Packers PASS on Free Agency--JS

[Spaulding]

The analogy I take is free agency is kinda like shopping for a new vehicle. The excitement of getting it is what drives our offseason excitement. To shop and shop and yet not get a new one drives some of insane. The other half that back the TT philosophy are thinking, will this new vehicle really do anything my current vehicle doesn't already? Sure it looks nice but it will likely get the same MPG, go 0-60 in the same amount of time and the payments that will be required. Will next year's models be better?

I agree it's frustrating because it's boring but it does make sense to me. Then again I've had my used suv for 8 years and can't get approval from the boss to buy a new one so it's moot for me anyways

[wist43]

The only guy I'll be critical of them not signing is Green... his loss leaves a huge hole on offense.

Add to that their shortcomings on the OL, their weakness at TE, and their shaky situation at WR, and you have an offense that is definitely in trouble...

Granted, it's early, and a smattering of players are sure to come free in another wave of cuts later in the year; but, given that TT "kinda likes the guys" he has - I'm not sure that he'll be very gung-ho in going after anyone.

Griffith for an average of $1.27 mil/yr is too steep??? Griffith would have been a big upgrade over Miree.

It's one thing to be smart, and to manage the cap responsibly - it's quite another to be cheap. Being cheap is a Wisconsin trait though, so I guess TT fits in pretty well around here.

[]{ilr]3]

I wanted Green too, but not for what the Texans paid for him! The bad part is, is that the packers probably could have gotten him alot cheaper if they would have gotten a deal done with him before FA started.

[Brohm]

I think everything will turn out alright once all is said and done.

I think TT will:

Extend Nick Barnett and Williams
Eventually make the trade for Moss
Make a couple more trades to pick up some late round picks for some players that don't quite fit the scheme or have underperfomed (Barry)
Sign a Safety to compete with Manual
Pick up a couple low-ball FAs with upside to compete in camp

That being said, I think TT should have gotten the Griffith deal done as well as that D-lineman. I think he was a bit too cheap there. However, it was a fullback and back-up end/tackle, so it's not a bust.

Ahman getting done PRIOR to the offseason could have avoided that whole situation.

*If* this all pans out and TT has a good draft, we'll be alright next year...thinking 9-7 with growth from within and busting out in 2008.

But hey, it's all speculation :P

[swede]

A quote from the article:

"There's no question that Green Bay wanted Griffith, but only at its price. When Oakland offered $3.8M over three years, considerably more than what the Packers want to pay him, Griffith took it."



How would a writer be privy to that information?

Honestly, I don't know where some of the statements come from that are speculations dressed up as fact.

[MJZiggy]

I was wondering that myself. I wonder who his source is that's willing to hand out that kind of information to the media...

Also, I wasn't aware that free agency had ended?

[red]

{ilr]3]I wanted Green too, but not for what the Texans paid for him! The bad part is, is that the packers probably could have gotten him alot cheaper if they would have gotten a deal done with him before FA started.

according to the article we offered him almost the same money

so TT didn't feel like it was overpaying for green. TT put out his number which was just under what the texans paid and was too bullheaded or full of himself to raise it just a tab more

raising the number just a tab more would have had almost no effect on our cap

it sounds to me from that article that TT thows his number out there and says, thats it, take it or leave it. you want to be a packer, you pay for that price. we're not anywhere near a good enough team to be able to pull that off

and how is 3.8 million over 3 years too much to pay? thats just TT sticking to his guns and being stupid about it. if we would have offered 4 million over 3 years that would have done next to nothing against our cap over 3.7 or 3.8 million. thats an extra 100,000 a year against our cap. how is that a huge deal for a good FB? now we have shit, and theres no promises that we'll be able to find anything better then we have, for cheaper then what we could have had him for

[Packnut]

FA

There are 2 problems with the "this is the right way to go" fans. First off, this is the new NFL. Stop using terms like over-paying. What you consider over-paying now, will seem reasonable 2 years from now. There is a reason so many teams are spending so much cash- and that reason is the cap will escalate and there will always be money to spend. Either you adapt and change with the market or you get run over. It's that simple.

Second, and this is my biggest dis-agreement with those of you who advocate doing nothing in free agency. History tells us that when a franchise loses it's star marquee QB, they spiral into a down-trend for several years. It's the "hang-over" effect. There are just to many examples to list them all, but the point is it's not opinion or may-be, it's a fact that logical reasonable people can't deny.

Therefore, can any of you explain to me why that will not happen once #4 is gone? What makes "us" so special, that we will be the exception to the rule? What is so different in Green Bay from say Dallas or San Fran or Denver? Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.

So from a logical reasonable point of view, should'nt there have been more of an effort to maximize Favre's final years? Those of you who bless Thompson's in-activity in effect are saying the hell with Favre. Teddy's approach will not yeild any fruit for at least 2 or 3 more years and that's assuming he hits on most of his draft choices which is an assumption that some of you make seem like it's written in stone. Do you guys really believe it's so easy to replace a Brett Favre?

Here is the problem with your line of thinking using the draft as the sole way to improve. We have holes at TE, saftey, WR, LB (it can be argued that Poppinga is not the answer), and most of all RB. Let's say with Teddy's approach, he uses the next 2 years repairing these holes through the draft. Well, I got some bad news for ya. By that time, Woodson, Harris and even Driver will not be as effective as they are now. That means you have 3 more holes to fill, and that's not taking into effect the injury factor.

In today's NFL, you must use all available routes to improve your team. Free agency is a tool. Several of the same people saying that Thompson is doing the right thing by not "over-paying" also claimed last season, that Woodson was over-paid. Well how'd that work out? Now I'm not advocating signing un-proven players. I'm saying that some players have a proven track record of their worth. Grant, Hamlin and Griffith are just a few. Certainly the deal the Saints gave to Eric Johnson seem's reasonable with no long term risk to the team. How much better would we all feel going into this season had Thompson signed Hamlin or Grant along with Johnson and Griffith? I'd bet anyone, that we'd all be talking about the chances of an NFC championship instead of the million Randy Moss and Ted Thompson threads.

There is not one solid logical reason ANYONE can give in defending Thompson's in-activity. The evidence points to a general manager who was not prepared for the feeding frenzy that developed. He under-estimated market demand. Several GM's have improved their teams through free agency this season. I think almost everyone would agree to that fact. Ted Thompson has not improved the Green Bay Packers. In fact with the loss of Green, you could say we've taken a step back. How anyone applaud's and defends this scenario is just beyond me.........

[wist43]

With Green the issue - GB vs HOU - was length of contract... TT apparently didn't want to go out 3 or 4 years.

To me, what does 3 or 4 years matter, as opposed to 2??? After Favre leaves they're toast anyway...

For me, everything revolves around Favre... with Favre they have a chance to be competitive; w/o Favre, they take a huge step backward, and we're looking at X number of years b/4 they even have a chance to be competitive again.

So why not take a swing or two??? Or at least make sure to keep a vital cog of the offense...

I've said this b/4, that TT's approach to the RB situation is looking eerily similar to the approach he took with the OL a couple of years ago... and we all know how that turned out!!!

[Packnut]

TT

With Green the issue - GB vs HOU - was length of contract... TT apparently didn't want to go out 3 or 4 years.

To me, what does 3 or 4 years matter, as opposed to 2??? After Favre leaves they're toast anyway...

For me, everything revolves around Favre... with Favre they have a chance to be competitive; w/o Favre, they take a huge step backward, and we're looking at X number of years b/4 they even have a chance to be competitive again.

So why not take a swing or two??? Or at least make sure to keep a vital cog of the offense...

I've said this b/4, that TT's approach to the RB situation is looking eerily similar to the approach he took with the OL a couple of years ago... and we all know how that turned out!!!

Remember TT's famous words about the value of offensive linemen? The problem is Teddy has a fixed view-point of what each position is worth. The problem comes in that 99% of the GM's in the NFL have a much higher value...........

[Patler]

according to the article we offered him almost the same money

so TT didn't feel like it was overpaying for green. TT put out his number which was just under what the texans paid and was too bullheaded or full of himself to raise it just a tab more

raising the number just a tab more would have had almost no effect on our cap

it sounds to me from that article that TT thows his number out there and says, thats it, take it or leave it. you want to be a packer, you pay for that price. we're not anywhere near a good enough team to be able to pull that off

and how is 3.8 million over 3 years too much to pay? thats just TT sticking to his guns and being stupid about it. if we would have offered 4 million over 3 years that would have done next to nothing against our cap over 3.7 or 3.8 million. thats an extra 100,000 a year against our cap. how is that a huge deal for a good FB? now we have shit, and theres no promises that we'll be able to find anything better then we have, for cheaper then what we could have had him for

I think the article is a bit misleading about Green. From the reported numbers, as I rcall, the difference between what he got and what GB offered for the first two years of the contract was something like $3 million. GB looked at Green as having two years left, so the two year cost is what they were concerned with.

As for Griffith, why would TT offer 4 million over 3 years when 3.8 was said to be considerably more than TT wanted to pay?

