Are there HOLES in our LEADERSHIP that are concerning ???

[Bretsky]

OK, I know this will be anti Kool Aide

But at bare minimum one has to question the current leadership of the GB Packers over all of this

The national media is all over this and ponders how we let it get to here. Add Mike Holmgren to that group recently well. Some recent Packers who are well thought of as well.

MARCIA MARCIA MARCIA................yall know my view on him. But do we need a strong leader there who can drive the train smoothly ? Is that part of his job to anticipate and deal with conflict effectively ?

You know what happens if Barry Alvarez is the head of the packers ? I'll tell you what does not happen. This shit would not happen. Mike Holmgen recently basically said...this shit absolutely cannot happen. Tauscher has provided great perspective

It seems to be that neither TT or Gutebag were strong leaders. Both were hired IMO because they were glorfied scouts. And perhaps dam good at that part of the game.

And if that is what you are going to hire, which is fine, do we need a strong leader at the top of the organization to steer this ship ?

[th87]

All I gotta say is that if it's between Gute and Rodgers, Gute can GTFO. And I like Gute.

But GMs are a dime a dozen. Tons of people could do his job. There are only like two people in the universe who can do what Rodgers does. Choice is easy.

[Packers4Glory]

I just don’t understand or never could how this could happen. I mean we know the major catalyst but how or maybe why is the better question

[Joemailman]

This might not be all on Gute. Russ Ball is the Head of Football Operations. Gutekunst as General Manager is the head of Player Personnel. Both report to Murphy. What I don't know is to what extent Gute would have the freedom to offer Rodgers whatever kind of contract he would need to solve this. Surely Gute would have a lot of input, but so would Ball.

[sharpe1027]

Lots of speculation on what's really going on. It's easy to opine from the sidelines. Nobody is going say it SHOULD ever get to this point.

I'll say this though, if the choice is between Rodgers and a GM, Rodgers is in the wrong because that shouldn't be his demand.

[Sparkey]

I've said this before but I'll say it again. You can never fire a GM because a player wants you to do that. Especially if it relates to roster construction. A lot of those moves have to do with salary cap ramifications and Rodgers contract is the biggest reason for those same decisions.

[th87]

I've said this before but I'll say it again. You can never fire a GM because a player wants you to do that. Especially if it relates to roster construction. A lot of those moves have to do with salary cap ramifications and Rodgers contract is the biggest reason for those same decisions.

If that player is the best in the universe at what he does and the GM is good but replaceable, I don't see why not.

If players complain about unfair treatment, they should try to become the best in the universe.

[sharpe1027]

If that player is the best in the universe at what he does and the GM is good but replaceable, I don't see why not.

If players complain about unfair treatment, they should try to become the best in the universe.

You don't negotiate with terrorist for a valid reason. Hint, it's not about what happens the first time.

[King Friday]

Murphy is the problem for me. He is the person who should be supervising the entire process. To me, he is solely focused on making money and Titletown and not spending enough time over the actual football team.

[Packers4Glory]

Murphy is the problem for me. He is the person who should be supervising the entire process. To me, he is solely focused on making money and Titletown and not spending enough time over the actual football team.

I agree. Ultimately it falls on him. He signed off on the pick

[Sparkey]

If that player is the best in the universe at what he does and the GM is good but replaceable, I don't see why not.

If players complain about unfair treatment, they should try to become the best in the universe.

First, you assume their complaints are valid.

Secondly, you assume being the best as a player equates to being the same as a talent evaluator.

Lastly, you seem to think that the GM, coach and players all have the same goals. Coaches and players are tasked with winning now. The GM is tasked with supplementing the now while also planning on the future.

The Packers as an organization are far ahead of most teams in that regard. Mostly because they have been able to navigate the difficult job of transitioning QB's. But also because they have done good job of team building around those QB's.

[Packers4Glory]

Not good enough of a job. Constantly swinging and missing in defense draft picks and or finding a finding who can maximize the talent in that side of the ball. This isn’t just a Gute problem. Its a running problem during Rodgers tenure.

[texaspackerbacker]

Good points, Bretsky, and wonder of wonders, I totally agree with th87 for a rare instance.

