Packers PASS on Free Agency--JS

[Bretsky]

Packers take a pass
Team adds just one player during free agency
By BOB McGINN

bmcginn@journalsentinel.com
Posted: March 18, 2007

Green Bay - Minus Charles Woodson and Ryan Pickett, the Green Bay Packers' defense would have been far less effective last season.

If general manager Ted Thompson hadn't agree to pay market value or even above market value, Woodson and Pickett would have been playing for other teams and the Packers might have had to start Ahmad Carroll for another season at cornerback and a lesser player at defensive tackle.

Sometimes bidding wars are the way to go. But the Packers, flush with about $21 million in cap room, have spent the first three weeks backing away from one bidding war after another.

That has been the story of their off-season.

Since the signing and trading periods opened March 2, a total of 108 players have changed teams via unrestricted free agency (76), restricted free agency (three), "street" free agency (18) and trades (11). The National Football League average is 3.38 new players per team.

Two teams, Chicago and San Diego, haven't added a player. They also had the top two records of any team in 2006.

Green Bay, which signed cornerback Frank Walker for $1.24 million over one year, is one of seven teams with just one newcomer. The others are Baltimore, Carolina, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, the New York Giants and Pittsburgh. All of those teams except Cincinnati have been to the Super Bowl this decade.

Tampa Bay leads with nine newcomers, followed with Cleveland with eight, Denver with seven and New England and San Francisco, each with six.

Often, agents for leading free agents were called by pro scouts Reggie McKenzie and John Schneider. In effect, the agents were told that the Packers wanted to be in the game but wondered what the stakes would be.

When that word was brought back to Thompson, most of the time he took a pass.

"We're not going to just go through life with our head in the sand," Thompson said. "We're turning over rocks. We're looking. But I'm kind of OK with our guys."

Said one agent: "After talking to them I couldn't help but wonder. What are they going to do with the money? You've got to spend 85% of it. They've got to restructure a lot of guys to eat it up."

Probably Thompson's most important decision was letting Houston out-bid the Packers for running back Ahman Green. The Packers viewed Green as a two-year proposition and the Texans saw him as a three- or four-year player, which appealed to him.

In the end, Green signed a four-year, $23 million deal that will pay him $18M in the first three years. At the end, Thompson made a competitive but shorter term offer that wasn't as good as Houston's and Green called his bluff.

The Packers had put in one of those cursory calls after Tennessee's Travis Henry was waived. But Thompson never pursued Henry, who went to Denver for $22.5M over five years ($12.5M guaranteed).

Green Bay never showed any interest in Jamal Lewis, who after being cut by Baltimore signed with Cleveland for $3.5M over one year; Indianapolis' Dominic Rhodes, who went to Oakland for $7.5M over two years; or Washington's T.J. Duckett, who went to Detroit for one year at about $1.5M.

Three days after Green left, the Packers cut backfield-mate William Henderson and looked for a new fullback.

A source said that Packers had some interest in Baltimore's Ovie Mughelli but backed away from the bidding process that landed him a six-year, $18M deal from Atlanta. The Packers then brought in former Falcon fullback Justin Griffith for a visit.

There's no question that Green Bay wanted Griffith, but only at its price. When Oakland offered $3.8M over three years, considerably more than what the Packers want to pay him, Griffith took it.

At wide receiver, the Packers had targeted St. Louis' Kevin Curtis for months because of his deep speed. Curtis visited five teams but not Green Bay, which never got in the running. His six-year deal with Philadelphia was worth $32M.

After New Orleans cut Joe Horn on March 1, the Packers decided to go after him. They even had a visit set up with Horn but Falcons owner Arthur Blank wouldn't let Horn leave. His four-year deal, worth $19M with escalators, contained $4M in bonuses this year.

"Joe's main interest up there was (Mike) McCarthy because he likes him so much," agent Ralph Vitolo said. "They talked, by phone. I think Joe was disappointed he didn't have a chance to go up there and see the facilities and talk to McCarthy."

Although Vitolo never exchanged proposals with negotiator Andrew Brandt, his expectations were that the Packers would have made a blockbuster offer.

"I think they probably would have gone out close to Atlanta if not above it because they had more money to work with," Vitolo said.

But Vitolo would have found out differently. The Packers weren't prepared to offer Horn anywhere close to what he received in Atlanta.

Much the same situation occurred with San Diego linebacker Donnie Edwards, who knew McCarthy from the late 1990s in Kansas City. They also talked by telephone before Edwards, 33, went back to the Chiefs for about $13.5M over three years. The Packers had no intention of offering him anything close to that.

Despite losing tight end David Martin, the Packers didn't show any interest in New England's Daniel Graham, former Dolphin Randy McMichael and San Francisco's Eric Johnson. They all found new teams within a week.

The best safety on the board, Jacksonville's Deon Grant, went to Seattle for $31.8M over six years. Green Bay made a cursory call and that was about it.

On Saturday, Green Bay could have blown away Kansas City's modest one-year offer to retain defensive lineman Jimmy Wilkerson. Instead, the Packers offered almost comparable money and he went back to the Chiefs.

Given that another 61 players are off the market due to re-signings since March 2, what's left?

"What we're dealing with now is backups," an NFC pro scout said Friday before planning to spend his week watching more tape. "We're trying to find a bottom feeder that looks like he's got a chance."

The Packers probably will sign a few veterans before the draft. Just don't expect anything like the seven-year, $39M deal Woodson received on April 26 unless the Raiders cut wide receiver Randy Moss.

[esoxx]

Packers take a pass
Team adds just one player during free agency
By BOB McGINN


Thompson said. . "But I'm kind of OK with our guys."




Now that's the kind of talk that gets me fired up!

Go Pack Go, OK in '07 or bust! Kind of.

[Bretsky]

Said one agent: "After talking to them I couldn't help but wonder. What are they going to do with the money? You've got to spend 85% of it. They've got to restructure a lot of guys to eat it up."


Hard to hear this.

And yes, I know the TT apologists will outline how the draft is the way to build up a team; I'd agree.

But use all avenues; anybody who thinks our road to success is draft only is just as full of it as one who thinks we should max out our cap right now with free agents.

[Bretsky]

Packers take a pass
Team adds just one player during free agency
By BOB McGINN


Thompson said. . "But I'm kind of OK with our guys."




