Diggs To Carolina

[HarveyWallbangers]

Panthers sign Na'il Diggs from Packers

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) -- The Carolina Panthers added another outside linebacker Thursday, signing free agent Na'il Diggs from the Green Bay Packers to a one-year contract.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Panthers sign Na'il Diggs from Packers

CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) -- The Carolina Panthers added another outside linebacker Thursday, signing free agent Na'il Diggs from the Green Bay Packers to a one-year contract.

Typical of Thompson: letting a good player go only to do nothing to replace him. See Wahle, Mike; Rivera, Marco; Sharper, Darren; Diggs, Na'il; Flanagan, Mike; Sherman, Mike; Bates, Jim.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think Diggs is a pretty good player. I don't put much stock into "injury prone" label. Even if injuries were 100% random, you'd still get players with many more injuries than others.

Well, have to see how he does.

[GrnBay007]

Will the last player left in Green Bay please turn out the lights!!

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Will Favre, Brett be next? Stay turn.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'd be happy if Brett game back to G.B. enthusiastically.

But listen to him! "I don't want to go through another losing season." "Who did we get to replace Wahle & Rivera?"

This talk is definitely hurting the team!! I know he is just being honest. Everybody talks about the great mutual loyalty between Favre & the Packers. Well, in a way, Favre is already gone, or at least he's drifting away. He's putting his own preferences (to play on a winner) ahead of the team (to rebuild a winner.) That's OK! It's just a mutual conflict of interest.

I think Favre is sincere in saying he won't play elsewhere. But if he is confronted with a concrete offer to play at Tampa, say, he will consider it. And I suspect he might change his mind.

[KYPack]

I think Diggs is a pretty good player. I don't put much stock into "injury prone" label. Even if injuries were 100% random, you'd still get players with many more injuries than others.

Well, have to see how he does.

Diggs was a good, smart player. His skills had eroded so he couldn't play at the level he was being paid at. We HAD to cut him, based on salary. Carolina is a good spot. He can be a back-up and play the run on 1st down.

He did surprise me that he was as fast after all the knee trouble last year, but that was the end of the guy.

[mraynrand]

"But listen to him! "I don't want to go through another losing season." "Who did we get to replace Wahle & Rivera?"

This talk is definitely hurting the team!!"

---

On what do you base your claim that Favre's comments are hurting the team? Are the players lifting less weights? Are they suffering more from depression?

Different people (personalities) react in different ways to criticism. Some get worse/go into a shell. Others use it as motivation. According to Aaron Rodgers, when he was interviewed on the NFL network, the attitude of the 50 or so guys working out in GB is the latter - he said they are aware that many are predicting the Packers to be a bad team this year but that they are going to "shock some people" Who knows if he's right, but at least, based on this actual factual evidence, at least SOME Packers are using the dire predictions for the Packer as positive motivation. I'm still waiting for the evidence that Favre's musing about his retirement and the state of the Packers is actually having a negative effect on the team.

[Scott Campbell]

I'd be happy if Brett game back to G.B. enthusiastically.

But listen to him! "I don't want to go through another losing season." "Who did we get to replace Wahle & Rivera?"

This talk is definitely hurting the team!!


Bingo Harlan.

No player should be critical of the GM to the press, not even the once great Brett Favre. But that is exactly what he's doing here. He's cleverly disguising it with fear, uncertainty and doubt, but all these comments add up to not so subtle jabs at Ted Thompson.

I can't imagine anyone writing this script to end his career. Even his most loyal followers couldn't have imagined him doing this.

[mraynrand]

The former GB GM placed a premium on protecting Favre and the new GM did not. I don't see any reason why Favre can't be critical of this. I wish he had come out and stated it more directly. Something like this: " I appreciated that Sherman kept intact the offensive line the entire time he was GM. I liked that he stressed the run game. It took pressure off me and protected me from getting killed in the pocket. Furthermore, Sherman designed roll-outs, etc. that included a lineman moving out to protect me. All this makes sense. When you have an aging QB like me, who is in his 14th year, you would think that making sure I wasn't getting slaughtered behing a makeshift line would be a priority."

