Ted Thompsons five worst moves as GM

[Carl]

While the Packers had injuries at receiver only Nelson was lost for the season.

The Panthers went 15-1 and reached the Super Bowl without Kelvin Benjamin for the entire season although their WR corps was considered far inferior to the Packers one.

The Broncos lost their starting LT in the offseason and his replacement after three games for the season yet were able to win the Super Bowl.

I don't think there's any reason to use injuries as an excuse for the Packers struggles this season.

Being down their top 4 WRs to begin season vs. Arizona was huge factor in the game. As soon as Cobb when down, they were very limited.

I highly doubt the Panthers would have been in the Super Bowl without even their top two guys had Olsen gone down also.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think that's a lazy comparison as neither Benjamin nor clady were cornerstone players of their franchise that Jordy is for Green Bay. I think a better comparison would be to look at how New England struggled when Gronk was injured. Losing Richard Rodgers would not be the same as losing Gronk.

Really??? The Panthers lost their #1 receiver just like the Packers and you think it's not a compareable situation??? Whatever.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Being down their top 4 WRs to begin season vs. Arizona was huge factor in the game. As soon as Cobb when down, they were very limited.

I highly doubt the Panthers would have been in the Super Bowl without even their top two guys had Olsen gone down also.

The Packers offense didn't perform up to expectations starting in week 4, blaming that on injuries is absolutely lame.

 

[tstej]

Really??? The Panthers lost their #1 receiver just like the Packers and you think it's not a compareable situation??? Whatever.

So you think losing our best tight end would be the same as the patriots losing Gronkowski?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So you think losing our best tight end would be the same as the patriots losing Gronkowski?

That's a ridiculous statement. The difference in performance is by far larger between Gronk and Rodgers as it is with Nelson and Benjamin.

Benjamin was on his way to being a true #1 receiver (73 catches for 1,008 yards and 9 TDs as a rookie) while Rodgers will never be anything more than a #2 TE.

 

[tstej]

I like Benjamin but Panthers rely much more on their run game and their defense. They are not built around Benjamin where the Packers are built around the passing attack specifically relying on Jordy and Rodgers to spearhead the attack. In 2010 we had a ton of injuries but come playoffs all of our core players were healthy for the playoff run. There's not a team in the nfl built to sustain injuries to core players and still be super bowl contenders.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There's not a team in the nfl built to sustain injuries to core players and still be super bowl contenders.

What did Denver do this past year when Manning went down?

Of course injuries to starters can effect how well a team does. But I don't think the Packers erratic play on offense throughout the season can be solely blamed on the loss of Jordy. To a man and a coach, the whole offense was off most of the season.

IMO Aaron Rodgers is about the only player on the Packers, that if he went down for the season, I would use as an excuse for losing. Is the offense better with Jordy, of course, but the other 5 wide receivers didn't step up their games when Jordy went down.

 

[Mondio]

I don't care what Peyton was in the past, but if he was forced into playing the entire season last year, I would have put money down on the Broncos not even making the playoffs, he was that bad outside of 2 partial games after lengthy layoffs. Whatever he added to that team, it definitely was NOT offensive production.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't care what Peyton was in the past, but if he was forced into playing the entire season last year, I would have put money down on the Broncos not even making the playoffs, he was that bad outside of 2 partial games after lengthy layoffs. Whatever he added to that team, it definitely was NOT offensive production.

The Broncos were 7-2 with Peyton as the starter after nine games, clearly good enough to make the playoffs. With you complaining over and over again about the Broncos winning the Super Bowl, coming up with several useless "what if..." scenarios I wonder if you actually put money down on them missing the playoffs and are pissed off because of it.

 

[RRyder]

While the Packers had injuries at receiver only Nelson was lost for the season.

The Panthers went 15-1 and reached the Super Bowl without Kelvin Benjamin for the entire season although their WR corps was considered far inferior to the Packers one.

The Broncos lost their starting LT in the offseason and his replacement after three games for the season yet were able to win the Super Bowl.

I don't think there's any reason to use injuries as an excuse for the Packers struggles this season.

They also got hit hard by injuries on the Oline. When you go into a game with 4 starters hurt on the line that's alot

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They also got hit hard by injuries on the Oline. When you go into a game with 4 starters hurt on the line that's alot

The Broncos lost their starting LT and his back-up for the year within the first three games of the season.

The starters on the Packers offensive line missed a combined 11 games and played 83% of the snaps.

Once again, pretty lame to whine about injuries.

