Team Changes for Next Season

[Heyjoe4]

I'll admit when GB announced the fired head coach of the 3-14 cardinals, was going to be our new DC. I wasn't super stoked. But the connection to the eagles when they were wrecking offenses and winning their championship. I settled down right away. The more I seen over the last couple months, the more I'm thinking GB got the perfect DC.
He doesn't want the HC job. His *heavy on the dline* strategy, is my favorite.

I really like that he stockpiles Dlinemen, compared to years past. I'm very optimistic.... GBs d front is going to be very difficult to stop.

Gannon is going to look like a DC guru.

I was thinking the same thing about Ganon - a 3-14 record, really???

Sometimes, maybe a lot of times, people get promoted one level further than they can handle. His HC experience is a nice side benefit. I like what I've heard from him so far. He'll be a good DC.

 

[Magooch]

I was asking about the lack of outside hiring on the FO personnel side, not the team. Many guys who have been with the Packers forever received promotions. There seemed to be no big outside hires - aside from Gannon and all the new coaches Gannon brought in.

It's been touched on before - I think you have a lot of guys who more or less "top out" in their current roles...but the team doesn't want to see them leave the organization. in order to retain them they end of getting a promotion and outkicking their coverage, so to speak. More or less Peter Principle at play.

A practical example for instance. I work in healthcare, like a lot of fields our organization has a defined set of pay scales/brackets and every position falls into a particular bracket/range. That range will have a minimum pay that is the lowest you can enter on, or a maximum pay which is the most you can get raises up to. once you reach that maximum pay, you're stuck unless you change positions or have your role significantly changed/reworked and get a reclassification under a different bracket.

So something we have seen more than a few times is where you might have a bedside/direct contact nurse who gets to the top-end of their pay bracket. They are a great nurse, have been with the organization for a long time, a great asset to have around. But they feel they deserve more compensation than their "bracket" allows, and the company wants to reward them too. So they move out of a direct patient care role and into a management role for a promotion and pay raise. And then you realize they're not actually great management material. So now while you've kept that talent/asset "in the building," you've also effectively traded a great bedside nurse for a mediocre manager.

I think someone like Stenavich might be a good example with us. He was really well-regarded as an OL coach and we wanted to keep him around. He could probably get better offers and/or a new role/responsibility if he left GB... but we wanted to keep him around, so we made him OC. Now maybe that's not the best example as it seems nobody knows what our OC actually does...but you get the point. Rather than lose the person, we more or less find a role for them that allows us to reward their contributions and keep them in-house...but that doesn't mean its always the best role for the person nor does it mean they're the best person for the role. And I'm sure to some extent there is a value placed on familiarity, even if a person is getting a new role, if the club knows the person behind it well they may feel that it's a good "character" fit or someone who can grow into the role vs more of an outsider unknown.

OF course this is not exclusive to GB either, by any means. Lots of places operate similarly, same at plenty of other teams, but I do think it's helpful to keep in mind as an explainer.

 

[gopkrs]

It's been touched on before - I think you have a lot of guys who more or less "top out" in their current roles...but the team doesn't want to see them leave the organization. in order to retain them they end of getting a promotion and outkicking their coverage, so to speak. More or less Peter Principle at play.

A practical example for instance. I work in healthcare, like a lot of fields our organization has a defined set of pay scales/brackets and every position falls into a particular bracket/range. That range will have a minimum pay that is the lowest you can enter on, or a maximum pay which is the most you can get raises up to. once you reach that maximum pay, you're stuck unless you change positions or have your role significantly changed/reworked and get a reclassification under a different bracket.

So something we have seen more than a few times is where you might have a bedside/direct contact nurse who gets to the top-end of their pay bracket. They are a great nurse, have been with the organization for a long time, a great asset to have around. But they feel they deserve more compensation than their "bracket" allows, and the company wants to reward them too. So they move out of a direct patient care role and into a management role for a promotion and pay raise. And then you realize they're not actually great management material. So now while you've kept that talent/asset "in the building," you've also effectively traded a great bedside nurse for a mediocre manager.

I think someone like Stenavich might be a good example with us. He was really well-regarded as an OL coach and we wanted to keep him around. He could probably get better offers and/or a new role/responsibility if he left GB... but we wanted to keep him around, so we made him OC. Now maybe that's not the best example as it seems nobody knows what our OC actually does...but you get the point. Rather than lose the person, we more or less find a role for them that allows us to reward their contributions and keep them in-house...but that doesn't mean its always the best role for the person nor does it mean they're the best person for the role. And I'm sure to some extent there is a value placed on familiarity, even if a person is getting a new role, if the club knows the person behind it well they may feel that it's a good "character" fit or someone who can grow into the role vs more of an outsider unknown.

OF course this is not exclusive to GB either, by any means. Lots of places operate similarly, same at plenty of other teams, but I do think it's helpful to keep in mind as an explainer.

I don't get why an organization would promote someone to their level of inompetence if they thought there was a decent chance that that is what they would be doing.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I was thinking the same thing about Ganon - a 3-14 record, really???

Sometimes, maybe a lot of times, people get promoted one level further than they can handle. His HC experience is a nice side benefit. I like what I've heard from him so far. He'll be a good DC.

I remembered his #1 RB went down week 3 and his #2 RB went down week 4. They had started 2-0. And lost the next 5 games by 1, 1, 3, 4, 1. Points, or something close to that.

They were a running team .. and real close to starting 7-0 I'm speculating.

I'm considering using lucky to have his as our DC. Gleutes really maneuvered a lot of difficult situations this off season, masterfully. Imo.

 

[gopkrs]

I have a beef with LaFleur. You can tell me if you agree. He sometimes gets a player in his head that he thinks is better than he is or is going to do something special that will make his offense go, and just won't let it go of it. Case in point Chris Brooks. Obvious to me that Wilson is a better RB. I don't give a damn if Brooks is a better pass blocker. He seems to have blinders on at times

 

[Pkrjones]

There is an article in the JS on My 19 by Ryan wood about pro personnel changes made by Gluten. There is an article in the JS today by Richard Reyman that covers all the internal, front office promotions.

Hafley took a lot of guys with him, maybe none as important as Jon-Eric Sullivan, former VP of player personnel - Gluten's right-hand man. He's been replaced by Milt Hendrickson who was in charge of football operations.

What I noticed in reading the list of guys in new positions is that they are all, or seem to be all, from within the organization. Tenure ranges from 10 years to 32 years.

My question for all of you - is this just recycling guys with dated ideas into new roles? Did Gluten look outside the organization for talent, and if he did, who did he hire? I would think a job in GB would be highly valued.

At 71 I'm not an ageist. I'd love to work in retirement but the type of work I did - management consulting with an s-load of traveling, doesn't lend itself to part time duty. I still think I could add value even at this ripe age. So I'm not dissing older guys with a lot of experience.

But do the Packers run the risk of - for lack of a better word - inbreeding? Why not at least a few guys from outside, to introduce some new ideas, and to challenge old ones? (In fairness, I think Gannon has brought in new position coaches he has worked with in the past - these are not front office people.)

I'm really curious about what the forum participants think. Rather than start a thread, this seemed to be a good one to ask.

Thanks all. Joe

Most of these promotions (what you deem as in-breeding) are guys that have spent significant time working for other organizations. Yes, they've been with GB for 7-20+ years, but were picked off of other staffs at some point in the 2000's. Elevating them makes a lot of sense, as Gute is familiar with their work, they KNOW the Packer-way, and they've earned the promotion through solid work.

Why not promote a regional scout who's done great work over decades into a national scouting role? Why not promote a junior personnel guy into a senior leadership role?

 

[mradtke66]

I don't get why an organization would promote someone to their level of inompetence if they thought there was a decent chance that that is what they would be doing.

Hiring is expensive.

If you don’t promote someone or craft a role for them to justify an out of band salary adjustment, the person will leave.

Same reason you don’t force someone in their current role “because they’re too valuable” or “too hard to replace.” They’ll leave for more money or more opportunities, leaving you without that person at all and still having to backfill them.

 

[gopkrs]

Hiring is expensive.

If you don’t promote someone or craft a role for them to justify an out of band salary adjustment, the person will leave.

Same reason you don’t force someone in their current role “because they’re too valuable” or “too hard to replace.” They’ll leave for more money or more opportunities, leaving you without that person at all and still having to backfill them.

It sounds like you said we promote someone to their level of incompetence so they won't leave. Maybe it would be better just to give them a raise?

 

[Pkrjones]

It sounds like you said we promote someone to their level of incompetence so they won't leave. Maybe it would be better just to give them a raise?

