What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Rosey says Walker WILL NOT be in camp without (1 Viewer)

The Packers haven't been tested like this
They were tested, by Rosenhaus client Mike McKenzie last year, and failed - eventually meeting McKenzie's demands by trading him. Although there is a new sheriff in town (TT), I don't think it is a coincidence that there are three new Rosenhaus clients on the Packers roser this year (Walker, Jackson and Davenport), two of whom appear to be holding out.
Wait...player wants more money, team says no, player doesn't concede and holds out...team, despite having a sieve-like secondary, trades him to another NFC rival. That's evidence of the Packers winning? :lmao:
JW - I said the Packers were tested "and failed"
 
The Packers haven't been tested like this
They were tested, by Rosenhaus client Mike McKenzie last year, and failed - eventually meeting McKenzie's demands by trading him. Although there is a new sheriff in town (TT), I don't think it is a coincidence that there are three new Rosenhaus clients on the Packers roser this year (Walker, Jackson and Davenport), two of whom appear to be holding out.
Wait...player wants more money, team says no, player doesn't concede and holds out...team, despite having a sieve-like secondary, trades him to another NFC rival. That's evidence of the Packers winning? :lmao:
They got a second round pick for McKenzie. Which, in my opinion, is highway robery.They got a cancer out of their locker room, which, not so coincidentally, began a much better run of football after their woeful start.

They picked up a safety that they really like in the draft because of McKenzie.

And McKenzie hasn't gotten an new contract and is threatening to hold out with his new team as well.

I'm not sure if there was a "winner" in that situation, but I can say without a doubt that Mike McKenzie is the very clear loser for his hold-out. He hasn't gotten his new contract, he lost a bunch of game checks and was fined the maximum amount for his absence.

I don't think there are any winners in a holdout, usually. But in this case, the player most definitely was the big time loser.
Fair enough, I agree McKenzie didn't get what he wanted either. But Walker, unlike McKenzie, knows only too well any number of teams would line up for the right to sign him to an extension if he sat out and the Pack felt forced into trading him.
 
The Packers haven't been tested like this
They were tested, by Rosenhaus client Mike McKenzie last year, and failed - eventually meeting McKenzie's demands by trading him. Although there is a new sheriff in town (TT), I don't think it is a coincidence that there are three new Rosenhaus clients on the Packers roser this year (Walker, Jackson and Davenport), two of whom appear to be holding out.
Wait...player wants more money, team says no, player doesn't concede and holds out...team, despite having a sieve-like secondary, trades him to another NFC rival. That's evidence of the Packers winning? :lmao:
JW - I said the Packers were tested "and failed"
:wall: My bad...misread that one.
 
6 YRS OR 2 YRS........ Is there really a difference? A contract is a contract, right?

:confused: :confused:
An NFL player's contract does not require them to play. They can chose to sit out whenever they want, and they can chose to tell a team that they will sit out unless there is a new contract.Just because it's a contract doesn't mean the player is somehow dihonoring it if they chose not to play under its terms. NFL contracts are not guaranteed on the clubs end, and do not bind players to having to play under them. It's a good system, it avoids someone pulling a Sammy Sosa and getting a huge contract and turning into a lump. The flip side, however, is that if a team's end is not guaranteed then a player has to have the right to refuse to play.

I am not defending any pareticular player, but sometimes people hear the word CONTRACT and assume if a player wants a new deal he is somehow violating that contract, or that he should honor his word. If the clubs don't have to honor their end, players don't either.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Packers haven't been tested like this
They were tested, by Rosenhaus client Mike McKenzie last year, and failed - eventually meeting McKenzie's demands by trading him. Although there is a new sheriff in town (TT), I don't think it is a coincidence that there are three new Rosenhaus clients on the Packers roser this year (Walker, Jackson and Davenport), two of whom appear to be holding out.
Wait...player wants more money, team says no, player doesn't concede and holds out...team, despite having a sieve-like secondary, trades him to another NFC rival. That's evidence of the Packers winning? :lmao:
They got a second round pick for McKenzie. Which, in my opinion, is highway robery.They got a cancer out of their locker room, which, not so coincidentally, began a much better run of football after their woeful start.

They picked up a safety that they really like in the draft because of McKenzie.

And McKenzie hasn't gotten an new contract and is threatening to hold out with his new team as well.

I'm not sure if there was a "winner" in that situation, but I can say without a doubt that Mike McKenzie is the very clear loser for his hold-out. He hasn't gotten his new contract, he lost a bunch of game checks and was fined the maximum amount for his absence.

I don't think there are any winners in a holdout, usually. But in this case, the player most definitely was the big time loser.
Fair enough, I agree McKenzie didn't get what he wanted either. But Walker, unlike McKenzie, knows only too well any number of teams would line up for the right to sign him to an extension if he sat out and the Pack felt forced into trading him.
True. Which will probably be the reason the packers won't entertain trade offers at all. Unless a truly blockbuster deal showed up. I'm sure if the Packers could get something similiar to what Denver got in the Champ Bailey/Clinton Portis deal, they'd have zero qualms about Walker "winning" and allowing a trade to go through.But if they don't get something that knocks their socks off. I'd imagine their perfectly content to let him sit. They have plenty of WR depth and quite honestly, I can't imagine them losing a ton of production from the WR slot if Walker isn't there.

 
The Packers haven't been tested like this
They were tested, by Rosenhaus client Mike McKenzie last year, and failed - eventually meeting McKenzie's demands by trading him. Although there is a new sheriff in town (TT), I don't think it is a coincidence that there are three new Rosenhaus clients on the Packers roser this year (Walker, Jackson and Davenport), two of whom appear to be holding out.
Wait...player wants more money, team says no, player doesn't concede and holds out...team, despite having a sieve-like secondary, trades him to another NFC rival. That's evidence of the Packers winning? :lmao:
They got a second round pick for McKenzie. Which, in my opinion, is highway robery.They got a cancer out of their locker room, which, not so coincidentally, began a much better run of football after their woeful start.

They picked up a safety that they really like in the draft because of McKenzie.

And McKenzie hasn't gotten an new contract and is threatening to hold out with his new team as well.

I'm not sure if there was a "winner" in that situation, but I can say without a doubt that Mike McKenzie is the very clear loser for his hold-out. He hasn't gotten his new contract, he lost a bunch of game checks and was fined the maximum amount for his absence.

