Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Fire Matt LaFleur
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Magooch" data-source="post: 1086637" data-attributes="member: 17987"><p>I've kind of been wondering about this lately - not necessarily about who might be lined up as replacements, or about a possible trade (though it is an interesting topic of consideration) but just with regards to what Policy wants to do...</p><p></p><p>A lot of us will think back to when we drafted Love. For better or worse that was likely Gute's "legacy-defining" move. IMO it is fair to assume that he didn't want to ride out the twilight of Rodgers career and felt it was okay to make a calculated risk in drafting his replacement. And frankly I am not here to discuss whether that worked or not, but just conceptually....much like coaches want "their guy" at QB, much like GMs and executives want to "leave their mark" in this way too (or having their choice of coach, etc)...I think the same is true of presidents, owners, upper management, whatever you want to call it. </p><p></p><p>Of course as president Policy is going to want to run a successful organization/business and put out a good product on the field, but more than that...if I may speculate, I think he is also going to want to leave his mark on the franchise. </p><p>Think back. Bob Harlan hired Ron Wolf and put him in charge. Wolf got Favre and Holmgren and we won Super Bowl XXXI. </p><p>Murphy (in part) navigated the Favre-Rodgers transition, won Super Bowl XLV, and additionally hired both Gute and LaFleur and oversaw the move from Rodgers to Love. </p><p></p><p>Policy then is at the moment is set to inherit a bunch of "leftovers". And I don't mean that disparagingly, but they're not really "his" guys. He didn't pick Gute. He didn't pick LaFleur. You could even say that he didn't pick Love. He's inherited his GM, HC, and QB (among others). Pretty much the only big move he's got so far is signing off on the Parsons trade*. </p><p></p><p>SO, with all that in mind... Policy basically has the decision to extend Gute and/or LaFleur or set a new path. And I guess I just have to ask: If you were Ed Policy... would you want your "legacy-defining" move to be extending one or both of these guys? If you are looking to leave your mark, would you continue on with them or decide to change course? Beyond simply asking whether or not we would want to commit long-term to one or both of these guys...would he really want to be remembered as "the guy who extended LaFleur and/or Gute"? I don't know... </p><p></p><p>*I would also add that IMO Policy would not have signed off on this deal unless he felt we were ready to compete for a title and just a piece or two away. If he thought we were going to be a fringe playoff team or a one-and-done I very much doubt he would've sanctioned that trade. As such we have to assume that expectations were set accordingly. IMO this was the next Woodson or Reggie moment and a clear signal that being a wild-card playoff team was not going to be good enough.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Magooch, post: 1086637, member: 17987"] I've kind of been wondering about this lately - not necessarily about who might be lined up as replacements, or about a possible trade (though it is an interesting topic of consideration) but just with regards to what Policy wants to do... A lot of us will think back to when we drafted Love. For better or worse that was likely Gute's "legacy-defining" move. IMO it is fair to assume that he didn't want to ride out the twilight of Rodgers career and felt it was okay to make a calculated risk in drafting his replacement. And frankly I am not here to discuss whether that worked or not, but just conceptually....much like coaches want "their guy" at QB, much like GMs and executives want to "leave their mark" in this way too (or having their choice of coach, etc)...I think the same is true of presidents, owners, upper management, whatever you want to call it. Of course as president Policy is going to want to run a successful organization/business and put out a good product on the field, but more than that...if I may speculate, I think he is also going to want to leave his mark on the franchise. Think back. Bob Harlan hired Ron Wolf and put him in charge. Wolf got Favre and Holmgren and we won Super Bowl XXXI. Murphy (in part) navigated the Favre-Rodgers transition, won Super Bowl XLV, and additionally hired both Gute and LaFleur and oversaw the move from Rodgers to Love. Policy then is at the moment is set to inherit a bunch of "leftovers". And I don't mean that disparagingly, but they're not really "his" guys. He didn't pick Gute. He didn't pick LaFleur. You could even say that he didn't pick Love. He's inherited his GM, HC, and QB (among others). Pretty much the only big move he's got so far is signing off on the Parsons trade*. SO, with all that in mind... Policy basically has the decision to extend Gute and/or LaFleur or set a new path. And I guess I just have to ask: If you were Ed Policy... would you want your "legacy-defining" move to be extending one or both of these guys? If you are looking to leave your mark, would you continue on with them or decide to change course? Beyond simply asking whether or not we would want to commit long-term to one or both of these guys...would he really want to be remembered as "the guy who extended LaFleur and/or Gute"? I don't know... *I would also add that IMO Policy would not have signed off on this deal unless he felt we were ready to compete for a title and just a piece or two away. If he thought we were going to be a fringe playoff team or a one-and-done I very much doubt he would've sanctioned that trade. As such we have to assume that expectations were set accordingly. IMO this was the next Woodson or Reggie moment and a clear signal that being a wild-card playoff team was not going to be good enough. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
tynimiller
shockerx
Green_Bay_Packers
pacmaniac
gopkrs
SudsMcBucky
Latest posts
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: tynimiller
Today at 12:04 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: El Guapo
Today at 12:01 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 10:55 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 10:10 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
P
The Crew - 2026
Latest: Pugger
Yesterday at 4:38 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Fire Matt LaFleur
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
