Jump to content
Slinky

Mark Murphy must go!!

Recommended Posts

I’m not going to give PFT the click it so desperately seeks but it wouldn’t surprise me if their “Aaron Rodgers Ignores Cancer Patient” hitpiece is an adjacent link.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pugger said:

Training camp and preseason games can't come quick enough.   This has been one long damn offseason.

Aren't they all?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murphy is fine.  Hired Gute which was definitely the right call.  He also spearheaded the Titletown district.  We'll see how it all works out.  No problem with him so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this on another site with a similar question, so i thought I'd port it over here as well.

I’ve never been that bothered about the way Mark Murphy runs things, and I’ve never considered him a power-grabber. the only minor gripe i had with him was the sudden way he fired MM, right after a game, leaving McCarthy no time to say goodbye or anything. Too abrupt imo, for a guy who had been head coach for 13 years.

If he Murphy had fired MM the next day, after reviewing his thoughts from immediately after the game, I wouldn’t have disagreed with that, either. if McCarthy was a ‘dead coach walking’ since the GM change, it would have been better to have completely cleared house back then.

I do have more questions about Ball. Originally (over a year ago), I had few problems with him as GM. My only real doubt back then was that he would need to have on board an excellent talent evaluator, to guide him in the draft process. Now I have more questions about his fit in Green Bay...... fit, aspirations, and his suitability as a GM. I have heard good things about him as a tireless worker and a get-it-done guy, but I’ve also heard he is a polarising person.

The ‘silos’ thing has never bothered me. At the upper levels of an organisation it is all about the way these people interact with everyone else in all tiers of the organisation. A willingness to listen (really listen), an ability to compromise when necessary, good social skills, being good at your job - if the upper level guys have these, then the system doesn’t matter that much, they’ll make it work.

The power-grabbing thing never troubled me either, why ascribe that to a guy who was effectively CEO of the Packers before the changes and after. when you are at the top there isn’t any higher to go, or any need to power-grab. The only reason I could think of to accrue more power when you are already at the top is if you suffer from a deep insecurity, and I have seen no signs of that in Murphy, he looks like a rather confident, outgoing type to me.

To address the point of La Fleur not having ‘control’ of coach hiring, well, I thought Pettine was better than good, he was an excellent hire at the time and should be retained if at all possible. I wouldn’t want a coach to hire a lesser guy because he was an old croney the head coach was more comfortable with. I want the best, if you can get it, and when you do, you move heaven and earth to keep them. Pettine also had the advantage of having only the briefest time with McCarthy, so he need not be included in the ‘clean house’ philosophy. I have reservations about a ‘clean house’ philosophy, because I thought one or two more of the old staff could have been retained, and allowed La Fleur a stronger overall coaching squad (guys like Campen, who I liked more as a coach in his later years, than early on in Green Bay), but that is for another time and another post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d like to see Gute and LaFleur work exclusively, without so much influence from Murphy and Ball.  That being said, for all we know Gute and LaFleur are  heavily reliant on those two gentleman, so I’m going to give this arrangement the benefit of the doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sasquatch said:

I’d like to see Gute and LaFleur work exclusively, without so much influence from Murphy and Ball.  That being said, for all we know Gute and LaFleur are  heavily reliant on those two gentleman, so I’m going to give this arrangement the benefit of the doubt.

I guess I'm confused by all this still.

Work without influence how? Do you mean the pure football stuff? i.e. control over the on-the-field product? If so, why do we think they do not? The change in FA activity has changed dramatically when Gute was hired. Ball and Murphy stayed. If their influence remained the same, how do we explain this shift in action?

Additionally, if Murphy is qualified to hire a GM, is he also not qualified to hire a coach? Not to mention every report out there indicates Gute was very impressed by him as well. 

I view Murphy's influence as a net positive if anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I guess I'm confused by all this still.

Work without influence how? Do you mean the pure football stuff? i.e. control over the on-the-field product? If so, why do we think they do not? The change in FA activity has changed dramatically when Gute was hired. Ball and Murphy stayed. If their influence remained the same, how do we explain this shift in action?

Additionally, if Murphy is qualified to hire a GM, is he also not qualified to hire a coach? Not to mention every report out there indicates Gute was very impressed by him as well. 

I view Murphy's influence as a net positive if anything. 

Pretty much this. It all seems a hatchet job about not much. It sounds like no matter who has the final say they all listen to each other, especially within their expertise. That's a good situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spilltray said:

Pretty much this. It all seems a hatchet job about not much. It sounds like no matter who has the final say they all listen to each other, especially within their expertise. That's a good situation.

Based in the sources in the article, the only way there would be praise is if Ron Wolf replaced Murphy and Eliot Wolf replaced Gute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, incognito_man said:

I guess I'm confused by all this still. Work without influence how? Do you mean the pure football stuff? i.e. control over the on-the-field product? If so, why do we think they do not? The change in FA activity has changed dramatically when Gute was hired. Ball and Murphy stayed. If their influence remained the same, how do we explain this shift in action? Additionally, if Murphy is qualified to hire a GM, is he also not qualified to hire a coach? Not to mention every report out there indicates Gute was very impressed by him as well. I view Murphy's influence as a net positive if anything. 

Agree. If it ain't broke, quite bitching about fixing it. So where's the evidence that it's broken? We didnt get some ST guy?