Now that's the kind of talk that gets me fired up!

Go Pack Go, OK in '07 or bust! Kind of.


BADGERS ARE DONE NOW

TIME TO FOCUS ON THE PACKERS

FRUSTRATING ARTICLE

[Bretsky]

There's no question that Green Bay wanted Griffith, but only at its price. When Oakland offered $3.8M over three years, considerably more than what the Packers want to pay him, Griffith took it.



HARD TO READ THIS; 3 YEARS FOR 3.8 MILLION WHEN WE HAVE OVER 20 MIL UNDER THE CAP ???

[Patler]

Packers take a pass
Team adds just one player during free agency
By BOB McGINN

bmcginn@journalsentinel.com
Posted: March 18, 2007

...
Said one agent: "After talking to them I couldn't help but wonder. What are they going to do with the money? You've got to spend 85% of it. They've got to restructure a lot of guys to eat it up."



That just goes to show you how dumb agents can talk.
The Packers current salary cap # is somewhere around $88 million, which in the offseason includes only the 51 highest value contracts.
85% of $109 million is $92.65 million.
Which means the Packers have to spend $4.65 more before the end of the season to meet the minimum requirements.

Their rookie contracts will take a substantial portion of that.
The two additional players to fill the roster will add at least $1/2 million.
You can count on at least a couple players to go on IR, costing 1/2 million to several million, depending on the cost of replacements and the weeks they are needed for.

The Packers will exceed the minimum just doing what they HAVE to do.

[Patler]

Bretsky; you are a mortgage officer, aren't you?
Do you advise people to pay more than a house is really worth, just because they would like to have a house?

Its the same for "buying" players. Don't spend more than the player is worth, and look for a good deal, if you can,

Why spend more than you want to now, to get someone you want at a lesser cost? If you do, at some point in the future you will have less money to spend when there are players you REALLY want, or need.

Pay the rookies.
Renew Barnett with a somewhat front-loaded deal.
Renew Cory Williams with a somewhat front-loaded deal.
Have cap room available next year and the years after to have the freedom to sign FAs, re-sign your own, etc.
.

[Scott Campbell]

........the TT apologists.................


Oh here we go again.

[Zool]

:beat: :beat: :beat: :beat: :beat:

Dear lord. Make it stop. None of us should lose any sleep over this. It shouldnt be a big enough deal to get mad that the football team you follow isnt doing what you agree with.

Its time to take a step back and look around. At the end of the day, its just football.


(ducking..............now)

[Partial]

Zool and Patler are spot on. I simply do not care.

[OS PA]

I just hope we pluck up Ken Hamlin.

[packrulz]

The FA class this year kind of sucks, I don't want TT to overpay a player just to get under the cap, that would be stupid. Frank Walker was a good deal, great speed, good KR. I could see TT going after Hamlin for the right price.

[Bretsky]

Bretsky; you are a mortgage officer, aren't you?
Do you advise people to pay more than a house is really worth, just because they would like to have a house?

Its the same for "buying" players. Don't spend more than the player is worth, and look for a good deal, if you can,

Why spend more than you want to now, to get someone you want at a lesser cost? If you do, at some point in the future you will have less money to spend when there are players you REALLY want, or need.

Pay the rookies.
Renew Barnett with a somewhat front-loaded deal.
Renew Cory Williams with a somewhat front-loaded deal.
Have cap room available next year and the years after to have the freedom to sign FAs, re-sign your own, etc.
.

Well, I do not advise much; I discuss options for what clients are looking at doing.

People pay fair market value based on the going supply and demand. And they get what they pay for. If they are willing to pass up on the nicer homes most people show interest in and look at homes with flaws or some type of deficiencies that make them less popular, then they will find a deal.................either TT is doing this or he's completely ingoring free agency and doesn't want a home.

What you advocated may give us a greater chance at success down the road, but not near term. And down the road when Favre is gone the space may not matter as much anyways when we are transitioning to a new QB.

And I'm not convinced any of us know who is being overpaid and who is not right now; the scope of this market has changed with the rising cap and we won't really know which approach is correct for a few years.

OK, I'm done now; sorry for bringing old news up; I've been trying to avoid this by putting my heart into the Badgers.


Cheers,
B

[Bretsky]

Zool and Patler are spot on. I simply do not care.


You guys are probably right, and not caring is probably the best medicine at this point. There is still time.

[Bretsky]

Interesting; they changed the title of the article at JS to

"Packers Neutral in Bidding War"


McGinn has to love that when they make things more politically correct

[Spaulding]

The analogy I take is free agency is kinda like shopping for a new vehicle. The excitement of getting it is what drives our offseason excitement. To shop and shop and yet not get a new one drives some of insane. The other half that back the TT philosophy are thinking, will this new vehicle really do anything my current vehicle doesn't already? Sure it looks nice but it will likely get the same MPG, go 0-60 in the same amount of time and the payments that will be required. Will next year's models be better?

I agree it's frustrating because it's boring but it does make sense to me. Then again I've had my used suv for 8 years and can't get approval from the boss to buy a new one so it's moot for me anyways :)

[wist43]

The only guy I'll be critical of them not signing is Green... his loss leaves a huge hole on offense.

Add to that their shortcomings on the OL, their weakness at TE, and their shaky situation at WR, and you have an offense that is definitely in trouble...

Granted, it's early, and a smattering of players are sure to come free in another wave of cuts later in the year; but, given that TT "kinda likes the guys" he has - I'm not sure that he'll be very gung-ho in going after anyone.

Griffith for an average of $1.27 mil/yr is too steep??? Griffith would have been a big upgrade over Miree.

It's one thing to be smart, and to manage the cap responsibly - it's quite another to be cheap. Being cheap is a Wisconsin trait though, so I guess TT fits in pretty well around here.

[]{ilr]3]

I wanted Green too, but not for what the Texans paid for him! The bad part is, is that the packers probably could have gotten him alot cheaper if they would have gotten a deal done with him before FA started. :cry:

[Brohm]

I think everything will turn out alright once all is said and done.

