Should superstars have a say in running a team?

[salmar80]

Pro Football Talk has been pushing the idea that top QBs should have a say in the running of franchises. In short, their idea is that superstars are so important to teams that they have leverage to influence front office and coaching hires and personnel moves, and they argue those stars should use that power to the max. And they kinda seem to think the stars would know better than actual front offices (or at least it would be exciting and worth many clicks).

We are kind of seeing that in practice this year, with Deshaun Watson demanding a trade after not getting to be involved in the coach search, Russell Wilson maybe doing the same after not getting the influence he wanted over the scheme and personnel, Matthew Stafford getting himself traded after requesting it.

On the positive side, Tom Brady went on a recruiting spree that landed some talent the SB champs probably wouldn't have had otherwise.

Now, we have a superstar QB in Green Bay. The MVP. Possibly could play hard ball and force some things...

Do you think this franchise should listen to AR and other stars when it comes to hires and personnel decisions, and to what degree?

[YoHoChecko]

Depends. Do they have a good idea? Do it and credit them. Do they have a bad idea? Listen to them and tell them it didn’t work out.

[go pak go]

I think there comes a time yes. Your quarterback is almost like the COO of a football team. Or the offense for sure. I think there does come a time where their opinion and advice should come in.

But it's a two way street. If you want to get a little in terms of respect and input...you also should give a little to help make those moves possible.

Drafting is another thing and I would say there shouldn't be much input there. Primarily because the draft moves too fast and the outlook is too long on a draft pick.

[lupedafiasco]

No.

[Pckfn23]

No, but if the team offers them a say, but then doesn't give it to them, that's on the team.

[YoHoChecko]

For me, it's like... you're hiring a head coach. You probably want to talk to your star QB and say, "ok, what's important to you? What worked with past coaches and what didn't? If we go with a defensive guy, what sort of things are important for your side of the ball?"

But you don't say "ok, who's on your short list?" Because as a player, you aren't talking to staffs around the league and front offices and general managers to get a feel for who is actually out there.

In the draft, not at all. Because your QB is not scouting any college players.

But your QB is playing on the team. If he really wants a certain TYPE of offensive system or a certain TYPE of free agent acquisition, you let him speak, tell him his opinion matters and will be a piece of the decision, and then you either say "hey, we got a guy we think you'll love" or say "hey, I know this wasn't what you're looking for, but here's why we think it works" and use some of his talking points.

You manage a person and their ego and let them feel included but don't let them feel entitled to a final say or close to it.

Football, like anything, is successful when you manage people well, not just when you manage the business well. Superstar players are important people to manage well

[Yoop]

so many things to consider, Football IQ, experience, in Rodgers case both check out, Rodgers could probably coach after he retires if he chose too, I think when it comes to what will make the offense better it would be a insult not to listen to his opinion, he probably watches as much film as the coaches, and who would know better then him if a certain play will work and which game active player is best suited for it to succeed on any given Sunday.

as to the rest, he may have a opinion on positional needs, but it's best for the Scouts and GM to decide on the players to fill those positions.

course I'am willing to give Rodgers carte blanch when it comes to picking WR's in leau of him chipping in a little to sign a stud like JJ, he may be willing to part with a few denero if Guty would move to take Kaderous Toney, course this would have to be a written contract type thing, Gute simply can not be trusted, heck he'd take the 10 mil, and move up, only to take a pass rusher, or worse yet reach for a DT god forbid

[Raptorman]

Pro Football Talk has been pushing the idea that top QBs should have a say in the running of franchises. In short, their idea is that superstars are so important to teams that they have leverage to influence front office and coaching hires and personnel moves, and they argue those stars should use that power to the max. And they kinda seem to think the stars would know better than actual front offices (or at least it would be exciting and worth many clicks).

We are kind of seeing that in practice this year, with Deshaun Watson demanding a trade after not getting to be involved in the coach search, Russell Wilson maybe doing the same after not getting the influence he wanted over the scheme and personnel, Matthew Stafford getting himself traded after requesting it.

On the positive side, Tom Brady went on a recruiting spree that landed some talent the SB champs probably wouldn't have had otherwise.

Now, we have a superstar QB in Green Bay. The MVP. Possibly could play hard ball and force some things...

Do you think this franchise should listen to AR and other stars when it comes to hires and personnel decisions, and to what degree?

Years ago, QB's called their own plays much of the time. Now, should they be in the hiring loop? Well, it depends. How much do they contribute to the film room? Do you want a QB that talks and interacts or just sits there and listens. Do you want a QB that gives his ideas of what he sees on the field and what he thinks would work better? In my experience, in every job, there is always an advantage to the workers giving their input to management. Management makes mistakes. To be completely dismissive of your QB is, well, foolish. You are telling him that his opinion doesn't matter And that makes for a rough working envirorment.

[Labrev]

Yes, I think players (not just the superstars) should have some input on the teams they play for.

Like, I would be in favor of giving them a vote on filling certain key positions, e.g. President/CEO, Head Coach, possibly the ability to recall them if they are just totally ruining their teams.


re: Watson/Wilson/Stafford ... I mean, yeah, Watson may not know "what it takes to run the team" but the McNair family patently does not, either. I don't think Watson or his teammates should have to play for a Bob McNair.

Or his illustrious successor: https://www.battleredblog.com/real-actu ... te-failson

They should be able to vote them out.

[Pckfn23]

Packers brought veterans on to give opinions on the new head coach. That's how you do it.

[Labrev]

On that note, I would also put a hard cap on what the CEO/President can make; a 9-figure salary is ridiculous when they are the least actively involved in the final product.

I would rather use that money to pay everyone else a bit more and make the pension plan for retirees a lot better.

[texas]

No to hard power, but possibly yes to soft power, depending on the player. Deshaun Watson definitely should not have a say. Wilson and Stafford possibly should have a small say. Rodgers maybe a little bit more. The only one who should definitely have a say is Brady.

Ideally though you don't let it get to that point if you're the coach. Because while Rodgers sort of deserves a small say in things, his attitude needed some major adjustments and I think that is why we drafted Love. The players definitely should not feel as comfortable as Rodgers did pre-Love. Like, gauge their opinion but make it known to them that they are not in charge, and then if you decide against their opinion, communicate it effectively instead of just giving them the cold shoulder "I'm the boss so tough" answer (even though that is technically true).

[TheSkeptic]

No to hard power, but possibly yes to soft power, depending on the player. Deshaun Watson definitely should not have a say. Wilson and Stafford possibly should have a small say. Rodgers maybe a little bit more. The only one who should definitely have a say is Brady.

Ideally though you don't let it get to that point if you're the coach. Because while Rodgers sort of deserves a small say in things, his attitude needed some major adjustments and I think that is why we drafted Love. The players definitely should not feel as comfortable as Rodgers did pre-Love. Like, gauge their opinion but make it known to them that they are not in charge, and then if you decide against their opinion, communicate it effectively instead of just giving them the cold shoulder "I'm the boss so tough" answer (even though that is technically true).

This

[Yoop]

No to hard power, but possibly yes to soft power, depending on the player. Deshaun Watson definitely should not have a say. Wilson and Stafford possibly should have a small say. Rodgers maybe a little bit more. The only one who should definitely have a say is Brady.

Ideally though you don't let it get to that point if you're the coach. Because while Rodgers sort of deserves a small say in things, his attitude needed some major adjustments and I think that is why we drafted Love. The players definitely should not feel as comfortable as Rodgers did pre-Love. Like, gauge their opinion but make it known to them that they are not in charge, and then if you decide against their opinion, communicate it effectively instead of just giving them the cold shoulder "I'm the boss so tough" answer (even though that is technically true).

right, Rodgers had a attitude problem, however he didn't bitch his way out of the team that made him famous the way Brady did, just maybe if our GM's over the years had listened to Rodgers we'd have a few more SB trophy's as well, both NE and Tampa brought in offensive impact players to help Brady win, players that actually did help when it mattered the most, here, Rodgers got very little of that, and people actually expect Rodgers to take a pay cut to correct that.

[TheSkeptic]

No to hard power, but possibly yes to soft power, depending on the player. Deshaun Watson definitely should not have a say. Wilson and Stafford possibly should have a small say. Rodgers maybe a little bit more. The only one who should definitely have a say is Brady.

Ideally though you don't let it get to that point if you're the coach. Because while Rodgers sort of deserves a small say in things, his attitude needed some major adjustments and I think that is why we drafted Love. The players definitely should not feel as comfortable as Rodgers did pre-Love. Like, gauge their opinion but make it known to them that they are not in charge, and then if you decide against their opinion, communicate it effectively instead of just giving them the cold shoulder "I'm the boss so tough" answer (even though that is technically true).

right, Rodgers had a attitude problem, however he didn't bitch his way out of the team that made him famous the way Brady did, just maybe if our GM's over the years had listened to Rodgers we'd have a few more SB trophy's as well, both NE and Tampa brought in offensive impact players to help Brady win, players that actually did help when it mattered the most, here, Rodgers got very little of that, and people actually expect Rodgers to take a pay cut to correct that.

It didn't work out but they brought in Jimmy Graham, didn't they? And Turner? And Wagner to replace Bulaga who played in only 10 games but only finished 5 games this season - as many of us expected.

Instead the Packers put the money into defensive FA's and now they are in salary cap hell because of the FA agent help. fyi, the goal is to get to the SB, not to help Rodgers. It should be to help the team and the team includes the D.

No one expects Rodgers to take a real pay cut - but it would be great if he did.

[Yoop]

No to hard power, but possibly yes to soft power, depending on the player. Deshaun Watson definitely should not have a say. Wilson and Stafford possibly should have a small say. Rodgers maybe a little bit more. The only one who should definitely have a say is Brady.

Ideally though you don't let it get to that point if you're the coach. Because while Rodgers sort of deserves a small say in things, his attitude needed some major adjustments and I think that is why we drafted Love. The players definitely should not feel as comfortable as Rodgers did pre-Love. Like, gauge their opinion but make it known to them that they are not in charge, and then if you decide against their opinion, communicate it effectively instead of just giving them the cold shoulder "I'm the boss so tough" answer (even though that is technically true).

right, Rodgers had a attitude problem, however he didn't bitch his way out of the team that made him famous the way Brady did, just maybe if our GM's over the years had listened to Rodgers we'd have a few more SB trophy's as well, both NE and Tampa brought in offensive impact players to help Brady win, players that actually did help when it mattered the most, here, Rodgers got very little of that, and people actually expect Rodgers to take a pay cut to correct that.

It didn't work out but they brought in Jimmy Graham, didn't they? And Turner? And Wagner to replace Bulaga who played in only 10 games but only finished 5 games this season - as many of us expected.

Instead the Packers put the money into defensive FA's and now they are in salary cap hell because of the FA agent help. fyi, the goal is to get to the SB, not to help Rodgers. It should be to help the team and the team includes the D.

No one expects Rodgers to take a real pay cut - but it would be great if he did.

the Packers are in salary cap hell because they have a bunch of very good players on second contracts, it's not so much the FA Gute finally brought in, here people are wanting Rodgers to take a pay cut to hump us up over the hill, no one wants Baktiari to do so, we just gave him the richest contract a LT has ever seen, that was insane to me, send me a self addressed stamped envelope and I'll be happy to explain why, no time for it in this rant

and I remember just how giddy people here got just at the thought of Rodgers being the most expensive QB in the league, no sheit, people where pouring champagne, I was freaking, not only at the money, but also the timing, why give Rodgers a biggy big contract prior to a season with a coach on the hot seat when he still had 2 years on his previous deal, heres why imho, Rodgers was boiling, no receiver help to speak of, a coach that had become so redundent his schemes made everything on offense near impossible to accomplish, and he was fed up with carrying this team for the previous 3 or 4 seasons, (just look at all the wasted draft picks on defense) Murphy jumped up to save the day and smooth things over with Rodgers by giving him a contract he couldn't refuse, and again had to do so after firing McCarthy and bringing in Lafluer when Rodgers was upset with not being consoled on that decision.

now you people think he should take a pay cut to bring in another older vet, help the team some more, seriously are you people main lining crack

[YoHoChecko]

To be clear, the Packers are not in "Salary Cap Hell."

