Something Realistic: Grade the 2003 Packer draft

[Fritz]

I've been quite vocal about how thrilled I am over this draft. I really think TT did an excellent job and this draft will be the core of a Super Bowl team some day.

The truth is, though, I don't know, and none of us will for awhile. Conventional wisdom says it takes three years to be able to really evaluate the draft.

So let's do that. Take a stroll down memory lane with me, to Mike Sherman's 2003 draft, his second as Packer GM...

1 29 Nick Barnett LB Oregon State
3 79 Kenny Peterson DE Ohio State
5 147 James Lee DT Oregon State
5 166 Hunter Hillenmeyer LB Vanderbilt
6 212 Brennan Curtin T Notre Dame
7 245 Chris Johnson DB Louisville
7 253 DeAndrew Rubin WR South Florida
7 256 Carl Ford WR Toledo
7 257 Steve Josue LB Carson-Newman

Well, let's see. Nick Barnett is the starting middle linebacker, Kenny Peterson is in the defensive tackle rotation (so far), Hunter Hellenmeyer was cut but now starts at outside linebacker for Da Bears and is considered an average player. I don't know if Chris Johnson is still with the Rams.

So it looks like Shermy got one starter and one backup player out of that draft. I sure hope TT's second draft as Packer GM is a lot better than Shermy's.
[/b]

[Guiness]

I believe Carl Ford is playing ST for Philly.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I smell a poll.

Johnson signed with some other team this offseason.

That's like a D- draft. I can't imagine it getting much worse. At least, Sherman got one starter. Does that keep it from being an F?

[Fritz]

Well, it was probably Shermy's worst draft. Here's his 2002 draft:

1 20 Javon Walker WR Florida State
3 27 92 Marques Anderson DB UCLA
4 37 135 Najeh Davenport RB Miami (FL)
5 21 156 Aaron Kampmann DE Iowa
5 29 164 Craig Nall QB Northwestern State
6 28 200 Mike Houghton T San Diego State

Out of that came one Pro-Bowler, one very solid starter, a backup running back and a backup quarterback.

[RashanGary]

His best draft is average at best.

[Fritz]

Hey, Nick, here's a question for you: was his '04 draft better than the '02 draft? Here's the '04:

1 25 25 Ahmad Carroll DB Arkansas
2 3 7 70 Joey Thomas DB Montana State
3 3 9 72 Donnell Washington DT Clemson
4 3 24 87 B.J. Sander P Ohio State
5 6 14 179 Corey Williams DT Arkansas State
6 7 50 251 Scott Wells C Tennessee

Let's see...he got two starters out of that (Oh my God, I just called BJ Sander a starter!), maybe three is Wells starts this year. Actually, Corey Williams, a backup on the line, might be the best of the bunch.

Carroll, I don't know. It takes corners longer to develop, and he's very young, but he's starting to seem more like a head case than an immature kid.

[HarveyWallbangers]

2002 = C-
2004 = D, unless Williams and Wells eventually become solid starters

[billy_oliver880]

Certainly never worked with many picks did he.

[Pack0514]

I smell a poll.

Johnson signed with some other team this offseason.

That's like a D- draft. I can't imagine it getting much worse. At least, Sherman got one starter. Does that keep it from being an F?

I believe Johnson signed a two year deal with Kansas City.

[retailguy]

Certainly never worked with many picks did he.

And therein lies the quandry.... Few picks, few starters, little impact.

Lots of picks, then the odds are in your favor.

All of you know that I hold a high opinion of Mike Sherman, however, his lack of picks, and the crazy low values he put on draft picks, eventually doomed his tenure and doomed his job.

I agree with Fritz, I am optimistic, albeit cautiously.

Bretsky - You've been a pretty vocal critic, what say you? :wink:

[Homer Jay]

I give it a strong B and it could go up. At the very least he will make all spots competitive and our special teams should be greatly improved. If a couple of these guys step up it could easily be an A grade.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

You guys forgot that Sherman the genius traded his 2nd rounder to the Eagles for Al Harris. Harris made the Int that debunked Hasselback. Harris alone makes the draft a "C." Harris and Barnett makes it "B."

[Tarlam!]

You guys forgot that Sherman the genius traded his 2nd rounder to the Eagles for Al Harris. Harris made the Int that debunked Hasselback. Harris alone makes the draft a "C." Harris and Barnett makes it "B."

O.K. Tank, so you're saying you give a B to Sherm cause he landed 2 outta 10 starters? That's 20%.

So, if TT lands 3 outta 12 and gets 25%, he grades higher than Sherm?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

So, if TT lands 3 outta 12 and gets 25%, he grades higher than Sherm?

A big IF. Thompson's first draft only produced 2 starters thus far, or 18% (2/11). Whitticker started out of desperation and is on way to the bench, making it 9%.

[Fritz]

Oh for crying out loud, Tank, they were rookies last year. Let's wait and see - at least - until the end of this season.

[Partial]

Didn't Sherman draft like 4 starters total in 4 years?

