McCarthy on the WR's

[KYPack]

This is from the JSO.

I find both the position by McCarthy and the fact that he comments on personnel matters wierd,

Quote on

Packers coach Mike McCarthy said Robinson's loss would cause him to make adjustments because the team is down to just three healthy receivers - Donald Driver, Greg Jennings and Ruvell Martin. The club is expected to elevate a practice squad receiver, probably Chris Francies, to the 53-man roster.

"These are the types of things you prepare for," McCarthy said. "Once again, that goes back to planning for your season. We do have four tight ends on our roster, we have two fullbacks, so we'll go in another direction. We have planned for this, and we will move accordingly as we get ready for Miami."

Quote off

Why do we have 4 TE's ?
Why do we have 2 FB's
Why do we have all these rookie DB's?
Who are our RB's?
Why don't we have any vet WR's to replace Robinson?
Who the fuck is Chris Francies?

Anybody know, evidently MM & TT don't have a clue.

We are no longer the youngest team in the NFL, we are the youngest team in the World!

[GrnBay007]

Chris Francies--

Ht: 6-1 Wt: 193
Position: WR
Date of Birth: 7/26/1982
Birthplace: Houston, TX

Biography:
Pro
2006: Signed as an undrafted free agent by the Packers on May 5.
College
Lettered four years and started the past three seasons in UTEP's 'Run 'n' Shoot' offense. ... Caught 44 passes for 774 yards and five TDs in 2005 to earn third-team All-Conference USA honors.

[vince]

No matter what Chicken Little says, the sky isn't falling people. This doesn't change the complexity of this team. As Patler (the voice of reason) has said, we're no worse off for this. We're talking about #3 and #4 receivers here, not Jerry Rice in his prime.

What have Fergie and Robinson done this year? One, maybe two nice catches apiece?

Is it possible that the Packers believe that Martin has the potential to be a good one, and want to give him an opportunity to further develop and display his talents on the field? COULD THAT BE THE PLAN?

No, TT and MM must not have a plan, since it doesn't correspond with your conception of what the plan should be.

The doomsdayers will seemingly hate it if we all find that Martin can actually be a productive receiver in this league. And if he sucks, well, then we know he sucks and can move on, thereby improving the team for the future. It's not like he's going to cost us a playoff spot.

Give these kids a chance this year.

[Ballboy]

Vince, I respect your thoughts......

...however, the point of the post is that MM said that is why we have 4 TE and 2 FB. Last time I checked, the reason these players are TE and FB are because of any of the following reasons:
1) Not GREAT hands
2) Slow
3) Not much YAC

I agree with the Ruvell, I liked him in preseason, but MM doesn't even mention him and so that would lead one to think he isn't the answer as we have NOT seen him in a game and MM has seen him in practice. If you can't look good against our DB's in practice, we are in trouble.

[Patler]

Vince, I respect your thoughts......

...however, the point of the post is that MM said that is why we have 4 TE and 2 FB. Last time I checked, the reason these players are TE and FB are because of any of the following reasons:
1) Not GREAT hands
2) Slow
3) Not much YAC

I agree with the Ruvell, I liked him in preseason, but MM doesn't even mention him and so that would lead one to think he isn't the answer as we have NOT seen him in a game and MM has seen him in practice. If you can't look good against our DB's in practice, we are in trouble.

The reasons TEs are TEs and FBs are FBs have nothing to do with their hands. Being able to catch is a pre-requisit of either position, as Vonta Leach learned. Granted, players at both positions tend to be slower than WRs, but also tend to be bigger and stronger. There are plenty of speedy WRs with not the best of hands.

The key will be adapting the play calling to the talents of the available players, not hoping a TE or FB can "replace" a WR. Donald Lee needs to get back into the mix. David Martin needs to stay healthy, and involved. Those two may be more important to the rest of the season than Ruvell Martin, Francies or Russell.

[Sparkey]

Vince, I respect your thoughts......

...however, the point of the post is that MM said that is why we have 4 TE and 2 FB. Last time I checked, the reason these players are TE and FB are because of any of the following reasons:
1) Not GREAT hands
2) Slow
3) Not much YAC

I agree with the Ruvell, I liked him in preseason, but MM doesn't even mention him and so that would lead one to think he isn't the answer as we have NOT seen him in a game and MM has seen him in practice. If you can't look good against our DB's in practice, we are in trouble.

It is called having roster flexibility. They can use a TE like Martin or Lee outside on slants and such. Besides, K-Rob was averaging 1.4 catches per game........Its not like we lost a 6 catch/100 yd per game receiver.

Also, I have no qualms with TT's roster moves. Fact is, the team was going to be bad. I'd rather have young inexperienced players make mistakes and hopefully improve than have slow footed vets make mistakes and decline.

In the JSO poll, people actually are voting for Freddie Mitchell as who GB should replace K-Rob with. LOL

[KYPack]

Well well.

I find myself in a very precarious situation.

I must disagree with Vince, Sparkey AND Vince.

But seeing as I heartily disagree with all three of these gents, I'm gonna go pier 6 on all of 'em.

Firstly, Vince put down them goddamned Green & Gold pom-poms,
they are obscuring your view of the field. I'm all for positive thinking and all that shit, but your stance is freaking ridiculous.

"This doesn't change the complexity of this team"

Are you shittin' me? We now have 3 recievers (4 if they add the kid from PS) Only Driver is a vet. That seems like a bit of complexity shift to me! If we run trips, we got a kid who's a UFA from El Paso playing WR who is our only back-up. DD and 3 rooks, yeah, that's some pretty shit at WR all right!

Yeah, it's not complex, but it just might be too simple!

Give Martin a chance and see if he can play? He better play, he's all we got!

"Give these kids a chance this year" ?!?! No Shit. They've gotten a chance to the tune of 18 or 19 rooks and 1st year players. That's about 8-10 too many.

You wanna call me a naysayer? Knock yourself out. I call 'em as I see 'em.

Patler, I'm not gonna rip too hard, pal. We don't need 4 TE's on this club, I don't care what you say.

Sparkey, try to miss when ya aim that flamethrower at me. My rap to you is the same as mine to Patler, basically. We just lost a vet WR. We need a decent vet WR. Freddy Mitchell, wouldn't let him wash my car

My criticsm of TT (& I guess MM is admitting he dabbles in personnel, too.) is yeah, he doesn't have plan B's. He dropped the ball big time on the guards last year. Ditto on the WR's, both this year AND last.

This year, he was light on KR's AND WR's when KROB fell in his lap. TT's "plan" was Cory Rogers or Blackmon. One sucked, the other got hurt. So, then TT has NO plan. He should've had a vet in place in case neither one of these kids worked out. He didn't but "lucked" into KROB.

And KROB was on super thin ice when we got him. When Robinson got aced, what was Thompson's back-up plan? Nothing, nada, zilch. We are in the same spot at WR we were last season. Looking for NFLE caliber bums to fill out our roster at WR. 12 months later, zero progress.

And that ain't acceptable, I don't care what any of ya say

[Tony Oday]

You know I like most of the things TT has done but F an A man this is BS. We are WAY under the cap and we cant even fill out a position on the offense. We have 3 fricken WR. Sure thats enough to get through a game but what if the following happen?

1. Favre gets DD killed again
2. Jennings tweaks a hammy after breaking some DBs ankles again
3. Ruvell gets his head taken off on a slant by Zach Thomas?

WHAT THE F!!!! At least sign enough guys to play the position! I mean you cant even play a game of Madden without 4 WR on the Roster! Lets use some fricken foresight here managment.

You know that every year a WR will get hurt it happens all the time.
The replacement we got for Boerigter and Garnder was facing a 1 year suspension! dont count on him long term! WTF!

Alright bring on the NFLE WR!

[Patler]

Patler, I'm not gonna rip too hard, pal. We don't need 4 TE's on this club, I don't care what you say.