I once had a weird conspiratorial idea that Ted Thompson's mission or goal or whatever was to intentionally drag the Packers franchise down so much that it became unpopular and ripe for movement to Los Angeles or some other big market, and that getting lucky with the Aaron Rodgers pick derailed that plan.

As unique and nice in a lot of ways it is to have the thousands of mostly local people as team owners, the downside of that is the perceived need is to bring in outsiders - people with little or no inherent loyalty to Green Bay or Wisconsin - to run the team. That's how you end up with Murphy, Gutekunst, Ted Thompson, even Wolf. Old Judge Parins supposedly wasn't a football guy, but he was (I think) a Green Bay guy.

The diametric opposite I see all the time here in Texas is Jerry Jones - the owner and basically one man ruler except maybe for his son - of the Cowboys. True, he was a small time college football player ages ago, but basically he's a helluva lot more like any of us fans in here than he is like a normal pro football executive, and I prefer it that way. Who among us, deep down, doesn't think he could do a better job of running the Packers than the leadership the team has had? I certainly do. I don't mean on field coaching - you need an expert for that. but personnel matters, trades, drafting, capology, I'd take somebody like almost any of us or like Jerry Jones over the professionals who are currently fucking things up big time.

[sharpe1027]

Jerry may be a charismatic, larger the life, personality, but he sure as shit hasn't been delivering the goods on the field of late. The Packers have consistently out performed the Boys.

I'm pretty sure I know your response already. You'll attribute the Packers' success to getting lucky with Rodgers. Regardless, that doesn't explain Jerry's failures.

[Joemailman]

Good points, Bretsky, and wonder of wonders, I totally agree with th87 for a rare instance.

I once had a weird conspiratorial idea that Ted Thompson's mission or goal or whatever was to intentionally drag the Packers franchise down so much that it became unpopular and ripe for movement to Los Angeles or some other big market, and that getting lucky with the Aaron Rodgers pick derailed that plan.

As unique and nice in a lot of ways it is to have the thousands of mostly local people as team owners, the downside of that is the perceived need is to bring in outsiders - people with little or no inherent loyalty to Green Bay or Wisconsin - to run the team. That's how you end up with Murphy, Gutekunst, Ted Thompson, even Wolf. Old Judge Parins supposedly wasn't a football guy, but he was (I think) a Green Bay guy.

The diametric opposite I see all the time here in Texas is Jerry Jones - the owner and basically one man ruler except maybe for his son - of the Cowboys. True, he was a small time college football player ages ago, but basically he's a helluva lot more like any of us fans in here than he is like a normal pro football executive, and I prefer it that way. Who among us, deep down, doesn't think he could do a better job of running the Packers than the leadership the team has had? I certainly do. I don't mean on field coaching - you need an expert for that. but personnel matters, trades, drafting, capology, I'd take somebody like almost any of us or like Jerry Jones over the professionals who are currently fucking things up big time.

The only thing he ever did right was hire Jimmy Johnson. Jerruh's teams have won 3 playoff games in the last 20 years. They are 3-9 against the Packers in that time. Just sayin'.

[smuggler]

Rodgers is an envious person by nature. Those kinds of people do not make natural leaders, but he has done an admirable job. What he offers in leadership is not what Brady does, but it's good enough to get the job done. I would not classify it as a hole.

[texaspackerbacker]

Jerry may be a charismatic, larger the life, personality, but he sure as shit hasn't been delivering the goods on the field of late. The Packers have consistently out performed the Boys.

I'm pretty sure I know your response already. You'll attribute the Packers' success to getting lucky with Rodgers. Regardless, that doesn't explain Jerry's failures.

You guessed it.

[Spaulding]

Following article suggests the issue might be with Russ Ball:

- https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/aaron-rodgers-v-green-bay-packers-created-perfect-nfl-media-storm-but-likely-only-rodgers-can-weather-it/

Interesting read.

[King Friday]

Following article suggests the issue might be with Russ Ball:

- https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/aaron-rodgers-v-green-bay-packers-created-perfect-nfl-media-storm-but-likely-only-rodgers-can-weather-it/

Interesting read.

More points to Murphy. He's the guy who came up with the strange front office arrangement, which doesn't seem to be working. To me, Murphy did this because he wanted to focus on the business of the Packers, rather than the football.

