2019 NFL Free Agency/A Busy Day for Green Bay

[HiAndTight]

Definitely a catch-22. In hindsight, it should have been done last offseason, but then the wolves would have been at the door because the Rodgers injury took the blame for the poor 2017 season. Instead they took the opposite path, and gave MM MORE power instead of doing the intelligent thing and handing the football operation to Gute. That triumvirate power structure has already come back to bite them.

oh absolutely. I wonder how much of Murphy's weird decision making had to do with the mass exodus of GM "hopefuls" at the time Gute was selected vs. just leaving because they weren't chosen. The assumption is that they just left because they didn't get the job, but not always - depends on the organization and it appears Murphy has created a bad environment. The Triumvirate was just bad leadership...

 

 

 

I'm working my way through this thread as I missed a lot, but while they were losing a lot of guys that were highly regarded and well known to us Packers fans, they were rebuilding a staff that may be even more respected as they took some top talent evaluators from other organizations during this time period.

[homer]

 

The root of GJ/AR thing I think really comes down to Jennings refusal to "get in line" and remain in Rodgers's shadow. Someone like Jordy Nelson goes along with it because he'd probably prefer to be left alone anyway. Jennings wanted people to see that he was responsible for his own success. I can imagine working your rear off your whole life to get in there and then having people say you're only there because of the QB gets pretty annoying if you let it bother you.

 

And as was shown after he left, Jennings owes most of his success to Rodgers.

[HiAndTight]

I thought Rollins was bad from day one. Looked OK in the pre-season games, but it was obvious he couldn't run when the real games started. Combine numbers in the 40 were 4.67 and 4.58 and he was officially credited with a 4.57. That amazes me now because the eye-test would have put him at 4.8-plus when watching him on the field. I can especially remember one game against the Lions where it seemed like receiver after receiver just ran right by him...he didn't have a chance against those guys.

 

Green Bay did a horrible job with Heyward. I can remember the year him and House split time depending on who they were playing. If the other team had big receivers, then House was the one that played. To think that House ever received playing time over Heyward is pretty much mind-boggling, because House was really mediocre the first time he was with the Packers, was beyond awful in Jacksonville and was bad, bad, bad when he returned to Green Bay. The fact that the Packers gave him a second year on his second go-around in Green Bay just shows how messed up and pitiful the defensive secondary became under Thompson. At least Gutenkunst looks like he got himself a good one in Alexander.

 

 

This just isn't true. They moved on from House because they had two of the top Corners in the league, but his first year in Jax he was fine.

 

As for Heyward, he was a day one starter who played every snap until he started getting hurt and his production started to wane. Suggesting what Heyward did was the fault of how he was managed is no the least bit accurate IMO.

As for House, pretty much the only thing he was average at was playing press coverage against big WR'ers on the outside. The thing that Heyward struggles the most win. So.....hard to blame them for going with matchup's.

 

But the job was always Heyward's for the taking. He had a great rookie year, was hurt or ineffective the next two and then just ok his FA year. Last year he was as bad as House has ever been with the Chargers.

[OldHeidelberg]

I sort of dropped out of JS coverage of the Packers once McGinn left. I don't like Silverstein, he doesn't seem to have any quality insight of his own. Some of the new guys are OK but I rarely read the chats and daily articles like I used too. I guess part of that is I stopped taking the Packers so seriously after the loss to the Seahawks in the NFCC but I just don't like their coverage as much anymore and can pick up most of the details on forums anyway.

[JimH5]

It's shameful that with the overwhelming amount of coverage that the Packers are given by local print and broadcast media--almost all of it fawning and celebratory--that it took all this time for this story to break.

 

It's either that they were too busy worshiping the beloved Packers, or they were creating content strictly as puff pieces, afraid of turning off fans.

 

I used to be in this camp, and it's not just the Packers. Same goes for Brewers/Bucks coverage. But I have come to know a couple sports reporters in recent years, and they have a good point. They do hear things, know things, etc. that are newsworthy but negative to player or coach. If they report that, word gets around and they get frozen out. If you can't do your job, you don't have a job. So it is a fine line.

 

They shouldn't call themselves news organizations, then. Every tv sports department paints that team in such favorable light, it's ridiculous.

 

I get it if you're WTMJ radio or the local Fox station that broadcasts their games. Those stations are "broadcast partners", who will never say a bad word about their business partners.

