Packers Huddle

Captain_Ben wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 11:37

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" attitude 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.

And it will fail if it is tried because the players, like they have always thought, think they can build a business model more successful than the NFL and then come to find out that they have no idea what they are doing and will come crawling back to the league.

We have seen the episode over, and over, and over.

Still really contend Aaron totally dropped the ball on his last contract.


Kirk Cousins was doing great things for the players on getting that fully guaranteed contract. Not sure if there was disconnect with Rodgers and his agent or what, but to sign a simple normal run of the mill contract to make him the highest paid for a short time didn't seem logical.

He had already been speaking for a while before that about football contracts and treatment vs other sports on where the NFL could do better for the players.

He definitely had the chance there to implement some of the things he would like to see perhaps reflected in contracts, not just for himself, but to lead the charge to support all his football brethren, which he seems to be very passionate about.

Instead he opted to kick the field goal instead of going for the TD.

BF004 wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 11:41

Still really contend Aaron totally dropped the ball on his last contract.


Kirk Cousins was doing great things for the players on getting that fully guaranteed contract. Not sure if there was disconnect with Rodgers and his agent or what, but to sign a simple normal run of the mill contract to make him the highest paid for a short time didn't seem logical.

He had already been speaking for a while before that about football contracts and treatment vs other sports on where the NFL could do better for the players.

He definitely had the chance there to implement some of the things he would like to see perhaps reflected in contracts, not just for himself, but to lead the charge to support all his football brethren, which he seems to be very passionate about.

Instead he opted to kick the field goal instead of going for the TD.

That's where I stand too. Like he signed the contract. He totally knew what he was getting when he signed the contract. If he wanted a different contract...then negotiate a different contract.

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.


**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.

So if we're going here my comments risk derailing and getting more into some podium stuff (whatever we call that now).

But I'll start with the TB situation. First of all, no, he's not running the team. I think we are FAR overrestimating what it means to have a couple friends want to come play for your team in terms of control. Rodgers, likely, has greater control of the on-field product given the way MLF worked with him to customize the scheme over their first offseason together, to be honest. Brady is also encouraging and walking the walk on negotiating with the team on OTAs, but so is Tretter with the Browns and so could have Rodgers when he was present and working as the player rep. Brady is not showing us that players can have management roles in any way that I can discern. Which teams are saying "no" when your QB's talented buddies want to play on a discount for you? That's not management; that's popularity.


But more broadly, this is the failure of the modern labor movement--the leadership in unions, the top negotiators, started working toward goals that are incongruent with their members' goals. This is an across the board phenomenon, not just football, but I've been writing about the NFLPA's abandonment of player priorities in the quest for larger revenue shares since 2006. Just huge missed opportunities in these negotiations.

Remember that the NFLPA knew about concussion issues at the same time as the league and did nothing about it. It took two more cycles of negotiation to even start worrying about retiree health, for instance. Franchise tags are still around. Salary guarantees are lower than other leagues. Offseason programs were drastically reduced last time around, but still aren't finding a happy medium between development for young players and time off desired by older players.

The "middle ground" we speak of is there to be found, if collectively bargained. The players just need to find leadership who are actually bargaining for what they want.

go pak go wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 11:45

BF004 wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 11:41

Still really contend Aaron totally dropped the ball on his last contract.


Kirk Cousins was doing great things for the players on getting that fully guaranteed contract. Not sure if there was disconnect with Rodgers and his agent or what, but to sign a simple normal run of the mill contract to make him the highest paid for a short time didn't seem logical.

He had already been speaking for a while before that about football contracts and treatment vs other sports on where the NFL could do better for the players.

He definitely had the chance there to implement some of the things he would like to see perhaps reflected in contracts, not just for himself, but to lead the charge to support all his football brethren, which he seems to be very passionate about.

Instead he opted to kick the field goal instead of going for the TD.

That's where I stand too. Like he signed the contract. He totally knew what he was getting when he signed the contract. If he wanted a different contract...then negotiate a different contract.

I think this clearly isn't about his contract though. Just thinking he could have used his last contract to show things he wants to see happen for players, leading by example.

go pak go wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 11:28

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.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree. That part is definitely where Rodgers's case really falls apart. I really don't know what other team he thinks will better address the issues he has with the Packers. Our roster is definitely built to compete, to an extent that no other team (that needs a QB) similarly can.

Or, for that matter, that as a player he will be better respected under, like... Mark Davis?? Now, John Elway out in Denver might cater to him more than we will, that's true, but then Denver does not look like a better overall situation. That division isn't a joke and the roster isn't THAT great.

But I guess that's also kind of beside the point. Sometimes it is less about helping yourself and more about, as yoop would say, sending a message (in this case, that notion is actually not far-fetched). To the extent that Rodgers wants to tell his boss, "I am not a mindless drone just to be used and thrown away at your leisure; I am a man with my own interests to be respected" ... I am with him on that all the way.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 11:06

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.

ya well thats how this stuff works, people take out there angst with past employers on the new guy often, but your over looking that Murph finally stepped in and demoted Ted ( why do you think I dislike Ted? I don't, and obviously neither did Rodgers) probably a tear or so to late, and Rodgers probably expected McCarthy to be fired at the same time, and imo should have been, what about the Rodgers wanted changes prior to 018 didn't you get, we all could see that his offense hadn't been working,

so why wouldn't Rodgers and Guty have been bumping heads way back then, and just because Rodgers doesn't openly complain, or even openly support his bosses mean thats really how he feels, seems to me he was just voicing respect.

of course he's upset that management has treated players poorly in the past, but his fued with Guty just seems more ingrained to me.

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.

your talking to me in the 3rd person which shows that you don't want to have a conversation, but would rather just be a smart ass $%@#, this is why I've blocked you out the last couple years, your frustrating to converse with and others have said the same.

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.

reality is that players are expected to honor contracts, but teams don't have to, reality is a business expects two weeks notice if a worker intends to quit, but will terminate a employee 10 minutes prior to shift change time.

Let's make an attempt to keep it civil and discuss the topic, not posters.

I am often guilty of it myself, but we are all on the same team here. We can all do better.

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 12:20

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.

your talking to me in the 3rd person which shows that you don't want to have a conversation, but would rather just be a smart ass $%@#, this is why I've blocked you out the last couple years, your frustrating to converse with and others have said the same.

?

I am not talking to you at all let alone in the 3rd person. I changed names on your comment and interestingly it fits this current situation. Thus, highlighting that the Rodgers schism and Favre schism are not all that different.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 10:54

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?

I agree it is their job to run the show. I even agree Rodgers appeared to be content to let them to do their jobs. My point is more this: why did the org feel the need to leak that Murphy told 12 "not to be the problem", why did Gutey need to say "We dont usually run personnel decisions by "the player"" (that could be a paraphrase)...
and how do we think those comments landed on Rodgers? How do we think they made him feel?

I am not implying Gute and Murphys actions were out of line or they werent doing the job they were supposed to be doing, I am saying those comments were ego and peacocking to the world just to let Rodgers and the world know that they ran the show..not the unhappy QB. They seemed to take offense to all the comments that 12 got MM fired, they wanted people to know that he doesnt yield that power and it was their good decision to let the guy go.

go pak go wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 12:24

I never talk about anyone in the 3rd person, I never ask people questions I already know the answer to, and he does it all the time, the reason it doesn't bother you is that he hasn't done it to you

Just to clarify, the organization never said they do not run head coaching decisions by the players. In fact they said the opposite, that they will get opinions from all the veteran players.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 12:39

Just to clarify, the organization never said they do not run head coaching decisions by the players. In fact they said the opposite, that they will get opinions from all the veteran players.

can you support this comment with factual evidence, or is this just something we should take your word on? I ask because according to everything news worthy this has not been the case at all, that is until about a month ago.

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 12:37

go pak go wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 12:24

I never talk about anyone in the 3rd person, I never ask people questions I already know the answer to, and he does it all the time, the reason it doesn't bother you is that he hasn't done it to you

Pckfn23 doesn't talk to people in the 3rd person. Pckfn23 is not sure if yoop understands what talking in the 3rd person is. Pckfn23 is also asking clarifying questions, not questions Pckfn23 already know the answers to. Many on this board would agree with Pckfn23 that yoop's responses need clarifying.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 12:39

Just to clarify, the organization never said they do not run head coaching decisions by the players. In fact they said the opposite, that they will get opinions from all the veteran players.

im talking about the first presser after the 2020 draft when Gutey was getting peppered with questions about drafting love, he expressed he didnt feel like he had to run personnel decisions..or decisions about who he drafted with "the player".

A statement that is factual in nature, yet sure to land sideways to the HOF temperamental asset who was just embarrassed and really wanted a new WR.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 12:45

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 12:39

Just to clarify, the organization never said they do not run head coaching decisions by the players. In fact they said the opposite, that they will get opinions from all the veteran players.

im talking about the first presser after the 2020 draft when Gutey was getting peppered with questions about drafting love, he expressed he didnt feel like he had to run personnel decisions..or decisions about who he drafted with "the player".

A statement that is factual in nature, yet sure to land sideways to the HOF temperamental asset who was just embarrassed and really wanted a new WR.

Alright, I thought you were referring to the head coaching search.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 12:45

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 12:37

go pak go wrote: ↑

25 May 2021 12:24

I never talk about anyone in the 3rd person, I never ask people questions I already know the answer to, and he does it all the time, the reason it doesn't bother you is that he hasn't done it to you

Pckfn23 doesn't talk to people in the 3rd person. Pckfn23 is not sure if yoop understands what talking in the 3rd person is. Pckfn23 is also asking clarifying questions, not questions Pckfn23 already know the answers to. Many on this board would agree with Pckfn23 that yoop's responses need clarifying.

BS, you do it to people regularly, asking idiotic questions that always have more then one solution or answer, just like you've been doing in this thread.

of course Rodgers shouldn't and has never asked to be the deciding voice on anything, simply that his voice would be included in the final decision, while you want to beat around the bush and twist every question to complicate every conversation all it does is frustrate whomever your conversing with, as I said, that will rarely be me any more.