36 Mil to Spend: TT is going to stay skimpy on spending...

[packerbacker1234]

Like he has done every year since being here. With the salary cap era coming to what appears to be an end in the near future, with the shared revenue the nfl puts otu there to pay for salaries and all that jazz, TT yet again is choosing to just not spend money.

*sigh*

I am not saying be the jets last year. I am not saying turn into the redskins every year.

What I am saying is show some damn commitment to wining a Super Bowl. The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year save our two CB's, and yeah ryan grant was a surprise only after we had been an all passing team half the season.

Lets face it: TT has not shown one ounce of commitment to winning a super bowl, just commitment to making us a division competitior every year. I don't want to just dance around wining the division: I want another super bowl.

And, TT just doesn't look like he's comitted to get there. We have a young improving team. Great. AR got a golden boy contract after a few games.

Where is Jennings big deal? Why is our OL still a mess years after TT took over.

*sigh* It would just be nice for our GM to actually show in action that he actually wants to win a super bowl. This rebuilding crap has gotta just be thrown out the window. The great franchises out there just don't "rebuild". They have down periods, but they are still trying to get that ring.

[falco]

can't have your cake and eat it too

[Lurker64]

Go back and read this thread (http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=7121) for example, written about a week into FA two years ago.

We sure did miss out on not signing Justin Griffith, didn't we?

So far we've only missed out on three guys I would have wanted on the roster in the first place.

I mean, a few guys I was interested in are off the market: Canty, Stinchcomb, Brown. But there's a lot of guys out there that are still available, get Olshansky or Haye and one of the safeties (I think Sensebaugh, Smith, and Phillips are all still available). Hell, Julius Peppers is still on the trading block.

It's too early to call the offseason over after the first weekend of free agency.

[The Shadow]

Like he has done every year since being here. With the salary cap era coming to what appears to be an end in the near future, with the shared revenue the nfl puts otu there to pay for salaries and all that jazz, TT yet again is choosing to just not spend money.

*sigh*

I am not saying be the jets last year. I am not saying turn into the redskins every year.

What I am saying is show some damn commitment to wining a Super Bowl. The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year save our two CB's, and yeah ryan grant was a surprise only after we had been an all passing team half the season.

Lets face it: TT has not shown one ounce of commitment to winning a super bowl, just commitment to making us a division competitior every year. I don't want to just dance around wining the division: I want another super bowl.

And, TT just doesn't look like he's comitted to get there. We have a young improving team. Great. AR got a golden boy contract after a few games.

Where is Jennings big deal? Why is our OL still a mess years after TT took over.

*sigh* It would just be nice for our GM to actually show in action that he actually wants to win a super bowl. This rebuilding crap has gotta just be thrown out the window. The great franchises out there just don't "rebuild". They have down periods, but they are still trying to get that ring.

tank?

[gex]

Like he has done every year since being here. With the salary cap era coming to what appears to be an end in the near future, with the shared revenue the nfl puts otu there to pay for salaries and all that jazz, TT yet again is choosing to just not spend money.

*sigh*

I am not saying be the jets last year. I am not saying turn into the redskins every year.

What I am saying is show some damn commitment to wining a Super Bowl. The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year save our two CB's, and yeah ryan grant was a surprise only after we had been an all passing team half the season.

Lets face it: TT has not shown one ounce of commitment to winning a super bowl, just commitment to making us a division competitior every year. I don't want to just dance around wining the division: I want another super bowl.

And, TT just doesn't look like he's comitted to get there. We have a young improving team. Great. AR got a golden boy contract after a few games.

Where is Jennings big deal? Why is our OL still a mess years after TT took over.

*sigh* It would just be nice for our GM to actually show in action that he actually wants to win a super bowl. This rebuilding crap has gotta just be thrown out the window. The great franchises out there just don't "rebuild". They have down periods, but they are still trying to get that ring.

tank?

Absolutly no need for that shit Grampa. :evil:

[Waldo]

Go back and read this thread (http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=7121) for example, written about a week into FA two years ago.

We sure did miss out on not signing Justin Griffith, didn't we?

So far we've only missed out on three guys I would have wanted on the roster in the first place.

I mean, a few guys I was interested in are off the market: Canty, Stinchcomb, Brown. But there's a lot of guys out there that are still available, get Olshansky or Haye and one of the safeties (I think Sensebaugh, Smith, and Phillips are all still available). Hell, Julius Peppers is still on the trading block.

It's too early to call the offseason over after the first weekend of free agency.

I wanted Brown too, but he's been kinda foul, calling out his ex-team and teammates lately. Doesn't seem like the most mature fellow.

Stinchomb was real high on my list as well. Without knowing MM's plan for the line it's hard to say whether we would have had any interest. MM could be moving DC to T to pay the boy, and TT planning on drafting another T to start out at G. Stinch stayed home anyway, can't really compete with that.

Aside from having an experienced guy, I'm not real sure why we had any interest in Canty. He's good and all, but that is a lot of $$ to commit to a DL, so much that the guy becomes irreplaceable by contract (a player develops, so what, he can't beat out a guy that makes 7M a year). I'd much rather sign a mid level guy and push him with a higher draft pick (which we qalready have in Harrell, but could use another). Signing Canty is essentially giving up on Harrell for good, he has no chance ever to start in GB barring injury. Not sure I entirely agree with that. Igor or the other guys would be a different story, where they could be beat out by a superior player.

Phillis has been silent thus far. I wonder why. I surely wouldn't mind pursuing him. Leonard wasn't signed by the NYJ and is still on the market.

Peppers by far would be the best move we could make, if we could get him for less than #9. For a 2nd and 3rd I'd be all over it. For a 2nd and both our 3rds, I'd strongly consider.

I'm not entirely sold on Jolly being a bad DE. He sucked last year, but two years ago he beat out Cole, Williams, and Harrell, and dominated at times. What the heck happened? We've seen him do it. That boy needs coaching, bad, and an attitude readjustment, but his problems are not physical, which would always lead me to assume that they are correctable given the right environment.

[packrat]

This thread starts off with something that is just plain wrong--saying TT has chosen not to spend money. Canty's agent says the Packers weren't scared off by the price tag and the Packers made it clear they were interested in Canty. Too bad Canty wanted to go to New York and was just using the Packers to try to drive up the price. But that is not TT's fault. However, I'm glad TT is not throwing crazy money around because for every overpriced free agent we sign, it means we no longer have money for one of our players like Jennings or Collins, plus now we have discontent on the team because some new guy is being paid twice what other guys with similar performance are getting. Some people just want to bash TT without thinking what it takes to build a team for the long haul, given the constraints of the salary cap.

[Fritz]

TT has shown no commitment to winning the Super Bowl?

Sigh.

When did Chris Canty become a perennial All-Pro?

I know people get frustrated with Thompson because he doesn't run the team like a fan would.

I personally think he's an excellent GM. I think this will be proven to be so in the next two years.

And if he doesn't get this team on a consistent, winning track, he'll be out the door anyway, whether or not he signs a big name free agent.

[packrulz]

TT signed Woodson, Pickett, Chilliar, & etc. I think the Giants and Seattle overpaid. Olshansky, McFadden, and some others are still out there yet, give it a month.

[sheepshead]

TT has shown no commitment to winning the Super Bowl?

Sigh.

When did Chris Canty become a perennial All-Pro?

I know people get frustrated with Thompson because he doesn't run the team like a fan would.

I personally think he's an excellent GM. I think this will be proven to be so in the next two years.

And if he doesn't get this team on a consistent, winning track, he'll be out the door anyway, whether or not he signs a big name free agent.

Yeah Canty's a nice player, Nice presence. But what else can we do except call the guy. Call his agent and say hey we've got lots of dough up here lets talk. Maybe he has friends playing or coaching on the other teams. Agent says he'll get endorsements in a big city. Lots of reasons. Again, not necessarily anything our GM did wrong.

[Partial]

I don't care if he signs a premiere player, we need just need some depth at certain positions that cannot get filled through the draft unless he dedicates the first 4-5 rounds exclusively to defense.

[Fritz]

I think the GBPG summed it up pretty well: the agent wanted the Packers to make a ballpark offer before he'd commit to leaving NY (who very likely said "take it now cuz it might not be here later"), and the Packers refused to make a ballpark offer before they had teh guy in for a look-see.

It's the way TT does business, and it's kept them from having a bunch of Joe Johnsons and Terrell Owenses on the team and the payroll. It has frustrated many fans, too.

Personally, I like that the guy is fiscally responsible. I don't see manyif any huge free agent signings that put teams over the top. Reggie White, yes. But I'm having a hard time thinking of blockbuster free agent signings that absolutely were teh differences in a team getting to the Super Bowl.

I think free agents can help, for sure. But rarely do they provide the immediate impact (and one that can last for more than one season) people seem to think they do. It's a huge crapshoot.

I'd be okay with Olshansky. A guy who can fill in and compete, do the job, not cost too much. Give Harrell someone to compete with (if his back allows) and give the rookie they're sure to draft some time to develop.

I think the team can win 10 games this year with just a little infusion of talent. But I wouldn't mind seeing them make the big Peppers trade, either. Now there's a case of a guy who has the talent and would play a position that could make an immediate and obvious impact. I'd be thrilled if the Pack could on draft day trade down to the mid-first, pick up an extra second, then trade a second and third or the first to Carolina for Peppers.

Ah, my fantasy trade. I suppose in reality it would cost more than that, though.

[cpk1994]

Like he has done every year since being here. With the salary cap era coming to what appears to be an end in the near future, with the shared revenue the nfl puts otu there to pay for salaries and all that jazz, TT yet again is choosing to just not spend money.

*sigh*

I am not saying be the jets last year. I am not saying turn into the redskins every year.

What I am saying is show some damn commitment to wining a Super Bowl. The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year save our two CB's, and yeah ryan grant was a surprise only after we had been an all passing team half the season.

Lets face it: TT has not shown one ounce of commitment to winning a super bowl, just commitment to making us a division competitior every year. I don't want to just dance around wining the division: I want another super bowl.

And, TT just doesn't look like he's comitted to get there. We have a young improving team. Great. AR got a golden boy contract after a few games.

Where is Jennings big deal? Why is our OL still a mess years after TT took over.

*sigh* It would just be nice for our GM to actually show in action that he actually wants to win a super bowl. This rebuilding crap has gotta just be thrown out the window. The great franchises out there just don't "rebuild". They have down periods, but they are still trying to get that ring.You do know that Jennings' agent has to agree before they can sign him, don't you? You also realize they don't need to rush to do Jennings deal, don't you?
Bottom line, saying TT isn't committed is falt out BS. This is the same tired shit, different year.

[Partial]

You do know that Jennings' agent has to agree before they can sign him, don't you? You also realize they don't need to rush to do Jennings deal, don't you?
Bottom line, saying TT isn't committed is falt out BS. This is the same tired shit, different year.

One could argue its the same tired shit that will result in yet another non-winning season for Thompson. This will be his 5th year on the job and the facts are he's had one winning season.

Now I don't believe in going out and spending the farm, but he needs to get some 3-4 ends in here, because we don't have any on the roster. They cannot go into this season with the same weak front 7 as last year. Olshansky and a cheap guy would be great, and would allow us to address other positions in the draft and would be pretty good value imo. All we really need there is a big guy that can hold against the run.

[cpk1994]

I think the GBPG summed it up pretty well: the agent wanted the Packers to make a ballpark offer before he'd commit to leaving NY (who very likely said "take it now cuz it might not be here later"), and the Packers refused to make a ballpark offer before they had teh guy in for a look-see.

It's the way TT does business, and it's kept them from having a bunch of Joe Johnsons and Terrell Owenses on the team and the payroll. It has frustrated many fans, too.

Personally, I like that the guy is fiscally responsible. I don't see manyif any huge free agent signings that put teams over the top. Reggie White, yes. But I'm having a hard time thinking of blockbuster free agent signings that absolutely were teh differences in a team getting to the Super Bowl.

I think free agents can help, for sure. But rarely do they provide the immediate impact (and one that can last for more than one season) people seem to think they do. It's a huge crapshoot.

I'd be okay with Olshansky. A guy who can fill in and compete, do the job, not cost too much. Give Harrell someone to compete with (if his back allows) and give the rookie they're sure to draft some time to develop.

