Texans may cut Ahman Green

[motife]

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/08/18/greens-groin-getting-him-cut/

GREEN’S GROIN GETTING HIM CUT?
Posted by Mike Florio on August 18, 2008, 12:54 p.m.
On the same day that the Texans reportedly will be parting ways with offensive lineman Fred Weary, there’s talk that one of the guys for whom he was blocking could be getting the heave-ho.

Per the Houston Chronicle, via our friends at Rotoworld.com, who exclusively power our must-see Fantasy Mill, Ahman Green’s current groin injury could result in a decision to release the veteran tailback.

The key piece of proof could be the decision of the Texans to sign Marcel Shipp, who was booted by the Cardinals recently. Shipp’s arrival could be a sign that either Green or newcomer Chris Brown will be gone.

And don’t be surprised if the winner in all of this is Steve Slaton, whose own chronic injury problems (coupled with an apparent fear of suffering a big one on the cusp of his NFL payday) caused his draft stock to slide to round three in April.

On Sunday, coach Gary Kubiak gushed about Slaton’s preseason performance against the Saints.

“He played pretty darn well,” Kubiak said. “He’s a player that’s getting continuously better every time we go out. He’s a much better player this week than he was last week. He was better in protections. There are still some mistakes that concern you the closer you get to the season, but it’s obviously he can be a big help to us offensively.”

Slaton has been regarded as at best a third-down back, due to his size. But why does it have to be that way? If he can move the chains, hold the ball, and avoid the injury bug, he could be a force. He’s got a nose for the end zone and a burst of speed that (unlike Reggie Bush) apparently is translating well to the NFL.

It’s still way too early to make comparisons. But wouldn’t it be the ultimate irony if it turns out that, two years after passing on Bush with the No. 1 overall pick, the Texans picked up in round three a guy who ends up being better than Bush?

[Lurker64]

Pretty sure Thompson was right for not matching the Texans bid for Green. I admit, at the time, I was kind of pissed off that we let Green go for a few million dollars difference, but I now recognize that I was wrong and Ted was right, at least on this issue.

[Pacopete4]

I know some may jump on me for this but... if he gets cut and we can get him league minimum to let him get that injury healed I think he'd be a serviceable back still

[retailguy]

Pretty sure Thompson was right for not matching the Texans bid for Green. I admit, at the time, I was kind of pissed off that we let Green go for a few million dollars difference, but I now recognize that I was wrong and Ted was right, at least on this issue.

Yeah, me too (I was pissed). I never have looked at someone and said, "whew, glad we didn't sign them"... after the fact.

There was no guarantee that had Ahman remained he'd have gotten hurt like he did in Houston.

Even back with Joe Johnson... No guarantee he wouldn't have been hurt had he remained in NO. It's just the breaks.... It happens. Yeah, Johnson had an injury history, but so do others than change teams and nothing happens....

I just can't look at information like this and then say things like "Ted made a good decision there", or "Ted made a bad decision there".

I didn't like the Ahman deal then, and I don't like it now. I'm glad that Grant got a chance to play, and I hope it continues into this season. But, if the line we saw on Sat nite is the new line, we have bigger problems than who is running the ball.

Ahman was a great Packer, and I miss that! I hate getting old, and watching these guys get old too....

[retailguy]

I know some may jump on me for this but... if he gets cut and we can get him league minimum to let him get that injury healed I think he'd be a serviceable back still


I'm not jumping on you, but I think we've got enough backs. Ahman no longer belongs on this team.... It's too young for him, and his being around would take carries away from a developing player, and remove someone from special teams duty....

But, nostalgically, I see where you're coming from...

[HarveyWallbangers]

There was no guarantee that had Ahman remained he'd have gotten hurt like he did in Houston.

Come on man. The guy started breaking down at the end of his career here, and he's been nothing but broken down there. Most people that were cool with Ahman leaving cited that as a reason not to resign him. Those people have been right. Give them their due.

[Pacopete4]

I know some may jump on me for this but... if he gets cut and we can get him league minimum to let him get that injury healed I think he'd be a serviceable back still


I'm not jumping on you, but I think we've got enough backs. Ahman no longer belongs on this team.... It's too young for him, and his being around would take carries away from a developing player, and remove someone from special teams duty....

But, nostalgically, I see where you're coming from...


Now that you pointed it out, he obviously would come as a #3 back because Grant/Jackson seem to be our duo for the future and if he was a #3 back he'd have special teams duty for sure and that just wouldn't happen with that guy.. not a good fit

[retailguy]

There was no guarantee that had Ahman remained he'd have gotten hurt like he did in Houston.

Come on man. The guy started breaking down at the end of his career here, and he's been nothing but broken down there. Most people that were cool with Ahman leaving cited that as a reason not to resign him. Those people have been right. Give them their due.


C'mon? Really. I meant what I said, and I thought I said it without "disrespecting" anyone's point of view.

Ahman didn't get hurt badly enough not to play his last season here, did he? Yes, he got banged up, but not like he did in Houston.

It could have happened here, but it could NOT have also. My point was that you don't base decisions on that, and you surely don't point to them after the fact and say "there, SEE"...

[Zool]

Plus he's on the wrong side of 30, and been injured a lot the last 3 years. I am a huge AG fan, but he's about at the end of the line.

