Romeo Doubs Walks Out on Team?

[musclestang]

While I don't always agree with the moves, I am certain we've had leadership that cares a whole lot about winning, maintaining winning and competing for championships. Say what you want about Ted, he dedicated his life to his craft. Built a super bowl team in Seattle, built a couple here. Revamped the team with Favre and should have had at least 1 appearance, restructured another with Rodgers and won. Restructured that again to make runs a couple different times but injuries etc derailed us. Andy Mulumba on one leg as our best Lb'er in a playoff game. Janis and Abbredaris as our top 2 WR's in another. Choke job by players in '14. etc.

Gute has moved and made changes every year to keep us in the conversation. It hasn't happened, but you don't work that hard or make huge decisions like that merely for show. They want to win, of that I have no doubt.

We haven't been blessed with championships, but we've been blessed as Green Bay Packer football fans for a long, long time as far as the NFL is concerned. I can probably count on 1 hand or maybe a little more since I graduated high school in early 90's the number of years we didn't have a legitimate shot at winning it all.

I expect Doubs to be back and be dedicated and focused. Or we'll make a change. But I think he'll show up as we need him to from here on out.

[LombardiTime]

While I don't always agree with the moves, I am certain we've had leadership that cares a whole lot about winning, maintaining winning and competing for championships. Say what you want about Ted, he dedicated his life to his craft. Built a super bowl team in Seattle, built a couple here. Revamped the team with Favre and should have had at least 1 appearance, restructured another with Rodgers and won. Restructured that again to make runs a couple different times but injuries etc derailed us. Andy Mulumba on one leg as our best Lb'er in a playoff game. Janis and Abbredaris as our top 2 WR's in another. Choke job by players in '14. etc.

Gute has moved and made changes every year to keep us in the conversation. It hasn't happened,

We haven't been blessed with championships,

To play Devil's Advocate, I think some who contend that the Packers have not pursued a Super Bowl victory with the zeal necessary to actually compete for one over the past 10+ years would point precisely to allowing the likes of a Mulumba, Janis, Abbredaris, Gunter, etc. to play prominent roles while not vigorously pursuing veterans who might have helped the team get over the top as evidence in support of their position.

For instance, is there an NFL team that has traded for fewer players than the Packers?

When I think of how the Packers operate, I think of stockpiling picks, and always planning, for future competitiveness.

Trading away a Rodgers, an Adams, or even a Rasul Douglas for draft picks sure that fits the Packer modus operandi.

But trading draft picks, including high picks, away for a WR or a DE or a LT (like KC has done while playing in 4 Super Bowls and winning 3 of them with Mahomes at QB), that simply is not something that Green Bay has done in recent memory.

That said, I completely concur that, while Gute may have made moves "to keep us in the conversation", "We haven't been blessed with championships" over the past 13 seasons. Indeed, the latter assertion cannot be disputed.

[musclestang]

To play Devil's Advocate, I think some who contend that the Packers have not pursued a Super Bowl victory with the zeal necessary to actually compete for one over the past 10+ years would point precisely to allowing the likes of a Mulumba, Janis, Abbredaris, Gunter, etc. to play prominent roles while not vigorously pursuing veterans who might have helped the team get over the top as evidence in support of their position.

For instance, is there an NFL team that has traded for fewer players than the Packers?

When I think of how the Packers operate, I think of stockpiling picks, and always planning, for future competitiveness.

Trading away a Rodgers, an Adams, or even a Rasul Douglas for draft picks sure that fits the Packer modus operandi.

But trading draft picks, including high picks, away for a WR or a DE or a LT (like KC has done while playing in 4 Super Bowls and winning 3 of them with Mahomes at QB), that simply is not something that Green Bay has done in recent memory.

That said, I completely concur that, while Gute may have made moves "to keep us in the conversation", "We haven't been blessed with championships" over the past 13 seasons. Indeed, the latter assertion cannot be disputed.

