Packers Want Jackson "AT THEIR PRICE"

[Bretsky]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-want-stephen-jackson-at-their-price-m094ll8-197710241.html


cuz.......this is how we roll

[woodbuck27]

Peyton Hillis visiting Green Bay and Stephen Jackson visiting Atlanta (rumour).

mmmmm

Picture an inflated balloon as 'our hopes'.

Picture a man holding a pin.

Picture that 'that man' is Ted Thompson.

What happens to that balloon?

[RashanGary]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-want-stephen-jackson-at-their-price-m094ll8-197710241.html


cuz.......this is how we roll


I don't know why we wouldn't give him market value, honestly. The market is said to be down this off-season. I believe Jackson when he says he'd like to play in GB. Not just because he said it, but because he dropped AR's name when he said it. You're kind of letting another guy you respect know how you feel and I think most guys are honest when they do that.

If Jackson's going rate is 7M/year over 3 years, I don't know why we shouldn't match it or even beat it by a little. He's one of the greatest backs of this era, he wants to be here and he's a perfect fit.

If we can pay Finley and Tramon 8M-9M/year each, I don't know why we couldn't play Jackosn the same. 30 or not, he's a great player.

At this point, I'll be pretty darn disappointed if we don't get him unless he gets some off the charts deal and i highly, highly, highly doubt that will happen. Nothing else is getting in the way.

[pbmax]

Well, Rotoworld thinks market value is 3 years and $12 million, so until someone spends money, we are all just guessing. But don't fall for the hype.

But each of you is reading Silverstein like he is reporting actual news, instead of simply repurposing known facts. Thompson is cautious and cheap and does not like to overbid himself once he makes an offer. Not will he telegraph an offer unless he thinks it will land a player.

This is what Silverstein knows in his tiny heart to be true and every story about every player acquisition must be told through that lens. Especially when his Packer sources aren't telling him squat. It also used to be true that Spoon believed Thompson never traded up, but we don't talk or write about that anymore.

Tom also isn't telling you that all his information about Steven Jackson and the Packers is coming directly from Eugene Parker; and is the player's side trying to start a bidding war between the Packers and the Falcons. And by floating the possibility of the Packers losing Jackson because of a too low bid, Tom is carrying Eugene's water for him. Message board and Twitter panic is just the extra zing of mob fury. No one can say whether reports are true that Jackson would prefer Atlanta, which renders Green Bay's offer moot.

Same dynamic is happening with Eugene's other Packer UFA Greg Jennings. Suddenly today Jennings was seriously considering the Packers theoretical offer after finding himself with no visits scheduled. To consider that offer, according to PFT, he must turn down a theoretical offer from the Vikings.

[woodbuck27]

I don't know why we wouldn't give him market value, honestly. The market is said to be down this off-season. I believe Jackson when he says he'd like to play in GB. Not just because he said it, but because he dropped AR's name when he said it. You're kind of letting another guy you respect know how you feel and I think most guys are honest when they do that.

If Jackson's going rate is 7M/year over 3 years, I don't know why we shouldn't match it or even beat it by a little. He's one of the greatest backs of this era, he wants to be here and he's a perfect fit.

If we can pay Finley and Tramon 8M-9M/year each, I don't know why we couldn't play Jackosn the same. 30 or not, he's a great player.

At this point, I'll be pretty darn disappointed if we don't get him unless he gets some off the charts deal and i highly, highly, highly doubt that will happen. Nothing else is getting in the way.

Yup. The rumour is that the RAMS were going to make him a system RB and offer him about half of the $7 million$ he was slated to make this coming season. So TT has that and makes sure that his agent gets the message that he's wanted in Green Bay and some emphasis on that, with a decent offer of say $13.5 -15 million$ over three years.

Then I look at it another way and maybe it's out to lunch?

If you could trade Jermichael Finley straight up for Stephen Jackson?

Would you do it?

The difference in what Stephen Jackson can be contracted for and what Jermichael Finley will be paid in 2013 is about equivalent to the cost of E D-S and Sam Shields.

Now .... would you take this trade? E D-S, Sam Shields and Stephen Jackson for Jermichael Finley?

[swede]

Well, Rotoworld thinks market value is 3 years and $12 million, so until someone spends money, we are all just guessing. But don't fall for the hype.

But each of you is reading Silverstein like he is reporting actual news, instead of simply repurposing known facts. Thompson is cautious and cheap and does not like to overbid himself once he makes an offer. Not will he telegraph an offer unless he thinks it will land a player.

This is what Silverstein knows in his tiny heart to be true and every story about every player acquisition must be told through that lens. Especially when his Packer sources aren't telling him squat. It also used to be true that Spoon believed Thompson never traded up, but we don't talk or write about that anymore.

Tom also isn't telling you that all his information about Steven Jackson and the Packers is coming directly from Eugene Parker; and is the player's side trying to start a bidding war between the Packers and the Falcons. And by floating the possibility of the Packers losing Jackson because of a too low bid, Tom is carrying Eugene's water for him. Message board and Twitter panic is just the extra zing of mob fury. No one can say whether reports are true that Jackson would prefer Atlanta, which renders Green Bay's offer moot.

Same dynamic is happening with Eugene's other Packer UFA Greg Jennings. Suddenly today Jennings was seriously considering the Packers theoretical offer after finding himself with no visits scheduled. To consider that offer, according to PFT, he must turn down a theoretical offer from the Vikings.

This is good "take a deep breath" post.

It suggests, though, that Silverstein tells his kids to eat their vegetables or it is likely, though not confirmed, that the Easter Bunny will come down the chimney and eat their goldfish if they don't.

[pittstang5]

The Steven Jackson hype is pretty cool. I heard early rumors that the Packers might be interested, but thought they were just rumors.

I'd like him in GB and I'm starting to get to the point that if he doesn't sign with the Pack, I might be a little disappointed. But if Atlanta is involved, ouch. Money aside - Playing 8+ games inside as opposed to the winter elements in GB? I can definitely understand Jackson not getting out of Atlanta.

[pbmax]

This is good "take a deep breath" post.

It suggests, though, that Silverstein tells his kids to eat their vegetables or it is likely, though not confirmed, that the Easter Bunny will come down the chimney and eat their goldfish if they don't.

Yeah, I was kind of hard on him. And I suspect if you wrote the same article with some input from the Packers, it would still read similarly in its details. Mutual interest, a Packer offer lower than they would prefer, remaining interest in Falcons, have patience.

But the headline (which Silverstein doesn't write) and the tone suggest EDIT: panic over Thompson's choices :EDIT and that is by design. It gives the agent a friendly read while adhering to the basic facts, just by coloring the story with here we go again.

A far better article would attempt to determine what the offer might be, what they are looking for and how close Atlanta is to coming in a Parker/Jackson's number. If they knew the strength of Jackson's preference, that would seal the deal. In a way, Thompson's preferred method of PR (silence) hurts him here. Truth is, as wist points out elsewhere, the Packers probably cannot afford a deal too good for Jackson to pass up. And that is why the Falcons are still in it. Possibly similar to Woodson or Pickett.

[Smeefers]

I don't think Jackson and Woodson are close. Remember, Wood was coming off a broken thigh bone. He was a malcontent and he didn't receive a single offer near to what green bay gave him. I also have a hard time comparing Jackson to Pickett because Pick was coming off a great season, first time as an UFA. He was young and had a ton of gas left in the tank. We got him for a bargain for some unknown reason (3 years, 14 mil) and he's been nothing but solid since he's come here.

Jackson is on the wrong side of 30 and probably only has a year or two left. The most important thing is this: He's highly saught after and TT usually doesn't play in that market. He may be better than anything out there, but who would you rather have? Steve Jackson for or Eddie Lacy? Or maybe Monte Ball. We don't know the plans of the pack They could be going after Shoene Green, Reggie Bush, Mendenhall, Woodhead... gosh, there's just so many good backs out there. There's no reason to rush this.

I would absolutely love it if we picked up Jackson, but I'll tell you what. As long as I can remember, the Pack has never picked up someone I'd love to have.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't know why we wouldn't give him market value, honestly. The market is said to be down this off-season. I believe Jackson when he says he'd like to play in GB. Not just because he said it, but because he dropped AR's name when he said it. You're kind of letting another guy you respect know how you feel and I think most guys are honest when they do that.

If Jackson's going rate is 7M/year over 3 years, I don't know why we shouldn't match it or even beat it by a little. He's one of the greatest backs of this era, he wants to be here and he's a perfect fit.

If we can pay Finley and Tramon 8M-9M/year each, I don't know why we couldn't play Jackosn the same. 30 or not, he's a great player.

At this point, I'll be pretty darn disappointed if we don't get him unless he gets some off the charts deal and i highly, highly, highly doubt that will happen. Nothing else is getting in the way.

No way you pay $7M/year for Steven Jackson. I loves me some Ted Thompson. Why do people think it's a bad thing for our GM to want guys at his price?

His way has led to contending football for several years and with the ability to still sign guys like Rodgers and Matthews when their contracts are up.

[pbmax]

I don't think Jackson and Woodson are close. Remember, Wood was coming off a broken thigh bone. He was a malcontent and he didn't receive a single offer near to what green bay gave him. I also have a hard time comparing Jackson to Pickett because Pick was coming off a great season, first time as an UFA. He was young and had a ton of gas left in the tank. We got him for a bargain for some unknown reason (3 years, 14 mil) and he's been nothing but solid since he's come here.

Jackson is on the wrong side of 30 and probably only has a year or two left. The most important thing is this: He's highly saught after and TT usually doesn't play in that market. He may be better than anything out there, but who would you rather have? Steve Jackson for or Eddie Lacy? Or maybe Monte Ball. We don't know the plans of the pack They could be going after Shoene Green, Reggie Bush, Mendenhall, Woodhead... gosh, there's just so many good backs out there. There's no reason to rush this.

I would absolutely love it if we picked up Jackson, but I'll tell you what. As long as I can remember, the Pack has never picked up someone I'd love to have.

I thought of Pickett not because of age or contract, but a FA with two teams interested who do not seem prepared to break the bank to knock the other guy out of the negotiations.

I thought of Woodson as a guy who had one firm offer and could not get another in the same ballpark despite REALLY wanting to (Tampa).

[red]

eugene parker seems like a little bitch trying to make a market for his guys were there isn't one

this is starting to feel like the whole randy moss fiasco where we were just used

[Smeefers]

I thought of Pickett not because of age or contract, but a FA with two teams interested who do not seem prepared to break the bank to knock the other guy out of the negotiations.

I thought of Woodson as a guy who had one firm offer and could not get another in the same ballpark despite REALLY wanting to (Tampa).

Fair enough. I wasn't really thinking along those lines.

Usually when people bring up those two, they just want to point out how free agency can work. I'm not saying it can't, I'm just saying that those kinds of deals don't come around every offseason. I think that's easily enough pointed out by saying "when's the last time it happened." TT is constantly looking for those kinds of deals. It's why he snatched up Koren Robinson and Anthony Hargrove. Some times things just don't pan out like you'd hoped though.

[Pugger]

The Steven Jackson hype is pretty cool. I heard early rumors that the Packers might be interested, but thought they were just rumors.

I'd like him in GB and I'm starting to get to the point that if he doesn't sign with the Pack, I might be a little disappointed. But if Atlanta is involved, ouch. Money aside - Playing 8+ games inside as opposed to the winter elements in GB? I can definitely understand Jackson not getting out of Atlanta.

What kind of cap does Atlanta have? I thought I read somewhere that they are tight up against it so they might not be able to sign Jackson even if they wanted to.

[Bossman641]

No way you pay $7M/year for Steven Jackson. I loves me some Ted Thompson. Why do people think it's a bad thing for our GM to want guys at his price?

His way has led to contending football for several years and with the ability to still sign guys like Rodgers and Matthews when their contracts are up.

Because winning the offseason is exciting :huh:

[pbmax]

Fair enough. I wasn't really thinking along those lines.

Usually when people bring up those two, they just want to point out how free agency can work. I'm not saying it can't, I'm just saying that those kinds of deals don't come around every offseason. I think that's easily enough pointed out by saying "when's the last time it happened." TT is constantly looking for those kinds of deals. It's why he snatched up Koren Robinson and Anthony Hargrove. Some times things just don't pan out like you'd hoped though.

That's why I think its way too easy to mischaracterize Thompson's approach as do nothing, cheap or draft pick ego driven.

Essentially the owners, in exchange for being allowed to operate like a trust or monopoly and in the case of the NFL have a completely free talent training system, the NFL has agreed to a compensation system that (by negotiations with the players) is entirely geared toward veterans and tends to reward players after they reach their peak. The players acquiesce to this because each believes they will eventually get the mega contract once they are older.

The one area when the entire system tilts to the players advantage is FA. So while it drives me nuts, I can't begrudge Eugene Parker trying to drive the best bargain. Its the only time the players see a completely free market for their services.

And I can't begrudge Thompson for avoiding over spending because every other talent acquisition source is a better value for the team.

[KYPack]

eugene parker seems like a little bitch trying to make a market for his guys were there isn't one



Sounds like an agent to me.

[woodbuck27]

What kind of cap does Atlanta have? I thought I read somewhere that they are tight up against it so they might not be able to sign Jackson even if they wanted to.

You'd have to check to see if this is 'in fact' up to date but the Falcons and the Packers have similiar amounts of CAP space according to the LINK below.

PACKERS are down to $17,944,927 of CAP-51 space, after taking care of business with ED-S and Sam Shields.

The Falcons according to this table are $17,195,401 below the CAP.

http://www.overthecap.com/nfl-cap-space.php?Year=2013

I've just learned that the Detroit Lions signed RB Reggie Bush and this LINK says they had a value of 'only' $3,625,876 below the CAP. Is that the value before or after signing Reggie Bush?

GO PACKERS !

[run pMc]

I can't begrudge Thompson for avoiding over spending because every other talent acquisition source is a better value for the team.

+1

First, let me say I like Steven Jackson.

I'm either a homer-itis or a heretic, but I'd rather sign Greg Jennings and Cedric Benson than spend $4 million/year or whatever on Jackson. The OL might not give Jackson much daylight and it's a passing league anyway.

I'm not convinced he's the missing piece to a Super Bowl, or the best value for the position and team needs. They ought to be able to cobble together a running game with DuJuan Harris, Starks, Green and either Benson or a draft pick.

[woodbuck27]

+1

First, let me say I like Steven Jackson.

I'm either a homer-itis or a heretic, but I'd rather sign Greg Jennings and Cedric Benson than spend $4 million/year or whatever on Jackson. The OL might not give Jackson much daylight and it's a passing league anyway.

I'm not convinced he's the missing piece to a Super Bowl, or the best value for the position and team needs. They ought to be able to cobble together a running game with DuJuan Harris, Starks, Green and either Benson or a draft pick.

You've set yourself into a win-win position. Smart.

[pbmax]

I think M3 has come to the conclusion that he can't keep Rodgers healthy and upright like 2011 with an O line in transition and largely ignoring the run game. By that I mean currently unsettled LT, Center to a smaller degree and injuries to LG and RT. All the answers might be on the roster or they may need to be drafted. If Sherrod and Bulaga were healthy, I am not sure they aren't looking more to Finley and Jennings rather than one of those and Jackson.

So if you are M3 and T2 and you think you need a year, two, maybe three to finalize the O line, then Jackson makes more sense short term.

I don't think its the only reason, Wilde has covered how the front office has coveted this guy for a while. But that might explain why NOW its worth waiting.

Plus the fact that this is actually helping in the Jennings and Finley negotiations. Usually, time is their enemy as their offers get surpassed.

[LEWCWA]

I just keep thinking no to Jackson....Ahman keeps coming to mind. Left GB with skins on the wall and less mileage than Jackson and was done! RB isn't a 30 somethings gig! Benson seems a much better option to me at alot less money.....at the same time keep searching for that young guy that can step in!

[Tony Oday]

Working on a 3-year contract

[woodbuck27]

I just keep thinking no to Jackson....Ahman keeps coming to mind. Left GB with skins on the wall and less mileage than Jackson and was done! RB isn't a 30 somethings gig! Benson seems a much better option to me at alot less money.....at the same time keep searching for that young guy that can step in!

The incentive to look at a 30 year old RB like Stephen Jackson is based on his conditioning and reliability. This man is steady and he has solid hands to extend our WCO passing game. The thing is do you commit to him for two-three years? The Broncos just said yes to Wes Welker for a two year deal, according to reports. A safe bet for that team in terms of commitment.

[Packers4Glory]

I just don't see a need to pay big money to a RB these days. You can find guys like Harris and numerous others later in the draft. That money should be spent on keeping Jennings and/or securing the tackle position and/or bringing in a safety. Spending it on a RB is a complete waste of cash in a league that is predicated on the pass.

Stephen Jackson is not a 3 down back any more anyway.

[RashanGary]

No way you pay $7M/year for Steven Jackson. I loves me some Ted Thompson. Why do people think it's a bad thing for our GM to want guys at his price?

His way has led to contending football for several years and with the ability to still sign guys like Rodgers and Matthews when their contracts are up.


Harvey, AP makes what? Average 14M/year until age 33 or something like that.

Steven Jackson is half the running back AP is right now, let alone in the late years of Peterson's contract. Jackson can catch better and block better. Obviously, AP is the best pure runner to play in a long time, but Jackson can run too.

Jackson is worth 7M/year for three years IMO.

8 this year, 7 next year, 6 the following. He's worth that. He's a better player right now than Jermichael Finley and I don't think it's even close. We've paid that douche 8m/year for the last two years. Not paying Jackson close to that (if that's what market is), IMO, is absolutely fucking retarded. And then to keep Finley on top of it. . . . . It would be the first time I would truely think TT needs to be fired. That, right there, is absolute lunacy.

[RashanGary]

I'm going to be very disappointed if we don't have Steven Jackson. I'll wait for the details, and not jump off any cliffs, but he'd be a great piece for us and I'm really hoping we get him.

