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
Zero2Cool (6h) : Brewers icon & Baseball Hall of Famer Bob Uecker passed away today at the age of 90
Zero2Cool (21h) : Jets wanna interview Jeff Hafley for their HC spot. W. T. F.
beast (15-Jan) : A more aggressive QB, potentially could of hit the WRs more often, taking some risks, but also potential get an INT.
beast (15-Jan) : So Hurts didn't take many, if any risks, and wasn't throwing into Cover 2, which I think helped the Packers. Where a more aggressive QB o
beast (15-Jan) : Cover 2, keep a CB and Safety over top of both WRs... and Hurts (like Rodgers) is overly careful and doesn't like any risk in his throws.
joepacker (15-Jan) : new to this maybe question n wrong place?
joepacker (15-Jan) : how did the packers mostly shut down the eagles passin attack and specifically how did they manage such a good job on aj brown?
Zero2Cool (15-Jan) : Per his dad
Zero2Cool (15-Jan) : Watson to have his surgery soon, and should be back around Week 12, with a normal rehab.
beast (15-Jan) : More likely to listen if the guy controlling the ball is the one telling them
beast (15-Jan) : Apparently because players aren't doing the small things when the coaches tell them, and LaFleur believes they're more likely
Zero2Cool (15-Jan) : Jordan isn't a vocal guy. Why not let him lead his way?
Zero2Cool (15-Jan) : I'm not sure it ever bodes well when you have to tell your team leader to be more vocal.
Zero2Cool (15-Jan) : CFL. Nice.
packerfanoutwest (15-Jan) : good luck with that
packerfanoutwest (15-Jan) : Matt LaFleur looking for Jordan Love to be more of a vocal leader
civic (14-Jan) : I’m old enough to remember watching him play in the CFL
civic (14-Jan) : Clements is taking a lot of experience and knowledge out the door with him
Zero2Cool (14-Jan) : Longtime Packers QB coach Tom Clements is retiring, Matt LaFleur says.
Zero2Cool (14-Jan) : Didn't watch the game so can't say
Mucky Tundra (14-Jan) : Anyone else abhor MNF wildcard games?
Martha Careful (14-Jan) : Why is it that the Rams rookies can contribute right away but our first and second year guys are too young to contribute in a meaningful way
Martha Careful (14-Jan) : Yes, Saquon Barkley had a very nice game. But he has a much better offensive line in front of him. I'll take Josh Jacob's. I love the guy
buckeyepackfan (13-Jan) : Rumor has Mike going to The Bears.
Zero2Cool (13-Jan) : Mike McCarthy is out as Cowboys coach
Mucky Tundra (13-Jan) : DOINKED IN FOR THE WIN!!!!!
Mucky Tundra (13-Jan) : Cardiac Commanders
TheKanataThrilla (13-Jan) : Don't like that call Washtington on 4th down
TheKanataThrilla (12-Jan) : The Bills really need to improve their D. The have the ability to score at will, but if they stumble this D will not save them.
Zero2Cool (12-Jan) : LET'S GO
Mucky Tundra (12-Jan) : Blocked PAT returned for 2; not something you see often
Mucky Tundra (12-Jan) : After a strong start, Herbert playing like ass
Mucky Tundra (11-Jan) : Oh god, that means the Clifford stans will come back out of the woodwork
Zero2Cool (11-Jan) : Fills the openin they had
buckeyepackfan (11-Jan) : Sean Clifford signed to 53 man roster.
Martha Careful (11-Jan) : Two terrific NCAA Football Semi-Final Games...We can only hope the Championship game is as good
Zero2Cool (10-Jan) : Eagles WR DeVonta Smith will be a DNP in today’s practice. He’s dealing with back tightness. But the expectation is that he’ll play Sunday.
Zero2Cool (10-Jan) : Jalen Hurts has cleared the concussion protocol. He’s playing Sunday.
Zero2Cool (10-Jan) : 𝕏avier McKinney First Team All-Pro
Zero2Cool (10-Jan) : NFL moves Vikings-Rams playoff tilt to Arizona due to fires
Zero2Cool (10-Jan) : Rams lose home field advantage for Monday game.
Mucky Tundra (9-Jan) : Notre Lame=Notre Dame, Luckeyes=Ohio State, Pedo St=Penn St
Zero2Cool (9-Jan) : ... It clearly was not what we were supposed to be in, certainly."
Zero2Cool (9-Jan) : Hafley says 3rd and 11 call there was a miscommunication.
Zero2Cool (9-Jan) : The only team I know is Texas from that. Who are the other three?
Mucky Tundra (9-Jan) : Notre Lame vs Pedo St tonight and the Luckeyes vs Texas tomorrow
Mucky Tundra (9-Jan) : Stud
Zero2Cool (9-Jan) : E. Cooper. Rookie of Month. Defense.
Mucky Tundra (8-Jan) : @AaronNagler · 2m Both Jordan Love and Malik Willis were Limited participants at Packers practice today.
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : Johnson didn't make it until 2020. Ring 2023. 🤷 Personally, he should have been in years prior to Hall.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

15-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

15-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

14-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / civic

14-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

14-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

14-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

14-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

14-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

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