It all depends on where everybody feels our true weaknesses lie - and by that I mean the most important reason for Green Bay losing games. If it is the lack of talent on the O-line, then wouldn't the buck stop with Thompson? Also, Ted was well aware of Rodgers' strengths and weaknesses and to casually address the O-line for the past 5 years certainly cannot be considered shrewd.
I guess this argument could be likened to "environment" vs "genetics". Everybody has their opinion and biases. Do teams win primarily due to talent or coaching??? It's a tough call - certainly a combination of the two, but there's no way each could be considered 50% - or could it? If it is a combination, then both should be deep-sixed.
Also, if you're paying Mac 4 large bills per, while Ted gets 2, that also must factor in. At this point, I'm still not certain. Would it be easier for a team to transition to a new GM or coach in terms of taking the least amount of time to see an improvement? From that perspective, I'd say it would be far easier to install a new GM. But, I also have been around long enough to realize you shouldn't change unless you're confident the change would be a better option.
