None of those teams successfully drafted their replacement the way GB did. Love was ready, Murphy was not. That deal was delivered by Gutekunst, and rejected by Murphy.

Murphy didn't make GB successful, he got hired into a fucking race car and he just had to turn the key. 3 decades of winning far exceed anything Murphy did.

Yes he was CEO when the last super bowl was won, but that was Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy's doing, he didn't hire either one of them.

How many Lombardi's have we won since he usurped the role of Director of Football operations? Give Murphy credit for the financial health of the organization (though certainly not for cap management). The stadium is definitely a destination year round, and do definitely thank him for the sledding hill (I think they should name it for him as it sits without snow due to climate change).

Thankfully, Gutekunst has us trending younger and has successfully replaced our malignant former QB and conspiracy theorist.

Finally, it was a total dick move by Murphy to try to knuckle the city of Green Bay in lease negotiations and then leak to twitter.

Close is not good enough when the objective is a Championship. As the record shows - Rodgers was a better regular season QB than a playoff one. The MVP is a regular season award. Not a playoff/championship one.

Also not blaming Gutie. There were several independent sources who revealed that he wanted to trade Rodgers the year earlier. Thus in keeping with the axiom - that a good GM usually acts a year early rather than a year late. Like taking Love in the 2020 draft.

Also the GBP were a successful franchise long before Murphy. It certainly looks like that historic run will continue long after he is gone.

You are confusing blind faith with critical analysis and evaluation. Good organizations do it at all levels. There are many writers and subscribers on this site who frequently critique the Packers - both players and management. I am just one of many.

“Occasional criticism is better than the constant admiration.” - Amit Kalantri

The Packers have a GM that certainly would have traded Rodgers coming off back-to-back MVPs, but he wasn't allowed to.

The thing some people don't understand about the Packers way.. they put the team ahead of all else.

Any decisions regarding the trade of Rodgers wasn't about if Rodgers could still play QB at a high level. It was about the fact Rodgers had become a toxic presence in the organization. That's all there is to it. Regardless of his play, he has become unhealthy for the Green Bay Packers.

Full stop. That's the ugly truth everyone in football dances around, and so many fans refuse to see.

You will still need to submit your resume / c.v. to the Search Committee - who are obligated to review it and grant you an interview - or not. Just a word of advice. On your resume/c.v./qualifications written on the back of a napkin - you are probably better-off not listing anyone from this site as a reference.

"Why do you care? Why the heck do you care so dang much about the salary cap? And why hate on Murphy? I just don't get it. "

Why do I care? I care because I'm a fan of the Green Bay Packers.

Why do I care so dang much about the salary cap? Because a healthy salary cap means you are better equipped to obtain talent when it becomes available, retain talent that has proven its worth, and move on from aging and deteriorating talent without stiff financial penalties which would hinder obtaining and retaining young talent that helps maintain a competitive roster.

Why do I hate on Murphy? Try to pay attention. I don't hate Murphy, and I think he has been very successful at performing the job he was hired to perform...but I think he is playing defacto GM- a role he was not hired for- and I don't believe the power structure of the team as Murphy has crafted it is beneficial or conducive to the health of the GBP. I don't just sling mud, I'm pretty darn concise about exactly what I don't like and why I don't like it. I'm a huge believer in the organizational values that Bob Harlan installed, I believe there is great wisdom in the board finding and hiring a GM and allowing a GM to handle all football operations, and the board staying in its place and handling nothing more that non-football business operations. There's a pretty good case study for this type of organization of the Packers- It's called the 70s and 80s. Also, see the majority of other NFL franchises. Harlan got the local business guys (the board) out of football decisions and the Packers flourished. I would very much like to see that return.

"I haven't seen Gutey take any veiled shots." When it has happened, I have posted about the comments here at CHTV. Just because you don't pay attention as closely as I and some others do doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

The issue isn't Murphy telling the GM what to do, the issue is that three people report to Murphy and Murphy DECIDES what to do. That's how it is in Green Bay right now.

The team had been slowly eroding from within since Murphy fired Mike McCarthy and decided to use the power void created by Ted Thomspon's unfortunate decay of faculties to insert himself into the football side of the power structure. Oh, sure, the regular season wins were there, as well as a ton of internal strife and a locker room culture that was quickly becoming caustic with a defiant QB who was practicing- and preaching to younger players on offense- ignoring the coaching staff and doing things 'his way'.

I don't understand how you couldn't know what would make me happy. I'm pretty straight forward with my desires. On this particular topic, I've made numerous posts over the last two years that I would be overjoyed if the next President/CEO of the Packers would go back to the Harlan model and re-institute a power structure where the GM is the singular head of all football operations, and the board remains focused purely on managing the non-football related financial operations. The only time the board intervenes in football operations is if they feel there needs to be a dismissal of the current GM / hire of a new GM.

Doesn’t it really depend on how well what we have fits with how Hafley wants to shape the DL? Typically teams that play 4:3 don’t use massive run stuffers. That’s more a conventional 3:4 trait, though it wasn’t in ours under either Pettine or Barry.

That said, out of base we won’t really be a 4:3 in the conventional sense, and that’s probably a majority of snaps. If Hafley wants to go heavy in those situations then a big DL if the Sweet type could be a need he’s identified. I personally doubt it, but we don’t really know. It would have to be a pretty core element of his philosophy to draft a big run specialist early though.

DL might be the f'rinstance here, but I think where we are fundamentally disagreeing is on roster building. I would argue the object of the first round--or maybe two--of the NFL draft is finding red and blue chip players, regardless of position. If your needs and a player at the top of your board (or in a tier at the top of your board) align, then all the better. Sure, you could trade out, but those options aren't always there. There's drafting for need, then there's drafting a player at a position of need who resides in a group judged to be of similar quality. Young and cheap rookie contracts keep your cap healthy and allow you to find those guys who can play right now and make you significantly better in free agency--read: Xavier McKinney.

"The team gets better by plugging holes, not by cutting one decent player in favor of another."

The draft represents just one avenue toward building a healthy roster. Team-wide, young players on cheap rookie contracts keep your cap healthy and allow you to find those guys who can play right now and make you significantly better in free agency--read: Xavier McKinney--or maybe in trade. It prevents you from needing to pony up big contracts to older guys you might rather trade or let walk. I would argue that if you're drafting almost exclusively for need and relying on a 21 or 22-year-old kid to transition into a grown-man's league and be a difference-maker this year, you're probably not as close to a title as you think you are.

"You will have to cut or trade two or three if you draft a DL with a day one or day two pick to get to the roster number."

Wow! That one pick is going to displace two or three guys? :) Enagbare is likely to miss at least half of 2024. Clark and Slaton are both on expiring contracts. Wooden played limited snaps. Cox couldn't get himself active on game day. People have been begging for P. Smith to be cut or dealt for a couple years (even though I really like him) and question his fit in an even front D. There's plenty of moving pieces here, and plenty yet to be determined. Again, to go back to my statement, I wouldn't let a DL who was topping my draft board at 25 go by based on the finishing 2023 depth chart.

2021 off season. Per Clark, he started that season at 310 pounds and finished at 320. His aim for the 2022 season was to start and finish at 305 in order to get more “twitch”.

It went further than that per Clark, he essentially reworked his body. There’s a long piece about it here, from Tyler Dunne: https://www.golongtd.com/p/kenny-clark-speaks-out-the-best-me