 

[RRyder]

The Broncos lost their starting LT and his back-up for the year within the first three games of the season.

The starters on the Packers offensive line missed a combined 11 games and played 83% of the snaps.

Once again, pretty lame to whine about injuries.

Considering the point I'm making is going into next season completely healthy on offense can and will make a world of difference and not complaining about how we looked last year the I wouldn't say whining.

Also while they did play 83% they also were playing through injuries.

To be clear so i dont get accused of whinning again the biggest problem last year was not injuries. It was Rodgers taking a step back but going into a season healthy again could help get him back on track and that to go along with the D we saw last season leaves us in pretty damn good shape

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Considering the point I'm making is going into next season completely healthy on offense can and will make a world of difference and not complaining about how we looked last year the I wouldn't say whining.

Well, I can all but guarantee that the Packers nor any other team in the league will be completely healthy at any point during next season. Successful teams have enough depth to overcome injuries, something the Packers weren't able to do on the OL and at WR last season. That's clearly on the GM.

Obviously losing Rodgers would be a different story as there's no way he could be replaced adequately by a back-up.

 

[bubba]

I have never been a big TT fan. He has done a decent job at drafting but other than that I think he is below average at the other aspects of his job. Can anyone tell me who the last true UFA he has signed from a different team is? Peppers and Guion were cuts and I believe Woodson was also cut. Does anyone really believe he will change his philosophy this year? If it is going to cost Ted a future draft pick he just doesn't do it. I really liked Wolf a lot. I thought he was a great GM. When there was a problem he used every avenue he had to try to fix it. Trades Free Agency and the draft. He held more press conferences, stated his opinions openly, when they were lacking at a certain position he came out and said so. An example of this is his taking 3 DBs in the 1st 3 rounds after Moss tore them up. When Ted gets asked about a player he just drafted what is his reply?" We think he is a good football player" REALLY tell us why you liked him. What are his strengths. After saying all of this I think TT is not horrible I just believe he should use all the options he has to aquire talent. According to reports Mcarthy is also getting frustrated by the lack of signings. I believe we should not be the only team in the NFL not to sign any free agents. I am not talking about a expensive Von Miller type but serviceable vets who have played the positions before instead of promoting a 7th round draft pick from the practice squad and expecting him to be good. So to sum this up people should stop looking at UFAs and start looking for the players who are cut because if TT stays his course those are the only players he will consider signing. I really hope he breaks the mold this year but I just don't see it happening.

 

[TJV]

Can anyone tell me who the last true UFA he has signed from a different team is? Peppers and Guion were cuts and I believe Woodson was also cut.

Can you tell us what possible difference it makes whether or not players signed from other teams are “true” UFAs? Would you rather Thompson not have acquired the three players above because they weren’t “true UFAs”? Imagine the player you covet most from another team is waived because of cap problems. Would you give Thompson credit for acquiring him? Or would you rather he sign a “true UFA”? What you are complaining about here is a distinction without a difference.

I really liked Wolf a lot. I thought he was a great GM. When there was a problem he used every avenue he had to try to fix it. Trades Free Agency and the draft. He held more press conferences, stated his opinions openly, when they were lacking at a certain position he came out and said so. An example of this is his taking 3 DBs in the 1st 3 rounds after Moss tore them up.

Wolf was a great GM but how many titles did the Packers win under Wolf? How many under Thompson? And it’s funny you’re using the 1999 draft in an attempt to praise Wolf. His first two picks were CBs Antwan Edwards and Fred Vinson. That is one of the worst examples of him reaching in the draft for need. Thank goodness he picked Mike McKenzie in the third round but the first two picks were busts.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I have never been a big TT fan. He has done a decent job at drafting but other than that I think he is below average at the other aspects of his job. Can anyone tell me who the last true UFA he has signed from a different team is? Peppers and Guion were cuts and I believe Woodson was also cut. Does anyone really believe he will change his philosophy this year? If it is going to cost Ted a future draft pick he just doesn't do it. I really liked Wolf a lot. I thought he was a great GM. When there was a problem he used every avenue he had to try to fix it. Trades Free Agency and the draft. He held more press conferences, stated his opinions openly, when they were lacking at a certain position he came out and said so. An example of this is his taking 3 DBs in the 1st 3 rounds after Moss tore them up. When Ted gets asked about a player he just drafted what is his reply?" We think he is a good football player" REALLY tell us why you liked him. What are his strengths. After saying all of this I think TT is not horrible I just believe he should use all the options he has to aquire talent. According to reports Mcarthy is also getting frustrated by the lack of signings. I believe we should not be the only team in the NFL not to sign any free agents. I am not talking about a expensive Von Miller type but serviceable vets who have played the positions before instead of promoting a 7th round draft pick from the practice squad and expecting him to be good. So to sum this up people should stop looking at UFAs and start looking for the players who are cut because if TT stays his course those are the only players he will consider signing. I really hope he breaks the mold this year but I just don't see it happening.

A lot of posters here agree that Thompson should use free agency and trades more often to selectively address positions of need. But not crediting him for signing players cut by other teams is ridiculous as such a move is even betrer as it doesn't factor into compensatory picks.

 

[RRyder]

Can you tell us what possible difference it makes whether or not players signed from other teams are “true” UFAs? Would you rather Thompson not have acquired the three players above because they weren’t “true UFAs”? Imagine the player you covet most from another team is waived because of cap problems. Would you give Thompson credit for acquiring him? Or would you rather he sign a “true UFA”? What you are complaining about here is a distinction without a difference. Wolf was a great GM but how many titles did the Packers win under Wolf? How many under Thompson? And it’s funny you’re using the 1999 draft in an attempt to praise Wolf. His first two picks were CBs Antwan Edwards and Fred Vinson. That is one of the worst examples of him reaching in the draft for need. Thank goodness he picked Mike McKenzie in the third round but the first two picks were busts.

I agree with your entire post but simply in fairness I'll point out Vinson was traded for Ahman Green and he turned out pretty damn well.

Also in terms of drafting for need see TTs draft after our record setting bad defense in 11

 

[TJV]

I agree with your entire post but simply in fairness I'll point out Vinson was traded for Ahman Green and he turned out pretty damn well.

Absolutely agree on Green. Wolf hoodwinked Seattle in that trade. IMO Vinson as trade bait: A; Vinson as a draft pick: D.

Also in terms of drafting for need see TTs draft after our record setting bad defense in 11

Agreed.

 

[PikeBadger]

Absolutely agree on Green. Wolf hoodwinked Seattle in that trade. IMO Vinson as trade bait: A; Vinson as a draft pick: D.
Agreed.

Wolf was pretty good at doing that especially with QB's that were drafted and developed in Green Bay and then later received a better pick for in return.
Thompson's success in that regard has been more along the line of late picks and UDFA's leaving in free agency and getting compensatory picks in return.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I understand the beef some have with TT and his hesitation in the FA market, I am one of them. But I am also aware that signing more FA's doesn't guarantee anything. So while its easy to say "If he just signs this guy or that guy, the Packers will win the Super Bowl", but will they? There are no guarantees, except the money you promise that FA. The one thing I keep going back to when I evaluate TT is the Packers record in the last 10 years under his guidance and the state of the current team while measuring this against the other 31 teams. In the last 10 year, The Packers have the best record in the NFC with 104 wins (Seahawks are the closest to that with 101). 8 out of 10 years in the playoffs, 3 times in the NFCC, 1 SB win (Giants are the only team with more then 1). So if you are only grading TT on the # of FA's he signs and the # of SB wins he has, your grading system is a bit skewed IMO. I also don't buy into the argument that TT is only successful because of Rodgers (who TT drafted). Look at the team this year, Rodgers played the full year. The Packers have been successful thanks in large part to Rodgers, but also thanks to the team that TT has assembled around him.

 

[Mondio]

as always, i'm of the opinion that if Ted finds value in the player at a price that doesn't put the rest of the team in a bad situation he'll sign them. Assuming of course they want to be here in the first place.

I'm also of the opinion that Ted has built some pretty decent teams here and there's been a few things from poor play at the worst possible time, to coaching decisions, to injuries, to just dumb luck, that has kept us from winning at least 1 more superbowl recently too. In between there's been some years where we probably just didn't have enough to win it either, but hey, no team does.

In the end, winning is the only thing that will quiet most fans. If the Packers win 2 years ago and continue that play thru this year and win again, what are people complaining about? People would be proclaiming him the greatest ever. It's safe to say that we were good enough 2 years ago to win, and the majority of fans though we were this year heading into the season. But we didn't win, and it's frustrating.

That said, I'm also pretty sure had he signed some names people recognize and we won they'd be saying he's the greatest thing ever too. Just as I'm sure had he signed some recognizable names and they didn't work out like Byrd and some others that put us in such cap trouble we had to trade our 2nd best offensive player on the team and would cause us to cut up and comers in a few season and we didn't win another superbowl, they'd be talking about how stupid all his FA signings were too.

another thing i'm certain of, because most of the above is all hypotheticals, everyone will tell me how it wouldn't be that way for whatever reason

anyway, every year some really good coaches and players do not win a superbowl and for all sorts of reasons and as disappointing as last season was, barring any significant injuries, I'm confident we'll be back in the mix again next year. After that i'm hoping for a few breaks

 

[Half Empty]

I understand the beef some have with TT and his hesitation in the FA market, I am one of them. But I am also aware that signing more FA's doesn't guarantee anything. So while its easy to say "If he just signs this guy or that guy, the Packers will win the Super Bowl", but will they? There are no guarantees, except the money you promise that FA. The one thing I keep going back to when I evaluate TT is the Packers record in the last 10 years under his guidance and the state of the current team while measuring this against the other 31 teams. In the last 10 year, The Packers have the best record in the NFC with 104 wins (Seahawks are the closest to that with 101). 8 out of 10 years in the playoffs, 3 times in the NFCC, 1 SB win (Giants are the only team with more then 1). So if you are only grading TT on the # of FA's he signs and the # of SB wins he has, your grading system is a bit skewed IMO. I also don't buy into the argument that TT is only successful because of Rodgers (who TT drafted). Look at the team this year, Rodgers played the full year. The Packers have been successful thanks in large part to Rodgers, but also thanks to the team that TT has assembled around him.

Shorthand reply. No personnel moves 'guarantee' anything, much less a SB - few, if any, of us claim that. Some other teams plug holes with FAs and trades - TT's got a track record of leaving those holes for extended periods, Safety and ILB being the two latest examples. Have seen the litany of wins before, but there is that group that has the personal opinion that it's Lombardi-or-bust. Lots of the other 31 teams' fans wish they were Packer fans, but I don't care about that - it's the Pack and the rest of the league to me. Rodgers play last year might have been the ultimate proof that he has been carrying the team - he has an off year, and a defense that finally would have been sufficient for a SB many of the previous years got them no further than usual.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I understand the beef some have with TT and his hesitation in the FA market, I am one of them. But I am also aware that signing more FA's doesn't guarantee anything. So while its easy to say "If he just signs this guy or that guy, the Packers will win the Super Bowl", but will they? There are no guarantees, except the money you promise that FA.

The draft and develop philosophy doesn't guarantee anything either. Quoting the great Wayne Gretzky, the only thing that's certain is that you miss 100% of the shots you don't take, meaning while it's possible FAs end up underperforming not signing any guarantees not getting an impact player.

I keep going back to when I evaluate TT is the Packers record in the last 10 years under his guidance and the state of the current team while measuring this against the other 31 teams. In the last 10 year, The Packers have the best record in the NFC with 104 wins (Seahawks are the closest to that with 101). 8 out of 10 years in the playoffs, 3 times in the NFCC, 1 SB win (Giants are the only team with more then 1). So if you are only grading TT on the # of FA's he signs and the # of SB wins he has, your grading system is a bit skewed IMO. I also don't buy into the argument that TT is only successful because of Rodgers (who TT drafted). Look at the team this year, Rodgers played the full year. The Packers have been successful thanks in large part to Rodgers, but also thanks to the team that TT has assembled around him.

Well, the Patriots, as the only other team with a future HOF QB for every single season over that period, have 124 wins since 2006.

In addition the Packers have been 101-50 (.669) starting Favre and Rodgers while going 3-5-1 (.389) with someone else, so there's a point to be made for Thompson benefitting from QB play (although there's no doubt he deserves credit for drafting #12).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The draft and develop philosophy doesn't guarantee anything either. Quoting the great Wayne Gretzky, the only thing that's certain is that you miss 100% of the shots you don't take, meaning while it's possible FAs end up underperforming not signing any guarantees not getting an impact player.

While I agree in part, I don't agree that "not signing any guarantees not getting an impact player". Since by not signing someone (a FA) you are a.) able to use money on your current roster of potential free agents and b.) using the saved roster spot for another player....either who could become an impact player.

For example. This year we could sign Forte, who could be or may not be an impact player. Or we could resign Starks, who also, may or may not be an impact player. Doing one or the other does not guarantee anything. Or take that scenario one step further. We could let Starks go, not sign Forte and hope Crockett becomes the impact player at #2 we need. This move also frees up a roster spot as well as more money for potentially another impact player.

 

[Sky King]

It just goes to show you how narrow the margins may be between a handful of teams in the top tier. Something tips the scales one way or the other and it sure may not take much.