I think TT will:

Extend Nick Barnett and Williams
Eventually make the trade for Moss
Make a couple more trades to pick up some late round picks for some players that don't quite fit the scheme or have underperfomed (Barry)
Sign a Safety to compete with Manual
Pick up a couple low-ball FAs with upside to compete in camp

That being said, I think TT should have gotten the Griffith deal done as well as that D-lineman. I think he was a bit too cheap there. However, it was a fullback and back-up end/tackle, so it's not a bust.

Ahman getting done PRIOR to the offseason could have avoided that whole situation.

*If* this all pans out and TT has a good draft, we'll be alright next year...thinking 9-7 with growth from within and busting out in 2008.

But hey, it's all speculation :P

[swede]

A quote from the article:

"There's no question that Green Bay wanted Griffith, but only at its price. When Oakland offered $3.8M over three years, considerably more than what the Packers want to pay him, Griffith took it."



How would a writer be privy to that information?

Honestly, I don't know where some of the statements come from that are speculations dressed up as fact.

[MJZiggy]

I was wondering that myself. I wonder who his source is that's willing to hand out that kind of information to the media...

Also, I wasn't aware that free agency had ended?

[red]

{ilr]3]I wanted Green too, but not for what the Texans paid for him! The bad part is, is that the packers probably could have gotten him alot cheaper if they would have gotten a deal done with him before FA started. :cry:

according to the article we offered him almost the same money

so TT didn't feel like it was overpaying for green. TT put out his number which was just under what the texans paid and was too bullheaded or full of himself to raise it just a tab more

raising the number just a tab more would have had almost no effect on our cap

it sounds to me from that article that TT thows his number out there and says, thats it, take it or leave it. you want to be a packer, you pay for that price. we're not anywhere near a good enough team to be able to pull that off

and how is 3.8 million over 3 years too much to pay? thats just TT sticking to his guns and being stupid about it. if we would have offered 4 million over 3 years that would have done next to nothing against our cap over 3.7 or 3.8 million. thats an extra 100,000 a year against our cap. how is that a huge deal for a good FB? now we have shit, and theres no promises that we'll be able to find anything better then we have, for cheaper then what we could have had him for

[Packnut]

There are 2 problems with the "this is the right way to go" fans. First off, this is the new NFL. Stop using terms like over-paying. What you consider over-paying now, will seem reasonable 2 years from now. There is a reason so many teams are spending so much cash- and that reason is the cap will escalate and there will always be money to spend. Either you adapt and change with the market or you get run over. It's that simple.

Second, and this is my biggest dis-agreement with those of you who advocate doing nothing in free agency. History tells us that when a franchise loses it's star marquee QB, they spiral into a down-trend for several years. It's the "hang-over" effect. There are just to many examples to list them all, but the point is it's not opinion or may-be, it's a fact that logical reasonable people can't deny.

Therefore, can any of you explain to me why that will not happen once #4 is gone? What makes "us" so special, that we will be the exception to the rule? What is so different in Green Bay from say Dallas or San Fran or Denver? Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.

So from a logical reasonable point of view, should'nt there have been more of an effort to maximize Favre's final years? Those of you who bless Thompson's in-activity in effect are saying the hell with Favre. Teddy's approach will not yeild any fruit for at least 2 or 3 more years and that's assuming he hits on most of his draft choices which is an assumption that some of you make seem like it's written in stone. Do you guys really believe it's so easy to replace a Brett Favre?

Here is the problem with your line of thinking using the draft as the sole way to improve. We have holes at TE, saftey, WR, LB (it can be argued that Poppinga is not the answer), and most of all RB. Let's say with Teddy's approach, he uses the next 2 years repairing these holes through the draft. Well, I got some bad news for ya. By that time, Woodson, Harris and even Driver will not be as effective as they are now. That means you have 3 more holes to fill, and that's not taking into effect the injury factor.

In today's NFL, you must use all available routes to improve your team. Free agency is a tool. Several of the same people saying that Thompson is doing the right thing by not "over-paying" also claimed last season, that Woodson was over-paid. Well how'd that work out? Now I'm not advocating signing un-proven players. I'm saying that some players have a proven track record of their worth. Grant, Hamlin and Griffith are just a few. Certainly the deal the Saints gave to Eric Johnson seem's reasonable with no long term risk to the team. How much better would we all feel going into this season had Thompson signed Hamlin or Grant along with Johnson and Griffith? I'd bet anyone, that we'd all be talking about the chances of an NFC championship instead of the million Randy Moss and Ted Thompson threads.

There is not one solid logical reason ANYONE can give in defending Thompson's in-activity. The evidence points to a general manager who was not prepared for the feeding frenzy that developed. He under-estimated market demand. Several GM's have improved their teams through free agency this season. I think almost everyone would agree to that fact. Ted Thompson has not improved the Green Bay Packers. In fact with the loss of Green, you could say we've taken a step back. How anyone applaud's and defends this scenario is just beyond me.........

[wist43]

With Green the issue - GB vs HOU - was length of contract... TT apparently didn't want to go out 3 or 4 years.

To me, what does 3 or 4 years matter, as opposed to 2??? After Favre leaves they're toast anyway...

For me, everything revolves around Favre... with Favre they have a chance to be competitive; w/o Favre, they take a huge step backward, and we're looking at X number of years b/4 they even have a chance to be competitive again.

So why not take a swing or two??? Or at least make sure to keep a vital cog of the offense...

I've said this b/4, that TT's approach to the RB situation is looking eerily similar to the approach he took with the OL a couple of years ago... and we all know how that turned out!!!

[Packnut]

With Green the issue - GB vs HOU - was length of contract... TT apparently didn't want to go out 3 or 4 years.

To me, what does 3 or 4 years matter, as opposed to 2??? After Favre leaves they're toast anyway...

For me, everything revolves around Favre... with Favre they have a chance to be competitive; w/o Favre, they take a huge step backward, and we're looking at X number of years b/4 they even have a chance to be competitive again.

So why not take a swing or two??? Or at least make sure to keep a vital cog of the offense...

I've said this b/4, that TT's approach to the RB situation is looking eerily similar to the approach he took with the OL a couple of years ago... and we all know how that turned out!!!

Remember TT's famous words about the value of offensive linemen? The problem is Teddy has a fixed view-point of what each position is worth. The problem comes in that 99% of the GM's in the NFL have a much higher value...........