 

But there are lots of media outlets and this is the smallest of small town teams. Nobody dared to speak of a feud that lots of people knew about? And it was only after McCarthy is gone and Rodgers is at the end of his career that one reporter felt comfortable telling this story?

 

A sports team shouldn't be able to control the message this way for so long.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Maybe, I guess, but I'm not sure. Jennings was a 2nd round pick from Western Michigan. That is really hard to do. People thought he was a good player obviously, before Rodgers is even part of the picture. I think that is what bothers a lot of these guys, and frankly it would bother me too.

 

He was also declining before he left. He started having injury problems and barely played his final year in GB, and prior to that he was already starting to get pushed out of favor by Jordy. I think being a 30+ WR had more to do with it. He was still a pretty productive player for Minnesota. This is all to say I think he would have done just fine in the NFL with or without Rodgers, but there is no way to ever know that.

 

A lot of WRs came and went without making a squeak, with both Rodgers and Favre. It always bugged me a bit that they were "making" all these guys but they didn't "make" Derrick Mayes or Robert Ferguson or Ruvell Martin or any of these other burnouts. Some players, like Nelson, just live with that annoyance, but Jennings didn't want to.

[xisxisxis]

I like your creative avoidance of the cuss filter

I am at war with the cuss filer!

 

Female dog is a cuss? It's pretty common in language and likely not to raise an eyebrow for anyone under 80...

 

Crap is ok, but it's slightly different version isnt... WHY! (that's a statement not a question as I know you don't know the answer)

 

So now I have a lot of crap and a bunch to "female dogs" about....

[OldSchoolSnapper]

It's shameful that with the overwhelming amount of coverage that the Packers are given by local print and broadcast media--almost all of it fawning and celebratory--that it took all this time for this story to break.

 

It's either that they were too busy worshiping the beloved Packers, or they were creating content strictly as puff pieces, afraid of turning off fans.

 

I used to be in this camp, and it's not just the Packers. Same goes for Brewers/Bucks coverage. But I have come to know a couple sports reporters in recent years, and they have a good point. They do hear things, know things, etc. that are newsworthy but negative to player or coach. If they report that, word gets around and they get frozen out. If you can't do your job, you don't have a job. So it is a fine line.

 

They shouldn't call themselves news organizations, then. Every tv sports department paints that team in such favorable light, it's ridiculous.

 

I get it if you're WTMJ radio or the local Fox station that broadcasts their games. Those stations are "broadcast partners", who will never say a bad word about their business partners.

 

But there are lots of media outlets and this is the smallest of small town teams. Nobody dared to speak of a feud that lots of people knew about? And it was only after McCarthy is gone and Rodgers is at the end of his career that one reporter felt comfortable telling this story?

 

A sports team shouldn't be able to control the message this way for so long.

 

It's a lot more nuanced than this. You can't just go running with every tidbit of information, even if you know it to be true. The really good ones build a relationship where they're able to get sources to understand that sometimes they have to run not so flattering stuff. You can't just bend over for them, but you can't throw slop at the wall either.

 

Fans have this idea that you just gotta be tough and stand up to the team; it just doesn't work that way. That aside, I don't think the JS has been particularly as easy on the Packers as everybody around seems to think. I've read plenty of pieces over the years that are critical of all three major teams. Silverstein in particular has blasted them in columns more than a few times.

[xisxisxis]

A sports team shouldn't be able to control the message this way for so long.

The Packers are a perfect sports team to question about this. I doubt they would reveal that they intimidate the press to keep quit, but they have a huge "ownership" group where I would expect that a small, but loud group of stockholders could ask for an accounting from Murphy/the Board how this type of situation could have permeated for so long and nobody in leadership was aware or dealt with it. It might put Murphy on the spot, but that's why he's paid the big bucks.

[JimH5]

 

It's a lot more nuanced than this. You can't just go running with every tidbit of information, even if you know it to be true. The really good ones build a relationship where they're able to get sources to understand that sometimes they have to run not so flattering stuff. You can't just bend over for them, but you can't throw slop at the wall either.

 

Fans have this idea that you just gotta be tough and stand up to the team; it just doesn't work that way. That aside, I don't think the JS has been particularly as easy on the Packers as everybody around seems to think. I've read plenty of pieces over the years that are critical of all three major teams. Silverstein in particular has blasted them in columns more than a few times.

 

Nuanced, perhaps. But then they ended up getting scooped on a huge story like this. And readers turn to the national outlets for insight and information that they can't get from local media.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

They weren't scooped, the writer of this story covered the Packers for the JS. He saw and heard many of these things while working for them. There is a reason he published it now, and not then. He has nothing to lose writing for BR. The Packers would have revoked his credential for writing something like this 4 years ago.

[homer]

Journal did a whole thing on the Packers trying to intimidate Michael Cohen after he wrote a not so flattering Letroy Guion piece. And a lot of this stuff has come out over the years in one form or another. Honestly, the only new info was the massage thing.

[JimH5]

Fair enough. My complaints are mostly about local tv and radio and I haven't paid as much attention to print. It just seems like this is a bombshell piece.

 

The Packers are treated with such deference here, I must not have caught the times their dirty laundry was aired.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Journal did a whole thing on the Packers trying to intimidate Michael Cohen after he wrote a not so flattering Letroy Guion piece. And a lot of this stuff has come out over the years in one form or another. Honestly, the only new info was the massage thing.

 

I think there was more meat in the story than just that (although that stood out). I think the snippets about Valdez Scantling thinking Rodgers didn't like him, and the portion detailing Rodgers telling St. Brown to run a post when the play called for a flag (then being too afraid of being frozen out by Rodgers to tell the coaches it was him to told him to run it) was pretty interesting. It really paints a picture of the inmates running the asylum. It's going to be up to LaFleur to get that kind of crap in line.

[homer]

Journal did a whole thing on the Packers trying to intimidate Michael Cohen after he wrote a not so flattering Letroy Guion piece. And a lot of this stuff has come out over the years in one form or another. Honestly, the only new info was the massage thing.

 

I think there was more meat in the story than just that (although that stood out). I think the snippets about Valdez Scantling thinking Rodgers didn't like him, and the portion detailing Rodgers telling St. Brown to run a post when the play called for a flag (then being too afraid of being frozen out by Rodgers to tell the coaches it was him to told him to run it) was pretty interesting. It really paints a picture of the inmates running the asylum. It's going to be up to LaFleur to get that kind of crap in line.

 

Yeah I agree that maybe some of the specifics were new but those weren't really surprises. I probably could have guessed all of that re: the rookie receivers.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

Journal did a whole thing on the Packers trying to intimidate Michael Cohen after he wrote a not so flattering Letroy Guion piece. And a lot of this stuff has come out over the years in one form or another. Honestly, the only new info was the massage thing.

 

I think there was more meat in the story than just that (although that stood out). I think the snippets about Valdez Scantling thinking Rodgers didn't like him, and the portion detailing Rodgers telling St. Brown to run a post when the play called for a flag (then being too afraid of being frozen out by Rodgers to tell the coaches it was him to told him to run it) was pretty interesting. It really paints a picture of the inmates running the asylum. It's going to be up to LaFleur to get that kind of crap in line.

 

Yeah I agree that maybe some of the specifics were new but those weren't really surprises. I probably could have guessed all of that re: the rookie receivers.

 

Yeah, all you had to do was watch the games to see that Rodgers was effectively freezing those guys out at times. Still its still a little chilling to see it confirmed, even if it was from "anonymous sources".

 

Like I said earlier, I hope Rodgers reads this story about 50 times between now and the opening of team workouts next week. Is he going to change? Probably not much. But he'll have one heck of a big chip on his shoulder.

[FVBrewerFan]

Fair enough. My complaints are mostly about local tv and radio and I haven't paid as much attention to print. It just seems like this is a bombshell piece.

 

The Packers are treated with such deference here, I must not have caught the times their dirty laundry was aired.

 

Local TV sports isn't journalism though, and really never has been. It's a smiley face reporting scores and playing a few highlights. Dirty laundry has been aired before but always after the fact, as with this article. (Pretty detailed accounts of Rhodes for example.)

 

If a local reporter put this story out 6 months ago MM and Rodgers would have denied it, and most of the people who provided these instances wouldn't have commented back then to begin with. So the reporter is left with no sources to back his claims, and basically got himself fired since nobody from the Packers would ever talk to him again.

 

After MM is gone, much easier for people to "come clean."

[HiAndTight]

I reread the article and it's clear there's a lot of noise there as each person has a different viewpoint for the train wreck. I think that ultimately it makes everyone across the organization look bad. It's hard to say it was McCarthy, or it was Rodgers, when it really was both and their own issues. What's clear is that there is way to much taking themselves seriously and not enough relationship building on that team. When Jennings "imitates a female dog" about Roger's comment to the SF DB, you have the perfect example. Jennings comment was "Because I'm in a contract year". 1) If you are serious then when Rogers responds "you guys should pick him up" to the niner, then Rogers is either serious and right or making a joke; 2) if Jennings was making a joke then Rogers was making a joke. Why be offended when he's trying to establish a relationship... Sounds like a perfect storm of Dicks with Finley, Jennings, Rogers, etc. taking themselves way to seriously. If you can't have a relationship that you can joke together then you seriously have a problem... My recollection of Jeff Janis is that everyone agreed he was a few cells short in the Brains department so I can understand Rogers getting on him if he was having issues with learning the plays/routes, etc. Nice/Not nice wasn't the issue.

 

Another issue appears to be the lack of candor amongst the coaches and players. I've never had an issue going to a supervisor to discuss an issue with someone we both report to. Every player should feel he can talk to his immediate position coach if he has an issue with the coach or any other team member. It shouldn't be a constant process or a "female dog" session, but it should be productive. What would be different over the last 10 years if someone early on said to McCarthy: "Aaron has a chip on his shoulder about you selecting Alex Smith before him". Who knows, maybe it did happen and McCarthy was like 'duck that he needs to get over it'... As a boss, admitting you make mistakes in front of your staff has very little downside and makes them realize you will take responsibility... What a cluster.... situation. Too few adults and way too many diva's...

 

 

Well, first of all, I agree with you 100 pct on Jennings. I'm so sick of hearing about that. I can see that being said in Jest and for 100 different reasons, the main one being that Rodgers knew Thompson doesn't like to spend on guys who are getting older. And that is THE main source of contention for Jennings.

 

With regard to Finley, I don't care what he has to say. He just started popping up a little while back and all he talks about in this article is money. Rodgers and his 200 million dollar deal, Rogers sense of entitlement when he was broke. Finley was entitled when he was more broke and a 3rd round TE.

 

With regard to Janis, I think you're being a bit harsh. He was a small school guy and I'm just hearing waaaaay too much about how Rodgers dealt with him and how he deals with other young players and you can see it a little bit on the field. Janis didn't play in a pro-style, he didn't know the routes, he wasn't a great route runner. I don't think calling him dumb is fair, but I can also see Rodgers just dismiss him because he runs the wrong routes.

 

Finally, there is just way too much smoke with Rodgers. I really hoped he wasn't like Favre, but it sounds like he's just incredibly sensitive, something I've heard almost literally everyone who knows him say, not having a relationship with your parents is inexcusable IMO unless they used you, abused you when you were young, or truly mis-treated you. I don't know what happened, but those are your parents. Get over it. And if he can't do it in that case, how is he going to do it with anyone else?

 

 

Coming out of 2010, every Packers fan thought we were starting a dynasty. 2019, this article answers a lot of questions as to why that never materialized.

 

 

I'm still wrapping my head around some of this. But there's so much of it that you look back on and now makes sense. McCarthy talking about needing to run the ball more. Rodgers constantly changing the plays. Rodgers passing up the quick, short routes looking for the big plays down the field. That has been my single biggest issue with him as a player(actually....pretty sure that's my only issue). He CONSTANTLY, when healthy, passes up that TE that sits down 8 yards down the field, instead choosing to run out of the pocket, look for the big play, hold, hold.....and then finally try to check down if it's still there or throw it away. The offense, as old and stale as it may have been, ran really well at times when Rodgers got hurt. The Cowboys playoff game, the Seattle game, coming back this year vs the Bears. They still had playmakers.

 

It's like the only thing that could make Rodgers a better player on the field is if he were better able to combine those two strengths like Mahomes does. If he could just keep taking what's there and then when he really needs to, then you bail out and you run the scramble drill. But the Packers offense the last few years has been back shoulder to Jones, Jordy and Adams and then Rodgers catching the D and scrambling trying to find a big play.

 

 

 

Finally, as much as this article has my head spinning, there is a TON of room for optimism. Athletes start to know when that clark starts ticking. You can almost hear it...whatever level you're at or sport. It's like the tell-tale-clock.

 

So get the hell over your issue with young WR'ers and get on the same page with St. Brown and MVS, because there's a very real chance those two are going to be your key players when you're 40 years old. They certainly have the talent to be. Man the eff up and talk to any coach you have a problem with on any play call.

 

But more than that, they've got a whole new group in there, and I hope these guys can succeed where the outgoing group failed. That they can get Rodgers and the rest of the offense on the same page, not make the defense the red-headed step child, and that we have leaders like Kenny Clark,Amos, Za'Darius Smith(for whatever reason he strikes me as a vocal guy and a tough guy more than most) Bahktari, Bulaga, Linsley, Adams, and so on who can speak up, the added talent and toughness on defense can make them the top 10 unit that Pettine has had nearly every year(I think literally every year except for his first in GB) and that a fresh outlook will get Rodgers back on track. And even without the leadership issues that some have brought up, people seem to ignore the fact that Rodgers wasn't NOT THAT GOOD this past year. I don't care about TD's-INT's, that's never his problem. He missed too many guys who were running free. He missed probably a dozen throws this year that would have gone for ~40 or more. Not all TD's, but he missed more in this one year than I can remember him missing in any 3-4 others combined.

 

 

So really troubling article that really answers a lot of questions, one that I find about 90 pct credible(I loved J-Mike, but I just think he's bitter and he was undisciplined early and then when he got his act together his career was unceremoniously ended and he's...just bitter, hence the reference to 200 million every time he shares an opinion).

 

But my two takeaway's moving forward, hopefully now that this is out there, they can figure out what the hell they need to avoid and I am actually kinda impressed with the organization's ability to keep this all quiet for this long while annoyed that this was allowed to go on.

 

 

Edit-A 3rd takeaway. Too few adults, too many divas. You are 100 pct right about that. In fact Ryan Grant might be the only guy who comes off good in this article as he doesn't seem to have any agenda and seems like he's genuinely more worried about solutions than blame....even though he's not part of the org any longer.

[JimH5]

 

Local TV sports isn't journalism though, and really never has been. It's a smiley face reporting scores and playing a few highlights. Dirty laundry has been aired before but always after the fact, as with this article. (Pretty detailed accounts of Rhodes for example.)

 

If a local reporter put this story out 6 months ago MM and Rodgers would have denied it, and most of the people who provided these instances wouldn't have commented back then to begin with. So the reporter is left with no sources to back his claims, and basically got himself fired since nobody from the Packers would ever talk to him again.

 

After MM is gone, much easier for people to "come clean."

 

That "freezing out" of media members shouldn't be tolerated. It isn't in the New York media, and it isn't in the NBA.

 

This should have been a Journal/Sentinel or Press-Gazette story.

[HiAndTight]

 

Yeah, all you had to do was watch the games to see that Rodgers was effectively freezing those guys out at times. Still its still a little chilling to see it confirmed, even if it was from "anonymous sources".

 

Like I said earlier, I hope Rodgers reads this story about 50 times between now and the opening of team workouts next week. Is he going to change? Probably not much. But he'll have one heck of a big chip on his shoulder.

 

 

Ok, but as long as that chip makes him throw the ball to the 6'4 and 6'5 guys who run REAL fast and not get all pissy because a couple of kids make a few mistakes, and that chip leads to change where he's taking those chain-moving completions that have been there often in the past that he's passed up while looking for the deep ball...that's all fine.

 

If he just reads it and gets angry, he's just going to be more defensive and it may end up being more of a validation of the story than any benefit to Rodgers. Reading it 50 times would SEEM like the exact problem with him.

 

To be clear, having a chip on your shoulder is great in any sport. Just tossing people aside with that level of passive-aggressive nonsense is not healthy for anyone in any way in any walk of life other than perhaps being a spy or an assassin in which you just ignore the people you've gotten upset with. I can't think of another area that works to your benefit.

 

Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe it will lead to some introspection.

[HiAndTight]

 

Local TV sports isn't journalism though, and really never has been. It's a smiley face reporting scores and playing a few highlights. Dirty laundry has been aired before but always after the fact, as with this article. (Pretty detailed accounts of Rhodes for example.)

 

If a local reporter put this story out 6 months ago MM and Rodgers would have denied it, and most of the people who provided these instances wouldn't have commented back then to begin with. So the reporter is left with no sources to back his claims, and basically got himself fired since nobody from the Packers would ever talk to him again.

 

After MM is gone, much easier for people to "come clean."

 

That "freezing out" of media members shouldn't be tolerated. It isn't in the New York media, and it isn't in the NBA.

 

This should have been a Journal/Sentinel or Press-Gazette story.

 

 

I don't get this statement. Who should it not be "tolerated" by?

 

I personally have zero problems with this on principle and I know for a fact that this has happened with the Brewers. Not with MJS reporters, but very prominent local radio personalities because they had negative things to say about a player or the organization. It's been about 10 years since I've known and really talked to people that work there, but it's a private business at the end of the day(the Packers are technically owned by the public, but are effectively a private business).

 

This isn't politics or something that has an impact on our everyday lives. Why shouldn't they have the right to not talk to someone who writes things they disagree with?

 

And to be clear, this isn't me hating the media. I'm almost totally indifferent on the media. I believe in open records laws and the like. But maybe I'm not understanding you correctly here, but, again, I have no problem with this. Especially since I'm sure the Packers do not believe this article to be an accurate representation. So then you have the business feeling like it's being misrepresented and a writer causing problems. Why WOULDN'T you stop talking to him at that point?

[HiAndTight]

Rodgers and Jennings are both intelligent. If he makes that joke and it's some dopey player, he'll laugh it off or it goes over his head. Like I said earlier, I think Jennings is actually more like Rodgers than he realizes. Both of those guys had intent behind the dialogue in the specific event at the 49er game. They both come off overly sensitive. Rodgers does not say stuff that isn't deliberate, I think everybody can agree on that.

 

The root of GJ/AR thing I think really comes down to Jennings refusal to "get in line" and remain in Rodgers's shadow. Someone like Jordy Nelson goes along with it because he'd probably prefer to be left alone anyway. Jennings wanted people to see that he was responsible for his own success. I can imagine working your rear off your whole life to get in there and then having people say you're only there because of the QB gets pretty annoying if you let it bother you.

 

 

I think the root of that squabble was Jennings own pettiness.

 

Jennings was asked a question and made a joke to the Redskins CB about it being a contract year.

Rodgers made a joke to the Redskins CB about how they should sign him. I would think it may be because they were missing SOO badly at the time on free agents or maybe it was a dig at TT whom he knew wouldn't spend the money required.

 

Either way, it's still the sole reason for Jennings believing he was done in GB and having an issue with Rodgers and the only example he's brought up in the past several years.

 

It very well may have just been a throwaway line from Rodgers. I don't believe there's truth behind every joke. In fact I think that's kinda stupid.

 

 

So agreed that they've both similar, very intelligent, I just can't find fault with Rodgers for saying something as benign as that. Now maybe not showing any support for him during the off-season, that I could see. I don't know how these players are with each other in that regard. But one line how many years ago in a game and Jennings is still holding on to that and calling Rodgers sensitive?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Rodgers doesn't make throwaway jokes. Up and down the line of people who've personally known him, they'll tell you that everything the guy says is pointed. If he's giving someone doodoo, there's a reason he is doing so. I think it's pretty apparent those two had soured by 2012. You think Rodgers never saw his sister's remarks? And where do you think Rodgers thought she got those ideas?

 

Is GJ petty? Yeah, it sounds like it. But so is Rodgers. Two petty, insensitive guys who couldn't co-exist.

[JimH5]

I don't get this statement. Who should it not be "tolerated" by?

 

It shouldn't be tolerated by media members and media companies, and it shouldn't be tolerated by their customers. The Packers shouldn't use access as their way to force editorial control. Newspapers have an obligation to their readers, to report the news. They don't have an obligation to the Packers to sit on stories that reflect badly on them.

 

Look at how James Dolan is treated by the NY media. And he doesn't force silence on media that is critical. The NBA wouldn't tolerate it, and NY media and NY readers wouldn't tolerate it.

 

Why should it take Tyler Dunne NOT working locally for him to have the freedom to put out today's story?

 

The Packers are treating local media like their own publicity departments instead of independent news organizations.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

The problem is, it's a lot harder to enforce in sports. Someone like Rodgers wins most battles in the court of public opinion. The Packers are afforded the same treatment by the fans. When it's a politician, the expectation is that they answer to the media. Athletes aren't held to that standard.