Packers Front Office Under Fire

[gopkrs]

Let me explain it once again as you once again can't cope with someone daring to criticize the team's front office.

It would have been smarter to use the first round pick in last year's draft on a player (on offense or defense) who could have helped the Packers win a Super Bowl this season instead of selecting a quarterback who might end up getting us back to the point we already were in entering this season some years down the road.

It would have been even smarter for The Pack to have signed Randy Moss back when Favre wanted him.

 

[swhitset]

It would have been even smarter for The Pack to have signed Randy Moss back when Favre wanted him.

I’m sure you know that is not remotely close to the same thing.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Baloney and you know it. Just like whoever loses this next game also is good enough to win, though they'll fall short.

We've had this discussion before and weren't able to agree on. In my opinion there's only one team good enough to win the Super Bowl.

We had six players on the first and second team all-pro team. Let’s not pretend that Rodgers is a one man team. To think that a rookie drafted 30th or 26th is going to be the key to winning the Super Bowl is IMO a total pipe dream and completely unrealistic.

Nobody expected a rookie to be the key to winning the Super Bowl but making some plays down the road contributing to it.

I guess we just have a different view of rookies. The 22 man all rookie team is a long ways away from the 22 man all pro team. Every single year.

Once again, the Packers wouldn't have needed a rookie to perform at an All-Pro level to possibly win a one score game.

It would have been even smarter for The Pack to have signed Randy Moss back when Favre wanted him.

Just for the record, Moss never was a free agent as long as Favre was in Green Bay.

 

[gopkrs]

I’m sure you know that is not remotely close to the same thing.

An attempt at humor based on the other thread. One thing they do have in common though...they are both in the past.

 

[gopkrs]

Just for the record, Moss never was a free agent as long as Favre was in Green Bay.

You are correct. New England traded a 4th round pick to Oakland for him.

 

[longtimefan]

You are correct. New England traded a 4th round pick to Oakland for him.

He wanted 2 years and I think the Pack were only going for one

 

[rmontro]

In my opinion there's only one team good enough to win the Super Bowl.

Depends on the year, I think.

 

[Half Empty]

Didn't we go through this before? Was there anyone else who agreed that the only team capable of winning was the team that did win?

 

[swhitset]

Didn't we go through this before? Was there anyone else who agreed that the only team capable of winning was the team that did win?

It’s obviously an argument in semantics ... and maybe even language barrier.

 

[rmontro]

Didn't we go through this before? Was there anyone else who agreed that the only team capable of winning was the team that did win?

It hinges on the word "capable", I think. There is often a lucky break or two that the game swings on. What if the refs had called pass interference on the Rams two years ago and the Saints had gone to the Super Bowl? You can't really say NO wasn't "capable" of winning that game. Then there are injuries. Sometimes teams are dominant, other times the game really all comes down to a freakish play or two.

Football isn't like other sports where they play series. Two well matched teams might split a series, so both teams are certainly capable of beating the other. When it's a one game winner take all, someone has to come away the winner, and someone the loser, just from a mathematical standpoint. It's not a magic thing where one team is invulnerable to losing.

 

[Half Empty]

So, it appears the answer is still that nobody else agrees that, if one doesn't win, one wasn't capable of winning?

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

You are really the one playing the what if game. I agree that the team was good enough if certain circumstances had played out in their favor. The fact is that they didn’t. Dismissing the fact that the team likely could have been even better with another first rounder on the field simply because you want to claim the team was good enough.... is silly.

You could kind of make an argument either way on this. In hindsight, I certainly wouldn't have minded if they could have picked up an OLman who would have been better than Wagner, especially the way he got beat upfront by guys like Barrett and JPP. Interesting thought about how having Jefferson may or may not have helped us win. Would have loved to see if he could have won his matchup against Murphy-Bunting better than Lazard did. But the way the officials were allowing defensive holding to go on, it's hard to say.

I would have supported another pick besides Love. But I don't know if that would have made up for certain coaching decisions like not bringing out the right defensive alignment right before the half, or kicking a FG when down by 8, inside the opponent's 10, and at a very late point in the game. Or for the inconsistent officiating for that matter.

I think what he's saying is it's not set in stone by any means that the Love pick cost us the superbowl. Kind of the same as another poster mentioned about the Packers should have grabbed Moss before the Patriots did, but I never bought into that being the reason we failed to make the superbowl because the Patriots had him along with about 3 other star WRs and they still lost it against that same Giants team.

But I think where the frustration brews is that by drafting Love, they gave up the chance to have a player who possibly could have been a contributor in that game, and might have been a difference maker in the final score, and were picking a guy who would not be used period, assuming a healthy Rodgers. In other words ... No guarantee, but definitely an increase of odds in our favor.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Didn't we go through this before? Was there anyone else who agreed that the only team capable of winning was the team that did win?

Actually I don't care about being the only one having a specific opinion. If you're satisfied with the team theoretically being able to beat the Bucs if some plays would have gone a different way, great for you. I'm solely interested in the final result though and taking a look at it the Packers once again weren't good enough to even make it to the Super Bowl.

It’s obviously an argument in semantics ... and maybe even language barrier.

No, I don't believe the Packers were capable of winning the Super Bowl this season in German either

 

[Mondio]

so who's capable of winning it this year, the Chiefs or the Bucs? would be more impressive if you could tell us now

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Exactly why Green Bay should have a owner..

a) Not gonna happen.

b) There are a lot of lousy teams with owners. Look around the division.

 

[Chuck47]

In one of the other threads, someone mentioned that Mark Murphy and Brian Gutekunst should be removed for not putting a better team around Rodgers. I thought that this deserved its own thread.

The Jerry Jones, the McCaskeys, the Fords, the Wilfs, and other team owners can state their intention to win a Super Bowl and expect that their front office will do what they can to appease the owner. They might go all-in for the win. A Super Bowl might bring the owner/team a new stadium, owner prestige, a new fanbase, etc...

My impression of the Packers, is that since they are community owned and essentially run like a corporation that they have a different set of goals and values. There is no single owner demanding that we draft so-and-so in order to win it all this year. The Packers president is supposed to keep the revenue flowing. Here is an excerpt that I found in an article about the board of directors from 2016:

“We’re directors of a very financially successful organization, but we’re also stewards of basically a national treasure and an international icon. We understand that and try to act appropriately.” -Thomas Olson
https://www.packersnews.com/story/news/2016/07/22/no-one-owner-directors-guide-packers/87289304/

This reinforces what I was thinking. The board and front office aren't trying to win a Super Bowl necessarily. It would be great of course, but their main goal is to ensure that nearly ever season is a winning season in Green Bay. That keeps the profit margins high and sustains the 'national treasure.' A singular owner may push Super Bowls in order to increase the team value. I don't think that the Packers care how the franchise is valued. Their singular focus is a healthy bottom line which means winning every season.

This approach helps explain why Jordan Love was picked. It wasn't about this year - it's about the next decade. The Packers organizational structure takes the long view, whereas singular owners can be driven by desire/pride/ego to take a short view in hopes have winning the title.

Thoughts?

Patrick Queen, linebacker LSU, was available (taken next I think) instead of Love. He’d have played immediately, been a franchise cornerstone for years, was a clear need and could have made the all-rookie team for us. Plus, he’d have helped us win NOW.

 

[PikeBadger]

The fact that they did have so many good players aside of Rodgers is precisely why an additional one could have been the tipping point. Many other posts in here have enumerated all of the key plays in the NFCCG ... any one of which that could have changed the outcome of that game. Having an additional starter at WR CB Defensive line etc... most definitely would have had the potential to change the outcome.

As far as a rookie making plays to change outcome, IMO it’s far more likely that he would also make mistakes that would contribute to losing a particular. Rookies are far from complete products. We’ll just have to disagree on this concept. I feel like I’m in the minority camp in how totally unenamored I am with rookies in general. Martin and Barnes showed nice potential this year but neither are fully grown yet into their adult playing body nor are they football mature yet mentally.

 

[GleefulGary]

Patrick Queen, linebacker LSU, was available (taken next I think) instead of Love. He’d have played immediately, been a franchise cornerstone for years, was a clear need and could have made the all-rookie team for us. Plus, he’d have helped us win NOW.

I’ll say this again, and again, and again. Patrick Queen may turn into a good LB. His rookie year, he was not very good. He had flashes, but overall, not great! Barnes arguably played better than Queen, imo.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I’ll say this again, and again, and again. Patrick Queen may turn into a good LB. His rookie year, he was not very good. He had flashes, but overall, not great! Barnes arguably played better than Queen, imo.

I have to eat some humble pie on this one as I thought Gluten should have selected a WR, or Queen in the first round (and ideally save the 4th round pick). I haven't followed Queen since but will take your analysis that there wasn't a huge difference, if any, between him and UDFA Barnes (I thought Barnes played very well last year).

