I don't blame Ted Thompson for taking Raji either.
My problem is that he's been here, what, 5 years?
And the OL is, clearly, and has been since his arrival, substantially and consistently worse than it was before his arrival.
It's not one decision that bothers me. It's not this one player who hasn't developed or that one who was not acquired or the other one who was let go. It's the fact that we are five years in (four if you're counting McCarthy years and not Thompson years) and WE STILL HAVE A FUCKING LINE THAT IS BARELY SERVICABLE ON ITS GOOD DAYS. And its that, IMO, we are STILL, assuming that Ted Thompson, Mike McCarthy, and company do everything right this offseason in the draft, looking to AT LEAST 2011 before we have a line that is more than serviceable.
AND THAT PISSES ME OFF.
"Wade" wrote:
You can't be two places at once, Wade...What the fuck is he gonna do?
Listen, FA sucked last year...
Whaddya want, a Hayensworth? A Peppers?
I wanted a Faneca-- Packer world was busy with a Moss.
I don't know who was right on that one.
Retirement sucks for a Packer zealot.
"dfosterf" wrote:
He's the effing GM. If he can't put together an OL in 5 years, he's failed IMO.
I've been crying for FA attention to OL since he left Rivera go (which I supported) and Wahle go (which I didn't). I've been crying for high round attention to OL in the draft for the same period. I've been, well, crying a lot. :)
When I complained about Wahle, people said "you can't mortgage the future". Whenever I said how about this free agent (e.g. Hutchinson, Faneca, Leonard Davis, etc etc etc), I got accused of being Dan Snyder.
Well, we're in the future and we're debt free and we're not Dan Snyder. Hoo-rah.
It's like educatiion here in Iowa. We keep bragging about how our schools are so great and how are test scores are so damn good, how we're better than .... all the goddam horrible schools in Mississippi or California or wherever. And we're no closer than we were 5 years ago to changing our own mediocrity.
And I'm supposed to have faith in the current "education experts"?
And I'm supposed to have faith in Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy to get done what they haven't been able to get done in 4-5 years?
I haven't called for Ted Thompson to be fired, and I haven't called for Mike McCarthy to be fired. But whatever else they have going for them, they are effing lousy at putting together the kind of OL a dominant team needs.
Because, unlike some, I'm not going to see a "wild card" appearance as a "good performance" in year 5 (for Thompson) or year four (for McCarthy). Before and in the early weeks of the 2007 season I said n that other board) that my criteria for success for Thompson was a playoff victory or I would start complaining more vociferously. Of course 2007 saw the team just a overtime INT away from the big dance, and so I had to say, "Wade, better shut up now."
But it's now midway through 2009, and that second half of 2007 (remember, the team had zero running game and lots of problems in the first half of the 2007 season) is looking more and more like the "outlier" in a story of continuing mediocrity.
And does so despite a quarterback I'm a lot more excited about than I was about another QB in *his* second year as a starter, despite the best team of WRs the packers have had since...well, since I can remember, and I remember the Dowler/Dale/Fleming years, despite a lot of good players on D, etc.
I just believe that without a top OL (not just a servicable OL, but an above average one), the likelihood that this team will go deep into the playoffs is slim. And despite 5 years of Ted Thompson and 4 years of Ted Thompson, the best we can hope for in short run (i.e. 2010 as well as rest of this year) is servicable.
"Wade" wrote: