14 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
14 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)
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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
14 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 (2h) : James Jones. Y’all must not know, Dr. Mackenzie🤣 he was not going to let Jordan love play today.
Zero2Cool (3h) : Malik to start. Love inactive. Per report. Let's go!!
buckeyepackfan (3h) : I think J-10VE will be inactive, a little twist that could be put in is run a wildcat with Wicks at qb. Have him as emergency qb if needed.
Zero2Cool (19h) : I think that's how it works.
Zero2Cool (21h) : I'd go 3 QB regardless this game.
Zero2Cool (21h) : Clifford was elevated, not activated. He doesn't play, it doesn't count.
hardrocker950 (23h) : If Clifford is active, not likely to see Jordan play this weekend
Mucky Tundra (21-Sep) : QB Sean Clifford and CB Robert Rochell elevated from the PS for the Titans game
Zero2Cool (20-Sep) : Love questionable. Morgan is out. Valentine is doubtful
Martha Careful (20-Sep) : Rodgers and Lazard off to a very strong start
Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : Josh Jacobs. Limited.
Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : Can't find anything on Jacobs :(
wpr (19-Sep) : Do you know if they gave Jacobs an extra day off? I hope so.
Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : WR Jayden Reed (calf) and G Elgton Jenkins (illness/glute) returned after sitting out Wednesday.
Zero2Cool (19-Sep) : Packers are in pads and so is Jordan Love. Second straight day of practice for QB1.
bboystyle (18-Sep) : If Love comes back, we win in a blow out
Zero2Cool (18-Sep) : Jordan Love just spoke with reporters and said he’s giving himself the week but hopeful to play Sunday against the Titans.
Zero2Cool (18-Sep) : Practicing is Jordan Love!
Zero2Cool (18-Sep) : Packers are signing WR Cornelius Johnson to the Practice Squad per sources. Johnson was a 7th round pick this year.
Zero2Cool (17-Sep) : Packers placed RB MarShawn Lloyd on injured reserve.
Zero2Cool (16-Sep) : Rams won’t have Cooper Kupp or Puka Nacua when they host the Packers in Week 5.
Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : Or is that the Rusty Red Rifle because of his age?
Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : The Red Rifle Returns!
Zero2Cool (16-Sep) : Panthers are benching former No. 1 overall pick Bryce Young and starting veteran Andy Dalton beginning this week.
Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : bears still have slim chance here
Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : and there's another one!
Mucky Tundra (16-Sep) : oh crap macbob has the Texans K and he keeps hitting these long FGs
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : Hope the Texans beat the brakes off the Bears
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : LaFleur: “I asked Malik why he didn’t throw it on that third down and he told me Josh threw up on the ball.”
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : i was wondering why it was just you, me, beast and macbob by the end
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Yeah it was weird today for some reason
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : Oh my, marvin harrison jr might be as good as he was billed out to be
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : and none of the chats on my phone are showing up on the desktop chat
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : weird, i was on my phone for chat during the game but now on my desktop I look at chat and there's tons of chats i didn't see on my phone
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Oh yeah, for sure. That's just not fair thoguh.
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : Zero, what I meant was that surely a tech and IT genius such as yourself would find a way to change the pick
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Well, I mean, I know I did, but might not have waited for it to register and went into Chat. Oh well
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Or so I thought I did. lol
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : I had Colts for few days to throw everyone off. At 11am or so, I changed it to Packers.
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : You know if you didn't say anything you probably could have changed it and no one would have noticed ;)
Mucky Tundra (15-Sep) : Vikings over the 49ers, Bucs over the Lions
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : lol awesome. my pick for Packers didn't go through. sweet
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Packers defense has 6 Takeaways in two games.
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : nah
Martha Careful (15-Sep) : I think I've been booted out of the chat room
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Jordan Love has his left leg wrapped in a sleeve as he stands on the sidelines during National Anthem.
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Jaire Alexander, Eric Wilson and Elgton Jenkins are the Packers’ team captains today against the Colts.
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Looks like Sean Rhyan will start at right guard, based on the early warm-ups.
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : No surprise, Love inactive
Zero2Cool (15-Sep) : Inactives: 10 QB Jordan Love 27 S Kitan Oladapo 57 DL Brenton Cox Jr. 73 T Andre Dillard 79 T Travis Glover 96 DL Colby Wooden
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 @ 12:00 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

21-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

18-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / earthquake

18-Sep / Random Babble / wpr

18-Sep / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

18-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

18-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

17-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.