NFL News

[Deputy Nutz]

Titans agreed to terms with OG Jake Scott, formerly of the Colts, on a four-year contract that will average just under $5 million annually.

We're usually wary of signing ex-Colts, but it's always nice to take a quality player from a division rival and put him on your team. Scott has similar tools to the man he'll replace at left guard, Jacob Bell. He's also younger, way cheaper, and hasn't missed a start since his rookie season (2004).

This was the one free agent that I was hoping Thompson would have gone after with some aggression. He is a solid football player, better than Colledge.

I hope Thompson isn't one of those guys that thinks because he drafted a player that he has to stick with him to the end of his first contract.

[Lurker64]

This was the one free agent that I was hoping Thompson would have gone after with some aggression. He is a solid football player, better than Colledge.

I hope Thompson isn't one of those guys that thinks because he drafted a player that he has to stick with him to the end of his first contract.

At the same time, I think it's useful to draw analogy to last year. After last year we were all (myself included) convinced that TE was a major weakness for this team and that if we didn't go after a good TE, we'd be unable to score points in the Red Zone. There were varying degrees of wailing and gnashing of the teeth after David Martin left, all the FA TEs went elsewhere, and we didn't draft one in the first 6 rounds. However, the coaching staff expressed confidence in Lee, and we went into the season with Lee and Franks as our TEs. Turns out, Lee has a breakout year and almost certainly had a better year last year than all of the TEs we passed up.

So it's entirely likely that the coaching staff is convinced that they can get one of their many OL prospects to have a breakout season at Guard (probably more likely Barbre or Coston than Colledge, maybe even Moll), or the scouting department just didn't see that much in Scott. Possibly a combination of the two.

Sometimes, as much as we're convinced of something, the coaches and scouts know something we don't. Who knows about this situation?

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

This was the one free agent that I was hoping Thompson would have gone after with some aggression. He is a solid football player, better than Colledge.

I hope Thompson isn't one of those guys that thinks because he drafted a player that he has to stick with him to the end of his first contract.

At the same time, I think it's useful to draw analogy to last year. After last year we were all (myself included) convinced that TE was a major weakness for this team and that if we didn't go after a good TE, we'd be unable to score points in the Red Zone. There were varying degrees of wailing and gnashing of the teeth after David Martin left, all the FA TEs went elsewhere, and we didn't draft one in the first 6 rounds. However, the coaching staff expressed confidence in Lee, and we went into the season with Lee and Franks as our TEs. Turns out, Lee has a breakout year and almost certainly had a better year last year than all of the TEs we passed up.

So it's entirely likely that the coaching staff is convinced that they can get one of their many OL prospects to have a breakout season at Guard (probably more likely Barbre or Coston than Colledge, maybe even Moll), or the scouting department just didn't see that much in Scott. Possibly a combination of the two.

Sometimes, as much as we're convinced of something, the coaches and scouts know something we don't. Who knows about this situation?

That’s a good point. But I still think we draft at least two o-linemen in the draft, probably a tackle and a guard.

[The Leaper]

Lee showed some success on the field prior to last year to give Thompson an idea of what he could offer.

What the hell have we seen from Barbre or Coston to inspire any confidence that they will take a huge step forward?

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Lee showed some success on the field prior to last year to give Thompson an idea of what he could offer.

What the hell have we seen from Barbre or Coston to inspire any confidence that they will take a huge step forward?

Don't get me wrong I wanted to sign Scott, but none of us really knows anything about Barbre. He may be the long term answer and we don't even know. Also, the coaching staff seems to like Wells and Splitz a lot as starters.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Lee showed some success on the field prior to last year to give Thompson an idea of what he could offer.

What the hell have we seen from Barbre or Coston to inspire any confidence that they will take a huge step forward?

I don't think it's Barbre or Coston they are counting on. I think it's Spitz and Colledge--with Barbre or Coston possibly challenging Colledge. I actually think Spitz has moved ahead of the other guys, and isn't nearly the question mark he was. I think Colledge has a chance at being a solid starter in the NFL. Unfortunately, it may take a move to OT for that to be realized.

