14 years ago

93Z pitched another good point, Ted fiddles while rome burns.

"yooperfan" wrote:



Since when does being 7-4, playoff bound with top 10 offense AND defense to go with the best young QB in the NFL equate to the downfall of an empire? :crazy:
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
14 years ago

I'm not too worried about the no salary cap.


The four teams that make the league championship games can't sign an unrestricted free agent unless and until they lose one of equal or more value;

The four teams that lost in the divisional round can sign one high-priced unrestricted free agent (price undetermined yet) without having to lose one of their own. Once that maximum exception is burned, they are restricted like the top four teams in terms of big-ticket free agents. And they can also sign as many mid-level free agents as they want (price undetermined).

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



So, correct me if I'm wrong. Those of us who think what the packers need to get to "championship level" is serious action with respect to the OL in the offseason including major action in FA should be rooting for the Packers to NOT make the final 8?

Ack.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
14 years ago

A Gm has to have the ability to roll out the red carpet, wine and dine the prospective employee and sell his team. Ted doesn't seem to have the ability or the willingness to do that.

Sitting on 10's of millions of dollars in cap space every year also sends a message to prospective employees.

Money is the equalizer in proffesional sports and if players, who are essentially businessmen, see that this team or that is pinching pennies then their minds are made up before the bidding begins.

The "storied franchise" pitch delivered by some 2nd level manager will not draw much interest.

93Z pitched another good point, Ted fiddles while rome burns.

The "outrageous" signing of Reggie White drew huge dividends for the Packers, I don't know if that could happen again, but you never know if you don't try.

"yooperfan" wrote:



First off, it's a team of employees that are responsible for selling the Packers, to players, fans, the media, etc..

As I understand it, they have made marked improvements to the facilities in Lambeau Field over the past handful of years, which should make current players happier and prospective players more interested. They are going to be spending most of their working hours there, after all.

Teams who throw a shit ton of money at big name free agents are not able to take care of all of their current players as they should. Players for the Green Bay Packers know that their team will not do something stupid like throw an insane amount of guaranteed money at a FA who turns out to be a bust simply because the FA market was booming at the time. They know if they perform well for the team, they will be treated very well, and fairly.

I'm also fairly sure, as Cheesey surmised, that some of their conservative approach is due to the smallest market in the NFL facing one or more uncapped years. If they have been improving the stadium for years to better handle such an event, why not manage the personnel for the same reason?

People seem to think FA's are high cost, high reward, but they are also high risk. Adalius Thomas has been a letdown for the Patriots, and he was a huge name FA a few years back. Joe Johnson's career sputtered out in Green Bay far too quickly. Matt Cassel? Please. I bet we could name a FA bust for every FA success story.

Lastly, I think some FA signings will show up in the coming seasons, especially if a deal is worked out so we aren't playing for years without a cap. It's all part of a process. This team was absolutely decimated under Sherman. No depth, aging players, and cap problems were all problems we had to face. All of these major problems have already been fixed through the draft and by practicing fiscal responsibility. People never thought Ted Thompson would move up in the draft, and he moved up into the first round in one of the most aggressive move's of the 2009 draft to get Matthews. People don't think Ted Thompson will sign FA's. I think he will, but when the time is right. I know we're all eager, but things are only now starting to fall into place for this team. We're still one of the youngest teams in the NFL, but we're now experienced as well. It's just about time to fit in those final cogs to this machine. I'm very curious to see what is done in 2010 and 2011, especially if a CBA is worked out.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
14 years ago
296 out of 1700 leaves out a lot when you consider what you're measuring. Too many variables to intelligently state 296 out of 1700 is a HUGE sample.

These are current players, are they back ups or starters, what team, age?
Position AND age of player? (example, QB's wont want to come here to be a backup and CB's would want to because Woodson and Harris are aging)

Theres too many variables that dictate why a player would or would not want to play for another team as well as how the question was presented.

If you were cut, what team would you least likely to play for (based on the city)?


If this is solely based on the City, I'd agree that its a good sample because the team and roster are irrelevant then.



Edit, The title of this thread and the title of the poll are different.
Topic : Players do not want to play in Green Bay
Poll : WHICH NFL TEAM WOULD YOU LEAST LIKE TO PLAY FOR?
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
14 years ago

I'm not too worried about the no salary cap.


The four teams that make the league championship games can't sign an unrestricted free agent unless and until they lose one of equal or more value;

The four teams that lost in the divisional round can sign one high-priced unrestricted free agent (price undetermined yet) without having to lose one of their own. Once that maximum exception is burned, they are restricted like the top four teams in terms of big-ticket free agents. And they can also sign as many mid-level free agents as they want (price undetermined).

"Wade" wrote:

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



So, correct me if I'm wrong. Those of us who think what the packers need to get to "championship level" is serious action with respect to the OL in the offseason including major action in FA should be rooting for the Packers to NOT make the final 8?

Ack.



I have no clue what you're asking.

I'll take a stab. If the Packers make the NFC Championship game, they have to lose a player equal to the one they sign, I think. If the Packers miss out on the championship game, they are free to sign a high quality player, however, we didn't with a cap before (too often) not sure why we would now. Although I have an argument about that for another thread that would make most believe WHEN we will be more active. 🙂
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
14 years ago

296 out of 1700 leaves out a lot when you consider what you're measuring. Too many variables to intelligently state 296 out of 1700 is a HUGE sample.

These are current players, are they back ups or starters, what team, age?
Position AND age of player? (example, QB's wont want to come here to be a backup and CB's would want to because Woodson and Harris are aging)
🅱
Theres too many variables that dictate why a player would or would not want to play for another team as well as how the question was presented.

If you were cut, what team would you least likely to play for (based on the city)?


If this is solely based on the City, I'd agree that its a good sample because the team and roster are irrelevant then.



Edit, The title of this thread and the title of the poll are different.
Topic : Players do not want to play in Green Bay
Poll : WHICH NFL TEAM WOULD YOU LEAST LIKE TO PLAY FOR?

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Interestingly, I read the bolded bits just after I read the following paragraph from a book I'm considering in my business stats/quant methods class next spring:

"In business cases, only a few variables merit deliberate measurement efforts. The rest of the variables have an "information value" at or near zero." (Douglas Hubbard, How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business, p. 33)
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
14 years ago

I'm not too worried about the no salary cap.


The four teams that make the league championship games can't sign an unrestricted free agent unless and until they lose one of equal or more value;

The four teams that lost in the divisional round can sign one high-priced unrestricted free agent (price undetermined yet) without having to lose one of their own. Once that maximum exception is burned, they are restricted like the top four teams in terms of big-ticket free agents. And they can also sign as many mid-level free agents as they want (price undetermined).

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

"Wade" wrote:



So, correct me if I'm wrong. Those of us who think what the packers need to get to "championship level" is serious action with respect to the OL in the offseason including major action in FA should be rooting for the Packers to NOT make the final 8?

Ack.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



I have no clue what you're asking.

I'll take a stab. If the Packers make the NFC Championship game, they have to lose a player equal to the one they sign, I think. If the Packers miss out on the championship game, they are free to sign a high quality player, however, we didn't with a cap before (too often) not sure why we would now. Although I have an argument about that for another thread that would make most believe WHEN we will be more active. :)



My bad. Horrible sentence structure on my part. Let me clarify.

1. My reading of the above is that the top 8 teams can't be as active in FA -- top four can only "get one if lose one", second four can get one, then another only if lose one.

2. My belief is that GB won't be a real championship contender unless they take "significant" action on the OL in the off-season.

2A. Further, my belief is that "significant action" includes not just major draft attention, but major attention in free agency. And not just attention in free agency after training camp starts, but attention in February or March or whenever FA starts.

Given 1 and 2 and 2a, should I be rooting AGAINST GB getting to the final 8, on the grounds of "long run thinking."

Clearer?
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Rockmolder
14 years ago

I'm not too worried about the no salary cap.


The four teams that make the league championship games can't sign an unrestricted free agent unless and until they lose one of equal or more value;

The four teams that lost in the divisional round can sign one high-priced unrestricted free agent (price undetermined yet) without having to lose one of their own. Once that maximum exception is burned, they are restricted like the top four teams in terms of big-ticket free agents. And they can also sign as many mid-level free agents as they want (price undetermined).

"Wade" wrote:

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



So, correct me if I'm wrong. Those of us who think what the packers need to get to "championship level" is serious action with respect to the OL in the offseason including major action in FA should be rooting for the Packers to NOT make the final 8?

Ack.

"Wade" wrote:



I have no clue what you're asking.

I'll take a stab. If the Packers make the NFC Championship game, they have to lose a player equal to the one they sign, I think. If the Packers miss out on the championship game, they are free to sign a high quality player, however, we didn't with a cap before (too often) not sure why we would now. Although I have an argument about that for another thread that would make most believe WHEN we will be more active. :)

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



My bad. Horrible sentence structure on my part. Let me clarify.

1. My reading of the above is that the top 8 teams can't be as active in FA -- top four can only "get one if lose one", second four can get one, then another only if lose one.

2. My belief is that GB won't be a real championship contender unless they take "significant" action on the OL in the off-season.

2A. Further, my belief is that "significant action" includes not just major draft attention, but major attention in free agency. And not just attention in free agency after training camp starts, but attention in February or March or whenever FA starts.

Given 1 and 2 and 2a, should I be rooting AGAINST GB getting to the final 8, on the grounds of "long run thinking."

Clearer?



I don't think so. If anything, we shouldn't get to the top 4. I'm pretty sure that we're not going to sign two high priced FAs. One is a long shot.

Take in mind that we can still sign FAs. The Duke Prestons, Brandon Chillars and Ryan Picketts that Thompson usually likes. It's just not the high priced ones. I don't think that there'll be a tackle out there who's worth spending huge amounts of money on, anyway.

Especially since RFAs now need six year to become UFAs.
Zero2Cool
14 years ago

My bad. Horrible sentence structure on my part. Let me clarify.

1. My reading of the above is that the top 8 teams can't be as active in FA -- top four can only "get one if lose one", second four can get one, then another only if lose one.

2. My belief is that GB won't be a real championship contender unless they take "significant" action on the OL in the off-season.

2A. Further, my belief is that "significant action" includes not just major draft attention, but major attention in free agency. And not just attention in free agency after training camp starts, but attention in February or March or whenever FA starts.

Given 1 and 2 and 2a, should I be rooting AGAINST GB getting to the final 8, on the grounds of "long run thinking."

Clearer?

"Wade" wrote:



I already answered this.

Interestingly, I read the bolded bits just after I read the following paragraph from a book I'm considering in my business stats/quant methods class next spring:

"In business cases, only a few variables merit deliberate measurement efforts. The rest of the variables have an "information value" at or near zero." (Douglas Hubbard, How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of Intangibles in Business, p. 33)

"Wade" wrote:



As I said, there are variables that can dictate a players decision on what team they want. We don't know who was asked or what specifically was asked or how the question was perceived. I can easily make a poll that gives the answer i want by asking certain people who will give the answer I'm looking for and ask the question as such.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
14 years ago



Edit, The title of this thread and the title of the poll are different.
Topic : Players do not want to play in Green Bay
Poll : WHICH NFL TEAM WOULD YOU LEAST LIKE TO PLAY FOR?

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Zero you are a stickler fro detail.

I read the poll (which we know that you hate.) and saw that GB was the 3rd most selected franchise by NFL players as the place they would least like to play. (And actually #1 among players with 5 years or less in the league but we will assume that the kids just don't know jack.) I then took a giant leap and put the title as Players do not want to play in GB. It seems like the same thing to me. I could have put the SI title in the PF title line but I was trying to narrow it down to something that was pertinent to GB and GB only otherwise it would have been moved to the NFL Forum.

So I ask you- if GB is one of the least popular places for players to play (And as in all polls, players can not chose their own team/coaches/teammates.) doesn't that mean they do not want to play in GB? Do you want to correct the title? If so please be my guest.
UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (3h) : Jordan Love CAN sign an extension as of today. Might tak weeks/months though
    TheKanataThrilla (4h) : Packers decline 5th year option for Stokes
    Mucky Tundra (8h) : @ProFootballTalk Jaylen Warren: Steelers' special teams coach has discussed Justin Fields returning kicks.
    Zero2Cool (17h) : Season officially ending tonight for Bucks ... sad face
    Zero2Cool (17h) : Giannis Antetokounmpo is listed as out for tonight's game.
    dfosterf (21h) : Surprisingly low initially is my guess cap wise, but gonna pay the piper after that
    dfosterf (21h) : The number on Love is going to be brutal.
    Zero2Cool (22h) : May 3rd. Extension day for Jordan Love. (soonest)
    Zero2Cool (1-May) : USFL MVP QB Alex McGough moved to WR. So that's why no WR drafted!
    earthquake (1-May) : Packers draft starters at safety ever few years. Collins, Clinton-Dix, Savage
    beast (1-May) : Why can't the rookies be a day 1 starter? Especially when we grabbed 3 of them at the position
    dfosterf (1-May) : Not going to be shocked if Gilmore goes to the Lions.
    dfosterf (1-May) : I hear you dhazer, but my guess would be Gilmore Colts and Howard Vikings from what little has been reported.
    Mucky Tundra (30-Apr) : S learn from McKinney who learns from Hafley who learns from the fans. Guaranteed Super Bowl
    Zero2Cool (30-Apr) : could*
    Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : Safeties should learn from Xavier.
    dhazer (29-Apr) : And what about grabbing a Gilmore or Howard at CB ? Those are all Free Agents left
    dhazer (29-Apr) : out of curiosity do they try and sign Simmons or Hyde to let these young safeties learn from, they can't be day 1 starters.
    Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : I miss having Sam Shields.
    Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : Not that he's making excuses, just pointing it out
    Zero2Cool (29-Apr) : That's for dang sure. Make our erratic kicker have no excuse!
    packerfanoutwest (28-Apr) : having a great long snapper is gold
    Zero2Cool (28-Apr) : LaFleur looking like he had some weight. Coachin will do that lol
    Zero2Cool (28-Apr) : Thanks Mucky and whomever created topcos for each pick!
    Zero2Cool (28-Apr) : Insane about Kingsley
    dfosterf (28-Apr) : Putring it here so Mucky sees it. He was our guy!
    dfosterf (28-Apr) : Bowden long snapper Wisconsin. Consensus best LS in college.
    dfosterf (28-Apr) : We got Peter Bowde
    dfosterf (28-Apr) : I personally interpret that as a partial tear that can be recovered from with rehab
    dfosterf (28-Apr) : MLF said Kingsley Enagbare did NOT tear his ACL and did NOT require surgery, and that he is "looking good" for the 2024 season!
    beast (28-Apr) : T.O. son signs with the 49ers
    Mucky Tundra (28-Apr) : damn those vikings
    beast (27-Apr) : UDFA Vikings sign TE – Trey Knox, South Carolina
    beast (27-Apr) : Kitchen was all high from Miami, he was more lucky than talented in 2022 and it showed in 2023
    beast (27-Apr) : Reportedly Packers have UDFAs Jennings and Jones
    beast (27-Apr) : OL – Donovan Jennings, USF OT – Trente Jones, Michigan
    TheKanataThrilla (27-Apr) : Interesting draft. A bit shocked that we didn't select an early CB. Definitely have Safety help. Pretty happy overall.
    dhazer (27-Apr) : wow the last 2 picks are really stupid and probably will be special teams players Top 10 draft pick next year book it
    TheKanataThrilla (27-Apr) : I think he ended up with a terrible RAS score
    dhazer (27-Apr) : Anyone know what went on with Kitchens from Florida? At 1 point he was to be the Packers 1st round and he is way down the board now
    Martha Careful (27-Apr) : Z, could you please combine my thread with yours please. I obviously did not see it when I Created it
    Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Re: 'Kool-Aid' McKinstry. Other than Icky Woods, has there ever been a good NFLer with a childish nickname?
    Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Packers looking to trade up
    Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Flag?
    Martha Careful (26-Apr) : Sag?
    Nonstopdrivel (26-Apr) : It rhymes with "bag."
    beast (26-Apr) : Family? That's Deadpool's F word
    Nonstopdrivel (26-Apr) : Not THAT f-word.
    Zero2Cool (26-Apr) : fuck
    beast (25-Apr) : 49ers are Cap Tight
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2023 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Falcons
    Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
    SAINTS
    Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
    LIONS
    Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
    Raiders
    Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
    RAMS
    Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
    CHARGERS
    Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
    CHIEFS
    Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
    BUCCANEERS
    Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
    Panthers
    Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
    Vikings
    Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
    Cowboys
    Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
    49ers
    Recent Topics
    3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / go.pack.go.

    16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    20h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    2-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    1-May / Green Bay Packers Talk / greengold

    1-May / Packers Draft Threads / dfosterf

    30-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    29-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    29-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Zero2Cool

    29-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

    29-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

    29-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

    28-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

    28-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Mucky Tundra

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.