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

[northernpackfan]

9 minutes ago, Haha21 said:

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? 

I doubt there will be a lot that is new, especially if TT still has significant involvement in scouting.  If Murphy, Ball, and TT are as tight as recent articles would have us believe, I would assume that Ball is going to put a lot of weight behind what Thompson advises - maybe even an undue amount.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, Haha21 said:

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? 

Probably change some, but not overhaul it.

[Packerraymond]

Gute's turn to interview today. Imagine that means Ball goes tomorrow. Seems Whaley is the Rooney Rule guy and he'll go sometime this weekend. Wonder if there will be anyone else?

[Chili]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Gute's turn to interview today. Imagine that means Ball goes tomorrow. Seems Whaley is the Rooney Rule guy and he'll go sometime this weekend. Wonder if there will be anyone else?

Almost certainly. I would imagine there will be a number of interested candidates who Green Bay will interview. I guess we won't find out who until after this weekend.

[pollino14]

For those who don’t more research on Ball than I have, is there anything to suggest he will be different than TT ? 

[IrishGreen]

Interviewing Vikings assistant GM George Paton 

 

edit - see declined now, per schefter

[marky mark]

 

[skibrett15]

30 minutes ago, pollino14 said:

For those who don’t more research on Ball than I have, is there anything to suggest he will be different than TT ? 

I think he's different than TT in that he won't have as strong of a scouting opinion.  So I assume/expect he will defer to his lieutenants more.  Which could mean that he could really go in any number of directions depending on the advice he's getting and the staff he assembles.

[cannondale]

Still seems weird to me. What do you need to ask Wolf or G that you don't already know ?

[craig]

14 hours ago, squire12 said:

 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. 

In baseball, after the manager the two most important coaches are the pitching coach and the batting coach, (and the bench coach).  Somewhat akin to DC and OC.  Last year the Cubs won the world series, this year reached the national league championship series.  Then they fired both pitching and batting coaches (and also lost bench coach to become a manager).   Pro-active way to bring in top people, replace excellent coaches with perhaps even more elite ones,  and get fresh voice/viewpoint.  

I totally think MM was good with firing Capers (and Bennet).  Don't think that was at all a "forced-to-do-it" thing.  He may have discussed it with Murphy or Ball or Ted or whomever, why not.  But don't think it was a power issue where he was forced against his will.  

MM mentioned "fit" with GM, and that point is well taken.  I'm very reluctant to have coach have too much input into GM side.  Coaches are not routinely great scouts, in terms of projecting what a player will be later.  They tend to see present rather than projecting future.  And of course they tend to have very short-term view, without long-term  considerations.  (In baseball, like a manager who always prefers vets over rookies, and is always willing/wanting to trade minor-league prospects for win-now veterans.)  

But absolutely the coach and GM have to be in sync when roster cuts need to be made.  Yes, GM needs to make the final decision, but to do so without having a respectful exchange of thoughts and analysis with the coach would be ridiculous.  

Whatever his pros/cons are as a scout or football decision-maker, there is no question that Ball is a really class act and a thoughtful, professional, sincere guy and a good listener.  I expect he'd be a good guy for the coach to work with.  Whether either of them would be smarter and more clever and strategic and able to come up with any edges on evaluating or procuring talent relative to all the other smart GM's in the league, I have no idea.  But in terms of having a good working relationship, I think Ball would be a good guy for MM to work under.    

[Leader]

 

[Packerraymond]

I thought GM and HC were the two positions you couldn't block from promotion? Not that we needed a Viking anyway but odd.

[packerjmf]

3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I thought GM and HC were the two positions you couldn't block from promotion? Not that we needed a Viking anyway but odd.

I think it’s due to them still being in contention this year. Once they get eliminated, I don’t think they can block.

[CWood21]

21 minutes ago, marky mark said:

 

No real surprise.  We would do the same.

[CWood21]

18 minutes ago, craig said:

MM mentioned "fit" with GM, and that point is well taken.  I'm very reluctant to have coach have too much input into GM side.  Coaches are not routinely great scouts, in terms of projecting what a player will be later.  They tend to see present rather than projecting future.  And of course they tend to have very short-term view, without long-term  considerations.  (In baseball, like a manager who always prefers vets over rookies, and is always willing/wanting to trade minor-league prospects for win-now veterans.)  

The thing is you have to have a GM and coach who are on the same page.  If they're not, you're often looking at a power struggle and the decision maker is often selecting players who might not be a good fit for what the team wants to do offensively or defensively.