H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Well, there were anti-Dez Bryant "votes" predicated on character issues and his not being Packer material. Just a thought.
way to ruin it for everybody. Keep looking for it.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 6,404
- Reaction score
- 1,770
I'll chime in on this one. Why would you want to hire problem children? They're a pain in the butt for coaching staff and mgmt to deal with. I guess I just don't see why some people feel compelled to want to chase after bad acting jackwagons. It's not in the least bit glorious or altruistic imo to potentially put the locker room in jeopardy or the organization's reputation needlessly at risk. Let the fools rot as unsigned free agents. Seriously, does anyone WANT a bunch of guys that could end up on the leagues suspended list at any moment because they are too stupid and/or undisciplined to control themselves?
Joe Nor Cal Packer
Cheesehead
I agree. And Quarless hasn't exactly lit the world on fire. I just don't want someone that stupid, not to mention cowardly, on this team.
Joe Nor Cal Packer
Cheesehead
I wouldn't want to see Bryant in green and gold. We're a long way from desperate in the receiving corps. That said, I wouldn't like to be playing against him either. He is a great receiver.
OP
OP
Deleted member 6794
Guest
According to several sources Guion was one of the most respected players in the locker room last season. Just because someone has troubles off the field doesn´t mean he´s a problem within the team.
greenandgold
I'm Dirty Hairy Callahan
Let's see, a New York native playing in Green Bay Wisconsin foolishly discharges a firearm in Florida.
I am not seeing much smarts in this guy.
I am not seeing much smarts in this guy.
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,766
- Reaction score
- 896
That's my point. Quarless is far from an impact player and yet the Packers are willing to deal with the issue because they have zero depth at TE. Packers are perfectly willing to sacrifice the morale high ground, so-to-speak, if they think it will help their team. I think the Packers are more risk-averse when it comes to higher round draft picks than other teams but they certainly don't appear to be actively avoiding guys with problems.
Sunshinepacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 5,766
- Reaction score
- 896
Ok, thanks. Yeah, I can see how that would relate. Wasn't intended though.
I think risk aversion has everything to do with familiarity as well. If I meet some person at a party and find out they've done time for X offense, i probably won't be inviting them into my circle of friends anytime soon. If childhood friend gets convicted for the same X offense, I may be more understanding, or not, of the situation considering I have had a good relationship with that person built over years. I don't think i'm unique in thinking that way
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
That's the nub of the issue. If the guy is at least a decent player, the first consideration is how he works within the team concept. After that:
- how good is the player or what is his potential?
- how deep is the bench behind him?
- what is the severity and frequency of the offenses?
- how severe is the PR blow back?
- has there been an act of contrition that has at least a semblance of being genuine?
- what is the likelihood of the issue being repeated?
- how much organizational time and energy might be required to limit the chance of recurrence?
- how much in dead cap would it cost to dump him?
These are not binary decisions.
Joe Nor Cal Packer
Cheesehead
This is a good way to look at how off-field issues have a bearing on a player's future with the team. The nature of the issue also plays an important role. Guion's issue is problematic, but not career-breaking, IMO. Quarless is a bit more egregious, firing a weapon to get the attention of a few women is at best stupid, at worst dangerous. In both cases, there are good arguments for a return to the team after 1) a suspension and 2) a serious admission of regret and being sincere in saying it won't happen again. I don't condone these actions in any way. But let's not let the tail wag the dog. For the most part, GB players are 1) talented and 2) mostly good citizens off the field. At any rate, it's not a simple yes/no decision as to whether or not the team cuts someone.
Spousal or child abuse is a legitimate exception. Almost all of these cases turn out to be as reported, or in the case of Ray Rice, worse. I personally wouldn't like to see such a bully (and I'm being kind) on the roster. Everyone is entitled due process in court. In the court of public opinion however, a much different and subjective stanbard applies. In these cases, it may be easier to make that yes/no decision. And even that is subject to the degree of talent for the player in question. Ray Rice was easy to discard. Adrian Peterson, not so much. That's not fair, but it is realistic. Again, I'm talking about the "jury" that sits outside the legal system - fans, owners, women and child right's advocates, for example.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 6,404
- Reaction score
- 1,770
True enough. Each of these unnecessary incidents however causes mgmt, staff and coaches to commit time and effort needlessly dealing with these dumpster fires. Why mgmt would go courting more problem children is beyond my comprehension. I believe that is why current mgmt is pretty careful about who goes on their list of prospective employees.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
I didn't argue for or against Bryant being in Green & Gold. Frankly, the matter is too speculative with too many "what ifs" for me to render an opinion. His exceptional talent, however, is indisputable.
Last edited by a moderator:
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Is Guion a dumpster fire?
What if his story, however implausible at first glance, is completely true? What if all he was doing was playing Santa Clause in February, distributing cash and some weed as gifts to various and sundry friends and family? If along the way he was sending the message to some leeching hangers-on that "this is the last time", I'd find the effort admirable in a way.
That Guion finds himself in this situation bespeaks knuckleheadedness but perhaps only relatively minor criminal activity by a guy without a history of trouble with the law.
On the other hand, if his story does not hold water and it turns out he was running a side business, that puts a different light on the matter.
We'll have to see what emerges from the civil case and whatever the NFL's own investigation turns up, to whatever extent that's made public.
The Packers made a risk/reward assessment in signing him after these events came to light. That's what it's all about. They know enough about the guy to take a calculated risk with a cheap one year deal with no guarantees. They can dump him at anytime at no cost if the story turns against him. If he is who they think he is, it's a win.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 6,404
- Reaction score
- 1,770
He is a dumpster fire in the aspect that the team has to spend considerable time and effort dealing with this unnecessary problem.
Like you said, it's pretty easy to jettison all of the perps in the future if they need to.
Like you said, it's pretty easy to jettison all of the perps in the future if they need to.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Ah, but the team gets him for a year (minus whatever suspension comes down) at a discount! And maybe a follow-on discount after that with the Packers if Guion keeps his nose clean and chooses to reciprocate the Packers' modest expression of loyalty.
That's true enough that I was tempted to leave it be. There are possible issues of timing. I'm not clear myself on whether vested vet guarantees kick in on opening day if the player is suspended. In other words, if it is decided to cut him during or after the suspension, is the balance of his salary for that year guaranteed?
In any case, your phrasing seems a little glib in consideration of the other crap that may be going on behind the scenes that does not get reported, either to the police or in the press. To think that everybody but the guys who have been caught are boy scouts is a little naive. You never know...the next guy to get caught could be a star player with a pile of guarantees or dead cap associated with his contract. Those who are quick to cut and be done with it, with a sometimes moralistic tone in these pages, might sing a little different tune.
Joe Nor Cal Packer
Cheesehead
Well that's a good point - after all it's a business. Leaving dead cap space is expensive, and has to be weighed with the subjective call on how a player affects the rest of the team, or if that's not an issue. If a player is still a contributor to a team, on the field and in the locker room, then he should probably be kept, and the legal system will do its thing. There will probably be a suspension involved, and that's why they pay the GM and coaches - to decide whether it's worth it to keep a player.
As another poster pointed out, these are not binary, yes/no decisions. Personally, I wouldn't want a marginal producer like Quarless on the team if he shows, as he has, great stupidity off the field. Then again, the Packers aren't exactly rich at TE. If Finley were still on the team and Quarless was 2 or 3 on the depth chart, it's a lot easier to jettison him.
I'm glad I don't have to make these decisions!
This is Raptorman's attempt to pretend the Vikings finished a season by winning a title game, but of course it doesn't pass the smell test and the Vikings are still 0 for forever in championships. Yep, no nerve struck.
Regarding Quarless it looks to me like he's got a problem with booze. He may have to decide if he likes drinking better than earning an NFL paycheck. He's already made more than $4M pre-tax and has jeopardized about $1.5M this season, let alone future contracts.
A little fairness is in order. There was a time when the Vikings were an amazing team. I can't forget the purple people eaters. Even though they didn't win the Super Bowl, they were a heck of a lot better than our team that year or even few years time.
As I thought about this issue and read all of your responses, several thought came to mind. If one of us did the same thing, would we be liable to being fired by our employer? I certainly would have. Didn't he have the brains to realize how this could jeopardize his career? If he can't see that, what else is he incapable of grasping? Second. Do we really want a guy on the team who doesn't take the time to think through the potential consequences of his actions? What if he has to field an onside kick in a championship game and doesn't think things through? His mental immaturity is a real issue in my opinion. But that may just be me. He is currently a liability. If I was a business owner, would I really want to hang on to someone who was a liability? Hmmm....
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
MODS! MODS!!! BAN Croak right now!!!! He's trying to be fair to... to... to the VIKINGS!!!
Seriously Croak, it's funny you bring up that moment in the NFCC game. It was Quarless who reminded Bostick right before that play what his responsibilities were. Lotta good it did but just wanted to be fair.
Last edited:
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Quarless' situation is similar to that of Erik Walden. Walden was suspended one game after a domestic abuse incident. Walden played out that last year of his contract with the Packers. Quarless is in the last year of his contract. Neither were impact players, however both were starters with thin benches behind them.
Sometimes, years later, interesting facts cast a different light on the situation. Walden's baby mama with whom he was engaged in the aforementioned abuse incident, is the same woman described in this incident:
http://www.11alive.com/story/news/local/2015/03/19/erik-walden-erica-palmer-baseball-bat/25056509/
OP
OP
Deleted member 6794
Guest
I think the base salary of a vested veteran becomes guaranteed as soon as he´s on the opening day roster no matter what. A suspended player won´t be paid his portion of the base salary and per game roster during the entire length of the suspension though.
Guion earned a $100,000 workout bonus during this offseason and is due to earn $1.5 million in base salary and $1.15 million in per game roster bonuses. That means he would lose $155,882 per game suspended.
The job of the Packers front office consists in field a competitive team so the team holds on to guys having off the field issues who are considerably more talented than other players at the position. It´s possible Thompson looks to adequately replace them once their contracts have ended but as of right now there´s not a lot of options to replace Quarless.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
However, a player who's suspended on opening day is not on the 53 man roster. On the other hand, he is under a contract that otherwise adheres to the rules that apply to his veteran status. It's not clear to me whether the "53 man roster" criteria applies literally or if it's just shorthand that covers the most common situations.
The rule literally applies in other cases. For example, if a team cuts a vested vet the day before opening day and another team signs him the day after opening day, that season's salary with the new team is not automatically guaranteed.
My question goes to the point of the timing of a keep-or-release decision.
Between now and opening day, there is zero financial advantage for the Packers to release either Guion or Quarless. Guion already got his workout bonus, as you noted, which amounted to a team option payment given the structure of the contract. Neither of these guys are guaranteed anything between now and opening day.
So, what happens if these players are in fact suspended before opening day? Do the Packers have to make a decision to keep or release by that date in consideration of the season salary being guaranteed? Or can they keep them around during the suspension period without committing to vet guarantee payments for the balance of the season once they come off suspension, thereby extending the decision period?
This is deep in the weed and doesn't really matter until final cut downs, but it is a timing consideration down the road if it comes to that.
That's the way I view it. Some seem to believe the Thompson-era Packers avoidance of guys with character issues in the draft or in free agency is a reflection of some moral principle. I see it as an risk management principle, as another poster put it.
Guys who get into trouble off the field or in the clubhouse disrupt the football operation. In-the-clubhouse issues are obvious. Off-the-field issues disrupt planning. But once guys have been around for a while and haven't messed with clubhouse culture, the considerations narrow down to (1) player availability in light of the suspension, (2) a determination of the odds that the guy will be a repeat offender further frustrating the planning process, and (3) what are the financial cost considerations and the critical timing points in those considerations.
