at the bigger picture as they had time.

Therefore, including a 1st round pick (even one that was obtained by trading lower picks) makes no sense. You don't get an indication at how a GM/FO does at finding talent outside of round 1 by looking at players picked inside of round one. The Vikings didn't "find a first round talent" in the 2nd or 4th round. They traded back into the first round and took a player there. You may think it was a good move, and you may be right, but it's also irrelevant to the point that I was making. If you'd like to make a different point, please feel free.

 

[RRyder]

http://www.jsonline.com/story/sport...rphy-packers-had-pretty-good-season/97381696/

This is utterly ridiculous.

How is it ridiculous?

He say it's disappointing not to win the SB but says making the NFCCG isn't nothing to sneeze at.

Seriously. WTF is ridiculous about that?

 

[Packer Brother]

How is it ridiculous?

He say it's disappointing not to win the SB but says making the NFCCG isn't nothing to sneeze at.

Seriously. WTF is ridiculous about that?

That they aren't "far" behind the Patriots. He's "happy" with TT's job as GM.

Guy just shouldn't open his mouth about how "well" they did. Packers fans don't care. Win or at least get to a Damm SB.

 

[RRyder]

That they aren't "far" behind the Patriots. He's "happy" with TT's job as GM.

Guy just shouldn't open his mouth about how "well" they did. Packers fans don't care. Win or at least get to a Damm SB.

So a team makes the NFCCG and he's supposed to crap over his GM? Gotcha. Ever think maybe he simply doesn't think TT is a horrible GM like alot of people?

He even said that the season was disappointing not winning the SB but he wouldn't call making the NFL version of the final 4 an epic failure so he shouldn't even open his mouth apparently.

Calling his statements ridiculous is the pinnacle of why some Packers fans are a spoiled entitled lot.

It's PR trying to put a positive spin on the season no different then the PR comming out of Dallas "We may have been one n done but we got Dak and Zeke so we're in great shape"

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Have to agree with RRyder here. This is a public speech made by Murphy. Would you rather have him come out and talk down about a season that in the end was more successful than 28 other teams had, talk wildly of changes that some people outside the organization think should happen and probably won't? If all you took away from this is that Murphy is blind and the Packers are doomed, than you are putting your own spin on it. All 32 teams in the NFL will be spending the offseason trying to improve, I don't see this speech by Murphy detracting from that goal for the Packer organization. Just don't expect them to do everything that us fans think they should or you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

[Mavster]

He must be leaving out Super Bowl appearances and wins in his comparison here. Because if not how can he seriously say we're close to the Patriots?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The initial discussion was regarding Thompson's ability to find talent after the first round. I posited that he's one of the better GM's in the league at finding good players outside of round 1, and that was challenged. So I compiled those lists as one small illustration of my point, encouraging others to look at the bigger picture as they had time.

Therefore, including a 1st round pick (even one that was obtained by trading lower picks) makes no sense. You don't get an indication at how a GM/FO does at finding talent outside of round 1 by looking at players picked inside of round one. The Vikings didn't "find a first round talent" in the 2nd or 4th round. They traded back into the first round and took a player there. You may think it was a good move, and you may be right, but it's also irrelevant to the point that I was making. If you'd like to make a different point, please feel free.

Yes, I understand the original analysis. What I'm saying is that it's flawed. The better question would be how well does a team utilize its non-first round picks. Turning a non-first round pick INTO a first round pick and using that pick on a good player is a good use of the picks! Ignoring that is just plain silly! E.g., when TT used non-first round picks to trade up and draft Matthews, that was a tremendous use of non-first round picks to identify talent and go get it. That's a great job, why would anyone ignore that?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

He must be leaving out Super Bowl appearances and wins in his comparison here. Because if not how can he seriously say we're close to the Patriots?

If you are talking about Championships/Super Bowls as a franchise, you may want to check your numbers. If you are talking about in the last 9 years, since Murphy was hired, 1 SB win each.

 

[PackerDNA]

If you are talking about as a franchise, you may want to check your numbers. If you are talking about in the last 10 years, 1 SB win each.

Here we go with the cherry picking time frames bit again.
So if the Pats win Sunday, will the war cry be "hey, they have just as many SB wins as we do...in the last 15 minutes".
Let's be clear; this organization couldn't make a pimple on the *** of theirs.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Here we go with the cherry picking time frames bit again.
So if the Pats win Sunday, will the war cry be "hey, they have just as many SB wins as we do...in the last 15 minutes".
Let's be clear; this organization couldn't make a pimple on the *** of theirs.

LOL....which is why I asked what time frame the poster was referring to. I have no problem saying that in the last 17 or so years the Patriots have had the more overall successful franchise than the Packers and everyone else in the NFL, but I don't quite agree with it being as large of as a gap as him or you want to frame it in.

 

[PackerDNA]

LOL....which is why I asked what time frame the poster was referring to. I have no problem saying that in the last 17 or so years the Patriots have had the more overall successful franchise than the Packers and everyone else in the NFL, but I don't quite agree with it being as large of as a gap as him or you want to frame it in.

Oh, it's more than big enough for me, thanks.
I get what you're saying, though.

 

[JLW_51]

The Packers need to force Thompson to evolve and re-think the way he does business, just my opinion, http://lastwordonprofootball.com/20...er-ted-thompson-needs-evolve-general-manager/

 

[Dantés]

Yes, I understand the original analysis. What I'm saying is that it's flawed. The better question would be how well does a team utilize its non-first round picks. Turning a non-first round pick INTO a first round pick and using that pick on a good player is a good use of the picks! Ignoring that is just plain silly! E.g., when TT used non-first round picks to trade up and draft Matthews, that was a tremendous use of non-first round picks to identify talent and go get it. That's a great job, why would anyone ignore that?

It isn't flawed or silly if what you're interested in is a GM's ability to identify viable talent after round one. That's what I chose to look at specifically. Trading up can be a great strategy on occasion, but it isn't sustainable. One cannot just always trade into the first round to find players. They have to be able to locate talent later in the draft. You are considering a separate issue. I don't know why that's so difficult to understand.

 

[Dantés]

Here we go with the cherry picking time frames bit again.
So if the Pats win Sunday, will the war cry be "hey, they have just as many SB wins as we do...in the last 15 minutes".
Let's be clear; this organization couldn't make a pimple on the *** of theirs.

That last statement is totally hyperbolic, but I do agree that it's not accurate to just pick out the last ten years and make a judgement based on that. If one really wants to be fair, compare Thompson's tenure (12 years to date) to Belichick's first 12 years (2000-11). That would be Thompson with one appearance and one ring against Belichick with 5 appearances and 3 rings.