That's what she said...

[FavreChild]

If you've got a job in Tampa, and they're willing to rehire you, do you voluntarily give up the bleach blond to take a job in the Tundra?

I don't think ol' Chucky gives a sh*t about the weather. Remember, this is the guy who said he averages four hours of sleep per night - at most? He is not our enjoying the finer points of life in TB.

So you're saying GB can't attract a premier coach??

[The Leaper]

There is always malcontent in today's age. Belichick probably has a site out there critical of him.

The point is that unless you can find something that proves that Tampa's management is behind that website, Chuckie has a job for a long while in Tampa.

You don't give up a first round pick for a head coach unless you REALLY like him. Then he wins a Super Bowl for you? It is going to take quite a few poor seasons before Gruden is shown the door in Tampa.

[FavreChild]

Sure, I agree. And I sure wouldn't want to give up Gruden if I were Tampa management. I'm just saying that it *could* happen, especially if we're talking about the end of next season. Pure speculation, of course, but it's not beyond the realm of reason that Tampa could simply decide "it's time for a change" coinciding with the end of Gruden's contract? They don't even have to fire him; they just have to "not renew."

Yes, the scenario is improbable. And mostly wishful thinking on my part. I still feel that Gruden is destined to return to his roots in GB....someday. If it doesn't happen after the '07 season...oh well.

I'm not saying he's the messiah or anything; ideally, I would like to have him, though. [/i]

[The Leaper]

I really like McCarthy. I think he has done an excellent job in the 2 areas that really needed to be addressed.

1. Favre...not only has Favre bought into McCarthy's scheme, but he has been amazingly good at not taking excess chances. He is taking SMART chances, and is throwing the ball away more often when nothing is there. I swear he has thrown more balls through the back of the endzone this year in 6 games than he has in the previous 5 years combined.

2. OL...McCarthy and Jags have done a fine job with this inexperienced line working with a scheme entirely new to all of them. I'm actually shocked at how well things are progressing through 6 games. We might have a pretty good OL at the start of next season.

McCarthy seems to have won the confidence of the players. He is showing progress in terms of game plans and adjustments.

Our weak spot clearly is defensive coaching. It is terrible. That is partly on McCarthy, since he picked these duds. However, to be fair, the Packers first choice was to keep Bates around. Bates and McCarthy would've made a damn good tandem. I would pray every night for Bates to return next year if I thought there was even a 1% chance it might happen.

[FavreChild]

Yes, that's a fair enough view of M3.

And I argue for Gruden more as an ideal rather than a condemnation of M3. I feel like M3 was chosen partly because he is inexperienced as a HC, and therefore less likely to be contentious in any way with TT, and less susceptible to criticism because of his lack of experience.

But I hold that against TT, not M3. We don't know enough about M3 yet.

So, yes, the Gruden factor is merely wishful thinking on my part, and very unlikely to come to fruition. So I get what you're saying.

[The Leaper]

FC

Do you believe Thompson is really that much of a power broker? I find him to be a recluse that really is AFRAID of taking charge. The guy can barely make it through a 4 minute press conference without a mental breakdown from being that exposed.

Thompson dumped Sherman because he wasn't a very good coach...but more importantly because he had lost the team. Thompson saw that, and was quick in making the right move.

Thompson has very little track record in making personnel decisions in terms of coaching...so I'm not sure I can so clearly label him as looking for a "company-line" coach who would fall in line. In fact, there were very few options available that would have had significantly more experience in coaching than M3 anyway. Just about whoever he selected was going to be in some way "indebted" to Thompson regardless.

[FavreChild]

I appreciate the discussion, Leaper.

I am no fan of TT; that is clear. But I certainly don't think he's part of any grand scheme to destroy the Packers (some TT bashers take it too far in that way). And you are definitely right - TT hates the public speaking, and is not comfortable in the public spotlight.

Is that a bad thing in and of itself? No, I don't think so. At the same time, a natural dichotomy was going to develop (had already developed?) between the Sherman regime and the TT regime. So while personally I didn't agree with the Sherman firing (I won't get into that here), I can understand the reasoning behind the firing, simply from the perspective that Sherman would always be pitted "against" TT.