Why is it wrong for Favre to criticise TT? Have you ever criticised your boss? Ever wished condidtions were better for you at work? I would imagine anyone who has been highly successful in their job, with leverage because of it, would be much more likely to criticise their boss when he makes a critical error in judgment.

[Harlan Huckleby]

"But listen to him! "I don't want to go through another losing season." "Who did we get to replace Wahle & Rivera?"

This talk is definitely hurting the team!!"

---

On what do you base your claim that Favre's comments are hurting the team?

Bad publicity for attracting free agents. Thompson has to convince free agents that he is building a winner that will be exciting to play on, when the franchise QB is publicly stating that playing on the team will be too miserable to justify him collecting a $10M check.

I can't provide any statistics to prove this, you'll just have to make your own judgement. BTW, how is Thompson doing in attracting free agents this offseason, compared to say, Minnesota?

[Scott Campbell]

Have you ever criticised your boss?


Never in the newspaper or on tv. I'd be fired if I did, and justifiably so. I choose a more constructive and appropriate venue to share my views.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Bad publicity for attracting free agents. Thompson has to convince free agents that he is building a winner that will be exciting to play on, when the franchise QB is publicly stating that playing on the team will be too miserable to justify him collecting a $10M check.

I can't provide any statistics to prove this, you'll just have to make your own judgement. BTW, how is Thompson doing in attracting free agents this offseason, compared to say, Minnesota?

I'm a Favre pimp, but I agree with this whole-heartedly. I don't mind him going back and forth on retirement, sticking up for his good friend Steve McNair, or speaking up against Walker's holdout or for Bubba's "holdout." However, I think he crossed the line with those comments. It totally puts a bad light on the team. It's a defeatist attitude. He has to realize that in today's NFL teams can make a quick turnaround, and not with just big name FAs. You get a handful of lower-tiered FAs that work out, a good draft, look with injuries, win a few games early in the season, and you can do some damage. It's kind of what you get with Brett though. He's one of the more honest people in sports, and he's never afraid to give an honest answer. I wish he would have kept his trapped shut.

[mraynrand]

"Bad publicity for attracting free agents. Thompson has to convince free agents that he is building a winner that will be exciting to play on, when the franchise QB is publicly stating that playing on the team will be too miserable to justify him collecting a $10M check.

I can't provide any statistics to prove this, you'll just have to make your own judgement. BTW, how is Thompson doing in attracting free agents this offseason, compared to say, Minnesota?"

-----

Were GB and Minnesota competeing for the same FAs? I'll buy your argument if I hear a FA say he didn't want to come to GB because of Favre's comments. Favre never stated that it would be "too miserable to justify 10 mil" - that's your extrapolation - setting it up as a money issue. I may be wrong, but It seems as though money isn't the overriding issue for Favre. Here's a fifteen year vet wondering whether he should return to play for a new coach, a new scheme, an obviously rebuilding team with virtually none of his buddies left, and for a GM that isn't placing the same priority on Favre's protection that the last guy did. Maybe the 10 mil isn't figuring into it at all.

Scott Campbell: Obviously the NFL works differently than an average business. I take it you must at some point have disagreed in the open about a policy or decision a boss has made. You don't have to be nasty or meanspirited about it, you just have to voice your own opinion. And I bet no reporters were there to ask you about it.

But I will agree that Favre saying what he did about the offensive line is a challenge to TT. Still, I just think it's Favre answering questions and saying exactly what's on his mind, which is what he always does, sometimes to his own detriment.

[mraynrand]

Harlan:

I think I effectively argued in favor of your point. Maybe Favre is thinking it will be too miserable for him to return for the 10 mil. But it's entirely possible that FAs considering GB ARE placing a greater priority on the money and other things than whether Favre decides to return for one more year or whether he's critical of TT.

