What do you think about this?

---

Sounds like Elliot leaked the story. Ted doesn't like leakers.

But it's not like Ted hasn't given the kid chances this entire time. I mean, wtf.

---

Wouldn't be surprised. I thought about posting the story here but since it is a McGinn I didn't bother.

---

I've read that those close to Ted Thopmson don't see him retiring soon. If that's true and he's blocking people (which btw every, EVERY team does), I think it's shady business.

HOWEVER ... maybe Thompson is protecting some of them? Maybe he knows Wolf is a few more years away from being ripe for a General Manager position and is doing this out of the best long-term interest for Wolf?

I know that's not the sexy story as it doesn't elicit deceit and hate and turmoil, but it's just as possible.

---

"Look Elliot, I know you may hate me now, but this is for your own good. For Gods sake, it's DETROIT!"

In all seriousness, there's also letting someone who's been moved up the ranks of your organization go to a division rival

---

I think, "What's the big deal?", this is standard procedure, you don't let division rivals steal a GM or HC from you!. The Packers have blocked every single request from the Bears, Lions and Vikings that they could, and to that I say GREAT F'N JOB! And the Lions probably knew that because even requesting for an interview.

Besides, if the Lions REALLY wanted Eliot Wolf, then they didn't need to get the Packers permission. I believe the NFL rule is that, teams can hire ANY non-HC/GM for their own HC/GM spot IF they give that person the official full control of the final 53 man roster.

So I believe if the Lions would have been willing to offer the official full control of the final 53 man roster to Eliot Wolf, then they didn't even need the Packers permission to interview Eliot. And they could of and would of, gotten the rejection straight from Eliot himself... don't forget the Packers have let non-divisional teams ask Eliot for an interview and Eliot has reportedly always turned them down.

Eliot wants to be in line for possibility getting the Packers GM job. Mark Murphy has already stated that Thompson has his own deadline in stepping down in sight (if that's one year or five years, we still don't know, but Eliot is young and get wait it out).


This is a non-story because it's a divisional rival though. You simply don't let divisional rivals interview your guys when you can help it.

---

Didn't we just promote him in the past year?

---

We wouldn't let Favre go to the Vikings, so why let Wolf go to the Lions?
Wolf seems talented, so why would the Packers want him to possibly improve the Lions?
It's business. It might suck for Wolf, but it is what it is.

---

Here is what I truly think, based on the promotion  recently of Wolf, is that Ted will probably never truly retire in the near future, but I could see him stepping away from the GM position and into one more based on what he seems to enjoy, scouting.

Call it a adviser role... or a consultant... but I can see him moving out of the fray that comes along with the GM position and letting a protege take the reigns. They are not trying to retain Wolf for the fun of it... and it doesn't fit that they are truly "blocking" him. Look at the front office talent that has moved on, with the high praise and support, from this front office to run other clubs.

Lets be honest here.. Wolf is only 34 years old, really has been working his way through the ranks since 2004, but has spent 4 years officially scouting talent and and been assisting pro personnel for the balance of his time.. now he will cut his teeth a bit at Director of Football Operations. By the way, that is a relative rare position in the NFL, but based on how it is leveraged in college ball, it is basically a General Manager. I don't think that title is by accident, I am guessing that they are already shifting some duties to him to allow him to expose him to more of the business side directly. For comparison sake.. Sashi Brown and Mike Tannenbaum hold the same titles, the former running the Browns currently.


Young man has been invested in Green Bay for most of his life... I figure he is anxious to take over a club, but in the end should wait out his time here. Legacy seems important to him, what better place to carry on that family legacy?

---

I dunno.

It's one thing telling a guy he can't take the Packers' scouting database and similar stuff with him. (Assuming an agreement to that effect was signed by Wolf when hired and each time promoted. It's another telling a guy he can't put his body and his brain to work in a job that fits him and his aspirations better.

I understand why Ted would want to keep him away from that division rival. Employers *always* value keeping key employees away from the competition. Since the rules of the NFL allow him to do so, I see why he said no.

The question, however, is whether he should be able to do so. One question is whether the NFL should have such a rule allowing him to do so. Another, bigger, question, is whether the state (via the D of Justice's enforcement of anti-trust rules, say) should allow the NFL to allow him to do so. I would argue that the state has a constitutional obligation to enforce and protect the people's right of economic association, and, despite how often it ignores that obligation, that obligation is among its most important.

In my opinion, the most problematic of employment rules are those that effectively operate to limit the mobility of the employee. In my opinion, few freedoms are more important than the freedom to exercise one's natural rights of association and travel. Who I decide to work for is an act of association on my part. And if I'd rather associate with people in location X, I'm going to want to travel.

And in my opinion, the right to associate in economic ways is at least as important as the right to politically associate. After all, most of us believe that political power depends on our economic influence; to the extent that rules restrict how I choose my economic associations, the rules also limit my potential political power. And, in my opinion, to the extent that the state fails to enforce and protect against such rules being imposed by employers, the state violates its constitutional obligations.


(Ack, another novelette....)

---