Saturday, July 10, 2010

Packers Rebuilding? Not As Crazy As It Sounds...

In the release of the Football Outsiders Almanac 2010 earlier this week, there are some folks in the Packer Blogosphere who, despite the positive outlook for the Packers this season, take umbridge at Bill Barnwell's hypothesis that the Packers are in a rebuilding mode.

Aaron over at CHTV breaks the news to Packer fans, and naturally, the reaction is rather indignant from most of the Packer fans in the commentary.

…the Packers are hoping that something good —winning — will be able to mask the ugly task they are in the middle of: rebuilding.

It does seem a bit odd to converge predictions of a division championship along with an prognosis of rebuilding....especially when Ted Thompson was so vigorous in denying the term "rebuilding" back in 2005 when we were starting Taco Wallace and Samkon Gado.  Certainly, if that was a "reload", as was the common term used in that horrible 4-12 season, today's playoff team can't be considered anywhere near the days of Wil Whittaker and Adrian Klemm. Right?

I certainly don't think so, but I think if you approach it from the correct perspective, it isn't too hard to see that the Packers are in a sort of rebuilding mode.  It's perpetual rebuilding, Ted Thompson style.

You see, when Thompson came in, he didn't completely clean house, a la Ron Wolf.  Wolf tabbed Sterling Sharpe and LeRoy Butler to hang around, and essentially declared every other player a liability and set out to replace them.  Wolf was a GM in a different era, however, and he made full use of every avenue he could to rebuild that sorry Packer team...trading, free agency, and the draft.  In those days, the repercussions of using free agency was something that you wouldn't have to deal with for a long, long time.

Thompson, on the other hand, came in with a different approach.  Oh, you can't deny that he definitely came in and cleaned house of the underachieving, the overpaid, and the about-to-be-overpaid (Sharper, Longwell, Rivera, Wahle), but he kept a core of Sherman holdovers to build the team around (Favre, Driver, Clifton, Tauscher, Barnett, Kampman, Harris). 

However, since that time, he has only invested in a couple of major free agency moves, bringing in Ryan Pickett and Charles Woodson back in 2006, and relying mostly on the draft and developing and re-signing from within.  Oh sure, he traded for Ryan Grant and picked up Brandon Chillar, but the team that Ted Thompson is going to live or die by is going to be the one he's created through the draft.

When you eschew free agency as Thompson has done, you're hoping to hit well enough in the draft to keep your team fully stocked.  Now, if you subscribe to my 33-33-33 theory, the stats will tend to shake out that only a third of your draft will live up to their billing each year. At that rate, with seven draft picks per year, you're essentially hoping for five quality starters (or better) every two years. 

This means that you would be able to completely turn over your 22 starters every nine years.  And, as we know, that would be impossible, given the ability for solid players to move on in free agency and the average career lifespan of an NFL football player. 

And, to Thompson's credit, he hasn't relied completely on the draft to fill the holes.  Atari Bigby was an undrafted free agent. Ryan Grant cost him a sixth rounder in trade.  Brandon Chillar was a middle-tier free agent.  But, regardless, every season the Packer have continued to have holes.

A few years ago, we bemoaned our running back situation, as well as our interior offensive line.  Since then, the concern has switched out our outside linebackers, our exterior offensive linemen, and our secondary.  You can bet that two years from now, we will find "holes" in other positions.

So, Ted's eschewing of free agency places the Packers in a perpetual rebuilding mode, constantly plugging holes with draft picks and other street free agents, trying to develop talent from within.

Now, not much has changed in my impression of how Thompson manages this team over the last six years, though I'm sure I placed it in a far more negative light on it in 2005 and 2006.  In those days, I was far from a Thompson fan, and insisted that his "building through the draft" methodology would create a team that would always be a little better than good....never too bad, but also never quite good enough to get over the hump and into a Super Bowl.  Quite frankly, I decried Thompson's conservative approach as being a curse of indefinite mediocrity.

