LETTER: Packers' problem isn't Favre

thank you for summing it all up!!!!

When the couple said the Pack was close to being a dynasty in the 90s, they were completely off base. One Super Bowl win in 16 years is hardly a dynasty. Need I name the QBs who played on one winning SB team? As for Wolf, he acknowledged he really blew some big ones, and he did. His draft picks were not all that good, and he let some pretty good players go.
I think Mike & Ted are doing all of the right things, and we should let them stay at least until their contracts run out. Neither Murphy or the board has any interest in buying out their remaining contracts and I'm not either.

The contracts of MM and TT were extended after a 13-3 season. You Jerry were one that said that season envolved alot of luck to win those 13 game. Maybe. But GB must have thought it was MM and TT. So with the team winning on luck according to you and others .Why the contracts? And why the awards for both from the nfl? So without one 13 win season on luck .There would not be these long big $ contracts to buy out. There for the other MM and who ever else gave them made a mistake. GB went down hill ever since. And the draft picks at O-line were bad. 3-4 years in and at the beginning of this year they had NO clue who could play. Go back to last year they mixed the o-line all season. As they say sometimes you have to cut your losses . Its that time.

The reasons are there to fire.25-23 record is one. Now 30-26. But GB will not eat 18 mill. $ to get rid of both. 4mill/yr for MM and 2mill./yr for TT. 3 years left. A long ,long 3 years.

Every dollar currently going to them is being wasted. No, worse, it's going to harm the Packers while the slide continues. There is no justifiable reason to put good money after bad, there never is.

Plus, if the next GM simply avoids a Justin Harrell type of mistake, the money to buy out their contracts is more than recouped in savings. So, if you really think about it, replacing them isn't simply a good idea, it is also a financial windfall to the Packers.

When Aaron Rodgers is lost to a career ending injury, will people still believe it was too expensive to get rid of TT? I doubt it. Why not make the change before that happens?

Jerry wrote:

When the couple said the Pack was close to being a dynasty in the 90s, they were completely off base. One Super Bowl win in 16 years is hardly a dynasty. Need I name the QBs who played on one winning SB team? As for Wolf, he acknowledged he really blew some big ones, and he did. His draft picks were not all that good, and he let some pretty good players go.
I think Mike & Ted are doing all of the right things, and we should let them stay at least until their contracts run out. Neither Murphy or the board has any interest in buying out their remaining contracts and I'm not either.

Apparently you have never hired anyone under contract that failed to perform to your satisfaction. Allowing it to continue is not the solution. The Packers knew the risks involved, just as they knew the risks of signing a player like Justin Harrell. Sometimes the money is wasted. It's a cost of doing business in the NFL. Better to eat your losses than to continue them.

As for the "dynasty" comment. Of course, you are right, it wasn't a dynasty in the 1990s. However, it was light years closer to a dynasty than what the Packers are now. Compared to now, the Packers were "close" to a dynasty back then. I look forward to that level of success again someday. I hope I don't have to wait decades like the last time. Frequent playoff games, two Super Bowl appearances and one victory in a decade looks real good after going through decades of scarcely a playoff appearance. You must be quite a bit younger than me or you have a poor memory.

Agreed TT and MM are probably not going anywhere; sorry GBPfan, but in the big scheme of things your opinion means very little when it comes to decisions made that impact these two. I don't see either going anywhere for a while unless the team totally tanks in 2010. Even if Rodgers were to go down and we probably tank; the reason will be more the injury to Rodgers as the reason why. From what I remember in the 90's we played in two NFC title games under Wolf and under TT we have played in one, so firing TT is totally baseless, but GBPfan is a rather baseless type individual anyway. Let's all hope the team gets on a nice roll and beats the Bucs followed by winning the next two at home, then at Detroit.

wal0645 wrote:

Agreed TT and MM are probably not going anywhere; sorry GBPfan, but in the big scheme of things your opinion means very little when it comes to decisions made that impact these two. I don't see either going anywhere for a while unless the team totally tanks in 2010. Even if Rodgers were to go down and we probably tank; the reason will be more the injury to Rodgers as the reason why. From what I remember in the 90's we played in two NFC title games under Wolf and under TT we have played in one, so firing TT is totally baseless, but GBPfan is a rather baseless type individual anyway. Let's all hope the team gets on a nice roll and beats the Bucs followed by winning the next two at home, then at Detroit.

So you are saying that, no matter what, you support the losing and failure under Ted Thompson's mismanagement for at least another year and a half. Thanks for the update on your position. I don't see that it represents anything new. We all know you are more a Thompson fan than a Packer fan.

BTW the Packers made the playoffs following every season from 1993-1998 with 3 NFC Championship appearances. Every PACKER fan knows that. I understand why a TT fan like you doesn't. However, even a person like you, with little interest in the PACKERS, should be able to figure out that TT doesn't come close to comparing with Ron Wolf.