Schedule suits me
OK folks, here we go. The Packers 2009 schedule is out, so let the debates begin. My first take is I don’t like playing three of the last five games on the road. December and January usually gives the Packers a big home field advantage, but only games against the Baltimore Ravens on Monday night Dec. 7 and against the Seattle Seahawks Dec. 27 are at home for the Packers this year, the Packers close out the season Jan 3 in Arizona.
The upside is the Packers play six of their first ten at home, which gives them a chance to build some momentum before hitting December and January, which is nice. The Packers first four opponents, in my mind anyway, are easy wins. In order the Packers play at home against the Bears and Cincinnati Bengals and on the road at St. Louis and on Monday night Oct. 5 at Minnesota. Four and oh and away we go.
The bye week is week five, which I think is a good thing. After all the rigors of training camp and preseason, I think the early bye might actually be better than having it in mid-season. It’s so hard to predict, but I think I like the early bye, at least I like it with this schedule.
The Packers come out of the bye with a sure win against the Lions, which seems to be awfully early in the year for the Lions to visit Lambeau. The NFL usually provides us this fodder late in the year. The the Packers sandwich a home game Nov. 1 against the Vikes with road games at Cleveland Oct. 25 and Tampa Bay Nov. 8. All three of those look like winnable games. Cleveland is a big question mark right now and I guess, so is Tampa Bay. I think the Bucs will be taking a big step back without Jon Gruden as coach and I think the Browns might be better with Eric Mangini as coach, so no predictions there.
The Packers then get a nice three-of-four stretch at home with games against Dallas and San Francisco (Nov. 15 and Nov. 22, respectively), a trip to Detroit on Thanksgiving and then the big Monday night game against the Ravens. The Packers will have 10 full days of rest to get ready for that one. I’m this far and I don’t see anything that terribly daunting. But traveling to Chicago, Pittsburgh and Arizona in the last four weeks is a little different story. The Bear games doesn’t necessarily scare me, at Pittsburgh in December, forget about it. If the Cardinals are in the hunt I’m not real confident about that game either. The Packers have never fared well in the desert it seems. Of course, the Cardinals may be a one year wonder, too, we don’t know.
At first glance, even with the road games in December, I like the Packers 2009 schedule and I think it gives them a chance for success early and gaining momentum is key in the NFL. The only games that really worry me I guess are the Monday night game in Minnesota, the home game against the Cowboys (I’m sick of losing to those you-know-whats), and at Chicago and at Pittsburgh.
All-in-all, I think if the Packers sweep the Vikings in those two games in the first seven weeks, the Vikings will be done and the door is wide open. It just seems all our tough games are at home other than Pittsburgh and Arizona, which bodes well for any team. Confidence is high, I think the Packers got a break from the NFL this year. Six nationally televised games is not too shabby. Of course that could be even more. The Packers-Steelers game already looks like a prime candidate to be moved to national TV. Maybe even the game at Chicago now that Jay Cutler is the Bears’ latest quarterback disaster.
I like it.
April 14th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
ron paulus working out at QB. wow. i realize it doesn’t mean anything but surreal nonetheless.
April 14th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
What position would Ron Paulus play if the Pack drafted him or signed him to a FA contract?
April 15th, 2009 at 4:46 am
Well Packer Nation its getting closer to draft day? Below is a link grading out the last six drafts for each team. Take note of what is said about our beloved Ted Thompson, the man with no personality, who thinks he gleems with his ‘oh so sexy” draft choice of Justin Harrell.
To quote, the last two drafts in Green Bay have been “ho-hum” with Thompson’s best draft being his first because of AR, NC and Brady. Our great leader gets a “C” for his six drafts…average as in his record of 31-33. Oh yeah I cant wait for our draft when he blows another first round choic. If he used all avenues to procur talent, we wouldnt be drafting in the top ten again. Lets see if he can do better at number 9 then he did at number 5.
Prediction for 09: 8-8 or worse!!
Here is the link for all you draftnecks that just cant get enough
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9453994/Draft-review:-How-every-team-ranks-from-2003-‘08
April 15th, 2009 at 8:24 am
We get a Vikings game when the DT Williams will be serving suspensions beautiful.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:33 am
Monty, the Packer section of that write up that you linked I thought was pretty ho-hum in itself. It basically told us a bunch of stuff we already know like Greg Jennings was a great pick at 52, and Sherman got fired for bad picks. Then proceeded to take the typical national media point of view. After all the national media thinks this team is hurting at corner after seeing Tramon step up last year. I’ll stick with our local media in Green Bay who knows what’s going on with this team. Not that I agree with them all their angles all the time but they know their stuff. National Media comes across as shallow to me.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Monty Says: “Our great leader gets a “C” for his six drafts”
I’m not going to argue the merit of Ted’s draft selections but will point out that he’s only conducted four drafts as GM of the Packers (2005-2008). There are three starters from his class of ‘05 (Rodgers, Collins, Poppinga) and four from his class of ‘06 (Hawk, College, Jennings, Spitz).
It’d be nice to have an eye-popping immediate impact player come our way, but those are few and far between! I’m not disappointed with the way TT drafts…
April 15th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Paulus could play guard on the Packer’s winter basketball team, if he is invited to camp and if he beats out the water boy. I agree with Al that the Packers got a break in the scheduling. The Chiefs have a much more challenging schedule than the Pack and how that happened only the NFL home office knows for sure.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Schedule looks great for the Pack. Some very winnable games early on should boost their confidence for the second half.
Never underestimate the value of confidence. Just look at 2007, started with some games we should have lost, but found a way to win. Everything picked up steam from there.
Heck, just look at Wayne Fontes history in Detroit. When they played tough schedules early, they sucked. When they played easy schedules early on, they had good seasons. 2009 looks like a very good year to be a Packers fan.
April 15th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
With what team are we going to beat the competition? We haven’t gotten better through free agency, we have lost some good players, new defensive sceme, and we are no longer a cold weather team. I don’t hold much hope for the draft. I will be there, cheering as always, but until the three stooges are out, the schedule isn’t going to win games for us.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Paul you talk about the new defensive scheme as if it is going to hurt us for this season. Dom Capers with the new defensive scheme is an upgrade over the Bob Sanders same old defensive scheme.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Paul
What “good” players have the Pack lost??
With AR in his 2nd year as starter along with Capers as the DC, GB will win 10+.
How will the NegaFans react then ?? Disappear, hopefully.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
again. love how if you’re a “negafan” you’re disrespected and must “disappear.” no point in trying to post anything rational as it will be ignored as “too negative.”
April 15th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
snyzt
Posting about GB working out a basketball player is rational ???? This blog is about the schedule but yet the 1st post by you is totally off-subject.
You’re just looking to post as much negativism as you possibly can. You’re a NegaFan.
You may as well admit it. It’s easy to see.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
How does negative equal the same thing as rational? It doesn’t!
I see myself as a positive fan but have talked and and discussed the mistakes of the Justin Harell pick and the poor defensive line. I have gone as far to say the D-Line is terrible because it is.
However since this team has all upside and is headed twords getting better I go out of my way to be positive most of the time. If you go out of your way to be negative and in some cases reach for negativity it’s hard for me to argue with Rocky when he says your a NegFan. In fact gotta give Rocky credit for the new term. I think it’s going to stick.
April 15th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
How do we then describe the homers, kool aid drinkers, or “True Packer Fans”?? Blindfans!!!!
April 16th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Ocono, thanks for going out of your way to be negative.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:50 am
I am disappointed with how TT handled free agency and his inability to draft superior linemen but there are also some very positive developements. I fully expect us to win our division this year and I don’t want to hear any excuses why we can’t. I like our schedule, coaches and our too young players are about due to take a step forward like the Cards did. If someone is bitter about last year I don’t blame them but all that is history.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:21 am
Braylon Edwards wants to double his salary of $4.55M. Jason Peters wants $11M to play OT. Peppers has been offerred $17M. PIT gave Harrison over $8M. Who knows what Boldin wants? I don’t wonder that TT prefers to build thru the draft. Now, do you consider a kid right out of college, taken in the 1st RND or not, worth these kinds of $$? I don’t; its a business fellas and we have signing needs right on our own roster with “only” $30M to go around for raises to the deserved. I think TT is doing as good a job as anyone could expect given the times. Nobody hits a home run in every draft and if you are impatient at the lack of movement in FA this year, consider how much $$ we would have in the kitty if we had kept BFs $12M on the payroll. Caution: Don’t let your emotions overrule your common sense.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:32 am
Larry, don’t make excuses for TT, he’s done a mediocre job compared to the Pats and Steelers and the better front offices. They work under the same financial constraints we do and start out with just as poor or worse draft positions. Everyone knows we have a weak D-line now, that’s why we had to go 3-4, let’s see what he does to address that. If he can I’ll say he’s doing a good job. If he can’t we have to try someone else who can, it’s not personal I just don’t want us to get stuck with someone who’s just average running the team.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:27 am
By your criteria (30) GMs should be fired every year; interesting that the comparisons are always to the current winners. Regardless, he is the Packers GM and I will support him until those above him decide he should be gone. Your logic for not taking the DE from FSU was that “we had two of those already who were 1st round disasters and you couldn’t stomach a third”. With that kind of reasoning please don’t be on the selection commitee to pick the next GM. You give no consideration that just maybe the 3-4 suits our talent better, only that we have a weak D-line. I don’t see the Cap as a “constraint” but rather a tool to ensure parity. Thats why teams, along with luck and injury, are continually up and down. The system is designed to do just that, hence the inverted draft positions. Ya gots ta unnerstand the game guy.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:51 am
I would rather pass on the high priced free agents like Canty and Haynesworth. Instead sign a few lower priced guys to fill in like Duke Preston, Brandon Chillar, and Anthony Smith. Then keep the bulk of our money resign our own guys like Collins, Jennings, Kampan, Bigby. last year we resigned Rodgers. As other players step up we need resign those players that are already on this team. That’s what the bulk of that 30M will be used for.
The last thing I want to see is us sitting here 3 years from now saying, I wish we could have kept Jennings, Kampman, Bigby, and Collins because they are gone to free agency because we over paid on the free agent market for guys like Joe Johnson, Ahman Green or Marco Rivera.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Bunch of sensitive pussies!!! One can’t even discuss concerns of a team without half of you all crying “Your not a Packer fan!” “Your so negative!” Whaaaaaaaa! The Packers brass admit the defense will have growing pains. Also, our draft history under TT rates about a c-, by professional pundits in the field, AND Rocky Horror Picture Show, just review the players we have lost over the past year or two compared to pick ups. The list is too extensive and beyond the scope of this post….but hey, at least we signed J. Bush again.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:03 am
JeffN, picture this: Clifton and Tauscher have had it, Collins and Bigby cant be resigned because we’ve run out of the $30M. No money for Jennings, and Woodson and Harris are shot. I dont care how much $$ you have tell me again that you dont build thru the draft. I’m the first to admit you have to supplement w/ FAs and trade to change, but man, give me those extra picks. You just cant get enough replacements thru FA to build a team, never have, altho Wolf came close.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:15 am
You know things are heating up when the world’s angriest psychologist makes an appearance two days in a row! The draft can’t get here soon enough for me…
Word of advice, Rocky70 - ignore the TT-haters; to respond is just to give them a platform for promotion of their agenda. It was boring to begin with and it’s oh-so played out…
April 16th, 2009 at 10:27 am
iccyfan, I agree but just can’t resist sometimes.
Paul, I think you have gone over the edge. You need to go see a counselor. If that doesn’t work you might want to check yourself into a mental health facility.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Larry, according to the S. FL press that DE from FSU isn’t as good as Wimbly a 1st rounder for the Browns whose been a flop. The 3-4 suits the limited talent we have better than the 4-3. And, I can support our team without making excuses for the GM.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:35 am
I’ve got a big batch of grape kool aide from Sam’s Club. Who wants a drink?
April 16th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Well, there you have it! Paul/Mark you know the FAs available out there and you know the draft; heres 30M, have at it. Tell us what you would do with it! I think you had better give a guarantee for Div, Conf, and SB however, to insure your credibility. Lets get started, you’re in charge. Oh, don’t forget Collins, Jenkins, etc. I think it fair that with all the flak you throw at TT you should man up and give us a shot at you - you two are in charge now…
April 16th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Larry - you’re right, it’s easy to point out problems, not so easy to suggest specific solutions.I think we should get more sure-fire stud starter free agents to. If you ask me how, I will probably just give you a blank stare and change the subject by telling you to drink Kool-Aid or some other lame response.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
I would have signed Canty or Olshanski to have starting caliber depth and one less hole to fill in this draft. TT can still find people in the draft but they could take years to develope. If we can afford to pay Bush millions we can spend some money on a player who can start in the NFL. Not a bunch of free agents and not a big splash but one man on the D-line who can help, is that asking too much. Hell that cheap free agent we just got or some other castoff might be all we need, I don’t care how he does it. I expect him to get someone, that’s his job, that’s why he gets the big bucks. And, I’m very confident he will. The one thing I don’t want to hear are the whiney excuses as to why he can’t.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
You all are kind of ridiculous, entertaining, but ridiculous none the less. Before football I want to say that being a fan of something automatically shows that you are not negative toward it. It means showing overwhelming enthusiasm toward the team. Negative and fan just don’t go together.
On to football, I don’t think that I have any real answers on how to do it but both of the lines need to be reworked before we are actually going to get better. Outside of a quarterback, which Thompson did a good job of figuring out with his first draft pick, the lines on either side of the ball are the most important for every team (I believe). So far I have seen both of our lines get worse since Thompson has been our GM. I believe that it is much easier to choose a WR, RB, CB, or LB because you are looking for the best in a pool of a bunch of amazing athletes. Thompson has done a pretty good job of this. Linemen are a different story. Thompson has tried in both FA and the draft for linemen and things are only getting worse. I think that he should be on his last straw on this and if he doesn’t get it figured out this year then we should look for someone that can. I think he doesn’t do anything about it because he doesn’t know what to do. Thats not who I want running my football team.
I also believe that the Packers, even with horrible lines, can still win the division. That has 100% to do with the level of competition that they will face. The Packers haven’t gotten better but let’s hope the rest have gotten a little worse. Go Pack Go
April 16th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Scott you call all of us ridiculous. You say that like everyone who posts on here is ridiculous. Now that you have posted, welcome to the club. Hope you like stooping down to our level.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
What will football without Madden be? And how many gazillions did he make off that Madden NFL football game? BOOM!
April 17th, 2009 at 1:14 am
No Favre, Holmgren, Madden or Dungy…weird…think the cupboard will feel kinda empty without ‘em next year.
I get a strange feeling that Madden is stalking Favre down in Mississippi…way too much man-crush going on from Madden…
April 17th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Yeah, Madden’s voice was always one of the major sounds of football in a way. It’s going to weird not hearing his voice anymore on football weekends.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Seriously. The topic is the Schedule suits the Packers.
I think we really got lucky on schedule this year but then again we finished in the bottom 1/3 of the league and should get an easier schedule than the division champ Vikings.
We need to come out of the gate on fire and stay healthy. If we have limited injuries we have a chance for the division. All we need to do is play solid on the def side of the ball. We all know that we had a unhealthly O line last year and the hodge podge killed us… but we were in almost 6 of those games.
D line has no depth. Well we only need a piece or two to help with the 3-4 scheme. We have two of the best bang and bump cover guys in the business and a speedster as a third nickel guy. With the blitz coming from any where and safetys that can come up like mini linebackers we can really take advantage of this schedule to move ahead like we did two years ago and make other teams in the division have to play aggressive or get left behind.
NO WILD CARD will come for the North. Win it or go home!!
April 17th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Sorry I didn’t know it was illegal to divert from the “topic.”
April 17th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
no more hodge podge on O-Line = Really good O=Line
Once the hodge podge stops we won’t have to listen to everyone complain about how bad TT is at drafting O-Line.
The real need on this team is a NT and DE and we are set. Although 1 more OT would be nice to have for depth.
April 17th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
It would be nice to find a suitable replacement for Frosty the Puntman too.
April 17th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Rick,
Thanks for keeping us on track.
Roy, Madden will be missed in a major way. The current Monday night announcers are some of the worst that have ever had the job. What they put together for Sunday night will be interesting to see.
April 18th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Sorry to go off topic again, but I liked this info from Bob McGinn in the JS.
“We did a study on receivers,” said Eric DeCosta, the Baltimore Ravens’ director of player personnel. “If you’re a junior receiver and you come out, there’s a high bust potential.”
In the last 12 drafts, 40 wide receivers have been selected in the first two rounds. By subjective analysis, eight became exceptional players whereas 17 turned out to be wasted picks.
The list of busts taken with top-10 choices included Troy Williamson and Mike Williams in 2005, Reggie Williams in ‘04, Charles Rogers in ‘03, David Terrell in ‘01, Travis Taylor in ‘00 and David Boston in ‘99
April 18th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Missed your point Roy other than to verify the choices made by MM and TT.
April 18th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Larry, I wasn’t trying to make any point. I just thought that it was interesting that when these teams draft, they are showing that the chances of a underclassman wide receivers sticking in the NFL are not very good. Finley, although not a wideout, may or may not fit into that class. All of those receivers mentioned in the last paragraph were highly hyped by the mock drafts etc but not had any success except collecting big paychecks.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Okay, let’s have some fun…if
#1- Stafford
#2 - J. Smith
#3 - Curry
#4 - Monroe
#5 - Orakpo
#6 - A. Smith
#7 - Raji
#8 - Sanchez
Are all gone do you draft: Oher, Maybin, Jackson or someone different and why. Assume a trade down is not possible….not takers and you have to make a pick.
April 18th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
feel free to answer as your opinion or what you think TT would do in this scenario, or both…
April 18th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Can’t trade down? Easy, Jenkins!
April 18th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Whatever he does will be perfect. This is really only guessing on what perfection Ted will grant us with. Tired of the trade downs, since we can never get any quality free agents lets try to get some players that can atleast help us this season. I am even willing to throw in Justin to any trade, just to not see him sitting in street clothes on the sidelines.
April 19th, 2009 at 12:52 am
So “kid” you have proved it. We have 2 sides: those who hate Packers managment and think they are idiots and those who support them and believe they are competent and trying to make the Packers better.
I support them, but we better improve this year.
April 19th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Reid, I know they’re trying but you have to admit 6-10 isn’t very competant. Maybe I expect too much with the other teams in our division improving their talent but I expect us to win it. We have a good schedule and maturing players. If we don’t, I don’t think they’re idiots or hate them but 5 years is enough to show what you’ve got.
April 19th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Here is my draft board for the Packers at number nine.
1. Michael Oher
2. BJ Raji
3. Tyson Jackson
4. Larry English
April 19th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
I reiterate that I’m not talking about the Packer Trio until the end of August and possibly thru September. Why? Because they deserve a chance to right the ship. If they do, they’ll be heroes. If they don’t, I hope they have plenty of frequent flyers miles available.
April 19th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Matt, Good food for thought on those picks before the Pack. However, I think the Browns go with Crabtree if they get rid of Edwards or they might go for Sanchez which is less likely. If Sanchez is still available at nine, you gotta think the Broncos would be interested in trading up and kicking in a lower pick, maybe a three or four.
April 19th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
MH - I’m with Roy in that I just don’t see Crabtree lasting until nine, but if he’s the one left standing I’d be sick if Ted didn’t take him. I don’t care that the Packers don’t NEED him as I haven’t seen an expert yet that didn’t rank him one of the top four players in the draft.
I don’t know where he saw this, but my HS Freshman son was looking at mocks this afternoon and saw one which had the Packers getting Raji, Larry English, Tulane OT and Mitch King (high motor Iowa DT projects as a pro DE) with their first four picks.
I said this six weeks ago and I’ll repeat it again; I hope the Packers draft Chase Coffman if he’s sitting there in the late third or early fourth…
April 19th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Mark - I think this is the “3rd side which Reid doesn’t admit to. Don’t hate them or think they’re idiots…just want to see us win.
Roy- I would agree…don’t think crabtree will last. I thought about not putting Raji in my top 8, but that’d be too easy…was just kinda giving a for the sake of the argument.
In fact, call me crazy, but if Crabtree or Sanchez were still on the board and for some crazy reason, you can’t trade down…if you’re TT, don’t you have to take one of those 2 guys if you suscribe to the BPA philosophy? You could always make the pick and trade them after the pick is made…allah Eli Manning.
Plus Jennings and Crabtree, could probably become a Boldin and Fitzgerald-type combo in 2 years and since clearly MM likes to spread the field, might be pretty sick for AR to throw to for the next decade.
April 19th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
iccy-
Chase Coffman or Beckum would be a great round 3 pick in IMHO…doubt they’ll pull the trigger though, MM & TT seem to undervalue TEs and FBs. Love to see us pick a brusier FB in one of the later rounds, too…
April 19th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Almost forgot to answer my own question…I’d take Oher, if Raji is gone. Oher is a guy you can have start day one at RT and move over to LT next year after Cliffy is done…Unless Geno Or Barbe is anything, we really need 2 OTs, ASAP. Think our bookends are at the end of the road.
April 19th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Larry…there is just no way they are taking Jenkins. Jenkins is really a safety at the next level. It happens, but it is very rare that safetys are taken top 10 and they usually run 4.4. And there isn’t a chance in hell TT takes a safety in round 1. Just not something he believes in doing…
Plus you like to compare Jenkins to Woodson…only difference is Woodson runs a 4.40 (or did coming out of college); Jenkins 4.55…and that is a world of difference when you are trying to cover a 4.3 to 4.4 #1 WR. So unless you are willing to let your #1 pick sit on the bench for 5-6 years and play dime and nickel like Harris, who has 4.5-4.6 speed, did as an Eagle and at Tampa before he came to GB, then Jenkins is a waste of 1st round pick…if you don’t have top end speed, you need to be developed into a CB with world-class technique, which takes years to master, as Harris has done. So, at 4.55, he a safety. And Thompson won’t EVER pick a safety at #9.
April 19th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Think about it Larry…this guy is as fast as Al Harris…or Tramon Williams.
Williams is 5′11″ 189 and runs a 4.59
Jenkins is 6′1″ 201 and runs a 4.55
Harris developmental guy who leverages technique.
Williams developmental guy who leverages technique.
Jenkins would be a developemntal guy who would need to levarage technique at the next level or be converted to safety, which is what someone will do.
And because he wasn’t a safety in college; he won’t go top 10.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:46 am
As the 2009 draft approaches, here is an update on Ted’s Favorite player to date he has drafted in the first round. From the 2007 draft:
This is shaping up to be yet another lost offseason for defensive lineman Justin Harrell. For the third consecutive spring, the former Tennessee star is rehabilitating an injury (back) and not working out with his teammates. GM Ted Thompson and coach Mike McCarthy aren’t ready to write off Harrell just yet, but they certainly aren’t counting on him either.
You can read the whole article here:
http://www.packerupdate.com/
The Bills offered Peters to Ted, but as is Ted’s way, the player costs too much. Look for our O line to struggle this year.
Trades Ted should have made but didnt:
Moss for a 3rd rounder
Gonzales for a 3rd rounder (KC’s fault on that one, no way Gonzales is worth a 2nd).
Looks like Ted doesnt want to pay his boy GJ (Greg Jennings) who is the best player he drafted.
Here is to hoping the Packers go less then .500 so we can kiss Mickey and Donald good bye and make Capers the coach and get a real GM. Gee you would think in his fifth year as a GM the team wouldnt have so many needs (O Tackle, DTackle, Running Back, Secondary).
What losers, Thompson and Fat Mike. Did you hear the real reason the female VP quit wasnt because her husband was sent to Afghanastan, but its because she is afraid of Ted sexually harassening her while hubby is gone.
April 20th, 2009 at 4:49 am
Yeah, right, and Ahmad Carroll could fly! We’ll see.
April 20th, 2009 at 5:12 am
MattHayton, I’m not drafting him to run 40s, but to play football.
April 20th, 2009 at 5:54 am
Al or whoever administers this site, you really need to update the photo at the time since Ted traded Favre to the Jets. That should be AR’s picture leading the Packers to defeat again and again.
You watch all you Packer Die Hards (and I am one) it will be five ten years or longer before we enjoy the success we had with Favre. Looking at Packer history, we have short runs of success followed by long periods of failure. We do not sustain ourselves well like other teams.
April 20th, 2009 at 5:55 am
And lose the picture of the Cheerleaders, Green Bay doesnt have cheerleaders because the town is too conservative or Ted just doesnt like girls. Now Philly or Miami, THOSE are cheerleaders!!!
April 20th, 2009 at 6:15 am
Matt Hayton your rules were at 9 the choice is; Oher, Maybin, Jackson, or other. I say, given your criteria, its Jenkins or Crabtree.
April 20th, 2009 at 7:45 am
Well, Monty the “Packer Die Hard” who wants less than a .500 season sure knows a lot about cheerleaders!
April 20th, 2009 at 7:56 am
Monty, your one paragraph write up on Harrell is all stuff we already know. In one sentence you say TT is sexually harrassing a girl and then in another sentence you say TT doesn’t like girls. Then you proceed to talk about pictures. You make no sense. This is a football sight not your place to dream up a soap opera.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Monty
Another GM wannabee who’s practicing as a troll.
At least you’ve exposed yourself as one of the last fans with a man-crush on BF. All the rest have seen reasons to jettison their minds to 2009.
You should try it. Counseling would do you good.
April 20th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Also, Matt, one last thought; we’re talking field fast, nobody runs 4.4 backpedaling.
April 20th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Matt says: Mark - I think this is the “3rd side which Reid doesn’t admit to. Don’t hate them or think they’re idiots…just want to see us win.
Roy says: …they deserve a chance to right the ship. If they do, they’ll be heroes. If they don’t, I hope they have plenty of frequent flyers miles available.
Good points, guys. I agree on both accounts. This year is make or break for me and my support for this administration.
Regarding the draft, we just better make sure whomever we take knows how to have good pad level (sorry, had to throw that in there).
April 20th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Monty - you give the rest of us haters a bad name…it’s okay to have a take but don’t muddy the waters with hating girls and sexual harassment accusations against TT, those are low blows…
April 20th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Monty, I can understand the frustration and some of your football points are valid but you’re not being rational. I think our defensive coaches are an improvement and MM is smart enough to change to a defense which is a better fit for our talent. MM didn’t go 14-4 because he’s stupid, he’s been hamstrung by TT being cheap. Our players are maturing and that takes time and we do have a favorable schedule. #12 has another year to get better and we have some very good players. Don’t discount what TT did in bringing in Pickett, Woodson, Chillar, Grant(who he pulled out of a hat) and some good draft picks. So far he just seems too rigid to be a good GM and might always be safe and average but who knows.
April 20th, 2009 at 11:04 am
MH - As to your draft scenario, I think TT would have to select Crabtree at #9 but I don’t agree as to selecting Sanchez as trade bait. Regardless of what you or I believe, they think they have three good young QB’s in the stable. If your scenario were to play out, I’ll be joining Monty, Ocono, paulie & jon’s club!
The on-line experts seem to be all over the board on Michael Oher; I saw one mock recently that had him going #2 to the Rams! More recently however, I’m seeing him as the #4 OT prospect and an overall rating of low 20’s. The same thinking seems to hold true for Aaron Maybin at OL / DE. I hope they don’t take either of them at #9; I like Jenkins better (consensus top CB & S prospect) despite your Jarrett Bush theory.
April 20th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Larry here are your 2009 pro bowl corners:
Woodson - 4.4
Winfield - 4.41
Samuel - 4.51 (4th round draft pick which sat and was developed for 1.5 years before starting)
Barber - 4.3
Harris - 4.5-4.6
Asomugha - 4.38
Finnegan - 4.33
Revis - 4.45
Here are some other pro bowl corners:
Bailey - 4.28
Bly - 4.34
Trufant - 4.38
Terrance Newman - 4.39
Antoine Cromartie - 4.4
Larry - the evidence is pretty heavy that to be a pro bowl corner in the NFL today you need to be a 4.2 - 4.4 guy. There are exceptions, but they don’t get drafted at #9. See Asante Samuel (4th rounder) and Al Harris (6th rounder).
But GMs don’t draft 4.55 corners in the top 10 of the NFL draft…it kinda be like taking an injury prone defensive lineman in the top 15, who only played a few games his senior year in college…the risk far outweighs the potential of hitting on the pick…oh wait.
April 20th, 2009 at 11:37 am
So what, he’s probably a better football player than 1/2 those on the list? Think Carroll, he had those kinds of speed #s too. I’ll tell you straight up, you’re knocking your head against the wall if you think you’re going to convince me he won’t start in the NFL next year, and I don’t care if its at CB or S.
April 20th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Hornung couldn’t run and LT can’t dance, but they could sure play football.
April 20th, 2009 at 11:49 am
The packers will not take jenkins. As Matt said, he is a safety Larry. We don’t need a safety and they rarely go top 10. A moot and pointless argument.
April 20th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Again, Larry, the argument here isn’t if Jenkins could become an all-pro player, becuase I agree with you…like his talent and skill set. The argument is whether or not an NFL GM would draft him with the #9 selection. And an answer is a rsounding no…safetys that go top 10 played their in college; no conversion CBs to safetys go top 10 due to the inherent risk in switching positions…adn as you can see 4.55 corners don’t have good chances to become pro-bowl guys in the NFL. So NFL GM’s don’t pick them that high.
Top Corners picked in the last 3 drafts:
2008: #11 - Leodis McKelvin 4.38
#16 - Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie 4.47
2007: #14 - Darelle Revis 4.45
#18 - Leon Hall 4.38
2006: #15 - Tye Hill 4.31
During the last 3 years, top safetys include:
2008: None in top 15
2007: #6 - LaRon Landry 4.36
2006: #7 - Michael Huff 4.35
#8 - Donte Whitner 4.4
#16 - Jason Allen 4.36
So in the last 3 years in the draft a defensive back running 4.5+ hasn’t been selected in the top 20 picks, let alone the top 10…just the facts, Larry.
My guess is that Jenkins will be in the #13-#20 range, but #9 is just too high.
April 20th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Yeah, you’re right Lew, the top rated corner will definitly play safety. I don’t think we’ll take him either but I can hope. You damn sure better be hoping Harris can play zone and that Collins, Bigby, and Rouse (?) don’t get injured.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
The contract year may have some bearing on the draft. Pickett I understand is in his contract year as is Kyle Orton. So if there’s a good OT, a good DE and of course, Mr. Zig-Zag available, who will be the most likely guy to start from day one?
April 20th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
I like your initiative to get this rolling Matt Hayton……….. W/that senerio, Crabtree. From what I’ve read, this draft is deep but not toooo studly. If he picks top 10, he’s gotta get top 10 talent or as close as he can get. Wouldn’t dare take QB, even if he wanted too….. Might be the year to trade out if there’s only mid 1st talent after the first couple picks. But, I think they really need to find a couple studs. There’s something to be said about safe, if not un-spectactular and that is that Mandriches, T. Buckleys and Jamal Reynolds’ will help you alot less than a solid player at #9, but they really do need a couple studs for the team.
There’s just something wrong about this, but there seem’s to be a contingent of Packer fans who’d rather see Harrell go bust, than see him turn things around and become a good player for the Pack.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Larry…so funny how you ignore me when I’m right…
April 20th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Larry. I did not say that the team couldn’t use depth at corner- with the age of woodson and harris I think they do. And I am not the one calling him a safety. Almost every personnel man in the league is calling him a safety. If there is one position where speed is essential it is corner. I understand that you think your opinion is superior to all others, but I would suggest you do a little research.
We have to take crabtree at #9 if he is there. So I hope he is gone.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
DA - I’d love for Harrell to turn it around. But that doesn’t change the fact that TT shouldn’t have picked him at #16. He could have gotten him at the top of round 2 that year…especially with guys like Bowe, Merriweather and Olsen still on the board. Bowe is that big physical receiver, we still don’t have, which is nice to have on the goal-line; Meriweather is pro-bowl safety..could you imagine Collins and Merriweather as our safety duo…and Olsen, well he’ll just be a thorn in our side for the next decade.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Lew- agreed. I really hope Sanchez is still there and we can trade down…
April 20th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
You said a mouthfull, DA. Regardless of all the, I’m the best fan ever, talk you know deep down they would rather see a collapse to prove their point. No improvement in record will change their opinion either. I’m truly glad I didn’t see Favre crash like Tittle, Unitas, Hadl, Namath, and so many others who played too long. The posts have ignored, for the most part, the premise that Matt Hayton gave re who was left and can’t trade down. If you think that Crabtree is a possibility, though, I think that you’re wrong that TT wouldn’t take Sanchez. I really don’t think he is a legitimate 1st rounder, however. The problem is this is a very poor draft, overall, and a lot of these guys projected as 1st rounders are not going to start, unless by injury default. I said a few days ago that I’ve lost my courage at #9 and would rather trade down with this crop. My only exception was Jenkins, but only because I don’t know enough about Crabtree other than the stress fracture (which I’m walking around myself right now). In any case, the guys up in GB are a hell of a lot smarter than me and have resources I sure don’t have. I choose to trust MM/TT/MM.
April 20th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
You guys really think we’d rather see failure so that our opinions would be shown to be correct? Wow, you guys are crazy. I would love to be proved wrong about all of it. Nothing would make me more happy. But I don’t allow what I want to influence what I think. They are two separate issues.
I would be ok with them trading down to the 15-20 range as I think they can get the same quality of player as at #9 in this poor draft
April 20th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Matt Hayton, I answered your rebuttal before you rebutted - ie; the guy is a football player and I don’t care where you put him as long as its on the field. Again, you don’t run 4.2 backwards.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
And the point we are making Larry is that you would have to put Jenkins at safety for him to be effective. And we don’t need a safety.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Matt’s also ignoring that Jenkins is 6′1 - 204 as he focuses solely on the speed numbers of the small guys like McKelvin & Revis. Maybe his added length makes up for that 2/10 second which would make him a certain all-pro. Maybe the fact that he had the best “quickness” of any CB at the combine (as measured by the three cone drill) puts him over the top. I certainly don’t know, but his selection at #9 wouldn’t bother me one bit. You’ve got to love these armchair GM’s labeling him a “safety” when you’re hard-pressed to find any “position rankings” that don’t list him as the top corner.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
His position rating is corner because thats what he wants to play. Because corners get paid twice as much as safeties.
April 20th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Then it follows Lew, that if we eventually switch Woodson to safety he’ll take a pay cut, such rubbish….. The reason CBs make more is because its such a more demanding and harder to play position, fewer can play it, and you have to be a better athlete to do it. I reject your claim that Jenkins cannot be effective at corner. Nothing more than my opinion vs. yours. Regardless of whether the “experts” predict him at safety or not, he is still the top rated corner.
April 20th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Perhaps he is. And he is certainly not talented enough to consider at #9. It is a moot point, your boy TT doesn’t think he is worth the pick either.
Of course Woodson wouldn’t take a pay cut because he has a contract. Not sure what your point is.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Matt -
None of the top five CB draftees you cited from the past three drafts have Jenkins’ size (6′1-204), yet he’s only 8/100 second slower in the 40 than Rodgers-Cromartie.
McKelvin - 5′11-190
Cromartie - 6′2-182
Revis - 5′11-204
Hall - 5′11-199
Hill - 5′10-185
I hate Ohio State, but you can’t argue that he played football at the highest level in the land, something that can’t be said for those listed above (Revis at Pitt probably second best competition level). Do you think that maybe his size and top’s in the combine quickness might make up for what you feel is deficient straight-line speed?
April 20th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
(3) points. 1) I and several others think he is worth a #9 (probably the only DB that is worth a 1st). 2)You have no idea what TT thinks of him, unless he told you directly, which I seriously doubt. 3)There is always another contract, boy, and if he were to move permanantly to S he would sign it, retire, or ask to be traded. Were it not you who made the point that safeties make half of what corners do?
April 20th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
here’s a nice little scenario, provided Sanchez is there at 9.
http://www.nfldraftdog.com/NFL%20Team%20Columns/green_bay_packers_team_column.htm
April 20th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Hey…all I’m saying is that guys who run 4.55 don’t get picked in the top 10 unless they are LB’s. I’m not arguing whether or not he is the top DB prospect or if even he has all-pro potential, all I am saying is, given draft history, CB’s period aren’t usually taken top 10 and certainly ones w/4.55 speed.
iccy - Rodgers-Cromartie was picked #16, which is my point exactly.
April 20th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Roy…nice read. I agree. think best case is a trade down. figures, just our luck…the year we get a top 10 pick, there is no top 10 talent!
April 20th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Larry, you know after thinking about it I think you are right about jenkins at least having a chance to go in the top 10. When Donte Whitner went #8 to Buffalo a few years ago, most people were projecting him as a much later pick. Later than Jenkins actually. So you never know what will happen on draft day, especially if one GM feels like you that he can be a dominating corner. I still don’t see the Packers taking him, but someone might. Someone(s) always goes higher or lower than most are projecting.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
the only way I see TT picking Jenkins there is if he moves Harris…which I could see happening on draft day…maybe for a 4th or 5th rounder. then maybe Jenkins would be his guy…
more and more I think about it I kinda like the idea of Tyson Jackson. I eman if you can pencil the guy in for 10+ years and the guy is Chris Canty or better then that is a helluva pick…good character guy, wouldn’t surprise me one bit, if TT pulls the trigger on him.
And at the end of the day, he knows these kids alot better than us keyboard GM’s anyways…go get ‘em Teddy…you better not have an off day or you’re proabbaly out the door. he’s painted himself in a corner to need a stellar draft with 2-3 guys that can either start day one or atleast be solid contributors this year.
April 20th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
you’ve had 5 frickin years to right the ship…better get it done.
April 21st, 2009 at 5:55 am
I have to admit I have absolutely no idea what TT will do. The only reason I liked Jenkins so much was because of the senario that MH posed at #9. I think this is a poor draft and players are being upgraded because of the void of true “can’t miss” super stars. Just look at who, consistantly, the top 5 rated are this year, my gosh! How, I’m thinking, could we have collectively missed on Hawk? OK, the guy is a true starter, but a fifth? I don’t think so. My point is that this draft scares me like no other I can remember and I don’t think there will be value at 9 (unless its Jenkins). Again, I’m not sure how Woodson, Harris, and Williams will grade out in the 3-4 or what W/H have left in the tank. I don’t like Kampman at OLB either. But, we’re starting to talk “need” and I’m not comfortable with that in the 1st RND. Looking at the past posts on this thread we’re all over the place and really grasping at straws with a lack of confidence in TT. Then throw in the $$ factor. If TT/MM still think they have a winning core, I’ll go along w/ the development program and save the big bucks for our home grown producers. Out!
