Jump to content

Recommended Posts

At long last Rodgers has articulated fairly clearly what he thinks. He made a number of telling points and I give credit to him for going to contact the many guys he thought were let go in a rather cavalier manner, and finding what they all thought, so he fully understood the many viewpoints.

If the front office has the least uncertainty about a move (and there are often conflicting viewpoints, plusses and minuses on a decision) why not get his input for a viewpoint coming from a different angle ? You don't have to do what he advises, but given his intelligence, longevity and connection with the locker room, it doesn't hurt to listen. He might see things others don't, hear things that don't reach front office ears, understand where things are not quite working right (like how a player is being used).

This isn't the same as giving him any control over decisions, its about listening, about being inclusive.

I think there IS a problem with the front office structure. Now that Ball/Gute/LaFleur all report to Murphy, he (Murphy) should be well in the communications loop now. Equally I expect Gute to communicate often with Ball and La Fleur (and obviously La Fleur communicates all the time with the players). The problem seems to communication between Gute and the players, especially when the Packers cut ties with valued players. It might also be true that Gute doesn't talk enough to La Fleur, but I have nothing concrete  to support that.

One thing that MUST be avoided is the kind of arrogance Dorsey displayed when he became GM (you could see it before then, but it seems it got worse post GB. He had some talent at what he did, but didn't seem to listen to others once he was GM (at least that's my take), and bounced between organisations since then.

This is an opportunity, not really for blame, that ship has sailed, but for better communication, better empathy going forward. It's a tough business, always will be, but a human touch goes a long way to make things a little less.............mechanical.

 

Edited by OneTwoSixFive
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

At long last Rodgers has articulated fairly clearly what he thinks. He made a number of telling points and I give credit to him for going to contact the many guys he thought were let go in a rather cavalier manner, and finding what they all thought, so he fully understood the many viewpoints.

If the front office has the least uncertainty about a move (and there are often conflicting viewpoints, plusses and minuses on a decision) why not get his input for a viewpoint coming from a different angle ? You don't have to do what he advises, but given his intelligence, longevity and connection with the locker room, it doesn't hurt to listen. He might see things others don't, hear things that don't reach front office ears, understand where things are not quite working right (like how a player is being used).

This isn't the same as giving him any control over decisions, its about listening, about being inclusive.

I think there IS a problem with the front office structure. Now that Ball/Gute/LaFleur all report to Murphy, he (Murphy) should be well in the communications loop now. Equally I expect Gute to communicate often with Ball and La Fleur (and obviously La Fleur communicates all the time with the players). The problem seems to communication between Gute and the players, especially when the Packers cut ties with valued players. It might also be true that Gute doesn't talk enough to La Fleur, but I have nothing concrete  to support that.

One thing that MUST be avoided is the kind of arrogance Dorsey displayed when he became GM (you could see it before then, but it seems it got worse post GB. He had some talent at what he did, but didn't seem to listen to others once he was GM (at least that's my take), and bounced between organisations since then.

This is an opportunity, not really for blame, that ship has sailed, but for better communication, better empathy going forward. It's a tough business, always will be, but a human touch goes a long way to make things a little less.............mechanical.

 

In hindsight, how many of these people we let go went on to play in another pro-bowl? How many went on to play at an extremely high level? How many were at the end of the road and we made a good decision in moving on 'one year too early, rather than one year too late?'

Also, how many voices are enough and where do you draw that line? Maybe the best RB should be in on the decision of which offensive linemen stay and which ones go? Maybe the DB's should decide with D-linemen stay and go? 

I get the human touch but guys in decline don't tend to want to stay places for less money then they were getting. Put another way they only like performance based pay when they are trending up. It's a tough business and sometimes difficult decisions need to be made. Allowing players into the discussion will bring more mistakes keeping a guy a year too long than getting rid of them a year too early. When they stay a year too long, the balance of their guarantees and signing bonus stays with us for an additional year after we cut them. 

This is all coming from a guy who always wanted to be the highest paid at the most expensive position. He had a right to ask for that money, but he has to be honest enough to understand that limits what we can do elsewhere. Rodgers doesn't want to acknowledge that point. He's tugging on people's heartstrings. 

So maybe everybody has their role in an organization for a reason. 

My counterpoint to your point!  

Edited by Old Guy
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, incognito_man said:

He was at $9

He probably would have for $6

He DID (for oakland) for $7.5

Rodgers THINKS he would have for $3 because it fits his narrative more

He walked out of Oakland with $11 million for one year. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, FAH1223 said:

Woodson took the veteran minimum after leaving GB. 

He did not, he had a cap hit of 1.8 million and ended up making 3.3 with his incentives. 

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

I think there IS a problem with the front office structure.

Now that Ball/Gute/LaFleur all report to Murphy, he (Murphy) should be well in the communications loop now.

Equally I expect Gute to communicate often with Ball and La Fleur (and obviously La Fleur communicates all the time with the players).

The problem seems to communication between Gute and the players, especially when the Packers cut ties with valued players.

It might also be true that Gute doesn't talk enough to La Fleur, but I have nothing concrete  to support that.

Broke it down cause it ranges from very specific ("Houston, we have a problem....") to more of the warm and fuzzy stuff we've been hearing for months.

- I've no clue who talks to who inside the GB FO - nor do I need to care. Just on results alone - just on the team's level of success - they seem to be doing just fine. Nit picking the quality of memo's and Post-It-Notes between the offices isnt necessary. They're winners.

- I posit that if Jordan Love had never been drafted....none of this would be happening. None of it. If Green Bay had left the QB2 position manned by a nobody who could never be seen leading a team in the NFL - AR would have felt all comfy and secure - the "I cant wait to retire in Green Bay" convo would have carried on - and and not one word (outside the occasional passive aggressive snide remark) would have been made. 

- Belichick drafted his Jordan Love - Jimmy G - and a succession plan was at least contemplated or possible. Tom would have none of it - went to ownership who cut off Belichick's balls. AR had no such opportunity - first and foremost because theirs no Robert Kraft in GB and the designated leader (Murphy) see's AR as he is: extremely talented but a "complicated fella" who he put on notice after the MM thing and hiring of MLF. Murphy told him to keep his hands off the new guy.

Take Love out of the equation.....AR's career in GB is secure and the only chit chat along the way is contract amendments, extensions or moving money around.

- The "Yeah but Brady / player empowerment" factor doesnt compute because of his continued willingness to take less than the whole pie. In NE they drafted poorly (for offensive skill position players certainly) and made some questionable talent evals/trades. The on the field product suffered. Brady moved to an up and coming team - which was on the right side of the cap - again took less - - brought along some bargain basement contributors from his past and they got over the hump. Outside of the lopsided SB win however, none of their season was a cake walk. None of it.

- AR says players would (or wanted) to come to Green Bay to play for/with him. Did any ever express that (?) or is that just Aaron being Aaron?

- Sure, Green Bay should be kinder and gentler to veterans they're moving on from. Not sure exactly what form thats supposed to take.........but it sure sounds good.

This whole "it's the people" thing is a smokescreen IMO. AR's primary concern is AR and he saw how he could be the next veteran heading out the door - so, lets start a "For The People" parade.

I respect AR's talent and his contributions to the team. No doubt / hands down. I dont respect what he's just put the team and the GB fans through. Nope.

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

At long last Rodgers has articulated fairly clearly what he thinks. He made a number of telling points and I give credit to him for going to contact the many guys he thought were let go in a rather cavalier manner, and finding what they all thought, so he fully understood the many viewpoints.

If the front office has the least uncertainty about a move (and there are often conflicting viewpoints, plusses and minuses on a decision) why not get his input for a viewpoint coming from a different angle ? You don't have to do what he advises, but given his intelligence, longevity and connection with the locker room, it doesn't hurt to listen. He might see things others don't, hear things that don't reach front office ears, understand where things are not quite working right (like how a player is being used).

This isn't the same as giving him any control over decisions, its about listening, about being inclusive.

I think there IS a problem with the front office structure. Now that Ball/Gute/LaFleur all report to Murphy, he (Murphy) should be well in the communications loop now. Equally I expect Gute to communicate often with Ball and La Fleur (and obviously La Fleur communicates all the time with the players). The problem seems to communication between Gute and the players, especially when the Packers cut ties with valued players. It might also be true that Gute doesn't talk enough to La Fleur, but I have nothing concrete  to support that.

One thing that MUST be avoided is the kind of arrogance Dorsey displayed when he became GM (you could see it before then, but it seems it got worse post GB. He had some talent at what he did, but didn't seem to listen to others once he was GM (at least that's my take), and bounced between organisations since then.

This is an opportunity, not really for blame, that ship has sailed, but for better communication, better empathy going forward. It's a tough business, always will be, but a human touch goes a long way to make things a little less.............mechanical.

 

He has had input.  All of his points were when he voiced his opinion, but they went the otherway anyhow.  Kumerow seems to stick in his craw because he had just expressed his OPINION on how much he liked a #5 or #6 WR but they went with a younger WR to hopefully develop over a journeyman.

People see problems with the structure?  It's not perfect but it has resulted in a regular season record of 26-6 over the last two years.  I don't know that you can throw much shade at it right now.

Our Diva's input is kind of like praying.....sometimes the answer is NO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cpdaly23 said:

This is all Tom Brady’s fault.  And Bruce Arians.  I despise both of them.

I laughed, but it's true. If Tom Brady doesn't exist in this league, Rodgers would only compare him self to Roethlisberger and Brees and say "you know what, I got it pretty good here." But Brady has so many rings that it drives him into endless envy and comparison. Rather than acknowledging that Brady just plays better at crunch time,  Rodgers has convinced himself that Brady gets all this involvement that makes the difference for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just add a thought my above post.

Sometimes the front office gets it right and they pick the right time to move on from a player - in fact I'd say they got it right more often than not. It seems though, the problem was less about the choice to move on, than the way they execute the changeover.

For me, its about making an already good organisation better, not trying to sort out a dysfunctional front office.

Edited by OneTwoSixFive
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 40Year Pack Fan said:

Seems to me before all this drama, he was asked to take a pay cut with the idea of clearing cap space....But nothing transpired....

If I am taking Rodgers at his word, no contract offered to him gave him security past this current season.

We've thought all along that it wasn't necessarily about the money, more it was about the structure of the money.  He pretty much confirmed that.

Guess I'd put the odds at him coming back past this season at around 5-10% right now.  Certainly didn't sound like someone who now wants to be here long term, though he did say the last two weeks has been better, communication wise.

My dog in this fight is the organization.  No doubt that he organization is solid.  Includes Murphy, Gute, Ball, MLF.  I think Rodgers just wants the organization to take it to another level and be even better. 

Rogers talked about the cap and how difficult it was to navigate the COVID year financially.  Said many times he is not the victim and that the organization has paid him a lot of money over 16 years and that it was TT who ultimately took a chance on him and did not give up on him.  So he's not shutting a door or totally giving up on the Packers just yet. 

My crazy ash spitballing here.....  Gute, take some control over the finance guy and listen to Rodgers.  Use his insight and his influence.  Not in negotiating deals, but in how those deals are ended or possibly re-done.  And listen to Rodgers when he tells them about high character vets, free agents and rookies as he knows a lot about the work habits of all of them.

It is certainly fixable, and if "fixed", it could lead to an even better run organization.  Clock is ticking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That list of vets is just sad. In almost every case of an aging vet, the Packers made the right decision. There is no way to be nice about telling someone you think it's time to move on. Amicable break ups aren't a thing. You can argue Hayward and Hyde but both those decisions seemed reasonable at the time given what they had shown, the roster, and the cap.

As confirmed by the discussions of the contract, it's all about Rodgers realizing he could be next on that list and railing as hard as he can against it. Unfortunately doing so also makes it more appealing to make that change.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...