Sun Hot, Water Wet, Packers Young
Thompson's Green Bay Packers are once again skewing young.
By PackerAaron
Great roster breakdown from Wes Hod and someone named Robert Zizzo over at the Green Bay Press Gazette:
Since general manager Ted Thompson took over in 2005, the Packers have valued youth. Of the 88 players on the roster, the average age is 24.5 years old with 44 percent never having suited up for an NFL game.
Only three players on the roster — Aaron Rodgers, Julius Peppers and John Kuhn — have 10 or more years of experience. That's the fewest among NFC North Division teams, where the Chicago Bears and Detroit Lions have seven each, and the Minnesota Vikings have five.
Ted gonna Ted.
As I wrote the other day, Ted figured out long ago that this game, and how this particular league plays that game, is for the young.
Speed, strength and skill all come in various forms around the league but more and more teams are realizing that filling their roster with young, cheap labor and paying players who prove themselves throughout the duration of their rookie contract and who show promise going forward is the way to go.
Ted's been doing this pretty much since he walked in the door.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (39)
Ibleedgreenmore
May 18, 2015 at 08:13 pm
It has seemed to work very well, I can not wait to see the games this year.
MangoSalsa
May 18, 2015 at 09:29 pm
Is this how the Giants, Seahawks, Steelers, Colts, and Patriots do it? Because those are the teams that have been to multiple Super Bowls over the last 10 years.
EdsLaces
May 18, 2015 at 10:37 pm
Well I know the Seahawks haven't won 2 super bowls in the past 10 years and I'm pretty sure the g men haven't either.....so yeah well done sir.
EdsLaces
May 18, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Ok well I guess giants did in 07.
MangoSalsa
May 19, 2015 at 05:36 am
"been to"
BradHTX
May 19, 2015 at 08:42 am
Umm, yeah, how quickly we forget. The Giants won the Super Bowl after both the 2007 and 2011 seasons, beating the Patriots both times, and defeating the Packers along the way both times.
PackerAaron
May 18, 2015 at 11:46 pm
So because Ted's team (which is a botched onside kick from reaching your completely arbitrary threshold by the way) hasn't been to two Super Bowls it invalidates his team building philosophy?
Also, most if not all those teams build around their young drafted players. Hell, the Seahawks just went on a massive spending spree rewarding a bunch of young defensive stars.
It's funny you bring up the Colts, a team that has recently swung for the fences in trades and free agency. They went to two Super Bowls when Polian was in charge. Not Grigson. Andrew Luck is a real talent, but Grigson hasn't shown much in the way of building a consistent winner around him.
MangoSalsa
May 19, 2015 at 05:53 am
So is that the way Polian did it?
"Hell, the Seahawks just went on a massive spending spree rewarding a bunch of young defensive stars." Yes - but they've also been known to make a trade for a veteran player or sign a couple in free agency.
I'm not "invalidating Thompson's building philosophy" - I'm just wondering if teams that have accomplished more than the Packers have over the last 10 seasons are doing anything differently than the Packers are.
Any "threshold" we might use to compare teams' successes would be "completely arbitrary". I simply chose Super Bowl appearances because, in the end, that's the ultimate goal for every team. I suppose one could compare teams using regular season winning percentages or playoff winning percentages or division titles, but again - any of those choices would be "completely arbitrary" as well.
On a side note - I feel that blaming the loss to the Seahawks solely on the botched onside kick is somewhat shortsighted. The Packers should never have even been in position to have to cover that kick in order to secure victory. A number of factors contributed.
PackerAaron
May 19, 2015 at 07:06 am
I'm not blaming that loss on the onside kick. Simply pointing out a fact.
As for where "the blame" should go for that loss, enjoy: http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/enough-of-the-blame-game-it-was-a-complete-...
HankScorpio
May 19, 2015 at 07:19 am
The Packers would have 3 SB appearances under TT if McCarthy had the stones to bench Favre in the NFC CG game after the 2007 season and any one of a dozen things had not gone horribly wrong in the last game of last season.
All a GM can do is put together a team capable of winning it all. After that, it is up to factors outside his control. By that standard, TT has been a very successful GM that follows a proven approach. The Packers are tied with the Patriots for the longest current streak of playoff appearances in the NFL.
PS...Most of the teams on the list follow the same type of team building model as TT. They all build the majority of their team through the draft and occasionally supplement the roster with veteran talent. There is no other way to win. In the NFL, if you can't draft well, you can't win.
PackerBacker
May 19, 2015 at 09:19 am
If McCarthy pulls Favre out of that game, he is lynched and then thrown to the wolves.
Some believed that Favre was having serious issues with the cold at the time and he was (in retrospect) but 98% of the Packers fans would never have accepted that.
If he'd pulled Favre, he'd have lost his job.
HankScorpio
May 20, 2015 at 08:24 am
That was Favre's last game in GB. As things turned out, he did not want it to be his last game in GB. You will never convince me that there was not serious questions about whether Favre was the right man to be the starting QB over Rodgers before that game. It is crystal clear the organization, as a whole, felt it was time to move on to Rodgers AFTER that game. Since, you know, they did exactly that. You don't go from one extreme to the other in the course of one game.
Of course plenty of fans were pretty ticked off at TT that offseason when everything came to a head with the choice of 2008 starting QB. That was misplaced anger because it was always MM driving the decision to move on. But even with all those pissed off fans, nobody was lynched or fired (except Favre). Eventually, almost everyone came around and saw that the Packers made the right choice.
I don't see how the facts we do know support your claim about the possible consequences of MM pulling Favre in that fateful NFC CG.
One thing you're absolutely correct about is that Favre seriously sucked in bitter cold late in his career. Just a few weeks prior to his swan song in GB, he was atrocious on a cold, blustery day in Chicago. To this day I don't know what it means to look too cold to function but clearly remember thinking Favre did. That opinion was solidified in that NFC CG.
barutanseijin
May 19, 2015 at 10:20 am
Doubt that Rodgers would have made a difference in that game, especially at that point in his career. He didn't beat the Giants in the 2011 playoff rematch, nor did he get them past other similarly tough defenses like SF or Seattle in more recent playoff games. Nor was Rodgers particularly impressive in the cold in Chicago in 2010. (Except for that tackle of Urlacher) Thank goodness the other guys were Cutler and Haney.
HankScorpio
May 20, 2015 at 08:29 am
Perhaps Rodgers would not have made a difference.
What we know for sure is that Favre could not lead them to a win on that day. We don't know that about Rodgers.
BTW..That Giant defense was not exactly "tough". Certainly they suffer greatly in comparison to the SF or Seattle defenses you mention. And probably the Chicago defense of 2010.
Samson
May 19, 2015 at 09:29 pm
"The Packers would have 3 SB appearances under TT if .... "
Hilarious !!! Can't believe anyone would resort to the "if" in defense of their homerism. --- Try reality & truth. --- It stands the test of time.
RCPackerFan
May 19, 2015 at 11:56 am
'I'm not "invalidating Thompson's building philosophy" - I'm just wondering if teams that have accomplished more than the Packers have over the last 10 seasons are doing anything differently than the Packers are.'
Who has done more the last 10 years then the Packers?
Lets look.
Playoff appearances the last 10 years.
Patriots and Colts - 9 times
Packers, Ravens, Seahawks - 7 times
So only 2 teams have more playoff appearances then the Packers, and 2 others have tied with them on playoff appearances.
In the last 10 years 2 teams have won multiple super bowls Giants and Steelers. However Giants have only been to the playoffs 5 times and haven't been in the last 3 years. They have only been in 1 playoffs the last 6 years.
In the last 5 years only 2 teams have made the Playoffs each year and has won a Super Bowl. Packers and Patriots.
I like what the Packers have done and the way they stay competitive almost each and every year.
MangoSalsa
May 19, 2015 at 12:29 pm
I can't argue any of that.
All valid points.
But in the last 10 years the Patriots, Colts, Steelers, Giants, and Seahawks have all been to the Super Bowl multiple times.
Playoff appearances are great, but in my opinion - the goal should be reaching the Super Bowl.
Give me less playoff appearances and more Super Bowl appearances any day. Just my opinion.
No one's wrong here.
All measuring sticks are arbitrary.
RCPackerFan
May 19, 2015 at 01:07 pm
Yeah, I didn't factor in teams making it to the super bowl and losing. I just went with playoff teams and super bowl winners.
No one is wrong in this.
I just wanted to point out to many others that Thompson has built a good team, who each and every year (minus the first few years) he has fielded a winning team that has had chances to make it to the super bowl.
Samson
May 19, 2015 at 09:33 pm
AR is the reason, not TT. --- Please, examine NFL history. --- Elite QBs carry teams, not average GMs.
HankScorpio
May 20, 2015 at 08:57 am
I think the real issue here is that you are picking an arbitrary point short of the ultimate goal just to make the list bigger.
Unless you get a particular kick out of Halas or Hunt trophies, making the SB and losing is as meaningless as losing earlier in the playoffs.
EdsLaces
May 19, 2015 at 09:28 am
I don't just wanna go to the super bowl anyway. I wanna win it.
TKWorldWide
May 20, 2015 at 06:02 am
Didn't know you were on the team.
HankScorpio
May 19, 2015 at 07:37 am
Are we talking about SB appearance untainted by a legacy of cheating? if so, scratch the Patriots off the list.
MangoSalsa
May 19, 2015 at 09:54 am
Do whatever it takes.
hybridauth_Facebook_100002574551585
May 19, 2015 at 01:55 am
Its a young mans game and the salary cap is a factor but its no coincidence that the Packers best seasons through Favre and Rodgers included at least one expensive older impact defensive FA; Reggie White, Charles Woodson and Julius Peppers.
Thompson would do well to remember that after Peppers is gone or no longer an impact player. Young guys can help sustain success but some select vets can help get you to the top. Nice to have vets around to teach the youngins too.
Those types of impact guys arent always available as FAs but a good GM covers his bases with a vet when facing a MD Jennings/McMilian situation, two unproven guys fighting for a starting spot. Jim Leonard would have been a real nice inexpensive insurance policy that year.
ILB looks a little like that this year but they at least have Barrington to man one spot and Matthews as a fall back option at the other, if no ones else pans out among the two 4th rounders and undrafted FAs.
PackerAaron
May 19, 2015 at 07:08 am
This is a fair criticism and one that I tend to agree with. But Ted has his philosophy when it comes to keeping his locker room filled with mostly his guys and he sticks to it, for whatever reason.
Also, in regards to the ILB spot, don't discount Joe Thomas and Carl Bradford. I think one or both could surprise us this summer.
HankScorpio
May 19, 2015 at 07:28 am
I absolutely do agree that TT could do more in veteran player acquisition. But for whatever reason, he does not.
He also tends to overpay his own from time to time.
He can over-estimate the odds of player development working enough to cover over a roster hole (see Safety, 2013 season)
Nobody is perfect. Overall, the product the Packers put on the field is about as good as any other.
SpudRapids
May 19, 2015 at 12:25 pm
I think the argument of having vets around to teach young players is a joke. This doesn't happen... any veteran player is focused on what he needs to do and how he can make the roster. Why else do you think coaching staffs have grown so much over recent years? They are far better for player development than a veteran player. Don't you think a coach who has coached for years in the NFL has seen what multiple pro-bowl caliber players do to be successful and can help translate that to the young guys?
Signing veteran players excites fans more than anything else because they know the guys name. Look at when everyone was shouting at Thompson to sign Steven Jackson... what did he do? Went and got Lacy. I'll take that strategy all day long.
hybridauth_Facebook_100002574551585
May 19, 2015 at 03:58 pm
So your saying Aaron Rodgers didnt learn one damn thing from Favre? Sam Shields and Casey Hayward didnt learn how to work and study film or anything from Tramon Williams. If you believe that then go ask them what they think. Hell Ha Ha Clinton Dix credits Sean Richardson of all people for his development last year, hes not exactly an old vet but a vet none the less.
Im not saying a veteran guy will sit there and hold someones hand and actually teach them but the young guys learn from watching the vets train, work their craft and they see how to be a professional. Trust me there is more value in that then you think Spud.
RCPackerFan
May 19, 2015 at 07:28 am
Simply put, this is a young mans game. Thompson has his philosophy in building his team and he has done a good job with it.
His philosophy is to build his team through the draft, and resign those players that deserve to be resigned. When is the last time we let a young and upcoming player get away after their rookie contract. We just saw it again this year with Bulaga and Cobb.
I like the way our team has been built. I like that every year its just adding more to the team and not taking away from the team.
Handsback
May 19, 2015 at 08:10 am
Every year teams try to improve their rosters by FA and drafts. Green Bay uses the draft way more than most teams. The draft includes the UDFAs that the Pack usually sign from 15-20 players every year. This affects the bottom 20 players of your team. They aren't typically the stars or even the starters at times but the 2nd string guys that come in when the starters go down. In the past few years, that has been huge since the Pack has been the most injured team in the NFL.
The high draft picks are the guys slated to be the stars or starters right away. Ted hits on these maybe better than most GMS. Every team has holes going into the season. Green Bay is no exception. It's how you manage those weakness areas that seems to determine your place in the playoffs.
Ted does try to use the FA market, but he doesn't spend outrageous money to do it. He may be cheap, but if you want this team to compete every year..... his method seems to work.
BradHTX
May 19, 2015 at 08:48 am
And ultimately, fielding a competitive team is the GMs job; winning Super Bowls is the job of the coach and players. The Ted haters who constantly carp "If he's so great, why have we only won one Super Bowl with a HoF QB?" seem to discount that factor.
PackerBacker
May 19, 2015 at 09:27 am
I'd go even farther than that. I think the perfect world for the Packers brass is to consistently have a 11 to 13 win team that gets to the playoffs. That type of team is the best for profits. It keeps the fans mostly satisfied and keeps them energized for the upcoming year and the prospects for what it might bring.
Throw in a SuperBowl appearance every 5-7 years and start raking in the money.
Consistently young and talented teams are the best way to do that. You get most of the talent without the major costs that come with veterans.
barutanseijin
May 19, 2015 at 10:22 am
Who hires the coach? Hmmm...
sonomaca
May 19, 2015 at 09:17 am
Yes, but, he probably wishes he'd spent just a bit more money on a couple of dedicated special teams aces. What you find in this game is that the best teams will take advantage of your flaws, and that's exactly what happened in Seattle.
This year's draft seems to feature players who will be excellent special teams players this year. You just worry about whether the Packers have actually addressed the CB position. If they haven't, that too will be exploited.
TKWorldWide
May 20, 2015 at 06:08 am
I don't think AR, Peppers, Shields, CMIII, Bulaga, Nelson, or Cobb would say TT is cheap.
hybridauth_Facebook_100004765273075
May 19, 2015 at 09:28 pm
Could be some interesting new players this year. My issue with the div lesser players, they were there for a reason. Just like some guys go to Stanford because they have the smarts to do the school work and be coached up, some of these guys can't coached. Physically they have football skills. Its the mental part of the game that failing and why many orgs shy away from the undrafteds when they can.
Samson
May 19, 2015 at 09:38 pm
Like it or not, if TT wastes another year of AR's career with an inexperienced 53-man roster, it's one less SB for the Pack & AR.
I'd hate to see another GM ruin the HOF career of an elite QB. --- (think Favre and Sherman)
TKWorldWide
May 20, 2015 at 06:10 am
I honestly think many fans consider making (and winning) the SB to be much easier than it actually is.