[Patler]

according to the article we offered him almost the same money

so TT didn't feel like it was overpaying for green. TT put out his number which was just under what the texans paid and was too bullheaded or full of himself to raise it just a tab more

raising the number just a tab more would have had almost no effect on our cap

it sounds to me from that article that TT thows his number out there and says, thats it, take it or leave it. you want to be a packer, you pay for that price. we're not anywhere near a good enough team to be able to pull that off

and how is 3.8 million over 3 years too much to pay? thats just TT sticking to his guns and being stupid about it. if we would have offered 4 million over 3 years that would have done next to nothing against our cap over 3.7 or 3.8 million. thats an extra 100,000 a year against our cap. how is that a huge deal for a good FB? now we have shit, and theres no promises that we'll be able to find anything better then we have, for cheaper then what we could have had him for

I think the article is a bit misleading about Green. From the reported numbers, as I rcall, the difference between what he got and what GB offered for the first two years of the contract was something like $3 million. GB looked at Green as having two years left, so the two year cost is what they were concerned with.

As for Griffith, why would TT offer 4 million over 3 years when 3.8 was said to be considerably more than TT wanted to pay?

[Patler]

There are 2 problems with the "this is the right way to go" fans. First off, this is the new NFL. Stop using terms like over-paying. What you consider over-paying now, will seem reasonable 2 years from now. There is a reason so many teams are spending so much cash- and that reason is the cap will escalate and there will always be money to spend. Either you adapt and change with the market or you get run over. It's that simple.

Second, and this is my biggest dis-agreement with those of you who advocate doing nothing in free agency. History tells us that when a franchise loses it's star marquee QB, they spiral into a down-trend for several years. It's the "hang-over" effect. There are just to many examples to list them all, but the point is it's not opinion or may-be, it's a fact that logical reasonable people can't deny.

Therefore, can any of you explain to me why that will not happen once #4 is gone? What makes "us" so special, that we will be the exception to the rule? What is so different in Green Bay from say Dallas or San Fran or Denver? Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.

So from a logical reasonable point of view, should'nt there have been more of an effort to maximize Favre's final years? Those of you who bless Thompson's in-activity in effect are saying the hell with Favre. Teddy's approach will not yeild any fruit for at least 2 or 3 more years and that's assuming he hits on most of his draft choices which is an assumption that some of you make seem like it's written in stone. Do you guys really believe it's so easy to replace a Brett Favre?

Here is the problem with your line of thinking using the draft as the sole way to improve. We have holes at TE, saftey, WR, LB (it can be argued that Poppinga is not the answer), and most of all RB. Let's say with Teddy's approach, he uses the next 2 years repairing these holes through the draft. Well, I got some bad news for ya. By that time, Woodson, Harris and even Driver will not be as effective as they are now. That means you have 3 more holes to fill, and that's not taking into effect the injury factor.

In today's NFL, you must use all available routes to improve your team. Free agency is a tool. Several of the same people saying that Thompson is doing the right thing by not "over-paying" also claimed last season, that Woodson was over-paid. Well how'd that work out? Now I'm not advocating signing un-proven players. I'm saying that some players have a proven track record of their worth. Grant, Hamlin and Griffith are just a few. Certainly the deal the Saints gave to Eric Johnson seem's reasonable with no long term risk to the team. How much better would we all feel going into this season had Thompson signed Hamlin or Grant along with Johnson and Griffith? I'd bet anyone, that we'd all be talking about the chances of an NFC championship instead of the million Randy Moss and Ted Thompson threads.

There is not one solid logical reason ANYONE can give in defending Thompson's in-activity. The evidence points to a general manager who was not prepared for the feeding frenzy that developed. He under-estimated market demand. Several GM's have improved their teams through free agency this season. I think almost everyone would agree to that fact. Ted Thompson has not improved the Green Bay Packers. In fact with the loss of Green, you could say we've taken a step back. How anyone applaud's and defends this scenario is just beyond me.........

The cap has always escalated, and percentage wise it had an increase as large as the 2006 increase about 5 or 6 seasons ago. That doesn't mean you can't overpay for players. You can.

You don't pay a player today based on what he might be worth 3 years from now. The reallity is that younger players will always make more than the older players. Salaries increase. You pay what they are worth today, because next year, the year after and every year thereafter you will have other players to sign or re-sign. TT is attempting to operate, at least for now, on more of a cash basis, with less debt carrying into the future. Its a good plan when you are remaking the roster.

[Packnut]

There are 2 problems with the "this is the right way to go" fans. First off, this is the new NFL. Stop using terms like over-paying. What you consider over-paying now, will seem reasonable 2 years from now. There is a reason so many teams are spending so much cash- and that reason is the cap will escalate and there will always be money to spend. Either you adapt and change with the market or you get run over. It's that simple.

Second, and this is my biggest dis-agreement with those of you who advocate doing nothing in free agency. History tells us that when a franchise loses it's star marquee QB, they spiral into a down-trend for several years. It's the "hang-over" effect. There are just to many examples to list them all, but the point is it's not opinion or may-be, it's a fact that logical reasonable people can't deny.

Therefore, can any of you explain to me why that will not happen once #4 is gone? What makes "us" so special, that we will be the exception to the rule? What is so different in Green Bay from say Dallas or San Fran or Denver? Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.

So from a logical reasonable point of view, should'nt there have been more of an effort to maximize Favre's final years? Those of you who bless Thompson's in-activity in effect are saying the hell with Favre. Teddy's approach will not yeild any fruit for at least 2 or 3 more years and that's assuming he hits on most of his draft choices which is an assumption that some of you make seem like it's written in stone. Do you guys really believe it's so easy to replace a Brett Favre?

Here is the problem with your line of thinking using the draft as the sole way to improve. We have holes at TE, saftey, WR, LB (it can be argued that Poppinga is not the answer), and most of all RB. Let's say with Teddy's approach, he uses the next 2 years repairing these holes through the draft. Well, I got some bad news for ya. By that time, Woodson, Harris and even Driver will not be as effective as they are now. That means you have 3 more holes to fill, and that's not taking into effect the injury factor.

In today's NFL, you must use all available routes to improve your team. Free agency is a tool. Several of the same people saying that Thompson is doing the right thing by not "over-paying" also claimed last season, that Woodson was over-paid. Well how'd that work out? Now I'm not advocating signing un-proven players. I'm saying that some players have a proven track record of their worth. Grant, Hamlin and Griffith are just a few. Certainly the deal the Saints gave to Eric Johnson seem's reasonable with no long term risk to the team. How much better would we all feel going into this season had Thompson signed Hamlin or Grant along with Johnson and Griffith? I'd bet anyone, that we'd all be talking about the chances of an NFC championship instead of the million Randy Moss and Ted Thompson threads.

There is not one solid logical reason ANYONE can give in defending Thompson's in-activity. The evidence points to a general manager who was not prepared for the feeding frenzy that developed. He under-estimated market demand. Several GM's have improved their teams through free agency this season. I think almost everyone would agree to that fact. Ted Thompson has not improved the Green Bay Packers. In fact with the loss of Green, you could say we've taken a step back. How anyone applaud's and defends this scenario is just beyond me.........

The cap has always escalated, and percentage wise it had an increase as large as the 2006 increase about 5 or 6 seasons ago. That doesn't mean you can't overpay for players. You can.

You don't pay a player today based on what he might be worth 3 years from now. The reallity is that younger players will always make more than the older players. Salaries increase. You pay what they are worth today, because next year, the year after and every year thereafter you will have other players to sign or re-sign. TT is attempting to operate, at least for now, on more of a cash basis, with less debt carrying into the future. Its a good plan when you are remaking the roster.


How is it a good plan when you take into effect the "franchise QB syndrome". As far as less debt in the future, debt is the American way and the NFL is no different than real life! :P

[Patler]

The NFL is no different structurally and financially today than it has been ever since a hard salary cap and free agency in its present form were started. All that changes is the "number". Sometime it goes up a lot, sometimes less.

However, there is one big factor you have ignored. Teams have gotten much better at managing the cap and keeping their best players. The quality of the available FAs has decreased steadily for years. It is important not to overpay the riff-raff, or you will lose your better players when their contracts are due because you won't have available space to pay them. That is how you manage the cap, by assessing the value of a player to YOUR team, and paying no more than that for him. The value of a player to one team is not the same and may be much different than his value to another team.

[Packnut]

The NFL is no different structurally and financially today than it has been ever since a hard salary cap and free agency in its present form were started. All that changes is the "number". Sometime it goes up a lot, sometimes less.

However, there is one big factor you have ignored. Teams have gotten much better at managing the cap and keeping their best players. The quality of the available FAs has decreased steadily for years. It is important not to overpay the riff-raff, or you will lose your better players when their contracts are due because you won't have available space to pay them. That is how you manage the cap, by assessing the value of a player to YOUR team, and paying no more than that for him. The value of a player to one team is not the same and may be much different than his value to another team.

Yes, but the problem with your way is who's to say what is over-paying? Woodson was over-paid based on his injury history and age was'nt he? According to your point of view, he should not have been signed. Yet, he proved to be a valuable player last season.

What I'm saying is that the NFL is changing when it comes to what monetary value players have. What you claim to be "over-paying" now will seem less in 2 years or may-be even next year.

Managing the salary cap in the NFL is an art. There has to be balance. You claim that I've ignored this fact. Let me say this again- I'm not advocating signing high priced players with no proven track record. I believe that guys like Hamlin, Grant , Griffith and a healthy Johnson have a proven record of producing. Here, let's settle it this way. If you take into account the salaries that Grant, Griffith and Johnson signed for and add them to the present Packer salary cap, show me what "future damage" that would be done?

Even factor in a reasonable Barnett contract and it still improves this team without risking the future. You have to factor in 2 VERY important facts which make your view-point un-realistic. First off the salary cap will continue to escalate. 2nd, The Packers can afford to spend a little more now because they gain a helluva lotta cash when Favre retires. Surely Rodgers will not get $11 mill a year?

[Packnut]

The NFL salary cap is calculated by a formula. It is defined by the current CBA to be 59.5% of the total projected league revenue for the upcoming year. This number, divided by the number of teams, determines an individual teams maximum salary cap. For 2006, this is approximately $102 million per team. For 2007, it is projected that this will rise to $109 million.[13]

My point here is that since league revenues will always increase, so will the cap. Do you guys really believe all these GM's throwing this cash around are that foolish? There is indeed a method to their madness.........

[wist43]

"Overpaying", or stretching the cap are allowable actions in certain situations...

The Packers are not close to a title, but they are close to loosing the best chance they'll likely have for the next decade, i.e. they still have Favre.

After Favre leaves, we will be subjected to 2-3 years of Rodgers proving he can't play, then the endless parade of Trent Dilfer's, Jeff Garcia's and Jake Plummer's.

Why not try to flesh out the roster as long as Favre is here??? Loosing Green was definitely a step in the wrong direction...

To me, it doesn't make any sense to let Green walk over length of contract, i.e. a potential dead cap weight of a couple million in years 3 and 4... So what!!!!!!! What is a couple of million in dead cap money in a few years when they're not going to be contenders anyway???

[Patler]

How is it a good plan when you take into effect the "franchise QB syndrome". As far as less debt in the future, debt is the American way and the NFL is no different than real life! :P

Many of the football teams that have faltered when their franchise quarterback retired were the ones that had precarious cap situations involving their quarterbacks. Several had large signing bonuses tied up in their quarterbacks that hit the cap years immediately following retirement. The Packers have been very smart in not structuring Favre's contract, and resisting restructuring it to have that effect.

As for winning while he's here, that window past several years ago, in my opinion. I do not believe Favre gives the Packers any more chance to win than an average, decent quarterback. He is no longer a difference maker.

[Patler]

The NFL salary cap is calculated by a formula. It is defined by the current CBA to be 59.5% of the total projected league revenue for the upcoming year. This number, divided by the number of teams, determines an individual teams maximum salary cap. For 2006, this is approximately $102 million per team. For 2007, it is projected that this will rise to $109 million.[13]

My point here is that since league revenues will always increase, so will the cap. Do you guys really believe all these GM's throwing this cash around are that foolish? There is indeed a method to their madness.........

The salary cap has always been based on league revenues.
The salary cap has always increased.
At times it increased percentage wise more than this year, and as much as last.
Teams still manage to get themselves in bad cap situations, as the Packers did under Sherman.

It has happened, it does happen and it will continue to happen.

