A Case Study in Rebuilding - From Very Close to Home

[vince]

Great work Vince. I hope the Pack can add a DE that is the real deal when it comes to rushing the QB. Some consistant presure back there will make alot of difference in the over all play of our defence. IMHO..

I agree Jeffro. Strictly from a player personnel standpoint, here's what I think the Packers need to "turn the corner" next year...

Defense
1. DE
2. S
3. CB

Kampman and KGB provide the talent to fill a rotation at one DE spot, and we need an every down DE that can rush the passer to play opposite them. Manual appears to be a half-step slow, and would be a solid backup. Another young corner (that can actually play - unlike Carroll) would provide insurance against the aging of Harris/Woodsen.

Offense
1. RB
2. TE
3. OT

Running back, IMO is the biggest area of need next offseason. Green's inability to stay healthy, and the fact that he's on the wrong side of his career indicate that fresh legs are needed badly. A playmaking TE would add another dimension to the passing game, and although I see good things in the future for the young interior line, and Colledge could possibly be better suited to play OT, Clifton and Tauscher are both getting up there and the wear and tear of playing in the NFL will catch up with them in upcoming seasons. I would also jump at the opportunity to add a playmaker like Calvin Johnson to the mix, although I don't think WR is necessarily a huge position of "need."

I believe upgrades at these positions are eminently doable in the next offseason through a combination of free agency and draft. This offseason, we can operate from a position of strength in terms of knowledge about how players fit with the direction the coaching staff is implementing, and we added at least 6 pieces last offseason, when we made relatively few moves in free agency as a result of having too many unknowns on the team.

Further, gven the youth and talent that I see developing on the interior line, at LB, and throughout the depth chart, more experience, offseason work, maturity and learning by the young foundation up and down the depth chart will put this team in position to turn the corner next year.

Then, in the offseason after next, the opporunity to upgrade a few additional positions and gain one or two more playmakers makes this team even better...

Outside of the player personnel, something is obviously amiss on the defensive side of the ball, and while none of us really knows exactly what the problem is, the combination of DC and DB coach is not delivering. Change in one or both of these areas also will likely occur, which would be a positive development as well...

[wist43]

Firstly, I would like to say that a lot of my comments of late are born out of frustration more than anything else. I don't like the direction of the team, I think the GM and coaching staff are very questionable, I hate the defensive scheme, and am skeptical that they can make the ZBS work...

Other than that??? All is well in Packerland.

Secondly, I don't suffer losing well... I didn't enjoy the 70's and 80's at all - year after year watching the Bears and Vikings smash us to smithereens. Always hoping, always "next year", always the next high draft pick...

- When they hired Wolfe, I knew he was good talent evaluator and had confidence he could rebuild the team.

- Wolfe hired Holmgren, thought it was a great hiring.

- They traded for Favre, loved the trade.

- Signed Reggie White, greatest FA signing ever.

While I loved all of those moves in the rebuilding process of the 90's, I conversely question, or outright reject most of what I've seen out of this current regime.

I hope they can get it done - I really do. Because if they can't, it's going to be a long haul back to respectability.

[The Leaper]

I'm OK with the ZBS...it merely is going to take time to implement in a successful fashion. I think it is pretty clear that this OL has improved each week. Jags and the coaching staff on the offensive side of the ball have done a great job IMO...considering they are playing with 5 guys with limited playing experience. Jennings has been very well coached to get where he is right now. Favre clearly is playing more within the game plan this year. To express any concern regarding the offensive side of the ball seems to be misguided at this point...IMO.

Our problems are all on defense. We are too old in the secondary. Woodson and Manual were poor FA acquisitions. Hawk and Hodge were solid pickups in the draft...but we need many more solid young studs on defense.

[vince]

Firstly, I would like to say that a lot of my comments of late are born out of frustration more than anything else. I don't like the direction of the team, I think the GM and coaching staff are very questionable, I hate the defensive scheme, and am skeptical that they can make the ZBS work...

Wist, why are you skeptical about the ZBS? I'd say it's coming along nicely after a slow start... As I stated above, I do think that a RB is a need position, but Noah Herron was running through some sizable holes and Morency started well. He has the skills for this scheme, but obviously, if you can't hang on to the ball, you can't play.

We all want to see the team win, but this year, what's more important is that we see the team continue to develop. I'm seeing that on both sides of the ball. Playoffs this year isn't part of the plan. That's for next year.

[Brainerd]

Sorry Vince. You seem like a smart guy but you're hiding behind optimism and the belief that rebuilding was an acceptable solution to the Packers woes. Its your opinion and I respect it as such. Doesn't make it true.

The rise of the Bears started in 2004 with the hiring of Lovie Smith. A very good coach known for his defense. After his first year in which the Bears were 5-11 Lovie looked at his offense and fired the OC. A great move. Perhaps MM will do the same thing after this season with Bob Sanders. One can only hope. After all MM's strength is offense and the Packers problems are defensive in nature. An inverse of the Bears situation during Lovie's first season.

11 of the 22 starters you cited were on the Bears prior to the hiring of Lovie. 7 more were added in Lovie's first season. 4 of those 7 were acquired through FA or trade. That leaves 3 draft picks. That's not rebuilding to me. Its reloading. They made the playoffs in Lovie's second season. No learning curve, no inexperience excuses, no gutting of the team.

We are now in TT's second season. It was his choice to hire a new staff. A new inexperienced staff. It was his choice to gut the Packers. I would agree with some of his cuts. You would also have to agree that many of his cuts are still playing in the NFL. I'm not saying that they were all stars but he has mishandled 2 stars, 2 playmakers. TT instituted confusion and incohesion into the Packers team mentality. A complete shock to the system. I submit that he overreacted without cause. He could have taken his time as Lovie did with the Bears. A few cuts last year, a few cuts this year, a few more next year.

The Bears didn't rebuild they hired a great coach with loyalty to the bottom line in the NFL. That bottom line is winning. Winning now, not next year, or the year after. Rebuilding is a term for losers. Which explains why TT and his handpicked staff refuse to admit that they are rebuilding.

[vince]

Sorry Vince. you're hiding behind the belief that rebuilding was an acceptable solution to the Packers woes. Its your opinion and I respect it as such. Doesn't make it true.

Brainerd, please look back at the salary cap situation that Mike Sherman created for this franchise and offer realistic solutions that would have made the team a Super Bowl contender.

This franchise had no choice but to release some quality players that I have no doubt we would have loved to keep, except for the fact that dollars had to be cut from our cap position. Who would have restructured? What makes you so sure?

I have no doubt that you won't really follow up, because YOU are the one that is HIDING BEHIND you're "losing is for losers" short-term mentality, acting as if there were simple silver-bullet solutions to the problems that Mike Sherman created over time.

Well those silver bullets don't exist Brainerd. Or if you want to enlighten us, give it a shot... I'm game. Who should we have cut to keep us under the cap? What great talents did Sherman draft that TT cut that would have given us the third and fourth year players that we should have on our team today that we should be building around? What players should TT have signed, and for how much? In which year? Hindsight is 20/20, and I'd still like to see your solutions...

[Brainerd]

Sorry Vince. you're hiding behind the belief that rebuilding was an acceptable solution to the Packers woes. Its your opinion and I respect it as such. Doesn't make it true.

Brainerd, please look back at the salary cap situation that Mike Sherman created for this franchise and offer realistic solutions that would have made the team a Super Bowl contender.

This franchise had no choice but to release some quality players that I have no doubt we would have loved to keep, except for the fact that dollars had to be cut from our cap position. Who would have restructured? What makes you so sure?

I have no doubt that you won't really follow up, because YOU are the one that is HIDING BEHIND you're "losing is for losers" short-term mentality, acting as if there were simple silver-bullet solutions to the problems that Mike Sherman created over time.

Well those silver bullets don't exist Brainerd. Or if you want to enlighten us, give it a shot... I'm game. Who should we have cut to keep us under the cap? What great talents did Sherman draft that TT cut that would have given us the third and fourth year players that we should have on our team today that we should be building around? What players should TT have signed, and for how much? In which year? Hindsight is 20/20, and I'd still like to see your solutions...

You made the proposal that we were in salary cap hell with no way out, Vince. Its up to you, Vince, to provide proof. I simply disagree and want proof, Vince.

