Thompson scorecard

[motife]

Deleted

[ny10804]

Surprised he didn't mention the Walker trade.

Overall, TT's been ted-terrific.

[Patler]

His commentary/analysis regarding Wahle and Sharper are factually inaccurate. If he is going to do a critique, he could at least do it with the facts as they existed at the time the situations occurred.

By the way, I read an article about Wahle earlier this year that made it sound like he may have peaked his last season in GB and is declining a bit already. Could be from the injury last year, but it said he has been susceptible to bull rushes and can be overpowered by the bigger DTs. Maybe he lost his edge a bit, too. He always felt under-appreciated in GB, and maybe played with a bit more passion because of it. I would still like to have him.

[Farley Face]

His commentary/analysis regarding Wahle and Sharper are factually inaccurate. If he is going to do a critique, he could at least do it with the facts as they existed at the time the situations occurred.

By the way, I read an article about Wahle earlier this year that made it sound like he may have peaked his last season in GB and is declining a bit already. Could be from the injury last year, but it said he has been susceptible to bull rushes and can be overpowered by the bigger DTs. Maybe he lost his edge a bit, too. He always felt under-appreciated in GB, and maybe played with a bit more passion because of it. I would still like to have him.

Which facts are inaccurate? Thanks, FF

[Patler]

Which facts are inaccurate? Thanks, FF

1. The Wahle situation had nothing to do with a signing bonus for the Packers. They released Wahle rather than pay a roster bonus and his 2005 salary, which would have had about an $11 million impact against the cap.

2. At the time the Packers released Wahle, they had absolutely no cap room. Even after releasing Wahle, Grey Ruegemer (who they later re-signed at a lower cost) and some other cap gyrations the Packers were less than $1 million under the cap. The didn't have significant cap space until the end of training camp and after they made still more roster moves, including releasing Sharper, signing Franks to a cap-friendly long term deal, etc. At the time Wahle had to be released, Franks counted much, much more because the Packers had tagged him, and they were still negotiating with Sharper in an attempt to keep him. Each situation has to be looked at in the context of the time at which it was done.

3. At the time Wahle was released, Silverstein himself wrote, "Wiping Wahle's $11 million salary-a $5 million base and $6 million roster bonus-off the books will....get under the cap, but things get a lot more complicated if the Packers try to renegotiate the deal." He also wrote, "If the Packers were $6 million or $8 million under the cap, they'd be able to compete for Wahle's services....But that's not the case...." Now, years later, he says they had the room.

4. One of the reasons they let Wahle go was because to fit him under the cap would have taken a massive cap restructuring. TT was only there a couple months at the time. The Wahle situation should have been handled proactively a year or two earlier.

5. TT never planned to lose both Wahle and Rivera. Wahle's roster bonus cut off came first, and GB had to release him. After doing that they hoped to negotiate a cap friendlier deal with one or the other. Both ended up with what were huge deals for that time. Again, these deals have to be evaluated based on when and how they occurred.

6. It doesn't matter what the Vikings paid Sharper in 2005. He had a contract with GB that he refused to renegotiate. He was scheduled for almost $9 million against the cap for GB, which included a large salary and I believe another roster bonus. Rather than have him count $9 million against the cap, they released him. This was after Wahle was gone already.

7. It matters even less that they paid Marquand Manuel $2.5 million in 2006. Having money in 2006 to pay Manuel doesn't mean they had enough to pay much, much more to Sharper in 2005. Has he forgotten that the salary cap went up almost $20 million dollars from 2005 to 2006? Of course there was money to pay Manuel, TT's "budget" (the cap) went up over 20%.


Those are the more obvious things to me that I think are wrong or glossed over by his "analysis".

[Tony Oday]

I still dont like sharper. Never really did all he does is try for the big play and gets burned just as much as he makes the big play.

[the_idle_threat]

You got it, Patler. Revisionist history. Looks like ol' Silverstein doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good article. It's funny that he's contradicting his own statements that were made in previous articles.

