Management changes at Packers headquarters pose risk of separating franchise from it's small-town roots 




Is it just me or does it seem that there is more in this article that is being left unsaid, than is actually SAID in the article?
Sounds almost like there's someone unhappy behind the scenes in the organization...

---

much to do about nothing.


If the Packers HAVE to hire someone with ties to GB or Wisconsin they are limiting their ability to bring quality people into the organization. The same as if they could only bring in local players. That was fine in 1919 or 1925 but times changed on the field and in the corp offices. To remain competitive they must be allowed to look outside the borders of the 30th State in the Union.

They will always have a unique situation/relationship with the citizens of GB but it will not always be the same as it was in the 1950-60s.

---

Wow, is that kind of corporate overhead really necessary to fielding a competitive team?

---

You mean they don't need two coffee-runners for each coach?

---

Read a chopped up version of this article on PFT, the full article in the link above really gives you a different feel for things.

I just read the whole article and it doesn't sound that bad. It's just a piece about how the management style is changing from small-town/mom-and-pop-store to corporate America. I've been through changes like this in my professional career. It's not all bad, but change can be painful.

---

Size-wise, the Packers may be at the hardest level to make work organizationally, that in-between level where you have 100-1000 employees. On the one hand, you need more administration than a small company, but on the other hand, you can't go creating all the admin slots that bigger enterprises need to get things done.

A 5-fold increase in admin employees in under 15 years -- that's scary to me. On the other hand, the NFL marketplace is far more complicated than it was even 15 years ago.

---

This looks good. We are "keeping up with the times". We need to be progressive and agressive to compete in an agressive league, especially the Snyders and Jones of the the league. I would hate to go back to the Parin's type management when they wouldn't spend a dime "because we are so lucky to have a team" that they were going backwards as an organization and had bad teams. In my mind the person responsible for our immediate past success and the success we enjoy now is Bob Harlan. He did a masterful job of managing what he should and let the "football people" manage what they should. Not only that, but he set us up the future. He made a mistake with John Jones, corrected it and got us two very good people in Mark Murphy and Ted Thompson. If Harlan gives any advice in the future I hope they heed it.

---