It is time for Ted to be held accountable.· Page 6

Announcement PH Beta → Check it out! Click Me! (you might be see "unsafe", but it is safe)

porky88
Veteran Member

14 years ago

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. :)

"Wade" wrote:

The fact Spitz has gotten play in trade talks proves that he's not just known for being better than Daryn Colledge. The main problem with Spitz right now is they can't decide whether he's a RG, C, or LG. I get the versatility and I like that, but he needs to find a home inside and stick with it. This is more of a McCarthy problem than a Spitz problem. For the first time since McCarthy has been head coach of Green Bay it appears possible that they can finally find a true spot for Spitz. That's thanks to Josh Sitton finally solidifying the right guard spot. He won't move from there.

What is your standard? Do you want every single starter to be Pro Bowl caliber. Elite? Very Good? Good? Average? What is it?

The 1996 Packers weren't known for their offensive line. I get the tough guy mentality that some Packer fans have because it's cold Green Bay Wisconsin, but that line wasn't untouchable. They had left tackle problems all year in 96. Started like three or four guys. Brought a guy out of retirement I believe. They still won 13 games and the Super Bowl. Their solution at LT was found in a rookie the following year in Ross Verba. Hardly a big name player throughout his career.

That's what Ted Thompson should look to find this season in the draft. He needs his Ross Verba to lock down the left tackle position. You fix LT and I'm certain you'll see a big improvement in the entire line even if it still has players like Jason Spitz and the "serviceable" Scott Wells on it. That plus an improving Aaron Rodgers will make this team better and a contender, which it was last year to some extent.

I agree they need depth. I don't like Breno G either, but that's one player. One position. This idea that Thompson should be fired because he hasn't fixed the offensive line is absurd. Football is not an overnight one and done sport. It's a process that never ends. You're always looking to get better, but one position should never overlook the body of work. Right now, Thompson's body of work has been good. Yes, at the one unit, he's been average to bad at times. Nobody will dispute that, but at other positions he's done a fine job. You can't dispute that either.

http://www.row12.com/

Wade
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#52

My standard is simple: I don't want Ted Thompson to be content with "servicable players."

I fully understand that "all all-pros" is a pipe dream. I fully understand that going into week one of 2010 (or any season) some of the OL are going to be merely servicable, even some starters.

What I do not want is a general manager and a coach who are content with servicable in February or March or April or May or June or July or August. I want a general manager and a coach who are committed in those months to upgrading beyond servicable. To striving for excellence. To striving for an offensive line that, as a unit, is dominant.

And I want a general manager in year five (or is this six, now, I've lost count) who puts a unit on the field that performs on a level that is a damn side better than servicable.

He will have had five offseasons. If he's capable of putting together a dominant line, he should have been able to do so by the 2010 season.

If he's not able to do it in the time he's had, IMO, he's not very damn likely to do it.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

Wade
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#53

Let me see if I can respond to the "you don't need a dominant line" argument.

Sure. True.

You also don't need an all-pro quarterback. See, e.g. Trent Dilfer.

But it sure helps.

And you don't need an all-pro running back. But it helps.

And frankly I'd rather have a servicable quarterback and a servicable running back behind a stud OL than a stud QB and stud RB behind a servicable offensive line.

The outlying example of Pittsburgh notwithstanding, a team with a dominant line is going to stay a contender longer IMO than a team that doesn't have one.

Much as I like Bart Starr, much as I consider Bart Starr the greatest [strike]Packer[/strike] quarterback ever, there's no way he wins five world championships, or even plays in five world championship games, without that stud OL.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

porky88
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#54

You think Thompson is content with just serviceable guys? I don't agree. In some cases, he has no choice though. The team can't go out and get a stud center, corner, left tackle, pass rusher. They may have to settle for a Scott Wells like player on one of those positions. That's just the way it is.

Thompson believes drafting and letting those draft picks to develop. That's what he believes. He's obviously not scared to draft players he believes can help. Donald Lee is or was a serviceable player, but Thompson drafted Jermichael Finley because he saw that upside. Took Finley a year to develop, but I think we'd agree that Finley is something special.

That's an example of him not being content with just every single player being a Scott Wells like player. I do think people need to understand that every team has those players playing. Especially in today's league where players change teams more often than they did back in the day.

Nobody is disputing that o-line isn't important. It's worth noting two of the better offensive lines in football last year were probably the Giants and Panthers. They didn't make the playoffs. Obviously, the Jets and Saints did. You can find examples that makes it work both ways. There is no constant to building a football team. It's a process. Right now, Green Bay must find a LT. If that means trading an extra pick to get that LT, I'd do it even if that means I'm missing out on a chance to upgrade over Scott Wells.

Those are the decisions teams have to make. Certainly, I don't think you can argue that Thompson is content with average guys. You always upgrade your team. It's just not possible to upgrade 22 positions. You need to develop from within. I'd like to see some more risk taking like he did with Charles Woodson, but right now, his philosophy has the Packers on the rise.

