Gute's Amazing Roster Purge

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, deathstar said:

Think about this: you just hired a new general manager. We lose a ton of experience in our personnel department. He implements an entire new scouting structure. On top of preparing for free agency and the draft you want to take away that GM to find a head coach. While other people are hiring head coaches left and right.

Mind you this head coach hire is so important that literally hundreds of millions of dollars could flow into the city of Green Bay over the course of the next decade if we make the right decision. 

But you're right, we just hired someone who worked with someone because it seemed right.

...

1. Implementing an entirely new scouting structure isn't that hard. It's like 12 people at most. 

2. Yes, finding a Head Coach is part of the job description of a GM as well as managing FA and the draft. 

3. What makes you think Gutekunst ran the HC search?

4. 100,000,000 over the course of a decade is 10 million dollars per year. That's just short of nothing in NFL terms. 

5. The financial success of the GB Packers is barely associated with the success on the field of the team.

6. This is the organization whose approach to finding the best GM candidate was to call the three people who's offices were closest to Murphy's.

7. They didn't even use a consulting firm for this hire. Acting like this was some huge professional endeavor just isn't the case. Murphy and Gutekunst put together their list of 5 or 6 names and made their call. We were the first team to hire our HC this year iirc.

[squire12]

1 hour ago, deathstar said:

Think about this: you just hired a new general manager. We lose a ton of experience in our personnel department. He implements an entire new scouting structure. On top of preparing for free agency and the draft you want to take away that GM to find a head coach. While other people are hiring head coaches left and right.

Mind you this head coach hire is so important that literally hundreds of millions of dollars could flow into the city of Green Bay over the course of the next decade if we make the right decision. 

But you're right, we just hired someone who worked with someone because it seemed right.

...

If the new GM did not have a short list of viable HC candidates when that GM was hired, he was not prepared to be the GM

[cannondale]

6 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1. Implementing an entirely new scouting structure isn't that hard. It's like 12 people at most. 

2. Yes, finding a Head Coach is part of the job description of a GM as well as managing FA and the draft. 

3. What makes you think Gutekunst ran the HC search?

4. 100,000,000 over the course of a decade is 10 million dollars per year. That's just short of nothing in NFL terms. 

5. The financial success of the GB Packers is barely associated with the success on the field of the team.

6. This is the organization whose approach to finding the best GM candidate was to call the three people who's offices were closest to Murphy's.

7. They didn't even use a consulting firm for this hire. Acting like this was some huge professional endeavor just isn't the case. Murphy and Gutekunst put together their list of 5 or 6 names and made their call. We were the first team to hire our HC this year iirc.

Are you saying you don't approve of the hires ?

Edited March 23, 2019 by cannondale

[AlexGreen#20]

5 minutes ago, cannondale said:

Are you saying you don't approve of the hires ?

Less the actual hires and more the approach that was taken to making them.

[deathstar]

11 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1. Implementing an entirely new scouting structure isn't that hard. It's like 12 people at most. 

2. Yes, finding a Head Coach is part of the job description of a GM as well as managing FA and the draft. 

3. What makes you think Gutekunst ran the HC search?

4. 100,000,000 over the course of a decade is 10 million dollars per year. That's just short of nothing in NFL terms. 

5. The financial success of the GB Packers is barely associated with the success on the field of the team.

6. This is the organization whose approach to finding the best GM candidate was to call the three people who's offices were closest to Murphy's.

7. They didn't even use a consulting firm for this hire. Acting like this was some huge professional endeavor just isn't the case. Murphy and Gutekunst put together their list of 5 or 6 names and made their call. We were the first team to hire our HC this year iirc.

1. Sure. You know huh?

2. Ok.

3. Because he and Murphy ran it together.

4. 5. The effect of playoff games on the local economy in GB can not be overstated.

6. 7. Believing that this was not a systematic approach from the time Gute was hired, to when they fired MM, to when they made the hire is ignoring all evidence, including your final point.

5 minutes ago, squire12 said:

If the new GM did not have a short list of viable HC candidates when that GM was hired, he was not prepared to be the GM

So that’s all we should ask from a GM in finding a coach: a short list of people. Got it.

[cannondale]

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Less the actual hires and more the approach that was taken to making them.

Can't ask for much more from Gute .... thus far. Hope he becomes the Packers version of Stearns for the Brewers. He gives me that vibe so far

I like LeFleur as a person. Not sure I've seen the evidence of being a McVay - like coach - not that it was a necessity. 

[squire12]

3 minutes ago, deathstar said:

So that’s all we should ask from a GM in finding a coach: a short list of people. Got it.

Any personnel man hoping to get a GM job should have a list of coaches he would pursue as a HC option.  Acting like Gutekunst was unprepared to take the reigns and find a new HC at the same time is short selling the person you hired to be GM.

[AlexGreen#20]

3 minutes ago, deathstar said:

1. Sure. You know huh?

2. Ok.

3. Because he and Murphy ran it together.

4. 5. The effect of playoff games on the local economy in GB can not be overstated.

6. 7. Believing that this was not a systematic approach from the time Gute was hired, to when they fired MM, to when they made the hire is ignoring all evidence, including your final point.

So that’s all we should ask from a GM in finding a coach: a short list of people. Got it.

1.There's 18 people in the player personnel staff. 10 scouts. That's from the packers website. There was already a system in place, a system that he was a part of. This wasn't a situation of running something entirely new. He had to make whatever changes he needed to make, and again, if he didn't have a plan, he shouldn't have been there in the first place.

3. If Murphy is also running the HC search, than the overworked excuse is less viable.

4. Who gives a ****? This is a football organization.

6/7. If the plan was to fire McCarthy, they should have fired McCarthy. Sacrificing a season because you think the guy you hired to be a GM is going to be too busy to run a HC search is just embarrassing. 

 

[hitnhope]

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

What exactly about it is weak?  The fact that strong franchises don't consistently turnover their coaching staff for every little failure.  If there was anytime that it was time to move on from Gute, it was after the Bostick debacle.  They should have moved on from there, not because Kaepernick ran all over them.  Your entire argument centers around a single game in each seasons as to why Capers should have been fired.  Two games over two seasons isn't a pattern.

The focus is not just individual games, they were just strong examples of the problem.   You are shifting my argument to suit your use.    

I was not suggesting that McCarthy should have been gone in 2012, only Dom Capers.   While successful teams do not turn over their coaching staff,  they do identify areas of weakness and fix them.    Lower level coaches are purged all of the time when they aren't doing the job.  The Packers got complacent after the SB win and left Capers in place years too long.   In the process they wasted years of some of the best QB play the league has seen.

I could buy your argument regarding results against Kaepernick if it only happened once.  The fact is that they faced him three times, and did a historically bad job against him.  2012 = 4 TD's and 180+ yards rushing - well documented.   2013  1st game gave up over 400 yards passing- I believe his highest passing total of his career, and in the playoffs gave him another 100 yards rushing.   Capers had no reasonable plan to deal with it even given multiple tries.   

The fact they kept Capers after the Seattle fiasco proves the complacency  that developed, and failure of McCarthy to deal with obvious problems.  McCarthy got fat, dumb, and happy with being almost good enough. 

[deathstar]

21 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1.There's 18 people in the player personnel staff. 10 scouts. That's from the packers website. There was already a system in place, a system that he was a part of. This wasn't a situation of running something entirely new. He had to make whatever changes he needed to make, and again, if he didn't have a plan, he shouldn't have been there in the first place.

3. If Murphy is also running the HC search, than the overworked excuse is less viable.

4. Who gives a ****? This is a football organization.

6/7. If the plan was to fire McCarthy, they should have fired McCarthy. Sacrificing a season because you think the guy you hired to be a GM is going to be too busy to run a HC search is just embarrassing. 

 

Dude I don’t even know what you’re arguing here. I’m not making **** up. There’s a huge article in the Atlantic about how they had to reorganize everything last year. Do your research.

Again - if you want to believe that they should’ve done it last year that’s fine. I don’t agree. That’s it.

[CWood21]

8 hours ago, hitnhope said:

The focus is not just individual games, they were just strong examples of the problem.   You are shifting my argument to suit your use.    

I was not suggesting that McCarthy should have been gone in 2012, only Dom Capers.   While successful teams do not turn over their coaching staff,  they do identify areas of weakness and fix them.    Lower level coaches are purged all of the time when they aren't doing the job.  The Packers got complacent after the SB win and left Capers in place years too long.   In the process they wasted years of some of the best QB play the league has seen.

I could buy your argument regarding results against Kaepernick if it only happened once.  The fact is that they faced him three times, and did a historically bad job against him.  2012 = 4 TD's and 180+ yards rushing - well documented.   2013  1st game gave up over 400 yards passing- I believe his highest passing total of his career, and in the playoffs gave him another 100 yards rushing.   Capers had no reasonable plan to deal with it even given multiple tries.   

The fact they kept Capers after the Seattle fiasco proves the complacency  that developed, and failure of McCarthy to deal with obvious problems.  McCarthy got fat, dumb, and happy with being almost good enough. 

I'm really not.  You pointed to their losses to San Francisco as reasons for them to move on from Capers.  I pointed out that it's not really a strong argument.  In 2011, the Packers finished 19th in opponents PPG, they finished 22nd in 2012, and 24th in 2013.  The Packers won the Super Bowl in 2010, so the question remains how long do coaches get before their Super Bowl win bubble busts?  In the 2012 playoff game against the 49ers, Colin Kaepernick ran for 181 yards on 16 carries.  In terms of offense, Kaepernick accounted for over 75% of the offense for the 49ers and that was his career best game.  In 2012, I'm not sure if I'd put more blame on Capers or the offense.  Neither one were very good.

The point I'm trying to make is that you win a Super Bowl, you get a grace period.  You're probably looking at a 2 year minimum before the seat gets warm.

[TheOnlyThing]

On 3/20/2019 at 8:50 PM, AlexGreen#20 said:

The defense was the dictionary definition of average in 2012 at 15th in points per drive allowed. 

For the years 2011-2017, the Packers D was, at its best, an average unit. It was also a below average unit most of those years.

In 2011, the Packers finished 32^nd in the NFL (that is dead last) in yards allowed and 19^th in points allowed.

The Packers defensive DVOA rankings for 2013-2016 (could not find 2011 and 2012) are as follows:

2013: 29th

2014: 18^th

2015: 14^th

2016: 23^rd

Where the Packers were ABOVE average on defense during this time was in spending on defensive players (active roster cap). The Pack's ranking on amount of cap space spent on the defense for 2013-2016, as set forth below, reveals that Green Bay poured a lot of money into those average to below average performing defensive units:

2013: 6^th

2014; 4^th

2015: 5^th

2016: 6^th

The Packers also used their top draft choice on defensive players each year between 2012-2016 (and its top four picks on the D in 2012).

Tremendous resources (financial and draft capital) were devoted to the D between 2011 and 2016.

I doubt even Dom Capers would contend the Packers got an adequate return on their investment.

[AlexGreen#20]

5 hours ago, TheOnlyThing said:

For the years 2011-2017, the Packers D was, at its best, an average unit. It was also a below average unit most of those years.

In 2011, the Packers finished 32^nd in the NFL (that is dead last) in yards allowed and 19^th in points allowed.

The Packers defensive DVOA rankings for 2013-2016 (could not find 2011 and 2012) are as follows:

2013: 29th

2014: 18^th

2015: 14^th

2016: 23^rd

Where the Packers were ABOVE average on defense during this time was in spending on defensive players (active roster cap). The Pack's ranking on amount of cap space spent on the defense for 2013-2016, as set forth below, reveals that Green Bay poured a lot of money into those average to below average performing defensive units:

2013: 6^th

2014; 4^th

2015: 5^th

2016: 6^th

The Packers also used their top draft choice on defensive players each year between 2012-2016 (and its top four picks on the D in 2012).

Tremendous resources (financial and draft capital) were devoted to the D between 2011 and 2016.

I doubt even Dom Capers would contend the Packers got an adequate return on their investment.

I'm not having this conversation with you for the 90th time.

[Packerraymond]

18 hours ago, deathstar said:

Dude I don’t even know what you’re arguing here. I’m not making **** up. There’s a huge article in the Atlantic about how they had to reorganize everything last year. Do your research.

Again - if you want to believe that they should’ve done it last year that’s fine. I don’t agree. That’s it.

If you're suggesting that a professional football franchise needed to tank an entire year, with an aging HOF QB no less, to "research" head coaching candidates, we have the worst FO in the whole NFL. I find this notion totally ridiculous.

The most prepared candidates from 2017 became head coaches in 2017 anyway, so what the hell advantage does a years head start give you?

"Hey let's look at these other guys that aren't the top HC candidates, because the top guys are going to get head gigs this year, but we need to research this year instead of making a hire so let's avoid researching the best candidates and look into these guys that might be candidates next year."

Sorry but if that was the case, we're done winning until Murphy and Gute are gone. (And I don't think that is even remotely the case, I think Mac was Gute's guy just like he was everyone else's going into 2018. I was a staunch Mac guy going into the season.)

[deathstar]

8 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

If you're suggesting that a professional football franchise needed to tank an entire year, with an aging HOF QB no less, to "research" head coaching candidates, we have the worst FO in the whole NFL. I find this notion totally ridiculous.

The most prepared candidates from 2017 became head coaches in 2017 anyway, so what the hell advantage does a years head start give you?

"Hey let's look at these other guys that aren't the top HC candidates, because the top guys are going to get head gigs this year, but we need to research this year instead of making a hire so let's avoid researching the best candidates and look into these guys that might be candidates next year."

Sorry but if that was the case, we're done winning until Murphy and Gute are gone. (And I don't think that is even remotely the case, I think Mac was Gute's guy just like he was everyone else's going into 2018. I was a staunch Mac guy going into the season.)

I believe that we gave MM every opportunity to succeed in 2018. I don’t believe they wanted to tank the year. I think that Gute/Murphy were prepared to move on but would’ve preferred keeping MM. 

Im honestly not sure why this is a controversial statement.

Edited March 24, 2019 by deathstar