[FavreChild]

Completely agree, mraynrand.

This has all played out perfectly for TT. He (wisely, I suppose) has put the onus on Favre by not making any overtures toward Favre to demonstrate that they want him back - whether it be picking up impact players or just reassuring him that he is wanted/needed.

Whether TT *should* make these kind of overtures toward Favre...well, that's another debate.

Joe Panos did a live interview on Milwaukee radio yesterday. When asked what thinks Favre will do, Panos said that his source (a former Packer and 8-10 year teammate/friend of Favre) says Favre's PO'd at the Packers and believes they don't really want him back - they just don't have the guts to waive or trade him.  Favre believes they're forcing him to be the decision maker and they've basically ignored his "wishes" for them to pick up impact players (that's pretty apparent by now). Favre definitely wants to play, but in the words of Panos, "He doesn't have the guts right now to ask to be traded."

Yeah, yeah - what does Joe Panos know?

Take it for what it's worth - probably not that much. I just happen to completely agree.

Whether you think Favre has the "right" to feel that way or not - again, that's another debate. Applying the "real-world" employer/employee model, as mraynrand has done, personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with the way Favre feels.

I've already stated before that I don't understand how it's "selfish" to feel that I don't need to make a bunch of personal sacrifices for "the good of the company." Yes, in my life, *I* am more important than the corporation. But maybe that's just me... :wink:

[Guiness]

The Carolina Panthers added another outside linebacker

Do we even have a second one on our roster?

I wonder what he signed for? If it was much less than he was scheduled to make, I'd have like to keep him - if he'd even sign with us. Remember that he was the one who begged Sherman not to match Detroit's RFA offer.

[Chester Marcol]

Maybe Favre should do a commercial for careerbuilder.com where he is trying to play football with a team of monkeys. Would that be a more subtle hint?

[Harlan Huckleby]

mraynrand,

I guess your name stands for Mr. Ayn Rand. What is that painting in your avatar?

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think Diggs signed for the veteran's minimum, but I'm not sure on that. It was a one year contract, so I'm sure he's looking to prove he can stay healthy.

[Partial]

Packers should have brought him back for veteran minimum and atleast let him compete in training camp.

That is the one thing that chaps my ass about ted thompson. He doesn't bring in cheap players who actually have a chance to produce or atleast push the current players to improve through competition in camp.

[Guiness]

Packers should have brought him back for veteran minimum and atleast let him compete in training camp.

That is the one thing that chaps my ass about ted thompson. He doesn't bring in cheap players who actually have a chance to produce or atleast push the current players to improve through competition in camp.

Maybe the Packers would've if they could've. Like I said, this is the guy who didn't want the Packers to match an offer to him.

[mraynrand]

"mraynrand,

I guess your name stands for Mr. Ayn Rand. What is that painting in your avatar?"

---

it's a painting of Howard Roark

[Harlan Huckleby]

You might be disturbed to learn that Ayn Rand was a woman. Or not.

[Charles Woodson]

You might be disturbed to learn that Ayn Rand was a woman. Or not.

Hmm interesting

[Guiness]

You might be disturbed to learn that Ayn Rand was a woman. Or not.

Not distrubed? Or not a woman?

[mraynrand]

"You might be disturbed to learn that Ayn Rand was a woman. Or not."

You're joking, right? Howard Roark was the Architect in 'The Fountainhead' The name Mraynrand is a twsit on the way women were typically referred to in Rand's time as, for example, Mrs John Smith. I always hated that.

[Scott Campbell]

The name Mraynrand is a twsit on the way women were typically referred to in Rand's time as, for example, Mrs John Smith. I always hated that.


There are no less than 7 Mrs. Scott Campbells that would beg to differ.

[Rastak]

"You might be disturbed to learn that Ayn Rand was a woman. Or not."

You're joking, right? Howard Roark was the Architect in 'The Fountainhead' The name Mraynrand is a twsit on the way women were typically referred to in Rand's time as, for example, Mrs John Smith. I always hated that.


Rand Al' Thor?

:smile:

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm suspicious of Ayn Rand. Check that. I'm suspicious of Ayn Rand followers. Check that. I'm suspicious of all followers of all political ideologies. Ayn Rand's principles can't be applied to the real world any more than Karl Marx's. The real world is messy, full of crack addicts who will break into your car if they aren't dealt with, and schemers who know to bilk any system, and lots of illegal immigrants. All kinds of problems where any ideology fails.

[Charles Woodson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

[Guiness]

Blood and bloody ashes. Dovie'andi se tovya sagain (it is time to toss the dice)

[Rastak]

Blood and bloody ashes. Dovie'andi se tovya sagain (it is time to toss the dice)

It's the dark one's luck Guiness....

[Rastak]

Blood and bloody ashes. Dovie'andi se tovya sagain (it is time to toss the dice)

By the way, I didn't realize you spoke the old tongue....lol...


Say, you aren't one of the forsaken are you?

[mraynrand]

"I'm suspicious of Ayn Rand. Check that. I'm suspicious of Ayn Rand followers. Check that. I'm suspicious of all followers of all political ideologies. Ayn Rand's principles can't be applied to the real world any more than Karl Marx's. The real world is messy, full of crack addicts who will break into your car if they aren't dealt with, and schemers who know to bilk any system, and lots of illegal immigrants. All kinds of problems where any ideology fails."

---

Who said I was a follower of Rand? It's hard to follow someone who is dead. I'm no more a follower of Rand than of Aristotle.

Most abstract philosophers put forth theories for human action that are difficult if impossible to put apply directly to the real world.

One thing that may cause you difficulty is equating political ideology with philosophical systems of epistemology and metaphysics. How people aquire knowledge and discern what is real and what is 'the truth' is of central importance to everyone. That's not political ideology - that's essential to personal philosophy. It may lead to a political philosophy, but political ideology could probably be viewed as an 'offshoot' of epistemology and metaphysics.

As an individual, Rand had plenty of problems and the translation or application of her philosophy into fiction and essays showed her distain for the poor in spirit and for religion of any type. Still, her objectivist philosophy, as describe concisely in John Galt's speech, or spelled out explicitly in several books like "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"
is interesting and somewhat 'novel' - at least it's a more clean and clear presentation of philosophical views she may have shared with other philosophers. I think Rand is an interesting 'leaping off' point for the study of Spinoza, Sellars, Aquinas, and Aristotle - or as a 'foil' to Descarte. (exisistence is primary "I am, therefore I'll think" as opposed to the primacy of consciousness from Descarte "I think, therefore, I am"). It's also fun to compare and contrast Rand with Hume (see Hume's Treatise on Human Nature - I'm convinced Hume, a great writer and philospher, could tie his shoes and subsequently convince himself that he didn't know if they were tied!)

You're right in one sense about absolutism and the similarity (certainly unintended by Rand) between Marxism and Objectivism Specifically, both do a good job at ignoring or at least minimizing the biological realities of humans.

Is Rand a 'second-rate' philosopher? Probably. I'm not a card-carrying philosopher, so I'm not entirely certain. I think your stuffy university types probably don't like her because she doesn't adhere to classic form and because she was a novelist. (I can't say I really enjoy the 'classic form' of Kant, but Hume is certainly a compelling philosophical writer)

Still, what I like most about her work is her belief in the heroic in man (or women), and enjoy her very stark characters, and her dogmatic defense of the individual, in her novels.

That was probably more than you cared to read, but I like to be explicit about why I like Rand, since I'm an admirer but not a dogmatic 'follower.'

[Harlan Huckleby]

Hah!

Since so many people in JSO forum were libertarian, I did asume that you might be political, if not actually training with the Michigan Militia this weekend. You did tie your identity to A.R., which is rather a strong personal statement.

Did not mean to harass you personally about being an ideologue. Thanks for interesting response.

