Rockmolder
10 years ago

Cut Starks. What if Jackson gets hurt, Green proves not able to return from injury and Harris shows why 30 teams allowed him to sell cars for a living last fall? Now you have absolutely nothing and you have money tied up. That is not that far fetched a scenario.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 



Starks get injured. Far more likely. Same problems.
QCHuskerFan
10 years ago

First of all, those weren't big signings. All of them were one year prove it deals with not that much money tied upto them, with the exception of Manningham, who put up 450 yards before wrecking his knee. Not great, but not a big blow at $7,3 million over two years.

Second of all, that doesn't prove your point as much as it proves that they were bad signings in hindsight.

Did Woodson, going towards his 30s when he signed with us hinder us in developping other corners? On the contrary. And he became the league DMVP and mentored guys like Williams and Shields.

You don't waste age by having a veteran play in a starter spot, you waste it by having a guy like Driver on the roster as your number five guy. You pump talent in from the bottom, you don't force them into starting spots in the hope that they'll be any good.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 



They were big signings. They were typical signings of a team trying to fill perceived holes through FA. They weren't Peyton Manning, but they were big. 2 projected starters and a #2 RB. They were failures. Doesn't mean they weren't big. Those 3 players were 5% of their CAP last year.

Those signings are exactly my point. FA signings fail at a large rate. They are expensive. They are not necessary, unless you need to sell tickets.

The 49er sigings are typical of 90% of the players available in FA. Old, broken down, castoffs. Scott Wells? Ryan Grant? Daryn Colledge? Brandon Jackson? Those players were signed as FA by another team. How is that team doing with players that we cast off? Jeff Saturday and Anthony Hargrove, anyone? Those are the cast offs the Packers signed in 2012. How'd that work out? There are many more just like that. For every Peyton Manning, there are 100 Jeff Saturday's.

Woodson and Pickett were signed, not because they would get us over the top, but because the roster had major talent issues. Neither player had huge interest from lots of teams. In other words, they were perfect for Ted Thompson because their value was not artificially inflated.

Charles Woodson in Feb 2006 was not the Charles Woodson of 2009 or 2010 or 2011. He had not played a full season in 4 years due to injuries. He had only 2 INT's in the last 2 years. He had attitude issues with the Raiders management. It's easy to say it was a great signing, because it was. But the Packers were not signing a DMVP. They were signing a CB with an injury and attitude history that not a lot of other teams wanted to take a chance on. Worked out well!

I agree about pumping in talent from the bottom. But you don't find young talent in FA. Teams hold and develop young talent until it either doesn't develop or it becomes too expensive to keep. You don't find Heyward, Cobb, McMillian, Sitton in FA.
QCHuskerFan
10 years ago

Starks get injured. Far more likely. Same problems.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 



Starks=$ 630,000

Jackson= $ 2,916,666

Not the same problems. That's 2.3M that can be used to sign AR.
Rockmolder
10 years ago

Starks=$ 630,000

Jackson= $ 2,916,666

Not the same problems. That's 2.3M that can be used to sign AR.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 



And then we'll come back to the fact that Jackson is a better player and far less injury prone.

I get your point, but I just don't see how it could be better. You sound like someone who would eat wallpaper paste every day to eventually die with a huge savings account. No offense intented, and you make good points, but I don't see how you see those one year prove it contracts as big free agent signings. Or how, with our RBs your main point was that it'd hinder the growth of one of our running backs, but we're now somehow talking about saving money on FA signings.

We're consistently among the youngest teams with, relative to other competetive teams, quite a bit of cap room. I agree with you that quite a bit will be used towards signings Aaron Rodgers and CMIII, but one of two signings like a Jackson, Woodson, Boldin, Pickett, Welker, Talib, Dansby, Rolle, Posluszny... Those are just some of the top of my head. You're not going to get very far when you're trying to fill all kinds of gaps with FAs, but you can work out the little kinks.

Btw, broken down cast-offs? Scott Wells? How? And how did the Hargrove and Saturday signings really hurt us?

Lastly, I'm aware of Woodson's history. Steven Jackson wasn't a $8 million a year, high valued free agent, either. He's a RB nearing the end of his career... But he could be the piece that puts this team over the top and he didn't come at too bad a price.
QCHuskerFan
10 years ago

And then we'll come back to the fact that Jackson is a better player and far less injury prone.