Except Andy Mulumba wasn't supposed to be that player, neither were Abbredaris and Janis. Or Gunter. They were there because certain positions gutted by injury. Make a trade, sign and expensive FA, if they end up hurt, you're in the same place. Some of that happened too late to make any changes in a season. Regardless in season moves usually only work when a team is missing a piece and that piece becomes available. Multiples aren't available for a team to go grocery shopping when playoffs come around.

Could go back to any of those seasons, and the rosters were legitimate rosters to challenge for a Super Bowl. There are no guarantees. Look at the Bills, we've heard about them for a number of years now. Dallas last year. 9er's are stacked and haven't won, and now money is getting to be a factor. They've only been there a couple years, lets see them keep it up for about the next 20.

you can lament trading Rodgers, but that's exactly what we did with Favre and brought us our only championship. I'd argue, though I wanted Rodgers to be here until he was done, the trade was the right decision. Same with Adams. The only one I have real questions about is Rasul. I'd have kept him, but regardless if I like the decisions or not, I don't question their motives and that they don't really care if they win a championship.

We've had legitimate super bowl rosters quite a few times here.

[Labrev]

Doubs planning to rejoin team on Wednesday:
https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2024/1 ... wednesday/

[RingoCStarrQB]

Doubs planning to rejoin team on Wednesday:
https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2024/1 ... wednesday/

I love it when the inmates run the asylum. Good job Doubsee !

[LombardiTime]

To play Devil's Advocate, I think some who contend that the Packers have not pursued a Super Bowl victory with the zeal necessary to actually compete for one over the past 10+ years would point precisely to allowing the likes of a Mulumba, Janis, Abbredaris, Gunter, etc. to play prominent roles while not vigorously pursuing veterans who might have helped the team get over the top as evidence in support of their position.

For instance, is there an NFL team that has traded for fewer players than the Packers?

When I think of how the Packers operate, I think of stockpiling picks, and always planning, for future competitiveness.

Trading away a Rodgers, an Adams, or even a Rasul Douglas for draft picks sure that fits the Packer modus operandi.

But trading draft picks, including high picks, away for a WR or a DE or a LT (like KC has done while playing in 4 Super Bowls and winning 3 of them with Mahomes at QB), that simply is not something that Green Bay has done in recent memory.

That said, I completely concur that, while Gute may have made moves "to keep us in the conversation", "We haven't been blessed with championships" over the past 13 seasons. Indeed, the latter assertion cannot be disputed.

Except Andy Mulumba wasn't supposed to be that player, neither were Abbredaris and Janis. Or Gunter. They were there because certain positions gutted by injury. Make a trade, sign and expensive FA, if they end up hurt, you're in the same place. Some of that happened too late to make any changes in a season. Regardless in season moves usually only work when a team is missing a piece and that piece becomes available. Multiples aren't available for a team to go grocery shopping when playoffs come around.

Could go back to any of those seasons, and the rosters were legitimate rosters to challenge for a Super Bowl. There are no guarantees. Look at the Bills, we've heard about them for a number of years now. Dallas last year. 9er's are stacked and haven't won, and now money is getting to be a factor. They've only been there a couple years, lets see them keep it up for about the next 20.

you can lament trading Rodgers, but that's exactly what we did with Favre and brought us our only championship. I'd argue, though I wanted Rodgers to be here until he was done, the trade was the right decision. Same with Adams. The only one I have real questions about is Rasul. I'd have kept him, but regardless if I like the decisions or not, I don't question their motives and that they don't really care if they win a championship.
We've had legitimate super bowl rosters quite a few times here.

I don't lament trading Rodgers, far from it. I wanted to send him to Denver in the 2021 offseason (for a bigger haul than the team eventually got from the Jets in 2023).

I also don't lament trading Davante, I was convinced the run with Rodgers as QB ended the night they lost to Jimmy G and the 49ers in Lambeau in the 2021 playoffs and it was time to re-build or at least re-stock the roster.

And I most certainly thought that trading away Davante while simultaneously re-signing Rodgers to a huge new deal before the 2022 season was ridiculous. I still do.

