Assorted thoughts:
1. Presumably, they have time before league year starts to give him a physical. Last year, he was iffy from the get go because of the back. Is everyone certain that he's going to be equally iffy this year? Does *anyone* know the state of his back right now?
2. Those with more medical knowledge than me can speak to this .... is the ability/likelihood of coming back from an ACL in any way affected by the quality of the guy's back? If you want to say, "he's had enough chances, and he's just shown he's never going to play a full season," fine, but it seems to me that you have to at least think about distinguishing between the injuries. Anyone can blow out an ACL, regardless of their injury history. See, ahem, Mike Neal. And unless you can demonstrate to me that recovery from an ACL is made worse by JH's particular injury history, it seems to me, it's not a slam dunk to say he's "just going to get injured again." Again, I think the key question has to be his back changes the equation or not. If he does, he's gone. If he's not, then you ask the questions you ask of anyone returning from his particular injury.
3. I can't help thinking of Mike Flanagan. Flanagan was arguably the best center the Packers have had since Larry McCarren. And how much did he show early? Drafted 1996. First played: 1998. First year with significant action: 1999 (year 4). Harrell: Drafted 2007. So, had he not blown out his knee (new injury), last year would have been the equivalent of Flanagan's year 4.
Am I saying Harrell is the next Flanagan. Heck, no. All I am saying in point #3 is that there are times when it proves the guy is worth the wait. Lots of people thought the Packers were nuts for keeping with Flanagan so long because of his injuries. Heck, I was one of them. And we were all wrong.
4. I sometimes wonder how much of the antipathy toward Harrell among Packer fans is an unconscious consequence of a single picture, the one that has been posted here several times, the one from training camp where Harrell looks like, well, like a spaced-out dope. I'm sure everyone knows which picture I mean. But, gee, everyone looks like a dope sometimes when they don't know the camera is looking. Heck, some of us look like a dope all the time.
5. Okay, its a 1.2 million risk to keep him through training camp in case he gets injured enough to put on IR. Is he more of a risk than other players currently making 1.2 million or more? Perhaps. Again, the question to me here has to center on the back, not on the knee.
5A. What are the rules involved in waiving someone who is injured during camp? I presume there's some kind of workmen's comp implication -- though I'd be really surprised if that was 1.2 million worth of liability. Are you prohibited from waiving without putting them on IR first? Are you required to pay their entire contract salary? (I ask because I don't know.)
6. I still think people are a bit optimistic about the state of our DE roster if/when Jenkins moved on. Right now, there is NO ONE proven as a full-time starter at DE except Pickett, and he's a DT by profession. I *love* Howard Green, but he's also a DT and aging with potential weight questions. Neal offers a lot of exciting stuff, but one great looking training camp/preseason does not a quality full-time starter prove. He's in the "optimistic" category, but he's also still in the "potential" category. Same with CJ Wilson. And the rookies, drafted or (likely) free agent alike, are only potential.
It would be one thing if the Packers truly were deep at DE. But they aren't. It's one of the two positions with biggest questions right now. Given that, to me, if I'm operating with a $120 million budget for players, I'd be willing to take a risk of between 600K (the roster bonus) and 1.2 million for someone who I once considered a first round talent.
Again, depending on what I thought the back was going to be like. To me, that back is the big thing that makes Harrell different in terms of "being worth keeping".
He doesn't have a bad attitude (no, a bad picture doesn't show that.) He's not obviously stupid and unteachable (no, that picture doesn't show that, either. Some of the smartest students I've had over the years look like complete morons; and some of the smartest/most attentive-looking students I've were morons.. He hasn't shown anything particularly good on the field, but he hasn't shown anything particularly bad on the field either -- he gets an incomplete because he hasn't turned in enough assignments yet.
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)