April 21st, 2009 at 7:45 am
What $$ factor Larry? Unless they take a QB at 9 thhey will pay the same to whomever they draft at that spot.
I predict Cushing or Clay Matthews. Both would be horrible picks at 9.
April 21st, 2009 at 7:57 am
Lew, my $$ factor is the cost of a 1st RNDer vs the value of whose available at 9 and the outlay that takes away from the $ available for the home growns like Jennings.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:40 am
I still don’t get your point Larry. Yes, top 10 picks are overpaid, but that is the way it is. So you think we should trade down? If so, how far? Plus, unless someone specific is there (Sanchez), teams may not want to move into the top 10 for the same reason. I would like them to trade down also as long as they stay in the top 20.
I know how they can solve this dilemna. By not being so shitty that they get a top 10 pick.
April 21st, 2009 at 10:51 am
Lew, you’re right. But I have to point out that the Pats enjoyed a bad draft spot and still went out of there way to aquire a #10, which they used to get Mayo, who was defensive rookie of the year. I’m shure Larry wouldn’t have approved. Ii seems he’d rather have us at 8-8 every year so we don’t have to pay too much to the Harrells of the world or better yet move out of the first round alltogether to get another backup, even cheaper.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:06 am
Sorry Larry, it’s just that I’m tired of hearing about money. We need startering players, particularly on defense, and we’re going to need to find the money to pay them or we can’t compete.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:10 am
I’m not explaining myself, obviously, and thats my fault not yours. Its the cost vs value arguement. Cost is fact, its what the market will bear, its the going rate for an 8, 9, or 10 and you are probably right about the cost at 9 regardless of position. But thats a far different commodity when talking value. Value is subjective, its the worth of a pick to a given situation. Hence, a NT vs CB arguement. IF, a big IF, W-H-T make us solid at CB then Jenkins loses his value to us, but doesn’t change his cost if he goes at 9. Conversely, Rajh(whatever his name is) has a hell of a lot more value to us if you think Pickins can’t handle the nose by himself, even tho his cost wouldn’t change if at 9. So, what does it mean, beats me? The biggest problem as I see it is that we seem to be forcing ourselves into picking for need rather than BPA. Therefore, I think we trade down for more picks, especially if we’re going for need. There will always be suitors willing to move up because somebody in the 20 below us has a value placed on someone at that spot and, as you said, the cost has been established, even if after the draft during signing time. Hope this clears up where I’m coming from. Who knows, we could get lucky and keep the pick, like we did a couple of years ago at 24. I know we’ll spend the money if we think the value is there.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:23 am
Normally I would be extremely opposed to trading down as at this point I think we need quality as opposed to quantity, but based on the quality of this draft I would be fine going down. For instance, Larry English intrigues me, but he is not a value at #9. At #20 he would be, and potentially could have a bigger immediate impact than anyone at #9.
I think Mark or someone asked this, but I am interested in who people think TT WILL take. Not who he should, but who he will. Just curious.
Al, you need to post a draft blog.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:27 am
Mark, of course I’d approve if I had a SB caliber team and “need”ed a key cog to continue at that level. I appreciate the fact that I harp about the money side of this whole show, but its because of the franchise history. You young pups who have never seen the struggle side can’t possibly relate. I know you think that revenue sharing solves all the problems we had in the past but “those who forget history are bound to repeat it”. Just look east to DC. Off topic! I think the chance of getting starters is greater with (2) 2s, and (2) 3s and (2) 4s than a 1, 2, 3, and 4, and dare I say at less cost?
April 21st, 2009 at 11:50 am
Larry, the NFL is completely different and us “young pups” have a better understanding of today’s game than you do. The Packers have no money issues.
And your ability to only focus on $ is really annoying.
The first team All Pro team (exluding special teams) breaks down like this:
15 1st Rd draft picks
3 2nd Rd (all in first 10 picks of 2nd round)
1 3rd rounder
2 4ths (including a FB)
3 Other
So while not having a first round pick will save you money it will also significantly decrease the chance of getting a difference maker. Personally, I would rather win. Jesus you people are amazing
April 21st, 2009 at 12:29 pm
The data is only interesting and proves nothing. Don’t mean to be rude but so what? Better data would be how many 1st rounders are on each Super Bowl team. And thats the real point; it takes a team, not a “difference maker”. Would you like me to show you the 1st rounders who are on losing teams? Probably a hell of a lot more, don’t you think? I don’t “only focus on $” but certainly do consider it as does every team management in the league.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Dude, you need to read something before you spout poo out.
Of the 24 players listed above 20!!!!, yes 20 were from playoff teams.
You can’t have a good team without good players. Of course you need a “team”, but you can’t have a good “team” with average players.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Imagine that, I guess your point would be that the more good players you have the better the team you will have. Amazing! I think we should get better players then.
April 21st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Lew Says: April 21st, 2009 at 11:50 am
“Larry, the NFL is completely different and us “young pups” have a better understanding of today’s game than you do. The Packers have no money issues.”
Dumbest statement of the year thus far…
NFL teams employ “capologists” (Andrew Brandt was the previous Packer mathematician) to negotiate contracts within the confines of the salary cap, but Lew has a great handle on it! Please Lew, explain to us how the Packers will sign Jennings, College, etc. to long-term contacts with nearly mandated front-end signing bonuses. Since you have a better understanding, please shed some light on it for us old-timers. Don’t forget to include draft picks, RFA’s & UFA’s! Managing a salary cap - it’s so easy a Caveman can do it!
April 21st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
I still think if Raji is on the board at 9 take him. If he’s off the board trade down.
If there are no takers for a trade down that would be bad news. I say Tyson Jackson if there are no takers. We need a DE in this draft. Jackson is a bit of a reach at 9 but it’s the best talent swing for our rostor if you look at the poor quality we have at left DE.
In a trade down scenario I do like the idea of stocking up on guys like Larry English, Ron Brace, Ziggy Hood. There could be a Gregg Jennings or Nick Collins calibur pick in any one of these guys. Remember Jennings and Collins were both 2nd rounders.
In theory we could trade that #9 pick down twice and end up picking at the end of the first round while picking up a couple 2nd rounders and or maybe a 2nd and a 3rd. Just a thought.
April 21st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Here’s a check list for the War Room.
1. Pick a player who has a clean bill of health. No injuries or the capacity to play thru injury.
2. Pick a player who may smoke but only a cigarette not zig-zags where he’ll be suspended for weeks.
3. Try to pick a player with a Wonderlic score in double digits.
4. Never pick a player who is clearly overhyped and not any better, and probably worse, than a player you could get 10 picks lower. (Tony Mandarich?)
April 21st, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Iccy, before you get on your horse you should understand the argument. Or maybe I didn’t. Whatever. My point is that the Packers have no long term money problems. Of course you can’t sign every player all the time. You have to manage the cap. Blah, blah blah. No shit dude. And trust me (or don’t), give me a 6 month internship and I could manage the cap. It’s medium level finance. The toughest part is knowing all the loop hopes. The finance is easy.
Jennings you pay. The rest it depends. Kampmann you franchise and trade unless he shows more ability in the 3-4 than I think he will. Collins you probably let go because I think he will be looking for too much money and he is very average. Colledge and Spitz you wait and see. Seriously, when did Colledge go from complete crap to a “solid” starter. He sucks. Spitz may be playing a new position.
Are we going to pay our average players above average money? Probably as TT overvalues his own players and undervalues others but either way we have plenty of money to do what we need to do.
JeffN, I actually agree with your whole post almost. Other than I think we should not trade below the low 20’s. Cheers.
April 21st, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Tory Holt just signed for 20 mil?!. Maybe we can get some bailout money for Greg Jennings.
April 21st, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Maybe another reason we can say farewell to Mark Tauscher?
Tauscher, Mark
Year Team Base Salary Sign Bonus Other Bonus Total Salary Cap Value Position
2008 Packers $ 3,500,000 $ 0 $ 1,556,720 $ 5,056,720 $ 6,271,010 OL
Or find your favorite and see how much he makes at USA TODAY
database of players’ salaries
April 21st, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Why, Roy, money shouldn’t mean anything, right? I’m a little bit more worried about the cumulative injuries to Cliffy and Tausch than what we’re paying them. You’ve presented a good picture of the cost to maintain, now the tougher part; value. If he is sound and the position is rated 6.2 it would follow he’s good value at 5.1. Realize you have to do this for everyone on the roster, every year, and every draft and FA potential before the draft. No wonder they bring in a basketball player to test.
April 21st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
And Cliffy, after this year, we’ll hardly know ye…
Clifton, Chad
Year Team Base Salary Sign Bonus Other Bonus Total Salary Cap Value Position
2008 Packers $ 3,367,500 $ 10,000,000 $ 2,029,920 $ 5,397,420 $ 7,039,086
April 21st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I know there’s gotta be some folks sick of money figures so this is my last post on salaries. You can read in between the lines for what may have been a problem during some years. Notice payroll has almost doubled since 2002. Altho, that was a really low point for some reason unbeknowst to me. Maybe some one can shed some light?
Green Bay Packers
Year Median salary Total Payroll
2008 $ 642,000 $ 94,018,300
2007 $ 440,520 $ 97,653,823
2006 $ 438,420 $ 98,561,315
2005 $ 566,420 $ 64,740,177
2004 $ 614,700 $ 80,383,682
2003 $ 572,900 $ 77,230,121
2002 $ 469,160 $ 49,980,056
2001 $ 514,520 $ 68,979,435
2000 $ 434,400 $ 56,148,300
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:38 am
I got an interesting situation that just might happen!!!
ok if Raji is taken before the Packers are on the board and Sanchez is still available when the Packers pick I can see the Jets trading up with the Packers and getting Sanchez. For what I dont know…it makes sence because recent reports have Denver interested but also the Jets interested…I could also see the Jets thinking San Fran at 10 picking Sanchez. Alot of people think the jets would trade with Jacksonville but I dont see that happening cause Jacksonville wants crabtree or another WR at that slot…
April 22nd, 2009 at 7:40 am
Too many, (8), picks ahead of us for any of us to predict what we will do. So, lets just liven this up with what we, as individuals, would do. I see Tyler’s reasoning, here’s mine. If a starter is available I pick in 2 minutes and move on (Raji/Jenkins/Crabtree, etc. regardless of position). If no starter there I sit with the phone on the hook for 13 minutes. If no calls (I do not initiate a call) I send up the name of the highest player rated on my board thats left. I think thats reality and leaves plenty of options for the best deal. Trading down doesn’t bother me one bit, especially this year.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:06 am
This is Cliff’s last year. I will miss our book ends.
Larry, is hell freezing over? I pretty much agree with your whole post above. Other than Jenkins, but that has already been discussed.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:23 am
Not only that Lew, but I think the Tyler senario has legs to the extent that I might even take Sanchez for a later Day 1 or Day 2 trade. Rest assured that I don’t think he is a 1st rounder, but he apparently has more value than I give him credit for. A little bird tells me that we might take him for some other team.
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:18 am
I hope Sanchez is there as well as it would at least give us options. Unfortunately it is sounding more and more likely that he will not be available at #9. There is a lot of buzz about him going to Seattle at #4.
I can’t wait until Saturday. Anyone going to the draft party? I would be if I was closer. Pops will be there.
April 22nd, 2009 at 9:18 am
Wow, Lew agreed with both Larry and myself in the same week. That scenario was about as likely as the pack going 14-2 this season. I guess anything can happen.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:20 am
If the Packers do look to trade down, what player(s) would need to be on the board when the Packers pick?
It sounds like the experts are saying the following will be gone:
QB Stafford, Sanchez
OT Jason Smith, Eugene Monroe, Andre Smith
OLB Aaron Curry
WR Michael Crabtree
Obviously, if any of them are still available someone will likely look to trade up to the Packers spot.
Beyond those 7 are there any players that teams would be willing to pay big $ and lose draft picks to trade up for?
Now that Raji has been cleared of the drug test allegation, someone may trade ahead of Packers to get him. That would mean we would only need one more surprise pick (typical of Raiders) for teams to be calling the Packers with some decent offers.
Is there any other player to watch for on Saturday?
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:45 am
Dan, I don’t think we trade down if any of those were available because we well might have everyone of them at the top of our list (by position) other than Sanchez. I’d be willing to bet that the OTs are rated at equal value, or close to it (on the horizontal list).
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Someone asked who you think TT will draft, so here goes…
I think it is safe to say that 1 of the following players will be available at #9:
Sanchez, Jackson, Maclin, Crabtree, Maybin, Brown, A. Smith, Jenkins and Wells.
I threw Wells in there becasue I think he is kind of a wildcard…think some team will really like him and he’ll get taken higher than expected, doubt that is us, but TT has been known to surprise.
Anyways, I really think it comes down to who do they like best of this group of players…
I think they will want to trade down, but will be unable to do so…think Tyson Jackson will be our pick at #9.
I don’t think anyone will take him 1-8 and he is a TT guy…good character, many say one of the safest picks in the 1st round…low bust potential, sure bet starter for 10 years.
And with the ninth selection, the Green Bay Packers select: Tyson Jackson, DE, LSU.
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I agree with that pick Matt, but I’m wondering if he’s a guy you could move down a few spots and pick up. BTW, after seeing that JeffN, Lew and Larry all agreed on something, I almost fell off my chair and threw my back out. Most of the media have Jacksonville trading out of 8, but I think the speculation here is as good as that! If Sanchez is still there at 9, Ted will have to have multiple phones working.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
And I see ol’ Mel Kiper has both Eugene Monroe and Andre Smith still available at 9. If that really happens, I think you got to take one of them. I don’t know who Sanchez promotion team is, but they are making him millions by the day.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:24 pm
so just watched on ESPN…McShay says that Jackson is the highest rising late player and may come off the board at #3 to KC or #5 to Cleveland…so much for my, “I don’t think anyone will take him 1-8″ theory.
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Matt - I agree with you. If Raji is gone, we take Jackson because he’s a very good player, supposedly a very good person, and plays a position of glaring need. If Raji is there???????
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:46 am
I don’t see how Jackson can be rising that high. He is a 3-4 end- they make limited plays. Even #9 seems a real stretch
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:09 am
Agreed that #9 is a stretch for Tyson Jackson. However he is the best talent swing for Green Bays situation. We don’t have a starting calibur DE for the left side. If you take his talent and compare it to not having a starter he gives us the most talent we can actually put on the field vs lack of talent to take off the field. He is the best value for this team at that pick if all the other guys like Raji are off the board. It would be nice to trade down and pick him but if no takers for a trade down….
TT will loosen up on his best player available strategy now that this team has a core. He says he still drafts best player available because he doesn’t want to make it obvious to other GMs what players he is going to target which if he was drafting for need would obviously be D-Line in this draft. He doesn’t want other teams to know that. He spins a wise-tail no differently than wolf did the year he drafted 3 D-backs in the first 3 rounds after he said they don’t need help in the secondary. It’s all a game GMs play and love watching it.
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:48 am
OK, enough of the rosy projections for next year, Larry! This team is in terrible shape and thats why the switch to 3-4. Face it, we need a starter at (1) or (2) OT spots; NT and (1) or (2) DEs; a CB and SS; not to mention an OLB and a true starter or back-up at RB. Way too much for a normal draft and there weren’t enough in the FA larder available. We don’t have much choice but to trade down a couple of times as I see it. I don’t “blame” TT for this, however. I think the cumulative effect of all those injuries last year will show up immediately in camp with only half of the walking wounded able to contribute. When I say I don’t “blame” TT its because I blame the previous trainer. Yeah, thats right, the trainer and bad luck. How else do you explain the loss of starters at all the above positions all at once in one year? The best you can hope for is that everybody can come back healthy, but now youv’e got theage factor working against you at those critical spots. I know, over all, we’re supposed to be a young team, but stats lie all the time. We’re old at all the wrong places. The Harrell pick didn’t help, but overall I don’t think the drafting has been that bad. Injuries can be called an excuse, but no team has starting caliber backups at that many positions……OR, I’m way off and everybody comes back fit as a fiddle; but then, we still need a lot of new starters. I think more than most, but suppose we get real lucky and get starters at 9 and 41 (ie, OLB and DE), that could change everything. I’d say we might have to trade off a couple of our WRs, ouch! Also, I noticed in other articles, that somewhere along the way the time clock went from 15 to 10 minutes in the 1st RND. I must have been taking a nap. That means any trade down senario has to be done prior to going on the clock and that’ll be tough if you don’t know yet whos going at 7 or 8. Think about it, I’ve never seen a team take so many hits after a 13-3 year. Clifton-Tausch-Hawk-Barnett-Woodson-Harris-Bigbe-Jones-Jenkins, not nicks or bruises, but stuff that eliminated practice time if not playing time. My appologies to MattHayton this is way too long.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:11 am
Watched NFL Network for a bit last night. They had someone claiming Cleveland really wants Raji at 5. They were originally looking at Crabtree, but their interview with him really turned them off. The person was saying Cleveland got the impression Crabtree is another Ocho Cinco who cares more about himself than he does the team.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:58 am
Dan, in an interview w/ Trey Wingo yesterday Crabree debunked that as mis-direction of intentions. If CLE dumps Edwards they have to take Crabtree unless they want to pay the Boldin tab. The real question is who is worth the $$M, Crabtree (another Rice) or Boldin (proven)?
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:24 am
Raji,Tyson Jackson or Trade Down. We only have one NT on the roster and big question marks at every DL Position. The only offensive position of need is OL and no tackles at 9 are worth the slot. The Pack needs a minimum of 2 DL starters out of this draft. Jeremy Thompson, Jason Hunter should be adequate at OLB so that can be addressed later.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Pack4life, my thoughts exactly about OLB. I don’t see that as much of a need. They got guys that can be servicable or maybe even better. DL is an absolute need.
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Larry -
looks like you stopped drinking the koolaid…this was exactly my point for the last 3 years- our window was closing. We were on the verge of needing to replace 2 OTs and 2 CBs…my frustration was that we didn’t make the necessary moves then (felt like 2 years ago we were 2-3 players away) before the window closed to compete for another super bowl…now unfortunately, the window has closed. After this year 2 OTs and 1 CB will need to be replaced…meaning that we have to essentially rebuild again, already. TT has alot of depth, that may be able to come in and be serviceable or better, but to expect to get pro-bowl claiber play out of all 3 new starters (which we enjoyed from Taush, Cliffy and Harris) would be foolish, meaning we are in a transition phase at 3 critical positions, at the same time.
That’s what pissed me off about TT more than anything else was that we had a window to win another SB and he didn’t manage this team to get us over the top.
I think at the earliest we can compete for that again is another 2-3 years, if all of the chips fall right and I don’t have confidence that will happen.
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
JeffN-
I actually saw a mock draft off of ESPN that has Tyson Jackson going #3 overall to KC…I’d be shocked if that actually happened, but apparently alot of people are high on him.
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Unless, the big unless, Taush and Cliffy are OK and we can go all D this year. Seems like the GB press is pretty impressed with the backup DBs so maybe we draft (damn, need) for up front on D and find one serviceable OT on the current roster. Looks like this year we switch and go need early and BPA later rather than the prefered way. I’m still 100% positive that injuries threw a monkey-wrench into the long range plan last year and the “kids” were thrown into a horrible situation they weren’t ready for.
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I can see TT trading down in a heartbeat or drafting Sanchez and trading him away…Think about it TT always finds a way to trade down…and if Sanchez is still there the phone will be ringing!!! The Jets and Bucs for sure scared that San Fran or Denver would take him….I can see it happening….TT would save money and also he would get more draft picks that is what TT is all about!!!!
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Yeh…I tend to think Barnett was the biggest injury of them all…that defense sure sucked without him…I said 7-9 last year, 6-10 with quite a few injuries and I bet the Barnett injury cost us atleast one, maybe 2 W’s…the Jags and Texans games come to mind…
April 23rd, 2009 at 7:10 pm
My dream scenario is for us to trade down to about #20, pick up an additional 2nd rounder and then trade back into the backend of round 1 or early round 2. I’m thinking Oher and English would be a real nice take. or trade back and stay put…Oher, Brace and Michael Johnson, perhaps…
April 24th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
You don’t suppose this latest “interest” in Mark Sanchez from Seattle and Cleveland is an attempt to extort more draft picks from the likes of the Jets and Redskins do you?
April 24th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Roy - I think you’re 100% right. Hasselbeck has several years left and you don’t spend a #4 overall on a player you expect to sit and learn for three years. The Browns have Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn, who played the part of “Mark Sanchez” two years ago. I’m saying no way Seattle or Cleveland drafts Sanchez, though I’d love to see it as it means a better player potentially drops to #9. There’s a whole lot of posturing going on right now…
Worst case scenario as I see it, would be Michael Crabtree falling to #9. With Jennings unsigned, we couldn’t pay him less than a rookie and we’d be hard-pressed to tie that much money up in WR’s when the team is already rock solid at the position. I am 99% convinced that Sanchez will be there at #9 and Ted will trade down with whomever’s willing to pay the highest bounty to steal him from San Fran. It’d be pretty funny if it ended up being the Jets…
April 24th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
I love the McShay mock draft posted on the main page. If the Packers could get Andre Smith and Conner Barwin, TT should run for governor of Wisconsin. In short, I love this combination much more than the Orakpo / Loadholt prediction of another professional mocker….
Can’t wait for tomorrow, though I’ll be coaching in a youth baseball tournament and won’t see the immediate results. Probably better that way; I won’t have to suffer thru watching GM’s sit by their phones waiting…
April 25th, 2009 at 1:58 am
…And with the #9th pick, the Packers select: Tyson Jackson.
April 25th, 2009 at 1:59 am
but I’m still hoping and praying for Raji!
April 25th, 2009 at 7:54 am
41M, wow! A few posts ago, along w/ me taking he shot for being a “fiscal tightwad” it was stated that the Pack has no $$ problems. Well, I don’t know how true that is but I can see why if it is true. Rookie cap will have to be put in place because this will lead to the 60s all over again. Dont think the NFL cant be challenged, it has before. (20) super millionaires out there could form they’re own league tommorrow. If there is that much $$ to pay a rook then the whole thing is a very profitable venture even if you are losing consistantly. Will be interesting at the next owners meeting because I cant see them letting this happen again (ie, AFC type player grab)
April 25th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Yup Larry, 41m..and as you probably heard Roger Goodell say, there will be $600 million spent on the first round of this draft, $400 guaranteed. Don’t look at the nuthouses for insanity.
If you haven’t read Bob McGinn’s article on Crabtree its a good one. Part of the end provides improvement in our scouting…
“The Packers also are high on Mississippi tackle Michael Oher. If it came down to the choice between Oher and Virginia tackle Eugene Monroe, the edge might go to Oher. The Packers have concerns about the dislocated left kneecap that Monroe suffered in 2006, but they’re probably not severe enough to rule out taking him.”