Sparkey, try to miss when ya aim that flamethrower at me. My rap to you is the same as mine to Patler, basically. We just lost a vet WR. We need a decent vet WR. Freddy Mitchell, wouldn't let him wash my car

My criticsm of TT (& I guess MM is admitting he dabbles in personnel, too.) is yeah, he doesn't have plan B's. He dropped the ball big time on the guards last year. Ditto on the WR's, both this year AND last.

This year, he was light on KR's AND WR's when KROB fell in his lap. TT's "plan" was Cory Rogers or Blackmon. One sucked, the other got hurt. So, then TT has NO plan. He should've had a vet in place in case neither one of these kids worked out. He didn't but "lucked" into KROB.

And KROB was on super thin ice when we got him. When Robinson got aced, what was Thompson's back-up plan? Nothing, nada, zilch. We are in the same spot at WR we were last season. Looking for NFLE caliber bums to fill out our roster at WR. 12 months later, zero progress.


I never said we NEEDED 4 TEs, but we have them and have had them all season so far. That is the FACT of the situation. If that's what you have, you have to design the offense and call the plays to use the players you have, not the players you don't have. I said at the start of the season that 4 TEs and 4 WRs was a bit odd, but if TT kept the best receivers he had available, what's the difference? Who should he have kept? Boerigter? Gardner? Cory Rodgers? Bookman? All four were absolutely awful in preseason. Both Martin and Lee can get down field fairly well for a TE. Certainly not like a speedy WR, but their routes aren't as limited as Franks'. It is up to the coaches to make use of them.

Teams would love to have a #5 receiver that is as good as their #3 receiver, but virtually none do if their #3 is any good at all. Most teams would be very weak at WR if they lost one or two of their top 3. GB has lost its #3 (Ferguson) and #4 (Robinson). What teams have a #5 as good as their #3? How many really have a decent #4? Not many.

I think it is a bit too soon to say there is no backup plan until we see what happens. Don't expect a big contributor to be signed, there isn't one out there to be signed. There wasn't in preseason either. Lots of temas would like to improve their receiving corps, if they could.

The roster is 53 players. You can't have a 3rd and 4th option already in hand. In one off season, only a few positions can be upgraded substantially. The Packers did that with all 3 of their guards, they vastly improved their corps of linebackers and managed to bring in a very capabale receiver, while also finding at least promising replacements at kicker and punter. The jury is still out on the secondary, which was changed substantially but may not have been improved. That's a lot for one off season.

[KYPack]

Patler, I'm not gonna rip too hard, pal. We don't need 4 TE's on this club, I don't care what you say.


(snip)


I never said we NEEDED 4 TEs, but we have them and have had them all season so far. That is the FACT of the situation. If that's what you have, you have to design the offense and call the plays to use the players you have, not the players you don't have. I said at the start of the season that 4 TEs and 4 WRs was a bit odd, but if TT kept the best receivers he had available, what's the difference? Who should he have kept? Boerigter? Gardner? Cory Rodgers? Bookman? All four were absolutely awful in preseason. Both Martin and Lee can get down field fairly well for a TE. Certainly not like a speedy WR, but their routes aren't as limited as Franks'. It is up to the coaches to make use of them.

Teams would love to have a #5 receiver that is as good as their #3 receiver, but virtually none do if their #3 is any good at all. Most teams would be very weak at WR if they lost one or two of their top 3. GB has lost its #3 (Ferguson) and #4 (Robinson). What teams have a #5 as good as their #3? How many really have a decent #4? Not many.

I think it is a bit too soon to say there is no backup plan until we see what happens. Don't expect a big contributor to be signed, there isn't one out there to be signed. There wasn't in preseason either. Lots of temas would like to improve their receiving corps, if they could.

The roster is 53 players. You can't have a 3rd and 4th option already in hand. In one off season, only a few positions can be upgraded substantially. The Packers did that with all 3 of their guards, they vastly improved their corps of linebackers and managed to bring in a very capabale receiver, while also finding at least promising replacements at kicker and punter. The jury is still out on the secondary, which was changed substantially but may not have been improved. That's a lot for one off season.

Well, now we are headed back down to terra firma, with points that bear discussion.

I know you also said 4 TE's was a strange mix. I said the same thing, but basically still don't get it. The 4 TE's were better than the WR's that TT could choose from? Then he did a lousy job of lining up talent at that (WR)position.

You are right, it's tough to get 3 decent WR's let alone 5. The Bears would be estatic to get 2 fer crissakes!

I may be a little pre-mature in criticizing TT's plan, but I don't think so. He did an awful job last year with the WR's and this year looks practically identical.

TT did some great things in acquiring rookie talent this year. I love Greg Jennings, he should be a star for some time.

But once again, Thompson has failed miserably in acquiring Vet talent. To me, Pickett appears to be our only solid vet acquired. Woodsen is OK, but..... not worth the $

TT constantly errs on the side of youth, youth, youth.

We've got far too many unproven rooks on this club. Guys that will never make any impact on the team. We've got 18 -19 rooks. More if you factor in goofs like Coston. these unproven players make up too big a share of the roster.

Thompson must turn this trend around immediatley.

[Patler]

I really think TT expected that Rodgers would be the punt returner, and by default would occupy the 5th wide receiver spot because of it. Who would have thought that an experienced college punt returner would develope the "dropsies" in the NFL? The other four receivers would be Driver, Ferguson, Jennings and the best of Boerigter, Gardner, etc. Who would have thought that a former first round pick like Gardner would show so little as to not even merit the #4 spot? That was a big disappointment, not because I thought he could be a great player, but he should have made for a quality and experienced backup. All he needed to do was play as he did a couple years ago. Had things worked that way, it would have been a decent receiving corps.

This is nothing new for GB Only a few seasons have the Packers looked like they had any depth at WR at all. Most seasons you knew that if you lost a starter you were in trouble, and that hasn't changed. It was only a few years ago that they had to drag Antonio Freeman off the scrap heap to come in and play. I suspect it is the same for most teams.

I would like to have a better receiver or two, but I really can't identify someone that TT "missed on" and should have brought into camp. He had quite a batch, with a nice mix of veterans, rookies and long shots like Bookman wh had amazing speed. All he needed was for one of about 5 or 6 to step up, none did and several simply flamed out, including Boerigter, Gardner and Rodgers.

[Packnut]

No matter what Chicken Little says, the sky isn't falling people. This doesn't change the complexity of this team. As Patler (the voice of reason) has said, we're no worse off for this. We're talking about #3 and #4 receivers here, not Jerry Rice in his prime.

What have Fergie and Robinson done this year? One, maybe two nice catches apiece?

Is it possible that the Packers believe that Martin has the potential to be a good one, and want to give him an opportunity to further develop and display his talents on the field? COULD THAT BE THE PLAN?

No, TT and MM must not have a plan, since it doesn't correspond with your conception of what the plan should be.

The doomsdayers will seemingly hate it if we all find that Martin can actually be a productive receiver in this league. And if he sucks, well, then we know he sucks and can move on, thereby improving the team for the future. It's not like he's going to cost us a playoff spot.

Give these kids a chance this year.


vince- this post really stunned me cause your better than this. Making up lame excuses for TT's lack of depth at WR is unbelievable. To say that a 2 TE set with a FB is just as good as a 3 or 4 WR set does'nt make any sense. If this was the case, than every NFL team would go to it. Having 3 and 4 WR sets on 3rd and long is a must. Not only for the passing game, but the obvious benefit of spreading out the D in order to run on 1st or 2nd down. A 2 TE set packs 7 or 8 in the box and you can't run consistently against that.

I understand those of you who defend TT, but good Lord, at least use some common sense! Chatman on 3rd down is a helluva lot better than Martin or some practice squad guy but TT in his infinite wisdom (insert sarcasm) signs a guy that EVERYONE knew was gonna be suspended. It's just another in a long line of examples where TT makes irrational moves without looking ahead to all the possible scenarios.

[GBRulz]

I may be a little pre-mature in criticizing TT's plan, but I don't think so. He did an awful job last year with the WR's and this year looks practically identical.


hell no - it is not pre-mature to criticize TT's plan. Err, what plan that is, I'm not sure.

