Williams trade

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not asking whether Thompson got fair value for Williams. Just the impact on the team.

[Harlan Huckleby]

oh shit, I put this poll in the wrong room. :oops:

one of you mods make yourself useful for a change and move the thread.

OK, please.

[RashanGary]

I voted no. Williams would have helped a lot this year. Now he's gone and in his place is a big question mark. It might turn out to be in our favor long term, but right now I think the safe money is on Williams having a better career after this point than a late 2nd rounder.

[RashanGary]

All things considered though (Williams wanting big money and leaving shortly unless we pay him), I think it was the right move but it doesn't make us better and it mgiht never make us better. Sometimes you take the best of two bad situations though.

[RashanGary]

I guess over the long haul it makes us better because payinig him would have been a chain effect. So there are really three choices

1. Forcing him to play as a franchise player and then losing him for nothing (4th round comp pick)
2. Trading him for a 2nd rounder
3. Paying him a monster contract


I think the best of those three was #2 but not becuase it makes us better now, but because it makes us better long term when we lock up better players for less money.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I agree with you JH, it probably is the best available option.

except... I'm not sure they are likely to lock-up a better player as a result.

ummm, I just see it as a mildly unfortunate reality to lose such a player.

[Patler]

JH, you really should stop debating with yourself in all these threads!

[Partial]

You know that you can franchise players two years in a row, right? He would have been pissed but he could have been kept here for awhile.

[RashanGary]

JH, you really should stop debating with yourself in all these threads!

When I answered the question, I was thinking short term. After thinking about it, I think it has a little more lasting effect.

Yeah, that was pretty bad, wasn't it :oops:

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm a little surprised that anyone thinks the team is actually stronger as a result of this move. Isn't Williams better than most 2nd rounders?

[MJZiggy]

JH, you really should stop debating with yourself in all these threads!

I think he's just trying to catch up to my post count... :lol:

[Patler]

JH, you really should stop debating with yourself in all these threads!

I think he's just trying to catch up to my post count... :lol:

Foolish attempt, even if you are working! :lol:

[Bretsky]

it does not make the team better next year; it might make the team beter long term though.

It was a wise move for a 2nd

[wpony]

I think it was a very good move will it make the packers better next year hard to say this poll should have been asked after the draft :)

[HarveyWallbangers]

Does trading Williams for 2nd rounder make team better?

Silly question. Of course, it doesn't make the team better--without knowing what we do with the pick (e.g. trade it for Jason Taylor) or who we get with the 2nd round pick. You're a master at shaping questions to slant the answer to what you want. You should work for the NY Times or Washington Post.
:D

I'm boycotting this poll.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Most people would agree that trading Frank Walker for a 2nd round pick would improve the team.

And trading Aaron Kampmen for a 2nd rounder would almost certainly weaken the team.

Result of Williams trade is not so easy to predict.

Obviously it will depend on how good the 2nd rounder turns out to be, just asking people to venture a guess.

[Freak Out]

You need to delay the poll until after the draft....or the end of next season. :)
What did your Ouija board say?

[cheesner]

it does not make the team better next year; it might make the team beter long term though.

It was a wise move for a 2nd
Good post. I think most fans concentrate just on next season. GMs who do that don't last very long on their jobs.

[Brohm]

I think it makes the team better. Just given TT's past history, I would guess one of those 2's is going to be traded for multiple second day picks which will add further depth. (I would also venture we pick up a DT/DE as well). Look at what we have gotten in those later rounds:

Driver: 7th
Kampman: 5th
KGB: 5th
Williams: 6th
Tauscher: 7th
Wells: 7th

Last year: Starting kicker and FB and back -up MLB

Yes we lose Williams pass rush, but I think the increase in depth, and hopefully Harrell's improvement, will more than tip the scales as a positive. The real risk is that the young players have to step up and grow from within.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I usually think of Kool-Aide as a refreshing summertime drink, but its already flowing fast and furious. Must be the long winter.

Corey Williams is a good, starting defensive tackle. No way would you give up a valuable known asset like this for a 2nd round draft pick unless your hand was forced by financial constraints.

The Packers have essentially exchanged Corey Williams' roster spot for Justin Harrell. They can't afford to pay both guys at the same position. This move can be viewed as an additional cost of acquiring Justin Harrell. Maybe the exchange will work out, maybe not, but it certainly raises the bar of success for Harrell. Harrell damn well better be an upgrade.

[SkinBasket]

Maybe the exchange will work out, maybe not, but it certainly raises the bar of success for Harrell. Harrell damn well better be an upgrade.

You mean Harrell, whatever comes of the 2nd, and whoever we spend the 6 mil on (if we spend it at all), better be an upgrade.

[Brohm]

Williams started because Jolly and Cole were injured. When thrust into that starting role, his production diminished and the pass rush/run defense suffered as a whole. I guess I don't see him is an irreplaceable cog worth 6 million a year. It's not Kool-Aid, just a difference in opinion on value. If he had a Jenkins type contract, then the better value is keeping him. It's not like he was breaking out Warren Sapp in his prime sack numbers.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Maybe the exchange will work out, maybe not, but it certainly raises the bar of success for Harrell. Harrell damn well better be an upgrade.

You mean Harrell, whatever comes of the 2nd, and whoever we spend the 6 mil on (if we spend it at all), better be an upgrade.

No. They alternately could have traded Harrell and gotten cap relief and a draft pick.

Not sure what kind of draft pick you would get for Harrell, though. :wink:

I don't think you would downgrade a position on the defensive line.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Williams started because Jolly and Cole were injured. When thrust into that starting role, his production diminished and the pass rush/run defense suffered as a whole. I guess I don't see him is an irreplaceable cog worth 6 million a year. It's not Kool-Aid, just a difference in opinion on value. If he had a Jenkins type contract, then the better value is keeping him. It's not like he was breaking out Warren Sapp in his prime sack numbers.

Sure, dumping Williams makes sense. I'm not saying it is a bad move. But you also have to look at who you are replacing him with - Harrell. Not sure what Harrell's salary is, but as a first round draft pick, it ain't chicken feed. The Packers are gambling that HArrell will be better than Williams.

[Brohm]

Really, I think William's replacement is already on the roster in Jenkins. Though able to play DE, he is there because KGB gets destroyed as a starter. If we can find a DE to run opposite Kampman, I think the whole DL falls into place with Pickett, Jolly, Cole, Harrell and Jenkins manning the interior and Kampman, New Starter X, Backup Y (currently Montgomery) and KGB as a rush specialist manning the end positions.

[Zool]

Really, I think William's replacement is already on the roster in Jenkins. Though able to play DE, he is there because KGB gets destroyed as a starter. If we can find a DE to run opposite Kampman, I think the whole DL falls into place with Pickett, Jolly, Cole, Harrell and Jenkins manning the interior and Kampman, New Starter X, Backup Y (currently Montgomery) and KGB as a rush specialist manning the end positions.

I was thinking this exact same thing. Jenkins is an upgrade over Williams. If a DE can be located that plays the run and pass well, it all falls into place. Harrell can spell Jenks, Jolly can come in for Pickett.

Hell in on dime situations, they could move the unnamed DE to DT for Pickett and drop in KGB and have a hellova pass rush.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Jenkins is an upgrade over Williams.


Jeez, I don't know about this.

[SkinBasket]

Maybe the exchange will work out, maybe not, but it certainly raises the bar of success for Harrell. Harrell damn well better be an upgrade.

You mean Harrell, whatever comes of the 2nd, and whoever we spend the 6 mil on (if we spend it at all), better be an upgrade.

No. They alternately could have traded Harrell and gotten cap relief and a draft pick.

But they didn't. They got a 2nd and 6 mil in change relief to go along with Harrell and two other DTs. Every part of the exchange needs to be considered, not just the parts that fit your view.

It's amazing - but not surprising - how easily your mind slips from reality to theory (or more often fantasy) sometimes.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But they didn't. They got a 2nd and 6 mil in change relief to go along with Harrell and two other DTs. Every part of the exchange needs to be considered, not just the parts that fit your view.

