1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. 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

Green no franchise

Discussion in 'Green Bay Packers Fan Forum' started by net, Feb 21, 2007.

  1. net

    net Cheesehead

    Likes Received:
    Jun 3, 2005
    A few weeks ago, I was roundly jeered here for 'suggesting'(that's all it was) that the Packers should franchise Green for 2007.
    I guess that won't be a possibility...


    I still think it's a good idea and here's why: it will be less costly in the long run.

    Given the limited number of free agent backs, the asking price for each free agent will rise. Green could get a solid offer from the Giants, who openly have talked about him. So the Packers have to decide if they want to bid for him. I seriously doubt Green will sign a one-year deal anywhere, including Green Bay. So the price(as the article indicates) is $4 mill a year. Two years equals 8 million dollars minimum.

    So the Packers must decide if they want to get into a bidding game with other teams for a 30+ year old running back. If not, they go into the season with Morency as the main back and the mythical superstud college ball carrier as a likely draft pick. Heaven knows if any good back will be available when the Packers pick, but you certainly are leaving much to chance with that course. I don't believe any of the hype about college players. Hawk proved to be a keeper, but the Packers have a list of others who didn't prove to be keepers. When you pin your offense on a ghost, it's playing a risky game.

    The other option is to bid for the other free agent backs. Why not keep Green who is as good? Michael Turner is RFA at San Diego? If he's still around he might be worth a look.

    Trade? Why? It costs you something too.

    So the Packers have these options:

    1)Sign Green to costly long-term contract. Not likely, given production, injury and age.

    2)Let him float in the free agent market and hope you have a chance to match what is likely to be an over-priced market.

    3)Let him go, draft a new back. Possible, but what do you have?

    4)Sign another free agent. Why not keep Green?

    5)Trade. It will cost you something in return.

    6)Tag. It keeps Green in Green Bay for either 6 or 7 million a year for one year. If it doesn't work out, the Packers are into him one year only. They can draft the future back for the 'two-headed attack" and work that player in.
    After 2007, the Packers can let him go with no more money outgoing.
    If they sign him for 2 years at the 4 million annual as the story suggests, it would put the Packers into him for 8 million. I doubt Green would sign a one year deal. So "less costly", to me, is franchising Green.

    The Packers are hoping to let the market determine his value at 4 million. Maybe, maybe not. It could well go higher and they would be without a good running back in an offense that needs one.
  2. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Likes Received:
    Jun 14, 2005
    You missed option #7: go ahead without Green and don't rely on a draft pick. In this one, Morency, Herron and Beach would be the main guys coming in to compete with a couple draft picks and undrafted FA RBs.

    The ZBS that we're using, as used by Denver, doesn't require a high priced RB. Denver has proven time and again that they can insert almost any RB and be successful.

    Herron proved that he can carry the load by getting over 100 yards in the one game he started. Morency proved he's a good change of pace back. Beach has demonstrated solid potential.

    That's a solid set of RBs to fall back on should Green's price get out of hand. The problem with GB's running game in 2006 wasn't the RB, it was the OL. As the OL improved, so did the running game -- no matter who was in the backfield. If the OL comes together, then our running game will be just fine without Green. If the OL doesn't come together, then it won't help us to have Green.

    It's most costly to franchise Green because you're paying $7 million for only 1 year. With a $4 million/year deal, Green can be cut after the 2007 season and end up only costing GB $4 million -- a $3 million savings for the season. Plus if Green does well, then we don't have to worry about signing him next season.

    I like Green and I would love to have him back this year, but I don't think that the franchise or transition tags are good options for him. The best approach is exactly what's being done IMO.

    GO PACK GO!!!
  3. PackerLegend

    PackerLegend Cheesehead

    Likes Received:
    Mar 26, 2006
    with the franchise tag green would be getting paid I cant remember if it is top 5 or top 10 money? either way I dont think it is worth it, dont get me wrong but Green has lost a step
  4. packerfan1245

    packerfan1245 Cheesehead

    Likes Received:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Green is still the man. We need to do whatever it takes to get him back.
  5. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Likes Received:
    Nov 24, 2005
    I'm pretty sure franchise is top 5 money.
  6. Raider Pride

    Raider Pride Cheesehead

    Likes Received:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Portland, OR Local Packer Fans P.M me.
    I have to agree with the Judge on this one. (See link below and scroll down to Green.)

    I love A.G. but at this time the Packers have to TAKE THE BEST ROAD to insure they have a running game that will open up the passig game for Brett THIS YEAR, and also SPEND WISE.

    Green could have a "Come back palyer of a year." like year if his body allows it. If we sign him within the budget great. If not let him go.

    Here is the link.


    Raider Pride.
  7. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Likes Received:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Title Town
    According to the article if Green Bay franchised Green it would cost them 6.9 million against the cap this year. That's far to much for Green. He's not worth that kind of money and that's why he shouldn't get franchised. Now Green can certainly go talk to other teams and I believe he will.

    I have confidence that Ted Thompson as "cheap" as people make him out to be won't get in a bidding war for Ahman Green. I think Green Bay would be wise to give a 7 million dollar contract to someone like Adalius Thomas. I think the money could be spent on Dominic Rhodes and Daniel Graham combined. 6.9 is to much for Green. If Green can't get a big deal from another team then I believe the Packers will look into bringing him back. Outside of that I think Ahman Green is probably done in Green Bay.
  8. kmac

    kmac Cheesehead

    Likes Received:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Another DUI free agent signing?
  9. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Likes Received:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Green Bay, WI
    Packer Fan Since:
    The initial thread post has more holes than swiss cheese and smells worse.
  10. HatestheEagles084

    HatestheEagles084 Cheesehead

    Likes Received:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Allentown, PA
    Sign ahman and draft a guy 2nd or 3rd round, I'd rather have Antonio Pittman or Lorenzo Booker and spend my first round pick elsewhere

Share This Page