I think it is interesting. Does Thompson have a "right" to do what he's doing? Absolutely. Is it a good idea to "rebuild" in today's NFL? That depends.
Obviously, time will be the ultimate judge of Thompson's methodology.
That 'status' thing you bring up, though...I really wonder how people view Green Bay, and why. At one point in the 90's, nearly anybody wanted to be a part of this team, and old vets like Sean Jones and Keith Jackson, who likely once regarded Green Bay as Siberia, viewed it as their last, best chance to get a ring.
That's lightning in a bottle. I can think of a lot of other places, like Buffalo, Kansas City, and Detroit that have a similar market to Wisconsin, and have struggled for years and years to bring in free agents, and have also have top picks in the draft for a decade.
I don't know if market matters as much as winning. Obviously, I don't' see the Jets or even the Giants as the "Yankees" of the NFL. The Yankees have the market, yes, but they also have the legacy of winning, probably rivaled only by programs such as Notre Dame and the Boston Celtics.
In the NFL, would you rather be a part of a big market, or a winning team? In basketball, Shaq left Orlando so he could be in the glitter of LA. Reggie Jackson and many other baseball players toil in other major league clubs (read: AAAA farm clubs) in hopes they will eventually be traded to the Yankees or Red Sox.
I don't sense that same kind of "market attraction" in the NFL. I'm sure its there to a degree, but I think a winning program attracts players a lot more. The fact that the NFL has revenue sharing and a hard cap means that those big markets don't have significantly more money to spend.
I understand the value of having what is described as "Packer People", but I do think what is going to make this program attractive is wins.
Face it...would you rather be traded to the Cowboys or Jets right now, or to the Patriots?
No comments:
Post a Comment