Now, what I do lament is that not once during the past 13 seasons did the Packers make a single attempt to improve the roster for a Super Bowl run by trading for a veteran player to help push them over the top. Not once.

As for the "Super Bowl rosters" referenced above, I guess that is where we differ. In my view, the Packers' rosters have resulted in just as many Super Bowl appearances as the Vikings, Lions, and Bears since 2011. None.

Additionally, I know some Packer fans like to console themselves by comparing their team's performance to that of the Bills or 49ers (though SF has at least gotten to 3 Super Bowls since the last time Green Bay was in one).

As for me, I believe the more apt comparison for GB's performance with Rodgers at QB is to KC with Mahomes and NE with Brady. That is, other franchises with the best QBs in the game at a particular point in time.

And what I see are two franchises that made multiple player trades and signed numerous free agents to bolster their rosters in order to make serious Super Bowl runs while the other franchise, the one with a QB who won 4 MVPS between 2011 and 2021, did just the opposite -- signing the fewest free agents and acquiring virtually no veteran players via trade.

Maybe I'm just not a discerning fan, but I confess that I think NE did and KC did (and is doing) a far better job of maximizing their runs with a top QB than GB did with Rodgers at QB.

I suspect those who believe the Packer 's mostly conservative approach to constructing a roster is the right approach are convinced it is just dumb luck that GB has appeared in fewer Super Bowls than 8 other NFC teams since 2010 (Philly, the Giants, Carolina, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Seattle, SF, and the LA Rams).

Unfortunately for me, I don't believe in dumb luck

[lupedafiasco]

LombardiTime just dropped a giant truth bomb but it will be pushed aside like it always is.

[Drj820]

I’ve said for years that packers fans own “stock” in team so they feel like “owners” and this makes it tough for them to be honest about the org and it’s goals.

Couple things can be true at once…

1) it’s great to be a packers fan! Most Sundays you will go to bed happy. Not all, and not in February, but most!

2) the org is ALWAYS thinking about the future, even when the time comes to think about now. We were in our last window with rodgers, and the org was thinking about the future. Drafting a raw Gary at 12 instead of someone ready to help now, even drafting Love while Rodgers was begging for receivers, trading rasul when we sure could use him!

The packers protect the future to the detriment of the now…majority of the time this is very sound policy, but sometimes, in certain windows, it’s time to push the chips to the middle of the table. This org just isn’t into that.

[Yoop]

I suspect those who believe the Packer 's mostly conservative approach to constructing a roster is the right approach are convinced it is just dumb luck that GB has appeared in fewer Super Bowls than 8 other NFC teams since 2010 (Philly, the Giants, Carolina, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Seattle, SF, and the LA Rams).

good points, I think some of us agree, at least to a point, I felt we could have used a CB, a safety, a Lber, DL, to replace draft misses, I'd add WR but we didn't even draft one of them for 7 years, when almost all resources are spent on draft days misses on defense, gonna be hard to win SB's, what we had was a great QB, a great receiver and LT, and a stable of average to slightly above average talent on the rest of the team, with a defense that never bested top 10 status.

and as Raptorman says, thats just not good enough, take Rodgers out of this equation and we are talking about competing with Detroit for worst in division versus winning the right to compete in the PO's.


Ted was anti free agent, he needed to supplement those poor draft picks with FA acquisitions, almost everyone here complained about that a little at least, some of us every year harped on it, so it's not just about buying a stud for a run during the season, (which I agree would have helped) but also starting the season with holes filled as well, we went almost a decade with 1 average ILB, it's a 2 player position in a 34, and it was the same at safety most of the time.

if ya want a top 10 defense then ya need 11 very good starters with several studs at least, and a few very good backups, now we've been close to that several season, but injuries to some ruined those squads.


we've seen some teams buy a lot of UFA building for a run, fail and are left with a empty pocket book and rebuilding after cutting all those UFA, so actions like that can have drastic consequences, were still paying for Rodgers.

[musclestang]

I guess you guys are right. They do try and build teams to win, but also to lose just one or 2 games too early so they don't win a super bowl.

I gotta hand it to them, they really know how to pull it off. I guess that's where I fail. I see legitimate super bowl rosters quite a few times in the past 20 years, but I don't have the discernment of the more astute fans who can see, they were actually built just good enough to get within a game of the big game by the front office by design.

anyway, don't need to relive how we failed. once in real life and then the subsequent 15,483 times on the internet has been enough for this guy. but for every Patriots and now seemingly KC, we could point out probably a 10-1 ratio or more, of teams making all the moves and failing miserably every single year. Moves that put them out of contention for years sometimes.

I still don't believe we've had anybody in the FO or on the coaching staffs that didn't have the goal of winning a super bowl at the top of their list.

[Yoop]

I guess you guys are right. They do try and build teams to win, but also to lose just one or 2 games too early so they don't win a super bowl.

I gotta hand it to them, they really know how to pull it off. I guess that's where I fail. I see legitimate super bowl rosters quite a few times in the past 20 years, but I don't have the discernment of the more astute fans who can see, they were actually built just good enough to get within a game of the big game by the front office by design.

anyway, don't need to relive how we failed. once in real life and then the subsequent 15,483 times on the internet has been enough for this guy. but for every Patriots and now seemingly KC, we could point out probably a 10-1 ratio or more, of teams making all the moves and failing miserably every single year. Moves that put them out of contention for years sometimes.

I still don't believe we've had anybody in the FO or on the coaching staffs that didn't have the goal of winning a super bowl at the top of their list.

we have been very conservative when it comes to buying players, we see other GM's do so with mixed results, usually your over paying for the production received, or ya get one great year as we did with Z and there average or hurt for the other years, and that lost revenue could have been used to resign one of your own, which Ted preferred to do.


I think the goal has always been to win it all, everyone has a different approach to accomplishing it though, and our course has been D&D, resign the good ones, and be very conservative with expensive purchases.

[NCF]

I think you truly believe this, but I really disagree. I just think there are multiple ways to go about it and the Packers methodology of not putting all their eggs in one basket allows for sustained success and an annual shot at having a team that can win it all. I just don't agree with building paper champions. It rarely works out and that is evidenced by Aaron's final years.

My Thoughts exactly. I prefer the approach of trying to put together a playoff caliber team each year. The teams that win it all have to get to the playoffs first and foremost. From there, there is a ton of luck. Get to the playoffs on a hot streak and relatively healthy and you've got a shot.

My issue is when you know at the trade deadline or weeks before the playoffs you need to make the moves to help give your team an edge. The Buccs went and got Antonio Brown. Was he a headcase? Yes. But he caught a TD in the SB and helped them win. The Rams went and got OBJ. Was he a headcase? Yes. But he caught a TD in the SB. The Chiefs trade for Kadarius Toney. Was he a headcase? Yes. But he caught a TD in the SB. The Chiefs last year trade for Mecole Hardman and he scores a TD in the SB.

I have said this time and time again. The league has gone the way of the NBA. When the deadline comes around and you feel you are a contender you need to be a buyer. We have consistently been left behind in the arms race over the years and to make matter worse we could have gotten a player that probably would have fixed our weakest position group.

This team views winning a SB as a bonus. Not the goal.

I understand the point of view if we are solely talking about Mark Murphy, but even with the controversial new structure, I do not believe Gute and LaFleur operate in fear of winning at all costs. I don't even hate your comparison to other teams that have made big moves.

My big question is when have the Packers failed to acquire a guy to help them? The failed deadline deal to get OBJ is maybe the one example but multiple reports suggested he had no intention of coming here and did whatever he could to facilitate that trade to LA. Who else? Rumors about Robbie Anderson, Will Fuller, Chase Claypool, etc. Time has shown we were right to be the bridesmaids in those deals. Other deals, like Minkah Fitzpatrick, great player, but the cost was way too high. I think if the right deal is there at the right cost, Gute will pull the trigger. He also has shown a willingness to make these type of low cost acquisitions like Whitney Mercilus and Jared Veldheer.

[Half Empty]

Doubs to Buffallo for Rasul Douglas and a 5, who says no.

Buffalo

[APB]

My big question is when have the Packers failed to acquire a guy to help them?

To comment from the @lupedafiasco and @LombardiTime point of view:

Just off the top of my head, and I'm going back a ways, there's Marshawn Lynch, Randy Moss, JJ Watt, and Tony Gonzalez to name a few. They were all rumored to be interested in joining the Packers, some outwardly, yet Packers management never seemed to find the right balance in trade compensation to pull it off while other teams did, with mixed results.

The point being, you'll never hit a home run if you never take a swing.

Swinging back to the conservative argument:

As @musclestang alluded, there are probably 10x the number of "go for it" moves that have subsequently failed and significantly impacted (in a negative sense) future monies and draft assets for teams to make another run. For every Mecole Hardman, who is a garbage example btw, there's a dozen Chase Claypool, Will Fuller, Robbie Anderson, and Isaiah Ford type trades that were a complete bust.

I do, however, get both sides of the argument.

As for me, I strongly believe the Packers, as an organization, have carefully and responsibly weighed their rosters over the years and determined them to be sufficient to win a championship thus rendering the splashy albeit costly move unnecessary. They may have been right in many cases. If it weren't for a late season injury (Bakhtiari/Jordy) or an untimely poor game by a superstar player (Favre/Rodgers/Jones/Adams), or just some bonehead play by a position player (Bostic) that derailed things, who knows what would have happened.

The point is there are so many things that impact a championship run that it's impossible to point to a single non-move by management as to the reason for the current SB drought. There's a lot of luck involved and then you still need players to play to their abilities and not muck it up.

[go pak go]

Ted absolutely sat on his hands. Gute however has shown a strong willingness to make moves beyond simply drafting a player.

[NCF]

Ted absolutely sat on his hands. Gute however has shown a strong willingness to make moves beyond simply drafting a player.

Yes, I also believe there was a stark contrast to the way Ted and Gute operate. Focusing solely on Gute's body of work, I reject the premise.

[Drj820]

Ted absolutely sat on his hands. Gute however has shown a strong willingness to make moves beyond simply drafting a player.

mostly fair

[RingoCStarrQB]

Ted absolutely sat on his hands. Gute however has shown a strong willingness to make moves beyond simply drafting a player.

But then we ended up with a Jimmy Graham. How did that work out?

[Scott4Pack]

To play Devil's Advocate, I think some who contend that the Packers have not pursued a Super Bowl victory with the zeal necessary to actually compete for one over the past 10+ years would point precisely to allowing the likes of a Mulumba, Janis, Abbredaris, Gunter, etc. to play prominent roles while not vigorously pursuing veterans who might have helped the team get over the top as evidence in support of their position.

For instance, is there an NFL team that has traded for fewer players than the Packers?

When I think of how the Packers operate, I think of stockpiling picks, and always planning, for future competitiveness.

Trading away a Rodgers, an Adams, or even a Rasul Douglas for draft picks sure that fits the Packer modus operandi.

But trading draft picks, including high picks, away for a WR or a DE or a LT (like KC has done while playing in 4 Super Bowls and winning 3 of them with Mahomes at QB), that simply is not something that Green Bay has done in recent memory.

That said, I completely concur that, while Gute may have made moves "to keep us in the conversation", "We haven't been blessed with championships" over the past 13 seasons. Indeed, the latter assertion cannot be disputed.

Except Andy Mulumba wasn't supposed to be that player, neither were Abbredaris and Janis. Or Gunter. They were there because certain positions gutted by injury. Make a trade, sign and expensive FA, if they end up hurt, you're in the same place. Some of that happened too late to make any changes in a season. Regardless in season moves usually only work when a team is missing a piece and that piece becomes available. Multiples aren't available for a team to go grocery shopping when playoffs come around.

