Packers Front Office Under Fire

[longtimefan]

How adult of you.

So lets ***** in every reply

Do you invite people to your house you dont get along with?

You have your opinion and then there is the "official rule of the board"

 

[GleefulGary]

So lets ***** in every reply

Do you invite people to your house you dont get along with?

You have your opinion and then there is the "official rule of the board"

Sir, I don’t ***** in every reply.

Despite your rampant desire to over moderate everything in sight (which I’ve seen first hand), I haven’t broken any rules. I will continue to share my opinion, thank you very much.

Oh, and yes, I do invite people I don’t get along with that great to my house.

 

[rmontro]

The interesting part about your take is that you criticize the players for not making enough plays yet in your opinion they were somehow capable of beating the Bucs.

It's too bad Pettine wasn't capable of calling a zone at the end of the first half, and that MLF wasn't capable of noticing it, and that Jones wasn't capable of holding on to the ball to start the second half. If so, things might have turned out differently.

 

[longtimefan]

Sir, I don’t ***** in every reply.

Despite your rampant desire to over moderate everything in sight (which I’ve seen first hand), I haven’t broken any rules. I will continue to share my opinion, thank you very much.

Oh, and yes, I do invite people I don’t get along with that great to my house.

I meant posters in general..not you..sorry for the confusion.

We need to read complaints about so and so and yet they still wont ignore.

Point is..either let it go and stop complaining or ignore

And over moderation? Lol yeah okay pumpkin

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Considering the definition does NOT include the prerequisite of needing to succeed in accomplishing the goal to be considered capable the fact that you think citing it is a point in your favor is just hilarious.

Your very citation is a point AGAINST you.

No, it doesn't. You don't have the ability to do something if you can't succeed in achieving it.

If you want to argue that the only team beyond a shadow of doubt that can be considered capable is the team that wins the championship have at it. You however are saying "nope 1 team at the end was capable. That's it. No others qualified".... And that's just not a smart argument by ANY dictionary definition

Well, where do you draw the line including teams that are capable of winning the Super Bowl??? I guess it ends with the Packers as it fits your narrative.

Why not include the Bears, which were actually able to beat the Bucs in the only game they played against each other this season. How about the Raiders, winners over the Chiefs in week 5.

With your way of thinking you could add nearly every team to the list of the ones capable of winning the Super Bowl, which is a whole load of BS.

Yah, but ignoring 25,000+ posts means I actually might be missing something. However, I'll go with my middle ground of just not responding and see how that works.

You already missed something, the fact the Packers have lost 13 straight games against NFC teams that actually went to the Super Bowl or that in esch season they made it to the NFCCG over the past 10 seasons they lost to an opponent for the second time that year.

Of course you conveniently ignore it as it doesn't fit your point.

It's too bad Pettine wasn't capable of calling a zone at the end of the first half, and that MLF wasn't capable of noticing it, and that Jones wasn't capable of holding on to the ball to start the second half. If so, things might have turned out differently.

You should better focus on what actually happens on the field instead of solely concentrating on whatifs.

Another thing all of you fail to see is that the Bucs could play that game as well.

It's too bad Brady wasn't capable of not throwing three interceptions in Packers territory, too bad receivers weren't able to catch the ball on four drops... If so, the Bucs might have blown out the Packers.

So what??? It didn't happen but at the end of the day the Bucs were capable of beating the Packers.

 

[Half Empty]

How adult of you.

Thank you.

 

[swhitset]

No, it doesn't. You don't have the ability to do something if you can't succeed in achieving it.



Well, where do you draw the line including teams that are capable of winning the Super Bowl??? I guess it ends with the Packers as it fits your narrative.

Why not include the Bears, which were actually able to beat the Bucs in the only game they played against each other this season. How about the Raiders, winners over the Chiefs in week 5.

With your way of thinking you could add nearly every team to the list of the ones capable of winning the Super Bowl, which is a whole load of BS.




You already missed something, the fact the Packers have lost 13 straight games against NFC teams that actually went to the Super Bowl or that in esch season they made it to the NFCCG over the past 10 seasons they lost to an opponent for the second time that year.

Of course you conveniently ignore it as it doesn't fit your point.



You should better focus on what actually happens on the field instead of solely concentrating on whatifs.

Another thing all of you fail to see is that the Bucs could play that game as well.

It's too bad Brady wasn't capable of not throwing three interceptions in Packers territory, too bad receivers weren't able to catch the ball on four drops... If so, the Bucs might have blown out the Packers.

So what??? It didn't happen but at the end of the day the Bucs were capable of beating the Packers.

Let me ask you this.. If the Packers and Bucs played each other 10 times in a row... do you believe the Bucs would win all 10? I already have a pretty good idea how you are going to push this argument aside based on your past posts... and it’s why pretty much no one agrees with you. I know you are proud to think your opinion is somehow the only correct one... but in reality it simply shows a blind stubbornness to accept reality.

