Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Why I Don't Think The Packers Should Fire Ted Thompson.

$ requested more "concrete" information regarding my feelings on Ted Thompson, so, here we go:

Here are the starters / key reserves Ted has brought in through the draft:

2005 draft (and, yes, Ted was at the helm for this one):
Aaron Rodgers

Nick Collins

2006 draft
A.J. Hawk (and I've said this before: before you start bitching about Hawk, take a look at the shit-tastic first round picks in '06. Tell me: who do you want from that list?)

Daryn Colledge (and, yes, he sucked donkey balls as a left tackle. No argument there. He hasn't been as bad as a guard, though)

Greg Jennings

Jason Spitz

Johnny Jolly

(Note: Will Blackmon is also an '06 draft pick. This would be relevant if he could keep himself on the field.)

2007 draft
James Jones

Allen Barbre (and, again, this is just a list of starters; as I said before, the offensive line is an abomination, and that's Ted's fault)

Des Bishop (who will see more playing time with Chillar out)

Mason Crosby

2008 draft
Jordy Nelson

Jermichael Finley (who was rapidly approaching "Beast" status until he got kneecapped)

Matt Flynn

2009 draft
B.J. Raji

Clay Matthews XIV

T.J. Lang

Now, as for free agents, you've got: Ryan Pickett (who played the best of all the linemen last week); Brandon Chillar; Charles Woodson; John Kuhn; Donald Lee; Atari Bigby; Tramon Williams; and TD-catching dynamo Spencer Havner (undrafted out of UCLA). Ted also traded for Ryan Grant (who must die).

Moreover, as Reid pointed out yesterday, Thompson hasn't hamstrung (hamstringed?) the Packers with any terrible, Joe Johnson-esque contracts.

As for selecting McCarthy: I agree. That's a black mark. But, before this season, what reason did Thompson have to let McCarthy go? He went 8-8 in his first year (after starting the year 4-8), went to the NFC Championship Game in his second year, and then limped to 6-10 in a year where he worked in a new starting quarterback and where the defense was decimated by injuries.

All along, we've seen the problems with undisciplined play, too many penalties, and so on. This year, those problems have spiraled out of control, and all indications are that McCarthy is either unwilling (e.g., not sitting Jolly out for at least a half after that boner-rific personal foul) or unable (e.g., his "we've got to get that cleaned up" quote week after week after week) to fix it.

That's all I've got time for. Rebut away.


EMoney said...

I have a winded rebut in the previous Green Bay post, but to comment on what you have posted, here are a few things:

1. The players that you listed are drafted players that are either starters or key reserves. First of all, regarding starters....I would contend that a number of them are only starting because there isn't anyone else better on the roster. Therefore, they may not necessarily be avg to above avg players at their positon (see offensive line). Second, key reserves is purely subjective so I would rather see a list of ALL of the draft picks and what their status is at this point.
2. Hawk - I don't think anyone thought this was a bad pick at the time, but you claim that the first rounders of '06 were craptastical. I strongly disagree! There are 5-10 players that were drafted after #6 that are playing at a high level. In the end, the GM is the ultimate decider of talent and Hawk isn't producing as well as a #6 pick should.

More to follow

Master Reid said...

I couldn't have said this better myself.

E, you can't look backwards at who has turned out better than Hawk and say "well Thompson should've known that." Nobody can predict that shit every time. EVERYONE, including YOU, agreed that Hawk was the logical pick there. That list of picks is loaded with donkeys. You would have hit the fucking roof if the Packers had taken a flyer on a guy like Cromartie (who had been injured and didn't even play his last year at FSU). Sure he's a stud now, but he could've just as easily never come all the way back from that injury and been a non-factor. Hawk was the pick there, it was as close to a no brainer as there is in a draft. The fact that you've now had 3 1/2 seasons to evaluate it doesn't mean that it was less true then.

Rubie Q said...

Re: E's point #1. I said -- specifically with reference to Barbre -- that I was just listing the starters, not making any kind of value judgment. And I don't think I went out on any limbs with the "key reserves." Jones, Nelson, Bishop -- all of them see consistent playing time week in and week out. I wasn't throwing any Brett Swains on that list.

Re: E's point #2. Name me 10 first-round players taken after Hawk who are "playing at a high level."

EMoney said...

As I stated in my first comment, nobody really disputed the Hawk pick. Myself included. So I have already conceded that and am not necessarily criticizing that pick. I am simply playing devils advocate to Rub's comment, where he claimed that essentially there wasn't anyone that was drafted after Hawk that has turned out to be any better.....something that I in fact would dispute. I currently don't have time to look back at the career stats for all of the first round picks, but to name a few that I would guess have outperformed Hawk thus far here is a list (both offensive and defensive players included because TT drafts the best player available and not according to need): Ernie Sims, Jay Cutler, Haloti Ngata, Kamerion Wimbley, Antonio Cromartie, Tamba Hali, DeAngelo Williams, Nick Mangold. Hey, you asked.

Now before you get your pantes in a bundle, if you read my comments from the other post, you would see that I explained that I understand the inexactness of the draft. I get it....There are likely more picks that will not work out than picks that are a success. My concern is that Ted doesn't do anything to rectify the situation. His gameplan is accumulate a shit ton of picks because he knows that the odds of a draft pick turning out aren't great, so he figures that if he picks more players, his odds of success will increase. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that it has.

Master Reid said...

Completely as an aside here, I must say that I like the way Clay Matthews XLVI has been playing of late. He's been playing a man on fire in recent weeks. He seems to be flying around out there, always looking to make a plays, always around the ball; i.e. playing like we hoped Hawk would play. I'm sure it'll probably bite him in the ass one of thesed days, but I guess I'd rather see errors as a result of being aggressive, rather than being passive.

Devil's Threesome said...

Unless aggressive means headbutting the opposing team's star running back

EMoney said...

Reid - completely agree about Matthews. He has played really well, and is our second attempt at AJ Hawk....hair and everything. Matthews is already better than Hawk, not that Hawk is bad, but I think Matthews has the potential to be Pro-Bowl caliber down the road. I think he already has more career sacks than Hawk does.