The Cullen Jenkins Mistake

[Patler]

When Jenkins started 2011 with four sacks in three games, five sacks in five games; TT was taken to task for letting him get away. By the end of the season, with the Packers' problems on defense exposed, writers and fans made it sound as if all would have been different if Jenkins had been kept. You would think he was a perennial all-pro from the comments. Even in the off-season and the start of 2012, Jenkins was mentioned time and time again. Yup, TT blew that one!

The comments seemed to ignore that in the final 11 games of 2011, Jenkins had just one-half sack.
Jenkins got his first even partial sack credit in game 7 this year, his first since a half sack in game 10 of 2011, In his last 19 games he has a sack and a half, with 36 tackles.

IF a mistake was made about Jenkins' contract in 2011, was it made by the Packers or the Eagles?

[LegandofthePack15]

Based on your logic, I guess the Claymaker sucked last season b/c he totaled something like 6 sacks in 16 games.

Sacks don't always tell the whole story.

Jenkins was clearly missed by the Packers last season.

[Fritz]

Not true. Matthews had six....Jenkins has had a half a sack. One nut. Matthews has, in comparison, two sets of balls.

[Patler]

Based on your logic, I guess the Claymaker sucked last season b/c he totaled something like 6 sacks in 16 games.

Sacks don't always tell the whole story.

Jenkins was clearly missed by the Packers last season.

Missed, maybe, but should he have been paid what he was paid by the Eagles to stay in GB? I'm not sure.

I certainly hope you are not suggesting that Jenkins has the impact on defense that Matthews has. I doubt OCs sit in their offices worrying a great deal about Jenkins, or scheming ways to lessen his impact on the game. He is just another decent player to be dealt with, not a high impact player to game plan for.

From the few Eagles games I have seen, Jenkins isn't noticeable.

Interesting that you try to draw a comparison to Matthews, who in his last 19 games played has 14 sacks, in spite of being the first guy accounted for on the Packers defense.

[Upnorth]

Jenkins had 5.5 sacks that I would have gladly taken last year. Also he would have given Raji rest and made CMIII more effective.
I don't think you can argue that he wasn't greatly missed last year, however teh real question is was his contract worth teh production? In 2011 I think yes, in 2012, I dont think so anymore.

Patler it is kinda interesting that well over half of the sacks in the last 19 games played by CMIII have come when there has been other potential playmakers, such as Perry, Daniels etal. They are not world beaters, but will hurt you if you always double team CMIII.

[pbmax]

Based on your logic, I guess the Claymaker sucked last season b/c he totaled something like 6 sacks in 16 games.

Sacks don't always tell the whole story.

Jenkins was clearly missed by the Packers last season.

The Packers defense in 2011 missed the Cullen Jenkins of 2009. Not the Cullen Jenkins of 2010, 11 or 12. Jenkins didn't even start for the 2010 Packers. Without a DeLorean, he was not missed.

To the degree he out performed his replacements early last year, think about the repercussions. CJ Wilson is now a solid, reliable, young and cheap early and run down DE. His presence allowed the Packers to keep, draft and develop Neal, Daniels and Worthy. If Jenkins were still around, they would have needed run support DEs as much as pass rushers.

Declining Jenkins and Wilson or Wilson and Worthy/Daniels?

[Patler]

Jenkins had 5.5 sacks that I would have gladly taken last year. Also he would have given Raji rest and made CMIII more effective.
I don't think you can argue that he wasn't greatly missed last year, however teh real question is was his contract worth teh production? In 2011 I think yes, in 2012, I dont think so anymore.

Patler it is kinda interesting that well over half of the sacks in the last 19 games played by CMIII have come when there has been other potential playmakers, such as Perry, Daniels etal. They are not world beaters, but will hurt you if you always double team CMIII.

I would suggest that the real problem in 2011 was not the failure to re-sign Jenkins, it was the failure of Neal to stay healthy and contribute. He was supposed to be the next man in line, but wasn't.

[Patler]

The Packers defense in 2011 missed the Cullen Jenkins of 2009. Not the Cullen Jenkins of 2010, 11 or 12. Jenkins didn't even start for the 2010 Packers. Without a DeLorean, he was not missed.

To the degree he out performed his replacements early last year, think about the repercussions. CJ Wilson is now a solid, reliable, young and cheap early and run down DE. His presence allowed the Packers to keep, draft and develop Neal, Daniels and Worthy. If Jenkins were still around, they would have needed run support DEs as much as pass rushers.

Declining Jenkins and Wilson or Wilson and Worthy/Daniels?

That about says it all. I'm not convinced Jenkins would have made a big difference last year, Some difference, sure, but not enough to have made it worth it. I sort of like the way things are shaping up in the DL right now.

As they say, it is better to let a player leave a year too early than a year too late.

[denverYooper]

That about says it all. I'm not convinced Jenkins would have made a big difference last year, Some difference, sure, but not enough to have made it worth it. I sort of like the way things are shaping up in the DL right now.

As they say, it is better to let a player leave a year too early than a year too late.

I agree. I also like the way things are going in the secondary and the defense as a whole.

[mraynrand]

The real problem in 2011 was not the failure to re-sign Jenkins, it was the failure of Neal to stay healthy and contribute. He was supposed to be the next man in line, but wasn't.

yup - FIFY

[Lurker64]

In Jenkins defense, there is perhaps no team in the league who gets less out of their talent (particularly on defense) than the Eagles.

Well, maybe the Chiefs. But it's close.

But the way Jenkins has played for Philly, he actually should probably be playing less than other guys on the DL, who are better.

[RashanGary]

Short term, it sucked. That could have been the difference we needed to win the SB. Never know. But the Giants matched up so much better against NE. They can chuck it around. We probably would have gotten lit anyway.

In the whole term of the deal, assuming he wasn't the missing piece to a SB ring, clearly it was a smart move. We are going to be in a very big cap bind going forward. Keeping Jennings is a major question mark. With that for perspective, letting Jenkins go at that price is a no brainer.

And since we're talking about contracts. Extending Matthews right now for 4 years at top OLB pay wouldn't be a bad idea. You keep him happy. You get to average in these last two low pay years, and end up with a very reasonable per season average for his talent. Same goes for AR this offseason. Give him 4 years at top QB pay, average in the last two of his current deal and you have another reasonable per year deal for a great player. I think both of those moves should be made sooner than later if all parties are in agreement.

[LegandofthePack15]

Missed, maybe, but should he have been paid what he was paid by the Eagles to stay in GB? I'm not sure.

I certainly hope you are not suggesting that Jenkins has the impact on defense that Matthews has. I doubt OCs sit in their offices worrying a great deal about Jenkins, or scheming ways to lessen his impact on the game. He is just another decent player to be dealt with, not a high impact player to game plan for.

From the few Eagles games I have seen, Jenkins isn't noticeable.

Interesting that you try to draw a comparison to Matthews, who in his last 19 games played has 14 sacks, in spite of being the first guy accounted for on the Packers defense.

Not comparing Matthews to Jenkins. Apples to oranges. Both play different positions.

Your argument seems to be that since Jenkins has produced only so and so sacks, Thompson did not err in letting him walk. I mentioned Matthews' 6 sack campaign to point out that sack is a misleading stat.

Jenkins is a DT. Sack isn't everything. Jenkins provides steady inside pressure. He's solid against the run. Last season the Packers had trouble getting pressure from the inside and they were mediocre at stopping the run.

[LegandofthePack15]

I would suggest that the real problem in 2011 was not the failure to re-sign Jenkins, it was the failure of Neal to stay healthy and contribute. He was supposed to be the next man in line, but wasn't.

When healthy in '11, Neal was more invisible than the invisible man in the song "Invisible Man" by 98 Degrees. Not resigning Jenkins was a mistake.

Neal seems to be playing better this season. I guess one of the few positives of competition is that it makes folks work harder. Last season, Neal had no competition. This season, Thompson conceded to the fact that his DL wasn't competitive without Jenkins. So he went out and signed a bunch of average free agents defensive linemen. Then he drafted a couple of young uns.

Neal is your typical underachiever and injury-prone player.

[Bossman641]

When healthy in '11, Neal was more invisible than the invisible man in the song "Invisible Man" by 98 Degrees. Not resigning Jenkins was a mistake.

Neal seems to be playing better this season. I guess one of the few positives of competition is that it makes folks work harder. Last season, Neal had no competition. This season, Thompson conceded to the fact that his DL wasn't competitive without Jenkins. So he went out and signed a bunch of average free agents defensive linemen. Then he drafted a couple of young uns.

Neal is your typical underachiever and injury-prone player.

Do we even know for sure what down with Jenkins? Wasn't he looking for a big deal and found the market dead for him?