Scott Wells - injuries keep piling on

[Patler]

Apparently Wells hurt his knee (torn meniscus) in practice sometime after returning from his broken foot. He played through it, but had surgery last week to repair it. I think it is the same knee he had surgery on last off season.

The timing of letting him go last year might turn out to be right on target.

[Joemailman]

Yep. There is a reason why TT is extremely hesitant to offer big contract extensions to players over 30.

[RashanGary]

I've heard Thompson mentioning that it's more risky to sign other teams players because you know more about your own.

I wonder if the extensive medical information a team has with it's own guys is one of those factors.

[Guiness]

Quite possible his career ends at the same time Saturday's did.

[Bossman641]

Isn't it about time RutnStrut or whoever is always on Wells' dick to comment in this thread?

[RashanGary]

There's a lot of luck involved with injuries. We're still suffering badly from the loss of Nick Collins tackling, range in the back end and absolute dynamic ability with the ball in his hands. I think the guy would have been a probowl RB if he felt like playing the position.

We'll always discuss these things, but we're so uninformed when it comes to all of the information that goes into each decision.

Ultimately, I think the biggest things we can draw conclusions on are the big-picture things. You flip a coin 10,000 times and you'll probably see something like a 50/50 split. You make decisions better than your opposition over and over and you'll end up being better in the long haul.

We signed Nick Collins to a big contract. Lost him for his career a year later. We let Wells go. He might be hard pressed to play at a high level again. Charles Woodson was a guy who could have easily been an injury nightmare. . . .

At the end of the day, everyone is pulling levers on a slot machine. The difference between the great teams and the good ones can't be judged on single instances. A great GM is similar to having a slot machine with higher odds. Nobody hits on more than they miss, but you're better off with a machine that's set to pay out 40% of the time than one set to 20% You just don't know which one you have until some time has passed. Nobody is 100% in the NFL. With the draft, nobody is even close to 50%. We just can't look at these single pulls and put so much stock into them. I think we need to talk about big picture more here. We just don't do that enough, IMO. If there was a dominant GM, he'd have a full team of all-pro players. Nobody hits like that. It's all relative.


Jim Harbaugh says the Packers are the best organization in football, not because they're good, but because they're always good. Winning the SB means you did a lot of things well over time. Winning every year means you're doing a lot of things well over time. The Packers are doing a lot of things well consistently. One of TT's approaches seems to be not paying an older guy at the rate his performance from the previous year would deserve. He seems to value older players less than most teams. Is that one of the traits that has us in the group of teams that competes for a SB every year legitimately? We'd have to make a list of guys we let go and guys we kept. . . See how it all adds up. That would be interesting to see. Hey, JS, get to work. The cap article was fuckin awesome for us. Put together a comparison of contract re-signings for a few teams. See if there is some correlation between signing older guys to big contracts and success.

[Iron Mike]

See if there is some correlation between signing older guys to big contracts and success.

Two words. Washington Redskins.

[denverYooper]

Jim Harbaugh says the Packers are the best organization in football, not because they're good, but because they're always good. Winning the SB means you did a lot of things well over time. Winning every year means you're doing a lot of things well over time. The Packers are doing a lot of things well consistently. One of TT's approaches seems to be not paying an older guy at the rate his performance from the previous year would deserve. He seems to value older players less than most teams. Is that one of the traits that has us in the group of teams that competes for a SB every year legitimately? We'd have to make a list of guys we let go and guys we kept. . . See how it all adds up. That would be interesting to see. Hey, JS, get to work. The cap article was fuckin awesome for us. Put together a comparison of contract re-signings for a few teams. See if there is some correlation between signing older guys to big contracts and success.

You mean maybe a series of quality articles that provide actually interesting contextual information?

But, but...

How would they compete with the blogosphere on the shrill pandering front?

[Rutnstrut]

There is no possible way to know he would have been injured had he remained with the Packers, it's likely he would have. But perhaps not, I'm not so much a Wells fan as I am a fan of having a solid, quality center. You don't let those guys go, they do more on offense than a lot of people realize.

[Patler]

There is no possible way to know he would have been injured had he remained with the Packers, it's likely he would have. But perhaps not, I'm not so much a Wells fan as I am a fan of having a solid, quality center. You don't let those guys go, they do more on offense than a lot of people realize.

The broken foot, of course no one could predict that; and perhaps it wouldn't even have happened on another field. But, the condition of his knee that resulted in his off season surgery before training camp last year, which he apparently re-injured requiring surgery again now could have been a condition the Packers were concerned about.

