Yeah, and I'm still not sure how much say McCarthy has in the GM hiring. Only Murphy can truly answer that.
Well, as far as I know they're under contract, so they can't leave this year without the Packers' permission. And if Ball is hired you have to think at least one of them will become his top personnel guy in the organization. That would be a good job with a strong voice in the decision making. Maybe both would get big promotions and raises. So there's opportunity there. On the other side, one or both could feel slighted and want out. I don't know if the Packers would let them leave this year, but if not maybe one or both would get out as soon as their contracts are up. I can't say how either would take it if passed over.
He would have final say. I'd assume his top personnel adviser would have a really strong voice, maybe even make the picks. But Ball would have final say.
It's winning the Super Bowl. That should be a realistic goal every year Rodgers is here. That's not to say they should win it every year, but they should be in the running every year, and really they need to win another one pretty soon.
At least on the face of it, I don't see it being an issue. Thompson is not a intrusive guy, he doesn't have a big ego, I just can't see him getting involved any more than he's asked.
They definitely could make a compelling case to keep him, but if they do and the team does well, I doubt he'd last long before another team would hire him as GM. The Packers aren't the only good GM job out there, I'm sure there a plenty of GM jobs he couldn't say no to if offered.
It would't create excitement, but that shouldn't be a consideration, because that wears of fast and what matters is performance. He would make the transition easier because he already has such a strong voice in so much of how the team is run. I personally don't think that's a good enough reason to hire someone, what matters is how they'll perform in the new role, and who is the best person for the new role regardless of the transition.
Good question and one I don't know because I don't know Ball's philosophy. Thompson trained under Ron Wolf but had a much, much different approach than Wolf on free agency and trades, etc. Ball no doubt has been influenced by Thompson. But I don't know if he's in lock-step with Thompson on roster building or if he would do things differently. That's what Murphy needs to find out in interviews if he doesn't already know regarding not only Ball but Wolf and Gutekunst too.
A couple of people have asked that, and I have to say I'm not seeing it. I don't know why they'd make the change. Murphy essentially fired Thompson without using that word, made it pretty clear as far as I could see that it was time to move on. So I'm not seeing it. I can see why you wonder, but everything I've seen and heard both in press conferences and talking to people privately, that's not at all what's happening here.
I don't even know what outside candidates they're considering other than Doug Whaley's name came up. I'd guess he's to satisfy the Rooney Rule. Of the in-house guys, I'd hire Wolf or Gutekunst, whichever one Murphy thinks will be the better GM. The reason I'd do that is the history of scouts who have come up through this organization and done well in GM roles: Thompson, McCloughan, McKenzie, Dorsey. It doesn't guarantee the next one will do well, but it's a history that's hard to ignore. As for whether it should be Wolf or Gutekunst, I don't have a strong opinion. I hear really good things about both of them from people who have worked here in the past. Some people I talk to like one a little more, some like the other a little more. Both are well thought of. Wolf has the higher title, so that suggests he was Thompson's top adviser.
A lot of surprise because they've been so stable for so long.
No doubt they can. They were a bona fide contender before Rodgers got hurt -- I remember seeing at the time, the week after the Packers beat Dallas, NE had the best SB odds and the Packers were second. Even with a healthy Rodgers I think they would have had trouble with Atlanta or New Orleans, especially if they'd had to play them on the road. And the King injury might have done them in because they were so thin in the secondary as it was, and that left them playing a safety (Burnett) playing as their nickel cornerback. But sure, look at New Orleans. The Saints were 7-9 three straight seasons, then hit big on two draft picks (Lattimore and Kamara) and suddenly they've got a great shot at winning it all. There's no reason the Packers shouldn't be serious contenders next year.
Randall for sure, he's still on his rookie contract and played well the second half of the season. Matthews likely but I'd have to think with a new, cheaper contract. Burnett is a tougher call. He's 28 if I remember right, not young. Maybe let him test the market and see what the price is.
I'd think they're attractive. GM has to be really attractive, one of the best GM jobs in the league. You have total control over football with no interference from an owner who might have another agenda, and you have a great QB who still has, what, six to eight good years left? Plus all the resources go into football. What's not to like about that? The DC job should be pretty attractive too. The change at GM might be a concern because it could affect McCarthy's job security. But Rodgers, again, is a great selling point, because the chances of winning are so great. Also, if the new DC comes in and does well, and McCarthy and the new GM don't work out, then the DC could be a candidate for the head coaching job, or at minimum the new coach (if he's an offensive guy) would be inclined to keep him. So plenty of reasons for a lot of people to want this DC job.
I'd think Philbin and McAdoo are OC possibilities -- Philbin was Indy's OL coach but Pagano was fired so I'd think the Colts would let Philbin go (I haven't seen that they fired the entire staff). For DC, I just saw the other day that Gus Bradley is a free agent, I didn't realize he signed only a one-year deal with the Los Angeles Chargers. And of course Vic Fangio is an excellent candidate also.
That's a good question. The Rodgers' injury drove home that the team overall isn't as strong as it was in '09, '10, '11. Things had been the same for so long I think there was something of a stale feeling. The defense just wasn't getting much better despite all the efforts over a six- or seven-year period. Regardless of the Rodgers' injury it was time to move on from Thompson, he's about to turn 65 and has had a good run as GM, but he was slowing down and you could see the job was taking a toll on his health. So a lot of things kind of came to a head at once. Things happen so fast in this league. Probably that way in a lot of businesses, can be that way in journalism, for instance. But things really change fast in the NFL.
Yeah, he obviously felt like his voice wasn't being heard in personnel decisions.
A quick on-the-field question. After seeing Williams and Jones, it's clear that Montgomery is not a real running back. He can do RB stuff and as a last resort in '16 did a good job, but he's not an RB from what I saw. So I'd think he'll go back to being more of a receiver, though really his value will be that when he's in the game the defense doesn't know where he's going to line up.
I know he's highly respected and I think I just that he signed a new contract for like $2.5 million a year or something like that. But he doesn't have any NFL experience as a player or coach, so that strikes me as too big a jump. I could be wrong, but I'd think to go from college DC to NFL DC you'd have to have NFL experience somewhere in your background. I could be wrong but that's what I'd think.
I can't imagine they'd keep him as a No. 3. It's a No. 2 or nothing. I'd guess they'll bring in another veteran and draft a developmental guy in the later rounds. Either Hundley or the other vet would be the No. 2, and the draft pick would either be on the 53 or practice squad unless he just bombed out.
You can make that argument. But I strongly suspect Wolf and Gutekunst would have a much different philosophy than Thompson about adding players from other teams.
It's a highly attractive job for GMs for reasons stated earlier. Schneider also is from De Pere, which is a suburb of Green Bay (and not the other way around as all my friends rom De Pere think), so I have to think it's his dream job. But I also have to think that he took himself out of the running by signing that contract extension with Seattle last year. And look at what's happening to McKenzie in Oakland. Raiders owner Mark Davis is going to hire Jon Gruden above him. That wouldn't happen in Green Bay as long as the team operates as it has the last 25 years, as Murphy has stated it will.
Ball also has a long relationship with Murphy. As the VP of football administration I think he has a lot of daily contact with Murphy, probably more than anyone else on the football side.
Like Murphy said, he can't be less accessible. You would hope he would be a lot more accessible. Nothing says a GM has to talk publicly much, but I think there's a higher degree of responsibility with the Packers because of the public ownership structure and even the public money that helped refurbish the stadium back in the late '90s. This place is different than the rest of the league, for better and worse, and I think the GM owes it to the fans to comment publicly on his decisions a lot more than Thompson did. You can be more forthcoming without giving away state secrets.
Just to let you know there are so many questions and I go through them so fast that I usually don't look at the names. Also, I start with the earliest questions, and they're submitted before the chat starts, and I think those people submit multiple questions. I'll try to pay more attention but can't make any promises. Trust me, many of the questions are essentially the same, so hopefully even if it's not your submission, your question is answered.
OK, this will have to do it, lots going on and have other duties to get to. But thanks everybody for coming by, lots of excellent questions. I guess for starters I'd say that this is a successful franchise so I'd disagree that there's been a lack of success. If Rodgers hadn't gotten hurt the Packers still would be playing and might be a real SB contender, though as I said earlier the injuries at an already thin CB position might have done them in. Also, Thompson had the final say. So just because these internal candidates worked for him doesn't mean they'd do things like he did. The track record of others scouts who've left here and become GMs is good. So that's why I'd stick with it. Look at all the guys from Belichick who have gone on. What's their track record after leaving NE? Not so hot. Dimitroff has built a good team in Atlanta but was on the hot seat only two years ago and barely squeaked into the playoffs this year. Who else, front office or coaching for that matter, has done well after leaving Belichick? So I don't think it's provincial for the Packers to look in-house. I get what you're saying that somebody from the outside could bring a new perspective, not dismissing that, it's a valid point. But who's better qualified? Scott Pioli? Any other GM retreads? And why would somebody else's up-and-comer be a better bet than the Packers' up-and-comers? Nothing guarantees success but at least the Wolf tree has a good track record. Like a scout from another team told me yesterday about whether the Packers should stay in-house, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Thanks again everybody. There will be plenty of news coming, so keeping checking back to PackersNews.com, our guys Tom Sileverstein, Michael Cohen, Ryan Wood and Aaron Nagler will be on top of everything. We'll chat again next week, should be plenty new to discuss. Take care.