If you want to view it as an exchange for a 2nd & $6M cap relief, that is fine. That's the deal on the face of it, one way to look at it. (Why you throw three other players into your treasure trove is mysterious.)

I have proposed an alternate way to view the deal: somebody had to go on the defensive line, and they are keeping Williams instead of new acquisition Harrell. If this is too mind-bending for you, no need to keep up.

[Lurker64]

No. They alternately could have traded Harrell and gotten cap relief and a draft pick.

You can only really compare things that were actually alternatives when you're waxing poetically about "what they should have done." We could have done a lot of things, but they wouldn't have addressed the Corey Williams situation.

Coming into the offseason we had four choices as to what to do with Williams:
(1) Let him walk and receive compensatory picks in 2009.
(2) Tag him and trade him for picks in 2008 to a team willing to sign him for a longterm contract.
(3) Tag him and let him play out the year at which point you ask this question again in the next offseason.
(4) Sign him to a longterm deal and thereby make him the highest paid player on the defense (second overall behind Favre.)

Personally, I consider (1) and (4) to be unacceptable options. Compensatory picks are almost always disappointing and the picks you could get via (2) are almost certainly better (who gets a second round compensatory pick?) Even though Williams was a valuable contributor, in no way is he worth being the highest played player on the defense (and the highest paid player on the team, in case Favre retires), especially considering he wasn't even a starter. Thompson tried to resign Williams to a longterm deal and offered him Jenkins/Pickett money, which is more than fair IMO.

So the real choice is "Tag him and trade him" or "Tag him and let him play." Neither are great options, but I think the latter is less desirable considering that Williams was unhappy to be tagged and unhappy players generally make trouble, which we don't really have time to deal with.

So of the actual choices Thompson was prevented as to "what to do with Williams" he chose either the best or the second best.

[Harlan Huckleby]

(3) Tag him and let him play out the year at which point you ask this question again in the next offseason.

not a bad idea, Lurker. Buy some time to see if that sluggard Harrell comes around.

[Lurker64]

(3) Tag him and let him play out the year at which point you ask this question again in the next offseason.

not a bad idea, Lurker. Buy some time to see if that sluggard Harrell comes around.

I don't think either of us are in a position to really tell how good of an idea it would be. Since "Franchising him is safe" really comes down to a question about how volatile the situation would be and whether that would hurt morale or locker room chemistry, whether there would be a threat of a hold-out, etc.

I don't know Corey Williams, I have never talked to Corey Williams, and I have never been in the Green Bay Packers locker room so I can't personally attest to how much of a bad scene this would be. However, Thompson, McCarthy and other Packer personnel people probably have a lot better shot at correctly diagnosing the situation than anybody on the internet.

But, like I said of the reasonable alternatives, "Tag him and trade him" or "Tag him and play him" are the two best choices (in some order.) Which one is the best, we're not in position to tell.

[SkinBasket]

If this is too mind-bending for you, no need to keep up.

The only reason not to keep up is because you're dancing naked around your own little la-la land. You'll have to forgive me for declining the invitation to join your one man conga line.

[Harlan Huckleby]

However, Thompson, McCarthy and other Packer personnel people probably have a lot better shot at correctly diagnosing the situation than anybody on the internet.


:lol: Of course this statement can be made about each and every change the Packers make. This view only leaves room to say hozannahs for our leaders.

There's a hot thread about a dark city in the Romper Room, i'm going back over there.

[The Leaper]

NO!

To say otherwise is stupid. We just lost the one DT we had who could put any pressure on the QB, and had 7 sacks in each of the last 2 seasons.

Short term, there is no way that we improve. You can't lose a player who demands the contract CW just pulled down and say your team got better for it.

Long term, we likely do improve...because CW isn't worth all of the coin he pulled down, and Thompson has proven he is adept at finding maximum value with 2nd round selections. We also still have lots of young talent on the DL that is still developing, which could mitigate the loss of CW.

There also is the issue of whether or not we get anyone else with the cash that CW would've tied up. Future signings might also have to be factored into the equation.