Last year, the same crap happened when JW went down, he did NOTHING to try and find a replacement. Ok, we were strapped for cash and he probably didn't want to do anything to help Sherm's cause for having a lousy season. Fine. But this year....same shit, different day.

Just like last year, we went into our bye week VERY thin at WR. A bye week, a perfect time to bring in a couple of ol' vets into camp to see what they can do. Just like last year....he did nothing. So, the game after MN last year, Fergy goes down. Just like last year, he doesn't seem to think about injuries to the other WR's. TT needs to stop thinking OUTSIDE THE BUN and bringing in people like Taco and get some vet talent in here.

Granted our season is shot, but what if we were 3-2 and not completely out of the playoff race?? Which we easily could have been at this point. Did I expect us to make the playoffs this year, no, but my point is tat it's not the time to give our practice squad on the job training.

Anyhow, back to M3's comments. If he has a backup plan, then I expect to see some double TE formations...starting Sunday. I'll be waiting.....impatiently. :mad:

[Patler]

A bye week, a perfect time to bring in a couple of ol' vets into camp to see what they can do. Just like last year....he did nothing.

Who would you have had him bring in? I can't think of anyone.

[Rastak]

A bye week, a perfect time to bring in a couple of ol' vets into camp to see what they can do. Just like last year....he did nothing.

Who would you have had him bring in? I can't think of anyone.


So, make a trade....yea, I know they are rare but they happen....get someones 3rd reciever so you at least have something. Maybe Jennings and Driver will be enough, they are both pretty good. Time will tell.

[Fritz]

"More if you factor in goofs like Coston."

Okay, I'm overly optimistic to several people here, but I"m not ready to write off Coston until next training camp. Wahle took two years, and people even griped about him through half his third year (he got moved around, I believe, like Coston). I"m not saying the guy's going to be great, but I'm not ready to write him off.

And as for the wide receiver situation, woeful is the day that Packer fans re-cast Antonio Chatman as a significant upgrade at the #3 wide receiver spot. Is he worth a spot as strictly your #3 wide receiver? Cuz for me, at least, I don't want to see him back there returning punts, because he didn't. He either made fair catches or got tackled after a one yard "return."

[Patler]

So, make a trade....yea, I know they are rare but they happen....get someones 3rd reciever so you at least have something. Maybe Jennings and Driver will be enough, they are both pretty good. Time will tell.

I think this is nearly impossible, at a reasonable cost to the team. I think most wide-receivers are way, way over-valued. Teams who have a decent one under contract, who they are willing to part with, seem to want too much. Look at all the rumors surrounding Ferguson and the Eagles a couple years ago. It sounded like that was a deal that could have been made, but GB wanted too much.

The only "deals" out there for receivers seem to be for the disgruntled ones, like Walker, etc., and then you usually have to be willing to commit to a big new contract for them. I think teams pay way too much in contracts with receivers, too, but that's another issue.

Backup receivers usualy come as "finds" in the draft, or reclaimations of guys who were high picks and never lived up to it. That's where I thought Gardner might fit in, but he didn't. Rison was sort of that. Terry Glenn, somewhat, too. Not quite what was hoped for him originally, but a contributing receiver nonetheless even as a starter. Glenn, Rison and even Gardner had each put together very good seasons in the past, but had declined or at least shown inconsistency causing previous teams to tire of them.

I can't think of an available receiver with a productive past that could be brought in now. Can anyone?

[Patler]

"More if you factor in goofs like Coston."

And as for the wide receiver situation, woeful is the day that Packer fans re-cast Antonio Chatman as a significant upgrade at the #3 wide receiver spot. Is he worth a spot as strictly your #3 wide receiver? Cuz for me, at least, I don't want to see him back there returning punts, because he didn't. He either made fair catches or got tackled after a one yard "return."

Chatman ensured that he would not be back in a game toward the end of last year. I commented on it at the time. All season he caught passes and dove to the dirt with tacklers around. However, I can't remenber which game it was, but on a third down late in the game, he made a reception a couple yards shy of the first down, with no defender close, dove to the ground and curled into a fetal position until a defender came up and touched him down. It was fourth down. I said at the time he wouldn't be back.

[Sparkey]

Lets get someone's 3rd receiver for what ? ? Then he can sit around for four weeks learning the system and terminlogy. Then another two to three weeks getting comfortable with the audible calls and developing some chemistry with Favre, but OOPS The season is over. Good thing we traded the 4th round pick for a guy we wont need next year.

Since we are at it. Lets release Jennings since most of the people in here bitching about Thompson were also crying that he passed on Chad Jackson to draft Colledge and then Jennings later on. :crazy:

Wow, had Thompson done what so many on this board yelled for, We'd have Chad Jackson sitting on the bench as our number 3, behind Driver and Ferguson and wouldn't have Colledge at LG since he was a Tackle. Oops, Hodge would probably have not been drafted since we would have signed Arrington and then wouldn't have woodson at CB so Carroll would still be on the team starting and getting burned and we would have to play someone at PR.

That team sounds pretty bad...Good thing we have Thompson as our GM.

BTW, not directing this at any one person. Just fed up with all the bitching and complaining. So many people are just in this fantasy land where they think one or two players would make the Packers a play-off contender. Green Bay got OLD FAST and there were no young players around to fill the void. In hindsight, TT should have canned Sherman right away. Then the team would be a year ahead of where it is right now.

I would also like too ad that the $$$ we supposedly have, will probably be used to extend some of your younger up and coming players. There by absorbing some of the bonus this year so that future years are not as heavy.

Barnett, Wells, & Green come too mind as guys that they might want to extend, depending on how the rest of the year goes.

[Fritz]

"More if you factor in goofs like Coston."

And as for the wide receiver situation, woeful is the day that Packer fans re-cast Antonio Chatman as a significant upgrade at the #3 wide receiver spot. Is he worth a spot as strictly your #3 wide receiver? Cuz for me, at least, I don't want to see him back there returning punts, because he didn't. He either made fair catches or got tackled after a one yard "return."

Chatman ensured that he would not be back in a game toward the end of last year. I commented on it at the time. All season he caught passes and dove to the dirt with tacklers around. However, I can't remenber which game it was, but on a third down late in the game, he made a reception a couple yards shy of the first down, with no defender close, dove to the ground and curled into a fetal position until a defender came up and touched him down. It was fourth down. I said at the time he wouldn't be back.

Thanks, Patler. I did not see that play nor your comment on Chatman. Like I said, it's a strange and perhaps sad day in Packerville when history gets revised so that Chatman becomes someone's wish. My sense was the guy was an okay receiver - a little short as a target, no YAC, but he hung on to the ball - and a non-factor as a returner. I'd just as soon see if Francies or Martin can do better before handing it over to a vet who's not moving the team forward.

[GBRulz]

Patler, I admit, I don't have the knowledge like you do, when it comes to knowing other WR's who might be available to come in. But my gosh, you can't tell me that there are other WR's who have been cut by their teams for whatever reason, that are now sitting without a job. Why not bring them in for a look? Let them get to know the offense, it certainly can't hurt and it's not like we don't have money to sign some cheap street FA's.

[the_idle_threat]

TT needs to stop thinking OUTSIDE THE BUN and bringing in people like Taco and get some vet talent in here.

Problem is ... Taco IS the level of vet talent that is available at this time. Taco spent a couple years with Seattle before being released before last season.

All you folks who are griping and second-guessing TT are avoiding Patler's excellent question: If you believe you know better than TT on how to stock the WR position, then WHO do you propose is available for him to pick up, in terms of veteran talent? You can't say "I dunno ... but he oughtta know, cuz it's his job," because your position is that you know his job better than he knows it himself.

At this point in the season, the only available veterans are guys who could not crack the 5th receiver spot on other teams. That is outside-the-bun talent.

[Patler]

Patler, I admit, I don't have the knowledge like you do, when it comes to knowing other WR's who might be available to come in. But my gosh, you can't tell me that there are other WR's who have been cut by their teams for whatever reason, that are now sitting without a job. Why not bring them in for a look? Let them get to know the offense, it certainly can't hurt and it's not like we don't have money to sign some cheap street FA's.

