Packers Huddle

Drj820 wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:33

Gutey and Murphy were on an ill advised mission to show the world that Rodgers was not in charge and show the world they could get along with out him. Now, Rodgers has won MVP and Rodgers is saying "you boys sure you can get along without me?" Gutey and Murph in their arrogance started a war with a temperamental HOFer. If they cant repair this, and Love stinks...bye bye Gutey.

I still think this line of argumentation is your least rational, most fanciful, least true.

They weren't on any kind of a mission. They did their jobs. Aaron Rodgers can be found ON TAPE saying that he doesn't expect to be or think he should be involved in the coaching search. That he said that and then complained about it behind closed doors, while the media kept asking people if Rodgers was involved and the front office accurately said "no" is no sort of power-hungry, ego-driven mission.

They simply did their jobs. When TT picked Rodgers, everyone in the broader world tried to make it about TT's ego, also. TT had zero ego. None. All the interviews you ever see about the kind of man he was in his personal and professional life back it up. I was at the combine with him in 2005 and I, as an unpaid week-long intern was able to have his ear, was treated like a valuable human, heard him admit to mistakes, heard him defer to others, was a benefactor of his generosity... and then I spent three years listening to everyone talk about a battle of egos between him and Favre because that's the only way most sports fans can comprehend disagreements.

So maybe I'm biased by the TT-Favre experience, but when I hear everyone jump on the ego, power bandwagon to explain this rift from the team's side, it rings completely hollow. No one was "sending messages."

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:33

it's not as though Rodgers is asking the impossible.

What is Rodgers asking?

Gutey and Murphy were on an ill advised mission to show the world that Rodgers was not in charge and show the world they could get along with out him.

Or maybe they were trying to prep the team for long term success after the starting QB came off of 2 average seasons at the age of 36? What sounds more plausible?

This sums it up:

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:40

Drj820 wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:33

Gutey and Murphy were on an ill advised mission to show the world that Rodgers was not in charge and show the world they could get along with out him. Now, Rodgers has won MVP and Rodgers is saying "you boys sure you can get along without me?" Gutey and Murph in their arrogance started a war with a temperamental HOFer. If they cant repair this, and Love stinks...bye bye Gutey.

I still think this line of argumentation is your least rational, most fanciful, least true.

They weren't on any kind of a mission. They did their jobs. Aaron Rodgers can be found ON TAPE saying that he doesn't expect to be or think he should be involved in the coaching search. That he said that and then complained about it behind closed doors, while the media kept asking people if Rodgers was involved and the front office accurately said "no" is no sort of power-hungry, ego-driven mission.

They simply did their jobs. When TT picked Rodgers, everyone in the broader world tried to make it about TT's ego, also. TT had zero ego. None. All the interviews you ever see about the kind of man he was in his personal and professional life back it up. I was at the combine with him in 2005 and I, as an unpaid week-long intern was able to have his ear, was treated like a valuable human, heard him admit to mistakes, heard him defer to others, was a benefactor of his generosity... and then I spent three years listening to everyone talk about a battle of egos between him and Favre because that's the only way most sports fans can comprehend disagreements.

So maybe I'm biased by the TT-Favre experience, but when I hear everyone jump on the ego, power bandwagon to explain this rift from the team's side, it rings completely hollow. No one was "sending messages."

How many of the people who think that the FO has started the problem, by willful negligence or otherwise, also are “reading between the lines”?

Will all of you please STOP reading between the lines? I suppose that fills a whole bunch of headlines and wrecks some relationships. But it has nothing to do with what is really going on. Let these grown men act like grown men, if that’s what they really are.

There. My once a year rant is complete. Continue as you were.

:-)

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:40

Drj820 wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:33

Gutey and Murphy were on an ill advised mission to show the world that Rodgers was not in charge and show the world they could get along with out him. Now, Rodgers has won MVP and Rodgers is saying "you boys sure you can get along without me?" Gutey and Murph in their arrogance started a war with a temperamental HOFer. If they cant repair this, and Love stinks...bye bye Gutey.

