1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Favre and Freeagency

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by yooperfan, Jan 31, 2006.

  1. yooperfan

    yooperfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,900
    Ratings:
    +0
    Why would Brett commit to returning prior to the start of freeagency?

    1. He wouldn't because he couldn't be sure that TT would make the effort (since he historically doesn't believe that is the way to go) to improve the team this way.

    2. He would because TT has made a commitment to him that he will do what ever it takes.

    Here lies the problem:

    The Packers can make offers to FA's they target, but that doesn't mean they will sign with the Pack.

    Hopefully Brett will decide to come back, but I think he will have to make this decision without knowing what freeagency will bring.
     
  2. LambeauLeaper

    LambeauLeaper Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    239
    Ratings:
    +0
    Apparently that was the problem last year, too. TT mentioned in a recent interview that they had several FA's targeted, but weren't able to sign any of them. Makes me really curious who they were (were they big name or a bunch more Klemm/O'Dwyers?). In any case, we can only hope we are much more successful this year in FA.
     
  3. Robin Yount

    Robin Yount Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    265
    Ratings:
    +0
    Actually this happened recently with Childress also. Of course Childress could be a flop, but he was one the top coaching candidates.
     
  4. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    We didn't HAVE THE MONEY to go after any big name guys last year and Favre got left with playing the hand that he was dealt. I'm sure he wants to know what approach they plan on taking to shore up the "0" line. Are they willing to PAY for FA's known to have the talent or are they going to build it thru the draft?
    MM and TT can at least discuss how they PLAN on going about it even though no specific player(s) obviously could be more than looked at as potential guys they could try to obtain.
    FA is about the cash. Many players go to less talented teams for the money. Last year we weren't going to do any damage of any significance in FA because we couldn't compete for big name guys but Brett knows our situation is different this year.
    The Pack has plenty of options:
    1) Do nothing. "Our "0" line and talent on "0" is good enough. (Ha, Ha)
    2) Fix our guard problems and maybe add a RB and, or, WR thru FA.(Proven Players)
    3) Fix our problems thru the draft. (Build a Line).

    If I were Brett I would want to know how they plan on moving forward too if I got chased all over the field and got my butt planted as much as his did last year.
     
  5. NDPackerFan

    NDPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,253
    Ratings:
    +4
    Good point warhawk....I think given the right approach by TT, Favre would come back and play another season. The fact remains that he's not willing to play with the cards stacked against him again this year. Get him some help on the line, for example, and he will come back IMO.
     
  6. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    770
    Ratings:
    +0
    There was money to play with (~$1.9 million), but TT decided not to spend it even at the end of the season:
    http://members.cox.net/cappage/2005cap.htm

    That's not considering creating more cap space with other contracts or spending the money for Klemm and O'Dwyer on better FAs.

    You can say all you like about there not being money, but the fact is that TT was in a better cap situation that Sherman in his first year as GM. That year GB was well over the cap and both Sharper and Longwell were FAs.

    The cap was worked to keep our top FAs and get under the cap. TT could have worked the cap last season to keep Wahle but decided that it wasn't worth it.
     
  7. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    apparently you didn't read the amount Wahle and Rivera signed for. It was over 1.9 million
     
  8. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    A million nine is a JOKE in this free agency market. No body is coming with that kind of money.
    I don't care what Sherman had to work with in whatever year it was the fact remains LAST YEAR we would have had to rob Peter (cut some talented guys) to pay Paul, Wahle, or whoever, and would have ended up short on one end of the stick regardless.
    What the heck was he going to spend it on towards the end of the season for? A holder for Longwell maybe?
     
  9. TOPackerFan

    TOPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,084
    Ratings:
    +0
    Right, but Wahle's cap number in Carolina was around $2.5 million. TT could have easily found the money if he wanted to keep him (remember that Wahle's new huge deal would have been an extension which has more favourable cap consequences. Not to mention if you keep Wahle you don't give Klemm $800,000 in guaranteed $ so we could have found at least $2.5 million to re-sign Wahle without too much trouble but TTdidn't think $12 million guaranteed for a guard was worth it - I happen to agree.
     
  10. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8

    2.5 PLUS bonus ...


    we had no chance :(
     
  11. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    The thing is we don't have to pitch pennies at players this year. If there's a good quality guard out there at a fair price we can go after him and can compete money wise. After getting stuck like we did last year I would be very surprised to not see us active in the FA market to correct this.
    IF we correct our "0" line and pick up a stud LB like Hawk, another DB, and defensive lineman or end, we can be a whole lot better next year. Having 10 times the cash we had last year, hell, we BETTER be BETTER!
     
  12. NDPackerFan

    NDPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,253
    Ratings:
    +4
    Agreed warhawk...we've come out of the cap "hell" Sherman put us in by overspending on average or a little better than average talent...it's time to get a team around Favre and convince him to take another run at a title!!!
     
  13. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    17,826
    Ratings:
    +3,477
    Wahle was due $11 million, Sharper was due to get $8 million or so...What was TT going to do.....Back load a contract for him and others to only be in this situation in 3 years..Not to mention what if there is no cap in 2007, since there still is no contract between the nfl and players after this season? People are forgetting TT was not the only one that had a choice in this...John Jones, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
    Andrew Brandt, probably had a lot of input in working around cap figures..

    The team only had around $2 million to play with AFTER cutting Whale and Sharper....Then they still had other players on the team that were FA, I.E Kamp...


    Found this article

    Link

    -- The Packers are still about $4 million over the 2001 salary cap, which is expected to be about $68.7 million. They need to get at or under the cap by March 2. Unless they take pay cuts, look for RB Dorsey Levens, T Earl Dotson and C Frank Winters to be gone. The savings under the cap if they're cut: Levens, $4.6 million; Dotson, $1.95 million; Winters, $1.7 million.
    -- SS LeRoy Butler took a pay cut, freeing up $980,000 under the cap. He'll get about $4 million over the next 2 years -- about $1.75 million this year and about $2.25 million in 2002. Other possible candidates for restructured deals: DTs Santana Dotson and Russell Maryland, LB Brian Williams and Bernardo Harris, and CB Tyrone Williams.

    -- Doesn't seem as if Earl Dotson will be back. The Packers haven't talked to him about a pay cut from the $2.5 million he's to make next season. The offensive line may change greatly before next season. Dotson, Winters and LG Ross Verba all may be gone. Only LT Chad Clifton is a lock. RG Marco Rivera could move to LG if Mark Tauscher is moved to G. Mike Flanagan could take over for Winters.
    _________________

    Dorsey, Winters, and Dotson all played a few more years for the Pack...They must have taken a pay cut to stay..So it was more the players willing to stay then Mike being able to re work a contract to keep them...

    Why isn't Wahle or Sharper catching as much flak for not wanting to take a pay cut???

    Salary Cap for 2001
     
  14. IPBprez

    IPBprez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,883
    Ratings:
    +5
    LTF has a point - and there were a few articles on JSonline/Packer that discussed this very thing, as well. There was no way, in Oregon or anywhere else for that matter, that Wahle was going to take a pay cut -- he would have played for the 'worst' team in the NFL, as long as he got his kid's college money in da bank..... I just wish Sherman hadn't run the bank dry, like he did --- the money thing has been a Sherman dart since 2002.
     
  15. TOPackerFan

    TOPackerFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,084
    Ratings:
    +0
    Wrong. His cap number was around $2.5 including the bonus. Bonus counted for around $2 million a season ($12 million over 6 years) with him making the league minimum of around $500K in base salary for the first year. We could have kept him if we wanted to.
     
  16. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    17,826
    Ratings:
    +3,477
    My link for his numbers

    2005 - Carolina:
    Contract Details --

    Worth $27 million over five years, includes a $100,000 workout bonus in every year of the deal.

    In the first three years of the deal, he’ll make $17.8 million.

    Base salary 2005 will be $1 million.

    2006 base salary $2 million + $3.5 million roster bonus.

    2007 base salary $2 million + $1 million roster bonus.

    2008 base salary $3 million + $1 million roster bonus.

    2009 base salary $3 million + $2 million roster bonus.
    ______________
     
  17. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8

    Thanks for the info lft :)
     
  18. slackerbacker

    slackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'm not sure who's right or wrong on this, but I do remember interviews w/ Whale and Rivera which indicated they were both surprised GB didn't make more of an effort to resign them. I doubt GB could have kept them both, but I believe they could have kept at least one of them. I hate to give TT excuses, but remember much of our cap was taken up w/ the release of Sharper and Hunt. Likewise, TT had to hold money back for the Hunt injury settlement and the resigning of Bubba. Had our TE situation been better, GB might have been able to let Bubba go and use the money elsewhere. Overall, I don't understand why TT rushed to resign so many of GB's marginal FA's last year instead of using the money for the best players and then picking up young street FAs to fill in their depth?? Likewise, I can't understand why he didn't use the money left over this year to rework someone else's contract or resign someone like Jackson??
     
  19. IPBprez

    IPBprez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,883
    Ratings:
    +5
    The Sharper issue was "after" we had been thru the paces with Rivera and Wahle (sorry, not Whale, as in Moby Dick)... And, I agree, you would have thought, that of the younger of the two, Mike Wahle would have been the one to keep, without exception - but wasn't he due something like an 11mil year coming up..? I think he was! Sherman had broke the bank, we were on a bankruptcy course, with the Salary Cap.

    Sharper was about to be paid 8mil and his play for the last three years just wasn't worth it, ..at all - 4th & 26 proved that. It wasn't just Nick Barnett who blew that play, he had help! As much as some people liked Sharper, I always thought he was "not that good" and should have been traded several years prior; only with LeRoy Butler around to babysit him did he "appear" to be a potential SuperStar - but, Sherman didn't have any talent as a GM... none at all. And we all know how that ended.

    I blame Sherman (totally) for the situation in Tight Ends - he was a friggin' TE Coach for cry iy iy... geeesh, why shouldn't we have been top drawer in that position? Seriously, from the very first year (2000) when Sherman stepped in, our best Players on the Team, should have been Tight Ends - yet, it wasn't! Never was the whole time Sherman was in charge.... It became one of the primary reasons I didn't like Mike Sherman - good man, or not - he wasn't as good a Coach as he might have been, for that reason. Oh, he could read a book (like on how to play guiter) - but his talent for the position was never really there - he had no true instinct... otherwise, we'd have never seen Joe Johnson in a Green Bay uniform.

    Just to be clear - Hunt should have been fired two seasons prior.....
     
  20. slackerbacker

    slackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2004
    Messages:
    228
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks for the spelling correction; I'm terrible at it. I'm not arguing whether we should have kept Sharper or Hunt, just stating that even though we cut them, a portion of their contracts still went against the cap. Likewise, I'm no cap expert, but I believe we paid Sharper 2.5M last year even though we cut him. I'm not sure how much Hunt "took" from us? Fast forward, and GB has the same problem w/ Fergy and others if they decide to let him go. He's not performing anywhere near his contract, but is it worth cutting him, having to pay a portion of that salary and then having to bring someone else in as well?? That's always the dilemma a team faces in that type of situation. Hunt was detrimental to the team because of his poor work ethic and attitude. I'm not sure that's true of Fergy. He's still a good ST player and blocker in the run game and I think most would consider him more than adequate as a 4th WR??
     

Share This Page