Cory's Corner: Why does Ted Thompson avoid risk?

With the NFL Draft still two weeks away, all the chatter has centered on how Packers general manager Ted Thompson has done as a drafter.

But we know all that. He has drafted a defensive player in six of the last eight drafts. Kenny Clark and Damarious Randall need more time to prove if they are busts or solid additions like Ha Ha Clinton-Dix has been.

But that’s not what concerns me. Thompson’s eye for talent is usually pretty strong. But why would he put so many eggs into one basket and force his personnel staff to hit at least four home runs in this upcoming draft? The Packers draft needs are: edge rusher, cornerback, offensive guard and more depth at running back.

Thompson did a great job by signing Martellus Bennett and then he surprised even more folks by signing Lance Hendricks one day after signing Bennett. Those transactions scream of coach Mike McCarthy giving Thompson a gentle nudge about formations and matchups — knowing that he can veil plenty of run-pass options with double tight end sets.

So why not add even more players from other teams? That’s the question that will never be answered. And to be honest, it doesn’t make any sense given Thompson’s history.

The last two free agent defensive signings were Julius Peppers and Letroy Guion in 2014. Peppers silenced critics that said that he was out of gas by tallying 25 sacks in 48 games as a Packer — from ages 34-36. Guion has been a solid player, but his off-field actions have superseded anything he has done on the field.

I don’t understand where the free agent fear comes from because Ron Wolf made the ultimate gamble that paid off handsomely with a Hall of Fame quarterback. Granted, Thompson did trade Brett Favre as well, but he sent him to the Jets in an exchange for a third round pick in 2009.

When it comes to risk, Thompson was at his best in 2007. He dealt a sixth round pick to the Giants for Ryan Grant. That was the same Ryan Grant that rolled up 201 yards rushing in a 42-20 NFC Divisional Playoff win over Seattle.

There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about how to assemble an NFL team. The most glaring reason not to build through free agency is that if you miss, your team will likely be in salary cap hell for a couple years. If you make a mistake in the draft, you can just hit the reset button and do it again next year.

But here’s the caveat: it’s a lot harder to hit the reset button and start again when you’ve picked No. 20 or later dating back to 2010.

Thompson has proven that he can wheel and deal like the Patriots of the world and he has proven that he can find a free agent. But clearly, that isn’t what he prefers to do. He would rather select a defensive player in the upcoming draft for the sixth straight year as opposed to digging deeper into the checkbook for a more proven commodity.

 

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.

__________________________

Cory Jennerjohn is a graduate from UW-Oshkosh and has been in sports media for over 15 years. He was a co-host on "Clubhouse Live" and has also done various radio and TV work as well. He has written for newspapers, magazines and websites. He currently is a columnist for CHTV and also does various podcasts. He recently earned his Masters degree from the University of Iowa. He can be found on Twitter: @Coryjennerjohn

__________________________

NFL Categories: 
0 points
 

Comments (38)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
WyoPackfan's picture

April 15, 2017 at 06:46 am

I still think he'll sign another FA - but it'll be after the draft. TJs replacement is probably already on the roster (Murphy or Patrick). TT won't have any issues finding a RB that can contribute right off the bat. OLB and corner is where it gets tricky. If the draft doesn't fall for GB look for them to add a veteran pass rusher. Maybe Dumervil or Levy. At corner Flowers and Verner are still out there.

0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

April 15, 2017 at 09:22 am

DeAndre Levy is not, and has never been, a pass rusher. He has 3 1/2 sacks in his entire 8 year career. He did not record a single sack in 6 out of his 8 years.

At this point, considering his age and injury history, I would not sign Levy to play anywhere, even on the inside.

0 points
0
0
TKWorldWide's picture

April 18, 2017 at 08:36 pm

Can Lance ("Hendricks") play "Hey Joe"? Or "Purple Haze"?

0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 15, 2017 at 07:06 am

He doesn't care what people think! I believe he takes more risk than you think. He puts his faith in younger,faster and stronger. He has A-rod. That gives him reset ability. He can bargain shop. His timing on some FA players, has made up for his bad decisions. And like any gambler, he plays the hot hand. Were all sucked in to what TT does. He's made his living on small potatoes. He'll never be that," winner takes all" GM. We only have to look at the Cowboys, to know what TT is not. And We only have to look at the patriots, to know what he should be. The slogan," In Ted we Trust", tells you what he is. A Gm that loves his job.

