Ted Thompsons five worst moves as GM

[Pokerbrat2000]

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.

Some of it boils down to luck. Were you lucky enough not to have a key injury. Were you lucky enough not to turn the ball over at a key moment, did you win or lose a coin flip, etc. Personally, I feel the Packers have been in that top tier under TT and with some luck, may have won one or two more SB's. But then again, could have won none.....but at least they are in the conversation every year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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.

Well, re-signing a team's own free agent(s) at a position results in the talent level being on par compared to the previous season. Once again, adding a free agent is a risk but one that could end up being an upgrade. BTW it's not always a smart move to spend money to keep players around (Hawk and Jones being prime examples).

I don't agree with a free agent taking a roster spot from someone on the bottom of the depth chart either. The reason to bring in a veteran from another team is for him to start immediately or be the primary back-up. As you brought up Forte as an example, he would take Starks' spot on the roster, improving the #2 RB position but would in no way affect Crockett's chances to make the roster as the third RB.

First and foremost, a GM's job is to upgrade the team's roster by either re-signing core players or bring in free agents who would be an improvement over current starters. Both of these moves have to make sense financially as well.

By mostly ignoring two ways to improve the roster Thompson has left it with some holes that should and could have been upgraded years ago.

 

[ExpatPacker]

I think the point is that the Packers have several holes to fill, and expecting them all to be filled by draft picks is very unrealistic, first because it usually takes time even for the best rookies to develop into solid starters, and second because rookies are more risky than FAs because rookies are unproven. FAs have a track record. There's not much other way to get veteran helpf.

 

[Poppa San]

I think the point is that the Packers have several holes to fill, and expecting them all to be filled by draft picks is very unrealistic, first because it usually takes time even for the best rookies to develop into solid starters, and second because rookies are more risky than FAs because rookies are unproven. FAs have a track record. There's not much other way to get veteran helpf.

I believe TT doesn't expect rookies to fill the holes. He expects last season's picks to develop enough to fill the holes. His MO is to keep throwing draft picks (for this discussion picks include UDFA) at the holes until one eventually fills it. And this is only after he realizes the hole is not going to be filled with what he already has. I can't find the quote but didn't he respond to a FA acquisition a decade ago with "I can find that cheaper in the draft"?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I believe TT doesn't expect rookies to fill the holes. He expects last season's picks to develop enough to fill the holes. His MO is to keep throwing draft picks (for this discussion picks include UDFA) at the holes until one eventually fills it. And this is only after he realizes the hole is not going to be filled with what he already has.

That approach is fine as long as those holes don't end up getting filled for several seasons as is currently the case at inside linebacker and tight end.

 

[Poppa San]

That approach is fine as long as those holes don't end up getting filled for several seasons as is currently the case at inside linebacker and tight end.

I would not be surprised if he believes the players to fill the holes are on the roster now. RR may be good enough and he'll wait to see the backups before moving on. Probably wants to see Ryan during year two to see his development. Any draft picks will be for depth at those positions unless he is giving up on those players which I doubt. A cost:value FA may be signed to push for the job but I don't think so.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would not be surprised if he believes the players to fill the holes are on the roster now. RR may be good enough and he'll wait to see the backups before moving on. Probably wants to see Ryan during year two to see his development. Any draft picks will be for depth at those positions unless he is giving up on those players which I doubt. A cost:value FA may be signed to push for the job but I don't think so.

Rodgers is fine as a #2 tight end and a threat in the red zone but I'm absolutely sure Thompson doesn't expect him to ever turn into a player capable of stretching a defense.

Ryan might turn out to be a decent inside linebacker but there's absolutely no doubt the team needs an upgrade at the position.

If Thompson only adds draft picks for depth at those positions I and a lot of Packers fans will be extremely disappointed.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

"I can find that cheaper in the draft"?

I remember reading that TT quote somewhere too. While for the most part I think TT's draft and develop strategy (D &D) has merit and can be successful, finding 22 quality starters using only D &D is a long shot at best. As many of us keep pointing out, the strategy has failed at ILB and TE. We may have good enough players at those positions for depth, but in no way would I say either position is currently occupied by a quality starter. If I was sitting at a table with Ted, trying to "negotiate on these two positions".....I would say "OK Ted, I will meet you half way, let's at least bring in some proven older vets at those positions, we may only get a year or 2 out of them, but at least we will get more production while your guys develop."

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think WR is another position where the Packers would benefit by bringing in an older Veteran FA while Adams, Montgomery, Abby and Janis "Develop". This becomes even more of a need if JJ isn't resigned.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think WR is another position where the Packers would benefit by bringing in an older Veteran FA while Adams, Montgomery, Abby and Janis "Develop". This becomes even more of a need if JJ isn't resigned.

If the Packers bring in a veteran receiver there's no way they will be able to keep all of Adams, Montgomery, Abbrederis and Janis on the roster.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If the Packers bring in a veteran receiver there's no way they will be able to keep all of Adams, Montgomery, Abbrederis and Janis on the roster.

Barring a preseason injury of any of the 6, you are correct. But I'm fine with one of them being cut/traded, if it means a dependable, quality 3rd WR lining up with Jordy and Cobb in 2016.

I would much rather find that veteran WR now, while the supply is high VS waiting until what happened last year and Jones was really 1 of very few options. I'm not saying go out and sign a $10M/year guy, but there are older cheaper vets out there worthy of bringing in to camp to compete. Getting Jordy back will be a lift to the whole unit, but its still the same 6 we started camp with last year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Barring a preseason injury of any of the 6, you are correct. But I'm fine with one of them being cut/traded, if it means a dependable, quality 3rd WR lining up with Jordy and Cobb in 2016.

I just don't think the Packers are in need of spending on a veteran receiver.

 

[TJV]

I can't find the quote but didn't he respond to a FA acquisition a decade ago with "I can find that cheaper in the draft"?

The link below is the January 2011 article I referenced in March of 2011. Before I get to the quote, I think the story it relates of Thompson leaving Seattle is interesting: Holmgren was GM/HC in Seattle and before going on a vacation he left word permission from the Packers to talk to Thompson was to be denied (Harlan had called and requested it). Bob Whitsitt was president of the Seahawks at the time and he and Holmgren were in a power struggle Holmgren would win after the 2005 season. According to the story, "Whitsitt got in one final shot before being fired from the team by granting Harlan permission to talk to Thompson before Holmgren even was notified, which opened the door for Harlan to make the hire immediately." As the story says, it may not have mattered since Seattle couldn't have denied permission because Thompson was being offered final say over personnel, but it had to intensify the battle between Whitsitt and Holmgren.

Reinfeldt was in charge of the cap and business decisions and Thompson ran the personnel department and all three would collaborate on player acquisitions. Thompson brought his aversion to free agency with him to Seattle. Holmgren said the three of them would agree 90% of the time on personnel but occasionally he'd go after UFAs, over Thompson's objection. Here’s the quote: "In Seattle, in fact, Thompson was known for often shooting down possible free agents to pursue by saying, "I can find better in the draft."

As I've posted before I certainly understand the criticism of Thompson's reluctance/aversion to free agency since I've joined in that criticism. But IMO Packers fans go too far when they allege its Thompson's ego that somehow fuels his approach to free agents. (As if winning titles while regularly acquiring FAs wouldn't boost his ego.) If Thompson's public behavior isn't enough evidence that Thompson isn't as ego-driven as most GMs in the league, here’s a quote from Holmgren: "I'm happy for (Thompson), he's one of the good guys in the world. But it doesn’t surprise me at all (that the Packers are going to the Super Bowl). He's really good at this. The thing with Ted, to get him to just talk is a major challenge. He will not blow his own horn for sure, he's not a self-promoter, (but) he's good at what he does."
http://www.rrstar.com/article/20110131/News/301319903/?Start=1

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I just don't think the Packers are in need of spending on a veteran receiver.

