Committee's rarely work anywhere. There should always be a accountable person.
Generally speaking, the committee chairman is the guy who gets the heat if things don't work out. To take one example ripped from the headlines, the Fed Chair Jerome Powell takes considerable heat from the POTUS.
In this case, to whatever degree Ball and LaFluer have input into personnel, the "committee chair" is Murphy.
He negotiated Rodgers' extention.
He "fired" and hired the GMs,
he fired and hired the head coach,
he set the org chart having all these guys report to him. Murphy may not be involved in constructing the draft board, but you can bet your bottom dollar he's signing off on going after a Z. Smith at that cost.
Murphy has positioned himself as the top dog in the football operation, hands on in major decisions. If things don't work out, everybody should know where the buck stops.
Committees get a worse name than they deserve in part because the people who call for their formation often do so because they see an intractable problem from which they wish to distance themselves from it in the hopes of burying it.
Then there's the kind that have their place, where a "decider" does not have the expertise to make a reasoned decision on the subject at hand. Subject matter experts are impaneled to hash out pros and cons and come up with a recommendation.
The draft of the US Constitution brought to the Constitutional Convention was a committee work product, with the Federalist Papers being a public airing of the salient issues and differing viewpoints of the two chief "committee members" along with a third. Others on the "committee", who did not contribute to the Federalist Papers, had considerable influence. For all it's several flaws, the final document was not a bad piece of committee work we might say.
