As far as the Rodgers/Front Office debate, I believe they're are different strategies, and that's the bigger issue.

Where Rodgers is looking more towards the here and now, where the Front office is looking more towards future years, and there is a commutation disconnect there.


Also, the cap issue... where players certain players don't want to be disrespected with a low ball offer, where other players were prefer an offer to stay, even if low ball, over no offer at all. And teams needs to make a decision, and the Packers method seems to be no offer at all, to not disrespect players.


Though, I feel like I personally would probably give low ball offers to the likes of DB Woodson, CB Hayward (I said if he'd take less than $5 million, I'd resign him, and he did, and he went on to play great in zone coverage on another team... ).

But of course, those low ball offers do add up, and maybe can make the one big offer for a FA like Za'darius or Preston Smith, or Amos or someone.




Also, sounded like Packers players, at least the veterans would often play a guessing game, of whom would make the 53 man roster (like us) and Rodgers wouldn't be as close as he expected he would, and with this included the WRs. Where Rodgers trusted a consistent guy like Kumerow, where Packers were looking for upside more than consistency. And while this was coaches and not front office, Rodgers was right about getting Lazard on the field instead of some others, but the WR coach in LaFleaur's first year had to be told to get Lazard on the field for offense.



So I think the main issue, is the different protectives of how to do something, or what to look for. And maybe they didn't talk with players about this, and they just did it.

Which in theory, they don't have to talk with players, but some former front office people have talked about while they didn't have to, they did... like the Colts GM would talk with Peyton Manning.