Random Packer News & Notes

[incognito_man]

11 minutes ago, Leader said:

The Green Bay front office has been widely criticized for not “consulting” Rodgers before taking Love in the first round.

One should immediately dismiss the opinion of anyone who thinks GB should have "consulted" with Rodgers prior to drafting Love. For they have absolutely zero understanding of a "business" and how a business succeeds.

[Leader]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

One should immediately dismiss the opinion of anyone who thinks GB should have "consulted" with Rodgers prior to drafting Love. For they have absolutely zero understanding of a "business" and how a business succeeds.

I posted a partial or section of the article - and I dont think they were hassling the front office. I tend to agree with their point: what good would it have done? I think little.

[incognito_man]

Just now, Leader said:

I posted a partial or section of the article - and I dont think they were hassling the front office. I tend to agree with their point: what good would it have done? I think little.

it would have potentially ruined the chance to take a guy your team has literally spent millions of dollars in investigating/deciding who is the best person this year, to make your franchise as successful as it can be for the foreseeable future.

jeopardizing those resources (actual and anticipated) to consult with an unqualified employee about the decision is just laughably detached from reality. Anyone who suggests that has never tried to earn their own dollar before (I haven't either, but I can at least understand why nobody in their mind running a business would EVER do what they suggest).

 

[Leader]

Just now, incognito_man said:

jeopardizing those resources (actual and anticipated) to consult with an unqualified employee about the decision - which directly affects that employee's career and income....is just laughably detached from reality.

Made a slight change.

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, Leader said:

Made a slight change.

it's irrelevant, though

every player acquisition could be argued to affect every current rostered player. But there is no expectation that Aaron Jones be consulted before drafting AJ Dillon.

There are lines that cannot be blurred. This is absolutely one of them. You do NOT consult a current player about draft picks. It's absolutely ludicrous.

[Leader]

Just now, incognito_man said:

it's irrelevant, though

every player acquisition could be argued to affect every current rostered player. But there is no expectation that Aaron Jones be consulted before drafting AJ Dillon.

There are lines that cannot be blurred. This is absolutely one of them. You do NOT consult a current player about draft picks. It's absolutely ludicrous.

I got it. Though there my be more bend to my thinking than yours - we're in general agreement - and you most certainly dont seek the input of a player about another for the same position.  Thats what coaches are supposed to be for: impartial assessment of talent.

[cannondale]

8 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

it's irrelevant, though

every player acquisition could be argued to affect every current rostered player. But there is no expectation that Aaron Jones be consulted before drafting AJ Dillon.

There are lines that cannot be blurred. This is absolutely one of them. You do NOT consult a current player about draft picks. It's absolutely ludicrous.

You don't give guaranteed contracts. Ever. It's an absolute.

Adapt or die

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, cannondale said:

You don't give guaranteed contracts. Ever. It's an absolute.

Adapt or die

99% of all NFL contracts have guarantees.

[Isherwood]

The only positions I would take a quarterback’s input on are pass catchers and even then I certainly wouldn’t keep Jake Kumerow just because QB1 wanted to. So you piss him off either way, I guess. 

[cannondale]

Just now, incognito_man said:

99% of all NFL contracts have guarantees.

They do now.

3 padded practices per day during training camp was an absolute. Until one coach decided it was better for the players not to do that.  The point being, if one team is doing something the players appreciate, you better get on board in some way, shape or form.

[VonKarman]

32 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

One should immediately dismiss the opinion of anyone who thinks GB should have "consulted" with Rodgers prior to drafting Love. For they have absolutely zero understanding of a "business" and how a business succeeds.

Consulted no, notified of the intent of drafting a QB early yes.

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, cannondale said:

They do now.

3 padded practices per day during training camp was an absolute. Until one coach decided it was better for the players not to do that.  The point being, if one team is doing something the players appreciate, you better get on board in some way, shape or form.

comparing apples and hand grenades

it will NEVER make sense to give information to someone who has polar opposite motivations for that decision and has ever reason to actively HARM the potential acquisition chances.

you're essentially trying to imply that, perhaps someday, businesspeople will realize it is advantageous to alert their competitors to their own motivations and plans. It's very literally nonsensical any rational businessperson would EVER do that.

[incognito_man]

1 minute ago, VonKarman said:

Consulted no, notified of the intent of drafting a QB early yes.

200% false

no, never. It makes less than zero sense to tell Aaron Rodgers (a guy known for media leaks) that you INTEND to draft a QB early. Then, literally, your ENTIRE competition will know what you want and that is literally the ONE thing teams try to protect about the draft.

under no circumstances should aaron have ANY inkling of a remote possibility they were seriously looking at Love (or another QB). That would have been HORRIBLE to let him know because there is IMMENSE risk every team would know it. Rodgers would 100% be motivated to prevent that from happening and it would be IMMENSELY easy for him to affect it if he knew. And he's exactly the type that would quietly leak that sort of information out there and claim innocence afterward.

you simply do NOT alert your competitors to your true intent. And, in this case, Aaron is NOT on your side and you have zero reason to trust him with any information. Just look at how he's acting. Why would you want a guy like that to know literally the biggest and most protected secret your franchise has? He has zero motivation to keep it a secret and every motivation to ruin it.

[R T]

5 minutes ago, VonKarman said:

Consulted no, notified of the intent of drafting a QB early yes.

No.

[cannondale]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

comparing apples and hand grenades

it will NEVER make sense to give information to someone who has polar opposite motivations for that decision and has ever reason to actively HARM the potential acquisition chances.

you're essentially trying to imply that, perhaps someday, businesspeople will realize it is advantageous to alert their competitors to their own motivations and plans. It's very literally nonsensical any rational businessperson would EVER do that.

Taking the point to an extreme isn't gonna help your argument. The point is very simple. Teams ARE ALREADY being more communicative to the players. It's a done deal, It isn't going away. If you tell a player to pound sand, you are going to get "players play and coaches coach" quotes. Like it or not, right or wrong, you don't want that.