Surprised I responded Vince, you pompous boob.

[vince]

The rise of the Bears started in 2004 with the hiring of Lovie Smith. A very good coach known for his defense. After his first year in which the Bears were 5-11 Lovie looked at his offense and fired the OC. A great move. Perhaps MM will do the same thing after this season with Bob Sanders. One can only hope. After all MM's strength is offense and the Packers problems are defensive in nature. An inverse of the Bears situation during Lovie's first season.

Brainerd, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here other than essentially repeating what was in the original post...?

[Brainerd]

The rise of the Bears started in 2004 with the hiring of Lovie Smith. A very good coach known for his defense. After his first year in which the Bears were 5-11 Lovie looked at his offense and fired the OC. A great move. Perhaps MM will do the same thing after this season with Bob Sanders. One can only hope. After all MM's strength is offense and the Packers problems are defensive in nature. An inverse of the Bears situation during Lovie's first season.

Brainerd, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here other than essentially repeating what was in the original post...?

You and I are simply in disagreemnt over the necessity of TT's rebuilding campaign and what in effect constitutes rebuilding. A term TT has yet to admit to as far as I know. But you and I both know we are rebuilding.

[vince]

11 of the 22 starters you cited were on the Bears prior to the hiring of Lovie. 7 more were added in Lovie's first season. 4 of those 7 were acquired through FA or trade. That leaves 3 draft picks. That's not rebuilding to me. Its reloading. They made the playoffs in Lovie's second season. No learning curve, no inexperience excuses, no gutting of the team.

We are now in TT's second season. It was his choice to hire a new staff. A new inexperienced staff. It was his choice to gut the Packers. I would agree with some of his cuts. You would also have to agree that many of his cuts are still playing in the NFL. I'm not saying that they were all stars but he has mishandled 2 stars, 2 playmakers. TT instituted confusion and incohesion into the Packers team mentality. A complete shock to the system. I submit that he overreacted without cause. He could have taken his time as Lovie did with the Bears. A few cuts last year, a few cuts this year, a few more next year.

The Bears didn't rebuild they hired a great coach with loyalty to the bottom line in the NFL. That bottom line is winning. Winning now, not next year, or the year after. Rebuilding is a term for losers. Which explains why TT and his handpicked staff refuse to admit that they are rebuilding.

Brainerd, the Bears rebuilding started two years before Lovie was hired. It has taken the Bears longer to rebuild because they did JUST WHAT YOU SEEM TO THINK THE PACKERS SHOULD DO!!! Take their time... Get worse over a longer period, just so maybe the fans can have something to hang onto.

IMO, Brainerd, this is simply delaying the inevitable. Why suffer through a longer period of rebuilding? Why wait? This team needed an overhaul. It had a lot of dead weight. Now it has a lot of young players that need experience. They're getting that experience and looking better each week. That will ramp up the time it takes to become a consistent winner - not delay it, as you would prefer.

[Brainerd]

11 of the 22 starters you cited were on the Bears prior to the hiring of Lovie. 7 more were added in Lovie's first season. 4 of those 7 were acquired through FA or trade. That leaves 3 draft picks. That's not rebuilding to me. Its reloading. They made the playoffs in Lovie's second season. No learning curve, no inexperience excuses, no gutting of the team.

We are now in TT's second season. It was his choice to hire a new staff. A new inexperienced staff. It was his choice to gut the Packers. I would agree with some of his cuts. You would also have to agree that many of his cuts are still playing in the NFL. I'm not saying that they were all stars but he has mishandled 2 stars, 2 playmakers. TT instituted confusion and incohesion into the Packers team mentality. A complete shock to the system. I submit that he overreacted without cause. He could have taken his time as Lovie did with the Bears. A few cuts last year, a few cuts this year, a few more next year.

The Bears didn't rebuild they hired a great coach with loyalty to the bottom line in the NFL. That bottom line is winning. Winning now, not next year, or the year after. Rebuilding is a term for losers. Which explains why TT and his handpicked staff refuse to admit that they are rebuilding.

Brainerd, the Bears rebuilding started two years before Lovie was hired. It has taken the Bears longer to rebuild because they did JUST WHAT YOU SEEM TO THINK THE PACKERS SHOULD DO!!! Take their time... Get worse over a longer period, just so maybe the fans can have something to hang onto.