[retailguy]

Now that you pointed it out, he obviously would come as a #3 back because Grant/Jackson seem to be our duo for the future and if he was a #3 back he'd have special teams duty for sure and that just wouldn't happen with that guy.. not a good fit


It's kind of like the Henderson thing. Our fullbacks didn't play well most of last season (well not like Hendo in his prime....) but you can't bring the guy back because he's washed up, or damn close, and we've got to develop somebody... even if he can play as well as they played last season.

But, then, you hate to see 'em leave too.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

There was no guarantee that had Ahman remained he'd have gotten hurt like he did in Houston.

Come on man. The guy started breaking down at the end of his career here, and he's been nothing but broken down there. Most people that were cool with Ahman leaving cited that as a reason not to resign him. Those people have been right. Give them their due.

QFT

[GBRulz]

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=14186

[packrulz]

I think it's baloney, they're not going to cut him because of a pulled groin. Teams are cautious this time of year, look how many Packers are sitting out from minor injuries. I bet Ahman has a hell of a year this year, he can still play.

[Noodle]

I know some may jump on me for this but... if he gets cut and we can get him league minimum to let him get that injury healed I think he'd be a serviceable back still

I won't jump you. I kind of like the idea, if there's roster space. Ahman dug it up here, and was one of the few guys who lived in GB year-round. He's always been a team guy, encouraging the other backs when he couldn't go. He'd be a good senior leader of the team, sort of like Davis before he went management.

But it'd come down to numbers, and more roster space than cap space, of which we still have plenty.

Mostly, I'd like him back so that they'd quit lettin' no-bodies wear his number 30. I'm not saying to retire it, but damn, can't they let the number cool off before they let a guy like Kuhn wear it? I'll feel the same way about number 80.

[MadtownPacker]

I'd be in favor or picking up Ahman if he got cut. Unless Lumpkins is getting kept any of the others (Morency, Wynn) can go.

[Packgator]

Unless Lumpkins is getting kept any of the others (Morency, Wynn) can go.

I think Lumpkin has a real chance. He is a hard runner. After two games he has 87 yards for an average of 5.1 per carry.

[mission]

Unless Lumpkins is getting kept any of the others (Morency, Wynn) can go.

I think Lumpkin has a real chance. He is a hard runner. After two games he has 87 yards for an average of 5.1 per carry.

And a fumble. But I'm half rootin for the Georgia boy.

[Tony Oday]

I think Green would do a great job in the front office with the Pack...

[SkinBasket]

It could have happened here, but it could NOT have also. My point was that you don't base decisions on that, and you surely don't point to them after the fact and say "there, SEE"...

He was aging, and he was showing a higher propensity for injury. Why WOULDN'T you base your decision to keep the guy for more money than he's worth on that?

This isn't being brought up after the fact. His durability was the main reason people who didn't care that he left felt that way, despite the angry outbursts against Ted Thompson by other's at the time. This isn't so much about hindsight so much as a certain contingent of people refusing to admit they were wrong... again.

[MadtownPacker]

Unless Lumpkins is getting kept any of the others (Morency, Wynn) can go.

I think Lumpkin has a real chance. He is a hard runner. After two games he has 87 yards for an average of 5.1 per carry.Watching him at the game he is kinda built in the Ahman mold.

Check out this clip of him. (http://www.packerrats.com/gallery/media/081608/lumpkins.wmv) He gets something out of nothing.

[Guiness]

Lumpkin certainly seems to be getting the carries over BJack at this point - 10 vs 3 against SF. I wonder why?

I'd be very surprised if Green ended up back in GB. All they'd want a veteran for would be a 3rd down back if they're afraid the kids can't prevent Rodgers from getting his head ripped off, and 1) he didn't do that while he was here 2) MM's O is not the same as the one Sherman ran while Green was here.

[Pacopete4]

Lumpkin certainly seems to be getting the carries over BJack at this point - 10 vs 3 against SF. I wonder why?

I'd be very surprised if Green ended up back in GB. All they'd want a veteran for would be a 3rd down back if they're afraid the kids can't prevent Rodgers from getting his head ripped off, and 1) he didn't do that while he was here 2) MM's O is not the same as the one Sherman ran while Green was here.


I think the reason could be they are cutting down the carries for Bjack because Grant can't seem to get healthy so they don't wanna get him hurt.. its just a guess, I'm rooting for Lumpkin though.. he's got some talent and I'm sick of the other guys already

Wynn- lazy
Morency- 1 or 2 good burts a game
Herron- runs hard and busts his ass but just isn't that good

[Guiness]

Watching him at the game he is kinda built in the Ahman mold.

Check out this clip of him. (http://www.packerrats.com/gallery/media/081608/lumpkins.wmv) He gets something out of nothing.

Nice cheese sombrero btw!

[retailguy]

It could have happened here, but it could NOT have also. My point was that you don't base decisions on that, and you surely don't point to them after the fact and say "there, SEE"...

He was aging, and he was showing a higher propensity for injury. Why WOULDN'T you base your decision to keep the guy for more money than he's worth on that?

This isn't being brought up after the fact. His durability was the main reason people who didn't care that he left felt that way, despite the angry outbursts against Ted Thompson by other's at the time. This isn't so much about hindsight so much as a certain contingent of people refusing to admit they were wrong... again.


I'm unsure if you're lumping me into the "contingent" who refuses to admit wrong or not, but so be it.

If what you're claiming is true, then, there should NOT have been an increased offer to Ahman in the days leading up to the Houston signing, but, all reports indicated that there was. If the decision was based on Ahman's injury risk, then that risk would be constant even after the Houston offer.

So, I conclude from that, that there were other factors involved, significant enough to increase the offer from the one that was on the table. Therefore, injury risk was likely not the determining factor as that had to be constant throughout the deal. In the end, you need to use those factors on which you based the increased offer to evaluate "worth" and not point to his injury and say, "there, SEE".... It is too simplistic.

Incidentally, I've said I'm still pissed about the way Green's situation was handled, and I am, but today, I'm on record, in this thread, for saying that Ahman's time is past and I don't support a resigning, for anything other than a one day retirement contract.

Ahman deserved a "best offer" contract from the Packers, prior to an offer from anyone else and he did not receive that from all accounts I've read. That was wrong, and doesn't speak highly of the organization. That's different in my opinion from failure to admit "right" or "wrong", but hey, think whatever you want.

[Noodle]

Skin -- get bent.

I didn't read anyone crackin' on the decision to let him go, and no one was saying to break the bank with the guy. What I and other folks were saying is if he's cheap, if there's space, why the hell not?

You just wanna have a fight. Which at least is courageous if you're in a bar, but is kind of pathetic on an Internet forum where there's no chance of actual ass whippage.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I didn't read anyone crackin' on the decision to let him go

http://packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=8427

[SkinBasket]

Skin -- get bent.

I didn't read anyone crackin' on the decision to let him go, and no one was saying to break the bank with the guy. What I and other folks were saying is if he's cheap, if there's space, why the hell not?

You just wanna have a fight. Which at least is courageous if you're in a bar, but is kind of pathetic on an Internet forum where there's no chance of actual ass whippage.

What the fuck are you getting a hard on about? If we were in a bar you would fight me because I thought Batman was at the end of his rope when he left and is little more than a name from the past today? Do you always fight for the honor of your favorite washed up running backs of yesteryear, or just the ones who beat their women?

As far as the "why the hell not?" approach, I think his recent career answers that question adequately, and the same reasons why some of us didn't want to pay him "best offer" money a couple years ago are only more magnified and justified today. Green is old, broken, and his addition to the roster would be a detriment to the overall quality of the team. Get over it.

I would honestly rather have Herron on the team than Green. And I would rather have a cream cheese bagel with legs on the team than Herron, so you do the math.

[Pacopete4]

Skin -- get bent.

I didn't read anyone crackin' on the decision to let him go, and no one was saying to break the bank with the guy. What I and other folks were saying is if he's cheap, if there's space, why the hell not?

You just wanna have a fight. Which at least is courageous if you're in a bar, but is kind of pathetic on an Internet forum where there's no chance of actual ass whippage.

What the fuck are you getting a hard on about? If we were in a bar you would fight me because I thought Batman was at the end of his rope when he left and is little more than a name from the past today? Do you always fight for the honor of your favorite washed up running backs of yesteryear, or just the ones who beat their women?

As far as the "why the hell not?" approach, I think his recent career answers that question adequately, and the same reasons why some of us didn't want to pay him "best offer" money a couple years ago are only more magnified and justified today. Green is old, broken, and his addition to the roster would be a detriment to the overall quality of the team. Get over it.

[b]I would honestly rather have Herron on the team than Green. And I would rather have a cream cheese bagel with legs on the team than Herron, so you do the math.


oooof... I see the humor but I could not get myself to ever say that.. thats a disgrace to Green and just about any other RB this leagues seen haha

[SkinBasket]

In the end, you need to use those factors on which you based the increased offer to evaluate "worth" and not point to his injury and say, "there, SEE".... It is too simplistic....

That's different in my opinion from failure to admit "right" or "wrong", but hey, think whatever you want.

Things always seem to be simple when they're right and very complicated when they're wrong. Just my experience.

I still don't understand why you fault the team management for offering Green what they felt he was worth to open negotiations and then increasing the offer later when Green felt he was worth more and there was interest from other parties. It's called negotiation. Apparently GB's management knew better than Houston's to pay him what he got. I don't understand how that equates to not "speaking highly of the organization."

[SkinBasket]

oooof... I see the humor but I could not get myself to ever say that..

Believe me, it hurt.

[retailguy]

Things always seem to be simple when they're right and very complicated when they're wrong. Just my experience.

If this were the case in the Ahman situation, then I believe one of two things would also have been the case. 1. There would not have been an increase in the offer to Green, or 2. We'd be able to explain WHY there was an increased offer on the table looking at other factors. In this case, the only clear thing is that the Texans had a larger offer on the table.

I think those of you who look at the injury situation and say "There, SEE" are oversimplifiing. Ahman's injury history and age were definitely one factor, but I don't even believe that they were a major factor. See, the initial offer was reported at $3m per season, and the second $5m per season.

