Decision Making at 1265 Lombardi Ave

Joined
Aug 1, 2017
Messages
750
Reaction score
39
First, I'm curious to know who Mark Murphy answers to, or who is his boss?
Is it the board of directors or the active stock holders?

If so, I can easy understand all this mystery with Aaron Rodgers.

Think about it, all these people sitting on their @sses and all have their own idea on how to
handle the demands of Rodgers while Murphy waits for the answer.

Maybe this would already be solved if there was one owner of this team to make easier decisions for the team either way.

I need your thoughts, please
 
Joined
Jan 19, 2020
Messages
75
Reaction score
3
As a stockholder, I really don't get why some think that having an owner is the answer. We have a salary cap, so there are no advantage to having a rich owner, and the GM makes all of the personnel decisions just like with any other team. If a new GM does need to be chosen or input is needed in making some decisions(which is probably very rare), then the president can fulfill that role.

Having stockholders also does make us unique, and we also probably have a larger fanbase at least in part because of this.

To answer your question, the board of directors would be the ones that would hire or fire the president, so the stockholders couldn't have a role in resolving this, nor do I see how this situation(or the one with Farve)is caused by having stockholders instead of an owner.

We have also seen plenty of owners with an ego problem micromanage franchises, doing the job of the GM(or hiring bad/firing good GMs) running the team into the ground.

Finally, for those of you who live in Green Bay, the Packers would have almost certainly moved out a long time ago if they had an owner.
 
Last edited:

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
3,885
Reaction score
240
As a stockholder, I really don't get why some think that having an owner is the answer. We have a salary cap, so there are no advantage to having a rich owner, and the GM makes all of the personnel decisions just like with any other team. If a new GM does need to be chosen or input is needed in making some decisions(which is probably very rare), then the president can fulfill that role.

Having stockholders also does make us unique, and we also probably have a larger fanbase at least in part because of this.

To answer your question, the board of directors would be the ones that would hire or fire the president, so the stockholders couldn't have a role in resolving this, nor do I see how this situation(or the one with Farve)is caused by having stockholders instead of an owner.

We have also seen plenty of owners with an ego problem micromanage franchises, doing the job of the GM(or hiring bad/firing good GMs) running the team into the ground.

Finally, for those of you who live in Green Bay, the Packers would have almost certainly moved out a long time ago if they had an owner.
I personally suspect we have a few owners here with an ego problem that think they know how to be a better GM than anyone who actually holds the title.
 

XPack

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,170
Reaction score
312
Location
Garden State
Maybe this would already be solved if there was one owner of this team to make easier decisions for the team either way.
Grass is always greener on other side. Imo, situation we have now may not be optional, but a more balanced approach in long run.

We tend to think of a committee type approach with front office talking endlessly, but in fact it's just Matt, Russ and Gute making the calls with inputs from Mark. That's is still compact enough to be purposeful and diverse enough to get varied opinions.

Under TT we've become way too sedentary and lethargic and hopefully things would right themselves going forward.
 

Packer Fan in SD

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
775
Reaction score
134
I am a stockholder. We vote on the board. They make the hiring decision on Murphy.

As a stockholder, I am very pleased with the way he has done his job. He has forever changed us from depending mostly on the shared national revenue to stay competitive to financially sound independently now and for the foreseeable future.

He has maintained a very competitive team during this, and has made personnel moves in the front office that have been able to take an average team and immediately become once again one of the best teams in the league.

So I am perplexed in why anyone would think that the probably much smarter than me people in charge of running the Packer organization would ever entertain any idea of making a change at the top. If he were running my company this way, his bonuses would be huge and frequent.
 

ARPackFan

GREAT SCOTT HUNTER!!! IT'S BACK TO THE 70s, MARTY!
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
462
Reaction score
66
Location
Arkansas
First, I'm curious to know who Mark Murphy answers to, or who is his boss?

Positive net income. Packer Fan in SD provide a longer explanation but both are essentially the same. IF Rodgers leaves, Love does not work out, and the results are no playoffs and a loss of primetime appearances, then I would imagine Murphy along with Gute will be on the hot seat. Empty hotels and a loss of revenue to the business community in Green Bay would probably be the death knell for this FO.
 

aristotle

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
89
Reaction score
2
Location
Londonderry, NH
Gute has messed up the last two drafts. He has no desire to help the offense. Without Rodgers the packers will not see the playoffs in two more years.
1. Fire Gute
2. sign Rodgers for 3 years (maybe trade him after 2 years)
3. Sign Julien Edelman, before Tampa does. It will drive Brady nuts
 

TEXPAC

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
111
Reaction score
18
As a shareholder as well, I am happy with the decisions too.....
 

TEXPAC

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
111
Reaction score
18
Why do all the geniuses in here think they would do a better job at GM than a proven successful GM. In case y’all have not noticed, the Packers are one of the envies of the league.....

GO PACK GO!!!!!!!
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
5,270
Reaction score
666
The main FO complaint that I really have is is not investing more on the Offensive side going back over a decade. I’m not as much opposed to the player as I am to our day to day needs at various positions.

The only Offensive player selected in the 1st round of the draft that could be argued would “help” Aaron Rodgers was Bulaga and Sherrod. Sherrod didn’t even start a game in his career. He went down with a broken leg and never recovered. Out of 4 Players selected on Offense during Day 1 draft in 16 seasons during Rodgers tenure, 2 of them were QB’s to compete with him, 1 went IR’d (Sherrod) and never recovered and Bulaga.

In 16 consecutive drafts... on Day 1
We’ve drafted a #16 and #26 overall to compete with Rodgers.
We’ve drafted a #23 and #32 overall to protect him.