I still think this line of argumentation is your least rational, most fanciful, least true.

They weren't on any kind of a mission. They did their jobs. Aaron Rodgers can be found ON TAPE saying that he doesn't expect to be or think he should be involved in the coaching search. That he said that and then complained about it behind closed doors, while the media kept asking people if Rodgers was involved and the front office accurately said "no" is no sort of power-hungry, ego-driven mission.

They simply did their jobs. When TT picked Rodgers, everyone in the broader world tried to make it about TT's ego, also. TT had zero ego. None. All the interviews you ever see about the kind of man he was in his personal and professional life back it up. I was at the combine with him in 2005 and I, as an unpaid week-long intern was able to have his ear, was treated like a valuable human, heard him admit to mistakes, heard him defer to others, was a benefactor of his generosity... and then I spent three years listening to everyone talk about a battle of egos between him and Favre because that's the only way most sports fans can comprehend disagreements.

So maybe I'm biased by the TT-Favre experience, but when I hear everyone jump on the ego, power bandwagon to explain this rift from the team's side, it rings completely hollow. No one was "sending messages."

Yeah I just disagree. Think back to the discussion around that TL of events and quotes that was posted not long ago. I also specifically remember the org leaking murphy telling Rodgers to "not be the problem". They also made a point to let the world know he would have no input in the new coach. Then they draft his replacement without telling him and say "We dont usually discuss personnel decisions with the player..." or something to that effect.

Why would they leak that stuff if they werent actively trying to put 12 in his place? Seemed to me all those leaks were just that..to show the world they were running the show..not 12.

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:33

go pak go wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:27

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:00

Now we just have to get Rodgers and Gutey and Murphy to agree to it.

And this is the million dollar question.

What does Rodgers want and can the Packers actually do it. Not only that, but does it make sense to do it.

whatttttt? of course it makes sense to do it, and it's not as though Rodgers is asking the impossible.

I have always found it is impossible to say "it's not like Person A is asking the impossible" when we don't know what Person A is asking for.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:45

Yeah I just disagree. Think back to the discussion around that TL of events and quotes that was posted not long ago. I also specifically remember the org leaking murphy telling Rodgers to "not be the problem". They also made a point to let the world know he would have no input in the new coach. Then they draft his replacement without telling him and say "We dont usually discuss personnel decisions with the player..." or something to that effect.

Why would they leak that stuff if they werent actively trying to put 12 in his place? Seemed to me all those leaks were just that..to show the world they were running the show..not 12.

Ok, but here's what Rodgers said about the coaching search after MM was fired:

I think that those are decisions that will happen down the line and right now I'm just focused on these next four games and the direction we're going with Joe (Philbin). I'm obviously an older player in the league, I still have a number of years on my contract, would love to still play to 40. I think there's an interest in who the next guy will be, but Mark and Brian and I have always had good lines of communication, their offices, as they say, are always open. I've had conversations with them like I've had with Ted over the years.

“I'm not needing to be involved in that process.”

The point is... is that they WERE running the show. As they should be. They are the bosses. Rodgers wasn't running the show, and he said as much. Everyone knew Rodgers was not running the show and at the time, Rdgers did not need to be running the show. So when asked who's running the show, the people running the show said "we are."

That isn't "showing 12 who's boss." That isn't "showing the world that 12 is not in charge." It is their literal jobs to literally run the show. And Rodgers said the communication at that point was adequate. And Rodgers said at that point that he did not need to be involved. So when the media ask the show-runners who is running the show and if Rodgers is involved, they said "we're running the show and Rodgers isn't particularly involved." That's not ego, that's honesty. That's not sending a message, that's answering a question. If Rodgers WANTED to be involved, said so, and then the team was like "no, player, shut up and throw the ball" that's sending a message. But with Rodgers on the record saying he's satisfied witht he communication and doesn't need to be involved, how is the team supposed to answer those questions?

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:29

whatever, you know what the point is I was trying to make, Rodgers doesn't want to stay until his play does decline, would you?

Of course. And the Packers have said over and over they do not want to move on from an MVP either. I don't think that is the issue at all.

I think it is more that Rodgers doesn't want the pressure of needing to perform top 3 level or else he is gone.

Because he is coming off a season where he performed at the level that he can flex...he is now trying to leverage that.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:40

Drj820 wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:33

Gutey and Murphy were on an ill advised mission to show the world that Rodgers was not in charge and show the world they could get along with out him. Now, Rodgers has won MVP and Rodgers is saying "you boys sure you can get along without me?" Gutey and Murph in their arrogance started a war with a temperamental HOFer. If they cant repair this, and Love stinks...bye bye Gutey.

I still think this line of argumentation is your least rational, most fanciful, least true.

They weren't on any kind of a mission. They did their jobs. Aaron Rodgers can be found ON TAPE saying that he doesn't expect to be or think he should be involved in the coaching search. That he said that and then complained about it behind closed doors, while the media kept asking people if Rodgers was involved and the front office accurately said "no" is no sort of power-hungry, ego-driven mission.

They simply did their jobs. When TT picked Rodgers, everyone in the broader world tried to make it about TT's ego, also. TT had zero ego. None. All the interviews you ever see about the kind of man he was in his personal and professional life back it up. I was at the combine with him in 2005 and I, as an unpaid week-long intern was able to have his ear, was treated like a valuable human, heard him admit to mistakes, heard him defer to others, was a benefactor of his generosity... and then I spent three years listening to everyone talk about a battle of egos between him and Favre because that's the only way most sports fans can comprehend disagreements.

So maybe I'm biased by the TT-Favre experience, but when I hear everyone jump on the ego, power bandwagon to explain this rift from the team's side, it rings completely hollow. No one was "sending messages."

different situation Yoho, Favre had been openly complaining ever since Ted fired Sherman, and bitched when Ted didn't spend enough to get Moss or other vets, and had threatened retirement for a few years, when Rodgers dropped Ted had to make that choice.

Guty didn't have to take Love, and it's even debatable he needed to trade up to do so, and While Rodgers hadn't played up to his best in 018 or 019 neither had other players those seasons, even still he was still playing, when your #1 receiver and your RB are your best receivers it's pretty hard to blame the QB, still we went to the NFCCG prior to Guty making that pick, why you would think that Rodgers shouldn't have considered that a message makes no sense, of course he would take it that way, and thats not even considering that Guty probably was upset with the way Rodgers dealt with McCarthy.

heck imho Rodgers was upset that McCarthy wasn't fired and replaced after the end of 017, Guty had to be extremely upset that Rodgers basically took over the offense in 018, but w2hat should we expect, the offense McCarthy was and had used for a long time was nearly inafective, heck Rodgers is on record saying as much back in 017, we need to run more and change course are not exactly his words, but they are close, yet the FO wouldn't listen, so he took it upon himself to force them to listen with his play in 018.

I said as much back then, but NO ONE here listened either. people now blame Rodgers, but this has been on the horizon a long time, NO impact offensive players taken higher then round 2 since Adams, thats a long time to starve a HOF QB don't you agree?

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 11:01

I said as much back then, but NO ONE here listened either. people now blame Rodgers, but this has been on the horizon a long time, NO impact offensive players taken higher then round 2 since Adams, thats a long time to starve a HOF QB don't you agree?

If Rodgers was mad that MM didn't get fired, then he should be mad at TT, who is dead. If Rodgers is mad about the impact offensive players not taken from 2015 to 2017, then he should be mad at TT, who is now dead. Rodgers' long-brewing issues make this stance LESS rational, not more. He's mad at the people who have helped turn the team and his career back around for the faults of the previous management team? No way.

Rodgers is upset that the team cuts and trades and fires people without treating them like human beings who deserve more than a short phone call; he's mad that he's not consulted on management decisions; he's mad that the perceived replacement plan was put in place without his agreement or consultation or in line with what he has said he wants. He's mad that the NFL as a whole creates an environment in which the labor is treated more like machine parts than humans.

None of this has anything to do with MM. If it did, then he's mad at a dead guy and taking it out on his bosses, which seems weird.

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 11:01

different situation Yoho, Favre had been openly complaining ever since Ted fired Sherman, and bitched when Ted didn't spend enough to get Moss or other vets, and had threatened retirement for a few years, when Rodgers dropped Ted had to make that choice.

The error in this argument is all of this "Favre complaining" happened AFTER the Packers selected Rodgers.

Sherman got fired AFTER the Packers selected Rodgers.
Ted pulled out of trading for Moss AFTER the Packers selected Rodgers.

Favre did mention, not threaten, retirement though. That is true. Though he never really got "serious" about talking retirement until during the 2005 season when he hinted the Packers vs Seahawks game at Lambeau in December 2005 may be his last. Then again at Chicago in 2006. And then it actually happened after the 2007 season.

But again. All of this happened AFTER Ted selected Rodgers.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:42

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:33

it's not as though Rodgers is asking the impossible.

What is Rodgers asking?

He wants the Big Lebowski soundtrack on 8-track. But Gutey will only give it to him on CD. I think he wants some tan M&M's too.

People are correct that the organization and its management need to be dispassionate in carrying out its business because that's the nature of the beast -- in order to compete, you have to dump the assets that are not justifying their cost. That is true of practically every industry ever.

But the "assets" in question here are people at the end of the day, and I think society is getting to a point where folks are no longer as willing to accept being some cog in a machine to be tossed aside whenever convenient.

Nor should they. The comparative inconvenience, versus the employer this means having to find a replacement and pains that can result from it, is still much more dire for the employee, who -- in the absence of an outside program or safety-nets to keep them afloat -- face far more onerous consequences (e.g. going broke, losing insurance, losing the house, etc).

Financially, Rodgers is set for now and in the future, but the fact that even a guy like him who does not have those worries can still feel this way should make us think about how people lower on the totem-pole feel about it. Significantly, Rodgers's star status actually gives him the standing to challenge his employer on this, whereas back-of-the-roster churn do not.

I am not really on his side in a broader sense, nor am I convinced that the organization's culture/treatment is the heart of the rift, but to the extent that it is, yeah, I am totally with Rodgers there.

Amos is 100% right. It's the players and coaches who are delivering the final product. Theoretically, the show can go on without the management; the players can run it co-op; the show cannot go on without players (nobody would tune in to watch management nerds play, aside from the brief initial amusement).

Now, I don't think a co-op model would actually work for NFL teams. The players are not necessarily cut out for the task, but more significantly, adding that work responsibility is probably not something that the players even want to do. You need guys who exclusively run the management side of the operation.

But I also think that the present model is coming apart, and that some "happy medium" between this and the polar opposite needs to come about. Players definitely deserve more of a say in the team/'League's business.


**edit** I would also add that TB12 played an active role in the team's business this past season and it helped put together a Championship team. I mean, they showed us up twice along the way. So I think we can foreclose the idea that mgmt have some mystical competence magic that must not be contaminated by the lowly peons they control.

Labrev wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 11:18

People are correct that the organization and its management need to be dispassionate in carrying out its business because that's the nature of the beast -- in order to compete, you have to dump the assets that are not justifying their cost. That is true of practically every industry ever.

But the "assets" in question here are people at the end of the day, and I think society is getting to a point where folks are no longer as willing to accept being some cog in a machine to be tossed aside whenever convenient.

Nor should they. The comparative inconvenience, versus the employer this means having to find a replacement and pains that can result from it, is still much more dire for the employee, who -- in the absence of an outside program or safety-nets to keep them afloat -- face far more onerous consequences (e.g. going broke, losing insurance, losing the house, etc).

Financially, Rodgers is set for now and in the future, but the fact that even a guy like him who does not have those worries can still feel this way should make us think about how people lower on the totem-pole feel about it. Significantly, Rodgers's star status actually gives him the standing to challenge his employer on this, whereas back-of-the-roster churn do not.

