Ted Thompson to transition into a new role within the organization. GB will begin a search for a new GM.

[SsgCujo]

There's a very good article by Silverstein on J/S Online, about Ball being the frontrunner. So, yes it does make sense.

[CWood21]

29 minutes ago, SsgCujo said:

The new GM needs to have background in scouting, not the salary cap. If Ball is the next GM, it basically says one thing, Murphy only cares about money.

What?  There's a salary cap in the NFL, and you have to spend a certain amount of your cap space each year.  I'm not sure how hiring Ball means that Murphy only cares about money.  Care to expand?

[CWood21]

51 minutes ago, ptisme said:

Sounds like that should work...  In theory...

I mean, this isn't exactly an equation with a finite number of solutions.

[Hands]

5 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I mean, this isn't exactly an equation with a finite number of solutions.

I think if TT is still in the evaluater stage of the Packer's org......Ball would make some sense. He would push FA to the limit and lean on TT to bring all the scouting info together for the draft. 

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, Hands said:

I think if TT is still in the evaluater stage of the Packer's org......Ball would make some sense. He would push FA to the limit and lean on TT to bring all the scouting info together for the draft. 

Even then, Ted Thompson isn't going to be around forever.  It's clear from the firings that the Packers want an injection of fresh ideas into the organization.

[craig]

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

...Part of the strength of the GB FO for the last 10+ years was the quality that was present at the top in TT, Ball, Gutekunst, Wolf, Highsmith and others potentially.   I would really like to retain 2 of the 3 between Ball, Gutekunst and Wolf.... 

I struggle knowing what to think.  I look at the drafting over the last 4-8 years with that team, and I don't see much success.  So I'm not sure keeping as much status quo as possible is so desirable?  Are the 52 guys who aren't Rodgers so so-so because our scouts are so great?  Or maybe our lead decision-makers just aren't that good?  Yet, Gute, Wolf, and Highsmith somehow seem to be enough respected around the league that Highsmith gets a promotion and Wolf and Gute are getting GM interviews.  So are they really good evaluators who we really want to keep, and have just hit a bunch of bad luck?  Or are they some kinda mediocre evaluators who aren't going to D+D at a championship level?   I just don't know whether to be wanting them or not?  Beats me.  

Heh heh, if they stay I hope they're ready to run off a string of great drafts.  

[Sasquatch]

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Even then, Ted Thompson isn't going to be around forever.  It's clear from the firings that the Packers want an injection of fresh ideas into the organization.

Agreed, and from what I’ve read, I’m not sure TT will have the capacities to continue as a scout for much longer, given his recent health concerns.  I really hope his condition isn’t serious, but given his recent odd behaviors (as reported), there is reason for concern.  This could impact - if not complicate - Mark’s decision, because I think Ball is more than capable of doing the job but will need some expert assistance in the scouting department if he’s selected.

[northernpackfan]

The fascinating part of this whole discussion is that nobody really knows anything, so far it’s all conjecture and speculation. 

Maybe Murphy wants Gute, Wolf, and Highsmith out. Perhaps the general sentiment is that the Packers haven’t been overly successful in the draft over the past two years, and he’s hanging that on TT and his right hand men.

Maybe Murphy is getting pressure from the board to bring in someone from outside - make a fresh start.

Maybe Murphy has already decided who he wants, and maybe he truly is open to anyone that the search firm brings to the table. 

Maybe Gute and Wolf won’t leave if Ball gets the job, and maybe they will. Maybe Ball becomes the GM and one of the two of them get a new position as Director of Personnel, and essentially take over talent evaluations and the draft. 

There are so many unknowns, and we are so used to the stability of TT, and This might end up being much ado about nothing. 

[pollino14]

I really would like a GM with a scouting background 

[MacReady]

I want an ultra-conservative GM from March-April. 

I want an aggressive GM from the draft through February.

Our lack of big name free agents has not been what's kept us back, and anybody who thinks otherwise is somebody that I fundamentally, fully, wholly and irrevocably disagree with. 

Our lack of aggression in the draft (keeping multiple late 5th-7th round picks, trading down in such a way as to acquire more 5th-7th round picks, our refusal to give up maybe a 5th, 4th or even 3rd round pick to make moves in the draft), our refusal to even consider the waiver wire, our refusal to look at June 1st cuts to address areas of need that we didn't address in the draft, and our refusal to sign or trade for players to replace injured players in the season are all things that HAVE kept us back.

 

[spilltray]

There were a couple of poor drafts in there, that will happen, but on the whole, they've still been pretty good.

[packfanfb]

9 hours ago, deltarich87 said:

TBH this is starting to feel like much ado about nothing. Basically just them changing Ball and Thompson's titles but likely keep the same operation. Ball handles the cap/salaries and Thompson still is a big part of their draft operation.

Exactly my point. I fail to see any actual change.

[Mr. Fussnputz]

8 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Even then, Ted Thompson isn't going to be around forever.  It's clear from the firings that the Packers want an injection of fresh ideas into the organization.

Hi CWood, a year or two ago, when I and some others on here, said the Packers were becoming stale and complacent and needed major changes, you jumped on us, and argued that it was not wise to "burn the house down" because the current organization had a long track record of winning. I'm just wondering how you're feeling about all of this (TT, DC, OC, etc.)? Does this meet your bar for "burning the house down?" Do you still see the same dangers, or has something fundamentally changed? Should the Packers have stood pat, or is "burning the house down" the right move now? I'm not trolling you. I'm just curious about how you see all of this. Peace.

[packfanfb]

9 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

Yeah the same team that was #1 in most everyone's power rankings after the Dallas game is in dire straights.

The Aaron effect is strong. Let's not pretend our defense was championship caliber.

[spilltray]

3 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

The Aaron effect is strong. Let's not pretend our defense was championship caliber.

The way they were playing before Rodgers went down? Definitely not elite but especially this year could have been good enough.