Thompson Realizing There's No One Else To Blame Anymore

Rob Demovsky expressed some shock that Ted Thompson came out of his shell on Friday to offer some criticism of his team roster, something that has ever rarely happened in the past. It's so out of character, I momentarily wanted to check the Old Farmer's Almanac to see if this meant an extra six weeks of winter.

But, the way he started the article was what stood out to me:

Ted Thompson never has been one to ride the emotional roller coaster of an NFL season. He didn’t do so during the 4-12 debacle of his first year as the Green Bay Packers’ general manger or in the 13-3 season of 2007.

Typically, he reserves judgment until after the season.

That’s why when Thompson made a statement like he did on Friday, just four games into the season, it was evident that his team’s 2-2 start isn’t sitting too well with him.

I'll be honest. What I'm about to say isn't going to make everyone smile, and it isn't going to sit well with some folks who have staunchly supported Ted Thompson since the early days.

But the answer to Demovsky's riddle is simple: there's no one else to blame anymore. This is Ted Thompson's team, and Ted Thompson's team alone, and just as Mike McCarthy is running out of excuses, so is Thompson.

Ted Thompson has received a level of passionate defense over the years that rivals the levels of a certain ex-quarterback. Folks have risen to champion Thompson's accomplishments, long before he actually had any of note. And, like that certain ex-quarterback, there was always somebody else to take the fall.

2005: As Demovsky mentions, Thompson worst year was his first, but any vitriol was directed at the GM that Thompson took over for, Mike Sherman. Certainly, Sherman was in over his head in a dual role, and his 2004 "BJ Sander draft" had the Packer fan base frustrated and no longer believing in his ability to do both positions.

But, as the season rolled on, the Packers saw the loss of veteran players left and right, including Mike Wahle, Marco Rivera, and Darren Sharper, with few quality players brought in to replace them. While some Packer fans expressed concern that Thompson was initiating a rebuilding year, those defending Thompson celebrated Thompson's willingness to "shake things up" and, in particular, to start setting a new standard of accountability. Mike Sherman had often been accused of being overly loyal to certain players and assistant coaches, and Thompson started whittling them off one by one.

As the Packers limped to a 4-12 record, Mike Sherman took the heat, both for his coaching and previous actions as a GM. At the end of the season, he was axed by Ted Thompson, who was viewed as the victim by his defenders for walking into the mess created by Sherman. However, when asked if he was rebuilding the team, Thompson replied at the time, "No, we are here to win today." But as Brett Favre lined up behind Wil Whittaker and Adrien Klemm, handed off to Samkon Gado, and threw to Antonio Chatman and Taco Wallace, you have questioned whether 2005 was little more than a cap-clearing year, allowing Thompson space to begin setting up his future plans.

2006: As the Packers started out 4-8, some of the negativity began to circulate again, but little of it was directed towards Ted Thompson, who again was still in "Wait and See" mode, still struggling against the alleged horrific mismanagement of the Sherman regime. Any criticism of Thompson almost automatically defaulted to the extremely short measuring stick of Mike Sherman in comparison. In fact, it almost seemed as if Thompson was being lauded for simply firing Mike Sherman.

The focus of criticism in 2006 didn't fall onto Thompson or his rookie head coach, Mike McCarthy, but continued backward to Sherman and onto the quarterback, Brett Favre. A perceived strong draft that year, garnering promising players like AJ Hawk, Greg Jennings, Abdul Hodge and a trio of offensive lineman kept Thompson's shield up. Meanwhile, Favre's 29 interceptions from 2005 and his 18/18 TD/INT ratio (along with a 56% completion percentage) in 2006 kept him in the crosshairs.

The Packers finished 4-0 in their final four games, which brought hope to the team, and a measure of proof positive that MM and TT were moving things in the right direction.

2007: In the miracle season, everything seemed to come together. As Demovsky notices, Thompson did not make any early-season statement criticizing his team...and why would you when you are winning? Oh, certainly, there was trouble with the running game early on, but the Packers rode on the heavy passing of Brett Favre until defenses pulled back and Ryan Grant had larger holes to run through.

In this season, a 13-3 surprise that had fans excited for a Super Bowl, Ted Thompson was awarded the NFL's GM of the Year award based on his two-year turnaround from those horrific Sherman years. But, as the season ended at home with a late-game interception, the blame for not making the Super Bowl landed on one set of shoulder pads, and they weren't Ted Thompson's.

2008: In the offseason of 2008, Thompson was indeed presented with a set of circumstances that no GM in history has ever had to face: the idea of moving on without a Hall of Fame quarterback who wanted to return following a retirement. Thompson made a smart move in going with Aaron Rodgers at that late date, but exposed himself to a lot of criticism by not resolving the problem quickly. The airing out of dirty laundry by both sides hurt not only Favre's reputation, but put a crack in Thompson teflon exterior.

When Thompson finally traded Favre away, there was again a kind of reverse-support offered up for the brave man who stood up to Brett and didn't blink. Despite the criticisms in how the situation was handled, Thompson was again praised by those who faithfully defended him, going so far to say that anyone who didn't agree with Thompson was "not a Packer fan". After all, he is the GM, and if you are "against" him, you are against the Packers.

Funny how that never came up when Mike Sherman was the GM, eh?

As the Packers struggled to a disappointing 6-10 record, with a 2-7 finish, criticism abounded for many associated with the team. Many pointed to Favre's late-season wilting with the Jets and congratulated Thompson for being right, but the Packers couldn't gloat too much with their own sluggish finish. Even more troublesome, the problems for the Packers seemed to focus on the defense and special teams, areas that Thompson had focused his drafts and few free agent signings on. Mike McCarthy started the season by saying that this team was built on the defense, and by season's end, that could no longer be blamed on former GM's, coaches, or quarterbacks.

So, who took the fall last year? Why, Bob Sander, the defensive coordinator did, in what was a near-comical series of firings that started with the special teams coach and ended with almost the entire defensive staff being canned (along with the strength and conditioning coach).

Sander, a holdover from the Sherman regime, was ousted, and it could now be safely stated that this team was now completely purged of all those Shermanesque influences.

And all those excuses.

So when it comes to 2009, we see an offensive line built entirely by Thompson continuing to struggle with a lack of ability, fundamentals, depth, and discipline. We see a quarterback that is changing his pocket habits due to the lack of protection, and a running back unable to create anything himself. But, we also see a defense under the control of Dom Capers, still unable to create a pass rush and giving up crucial yards and third downs every game.

And there is no one else to blame. Thus, Mr. Demovsky, the reason that Ted Thompson has, for the first time in history, come forward in his fifth year as general manager, is to address the criticism that is finally directed his way.

Now, mind you, I do not paint Ted Thompson as some sort of twisted, evil tyrant who willingly threw people under the bus to protect his own interests or his job. Quite honestly, I don't think he has that in him. But, it is also human nature during times of stress and finger-pointing to not throw yourself in the line of fire, either. Thompson could have stepped forward to defend Sherman, Favre, Sander, or anyone else who was getting the brunt of the criticism, but was content to quietly stay in the shadows until the end of the season.

Hey...Aaron Rodgers does it. He steps forward and takes accountability even when it isn't his fault. Give him credit for that.

But, in a nutshell, I think people are finally realizing that Ted Thompson isn't the genius that many had him out to be all along. I commented on this many times back in 2006, that building a team purely through the draft, especially by sacrificing quality for quantity in draft picks, was going to do little more than create a mediocre team. It's like building a jigsaw puzzle only using the blue pieces.

The "genius" label, in my opinion, still came from the perception that not only did he fire the reviled Mike Sherman, but he ran his boat in a completely 180 degree direction from the way his predecessor did. Sherman was reviled for his free agent moves and moving up in the draft. Thompson eschewed free agency and traded back. And since Mike Sherman was a Bad General Manager, Thompson must be a Good General Manager.

Now, just because Thompson isn't a "genius", in my opinion, doesn't mean that there has to be a similar 180-degree "stupid" label placed on him. I don't think he's a genius, but what I would call him is very conservative. He is deliberate. He has his plan and he sticks to it like glue. He would rather develop from inside the organization than take risks on proven (but expensive) talent from the outside. He works from what he knows best, which is scouting and evaluating college talent from the draft.

That approach guarantees you nothing, especially when you look at the Minnesota Vikings, who other than their premier running back, have invested money into free agents at nearly every other positional group on the team to build what they now have in a 5-0 team. Not that free-wheeling spending gets you anywhere, as the Vikings haven't won anything of consequence lately other than FavreBowl last week. But, it certainly sends the message that free agency doesn't guarantee you the basement either, as many began believing a few seasons ago.

The other tidbit we need to revisit is the fact that Thompson was often credited for building the Seattle team that went to the Super Bowl in 2005, a reason to believe in his mantra. However, since that Super Bowl, the Seahawks have gone 9-7, 10-6, 4-12, and now stand at 1-3 this season, with perhaps the worst offensive line in the league. If you were building a team through the draft that was intended to challenge every year, wouldn't you think they should have avoided the bottom dropping out from under them?