So, I'm supposed to believe that Thompson kept the purse strings tight because he feared injury, yet he was willing to pay as high as $5m even though he KNEW it was likely that Ahman would get injured? This makes zero sense. The injury concern had to be resolved to a certain degree or you don't even make the offer.... I just don't see Ted as the type of guy that sits in his office and says, "Well, I'll pay the guy $5m to sit on IR, but I won't pay him $8m to sit there"....




I still don't understand why you fault the team management for offering Green what they felt he was worth to open negotiations and then increasing the offer later when Green felt he was worth more and there was interest from other parties. It's called negotiation. Apparently GB's management knew better than Houston's to pay him what he got. I don't understand how that equates to not "speaking highly of the organization."

I think Ted really truly believed that no one would offer Ahman an acceptable free agent contract and that he could have him at his price. I also believe that Ted thought his value was much higher than the offer he made. To me, after what Ahman had done and meant to this organization you just don't do that. You risk alienating a good employee over $2m? I dont' see it. Isn't it reasonable to conclude that Ted thought Ahman worth $5m if that's what he offered in the end? And, then, the next leap says, if offered $5m before FA would Green had gone to FA, or just taken it?

In hindsight, I truly believe I'd have been less pissed if Ted had just stuck to the offer he made. If he truly evaluated things as all of you claim then he made a fair offer, he should've stuck with it.

An opening offer is one thing, but when it's not accepted, you have to decide whether you're going to "die on the mountain" or you're going to make another offer. Thompson chose to stand his ground and he got burned, then he chose to trade for Grant and got lucky.

I just believe that someone of Green's stature in the organization deserved a better "negotiation" than he got. You could make the same case for Wahle, Henderson and Favre for sure.

I see a pattern. I don't like it. You can disagree and that's fine, but business typically doesn't "skimp" with regard to it's "best employees". They make a fair offer and let the chips fall where they may. Ted doesn't from outside appearances operate this way.

[SkinBasket]

In this case, the only clear thing is that the Texans had a larger offer on the table.

And to be honest, that's the only thing that I care about. I think you're making too much out of this whole increased offer thing - something that happens in almost every FA negotiation. In the end, Green went somewhere else for a price that was higher than GB was willing to match. You can come up with all kinds of nefarious reasons why they wouldn't match the offer, but the simplest still seems like the most likely. The simplest reasons also turned out to be valid reasons. You can call that some kind of cosmic coincidence if you want, but I'm willing to suspend my disbelief enough to think that the team knew Green better than anyone else out there, and made their decision based on how effective of a football player he could be over the duration of the contract.


I think Ted really truly believed that no one would offer Ahman an acceptable free agent contract and that he could have him at his price. I also believe that Ted thought his value was much higher than the offer he made. To me, after what Ahman had done and meant to this organization you just don't do that.

Sure you do. No matter what a player has done, you pay them for what the can do for the team, not for what they've done. Just like you don't bring an old busted ass RB back to GB just because he used to be good 5 years ago.


An opening offer is one thing, but when it's not accepted, you have to decide whether you're going to "die on the mountain" or you're going to make another offer. Thompson chose to stand his ground and he got burned, then he chose to trade for Grant and got lucky.

That's more than a little retarded to claim he got "burned" by letting an old RB who ended up being an injury magnet while also claiming he "got lucky" finding what appears to be a real talent for a 6th round pick. If you don't want to give Thompson credit for anything he's done, then just come out and say it. Don't make yourself look silly claiming it was dumb luck in both cases.



I just believe that someone of Green's stature in the organization deserved a better "negotiation" than he got. You could make the same case for Wahle, Henderson and Favre for sure.

I see a pattern. I don't like it. You can disagree and that's fine, but business typically doesn't "skimp" with regard to it's "best employees". They make a fair offer and let the chips fall where they may. Ted doesn't from outside appearances operate this way.

And I guess that's a fundamental difference between what you want out of your team management. You, and others here, seem to want to reward players for what they've done (despite already having been paid for that once already) instead of what they can do for the team. That kind of management is what caused Sherman to leave town with the Packers on the verge of financial implosion with virtually no depth anywhere on the roster.

[retailguy]

Skin, I guess this is where we agree to disagree. You continue to claim that I don't give Thompson credit for anything, yet I wrote an entire mea culpa last season, and even through this Favre thing, I said I understood some of why he did what he did. He's admitted that he screwed up the Wahle situation, and saying he "got lucky" with Grant is not unreasonable from my viewpoint. No one could forecast what Grant accomplished last season. Hell, if they could've Grant would have started week 1. He didn't, he was a LAST RESORT. You bow down over that one if you wish, but I see it differently.

This is Ted's team now, in EVERY sense of the word. Let's see what he does with it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This is Ted's team now, in EVERY sense of the word. Let's see what he does with it.

You do realize that you were on here a lot last offseason blasting Thompson. Then, you rarely showed up during the season. You didn't post much this offseason. Then, during the Favre fiasco, you showed up again. After the first preseason game, when ARod looked solid, you made few posts. After the disaster against San Fran, you are back on here posting a lot. Rightly or wrongly, coincidence or not, there appears to be a pattern. It's like you have in your mind that the Packers will suck this year with ARod, so you are angling to give out a bunch of I told you so's.

The whole situation the last couple of years has been tiring. Brett was a great QB. Thompson has done a good job as GM. At some point, Brett was going to be gone. The team is in solid position to survive, but it will be a struggle. No matter when it happened, it was going to be a struggle. Like it or not, Thompson did put Brett in a position to get to the Super Bowl last year. Brett deservedly got a lot of glory for a great season. He also deservedly got a lot of the blame for the Giants game. Rodgers could suck and Thompson may eventually have to move on with Brohm or somebody else, but that could happen with anybody that replaced Brett.

[Maxie the Taxi]

The whole situation the last couple of years has been tiring. Brett was a great QB. Thompson has done a good job as GM. At some point, Brett was going to be gone. The team is in solid position to survive, but it will be a struggle. No matter when it happened, it was going to be a struggle. Like it or not, Thompson did put Brett in a position to get to the Super Bowl last year. Brett deservedly got a lot of glory for a great season. He also deservedly got a lot of the blame for the Giants game. Rodgers could suck and Thompson may eventually have to move on with Brohm or somebody else, but that could happen with anybody that replaced Brett.

Well said.

[retailguy]

This is Ted's team now, in EVERY sense of the word. Let's see what he does with it.

You do realize that you were on here a lot last offseason blasting Thompson. Then, you rarely showed up during the season. You didn't post much this offseason. Then, during the Favre fiasco, you showed up again. After the first preseason game, when ARod looked solid, you made few posts. After the disaster against San Fran, you are back on here posting a lot. Rightly or wrongly, coincidence or not, there appears to be a pattern. It's like you have in your mind that the Packers will suck this year with ARod, so you are angling to give out a bunch of I told you so's.

The whole situation the last couple of years has been tiring. Brett was a great QB. Thompson has done a good job as GM. At some point, Brett was going to be gone. The team is in solid position to survive, but it will be a struggle. No matter when it happened, it was going to be a struggle. Like it or not, Thompson did put Brett in a position to get to the Super Bowl last year. Brett deservedly got a lot of glory for a great season. He also deservedly got a lot of the blame for the Giants game. Rodgers could suck and Thompson may eventually have to move on with Brohm or somebody else, but that could happen with anybody that replaced Brett.

Look, you can interpret this however you like. I post when I have something to say. When I don't, I don't. I didn't "disappear" during the season, I posted occasionally but didn't have much if anything to add. Then, when I felt appropriate, I came out and said I was wrong about the Packers 2007 season.

I do post in the offseason, but more in the romper room than the packers room. I have a life outside of sports and football. If I'm not hardcore in the Jan-March timeframe then sue me.

I'm not setting anything up for an "I told you so". I want the Packers to be good. I don't like Ted Thompson. That doesn't mean he can't make them good. I don't like some of his decisions and I think his management style sucks. Sue me. If you like it, FINE.

I'm posting a lot this week, because I"M ON VACATION. Cripes, who do you think you are, SHERLOCK HOLMES? Why is it, that you can string together a "bunch" of coincidences and draw a conclusion in it should be "correct" but someone who doesn't agree with you does it, and there's a damn agenda? What kind of hypocrite are you?

Finally, as to Favre, it is one of the only times I'm truly on the "fence". Favre was an IDIOT, but Thompson wasn't much better. He elected to move on. His decision. Very bold. If it doesn't work out, hopefully some of you worshippers can see that the guy isn't perfect and is in fact an asshole, even if it turns out that he can build a football team, which I have serious reservations about, and have had for a long time. He can string some talent together, but lets see how he does with an unproven QB. Talent abounds in the NFL, production, well that's a different matter.

Times are different without Favre. He was a proven commodity. For better or worse, you knew what you got. Rodgers isn't proven with anything, but he's Ted's choice. Maybe he turns out to be better. Maybe not. Lets see.

[retailguy]

With regards to the game, I could care less whether they win or lose in the preseason. That's why they have the preseason.

What concerned me is that they were not competitive in ANY facet of the game. The first string defense was OK, but it was the FREAKING 49ERS, with JT O'sullivan as a QB....

If they had come out and played competitively and looked reasonably proficient, I wouldn't have batted an eye. That is not what I saw.

IF you believe Bedard, he said in his blog that they prepared hard for that game..... Now they're saying it was a "short week" and a "long trip". For heaven's sake, IT"S THE NFL.

McCarthy has a lot of work to do. And some hard decisions to make. They're coming off a 13-3 season, and I've got some EXPECTATIONS. So does everyone else. We'll see what these two are made of this year.

And Harv, I'll be the first one to ADMIT wrong, just like I did last year. Will the rest of these assholes? NO. It'll be excuse after excuse... After all, the West Coast is a LONG TRIP you know....

[GBRulz]

Pretty sure Thompson was right for not matching the Texans bid for Green. I admit, at the time, I was kind of pissed off that we let Green go for a few million dollars difference, but I now recognize that I was wrong and Ted was right, at least on this issue.

Yup, I was wrong, too.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Retail...methinks the lady doth protest too much.

[rbaloha1]

Good pickup for the minimum. #3 rb.

[retailguy]

Retail...methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Well, Ty, on this topic, I must say you're the expert. :wink:

I guess, I'm just irritated when the rules are different for those with similar perspectives. I guess if I spent my life on here like Harvey does, then I'd PROVE how important sports is to me....

Sadly, I've just got a few opinions and I don't really care what someone with 11,000 posts has. Me thinks he spends a little too much time here....