Who, in the front office, has been elevated to a position of their incompetence? Jon-Eric Sullivan started as a scouting intern in 2003 & worked his way up in the Packer's front office until he nabbed a GM job with Miami. Eliot Wolf started in 2004 (as a 22 yr old) with GB & worked his way up to Director of Football operations. When Gute got the GM gig over Wolf Eliot took an Asst. GM job with Cleveland. I haven't heard of, or don't remember anyone, who was fired for incompetence.

 

[gopkrs]

Who, in the front office, has been elevated to a position of their incompetence? Jon-Eric Sullivan started as a scouting intern in 2003 & worked his way up in the Packer's front office until he nabbed a GM job with Miami. Eliot Wolf started in 2004 (as a 22 yr old) with GB & worked his way up to Director of Football operations. When Gute got the GM gig over Wolf Eliot took an Asst. GM job with Cleveland. I haven't heard of, or don't remember anyone, who was fired for incompetence.

I sure thought it was all hypothetical.

 

[mradtke66]

It sounds like you said we promote someone to their level of incompetence so they won't leave. Maybe it would be better just to give them a raise?

Naw. You grow talent, you promote the talent when you think k they are ready.

Does an org actively decide to promote someone who will fail? Of course not. They might promote them early and take a risk, but you don’t bank on them being over their head.

Ideally you’re giving them incremental responsibilities, but you never know what happens until they’re in the role.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I remembered his #1 RB went down week 3 and his #2 RB went down week 4. They had started 2-0. And lost the next 5 games by 1, 1, 3, 4, 1. Points, or something close to that.

They were a running team .. and real close to starting 7-0 I'm speculating.

I'm considering using lucky to have his as our DC. Gleutes really maneuvered a lot of difficult situations this off season, masterfully. Imo.

Interesting history GBS, thank you.

Yeah I think Gannon was a real catch for DC. And from the pressers he has held, I like his strategy of not having a strategy and deploying players based on talent and down-and-distance situations. That's a lot different from Hafley who was loathe to change his game plan. In fairness, Hafley was a very good DC during his time in GB.

And with only six picks in the draft, Gluten has had one of his best off seasons re: talent acquisition. Well, it all looks good so far. The proof will be told in TC/PS and on the field. I feel good about this team. SB contender? Only on the fringes. But they will be competitive and Gluten has them set up as well as could be expected.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Naw. You grow talent, you promote the talent when you think k they are ready.

Does an org actively decide to promote someone who will fail? Of course not. They might promote them early and take a risk, but you don’t bank on them being over their head.

Ideally you’re giving them incremental responsibilities, but you never know what happens until they’re in the role.

Well said. Peter Principle or not, companies do not promote people they expect will fail. Most times it works well. The exceptions, of course, get all the press.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Most of these promotions (what you deem as in-breeding) are guys that have spent significant time working for other organizations. Yes, they've been with GB for 7-20+ years, but were picked off of other staffs at some point in the 2000's. Elevating them makes a lot of sense, as Gute is familiar with their work, they KNOW the Packer-way, and they've earned the promotion through solid work.

Why not promote a regional scout who's done great work over decades into a national scouting role? Why not promote a junior personnel guy into a senior leadership role?

I agree with you, and in-breeding was the wrong way to describe the situation. It's a lot more efficient and a lot less expensive to promote good people from within. I was just surprised that they didn't make at least a hire or two from outside the organization (Gannon notwithstanding).

And there is a "GB Way" - a philosophy that most everyone in the organization, especially the players, takes to heart. It includes a long history of winning, and the most championships in NFL history.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I have a beef with LaFleur. You can tell me if you agree. He sometimes gets a player in his head that he thinks is better than he is or is going to do something special that will make his offense go, and just won't let it go of it. Case in point Chris Brooks. Obvious to me that Wilson is a better RB. I don't give a damn if Brooks is a better pass blocker. He seems to have blinders on at times

MLF is a stubborn guy - to the point of making decisions that have shown to be unproductive. There's nothing wrong with running a play again that failed last time. But MLF sticks with his game plan for too long. In-game adjustments simply aren't a strength.

Hopefully guys like Stenavich actually do intervene now and then. Gannon, as a former HC, also brings experience beyond DC.

It's hard to argue with MLF's success. He's been a winner with HOF QB Rodgers, and he's been a winner with Love.

The Packers have been stuck as a one-and-done playoff team for the last two years. They did soundly defeat Dallas in the post season and certainly could have beaten SF on the road. They have the talent to make deeper playoff runs.

 

[mradtke66]

I have a beef with LaFleur. You can tell me if you agree. He sometimes gets a player in his head that he thinks is better than he is or is going to do something special that will make his offense go, and just won't let it go of it. Case in point Chris Brooks. Obvious to me that Wilson is a better RB. I don't give a damn if Brooks is a better pass blocker. He seems to have blinders on at times

Wilson being a better running back does not preclude Brooks from sticking vs. Wilson. They are distinct decisions.

I like Wilson, but he is a JAG. He can be replaced and we simply did not extend him when his contract expired. Letting those players go is part of life in the NFL.

Chris Brooks is our 3rd down back. His role is not the same as Wilson. We don't have a (proven) other option, so he stuck around. His contract also didn't expire. I suspect with his age that AND assuming we identify a suitable replacement, he will not be extended. He'll follow Wilson out the door.

Where we can compare them against each other, they were within .1 YPC last year. All three primary backs (Jacobs, Wilson, and Brooks) all had worse YPC in 2025 vs. 2024.

 

[gopkrs]

I

Wilson being a better running back does not preclude Brooks from sticking vs. Wilson. They are distinct decisions.

I like Wilson, but he is a JAG. He can be replaced and we simply did not extend him when his contract expired. Letting those players go is part of life in the NFL.

Chris Brooks is our 3rd down back. His role is not the same as Wilson. We don't have a (proven) other option, so he stuck around. His contract also didn't expire. I suspect with his age that AND assuming we identify a suitable replacement, he will not be extended. He'll follow Wilson out the door.

Where we can compare them against each other, they were within .1 YPC last year. All three primary backs (Jacobs, Wilson, and Brooks) all had worse YPC in 2025 vs. 2024.

Have to disagree about Wilson being a jag. I bet we'll see him do well this year as a number 2, I'm thinking, back in Seattle. Whereas no doubt about Brooks being a jag imho.

 

[mradtke66]

I

Have to disagree about Wilson being a jag. I bet we'll see him do well this year as a number 2, I'm thinking, back in Seattle. Whereas no doubt about Brooks being a jag imho.

I see them both a JAGs. They are better at different things, but neither is special. I suspect the league sees him the same based on his contract. He got 1 year, just shy of 1.6M. That's approaching veteran minimum numbers.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I

Have to disagree about Wilson being a jag. I bet we'll see him do well this year as a number 2, I'm thinking, back in Seattle. Whereas no doubt about Brooks being a jag imho.

Yeah I think there's a significant difference, at least in expectations, comparing Wilson to Brooks. Seemed like Wilson did a better job of hitting gapa adn getting to the secondary.

Even w/o the Jacobs controversy, I don't know why GB let Wilson walk. He should do well in Seattle, with their SB MVP now gone.

 

[Heyjoe4]

I see them both a JAGs. They are better at different things, but neither is special. I suspect the league sees him the same based on his contract. He got 1 year, just shy of 1.6M. That's approaching veteran minimum numbers.

I do like Wilson better than Brooks, but RBs of this quality are easy to find, IMO. There's a lot riding on Jacobs' short and long term availability. So I hope Lloyd puts his injuries in the past and plays as expected.

Gluten can still find another back during cutdowns, assuming Jacobs will eventually miss some time. Even so, it's by no means a great RB group. Can't win em all I guess. I hope the group has a great year. Realistically, Gluten will have to make some significant changes in the off season.

 

[Schultz]

I

Have to disagree about Wilson being a jag. I bet we'll see him do well this year as a number 2, I'm thinking, back in Seattle. Whereas no doubt about Brooks being a jag imho.

IMO Wilson needs to show he is a #2 right away. Once Charbo comes back from injury Wilson will be there #3 behind the rookie Price and Charbonnet.

 

[gopkrs]

IMO Wilson needs to show he is a #2 right away. Once Charbo comes back from injury Wilson will be there #3 behind the rookie Price and Charbonnet.

Yeah. I don't follow what they do. Or forget. Where is Price from? What round did they draft him in or how many RBs went b4 him? In this case Wilson definitely has to show what he's got b4 Charbonet comes back. I thought this past year, Wilson was hitting the line of scrimmage with more speed and power. So we'll see. Thing was, there weren't many holes.