When that story first came out about Murphy and Ball controlling/bulking at whom they were hiring as assistants, some of their own example didn't match their own accusations.
For example the ST Darren Rizzi, in which I feel that something happened there and the reported story could be true, but that simply didn't match the implied accusations.
Because by all accounts the Dolphins were paying Rizzi extremely well since he got the "Associate head coach" label added to his job title as ST coach... and by all accounts the Packers tried to hire Rizzi, but that the first number throw out there wasn't to Rizzi's satisfaction and and the deal didn't get done (and reportedly the Packers came back with an even higher number but Rizzi was lesss interested after the first number that he decided to look elsewhere).
That's not an example of the Packers refusing to hire someone or control hiring, that's normal negotiations, except Rizzi had gotten spoiled with being blown away with raises and offers that this normal offer disappointed him.
So this reported individual story, using anonymous sources, might be 100% true and factual... just that this story didn't nessary correctly align with the larger narrative the writer was painting.
My point being, in this case, I think it's possible the Packers and the anonymous sources (at least some of them) could be both correct as their stories don't contradict each other, just the way the writers bigger narrative and how they connected the dots could be wrong.
Originally Posted by: beast