Green Bay Packers Make Cuts to Roster

Green Bay Packers Make Cuts to Roster

There are 10 comments on the NBC26 story from Sep 6, 2010, titled Green Bay Packers Make Cuts to Roster. In it, NBC26 reports that:

GREEN BAY -- If the Green Bay Packers are going to make a Super Bowl run, they'll be doing it with one of the league's youngest rosters -- and one that is almost entirely home grown.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC26.

GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#1 Sep 6, 2010
One of the league's youngest rosters? Who are the others? The Lions? The Cleveland Browns II? Tampa Bay Bucs? I hope it's not true that "you're judged by the company you keep."

Successful teams, such as the Colts and Saints, tend to have more experienced players. I wonder if there has ever been a Super Bowl winner with "one of the league's youngest rosters"? I gotta give Ted Thompson credit for his courage. There aren't alot of GMs that would be brave enough to try to accomplish something that has never been accomplished.
GBPmies

Helsinki, Finland

#2 Sep 6, 2010
GBPfan wrote:
One of the league's youngest rosters? Who are the others? The Lions? The Cleveland Browns II? Tampa Bay Bucs? I hope it's not true that "you're judged by the company you keep."
Successful teams, such as the Colts and Saints, tend to have more experienced players. I wonder if there has ever been a Super Bowl winner with "one of the league's youngest rosters"? I gotta give Ted Thompson credit for his courage. There aren't alot of GMs that would be brave enough to try to accomplish something that has never been accomplished.
You were hot and cold on this one. Saints 2nd oldest, Colts 2nd youngest

Yes the Saints were a successful team last year. But where is your logic here? How do you define success? Are the Saints a successful team because they won the Super Bowl or because they have a good record over the last five years?

I only ask because you love to knock TT’s record. It must NOT be about the team records you always mention because in the last 5 years the Pack were 42-38 and the Saints 41-39. Over the last 3 years the Pack were 30-18 the Saints 28-20.

So I guess success is measured in Super Bowls not records then? Otherwise TT might be successful.

2009 Age Rank NFL Team Average Age
1 Redskins 28.02
2 Saints 27.99
3 Cardinals 27.74
3 Patriots 27.74
5 Lions 27.62
6 49ers 27.51
7 Steelers 27.50
8 Vikings 27.48
9 Seahawks 27.41
10 Falcons 27.39
11 Titans 27.29
12 Browns 27.18
13 Jets 27.16
13 Broncos 27.16
15 Bears 27.02
16 Cowboys 26.93
17 Bills 26.93
18 Chargers 26.93
19 Texans 26.89
20 Giants 26.88
21 Ravens 26.83
22 Raiders 26.82
23 Eagles 26.81
24 Rams 26.73
25 Jaguars 26.61
26 Bengals 26.60
27 Dolphins 26.47
28 Bucs 26.46
29 Panthers 26.39
30 Chiefs 26.36
31 Colts 26.34
32 Packers 26.16
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#3 Sep 7, 2010
GBPmies wrote:
<quoted text>
You were hot and cold on this one. Saints 2nd oldest, Colts 2nd youngest
Yes the Saints were a successful team last year. But where is your logic here? How do you define success? Are the Saints a successful team because they won the Super Bowl or because they have a good record over the last five years?
I only ask because you love to knock TT’s record. It must NOT be about the team records you always mention because in the last 5 years the Pack were 42-38 and the Saints 41-39. Over the last 3 years the Pack were 30-18 the Saints 28-20.
So I guess success is measured in Super Bowls not records then? Otherwise TT might be successful.
Thanks for proving that I am right. The more experienced team won the Super Bowl. Find the example where "one of the leagues youngest rosters" won the Super Bowl and you might have a point.

I'm glad you brought up the Saints comparison thing. You are right that the Saints and Packers have nearly identical records over TT's time in Green Bay. The difference is that in the dozen years prior to 2005 the Packers made the playoffs 10 of 12 years, appeared in 2 Super Bowls, won 1 Super Bowl, won the division most years(including 2002-2004) and had the 2nd best winning percentage in the entire league. In the same dozen years the Saints made the playoffs once, won nothing, and were widely considered one of the leagues worst teams.

Obviously, the Saints have greatly improved over the last 5 years while TT has taken the Packers backward. And yes, Championships are definitely a measure (the most important measure) of success. The Packers do NOT have any under TT's mismanagement. During the same period New Orleans went from a 3-13 team following Hurricane Katrina to Super Bowl winners. Go ahead and convince yourself that Ted Thompson has been as successful if it makes you feel better. I fail to see how a lie will help the Packers in any way.

Since 2005 (and Katrina) the Saints went from
GBPmies

Helsinki, Finland

#4 Sep 7, 2010
GBPfan wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for proving that I am right. The more experienced team won the Super Bowl. Find the example where "one of the leagues youngest rosters" won the Super Bowl and you might have a point.
I'm glad you brought up the Saints comparison thing. You are right that the Saints and Packers have nearly identical records over TT's time in Green Bay. The difference is that in the dozen years prior to 2005 the Packers made the playoffs 10 of 12 years, appeared in 2 Super Bowls, won 1 Super Bowl, won the division most years(including 2002-2004) and had the 2nd best winning percentage in the entire league. In the same dozen years the Saints made the playoffs once, won nothing, and were widely considered one of the leagues worst teams.
Obviously, the Saints have greatly improved over the last 5 years while TT has taken the Packers backward. And yes, Championships are definitely a measure (the most important measure) of success. The Packers do NOT have any under TT's mismanagement. During the same period New Orleans went from a 3-13 team following Hurricane Katrina to Super Bowl winners. Go ahead and convince yourself that Ted Thompson has been as successful if it makes you feel better. I fail to see how a lie will help the Packers in any way.
Since 2005 (and Katrina) the Saints went from
1. I DID NOT prove you are right.

2. What I did was prove what you originally wrote was WRONG.

3. This is what you wrote “Successful teams, such as the Colts and Saints, tend to have more experienced players.”(Colts were the 2nd youngest team last year)

4. You are a D-BAG for trying to spin it to look like you were not WRONG. I mean it is OK to be WRONG, everyone makes mistakes. I just do not like when people spout off incorrect facts to prove lame ass points. Next time, do some homework and you won’t have a problem.

5. You asked… "Find the example where "one of the leagues youngest rosters" won the Super Bowl and you might have a point."
---- Colts 3rd youngest team in 2006 and WON THE SUPER BOWL

6. Now piss off
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#5 Sep 7, 2010
My, you're getting awfully testy. Is it because everything I've been saying about Ted Thompson is and has been right?

As I said, give me an example and you've got a point. You made a point when you finally gave me an example of a Super Bowl winner. I guess it's possible for one of the youngest teams to win a Super Bowl, one out of 45 anyway.

I guess TT is banking on those odds. It wouldn't surprise me anyhow.
Jeremy

Mooreton, ND

#6 Sep 7, 2010
TT has not brought GB a Championship. Until that happens, you cannot compare the Saints and Colts management to the GB management the past 5 years. Success in the NFL is based on Championships, not records. Ron Wolf and Mike Holmgren would not be put on such a high pedestal if not for a Superbowl and two NFC Championships. GB wins the Superbowl this year and TT will be put in that category since 90% of this team is HIS draft and FA moves. The time is now. Holmgen and Wolf were at about this point with their teams, its now McCarthy and TT turn or changes will have to be made.
GBPmies

Helsinki, Finland

#7 Sep 7, 2010
GBPfan wrote:
My, you're getting awfully testy. Is it because everything I've been saying about Ted Thompson is and has been right?
As I said, give me an example and you've got a point. You made a point when you finally gave me an example of a Super Bowl winner. I guess it's possible for one of the youngest teams to win a Super Bowl, one out of 45 anyway.
I guess TT is banking on those odds. It wouldn't surprise me anyhow.
I think it is funny you said I “finally” gave you and example. It took 1 hour! Finally! Oh, so sorry for making you wait. Get your own examples to back up your points, do some research instead just making stuff up.

As for the 1 out of 45 comment... I am not looking all that up. But see what I mean about making stuff up? How the hell do you know it is 1 out of 45? You don’t, you just blurt out stupid stuff to sound cool.

I can tell you this-
In 2007, 3 out of 4 lowest avg age teams made the playoffs. 1 of those to the NFC Championship (The Pack). The Team they lost to was ranked 8th lowest avg age (Giants).(8th lowest avg age is in the lower quartile of the 32 teams) The Giants one the Super Bowl. The Chargers also went to the AFC championship game they ranked 7th lowest.

I guess you can now say 2 out of 45. Or more imporatnly 2 out of the last 4 years.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#8 Sep 7, 2010
You can consider half the teams in the league amonst the youngest for all I care. The fact is that Championship teams have a good mix of veteran experience and leadership. It is also a FACT that despite the Packers age, TT has led the Packers to zero Championships. As I said before, you can consider TT's failure success if it makes you feel better. As Jeremy pointed out, it is Championships that really matter. If TT's philosophy of keeping the Packers the youngest team year after year ever works I'll be thrilled. It can't be denied that the philosophy has failed thus far. I just hope it doesn't take a decade or more for Packer management to realize the flaw in that approach.
GBPfan

Colorado Springs, CO

#9 Sep 7, 2010
You can consider 90% of the teams in the league to be amongst the youngest for all I care. Twist stats any way you want to in order to feel better about supporting TT's failure. I'm not going to argue 1 out of 45 or 2 out of 45. You win, it's 2 out of 45. Congratulations!

This fact cannot be denied: Zero championships for Green Bay since Ted became GM. You may believe that keeping the Packers the youngest team in the league year after year is a good thing. I know what the results have been.
GBPmies

Helsinki, Finland

#10 Sep 7, 2010
GBPfan wrote:
You can consider 90% of the teams in the league to be amongst the youngest for all I care. Twist stats any way you want to in order to feel better about supporting TT's failure. I'm not going to argue 1 out of 45 or 2 out of 45. You win, it's 2 out of 45. Congratulations!
This fact cannot be denied: Zero championships for Green Bay since Ted became GM. You may believe that keeping the Packers the youngest team in the league year after year is a good thing. I know what the results have been.
Thanks GBPfan, have a nice day too:)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jarius Wynn Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News [GIF] Jarius Wynn Rock Bottoms Michael Vick (Sep '13) Sep '13 Mr D D Day 59
News Mike Vandermause column: Green Bay Packers draf... (Apr '10) May '10 normallylikeyellow 22
News Roll, Tide! No. 8 Alabama pulls stunner on Geor... (Sep '08) Sep '08 Kurt 1
News Bulldogs deliver message to Tebow (Jan '08) Jan '08 ARR 1
More from around the web