1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Packers Will Wait Before Retiring #4

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by gwh11, May 18, 2012.

  1. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    Therein lies your dilemma. If you can't understand, don't judge.
     
  2. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    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.
     
  3. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    I think in internet terms, that makes it an urban legend of sorts.
     
  4. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    Craig Newsome?
     
  5. Dan115

    Dan115 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,794
    Ratings:
    +484
    21 Bob Jeter
     
  6. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Ratings:
    +3,131
    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.

    longtimefan, there is another option regarding what someone told you: While I understand you don't want to name the source of that information, I can believe someone told you that but since I can't evaluate that person's credibility or his/her relationship to the QBs, I can still question the substance of what (s)he said and not think you are "full of it". And if Rodgers bluntly denied that happened I would believe him - certainly over Favre and also over your source without knowing more about him/her.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    Could Wolf have used those new rules so effectively had they not been enacted? The Packers' problems before Plan B, restricted FA, tagging, etc weren't in drafting talent, it was in KEEPING talent. All of those changes in the FA system made keeping talented players long enough to accumulate that talent all across the roster far too difficult. 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. The rule changes put an end to that to a great extent. It was very difficult to take a poor team and turn them around under the old FA rules. And you act as if I said Wolf wasn't a factor at all. I never said that. I simply said that I believe the rule changes were the single biggest factor in being able to develop long-term success.
     
  8. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Ratings:
    +3,131
    I disagree that before Wolf arrived the Packers didn't have problems drafting and otherwise acquiring talent. If you think the Packers big problem was the parade of great players out of Green Bay, perhaps you could list them year-by-year. That's not what I witnessed. I saw players who didn't want to go to or stay with a losing or at best mediocre team. Look at the HC hired after Lombardi and before Wolf: Do you see a list of great HCs hampered only by the rules which applied to every other NFL team? I don't. I see mostly mediocrity and horrid personnel decisions. And the muddled organizational chart before Harlan fixed it made the situation even worse. No one was truly in charge, everyone was looking over their shoulder.

    And I did not imply you posted Wolf wasn't a factor at all. Look at my post: "rule changes were more important…", "(they) were a bigger factor…", "… the most important factor…". You've repeated the same idea again, that rule changes "were the single biggest factor" and I just think that makes no sense. If that were the case, why haven't all the teams under the rules "developed long-term success"? The reason for the Packers success was mostly because they finally put a football man in charge of all football operations and the guy Harlan picked happened to be a very talented talent evaluator and GM. The rule changes which applied to everyone were a distant third, fourth, or fifth reason IMO.
     
  9. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    It remains my opinion that without the major FA changes from '89 to '94 that it would have been far more difficult for ANY GM to have built a perennial contender in Green Bay. Just look at the 80s. Most of the top 10 teams (SF, Washington, Denver, Giants, Raiders, Dolphins, etc) saw an annual exodus of players from the bottom feeders (TB, GB, Seattle, Atlanta, et al) eager to join their ranks. There just wasn't much parity and very little chance for the worst teams to improve their rosters with experienced players.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    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?
     
  11. GreenBlood

    GreenBlood Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,705
    Ratings:
    +652
    Well, for starters, TB had two QBs go on to win Superbowls in SF and Washington. It was a common joke in the Seattle area by the last 80s that they were basically SF's farm team. The Packers had a hell of a time keeping their best guys. Sure, we drafted our share of duds, but so did every team. Where we had our problems was with free agency. As for a list of specifics, I admit I didn't know the rosters top to bottom from back then, but I was aware of the problem by listening to the conversations of the time.
     
  12. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    I guess you are talking about Doug Williams and Steve Young. Young based on his showing in Tampa Bay was deemed a bust and was traded for that reason. Doug Williams didn't go directly to Washington after leaving Tampa Bay. He played three years in the USFL before going to Washington the last three years of his career. Actually he was pretty well used up by then although as you note he did get a Super Bowl win.
     
  13. Helmets

    Helmets Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    615
    Ratings:
    +221
    With the exception of Lofton, which was for other reasons, I can't think of one player from the Packers - better than average, from the early to mid 80's that left GB during an "annual exodus" for greener pastures. I can remember Bruce Clark who was drafted by GB, refused to play for GB and went to the CFL.

    Help me out here...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Ratings:
    +3,131
    No matter what the rules are a team will struggle if its organization has no clear lines of authority and if the people making decisions are mediocre and that was the case in Green Bay after Lombardi and before Harlan and Wolf arrived.
    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?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Dan115

    Dan115 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,794
    Ratings:
    +484
    Harlan was NOT successful till he hired Wolf.
     
  16. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Ratings:
    +3,131
    Harlan became President before the 1989 season and in November of 1991 he hired Wolf and put him in charge of football operations. '89 was the "Majik" season and the Packers rebounded from 4-12 in Infante's first season to 10-6, just missing the playoffs. After that season I remember a poll (either radio station or newspaper) which asked Packers fans who the best HC in Packers history was and Infante won. Obviously it wasn't a scientific poll and apparently it found a lot of Packers fans without a sense of perspective or history. But I bring that up to make the point that Packers fans were extremely optimistic going into the 1990 season. I'm not making excuses for Harlan - along with a couple of huge accomplishments he made a couple of significant blunders IMO - but I understand if he wanted to give Infante time to succeed in Green Bay. Infante's 1990 Packers went 6-10 and in '91 as the Packers were lurching back to 4-12, Harlan decided enough was enough and he radically "re-made" the organization with about a month left in that season. So yes Harlan wasn't successful until he hired Wolf. But he did recognize the flaw in the organization and fixed it. If either of his predecessors, Parins or Olejniczak, had done that I would be lauding them instead of Harlan. And if it took Harlan two or three more years to fix I'd still be praising him for doing it. Better late than never.
     
  17. Rocky11

    Rocky11 Superbowl bound Pack

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    231
    Ratings:
    +61
    It is simply IMO about the accomplishments. All the other stuff is fluff to me. Everyone contributed in one way or another. Yes he was an a$$ but he did accomplish a lot. Most those passing records that he owns (yes including the INT's) were established in Green Bay. He won a lot of games including 2 SB appearances (yes I know that he was not the only player on the team) and deserves to have his number retired and be honored in the ring. I am not diminishing what any other player, coach, ball boy, water boy, trainer, doctor or whatever did. I think he gets in on his record.
     

Share This Page