Green Bay and Chicago (only teams without a signing)

[justanotherpackfan]

The Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears are the only two teams in the NFL who have not signed a free agent.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Look at the bright side. One of us went to the Super Bowl last year.

[red]

SEE, do you guys see the problem

we're no better then the f%cking bears right now. we're doing to same thing as the suckiest team thats ever sucked

[Bretsky]

Look at the bright side. One of us went to the Super Bowl last year.


Bright side ?

If we end up with 11 draft picks after the trade downs most will probably be able to make the team with all the holes left ?

[retailguy]

The Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears are the only two teams in the NFL who have not signed a free agent.

Well, there goes the argument, that 1/3 of the league "has not been active in free agency, WHAT is the rush?".

What a joke.

[Bretsky]

The Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears are the only two teams in the NFL who have not signed a free agent.

Well, there goes the argument, that 1/3 of the league "has not been active in free agency, WHAT is the rush?".

What a joke.


I say we all meet at the Big Ten Tourney and suck some brewski's tomorrow.

[CaliforniaCheez]

1) Cullen Jenkins RFA They signed a defensive lineman who can play all four positions and rarely gets injured. Good attitude guy.

2) They signed one of the most expensive Free Agent longsnappers in the league.

3) They got great value in TE Donald Lee for 595K minimum plus "modest bonus". He has 63 catches for 664 yards in 4 years. That in a market where the vikings paid 18 million over 5 years with 7 guaranteed for a TE with 35 catches and 253 yards in the same 4 years.

4) Added LB Tracy White and 5 year veteran OL Andrew Walter.


There is some lack of research.

[retailguy]

1) Cullen Jenkins RFA They signed a defensive lineman who can play all four positions and rarely gets injured. Good attitude guy.

2) They signed one of the most expensive Free Agent longsnappers in the league.

3) They got great value in TE Donald Lee for 595K minimum plus "modest bonus". He has 63 catches for 664 yards in 4 years. That in a market where the vikings paid 18 million over 5 years with 7 guaranteed for a TE with 35 catches and 253 yards in the same 4 years.

4) Added LB Tracy White and 5 year veteran OL Andrew Walter.


There is some lack of research.


THANKS VERY MUCH! I feel so much better now. :roll:

[MJZiggy]

The Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears are the only two teams in the NFL who have not signed a free agent.

Well, there goes the argument, that 1/3 of the league "has not been active in free agency, WHAT is the rush?".

What a joke.


I say we all meet at the Big Ten Tourney and suck some brewski's tomorrow.

Have one for me.

[justanotherpackfan]

There is some lack of research.
Free agent signings within the organization don't count i.e Cullen Jenkins, Tracy White, etc.

[LEWCWA]

I believe Hamlin will be here when its all done and that will make me happy. Most of these FA are just guys, no need to worry....If your going to sign just guys, why not wait until the price goes down!

[LEWCWA]

Don't you guys see where FA gets you. Just look at the Vikes and Redskins! Why pay top $$ for people others don't want!

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think it's as ludicrous to say that signing FAs causes you NOT to win as it is to think signing FAs will really help you win. Four of Chicago's five starting OL were FAs--even though they were a team that drafted near the top 10 for the better part of the last 7 years. I'm not saying go hog mild. I'm saying supplement. At this point, most of these guys "are just a guy." More of the guys that have already signed are not. I like Hood, and I like Hamlin. Realistically, what are the chances the Thompson fills 3 of the 5 major holes we have with good FAs at this point. One? Maybe.

[esoxx]

I believe Hamlin will be here when its all done and that will make me happy. Most of these FA are just guys, no need to worry....If your going to sign just guys, why not wait until the price goes down!

Yeah, like when he waited to sign Charles Woodson last year. That was quite a bargin. :roll:

[LEWCWA]

I would say Woodson at just over 4 mil. cap # is a great deal...

[Bretsky]

Don't you guys see where FA gets you. Just look at the Vikes and Redskins! Why pay top $$ for people others don't want!


How would we have done without Woodson last year ?

This is a general question to all of the posters that use the excuse that we can not "overpay" for the Turtle.

Surely we overpaid for Woodsen at the time.

And we'd have been in severe trouble without him. I have a hard time using the excuse that FA doesn't help in your success.

