Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy started using this word around the time he was hired.   What does it mean?   Does it mean anything?  Is there really any substance to it, or is it just kind of a feel good PR term?   Some thoughts from members of the PackerNation Discussion Group:

Stargazr:

I think character flags come into play when someone is looking at "investing" a draft pick on the player.  The higher the pick, the higher the risk and vice versa.  It also comes into play wrt the organization and coaching staff's ability to handle the character issues.  I don't think "Packer People" means these are guys with no skeletons (or in the case of Davenpoop, well you know where I'm going...) in their closets.  I think it means they are tough, football smart, know how to play the game and perform well in our current scheme.  And they will "behave" in the Packers' locker room and in the community.  "Behave" I think means that the organization can "control" their behavior such that they don't violate the league conduct policy and to the extent possible the substance abuse policy.  And on field talent trumps some past issues if the team believes they can control that player.  Especially with late draft choices and rookie FA's who can be cut with little or no loss.

I think someone like a player we didn't trade for would have stretched the limits of the definition of "Packer People" because his history says at some point he will make more than one stupid comment or take one or more stupid action that will hurt team chemistry and/or violate team or league policy.  But he's known to be a competitor, he works out, stays in shape and is a football player "when he feels like being one" (that's where I think the boundary would really stretch).  I think TT and MM believe they have above average ability to control team chemistry and team/league policy within the Packer organization and the community.  And I think they get rid of "bad actors" when they begin to get in the way.  I think of Carroll, Roman, Thomas, Hunt as examples in recent past.  I think they'll put up with some issues if the performance justifies the hastle to maintain control.  But when it's obvious their play is not worth it and/or they go public with complaints, the line has been crossed and they're gone.

I don't think TT and MM are being hypocritical with their statements about "Packer People".  They know this league and know it's a balancing act with these players.  Throw millions of dollars at 20 year olds and you're very lucky if a few of them don't handle it well.  Talk about herding cats...  I thing they know there is a distribution curve associated with character and players.  I think they try to skew the curve to the good character side and try to minimize the outliers.

Are there some guys with bad or questionable character on the Packers?  Yes, just like every other team.  The level of distraction it causes is what determines if they remain on the team or are out the door.

PackerNation:

The whole "Packer People" thing.....I think it just means different things to different people.  To me, it's tough, smart, high-energy, hard-working, solid-citizen type guys who'll rise to the occasion.   I'm sure it means other things to other people.

I don't want the Randy Moss types, or the Ray Lewis types, or the PacMan Jones types.   I'm not saying you have to be a Boy Scout to have decent character, either.   The dudes who landed on the beach at Iwo Jima weren't Boy Scouts but they sure as hell had character.

Bizarro2:

The "Packer People" debate is a fairly difficult one, imho. I imagine that the team is ultimately comprised of decent people who are phenomenal athletes, but in the end I also know that I am susceptible, as a foolhearted fan, to ill-advised views toward players due to financial investments and minimal returns--or returns that I perceive to be inadequate.

How am I to judge these things...how am I to know these things as actual verifiable truths? I can't. Therein lies a paradox of sorts. The media believes one thing, or is prompted to endorse a certain (often company-specific) viewpoint...or so it seems...and we are told certain things or our culture reacts toward certain things that are often highly disputable in my opinion. Thus, when I look at the label "Packer Player" I see it as mythologized as much as the Ice Bowl itself. I want decent people. I want talented hardworkers. I want leaders. Yet, the NFL is a business and big business has one constant: success or perish. Thus, character is ultimately moot to a certain degree.

I didn't want Moss. However, this had nothing to do with a character issue. As a 'character' he is highly engaging, bold, and upfront...however, as a player and a teammate he is the consummate asshole. Having played DI athletics I am often ashamed by players who make themselves bigger than the game though it is typically players with the utmost of talent that can get away with this. Along with Moss's questionable (at best) commitment to team comes the nagging questions of 2 past years of under-performing tendencies on a team that was terrible on offense. However, regardless of whether it was the talent in Oakland, he did not step up as a leader...he did not play his hardest, and he quit. That fails my idea of a good teammate.

When I look at the pick of Clowney I can honestly avow that I am infinitely more excited to see him play in mini camp and training camp than I am to see the "myth" of the "great" Randy Moss overshadow the remainder of the team's development...well except Favre of course. That is why I am a fan. That is why I like Ted Thompson. I like athletes that are given a chance and rise to the top. Whether this translates to wins or losses is almost rendered meaningless. Randy Moss has been given too many chances and that has a lot to do with character but it has more to do with the team.

Stargazr:

Biz...I've just seen some comments about how "packer people" is a somewhat hypocritical statement and that some of the players TT has considered bringing to Green Bay is proof that he doesn't practice what he preaches.  I just think it's a very gray area and open for wide interpretation.  I've had teammates quit on teams I've played on as well and it's unproductive all around.  Some players respond by lowering their play to the level of the player or players who have let the team down.  Some try to overcompensate, press and take themselves out of their normal game.

We have at least one questionable "packer people" from this draft.  Wynn underachieved at Florida.  You could argue he let his team and coaches down by not performing to the level of his talents.  And apparently his coaches said as much from what I've read.  TT drafted him and they'll see if they can motivate him.  The difference between TT and a previous GM is that he'll take the character risks in round 7 and FA where the investment is low.  On the other end of the spectrum, you can look at Harrell, someone who has been oft injured but felt the need to lead his team as a senior despite a very painful and debilitating injury for his position.  High character for sure (and maybe an injury risk).  And it's clear TT valued his talent and performance and his character over the risk of injury.

To me the term "packer people" is really PR, marketing, maybe a "vision statement" for the organization to build around.  So when I hear someone in the organization say it, that's all it is to me.  It's like saying our mission as a business is "to provide the best service to our customer and provide the greatest value to our shareholders."  Pretty vague until you break it down to specific qualities and initiatives you expect from your organization and people throughout.  And ultimately actions speak louder than any slogans.

If this team gels, grows and plays well together I'll say TT has fulfilled his vision.  If we end up like the Bengals, I'll say he's failed.  At the same time the vision must include championship quality organization and play.  So, he will also have failed if we live in mediocrity during his tenure.

Believe me, I'll take Clowney and Jones any day over Moss, Ginn and even some of the other second tier WR's like Sydney Rice, Allison, etal.  They appear to be good fits for the WCO.  They aren't household names and they aren't as sexy as Moss or some of the other high profile receivers.  But Jones looks the part of a very good possession type receiver.  And Clowney looks like he can stretch the field and has been described as tough as anyone pound for pound.

For the most part, I'd say TT has been pretty consistent, has a plan and is sticking to it.  I don't think less of him or his plan because he considered taking in Moss if he thought he could help the team and not destroy it's chemistry.  Trust me, I didn't want Moss.  I even called Harlan to tell him.  And Harlan told me it hadn't even been discussed.  In the end, it obviously was.  Did it bother me that Harlan played the company line card?  Yes, a little.  But I also understand this is a business and I would hope that Harlan and the rest of the organization wouldn't tell me or anyone else outside the organization what they're actually doing.  So I hope they'll continue to talk in generalities like "packer people".  Let people decide what it means to them.  But do what it takes to build a winning team without putting the convict team from "The Longest Yard" on the field.