Packers re-sign Shields, 4 year $39 million

[Smeefers]

i will say, that overpaying for sam (one of our better younger players), sits a whole hell of a lot better with me then overpaying to keep our shit like burnett, b jones, and trying to overpay to keep raji

Lol. This I like.

[run pMc]

If Grimes is getting $8M/yr, I'm ok with Sam getting $9.75. He's younger, better, and healthier.
If the reports are true that he wanted Tim Jennings money, TT should have had Russ Ball run to the table with that contract. My guess is Sam's camp realized the amount of league interest and that boosted the contract demands. I'm ok with the contract.

I wasn't a huge fan of Brad Jones' contract. Bishop was coming back and talking smack about being the DPOY (LOL) and they had other guys they could have plugged in. I think the hope is that Jones' injuries caused the drop in his play. If not, he's got guys like Lattimore (if re-signed) and Barrington vying for that spot. I thought one reason Jones was signed is he had the same skill Chillar did: pass coverage.

[Smeefers]

interesting you brought up chillar, i forgot about him. chillar IMO, was a bit better the jones, but not by much

chillar signed in 2008 for a 2 year, 5.2 million dollar deal. then resigned in in 2009 for 4 years, 22.65 million

he was cut in 2011

neither were full time starter material, both got paid like starters, but jones deal looks pretty modest compared to what we threw at chillar

why the hell did we give chillar all that money?

ps, who's walker? i'm having a brain fart

We picked up chiller because we didn't have a LB who could cover a TE. He got a career ending injury in the offseason and we let him go the year of the strike. We still don't have a LB who can cover a TE.

[Smidgeon]

Pacman's numbers work too. If you add the 12.5 signing bonus to a 2.5 first year salary, there's your 15. 6mil base in year 2 gives you 21.

His numbers are a pretty decent deal for the team. Years 3 and 4's salary are high, but the cap should be up to compensate by then. If it isn't, or his play takes a downturn the team can cut him after year 2 and gain 2.75M in cap space.
Deals like you're showing with high salaries up front and lower salaries in later years can backfire on the team - player gets a 'what have you done for me lately attitude', looks at his base in later years and thinks he's underpaid.

And hopefully plays like he's underpaid: hungry for the next deal.

[bobblehead]

well good news, a lot of money, but with the cap expected to hit 160 by 2015 he's numbers won't hurt so bad

i will say its about 4 million a year more then his agent said they were looking for just a couple weeks ago. still gotta wonder if we couldn't have gotten him for cheaper if we had tried to sign him during the year,

but oh well, we got our best CB back. and now its time to talk to the other cb about taking a pay cut

Really...thats the conclusion you drew? I was only logging in to post this: I hope we can all finally put to rest anything an agent says during negotiations. Its all designed to put pressure on a GM. If someone else had signed him to this deal you would crucify TT for not putting him to the paper on that "reported deal" he was looking for. His agent knew that and he put out false information...if it had been true, he would have been signed then. Do you really believe TT moved from paying a guy 5.7 mill to 9.5 mill in a matter of weeks?

[bobblehead]

Thank God.

Not for the SS signing, but I feel better about my own grasp on reality.

Really felt that Sam was the one deal they had to do and would get done.

I was thinking about this at the close of the season when I saw a video of Leroy talking about out FA's and what we had to do concerning them. When the matter of Sam came up, Leroy was emphatic that he must be signed. It was like Butler was reading my mind when he gave a number of in-depth reasons why. I really like Leroy and his defensive philosophy & I learn a lot of football from the guy. In the past few days when it looked like Sam would walk, I couldn't believe we would buy Raji and sell Sam.

This move is good and I feel better, so that's cool.

Anybody think the G tattoo on the neck came into play in this decision?

JK JK

KY, I have been of this thinking for awhile. SS shut down some big name guys. He plays like a stud. Some people here wanted him for 6 million a year and as I said then, if that is on the table from his agent he would have been signed. We got a lockdown big time corner for 4 years. If we can bring in 2 impact guys and stay healthy our D looks damn good again.

[bobblehead]

people keep saying that the jones deal isn't a bad deal for a starter (2.5 to 4.5 million a year)

no its not a bad deal, FOR A STARTER. and thats where the problem comes in. jones should not be a starter, and he's never shown that he could be a starter imo. at best he is a decent backup, and backup LB's should not be making 4 million dollars a year, they should be guys on rookie deal, or vets making closer to the minimum

yes, we can easily get out of the deal, and i think we should, because 4 million this year for a backup quality guy is way too much imo

This is a case where I am not really disagreeing with you, but hte problem is that he is the best we got. Cut him to save money that isn't necessarily needed and we take a step backward at the position. I am confident that IF we find a better player Jones won't be paid 4mil to be a backup.

[bobblehead]

interesting you brought up chillar, i forgot about him. chillar IMO, was a bit better the jones, but not by much

chillar signed in 2008 for a 2 year, 5.2 million dollar deal. then resigned in in 2009 for 4 years, 22.65 million

he was cut in 2011

neither were full time starter material, both got paid like starters, but jones deal looks pretty modest compared to what we threw at chillar

why the hell did we give chillar all that money?

ps, who's walker? i'm having a brain fart

I said it then, I'll say it now. Chillar was a darn good player. He got cut because he got hurt in the offseason doing something dumb (motorcycle??). He also played safety far more often than a LB should be asked to.

[gbgary]

people grip about tt not spending money then when he does some say he spent too much. damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. I'm of the "I wish he'd spend more" crowd so i won't complain when he makes a significant deal.

[pbmax]

I don't think the Jennings comparison was a fabrication, it was a deliberate plant that contained a definite item of truth and an option.

The truth was that the market for a non dominant #1 or very good #2 corner contained significant guaranteed money: $10 million or half of Jennings total deal.

The other was that the average could be low. Thompson wanted him at a reasonable price for longer than 2 years, but wasn't willing to go 50% guaranteed. Thus the deal includes some out years he won't necessarily see.

[mission]

You guys I know I would have turned on TT in a hurry if they didn't get this done. Sounds like a lot of money, but the cap is skyrocketing and it wont be much in a couple years if not a couple weeks when the Varners of the world get their deals. Can't make a big deal about a couple million bucks when the guy is a must-sign... same people that are bitching about the price (not necessarily here, just in general) are the same people bitching that TT never signs anyone.

[woodbuck27]

You guys I know I would have turned on TT in a hurry if they didn't get this done. Sounds like a lot of money, but the cap is skyrocketing and it wont be much in a couple years if not a couple weeks when the Varners of the world get their deals. Can't make a big deal about a couple million bucks when the guy is a must-sign... same people that are bitching about the price (not necessarily here, just in general) are the same people bitching that TT never signs anyone.

I think that TT sort of had his hands tied on this one. Also TT was up against a savvy players agent.

The Packers had the CAP space and to lose Sam Shields would have been a bad way to begin the off season.

This signing defines "prudent" for TT and the Green Bay Packers.

Good job TT.

GO PACK GO !

[red]

to play devils advocate a little more

which help improve our defense more, bringing shields back and keeping things the way they were. or letting ss walk and using that money to get one of the 2 best safeties available?

[mission]

Red -- is it a one or the other thing? I still think we could make a run at a safety, but it just takes two to tango.

[red]

Red -- is it a one or the other thing? I still think we could make a run at a safety, but it just takes two to tango.

no, one or the other

obviously, we can still get a top tier S, but just in case we don't, who would you rather have?

its a hypothetical, cause we already signed shields

for arguments sake, lets say one or the other. for the same price, would you rather have shields back, or sign byrd or ward?

what helps the team more?