Trusting in the Present Leadership

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

Before I begin with my question, I like to say I been a Packer fan for 65 years.
Been to numerous games, home and away.
Lived through the good and bad years.
I also know it takes a miracle to win a Super Bowl, let alone 2 or 3, or even to make the play off's

But here's some questions I have:

How do you feel about the present Green Bay Packer team, from coaches and players as it stands today?
They keep saying today's team is young, is a good or bad thing?
How can we play football against the divisional teams and come out flat showing no urgency?
Is Jorden Love the future going forward?
If so, is he getting the best coaching available?

One last burning question I mention here before.
How can we have two Hal-of-Fame quarter backs (Farve and Rodgers) for over two century's and have 1 Super Bowl from each?

Your Thoughts

 

[Firethorn1001]

How do you feel about the present Green Bay Packer team, from coaches and players as it stands today?
They keep saying today's team is young, is a good or bad thing?
How can we play football against the divisional teams and come out flat showing no urgency?
Is Jorden Love the future going forward?
If so, is he getting the best coaching available?

1. Overall I feel good. Regardless of the emotional response to how the season ended they made the playoffs, again, they have emerged out of cap hell and I have the expectation that they will be a decent team next year. They need some shoring up at CB and in the trenches, but will see how that plays out at the draft/FA next year.

2. I think going into next year the 'young team' thing needs to stop. Last year I get, this year ok.. next year they aren't young. They have notable experience. Next year it's a lazy crutch.

3. At this time, I'll chalk the divisional stuff up to just a historical anomaly. If they are 2-4 or less next year too then there is an issue.

4 With the dead cap hit, Love is the future through 2026. Any other gnashing of teeth is just wasted energy because he isn't being cut, traded or benched currently. I do believe we shall have our definitive answer next year IMO. The 'hope' for me is that he got into some bad habits with the knee stuff that needs to be addressed in the offseason. They probably could stand to have a more veteran WR leader in locker room too.

 

[David Ciembronowicz]

The biggest concern I have is based on a comparison of the top team in the NFL KC Chiefs to GB. When you watch KC what you see and get 98% of the time is: a team that has extremely high confidence from the coaching staff to the lowest guy on the sideline, a confidence in their ability to execute what is called or find a way to be successful; I see a team that is business like but aggressive, runs each play with a level of abandonment that is not "outside the bounds" of their ability but rather full go, run over people and through people; I see a KC team that "seems" to tackle better, be in better position, play together and play off off of each other more often than any other team in the NFL. The game against the Bills, some of their RB runs we "blasted through the line and ran as hard as fast as strong as they could". Mahomes is a leader, they have leaders in all three phases and consistently show that leadership by making everyone play to a higher level.

I do not see that with GB, one occasion you see the aggressive abandonment, sometimes you may see the confidence but mostly with individuals, not TEAM. You don't see "leadership" on this team getting folks fired up, when a mistake happens "OK, that won't happen again, we need to execute" is that heard don't know but too often we see this club failing to capitalize, failing to execute to the highest level and making everyone better. Some might say youth, others might say something else, frankly some of these "young" players may need mentoring to understand NFL life is short, requires performance at a high level for the money being paid and they have a responsibility to perform at the highest level possible and get everyone around them to do the same.
I am a fan of performance pay way too many contracts today like Love and others that give them huge sums for average performance..... If not mistaken he finished from 9 to about 18 in different QB categories, average overall- nothing to get excited about and IMO his leadership leaves a to be desired along with others on this team. JA for example may be Vgood but his lack of being able to play, ,his attitude cannot be good for any football TEAM.

 

[Magooch]

Could say more but I’ll be brief. In general I think our team is better-ran than the majority of teams in the league.

That said, I think they would rather have 10 “above average” years that don’t end in a title over 1-2 title winning years surrounded by 8-9 “below average” ones.

 

[El Guapo]

Agreed. I am always a fan of long term stability and good teams versus the boom-and-bust mentality that many owners go for when going for it all.

I'm fine with this team. They are young and have many positives. They aren't the best and have a lot of room for growth. The Chiefs are writing themselves into NFL history, so let's not compare ourselves with them. I'm fine with aspiring to be them but being satisfied with "just" being the Bills.

There are 5 HOF quarterbacks that never won a ring. Then add in the HOF QBs with only one rig: Steve Young, Stabler, Warner, and Namath. Then there are a bunch who may get in or are deserving: Brees, Simms, Flacco, Theismann, Rodgers. It happens and may happen again. There are twelve NFL teams that have never won a Super Bowl. I don't cry in my beer that we ONLY got to celebrate SB victories in 1996 and 2010 - in addition to the ten previous championships!

 

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

The biggest concern I have is based on a comparison of the top team in the NFL KC Chiefs to GB. When you watch KC what you see and get 98% of the time is: a team that has extremely high confidence from the coaching staff to the lowest guy on the sideline, a confidence in their ability to execute what is called or find a way to be successful; I see a team that is business like but aggressive, runs each play with a level of abandonment that is not "outside the bounds" of their ability but rather full go, run over people and through people; I see a KC team that "seems" to tackle better, be in better position, play together and play off off of each other more often than any other team in the NFL. The game against the Bills, some of their RB runs we "blasted through the line and ran as hard as fast as strong as they could". Mahomes is a leader, they have leaders in all three phases and consistently show that leadership by making everyone play to a higher level.

I do not see that with GB, one occasion you see the aggressive abandonment, sometimes you may see the confidence but mostly with individuals, not TEAM. You don't see "leadership" on this team getting folks fired up, when a mistake happens "OK, that won't happen again, we need to execute" is that heard don't know but too often we see this club failing to capitalize, failing to execute to the highest level and making everyone better. Some might say youth, others might say something else, frankly some of these "young" players may need mentoring to understand NFL life is short, requires performance at a high level for the money being paid and they have a responsibility to perform at the highest level possible and get everyone around them to do the same.
I am a fan of performance pay way too many contracts today like Love and others that give them huge sums for average performance..... If not mistaken he finished from 9 to about 18 in different QB categories, average overall- nothing to get excited about and IMO his leadership leaves a to be desired along with others on this team. JA for example may be Vgood but his lack of being able to play, ,his attitude cannot be good for any football TEAM.

Well Said

 

[McKnowledge]

Gute drafts with the foreknowledge his job is secure.

His 1st round picks never yields an immediate contributor.

Potential means nothing without tangible signs of progress.

It's time to pivot on his draft strategy.

LaFleur is NOT a leader of men. He's a schematic coach. His leadership qualities are lacking. The resigning of Bisaccia was as much to appease the players as it was to fill the role.

I am always discouraged by the coaching hire network, it's always who you know and not are you good at your job?

Andy Reid is a great example of not only being a CEO type of coach but also allowing his coaches the latitude to implement their styles within the construct of team culture and the ultimate goal of winning.

He will let coaches come and go, and when things don't work out, he has the humility to welcome them back (i.e. Nagy). This personal skill is vastly underrated.

A lot of Packer's fans mistakenly seem to equate passion and boisterous personalities with immaturity and lack of discipline, which is foolish.

A player like JA for example is great at his job, he hasn't been healthy this season and obviously there is a disconnect between him and the organization.

I think if/when Packers move on from LaFleur, it's time to consider hiring a former player as HC and supplementing former players on the coaching staff.

There is a direct correlation between team success and players on the team having coaches that were former players.

 

[Half Empty]

Could say more but I’ll be brief.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

 

[Magooch]

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

A degree of restraint that is often a rarity for me, I know

 

[Dantés]

Under Gutekunst:

-Head Coach-- A: LaFleur is beyond argument a top 10 coach and he's definitely in the conversation for top 5. The coaching hires down the line have been hit and miss, but that's LaFleur, not Gutekunst.

-Draft-- C+: Gutekunst is good at maneuvering to acquire picks and give himself a lot of bites at the apple, but his pick execution needs work. My opinion: he needs to de-emphasize the RAS stuff and focus more on tape evaluation.

-Free Agency-- A: The Packers have been outstanding when it comes to adding outside talent, both in terms of splash signings (Smiths, Amos, Jacobs, McKinley, etc.) and buy low acquisitions (Campbell, Douglas).

-Trades-- B+: It's hard to think of a trade that Gute has executed that has been a real loss. The Douglas trade ended up being the wrong move in retrospect, but it made total sense in the moment.

-Cap Management-- A: Gutekunst and his staff threaded the needle in that they went "all in" cap wise to win while they had Rodgers, but in such a way that they were able to get out from under liabilities in relatively short order.

-Roster Management-- A: Having the youngest roster in the NFL in back to back seasons and making the playoffs in both of them is a VERY good sign. In a normal year, the youngest roster in the league accounts for ~5 wins.

Conclusion: Gutekunst is currently the leader of the football side of the Packers and he's doing a very good job. Overall, I'd give him a B+. His main problem has been returns on draft picks. If he can improve in that regard, you're talking about one of the elite general managers in the game.

 

[El Guapo]

Conclusion: Gutekunst is currently the leader of the football side of the Packers and he's doing a very good job. Overall, I'd give him a B+. His main problem has been returns on draft picks. If he can improve in that regard, you're talking about one of the elite general managers in the game.

Great points overall.

As to the draft picks, one has to consider the chicken-and-egg dilemma. Are the picks not good or are the coaches not good at developing them?

 

[Dantés]

Great points overall.

As to the draft picks, one has to consider the chicken-and-egg dilemma. Are the picks not good or are the coaches not good at developing them?

I think it's more the picks. But generally, the style of drafting that the Packers engage in puts a ton of pressure on the coaches to develop. They're drawn to athletic projects. I think that's a good approach in the middle to later rounds, but at the top of the draft I think they should take more players with immediately translatable skills.

 

[SudsMcBucky]

I think it's more the picks. But generally, the style of drafting that the Packers engage in puts a ton of pressure on the coaches to develop. They're drawn to athletic projects. I think that's a good approach in the middle to later rounds, but at the top of the draft I think they should take more players with immediately translatable skills.

100%.

 

[El Guapo]

I think it's more the picks. But generally, the style of drafting that the Packers engage in puts a ton of pressure on the coaches to develop. They're drawn to athletic projects. I think that's a good approach in the middle to later rounds, but at the top of the draft I think they should take more players with immediately translatable skills.

Easier said when you're picking in the top 15 versus the bottom 10 every year.

Speaking of RAS - is there any proof or quote of Gutekunst putting such a big emphasis on it (as people say on this forum) or is it merely just a correlation/coincidence that the players he's picked have high scores?

 

[tynimiller]

One last burning question I mention here before.
How can we have two Hal-of-Fame quarter backs (Farve and Rodgers) for over two century's and have 1 Super Bowl from each?

Your Thoughts

Because winning a Super Bowl is freaking hard. VERY freaking hard.


See @Dantés post for excellent overall summary for the rest...his grade for drafts is split for me Day1 he gets a C+ but overall I'd elevate him to a B range.

 

[tynimiller]

Easier said when you're picking in the top 15 versus the bottom 10 every year.

Speaking of RAS - is there any proof or quote of Gutekunst putting such a big emphasis on it (as people say on this forum) or is it merely just a correlation/coincidence that the players he's picked have high scores?

I don't believe any quote exists, it is just a massive correlation over the years made by many.

 

[Magooch]

Easier said when you're picking in the top 15 versus the bottom 10 every year.

Speaking of RAS - is there any proof or quote of Gutekunst putting such a big emphasis on it (as people say on this forum) or is it merely just a correlation/coincidence that the players he's picked have high scores?

I don't know that he's ever explicitly said that we draft towards RAS, but Gute *has* made it a point to talk about how he values certain "athletic traits" or similar when it comes to draft evaluations, and there's a pretty marked correlation in emphasis/increase in RAS drafting since he's been with us. He's had a time or two where he's mentioned how "certain athletics attributes lead to a higher ceiling," which is basically the philosophy behind RAS without actually saying RAS, lol.

The thing is though that it's largely been consistent too regardless of draft position. Yes, it's easier to get "proven" players earlier in the round than later, but take Gary and LVN for example: both top-half draft picks who were largely seen as elite athletes/physical tools...but also guys for which most pre-draft analysis included something like "the production hasn't always matched the potential" or "has elite tools, but doesn't always come through on tape," etc.

 

[Dantés]

Easier said when you're picking in the top 15 versus the bottom 10 every year.

Speaking of RAS - is there any proof or quote of Gutekunst putting such a big emphasis on it (as people say on this forum) or is it merely just a correlation/coincidence that the players he's picked have high scores?

It's very well documented going back to Ron Wolf that the Packers have had some of the most stringent athletic thresholds in the entire league.

But consider a couple of the higher picks in recent seasons-- Rashan Gary and Lukas Van Ness.

Both were considered to be very raw, they had little production in college, but they were both rare specimens.

Gary contributed very little for two seasons and then progressed to become a decent starting edge defender. He's certainly not a bust, but where he's settled in as a pro is a little better than average and it took him a long time to get there.

Van Ness is, we hope, on the same career path. His contributions have been very modest in his first two seasons and at this point, you just hope he can become a viable starter.

In the case of Gary, four defensive linemen came off the board in the next seven picks who were all more immediately useful and are probably overall just better. In the case of LVN, the Jets take Will McDonald two picks later and he just had 10.5 sacks as a second year player.

To be clear-- I'm not in favor of throwing out thresholds. But rather than using them to hone in on who to pick, I think they should be used to eliminate guys whose athletic profile makes success unlikely. In other words, take the 7.5 whose really good at football over the 9.7 who will need years to figure it out. But definitely pass on the 3.8.

 

[Dantés]

A quick and dirty rundown of Gutekunst's drafts (the ones that we have enough data on to judge):

2018: Jaire was a big hit and MVS was a great return for a rd 5 guy; everything in between was basically a bust. I would give that draft a C-.

2019: Jenkins was a very good 2nd rounder; Gary was just OK as the 12th overall pick; Savage is a borderline bust; the only other player to contribute anything was Ty Summers on special teams. I would also give this class a C-.

2020: Landing a starting QB at the end of the 1st is a homerun, though the success is somewhat blunted by the fact that they missed the benefit of most of his rookie contract. Dillon was/is a viable NFL player, but you definitely want more from a 2nd round running back. Finding an average starting guard in the 6th is great value. I give this class a B+ almost entirely on the strength of Love.

2021: Slaton was good value in rd 5; McDuffie provided great return for a 6th rounder; rounds 1-3 were a huge disappointment, particularly galling because of the decision to draft Myers over Creed Humphrey. This class is a D.

2022: Finding solid to good starting tackles in rounds 4 and 7 is a homerun accomplishment; Doubs, Engagbare, and Rhyan have all proven to be + value relative to their draft slot. The first three picks-- Walker, Wyatt, and Watson-- are just OK. They aren't busts but you would certainly have hoped for more. I give this class an A-.

So C- (1.7), C- (1.7), B+ (3.3), D (1.0), A- (3.7) all averages out to a 2.3, which is a C+.

 

[Sanguine camper]

A quick and dirty rundown of Gutekunst's drafts (the ones that we have enough data on to judge):

2018: Jaire was a big hit and MVS was a great return for a rd 5 guy; everything in between was basically a bust. I would give that draft a C-.

2019: Jenkins was a very good 2nd rounder; Gary was just OK as the 12th overall pick; Savage is a borderline bust; the only other player to contribute anything was Ty Summers on special teams. I would also give this class a C-.

2020: Landing a starting QB at the end of the 1st is a homerun, though the success is somewhat blunted by the fact that they missed the benefit of most of his rookie contract. Dillon was/is a viable NFL player, but you definitely want more from a 2nd round running back. Finding an average starting guard in the 6th is great value. I give this class a B+ almost entirely on the strength of Love.

2021: Slaton was good value in rd 5; McDuffie provided great return for a 6th rounder; rounds 1-3 were a huge disappointment, particularly galling because of the decision to draft Myers over Creed Humphrey. This class is a D.

2022: Finding solid to good starting tackles in rounds 4 and 7 is a homerun accomplishment; Doubs, Engagbare, and Rhyan have all proven to be + value relative to their draft slot. The first three picks-- Walker, Wyatt, and Watson-- are just OK. They aren't busts but you would certainly have hoped for more. I give this class an A-.

So C- (1.7), C- (1.7), B+ (3.3), D (1.0), A- (3.7) all averages out to a 2.3, which is a C+.

Good analysis. I forgot how bad the 2021 draft was. 2023 appears to be a B or better. Getting Zack Tom on day 3 was a great pick. Kraft in round 3 and Reed in round 2 were very good. The only reason I wouldn't give it an A is that LVN and Musgrave in rounds 1 and 2 are hugely disappointing. Wooden in round 4 is a miss but Brooks in round 6 is a steal.

 

[Dantés]

Good analysis. I forgot how bad the 2021 draft was. 2023 appears to be a B or better. Getting Zack Tom on day 3 was a great pick. Kraft in round 3 and Reed in round 2 were very good. The only reason I wouldn't give it an A is that LVN and Musgrave in rounds 1 and 2 are hugely disappointing. Wooden in round 4 is a miss but Brooks in round 6 is a steal.

I stopped short of 2023 because I still think so much could change, for better or worse.

 

[Half Empty]

-Head Coach-- A: LaFleur is beyond argument a top 10 coach and he's definitely in the conversation for top 5. The coaching hires down the line have been hit and miss, but that's LaFleur, not Gutekunst.

Reading this quickly, looks like Gute gets credit for hiring a great coach, but that great coach gets the ding for hiring hit-and-miss other coaches.

 

[Dantés]

Reading this quickly, looks like Gute gets credit for hiring a great coach, but that great coach gets the ding for hiring hit-and-miss other coaches.

That's right. My understanding is that LaFleur has final say on his staff.

I think LaFleur is really good at almost all aspects of the head coaching job, but building a staff has been a relative weakness. It appears to be getting better.

He's very analogous to Gutekunst, who I regard as being really good at almost all aspects of the GM role, but drafting has been a relative weakness. It also appears to be getting better. Time will tell.

 

[El Guapo]

I still play and coach sports. When I draft players that are more on the unknown side, I also go for players that are athletic over skills. My thought has always been that I can teach someone how to be a better player by improving their skills. It's really hard to teach people how to play faster.

So I'm not necessarily defending Gutekunst, but stating that I am fine with them prioritizing athletics when the highly skilled players are no longer there. The coaches should be getting more out of the athletes and Gutekunst has to make sure that they at least have enough skill, mental capacity, and desire to improve.

 

[Dantés]

I still play and coach sports. When I draft players that are more on the unknown side, I also go for players that are athletic over skills. My thought has always been that I can teach someone how to be a better player by improving their skills. It's really hard to teach people how to play faster.

So I'm not necessarily defending Gutekunst, but stating that I am fine with them prioritizing athletics when the highly skilled players are no longer there. The coaches should be getting more out of the athletes and Gutekunst has to make sure that they at least have enough skill, mental capacity, and desire to improve.

This logic is exactly why I like Gutekunst's approach in the middle and later rounds. But in the top 100, I think he virtually always has options that are highly skilled AND have athletic ability.