Vandermause's Excuses For Crosby Not Helping...

Over the years, there are few writers I've enjoyed nitpicking more than the Green Bay Press-Gazette's Mike Vandermause.  Maybe it's because his biases are so evident.  Maybe it's because he doesn't stop at just facts to prove his points.  Maybe it's just because it is so easy.

Today, Vandermause advises Packer Planet to calm down and cut Mason Crosby some slack.  I have no problems with his base message, because he is correct when he states that "It’s not likely that anyone available this late in the season would perform any better than Crosby."

But then, he drifts off into some stretches of reason and statistics that are supposed to lead us to believe that he is on the verge of turning into, well, Ryan Longwell.

Longwell made just 20 of 31 field goals [64%] eight years ago and ranked 33rd among NFL kickers, but bounced back by converting 85.2 percent of his kicks over the next three seasons. His 81.6 percent career mark ranks No. 1 in Packers history.

No one can predict how Crosby will respond to his slump, but history says he deserves every opportunity to break out of it.

Okay...so Ryan Longwell had a bad year in 2001, and then bounced back the next year, so this means that the same will be true of Crosby?   Certainly, Longwell struggled mightily, but he finished that year strong.  People forget, when you just lump the season statistics together as Vandermause did, that he simply was a 65% kicker from start to finish.

But, in actuality, Longwell missed four field goals in a row, ranging from Game 5 to Game 7.  He finished the final five games of the season making 7 out of 9 field goals, including a mammoth 54-yarder in game 13.

And how exactly did this change happen?  Well, not by going out and trying to reassure him by saying his job was 100% secure.  No, they went out and fixed the problem.  Longwell himself was a factor in shaking himself out of his own slump, studying game film and recognizing that part of the problem was in the placement of the ball by a new holder, then working with his coaches to change it.

It also doesn't hurt that the Packers had a heckuva season that year, going 12-4 and making the playoffs.  Winning tends to make us "okay" with struggles, too.

The other critical part of the statistical jigsaw that Vandermause leaves out is that we aren't comparing apples to apples with Longwell and Crosby.  Longwell had demonstrated his ability to kick at a high level ever since he won the job over Brett Conway as a street free agent in 1997.  In his four seasons before his "off year" in 2001, Longwell had FG percentages of 80.0%, 87.9%, 83.3%, and 86.8%.

Crosby was fortunate, like Longwell in 2001, to have come in as a rookie during the Packers' 2007 13-3 resurgence, leading the league in scoring and turning him into a fantasy football darling.  In reality, however, Crosby only made 79.5% of his field goals in that year, and then turned in a near-identical sophomore performance last year.  Now, as his percentage has dropped to 72.7% this year, we have to ask a rather logical question:  is 79% the "norm" we're hoping Mason can snap himself back to?  Longwell demonstrated the ability to be a Pro Bowl caliber kicker before his slump, but Crosby's achievements have been based on quantity, not quality:  more a component of the high-powered offense he benefits from rather than his own accuracy.

So, the Longwell comparison is missing quite a few holes.  But this doesn't stop Vandermause from going to the well again.

Even this season, for all the scrutiny Crosby has received, his accuracy is close to Longwell’s 74.1 percent during his final season with the Packers in 2005. Since leaving Green Bay, Longwell has converted 86.0 percent of his kicks.

For starters, Dave Rayner made 74.3% of his field goals in 2006, and like Longwell, was ousted the following offseason.   Now, in 2005, Longwell had only the second sub-80% FG kicking percentage of his entire nine-year career at that point (and since, for that matter), but there were still a lot of other factors at play besides the basic numbers.

For one, Longwell had rookie bust BJ Sander as his holder that year, and we all know Longwell's oversensitivity to poor holders.  Secondly, 2005 was one of the worst seasons in Packer history, a complete under-performance by every squad on the team, special teams not excluded.  There was no synergy on the team whatsoever, and Longwell's performance was completely in line with what we saw in nearly every other phase of the game.

The question then becomes, what external factors are affecting Crosby?  Is there a team-wide schism, like there was in 2005?  No, and in fact, as the Packers have pulled it all together following the Tampa Bay debacle, Crosby has only declined further.  Is there an issue with the holder?  No, and the foolish effort to swap out Matt Flynn with Jeremy Kapinos last week was evidence of that.

The problem is simple: there's an issue with Crosby, whether it be in his physical mechanics or in his mental approach to the game, or both.  Regardless of what it is, this is the NFL, which in the immortal words of Jerry Glanville means "Not For Long" if he keeps doing what he's doing.  No, the Packers may not find someone any better than Crosby on the free-agent market right now (Kapinos didn't exactly set the world on fire after coming in to replace Derrick Frost, either), but there needs to be some direct problem-solving on the part of special teams coach Shaun Slocum.  Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be on the horizon, either.

The Packers’ coaching staff is taking the proper approach with Crosby by offering public support. In private, they would be wise to tell Crosby that he’s their kicker regardless of what happens the rest of this season or how loud his critics complain.

Crosby shouldn’t have to worry about his job status every time he tries a field goal.

Special teams coach Shawn Slocum said: “What you need to do is … have a mindset of ‘Boy, I can’t wait to make this kick’ as opposed to going out there saying, ‘Man, I can’t miss this one.’"

