The Cullen Jenkins Mistake

[Patler]

When Jenkins started 2011 with four sacks in three games, five sacks in five games; TT was taken to task for letting him get away. By the end of the season, with the Packers' problems on defense exposed, writers and fans made it sound as if all would have been different if Jenkins had been kept. You would think he was a perennial all-pro from the comments. Even in the off-season and the start of 2012, Jenkins was mentioned time and time again. Yup, TT blew that one!

The comments seemed to ignore that in the final 11 games of 2011, Jenkins had just one-half sack.
Jenkins got his first even partial sack credit in game 7 this year, his first since a half sack in game 10 of 2011, In his last 19 games he has a sack and a half, with 36 tackles.

IF a mistake was made about Jenkins' contract in 2011, was it made by the Packers or the Eagles?

[LegandofthePack15]

Based on your logic, I guess the Claymaker sucked last season b/c he totaled something like 6 sacks in 16 games.

Sacks don't always tell the whole story.

Jenkins was clearly missed by the Packers last season.

[Fritz]

Not true. Matthews had six....Jenkins has had a half a sack. One nut. Matthews has, in comparison, two sets of balls.

[Patler]

Based on your logic, I guess the Claymaker sucked last season b/c he totaled something like 6 sacks in 16 games.

Sacks don't always tell the whole story.

Jenkins was clearly missed by the Packers last season.

Missed, maybe, but should he have been paid what he was paid by the Eagles to stay in GB? I'm not sure.

I certainly hope you are not suggesting that Jenkins has the impact on defense that Matthews has. I doubt OCs sit in their offices worrying a great deal about Jenkins, or scheming ways to lessen his impact on the game. He is just another decent player to be dealt with, not a high impact player to game plan for.

From the few Eagles games I have seen, Jenkins isn't noticeable.

Interesting that you try to draw a comparison to Matthews, who in his last 19 games played has 14 sacks, in spite of being the first guy accounted for on the Packers defense.

[Upnorth]

Jenkins had 5.5 sacks that I would have gladly taken last year. Also he would have given Raji rest and made CMIII more effective.
I don't think you can argue that he wasn't greatly missed last year, however teh real question is was his contract worth teh production? In 2011 I think yes, in 2012, I dont think so anymore.

Patler it is kinda interesting that well over half of the sacks in the last 19 games played by CMIII have come when there has been other potential playmakers, such as Perry, Daniels etal. They are not world beaters, but will hurt you if you always double team CMIII.

[pbmax]

Based on your logic, I guess the Claymaker sucked last season b/c he totaled something like 6 sacks in 16 games.

Sacks don't always tell the whole story.

Jenkins was clearly missed by the Packers last season.

The Packers defense in 2011 missed the Cullen Jenkins of 2009. Not the Cullen Jenkins of 2010, 11 or 12. Jenkins didn't even start for the 2010 Packers. Without a DeLorean, he was not missed.

To the degree he out performed his replacements early last year, think about the repercussions. CJ Wilson is now a solid, reliable, young and cheap early and run down DE. His presence allowed the Packers to keep, draft and develop Neal, Daniels and Worthy. If Jenkins were still around, they would have needed run support DEs as much as pass rushers.

Declining Jenkins and Wilson or Wilson and Worthy/Daniels?

[Patler]

Jenkins had 5.5 sacks that I would have gladly taken last year. Also he would have given Raji rest and made CMIII more effective.
I don't think you can argue that he wasn't greatly missed last year, however teh real question is was his contract worth teh production? In 2011 I think yes, in 2012, I dont think so anymore.

Patler it is kinda interesting that well over half of the sacks in the last 19 games played by CMIII have come when there has been other potential playmakers, such as Perry, Daniels etal. They are not world beaters, but will hurt you if you always double team CMIII.

I would suggest that the real problem in 2011 was not the failure to re-sign Jenkins, it was the failure of Neal to stay healthy and contribute. He was supposed to be the next man in line, but wasn't.

[Patler]

The Packers defense in 2011 missed the Cullen Jenkins of 2009. Not the Cullen Jenkins of 2010, 11 or 12. Jenkins didn't even start for the 2010 Packers. Without a DeLorean, he was not missed.

To the degree he out performed his replacements early last year, think about the repercussions. CJ Wilson is now a solid, reliable, young and cheap early and run down DE. His presence allowed the Packers to keep, draft and develop Neal, Daniels and Worthy. If Jenkins were still around, they would have needed run support DEs as much as pass rushers.

Declining Jenkins and Wilson or Wilson and Worthy/Daniels?

That about says it all. I'm not convinced Jenkins would have made a big difference last year, Some difference, sure, but not enough to have made it worth it. I sort of like the way things are shaping up in the DL right now.

As they say, it is better to let a player leave a year too early than a year too late.

[denverYooper]

That about says it all. I'm not convinced Jenkins would have made a big difference last year, Some difference, sure, but not enough to have made it worth it. I sort of like the way things are shaping up in the DL right now.

As they say, it is better to let a player leave a year too early than a year too late.

I agree. I also like the way things are going in the secondary and the defense as a whole.

[mraynrand]

The real problem in 2011 was not the failure to re-sign Jenkins, it was the failure of Neal to stay healthy and contribute. He was supposed to be the next man in line, but wasn't.


yup - FIFY

[Lurker64]

In Jenkins defense, there is perhaps no team in the league who gets less out of their talent (particularly on defense) than the Eagles.

Well, maybe the Chiefs. But it's close.

But the way Jenkins has played for Philly, he actually should probably be playing less than other guys on the DL, who are better.

[RashanGary]

Short term, it sucked. That could have been the difference we needed to win the SB. Never know. But the Giants matched up so much better against NE. They can chuck it around. We probably would have gotten lit anyway.

In the whole term of the deal, assuming he wasn't the missing piece to a SB ring, clearly it was a smart move. We are going to be in a very big cap bind going forward. Keeping Jennings is a major question mark. With that for perspective, letting Jenkins go at that price is a no brainer.

And since we're talking about contracts. Extending Matthews right now for 4 years at top OLB pay wouldn't be a bad idea. You keep him happy. You get to average in these last two low pay years, and end up with a very reasonable per season average for his talent. Same goes for AR this offseason. Give him 4 years at top QB pay, average in the last two of his current deal and you have another reasonable per year deal for a great player. I think both of those moves should be made sooner than later if all parties are in agreement.

[LegandofthePack15]

Missed, maybe, but should he have been paid what he was paid by the Eagles to stay in GB? I'm not sure.

I certainly hope you are not suggesting that Jenkins has the impact on defense that Matthews has. I doubt OCs sit in their offices worrying a great deal about Jenkins, or scheming ways to lessen his impact on the game. He is just another decent player to be dealt with, not a high impact player to game plan for.

From the few Eagles games I have seen, Jenkins isn't noticeable.

Interesting that you try to draw a comparison to Matthews, who in his last 19 games played has 14 sacks, in spite of being the first guy accounted for on the Packers defense.

Not comparing Matthews to Jenkins. Apples to oranges. Both play different positions.

Your argument seems to be that since Jenkins has produced only so and so sacks, Thompson did not err in letting him walk. I mentioned Matthews' 6 sack campaign to point out that sack is a misleading stat.

Jenkins is a DT. Sack isn't everything. Jenkins provides steady inside pressure. He's solid against the run. Last season the Packers had trouble getting pressure from the inside and they were mediocre at stopping the run.

[LegandofthePack15]

I would suggest that the real problem in 2011 was not the failure to re-sign Jenkins, it was the failure of Neal to stay healthy and contribute. He was supposed to be the next man in line, but wasn't.

When healthy in '11, Neal was more invisible than the invisible man in the song "Invisible Man" by 98 Degrees. Not resigning Jenkins was a mistake.

Neal seems to be playing better this season. I guess one of the few positives of competition is that it makes folks work harder. Last season, Neal had no competition. This season, Thompson conceded to the fact that his DL wasn't competitive without Jenkins. So he went out and signed a bunch of average free agents defensive linemen. Then he drafted a couple of young uns.

Neal is your typical underachiever and injury-prone player.

[Bossman641]

When healthy in '11, Neal was more invisible than the invisible man in the song "Invisible Man" by 98 Degrees. Not resigning Jenkins was a mistake.

Neal seems to be playing better this season. I guess one of the few positives of competition is that it makes folks work harder. Last season, Neal had no competition. This season, Thompson conceded to the fact that his DL wasn't competitive without Jenkins. So he went out and signed a bunch of average free agents defensive linemen. Then he drafted a couple of young uns.

Neal is your typical underachiever and injury-prone player.

Do we even know for sure what down with Jenkins? Wasn't he looking for a big deal and found the market dead for him?

[Patler]

When healthy in '11, Neal was more invisible than the invisible man in the song "Invisible Man" by 98 Degrees. Not resigning Jenkins was a mistake.

