Favre, Thompson, Rogers. The End.

[PackerBlues]

Heh heh, not sure what the population is now offhand, but it is still a very small town. All along the main street, there are quite a few empty buildings for rent, and the town mainly consists of 3 gas stations, 3 bars, 1 parts store, 1 hardware store, the grocery store, the police/fire station and the post office. I go to RC for pretty much everything I do, or to Madison for anything I cant do in RC. After living in Muscoda for nearly a year now, I was suprised to find out last week, that they actually have a swimming pool in town here, lol.

[hoosier]

[What do you propose the Packers should have done to find the money to sign Rivera and Wahle?

IMO arguing over whether Thompson could or couldn't have found the money to resign Wahle is missing the point. Let's assume he could have found a way, even though it might have involved creating more cap problems for himself down the road. Then the real question is, what would have been the medium-term cost? Would there be money two years later, money he used to sign Woodson, resign Kampmann, extend Driver and Barnett? Would you rather keep an established star on a team in decline or have the freedom to sign an emerging star when the team is rebuilding?

I think Thompson decided that the O-line Wolf built was all ready to fall apart (at least the Rivera and Flanagan two-fifths of it) and that, given that the wheels were starting to fall off, overpaying Wahle, while it may have been possible, wasn't worth it. So it's not could we or couldn't we, it's should we or shouldn't we.

[Spaulding]

Good point hoosier.

Whether TT has a done a good job as a GM is up for debate. In my eyes he's made mistakes but has also done a good job learning from them (importance of guard play and thus the picks in 2006 to address, the Walker contract fiasco and thus the extensions for Driver, Harris, etc.) and I strongly believe the overall depth of the team is far better this year than in 2005. He problems lie in his conservatism in FA (sometimes this is a good thing - i.e. no Joe Johnson, no LaVar Arrington, etc. and sometimes obviously a bad thing in that our TE slot is a mess and likely our lack of experience at RB could come back to bite us) which my gut tells me will change in the 2007/2008 off season if we're close to being a contender.

The question I have is how does TT stack up against the other GM's in the league? Some teams are perennial losers (Lions, Cards, etc.) and some teams just seem to find a way to consistently win since 2000 (Pats, Seahawks, Eagles, Broncos, Colts, etc.). How much credit goes to the GM and how much goes to the coach for each teams success? It seems to me that looking at these teams it's really the coaches that mostly receive credit and rightly so. Any roster can look substantially better with solid coaching and team chemistry and somewhat hide mediocre draft choices or average FA signings. What it can't handle is lots of dead money and thankfully we don't have much of that.

So far from what I've seen I like McCarthy and the no nonsense approach he has and they way he's even keeled and is task oriented.

[SkinBasket]

IMO arguing over whether Thompson could or couldn't have found the money to resign Wahle is missing the point.

I agree to the extent that I don't believe there even is an argument. We didn't have the money, and everyone who has ever claimed otherwise has been at a loss to explain where that money would have, could have, or should have, come from. This thread is no different. Of course, most of the time, as is evidenced here, the reply is usually along the lines of "Well we could have done it and Ted is a big fat idiot for not doing it." Of course no one ever has an answer as to what "it" was, outside of spending money they didn't have.

Oh well. A lot of people like to argue from the perspective that they are incontrovertibly right and then try to find evidence after the fact instead of looking at the evidence to formulate an opinion that might be right and go from there. This forum wouldn't be half as fun if there wasn't so much dimwittedness.

[SkinBasket]

Oh, and by "some people," I meant PackerBlues.

[Rastak]

IMO arguing over whether Thompson could or couldn't have found the money to resign Wahle is missing the point.

I agree to the extent that I don't believe there even is an argument. We didn't have the money, and everyone who has ever claimed otherwise has been at a loss to explain where that money would have, could have, or should have, come from.

To be honest, there are ways of getting money....you start cutting people. Now maybe that ends up worse than losing the original guy....but there are ways to do it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Wahle was due a ridiculous bonus though. Wasn't it like $8-$10M? They would have had to cut several players. A lot of times cutting a player doesn't help either. That's why a few years ago, it would have cost cap room to cut Brett Favre. (Not that they would have done it.) Now, he's played long enough on his current contract that they would actually gain cap room. Cutting a guy like KGB at that time wouldn't have gained them cap room. Remember, at the time, the Packers had zero available money. In fact, they had to clear cap room just to have enough money to sign their draft picks that year. That's why Sharper and Rivera had to go along with Wahle.

[Partial]

Why are we still debating Wahle? It's been two years now. He's no spring chicken anymore anyway.

[PackerBlues]

Brandt works to make cap fit Packers; Wahle, Rivera, Franks are top
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, Feb 3, 2005 by ROB REISCHEL


Andrew Brandt has been asked repeatedly if he's anticipating his most challenging off-season to date.

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. But when he loses faith for even the slightest second, all he has to do is think back to 2001.

That year, the Packers were roughly $20 million over the salary cap. Safety Darren Sharper and Ryan Longwell were coming off big seasons and set to become unrestricted free agents. A new deal was being worked out for quarterback Brett Favre. And players such as Dorsey Levens, Antonio Freeman, Earl Dotson, Santana Dotson and LeRoy Butler were all being asked to restructure their contracts. Somehow, Brandt made it all work.

"It's hard to classify one (off-season) as the toughest or a toughest," Brandt said earlier this week. "It's always a challenge for one reason or another. But (2001) was a tough one."

The class of 2005 probably won't be as tricky. But it certainly has its substantial share of potential potholes.

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.

"We're going through our internal decision making priorities with (new general manager) Ted Thompson, with coach (Mike) Sherman, the personnel staff," Brandt said. "And we're presenting a lot of different scenarios. And as we always say, it's all for the greater good of the Packers. No one individual negotiation will detract from the greater good."

Brandt and the Packers took care of one potential restricted free agent near the end of the 2004 season, when they signed running back Tony Fisher to a one-year, $660,000 extension. Fisher, whose contract would have expired in March, received a $200,000 signing bonus and a $460,000 base salary in 2005.

The contract, signed in late December, allowed the Packers to pro- rate $100,000 of the signing bonus onto their 2004 cap and count the other half in 2005.

"It was an idea to store a little bit of that money away in 2004 when we had some cap room and saving a little bit in '05," Brandt said. "And also giving him cash to let him know how we feel about him and taking him off the restricted free agent market."

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."

Rivera, who turns 33 in April, has been named to three consecutive Pro Bowls and is a favorite of Sherman. Rivera also switched agents recently from Ralph Cindrich to Jimmy Sexton.

Sexton has a long history of getting deals done with Green Bay, including those of left tackle Chad Clifton and defensive tackle Cletidus Hunt on the eve of free agency the past two years. But Brandt said such a move doesn't necessarily increase the chances of Green Bay and Rivera getting a deal done.

"Our offensive line are all special guys," Brandt said. "And what I'll say about that group is we're fortunate we've had them together for as many years as we have and we'll do our best to answer that challenge again."

Franks provides an interesting challenge as well. While he doesn't rank among the game's elite at the position, he's certainly in the top third. And Green Bay has no one ready to replace him. Whether the Packers allow Franks to test his value on the open market or lock him up before that will be intriguing.

Brandt will have a better idea of his budget when the salary cap is set in mid-February. Brandt is anticipating a jump to the $85 million range, up from this year's $80.49 mark.

"It's a double-edged sword if it comes in higher," Brandt said. "It allows us more room, but it also created a spending frenzy last year because teams felt that they almost got free money. So it's hard to say if you're rooting for more cap room or not, just depending on where it goes."

Until then, Brandt and the Packers' brass are outlining several possible scenarios -- often times drawing them out on a grease board. Whether things break how they hope will be determined in the next month.

"It's a lot of planning, it's a lot of scenarios," Brandt said. "It's trying to be best prepared for our common goal, which is to have the team we want and stay viable under the cap. Because again, you're always trying to do what's best short term and long term and sometimes those are competing interests. That's the challenge."

FREE AGENTS

UNRESTRICTED

1. Mike Wahle LG

2. Marco Rivera RG

3. Bubba Franks TE

4. Hannibal Navies LB

5. Bhawoh Jue S

6. David Martin TE

7. Brad Bedell OL

8. Doug Pederson QB

9. Torrance Marshall LB

10. Bryan Barker P

RESTRICTED

1. Aaron Kampman DE

2. Najeh Davenport RB

3. Kevin Barry OT

4. Craig Nall QB

5. J.T. OSullivan QB

6. R-Kal Truluck DE

7. Paris Lenon LB

Source:ASSOCIATED PRESS

Andrew Brandt has plenty to do as he works to re-sign key players for the Packers.

