Wells was probably the most consistent OL on the team this past season. He's on the wrong side of 30 but his play hasn't declined yet. In fact I think he's slightly improved over the past couple of seasons. McGinn says he gave up one-half sack (giving him a total of 14 sacks allowed in 8 years) and gave up the fewest pressures. Yes, he isn't out on the edge but that's pretty impressive. He's smart and makes the line calls. I'd like him to stay in Green Bay because he's playing very well and for the sake of continuity; but certainly not at any cost.
This is premature but if he's really pissed because he didn't get extended or because years ago they started Spitz ahead of him, he's only hurting himself. It's a business and if he can't wrap his head around that, that's on him. It helps the Packers to have so many UFA centers hitting the market and the one AFC personnel guy put him in the middle of the top 5. He's undersized - that doesn't bother me but it may hurt his value in the market. I was pleasantly surprised by the play of EDS and he has some experience at OC, so if Wells leaves he'll probably step into the starting role. He won't be as good as Wells but of course he's younger. And if Wells leaves, I think Thompson will add a couple of rookies to compete with him and Sampson Genus (who has good size and a year in the system - and that exhausts what I know about him). IMO the second to fifth or so rated OC in the draft has a better chance of landing in Green Bay than the Badgers center, who I really like. Maybe an UDFA too.
(SpartaChris, I know you limited your list to 5 but I would expand it to include Raji, in addition to Tramon and Jordy who you mentioned. And if Collins returns, he will be a core player for 5 years IMO - he's only 28.)
- - - - - - - - - -
[rant] This is not just with regard to Scott Wells but I wish pro athletes wouldn't say and/or writers wouldn't write things like the following which appeared in the jsonline story linked above, "… Wells and his wife realize this is their last chance to achieve financial security." Again, I'm just using Wells as an example. But if he and his family aren't financially secure by now, they don't deserve to be and that's not intended as a knock on him since I assume he is.
Wells was drafted at the end of the 7th round in 2004 and got a very modest rookie deal. Well above the average American's pay, but very modest by NFL standards. Then in 2006 he received a 5-year extension worth $15,000,000. Assume he didn't save a penny from '04 to his contract extension. Also assume he paid the top income tax rates every year with no exemptions or deductions, which of course he didn't (IOW I'm being VERY conservative regarding his after tax income) and he netted about $8,700,000 over these past 5 years. Then assume he averaged spending $500,000 per year for those five years. That's an awful lot of money to spend in and around Green Bay, Wisconsin but maybe he paid off a house or two and funded a large life insurance policy and even pissed away some money, etc. Further assume he lost $200,000 in investments over that time. That leaves about $6,000,000. Set aside $1,000,000 for whatever reason and if he has been half-way smart with his money he should have $5,000,000 left. If he got hurt tomorrow and never played again he could take a very responsible 4% distribution from that sum annually and receive $200,000 per year. He would pay the lower dividend/capital gains rates on that money and that would leave at least $160,000 per year after taxes (more if he moves to a state with no or lower income taxes) for as long as that money is intelligently invested. He should have at least one house paid off or the ability to pay it off today. Isn't that "financial security"?
Don’t get me wrong: I'm a capitalist and believe Scott Wells should have the opportunity to make as much money as the market dictates. I hope he stays in Green Bay but if he leaves for a better deal I'll completely understand. If I thought I was among the 5 best in the country at my job, I would want to get paid like it no matter how much money I had. So if he said this is his last chance to "cash in" that's fine with me since it's true. All I ask is for multi-millionaire athletes (and other multi-millionaires) and those who write about them to refrain from telling us they need more money for the "financial security of their families". Unless they're talking about their great great great great great grand kids. [/rant]