I think it's safe to say LT will be address in some form of fashion this off-season. You don't seem to have that confidence, but we'll see.

http://www.row12.com/

zombieslayer
Registered

14 years ago

#55

He will learn from his mistake. It was his first shot at the playoffs.

"Cheesey" wrote:

Funny you bring this up.

First time in the playoffs and we scored 45 points.

We allowed 51 points. Maybe the OL isn't why we lost that game?

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

nerdmann
Premier Member

14 years ago

#56

We won a superbowl with a stopgap at LT. Remember? Ken Ruettgers was breaking down. I think he only played like the first four games that year. They stuck Bruce Wilkerson in there, and he was good enough to win with.
Now I'd like to have a solid guy there for the future too. But this draft is deep in LTs. I bet we end up with two guys who can play. Ted Thompson has been getting Mike McCarthy the guys Mike McCarthy requests. Mike McCarthy wanted "smaller, quicker" linemen. Those guys pretty much all sucked. Now MM's requesting bigger, power type guys. Sitton, for example. Lang. Those guys are working out better. I put that on MM, not TT.
Now yes, I would also like to see them not totally suck for the first 8-10 games. I would like to see them play solidly from the get-go. Especially in the running game.
I also see Ted Thompson getting a faster, quicker HB who can also catch the ball on screens. That would be a huge weapon, and would make the offensive line look even that much better.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

get_louder_at_lambeau
Registered

14 years ago

#57

He will learn from his mistake. It was his first shot at the playoffs.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Funny you bring this up.

First time in the playoffs and we scored 45 points.

We allowed 51 points. Maybe the OL isn't why we lost that game?

"Cheesey" wrote:

Exactly. The '09 Packers broke their all time regular season scoring record set in the Super Bowl campaign year of 1996, and scored 45 points in their one playoff game (also a Packer record, I think?) , and people are whining about the core of the offense.

We need some work on the OL, but it's just retarded how people talk about it like they were the worst line ever. If the OL was as bad as advertised, we wouldn't have been 11-5 and breaking scoring records. As the late, great Billy Mays would say, "It's JUST that simple!"

http://packersnews.net

Cheesey
Preferred Member

14 years ago

#58

He will learn from his mistake. It was his first shot at the playoffs.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Funny you bring this up.

First time in the playoffs and we scored 45 points.

We allowed 51 points. Maybe the OL isn't why we lost that game?

"Cheesey" wrote:

I know. I myself am not blaming him at all for the loss. But i KNOW there are those that ARE blaming him.
The last play wasn't one of his best. But it never should have come down to that, had our D done there job.

IronMan
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#59

Ted will be held accountable, if, and only if, one of two things happen:

1: Rodgers gets hurt as a result of a leaky offensive line.
2: The offensive line is so bad, it prevents us from winning games.

So far that hasn't happened.

Stevetarded
Registered

14 years ago

#60

Let me see if I can respond to the "you don't need a dominant line" argument.

Sure. True.

You also don't need an all-pro quarterback. See, e.g. Trent Dilfer.

But it sure helps.

And you don't need an all-pro running back. But it helps.

And frankly I'd rather have a servicable quarterback and a servicable running back behind a stud OL than a stud QB and stud RB behind a servicable offensive line.

The outlying example of Pittsburgh notwithstanding, a team with a dominant line is going to stay a contender longer IMO than a team that doesn't have one.

Much as I like Bart Starr, much as I consider Bart Starr the greatest [strike]Packer[/strike] quarterback ever, there's no way he wins five world championships, or even plays in five world championship games, without that stud OL.

"Wade" wrote:

I wouldn't, look how well it worked out for Denver

blank

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

beast (1h) : I was rooting for the Bears to win and hurt their draft pick status

Zero2Cool (1h) : Forgot there was even a game last night haha

TheKanataThrilla (1h) : That was terrible.

TheKanataThrilla (1h) : Watching that game in its entirety yesterday is proof positive that I am a football addict.

beast (2h) : And horrible time management multiple times... and not being able to score more than 3 points on a team with talent

beast (2h) : Realizing the Bears didn't fix it from the previous week and do the same thing, getting the game to overtime

beast (2h) : They probably are not tanking, but they've absolutely mismanagement some things, such as Vikings seeing the Packers blocked FG and realizing

Zero2Cool (3h) : Crazy of Bears to have that mindset that is

Zero2Cool (3h) : Hail Mary stop away from 5 - 2. Not sure how that flips to tanking. Crazy mindset if true

beast (4h) : I've quietly questioned if Bears are tanking on purpose... they suddenly got a lot worse with some simple concepts like 101 clock management

wpr (6h) : Watching bares fans melt down over how putrid their team is, so enjoyable. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Mucky Tundra (13h) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago

beast (14h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years

Zero2Cool (20h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.

packerfanoutwest (20h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it

beast (22h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done

Zero2Cool (26-Dec) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!

beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS