15 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
15 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)
15 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
15 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
15 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
15 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
15 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
15 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
15 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
15 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
Fan Shout
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : Well he can always ask his brother for pointers
Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : Bo Melton taking some reps at CB as well as WR
Zero2Cool (10-Jun) : key transactions coming today at 3pm that will consume more cap in 2025
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : Jaire played in just 34 of a possible 68 games since the start of the 2021 season
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : reported, but not expected to practice
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : Jenkins has REPORTED for mandatory camp
Zero2Cool (9-Jun) : I really thought he'd play for Packers.
buckeyepackfan (9-Jun) : Packers releasing Jaire Alexander.
Mucky Tundra (8-Jun) : (Context: he wants his defense to create turnovers)
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

13-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Adam

12-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

12-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

12-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.