I think the team can win 10 games this year with just a little infusion of talent. But I wouldn't mind seeing them make the big Peppers trade, either. Now there's a case of a guy who has the talent and would play a position that could make an immediate and obvious impact. I'd be thrilled if the Pack could on draft day trade down to the mid-first, pick up an extra second, then trade a second and third or the first to Carolina for Peppers.

Ah, my fantasy trade. I suppose in reality it would cost more than that, though.Well said. I mean ask yourself, how many playoff games has Dan Snyder one will all his spending. WHen was the last time Jerry Jones's team won a playoff game with all his spending. When was the last time the Vikings won a playoff game with all their spending. TT has won a playoff game a lot more recently than all three of those big spenders.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

On the bright side, Jennings, Collins, Kamp, Splitz, Colledge, Blackman, Williams, etc., etc. will all be on the team for years to come.

[Waldo]

Thats the thing, we were going to get rid of somebody if Canty was signed, and most of the team is worth their paycheck right now. I think that there is a 7M window that can be stretched to '11, but signing Canty meant somebody was walking in '11, my guess is it is in the position group/area (defensive front 7). Jolly would be 100% guaranteed walking. Harrell would have to beat out Jenkins, if he ever recovers, Chillar is probably the most likely one to walk, possibly Chillar and Poppinga if they want to keep Hawk.

The contract that Igor would get is very different. Chillar is still a casualty IMO, but Jolly could be resigned if he shows something, and Harrell has a chance to start if he gives the coaches a reason to start him.

I hope Bigby signs his tender soon, I doubt that they are going to pursue a SS in FA unless Bigby first signs his tender. Not much point in signing a SS if it means he's going to force our starting SS to hold out for a long term contract, which is what will happen.

[packerbacker1234]

Like he has done every year since being here. With the salary cap era coming to what appears to be an end in the near future, with the shared revenue the nfl puts otu there to pay for salaries and all that jazz, TT yet again is choosing to just not spend money.

*sigh*

I am not saying be the jets last year. I am not saying turn into the redskins every year.

What I am saying is show some damn commitment to wining a Super Bowl. The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year save our two CB's, and yeah ryan grant was a surprise only after we had been an all passing team half the season.

Lets face it: TT has not shown one ounce of commitment to winning a super bowl, just commitment to making us a division competitior every year. I don't want to just dance around wining the division: I want another super bowl.

And, TT just doesn't look like he's comitted to get there. We have a young improving team. Great. AR got a golden boy contract after a few games.

Where is Jennings big deal? Why is our OL still a mess years after TT took over.

*sigh* It would just be nice for our GM to actually show in action that he actually wants to win a super bowl. This rebuilding crap has gotta just be thrown out the window. The great franchises out there just don't "rebuild". They have down periods, but they are still trying to get that ring.You do know that Jennings' agent has to agree before they can sign him, don't you? You also realize they don't need to rush to do Jennings deal, don't you?
Bottom line, saying TT isn't committed is falt out BS. This is the same tired shit, different year.

He sure as hell rushed AR into a contract after a few games. Jennings is more proven, having big years with two different QB's, proving that he is the real deal.

This thread isn't cause we didn't get canty. It's because of other players he didn't appear to consider.

Look at Bart Scott. I believe we run a 3-4 no? Why didn't we get in the running for him with the jets? Of the three people listed that he picked up, only Woodson has been consistent. TT wants to win of course, but does he want to win a super bowl? I never vlaim him for not jumping all over the big names, but there is usually some clear palyers to be had out there every year that would improve glaring needs and he ignores them.

OL, DL, are good examples. Canty may not be worth it, but I'de rather get him then keep Justin Harrell around.

[Waldo]

Like he has done every year since being here. With the salary cap era coming to what appears to be an end in the near future, with the shared revenue the nfl puts otu there to pay for salaries and all that jazz, TT yet again is choosing to just not spend money.

*sigh*

I am not saying be the jets last year. I am not saying turn into the redskins every year.

What I am saying is show some damn commitment to wining a Super Bowl. The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year save our two CB's, and yeah ryan grant was a surprise only after we had been an all passing team half the season.

Lets face it: TT has not shown one ounce of commitment to winning a super bowl, just commitment to making us a division competitior every year. I don't want to just dance around wining the division: I want another super bowl.

And, TT just doesn't look like he's comitted to get there. We have a young improving team. Great. AR got a golden boy contract after a few games.

Where is Jennings big deal? Why is our OL still a mess years after TT took over.

*sigh* It would just be nice for our GM to actually show in action that he actually wants to win a super bowl. This rebuilding crap has gotta just be thrown out the window. The great franchises out there just don't "rebuild". They have down periods, but they are still trying to get that ring.You do know that Jennings' agent has to agree before they can sign him, don't you? You also realize they don't need to rush to do Jennings deal, don't you?
Bottom line, saying TT isn't committed is falt out BS. This is the same tired shit, different year.

He sure as hell rushed AR into a contract after a few games. Jennings is more proven, having big years with two different QB's, proving that he is the real deal.

This thread isn't cause we didn't get canty. It's because of other players he didn't appear to consider.

Look at Bart Scott. I believe we run a 3-4 no? Why didn't we get in the running for him with the jets? Of the three people listed that he picked up, only Woodson has been consistent. TT wants to win of course, but does he want to win a super bowl? I never vlaim him for not jumping all over the big names, but there is usually some clear palyers to be had out there every year that would improve glaring needs and he ignores them.

OL, DL, are good examples. Canty may not be worth it, but I'de rather get him then keep Justin Harrell around.

I believe Bart got 9M/yr. That would means we're paying Barnett 5.5M, Hawk 6.5M, and Chillar 3M, between the 2 ILB positions we'd dedicate 23M in cap, 1/11th of the starting lineup getting near 1/5th of the total cap. That is bad business. Our DL is underpaid, but our LB corps, especially the ILB's, are already overpayed in a 3-4 allocation model.

[cpk1994]

Like he has done every year since being here. With the salary cap era coming to what appears to be an end in the near future, with the shared revenue the nfl puts otu there to pay for salaries and all that jazz, TT yet again is choosing to just not spend money.

*sigh*

I am not saying be the jets last year. I am not saying turn into the redskins every year.

What I am saying is show some damn commitment to wining a Super Bowl. The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year save our two CB's, and yeah ryan grant was a surprise only after we had been an all passing team half the season.

Lets face it: TT has not shown one ounce of commitment to winning a super bowl, just commitment to making us a division competitior every year. I don't want to just dance around wining the division: I want another super bowl.

And, TT just doesn't look like he's comitted to get there. We have a young improving team. Great. AR got a golden boy contract after a few games.

Where is Jennings big deal? Why is our OL still a mess years after TT took over.

*sigh* It would just be nice for our GM to actually show in action that he actually wants to win a super bowl. This rebuilding crap has gotta just be thrown out the window. The great franchises out there just don't "rebuild". They have down periods, but they are still trying to get that ring.You do know that Jennings' agent has to agree before they can sign him, don't you? You also realize they don't need to rush to do Jennings deal, don't you?
Bottom line, saying TT isn't committed is falt out BS. This is the same tired shit, different year.

He sure as hell rushed AR into a contract after a few games. Jennings is more proven, having big years with two different QB's, proving that he is the real deal.

This thread isn't cause we didn't get canty. It's because of other players he didn't appear to consider.

Look at Bart Scott. I believe we run a 3-4 no? Why didn't we get in the running for him with the jets? Of the three people listed that he picked up, only Woodson has been consistent. TT wants to win of course, but does he want to win a super bowl? I never vlaim him for not jumping all over the big names, but there is usually some clear palyers to be had out there every year that would improve glaring needs and he ignores them.

OL, DL, are good examples. Canty may not be worth it, but I'de rather get him then keep Justin Harrell around.Gee I think the Favre situation may have had something to do with that. Also, ARod's agent may have had something to do with that as well. Finally, just becuae the press isn't reporting anything doesn't mean that TT is doing nothing in that instance.

Since you know how great these players can help, I expect that you will be fielding offers to become a GM.

[packerbacker1234]

Like he has done every year since being here. With the salary cap era coming to what appears to be an end in the near future, with the shared revenue the nfl puts otu there to pay for salaries and all that jazz, TT yet again is choosing to just not spend money.

*sigh*

I am not saying be the jets last year. I am not saying turn into the redskins every year.

What I am saying is show some damn commitment to wining a Super Bowl. The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year save our two CB's, and yeah ryan grant was a surprise only after we had been an all passing team half the season.

Lets face it: TT has not shown one ounce of commitment to winning a super bowl, just commitment to making us a division competitior every year. I don't want to just dance around wining the division: I want another super bowl.

And, TT just doesn't look like he's comitted to get there. We have a young improving team. Great. AR got a golden boy contract after a few games.

Where is Jennings big deal? Why is our OL still a mess years after TT took over.

*sigh* It would just be nice for our GM to actually show in action that he actually wants to win a super bowl. This rebuilding crap has gotta just be thrown out the window. The great franchises out there just don't "rebuild". They have down periods, but they are still trying to get that ring.You do know that Jennings' agent has to agree before they can sign him, don't you? You also realize they don't need to rush to do Jennings deal, don't you?
Bottom line, saying TT isn't committed is falt out BS. This is the same tired shit, different year.

He sure as hell rushed AR into a contract after a few games. Jennings is more proven, having big years with two different QB's, proving that he is the real deal.

This thread isn't cause we didn't get canty. It's because of other players he didn't appear to consider.

Look at Bart Scott. I believe we run a 3-4 no? Why didn't we get in the running for him with the jets? Of the three people listed that he picked up, only Woodson has been consistent. TT wants to win of course, but does he want to win a super bowl? I never vlaim him for not jumping all over the big names, but there is usually some clear palyers to be had out there every year that would improve glaring needs and he ignores them.

OL, DL, are good examples. Canty may not be worth it, but I'de rather get him then keep Justin Harrell around.

I believe Bart got 9M/yr. That would means we're paying Barnett 5.5M, Hawk 6.5M, and Chillar 3M, between the 2 ILB positions we'd dedicate 23M in cap, 1/11th of the starting lineup getting near 1/5th of the total cap.


We have 36 mil free. We can afford it.

[wist43]

I'm actually not going to throw TT under the bus for his lack of inactivity this offseason...

At this point, there are some okay players left on the market, but nothing that is much better than what the Packers have; so, why spend the money at this point???

Olshansky would help temporarily, but the Packer front seven is so completely devoid of top end talent, signing another JAG isnt going to win us a SB, so... TT is going to sit, and I'm not going to bitch too much - a little, but not too much, lol :)

[Waldo]

36M is 9M over the actual cap. That is a one year block of cash, not permanent cap space. If the cap is reinstated in '10 and the same amount as '09, spending that 9M makes you 9M over the cap in '10 if you pay as you go.

We don't have 36M in cap space any more.

Bigby = 1.5M
Hunter = 1M
Martin = 1M
Kuhn = 1M
Bush = 1M

They displace 5x300K

We currently have 32M in cap space.

9M is the carry forward I doubt TT spends using pay-as-you-go rules. That is money for frontloading (which has the effect of converting carry forward into long term cap space), and the yearly injury contingency (team has to carry at least 2-3M in cap space in case guys get hurt, guys on IR count towards the cap, as do the replacements brought in).

23M is the usable cap space.

Jennings is looking at Berrian money. Roughly 8M. He makes 800K. 7.2M net effect to the cap.

15.8M remaining

Colledge is looking at Scott money. His time at T is concerning, he could push for more. Roughly 5M. He makes 800K. 4.2M net effect to the cap.

11.6M remaining

Collins just went to the pro bowl, and was an all-pro. None of the S's on the market are his caliber, but they set the market. His agent should push for 6M/yr, but TT will try to keep it to 5M/yr. Lets say they split at 5.5M/yr. He makes 900K. 4.6M net effect to the cap.

7M remaining.

The rookies drafted this year will cost about 4M, and will probably displace about 2M worth of players, for a net effect of 2M to the cap.

5M remaining.

Leftovers looking at new deals in the near future (within a year) are Kampman, Pickett, Spitz, Blackmon, Driver, Clifton, Jolly, Chillar, Williams (he's an ERFA so forced to play at 400K if he signs the tender, but I can see a Grant situation where the ERFA tender is far less than he is worth). Of those Spitz, Blackmon, Jolly, and Williams will be high net players (the rest already make a lot of money, a new contract doesn't have a huge effect on the cap). If we stay put at #9, our first round pick is going to cost 5M to the cap next year (because of the rookie salary cap, first round rookies don't count much toward the cap until their second year).

