No decision on Williams... Wahle back in GB?

[4and12to12and4]

Bubba is very solid at blocking... Hes probably better than our guards...

But in all seriousness, i hope the packers keep him... Hes a good veteran leader and a really solid blocker...

I completely agree that Bubba is an excellent blocker, and the fact that he blocks better than our guards is the reason I think we should pick up Wahle. TT will most definitely choose another OL in the draft now that he sees how average the ones he has are. With Wahle back, we won't need to count on a great blocking TE as much, thus, Lee can be utilized as a pass catcher on more downs, he is a MUCH better threat in that capacity than Bubba. I used the word "joke" hastily, and don't really feel that, however, he is definitely not worth keeping at his salary IF we can assemble a line that can block CONSISTENTLY. Big IF, and with no upgrades in that area, we have to keep Bubba as a default.

[Green Bud Packer]

1. Agreed we need depth, why does it have to be veteran? The boys pretty much proved that the kids TT brings up can play.

2. How can you say Aaron Rodgers has had no competition? He's failed to beat out Brett Favre every year since he got here. And don't think he hasn't tried either.

More like Brett has had no competition. They should bring in a young guy this off-season and let him compete for the #3.If favre sticks around.

How can #4 comeback if he's never left?

[LL2]

2. How can you say Aaron Rodgers has had no competition? He's failed to beat out Brett Favre every year since he got here. And don't think he hasn't tried either.

ARod really hasn't been competition to Favre. Favre is a lock as long as he's on the team. It's not like M3 is going to dump Favre for ARod like when Dallas dumped Bledsoe for Romo.

I think it would be great to bring Wahle in. He's a very good guard. Why not have him playing while the younger guys still develop. It will not happen though.

[4and12to12and4]

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
Adam Schefter of NFL Network reports that former Panthers guard Mike Wahle is traveling to Seattle on Tuesday night for a Wednesday meeting with the Seahawks.

Wahle was dropped by the Panthers on Monday, in a move that will be processed as a post-June 1 transaction for cap purposes.

Wahle was a second-round selection of the Packers in the 1998 supplemental draft, which coincidentally was the last year in Green Bay for former head coach Mike Holmgren. Now, as the Big Show is getting ready to let the curtain fall on his career in Seattle after the 2008 season, they could be reunited for another one-year stint together.

Seems like a more likely scenario than a return trip to Packerland. I've read Wahle was not heartbroken to leave GB to begin with. He'd likely view Seattle as just as good an opportunity for a long playoff run.

If I remember right, while he wasn't heartbroken over leaving, he also did have his ego/pride hurt though as he thought he would be a Packer forever.

Wouldn't you guess he understands the business a little? If you think about it, Carolina had to do the same thing (don't know if exact same circumstances) as the Packers in 2005. Now, the Packers are cap healthy, so why not the Packers? I bet he would take Packer money again, unless for some reason unknown to us, he had a bad time in Green Bay. It all depends on the bidding for him, if he gets any interest from TT, and likes what he hears. I'd like him back. He addresses a big need.

Allen probably will be tagged. Bubba will be a tough call. I agree on his "hidden" contributions. They'll have to decide if he's worth the money; I think he is. Williams will find a richer deal. KGB will be the toughest one. Perhaps he will restructure to stay.

You must've missed the divisional playoff game. To remind you, we kicked the shit out of Seattle, one of the most dominant playoff performances in Lambeau history. I'm sure Wahle would rather play with Brett's ex-back-up.

[Patler]

1. Agreed we need depth, why does it have to be veteran? The boys pretty much proved that the kids TT brings up can play.

2. How can you say Aaron Rodgers has had no competition? He's failed to beat out Brett Favre every year since he got here. And don't think he hasn't tried either.

And the stirring competition between Rodgers and Craig Nall. Who can forget that??

[RashanGary]

twoseven, it's really not that complicated. The Packers are going through a dearth of "in their prime" talent because of the thin Sherman drafts. They have extra money.

They've had better drafts over the last couple years. They'v also gotten younger with Bigby, Grant, Tramon, Muir and others. They're on the upswing, but the cost ot keep the guys who are still getting paid pennies is going to go up.

Do we have 7 or 8 guys from the Wolf/Sherman era that are exiting? Sure, but it's not nearly as many as the 40 that are young and coming up.

The goal isn't to spend it all inefficiently and fall short of those who are spending it all efficiently. The mistake you're making is seeing teh Pats who have it spent on great players and wanting the Packers to spend it on average players.

The goal is to spend it all efficiently and to do that, a GM has to limit mistakes while taking advantage of oppertunity. Over a long enough period of time, that will lead to a roster that is streching the cap, but doing it without overpaying, doing it by just having the most talent in the league. That's what I hope for. I hope to be at the top and win. I always thought that was the goal.

[RashanGary]

And for the record, I don't think we should necessarily cut KGB and/or Franks. If you had to ask my opinion, I'd try to keep KGB for one more year (maybe con him into a restructure and keep him for two more) while doing my best to replace Franks this year.

I'm sure my ability to judge what is going on pales in comparision to the Packers front office, so whatever they do I'll assume it to be a good move until proven other wise.

The reason I even jumped in here is because that whole "spend it inefficiently because it's better than not spending it" attitude is pretty wide spread and it really ignores the many other ways money can be used when real oppertunity arises.

[Zool]

twoseven, it's really not that complicated. The Packers are going through a darth of "in their prime" talent because of the thin Sherman drafts.

Maul sucks as a LB, but he looks cool. Sideous is a great kicker though. What even needs to be said about Vader? The guy is a beast.

[RashanGary]

twoseven, it's really not that complicated. The Packers are going through a darth of "in their prime" talent because of the thin Sherman drafts.

Maul sucks as a LB, but he looks cool. Sideous is a great kicker though. What even needs to be said about Vader? The guy is a beast.

dearth, a hole

[twoseven]

Do we have 7 or 8 guys from the Wolf/Sherman era that are exiting? Sure, but it's not nearly as many as the 40 that are young and coming up.

The goal isn't to spend it all inefficiently and fall short of those who are spending it all efficiently. The mistake you're making is seeing teh Pats who have it spent on great players and wanting the Packers to spend it on average players.

40 players, huh? Go through the rosters from one team to the next, the bulk will be distributed through, what, 8-12 guys roughly (?), not 40. 20-25 players that are not much more than special teams players are hardly in a position to earn mad dollars.

So, our 25 mil in space and the many many millions that will be added over the next 2-8 years with the spread out exodus of Clifton, Favre, Harris, Franks, KGB, Driver, Woodson, Tauscher, Barnett, Kampman, etc..is NOT going to be enough to balance out what is coming up the pike years from now ala Rodgers, Hawk, Jennings, Bigby, Grant, Rouse, Poppinga, Jones, Crosby, and a few TBAs?

'The mistake you're making is seeing teh Pats who have it spent on great players and wanting the Packers to spend it on average players.'

Not only is this statement about what I may be thinking ridiculous (as compared to what I actually think), it makes absolutey no sense at all. I see the Pats, what they've done, now I want GB to spend a lot of money on average players? WTF are you talking about?

[twoseven]

The reason I even jumped in here is because that whole "spend it inefficiently because it's better than not spending it" attitude is pretty wide spread and it really ignores the many other ways money can be used when real oppertunity arises.

I think you see the words 'money', 'cap', 'spend' and you subsequently jump to way too many conclusions about what is actually being discussed, maybe you're dragging too many arguments from other strings around?

How much sense does it make to cut KGB and Bub RIGHT NOW, versus in the next 1-2 years, when (1) you'd (right now) have 35 mil in space that doesn't look to be used this year, and (2) the guys you stick in their spot most likely will not equal their production?

This is the point you jumped on. Care to comment on what was actually typed?

[RashanGary]

Team's that are already 25 mil below the cap without much inkling to spend it, with 15-16 mil more in Favre and Clifton space that will be added in a few years, have no reason to cut high priced players like Franks or KGB unless they can replace them with more productive players.

There ya go. Since you were such an expert on what was said and not said, I didn't think I had to requote the same post for the 20th time.




Well, before you go shouting like an angry little kid, why don't you write what you mean next time.

This time you said high priced players like KGB as if to include many (if not any) high priced players on their decline and you only related it to the money we had as if to imply having money means spending to say it's spent.

[RashanGary]

Again, I'm not even advocating replacing KGB or Franks right now. I'm just saying the point to replace them comes before the point in which you find someone better, certainly it comes no later than the point in which you find someone younger and cheaper but of the same quality and for me a little earlier than that.

[the_idle_threat]

Again, I'm not even advocating replacing KGB or Franks right now. I'm just saying the point to replace them comes before the point in which you find someone better, certainly it comes no later than the point in which you find someone younger and cheaper but of the same quality and for me a little earlier than that.

[b bulldog]

I will jump on the replace 88 bandwagon cause he is oft injured and he is not worth the money he is being paid. I also think KGB will take a paycut but that is just a hunch.