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

[Acrid Josher]

2 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

Back on the old site, Palmy mentioned that every NFL team has a guy dedicated to up front work on trades and communication with other teams. He also noted that the fraternity of scouts/personnel people kind of police things to make sure everything is on the up and up.

If you look at recent drafts, are there examples of some teams getting over on other teams ? ( I genuinely don't know)

Are there lopsided opportunities to be had with certain desperate trade partners ?

Packers traded up for Hayward and Spriggs in the 2nd, traded up for Burnett in the 3rd, traded up for Matthews in the 1st, traded back for King and Biegel

How did GB do on those trades vs an updated value chart ?

I wish my google-fu was better but there is quite a bit of work  spread across the advanced stat community over the last 5-7 years or so. This is a pretty good summary of the people I'm aware of doing this work and their conclusions. Mostly I've followed Chase Stuart's Football Perspective- if you look at his site he does a yearly post-draft review of at least first round trades but sometimes multiple rounds analyzing trades. The Harvard Sports group, Massey and Thaler, and these guys have all done similar work with similar conclusions about how teams tend to overvalue high first round picks, and overpay to move up a few spots (like the Browns did last year to move up four picks with the Packers).

As far as examples of teams getting over on other teams there are plenty in Stuart's articles- pretty much always teams moving up are paying a premium tax that doesn't bear out in the long run. Good FOs take advantage by moving back often when given these chances, and when they move up you look at the results of the player they moved up to get to see if they were making the same mistake most make, or if they have rare insight. On the whole teams really haven't done well trading up, but if your team is the kind that rarely trades up and when they do they get a Matthews or Hayward that's a good sign.

http://www.footballperspective.com/does-rookie-performance-help-explain-the-traditional-draft-value-chart/

 

@OneTwoSixFive - I'm a consumer not a producer of work so I don't have a personal favorite, but that chart is pretty much in line with the other "modern" work that has been done on draft value. The real gains to be had seem to be in the first round- the higher the better- when you offer your 1st round pick to a team that wants to move up. Usually if you are offering a straight JJ trade, it's a very good move for the team trading back according to the "modern" charts.'

I'm bad at formatting. No idea why I can't unbold that.

[MNPackfan32]

After watching MM today, there is no doubt in my mind that they will hire Ball. The way he spoke about Ball, sounds like a done deal.

[tredpack]

1 hour ago, MNPackfan32 said:

After watching MM today, there is no doubt in my mind that they will hire Ball. The way he spoke about Ball, sounds like a done deal.

Been trying to find a re-air, am I just blind? Can’t find it. 

I’m blind, 

http://m.packers.com/news/article/new-coaches-must-fit-mccarthys-vision-for-2018-packers-1d0f155f-67c6-4a39-813e-4b9c6822f58a

[JBURGE]

1 hour ago, MNPackfan32 said:

After watching MM today, there is no doubt in my mind that they will hire Ball. The way he spoke about Ball, sounds like a done deal.

This and Silverstein's article. I am praying we can keep Wolf for a couple years. Gutekunst is a s good as gone before 2019

[Mazrimiv]

Something I wasn't aware of is that MM and Ball have ties that go back well prior to their time together in GB.  The two were together as far back as 1993 in KC.  Per Silverstein, MM actually helped bring Ball to GB.

[JBURGE]

2 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

Something I wasn't aware of is that MM and Ball have ties that go back well prior to their time together in GB.  The two were together as far back as 1993 in KC.  Per Silverstein, MM actually helped bring Ball to GB.

Yupp. Worked together in KC, and then in New Orleans. 

[AlexGreen#20]

5 hours ago, Mr. Fussnputz said:

Fair enough. I just would like to clear one thing up. I can't speak for others, but I would never argue change just for the sake of change. I honestly felt back then already that the Packers, as an organization, had become stale and complacent in both their draft and develop philosophy, and their offensive and defensive schemes. I've had a chance to watch institutional staleness develop in several contexts, and the warning signs were there. I'll draft and develop as an example.  When TT came in he had great initial success with his draft and develop system. They even won a Super Bowl! One way staleness begins is oddly enough through success. If it worked, why change it? Unfortunately nothing works forever. The context changes. In this case, the salary cap grew, and cap  management became more sophisticated. At the same time the Packers' on field success pushed them down the draft board. TT's draft and development model needed to be updated to accommodate these changes. Better salary cap management processes opened the door for free agent signings, and even trades, but TT preferred to hold on to his draft choices, even protecting his compensatory ones by not signing FAs. So even though he started off with some impact FA signings (Pickett and Woodson) he did little after that, even when gaping holes, like safety, remained for years. So IMHO things got stale there and the Packer's roster suffered. 

It should be fascinating to see how this all plays out. I have no evidence, but I strongly suspect that there are/were things going on behind the scenes that led to this. Selective firings of assistant coaches after MM made his comments about patterns of negativity is some evidence that there may have been some sort of rift in the coaching staff over some issue we are not privy to. Firings on both sides of the ball suggest to me that the issue was greater than just offensive or defensive philosophy. I also think the TT thing is a separate issue having to do with cognitive decline and aging. Peace.

I still challenge anybody to do their homework on the salary cap years from 2011-2014 and tell me where the Free Agents were supposed to come from without seriously hurting the team long term.

[Packerraymond]

Hiring a GM with a HC in place is a rare thing. Just no part of me likes the fact Murphy, Ball and Mac are buddies. Sure if Murphy hired Ball and then later Ball hires Mac like it normally goes and they all become friends that's normal. Is there going to be the accountability there that needs to be there? Is Mac going to push for Ball because he helped Ball get his job and now with a short term deal that's a big get for him getting a long term deal? Will there be complacency? Is Ball just a way to let TT acquire players while staying completely out of the public eye? 

[squire12]

5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Hiring a GM with a HC in place is a rare thing. Just no part of me likes the fact Murphy, Ball and Mac are buddies. Sure if Murphy hired Ball and then later Ball hires Mac like it normally goes and they all become friends that's normal. Is there going to be the accountability there that needs to be there? Is Mac going to push for Ball because he helped Ball get his job and now with a short term deal that's a big get for him getting a long term deal? Will there be complacency? Is Ball just a way to let TT acquire players while staying completely out of the public eye? 

@Packerraymond  Interesting "conspiracy" theory (probably not the right phrase)   I agree it is an interesting dynamic to have such significant turnover  without it involving the HC.  New GM, OC, DC, several other position coaches but the HC is retained.  Not saying it is wrong, but just interesting and quite possibly unprecedented in major pro sports. 

[AlexGreen#20]

21 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Hiring a GM with a HC in place is a rare thing. Just no part of me likes the fact Murphy, Ball and Mac are buddies. Sure if Murphy hired Ball and then later Ball hires Mac like it normally goes and they all become friends that's normal. Is there going to be the accountability there that needs to be there? Is Mac going to push for Ball because he helped Ball get his job and now with a short term deal that's a big get for him getting a long term deal? Will there be complacency? Is Ball just a way to let TT acquire players while staying completely out of the public eye? 

I'm wondering what role in the firings of his staff McCarthy had. I wonder if the decree to cut guys came from Murphy or McCarthy. 

[squire12]

7 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I'm wondering what role in the firings of his staff McCarthy had. I wonder if the decree to cut guys came from Murphy or McCarthy. 

I would be pretty surprised that MM would go for that if Murphy was making the call.   However, if it was an ultimatum of either fix the staff or you are out, saving ones job often will lead to "drastic" things that otherwise would not be done.  

[cannondale]

For some reason I just assumed from the get go that MM and Murphy were jointly planning this off season. Looking back that seems weird. Then we found out MM only got a single year extension and I was like maybe they were acting separately. Now MM says they had numerous conversations and that he would be involved in the GM search. Interesting. 

I guess I don't have a problem with this approach because I think MM is part of a solution and not part of the problem. As stated by everyone that has spoken thus far, it's about decisions that help win Super Bowls. I think we have to trust that Murphy will have the final say on the correct GM for the team that also can have a healthy working relationship with MM. Once that is in place, the hierarchy will be set with regard to who can fire who and we have the smoothest transition possible into 2018 and we don't have a lame duck coach. Starting from scratch likely costs us at least one year and I don't think that is necessary

[tredpack]

After watching the conference, for some reason I got the impression McCarthy is going to have more say on player acquisition than he has in the past. Maybe its wishful thinking, but that was the impression I got. Seemed pretty confident in his current standing with the organization, cocky, demanding, self evaluating. Enjoyed it. 

Worth a watch. 

[oldmansmell]

14 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I'm wondering what role in the firings of his staff McCarthy had. I wonder if the decree to cut guys came from Murphy or McCarthy. 

I think Van Pelt wanted a new opportunity, Bennett was a weird OC to begin with (basically a hyped up positions coach), and the writing was on the wall with Capers, I really wasn't surprised by that move.

As far as the GM thing goes, I think salary cap management is becoming an increasingly important asset for a GM---inflated numbers make good contracts harder to come by. Also I think the idea that roughly equal scouts are better than others, as in there is a gigantic gap between Wolf and Ball, is just statistically invalid over the long run. Everybody hits and everybody misses, and there are talented scouting departments in place for a reason. 

[Haha21]

What I am curious about is how much will this change our draft tendencies. TT had his own draft trends, now that he is out, do we scrap those trends for something completely new?