Notice how he just vanished.... I find that curious, but sadly typical.

[SkinBasket]

You continue to claim that I don't give Thompson credit for anything


An opening offer is one thing, but when it's not accepted, you have to decide whether you're going to "die on the mountain" or you're going to make another offer. Thompson chose to stand his ground and he got burned, then he chose to trade for Grant and got lucky.


Look, here's the thing. You continue to look at TT's moves as strange coincidences involving luck and happenstance where he happens to come away in a better position despite making moves that you don't agree with.

I take a much simpler approach that doesn't rely so much on philosophy, astrology, or religion. Ted Thompson was hired to make personnel decisions for the Packers. To decide which players to keep for how much, which to let go, and which to pursue. This is his job. When he makes two concurrent moves such as letting Green go (and it turns out Green is indeed over the hill) then opting to pick up Grant for a 6th (which, by most opinions looks to be a steal and a half), I see that as the man doing the job he was hired to do.

Yes, all GMs have hits and misses, but I'll be more satisfied when people like yourself can finally admit to themselves that maybe, just maybe, Thompson knows what he's doing and that the moves he's made that have made this team deeper, better, and, amazingly enough, cheaper, aren't dumb luck, coincidence, gaping holes in the time-space continuum, and chance happenings, but are rather something much less mystic - a man doing the job he was hired to do.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Retail...methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Well, Ty, on this topic, I must say you're the expert. :wink:

I guess, I'm just irritated when the rules are different for those with similar perspectives. I guess if I spent my life on here like Harvey does, then I'd PROVE how important sports is to me....

Sadly, I've just got a few opinions and I don't really care what someone with 11,000 posts has. Me thinks he spends a little too much time here....

Notice how he just vanished.... I find that curious, but sadly typical.

Look, you are simply wrong about Green. Regardless of contract offers or what harv says.

Call it luck or smarts...TT and the pack are better off without him.

Ahman was a good/great player...he got paid for what he did. You want to reward him...fine..mail him a check. But, only foolish gms reward 30 year old rbs.

[Scott Campbell]

I'd be in favor or picking up Ahman if he got cut. Unless Lumpkins is getting kept any of the others (Morency, Wynn) can go.



I'd be in favor of picking up Ahman so he can retire as a Packer. But winning a roster spot? No way.

[bobblehead]

You continue to claim that I don't give Thompson credit for anything


An opening offer is one thing, but when it's not accepted, you have to decide whether you're going to "die on the mountain" or you're going to make another offer. Thompson chose to stand his ground and he got burned, then he chose to trade for Grant and got lucky.


Look, here's the thing. You continue to look at TT's moves as strange coincidences involving luck and happenstance where he happens to come away in a better position despite making moves that you don't agree with.

I take a much simpler approach that doesn't rely so much on philosophy, astrology, or religion. Ted Thompson was hired to make personnel decisions for the Packers. To decide which players to keep for how much, which to let go, and which to pursue. This is his job. When he makes two concurrent moves such as letting Green go (and it turns out Green is indeed over the hill) then opting to pick up Grant for a 6th (which, by most opinions looks to be a steal and a half), I see that as the man doing the job he was hired to do.

Yes, all GMs have hits and misses, but I'll be more satisfied when people like yourself can finally admit to themselves that maybe, just maybe, Thompson knows what he's doing and that the moves he's made that have made this team deeper, better, and, amazingly enough, cheaper, aren't dumb luck, coincidence, gaping holes in the time-space continuum, and chance happenings, but are rather something much less mystic - a man doing the job he was hired to do.

Nope....Just luck, how can you call that skill and knowledge??

[Scott Campbell]

Plus, he's evil and stuff.

[Guiness]

Plus, he's evil and stuff.

Care to elaborate on 'stuff'? Oh ya, the whole closet thing...

[Lurker64]

Call it luck or smarts...TT and the pack are better off without him.

I'm not sure if I would say that, but I would definitely say "The Packers are better off for not having signed him", considering that not only did we save cap room that we would have spent on him, but we also got a player (Josh Sitton) out of it. Based on early returns, I think we're winning here.

$23 million with $7 million guaranteed for 260 yard rushing, 2 rushing TDs, and 123 yards receiving.

versus:

A maximum of $1.2 million for Josh Sitton for four years.

[retailguy]

Call it luck or smarts...TT and the pack are better off without him.

I'm not sure if I would say that, but I would definitely say "The Packers are better off for not having signed him", considering that not only did we save cap room that we would have spent on him, but we also got a player (Josh Sitton) out of it. Based on early returns, I think we're winning here.

$23 million with $7 million guaranteed for 260 yard rushing, 2 rushing TDs, and 123 yards receiving.

versus:

A maximum of $1.2 million for Josh Sitton for four years.


Well, this kind of makes the point that I was originally trying to make. I just don't think you can compare the stats (between teams) and say we're better off...

How can you claim that Green would have the same stats here that he had in Houston? How can you assume that he'd have gotten injured like he did in Houston?

If Grant picks up where he left off last season, clearly that's an advantage over what Green would have provided (evidence would be Greens 2006 performance), however, a few years ago many people in these rooms were confident that Samkon Gado would have kept producing too, and that didn't work out so well. I don't think you ever get a guarantee.

Josh Sitton was a good addition to the roster but who says we wouldn't have drafted him anyhow?

Lurker, please note I'm not directly responding to your post, but trying to align my thoughts with my earlier posts.... No disrespect is intended.

Ty - I know you think I'm wrong, and you know I just disagree. Skin - you can keep picking phrases out of my posting all you want, others are capable of reading the entire thing. All your cherry picking does is make you look foolish. You've completely distorted what I was saying primarily over two words that were only supplementary to what I was saying and was in no way the main point I was making.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Call it luck or smarts...TT and the pack are better off without him.

I'm not sure if I would say that, but I would definitely say "The Packers are better off for not having signed him", considering that not only did we save cap room that we would have spent on him, but we also got a player (Josh Sitton) out of it. Based on early returns, I think we're winning here.

$23 million with $7 million guaranteed for 260 yard rushing, 2 rushing TDs, and 123 yards receiving.

versus:

A maximum of $1.2 million for Josh Sitton for four years.


Well, this kind of makes the point that I was originally trying to make. I just don't think you can compare the stats (between teams) and say we're better off...

How can you claim that Green would have the same stats here that he had in Houston? How can you assume that he'd have gotten injured like he did in Houston?

If Grant picks up where he left off last season, clearly that's an advantage over what Green would have provided (evidence would be Greens 2006 performance), however, a few years ago many people in these rooms were confident that Samkon Gado would have kept producing too, and that didn't work out so well. I don't think you ever get a guarantee.

Josh Sitton was a good addition to the roster but who says we wouldn't have drafted him anyhow?

Lurker, please note I'm not directly responding to your post, but trying to align my thoughts with my earlier posts.... No disrespect is intended.

Ty - I know you think I'm wrong, and you know I just disagree. Skin - you can keep picking phrases out of my posting all you want, others are capable of reading the entire thing. All your cherry picking does is make you look foolish. You've completely distorted what I was saying primarily over two words that were only supplementary to what I was saying and was in no way the main point I was making.

We are better off because we were going to have to pay him an arm and leg and based on what most rbs do at his age...not worth it.

Injuries: This is a canard. Yes, freak injuries occur, but Ahmans arent' that. First it was a thigh tear, then it was a bruised left knee, now it is a groin. Those are injuries that rbs get..and as they get older..harder to shake off.

Gado: You are using stupid people to buttress your argument. Very rarely a shooting star becomes more. Only true blue, pollyannas thought Gado was the real deal. We were in a terrible season and desparate to cling to something. Any knowledgeable fan woulda put down huge bucks in vegas against Gado making it.

Look, we paid him 2 mill plus 3 mill in incentives the year after an injury. He was older and breaking down. Time for you to face the facts.

[mraynrand]

I'm surprised that there are people who want to even consider Ahman Green. But I suppose there are folks in K.C. who still want Holmes. I guess it's a mix of sentimentality and name recognition that fuels this fire.

[hoosier]

How can you claim that Green would have the same stats here that he had in Houston? How can you assume that he'd have gotten injured like he did in Houston?

If Grant picks up where he left off last season, clearly that's an advantage over what Green would have provided (evidence would be Greens 2006 performance), however, a few years ago many people in these rooms were confident that Samkon Gado would have kept producing too, and that didn't work out so well. I don't think you ever get a guarantee.


Exactly right, there are no guarantees and the tea leaves don't always tell the whole story. But Ahman was on the wrong side of 30 and was a year out from a major injury. As a result, it was not far fetched to assume that he was likely--not guaranteed, but far more likely than a younger model--to sustain another significant injury, or to show a major decline in performance. As a GM you don't need any guarantees about the future to say that a particular player is a bad investment. Even if Green had remained healthy last year and performed as well as could be expected, I would still argue that Houston overpayed for him. You seem to be construing the debate based on results and hindsight--or at least assuming that everyone else is--but IMO the real debate happens before the results are in, and in situations where a player's performance could go either way. That's why you have to judge GMs on long-term results--because even a portion of the "good" decisions are going to turn out badly.

[SkinBasket]

Skin - you can keep picking phrases out of my posting all you want, others are capable of reading the entire thing. All your cherry picking does is make you look foolish. You've completely distorted what I was saying primarily over two words that were only supplementary to what I was saying and was in no way the main point I was making.

I'm picking out what seem to be the intelligible points in your yabber gabber. And the points where you contradict yourself. If it looks foolish, I would look to the author, not the quoter.

And to the point of not being able to use Green's performance as an indicator of how things would have, could have, or might have happened in Green Bay: Until you invent your alternate reality machine, his performance in Houston is what we have, and looking at what did happen is still a stronger argument than you claiming it might not have happened that way. If that butterfly hadn't flapped it's wings...

Again, you're pretending his injuries are some cosmic coincidence instead of admitting that maybe the people who had concerns about his age and durability were right and/or justified. Your denial that some people (including a certain General Manager) could possibly have been right where you were wrong is simply epic and may be indicative of a mental condition. Probably the one where people put tinfoil on their heads, but I suppose it could just be extreme narcissism too.

[retailguy]

Exactly right, there are no guarantees and the tea leaves don't always tell the whole story. But Ahman was on the wrong side of 30 and was a year out from a major injury. As a result, it was not far fetched to assume that he was likely--not guaranteed, but far more likely than a younger model--to sustain another significant injury, or to show a major decline in performance. As a GM you don't need any guarantees about the future to say that a particular player is a bad investment. Even if Green had remained healthy last year and performed as well as could be expected, I would still argue that Houston overpayed for him. You seem to be construing the debate based on results and hindsight--or at least assuming that everyone else is--but IMO the real debate happens before the results are in, and in situations where a player's performance could go either way. That's why you have to judge GMs on long-term results--because even a portion of the "good" decisions are going to turn out badly.


Hoosier, I largely agree with this, but if you look at Thompson's actions, I still don't believe "fear of injury" was his concern. Everyone here is so caught up on the whole injury thing. Honestly, I'm not a Ted fan, but I know he isn't an idiot either. If he thought it likely that Ahman was getting injured he wouldn't have increased his "last minute" offer. But he did. So, somewhere, at some point, he had to fire up the ouija board and conclude the guy would probably stay healthy. If not, wouldn't it boggle the mind that he'd make a $5m per year offer?

Houston overpaid, but their overpayment, and Ted's increased offer did not make it "more likely" that Ahman would get injured.

Also, everyone is crowing about Houston overpaying, but, really using the "forum logic" wouldn't Ted have overpaid with his increased offer? OR, would the Ted lovers around here have been happy with Ahman's production at Ted's price? The argument swings both ways. Swinging it one way to claim "GREAT DECISION" just doesn't work.

There were other things that were way more important. To look to Ahman's injury, was, is and always will be shortsighted to explain his leaving Green Bay. I guess when you've got Tyrone and Skinbasket telling you you're wrong, you can just laugh, consider the source and move on.... :wink:

[SkinBasket]

There were other things that were way more important. To look to Ahman's injury, was, is and always will be shortsighted to explain his leaving Green Bay. I guess when you've got Tyrone and Skinbasket telling you you're wrong, you can just laugh, consider the source and move on.... :wink:

Yes, all those important "other things" you are sure are right but have no way to prove or demonstrate. These mysterious "other things" are like you're entire argument here: nothing but conjecture and fortune telling on your part in an effort to feel better about your inability to realize that Ted Thompson is a better General Manager than (gasp) you.

Maybe sticking to tax advice is a good idea. At least there when you're so off-base you can file an amended return without looking like quite an asshat. :oops: :oops: :oops:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hoosier, I largely agree with this, but if you look at Thompson's actions, I still don't believe "fear of injury" was his concern. Everyone here is so caught up on the whole injury thing. Honestly, I'm not a Ted fan, but I know he isn't an idiot either. If he thought it likely that Ahman was getting injured he wouldn't have increased his "last minute" offer. But he did. So, somewhere, at some point, he had to fire up the ouija board and conclude the guy would probably stay healthy. If not, wouldn't it boggle the mind that he'd make a $5m per year offer?

Houston overpaid, but their overpayment, and Ted's increased offer did not make it "more likely" that Ahman would get injured.

Also, everyone is crowing about Houston overpaying, but, really using the "forum logic" wouldn't Ted have overpaid with his increased offer? OR, would the Ted lovers around here have been happy with Ahman's production at Ted's price? The argument swings both ways. Swinging it one way to claim "GREAT DECISION" just doesn't work.

There were other things that were way more important. To look to Ahman's injury, was, is and always will be shortsighted to explain his leaving Green Bay. I guess when you've got Tyrone and Skinbasket telling you you're wrong, you can just laugh, consider the source and move on.... :wink:

No, everyone here isn't concerned with the injury thing...it is just one thing among others. Injuries, wear on his system, wrong side of the 30, etc.

And, where you get the overpay equals more chance of injury from any of us is beyond belief.

Your whole point is that TT wasn't worried about injury or issues if he upped the ante. Again, that is foolish. TT's job is to negotiate. He is going to start low and then give up more..to the point that he feels is fine. If he feels 5 mill is ok for a declining rb who mite get injured that is his right. That doesn't mean he feels he will or won't get injured. He is simply determing a cost.

TT: No, we wouldn't be happy with his production at 5 mill..and we woulda cut him. That is the most likely scenario. So, we woulda looked at it as a stopgap measure till we found a replacement.

The great decision was deciding not to get into an arms race with Houston...are you that dense? TT set a price..whether i, skin, you..or the rest agree with it...and then cut him loose when TT determined his value wasn't worth what the market was willing to pay.

You basically betray yourself by admitting you don't like TT. I dont' have feelings one way or the other. I look at this objectively..you can't.

Time for you to just realize you are wrong about this..and no amount of jabbing about Skin or Ty is going to change that. It only makes you looker more foolish.

[SnakeLH2006]

Unless Lumpkins is getting kept any of the others (Morency, Wynn) can go.

I think Lumpkin has a real chance. He is a hard runner. After two games he has 87 yards for an average of 5.1 per carry.

I loved what AG did for us in the past, but we are moving forward as a team. For once it fits!! Anyway, doesn't Lumpkin (in the bit we seen so far) look/run like a young Ahman? Love the kid and NO WAY that TT brings back AG to take carries away from Grant, BJ, Lumpkin, Herron.......err...Grant, BJ, Lumpkin. :lol: