Silverstein = McGinn, Jr. (And I don't mean Ted)

[Fritz]

Lately when I read the JSO I can't seem to tell the difference between a McGinn article and a Silverstein article. This line jumped out at me from today's JSO:

"Because Williams is an unrestricted free agent, the Packers knew they could wind up losing both players if they handled the situation poorly."

It's a Silverstein article, but very McGinnesque.

Never mind that the article goes on to state that the cornerback market has jumped far beyond most people's expectations. If the Packers lose both, it's because they handled the situation poorly.

Maybe they did. I dunno. But maybe they don't have a crystal ball to see the future cornerback market with.

[pbmax]

I know what you mean, Spoon tosses out these kind of "insights" regularly, but he doesn't seem to publish the forced argument as the headline.

However, in this case, I think the Packers did mis-judge the market. Its hard to know what is a negotiating position and what is the actual drop dead price, but this is three corners in two years where the market has topped their original offers by a significant amount.

Shields started at $6 my, went nearly to $10 mpy. House's previous offers are unknown to me, but Packers weren't willing to do $10 mil guaranteed. Now Tramontana is going to go from a Packers offer of $4-5 mph to over $6.

There will be other guys on the market, so its not yet done, but unlike Nelson and Cobb, their starting point on CBs seems out of whack.

[mraynrand]

Lately when I read the JSO I can't seem to tell the difference between a McGinn article and a Silverstein article. This line jumped out at me from today's JSO:

"Because Williams is an unrestricted free agent, the Packers knew they could wind up losing both players if they handled the situation poorly."

It's a Silverstein article, but very McGinnesque.

Never mind that the article goes on to state that the cornerback market has jumped far beyond most people's expectations. If the Packers lose both, it's because they handled the situation poorly.

Maybe they did. I dunno. But maybe they don't have a crystal ball to see the future cornerback market with.

It's not just that they would lose both if they handle it poorly, but that they KNEW they would lose both if they handle it poorly. So they are doubly culpable, and it's CERTAIN that losing both is a sign or poor handling. Maybe it's good handling based on what they know. But to characterize it the way the JSO did, you have to have a direct quote from a Packer official. Very subversive bullshit this time around.

[mraynrand]

... their starting point on CBs seems out of whack.

are they undervaluing CBs or are other teams overvaluing? Given the hands off coverage rules, perhaps the Packers aren't placing high enough value on speedy cover corners.

[pbmax]

Maybe Ted's reads us and knows he can draft a CB and WR even after attending Pro Days blindfolded.

[Patler]

Lately when I read the JSO I can't seem to tell the difference between a McGinn article and a Silverstein article. This line jumped out at me from today's JSO:

"Because Williams is an unrestricted free agent, the Packers knew they could wind up losing both players if they handled the situation poorly."

It's a Silverstein article, but very McGinnesque.

Never mind that the article goes on to state that the cornerback market has jumped far beyond most people's expectations. If the Packers lose both, it's because they handled the situation poorly.

Maybe they did. I dunno. But maybe they don't have a crystal ball to see the future cornerback market with.

I have thought the same think recently! Halfway through the first few paragraphs, I have thought "McGinn....at it again" only to look and see that it isn't McGinn!

The thing that always has to be kept in mind is that a player's previous team knows him better than anyone else. Maybe the Packers don't trust House's availability to risk more than they offered. Same with Williams and his age. They could be wrong about either or both, but they haven't made too many of those types of mistakes since TT reshaped the roster the way he wanted it..

It's hard to argue with the FA decisions of a team that makes the playoffs every year, is a serious SB contender every few years, hasn't made a glaring error recently not resigning someone nor in spending money to sign someone, and hasn't had a salary cap crisis for 10 years while locking down their best players.

[denverYooper]

Fnord.

[digitaldean]

McGinn, Silverstein and Vandermause from GB Press Gazette. All of them are poor excuses for Packer beat writers.

[Bretsky]

I think all of these guys are good; part of their job is to sell papers. Homer fluffy articles don't sell papers.
They have to stir the pot a bit and do their best to make a strong, and often unpopular point.
They do it well.

[mraynrand]

Fnord.

Fjord.

[vince]

I think all of these guys are good; part of their job is to sell papers. Homer fluffy articles don't sell papers.
They have to stir the pot a bit and do their best to make a strong, and often unpopular point.
They do it well.

I get that but at least have some integrity about it. Some of these guys have no regard for reality. As long as they can find somebody to say what they want, they're all too happy to print it. Nobody said it? Hell just say it's "reasonable to assume" someone might say it. That's not reporting. It's trash.

[Fritz]

I think all of these guys are good; part of their job is to sell papers. Homer fluffy articles don't sell papers.
They have to stir the pot a bit and do their best to make a strong, and often unpopular point.
They do it well.

This is where I disagree. If they really want to do it well, then I'd like to see them discuss more personal aspects of the team's players and execs. How about an expose on Ted's sexual preferences? And how many of the players are beating their wives and girlfriends? Who has a gambling problem? And is it true that one of the special teams players is having an affair with a coach's wife? And I heard that one of the players is secretly a cross-dresser.

You want to sell papers, you got to do better than snarky hindsightish accusations.

[Pugger]

This is where I disagree. If they really want to do it well, then I'd like to see them discuss more personal aspects of the team's players and execs. How about an expose on Ted's sexual preferences? And how many of the players are beating their wives and girlfriends? Who has a gambling problem? And is it true that one of the special teams players is having an affair with a coach's wife? And I heard that one of the players is secretly a cross-dresser.

You want to sell papers, you got to do better than snarky hindsightish accusations.

Like The National Inquirer?

[KYPack]

Like The National Inquirer?

Like the New York Post.

[Guiness]

Like the New York Post.

There are no dirty words in the Times.