I am not really on his side in a broader sense, nor am I convinced that the organization's culture/treatment is the heart of the rift, but to the extent that it is, yeah, I am totally with Rodgers there.

And I absolutely agree with this that laborers are at an immense disadvantage when it comes to negations because the margin of error is less for laborers. As you said, a firm can last months most likely. Most laborers can last a month. Maybe.

But we keep losing sight that Rodgers isn't NOT going to get paid. Rodgers signed a contract and he will get paid on that contract until 2022 because a lot of the contract was paid up front. The issue more is Rodgers doesn't want the team to trade him to a new location without his blessing.

So I think it is more like a laborer doesn't want to get transferred from the Scranton branch to the Nashua branch. But that is also business and sometimes that's what needs to happen. Rodgers is actually in a good situation here. Most employees don't get a majority of their compensation up front and therefore can have the ability to not work but still be technically "compensated" for it. Rodgers gets that luxury.

I certainly would be thrilled to have that.

Watch this:

"different situation Yoho, Rodgers had been openly complaining ever since Gutenkunst fired McCarthy, and bitched when Gutenkunst didn't spend enough to get Watt or other vets, and had threatened discontent for a few years, when Love dropped Gutenkunst had to make that choice."

More similar than we would like to admit.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 11:06

Rodgers is upset that the team cuts and trades and fires people without treating them like human beings who deserve more than a short phone call; he's mad that he's not consulted on management decisions; he's mad that the perceived replacement plan was put in place without his agreement or consultation or in line with what he has said he wants. He's mad that the NFL as a whole creates an environment in which the labor is treated more like machine parts than humans.

I think this is the crux of it.

Much like a certain poster here who refuses to acknowledge the reality of how things work, Rodgers is also frustrated with how the Packers (and the larger NFL machine in whole) work.

There is the way things are and the way you wish things were. Those two rarely align.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 11:33

Watch this:

"different situation Yoho, Rodgers had been openly complaining ever since Gutenkunst fired McCarthy, and bitched when Gutenkunst didn't spend enough to get Watt or other vets, and had threatened discontent for a few years, when Love dropped Gutenkunst had to make that choice."

More similar than we would like to admit.

APB wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 11:33

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 11:06

Rodgers is upset that the team cuts and trades and fires people without treating them like human beings who deserve more than a short phone call; he's mad that he's not consulted on management decisions; he's mad that the perceived replacement plan was put in place without his agreement or consultation or in line with what he has said he wants. He's mad that the NFL as a whole creates an environment in which the labor is treated more like machine parts than humans.

I think this is the crux of it.

Much like a certain poster here who refuses to acknowledge the reality of how things work, Rodgers is also frustrated with how the Packers (and the larger NFL machine in whole) work.

There is the way things are and the way you wish things were. Those two rarely align.

I mean if that is truly the source of all this, by god hire someone to do some CPE on personal management and interaction.

Like that is such a low cost solution.

Labrev wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 11:21

Amos is 100% right. It's the players and coaches who are delivering the final product. Theoretically, the show can go on without the management; the players can run it co-op; the show cannot go on without players (nobody would tune in to watch management nerds play, aside from the brief initial amusement).

Now, I don't think a co-op model would actually work for NFL teams. The players are not necessarily cut out for the task, but more significantly, adding that work responsibility is probably not something that the players even want to do. You need guys who exclusively run the management side of the operation.

But I also think that the present model is coming apart, and that some "happy medium" between this and the polar opposite needs to come about. Players definitely deserve more of a say in the team/'League's business.

Really really interesting that you bring this up. The way things are going, I could see the co-op league idea coming to fruition. With the "stick it to the man" mentality that has become so prevalent among players in recent years, combined with the diva attitudes and all of the ways that you can burn at the stake as an GM/HC because you didn't adhere to inane PC bull &%$@.... these jobs will become less desirable, if they're not already.