Thursday, August 07, 2008

Thompson and McCarthy must expect to lose this year

I hate it when people in public life insult your intelligence. The performance by Mark Murphy, Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy at today's press conference was embarassing. Yes, we understand that, as of the end of Brett's meeting with McCarthy, there was no choice but to trade him. But the question is how things came to that. What we want to hear about is what happened in June. What we want to know is why, when Favre said he wanted to come back, the team did not react in the manner that any rational person would have. You mean we can have our Pro Bowl quarterback for another year? Outstanding! Let's talk. Your place or ours?

Instead they told him, in that mealy mouthed and meaningless phrase, we've moved on.
(As in, "you mean I'm not really fired? Well, thanks, but I've already filed for unemployment and everything and, you know, I've just moved on.")

Why did they do that?

There are only two answers to that question that are consistent with Thompson and McCarthy acting for the good of the team. One, they think that the Packers are not ready to win in 2008 and need to develop Rodgers for some point in the future when they will be or, two, they think Rodgers will be a better quarterback in 2008 than Favre.

The latter is silly, so it must be the former. They must think that the fact that they have won 18 of the last 22 games with the same guys who will be on the field this year was a fluke or a function of the schedule. They can't say it, but they don't expect a team that was a field goal away from the Super Bowl last year and which lost nobody that mattered to win this year.

Or at least that is the only rational explanation for their behavior.

10 comments:

jimi5150 said...

Wow. How long can we discuss this?

The one problem I have with "silly" is that everything is speculation. We can't possibly know, at this point, how good Aaron will be . . . or not be. We just don't. I think Favre will likely suck as he's in a new system, new coach, new players, and new fans. But even having said that, who knows?

So, I'm willing to give Ted the benefit of doubt. Even with that, I don't think anyone believes we'll go to the Superbowl this year. That's not to say Brett would have gotten us there.

Would we be at least as good as last year? Don't know. It seems likely some of the offense and defense and special teams are running different schemes and different sets.

Plus, Brett's a year older . . . and old, as far as football goes.

Anyway, there will still be 80 guys on the football team that I will support and cheer for. Nothing that's gone on is their fault. Hate Ted and Mark all you want. Just support the team.

Curt said...

The Packers are still the youngest team in football, and their best years are ahead of them, not 2008, so it is time to find out how good A-rod is.

I do think the Packers were better with Favre. I'm not sure how much better he is than A-rod, I think the difference is a lot closer than you think, but we certainly went from very deep at the position to one injury away from #*$#(*. But regardless, Brett was too much of a distraction, a side show, and a possible cancer to pay 12 Million a year to.

Rick Esenberg said...

We can apparently discuss this indefinitely.

Anyway, there will still be 80 guys on the football team that I will support and cheer for. Nothing that's gone on is their fault. Hate Ted and Mark all you want. Just support the team.

When you have followed the Packers since 1965, you can't do otherwise.

jp said...

“Your place or ours?” That’s the problem.
The payer not the provider of services gets to choose the place and position.

jimi5150 said...

I said 80. It's more like 60 or so when the season starts. Sorry.

We're neck and neck, Rick. I remember the Ice Bowl. Some of my favorite memories are certainly going to be the Favre years. No one can deny his legacy. But, I loved Lynn Dickey. If the Packers had had a better defense during those years . . .

Ah well. It's a nice break from all the Obama crap.

Thanks.

Dad29 said...

Ennnhhhh....you boys don't remember back in the day at West HS Stadium, do you?

Heh.

All this chatter about Favre--

As I recall, there are 22 players on the field for the Packers, 21 who are NOT the QB.

Didn't any of them have anything to do with the 13-3 record?

joe stalin said...

I heard the Reddess on the radio today. Didn't I?
Logic rules the day Rick.
The Packers were and ostensibly, ARE, very very very close to being a championship team..........RIGHT NOW.
They took a step backwards.
I believe the prevailing attempt to justify the move, is that Rodgers is a long term fix.
The Packers didn't need a long term fix yet.
They took a step back when they were nearly at the finish line, and when they had PLENTY of cash to spend to get over the hump.
This is a no-brainer. Thompson, never had a loyalty to Favre. Favre was relatively old 3 years ago when Thomspon took over. He didn't embrace Favre and Favre didn't play exceptionally well the first 2 years, thereby solidifying Thomspons already biased opinion.
Thompson not telling Favre what Favre needed to hear, made Favre retiscent after the last 3 seasons.
He didn't feel like he was really welcome.
He wasn't.
Rodgers may well be a very good Qb at some point. But the Pack is very close. Or they...were...very close.
Favre shares in the blame, but the public loves Favre, they'll never love Thomspon. Besides, Thompson is paid to manage.
One month of dragging the Packers "brand" through dung isn't managing.

Anonymous said...

I think it's a simple matter that McCarthy decided that he can do it without Farve and Thompson is standing behind his coach. Bosses do that and I do not see this any different.

If McCarthy is wrong he will be the one that goes but I don't think either one expects to lose.

Anonymous said...

The Packers took Favre at his word and made draft picks/etc. based on it. When he changed (apparently)his mind several months later, the Packers couldn't let any one player -- even one as sainted as Brett -- be bigger than the team as a whole. I'm sure McCarthy, along with all Packers fans, would have preferred another run at the Super Bowl with Favre as quarterback, but he told us -- as he had indicated he might in recent years -- that he wasn't up to it.

John Foust said...

This football stuff is boring. When can we get back to being concerned about Obama?