For The Packers to Reload, Thompson Must Refocus

The Packers failed to address their needs last offseason, and in the end it spelled an early exit from the playoffs. For the Packers to continue among the elite, GM Ted Thompson has to find his mojo again.

“The arrogance of success is to think that what we did yesterday is good enough for tomorrow.” 

--William Pollard

The Sporting News recently named Green Bay Packers General Manager Ted Thompson this years’ Executive of the Year, the second time he’s received the honor.  It’s been a long road for the quiet leader of the Packers, a guy who has taken more than his share of flack from fans while rebuilding the team into a Super Bowl Champion and perpetual contender.

But there’s always a fly in the ointment, and while the honor is well-deserved, Thompson has his work cut out for him this offseason.  The Packers, despite finishing with an NFL-best 15-1 regular season record, appear to have more holes to fill than a standard cheesehead wedge.

And some of it may be due to Thompson’s one Achilles’ heel:  he lives in the moment of the team’s success or failure.  Don’t get me wrong:  I have grown to have a ton of respect for Thompson, and when he is in full-court pressure mode, he is as discerning of a roster-builder as they come.

But you only have to look back to the last time he won the Executive of the Year Award to see what a little success does.  In 2007, the Packers unexpectedly flew into the post-season and hosted the NFC Championship game.  It all appeared a storybook season for Thompson and head coach Mike McCarthy, with old Brett Favre playing his swan song for one more ring.  Its was Elway and the Broncos, except we were going to be the winners this time.

But, as we know, the Packers fell one interception short of making the Super Bowl that year, and Thompson figured out how to fix it:  it was time to hand the ball to his young, hand-picked quarterback and let Favre ride off into the sunset.  There was a lot of hype that offseason, how the Packers returned nearly every starter on both sides of the ball, minus the guy that threw the interception.  Expectations were high.

But Thompson’s offseason wasn’t one of shoring up the holes and getting that one player that would get the team over the hump.  In fact, he traded back, out of the first round of the draft that year, taking what I called at the time a “luxury pick” in Jordy Nelson.  While I’ve grown as fond of Nelson as anyone, the 2008 draft was loaded with backups (Flynn, Brohm), projects (Finley, Sitton) and ne’er-do-wells (Giacomini, Thompson, Lee).

And yes, while Sitton and Finley finally cracked the starting lineup and Flynn has proven to be invaluable as the backup quarterback, none were ready to contribute in 2008.  Thompson only added one free agent to the roster, linebacker Brandon Chillar.  Meanwhile, in addition to Favre, veterans Bubba Franks, Corey Williams, and DeShawn Wynn were allowed to leave.

It was addition by subtraction, a laid-back approach to offseason skullduggery that communicated self-assurance in a team ready to return to the playoffs.  As we all can attest, 2008 was far from it.  Amidst the highest of expectations, the Packers fizzled out to 6-10 and half the coaching staff was axed at the end of the season.

Not surprisingly, Thompson took a very different approach the following offseason, trading the farm to get a second first-round draft pick in Clay Matthews, bringing two immediate contributors from the draft.

And that might be Thompson’s one weakness:  complacency.  A feeling that we’re “good enough” when the wins keep on coming and the praise is filling your ears.  What’s interesting is that’s not a trait a GM usually has.  Sure, coaches and players (and fans) get complacent, perhaps spoiled by success, but a GM should never be.  Once they are done putting together the talent over a long offseason and the 53-man roster is set, they should constantly be looking to upgrade any position on that team.  Combing the waiver wire.  Scouting the college ranks.  Evaluating every player in every game.

Ron Wolf said it best:  “You’re only here as long as it takes me to find someone better to replace you.”  In 2008, Thompson valued projects over immediate impact, and in the end, it cost him and his team.

Fast-forward to 2010, when the Packers again pulled off the unexpected playoff drive, this time ending in a Lombardi Trophy.  Fans were looking right away for the repeat in 2011.  Again, expectations were sky-high.

But the 2011  offseason, marred by an extended lockout, was again a near-repeat of 2008.  The draft was full of luxury picks (like returner Randall Cobb) and a smattering of project players like Derek Sherrod and DJ Williams.  In free agency, longtime starters were let go, like Daryn Colledge, Nick Barnett, and Cullen Jenkins, and a slough of veteran depth also departed.  Thompson didn’t bring in a single veteran free agent other than re-signing James Jones when no one else seemed interested.

It was assumed that the Packers, returning so many starters from last season, would only have to count on a few young players to grow into roles, particularly to replace the void left by Jenkins.  And for quite a while, as the Packers soared to a 13-0 start, it seemed like Thompson had, once again, woven some special magic.

But, in the back of our minds, we saw this was a team that was peaking early, even if we didn’t want to believe it.  The loss of Nick Collins, combined with unaddressed needs throughout the defense, pulled out the keystone and the entire defensive squad imploded, falling to the bottom of the league in yardage allowed.  Nervous questions rang silently in our heads:  did Thompson do enough?  Did he do just enough?