[Packers4Glory]

I'm going to be very disappointed if we don't have Steven Jackson. I'll wait for the details, and not jump off any cliffs, but he'd be a great piece for us and I'm really hoping we get him.

seems like a losing move to me. allocating money that needs to be spent somewhere else.

[Packers4Glory]

Stephen Jackson is not a need, and RB for a team that is and will always be a passing team as long as Rodgers is around is a waste of cash. Take the Jackson money and get a tackle to keep your QB healthy, and you can find a RB to be productive from almost anywhere. The guy we brought in and looked good last yr was selling cars. RB is NOT a hard position to fill in the NFL and certainly not one you lock up millions of dollars for when you are trying to sign your own guys and fill real needs on your roster. There are very few RB i'd pay millions for...and even in GB it's a highly questionable decision given the fact we have the best passing QB in the game. It's far more important to shore up the defense and keep AR upright than it is to spend money on a 30yr RB who has a ton of miles on him already. Let someone else make that mistake.

[RashanGary]

seems like a losing move to me. allocating money that needs to be spent somewhere else.

I don't think I could possibly disagree more. I would certainly agree if you were referencing AJ Hawk and Jermichael fucking Finley, but we're talking about Steven Jackson here. You've got to be kidding me, when you can pay 14M/ year for the combined talents of AJ Hawk and Jermichael Finley without question, then call into question the idea of paying Steven Jackson.

Wake up Packer fans. This is the kind of move that winning teams earn themselves the opportunity to make. Steven Jackson wants to come here because we're winners, and he's a great player. Child, please. This is a good move.

[pbmax]

Harvey, AP makes what? Average 14M/year until age 33 or something like that.

Steven Jackson is half the running back AP is right now, let alone in the late years of Peterson's contract. Jackson can catch better and block better. Obviously, AP is the best pure runner to play in a long time, but Jackson can run too.

Jackson is worth 7M/year for three years IMO.

8 this year, 7 next year, 6 the following. He's worth that. He's a better player right now than Jermichael Finley and I don't think it's even close. We've paid that douche 8m/year for the last two years. Not paying Jackson close to that (if that's what market is), IMO, is absolutely fucking retarded. And then to keep Finley on top of it. . . . . It would be the first time I would truely think TT needs to be fired. That, right there, is absolute lunacy.

Seven million per is going to cost you Finley and someone's extension unless they start backloading contracts.

[pbmax]

Seven million per is going to cost you Finley and someone's extension unless they start backloading contracts.

It would be about the 6th largest contract on team, if not higher. For a back in M3's system. McCarthy is sometimes overplayed as pass-pass-pass, but he isn't ground chuck either. I am OK with Jackson with a medium deal under $5 per.

[RashanGary]

And he'd be one of the top 5 players on the team too. HE's worth it.

[RashanGary]

Hmmmm. . . . 29 year old AJ Hawk or 30 year old Steven Jackson. . . . . Is it even a fucking question?

I can't believe you people. Seriously, this is a no brainer.

[RashanGary]

Alright, I gotta go. This conversation already pisses me off and I'm not going to have a bad night over it.

You guys are retarded.



Peace.

[pbmax]

JH, I think he was, possibly is, that good. But for a 3 year deal at 7 per (which is going to include some kind of upfront money) he will need to stay that good until 33. Have not watched him closely like we saw Ahman, but the wheels will come off sometime.

[Bossman641]

$7M a year for Jackson? God no. That would put him among the top 4 RB in the league.

[Packers4Glory]

I'll take Finley even if he's maddeningly inconsistent. So was James Jones. Finley is more important in this offense than a 7 mil+ RB

[Iron Mike]

Alright, I gotta go. This conversation already pisses me off and I'm not going to have a bad night over it.

You guys are retarded.



Peace.

Stop bitching, fer Christ's sakes....


http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2013/03/13/steven-jackson-to-the-green-bay-packers/

[red]

where did 7 million a year come from

did someone just pull that number out of there ass?

i'm thinking we're looking at reggie bush type money (4 a year) or maybe a touch more, like 5. and the bush deal is a 4 year deal

maybe 3 years in the 11 to 14 million overall deal for SJ

[red]

Stop bitching, fer Christ's sakes....


http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2013/03/13/steven-jackson-to-the-green-bay-packers/

not seeing or finding confirmation anywhere

[Guiness]

Stop bitching, fer Christ's sakes....


http://www.thebiglead.com/index.php/2013/03/13/steven-jackson-to-the-green-bay-packers/

lol, that's a hell of a source! They quote a Demovsky tweet...in which he says Jackson and the Packers are talking, not that he's signed! He later clarifies it tweeting "I'm not saying it's done. Just saying they're talking..."

It might happen, but it hasn't yet.

[Iron Mike]

I know, I was just trying to get you guys all lathered up..... :)

[pbmax]

where did 7 million a year come from

did someone just pull that number out of there ass?

i'm thinking we're looking at reggie bush type money (4 a year) or maybe a touch more, like 5. and the bush deal is a 4 year deal

maybe 3 years in the 11 to 14 million overall deal for SJ

That was Justin's first stab at a target price. Others disagree.

[Patler]

JH, I think he was, possibly is, that good. But for a 3 year deal at 7 per (which is going to include some kind of upfront money) he will need to stay that good until 33. Have not watched him closely like we saw Ahman, but the wheels need to come off sometime.

There are RBs who are effective into their early 30's, with 11 or 12 year careers. Don't know if Jackson can be one of those infrequent ones or not, but Ahman Green had recurring leg problems almost from the start, and each time seemed to be progressively worse. I think Jackson has been pretty healthy through out his career.

He doesn't turn 30 until later this summer, so a three year stint would have him playing at 30, 31 and 32. Emmitt Smith gained almost 6,000 yards from the season in which he was 30 until he retired. He played 6 seasons, 3 with over 1,000 and 2 with over 900. Franco Harris played 4 effective seasons after 30 for nearly 3400 yards. Payton played 4 seasons for 5,000 yards. Curtis Martin played 3 for 3,800 yards. There are a fair number who were still pretty good RBs at 30 and 31, a lot fewer at 32 or later.

Realistically, the Packers want him to be darned good yet in 2013. Anything after that would be a bonus. I suspect a contract will be structured so as not to be crippling whenever the wheels eventually come off.

Jackson has been continuously what people hoped Benson would be, but that he was only a few seasons. I wasn't excited at all about Benson coming to GB, he had too many disappointing seasons for various reasons, and 2012 was just another. Jackson is a lot more interesting to me.

Having a guy like Jackson, a threat both running and receiving, adds a whole new dimension to this offense. It would keep defenses more "honest" and open up the passing game even more than Benson would have, because Benson had no reputation as a receiver.

If it costs them Finley, I'm OK with that; especially if they find a way to keep Jennings.

[Patler]

That was Justin's first stab at a target price. Others disagree.

Wasn't it also what his contract with the Rams would have paid him?

[run pMc]

Well, GB needs to get something out of its running game. Jackson would really help, but I wouldn't be surprised if they go with the guys they have plus either Benson or a mid-round pick. IMO a well coached team should be able to make chicken salad out of what they have. They Giants used to trot out Ahmed Bradshaw (a R7 pick) and Brandon Jacobs (a R4 pick). I can't think of many RB's that, if I were GM (cringe), I'd pay over $5M/yr for. Jackson certainly isn't in that group.
I appreciate JH's opinion, but I respectfully disagree. I think their best bet is to use their cap space on Rodgers and Matthews (not sure about Raji) and draft some players who can play and stay healthy.

[Teamcheez1]

I'm not going to lose sleep if we are unable to sign a soon-to-be 30 year old RB. Would I like him to be a Packer? Yes. Is he essential to the success of this team? No.

[Zool]

I'm not going to lose sleep if we are unable to sign a soon-to-be 30 year old RB. Would I like him to be a Packer? Yes. Is he essential to the success of this team? No.

Look, this is an internet forum, and as such everything that happens is either the best thing that's ever happened or the worst thing that's ever happened. Players who were good 7 years ago are still just as good today, or are complete trash.

I'm going to need you to get on board with this lest the entire place starts getting rational.

[Bossman641]

Look, this is an internet forum, and as such everything that happens is either the best thing that's ever happened or the worst thing that's ever happened. Players who were good 7 years ago are still just as good today, or are complete trash.

I'm going to need you to get on board with this lest the entire place starts getting rational.

Sign Merriman!! He will save the defense. Six years ago he was a beast, sure he was juicing then but he's still got it.

[woodbuck27]

Look, this is an internet forum, and as such everything that happens is either the best thing that's ever happened or the worst thing that's ever happened. Players who were good 7 years ago are still just as good today, or are complete trash.

I'm going to need you to get on board with this lest the entire place starts getting rational.

No kidding. 8-) post.

[woodbuck27]

Well, GB needs to get something out of its running game. Jackson would really help, but I wouldn't be surprised if they go with the guys they have plus either Benson or a mid-round pick. IMO a well coached team should be able to make chicken salad out of what they have. They Giants used to trot out Ahmed Bradshaw (a R7 pick) and Brandon Jacobs (a R4 pick). I can't think of many RB's that, if I were GM (cringe), I'd pay over $5M/yr for. Jackson certainly isn't in that group.
I appreciate JH's opinion, but I respectfully disagree. I think their best bet is to use their cap space on Rodgers and Matthews (not sure about Raji) and draft some players who can play and stay healthy.

I don't believe that TT will pay over $5 Million$ for Steven Jackson or he'd be signed by now.

I'm curious about how we feel as a forum on a possible extention to BJ Raji. We'll likely agree on the value to the team for Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews; but where does this forum stand on BJ Raji?

PACKERS !

[Patler]

I don't believe that TT will pay over $5 Million$ for Steven Jackson or he's be signed by now.

I'm curious about how we feel as a forum on a possible extention to BJ Raji. We'll likely agree on the value to the team for Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews; but where does this forum stand on BJ Raji?

PACKERS !

I agree about Jackson. I think he would be a real good addition to the team, but I don't think they are considering anything close to $5 M, and if that is what it would take to get him, I won't be disappointed that he isn't signed.

But, then I ask myself, "Who would help more in 2013, Jackson or Finley?" I can convince myself that it is Jackson. Paying Jackson $5M would bother me less than paying Finley $8+M. If cutting Finley could allow them to sign both Jackson and Jennings, I would be all for it.

As for Raji....He isn't the stud I hoped for, mostly because he doesn't have the consistency I would like to see. I don't think they will be able to pay him as much as someone else will be willing to, and he might actually be a better fit somewhere else. I suspect he will be one of those good young players that they would like to keep, but it won't be in the cards to do so.

[denverYooper]

I think M3 has come to the conclusion that he can't keep Rodgers healthy and upright like 2011 with an O line in transition and largely ignoring the run game. By that I mean currently unsettled LT, Center to a smaller degree and injuries to LG and RT. All the answers might be on the roster or they may need to be drafted. If Sherrod and Bulaga were healthy, I am not sure they aren't looking more to Finley and Jennings rather than one of those and Jackson.

So if you are M3 and T2 and you think you need a year, two, maybe three to finalize the O line, then Jackson makes more sense short term.

I don't think its the only reason, Wilde has covered how the front office has coveted this guy for a while. But that might explain why NOW its worth waiting.

Plus the fact that this is actually helping in the Jennings and Finley negotiations. Usually, time is their enemy as their offers get surpassed.

I keep coming back to this idea and I like it quite a bit. Signing Jackson is as much about improving pass pro as it is about getting a top-tier (even if possibly declining) running back.

Part of me wonders if Rodgers is involved in the negotiations, just in terms of what he might be willing to do in his upcoming contract to accommodate signing Jackson.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I think signing Jackson also would help the mentality of the offense. It would show more than just the lip service that a running game has importance here that MM gives. Yes I know we run the ball but we all know there's no teeth to that attack and the opposing defenses know that too. SJ gives it that teeth.

Perhaps the OL starts blocking a bit better knowing they have a very good (albeit aged) RB behind them and they can take a bit more pride and effort into run blocking.

Just a thought.

[3irty1]

I keep going back and forth on Jackson.

I feel like we could load up on receiving options and try to make it rain again like in 2011 but I'd rather address the bottleneck at RB and get an offense that is 85% as effective for 75% of the price tag. You know, account for diminishing returns and shit.

I also think Jackson is kind of in a spot like Woodson--someone needs to tell him to fuck himself and take 3M.

[woodbuck27]

I think signing Jackson also would help the mentality of the offense. It would show more than just the lip service that a running game has importance here that MM gives. Yes I know we run the ball but we all know there's no teeth to that attack and the opposing defenses know that too. SJ gives it that teeth.

Perhaps the OL starts blocking a bit better knowing they have a very good (albeit aged) RB behind them and they can take a bit more pride and effort into run blocking.

Just a thought.

I totally agree with your thoughts.

[Packers4Glory]

I think signing Jackson also would help the mentality of the offense. It would show more than just the lip service that a running game has importance here that MM gives. Yes I know we run the ball but we all know there's no teeth to that attack and the opposing defenses know that too. SJ gives it that teeth.

Perhaps the OL starts blocking a bit better knowing they have a very good (albeit aged) RB behind them and they can take a bit more pride and effort into run blocking.

Just a thought. signing Benson didn't. A guy who just came off 3 straight 1000 yard seasons..some of which were on bad teams.

The offense would have been better off going after a Reggie Bush who is a good pass catcher out of the backfield. That's the type of backs they need to be looking for in this system. Not Jackson.

They don't need a 3 down back, but they need to find a short yardage guy who can pick up a 3rd and 1. That's what they are missing. I saw enough of Harris to like how he runs in this offense. 1 cut and go. They need to find a bruiser now.

[woodbuck27]

I keep going back and forth on Jackson.

I feel like we could load up on receiving options and try to make it rain again like in 2011 but I'd rather address the bottleneck at RB and get an offense that is 85% as effective for 75% of the price tag. You know, account for diminishing returns and shit.

I also think Jackson is kind of in a spot like Woodson--someone needs to tell him to fuck himself and take 3M.

I'b be surprized if TT signed Stephen Jackson for that low a figure. I'm thinking that about $4 - 4.5 million$ might do it.

[denverYooper]

I'm thinking they'll announce at 1:59 pm, CST and the figures will come out to be $3.14159m per.

[swede]

I'm thinking they'll announce at 1:59 pm, CST and the figures will come out to be $3.14159m per.
He just wants a piece of the pi.

[QBME]

He just wants a piece of the pi.

But that's the whole pi.

[denverYooper]

But that's the whole pi.

That's circular reasoning.

[King Friday]

A. Thompson probably isn't going to spend much more than $3M/year on Jackson. He can't. We have to resign the Bloodline this year...which will likely result in an additional $10M+ against the cap in 2013. That eats up a large portion of the $17M or so we have available. I can't see Thompson wanting to eliminate over half of what he has remaining on a 30 year old RB. So, it might take a few days before Jackson signs with us...because he is going to TRY to get more elsewhere.

B. I like the potential addition. Even at an advanced age, Jackson is the kind of guy you need to pick up 3rd-and-short...which has been a huge weakness on this team lately. He is a well-rounded back who can help in all aspects of the game...as a receiver, blocker and runner. He is a guy who will likely be rejuvinated by finding himself on a winning team with some prime-time games. He potentially could be a real asset come December/January in Green Bay. To me, he is Wes Welker at RB. He doesn't make a ton of big plays, but he moves the chains. Getting him at $3M a year would be a nice steal IMO...just as $6M for Welker was a nice steal for Denver.

[Cheesehead Craig]

That's circular reasoning.

You'll come around to it though.

[pbmax]

There are RBs who are effective into their early 30's, with 11 or 12 year careers. Don't know if Jackson can be one of those infrequent ones or not, but Ahman Green had recurring leg problems almost from the start, and each time seemed to be progressively worse. I think Jackson has been pretty healthy through out his career.

He doesn't turn 30 until later this summer, so a three year stint would have him playing at 30, 31 and 32. Emmitt Smith gained almost 6,000 yards from the season in which he was 30 until he retired. He played 6 seasons, 3 with over 1,000 and 2 with over 900. Franco Harris played 4 effective seasons after 30 for nearly 3400 yards. Payton played 4 seasons for 5,000 yards. Curtis Martin played 3 for 3,800 yards. There are a fair number who were still pretty good RBs at 30 and 31, a lot fewer at 32 or later.

Realistically, the Packers want him to be darned good yet in 2013. Anything after that would be a bonus. I suspect a contract will be structured so as not to be crippling whenever the wheels eventually come off.

Jackson has been continuously what people hoped Benson would be, but that he was only a few seasons. I wasn't excited at all about Benson coming to GB, he had too many disappointing seasons for various reasons, and 2012 was just another. Jackson is a lot more interesting to me.

Having a guy like Jackson, a threat both running and receiving, adds a whole new dimension to this offense. It would keep defenses more "honest" and open up the passing game even more than Benson would have, because Benson had no reputation as a receiver.

If it costs them Finley, I'm OK with that; especially if they find a way to keep Jennings.

Eddie George went a long time being physically dominant and then fell off a cliff, though I cannot recall when that was. He was also heavily used and was in the playoffs quite a bit.

If there is uncertainty about Jackson being effective at 32, then much of this depends on protection. If his last year is not guaranteed or necessary to avoid dead money, I could see the Packers paying a premium for two years and having an escape in year 3.

[denverYooper]

But that's the whole pi.

Nah, it's just a rational approximation.

[woodbuck27]

A. Thompson probably isn't going to spend much more than $3M/year on Jackson. He can't. We have to resign the Bloodline this year...which will likely result in an additional $10M+ against the cap in 2013. That eats up a large portion of the $17M or so we have available. I can't see Thompson wanting to eliminate over half of what he has remaining on a 30 year old RB. So, it might take a few days before Jackson signs with us...because he is going to TRY to get more elsewhere.

B. I like the potential addition. Even at an advanced age, Jackson is the kind of guy you need to pick up 3rd-and-short...which has been a huge weakness on this team lately. He is a well-rounded back who can help in all aspects of the game...as a receiver, blocker and runner. He is a guy who will likely be rejuvinated by finding himself on a winning team with some prime-time games. He potentially could be a real asset come December/January in Green Bay. To me, he is Wes Welker at RB. He doesn't make a ton of big plays, but he moves the chains. Getting him at $3M a year would be a nice steal IMO...just as $6M for Welker was a nice steal for Denver.

Good post but I believe that TT will have to sweeten the pot more than $3 Million$ to make Steven Jackson a Green Bay Packer.

[King Friday]

Eddie George went a long time being physically dominant and then fell off a cliff, though I cannot recall when that was. He was also heavily used and was in the playoffs quite a bit.

George wasn't quite as big as Jackson, was he? George also took heavy punishment in college at Ohio State, where he was just as much a workhorse as he was in the NFL. I don't think Jackson had the same wear and tear on him already coming out of college.

I think Jackson can be a very good RB for another 2 years...playing on a playoff contender for a change will probably be enough to carry him through at least 1 year alone, if not 2.

[QBME]

Nah, it's just a rational approximation.

Fine. Point conceded, other wise it could go on forever....

[Zool]

George wasn't quite as big as Jackson, was he? George also took heavy punishment in college at Ohio State, where he was just as much a workhorse as he was in the NFL. I don't think Jackson had the same wear and tear on him already coming out of college.

I think Jackson can be a very good RB for another 2 years...playing on a playoff contender for a change will probably be enough to carry him through at least 1 year alone, if not 2.

Had to look it up after you asked

Wikipedia on Steven Jackson

"In 36 games, he carried 743 times for 3,625 yards for a 4.9-yard average and 39 touchdowns while adding 680 yards and 6 touchdowns on 66 catches and 240 yards with a touchdown on 7 kickoff returns. His 4,545 all-purpose yards rank second in school history, while he ranks third on the school’s all-time scoring list with 276 points."

Wikipedia on Eddie George - data isnt nicely formatted like Jackson's data was

"George had over 600 rushing attempts"
"George left Ohio State second in school history in career rushing yards (3,768) and third in rushing touchdowns (44). Overall, he finished with 4,284 all-purpose yards, 45 touchdowns, and a 5.5 yards per carry average."

[denverYooper]

Fine. Point conceded, other wise it could go on forever....

For real.

[woodbuck27]

While surfing the web and checking on Steven Jackson's FA status. I came upon this and please don't get excited.

News should be 'REAL NEWS' with Pic's ie Ted Thompson smiling and standing beside Stephen Jackson smiling, sometime soon.

We're aware that the RC Church signs more popes than Ted Thompson signs 'impact' free agents, but has Stephen Jackson been sighted in Atlanta?

Never the less, for what it's worth and that's nothing official. There are rumblings (treat it as a rumour) that Dan Patrick reported that the PACKERS signed Stephen Jackson to a 3-year deal (no mention of money) on Green and Gold today on ESPN Milwuakee.

GO PACK GO!

[denverYooper]

While surfing the web and checking on Steven Jackson's FA status. I came upon this and please don't get excited one way or the other. News should be 'REAL NEWS' with Pic's ie Ted Thompson smiling and standing beside Stephen Jackson smiling sometime soon.

We're aware that the RC Church signs more popes than Ted Thompson signs 'impact' free agents, but has Stephen Jackson been sighted in Atlanta?

Never the less:

For what it's worth and that's nothing official. There are rumblings that Dan Patrick reported that the PACKERS signed Stephen Jackson to a 3-year deal (no mention of money) on Green and Gold today on ESPN Milwuakee.

GO PACK GO!

I've heard this as well, but I doubt it because I haven't seen anything from Wilde lately.

[woodbuck27]

I've heard this as well, but I doubt it because I haven't seen anything from Wilde lately.

You know TT. He might have it in place with SJ to go on the QT until after the draft.

Ted 'Thricky Teddy' Thompson.

[woodbuck27]

http://nflsoup.com/2013-nfl-free-agency-rumors-steven-jackson-to-packers-a-reality/

2013 NFL Free Agency Rumors: Steven Jackson to Packers a Reality?

Posted: 10:55 am, March 14, 2013 by Kevin Roberts

" Green Bay has not had a running back threat since Ryan Grant busted out years ago. Adding a guy like Jackson in the backfield would only complement the pass heavy attack and make opposing defenses have to respect the run more. An extra step to guys like Randall Cobb, Jordy Nelson and James Jones is like a half-mile head start in any race.

The only question surrounding Jackson has been his health. He’s taken quite a beating while in St. Louis and he’s been labeled somewhat of a risk at this point in his career. However, Jackson has been very durable for the most part and it’s hard to imagine that he’d take similar punishment in Green Bay. The reward is truly greater than the risk for Green bay. And Jackson gets a chance to play for a true contender.

The two are a perfect match and I think a deal is done very shortly." Fr. LINK

GO PACKERS !

[run pMc]

Adam Schefter ✔ @AdamSchefter
Another free-agent jolt: Rams free-agent RB Steven Jackson has reached agreement with the Atlanta Falcons.

ALso, Sean Smith to the Chiefs.

Sorry...I should put this in the FA thread.

[red]

shit

i want to see the numbers

[denverYooper]

Welp.

[denverYooper]

i want to see the numbers

This

[woodbuck27]

This

We're interested in seeing the contract numbers.

I never get here but just this one time.

F U C K !!!!!!!!!!!

[Teamcheez1]

Disappointed, yes, but there are a lot of risks in signing Jackson even though he has been healthy his whole career.

I can live with this either way.

[woodbuck27]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000150844/article/steven-jackson-atlanta-falcons-agree-to-contract

Steven Jackson, Atlanta Falcons agree to contract

By Dan Hanzus ... Around the League Writer

Published: March 14, 2013 at 04:21 p.m. Updated: March 14, 2013 at 04:48 p.m

" ESPN's Adam Schefter had the first report, and the Falcons later announced that Jackson has agreed to a three-year contract.

Jackson, 29, spent the first nine seasons of his career with the St. Louis Rams, racking up 10,135 yards and 56 rushing touchdowns as one of the NFL's premier rushers. Jackson asked for and was given the ability to void his contract with the Rams with the goal of catching on with a contender in a featured role.

Jackson consistently was linked to the Green Bay Packers this week, but the Packers suspected all along that Jackson's reps only were using Green Bay to drive up his price with the Falcons.

Now, Jackson joins a veritable All-Star team in Atlanta. The Falcons' offense was dangerous last season with quarterback Matt Ryan, wide receivers Julio Jones and Roddy White and tight end Tony Gonzalez. If Jackson plays to his reputation, there is no ceiling." Fr. LINK

[Badgerinmaine]

Astonishing how all the news on this totally turned around in the last 12 hours. Very depressing. The running back pieces they have now are too unreliable or too one-dimensional to be counted on.

[Smeefers]

Shit, I was really starting to get excited that we really might get him. That would of been nice. All my hedging about him coming doesn't mean a damn. I'm still really disappointed.

[Badgerinmaine]

shit

i want to see the numbers
Don't have numbers yet, but CBS reports it is a three-year deal. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/21877782/falcons-agree-to-terms-with-rb-steven-jackson

[Badgerinmaine]

Falcons say "terms were not disclosed" http://www.atlantafalcons.com/news/article-1/Falcons-Land-Steven-Jackson/27d95c49-0bdc-4972-a792-0b3ebb9229a7

[pittstang5]

A little disappointed, but, say we sign no one, at least no one big. They (Packers) better be working on resigning Rodgers and Mathews.

[Badgerinmaine]

I have no doubt they are, and they need a lot of dough for both.

[Badgerinmaine]

Blog post on other possible alternatives. How about Ahmad Bradshaw? http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2013/3/14/4105244/2013-nfl-free-agency-packers-rb-strategy-after-the-steven-jackson (http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2013/3/14/4105244/2013-nfl-free-agency-packers-rb-strategy-after-the-steven-jackson)

[Brandon494]

I would have liked to have Jackson but not really that concerned being RB is the easiest position to fill in the NFL. I'm more concerned with us not going after any defensive players.

[red]

I would have liked to have Jackson but not really that concerned being RB is the easiest position to fill in the NFL. I'm more concerned with us not going after any defensive players.

true it is one of the easiest positions to fill

but its been one of the hardest for us to fill over the years

[Rutnstrut]

Well super Ted fucks up again, but I'm sure it will all be fine because Rodgers is the QB.

[The Shadow]

Would have been nice, but no big deal.
I'd rather we found a way to keep Jennings.

[Brandon494]

true it is one of the easiest positions to fill

but its been one of the hardest for us to fill over the years

True, this draft class has some nice RB prospects so hopefully TT will pick the right guy this time around.

[woodbuck27]

Steven Jackson in Green Bay was IMO the glamour signing at RB in Free Agency. We didn't get him. Atlanta fans are likely estatic and I'm envious. I feel we deserved something to cheer about.

It's early in Free Agency. I remain 'somewhat hopeful' that Ted Thompson will make a move to make us cheer.

Sorry if that post doesn't seem over exuberant. In regards to Ted Thompson and Free Agency. I'm a realist and don't expect much.

[woodbuck27]

Blog post on other possible alternatives. How about Ahmad Bradshaw? http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2013/3/14/4105244/2013-nfl-free-agency-packers-rb-strategy-after-the-steven-jackson (http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2013/3/14/4105244/2013-nfl-free-agency-packers-rb-strategy-after-the-steven-jackson)

I'll pretend that TT acts like this:

Let me see that list.

[denverYooper]

You won't feel so bad when Green Bay steamrolls Atlanta in the playoffs next year.

[packrulz]

D. Orlando Ledbetter of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has provided the details of Steven Jackson's new three-year contract in Atlanta. The report states that "his deal with the Falcons is for $12 million with $4 million guaranteed."

Seriously, Jackson is great but he does have a lot of miles on him. Montee Ball would be fine with me!

[denverYooper]

D. Orlando Ledbetter of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has provided the details of Steven Jackson's new three-year contract in Atlanta. The report states that "his deal with the Falcons is for $12 million with $4 million guaranteed."

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/football/falcons-agree-to-3-year-deal-with-steven-jackson/nWr6Q/

[denverYooper]

I wouldn't be surprised to find out GB was offering closer to 3 mil per.

[red]

D. Orlando Ledbetter of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has provided the details of Steven Jackson's new three-year contract in Atlanta. The report states that "his deal with the Falcons is for $12 million with $4 million guaranteed."

nailed it

shitty that TT couldn't do that, little amount for that talent

not only do we not get him, which i can learn to live with, but he went to a team that is between us and the superbowl and made them better

while we have gotten worse this offseason, or stayed the same at best, so far

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I wanted them to sign Jackson, but on not over disappointed they didn’t. Lets face it, the guy is a 30 yr old back. He would have to beat the odds to be productive going forward.

[MJZiggy]

That's circular reasoning.
I like it and the flavor of the evening to celebrate will be chocolate cheesecake pie. If you've never had it, it's because you haven't visited. Now where were we? Oh. Dammit! I wanted a runner that could free up the passing game a little. Who else is out there?

[pbmax]

We should rename this thread "Steven Jackson Wants Falcons "AT HIS PRICE" and he got it. And them. I would have signed that deal, not going to lie.

But as someone said on the radio today, the beat writer for the Rams had Jackson pegged for the Falcons before the Combine ended. Eugene just had to give them a little shove with the Packers offer.

[Badgerinmaine]

I like it and the flavor of the evening to celebrate will be chocolate cheesecake pie. If you've never had it, it's because you haven't visited. Now where were we? Oh. Dammit! I wanted a runner that could free up the passing game a little. Who else is out there?

I posted this earlier but here you go again: http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2013/3/14/4105244/2013-nfl-free-agency-packers-rb-strategy-after-the-steven-jackson
Only change from teh list: New England just signed Leon Washington, who is best known as a returner: http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/56301/patriots-sign-returner-leon-washington

[Badgerinmaine]

Here is a set of rankings for RBs in the draft. http://www.sbnation.com/nfl-mock-draft/2013/3/5/4065498/2013-nfl-draft-running-back-rankings

[hoosier]

Astonishing how all the news on this totally turned around in the last 12 hours. Very depressing. The running back pieces they have now are too unreliable or too one-dimensional to be counted on.

I'm not saying it's not disappointing, but is the RB situation considerably worse than it was back in 2010?

[MJZiggy]

I posted this earlier but here you go again: http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2013/3/14/4105244/2013-nfl-free-agency-packers-rb-strategy-after-the-steven-jackson
Only change from teh list: New England just signed Leon Washington, who is best known as a returner: http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/56301/patriots-sign-returner-leon-washington
Thank you, dear.

[King Friday]

I'm not saying it's not disappointing, but is the RB situation considerably worse than it was back in 2010?

Perhaps not...but I think our OL and receiver position is probably weaker. Staying the same at RB is not a good option IMO.

[Guiness]

I don't know what to think of this.

3yrs $12M seems like a good price for Jackson. Teams have learned, and the market was predictably soft for an over 30yr old RB. He gained over 1K yards rushing last year, but has over 10K for his career...30+ and 10K yards, not a good combination.

Still, I can't help but think it would have been worth a chance. $4million guaranteed? Sounds like it could essentially be a 1yr $4million contract, and I think that would have been worth the chance that he had another year left in him. If TT didn't want to pay that, I wonder what 'their price' was?

[woodbuck27]

We're interested in seeing the contract numbers.

I never get here but just this one time.

F U C K !!!!!!!!!!!

Rhymes with DUCK...rhymes with BUCK...rhymes with...

http://www.ajc.com/news/sports/football/falcons-agree-to-3-year-deal-with-steven-jackson/nWr6Q/

Wasn't he expensive. 3 years and $12 million$ with $4 million$ guranteed.

Place it in the Green Bay Packer 'close but no cigar' file.

[woodbuck27]

nailed it

shitty that TT couldn't do that, little amount for that talent

not only do we not get him, which i can learn to live with, but he went to a team that is between us and the superbowl and made them better

while we have gotten worse this offseason, or stayed the same at best, so far

Sadly so many Packer fans just can't even imagine any truth in your view red.

I've hoped for Steven Jackson for so long and it doesn't make it any easier knowing that wouldn't get done. No way was that going to get done.

[HarveyWallbangers]

For $4M/year, I would have done it. Not sure I would have gone more, and perhaps they would have had to. Rumors are that Jackson wanted to go to Atlanta, but was using Green Bay. Leave it to Vic on packers.com to sum it up nicely:


Q: If the Packers sign Steven Jackson, do you think that will quell some fans’ desire for a big-name free agent?
Vic: Yes, I do. There was great relief in my inbox last year when the Packers signed Jeff Saturday.

[Joemailman]

I wouldn't be surprised to find out GB was offering closer to 3 mil per.

I wouldn't be surprised if TT offered him 4 mil per year, and the Falcons were able to get him by just matching what the Packers offered.

[Fritz]

I think Jackson used the Packers to get what he wanted - a Falcons uni.

[Bretsky]

nailed it

shitty that TT couldn't do that, little amount for that talent

not only do we not get him, which i can learn to live with, but he went to a team that is between us and the superbowl and made them better

while we have gotten worse this offseason, or stayed the same at best, so far

When I saw how optimistic you were on Jackson....I thought....I shit.....Red is sniffing green during free agency....bad omen

Here was my take

Fool me once.....BEAST MODE.........shame on me
Fool me twice....GONZO................shame on you
Fool me three times....not going to happen................GB won't close this deal

[Bretsky]

If Ted Thompson were a college student over the last four years, and he was taking four .....all for four credits.....as many of us did....his grades

Mastery of the NFL Draft---A--Clearly the class he spends much of his time on and has the most interest in
Assembling a Staff ----A--Proves himself to be a solid leader able to make key decisions about an organization
Internal Player Decisions---A- Proves himself to be very competent in structuring his team and making key talent and pay structuring decisions to keep the talent there
Advanced Free Agency---Incomplete-Turns to C Minus at the end---- This is the class he cuts at the beginning to go off and spend more time on his interests of the other courses. He often attends the last month just to skate by with a passing grade but he sits in the back corner rarely participating

[pittstang5]

I think Jackson used the Packers to get what he wanted - a Falcons uni.

That's what it's starting to feel like. This seems to be a frequent thing. We should be used to this.

[3irty1]

4M is too much for Jackson IMO.

[pbmax]

Advanced Free Agency---Incomplete-Turns to C Minus at the end---- This is the class he cuts at the beginning to go off and spend more time on his interests of the other courses. He often attends the last month just to skate by with a passing grade but he sits in the back corner rarely participating

I know what you are getting at. But when he has spent FA money, he has gotten a decent return and ever resigned two of those guys again. And both guys were signed despite some un-Ted specifications. Wood was asking for the moon with no market to back him up. Pickett had two teams bidding for him.

Right or wrong, he goes into it with clear idea of value and need and doesn't move off it unless he feels he must. He has been right more often than wrong. Lynch and Gonzalez might have been misses even by Ted's standards.

[Badgerinmaine]

I think Jackson used the Packers to get what he wanted - a Falcons uni.
Probably, and that's part of the game. I can't really blame him for it. Tom Silverstein's column today in the Journal Sentinel made some good arguments why Atlanta would be attractive to Jackson. One good point he made: He's never had to be a cold weather outdoors back, and he's going from one dome team to a much better dome team.

[pbmax]

I know what you are getting at. But when he has spent FA money, he has gotten a decent return and ever resigned two of those guys again. And both guys were signed despite some un-Ted specifications. Wood was asking for the moon with no market to back him up. Pickett had two teams bidding for him.

Right or wrong, he goes into it with clear idea of value and need and doesn't move off it unless he feels he must. He has been right more often than wrong. Lynch and Gonzalez might have been misses even by Ted's standards.

Though its hard to argue them after winning a Super Bowl without them. :D

[3irty1]

Though its hard to argue them after winning a Super Bowl without them. :D

Not only did we win a superbowl without them, missing out on Lynch might be the reason we won the superbowl as he went to Seattle instead where he singlehandedly knocked off the Saints. Had Lynch not been able to disrupt the natural order of things, the perennial playoff laughing stock Bears would likely have been obliterated by the Saints as they were by us. This would have led to the Saints playing us in the NFCC instead and could have prevented us from making it to the superbowl.

Ted's not just a good GM. He's a timelord.

[Smeefers]

I wish I was a timelord.

[woodbuck27]

I know what you are getting at. But when he has spent FA money, he has gotten a decent return and ever resigned two of those guys again. And both guys were signed despite some un-Ted specifications. Wood was asking for the moon with no market to back him up. Pickett had two teams bidding for him.

Right or wrong, he goes into it with clear idea of value and need and doesn't move off it unless he feels he must. He has been right more often than wrong. Lynch and Gonzalez might have been misses even by Ted's standards.

While we're discussing Ted Thompson and miss's in free agency. I believe time will prove that Ted Thompson has made a sure miss on FA RB Steven Jackson. I'm positioning myself right there because we have proof that Steven Jackson was affordable. Ted Thompson could have easily accomodated his price.

This is my 'only defense' of Ted Thompson.

We have to wait for a clearer picture of why SJ is not a Green Bay Packer. We can spin various reasons why that isn't so when the TRUTH must come from Steven Jackson. Ultimately the 'free agent' decides his destination based on what's best for him. The money on the table is a powerful incentive in regards to a choice.

In any manner of looking at this:

We'll never be able to appreciate just how much, having Steven Jackson, as a Green Bay Packer, would have improved the chemistry and offense on our team. How often have we seen an opportunity of getting a power RB who can receive and block like Steven Jackson come along? The Green Bay Packers wouldn't have had to commit to him for a long time.

Right now...not getting Steven Jackson sucks. That man would have gone a long ways towords greater protection for the best asset on the Green Bay Packers...Aaron Rodgers.

Right now... seeing Stephen Jackson go to Atlanta sucks X times two.

Atlanta has improved it's position for the 2013 season 'offensively', re-signing Tony Gonzalez and signing Steven Jackson. Today the Atlanta Falcons are a better team than they were before acquiring Steven Jackson. Today the Atlanta Falcons and Falcon fans believe that next season they will give the San Fran 49ers a real run to get to the Super Bowl.

Here's a simple question for y'all; a final line.

Is having Steven Jackson in Atlanta a really good thing for us? Did we improve by missing out on Steven Jackson?

What will Ted Thompson do to counter the moves we are seeing Atlanta and San Francisco and Seattle making so far in Free Agency? Many of you want to make Ted Thompson's attitude and Free Agency about retaining his own. As noble as that may seem. I believe he can do more. It's simply a matter of 'cutting the deadwood', now not later, to get that and more done.

GO PACK GO !

[Pugger]

Well super Ted fucks up again, but I'm sure it will all be fine because Rodgers is the QB.

There is more than a decent chance that Jackson wanted to play for Atlanta all along and his agent used us to sweeten the deal. I suspect SJ wanted to continue to play his home games in a dome rather than outside like he would here.

[Pugger]

While we're discussing Ted Thompson and miss's in free agency. I believe time will prove that Ted Thompson has made a sure miss on FA RB Steven Jackson. I'm positioning myself right there because we have proof that Steven Jackson was affordable. Ted Thompson could have easily accomodated his price.

This is my 'only defense' of Ted Thompson.

We have to wait for a clearer picture of why SJ is not a Green Bay Packer. We can spin various reasons why that isn't so when the TRUTH must come from Steven Jackson. Ultimately the 'free agent' decides his destination based on what's best for him. The money on the table is a powerful incentive in regards to a choice.

In any manner of looking at this:

We'll never be able to appreciate just how much, having Steven Jackson, as a Green Bay Packer, would have improved the chemistry and offense on our team. How often have we seen an opportunity of getting a power RB who can receive and block like Steven Jackson come along? The Green Bay Packers wouldn't have had to commit to him for a long time.

Right now...not getting Steven Jackson sucks. That man would have gone a long ways towords greater protection for the best asset on the Green Bay Packers...Aaron Rodgers.

Right now... seeing Stephen Jackson go to Atlanta sucks X times two.

Atlanta has improved it's position for the 2013 season 'offensively', re-signing Tony Gonzalez and signing Steven Jackson. Today the Atlanta Falcons are a better team than they were before acquiring Steven Jackson. Today the Atlanta Falcons and Falcon fans believe that next season they will give the San Fran 49ers a real run to get to the Super Bowl.

Here's a simple question for y'all; a final line.

Is having Steven Jackson in Atlanta a really good thing for us? Did we improve by missing out on Steven Jackson?

What will Ted Thompson do to counter the moves we are seeing Atlanta and San Francisco and Seattle making so far in Free Agency? Many of you want to make Ted Thompson's attitude and Free Agency about retaining his own. As noble as that may seem. I believe he can do more. It's simply a matter of 'cutting the deadwood', now not later, to get that and more done.

GO PACK GO !

If the FREE AGENT doesn't want to play for you for whatever reason that isn't the fault of the GM. Jackson wanted to play indoors. What I find rather incredible is Atlanta going for another aging RB after they saw Turner's ability go south.

[Joemailman]

What will Ted Thompson do to counter the moves we are seeing Atlanta and San Francisco and Seattle making so far in Free Agency?

GO PACK GO !

Oh, I don't know. Probably the same thing he did a couple of years ago to counter the moves made by the Philadelphia Eagles. Which is to say he will continue to build the team his way and not worry much about the moves made by other teams. Teams, by the way, who have never won a Super Bowl, or haven't won one in recent memory.

[Rutnstrut]

Well if TT hadn't fucked up on getting Lynch we would not even be having this discussion. The bottom line is if super Ted can't do it his way, he says fuck it.

[Rutnstrut]

Oh, I don't know. Probably the same thing he did a couple of years ago to counter the moves made by the Philadelphia Eagles. Which is to say he will continue to build the team his way and not worry much about the moves made by other teams. Teams, by the way, who have never won a Super Bowl, or haven't won one in recent memory.

Hold on to that SB, because the 49ers are going to continue to make GB their bitches. That is if the Packer coaching staff and management continue to stay the course and do nothing.

[denverYooper]

Not only did we win a superbowl without them, missing out on Lynch might be the reason we won the superbowl as he went to Seattle instead where he singlehandedly knocked off the Saints. Had Lynch not been able to disrupt the natural order of things, the perennial playoff laughing stock Bears would likely have been obliterated by the Saints as they were by us. This would have led to the Saints playing us in the NFCC instead and could have prevented us from making it to the superbowl.

Ted's not just a good GM. He's a timelord.

http://www.followingthenerd.com/site/wp-content/uploads/Dalek1.jpg

PLAYMAKERS!

PLAYMAKERS!

EXTERMINATE TT! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!

[woodbuck27]

Oh, I don't know. Probably the same thing he did a couple of years ago to counter the moves made by the Philadelphia Eagles. Which is to say he will continue to build the team his way and not worry much about the moves made by other teams. Teams, by the way, who have never won a Super Bowl, or haven't won one in recent memory.

I'm NOT directing this post directly at you Joemailman:

'Ohh Yee of too much faith.'

The results this season won't have as much to do with anything the Green Bay Packers did in 2010; in any season prior to that. Compared to what the Green Bay Packers do in this off season period. To prepare to be competitive with the top teams.

[KYPack]

Oh, I don't know. Probably the same thing he did a couple of years ago to counter the moves made by the Philadelphia Eagles. Which is to say he will continue to build the team his way and not worry much about the moves made by other teams. Teams, by the way, who have never won a Super Bowl, or haven't won one in recent memory.

Some teams never learn, department...

The Eagles have signed 6 or 7 FA's this off-season.

But, this time it's different ya know?

[Smeefers]

Hold on to that SB, because the 49ers are going to continue to make GB their bitches. That is if the Packer coaching staff and management continue to stay the course and do nothing.

Someone's being a negative Nancy.

[woodbuck27]

Someone's being a negative Nancy.

or....

Expressing some Packer fan concern and/or give us a heads up.

[Zool]

or...

would only be satisfied by an 19-0 season every year. When it stops becoming fun for you to follow a sports team, it's probably time to re-evaluate.

[woodbuck27]

or...

would only be satisfied by an 19-0 season every year. When it stops becoming fun for you to follow a sports team, it's probably time to re-evaluate.

I trust your not directing that at me. If you are it certainly doesn't apply.

I'm simply a Green Bay Packer fan that makes observations and when I feel it's appropriate...express concern.

I respect that Rutnstrut has that same right.

[denverYooper]

Someone's being a negative Nancy.

Last time I checked, San Fran hasn't won the superbowl since 1995.

[woodbuck27]

Last time I checked, San Fran hasn't won the superbowl since 1995.

The Chicago Bears are a stronger franchise than the Green Bay Packers because they've won more NFL Championships.

Is that statement true or mere conjecture?

We're as Packerrats today.... discussing today, and that every day. How that days news may impact tomorrows news in the NFL and the Green Bay Packers.

[red]

TT is not worth shit finding RB's in the draft, he's had chances in free agency to pick up guys that are actually NFL caliber RB's but he was wiffed at closing the deal

honestly, 4 million a year for a guy that gives you a whole new dimension on offense, a dimension we are sorely lacking, is almost nothing

he wanted to come here, we NEEDED him, and TT nickle and dimed him until we lost him. IMO

[woodbuck27]

TT is not worth shit finding RB's in the draft, he's had chances in free agency to pick up guys that are actually NFL caliber RB's but he was wiffed at closing the deal

honestly, 4 million a year for a guy that gives you a whole new dimension on offense, a dimension we are sorely lacking, is almost nothing

he wanted to come here, we NEEDED him, and TT nickle and dimed him until we lost him. IMO

I'd like to determine what TT made to Steven Jackson as his bottom line.

The fact that we have a TE (Jermichael Finley) and a CB (Tramone Williams) on the books for over twice what Steven Jackson will make in Atlanta really bugs me.

[Teamcheez1]

I think you guys are valuing SJ way more than he is worth. He could have helped this team, but 30 other teams didn't even take a sniff at him.

[Iron Mike]

The Chicago Bears are a stronger franchise than the Green Bay Packers because they've won more NFL Championships.


On what planet is 9 more than 13????

[red]

I think you guys are valuing SJ way more than he is worth. He could have helped this team, but 30 other teams didn't even take a sniff at him.

maybe 30 other teams have better running backs then we have?

[woodbuck27]

On what planet is 9 more than 13????

Right you are, my mistake. Green Bay has won 13 NFL Championships to the Chicago Bears 9.

I mixed up NFL Championships with HOFers.

[Bretsky]

I would have given Jackson four mil/year. But I'd have him in GB and let him know if he leaves w/o a deal we are withdrawing the offer and that may somehow get leaked. It seems like GB gets used a bit too much.

As is, I doubt we'll even know what occured. I just didn't have any faith that we'd close on this from the start

[Pugger]

Come on guys!! Let's be real here. Jackson wanted to play indoors in Atlanta. Unless TT offered him the moon - which thankfully he didn't - Jackson had no desire to come to GB. And frankly I'm glad. Jackson would have been just a stop-gap answer to our running situation. I'd prefer TT to try to find a younger back that will be around for more than 2 years.

[pbmax]

I would have given Jackson four mil/year. But I'd have him in GB and let him know if he leaves w/o a deal we are withdrawing the offer and that may somehow get leaked. It seems like GB gets used a bit too much.

As is, I doubt we'll even know what occured. I just didn't have any faith that we'd close on this from the start

You have to get them there to do that. And has been reported before, the agents don't like to visit if they don't know what the offer will be beforehand. If he visits the Pack and does not sign, he loses his leverage. Don't visit and keep feeding bogus info to Clayton an Schefter gets you where you want to be.

[Joemailman]

I'm thinking that it's quite possible 4 mil per year is what the Packers offered Jackson. Jackson, preferring to play in Atlanta, gave Atlanta a chance to match the offer, which they did. Of course, the only thing we know for sure is that we'll never know.

[Rutnstrut]

The bottom line is it's TT's job to entice these players to GB and then sign them once they are there. In this aspect of his job he is failing miserably, the teams that are successful in free agency are smooth when it comes to wining and dining prospects. TT and company, not so much. They need to get over themselves and realize not everyone is going to want to come to GB just to play for the "storied Green Bay Packers". They may have to (gasp) actually spend a little money, and smooth talk a bit.

[Joemailman]

The bottom line is it's TT's job to entice these players to GB and then sign them once they are there. In this aspect of his job he is failing miserably, the teams that are successful in free agency are smooth when it comes to wining and dining prospects. TT and company, not so much. They need to get over themselves and realize not everyone is going to want to come to GB just to play for the "storied Green Bay Packers". They may have to (gasp) actually spend a little money, and smooth talk a bit.

And maybe change the weather?

[Patler]

The bottom line is it's TT's job to entice these players to GB and then sign them once they are there.

That definitely is not his job. His job is to put a roster on the field that is the best he can do within the confines of the salary cap, etc. How he chooses to use free agency to do that is completely up to him. He is under no obligation at all to participate in the expensive end of FA.

[Rutnstrut]

Boy some of you not only drink the Kool Aid, but smoke the Packer pot as well.

[KYPack]

Anything you say, Rut.

[George Cumby]

Boy some of you not only drink the Kool Aid, but smoke the Packer pot as well.

I envision Patler as a dignified, older gentleman, kind of Gregory Peck-ish. And the visual of this solemn, thoughtful man taking a bong hit makes me giggle. :grin:

[Patler]

I envision Patler as a dignified, older gentleman, kind of Gregory Peck-ish. And the visual of this solemn, thoughtful man taking a bong hit makes me giggle. :grin:

Ah...the 1960s!

[Pugger]

Boy some of you not only drink the Kool Aid, but smoke the Packer pot as well.

You wanted TT to sign Jackson for more than 4 million? I suspect if TT offered him $4.5M he would have gone running back to the Falcons to see if they'd match that. I sure as hell wouldn't want to get into a bidding war for a 30 year old back with that kind of mileage. He's not that far removed from falling off the cliff as far as production like Michael Turner before him. I'd rather TT spend that money on a couple of players we already have = mainly Rodgers and CM3.

[swede]

I envision Patler as a dignified, older gentleman, kind of Gregory Peck-ish. And the visual of this solemn, thoughtful man taking a bong hit makes me giggle. :grin:

Well at least he didn't embarrass himself by blowing into it.

In my defense, the only prior frame of reference I had was a bubble pipe.

[pbmax]

You wanted TT to sign Jackson for more than 4 million? I suspect if TT offered him $4.5M he would have gone running back to the Falcons to see if they'd match that. I sure as hell wouldn't want to get into a bidding war for a 30 year old back with that kind of mileage. He's not that far removed from falling off the cliff as far as production like Michael Turner before him. I'd rather TT spend that money on a couple of players we already have = mainly Rodgers and CM3.

Not true Pugger, If you are charming enough and a good enough host like Jerry Jones or Jared Allen, you can get players to sign for less. Its never about the money. Its all about hospitality. :D

[red]

Ah...the 1960s!

now i'm picturing patler as donald sutherland from animal house

[Bretsky]

I know what you are getting at. But when he has spent FA money, he has gotten a decent return and ever resigned two of those guys again. And both guys were signed despite some un-Ted specifications. Wood was asking for the moon with no market to back him up. Pickett had two teams bidding for him.

Right or wrong, he goes into it with clear idea of value and need and doesn't move off it unless he feels he must. He has been right more often than wrong. Lynch and Gonzalez might have been misses even by Ted's standards.


Once could also interpret your thoughts as an argument that TT should dip into FA more often because when he has taken a big swing he has succeeded.
I've said many a times it's not about slightly underpaying...or overpaying....it's about making sure you pick the right guy. There are almost always ways to restructure and make the money work if you choose to.

Fifteen years from now, perhaps AROD will have 2-3 more titles and we'll be glorifying the stratgey. Perhaps AROD finishes like Favre with only one title and we all wonder what if TT had taken a few more swings for the home run hitters because we had a MVP caliber QB for many years and never won the big show again.

I am always torn on my views. You guys all know I am intrigued by using a combination of the free agency and the draft to build a team.

I said for years when TT brings GB a title I won't rip him for two years......I did my part....but the window has closed.

In the end I have a wait and see view but I undoubtely don't expect any major moves in Free agency during the month or March anytime soon.

[Pugger]

And he swung and missed on Saturday, Hargrove, Muir and Merling.

[pbmax]

And he swung and missed on Saturday, Hargrove, Muir and Merling.

I am more upset with Klemm and Marquand Manuel the safety. They needed those guys to do something. Merling was a big guy who never delivered on his physical dimensions and didn't even make the roster. It was an extended road test. Muir was exactly who he has always been, still not sure why they didn't keep him unless they thought Worthy or Daniels would be him. Hargrove never had a shot after the Bounty-gate fiasco.

Saturday I put on McCarthy. He explicitly wanted someone to run the no-huddle and by that parameter, they got the lesser player of those available.

[Bretsky]

And he swung and missed on Saturday, Hargrove, Muir and Merling.

I don't even consider these swings. If you are going to poach bargain basement minimal wage guys....there is no loss if they don't cut it.
We spent next to nothing on these guys

[Pugger]

But I still consider Saturday a swing and a miss no matter who wanted him - MM or TT. The guy got progressively worse as the season wore on and was eventually benched. I forgot about Klemm and Manuel. Another gem was O'Dwyer. :-P

[Patler]

Guys like O'Dwyer, Hargrove, Muir, Merling, etc. are not misses in my book. They didn't cost anything. They were simply veterans brought in for extended tryouts. Just camp bodies with more experience than many of the other camp bodies.