[PackerBlues]

My argument all along has been that the way Ted handled things in 2005 simply was not the only way that it could have been handled. Some people refuse to accept that, and would rather just bash my opinion and name call. By some people I mean SkinFlute.

I never once suggested that we could or should have kept both Wahle and Rivera. I have simply suggested that perhaps, contracts could have been restructured, and a contract for Wahle could have been back-loaded, knowing that the salary cap was going to go up in the following year. Saying that Whale is no spring chicken now is a moot point. He was just turning 28 two years ago, Rivera was going on 33, and still had a pro-bowl in him after leaving GB. If we had been able to keep Wahle, its my opinion, that our O-line would not have suffered as great of a loss, and a young guy could have been brought up slowly to replace him by now, or by whatever time Wahle proves to be unable to perform. I have stated this same argument as clearly as I could, while some people (SkinFlute) continue to bash me for it all the while not once telling me why it could not have been done this way.

I have simply been trying to point out that there is always more than one way to skin a cat, and Teds way is not the only way.

[RashanGary]

I agree PB. He made a mistake. Hindsight says he should have signed Wahle and let Bubba go.

Done is done though, we have two good guards now so the mistake only really hurt for a year. We ended up with Hawk becuase of it too so sometimes a step back helps you take a step forward if you take advantage of everything that comes your way.

I'll be the first to agree that Thompson makes mistakes. Wahle was probalby the biggest.

[SkinBasket]

I never once suggested that we could or should have kept both Wahle and Rivera.

I believe he even stated that he would probably be able to keep Darren Sharper, and either Wahle or Rivera

What I myself find upsetting, is that we obviously could have kept either Wahle or Rivera for another couple of years

Okay. Let me rephrase. What do you propose the Packers should have done to find the money to keep Sharper and resign Rivera or Wahle? Hell, even suggest what we could have done to keep just one of the linemen. It would be a start.

I have simply suggested that perhaps, contracts could have been restructured, and a contract for Wahle could have been back-loaded, knowing that the salary cap was going to go up in the following year.... I have stated this same argument as clearly as I could, while some people (SkinFlute) continue to bash me for it all the while not once telling me why it could not have been done this way.

Actually you've suggested nothing of the sort. You suggested that based upon what you thought you remembered Sherman saying at some interminable time in the past, you thought that obviously we could have both kept Sharper and one of the two linemen. That was it. Nothing about restructuring. Nothing about contracts. Nothing but, "Sherman said we could do it." And now you finally offer up such wisdom as "we could have restructured contracts and backloaded a deal for Wahle." Well that's about as likely to have happened as Ted shanking a leprechaun and using his gold to restructure every deal on the team with maximum signing bonuses to clear cap room. Why would Wahle take a backloaded contract? Who would have restructure enough to clear that kind of cap room? Do you also propose we should not have signed any of our rookies that year?

I have simply been trying to point out that there is always more than one way to skin a cat, and Teds way is not the only way.

You've been trying to point out that there's more than one way to skin a cat, only problem is you won't say what that is. Don't forget, you're the one "trying" to make the point, not me.

[PackerBlues]

Actually you've suggested nothing of the sort. You suggested that based upon what you thought you remembered Sherman saying at some interminable time in the past, you thought that obviously we could have both kept Sharper and one of the two linemen. That was it. Nothing about restructuring. Nothing about contracts. Nothing but, "Sherman said we could do it." And now you finally offer up such wisdom as "we could have restructured contracts and backloaded a deal for Wahle."

Well SkinFlute, I guess this proves my point. That you read what you want to read, and retain what you want to retain. On the very first page of this thread, I said:

When Thompson dismantled the O-line in 2005, the Thompson supporters claimed that it had to be done. It was the only way. It was not Ted's fault that he had to do it that way, it was what he inherited. I myself, and many others thought that all of that was BS. There are always other options. In this case, some contracts could have been restructured while back-loading others.

Try reading an entire post for once SkinFlute, rather than just bashing the parts that you dont agree with.

[SkinBasket]

You are completely hopeless.

[SkinBasket]

And put some pants on that avatar you pervert.