Murphy Takes 5 is a monthly column written by President and CEO Mark Murphy. On the first Saturday of every month, Mark will write about a topic of interest to Packers fans and the organization, ...

often hear from fans who are disappointed that we aren’t more active in free agency. I know it can be frustrating for them to see other teams adding free agents - and receiving “A” grades from the media. The reality, though, is that championships are not won in March. The Eagles’ “dream team” from two years ago is a good example of the risks involved with signing high-priced free agents. Free agency can certainly play a role in helping teams improve (Charles Woodson and Ryan Pickett are good examples of recent free agents who have played key roles for us), but history shows that teams that focus on drafting, developing and extending the contracts of their core players are more likely to have sustained success.

Packers  wrote:

Packers CEO Mark Murphy realizes that a gap currently exists between the his team and the 49ers.  But that hasn't prompted the Packers to make bold moves in free agency, even as the Niners have traded for receiver Anquan Boldin and signed cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha. “Look at the teams who have done that,' Murphy tells

ProFootballTalk  wrote:

So, when you watch the NFL Draft on Thursday, April 25 (in prime time for the third straight year), know that it’s the best way to improve our team.

Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson have said something similar about star free agents. If they are so good, why did the team that knows them best not resign them?

Player decide it was time to move on? Why?
Team decide it was time to move on? Why?
Team overstocked at the position?
Coach philosophy change?


And just because Player A was a stud with Team A, it doesn't mean Player A will achieve similar success with Team B. The thinking that it does, is how the "Madden" line of thought was coined. In Madden, players are ranked by arbitrary (okay, maybe not arbitrary but have you really looked at those rankings?) numerical values. You can yank a player and pluck him into your team and he'll perform the same as he did on the previous team. Madden doesn't take into account schemes or anything like that in its rankings. Much like fans fail to do as well.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Obviously it's all about the money. Most of those guys signing big contracts with new teams, you can't dispute that they are good. You just have the question of are they worth what they command for salary? The law of supply and demand says yes, but it's kinda like the kid with a belly ache after buying out the candy store - is enjoying the candy worth the pain? I really don't know - I'm conflicted on this issue.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson have said something similar about star free agents. If they are so good, why did the team that knows them best not resign them?

Player decide it was time to move on? Why?
Team decide it was time to move on? Why?
Team overstocked at the position?
Coach philosophy change?


And just because Player A was a stud with Team A, it doesn't mean Player A will achieve similar success with Team B. The thinking that it does, is how the "Madden" line of thought was coined. In Madden, players are ranked by arbitrary (okay, maybe not arbitrary but have you really looked at those rankings?) numerical values. You can yank a player and pluck him into your team and he'll perform the same as he did on the previous team. Madden doesn't take into account schemes or anything like that in its rankings. Much like fans fail to do as well.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Just because a team doesn't want a player back does not mean that he is old, broke down or worthless.

There are a lot of reasons players move on.

The team wants a player to move on.
1. The team wants to go with a youth movement.
a) #2 player may well not be as good as the one being allowed to leave but
[list]1) Player #2 has growth potential
2) The money difference for the performance difference does not justify paying player #1 the money.[/list]
b) The team is so lousy that they don't want to spend the money for player #1 and still finish last.
2. Conflict between player and management.
3. Changing in coaching/schemes.
4. Ownership is stupid.
5. Injury or age concerns


The player wants to move on.

a) Change in coaching/schemes.
b) Wants to be a more noticeable player on a team.
c) Money!!!
d) Wants to move to a contending team.
e) Wants to move to a better organization.
f) Wants to move to a team closer to his off season home.
g) Wants to "punish"/show up former team.

Just like you think we assume that we are playing "Madden" and think players are interchangeable (Which we don't) you appear to assume that the only FAs that GB can sign are the ones that will cost them $100 million and tie up their resources for 20 years and don't perform at all for the entire duration of their contracts. (Which is not the case.) Even if they do overpay for a quality player for a couple of years but win the SB, it would be worth it.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson have said something similar about star free agents. If they are so good, why did the team that knows them best not resign them?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

And just because Player A was a stud with Team A, it doesn't mean Player A will achieve similar success with Team B. The thinking that it does, is how the "Madden" line of thought was coined. Madden doesn't take into account schemes or anything like that in its rankings. Much like fans fail to do as well.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Can you actually read what I said in context and then respond? You quoted me, but with all your assumptions and words you put into my mouth, you clearly have me confused with someone else. Thank you.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool