Harrell may be a longshot at this point, but I don't think the Packers would keep him on the roster if he had no chance of ever contributing. The team's management and medical staff know a lot more about this than we do. If they were to cut Harrell and bring in another team's castoff to occupy his roster spot, that player would probably be even more of a longshot to contribute. So we're dealing with low percentages either way.

Maybe some fans think Harrell is being kept just to save face, but I don't think that's the case. It only makes management look worse to keep a high-paid player who is contributing nothing, and if he is going to be cut, it will be embarrassing, whether it happens sooner or later. So I have to assume that Harrell is being kept because they think he has a chance to contribute.

---

When the Packers drafted Harrell it was a torn pectoral muscle right? Nothing with the back? The back problem is something that just came up after he was drafted. To me, if that's the case this is more of an unfortunate situation, somewhat like Terrence Murphy rather than a terrible selection. It wasn't that much of a reach to select Harrell as the Bronco's were going to do the same thing a pick or two later anyhow.

---

They "knew more" about Derrick Frost than we did too. And he ended up sticking around about a month and a half longer than he should have. Bob Sanders knew more about defense than I did. Mike Stock knew more about special teams play...etc.

Management isn't always right.

This is correct.. the issues was a biceps..




The injury to the back happened last offseason while lifting free weights in the Packers facility.. personally I think some of the Rock fallout revolved around this very incident..

A couple weeks back we looked into that draft a little.. it was relatively week draft mid to late first round in that draft. So that plays a part.

But looking at Harrell's track record dating back to high school.. there is a notable trend with the guy, injury after injury. Either he is very fragile or maybe he doesn't take proper care of his body for the strain he places on it?

Regardless, there is some responsibility that falls onto the scouting staff and if consulted, the team medical staff if they green lighted his selection. I won't classify it as a reach pick for the Packers, but looking at the prospects record.. it was a pick that had a high element of risk to it.

Is Harrell done, by the reaction he gave last week (regardless of his company line this week) I think it is an strong indication that any "strong" chance of Harrell having an effective career has past. Unfortunate but probably reality.

So if you are the Packers, you have to weigh that slim possibility against handing the roster spot to another player. Personally, I think you are seeing the last days of Harrell the Packer playing out.. Wynn, Monty and an additional backer probably have displayed enough to stick.

Unless Harrell is able to gut through the pain and show that he can contribute here soon.

---

I didn't mind the pick when we made it and I don't now either. I think we needed some DL help and with Williams entering his last year of his contract, the Packers were aware he was going to want to be paid more than he was worth. And instead of paying him the extra money, they went and drafted a DT that they felt had more potential than Williams.

If that was the year we could have traded down with the Browns, I'd have rather us done that, regardless of the selection of Harrell.

The only other position I'd have rather us drafted in would have been OL, with that high of a pick.

---

I see our Dline this year as 4 guys that will rotate, a rook with some upside and a practice squad over achiver like Alfred Malone or Toribido (sp). I don't see Harrell in our future, and I would rather keep overachiever than practices like Tarzan plays like Jane Montgomery. That was a good one 93.

Let us move on now with the rest of the D-line because it is very good as is. In fact I'm sure a lot of teams would envy it. Harrell is disappointing because he would have added more very good depth, but I'm not losing any sleep on this guy.

---

True enough. We have every right to second-guess what management does, because sometimes they are just plain wrong. The distinction I'm making with this case is that it's a medical issue, and a very technical one, so I doubt that we have enough information just from the newspapers to make a reliable judgment about it. If it was purely a performance issue, I would be looking at it differently.

---