Randy Moss and the Vikings' 2010 Implosion Validates Packers GM Ted Thompson
Somewhere in the depths of his Lambeau Field office, Green Bay Packers GM Ted Thompson is laughing. Hysterically.
With news of the Vikings' release of Randy Moss, their 2010 comedy tour has officially hit its peak, and Thompson has to feel even more confident about a few of his roster moves of the past few seasons.
In fact, the debacle that has been the Vikings' season validates what Thompson has been doing all along.
It all started back in 2007 when then-Packers quarterback Brett Favre made a plea to Thompson to add Moss to the offense. With Greg Jennings, Donald Driver and James Jones already in the mix, however, Thompson wisely passed on getting in a bidding war for Moss regardless of how bad Favre wanted him.
Fast forward to today. Moss has now served stints with four teams in his career (Vikings twice, Raiders, Patriots), and he's become a cancer on each one. Every time, Moss has been shipped out of town in a hurry—interesting considering Moss is a surefire Hall of Famer.
Yet just a month ago, everyone seemingly praised the Vikings' trade for Moss and ripped Thompson for not making a similar move to acquire Marshawn Lynch or another running back after Ryan Grant went down.
But as Moss and the Vikings just proved, desperation moves like this usually turn out sour. Essentially, the Vikings traded a third-round pick for four games of Moss, and now he's out the door. As anyone can tell you, that's not a good return on the investment.
Thompson never overreacted to his situation, however, and now things are looking up for the 5-3 Packers. The running game still isn't perfect, but I think most would agree it has made significant strides since Week 1.
Things obviously aren't looking as pretty in Minnesota. At 2-5, the Vikings' ship is sinking fast, and with a hobbled, scandal-ridden, 41-year-old quarterback still at the ship's helm, there isn't much for hope for the desperate Vikings.
Which takes me back to 2008: We all know the story of Favre and Thompson and everything that went down during the whole situation. But on November 1st, 2010, has that move to send Favre packing ever looked any better?
Favre brought his diva act to our border rivals, and with everything that's happened—Brad Childress driving Favre to the Vikings' training complex, his waffling this summer, three players getting him out of Mississippi two weeks before the season, the Jenn Sterger scandal, his terrible play this year—Thompson looks like a genius.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who will still argue that Thompson and the Packers should have given into Favre back in the spring and summer of 2008.
And could you imagine if Thompson had brought him back? You never know, Aaron Rodgers could be donning a purple-and-gold No. 12 jersey every Sunday instead.
(Getting that image out of my head...)
But now, the Packers are the ones with a plan. Thompson has stuck to his guns, and he's delivered the Packers a roster full of depth and young talent that is going to be good for a long time. And he has done it his way—a way that all Packers fans should be proud of considering the implosion that is occurring just west of the Mississippi.
What is the Vikings' next plan? In all likelihood, that team is going to need a new quarterback and a new head coach next season. Childress tied his job to Favre, and while he got one good year out of him, he might have just killed his coaching career.
Because let's be honest. Favre is playing every Sunday because of the name on the back of his jersey. Favre is 29th in the NFL in passer rating, ranking with the likes Matt Moore, Alex Smith and Derek Anderson. Favre is the only one of the four that hasn't been benched this season. Why is that? Because the Vikings, and namely Childress, invested so much in Favre this season that it's almost impossible to bench him.
Either way, Childress looks like the idiot. The Vikings' 2010 comedy tour will continue to roll on.
And Ted Thompson will keep laughing, because he has finally been proved right once and for all.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?