Something Realistic: Grade the 2003 Packer draft

[Partial]

Didn't Sherman draft like 4 starters total in 4 years?

[Tarlam!]

It must be early. Tank didn't think to subtract losing a starter in the Walker trade, meaning, TT needs 4 from this draft to surpass the Barnett draft/Harris trade.

Boy, Tank, that is some sloppy TT-bashing right there.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Didn't Sherman draft like 4 starters total in 4 years?

Well, I really DO wish Sherman had been GM for 4 years. If so, a Polar Bear named Ted wouldn't be GM last year and Mike Wahle would still be a Packer, as well as Javon Walker and Logan Mankins would be drafted in the 1st rd and 4-12 wouldnt happen and Pack wouldve won the SB.

In 3 years of drafting, Sherman produced regular starters in Barnett, Walker, Kampman and Caroll. Davenport has also started games, as well as Wells.

Sherman's drafting was good. His free agents signings was good. Overall, Sherman was good as a GM. But compared to Thompson, Sherman is GREAT. Hence, Sherman the GREAT.

[Fritz]

He had three drafts - 02, 03, and 04 - and if you count BJ Sander, he produced five starters: Barnett, Walker, Kampman, Caroll, and the Beej. Tank would like us to count Al Harris, though technically that's a trade acquisition, and he would probably like to count Scott Wells, who is the nominal center at this point. So toss those two guys in, and it's seven starters in three drafts. Just over two starters per draft. Not so good. You can have an occasional draft where you get only a couple of guys - Wolf did, everyone did - but you can't do it three years running and expect to compete at a high level for long.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

It must be early. Tank didn't think to subtract losing a starter in the Walker trade, meaning, TT needs 4 from this draft to surpass the Barnett draft/Harris trade.

Boy, Tank, that is some sloppy TT-bashing right there.

Whose fault is it that Walker became disgruntled with the Packers? No other than Mr. Polar Bear; so cheap, refusing to extend Walker's contract; refusing to show appreciation for years of excellent works by Wahle, Rivera, and Driver.

Sherman would've extended Walker's contract.

[Tarlam!]

Actually, Walker claimed that Sherm promised to redo his deal, which TT refused when Sherm the GM was fired. I think you can slate the MM fiasco to TT, too if you try real hard. You're such a creative bunny.

[Fritz]

Tank, there's this thing called the salary cap. Teams have to stay under it. If you think Shermy - or anyone - could have kept Wahle and Rivera, and given JWalk a boatload of money, then you must be stoned at this very early hour of the day. Rivera got a nine million dollar signing bonus, remember? And Wahle probably got even more.

[Partial]

Barnett, Walker, Kampman, Caroll, BJ, Harris and Wells.

Barnett - Average starter
Walker - One productive season in 4 years
Carroll - Adequate Nickelback
BJ - Worst punter in the league. Soon to be out of the league.
Harris - Traded for a solid starting corner
Wells - adequate back-up center

Thats 3 starters, a punter, and two backups. He traded for one of the starters, so really 2 starters, a punter and two backups.

In 4 years, he produced 2 starters, a punter soon to be out of the league, and two backups.

Spin it how you wish Tank, you're wrong.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Tank, there's this thing called the salary cap. Teams have to stay under it. If you think Shermy - or anyone - could have kept Wahle and Rivera, and given JWalk a boatload of money, then you must be stoned at this very early hour of the day. Rivera got a nine million dollar signing bonus, remember? And Wahle probably got even more.

There's also a thing called "cap friendly contract," where you sign players to...well, cap friendly contracts. (ive argued this before, so im not going to argue it again here; read my archieves for more)

I'm not saying we shouldve keep both Wahle and Rivera; I'm saying we shouldve resigned one of them, preferable Wahle. Logan Mankins couldve easily replaced Rivera.

When Bubba Franks signed his new contract, Pack actually saved money in 05. A similar deal couldve been done to Walker (again ive repeatedly argued this before so im not going to do so gain)

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Actually, Walker claimed that Sherm promised to redo his deal, which TT refused when Sherm the GM was fired. I think you can slate the MM fiasco to TT, too if you try real hard. You're such a creative bunny.

Fine. Lets blame Bob Harlan then. Harlan was the one who fired Sherman the great and hired Thompspon the terrible.

[Partial]

Tank address my last post.

[Partial]

So what happens when you sign a slew of guys to cap friendly back-loaded contracts and it comes time to pay them off? cap hell.

[Scott Campbell]

There's also a thing called "cap friendly contract," where you sign players to...well, cap friendly contracts.

You remind me of Wimpy from the old Popeye cartoons with your talk of cap friendly contracts. "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today".

[Anti-Polar Bear]

So what happens when you sign a slew of guys to cap friendly back-loaded contracts and it comes time to pay them off? cap hell.

No, you restructure more contracts. Put it another way, you pay off debts by creating more debts. Now, in a typical corporation, say 3M, doing such would likely hurt the company in the long run. But the NFL isn't your typical corporation. As long as gross revenues continue to prosper like it is now, there will always be money for signing bonuses; and since signing bonuses are prorated, you are in good hand. For example, if a player got injured and is forced to retire with $5.6 M pro-rated signing bonus still unaccounted for, his team would instantly be hit with the 5.6 M. But that team can offset the hit by restructuring other players’ contracts through the use of additional signing bonuses. You can do that for an infinitely of time in a billion dollar industry that is the NFL.

[MJZiggy]

So what happens when you sign a slew of guys to cap friendly back-loaded contracts and it comes time to pay them off? cap hell.

No, you restructure more contracts. Put it another way, you pay off debts by creating more debts. Now, in a typical corporation, say 3M, doing such would likely hurt the company in the long run. But the NFL isn't your typical corporation. As long as gross revenues continue to prosper like it is now, there will always be money for signing bonuses; and since signing bonuses are prorated, you are in good hand. For example, if a player got injured and is forced to retire with $5.6 M pro-rated signing bonus still unaccounted for, his team would instantly be hit with the 5.6 M. But that team can offset the hit by restructuring other players’ contracts through the use of additional signing bonuses. You can do that for an infinitely of time in a billion dollar industry that is the NFL.

You forgot a little detail. It's only possible to restructure a players contract if he is willing to have it restructured. Not many are willing to do that.