Supplemental draft July 11

[HardRightEdge]

You don't understand that it's absolutely fair to criticize Thompson for not being able to provide Capers with players necessary to field a top 10 scoring defense at least once over the past seven seasons though. A feat that has been achieved by 27 other teams in the league at least once with the other four teams having combined to make the playoffs four times since 2010 not winning a single playoff game (let that sink in for a moment).

Here's one way to look at a 31st. ranked passer-rating-against of 102.0 last season:

I think we can all agree an 80.0 number is pretty darn good. Maybe, just maybe, the talent deficit takes you from 80 to a 23rd. ranked 92 while Capers coaching bumped it up to 102.0, making the opposition Hall of Fame caliber in the aggregate. One might walk through that pretty crappy 95.9 from the prior season in a similar way.

The point being, there's no reason to believe there was a single cause which is true at the outset of any problem solving exercise.

Packer management evidently believed there might be multiple causes since both key figures got bounced. That's unless one wants to believe they just couldn't figure it out and went with "fire everybody".

Whether the defense shows marked improvment or continues to wallow, there are a suffient number of new defensive faces getting enough snaps that a definitive apportionment of retrospective blame is not going to be definitive at the conclusion of this season. The closest we'll get is in seeing whether incumbent players who underperformed in the past make a step up under the new regime.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While I agree that it feels like it is time to move on from Thompson, full evaluation of his work as the Packer GM won't really cease until players, coaches, etc. that he drafted, signed or hired are gone from Green Bay. Not to mention that Thompson still has his hands on things in the way of draft evaluation. So yes, this is "Gute's team", but I can't help but notice that a good portion of the team, are still "Thompson guys" and will be for years. If the Packers win a SB this coming year, will any credit be bestowed on TT or will people want to say "see, TT was holding us back".

People are going to enjoy comparing Gute to TT, only because it is the Packers, but you could just as easily compare and contrast the job that Gute does to just about any GM that has or is working in the NFL.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While I agree that it feels like it is time to move on from Thompson, full evaluation of his work as the Packer GM won't really cease until players, coaches, etc. that he drafted, signed or hired are gone from Green Bay. Not to mention that Thompson still has his hands on things in the way of draft evaluation. So yes, this is "Gute's team", but I can't help but notice that a good portion of the team, are still "Thompson guys" and will be for years. If the Packers win a SB this coming year, will any credit be bestowed on TT or will people want to say "see, TT was holding us back".

If the Packers end up winning the Super Bowl this season Thompson definitely deserves credit for providing the nucleus of the team but it should also be noted that he wasn't able to provide the roster with pieces necessary to finally bring another Lombardi to Green Bay.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If the Packers end up winning the Super Bowl this season Thompson definitely deserves credit for providing the nucleus of the team but it should also be noted that he wasn't able to provide the roster with pieces necessary to finally bring another Lombardi to Green Bay.

Agreed. I think my premise was based more on the possibility of the players that TT brought in getting better, especially with a new DC. Don't get me wrong, I think the time was right to shift away from TT and let Gute come in and run things. However, the team TT left behind wasn't that far away from winning it all (set aside last year). So if some of the guys TT acquired take that next step and there isn't a lot of "help" from the rookies or newly acquired free agents, there will be lots of discussion as to who deserves the credit.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Agreed. I think my premise was based more on the possibility of the players that TT brought in getting better, especially with a new DC. However, the team TT left behind wasn't that far away from winning it all (set aside last year). So if some of the guys TT acquired take that next step and there isn't a lot of "help" from the rookies or newly acquired free agents, there will be lots of discussion as to who deserves the credit.

Ultimately Thompson was in charge of the coaching staff as well. If a new defensive coordinator significantly improves the performance of players that have been on the roster for years TT should have forced McCarthy to fire Capers a long time ago.

 

[PikeBadger]

Ultimately Thompson was in charge of the coaching staff as well. If a new defensive coordinator significantly improves the performance of players that have been on the roster for years TT should have forced McCarthy to fire Capers a long time ago.

So true. We will find out in the next year or two just where Thompson was at fault. McCarthy’s relative silence on the subject of Capers leads me to believe that Thompson was unwilling to sacrifice McCarthy in order to get rid of Capers. I’ve never felt that natural talent and ability on the defensive side of the ball was the core problem. I think our crew of scouts has been better than McCarthy and his 2 coordinators.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So true. We will find out in the next year or two just where Thompson was at fault. McCarthy’s relative silence on the subject of Capers leads me to believe that Thompson was unwilling to sacrifice McCarthy in order to get rid of Capers. I’ve never felt that natural talent and ability on the defensive side of the ball was the core problem. I think our crew of scouts has been better than McCarthy and his 2 coordinators.