Is this what is in store for the Packers? After all, it was a great story when we were talking about what a great job Thompson was doing.

In conclusion, Ted Thompson is indeed exposed right now. Scheme changes are just a cover for the talent that lines up within it, and right now, our offensive line and defense is having some deep issues that haven't resolved since last season.

Is the problem the scheme? Doubtful. The scheme is just the recipe you use in the kitchen to make your meal. The coaching is the chef and the talent are your ingredients. But even if it is the scheme, Thompson is the guy who was standing guard over both scheme changes (zone blocking and the 3-4).

If the problem is the coaching, Thompson is the guy who hired Mike McCarthy and, according to both, they talk every day and back each other up. If Thompson hired the wrong guy, or cannot get his guy to take more accountability for the fundamentals and execution on the field, that mistake is on Thompson, too.

And if the problem lies with a lack of talent...well, there's nowhere else to look anymore, is there?

It's nice to see Thompson coming forward and talking. Now, it is time for some action.

Tauscher Signing May Not Be The Solution

Look, I love Mark Tauscher. Great guy, a true Packers and a stalwart at tackle for umpteen years. Played on the "Offensive Line Glory Couple-a years" in the early 2000's.

But, if you're going to put money on re-signing Tauscher and having that be the answer to our offensive line problems, I think you are taking a risky bet. Nothing against Tauscher, who will be as professional as possible and will strive to do his best.

But, there's a funny feeling here. After the Viking game, I kept hearing, "We need to sign a veteran tackle" from every corner, included the Packers. But then, I look and think, "Is Tauscher the guy we really want? Essentially a street free agent coming off of ACL surgery, who's expected return date for active duty was just last week (Oct. 1)?"

In other words, is that what we wanted when we expected veteran help along the line? I have no reason to doubt Tauscher's heart, but I have no reason to trust his knee at this point, either.

That makes it a bit of a trap for the Packers, or smoke and mirrors, if that suits you. The Packers sign a familiar veteran, which settles down the critics for a while. Meanwhile, the Packers have a week off and do not return until Week 6 The following Tuesday, October 20th, is the trade deadline.

Look, I'll be honest. When I'm looking at upgrading this line, bringing in mid-season free agents wasn't what I had in mind. I had in mind trading a decent player at a position of depth (linebacker, wide receiver) or a decent draft pick and picking up a guy who is in condition and ready to play.

If Tauscher is "the remedy" for the Packers OL issues, we might find ourselves out of luck for another prescription. And then, it'll shrugging the shoulders and saying, "What would you have us do? Sign guys off the street?"

Obviously, we expect that Tauscher is going to fill in at right tackle in place of Allen Barbre, but that doesn't solve the problems we're having without Clifton and potentially Colledge on the left.

It's almost kind of funny, isn't it? No more than a couple of months ago, Packer fans were not only projecting not re-signing Tauscher, but trading away Scott Wells and planning for the replacement of Chad Clifton. Suddenly, these three Sherman holdovers are playing pivotal roles along an offensive line that, quite apparently, wasn't ready for them all to go quite yet.

It's a black mark both on the talent acquisition process by GM Ted Thompson, and another for Mike McCarthy and James Campen for not having what talent there was ready to go when the baton was ready to be passed.

But, there's a way to compound a mistake, and that is to keep making mistakes. Look at an aging Mark Tauscher, whose performance last year already brought any contract extension into question anyway. Add to that, he's coming off a serious ACL injury from which he would have only been cleared to be play last week. If you honestly think he's ready to come in and play like the Mark Tauscher of 2003, you've got another thing coming.

Oh, sure, he's could be an upgrade over Barbre's D+ performance thus far. But, if Tauscher is only playing at a C level, it's not going to be that much more help versus Adewale Ogunleye, Jared Allen, and James Harrison.

The Packers have to look at the offensive line as our weakest link in the Packer chain. The time has come for Ted Thompson to show he is willing to make the moves that need to happen to make this team ready to win now, not in the future.

Is signing Mark Tauscher that move? I wouldn't put money on it. Glad to see the big guy back, but I, for one, am a little tired of rolling the dice on Aaron Rodgers' health and safety.

TundraVision QuickHits: The Minnesota Aftermath

The Packers won many battles, but in the end, they lost the war.

The score belies the struggles the Packers had against the Vikings, losing by only a touchdown at 30-23. Penalties, defensive gaffes, and an embarrassing performance by both lines were somewhat muted by Aaron Rodgers ability with the hurry-up offense. In the end, however, a two-minute offense isn't going to beat team that outplayed you the other 58.

With that, here are this week's QuickHits:

* I mentioned this in my pre-game strategy, but it wasn't rocket science: you stop Adrian Peterson, and force Brett Favre to beat you through the air. By every rational measure of common sense, this would lead to a victory by the Packers.

Fail.

Peterson, the best back in football, carried the ball 25 times for a measly 55 yards and a mere 2.1 yards per carry, numbers we've unfortunately expected more and more from Ryan Grant lately. Even the 2.1 ypc doesn't show the number of times that AP was stopped for negative or no yardage. The Packer bottled Peterson up as much as any team in his career, and for a defense that has been much-maligned for its inability to stop the run, you have to give them props for filling those gaps.

But, the Packers had no answer in their pass defense, in which Favre went virtually untouched the entire game. Yes, the Vikings have a stout offensive line, but there is no excuse for not even getting in there to disrupt the thought process of a 39-year old quarterback. Favre had time and made critical play after play.

* Jermichael Finley had a career day, recording 6 receptions for 128 yards and some great tough yards after the catch. Many of us predicted that he would have a good day against the Vikings' suspect safeties, and he did. Unfortunately, he went completely invisible for the two middle quarters, only resurfacing when the Packers were playing in that two-minute offense.

Finley was the only consistent receiving threat other than Donald Driver, and it was a pity not to keep him involved. Could have made a big difference.

* Good news: Ryan Grant averaged almost five yards a carry. Bad news: Ryan Grant only carried the ball eleven times. Yes, the Packers were playing from behind much of the game, but you can't keep abandoning the running game, especially when it is working. Incidentally, Grant added 50 yards on four receptions, as the screen pass finally found its way back into the Packers' playbook.

Unfortunately, my little weekly tally did not work out in the Packers' favor again: Penalty yards, 57, Primary Rusher's yards, 51. More on the penalties later.

* The announcers made the Jared Allen forced fumble to be all on Daryn Colledge, but it really had to be placed on Allen Barbre's head. His failure to block Jimmy Kennedy on the right side forced Rodgers to the left and into Allen. Obviously, like most right-handed quarterbacks, Rodgers prefers to scramble to his right. It made Allen look like it was all him, but had Barbre held his block or pushed Kennedy inside, Rodgers would have had time to evade Allen in his more comfortable direction.

* Rodgers has to take some heat for the failed touchdown pass to Donald Lee on fourth down. Yes, he wanted to go to Finley on the right side, but when JF fell down, he looked to the left at Lee. Lee dropped the ball, but that was in part because he was off-balance and falling backwards, and Rodgers threw the ball low. It's almost impossible to reach down when your momentum is taking you backwards, and Lee actually made a valiant effort to reach out as far as he could to meet the ball.

Sure, Rodgers was under pressure, but when we think of the gifts he brings to the game, his pinpoint accuracy and placing the ball where only the receiver can catch it is the one that comes to mind. Matt Flynn can come in and throw the ball at receiver's feet. Rodgers needs to put that ball where Lee can catch it.

* Aaron Rodgers has now been sacked 20 times in four games. I want you to really think about that. Twenty times. "Running for his life" are the words the announcers used, while scrambling behind the Ted Thompson-built offensive line. I remember a day back in 2005, when I commented that Favre was "running for his life" behind a line of Wil Whittaker and Adrien Klemm, but because he chose to throw the ball instead of taking repeated sacks, others told me the onus was on Favre, not the line.

Well, Rodgers is now on pace to be sacked 80 times this season. David Carr holds the NFL record for being sacked the most times in one season with 76. Do I think Rodgers will reach it? Nope. He'll be injured long before that.

What confuses me is that Rodgers seemed to be very adept at throwing the ball away, both last season and in the preseason. I don't understand his penchant for hanging on to the ball.

And, sorry to say, there is an awfully large onus on Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy right now for the acquisition and development of the talent we have on this line. Thompson has drafted no less than ten offensive linemen in his five years, and McCarthy and James Campen have had four years to develop them. Either the talent stinks, or the coaching stinks. Either way, eight sacks is inexcusable.

* Credit the offense for finding a way to get Rodgers some time, though. The Packers got the Vikings off guard in the beginning of the game with the three-step drops and quick passes. However, as the game went on, the Vikings were able to adjust to it and held it a bit more in check until the end of the game when Rodgers went into a two-minute offense and the Vikings went into a safer defense.

I really thought the answer was going to be max protect, but the Packers and Rodgers chose to keep passing quickly with and quick slants. However, in the end, while Rodgers passed for tons of yardage, the pressure got to him too often, resulting in an interception, a forced fumble, and a safety, as well as all those sacks.

* 7.3 That's how many seconds Favre had on one play to literally stand in the pocket. On the play, both Aaron Kampman and Johnny Jolly dropped into coverage and the Packers appeared to be rushing three men....rather ineffectively.

Embarrassing. All the cries of doing bodily harm to Brett this week, and we couldn't even get in to hit him after he threw it. I love Dom Capers, but Jon Gruden had a point in between his blubbering about how much he loved Brett: Aaron Kampman is awkward and nullified in pass coverage. He needs to put a hand down and do what he does best...rush the quarterback.

* The Vikings defensive stand in the red zone was incredible. Against any other defense, I think the Packers would have gotten in on any of those plays, whether it be the Grant run, the pass to Finley, or even the pass to Lee. You can't fault play selection on that drive...the Vikings simply hit us hard every time we got close.

* I am never one to whine about penalties. I will be the first to admit, however, that there were some iffy calls in that game, the holding call on Woodson being the most egregious. However, since they called Desmond Bishop offsides on the same play, you really can't complain too hard about it (especially because Poppinga decided to go offsides on the very next play).

The penalties evened out in the second half, but I will say this: I don't like to whine about penalties, especially in a game against the Vikings. I've heard far too many Vikings fans in the past wail and gnash their teeth, blaming the refs for any loss they've suffered to the Packers. It's a loser's complaint, and we have plenty of areas we can look at is to why our team was responsible for our loss today.

I'm not going to blame a penalty when we are allowing an opposing quarterback 7 seconds to dance around in the pocket, while our quarterback is getting nailed eight times for sacks.

* Hey, maybe that draft-day trade was worth it after all. Clay Matthews made the play of the game with that strip of the best back in football and running it in for a score. Heads-up and great instincts on his part. The fact that five of Matthews' closest friends were all there standing Adrian Peterson up sure helps, too. Nice job again on the run defense, allowing CM3 to make that play.

* The lack of depth at offensive tackle and in the secondary will be tested even further if the injuries to Daryn Colledge and Wil Blackmon prove to be lengthy. I suppose that Breno Guacomole will finally have to be activated for one of these games, eh?

Cullen Jenkins going down twice worried me a bit, too. We aren't exactly loaded (or completely healthy) along the defensive line. It's really not a good sign when your team is in dire need of the bye week to get healthy, and it is only Week 5.

*Anyone else notice Derrick Martin missed his over-the-top coverage on Bernard Berrian's touchdown catch over Al Harris?

Anyone else notice Jarrett Bush playing safety after that?

Sorry..I'm finding it a little bit amusing that we're holding the safeties accountable for bad play, (after Aaron Rouse was cut a couple weeks ago) but we're not benching players at other positions.

* All in all, I'm glad that the game turned out the way it did, if we had to lose. It may not sound like I'm a good Packer fan in saying it, but I'm not a "moral victory" kind of guy, and the Packers are not in the position to be feeling good about how they played today (and in fact, how they've played much of this and last season).

I happen to be going to the Viking game on November 1, and the storyline for this game should be about redemption. The Packers were exposed and beat, regardless of what the final score showed. When I go to this game, I expect that this bye week is going to be spent not on correcting pad levels or gap control, but righting the ship that may not have been sinking, but is simply unable to unfurl its sails and play up to its potential.

That is what needs to be corrected, and something I will address in a later article this week: has Ted Thompson acquired the talent needed for a quality team in his fifth season as GM? And if so, has Mike McCarthy coached it to reach its potential?

This kind of game, with this kind of result, can do one of two things: send you into a spiral for the rest of the season, or shake things up and motivate you to better yourself in ways you never thought of before (yes, even more creative than Rodgers pretending to walk to the sideines and running a direct snap to DeShawn Wynn).

----------

All in all, what can you say? This was the situation Thompson and McCarthy didn't want to have to face, and in the end, it is now understandable why they didn't want to face their former quarterback. We now have a bye week to stew in our juices and figure things out.

Once again, we get to face one of perhaps the worst teams in NFL history (the Lions, not unlike the Rams) when we come back in Week 6, something that can help us feel better about our team, but one that can also be a poor measure of our success and execution. We'll follow that up with a game against the 0-4 Browns before facing off again with the Vikes at home. Yes, good chance we'll be 4-2 at that point, but the Packers need to do more than lower the quality of the opposition to make it through this season.