I think that is what the two guys on the practice squad were for. They are the available guys the team apparently has interest in, and obviously have more familiarity with what is going on than anyone else off the street. I find it interesting that after signing Francies to the regular roster, they brought in another receiver for the practice squad, to begin working with him as well.

To bring anyone else in for more than a one day tryout last week would have required that someone be released from the roster. Robinson wasn't suspended until yesterday, and they thought it would be at least several weeks yet before that would happen. They still don't know how long Ferguson will be out. With injuries at linebacker and DB, it would have been difficult to release someone last week just to start working with a receiver who won't be a big contributor anyway.

[vince]

No matter what Chicken Little says, the sky isn't falling people. This doesn't change the complexity of this team. As Patler (the voice of reason) has said, we're no worse off for this. We're talking about #3 and #4 receivers here, not Jerry Rice in his prime.

What have Fergie and Robinson done this year? One, maybe two nice catches apiece?

Is it possible that the Packers believe that Martin has the potential to be a good one, and want to give him an opportunity to further develop and display his talents on the field? COULD THAT BE THE PLAN?

No, TT and MM must not have a plan, since it doesn't correspond with your conception of what the plan should be.

The doomsdayers will seemingly hate it if we all find that Martin can actually be a productive receiver in this league. And if he sucks, well, then we know he sucks and can move on, thereby improving the team for the future. It's not like he's going to cost us a playoff spot.

Give these kids a chance this year.


vince- this post really stunned me cause your better than this. Making up lame excuses for TT's lack of depth at WR is unbelievable. To say that a 2 TE set with a FB is just as good as a 3 or 4 WR set does'nt make any sense. If this was the case, than every NFL team would go to it. Having 3 and 4 WR sets on 3rd and long is a must. Not only for the passing game, but the obvious benefit of spreading out the D in order to run on 1st or 2nd down. A 2 TE set packs 7 or 8 in the box and you can't run consistently against that.

I understand those of you who defend TT, but good Lord, at least use some common sense! Chatman on 3rd down is a helluva lot better than Martin or some practice squad guy but TT in his infinite wisdom (insert sarcasm) signs a guy that EVERYONE knew was gonna be suspended. It's just another in a long line of examples where TT makes irrational moves without looking ahead to all the possible scenarios.
Sorry I'm late getting back into the mix here. I'm only saying that we have had very little production from our #3 and #4 receivers this year thus far, as does almost every team in the league. That level of prodoction will probably continue - WHICH DOESN'T CHANGE THE COMPLEXITY OF THE OFFENSE.

If another WR goes down, then we obviously are in a different situation, but if ANY team has 2 of their top 4 go down with injury, they're going to be turning to the scrap heap for help.

Additionally, going into the year, Robinson wasn't even on the roster, and most of us would not have lost any sleep if Fergie would have been cut outright in the first place.

[Tony Oday]

I think with the given that most of us want Fraud cut is that TT would sign something to replace him even a bust is better than him! :) But what the hell more catches for Jennigs and Driver! Im sure Jennigns will want a new contract next year anyway...

[FritzDontBlitz]

TT needs to stop thinking OUTSIDE THE BUN and bringing in people like Taco and get some vet talent in here.

Problem is ... Taco IS the level of vet talent that is available at this time. Taco spent a couple years with Seattle before being released before last season.

All you folks who are griping and second-guessing TT are avoiding Patler's excellent question: If you believe you know better than TT on how to stock the WR position, then WHO do you propose is available for him to pick up, in terms of veteran talent? You can't say "I dunno ... but he oughtta know, cuz it's his job," because your position is that you know his job better than he knows it himself.

At this point in the season, the only available veterans are guys who could not crack the 5th receiver spot on other teams. That is outside-the-bun talent.

that may be true, but when you really don't have a reliable THIRD receiver yet you can't afford to be turning up your nose at whatever's available out there. it makes no difference if they couldn't hack it as the 5th wideout on another team, those other teams had more receivers than they needed - green bay doesn't even have enough to fill out a roster. the packers need receivers and they need them NOW. it doesn't hurt to bring them all in for at least a look, you may find a surprise to help you for at least a week or two. that was one of the hallmarks of ron wolf's early tenure in green bay: he would bring in players of any calibre to patch up his roster every week to keep the team going. tt needs to take after his mentor in this area because after two years his efforts at the wideout position have been laughable at best...

[FritzDontBlitz]

btw, as i mentioned in another thread i'm glad they brought punky brewster back. i think he'll be the next breakout player. he would have probably made the final cut had he not fumbled a punt in the last exhibition game.

[KYPack]

[quote=vince]No matter what Chicken Little says, the sky isn't falling people. This doesn't change the complexity of this team. As Patler (the voice of reason) has said, we're no worse off for this. We're talking about #3 and #4 receivers here, not Jerry Rice in his prime.

What have Fergie and Robinson done this year? One, maybe two nice catches apiece?

Is it possible that the Packers believe that Martin has the potential to be a good one, and want to give him an opportunity to further develop and display his talents on the field? COULD THAT BE THE PLAN?

No, TT and MM must not have a plan, since it doesn't correspond with your conception of what the plan should be.

The doomsdayers will seemingly hate it if we all find that Martin can actually be a productive receiver in this league. And if he sucks, well, then we know he sucks and can move on, thereby improving the team for the future. It's not like he's going to cost us a playoff spot.

Give these kids a chance this year.


vince- this post really stunned me cause your better than this. Making up lame excuses for TT's lack of depth at WR is unbelievable. To say that a 2 TE set with a FB is just as good as a 3 or 4 WR set does'nt make any sense. If this was the case, than every NFL team would go to it. Having 3 and 4 WR sets on 3rd and long is a must. Not only for the passing game, but the obvious benefit of spreading out the D in order to run on 1st or 2nd down. A 2 TE set packs 7 or 8 in the box and you can't run consistently against that.

I understand those of you who defend TT, but good Lord, at least use some common sense!

(snippage.)

Well Vince, glad to see you came out here to Rock N, Roll.

As some have said, you are totally full of it.

You called me Chicken Little.

That's yer first error.

I am El Gallo Grande. (ask Mad)

There is no way in hell that we should have the roster mix that we find ourselves in. 4 TE's. 4 (maybe 5) rookie DB's.

4 WR's, 3 rookies.

But according to Vince, all is well, and anybody who has a problem with that is "doomsdayer".

Yeah, well that's fine. And you are full of it.

Are you trying to tell me that the best option for a roster addition is a kid from the practice squad?

A kid like Chris Francies who caught 44 passes for 774 yards and five TDs in 2005 to earn third-team All-Conference USA honors?

Yeah well, I'm here to tell you you are dead nuts wrong!

You think Brett is gonna trust a kid from El Paso who's never caught a pass in the league?

That Brett Favre is gonna even throw this kid a ball?

I think you are 100% wrong.

As far as your "complexity" comment, what do you mean?. The Pack is running the most basic pass offense in the league. The loss of Robinson hurts us from a personnel standpoint. The loss of a WR can't hurt us from a complexity aspect, we are too basic for that to affect us,

We need players, not plays and the chance that either of these kids can play in the league is remote.

In most cases, you don't know what you are talking about, so I don't know what you are talking about.

Patler and I have argued many times.

He's been right, and I've been wrong.

I've been right and he's been wrong.

You?

You seem like a cheerleader type to me.

[Patler]

There is no way in hell that we should have the roster mix that we find ourselves in. 4 TE's. 4 (maybe 5) rookie DB's.

4 WR's, 3 rookies.


You think Brett is gonna trust a kid from El Paso who's never caught a pass in the league?

That Brett Favre is gonna even throw this kid a ball?



I sure won't say that I think a team that is almost half first and second year players is a good thing. However, under the circumstances it doesn't bother me. My reasoning is simple. It may be the best alternative this year.

