Hunter Hillenmeyer

[Guiness]

I didn't realize this guy was an RFA. By the looks of it, Da Bears have given him the minimum tender, which would be a 5th rounder (where he was drafted)

Bears | Hillenmeyer receives tender offer
Fri, 3 Mar 2006 14:35:24 -0800

K.C. Johnson, of the Chicago Tribune, reports the Chicago Bears will tender a one-year, $712,000 contract offer to restricted free agent LB Hunter Hillenmeyer.

Man, I'd make this guy an offer in a heartbeat. If nothing else, cost Chicago some $$$, like the Kampman affair last year.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Not bad for a guy drafted and released by the Pack. I guess itd be nice to stick it to the Bears by upping the ante, but, if push comes to shove, do you really want him?

tyler

[Patler]

In 2003 GB traded a 5th (#185) and a 7th (#244) to Philly for the #166 pick they used to draft Hillenmeyer (thank you Mike Sherman). If they signed him now they would have to give up another 5th for him. It would be kind of strange to have two 5ths and a 7th invested in a 5th round pick!

[Guiness]

@EW%@#$ I didn't know that.

What a friggin bone head. Who feels a 'need' to move up 20 spots in the fifth round? If for no other reason, those types of moves make me happy he's gone.

[Patler]

@EW%@#$ I didn't know that.

What a friggin bone head. Who feels a 'need' to move up 20 spots in the fifth round? If for no other reason, those types of moves make me happy he's gone.

If you liked that draft choice "give-away," How about these:

4th in 2002 and a 4th in 2003 for Terry Glenn who he kept 1 year and traded to Dallas for a conditional pick, that turned out to be NOTHING. He gave up two fourths for one year of Glenn's services and got nothing in return.

In 2003 he traded #94 pick and #127 to get #79 and draft Kenny Peterson.
In 2003 he traded #165 and #203 to get #147 to pick James Lee.
In 2003 he traded his 6th round in 2004 (turned out to be #185) to get Philly's 7th in 2003 (#245) to draft Chris Johnson.

In 2004 he traded #55 for #70 (Thomas) and #102.
He then traded #102 and #153 for #87 (BJ Sander)
He traded #86 and #118 for #72 (Donnell Washington)
He traded #188 and #226 for #179 to draft Williams.

If you really following the bouncing ball, it looks like he had no plan going into the drafts. He continually traded two picks to move a couple spots to draft a player he cut or that never produced. In 2004 he traded away everyone of his own picks except the first rounder. He traded away #86 and traded again to get #87. Overall in 2004 he basically traded down, giving up #55, #86, #118, #153, #188 and #226 for #70, #72, #87, #179 and #251; yet he ended up with fewer picks than he went into the draft with.

Its no wonder the roster has no depth.

[Guiness]

ok, with this post, I now fully agree you are pulling a sham.

Interesting numbers, as always. I will pick out one move that is fine in my books, and that's trade that got him Johnson. If it's the 7th, there's a guy you like, a move like that is fine. There could be competition for him as a undrafted FA, so get the rights to him.

The shenanigans with the 86th and 87th picks must've made him the laughing stock of the league.

[GoPackGo]

Sherman=moron

[Patler]

ok, with this post, I now fully agree you are pulling a sham.

Interesting numbers, as always. I will pick out one move that is fine in my books, and that's trade that got him Johnson. If it's the 7th, there's a guy you like, a move like that is fine. There could be competition for him as a undrafted FA, so get the rights to him.

The shenanigans with the 86th and 87th picks must've made him the laughing stock of the league.

Pulling a "Sham"? Info was from Chad Reuter's 2005 NFL Darft Guide that was on Packerchatters last year. It recapped Packer drafts a long time past.

Regarding the trade to get Chris Johnson, giving up your 6th next year for a 7th the current year to me is sort of insane. He gave up 50 draft positions to draft a player that would be a long shot at making his roster. He traded what turned out to be #185 just to get #245. Here is the really insane part of it: HE ALSO HAD PICKS #253, #256 and #257 as free agent competition. He traded away the next years 6th round pick to get #245 because he was afraid Johnson wouldn't last until #253. Was Johnson worth that much? Was the risk of losing a guy who lasted to the 7th round worth that much? So what if one of the 8 teams who would have drafted had taken him?

I can agree with your thoughts about competition for an undrafted free agent that you liked, and it might have made sense if the Packers had no 7th round pick, but they had three of them. Apparently #253, #256 and #257 were too low for Sherman so he traded to get #245!