[King Friday]

And don't get me wrong...the Packers, as a small market team in the NFL, do need to focus on what Murphy is working on. The new revenue streams are the right thing to do. I like what Murphy is doing. I just don't like the fact that the football operation seemingly isn't at peak efficiency. The new revenue streams won't matter much of we go back to the 70s and 80s in terms of performance on the field.

[texaspackerbacker]

I think any Wisconsinite trained as an accountant could handle the business aspect of the Packers. I for one would rather have somebody with home town or home state loyalty running things, though. For on the field stuff/coaching, go where you need to go to hire the best experts available. But for personnel matters and overall supervision, use people who have a Wisconsin-First outlook.

[smuggler]

CEOs are like teachers. The average one is probably overpaid because a lot of people could do the job for less. But the best-of-the-best are underappreciated and underpaid. You're part of the reason for that, tex.

[texaspackerbacker]

How so?

[th87]

First, you assume their complaints are valid.

Secondly, you assume being the best as a player equates to being the same as a talent evaluator.

Lastly, you seem to think that the GM, coach and players all have the same goals. Coaches and players are tasked with winning now. The GM is tasked with supplementing the now while also planning on the future.

The Packers as an organization are far ahead of most teams in that regard. Mostly because they have been able to navigate the difficult job of transitioning QB's. But also because they have done good job of team building around those QB's.

Rodgers wasn't trying to impose on roster decisions - he simply wanted to be kept in the loop on their plans (which they didn't do), and wanted more immediate help ("how" didn't matter).

Goal is to win SBs. If you're close to one, it's asinine to punt on maximizing its chances in favor of a less-likely future chance at it. And when that future arrives, the focus will be placed on even further in the future.

Yes, the Packers have been successful because they've either figured out and/or lucked into filling the most important position with HOFers twice. To accomplish the rest only requires not being complete idiots, and team building has been trash after 2012 until Gute took over (TT's later drafts were poor, with no FAcy to make up for it).

2 first round byes in 10 years of Rodgers until MLF came along. How pathetic is that?

[smuggler]

How so?


I think any Wisconsinite trained as an accountant could handle the business aspect of the Packers.

This.

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

I think any Wisconsinite trained as an accountant could handle the business aspect of the Packers. I for one would rather have somebody with home town or home state loyalty running things, though. For on the field stuff/coaching, go where you need to go to hire the best experts available. But for personnel matters and overall supervision, use people who have a Wisconsin-First outlook.

Nah, the Packers are a business. They go for the best talent no matter where they come from. Trying to choose somebody ONLY from Wisconsin limits your choices and your potential advantages...

[texaspackerbacker]

I say again, I or just about anybody here could make as good or likely much better personnel decisions as the Packer brass. If you have Accounting 101 knowledge, you could handle the business side, and you go get the best talent available for the on-field side of things. Degrees, training, even experience all mean a helluva lot less than having your heart in the right place - basically wanting the home team to win and making decisions accordingly.

So, smuggler. what you were trying to say is that I under-appreciate Packer leadership? That may be true, but the fact is, they have performed like far from the best of the best. The record the past two years and really the past thirty or so years? Getting Favre, which I suppose wasn't luck, and getting Rodgers, which definitely was luck had more to do with that success than anything else.

[Fritz]

CEOs are like teachers. The average one is probably overpaid because a lot of people could do the job for less. But the best-of-the-best are underappreciated and underpaid. You're part of the reason for that, tex.

As a teacher, I resent that remark. Teachers are somehow an easy target, but once Covid hit, all of a sudden everybody wanted their kids in school more than anything else.

Teachers were asked to teach kids in the classroom while also teaching - at the same time! - kids at home. Teachers were told that they had to instantly convert their classes to online. Teachers spend their own money and their own time so kids learn more. Teachers work their asses off. Even average teachers work pretty damn hard.

I can only laugh at those of you who think just any ol' person could be a successful GM. So guys who are professionals, in the game for years, and then become GM's and fail - what's up with that.

As for the original thread, Mike Holmgren is not one to talk. Did he forget his last year in Green Bay, where he made it clear he wanted more control or he wanted out? That the rumors, based in truth, swirled around for most of his last season that his head was already out of town? That he pushed his way out?