Of course, something like this can happen when you do try and sign an older vet FA WR.....

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000637933/article/andre-johnson-done-in-indy-retirement-next

I agree with you Captain, they don't need to spend big $$'s on a FA Vet WR, but something just doesn't sit right with me having to go into 2016 with same group of WR's as 2015. Will a healthy (no guarantees) Jordy be enough to make the whole unit better? I hope so, but I would sacrifice Janis, Abby, Adams (in that order) if it meant having a more experienced Vet., at least until the final cuts and the 5-6 we keep are better then the 6 we ended up with last year to open the season.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I agree with you Captain, they don't need to spend big $$'s on a FA Vet WR, but something just doesn't sit right with me having to go into 2016 with same group of WR's as 2015. Will a healthy (no guarantees) Jordy be enough to make the whole unit better? I hope so, but I would sacrifice Janis, Abby, Adams (in that order) if it meant having a more experienced Vet., at least until the final cuts and the 5-6 we keep are better then the 6 we ended up with last year to open the season.

A tight end capable of stretching a defense would make life way easier for the receivers as well. That's why Thompson should bring in a veteran at the position.

 

[Poppa San]

I think WR is another position where the Packers would benefit by bringing in an older Veteran FA while Adams, Montgomery, Abby and Janis "Develop". This becomes even more of a need if JJ isn't resigned.

You DO realize Jarrett Boykin, Charles Johnson, Corderelle Patterson, James Jones are all veteran WR's.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'd have to study the history more closely, but here are 5 that come to mind from the last 5 years:

1. Drafting Datone Jones in the first round
2. Drafting Nick Perry in the first round
3. Failing to recognize that M.D. Jennings was not an NFL free safety with no backup plan in place
4. Not re-signing Cullen Jenkins after 2010
5. Offering B.J. Raji an $8 mil/year extension (which fortunately he turned down)

By the way, his signature move in drafting Rodgers was actually a two-fer. First in making the pick; second in reckoning he was sufficiently ready to end Favre's nonsense for good.

 

[TJV]

By the way, his signature move in drafting Rodgers was actually a two-fer. First in making the pick; second in reckoning he was sufficiently ready to end Favre's nonsense for good.

But of course Rodgers didn't take over until 3 years after he was drafted and when Favre said he was going to un-retire a month or so after he announced his retirement, the Packers said they'd welcome him back until Favre "retired" again. IOW, that's an awfully long fuse on that reckoning.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'd have to study the history more closely, but here are 5 that come to mind from the last 5 years:

1. Drafting Datone Jones in the first round
2. Drafting Nick Perry in the first round
3. Failing to recognize that M.D. Jennings was not an NFL free safety with no backup plan in place
4. Not re-signing Cullen Jenkins after 2010
5. Offering B.J. Raji an $8 mil/year extension (which fortunately he turned down)

IMO drafting Justin Harrell with the 16th overall pick in 2007 has to been included in Thompson´s worst five moves. Re-signing Hawk and Brad Jones to lucrative long-term deals should be mentioned as well.

 

[HardRightEdge]

But of course Rodgers didn't take over until 3 years after he was drafted and when Favre said he was going to un-retire a month or so after he announced his retirement, the Packers said they'd welcome him back until Favre "retired" again. IOW, that's an awfully long fuse on that reckoning.

Long fuse notwithstanding, he did not succumb to pressure at the point of no return.

 

[HardRightEdge]

IMO drafting Justin Harrell with the 16th overall pick in 2007 has to been included in Thompson´s worst five moves. Re-signing Hawk and Brad Jones to lucrative long-term deals should be mentioned as well.

Harrell for sure.

I don't begrudge the Hawk signing, though I thought the contract was a bit rich at the time. He was coming off a very good season in 2010, was a leader of the defense, and was counted on to communicate Capers' complexities. The fall off in performance beginning in 2011 indicated there was a problem. The issue was not the signing per se; it was the dead cap overhang in the contract (which I seem to recall was negotiated down somewhere along the way) that was likely a factor in his playing past his shelf life. If there was an error it was in not taking the dead cap hit and moving on, which is not an easy call and something Thompson is loathe to do (perhaps an illustration of how one's strengths are also one's weaknesses). There is some logic in the dead cap wishful thinking; when the guy's cap hit for the coming season is near the dead cap hit, there's a temptation to think of keeping the guy as a free lunch from a practical standpoint.

