Texans may cut Ahman Green

[Scott Campbell]

Plus, he's evil and stuff.

[Guiness]

Plus, he's evil and stuff.

Care to elaborate on 'stuff'? Oh ya, the whole closet thing...

[Lurker64]

Call it luck or smarts...TT and the pack are better off without him.

I'm not sure if I would say that, but I would definitely say "The Packers are better off for not having signed him", considering that not only did we save cap room that we would have spent on him, but we also got a player (Josh Sitton) out of it. Based on early returns, I think we're winning here.

$23 million with $7 million guaranteed for 260 yard rushing, 2 rushing TDs, and 123 yards receiving.

versus:

A maximum of $1.2 million for Josh Sitton for four years.

[retailguy]

Call it luck or smarts...TT and the pack are better off without him.

I'm not sure if I would say that, but I would definitely say "The Packers are better off for not having signed him", considering that not only did we save cap room that we would have spent on him, but we also got a player (Josh Sitton) out of it. Based on early returns, I think we're winning here.

$23 million with $7 million guaranteed for 260 yard rushing, 2 rushing TDs, and 123 yards receiving.

versus:

A maximum of $1.2 million for Josh Sitton for four years.

Well, this kind of makes the point that I was originally trying to make. I just don't think you can compare the stats (between teams) and say we're better off...

How can you claim that Green would have the same stats here that he had in Houston? How can you assume that he'd have gotten injured like he did in Houston?

If Grant picks up where he left off last season, clearly that's an advantage over what Green would have provided (evidence would be Greens 2006 performance), however, a few years ago many people in these rooms were confident that Samkon Gado would have kept producing too, and that didn't work out so well. I don't think you ever get a guarantee.

Josh Sitton was a good addition to the roster but who says we wouldn't have drafted him anyhow?

Lurker, please note I'm not directly responding to your post, but trying to align my thoughts with my earlier posts.... No disrespect is intended.

Ty - I know you think I'm wrong, and you know I just disagree. Skin - you can keep picking phrases out of my posting all you want, others are capable of reading the entire thing. All your cherry picking does is make you look foolish. You've completely distorted what I was saying primarily over two words that were only supplementary to what I was saying and was in no way the main point I was making.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Call it luck or smarts...TT and the pack are better off without him.

I'm not sure if I would say that, but I would definitely say "The Packers are better off for not having signed him", considering that not only did we save cap room that we would have spent on him, but we also got a player (Josh Sitton) out of it. Based on early returns, I think we're winning here.

$23 million with $7 million guaranteed for 260 yard rushing, 2 rushing TDs, and 123 yards receiving.

versus:

A maximum of $1.2 million for Josh Sitton for four years.

Well, this kind of makes the point that I was originally trying to make. I just don't think you can compare the stats (between teams) and say we're better off...

How can you claim that Green would have the same stats here that he had in Houston? How can you assume that he'd have gotten injured like he did in Houston?

If Grant picks up where he left off last season, clearly that's an advantage over what Green would have provided (evidence would be Greens 2006 performance), however, a few years ago many people in these rooms were confident that Samkon Gado would have kept producing too, and that didn't work out so well. I don't think you ever get a guarantee.

Josh Sitton was a good addition to the roster but who says we wouldn't have drafted him anyhow?

Lurker, please note I'm not directly responding to your post, but trying to align my thoughts with my earlier posts.... No disrespect is intended.

Ty - I know you think I'm wrong, and you know I just disagree. Skin - you can keep picking phrases out of my posting all you want, others are capable of reading the entire thing. All your cherry picking does is make you look foolish. You've completely distorted what I was saying primarily over two words that were only supplementary to what I was saying and was in no way the main point I was making.

We are better off because we were going to have to pay him an arm and leg and based on what most rbs do at his age...not worth it.

Injuries: This is a canard. Yes, freak injuries occur, but Ahmans arent' that. First it was a thigh tear, then it was a bruised left knee, now it is a groin. Those are injuries that rbs get..and as they get older..harder to shake off.

Gado: You are using stupid people to buttress your argument. Very rarely a shooting star becomes more. Only true blue, pollyannas thought Gado was the real deal. We were in a terrible season and desparate to cling to something. Any knowledgeable fan woulda put down huge bucks in vegas against Gado making it.

Look, we paid him 2 mill plus 3 mill in incentives the year after an injury. He was older and breaking down. Time for you to face the facts.

[mraynrand]

I'm surprised that there are people who want to even consider Ahman Green. But I suppose there are folks in K.C. who still want Holmes. I guess it's a mix of sentimentality and name recognition that fuels this fire.

[hoosier]

How can you claim that Green would have the same stats here that he had in Houston? How can you assume that he'd have gotten injured like he did in Houston?

If Grant picks up where he left off last season, clearly that's an advantage over what Green would have provided (evidence would be Greens 2006 performance), however, a few years ago many people in these rooms were confident that Samkon Gado would have kept producing too, and that didn't work out so well. I don't think you ever get a guarantee.

Exactly right, there are no guarantees and the tea leaves don't always tell the whole story. But Ahman was on the wrong side of 30 and was a year out from a major injury. As a result, it was not far fetched to assume that he was likely--not guaranteed, but far more likely than a younger model--to sustain another significant injury, or to show a major decline in performance. As a GM you don't need any guarantees about the future to say that a particular player is a bad investment. Even if Green had remained healthy last year and performed as well as could be expected, I would still argue that Houston overpayed for him. You seem to be construing the debate based on results and hindsight--or at least assuming that everyone else is--but IMO the real debate happens before the results are in, and in situations where a player's performance could go either way. That's why you have to judge GMs on long-term results--because even a portion of the "good" decisions are going to turn out badly.

[SkinBasket]

Skin - you can keep picking phrases out of my posting all you want, others are capable of reading the entire thing. All your cherry picking does is make you look foolish. You've completely distorted what I was saying primarily over two words that were only supplementary to what I was saying and was in no way the main point I was making.

I'm picking out what seem to be the intelligible points in your yabber gabber. And the points where you contradict yourself. If it looks foolish, I would look to the author, not the quoter.

And to the point of not being able to use Green's performance as an indicator of how things would have, could have, or might have happened in Green Bay: Until you invent your alternate reality machine, his performance in Houston is what we have, and looking at what did happen is still a stronger argument than you claiming it might not have happened that way. If that butterfly hadn't flapped it's wings...

Again, you're pretending his injuries are some cosmic coincidence instead of admitting that maybe the people who had concerns about his age and durability were right and/or justified. Your denial that some people (including a certain General Manager) could possibly have been right where you were wrong is simply epic and may be indicative of a mental condition. Probably the one where people put tinfoil on their heads, but I suppose it could just be extreme narcissism too.

[retailguy]

Exactly right, there are no guarantees and the tea leaves don't always tell the whole story. But Ahman was on the wrong side of 30 and was a year out from a major injury. As a result, it was not far fetched to assume that he was likely--not guaranteed, but far more likely than a younger model--to sustain another significant injury, or to show a major decline in performance. As a GM you don't need any guarantees about the future to say that a particular player is a bad investment. Even if Green had remained healthy last year and performed as well as could be expected, I would still argue that Houston overpayed for him. You seem to be construing the debate based on results and hindsight--or at least assuming that everyone else is--but IMO the real debate happens before the results are in, and in situations where a player's performance could go either way. That's why you have to judge GMs on long-term results--because even a portion of the "good" decisions are going to turn out badly.

Hoosier, I largely agree with this, but if you look at Thompson's actions, I still don't believe "fear of injury" was his concern. Everyone here is so caught up on the whole injury thing. Honestly, I'm not a Ted fan, but I know he isn't an idiot either. If he thought it likely that Ahman was getting injured he wouldn't have increased his "last minute" offer. But he did. So, somewhere, at some point, he had to fire up the ouija board and conclude the guy would probably stay healthy. If not, wouldn't it boggle the mind that he'd make a $5m per year offer?

Houston overpaid, but their overpayment, and Ted's increased offer did not make it "more likely" that Ahman would get injured.

Also, everyone is crowing about Houston overpaying, but, really using the "forum logic" wouldn't Ted have overpaid with his increased offer? OR, would the Ted lovers around here have been happy with Ahman's production at Ted's price? The argument swings both ways. Swinging it one way to claim "GREAT DECISION" just doesn't work.

There were other things that were way more important. To look to Ahman's injury, was, is and always will be shortsighted to explain his leaving Green Bay. I guess when you've got Tyrone and Skinbasket telling you you're wrong, you can just laugh, consider the source and move on....

[SkinBasket]

There were other things that were way more important. To look to Ahman's injury, was, is and always will be shortsighted to explain his leaving Green Bay. I guess when you've got Tyrone and Skinbasket telling you you're wrong, you can just laugh, consider the source and move on....

Yes, all those important "other things" you are sure are right but have no way to prove or demonstrate. These mysterious "other things" are like you're entire argument here: nothing but conjecture and fortune telling on your part in an effort to feel better about your inability to realize that Ted Thompson is a better General Manager than (gasp) you.

Maybe sticking to tax advice is a good idea. At least there when you're so off-base you can file an amended return without looking like quite an asshat.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Hoosier, I largely agree with this, but if you look at Thompson's actions, I still don't believe "fear of injury" was his concern. Everyone here is so caught up on the whole injury thing. Honestly, I'm not a Ted fan, but I know he isn't an idiot either. If he thought it likely that Ahman was getting injured he wouldn't have increased his "last minute" offer. But he did. So, somewhere, at some point, he had to fire up the ouija board and conclude the guy would probably stay healthy. If not, wouldn't it boggle the mind that he'd make a $5m per year offer?

Houston overpaid, but their overpayment, and Ted's increased offer did not make it "more likely" that Ahman would get injured.

Also, everyone is crowing about Houston overpaying, but, really using the "forum logic" wouldn't Ted have overpaid with his increased offer? OR, would the Ted lovers around here have been happy with Ahman's production at Ted's price? The argument swings both ways. Swinging it one way to claim "GREAT DECISION" just doesn't work.

There were other things that were way more important. To look to Ahman's injury, was, is and always will be shortsighted to explain his leaving Green Bay. I guess when you've got Tyrone and Skinbasket telling you you're wrong, you can just laugh, consider the source and move on....

No, everyone here isn't concerned with the injury thing...it is just one thing among others. Injuries, wear on his system, wrong side of the 30, etc.

And, where you get the overpay equals more chance of injury from any of us is beyond belief.

Your whole point is that TT wasn't worried about injury or issues if he upped the ante. Again, that is foolish. TT's job is to negotiate. He is going to start low and then give up more..to the point that he feels is fine. If he feels 5 mill is ok for a declining rb who mite get injured that is his right. That doesn't mean he feels he will or won't get injured. He is simply determing a cost.

TT: No, we wouldn't be happy with his production at 5 mill..and we woulda cut him. That is the most likely scenario. So, we woulda looked at it as a stopgap measure till we found a replacement.

The great decision was deciding not to get into an arms race with Houston...are you that dense? TT set a price..whether i, skin, you..or the rest agree with it...and then cut him loose when TT determined his value wasn't worth what the market was willing to pay.

You basically betray yourself by admitting you don't like TT. I dont' have feelings one way or the other. I look at this objectively..you can't.

Time for you to just realize you are wrong about this..and no amount of jabbing about Skin or Ty is going to change that. It only makes you looker more foolish.

[SnakeLH2006]

Unless Lumpkins is getting kept any of the others (Morency, Wynn) can go.

I think Lumpkin has a real chance. He is a hard runner. After two games he has 87 yards for an average of 5.1 per carry.

I loved what AG did for us in the past, but we are moving forward as a team. For once it fits!! Anyway, doesn't Lumpkin (in the bit we seen so far) look/run like a young Ahman? Love the kid and NO WAY that TT brings back AG to take carries away from Grant, BJ, Lumpkin, Herron.......err...Grant, BJ, Lumpkin.