Neal seems to be playing better this season. I guess one of the few positives of competition is that it makes folks work harder. Last season, Neal had no competition. This season, Thompson conceded to the fact that his DL wasn't competitive without Jenkins. So he went out and signed a bunch of average free agents defensive linemen. Then he drafted a couple of young uns.

Neal is your typical underachiever and injury-prone player.

When was Neal healthy in 2011? That was the problem acknowledged by both the team and player toward the end of the season, that his knee wasn't right and wouldn't improve until he could shut down at the end of the year. Since it was felt he wasn't in danger of making it worse by playing, he continued to play.

Neal's improved play this season may simply be the result of better health.

[LegandofthePack15]

Do we even know for sure what down with Jenkins? Wasn't he looking for a big deal and found the market dead for him?

I think reports out of the major news agencies were that Thompson refused to talk to Jenkins about a new contract. Jenkins wasn't a Thompson find so he was expendable. Neal, on the hand, was a Thompson draft pick. Thompson needed Neal to feed his ego, which backfired.

Jenkins got a market deal from Philly, but nothing the Packers couldn't afford.

[LegandofthePack15]

When was Neal healthy in 2011? That was the problem acknowledged by both the team and player toward the end of the season, that his knee wasn't right and wouldn't improve until he could shut down at the end of the year. Since it was felt he wasn't in danger of making it worse by playing, he continued to play.

Neal's improved playy this season may simply be the result of better health.

Neal was healthy enough to play in the last 7 games. Otherwise he would've landed on the IR.

Neal simply did not produce. In other words, he sucked. One of the running gag at Packersnews.com was Neal's invisibility. No one noticed he was on the field even when he was on field; thanks to his lack of playmaking. Hell, Brett Goode was more visible than Neal.

[Patler]

Neal was healthy enough to play in the last 7 games. Otherwise he would've landed on the IR.

Neal simply did not produce. In other words, he sucked. One of the running gag at Packersnews.com was Neal's invisibility. No one noticed he was on the field even when he was on field; thanks to his lack of playmaking. Hell, Brett Goode was more visible than Neal.

Healthy enough to play doesn't mean he was healthy enough that his performance was not degraded by his physical condition. Tramon Williams was healthy enough to play in 2011, yet his performance was adversely affected very significantly because of his physical condition, not because he was an underachiever.

The same might have been true for Neal. I say "might" because he had no past history as a baseline performance to judge.

[Fritz]

I think reports out of the major news agencies were that Thompson refused to talk to Jenkins about a new contract. Jenkins wasn't a Thompson find so he was expendable. Neal, on the hand, was a Thompson draft pick. Thompson needed Neal to feed his ego, which backfired.

Jenkins got a market deal from Philly, but nothing the Packers couldn't afford.

Really? You're going to trot that tired, foolish old idea out?

You just undermined any credibility you might've had in this argument.

[LegandofthePack15]

Healthy enough to play doesn't mean he was healthy enough that his performance was not degraded by his physical condition. Tramon Williams was healthy enough to play in 2011, yet his performance was adversely affected very significantly because of his physical condition, not because he was an underachiever.

The same might have been true for Neal. I say "might" because he had no past history as a baseline performance to judge.

I guess the jury is still out on Neal. But for a moment he looked like the next Justin Harrell.

[Fritz]

I am a Mike Neal fan, but I am cautious about his return. He does seem to get hurt and dinged up an awful lot. He needs to show he can stay on the field and contribute.

[LegandofthePack15]

Really? You're going to trot that tired, foolish old idea out?

You just undermined any credibility you might've had in this argument.

Andrew Brandt wrote an article (either at his site or at ESPN) about NFL brasses and their egos. Typically, an NFL GM favors HIS players over his predecessor's. He wants to give HIS players every opportunity to make him look good.

The facts are what they are: Thompson never hesitated to get rid of Sherman's (or Wolf's) players, yet he's more patient than a monk with his own players.

Since Thompson took over, he got rid of, to name a few, Wahle, Rivera, Sharper, Walker, Favre, Barnett and Jenkins. At the same time, he kept Justin Harrell on the roster for a million years. Hawk was (and probably still is) average as fuck and he's still on the roster (but not Barnett). I mean, there was a time when Hawk couldn't even beat out a guy like Brandon Chillar for playing time. If Neal were someone else's pick, I bet he'd be gone already. The guy's injury-prone, an underachiever, and he got suspended for taking illegal drugs.

[Patler]

Andrew Brandt wrote an article (either at his site or at ESPN) about NFL brasses and their egos. Typically, an NFL GM favors HIS players over his predecessor's. He wants to give HIS players every opportunity to make him look good.



A new GM is usually brought in because the team felt the previous GM was doing a poor job, so fired him. Why would you not expect a housecleaning of sorts? That is what is expected of the new GM, a roster makeover.

[Patler]

The facts are what they are: Thompson never hesitated to get rid of Sherman's (or Wolf's) players, yet he's more patient than a monk with his own players.



I doubt that Craig Bragg, Will Whittiker, Dave Tollefson, Tyrone Culver, Ingle Martin, Cory Rodgers, Abdul Hodge, David Clowney, Brian Brohm, Jamon Meredith, Caleb Schlauderoth, Ricky Elmore or even Brandon Underwood are overly impressed with his patience.

[Patler]

Since Thompson took over, he got rid of, to name a few, Wahle, Rivera, Sharper, Walker, Favre, Barnett and Jenkins.


Wahle, Rivera and Sharper - no choice based on the Packers salary cap at the time, the bonuses due to Wahle and Sharper, Sharpers unwillingness to renegotiate and the contracts each ultimately received.

Walker was traded for the 37th pick, which was then traded for #s 47, 93 and 148, with #93 then traded for #s 109 and 183; and finally 109 being traded for #s 115 and 185. To summarize, Walker was traded for draft rights that became Daryn Colledge, Ingle Martin, Johnny Jolly, Will Blackman and Tyrone Culver. Not bad for a guy who wanted to leave GB in the first place and was coming off a knee injury.

Arguably, they should have made the switch from Favre to Rodgers a year earlier than they did, and it certainly was not a mistake to do it when they did. They showed tremendous deference and patience with Favre and his annual "Will I or won't I retire" dance.

Barnett - someone had to go, too much cap space tied up at the position. Hawk was the more injury free, is not a distraction (not that Barnett was a big problem, but was a bit polarizing among fans and probably the Packer staff as well). It wouldn't have bothered me if the kept Barnett and go rid of Hawk. My biggest disappointment was that they weren't able to trade Barnett and ended up getting nothing for him.

Jenkins - you know my feelings on that one! :smile:

[Zool]

Since Thompson took over, he got rid of, to name a few, Wahle, Rivera, Sharper, Walker, Favre, Barnett and Jenkins.

Just in case you don't watch sports media coverage, Favre retired. 3 times.

[Guiness]

Andrew Brandt wrote an article (either at his site or at ESPN) about NFL brasses and their egos. Typically, an NFL GM favors HIS players over his predecessor's. He wants to give HIS players every opportunity to make him look good.

The facts are what they are: Thompson never hesitated to get rid of Sherman's (or Wolf's) players, yet he's more patient than a monk with his own players.

Since Thompson took over, he got rid of, to name a few, Wahle, Rivera, Sharper, Walker, Favre, Barnett and Jenkins. At the same time, he kept Justin Harrell on the roster for a million years. Hawk was (and probably still is) average as fuck and he's still on the roster (but not Barnett). I mean, there was a time when Hawk couldn't even beat out a guy like Brandon Chillar for playing time. If Neal were someone else's pick, I bet he'd be gone already. The guy's injury-prone, an underachiever, and he got suspended for taking illegal drugs.

Was considering crafting a well thought out response to this thread, but this post pretty much shows that you're simply trolling.

From justifying your thoughts about Thompson's behavior to a generic article written about NFL GM to saying Neale's prescription medication for a pre-existing condition is an illegal drug...

[3irty1]

I agree with LegendofthePack... what this forum needed was a poster who is acutely wrong about everything.

A few months ago this thread would have had no discussion.

[mraynrand]

If Neal were someone else's pick, I bet he'd be gone already. The guy's injury-prone, an underachiever, and he got suspended for taking illegal drugs.

Injury Prone!

[Zool]

I agree with LegendofthePack... what this forum needed was a poster who is acutely wrong about everything.

A few months ago this thread would have had no discussion.

I've been wondering where Partial was. Prob got a new IP.

[pbmax]

Walker is an interesting story. Thompson did trade him but that was after resisting tearing up his deal with two years remaining on it even though Walker had surpasses it. That doesn't exactly qualify for new GM ego in the way Brandt explains it. Walker then had the rug pulled out from under him by Favre and he reported back to camp with Drew Rosenhaus in tow (DR actually encouraged him to report).

