Interesting Theory Shared With A Friend...
- Thread starter tynimiller
- Start date
OldSchool101
Pack
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2014
- Messages
- 15,814
- Reaction score
- 6,774
I gave you an agree not necessarily because I fully agreed with every point you made (of many), but because I resemble the frustration as a whole with past moves. I also like the boldness of your post it shows passion and I align with that passion.
Some apologists of bad decisions say “it’s a business” but they use it in the wrong context. Like business just want to screw everyone and that’s not how businesses get successful. Not long term thinking businesses that want to stay in business, that’s short sided business and it’s short lived if left uncorrected.
As an example, I worked for Circuit City in its heyday. It was the #1 producing stock on the Fortune 500 in the 1980’s. By 2005 a multitude of so called “bright young corporate types” drug it down with poor vision. Everyone said the changes were because “it’s a business”. That statement in itself doesn’t forgive mistakes in business. Circuit City was in Bankruptcy trouble by 2005 and went out of business a short while later. I personally saw Richard Sharp make an empire (he was key in bringing in Computers snd CD’s in the early 1990’s Gulf War recession period and started the brilliant concept of “price matching” LPG low price Guarantee + 10%)
When Sharp walked to create CarMax in the later 1990’s ? Circuit City crumbled. That was largely because Sharp knew people and his customer and employees and he was the Vince Lombardi of getting the best from them. I know because I was a “President Club” award employee and he made a young not so important 20 year old feel important. I didn’t deserve that.. but Aaron Rodgers sure does!!
Nobody but nobody is immune to the effect of poor decisions or arrogance or disdain for those that serve them. Not even the Green Bay Packers.
Do I want them to fail? Heck no. But the truth is the truth and they’d better wake up before it’s too late because we could be the new version Cleveland Browns in a very short fashion if we’re not careful.
Last edited:
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Good post and I fully agree with your conclusion. However, to be fair, do we always know what constitutes "poor decisions", before we actually see how most of the consequences (good and/or bad) of those decisions play out? Seems like some have been speculating that the Packers have been dealing with Rodgers incorrectly for years, are they? I honestly don't know, but in 10 years or less, I am sure we will know more about what went into the decisions surrounding him. Even if we don't fully know all the details, we will at least know the exact outcome and can fill in the blanks a bit better than we can now.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
I don't think it qualifies as the Packers treating Rodgers incorrectly but their inability to field a top-10 defense while putting a lot of ressources in trying to upgrade the unit definitely has taken a toll on his feelings about the front office as well.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 6,682
- Reaction score
- 1,967
Agree. IMO, It’s much more likely we’ll hear Rodgers side just like we did from Favre. If we’re lucky we’ll get a two sentence statement from mgmt some day. The media morons, fans with a man-crush and former players will of course be on Rodgers side and hate on management. If the Packers continue to annually field a good team, management can rest peacefully at night knowing they did what was in the best interests of the Green Bay Packers. The media, hater fans and loud mouth former players (none of whom have any accountability) will of course never admit they were wrong because they aren’t required to. I of course am not required to believe in anything these types spew and most certainly will not.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 6,682
- Reaction score
- 1,967
Definitely??? You been talking privately to Aaron Rodgers?
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
Geez, Pike, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out the relationship between Rodgers and the Packers' front office has taken a turn for the worse over the past few years.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
You completely ignore that Rodgers is the main reason the Packers have been able to field a good team for most of the past 10 seasons.
ARPackFan
Knock it off with them negative waves
There are a lot of franchise QBs but Rodgers is a generational talent. Having Rodgers at QB is like going to Vegas and being guaranteed an Ace up card at the blackjack table for every hand. You will win more than lose even if you don't fully understand the game and stand pat with every hand. This is where I believe the Packers have failed as they did not fully exploit this "Ace" and stood pat instead by squandering the opportunity.
Ron Wolf made a statement before Thompson took over as GM that the Packers had "NFL Europe" talent surrounding Favre. Thompson came in and did the initial right thing for a depleted roster with draft and develop - 2005 (11 picks), 2006 (12 picks), 2007 (11 picks). This provided a good foundation with a sprinkling of smart FA acquisitions such as Woodson & Ryan Pickett (2006). Favre was still the QB through 2007 and lobbied heavily for signing Randy Moss prior to the 2007 season where they went 13-3 and lost to Giants (23-20) in NFCC. Unfortunately, this was a prelude of things to come as the Packers virtually ignored free agency and trades until the end of Thompson's tenure. Ironic for a franchise that was turned around by a trade (Favre) and a high profile free agent (Reggie White). Even thought he Packers went on to win the SB that season Thompson could have traded for Marshawn Lynch in 2010. No Lynch on Seattle and beast mode in Green Bay in the 2011 season (15-1) where they once again lose to the Giants at Lambeau in the playoffs. Early free agency is a suckers bet where teams typically over pay for a player that under performs but to ignore two of the three major avenues for player acquisition is just "standing pat" and not exploiting the rules of the game. Mark Murphy as President & CEO is the stand-in owner of the GBP. It is my opinion that he did not maintain a level of involvement on the football side to push back against Thompson & McCarthy on decisions to not pursue FAs/trades and hold onto coaches when it was obvious that the defense and special teams were weaknesses. It is also alleged that he was forced to remove Thompson by the BOD. Where was Murphy prior to this? One of his jobs is to watch out for the organizational and individual health of the GBP and I think he failed to the point that he also should have been removed along with Thompson.
The only thing I will say about McCarthy is he was a good team manager in the same way some QBs are just good game managers - don't do anything overtly stupid and allow the play makers to do their job.
The only real changes in my opinion to the new regime is LaFleur has a much better offensive scheme and Gutekunst is a slight improvement on Ted. Murphy is still the weak link and in charge.
Ron Wolf made a statement before Thompson took over as GM that the Packers had "NFL Europe" talent surrounding Favre. Thompson came in and did the initial right thing for a depleted roster with draft and develop - 2005 (11 picks), 2006 (12 picks), 2007 (11 picks). This provided a good foundation with a sprinkling of smart FA acquisitions such as Woodson & Ryan Pickett (2006). Favre was still the QB through 2007 and lobbied heavily for signing Randy Moss prior to the 2007 season where they went 13-3 and lost to Giants (23-20) in NFCC. Unfortunately, this was a prelude of things to come as the Packers virtually ignored free agency and trades until the end of Thompson's tenure. Ironic for a franchise that was turned around by a trade (Favre) and a high profile free agent (Reggie White). Even thought he Packers went on to win the SB that season Thompson could have traded for Marshawn Lynch in 2010. No Lynch on Seattle and beast mode in Green Bay in the 2011 season (15-1) where they once again lose to the Giants at Lambeau in the playoffs. Early free agency is a suckers bet where teams typically over pay for a player that under performs but to ignore two of the three major avenues for player acquisition is just "standing pat" and not exploiting the rules of the game. Mark Murphy as President & CEO is the stand-in owner of the GBP. It is my opinion that he did not maintain a level of involvement on the football side to push back against Thompson & McCarthy on decisions to not pursue FAs/trades and hold onto coaches when it was obvious that the defense and special teams were weaknesses. It is also alleged that he was forced to remove Thompson by the BOD. Where was Murphy prior to this? One of his jobs is to watch out for the organizational and individual health of the GBP and I think he failed to the point that he also should have been removed along with Thompson.
The only thing I will say about McCarthy is he was a good team manager in the same way some QBs are just good game managers - don't do anything overtly stupid and allow the play makers to do their job.
The only real changes in my opinion to the new regime is LaFleur has a much better offensive scheme and Gutekunst is a slight improvement on Ted. Murphy is still the weak link and in charge.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 6,682
- Reaction score
- 1,967
What makes you think I’m ignoring Rodgers and his contributions? All I’m saying that the day will come when he leaves, whether by retirement or trade. We will move onto a new era at that time. It’s not the end of the world when a player leaves.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 6,682
- Reaction score
- 1,967
Really? I didn’t hear him say anything negative about Packer management in the last few years. He has seemed very happy working with LaFleur under his huge contract extension.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Why are people insisting that the Packers haven't done everything they could to win? Maybe they haven't done everything they could do to "win right now", but who wants to go all in on one season, just to rebuild for 10 more? Again, sometimes I wonder if people realize how hard it is to win a Super Bowl and the Packers have been in the position to do so more times than most teams have in the last 10 or so years.
I much prefer a GM who is always keeping his eye on 2-4 years out, which I believe both TT and Gute excel at. Sure, a Super Bowl win once in awhile is nice, but not at the expense of the next 10 or more years being rebuild years. Except for the first season he started and his 2 injury seasons, the Packers have fielded some really solid teams during Rodgers career.
I much prefer a GM who is always keeping his eye on 2-4 years out, which I believe both TT and Gute excel at. Sure, a Super Bowl win once in awhile is nice, but not at the expense of the next 10 or more years being rebuild years. Except for the first season he started and his 2 injury seasons, the Packers have fielded some really solid teams during Rodgers career.
Holy speculation Batman. Where do I begin?
1. I've read nothing that says the Packers wanted to add void years to Rodgers contract.
2. I've read nothing that said the vikings were offering 2 first rounders for Favre.
3. Why is it an insult to offer a player they don't want chance to stay if he wants to. If anything I think its a sign of respect. We are going to cut you but we will keep you if you really want to stay. Its up to the player then if he really wants to stay or not. Obviously he didn't. In most cases when player says they would like to stay it is usually up to them but the money usually ends up being more important than staying.
4. Are you saying they do or do not need his permission to restructure. I'm not sure what is ridiculous about it.
5. They could have restructured but they didn't have to so why do something they don't have to especially if it is going to cause problems down the road. plus they still can free up almost 10 million if they want to.
6. Some people do not believe the Favre situation was mishandled. He said he was retiring so they moved on. I get sick of hearing the "he earned it" crap.
7. It seems to me that you are on the players side against the team and that's fine. I happen to be of the belief that no player is more than the team and that if one player is causing problems you either work it out or you move on. Yeah it might suck to lose a star but I'll get over it.
Because they didn't win. Isn't it obvious that if a team doesn't win the Super Bowl they didn't do all they could to win the Super Bowl because if they had done all they could have done they would have won it.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
I just sent this to the fan bases of 31 teams and very few understood the logic or humor behind it.
Pike just what category do you fall in? If after going for it, it takes 10 years to rebuild you never should have been a GM to begin with. The NFL has the most teams that go from last to first in their division than any other sport. Honestly I do not mind being the Cubs of the NFL. My 2 favorite teams have the most final 4 seasons in the last 7 years or so than anyone else.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
That quote in one of your last posts clearly indicate you believe management is mostly responsible for the Packers fielding a good team every single season:
If the Packers continue to annually field a good team, management can rest peacefully at night knowing they did what was in the best interests of the Green Bay Packers.
I disagree as Rodgers is the main reason for it.
You should watch Rodgers' press conference after the loss in the NFCCG to the Bucs. And once again, it doesn't take a genius to figure out he wasn't happy with the team trading up to select Love in last year's draft.
What makes you believe it would take 10 years to rebuild from going all-in over the last few seasons with Rodgers as the starter? As another poster mentioned in a different threat there are teams going from last to first in their division within a single season on numerous occasions in the past.
If the Packers front office is as good as some of you want to make us believe that shouldn't be an issue at all.
In addition salary cap issues can be solved in one season as well with the dead money being pushed into it.
McKnowledge
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 1,313
- Reaction score
- 272
Fair point. However, I think Dillon will be a significant part of the offense going forward. His potential as a goal-line back and genuine threat in the red-zone will make the offense more potent.
Pokerbrat2000
Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Agree, at least we hope he becomes that. But to Sunshine's point, Dillon appeared to be picked to replace Jones. He has now become a luxury pick, at I guess what one could say, is a very key piece in MLF's offense. If it was McCarthy's offense, I would call Dillon a wasted use of a 2nd round. Not because he doesn't have great potential, but because with Jones contract, he wouldn't have been that useful in MM's offense.
Correct. The end result of pushing money out is that eventually, there will be 1 or 2 years with a TON of dead cap. Unfortunately, that dead cap still counts even though the player is long gone.
I'd drop the "professional wrestler" but all the other possibilities are real.
And if you didn't draft Dillon, your backfield would now consist of Aaron Jones. You need AT LEAST two good backs.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 6,682
- Reaction score
- 1,967
Agree and with Dillon’s and Jones very different skillsets and style of running you are essentially creating a new and different weapon at the same position. Also, they can play at the same time. Jones could be the motion/slot guy on plays and catch favorable matchups for us.
The selection of Dillon makes sense and his playing time will increase significantly. Gluten knew he was going to lose Jones or Williams or both so this was a solid insurance pick. Some will argue he could have selected farther back, but not to get a guy like Dillon. He's basically Eddy Lacy, with discipline. Jones and Dillon will both probably average 15 snaps per game each. And that's good for Jones, who just is not built for 25 plus carries per game. I liked this pick.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
I wouldn't mind the Packers pushing as much dead money as possible into the season succeeding Rodgers' departure as they won't be a contender that year anyway.
The Packers could have used a late round pick this year to draft a backup running back as well.
