How much time?

[PackerDNA]

Interesting comment by one of the Packers main beat writers a couple weeks ago. Drawn a blank on a name right now but basically what he said was with Policy taking over from Murphy soon, he thinks the first thing Policy should do is call Gute into his office and tell him you've got 3 years. Get to andor win a super bowl or there's going to be changes.
I think if Gute continues the way he's doing things next off season too it won't even be 3 years.

 

[tynimiller]

Interesting comment by one of the Packers main beat writers a couple weeks ago. Drawn a blank on a name right now but basically what he said was with Policy taking over from Murphy soon, he thinks the first thing Policy should do is call Gute into his office and tell him you've got 3 years. Get to andor win a super bowl or there's going to be changes.
I think if Gute continues the way he's doing things next off season too it won't even be 3 years.

Just lunacy. Lunacy.

 

[weeds]

I don't think that would come from a "beat writer" - a serious journalist that works for a recognized news outlet - more likely a blogger or v-blogger looking for clicks.

Now, if the Pack go 1-5 (arguably 0-6 were it not for a Packer with long fingernails) in the division again ... yeah, that's still stuck in my craw.

 

[David Ciembronowicz]

Each of us has an opinion, you dont have to know all the ins and outs of an organization to have an opinion. However, it does help to have knowledge and facts to back up opinion- so here goes. GB past 10 years record is 100-63-1; 2015-18 team was 33-30-1; 2019-21 team was 39-10; 2022-24 28-23. Under LeFleur record is 67-33 reg season, 3-5 post season; Gute became GM in 2018 his record basically same as LeFleur. Take out the huge seasons with 39 wins 2019-21 and GB is a pedestrian 28-23 with a 1-3 record post season past 3 years. To add info, J. Love record as a starter is 18-15, starting in 2023. Another avg. record. The 39-10 years were AR+ lots of seasoned players with elite talent. Does the record merit another 3 years for the GM, or the HC or the QB? (No I don't want AR back)
Just asking, records speak for themselves- in the 3 years when LeFleur was 39-10, Gute was the GM, they were not as young as they are today across the roster but they did have elite talent- not so today in my opinion - outside of Jacobs and possibly 1-2 other guys on the roster.
As GM ,Gute and his decision-making on talent is questionable, the decision to go "youngest in the league" may be a financial decision by the team, this coaching staff HC+ is also on the hot seat though you can only go with what you have. Those are facts, 39-10 A HOF QB, WR and others that led to that record but could not get over the hump in post season. Since those years 8-9, 9-8, 11-6 and 1-3 post; they are trending up, the real question is do they have the talent to take next step(s)? A 2025 season of less than 11 wins and post season of min. 1 win my opinion is GM, HC, QB keeping their jobs are all on the table. Unless of course fans will keep flocking to games regardless of the record just like the Chicago Cubs.

 

[tynimiller]

Each of us has an opinion, you dont have to know all the ins and outs of an organization to have an opinion. However, it does help to have knowledge and facts to back up opinion- so here goes. GB past 10 years record is 100-63-1; 2015-18 team was 33-30-1; 2019-21 team was 39-10; 2022-24 28-23. Under LeFleur record is 67-33 reg season, 3-5 post season; Gute became GM in 2018 his record basically same as LeFleur. Take out the huge seasons with 39 wins 2019-21 and GB is a pedestrian 28-23 with a 1-3 record post season past 3 years. To add info, J. Love record as a starter is 18-15, starting in 2023. Another avg. record. The 39-10 years were AR+ lots of seasoned players with elite talent. Does the record merit another 3 years for the GM, or the HC or the QB? (No I don't want AR back)
Just asking, records speak for themselves- in the 3 years when LeFleur was 39-10, Gute was the GM, they were not as young as they are today across the roster but they did have elite talent- not so today in my opinion - outside of Jacobs and possibly 1-2 other guys on the roster.
As GM ,Gute and his decision-making on talent is questionable, the decision to go "youngest in the league" may be a financial decision by the team, this coaching staff HC+ is also on the hot seat though you can only go with what you have. Those are facts, 39-10 A HOF QB, WR and others that led to that record but could not get over the hump in post season. Since those years 8-9, 9-8, 11-6 and 1-3 post; they are trending up, the real question is do they have the talent to take next step(s)? A 2025 season of less than 11 wins and post season of min. 1 win my opinion is GM, HC, QB keeping their jobs are all on the table. Unless of course fans will keep flocking to games regardless of the record just like the Chicago Cubs.

Part of your argument was to remove the good years and then their record is pedestrian lol

 

[Heyjoe4]

Just lunacy. Lunacy.

Seems Gluten is getting a lot of criticism for not doing more in FA. The criticism doesn't make sense to me. The FA market was exceptionally weak. Even the best GM can't make something out of nothing.

As far as trades, there also seems to be criticism over not getting Metcalf. But if GB gave up what Pittsburgh gave up, and topped it off with a 5 year, $150 mil contract, people would be calling for Gluten's head.

As far as an ultimatum from Policy to win a SB in 3 years, or else.... I don't even know where to start with that. Woody Johnson might be capable of such a stunt. Policy? Never.

 

[DoURant]

Part of your argument was to remove the good years and then their record is pedestrian lol

Whatever fits the narrative.... usually when a team decides to move away from their franchise QB, and enter what should be a rebuild mode, they don't make the playoffs, which they did in Love's first 2 years. Being the youngest team in the league back to back years, and going 20-14 is a pretty decent feat, and hopefully they will continue to increase that win total once again this year, and improve that Playoff record.

 

[Thirteen Below]

I think it's more important to ask the question - has he shown progress in his work?

When I was in a senior management position before retiring several years ago, I had to make final hiring and firing decisions on over 100 people in my department. Those were always very, very difficult decisions, because the course of the employee's life (and that of his or her family) depended on me making a fair and objective decision.

And when evaluating a somewhat long-term employee, what was more important to me than lumping together the overall body of work over several years as one big blob of data was - what was the trend? Did they show improvement over time?

Were there ways in which they consistently struggled, but nevertheless showed signs that they were improving their work, learning from their mistakes and applying the lessons they were learning from their failures? That was the most important question, because the overall "won/lost" record of their 6 or 8 years tenure with the organization was not as important as the issue of whether they were steadily improving the last few years.

Firing someone largely on the basis of how poorly they may haveperformed several years ago was foolishness, and would have cost us some potentially very valuable and experienced employees.

And I think Gutekunst has. Simply put, he has not yet topped out, not reached his ceiling. He made some frustrating mistakes his first few years, but he's learned a lot, and has had some extremely impressive successes with his methodology in the last 3-4 years. That improvement seems to still be trending upward; his work seems to be still getting better with each each off-season (which is the time of year that a GM does his most important work).

 

[Heyjoe4]

I think it's more important to ask the question - has he shown progress in his work?

When I was in a senior management position before retiring several years ago, I had to make final hiring and firing decisions on over 100 people in my department. Those were always very, very difficult decisions, because the course of the employee's life (and that of his or her family) depended on me making a fair and objective decision.

And when evaluating a somewhat long-term employee, what was more important to me than lumping together the overall body of work over several years as one big blob of data was - what was the trend? Did they show improvement over time?

Were there ways in which they consistently struggled, but nevertheless showed signs that they were improving their work, learning from their mistakes and applying the lessons they were learning from their failures? That was the most important question, because the overall "won/lost" record of their 6 or 8 years tenure with the organization was not as important as the issue of whether they were steadily improving the last few years.

Firing someone largely on the basis of how poorly they may haveperformed several years ago was foolishness, and would have cost us some potentially very valuable and experienced employees.

And I think Gutekunst has. Simply put, he has not yet topped out, not reached his ceiling. He made some frustrating mistakes his first few years, but he's learned a lot, and has had some extremely impressive successes with his methodology in the last 3-4 years. That improvement seems to still be trending upward; his work seems to be still getting better with each each off-season (which is the time of year that a GM does his most important work).

Good point 13. Is someone learning from their mistakes. That's important because we all make mistakes, and personally, I'd hate to be judged on my mistakes alone.

There is a flip side to it as well, and you mention it - is the person looking inside and making changes to, at minimum, not repeat the same mistakes?

Anyway, I've been very happy with Gluten as GM. He pulled off one of the hardest acts in football - losing a HOF QB while maintaining a winning/contending team, all within the confines of the cap.

 

[OldSchool101]

Kinda hard to remove a GM who’s shown more than competent to supply good players and remain fiscally sound.

Very few expected GB to have a Winning season in 2023 with a first year starting QB. Much less compete at Divisional level and almost Win.

Last year we really did have a historically good Division. Yet we still Won 11 games and gave ourselves an outside shot at winning in Philly.

Yes we had a terrible division record. Yet it doesn’t tell the full story either. Love wasn’t playing 95% healthy until post Bye week and it was apparent to me when he crawled off the field. He’s truly remarkable as competitor. Love still put us within 1 score games until the last whistle. These were not slouch North teams of Christmas past. The Lions and Vikings combined for 6 Losses. GB wasn’t the only one they beat up on either.

We lost 5 North games by an average of 3.8 points. That includes our last game week 18 where we pulled Love. Our leading passer was Malik and leading WR was Heath? Cmon. That’s a little ridiculous. If the Bears are resting on that Win that’s pretty pathetic.

 

[El Guapo]

Let's not forget that Gutenkunst started out by having to navigate the Aaron Rodgers fiasco which touched every part of the team - financial, locker room, personnel, etc.

Since Bob Harlan took over from Judge Parins, the Packers goal appears to be to field a playoff-level team without "going all in" like a lot of foolish owners seem to do. Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't, but regardless of the result it ends in fiscal pain. Being a public team, the Packers don't go all in but put together competitive teams that fill the stadium and grow the fan base. The hope is that in any given year with a playoff caliber team, the right rookies and/or FAs will catch fire and propel us to a championship.

I think that Gutenkunst is following the prescribed playbook, whether fans like it or not.

 

[David Ciembronowicz]

Part of your argument was to remove the good years and then their record is pedestrian lol

That is an opinion based on fact that the last 3 years compared to previous 3 are in fact "pedestrian" with an upward trend... Question is will that continue or not? Do they have the pieces, will the QB improve, will the WR improve, Def? lol, guess I don't find the lol in my opinion but you must in yours

 

[OldSchool101]

That is an opinion based on fact that the last 3 years compared to previous 3 are in fact "pedestrian" with an upward trend... Question is will that continue or not? Do they have the pieces, will the QB improve, will the WR improve, Def? lol, guess I don't find the lol in my opinion but you must in

Hey @David Ciembronowicz Hope you are enjoying your Sunday. I was just going to mention that I don’t know that I’d pit 4-6 years ago with 1-3 years ago because we had a 40yr old QB entering his twilight years and it was time to make a move imo. Meaning I’m not sure it’s fair to compare a team in its infancy at QB vs a team with an established 17 year Veteran etc. if that makes any sense.

Let me just ask this and it’s not a setup or will I attack you for whatever answer, but curious you obviously watch and have suffered with me so I respect your opinion, no matter how tough. We both know that a GM is almost always defined by his ability to acquire personnel properly. In particular Jack Vainisi, Ted Thompson, Ron Wolf etc. the Coach and QB being at the forefront for obvious reasons.

That new GM would start by grabbing a HC with this W/L record in 6 seasons.
67-33 (.670)
#1 in the NFC across that span

Then we can’t judge a GM by his acquiring a HOF QB, so he chooses at QB end of RD1 #26 overall.
Said QB would initiate his career as follows:
30.5 TD’s Pass and Run scored average
11.5 INT averaged per 17 game season
~4,000 Passing Yards per “ “
~64% completion %
97% Passer rating.

18-14 W-L with 2 of 2 possible playoff appearances in his first 2 seasons.
A combined 1-2 record in those playoffs. Those Playoff Defenses were ranked #5, #3, #2.
-#5 Defense that said QB embarrassed with a Bonafide 40+ burger Road Victory
-#3 Defense was a very close 3 point Defeat on the Road to turn eventual SB Runner Up
-#2 Defense was a tough 14pt Loss on the Road against a NFC Team who was the #1 seed and went on to Defeat a 16-1 AFC Team in embarrassing fashion to Win the SB.

On a scale of 1 worst case, 10 best case, 5 being average team. Where would you objectively score that HC + QB combo at this juncture?

 

[Heyjoe4]

The statistics presented above don't answer the question - "Is most of the fan base happy with the teams from the last 30 plus years?"

I was young but remember the glory years of the 60s, the Ice Bowl, and the first two SB wins (I know, it wasn't called the SB. NFC/AFC championship but the same thing.)

And then the lost years, and there were many - with Phil Bengston, Dan Devine, Forrest Gregg, Ray Rhodes, 9 long years with the beloved Bart Starr as HCs (not in order of appearance). The Bears, and just about every other team, owned the Packers during those years, and as a fan, it was miserable.

Anyway, to answer my own question, I've been happy over countless Sundays, two SB wins, two HOF QBs, and an almost always competitive team for the past 30 plus years. I've been happy with Gluten and I still am. So statistics, manipulated or not, don't mean anything to me. The Packers have fielded good to great teams damn near every year since Bob Harlan hired Ron Wolf. That's enough for me.

 

[OldSchool101]

.

 

[Schultz]

IMO he was speaking about the statistics in post #4. I could be wrong. Once he responds we will know for sure.

 

[OldSchool101]

IMO he was speaking about the statistics in post #4. I could be wrong. Once he responds we will know for sure.

Hmm. that could be. It’s not quite covering 30 yrs 1995, but it would make more sense I’ll just delete the question it’s not that important
Thanks for the clarification at least it helps sir

 

[Heyjoe4]

IMO he was speaking about the statistics in post #4. I could be wrong. Once he responds we will know for sure.

Yes it was primarily post #4 (using stats creatively to support a particular point) that led my post at #14. Clear as mud.

But it goes well beyond that. I've just been happy being a Packer fan - all my life - but yeah, especially since 1995. We use stats all the time here. What I feel about the Packers isn't measured by stats, and that was the bigger point I was trying to make.