Fuck him for feeling smug enough to comment on all this when he did the same shit.

[Joemailman]

As a teacher, I resent that remark. Teachers are somehow an easy target, but once Covid hit, all of a sudden everybody wanted their kids in school more than anything else.

Teachers were asked to teach kids in the classroom while also teaching - at the same time! - kids at home. Teachers were told that they had to instantly convert their classes to online. Teachers spend their own money and their own time so kids learn more. Teachers work their asses off. Even average teachers work pretty damn hard.

I can only laugh at those of you who think just any ol' person could be a successful GM. So guys who are professionals, in the game for years, and then become GM's and fail - what's up with that.

As for the original thread, Mike Holmgren is not one to talk. Did he forget his last year in Green Bay, where he made it clear he wanted more control or he wanted out? That the rumors, based in truth, swirled around for most of his last season that his head was already out of town? That he pushed his way out?

Fuck him for feeling smug enough to comment on all this when he did the same shit.

One might think Holmgren would have an appreciation for how difficult it is to be a GM in the NFL because he was such a bad one.

[Sparkey]

I say again, I or just about anybody here could make as good or likely much better personnel decisions as the Packer brass. If you have Accounting 101 knowledge, you could handle the business side, and you go get the best talent available for the on-field side of things. Degrees, training, even experience all mean a helluva lot less than having your heart in the right place - basically wanting the home team to win and making decisions accordingly.

So, smuggler. what you were trying to say is that I under-appreciate Packer leadership? That may be true, but the fact is, they have performed like far from the best of the best. The record the past two years and really the past thirty or so years? Getting Favre, which I suppose wasn't luck, and getting Rodgers, which definitely was luck had more to do with that success than anything else.

I would hardly call it luck. Luck is something randomly happening to you that you had no expectation of happening. Were they fortunate that 23 other teams passed on him ? Yes. But the fact is that they did enough homework that when the opportunity arose, they were prepared to make an informed choice. That is not luck.

[texaspackerbacker]

He was 50/50 to be the overall top pick. I'd definitely call it luck that those 23 other teams passed on him. Give Ted credit, though, for not being #24. I'm just saying the great majority of Packer fans probably woulda done the same at that point.

[sharpe1027]

Doing a better job of evaluating talent and picking a player passed up by other teams is the core job description for a GM. It's not luck.

[Sparkey]

He was 50/50 to be the overall top pick. I'd definitely call it luck that those 23 other teams passed on him. Give Ted credit, though, for not being #24. I'm just saying the great majority of Packer fans probably woulda done the same at that point.

Good thing Ted was using his head and looking long term and not drafting for right now or the last 13 years would be something less than what they were.

[sharpe1027]

I'm just saying the great majority of Packer fans probably woulda done the same at that point.

Hardly. Plenty of Packers fans were pissed they wasted a first round pick on a QB instead of giving Favre more weapons.

[smuggler]

So, smuggler. what you were trying to say is that I under-appreciate Packer leadership? That may be true, but the fact is, they have performed like far from the best of the best. The record the past two years and really the past thirty or so years? Getting Favre, which I suppose wasn't luck, and getting Rodgers, which definitely was luck had more to do with that success than anything else.

Your entire stream of consciousness concerning this topic is so lacking in perspective as to almost fully rely on its self-contradictory basis of existence that that you're just going to have to stubbornly live with people thinking you look like a dumbass for keeping it.

Fritz, I have a lot of respect for most teachers, and based off what little I know of you, I believe you'd fit into that category

[jklowan]

Hardly. Plenty of Packers fans were pissed they wasted a first round pick on a QB instead of giving Favre more weapons.

You can count me as one, think I threw a remote into my TV that draft

[Spaulding]

He was 50/50 to be the overall top pick. I'd definitely call it luck that those 23 other teams passed on him. Give Ted credit, though, for not being #24. I'm just saying the great majority of Packer fans probably woulda done the same at that point.

I don't think Rodgers as 50/50 being the first choice overall is correct. Way too many concerns on the Tedford QB's and delivery (which improved greatly under McCarthy). Media had no actual clue and it was painful to watch Rodgers squirm on draft night due to all the wrong projections. He was definitely a project and sitting behind Favre for at least two years was the best thing.

If he was honestly thought of being a 50% chance overall, there is no chance he falls past the next 23 teams to land with the Packers.

It was a QB weak class and teams weren't inclined to reach given the prior failures of Tedford's Kyle Boller, David Carr, Joey Harrington and I though Akili Smith but could be wrong. There might be others as well but all were high picks that greatly failed to live up to expectations.

That TT pulled the trigger is a testament to his scouting department, sticking to his board and the right situation for AR to grow into the QB he is today.

That's an organization success story if ever there was, much like Wolf seeing something in Favre that compelled him to give up a 1st rounder for prior year's 2nd rounder that hadn't shown anything yet beyond his college play.

Whether Love is a success story or not is obviously not know. The odds are against it but if any team has a good recipe for QB development it does seem that the Packers are playing with house money.

[th87]

Who cares whether it was luck or skill. It was 17 years ago. Being awesome then has covered up a lot of not awesome decisions subsequently.

I agree that anyone of above average smarts, grit, and love of the game could be a fine GM if they start young and know the right people. So many of these sports jobs (including coaching) are given out to friends in the game - very few are these insane visionaries they are portrayed to be. It's more who you know, and right place right time.

[texaspackerbacker]

No matter how much some people might want to paint Ted Thompson as smart for taking Rodgers when he did, the fact is, it was extreme luck that he even had that choice to make - that all those other teams, several of which had a greater need for a QB than the Packers, passed on Rodgers. Like th87 said, it's water over the dam now - 17 years ago, and Ted and what has followed made "a lot of not awesome decisions subsequently". I have to admit to being one of those who didn't like picking Rodgers in 2005. Ever since then, though, I'll state unequivocally that I could have done a better job with personnel than Thompson or Gutekunst - they really didn't set a very high bar.

[sharpe1027]

The draft is a competition. There were no dice rolls in the draft. The individuals making decisions at each team that passed on Rodgers based on basically the same set of information. The Packers didn't pass. That's not luck, it's being better than your competition.

[Bretsky]

The draft is a competition. There were no dice rolls in the draft. The individuals making decisions at each team that passed on Rodgers based on basically the same set of information. The Packers didn't pass. That's not luck, it's being better than your competition.



Well to be fair it was somewhat lucky a HOF QB fell into our laps at 24 and TT had the stones to take him.

[sharpe1027]

Well to be fair it was somewhat lucky a HOF QB fell into our laps at 24 and TT had the stones to take him.

Two different things. That ARod ended up being a HOFer was very lucky. No way anyone could guarantee that at the time. That others passed they picked him was not luck.

[th87]

The draft is a competition. There were no dice rolls in the draft. The individuals making decisions at each team that passed on Rodgers based on basically the same set of information. The Packers didn't pass. That's not luck, it's being better than your competition.

So they were that year. And then definitely weren't when picking AJ Hawk over Ngata, Nick Perry over Harrison Smith, Worthy over Lavonte David, Datone Jones right ahead of Hopkins, HHCD over Dee Ford, King over Watt, etc.

What competitive advantage were they not using when they made these poor choices?

The point is that every team has the ability to hit or miss. We were just fortunate that our hit was huge at the most important position in football.

[sharpe1027]

So they were that year. And then definitely weren't when picking AJ Hawk over Ngata, Nick Perry over Harrison Smith, Worthy over Lavonte David, Datone Jones right ahead of Hopkins, HHCD over Dee Ford, King over Watt, etc.

What competitive advantage were they not using when they made these poor choices?

The point is that every team has the ability to hit or miss. We were just fortunate that our hit was huge at the most important position in football.

I'm responding to the assertion that picking Rodgers should be discounted because they were lucky he was available. I disagree. They weren't lucky. Other teams didn't rate him as high as we did. That's not luck. It's a simple, easy to understand explanation.

What I'm not saying is they were perfect or that whether a pick hits or misses is ever a certainty. As I also said, we were lucky with how good Rodgers ended up. Nobody could have guaranteed that result.

[Fritz]

Good thing Ted was using his head and looking long term and not drafting for right now or the last 13 years would be something less than what they were.

How true that is.

And before the Packers completely kowtow to Rodgers and throw the next five years away on an overly large, terribly burdensome contract - remember, one bad injury to the 37-year-old not-as-nimble-any-more QB and it's all over - wouldn't it be nice to get a little more information on Jordan Love and what he might offer?

And that's the problem - Rodgers know the Packers need to see what they have and in their fantasy world they'd have Rodgers for two more seasons and then, if they like Love, they move on, and if he doesn't pan out, they then give Rodgers another two seasons.

Rodgers feels slighted by that - kinda like the husband that is going to keep his wife around - unless he can find a younger, just-as-hot woman.

[RashanGary]

How true that is.

And before the Packers completely kowtow to Rodgers and throw the next five years away on an overly large, terribly burdensome contract - remember, one bad injury to the 37-year-old not-as-nimble-any-more QB and it's all over - wouldn't it be nice to get a little more information on Jordan Love and what he might offer?

And that's the problem - Rodgers know the Packers need to see what they have and in their fantasy world they'd have Rodgers for two more seasons and then, if they like Love, they move on, and if he doesn't pan out, they then give Rodgers another two seasons.

Rodgers feels slighted by that - kinda like the husband that is going to keep his wife around - unless he can find a younger, just-as-hot woman.

Which is understandable Rodgers feels like they’re not loyal and doesn’t like it. It’s business or whatever people call it, but it doesn’t mean anyone has to like it or agree to it. I understand both sides.

[RashanGary]

If the team can cut ties whenever they feel like it and no ones feelings should be hurt in the process then the player should be able to use whatever leverage he has whenever he wants and no one should be butt hurt either. Both sides are a business. Let’s stop holding players to the loyalty standard and then having management with no loyalty excused as business. That doesn’t make any sense.

[RashanGary]

I think because we were raised in this society where there is no loyalty in business, we just accept it. But then when a player sees what’s happening and plays the same game, we act all surprised and hold him to these humane standards while he’s getting chewed up in an inhumane business. Rodgers is doing the right thing. He’s not wrong here

[sharpe1027]

Rodgers is free to leverage anything he wants against the Packers. Fans are free to be pissed off at him for using the leverage against the team they support. Nobody gets to tell me whether I can disagree with one side or the other.

[RashanGary]

Rodgers is free to leverage anything he wants against the Packers. Fans are free to be pissed off at him for using the leverage against the team they support. Nobody gets to tell me whether I can disagree with one side or the other.

What good is a team that’s not loyal to its team?

Nelson, Sitton, Jennings, Favre, Lang, Rodgers.....

Look, I like the idea of team and loyalty and doing it together. It’s a beautiful concept. But I don’t support the Packers as a “team” because they’re not. They’re a cold business just like everything else in America.

As the season goes on, there’s team relationships that develop and a team goal and teamwork. I love seeing them work together toward a common goal as a team. But when offseason comes around I’m sure not gonna attribute Gute or TT or damn near any GM with being team oriented or people oriented. Wins and losses don’t mean as much as they used to for me. I’d rather see loyalty and people sticking together. And that’s not what the NFL is.

[sharpe1027]

What good is a team that’s not loyal to its team?

Nelson, Sitton, Jennings, Favre, Lang, Rodgers.....

Look, I like the idea of team and loyalty and doing it together. It’s a beautiful concept. But I don’t support the Packers as a “team” because they’re not. They’re a cold business just like everything else in America.

As the season goes on, there’s team relationships that develop and a team goal and teamwork. I love seeing them work together toward a common goal as a team. But when offseason comes around I’m sure not gonna attribute Gute or TT or damn near any GM with being team oriented or people oriented. Wins and losses don’t mean as much as they used to for me. I’d rather see loyalty and people sticking together. And that’s not what the NFL is.
I am sorry you don't enjoy the games as much because of how you feel about the organization. I try not to take any of this personal.

They don't do everything the way I would prefer. Hell, I'd rather the players and upper management stopped by my house every day to hangout and sign things for my kids. They don't, but I still like watching the games and support the imperfect team that they are in spite of them not operating like I would prefer.

I can distinguish between how a single player acts and how a group of individuals running the team act. They aren't in identical positions and don't need to be held to identical standards.

[smuggler]

Nelson, Sitton, Jennings, Favre, Lang, Rodgers

Nelson and Jennings didn't get done dirty by the Packers.

Jennings bet on himself and lost. Nelson chose the extra money in Oakland over staying in Green Bay. He'd have been stupid not to, but so what? He said screw us and went elsewhere. We did not betray those players. Period.

[Joemailman]

Nelson and Jennings didn't get done dirty by the Packers.

Jennings bet on himself and lost. Nelson chose the extra money in Oakland over staying in Green Bay. He'd have been stupid not to, but so what? He said screw us and went elsewhere. We did not betray those players. Period.

The Packers cut Jordy to save 10 million in cap space. I don't recall that they were trying to sign him. Cutting him was the right move.

[Bretsky]

The Packers cut Jordy to save 10 million in cap space. I don't recall that they were trying to sign him. Cutting him was the right move.


Many reported GB lowballed JN and offered Jordy 2.5 MIL/Year to return

[HarveyWallbangers]

Love Jordy, but he was done here when 1) he lost a step after his ACL injury, and 2) he started sliding when he caught the ball trying to avoid getting hit. They don’t really miss him. Allen Lazard gives them what Jordy gave them at the end + elite blocking.

The team made the right move—which is yet another reason Rodgers shouldn’t play GM. If Jordy had stayed, maybe we don't find out that Allen Lazard can be a fine starter in MLF's offense. It's kind of like Malik Taylor vs. Jake Kumerow. Kumerow had enough time. He proved he'd always be a JAG. Taylor may end up being a JAG or he may end up being the next Lazard--at least there's a slight chance.

[King Friday]

With a salary cap, all players understand that teams will need to make decisions. The Packers have rarely dumped a player who went somewhere else and had 3-4 successful seasons. That basically proves that the Packers handle their business well based on how the system is set up. Teams can't overspend on an old guy just because we want to be loyal to them without turning into a poor performer on the field.

Players who throw a hissy fit about security and stability are morons. They damn well know how the system is set up in the career they chose to go into. You don't get to have all the pros of that system without taking the cons. That is what irks me about Rodgers. He knows the gig...but wants to sit here and whine about it. I can understand his frustration, but that is life in any profession. Health care workers have infinitely more to gripe about over this past year. Rodgers should shut up and fulfill the rest of his remaining contract to the best of his ability. If he wants to publicly challenge draft strategy, great. That's his choice and he has a right to his viewpoint. But the crybaby act on security is pathetic from a player of his caliber.

[sharpe1027]

As far as I'm concerned, Rodgers can push for whatever he wants. It's his job and life. Similarly, the Packers can make a decision to roll the dice on Rodgers long term how they think is best (for or against). I don't pretend to know which will work out. Too many variables to know with any reasonable certainty.

I'm not going to get angry about any of this. I can still watch the games while hanging out with friends, etc.

That doesn't mean I won't think someone is being a bit of an idiot or selfish for their actions. I'm not there yet with this as it's a lot of opinions, rumors, and very few facts. If, however, the noise about Rodgers is mostly true, I think he's in need of a reality and ego check.

[bobblehead]

If the team can cut ties whenever they feel like it and no ones feelings should be hurt in the process then the player should be able to use whatever leverage he has whenever he wants and no one should be butt hurt either. Both sides are a business. Let’s stop holding players to the loyalty standard and then having management with no loyalty excused as business. That doesn’t make any sense.

I would agree with one caveat. Rodgers has 2 options, plain and clear and I deny him neither. He can show up and play, or he can stay home and not play. The problem is, that athletes will show up, tank, whine, be a cancer to the team and the team has no suitable options. They should be able to suspend without pay, fine, or otherwise sue for breech if a player shows up and then destroys the team.

I'm not saying Rodgers is going to do that. Truth be told I doubt it. But I still remember Mike McKenzie faking an injury after not getting his way. That is why the character of the guy you invest millions in is very important.

I won't begrudge Rodgers if he gives up a lot of money to sit home. I'll even respect it a little. But if he shows up and the undermining the organization continues then I have a real problem.