If you're right about talent not having been an issue on defense it's inexcusable that Thompson agreed to keep Capers as defensive coordinator for way too long though.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

If you're right about talent not having been an issue on defense it's inexcusable that Thompson agreed to keep Capers as defensive coordinator for way too long though.

While Thompson probably had the ultimate say, perhaps he deferred to McCarthy on the coaching staff...….

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While Thompson probably had the ultimate say, perhaps he deferred to McCarthy on the coaching staff...….

While I agree with you that this was probably the case, I think you will hear some argue that TT failed either way when it comes to allowing Capers to be around too long, regardless of whether it was his or MM's decision.

 

[PikeBadger]

While Thompson probably had the ultimate say, perhaps he deferred to McCarthy on the coaching staff...….

From my viewpoint, I suspect this was the case. I doubt that Thompson would have told McCarthy who should be on his staff. I don’t think that Thompson was the micromanager type.

 

[PikeBadger]

While I agree with you that this was probably the case, I think you will hear some argue that TT failed either way when it comes to allowing Capers to be around too long, regardless of whether it was his or MM's decision.

I’m in this camp. It is ultimately Thompson’s responsibility as he was in charge of football operations. Perhaps he should have fired McCarthy for not replacing Capers earlier. Of course, that ultimately brings Rodgers into the equation because imo, McCarthy and Rodgers are pretty much connected at the hip. Price paid for staying loyal to staff continuity. Everyone is replaceable at one point or another. The health of the franchise trumps all.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I’m in this camp. It is ultimately Thompson’s responsibility as he was in charge of football operations. Perhaps he should have fired McCarthy for not replacing Capers earlier. Of course, that ultimately brings Rodgers into the equation because imo, McCarthy and Rodgers are pretty much connected at the hip. Price paid for staying loyal to staff continuity. Everyone is replaceable at one point or another. The health of the franchise trumps all.

Agreed and would add that this is also possibly "the price paid for not having clear and defined lines between an owner, a GM and a head coach". I have never really been clear on the Murphy-GM-McCarthy hierarchy, the order of it and who's the final decision maker in regards to certain things.

 

[Poppa San]

Gee, yet another thread detoured into rehashing TT and the Dom.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Gee, yet another thread detoured into rehashing TT and the Dom.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

well yes and no on the "Detour"......for me its a conversation about the hierarchy of the decision making process for the Packers and the names can be "X, Y and Z". But yes, a lot of topics start with an idea (should we sign this guy) and that conversation is naturally going to revert back to the decision makers in charge of things.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

While I agree with you that this was probably the case, I think you will hear some argue that TT failed either way when it comes to allowing Capers to be around too long, regardless of whether it was his or MM's decision.

In that sense, I suppose we could blame Ted's boss - Mark Murphy - as well.

That wouldn't be as much fun, however.

 

[Zartan]

Wish the season would hurry up so we have new people to ***** about in Gute and Pettine.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While Thompson probably had the ultimate say, perhaps he deferred to McCarthy on the coaching staff...….

Actually McCarthy was and still is in charge of the coaching staff. Nevertheless Thompson could have forced him to release Capers if he felt the talent was misused on that side of the ball.

From my viewpoint, I suspect this was the case. I doubt that Thompson would have told McCarthy who should be on his staff.

I agree that Thompson shouldn't have made the decision on Capers' replacement but demanded McCarthy to hire another defensive coordinator years ago.

I have never really been clear on the Murphy-GM-McCarthy hierarchy, the order of it and who's the final decision maker in regards to certain things.

While there are definitely some fields of responsibility overlapping in my opinion the hierarchy was pretty clear with Thompson being the general manager (Murphy-TT-McCarthy).

It has become more complicated with Gutekunst being named GM as both he and McCarthy now directly report to Murphy with the president being the one in charge of possibly replacing the head coach.

 

[HardRightEdge]

In that sense, I suppose we could blame Ted's boss - Mark Murphy - as well.

That wouldn't be as much fun, however.

In what world would a manager (McCarthy) have a key report (Capers) seriously underform while that manager's boss (Thomposon) could say, "It's not my job, man," to intervene?

Nowhere, no how. Maybe it was Bob Harlan who began this fiction of management silos where all he was really doing was creating a buffer to keep board members and other kibitzers's fingers out of the pie.

And if Capers had a couple million guaranteed on that contract at some point and Thompson wanted to get rid of him, you can bet your bottom dollar he would have run that by Murphy. And if Murphy said "no, I'm not adding money to the coaching budget to pay two DCs," then it is in fact on him.

If they all sat around a table in a post-season evaluation meeting these past few years nodding in unison that Capers is their guy, then it is on all of them.