IMO, Brainerd, this is simply delaying the inevitable. Why suffer through a longer period of rebuilding? Why wait? This team needed an overhaul. It had a lot of dead weight. Now it has a lot of young players that need experience. They're getting that experience and looking better each week. That will ramp up the time it takes to become a consistent winner - not delay it, as you would prefer.

Where do you get delay? I'm saying the exact opposite. Methodical patience is not delay. You can win without rebuilding. This idea that losing is acceptable is what I'm questioning. One bad season, yes, it happens. The Bears sucked prior to Lovie. One bad season is all the Bears have had under Lovie to this point. TT is looking at two in a row. And you support him? Because it takes time? No, sorry. He has the burden of proof and his proof so far is losing. How can you deny that?

Its during Lovie's tenure that the Bears have progressed. They have done it slowly using both the draft and FA, not just the draft. TT himself admitted that he was shocked at how quickly the FA's were grabbed this year. Yet another in a long line of TT mistakes.

The Bears are now in year 3 and are the current darlings of the NFL. TT is in year 2 of his tenure and year 1 of his coaching staff. He has gutted this team. Lovie did not gut the Bears in season 1.

You feel that its necessary to rebuild and used the Bears as an example. I feel its unnecessary to rebuild and used the Bears as an example. Two differing opinions using the same facts, or so i thought.

TT reminds me of the Texas chainsaw madman. Cutting anything he sees. His cuts have caused needless shock to the cohesion of the Packers as a team of players who know and understand one another. Some of the cuts have worked. Law of averages. You see a method. Fine. Your opinon. I see madness.

[vince]

Sorry Vince. you're hiding behind the belief that rebuilding was an acceptable solution to the Packers woes. Its your opinion and I respect it as such. Doesn't make it true.

Brainerd, please look back at the salary cap situation that Mike Sherman created for this franchise and offer realistic solutions that would have made the team a Super Bowl contender.

This franchise had no choice but to release some quality players that I have no doubt we would have loved to keep, except for the fact that dollars had to be cut from our cap position. Who would have restructured? What makes you so sure?

I have no doubt that you won't really follow up, because YOU are the one that is HIDING BEHIND you're "losing is for losers" short-term mentality, acting as if there were simple silver-bullet solutions to the problems that Mike Sherman created over time.

Well those silver bullets don't exist Brainerd. Or if you want to enlighten us, give it a shot... I'm game. Who should we have cut to keep us under the cap? What great talents did Sherman draft that TT cut that would have given us the third and fourth year players that we should have on our team today that we should be building around? What players should TT have signed, and for how much? In which year? Hindsight is 20/20, and I'd still like to see your solutions...

You made the proposal that we were in salary cap hell with no way out, Vince. Its up to you, Vince, to provide proof. I simply disagree and want proof, Vince.

Surprised I responded Vince, you pompous boob.

I am not surprised to see that you responded with not one viable alternative solution.

Instead, you continue to denigrate TT's direction with no real answers for what you think he should have done. Not even a gratuitous, "he should have kept Mike Wahle." off-the-cuff comment (which I would have agreed with, BTW).

Anyway, if you don't believe that the Packers had serious problems upon TT's arrival, and want me to PROVE it for you, I submit to you the PROOF... Here's the Packers 2005 salary cap figures, not including, of course, the full cap hits that Marco Rivera, Mike Wahle, Darren Sharper would have created.

http://www.packersnews.com/legacy/team/2005salaries.pdf#search=%222005%20green%20bay%20packers%20salary%20cap%20%22

2005 GBP Salary cap Number = $82 million
League instilled Salary Cap = $84 million

Not resigning Sharper trimmed 3.4 million
Not resigning Wahle trimmed over $10 million
Not resigning Rivera trimmed over $4 million
That's over $15 million that had to be trimmed. How would you have done that, Brainerd?

And here is an article that documents the situation. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...3/ai_n11011903

Just some quotes and comments that I'll list here for you, Brainerd.

Brandt, Green Bay's vice president of player finance who has handled free agent negotiations for the Packers the past seven years, knows this year's hurdles are formidable.