[Patler]

Re: FA

There are 2 problems with the "this is the right way to go" fans. First off, this is the new NFL. Stop using terms like over-paying. What you consider over-paying now, will seem reasonable 2 years from now. There is a reason so many teams are spending so much cash- and that reason is the cap will escalate and there will always be money to spend. Either you adapt and change with the market or you get run over. It's that simple.

Second, and this is my biggest dis-agreement with those of you who advocate doing nothing in free agency. History tells us that when a franchise loses it's star marquee QB, they spiral into a down-trend for several years. It's the "hang-over" effect. There are just to many examples to list them all, but the point is it's not opinion or may-be, it's a fact that logical reasonable people can't deny.

Therefore, can any of you explain to me why that will not happen once #4 is gone? What makes "us" so special, that we will be the exception to the rule? What is so different in Green Bay from say Dallas or San Fran or Denver? Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.

So from a logical reasonable point of view, should'nt there have been more of an effort to maximize Favre's final years? Those of you who bless Thompson's in-activity in effect are saying the hell with Favre. Teddy's approach will not yeild any fruit for at least 2 or 3 more years and that's assuming he hits on most of his draft choices which is an assumption that some of you make seem like it's written in stone. Do you guys really believe it's so easy to replace a Brett Favre?

Here is the problem with your line of thinking using the draft as the sole way to improve. We have holes at TE, saftey, WR, LB (it can be argued that Poppinga is not the answer), and most of all RB. Let's say with Teddy's approach, he uses the next 2 years repairing these holes through the draft. Well, I got some bad news for ya. By that time, Woodson, Harris and even Driver will not be as effective as they are now. That means you have 3 more holes to fill, and that's not taking into effect the injury factor.

In today's NFL, you must use all available routes to improve your team. Free agency is a tool. Several of the same people saying that Thompson is doing the right thing by not "over-paying" also claimed last season, that Woodson was over-paid. Well how'd that work out? Now I'm not advocating signing un-proven players. I'm saying that some players have a proven track record of their worth. Grant, Hamlin and Griffith are just a few. Certainly the deal the Saints gave to Eric Johnson seem's reasonable with no long term risk to the team. How much better would we all feel going into this season had Thompson signed Hamlin or Grant along with Johnson and Griffith? I'd bet anyone, that we'd all be talking about the chances of an NFC championship instead of the million Randy Moss and Ted Thompson threads.

There is not one solid logical reason ANYONE can give in defending Thompson's in-activity. The evidence points to a general manager who was not prepared for the feeding frenzy that developed. He under-estimated market demand. Several GM's have improved their teams through free agency this season. I think almost everyone would agree to that fact. Ted Thompson has not improved the Green Bay Packers. In fact with the loss of Green, you could say we've taken a step back. How anyone applaud's and defends this scenario is just beyond me.........

The cap has always escalated, and percentage wise it had an increase as large as the 2006 increase about 5 or 6 seasons ago. That doesn't mean you can't overpay for players. You can.

You don't pay a player today based on what he might be worth 3 years from now. The reallity is that younger players will always make more than the older players. Salaries increase. You pay what they are worth today, because next year, the year after and every year thereafter you will have other players to sign or re-sign. TT is attempting to operate, at least for now, on more of a cash basis, with less debt carrying into the future. Its a good plan when you are remaking the roster.

[Packnut]

Re: FA

There are 2 problems with the "this is the right way to go" fans. First off, this is the new NFL. Stop using terms like over-paying. What you consider over-paying now, will seem reasonable 2 years from now. There is a reason so many teams are spending so much cash- and that reason is the cap will escalate and there will always be money to spend. Either you adapt and change with the market or you get run over. It's that simple.

Second, and this is my biggest dis-agreement with those of you who advocate doing nothing in free agency. History tells us that when a franchise loses it's star marquee QB, they spiral into a down-trend for several years. It's the "hang-over" effect. There are just to many examples to list them all, but the point is it's not opinion or may-be, it's a fact that logical reasonable people can't deny.

Therefore, can any of you explain to me why that will not happen once #4 is gone? What makes "us" so special, that we will be the exception to the rule? What is so different in Green Bay from say Dallas or San Fran or Denver? Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat it.

So from a logical reasonable point of view, should'nt there have been more of an effort to maximize Favre's final years? Those of you who bless Thompson's in-activity in effect are saying the hell with Favre. Teddy's approach will not yeild any fruit for at least 2 or 3 more years and that's assuming he hits on most of his draft choices which is an assumption that some of you make seem like it's written in stone. Do you guys really believe it's so easy to replace a Brett Favre?

Here is the problem with your line of thinking using the draft as the sole way to improve. We have holes at TE, saftey, WR, LB (it can be argued that Poppinga is not the answer), and most of all RB. Let's say with Teddy's approach, he uses the next 2 years repairing these holes through the draft. Well, I got some bad news for ya. By that time, Woodson, Harris and even Driver will not be as effective as they are now. That means you have 3 more holes to fill, and that's not taking into effect the injury factor.

In today's NFL, you must use all available routes to improve your team. Free agency is a tool. Several of the same people saying that Thompson is doing the right thing by not "over-paying" also claimed last season, that Woodson was over-paid. Well how'd that work out? Now I'm not advocating signing un-proven players. I'm saying that some players have a proven track record of their worth. Grant, Hamlin and Griffith are just a few. Certainly the deal the Saints gave to Eric Johnson seem's reasonable with no long term risk to the team. How much better would we all feel going into this season had Thompson signed Hamlin or Grant along with Johnson and Griffith? I'd bet anyone, that we'd all be talking about the chances of an NFC championship instead of the million Randy Moss and Ted Thompson threads.

There is not one solid logical reason ANYONE can give in defending Thompson's in-activity. The evidence points to a general manager who was not prepared for the feeding frenzy that developed. He under-estimated market demand. Several GM's have improved their teams through free agency this season. I think almost everyone would agree to that fact. Ted Thompson has not improved the Green Bay Packers. In fact with the loss of Green, you could say we've taken a step back. How anyone applaud's and defends this scenario is just beyond me.........

The cap has always escalated, and percentage wise it had an increase as large as the 2006 increase about 5 or 6 seasons ago. That doesn't mean you can't overpay for players. You can.

You don't pay a player today based on what he might be worth 3 years from now. The reallity is that younger players will always make more than the older players. Salaries increase. You pay what they are worth today, because next year, the year after and every year thereafter you will have other players to sign or re-sign. TT is attempting to operate, at least for now, on more of a cash basis, with less debt carrying into the future. Its a good plan when you are remaking the roster.

How is it a good plan when you take into effect the "franchise QB syndrome". As far as less debt in the future, debt is the American way and the NFL is no different than real life! :P

[Patler]

The NFL is no different structurally and financially today than it has been ever since a hard salary cap and free agency in its present form were started. All that changes is the "number". Sometime it goes up a lot, sometimes less.

However, there is one big factor you have ignored. Teams have gotten much better at managing the cap and keeping their best players. The quality of the available FAs has decreased steadily for years. It is important not to overpay the riff-raff, or you will lose your better players when their contracts are due because you won't have available space to pay them. That is how you manage the cap, by assessing the value of a player to YOUR team, and paying no more than that for him. The value of a player to one team is not the same and may be much different than his value to another team.

[Packnut]

FA

The NFL is no different structurally and financially today than it has been ever since a hard salary cap and free agency in its present form were started. All that changes is the "number". Sometime it goes up a lot, sometimes less.

However, there is one big factor you have ignored. Teams have gotten much better at managing the cap and keeping their best players. The quality of the available FAs has decreased steadily for years. It is important not to overpay the riff-raff, or you will lose your better players when their contracts are due because you won't have available space to pay them. That is how you manage the cap, by assessing the value of a player to YOUR team, and paying no more than that for him. The value of a player to one team is not the same and may be much different than his value to another team.

Yes, but the problem with your way is who's to say what is over-paying? Woodson was over-paid based on his injury history and age was'nt he? According to your point of view, he should not have been signed. Yet, he proved to be a valuable player last season.

What I'm saying is that the NFL is changing when it comes to what monetary value players have. What you claim to be "over-paying" now will seem less in 2 years or may-be even next year.

Managing the salary cap in the NFL is an art. There has to be balance. You claim that I've ignored this fact. Let me say this again- I'm not advocating signing high priced players with no proven track record. I believe that guys like Hamlin, Grant , Griffith and a healthy Johnson have a proven record of producing. Here, let's settle it this way. If you take into account the salaries that Grant, Griffith and Johnson signed for and add them to the present Packer salary cap, show me what "future damage" that would be done?

Even factor in a reasonable Barnett contract and it still improves this team without risking the future. You have to factor in 2 VERY important facts which make your view-point un-realistic. First off the salary cap will continue to escalate. 2nd, The Packers can afford to spend a little more now because they gain a helluva lotta cash when Favre retires. Surely Rodgers will not get $11 mill a year?