2021 Packers News, Trades, Transactions - Sternberger Released

[Matches Malone]

Read on Twitter

[nagawicka]

What a pointless and arbitrary quantifier. Who cares that they fell one round short of the AFC title game? They were a 12-4 football team that was by all logic and means one or two moves away from being a championship squad, and in hindsight they correctly invested in a guy who turned out to be arguably the best QB in football instead of listening to the (probably) hordes of dumb casuals that were clamoring for a guy that may or may not have helped them more in his rookie season. I think there's about a 0.0001% chance Love is the next Mahomes, but that's not the **** point. The Chiefs were still contending with Smith as the starter, then nearly became a dynasty once Mahomes took over, because smart organizations look towards both the now and the future. Stop making this an "either or" thing.

Good lord. Alex Smith was a supporting piece; a journeyman. Rodgers is the centerpiece. Who drafts the centerpiece's replacement after the centerpiece led them to the CG?

ALL OF THEM.

[WeekapaugGroove]

Murphy's in a unique position in the League. He's the only Exec who's not an owner or part of an ownership group - to my knowledge. The NFL folks treat him like an owner and expect him to operate like an owner. Now, what that means on an operational level is anybody's guess. What he says for public consumption vs what he does in confines of the office are also anybody's guess.

I'm shocked, shocked I say, to think a top Exec of a major corporation would even consider bending the truth in public...

Yeah, the Packers are the only pro sports franchise structured like this, and will always be the only one because leagues put in rules against it. Someone has to be in charge.

I do foot some of the blame for this situation on Murphy because at a very basic level his job is to protect the Packers from publicly embarrassing ****, and this would qualify as that. So I think he should speed up his upcoming aged out retirement and we should get a new executive to lead this franchise forward.

As far as that executives control, someone has to be the top guy and this person can fire a GM so they are their boss. On the football side of things I don't have a problem with that person basically acting like a normal owner would and having some say in major franchise altering moves. People have this impression that GMs are like little kings who make completely autonomous decisions but that's just not the case, with major moves in any sport the GM is running it by the owner. So I don't have a problem with the Packers operating like that. Again someone has to be in charge of the organization.

As far as the structure of the coach reporting to the GM or the executive/owners honestly I can see advantages to either set up. The argument for that coach reporting to the GM is basically letting the guy who buys the groceries pick and control the cook. That set up can create a more unified vision. But the other set up where the coach reports to an executive instead can create a useful check and balance where that coach is making playing time decisions purely on what is best for the team and not what might be preferred by the GM where their could be pressure to play certain guys to justify a draft slot or money spent in FA. Either set up can work.

Sent from my SM-G986U using RealGM mobile app

[Treebeard]

Murphy's in a unique position in the League. He's the only Exec who's not an owner or part of an ownership group - to my knowledge. The NFL folks treat him like an owner and expect him to operate like an owner. Now, what that means on an operational level is anybody's guess. What he says for public consumption vs what he does in confines of the office are also anybody's guess.

I'm shocked, shocked I say, to think a top Exec of a major corporation would even consider bending the truth in public...

Yeah, the Packers are the only pro sports franchise structured like this, and will always be the only one because leagues put in rules against it. Someone has to be in charge.

I do foot some of the blame for this situation on Murphy because at a very basic level his job is to protect the Packers from publicly embarrassing ****, and this would qualify as that. So I think he should speed up his upcoming aged out retirement and we should get a new executive to lead this franchise forward.

As far as that executives control, someone has to be the top guy and this person can fire a GM so they are their boss. On the football side of things I don't have a problem with that person basically acting like a normal owner would and having some say in major franchise altering moves. People have this impression that GMs are like little kings who make completely autonomous decisions but that's just not the case, with major moves in any sport the GM is running it by the owner. So I don't have a problem with the Packers operating like that. Again someone has to be in charge of the organization.

As far as the structure of the coach reporting to the GM or the executive/owners honestly I can see advantages to either set up. The argument for that coach reporting to the GM is basically letting the guy who buys the groceries pick and control the cook. That set up can create a more unified vision. But the other set up where the coach reports to an executive instead can create a useful check and balance where that coach is making playing time decisions purely on what is best for the team and not what might be preferred by the GM where their could be pressure to play certain guys to justify a draft slot or money spent in FA. Either set up can work.

Sent from my SM-G986U using RealGM mobile app

I'm inclined to agree.

If Gute, LaFleur, and Ball all directly answer to Murphy, then he does play an active role in football operations - even if he only occasionally engages in back-seat driving. Murphy still has de facto veto power. I'll give Murphy credit for his stewardship on the community and public business side of the operation, but that's as far as I'll go. I don't know where the train jumped the tracks in the current Rodgers hoohah, but Murphy's the guy at the top of the food chain, so he certainly has some responsibility here, however it plays out.

[M-C-G]

Can you acknowledge that Valdez Scantling and Jimmy Graham were sub par receivers? Or is that completely off the table?

And I won't acknowledge a stat that says 1/3rd of a QB's dropbacks were bad plays when said QB throws for 4400 yards and 4 picks.

Seriously Davante was injured for 4 games in 2019. Aaron Rodgers had Valdez Scantling, Geronimo Allison, Allen Lazard and Jake Kumrow in those 4 games.

Ok, so you are answer is clear, you will not acknowledge any drop off in his play.

I could just as easily make the case there was enough talent and a good enough system around Rodgers to allow him to get to the 4000 yards with Adams missing 4 games.
Week 5 - Aaron Jones has 107 rushing 75 receiving and 4TD
Week 6 - just an ugly win
Week 7 - Rodgers goes for 429 and 5TD to 5 different guys
Week 8 - Rodgers goes for 300 and 3TD with the RB combining for 173 receiving with 3TD

So I am not buying this narrative he is dragging along a bunch of bums, there is talent there. What is hard for people to see is that this offense is so predicated on very specific roles to make it work, and you don't necessarily need a high end talent as much as you need a guy that perform that particular role at a high level. It is also why I was wrong when I yelled we need a high end WR in the previous years draft, turns out we didn't, turns out we had all the right role players on the roster and when you fit those together, you have more than enough talent, in this system.

After I said that Rodgers wasn't that bad and point to Yards, TDs and INTs even with terrible WRs. The you say he was because of this ridiculous "bad play" notion. Which I would love to see how and who grades this.

Did you now use Yards, TDs and INT's to prove that Aaron played well with his ass hat of WRs? What about the bad plays? I mean in the 4 games on 150 drop backs he had to have at least 60 right?

What a joke.

So RS gave you the calculation for Bad plays and you either didn't read it or you just didn't like it, so which was it? Thought it laid it out pretty clearly.

I am beginning to think you either have too many arguments going on or you just aren't trying to even consider what is being presented because you just don't want to change your opinion which would be fine, if you would come out and say it. It seems your argument would be something like a.) bad plays are just arbitrary scores dictated by PRO MANAGEMENT fans (it's not, it is a series of outcomes on plays, and yes, Rodgers graded the worst) and b.) MVS as the third WR doesn't give him the weapons passing he needs, he is doing all this great work IN SPITE of the roster, where as I laid out an argument we have a bunch of guys on this offense that are role players other than Adams and all chip in the passing game

I think you think, I think Rodgers isn't good or he is bad, that is untrue. I said he was in decline statistically, some examples;
Stat 2017, 2018, 2019
QBR(traditional) 97, 97.6, 95.4
QBR (ESPN) 66, 58, 52.5
Comp % 64.7, 62.3, 62
Y/A 7.0, 7.4, 7.0 (career 7.8)

Stat 2018, 2019, 2020 (for comparison to see how he was doing before when he bought in to MLF system in 2020)
Sacks 49, 36, 20
Hurry 90, 57, 33
Hits 38, 45, 28
Pressure 177, 138, 81
Throw Away 48, 31, 28
Bad Throws (as defined by Pro Football Ref) 106, 114, 69
Bad Throw % 19.4, 21.2, 13.8

This will demonstrate he was holding on to the ball too long trying to make bigger plays happen and he was getting crushed because of it. When you look at the 2020 numbers it shows you he bought into the offense and it frankly will extend his career because the way he was playing wasn't going to last before he got killed by the defense.

I did find some average time to throw or leave the pocket data once, that demonstrated the difference in him trying to make big plays and how much that was getting him killed, resulting in holds or throw aways, I'll see if I can dig that up.

So all this to say, Rodgers was not bad, by any means, but Rodgers in 2017-2019 was extremely risk adverse, extremely unwilling to 'take what was there' resulting in free lance play that led to tons of 'bad plays' as defined by other outlets, resulting in tons of pressures, sacks, hits, hurries, throw aways and bad throws. If you couple this with him being 36, not looking very healthy moving around and questions about losing his arm strength from the collarbone injuries, ON TOP of not seeming to jive with the new coach and the new system in 2019, and yeah, there were plenty of reasons to think succession planning was a good idea. Also plenty of reasons to believe he was more likely to be injured than bounce back to an MVP season (which I am not saying you said, but people saying it was more likely than him getting hurt is about the most revisionist history I have seen on Real GM).

[M-C-G]

And going through all that, I know the answer will be to blame everyone but Rodgers, but hey, I tried.

[MickeyDavis]

Murphy has MLF report directly to him but yeah he's not involved in the football side. Come on now.

[M-C-G]

Murphy has MLF report directly to him but yeah he's not involved in the football side. Come on now.

I wouldn't be shocked if he isn't in the day to day stuff, but 'should we use a first round pick to draft the QB of the future', you better believe he had to sign off on that in my opinion. Which after the whole Favre/Rodgers thing, makes it all the stranger he didn't go sit down with Aaron man to man and lay out that we were at least thinking about doing it.

Murphy handled this like crap and then created even worse situation with his whole 'no comment' thing.

[MickeyDavis]

Before a game a few years ago, the home opener, some friends and I were tailgating before the game. All of a sudden we saw Murphy walking down the street. No one seemed to recognize him but we did. We called him over, he stopped and chatted for 2-3 minutes. He said he was coming from a breakfast with some of the alumni (alumni players are always honored at halftime of the first game). Cool.

[Reddeye]

Would you guys like this trade? From a Broncos reporter

Read on Twitter

[th87]

So MM needed to go and should have gone long before he did ... and the failure to get rid of MM lies with ... Rodgers not Packer management?

And when it became "obvious that Rodgers' play and public on-field spats were the tipping points" that finally lead to MM's overdue firing then Rodgers gets blame for that outcome as well, not Packer management that allowed MM to stay around longer than he should have?

Man it is must be great to work in Packer management where you can (1) neglect your duties by not firing a coach who needed to be "gone long before" he was finally let go, (2) ignore that the General Manager's health has deteriorated to the point that he is not capable of fulfilling his responsibilities for several years, (3) not make a Super Bowl for 10 years with the best QB of that era, (4) draft the QB's successor while the QB is still playing MVP football ... and much of the fan base will blame the QB for being upset with the organization and, better yet, blame the QB for the team's inability to reach the Super Bowl.

In Packer Management we must trust.

This needs to be discussed more.

You guys realize that Gute was only hired as GM in 2018 and that Murphy has nothing to do with the football side, right?

Then who was in charge of TT? The board? So we had Roundys' executives asleep while our dogmatic and unswayable football operations guy slips into (kind of obvious now) mental decline?

Well that's much more reassuring.

[WeekapaugGroove]

Murphy has MLF report directly to him but yeah he's not involved in the football side. Come on now.

I wouldn't be shocked if he isn't in the day to day stuff, but 'should we use a first round pick to draft the QB of the future', you better believe he had to sign off on that in my opinion. Which after the whole Favre/Rodgers thing, makes it all the stranger he didn't go sit down with Aaron man to man and lay out that we were at least thinking about doing it.

Murphy handled this like crap and then created even worse situation with his whole 'no comment' thing.

Yeah Murphy or whomever is in that seat is the top of the organization and when it comes to large franchise altering things they are going to be involved.

There's nuance to this. He's not going to be involved in adding a backup G but as you mentioned something like drafting a QB in the first round is something he would at least know about and have input on because that's a major move. It's no different than any other owner on any team in sports. The Packers set up is unique but at the end of the day someone needs to be in charge. The difference between the Packers in charge person and a regular owner is if they **** up there's a board who can replace them (which would be nice to have with some other owners).

Same lines when it comes to coaching. MLF shouldn't be running things like who is gunner on punt coverage would be by him but say he wanted to bench Rodgers, that would be something that requires a meeting with Murphy.


I should note a GM should not have absolute control in any organization. There needs to be checks and balances because at the end of the day a GM wants to keep his job and could engage in short sited moves that help that cause (like trading a bunch of future picks) but hurt the long term health of the franchise. You need someone who's main purpose is the big picture health of the organization. With that said the owner/executive should hire a GM that is competent and they trust and they trust to make those decisions.


Sent from my SM-G986U using RealGM mobile app

[M-C-G]

Then who was in charge of TT? The board? So we had Roundys' executives asleep while our dogmatic and unswayable football operations guy slips into (kind of obvious now) mental decline?

Well that's much more reassuring.

I am remembering a similar discussion from a few years back, might have been on here or between me and my buddies. We came to the conclusion that TT's draft and develop model was sufficient along with the 2010 super bowl win to let him run the football side, we had a strong staff underneath him, TT was well regarded, etc. I believe the board told Murphy, Titletown is the future of this organization and will expand revenue streams, make it a destination 365 days a year, let TT do his thing, you shake every hand you need to get Titletown built. Whenever that is done, if you don't want to retire yet, we can integrate you more in to the football side.

I also suspect Murphy didn't really want to get that engaged at first, but when all the fallout from how the last few years of TT went, and everyone was blaming everyone else, he felt like he had to do something different and hence the Coach direct reports to him for the first time (I believe) in his career. Maybe he got a taste for it or maybe he just has time to kill, so I'd guess he has gotten progressively more involved, to what end and to what extent I am not sure. But as I mentioned before, selecting the next first round QB, yeah, I 100% believe he had to be on board with that or it wasn't happening.

[M-C-G]

Would you guys like this trade? From a Broncos reporter

Read on Twitter

Speaking for me, it would probably take something like this because you have to assume those first rounders will all be late. If they trade for Rodgers they are obviously going all in and assuming Rodgers plays at least three more years, those picks are going to be toward the end of the first.

Versus had we done a deal with San Fran THIS year, we could have had the third pick plus other goodies. Could have traded down, gotten Surtain and a future first and second on top whatever else SF gave up. That's why him coming back and having another MVP level season in GB would be huge. Gives us one more shot to get over the hump, gives some time to re-evaluate everything and if he gets hurt, well, he still has trade value just not as high.

[humanrefutation]

I think we should get a Harden level package for him.

Three firsts and four pick swaps over the next 7 years - plus an ascending young talent. I know we don't have the Stepien rule in the NFL, but I'd take some pick swaps for the post-Rodgers era.

[MickeyDavis]

I think we should get a Harden level package for him.

Three firsts and four pick swaps over the next 7 years - plus an ascending young talent. I know we don't have the Stepien rule in the NFL, but I'd take some pick swaps for the post-Rodgers era.

I don't recall ever seeing future pick swaps in the NFL. I wonder if it's allowed or if it's been done and I just haven't noticed it.

[RRyder823]

I think we should get a Harden level package for him.

Three firsts and four pick swaps over the next 7 years - plus an ascending young talent. I know we don't have the Stepien rule in the NFL, but I'd take some pick swaps for the post-Rodgers era.

I don't recall ever seeing future pick swaps in the NFL. I wonder if it's allowed or if it's been done and I just haven't noticed it.

I don't think there allowed like the NBA but I'm sure you could use conditional picks that could are worded in a way to make it work I suppose but those are normally tied to the player and his success with the new team and not team record

Sent from my SM-G975U using RealGM mobile app

[humanrefutation]

I think we should get a Harden level package for him.

Three firsts and four pick swaps over the next 7 years - plus an ascending young talent. I know we don't have the Stepien rule in the NFL, but I'd take some pick swaps for the post-Rodgers era.

I don't recall ever seeing future pick swaps in the NFL. I wonder if it's allowed or if it's been done and I just haven't noticed it.

I know you can do conditional trades in the NFL; not sure why that condition couldn't include a pick swap if the other team has a better pick.

[MartyConlonOnTheRun]

I'm pretty confused by the congnitive dissonance by some who insist this is all just made up by the media.

Guys, Rodgers has a Twitter account or he could pick up the phone and get on any show of his pleasing and make a statement ending this in a heartbeat. The fact he hasn't pretty much confirms what's out there.

Sent from my SM-G986U using RealGM mobile app

Rodgers has never indicated he would like to leave Green Bay.
Rodgers has never asked to be traded.
Should Rodgers come to the media and say "I'm not happy being a lame duck QB this coming year and would like to add some security in my position as QB. After an MVP season I think I have the Packers in a position where I have the negotiating leverage to do so?"

Probably won't go to well, so I'm sure he's trying to keep it as quiet as possible.

That is exactly what he should say. Say I really want to finish my career as a Packer and want the Packers to commit to me for 3 more years. I don't think many packers fans would be upset that the guy is using his leverage to stay a Packer. Problem is, I don't think that is the situation. I bet there is some kind of combination of either wanting to be highest player, large guaranteed long-term contract, getting his enemies fired or if not all of the above, using it as an excuse to get out of GB without looking like he wanted to get out of GB.

[TroyD92]

trading him during the draft made a lot of sense. Trading him now doesnt make as much sense unless you get surtain + a hoard of picks over the next few years.