Could go back to any of those seasons, and the rosters were legitimate rosters to challenge for a Super Bowl. There are no guarantees. Look at the Bills, we've heard about them for a number of years now. Dallas last year. 9er's are stacked and haven't won, and now money is getting to be a factor. They've only been there a couple years, lets see them keep it up for about the next 20.

you can lament trading Rodgers, but that's exactly what we did with Favre and brought us our only championship. I'd argue, though I wanted Rodgers to be here until he was done, the trade was the right decision. Same with Adams. The only one I have real questions about is Rasul. I'd have kept him, but regardless if I like the decisions or not, I don't question their motives and that they don't really care if they win a championship.
We've had legitimate super bowl rosters quite a few times here.

I don't lament trading Rodgers, far from it. I wanted to send him to Denver in the 2021 offseason (for a bigger haul than the team eventually got from the Jets in 2023).

I also don't lament trading Davante, I was convinced the run with Rodgers as QB ended the night they lost to Jimmy G and the 49ers in Lambeau in the 2021 playoffs and it was time to re-build or at least re-stock the roster.

And I most certainly thought that trading away Davante while simultaneously re-signing Rodgers to a huge new deal before the 2022 season was ridiculous. I still do.

Now, what I do lament is that not once during the past 13 seasons did the Packers make a single attempt to improve the roster for a Super Bowl run by trading for a veteran player to help push them over the top. Not once.

As for the "Super Bowl rosters" referenced above, I guess that is where we differ. In my view, the Packers' rosters have resulted in just as many Super Bowl appearances as the Vikings, Lions, and Bears since 2011. None.

Additionally, I know some Packer fans like to console themselves by comparing their team's performance to that of the Bills or 49ers (though SF has at least gotten to 3 Super Bowls since the last time Green Bay was in one).

As for me, I believe the more apt comparison for GB's performance with Rodgers at QB is to KC with Mahomes and NE with Brady. That is, other franchises with the best QBs in the game at a particular point in time.

And what I see are two franchises that made multiple player trades and signed numerous free agents to bolster their rosters in order to make serious Super Bowl runs while the other franchise, the one with a QB who won 4 MVPS between 2011 and 2021, did just the opposite -- signing the fewest free agents and acquiring virtually no veteran players via trade.

Maybe I'm just not a discerning fan, but I confess that I think NE did and KC did (and is doing) a far better job of maximizing their runs with a top QB than GB did with Rodgers at QB.

I suspect those who believe the Packer 's mostly conservative approach to constructing a roster is the right approach are convinced it is just dumb luck that GB has appeared in fewer Super Bowls than 8 other NFC teams since 2010 (Philly, the Giants, Carolina, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Seattle, SF, and the LA Rams).

Unfortunately for me, I don't believe in dumb luck

That's really good input from BOTH of you guys. To that, I'll add this.

We could wonder if acquiring some/more vets during the Rodgers era would've resulted in at least one more Super Bowl. On the surface, the idea makes sense (assuming some positive deals were there to be made).

We could also wonder if Rodgers might've made more of a negative impact (from stuff we'll never see in stats) with off the field stuff than Brady or Mahommes ever have.

We won't truly know the answer. And maybe it's a blend of both. But we sure could make a case for both, it seems to me.

My bottom line about the Rodgers era was that trading him away was the right thing to do at some point. It was time, or past time. No doubt.

I'll say the same about Favre. It was beyond time to let him go. He became an icon to himself.

I love both of them as players. But they had both played out their time in Green Bay. I'm glad we had a GM who realized it and did something about it.

[BF004]

LombardiTime just dropped a giant truth bomb but it will be pushed aside like it always is.

I always thought trading for a veteran player is dumb, personally. Just use free agency and keep your draft pick.

Like for the Jets to trade a 3rd round pick for Hassan Reddick who you know wants a fair market contract. Outside of it being a hilarious disaster so far, just sign Danielle Hunter or Jonathan Greenard or Leonard Williams and keep your pick.


Feel like only QB and WR do elite guys just not hit the open market and maybe you need to think about it harder if you want a plug and play difference maker. But pretty much most other positions there are pro-bowl caliber players walking around FA every year.