Much has been said in recent days about the structure of the Packers organization, thanks in large part to an argument floated by an Internet hack whose crap you shouldn’t waste your time reading that the absence of a traditional owner operates as an impediment to decisive action when decision action is needed.
Current CEO Mark Murphy disputed that notion (as expected) in a rare radio interview this week, arguing that teams with traditional owners often make mistakes when the traditional owners make decisions. But the fact that some traditional owners screw things up doesn’t mean that, if the Packers had one, he or she would make the current situation in Green Bay worse. A traditional owner could make things in Green Bay better.
A traditional owner would have the power to cut through the corporate hierarchy explained by Pete Daugherty of PackersNews.com, where the coach reports to the G.M., the G.M. reports to the CEO, and the CEO reports to a seven-person executive committee (one of whom is the CEO), and the seven-person executive committee reports to a 43-person board of directors. The pecking order outlined by Daugherty is neat and tidy and, in times of crisis, not conducive to swift and meaningful action.
Sure, the coach can fire any of his assistants and the G.M. can fire the coach and the CEO can fire the G.M. and the executive committee can fire the CEO and the board of directors can supplant the executive committee, but those powers take a back seat to corporate politics that become much harder to navigate when there isn’t one person who can say without fear of resentment or repercussion or revenge that change is happening. Despite the neat and tidy characterization, the five layers don’t operate as bright lines; if the coach wants to fire one or more members of his staff, he’d better be sure the G.M. is on board with it. If the G.M. wants to fire the coach, he’d better be sure the CEO is on board with it. And if the CEO wants to fire the G.M., he’d better be sure the executive committee is on board with it. And if any members of the executive committee want to fire the CEO, they’d better be sure to get enough members of the board of directors on board with it.
Having a traditional owner avoids those dynamics. Having a traditional owner gives a team the ability to identify and to make the quick, sudden changes that sometimes need to be made. Is there a chance the owner will misfire? Absolutely. But the inertia inherent to the Green Bay structure creates a safe harbor for just-good-enough performances, insulating the coach, the G.M., and the CEO from the kind of accountability that can be harnessed in the blink of an eye by an owner who decides that the time has come for a change -- and who has no obligation to run it by anyone before doing it.
Which leads back to my original point from Monday, the morning after a fourth straight loss featuring an average of 38.25 points allowed per game. The Packers on that day needed one person who could say, “It’s my team and I’m going to do something right now to save the season.” The Packers, as a practical matter, have a much harder time moving rapidly because they don’t have that one person who doesn’t have to figure out how to navigate the organizational chart and whether it’s worth spending the capital necessary to do so.
Yes, the structure in Green Bay has worked well for most of the past 25 years, based on the overall success of the team. Right now, however, the team is not only struggling but also badly failing to meet the expectations that come from having a franchise quarterback who happens to be one of the best to ever play the game. If, as it appeared on Monday, it had gotten to the point where a dramatic, in-season change was needed, it was much harder for the Packers to pull it off than any other team.
