Will the TT haters admit he was right (and they were wrong)?

I think you should grab a sledgehammer and go find a drunken hobo. Until then you won't completely understand.

How do you think Diggy got to that place? That and crappy genes...well...

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
The football gods were smiling on Lambeau last season.

I guess the numerous injuries we had last year, including to key starters like Grant and Finley, were just the football gods' sense of humor. The team the football gods must have really liked was Atlanta, giving them the best record during the regular season---but apparently Matt Ryan did something to miff said gods so they caused him to lose a playoff game.

Guess since you can't bag on TT for not building a Super Bowl winner, your new "critique" is that he hasn't built a dynasty. Of course, neither did Ron Wolf...

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
Of course not! One superbowl as a 6 seed that barely made the playoffs and got hot at the right time..

I must give him credit for drafting advantageously over the time period, but he has by no means built a dynasty. Right now, all we are is the Giants of a few years ago. Until we can prove that this team can win consistently, play with more discipline, and run/defend the run adequately, i am not sold on this team as a dynasty.

There are the right pieces in place at critical positions. It could happen, but I just don't have faith in Ted to make the dynamic moves like Ron Wolf did.

This thread could be entirely different had the Packers not gotten very fortunate at the end of the regular season. The football gods were smiling on Lambeau last season. The sort of luck with replacement personnel we had last season wont happen again.

So what comes after "dynasty"? Empire?

What I love about you digwah is your defense of Sherman and all those years of being in the playoffs, regardless of the futility. Yet you'll piss on a Superbowl championship.

You keep typing though. I've just destroyed your whole context on this board for years to come. (Like it wasn't a mangled car wreck already)

Please refute that point.

Cute little girl but could you stop posting her picture?

quote:

Originally posted by PackerHawk:
Cute little girl but could you stop posting her picture?

He's saddened by his rong. Leave him alone.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

Please refute that point.

Diggr just got served.

quote:

I think you should grab a sledgehammer and go find a drunken hobo.

JJSD, what do you have against drunken hobos? Use the sledgehammer on someone who actually needs the stupid knocked out of them.

And everyone knows that winning just one SB ain't chit anymore. I mean, it doesn't prove anything. The GBP got lucky. Any other year they wouldn't have made the playoffs... blah, blah, blah. After all, the bears were the best team in the NFL last year, as we've been told.

quote:

Originally posted by Hank:
Please refute refudiate that point.

FTFY

quote:

Originally posted by Tdog:
JJSD, what do you have against drunken hobos? Use the sledgehammer on someone who actually needs the stupid knocked out of them.

Not a thing. I just think we need a relatively comparable point of reference for the fantastic level of stupid on display here. Some worn-down bum drinking piss out of his empty Night Train bottle while laying against a dumpster outside of 7/11 is just that.

JJSD - that was meant as humor. I did contemplate putting a by it but didn't. I aspire to be a drunken bum later in life. Right now I'm just a drunk.

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
Of course not! One Superbowl as a 6 seed that barely made the playoffs and got hot at the right time..

Most teams that make the playoffs get hot at one point during the season.

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14: I must give him credit for drafting advantageously over the time period, but he has by no means built a dynasty. Right now, all we are is the Giants of a few years ago. Until we can prove that this team can win consistently, play with more discipline, and run/defend the run adequately, i am not sold on this team as a dynasty.

His draft picks sure beats Sherman. And GB defense was second in the league the year before last (Capers first year), but got scorched vs the pass and did not get to a SB - much less win it. I'll take last year's defense thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14: There are the right pieces in place at critical positions. It could happen, but I just don't have faith in Ted to make the dynamic moves like Ron Wolf did.

Dynamic moves like letting Timmerman (spell?) get away? Like letting Craig Hienrich (spell?) get away? There is a reason the Rams went to a SB and Timmerman was part of that.

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14: This thread could be entirely different had the Packers not gotten very fortunate at the end of the regular season. The football gods were smiling on Lambeau last season. The sort of luck with replacement personnel we had last season wont happen again.

A lot of threads could have been entirely different had the event(s) that precipitated them were different. History is history - however it got there. Go ask Vince Lombardi about that. Some of his not so overwhelming victories whether during the season or in the playoffs had the same effect - winning championships. TT has a history of finding guys who can play and getting them into Green Bay. Last year was certainly his most busy year, but he has done it before. Grant come to mind. The defensive side of the ball is where most of the additions came. The offensive side featured backups who were already on the roster.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

Please refute that point.

Here is the problem. Many people around here including me stated the the Giants (recently) the year they won the superbowl were basically lucky/got hot and rode the 6 seed to the championship. This is exactly what happened to the Packers last season. Were they the best team last year? No. They barely slid into the playoffs. You are basically splitting hairs between a non-playoff team and the team that got hot and won the super bowl. Is it exciting up here, yes.. but is it an affirmation that Ted Thompson has done a superb job, no way. Just like it wasn't an affirmation that Eli Manning was an elite QB or Tom Coughlin an elite coach after their super bowl trip. They got hot, lucky, and won the title in a single elimination playoff.

Was UConn the best team in the NCAA basketball season last year? Hell no. Did they win the end of the year tournament - yes.

What Sherman did versus Ted was put a team together that consistently won, won division titles, and played pretty good football. Has Ted built a more talented team than what Sherman did? Yes. Did Ted draft better than Sherman, yep. Did Ted win a superbowl? Yep. But whose teams were actually better during their tenure. The records say that over their tenures Sherman actually had better teams more consistently - and it is reflective of division titles and better playoff seeding. Yes they did not win, but in any small sample size anything can happen.. including a 6 seed being hot at the right time and winning a championship. If they were a 1 or a 2 seed with the talent to say that they are the best team in the NFL, I would have a different take on Ted. But they are still not there yet, and coming into this season they are going to have veterans to replace from last years team. It will be interesting to see how they mesh and how guys who were hurt (Neal for example) to come in and not miss a beat.

quote:

Originally posted by

Here is the problem. Many people around here including me stated the the Giants (recently) the year they won the superbowl were basically lucky/got hot and rode the 6 seed to the championship. This is exactly what happened to the Packers last season. Were they the best team last year? No.

Big difference... after the Giants won the Super bowl no one talked about them repeating. After Green Bay won the Super Bowl nearly everyone (except you) is picking GB to repeat.

Diggr's right. I think the Super Bowl trophy actually designates that the Packers were the 6th seed and a hot, lucky team. "Super Bowl 45 Champs who were the sick seed and 6th seed and a hot, lucky team with minimal talent"

"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity" -Unknown

"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it" -Thomas Jefferson

Sounds a lot like this Packers team if you ask me....

Well, I guess with 15 guys on IR one might say the team was not "the best" during the regular season. But guess what: teams develop and change over the course of 17 weeks and by that last week NO TEAM was better. Call it getting hot, I really don't give a flying lambeau leap. After dealing with 15 holes in your roster anyone with any common sense has to be able to see that it takes a little time to adjust. By the time they played NE they finally had.

Please tell us all who WAS the best team in the league in 2010? If your definition of best is cut from the same cloth as your definition of Sherman's teams being better, by all means dance a friggin jig.

quote:

Originally posted by CUPackFan:
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity" -Unknown

"I'm a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it" -Thomas Jefferson

Sounds a lot like this Packers team if you ask me....

"Luck is the residue of design." -Branch Rickey

"Diggr is a whiney little girl with his head up his azz!" -Mr.Yuck

Well Diggy, you might have a valid point, if it wasn't for the fact that the Giants simply lacked talent, and weren't completely wrecked by injuries like the Packers were. Yes, injuries happen, but great teams like TT's well built squad last season manage to deal with them.

Were they as dominant as we were expecting? No. Did they still get the job done in spite of adverse conditions, where lesser teams would have fallen? Yes.

TT's never going to build the team the way you like it. That's fine. As long as he brings in good players and the results are shown on the field with success, you can whine all day, every day, and I'll sit here and laugh at your pathetic whining. TT > Sherman, and you're a fool for thinking otherwise, just because Sherman's squads might have been consistently playoff bound but then spun their wheels when they got there.

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
What Sherman did versus Ted was put a team together that consistently won, won division titles, and played pretty good football. Has Ted built a more talented team than what Sherman did? Yes.

Sherman and McCarthy have nearly identical regular season winning percentages. If we are talking wins & loses, those are usually hung on the HC - right?
Sherman - 96 games - 57 wins - 39 loses - winning percentage = .594
McCarthy - 80 games - 48 wins - 32 losses - winning percentage = .600

The big difference is the post season winning %:
Sherman = .333
McCarthy = .714

So much for McCarthy doesn't win like Sherman did. And so much for the fart in the win playoff record. Yes TT has built a better team like you said.

I agree with Diggr that TT hasn't proven anything until the Packers win a "respect" championship with him at GM. Being a #6 seed in the playoffs does not command respect despite winning the Super Bowl.

How many NFL teams do you think would hire Thompson if he left Green Bay, how many have attempted to hire Sherman as a GM? Everyone can be wrong once in a while, and many time NFL teams do make wrong moves, but the fact that not a single team would hire Sherman as a GM is very telling and really makes Diggr look like a fool for trying to argue his point. Trying to be the smartest man in the room sometimes means you need to realize when you are wrong, admit it, and change course, Diggr seems unable to do that.

http://cdn.everyjoe.com/files/...-nfl-dec-07-dolp.jpg

I geuss the bigger question, is who was better than the Packers? Clearly there wasn't a team in the NFC, as the Packers beat arguable the 3 best on the road. They beat the Steelers in the Super Bowl, so the Packers were better than them. The only teams you could say were better are the Jets (who the Packers shut out on the road) and the Patriots (who the Packers nearly beat on the road with Matt Flynn). In your opinion, if it wasn't the Packers, then who was the best team last year?

quote:

Originally posted by Ghost of Lambeau:

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
What Sherman did versus Ted was put a team together that consistently won, won division titles, and played pretty good football. Has Ted built a more talented team than what Sherman did? Yes.

Sherman and McCarthy have nearly identical regular season winning percentages. If we are talking wins & loses, those are usually hung on the HC - right?
Sherman - 96 games - 57 wins - 39 loses - winning percentage = .594
McCarthy - 80 games - 48 wins - 32 losses - winning percentage = .600

The big difference is the post season winning %:
Sherman = .333
McCarthy = .714

So much for McCarthy doesn't win like Sherman did. And so much for the fart in the win playoff record. Yes TT has built a better team like you said.

Thought we were comparing GMs?

quote:

Originally posted by CUPackFan:
I geuss the bigger question, is who was better than the Packers? Clearly there wasn't a team in the NFC, as the Packers beat arguable the 3 best on the road. They beat the Steelers in the Super Bowl, so the Packers were better than them. The only teams you could say were better are the Jets (who the Packers shut out on the road) and the Patriots (who the Packers nearly beat on the road with Matt Flynn). In your opinion, if it wasn't the Packers, then who was the best team last year?

New England was 14-2 with a +205 PF/PA differential. I'd probably give them the nod.

The rest of the NFL disagrees.

As far as Sherman goes, I think he probably could get another job in the NFL as a Head Coach. Because of his lack of success in the Draft, I do not see him getting a GM job again. I don't think that title is essentially what defines him and how he won anyways, he did it a different way, and did have success here in GB. It was far from a clown car trainwreck as many of you assert it was. Good discussion though.. I will "admit" im wrong if I see a consistent winner form here in GB. In all likelihood we will have a good team here for the next 5-7 seasons (with AR-12 under center). After that will depend a lot on how the team and QB age over time. Lucking into picking up street guys and inserting them in the lineup performing at starter quality does not happen often - there is a reason they were street NFL FAs or on PS's. We were very fortunate to have guys step up and play like they did. Year in and year out, I would not count on that type of fortune though.

quote:

Originally posted by pablopackerfan:
The rest of the NFL disagrees.

Tell me how bad milk is again. K thanks.

I am sure your endorsement of NE will be much appreciated by Bill Belichick, it will probably make him feel much better about his early departure from the playoffs.

quote:

Originally posted by crowhead:
I am sure your endorsement of NE will be much appreciated by Bill Belichick, it will probably make him feel much better about his early departure from the playoffs.

I hate New England, but they were the "best" team last year.

Well you can tell the Pats they ain't gettin' their stickin' hands on the GBP's WELL EARNED Lombardi.

You can send them your diggy award for best team in the nfl last year. I'm sure they'll proudly display that for all to see.

Listen. The whole goal of every team, GM, coach and player in the NFL and every fan of the NFL for that matter is to win a Super Bowl. That's the standard, the pinnacle, the only thing that matters. The team that wins it is the champ. The best of the entire NFL that year. OK? That's it. That's all. And Sherman didn't win a Super Bowl. Although, I think he did win a supper bowl once at the Bolo Inn. And good ole TT did.

Period.

Now, honestly, that's so obvious that I feel like a fukkin moron for having had to type that up.

What team during the entire season played a better game of offense football than the Packers did against Atlanta in the playoffs?

What team during the entire season played a better game of defense football than the Packers did against the Bears in the playoffs?

The were more than just a hot team, they were clearly the best team of all the playoff teams.

Sherman lived off of Wolf's picks for years. They were going all in for years, to get one more Super Bowl. It didn't work and his bad drafts, bad free agent signings, depleted the team.

Thompson completely rebuilt the wreckage left in place, both in players and financially.

Also, Sherman the GM never had to deal with a QB change. He had the stability of Favre the entire time. Thompson dealt with the growing pains of Rodgers, making his record lower than what it would be and raising Sherman's higher than what it would be.

Thought we were comparing GMs?

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
As far as Sherman goes, I think he probably could get another job in the NFL as a Head Coach. Because of his lack of success in the Draft, I do not see him getting a GM job again.

So you just said Sherman would never get another GM job. If TT left the Packers, either by his own choice or forced out, do you really think no other team would hire him as GM?