Fire Mark Murphy?

[longtimefan]

Then what are these business meeting votes all about then?

Can you name one vote that the shareholders had to do that pertained to the product on the field?

 

[Mondio]

Can you name one vote that the shareholders had to do that pertained to the product on the field?

Can I answer for him?

No, he can’t

 

[longtimefan]

I can tell you our board answers to shareholders in WI, not to Roger Goodell and his mafia minions.

Umm no.. Bod don't answer to the shareholders?

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

From what I'm seeeing hearing/reading SI is gonna rip Rodgers a new one and has proof that what we've been blaming McCarthy for at least this year is Rodgers changing plays. IF this is legit, I hope Murphy gave Philbin the go ahead to adjust the depth chart due to attitude problems within the team. and YES I'm talking about benching Mr. Attitude Aaron Rodgers.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

Anyone who wants to light me up for the "bench Rodgers" comments here's a story you should read FIRST: https://sports.yahoo.com/packers-fi...ESu4Kxc-DB6eJAME0Jw-VMlOa0ONBF1-0L-kUCj2bwYZA

THEN come at me

 

[longtimefan]

Anyone who wants to light me up for the "bench Rodgers" comments here's a story you should read FIRST: https://sports.yahoo.com/packers-fi...ESu4Kxc-DB6eJAME0Jw-VMlOa0ONBF1-0L-kUCj2bwYZA

THEN come at me

I posted same si quotes few days ago

 

[Firethorn1001]

Not sure how in reading that article (which I've read several days ago) makes me jump to the conclusion of benching Rodgers.

 

[swhitset]

Not sure how in reading that article (which I've read several days ago) makes me jump to the conclusion of benching Rodgers.

I’m not sure where anyone got the idea that there is a “bench Rodgers” contingent in here. Being critical of his play and attitude does not equate to wanting him benched. I think most of us realize how talented he is... we are just realistic about his shortcomings and would like to figure out how he can overcome them. The only reason I could see to sit him down at this point is because the season is effectively over and avoiding injury might be a prudent move. Additionally, seeing if Kizer can be a reliable backup would be an interesting proposition as well. That being said, I would have no problem keeping Rodgers in the games so that these new receivers can learn to get on the same page as Aaron.

 

[RicFlairoftheNFL]

Some of us see Favre part 2, and wonder if the organization as it stands learned from the mistakes of the previous regime. Finding out what we have with Kizer should be the plan for the rest of 2018. It will prepare us for worst case scenario if I am wrong about Rodgers. It will let us know if we are prepared for his BS if I'm right, and it SHOULD serve to put Rodgers back into a team first state of mind, and that he does in fact have someone over him in the organization, and that's his coach.

 

[Mondio]

Rodgers doesn't need to be benched, him and his receivers need to figure this stuff out. Period.

 

[Firethorn1001]

I’m not sure where anyone got the idea that there is a “bench Rodgers” contingent in here.

RicFlair suggested Rodgers should be benched and then provided an article that we were supposed to read before 'lighting him up'. I merely stated that I don't know how I was supposed to jump to the conclusion of being ok with benching Rodgers after the article.

I never stated there was a group of people wanting Rodgers benched and I was commenting back to the one person that did.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

RicFlair suggested Rodgers should be benched and then provided an article that we were supposed to read before 'lighting him up'. I merely stated that I don't know how I was supposed to jump to the conclusion of being ok with benching Rodgers after the article.

I never stated there was a group of people wanting Rodgers benched and I was commenting back to the one person that did.

He also derailed the thread off the Mark Murphy topic

 

[pacmaniac]

Without Mark Murphy where would we get such cool exclusive shareholder merchandise?

 

[Scotland Yard]

Couple of other things about Murphy that irk me:

1 - The botched attempted payoff to Brett Favre to keep him retired in 2008. Proof positive that Murphy is in over his head on this job when it comes to running the football operations, what a clown move that was and it made the Packers organization look like a hillbilly outfit.

2 - In Sept. of this year the NFL was practically in open warfare against Clay Matthews, penalizing him on clean sacks and then using him as the poster child of unfair hits on QB's like he was some kind of monster. What was Murphy's response? He just shrugged his shoulders and said this is what the league wants and he supports the NFL ('go ahead and poop all over my $15/million a year OLB, I don't care').

Maybe when you don't stand up and fight for your own players you lose them. Maybe the team didn't so much quit on McCarthy...maybe they quit on Mark Murphy.

 

[gbgary]

Couple of other things about Murphy that irk me:

1 - The botched attempted payoff to Brett Favre to keep him retired in 2008. Proof positive that Murphy is in over his head on this job when it comes to running the football operations, what a clown move that was and it made the Packers organization look like a hillbilly outfit.

2 - In Sept. of this year the NFL was practically in open warfare against Clay Matthews, penalizing him on clean sacks and then using him as the poster child of unfair hits on QB's like he was some kind of monster. What was Murphy's response? He just shrugged his shoulders and said this is what the league wants and he supports the NFL ('go ahead and poop all over my $15/million a year OLB, I don't care').

Maybe when you don't stand up and fight for your own players you lose them. Maybe the team didn't so much quit on McCarthy...maybe they quit on Mark Murphy.

never heard that story but if true, and if it was his idea, that's a PR mistake...not a "football operations" thing. he wasn't involved in football operations then. it was all Thompson. as for your second comment who knows what he said behind the scenes. it wasn't too long that the league dropped that emphasis. it's only just this season that he's getting involved in football operations. he's reorganized things, gotten rid of the two biggest non-player people in the organization, appointed Gute (who had a nice draft it seems with a future star included) as gm. he needs to be given a chance to fix things now that his focus has changed from the business side of the organization to include matters on the field.

 

[longtimefan]

I see @PackerfaninCarolina hasn't been back

 

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

Gessus..

We don't have enough unemployment funds to cover

Lol

Yeah Like renewing Mike Sherman's contact for 4 yrs. then letting him go shortly after.
Then we paid him $$$$$$$$$ to sit on the beach somewhere.

 

[longtimefan]

Yeah Like renewing Mike Sherman's contact for 4 yrs. then letting him go shortly after.
Then we paid him $$$$$$$$$ to sit on the beach somewhere.

Was it 4? Thought was 1 like mm

 

[longtimefan]

Couple of other things about Murphy that irk me:

1 - The botched attempted payoff to Brett Favre to keep him retired in 2008. Proof positive that Murphy is in over his head on this job when it comes to running the football operations, what a clown move that was and it made the Packers organization look like a hillbilly outfit.

2 - In Sept. of this year the NFL was practically in open warfare against Clay Matthews, penalizing him on clean sacks and then using him as the poster child of unfair hits on QB's like he was some kind of monster. What was Murphy's response? He just shrugged his shoulders and said this is what the league wants and he supports the NFL ('go ahead and poop all over my $15/million a year OLB, I don't care').

Maybe when you don't stand up and fight for your own players you lose them. Maybe the team didn't so much quit on McCarthy...maybe they quit on Mark Murphy.

If you followed closely at the 08 drama.. You would know b4 the nfccg loss to the Giants Andrew Brandt was in talks to get Brett the lifetime contract, AFTER he retired. . Was 20 mill for 10 years.. They would own his rights..

It wasn't a bribe.. In fact in an article with al Jones from Brett's home time paper, Brett admitted it wasn't a bribe..

But a week later his camp convinced him to call it a bribe

 

[gbgary]

If you followed closely at the 08 drama.. You would know b4 the nfccg loss to the Giants Andrew Brandt was in talks to get Brett the lifetime contract, AFTER he retired. . Was 20 mill for 10 years.. They would own his rights..

It wasn't a bribe.. In fact in an article with al Jones from Brett's home time paper, Brett admitted it wasn't a bribe..

But a week later his camp convinced him to call it a bribe

ok...NOW i remember that.

 

[Scotland Yard]

If you followed closely at the 08 drama.. You would know b4 the nfccg loss to the Giants Andrew Brandt was in talks to get Brett the lifetime contract, AFTER he retired. . Was 20 mill for 10 years.. They would own his rights..

It wasn't a bribe.. In fact in an article with al Jones from Brett's home time paper, Brett admitted it wasn't a bribe..

But a week later his camp convinced him to call it a bribe

I never called it a "bribe", so don't know what that has to do with it.

Murphy was the CEO, not Brandt. Brandt was operating under the authority of Murphy, so that is also a moot point you make.

As far as Favre's camp spinning it later on, O.K. However, it is still the naive Murphy who put himself and the organization into a position to be made to look foolish. Murphy just isn't savvy enough IMO to be running a business in the public eye like the Packers.

Finally, if it is such a great idea to pay players to retire instead of letting them go play elsewhere via trade or FA, why is it that I cannot recall ever seeing this stupid idea done by another NFL team? I mean who does that? "Here's $20 million if you'll just stay retired...pretty please with sugar on top". Dumb. (And I was very PO'ed at Favre back then about this whole situation, not at all in his camp, but, the Packers (Murphy) handled it like a clown squad.)

 

[longtimefan]

Andrew Brandt wrote an article on it

 

[Scotland Yard]

Well, that ends it then. Of course we can trust Andrew Brandt to give a completely unbiased opinion on whether or not Murphy and Brandt handled that situation well or were a couple of bumbling idiots. I stand corrected.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Gessus..

We don't have enough unemployment funds to cover

Lol

Ain’t that the truth. I’m not crazy about Mark Murphy, especially compared to Bob Harlan. I’ve been reminded that Murphy played in the NFL and so is a “football guy” and Harlan wasn’t. Maybe. Anyway, kind of silly to talk about firing Murphy when there are so many other pressing matters. I do hope Murphy delegates the HC search to Gluten, and leaves the final decision up to him. In most organizations, the HC reports to the GM. At least I think so. And IMO that is how it should be.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I don’t think he should be fired, I do believe his only football decision should be the hiring and firing of a GM though.

Agreed. It scares me to think that Murphy will have an outsized voice in the selection of a HC. I’d rather leave that to Gluten.