PeaveyFury

I think this is spot on. Perez has value to the team in the versatile bench role that he's designed to play at a modest cost. It's when the cost is no longer modest or the role involves starting at one position that he's not the player you want in that role. I have zero doubt that Perez is valuable to this team, but it isn't as an expected starter.

Yeah, this doesn't play well here. If you have something you wish to share, please feel free to do it. If not, please keep your 'info' to yourself. We won't tolerate this 'I have a secret' stuff here.

I think if they move Anderson, it would be about 80% motivated by salary space.

It's also worth noting that for a team that is believed to be near the top end of their budget for payroll, this move shifts that $2million from the draft budget to the current budget, meaning they could use it to sign/acquire another player. That assumes that Claudio's $1.3million would have been spent on a LOOGY anyway, which is likely the case.

I'd be fine with a not-old quality versatile 2B on a multi-year deal. Like Marwin Gonzalez. Not sure if anybody else fits the bill. Jurickson Profar I think he meant Free Agents, as Profar would cost more than just money.

The fact that he's really successful in the role they acquired him to be successful in, I'd think.

His numbers were really good the two previous full-ish seasons he has. At 27, with team/cost control and the fact that he was above replacement level even last year, this fits a need. Whether it's worth a pick is yet to be seen, but I'm betting the Brewers feel they bought low on him. He was really good in 2016-17.

Unless participants on one side or the other of this debate has been able to review financial statements for the organization, let's just remember that both sides are expressing opinions and speculation, not facts. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if either is true.

John DiFilippo, the Vikings OC, was a hot name as a potential future HC, and I saw him mentioned as a candidate for the Packers' job. I'm not sure anyone has done less with as much talent as the Vikings offense has this year.

Probably that giving up the bulk of your next two drafts for one player when you have more than one hole to fill is a bad idea when you didn't have the cap room this year to sign him to the deal that Chicago could. Mack is the type of trade you make if you feel you're one player away, but I don't think anyone would claim that the Packers are in that position. The good news is that they have the capital to address multiple holes and depth in the draft and free agency this year and can likely reload fairly quickly if they do that correctly. If they had acquired Mack, they would have filled one hole with an all-pro caliber talent, but also eliminated much of their draft capital and half of their cap space, probably keeping 3-4 holes on the team and not building the depth they need on the o-line, etc.

Because those results would largely be against worse teams than the Packers- Atlanta, the Jets, and Detroit should all end up picking ahead of Green Bay next Spring. If they win all four convincingly, though, including at Chicago, I'm sure they'd at least consider the idea.

No, seems like this made sense for all involved. One of those trades that everyone had a different objective and it accomplished them for all teams.

Since I’m 95% sure this thread was meant to be either tongue-in-cheek or trolling, I’m closing it down. If this was meant for serious discussion, the original poster can PM me and we’ll consider re-opening. Edit: I've been told that the poster wants to have a serious discussion on this, so I'm re-opening. Please keep it civil!

Maybe there isn’t actually a problem? I don’t know why so many people are on Murphy or Rodgers here. They’ve made it clear that Gute will have input on the hire, and Rodgers won’t be involved in the process. Until they’ve proven that they’ve screwed those up, don’t they at least deserve the chance to let the process play out?

Yep. It's amazing that it doesn't even get talked about, honestly. Winning causes a lot of things to be forgotten.

Thanks, and I think this is fair too. I hope they hire the right guy wherever he comes from, not just whoever the hot name is. Mike Sherman and Mike McCarthy weren't hot names, but they were pretty good fits.

Extremely small sample size. Isn't that telling in and of itself? Probably dozens of guys that were qualified for NFL jobs over the past couple of decades, and there aren't many that got an NFL calling. Is it because NFL GMs don't think the game translates well between those levels? It really is the guys like Carroll who cut their teeth in the NFL, have success in the NCAA, then come back and have some NFL success. The guys with the 'innovative college offenses' haven't jumped well, historically.

Though true, didn't the 49ers only go 1-0 with Young, the 2nd of the two HOF QB's? That's where the Packers are with Rodgers as well. Really, isn't that telling the Wolf/Sherman should have gotten more out of Favre? Kidding, of course. Well, kind of.

Matt LaFleur, Dan Campbell (or much of the New Orleans offensive staff), Kafka, and McDaniels would be of interest to me. I agree with SeaBass that I'm wary of the college guys as well. Honest question, with high-profile, high-success college guys like Saban, Spurrier, and Chip Kelly flopping in the NFL, who is the last college guy to come in and succeed in the NFL? Jim Harbaugh?

I agree with the decision to let McCarthy go, but stuff like this starts to lose me. I think fans that constantly call for change usually get ignored because they're like the guy at a football watch party that yells 'watch the fake' before every punt.... he's wrong 99% of the time, but he relishes looking like a genious the one time each season he's right. Not every game is lost because of coaching. Not every high draft pick is an all-pro. 31 teams in the NFL finish the year disappointed. The Packers have been on a stretch of success that isn't exceeded by any other franchise except for the Patriots. Yeah, it's time for a fresh start on this staff. But the guys who have been let go over the past 11 months deserve a lot of credit for building and maintaining that success even if their success caused them to be held onto a bit too long. Should they have won more? Maybe. But how many other teams wonder that as well? It's a question with an unprovable answer. Yeah, the roster has deteriorated over the past few seasons. Partially due to aging talent, partially due to bad drafting, partially due to drafting to (correctly, IMO) try and fix the defense at the expense of the offensive talent. Is that McCarthy's fault? Not by himself, certainly not. But just like in 2005, you addressed the issue in the F.O. and gave the coach a year to stay on and it ended up not working out. With a new face in the F.O., as with Thompson, this offseason is likely to put more of Gute's stamp on the direction of the franchise than the 1st did. Time for a fresh start with a new face on the sideline. I only hope it works out as well or better this time as it did in '05... with us in the NFC Championship game two seasons later.

Holmgren and MM were QB coaches, and not safe picks- each won a SB rather quickly. I dismiss the "HC experience" qualification, there a lot of bright guys out there who would have no problem being a great HC from day one. Both Holmgren and MM were QB coaches, but both were OC's immediately prior to becoming Head Coaches.

No. But if you’re going to fire a HC midseason then why is Thompson still working in your player personnel and being tossed in the HOF as a rush job? Because he likely has early stage dimentia and they're doing it while he can appreciate it.

I think this is all very fair and accurate. As I said last week, I have no doubt he'll end up in a place like Cleveland and will have success next year. But it is time for a change in Green Bay. There will be lots of debate about whether he should have coached out the year, but I guess I have no strong opinion on that. I agree with this as well.

I’ll never root for the Packers to lose, but we’re at the point in the season that when it happens, it’s viewed in draft slots. Win/win, I suppose.

Serious question, when was the last time the defense forced a turnover?