 

[Mondio]

Sometimes it’s mildly irritating when someone is being so obtuse about something. You’re not sure if they can’t see it or just won’t.

then it’s mildly entertaining to see just how far they’ll go with it, funny even.

then it becomes kind of sad.

anyway, all I have to say is it’s a good thing I remained capable despite so many failures in life. Top 10 defense in 2nd half of the season and a historically good offense. Nobody would ever think that’s a team with a roster that could win a super bowl. Lol

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Let me ask you this.. If the Packers and Bucs played each other 10 times in a row... do you believe the Bucs would win all 10?

No, I don't believe the Bucs would win all 10 games in such a scenario but the majority of it.

Heck, I'm not even sure they could win 10 out of 10 against the Bears. Wait a moment, they actually lost their only game against Chicago this season.

So let me ask you this, do you truly think the Bears were capable of winning the Super Bowl???

I know you are proud to think your opinion is somehow the only correct one... but in reality it simply shows a blind stubbornness to accept reality.

That's absolutely hilarious. The Bucs beat the Packers twice this season and I'm the one not accepting reality by considering them the better team

Top 10 defense in 2nd half of the season and a historically good offense. Nobody would ever think that’s a team with a roster that could win a super bowl. Lol

Whoa, whoa, whoa, don't move the parameters here.

Entering the NFCCG I was convinced the Packers were good enough to win the Super Bowl. Unfortunately there weren't capable of pulling it off.

 

[RRyder]

No, it doesn't. You don't have the ability to do something if you can't succeed in achieving it.



Well, where do you draw the line including teams that are capable of winning the Super Bowl??? I guess it ends with the Packers as it fits your narrative.

Why not include the Bears, which were actually able to beat the Bucs in the only game they played against each other this season. How about the Raiders, winners over the Chiefs in week 5.

With your way of thinking you could add nearly every team to the list of the ones capable of winning the Super Bowl, which is a whole load of BS.




You already missed something, the fact the Packers have lost 13 straight games against NFC teams that actually went to the Super Bowl or that in esch season they made it to the NFCCG over the past 10 seasons they lost to an opponent for the second time that year.

Of course you conveniently ignore it as it doesn't fit your point.



You should better focus on what actually happens on the field instead of solely concentrating on whatifs.

Another thing all of you fail to see is that the Bucs could play that game as well.

It's too bad Brady wasn't capable of not throwing three interceptions in Packers territory, too bad receivers weren't able to catch the ball on four drops... If so, the Bucs might have blown out the Packers.

So what??? It didn't happen but at the end of the day the Bucs were capable of beating the Packers.

This might be the single silliest thing anyone has ever dug their heals in on here.

Have you never tripped over your own feet? Does that mean you weren't capable of walking? Never miss spelled a word you know? Does that mean you weren't capable of spelling it correctly?

People fail at things they were capable of achieving all the time.

Now if you want to draw a line somewhere that includes more then just "the team that wins the SB" a conversation could be had. Considering its entirely possible that wouldn't include the team that has allready demonstratably shown its capable (KC) by winning it last year. (Do you at least see how dumb that is to say?)

You seem to want to make this about the Packers. Sure I believe they were capable and simply fell short. You don't. That's fine. This is a conversation that could be had though.

That's not what any of my replies have been about though. They've been about the nonsense of your reading of a dictionary definition and adding to it in order to fit your own specific narrative. You don't get to cite the dictionary definition and then add to it (like the prerequisite of succeeding). You're attempting to be intellectually dishonest either with this board, or yourself, by doing that.

Take your L and move on

 

[PikeBadger]

Sir, I don’t ***** in every reply.

Despite your rampant desire to over moderate everything in sight (which I’ve seen first hand), I haven’t broken any rules. I will continue to share my opinion, thank you very much.

Oh, and yes, I do invite people I don’t get along with that great to my house.

Uhhhh. In-laws don’t count.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This might be the single silliest thing anyone has ever dug their heals in on here.

Have you never tripped over your own feet? Does that mean you weren't capable of walking? Never miss spelled a word you know? Does that mean you weren't capable of spelling it correctly?

People fail at things they were capable of achieving all the time.

The difference being that the Packers haven't once proven to be actually capable of even making it to the Super Bowl over the past 10 seasons. Or beating an NFC team that made it there. Or defeating an opponent in the NFCCG they lost to in the regular season as well.

To compare a team being capable of winning a football game to someone being able to walk or spell a word correctly is ridiculous.

 

[GleefulGary]

Uhhhh. In-laws don’t count.

Dang it.

 

[RRyder]

The difference being that the Packers haven't once proven to be actually capable of even making it to the Super Bowl over the past 10 seasons. Or beating an NFC team that made it there. Or defeating an opponent in the NFCCG they lost to in the regular season as well.

To compare a team being capable of winning a football game to someone being able to walk or spell a word correctly is ridiculous.

So if the Chiefs (the reigning champs) lose tonight were they not capable? Cause I remember you posting that if they lost that would mean they weren't.

Taking the L isn't so bad. We've all had to do it from time to time here Cap.... Itll be OK..... You'll be OK

 

[rmontro]

Let me ask you this.. If the Packers and Bucs played each other 10 times in a row... do you believe the Bucs would win all 10?

Maybe they'd win most of them, I don't think many people are saying they aren't the better team. But that doesn't mean there's no way the Packers could win, especially at home. I also wonder if things would have gone any better if Bakhtiari hadn't been hurt. And is it my imagination, or does he always get injured in practice?

 

[longtimefan]

Maybe they'd win most of them, I don't think many people are saying they aren't the better team. But that doesn't mean there's no way the Packers could win, especially at home. I also wonder if things would have gone any better if Bakhtiari hadn't been hurt. And is it my imagination, or does he always get injured in practice?

I think he was broke his ribs vs the 1st bucs game

 

[longtimefan]

I think the Chiefs have more weapons and looked way worse.

 

[GleefulGary]

I think the Chiefs have more weapons and looked way worse.

Almost like having a good OL matters. Chiefs were playing quite a few backups. Doesn’t matter how many weapons you got if the QB ain’t got time!

(I know you know that btw, just making a general statement to others)

I still stand by my prior comments saying that if Bakh was healthy, GB beats Tampa.

 

[longtimefan]

Almost like having a good OL matters. Chiefs were playing quite a few backups. Doesn’t matter how many weapons you got if the QB ain’t got time!

(I know you know that btw, just making a general statement to others)

I still stand by my prior comments saying that if Bakh was healthy, GB beats Tampa.

but..we need were more weapons and would be fine..even with bad online

KC showed if online suffers having extra weapons doesnt help

 

[Half Empty]

Almost like having a good OL matters. Chiefs were playing quite a few backups. Doesn’t matter how many weapons you got if the QB ain’t got time!

(I know you know that btw, just making a general statement to others)

I still stand by my prior comments saying that if Bakh was healthy, GB beats Tampa.

Nope - they lost, so they weren't capable of winning.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

but..we need were more weapons and would be fine..even with bad online

KC showed if online suffers having extra weapons doesnt help

Completely agree. However, there is a MASSIVE gap between the Packers' oline and what the Chiefs trotted out for the Super Bowl. Chiefs were starting TWO backup tackles and their guards weren't very good to begin with. Also, for some insane reason, the Chiefs called 5-man protection on 92% of their passing plays; it's like Reid forgot he was allowed to help out his awful oline.

Note, I am not arguing that oline doesn't matter, just that having an average oline is sufficient if the quarterback is good. Having a terrible oline and a coach that refuses to help the oline will sink any passing game however.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

but..we need were more weapons and would be fine..even with bad online

KC showed if online suffers having extra weapons doesnt help

Yup....that game last night not only showed the importance of a good O-Line but that of a good D-Line.

Todd Bowles was the game MVP in my mind. While he has some really good tools at his disposal, he seemed to know exactly what Mahomes was going to do and just how to defend it. Fun fact, Bowles was a member of the Green Bay Packers' player personnel staff from 1995–1996.

 

[Pugger]

Completely agree. However, there is a MASSIVE gap between the Packers' oline and what the Chiefs trotted out for the Super Bowl. Chiefs were starting TWO backup tackles and their guards weren't very good to begin with. Also, for some insane reason, the Chiefs called 5-man protection on 92% of their passing plays; it's like Reid forgot he was allowed to help out his awful oline.

Note, I am not arguing that oline doesn't matter, just that having an average oline is sufficient if the quarterback is good. Having a terrible oline and a coach that refuses to help the oline will sink any passing game however.

Plus Mahomes was playing on a bad wheel. Evidently he has to undergo surgery on an injured toe now that the season is over. IMO the reason the Bucs beat us and KC is their defense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So if the Chiefs (the reigning champs) lose tonight were they not capable? Cause I remember you posting that if they lost that would mean they weren't.

Taking the L isn't so bad. We've all had to do it from time to time here Cap.... Itll be OK..... You'll be OK

Once again, I don't have an issue admitting I was wrong when there is any evidence to support such a claim.

As I have mentioned repeatedly I solely consider the team that wins the Super Bowl to be capable of doing it. Taking a look at this year's Super Bowl I don't think anyone should argue the Chiefs actually were.

 

[Heyjoe4]

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?

Sorry for the late reply but man you nailed it. All they care about in GB is the bottom line and putting a "good enough" team on the field. And it does tie to the ownership structure, which is funny when you think about it. The team is owned by the fans. Murphy and the FO control the revenue and expenses. And I wouldn't be surprised if a good number of them are more incented to make money than to win SBs. And again to your point, it's not like a SB might bring a new stadium to town. That's not the issue in GB. That's good news and bad news I guess.

Although as I write this, I would guess the lion's share of expenses are player compensation, and the Packers max out the cap every year. I don't know the answer, but I think the incentives for the executives to win takes a back seat to profitability. I miss Bob Harlan.