Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 09:40

agree with the comment Lupe made, I had seen articles that claimed that McCarthy and Rodgers didn't think Russ Ball would be a good fit as a GM that they would have to deal with.

here is a googgle link to at least 2 or 3 articles that any 10 year old with a PC could have easily found, obviously that was either to difficult for the complainer to do , or he wasn't interested in proof anyway, but rather to just be argumentative

This article, which is among the primary sources, very thoroughly lays out both potential narratives for the hiring process AND expresses clear uncertainty about which is true even among the insidery of insiders involved.

For us to act with more certainty about either narrative, then, should be reduced to the weight of opinion and not fact. Either is plenty possible, and even people inside the building are not sure which is more accurate.

https://www.packersnews.com/story/sport ... 030792001/

Over the last several days I’ve spoken with multiple sources closely connected to the Packers to find out what happened. I came away with nothing close to a definitive answer and have to admit I still harbor doubts about the prevailing narrative that McCarthy and Rodgers changed Murphy’s mind on Ball.

Not that the prevailing narrative isn’t compelling. It’s straight forward and plausible. It goes like this:

When Murphy at a news conference Jan. 2 said that Ted Thompson’s successor as GM would have full authority over the Packers’ football operations, including the ability to hire and fire the head coach, he thought Ball would be his choice.

Ball was the obvious guess to many who had observed or knew of the inner workings of the franchise. For starters, he spent far more time with Murphy than anyone else on the football side of the organization. That ranged from standing in for Thompson on many administrative matters to joining the GM and CEO in the small suite where the three of them watched games at Lambeau Field.

As Thompson farmed out more and more administrative duties to him the last few years, Ball basically was functioning as GM except for picking players, and in his role as salary-cap adviser he’d even become a voice there. Of course Ball was going to be the next GM. That’s what Murphy was thinking as far back as 2016 when he said he and Thompson had a succession plan.

But as the search began, McCarthy went on the offensive. In his own news conference he proclaimed that the fit with the new GM was a two-way street. He also met with Murphy and presumably expressed concerns that Ball would share Thompson’s disdain for free agency and not provide him with the roster he needed around Rodgers to win a Super Bowl. Two sources confirmed to me that McCarthy indeed had those concerns.

When Murphy heard that Rodgers harbored the same sentiment via an on-air comment by ESPN Milwaukee radio’s Jason Wilde, who used to host a radio show with Rodgers, the CEO realized that promoting Ball would alienate the two most important members of the organization.

So, the narrative goes, Murphy changed course and picked Gutekunst as a compromise. Murphy valued McCarthy and Ball and didn’t want to leapfrog them with a much younger subordinate to be their boss – Gutekekunst is 44, Ball 58 and McCarthy 54. So Murphy abandoned the franchise’s quarter century of GM-as-football-czar model and instead decided to have all three report to him.

But there’s another narrative that I also find plausible and compelling after talking with several sources over the last couple of days.

In that narrative, Murphy all along wanted a GM with a background in personnel (i.e., not Ball), and knew or suspected he would hire Gutekunst over 35-year-old Eliot Wolf, the other internal personnel candidate. The fact that Murphy didn’t even try to trade for John Schneider, a proven GM in Seattle, was evidence of his regard for Gutekunst, who also was in the running for the GM job in Houston.

During the interview process, however, Murphy learned of alarming dysfunction within the scouting staff, and between the scouting staff and head coach. Thompson always had kept his own counsel, but as his energy waned the last three years he was even less responsive to the wishes and suggestions of his scouts and coach. McCarthy was extremely unhappy that Thompson and Ball rarely looked outside the draft for players.

In this narrative, Murphy didn’t want his young new GM to have to clean up all the relationships, rebuild the roster and possibly make a big decision on the head coach all within his first year on the job. Murphy also wanted to keep happy two other employees he highly values, McCarthy and Ball.

So Murphy tried to solve the communication problems by having Gutekunst, McCarthy and Ball all report to him. None would be the other’s boss, and Gutekunst could grow into his new role.

One source who closely observes the franchise and knows many of the principals involved lent particular credence to this take. The source expressed surprise that Ball had been reported so prominently as the front runner and considered it less radical for Murphy to restructure the front office than to hire a GM whose background is primarily in administration (i.e., Ball).

I’m still unsure which narrative is true. The sources I spoke with were well informed and had their opinions, and the majority thought McCarthy (and Rodgers) changed Murphy’s mind. But none could say for sure. There’s probably only a small circle of people who know how it actually went down.

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 09:40

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 09:19

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_ ... hilosophy)

The above may help.

I agree with the comment Lupe made, I had seen articles that claimed that McCarthy and Rodgers didn't think Russ Ball would be a good fit as a GM that they would have to deal with.

here is a googgle link to at least 2 or 3 articles that any 10 year old with a PC could have easily found, obviously that was either to difficult for the complainer to do , or he wasn't interested in proof anyway, but rather to just be argumentative

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+was ... &sourceid=

You provided something! Unfortunately you are completely missing the 2nd half that Acrobat was actually asking for proof of:

Took the advice then flipped it into believing it was his idea and plan. Classic ego-driven narcissistic behavior.

He wasn't being argumentative, he was asking for proof of the above quote, not that McCarthy campaigned against Ball as GM...

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 10:10

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 09:40

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 09:19

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_ ... hilosophy)

The above may help.

I agree with the comment Lupe made, I had seen articles that claimed that McCarthy and Rodgers didn't think Russ Ball would be a good fit as a GM that they would have to deal with.

here is a googgle link to at least 2 or 3 articles that any 10 year old with a PC could have easily found, obviously that was either to difficult for the complainer to do , or he wasn't interested in proof anyway, but rather to just be argumentative

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+was ... &sourceid=

You provided something! Unfortunately you are completely missing the 2nd half that Acrobat was actually asking for proof of:

Took the advice then flipped it into believing it was his idea and plan. Classic ego-driven narcissistic behavior.

He wasn't being argumentative, he was asking for proof of the above quote, not that McCarthy campaigned against Ball as GM...

why even bother answering the 2nd part, Buds comment was his opinion, there is no way to prove that, it's insane to ask for prove, that was the point, Acrobat asks for something thats unprovable.

Then why did you tell Acrobat to, "go look it up, plenty of links out there..."?

You are right though, opinions not backed up by a shred of evidence or facts has been the go to for much of this topic. However, it isn't wrong of someone to ask for some evidence or facts to back up an opinion.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 10:06

For us to act with more certainty about either narrative, then, should be reduced to the weight of opinion and not fact. Either is plenty possible, and even people inside the building are not sure which is more accurate.

it's far more plausable to accept what has bee said concerning McCarthy and Rodgers issues with promoting Ball to GM over a proven personal man like Guty etc.

and for Murphy not to even interview outside people for the Job does lend credence to the comment Bud made, that Murphy wanted to be top dog and run everything.

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 10:42

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 10:06

For us to act with more certainty about either narrative, then, should be reduced to the weight of opinion and not fact. Either is plenty possible, and even people inside the building are not sure which is more accurate.

it's far more plausable to accept what has bee said concerning McCarthy and Rodgers issues with promoting Ball to GM over a proven personal man like Guty etc.

and for Murphy not to even interview outside people for the Job does lend credence to the comment Bud made, that Murphy wanted to be top dog and run everything.

I mean, some things seem confirmed, to the extent that they can be.

Rodgers' stance was stated publicly. McCarthy's stance is widely reported. Both clearly preferred a personnel guy in the GM role.

What ISN'T clear is whether Murphy ever wanted to hire Ball in the first place. It sounds like those who reported that and even sourced it from within the building were doing so based on speculation, and at least one and probably more people within the building gave the impression to this reporter, at least, that the media's fascination with Ball as the likely replacement was surprising and misguided from the start.

It also can be confirmed, by this reporter's multiple sources and by me, because I just happened to be in Green Bay talking to a personnel exec in 2017, that there was pretty rampant dysfunction between the scouting staff and the GM and the coaching staff late in TT's run. The scouting staff felt like TT was struggling to retain information and work with them; meanwhile, they were resenting the coaching staff's player usage and such (a particularly disparaging remark was made to me about MM at the time, and the link I posted bears some of that out).

So yes, we should 100% believe, with strong assurance, that Rodgers and MM wanted a GM with a personnel background, not a cap and accounting background. But we don't know if Murphy's "mind was changed" or if Ball was actually never in the running at all. And we should recognize that in the end of the MM and TT era, there was some infighting and dysfunction among the separate silos of the organization.

Whether Murphy's restructure was a bid for power (plausible) or an attempt to smooth a new GM's path through a rather tumultuous inner workings is unclear. Whether Ball was ever a frontrunner is unclear. And the extent to which outside opinions, as well-known as they are, had an impact on the inside operations is also unclear.

I think it's fine to have theories and opinions on things like this. But it's also important to recognize the limits of our own information and of the window we actually have into these people's lives, mindsets, and decision-making. We know less than we think on that front, and I think proceeding with an acknowledgement of uncertainty is a reasonable way to operate, rather than pushing our assumptions to the gravitas and seriousness of fact.

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 10:33

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 10:10

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 09:40

I agree with the comment Lupe made, I had seen articles that claimed that McCarthy and Rodgers didn't think Russ Ball would be a good fit as a GM that they would have to deal with.

here is a googgle link to at least 2 or 3 articles that any 10 year old with a PC could have easily found, obviously that was either to difficult for the complainer to do , or he wasn't interested in proof anyway, but rather to just be argumentative

https://www.google.com/search?q=why+was ... &sourceid=

You provided something! Unfortunately you are completely missing the 2nd half that Acrobat was actually asking for proof of:

Took the advice then flipped it into believing it was his idea and plan. Classic ego-driven narcissistic behavior.

He wasn't being argumentative, he was asking for proof of the above quote, not that McCarthy campaigned against Ball as GM...

why even bother answering the 2nd part, Buds comment was his opinion, there is no way to prove that, it's insane to ask for prove, that was the point, Acrobat asks for something thats unprovable.

I'm confused. If it is truly unprovable, then why did Bud Fox state it as fact and then why did you tell me to do some research?

Jones said he had a positive relationship with both Murphy and Rodgers.

"He's not a complicated fella, and that's with anything," Jones said of Rodgers. "You are talking about the future of the Hall of Fame quarterback's career. Yeah, it's going to be complicated. He wants some things, you want some things, so it's going to be complicated. But listening to Mark Murphy talk, I am not reading too much into it. I'm pumping my brakes. I am relaxing. Don't read too much into it. I know Mark personally; Mark loves all his players."

https://t.co/GkfdTBzzN0?amp=1

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 11:00

What ISN'T clear is whether Murphy ever wanted to hire Ball in the first place. It sounds like those who reported that and even sourced it from within the building were doing so based on speculation, and at least one and probably more people within the building gave the impression to this reporter, at least, that the media's fascination with Ball as the likely replacement was surprising and misguided from the start.

as you said it's hard to know for sure

we did hear reports though that Ted liked Ball, in fact took him along to some scouting trips, and was grooming him in other GM responsibility's, the 3 of Ted, Russ, and Murphy where close, so I think it's safe to say he was considered a candidate for the job

and McCarthy made a strong point, Ball would likely use Teds approach of not using ufa enough to build the roster.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 11:04

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 10:33

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 10:10

You provided something! Unfortunately you are completely missing the 2nd half that Acrobat was actually asking for proof of:

He wasn't being argumentative, he was asking for proof of the above quote, not that McCarthy campaigned against Ball as GM...

why even bother answering the 2nd part, Buds comment was his opinion, there is no way to prove that, it's insane to ask for prove, that was the point, Acrobat asks for something thats unprovable.

I'm confused. If it is truly unprovable, then why did Bud Fox state it as fact and then why did you tell me to do some research?

Took the advice then flipped it into believing it was his idea and plan. Classic ego-driven narcissistic behavior.

what about this sentence gives you the impression this was based on anything but conjecture?

my arguement concerned the likelyhood that Lupe was right, and that the opinions of McCarthy and Rodgers is what made Murphy decide that Russ Ball would not be a good fit as GM, neither of these comments needed to be proved, Buds comment was just his opinion, and Lupe's was common knowledge for those of us that paid attention 3 years ago when it happened.

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 12:10

Acrobat wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 11:04

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 10:33

why even bother answering the 2nd part, Buds comment was his opinion, there is no way to prove that, it's insane to ask for prove, that was the point, Acrobat asks for something thats unprovable.

I'm confused. If it is truly unprovable, then why did Bud Fox state it as fact and then why did you tell me to do some research?

Took the advice then flipped it into believing it was his idea and plan. Classic ego-driven narcissistic behavior.

what about this sentence gives you the impression this was based on anything but conjecture?

my arguement concerned the likelyhood that Lupe was right, and that the opinions of McCarthy and Rodgers is what made Murphy decide that Russ Ball would not be a good fit as GM, neither of these comments needed to be proved, Buds comment was just his opinion, and Lupe's was common knowledge for those of us that paid attention 3 years ago when it happened.

That doesn't make any sense. It was stated in a way that would lead you to believe that Bud knew something, and I was genuinely curious, and then you went on a rampage ("Waawaawaa") about something completely unrelated to what I was asking.

I just ate 57 pizza rolls and drank 3 beers. I don't feel so great. I'm gonna lay down for awhile.

Ghost_Lombardi wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 13:14

I just ate 57 pizza rolls and drank 3 beers. I don't feel so great. I'm gonna lay down for awhile.

those pizza rolls will get you every time

Acrobat wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 12:52

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 12:10

Acrobat wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 11:04

I'm confused. If it is truly unprovable, then why did Bud Fox state it as fact and then why did you tell me to do some research?

Took the advice then flipped it into believing it was his idea and plan. Classic ego-driven narcissistic behavior.

what about this sentence gives you the impression this was based on anything but conjecture?

my arguement concerned the likelyhood that Lupe was right, and that the opinions of McCarthy and Rodgers is what made Murphy decide that Russ Ball would not be a good fit as GM, neither of these comments needed to be proved, Buds comment was just his opinion, and Lupe's was common knowledge for those of us that paid attention 3 years ago when it happened.

That doesn't make any sense. It was stated in a way that would lead you to believe that Bud knew something, and I was genuinely curious, and then you went on a rampage ("Waawaawaa") about something completely unrelated to what I was asking.

NO, what doesn't make sense is you thinking there was some way for Bud to prove his comment when there is no way to prove his comment.

his point though does have merit, why should Murphy make a comment against Rodgers, when the two sides are supposedly hoping to patch this relationship up, his comment lends merit to the point that maybe the FO wants Rodgers to sit the season out, and if true, then the fo cares more about recouping his salary and less about winning a SB.

now I can't prove this either, like Buds comment it is simply my opinion.

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 14:43

Acrobat wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 12:52

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 12:10

Took the advice then flipped it into believing it was his idea and plan. Classic ego-driven narcissistic behavior.

what about this sentence gives you the impression this was based on anything but conjecture?

my arguement concerned the likelyhood that Lupe was right, and that the opinions of McCarthy and Rodgers is what made Murphy decide that Russ Ball would not be a good fit as GM, neither of these comments needed to be proved, Buds comment was just his opinion, and Lupe's was common knowledge for those of us that paid attention 3 years ago when it happened.

That doesn't make any sense. It was stated in a way that would lead you to believe that Bud knew something, and I was genuinely curious, and then you went on a rampage ("Waawaawaa") about something completely unrelated to what I was asking.

NO, what doesn't make sense is you thinking there was some way for Bud to prove his comment when there is no way to prove his comment.

his point though does have merit, why should Murphy make a comment against Rodgers, when the two sides are supposedly hoping to patch this relationship up, his comment lends merit to the point that maybe the FO wants Rodgers to sit the season out, and if true, then the fo cares more about recouping his salary and less about winning a SB.

now I can't prove this either, like Buds comment it is simply my opinion.

Yes, it does make sense because as I clearly stated earlier, Bud stated his opinion in a matter where it seemed like it could be fact and that he may have known something that I haven't, which is why I asked for proof which is totally acceptable. When one states their opinion as fact, then either the burden of proof is on them or they must provide clarity that it was their opinion. He has done neither since you blew this up into a bigger issue.

Ghost_Lombardi wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 13:14

I just ate 57 pizza rolls and drank 3 beers. I don't feel so great. I'm gonna lay down for awhile.

I'm feeling better.

Tacos for dinner.

I just updated my answer to this question. I'm now on the side of "Sanity".

Acrobat wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 14:53

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 14:43

Acrobat wrote: ↑

15 Jun 2021 12:52

That doesn't make any sense. It was stated in a way that would lead you to believe that Bud knew something, and I was genuinely curious, and then you went on a rampage ("Waawaawaa") about something completely unrelated to what I was asking.

NO, what doesn't make sense is you thinking there was some way for Bud to prove his comment when there is no way to prove his comment.

his point though does have merit, why should Murphy make a comment against Rodgers, when the two sides are supposedly hoping to patch this relationship up, his comment lends merit to the point that maybe the FO wants Rodgers to sit the season out, and if true, then the fo cares more about recouping his salary and less about winning a SB.

now I can't prove this either, like Buds comment it is simply my opinion.

Yes, it does make sense because as I clearly stated earlier, Bud stated his opinion in a matter where it seemed like it could be fact and that he may have known something that I haven't, which is why I asked for proof which is totally acceptable. When one states their opinion as fact, then either the burden of proof is on them or they must provide clarity that it was their opinion. He has done neither since you blew this up into a bigger issue.

Murphy's cousins friends little sister told me - she said he is a real piece of work!

Murphy does seem like sort of a fool. At least not on Harlan's level. But objectively he has set this team up well, or so it seems. So even if he's making some ostensibly dumb comments (which may actually be exactly in line with his goals), still have to side with him.