Greg Jennings: This is my last year with the Packers· Page 4

Pack93z
Select Member

12 years ago

What change to smaller text? When did this change occur? Are you talking about the site?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

See the edit above a local change that I assumed was a Zero change.. lol.. the sheer number of adjustments here, I just assumed instead of inspected.

BTW.. that post is off topic. 30 lashes.. not 29.. 30.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

Zero2Cool
Elite Member Topic Starter

12 years ago

#32

Originally Posted by: Pack93z

Ugh! I swear, you do this once a week to just get me freaked. I can see you now sitting in your chair, "hmm, things running smooth over at PH, gotta throw Kevin into a little frenzy!! Yeah the text size changed, yeah!!!"

[aiee]

[-x

nyrpack
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#33

hopefully he has a massive year and the pack has no choice but to sign him for a couple of more yrs !!

jimmy b.

Pack93z
Select Member

12 years ago

#34

Ugh! I sweat, you do this once a week to just get me freaked. I can see you now sitting in your chair, "hmm, things running smooth over at PH, gotta throw Kevin into a little frenzy!! Yeah the text size changed, yeah!!!"

[aiee]

[-x

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Not this time, most but not this time.

Since probably last Wednesday the text had gotten really small just on this site.. I am like damn this is hard on the eyes, all the while thinking Zero is playing again with the settings here.. probably won't stick so just deal with it.

But I found myself breaking my thoughts down to make it less of a strain upon my eyes when typing large thoughts. Breaking it down was easier... selfish but easier.

So after Dodd's note/complaint, I typed the reason I was breaking my posts apart more.. but as soon as I posted it, I am like damn I better check my environment before Zero sees that post. So I started to look, here somehow I change the zoom and everything was condensed. Before I could edit.. Zero has hit the post and commented. Damn it..

Anyway.. problem solved. Still not sure why no other sites were impacted.. now I am going to play with the Chrome interface.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

porky88
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#35

I think we're overestimating Greg Jennings' business credentials here. I think he just spoke his mind and that's the end of it. This doesn't influence the team's level of play or handling of the contract.

With that said, it's fair to examine his value to the team. Is Jennings worth a third contract with the Packers? Look at the deals Vincent Jackson and Marques Colston received this off-season. Those are hefty contracts. Jennings is better than both players and he'll receive more money than what either player did. It's a difficult situation to monitor. I think Jennings is valuable to this team, and worth keeping around, but you need to be realistic about the contract.

Who is more valuable to the long-term future of Green Bay: Jennings or Jordy Nelson?

That could be the decisions at hand in seven months time, though I do believe the Packers would franchise Jennings and work their options from there.

http://www.row12.com/

doddpower
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#36

Originally Posted by: porky88

You're probably right. But as Zombie said, one can never overestimate the business credentials of his agent. [boxing] [boxing]

Wade
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#37

1. I can't get upset about this. I guess I just don't trust the reporting. They take a longer interview and cut a sound bite. Bah.
2. If I had a choice between the 30 mill/3 rings and 100 mil/1 ring, I wouldn't hesitate a second. 100 mil all the way. The only way I wouldn't is if I believed I could be trusted with spending 30 mil wisely but couldnt be trusted the same with 100. Frankly, a couple of football championships are not worth the good that 70 million could do. So I'd go farther...if it was 100 and zero championships, I'd take the 100. I'd take it because I'd believe I was better at spending the 70 million rather than spending it on a bunch of dumbasses that wear spandex to work.
3. He's an employee that has negotiating power. Part of that power comes from the willingness to use the court of public opinion as he sees fit. He should use it. The team isn't going to give him the extra unless he pushes for it. The team is going to negotiate to pay as much less than 30 as they can get away with. He should approach it the same way. No one negotiates a split of 100 million bucks governed by anything other than they're self-interest.

I'd be sad to see Jennings go elsewhere as a Packer fan, sure. But if I was representing him, I'd go for as much money as I could. A franchise worth hundreds of millions of dollars is not deserving of a home town discount.

IMO.

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)

zombieslayer
Registered

12 years ago

#38

Not For Long... so true.

I always look to two different players with a huge impact on our team historically, LeRoy Butler and Desmond Howard. Both had a major impact upon our team in '96-97 while winning SB XXXI. I do think Des wishes he would have stayed for a dynasty run v. taken the cash with OAK. LeRoy was the opposite. He always sacrificed for the team, taking less so that GB could sign more. LeRoy will always be the epitome of loyal to GB, in a league where there is no loyalty, or very little of it. Somehow, I do find GB to be more of an exception with regards to loyalty. Yet, they have to make their pure business decisions to keep us moving forward.

Hopefully, we can get something worked out with Greg Jennings. Great guy. Great Packer. He should be with this team for his entire career, but he's too good, and will command top cash in FA. Unless he has a change of heart, we may have to let him walk in a couple of years or less. Next man up.

I know I will not begrudge Jennings if he decides to walk from GB for more money, but, I will think it to be more mistake than prudent on his part. As mentioned, he could win 2 more SBs with us if we franchise him next year. That would not suck.

Originally Posted by: play2win

Two great examples. Butler was a Packer. He bled green & gold. I don't think even a Drew Rosenhaus could have gotten Butler out of GB.

Howard could have been a game changer in the next year's SB. Such a shame we didn't have him. You know who the big loser in Howard going to Oakland was? It was a lose/lose. We both lost. Howard's career went nowhere and we didn't win another SB until 2010.

Geez. I almost think 🇹🇹 needs to use these 2 examples with Greg Jennings in the talks. Take Gregorious aside, without his agent. From what I've read about his agent, I don't like him already.

And yes, I understand the argument about money/security/etc. But I can guarantee you as a fan of the Packers since 1976 that the geezer players (35+) care more about the Rings than the $$$. I bet Marino (completely hypothetical situation) would have worked one year for free if he could have had just one SB ring.

The other teams Gregorious could go to that have solid chances for years of making SBs are limited - the Steelers, the Giants, and the Patriots.

Plus, he's not taking into account his future AFTER football. HUGE difference between being a multiple SB winning former player and having no Rings. Deion Sanders for instance has 2 Rings - one with the Niners and one with the Cows. What happened if Sanders stayed with Atlanta his entire career? He may or may not have had such a lucrative career after football.

I almost want to have a talk with Gregorious. Tell him to imagine a 40-year-old Greg Jennings and have a talk with that man.

My man Donald Driver

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

Pack93z
Select Member

12 years ago

#39

Originally Posted by: porky88

Not the way that I read it, carefully crafted to include fan friendly words as loyalty and using the illustration that the 20 weeks and that is it picture. Maybe over reading it, but opening week prior to his contract year and openly stating he has a number in mind and nothing else is worth talking about.

Nah, I buy it as a PR statement crafted to maximize his play. I just think if a Superbowl is his focus, this is a poorly timed statement in that regard, but brilliant for his contract goal. Heard this on ESPN and Bill Micheals already, it is getting notice for his cause. Another week or so.. probably gets less run, but everyone is chomping at the bit, so it gets overplayed.

Now, lets really discuss what used to be the overvaluing of Running backs which now seems to have shifted to the receiver position. Guys are simply getting overpaid in a passing league currently that is looking at past production in situations where receivers can succeed on less talent.

The game has morphed where almost all the advantage has shifted to the receivers and you don't see 1 or 2 superstars, many are putting up inflated numbers and looking like superstars. Guys like Laurent Robinson once washed out, rises to semi stardom in a single season.

Routes don't have to be as clean, guys can cross the middle with less risk due to increased protection rules, less contact everything allows these cats to produce more with less talent. The contract this offseason scream of desperation from struggling teams in this passing league looking for a spark. Spending big on good, yet not great wide outs isn't going to solve the problems. This league now one offense revolves around QB play. Don't have it.. you better bring a defense and a running game to the table. Both dominate units as well.. either that or continue to struggle. A good offensive coordinator with the ability to maximize the advantages to the rules helps as well.

So does it make sense to spend 12 million of a 120 million dollar cap on a single receiver.. probably not unless he is an elite talent. Sorry but when I see Jennings, I don't see Megatron, Fritz or a healthy Johnson. He just isn't in that tier IMO. Neither is a guy like Vincent Jackson.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

doddpower
Veteran Member

12 years ago

#40

From what I've read about his agent, I don't like him already.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer

You don't like him because he's not representing and making millions for you. If he was, you'd love him. [boxing]

And yes, I understand the argument about money/security/etc. But I can guarantee you as a fan of the Packers since 1976 that the geezer players (35+) care more about the Rings than the $$$. I bet Marino (completely hypothetical situation) would have worked one year for free if he could have had just one SB ring.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer

Well, with Marino, he already had the money issue locked up, so naturally he would turn his attention to having a ring. I would debate that in the long run, having plenty of money for the rest of your life and plenty to pass down to all your children and grandchildren would be more important than having a ring and little money. Moreover, Greg is already a champion. No one can every take that away from him. If he never played another snap in his life, he would still be a champion, as much as someone like Brett Favre, Warren Sapp, etc. are. Another Ring would nice, sure, but it's no guarantee no matter where he goes. What could be close to be a guarantee is the money.

The other teams Gregorious could go to that have solid chances for years of making SBs are limited - the Steelers, the Giants, and the Patriots.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer

I think you're not factoring into how quickly the NFL can change in a couple of years. In two years, the Patriots and Steelers may no longer be serious contenders. Teams such as the Panthers, Seahawks, Bucs, Falcons, Lions, Redskins, Colts, etc. could all be serious contenders in two years. Just because a team is a contender today doesn't necessarily mean much 2-3 years from now.

Plus, he's not taking into account his future AFTER football. HUGE difference between being a multiple SB winning former player and having no Rings. Deion Sanders for instance has 2 Rings - one with the Niners and one with the Cows. What happened if Sanders stayed with Atlanta his entire career? He may or may not have had such a lucrative career after football.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer

I'm not sure that I'm understanding this part. I would think getting as much money as possible is taking ones future into account much more so than chasing a ring that may never come. Players are always one play from a career ending injury. That's why I think it's most important to secure as much money as reasonably possible while the opportunity is there. What if Greg took the biggest offer AND eventually won another ring? That sounds like the ideal goal to me . . . for him anyway.

Overall, I could see a player taking a few million less to stay with a certain team, or a small percentage of their overall salary. Anything more than that would be asking too much, imo. Of course there could always be exceptions such as a player truly loving an area, not wanting to move his kids, living around family, etc. I'm still not sure those things would be worth more than few million dollars of total contract value.

EDIT: I suppose to me, what I leave behind to future generations is much more important than ANOTHER Super Bowl ring. For example, making sure that my children and grandchildren have the support in place to maximize every opportunity they may have in life, vs. not going to college due to high interest rates on student loans, or not being able to enter a specific college program they want to due expenses. After winning one ring, I would be thinking more in those terms rather than only about a 2nd Super Bowl ring. I understand one could still do those things on any decent NFL salary, but if two contracts are on the table and one is worth much more than the other, I'm not sure how you turn the big one down. As with anything, there are obviously exceptions, such as going to the worst team in the league, a place with volatile ownership, etc, but Jennings would likely have more options than that. I can't disagree that as a Packer fan, I certainly hope he takes a reasonable deal though.

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) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (1h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (1h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (1h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (1h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (1h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (1h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (1h) : 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 (2h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (2h) : 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 (2h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (2h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (3h) : 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 (3h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (3h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (3h) : 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 (4h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (4h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (4h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (4h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (4h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (5h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (6h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (6h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (7h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (7h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (7h) : ok I stand corrected

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

Zero2Cool (7h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (7h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

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

Zero2Cool (7h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (7h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (7h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (7h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (7h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (7h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (7h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (7h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (7h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (8h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (8h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (8h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (8h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (8h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (8h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (8h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (8h) : Packers will get in

beast (8h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

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

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS