Ben Taylor

[SD GB fan]

diggs to panthers is like taylor to packers. both are brought in at low price to stir competition and fight for starting spot. although proven starters, both are just as easily cuttable if they fail to produce in favor for younger developing players.

[Harlan Huckleby]

diggs to panthers is like taylor to packers. both are brought in at low price to stir competition and fight for starting spot. although proven starters, both are just as easily cuttable if they fail to produce in favor for younger developing players.

From glancing at Panther press online, sounds like Diggs is gonna start.

Well, it will be interesting if one of the two guys proves to be significantly superior player. Nobody can say.

[HarveyWallbangers]

diggs to panthers is like taylor to packers. both are brought in at low price to stir competition and fight for starting spot. although proven starters, both are just as easily cuttable if they fail to produce in favor for younger developing players.

From glancing at Panther press online, sounds like Diggs is gonna start.

Well, it will be interesting if one of the two guys proves to be significantly superior player. Nobody can say.

That's not saying too much though. They have had a huge hole at LB. That's why they tried to use S Thomas Davis there last year. Then, they went and lost a Pro Bowl LB in Will Witherspoon. That team has corners, DL, and Dan Morgan--but there are holes on that defense.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I thought Diggs was a heck of a player two years ago, one of top players on defense. He is only 27. It's possible that injuries have taken toll on him. But I saw something in him. Then again, Cletedius Hunt had that impressive 3rd season where I thought he was headed to something special!

[Patler]

From an ESPN chat today:


Doug (Ohio): I saw one magazine that said New Browns lineback Dqwell Jackson could have over 100 takles, can he truly help that defense that much?

Mike Wilkening: (4:40 PM ET ) Jackson is likely to start, and he'll be an upgrade over Ben Taylor. One hundred tackles sounds reasonable.

Interesting, because Taylor had 113 tackles last year, 77 solo and 36 assists.

Let's not let our homerism fool ourselves here. Green Bay and Cleveland were the only two teams pursuing Taylor at a time where the LBing options were washed up. And we didn't offer him the type of deal with long term expectations as a starter. He's the guy w/o great measurables that teams try to replace as the starter.

Ben Taylor seems like the perfect backup to me. Smart, hard nosed football player who knows multiple positions. I hope he backs them all up and Abdul Hodge finds his way into our starting lineup.

Bretsky; its got nothing to do with homerism. To me it is kind of amusing when "so and so" is considered an "upgrade" because he could get 100 tackles, when the guy he is replacing had 113 tackles. Especially interesting when the new guy is a rookie who has proven absolutely nothing yet.

If a veterans 100 tackles are insignificant, certainly an unproven rookies potential 100 tackles are not a clear upgrade at this point.

I think some on here suffer from reverse homerism. Barnett's 180 tackles are insignificant, Taylor's 113 tackles are insignificant, Kampman's league leading unassisted tackles (for a D-lineman) are insignificant, Pickett's impressive totals are insignificant.. For their positions, each of these guys had many more tackles than most others who play the same position. Doesn't mean they are future HOFers, but it is not something to be completely ignored either. If nothing else it shows that the Packers now have at least four guys in the front 7 who if they are blocked eventual get free enough to get to the ball. I would rather have that than a bunch of guys that rarely get in on a tackle anywhere.

Taylor is likely a short term answer at best, but he is also about $3 million cheaper than Diggs would have been.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Taylor is likely a short term answer at best, but he is also about $3 million cheaper than Diggs would have been.

According to internet sources (that would be Harvey), Diggs signed a one-year deal with Carolina for league minimum.

So it is reasonable to assume that the Packers might have retained Diggs for far less money than his current contract.

(I believe that veteran players with certain seniority don't have to clear waivers. Or maybe I just dreamed that.)

[Green Bud Packer]

taylor for diggs is a wash saving the pack over half a mil.one key phrase that keeps popping up is "he's a football player" as opposed to the vermin years "he's got po".man i'm so glad sherman is gone.

[Harlan Huckleby]

hey, Diggs was a good football player. To hell with the po.

You are right, Taylor vrs Diggs is hardly worth arguing about. The coaches had plenty of film on Diggs to study, it's highly unlikely they passed on a gem. I just have a sense of loyalty to existing players, am more understanding when they get cut at end of training camp after fair competition, than when they get swapped out.

And for the last time, I don't think money was a factor, if Diggs really did sign for Vet Min in Carolina.

[Green Bud Packer]

hey, Diggs was a good football player. To hell with the po.