[Bretsky]

I would say Woodson at just over 4 mil. cap # is a great deal...

Nearly all of the posters thought we overpaid Woodson "last year" based on where he was in his career. The previous two years he did next to nothing and was considered an outcast and not a hard worker when he signed the deal.

And many don't expect that contract to go through it's term; if you figure that it's fair to say he got a heck of a lot better than 4MIL per year.

[Partial]

1) Cullen Jenkins RFA They signed a defensive lineman who can play all four positions and rarely gets injured. Good attitude guy.

2) They signed one of the most expensive Free Agent longsnappers in the league.

3) They got great value in TE Donald Lee for 595K minimum plus "modest bonus". He has 63 catches for 664 yards in 4 years. That in a market where the vikings paid 18 million over 5 years with 7 guaranteed for a TE with 35 catches and 253 yards in the same 4 years.

4) Added LB Tracy White and 5 year veteran OL Andrew Walter.


There is some lack of research.


THANKS VERY MUCH! I feel so much better now. :roll:

Alright buddy, who should they have signed other than the old and broke down Ahman Green?

[MJZiggy]

Don't you guys see where FA gets you. Just look at the Vikes and Redskins! Why pay top $$ for people others don't want!


How would we have done without Woodson last year ?

This is a general question to all of the posters that use the excuse that we can not "overpay" for the Turtle.

Surely we overpaid for Woodsen at the time.

And we'd have been in severe trouble without him. I have a hard time using the excuse that FA doesn't help in your success.

Thanks, B. You've made the point I've been trying to make all along. We did pay Woodson a lot of money (and pissed off Harris in the process to the point we had to redo his contract as well) and he wasn't signed until very late. He demonstrates that you can find guys later in the offseason that will make a huge difference to the team's success. Thompson saw that he had benefits to offer the team and took care of business. What makes you think at the beginning of March that it won't happen again? He's brought people in but not signed them. Maybe that means that when the guys got into town, in the discussions it became apparent that it wasn't a good fit. I don't know. I'm not speculating, but I'm just not willing to panic right now. There can be definite problems in getting a great big name guy that doesn't quite fit. (see Edgerrin James--great player, just not the killer in AZ everyone thought he was gonna be) I don't know what's going on in TT's office (I'm sure you'll share your ideas) but I know it worked out ok last year and figure he knows more about what's going on in there than I do. Last year I was really hoping for Vinatieri, but he didn't sign with us. TT still found a kicker before the season started, right.

[red]

I would say Woodson at just over 4 mil. cap # is a great deal...

???????????

he signed a 7 year 52.7 million dollar deal

thats about 7.5 a year

we didn't get a bargain by waiting to sign him. people need to stop saying we got a good deal for woodson because we waited so long. we gave him one of the biggest deals last year. and i don't remember him being a high demand guy, thats why he was still there that late

[CaliforniaCheez]

Woodson's deal has a big break in cost after 3 years.

I see it as a 3 year deal with a lot of back end costs that make it look large.

Woodson's deal is really a 3 year deal and his replacement has to be found this year or next or it begins to get expensive.

The deal is why so many keep saying the Packers need a CB in the draft.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Thanks, B. You've made the point I've been trying to make all along. We did pay Woodson a lot of money (and pissed off Harris in the process to the point we had to redo his contract as well) and he wasn't signed until very late.

Harris complained about his deal even before the Packers signed Charles Woodson.

[red]

Woodson's deal has a big break in cost after 3 years.

I see it as a 3 year deal with a lot of back end costs that make it look large.

Woodson's deal is really a 3 year deal and his replacement has to be found this year or next or it begins to get expensive.

The deal is why so many keep saying the Packers need a CB in the draft.

NO NO NO

i call bullshit

you and everyone else use full contracts to show how insane all the deals are that are being made

none of those deals are what the appear to be. none of those guys will get all that money

but now its ok, to see contracts for what they are. only when it helps your cause out

complete bull shit

[Packnut]

Woodson's deal has a big break in cost after 3 years.

I see it as a 3 year deal with a lot of back end costs that make it look large.

Woodson's deal is really a 3 year deal and his replacement has to be found this year or next or it begins to get expensive.

The deal is why so many keep saying the Packers need a CB in the draft.

NO NO NO

i call bullshit

you and everyone else use full contracts to show how insane all the deals are that are being made

none of those deals are what the appear to be. none of those guys will get all that money

but now its ok, to see contracts for what they are. only when it helps your cause out

complete bull shit

red- don't be so hard on them. :lol: I think the problem is some of these guys don't know how to READ the contracts or understand them.

[BooHoo]

All of this FA talk and non-talk is getting old. I can't wait until the draft next month. :)

[Brohm]

Contracts aside, I like the idea of drafting a DB every year. We have one of the best cornerback tandems in the league, each with a different skill set. It would be a good idea to stock up on some young talent that can learn behind these two, before they get to long in the tooth.

Edit: Some may think it overstocking, but hey...we got Ahman Green for Fred Vinson once the dust settled :shock: DB's are always in demand, just like a good, young developing QB (Hasselbeck, Detmer, Brooks, etc.).

We need to get back to that.

[Patler]

Woodson's deal has a big break in cost after 3 years.

I see it as a 3 year deal with a lot of back end costs that make it look large.

Woodson's deal is really a 3 year deal and his replacement has to be found this year or next or it begins to get expensive.

The deal is why so many keep saying the Packers need a CB in the draft.

NO NO NO

i call bullshit

you and everyone else use full contracts to show how insane all the deals are that are being made

none of those deals are what the appear to be. none of those guys will get all that money

but now its ok, to see contracts for what they are. only when it helps your cause out

complete bull shit

red- don't be so hard on them. :lol: I think the problem is some of these guys don't know how to READ the contracts or understand them.

Well, I know how to read them, as well as the CBA, There are two things to look at, signing bonuses and salaries + bonuses over the first two to three years. Many of the contracts this year are absurd in the guaranteed money in the first year or two.

Woodson's deal isn't all that expensive over the first few years, so yes, he was realtively inexpensive.

4 million signing bonus
4.4 million roster and "other"bonus in 2006
1.5 million salary in 2006
1.25 million salary in 2007
2.3 million roster/"other" bonus in 2007

...and, don't forget, much of the 6.7 million in "other" bonuses in 2006 and 2007 are "per game" bonuses that are not earned if he is on onjured reserve. There is tremendous protection for the team in that contract. This was a huge step down for woodson, who was demanding much more guaranteed money early in FA.

So, looking at various scenarios ask youself these questions:
How much would GB have been out if Woodson never made it out of training camp?
Or if he had been hurt and done at some point during the season?
Or was cut after 2006?
Or is cut after 2007?

Now, compare that to some of the other contracts last year or this year. If you really look at them, Green has more guaranteed money than Woodson through the first two years, which is about all either one will last.

When I complain about a contract, it is based on the money the team can't avoid paying at various stages in the contract.

[Scott Campbell]

[When I complain about a contract, it is based on the money the team can't avoid paying at various stages in the contract.

Seems like you haven't had that much to complain about in that regard since they showed Shermy the door.

[Patler]

The Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears are the only two teams in the NFL who have not signed a free agent.

Well, there goes the argument, that 1/3 of the league "has not been active in free agency, WHAT is the rush?".

What a joke.

I believe the premise of this thread is inaccurate. I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

Carolina has signed one FA, Na'il Diggs, who was their own FA. So how is that different than GB resigning Walter or White who were both UFAs?

I don't believe the Giants have signed a FA, they made a trade.

Indianapolis signed one, Morris, who of course was their own FA.

The Jets haven't signed a FA, they made a trade too.

Pittsburgh has signed one, Najeh Davenport, who was their own. So how is that different than GB resigning Walter or White who were both UFAs?

So I think it is accurate to say 7 of 32 teams have not been active in FA.

[HarveyWallbangers]

So I think it is accurate to say 7 of 32 teams have not been active in FA.

Thanks. That makes me feel much better.

[Bretsky]

Don't you guys see where FA gets you. Just look at the Vikes and Redskins! Why pay top $$ for people others don't want!


How would we have done without Woodson last year ?

This is a general question to all of the posters that use the excuse that we can not "overpay" for the Turtle.

Surely we overpaid for Woodsen at the time.

And we'd have been in severe trouble without him. I have a hard time using the excuse that FA doesn't help in your success.

Thanks, B. You've made the point I've been trying to make all along. We did pay Woodson a lot of money (and pissed off Harris in the process to the point we had to redo his contract as well) and he wasn't signed until very late. He demonstrates that you can find guys later in the offseason that will make a huge difference to the team's success. Thompson saw that he had benefits to offer the team and took care of business. What makes you think at the beginning of March that it won't happen again? He's brought people in but not signed them. Maybe that means that when the guys got into town, in the discussions it became apparent that it wasn't a good fit. I don't know. I'm not speculating, but I'm just not willing to panic right now. There can be definite problems in getting a great big name guy that doesn't quite fit. (see Edgerrin James--great player, just not the killer in AZ everyone thought he was gonna be) I don't know what's going on in TT's office (I'm sure you'll share your ideas) but I know it worked out ok last year and figure he knows more about what's going on in there than I do. Last year I was really hoping for Vinatieri, but he didn't sign with us. TT still found a kicker before the season started, right.

Last year was a very strong FA year, and after Pickett TT camped out in his shell, and then stuck his head out and signed an impact player in Woodson

What makes me think he won't get away with that this year as well ? A weak free agency class and owners having too much money has changed the market. About 3/5 of the top 50 are signed after a week. I'm not convinced there will be anybody left of great impact to sign as late as we did with Woodson

[LEWCWA]

Thats bunk, cause the one guy they need to go after is still on the market-Hamlin.....Plus a trade for Moss would make this a nice FA period.

[LEWCWA]

Looking at the FA signed I really don't see any that jump out that we should have tried hard for.

[LEWCWA]

Sure Henry may have been nice at RB, but why bother.

[LEWCWA]

wr-Bennett is a nice player, but again why bother, Stallworth is a tease, these players just don't make GB much better

[LEWCWA]

The only thing I can say is I wish they would have locked up Green b4 FA. And maybe Griffith....I don't think any of the FA TE are better than what we have and the staff seems to be high on the young guys!!

[Pacopete4]

it is so weird though.. cuz TT as much as he frustrates everyone of us.. he did come thru last year FA wise..

[Bretsky]

Sure Henry may have been nice at RB, but why bother.


Henry
E Johnson
Griffeth
Hood (but I'm not sure about the terms....AT LEAST TRY)
Grant......or Hamlin


LEW, are you going to change your tune if/when Hamlin goes somewhere else as well ???

[esoxx]

Woodson's deal isn't all that expensive over the first few years, so yes, he was realtively inexpensive.

4 million signing bonus
4.4 million roster and "other"bonus in 2006
1.5 million salary in 2006
1.25 million salary in 2007
2.3 million roster/"other" bonus in 2007



I would hardly call making 9.9 mil in '06 alone realtively inexpensive for a guy who hadn't made it through a season in a few years and whose best years were behind him.

Even through '07 the contract still averages in the area of 6.5 mil.

That's pretty good $ for a CB on the wrong side of his career who until '06 hadn't shown the ability to stay on the field in several years.

[Patler]

Woodson's deal isn't all that expensive over the first few years, so yes, he was realtively inexpensive.

4 million signing bonus
4.4 million roster and "other"bonus in 2006
1.5 million salary in 2006
1.25 million salary in 2007
2.3 million roster/"other" bonus in 2007



I would hardly call making 9.9 mil in '06 alone realtively inexpensive for a guy who hadn't made it through a season in a few years and whose best years were behind him.

Even through '07 the contract still averages in the area of 6.5 mil.

That's pretty good $ for a CB on the wrong side of his career who until '06 hadn't shown the ability to stay on the field in several years.

You missed the point. He wasn't guaranteed the 9.9 million in 2006. He wasn't even guaranteed that by making the opening roster.

If he had not made it through the year he would not have made that much.
The 4 million signing bonus was guaranteed, but much of the rest was not. The salary of course was not guaranteed until he made the opening roster. Part of the 4.4 million was a roster bonus and guaranteed early, but a substantial part of it was a "per week" roster bonus that was earned only if he was on the active roster that week. That was an innovative bonus structure by the Packers that has now been used in Harris' new contract, and I think also for Driver and Wells.

I didn't say it was a cheap contract, but if he was not physically able to play it would not have cost the Packers nearly that much last year. Same for this year, with the "per week" bonus protection. The Packers have much better protection for the team in Woodson's contract than the Texans appear to have in Green's contract, for example. Or some of the teams that have given out huge signing bonuses.

So long as the player is healthy and playing, paying him doesn't really hurt the team even if he is overpaid a bit. The problem comes in when he is on IR or has been released, but still counts big dollars against the cap.

HYPOTHETICAL - How much better off would the Packers have been if Joe Johnson had been given a contract structured like Woodson's instead of all guarantees as he had?

Johnson was also a player with a long history of injury; and in two seasons in GB he played 11 games, total. He received about $11 million from GB for playing in those 11 games. If he had had a contract similar to Woodson's, with a smaller signing bonus and in season bonuses tied to playing time, the cap effect of his failure would not have been as significant of a problem as it was. If he had had a different contract structure, perhaps the Packers would have had the flexibility to re-sign Wahle .......

[LEWCWA]

Bret-I probably won't change it too much, but I would like to see tham pick up a guy like Hamlin only because Underwood is such a ?. To be honest I don't like any of the tight ends that were available. I think Graham is Bubba incarnate, Johnson is decent, but apparently the young guys have some ability, which I have no clue about. If it wasn't a difference maker at TE ie TG then I think Bubba is as good as the FA available. I do have to believe Bubba will be better next year too. ie get to go out on more patterns...It looked like he was getting in a groove in the Minn game, but low and behold he couldn't hold onto the ball....That shit happens sometimes.

[LEWCWA]

I don't like any of the WR either. If they can bring Moss in I'm all for it as he might be a difference maker on the field. I believe those are the kinds of players you take chances on. He may be a complete bust, but he also has the ability to give Favre a chance to break Mannings TD record, thats a chance I would be willing to take. Thats why I loved the Woodson signing, he has the ability to be a difference maker! Had he been a bust oh well! I would've been on board with trying to get McGahee as well as I believe he has the ability to be a special back.....Droughns, etc are just backs nothing special!

[HarveyWallbangers]

We don't really have young guys at TE. Bubba is on the downside of his career. Lee has been around awhile. Expecting Alcorn or Humphrey to be more than a serviceable backup is dreaming. I think we've seen enough of them to know they have limitations. It's as likely that one or both of those guys will be cut before the season starters.

[LEWCWA]

Limitations!? Well one of them it was quoted as haveing the best hands on the team.....talk about limitations--Graham-has huge limitations!

[LEWCWA]

Johnson is an injury season waiting to happen! And that was my point, why sign guys comparable to what is already here just to sign someone. Niether Jones or Graham are any better than Bubba!

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'd rather have McMichael for 3y/$11M. Maybe Alcorn or Humphrey develops into a good starter. I'd say it's a real longshot.

[LEWCWA]

A definite case of the grass is always greener.

[woodbuck27]

Woodson's deal has a big break in cost after 3 years.

I see it as a 3 year deal with a lot of back end costs that make it look large.

Woodson's deal is really a 3 year deal and his replacement has to be found this year or next or it begins to get expensive.

The deal is why so many keep saying the Packers need a CB in the draft.

I believe that acquiring a CB is prudent because we lack depth here. A team cannot lack depth in this key position.

We went into FA with Woodson and Harris at CB and little else.

[Partial]

I'd rather have McMichael for 3y/$11M. Maybe Alcorn or Humphrey develops into a good starter. I'd say it's a real longshot.

That would have been a good signing. It's kind of a shame. Oh well, I suppose.

[woodbuck27]

RE: Randy Moss:

''He may be a complete bust, but he also has the ability to give Favre a chance to break Mannings TD record, thats a chance I would be willing to take.'' LEWCWA

Favre will break (Marino's) TD record with or without Randy Moss if he plays in 2007.

My concern is that Favre may pull a surprize move and retire if he doesn't see more effort made by Ted Thompson to upgrade OUR 'O'.

He can't be pleased that Ahman Green is gone. Who would that please? Yet we must live with it as Packer fans but Brett Favre doesn't have to.

We are in a deeper hole talent wise on 'O', having one more need on offense than when 2006 ended.Is the answer at RB in the draft?

I'd feel happier if Ted Thompson made a deal that secured a proven RB like Julius Jones.

[mngolf19]

Not to poke at anyone. Just asking an honest question. What positions do you feel the Packers have depth at? From my standpoint they have less depth than last year in general. And it sounds like others agree.

[Partial]

Not to poke at anyone. Just asking an honest question. What positions do you feel the Packers have depth at? From my standpoint they have less depth than last year in general. And it sounds like others agree.

They don't have any depth. At any position. They will have it at OL and LB if they continue to draft well and players develop.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Not to poke at anyone. Just asking an honest question. What positions do you feel the Packers have depth at? From my standpoint they have less depth than last year in general. And it sounds like others agree.

No, I don't think they have less depth than last year. Many of the guys that were backups last year are still backups, but have a year of experience. They've only lost Ahman and Martin. I don't think Martin was much of a loss. They have Rodgers and Moll. They have guys like Jolly, Hodge, Culver, Underwood, Blackmon, Humphrey, Alcorn, Pope, Beach. They'd just be silly to count on those guys. Until you finish FA and the draft, not many teams are going to have a ton of depth. To an outsider, Minnesota has little depth--except at RB and DL. I'm sure you are expecting some of the guys that others haven't heard about to step up, and you are expecting the draft to fill a lot of the depth.

[woodbuck27]

Not to poke at anyone. Just asking an honest question. What positions do you feel the Packers have depth at? From my standpoint they have less depth than last year in general. And it sounds like others agree.

No, I don't think they have less depth than last year. Many of the guys that were backups last year are still backups, but have a year of experience. They've only lost Ahman and Martin. I don't think Martin was much of a loss. They have Rodgers and Moll. They have guys like Jolly, Hodge, Culver, Underwood, Blackmon, Humphrey, Alcorn, Pope, Beach. They'd just be silly to count on those guys. Until you finish FA and the draft, not many teams are going to have a ton of depth. To an outsider, Minnesota has little depth--except at RB and DL. I'm sure you are expecting some of the guys that others haven't heard about to step up, and you are expecting the draft to fill a lot of the depth.

I like OUR depth on the DL. I don't like it on the OL.

If we sign S Ken Hamlin and I hope that becomes a reality . We have depth at Safety with Collins,Manuel (Well ??),Underwood and Culver.

We just got a tad deeper at CB with OUR first FA signing in Frank White.The draft may help us there.

We are in trouble at LBer and TE (alot depends on Bubba rebounding).

We are in deep trouble at RB.

We are barely there at WR. I only see three in DD,Jennings and Martin.I hold no faith in Robert Ferguson.

[Bretsky]

Not to poke at anyone. Just asking an honest question. What positions do you feel the Packers have depth at? From my standpoint they have less depth than last year in general. And it sounds like others agree.


DL.......and........ah........nothing else


If TT decides to trade down continuously we still have plenty of holes to fill.

[MJZiggy]

We have depth at QB.

[HarveyWallbangers]

We aren't done signing guys. If Hodge is the player we thought we were getting in the draft, he could be good depth at LB. Taylor is serviceable--if he resigns. We could draft guys. Interior OL is filled with prospects. There isn't a lot at OT. We could have depth at WR if Moss is acquired or we draft a guy like Meachem. TE and RB stink. I wouldn't say we don't have depth at CB. Blackmon could be the man. Walker might help. DL depth is good. Safety depth is good--although I think we need a better starter.

[Bretsky]

We aren't done signing guys. If Hodge is the player we thought we were getting in the draft, he could be good depth at LB. Taylor is serviceable--if he resigns. We could draft guys. Interior OL is filled with prospects. There isn't a lot at OT. We could have depth at WR if Moss is acquired or we draft a guy like Meachem. TE and RB stink. I wouldn't say we don't have depth at CB. Blackmon could be the man. Walker might help. DL depth is good. Safety depth is good--although I think we need a better starter.


I noticed you used nearly 10 if's/could/should's in here :lol:

Only proven depth is at DL; hopefully the other depth develops or more is brought in

[Bretsky]

We have depth at QB.

I'm not sure that I have a strong feeling either way on that one