Scott Wells - injuries keep piling on

[Patler]

Apparently Wells hurt his knee (torn meniscus) in practice sometime after returning from his broken foot. He played through it, but had surgery last week to repair it. I think it is the same knee he had surgery on last off season.

The timing of letting him go last year might turn out to be right on target.

[Joemailman]

Yep. There is a reason why TT is extremely hesitant to offer big contract extensions to players over 30.

[RashanGary]

I've heard Thompson mentioning that it's more risky to sign other teams players because you know more about your own.

I wonder if the extensive medical information a team has with it's own guys is one of those factors.

[Guiness]

Quite possible his career ends at the same time Saturday's did.

[Bossman641]

Isn't it about time RutnStrut or whoever is always on Wells' dick to comment in this thread?

[RashanGary]

There's a lot of luck involved with injuries. We're still suffering badly from the loss of Nick Collins tackling, range in the back end and absolute dynamic ability with the ball in his hands. I think the guy would have been a probowl RB if he felt like playing the position.

We'll always discuss these things, but we're so uninformed when it comes to all of the information that goes into each decision.

Ultimately, I think the biggest things we can draw conclusions on are the big-picture things. You flip a coin 10,000 times and you'll probably see something like a 50/50 split. You make decisions better than your opposition over and over and you'll end up being better in the long haul.

We signed Nick Collins to a big contract. Lost him for his career a year later. We let Wells go. He might be hard pressed to play at a high level again. Charles Woodson was a guy who could have easily been an injury nightmare. . . .

At the end of the day, everyone is pulling levers on a slot machine. The difference between the great teams and the good ones can't be judged on single instances. A great GM is similar to having a slot machine with higher odds. Nobody hits on more than they miss, but you're better off with a machine that's set to pay out 40% of the time than one set to 20% You just don't know which one you have until some time has passed. Nobody is 100% in the NFL. With the draft, nobody is even close to 50%. We just can't look at these single pulls and put so much stock into them. I think we need to talk about big picture more here. We just don't do that enough, IMO. If there was a dominant GM, he'd have a full team of all-pro players. Nobody hits like that. It's all relative.


Jim Harbaugh says the Packers are the best organization in football, not because they're good, but because they're always good. Winning the SB means you did a lot of things well over time. Winning every year means you're doing a lot of things well over time. The Packers are doing a lot of things well consistently. One of TT's approaches seems to be not paying an older guy at the rate his performance from the previous year would deserve. He seems to value older players less than most teams. Is that one of the traits that has us in the group of teams that competes for a SB every year legitimately? We'd have to make a list of guys we let go and guys we kept. . . See how it all adds up. That would be interesting to see. Hey, JS, get to work. The cap article was fuckin awesome for us. Put together a comparison of contract re-signings for a few teams. See if there is some correlation between signing older guys to big contracts and success.

[Iron Mike]

See if there is some correlation between signing older guys to big contracts and success.

Two words. Washington Redskins.

[denverYooper]

Jim Harbaugh says the Packers are the best organization in football, not because they're good, but because they're always good. Winning the SB means you did a lot of things well over time. Winning every year means you're doing a lot of things well over time. The Packers are doing a lot of things well consistently. One of TT's approaches seems to be not paying an older guy at the rate his performance from the previous year would deserve. He seems to value older players less than most teams. Is that one of the traits that has us in the group of teams that competes for a SB every year legitimately? We'd have to make a list of guys we let go and guys we kept. . . See how it all adds up. That would be interesting to see. Hey, JS, get to work. The cap article was fuckin awesome for us. Put together a comparison of contract re-signings for a few teams. See if there is some correlation between signing older guys to big contracts and success.

You mean maybe a series of quality articles that provide actually interesting contextual information?

But, but...

How would they compete with the blogosphere on the shrill pandering front?

[Rutnstrut]

There is no possible way to know he would have been injured had he remained with the Packers, it's likely he would have. But perhaps not, I'm not so much a Wells fan as I am a fan of having a solid, quality center. You don't let those guys go, they do more on offense than a lot of people realize.

[Patler]

There is no possible way to know he would have been injured had he remained with the Packers, it's likely he would have. But perhaps not, I'm not so much a Wells fan as I am a fan of having a solid, quality center. You don't let those guys go, they do more on offense than a lot of people realize.

The broken foot, of course no one could predict that; and perhaps it wouldn't even have happened on another field. But, the condition of his knee that resulted in his off season surgery before training camp last year, which he apparently re-injured requiring surgery again now could have been a condition the Packers were concerned about.

Teams often let players go they would rather keep. Sometimes it results in a net decline in performance at the position. That's salary cap football. You can't always keep everyone you want to. Why keep harping on Wells?

[pbmax]

The broken foot, of course no one could predict that; and perhaps it wouldn't even have happened on another field. But, the condition of his knee that resulted in his off season surgery before training camp last year, which he apparently re-injured requiring surgery again now could have been a condition the Packers were concerned about.

Teams often let players go they would rather keep. Sometimes it results in a net decline in performance at the position. That's salary cap football. You can't always keep everyone you want to. Why keep harping on Wells?

For several successful franchises, it was also non-salary cap football as well. Walsh was known to release players early. Same with Lombardi, no?

[mraynrand]

At the end of the day, everyone is pulling levers on a slot machine. The difference between the great teams and the good ones can't be judged on single instances. A great GM is similar to having a slot machine with higher odds. Nobody hits on more than they miss, but you're better off with a machine that's set to pay out 40% of the time than one set to 20% You just don't know which one you have until some time has passed. Nobody is 100% in the NFL. With the draft, nobody is even close to 50%. We just can't look at these single pulls and put so much stock into them. I think we need to talk about big picture more here. We just don't do that enough, IMO. If there was a dominant GM, he'd have a full team of all-pro players. Nobody hits like that. It's all relative.

I remember Cleft Crusty saying that the difference between good and great GMs was the difference of about 10% in draft pick success rate multiplied by the number of picks factoring in draft round. So the GM who has the most picks, and a good success rate with those picks, will always have a stacked roster, and a better chance that some of the picks turn blue.

[ThunderDan]

I remember Cleft Crusty saying that the difference between good and great GMs was the difference of about 10% in draft pick success rate multiplied by the number of picks factoring in draft round. So the GM who has the most picks, and a good success rate with those picks, will always have a stacked roster, and a better chance that some of the picks turn blue.

Why are they sad?

[mraynrand]

Why are they sad?

Probably because they are not as physical as Seattle's draft picks

[woodbuck27]

Isn't it about time RutnStrut or whoever is always on Wells' dick to comment in this thread?

Sure predicate the success of a Packer GM's move; based on the future misfortune of a former Packer Pro Bowler. That's just precious.

Sure TT predicted Scott Wells misfortune with his health. Thus smartly decided it was prudent to let him walk. Then TT elected to go with a near 40 year old end of career candidate at center.

TT has such a crafty and ingenious nature. Some here actually believe that.