On now.......wow, I forgot how huge he was, and he didn't like Green Bay at all. Interesting, and I forgot a lot about his life.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I know Mandarich and have done some business with him after he left football.
I think he is candid, open and a decent guy who had issues he is trying hard to correct. Good for him.
I feel a bit bad for him he actually feared a return to Wisconsin because he thought he'd be booed.
Dude had an addiction, it got the best of him. Then again, the sheeple are not always the most well informed.
Credos and gebins to him for getting sober.
The John Hadl trade is a microcosm of the 1970's-era Packers.
The Mandarich pick is a microcosm of the 1980's-era.
Not necessarily his fault, but that draft pick was (another) major snafu.
And he didn't do himself any favors afterward, but that's another story.
Viewed as possibly the best college offensive lineman ever coming out of MSU. Really only a bad pick with the benefit of hindsight.
It wasn't just that he was a bust. It was that the 3 guys picked behind him (and the guy picked ahead of him are all HOFers). That makes it a little unfair for Mandarich since there are plenty of high picks that don't make it. It's just the context is so bad. As for the Packers organization, I remember the leadup to the 1989 draft. It's certainly possible that if the Lions, Chiefs, or Falcons had the #2 pick they'd have drafted Mandarich as well.
I agree on the Hadl trade being a microcosm of the 1970s Packers. The 1970s Packers failed because the front office was a complete shitstorm.
The 1980s Packers had a lot more talent than the late 1970s Packers. There problems were more in player discipline. Remember Ken Stills' cheap late hits or Charles Martin body slamming Jim McMahon away from the play? That's the onfield stuff. The off-field stuff like Mossy Cade or James Lofton at the Top Shelf night club was consistent with lack of institutional control. Basically, Forrest Gregg promoted that culture.
michiganjoe posted:Viewed as possibly the best college offensive lineman ever coming out of MSU. Really only a bad pick with the benefit of hindsight.
Disagree. At the time I was convinced he was roofing and wanted any of the other future HOFers used with that pic. His Village comment clinched it for me but oh well
Things may have been really different had they not won that final game in Arizona.
Michigan, I think you explained it perfectly. The 70's Packers were just terrible and most of the time had very little hope or talent to give us hope. I grew up close to GB and we always heard about the off field stuff and at the time I didn't know what to believe. As for Mandarich, I think looking back most of us were thrilled we got him he was a beast in college.
I like to post this link from time to time to remind us just how bad things were back then: http://www.the-kramerfamily.co...CKERS-GORYYEARS.html
The site is a bit cheesy and old but it still is a good read.
In the fall of '89, I went to Port Plaza Mall in GB to get Mandarich's autograph and the line was almost all the way through the mall to get his autograph.
Flash forward 3 years later, I am working at Kohl's Department store in Bay Park Square Mall. Mandarich was making an appearance there signing autographs. There was zero line at all. I know I got his autograph again that day, but I might have been about the only one, his star had completely fallen. It was kind of sad how quickly it all faded but at least it sounds like he did learn some humility from those times and came out a better person from it.
If I remember, an SI article all but said in bold print, “He’s using juice!!!” It may have been how Mandarich was a beast in college but a bust as a pro. He didn’t have what it takes in reality, but he got away with it in college. Good that he learned from it all without being destroyed by it.
Mandarich pick hastened the firing of Infante. Had we taken Barry Sanders, we may have been the Lions and never won a Superb Owl in the modern era.
Chongo posted:Mandarich pick hastened the firing of Infante. Had we taken Barry Sanders, we may have been the Lions and never won a Superb Owl in the modern era.
The 1989 Majik season + Barry Sanders would have been a blast though.
michiganjoe posted:Things may have been really different had they not won that final game in Arizona.
I remember how virtually certain everyone was they were going to end up with Aikman. They were actually 2-12 with 2 games left and played Minnesota in the 15th game. Minnesota was 10-4 at the time and the Packers defense dominated that game. Somehow Minnesota went 11-3 against the rest of the league and 0-2 against the Packers (Green Bay won their first matchup 34-14). Then the Packers to win the Arizona game after that.
If they end up choosing Aikman, he'd have probably sat behind Majkowski the following year (the year Majkowski made the Pro Bowl). I'm also not convinced that Troy Aikman was ever a superstar. Many, many QBs would have looked good behind that offensive line and handing off to Emmett Smith. Aikman's career stats are 165 TDs and 141 interceptions. You get that he lost some short TD throws because they just handed the ball to Smith because it was so easy for them, but that's a lot of interceptions. I also get that it was a different era, but Aikman really wasn't any better than a guy like Drew Bledsoe. Even with that line and skill players around him, Aikman was really pedestrian except for the stretch when the Cowboys won 3 of 4 Super Bowls and even in those 4 years he threw for 68 TDs and 39 interceptions. This was for a team that almost always ahead, against which most defenses had to keep 7 or 8 guys in the box to stop a dominant run game, and he was only sacked 77 times in those 4 seasons. He was throwing to a multi-time first team All-Pro TE (Novacek) and a HOF WR in Michael Irvin. He played with 5 guys already in the Hall of Fame (Irvin, Smith, Deion Sanders, Charles Haley, Larry Allen) and with many other guys who were multiple time first team all pros (Erik Williams, Darren Woodson, etc.). Can you imagine what Favre, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Payton Manning, Phillip Rivers, etc. would have done with that line and those teammates?
If Aikman comes to Green Bay, he's probably remembered at the same level as a guy like Drew Bledsoe, Testaverde, or Kosar. He'd have been a decent player but not a Hall of Famer. He may have been good enough to make them mediocre for about 4-5 years after Majkowski got hurt and kept Infante in his job. There'd have been no Ron Wolf, no Mike Holmgren, no Brett Favre.
Great point if the Packers had taken Aikman how things would have been different. I personally think Aikman would not have turned them around he would have been just good enough for a QB starved team like the Packers to get them better but not significantly so. I really think Infante would have been retained and with that you are righ not Wolf, no Holmgren, no Favre etc. Its kind of crazy to think that the Mandarich pick really was the reason we have enjoyed so much success since the early 90's.
I think Aikman was an above average QB who was put in an absolutely GREAT situation that allowed him to maximize his potential for 4 or 5 years. I agree, you put him in the environment the Packers were in at that time and I think history would look on him differently. I think he'd still have been a good, maybe even very good QB, but it is entirely possible he would never have won enough that he'd be regarded as a Hall Of Fame QB.
He was definitely a good QB with a strong accurate arm. He probably faced less pressure and had less stress on him than any other QB of his era during his peak years. Heck, I think of that '94 Thanksgiving game where Aikman couldn't play and was replaced by Jason Garrett. I believe the Cowboys rang up 40 points on a top 10 Packers' defense with Aikman sitting out. That just shows how strong those Cowboys teams were even if he wasn't available.
Anyone up for a road trip to 5339 N 45th Street?
PackerHawk posted:Anyone up for a road trip to 5339 N 45th Street?
Lol - I saw that when I posted! Just something I got from a google image search! Not sure who that guy is!!
Not sure if there are many people named Baumann left in that area.
Side note....I grew up on the Eastside. On my annual visits home, I always drive North Avenue west from the Eastside just to see what the old mean streets look like.
Last trip a couple of months ago will be my last drive up North Avenue....saw a guy urinating on a wall in full view of traffic, abandoned cars on side streets and most disconcerting, a-holes passing on the right at 60 miles an hour.
I'm thinking Baltimore might be nicer.
North Ave wasn't that bad just 5 years ago. Looked like it was turning around. Take it into the Toh-sah and there are all kinds of neat little places.
MichiganPacker2 posted:Aikman really wasn't any better than a guy like Drew Bledsoe.
The Heckler posted:Michigan, I think you explained it perfectly. The 70's Packers were just terrible and most of the time had very little hope or talent to give us hope. I grew up close to GB and we always heard about the off field stuff and at the time I didn't know what to believe. As for Mandarich, I think looking back most of us were thrilled we got him he was a beast in college.
I like to post this link from time to time to remind us just how bad things were back then: http://www.the-kramerfamily.co...CKERS-GORYYEARS.html
The site is a bit cheesy and old but it still is a good read.
Great link. I like #10 of the worst games.
10. Philadelphia Eagles 31, Packers 0 -- Dec. 16, 1990 - Tony Mandarich had to block Reggie White and the results were a disaster. White had 1 1/2 sacks, six knockdowns, two passes batted at the line and a forced fumble. "To tell you the truth, I gave it my damndest," Mandarich said after the game. "He timed my step and then he'd toss me. I could have held on to him, but why hold? Why go back 10 yards."
I am surprised that the Packers were so naive as to believe that Mandarich was not taking roids in college. He had all the signs.
I have always suspected that Saban gave him the clean bill of health report to the scouts to bolster his sketchy resume.
DH13 posted:North Ave wasn't that bad just 5 years ago. Looked like it was turning around. Take it into the Toh-sah and there are all kinds of neat little places.
Next time I am in Milwaukee, I want to get a pizza at Hup's, but I am not sure it is worth going to. 54th and Hampton.
Heard a radio interview with Gil Brandt a few years back. Said if any GM tells you he wouldn't have taken Mandarich in the first couple of picks in the draft, he's lying. He was seen as one of the best O-line prospects "ever". Cowboys building were split between him an Aikman with the 1st pick...went with the "QB" position as a tie breaker.
As a fan, I remember being pissed that the Packers somehow won the last 2 games of the season to **** things up 
What scouts told Bob McGinn about Tony Mandarich before the 1989 draft:
TOM BRAATZ, THEN WITH PACKERS: “He isn’t necessarily the best I’ve ever seen. I was very high on Bill Fralic. Anthony Munoz is a better pass blocker than Mandarich. He doesn’t have feet like Munoz or Mike Kenn. On the other hand, you’ve got his tenacity, which Paul Gruber and Munoz and Kenn don’t have.”
TOM BOISTURE, GIANTS: “Tom Braatz should spend all of his time in church praying that Dallas takes Aikman. You can get quarterbacks. You can’t get Mandariches. He’s like what O.J. Simpson was for a running back. Pound for pound he’s the best athlete I’ve seen, And there’s a lot of pounds there, baby.”
MIKE LOMBARDI, BROWNS: “A freak of nature.”
ART SHELL, RAIDERS: “If he stays healthy, he’ll be a Hall of Famer. The only thing he’ll have to improve on is pass protection, but it is a small weakness. He didn’t do a lot of it in college.”
DICK STEINBERG, THEN WITH PATRIOTS: “Really, don’t look for any holes. He still has to perform once he gets in the league, but he’s got to have as many physical tools as anybody who’s ever come in.”
RON WOLF, THEN WITH RAIDERS: “The best guy I have seen is Mike Munchak. I have him rated with Munchak. I think he is outstanding.”
JERRY VAINISI, THEN WITH LIONS: “Gruber is a hell of a player. Well, Mandarich makes him look like a second-stringer.”
BOBB MCKITTRICK, 49ERS: “He doesn’t have what I call innate feel for the game, but there’s nothing wrong with it. You tell him who to block and he’ll block him. But if that guys falls down, he doesn’t instinctively go get the next guy like you’d like.”
JOE WOOLLEY, EAGLES: “He’s a man among children.”
MIKE ALLMAN, SEAHAWKS: “I don’t remember anything coming out in the last 20 years like him. This kid is faster and stronger than Anthony Munoz.”
JERRY REICHOW, VIKINGS: “No reservations at all. We’d jump on him in a minute. But there is no perfect guy.”
ANONYMOUS AFC SCOUT: “When he gets off the ‘roids, and comes down to 280 or 290, he’s still going to be outstanding.”
BILL KUHARICH, SAINTS: “This guy is like Ron Yary. There’s no comparison between Mandarich and Fralic. Fralic is a good player but Mandarich is rare.”
GIL BRANDT, THEN WITH COWBOYS: “They’ll be getting a player that probably will be in the Pro Bowl for the next 10 years.”
ANONYMOUS AFC SCOUT: “When he gets off the ‘roids, and comes down to 280 or 290, he’s still going to be outstanding.”
I'm legitimately curious: can anyone name an athlete who was just as good or better off the juice than on it? I can only think of guys who were outstanding on it: Bosworth, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, et al. Football's a little different because everyone knows almost all of 'em juice but only the dumb ones get caught.
Packdog posted:As a fan, I remember being pissed that the Packers somehow won the last 2 games of the season to **** things up
What makes you think that front office wouldn't have still taken Mandarich at #1 or #2?
What's funny is Braatz gave the "worst" review of Mandarich. Could've been sandbagging I guess.
Fandame posted:ANONYMOUS AFC SCOUT: “When he gets off the ‘roids, and comes down to 280 or 290, he’s still going to be outstanding.”
I'm legitimately curious: can anyone name an athlete who was just as good or better off the juice than on it? I can only think of guys who were outstanding on it: Bosworth, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, et al. Football's a little different because everyone knows almost all of 'em juice but only the dumb ones get caught.
Barry Bonds was a first ballot Hall of Famer before the roids. All the reporting (read Game of Shadows which goes into this in a lot of detail) indicates he didn't go on the roids until before 1999 when he got pissed off that he had just put together one of the best 8 year stretches in MLB history by winning 3 MVPs and about 7 Gold Gloves but all anyone could talk about was Sosa and McGwire. In 1999, he hit 34 HRs in about 100 games, but blew out a tendon in his elbow. When he came back, he and his "doctors" had figured out how to dose his roids with growth hormone, insulin, etc. to optimize his chances of not getting hurt from the muscle overgrowth.
Go check out what Bonds did between 1990 and 1998 when he wasn't juicing (see link below). He had one year where he stole 52 bases and hit 33 HRs. He had seven years with an OPS better than 1.000. In other words, 7 seasons better than Yelich had last year. his best OPS year was better than what Yelich is at THIS YEAR. He won a Gold Glove almost every year. he hit 327 HRs in those 8 years and he lost almost half of 1994 to the strike (when he was on pace to hit over 50 home runs). He already had over 400 HRs and 400 SBs by the time he turned 33. The media hated him because he was so arrogant, but he had a consistent 8-10 year stretch pre-roids where he ran off one of the best 10 year performances in MLB history.
https://www.baseball-reference...rs/b/bondsba01.shtml
The young Bonds was lean, athletic, and might have been the best athlete in baseball. He was a slightly better version of what Christian Yelich has been for the last year plus for a decade (better fielder, faster, stuck out about half as much). It was between him and Griffey, Jr. as to who was the best player of the pre-steroids era (and they were both top 10-20 all time).
Again, he supposedly got extremely pissed off because Sosa, McGwire, etc. started getting all the attention and he decided he needed to do that too. When he went on the roids, he became the best MLB hitter I've ever seen (the only one close all-time is Ruth who is still the biggest statistical outlier in MLB history even to this day), but he was a different player. Instead of being lean and athletic, he became a body builder and lost his fielding ability and was no longer a threat to steal bases. But it seemed like you literally could not get him out. His OBP approached and exceeded 60%. That stretch from 2001-2004 was incredible even though he was juicing. 209 HR despite the fact he was walked 755 TIMES in those 4 years. He was intentionally walked 120 times in 2004 alone.
If Bonds stays off the roids, he probably ends up with over 500 HRs, 500 stolen bases, double digit gold gloves. Because of the differences in fielding ability and on the bases, his WAR stats pre-roids weren't that much lower than on roids. The problem is that, as MLB used to advertise, "chicks dig the long ball."
DH13 posted:Packdog posted:As a fan, I remember being pissed that the Packers somehow won the last 2 games of the season to **** things up
What makes you think that front office wouldn't have still taken Mandarich at #1 or #2?
I remember that draft. Aikmen was considered a lock by Green Bay at #1.
By who? Even all the scouts were lauding Mandarich as a generational prospect. With Majkowski still as QB#1, did they really need another as a first pick? Let's not forget how GB's FO got the reputation it had in the 80's.
Does "cork" count?
Asking for a friend in the Illini tribe
#stillaFIB
Its crazy to me to this day that Bonds went down the roids path. I think it now and I thought it then that he was arguably the best athlete to ever play baseball so why roid it up? But you make a good point about his ego it is a monsterious one no doubt about that.
I remember that draft well and I really wanted them to take Dieon Sanders but when he was interviewed around draft time saying that certain teams wouldn't be able to afford him I knew there was no chance the Packers would take him.
I wanted Barry Sanders. In hindsight taking Mandarich was better for the long term success of the team. They got to clean house and you know the rest of the story.
DH13 posted:Packdog posted:As a fan, I remember being pissed that the Packers somehow won the last 2 games of the season to **** things up
What makes you think that front office wouldn't have still taken Mandarich at #1 or #2?
Oh no doubt, I meant to **** up in losing the #1 pick.