[Tarlam!]

It must be early. Tank didn't think to subtract losing a starter in the Walker trade, meaning, TT needs 4 from this draft to surpass the Barnett draft/Harris trade.

Boy, Tank, that is some sloppy TT-bashing right there.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Didn't Sherman draft like 4 starters total in 4 years?

Well, I really DO wish Sherman had been GM for 4 years. If so, a Polar Bear named Ted wouldn't be GM last year and Mike Wahle would still be a Packer, as well as Javon Walker and Logan Mankins would be drafted in the 1st rd and 4-12 wouldnt happen and Pack wouldve won the SB.

In 3 years of drafting, Sherman produced regular starters in Barnett, Walker, Kampman and Caroll. Davenport has also started games, as well as Wells.

Sherman's drafting was good. His free agents signings was good. Overall, Sherman was good as a GM. But compared to Thompson, Sherman is GREAT. Hence, Sherman the GREAT.

[Fritz]

He had three drafts - 02, 03, and 04 - and if you count BJ Sander, he produced five starters: Barnett, Walker, Kampman, Caroll, and the Beej. Tank would like us to count Al Harris, though technically that's a trade acquisition, and he would probably like to count Scott Wells, who is the nominal center at this point. So toss those two guys in, and it's seven starters in three drafts. Just over two starters per draft. Not so good. You can have an occasional draft where you get only a couple of guys - Wolf did, everyone did - but you can't do it three years running and expect to compete at a high level for long.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

It must be early. Tank didn't think to subtract losing a starter in the Walker trade, meaning, TT needs 4 from this draft to surpass the Barnett draft/Harris trade.

Boy, Tank, that is some sloppy TT-bashing right there.

Whose fault is it that Walker became disgruntled with the Packers? No other than Mr. Polar Bear; so cheap, refusing to extend Walker's contract; refusing to show appreciation for years of excellent works by Wahle, Rivera, and Driver.

Sherman would've extended Walker's contract.

[Tarlam!]

Actually, Walker claimed that Sherm promised to redo his deal, which TT refused when Sherm the GM was fired. I think you can slate the MM fiasco to TT, too if you try real hard. You're such a creative bunny.

[Fritz]

Tank, there's this thing called the salary cap. Teams have to stay under it. If you think Shermy - or anyone - could have kept Wahle and Rivera, and given JWalk a boatload of money, then you must be stoned at this very early hour of the day. Rivera got a nine million dollar signing bonus, remember? And Wahle probably got even more.

[Partial]

Barnett, Walker, Kampman, Caroll, BJ, Harris and Wells.

Barnett - Average starter
Walker - One productive season in 4 years
Carroll - Adequate Nickelback
BJ - Worst punter in the league. Soon to be out of the league.
Harris - Traded for a solid starting corner
Wells - adequate back-up center

Thats 3 starters, a punter, and two backups. He traded for one of the starters, so really 2 starters, a punter and two backups.

In 4 years, he produced 2 starters, a punter soon to be out of the league, and two backups.

Spin it how you wish Tank, you're wrong.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Tank, there's this thing called the salary cap. Teams have to stay under it. If you think Shermy - or anyone - could have kept Wahle and Rivera, and given JWalk a boatload of money, then you must be stoned at this very early hour of the day. Rivera got a nine million dollar signing bonus, remember? And Wahle probably got even more.

There's also a thing called "cap friendly contract," where you sign players to...well, cap friendly contracts. (ive argued this before, so im not going to argue it again here; read my archieves for more)

I'm not saying we shouldve keep both Wahle and Rivera; I'm saying we shouldve resigned one of them, preferable Wahle. Logan Mankins couldve easily replaced Rivera.

When Bubba Franks signed his new contract, Pack actually saved money in 05. A similar deal couldve been done to Walker (again ive repeatedly argued this before so im not going to do so gain)

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Actually, Walker claimed that Sherm promised to redo his deal, which TT refused when Sherm the GM was fired. I think you can slate the MM fiasco to TT, too if you try real hard. You're such a creative bunny.

Fine. Lets blame Bob Harlan then. Harlan was the one who fired Sherman the great and hired Thompspon the terrible.

[Partial]

Tank address my last post.

[Partial]

So what happens when you sign a slew of guys to cap friendly back-loaded contracts and it comes time to pay them off? cap hell.

[Scott Campbell]

There's also a thing called "cap friendly contract," where you sign players to...well, cap friendly contracts.


You remind me of Wimpy from the old Popeye cartoons with your talk of cap friendly contracts. "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today".

[Anti-Polar Bear]

So what happens when you sign a slew of guys to cap friendly back-loaded contracts and it comes time to pay them off? cap hell.

No, you restructure more contracts. Put it another way, you pay off debts by creating more debts. Now, in a typical corporation, say 3M, doing such would likely hurt the company in the long run. But the NFL isn't your typical corporation. As long as gross revenues continue to prosper like it is now, there will always be money for signing bonuses; and since signing bonuses are prorated, you are in good hand. For example, if a player got injured and is forced to retire with $5.6 M pro-rated signing bonus still unaccounted for, his team would instantly be hit with the 5.6 M. But that team can offset the hit by restructuring other players’ contracts through the use of additional signing bonuses. You can do that for an infinitely of time in a billion dollar industry that is the NFL.

[MJZiggy]

So what happens when you sign a slew of guys to cap friendly back-loaded contracts and it comes time to pay them off? cap hell.

No, you restructure more contracts. Put it another way, you pay off debts by creating more debts. Now, in a typical corporation, say 3M, doing such would likely hurt the company in the long run. But the NFL isn't your typical corporation. As long as gross revenues continue to prosper like it is now, there will always be money for signing bonuses; and since signing bonuses are prorated, you are in good hand. For example, if a player got injured and is forced to retire with $5.6 M pro-rated signing bonus still unaccounted for, his team would instantly be hit with the 5.6 M. But that team can offset the hit by restructuring other players’ contracts through the use of additional signing bonuses. You can do that for an infinitely of time in a billion dollar industry that is the NFL.

You forgot a little detail. It's only possible to restructure a players contract if he is willing to have it restructured. Not many are willing to do that.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

So what happens when you sign a slew of guys to cap friendly back-loaded contracts and it comes time to pay them off? cap hell.

No, you restructure more contracts. Put it another way, you pay off debts by creating more debts. Now, in a typical corporation, say 3M, doing such would likely hurt the company in the long run. But the NFL isn't your typical corporation. As long as gross revenues continue to prosper like it is now, there will always be money for signing bonuses; and since signing bonuses are prorated, you are in good hand. For example, if a player got injured and is forced to retire with $5.6 M pro-rated signing bonus still unaccounted for, his team would instantly be hit with the 5.6 M. But that team can offset the hit by restructuring other players’ contracts through the use of additional signing bonuses. You can do that for an infinitely of time in a billion dollar industry that is the NFL.

You forgot a little detail. It's only possible to restructure a players contract if he is willing to have it restructured. Not many are willing to do that.

Actually, many do want to do that since SB are the only guarantee money of a contract. For example, if you are to be paid a $2.4M base salary this year (the 3rd year of a 5 yr contract), and your team offers to turn that money into a SB, you would be unwise not to take it. Once the base is turned into a SB, you could be cut the day and still receive $2.4M. Sharper did that all the time under Sherman.

[MJZiggy]

But what do you do with those players who refuse?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

But what do you do with those players who refuse?

Turn to other players. There are 53 players on a team. 49 of them would turn their base into a SB in an instant.

[mraynrand]

"You guys forgot that Sherman the genius traded his 2nd rounder to the Eagles for Al Harris. Harris made the Int that debunked Hasselback. Harris alone makes the draft a "C." Harris and Barnett makes it "B.""

----
Also note that the #4 draft pick was missing. Sherman used that (and another #4 in 2002) on Terry Glenn. Glenn just made the level to kick in the extra #4, before being injured for the remainder of the 2002 season.

So Sherman nominally got 1 and 1/2 starters for trading away the #2 and #4 picks.

The 2003 draft was about a C to C- in my opinion.

The 2002 draft was an A - they got a probowl player out of it and solid starters and several backups. They even got depth in rookie FA with Fisher and Barry. A very good draft and probably not coincidentally, the first with (name???) from Chicago ostensibly as the co-GM.

What I think you have to consider is that in 2002 and 2003, Sherman was going for broke, knowing that Favre only had a few good years left. It almost worked in 2002, if not for all the injuries.

[Partial]

No, you restructure more contracts. Put it another way, you pay off debts by creating more debts. Now, in a typical corporation, say 3M, doing such would likely hurt the company in the long run. But the NFL isn't your typical corporation. As long as gross revenues continue to prosper like it is now, there will always be money for signing bonuses; and since signing bonuses are prorated, you are in good hand. For example, if a player got injured and is forced to retire with $5.6 M pro-rated signing bonus still unaccounted for, his team would instantly be hit with the 5.6 M. But that team can offset the hit by restructuring other players’ contracts through the use of additional signing bonuses. You can do that for an infinitely of time in a billion dollar industry that is the NFL.


Address these.

What team has done this successfully and won a superbowl AND remained competitive for more than a year or so? This happens in Baseball all the time. The Marlins have done it twice in recent memory.

What do you do when a player doesn't want to accept a heavily backloaded deal understanding they will probably never see the vast majority of the money?

What do you make of the downfall of one the best franchises in the NFL in the Tennesee Titans. They continually were one of the better teams in the league for about 5-6 years always being a top 3-4 team in the AFC. Eventually the money caught up with them since they wanted to keep their core together. How do you handle this situation?

What do you do when you keep pushing back player's money ala the Titans with Steve McNair and all of a sudden the player refuses to restructure his constract again because he is sick of being jipped out of money and they cannot cut him because the immediate cap hit would crush the teams future. What do you do in this situation and how do you go about avoiding this in the world of backloading contracts?

Where do you go to school? I saw you had exams this week in another thread, but you didn't see my question of where you went.

I have tons more questions about your GM philosophies, but I will wait for these answers and not overload you now since you're busy with school.

[Scott Campbell]

I think Tank is right about restructuring contracts. Let's say a player is due $3M in salary each year, with 3 years left on his deal. The team can ask him to restructure, by taking the $3M salary year 1 and turning it into a signing bonus. The player gets paid the $3M upfront instead of in regular payroll checks during the year. The team gets to pro-rate the new "signing bonus" against it's cap number over 3 years - $1M for each year instead of the entire $3M counting against the year 1 cap. So instead of the cap numbers for 3 years looking like $3M, $3M, $3M, they now look like $1M, $4M, $4M.

He's also right about the players willingness to do this. They'd have no reason no to.

At least that's how I understand it. You're basically borrowing future years cap dollars for use this year. I think it's a reckless habit used by teams who can't properly manage a salary cap.

[retailguy]

Address these.

What team has done this successfully and won a superbowl AND remained competitive for more than a year or so? This happens in Baseball all the time. The Marlins have done it twice in recent memory.

What do you do when a player doesn't want to accept a heavily backloaded deal understanding they will probably never see the vast majority of the money?

What do you make of the downfall of one the best franchises in the NFL in the Tennesee Titans. They continually were one of the better teams in the league for about 5-6 years always being a top 3-4 team in the AFC. Eventually the money caught up with them since they wanted to keep their core together. How do you handle this situation?

What do you do when you keep pushing back player's money ala the Titans with Steve McNair and all of a sudden the player refuses to restructure his constract again because he is sick of being jipped out of money and they cannot cut him because the immediate cap hit would crush the teams future. What do you do in this situation and how do you go about avoiding this in the world of backloading contracts?

Where do you go to school? I saw you had exams this week in another thread, but you didn't see my question of where you went.

I have tons more questions about your GM philosophies, but I will wait for these answers and not overload you now since you're busy with school.

Partial, Ill address this. You have to understand that Sherman was going for broke.

He was NOT TRYING to keep the team competitive indefinitely. You have to view Shermans decisions through this perspective. If you don't what he did doesn't make any sense.

Had Sherman succeeded we'd have had another Super Bowl title, or at least a shot at one, and you're right. TODAY we'd be another Tennessee Titans.

WITHOUT A DOUBT.

HOWEVER, all this "praise" about TT and the salary cap is just as bogus. Did he right the ship? Sure, but, he righted it in a SINGLE YEAR. Therefore, it was not F'ed UP. Tennessee is in its THIRD YEAR of cap hell. Green Bay's cap could not have been that bad.

Sherman has taken a lot of heat for a messed up cap. It wasn't messed up. He did spend EVERY BIT OF MONEY HE HAD. He didn't overspend to the level of Tennessee.

Tank has some points, but also is out to lunch on some others. Sherman would have kept Wahle because he promised him he would have. Would it have been the right decision? Who cares...

[Partial]

No no, you didn't address a single point. Furthermore I wanted to hear Tanks response to those in addition to anyone elses.



The Packers did not overspend by any means, though. They never signed a big name player besides Joe Johnson. Tank wants them to wheel and deal. Very different from what the actually did. Had they done what Tank wants, they'd be another Tennessee.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

No no, you didn't address a single point. Furthermore I wanted to hear Tanks response to those in addition to anyone elses.



The Packers did not overspend by any means, though. They never signed a big name player besides Joe Johnson. Tank wants them to wheel and deal. Very different from what the actually did. Had they done what Tank wants, they'd be another Tennessee.

Sherman never had the money Thompson have to "overspend." Not $7 M, not $35 M. Sherman efficiently got the most out of what little money he had, and was able to sign or resign, in addition to Johnson, Al Harris, KGB (13.5M SB), Diggs, Hunt Tausher, Clifton, Driver, Ferguson, Glenn, among others. The very fact that Pack have $35 M this year is proof that Sherman didnt screw up the cap. He efficiently managed it.

Sherman didn't use the Tennessee approach. He used the Washington approach.

[MJZiggy]

No no, you didn't address a single point. Furthermore I wanted to hear Tanks response to those in addition to anyone elses.



The Packers did not overspend by any means, though. They never signed a big name player besides Joe Johnson. Tank wants them to wheel and deal. Very different from what the actually did. Had they done what Tank wants, they'd be another Tennessee.

Sherman never had the money Thompson have to "overspend." Not $7 M, not $35 M. Sherman efficiently got the most out of what little money he had, and was able to sign or resign, in addition to Johnson, Al Harris, KGB (13.5M SB), Diggs, Hunt Tausher, Clifton, Driver, Ferguson, Glenn, among others. The very fact that Pack have $35 M this year is proof that Sherman didnt screw up the cap. He efficiently managed it.

Sherman didn't use the Tennessee approach. He used the Washington approach.

Wonder why Sherman never had much money to spend...Hmmm.

[Partial]

Tank, you didn't address a single of the points I requested. Please do so.




The Tennessee approach has proved more successful then Washingtons. He didn't use Washingtons, either. He basically sat still if you ask me.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

[quote=Anti-Polar Bear]


Wonder why Sherman never had much money to spend...Hmmm.

Two Words: Ron Wolf.

Wolf handed out large contacts to Doresy Levens and Antonio Freeman. Levens wouldve been great if not for injuries; no regret because Levens downfall gave raise to Ahman Green's supremacy, much like Majak's injury introduced BF to the world. Freeman some how lost his quickness after signing the extension.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Tank, you didn't address a single of the points I requested. Please do so.




The Tennessee approach has proved more successful then Washingtons. He didn't use Washingtons, either. He basically sat still if you ask me.

I've been arguing those points for a long time, most recently with Cyclone Pack fan. As much as I like to repeat things, I have to admit I am sick of repeating this subject over and over again.

[MJZiggy]

[quote=Anti-Polar Bear]


Wonder why Sherman never had much money to spend...Hmmm.

Two Words: Ron Wolf.

Wolf handed out large contacts to Doresy Levens and Antonio Freeman. Levens wouldve been great if not for injuries; no regret because Levens downfall gave raise to Ahman's supremacy, much like Majak's injury introduced BF to the world. Freeman some how lost his quickness after signing the extension.

Imagine the effect a previous GM can have on the team after he's gone...

[Anti-Polar Bear]

[quote=Anti-Polar Bear]


Wonder why Sherman never had much money to spend...Hmmm.

Two Words: Ron Wolf.

Wolf handed out large contacts to Doresy Levens and Antonio Freeman. Levens wouldve been great if not for injuries; no regret because Levens downfall gave raise to Ahman's supremacy, much like Majak's injury introduced BF to the world. Freeman some how lost his quickness after signing the extension.

Imagine the effect a previous GM can have on the team after he's gone...

You fail to see that Wolf left Sherman less money than Sherman left Thompson. Using this logic, then Thompson shouldve done more than Sherman since the polar bear has more money.

[MJZiggy]

[quote=Anti-Polar Bear]


Wonder why Sherman never had much money to spend...Hmmm.

Two Words: Ron Wolf.

Wolf handed out large contacts to Doresy Levens and Antonio Freeman. Levens wouldve been great if not for injuries; no regret because Levens downfall gave raise to Ahman's supremacy, much like Majak's injury introduced BF to the world. Freeman some how lost his quickness after signing the extension.

Imagine the effect a previous GM can have on the team after he's gone...

You fail to see that Wolf left Sherman less money than Sherman left Thompson. Using this logic, then Thompson shouldve done more than Sherman since the polar bear has more money.

You fail to see that Sherman left Thompson not only with a shortage of money, but a shortage of good, healthy players as well.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

You fail to see that Sherman left Thompson not only with a shortage of money, but a shortage of good, healthy players as well.

You fail to see that in Sherman's 1st year as GM, he started with little bit more than 2 mil (less than the 7.5 M thompson had last season), and Pack also had tons of injures, especially at OT.

Sherman finished 12-4.

[BF4MVP]

1 29 Nick Barnett LB Oregon State - B+ - He's not an elite linebacker, but solid. He's a "B+" player. Better than the more highly touted Boss Bailey and EJ Henderson at this point. 7 points*

3 79 Kenny Peterson DE Ohio State - D - Made his presence known a few times last year, but other than that, he's been worthless. Nowhere near a third round pick. 2 points

5 147 James Lee DT Oregon State - D- - 2 points

5 166 Hunter Hillenmeyer LB Vanderbilt - F - You can pick a solid player, but in order for it to count for anything he has to be on YOUR team. 0 points

6 212 Brennan Curtin T Notre Dame - F - Did he even play at all? 0 points

7 245 Chris Johnson DB Louisville - C- - Even though he rarely saw the field due to injury, the speed demon from Louisville was able to net us Robert Thomas via trade, whom I considered a "C-" player. 6 points**

7 253 DeAndrew Rubin WR South Florida - F - He got cut during training camp the year he was drafted. 0 points

7 256 Carl Ford WR Toledo - F - I think we all had high hopes for him. He never panned out here, and he's on a practice squad somewhere. 0 points

7 257 Steve Josue LB Carson-Newman - F - I think I remember him being promoted from the practice squad a couple times, also made a little noise in preseason for about a game, but that was it. 0 points

*Scoring system based on the impact he has had, and the round he was drafted in.

**Johnson gets 6 points because he was such a late draft pick, and it is harder to uncover decent players (or in this case, players who net you decent players via trade.

Overall average: 1.89 - D

I know it's a flawed scoring system, but I did my best.

[retailguy]

Address these.

What team has done this successfully and won a superbowl AND remained competitive for more than a year or so? This happens in Baseball all the time. The Marlins have done it twice in recent memory.

What do you do when a player doesn't want to accept a heavily backloaded deal understanding they will probably never see the vast majority of the money?

What do you make of the downfall of one the best franchises in the NFL in the Tennesee Titans. They continually were one of the better teams in the league for about 5-6 years always being a top 3-4 team in the AFC. Eventually the money caught up with them since they wanted to keep their core together. How do you handle this situation?

What do you do when you keep pushing back player's money ala the Titans with Steve McNair and all of a sudden the player refuses to restructure his constract again because he is sick of being jipped out of money and they cannot cut him because the immediate cap hit would crush the teams future. What do you do in this situation and how do you go about avoiding this in the world of backloading contracts?

Where do you go to school? I saw you had exams this week in another thread, but you didn't see my question of where you went.

I have tons more questions about your GM philosophies, but I will wait for these answers and not overload you now since you're busy with school.


Well Partial, I'll try again. Frankly I didn't think some of the points were worth responding to. But whatever...


What do you do when a player doesn't want to accept a heavily backloaded deal understanding they will probably never see the vast majority of the money?

If the player doesn't want to sign, or renegotiate, he doesn't have to, HOWEVER, most do because they get something else besides a backloaded contract. Your point ignored this, and was thus incomplete. No one would sign a backloaded deal, WITHOUT some guarantee of some type. Tank has never advocated this, he's always stated converting existing salary to some type of bonus. That stuff happens all the time.


What team has done this successfully and won a superbowl AND remained competitive for more than a year or so? This happens in Baseball all the time. The Marlins have done it twice in recent memory.


None, but staying competitive wasn't the plan. It was go for broke.


What do you do when you keep pushing back player's money ala the Titans with Steve McNair and all of a sudden the player refuses to restructure his constract again because he is sick of being jipped out of money and they cannot cut him because the immediate cap hit would crush the teams future. What do you do in this situation and how do you go about avoiding this in the world of backloading contracts?


McNair was NOT cheated. He restructured over and over again, but ALWAYS received the money he was due. Tennessee just pushed the BILL into future years. This year Mcnair is due 9 million but his "total cap charge" is 23. something million. Tennessee can't pay the 9 million this year because of the TOTAL CAP CHARGE, plus Mcnair is hurt and Tennessee wants a bargain.

Your point is INCOMPLETE and assumes McNair was cheated. He wasn't.

Backloaded contracts are a "way of life" in the NFL. It doesn't need to be "fixed" any more than the average guys auto loan needs to be "fixed". You push your auto purchase into the future, don't you? You still "buy it now" but pay for it later, right? Why should the NFL fix this? It's NOT BROKEN. It is working EXACTLY the way it was intended. Teams have a CHOICE as to how to spend their money. It is their money, they should have that choice, right?



Where do you go to school?

I think he goes to Georgetown, but am not sure.



Well Partial, that's all of them. I think your understanding of the Salary Cap, and the NFL may be just as biased the other way as Tank's. It is definitely slanted to your perspective as is tanks analysis.

When you see someone making Sherman out to be an "idiot" or a "demon" or "not qualified to be an NFL coach" it just shows that person doesn't understand the NFL or football in general. ALL THESE GUYS are qualified. They couldn't get the job if they weren't. Some wind up being better than others, but you can't discount the situation. Belicheck failed horribly in Cleveland, and became a HOF'er in New England.

Holmgren was a "hero" in Green Bay, and has been "average" in Seattle. I live near Seattle and the media is AGAIN criticizing him because he won't sign an extension. He is not the "hero" he was in Green Bay. The situation is different, now Holmgren is average....

Just be careful when you criticize.... Very few NFL coaches leave the "business" on their terms. [/b]

[ND72]

lets face it...our grad is based on Nick Barnett. some people hate him, some people love him. I tend to love the guy. i think the lack of players on our defense has made him "over play" from time to time, which hurts him more than helps him. He was vastly "unknown" to many, and compared to Boss bailey and E.J. Henderson, I'd say we got the top LB of the top of the draft.

Barnett is a B+/A-

the draft is probably a D+ at best

[MJZiggy]

You fail to see that Sherman left Thompson not only with a shortage of money, but a shortage of good, healthy players as well.

You fail to see that in Sherman's 1st year as GM, he started with little bit more than 2 mil (less than the 7.5 M thompson had last season), and Pack also had tons of injures, especially at OT.

Sherman finished 12-4.

They better have gone 12-4--he took over a SuperBowl team. Funny, Thompson took over almost the same team...just much older.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

You fail to see that Sherman left Thompson not only with a shortage of money, but a shortage of good, healthy players as well.

You fail to see that in Sherman's 1st year as GM, he started with little bit more than 2 mil (less than the 7.5 M thompson had last season), and Pack also had tons of injures, especially at OT.

Sherman finished 12-4.

They better have gone 12-4--he took over a SuperBowl team. Funny, Thompson took over almost the same team...just much older.

you are wrong. Sherman took over a 12-4 team and matched that record during his 1st year as GM. Thompson took over a 10-6 team and turn it into a 4-12 team.

Shows that Sherman is the better GM.

[retailguy]

You fail to see that Sherman left Thompson not only with a shortage of money, but a shortage of good, healthy players as well.


???? There was no "shortage of money". It was just spent differently. Sherman spent everything he had. Thompson did not.

This year they'll be some creative "deals" to push money into the future. That trend is relatively new. Philadelphia has done this the past 10 years or so, and now other teams are catching on.

Seattle has had its share of "cap issues" in the past few years. TT was part of that, I'm sure. TT is just now in total control and can do what he believes.

Sherman left players that fit his "system". They didn't fit TT's system. Most are playing elsewhere.

Sherman had more "busts" because he had fewer draft picks. Yes, he was the guy who traded them, but don't "lose the distortion" and draw conclusions that aren't there. Too few picks led to most of his problems.

[retailguy]

They better have gone 12-4--he took over a SuperBowl team. Funny, Thompson took over almost the same team...just much older.


you are wrong. Sherman took over a 12-4 team and matched that record during his 1st year as GM. Thompson took over a 10-6 team and turn it into a 4-12 team.

Shows that Sherman is the better GM.


Ziggy, Sherman took over an 8-8 team that was poorly coached by Ray Rhodes. He turned that team into a 10-6 squad.

He inherited a veteran team from Ron Wolf that was SEVERAL PLAYERS short of Super Bowl quality. Sherman couldn't get them over the hump, partially because of his drafting ability, also injuries, and finally from some poor decisions during games.

Those that claim Sherman was "set up" for success and just blew it just don't get it. I have heard over and over again that Sherman had Favre, therefore he has ZERO EXCUSES. Balderdash!! If that is true, then Don Shula is a horrible coach. He had MARINO and could never get them over the hump. Jimmy Johnson as well.

It takes more than a QB people!

[MJZiggy]

Damn. What is wrong with my brain this week. I'm going to bed.

[Scott Campbell]

you are wrong. Sherman took over a 12-4 team and matched that record during his 1st year as GM. Thompson took over a 10-6 team and turn it into a 4-12 team.

Shows that Sherman is the better GM.

LOL

No it doesn't show that Sherman was the better GM.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

you are wrong. Sherman took over a 12-4 team and matched that record during his 1st year as GM. Thompson took over a 10-6 team and turn it into a 4-12 team.

Shows that Sherman is the better GM.

LOL

No it doesn't show that Sherman was the better GM.

Only in your mind it doesnt. :wink:

[Scott Campbell]

Only in your mind it doesnt. :wink:


Do you really think I'm the only one?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Only in your mind it doesnt. :wink:


Do you really think I'm the only one?

You and your likes: the Anti-Shermans.

[retailguy]

Only in your mind it doesnt. :wink:


Do you really think I'm the only one?

You and your likes: the Anti-Shermans.

What about me? I think TT is a better GM, but I like Sherman, what am I?

[MJZiggy]

I don't dislike Sherman, I just don't believe he's as good a GM for the Packers right now as Thompson.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

What about me? I think TT is a better GM, but I like Sherman, what am I?

A Thompson-Sherman hybrid, I guess. :mrgreen:

[retailguy]

What about me? I think TT is a better GM, but I like Sherman, what am I?

A Thompson-Sherman hybrid, I guess. :mrgreen:

I can live with that.... :wink:

[Anti-Polar Bear]

I don't dislike Sherman, I just don't believe he's as good a GM for the Packers right now as Thompson.

Until Thompson win 10 or more games in a season, or the SB, he will always be inferior to Sherman.

[retailguy]

I don't dislike Sherman, I just don't believe he's as good a GM for the Packers right now as Thompson.

Then don't make your points by bashing sherman. If you read what you wrote it doesn't sound that way..... I genuinely thought you disliked the guy.

[Packgator]

2003 Draft = D- (thank goodness for Barnett)

[Scott Campbell]

2003 Draft = D- (thank goodness for Barnett)


Thank goodness Bob Harlan had the good sense to take away the GM title from Sherman.

And welcome aboard.

[mraynrand]

Harlan probably shouldn't have given him the GM role in the first place. I thought that Sherman made the best of the situation and worked his ass off. Probably the best move he made as GM was bringing aboard Mark Hatley. I don't think you can blame Sherman for Hatley's death (although I'm sure there are some who might). That probably spelled doom for Sherman, since Hatley might have stopped him from wasting a pick(s) on BJ and trading up for fewer picks.

One thing is certain - Sherman only got three years as GM. Other GMs have been given a lot more rope with which to hang themselves.

[Partial]

Tank

What does Sherman do in the Post-Favre era at Quarterback? Does he trade a 5th round pick for Peyton Manning?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Harlan probably shouldn't have given him the GM role in the first place. I thought that Sherman made the best of the situation and worked his ass off. Probably the best move he made as GM was bringing aboard Mark Hatley. I don't think you can blame Sherman for Hatley's death (although I'm sure there are some who might). That probably spelled doom for Sherman, since Hatley might have stopped him from wasting a pick(s) on BJ and trading up for fewer picks.

One thing is certain - Sherman only got three years as GM. Other GMs have been given a lot more rope with which to hang themselves.

This guy is Greenday. I am sure. :wink:

[retailguy]

Tank

What does Sherman do in the Post-Favre era at Quarterback? Does he trade a 5th round pick for Peyton Manning?

REBUILD - Why is this not clear?

[retailguy]

One thing is certain - Sherman only got three years as GM. Other GMs have been given a lot more rope with which to hang themselves.


Bingo! Too few draft choices to establish whether or not he was truly a bad GM. Did he have issues? You bet, he gets FULL blame for trading up. It is crystal clear he had no understanding how valuable draft choices were, or if he knew he completely disregarded his knowledge.

Harlan made the choice because he believed the job was too big for one person. I see ZERO evidence that he was displeased with Mike Sherman.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Tank

What does Sherman do in the Post-Favre era at Quarterback? Does he trade a 5th round pick for Peyton Manning?

REBUILD - Why is this not clear?

I agree.

[Scott Campbell]

I see ZERO evidence that he was displeased with Mike Sherman.


Wow. What about the evidence that he's now a O-line coach for the Texans? Somebody somewhere had to be pretty displeased at some point.

[retailguy]

I see ZERO evidence that he was displeased with Mike Sherman.


Wow. What about the evidence that he's now a O-line coach for the Texans? Somebody somewhere had to be pretty displeased at some point.


Scott,

Bob Harlan did not terminate nor (near as we can tell) advocate firing Mike Sherman. He stated at the time, that the move was made ONLY because he didn't believe one person could do the job.

Sherman turned down two offensive coordinator roles, one with Buffalo, and I think one with the Jets. There may have been another that I can't remember.

He fully intended to sit out the year by his own words, and that of his wife.

Oh, by the way, you forgot about the "assistant head coach" designation. He's more than an O'line coach.

[Scott Campbell]

Scott,

Bob Harlan did not terminate nor (near as we can tell) advocate firing Mike Sherman. He stated at the time, that the move was made ONLY because he didn't believe one person could do the job.



Do you believe everything you read? It's not Bob Harlan's job to explain to us why he really did it. It is Bob Harlan's job to put the best possible spin on an ugly situation. It is Bob Harlan's job to do and say things that reflect well on the Green Bay Packers. It's not his job to let you and I peer into his thinking process, so he's not about to tell a bunch of reporters if he thought Sherman was completely incompetent for drafting the Beej, or any of the multitude of well documented bonehead personnel moves.

Obviously Sherman wasn't Employee of the Month - or he wouldn't have been fired.

And the Assistant Head Coach title is little more than a glorified equipment manager position. I'm sure it was given to Sherman just to let him save a little face during his demotion period. He's an O-line coach.

[retailguy]

Do you believe everything you read? It's not Bob Harlan's job to explain to us why he really did it. It is Bob Harlan's job to put the best possible spin on an ugly situation. It is Bob Harlan's job to do and say things that reflect well on the Green Bay Packers. It's not his job to let you and I peer into his thinking process, so he's not about to tell a bunch of reporters if he thought Sherman was completely incompetent for drafting the Beej, or any of the multitude of well documented bonehead personnel moves.

Obviously Sherman wasn't Employee of the Month - or he wouldn't have been fired.

And the Assistant Head Coach title is little more than a glorified equipment manager position. I'm sure it was given to Sherman just to let him save a little face during his demotion period. He's an O-line coach.

Scott,

I understand your premise, and while I agree that happens all the time in the NFL, I don't think it applies to Bob Harlan.

Bob Harlan has made a career out of not avoiding the media or not answering questions. He was very thorough about explaining himself related to Mike Sherman. He didn't refuse to answer any questions and said consistently that the change was NOT a reflection on Mike Sherman. Do people lie? Sure, happens all the time. Can Bob Harlan lie in this situation? I doubt it. He has the potential to take calls and make statements to too many people. What other executive publishes his phone number and takes calls from fans? You think we wouldn't notice if he pulled our leg too often? C'mon, if he did that, his phone would be ringing off the hook.

Bob Harlan is no Daniel Snyder. If he says it, he believes it. If he doesn't believe it, he's not going to say it. He is, by all appearances, a TOTAL character guy. He has way too much to lose to not tell the truth.

His job IS to protect the reputation of the Green Bay Packers. Is there a better way to do that then to tell the truth? I don't think so. The downside to "fibbing" about Mike Sherman reflects more poorly on the Green Bay Packers than just being honest and upfront about it. If he'd come out and said that Mike was a good man, but wasn't right for the job and it was his job to fix that, who would have questioned it? Now, lets say he believes that, but didn't say that, and it comes out. How does this protect the reputation of the Green Bay Packers? How does this reflect to the character of Bob Harlan? Neither one works. Your premise doesn't match the man who has been in the public personna for 20 years. Far too long a time to represent him as someone that he is not.

We'll see what happens to Mike Shermans job opportunities after this season. I believe he gets another shot somewhere. We'll see.