[Packnut]

Even with my bad math skills, it look's like Grant, Johnson and Griffith would count about 8.5 mill against the cap. Add in the db they signed and it's about 10 mill. Let's add another 2 mill in cause obviously we would have had to pay more than what these guys signed for. That leaves us 9 mill in cap space for 2007. Plenty of cash for re-signing Barnett and having some extra room.

That hardly makes me insane in my FA opinions. It would do no damage to the Packers cap and would have made us a better team. Sadly how much better will have to be opinion for now, until we see how these players contribute this up-coming season.

Free agency is indeed a gamble. I do not dispute that fact. However, I'd rather go to the craps table with a "chance" to win, rather than not play at all............

[Packnut]

The NFL salary cap is calculated by a formula. It is defined by the current CBA to be 59.5% of the total projected league revenue for the upcoming year. This number, divided by the number of teams, determines an individual teams maximum salary cap. For 2006, this is approximately $102 million per team. For 2007, it is projected that this will rise to $109 million.[13]

My point here is that since league revenues will always increase, so will the cap. Do you guys really believe all these GM's throwing this cash around are that foolish? There is indeed a method to their madness.........

The salary cap has always been based on league revenues.
The salary cap has always increased.
At times it increased percentage wise more than this year, and as much as last.
Teams still manage to get themselves in bad cap situations, as the Packers did under Sherman.

It has happened, it does happen and it will continue to happen.


It has been a pleasure to debate this subject with you this a.m. You sir, even though we dis-agree are a class act! :D

[Patler]

Yes, but the problem with your way is who's to say what is over-paying? Woodson was over-paid based on his injury history and age was'nt he? According to your point of view, he should not have been signed. Yet, he proved to be a valuable player last season.


As I suggested, overpaying is an individual assesment by each team. A player may have more value to one team than to another. I'm glad you brought up Woodson. I almost used him as an example myself. He had more value to the Packers than to a lot of other teams, which justified the Packers contract for him.

However, just because one player had a high value to the Packers doesn't mean the Packers should get into a bidding war for every player that addresses a need they have. The fact is, to be successful, every team has to have some players and even some starters who are underpaid relative to their abilities and the salaries that others make. GM's are paid to make the decisions as to which players to underpay. Overpaying for significant team improvement might be justified, overpaying for marginal improvement is not.

It's the value of the player to the team, not necessarily his "market value" that good GMs function on.



would Sun.

[Patler]

The NFL salary cap is calculated by a formula. It is defined by the current CBA to be 59.5% of the total projected league revenue for the upcoming year. This number, divided by the number of teams, determines an individual teams maximum salary cap. For 2006, this is approximately $102 million per team. For 2007, it is projected that this will rise to $109 million.[13]

My point here is that since league revenues will always increase, so will the cap. Do you guys really believe all these GM's throwing this cash around are that foolish? There is indeed a method to their madness.........

The salary cap has always been based on league revenues.
The salary cap has always increased.
At times it increased percentage wise more than this year, and as much as last.
Teams still manage to get themselves in bad cap situations, as the Packers did under Sherman.

It has happened, it does happen and it will continue to happen.


It has been a pleasure to debate this subject with you this a.m. You sir, even though we dis-agree are a class act! :D

Thanks! You as well.

The key is to disagree without being disagreeable! :D

[Scott Campbell]

It is important not to overpay the riff-raff, or you will lose your better players when their contracts are due because you won't have available space to pay them.


I think this hits on the core of Thompson's philosophy.

[Patler]

Even with my bad math skills, it look's like Grant, Johnson and Griffith would count about 8.5 mill against the cap. Add in the db they signed and it's about 10 mill. Let's add another 2 mill in cause obviously we would have had to pay more than what these guys signed for. That leaves us 9 mill in cap space for 2007. Plenty of cash for re-signing Barnett and having some extra room.

That hardly makes me insane in my FA opinions. It would do no damage to the Packers cap and would have made us a better team. Sadly how much better will have to be opinion for now, until we see how these players contribute this up-coming season.

Free agency is indeed a gamble. I do not dispute that fact. However, I'd rather go to the craps table with a "chance" to win, rather than not play at all............

Those cap dollars will get used eventually. Let's wait to see how they are used before we get too concerned about not signing someone in March.

[cpk1994]

Even with my bad math skills, it look's like Grant, Johnson and Griffith would count about 8.5 mill against the cap. Add in the db they signed and it's about 10 mill. Let's add another 2 mill in cause obviously we would have had to pay more than what these guys signed for. That leaves us 9 mill in cap space for 2007. Plenty of cash for re-signing Barnett and having some extra room.

That hardly makes me insane in my FA opinions. It would do no damage to the Packers cap and would have made us a better team. Sadly how much better will have to be opinion for now, until we see how these players contribute this up-coming season.

Free agency is indeed a gamble. I do not dispute that fact. However, I'd rather go to the craps table with a "chance" to win, rather than not play at all............

You forgot about the money that will be spent on this years draft picks.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I agree that we should have looked at a couple of guys, but the rookie pool will be, what, about $4M. Also, the Packers are looking to extend Corey Williams, and he'll probably get a deal relatively similar to the deal Cullen Jenkins signed. That leaves little money for signing guys later in the offseason and to potentially take on Randy Moss's restructured contract.

[Guiness]

Interesting tack HW - he's saving the money for Moss. I guess that's possible, but aside from the 100 rumor threads, there's not much to give credence to that.

Patler, I generally agree with you, but I've got to say I'm not keen on what TT is doing (or not doing) here. I have trouble believing that there was nothing, NOTHING out there that could help the Pack. I'm baffled by the tied purse strings.

Maybe there is something yet to come. I hope so.

[Patler]

Patler, I generally agree with you, but I've got to say I'm not keen on what TT is doing (or not doing) here. I have trouble believing that there was nothing, NOTHING out there that could help the Pack. I'm baffled by the tied purse strings.



Clearly there were players that could help the Packers. But they cost more than TT wanted to pay. I'm happy to let it play out, and see what he does do with the money. He has managed to use almost all of it before the end of each season so far, and I assume he will again this year too. He really has had very little to "roll forward" the last two seasons.

[red]

TT can have things his way

but if he just continues to sit on his ass and the teams money with all the holes we have, and if we do worse or not improve at all next year

then this should be TT's last year

because like what others have said, once favre goes this team is only getting worse

we have 6 or 7 needs this year, with more coming in the following years (driver, harris, woodson, clifton, maybe taucher, maybe pickett, moss if we do get him).

TT is not going to be able to fill those holes just through the draft. you either have to trade some picks for players like mcgahee (which he will never do), or pick up some decent guys on the FA market, which he also won't do because every single NFL player is overpaid in his tiny head.

TT still thinks this is 1999

if 1.25 a year was way more then he was willing to pay, then what the hell was he willing to pay for an nfl starter? the league minimum? because thats about the only amount that would be a lot less then what he got

[Charles Woodson]

Packers take a pass
Team adds just one player during free agency
By BOB McGINN


Thompson said. . "But I'm kind of OK with our guys."




Now that's the kind of talk that gets me fired up!

Go Pack Go, OK in '07 or bust! Kind of.


thats my only problem...
If i knew we were better than i wouldnt care if TT signed any one. Its just that taking a deeper look into our season told me that we arent nearly as good as some people think we are. We are far away, and you need to use all your resources to rebuild.

[Partial]

The NFL is no different structurally and financially today than it has been ever since a hard salary cap and free agency in its present form were started. All that changes is the "number". Sometime it goes up a lot, sometimes less.

However, there is one big factor you have ignored. Teams have gotten much better at managing the cap and keeping their best players. The quality of the available FAs has decreased steadily for years. It is important not to overpay the riff-raff, or you will lose your better players when their contracts are due because you won't have available space to pay them. That is how you manage the cap, by assessing the value of a player to YOUR team, and paying no more than that for him. The value of a player to one team is not the same and may be much different than his value to another team.

Yes, but the problem with your way is who's to say what is over-paying? Woodson was over-paid based on his injury history and age was'nt he? According to your point of view, he should not have been signed. Yet, he proved to be a valuable player last season.

What I'm saying is that the NFL is changing when it comes to what monetary value players have. What you claim to be "over-paying" now will seem less in 2 years or may-be even next year.

Managing the salary cap in the NFL is an art. There has to be balance. You claim that I've ignored this fact. Let me say this again- I'm not advocating signing high priced players with no proven track record. I believe that guys like Hamlin, Grant , Griffith and a healthy Johnson have a proven record of producing. Here, let's settle it this way. If you take into account the salaries that Grant, Griffith and Johnson signed for and add them to the present Packer salary cap, show me what "future damage" that would be done?

Even factor in a reasonable Barnett contract and it still improves this team without risking the future. You have to factor in 2 VERY important facts which make your view-point un-realistic. First off the salary cap will continue to escalate. 2nd, The Packers can afford to spend a little more now because they gain a helluva lotta cash when Favre retires. Surely Rodgers will not get $11 mill a year?

Slightly over 6 mil/yr for a corner isn't overpaying for a good starting corner. It wasn't last year, and everyone that thought we were overpaying was greatly underrating woodson and had a misconception about what corners make.

[Partial]

Even with my bad math skills, it look's like Grant, Johnson and Griffith would count about 8.5 mill against the cap. Add in the db they signed and it's about 10 mill. Let's add another 2 mill in cause obviously we would have had to pay more than what these guys signed for. That leaves us 9 mill in cap space for 2007. Plenty of cash for re-signing Barnett and having some extra room.

That hardly makes me insane in my FA opinions. It would do no damage to the Packers cap and would have made us a better team. Sadly how much better will have to be opinion for now, until we see how these players contribute this up-coming season.

Free agency is indeed a gamble. I do not dispute that fact. However, I'd rather go to the craps table with a "chance" to win, rather than not play at all............

What about Rookies, Randy, etc? That leaves no cash.

[Charles Woodson]

The NFL is no different structurally and financially today than it has been ever since a hard salary cap and free agency in its present form were started. All that changes is the "number". Sometime it goes up a lot, sometimes less.

However, there is one big factor you have ignored. Teams have gotten much better at managing the cap and keeping their best players. The quality of the available FAs has decreased steadily for years. It is important not to overpay the riff-raff, or you will lose your better players when their contracts are due because you won't have available space to pay them. That is how you manage the cap, by assessing the value of a player to YOUR team, and paying no more than that for him. The value of a player to one team is not the same and may be much different than his value to another team.

Yes, but the problem with your way is who's to say what is over-paying? Woodson was over-paid based on his injury history and age was'nt he? According to your point of view, he should not have been signed. Yet, he proved to be a valuable player last season.

What I'm saying is that the NFL is changing when it comes to what monetary value players have. What you claim to be "over-paying" now will seem less in 2 years or may-be even next year.

Managing the salary cap in the NFL is an art. There has to be balance. You claim that I've ignored this fact. Let me say this again- I'm not advocating signing high priced players with no proven track record. I believe that guys like Hamlin, Grant , Griffith and a healthy Johnson have a proven record of producing. Here, let's settle it this way. If you take into account the salaries that Grant, Griffith and Johnson signed for and add them to the present Packer salary cap, show me what "future damage" that would be done?

Even factor in a reasonable Barnett contract and it still improves this team without risking the future. You have to factor in 2 VERY important facts which make your view-point un-realistic. First off the salary cap will continue to escalate. 2nd, The Packers can afford to spend a little more now because they gain a helluva lotta cash when Favre retires. Surely Rodgers will not get $11 mill a year?

Slightly over 6 mil/yr for a corner isn't overpaying for a good starting corner. It wasn't last year, and everyone that thought we were overpaying was greatly underrating woodson and had a misconception about what corners make.

Yes, i liked the woodson signing last year but i see where packnut is coming from with the woodson deal. Partial alot of people didnt say he was good. i mean the guy hadnt played a full seaon in 2 years? or so. He had a past of being injured and he was gettin up in his age. If he had gotten injured this year everyone would be screaming that this was a horrible signing becuase we over paid him.

[Partial]

My thoughts are the big part of the picture that people around here seem to miss is this:

How many of these players are signing huge, 1 year deals? Hell, how many are signing 3 year deals? You can say "use up every resource you have to compete", but is that resource you're paying really what you want to pay for the next 3-4 years? Do you not think we could develop our own who is better? Personally, I feel like we could easily get a player in the next 2-3 years that will be as good as any player we could have signed in free agency, and we'd have them for:

A. Longer
B. Cheaper
C. They'd be home-grown

[Fritz]

This is the point I would make: because this is free agency "season," so to speak, there seems to be a sense that if teh Packers don't spend, spend, spend now, they'll have all kind os money laying around. The fact is, if TT wants to lock up Barnett and Williams, those negotiations may well drag on into the fall. No, they're not getting twenty mil up front, but if you sign a few free agents like the ones suggested by Packnut, then carve out the money for rookies, then take into account the inevitable IR players who will need to be replaced, you may find yourself in October with less cap room than you'd hoped. No problem - don't front load it, right? Well, that's the kind of thinking that gets teams into "dead" cap money problems. Famously, Sherman did that. You end up with a guy that, three years down the road, is injured or old or just ineffective, yet you still owe him millions. That's why fronting the contract for Weoodson was so smart. He started slow but played well - had a good year. And it's paid for. So if, in a year or two, he becomes ineffective or injured or both, you won't have much, if any, dead cap money.

[RashanGary]

If we bring in 10 rookies, rotate in 30 or 40 street FA's and fringe veterans and develop some of our own guys, we'd be just as likely to find a guy as good as 90% of the FA's out there at a very small fraction of the price. Then we can afford to keep Barnett and Collins/Rodgers/Jennings/Spitz/Colledge/name that guy.......

Thompsons goal is to never lose a really good player like Wahle becuase you signed junk like Joe Johnson.

[RashanGary]

And Pater pretty much summed it up. Most of these guys are junk or just a notch above and they won't really help much anyway.

If TT drafts as well as he thinks he can we'll be strapped against the cap with well priced talent and knocking on the door to SB's every year without Brett Favre.

[retailguy]

This article sums up everything I've been thinking since Free Agency began. With Ted's view on free agency, I just knew all we'd get was some backups. NOTHING wrong with backups. All teams need them, however, we need some starters also.

While I don't think fullback is a critical need, what happened with Griffith illustrates my frustrations perfectly. He can't possibly get a starting fullback cheaper. Obviously he wasn't overly "impressed" with Griffith. I can live with that. I don't like Fords. Plenty of people do. Personal choice works for me. But that leaves me with the question - If not Griffith, then WHO?

We have a need. He's better than what we've got. No bad cap consequences in that deal at all. All the "experts" in these rooms kept saying "We don't know what happened". That was true. We didn't. Well now we do. It WAS money. There wasn't enough of it going Griffith's way. So, now what do we do? Rely on a rookie? Miree?

Ok, I can handle that, but how does that situation IMPROVE the team over what Griffith would have provided? In 2008, maybe, maybe even probably. But what about 2007? Couldn't Griffith have provided a fair priced "stopgap" for a season or two at least? Shouldn't we be trying to win now too? Shouldn't that be an important goal? Doesn't a good leader figure out how to win now, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, trying to build for the future?

You look at FB, TE, WR, RB, Safety, and Special Teams, and say, what's changed? How has the team improved? Could it still happen? Sure. But WHERE? The draft? Summer Cuts? A trade? How likely is that? Even the ardent Thompson supporters have to concede that the odds of that don't closely approach a guarantee. Griffith having a successful season probably has less risk than any of the remaining choices. At least from my perspective. Probably from others perspectives too.

I just can't figure out Ted's plan. It only makes sense that he's building for the future. That's good. I agree with everyone who has said that. I still want to know, WHAT ABOUT NOW? What are we doing to win in 2007? There seems to be no urgency, and no commitment to win in 2007.

Maybe he'll prove me wrong, but so many things have to go right to achieve this, I just can't see it. No one has that kind of luck.

I'm not "anti - Ted". I think the guy has great personnel skills. He, by all appearances has a great track record of finding talent. HOWEVER, there is more to a GM job than that. Hopefully he's learning "on the job". But, he's frustrating the HELL out of me in the process.

[Bretsky]

This article sums up everything I've been thinking since Free Agency began. With Ted's view on free agency, I just knew all we'd get was some backups. NOTHING wrong with backups. All teams need them, however, we need some starters also.

While I don't think fullback is a critical need, what happened with Griffith illustrates my frustrations perfectly. He can't possibly get a starting fullback cheaper. Obviously he wasn't overly "impressed" with Griffith. I can live with that. I don't like Fords. Plenty of people do. Personal choice works for me. But that leaves me with the question - If not Griffith, then WHO?

We have a need. He's better than what we've got. No bad cap consequences in that deal at all. All the "experts" in these rooms kept saying "We don't know what happened". That was true. We didn't. Well now we do. It WAS money. There wasn't enough of it going Griffith's way. So, now what do we do? Rely on a rookie? Miree?

Ok, I can handle that, but how does that situation IMPROVE the team over what Griffith would have provided? In 2008, maybe, maybe even probably. But what about 2007? Couldn't Griffith have provided a fair priced "stopgap" for a season or two at least? Shouldn't we be trying to win now too? Shouldn't that be an important goal? Doesn't a good leader figure out how to win now, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, trying to build for the future?

You look at FB, TE, WR, RB, Safety, and Special Teams, and say, what's changed? How has the team improved? Could it still happen? Sure. But WHERE? The draft? Summer Cuts? A trade? How likely is that? Even the ardent Thompson supporters have to concede that the odds of that don't closely approach a guarantee. Griffith having a successful season probably has less risk than any of the remaining choices. At least from my perspective. Probably from others perspectives too.

I just can't figure out Ted's plan. It only makes sense that he's building for the future. That's good. I agree with everyone who has said that. I still want to know, WHAT ABOUT NOW? What are we doing to win in 2007? There seems to be no urgency, and no commitment to win in 2007.

Maybe he'll prove me wrong, but so many things have to go right to achieve this, I just can't see it. No one has that kind of luck.

I'm not "anti - Ted". I think the guy has great personnel skills. He, by all appearances has a great track record of finding talent. HOWEVER, there is more to a GM job than that. Hopefully he's learning "on the job". But, he's frustrating the HELL out of me in the process.


GREAT POST

[red]

that was a great post RG

[retailguy]

that was a great post RG


Thanks Red, and Bretsky too. But, I was probably too negative. :wink:

[Charles Woodson]

that was a great post RG


Thanks Red, and Bretsky too. But, I was probably too negative. :wink:

na i couldnt have worded it better myself