Tweet
WEDNESDAY, March 7, 2007, 1:41 p.m.
It's about time
Thirty-six year old William Henderson has said that he expects to be released by the Packers. That's a move that's two or three years overdue.
It's a different age and there are different rules with the salary cap, but general manager Ted Thompson should study the team's history during the Lombardi Era and talk to the few personnel people or coaches from that period who are still living. In fairness, it was Mike Sherman more than Thompson who probably held on to some veteran players too long. In fact, Thompson has done well when it comes to turning over the roster. Still, brushing up on the history of the Lombardi Era might be instructive.
Lombardi's philosophy was that you're better off getting rid of a player a year too early rather than a year too late.
Pat Peppler, Lombardi's former personnel director, told me that Lombardi was greatly influenced in that regard by Jack Adams, legenary hockey executive and coach. In 35 years with the Detroit Red Wings, Adams won 12 regular-season championships, seven Stanley Cups and missed the playoffs only seven times. Adams was able to sustain sucess, in part, by constantly turning over his roster and getting rid of older players while they still had value.
Lombardi did the same.
He traded Hall of Fame center Jim Ringo after a Pro Bowl season, not because Ringo hired an agent, but because he was undersized and Lombardi decided he wanted a bigger center. Lombardi traded linebacker Dan Currie when Currie was 29 years old and after he had been named first-team all-pro by one of the news services.
Lombardi traded Bill Quinlan after the 1962 season. Quinlan was 30 years old at the time and had been a starting defensive end on back-to-back NFL championship teams. Lombardi unceremoniously forced defensive tackle Dave Hanner to retire at the end of training camp in 1965 after Hanner had played 14 seasons with the team. A year later, Lombardi traded defensive captain Hank Gremminger just before the start of training camp.
Lombardi benched starting guard Fuzzy Thurston in 1965. When his revamped line didn't pan out, Lombardi inserted Thurston back into the lineup for the stretch run and the playoffs. But Lombardi benched Thurston again in 1967 and instructed him to retire when the season ended.
After the 1966 season, after the Packers had won a second straight NFL title and the first Super Bowl, Lombardi left both of his running backs go. He made 31-year old Paul Hornung available in the expansion draft and allowed 31-year old Jim Taylor to leave in free agency.
People sometimes forget that Lombardi won five NFL titles over just seven years, but changed 12 of his 22 starters.
That's why it should be interpreted as a sign of progress when the Packers dump players such as Ahman Green and William Henderson. Teams generally reach a point when they only get better when they get younger.
WEDNESDAY, March 7, 2007, 12:18 p.m.
Oops!
A reader, Scott Bitters, has taken me to task for suggesting that the loss of tight end David Martin might come back to haunt the Packers. Bitters wrote: "You're take on Ahman Green is right on, but I don't know why you would have any concern about David Martin leaving. How can you stretch the field from the bench? The sooner they get rid of the Robert Fergusons and David Martins of the world, the better."
I started to defend my stance in a reply to his email by noting that if Martin ever played 16 games, he could be a productive tight end. Then I realized I should be telling myself the same thing I tell you on our chats from time to time: "If a worm had hips. ..."
TUESDAY, March 6, 2007, 1:34 p.m.
When free agency makes sense
Blessed with one of the two best quarterbacks -- if not players -- in the game, the New England Patriots should be one of the teams to beat as long as Tom Brady stays healthy and continues to play at a high level. Even this past season when the Patriots played with one of the worst starting wide receiver combinations in the league, they came within about one minute and maybe one play of beating the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship and advancing to the Super Bowl, where they likely would have dispatched the Chicago Bears just as easily as the Colts did.
The Patriots have won three Super Bowls with Brady in the past six years and by July they might be the favorites to win again in 2007. As loaded as the San Diego Chargers look on paper, the Patriots have Brady -- who was the difference in their playoff game this past January -- and suddenly a better supporting cast, thanks to their early off-season moves.
