October 13, 2019, 04:40:41 PM

Author Topic: Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants  (Read 2127 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline whiterook87

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Karma: +0/-4
Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants
« on: May 11, 2019, 06:35:29 AM »
LaFleur wasn’t the sole decision-maker when it came to hiring assistant coaches, Tom Silverstein of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/05/11/report-matt-lafleur-didnt-have-full-say-on-hiring-packers-assistants/#comments
You are either part of the solution or part of the problem.

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Karma: +43/-2
Re: Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants
« Reply #1 on: May 11, 2019, 07:29:08 AM »
#1) Rizzi wanted a ton of money to come to green bay, and may have likely wanted to retain his title of assistant head coach which he had in Miami. Even though his interview with MLF went well, his other demands probably didn't sit well with Murph and Ball, and since MLF reports to Murph, it was a no sell. This is one of those instances where Murph's "control" factor may be a negative. However, it was widely rumored that Rizzi wanted to be the highest paid Coordinator/Coach, next to MLF, and I doubt that would have set well with Pettine or Hackett.

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2019/01/21/packers-lose-special-teams-darren-rizzi-coach/

#2) It was "suggested" to MLF to retain Pettine, so the article extrapolates that Pettine IS NOT MLF's guy. There's a lot of guessing in this article regarding that claim. Pettine was retained prior to MLF's hiring because his defense showed progress during the season despite a ton of injuries and having very mediocre talent. Pettine proved that he deserved a chance to improve on that first year, plus, releasing him would have cost another ton of money by having to terminate another high end contract.
If, after meeting with Pettine, MLF had said that he could not work with the man, then they may have considered a change. But we don't/won't know that for sure.
It's probably safe to say that Pettine's defense had better show a very significant jump in improvement this year, especially with all the FA/Draft Capital that has been provided to him this off season.

I think that for a first time HC like MLF, that these were not unreasonable management decisions, given the past issues that grew out of the team corporate structure.

Online ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6140
  • Karma: +65/-20
Re: Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants
« Reply #2 on: May 11, 2019, 11:17:15 AM »
(This was a response in another thread, but it also applies here)

dannobonano, this article is definitely eye opening. Someone should show this to Dunne and tell him, "This is how journalism is supposed to be." A lot of unsourced material, but both sides allowed to comment, so the reader can form their own opinions.

Anyway, it seems that Murphy is effectively the team "owner", with very little interference in how he runs the organization. Also, it seems that MLF , indeed, was effectively told to retain Pettine. Not forced, but "strongly urged" by the guy that hired him. What struck me was the apparent dislike for Ball within the organization. But the "owner" (Murphy) likes him, so he's now the guy who gets more power. Which puts more pressure on Gutekunst not to mess up when drafting.

If the team does indeed underperform again this year, who gets the ax? Does Gutekunst get moved aside for Ball to take over? Does Murphy "suggest" some changes in the coaching staff? Indeed, will MLF be retained? The last time the Packers had a one year coach was Ray Rhodes (Philbin doesn't count, since he wasn't coach for a full season). These are not predictions, but distinct possibilities if the team doesn't make the playoffs with a healthy Rodgers.

Then again, if the team returns to its winning ways, no one will care about who is telling who what, or which "silo" contains which responsibilities.

https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/tom-silversteins-piece-confirms-what-we-already-knew-the-packers-leadership-structure-is
« Last Edit: May 11, 2019, 11:19:02 AM by ricky »
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline dannobanano

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5305
  • Karma: +43/-2
Re: Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants
« Reply #3 on: May 11, 2019, 01:43:12 PM »
The exact quote regarding keeping Pettine was...………….

"Defensive coordinator Mike Pettine was not forced on LaFleur, but the new coach was strongly encouraged to keep him."

I take that as saying they wanted MLF to at least interview Pettine, rather than dismiss him out of hand to bring in another guy he may have had in mind.

Letting Pettine go would have meant the 3rd DC in 3 years, and there may have been an underlying feeling in the organization that doing so may have set progress in improving the defense back even farther.

In the end, MLF did interview Pettine and decided to keep him. If he really felt strongly that he could not work with Pettine, he could have taken that to Murphy and tried to go in a different direction.

I don't see what happened as a mandate to MLF.