The LEAGUE is in "Salary Cap Hell" and the Packers are not in a great position to deal with it, but there's not been some poor management or bad free agent decisions that are punishing us.

And yes, we also have several All Pros who are playing as such and earning top contracts and eventually that forces tough decisions. But bear in mind that in any normal year with normal cap growth, the Packers would have cap space.

[wallyuwl]

No.

+1

[RingoCStarrQB]

right, Rodgers had a attitude problem, however he didn't bitch his way out of the team that made him famous the way Brady did, just maybe if our GM's over the years had listened to Rodgers we'd have a few more SB trophy's as well, both NE and Tampa brought in offensive impact players to help Brady win, players that actually did help when it mattered the most, here, Rodgers got very little of that, and people actually expect Rodgers to take a pay cut to correct that.

It didn't work out but they brought in Jimmy Graham, didn't they? And Turner? And Wagner to replace Bulaga who played in only 10 games but only finished 5 games this season - as many of us expected.

Instead the Packers put the money into defensive FA's and now they are in salary cap hell because of the FA agent help. fyi, the goal is to get to the SB, not to help Rodgers. It should be to help the team and the team includes the D.

No one expects Rodgers to take a real pay cut - but it would be great if he did.

the Packers are in salary cap hell because they have a bunch of very good players on second contracts, it's not so much the FA Gute finally brought in, here people are wanting Rodgers to take a pay cut to hump us up over the hill, no one wants Baktiari to do so, we just gave him the richest contract a LT has ever seen, that was insane to me, send me a self addressed stamped envelope and I'll be happy to explain why, no time for it in this rant

and I remember just how giddy people here got just at the thought of Rodgers being the most expensive QB in the league, no sheit, people where pouring champagne, I was freaking, not only at the money, but also the timing, why give Rodgers a biggy big contract prior to a season with a coach on the hot seat when he still had 2 years on his previous deal, heres why imho, Rodgers was boiling, no receiver help to speak of, a coach that had become so redundent his schemes made everything on offense near impossible to accomplish, and he was fed up with carrying this team for the previous 3 or 4 seasons, (just look at all the wasted draft picks on defense) Murphy jumped up to save the day and smooth things over with Rodgers by giving him a contract he couldn't refuse, and again had to do so after firing McCarthy and bringing in Lafluer when Rodgers was upset with not being consoled on that decision.

now you people think he should take a pay cut to bring in another older vet, help the team some more, seriously are you people main lining crack

[APB]

and I remember just how giddy people here got just at the thought of Rodgers being the most expensive QB in the league, no sheit, people where pouring champagne

Perhaps you could help us out and cite who these mystery posters were that you're now arguing against? As I recall, posters were celebrating the fact we got Rodgers at a relative bargain.

And if, in fact, the premise of the quoted portion above is indeed wrong, it then renders the remainder of your post as complete nonsense. You know, this part:

Rodgers was boiling, no receiver help to speak of, a coach that had become so redundent his schemes made everything on offense near impossible to accomplish, and he was fed up with carrying this team for the previous 3 or 4 seasons, (just look at all the wasted draft picks on defense) Murphy jumped up to save the day and smooth things over with Rodgers by giving him a contract he couldn't refuse, and again had to do so after firing McCarthy and bringing in Lafluer when Rodgers was upset with not being consoled on that decision.

Truth is, Rodgers did sign a relatively team friendly deal. Does that sound like the actions of a player who was "boiling", "fed up", or getting a contract he "couldn't refuse?"