Meanwhile.....back at the office........

We've changed the roster over.....changed the tactics of player acquisition......changed almost the entire coaching staff over.......and are poised to get back into things after a short downturn. Not some "wandering and losing aimlessly period..." No. We're back.

It ain't broke that I can see. So quit the bitching.

Edited by Leader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Leader said:

Agree. If it ain't broke, quite bitching about fixing it. So where's the evidence that it's broken? We didnt get some ST guy?

Meanwhile.....back at the office........

We've changed the roster over.....changed the tactics of player acquisition......changed almost the entire coaching staff over.......and are poised to get back into things after a short downturn. Not some "wandering and losing aimlessly period..." No. We're back.

It ain't broke that I can see. So quit the bitching.

From what I gather, GB's front office structure is a bit unusual. Will it work? Dunno. But given the climate in the NFL, someone trying something different is to be applauded. Often it seems teams would rather fail in the usual manner than take a chance on something new which may or may not be successful. 

I'm going to assume the LaFleur was either told, or requested, to keep Pettine. And I think that's fine; my version of how that conversation goes is Gutekunst (and possibly Murphy) saying during the interview "we really like the job Mike Pettine is doing, and are curious as to your feelings on keeping him." LaFleur: "I know Mike a bit, and he's got a great reputation. Obviously I would have to sit and have a conversation with him, but I'm certainly not opposed to keeping him on, and can't see any reason that I wouldn't barring some sort of personality conflict. It would be nice to have continuity on defense." I don't think keeping on an ***'t manager or equivalent would be an issue in ANY business, but apparently it is in the NFL? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Mr Bad Example said:

From what I gather, GB's front office structure is a bit unusual. Will it work? Dunno. But given the climate in the NFL, someone trying something different is to be applauded. Often it seems teams would rather fail in the usual manner than take a chance on something new which may or may not be successful. 

I'm going to assume the LaFleur was either told, or requested, to keep Pettine. And I think that's fine; my version of how that conversation goes is Gutekunst (and possibly Murphy) saying during the interview "we really like the job Mike Pettine is doing, and are curious as to your feelings on keeping him." LaFleur: "I know Mike a bit, and he's got a great reputation. Obviously I would have to sit and have a conversation with him, but I'm certainly not opposed to keeping him on, and can't see any reason that I wouldn't barring some sort of personality conflict. It would be nice to have continuity on defense." I don't think keeping on an ***'t manager or equivalent would be an issue in ANY business, but apparently it is in the NFL? 

There was no reason not to retain Pettine. None IMO and it's unclear to me how much (if any) issue it was with MLF to keep him. Frankly, it shouldnt have been a for Mr. 39y/o first time HC to welcome keeping a qualified DC on board? No brainer.

This isnt a burn it all down - build it all new and we'll catch you some years later winning again - roster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Leader said:

This isnt a burn it all down - build it all new and we'll catch you some years later winning again - roster.

Really, I think that the roster doesn't have any major holes in it, especially post FA and draft. I'm not saying that it's All-Pros at every position, but you can certainly look up and down and go think that the preferred starters are either solid, or at worst unproven with upside. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Scoremore said:

Murphy is fine.  Hired Gute which was definitely the right call.  He also spearheaded the Titletown district.  We'll see how it all works out.  No problem with him so far.

How do we know it was the right call?  As far as first seasons go, it could not have possibly went any worse for Gute.  We were pretty easily one of the NFL's biggest underachiever achievers last year.  Because of that horrid first season he approached the offseason with the sort of desperation we've never seen.  He hired a green NFL coach with no quality play calling experience.  He also recklessly spent money on a bunch fo guys who weren't anything more than average NFL starters.  

Extremely premature to call Gute the right call.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SSG said:

How do we know it was the right call?  As far as first seasons go, it could not have possibly went any worse for Gute.  We were pretty easily one of the NFL's biggest underachiever achievers last year.  Because of that horrid first season he approached the offseason with the sort of desperation we've never seen.  He hired a green NFL coach with no quality play calling experience.  He also recklessly spent money on a bunch fo guys who weren't anything more than average NFL starters.  

Extremely premature to call Gute the right call.  

It is premature but I'm smart so...ha ha ha.   Can't blame last year on Gute please.  That was a disaster in the making over years.  Really liking his drafts.  As for FA yes he overpaid but essentially swapped these guys for Perry/Matthews.  Again put into a situation not of his making. As far as MLF none of us have any idea what he'll be.  Gute was charged with turning this team around quickly.  He's making all the necessary moves.  Rome wasn't' built in a day.  With as depleted as the roster was looking at a 3 year project.  This is year 2.  I would expect a wild card birth this year if everything goes well.  First year coach and a lot of new players it takes time.  In 2021 we'll be back in contention.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SSG said:

How do we know it was the right call?  As far as first seasons go, it could not have possibly went any worse for Gute.  We were pretty easily one of the NFL's biggest underachiever achievers last year.  Because of that horrid first season he approached the offseason with the sort of desperation we've never seen.  He hired a green NFL coach with no quality play calling experience.  He also recklessly spent money on a bunch fo guys who weren't anything more than average NFL starters.  

Extremely premature to call Gute the right call.  

Disagree on the assessment of Free Agency. It wasn't that we were desperate, it was that for the first time in a long *** time, we actually had some cap space free. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×