The Rizzi deal make me look at Russ Ball as the culrpit for that going south. Ball is the Director of Football Operations which means he would have sway in how to negotiate the contracts for coaches MLF wanted to hire. Rizzi made his contract demands public before coming to Green Bay to interview. Did Ball take offense to a ST's coach telling him how much he had to pay him? Also, did Rizzi also ask to be given the title of Assistant Head Coach (which he had in Miami)? Ball may have been wondering to himself "who is this guy, to be making demands of me?"

In the end, Murphy covered for Ball saying that the Packers did offer Rizzi what he wanted before he left. True? Untrue? I'll leave that up to everyone to decide for themselves.

There's little doubt in my mind that Murphy is grooming Ball to be his eventual successor as team president, at some point. Ball, seriously, got his feathers ruffled when Murphy passed him over in favor of Gute to be GM, and to compensate Ball for that slight, Murphy took away "Football Operations" from Gute and gave them to Ball along with a very large pay raise. Gute thought he was going to assume Ted's job, in it's entirety, but Murphy called him when he was on his way to Houston to tell him he was giving Football Operations to Ball, which would leave Director of Personnel (only) to Gute. Gute still accepted.

Offline happycrawfish

  • Second String
  • **
  • Posts: 61
  • Karma: +3/-0
Re: Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants
« Reply #4 on: May 11, 2019, 02:09:34 PM »
Lafleur interviewed with Pettin as one of his main candidates for defensive coordinator.  He had had a list and Pettin was among the favorites. There was no way for lafleur to know that Pettin would accept the offer to be his dc therefore the need to have a list of other candidates. It was often talked about after Lafleur was hired how he and the packers management both had a common like of Pettin. Clear case of an article trying to create controversy where there doesn’t seem to be much reason or logic to paint that picture. Seems pretty clear both Lafleur and the packers liked Pettin and was part of the reason Lafleur was hired

Online ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6140
  • Karma: +65/-20
Re: Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants
« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2019, 02:24:27 PM »
So, you've just gotten a new job that you've worked for and wanted for a long time. Your boss, the guy who hired you, suggests that perhaps your facial hair might get in the way of dealing with some customers. He foesn't want to tell you what to do, but he strongly suggests you consider being clean shaven. Of course, the choice is yours. You haven't been ordered to shave, it's simply been "strongly suggested". Would you shave or not?

As far as MLF feeling good about Pettine, sure he was. And what about the ST's coach that was (allegedly) not in the first few preferences MLF had? He ended up with a guy that was effectively chosen for him. So, if ST's underperform again, Murphy will step forward and take the blame for the hiring? Murphy seems to be, in fact the defacto "owner" of the Packers. Whether this will mean he'll be like KRaft, or like Jones or Snyder remains to be seen.

This is not to say all is gloom and doom. But the current power grab seems to go against the idea of the executives who run the team having more autonomy, and more like a traditional sports team model, where the owner is the final authority, right or wrong. MLF is Murphy's choice. So is the retention of PEtttine, something I also think is a good idea. But not also the ST's coach. And how far will the meddling/"sugggestions" go in the future? We'll see, but this is something to keep a close eye on.

Then again, if the team wins, who cares?
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline B

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4289
  • Karma: +20/-9
Re: Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants
« Reply #6 on: May 11, 2019, 04:08:44 PM »
Quote

Then again, if the team wins, who cares?
Certainly not me.
The Green Bay Packers never lost a football game.
They just ran out of time.
-Vince Lombardi

Offline OneTwoSixFive

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2421
  • Karma: +20/-10
Re: Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants
« Reply #7 on: May 11, 2019, 05:16:04 PM »
But the current power grab seems to go against the idea of the executives who run the team having more autonomy,  ..................
And how far will the meddling/"sugggestions" go in the future?

I don't see it as a power grab. Sure things changed, but the top of the tree was Mark Murphy............both before and after the shakeup.
I don't see 'meddling' either.
What I do see is that Murphy realised things were not working, and he decided he needed to change things. That's a part of his job, failure would be if we still had the same setup.
(ricky) "Personally, I'm putting this in a box, driving a stake through its heart, firing a silver bullet into its (empty) head, nailing it shut, loading it into a rocket and firing it into the sun. "

(Pink Floyd) "Set the controls for the heart of the sun"

Offline claymaker

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3076
  • Karma: +15/-2
Re: Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants
« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2019, 11:43:14 AM »
I really don't get why they have to put that "power grab and chaos" spin on the story. To me, it comes from years of quiet resentment from a community that feels the team has under achieved. I'm sick of it tbh.

Based on the evidence I gather they are all on the same page.

Contradiction: "When McCarthy heard Ball was going to be Murphy’s pick, a source said, he objected because he wanted an experienced personnel evaluator who would not be averse to signing free agents. He had accepted Thompson’s draft-and-develop philosophy — knowing each year he would be replacing veterans with rookies — because he was loyal to Thompson. But recent weak drafts had made it more necessary to sign free agents." - Later the story points out the 4 free agent signings. Obviously, the talent of the roster had depleted and they needed to make changes. Gutekunst found players and Ball+Murphy agreed on all of them.

Negotiations with Rizzi: We simply do not know the details of that deal. It could have been years/length he didn't like. All we know is they did adjust their offer but he said no. That's on him not Murphy or Ball. It's a business they're allowed to explore options and negotiate.

I'm also curious why they imply it is unprecedented for Ball or Murphy to have their responsibilities and are allowed to do what they feel is best for the organization. If anyone can be easily replaced it's those two. The way their system is setup is similar to other teams. They just don't have an owner, and IMO isn't always a good thing. Sometimes you need someone at the top to make decisions and be held accountable to.

Online ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6140
  • Karma: +65/-20
Re: Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants
« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2019, 02:08:56 PM »
I really don't get why they have to put that "power grab and chaos" spin on the story. To me, it comes from years of quiet resentment from a community that feels the team has under achieved. I'm sick of it tbh.

Based on the evidence I gather they are all on the same page.

Contradiction: "When McCarthy heard Ball was going to be Murphy’s pick, a source said, he objected because he wanted an experienced personnel evaluator who would not be averse to signing free agents. He had accepted Thompson’s draft-and-develop philosophy — knowing each year he would be replacing veterans with rookies — because he was loyal to Thompson. But recent weak drafts had made it more necessary to sign free agents." - Later the story points out the 4 free agent signings. Obviously, the talent of the roster had depleted and they needed to make changes. Gutekunst found players and Ball+Murphy agreed on all of them.

It was loyalty to Thompson that kept them from moving. They showed more concern about the feelings of TT than the needs of the team. IMO

Negotiations with Rizzi: We simply do not know the details of that deal. It could have been years/length he didn't like. All we know is they did adjust their offer but he said no. That's on him not Murphy or Ball. It's a business they're allowed to explore options and negotiate.

To re-clarify, thhis is not about Rizzi. It is how the new ST coach was chosen after Rizzi wasn't hired. Mennenga was (according to the article) not MLF's second, third or fouth choice. This was a guy that Murphy effectively hired, and MLF had no real say in the hiring (again, citing the article). But, not that Pettine knows he has the backing of Murphy, will he feel he has more authority to run the defense as he sees fit? This is pure speculation, but if others are forming their own "silos" (kingdoms?), why shouldn't Pettine follow suit? Just something to keep an eye on.

I'm also curious why they imply it is unprecedented for Ball or Murphy to have their responsibilities and are allowed to do what they feel is best for the organization. If anyone can be easily replaced it's those two. The way their system is setup is similar to other teams. They just don't have an owner, and IMO isn't always a good thing. Sometimes you need someone at the top to make decisions and be held accountable to.

According to the article, a number of people on the executive committee are simply holding seats, and feel lucky to there. Is this a group that would move to replace the guys who are effectively running the team? It seems thay are comfortable with the status quo of having Murphy, effectively, run the team and are taking a passive role. IF the Packers underachieve again this season with a healthy Rodgers, will the committee move to replace Murphy and/or Ball? Who on the board would be the next Parins? The real question being, is Murphy truly going to be held accountable? If, for example, the defense/ST underperform this year, will the committee ask hard questions and demand answers? Something to keep an eye on.

"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline Donzo

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1067
  • Karma: +35/-110
  • Living the Dream
Re: Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants
« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2019, 04:09:48 PM »
LaFleur wasn’t the sole decision-maker when it came to hiring assistant coaches, Tom Silverstein of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

Shees, what nonsense... Exactly where was it stated "LaFleur didn't have final say on hiring assistants"?

Awful story and awful thread.

Online The GM

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2849
  • Karma: +67/-4
Re: Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants
« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2019, 04:20:41 PM »
I have no idea how much say MLF had in selecting his coaches, 

I do think Murphy is positioning himself for his next job.  Perhaps at the NFL HQ level at some point.  If true, I've got no issue with him taking more control of the organization.  I dont blame him, he's the big cheese in the organization during a key transitional period in getting a new GM and HC, and if he wants to have more power he can choose to do that.   Murphy isn't stupid, there's a reason he was with Goodell and others during the last CBA talks.   If he wants to have a hand in who is selected into the organization as coaches, I got no issue with it.  Id trust his judgement as to why he wouldn't want someone in there and whatever reasons why he would possibly veto it.    Murphy is a pretty smart guy,  he didn't just fall off a turnip truck.

       

Online ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6140
  • Karma: +65/-20
Re: Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants
« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2019, 05:56:54 PM »
I have no idea how much say MLF had in selecting his coaches, 

I do think Murphy is positioning himself for his next job.  Perhaps at the NFL HQ level at some point.  If true, I've got no issue with him taking more control of the organization.  I dont blame him, he's the big cheese in the organization during a key transitional period in getting a new GM and HC, and if he wants to have more power he can choose to do that.   Murphy isn't stupid, there's a reason he was with Goodell and others during the last CBA talks.   If he wants to have a hand in who is selected into the organization as coaches, I got no issue with it.  Id trust his judgement as to why he wouldn't want someone in there and whatever reasons why he would possibly veto it.    Murphy is a pretty smart guy,  he didn't just fall off a turnip truck.

     

Faxcinating, the theory of Murphy trying to move up in the heirarchy of the NFL. This makes a lot of sense. Whether Murphy's handling of the team is good or not remains to be seen. As stated earlier, if the team wins, who is going to care? Gave you a "Plus", which is rare for me. Even rarer? "Smites". Maybe one or two at most since this system was instituted. Well deserved, IMO.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2019, 05:58:30 PM by ricky »
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Online The GM

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2849
  • Karma: +67/-4
Re: Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants
« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2019, 06:51:33 PM »
I have no idea how much say MLF had in selecting his coaches, 

I do think Murphy is positioning himself for his next job.  Perhaps at the NFL HQ level at some point.  If true, I've got no issue with him taking more control of the organization.  I dont blame him, he's the big cheese in the organization during a key transitional period in getting a new GM and HC, and if he wants to have more power he can choose to do that.   Murphy isn't stupid, there's a reason he was with Goodell and others during the last CBA talks.   If he wants to have a hand in who is selected into the organization as coaches, I got no issue with it.  Id trust his judgement as to why he wouldn't want someone in there and whatever reasons why he would possibly veto it.    Murphy is a pretty smart guy,  he didn't just fall off a turnip truck.

     

Faxcinating, the theory of Murphy trying to move up in the heirarchy of the NFL. This makes a lot of sense. Whether Murphy's handling of the team is good or not remains to be seen. As stated earlier, if the team wins, who is going to care? Gave you a "Plus", which is rare for me. Even rarer? "Smites". Maybe one or two at most since this system was instituted. Well deserved, IMO.

Thx Ricky, its just a theory that may never come to fruition.   I think he's well liked and respected  at the NFL and around the league owners.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2019, 07:00:50 PM by The GM »

Offline B

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4289
  • Karma: +20/-9
Re: Matt LaFleur did not have final say on hiring assistants
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2019, 04:49:16 AM »
How fitting that Aaron accepted a very small cameo appearance on the Game of Thrones.

I come to this site thinking there will be football discussion and instead find fantastical tales of diabolical scheming and battles for power.  I'm a little confused, so let me make sure I've got this down correctly.

McCarthy went down at the Red Wedding - right? Lombardi lost the Battle of the Bastards? Is LaFleur Jon Snow? Is Winter still coming, or has the Night King been killed?

One thing I am quite certain of is, If Murphy is Cercei, he better look out for anyone showing up with a dragon.

 ::) crazy)
« Last Edit: May 13, 2019, 04:57:48 AM by B »
The Green Bay Packers never lost a football game.
They just ran out of time.
-Vince Lombardi