0 points
0
0
GBP12's picture

April 15, 2017 at 07:15 am

The fear of free agency is the most confusing aspect of the Ted Thompson plan, especially when you have one of the few "erasers" in the league in #12. Having an elite QB should free you to be more aggressive in your FA acquisition, as the Patriots figured out.

The team is already surviving big contract misses just fine. In 2016 and 2017, how does a FA miss look different than paying top dollar for Cobb and Matthews?

If Thompson and his team are as detailed in their draft scouting as is reported, then adding FA that previously met their draft criteria should be an advantage. Trust does seem to be building in their pro scouting with the success of Peppers, Cook, and even Michaels. Bennett, Francois, Kendricks, and House seem like the type of moves that could have really helped in past seasons.

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 15, 2017 at 07:51 am

I think Thompson has done a pretty good job this offseason for the most part. He's been smart in Free Agency signing a few "Mid-Level FA" many of us have been clamoring for around here for years and a Top FA in Bennett. All of these new additions are on short contracts with little guaranteed money, not much risk. But the upside these players could bring to their position groups could be huge, especially the 2 TE's and House.

Depending on how the draft falls Ted may not be done. Hopefully if he see's a player cut once TC starts who could help the Packers or improve an area over what an UDFA would offer he makes a move for that player. Hell, he's signed 4 FA so far, don't stop now Ted, you're on a roll!

0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

April 15, 2017 at 09:42 am

He did "ok" in FA. Don't grade on a curve. He could have had Barwin on the cheap. He could have had another veteran OG for cheap to compete with Patrick and Donny B. He chose neither.

While House was a nice stop gap signing, the CBs still aren't going to be above average unless Randall figures it out.

No we need to pray that we get a champ OLB in the draft AND that the OLBs stay healthy AND that Fackrell steps up. Not likely.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 15, 2017 at 10:02 am

We can say he could've had Barwin on the cheap...supposedly there was an initial conversation between Barwin's people and the Packers when he was first cut (I don't know if this was more than just a rumor). After that: nothing. If true, it sounds as if it was either a matter of money or of his willingness to play the given role in GB. Whatever the case, nothing came of that initial contact, which screams the fit wasn't there, on whatever level.

0 points
0
0
dschwalm's picture

April 15, 2017 at 11:15 am

Bearmeat....and that we have no injuries, etc. etc. etc.

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

April 15, 2017 at 11:37 am

Yeah maybe, but I'm looking at it from the standpoint of what he's done in the last 4 years in FA for example compared to this year. In 2014 it was Guion and Peppers, both good signings. This year he's done some good work but I don't think he's done, at least I'm cautiously optimistic. Barwin would have been a nice signing but waiting until after the draft and after players start getting cut might serve them almost or just as well. The question is does TT sign any of them?

With Thompson the Packers will always count on players making jumps or playing at a level they did in a previous season before injury or getting fat. You, I and others have all discussed this at length. Now with Adams jump last year we all have hope Randall and Rollins will do the same, some more than others. With TT as GM you and I are always going to be slightly disappointed he didn't do more. I'm just happy he did SOMETHING this season.

0 points
0
0
Turophile's picture

April 15, 2017 at 08:07 am

Ted just doesn't view free agency like you do, Cory.

It's his M.O. to allow young players to step up (or continue to grow) into starting positions. I'd bet if you could ask him about, for example, cornerbacks on the roster, his answer would be "I like the guys we have there". Same with guard.

This is not the answer you would give (or me, to be honest). I don't think many free agents meet his price point value, but he seems to trust the guys on the roster more than most.

Whatever the reason, expecting him to change would be like asking the sun to rise in the west. As he has proved over many years, he is what he is, good and bad.

0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

April 15, 2017 at 08:28 am

I don't think that OL is such a dire need for the Packers. We have Murphy, Patrick, Spriggs and heaven forbid Barclay to move into the vacant OG spot and TT will probably draft an OL plus add 1 or 2 UDFAs as camp bodies. Also, he could possibly sign an OG who is released during TC to provide some experienced depth. As for RB, again TT will probably draft an RB and add another RB or 2 with UDFAs. CB and Edge are the 2 vital positions that need to be addressed in this draft and remaining FA season. We have plenty of cap space left but I'm not sure if there are any FAs left worth spending the money on. I'm not sure if TT is risk averse or he just realizes that signing FAs is just a more expensive crap shoot than the NFL draft. Therefore he chooses not to play in the FA game very often. Thanks, Since '61

0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

April 15, 2017 at 08:57 am

"Thompson’s eye for talent is usually pretty strong."

