I just don't get it.

Okay, Sitton is a stud. Great. I agree.

Okay, Lang has shown serious potential. Great. I agree.

(But, as an aside: He's still mostly in the "potential" category. He's not yet in the "proven starter" category.)

Okay, Wells is okay. If every starter were at Wells level the line would be servicable. Not great. Not particularly good. But servicable.

(Aside here: serviceable IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH IF YOU WANT A SERIOUS CHAMPIONSHIP CONTENDER, GD IT!)

Spitz is NOT solid. Okay. He's shown more consistency than Daryn Colledge. Big fuckin whoop.

And backups? Okay, Evan The Hyphenated has "potential". I've heard nothing but the goddamn potential argument since Ted Thompson became GM. And apart from Sitton, who was pretty much a stud from the get go save for his injury, and maybe Lang (who should be given more time), all that potential of WHitticker and Coston and Spitz and Colledge and Barbre and Moll and Breno the Unspellable has yielded what. Mediocrity shading toward servicable.

Okay, our biggest questions are at tackle. Fine. I agree. But if Thompson and McCarthy are content with the interior line after Sitton, and maybe wells, they don't have high enough standards.

They shouldn't be content with ANYONE after Sitton, Lang, and Wells. They shouldn't be content with ANYONE after Sitton as a starter right now. And they shouldn't be content with ANYONE after Sitton, Lang, and Wells for a roster spot.

They may have to settle for some of the current roster. But they sure as hell should not be content.

Foster, you're still being too polite. 🙂

---

Oh, yes, and regarding Rock's listing of all the draft attention to OL Thompson has given...

I don't dispute that Thompson has given serious attention to the position (allowing for the first year mulligan).

But in one sense that makes it worse. If we could say, as we did (and Thompson himself did) after that first year, it was just a question of him spending more attention, foster and I could be shut up by a really active Ted Thompson this year. But frankly, his track record of "action" has been mediocre when it comes to the OL. One homerun (Sitton) is not good enough.

One of the reasons I am so strident about "OL OL OL" is that Ted's batting average on the OL looks worse than a journeyman shortstop from the 1970s. If the Packer OL is going to get where it needs to go, he needs extra at bats each year.

---

Link 

Above link to jog the memory.

Colledge.

That had been the plan at LT. That has never, ever been a good plan, and anyone that thinks it was is being WAY too generous to our decision-makers, imo.

So is it Thompson's fault that Campen is still employed with the Packers in the position of Offensive Line coach?

Definitely not directly.. and I think honestly that is the weak link.. the development of line under the tutelage of these two.. Campen and Fonteno.. I honestly believe that is our real failing her on the line..

I know guys like Colledge can play at a high level for short bursts.. I have seen it.. it is up to the coaching staff to get that level of play out of them consistently.

I won't disagree that we are in need of some tackle prospects.. no doubt.. but unless we have a teacher that can draw the play out of them.. does it matter?

At the end of the day.. on the offensive line I hold the coaches more accountable than Ted in this regard.. he has gotten them NFL type bodies to mold and they have failed to do so. Period.

---

Just because Ted Thompson is a believer in growth from within does not mean he doesn't recognize where the team needs help. Last year he was making similar statements about the personnel on defense and having the players that could adapt to the 3-4.

He said Pickett could handle nose, Poppinga would work at ROLB, Kampman would make the switch, the CB's could handle a different concept, etc., etc., and so on.

What did he do? Opted for Raji, moved down for Mathews, and took Jones and Underwood. He went straight after 3-4 players. Now had this switch not been made I pretty much doubt Raji would have been the pick there and the OT position would have been addressed right then and there.

Now he has the opportunity, with a deep draft, to look at these areas where there is need and continue to build on the personnel for the 3-4 as well.

I think some here may be understating what this team accomplished by going 11-5 in the first year of switching over defenses. It's not that easy. If it were and all the other teams would be assured of the same kind of success they would ALL do it. I know we were certainly more successful than other teams that just made the same move and that happened in no small measure because Ted Thompson saw what was needed and went out and got it.