I seem to recall Jones got a PFF ranking of something on the order of 8th. best ILB in the season before he signed that deal. If you still subscribe you might be able to confirm or debunk that recollection. I didn't see what PFF saw, but evidently the Packers did. It's hard to account for a slide from adequate (in my view) to clueless and unplayable. Again, Thompson stuck with him because of the dead cap.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You DO realize Jarrett Boykin, Charles Johnson, Corderelle Patterson, James Jones are all veteran WR's.

Besides Jones, wouldn't consider any of the others you listed. I am talking more like a Boldin or Steve Smith kind of guy. A proven older vet with some tread left on their tires.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't begrudge the Hawk signing, though I thought the contract was a bit rich at the time. He was coming off a very good season in 2010, was a leader of the defense, and was counted on to communicate Capers' complexities. The fall off in performance beginning in 2011 indicated there was a problem. The issue was not the signing per se; it was the dead cap overhang in the contract (which I seem to recall was negotiated down somewhere along the way) that was likely a factor in his playing past his shelf life. If there was an error it was in not taking the dead cap hit and moving on, which is not an easy call and something Thompson is loathe to do (perhaps an illustration of how one's strengths are also one's weaknesses). There is some logic in the dead cap wishful thinking; when the guy's cap hit for the coming season is near the dead cap hit, there's a temptation to think of keeping the guy as a free lunch from a practical standpoint.

I seem to recall Jones got a PFF ranking of something on the order of 8th. best ILB in the season before he signed that deal. If you still subscribe you might be able to confirm or debunk that recollection. I didn't see what PFF saw, but evidently the Packers did. It's hard to account for a slide from adequate (in my view) to clueless and unplayable. Again, Thompson stuck with him because of the dead cap.

I agree that I wasn´t against re-signing either Hawk or Jones but the money spent on the contracts and the structure of them were terrible. For whatever reason it´s true that PFF had Jones ranked as their 8th-best inside linebacker during the 2012 season.

Besides Jones, wouldn't consider any of the others you listed. I am talking more like a Boldin or Steve Smith kind of guy. A proven older vet with some tread left on their tires.

Smith is under contract with the Ravens for the 2016 season. IMO Boldin isn´t a great fit for the Packers offense.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Smith is under contract with the Ravens for the 2016 season. IMO Boldin isn´t a great fit for the Packers offense.

I realize Smith isn't going to be a Packer, was just throwing out comparative names to Poppa in an attempt to describe what I meant by a reasonably priced "older vet WR" that might be a good addition to solidify the Packers WR group for a year, while the others prove they are worthy of the #3 spot. Currently, there are not a lot of FA's on the list that fall into this category, but I expect that to change in the coming months.

 

[TJV]

The Harrell pick was a huge swing and a miss. In college Harrell had surgery on his leg, broke his ankle, re-injured the ankle on his first snap back, another ankle injury, and a biceps injury all causing him to miss about 30% of his college games. Harrell deserves blame for is arriving at TC overweight and out of shape, but his career being ruined by injury was predictable.

What made the pick even worse was after the draft Thompson said they got offers to trade out of that spot and Jacksonville did trade out one pick after the Packers so we have an idea of what Thompson was offered. Jacksonville received Denver's first (#21), third (#86), and sixth round (#198) for pick #17. If they offered the Packers the same deal, Thompson would have only had to drop 5 spots in the first round to pick up an extra third and sixth round pick. That kind of trade fit Thompson’s MO, particularly in 2007. He could have still make the mistake on Harrell at #21 but would’ve gotten more out of it. Or maybe they’d have gotten lucky and another team would’ve reached for Harrell before Thompson had a chance to.