Jump to content
Slinky

Mark Murphy must go!!

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

The man running the on field operations shouldn't be thinking about the stadium district. That should be two entirely different people. If the stadium district needs to go another year without a red lobster, so the team can have the best coaching staff possible, that should be an easy call.

Though it certainly appears, at least to me, that Murphy is not running the on field operations.  He has Gute, Ball, and Lafleur running the on field operations.

Murphy has simply made it so all three report to him as opposed to just one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Though it certainly appears, at least to me, that Murphy is not running the on field operations.  He has Gute, Ball, and Lafleur running the on field operations.

Murphy has simply made it so all three report to him as opposed to just one.

 

How the hell is nixing a coaching hire not running the on field product?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

How the hell is nixing a coaching hire not running the on field product?

haven't read all the back pages, so not sure if this has been discussed.  i viewed the nixing as a budgetary thing.  it doesn't mean that murphy would rather spend that money on a new parking lot instead of an expensive coach, it could have been that our coaching budget was already met and they needed someone's approval to go over, and didn't get it.  it could also be a potential pay-disparity issue where the ST coach would be making more than other coordinators (do we know what lafleur and the coordinators make?), which can negatively impact engagement / culture in the organization, and they needed murphy's buy-in but didn't get it.  murphy is responsible for not letting the organization fall into dysfunction again.

until i see something that proves murphy was over-ruling or over-asserting himself, i'm going to take the path of least resistance and assume mark's involvement was needed for reasons that were not about the on field product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

How the hell is nixing a coaching hire not running the on field product?

Like @snackattack said, the reasoning is key here.

It's very different if Murphy inserted himself because he wanted someone else vs a salary decision..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

How the hell is nixing a coaching hire not running the on field product?

Help me out.  I have read the Silverstein article, and I don't see the smoking gun of Murphy nixing a coach. 

Where do you get this from?

This whole thing reminds me of Tyler Dunne's reporting of the Murphy-Rodgers phone conversation. 

The measure of the system will be what the team does going forward, not the opinions of former employees about the past.  Murphy's legacy will be dependent on the performance of Gute and Lafleur, and not how he determined the lines of supervision.  JMO.

 

Edited by Ragnar Danneskjold

Share this post


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

The measure of the system will be what the team does going forward, not the opinions of former employees about the past.  Murphy's legacy will be dependent on the performance of Gute and Lafleur, and not how he determined the lines of supervision.  JMO.

Yep. 

And I’m impressed by the posters at this message board. People seem to have flexible minds here that stay open to adapting as situations change. A lot of places I go, I see mostly dead set stubbornness so it’s refreshing to see some like minds here. 

And if this doesn’t work out, I’ll be the first to acknowledge the people who saw it coming. I’ll give credit. I just don’t see it going down the dumps at this point. Murphy seems rock solid to me in so many ways. 

Edited by boratt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, boratt said:

And if this doesn’t work out, I’ll be the first to acknowledge the people who saw it coming

I won't. They are just guessing like everyone else. I'm not impressed by someone who calls "Tails" and gets it right after I call "Heads" ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Fox_NFLs_GG said:

@AlexGreen#20  There already is a Red Lobster close to the stadium.

I know, that's the lot I park in when I go to games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2019 at 1:33 PM, Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Help me out.  I have read the Silverstein article, and I don't see the smoking gun of Murphy nixing a coach

Where do you get this from?

This whole thing reminds me of Tyler Dunne's reporting of the Murphy-Rodgers phone conversation. 

The measure of the system will be what the team does going forward, not the opinions of former employees about the past.  Murphy's legacy will be dependent on the performance of Gute and Lafleur, and not how he determined the lines of supervision.  JMO.

 

The bolded.

I don't think he ever wanted to be here.  Wouldn't be the first time someone used the Packers to get what they wanted. Maybe he just wanted the same money, but somewhere in the south?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dubz41 said:

The bolded.

I don't think he ever wanted to be here.  Wouldn't be the first time someone used the Packers to get what they wanted. Maybe he just wanted the same money, but somewhere in the south?

I think that scenario is likely considering what I've heard. If a coach takes an offer from a place he doesn't want to go to (for whatever reason), then he's liable to move elsewhere the first chance he gets, and he is less likely to be an enthusiastic coach. Enthusiasm is a big plus in a coach. The money isn't a big deal as he was eventually offered what he wanted. The coaches you want, are the guys who want to be here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I think that scenario is likely considering what I've heard. If a coach takes an offer from a place he doesn't want to go to (for whatever reason), then he's liable to move elsewhere the first chance he gets, and he is less likely to be an enthusiastic coach. Enthusiasm is a big plus in a coach. The money isn't a big deal as he was eventually offered what he wanted. The coaches you want, are the guys who want to be here.

If you have an identical offer from two places and one jerks you around and the other is straight with you, where are you going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

If you have an identical offer from two places and one jerks you around and the other is straight with you, where are you going?

you're going to go to the place where you want to be.  said jerking around only becomes a deciding factor if you want to go both places equally.  speaking from personal experience, i don't think negotiations during the hiring process significantly influence what you want to take.  i think that is what a rational person would do anyway. maybe this guy is a real stickler and would take a less-preferred job just because he didn't get the first offer he was looking for from his preferred job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

If you have an identical offer from two places and one jerks you around and the other is straight with you, where are you going?

Jerking around............or just negotiating. In coaching hires, leaving the city/town does not always mean a deal is dead. For all you and I know they both agreed to think on things for a bit, and talk again later. An offer made days later than the interview, is not uncommon.

You cannot be sure exactly what were the conversations that took place at the interview, or the timing and circumstances of the second offer. None of us KNOW, we only surmise from what has leaked.........a partial story.

If your thing is to beat on Murphy for this, bash away - but we don't all agree with your conclusion. There are other ways to view this that are not as accusatory as the way you see it.

PS (a letter addition) Just heard Naglers Thursday podcast. He said (right at the end) that he heard from a totally reliable source that LaFleur had complete control over the coach hires. Not sure how that ties into budget constraints (ie wages), but it looks likely no-one was jiggling his elbow on the hires.

Edited by OneTwoSixFive

Share this post


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

Jerking around............or just negotiating. In coaching hires, leaving the city/town does not always mean a deal is dead. For all you and I know they both agreed to think on things for a bit, and talk again later. An offer made days later than the interview, is not uncommon.

You cannot be sure of what exactly were the conversations that took place or the timing. None of us KNOW, we only surmise from what has leaked.

If your thing is to beat on Murphy for this, bash away - but we don't all agree with your conclusion. There are other ways to view this that are not as accusatory as the way you see it.

agree that there are a million possibilities based on the details that we are only guessing at.  not enough here to criticize someone over IMO.

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



×