[Patler]

That is the one thing that chaps my ass about ted thompson. He doesn't bring in cheap players who actually have a chance to produce or atleast push the current players to improve through competition in camp.

2005
Donad Lee - $475,000
Samkon Gado - $310,000
Robert Thomas - $724,000

2006
Rod Gardner - $855,000 -
Marc Boerigter - $782,000
Ben Taylor - $665,280
Tracy White - $555,720
Wayne Lucier - $425,000 (don't be surprised if he starts at C/G)
Jon Ryan - $292,000
Rhys Loyd - $275,000
Ryan Flynn - $275,000

[HarveyWallbangers]

Wayne Lucier? He's been in the league for a few years. He stinks. If he's starting, then we'll be hurting worse than I thought. I remember people hyping up Atlas Herrion at this time last year.

[Guiness]

Say, you aren't one of the forsaken are you?

I'm no Darkfriend!
*throws Rastak against the wall*

I'm no Darkfriend!

I'm a card carrying member of the Band of the Red Hand. Los Valdar Cuebiyari!

Yourself? :wink:

[Rastak]

Say, you aren't one of the forsaken are you?

I'm no Darkfriend!
*throws Rastak against the wall*

I'm no Darkfriend!

I'm a card carrying member of the Band of the Red Hand. Los Valdar Cuebiyari!

Yourself? :wink:

LOL, I read book 1-3 10 years ago and got bored silly on book 4 and quit...so recently I started a big home remodeling project and started listening to the series again on a portable mp3 player starting with book 1. I'm on book 7 and having a great time. Great story, Jordan is a very detailed author.


"Burn you Rand, blood and bloody ashes!"


edit: sorry for all of those who have no fricking clue what we are talking about.....I'll stop now!

[retailguy]

Packers should have brought him back for veteran minimum and atleast let him compete in training camp.

That is the one thing that chaps my ass about ted thompson. He doesn't bring in cheap players who actually have a chance to produce or atleast push the current players to improve through competition in camp.

If you were Diggs, WHY would you do that? GB already stated you weren't the guy by waiving you. Why not get a fresh start? If Diggs was willing to take less money in GB he wouldn't have been waived.

It takes two to tango. I'll bet TT was willing, for the right price.

[Joemailman]

When Diggs came back from his injury last year, he wasn't made the starter. Diggs just doesn't have the speed that the Packers want in this defense. Diggs had his best years when playing directly opposite the Tight End. The linebackers don't do that in this defense. They usually start out well off the line of scrimmage. It would have been a waste of money to bring him back.

[Fritz]

I always liked Diggs but it was clear that for whatever reason he wasn't seen as a "fit" in the current defense. So there was no sense to try to keep the guy.

I hope Favre comes back, yet this is all getting sadder and sadder. There is a small part of me - a small part - that wonders if the best thing wouldn't be to just get his permission to trade him. If Tampa would give up their late first-round pick, then everybody could be happy. GB gets another first rounder which is sorely needed, TB gets a QB who can get them to the SB, and Favre gets to play for a winner, and one that is not too far from home.

[Bretsky]

I always liked Diggs but it was clear that for whatever reason he wasn't seen as a "fit" in the current defense. So there was no sense to try to keep the guy.

I hope Favre comes back, yet this is all getting sadder and sadder. There is a small part of me - a small part - that wonders if the best thing wouldn't be to just get his permission to trade him. If Tampa would give up their late first-round pick, then everybody could be happy. GB gets another first rounder which is sorely needed, TB gets a QB who can get them to the SB, and Favre gets to play for a winner, and one that is not too far from home.


I FEEL THE SAME WAY FRITZ; Ted Thompson has broken me completely.

I use to be the anti Wist; somebody noted last week in regard to TT I'm sounding like a wittier Wist. My morale is about the same as his views.

[Tarlam!]

I've already stated before that I don't understand how it's "selfish" to feel that I don't need to make a bunch of personal sacrifices for "the good of the company." Yes, in my life, *I* am more important than the corporation. But maybe that's just me... :wink:

I think it depends on how you look at the "I". I think corporations need great "I"s if the are to become great. Those "I"s become great through personal sacrifice, a lot of the time. So, to do the right thing for "me", oftentimes, I will need to make personal sacrifices.

What made Favre so great? Alot of things. His talent, his determination. But his legend is that of an iron man. Willing to play injured to carry the team on his back.

He has always been self sacrificing anyway, except he did it to serve his immediate purpose of winning today. The shift that I expect from him (maybe wrongly) is that he would continue to play selflessly and assist in the development of his heir-apparant.

For this, I know he will receive 10 million dollars, collect a bunch of records likely to stand eternally and bow out with the adoration of the Green Bay Packers faithful. He may even get the great feeling of watching his protogé win a SB.

[Patler]

Wayne Lucier? He's been in the league for a few years. He stinks. If he's starting, then we'll be hurting worse than I thought. I remember people hyping up Atlas Herrion at this time last year.

I disagree. Lucier was coming around for the Giants and started 20 games in 2003 and 2004, his first two years in the league. He was out with an injury all of last year. I'm not suggesting he is going to be a stud, but looking at the Packer roster at center and guard, he could be a starter if he has recovered. Lucier has started more games in his career than any other center or guard on the roster.

[Bretsky]

Shamrock,

Didn't you like the O'Dwyer signing and defend that one too ? :wink:

[retailguy]

Didn't you like the O'Dwyer signing and defend that one too ? :wink:

Bretsky, That was me....

Seriously, I thought O'dwyer came with very little risk, and so does Lucier. If he works out, great, if he doesn't there is not much invested. You've been advocating "camp guys" doesn't he qualify?

Seems to me that we need bodies, even from your perspective. If we get good healty competition, someone will rise to the top. right?

[Bretsky]

Didn't you like the O'Dwyer signing and defend that one too ? :wink:

Bretsky, That was me....

Seriously, I thought O'dwyer came with very little risk, and so does Lucier. If he works out, great, if he doesn't there is not much invested. You've been advocating "camp guys" doesn't he qualify?

Seems to me that we need bodies, even from your perspective. If we get good healty competition, someone will rise to the top. right?

Retailguy,

There was some hidden meaning behind my question to SR, but I agree with you. We might as well bring in as many camp bodies as we can and pray a few of them turn into players. I have no problem with them bringing in this guy.

Heck, I'd pick out the ten best FA projects and sign them for the minimum so they can compete with the projects we have at the starting OG position :wink:

[Patler]

Didn't you like the O'Dwyer signing and defend that one too ? :wink:

Bretsky, That was me....

Seriously, I thought O'dwyer came with very little risk, and so does Lucier. If he works out, great, if he doesn't there is not much invested. You've been advocating "camp guys" doesn't he qualify?

Seems to me that we need bodies, even from your perspective. If we get good healty competition, someone will rise to the top. right?

Retailguy,

There was some hidden meaning behind my question to SR, but I agree with you. We might as well bring in as many camp bodies as we can and pray a few of them turn into players. I have no problem with them bringing in this guy.

Heck, I'd pick out the ten best FA projects and sign them for the minimum so they can compete with the projects we have at the starting OG position :wink:

The difference between Lucier and O'Dwyer is that Lucier is still a young guy, entering his fourth season season. If he makes it, he could be around for a while. O'Dwyer was a good signing, he was a very experienced player who started for years. He didn't cost much. Same for Lucier. If he doesn't make it, so what?

I'm in favor of bringing in as many players with several years starting experience as you can. With minimal bonuses, what does it hurt? The problem is that too many fans expect all of these players to make it, when realistically the team hopes to find a player or two out of those types, usually for a backup role.

[Partial]

Shamler, good call. Bring in as many cheap vets as we can so we push our players to improve and keep their spots. This way we can field the best 53 men.