Other than Wahle and Walker, no veteran who has left is someone I really wish they still had. Rivera and Sharper, maybe. But not at the price. I have tried to analyze the cap situation as of April 2005 every way that I can. The only way to keep Wahle was for him to agree to a very team favorable deal. He had done that once already and wasn't about to do it again. The 2005 cap situation made redoing Walker's contract similarly unreasonable at the time. Threeafter, he was never going to return. Wahle and Walker are gone not by choice but by circumstances. It happens.

All the other departed vets offered nothing but mediocrity. At this point you might as well look at as many new players as you can, to try and build a base for the roster 3 and 4 years from now.

Will Favre throw to Francies? Of course he will. He completed passes and or threw to anyone they stuck out there last year, and he will again this year. He always has and always will.

[Bretsky]

"I can't think of an available receiver with a productive past that could be brought in now. Can anyone?"

These are certainly stretches, but Tyrone Calico.....Scottie Vines......Charles Rodgers........

no gamebreakers, but guys who might be our #3 WR at this point.

[Guiness]

"More if you factor in goofs like Coston."

Okay, I'm overly optimistic to several people here, but I"m not ready to write off Coston until next training camp. Wahle took two years, and people even griped about him through half his third year (he got moved around, I believe, like Coston). I"m not saying the guy's going to be great, but I'm not ready to write him off.



Ha! I'm still down on Coston because of the description someone posted about his wife :crazy: :mrgreen: :crazy:

[KYPack]

There is no way in hell that we should have the roster mix that we find ourselves in. 4 TE's. 4 (maybe 5) rookie DB's.

4 WR's, 3 rookies.


You think Brett is gonna trust a kid from El Paso who's never caught a pass in the league?

That Brett Favre is gonna even throw this kid a ball?



I sure won't say that I think a team that is almost half first and second year players is a good thing. However, under the circumstances it doesn't bother me. My reasoning is simple. It may be the best alternative this year.

Other than Wahle and Walker, no veteran who has left is someone I really wish they still had. Rivera and Sharper, maybe. But not at the price. I have tried to analyze the cap situation as of April 2005 every way that I can. The only way to keep Wahle was for him to agree to a very team favorable deal. He had done that once already and wasn't about to do it again. The 2005 cap situation made redoing Walker's contract similarly unreasonable at the time. Threeafter, he was never going to return. Wahle and Walker are gone not by choice but by circumstances. It happens.

All the other departed vets offered nothing but mediocrity. At this point you might as well look at as many new players as you can, to try and build a base for the roster 3 and 4 years from now.

Will Favre throw to Francies? Of course he will. He completed passes and or threw to anyone they stuck out there last year, and he will again this year. He always has and always will.

I share your concerns about the mix of too many young boys. Could it have been avoided?

Sure, find some vets and sign 'em. Other clubs do it, why not us?

I don't have any reservations about the loss of the "big 3" last year. No way could Thompson have avoided it. In fact, I feel many have practiced revisionist history regarding Wahle. It might have been hypothetically possible to sign big Mike, but in reality we'd have to have cut 4-5 guys to keep him. He wanted out anyway. He was sick of Shermie's act and big $ awaited him when he left. He was a smart guy & he was gone.


About "All the other departed vets", I'm gonna start a thread about this, let's get in a good argument when I do. I think there were some "old boys" we shoulda kept, or others we should have acquired. Many of these kids we got now are nothing but waiver fodder.

This also a reason that I'm VERY skeptical about the youth movement we have in place. the 5 rookies we have starting are outstanding and a good base for our re-building. Some of these kids on the roster won't even be in the league in a year. Was Wil Whitticker a basis for our "new wave OLINE". Hell no & many of these kids will be gonzo.

"Will Favre throw to Francies? Of course he will."

I dunno, pal. I dunno. This kid may never run a complete route in order to catch the ball.

Most of my vitriol was reserved for Vince.

He wants to cheerlead, fine.

He wants to call me a chicken, he better buckle his chin strap.

[vince]

[quote=vince]No matter what Chicken Little says, the sky isn't falling people. This doesn't change the complexity of this team. As Patler (the voice of reason) has said, we're no worse off for this. We're talking about #3 and #4 receivers here, not Jerry Rice in his prime.

What have Fergie and Robinson done this year? One, maybe two nice catches apiece?

Is it possible that the Packers believe that Martin has the potential to be a good one, and want to give him an opportunity to further develop and display his talents on the field? COULD THAT BE THE PLAN?

No, TT and MM must not have a plan, since it doesn't correspond with your conception of what the plan should be.

The doomsdayers will seemingly hate it if we all find that Martin can actually be a productive receiver in this league. And if he sucks, well, then we know he sucks and can move on, thereby improving the team for the future. It's not like he's going to cost us a playoff spot.

Give these kids a chance this year.


vince- this post really stunned me cause your better than this. Making up lame excuses for TT's lack of depth at WR is unbelievable. To say that a 2 TE set with a FB is just as good as a 3 or 4 WR set does'nt make any sense. If this was the case, than every NFL team would go to it. Having 3 and 4 WR sets on 3rd and long is a must. Not only for the passing game, but the obvious benefit of spreading out the D in order to run on 1st or 2nd down. A 2 TE set packs 7 or 8 in the box and you can't run consistently against that.

I understand those of you who defend TT, but good Lord, at least use some common sense!

(snippage.)

Well Vince, glad to see you came out here to Rock N, Roll.

As some have said, you are totally full of it.

You called me Chicken Little.

That's yer first error.

I am El Gallo Grande. (ask Mad)

There is no way in hell that we should have the roster mix that we find ourselves in. 4 TE's. 4 (maybe 5) rookie DB's.

4 WR's, 3 rookies.

But according to Vince, all is well, and anybody who has a problem with that is "doomsdayer".

Yeah, well that's fine. And you are full of it.

Are you trying to tell me that the best option for a roster addition is a kid from the practice squad?

A kid like Chris Francies who caught 44 passes for 774 yards and five TDs in 2005 to earn third-team All-Conference USA honors?

Yeah well, I'm here to tell you you are dead nuts wrong!

You think Brett is gonna trust a kid from El Paso who's never caught a pass in the league?

That Brett Favre is gonna even throw this kid a ball?

I think you are 100% wrong.

As far as your "complexity" comment, what do you mean?. The Pack is running the most basic pass offense in the league. The loss of Robinson hurts us from a personnel standpoint. The loss of a WR can't hurt us from a complexity aspect, we are too basic for that to affect us,

We need players, not plays and the chance that either of these kids can play in the league is remote.

In most cases, you don't know what you are talking about, so I don't know what you are talking about.

Patler and I have argued many times.

He's been right, and I've been wrong.

I've been right and he's been wrong.

You?

You seem like a cheerleader type to me.
OK so I'm full of it. In my opinion, some posters make a big deal out of relatively minor issues.

It's possible that the management team thinks Martin has a lot of potential.

Neither Ferguson nor Robinson had big production on this team and this team isn't going to the playoffs.

I'm not opposed to giving Martin a chance to establish himself. He just might be GOOD. No one out there available is a sure thing anyway. Just because we haven't seen Martin and Francies play doesn't mean they have no talent.

This is the time to give 'em a shot. What's the harm? Francies will likely rarely see the field anyway. I for one look forward to seeing what Martin's really got. If he sucks, THEN I'll be the first one to argue for his replacement.

He hasn't sucked yet...

[KYPack]

OK, pollo pequeno.

We will see what we will see.

[Packnut]

We had a damn good WR. His name was Javon Walker. He would have accepted the same contract to play here, but with TT, it has to be his way or nothing. The team is not his priority. All you guys who defend TT can shut me up for good by explaining with FACT and COMMON SENSE how the Packers are a better team with Woodson and Manuel and not Walker. Tell me how paying Woodson and Manuel all that cash made us a better team and then tell me the Packers would'nt be a better team with Walker. He's playing for a run first team with a terrible QB and still playing well.

We could have a 3 WR set of Walker, Driver and Jennings and we sure the hell would'nt be 1-4 right now! You guys just don't get it. TT is GETTING PAID GOOD MONEY, yet all I read here is excuses. Let me tell ya guys, he ain't working for free!!!!!!!!!!!!

[packrat]

This team didn't really "get old fast." The playmakers that carried this team are getting older and slowing down at the rate that is to be expected. The problem is that the supporting cast was mediocre and the Gm couldn't find playmakers of equal quality to replace the Favres, Hendersons, Butlers and Greens of the world. So, rather than bringing in and developing young players with potential, he stuck with the Hunts and Chapmans, while trading away multiple draft choices to get a few players of whom only Walker turned out to be the real deal, though Barnett is OK. Those who are complaining that TT is not chasing other teams cast-offs are falling into the same trap. You are never going to be superbowl quality if you tolerate mediocre players. The only way you get to the SuperBowl is to have quality players and you know for sure that other teams castoffs are not quality players. One way to get quality players is the Free Agent who is a playmaker, but because of cap limitations you can't get enough of them, so to get enough quality players you turn to the draft and young free agents who are available because they are unproven. That is going to cost a few games with mistakes and inexperience, but it offers the best chance of getting back to the superbowl.

[KYPack]

Here's Bob McGinn's take on the available WR's

Brewster cannot play.
Francies is a crafty little guy with OK speed.
Cal Russell can fly but is raw.
Scottie Vines just got waived off Detroit's PUP list.
Corey Bradford is another ex-Lion.
Charlie Adams did some good things for Denver last year and is 6-2.
David Boston is out there.
Todd Pinkston, but he has two Achilles problems.
ex No. 1 pick Tyrone Calico is available, too.
(He didn't mention Rogers, wouldn't he be better than Francies?)

[Ballboy]

Patler Wrote: "The reasons TEs are TEs and FBs are FBs have nothing to do with their hands. Being able to catch is a pre-requisit of either position, as Vonta Leach learned. Granted, players at both positions tend to be slower than WRs, but also tend to be bigger and stronger. There are plenty of speedy WRs with not the best of hands.

The key will be adapting the play calling to the talents of the available players, not hoping a TE or FB can "replace" a WR. Donald Lee needs to get back into the mix. David Martin needs to stay healthy, and involved. Those two may be more important to the rest of the season than Ruvell Martin, Francies or Russell."

Patler, your wrong. Being able to catch is NOT a pre-requisit of either position. I can name numerous TE and FB that played a long time in the league for blocking, and NOT the hands....TE & FB are players not big enough to play OL or DL and not fast enough or have hands enough to play WR or RB.

Anyone who thinks that the Packers using Lee or Martin in the slot, who by the way will be defended by a DB or a Safety, will produce for us like a WR would is just silly. If I'm a DB, I'd much rather cover a big slow TE or FB than anything else.

[Sparkey]

Here's Bob McGinn's take on the available WR's

Brewster cannot play.
Francies is a crafty little guy with OK speed.
Cal Russell can fly but is raw.
Scottie Vines just got waived off Detroit's PUP list.
Corey Bradford is another ex-Lion.
Charlie Adams did some good things for Denver last year and is 6-2.
David Boston is out there.
Todd Pinkston, but he has two Achilles problems.
ex No. 1 pick Tyrone Calico is available, too.
(He didn't mention Rogers, wouldn't he be better than Francies?)

Dear Mr McGinn: Francies is 6'1" 193 lbs ....... since when is a 6'1" receiver "little" ?

[Patler]

Being able to catch is NOT a pre-requisit of either position. I can name numerous TE and FB that played a long time in the league for blocking, and NOT the hands....TE & FB are players not big enough to play OL or DL and not fast enough or have hands enough to play WR or RB.


Depends completely on the offense. In MM's offense, the FBs and TEs have to catch the ball. In Sherman's they didn't. That's why Leach was a good fit for Sherman, and a bad fit this year. Henderson was an unexpected luxury in Sherman's offense because of his hands. As the years went on, Sherman used the TEs less and less. In the Holmgren version of the offense, which MM hopes to copy more closely, TEs with hands were needed. Two TEs were used often.

Bigger but slower reeceivers can be used in different ways to take advatage of their size. I expect to see more of a ball control passing game; even more so than the 1st 5 games.

[Zool]

Did anyone else notice that Miami activated Marcus Vick from their PS? He's listed as a WR. They probably thought what I thought. Bring the punk in, get Miami's playbook.

[KYPack]

Did anyone else notice that Miami activated Marcus Vick from their PS? He's listed as a WR. They probably thought what I thought. Bring the punk in, get Miami's playbook.

Good call, Zool.

It's an ancient trick, but still used all over the league.

We shudda done it, but then so many people would've burned all their Packer stuff. JK

[vince]

All you guys who defend TT can shut me up for good by explaining with FACT and COMMON SENSE how the Packers are a better team with Woodson and Manuel and not Walker. Tell me how paying Woodson and Manuel all that cash made us a better team and then tell me the Packers would'nt be a better team with Walker.

FACT: Javon Walker, after being drafted in 2002 as a first round draft choice, signed a 6-year contract (with the last year voidable by Walker) to play for the Green Bay Packers through the 2007 season, for $7.485 million.

FACT: The definition of a contract is: a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially, one legally enforceable.

FACT: While contracts are occassionally renegotiated, NEITHER PARTY is obligated to change the agreement after the fact. Conversely, both player and team are legally obligated to abide by the terms of the contract that is mutually agreed upon.

FACT: In 2005, Ted Thompson, personifying the team's intentions to be respectful during this situation, yet fulfill their commitments to Javon, said, "During his time as a Green Bay Packer, Javon Walker has been well thought of by everyone here. I like Javon, certainly as a person and as a player. That said, Javon is under contract, which he signed as a 2002 first-round draft choice. That contract is governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which was negotiated between the National Football League and the National Football League Players’ Association, and we expect him to honor it. There have been several highly publicized cases of player discontent in the National Football League. I don’t anticipate us making any concessions in this matter. We will continue to stay the course, and the Green Bay Packers will have no further comment on this topic."

FACT: In both 2005 and 2006, Javon Walker, personifying his intentions to publicly assassinate the character of the team, and indicating his refusal to fulfill already agreed-upon legal obligation, said, "They [The Packers] want players to come up there and play hard and work hard, but when it comes time to be compensated, it's, like, 'We forgot what you've done.' "

FACT: Javon Walker was already being compensated under the legally binding terms he agreed to, and had 2 years (with the last year voidable by Walker) remaining on that agreement.

FACT: NFL contract negotiations are a process designed to arrive at an agreement to compensate a player for FUTURE services not yet agreed upon, not PAST and PRESENT services for which players have already agreed to compensation.

FACT: In 2006, 2 seasons prior to the fulfillment of his agreed-upon contract, Javon Walker said, "I really have no interest in being in a Green Bay Packers uniform or playing for Green Bay again."

FACT: In 2006, 2 years prior to the fulfillment of his agreed-upon contract, Javon Walker said, "If I had to go back there, I'd retire," he said. "I don't have to play."

FACT: In 2006, 2 years prior to the fulfillment of his agreed-upon contract, Javon Walker's animosity for the Green Bay Packers and Brett Favre was so deep that "Walker said he is even willing if necessary to repay the Packers the prorated portion of his signing bonus, which amounts to around $850,000."

FACT: In 2006, 2 years prior to the fulfillment of his agreed-upon contract, Javon Walker's stepfather said "not money, not the passage of time and not the retirement of Brett Favre" could change the wide receiver's aversion for the Packers.

FACT: In 2006, 2 years prior to the fulfillment of his agreed-upon contract, Javon Walker's stepfather said, "They could give him a $15 million signing bonus and he would decline it. I think everybody is thinking it's going to blow over and Javon's going to show up. He's not showing up. I mean, he is absolutely not showing up. Period. At all."

FACT: In 2006, 2 years prior to the fulfillment of his agreed-upon contract, Javon Walker's stepfather said, "He (Walker) has so much animosity regarding Green Bay, it's ridiculous."

COMMON SENSE: Javon Walker didn't want to fulfill his agreement, and didn't want to play for the Packers.

COMMON SENSE: Javon Walker's actions were completely out of line and he overtly attempted to undermine the team's ability to attract future free agents through a public smear campaign in order to get himself out from under his obligations.

COMMON SENSE: Javon Walker's OBVIOUS unwillingness to play for the Packers gave the team no reasonable choice but to get what value they could for him.

COMMON SENSE: Javon Walker's ridiculous public positioning and refusal to abide by the terms he already agreed upon made this situation so bad that not only is his ABSENCE from the team a positive development, regardless of what other players the team has, whether Charles Woodson, Charles Manson, Marquand Manuel or Manuel Noriega, but his PRESENCE on the team would be seriously undermining the unity and development of this young group.

[Scott Campbell]

LOL

Nice work Vince. I'm gonna miss Packnut.

[Oscar]

Great post Vince!

[Bretsky]

LOL

Nice work Vince. I'm gonna miss Packnut.

Yes, nice work...but heck I don't want to shut up Packnut. He adds spice to the forum and does have strong views. Some agree partially with mine but he's much more extreme. And there is still a chance TT falls hard on his face and he's right in the end.

The one thing I'd question about Vince's responses was the common sense portions at the end. I'd just add this.

If TT valued Javon Walker and truly wanted to keep him around, he should have went about things differently. The company line isn't always the right answer in today's day and age. Sometimes if you value a player you can step outside the box and go out of your way to massage an ego. And I'm not saying give him the deal as soon as he's whining. But make an effort to keep peace in hopes that a long term relationship can be salvaged. It's tough to lose a player of this high caliber and TT made some mistakes in how he handles Javon Walker.

I think if TT read my paragraph above he might agree.


B

[Scott Campbell]

True. Nobody from the Packer Nation liked how this turned out. Except maybe Greg Jennings fans.

[vince]

LOL

Nice work Vince. I'm gonna miss Packnut.

Yes, nice work...but heck I don't want to shut up Packnut. He adds spice to the forum and does have strong views. Some agree partially with mine but he's much more extreme. And there is still a chance TT falls hard on his face and he's right in the end.

The one thing I'd question about Vince's responses was the common sense portions at the end. I'd just add this.

If TT valued Javon Walker and truly wanted to keep him around, he should have went about things differently. The company line isn't always the right answer in today's day and age. Sometimes if you value a player you can step outside the box and go out of your way to massage an ego. And I'm not saying give him the deal as soon as he's whining. But make an effort to keep peace in hopes that a long term relationship can be salvaged. It's tough to lose a player of this high caliber and TT made some mistakes in how he handles Javon Walker.

I think if TT read my paragraph above he might agree.


B

I do agree with some of that B, but never in the history of the NFL (to my knowledge) has a team renegotiated a contract with 3 years remaining on it - as Walker insisted on when he boycotted training camp prior to the '05 season. It didn't happen to Jim Brown, Walter Payton, Jerry Rice - NOONE. Walker's good, but he's not the best player in the history of the league - not yet anyway as far as I can tell.

Renegotiating a contract with 2 years left on it is absolutely unheard of, and renegotiating a contract with 1 year left on it is extremely rare. There are too many unknowns with the salary cap and injuries for that to occur - especially with a lot of unfulfilled years left on a previous agreement...

My opinion is that if he would have taken a different tact himself, the results would have been MUCH different. The Packers renegotiated Driver's contract one year left on his previous agreement - because he acted in good faith throughout. If Walker would have acted in good faith, and if he wouldn't have had a major knee injury, there is no doubt in my mind that the Packers would have renegotiated his contract when he had one year left on it.

Boycotting the team and assassinating the team in public to get what you want is an idiotic way to approach things. Nothing good can result from it - unless you absolutely want to burn that bridge and destruct the team with your presence, which Walker obviously did.

[Rastak]

[quote="vince"]
Renegotiating a contract with 2 years left on it is absolutely unheard of, and renegotiating a contract with 1 year left on it is extremely rare. quote]


Vince, unheard of? No way. Didn't Richard Seymour either last year or this year redo his deal with two years left? How many years did Harris and Driver have left when they got their deals? Extremely rare on one year deals? Not at all, it actually somewhat common. 2 year deals are rare but hardly unheard of.

[vince]

[quote=vince]
Renegotiating a contract with 2 years left on it is absolutely unheard of, and renegotiating a contract with 1 year left on it is extremely rare. quote]


Vince, unheard of? No way. Didn't Richard Seymour either last year or this year redo his deal with two years left? How many years did Harris and Driver have left when they got their deals? Extremely rare on one year deals? Not at all, it actually somewhat common. 2 year deals are rare but hardly unheard of.

Semantics Ras. Of course it happens, but I'd guess that less than 10% of the players in the NFL renegotiate their contracts prior to the period where its expiration is imminent. That's just a guess, but if that's close, I consider that rare. 90% of the time, it doesn't happen.

[Rastak]

[quote=vince]
Renegotiating a contract with 2 years left on it is absolutely unheard of, and renegotiating a contract with 1 year left on it is extremely rare. quote]


Vince, unheard of? No way. Didn't Richard Seymour either last year or this year redo his deal with two years left? How many years did Harris and Driver have left when they got their deals? Extremely rare on one year deals? Not at all, it actually somewhat common. 2 year deals are rare but hardly unheard of.

Semantics Ras. Of course it happens, but I'd guess that less than 10% of the players in the NFL renegotiate their contracts prior to the period where its expiration is imminent. That's just a guess, but if that's close, I consider that rare. 90% of the time, it doesn't happen.


I'm not trying to nitpic, but you use words like unheard of and extremely rare and that isn't true in the least. I don't have time to pull numbers but I'd say 2 year renegotiations are rare and 1 years are quite common.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Didn't Richard Seymour either last year or this year redo his deal with two years left?

Actually, Seymour held out last year with two years remaining on his contract, but New England didn't redo his deal. The Patriots redid his deal this offseason with a year left on his contract.

Walker had three years left on his deal when he started bitching and moaning and after one great year in three. I can't pin the blame on Thompson on this one. For the talk that Thompson could have massaged Walker's ego, there are a ton of good GMs for winning teams that play hardball in these situations.

[Rastak]

Didn't Richard Seymour either last year or this year redo his deal with two years left?

Actually, Seymour held out last year with two years remaining on his contract, but New England didn't redo his deal. The Patriots redid his deal this offseason with a year left on his contract.

Walker had three years left on his deal when he started bitching and moaning and after one great year in three. I can't pin the blame on Thompson on this one. For the talk that Thompson could have massaged Walker's ego, there are a ton of good GMs for winning teams that play hardball in these situations.


Three year deals are a different kettle of fish, now that's rare. I still think Seymore had two years left.


edit: Nope you are correct, he had one year left.

[HarveyWallbangers]

From ESPN:

Seymour, 26, was entering the final season of his contract and scheduled to earn a 2006 base salary of $2.02 million. Without the extension, Seymour would have been eligible for unrestricted free agency next spring

[HarveyWallbangers]

I do disagree with this part of Vince's post:


FACT: The definition of a contract is: a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially, one legally enforceable.

FACT: While contracts are occassionally renegotiated, NEITHER PARTY is obligated to change the agreement after the fact. Conversely, both player and team are legally obligated to abide by the terms of the contract that is mutually agreed upon.

Binding? Hardly. The team can cut the player at any time.

I don't have a problem with a guy wanting to renegotiate. I do have a problem with a guy who has had one good year and has three years left on his contract wanting to renegotiate.

[FritzDontBlitz]

well put, vince.

the walker lovers probably aint listening, though.

personally, i wish tt would have called walker's bluff and forced him to choose retirement. i don't think he would have, though....what he would have probably done is went to every sympathetic writer he could find and bash the hell out of brett, tt and the pack in the media hopes of embarrassing green bay into caving in to his contract demands.

in a related story of sorts, look at the way green bay, brett, tt and m3 embraced k-rob and continue to support him during his suspension. look at brett's remarks about how callous and stupid the nfl's substance abuse policy is. sounds to me like an organization that will go out of its way to help a player who really wants to be there.

[FritzDontBlitz]

by the way....

isn't brett in danger of a fine for criticizing the league's policies like that?

[FritzDontBlitz]

I do disagree with this part of Vince's post:


FACT: The definition of a contract is: a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially, one legally enforceable.

FACT: While contracts are occassionally renegotiated, NEITHER PARTY is obligated to change the agreement after the fact. Conversely, both player and team are legally obligated to abide by the terms of the contract that is mutually agreed upon.

Binding? Hardly. The team can cut the player at any time.

I don't have a problem with a guy wanting to renegotiate. I do have a problem with a guy who has had one good year and has three years left on his contract wanting to renegotiate.

not necessarily true. a team can only cut you if you fail to hold up to your end of the bargain - mainly by coming in out of shape or being outplayed by someone else on the roster and therefore becoming expendable - but the team is still obligated to pay you through the remainder of your contract unless another team steps in and absorbs the costs by signing the player. many ex-packers still count as "dead cap space" for this reason.

[HarveyWallbangers]

but the team is still obligated to pay you through the remainder of your contract unless another team steps in and absorbs the costs by signing the player. many ex-packers still count as "dead cap space" for this reason.

The team isn't obligated to pay the player the rest of his contract.

It works like this. For example, say a player signed for 5y/$5M plus $1M signing bonus for a total of $6M. Let's say the team cuts the player after two years. The player would have received $3M on the $6M contract. For salary cap purposes the signing bonus is spread out over the length of the contract... meaning it counts $200,000/year against the cap. When a player gets cut, the remaining portion of the cap charge is pushed against the cap that year. Thus, the player would count as $600,000 of dead cap space. The player only saw half the money that he originally signed for.

[HarveyWallbangers]

a team can only cut you if you fail to hold up to your end of the bargain - mainly by coming in out of shape or being outplayed by someone else on the roster and therefore becoming expendable

A team can cut you for any reason they want. You could be playing as well as you can (even better than you did when you signed the original contract), but they could sign or draft better player(s), and you become expendable.

[vince]

I do disagree with this part of Vince's post:


FACT: The definition of a contract is: a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially, one legally enforceable.

FACT: While contracts are occassionally renegotiated, NEITHER PARTY is obligated to change the agreement after the fact. Conversely, both player and team are legally obligated to abide by the terms of the contract that is mutually agreed upon.

Binding? Hardly. The team can cut the player at any time.

I don't have a problem with a guy wanting to renegotiate. I do have a problem with a guy who has had one good year and has three years left on his contract wanting to renegotiate.

That's part of every contract, Harv. That's why players negotiate for guaranteed money, rather than a guaranteed spot on the team. If you're not good enough, or in some cases, if you've negotiated too much back-end compensation, every player knows that the contract includes the possibility of being cut. It's right in the agreement. Because someone gets cut does not mean that the team did not hold up its end of the agreement.

[HarveyWallbangers]

That's part of every contract, Harv. That's why players negotiate for guaranteed money, rather than a guaranteed spot on the team. If you're not good enough, or in some cases, if you've negotiated too much back-end compensation, every player knows that the contract includes the possibility of being cut. It's right in the agreement. Because someone gets cut does not mean that the team did not hold up its end of the agreement.

That's true, but don't tell me these agreements are binding. It's also understood that if a player far exceeds the terms of his contract, he will get his contract renegotiated (in a majority of the cases). I don't like the attitude that a player never has a right to renegotiate their deal. I think there's a gray area when this is appropriate, and Walker wasn't one that should have been clamoring for a new deal yet. However, he had performed for three years like he did in 2004 and had a year left or two left on his contract, it would be understandble (and I think fair) for the team to renegotiate.

[vince]

That's part of every contract, Harv. That's why players negotiate for guaranteed money, rather than a guaranteed spot on the team. If you're not good enough, or in some cases, if you've negotiated too much back-end compensation, every player knows that the contract includes the possibility of being cut. It's right in the agreement. Because someone gets cut does not mean that the team did not hold up its end of the agreement.

That's true, but don't tell me these agreements are binding. It's also understood that if a player far exceeds the terms of his contract, he will get his contract renegotiated (in a majority of the cases). I don't like the attitude that a player never has a right to renegotiate their deal. I think there's a gray area when this is appropriate, and Walker wasn't one that should have been clamoring for a new deal yet. However, he had performed for three years like he did in 2004 and had a year left or two left on his contract, it would be understandble (and I think fair) for the team to renegotiate.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the contract isn't "binding." How isn't it? If a team doesn't pay a player or otherwise meet the terms of their agreement, you can bet your bottom dollar that the player's agent would have a lawsuit filed promptly...and they'd win that suit in court. That's a legally "bound" agreement.

Are you referring to when players hold out and don't fulfill their responsibilities according to an agreement? When that happens, there are resolutions in the NFL Players agreements that dictate the repercussions of such actions on the part of the players, which include the right of teams to impose substantial fines and other penalties. I'm sure you're aware of those, so I'm not sure what you mean by your statement about the agreements not being "binding."

I agree that a player has a right to renegotiate a deal at any time. However, the team doesn't have an obligation to agree with their position. That's a negotiation. Some tactics are more effective than others in those renegotiations. I don't doubt that Thompson's unwillingness to renegotiate with Walker motivated Walker to want to move on. He would have an unbound ability to do that at the end of the contract to which he had previously agreed.

Players have the right to negotiate shorter term contracts up front as well. Most prefer the relative security and higher guaranteed upfront money that comes with longer-term contracts at the time they sign them.

The system, starting with the draft is, no doubt, set up to favor the teams, and the legal ramifications of a team owning exclusive rights to negotiate with a player is beyond my understanding. But the structure has withstood legal challenge and questioning for many years now.

The bottom line is that each player chooses whether they want to engage in the profession of football. By doing so they become very well compensated for their services, by almost any standard. And they accept the risks of their trade and the parameters of the agreements they sign on their own free will. While there are many circumstances that dictate that it might make sense to renegotiate, any team has every right to expect that both parties will fulfill the terms they agreed upon - especially when the party seeking to renegotiate uses selfish, bad faith tactics to the detriment of the other. That's not how to get a deal renegotiated.

[Bretsky]

"Renegotiating a contract with 2 years left on it is absolutely unheard of, and renegotiating a contract with 1 year left on it is extremely rare. There are too many unknowns with the salary cap and injuries for that to occur - especially with a lot of unfulfilled years left on a previous agreement... "

If memory serves me right I think Chad Johnson reworked his deal with 2 years left. I'm by no means advocating the 3yr rework.

Not even sure I'd redo it at 2. But if I'm the GM I'm communicating with JW and letting him know GB will take care of him. A bit of ego massaging.


Where the heck is Patler when ya need him. I think renegotiating with 2 years left has been done a couple times in the past few years.

Keep in mind, I do feel JW is a difference maker; you don't want to lose those for a measley #2. It's just rough for me to stomach how the whole situation was dealt with on both sides.

B

[vince]

"Renegotiating a contract with 2 years left on it is absolutely unheard of, and renegotiating a contract with 1 year left on it is extremely rare. There are too many unknowns with the salary cap and injuries for that to occur - especially with a lot of unfulfilled years left on a previous agreement... "

If memory serves me right I think Chad Johnson reworked his deal with 2 years left. I'm by no means advocating the 3yr rework.

Not even sure I'd redo it at 2. But if I'm the GM I'm communicating with JW and letting him know GB will take care of him. A bit of ego massaging.


Where the heck is Patler when ya need him. I think renegotiating with 2 years left has been done a couple times in the past few years.

Keep in mind, I do feel JW is a difference maker; you don't want to lose those for a measley #2. It's just rough for me to stomach how the whole situation was dealt with on both sides.

B
OK, maybe I got a little carried away with the "absolutely unheard of" remark. I'll go with "extremely rare" for 2-year reneg's and "uncommon" for 1-year reneg's. Am I allowed to do that?

But I'm sticking with the "never been done" on the 3 year reneg's until Patler proves me wrong...