He's average, maybe a little bit above. He was basically gifted Favre and Rodgers and without that things would be different.

His actual results have been very strong in the 2nd day rounds, well below average in the 1st round, average in the 3rd day rounds and exceptional at rookie free agents. He's orchestrated some really bad draft classes, more really bad ones that really good ones.

0 points
0
0
egbertsouse's picture

April 15, 2017 at 09:20 am

Ted just reflects the philosophy of the organization. He doesn't report to an ego-driven owner who is willing to throw away tons of money to get a winner. He reports to a BOD whose main goal is to not upset the apple cart of big profits by taking huge risks or blowing up the cap. They just want Ted to win the North, get a home playoff game and keep the fans happy enough that they keep buying tickets and phony stock shares. If you get to a Super Bowl, that's icing on the cake but not necessary as long as the dough keeps rolling in.

This is not a criticism, the Packers have to operate this way. They don't have a billionaire owner to bail them out if they screw up.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 15, 2017 at 10:17 am

"He reports to a BOD whose main goal is to not upset the apple cart of big profits by taking huge risks or blowing up the cap...."

I'm sorry, but learn something about the Packer organization: it's a NON-PROFIT organization. A la Wikipedia:

"The Packers have been a publicly owned, non-profit corporation since August 18, 1923."

There are no dividends to pay out. No bonus structure for the BOD or other employees (in fact, Murphy is the only BOD member who even collects a salary). Every dollar it makes goes into running the club, maintaining facilities, and charitable works.

The "Packer profit" just doesn't hold up. Let it go.

0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

April 15, 2017 at 02:06 pm

What is even funnier is when people actually imply that Ted himself is "all about the money" ... as if TT got to put any unused salary money into his own pocket.

It's also pretty laughable when people suggest that "big money owners" are willing to flush big piles of their own money down the drain. Good Lord. As if there were no salary cap... As if NFL franchises LOST money rather than earned it hand over fist...

Cuz we all know how Jerry Jones is spending himself right into the poor house down there at Jerry World. **eye roll**

The only team with a financial advantage is the Patriots... because their rate of inflation is lower than for all other NFL teams.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 15, 2017 at 02:28 pm

An insight into 2015. Each team revenue-shared over $225M alone (it won't let me share the www without calling it spam): bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-20/nfl-teams-split-7-3-billion-in-revenue-packers-numbers-reveal

0 points
0
0
ThxJackVainisi's picture

April 15, 2017 at 12:00 pm

This view of the Packers organization shows up regularly on boards and I think it's wrong. The fact the Packers have no millionaire/billionaire owner means there's no one who profits from building the Packers cash reserve or from the Packers "saving money". The members of the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee are not compensated, except for Mark Murphy of course who is also the CEO. If Murphy or Thompson's contracts contain bonus clauses, I'll guarantee the amount of the Packers' cash reserve or how much is spent on free agents don't figure into the calculation of the bonus. Winning another championship may.

If the philosophy of the organization is the reason for Thompson's MO, was Ron Wolf similarly constrained? Was the horrible GM (but OK HC IMO) Mike Sherman prohibited from signing free agent Joe Johnson, for example? It would have made more sense then because the Packers' financial situation was more precarious than it is now. Now the Packers corporate reserve fund has about $275M in it.

Did the Packers balk at extending Aaron Rodgers or Clay Matthews? (By the way, for those who hold this view of the organization and also complain about Thompson overpaying "his" players, like Hawk, Cobb, and others it's hard to reconcile both opinions.)

According the Money article linked below, of the twelve teams who made the playoffs, 8 teams spent less in players' salaries in 2016 than the Packers, including the Cowboys, Seahawks, and Patriots, all owned by billionaires. http://time.com/money/4625907/nfl-playoffs-game-player-salary/

Thompson isn't constrained by the organizational structure of the Packers. If he wanted to spend the money he currently spends to keep players in-house on free agents, he's free to do so. The reason he doesn't is because he believes teams make huge mistakes by signing big name, big money free agents and like all other GMs, he is constrained by the cap. He also believes signing those players disrupts the Packers salary scale and that can ruin the camaraderie Packers locker room. It may be difficult for some Packers fans to believe but I think the truth is Ted Thompson is doing exactly what he thinks is in the best interest of the Packers winning another championship. I believe he is wrong by not having been a more active participant in free agency; and Thompson no doubt thinks those of us who believe that are wrong.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 15, 2017 at 12:05 pm

I like your response better than mine.... ;)

0 points
0
0
vj_ostrowski's picture

April 15, 2017 at 09:38 am

Ted takes more risks on young, undeveloped talent year in and year out than any other winning GM in the league.