Our cap space isn't nearly as good as it looks.

[imscott72]

Like he has done every year since being here. With the salary cap era coming to what appears to be an end in the near future, with the shared revenue the nfl puts otu there to pay for salaries and all that jazz, TT yet again is choosing to just not spend money.

*sigh*

I am not saying be the jets last year. I am not saying turn into the redskins every year.

What I am saying is show some damn commitment to wining a Super Bowl. The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year save our two CB's, and yeah ryan grant was a surprise only after we had been an all passing team half the season.

Lets face it: TT has not shown one ounce of commitment to winning a super bowl, just commitment to making us a division competitior every year. I don't want to just dance around wining the division: I want another super bowl.

And, TT just doesn't look like he's comitted to get there. We have a young improving team. Great. AR got a golden boy contract after a few games.

Where is Jennings big deal? Why is our OL still a mess years after TT took over.

*sigh* It would just be nice for our GM to actually show in action that he actually wants to win a super bowl. This rebuilding crap has gotta just be thrown out the window. The great franchises out there just don't "rebuild". They have down periods, but they are still trying to get that ring.You do know that Jennings' agent has to agree before they can sign him, don't you? You also realize they don't need to rush to do Jennings deal, don't you?
Bottom line, saying TT isn't committed is falt out BS. This is the same tired shit, different year.

He sure as hell rushed AR into a contract after a few games. Jennings is more proven, having big years with two different QB's, proving that he is the real deal.

This thread isn't cause we didn't get canty. It's because of other players he didn't appear to consider.

Look at Bart Scott. I believe we run a 3-4 no? Why didn't we get in the running for him with the jets? Of the three people listed that he picked up, only Woodson has been consistent. TT wants to win of course, but does he want to win a super bowl? I never vlaim him for not jumping all over the big names, but there is usually some clear palyers to be had out there every year that would improve glaring needs and he ignores them.

OL, DL, are good examples. Canty may not be worth it, but I'de rather get him then keep Justin Harrell around.

I believe Bart got 9M/yr. That would means we're paying Barnett 5.5M, Hawk 6.5M, and Chillar 3M, between the 2 ILB positions we'd dedicate 23M in cap, 1/11th of the starting lineup getting near 1/5th of the total cap. That is bad business. Our DL is underpaid, but our LB corps, especially the ILB's, are already overpayed in a 3-4 allocation model.

Yeah and the Giants will probably have the best defense (on paper) in the NFC. Doesn't defense win championships? I missing the point on why you wouldn't spend quality money on defense. Is it a lot of money? Yes, but you can pinch pennies every year and chances are you're never going to get over the top just relying on draft picks to take you to the Super Bowl.

[Waldo]

Are you prepared to give up on Barnett or Hawk before they've been given a chance? If so, why.

I agree, throwing money at the defense is a good thing and needed, but any old defender won't do. We need a 5 tech DE, a pass rushing OLB, and a SS. Bart doesn't play those positions.

[Fritz]

Not sold on the current safeties on the roster, Waldo?

[Waldo]

Not sold on the current safeties on the roster, Waldo?

Collins is more than fine at FS, but he's a pure FS and doesn't wear the mixed SS/FS hat that Sanders had him wearing occasionally particularly well.

Rouse plays much better at FS than SS. He' just not instinctive enough for the rover SS role, and isn't very good in the box. He's a fine backup as FS though, but should be no higher than #3 on the depth chart at SS.

Peprah is awful. I don't know why we're keeping him around, he hasn't developed at all, and isn't very good on ST. He's equally bad at both SS or FS.

Bigby is fine. I like him. But he has no reasonable backup. I have no qualms with either drafting somebody high or bringing in a mid tier SS FA to push him in a position battle. No matter what we'd emerge with a solid starter and solid backup, which isn't the case right now.

[Zool]

Not sold on the current safeties on the roster, Waldo?

Collins is more than fine at FS, but he's a pure FS and doesn't wear the mixed SS/FS hat that Sanders had him wearing occasionally particularly well.

Rouse plays much better at FS than SS. He' just not instinctive enough for the rover SS role, and isn't very good in the box. He's a fine backup as FS though, but should be no higher than #3 on the depth chart at SS.

Peprah is awful. I don't know why we're keeping him around, he hasn't developed at all, and isn't very good on ST. He's equally bad at both SS or FS.

Bigby is fine. I like him. But he has no reasonable backup. I have no qualms with either drafting somebody high or bringing in a mid tier SS FA to push him in a position battle. No matter what we'd emerge with a solid starter and solid backup, which isn't the case right now.

I had almost forgotten Peprah was still employed by an NFL team. Collins did make a good jump this past season. Hopefully it wasn't an aberration. Bigby is fine, but an upgrade would be nice. Someone who stays on the field.

[Lurker64]

I don't care if he signs a premiere player, we need just need some depth at certain positions that cannot get filled through the draft unless he dedicates the first 4-5 rounds exclusively to defense.

And that's fine, since the "you're here for depth, and to compete for a starting job" guys aren't the guys who sign in the first weekend or even first week. Once the mad money is spent by the usual offenders, the more conservative teams go bargain shopping, and that's us.

[Patler]

36M is 9M over the actual cap. That is a one year block of cash, not permanent cap space. If the cap is reinstated in '10 and the same amount as '09, spending that 9M makes you 9M over the cap in '10 if you pay as you go.

We don't have 36M in cap space any more.

Bigby = 1.5M
Hunter = 1M
Martin = 1M
Kuhn = 1M
Bush = 1M

They displace 5x300K

We currently have 32M in cap space.

9M is the carry forward I doubt TT spends using pay-as-you-go rules. That is money for frontloading (which has the effect of converting carry forward into long term cap space), and the yearly injury contingency (team has to carry at least 2-3M in cap space in case guys get hurt, guys on IR count towards the cap, as do the replacements brought in).

23M is the usable cap space.

Jennings is looking at Berrian money. Roughly 8M. He makes 800K. 7.2M net effect to the cap.

15.8M remaining

Colledge is looking at Scott money. His time at T is concerning, he could push for more. Roughly 5M. He makes 800K. 4.2M net effect to the cap.

11.6M remaining

Collins just went to the pro bowl, and was an all-pro. None of the S's on the market are his caliber, but they set the market. His agent should push for 6M/yr, but TT will try to keep it to 5M/yr. Lets say they split at 5.5M/yr. He makes 900K. 4.6M net effect to the cap.

7M remaining.

The rookies drafted this year will cost about 4M, and will probably displace about 2M worth of players, for a net effect of 2M to the cap.

5M remaining.

Leftovers looking at new deals in the near future (within a year) are Kampman, Pickett, Spitz, Blackmon, Driver, Clifton, Jolly, Chillar, Williams (he's an ERFA so forced to play at 400K if he signs the tender, but I can see a Grant situation where the ERFA tender is far less than he is worth). Of those Spitz, Blackmon, Jolly, and Williams will be high net players (the rest already make a lot of money, a new contract doesn't have a huge effect on the cap). If we stay put at #9, our first round pick is going to cost 5M to the cap next year (because of the rookie salary cap, first round rookies don't count much toward the cap until their second year).

Our cap space isn't nearly as good as it looks.

I disagree with several details, but I agree that the cap space will get used quickly when you have 8 starters with contracts expiring at the end of 2009. Then you throw in Blackmon and Chiller to boot.

Isn't the carry forward from 2008 to 2009 about $7M, not $9M?

Where I disagree with you the most is that you have discounted using it. I think that is a mistake. The Packers have bumped forward almost all unused cap each season, including what was bumped forward from previous years. There is no reason to think it will be treated any differently than their "fresh" cap dollars.

Obviously, none of this matters if there is no cap next year. Then it will just matter how much they decide to spend. But assuming there is a cap and relatively equal to what it is this year, a simple way to look at a two-year budget is this:

Clifton, Kampman, Pickett, Chiller, Collins, Colledge, Jennings, Spitz, Blackmon and Jolly have contracts that will expire, clearing about $24M in cap space. Rodgers' cap value drops about $3M in 2010. With KGB's dead money and misc. others coming off, it will clear about another $2M. So the Packers will have about $29M in new cap space in 2010 to work with, in addition to the $32M available right now. Between now and the start of 2010 they will have to:

-sign two draft classes
-take up escalators in all players contracts they keep. For several like Woodson and Hawk I think there are possible significant increases.
- provide an operating slush fund for 2009 and 2010 to cover injury replacements. As you mentioned, this generally costs a couple million/year.
-pay the 2010 RFA tenders that are offered.
-sign any of the aforementioned Packer FAs, plus maybe Tauscher this year.
-sign any new FAs from other teams in 2009 or 2010.
- other details not big in and of themselves, but not insignificant in the accumulated effect, such as the salaries of the practice squad players for two seasons.

(EDIT - I forgot Bigby, he will have to be dealt with before 2010 again as well.)


The two year budget may have about $60 million to work with to sign new contracts, but it will go very quickly. It is not certain that even without signing anyone else they will have the space over the next two year to bring back all of their own FAs. Clifton may be allowed to walk, Driver might be too expensive to keep for his final year. Harris' & Woodson's cost/performance will bear evaluating as they get older and their costs go up.

Then, whatever they do they have to make sure the second years of those new contracts will fit into the 2011 budget and the expirations of contracts to Driver, Jenkins, Jackson, Jones, Rouse etc.

[bobblehead]

Like he has done every year since being here. With the salary cap era coming to what appears to be an end in the near future, with the shared revenue the nfl puts otu there to pay for salaries and all that jazz, TT yet again is choosing to just not spend money.

*sigh*

I am not saying be the jets last year. I am not saying turn into the redskins every year.

What I am saying is show some damn commitment to wining a Super Bowl. The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year save our two CB's, and yeah ryan grant was a surprise only after we had been an all passing team half the season.

Lets face it: TT has not shown one ounce of commitment to winning a super bowl, just commitment to making us a division competitior every year. I don't want to just dance around wining the division: I want another super bowl.

And, TT just doesn't look like he's comitted to get there. We have a young improving team. Great. AR got a golden boy contract after a few games.

Where is Jennings big deal? Why is our OL still a mess years after TT took over.

*sigh* It would just be nice for our GM to actually show in action that he actually wants to win a super bowl. This rebuilding crap has gotta just be thrown out the window. The great franchises out there just don't "rebuild". They have down periods, but they are still trying to get that ring.

tank?

Absolutly no need for that shit Grampa. :evil:

TANK!!!!

[bobblehead]

The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year save our two CB's, and yeah ryan grant was a surprise only after we had been an all passing team half the season.


We must have watched a different season...I do recall the season opener when BF almost threw the game away with an ugly pick (no offensive TD's in that game).

I recall San Diego where Barnett iced the game with a late pick. the 2008 D would have given up a TD and lost it. Barnett was the D player of the week.

I remember the first Bears game where BF tossed 2 picks to tie Blanda for the career best...er worst mark.

The next week we came back and BF tossed 2 more picks against washington in leading us to 10 offensive points, but chuck woodson picked up a fumble and went 50+ for a TD to save us.

After the bye week BF led us to 13 total points (a TD on a blown coverage was the first score) in regulation and the Defense made a great last second stand to get us to OT. Pretty sure BF's awesome pass in OT wouldn't have happened with the 2008 Defense on the field.

Ah then came the chiefs where BF tossed a pre halftime Pick with a 6-0 lead...ooops, we ended up going in down 7-6. I do admit that the second half of that game was BF at his best though.

Week 10 was the breakout of Grant, and the defense threw a shutout...all BF's inspiration no doubt.

week 11 we beat a 44 year old QB while getting a punt return TD from TWill and Cory Williams was Def. player of the week.

We then beat the powerhouse Lions...something happened the next week in Dallas, but I have blocked it out for some reason...no doubt it was one of those great BF perfomances you speak of so I have selectively deleted it from my memory.

Weeks 14,15 and 17 we dominated powerhouse teams....Rams, Raiders and Lions again. Our defense gave up 34 total points in those games....and again I'll block out week 16, but I'm quite sure BF didn't play too well (or anyone else).

And Mad, before you break out the quarter please consider that I wasn't inflamatory, I'm merely refuting (quite well) a stupid statement of:

The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year.....

If people make foolish statements like this they deserve to see the truth.

[Lurker64]

I agree entirely with bobblehead both in that the defense and special teams being clutch was an important part of the success in 2007 and the defense and special teams being the opposite of clutch was an important part of the lack of success in 2008 and in that he should not be banned for pointing this out.

[gex]

I agree entirely with bobblehead both in that the defense and special teams being clutch was an important part of the success in 2007 and the defense and special teams being the opposite of clutch was an important part of the lack of success in 2008 and in that he should not be banned for pointing this out.

Well, for Bubble it should at least merit the flipping of the coin. :lol:

[packerbacker1234]

36M is 9M over the actual cap. That is a one year block of cash, not permanent cap space. If the cap is reinstated in '10 and the same amount as '09, spending that 9M makes you 9M over the cap in '10 if you pay as you go.

We don't have 36M in cap space any more.

Bigby = 1.5M
Hunter = 1M
Martin = 1M
Kuhn = 1M
Bush = 1M

They displace 5x300K

We currently have 32M in cap space.

9M is the carry forward I doubt TT spends using pay-as-you-go rules. That is money for frontloading (which has the effect of converting carry forward into long term cap space), and the yearly injury contingency (team has to carry at least 2-3M in cap space in case guys get hurt, guys on IR count towards the cap, as do the replacements brought in).

23M is the usable cap space.

Jennings is looking at Berrian money. Roughly 8M. He makes 800K. 7.2M net effect to the cap.

15.8M remaining

Colledge is looking at Scott money. His time at T is concerning, he could push for more. Roughly 5M. He makes 800K. 4.2M net effect to the cap.

11.6M remaining

Collins just went to the pro bowl, and was an all-pro. None of the S's on the market are his caliber, but they set the market. His agent should push for 6M/yr, but TT will try to keep it to 5M/yr. Lets say they split at 5.5M/yr. He makes 900K. 4.6M net effect to the cap.

7M remaining.

The rookies drafted this year will cost about 4M, and will probably displace about 2M worth of players, for a net effect of 2M to the cap.

5M remaining.

Leftovers looking at new deals in the near future (within a year) are Kampman, Pickett, Spitz, Blackmon, Driver, Clifton, Jolly, Chillar, Williams (he's an ERFA so forced to play at 400K if he signs the tender, but I can see a Grant situation where the ERFA tender is far less than he is worth). Of those Spitz, Blackmon, Jolly, and Williams will be high net players (the rest already make a lot of money, a new contract doesn't have a huge effect on the cap). If we stay put at #9, our first round pick is going to cost 5M to the cap next year (because of the rookie salary cap, first round rookies don't count much toward the cap until their second year).

Our cap space isn't nearly as good as it looks.


You're also going out a limb assuming TT actually does anything with them. At the present, of all the guys you listed, none of them our FA right now. Meaning? TT isn't going to touch them. When they do become FA he'll talk to them, sure, but they all come due around the same time and let facts be what facts are: They will all want big contracts and we can't afford to pay them.

[cpk1994]

36M is 9M over the actual cap. That is a one year block of cash, not permanent cap space. If the cap is reinstated in '10 and the same amount as '09, spending that 9M makes you 9M over the cap in '10 if you pay as you go.

We don't have 36M in cap space any more.

Bigby = 1.5M
Hunter = 1M
Martin = 1M
Kuhn = 1M
Bush = 1M

They displace 5x300K

We currently have 32M in cap space.

9M is the carry forward I doubt TT spends using pay-as-you-go rules. That is money for frontloading (which has the effect of converting carry forward into long term cap space), and the yearly injury contingency (team has to carry at least 2-3M in cap space in case guys get hurt, guys on IR count towards the cap, as do the replacements brought in).

23M is the usable cap space.

Jennings is looking at Berrian money. Roughly 8M. He makes 800K. 7.2M net effect to the cap.

15.8M remaining

Colledge is looking at Scott money. His time at T is concerning, he could push for more. Roughly 5M. He makes 800K. 4.2M net effect to the cap.

11.6M remaining

Collins just went to the pro bowl, and was an all-pro. None of the S's on the market are his caliber, but they set the market. His agent should push for 6M/yr, but TT will try to keep it to 5M/yr. Lets say they split at 5.5M/yr. He makes 900K. 4.6M net effect to the cap.

7M remaining.

The rookies drafted this year will cost about 4M, and will probably displace about 2M worth of players, for a net effect of 2M to the cap.

5M remaining.

Leftovers looking at new deals in the near future (within a year) are Kampman, Pickett, Spitz, Blackmon, Driver, Clifton, Jolly, Chillar, Williams (he's an ERFA so forced to play at 400K if he signs the tender, but I can see a Grant situation where the ERFA tender is far less than he is worth). Of those Spitz, Blackmon, Jolly, and Williams will be high net players (the rest already make a lot of money, a new contract doesn't have a huge effect on the cap). If we stay put at #9, our first round pick is going to cost 5M to the cap next year (because of the rookie salary cap, first round rookies don't count much toward the cap until their second year).

Our cap space isn't nearly as good as it looks.


You're also going out a limb assuming TT actually does anything with them. At the present, of all the guys you listed, none of them our FA right now. Meaning? TT isn't going to touch them. When they do become FA he'll talk to them, sure, but they all come due around the same time and let facts be what facts are: They will all want big contracts and we can't afford to pay them.Except TT has extended people BEFORE they hit FA as well. Driver and Rodgers to name two. You can't assume he will wiat until then becuase there is precedence that he does extend players early.

[Gunakor]

36M is 9M over the actual cap. That is a one year block of cash, not permanent cap space. If the cap is reinstated in '10 and the same amount as '09, spending that 9M makes you 9M over the cap in '10 if you pay as you go.

We don't have 36M in cap space any more.

Bigby = 1.5M
Hunter = 1M
Martin = 1M
Kuhn = 1M
Bush = 1M

They displace 5x300K

We currently have 32M in cap space.

9M is the carry forward I doubt TT spends using pay-as-you-go rules. That is money for frontloading (which has the effect of converting carry forward into long term cap space), and the yearly injury contingency (team has to carry at least 2-3M in cap space in case guys get hurt, guys on IR count towards the cap, as do the replacements brought in).

23M is the usable cap space.

Jennings is looking at Berrian money. Roughly 8M. He makes 800K. 7.2M net effect to the cap.

15.8M remaining

Colledge is looking at Scott money. His time at T is concerning, he could push for more. Roughly 5M. He makes 800K. 4.2M net effect to the cap.

11.6M remaining

Collins just went to the pro bowl, and was an all-pro. None of the S's on the market are his caliber, but they set the market. His agent should push for 6M/yr, but TT will try to keep it to 5M/yr. Lets say they split at 5.5M/yr. He makes 900K. 4.6M net effect to the cap.

7M remaining.

The rookies drafted this year will cost about 4M, and will probably displace about 2M worth of players, for a net effect of 2M to the cap.

5M remaining.

Leftovers looking at new deals in the near future (within a year) are Kampman, Pickett, Spitz, Blackmon, Driver, Clifton, Jolly, Chillar, Williams (he's an ERFA so forced to play at 400K if he signs the tender, but I can see a Grant situation where the ERFA tender is far less than he is worth). Of those Spitz, Blackmon, Jolly, and Williams will be high net players (the rest already make a lot of money, a new contract doesn't have a huge effect on the cap). If we stay put at #9, our first round pick is going to cost 5M to the cap next year (because of the rookie salary cap, first round rookies don't count much toward the cap until their second year).

Our cap space isn't nearly as good as it looks.


You're also going out a limb assuming TT actually does anything with them. At the present, of all the guys you listed, none of them our FA right now. Meaning? TT isn't going to touch them. When they do become FA he'll talk to them, sure, but they all come due around the same time and let facts be what facts are: They will all want big contracts and we can't afford to pay them.

You know, the less money we spend today on FA's, the more likely it is we'll be able to afford to resign them tomorrow. The guys in FA today might not want to be here, but the guys on our roster do. Those guys are the ones who are top priority. If we don't spend the money today, it will be there tomorrow where we can spend it on players who actually deserve the money. I don't think overpaying for a run stuffing 3-4 DE is money well spent, especially when it could take away from available cap space to resign some of the guys Waldo mentioned. Again, those guys are top priority, not the ones in the FA market right now.

For shits and giggles, I'd like to know how anyone could question TT's desire to resign good players on our roster. While he hasn't been very active in FA, he's resigned Al Harris, Donald Driver, Aaron Rodgers, Ryan Grant and Nick Barnett - all before hitting the FA market. You can't make a case against Thompson that he doesn't take care of his own. If a guy is a Packer today and TT wants him to be a Packer tomorrow, something will get done in a timely manner. Just like always. So relax.

[Patler]

Except TT has extended people BEFORE they hit FA as well. Driver and Rodgers to name two. You can't assume he will wiat until then becuase there is precedence that he does extend players early.

You can also throw Wells and Lee in the "extended early group". They were extended during the seasons before reaching free agency. Harris got an extension along with pay enhancements before his existing deal expired too.

TT has been more proactive than he gets credit for

[Packnut]

The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year save our two CB's, and yeah ryan grant was a surprise only after we had been an all passing team half the season.


We must have watched a different season...I do recall the season opener when BF almost threw the game away with an ugly pick (no offensive TD's in that game).

I recall San Diego where Barnett iced the game with a late pick. the 2008 D would have given up a TD and lost it. Barnett was the D player of the week.

I remember the first Bears game where BF tossed 2 picks to tie Blanda for the career best...er worst mark.

The next week we came back and BF tossed 2 more picks against washington in leading us to 10 offensive points, but chuck woodson picked up a fumble and went 50+ for a TD to save us.

After the bye week BF led us to 13 total points (a TD on a blown coverage was the first score) in regulation and the Defense made a great last second stand to get us to OT. Pretty sure BF's awesome pass in OT wouldn't have happened with the 2008 Defense on the field.

Ah then came the chiefs where BF tossed a pre halftime Pick with a 6-0 lead...ooops, we ended up going in down 7-6. I do admit that the second half of that game was BF at his best though.

Week 10 was the breakout of Grant, and the defense threw a shutout...all BF's inspiration no doubt.

week 11 we beat a 44 year old QB while getting a punt return TD from TWill and Cory Williams was Def. player of the week.

We then beat the powerhouse Lions...something happened the next week in Dallas, but I have blocked it out for some reason...no doubt it was one of those great BF perfomances you speak of so I have selectively deleted it from my memory.

Weeks 14,15 and 17 we dominated powerhouse teams....Rams, Raiders and Lions again. Our defense gave up 34 total points in those games....and again I'll block out week 16, but I'm quite sure BF didn't play too well (or anyone else).

And Mad, before you break out the quarter please consider that I wasn't inflamatory, I'm merely refuting (quite well) a stupid statement of:

The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year.....

If people make foolish statements like this they deserve to see the truth.

The only problem is it's YOUR truth, not THE truth. In fact, your opinion is full of holes not to mention hypocritical garbage.

You blame Favre when many instances that you cited involved other players screwing up. Then when Favre did do well, you credit other people for it.

The bottom line is this and it is a FACT. It cannot be disputed. You can make all the excuses you want and twist it to suit your purpose.

13-3 with Brett Favre
6-10 without him.

It was basically the same team. Now, when you take into effect the luck, schedule or bounce of the ball, no two seasons should be exactly alike.

However, the HUGE difference in the records would support the logical conclusion to any REASONABLE person that #04 had a very real impact on how good that 13-3 team was.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The performance by the defense in those two years had the biggest impact. QB play in both seasons was at least good.

[RashanGary]

The performance by the defense in those two years had the biggest impact. QB play in both seasons was at least good.


9th ranked defense to 22nd ranked defense
tied for 7th in ST's to 26th ranked ST's

ST's and Defense were huge factors. Rodgers being a first year starter also played a part (IMO), but not nearly as big as the defense and ST's.

[Gunakor]

The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year save our two CB's, and yeah ryan grant was a surprise only after we had been an all passing team half the season.


We must have watched a different season...I do recall the season opener when BF almost threw the game away with an ugly pick (no offensive TD's in that game).

I recall San Diego where Barnett iced the game with a late pick. the 2008 D would have given up a TD and lost it. Barnett was the D player of the week.

I remember the first Bears game where BF tossed 2 picks to tie Blanda for the career best...er worst mark.

The next week we came back and BF tossed 2 more picks against washington in leading us to 10 offensive points, but chuck woodson picked up a fumble and went 50+ for a TD to save us.

After the bye week BF led us to 13 total points (a TD on a blown coverage was the first score) in regulation and the Defense made a great last second stand to get us to OT. Pretty sure BF's awesome pass in OT wouldn't have happened with the 2008 Defense on the field.

Ah then came the chiefs where BF tossed a pre halftime Pick with a 6-0 lead...ooops, we ended up going in down 7-6. I do admit that the second half of that game was BF at his best though.

Week 10 was the breakout of Grant, and the defense threw a shutout...all BF's inspiration no doubt.

week 11 we beat a 44 year old QB while getting a punt return TD from TWill and Cory Williams was Def. player of the week.

We then beat the powerhouse Lions...something happened the next week in Dallas, but I have blocked it out for some reason...no doubt it was one of those great BF perfomances you speak of so I have selectively deleted it from my memory.

Weeks 14,15 and 17 we dominated powerhouse teams....Rams, Raiders and Lions again. Our defense gave up 34 total points in those games....and again I'll block out week 16, but I'm quite sure BF didn't play too well (or anyone else).

And Mad, before you break out the quarter please consider that I wasn't inflamatory, I'm merely refuting (quite well) a stupid statement of:

The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year.....

If people make foolish statements like this they deserve to see the truth.

The only problem is it's YOUR truth, not THE truth. In fact, your opinion is full of holes not to mention hypocritical garbage.

You blame Favre when many instances that you cited involved other players screwing up. Then when Favre did do well, you credit other people for it.

The bottom line is this and it is a FACT. It cannot be disputed. You can make all the excuses you want and twist it to suit your purpose.

13-3 with Brett Favre
6-10 without him.

It was basically the same team. Now, when you take into effect the luck, schedule or bounce of the ball, no two seasons should be exactly alike.

However, the HUGE difference in the records would support the logical conclusion to any REASONABLE person that #04 had a very real impact on how good that 13-3 team was.

How good was the '08 offense vs. the '07 offense? Really, compare the two. If the difference was all Favre, it would have been the offense that came crashing down to earth in '08. Yet the offense was about as productive as they were a year earlier. It was the defense that was underperforming.

Did #4 have such a profound impact on the defensive side of the ball in that 13-3 season? Was the defense able to stay extremely healthy in that 13-3 season because of #4, only to suffer injury after injury in 6-10 because of the switch to #12?

I guess I'm just trying to judge where you are coming from in implying that losing Favre was somehow the reason for the DEFENSIVE collapse in '08...

P.S. Because of the litany of injuries sustained in 2008, it really wasn't the same team as in '07. Charlie Peprah and Charles Woodson never had to start a game at SS in 2007. Tony Moll never had to start a game at RT. AJ Hawk never had to start a game at MLB. Spitz never had to start a game at C. T-Will never had to start a game at CB. See where I'm going with this? They were similar rosters, but once on the field, it was a very different team.

[Packnut]

I fail to understand the argument that signing anyone now impacts keeping the current players who will become free agents. Why is it a sure thing that any of those players mentioned will warrant a huge increase?

We don't know how well Kampman will adjust to playing OLB in a 3-4 so how can a value be put on him?

Yes, Collins improved his play. However, he was so awful the season before, how much did he really improve? He did have a ton of picks, but I also remember him dropping a few right in his hands. He also was responsible for some terrible plays. Also, again, what will be his value in a 3-4? I think it will not be easy for him. He's not an in the box saftey and he's not that good in one on one coverage (his problems covering TE's is well documentated.

Colledge? By Thompson's own admission and track record, he does not believe in breaking the bank for ANY offensive lineman.

Bigby? C'mon seriously! The guy had a great 1/3 of the last part of the 2007 season. Don't see huge money going there.

The Giants made some real good free agent moves and I'm sure they have good players with expiring contracts coming up too.

I guess the difference in opinions is some would rather settle for just being competitive for an extended period of time, and others (myself included) would like to make a SERIOUS run at at SB.

Is'nt that the whole purpose to all this? You do what it takes (spending money) and assemble the best team you can. Yes, it's inevitable that you can't sign everyone and you will lose good players at some point. Again though, you at least take your best shot at a championship. If you sign the right guys and have developed some form of depth and IF things go your way, you win a SB. Then, you re-tool-re-build or whatever and make another run a few years down the line. THAT is the NFL cycle.

This slow "turtle" like way (no pun intended) will not work for 3 specific reasons:

1- Contracts will always be expiring. It's life in the NFL. That is why the window to make a run is so short.

2-While your using the "turtle" approach, the other teams are using all the available tools at their disposal to also improve.

3-You must almost be perfect in drafting. For those of us who choose to live in reality, deal with facts and hold the GM to a high standard, Teddy is far from it. In 4 years, to date, he has drafted ONE IMPACT player. Jennings is the ONLY blue chip he has taken. THAT will not get it done.

Much to our dismay, the depth that we all believed Thompson had built, when put to the test failed miserably to wit 6-10.

[cpk1994]

The performance by the defense in those two years had the biggest impact. QB play in both seasons was at least good.


9th ranked defense to 22nd ranked defense
tied for 7th in ST's to 26th ranked ST's

ST's and Defense were huge factors. Rodgers being a first year starter also played a part (IMO), but not nearly as big as the defense and ST's.

Hey, he's alive! :lol:

[cpk1994]

I fail to understand the argument that signing anyone now impacts keeping the current players who will become free agents. Why is it a sure thing that any of those players mentioned will warrant a huge increase?

We don't know how well Kampman will adjust to playing OLB in a 3-4 so how can a value be put on him?

Yes, Collins improved his play. However, he was so awful the season before, how much did he really improve? He did have a ton of picks, but I also remember him dropping a few right in his hands. He also was responsible for some terrible plays. Also, again, what will be his value in a 3-4? I think it will not be easy for him. He's not an in the box saftey and he's not that good in one on one coverage (his problems covering TE's is well documentated.

Colledge? By Thompson's own admission and track record, he does not believe in breaking the bank for ANY offensive lineman.

Bigby? C'mon seriously! The guy had a great 1/3 of the last part of the 2007 season. Don't see huge money going there.

The Giants made some real good free agent moves and I'm sure they have good players with expiring contracts coming up too.

I guess the difference in opinions is some would rather settle for just being competitive for an extended period of time, and others (myself included) would like to make a SERIOUS run at at SB.

Is'nt that the whole purpose to all this? You do what it takes (spending money) and assemble the best team you can. Yes, it's inevitable that you can't sign everyone and you will lose good players at some point. Again though, you at least take your best shot at a championship. If you sign the right guys and have developed some form of depth and IF things go your way, you win a SB. Then, you re-tool-re-build or whatever and make another run a few years down the line. THAT is the NFL cycle.

This slow "turtle" like way (no pun intended) will not work for 3 specific reasons:

1- Contracts will always be expiring. It's life in the NFL. That is why the window to make a run is so short.

2-While your using the "turtle" approach, the other teams are using all the available tools at their disposal to also improve.

3-You must almost be perfect in drafting. For those of us who choose to live in reality, deal with facts and hold the GM to a high standard, Teddy is far from it. In 4 years, to date, he has drafted ONE IMPACT player. Jennings is the ONLY blue chip he has taken. THAT will not get it done.

Much to our dismay, the depth that we all believed Thompson had built, when put to the test failed miserably to wit 6-10.

How many playoff games has Dan Snyder won with his free spending?

How about Zigi Wilf?

When was the last time Jerry Jones won a playoff game because of his free spending?

Same tired crap from the "FA is a cure all" crowd.

[imscott72]

I fail to understand the argument that signing anyone now impacts keeping the current players who will become free agents. Why is it a sure thing that any of those players mentioned will warrant a huge increase?

We don't know how well Kampman will adjust to playing OLB in a 3-4 so how can a value be put on him?

Yes, Collins improved his play. However, he was so awful the season before, how much did he really improve? He did have a ton of picks, but I also remember him dropping a few right in his hands. He also was responsible for some terrible plays. Also, again, what will be his value in a 3-4? I think it will not be easy for him. He's not an in the box saftey and he's not that good in one on one coverage (his problems covering TE's is well documentated.

Colledge? By Thompson's own admission and track record, he does not believe in breaking the bank for ANY offensive lineman.

Bigby? C'mon seriously! The guy had a great 1/3 of the last part of the 2007 season. Don't see huge money going there.

The Giants made some real good free agent moves and I'm sure they have good players with expiring contracts coming up too.

I guess the difference in opinions is some would rather settle for just being competitive for an extended period of time, and others (myself included) would like to make a SERIOUS run at at SB.

Is'nt that the whole purpose to all this? You do what it takes (spending money) and assemble the best team you can. Yes, it's inevitable that you can't sign everyone and you will lose good players at some point. Again though, you at least take your best shot at a championship. If you sign the right guys and have developed some form of depth and IF things go your way, you win a SB. Then, you re-tool-re-build or whatever and make another run a few years down the line. THAT is the NFL cycle.

This slow "turtle" like way (no pun intended) will not work for 3 specific reasons:

1- Contracts will always be expiring. It's life in the NFL. That is why the window to make a run is so short.

2-While your using the "turtle" approach, the other teams are using all the available tools at their disposal to also improve.

3-You must almost be perfect in drafting. For those of us who choose to live in reality, deal with facts and hold the GM to a high standard, Teddy is far from it. In 4 years, to date, he has drafted ONE IMPACT player. Jennings is the ONLY blue chip he has taken. THAT will not get it done.

Much to our dismay, the depth that we all believed Thompson had built, when put to the test failed miserably to wit 6-10.

How many playoff games has Dan Snyder won with his free spending?

How about Zigi Wilf?

When was the last time Jerry Jones won a playoff game because of his free spending?

Same tired crap from the "FA is a cure all" crowd.

No one is crying "sign everyone!" Signing a couple guys every year to shore up weaknesses isn't a crime however. You can't go into next season refusing to sign anyone because there are contracts expiring in the near future. The NFL is a "win now" league. If you don't win now, then your job is on the line. If we end up 8-8 or worse next season, I wouldn't want to be in TT's shoes.

[3irty1]

Is'nt that the whole purpose to all this? You do what it takes (spending money) and assemble the best team you can. Yes, it's inevitable that you can't sign everyone and you will lose good players at some point. Again though, you at least take your best shot at a championship. If you sign the right guys and have developed some form of depth and IF things go your way, you win a SB. Then, you re-tool-re-build or whatever and make another run a few years down the line. THAT is the NFL cycle.

How come some teams manage to put good teams on the field every year? Are they awesome at signing free agents? You are right about one thing though, you've got to put a good team on the field and hope things go your way.

[cpk1994]

I fail to understand the argument that signing anyone now impacts keeping the current players who will become free agents. Why is it a sure thing that any of those players mentioned will warrant a huge increase?

We don't know how well Kampman will adjust to playing OLB in a 3-4 so how can a value be put on him?

Yes, Collins improved his play. However, he was so awful the season before, how much did he really improve? He did have a ton of picks, but I also remember him dropping a few right in his hands. He also was responsible for some terrible plays. Also, again, what will be his value in a 3-4? I think it will not be easy for him. He's not an in the box saftey and he's not that good in one on one coverage (his problems covering TE's is well documentated.

Colledge? By Thompson's own admission and track record, he does not believe in breaking the bank for ANY offensive lineman.

Bigby? C'mon seriously! The guy had a great 1/3 of the last part of the 2007 season. Don't see huge money going there.

The Giants made some real good free agent moves and I'm sure they have good players with expiring contracts coming up too.

I guess the difference in opinions is some would rather settle for just being competitive for an extended period of time, and others (myself included) would like to make a SERIOUS run at at SB.

Is'nt that the whole purpose to all this? You do what it takes (spending money) and assemble the best team you can. Yes, it's inevitable that you can't sign everyone and you will lose good players at some point. Again though, you at least take your best shot at a championship. If you sign the right guys and have developed some form of depth and IF things go your way, you win a SB. Then, you re-tool-re-build or whatever and make another run a few years down the line. THAT is the NFL cycle.