I get your point, but I just don't see how it could be better. You sound like someone who would eat wallpaper paste every day to eventually die with a huge savings account. No offense intented, and you make good points, but I don't see how you see those one year prove it contracts as big free agent signings. Or how, with our RBs your main point was that it'd hinder the growth of one of our running backs, but we're now somehow talking about saving money on FA signings.

We're consistently among the youngest teams with, relative to other competetive teams, quite a bit of cap room. I agree with you that quite a bit will be used towards signings Aaron Rodgers and CMIII, but one of two signings like a Jackson, Woodson, Boldin, Pickett, Welker, Talib, Dansby, Rolle, Posluszny... Those are just some of the top of my head. You're not going to get very far when you're trying to fill all kinds of gaps with FAs, but you can work out the little kinks.

Btw, broken down cast-offs? Scott Wells? How? And how did the Hargrove and Saturday signings really hurt us?

Lastly, I'm aware of Woodson's history. Steven Jackson wasn't a $8 million a year, high valued free agent, either. He's a RB nearing the end of his career... But he could be the piece that puts this team over the top and he didn't come at too bad a price.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 



Scott Wells. 32 yrs old. Played in 7 games for Rams in 2012 due to injury. Old? Check. Broken? Check. Cast off from Packers in 2012? Check.

Hargrove and Saturday didn't help. That's my point. Ted Thompson signed FAs.

It's a circular conversation because everything is related. It's not as simple as just signing the best 10 OT's in football to make sure you are covered against every possibility. You can't because there are financial limits and roster limits. So if you prioritize spending $3M on an old RB, then you cut $3M and youth from another area. Everything Ted Thompson does has repercussions.

Rumor has it that the Packers and Aaron Rodgers are $2M apart. So if Ted Thompson pays Jackson $2M, does that mean then that the Packers and Aaron Rodgers are $4M apart, because Ted Thompson used some of the 'limited' pool of money?

If all I cared about was the Packers winning the 2014 Super Bowl, I would want them to get every FA available. I am not willing to give up the future for today.

I recently spoke with my 20yr old daughter. In a 2 minute conversation, she mentioned she had 45 pairs of shoes, had just bought 2 more pairs and her cell phone was junk, but she didn't have the money to replace it. We talked about her priorities. If she hadn't blown money on shoes, she would be able to replace her phone. If Ted Thompson doesn't blow money on FA's, he can sign AR, CMIII, Raji, Sitton, Bulaga, etc. So what are your priorities, because you can't do it all? Do you want Jackson so you might win the SB this year or do you want Aaron Rodgers so you might win the SB every year? That's what Ted Thompson has to decide.
Rockmolder
10 years ago

Scott Wells. 32 yrs old. Played in 7 games for Rams in 2012 due to injury. Old? Check. Broken? Check. Cast off from Packers in 2012? Check.

Hargrove and Saturday didn't help. That's my point. Ted Thompson signed FAs.

It's a circular conversation because everything is related. It's not as simple as just signing the best 10 OT's in football to make sure you are covered against every possibility. You can't because there are financial limits and roster limits. So if you prioritize spending $3M on an old RB, then you cut $3M and youth from another area. Everything Ted Thompson does has repercussions.

Rumor has it that the Packers and Aaron Rodgers are $2M apart. So if Ted Thompson pays Jackson $2M, does that mean then that the Packers and Aaron Rodgers are $4M apart, because Ted Thompson used some of the 'limited' pool of money?

If all I cared about was the Packers winning the 2014 Super Bowl, I would want them to get every FA available. I am not willing to give up the future for today.

I recently spoke with my 20yr old daughter. In a 2 minute conversation, she mentioned she had 45 pairs of shoes, had just bought 2 more pairs and her cell phone was junk, but she didn't have the money to replace it. We talked about her priorities. If she hadn't blown money on shoes, she would be able to replace her phone. If Ted Thompson doesn't blow money on FA's, he can sign AR, CMIII, Raji, Sitton, Bulaga, etc. So what are your priorities, because you can't do it all? Do you want Jackson so you might win the SB this year or do you want Aaron Rodgers so you might win the SB every year? That's what Ted Thompson has to decide.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 



The $3 million you pay Steven Jackson is going to force us to let those guys go? I very much doubt it. That's why I said, in moderation. Had your daughted bought 3 pairs of shoes, she could still buy that new cellphone and then some.

It's not like I'm calling for us to sign a guy like Peppers, Williams or Wallace here.

Scott Wells was one of the best centers in the league for us. He gets injured once with his new team and he's a broken down, old cast-off. You're going to quite some extremes here.

Hargrove and Saturday didn't help in hindsight, but they didn't hurt us, either. There was next to no risk, with a possibility at a very good reward. I feel the same away about Jackson, be it the risk is a tad bit higher because he demands a slightly higher salary...

If you want to start with out of whack contracts, let's look at our own guys first. How on earth are we paying Finley $8 million for what he's doing?

QCHuskerFan
10 years ago

Scott Wells was one of the best centers in the league for us. He gets injured once with his new team and he's a broken down, old cast-off. You're going to quite some extremes here.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 



Scott Wells was a somewhat above average center for the Packers for a number of years.

Scott Wells is, by NFL standards, old. The Packers elected not to resign him last year. He got hurt. Those are not 3 independent actions. Would the Packers have cut him if he was 25 and healthy? I doubt it. Now I won't say they knew he would get hurt. But he's 32. Playing a young man's game. As he gets older, is he more or less likely to get injured? This is simple math.

He will not get younger. He may return to health. Want to bet paychecks on his health going forward?

This is what FA is about. A GM rides a player as long as he thinks he can for an affordable price. Then, when the GM thinks the player is getting close to decreasing in performance relative to value, the player gets released. Some other GM may think the player has a year or 2 or 4 left. GM's are not fortune tellers. It's not a perfect science. One of them is going to be wrong.

It's not a complete coincidence that the 2 of the 3 players signed by 49ers in FA last year, ended up hurt. FA's are by rule, older players. Not always 31, like Scott Wells. But older. Older means more injury prone.

When the Rams signed Wells, their GM was gambling that he knew more than TT. The Rams were planning on Wells having a couple more good years. He may have yet, but 2012 was not one of them.

QCHuskerFan
10 years ago

The $3 million you pay Steven Jackson is going to force us to let those guys go? I very much doubt it. That's why I said, in moderation. Had your daughted bought 3 pairs of shoes, she could still buy that new cellphone and then some.

Hargrove and Saturday didn't help in hindsight, but they didn't hurt us, either. There was next to no risk, with a possibility at a very good reward. I feel the same away about Jackson, be it the risk is a tad bit higher because he demands a slightly higher salary...

If you want to start with out of whack contracts, let's look at our own guys first. How on earth are we paying Finley $8 million for what he's doing?

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 



It's only $3M for Jackson. Or it could have been Canty. Or maybe both, because we 'need' both positions. If I was more computer savvy, I bet I could find 1 or 2 FA's last year that people on this board wanted signed. Then there will be next year. It's like an alcoholic having 1 drink. It's never just one. And suddenly those 2 FA's every year are the difference between signing CMIII or not. Discipline is what keeps Ted Thompson from blowing money on the 'Flavor of the Year'. And it is what has positioned us for a 5th consecutive year of playoff games.

Finley's contract, well, it's hard to justify. But Erik Walden got 8M guaranteed!?! Do you think someone wouldn't pay way more than 8M for Finley? He's young, relatively healthy, athletically freakish. But a headcase with the occasional dropsies. Someone would break the bank, I believe. I bet they will next year. I wish them luck.

I have issues with Hawk's contract and Brad Jones, also. I do not value our ILB's like Ted Thompson does. Williams is another one that I don't feel is good for us. But if he is going to make a mistake, I guess I would rather it be a player on which our staff knows everything. Instead of someone else's used car.

Zero2Cool
10 years ago

It's only $3M for Jackson. Or it could have been Canty. Or maybe both, because we 'need' both positions. If I was more computer savvy, I bet I could find 1 or 2 FA's last year that people on this board wanted signed.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 



Click "Search" and you can get it done.


UserPostedImage
DakotaT
10 years ago



You don't waste age by having a veteran play in a starter spot, you waste it by having a guy like Driver on the roster as your number five guy. You pump talent in from the bottom, you don't force them into starting spots in the hope that they'll be any good.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 



Watch out, the real Packer fans will have your nuts for sacrilege like this, well maybe not you, but I get taken to the woodshed every time I dare breath a word about replacing the relics.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
dfosterf (10h) : Maybe
Mucky Tundra (10h) : Yes
Zero2Cool (11h) : No.
Mucky Tundra (13h) : End of a Degu-era
dhazer (14h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
Zero2Cool (17h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (18h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
5h / Around The NFL / beast

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.