[Fritz]

If you choose to look at this Harlan-style, then you could look at what the consequences of doing things differently might be.

1. Williams gets a big ol' contract and stays. Sal cap is affected.

2. Harrell gets traded. For what, though? A first round pick who had a forgettable first season. What could you get? A second? Prolly not. Maybe a third?

3. Surer knowledge of what you have on the d-line. You pretty much know what you've got with Williams and company.

Now, you can also replace number 1. with let him play for a year and bolt. Or you can replace it with Williams's agent cannot agree to an extension, Williams becomes unhappy, sits out of camp and forces a trade. Would you get a second for him then? Unlikely, I think.

I think Harlan's alternative view is not as attractive as the view we have with Thompson taking the action he did. Williams was moved at the time he had the utmost value, and given what he got in a contract, it's questionable as to whether he was worth that.

If Harrell turns out to be a stud, we'll applaud the trade, at least if the guy picked with that Cleveland second rounder turns out to be a Jennings quality player.

If Harrell sucks and TT drafts a dud in the second and Williams has another 7 sacks next year, we'll all be pissed.

[Joemailman]

I said no, but that is just a statement regarding the state of the team right now, not a prediction of whether the trade will help the Pack this season. If Harrell and Muir step up this year, and the pick is able to immediately upgrade the Nickel back or Tight end positions, the trade could very well pay off this year.

[Cheesehead Craig]

The trade immediately made the team better. CW said he wanted out and was upset about the tag. He would have been a cancer and ruined the chemistry on the team.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The trade immediately made the team better. CW said he wanted out and was upset about the tag.

Well, what you are saying is they made the best of a bad situation. That doesn't mean the team got better.

The franchise tag is a strange rule. IT seems like every player would be angry to get the tag, or at least it is in their interest to claim to be. I doubt the situation with Williams is any different from every other attempt to keep a player an extra year with the franchise tag.

[The Leaper]

Players are always upset about the tag until it comes time to play...then they forget about it and hit the field. How many dozens have players have griped their ass off when they were tagged? Hell, Briggs said he would NEVER play for the Bears again prior to 2007. Am I mistaken, or did he play for the Bears in 2007?

The players realize it is part of the way the game is played...and their value will only go down by being a jackass. CW might not have liked being tagged, but if he had not been traded, he would've been playing in 2008 for Green Bay...and I doubt he would've been a cancer.

[RashanGary]

We had two options to keep Williams.

1. We franchise him. We don't budge. He gets pissed, skips camp, plays in the games and then we either let him go for a mid/late round comp pick or do it again next year.

2. We pay him 6 years, 38 mil. I don't think he's a good enough player to invest that kind of commitment in through age 34.


So would I rather have the 2nd round pick than the franchise headache or the long term deal that I think will be counterproductive? Yeah, I'll take the 2nd round pick.


As far as the question; is our team better, I think it's not better short term, but will be better over the long haul with the pick and not having a good player taking up 38 million of our cap space that should be used on a better player.

On top of that, I think both Harrell and Jolly will be better. Even if we didn't have Harrell, I thought Jolly was a better player last year.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Players are always upset about the tag until it comes time to play...then they forget about it and hit the field. How many dozens have players have griped their ass off when they were tagged? Hell, Briggs said he would NEVER play for the Bears again prior to 2007. Am I mistaken, or did he play for the Bears in 2007?

The players realize it is part of the way the game is played...and their value will only go down by being a jackass. CW might not have liked being tagged, but if he had not been traded, he would've been playing in 2008 for Green Bay...and I doubt he would've been a cancer.

if you are right, I wish they would have kept him for a year to monitor Harrell's progress.


but water over the dam.

[Cheesehead Craig]

The trade immediately made the team better. CW said he wanted out and was upset about the tag. He would have been a cancer and ruined the chemistry on the team.

Well, what you are saying is they made the best of a bad situation. That doesn't mean the team got better.
Nope. I'm saying we got rid of a player who didn't want to be here and keeping him would have been a bad move. Would have pouted and been a disruption. Thus the team is better now that a malcontent is gone.