.

agreed and thats cuz shermie didn't draft diggs mr. wolf did.

[Patler]

hey, Diggs was a good football player. To hell with the po.

You are right, Taylor vrs Diggs is hardly worth arguing about. The coaches had plenty of film on Diggs to study, it's highly unlikely they passed on a gem. I just have a sense of loyalty to existing players, am more understanding when they get cut at end of training camp after fair competition, than when they get swapped out.

And for the last time, I don't think money was a factor, if Diggs really did sign for Vet Min in Carolina.

Of course money was a factor. To keep Diggs at a cheaper price they would have had to first release him, terminating the existing contract, and then re-sign him like they did last year with Ruegamer. The catch of course is that once released he becomes a free agent and can go anywhere.

Diggs wanted to leave when Detroit made him an offer in restricted free agency. He openly begged the Packers not to match it. I'm not suggesting that he was a problem of any kind, I don't think he was, but having the opportunity he very well may have been just as happy to leave.

Most of the time the players prefer to be released early. Getting cut at the end of training camp makes it very difficult to catch on with another team. Being released as early as he was gave Diggs the best chance to find a good fit. If he wasn't really in their plans, the Packers did him a favor releasing him early.

[Harlan Huckleby]

To keep Diggs at a cheaper price they would have had to first release him, terminating the existing contract, and then re-sign him like they did last year with Ruegamer..

Be it far from ME to be argumentative, but money wasn't a factor. Diggs signed for Vet minimum. He probably could have been signed for a number similar to what Taylor signed for. You and others have been claiming multi-million dollar savings.

As you point-out, maybe Diggs wasn't coming back anyway. (Although Taylor's salary is an upgrade over what Carolina paid Diggs.)

And as far as Diggs being released because he is not in the Packers plans, well, OK, but my whole point is that the Packers SHOULD have kept him in their plans, at least give him a fair competition with Taylor.

(OK, I confess, this whole argument is silly. Diggs was gonna leave because he had a better chance to start in Carolina. But again, not about the money, Pedro.)

[Partial]

Man, do I ever wish I made veteran minimum

[Patler]

To keep Diggs at a cheaper price they would have had to first release him, terminating the existing contract, and then re-sign him like they did last year with Ruegamer..

Be it far from ME to be argumentative, but money wasn't a factor. Diggs signed for Vet minimum. He probably could have been signed for a number similar to what Taylor signed for. You and others have been claiming multi-million dollar savings.

As you point-out, maybe Diggs wasn't coming back anyway. (Although Taylor's salary is an upgrade over what Carolina paid Diggs.)

And as far as Diggs being released because he is not in the Packers plans, well, OK, but my whole point is that the Packers SHOULD have kept him in their plans, at least give him a fair competition with Taylor.

(OK, I confess, this whole argument is silly. Diggs was gonna leave because he had a better chance to start in Carolina. But again, not about the money, Pedro.)

It all started with money. GB had two options.

OPTION 1 - Pay him a $600,000 bonus and bring him to camp with the risk of having to pay another $2.3 million if he were injured ala Cletidus Hunt or if made the team.

OPTION 2 - release him before the $600,000 was due. Thereafter they could try to re-sign him or let him go. With this option they have no control over whether he returns or not. It is entirely up to the player where he decides to sign if offered a contract.

Psychologically it might be tough to have a player around who had been due close to $4 million after you cut and re-sign him for the vet's minimum. At that point it is better to part ways, a fresh start for each.

[KYPack]

H, you lose it once in awhile & this is one of those times.

Diggs was due to make big dollars this season. he was coming off a year in which he hurt both knees. He would've been one of the highest paid players on the team. The Pack didn't want to pay for a questionable player and cut him.

He then signed for the vet minimum. Diggs and his agent didn't want to sign for the minimum, but the market determined that's all he'd get. I imagine if the Pack had offered to cut him, then sign him for the minimum, both Diggs and the agent would've went nuts.

It was totally over money, coupled with performance.

All that said, Carolina got a good vet for cheap. I was amazed to see that Diggs could still run the field last year after his comeback.

[Harlan Huckleby]

There is no disagreement that Diggs needed to be cut. So forget about his old contract, that is not relevant. I am looking at point where Diggs became a free agent.

I think the Packers should have made an attempt to sign him. And Diggs' market value was evidently minimal. So from financial considerations alone, the Packers would have been in the game with Ben Taylor money.

That's all. Not about money.