It’s an absolute fact that we’ve actually drafted more day 1 resources to compete with Aaron Rodgers for his job than to protect him or elevate him. That’s part is unacceptable to me and I don’t think they even realize how bad that looks or how much it’s held us back

Love him or Hate him. Aaron Rodgers gets the award for doing more with less in NFL history.
 
Last edited:

aristotle

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
89
Reaction score
2
Location
Londonderry, NH
Why do all the geniuses in here think they would do a better job at GM than a proven successful GM. In case y’all have not noticed, the Packers are one of the envies of the league.....

GO PACK GO!!!!!!!
did you say proven successful GM? Base on what?
 

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
230
Reaction score
31
So we agree. My point is to draft players that help the team, not players who help the QB. If a player happens to be both, then great.
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
3,782
Reaction score
222
Why do all the geniuses in here think they would do a better job at GM than a proven successful GM. In case y’all have not noticed, the Packers are one of the envies of the league.....

GO PACK GO!!!!!!!

As always, take away Favre and Rodgers, and...

Who is the proven successful GM, and who (and how) decided that?
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
12,525
Reaction score
1,152
As always, take away Favre and Rodgers, and...

Who is the proven successful GM, and who (and how) decided that?
Take away any of the greats off of any team and what are you left with?

I think in just three short years having Jaire,savage, Gary, Amos, Z Smith, P Smith, Turner, Jenkins, is a pretty good start for any GM. I certainly wouldn’t make the argument he is poor at his job.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
5,270
Reaction score
666
I actually like when we pick guys to help the Green Bay Packers.
That’s an intriguing yet rhetorical statement. I had to seriously consider that and it had me all over the map. That generic statement can mean a multitude of completely different opinions depending on how you perceive it.

It can imply you don’t think we’ve been helping our team get the right guys and so your saying you’d like to get the right guys. Kind of the angle of slighting the decision makers. ANTI- DECISION MAKER

OR

You don’t care what the method is of getting there as long as we pick players that help in the long run (“the end justifies the means” type argument).PRO DECISION MAKER

OR

youre just kind of happy go lucky and you just want players that help the team, but it does not necessarily bother you if they are worse or better than a consensus best available player at that given opportunity. Kind of indifferent in nature so to speak and if we pick someone who helps (which most do) you’re not going to get critical or conversely, you’re not going to necessarily praise a player etc.. you just like ones who help. NEUTRAL

It reminds me of one of those paintings that you can see multiple things depending on how you look at it. Very Bill Clinton esc. “It depends what the definition of is ..is?”
Im not sure how you could disagree or agree without more information actually.
 
Last edited:

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
25,648
Reaction score
1,290
Gute has messed up the last two drafts.

I agree that Gutekunst possibly messed up last year's draft (it's definitely too early to tell). You can't ask for much more than adding Gary, Savage and Jenkins in 2019 though.

1. Fire Gute
2. sign Rodgers for 3 years (maybe trade him after 2 years)
3. Sign Julien Edelman, before Tampa does. It will drive Brady nuts

There's no reason to fire Gutekunst or sign Rodgers to a three-year deal as he's currently under contract through the 2023 season. Edelman retired.

Why do all the geniuses in here think they would do a better job at GM than a proven successful GM. In case y’all have not noticed, the Packers are one of the envies of the league.....

That's true mostly because of Rodgers' elite performance over the past 13 years though.

I think in just three short years having Jaire,savage, Gary, Amos, Z Smith, P Smith, Turner, Jenkins, is a pretty good start for any GM. I certainly wouldn’t make the argument he is poor at his job.

Gutekunst did a fantastic job before deciding it was time to draft Rodgers' replacement in the first round last year.
 

PackerfaninCarolina

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 30, 2013
Messages
3,788
Reaction score
226
Maybe this would already be solved if there was one owner of this team to make easier decisions for the team either way.

I need your thoughts, please

Well, I'll make it very clear that while I believe this idea is only held by a minority of people, it needs to stop being talked of because it's a bad idea mostly for 2 reasons

1. The ratio of bad owners to good owners is about 28-3 in this league

Well, maybe not that much, but the bad owners definitely outweigh the highly successful ones

2. Unless the hypothetical owner was a Green Bay resident, you can pretty much be sure the Packers leave Green Bay and probably Wisconsin altogether. The best and most important thing about our current structure is that it keeps the team in Green Bay.
 

Poppa San

Levelheaded
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
10,407
Reaction score
1,082
Location
Brown County Wisconsin
Unless the hypothetical owner was a Green Bay resident, you can pretty much be sure the Packers leave Green Bay and probably Wisconsin altogether. The best and most important thing about our current structure is that it keeps the team in Green Bay.
Isn't Zygi Wilf living in New Jersey while owning the Vikings? Owners don't necessarily move the team to where they live. I think the Brewers owner lives out west somewhere.
 

captainWIMM

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
25,648
Reaction score
1,290
Isn't Zygi Wilf living in New Jersey while owning the Vikings? Owners don't necessarily move the team to where they live. I think the Brewers owner lives out west somewhere.

I don't think an owner would move the Packers out of Green Bay anymore as the team creates sufficient local revenue at this point. They would have left Titletown a long time ago without their unique structure though.
 

G0P4ckG0

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
540
Reaction score
63
I don't think an owner would move the Packers out of Green Bay anymore as the team creates sufficient local revenue at this point. They would have left Titletown a long time ago without their unique structure though.
They came close to relocating to LA around 2000 even with this structure, hence the reason for the renovations
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
3,885
Reaction score
240
They came close to relocating to LA around 2000 even with this structure, hence the reason for the renovations
Never remember hearing that. Please enlighten me. How close were they?
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top