He then got hurt versus the Lions I believe (the event which illustrates the wisdom holding out) and asked to be traded.

Thompson later was said to have rethought his position on redoing deals that aren't in their last year. While it has not happened for every player, I believe some have had the deals redone earlier as a result of the bad outcome of the Walker decision. In essence, Walker was a learning opportunity for Thompson, not simply an exercise in taking credit for finding all the good players.

[pbmax]

BTW, this thread can't end until Bretsky shows up to tell me how we are being jinxed by failing to admit how much we miss(ed) Jenkins. :lol:

[LP]

Andrew Brandt wrote an article (either at his site or at ESPN) about NFL brasses and their egos.

Andrew happen to mention his own ego? Anything about getting passed over as president or leaving because he couldn't get along with Thompson? In my opinion, going to work for ESPN seriously damages Brandts credibility.

[LegandofthePack15]

Wahle, Rivera and Sharper - no choice based on the Packers salary cap at the time, the bonuses due to Wahle and Sharper, Sharpers unwillingness to renegotiate and the contracts each ultimately received.

Walker was traded for the 37th pick, which was then traded for #s 47, 93 and 148, with #93 then traded for #s 109 and 183; and finally 109 being traded for #s 115 and 185. To summarize, Walker was traded for draft rights that became Daryn Colledge, Ingle Martin, Johnny Jolly, Will Blackman and Tyrone Culver. Not bad for a guy who wanted to leave GB in the first place and was coming off a knee injury.

Arguably, they should have made the switch from Favre to Rodgers a year earlier than they did, and it certainly was not a mistake to do it when they did. They showed tremendous deference and patience with Favre and his annual "Will I or won't I retire" dance.

Barnett - someone had to go, too much cap space tied up at the position. Hawk was the more injury free, is not a distraction (not that Barnett was a big problem, but was a bit polarizing among fans and probably the Packer staff as well). It wouldn't have bothered me if the kept Barnett and go rid of Hawk. My biggest disappointment was that they weren't able to trade Barnett and ended up getting nothing for him.

Jenkins - you know my feelings on that one! :smile:

Sharper was more than willing to "restructure" his contract. He did so for 2 or 3 straight years prior to Thompson's arrival to help the Packers resign guys like Tausher and Clifton. When Thompson showed up he asked Sharper to take a pay cut. Big difference between restructuring one's deal and taking a pay cut. Who the fuck likes taking a pay cut?

Since you are the fact rat, prove me wrong. I'd like to see some math proving that it was virtually impossible for the Packers to resign Wahle and Rivera at the market deals they got from other teams.

Don't tell me Sherman screwed up the cap so bad, he created a cap black hole. If the Packers were in a cap hell, why did they have so much cap room shortly after Sherman was removed from his GM duties? I seem to recall the Packers starting league fiscal years with $35 M/$30M/$25 below the cap max, especially the $35 M the Packers were under just 1 season after Sherman's demotion. Lemme guess, Thompson cut ties with all the Packers' stars?

Bottom line? Thompson CHOSE not to retain Wahle and Rivera; He CHOSE to cut Sharper. The Packers were never in a so-called cap hell. The way the cap was set up, all Thompson had to do was be a little creative with it and he could've retained all 3 players.

Daryn Colledge, Ingle Martin, Johnny Jolly, Will Blackman and Tyrone Culver? Colledge? Martin? Jolly? Blackman? Culver? The question marks say it all: they're bums.

Favre's last season with the Packers: 13-3, NFC Title game. Rodgers' first season as Favre's successor: 8-8, Super Bowl Champs...oh, right, in order to make the SB, a team must first make the playoffs.

Rodgers took over virtually the same team Favre led to the NFL title game, and led Pack to 8 wins. 8 wins! In layman's term, that's called regression.

There's no doubt Barnett was, and is still, more productive than Hawk. The great Bob McGinn agrees with me.

Based on your posts, I assume you are a Thompson proponent. Kiddos to you for arguing your case. At least you didn't call me a "troll." :-D

[MadtownPacker]

MFer dont ever mention that POS sharper unless youre going to say what a choker he was.

[sharpe1027]

Don't tell me Sherman screwed up the cap so bad, he created a cap black hole. If the Packers were in a cap hell, why did they have so much cap room shortly after Sherman was removed from his GM duties? I seem to recall the Packers starting league fiscal years with $35 M/$30M/$25 below the cap max, especially the $35 M the Packers were under just 1 season after Sherman's demotion. Lemme guess, Thompson cut ties with all the Packers' stars?


Besides clearing off those contracts you mention they had to wait for dead money to clear the books for screw ups like joe Johnson KGB and Reynolds. Thank you for making me remember those mistakes. Farve and green were about 15 mil just themselves.

Put your money where your mouth is and explain how creatively someone could have signed all three. I don't see how but you are the one making the claim so prove it or you're just blowing smoke.

Let me help you out. This site explains that befor cutting wahle reugamer and sharper they were nearly 7mil over the cap. I hope you are creative. http://sports-boards.net/reports/packsalarycap.htm

[Patler]

Sharper was more than willing to "restructure" his contract. He did so for 2 or 3 straight years prior to Thompson's arrival to help the Packers resign guys like Tausher and Clifton. When Thompson showed up he asked Sharper to take a pay cut. Big difference between restructuring one's deal and taking a pay cut. Who the fuck likes taking a pay cut?

Since you are the fact rat, prove me wrong. I'd like to see some math proving that it was virtually impossible for the Packers to resign Wahle and Rivera at the market deals they got from other teams.

Don't tell me Sherman screwed up the cap so bad, he created a cap black hole. If the Packers were in a cap hell, why did they have so much cap room shortly after Sherman was removed from his GM duties? I seem to recall the Packers starting league fiscal years with $35 M/$30M/$25 below the cap max, especially the $35 M the Packers were under just 1 season after Sherman's demotion. Lemme guess, Thompson cut ties with all the Packers' stars?

Bottom line? Thompson CHOSE not to retain Wahle and Rivera; He CHOSE to cut Sharper. The Packers were never in a so-called cap hell. The way the cap was set up, all Thompson had to do was be a little creative with it and he could've retained all 3 players.



I do not recall Sharper ever renegotiating his contract. You might be right, but I sure don't recall it.

Somewhere in the history of this site, I did a detailed explanation of why Sharper and Wahle could not be resigned at the contracts they got. I will generalize it from the data I have close at hand.

It started with the fact that before releasing Wahle and Sharper, the Packers were about $6 million over the projected salary cap, and at that time (February) the cap did not yet include any RFA tenders. It also did not include the required allocation for draft signings. Since room for that would be required by April, in reality the Packers actually dealing with a cap deficit of between about 8 and 10 million. That was in February, before FA.

To keep any of the three (let alone all three as you suggest) you have to look for areas of cap flexibility, contracts with the biggest cap hits that you could perhaps alter to gain cap space. The biggest contract was Favre's, but he was ineligible for contract revision, because the CBA limited the frequency of such things, and Favre had done it shortly before. I had an article link to support it at the time. Ahman Green had the next biggest cap number, but he was in the final year of his contract, and had no roster bonus component in his contract, so the typical procedure of guaranteeing a roster bonus would net nothing Several others had no guaranteeable bonuses to amortize, including Clifton, Tauscher, Driver and Henderson. It's only the nonguaranteed bonuses, like roster bonuses that you can do that with. During Sherman's time, players were signed with large signing bonuses, giving them a lot of guaranteed money amortized over the life of the contract, but it gave the team very little flexibility as their contracts matured.

The largest bonuses that could be guaranteed and therefore amortized were:
KGB - $1 million/4 yrs.
Harris - $1 million/4 yrs.
Ferguson - $1 million/3 years
Cap space to be gained from those three would be less than $2.2 million. Doesn't go far with the deficit they had to deal with.

The few remaining players with roster bonuses had very insignificant ones. Releasing Wahle and Sharper was the only way to gain significant cap space and overcome their cap deficit.

You asked how the Packers had so much cap space just a few years later. Some of the significant factors were:
- clearing over $29 million of cap space in 2005 from the terminated contracts of Sharper, Wahle, Joe Johnson, Hunt, Jamal Reynolds and a bunch of others.
- clearing another $5 million or so in 2006 from the terminations of Diggs, Luchey and the balance of Hunt.
- One year when they started the league year, when reports gave them close to $30 million in cap space, they only had about 40 players under contract at the time, so the number was meaningless.

Now perhaps you would like to provide the math to prove your assertion that "all Thompson had to do was be a little creative with it and he could've retained all 3 players."

[pbmax]

Sharper had just a couple of years prior signed his second and very expensive contract (he was top 5 paid safeties), the one that followed his rookie deal. And 2005 was the year it took a big jump. He was due, or had a cap hit in the neighborhood of $7 million that year. The Packers wanted to roughly halve that. Outside of his bonus, it was his windfall and he neither wanted to give it up nor delay it. He had not restructured before this year.

