Woodson & Harris want FAs on D

[digitaldean]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081228/PKR01/81228034/1058/PKR01

In the article, Woodson said they need some experienced FAs on D.

Woodson stated he would even try lobbying some guys at Pro Bowl to give GB a shot.

Harris reiterated that they need veteran help.

When asked about Bob Sanders' future, Woodson said, "I won't answer that." Harris pretty much said we'll see what happens.

If the players think TT needs some FA help and the fans think it, what are the odds something gets done?

[sharpe1027]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081228/PKR01/81228034/1058/PKR01

In the article, Woodson said they need some experienced FAs on D.

Woodson stated he would even try lobbying some guys at Pro Bowl to give GB a shot.

Harris reiterated that they need veteran help.

When asked about Bob Sanders' future, Woodson said, "I won't answer that." Harris pretty much said we'll see what happens.

If the players think TT needs some FA help and the fans think it, what are the odds something gets done?

He has signed FAs on defense pretty much every year, so the odds are pretty good.

[LL2]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20081228/PKR01/81228034/1058/PKR01

In the article, Woodson said they need some experienced FAs on D.

Woodson stated he would even try lobbying some guys at Pro Bowl to give GB a shot.

Harris reiterated that they need veteran help.

When asked about Bob Sanders' future, Woodson said, "I won't answer that." Harris pretty much said we'll see what happens.

If the players think TT needs some FA help and the fans think it, what are the odds something gets done?

He has signed FAs on defense pretty much every year, so the odds are pretty good.

They probably want TT to go after some of the marquee names out there....which we all know is a fantasy.

[sharpe1027]

They probably want TT to go after some of the marquee names out there....which we all know is a fantasy.

Sure, because Moss, T. Gonzalez, Woodson, L. Arrington were virtual no-names? I don't mean to be confrontational, but TT has gone after plenty of big FAs.

When there are only two or three truly big FAs a year, there are going to be 30 teams that do not get a big FA ever year. Is it fair to expect GB to get a top FA every year? They currently 3 solid contributors on defense (one made the probowl) from FA in the past couple years alone. That's got to be better than most teams.

[Bretsky]

They probably want TT to go after some of the marquee names out there....which we all know is a fantasy.

Sure, because Moss, T. Gonzalez, Woodson, L. Arrington were virtual no-names? I don't mean to be confrontational, but TT has gone after plenty of big FAs.

When there are only two or three truly big FAs a year, there are going to be 30 teams that do not get a big FA ever year. Is it fair to expect GB to get a top FA every year? They currently 3 solid contributors on defense (one made the probowl) from FA in the past couple years alone. That's got to be better than most teams.


Moss and Gonze were trades

Year one TT played in free agency

Year two returned Frankie Walker

Year three Chillar

We've hardly been player the last couple years

[Joemailman]

Harris and Woodson would have risked nothing by publicly supporting Sanders. Players publicly support beleaguered coaches all the time. The fact that they didn't may say a lot about how the veterans feel about Sanders' leadership.

[superfan]

Woodson stated he would even try lobbying some guys at Pro Bowl to give GB a shot.

What a great statement this is.

At the time Woodson was signed, I liked the signing but had some concerns, and half expected him to be a Joe Johnson-esque bust. Many scouts and media types at the time portrayed him as an underperforming malcontent.

Woodson has far exceeded my wildest expectations, both on the field and as a "Packer person".

[Joemailman]

Can Woodson lobby guys in a way Packer management can not?. Won't all these players still be under contract at The Pro Bowl?

[Rastak]

Can Woodson lobby guys in a way Packer management can not?. Won't all these players still be under contract at The Pro Bowl?


Yea, I believe he can, as long as management isn't putting him up to it, which is unlikely and hard to prove anyway.

[Joemailman]

Well, in that case, how do we make sure Woodson gets a locker next to Julius Peppers?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well, in that case, how do we make sure Woodson gets a locker next to Julius Peppers?

:D

[Fritz]

Can Woodson lobby guys in a way Packer management can not?. Won't all these players still be under contract at The Pro Bowl?

I think Ted should give Woodson some blank contracts, a pen, and send him to the pro bowl to lock a guy or two up!

[Brando19]

Can Woodson lobby guys in a way Packer management can not?. Won't all these players still be under contract at The Pro Bowl?

I think Ted should give Woodson some blank contracts, a pen, and send him to the pro bowl to lock a guy or two up!

Send his ass to the Super Bowl to lock some guys up!

[Harlan Huckleby]

Name me one NFL team that couldn't use some FA help on D?

I think this talk is kinda silly. Defensive players always seems to be at a premium compared to offensive linemen, running backs or wideouts. Particularly Dlinemen and cornerbacks.

I do think TT should do everything possible to get some help.

[RashanGary]

I listened to that conversation. Woodson had some interesting things to say.

1st he said "the guys who are back" are going to regroup and make another run.

I sort of laughed like him hinting some of the guys would be gone. It's true, it happens every year, but just to say it was sort of strange. It seems kind of taboo to talk about people losing their jobs when they are, in fact, about to lose their jobs.


Later he went on to say that he thinks we need more guys who have been through the trenches, vets.


I get the feeling that he had a conversation with McCarthy or someone in the organization that told them that they made mistakes and were going to fix it this offseason by bringing in better players. I've listened to every word Woodson has said in every packers.com interview since he arrived in Green Bay. He's very smart with his words. He never really makes a mistake or oversteps.

TT has hinted that it was time to start growing as a team and that the base building was nearing and end. TT has also hinted that he made some mistakes (I'm assuming with the defense he assembled). I think Woodson has gotten that message and he's simply relaying company line without saying it's company line.

I've had the feeling the defense was going to get a little infusion for some time now. I don't want to get in the habbit of just reading every little piece of information in a way that it supports what I believe or want to believe, but this is another sign IMO that the Packers are going to make a big run at a big player this off season. I think it's going to be Haynesworth, but whoever it is, I think TT is poised to make a splash (probably on the DL)

[ND72]

Can Woodson lobby guys in a way Packer management can not?. Won't all these players still be under contract at The Pro Bowl?

Reggie White was famous for talking to any and every potential free agent at the pro bowl to get them to Green Bay. Santana Dotson said straight out he would have never thought of Green Bay if not for White's lobbying at the Pro Bowl.

[bobblehead]

If Albert makes it FA TT will make a HUGE offer. Bookmark it and throw it back at me if I'm wrong.

[HarveyWallbangers]

He might not make it to FA.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/36853669.html

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/36861689.html


Sanders said Monday that he had not talked to McCarthy about his future and wasn't inclined to ask him if he would be retained. But the handwriting is probably on the wall and an NFL source with connections to the Packers said changes on the defensive staff were very likely.

[Bretsky]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/36861689.html


Sanders said Monday that he had not talked to McCarthy about his future and wasn't inclined to ask him if he would be retained. But the handwriting is probably on the wall and an NFL source with connections to the Packers said changes on the defensive staff were very likely.


good read

And the Rams can have Winston Moss

it'd sicken me to promote any defensive coach on this staff to coordinator

Kind of like the Detroit Lions hiring a GM from within when far more qualified people are out there

[sharpe1027]

Moss and Gonze were trades

Year one TT played in free agency

Year two returned Frankie Walker

Year three Chillar

We've hardly been player the last couple years

Fine, excluding all trades, I bet TT has been in the top ten in FA success. If you think otherwise, name ten teams more successful in FA over the same period.

[Bretsky]

Moss and Gonze were trades

Year one TT played in free agency

Year two returned Frankie Walker

Year three Chillar

We've hardly been player the last couple years

Fine, excluding all trades, I bet TT has been in the top ten in FA success. If you think otherwise, name ten teams more successful in FA over the same period.

One of the top ten in free agency ? Sure. He's brought over two legit starters here in four years.

How do you want to judge success ? If you want to get technical I'd say he's batting about .250, or one for four years.

Would you consider him successful in year one for Adrian Klemm or the other yahoos he brought in ? Was that the year of Manuel as well ? You'll say he had no money but then I'll point out he has over 35,000,000 in year two

He was successful in year two with both Woodsen and Pickett

Year 3, Frank Walker........I don't think anybody will try to argue any good out of that one.

Chillar was a decent cost effective player; but going from 13-3 to 6-10.......I certainly won't praise him for his offseason signings to help this team

[Partial]

If Albert makes it FA TT will make a HUGE offer. Bookmark it and throw it back at me if I'm wrong.

Here's the thing: The Titans have oodles of cap room too, and if they don't think Haynesworth is worth the big price, I doubt TT will either considering Reinfeldt and TT are very close acquaintances with similar styles of running a team.

[Rastak]

Titans try to lock up Haynesworth

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3799687


NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- The Tennessee Titans are now able to talk contract with Albert Haynesworth, their Pro Bowl defensive tackle who played this season as the team's designated franchise player.

The rules of the tag prohibit a team from negotiating with the player on a long-term deal until the regular season is complete.

Haynesworth's agent, Chad Speck, said via e-mail that he fielded a call from Titans GM Mike Reinfeldt on Monday.

"Mike called me today and expressed the Titans' interest to begin negotiations on a long-term deal for Albert," Speck wrote. "We had a preliminary discussion and our talks are in the very early stages. It is my intent to keep any future conversations I have with the Titans regarding Albert's contract private for the time being. I would echo coach [Jeff] Fisher's comments by saying that Albert is focused on getting his knee healthy and continuing his dominating play in the playoffs.

Haynesworth signed the $7.25 million tender deal in July after he and the team agreed on incentives that provided five different avenues for him to ensure the team could not tag him a second time. If Haynesworth met just one, he'd be cleared to become an unrestricted free agent on Feb. 27.

Haynesworth, who missed the last two regular-season games with a sprained knee but is expected back for the team's Jan. 10 playoff game, was named to the AFC Pro Bowl roster on Dec. 16. That was one of the incentives and made it official that he could not be tagged again in 2009.

The Titans now have an exclusive negotiating window of just over two months. Haynesworth could be in line to become the highest-paid defensive player in the league.

"Clearly we've expressed a great deal of interest, as he has, in working things out," Fisher said. "We'll move forward, but the most important thing right now is the playoffs and getting him ready. Getting him back on the practice field, getting him ready to play at the level he was before he got hurt."

[sharpe1027]

One of the top ten in free agency ? Sure. He's brought over two legit starters here in four years.

How do you want to judge success ? If you want to get technical I'd say he's batting about .250, or one for four years.

Would you consider him successful in year one for Adrian Klemm or the other yahoos he brought in ? Was that the year of Manuel as well ? You'll say he had no money but then I'll point out he has over 35,000,000 in year two

He was successful in year two with both Woodsen and Pickett

Year 3, Frank Walker........I don't think anybody will try to argue any good out of that one.

Chillar was a decent cost effective player; but going from 13-3 to 6-10.......I certainly won't praise him for his offseason signings to help this team
You admit that his success in Free Agency is one of the best in the league and you are still not satisfied. I am not sure what to tell you.

You can judge success in a vacuum. Or you can be realistic and realize that your need for building an entire team through Free Agency will only ever happen in Madden 04. :lol:

[denverYooper]

Maybe they should grab an FA at P: Shane Lechler will be a UFA.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/30/SPL5150KEE.DTL


Lechler, an unrestricted free agent, has been elected to the Pro Bowl four times during his nine years in Oakland as a punter. If he's gone, he finished with a flourish, averaging 47.7 yards against the Buccaneers and breaking the NFL average net-yardage record of 41.1 that he set last year. He reached 41.2 this time.

[Gunakor]

Moss and Gonze were trades

Year one TT played in free agency

Year two returned Frankie Walker

Year three Chillar

We've hardly been player the last couple years

Fine, excluding all trades, I bet TT has been in the top ten in FA success. If you think otherwise, name ten teams more successful in FA over the same period.

One of the top ten in free agency ? Sure. He's brought over two legit starters here in four years.

How do you want to judge success ? If you want to get technical I'd say he's batting about .250, or one for four years.

Would you consider him successful in year one for Adrian Klemm or the other yahoos he brought in ? Was that the year of Manuel as well ? You'll say he had no money but then I'll point out he has over 35,000,000 in year two

He was successful in year two with both Woodsen and Pickett

Year 3, Frank Walker........I don't think anybody will try to argue any good out of that one.

Chillar was a decent cost effective player; but going from 13-3 to 6-10.......I certainly won't praise him for his offseason signings to help this team

You are calculating that wrong. It's not about a percentage of years he's been active in FA - it's a percentage of how many of his FA signings have done well for us. If you include Woodson, Pickett, Walker, and Chillar - he's 75% in FA. That's outstanding. Even if you include O'Dwyer and Klemm in his first season as GM, that's still 3 for 6 which isn't horrible (although lower than I'd like). Think of all the other GM's that sign FA's that rarely work out. Even the premium ones - how many times have you heard the name Nate Clements after he was signed by San Fransisco for 80 million dollars?

GM's don't need to be active in FA every year. They just have to make sure that the FA's they bring in are the right ones for their team. Would you have been happier if TT were more active in FA while many of his FA signings turn out to be bad pickups? We'd be in the same position we are in now. And we'd all be complaining that TT relies too heavily on FA! So which is the better route to take?

[Bretsky]

Moss and Gonze were trades

Year one TT played in free agency

Year two returned Frankie Walker

Year three Chillar

We've hardly been player the last couple years

Fine, excluding all trades, I bet TT has been in the top ten in FA success. If you think otherwise, name ten teams more successful in FA over the same period.

One of the top ten in free agency ? Sure. He's brought over two legit starters here in four years.

How do you want to judge success ? If you want to get technical I'd say he's batting about .250, or one for four years.

Would you consider him successful in year one for Adrian Klemm or the other yahoos he brought in ? Was that the year of Manuel as well ? You'll say he had no money but then I'll point out he has over 35,000,000 in year two

He was successful in year two with both Woodsen and Pickett

Year 3, Frank Walker........I don't think anybody will try to argue any good out of that one.

Chillar was a decent cost effective player; but going from 13-3 to 6-10.......I certainly won't praise him for his offseason signings to help this team

You are calculating that wrong. It's not about a percentage of years he's been active in FA - it's a percentage of how many of his FA signings have done well for us. If you include Woodson, Pickett, Walker, and Chillar - he's 75% in FA. That's outstanding. Even if you include O'Dwyer and Klemm in his first season as GM, that's still 3 for 6 which isn't horrible (although lower than I'd like). Think of all the other GM's that sign FA's that rarely work out. Even the premium ones - how many times have you heard the name Nate Clements after he was signed by San Fransisco for 80 million dollars?

GM's don't need to be active in FA every year. They just have to make sure that the FA's they bring in are the right ones for their team. Would you have been happier if TT were more active in FA while many of his FA signings turn out to be bad pickups? We'd be in the same position we are in now. And we'd all be complaining that TT relies too heavily on FA! So which is the better route to take?


if we were going percentages we'd add Ben Taylor and Marquand Manuel as well. Was Roman from TT or Shermy ?

Of course the only relevant FA signings where TT paid anything were Woody, Pickett, and Chillar to a point....although he was kind of cheap as well.........maybe this year that means we should look for some more relevant ones

[MJZiggy]

So relevant is a dollar figure? Interesting.

[Rastak]

So relevant is a dollar figure? Interesting.


I don't think it has a one to one ratio....but I can tell you if we both stroll into an electronics store and I buy a $4000 plasma and you buy a $900 one it's likely mine kicks your tv's ass. Not for sure, but likely.


edit: Not sure if my analogy is that great though, due to the higher failure rate of FA versus TV. :P

[sharpe1027]

if we were going percentages we'd add Ben Taylor and Marquand Manuel as well. Was Roman from TT or Shermy ?

Of course the only relevant FA signings where TT paid anything were Woody, Pickett, and Chillar to a point....although he was kind of cheap as well.........maybe this year that means we should look for some more relevant ones

Again, my point is that you have unrealistic expectations for free agency. There are a limited number every year, mostly guys that other teams didn't want to keep. There are 32 teams to compete with.

I don't agree with you because even if the Packers had the most successful free agency of any team over the past 4 years, your analysis would still make it look like they failed.

[RashanGary]

So relevant is a dollar figure? Interesting.


I don't think it has a one to one ratio....but I can tell you if we both stroll into an electronics store and I buy a $4000 plasma and you buy a $900 one it's likely mine kicks your tv's ass. Not for sure, but likely.


edit: Not sure if my analogy is that great though, due to the higher failure rate of FA versus TV. :P

Let's find out how the Jennings deal compares to the Barrian deal. I think we'll find out if the markets are a little different then.