Now, has Thompson changed, or have I?  My honest guess is that I have changed, since I really don't see a dramatic difference in his approach, his massive trade-up for Clay Matthews in the draft notwithstanding.  Have I softened towards Thompson's conservative approach, or have I simply accepted it as a reality that I cannot change?  The answer is probably a little of both, understanding the positives that come with avoiding the high-risk moves, while also realizing that Thompson isn't going anywhere any time soon.

I have respect for Thompson sticking to his guns, staying true to his philosophy even when he comes under fire.  It doesn't mean I always agree with it, or that I am content seeing holes remain on our roster (knowing there are UFAs out there that could fill them), but I do like the fact that TT doesn't make moves to appease the masses.  If he is going to the top of the mountain or over the cliff, it will be on the basis of his consistent approach to building a team.

So, when Barnwell insists that the Packers are in rebuilding mode, the natural reaction from the Packer masses is one of indignation.  I don't know if he is looking at the team in the same way that I am, but I do think there's some truth to what he says:  Thompson is not rushing out to plug holes at cornerback and outside linebacker with free agency.  So, there are holes, and Thompson is continually rebuilding through the draft and trying to develop the Brad Joneses and Pat Lees to fill those spots.

And, the day you stop rebuilding, is the day that you start standing still. 

10 comments:

  1. A reasonable perspective. I agree that the Packers possess some glaring vulnerabilities that are ultimately going to hold them back. But, looking across the league, I don't see any other teams that don't have some holes somewhere in the lineup. How they compensate for those deficiencies is the key. There's a certain amount of luck involved (injuries, unexpected performances, who you play & when you play them) that often determine the course of a team's season. Having grown up in the 70's, I guess I'd rather see the team remain perpetually competitive and always have a puncher's chance than to see them load up for a short term run & fail.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And in many ways, I agree. However, you only need to look at the Miami Heat as a team that has chosen to fill every hole in a high-risk way...certainly the opposite way that Thompson runs the Packers. Now, would I be really happy if we find out Harris is a major question mark this season and the Packers sign Revis in a high-profile contract to replace him? There's the question...do you break from your strategy to fill a glaring hole?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unlike many others, I'm not yet ready to anoint the Heat as NBA champions. Let's see how that plays out before using it as a template for other franchises, even assuming you can do that across different sports. More often than not, teams are measured by the expectations held for them by the fans. The problem with the approach of the Heat and, say, the Vikings is that anything short of a championship has to be considered a failure. I suppose most people would consider that a positive as far as raising the bar. I'm sure I'm in the minority but I'd rather enjoy the journey as the odds are always stacked against winning it all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "And, the day you stop rebuilding, is the day that you start standing still."

    Exactly.

    Change is inevitable. You are either getting better or you are getting worse.

    I bet it would not be too difficult to put together an argument the the Patriots have been in rebuilding mode for several years now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. From my armchair, I can't see a time when the Packers have ever 'stopped' that rebuilding mode.

    Seriously. Let's go back to 1996. Didn't the Packers bring in more people to assure there was always a Project needing to be grown into a success? Sure, Wolf was a bit more daring in Free Agency. It's how we ended up with both Reggie White and Brett Favre. Then, Reggie went out and talked other Veterans into coming to Lambeau. Combined with the emergernce of Gilbert Brown in 1993, we all knew it was a matter of time. I just wish they'd have gotten it done in '95 instead of letting Dallas get away with one.

    My take on Thompson has never changed. Unlike many, I already knew Trader Ted was an immediate improvement over GM Mike Sherman. With Sherman as the guy who picked the players, all I could see was a steady decline in what had once been a great Team and a well-oiled Organization.

    Was the Board of Directors a bit re-miss in denying Holmgren the chance at wearing both hats? Hard debate, that is. Myself, I prefer to think Holmgren is who shot himself in the foot and should have had more patience, since the Board did eventually give that opportunity to Sherman only a year later. In the end, Holmgren proved he wasn't up to doing both jobs, as Seattle ultimately stripped him.