In Sharper's defense, he was not being asked for a simple restructuring (convert bonuses and salary to a Guaranteed Bonus to spread out a cap hit to later). They were looking for a reduction.

But in answer to the main argument, the releases and departures of the three and others left the team with a couple million so in cap room for the 2005 season (entering the offseason they were $6 million over). They COULD have kept or restructured either Rivera or Sharper (Wahle got left tackle money and was probably out of reach) with that much room if they pushed their money farther out. But they endured their departures precisely to fix their cap (clear space for dead money, clear large future obligations of funny cap money and have space to operate in season) and allow them to pay as you go which was Thompson's preference.

Redoing Rivera was not ideal as he was getting older and indeed did not make it in the NFL for the duration of his next contract. The money pushed to the back of his restructured deal would have tied up space for years. Sharper was a more ideal candidate for a restructure but he was coming off a knee injury and had not looked the same as previous years. He also looked like a risk.

Only until this year and I forgot who, have the Packers signed a player with more money at the back end than upfront in the first two years.

[cheesner]

As far as Jenkins goes - the stats don't tell the whole story. I spoke to a couple of Eagle fans, guys who would yet at their Grandma's for toast being a little too dark. They all said, of all the Eagle signings, only Jenkins was worth it. They said, even though he wasn't getting the sacks, he was their best DL, often getting penetration.

As far as Thompson cutting Jenkins because he wasn't 'TTs' guy, come on, man. TT resigned Jenkins at one point, so he became a TT guy there. So you can list a bunch of players that TT got rid of from the old regime? No shit! If those players were good enough, we wouldn't have needed a new GM.

[Zool]

I'm glad we have a new troll. Just brings up how much work the GM actually has to do every single year and how not a single one of us here would be any good at it.

Well with the exception of LotP15. He's probably the best there ever was as everything there ever was. He's clearly infallible.

[LegandofthePack15]

- clearing over $29 million of cap space in 2005 from the terminated contracts of Sharper, Wahle, Joe Johnson, Hunt, Jamal Reynolds and a bunch of others.


Its nice to be the "fact rat," eh? You can make up any number and folks automatically believe you.

Terminating the contracts of "Sharper, Wahle, Joe Johnson, Hunt, Jamal Reynolds and a bunch of others" (by a bunch of others you mean no names playing for the minimum, right?) did not clear up "29 million of cap space." A small percentage, sure. But not all.

The majority of the Packers' cap surplus came from the new deal with the networks. The year after Wahle, Rivera and Sharper left, the Packers started the league year with a surplus of over $30 M. Thanks to the new TV deal.

Everybody from Daniel Snyder to that cheap ex-Viking owner knew the cap was going to increase sufficiently the moment the new deal was signed. Hello, forecast!

The way contracts are set up with signing bonuses and the such, Thompson could've creatively retained Wahle, Rivera and Sharper. The Packers would be able to absorb their contracts in future years - thanks to TV.

I doubt Bob Harlan told Thompson to be cheap. The excess cap surplus indicated that Thompson inefficiently managed the cap. Worse, at least for a few seasons, Thompson struggled to find capable replacements for the aforementioned players he let go.

[Fritz]

]Its nice to be the "fact rat," eh? You can make up any number and folks automatically believe you. [/U]

Terminating the contracts of "Sharper, Wahle, Joe Johnson, Hunt, Jamal Reynolds and a bunch of others" (by a bunch of others you mean no names playing for the minimum, right?) did not clear up "29 million of cap space." A small percentage, sure. But not all.

The majority of the Packers' cap surplus came from the new deal with the networks. The year after Wahle, Rivera and Sharper left, the Packers started the league year with a surplus of over $30 M. Thanks to the new TV deal.

Everybody from Daniel Snyder to that cheap ex-Viking owner knew the cap was going to increase sufficiently the moment the new deal was signed. Hello, forecast!

The way contracts are set up with signing bonuses and the such, Thompson could've creatively retained Wahle, Rivera and Sharper. The Packers would be able to absorb their contracts in future years - thanks to TV.

I doubt Bob Harlan told Thompson to be cheap. The excess cap surplus indicated that Thompson inefficiently managed the cap. Worse, at least for a few seasons, Thompson struggled to find capable replacements for the aforementioned players he let go.

People living in glass houses, etc.

[sharpe1027]

Its nice to be the "fact rat," eh? You can make up any number and folks automatically believe you.

Terminating the contracts of "Sharper, Wahle, Joe Johnson, Hunt, Jamal Reynolds and a bunch of others" (by a bunch of others you mean no names playing for the minimum, right?) did not clear up "29 million of cap space." A small percentage, sure. But not all.

The majority of the Packers' cap surplus came from the new deal with the networks. The year after Wahle, Rivera and Sharper left, the Packers started the league year with a surplus of over $30 M. Thanks to the new TV deal.

Everybody from Daniel Snyder to that cheap ex-Viking owner knew the cap was going to increase sufficiently the moment the new deal was signed. Hello, forecast!

The way contracts are set up with signing bonuses and the such, Thompson could've creatively retained Wahle, Rivera and Sharper. The Packers would be able to absorb their contracts in future years - thanks to TV.

I doubt Bob Harlan told Thompson to be cheap. The excess cap surplus indicated that Thompson inefficiently managed the cap. Worse, at least for a few seasons, Thompson struggled to find capable replacements for the aforementioned players he let go.

The cap's adjustment in later years did not retroactively solve their problems in 2005. Still waiting for your creative solution.

[sharpe1027]

I doubt Bob Harlan told Thompson to be cheap. The excess cap surplus indicated that Thompson inefficiently managed the cap. Worse, at least for a few seasons, Thompson struggled to find capable replacements for the aforementioned players he let go.

Before you go making this type of unfounded accusation, you might want to go back and look at the Packer's actual cap usage every year. What you find might be surprising.

[MadtownPacker]

Its nice to be the "fact rat," eh? You can make up any number and folks automatically believe you.FYI, I issue rat names based on different reasons and some posters do pick their own but in this case I gave that one to Patler because it fits him IMO. So don't be a pendejo with your accusations, por favor.

[LegandofthePack15]

The cap's adjustment in later years did not retroactively solve their problems in 2005. Still waiting for your creative solution.

After the Packers cut Wahle and Sharper, they were about 7.5 M below. 7.5 M is more than enough to resign Wahle and Rivera. Restructure other players' contracts, including Sharper's, to free up more cap space.

Sherman started one off-season with about 3 M and he was able to eventually resign a few of the Packers' core players at market value. If memory serves me right, those players were KGB (coming off double digit sack seasons), Diggs (solid starter) and Clifton (best Pack OL).

Thompson could've retained Wahle, Rivera and Sharper if he wanted too. He CHOSE not too. Reports from the MJS seemed to indicate that Thompson thought guards were replaceable; he thought Sharper was past his prime.

In an alternate universe, Klemm and Whitticker went on to become stars for the Packers; Sharper sucked badly for the Vikings and he ended his career without ever winning a SB. :|

[LegandofthePack15]

FYI, I issue rat names based on different reasons and some posters do pick their own but in this case I gave that one to Patler because it fits him IMO. So don't be a pendejo with your accusations, por favor.

Ok, boss. :mrgreen:

[ThunderDan]

Wahle's new contract was 5 years $25M
Rivera's new contract was 5 years $20M, $9M Signing Bonus
Sharper's new contract was 4 years can't find details

[Patler]

Its nice to be the "fact rat," eh? You can make up any number and folks automatically believe you.

Terminating the contracts of "Sharper, Wahle, Joe Johnson, Hunt, Jamal Reynolds and a bunch of others" (by a bunch of others you mean no names playing for the minimum, right?) did not clear up "29 million of cap space." A small percentage, sure. But not all.

The majority of the Packers' cap surplus came from the new deal with the networks. The year after Wahle, Rivera and Sharper left, the Packers started the league year with a surplus of over $30 M. Thanks to the new TV deal.

Everybody from Daniel Snyder to that cheap ex-Viking owner knew the cap was going to increase sufficiently the moment the new deal was signed. Hello, forecast!

The way contracts are set up with signing bonuses and the such, Thompson could've creatively retained Wahle, Rivera and Sharper. The Packers would be able to absorb their contracts in future years - thanks to TV.

I doubt Bob Harlan told Thompson to be cheap. The excess cap surplus indicated that Thompson inefficiently managed the cap. Worse, at least for a few seasons, Thompson struggled to find capable replacements for the aforementioned players he let go.

The $29 million and $5 million figures are taken directly from what was the then most accurate source of Packer cap information that I knew of. I have printed copies. Be advised, - I make up NOTHING when I post. When I do not have support for facts that I offer, I will precede it with a qualifier, such as; "per my recollection", "as I recall", etc.

In my last reply, I offered you the benefit of the doubt about your completely unsupported statement that Sharper had restructured in previous years, saying that I did not recall it, but perhaps you were correct. You respond to me by accusing me of making things up when I provide the very math that you requested. I will remember your approach, and engage you appropriately in the future, including my reply to your mostly baseless response quoted above, if I decide to bother even trying to have a decent discussion with you.

[sharpe1027]

After the Packers cut Wahle and Sharper, they were about 7.5 M below. 7.5 M is more than enough to resign Wahle and Rivera. Restructure other players' contracts, including Sharper's, to free up more cap space.

Restructure a contract for Sharper when you already stated that you would use the cap money from cutting him for Rivera? Cut Wahle and then expect him to resign with you? I did ask for creative.

Let's get back to Cullen Jenkins. I'm done with this rabbit hole.

[red]

my 2 cents

if we had resigned jenkins, we would have been regretting it about 7 weeks into last season. by the end of last year he was contributing nothing, and nothing again this year.

this is a pretty clear case of a guy cashing in big, the phoning it in

if we had resigned him, we would be sitting here right now talking about how we should have released him before this year, or maybe after this year, so we can free up some cap space to resign someone useful

we dodged a bullet by letting him walk. the jenkins that played for the packers and looked damn good, just doesn't exist anymore

[Freak Out]

Craig Bragg, Will Whittiker, Dave Tollefson, Tyrone Culver, Ingle Martin, Cory Rodgers, Abdul Hodge, David Clowney, Brian Brohm, Jamon Meredith, Caleb Schlauderoth, Ricky Elmore or even Brandon Underwood are overly impressed with his patience.

Brutal....just brutal.

[KYPack]

Hey everybody!

Grab a beer and head over to the campfire.

Some Noob is fucking around with Patler!

[Freak Out]

Was it a mistake to let him go? Yes....he did have a pretty cool sack dance...or strut..whatever you want to call it.

[pittstang5]

my 2 cents

if we had resigned jenkins, we would have been regretting it about 7 weeks into last season. by the end of last year he was contributing nothing, and nothing again this year.

this is a pretty clear case of a guy cashing in big, the phoning it in

if we had resigned him, we would be sitting here right now talking about how we should have released him before this year, or maybe after this year, so we can free up some cap space to resign someone useful

we dodged a bullet by letting him walk. the jenkins that played for the packers and looked damn good, just doesn't exist anymore

If we had resigned Jenkins, he'd probably be injured or on IR like half the current roster.

[Freak Out]

No dance here.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmjAlLZ18QY

[MadtownPacker]

Fuck Jenkins! We need Andy Reid!!

Got all in that fuckers face! Didnt back down for shit! I love it!

[Lurker64]

Fuck Jenkins! We need Andy Reid!!

Got all in that fuckers face! Didnt back down for shit! I love it!

Well, he'll probably be looking for work after this season. Do we have an opening for an offensive position coach?

[Guiness]

Fuck Jenkins! We need Andy Reid!!

Got all in that fuckers face! Didnt back down for shit! I love it!


Well, he'll probably be looking for work after this season. Do we have an opening for an offensive position coach?

Hey, Sherman's name is being mentioned in around, he's doing a good job with Tanehill in Miami. Think he'd have a shot at the Eagles job? That would be interesting!

[mraynrand]

This thread is tiresome.

[LegandofthePack15]

The $29 million and $5 million figures are taken directly from what was the then most accurate source of Packer cap information that I knew of. I have printed copies. Be advised, - I make up NOTHING when I post. When I do not have support for facts that I offer, I will precede it with a qualifier, such as; "per my recollection", "as I recall", etc.


Lemme guess, you work or worked for the Packers? That's the only explanation I can think of for why you had access to "accurate" Packer cap data.

Me? I'm just a lowly fan who read the MJS. Guys like Silverstien and McGinn, they're not credible. They reported that in 2005 the Packers were about $7.5 M under after they cut Wahle and Sharper, among others. They reported that the next season the Packers, along with the rest of the NFL, gained significant cap space due to the new tv deal; the Packers at one point were around $35 M under.

NFL TV deal -2006–2013: CBS ($622.5 million/yr), Fox ($712.5 million/yr), NBC ($650 million/yr)m, ESPN/ESPN Deportes ($1.1 billion/yr).

Total amount: $3.085 billion/yr

PS: I rest my case. This will be my last reply in this thread. :lol:

[BobDobbs]

I've clearly been drinking if I'm responding to this thread, but at least I've been out supporting our economy.

The whole problem with the arguments here is that they are not taking into account the fact that the GM must think long term. TT saw that Sherman had made a play to win a championship by paying veterans. That didn't work and we were aging and up against the cap. TT wants to draft young talent, identify stars and then keep replenishing the roster with cheap young talent. It is a recipe for success. He had the opportunity to overhaul the roster with no repercussions because it was his first year. Foolish to pass that up.

We had to gain cap flexibility. Rivera was too old. TT felt that Sharper was overpaid. Sharper felt otherwise and was able to get his money. Wahle would have been great, but received top money for a guard. TT definitely undervalued guards at the start of his tenure, but he gained flexibility, replenished youth on the roster, and reloaded our team. He was thinking long term and it worked. That should count for something.

Now, to bring it back on topic. Jenkins is the perfect example of a good player that you give up a year to early instead of too late. He would definitely have helped us last year. He was a better player than Neal has shown thus far. But, his second contract spanned for age 26 to 30. He was unavalilable for 25 percent of those games and ineffective for many more. There is no reason to suspect that he would be healthier from age 31 to 35. It's a hard call, but we will come up against the cap when we resign Rodgers, Matthews, and Raji. So you take a hit. You have to gamble on some spots in the salary cap era.

All of those decisions have played out well in the long term. And if you are going to completely overhaul a roster you might as well do it in your first year as GM. TT is a far better roster builder than Sherman and he had to set us up for long term success.

[Pugger]

I think the verdict is still out on Neal. If the young man can stay healthy I think he'll be just as good if not better than Jenkins was. Unfortunately last year Neal couldn't stay on the field and our defense suffered because of it. It also didn't help to lose an All-Pro safety who was one of our defensive leaders.

[Teamcheez1]

In hindsight, we gave up on Jenkins at the right time. Except for the first few games the next year, he has been mediocre at best.

Our downfall was not having an adequate replacement.

[ThunderDan]

Lemme guess, you work or worked for the Packers? That's the only explanation I can think of for why you had access to "accurate" Packer cap data.

Me? I'm just a lowly fan who read the MJS. Guys like Silverstien and McGinn, they're not credible. They reported that in 2005 the Packers were about $7.5 M under after they cut Wahle and Sharper, among others. They reported that the next season the Packers, along with the rest of the NFL, gained significant cap space due to the new tv deal; the Packers at one point were around $35 M under.

NFL TV deal -2006–2013: CBS ($622.5 million/yr), Fox ($712.5 million/yr), NBC ($650 million/yr)m, ESPN/ESPN Deportes ($1.1 billion/yr).

Total amount: $3.085 billion/yr

PS: I rest my case. This will be my last reply in this thread. :lol:

You do realize the Packers saved something like $11M against the cap by cutting Wahle alone that year!?!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=2004296

[Fritz]

Lemme guess, you work or worked for the Packers? That's the only explanation I can think of for why you had access to "accurate" Packer cap data.

Me? I'm just a lowly fan who read the MJS. Guys like Silverstien and McGinn, they're not credible. They reported that in 2005 the Packers were about $7.5 M under after they cut Wahle and Sharper, among others. They reported that the next season the Packers, along with the rest of the NFL, gained significant cap space due to the new tv deal; the Packers at one point were around $35 M under.

NFL TV deal -2006–2013: CBS ($622.5 million/yr), Fox ($712.5 million/yr), NBC ($650 million/yr)m, ESPN/ESPN Deportes ($1.1 billion/yr).

Total amount: $3.085 billion/yr

PS: I rest my case. This will be my last reply in this thread. :lol:

I enjoy Patler's posts because he uses facts and does his homework, and if there is a disagreement about what the facts are, he tries to account for his sources and is willing to consider other sources as well, and so he does not have to stoop to cheap sarcasm.

[Patler]

Lemme guess, you work or worked for the Packers? That's the only explanation I can think of for why you had access to "accurate" Packer cap data.

Me? I'm just a lowly fan who read the MJS. Guys like Silverstien and McGinn, they're not credible. They reported that in 2005 the Packers were about $7.5 M under after they cut Wahle and Sharper, among others. They reported that the next season the Packers, along with the rest of the NFL, gained significant cap space due to the new tv deal; the Packers at one point were around $35 M under.

NFL TV deal -2006–2013: CBS ($622.5 million/yr), Fox ($712.5 million/yr), NBC ($650 million/yr)m, ESPN/ESPN Deportes ($1.1 billion/yr).

Total amount: $3.085 billion/yr

PS: I rest my case. This will be my last reply in this thread. :lol:

I am beginning to question your ability to read and comprehend. What I stated was:


The $29 million and $5 million figures are taken directly from what was the then most accurate source of Packer cap information that I knew of.

Note that I said , "the then most accurate source of cap information that I knew of" (Emphasis added.)

I simply try to find available sources that are the most accurate. SOMETIMES, that is JSO, sometimes not. Sometimes it is GBPG, sometimes not. The two newspapers often have different "facts" about the cap numbers and contract details. How do you explain that?

Quite frankly, neither the JSO nor the GBPG did a particularly good job keeping up with the Packers salary cap in those years, and an article about the available cap would often be followed with another article modifying or correcting it. Up until the uncapped year, there was a guy who was linked on a number of sites who had maintained an extremely accurate accumulation of data that he revised as the details of each new contract became available. He maintained this file for many years, and I found it extremely accurate. In footnotes he would acknowledge discrepencies between his information and what various news sources provided, and in later footnotes he would resolve the differences. More often than not, he was ultimately shown to be correct, or at least more accurate than the newspapers were.

Consequently, at that time I relied on him and the information that the NFLPA posted about contracts as being more accurate than either of the newspapers.

Unfortunately, the uncapped year was a time when player contracts were not well-reported, and the NFLPA virtually stopped posting their information about that time. I have been lamenting the fact for several years that there is not now any source that is as reliable about the salary cap information as there was before the uncapped year. Now I generally look at the GBPG and JSO data, but take it with a grain of salt.

A lot of your post confuses me, because it does not support statements you have made and does not address questions referred to you. If I have a chance, I will address those later, but I am extremely busy today and do not have the time to parse your response as I would like to. Maybe later.

[Zool]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Best to let this one go Patler. He's baiting you.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Hey Patler, I believe this is the site that you were referring to. Here's the 2005 link after Sharper and Wahle were cut. This guy was pretty on top of his stuff as I recall.

http://sports-boards.net/reports/packsalarycap.htm

[Cheesehead Craig]

Here's another link for the Wahle, Sharper and Hunt cap numbers. It's on a forum but it's cut from an article from PackerNews. It seems to me their combined cap number was 23.4/m

http://sports-boards.net/forums/showthread.php/19553-Salary-cap-issues-(recent-article)

[red]

this is great. we finally get everyones favorite poster back, and now some new asshat with the gayest avatar on the site is gonna piss him off and run him off again

[ThunderDan]

this is great. we finally get everyones favorite poster back, and now some new asshat with the gayest avatar on the site is gonna piss him off and run him off again

It's PacoPete back again.

[ThunderDan]

Hey Patler, I believe this is the site that you were referring to. Here's the 2005 link after Sharper and Wahle were cut. This guy was pretty on top of his stuff as I recall.

http://sports-boards.net/reports/packsalarycap.htm

My favorite part of that website.

Cheech Hunt's $1 million roster bonus was reduced to $750k because he was lazy in 2004.

[Patler]

Hey Patler, I believe this is the site that you were referring to. Here's the 2005 link after Sharper and Wahle were cut. This guy was pretty on top of his stuff as I recall.

http://sports-boards.net/reports/packsalarycap.htm

Ya, that is the guy I use. I have that one for 2005 and several updates after that including after the season started.

I really don't get "Legands" point, if he even has one. I never disputed the amount of cap space after all three were let go. But that does not support his premise, because:

- Any cap savings from the release of Sharper was not available to sign Wahle or Rivera. Both had signed with their new teams already before Sharper was even released. Sharper's bonus wasn't due until the following week, and the Packers continued to negotiate with him in an attempt to keep him. In the mean time both Wahle and Rivera left, and Sharper refused acceptable concessions, so he was released the following week.

- More importantly, the available cap space in early March did not take into consideration what would be required for the rookie pool allocation, which isn't assigned to the teams until draft time. I don't know what their actual number was in April, but I am guessing that it had to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $4-5 million, because I believe the contracts signed by the 2005 rookies came close to that in 1st year cap impact. In short, there really wasn't a lot of the $7 million cap space that was really available for veteran signings during that off season.

[Patler]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Best to let this one go Patler. He's baiting you.

I suspect you are correct, and I respond to his posts not so much to engage him in a discussion, but to correct any misunderstandings that exist among the silent majority who frequent this site. All the regulars on here know what the deal was at that time, it has been discussed at length before. But I really do try to expose blatant errors and falsehoods just in case there are some who may not know.

[Guiness]

I suspect you are correct, and I respond to his posts not so much to engage him in a discussion, but to correct any misunderstandings that exist among the silent majority who frequent this site. All the regulars on here know what the deal was at that time, it has been discussed at length before. But I really do try to expose blatant errors and falsehoods just in case there are some who may not know.

Yes, I can see what you are trying to do, but this discussion has obviously reached the point of one I had with my son the other day over the teacher's strike/non-strike/work to rule campaign here in Ontario. The government has declared them an essential service, taking away their right to take any significant job action. He doesn't think teachers should be allowed to do any of that because it hurts the students who are innocent bystanders. No amount of pointing out that the government is using an heavy hand in the negotiations will convince him otherwise, because the students are innocent bystanders and are being hurt. And not only that, but students are innocent bystanders and are being hurt, so the teachers should not be allowed to strike.

That argument seems very close to the one LotP15 was using.

On the topic of contracts at that time, I was also disappointed when neither Wahle or Rivera were retained. All the talk leading up to that time was that one would stay, there wasn't money for both of them. There was discussions about who was the favorite, why one of them (Whale?) had never been on the cover of some Packer's publication. He really seemed to take this as a slight, that he was under appreciated.

I do think the team could have held on to one, but TT, and I think he has admitted as much, decided guards were easily replaceable. The next part of the issue was as you said - Whale got LT money. I think he refused to negotiate an extension that year, knowing he would cash in on the open market. As it turned out he did not work at LT and went back to guard. I don't think we ever had a chance to resign Wahle. Rivera we probably could have retained, Dallas gave him a monster contract though.

[sharpe1027]

Hey Patler, I believe this is the site that you were referring to. Here's the 2005 link after Sharper and Wahle were cut. This guy was pretty on top of his stuff as I recall.

http://sports-boards.net/reports/packsalarycap.htm

The sad part is I already gave Legand that link earlier in the thread to show him the true numbers but he still had the gall to say patler didn't use accurate figures. If you can't be bothered to look at the basis behind someone else's opinion at least have the decency to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[LegandofthePack15]

this is great. we finally get everyones favorite poster back, and now some new asshat with the gayest avatar on the site is gonna piss him off and run him off again

Talk about irony. Doctor, check thy own avatar. :lol:

Ok, lesson learned. Never criticize Ted Thompson on this site. Do so and you get showered with some nice nicknames like"noob", "asshat", "troll", and "PacoPete". :grin:

Harlan's back? I would say he's everyone's favorite poster, but what do I know? I am just a newbie.

[Patler]

I do think the team could have held on to one, but TT, and I think he has admitted as much, decided guards were easily replaceable. The next part of the issue was as you said - Whale got LT money. I think he refused to negotiate an extension that year, knowing he would cash in on the open market. As it turned out he did not work at LT and went back to guard. I don't think we ever had a chance to resign Wahle. Rivera we probably could have retained, Dallas gave him a monster contract though.

Either TT or Brandt said as much one time. The story as I recall it was that it became clear that Wahle expected to get such a big contract that the Packers wouldn't be competitive anyway. Leading up to free agency, they asked Rivera to check the market and give them a chance to try and workout something competitive, which he agreed to do because he really would like to have stayed in GB. Dallas gave him such a fantastic deal that the Packers basically told him to take the money and enjoy it. Both knew he likely only had a couple years left anyway.

[Patler]

Ok, lesson learned. Never criticize Ted Thompson on this site. Do so and you get showered with some nice nicknames like"noob", "asshat", "troll", and "PacoPete". :grin:


(Sigh)...... The lessons you should learn from this are:

- If you are going to make vehement assertions you would do well to have some legitimate support for them, and state it upfront.
- If you challenge another posters comments, at least have the decency to restate the challenged comment accurately.

and most importantly:

- If you are treated with respect and courtesy, respond in kind.

[Guiness]

Either TT or Brandt said as much one time. The story as I recall it was that it became clear that Wahle expected to get such a big contract that the Packers wouldn't be competitive anyway. Leading up to free agency, they asked Rivera to check the market and give them a chance to try and workout something competitive, which he agreed to do because he really would like to have stayed in GB. Dallas gave him such a fantastic deal that the Packers basically told him to take the money and enjoy it. Both knew he likely only had a couple years left anyway.

Yup. On the surface of it, he got almost the same money as Wahle, and over a third of it up front! I think everyone was surprised by that deal.

[red]

Talk about irony. Doctor, check thy own avatar. :lol:

Ok, lesson learned. Never criticize Ted Thompson on this site. Do so and you get showered with some nice nicknames like"noob", "asshat", "troll", and "PacoPete". :grin:

Harlan's back? I would say he's everyone's favorite poster, but what do I know? I am just a newbie.

i could give a shit what you think of TT, i'm not his biggest fan either. my problem is your non-stop attack on the most respected poster on this site

and don't even get me started on the difference between our avs. mine is a great original movie with briliant acting all the way through. yours is from a movie with a story that has been done hundreds of times, with horrible acting, geared towards 10 year old little girls.

[LegandofthePack15]

Note that I said , "the then most accurate source of cap information that I knew of" (Emphasis added.)



Yes, I saw that statement. What I failed to see when you initially made that statement was WHAT or WHO your source was.

Now you claim your source is some guy posting on the internet. I checked out the link and he took a lot of his data from sources like NFLPA, MJS and ESPN. So unless he was a Packer employee or he had inside info, his guess was as good as the MJS or GBPG.

Plus, you failed to acknowledge that the majority of the Packers' cap surplus came from the TV deal that was signed in 2006. The only way the Packers could go from being 7.5 M under at one point in 2005 to being 35 M under in 2006 without the new deal was if they cut ties with a bunch of their highest paid players.

So all in all, you're telling me that it was mathematically impossible for the Packers to retain Wahle, Rivera and Sharper?

I find that hard to believe. Since the beginning of the salary cap era, teams have been manipulating the cap and restructuring existing contracts to make more room.

[LegandofthePack15]

i could give a shit what you think of TT, i'm not his biggest fan either. my problem is your non-stop attack on the most respected poster on this site

and don't even get me started on the difference between our avs. mine is a great original movie with briliant acting all the way through. yours is from a movie with a story that has been done hundreds of times, with horrible acting, geared towards 10 year old little girls.

Lol, I have no clue what "great" movie you're talking about. As far as I know, your avatar is that of Diesel, you know the wrestling guy. Have you seen Stone Cold and Cena's acting? The Rock is the only guy worth watching.

[red]

Lol, I have no clue what "great" movie you're talking about. As far as I know, your avatar is that of Diesel, you know the wrestling guy. Have you seen Stone Cold and Cena's acting? The Rock is the only guy worth watching.

no, that is not kevin nash

its "the dude" from the big lebowski

[Smidgeon]

I suspect you are correct, and I respond to his posts not so much to engage him in a discussion, but to correct any misunderstandings that exist among the silent majority who frequent this site. All the regulars on here know what the deal was at that time, it has been discussed at length before. But I really do try to expose blatant errors and falsehoods just in case there are some who may not know.

And we appreciate you for that.

[denverYooper]

no, that is not kevin nash

its "the dude" from the big lebowski

You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.

[Zool]

You know, that or, uh, His Dudeness, or uh, Duder, or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.

Well that's just like....your opinion man.

[Lurker64]

Back to the original topic, I think that the whole "the Packers screwed up by letting Cullen Jenkins walk" narrative is just a classic case of mistaking correlation for causation. Jenkins left, and the Packers defense all of a sudden started playing poorly, but those two things aren't necessarily causally connected.

If Jenkins were actually a huge loss for the Packers, he probably would have been a bigger gain for the Eagles. Let's not forget that he wasn't even starting during the 2010-2011 playoff run.

[MadtownPacker]

:drma:

[BobDobbs]

Lol, I have no clue what "great" movie you're talking about. As far as I know, your avatar is that of Diesel, you know the wrestling guy. Have you seen Stone Cold and Cena's acting? The Rock is the only guy worth watching.

Up to this point I felt that you were wrong, but have been sticking to your guns with integrity if not humility.
But this post is OVER THE LINE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vB9U2hx6Qg

[red]

Well that's just like....your opinion man.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XkADiJCYS2k

FYI, the dude in the purple jump suit is our fearless leader, mad

[denverYooper]

Fuckin' creep can roll man.

[BobDobbs]

Fuckin' creep can roll man.

Eight year olds, Dude.

[Patler]

Yes, I saw that statement. What I failed to see when you initially made that statement was WHAT or WHO your source was.

Now you claim your source is some guy posting on the internet. I checked out the link and he took a lot of his data from sources like NFLPA, MJS and ESPN. So unless he was a Packer employee or he had inside info, his guess was as good as the MJS or GBPG.

Plus, you failed to acknowledge that the majority of the Packers' cap surplus came from the TV deal that was signed in 2006. The only way the Packers could go from being 7.5 M under at one point in 2005 to being 35 M under in 2006 without the new deal was if they cut ties with a bunch of their highest paid players.

So all in all, you're telling me that it was mathematically impossible for the Packers to retain Wahle, Rivera and Sharper?

I find that hard to believe. Since the beginning of the salary cap era, teams have been manipulating the cap and restructuring existing contracts to make more room.

Sorry, but I never did know the guys name, but his cap data was linked at many sites, and was generally considered the most current and accurate. He seems to have stopped in 2009 unfortunately. While I still had bookmarks to the early years, all the ones I had are now dead except 2008 and 2009. (Thanks to those who have provided still active links above.) However, I do have printed copies going back to 2003, I think.

You seem to ridicule the guy because he "took a lot of his data from sources like NFLPA, MJS and ESPN. So unless he was a Packer employee or he had inside info, his guess was as good as the MJS or GBPG." Wow, have you ever missed the point! He was better than any of those (except NFLPA, which of course was accurate but very delayed) BECAUSE he took information from all of them. That's the point, he was the one place that gathered info from numerous sources, noted any discrepancies, and then took the time to try and resolve them. By doing so, his compilation was better than any other (except of course NFLPA, which could be months out of date.)

One time you talk about retaining Wahle, Rivera and Sharper (as in your quote above); the next time you state Wahle, Rivera or Sharper. There is a huge difference. I have no intention of playing your little game by answering one and having you erupt based on the other.

[denverYooper]

Sorry, but I never did know the guys name, but his cap data was linked at many sites, and was generally considered the most current and accurate. He seems to have stopped in 2009 unfortunately. While I still had bookmarks to the early years, all the ones I had are now dead except 2008 and 2009. (Thanks to those who have provided still active links above.) However, I do have printed copies going back to 2003, I think.

You seem to ridicule the guy because he "took a lot of his data from sources like NFLPA, MJS and ESPN. So unless he was a Packer employee or he had inside info, his guess was as good as the MJS or GBPG." Wow, have you ever missed the point! He was better than any of those (except NFLPA, which of course was accurate but very delayed) BECAUSE he took information from all of them. That's the point, he was the one place that gathered info from numerous sources, noted any discrepancies, and then took the time to try and resolve them. By doing so, his compilation was better than any other (except of course NFLPA, which could be months out of date.)

One time you talk about retaining Wahle, Rivera and Sharper (as in your quote above); the next time you state Wahle, Rivera or Sharper. There is a huge difference. I have no intention of playing your little game by answering one and having you erupt based on the other.

He was like the Nate Silver of Cap data.

[KYPack]

He was like the Nate Silver of Cap data.

His name was Craig Pheeples.

Best Packer cap guy ever.

Once a season, Shermy used to feed the Packer cap info to Silverstein so he could write a JSO column about the Packer cap. Craig would be within a few thou of the number coming right from the Pack. That boy really worked at that shit.

[Guiness]

no, that is not kevin nash

its "the dude" from the big lebowski

the dude abides

[Patler]

His name was Craig Pheeples.

Best Packer cap guy ever.

Once a season, Shermy used to feed the Packer cap info to Silverstein so he could write a JSO column about the Packer cap. Craig would be within a few thou of the number coming right from the Pack. That boy really worked at that shit.

Do you know what has happened with him? Did he drop the "project" when the info dried up a few years back? I had hoped he would pick it up again after the new CBA was signed.

[LegandofthePack15]

One time you talk about retaining Wahle, Rivera and Sharper (as in your quote above); the next time you state Wahle, Rivera or Sharper. There is a huge difference. I have no intention of playing your little game by answering one and having you erupt based on the other.

Huh?

I made it clear from the very beginning that Thompson could've retained Wahle, River AND Sharper if he wanted too. Where did I state "or"? (probably a typo).

Wow, I love internet arguments. No one ever concedes defeat. When losing, just change the subject or simply ignore the person you're arguing with.

Bottom line is, it was NOT mathematically impossible for the Packers to retain Wahle, Rivera AND Sharper in 2005. With the tv deal, the Packers would be able to absorb their cap figures in future years.

Regarding the cap "guy you're so fond of, anybody with internet access, knowledge of elementary math and a lot of time on his hand could compose a similar cap list. The guy isn't Deep Throat; he isnt a Packer employee with access to cap data. He's just a guy who did a lot a research using data that is widely available to everybody.

Ok, Patler, I am done playing your game, too. :lol:

[Shoal]

Well I'm not sure if we had enough cap space or not...but I just want to know how we let Vonta Leach get away.

[Pugger]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Best to let this one go Patler. He's baiting you.

:lol: Cute cartoon! Someone on Packerchatters had it as an avatar a couple of years ago but it was too small to read the caption!

[Patler]

Bottom line is, it was NOT mathematically impossible for the Packers to retain Wahle, Rivera AND Sharper in 2005. With the tv deal, the Packers would be able to absorb their cap figures in future years.

So explain how in 2005 that could have been done, knowing that they had to meet cap requirements of 2005 to get through to the cap increases of subsequent years.

I have explained that they had few existing contracts from which cap space could have been gained. I have listed players and contract information. You have given us nothing more than unsupported allegations.

BTW, wasn't your "last reply in this thread." somwehere in the middle of the last page??? :-) :-)

[denverYooper]

:lol: Cute cartoon! Someone on Packerchatters had it as an avatar a couple of years ago but it was too small to read the caption!

It's from XKCD, FYI.

[pbmax]

Lemme guess, you work or worked for the Packers? That's the only explanation I can think of for why you had access to "accurate" Packer cap data.

Me? I'm just a lowly fan who read the MJS. Guys like Silverstien and McGinn, they're not credible. They reported that in 2005 the Packers were about $7.5 M under after they cut Wahle and Sharper, among others. They reported that the next season the Packers, along with the rest of the NFL, gained significant cap space due to the new tv deal; the Packers at one point were around $35 M under.

NFL TV deal -2006–2013: CBS ($622.5 million/yr), Fox ($712.5 million/yr), NBC ($650 million/yr)m, ESPN/ESPN Deportes ($1.1 billion/yr).

Total amount: $3.085 billion/yr

PS: I rest my case. This will be my last reply in this thread. :lol:

Extra Credit Question: How could Ted Thompson know that the 2006 CBA would increase NFL team revenue in early 2005? Possibly the TV deals were done by then, but the real escalator was the switch, engineered by Tagliabue and Upshaw, to a Total Football Revenue model. One that included local team revenues. This was far from a done deal as many owners had doubts and several felt they would never be ensured of a workable and equitable revenue sharing system between high and low revenue teams.

If you feel Ted Thompson is psychic and possesses pre-cognition, please present all relevant evidence.

[Iron Mike]

I think it's time for all of us to face fact.

[KYPack]

Do you know what has happened with him? Did he drop the "project" when the info dried up a few years back? I had hoped he would pick it up again after the new CBA was signed.

No, I don't.

The info dried up and TT & Ball managed the cap so much better than the previous regime, it wasn't that interesting monitoring the number.

That, & I think some of these guys just realize they are putting in too much time on minutae.

[LP]

I think it's time for all of us to face fact.

OK, I'll bite. What fact?

[mraynrand]

I think it's time for all of us to face fact.

I cannot face fact

[mraynrand]

Wow, I love internet arguments. No one ever concedes defeat. When losing, just change the subject or simply ignore the person you're arguing with.

Take it easy Tank. Just stick to the debate points.

[mraynrand]

OK, I'll bite. What fact?

http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?24586-Time-to-face-fact

[MadtownPacker]

Take it easy Tank. Just stick to the debate points.
Damn you for ruining the guessing game I had planned!!!

[pbmax]

Facing Sout today!

[mraynrand]

Damn you for ruining the guessing game I had planned!!!


I would have guessed 'Mazzin' or 'Dr. John Holmes, M.D., Ph.D.'

[Fritz]

Extra Credit Question: How could Ted Thompson know that the 2006 CBA would increase NFL team revenue in early 2005? Possibly the TV deals were done by then, but the real escalator was the switch, engineered by Tagliabue and Upshaw, to a Total Football Revenue model. One that included local team revenues. This was far from a done deal as many owners had doubts and several felt they would never be ensured of a workable and equitable revenue sharing system between high and low revenue teams.

If you feel Ted Thompson is psychic and possesses pre-cognition, please present all relevant evidence.


Hey. look - it's Legend!!


http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8cvgrQkNf1qar86bo1_400.jpg

[Pugger]

TANK??? :shock:

[red]

that makes sense

[KYPack]

Fee, Fi, Fo, Fank.

I smell the familiar stench of Tank.

That band Coldplay really sucks, don't it?

[pittstang5]

Fee, Fi, Fo, Fank.

I smell the familiar stench of Tank.

That band Coldplay really sucks, don't it?

Donovin Darius is the best safety ever, the Packers need to sign him.

[KYPack]

Donovin Darius is the best safety ever, the Packers need to sign him.

Michael Huff?

[Lurker64]

Vince Young just has "it".

[Guiness]

lol, every time someone shows up here and holds on to an idea like a dog with a bone, chants of 'TANK' the infamous are heard! Trying to remember the last time that happened...? Someone was called Tank and they responded they had no idea what we were talking about.

[pbmax]

lol, every time someone shows up here and holds on to an idea like a dog with a bone, chants of 'TANK' the infamous are heard! Trying to remember the last time that happened...? Someone was called Tank and they responded they had no idea what we were talking about.

Clearly, you are Tank.

[Guiness]

Clearly, you are Tank.

I'm not Tank, but I play one in League of Legends.

[red]

lol, every time someone shows up here and holds on to an idea like a dog with a bone, chants of 'TANK' the infamous are heard! Trying to remember the last time that happened...? Someone was called Tank and they responded they had no idea what we were talking about.

that was a couple months ago i think. most of us can't remember back that far

[Rastak]

Hey everybody!

Grab a beer and head over to the campfire.

Some Noob is fucking around with Patler!


Never a good idea.

[red]

holy shit, they're just coming out of the woodwork at this point

[Guiness]

Never a good idea.

I double dog dare someone to take a shot at Rastak right now! MTP would rain down the fires of heaven on them, we all miss him so much!

Good to see ya Rastak, hopefully you're here for more than a cup of coffee (or the beer KY mentioned). The draft sucked without you here, even though we drafted WAY better than your team :D

[Bossman641]

This is easy enough to figure out...

Legand, have you ever locked down Darrin Charles?

[pbmax]

This is easy enough to figure out...

Legand, have you ever locked down Darrin Charles?

:lol:

And what's up Rastak! Nice win today. Thanks for punishing The Schwartz even if the Vikings will be more trouble than the Packers want.

[Freak Out]

Ok....all is right in the the world......Rastak is back.

[MadtownPacker]

I double dog dare someone to take a shot at Rastak right now! MTP would rain down the fires of heaven on them, we all miss him so much!

Good to see ya Rastak, hopefully you're here for more than a cup of coffee (or the beer KY mentioned). The draft sucked without you here, even though we drafted WAY better than your team :D
So only I can take a shot?

He just showed up cuz the purps are winning, frickin bandwagoner!

Glad to see him back. We cant be the good guys without any villains. :lol:

[Guiness]

So only I can take a shot?

He just showed up cuz the purps are winning, frickin bandwagoner!

Glad to see him back. We cant be the good guys without any villains. :lol:

Nope, you're not allowed either. You must now self-flagellate (is that even a word?)

http://dubsism.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/self-flagellation.jpg?w=467

[mraynrand]

Nice picture there, Harlan.

[KYPack]

Hey RastaKyle is here!

That's it, somebody pass me a Milwaukee's Best.

Now we can rock.

[mraynrand]

Clearly, you are Tank.

I'm Spartacus!

[hoosier]

Nope, you're not allowed either. You must now self-flagellate (is that even a word?)

http://dubsism.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/self-flagellation.jpg?w=467

That back is looking a little tender. Next up: hair shirt.

[MadtownPacker]

Nice picture there, Harlan.Lets start collecting rocks for the stoning.

[Fritz]

I have a feeling you'll be wanting to stone Harlan.

[Iron Mike]

Lets start collecting rocks for the stoning.

Did someone say "rocks?"

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcShyKjQS8tUmxl6P4zJyiKeWT5q5STGh Bj2HOfqd1x91DCjWi1Jmd0j8Kks2Q

[Cheesehead Craig]

Cocaine's a hell of a drug.

[denverYooper]

Cocaine's a hell of a drug.

What did the 5 fingers say to the face?

[Cheesehead Craig]

What did the 5 fingers say to the face?

Slap!

[Fritz]

So how 'bout that ol' Cullen Jenkins?

[denverYooper]

How about Leroy Jenkins?

[Lurker64]

How about Leroy Jenkins?

Absolutely no use to a defense, he's always jumping offsides.

[denverYooper]

Absolutely no use to a defense, he's always jumping offsides.

At least he'd have some chicken.