The Patriots have signed the best available player in this year's free agent class -- 6-foot-2, 270-pound linebacker/pass rusher Adalius Thomas -- and a perfect fit for Bill Belichick's 3-4 scheme. Thomas had 11 sacks last season and has scored four defensive touchdowns in the past two seasons. He's versatile enough that he has even lined up at cornerback. The Patriots had one of the best defensive fronts in the league last year and a top-flight cornerback in Asante Samuel, but they had grown old at linebacker and had also given up on Willie McGinest the year before for the same reason. He had gotten old. The addition of Thomas, 30, should come close to completing the Patriots' defense.
Offensively, in addition to Brady, the Patriots have a solid offensive line, a promising running back in Laurence Maroney and an emerging tight end in Ben Watson, who caught 49 passes and averaged 13.1 yards per catch last season. What they desperately needed was help at wide receiver. In their playoff loss to the Colts, the Patriots started two-time reject Jabar Gaffney and Reche Caldwell, a free agent who hadn't caught more than 28 passes in four years with the wide receiver poor Chargers.
This week, the Patriots struck a deal for restricted free agent Wes Welker, an undersized, unsung receiver-returner who would make an ideal No. 3 receiver. The Patriots also reportedly have interest in Oakland's Randy Moss and free agent Donte' Stallworth. Either one would stretch the field and give the Patriots a much-needed playmaker.
In the case of the Patriots, dipping heavily into free agency makes sense and so would trading for Moss. They might be one or two good players away from winning another Super Bowl. If they would have had one halfway decent starter at wide receiver last season, they might have won it all.
So why wouldn't those moves make sense for the Packers?
It's hard to imagine them winning the Super Bowl even if they acquired Thomas, Moss and Welker. No. 1, neither Moss nor Thomas is a superstar at this point. And, No. 2, the Packers just aren't that close, where three good to very good players would put them over the top. Plus, it takes two to sign. And players know. The guess here is that Thomas probably wouldn't have had any interest in the Packers for the reason stated above: Unlike the Patriots, they're not Super Bowl contenders and wouldn't be even if he came on board.
Denver is another team where their free agent moves -- not to mention their trade with Detroit -- make sense. If Jay Cutler pans out -- a big if admittedly, at least as far as next season goes -- the Broncos might be only a player or two away, as well.
But the rest of the teams that are spending like crazy figure to wind up in the same boat as Washington and Minnesota: Losers again next year and maybe losers with a somewhat darker future.
TUESDAY, March 6, 2007, 11:36 a.m.
Recommended reading
Here's another story worth reading on free agency by respected pro football writer Don Pierson of the Chicago Tribune.
MONDAY, March 5, 2007, 5:09 p.m.
Fretting about free agency?
Those of you suffering angst over general manager Ted Thompson sitting idle in free agency might want to read Len Pasquarelli's latest column on ESPN. Here's a quote from the story:
Said the president of one AFC franchise that still prefers to build through the draft, while surveying the cash carnage Sunday evening: "For a lot of these teams, money just burns a hole in their pockets. If they've got it, they're going to spend it, even on middle-level players. They've taken the middle class and raised it up, believe me. And a year from now, they'll be releasing half the guys they signed because they found out they were poor fits."
MONDAY, March 5, 2007, 4:57 p.m.
Martin a bigger loss?
It might be that the loss of tight end David Martin will be more difficult for the Green Bay Packers to fill than the loss of Ahman Green. Green's departure will almost force general manager Ted Thompson to select a running back early in the draft. Finding a tight end who can stretch the field in a weak tight end class might be next to impossible.
Martin was the best receiver among the Packers' tight ends. He wasn't dependable. He missed 24 games and countless practices over the past five seasons due to injuries. And for that reason, he was a risk to throw big money at. But if he stays healthy, he can be a good situational player, better than any tight end on the Packers' roster.
In Green's case, it was time for the Packers to cut bait. In Martin's case, they probably would have been damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Those are the calls that can cause a general manager to tear his hair out.
FRIDAY, March 2, 2007, 5:04 p.m.