Mike Vandermause of the Green Bay Press-Gazette approached Thompson in Week 11.  He noted that despite being undefeated, the defense was showing increasing signs of being unable to get to the quarterback.

At the end of November the Packers were 11-0 and riding high, yet there was a nagging suspicion about their defense. When I asked Thompson about the lack of a pass rush, he replied: “I think we should just enjoy where we are.”

That’s the same attitude Thompson seemed to take following the Packers’ Super Bowl title last February. Instead of aggressively upgrading his defense, Thompson sat on his hands and allowed it to weaken.

The Packers had just won a championship, for which Thompson deserved tremendous praise, but his offseason approach suggested he was content with the defense.

On Cheesehead Radio, I kept trying to come up with the word that Vandermause was stumbling onto, the feeling the Packers were almost being “cocky”, or at least cocksure that everything was just fine.  And, like Vandermause, when I or anyone suggested that an undefeated team had concerns, we were laughed out of the sports bar.  How could you question a team that hasn’t lost?  Bwahahahahahahaha!

Yet, here we are, just a few months later, after watching our team earn a first seed in the playoffs and get bounced out in their first game, on our own turf.  It was a sobering moment, but there’s still a strong belief that this team is good enough to get right back into the playoff hunt next year, and even for years afterwards.

But you aren’t going to get that done with an “I think we should just enjoy where we are” attitude.  The Packers are looking at a lot of needs on both sides of the ball.  Some areas weren’t dealt with properly last offseason, like defensive end and outside linebacker.  And now, we have some new needs: a safety to replace Collins, a cornerback to groom for Charles Woodson and give slumping Sam Shields some competition at nickel.  We’re going to need to invest in another offensive lineman with the likely unavailability of project tackle Sherrod, and we may well need another tight end if Jermichael Finley leaves and Andrew Quarrless doesn’t return.  Oh, goodbye Matt Flynn.  Might need a quarterback, too.

In other words, this isn’t a luxury-picks-and-projects kind of draft.  The Packers have a lot of needs to address, and it’s not often you find a 15-1 team with so many holes to fill.

Actually, it isn’t so hard to find.  Just look at any dynasty team in NFL history, and take a peek at their offseason needs after their last great season.  This is usually a sign that a great team's window is about to close.  The checks and balances in the design of the NFL punishes successful teams, and it catches up to you in the guise of free agency and drafting at the end of each round instead of the beginning.

But the Packers have Ted Thompson, and while he might have succumbed to a bit of complacency this past offseason, don’t doubt for a second that when he feels his back is against the wall, he will be willing to do what it takes to address as many issues as possible.

This is more than just another offseason for Thompson.  This is the end of one era, and the beginning of the other.  In 2005, he took over a team and began the long process of building a winner, primarily through the draft.  He made some tough decisions along the way and took a fair amount of abuse for them.  But in the end, he was rewarded with two Exec of the Year awards and a Lombardi trophy.

But now he begins the new era, the one of reloading and restocking, desperately trying to keep the roster he created among the elite for as long as possible.  Teams like the Patriots and Steelers have proven you can keep a group of core players and keep shuffling the cast around them and stay in the playoffs year in and year out.

Make no mistake: in this new era, long gone are the days when the only measuring stick Thompson had to face was the very short one of predecessor Mike Sherman.  Ted is now working in the shadow of the stiffest competition he can possibly face.

Himself.

 

0 points
 

Comments (61)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
QOTSA1's picture

February 11, 2012 at 10:56 pm

Excellent article. I don't expect Thompson to make any major moves in free agency, but The Packers should have about 12 draft picks, so hopefully he makes the most of them.

I'm a Thompson supporter, but i'm not really sure he deserved Executive of the year honors for this season. Although the team went 15-1, he made no moves in free agency, and other than Randall Cobb, none of this years draft picks made any impact.

0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

February 12, 2012 at 04:19 pm

I think that's kind of the point with TT though. He's generally planning for the future, so this team went 15-1 without much contribution from the current draft class *because* of the drafts that he had in prior years. Some day, we may be looking at a team doing well, led by Rodgers, Cobb, and Alex Green and saying that the draft class of that year didn't contribute much. Thompson's approach (and really, I would assume the goal of all GMs) is to prevent holes rather than fill holes. It's impossible to do this perfectly, but I think TT does it as well as anyone and definitely deserved the award.

0 points
0
0
Mikeh's picture

February 15, 2012 at 01:30 pm

Spot on.

particularly the bit about drafts being to prevent rather than to fill holes.

Think the original article has missed the point of how drafts work.

0 points
0
0
Mojo's picture

February 11, 2012 at 11:18 pm

Assuming they resign Finley & Wells the offense is in excellent shape. Getting a backup O-lineman and QB shouldn't be that difficult. They should be one of the top three offenses next year without having to do too much.

The D obviously needs work. However, if they can get two legit pass rushers the LB's and secondary will look much better. Easier said than done though.

In Thompsons defense he was drafting at the end of most rounds last year. This year he needs to throw the dice a bit and if that means he trades up to get an impact player, he should do it. Also there should be a lot of quality FA's, at reasonable prices, due to the cap staying near the same. He should look to dabble there also.

The Pack are still in a great position to get back on top next year if they fix the pass rush.

0 points
0
0
jeremy's picture

February 13, 2012 at 08:22 am

"However, if they can get two legit pass rushers the LB’s and secondary will look much better."

Do you have any idea how hard it is to find one legit pass rusher? Teams don't pay them 50mil plus for no reason. Only a third of the first round guys ever make a probowl.

0 points
0
0
Mojo's picture

February 13, 2012 at 11:02 am

You left out the part where I said "easier said than done". However, I do recall a certain team from NY that has four pass-rushing threats on their D-line alone. The Pack don't need to limit potential pass rushers to the D-line either. Their best ones currently are LB's. This years draft has six or more pass-rushing studs due to go in the first round. The Pack will have an excellent shot at at least one of them in the first. They can also try to move up or just flood the roster with prospects from their dozen or so picks. For example, FA Cliff Avril was a third round selection. Who knows they may have a pass rusher already on their roster (perhaps So'oto)

As for the cost, they're relatively cheap for the first four years under their rookie contract.

0 points
0
0
BubbaOne's picture

February 12, 2012 at 07:00 am

Seeing this was posted on a Saturday night and you were comparing TT w/ complacency I figured an empty bottle of tequila and a couple of blunts were involved.
If TT were complacent:
...he would have allowed BF to play QB when he wanted to return.
...he would have...coming off a SB and having 16 returnees off of IR...allowed Hall, QJ, Barnett, Chillar, Spitz, etc., etc, to return instead of turning over almost 20% of his roster (10 rookies out of 53).
...he would have just taken "somebody" as his 1st round pick rather than trade down, get value, and take Nelson.

W/ a 53 man roster there are no luxury picks. TT stated it well "You're one injury from turning a deep position into a position of weakness". TT's brilliance is he's looking 2+ years out from a roster and salary cap perspective. Like drafting players a year early to replace vets...Bulaga for Tauscher, Neal for Jenkins, Cobb for Driver, Sherrod for Clifton, Green for Grant, etc. It doesn't always work out but he's planning ahead instead of being complacent.

There's more to say but I've said enough for one posting plus I need to go have my morning cup of tequila and a blunt...I mean coffee and a cigarette.

0 points
0
0
BigSnakeMan's picture

February 12, 2012 at 08:52 am

I'm inclined to agree with the comment above (well, except for the tequila part-I know you like brandy ;) ). If Thompson truly 'lived in the moment of success', he'd be more likely to pursue the course of action you advocate. His pattern suggests that he always has an eye 'on the horizon'.

I see his trading up to get Matthews as a singular case where he saw a chance to get an impact player at what he deemed a reasonable price. I've no doubt that he would do the same if presented with a similar opportunity, but I don't think he feels a compulsion to do so just on principle.

I think the general perception after last season was that the Packers just needed a little tweaking to once again be title contenders. Fans have complained about the lack of a kick returner for years. Now they get Cobb and suddenly it's the wrong move? It's easy to look back now and say where they failed but TT couldn't have foreseen the injury to Collins, much less the impact that would have.

Like yourself, I don't agree with every move that Thompson has made, but I've never gotten the sense that his personality lends itself to 'complacency'. And I certainly wouldn't make that assumption based on a few comments to a reporter. That doesn't automatically translate to the approach that TT takes behind the scenes.

0 points
0
0
foundinidaho's picture

February 12, 2012 at 09:32 am

+1.

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

February 12, 2012 at 11:42 am

"...And I certainly wouldn’t make that assumption based on a few comments to a reporter. That doesn’t automatically translate to the approach that TT takes behind the scenes."

I agree 100%.

What Ted Thompson says to the public, especially a reporter, has nothing to do with how Ted Thompson operates as a GM.

What's one thing we all know about Ted THompson? Almost obsessively secretive about his craft.

This is a guy who doesn't rely on just his own scouts.. He's on the road personally looking at talent something like 100 days out of the year. I'm fairly confident he's not just laying back in the cut, sitting on his hands, simply because he told the ever-annoying and oft horrendously misguided Vandermause "Maybe we should just enjoy the ride", or, translated, "I don't have time to explain to you the game of football, buddy".

0 points
0
0
ohenry78's picture

February 12, 2012 at 01:31 pm

This. The original post is well thought out, to be sure, but I agree with this post more than the article.

Additionally, the reporter asked Thompson this question about the defense in week 11. At that point, there is little to nothing that Thompson can do to upgrade the roster; free agents that could improve the defense weren't out there, and the trade deadline has passed. So what exactly is Thompson supposed to do save trust the roster that he built and, as he put it, enjoy where they are?

0 points
0
0
tundravision's picture

February 12, 2012 at 07:06 pm

@ohenry

Vandermause's article (and I can't believe I am using Vandermause material to begin with) wasn't focused on the question he asked in week 11, it was focused on whether or not TT had made the moves necessary to prevent the concerns in Week 11 from happening.

0 points
0
0
jeremy's picture

February 13, 2012 at 08:37 am

I agree with some of your article, but I wouldn't trade Nelson, Finley, or Sitton for any of the guys taken picks 13-35 in the 2008 draft, except maybe Chris Johnson. It's not just that those guys are good players, it's that that draft was very weak at the top. Getting three really good players out of that draft is an excellent performance.

0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

February 14, 2012 at 03:17 pm

Great points all around in this thread. I'd add that the change to the 3-4 may have propelled a slight increase in "boldness" from TT.

But if there's one thing TT is, is consistent. He'll not change this offseason. Expect more of the same. If there's a bargain in FA, he'll give it a chance, if not, no FA. He's not going to reach in the draft to fill needs. He'll think long term, 2-3 years.

He might hit less like in 08, he might hit more like in 09. He's gonna miss in at least 1 pick, and he's gonna hit in at least 1 pick.

No award will change the offseason approach.

0 points
0
0
cow42's picture

February 12, 2012 at 12:12 pm

bingo.

0 points
0
0
tundravision's picture

February 12, 2012 at 07:04 pm

Ah, Bubba, therein lies the quandry. You suggest that we only draft for the future, not the present. Yet, Thompson traditionally eschews free agency. Why then, I must ask, are we looking towards this years' draft to fix a multitude of problems, if it is actually not the plan?

I do agree with planning ahead, and think that is a fantastic long-term plan. But when your team is on the brink of winning a Super Bowl, do you settle and leave positions that are already positions of weakness alone? Ron Wolf didn't, though admittedly, that was a different time.

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

February 12, 2012 at 09:58 pm

C.D., you write:

"Why then, I must ask, are we looking towards this years’ draft to fix a multitude of problems, if it is actually not the plan?"

The answer? Because we're just fans, and what we think or project has nothing to do with what the real plan implemented by the Packers is.

That said, I'm sure the Packers will lean towards defense (Again, within the constraints of BPA, but still a lean to D), but I fully expect the Packers to make a pick or two during the draft that has us fans pissing and moaning, something along the lines of "A TE/WR/RB/QB/OG IN THE SECOND/THIRD ROUND?? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? WTF!!? WE NEED DEFENSE!"

0 points
0
0
PackersRS's picture

February 14, 2012 at 03:34 pm

I really don't expect TT to draft a DE in the first 2 days, unless some incredible value falls to them.

Everyone is quick to completely discard Neal after coming back from major knee surgery and performing poorly. I don't believe TT shares this view. Specially with Trgovac still in the staff.

And C.D., Wolf and TT have two completely different approaches. If you break them down and look at core philosophy, they're opposite.

Wolf didn't have 10+ years of FA history when shaping his ideals. He was a pioneer in utilizing it's potential, but those were very different times, the rules weren't the same as it is, player agency wasn't the same as it is, and overall franchise expenses weren't the same.

If you compare what the Packers do to what Seattle did under Holmgren (heck, compare Seattle with and without TT, the profile of free agents, the draft picks etc...), it's very different.

So using Wolf's style when assessing TT is not correct IMO.

For TT, the Packers are always in the brink of winning a SB and he plans for it to stay this way until he retires.

0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

February 12, 2012 at 09:44 pm

You really have to put the "enjoy where we are at" statement into the context. It's week 11. You cannot trade for another player. Quality players on the street are few and far between. For a GM, that is as close to the "off season" as he will ever get. What else was he going to say? At that point, the team was what it was, and they were 11-0.

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

February 12, 2012 at 09:48 pm

While I don't know that TT, or ANY GM in the league even has 'close' to an off season, you nail the bigger point:

TT can't do anything about it in week 11.

Successful people in all walks of life often say you can't afford to fret over the past, you always look forward. You can only focus on things in your control, in the present and future; worrying about things out of your control is wasted energy.

Enjoy where you're at, because in week 11, worrying about it is a waste of valuable time and energy. Learn from it? Sure. Worry? why bother.

0 points
0
0
Brian's picture

February 12, 2012 at 09:56 pm

Bubba...totally agree with your comments!

0 points
0
0
joshywoshybigfatposhy's picture

February 14, 2012 at 12:10 pm

i say kudos to c.d. for stellar post-blunt/tequila spelling and grammar.

0 points
0
0
ibleedgrnngold's picture

February 12, 2012 at 09:20 am

Using BJ and Clay as an example of what he should do, or what he does when he's not 'complacent' is pretty bad. We were switching defensive schemes and needed two playmakers to fill the voids.

Teddy has always gone out and gotten players he likes. Its just that those players arent always the same as the ones the fans want. And generally i'd trust Teddy over any of us.

0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

February 12, 2012 at 09:45 pm

Yes and no. With 12 draft picks, and with clear holes to fill, TT needs to be looking to trade up this year. If you pumped his veins full of magical truth serum, he might even betray it with his eyes before swallowing his tongue.

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

February 12, 2012 at 09:54 pm

I agree with this- Packers weren't just on the verge of making a push to being a SB contender when TT supposedly "Broke Form", they were on the verge of making a push to being SB contenders who just fired most of the defensive coaching staff and completely changed schemes.

What TT did was secure two of the most vital pieces of a 3-4 defense- his NT and OLB. Neither were a stretch, so he didn't break form there, either. Raji was picked within the realm of where he was expected to go; It's hard to believe that Clay Matthews wasn't highly rated on the Packers' board considering how amazing his play has been.

That would suggest that TT perhaps didn't break form AT ALL. No reaching, just taking highest rated guys who were available. That's not to say there might not have been another player they would have taken if they didn't have the need at NT or OLB- but you know the drill- take the BPA based on your board, and if there is two players you have graded about the same, take the guy who fills the void on the roster.

0 points
0
0
TedTheSledge's picture

February 12, 2012 at 09:27 am

Packers also re-signed Hawk (after he was cut) and Kuhn from the free agent market to go along with Jones. Not sure how you can consider a first round OT like Sherrod a "project". As was already mentioned hard to say TT was complacent with his roster when they had such a high turnover rate from 2010 to 2011. Exorcising the cap of contracts to Barnett, Harrell, Chillar etc. pay dividends not always reaped in the first year and the Pack's front office is always looking years ahead even though fans have trouble doing so. The loss of FA's from successful teams is compensated with draft picks and GB will get their first bite at that apple this year.

0 points
0
0
redlights's picture

February 12, 2012 at 10:21 am

TT is definately running the Pack like a business. See the big picture of a Lombardi trophy by way of being competitive every year, as parity gives every playoff team a chance to go all the way. Plan ahead to avoid "rebuilding years" is another concept that relates to the salary cap. Our leadership is fine; we will have competitive teams for the next 4-5 years minimum, and once we get to the playoffs, its anyone's call.

I'll take TT's vantage point over that of the other NFCN teams: Minny is in complete rebuild, even after reaching for their franchise QB last year; CHI has more holes than we do; DET is really up and coming, but have only seen one playoff game in like, forever; but are already in cap hell.

What was the Pack's final cap number? My view (in hindsight) is that Neal should have gone IR and we bring in a Howard Green-type player that has no upside, but can at least hold his own better than the non-healed Neal. Since they signed G. Harrell and a couple PS WR's; there must have been some money there. However, if less than $400K, wouldn't have covered the veteran minimum. My read: the cap precluded us from upgrading the DLine like we did in 2010.

0 points
0
0
ibleedgrnngold's picture

February 12, 2012 at 11:56 am

I think your first paragraph cant be stressed enough. After all, we were the most complete, best team this year, on paper, and just didnt compete well enough come playoff time. Its really a crapshoot in the playoffs, so going multiple years is better then selling the farm for one

0 points
0
0
tundravision's picture

February 12, 2012 at 07:16 pm

And this is one of my old stabbies that just eats at me. When Mike Sherman was canned as GM, after doing nothing less than compiling a 44-20 record over the previous four seasons, winning the NFCN three times, and making the playoffs each year, the prime reason for demoting him was "all he does is make the playoffs and lose in the first or second game".

You can't tell me you've forgotten that. It bothered me then, and it bothers me now. If we're now content with just doing well and avoiding having to rebuild, then why isn't Sherman still the GM?

The point is that this was a team that was expected to win it all. And the reason for the loss was a complete breakdown on defense. This wasn't a surprise playoff appearance like 2009 or even 2010.

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

February 12, 2012 at 10:07 pm

Mike Sherman wasn't canned as a GM because of one-and-done syndrome. That's what fans think (again, fan's thoughts do not equal reality).

My guess is it had more to do with the fact he didn't know how to manage a roster. Remember, salary cap hell, and what not.

The biggest reason so many football guys believe you need to separate HC from GM is simply because it's very difficult to get a player to play at 100% effort for his head coach who happens to also be the GM who didn't think the player deserved a pay raise or contract extension... And about ten different scenarios involving conflict between HC decisions and GM/Personnel decisions.

At any rate, Sherman was at the point where he was running the roster waaay into the red and the roster was filled with vets in their twilight (still viable and competitive, but no more upside left) and very little in the way of young developing talent to replace it. Ted Thompson was brought back into the fold to remedy that situation, IMO.

The Packers' past success under SHerman in terms of W-L in the playoffs, I do not believe, was the main issue. I think it may have been more about how the team was situated for long term success that was under fire.

0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

February 13, 2012 at 08:21 am

Agreed Oppy. I never heard the reason given for Sherman's firing as his lack of success in the playoffs. I think most of us thought he was a decent coach. But rather it was his inability to build a roster the right way. In fact, he was more of a fan's GM - trading for players (Glenn), signing big free agents (Joe Johnson, etc.), trading up in the draft (B.J. Sander, etc.). I liked Sherman the coach; I love Thompson the GM.

0 points
0
0
TedTheSledge's picture

February 13, 2012 at 01:01 pm

The reasons Sherman was demoted according to Bob Harlan was that the dual roles were eating him up and his obsession particularly over the Mike McKenzie stalemate was hurting the other areas he was responsible for. He also had some draft day trade-ups that didn't pan out and was spending draft capital like a drunken sailor. Harlan brought in TT to work WITH Sherman and let him focus soley on coaching and TT immediately extended Shermans contract paying him as though he was still performing both roles as a sign of good faith. Your theory that it was soley early playoff exits that caused him to lose his GM role misses the mark. Let the coach coach and motivate players without being the same guy who had to play the heavy during contract negotiations.

0 points
0
0
Sunflower's picture

February 12, 2012 at 10:22 am

I would disagree that he didn't address some of the Packers needs in the draft. LT/RT (depending on were Bulaga ends up playing)was a need because of Clifton's age. WR wasn't as big of a need but could have been considered a need because of Driver's age and the fact that the Packers return game sucked.

I do agree though that the Packers should have spent more draft picks on the defense or even signed a player or two in free free agency on the defensive side of the ball even though that often goes against Thompson's MO.

0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

February 12, 2012 at 10:49 am

In 2008 everything TT touched (other than the one thing he was most maligned for) turned to stone.

In the draft, you have to take the best player available. If you reach, you end up with Christian Ponder like the Vikes or killing your draft boards for years like the Bears did with the Cutler trade.

I hope OLB/DE are taken in rounds 1,2,3,4,5 this year. Reality suggests though, that the players won't be there that TT wants at 28 every round.

Take the best player available again and again and again. Hope that one of your low picks (Shields in 10, DJ Smith in 11, Bishop in 08) blows up.

What I wish TT would do is take a Howard Green like FA or trade for one when it becomes obvious the team needs it. Hedging your bet in case one of your newbies doesn't pan out.

It's why TT should have resigned Jenkins. It's why TT should have brought in a veteran OLB or drafted on in rounds 4-6....

That's what I hope TT gets from 08 and 11...

0 points
0
0
Brandon's picture

February 12, 2012 at 04:18 pm

He did draft Ricky Elmore in the 6th, just didn't pan out.

0 points
0
0
dawg's picture

February 12, 2012 at 11:23 am

CD, very well said.

0 points
0
0
Pack12's picture

February 12, 2012 at 12:53 pm

Being complacent will not let you stay on top of the mountain. The most difficult thing to do in sports is to repeat. Everyone will be gunning for you and you have to stay ahead of the pack (no pun intended) by working even harder. Thompson has failed to address the pass rush for the last couple of years by not drafting a complimentary linebacker to Clay Matthews. The failure to get to the quarterback really hurt the Packers this year. I would hope that TT would make the drafting of a pass rusher his number one priority. Defense should be his number one priority.

0 points
0
0
redlights's picture

February 12, 2012 at 04:12 pm

I really think that better play by the DLine would allow our LB's to be adequate and drafting a LB opposite of CMIII is unnecessary. Neal can be an improvement, but they should draft another to a)hedge Neal's health; b) allow him to be developed, if necessary; and c) create depth.

The other priority needs to be Free Safety to a)hedge Collins' health; b) allow him to be deveopled, if necessary; and c) create depth. sound familiar?

In Ted I trust.

0 points
0
0
tundravision's picture

February 12, 2012 at 07:19 pm

red, I could not agree with you more, though I still say that you would improve this defense exponentially by moving Woodson to safety and investing in a corner to replace him. I think CW has lost a step and will lose another next season, and having his vision back there as the QB of the defense would make the whole squad better.

That, and this is a very poor draft class for safeties.

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

February 12, 2012 at 10:10 pm

The Packers have tried to develop numerous CBs and have only truly "hit" on Tramon Williams thus far.

When you really think about it, the Packers put a pretty high priority on drafting CBs. I just don't know if they have the staff to develop them.

0 points
0
0
redlights's picture

February 13, 2012 at 08:40 am

I can go along with CW to safety; just hope it doesn't end up: "Charles, you don't want to end up like #4 did a few years ago, do you? Just play it, we'll get a Lombardi; the record for pick 6's; and you can ride off into the sunset".

Seems like CB's need to be at least 6 foot, though to take on the new, bigger receivers; that narrows the field considerably.

0 points
0
0
Stanislaw's picture

February 12, 2012 at 05:05 pm

I don't get the point of the article - essentially that unless TT goes for need in the draft the Pack will end up falling behind? Does anybody reading believe that? You think TT does not understand that if you're not getting better, you're getting worse?

And what's the end of the 'era' you are talking about? This team has issues just like any other team but there is no 'end of an era' - am I missing something? Please be more specific.

I'm sorry this is just another long winded article that belabors a point that is obvious. What's next - the defense better be fixed otherwise we may not win the Super Bowl?

0 points
0
0
FITZCORE1252's EVO's picture

February 12, 2012 at 07:14 pm

Kinda with ya.

0 points
0
0
tundravision's picture

February 12, 2012 at 07:24 pm

Cliff's Notes Version:

Point: TT needs to focus on improving areas of weakness, not bolstering areas that are already strong. You're only as strong as your weakest link, and the defense was weak links in every level this year.

Explanation of the term "era": In Thompson's tenure as General Manager, as with any GM, you are going to have rises and falls. The past seven seasons have been the rise of the Packer Empire. With players demanding huge contracts or leaving via free agency, and still drafting at the end of rounds, it is a matter of time before Thompson will eventually enter the decline of this roster. It's the way the system is set up. How he manages this new approach to maintaining an already elite team despite working with more subtractions than additions is his new challenge.

Long-winded: I get paid by the word, Stan. Good work if you can get it.

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

February 12, 2012 at 10:25 pm

"TT needs to focus on improving areas of weakness, not bolstering areas that are already strong."

The whole concept of drafting BPA came about with the thought that if you go into the draft with a preconceived notion of what position you are looking for (in other words, focusing on improving the DL/LB position, and actively ignoring players at other positions), you'll probably end up taking the best Defensive Lineman available with the #30 pick overall, which is great.. Except he might be the 140th best football player available at #30.. You might be taking the best DL (only the 140th best player) while passing up on a WR who somehow slipped to #30 even though you have graded him out as being the 22nd best player in the draft.

Continue to do this for a few years, and you have a roster chock full of decent players who have bloated contracts they aren't living up to, while you have passed up on potential game changers and others who are just better football players than what you have assembled..

Every year, the pool of talent available in the draft is up or down, and the positions which are "deep" ebb and flow.. BPA is all about making sure you take the best player available at a given slotting (or, at least, making sure if you take a DL over that WR that the DL is about the same caliber of player), which, considering the ebb and flow of the depth of any given position group from year to year, should, over the long term, create a deep, balanced team of appropriately paid players.

Chase what you need and you are forcing the issue, making poor decisions, and in the long run, weakening your potential roster.

0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

February 13, 2012 at 08:27 am

If anything, this year helped show how a strength can turn to a weakness very quickly. By drafting BPA (within reason) you are helping ensure that your team has fewer problems to begin with. As I said in a comment above, the ultimate goal is to prevent holes, not fill them.

0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

February 12, 2012 at 05:18 pm

Make a play for Mario Williams,look what Reggie White did,hell there raising ticket prices again and its supposedly community owned team.By the time he fucks around devopeling players Rogers could be on his 4th concussion

0 points
0
0
Nerdmann's picture

February 12, 2012 at 05:19 pm

Ted is not complacent. He goes into every season with glaring holes at one position or another. His first year, it was at G. That one year, it was at RB, but then Grant emerged out of nowhere at the end of the season. In '08 we had no one on the Dline, particularly after injuries.
This past year again, ROLB and Dline were areas where we were very thin, although that was also due to Neal's injury.
Anyway that's just how Ted operates. He doesn't mortgage the future for stopgaps, he expects the coaches to develop somebody. The reason he reached for Raji and Clay was that we were switching to a completely different style defense. Might have even been something he agreed to with Capers as a deal for him taking the job.
BTW, Giacomini just got a fat contract with the Seahawks for $3 mil/year.

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

February 12, 2012 at 10:28 pm

As I posted above somewhere, I don't think you can really even call Raji or Matthews "reaches".

Interesting to see what's the hub-bub with Giacomini. He was a big-time project, didn't pull it together in GB, but that's not to say he can't be a good player. Happens all the time, like Vonta Leach, for instance- From GB bum that didn't pan out, to best FB in the league.

0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

February 13, 2012 at 08:28 am

Tramon Williams was cut by the Texans (I think) before we signed him and developed him into a player.

0 points
0
0
Lou's picture

February 12, 2012 at 09:13 pm

Couldn't disagree more with this article, though I think that much of it depends on one's interpretation of the "enjoy where we are" quote. I remember that article, and my take on TT's comment is it is far less literal that it appears. "Enjoy where we are" could mean "I don't think badmouthing players in public is a productive way to conduct business." Or it could mean "I don't want to answer that question so I'll just say something opaque." Or more likely, "yeah we can't rush the QB but we're not going to be able to find somebody in mid-November so let's just enjoy the ride while it lasts." If you buy into one of thes non-literal interpretation of TT's quote, then his affect reads VERY differently....

0 points
0
0
tundravision's picture

February 12, 2012 at 09:51 pm

However, the question that was asked was NOT "Are you going to go out and get more players", it was "What do you think about the issues with the pass rush?"

What does Thompson have to lose by at least acknowledging that, even at that point, opposing quarterbacks were passing for 300+ yards each week with 5+ seconds in the backfield? How about a "We need to get that cleaned up," ala his head coach? Why completely sidestep the concern with a dismissive "Let's just enjoy where we're at."?

We can try and spin the statement however we want, but in the end, I stand my overall point, with or without that quote from Vandermause.

0 points
0
0
Chris's picture

February 13, 2012 at 07:41 am

Why sidestep the concern? Perhaps because TT didn't see anything to be gained by taking the point head-on. At that point in the season with the success they were having, I am not sure what there was to be gained by public hand-wringing, particularly as his head coach had already addressed the subject.

0 points
0
0
Don Hutson's picture

February 13, 2012 at 08:03 am

The failure of the defensive front to put pressure on the opposing quarterback was the achilles heal of this Packer team. It exposed the secondary to an intollerable situation - given the current rules that favor receivers, and our mid level defense - never the strength of this defense - lived down to the lower level of its expectations. Too much fell on the shoulders of Mathews and Radji and they were exhausted when needed most. neal for multiple reasons remained a non-factor, and maybe won't ever achieve the promise we glimpsed in 2010. The loss of Collins was devistating, particularly his agressiveness - whether that affected the poor tackeling who knows, but the entire secondary was clearly impacted.

So there are holes to fill, sure, but this is a team that is close, not a fading star. no team can overcome every challenge all the time. The Packers just failed at a bad time this year.

0 points
0
0
Bercovici's picture

February 13, 2012 at 09:58 am

Cobb's a luxury pick? He single-handedly flipped our standing in the special teams rankings from miserable to above average. We hadn't scored on a kickoff return in over a decade before he came to town. And he's a natural replacement for Donald Driver in the slot. Cobb may have been a BPA pick, but he also addressed not one but two needs. He was the rare pick that satisfies either draft ideology.

0 points
0
0
Cole's picture

February 13, 2012 at 11:08 am

While you can say that we should have addressed defense in the draft, you could argue that in 2010 our D was better than our O. I know they saved our ass in almost every game when our O would stall out for quarters at a time.

We had to draft Sherrod over Reed because no one knew that Newhouse was going to be competent. People were praising that we had drafted Clifton's replacement and secured the health of the franchise (Rodgers).

Thompson thinks like successful business people. He's proactive about everything as opposed to reactive which will destroy your success.

If we were to make a free agent splash I'd like to see it done with Calias Campbell not Williams.

It wouldn't suprise me to see the pack do something like drafting a CB in the first or something crazy like that.

I don't know about you guys, but watching the SB I still think the Pack could've beat either of those teams, they just had one horrible game. I still contend without the drops and turnovers we would have won that game and gone on to win the super bowl.

Trust in TT.

0 points
0
0
Tyler's picture

February 13, 2012 at 05:06 pm

You hit in on the head. Agree 100%

0 points
0
0
Tyler's picture

February 13, 2012 at 05:04 pm

Loss of Jenkins, Barnett, Colledge overshadowed by emergence of Tramon, Shields, Bishop, Raji, Walden, Starks, Nelson, Finley. Hindsight is always 20/20. I don't think you can blame TT for not addressing the "needs" the author mentions. We didn't know Collins would go down early and we didn't know Walden would play like the bum he was before we signed him. At the beginning of the season I thought the Packers D would be better than last year if anything and I think that was the trend with the majority of packer fans. If the organization was "cocky," they had good reason to be.

0 points
0
0
Kennypayne's picture

February 13, 2012 at 08:12 pm

I don't think TT was complacent. Sherrod was a smart investment to protect the team's greatest asset. Cobb not only added explosiveness to the passing game he was the first legitimate returner in GB in a decade.

While I don't think TT was complacent when it comes to the draft, I do think he made 2 significant blunders when it comes to the D. First, as many have correctly a noted, letting Jenkins go was a big mistake. Second, and more under the radar, giving Hawk a huge new contract maybe even a bigger error. That $10 million could and should have gone to a deserving player not a non-impact player like Hawk.

Hence, TT was not complacent last offseason but rather just wrong when it comes to the defensive side of the ball.

0 points
0
0
BLACKHAWK's picture

February 14, 2012 at 06:33 pm

IN TED WE TRUST!

0 points
0
0
Mikeh's picture

February 15, 2012 at 01:24 pm

This is a nonsense of an article. Utter nonsense.

You draft for the future, not for the next season. You judge a draft 4 seasons later.

The 2008 draft produced 3 of our best players (Nelson, Finley, Sitton) considered by many to be part of the core players - the must signs. And Flynn a guy who has just broken franchise records in his second start.

It was a very very very good draft and to suggest otherwise is nonsense. TT can get as complacent as he likes if he keeps pulling out drafts like that. TT got Executive because of drafts like that. By drafting very good players every year setting the franchise up for continued success.

The 2012 draft is supposed to help you win the superbowl in 3 years. If you are banking on it to win the following season you've not done your job properly.

0 points
0
0