    Too bad, too. My friend, HYATT, and I, have debated just how many other SuperBowls the Pack could have pulled off had Mike Holmgren stayed, keeping the Gunslinger "in line"....

    I remember the count being somewhere around 5 more SuperBowls, possibly 6. We also undertsood Favre would not be the Interception King that he is today, had Holmgren stayed.

    As it is, I've liked TED since Day One. Reading that he is a very deeply religious man only served to cement that outlook. Didn't Vince Lombardi always stop in the Field Chapel first thing every day? The sad part is how many in the Press seem to thinn they've got license to put labels on GM's in the first place. Especially when they've never worn those shoes personally.

    No, Ted can hang around until such a time as he sees fit to move on.

    As far as the Free Agency debate is concerned, I cite Bill Polian as a great comparison. When was the last time he's signed a Free Agent? I don't hear or see 'anyone' damning that guy in the Media. Why the double-standard?

    ReplyDelete
  6. From my armchair, I can't see a time when the Packers have ever 'stopped' that rebuilding mode.

    Seriously. Let's go back to 1996. Didn't the Packers bring in more people to assure there was always a Project needing to be grown into a success? Sure, Wolf was a bit more daring in Free Agency. It's how we ended up with both Reggie White and Brett Favre. Then, Reggie went out and talked other Veterans into coming to Lambeau. Combined with the emergernce of Gilbert Brown in 1993, we all knew it was a matter of time. I just wish they'd have gotten it done in '95 instead of letting Dallas get away with one.

    My take on Thompson has never changed. Unlike many, I already knew Trader Ted was an immediate improvement over GM Mike Sherman. With Sherman as the guy who picked the players, all I could see was a steady decline in what had once been a great Team and a well-oiled Organization.

    Was the Board of Directors a bit re-miss in denying Holmgren the chance at wearing both hats? Hard debate, that is. Myself, I prefer to think Holmgren is who shot himself in the foot and should have had more patience, since the Board did eventually give that opportunity to Sherman only a year later. In the end, Holmgren proved he wasn't up to doing both jobs, as Seattle ultimately stripped him.

    Too bad, too. My friend, HYATT, and I, have debated just how many other SuperBowls the Pack could have pulled off had Mike Holmgren stayed, keeping the Gunslinger "in line"....

    I remember the count being somewhere around 5 more SuperBowls, possibly 6. We also undertsood Favre would not be the Interception King that he is today, had Holmgren stayed.

    As it is, I've liked TED since Day One. Reading that he is a very deeply religious man only served to cement that outlook. Didn't Vince Lombardi always stop in the Field Chapel first thing every day? The sad part is how many in the Press seem to thinn they've got license to put labels on GM's in the first place. Especially when they've never worn those shoes personally.

    No, Ted can hang around until such a time as he sees fit to move on.

    As far as the Free Agency debate is concerned, I cite Bill Polian as a great comparison. When was the last time he's signed a Free Agent? I don't hear or see 'anyone' damning that guy in the Media. Why the double-standard?

    ReplyDelete
  7. From my armchair, I can't see a time when the Packers have ever 'stopped' that rebuilding mode.

    Seriously. Let's go back to 1996. Didn't the Packers bring in more people to assure there was always a Project needing to be grown into a success? Sure, Wolf was a bit more daring in Free Agency. It's how we ended up with both Reggie White and Brett Favre. Then, Reggie went out and talked other Veterans into coming to Lambeau. Combined with the emergernce of Gilbert Brown in 1993, we all knew it was a matter of time. I just wish they'd have gotten it done in '95 instead of letting Dallas get away with one.

    My take on Thompson has never changed. Unlike many, I already knew Trader Ted was an immediate improvement over GM Mike Sherman. With Sherman as the guy who picked the players, all I could see was a steady decline in what had once been a great Team and a well-oiled Organization.