[The Leaper]

if you are right, I wish they would have kept him for a year to monitor Harrell's progress.

Perhaps...but they are different players. Harrell is a massive run stuffer who people HOPE can collapse the pocket when he gains strength. Williams was a pass rush specialist who used speed rather than bulk to get to the QB.

I don't think the notion that Harrell is the replacement for Williams jives with the reality of their talents and abilities.

[SkinBasket]

And don't forget we have another rookie at the position in Bolston to provide a jump start on filling the rotational role that Williams was good for.

There is no reason to think that between Harrell, Muir, Jolly, and Bolston, along with whatever other fatties we stir up before camp, we can't find someone either almost as good or maybe even better in a starting role than Williams was.

[The Leaper]

Would have pouted and been a disruption. Thus the team is better now that a malcontent is gone.

Doubtful. CW wasn't going to get paid if he was a pouting disruption. All tagged players are pouty and pissed off in March. By August, they change their tune and realize they are in a contract year again.

[RashanGary]

And don't forget we have another rookie at the position in Bolston to provide a jump start on filling the rotational role that Williams was good for.

There is no reason to think that between Harrell, Muir, Jolly, and Bolston, along with whatever other fatties we stir up before camp, we can't find someone either almost as good or maybe even better in a starting role than Williams was.

Oh yeah, this too. He's not irreplacable.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think the notion that Harrell is the replacement for Williams jives with the reality of their talents and abilities.

HE's the replacement in the sense that they have only so many slots for well-paid defensive lineman.

I thought Williams was pretty good.

We'll see. They let Vonnie Holliday go to make room for up-and-comer Cletedius Hunt. Harrell has to be really good for this to be a good move. Any good defensive linemen will be expensive, the money is a wash.

BTW, I was shocked to see that Holliday is still in the league!

[Harlan Huckleby]

There is no reason to think that between Harrell, Muir, Jolly, and Bolston, along with whatever other fatties we stir up before camp, we can't find someone either almost as good or maybe even better in a starting role than Williams was.


maybe they will. maybe not.

[RashanGary]

Losing him for nothing on the UFA market is one thing. We got a valuable 2nd round pick for him and avoided the troubling long term salary. I think it was a good move. Honestly, poeple brought up trades but I never thought they were realisitic. I didn't think a team would pony up a high pick and a big contract for Williams. I was wrong and right now I'm happy that I was because I think we'll come out ahead in this one.

[The Leaper]

HE's the replacement in the sense that they have only so many slots for well-paid defensive lineman.

To me, Harrell isn't even in the discussion.

The evidence regarding whether or not this was a good move will be CW's play in Cleveland in comparison to the money ($7M) he is getting paid on average...as well as the play of the player(s) we obtain with the 2nd round pick we got in return.

Whether or not Harrell pans out has no bearing on whether or not this was a good deal by Thompson. If CW bombs in Cleveland and/or the player(s) we acquire with the 2nd round pick turn out to be productive, it won't make a difference what happens to Harrell...the deal would've been a good one.

[Freak Out]

Were not fully into hindsight mode yet...

[Harlan Huckleby]

I wish they would have kept him for a year to monitor Harrell's progress.

Genius. Pure Genius. Who is this Harlan Huckleby sage?

[sheepshead]

I posted this on JSO but I though he should have made the pro bowl instead of Tommie Harris, who I thought made it in name only.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Whether or not Harrell pans out has no bearing on whether or not this was a good deal by Thompson. .

Idiocy. Pure Idiocy. Who is this Village Idiot, The Leaper?

[DonHutson]

I vote no, but the real answer is not yet.

As you said HH, Williams is a solid, maybe even good starting DT. But he's being paid like a superstar and that's just silly.

So this year, Williams at the $6M franchise tag number compared to what you'll get from Brohm... you're better off with Williams. Starting next year when Williams would've been gone as a FA anyway (or resigned at a ridiculous amount), and hopefully when Brohm turns into a really solid QB you'll be better off with the trade.

The other factor is that Williams wasn't happy abut getting franchised, would he be holding out or acting all sulky? Who knows.

[DonHutson]

One other thing. Thompson is very proactive about keeping the guys he wants to keep. Williams put together two good years and the Packers never seemed to show much of an interest in keeping him around. I get the feeling they were worried about Williams going downhill after he got paid.

[boiga]

One other thing to remember is that Cory is out injured right now, so even if he were still on our team we'd be short handed.

Our D-Line play will improve greatly when Pickett comes back this week.

[Lurker64]

I'm not in hindsight mode yet, considering that Williams was always somewhat unspectacular playing the run (he was about the equal of Colin Cole in that regard), his particular talent was in inside pass rush. He wasn't even starting last year until Jolly got hurt because he was a comparative liability against the run.

My concern about the DL this year is about whether or not the whole rotation will be able to stonewall the running game, not as much about whether the interior pass-rush won't skip a beat. If we could pick up another guy who can play the run about as well as Colin Cole, and we actually due tune up the blitz dial this year (and do so effectively), Williams won't be a great loss.

[falco]

when i saw the title of this my heart skipped a beat but then resumed its normal pace

[Harlan Huckleby]

As you said HH, Williams is a solid, maybe even good starting DT. But he's being paid like a superstar and that's just silly.

Well, ya, I don't know if Williams is worth a hefty contract, my point was the Packers would have been wise to keep him around ONE more season just to hedge their bet on Harrell, see if he can do the job for one more season.

I understand it also costs a draft pick to hold on to that security blanket, so maybe my suggestion was a poor one that just happens to look good now in hindsight.

(this is an old thread from March that somebody brought back to allow assholes to play "I told you so.")

[mission]

harlan i hear what you're saying and (especially now) it seems like a decent idea but TT runs this football team like tourists in vegas play blackjack.

it's almost like he has that little hit card out in front of him, he puts the situation into the equation and whatever the "rule" is for that, he acts on it. it seems to breed some consistency in decision making at least...

dealer showin 8 and you're holdin 16... you gotta hit every time.

TT doesnt seem to do a lot of "exceptions" to his GM card ...

[Fritz]

One other thing to remember is that Cory is out injured right now, so even if he were still on our team we'd be short handed.

Our D-Line play will improve greatly when Pickett comes back this week.

What happened to him?

[Harlan Huckleby]

it's almost like he has that little hit card out in front of him, he puts the situation into the equation and whatever the "rule" is for that, he acts on it. it seems to breed some consistency in decision making at least...

ya, I think you are right, TT plays it pretty robotically, he sticks to the percentages.

[boiga]

One other thing to remember is that Cory is out injured right now, so even if he were still on our team we'd be short handed.

Our D-Line play will improve greatly when Pickett comes back this week.

What happened to him? My mistake. He had missed all of TC with a shoulder injury but made it into the Browns first preseason game last week for two plays.

In other words, he's in about the same position as Pickett.

[Tarlam!]

dealer showin 8 and you're holdin 16... you gotta hit every time.

Which is precisely why the House always wins in the end.

[3irty1]

dealer showin 8 and you're holdin 16... you gotta hit every time.


Unless you've got two 8's then you should split. I personally think we should have played both hands :)

[texaspackerbacker]

I saw the thread, and I was afraid somebody was talking about trading Tramon.

There's no way we could have kept C. Williams for "just one year" to see about Harrell. The market amount we would have had to beat was way too much--IMO--for the quality of the player.

The true hindsight here will come from how Williams performs for Cleveland. I don't expect him to be worth anywhere near what they are paying him.

[The Leaper]

The true hindsight here will come from how Williams performs for Cleveland. I don't expect him to be worth anywhere near what they are paying him.

Exactly. Harrell has no bearing whatsoever on the Williams decision. Thompson has to evaluate each player's cost relative to their own ability. Williams was not worth a $5M+ annual salary.

When you start trying to factor in "should I pay more because I might not have anyone else to fill the role who is proven", you get stuck with contracts like those Shermy handed out to Hunt and KGB.