Greg Jennings Fan Club

[Partial]

Javon is only making 2 mil this year. It's one a one year deal with club options

[motife]

Greg Jennings

[Bretsky]

I added it on anohter thread but had GB given in to Walker and paid him up front, they would have had less money for FA's. In that case GB woudln't have been able to afford Woodson.

You could probably add Woodson to the list of Players GB got in return for playing hardball with Javon.

That's some very bias logic; TT could easily have signed Walker and made that Woodson money into a bonus rather than a front loaded big deal.

[chain_gang]

I added it on anohter thread but had GB given in to Walker and paid him up front, they would have had less money for FA's. In that case GB woudln't have been able to afford Woodson.

You could probably add Woodson to the list of Players GB got in return for playing hardball with Javon.

That's some very bias logic; TT could easily have signed Walker and made that Woodson money into a bonus rather than a front loaded big deal.

Now I wouldn't say they wouldn't have been able to afford Woodson if they signed Walker, but the odds of TT going after someone that high priced in FA is probably very slim. Honestly, I love watching offenses score some points, but a just loaded offense will never be enough to win a super bowl, whereas a loaded D can be.

[RashanGary]

No matter how you cut it, Walker wanted at least 7 mil average over his big deal. 7 x 5 = 35 million.

Losing Walker not only gained the picks but it gained 35 million dollars over 5 years. Maybe it wouldn't have hit right this minute, I think he wanted GB to pay it right away though.

No matter how you cut it, GB has a lot more $$ to spend on other players because Javon was going to want top 5 money. You can put Woodson to the list. You can put someone in the future to the list but no matter how you cut it, we would have eventually had ot pay Javon top dollar and now we can buy a different star player instead.

It is a fact unless you think Javon was going to stay in GB for a couple mil per year. So fro the sake of arguement, I throw Wooson on that list becuase he is making about what Javon wants. Woodson is making a little less so we should probably say Woodson and Pickett instead of Javon.

[RashanGary]

The more I think about it, I wasn't really being fair. You have to subtract what the rookies who took Javons place are going to make. When you do that, it's not 35 - 40 mil over 5 years. It's more like 15 over 5 years. So you could say we got 5 picks for 2 players and 15 mil. To put the 15 mil in perspective, it was like getting Pickett on top of the picks even though it probably won't be Pickett but someone similar over the next couple years.

[MadtownPacker]

I dont care how much money was saved.

It doesnt matter if you think walker/traitor is going to be as good as in 2004. No one can deny he had become a cancer.

TT did what he had to do and regardless of what that clown walker does in a donkey suit the Packers got something out of it.

Of course I want to see him fail.

[RashanGary]

I think it matters Mad...When you break down what the Packers got for Walker you have to include what the saved in cap space.

[MadtownPacker]

I think it matters Mad...When you break down what the Packers got for Walker you have to include what the saved in cap space.

Yes, of course the moneys matters. What I meant is that walker had to go. Burned bridges are hard to cross. Just nice that the team didnt take it in the keister.

[Chubbyhubby]

I think it matters Mad...When you break down what the Packers got for Walker you have to include what the saved in cap space.

Yes, of course the moneys matters. What I meant is that walker had to go. Burned bridges are hard to cross. Just nice that the team didnt take it in the keister.

I agree, Walker was a Cancer and was not welcome anymore. MM stressed "Packer People" several times and the FA's and rookies show that. How I look at if Walker stayed he would have been our version of the TO fiasco. He even had the same agent as TO. We are a rebuilding and we needed to go forward.

[Bretsky]

The more I think about it, I wasn't really being fair. You have to subtract what the rookies who took Javons place are going to make. When you do that, it's not 35 - 40 mil over 5 years. It's more like 15 over 5 years. So you could say we got 5 picks for 2 players and 15 mil. To put the 15 mil in perspective, it was like getting Pickett on top of the picks even though it probably won't be Pickett but someone similar over the next couple years.

If we throw our Packer bias out the window, we'd all agree that you need to find a way to keep your own stars if possible because they are few are far between.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Javon Walker Story is still being written. I don't expect much from him next fall, but then he'll have about 3 prime years left. If he returns to his 2004 form, he'll collect the big pay checks and be remembered as a special NFL player. Or not.

[Partial]

It'll be interesting to see if they keep him next year if he doesn't have a big year. He's got some huge bonuses coming. Wouldn't it be something if somehow he ends up back in green bay giving denver the big triple H suck it?

[RashanGary]

If we throw our Packer bias out the window, we'd all agree that you need to find a way to keep your own stars if possible because they are few are far between.

Like H.H. said, it's still being written. You don't know how he's going to play and I don't think he will ever be worht the $$ he's going to get after this season. In the end, it doesn't look too painfull to me.

If we get 2 starters as draft picks and antoher starter with the FA money that we saved then it looks like a push to me. 3 players = 1 playmaker.

If College, Blackmon, Jolly and Culver fall on thier faces then it was a horrible deal. If 2 of them are good starters then it looks good. No matter what happens they saved a lot of money.

I would rather have Walker I guess but it's not as onesides as you would like to make it out to be Bretsky. You have to think about everything we would lose by showing him the $$. We would have 4 less draft picks and a lot less money. It's not like we just lost Walker and have nothing to show for it.

Time will be the only true teller. If I use my crystal ball, I see a couple of those players turning out.

[Bretsky]

If we throw our Packer bias out the window, we'd all agree that you need to find a way to keep your own stars if possible because they are few are far between.

Like H.H. said, it's still being written. You don't know how he's going to play and I don't think he will ever be worht the $$ he's going to get after this season. In the end, it doesn't look too painfull to me.

If we get 2 starters as draft picks and antoher starter with the FA money that we saved then it looks like a push to me. 3 players = 1 playmaker.

If College, Blackmon, Jolly and Culver fall on thier faces then it was a horrible deal. If 2 of them are good starters then it looks good. No matter what happens they saved a lot of money.

I would rather have Walker I guess but it's not as onesides as you would like to make it out to be Bretsky. You have to think about everything we would lose by showing him the $$. We would have 4 less draft picks and a lot less money. It's not like we just lost Walker and have nothing to show for it.

Time will be the only true teller. If I use my crystal ball, I see a couple of those players turning out.

I hope your crystal ball works. And I'm not saying it's completely one sided; but I subscribe to the Cliff Cristl and Wist views that if you have a stud playmaker that you can possibly build your team around, you do everything to keep him. I'd rather have a couple stars to start because you can always find the surrounding cast Wist refers to as "just a guy".

Now if Colledge turns out to be Wahle and Blackmond Nick Collins, we surely got ourselves a nice deal. Time will tell.


B