Home of Garland H. Green Jr.

Have you ever given thought to the term Die-hard Packers' Fan? I'm fortunate, I have a buddy who knows football, better yet, he knows the Packers.  The two of us can talk about the finer points of the game in what can only be described as pure brilliance.

Our focuses are blown coverages, great hits, coaching, and the last minute drives that won or lost games. In short, we deteriorate into an intellectual fog of minutia. Are we Die-hard Packers' Fans?

I have heard that phrase "die-hard" used to describe fans for years, but I have never heard a clear definition of one. Dictionary.com defines die-hard as: "(A) person who vigorously maintains or defends a seemingly hopeless position, outdated attitude, lost cause, or the like." I had years in which being a Die-hard Packers' Fan meant defending a lost cause. In fact, I have taken seemingly hopeless positions in regards to this team. Whatever position you take on the Brett-Favre-trade, you could be accused of having an outdated attitude.

Merriam-Webster's defines die-hard as: "(S)trongly or fanatically determined or devoted." Merriam-Webster's appears to have a fitting definition until you look at the word "fanatically." Again, Merriam-Webster's: "...often intense uncritical devotion."

The problem is that I have never met a die-hard fan that was not critical. Subsequently, acting fanatically may not describe a die-hard. Therefore, let me offer up criteria that must be met in order to enter into the realm of die-hardness.

First, you have to know the names of the starting players on the team in order to be considered a die-hard.  I would furthermore argue, you have to be able to talk intelligently about players who played as far back as 1980. I admit that this an arbitrary starting point, but we need a starting point for the sake of discussion. The fact that you know who Don Majkowski is doesn't cut it. You have to know who Lynn Dickey and David Whitehurst are in order to qualify. John Brockington is extra credit.

Secondly, fantasy football is a plus. The ability to know the stats of the players on the team gives you a leg up and a better understanding of the game, but it's not critical.  If you know which round of the draft a player was taken in, and the university they attended, that trumps someone who can tell you the overall yards a running back has for the year.

Die-hard is a body of work, not a title. I remember a game at Lambeau a few years ago where two old die-hards were talking about a game they both saw. They recounted how cold it was, how hard the wind blew, and how "Joe" froze his cheeks. I asked “Joe” what team we played that day and he said: "I don't remember that crap." Fair enough. Any guy who recounts games by the outside temperature has a body of work that encompasses decades, not numbers of games attended.

Being a die-hard fan means that you can talk intelligently about the guys who played before you started watching the Packers on television. I never saw Don Hudson play, but I damn sure know who he is. I know I will never achieve the status of Mel Knoke, it would be nice, however, I don't have to.

At a minimum, a die-hard must have a healthy appreciation for the organization, a deep respect for the game, and a willingness to make at least one pilgrimage to Lambeau Field. The reason for this is simple: The Packers will not make it into the post-season every year so you will need more than success to sustain you as you build your own body of work. Trust me when I say: The first time you see Lambeau Field you will understand why you went.

You don't agree with my criteria on of what it takes to be a die-hard? That's OK. Start a blog, sign into a forum, post an article and then articulate your point of view there. There's room for one more Die-hard Packers' Fan supporting the Pack.

The hills are alive with the sound of music.

No, I'm not talking about the Rodgers and Hammerstein song or Julie Andrews in Salzburg, Austria. I'm referring to Hillsboro, Hillsdale, Arden Hills, Hickory Hills and so on.

The music? The sound of keyboards fueling online fan forums with visions of opportunity lost. That's about all die-hard Packers' fans have left to do these days, fill web forums with comments on how the 2008 season ended, along with plenty of suggestions on who and what went wrong.

I normally spend time reading these forums, and when the opportunity presents itself, I pen my pros in response. If you have read a comment or two from HipCheck, that would be yours truly.

Therefore, with the wire alive with frustration and vision, let me put my beat reporters hat on and give you a quick 411 on what is taking place out there.

The current dialog can be broken down into three categories. Mike McCarthy (MM) and Ted Thompson (TT) are all messed up, a revitalized Brett Favre versus Aaron Rodgers debate, and who gets the ax and who fills in the holes left by a loosing season?

It goes something like this: Mike McCarthy and Ted Thompson - short of being hauled out into the Lambeau Field parking lot and publicly executed - need to take responsibility for the poor season. There is no shortage of frustration with these two men and the literary assault on their character by some, is truly poetic.

One poster, CyCIops, Photoshopped an image of Ted Thompson and gave him one eye in middle of his head then used it as his avatar. This crowd wants to see TT and MM fired and fired yesterday. I can sum up the views of this crowd by quoting Hodagmiaz: "Why hasn't McDumbass and Thompson been fired yet???????"

The second group of commenter's is rejuvenated by the recent revelations that Brett Favre's teammates in New York are frustrated by his play and his relationship with his team. Of course, you have to sprinkle in a heavy dose of Aaron Rodgers and you have a magical potion to discuss the play of our QB and how many more games we would  ore would not have won if Brett were back for one more year.   

What I have noticed is that the fervent Favre-natics are becoming more and more absent these days, instead choosing to defend him by sighting recent injury or simply remembering him fondly as the player he was, not the QB of the Jets.

The last group of posters, the growing group of supporters, is looking at the team and wondering what changes will be made by McCarthy with the coaching staff, as well as who will be signed by Thompson in the upcoming draft and through free agency.

Alive with speculation and innuendo, these forums are moderated by an informed group of posters, well-versed in the art of fantasy football and a deep knowledge of the best college players who will be entering the draft.

If you are not a poster or read these fan forums, I suggest you head over and read the dialogs that are being formed. They are fascinating and informative, plus they will give you a better understanding of this group of Packers' fan. The kind of fan that takes the time to read what others are saying and to comment on a finer point of frustration or to agree with the point of view that has been shared before.

However, honesty dictates that I concede many fans who have never participated in this kind of dialog may wonder "what's the point?" For decades fans have discussed the Packers and their play, but in most cases, it was only with family and friends, or the occasional "buddy" at the bar. If you dedicate a little time to this crowd, they will inform you on what is taking place and supply you with plenty of ammo to slam home that buddy who seems to "know it all."

Fan forums are Packers Chatter, but on intellectual steroids. The beautiful thing about getting the 411 on what fans are thinking and saying is that you get a chance to know what someone knows and doesn't know at the very same time. But in the end, it is just another way to participate in Packers' fan shenanigans, but only in a twenty-first century way.

Head over to a forum and take your shorts or deliver a blow online, but one thing is for certain, everyone there is doing the same thing: supporting the Pack as they get ready for one more year.

When President-elect Obama takes over the reins in twenty-two days, he inherits an auto industry in deep trouble.

His predecessor cut a deal to keep the lights on for the Big 3, but in no way fixed the problem. The cash that Bush handed over will run out in a couple of months, requiring Detroit to return to the table with tin cups in hand.

What is interesting, however, is not that the automobile industry will be asking for more money. Many industries will do that, but the level of interest and scrutiny by the American voter over the prospect of a deal is what is shaping the debate on Capital Hill.

While the total dollar amount asked for by Detroit pales in comparison to what the financial industry has already received, the Big 3's problems are a microcosm of the challenges facing American business today, and the voter wants a few answers before handing over more free money to Detroit.

Executive salaries, lack of technological innovation, and the role of unions in the global marketplace are of major importance to the voters, who are now expected to pick up the tab for the blown corporate strategies of the Big 3.

At $38.1 million, Robert Nardelli, CEO of Chrysler, is the new guy on the block and the man tasked with saving the company. Chrysler is in bad shape and may not survive, regardless whether or not Uncle Sugar steps in and helps him out. The benefactor of a previous handout, Chrysler may already be a manufacturing memory.

Tipping the scales at $21.7 million, Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford Motor Company, looks to be the one executive that has been able to right the listing Ford ship and put the company on solid ground. He has been able to deflect some of the criticism leveled at the industry, but is not immune. Simply because Ford is in better shape does not mean it is in good shape. They have a better balance sheet and a clearer vision of the future than the others.

However, G. Richard Wagoner, CEO of General Motors Corporation, at $19.7 million a year, is seen as the quintessential modern CEO, having been part of GM since 1977.

Wagoner has been the target of much criticism since he has had a place at GM's decision-making table for years, and, while he is popular with his board of directors, he is regarded as arrogant and lacking the vision to move that company forward. Some have called for Wagoner's head on a platter before GM should receive any additional funding.

Nonetheless, with no CEO making less than $19 million a year, Americans are wondering why any of these men should survive the storm. For three guys whose companies require their employees to get a note from their doctors if they miss more than three days of work, it is not unfair to demand that running a company into the ground to the point that the taxpayer has to bail them out, they can no longer keep their jobs.

Thousands of business school classrooms have echoed the words of Henry Ford as they teach future leaders. Few have been more poignant than the following: "If I had asked customers what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." Ford was talking about the innovation of the automobile industry, but these words still apply.   

GM squandered an innovative advantage when it killed its electric car program, the EV1, the first modern-production electric vehicle. Introduced in 1996, the EV1 was immensely popular and could have given the American auto manufacturer the kind of competitive advantage not seen since Henry Ford developed the modern assembly line at the turn of the century.

However, GM's CEO Rick Wagoner axed the program and officially canceled the EV1 program in late 2003. Instead of a plug-in electric vehicle, the American consumer got more of the same—sport utility vehicles and bigger trucks. When asked why they built bigger gas-guzzlers, all of the Big 3 CEOs claimed, "It was what our customers wanted." In short, faster horses.

The market for a plug-in electric vehicle is here, but the Big 3 are stuck with bloated inventories of heavy metal SUVs and pickup trucks.

Notwithstanding the complete lack of vision by GM and the cancellation of the EV1 program, what is frustrating consumers is knowing that a 1981 Dodge Aries K got 25/41, but even with all the technology available to the auto makers, they cannot get back to the efficiency of the early 1980s.

When gas returns to $4.00 a gallon—and it will—the idea that the American consumer was begging for larger cars, faster horses, all these years simply will not fly.

Finally, the voter has begun to question if the unions of the 20th century are still relevant in the 21st.  According to an August 2007 Gallop poll, 60% of Americans approve of labor unions, while 32% disapprove. The poll also points out what is commonly assumed: Democrats overwhelmingly support labor unions (78%) over Republican voters (41%).

There are questions about the future of unions in the 21st century. Again, according to Gallop: "Just 19% of Americans say labor unions will be stronger in the future than they are today, while 45% say they will be weaker and 31% say they will be the same as today."

Contributing to this is the perception that the aging baby-boomer generation is the benefactor of unions since longevity equates to profitability, and seniority is the cornerstone of the unions. Unions are tasked with protecting the salaries and benefits of long-term employees.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, however, the average U.S. worker changes careers 3-5 times during a lifetime, to say nothing of the number of jobs held within a single career. Therefore, what we are seeing is a mobile workforce that changes employers like some people change brands of breakfast cereal.

This means that in a union shop the young worker will have a hard time competing with seniority structure. The same goes for the employer. They, too, have a hard time building a workforce based on merit versus seniority. Consequently, when the UAW talks about the benefits of their members, younger workers are less likely to be sympathetic to the message, along with voters that consider themselves to be members of the Republican party.

One thing is sure—you can throw conventional wisdom out the door when it comes to the automotive bailout. You can find tree-huggers aligning with strict conservatives to kill any bailout deal that does not meet their litmus test, not because they agree on one issue, but because they agree on the outcome. One wants higher fuel standards and the other wants lower wages, but they are joining forces to kill a bad deal. But, in the end, all bets are off.  These two diverse groups are united behind one cause, even if the union between the two is not perfect.

The Big 3 will have to come up with a compensation package that rewards success and not the title on the corporate door, as well as new innovative and technology-heavy cars that reflect a more green-conscious marketplace.

As for the labor unions, they have to find a way to deal with a fluid marketplace that values efficiency and productivity over longevity and stability. Regardless, there is a storm brewing and it is picking up gale force winds and scheduled to make landfall just after January 20, 2009.