Once again, Vandermause shows his bias by beating the drum of the Packer administration.  He shouldn't have to worry about his job status every time he tries a field goal???  What the hell is he getting paid to do?  He is paid to do essentially one thing, and one thing only:  kick a ball far and straight.  That's it.  If you can't do that one thing, you need to be worried about your job status.

We all know that kickers have fragile egos.  I've made that point many times myself, and Crosby's is clearly shaken.  But what is to be gained by artificially propping him up, both publicly and inside the locker room?  Even Ryan Longwell, who has far better career numbers, was a part of solving his own struggles the few times it has happened.  Instead, Crosby is being told what a good boy he is, while the blame from his coaches seem to land on poor Matt Flynn, who, to my memory, bobbled one snap all season. 

It's pretty basic self-defeatist psychology:  you keep telling an person that their inferior performances are fine, and they don't work to solve the problem.  However, when their performance continues to be inferior, they get more and more frustrated when the external criticism rises, and soon enough, begin to see for themselves that they aren't doing as well as they should be...and the downward cycle continues.

What's most amusing to be is that Vandermause keeps choosing to compare Crosby to Longwell, a guy we essentially rode out of town on a rail, because we saw him as far too expensive to keep around here only kicking as well as he did in 2005.

Look, I am not one of the folks ready to run Mason Crosby out of town on a rail.  I am, however, getting ready to run out Slocum for not working to fix the problems that are going to end the career of a promising young kicker, and Mike McCarthy should be ashamed for going along with it.  Crosby doesn't need excuses and artificial confidence right now from those folks that are accountable for his development and performance.  He needs someone to coach him, to study his mechanics, and to remedy them.

If you want to make a comparison to Longwell's poor 2001 season, how about focusing on how he solved the problem, instead of just declaring he had one.  He didn't break out of it because he had a full self-esteem balloon, and neither will Crosby.

The Dan Snyder Fallacy

On Friday, Mike Vandermause went back on his "stumping for Ted Thompson" campaign, rising to Thompson's defense as criticism has mounted against him as he has not changed his approach to offseason moves.

(Incidentally, the use of the word "approach" in regard to Thompson and free agency is a pretty liberal use of the definition. But, I digress.)

With the signing of a backup safety in Anthony Smith from the Steelers (who did not even offer him a restricted free agent tender), it appears that once again any upgrades of the primary talent of this team is going to be coming from within or from the draft.

Last year, people seemed okay with that. After all, the Packers were coming off of a 13-3 season and a deep playoff run, and only lost two starters from their lineup in the offseason. Steering clear of the free agent market and stockpiling much cheaper draft picks seemed like a logical thing to do.

But this offseason, the Packers are not only coming off a 6-10 free-fall from grace, but are implementing another major scheme change that leaves a lot of questions at to whether the talent we already have is suitable. You would imagine that this might be the year to make a Ryan Pickett or Charles Woodson-type signing.

But, Vandermause plants facetious argument Number One on us, by protraying anyone who suggests that Thompson isn't making the right moves not only as incorrect, but as complete idiots.

Dealing with the lingering effects of the Brett Favre trade last summer followed by the Packers’ disappointing 6-10 record was bad enough. But when Thompson failed to land any players in the early stages of free agency, his critics began braying like rented mules.

The rallying cry from a restless fan base went something like this: “Do something — anything — to upgrade the roster and appease us.”

Now, I don't consider myself crying about not getting Haynesworth, Peppers, and Canty (as some in the Packer Blogosphere were wont to have). It wasn't sensible for even a moderately aggressive GM, and completely alien to one like the very conservative Thompson.

But whiffing on the one guy reports have stated they definitely wanted (Chris Canty) is concerning, whether that makes me a braying mule or not. The guy on the next tier that was highly rumored to come to Green Bay, the Chargers' Igor Olshansky, signed on in Dallas without even an apparent contact made by the Packers. Now, reserve linebacker Kevin Burnett is one of the only starting-capable guys left out there, and again, Thompson's pursuit is reported as "unclear".

In the immortal words on Mike Sherman, "it is what it is". We shouldn't be shocked at Thompson's moves (or lack thereof), but we should consider that his free agent splurge in 2006 didn't set the team back a dozen years and actually had two very good payoffs in Pickett and Woodson. We should also consider that it is the GM's job to provide his coaches with the talent that they need to win football games, and like the zone blocking experiment, throwing unproven draft picks at a scheme is far from any guarantee that it will work.

But Vandermause then uses his second fallacious argument, one that I've seen for several years by Thompson's defenders in the blogs and forums, but was rather surprised to see it used by a professional journalist.

The old "Well, do you want Ted Thompson to turn into Dan Snyder?" argument.

Thompson never will let the urge for a quick fix get in the way of common sense, and that drives his critics nuts. They want instant gratification, which is in stark contrast to Thompson’s measured approach to building a team.

Redskins owner Daniel Snyder might be considered the anti-Thompson in NFL circles.

He grew up a staunch supporter of the Redskins, and when he bought the team a decade ago proceeded to act out like a fan. That is to say, he threw millions of dollars at the most attractive free agents in a quest to achieve immediate success.

In the eyes of many Redskins fans, no one is smarter or more popular than Snyder in the spring. But when the Redskins consistently flop in the fall, no one looks more foolish.

The one thing that I agree with Vandermause on is that Snyder is the anti-Thompson. For every deal Thompson seems afraid to make, Snyder goes out and not only makes the deal, but offers double everyone else's offer. While you can count all of Thompson's free agent signings on one hand, you would need to use all your appendages to count up Snyder's, and you'd probably still not have enough digits.

But, this doesn't make Thompson=Smart/Snyder=Foolish. It makes them mirror images of each other, each reaching the farthest poles of conservative and liberal use of the salary cap. One sacrifices today to live for tomorrow; the other lives for today, ready to sacrifice the future.

It's like coaching a basketball player who is afraid to foul, afraid of contact, afraid to be aggressive, and suggesting that they step up their intensity a bit. That player points to "Bruno", another player on the team that always fouls out by the end of the first quarter of every game, usually with a couple of technicals to boot. "You want me to play with more intensity," he asks, "but if I do, won't I be just like Bruno?"

"Ah," you say, "I see your point. I sure don't want two Bruno's on this team." And the player continues to play scared.

You see, there's a middle ground, a balance that a GM can take towards offseason moves. Even an ultra-conservative GM like Thompson can afford to break out some bucks for players...not the super high-priced players like Haynesworth, but for a guy who can truly come in and improve your team (like Woodson and Pickett did three years ago). It's not signing someone for the sake of signing someone, it is recognizing that your coaches need to make this defense work and they need an infusion of talent to make it happen.

I may be wrong on this, but my feeling is that if the talent you had in a 4-3 couldn't generate a pass rush or stop the run, do you really think making those same players take on new, unfamiliar positions in a new scheme is going to improve that?

Vandermause chortles at Snyder and his lack of success in the postseason:

The Redskins have qualified for the playoffs just twice in the last nine seasons under Snyder and never have advanced past the divisional round.

But that didn’t stop the free-spending Snyder from doling out $171 million in contracts last week for Haynesworth, cornerback DeAngelo Hall and guard Derrick Dockery.

In stark contrast, the only unrestricted free agent Thompson signed in 2007 was cornerback Frank Walker, yet the Packers went 13-3 that year and advanced to the NFC championship game.

Yes, recent memory is usually the most vivid, but if you are going to play the "Snyder never makes the playoffs" card, let's apply the same rules:

If the Packers do not upgrade the talent among the starters on a team that went 6-10 last season, and in addition, do not bring in any veteran starting talent familiar with a 3-4 defensive scheme, do you really believe that the Packers will improve by at least four games and make the playoffs in 2009?

Because if they do not, it means that Ted Thompson's Packers will have only made the playoffs once in five seasons. Statistically, how does that compare to Snyder's Redskins making the playoffs twice in nine seasons (by the end of this season, perhaps twice in ten seasons)?

The ratio doesn't lie. That would be batting .200 versus batting .200 (maybe even .300). Just because Thompson isn't Snyder doesn't make him more successful. Thompson needs to make the moves necessary to make this team successful, regardless of what those moves might be. Vandermause hits that nail on the head to finish his article: "Thompson should ultimately be judged on the Packers’ record this season, not how much money he spends on free agents."

Exactly. And given Vandermause's own comparison with Snyder, he may have just set the bar for how he should be judging Thompson if the Packers do not make the playoffs this season.

Unfortunately, that bar is limited to Dan Snyder. It's funny how Vandermause and others that find it necessary to mock anyone critical of Thompson never use the front office of the Patriots, the Steelers, or the Giants as the measuring stick.

Could Defense Take a Step Back in 2009?

Mike Vandermause is seeing it, too. The Packers' first two choices for defensive coordinator have decided to take different offers, and coach Mike McCarthy is moving on to Plan C - Jim Haslett. If this keeps up, we may soon run out of letters in the alphabet.

Gregg Williams was a guy that intrigued me, maybe in the scuttlebutt that he was a bit of an arrogant arse. That would fly 180 degrees in the face of Bob Sanders, who was as much a gentleman and good guy as can be. Williams may have come in to Green Bay and turned a stagnate, ineffective defense on its ear, not giving a rip who has been signed to what extensions or how much money they're making, and get a squad to give it all up on the field or ride the pine.

Hurt some feelings along the way? Possible. Use Green Bay as a stepping stone to another head coaching job? Sure.

But when Williams went to the Saints today, Mike McCarthy is finding himself in one of two positions, neither of which bodes well for him.

1) McCarthy is finding that qualified, experienced coaches don't want to come to Green Bay, or at least, can find reasons to go elsewhere.

2) McCarthy is putting all his marbles in a very unproven Sean McDermott, who hasn't even interviewed and shown what he might do in a DC position. As we keep waiting for him to become available, the number of other quallified candidates dwindle.

Sean Payton described his intentions towards Williams, which seems a mile away from the hiring approaches we've seen Ted Thompson and McCarthy take:

“A lot has gone into this decision, and we targeted Gregg as the coach we’d like to hire after our first interview because he was so impressive and prepared. As an offensive coach, I have game-planned against his defenses in the past, and I know the problems they create. He’s an aggressive coach, but his units are always sound fundamentally. We have some pieces in place for him to work with, and I know he’s excited to get started.”

Maybe Payton will end up regretting his targeting and aggressive approach for Williams, but we can't deny that the Saints got their first choice, and the Packers are continuing to interview and wait. And wait.

McCarthy has to realize that the bullseye is clearly on his back, and this decision is critical to his coaching career in Green Bay. He has already essentially admitted he screwed up eight hires in 2006, and is now looking to rectify those mistakes less than three years later.