Guards Mike Wahle and Marco Rivera along with tight end Bubba Franks head the list of Green Bay's 10 unrestricted free agents. Restricted free agents such as defensive end Aaron Kampman, tackle Kevin Barry and running back Najeh Davenport also could attract some interest.

Brandt and the Packers have only begun negotiations with these players. But in the next month, as the pressure intensifies to get several of these deals done, Brandt will be largely responsible for keeping the Packers viable under the salary cap and competitive on the field.

What lies ahead, though, for Brandt & Co. will make Fisher's deal look simple.

Wahle, arguably one of the top five guards in football, undoubtedly has to be a top priority. But whether the Packers can afford him remains to be seen.

Wahle turns 28 next month and is in his prime. The two sides are still feeling each other out, but Wahle indicated late in the year he expects this to be his blockbuster contract.

"I plan on it," Wahle told Packer Plus. "I think I'm one of the top (guards), no doubt about it. I'm pretty high. There's a lot of good players in this league, but honestly, I don't think there's a lot that do what I can do as far as moving around. What separates a lot of players is what they can do in space. And if I'm not one of the top guys, I don't know who is."

And here's an article documenting the contracts that Wahle, Rivera and Sharper signed and their cap situations... http://packers.mostvaluablenetwork.com/2005/03/

"Mike Wahle is a 28 year old high energy very physical and athletic guard. His ability to pull and block in space was a key to the Packer’s sweeps and screens. There is little question in my mind that he is one of the top few guards in the NFL. However, Carolina was willing to pay him like a tackle - $11.5M signing bonus, $27M over 5 years. Although I think Wahle is a special player and was a fantastic contributor to Green Bay’s offense, I also think this contract is completely out of line for a guard and I support Thompson’s unwillingness to compete at this financial level.

Marco Rivera is a 32 year old guard with a history of knee problems, and a history of playing through any imaginable pain. However, while Rivera was and is a model warrior, it’s unclear that he can maintain his performance in the face of his body’s deterioration. Rivera signed with Dallas for $19M over 5 years. Again, while I have only the highest regards for Rivera and his play, I think again this contract is excessive for a guard and I support Thompson’s decision to not bid at this level.

Darren Sharper is a playmaker, but he has never been a particularly reliable safety. In the last two years he has been injured for much of the time, and appears to have lost a step. While his ball-hawking skills are superb, as demonstrated by the large numbers of interceptions he grabs every year, he seems to get lost in coverage all too often and seems to be to have been a liability in pass protection at least as often as he was an asset. Sharper was scheduled to make a completely unrealistic $8M this year, and refused (wisely, as it turns out) to agree to a more realistic $2M / year."

OK, Brainerd, there's your proof.

Now what would you have done differently?

[vince]

11 of the 22 starters you cited were on the Bears prior to the hiring of Lovie. 7 more were added in Lovie's first season. 4 of those 7 were acquired through FA or trade. That leaves 3 draft picks. That's not rebuilding to me. Its reloading. They made the playoffs in Lovie's second season. No learning curve, no inexperience excuses, no gutting of the team.

We are now in TT's second season. It was his choice to hire a new staff. A new inexperienced staff. It was his choice to gut the Packers. I would agree with some of his cuts. You would also have to agree that many of his cuts are still playing in the NFL. I'm not saying that they were all stars but he has mishandled 2 stars, 2 playmakers. TT instituted confusion and incohesion into the Packers team mentality. A complete shock to the system. I submit that he overreacted without cause. He could have taken his time as Lovie did with the Bears. A few cuts last year, a few cuts this year, a few more next year.

The Bears didn't rebuild they hired a great coach with loyalty to the bottom line in the NFL. That bottom line is winning. Winning now, not next year, or the year after. Rebuilding is a term for losers. Which explains why TT and his handpicked staff refuse to admit that they are rebuilding.

Brainerd, the Bears rebuilding started two years before Lovie was hired. It has taken the Bears longer to rebuild because they did JUST WHAT YOU SEEM TO THINK THE PACKERS SHOULD DO!!! Take their time... Get worse over a longer period, just so maybe the fans can have something to hang onto.