TT has surely missed the boat on some potential trades and free agents somewhere. Guys in here have mentioned Will Witherspoon at LB and some safety whose name I can't recall now as examples. Some might also put Randy Moss in that category. But putting Wahle and Sharper in that category is, as you say, factually inaccurate.

[swede]

When LaVar Arrington passed on Green Bay it directly led to negotiations with the next defensive free agent, one whose injury history had caused him to be ignored by most other teams--Charles Woodson.

This situation wasn't a push; it was a bit of good fortune.

[The Leaper]

By the way, I read an article about Wahle earlier this year that made it sound like he may have peaked his last season in GB and is declining a bit already. Could be from the injury last year, but it said he has been susceptible to bull rushes and can be overpowered by the bigger DTs.

I have seen the same stuff. By most accounts, Wahle has not lived up to the big money he got from Carolina. He is still a very capable starter, but he's not a Pro Bowl caliber player any longer. He had one more strong season after he left Green Bay, but has been generally declining ever since. I would compare his performance curve to that of Tauscher and Clifton...still adequate, but not what they were 3-4 years ago.

[Bretsky]

Which facts are inaccurate? Thanks, FF

6. It doesn't matter what the Vikings paid Sharper in 2005. He had a contract with GB that he refused to renegotiate. He was scheduled for almost $9 million against the cap for GB, which included a large salary and I believe another roster bonus. Rather than have him count $9 million against the cap, they released him. This was after Wahle was gone already.

7. It matters even less that they paid Marquand Manuel $2.5 million in 2006. Having money in 2006 to pay Manuel doesn't mean they had enough to pay much, much more to Sharper in 2005. Has he forgotten that the salary cap went up almost $20 million dollars from 2005 to 2006? Of course there was money to pay Manuel, TT's "budget" (the cap) went up over 20%.


Those are the more obvious things to me that I think are wrong or glossed over by his "analysis".

I thought TT offered Sharper roughly 2,000,000 a year to come back to Green Bay. I don't know if I'd say Sharper was "refusing" to renegotiate it at all. I thought he was discussing renegotiating his deal with GB but in Shaper's mind TT lowballed him.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought all of this stuff came out through JS

[Tarlam!]

I so hope that when Silverstein opens his hate mail, Woody didn't metion he's a Packer Rat....

[Farley Face]

Which facts are inaccurate? Thanks, FF

1. The Wahle situation had nothing to do with a signing bonus for the Packers. They released Wahle rather than pay a roster bonus and his 2005 salary, which would have had about an $11 million impact against the cap.

2. At the time the Packers released Wahle, they had absolutely no cap room. Even after releasing Wahle, Grey Ruegemer (who they later re-signed at a lower cost) and some other cap gyrations the Packers were less than $1 million under the cap. The didn't have significant cap space until the end of training camp and after they made still more roster moves, including releasing Sharper, signing Franks to a cap-friendly long term deal, etc. At the time Wahle had to be released, Franks counted much, much more because the Packers had tagged him, and they were still negotiating with Sharper in an attempt to keep him. Each situation has to be looked at in the context of the time at which it was done.

3. At the time Wahle was released, Silverstein himself wrote, "Wiping Wahle's $11 million salary-a $5 million base and $6 million roster bonus-off the books will....get under the cap, but things get a lot more complicated if the Packers try to renegotiate the deal." He also wrote, "If the Packers were $6 million or $8 million under the cap, they'd be able to compete for Wahle's services....But that's not the case...." Now, years later, he says they had the room.

4. One of the reasons they let Wahle go was because to fit him under the cap would have taken a massive cap restructuring. TT was only there a couple months at the time. The Wahle situation should have been handled proactively a year or two earlier.

5. TT never planned to lose both Wahle and Rivera. Wahle's roster bonus cut off came first, and GB had to release him. After doing that they hoped to negotiate a cap friendlier deal with one or the other. Both ended up with what were huge deals for that time. Again, these deals have to be evaluated based on when and how they occurred.