[Guiness]

The sham I was refering to wasn't your post. I fully believe it was authentic

I knew, but had forgotten that the pack had those three 7th rounders that year. In that case, it was definitely a stupid move. As I said, I can see a GM giving up next year's 6th rounder to prevent having to bid for a player in this year's UFA market. But that would be if you were out of picks, and were surprised to see someone still on the board. If you've still got picks, but someone else decides to burn one on him *shrug*

If he really, really had a bee in his bonnet that someone was going to grab him, and he thought he was a gamer, I would think Philly would've been more than happy with #256 and 257 for #245.

[Patler]

The sham

If he really, really had a bee in his bonnet that someone was going to grab him, and he thought he was a gamer, I would think Philly would've been more than happy with #256 and 257 for #245.

The only problem is the three 7th rounders the Packers had were compensatory picks for FA losses, and I don't believe could be traded.

Time and time again Sherman admitted he traded up just a few spots because he thought a player he wanted was going to be picked by someone else. He admitted that with the "trade-ups" for Kenny Peterson, James Lee and Chris Johnson. In a way it made a bit of sense for Peterson. At one time he was viewed as a possible first round pick, but seemed very likely to go in the 2nd. When he was still available in the 3rd, it seemed worth a chance. But Lee? Johnson?

Ron Wolf once said GMs get in trouble when they start to covet players in any round. Sherman seemed to do that, even in the 7th round!

[RashanGary]

LOL....

Sherman talk is just sickening...

I did not know it was even possible to draft as badly as Sherman did.

[BooHoo]

I did not think Sherman did well on draft day.

[MacCool606]

I don't think he did well on player evaluation either. I remember that Hillenmeyer lasted until the last cut, but i don't know who they kept instead. He turned out to be a pretty good LB that we could have used.

[Rastak]

I don't think he did well on player evaluation either. I remember that Hillenmeyer lasted until the last cut, but i don't know who they kept instead. He turned out to be a pretty good LB that we could have used.

The fact he traded up to get him then dumped him was what puzzled me.....

[Bretsky]

I don't think he did well on player evaluation either. I remember that Hillenmeyer lasted until the last cut, but i don't know who they kept instead. He turned out to be a pretty good LB that we could have used.

Well, a couple they kept were Torrnce Marshall and Paris Lenon

[Fritz]

"Ron Wolf once said GMs get in trouble when they start to covet players in any round."

And I agree with him. Which is why I would be fine if TT traded down out of that #5 spot and picked up an extra second rounder. History shows that the more players you are able to select the better your chances of getting good players. Think about the way Wolf used to talk about the draft. He's say things like "if five of the ten picks pan out we'll be in good shape." He knew that banking on a guy (as Sherman so, so often did) is a mistake. For every Javon Walker you trade up for there are all kinds of Kenny Petersons, Donnell Washingtons, BJ Sanders, and the like.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have a rude question: Is part of the continuing fascination with Hunter Hillenmeyer because he is a white linebacker? It seems like fans just love to identify with linebackers, particularly the pasty faces.

Hillenmeyer is a borderline NFL player on another team.

Paris Lenon is better, and I didn't see a mention when he shipped off to Detroit.

[Bretsky]

I have a rude question: Is part of the continuing fascination with Hunter Hillenmeyer because he is a white linebacker? It seems like fans just love to identify with linebackers, particularly the pasty faces.

Hillenmeyer is a borderline NFL player on another team.

Paris Lenon is better, and I didn't see a mention when he shipped off to Detroit.

I think part of the fascination in discussing Hunter Hillenmeyer is that he epitomizes the failure of Mike Sherman as a GM. And since he was once a GB Packer and we gave him away for free after trading two draft picks for him it's interesting to discuss him again.

I do think he's better than Paris Lenon as well. Right now Hillenmeyer would be the third best LB on our team. That says more about how well the Turtle has done bringing in new talent than how good Hillenmeyer is though.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think Paris Lenon was the most consistent linebacker on the team last season. They got rid of him because he is topped-out as an average player, kinda slow.

No, I won't buy that Hillenmeyer is better than Lenon. They are certainly comparable, at any rate.

[Fritz]

It's the name, Harlan, it's the name. Hunter Hillenmeyer? He's either the first old-family-money linebackers in the NFL (it'd be like Pierre DuPont IV being in the NFL) or he's the first (or one of the first, anyway) Jewish linebackers in the NFL.

In terms of race I think people are a little more weirded out by white cornerbacks.