His alternative on offense was to let four or five guys fight for the RT position and IMO it could have been much less of a catastrophe out there had the coaches recognized Lang or Meredith were going to be better than what they decided to go with and ultimately letting Meredith go was not on Ted Thompson but what he was told the depth chart looked like at the time by the coaches.

I think Barbre fooled everybody. They were all high on his athletic ability(including Rodgers) but when it came to game time the guy couldn't block anybody and they stuck with him way to long. I put that on the coaches.

---

It all depends on the (unknown) relationship in that FO. Since Ted doesn't have an owner breathing down his neck, my suspicion is that he has a bit of a "luxury" in the sense that he can lean towards a more collaborative relationship with Mike and the asst. coaches. In a weird way, my feeling is more along the lines of Ted as a partner, contrasted with a boss.

Those short bursts of competence are EXACTLY why Colledge was such a shitty plan. We kept waiting for a level of consistency that never materialized, yet they stuck with that plan far too long. Now he is going to (probably) lose his job as a LG, and deservedly so. I still remain bothered by the whole interrelationship between the ZBS scheme and the drafting of "ideal for a ZBS scheme" lineman. Ted calls the name at the draft, and while there is a bit of "coaxing the board" motivation on my part regarding this thread, Ted is still the boss, and now we have the real potential for a serious setback going into this next year.

It sure does look alot like there is a serious weak link in the coaching, so my question is-why is it that the Packers continue down this path? Are they treating the coaches the same way they treated Colledge?

Are they hoping that Campen gets better at his job? If THAT is the plan...That plan sucks worse than the Colledge plan.

I have been ranting about this friggin' line for 3 years or more. I was sick of the subject then, and I'm damn sure sick and tired of it now.

Fix the GD offensive line SITUATION...blame or don't blame who you want.

There is some loyalty shit going on there with Mike and these o line coaches that I don't like. Unfortunately, he is "safe" enough (Mike) in this off-season, as evidenced by all that jump to the defense of all parties involved, to help perpetuate this miserable shit for what could easily turn into a dive off a cliff.

If we lose Cliffy (who has to hold and jump to keep from getting beat as it is) and Tausch....

It is gonna get so very ugly. A real possibility.

Perhaps he has finally decided to "Get on board and keep his mouth shut"

---

1. Correct me if I am wrong. Is not Campen a subordinate of Thompson's?That McCarthy is between the two in the organizational chart doesn't change who is above whom? If it's the players, Thompson is responsible. If it's the coaches, Thompson is still responsible.

2. I fully concede that Thompson has done a lot right, warhawk. My issue with Thompson is, and always has been, his performance re: OL. And because OL is critically important IMO, his failures there are -- if 2010 doesn't change things -- worthy of termination. I'll concede Rodgers and Raji and Matthews and Collins and WOodson and Pickett etc etc. And if the OL is no better than servicable, all those successes will be successes on a second-tier team.
I just do not believe you can "take that next step" beyond "perpetual bridesmaid" unless you strive for domination across both lines. Being content with "servicable" is not going to make it.

---

A question for foster and the other old farts who remember the 3 decades of mediocrity between Super Bowls II and XXXI:

What kinds of OL did the team have in those years?

It's an honest question. I don't know the answers myself. All my attention in those days was focused on the inability to get a quarterback and/or RB and/or the right coach. I remember Gillingham (stud), Hallstrom (a holding penalty per game), McCarren (became great announcer), Mandarich (bust), but not much more.

I do remember Lynn Dickey (the best QB between Starr and Favre) getting hit a lot a couple years.

---

The Packers offense scored more points in '09 than they have ever scored in any season before, and people still think the OL was a giant steaming pile of shit. In the last three years, they have had two of the top 4 highest scoring seasons in Packers history under Thompson and this same basic OL, while lead by two different QBs and a decent RB. If that leads you to believe that there is a horrible, inexcusable personnel problem in the offensive line, the very CORE of the offense, well...

:lurk:

---