We were not in the room, so we don't know who along the line failed to press the issue. But to think it was McCarthy's call exclusively is simplistic and naive.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

In what world would a manager (McCarthy) have a key report (Capers) seriously underform while that manager's boss (Thomposon) could say, "It's not my job, man," to intervene?

Nowhere, no how. Maybe it was Bob Harlan who began this fiction of management silos where all he was really doing was creating a buffer to keep board members and other kibitzers's fingers out of the pie.

And if Capers had a couple million guaranteed on that contract at some point and Thompson wanted to get rid of him, you can bet your bottom dollar he would have run that by Murphy. And if Murphy said "no, I'm not adding money to the coaching budget to pay two DCs," then it is in fact on him.

If they all sat around a table in a post-season evaluation meeting these past few years nodding in unison that Capers is their guy, then it is on all of them.

We were not in the room, so we don't know who along the line failed to press the issue. But to think it was McCarthy's call exclusively is simplistic and naive.

We could blame McCarthy. Or we could blame Murphy. More often than not, however, people will blame Thompson - In part, at least, because they want to.

 

[Mondio]

we can blame any or all of them. I blame circumstances. Capers was a pretty successful coach. I think he coached in a way that MM liked. He was cerebral and had a defense that could create turnovers for our offense to get more opportunities. He didn't always have bad defenses and I don't think rankings tell the entire story either as yards and a few FG's were ok to give up in order to take their shots at turnovers a few times a game. Plus with our own explosive offense, it tends to lead to the other team putting up better offensive "numbers" in playing catch up. I think it skews total numbers, but at this point I don't really care. all of that is in the past. My point, Capers wasn't always what most fans have an impression of him being the past 2-3 seasons.

anway, without rehashing everything because I've already started to ramble. I think it was just a matter of simple circumstances. Capers is not some scrub. TT didn't just draft scrubs, MM is a good headcoach. '14 was a tipping point. Stacked team, masterful defense for 55 minutes. Complete collapse and a bunch of flukey stuff happened. Capers? Players? MM? blame who you want. I put it mostly on the players. '15 our defense was actually pretty decent while the offense floundered with WR and offensive line woes all season. We then lost some pretty good players, had a gutting of a very important position another year had some guys playing out of position because of it. One season would have been completely unfair IMO to judge a DC on because of all the injuries and he could have been fired after that season. They gave him another year to turn it around. It ended up being the same old confusion on that side of the ball and he was let go.

The only thing that makes this easy to say now is retrospect. I don't think it was needing to spend a few more dollars that kept him around. I don't think Ted was afraid to fire an underperforming coach over his headcoaches head after giving the HC the ability to hire and fire his own staff. I don't think Murphy is the type of guy to micromanage everyone underneath him or fire guys when he doesn't get his way. All probably had a say, and they all probably reached a consensus. They probably considered overall team philosphy, then looked at past peformance and capability, available players and outside influences and made the decision. Like I said, I don't care much about the overall rankings. and this team had a pretty good defense as recently as '15. They kept us in games while the offense struggled mightily. Then all sorts of weird stuff happened to that side of the ball. to not think all that flux and injury is going to affect a unit is silly.

 

[HardRightEdge]

We could blame McCarthy. Or we could blame Murphy. More often than not, however, people will blame Thompson - In part, at least, because they want to.

No, I think the popular perception is that keeping or dumping Capers was McCarthy's call, the coach's call. Clearly, I do not make that assumption.

With Murphy becoming uber-GM, applying more concentrated attention on the football operation and not just matters of Green Bay Packers, Inc., it's reasonable to think it derives from a perception of dysfuction in the football operation. Whether that's of Murphy's own intitiative or pressure from the Executive Committee or loud voices on the board we do not know. But I've seen this movie enough times to know that when an executive comes down a level to get more hands on it's from pressure to "fix it", whatever "it" might be.

While one consideration in Murphy being hands-on is that Gutekunst is a rookie. GM responsibilites expand considerably beyond just scouting and personnel evaluation. Gutekunst also was hampered (theoretically) by the departure of two senior personnel men to Cleveland, but that does not appear to be the whole story.

One thing we do know is McCarthy has a bigger voice in football operations, reporting directly to Murphy as do Gutekunst and Ball. If McCarthy's role is to just coach the players he's given, there's no reason he should be reporting to Murphy. If anybody came out of this whole shake-up blameless it would appear to be McCarthy. And that suggests the mud splatter from Capers performance did not fall on him.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

No, I think the popular perception is that keeping or dumping Capers was McCarthy's call, the coach's call. Clearly, I do not make that assumption.

With Murphy becoming uber-GM, applying more concentrated attention on the football operation and not just matters of Green Bay Packers, Inc., it's reasonable to think it derives from a perception of dysfuction in the football operation. Whether that's of Murphy's own intitiative or pressure from the Executive Committee or loud voices on the board we do not know. But I've seen this movie enough times to know that when an executive comes down a level to get more hands on it's from pressure to "fix it", whatever "it" might be.

While one consideration in Murphy being hands-on is that Gutekunst is a rookie. GM responsibilites expand considerably beyond just scouting and personnel evaluation. Gutekunst also was hampered (theoretically) by the departure of two senior personnel men to Cleveland, but that does not appear to be the whole story.

One thing we do know is McCarthy has a bigger voice in football operations, reporting directly to Murphy as do Gutekunst and Ball. If McCarthy's role is to just coach the players he's given, there's no reason he should be reporting to Murphy. If anybody came out of this whole shake-up blameless it would appear to be McCarthy. And that suggests the mud splatter from Capers performance did not fall on him.

McCarthy certainly had an input. Normally, head coaches hire/fire their staff, especially tenured head coaches.

Thompson could have overruled McCarthy.

Murphy could have overruled Thompson.

So?

 

[HardRightEdge]

McCarthy certainly had an input. Normally, head coaches hire/fire their staff, especially tenured head coaches.

Thompson could have overruled McCarthy.

Murphy could have overruled Thompson.

So?

So, exactly that.

I'm afraid there are quite a few fans who suffer under the illusion that the HC has 100% control over the hiring and firing of coaches; the GM has 100% control over the hiring and firing of the HC and the players, and the President is in charge of Green Bay Packers, Inc. and does not involve himself in football operations, as though none of these things overlap.

My rhetorical question, to be more direct, is who came out of this with elevated status? Not Thompson, getting kicked to the side. Capers is gone. Gutekunst surely, but somebody had to fill the job. Murphy has come down from the ivory tower to be more hands on in the football operation, something I'm sure he'd prefer not to have to do.

If McCarthy was held responsible for Capers performance by the people who know what was argued and not argued, he would not be reporting on the same plane as the new GM and the cap and contract "guru" with a bigger in voice in what goes on. This suggests to me McCarthy has not been a Capers backer.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

So, exactly that.

I'm afraid there are quite a few fans who suffer under the illusion that the HC has 100% control over the hiring and firing of coaches; the GM has 100% control over the hiring and firing of the HC and the players, and the President is in charge of Green Bay Packers, Inc. and does not involve himself in football operations, as though none of these things overlap.

My rhetorical question, to be more direct, is who came out of this with elevated status? Not Thompson, getting kicked to the side. Capers is gone. Gutekunst surely, but somebody had to fill the job. Murphy has come down from the ivory tower to be more hands on in the football operation, something I'm sure he'd prefer not to have to do.

If McCarthy was held responsible for Capers performance by the people who know what was argued and not argued, he would not be reporting on the same plane as the new GM and the cap and contract "guru" with a bigger in voice in what goes on. This suggests to me McCarthy has not been a Capers backer.

I doubt that most people are unaware of the fact that an employee can be overruled by their boss.

Is that the point you are going for?

 

[AmishMafia]

So, exactly that.

I'm afraid there are quite a few fans who suffer under the illusion that the HC has 100% control over the hiring and firing of coaches; the GM has 100% control over the hiring and firing of the HC and the players, and the President is in charge of Green Bay Packers, Inc. and does not involve himself in football operations, as though none of these things overlap.

My rhetorical question, to be more direct, is who came out of this with elevated status? Not Thompson, getting kicked to the side. Capers is gone. Gutekunst surely, but somebody had to fill the job. Murphy has come down from the ivory tower to be more hands on in the football operation, something I'm sure he'd prefer not to have to do.

If McCarthy was held responsible for Capers performance by the people who know what was argued and not argued, he would not be reporting on the same plane as the new GM and the cap and contract "guru" with a bigger in voice in what goes on. This suggests to me McCarthy has not been a Capers backer.

I think MM had 100% control over coaches underneath him. I think most, if not all, coaches do. Personally, I cant see why anyone, worth a ****, would become a HC without being given that authority. Your livelihood, reputation, and legacy hang in the balance. It's up to you to establish a staff you can work with and have the same philosophy.

Sure TT could approach MM and suggest a change, but it maybe a decision that TT would have to fire MM as well to get rid of Capers. I think MM is worth keeping. I dont know why MM held onto Capers as long as he did. That has been his biggest error as a HC.

Some posters, not talking about you, dont have a clue what no talent or poor coaching looks like. I am reasonably sure that TT was demoted due to health reasons and not because of performance. Otherwise, he would have been fired completely.

The new structure is probably the demand by MM. It's not fair to the HC to hire a new GM who can in turn fire the HC. And maybe he agreed to fire Capers under the condition of the new structure? I doubt it, but it is still possible.