IMO, Brainerd, this is simply delaying the inevitable. Why suffer through a longer period of rebuilding? Why wait? This team needed an overhaul. It had a lot of dead weight. Now it has a lot of young players that need experience. They're getting that experience and looking better each week. That will ramp up the time it takes to become a consistent winner - not delay it, as you would prefer.

Where do you get delay? I'm saying the exact opposite. Methodical patience is not delay. You can win without rebuilding. This idea that losing is acceptable is what I'm questioning. One bad season, yes, it happens. The Bears sucked prior to Lovie. One bad season is all the Bears have had under Lovie to this point. TT is looking at two in a row. And you support him? Because it takes time? No, sorry. He has the burden of proof and his proof so far is losing. How can you deny that?

Its during Lovie's tenure that the Bears have progressed. They have done it slowly using both the draft and FA, not just the draft. TT himself admitted that he was shocked at how quickly the FA's were grabbed this year. Yet another in a long line of TT mistakes.

The Bears are now in year 3 and are the current darlings of the NFL. TT is in year 2 of his tenure and year 1 of his coaching staff. He has gutted this team. Lovie did not gut the Bears in season 1.

You feel that its necessary to rebuild and used the Bears as an example. I feel its unnecessary to rebuild and used the Bears as an example. Two differing opinions using the same facts, or so i thought.

TT reminds me of the Texas chainsaw madman. Cutting anything he sees. His cuts have caused needless shock to the cohesion of the Packers as a team of players who know and understand one another. Some of the cuts have worked. Law of averages. You see a method. Fine. Your opinon. I see madness.

You are confusing the GM and rebuilding timeframe with the coaching changes.

The Bears began to rebuild their roster in 2002. Almost their entire team has been added since that time. It's now 2006. That's 5 years.

Lovie came onboard in the 3rd year of the Bears roster rebuild.

The Packers began to rebuild in 2005. This is their second year, as you indicated.

MM came onboard this year, in the 2nd year of the roster rebuild. This is his first year.

The Bears turned their coaching staff one year later than the Packers, and had made less progress in improving the roster than the Packers in their second year.

But in your mind, that's a bad thing. The Packers should be holding on to the dead weight longer, so there's not so much roster turnover - just a roster with less talent, but more tenured and overpaid players.

I guess if you think that's the way they should have done it, that's obviously your perogative. I think you'll find that only delays the process of becoming a super bowl contending team again.

And you can say that the Packers should retool or whatever you want to call it. It doesn't matter what anyone calls it. My belief is that when you are in cap hell and have limited talent on the roster - call it what you want but you have to change that situation by getting rid of the overpaid underperformers and get young talent onboard and begin to build a new foundation on which to build a winner.

[VegasPackFan]

Mediocrity is nothing to strive for.

Sometimes you have to take a step back to put yourself in the position to truly be a contender in the future instead of a pretender in the present.

[Brainerd]

Sorry Vince. you're hiding behind the belief that rebuilding was an acceptable solution to the Packers woes. Its your opinion and I respect it as such. Doesn't make it true.

Brainerd, please look back at the salary cap situation that Mike Sherman created for this franchise and offer realistic solutions that would have made the team a Super Bowl contender.

This franchise had no choice but to release some quality players that I have no doubt we would have loved to keep, except for the fact that dollars had to be cut from our cap position. Who would have restructured? What makes you so sure?

I have no doubt that you won't really follow up, because YOU are the one that is HIDING BEHIND you're "losing is for losers" short-term mentality, acting as if there were simple silver-bullet solutions to the problems that Mike Sherman created over time.

Well those silver bullets don't exist Brainerd. Or if you want to enlighten us, give it a shot... I'm game. Who should we have cut to keep us under the cap? What great talents did Sherman draft that TT cut that would have given us the third and fourth year players that we should have on our team today that we should be building around? What players should TT have signed, and for how much? In which year? Hindsight is 20/20, and I'd still like to see your solutions...

You made the proposal that we were in salary cap hell with no way out, Vince. Its up to you, Vince, to provide proof. I simply disagree and want proof, Vince.

Surprised I responded Vince, you pompous boob.

I am not surprised to see that you responded with not one viable alternative solution.

Instead, you continue to denigrate TT's direction with no real answers for what you think he should have done. Not even a gratuitous, "he should have kept Mike Wahle." off-the-cuff comment (which I would have agreed with, BTW).

Anyway, if you don't believe that the Packers had serious problems upon TT's arrival, and want me to PROVE it for you, I submit to you the PROOF... Here's the Packers 2005 salary cap figures, not including, of course, the full cap hits that Marco Rivera, Mike Wahle, Darren Sharper would have created.

http://www.packersnews.com/legacy/team/2005salaries.pdf#search=%222005%20green%20bay%20packers%20salary%20cap%20%22

2005 GBP Salary cap Number = $82 million
League instilled Salary Cap = $84 million

Not resigning Sharper trimmed 3.4 million
Not resigning Wahle trimmed over $10 million
Not resigning Rivera trimmed over $4 million
That's over $15 million that had to be trimmed. How would you have done that, Brainerd?

And here is an article that documents the situation. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...3/ai_n11011903

Just some quotes and comments that I'll list here for you, Brainerd.

Brandt, Green Bay's vice president of player finance who has handled free agent negotiations for the Packers the past seven years, knows this year's hurdles are formidable.

Guards Mike Wahle and Marco Rivera along with tight end Bubba Franks head the list of Green Bay's 10 unrestricted free agents. Restricted free agents such as defensive end Aaron Kampman, tackle Kevin Barry and running back Najeh Davenport also could attract some interest.

Brandt and the Packers have only begun negotiations with these players. But in the next month, as the pressure intensifies to get several of these deals done, Brandt will be largely responsible for keeping the Packers viable under the salary cap and competitive on the field.

What lies ahead, though, for Brandt & Co. will make Fisher's deal look simple.

Wahle, arguably one of the top five guards in football, undoubtedly has to be a top priority. But whether the Packers can afford him remains to be seen.

Wahle turns 28 next month and is in his prime. The two sides are still feeling each other out, but Wahle indicated late in the year he expects this to be his blockbuster contract.

"I plan on it," Wahle told Packer Plus. "I think I'm one of the top (guards), no doubt about it. I'm pretty high. There's a lot of good players in this league, but honestly, I don't think there's a lot that do what I can do as far as moving around. What separates a lot of players is what they can do in space. And if I'm not one of the top guys, I don't know who is."

And here's an article documenting the contracts that Wahle, Rivera and Sharper signed and their cap situations... http://packers.mostvaluablenetwork.com/2005/03/

"Mike Wahle is a 28 year old high energy very physical and athletic guard. His ability to pull and block in space was a key to the Packer’s sweeps and screens. There is little question in my mind that he is one of the top few guards in the NFL. However, Carolina was willing to pay him like a tackle - $11.5M signing bonus, $27M over 5 years. Although I think Wahle is a special player and was a fantastic contributor to Green Bay’s offense, I also think this contract is completely out of line for a guard and I support Thompson’s unwillingness to compete at this financial level.

Marco Rivera is a 32 year old guard with a history of knee problems, and a history of playing through any imaginable pain. However, while Rivera was and is a model warrior, it’s unclear that he can maintain his performance in the face of his body’s deterioration. Rivera signed with Dallas for $19M over 5 years. Again, while I have only the highest regards for Rivera and his play, I think again this contract is excessive for a guard and I support Thompson’s decision to not bid at this level.

Darren Sharper is a playmaker, but he has never been a particularly reliable safety. In the last two years he has been injured for much of the time, and appears to have lost a step. While his ball-hawking skills are superb, as demonstrated by the large numbers of interceptions he grabs every year, he seems to get lost in coverage all too often and seems to be to have been a liability in pass protection at least as often as he was an asset. Sharper was scheduled to make a completely unrealistic $8M this year, and refused (wisely, as it turns out) to agree to a more realistic $2M / year."

OK, Brainerd, there's your proof.

Now what would you have done differently?

And my point which you continue to ignore is that we'll never know. You say it couldn't be done and everyone is just supposed to believe you? For an optimist you seem to think that nothing could be done with Wahle and others. I don't know and I never stated that I did. All I ever said is that its your opinion that it could never be done.

I never made any claim that it could be done. What is the result? Your opinion versus my opinion. Both valid in my mind but apparently not in your mind. You threw out opinion as fact and I called you on it. That simple.