Another fan's perspective
The following email was received by reader Rick Cina following Thursday's chat. There's certainly some logic to what he writes.
"I thought Mad Dog of East Texas' philosophy about Sherman not having it in
his "mental makeup" to win a Super Bowl because he supposedly changed
gameplans right before the '03 playoff game in Philadelphia needed some
further analysis.
"Bill Walsh wrote in his 1990 book that he would routinely add or delete
plays from the gameplan right up until game time. And he won 3 Super Bowls
doing that. And Lombardi left the play-calling to his quarterbacks, who
could switch gears and alter the game plan in mid-stream as they saw fit.
And Lombardi largely left the defensive gameplans up to Bengston to design
and implement while in Green Bay.
"And why is changing gameplans at the last moment considered to be evidence
of a coach's mental deficiency anyway? Isn't it expected that a coach be
able adjust to gametime conditions on the spot? If something isn't working,
or isn't expected to work, do you stick with the original plan or switch to
something that you think might work better? Many times the same people
who bristle about changing gameplans at the last moment also become unhinged
with vociferous contentions that there weren't enough "half-time
adjustments" to the gameplan. If gameplans are expected to be altered and
adjusted at half-time (or at any stage of the game for that matter), why
would altering or adjusting a gameplan just prior to the game be considered
flagrant?
"Finally, if Sherman (and Donatell) did adjust the defensive gameplan just
prior to the Philadelphia playoff game, whatever adjustments he made sure
did seem to work. Philadelphia had been stymied to the tune of just 14
points and a 4th and 26 deep in their own territory with about a minute to
go in the game. They were 4 of 17 on 3rd down. They were held to 4.2
yards per pass attempt for the game. McNabb was sacked 8 times. Their
running backs ran 14 times for 57 yards. The only shortcoming for the
defense was that McNabb ran for over 100 yards. Other than that, and the
assignment failures by the players on 4th and 26, the defense seemed to play
rather well. So why should Sherman have so much blame heaped upon him for
the defensive gameplan, whatever it was?
It's about time
Thirty-six year old William Henderson has said that he expects to be released by the Packers. That's a move that's two or three years overdue.
It's a different age and there are different rules with the salary cap, but general manager Ted Thompson should study the team's history during the Lombardi Era and talk to the few personnel people or coaches from that period who are still living. In fairness, it was Mike Sherman more than Thompson who probably held on to some veteran players too long. In fact, Thompson has done well when it comes to turning over the roster. Still, brushing up on the history of the Lombardi Era might be instructive.
Lombardi's philosophy was that you're better off getting rid of a player a year too early rather than a year too late.
Pat Peppler, Lombardi's former personnel director, told me that Lombardi was greatly influenced in that regard by Jack Adams, legenary hockey executive and coach. In 35 years with the Detroit Red Wings, Adams won 12 regular-season championships, seven Stanley Cups and missed the playoffs only seven times. Adams was able to sustain sucess, in part, by constantly turning over his roster and getting rid of older players while they still had value.
Lombardi did the same.
He traded Hall of Fame center Jim Ringo after a Pro Bowl season, not because Ringo hired an agent, but because he was undersized and Lombardi decided he wanted a bigger center. Lombardi traded linebacker Dan Currie when Currie was 29 years old and after he had been named first-team all-pro by one of the news services.
Lombardi traded Bill Quinlan after the 1962 season. Quinlan was 30 years old at the time and had been a starting defensive end on back-to-back NFL championship teams. Lombardi unceremoniously forced defensive tackle Dave Hanner to retire at the end of training camp in 1965 after Hanner had played 14 seasons with the team. A year later, Lombardi traded defensive captain Hank Gremminger just before the start of training camp.
Lombardi benched starting guard Fuzzy Thurston in 1965. When his revamped line didn't pan out, Lombardi inserted Thurston back into the lineup for the stretch run and the playoffs. But Lombardi benched Thurston again in 1967 and instructed him to retire when the season ended.
After the 1966 season, after the Packers had won a second straight NFL title and the first Super Bowl, Lombardi left both of his running backs go. He made 31-year old Paul Hornung available in the expansion draft and allowed 31-year old Jim Taylor to leave in free agency.
People sometimes forget that Lombardi won five NFL titles over just seven years, but changed 12 of his 22 starters.
That's why it should be interpreted as a sign of progress when the Packers dump players such as Ahman Green and William Henderson. Teams generally reach a point when they only get better when they get younger.
WEDNESDAY, March 7, 2007, 12:18 p.m.
Oops!
A reader, Scott Bitters, has taken me to task for suggesting that the loss of tight end David Martin might come back to haunt the Packers. Bitters wrote: "You're take on Ahman Green is right on, but I don't know why you would have any concern about David Martin leaving. How can you stretch the field from the bench? The sooner they get rid of the Robert Fergusons and David Martins of the world, the better."
I started to defend my stance in a reply to his email by noting that if Martin ever played 16 games, he could be a productive tight end. Then I realized I should be telling myself the same thing I tell you on our chats from time to time: "If a worm had hips. ..."
TUESDAY, March 6, 2007, 1:34 p.m.
When free agency makes sense
Blessed with one of the two best quarterbacks -- if not players -- in the game, the New England Patriots should be one of the teams to beat as long as Tom Brady stays healthy and continues to play at a high level. Even this past season when the Patriots played with one of the worst starting wide receiver combinations in the league, they came within about one minute and maybe one play of beating the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship and advancing to the Super Bowl, where they likely would have dispatched the Chicago Bears just as easily as the Colts did.
The Patriots have won three Super Bowls with Brady in the past six years and by July they might be the favorites to win again in 2007. As loaded as the San Diego Chargers look on paper, the Patriots have Brady -- who was the difference in their playoff game this past January -- and suddenly a better supporting cast, thanks to their early off-season moves.
The Patriots have signed the best available player in this year's free agent class -- 6-foot-2, 270-pound linebacker/pass rusher Adalius Thomas -- and a perfect fit for Bill Belichick's 3-4 scheme. Thomas had 11 sacks last season and has scored four defensive touchdowns in the past two seasons. He's versatile enough that he has even lined up at cornerback. The Patriots had one of the best defensive fronts in the league last year and a top-flight cornerback in Asante Samuel, but they had grown old at linebacker and had also given up on Willie McGinest the year before for the same reason. He had gotten old. The addition of Thomas, 30, should come close to completing the Patriots' defense.
Offensively, in addition to Brady, the Patriots have a solid offensive line, a promising running back in Laurence Maroney and an emerging tight end in Ben Watson, who caught 49 passes and averaged 13.1 yards per catch last season. What they desperately needed was help at wide receiver. In their playoff loss to the Colts, the Patriots started two-time reject Jabar Gaffney and Reche Caldwell, a free agent who hadn't caught more than 28 passes in four years with the wide receiver poor Chargers.
This week, the Patriots struck a deal for restricted free agent Wes Welker, an undersized, unsung receiver-returner who would make an ideal No. 3 receiver. The Patriots also reportedly have interest in Oakland's Randy Moss and free agent Donte' Stallworth. Either one would stretch the field and give the Patriots a much-needed playmaker.
In the case of the Patriots, dipping heavily into free agency makes sense and so would trading for Moss. They might be one or two good players away from winning another Super Bowl. If they would have had one halfway decent starter at wide receiver last season, they might have won it all.
So why wouldn't those moves make sense for the Packers?
It's hard to imagine them winning the Super Bowl even if they acquired Thomas, Moss and Welker. No. 1, neither Moss nor Thomas is a superstar at this point. And, No. 2, the Packers just aren't that close, where three good to very good players would put them over the top. Plus, it takes two to sign. And players know. The guess here is that Thomas probably wouldn't have had any interest in the Packers for the reason stated above: Unlike the Patriots, they're not Super Bowl contenders and wouldn't be even if he came on board.