This slow "turtle" like way (no pun intended) will not work for 3 specific reasons:

1- Contracts will always be expiring. It's life in the NFL. That is why the window to make a run is so short.

2-While your using the "turtle" approach, the other teams are using all the available tools at their disposal to also improve.

3-You must almost be perfect in drafting. For those of us who choose to live in reality, deal with facts and hold the GM to a high standard, Teddy is far from it. In 4 years, to date, he has drafted ONE IMPACT player. Jennings is the ONLY blue chip he has taken. THAT will not get it done.

Much to our dismay, the depth that we all believed Thompson had built, when put to the test failed miserably to wit 6-10.

How many playoff games has Dan Snyder won with his free spending?

How about Zigi Wilf?

When was the last time Jerry Jones won a playoff game because of his free spending?

Same tired crap from the "FA is a cure all" crowd.

No one is crying "sign everyone!" Signing a couple guys every year to shore up weaknesses isn't a crime however. You can't go into next season refusing to sign anyone because there are contracts expiring in the near future. The NFL is a "win now" league. If you don't win now, then your job is on the line. If we end up 8-8 or worse next season, I wouldn't want to be in TT's shoes.Who says TT is refusing to sign anybody? If they aren't going to come in for a visit(ala Canty) then TT shouldn't try to sign the guy. ANd as for the "win now" mentality. Don't you think TT is aware of that? Don't you think TT knows his job will be on the line? You guys act like TT knows absolutely nothing and sticks a thumb up his ass. TT will sign players for fair deals, and will not overspend just to appease the bitching masses.

Free Agency is less than a week old and people are already bitching because he hasn't signed anyone. Remember that the Packers wanted Canty but he wouldn't come for a visit. Good call not to through money blindly at Canty. Also remember the FA you sign now mean you have to give up a Jennings or Kampman later. Refer to Waldo's post for a breakdown. You need to have patience.

[gbgary]

Is'nt that the whole purpose to all this? You do what it takes (spending money) and assemble the best team you can. Yes, it's inevitable that you can't sign everyone and you will lose good players at some point. Again though, you at least take your best shot at a championship. If you sign the right guys and have developed some form of depth and IF things go your way, you win a SB. Then, you re-tool-re-build or whatever and make another run a few years down the line. THAT is the NFL cycle.

How come some teams manage to put good teams on the field every year? Are they awesome at signing free agents? You are right about one thing though, you've got to put a good team on the field and hope things go your way.

we keep barely missing signing this guy and that guy (supposedly). ted's gonna have to realize (especially now that Brett's gone) that he's going to have to pay a little more to get people to play in that "tiny hamlet in eastern wisconsin".

[Waldo]

Is'nt that the whole purpose to all this? You do what it takes (spending money) and assemble the best team you can. Yes, it's inevitable that you can't sign everyone and you will lose good players at some point. Again though, you at least take your best shot at a championship. If you sign the right guys and have developed some form of depth and IF things go your way, you win a SB. Then, you re-tool-re-build or whatever and make another run a few years down the line. THAT is the NFL cycle.

How come some teams manage to put good teams on the field every year? Are they awesome at signing free agents? You are right about one thing though, you've got to put a good team on the field and hope things go your way.

we keep barely missing signing this guy and that guy (supposedly). ted's gonna have to realize (especially now that Brett's gone) that he's going to have to pay a little more to get people to play in that "tiny hamlet in eastern wisconsin".

Why sign guys that need more $$ to convince them to play for GB. Some of them might be better players on paper, but that doesn't mean they'll play better than the guys that want to be there on Sunday.

If a guy wants to play for GB, using TT's method they will come. If they are only looking for GB's wallet and really don't want to be there, TT's method weeds a lot of them out.

Proven time and time again, TT doesn't cheap out on contracts and treats his players well with $$. He's only "cheap" when it comes to the volume of players brought in via FA. When it comes to the compensation for an individual player that wants to sign with the Packers and the feeling is mutual, TT compensates them well.

TT's method has gotten a good deal of bang for his FA buck relative to most teams.

If Canty wanted to be a Packer, TT gave him a chance, he would be a Packer.

[chain_gang]

While Green Bay shouldn't be sacrificing their future for a boatload of high tier FA's, the lack of movement is troublesome for me, especially on the D side of the ball. While Capers is a proven coach, you have to have players that have experience in the system. Without that expect a slightly below average defense at best. Who on the D side of the ball has experience in a 3-4, a player that can help teach? I don't recall any. Yes you have the draft, but who in college plays a 3-4 defense? Virgina is the only one that really comes to mind for me. I really do believe we need some FA's on the D side of the ball, we need vets that have played in a 3-4 before. You can rely on coaching only so much, and while they may eventually get them "coached up", there will be a very steep learning curve, and that's where FA signings can help. A change of scheme is one of the few reasons to be very active in Free Agency, and if things don't pick up soon, you will be looking at possibly one of the worse defenses next year. In order to have a successful 3-4 D you need players that understand it, our biggest playmakers on D are getting older and have been in 4-3's for years. What's the saying you can't teach an ol' dog new tricks.

The D will eventually come around I'm sure, but if we don't begin actively shopping, I'm afraid u can almost write of the 2009 season as lost because of the D.

I agree you can't rely on FA for your whole approach, but when you lose 6 games by 5 points or less, your not that far away, and how many more games would they have won if they had been more active in FA last year? We'll never know, but I bet some of the 3pt or less games may have swung in our favor. While some say who? Who do you sign? That's too broad of a question, as you all know certain players perform better in certain schemes. We will never know how they would have performed in GB, but I do know that our staying away from FA last year, sure didn't help get us back to the playoffs, and that being the youngest team in the league for the 3rd year in a row didn't help us feel any better.

[Guiness]

Free Agency is less than a week old and people are already bitching because he hasn't signed anyone. Remember that the Packers wanted Canty but he wouldn't come for a visit. Good call not to through money blindly at Canty. Also remember the FA you sign now mean you have to give up a Jennings or Kampman later. Refer to Waldo's post for a breakdown. You need to have patience.

The Canty thing is really tough to sort out.

A month before FA, Canty was billed as a guy who could get the job done, play end in a 3-4, nothing special. As the date approched, he became the second best DL available, after Haynesworth. Although he wasn't billed as elite, he was the next best thing. Obviously, this made the Packers job of getting him much more difficult.

Why wouldn't he come for a visit? I'm guessing it was because of his contract demands. He (well, his agent) talked to GB, who wanted Canty to come in for a visit. I bet his agent said 'are you willing to go to $9mil/year' or something like that. GB would've said 'we don't know, we'd like to talk to him'. The agent would've replied 'I've got $8.5 from NYG, if the interview and everything goes well, would you be willing to top that?' GB couldn't commit to, or flat out said no, so the agent decided it wasn't worth coming.

I doubt there's any deeper, darker conspiracy, or that someone wasn't doing their job. GB has lots of tape on Canty, and after looking at it, they decided he wasn't worth what he was asking.

[cheesner]

Why sign guys that need more $$ to convince them to play for GB. Some of them might be better players on paper, but that doesn't mean they'll play better than the guys that want to be there on Sunday.

If a guy wants to play for GB, using TT's method they will come. If they are only looking for GB's wallet and really don't want to be there, TT's method weeds a lot of them out.

Proven time and time again, TT doesn't cheap out on contracts and treats his players well with $$. He's only "cheap" when it comes to the volume of players brought in via FA. When it comes to the compensation for an individual player that wants to sign with the Packers and the feeling is mutual, TT compensates them well.

TT's method has gotten a good deal of bang for his FA buck relative to most teams.

If Canty wanted to be a Packer, TT gave him a chance, he would be a Packer.

Well put. Green Bay is not for every player. If a guy is looking for a nightlife or has a wife that wants upscale shopping he may not be happy. Or if his wife isn't happy, he isn't going to be either. I would rather have players who want to be in Green Bay and not guys who just came because there was more money.

[Patler]

For too many fans, whoever is perceived as the best available FA becomes a "must sign" regardless of the price. The ramifications of such a signing can be profound and prolonged. It becomes a new standard against which other players on the team judge themselves.

[cheesner]

. . .

I guess the difference in opinions is some would rather settle for just being competitive for an extended period of time, and others (myself included) would like to make a SERIOUS run at at SB.

Is'nt that the whole purpose to all this? You do what it takes (spending money) and assemble the best team you can. Yes, it's inevitable that you can't sign everyone and you will lose good players at some point. Again though, you at least take your best shot at a championship. If you sign the right guys and have developed some form of depth and IF things go your way, you win a SB. Then, you re-tool-re-build or whatever and make another run a few years down the line. THAT is the NFL cycle.

This slow "turtle" like way (no pun intended) will not work for 3 specific reasons:

1- Contracts will always be expiring. It's life in the NFL. That is why the window to make a run is so short.

2-While your using the "turtle" approach, the other teams are using all the available tools at their disposal to also improve.

3-You must almost be perfect in drafting. For those of us who choose to live in reality, deal with facts and hold the GM to a high standard, Teddy is far from it. In 4 years, to date, he has drafted ONE IMPACT player. Jennings is the ONLY blue chip he has taken. THAT will not get it done.

Much to our dismay, the depth that we all believed Thompson had built, when put to the test failed miserably to wit 6-10.

There is a finite amount of talent available and a finite amount of money available. Finding the most bang for your buck is how you build a dominant team. There are players out there in FA who can make your team better, but will it justify the $$$$ spent? Signing FAs has many risks (team chemistry, contract envy, etc) and looking at its recent track record, it does not help your team. I believe your thinking is just the opposite. Singing FAs increases the likelihood of mere mediocrity. Think if we had signed Hutchinson 4 years ago at what he got from Minny. 6M per year IIRC. THat would be $24M or in other words - we would have no salary cap right now. Would Hutch have really made that much of a difference? Could we have gotten to the SB last season? We will never know, but I doubt we would have had that much improvement from his play.

TT has hit on more than just ONE impact player. I think Rodgers is already in the category and think a few more (Bigby, Collins, Nelson, . . .) could emerge soon.

The Packers had a pretty decent defense, but lack of coaching IMHO, led to downward trend in defensive performance. There may be some better players like Hawk who emerge under a new coach.

[imscott72]

Free Agency is less than a week old and people are already bitching because he hasn't signed anyone. Remember that the Packers wanted Canty but he wouldn't come for a visit. Good call not to through money blindly at Canty. Also remember the FA you sign now mean you have to give up a Jennings or Kampman later. Refer to Waldo's post for a breakdown. You need to have patience.

The Canty thing is really tough to sort out.

A month before FA, Canty was billed as a guy who could get the job done, play end in a 3-4, nothing special. As the date approched, he became the second best DL available, after Haynesworth. Although he wasn't billed as elite, he was the next best thing. Obviously, this made the Packers job of getting him much more difficult.

Why wouldn't he come for a visit? I'm guessing it was because of his contract demands. He (well, his agent) talked to GB, who wanted Canty to come in for a visit. I bet his agent said 'are you willing to go to $9mil/year' or something like that. GB would've said 'we don't know, we'd like to talk to him'. The agent would've replied 'I've got $8.5 from NYG, if the interview and everything goes well, would you be willing to top that?' GB couldn't commit to, or flat out said no, so the agent decided it wasn't worth coming.

I doubt there's any deeper, darker conspiracy, or that someone wasn't doing their job. GB has lots of tape on Canty, and after looking at it, they decided he wasn't worth what he was asking.

It's also pretty interesting to read Silverstein's breakdown on Canty's deal. They put a de-escalator in his contract to protect themselves from him becoming a chump and not taking care of himself. I wonder if he had the Cledius Hunt attitude at some point in time, because clearly it's something the Giants wanted to address.

[cpk1994]

For too many fans, whoever is perceived as the best available FA becomes a "must sign" regardless of the price. The ramifications of such a signing can be profound and prolonged. It becomes a new standard against which other players on the team judge themselves.It's very obvious that Mike Sherman tought these fans nothing when he spent money like a drunken sailor.

[sharpe1027]

For too many fans, whoever is perceived as the best available FA becomes a "must sign" regardless of the price. The ramifications of such a signing can be profound and prolonged. It becomes a new standard against which other players on the team judge themselves.

Many of those same fans turn around and bitch about the Joe Johnson deals after-the-fact.

[Pugger]

I always wonder why some of these guys are FAs in the first place. If Canty is all that wonderful why was Dallas willing to let him walk? Did they have salary cap issues? Why is this Igor fella on the open market? Decent defensive linemen are in such high demand so it makes me wonder why a young D lineman like Igor is not being resigned by SD. :?:

[imscott72]

If Canty is all that wonderful why was Dallas willing to let him walk? Did they have salary cap issues?

Yes..

[HarveyWallbangers]

Canty isn't all that. He's a decent player, but it's not like he was even close to being a Pro Bowl caliber player. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see some players signed, but I'm okay with not overpaying. Canty was overpaid. Now, if you can get a Olshansky, Douglas, Holliday, Taylor, Adams, Burnett for a reasonable price, that would be good.

People see that we have $34M, but that's not an accurate indicator of our cap situation. I think Patler pointed it out in another thread. We also have the contracts for Jennings, Collins, Kampman, Colledge coming up soon. We need a buffer zone. I'll be upset if we don't sign a couple of guys, but I'm willing to see how it shakes out first.

[packerbacker1234]

If you don't spend the cap, just like we didn't last year, that money doesn't carry over. It's gone. Period. Never used. Sits idle for a year.

No reason we couldn't be tossing 2 year deals around and see what the market thinks.

[LL2]

If you don't spend the cap, just like we didn't last year, that money doesn't carry over. It's gone. Period. Never used. Sits idle for a year.

No reason we couldn't be tossing 2 year deals around and see what the market thinks.

As much as I would like to see some improvements through FA, I'd be more upset if Jennings, Kampman, and Collins are not locked up to long term contracts. They still have quite a few years left in them and are part of a young talented core of the Packers.

[sharpe1027]

If you don't spend the cap, just like we didn't last year, that money doesn't carry over. It's gone. Period. Never used. Sits idle for a year.

No reason we couldn't be tossing 2 year deals around and see what the market thinks.

False.

The Packers finished the 2008 season just $116,284 under the salary cap. Very little was wasted.

They also carried over more than 7 million into this year (someone feel free to give the exact number). Not gone/never used.

[Patler]

If you don't spend the cap, just like we didn't last year, that money doesn't carry over. It's gone. Period. Never used. Sits idle for a year.

You are wrong about that. The Packers have "bumped forward" almost all of their unused salary cap each year since Thompson arrived. It is done with phantom bonuses in a "likely to be earned" category. The value of the bonus counts against the salary cap in the year it COULD be earned. When it in fact is NOT earned it is added back to the salary cap the next season.

The Packers have around $7 million added to their cap limit in 2009 because of an unearned bonus in 2008 that was part of a contract they signed with a lineman in late December.

Their 2008 cap had about $9.5 million carried forward from 2007.
In 2007 it was about a million as I recall.
In 2006 it was about $2 million from a bonus provision signed with Craig Nall the last week of 2005.

[bobblehead]

The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year save our two CB's, and yeah ryan grant was a surprise only after we had been an all passing team half the season.


We must have watched a different season...I do recall the season opener when BF almost threw the game away with an ugly pick (no offensive TD's in that game).

I recall San Diego where Barnett iced the game with a late pick. the 2008 D would have given up a TD and lost it. Barnett was the D player of the week.

I remember the first Bears game where BF tossed 2 picks to tie Blanda for the career best...er worst mark.

The next week we came back and BF tossed 2 more picks against washington in leading us to 10 offensive points, but chuck woodson picked up a fumble and went 50+ for a TD to save us.

After the bye week BF led us to 13 total points (a TD on a blown coverage was the first score) in regulation and the Defense made a great last second stand to get us to OT. Pretty sure BF's awesome pass in OT wouldn't have happened with the 2008 Defense on the field.

Ah then came the chiefs where BF tossed a pre halftime Pick with a 6-0 lead...ooops, we ended up going in down 7-6. I do admit that the second half of that game was BF at his best though.

Week 10 was the breakout of Grant, and the defense threw a shutout...all BF's inspiration no doubt.

week 11 we beat a 44 year old QB while getting a punt return TD from TWill and Cory Williams was Def. player of the week.

We then beat the powerhouse Lions...something happened the next week in Dallas, but I have blocked it out for some reason...no doubt it was one of those great BF perfomances you speak of so I have selectively deleted it from my memory.

Weeks 14,15 and 17 we dominated powerhouse teams....Rams, Raiders and Lions again. Our defense gave up 34 total points in those games....and again I'll block out week 16, but I'm quite sure BF didn't play too well (or anyone else).

And Mad, before you break out the quarter please consider that I wasn't inflamatory, I'm merely refuting (quite well) a stupid statement of:

The only reason we even were close 2 years ago was because #4 came through in tight game after tight game. The defense wasn't very good that year.....

If people make foolish statements like this they deserve to see the truth.

The only problem is it's YOUR truth, not THE truth. In fact, your opinion is full of holes not to mention hypocritical garbage.

You blame Favre when many instances that you cited involved other players screwing up. Then when Favre did do well, you credit other people for it.

The bottom line is this and it is a FACT. It cannot be disputed. You can make all the excuses you want and twist it to suit your purpose.

13-3 with Brett Favre
6-10 without him.

It was basically the same team. Now, when you take into effect the luck, schedule or bounce of the ball, no two seasons should be exactly alike.

However, the HUGE difference in the records would support the logical conclusion to any REASONABLE person that #04 had a very real impact on how good that 13-3 team was.

My point was that its a 53 man roster and the original poster claimed the only reason we were 13-3 was Favre...I showed different. I do agree it was BF's best season since his last MVP, but to say he was the only reason that team went 13-3 is pure crap...and as for your bottom line:

13-3 with Rob Davis
6-10 without Rob Davis

edit: or this bottom line:

Brett 2007: 356 535 66.5 4,155 28 15
ARod 2008 341 536 63.6 4,038 28 13

YEP, QB play was obviously the big difference

[HarveyWallbangers]

Their 2008 cap had about $9.5 million carried forward from 2007.
In 2007 it was about a million as I recall.
In 2006 it was about $2 million from a bonus provision signed with Craig Nall the last week of 2005.

Do you get the feeling Thompson carried over as much money as he could this year, so he could work out long-term deals with some key players like Jennings, Kampman, Collins. etc. this offseason?

[bobblehead]

No one is crying "sign everyone!" Signing a couple guys every year to shore up weaknesses isn't a crime however. You can't go into next season refusing to sign anyone because there are contracts expiring in the near future. The NFL is a "win now" league. If you don't win now, then your job is on the line. If we end up 8-8 or worse next season, I wouldn't want to be in TT's shoes.

Actually it isn't a win now league...the best long term winners have a couple things in common.

A solid or great QB
A reasonable running game'
A very good or great Defense.

Dallas and New England built primarily through the draft and the one year that they signed big name FA's and traded for Moss is the only year they LOST the superbowl.

Every year or so a few teams move big in FA. San Fran with Nate Clements, Washington with...you name it, Dallas with TO, Pacman, Minnesota with our used up guys and Jarred Allen. Most teams that make the big move don't even get to a championship, several miss the playoffs (jets last year).

See when you handicap developing young guys and continue to recycle old dudes you never get over the hump and you are constantly trying to fill holes. It just doesn't work.

[Lurker64]

13-3 with Rob Davis
6-10 without Rob Davis

BRING BACK ROB!!!! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

[Patler]

Their 2008 cap had about $9.5 million carried forward from 2007.
In 2007 it was about a million as I recall.
In 2006 it was about $2 million from a bonus provision signed with Craig Nall the last week of 2005.

Do you get the feeling Thompson carried over as much money as he could this year, so he could work out long-term deals with some key players like Jennings, Kampman, Collins. etc. this offseason?

Definitely. I think that is why he has been quiet in FA the last two years, building room to work with to renew some of his core players. I think that is also why they completed Rodgers deal last year. If you kept him in with the remaining group it would have been very complex dealing with a dozen or so this year at the top of the roster. I expect between now and the end of the season they will work out deals for a couple, and try to do the others after that.

[RashanGary]

Do you get the feeling Thompson carried over as much money as he could this year, so he could work out long-term deals with some key players like Jennings, Kampman, Collins. etc. this offseason?

My guess is that Thompson saw a dearth of depth and upcoming talent when he got here in 2005. He knew that there would not be many core players coming up for contracts because there were not many core players.

I think he thought he would do a better job adding core players through the draft/other avenues and while the money wasn't being spent immediately, a day would come where there would be several players hitting their primes, needing deals.

In order to sign several good contracts, you need to draft several good players (5 good players in the 4 years before Thompson took over is awful). UFA contracts are historically bad because several teams bidding raises the demand and > demand = greater price. That's a fact. When you draft your own, the player has to either risk injury and fight tags or they can sign a fair deal early below UFA price, but still substantial.

Rather than just spending it immediately to say it was spent, Thompson chose to spend when the decision was smart (UFA tends to be dumb and resigning own tends to be smart, so not having any of ones own would mean fewer signings until drafts actually produced quality players). He ended up pushing forward, but that was a result of what he had, not an unwillingness to spend

My prediction is you'll see several players signed early (Jennings, Collins, Colledge, Spitz, maybe Jolly) and you'll see Kampman franchised because they need to wait and see with him. My guess is much less money will be pushed forward because the last 4 drafts have produced 3 times as much talent as the previous 4 and it trickles down to where money is being spent to lock them up to their 2nd deals.

[imscott72]

No one is crying "sign everyone!" Signing a couple guys every year to shore up weaknesses isn't a crime however. You can't go into next season refusing to sign anyone because there are contracts expiring in the near future. The NFL is a "win now" league. If you don't win now, then your job is on the line. If we end up 8-8 or worse next season, I wouldn't want to be in TT's shoes.

Actually it isn't a win now league..

Marty Schottenheimer and Mike Shanahan disagree..

[Partial]

3 times as much talent? Dude, you're high. TT has done well on finding marginal starters in the bottom of the draft, but he has struck out on the top for the most part.

The most talented player on the Pack came from FA.
The second most talented in a 2nd round pick of his.
The third is an old LT that was already here.
The fourth is a DL Sherman drafted.
The fifth is a guy Sherman added as a FA DL.

[ThunderDan]

3 times as much talent? Dude, you're high. TT has done well on finding marginal starters in the bottom of the draft, but he has struck out on the top for the most part.

The most talented player on the Pack came from FA.
The second most talented in a 2nd round pick of his.
The third is an old LT that was already here.
The fourth is a DL Sherman drafted.
The fifth is a guy Sherman added as a FA DL.

One could argue with his pick of Rodgers he draft a QB capable of replacing Favre when he finally left. And not seeing the horrible QB play that has tortured Chi, Det, Minn for the last numerous years makes me happy.

[HarveyWallbangers]

3 times as much talent? Dude, you're high. TT has done well on finding marginal starters in the bottom of the draft, but he has struck out on the top for the most part.

The most talented player on the Pack came from FA.
The second most talented in a 2nd round pick of his.
The third is an old LT that was already here.
The fourth is a DL Sherman drafted.
The fifth is a guy Sherman added as a FA DL.

Woodson, Jennings, Clifton, Kampman, and who? Jenkins? There are several other players I'd take over Jenkins. Collins, Harris, Rodgers, Driver, Pickett, Barnett, Hawk (when he's healthy), probably Grant (we'll see, but I think health had a lot to do with his first half swoon last year).

[bobblehead]

No one is crying "sign everyone!" Signing a couple guys every year to shore up weaknesses isn't a crime however. You can't go into next season refusing to sign anyone because there are contracts expiring in the near future. The NFL is a "win now" league. If you don't win now, then your job is on the line. If we end up 8-8 or worse next season, I wouldn't want to be in TT's shoes.

Actually it isn't a win now league..

Marty Schottenheimer and Mike Shanahan disagree..

You mean shanahan who tried to win now by trading for JWalk, trading up for Cutler (giving away valuable long term picks), went to FA to try and solve his DL problems....that mike shanahan?? The shanahan who was the coach of the same team since we lost our last superbowl but has barely made the playoffs since...I would say he was given ample time to produce another winner.

[bobblehead]

3 times as much talent? Dude, you're high. TT has done well on finding marginal starters in the bottom of the draft, but he has struck out on the top for the most part.

The most talented player on the Pack came from FA.
The second most talented in a 2nd round pick of his.
The third is an old LT that was already here.
The fourth is a DL Sherman drafted.
The fifth is a guy Sherman added as a FA DL.

big shock that the most talented NFL players on the roster have actually played in the NFL longer than 3 years....HUGE SHOCK!! :shock:

[Fritz]

3 times as much talent? Dude, you're high. TT has done well on finding marginal starters in the bottom of the draft, but he has struck out on the top for the most part.

The most talented player on the Pack came from FA.
The second most talented in a 2nd round pick of his.
The third is an old LT that was already here.
The fourth is a DL Sherman drafted.
The fifth is a guy Sherman added as a FA DL.

Nick Collins (second), Greg Jennings (second), Aaron Rodgers (first), A.J. Hawk (first), Jermichael Finley (third) - there's a partial list, Partial.

That's not striking out, not even for the most part. Striking out for the most part is what guys like Al Davis and Matt Millen do.

[Bretsky]

Their 2008 cap had about $9.5 million carried forward from 2007.
In 2007 it was about a million as I recall.
In 2006 it was about $2 million from a bonus provision signed with Craig Nall the last week of 2005.

Do you get the feeling Thompson carried over as much money as he could this year, so he could work out long-term deals with some key players like Jennings, Kampman, Collins. etc. this offseason?


He could have also overestimated his talent last year so he didn't think he had needs to use all of the cap space.

That being said, TTT will probably always be a carry it forward guy

[FritzDontBlitz]

When does TT plan to build an offensive line to protect his QB?

[gbgary]

Is'nt that the whole purpose to all this? You do what it takes (spending money) and assemble the best team you can. Yes, it's inevitable that you can't sign everyone and you will lose good players at some point. Again though, you at least take your best shot at a championship. If you sign the right guys and have developed some form of depth and IF things go your way, you win a SB. Then, you re-tool-re-build or whatever and make another run a few years down the line. THAT is the NFL cycle.

How come some teams manage to put good teams on the field every year? Are they awesome at signing free agents? You are right about one thing though, you've got to put a good team on the field and hope things go your way.

we keep barely missing signing this guy and that guy (supposedly). ted's gonna have to realize (especially now that Brett's gone) that he's going to have to pay a little more to get people to play in that "tiny hamlet in eastern wisconsin".

Why sign guys that need more $$ to convince them to play for GB.


to win. hypothetical...equal money ** sunny-and-warm or Green Bay, dome or Green Bay, winning-record or Green Bay, metropolitan-area or Green Bay? hey, i love Green Bay, the town i grew up in is just like it. i have a great time when i'm in Green Bay...but money talks with professional athletes. TT has to be willing to give Green Bay an edge over the competition and money is it at the moment.

[Waldo]

Is'nt that the whole purpose to all this? You do what it takes (spending money) and assemble the best team you can. Yes, it's inevitable that you can't sign everyone and you will lose good players at some point. Again though, you at least take your best shot at a championship. If you sign the right guys and have developed some form of depth and IF things go your way, you win a SB. Then, you re-tool-re-build or whatever and make another run a few years down the line. THAT is the NFL cycle.

How come some teams manage to put good teams on the field every year? Are they awesome at signing free agents? You are right about one thing though, you've got to put a good team on the field and hope things go your way.

we keep barely missing signing this guy and that guy (supposedly). ted's gonna have to realize (especially now that Brett's gone) that he's going to have to pay a little more to get people to play in that "tiny hamlet in eastern wisconsin".

Why sign guys that need more $$ to convince them to play for GB.


to win. hypothetical...equal money ** sunny-and-warm or Green Bay, dome or Green Bay, winning-record or Green Bay, metropolitan-area or Green Bay? hey, i love Green Bay, the town i grew up in is just like it. i have a great time when i'm in Green Bay...but money talks with professional athletes. TT has to be willing to give Green Bay an edge over the competition and money is it at the moment.

I really don't want guys that need extra $$ to play for GB than other teams to be on the team. I don't think that TT does either. Why sign guys that don't want to be there.

[Farley Face]

Is'nt that the whole purpose to all this? You do what it takes (spending money) and assemble the best team you can. Yes, it's inevitable that you can't sign everyone and you will lose good players at some point. Again though, you at least take your best shot at a championship. If you sign the right guys and have developed some form of depth and IF things go your way, you win a SB. Then, you re-tool-re-build or whatever and make another run a few years down the line. THAT is the NFL cycle.

How come some teams manage to put good teams on the field every year? Are they awesome at signing free agents? You are right about one thing though, you've got to put a good team on the field and hope things go your way.

we keep barely missing signing this guy and that guy (supposedly). ted's gonna have to realize (especially now that Brett's gone) that he's going to have to pay a little more to get people to play in that "tiny hamlet in eastern wisconsin".

Why sign guys that need more $$ to convince them to play for GB.


to win. hypothetical...equal money ** sunny-and-warm or Green Bay, dome or Green Bay, winning-record or Green Bay, metropolitan-area or Green Bay? hey, i love Green Bay, the town i grew up in is just like it. i have a great time when i'm in Green Bay...but money talks with professional athletes. TT has to be willing to give Green Bay an edge over the competition and money is it at the moment.

I really don't want guys that need extra $$ to play for GB than other teams to be on the team. I don't think that TT does either. Why sign guys that don't want to be there.

+1

[Bretsky]

A good point Waldo

Also the reason we won't win the top tier Free Agents even if we do want them

I think we have to pay more

I've never had an issue with overpaying; if you choose the "right" guy to overpay in this market it doesn't hurt you much

If you choose the wrong guy it turns out terrible though

[GrnBay007]

we keep barely missing signing this guy and that guy (supposedly). ted's gonna have to realize (especially now that Brett's gone) that he's going to have to pay a little more to get people to play in that "tiny hamlet in eastern wisconsin".

There's no doubt having Favre on the team was a draw for some guys to come to GB. It will be interesting to see what happens the next several years w/ FA. At this particular moment is there anything in GB that is an extra draw to bring an FA in? ....really young team with a QB with 1 year under his belt. ...and a GM that doesn't appear to be lighting any fires out there.

[Lurker64]

There's no doubt having Favre on the team was a draw for some guys to come to GB. It will be interesting to see what happens the next several years w/ FA. At this particular moment is there anything in GB that is an extra draw to bring an FA in? ....really young team with a QB with 1 year under his belt. ...and a GM that doesn't appear to be lighting any fires out there.

There's also no doubt that towards the end having Favre on the team was a turn-off for some potential free agents, since he could retire at any time and who knows what the team is going to be like after them. After all, the track record isn't exactly good for teams replacing Hall of Fame QBs.

Didn't Jason Taylor go on the record to say that he wouldn't come to Green Bay, since he was in Miami after they replaced Marino and he never wanted to go through something like that again?

I'd think that having a starter who's one of the better QBs in the NFL and is almost assured to be there for the duration of any FA contract would be a load off those who were worried that the team might have to find a new QB one or two years into their contract.

In the end, I would call it a push.

[GrnBay007]

There's also no doubt that towards the end having Favre on the team was a turn-off for some potential free agents, since he could retire at any time and who knows what the team is going to be like after them. After all, the track record isn't exactly good for teams replacing Hall of Fame QBs.
.

I think toward the end of Favre's career any high quality FA's would be looking more at a big push for the SB and not so much what would be happening in the next 2-3 years and that would have been a + to come to GB....more so than now.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think toward the end of Favre's career any high quality FA's would be looking more at a big push for the SB and not so much what would be happening in the next 2-3 years and that would have been a + to come to GB....more so than now.

Maybe old FAs at the tail-end of their careers. I'd think the situation now is more attractive to any FA with more than a couple of years left in their career.

[gbgary]

Is'nt that the whole purpose to all this? You do what it takes (spending money) and assemble the best team you can. Yes, it's inevitable that you can't sign everyone and you will lose good players at some point. Again though, you at least take your best shot at a championship. If you sign the right guys and have developed some form of depth and IF things go your way, you win a SB. Then, you re-tool-re-build or whatever and make another run a few years down the line. THAT is the NFL cycle.

How come some teams manage to put good teams on the field every year? Are they awesome at signing free agents? You are right about one thing though, you've got to put a good team on the field and hope things go your way.

we keep barely missing signing this guy and that guy (supposedly). ted's gonna have to realize (especially now that Brett's gone) that he's going to have to pay a little more to get people to play in that "tiny hamlet in eastern wisconsin".

Why sign guys that need more $$ to convince them to play for GB.


to win. hypothetical...equal money ** sunny-and-warm or Green Bay, dome or Green Bay, winning-record or Green Bay, metropolitan-area or Green Bay? hey, i love Green Bay, the town i grew up in is just like it. i have a great time when i'm in Green Bay...but money talks with professional athletes. TT has to be willing to give Green Bay an edge over the competition and money is it at the moment.

I really don't want guys that need extra $$ to play for GB than other teams to be on the team. I don't think that TT does either. Why sign guys that don't want to be there.

we're not talking about guys that don't want to be here. they've clearly narrowed it down to two or three clubs they'd be happy to play for. now...don't take no for an answer. close the deal!! .

[SnakeLH2006]

Go back and read this thread (http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=7121) for example, written about a week into FA two years ago.

We sure did miss out on not signing Justin Griffith, didn't we?

So far we've only missed out on three guys I would have wanted on the roster in the first place.

I mean, a few guys I was interested in are off the market: Canty, Stinchcomb, Brown. But there's a lot of guys out there that are still available, get Olshansky or Haye and one of the safeties (I think Sensebaugh, Smith, and Phillips are all still available). Hell, Julius Peppers is still on the trading block.

It's too early to call the offseason over after the first weekend of free agency.

I wanted Brown too, but he's been kinda foul, calling out his ex-team and teammates lately. Doesn't seem like the most mature fellow.

Stinchomb was real high on my list as well. Without knowing MM's plan for the line it's hard to say whether we would have had any interest. MM could be moving DC to T to pay the boy, and TT planning on drafting another T to start out at G. Stinch stayed home anyway, can't really compete with that.

Aside from having an experienced guy, I'm not real sure why we had any interest in Canty. He's good and all, but that is a lot of $$ to commit to a DL, so much that the guy becomes irreplaceable by contract (a player develops, so what, he can't beat out a guy that makes 7M a year). I'd much rather sign a mid level guy and push him with a higher draft pick (which we qalready have in Harrell, but could use another). Signing Canty is essentially giving up on Harrell for good, he has no chance ever to start in GB barring injury. Not sure I entirely agree with that. Igor or the other guys would be a different story, where they could be beat out by a superior player.

Phillis has been silent thus far. I wonder why. I surely wouldn't mind pursuing him. Leonard wasn't signed by the NYJ and is still on the market.

Peppers by far would be the best move we could make, if we could get him for less than #9. For a 2nd and 3rd I'd be all over it. For a 2nd and both our 3rds, I'd strongly consider.

I'm not entirely sold on Jolly being a bad DE. He sucked last year, but two years ago he beat out Cole, Williams, and Harrell, and dominated at times. What the heck happened? We've seen him do it. That boy needs coaching, bad, and an attitude readjustment, but his problems are not physical, which would always lead me to assume that they are correctable given the right environment.

Are you still on that kick bro? Seriously, I'd question giving Peppers that money EVER, but to think we'd throw in a 2 and a 3?

Nope...Snake does not approve.

As far as TT in FA? Who thought it'd be different? Yeah, Shermy sucked at GM, but was damn entertaining though in FA. Most of us were happy when he inked Joe Johnson..That didn't go so well.

The Snake is happy TT is not going overboard as we have TONS of guys to ink in the next year...Bart Scott/Big AH?? Nice players....shitty contracts. I'd just resign the dudes to deece deals we have. So if we go for broke with the FA retreads and can't give Jennings $9 or $10 million long term like he will get, would it be worth it? Nope.

Snake definitely likes some action. just not from TT. We are all used to this shit, as it gives us the ability to let TT resign our own. When's the last time TT let a major talent go of our own in FA? Sorry, forgot about Cole. :roll: :shock: But seriously, we have to resign our own, and giving Peppers prob. $15 million a year over long term is just gonna fuck it all up.

[sharpe1027]

Accidental bump getting info. :oops: