"COLE/CANTY MAY END UP ELSEWHERE

[Bretsky]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/40487592.html

[digitaldean]

I'd say Cole is gone. Between TB and Seattle, he's gone.

Canty is a possibility, but not likely. I am leaning towards Olshansky being available.

[Bretsky]

I've never valued Cole that much; he's a guy

Getting either player you mentioned would serve us better

[Lurker64]

Cole basically defines "Average, but big and strong". He's very unlikely to be worth what he's going to be paid, but god bless him anyway. If he can get paid millions of dollars for being fat, more power to him.

[SnakeLH2006]

No Cole is leaving!!! FUCK U TT!! NOOOOOO!!!!!!!! :shock: :cry: :roll: :lol:

[LL2]

It sure would be nice to keep Cole, but I wouldn't over pay for the guy either. I would love to have Canty. I think he's an upgrade for the front three. TT has to be careful not too be too thin on the front three next year or it could make him look stupid.

[Joemailman]

Canty reportedly left New York without an agreement. If he is legitimately interested in Green Bay, as opposed to using Green Bay to drive up the offers from other teams, then I think the Packers have a real chance to get him.

I agree Cole is just a guy. You can find guys with Cole-like ability late in the draft if not on the waiver wire.

I do worry a little about some free agents from warmer climates traveling to Wisconsin at the beginning of March and seeing there is still a foot of snow on the ground.

[Fritz]

Canty's agent is doing his best to drive up the price - which of course is his job. After some early reports that Canty wanted to play end in the 4-3 so he could play three downs by moving inside on third, the emphasis has been moved (by whom? Writers? Agent?) to the idea that hey, Canty's a 3-4 guy.

Interesting. On top of that, supposedly Blank, the agent, offered to have Canty stop in GB on the way to Seattle, but Ted didn't bite. Naturally, the people posting onto JSO are screaming, but it's obvious the agent wants someone to swoop in with a Redskins-like offer so other teams will panic and thus begin a bidding war. So I say kudos to TT for letting Canty fly coast to coast today. Let Seattle set the market.

One important piece of information that seems to get stuck near the end of most GBPG and JSO articles is the fact that if GB signs Canty for the Redskins-level contract he's looking for (that 20 mill thing), GB will lose out on some of its own free agents in a year or two.

So you could be talking about losing guys like Collins or Colledge or others - the list is long.

Let Canty fly west. If Seattle wants to break the bank, let them. If Seattle decides to proceed more slowly, then fine. Then Thompson can arrange a visit, and talk something slightly more reasonable.

But to overspend just to get a "name" guy....that's what Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder do. And how's that working out in Dallas and Washington?

[Packnut]

Canty's agent is doing his best to drive up the price - which of course is his job. After some early reports that Canty wanted to play end in the 4-3 so he could play three downs by moving inside on third, the emphasis has been moved (by whom? Writers? Agent?) to the idea that hey, Canty's a 3-4 guy.

Interesting. On top of that, supposedly Blank, the agent, offered to have Canty stop in GB on the way to Seattle, but Ted didn't bite. Naturally, the people posting onto JSO are screaming, but it's obvious the agent wants someone to swoop in with a Redskins-like offer so other teams will panic and thus begin a bidding war. So I say kudos to TT for letting Canty fly coast to coast today. Let Seattle set the market.

One important piece of information that seems to get stuck near the end of most GBPG and JSO articles is the fact that if GB signs Canty for the Redskins-level contract he's looking for (that 20 mill thing), GB will lose out on some of its own free agents in a year or two.

So you could be talking about losing guys like Collins or Colledge or others - the list is long.

Let Canty fly west. If Seattle wants to break the bank, let them. If Seattle decides to proceed more slowly, then fine. Then Thompson can arrange a visit, and talk something slightly more reasonable.

But to overspend just to get a "name" guy....that's what Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder do. And how's that working out in Dallas and Washington?

With the current CBA in doubt, all bets are off in regards to "future" free agents. What happens if we save money now, and then we have an un-capped year in 2010 and beyond? Also, if there is an agreement, the cap ALWAYS goes up so to say we would'nt be able to afford our guys later is not really true.

I'm not stupid enough to count on Jenkins and Harrell because the FACTS say neither can stay healthy. So who does that leave us with? You think last season was bad from a defensive stand-point?

Another fact here that the kool-aid guys leave out is the amount of picks we got. Take them away and we get blown out in some of those games. This D as it stands is just about the weakest front 7 in football. No pass rush + no run stoppage is a recipe for DISASTER.

But, this is what happens when you have 4 years of poor draft choices. You end up with several holes to fill. You would think after 4 drafts that we might have found just ONE impact LB or ONE impact d-lineman. It must be possible since OTHER teams do it..............

[Fritz]

Canty's agent is doing his best to drive up the price - which of course is his job. After some early reports that Canty wanted to play end in the 4-3 so he could play three downs by moving inside on third, the emphasis has been moved (by whom? Writers? Agent?) to the idea that hey, Canty's a 3-4 guy.

Interesting. On top of that, supposedly Blank, the agent, offered to have Canty stop in GB on the way to Seattle, but Ted didn't bite. Naturally, the people posting onto JSO are screaming, but it's obvious the agent wants someone to swoop in with a Redskins-like offer so other teams will panic and thus begin a bidding war. So I say kudos to TT for letting Canty fly coast to coast today. Let Seattle set the market.

One important piece of information that seems to get stuck near the end of most GBPG and JSO articles is the fact that if GB signs Canty for the Redskins-level contract he's looking for (that 20 mill thing), GB will lose out on some of its own free agents in a year or two.

So you could be talking about losing guys like Collins or Colledge or others - the list is long.

Let Canty fly west. If Seattle wants to break the bank, let them. If Seattle decides to proceed more slowly, then fine. Then Thompson can arrange a visit, and talk something slightly more reasonable.

But to overspend just to get a "name" guy....that's what Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder do. And how's that working out in Dallas and Washington?

With the current CBA in doubt, all bets are off in regards to "future" free agents. What happens if we save money now, and then we have an un-capped year in 2010 and beyond? Also, if there is an agreement, the cap ALWAYS goes up so to say we would'nt be able to afford our guys later is not really true.

I'm not stupid enough to count on Jenkins and Harrell because the FACTS say neither can stay healthy. So who does that leave us with? You think last season was bad from a defensive stand-point?

Another fact here that the kool-aid guys leave out is the amount of picks we got. Take them away and we get blown out in some of those games. This D as it stands is just about the weakest front 7 in football. No pass rush + no run stoppage is a recipe for DISASTER.

But, this is what happens when you have 4 years of poor draft choices. You end up with several holes to fill. You would think after 4 drafts that we might have found just ONE impact LB or ONE impact d-lineman. It must be possible since OTHER teams do it..............

I could hardly disagree more. First, take away any aspect of any team's game and the results are different...take away all those Brett Favre touchdown passes and the Packers wouldn't have won a Super Bowl!

As for the four years of four draft choices:

Rodgers, Collins, Hawk, Colledge, Jennings, Spitz, Jolly, Blackmon, Jackson, Jones, Bishop, Crosby, Rouse, Nelson, Brohm, Flynn, Finley, Sitton.

I would agree TT has skimped on the defensive side of the ball, particularly on the line, and it has perhaps cost the Pack. But how many teams have ready-made replacements for starting corners? I say that in 2010, if need be, Williams and Lee will be ready to go and be good.

I think TT's draft classes have been, overall, quite good. I think that's what he's best at.

Again, Packnut, I'll ask you: your preferred method - sign FA's, screw the contract size, we need help now! - how has that worked out in Dallas and Washington?

[KYPack]

No Cole is leaving!!! FUCK U TT!! NOOOOOO!!!!!!!! :shock: :cry: :roll: :lol:

Easy Snake.

You are gonna lose "Cole type guys"

He's a role player. We can get just as good off the streets. Cole was a mediocre 4-3 DT. Who knows if he can even play 3-4 DE?

There's a lot of tough things to get done to re-tool the D. Losing Cole isn't one of 'em. It's a no-brainer.

[Fritz]

I think - I think - that Snake was kinda joking around. My sense is that he doesn't see Cole's loss as a huge problem.

[KYPack]

I think - I think - that Snake was kinda joking around. My sense is that he doesn't see Cole's loss as a huge problem.

OK Fritz.

Mebbe my glasses were fogged.

[Fritz]

Here's the current question about Ted signing free agents:

Can he or Canty?

:rs:

[Pugger]

Here's the current question about Ted signing free agents:

Can he or Canty?

:rs:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Patler]

With the current CBA in doubt, all bets are off in regards to "future" free agents. What happens if we save money now, and then we have an un-capped year in 2010 and beyond? Also, if there is an agreement, the cap ALWAYS goes up so to say we would'nt be able to afford our guys later is not really true.

All bets are not off until it is certain there will be no cap. Until then, you absolutely have to operate as if there will be one, or you can cripple yourself if the CBA gets resolved and the cap remains. The question is not what happens if there is no cap, that is easy to adapt to. The question has to be what happens if there continues to be a cap? If the Packers spend money now expecting there to be no cap in 2010 and there is one, they could be faced with losing a bunch of players they would really want to keep.

It is a mistake to assume the salary cap will go up each year in the immediate future. The reason the NFL is faced with the possibility of 2010 as an uncapped year is because the owners terminated the CBA early. The reason they terminated early is because they believe too much of their income is going to player compensation. They agreed to try a new formula for calculating the cap under the current CBA. In return the NFLPA agreed to let them terminate early and reopen discussions on the formula. The new formula resulted in a cap increase of 18.6% in 2006. Typical increases before and after 2006 have been in the neighborhood of 5.5% to about 7%. 1998 was huge, 26.5%, but that was due to a bidding war for broadcast rights that brought in a huge increase of income. The year before it had gone up just 1.6%. If the owners have substance to their position, I doubt a cap decrease will occur, but a "freeze" could take effect for a season or two as a new formula takes effect.

With the current realities of the economy, there are unlikely to be ticket price increases of substance for many teams. TV and radio stations are having harder times selling advertising and costs for ads could also decline. The result very well could be negligible increases in income for the league. With no increase in income, there is no cap increase regardless of the formula being used.

[KYPack]

With the current CBA in doubt, all bets are off in regards to "future" free agents. What happens if we save money now, and then we have an un-capped year in 2010 and beyond? Also, if there is an agreement, the cap ALWAYS goes up so to say we would'nt be able to afford our guys later is not really true.

All bets are not off until it is certain there will be no cap. Until then, you absolutely have to operate as if there will be one, or you can cripple yourself if the CBA gets resolved and the cap remains. The question is not what happens if there is no cap, that is easy to adapt to. The question has to be what happens if there continues to be a cap? If the Packers spend money now expecting there to be no cap in 2010 and there is one, they could be faced with losing a bunch of players they would really want to keep.

It is a mistake to assume the salary cap will go up each year in the immediate future. The reason the NFL is faced with the possibility of 2010 as an uncapped year is because the owners terminated the CBA early. The reason they terminated early is because they believe too much of their income is going to player compensation. They agreed to try a new formula for calculating the cap under the current CBA. In return the NFLPA agreed to let them terminate early and reopen discussions on the formula. The new formula resulted in a cap increase of 18.6% in 2006. Typical increases before and after 2006 have been in the neighborhood of 5.5% to about 7%. 1998 was huge, 26.5%, but that was due to a bidding war for broadcast rights that brought in a huge increase of income. The year before it had gone up just 1.6%. If the owners have substance to their position, I doubt a cap decrease will occur, but a "freeze" could take effect for a season or two as a new formula takes effect.

With the current realities of the economy, there are unlikely to be ticket price increases of substance for many teams. TV and radio stations are having harder times selling advertising and costs for ads could also decline. The result very well could be negligible increases in income for the league. With no increase in income, there is no cap increase regardless of the formula being used.

OK

I think I'm finally starting to get the drift here.

Man, If I wasn't on Rats, I wouldn't know what the hell was happening with the CBA being terminated early.

The owners probably want to change the formula so less of the revenue goes to player salaries (duh). If they push for that, a strike is a damned near certainty.

Also, does anyone think that the owners will push to be able to spend less than the minimum? It looks like Tampa is trying to do just that. This season the minimum you have to spend is around 104 mil. I think the Glazers want to be able to tap into that bread. They can now add players and be right at the minimum. then next season, make more cuts and be way under.

[Lurker64]

Also, does anyone think that the owners will push to be able to spend less than the minimum? It looks like Tampa is trying to do just that. This season the minimum you have to spend is around 104 mil. I think the Glazers want to be able to tap into that bread. They can now add players and be right at the minimum. then next season, make more cuts and be way under.

Well, one of the poison pills built in to the 2010 season to get the players to the bargaining table quickly is that the 2010 season will have no minimums for player salary or total team salary. So next year, barring a new CBA, teams will be able to spend as little as they like; and likely will be cutting every veteran with an ugly contract where they are terribly underperforming, since there will be no cap repurcussions for doing so.

[Patler]

It is very easy for the players to assume that no salary cap means the teams can pay as much as they want to. It is more difficult to accept that for some teams it might mean they can pay as little as they can get away with and still field a team that fans will come to watch. The result of no salary cap could very well be a small number of extremely high paid players, but a lot of players making less than they do in the current situation.

It really is an unknown for both the owners and the players. In the end, I think it is a situation both will want to avoid.

[Lurker64]

Patler-

I recall hearing that without a new CBA, the NFL draft becomes illegal at some point as it's an antitrust violation, so all eligible college players can negotiate with NFL teams as free agents. Do you know when that would become true? Is (barring a new CBA) this the last draft, or is there one after the 2010 season as well?

[Patler]

Patler-

I recall hearing that without a new CBA, the NFL draft becomes illegal at some point as it's an antitrust violation, so all eligible college players can negotiate with NFL teams as free agents. Do you know when that would become true? Is (barring a new CBA) this the last draft, or is there one after the 2010 season as well?

The CBA provides for a draft through the year following the Final Year of the CBA. The Final Year as it now stands is 2010, which means there will be a draft in 2011.

[Fritz]

My first reaction is that southern teams and big city teams would do best in a non-draft NFL, but when you look at the college picture, northern teams like Ohio State do as well as California/warm weather places. You just have to pay the players enough money to want to come to your campus.

Er, city.