There are two ways to look at it: the Packers are being deliberate, and maybe they decided that Nolan and Williams weren't going to work out. They believe that they will find the right guy eventually, and that time will eventually push the cream to the top for them.

Or, Green Bay isn't the plum position it once was not too long ago, and the best candidates can find reasons to choose another team for the same money, same authority, or even the same talent level to work with.

In the latter is true, the Thompson/McCarthy regime is a sinking ship that needs to make some big decisions quickly if they are going to save themselves.

And, even if the former is true, the thought that the boat is taking on water isn't too hard to fathom.

And, in either case, a defense that regressed drastically in 2008 may end up in even less capable hands than that of Bob Sanders in 2009.

Hochuli's crew got it right, like it or not....

For all that NFL referee Ed Hochuli and his crew have screwed up on the field this year, I really didn't think that this play was one of them.

In the third quarter of the Lions-Packers game, Ryan Grant ran for what appeared to be a 80-yard touchdown, but it was called back as replays showed that Grant's posterior touched the ground.

In yesterday's Press-Gazette, Mike Vandermause claims this was another example of the horribleness of Hochuli and his crew.

Rant: It was a terrible season for Ed Hochuli and his officiating crew, and the men in stripes did nothing to redeem themselves in the regular-season finale. There were a number of questionable calls, and the crew’s cluelessness reached its peak on Ryan Grant’s alleged 80-yard touchdown run in the third quarter. There was doubt and confusion among the officials on whether Grant hit the ground on safety Leigh Bodden’s tackle. The play was reviewed and Grant’s run was reduced to 21 yards.

Grant himself chimed in on the play, sounding a bit tweaked that the play was called back when he was told that he wasn't down by an official.

He lost out on some yardage when his apparent 80-yard touchdown run was reduced to a 21-yard gain after the Lions challenged and referee Ed Hochuli ruled that Grant was down. Grant gained 14 more yards on that series but had the touchdown been allowed, he would have needed only 2 more yards to reach 1,250. He also played only one snap on the Packers’ final possession.

Grant said he thought his 80-yard touchdown run would stand because one of the officials told him during the play to keep running because he wasn’t down.

“I thought I rolled off the guy and as I’m rolling I’m saying I’m not on the ground,” Grant said. “I didn’t hear the whistle. I kept running. I run to the whistle. When I got to the end zone, (one of the officials) said, ‘Good job, you weren’t down.’”

Now, I don't know much more than what we've all seen on television, but not only do I think the criticism of Hochuli's crew is unwarranted, they actually demonstrated a high level of self-discipline on the play.

Having spent a few seasons as a high school football official, I can tell you one of the hardest things to do, even at that level, is laying off the whistle in the middle of a fast-moving play. Refs are taught to get the whistle blown as soon as they know the play is done, as it reduces the possibility of injury when the tackling has to stop.

There's a pretty good reason why my nickname in my few years as a football official was "Inadvertent Whistle". You blow that whistle, and the play is done. Finished. You can't go back and give a runner their yards back that they should have had if the whistle hadn't been blown.

Vandermause's criticism is more bitter than informed. He states that Hochuli, already under criticism this season for a blown call a couple months ago, is at fault for not making the right call immediately on the play (which would mean, of course, that a whistle should have been blown when Grant's bum touched the ground).

In super-slow-motion, it was (sort of) easy to see Grant's body touch the ground, but in normal speed, it is almost impossible.

The officials made the right call, especially given that they know they have instant replay to get the play right after the fact. Grant mentions that one official told him in the end zone that he wasn't down and that he had a touchdown. However, if you watch the replay shot from the end zone, you can clearly see another official pointing to the ground, signaling that the play was dead.

But, he didn't blow his whistle. He signaled that the play was down, but seeing other officials were still following the play, he allowed the play to continue in the event he would be overruled, or if the replay would show otherwise.

That shows a high degree of self-discipline, and a team that can look around and see what the others are doing. And it is exactly these kinds of plays where the refs make the best use of instant replay...the ones where it is nearly impossible to make the call on the field. Let the play go, discuss it, and if one of the coaches disagree you go to the booth and get it right.

Yes, as Packer fans, we wailed and gnashed our teeth when we saw a touchdown taken off the board, and threw our foam bricks at our plasma screens when Hochuli came up to explain it. Of course, we want the points.

Grant thought that replay cost him his million-dollar bonus.

“Yeah, that’s the way the ball bounces,” Grant said. “I told [running backs coach Edgar Bennett], ‘If we were playing in your day, that’s a touchdown. No replay.’”

Actually, no, Ryan. In Edgar's day, that official pointing at the ground would have blown the whistle and brought the play back right away.

The reffing crew may have had a skittish day the rest of the day, but it certainly wasn't the worst crew the Packers have had all season. And on this one particular play, the crew actually handled it perfectly, whether we fans liked the end result or not.

Vandermause: "Tell Your Sister..You Were Right..."

After writing several pieces on what appears to be pretty blatant bias on the part of Mike Vandermause toward Ted Thompson, he suddenly comes out with this:

Mike Vandermause: "Blame Bad Defense on the GM"

Gasp.

Perhaps the book deal fell through?

Time will tell if Vandermause has actually returned from the Dark Side.