I don't think there are any winners in a holdout, usually. But in this case, the player most definitely was the big time loser.
Fair enough, I agree McKenzie didn't get what he wanted either. But Walker, unlike McKenzie, knows only too well any number of teams would line up for the right to sign him to an extension if he sat out and the Pack felt forced into trading him.
True. Which will probably be the reason the packers won't entertain trade offers at all. Unless a truly blockbuster deal showed up. I'm sure if the Packers could get something similiar to what Denver got in the Champ Bailey/Clinton Portis deal, they'd have zero qualms about Walker "winning" and allowing a trade to go through.But if they don't get something that knocks their socks off. I'd imagine their perfectly content to let him sit. They have plenty of WR depth and quite honestly, I can't imagine them losing a ton of production from the WR slot if Walker isn't there.
You either severaly overestimate Bob Ferguson's abilities or equally underestimate Javon Walkers
 
6 YRS OR 2 YRS........ Is there really a difference? A contract is a contract, right?

:confused:   :confused:
An NFL player's contract does not require them to play. They can chose to sit out whenever they want, and they can chose to tell a team that they will sit out unless there is a new contract.Just because it's a contract doesn't mean the player is somehow dihonoring it if they chose not to play under its terms. NFL contracts are not guaranteed on the clubs end, and do not bind players to having to play under them. It's a good system, it avoids someone pulling a Sammy Sosa and getting a huge contract and turning into a lump. The flip side, however, is that if a team's end is not guaranteed then a player has to have the right to refuse to play.

I am not defending any pareticular player, but sometimes people hear the word CONTRACT and assume if a player wants a new deal he is somehow violating that contract, or that he should honor his word. If the clubs don't have to honor their end, players don't either.
I have not seen an actual contract and don't claim to know what they say, but my understanding is that if a healthy player holds out, that player is indeed in breech of the contract giving rise to certain remedies on the team's part, including: 1) withholding salary and benefits; and, 2) re-couping some or all of the signing bonus. If the team, on the other hand, decides for any reason that it wants to cut the player and not pay his salary going forward, that is an option it has under the terms of the contract and doing so is not a breech of the contract. In that case, the player is also free of his obligations and can sign with any team.
 
I think someone should clearly point out to Walker his options and what will likely happen with each of his choices.First off he can choose to report and fulfill his contract. In this instance he can expect his contract to be renegotiated in the final year.His second choice is to hold out either for the year (in which he gains no ground as far as contract goes) or until week 10 (where he will get credit for the year).If I were the Packers, I would explain that if he holds out for the year, there will still be no contract renegotiation until the final year of his contract. If he chooses to end his hold out at week 10 mark, I would tell him that we have a spot on the bench for him or maybe that we will pay him his contract to sit at home from that point on (ala Tampa Bay & Keyshawn). In either event the team will choose not to renegoitiate his contract going into the final year either. What will his value be after not stepping on the field for two years in the prime of his career?

 
I think someone should clearly point out to Walker his options and what will likely happen with each of his choices.

First off he can choose to report and fulfill his contract. In this instance he can expect his contract to be renegotiated in the final year.

His second choice is to hold out either for the year (in which he gains no ground as far as contract goes) or until week 10 (where he will get credit for the year).

If I were the Packers, I would explain that if he holds out for the year, there will still be no contract renegotiation until the final year of his contract. If he chooses to end his hold out at week 10 mark, I would tell him that we have a spot on the bench for him or maybe that we will pay him his contract to sit at home from that point on (ala Tampa Bay & Keyshawn). In either event the team will choose not to renegoitiate his contract going into the final year either. What will his value be after not stepping on the field for two years in the prime of his career?
You realize, of course, that Rosenhaus isn't keeping Walker holed up in a closet somewhere, right? You don't think Drew has explained the various branches of the decision tree? When guys on football message boards know the deal, you can be sure one of the NFL's best agents has made sure his client does too. :yes:
 
Let' see...

If Walker holds out and creaky, old Brett has to either throw to aging veteran Driver or injury-prone veteran "Bob" Ferguson - or I guess he could hand the ball off to Achey Ahman and let that aging veteran run behind a questionable offensive line...

Wow! - the Packers are going to suck! :lmao:

[/bearsfan]

 
I think someone should clearly point out to Walker his options and what will likely happen with each of his choices.

First off he can choose to report and fulfill his contract. In this instance he can expect his contract to be renegotiated in the final year.

His second choice is to hold out either for the year (in which he gains no ground as far as contract goes) or until week 10 (where he will get credit for the year).

If I were the Packers, I would explain that if he holds out for the year, there will still be no contract renegotiation until the final year of his contract.  If he chooses to end his hold out at week 10 mark, I would tell him that we have a spot on the bench for him or maybe that we will pay him his contract to sit at home from that point on (ala Tampa Bay & Keyshawn). In either event the team will choose not to renegoitiate his contract  going into the final year either.  What will his value be after not stepping on the field for two years in the prime of his career?
Won't happen. Rosenscum won't advise this because then Rosenscum won't make a dime for a year.Like I said earlier, Walker has tons of talent and would have been paid very nicely next year, but Rosenscum has a vendetta against the Packers because McKenzie cost him cash, and is chirping in the ear of someone (Walker) who has no sense off the field.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think someone should clearly point out to Walker his options and what will likely happen with each of his choices.

First off he can choose to report and fulfill his contract. In this instance he can expect his contract to be renegotiated in the final year.

His second choice is to hold out either for the year (in which he gains no ground as far as contract goes) or until week 10 (where he will get credit for the year).

If I were the Packers, I would explain that if he holds out for the year, there will still be no contract renegotiation until the final year of his contract.  If he chooses to end his hold out at week 10 mark, I would tell him that we have a spot on the bench for him or maybe that we will pay him his contract to sit at home from that point on (ala Tampa Bay & Keyshawn). In either event the team will choose not to renegoitiate his contract  going into the final year either.  What will his value be after not stepping on the field for two years in the prime of his career?
Won't happen. Rosenscum won't advise this because the Rosenscum won't make a dime for a year.Like I said earlier, Walker has tons of talent and would have been paid very nicely next year, but Rosenscum has a vendetta against the Packers because McKenzie cost him cash, and is chirping in the ear of someone (Walker) who has no sense off the field.
MrPack,As an Eagles fan I'm dealing with the Drew Rosenhaus soap opera too, but I guess as a businessman I understand that he's just doing his job and doing it well. I wish you and so many other Packers and Eagles fans could understand the same thing.

 
I think someone should clearly point out to Walker his options and what will likely happen with each of his choices.

First off he can choose to report and fulfill his contract. In this instance he can expect his contract to be renegotiated in the final year.

His second choice is to hold out either for the year (in which he gains no ground as far as contract goes) or until week 10 (where he will get credit for the year).

If I were the Packers, I would explain that if he holds out for the year, there will still be no contract renegotiation until the final year of his contract.  If he chooses to end his hold out at week 10 mark, I would tell him that we have a spot on the bench for him or maybe that we will pay him his contract to sit at home from that point on (ala Tampa Bay & Keyshawn). In either event the team will choose not to renegoitiate his contract  going into the final year either.   What will his value be after not stepping on the field for two years in the prime of his career?
Won't happen. Rosenscum won't advise this because the Rosenscum won't make a dime for a year.Like I said earlier, Walker has tons of talent and would have been paid very nicely next year, but Rosenscum has a vendetta against the Packers because McKenzie cost him cash, and is chirping in the ear of someone (Walker) who has no sense off the field.
MrPack,As an Eagles fan I'm dealing with the Drew Rosenhaus soap opera too, but I guess as a businessman I understand that he's just doing his job and doing it well. I wish you and so many other Packers and Eagles fans could understand the same thing.
I guess I should point out that I'm not faulting Rosenscum 100%. Not at all. Walker has control, he's getting BAD advice, and since he's not the most intelligent guy on the earth (See a score of 9 on the test), Rosenscum is taking advantage of that.Walker is at fault here, he's a grown man, he should honor his word. He doesn't have sense enough to understand that. Rosenscum knows this and is takign full advantage of it.

I also am not begruding Walker for trying to get more money. I would NEVER do that. He's just going about it so wrong it's not funny.

The Packers have a history of taking care of their stars, why do you think Green hasn't pulled this crap? he knows he'll be rewarded. He's smart enough to understand there's a salary cap, Walker has no clue.

 
I understand you Woodrow. I certainly don't blame Walker one bit. I just wish he would have gone about it a different way.

 
You either severaly overestimate Bob Ferguson's abilities or equally underestimate Javon Walkers
I undervalue the WR slot in general. Just as your eagles can easily throw out two pro-bowl caliber CB's and not break stride because of their system and depth. I should rephrase however. I think the PASSING game won't take much of a hit without Walker. The packers have proven they can make 1000 yard receivers out of 7th round picks.

I mean, a team that can take Bill Schroeder and make him into a 1000 yard receiver?

You think it's going to make a major impact if Driver is the #1 instead of Walker? It's not like suddenly they are dependent on the guy who had exactly 1 season of 1000 yard production.

Will there be a drop-off? Probably. But, the packers have consistantly had success passing the ball despite some pretty pathetic names at WR. As long as Favre doesn't suddenly drop off the planet skill-wise, I don't think it's too big of a stretch to believe they can make it work just fine without him.

 
:confused:

Marvin Harrison signed a 4-year, $24 million extension with an $11.5 million signing bonus after his 4th season

Randy Moss signed an 8-year, $75 million extension with an $18 million signing bonus after his 3rd season
Honest question because I don't remember, did Moss or Harrison demand (ie. threaten to holdout) a new contract? I think that is really what the issue is here, whether teams in the NFL will continue to allow players to threaten to hold out vs. the team telling the player that a deal will get done when the team has the money. It seems that Green Bay just doesn't have the cap room to get a decent deal done at this time and that is why they are saying no. I also think that Rosenahus is giving Walker bad counsel on this one and Javon really doesn't know better. It seems to me that the leverage balance leans in management's favor in this instance whether that's fair to Javon or not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think someone should clearly point out to Walker his options and what will likely happen with each of his choices.

First off he can choose to report and fulfill his contract. In this instance he can expect his contract to be renegotiated in the final year.

His second choice is to hold out either for the year (in which he gains no ground as far as contract goes) or until week 10 (where he will get credit for the year).

If I were the Packers, I would explain that if he holds out for the year, there will still be no contract renegotiation until the final year of his contract. If he chooses to end his hold out at week 10 mark, I would tell him that we have a spot on the bench for him or maybe that we will pay him his contract to sit at home from that point on (ala Tampa Bay & Keyshawn). In either event the team will choose not to renegoitiate his contract going into the final year either. What will his value be after not stepping on the field for two years in the prime of his career?
The part you don't get is that Walker has the Packers by the balls and knows it. Why do you think Favre is so pissed about this right now? He knows this might be his last year and has much less of a shot at a SB without Walker. If Favre were smart, instead of whining to the media in every interview he'd tell the Packers to give the guy a new deal.
 
:confused:

Marvin Harrison signed a 4-year, $24 million extension with an $11.5 million signing bonus after his 4th season

Randy Moss signed an 8-year, $75 million extension with an $18 million signing bonus after his 3rd season
Honest question because I don't remember, did Moss or Harrison demand (ie. threaten to holdout) a new contract? I think that is really what the issue is here, whether teams in the NFL will continue to allow players to threaten to hold out vs. the team telling the player that a deal will get done when the team has the money. It seems that Green Bay just doesn't have the cap room to get a decent deal done at this time and that is why they are the ones saying no. I also think that Rosenahus is giving Walker bad counsel on this one and Javon really doesn't know better. It seems to me that the leverage balance leans in management's favor in this instance.
No, neither threatened to hold out (and this is Walker's big error, I agree). I was just pointing out the inherent flaw in that last post, which implied that Moss and Harrison played out their rookie deals like good little soldiers. The Colts and Vikings were smart enough to proactively re-negotiate their deals. Now, to be fair, both had put up several monster seasons, not just one, at the point when they got new deals, so there is/was less risk in the Colts/Vikings decisions.
 
I think someone should clearly point out to Walker his options and what will likely happen with each of his choices.

First off he can choose to report and fulfill his contract. In this instance he can expect his contract to be renegotiated in the final year.

His second choice is to hold out either for the year (in which he gains no ground as far as contract goes) or until week 10 (where he will get credit for the year).

If I were the Packers, I would explain that if he holds out for the year, there will still be no contract renegotiation until the final year of his contract.  If he chooses to end his hold out at week 10 mark, I would tell him that we have a spot on the bench for him or maybe that we will pay him his contract to sit at home from that point on (ala Tampa Bay & Keyshawn). In either event the team will choose not to renegoitiate his contract  going into the final year either.  What will his value be after not stepping on the field for two years in the prime of his career?
The part you don't get is that Walker has the Packers by the balls and knows it. Why do you think Favre is so pissed about this right now? He knows this might be his last year and has much less of a shot at a SB without Walker. If Favre were smart, instead of whining to the media in every interview he'd tell the Packers to give the guy a new deal.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
 
I think someone should clearly point out to Walker his options and what will likely happen with each of his choices.

First off he can choose to report and fulfill his contract. In this instance he can expect his contract to be renegotiated in the final year.

His second choice is to hold out either for the year (in which he gains no ground as far as contract goes) or until week 10 (where he will get credit for the year).

If I were the Packers, I would explain that if he holds out for the year, there will still be no contract renegotiation until the final year of his contract. If he chooses to end his hold out at week 10 mark, I would tell him that we have a spot on the bench for him or maybe that we will pay him his contract to sit at home from that point on (ala Tampa Bay & Keyshawn). In either event the team will choose not to renegoitiate his contract going into the final year either. What will his value be after not stepping on the field for two years in the prime of his career?
Won't happen. Rosenscum won't advise this because the Rosenscum won't make a dime for a year.Like I said earlier, Walker has tons of talent and would have been paid very nicely next year, but Rosenscum has a vendetta against the Packers because McKenzie cost him cash, and is chirping in the ear of someone (Walker) who has no sense off the field.
MrPack,As an Eagles fan I'm dealing with the Drew Rosenhaus soap opera too, but I guess as a businessman I understand that he's just doing his job and doing it well. I wish you and so many other Packers and Eagles fans could understand the same thing.
I guess that depends on how you define "doing his job well".a) doing what is best for Drew

b) doing what is best for Walker

c) doing what is best for his clients as a whole

When all is said and done, I don't think JW will think it was a job well done. But then again it is JW's choice to listen to Drew.

 
:confused:

Marvin Harrison signed a 4-year, $24 million extension with an $11.5 million signing bonus after his 4th season

Randy Moss signed an 8-year, $75 million extension with an $18 million signing bonus after his 3rd season
Honest question because I don't remember, did Moss or Harrison demand (ie. threaten to holdout) a new contract? I think that is really what the issue is here, whether teams in the NFL will continue to allow players to threaten to hold out vs. the team telling the player that a deal will get done when the team has the money. It seems that Green Bay just doesn't have the cap room to get a decent deal done at this time and that is why they are the ones saying no. I also think that Rosenahus is giving Walker bad counsel on this one and Javon really doesn't know better. It seems to me that the leverage balance leans in management's favor in this instance.
No, neither threatened to hold out (and this is Walker's big error, I agree). I was just pointing out the inherent flaw in that last post, which implied that Moss and Harrison played out their rookie deals like good little soldiers. The Colts and Vikings were smart enough to proactively re-negotiate their deals. Now, to be fair, both had put up several monster seasons, not just one, at the point when they got new deals, so there is/was less risk in the Colts/Vikings decisions.
Isn't this the whole key to everything we are talking about??Is this not reason enough for everyone to be behind the Packers stance on this?

 
You either severaly overestimate Bob Ferguson's abilities or equally underestimate Javon Walkers
I undervalue the WR slot in general. Just as your eagles can easily throw out two pro-bowl caliber CB's and not break stride because of their system and depth. I should rephrase however. I think the PASSING game won't take much of a hit without Walker. The packers have proven they can make 1000 yard receivers out of 7th round picks.

I mean, a team that can take Bill Schroeder and make him into a 1000 yard receiver?

You think it's going to make a major impact if Driver is the #1 instead of Walker? It's not like suddenly they are dependent on the guy who had exactly 1 season of 1000 yard production.

Will there be a drop-off? Probably. But, the packers have consistantly had success passing the ball despite some pretty pathetic names at WR. As long as Favre doesn't suddenly drop off the planet skill-wise, I don't think it's too big of a stretch to believe they can make it work just fine without him.
Fair enough, but remember the situations are different.The Eagles KNOW they can win a division title and contend for a Super Bowl without TO (or a top tier WR of any type). Now, to be fair, they don't know (and there's a real risk) whether they are a legit contender to WIN the SB without Owens, but that's a risk they're willing to take it seems.

The Packers are, without question, a team on the downturn because of looming cap issues, a lack of depth at critical positions, and a defense that needs a major talent infusion. Yet, one would assume that Brett Favre didn't come back to play for a non-playoff team that's rebuilding. What we don't know is what assurances, if any, Thompson and Sherman gave Favre about their intentions to win NOW. My guess is they didn't simply avoid the topic but probably strongly hinted at doing "everything possible" to win. I don't know that for a fact obviously, but if I was asked to bet on how things went, that's where my chips would fall.

 
You either severaly overestimate Bob Ferguson's abilities or equally underestimate Javon Walkers
I undervalue the WR slot in general. Just as your eagles can easily throw out two pro-bowl caliber CB's and not break stride because of their system and depth. I should rephrase however. I think the PASSING game won't take much of a hit without Walker. The packers have proven they can make 1000 yard receivers out of 7th round picks.

I mean, a team that can take Bill Schroeder and make him into a 1000 yard receiver?

You think it's going to make a major impact if Driver is the #1 instead of Walker? It's not like suddenly they are dependent on the guy who had exactly 1 season of 1000 yard production.

Will there be a drop-off? Probably. But, the packers have consistantly had success passing the ball despite some pretty pathetic names at WR. As long as Favre doesn't suddenly drop off the planet skill-wise, I don't think it's too big of a stretch to believe they can make it work just fine without him.
Nonsense, the Eagles planned on not resigning their CB's and drafted their replacements high in the draft.
 
:confused:

Marvin Harrison signed a 4-year, $24 million extension with an $11.5 million signing bonus after his 4th season

Randy Moss signed an 8-year, $75 million extension with an $18 million signing bonus after his 3rd season
Honest question because I don't remember, did Moss or Harrison demand (ie. threaten to holdout) a new contract? I think that is really what the issue is here, whether teams in the NFL will continue to allow players to threaten to hold out vs. the team telling the player that a deal will get done when the team has the money. It seems that Green Bay just doesn't have the cap room to get a decent deal done at this time and that is why they are the ones saying no. I also think that Rosenahus is giving Walker bad counsel on this one and Javon really doesn't know better. It seems to me that the leverage balance leans in management's favor in this instance.
This isn't true.Green Bay has plenty of cap room. Next year, because of the cutting of Darren Sharper, they have a cap windfall (approx 9mil of cap space off the books). The first year of a contract usually has a small cap hit, and the packers do have some money to spare this season.

They just won't give in to Walker.

 
:confused:

Marvin Harrison signed a 4-year, $24 million extension with an $11.5 million signing bonus after his 4th season

Randy Moss signed an 8-year, $75 million extension with an $18 million signing bonus after his 3rd season
Honest question because I don't remember, did Moss or Harrison demand (ie. threaten to holdout) a new contract? I think that is really what the issue is here, whether teams in the NFL will continue to allow players to threaten to hold out vs. the team telling the player that a deal will get done when the team has the money. It seems that Green Bay just doesn't have the cap room to get a decent deal done at this time and that is why they are the ones saying no. I also think that Rosenahus is giving Walker bad counsel on this one and Javon really doesn't know better. It seems to me that the leverage balance leans in management's favor in this instance.
This isn't true.Green Bay has plenty of cap room. Next year, because of the cutting of Darren Sharper, they have a cap windfall (approx 9mil of cap space off the books). The first year of a contract usually has a small cap hit, and the packers do have some money to spare this season.