6. It doesn't matter what the Vikings paid Sharper in 2005. He had a contract with GB that he refused to renegotiate. He was scheduled for almost $9 million against the cap for GB, which included a large salary and I believe another roster bonus. Rather than have him count $9 million against the cap, they released him. This was after Wahle was gone already.

7. It matters even less that they paid Marquand Manuel $2.5 million in 2006. Having money in 2006 to pay Manuel doesn't mean they had enough to pay much, much more to Sharper in 2005. Has he forgotten that the salary cap went up almost $20 million dollars from 2005 to 2006? Of course there was money to pay Manuel, TT's "budget" (the cap) went up over 20%.


Those are the more obvious things to me that I think are wrong or glossed over by his "analysis".

Thanks. FF

[Fritz]

You got it, Patler. Revisionist history. Looks like ol' Silverstein doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good article. It's funny that he's contradicting his own statements that were made in previous articles.

TT has surely missed the boat on some potential trades and free agents somewhere. Guys in here have mentioned Will Witherspoon at LB and some safety whose name I can't recall now as examples. Some might also put Randy Moss in that category. But putting Wahle and Sharper in that category is, as you say, factually inaccurate.

Agreed, and then some. Thank you Patler, for pointing out the inconvenient facts, and particularly Silverstein's own words at the time. I'm not a big fan of posters not taking any responsibility for past statements when they do a 180, but it's not too big of a deal because we are, after all, fans, and a fan kind of gets a pass on that. But when writers do that, it is unprofessional. Period.

As I read Siverstein's article the steam started building up inside. The article was cheap and revisionist - the guy reneged not only on the truth but on his own words from that time period. So I am glad that Patler, who really ought to be paid by the newspapers to do the fact-checking, took the time to lay out those inconvenient facts.

And as you point out, Idle, if the writer needed some bad TT moves to fill out the article, Will Witherspoon was a name he could have used - our own Bretsky campaigned for that signing and has kept us up on how well Witherspoon has played. The Randy Moss non-trade could also have been used, because no matter how good James Jones or Greg Jennings are, Randy Moss is better. So for Silverstein to fall back on fallacies just to get his article out is flat out unprofessional.

Thanks Patler for setting the record straight.

[motife]

Why Tom Silverstein didn't mention the Javon Walker fiasco :

I was trying to stick to free agency, Craig. Walker was a trade obviously and since he was under contract it didn't really have anything to do with a free agent move.

Thanks for writing,

TS

[pbmax]

I think Patler has the correct bead on Wahle, at the time he signed his last Packer contract (it was a long term deal in name only, the bonus came due in year 3 I believe)) it was widely expected and reported that the bonus was high enough to trigger either a complete renegotiation by the Packers or FA. Essentially, it was a 3 year deal then FA.

Wahle would not agree to convert the bonus to a signing one as he knew he could pick up better terms on the FA market, so Thompson's choice was to perform a sizable cap purge (let go of Sharper in the Spring and absorb more dead money in the next year, agree earlier to Franks' terms, etc.), or to refuse the pay the bonus.

After the refusal, they would have had to back load Wahle's new contract as he still didn't have much space in the current year. And that would mean its less likely that you get FAs such as Woodson, Pickett and Manuel (that's actually an upside) in future years and you wouldn't be able to front load the contracts.

Bretsky, my memory is that Sharper was asked to drop to $4 million in salary or take a four million dollar cut. His salary was $7 mil, I think his new one would have been 3-4 million for the current year.

And I am on record as opposing paying Sharper even that amount, as he's a high risk player on a defense that could no longer support him. Interceptions are great, beaten for TDs is worse.

What gets lost when you lose a vet, is that everyone assumes that the phrase "gives the younger players a chance to step up" is just coach speak. But there really is an upside to it. They are less expensive so you can afford Woodson and evena mistake like Manuel. They are less prone to injury and breakdowns.

And at this point, I am much more excited about Collins/Bigby/Rouse than I was/am about Sharper and Mark Roman.