Joe from Moorestown, NJ

Dear Mr. Murphy, I wholeheartedly agree that team performance can change rapidly in the NFL. A team with a losing record can quickly mount a playoff run. However, 10 draft picks including two first-rounders, a new head coach and staff, a first-year GM and lots of cap space all point to a rebuild rather than a reload. Can you effectively build a foundation for the long term while still targeting high performance next year? For example, seems the former is based on acquiring new young players to fit a new strategy and scheme. The latter begs for the acquisition of established, seasoned players.

Great question, Joe. You've certainly correctly laid out the situation we're facing. There's no question it will be challenging, but I do think we can improve significantly this year. First, having a talented veteran quarterback like Aaron Rodgers is a huge help (similar to the Saints' turnaround with Drew Brees). Also, as mentioned above, we should see a big improvement in our defense in the second year in Mike Pettine's system. We also need to make smart decisions in free agency and take advantage of our draft assets this year (two first-round picks and six in the top 120). Finally, it would really help if our second- and third-year players continue to improve.

Dan from Minneapolis

Mark, now that the Packers have the football operation in order with changes in roles and personnel, and the financial stability provided by expanding Lambeau Field and developing Titletown is in motion, the event on the horizon that seems to pose the biggest threat to the Packers' continued success is the renegotiation of the collective bargaining agreement with the players after the 2020 season.

You are in a unique position, functioning as an NFL owner and having also been an NFL player. You serve on NFL committees associated with this process. Would you say your legacy to the Packers will be significantly determined by the outcome of that negotiation, maintaining the revenue models that have served the Packers so well since the 2011 CBA? The Packers seem to me to be the franchise for whom the outcome of this process will be the most important, since there is no billionaire owner. The financial stability of the Packers has always been a function of revenue sharing with the NFL; anything that puts that at risk puts the Packers at risk.

Thanks as always for taking my questions, Mark.

There is no question, Dan, that the next collective bargaining agreement will be extremely important to the league, and particularly the Packers (for the reasons you mention). First, I think the current CBA has been great for the game overall, for management as well as players. The fact that we have a 10-year agreement in place has allowed the league (and teams) to enter into long-term agreements with the networks and sponsors, and for teams and cities to invest in new stadiums or major renovations – these have benefitted both the owners and players greatly. I may be overly optimistic, but I do not see the basic system (revenue sharing, players receiving a percentage of the revenue and a salary cap) that has been in place since 1993 changing. It has worked so well for both players and owners, and we would be foolish to change it. Moreover, even if it did change, I do think the Packers would still be able to compete – we have a reserve fund of approximately $400 million and last year were ninth in the league in revenue. I don't focus on my legacy, but rather look for all of us to make decisions that are in the best interest of the franchise. We work toward winning multiple Super Bowls and achieving success both on and off the field (and a new CBA would certainly be important in this regard).

A question from Mike

I first played football in the 1940s before facemasks were used. I watched many Packer games during that time played without facemasks and don't recall any serious head injuries.

Soon after the introduction of facemasks came the inevitable use of helmets as a weapon and the consequent skyrocketing number of concussions. The awkward and confusing rules being introduced may mitigate head injuries but are only half-hearted steps and make the referee's task almost impossible.

I am certain that removal of facemasks in the modern game would be a straightforward measure that would almost eliminate concussions; bewildering rules would be unnecessary. I've read that Marv Levy and Mike Ditka also have recommended this, so I'm not alone. I've enjoyed your columns and good luck!

Mike, there are many great football minds that agree with you. I know Joe Paterno also said the best thing to do to reduce concussions would be to take off the facemask. With the current facemasks and helmets, the players think they are invincible and use the helmet as a weapon. While I don't think it is realistic to remove the facemask, we did make many safety-related rule changes last offseason. I was pleased to see that concussions went down 29 percent this year. I think the new use-of-the-helmet rule and kickoff rules were key factors.

Ivan from Green Bay

I watched the Pro Bowl for about five minutes before turning it off. It was awful and didn't even look like football. Why do they still play the game and how can anyone watch it?