Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

31 May 2023 13:54

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

31 May 2023 13:47

@Yoop the article was posted today not 2 weeks ago.

By Matt Schneidman
May 31, 2023

it is a reposting of the original with the GM part added on

This is the article you are thinking about: https://www.si.com/nfl/2023/05/08/aaron ... aily-cover

It is from May 8th from Albert Breer.

Schneidman's article is new and seperate.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

31 May 2023 13:56

Yoop wrote: ↑

31 May 2023 13:54

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

31 May 2023 13:47

@Yoop the article was posted today not 2 weeks ago.

it is a reposting of the original with the GM part added on

This is the article you are thinking about: https://www.si.com/nfl/2023/05/08/aaron ... aily-cover

It is from May 8th from Albert Breer.

Schneidman's article is new and seperate.

nope the SI is a different article.

Yoop wrote: ↑

31 May 2023 13:59

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

31 May 2023 13:56

Yoop wrote: ↑

31 May 2023 13:54

it is a reposting of the original with the GM part added on

This is the article you are thinking about: https://www.si.com/nfl/2023/05/08/aaron ... aily-cover

It is from May 8th from Albert Breer.

Schneidman's article is new and seperate.

nope the SI is a different article.

Yes it is a different article. Matt Schneidman did not recycle an old article from 2 weeks ago. This is a new article from him.

To me the strangest part of all of this scenario is the fact that we did not sit Rodgers for the Commanders & Jets games with his broken thumb. It would have given Love some much needed experience in preparation for this year and It would have definitely would have put us in the playoffs. By not doing that, the message to fans is we have a new QB who when healthy is worse than Rodgers with a broken thumb? But don't worry, we have full confidence in Love! We're reloading not rebuilding!

They chose to pacify a QB who did not want to be here versus giving the understudy a chance at some much needed experience.

I do find it concerning that in back to back seasons two of the best players in franchise history basically refused to play for the team again and in both cases in stemmed from Gutenbumst.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

31 May 2023 21:10

I do find it concerning that in back to back seasons two of the best players in franchise history basically refused to play for the team again and in both cases in stemmed from Gutenbumst.

Bahks next

Drj820 wrote: ↑

31 May 2023 21:12

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

31 May 2023 21:10

I do find it concerning that in back to back seasons two of the best players in franchise history basically refused to play for the team again and in both cases in stemmed from Gutenbumst.

Bahks next

Gute has taken a much more "just business" attitude toward how he treats players than just about any GM I can think of in Packers history. And it isn't good for the team.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

31 May 2023 10:54

NCF wrote: ↑

31 May 2023 10:25

Haha I've been on the "Jennings is probably right but also an a$$hole for taking every opportunity possible to slam Rodgers" train for like a decade now.

I have wondered lately if maybe Jennings had a point, but yeah, $%@# that guy.

For one, I am skeptical that the Rodgers he dealt with in the early 2010s had the issues he has now. I can't think of any instances of Rodgers's behavior back then to make me think I should have seen this more recent stuff coming. And Rodgers's recent actions do not retroactively make Jennings's claims from a decade ago right.

For two, yes, the ways he attacks Rodgers on TV for purely self-interested reasons. I am the patron saint of Rodgers hate, but that's because I have an interest in the team he was on and the adverse effects he was having on GB. Jennings does it solely to get on TV and get clout, which is contemptible.

For three, Jennings didn't simply attack Rodgers (for reasons that don't relate to GB's interests), he attacked the franchise itself, saying that the image we like to promote of ourselves as a uniquely storied organization is "brainwashing."

If we hadn't won a trophy with Jennings, I would say he should have been kept out of the Packers HOF, or removed from it.

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 00:55

Drj820 wrote: ↑

31 May 2023 21:12

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

31 May 2023 21:10

I do find it concerning that in back to back seasons two of the best players in franchise history basically refused to play for the team again and in both cases in stemmed from Gutenbumst.

Bahks next

Gute has taken a much more "just business" attitude toward how he treats players than just about any GM I can think of in Packers history. And it isn't good for the team.

Gute has taken the position that I'am the boss, and the players have no business questioning what I do, and that was apparent when he hired Lafleur never even consulting Rodgers, and it's been a lack of respect between both ever since.

and Rodgers isn't the only player Gute has snubbed, I doubt any vet thats left during his tenure would have any positive comments concerning Gutekunst

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 10:11

Gute has taken the position that I'am the boss, and the players have no business questioning what I do, and that was apparent when he hired Lafleur never even consulting Rodgers, and it's been a lack of respect between both ever since.

Except for the fact that, you know, Gute didn't hire LaFleur. We should probably consider that.

NCF wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 10:13

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 10:11

Gute has taken the position that I'am the boss, and the players have no business questioning what I do, and that was apparent when he hired Lafleur never even consulting Rodgers, and it's been a lack of respect between both ever since.

Except for the fact that, you know, Gute didn't hire LaFleur. We should probably consider that.

This, and we don't know of the times where maybe Gute did ask for player feedback and it was never reported. Not saying that happened, but we don't know that it didn't happen either. All assumptions and things we'll probably never know.

NCF wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 10:13

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 10:11

Gute has taken the position that I'am the boss, and the players have no business questioning what I do, and that was apparent when he hired Lafleur never even consulting Rodgers, and it's been a lack of respect between both ever since.

Except for the fact that, you know, Gute didn't hire LaFleur. We should probably consider that.

Wasn't there a veteran player group that had input on the head coach as well??

NCF wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 10:13

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 10:11

Gute has taken the position that I'am the boss, and the players have no business questioning what I do, and that was apparent when he hired Lafleur never even consulting Rodgers, and it's been a lack of respect between both ever since.

Except for the fact that, you know, Gute didn't hire LaFleur. We should probably consider that.

your right, Murphy seemed to have done that, and Rodgers heard it a day latter from the media, if thats true, which would be the same as other player hearing they wont be extended from the media prior to even a phone call.

Murphy hired a consulting group to pick a group of coaches to interview, same as he did to picka assistant to become the GM.

Rodgers should have been consulted with both hires, but we found out later he didn't approve of McCarthy being fired, his angst it seemed to me centered on my/our biggest complaint, the decline of the WR position and not running the ball enough.

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 10:11

Gute has taken the position that I'am the boss, and the players have no business questioning what I do, and that was apparent when he hired Lafleur never even consulting Rodgers, and it's been a lack of respect between both ever since.

and Rodgers isn't the only player Gute has snubbed, I doubt any vet thats left during his tenure would have any positive comments concerning Gutekunst

Gute is the boss. He's allowed to take that position.

Rodgers appears to have taken the position that he is the boss, or at least joint boss. He isn't.

Maybe my memory is playing me false, but I got the impression with the Favre-Rodgers situation that Favre was pretty teed off by the pick of Rodgers but he still put everything into making Green Bay a winning team. With Rodgers, it's all about what's best for himself, not what's best for the team.

Was it not said many times that Rodgers was active in getting McCarthy fired?

And am I remembering this wrong, but was there not a veteran player "council" that was used for the head coach hire?

The problem with taking the position that your star QB has to sign off on coaching hires is the following scenario:

What if you find the coach that you believe is right for the organization, but your QB says "no"?

You don't want to give that power to any player whatsoever.

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 10:34

Rodgers should have been consulted with both hires, but we found out later he didn't approve of McCarthy being fired, his angst it seemed to me centered on my/our biggest complaint, the decline of the WR position and not running the ball enough.

Is 2018 - 2022 yoop going to pick a fight with you here?

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 10:34

NCF wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 10:13

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Jun 2023 10:11

Gute has taken the position that I'am the boss, and the players have no business questioning what I do, and that was apparent when he hired Lafleur never even consulting Rodgers, and it's been a lack of respect between both ever since.

Except for the fact that, you know, Gute didn't hire LaFleur. We should probably consider that.

your right, Murphy seemed to have done that, and Rodgers heard it a day latter from the media, if thats true, which would be the same as other player hearing they wont be extended from the media prior to even a phone call.

Murphy hired a consulting group to pick a group of coaches to interview, same as he did to picka assistant to become the GM.

Rodgers should have been consulted with both hires, but we found out later he didn't approve of McCarthy being fired, his angst it seemed to me centered on my/our biggest complaint, the decline of the WR position and not running the ball enough.

Do you mean "AR should've been consulted" or "GB should've let AR choose the GM and HC"? Honest question.

Because can you imagine how pissed off AR woulda been if he HAD been asked for his favorite(s), but then the team woulda picked someone else?

Do you really think AR woulda been like "oh, thanks a lot, sir, for listening to my opinion. I fully understand and support you ignoring it. I'll stand by your choice"? No way! That's not Aaron Rodgers.

I think it woulda been "oh, first you waste my time and energy vouching for this candidate, and then you disrespect me by picking someone else!! How DARE you!!!"

Consulting AR woulda also gone with the risk of him endorsing his favorite publicly, which woulda made overriding him even more damaging.

The ONLY way I could see consulting AR working is if he'd been given a chance to offers his preference in veeeeery general sense (HC with offensive or defensive background? Does HC need QB coach background? Authoritarian or teacher? What kinda offensive philosophy preferred? Etc.), but Í have a feeling Murphy knew ARs opinions about those, considering whom he ultimately chose.
.

Rodgers is bad, Guty is good, LOve is good, Lafleur is good, Murphy so so good, Rodgers is bad bad.
I think I got the message.