Responsibility for Packers’ failure is on the head coach
- Thread starter Mark87
- Start date
- Messages
- 6,078
- Reaction score
- 5,456
okay, so i read the article. here are quotes from the article that explain clearly why we kept linsley over tretter:
"First of all, he’s only started ten games in his career: three in 2015, and seven last year. Second, injuries have forced him to miss 33 games in just four seasons..."
"They’ll be fine at center with Linsley, who is less athletic than Tretter but more powerful and more consistently available."
"It’s not entirely clear if the Packers think Tretter would be a good fit to replace Lang at guard."
to me the article was not saying they should have kept tretter instead of linsley. rather, the author was saying we should not let both lang and tretter walk away. and with that, i totally agree.
- Messages
- 7,425
- Reaction score
- 6,252
No argument. I agree with you. The Packers made the decision they thought was best. But, with the cap space they had, it wasn't even an issue. They should have signed both, and the whole thing would be history. Both would be on the roster, and in all honesty, there's a distinct possibility that Rodgers wouldn't be hurt, because the offensive line would have had a major upgrade.
The problem is, after all these years of insisting on having "multiple position players," why were they stupid enough to abandon the best multi position player they had on the entire roster, as if he was incapable of doing the job? Based on the actual deal Tretter got, it's obvious the Packers had zero intent of trying to retain him. It all deals with the idea of the Packers having guys like McCray, and Patrick, working for minimum salary, as back ups. No thought whatsoever about what happens if someone is injured.
Fortunately, this inability to judge talent will no longer be in Thompson's hands. At least, I hope it won't. Let's see how this shake up plays out, and who becomes the new GM. Obviously, there are three guys in the hunt, and the other two will no longer be considered for jobs with GB. It works that way. They just move on.
I didn't have a problem with them letting Tretter go, considering his injury history and what the market demanded. What bugged me was letting him go along with Lang. Had Lang been kept, this would be a non-issue for me. The thing is, they just decimated the line and the depth when they let both go.
Now they likely have to draft a guy pretty early for insurance at both RT and RG unless the new GM is a more aggressive type and actually fills a hole with a quality FA.
Now they likely have to draft a guy pretty early for insurance at both RT and RG unless the new GM is a more aggressive type and actually fills a hole with a quality FA.
- Messages
- 1,722
- Reaction score
- 698
- Messages
- 1,123
- Reaction score
- 790
Thanks RB. Hindsight is running rampant. Tretter was let go because he was hurt all the time. Lang was hurt a lot this year (weeks 5,6,10,13,14,15,16,17) A bit disingenuous to pretend that we should have signed both at this point.
Green Bay does have bad luck in injuries, it seems to concentrate on one position each year. This year, unfortunately, it was the OL. We ended up starting a UFA at RT because we lost THREE RTs!
We signed Evans, who manned the RG spot pretty well until the end. I liked Tretter, but you CAN'T spend starter's money on back ups!
There is plenty to hold MM accountable for without trying to rewrite history.
- Messages
- 1,722
- Reaction score
- 698
Fire the Strength and Conditioning staff.
They usually spend the most time with the players as a whole, and between the injuries and the development... just get rid of all of them and find someone competent.
- Messages
- 344
- Reaction score
- 282
I keep waiting for this news...I'm wondering what's taking so long?