Denver is another team where their free agent moves -- not to mention their trade with Detroit -- make sense. If Jay Cutler pans out -- a big if admittedly, at least as far as next season goes -- the Broncos might be only a player or two away, as well.
But the rest of the teams that are spending like crazy figure to wind up in the same boat as Washington and Minnesota: Losers again next year and maybe losers with a somewhat darker future.
TUESDAY, March 6, 2007, 11:36 a.m.
Recommended reading
Here's another story worth reading on free agency by respected pro football writer Don Pierson of the Chicago Tribune.
MONDAY, March 5, 2007, 5:09 p.m.
Fretting about free agency?
Those of you suffering angst over general manager Ted Thompson sitting idle in free agency might want to read Len Pasquarelli's latest column on ESPN. Here's a quote from the story:
Said the president of one AFC franchise that still prefers to build through the draft, while surveying the cash carnage Sunday evening: "For a lot of these teams, money just burns a hole in their pockets. If they've got it, they're going to spend it, even on middle-level players. They've taken the middle class and raised it up, believe me. And a year from now, they'll be releasing half the guys they signed because they found out they were poor fits."
MONDAY, March 5, 2007, 4:57 p.m.
Martin a bigger loss?
It might be that the loss of tight end David Martin will be more difficult for the Green Bay Packers to fill than the loss of Ahman Green. Green's departure will almost force general manager Ted Thompson to select a running back early in the draft. Finding a tight end who can stretch the field in a weak tight end class might be next to impossible.
Martin was the best receiver among the Packers' tight ends. He wasn't dependable. He missed 24 games and countless practices over the past five seasons due to injuries. And for that reason, he was a risk to throw big money at. But if he stays healthy, he can be a good situational player, better than any tight end on the Packers' roster.
In Green's case, it was time for the Packers to cut bait. In Martin's case, they probably would have been damned if they did and damned if they didn't. Those are the calls that can cause a general manager to tear his hair out.
FRIDAY, March 2, 2007, 5:04 p.m.
Another fan's perspective
The following email was received by reader Rick Cina following Thursday's chat. There's certainly some logic to what he writes.
"I thought Mad Dog of East Texas' philosophy about Sherman not having it in
his "mental makeup" to win a Super Bowl because he supposedly changed
gameplans right before the '03 playoff game in Philadelphia needed some
further analysis.
"Bill Walsh wrote in his 1990 book that he would routinely add or delete
plays from the gameplan right up until game time. And he won 3 Super Bowls
doing that. And Lombardi left the play-calling to his quarterbacks, who
could switch gears and alter the game plan in mid-stream as they saw fit.
And Lombardi largely left the defensive gameplans up to Bengston to design
and implement while in Green Bay.
"And why is changing gameplans at the last moment considered to be evidence
of a coach's mental deficiency anyway? Isn't it expected that a coach be
able adjust to gametime conditions on the spot? If something isn't working,
or isn't expected to work, do you stick with the original plan or switch to
something that you think might work better? Many times the same people
who bristle about changing gameplans at the last moment also become unhinged
with vociferous contentions that there weren't enough "half-time
adjustments" to the gameplan. If gameplans are expected to be altered and
adjusted at half-time (or at any stage of the game for that matter), why
would altering or adjusting a gameplan just prior to the game be considered
flagrant?
"Finally, if Sherman (and Donatell) did adjust the defensive gameplan just
prior to the Philadelphia playoff game, whatever adjustments he made sure
did seem to work. Philadelphia had been stymied to the tune of just 14
points and a 4th and 26 deep in their own territory with about a minute to
go in the game. They were 4 of 17 on 3rd down. They were held to 4.2
yards per pass attempt for the game. McNabb was sacked 8 times. Their
running backs ran 14 times for 57 yards. The only shortcoming for the
defense was that McNabb ran for over 100 yards. Other than that, and the
assignment failures by the players on 4th and 26, the defense seemed to play
rather well. So why should Sherman have so much blame heaped upon him for
the defensive gameplan, whatever it was?
Comment