Gopher Trace Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 56 minutes ago, PackGymRat said: I wouldn’t dismiss it so. JMD loves young QBs and several people have said that the Packers job isn’t all its hyped to be due to: *weird management structure *AR at the backend of his career JMD can mold Baker into what he wants. AR while great has his own flaws. It’s the old adage “cant teach an old dog new tricks”. Yes GB is a great position to work (historic franchise), but it’s gonna take work to get this team back to the SB, going to playoffs is not good enough. MM took us to the playoffs a lot and so did Sherman. He's also from Ohio originally. And whereas we have had years of relative success, they have had years of futility, so your success/legend becomes even more celebrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{Family Ghost} Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 If we lose out to the browns for McDaniels I'm going to be miffed .. we've been losing out to other clubs way too often. The bears beat us out for Mack, Allen Robinson, and matched our offer sheet to Kyle Fuller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said: If we lose out to the browns for McDaniels I'm going to be miffed .. we've been losing out to other clubs way too often. The bears beat us out for Mack, Allen Robinson, and matched our offer sheet to Kyle Fuller. At this point, if we lose out on McDaniels I think it'll simply be our doing in that Murphy doesnt think he's the guy. Got a feeling he's ours if we want him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketchup Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, packfanfb said: At this point, if we lose out on McDaniels I think it'll simply be our doing in that Murphy doesnt think he's the guy. Got a feeling he's ours if we want him. Not so sure. Like said above, GB might not be as desirable as some may think. The power structure with Mac, Murphy and Gute was not something I’d want to be involved in. Anything but a traditional power structure almost never works in the NFL. That could be a question mark for an incoming coach but one that can be easily fixed as well. Then, there is Rodgers. What really happened between him and Mac isn’t ever going to be known to us. However, the perception doesn’t exactly paint a pretty picture of coaching Rodgers. In Cleveland, McDaniels has a very young QB to mold that is coming off a terrific rookie season. Rodgers is an old dog who is set in his ways by the look of his on field play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasquatch Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 I’m less concerned with who the Packers hire as HC, and more concerned with Rodgers frankly. Unless AR improves his accuracy, throws more into tight windows, hits the check-down receivers once and a while, and worries less about records and throwing interceptions, it won’t matter who the Packers hire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Just now, Ketchup said: Not so sure. Like said above, GB might not be as desirable as some may think. The power structure with Mac, Murphy and Gute was not something I’d want to be involved in. Anything but a traditional power structure almost never works in the NFL. That could be a question mark for an incoming coach but one that can be easily fixed as well. Then, there is Rodgers. What really happened between him and Mac isn’t ever going to be known to us. However, the perception doesn’t exactly paint a pretty picture of coaching Rodgers. In Cleveland, McDaniels has a very young QB to mold that is coming off a terrific rookie season. Rodgers is an old dog who is set in his ways by the look of his on field play. I'd argue that what's going on here is the "traditional" power structure. Other NFL GMs aren't firing coaches without owners permission either. There's a lot of teams that have it like we have it now. There's a few teams that have it setup where there's one guy in charge of personnel and HC (Oakland, Seattle, New England) There's very few teams that have it set up where the POFO/GM has absolute autonomy to replace underlings at will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Ketchup said: Not so sure. Like said above, GB might not be as desirable as some may think. The power structure with Mac, Murphy and Gute was not something I’d want to be involved in. Anything but a traditional power structure almost never works in the NFL. That could be a question mark for an incoming coach but one that can be easily fixed as well. Then, there is Rodgers. What really happened between him and Mac isn’t ever going to be known to us. However, the perception doesn’t exactly paint a pretty picture of coaching Rodgers. In Cleveland, McDaniels has a very young QB to mold that is coming off a terrific rookie season. Rodgers is an old dog who is set in his ways by the look of his on field play. For whatever reason, I don't think Cleveland is very interested. I mean they interviewed Flores so its not like it was a travel or scheduling thing...they were there and only interviewed Flores, not McD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green19 Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 17 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said: If we lose out to the browns for McDaniels I'm going to be miffed .. we've been losing out to other clubs way too often. The bears beat us out for Mack, Allen Robinson, and matched our offer sheet to Kyle Fuller. The rumor of McDaniels loving the Browns was from an Ohio source... Not saying it’s not true but he hasn’t had an interview or reported contact. It’s just an Ohio news outlet reporting he wants the job... because he is from Ohio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, Ketchup said: Anything but a traditional power structure almost never works in the NFL proof? I'm not sure this is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{Family Ghost} Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 The Packers 'power structure' is one of the most over hyped deals we have going on. There's like 14 teams that have the same basic structure. I think the defending champion Eagles and Pittsburgh Steelers have this style .. lots of successful teams. It's really a non-issue that we need to quit talking about. A head coach should like it .. he'd be on equal footing with the GM and report directly to the team president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketchup Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 1 minute ago, incognito_man said: proof? I'm not sure this is correct. I just don’t recall any off the top of my head that have been successful. It very well may not be correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketchup Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 Just now, {Family Ghost} said: The Packers 'power structure' is one of the most over hyped deals we have going on. There's like 14 teams that have the same basic structure. I think the defending champion Eagles and Pittsburgh Steelers have this style .. lots of successful teams. It's really a non-issue that we need to quit talking about. A head coach should like it .. he'd be on equal footing with the GM and report directly to the team president. You know, you may be right on that. I’ll concede I was probably blowing smoke on that part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: I'd argue that what's going on here is the "traditional" power structure. Other NFL GMs aren't firing coaches without owners permission either. There's a lot of teams that have it like we have it now. There's a few teams that have it setup where there's one guy in charge of personnel and HC (Oakland, Seattle, New England) There's very few teams that have it set up where the POFO/GM has absolute autonomy to replace underlings at will. Agree. This ongoing consternation and "conceptual hand-wringing" about the GB FO structure and how its ruining all things Green Bay has got to end. Last I heard, thirteen other clubs have similar setups. Almost half the league. Must be pure disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Penske Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 “According to a source close to the McDaniels camp, the 42-year-old coordinator is very much in play with the Packers. He does not have any other teams interested in him and apparently did not turn off Murphy and Gutekunst with a his-way-or-the-highway attitude in the interview.” https://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2019/01/06/silverstein-josh-mcdaniels-adam-gase-look-like-packers-safest-calls/2483413002/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathstar Posted January 7, 2019 Share Posted January 7, 2019 I’m not convinced that the power structure last year was anything more than an aberration. I believe that it was a gesture of respect to McCarthy, given how long he had been with the organization. Murphy seems to be treating this hire like a GM treats player acquisition for a coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.