- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,705
- Reaction score
- 251
His # should be retired, no question in it. Can't understand the betrayal...
Therein lies your dilemma. If you can't understand, don't judge.
His # should be retired, no question in it. Can't understand the betrayal...
But you did post this: That certainly looks like you are giving Favre the majority of the credit for the turnaround in Green Bay. That comment completely ignores the contributions of Harlan, Wolf, Holmgren, Holmgren's staff, and the rest of the talent Wolf acquired.
This can't be seen online, it was told by me from someone very close to both
So you either have to take my word for it, or think I am full of it
I'd rather see #21 than #4 up there honestly.
So the rule changes were more important than the newly hired head of football operations who used the rules? The rule changes were a bigger factor than Wolf's incredible talent evaluation skills, his putting a new scouting system in place, implementing a new drafting and player acquisition philosophy and hiring a new HC who put a new staff in place? If rule changes were the "biggest factor" it seems you're saying if the current structure of the organization had stayed in place and Wolf never came to Green Bay, Braatz continued in his role (with fuzzy lines of authority in the organization), and Infante was HC for the next several seasons after '91, the Packers' franchise would have likely turned around because of the change in rules which applied to every NFL franchise. I completely disagree with that notion. IMO the most important factor in any organization is the people who populate it. And in almost all organizations the quality of leadership is extremely important. No matter what rules were in place, having one of the best VP/GMs heading the football operations was supremely important IMO.I still believe the biggest factor in the Packers' turnaround was the introduction of Plan B free agency in 1989, followed by restricted free agency and the tagging system in 1993 which made it easier for teams to keep key players on their roster.
So the rule changes were more important than the newly hired head of football operations who used the rules?
Just wondering who the players were who fled from TB, GB, Seattle, and Atlanta to greener pastures. Not disagreeing exactly but I'd like to see the list?
The Packers' problems before Plan B, restricted FA, tagging, etc weren't in drafting talent, it was in KEEPING talent.
We had draftees insisting on short contracts and draftees taking less money than we were offering after their first or second years to go else where to winning teams.
GreenBlood, those are pretty specific allegations. If you insist the Packers had trouble KEEPING talent you should at least be able to mention a few difference makers who left the Packers, shouldn't you? I've been fanatically following the Packers since just before Lombardi arrived and in the dark ages, I don't remember any rookie contracts of one- or two-years in length (could have happened but I can't recall one). You allege there was more than one who had that short a contract and they (plural) left the Packers for less money but you can't name two or more players as examples? And you aren't even backing up the very general comment that the Packers had a hell of a time keeping their best guys with a number of players as examples. Their "best guys" would have to be memorable ones to a Packers fan, whouldn't they? Helmets brought up Bruce Clark who refused to sign with Green Bay after being drafted but he doesn't fit into your argument the Packers couldn't keep talent. Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion and this is just sports fandom we're talking about but if you can't back up any of the above statements with several names - or at this point even one - perhaps the people engaging in the conversations you were listening to didn't know what they were talking about?The Packers had a hell of a time keeping their best guys.