You can argue whether that fact is the right or wrong move for a GM to take, but it's definitely risk. It's just not your risk.

0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

April 16, 2017 at 10:49 am

It's a much lower risk than meduim/high price free agents because they can just cut them with no dead money. That's not to say I disagree with bring in all of those young guys. I think they are really good at it and should continue. One of the big reasons they can do it in a low risk fashion is because the strength of the positional coaches at working with those guys. Especially Campen and Whitt.

0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

April 15, 2017 at 10:59 am

TT is better than most and does a pretty good job. AP had discussions with the Packers and while many say he doesn't fit....they tried to see if it could work. I can only guess that it didn't for whatever reason. It still takes two to tango and when a FA doesn't sign, it doesn't mean the Packers didn't try. We don't see what's going on behind the curtain, we can only speculate.

0 points
0
0
TarynsEyes's picture

April 15, 2017 at 11:05 am

Some teams believe the risks must be like a Lamborghini doing 180 on a heavy congested street. Some believe changing lanes endlessly gets them there faster. Thompson believes in the speed limit with an occasional low l applied goose of the gas but will only return to the speed limit asap...the draft. With that, Thompson cannot really afford an accident or his philosophy may go the way of the Edsel.

0 points
0
0
PackerfanAuggie15's picture

April 15, 2017 at 11:22 am

I'm not a fan of that 4 part need narrative, edge, cb, rb, og. As I see it we need an edge setter and an edge rusher, hopefully those two roles can be one player, and a 2nd player for depth at those positions. We need a perimeter or outside CB (fast &tall) that can develop into a #1, we have plenty of slot types and we need depth at the X- WR position because thats a 2 to 3 yr development process. We need depth and competition at the RG position, I think it likely this yrs starter is on the roster and finally we need depth at RB, but both of those RG and RB can and likely will be filled by late rounders or UDFA. TT' s plans for Guion, if its cutting, could move DL up the priority list ahead of OG and RB.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 15, 2017 at 12:10 pm

For those who were wondering the other day: Geronimo Allison signed his ERFA tender today.

0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

April 15, 2017 at 02:33 pm

It is nice to see us, Packers fans, how much we love our Packers. We love them as we love our woman. We think, because she is the most beautiful for us, all others see her with the same eyes.
But it is not like that. Other men looks at my love and thinks that she is maybe nice, or pretty, or just OK, some think she is ugly...
So, the same is with our Packers. I bet with you that in NFL are players they do not want to play for Packers. I do not know their reasons, but they exists. And there is not one or two, but much more players who will not come to Green Bay and play for Packers for same money they can get somewhere else.
Maybe that is the case with Barwin. Maybe players you think TT should sign just said NO to TT offer, despite that offer was fair.
I know that there will be lot of down votes on this comment, because it is so popular to think that TT is not doing his job properly, than to admit that we do not know enough of the processes behind our reach. With that lack of information we make conclusions, but, thank God, our conclusions have no influence on our beloved Packers...

0 points
0
0
TommyG's picture

April 15, 2017 at 05:49 pm

I think this article would best be summed up as "why is Ted so cheap?" as he has certainly been willing to take substantial risk. "Putting all the eggs in one basket" with the draft is a huge risk. The knee jerk thing, the action which makes headlines, are these free agent signings. There is certainly cap risk when it comes to signing established players, but unless they suddenly flop there is no real risk.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 15, 2017 at 08:40 pm

"Why is Ted so cheap?"

So many here are bitching about the big FA deals he gave to Cobb and Matthews. He's writing big checks to several players on the roster...probably comparable to most teams. It's not like the Packers aren't paying guys. People become enamored with all the players on the open market, but how many big checks can you sign? In the end, I don't think Ted is cheap. He prioritizes cap management over just about everything else...in a nation where the average adult carries a ridiculous amount of credit card debt, this can be hard for us to understand.

0 points
0
0
ottscay's picture

April 16, 2017 at 02:12 am

"He would rather select a defensive player in the upcoming draft for the sixth straight year as opposed to digging deeper into the checkbook for a more proven commodity."

I enjoyed the article, but I cringe everytime I see someone refer to a FA signing as "a proven commodity". I don't really care that the modifier "more" was in front of it, it's still hooey. No one is ever a proven commodity in the NFL - injuries, lack of motivation after a big paycheck, or a bad scheme or locker room fit can always render any star into a non-contributor in any given year. We see it time and again, and when you make that sort of FA mistake (or just have bad injury luck) the cost can be astronomical. I don't always agree with TT's risk/reward assessments, but the risk is real, and the term "proven commodity" does everyone a disservice - the future production of free agents isn't any more guaranteed than draft picks, the risks are just different.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

April 17, 2017 at 02:36 am

I think "more proven commodity" is a very accurate assessment. It isn't hooey. The future production of veteran free agents has a higher probability of success than mid-round draft picks and certainly of late round draft picks. There are still risks, and those do differ from draft picks.

I don't disagree with most of your adages, but the use of the word "more" should make all the difference. Taking your assertion to the logical end, it is difficult for me to see very many FA acquisition scenarios that you would favor. If you think, for example, that drafting Anzalone or Elijah Lee to play ILB is no different than signing Freeman or Trevathan last year in terms of likely production/risk, then you sound like a TT devotee to the nth degree to me.

0 points
0
0
ThxJackVainisi's picture

April 18, 2017 at 02:16 pm

I agree Thegreatreynoldo: Of course NFL vets are "more proven" commodities than draftees. Writing "No one is ever a proven commodity in the NFL…" is what is (to be kind) hooey. (BTW, injuries, bad scheme, and lack of motivation and locker room fit can affect rookies and vets alike.) Whatdya think: Was Brian Brohm or any QB who would have been sought as a vet FA by another team before the 2008 draft "more proven"? The answer is obvious and the examples are endless, but all you need to do is use your common sense: The step up from college to the NFL is significant.

My disagreement with Thompson is not that he doesn't sign the biggest name FAs on the first day or two of free agency to huge contracts. My disagreement is Thompson many times over-values current Packers to the exclusion of free agents. I think it would have made a difference if Thompson would have seriously looked at FAs before extending Hawk with a huge contract before the 2011 season, for example.

Look at what Thompson did this year with signing 4 FAs. Except for injury I expect all four to contribute this season. But that's way out of his comfort zone, even though he didn't break the bank with any of them. Why not do that nearly every off season? Or at least sign a couple at positions of need or for insurance?

Here's the point so obvious it shouldn't need to be said: Vets who have proven they can play in the NFL have proven they can play in the NFL. Draftees and UDFAs have not. Obviously vets are "more proven".

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

April 18, 2017 at 02:23 pm

Wow...Hawk-hating re-emerges on the day he signs a contract with the Packers to retire a Packer.

0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

April 18, 2017 at 03:11 pm

In general I have to agree that vets are "more proven," but there is definitely an element of truth to what Ottscay is saying. There comes a time in every player's career - be it because of age or injury or whatever - when his future is anything but certain, and his past might be a false indicator. I think we have to agree with Ottscay at least that far.

While we're at it, if vets are "more proven" as a rule, then let's also admit that they are "more expensive" as a rule, and more expensive is pretty much synonymous with "more risk." Also, "more proven" does not mean that vets are always the better way to go.

One comment puzzles me a bit though, DT. You say, "Look at what Thompson did this year with signing 4 FAs. Except for injury I expect all four to contribute this season. But that's way out of his comfort zone, even though he didn't break the bank with any of them." How can we say that this is "way out of his comfort zone" when he ACTUALLY DID IT? And in the past he has signed even bigger names and more expensive players than all four of these guys put together.

And for the question "Why not do that nearly every off season," isn't that pretty neatly answered by saying, "Because he didn't like the players/prices that were available at that time," or maybe he just felt that he didn't have very many holes and that he could fill them all via the draft or by the promotion of a younger player.

I don't think that TT is operating outside of his comfort zone at all.

0 points
0
0
ThxJackVainisi's picture

April 18, 2017 at 04:12 pm

Marpag1,
Doing something once doesn't mean it's in your comfort zone. When was the last time Thompson signed four FAs and all four are expected to play? How many of those kinds of players has Thompson signed in his 12-plus seasons as GM? What do you suppose his average per season is? This off season has definitely been outside of Thompson's MO - and I hope it continues and he signs another free agent before the season starts.

dobber,
It's ridiculous to write that noting Hawk was vastly overpaid before the 2011 season equals "Hawk hating". It does not as I don't hate Hawk. But if that's really your perspective, you must think Thompson hated Hawk in 2013 when he demanded Hawk restructure that huge 2011 contract by receiving more than $7M less over the balance of the contract.