Vandermause: Still Playing The Sherman Card

Don't you hate it when you choose to unabashedly and publicly support someone, then find yourself having to make excuses for them when they don't come out as glowing as you made them out to be?

Yeah, I've been there, too.

But Mike Vandermause of the Green Bay Press-Gazette has consistently taken such a pro-Ted Thompson stance in his writing over the past year or so that you've started to wonder if the sports editor is gunning for a ghost writer book deal from the GM.

Going back over his articles, everything has been glowingly Thompson, fawning over Aaron Rodgers, and damning of anything to do with Brett Favre. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I've been critical of any member of the media who takes such a blatant bias, from Chris Havel's worship of Brett Favre to Vandermause's torch-bearing for Thompson. It's the media's job to report the news, not shape it for us.

Today, to be expected, Vandermause tried to spin the release of punter Derrick Frost to present Ted in the best light possible, perhaps as just a victim of circumstance, a warrior trying valiently to figure out the rubiks cube that is the punting position in the NFL.

Of course, doing what Thompson Supporters have been doing ever since he came on the scene: comparing anything he does to Mike Sherman.

What is it about Green Bay Packers general managers and their boneheaded decisions regarding punters?

Mike Sherman wasted third- and fifth-round draft choices on B.J. Sander in 2004.

It’s bad enough Sherman squandered a third-round draft choice to select Sander, who wasn’t rated nearly that high. But Sherman inexplicably traded up to get him, meaning he flushed a fifth-round draft choice down the drain in the process.

Sander was a bust, spending one season languishing on the inactive list before suffering through a forgettable 14-game career (39.2 gross average, 33.9 net) in 2005.

Thompson’s attempt to improve his team blew up in his face. If it’s any consolation, he’s not the only Packers general manager to screw up on a punter.

The Sherman card has been played and played so often the past several years. No matter how questionable a draft Thompson has, it's always been better than Sherman's. If Thompson goes an offseason without a significant free agent signing, people bring up names like Joe Johnson to show how bad free agents can be. Justin Harrell?? I give you Jamal Reynolds. Ha.

However, over 80% of Sherman's Packers have been "upgraded" since Thompson took over. Ted is in his fourth year as general manager and the "Wait and See" period is officially over. After a 13-3 record last year and the purge of quarterback Brett Favre this offseason, this team is inexorably Ted Thompson's, and Ted Thompson's alone.

The decision to take a known and valuable quantity like Jon Ryan and cut him in the final cutdown for a player you've never actually seen in your own practice field was a highly questionable call when it was made, and went downhill from there fast.

Ted Thompson and the coaches should take accountability for this move, and in a sense, they have by (finally) cutting Frost as the season appears to be in dire straits. Or, they may be starting to make some desperate moves as criticism starts piling up.

Mind you, I have never...ever...booed at a Packer game, but I was astounded at the volume of the round of boos Frost received after his first punt against the Panthers.

I liked Jon Ryan. Yes, he shanked or line-drived one punt a game, but he could always be counted on to boom one or two of those 50+ yarders, too. Some say that Ryan's poor showing in cold weather games and inability to directional punt was the reason for his ouster. No way...if you're going to judge Ryan harshly in his games against the Bears and Giants last year, you can put him on a pretty long list of players who came in unprepared.

Yes, Ryan did fade the last three games the Packers played in 2007, but certainly had given little reason to doubt this preseason, when he had kicked for a 48 yard average with seven inside the 20 out of 23 attempts. No, he wasn't the next Ray Guy, but he hadn't punted so poorly that you should have been willing to ship him out for a commodity untested in Green and Gold.

You pick up final cutdown waiver wire scrubs for your third running back, or your fifth linebacker...not your punter, who you depend on for field position.

Thompson took a risk, and the Packers have paid for it.

And, Vandermause offers us this picture and caption in today's article: B.J. Sander wasn't the answer to the Packers' punting woes, even though they used a third-round draft pick to get him.

Why?!

Is the fact that Mike Sherman made a bad decision in the draft four years ago supposed to be some sort of excuse for Thompson, a reminder that perhaps the Ryan/Frost deal was bad, but not as bad as what Mike Sherman did!

Vandermause has certainly painted himself in a corner with his effusive praise for all things Thompson. This article goes a long way in painting Mike Vandermause as little more than a Thompson Apologist.

In Thompson's defense, I have always been amazed that out of a world population of over 7 billion people, the NFL can never find 32 people to do what appears to be a simple job of catching a football and kicking it 50 yards away, taking up five seconds or more in the process.

But, let's call a spade a spade. Thompson made a questionable decision in letting go a punter that had been pretty spot on for two years, and paid for it in picking up a castoff that he hoped might be better. It ended up being the wrong decision, one that has cost the Packers precious field position in many close losses.

The time for playing the Sherman card is long gone. Vandermause should know better than to think that Sherman can continue to be some sort of measuring stick for last year's GM of the Year.

This Game Is Bigger Than We Want To Admit

Yep, after a long and toiling season, sure is nice to have a game against the Vikings, isn't it? I mean, no matter your ills, we can always count on Brad Childress to lay down for us and give us one in the win column, and that sure would be nice right now. Right?

This game is more than just another Vikings game, and most of us don't want to admit it. But, the Packers and the Vikings are both sitting at 4-4, and are a game out of first place. It is highly unlikely and statistically improbable that any team from the NFC North will earn a wild card ticket to the playoffs for mediocrity, so whether we like it or not, this game will go a long ways toward determining who is going to have a chance to challenge the Bears for the division.

