Packers Trade For Nobody Day 557

[Leader]

4 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

What the heck are you talking about? Packers President isn't a position where the ability to have final say on team building and breaking ties between any two of coach, GM, and chief negotiator is in the job description. The position has historically been one focused on business growth and hiring a good GM and then staying out of his way. When Murphy retires, potential replacements will be jumping at the chance to fill the old Bob Harlan role. And returning the position to that previous level of power will a big step in getting the organization back on the right track.

Pure supposition. For all you know, his replacement would want the exact same role as the outgoing guy.

[Mr Anonymous]

Just now, vegas492 said:

You are talking about getting the organization back on track...on the field, right?

Not in terms of profits and incoming money, right?

Yes of course. Murphy was fine in the role as a business builder until he injected himself into team building. I stated it was a disaster on the day Murphy implemented it and time will show me to be correct. We're witnessing it firsthand right now. When it's all said and done, nearly everyone will see it and speak openly about it.

[Mr Anonymous]

3 minutes ago, Leader said:

Pure supposition. For all you know, his replacement would want the exact same role as the outgoing guy.

That role will not even be offered so what any potential replacement wants will be moot. Anyone who would only be interested if the job comes with the power Murphy currently holds, will need not bother applying. If you think there will be any shortage of people who want to fill the "Bob Harlan" role, then you haven't been paying attention.

[CWood21]

3 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Yes of course. Murphy was fine in the role as a business builder until he injected himself into team building. I stated it was a disaster on the day Murphy implemented it and time will show me to be correct. We're witnessing it firsthand right now. When it's all said and done, nearly everyone will see it and speak openly about it.

You just said he wasn't the decision maker, yet now you're saying he's a decision maker.  Which one is it?

 

[Leader]

2 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Yes of course. Murphy was fine in the role as a business builder until he injected himself into team building. I stated it was a disaster on the day Murphy implemented it and time will show me to be correct. We're witnessing it firsthand right now. When it's all said and done, nearly everyone will see it and speak openly about it.

As I said then - I repeat:  I think you're greatly exaggerating the Murphy's role in roster construction. I dont see it that way at all and you have ZERO empirical evidence to prove your point - other than the teams playing like **** now.  I think PR's and CW's comments are more accurate.

[Mr Anonymous]

Just now, CWood21 said:

You just said he wasn't the decision maker, yet now you're saying he's a decision maker.  Which one is it?

 

Do you have a reading comprehension issue? Where did I say Murphy isn't behind some of these decisions on the team building side? I've literally been saying the exact opposite. 

[Leader]

1 minute ago, Mr Anonymous said:

That role will not even be offered so what any potential replacement wants will be moot. Anyone who would only be interested if the job comes with the power Murphy currently holds, will need not bother applying. If you think there will be any shortage of people who want to fill the "Bob Harlan" role, then you haven't been paying attention.

Again. Pure supposition. Are you involved in the hiring decision? You comment about it as if you are.
 

[Mr Anonymous]

Just now, Leader said:

As I said then - I repeat:  I think you're greatly exaggerating the Murphy's role in roster construction. I dont see it that way at all and you have ZERO empirical evidence to prove your point - other than the teams playing like **** now.  I think PR's and CW's comments are more accurate.

FFS, Murphy himself has publicly stated his expanded role. The lengths some of you will go to defend this organization moments after questioning it are mind numbing.

[Mr Anonymous]

1 minute ago, Leader said:

Again. Pure supposition. Are you involved in the hiring decision? You comment about it as if you are.
 

I am not. I do know people who are and I do know both how the organization works and how people within it feel about Murphy's "3 silos" experiment.

[Leader]

Just now, Mr Anonymous said:

FFS, Murphy himself has publicly stated his expanded role. The lengths some of you will go to defend this organization moments after questioning it are mind numbing.

Ease off with the snarky comments. Not necessary and they dont advance the conversation.

I'm not denying Murphy's role - I'm simply not expanding it into the same areas you are - namely: telling the GM roster/personnel decisions. I dont believe he's doing that in an official capacity. Do they talk? Certainly. Not a problem in my view. Ultimately, it's Gute's call - not Murphys.

[Mr Anonymous]

1 minute ago, Leader said:

Not a problem in my view. Ultimately, it's Gute's call - not Murphys.

In at least one major franchise altering decision, this is simply not accurate. You won't believe me and that's fine.

[CWood21]

6 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

Do you have a reading comprehension issue? Where did I say Murphy isn't behind some of these decisions on the team building side? I've literally been saying the exact opposite. 

You said he wasn't the final decision maker in this post.

You then implied that he had a heavy say in decision making in this post.

You can't have it both ways.  Stop trying to make make a situation different than it actually is with anonymous sources that haven't come to fruition.  Murphy's role is as a mediator.  You're so steadfast that Murphy is the one making all the final decisions that it's affecting your judgment.  Do you really mean to tell me that you believe that Murphy would overrule both LaFleur AND Gute if they both said they wanted to deal Rodgers to Denver for the bounty of picks?

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, Mr Anonymous said:

In at least one major franchise altering decision, this is simply not accurate. You won't believe me and that's fine.

Because you haven't done anything to prove that you're somehow any more knowledgeable than any of us.  We can make opinions and pass it off as facts.  Doesn't make ours any more truth or false.

[Mr Anonymous]

So the answer is Yes, you do have a reading comprehension issue. I'm saying injecting yourself into team building decisions is NOT in the traditional Packers President job description but that Murphy has done just that.

[Mr Anonymous]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

Because you haven't done anything to prove that you're somehow any more knowledgeable than any of us.  We can make opinions and pass it off as facts.  Doesn't make ours any more truth or false.

I was spot on about the Rodgers outcome and will be proven spot on about how Murphy's departure will mark a return to a more traditional business side only replacement. I also had LaFleur #2 on the Packers list of McCarthy replacements long before any candidates emerged publicly but because their top target chose not to pursue the job before interviews even began, it's all anyone remembers. People will remember what they want to remember. I can't control that. I'm not afraid to tell people what's coming.