At the same time, I think your claim that TT doesn't like the public exposure can still support his decision to bring in M3. This whole season is virtually a "mulligan" for TT and M3 - yes, fans are going to be unhappy, but one year isn't much time to make sweeping changes. Also, there's no way that a new, inexperienced HC would critique personel decisions made by TT. So there's some comfort and safety in that for TT. In a year or two, when TT is more confident and (hopefully) has established more of a track record, I can only assume that he would get rid of M3 *if* M3 proves unsatisfactory.

I still don't like TT's personality, and I sure wouldn't like him as a boss if I were a Packer.

However, again, I appreciate you keeping me honest in my treatment of TT and engaging in a civilized discussion with me about the issue.

[The Leaper]

So what is your take on what would be a good combination of personalities between the HC and GM?

I prefer my coaches to be hellfire and brimstone. I was never a huge fan of Sherman because of that. I prefer Bill Cowher or Jon Gruden type coaches...I think those guys are what get the players of today motivated. The drawback, however, is that those guys also can burn themselves out or lose their team more rapidly because of their style.

Most of the best GMs are guys who stay out of the public light and keep things pretty close to the vest. That said, I think Thompson is a little TOO paranoid and should open up a little. I'm not sure a guy that reclusive is going to be able to effectively communicate with today's players. They'll take one look at his hair... ...and his style...and think "I need to stay away from Green Bay" unless Green Bay is on top or paying top dollar.

It is still too early to judge Thompson IMO. He's done a few very good things. He's done a few very questionable things. 2 years from now, we'll have a much better idea if Thompson knows what he is doing.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Actually, Thompson has opened up quite a bit this year. He gives a lot more press conferences. He won't give anything away, but I'm cool with the GM of my favorite team being that way.

[The Leaper]

Not living in Wisconsin, I haven't seen Thompson open up more...but I'll take your word for it. I hope he does...it will help the team long term IMO.

[FavreChild]

I guess I think TT talks *too* much.

While I think *some* coaches (Denny Green, anyone?) can mask their deficiencies with the "fire and brimstone" personality approaches, there are certainly other coaches who appear to be too complacent. Gruden, I think, is particularly attractive personality-wise, because he is "fiery" but at the same time, he doesn't absolve himself from blame. He gets mad, and shows emotion, but not in an overly emotional/irrational sort of way...?

But perhaps that is all a red herring.

Maybe my problem is that there is still not a clear establishment of boundaries between TT and the coaching staff, and by extension, a clear establishment of accountability. With Sherman last year, there was understandably some tension between the former GM and his coaching staff vs. the new GM. So it was easy, and natural, for both parties to claim the other was at fault.

Now, TT has his own "regime" in place (yes, I realize my language choice reflects my bias), but we have also had both M3 and Jags defer to TT in terms of game-day personnel decisions. So I guess I am confused over the separation of church and state. GM powers were taken away from Sherman - and for the most part, rightly so - but now I guess it seems we have swung too far in the other direction for my taste. The GM has too much control. Maybe that relationship will evolve over time - I hope so. Personally, I feel that TT has intruded too much into the sphere of coaching and team management.

I would really dislike TT and his style as a boss. I will never forget William Henderson's story about how slighted he felt about the whole Sherman/McCarthy transition, especially how demotivating it felt for the players to receive communication of these personnel decisions through the media rather than from Packer management. That would piss me off as an employee.

Do I realize that TT is a "businessman" and that running an NFL franchise is "a business?" Of course I do. But what makes Green Bay special is that we aren't the "typical" business. Maybe it's just an idealistic illusion, but we are supposed to be the "people's team" and so forth. For me, TT just doesn't fit into that ideology.

Maybe I need to "get over it," but I really think it comes down to the fact that I don't want to concede that my team is the same as all the others when you boil it down to economic factors...

[FavreChild]

Crap, that was a really long post!

But again, thanks for forcing the issue with me, Leaper. I do really appreciate the honest discussion...

[GBRulz]

harv, you said it exactly.... Sure he's doing more PC's, but nothing but jarble comes out of his mouth. Hence, we have Zig to translate his PC's for us to possibly dig what actual information he has given us.

I still think he has excellent skills to be a politician!