Lose this one, and your odds just got mighty slim.

But they are the Vikings, you say. Mike McCarthy has run off five straight against them. He's never lost to them as head coach of the Packers!

But the game we had to open up the season was far from a blowout. A special-teams touchdown marked the difference in that game, as well as Childress inexplicably putting the game in the hands of Tarvaris Jackson instead of Adrian Peterson. Don't expect to see that again today.

The Packers are coming off a 13-3 season, with all the expectations in the world for this year. The Vikings are where the Packers were last season, coming off an 8-8 record with a late-season surge. They are starting to find their groove and gain some confidence.

The Packers are underachieving. The game last week against the Titans is still being ballyhooed by the Thompson defenders as a moral victory (see Rob Demovsky). I don't see it that way. I see a Titan team coming off an emotional divisional win and a short week against a well-rested team riding high from a Colts victory. The Titans were exhausted, and played that way. Neither team did much to take that game away from the other, and in fact the Titans literally offered it to the Packers on the silver platter several times.

The Packers didn't take it, whether it had been a dropped pass, an interception, a muffed interception, a failed defensive stop. A good team takes those opporurtunities.

And, if you haven't noticed, there are signs of cracks in the concrete of this team. Jarrett Bush decided to pop off to the media not knowing why he was taken out for the last field goal attempt. James Jones pondered publicly why he was inactive and not told why. Jermichael Finley went on a public rant, throwing his quarterback under the bus to explain why he missed a fourth down pass.

In every case, McCarthy was called out on the carpet and had to explain these situations publicly, too. If we have learned anything from FavreGate, it is that public airings of grievances through the media isn't the most healthy thing for team cohension.

Last week, we saw cracks. A loss this week may cause the wheels to come falling off, especially with a game against the Bears the following week. High expectations have a way of doing that to you, especially when you don't meet them.

Yet, the Thompson Defenders' biggest headlines this week is citing how the Packers made a genius decision in letting Favre go and keeping Aaron Rodgers. Mike Vandermause of the Press-Gazette went on a diatrabe explaining how Thompson was so smart not allowing the Vikings to get Favre, because then they'd be that much better.

The other side of the coin is that you need to focus on what makes your own team strong first. Perhaps spending two months embroiled in a media circus and soap opera should have been spent focusing on what was happening at 1265, not worrying about what was happening in the Twin Cities.

The stench is that we wouldn't have been good enough to beat a Viking team with Favre at the helm, hidden by cheap shots and good press for the guys who made the decision.

And now, it comes to a head. The Vikings have every reason to win this game, whether it be payback for the opening season loss, the accusations of tampering, the obvious efforts to keep their targeted quarterback away from them, or just plain wanting to beat a division rival at home.

The Packers need this game. Let's all hope that they understand that, too. And, that they've actually communicated this to each other in the locker room, not through the media.

Hager Column: Thompson's Business Moves Questionable

I normally don't provide links to articles, but I read this article in today's Green Bay Press-Gazette. In it, Mick Hager, a business consultant, speaks objectively about how the Packers have handled the whole Favre situation.

He is critical of Thompson, but doesn't come off as one of the "crazy Favre fans". In fact, he claims in the article that he's not even that much of a Packer fan. His critique is purely from a business perspective.

The link to the article is here

And here are some selected quotes from Mick. Take it for what it is worth, but it sure rang true with an article I wrote not too long ago.

From a leadership perspective, I was extremely disappointed that you decided to speak out when you did and even more disappointed in some of the things you said. First of all your timing was way off. You need only look to Vince Lombardi for advice on this one.

The greatest man to coach this game would probably have said this to reporters, "I haven't talked to Brett (Favre) and more importantly we haven't squared this thing up yet, so get the *&%$ out of here with your questions until we do."

The point here is: Vince knew when to talk to reporters and when to keep quiet in order to maintain the integrity of a situation.

It would have been far better if you had maintained that you wouldn't disclose anything until you "squared it up" with Brett. People may not have liked your answer, but they certainly would've had no doubt about your respect for him and the situation.

Mike Vandermause finally edged himself away from the Thompson altar and conceded in his article today that while Favre has certainly done his part, the Packers organization has demonstrated a lack of communication to boot.

When Favre isn’t throwing one of his former colleagues under the bus or divulging private conversations to the entire nation, someone in the Packers organization is taking veiled shots at Favre by uttering self-serving references about taking the high road.

No one is above reproach in this untidy affair, and there will be no winners when it’s over. We will be left to sift through the ashes and scorched earth.

How could such a wonderful relationship, involving arguably the most popular and best player in franchise history, degenerate into such an ugly mess?

If neither side has the fortitude to address difficult issues, it’s not surprising their relationship is on the rocks.

Had Favre and Thompson been more forthcoming with each other, the controversy swirling around the team could have been avoided.

Hager continues by pointing out strong leaders rise in the face of adversity, not shrink away and make excuses.

Secondly, you didn't do the Packers any favors by sharing how troubled you were and how difficult the situation was — anybody following it probably knew that. Perhaps, you were trying to garner sympathy, but given the circumstances you inadvertently showed that you're not a strong leader. Effective leaders don't show such weakness in the face of adversity, they show strength, genuine concern, humility and resolve. The measure of a leader isn't found in the good times but during the worst possible situations.