As to the topic of the thread, if a team has ALMOST enough talent to win a SB, but not enough, then it makes sense (in the age of the cap and free agency) to push all the chips to the middle and go for one, consequences be damned. The Patriots seemed to defy gravity by winning so many SBs in such a short period of time, and that was largely due to
(in order) great personnel management/Tom Brady, some luck, and a little cheating here and there. I'll argue to my last breath that Rodgers is a better QB than Brady, but QBs alone do not win SBs.

Unfortunately, pushing all the chips to the middle for the Packers right now is a VERY expensive proposition. Facing little cap space and the inevitable loss of some Pro Bowl/All Pro talent, the only way they can do this is to trade draft capital for talent. I hate that idea because in a few short years, you've got a loser or .500 team on your hands. The Bears tried it with Mack and Trubisky, got nowhere near a SB, and finished last year at .500. I'd rather the Pack kept their draft picks, keep Rodgers, and hope for some help elsewhere.

There's no good answer. They'll still have a good team as long as Rodgers is QB, but now even that is being questioned.

 

[Snoops]

Patrick Queen, linebacker LSU, was available (taken next I think) instead of Love. He’d have played immediately, been a franchise cornerstone for years, was a clear need and could have made the all-rookie team for us. Plus, he’d have helped us win NOW.

That’s who I was hoping they would get I like Kenneth Murray better but Queen is good

 

[GleefulGary]

That’s who I was hoping they would get I like Kenneth Murray better but Queen is good

HE WAS REALLY BAD FOR THE RAVENS!

I can’t remember who did the tracking, but they had him down for at least 22 missed tackles.

 

[Snoops]

HE WAS REALLY BAD FOR THE RAVENS!

I can’t remember who did the tracking, but they had him down for at least 22 missed tackles.

Yeah I get that but that’s not the point tho. they could have gotten a number 2 receiver.. they thought Rodgers was on the decline they will never admit it but they did deep down they wanted to move on and now they don’t wanna look like idiots Rodgers will play til he sucks or his contract runs out pick up loves 5th year option and see what he does. If I was love I’d be pissed.. ha Green Bay should be dangling him to teams like the saints colts Patriots raiders while he still has some value

 

[Deleted member 6794]

so who's capable of winning it this year, the Chiefs or the Bucs? would be more impressive if you could tell us now

You just don't get it. This is not about what I or anybody else thinks in advance of the season, playoffs or Super Bowl but what actually happens on the field.

As far as a rookie making plays to change outcome, IMO it’s far more likely that he would also make mistakes that would contribute to losing a particular. Rookies are far from complete products. We’ll just have to disagree on this concept. I feel like I’m in the minority camp in how totally unenamored I am with rookies in general. Martin and Barnes showed nice potential this year but neither are fully grown yet into their adult playing body nor are they football mature yet mentally.

A rookie wouldn't have had to be a complete product to possibly have a positive impact on the Packers this season.

Facing little cap space and the inevitable loss of some Pro Bowl/All Pro talent, the only way they can do this is to trade draft capital for talent.

The Packers don't have enough cap space to trade draft capital for veterans.

 

[Mondio]

You just don't get it. This is not about what I or anybody else thinks in advance of the season, playoffs or Super Bowl but what actually happens on the field.



A rookie wouldn't have had to be a complete product to possibly have a positive impact on the Packers this season.



The Packers don't have enough cap space to trade draft capital for veterans.

oh, ok. I think we all get it fine and the parser of words, the king of conflict and captain of changing his stance on a whim doesn't want to acknowledge the difference between a team capable of winning or the team that wins.

so, there is only one team capable of winning the Super bowl, who is it? quit copping out.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

oh, ok. I think we all get it fine and the parser of words, the king of conflict and captain of changing his stance on a whim doesn't want to acknowledge the difference between a team capable of winning or the team that wins.

so, there is only one team capable of winning the Super bowl, who is it? quit copping out.

Geez, at this point there are still two teams capable of winning the Super Bowl. After the game on Sunday there will only be one team left that actually was capable of winning it.

The Packers, which aren't even traveling to Tampa, are by definition not capable of winning it.

 

[Half Empty]

oh, ok. I think we all get it fine and the parser of words, the king of conflict and captain of changing his stance on a whim doesn't want to acknowledge the difference between a team capable of winning or the team that wins.

so, there is only one team capable of winning the Super bowl, who is it? quit copping out.