0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

April 18, 2017 at 05:32 pm

TT has drafted a QB in the first round ONE time during his years as a general manager. Does the fact that he has done this only once prove that TT is not comfortable drafting a QB in the first round? No, of course it does not.

Every GM has a philosophy of player acquisition that he is comfortable with. That philosophy, however, will be implemented according to the circumstances of the team, and circumstances change even when the philosophy does not. Working within a "comfort zone" does not at all mean that the GM will always do things exactly the same way, such as signing a similar number of free agents, every single year. It does not even mean that you will be able to see any discernible pattern at all.

The fact that TT has drafted a QB in the first round only one time does not mean that he is uncomfortable doing it. After all, he did it with his very first pick. But the circumstances of his team have dictated that he select players at other positions in the first round of every draft since Aaron Rodgers was selected in 2005.

0 points
0
0
ThxJackVainisi's picture

April 18, 2017 at 11:20 pm

Comparing a GM's MO regarding signing free agents from other teams to drafting a specific position in a specific round is truly apples and oranges. And you make it even more so with the specific position and round you chose as an example. First, Thompson's need to draft a QB in the first round was negated by the first pick he ever made as GM. Second, the pick of Rodgers is one of the best examples of Thompson's MO, completely within his comfort zone, as Aaron was probably two talent tiers above any of the other players available. IMO that's an exceptionally poor example.

It's funny to what lengths some Packers fans go in attempting to defend Thompson. (This is a general comment not specifically aimed at marpag1.) Thompson's well-earned reputation is he depends more upon draft and develop than nearly every other - if not every other - GM in the league. He regularly eschews making significant signings of free agents compared to his peers. That's obvious, isn't it? I think he's been pretty successful with his philosophy so why argue otherwise? I just don't understand why some feel the need to argue Thompson is forced by the organization into his MO; or that veteran free agents aren't "more proven" than draftees and UDFAs who've never played in the NFL; or that Thompson tries to sign as many free agents as other teams but it just doesn't work out.

Ted Thompson has signed four free agents this off season who will all contribute (except for injury) and God bless him for it. This is the first time he's done that. I'm glad he's gone out of his comfort zone and would like him to go further add another after the draft.

0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

April 19, 2017 at 02:55 am

Well, we disagree.

So you admit that "Thompson's need to draft a QB in the first round was negated by the first pick he ever made." Absolutely correct. So we have now established that what a GM feels comfortable to do (and what he actually does) is hugely dependent upon the circumstances of his team. Thompson felt it was right to draft a QB in the first round of 2005, and because of the circumstances following that pick, he has never felt it right to do that again in any of the following years. Why is the same principle NOT true of signing free agents? If it is apples with oranges to compare the specific example of drafting Rodgers, it is every bit as much apples with oranges to compare the way TT deals with free agency in 2008 with how he deals with free agency in 2017... different team, different players on the market, different salary cap situations, different everything.

I agree with you completely that TT is not in any way "forced by the organization (or anybody else for that matter) into his MO." And that is just another way of saying that he does what he dang well pleases in keeping with his MO. So if it is true that Ted is totally free to follow his own MO, for what reason would he do something that he is NOT comfortable with (as you are suggesting)? This year that MO led him to sign four mid-level free agents. We have absolutely no basis for saying that Ted is somehow horribly uncomfortable in doing the very thing that HE JUST DID, when no one at all is forcing him to do it.

The fact that a person does something only once can never prove that the person is uncomfortable with it. What it actually proves beyond all doubt is that he is, in fact, willing to do that thing. Beyond that, we are not mind readers.

0 points
0
0
ThxJackVainisi's picture

April 19, 2017 at 11:29 am

This is my last post on this subject: Drafting Rodgers was an action precisely in keeping with Thompson's MO of draft and develop, and more specifically of drafting the best player available. Signing four free agents who will contribute this season - which he has NEVER done before - goes directly against his MO of draft and develop.

As to why Thompson ventured out of his comfort zone, perhaps he too realizes one Super Bowl appearance in his 12 years as GM (with HOF QBs) isn't enough. And perhaps he's realizing his window of opportunity may be closing before Rodgers'.

0 points
0
0