[Deputy Nutz]

Colledge is a perfect example of what you get when you take a college tackle who is raw to begin with and move him to a whole new position and then throw him in as a starter. He has struggled so far because he simply wasn't ready to play. In fact he was the type of player coming out of Boise St that had a decent amount of talent to where a 2nd round selection was warranted, but his skill level was below average for an offensive lineman, and he probably could have gotten by the first couple years on his talent alone at tackle, but it seems that his talent hasn't transfered over to guard like coaches and staffers thought it would.

Netting Scott would have solidified the offensive line, both at the starting position and the depth of the team. Colledge would get the move back to tackle where he could back up Clifton, but also be added as a back up at guard. Scott could have been the starter on the left side.

Anyways, I think it is a miss on Thompson's part, especially with 35 million in cap space, but I don't think it is a move that cripples the franchise by any means.

[Deputy Nutz]

Here is a thought I just had, are the Packers/Ted Thompson preparing the franchise financially for an uncapped year(s)? Are the Packer banking money at this point, and resigning their own players because they realize that owners are going to scrap the CBA in 2010?

[mission]

Here is a thought I just had, are the Packers/Ted Thompson preparing the franchise financially for an uncapped year(s)? Are the Packer banking money at this point, and resigning their own players because they realize that owners are going to scrap the CBA in 2010?

id like to think so but GB being the tiny market that it is makes me think that we would get absolutely fucked if the cap was lifted for a year ... yankees anyone?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Here is a thought I just had, are the Packers/Ted Thompson preparing the franchise financially for an uncapped year(s)? Are the Packer banking money at this point, and resigning their own players because they realize that owners are going to scrap the CBA in 2010?

id like to think so but GB being the tiny market that it is makes me think that we would get absolutely fucked if the cap was lifted for a year ... yankees anyone?

Not necessarily. There would be owners that would spend outrageously, but it's been proven in football that you can't just spend and win. There are a lot of owners that are in the business to make more money, so they aren't going to throw money around (ala Carl Pohlad of the Twins). I'd think we'd been in pretty good shape. We have at least $100M saved up as a nest egg.

Am I the only one that thinks Green Bay wouldn't be that bad off if the salary cap went away--as long as merchandise wasn't shared? It's not a typical small market team. The local market is small, but the franchise has an enormous global fan-base. In fact, they are one of the teams that pays a fund that helps the bottom 10 teams (e.g. Minnesota). I think as long as TV money is shared, they'd be fine.

That being said, the salary cap should stay. It does wonders for competitive balance, and has helped keep pro football the top sport in the country.

[BallHawk]

Per PFT

TRENT RETURNS TO ST. LOUIS

Seven seasons after leaving St. Louis, quarterback Trent Green is returning to town.

According to Adam Schefter of NFL Network, Green has agreed to terms with the Rams.

Green was a high-profile signing of the Rams in 1999. But Rodney Harrison, then of the Chargers, hit Green low during the preseason, setting the stage for the unlikely ascension of Kurt Warner. Green, who missed all of 1999 with a torn ACL, stayed with the Rams through the 2000 season. He started five games that year as an injury replacement for Warner.

In 2001, Green landed with the Chiefs, where he was reunited with former Rams coach Dick Vermeil. Green stayed in Kansas City until last year, when he was traded late in the offseason to the Dolphins.

In St. Louis, Green will be reunited with Al Saunders, the former offensive coordinator in Kansas City who then moved to Washington and now has the same gig with the Rams.

With Marc Bulger entrenched as the starter, Green likely won't be higher than No. 2 on the roster. The only other quarterback currently on the team is Brock Berlin.

[sepporepi]

Am I the only one that thinks Green Bay wouldn't be that bad off if the salary cap went away--as long as merchandise wasn't shared? It's not a typical small market team. The local market is small, but the franchise has an enormous global fan-base.

Huch much of the merchandise is/was Favre-related and how much not?
His jersey selled in the top 10 for at least 10 years now. In some years it was the best selling one. I bet in 2 years merchandise will not be in the top 10 anyone.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Here is a thought I just had, are the Packers/Ted Thompson preparing the franchise financially for an uncapped year(s)? Are the Packer banking money at this point, and resigning their own players because they realize that owners are going to scrap the CBA in 2010?

id like to think so but GB being the tiny market that it is makes me think that we would get absolutely fucked if the cap was lifted for a year ... yankees anyone?

Not necessarily. There would be owners that would spend outrageously, but it's been proven in football that you can't just spend and win. There are a lot of owners that are in the business to make more money, so they aren't going to throw money around (ala Carl Pohlad of the Twins). I'd think we'd been in pretty good shape. We have at least $100M saved up as a nest egg.

Am I the only one that thinks Green Bay wouldn't be that bad off if the salary cap went away--as long as merchandise wasn't shared? It's not a typical small market team. The local market is small, but the franchise has an enormous global fan-base. In fact, they are one of the teams that pays a fund that helps the bottom 10 teams (e.g. Minnesota). I think as long as TV money is shared, they'd be fine.

That being said, the salary cap should stay. It does wonders for competitive balance, and has helped keep pro football the top sport in the country.

The salary cap is good for GB because it allows us to compete for players that would not consider us if all teams could just spend willy nilly.

Let's call a spade a spade. GB is a small town that has VERY limited appeal to most NFL players. GB, it's history, etc. mean very little to most players..especially the younger ones.

Just as most businesses and college grads aren't rushing to move to GB, you'd find the same thing happening if the CBA was removed.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Browns signed OL Rex Hadnot, formerly of the Dolphins.

He chose them over the Texans, Titans, and Steelers. Hadnot, 26, can play both guard and center and has a nice build (6'2/325) for Cleveland's power run game. He'll likely battle Ryan Tucker to start at right guard in training camp.



Lions re-signed RB Tatum Bell to a one-year, $1.6 million contract.

It's telling this was the best he could do. Bell posted a career low 4.1 YPC on 44 carries, falling off the game day roster after the first five contests in 2007. Along with Brian Calhoun, he provides insurance behind Kevin Jones (ACL surgery). Bell could be worth a late flier in 2008 fantasy drafts, but probably nothing more. Detroit may still draft a running back. Mar. 10 - 12:33 pm et

[The Leaper]

Let's call a spade a spade. GB is a small town that has VERY limited appeal to most NFL players. GB, it's history, etc. mean very little to most players..especially the younger ones.

That is already the case even with the current CBA, Ty.

Without a cap, Green Bay is still well positioned...but major adjustments would have to be made.

1. The Packers would have to capitalize on that massive waiting list by raising prices to meet demand...so they rake in the profits, not season ticket holders. The Packers could probably raise ticket prices 200% and still sell out every seat in the crib...although there might be a significant turnover in who are in the seats. Most other markets, big or small, couldn't even think about raising prices to bring in additional revenue.

I don't know the exact figures, but if the average ticket price now is $60, that brings in roughly $34M over 8 home games. Boost the average price up to $180, and Green Bay now brings in roughly $100M over 8 games.

$180 isn't a ridiculous number...just look on Stubhub.com and you'll see that is roughly market value for most games, even though the Packers only see a fraction of that revenue.

2. The Packers have a huge nation-wide fan base, and could basically start their own TV channel if they wanted to. Without shared TV revenue, the Packers would actually gain a ton of money...as their fan base has proven to be one of the top 3 in the entire NFL in terms of viewership. Green Bay could pull down TV revenue just as great...maybe greater...than major market teams.

The current share of the TV pie for Green Bay is roughly $120M a year...based on league annual TV revenue of roughly $4B. Without shared revenue, that $4B pie is up for grabs...and Green Bay's position as a dominant player in being able to bring consistent numbers of viewers would likely net at least three times what their current share is, or $350M annually.

The one drawback Green Bay would face is that they don't have an ultra-rich owner who can dip into his own millions or billions to finance the team. However, few rich owners are going to blow ridiculous sums of money on the football team. If Green Bay increases their revenue $60M a year in ticket revenue and $200M in TV revenue, they will have roughly $400M a year to spend.

That is almost FOUR TIMES the current cap figure. As such, Green Bay doesn't have to worry about losing the cap IMO in personal terms...although the blow it would deal to the league as a whole, as at least 10-12 franchises would probably go under, obviously is of great concern to all NFL fans.