Teams often let players go they would rather keep. Sometimes it results in a net decline in performance at the position. That's salary cap football. You can't always keep everyone you want to. Why keep harping on Wells?

[pbmax]

The broken foot, of course no one could predict that; and perhaps it wouldn't even have happened on another field. But, the condition of his knee that resulted in his off season surgery before training camp last year, which he apparently re-injured requiring surgery again now could have been a condition the Packers were concerned about.

Teams often let players go they would rather keep. Sometimes it results in a net decline in performance at the position. That's salary cap football. You can't always keep everyone you want to. Why keep harping on Wells?

For several successful franchises, it was also non-salary cap football as well. Walsh was known to release players early. Same with Lombardi, no?

[mraynrand]

At the end of the day, everyone is pulling levers on a slot machine. The difference between the great teams and the good ones can't be judged on single instances. A great GM is similar to having a slot machine with higher odds. Nobody hits on more than they miss, but you're better off with a machine that's set to pay out 40% of the time than one set to 20% You just don't know which one you have until some time has passed. Nobody is 100% in the NFL. With the draft, nobody is even close to 50%. We just can't look at these single pulls and put so much stock into them. I think we need to talk about big picture more here. We just don't do that enough, IMO. If there was a dominant GM, he'd have a full team of all-pro players. Nobody hits like that. It's all relative.

I remember Cleft Crusty saying that the difference between good and great GMs was the difference of about 10% in draft pick success rate multiplied by the number of picks factoring in draft round. So the GM who has the most picks, and a good success rate with those picks, will always have a stacked roster, and a better chance that some of the picks turn blue.

[ThunderDan]

I remember Cleft Crusty saying that the difference between good and great GMs was the difference of about 10% in draft pick success rate multiplied by the number of picks factoring in draft round. So the GM who has the most picks, and a good success rate with those picks, will always have a stacked roster, and a better chance that some of the picks turn blue.

Why are they sad?

[mraynrand]

Why are they sad?

Probably because they are not as physical as Seattle's draft picks

[woodbuck27]

Isn't it about time RutnStrut or whoever is always on Wells' dick to comment in this thread?

Sure predicate the success of a Packer GM's move; based on the future misfortune of a former Packer Pro Bowler. That's just precious.

Sure TT predicted Scott Wells misfortune with his health. Thus smartly decided it was prudent to let him walk. Then TT elected to go with a near 40 year old end of career candidate at center.

TT has such a crafty and ingenious nature. Some here actually believe that.

[Guiness]

Sure predicate the success of a Packer GM's move; based on the future misfortune of a former Packer Pro Bowler. That's just precious.

Sure TT predicted Scott Wells misfortune with his health. Thus smartly decided it was prudent to let him walk. Then TT elected to go with a near 40 year old end of career candidate at center.

TT has such a crafty and ingenious nature. Some here actually believe that.

I don't think TT was foolish enough to believe Saturday was an upgrade, or even anything more than a stopgap. He needed to hold the fort until EDS or someone else took over. Saturday came a lot cheaper than Wells, and his deal will not create any dead money next year. I'm not sure of the contract situation, but I'd bet that if SW doesn't play next year, the Rams will be carrying his contract, or part of his pro-rated bonus or maybe even the rest of it if he gets cut! The contract was either 3 or 4 years for $24 million.

[woodbuck27]

I don't think TT was foolish enough to believe Saturday was an upgrade, or even anything more than a stopgap. He needed to hold the fort until EDS or someone else took over. Saturday came a lot cheaper than Wells, and his deal will not create any dead money next year. I'm not sure of the contract situation, but I'd bet that if SW doesn't play next year, the Rams will be carrying his contract, or part of his pro-rated bonus or maybe even the rest of it if he gets cut! The contract was either 3 or 4 years for $24 million.

I'll just add these comments without trying to upset 'the peanut gallery':

a) Scott Wells is having some bad luck.

b) Our team missed his pressence on our OL last season.

[Bossman641]

Sure predicate the success of a Packer GM's move; based on the future misfortune of a former Packer Pro Bowler. That's just precious.

Sure TT predicted Scott Wells misfortune with his health. Thus smartly decided it was prudent to let him walk. Then TT elected to go with a near 40 year old end of career candidate at center.

TT has such a crafty and ingenious nature. Some here actually believe that.

You are missing the point of my post WB.

TT and the organization made a calculated decision that they could not afford to pay Wells what he was requesting. Whether it be out of fear of injury or financial concerns, who knows. Rut has brought up Wells ever since as a sign of TT's failure. He brought it up before Wells got injured and he has even brought it up after Wells got injured.

