Packers must give up on Justin Harrell· Page 5

Wade
Veteran Member

14 years ago

For where Harrell was drafted, he is a bust; but he same can be said for Hawk.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

I'm not clear what you mean here. Harrell has played 13 games in 3 seasons and there's genuine concern that he'll be paid a fat amount of money to sit on the bench this year as well.

AJ Hawk on the other hand has played every single game since '06. He has amasssed 401 total tackles in 4 seasons, 8.5 sacks, forced 2 fumbles, and picked off 5 passes.

If we're talking busts here, AJ Hawk would be an A-cup whereas Harrell would be double D's.

"DakotaT" wrote:

Well, based on their postings on another PH forum, most people here would prefer double D's.

As for Hawk...well, to me the other rating should be reserved to people like A-cup Rodgers, Greg A-cup Jennings, Donald A-cup Driver and the like. 🙂

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)

Packers_Finland
Registered

14 years ago

#42

In case I failed to make myself clear, I did not bring up the money as an aspect that should factor into whether he stays on the roster or not. I brought it up purely to point out that he has been amply remunerated for his troubles. There is no reason to feel sorry for a man who has made so much money for so little production.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

Has anyone here said they feel sorry for Harrell?

As I and others have pointed out several times already, it would actually cost more to cut Harrell than to keep him. But that is irrelevant to me. I don't want the most talented team. I want the most consistent team. The Patriots have rarely had the flashiest team in the NFL. They've won championships not through flash but through grinding it out game after game after game. Their roster is a revolving door of guys who perform workmanlike jobs for a couple of years and then are cut. It's quite rare that the Patriots bring back a player with a big contract.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:

I agree here. Though lately all they've been is flash with Brady and Moss posting huge numbers. But in their championship years they were the epitomy of consitency. Even though he's a huge douche, Belichick is a great coach.

But I don't see how Harrell would break any consitency we have. He's most likely going to be a rotational guy, and anyone who we keep instead of him will also be a rotational guy. The level of talent we have behind Harrell (Wynn, Wilson, Talley) is the kind we could easily pick up after the final cuts so if Harrell gets injured, we'll just pick up one of them.

If Harrell stays healthy, plays 5-10 snaps per game, I think we're better off than if we cut him. So why not try at least?

This is a placeholder

zombieslayer
Registered

14 years ago

#43

Like it or not, salary matters. I don't have the stats for our DL players, but we may have a situation where Harrell is on the DL, gets injured after 3 games, and makes a huge wad of money. Then a DL player who plays in all 19 games who is making less money has a cow. Then we have a problem.

Not saying it will happen but it might.

I mean, how many times in the NFL have you heard a player who complains that Player X (same position) is making more money than he is and he has a good case that that shouldn't be so?

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

beast
Select Member

14 years ago

#44

If someone has any kind of evidence that suggest Harrell isn't the 5th best DL on the roster, then we have something to talk about..

"DakotaT" wrote:

Last time I've heard when Pickett or Jenkins comes out then Harrell goes in, so Harrell might be the 4th best?

porky88
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#45

Do I feel sorry for Harrell? No not really for reasons already stated.

However, there is a difference between Tony Mandarich and Justin Harrell. Harrell has been hurt. He hasn't seen the field, but when he's on the field, I've seen more out of him than C.J. Wilson or Jarius Wynn.

Mandarich was a complete bust. He couldn't cut it as a LT. He ended up in Indy as a guard and was alright for awhile, but there is a difference between the two players. One is a bust because of skill and the other is a bust because of injury.

I pretty much agree with what CaliforniaCheez said.

I think they'll keep six or seven DL. Seven with Toribio, who I've been impressed enough with to keep on the team. Right now, you can only justify Wilson or Wynn above Harrell because of injuries/confidence.

"PackerTraxx" wrote:

Also, Mandarich was a bust because he couldn't sneak the steroids past the NFL like college. It was well documented and he admitted to such. That also makes a huge difference between him and Harrell.

"porky88" wrote:

Good point. Perhaps a better comparison for Harrell would be Ahmad Carroll, but even then, I wouldn't label them for reasons stated in my other post.

http://www.row12.com/

Greg C.
Registered

14 years ago

#46

"zombieslayer" wrote:

That's a good point. I think there is a risk of that happening. But here's another way of looking at it, which hasn't been mentioned yet: If Harrell continues to perform at the level of our #4 or #5 defensive lineman, and then he gets cut, what kind of message does THAT send to the rest of the team? I would think the other players would want the best guy on the field at each position, period.

Before training camp, I thought Harrell was pretty much finished, and I said so in this forum. He is on the verge of proving me wrong, and good for him.

blank

Dexter_Sinister
Registered

14 years ago

#47

Before training camp I said it make no sense to cut Harrell because a settlement would equal his pay. Cutting him you eliminate the small chance that he pays off. No matter how small that chance is, it's more than Zero. Since it costs us nothing extra to give him a chance to pay the team back, (he said he feels like he owes the Pack) let him play until he gets hurt and then cut him. If by some chance he doesn't get hurt and is better than the next guy on the roster, let him play.

It doesn't matter at this point how much he makes or what round he was picked in. If we have to replace him it would cost the team that much more. We would pay to get rid of him and pay his replacement. It is cheaper to keep him.

If he is healthy and good enough to make the roster, it would be the wrong thing to do to cut him. For financial or talent reasons.

You never know, he could be the next Flannigan.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

djcubez
Senior Member

14 years ago

#48

I've only read the first page of this thread so what I say might be covered already.

Firstly this article sucks. There is not one shred of new information present about Harrell. Vandermause could have just wrote "I think Harrell sucks and gets injured too much so cut him" and that would have saved me a good minute of my life.

A lot of Packers players have been injured and given a chance to redeem themselves. Pat Lee has been injured the last two seasons. Blackmon as well. Giacomoni. They're still on the roster.

I think the big problem is people's expectations. Harrell is a bust, plain and simple. Looking at where he was drafted--he's never going to live up to that. However, if he can still contribute as a backup or rotation line player why should we cut him? Are there really better players out there than Harrell? Are there even better players on our roster? I doubt it. When Harrell has played, he's played well and done his job--he just needs to see the field more.

I also don't understand the whole "maybe Harrell is a pussy and can't stand pain" argument either. If a guy complains and then his complaint is backed up medically it's valid--the guy is in real fucking pain. Don't call him a pussy just because you think he's crying. In fact most of the coaches say he plays hard when he is in there.

Also the whole financial argument; we're in a year before a potential lockout, if there was ever a year to overpay for players it's this year.

Either way, I don't really feel bad for the guy but I don't blame him either.

djcubez
Senior Member

14 years ago

#49

"Greg C." wrote:

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Is Harrell even making that much money? His contract is six-years, $14.507 million. No way he's making over 4 million this year, which, in the case of a fourth year first round draft pick, isn't that bad.

get_louder_at_lambeau
Registered

14 years ago

#50

If someone has any kind of evidence that suggest Harrell isn't the 5th best DL on the roster, then we have something to talk about..

"beast" wrote:

Last time I've heard when Pickett or Jenkins comes out then Harrell goes in, so Harrell might be the 4th best?

"DakotaT" wrote:

Yep, it's him or Neal neck and neck for #4 right now I think.

http://packersnews.net

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (1h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (15h) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (21h) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!

beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS