Lets see. They replace a black injury prone guy with a white injury prone guy. Hummm.
(Reply from Blair Kiel in about six, five, four, .......)
I don't see color.
They're all green to me.
Why are only dark-green people willing to cut my grass?
Lets see. They replace a black injury prone guy with a white injury prone guy. Hummm.
(Reply from Blair Kiel in about six, five, four, .......)
I don't see color.
They're all green to me.
Why are only dark-green people willing to cut my grass?
One of the complaints about MM and TT, while still recognizing they are top shelf, is that they are loyal to a fault.
The weird phenomenon is expecting fans to ignore any possibility that there may be weaknesses. After all, they won a Super Bowl 3 years ago so obviously everything they do is spot on and best in the biz.
When a disagreement is expressed, it's not a claim to be more capable of the job. For crying out loud the point of message boards is to discuss opinions. If your opinion always falls in line with the brass, why even bother talking about it?
It's called giving them the benefit of the doubt. You don't win a SB by accident, it's a combination of a talent (both with the front office, the coaches, and the players), hard work, and a little bit of luck (among other things). Don't confuse someone not willing to immediately second guess one of their decisions with someone who thinks they are perfect.
I also think you confuse "stubbornness" or them being "loyal to a fault" with being patient enough to wait for development to happen. There are some examples where they have waited too long for players to develop (AJ Hawk, Graham Harrell, Ryan Taylor, etc.), but I don't think they are wrong for trying. Some players develop or find their place at different paces, fans say things like "oh it takes receivers 3 years before they really get the offense" or "rookie QBs need to sit and learn for multiple seasons before starting" but that's not true for every player. They get paid to make difficult decisions, if it had clicked for AJ Hawk immediately after getting his new contract then people would have hailed Thompson/McCarthy for being patient and smart enough to stick with a guy who just needed some time. Unfortunately it hasn't worked out that way, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong for trying or waiting to see how he developed. The same goes for coaches and personnel, young coaches need time to develop as well. They have gambled on some young coaches like Joe Whitt and Ben MacAdoo and it paid off really well and they have gambled and stuck with guys like Campen and Moss and so far the results have been very mixed. Again though it doesn't mean they were wrong for trying. I think when a GM stops gambling and shooting for a homeruns and instead opts for trying to piecemeal a roster together with high priced FA's and overrated has-been's (like Reggie McKenzie has done in Oakland) then you know you don't have a good GM.
Which part?
Reggie had to spend money and none of those contracts are long term or hard to get out of. Sure, they're well-paid stop-gaps, but stop-gaps none-the-less.
How long does 2010 Superbowl mean we cannot question anything in the organization? Did that give them a 10 year window? 15? Are they good until there is complete turnover?
So far, 10 for Belichick.
How long does 2010 Superbowl mean we cannot question anything in the organization? Did that give them a 10 year window? 15? Are they good until there is complete turnover?
The Wizard has a lifetime pass.
It is still '85 somewhere.
How long does 2010 Superbowl mean we cannot question anything in the organization?
I was told ( by Steve) that we are allowed to question everything in the organization
But, he said he gives your questions a "credence rating" based on your participation in this and other similar threads
https://packers.timesfour.com/topic/fire-tt-and-mm
Go Packers
pretty sure everything I said in that thread was smert, but I'll have to wait for detective Pakrz to produce the evidence.
Some funny stuff in that thread though
X4 Comedy Gold
BTW- I had Steve check - and your credence rating is still trending upwards
Right now you're at " Seems not to be stupid" which is one of the higher ratings on the SteveScale and gives you complete freedom at X4.
You can question everything with impunity !
Wooooooo !
Following up on a point Boris made up thread, for those bemoaning Green Bay's 2011 draft, well, misery loves company. Outstanding analysis at Packer Report.
http://gnb.scout.com/story/147...aft-numbers-but?s=61
As it turns out, the Packers arenât alone in wallowing in their draft misery:
â Carolina drafted eight players. Only Cam Newton remains.
â In the NFC North: Chicago drafted five players; only two remain. Detroit drafted five players; only one remains. Minnesota drafted 10 players; only three remain. Combined, they harvested four starters.
â Indianapolis and Houston each drafted five players; only one player remains.
â Philadelphia drafted 11 players; just three remain.
âThe 2011 draft was perhaps the worst I can remember since the early â80s,â said the NFLâs longtime head scout, Dave-Teâ Thomas.
While media pundits donât even wait for the final picks to be made before issuing their report cards, general managers wait four seasons before rendering judgment. Not many will be pleased.
Of the 254 players drafted in 2011, only 112 remain on 53-man rosters or injury lists. Thatâs 44.1 percent. Just 73 are starters, based on depth charts posted at Ourlads.com. Thatâs 28.7 percent.
Thanks a million for posting that cuqui,
Context matters
Of the 254 players drafted in 2011, only 112 remain on 53-man rosters or injury lists. Thatâs 44.1 percent. Just 73 are starters, based on depth charts posted at Ourlads.com. Thatâs 28.7 percent.
How does that compare to other years?
Almost 30% of a draft class are starters 3 years later......is that bad?
Context does matter.
The Packers landed only one starter (Cobb). They are one of eight teams to get only one starter in that draft class. In all, teams acquired, on average, 2.28 current starters.
Other teams did poorly but the Packers were in the bottom quarter and that's not good enough.
Again context. A team coming off a Super Bowl title is less likely to have starting spots available?
Exactly, Hungry5.
Added to the fact we had tons of injured players coming back fighting for spots.
Plus we were again a very young team so there wasn't turnover because of age.
BK:
Why are only dark-green people willing to cut my grass?
I despise dark green people!
the dark green people make the tastiest soylent green!
Great thread in the archive. The very next game the Packers beat up the Cowboys. And we were on our way.
Can't imagine it's too far off the norm, but I'd guess the 28.7% is on the lower end of a 10 year average. The NFL only has so many spots available each year and while there is a lot more talent coming out of college (except @ QB, not nearly enough good QBs for the NFL) than roster spots available, the overall roster turnover just isn't that high.
Again context. A team coming off a Super Bowl title is less likely to have starting spots available?
Conversely Clifton, Tauscher, Jenkins, Walden, Collins, etc. were all soon to be (or already) gone and TT churns the roster as much as anyone. 2011 was simply not his best moment.
Again context. A team coming off a Super Bowl title is less likely to have starting spots available?
The starters are counted at the time of the analysis. Plenty of turnover between that SB and now. Whatever metric one chooses to use it simply wasn't a good draft class from TT.
Other teams did poorly but the Packers were in the bottom quarter and that's not good enough.
The Packers landed only one starter (Cobb). They are one of eight teams to get only one starter in that draft class. In all, teams acquired, on average, 2.28 current starters.
Other teams did poorly but the Packers were in the bottom quarter and that's not good enough.
They drafted 32nd in 2011. WTF are they supposed to do? Mortgage the future?!?!
Mortgage the future?!?!
Yeah, that's the ticket.
How long does 2010 Superbowl mean we cannot question anything in the organization? Did that give them a 10 year window? 15? Are they good until there is complete turnover?
Why is Bill Belichick still constantly getting the benefit of the doubt even though his last SB win was a decade ago? It's because he's talented and I believe a SB win AT LEAST earns you as much when it comes to decision making. It's not wrong to say Thompson or McCarthy or Capers are wrong on something when they have admitted as such...cutting Jerron McMillan and letting MD Jennings walk was Thompson admitting that he screwed up the Safety position, Capers admitted he did a poor job with communicating with his players, cutting Derek Sherrod is Thompson admitting that Sherrod isn't working out, etc. I think it's fair to criticize them for those failures, but winning a SB is hard,..how many head coaches in NFL history have won a SB? 30 maybe? So no I don't think you can completely dismiss a SB win 4 years after the fact, it takes a talented coach/HC/GM to win a SB. I give them the benefit of the doubt and my patience on a lot of decisions.
pretty sure the 'Fire Bill Belichick" facebook page I just looked up has 18 "likes" on it.
Not everything is as rosy in NE as you'd like us to believe.
GET A BRAIN MORAN!
How many AFC championship games/Super Bowls have the Patriots played in since '04? The Packers have won 1 playoff game since 2010, and that was against Joe Webb. Big difference.
Razor thin loss margins too. Still cannot believe the Pats lost both games that required a near surreal pass and catch from Manning.
Eli's problem is consistency because that throw to Manningham was a thing of beauty. Too bad he makes a lot of terrible throws also.
"Why is Bill Belichick still constantly getting the benefit of the doubt even though his last SB win was a decade ago?"
He has been to the AFC Conference Championship game, at least, for 8 of the past 11 seasons. Including the 3 most recent games. Compared to 2 of the last 8 for the Packers and none in the past 3 seasons.
That's why.
Come on man. 5 Super Bowl appearances.
Honestly?
What I think needs to be questioned is why some people are fans of the Packers when they suck so bad.