You can't keep everyone. That's the reality of salary-cap football.

[woodbuck27]

You are missing the point of my post WB.

TT and the organization made a calculated decision that they could not afford to pay Wells what he was requesting. Whether it be out of fear of injury or financial concerns, who knows. Rut has brought up Wells ever since as a sign of TT's failure. He brought it up before Wells got injured and he has even brought it up after Wells got injured.

You can't keep everyone. That's the reality of salary-cap football.

Yes but you might re-call that I wasn't exactly onboard with TT's decision to desert OL chemistry by allowing Scott Wells to get away last season.

As 'a pure decision' I felt that TT would regret that move this season; that irregardless of Scott Wells misfortune with his health.

[mraynrand]

Yes but you might re-call that I wasn't exactly onboard with TT's decision to desert OL chemistry by allowing Scott Wells to get away last season.

As 'a pure decision' I felt that TT would regret that move this season; that irregardless of Scott Wells misfortune with his health.

I don't see a lot of regret out there for the decision to part ways with Wells. The outcome of the season didn't have much to do with Wells being gone. in retrospect though, they could have penciled in EDS at center right away and then brought in another free agent guard. In any case, neither of those moves would have prevented injuries to Bishop, DJ Smith, Bulaga, Perry, Woodson, or assignment screw ups in the playoffs. And now the Packers don't have the burden of Scott Well's contract, do they.

[woodbuck27]

I don't see a lot of regret out there for the decision to part ways with Wells. The outcome of the season didn't have much to do with Wells being gone. in retrospect though, they could have penciled in EDS at center right away and then brought in another free agent guard. In any case, neither of those moves would have prevented injuries to Bishop, DJ Smith, Bulaga, Perry, Woodson, or assignment screw ups in the playoffs. And now the Packers don't have the burden of Scott Well's contract, do they.

Where I take exception is with any inuendo that TT is discerning for not resigning Scott Wells. That in particular as we're now aware of his unfortunate luck with health.

I felt our OL was better with Scott Wells as our center. I'm aware of the other factors concerning player loss due to injury that hurt our OL.

[mraynrand]

Where I take exception is with any inuendo that TT is discerning for not resigning Scott Wells.

It's speculation. That sometimes happens on blogs.

[Joemailman]

Scott Wells received 13 million in guaranteed money from St. Louis. There's just no way TT was going to give anything like that to a 31 year old center. There were talks between The Packers and Wells, but reports were the 2 sides were far apart. I'm sure that's why.

[Guiness]

Scott Wells received 13 million in guaranteed money from St. Louis. There's just no way TT was going to give anything like that to a 31 year old center. There were talks between The Packers and Wells, but reports were the 2 sides were far apart. I'm sure that's why.

I wonder how much age had to do with it? Good OL tend to extend their careers into their mid-30s, it's not like they've got a step to lose! SW had very little injury history (that we know of) so you'd think he was a candidate for a multi-year contract.

So why didn't he get one? Either TT had information on the deteriorating state of his knees that Rams didn't know about, or he just didn't think he was worth that much money period. I'd guess the former, he's had his knee scoped twice in the past year, once before the season, and once after the season.

[Patler]

I wonder how much age had to do with it? Good OL tend to extend their careers into their mid-30s, it's not like they've got a step to lose! SW had very little injury history (that we know of) so you'd think he was a candidate for a multi-year contract.

So why didn't he get one? Either TT had information on the deteriorating state of his knees that Rams didn't know about, or he just didn't think he was worth that much money period. I'd guess the former, he's had his knee scoped twice in the past year, once before the season, and once after the season.

It is not uncommon for medical staffs on different teams to have different opinions on the long range impact of players conditions. It happens even with draftable players. One staff finds risk minimal, while another finds it significant. The same could have happened with the Rams and Packers about Wells, but we will never know for sure.

The Packers are very choosy about who they will commit large contracts to when players reach the later part of their careers. Wells wasn't one of the select few that they were willing to pay a lot to. Age, condition, contract demands both in length and guaranteed money were all likely factors.

[mraynrand]

The Packers are very choosy about who they will commit large contracts to when players reach the later part of their careers. Wells wasn't one of the select few that they were willing to pay a lot to. Age, condition, contract demands both in length and guaranteed money were all likely factors.

How much do you think that suppresses a player's value, in general? Take Jennings - the Packers show no interest in locking him up; you have to think it affects other team's estimate of his value. Maybe not the case for Wells?

[sharpe1027]

How much do you think that suppresses a player's value, in general? Take Jennings - the Packers show no interest in locking him up; you have to think it affects other team's estimate of his value. Maybe not the case for Wells?

Yeah, but you could make the same argument for pretty much every free agent. That might also be why the Packers are relatively selective in signing other team's free agents. Some of the guys that they have brought in had non-injury related concerns bringing down their value, whether it is Woodson with an allegedly had a poor attitude in Oakland, Koren Robinson and Hargrove with suspension issues. Others are FA because they weren't drafted or were cut from their previous team. Perhaps they feel that they get better value that way.

[pbmax]

I also think that targeting a FA and making him a priority means the medical evaluation will need to be pretty terrible before the process would be stopped. There is less room for nuance and exactitude than with the original team.

I think the signing team figures it will protect itself from the downside of a prognosis with a carefully constructed contract.

[Rutnstrut]

I don't see a lot of regret out there for the decision to part ways with Wells. The outcome of the season didn't have much to do with Wells being gone. in retrospect though, they could have penciled in EDS at center right away and then brought in another free agent guard. In any case, neither of those moves would have prevented injuries to Bishop, DJ Smith, Bulaga, Perry, Woodson, or assignment screw ups in the playoffs. And now the Packers don't have the burden of Scott Well's contract, do they.

While no one can say how things would have went had they kept Wells. I can and did say things would get worse with Saturday, he wasn't even a stopgap. Saturday was a step backwards at the center position.

[pbmax]

While no one can say how things would have went had they kept Wells. I can and did say things would get worse with Saturday, he wasn't even a stopgap. Saturday was a step backwards at the center position.

That's the definition of stopgap.

Of course no one knows what the odds are of injury if he stays with the Packers. But we know that older players get hurt and play worse as a result more frequently.

Saturday wasn't his replacement, he was the less costly option.

Now the Packers can simply pay EDS and look to upgrade EDS instead of playing a waiting game with Well's healthy and hoping EDS is good enough.

[Patler]

While no one can say how things would have went had they kept Wells. I can and did say things would get worse with Saturday, he wasn't even a stopgap. Saturday was a step backwards at the center position.

I'm not so sure. I read one article that said even when he did play, Wells was awful in the run game this year, but solid in pass protection. It surprised me, but the writer said Wells will have a lot to prove next year. Maybe it was lingering effects of the off season knee scope last year, the foot injury this year, the second knee injury, or lack of familiarity since he had no training camp with them. But even when he did play, he seems to have given them about what the Packers got from Saturday. OK work in pass protection, nothing in the run game.

At this point, it doesn't matter. EDS at least showed some promise the last few games. Maybe there will be a big O-line shake up this year, with Bulaga to LT, Barclay staying at RT, EDS, Lang or someone new to center, and a new LG if necessary. A major shake-up might be overdue. Datko and Sherrod could be wild cards in a shakeup, if one can take over at LT. Could be an interesting camp.

[pbmax]

Didn't Wells miss part of the offseason while adopting children? Or was that another year?

ALso, Wells is a seventh round pick. Physically, he has limitations. McCarthy and Campen showed great patience with him as he learned to be a good reach blocking center in a ZBS. He might not be on familiar territory in St. Louis in terms of run game scheme.

[Bretsky]

While no one can say how things would have went had they kept Wells. I can and did say things would get worse with Saturday, he wasn't even a stopgap. Saturday was a step backwards at the center position.

Given the scenario, even the greatest of TT haters (I think that is you) should be able to admit it was good that TT didn't get in a bidding war for Scott Wells because it would have been foolish to commit the money the Rams did to the 31 yard center

[Patler]

Didn't Wells miss part of the offseason while adopting children? Or was that another year?

ALso, Wells is a seventh round pick. Physically, he has limitations. McCarthy and Campen showed great patience with him as he learned to be a good reach blocking center in a ZBS. He might not be on familiar territory in St. Louis in terms of run game scheme.

I think the adoption was this past off season, but he would have missed it all because of the knee surgery he had anyway. One article about the adoption described the problems he had being there because of his knee. the travel being either shortly before or shortly after the surgery. (I think after.)

The year end article I read about him mentioned that he had been expected to recover quickly from the surgery and be available for TC, or at least part of it. But his recovery was slow and he missed all of camp. I wonder if the trip to bring home the kids set back his recovery?

[mraynrand]

Scott Wells must have had a couple of buckets of champaign when the Rams gave him all that money - for an older center who can't play any other position. And some people wanted TT to give him the cash. Geesus!