You can take these quotes for what it is worth: some selected quotes by a blogger trying to prove some point. But, that point does bear consideration. Thompson may keep claiming that he's making his moves for "the greater good" of the team and its future, but there is always room to question the "how" in making that greater good a reality.

Thompson is paid an awful lot of money to lead this franchise. Yes, Brett Favre has made this situation difficult, but it is during difficult times that leaders rise above it.

Management is doing things right. Leadership is doing the right things.

Three Layers of Favre and Golf

I was doing a little thinking about the "news" of Brett Favre's generally unexplained withdrawal from a celebrity golf tournament this week.

Brett Favre withdrew Wednesday from the American Century Celebrity Golf Championship at Lake Tahoe next month.

The former Green Bay Packers quarterback will miss the July 11-13 tournament at the Edgewood Tahoe Golf Course because of a scheduling conflict, tournament spokesman Steve Griffith said.

"We didn't get any reason for it. It is a scheduling conflict that we don't have details on," Griffith said during a conference call. "We are hopeful he can attend next year."

Now, there are a couple of ways that this news can be taken. Let's take them layer by layer.

Layer One: Favre is a Poopy Head

First instinct might be that Favre has decided that he is too good for the tournament, or perhaps he is still pondering whether or not to come out of retirement. In any case, he has elected to leave some nice folks trying to run a charity golf tournament in the lurch. When one of the headlining celebrities decides to cancel, it is destructive and selfish behavior.

Some of the Favre Critics may even interpret this as more attention-seeking behavior on his part, choosing to place himself above the "team", as he had done to the Packers for the last ten years or so. In other words, he has simply moved his "holding the team hostage" tactics up to "holding the golf course hostage".

No word yet on whether or not he demanded a private locker room and Randy Moss to be in his foursome. However, let's move on now to...

Layer Two: Favre Doesn't Want To Overshadow Rodgers

The USA Today article doesn't mention it, but included among the celebrities is none other than current Packer quarterback Aaron Rodgers (among 17 other present and former NFL quarterbacks).

Now, if you listen to folks like Mike Vandermause, beat writer at the Green Bay Press-Gazette, you would be under the impression that Favre, despite being retired, is still trying to do all he can to undermine Rodgers' efforts to replace him (see Layer One).

Vandermause, among others in both the media and in the blogosphere, would have you believe that any action (or inaction) on the part of Favre is detrimental to Rodgers' development. For example, Favre stating he is going to miss playing and would be tempted to come out of retirement in an emergency, according to Vandermause, was hurtful to the team, and he should just shut up.

Now, I don't buy for a second that a grown-up like Rodgers, being paid millions of dollars to perform professionally on the football field, is really that intimidated by all this. But, it does make good press, as Vandermause has discovered in the slow Packer news days of May and June.

But I do understand that media circus that would likely occur with Favre and Rodgers playing on the same course on this particular offseason. Endless repeats of the same questions to both quarterbacks as to whether or not Rodgers can ever replace Favre. Constant comparisons, both in golf and in football.

I think Favre decided to not give Vandermause more wet gunpowder to fire with, and elected to let Rodgers have the stage in this golf tournament...not that Rodgers is by any stretch of the imagination the biggest "celebrity" to be teeing off. But, Favre is at least giving him the opportunity to avoid the now-tiresome comparisons that the media seems to need to do.

So, I believe that Favre is electing to withdraw to allow Rodgers to take some of the positive spotlight without having his own spectre looming over him, at least in the eyes of the media, who are always looking to make it more of a story than it is.

Which takes us to...

Level Three: The Media's Pressure Is The Spectre, not Favre

Exactly how long will Favre need to duck any events where Rodgers is present without both the ravenous media fawning over him, or in Vandermause's case, villifying him?

Yes, there are many of us that are "sick of Brett Favre", and even I (a Favre Fan) am excited to see the Packers moving on. But so much of that extra attention and over-coverage wasn't something that Favre engineered. Favre never asked for ESPN to overdo their coverage. Favre never asked for Peter King or John Madden to sing his praises endlessly, or for Frank Caliendo to satire it.

The media are the ones who have built this up, made the Packers "all things Favre", because there was always an audience for it. Even the best Packer fans grew weary of it, thus creating the market for the media "backlash" against "all things Favre".

If Favre is, as I believe, choosing to duck out of this tournament for Rodgers' sake (or perhaps, for his own, as he probably doesn't want to deal with the usual piranhas either), it is a sad commentary on the media, who hold the responsibility for being the eyes through which we sports fans can see all that is going on. The media is supposed to have the integriy to report the news and give us interesting features. With the advent of ESPN, though, sports reporting has become even more tabloid-esque, commercial, and glitzy.

I, for one, wouldn't mind watching Favre play in a golf tournament this summer. I wouldn't mind watching him on FOX and I wouldn't mind watching him re-host his softball tournament each summer. It's just too bad that the media continues to make him a lightning rod, and thus, a pariah in order to protect Aaron Rodgers' apparently fragile psyche.

I certainly don't mind him using his celebrity to help raise money for charities, such as the Brett Favre Fourward Foundation via his softball game, or the Lance Armstrong Foundation, via this American Century Golf Tournament

I will welcome the day when the Vandermause and the rest of the Favre Critics can find other things to grumble about, and Favre can be welcomed back into Wisconsin and celebrated by Packer fans like the other Lambeau Legends are.

Vandermause Tells Favre To Zip It

After publishing this article a few days ago, I was actually somewhat surprised when some of the Scout writers decided to jump on the bandwagon with Favre Bashing, but I was even more disappointed when Mike Vandermause of the Press-Gazette decided to do the same thing on Sunday.

In his Sunday op-ed, Vandermause tells us that Brett Favre has to learn to "Zip his Lip". Somehow, his comments in response to a reporter's question about extraordinary circumstances affecting his retirement are detrimental to....what? Who?

Asked by the Biloxi Sun-Herald on Tuesday whether he would consider returning if starting quarterback Aaron Rodgers went down with an injury, Favre replied: "It would be tempting, and I very well could be enticed to do it." Say what?

In the same interview, Favre also said he hasn't changed his mind about retirement. He added he wouldn't return unless he was in shape. Is it any wonder Packers fans were confused by the mixed messages?

First of all, cherry picking the quote in and amongst all of the talking Favre did that day was, once again, a bit disingenuous (but makes for great copy!). Taking one quote out of the context not only of what he was asked, but in his entire thought process in his response is something I'd expect of a blogger, not a professional journalist.

But who is hurt in all of this? Who is Vandermause assuming is damaged by these comments of Favre? Why does he need to zip his lip?

Ah, Aaron Rodgers.

Even the hint Favre might play again will send certain fans and media outlets over the edge. It's not inconceivable that some people will root for Rodgers to get hurt.

Intended or not, Favre's comments added to Rodgers' heavy burden. It's difficult enough following a legend, but it will become harder if there's a perception Favre is waiting in the wings.

Now, let's come off this for a second. Aaron Rodgers has had four years to groom himself for this moment in time. He has learned from Favre, but more importantly, has the faith and trust of both his head coach (who has supported him completely) and his GM (who has yet to even find a suitable backup for Rodgers, much less competition for the starting job).

I'm really not sure which "fans" Vandermause is referring to. In most of the forums and fan chatter I've seen, the only people thinking this is Chicken Little territory are the same people who look to denigrate Favre regardless of what he says, not the ones who are wishing he were back in green and gold.

The only people who are making any measure of a big deal about this are the media, who essentially created this entire non-issue.

And this is what bothers me about Vandermause's little tirade.

Favre could have avoided all of this by emphatically stating he's happy in retirement. He should have politely declined to play a silly game of what-if. Instead, he fueled conjecture about a possible comeback.

How will Favre respond in his next interview when someone hits him with this: "Would you consider playing again if boar hunting gets boring, your golf game goes to pot and your lawn no longer needs mowing due to a drought in Mississippi?"

Against my better journalistic instincts, I would advise Favre to stick a sock in his mouth. Either that, or simply say, "No comment."

Somehow, this is Favre's fault. Somehow, in between his retirement press conference and this past week, he was supposed to finally learn to do what he's never learned to do over his entire career: not speak what is on his mind. Favre Critics have ballyhooed about his free speech rights for years, whenever he spoke out on any topic.

But Favre has never opened up a press conference and started talking. He is always asked questions by the media, because the media knows that if they poke and prod enough, the good ol' Southern boy will say something that will make a great story. This has been the story of Favre's career, particularly the past several years. Reporters drill him with questions, trying to get good quotes out of him, and usually, Favre delivers.

We remember the time he spoke out on Javon Walker, or criticized Wil Whittaker, or even made public comments stating he wanted Randy Moss. Do you really think he initiated these conversations?

No, the paparazzi media knows he'll say something, and they keep at him, relentlessly, trying to get a good quote out of him. And you wonder why he occasionally dressed in a separate area in the locker room when the press was released inside.

What bothers me is how Vandermause completely misses this point, placing 100% of the blame of this on Favre, and absolutely none on the reporter(s) who created some sort of fictional, extraordinary, nearly impossible scenario, presented it to him, and requested a response.

It's kind of like Marry, Date, or Dump. If you had a choice between Reese Witherspoon, Angelina Jolie, and Heidi Klum, which would you marry? Is your response really meaningful and worth reporting if it is never really going to happen in your entire life? Do any of us think those three are really going to be vying for our attention at the same time someday, so we should censor ourselves and not answer the question?

The quarterback situation is most likely not going to be that bad, and even if it was, Ted Thompson is not going to ask Favre to return. Ever.

One thing is for sure: if Brett Favre didn't "no comment" when he was a player and a part of the team, what in the world makes you think that he is going to start censoring himself when he is finally retired and doesn't owe anybody anything?

To me, Vandermause is guilty of one of two things. On one hand, he is either just protecting his fellow journalists, making sure that when Favre says something on his mind, he must have just said it unabated.

Or, worse, he is a part of a system in which one journalist essentially antagonizes quotes out of a player, to be used by other journalists for headlines during the dog days of the off-season.

Again, Favre hasn't hurt anyone with his comments: the Packers are still in existence, Ted Thompson isn't hiding under his desk, Mike McCarthy isn't in tears, and Aaron Rodgers is under the exact same pressure he's going to be under leading a 13-3 team back to the playoffs. Most intelligent Packer fans know that Favre isn't coming back, and Ted Thompson would never ask him to do so.

So, the only people who are apparently affected by these quotes are the media (who need to write something about the Packers) and those who look to place Favre in as bad of a light whenever they can anyway.