    Was the Board of Directors a bit re-miss in denying Holmgren the chance at wearing both hats? Hard debate, that is. Myself, I prefer to think Holmgren is who shot himself in the foot and should have had more patience, since the Board did eventually give that opportunity to Sherman only a year later. In the end, Holmgren proved he wasn't up to doing both jobs, as Seattle ultimately stripped him.

    Too bad, too. My friend, HYATT, and I, have debated just how many other SuperBowls the Pack could have pulled off had Mike Holmgren stayed, keeping the Gunslinger "in line"....

    I remember the count being somewhere around 5 more SuperBowls, possibly 6. We also undertsood Favre would not be the Interception King that he is today, had Holmgren stayed.

    As it is, I've liked TED since Day One. Reading that he is a very deeply religious man only served to cement that outlook. Didn't Vince Lombardi always stop in the Field Chapel first thing every day? The sad part is how many in the Press seem to thinn they've got license to put labels on GM's in the first place. Especially when they've never worn those shoes personally.

    No, Ted can hang around until such a time as he sees fit to move on.

    As far as the Free Agency debate is concerned, I cite Bill Polian as a great comparison. When was the last time he's signed a Free Agent? I don't hear or see 'anyone' damning that guy in the Media. Why the double-standard?

    ReplyDelete
  8. From my armchair, I can't see a time when the Packers have ever 'stopped' that rebuilding mode.

    Seriously. Let's go back to 1996. Didn't the Packers bring in more people to assure there was always a Project needing to be grown into a success? Sure, Wolf was a bit more daring in Free Agency. It's how we ended up with both Reggie White and Brett Favre. Then, Reggie went out and talked other Veterans into coming to Lambeau. Combined with the emergernce of Gilbert Brown in 1993, we all knew it was a matter of time. I just wish they'd have gotten it done in '95 instead of letting Dallas get away with one.

    My take on Thompson has never changed. Unlike many, I already knew Trader Ted was an immediate improvement over GM Mike Sherman. With Sherman as the guy who picked the players, all I could see was a steady decline in what had once been a great Team and a well-oiled Organization.

    Was the Board of Directors a bit re-miss in denying Holmgren the chance at wearing both hats? Hard debate, that is. Myself, I prefer to think Holmgren is who shot himself in the foot and should have had more patience, since the Board did eventually give that opportunity to Sherman only a year later. In the end, Holmgren proved he wasn't up to doing both jobs, as Seattle ultimately stripped him.

    Too bad, too. My friend, HYATT, and I, have debated just how many other SuperBowls the Pack could have pulled off had Mike Holmgren stayed, keeping the Gunslinger "in line"....

    I remember the count being somewhere around 5 more SuperBowls, possibly 6. We also undertsood Favre would not be the Interception King that he is today, had Holmgren stayed.

    As it is, I've liked TED since Day One. Reading that he is a very deeply religious man only served to cement that outlook. Didn't Vince Lombardi always stop in the Field Chapel first thing every day? The sad part is how many in the Press seem to thinn they've got license to put labels on GM's in the first place. Especially when they've never worn those shoes personally.

    No, Ted can hang around until such a time as he sees fit to move on.

    As far as the Free Agency debate is concerned, I cite Bill Polian as a great comparison. When was the last time he's signed a Free Agent? I don't hear or see 'anyone' damning that guy in the Media. Why the double-standard?

    ReplyDelete
  9. If the Packers are rebuilding, then what the hell are the Bills, Bucs, Lions and Rams are doing?

    The Packers' aren't replacing their veterans with rookies. In fact, they re-signed their veterans.

    The "rebuilding" notion is ludicrous. Filling spots with guys that were drafted (not rookies) isn't rebuilding.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Perhaps 'evolving' would be a better choice of words. And hopefully improving in the process.

    ReplyDelete