They just won't give in to Walker.
But isn't that what they are planning for, paying him next year after that windfall. :confused: I guess my point in all of this is as a team, who should decide how to manage the team's money, the players via their agents or the management side. I side with the latter. If the Packers can't afford to pay him the Top 5 salary which he thinks he deserves, regardless of whether he's earned it, then they won't. It seems to me that they don't have that kind of money this year even if he had earned it but I do not study cap management either.
 
I think someone should clearly point out to Walker his options and what will likely happen with each of his choices.

First off he can choose to report and fulfill his contract. In this instance he can expect his contract to be renegotiated in the final year.

His second choice is to hold out either for the year (in which he gains no ground as far as contract goes) or until week 10 (where he will get credit for the year).

If I were the Packers, I would explain that if he holds out for the year, there will still be no contract renegotiation until the final year of his contract.  If he chooses to end his hold out at week 10 mark, I would tell him that we have a spot on the bench for him or maybe that we will pay him his contract to sit at home from that point on (ala Tampa Bay & Keyshawn). In either event the team will choose not to renegoitiate his contract  going into the final year either.  What will his value be after not stepping on the field for two years in the prime of his career?
Won't happen. Rosenscum won't advise this because the Rosenscum won't make a dime for a year.Like I said earlier, Walker has tons of talent and would have been paid very nicely next year, but Rosenscum has a vendetta against the Packers because McKenzie cost him cash, and is chirping in the ear of someone (Walker) who has no sense off the field.
MrPack,As an Eagles fan I'm dealing with the Drew Rosenhaus soap opera too, but I guess as a businessman I understand that he's just doing his job and doing it well. I wish you and so many other Packers and Eagles fans could understand the same thing.
I guess that depends on how you define "doing his job well".a) doing what is best for Drew

b) doing what is best for Walker

c) doing what is best for his clients as a whole

When all is said and done, I don't think JW will think it was a job well done. But then again it is JW's choice to listen to Drew.
Agents success is cyclical. They hit a few home runs, their "rep" starts going around locker rooms, and they become the must have guy. Rosenhaus is that guy now after landing big deals for McGahee (despite the knee injury), Portis, etc...As soon as one of their gambits falls flat, their luster wears off quickly. They don't cease being relevant, but the players start looking around and are much more willing to change agents.

IF (emphasis on the IF), these latest negotiations with Javon, TO, Boldin, Grady Jackson, Mike McKenzie, etc...end up working against the players, Rosenhaus will pay the price to be sure. But IF most of the teams cave (either by giving them their $$$ or trading them to a team that will), Rosenhaus will not only have been vindicated, but he'll have proven that he gave the CORRECT advice to his clients after all.

 
Be funny to see Javon get paid by the Pack, then Javon hold out on paying Rosenhaus for a smaller commission.

 
You either severaly overestimate Bob Ferguson's abilities or equally underestimate Javon Walkers
I undervalue the WR slot in general. Just as your eagles can easily throw out two pro-bowl caliber CB's and not break stride because of their system and depth. I should rephrase however. I think the PASSING game won't take much of a hit without Walker. The packers have proven they can make 1000 yard receivers out of 7th round picks.

I mean, a team that can take Bill Schroeder and make him into a 1000 yard receiver?

You think it's going to make a major impact if Driver is the #1 instead of Walker? It's not like suddenly they are dependent on the guy who had exactly 1 season of 1000 yard production.

Will there be a drop-off? Probably. But, the packers have consistantly had success passing the ball despite some pretty pathetic names at WR. As long as Favre doesn't suddenly drop off the planet skill-wise, I don't think it's too big of a stretch to believe they can make it work just fine without him.
Fair enough, but remember the situations are different.The Eagles KNOW they can win a division title and contend for a Super Bowl without TO (or a top tier WR of any type). Now, to be fair, they don't know (and there's a real risk) whether they are a legit contender to WIN the SB without Owens, but that's a risk they're willing to take it seems.

The Packers are, without question, a team on the downturn because of looming cap issues, a lack of depth at critical positions, and a defense that needs a major talent infusion. Yet, one would assume that Brett Favre didn't come back to play for a non-playoff team that's rebuilding. What we don't know is what assurances, if any, Thompson and Sherman gave Favre about their intentions to win NOW. My guess is they didn't simply avoid the topic but probably strongly hinted at doing "everything possible" to win. I don't know that for a fact obviously, but if I was asked to bet on how things went, that's where my chips would fall.
Again. The "looming cap issues" are untrue. The packers took their hits this year and last. They have only one player with a bad cap number who they don't really like much, Hunt.Getting rid of Sharper was a big move for them, they will be out from under Joe Johnson's cap next season as well.

They will be more cap healthy in 2006 then they have been in many many years.

The packers believe they can win without Walker. It's my opinion that they feel like '04 was a "oops" year. The reason: Bob Slowik. Hiring Bob Slowik as DC was as pivotal of a mistake as can be made. It turned a top 15 scoring defense team.. into one of the worst defenses in the entire NFL. With almost exactly the same group of personnel.

They have a very very similiar roster to the one they had in '03, where they made their biggest charge. In that season, Walker was immerging, but nothing special.

Defensively, the Packers were 11th in the NFL in scoring defense in '03. The defensive roster is not all that different then it was in 2003. The same line. The same LB's (though they believe that Thompson is going to be superior to Navies).

They have a question mark at the second CB slot and the safety to replace Darren Sharper.

Depth, they have more depth then they've had in many many seasons. I'm interested to know what you mean by lack of quality depth???

My opinion? I think the Packers believe they are still the team of 2003. They are much deeper now and feel that if a young guy or two can step up they can be that team once more.

 
You either severaly overestimate Bob Ferguson's abilities or equally underestimate Javon Walkers
I undervalue the WR slot in general. Just as your eagles can easily throw out two pro-bowl caliber CB's and not break stride because of their system and depth. I should rephrase however. I think the PASSING game won't take much of a hit without Walker. The packers have proven they can make 1000 yard receivers out of 7th round picks.

I mean, a team that can take Bill Schroeder and make him into a 1000 yard receiver?

You think it's going to make a major impact if Driver is the #1 instead of Walker? It's not like suddenly they are dependent on the guy who had exactly 1 season of 1000 yard production.

Will there be a drop-off? Probably. But, the packers have consistantly had success passing the ball despite some pretty pathetic names at WR. As long as Favre doesn't suddenly drop off the planet skill-wise, I don't think it's too big of a stretch to believe they can make it work just fine without him.
Fair enough, but remember the situations are different.The Eagles KNOW they can win a division title and contend for a Super Bowl without TO (or a top tier WR of any type). Now, to be fair, they don't know (and there's a real risk) whether they are a legit contender to WIN the SB without Owens, but that's a risk they're willing to take it seems.

The Packers are, without question, a team on the downturn because of looming cap issues, a lack of depth at critical positions, and a defense that needs a major talent infusion. Yet, one would assume that Brett Favre didn't come back to play for a non-playoff team that's rebuilding. What we don't know is what assurances, if any, Thompson and Sherman gave Favre about their intentions to win NOW. My guess is they didn't simply avoid the topic but probably strongly hinted at doing "everything possible" to win. I don't know that for a fact obviously, but if I was asked to bet on how things went, that's where my chips would fall.
Again. The "looming cap issues" are untrue. The packers took their hits this year and last. They have only one player with a bad cap number who they don't really like much, Hunt.Getting rid of Sharper was a big move for them, they will be out from under Joe Johnson's cap next season as well.

They will be more cap healthy in 2006 then they have been in many many years.

The packers believe they can win without Walker. It's my opinion that they feel like '04 was a "oops" year. The reason: Bob Slowik. Hiring Bob Slowik as DC was as pivotal of a mistake as can be made. It turned a top 15 scoring defense team.. into one of the worst defenses in the entire NFL. With almost exactly the same group of personnel.

They have a very very similiar roster to the one they had in '03, where they made their biggest charge. In that season, Walker was immerging, but nothing special.

Defensively, the Packers were 11th in the NFL in scoring defense in '03. The defensive roster is not all that different then it was in 2003. The same line. The same LB's (though they believe that Thompson is going to be superior to Navies).

They have a question mark at the second CB slot and the safety to replace Darren Sharper.

Depth, they have more depth then they've had in many many seasons. I'm interested to know what you mean by lack of quality depth???

My opinion? I think the Packers believe they are still the team of 2003. They are much deeper now and feel that if a young guy or two can step up they can be that team once more.
They may feel that way, but I'd bet dollars to donuts they're dead wrong if they do. :yes:
 
:confused:

Marvin Harrison signed a 4-year, $24 million extension with an $11.5 million signing bonus after his 4th season

Randy Moss signed an 8-year, $75 million extension with an $18 million signing bonus after his 3rd season
Honest question because I don't remember, did Moss or Harrison demand (ie. threaten to holdout) a new contract? I think that is really what the issue is here, whether teams in the NFL will continue to allow players to threaten to hold out vs. the team telling the player that a deal will get done when the team has the money. It seems that Green Bay just doesn't have the cap room to get a decent deal done at this time and that is why they are the ones saying no. I also think that Rosenahus is giving Walker bad counsel on this one and Javon really doesn't know better. It seems to me that the leverage balance leans in management's favor in this instance.
This isn't true.Green Bay has plenty of cap room. Next year, because of the cutting of Darren Sharper, they have a cap windfall (approx 9mil of cap space off the books). The first year of a contract usually has a small cap hit, and the packers do have some money to spare this season.

They just won't give in to Walker.
But isn't that what they are planning for, paying him next year after that windfall. :confused: I guess my point in all of this is as a team, who should decide how to manage the team's money, the players via their agents or the management side. I side with the latter. If the Packers can't afford to pay him the Top 5 salary which he thinks he deserves, regardless of whether he's earned it, then they won't. It seems to me that they don't have that kind of money this year even if he had earned it but I do not study cap management either.
Honestly, I can't answer that.Under Mike Sherman, the policy was... if you have a year to go on your contract, expect to be extended.

But, under Thompson, I cannot tell you if that's true or not. Under Sherman I can say without a doubt that Walker would have definitely got his extension prior to the 2006 season.

Thompson? Who knows. We'll see I guess.

 
They may feel that way, but I'd bet dollars to donuts they're dead wrong if they do. :yes:
We'll see. But I think the downfall of the packers has been predicted for 3 years now and it hasn't happened.Until I see it, I'm tired of listening to the gloom and doom.

 
They may feel that way, but I'd bet dollars to donuts they're dead wrong if they do. :yes:
We'll see. But I think the downfall of the packers has been predicted for 3 years now and it hasn't happened.Until I see it, I'm tired of listening to the gloom and doom.
The offense didn't miss a beat last year, but the defense continued to spiral downward. They were lucky as hell to finish 10-6 with such a bad defense, and as we've shown so many times before, if you don't have a top 10 defense, you're not winning the Super Bowl.They've gained no one from a year ago, and lost players at several key positions. Wouldn't shock me if they go 6-10, although very little separates that from finishing 9-7 which is certainly feasible too.

 
The Packers haven't been tested like this
They were tested, by Rosenhaus client Mike McKenzie last year, and failed - eventually meeting McKenzie's demands by trading him. Although there is a new sheriff in town (TT), I don't think it is a coincidence that there are three new Rosenhaus clients on the Packers roser this year (Walker, Jackson and Davenport), two of whom appear to be holding out.
Wait...player wants more money, team says no, player doesn't concede and holds out...team, despite having a sieve-like secondary, trades him to another NFC rival. That's evidence of the Packers winning? :lmao:
They got a second round pick for McKenzie. Which, in my opinion, is highway robery.They got a cancer out of their locker room, which, not so coincidentally, began a much better run of football after their woeful start.

They picked up a safety that they really like in the draft because of McKenzie.

And McKenzie hasn't gotten an new contract and is threatening to hold out with his new team as well.

I'm not sure if there was a "winner" in that situation, but I can say without a doubt that Mike McKenzie is the very clear loser for his hold-out. He hasn't gotten his new contract, he lost a bunch of game checks and was fined the maximum amount for his absence.

I don't think there are any winners in a holdout, usually. But in this case, the player most definitely was the big time loser.
Fair enough, I agree McKenzie didn't get what he wanted either. But Walker, unlike McKenzie, knows only too well any number of teams would line up for the right to sign him to an extension if he sat out and the Pack felt forced into trading him.
True. Which will probably be the reason the packers won't entertain trade offers at all. Unless a truly blockbuster deal showed up. I'm sure if the Packers could get something similiar to what Denver got in the Champ Bailey/Clinton Portis deal, they'd have zero qualms about Walker "winning" and allowing a trade to go through.But if they don't get something that knocks their socks off. I'd imagine their perfectly content to let him sit. They have plenty of WR depth and quite honestly, I can't imagine them losing a ton of production from the WR slot if Walker isn't there.
You either severaly overestimate Bob Ferguson's abilities or equally underestimate Javon Walkers
And you seem to be severely ignoring Favre's track record of success with less-than-standout WRs. Seriously Jason, look at who he's played with during his career. In all the time he's been with the Packers he's had one legitimate All-Pro WR and that was Sharpe. Maybe you could make a case for Rison in 96 but while he was still a productive WR at that time he wasn't at his previous All-Pro level. So that's one truly standout WR in 12 seasons.

Now Walker clearly has that type of talent in my opinion but there's no way in hell I'm going to annoint him as that type of player after only one good season. Sorry, but that's an apple Drew Rosenhaus wants me to bite and it's filled with far too many worms.

The bottom line is the Packers clearly are a better team without Javon Walker. That's a fact. But what is also a fact is that Favre has had terrific seasons before with players who weren't as good as Walker and many who weren't as good as Driver. As I said, if there's one position on the team that can least afford to take a stand in terms of demanding a level of importance, it's the WR position because Favre can turn even the most pedestrian of WRs into quality contributors.

 
The offense didn't miss a beat last year, but the defense continued to spiral downward. They were lucky as hell to finish 10-6 with such a bad defense
Or you could say that given how outstanding their offense was, they would've been even better than 10-6 if they just had a respectable defense. In other words they were pretty damn unlucky to have that good of an offense and not be better than 10-6. Personally, I don't buy the "lucky" or "unlucky" factor. As Ron Wolf often said you are what you are. You can point to this, that or the other thing but at the end of the day the record doesn't lie. That's who you are. Last season, the Packers were a 10-6 team. Luck had nothing to do with it. That's who they were. And to answer the comment above (not from you Jason) about the Eagles using high draft picks as potential replacements for their CBs, the Packers did take a WR in the second round of this year's draft. At the time, many folks wondered why in the hell Thompson would do that given the team's glaring defensive needs.

In retrospect the move obviously makes plenty of sense. Thompson was bolstering depth and clearly preparing his team for a possible Walker situation which is what has come to pass.

 
The offense didn't miss a beat last year, but the defense continued to spiral downward. They were lucky as hell to finish 10-6 with such a bad defense
Or you could say that given how outstanding their offense was, they would've been even better than 10-6 if they just had a respectable defense. In other words they were pretty damn unlucky to have that good of an offense and not be better than 10-6. Personally, I don't buy the "lucky" or "unlucky" factor. As Ron Wolf often said you are what you are. You can point to this, that or the other thing but at the end of the day the record doesn't lie. That's who you are. Last season, the Packers were a 10-6 team. Luck had nothing to do with it. That's who they were. And to answer the comment above (not from you Jason) about the Eagles using high draft picks as potential replacements for their CBs, the Packers did take a WR in the second round of this year's draft. At the time, many folks wondered why in the hell Thompson would do that given the team's glaring defensive needs.

In retrospect the move obviously makes plenty of sense. Thompson was bolstering depth and clearly preparing his team for a possible Walker situation which is what has come to pass.
Well, I can appreciate you're a glass is half full kind of guy but when you score 44 points more than you give up for the entire season, historically one should consider themselves lucky to have finished 10-6.
 
The offense didn't miss a beat last year, but the defense continued to spiral downward. They were lucky as hell to finish 10-6 with such a bad defense
Or you could say that given how outstanding their offense was, they would've been even better than 10-6 if they just had a respectable defense. In other words they were pretty damn unlucky to have that good of an offense and not be better than 10-6. Personally, I don't buy the "lucky" or "unlucky" factor. As Ron Wolf often said you are what you are. You can point to this, that or the other thing but at the end of the day the record doesn't lie. That's who you are. Last season, the Packers were a 10-6 team. Luck had nothing to do with it. That's who they were. And to answer the comment above (not from you Jason) about the Eagles using high draft picks as potential replacements for their CBs, the Packers did take a WR in the second round of this year's draft. At the time, many folks wondered why in the hell Thompson would do that given the team's glaring defensive needs.

In retrospect the move obviously makes plenty of sense. Thompson was bolstering depth and clearly preparing his team for a possible Walker situation which is what has come to pass.
Well, I can appreciate you're a glass is half full kind of guy but when you score 44 points more than you give up for the entire season, historically one should consider themselves lucky to have finished 10-6.
Actually, I'm an extremely cynical person. :) But I deal with reality. And the reality is the Packers last season had one of the league's top offenses and one of its worst defenses. At the end of the season the result was a 10-6 record. That's who they were. That has nothing to do with looking at the glass as half-full; that's simply looking at things realistically.
 
I have the solution to the whole Walker/holdout situation. Just close your eyes (after you read it, not before) and imagine it:

Favre, in a whim of sacrificial leadership and courageous intensity, offers $3 million of his contract to Walker. The young (sky)Walker, finally understanding that the game is about far more than money, breaks down on camara, fires his agent, and pledges his livelong fidelity to Brett Favre and to the Green Bay Packers. He ends his holdout, shows up early and stays late for every practice, makes 8 straight probowl appearances and shatters every receiving record in the books. "That's what it's all about," says John Madden, "Here's a tough guy who realizes that this is football and that he's a football player. He sees the light and BOOM, he does what he needs to do for his dying leader and team. It almost brings a tear to your eye".

Just you watch...

 
No, Chase isn't forgetting his signing bonus.http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/football/nf...tion.aspx?pos=4Walker was barely in the top 50 of wideouts in terms of their cap value last year...those are the facts.
No, but what Chase is conveniently forgetting is that a $3M signing bonus in 2002 is worth significantly more than the $3M being spread out across the 6 years of the contract as an annuity - 22% more, in fact, if you use a mere 6% annual rate of return. That's basic economics,and it can't be discounted in any meaningful discussion.He's also forgetting that GB showed a tremendous amount of faith in Walker - and took a significant business risk - by offering that large of a signing bonus up front before Walker had ever touched a football in the NFL. If Walker ends up being a bust they either have to cut him & take an accelerated hit against the cap, or they have to hold a roster spot for him while he's failing so that they don't have to absorb the hit.Walker understood these two things - or at least his agent did - and he signed the contract. Is it really asking that much that he live up to his end of it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One other thought...can we stop blaming Rosenhaus?
No. The guy is a ******bag, and it's very enjoyable to see him start to get his head handed to him by some of the more savvy GMs in the NFL.
 
Personally I think the packers defense will be improved this year. I know many were disappointed, as was I somewhat, when they did not emphasize defense more in the draft this year. (How they were supposed to ignore Rogers dropping to them I don't know) Still, the Packers have emphasized defense in the last several drafts. They have incredible speed in their secondary now, and these players are no longer rookies with the exception of Nick Collins. Given this critical year of experience, they should have less critical mental lapses than they had last year. Also with the distraction of Mckenzie gone, and with the poor tackling of Sharper gone they have some reason to believe they may have improved.Their L.B'ing is on solid footing with their best L.B. just now coming into his own experience-wise so there is no reason to believe they will not be at least somewhat improved here. This group is experienced w/o being old and should have few mental lapses. (Unfortunately the could be devastaed by an injury here as their depth is less than it should be).On the front wall the Packers have some interesting prospects who are large, powerful, and athletic. They have suffered some real attrition by injury here the last few years and many have not seen the prowess and progress of Patterson, Lee, Washington, Jenkins, and most important Kampman who is all heart. I am not as discouraged by this group as many are. (Not to say Hunt's erratic play and Jackson's threatened holdout don't bother me, but I'd rather have Lee, Kampman, and peterson healthy and trying every play than Hunt taking plays off)In short the Packers should be in a position to see the benefits finally pay off from their last several drafts before this year. That, coupled with Bates style and I don't expect to see this defense ranked in the bottom 25% in any category, as they were in all categories last year. I am realistic enough to say that they won't be in the top half of the league, but they should have an opportunity to approach mediocraty in all phases which would be a great improvement.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Harrison's Contract1996 salary 510,000 (64 recs/836 yds/8 tds) [na/na/na] actual collected paycheck 910,0001997 637,500 (73/866/6) [na/na/na] 1,037,5001998 765,000 (59/776/7) [na/na/na] 1,166,1001999 892,500 (115/1663/12) [ranked #2 in rec/#1 in yds/#2 in tds] 1,293,4002000 440,000 (102/1413/14) [1/6/2] 3,088,3002001 500,000 (109/1524/15) [3/2/2] 2,885,2302002 525,000 (143/1722/11) [1/1/3] 3,000,0002003 4,500,000 (94/1272/10) [7/6/4] 4,500,0002004 1,309,000 (86/1113/15) [na/na/2] 10,560,1652005 1,000,000 2006 2,000,000 Marvin Harrison signed a 4-year, $24 million extension with an $11.5 million signing bonus after his 4th seasonMoss's Contract1998 230,000 (69/1313/17) [na/3/1] 935,0001999 250,000 (80/1413/11) [na/3/6] 1,247,0002000 358,000 (77/1437/15) [na/5/1] 1,321,0002001 500,000 (82/1233/10) [na/9/4] 2,776,6662002 525,000 (106/1347/7) [3/2/na] 623,1152003 5,000,000 (111/1632/17) [2/3/1] 5,087,2642004 5,750,000 (49/767/13) [na/na/4] 6,073,2042005 665,000 2006 8,250,000 2007 9,750,000 2008 11,250,000 Randy Moss signed an 8-year, $75 million extension with an $18 million signing bonus after his 3rd seasonWalker's Contract2002 545,000 (23/319/1) [na/na/na] 3,545,0002003 300,000(41/716/9) [na/na/10] 1,602,0002004 390,000 (89/1382/12) [8/3/6] 391,5002005 515,000 2006 650,000 2007 ---I guess it was optioned out due to a contracted clause---Javon Walker signed a 6-year, $9.5 million contract with a 3 million signing bonusThere is another $2,796,500 left on the table that I cannot account for just by doing the math.----------------------------------So Marvin Harrison has been paid $28,440,695 or approximately $33,700 per reception, or $2,542 per receiving yard, or $290,000 per touchdown.Randy Moss has been paid $18,063,249, or approximately $31,500 per reception, or $1,976 per receiving yard, or $200,000 per touchdown.Javon Walker has been paid $5,538,500, or approximately $36,200 per reception, or $2,291 per receiving yard, or $250,000 per touchdown.From all of this, I don’t think you can say his overpaid OR underpaid, but about average for a good WR, but considering that he is probably only going to average off at a higher level, he might be worth a salary increase or bonus. If you give him only top 10 type numbers in all categories for the next two years, and give him the total $9.5 million contract as initially reported, he would have been paid approximately $29,000 per reception, or $1,972 per receiving yard, or $230,000 per touchdown.Considering this, I definitely think that he is NOT OVERPAID at this point in his career.I would say that for this year the Packers do not need him, but once Favre leaves then you have Aaron Rogers who needs all the weapons he can get. It would be nice to play Rogers under his rookie contract with a Extended-contract-Walker and Driver until Rogers becomes more proficient. When/if that happens, then you can afford to get rid of Walker or Driver, or perhaps both. Until then, you need the WRs for the immediate future IMO.

 
Wait...player wants more money, team says no, player doesn't concede and holds out...team, despite having a sieve-like secondary, trades him to another NFC rival.

That's evidence of the Packers winning? :lmao:
No.Player wants more money.

Team says no.

Player doesn't concede and then does concede but gets hurt.

The team despite having a sieve-like secondary, trades him to an NFC punching bag. Said punching bag proceeds to have a passing defense that's worse than aforementioned teams'.

Team makes playoffs.

Player continues to complain about his contract and the secondary of the new team is even worse than the sieve-like secondary of the old team.

Player goes into next season with same contract but a new name on the check.

Team uses draft pick on Nick Collins, a potential rookie starter in the secondary.

There, that's better.

 
They may feel that way, but I'd bet dollars to donuts they're dead wrong if they do. :yes:
We'll see. But I think the downfall of the packers has been predicted for 3 years now and it hasn't happened.Until I see it, I'm tired of listening to the gloom and doom.
The offense didn't miss a beat last year, but the defense continued to spiral downward. They were lucky as hell to finish 10-6 with such a bad defense, and as we've shown so many times before, if you don't have a top 10 defense, you're not winning the Super Bowl.
Actually, they haven't been spiralling downward.2001 - 5th in points allowed.

2002 - 12th in points allowed.

2003 - 11th in points allowed.

2004 (new defensive coordinator) - 23rd in points allowed.

Under Donatel they had three solid seasons of defense. Nothing spectacular, but, above average.

The Packers went into '04 with very little turnover in personnel. Again, they basically had the same group of players on defense in '03 and '04.

The most appreciable difference from '03, where they were 11th in the scoring defense and '04 when they were 23rd was firing Ed Donatel and hiring Bob Slowik.

This was a monumental mistake.

It has been corrected.

Now, again, the starting lineup on defense probably won't change a whole lot talent wise. It will still be very similiar to the defense that was on the field on '03... which again... was a season they were better then average on defense.

They are just counting on Jim Bates to take nearly the same talent level Slowik and Donatel had.. and make it more successful with much better coaching, much better scheme, more youth and much greater depth.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top