Bringing Back Wells No Sure Thing
The veteran center is coming off his best year as a pro and the Packers have few replacement options on-hand. But that doesn't mean Scott Wells will automatically be back with the Packers in 2012.
By PackerAaron
Green Bay Packers general manager Ted Thompson has several decisions to make in the next few weeks and months, some more difficult than others. One of the tougher ones is how to handle free-agent-to-be Scott Wells.
As of 4:00 pm EST on March 13th, Wells will be an unrestriced free agent, free to shop his services to any of the 32 teams in the NFL. Obviously, Wells has been a valuable contributor to the Packers offense over the course of the last several years, none more so than 2011 when he played the best football of his career and was easily the Packers' best performing offensive lineman.
Bob McGinn reported back in November that Wells and the Packers were nowhere near an agreement and Ty Dunne revealed last week that three months has done little to move the two parties closer to a compromise.
Wells, according to McGinn, wants to be paid like one of the top 5 centers in the league. It's hard to argue that he would not be worth the investment, especially due to his mastery of the protection calls in McCarthy's offense. As Thompson has proven by drafting two offensive linemen in the first round, protecting the Packers' franchise quarterback is a high priority.
Would Thompson be willing to let Wells walk? The veteran center would seem to have a good deal of leverage here simply due to the fact that the Packers have no one on hand to replace him. Nick McDonald was the supposed heir apparent, but bombed in training camp and was cut.
There are probably two centers in the draft that Thompson could target, Wisconsin's Peter Konz and Georgia's Ben Jones, who could most-likely transition directly into an NFL starting job, but there's no guarantee either will be available when the Packers draft. Also, spending yet another early pick on the offensive side of the ball and bypassing defensive help might be a hard pill to swallow for a G.M. that uses the draft almost exclusively to procure new talent and that saw his defense turn in the worst statistical performance in the history of the league.
We saw this same kind of scenario play out last year with the New York Giants who let their well-liked veteran center Shaun O'Hara walk and then signed former 49ers center David Bass in free agency. The problem when applying this to the Packers' situation is twofold. First, Wells is playing much better than O'Hara was. Secondly, there is no center currently set to be available in free agency who would be considered on the same level as Bass. (UPDATE: Thanks to commenter "Cole" for pointing out that Texans center Chris Myers is set to become a free agent. If he hits the market, he will undoubtedly be the number one center on teams free agent boards)
So do the Packers pony up for Wells, despite Thompson's well-recorded reticence when it comes to signing players to big contracts after their 30th birthday? For comparison's sake, lets look at what the top 5 centers salaries are:
Ryan Kalil, Carolina Panthers: $8.186 million
Nick Mangold, New York Jets: $7.725 million
Jason Brown, St. Louis Rams: $7.5 million
Jeff Faine, Tampa Bay: $6.25 million
David Baas, New York Giants: $5.5 million
Four of the five players listed above signed their deals in their mid-to-late twenties, with Bass signing his deal at the age of 29. If, as expected, the Packers cut or reduce the salaries of left tackle Chad Clifton and wide receiver Donald Driver, you have to think the team could use that savings to pay Wells somewhere in the vicinity of the above.
In the end though, my gut feeling here is that Wells will make it to free agency, much like Clifton did a few years ago. Unlike Clifton, however, I think Wells will find more than one possible suitor (who may or may not have been genuinely interested) especially with how thin the free agent talent pool seems to be at the position.
Whatever the case, its no forgone conclusion that Wells will be back with the Packers next season. The stare-down between the two sides continues with a realistic possibility being a new center for the Packers offense in 2012.
UPDATE: Some chatter in the comments section about the possibility of placing the Franchise Tag on Wells. Not going to happen. Offensive line is grouped together when it comes to the tag determination, which obviously includes left tackles. As commenter "frank" notes, that designation puts the tag for olineman at around $9 million. There's no way Ted Thompson places that on a 31 year old player.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (66)
February 13, 2012 at 11:39 am
I don't think that is a position you gamble with. Pay the man.
February 13, 2012 at 11:41 am
I honestly think the Packers franchise Wells before they franchise Finley. I just can't see them losing Wells with absolutely no back-up plan
February 13, 2012 at 11:54 am
To franchise Wells is to pay him top 5 left tackle money since o-line is one position in the franchise tag. Not happening. Finely's tag is 5.5m. Wells would be around 9 mil. Either resign him for close to Baas money or let him walk.
February 13, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Yep there's no way they tag Wells and I honestly wouldn't resign him either. I like Wells, but not for 5 mill a year. For his entire career Wells has not been better then an average starting center until last year at the age of 31. There's no guarantee he can play that well again and his price tag couldn't be higher then it is now. Sorry but I would not over pay for an undersized center, over the age of 30, with only one good season under his belt. Mark my words, if you pay him now, you will regret it 2 years from now.
February 13, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Chris Myers will be out there in FA, he's one of the best centers in the league isn't he? Of course, you might as well pay Wells if you're going to pay Myers.
PackerAaron
February 13, 2012 at 12:06 pm
Great point - completely missed Myers. And you're right, no way he signs for less than what they'd have to pay Wells anyway.
February 13, 2012 at 02:42 pm
This from RotoWorld...Myers was arguably the top center in the NFL in 2011, though he's a purely a fit for zone-blocking teams.
And what about PS Sampson Genus. Is it a forgone conclusion Lang or Dominguez couldn't slide over to C?
February 13, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Can't see them paying Wells the franchise tag number for offensive lineman (which includes OT's) or paying him top 5 center money on a multi-year contract at his age. I think he is good as gone if not re-signed before the start of FA. Factor in if GB does plan on being active in free agency to aid the defense, the comp pick Wells would bring would help to offset the value of the FA's brought in, otherwise the expected pick for Flynn could vaporize instead.
I can't remember how McDonald passed EDS during the lockout with no OTA's as the top backup center, but GB cutting him would lead you to believe they felt at least semi comfortable at the position if Wells went down.
I would not be surprised at all if they let him go and took the comp value if they believe he will get a high buck deal elsewhere. The only off-season moves I'm thinking they do as of right now is tagging Finley and re-signing Bush to a low level deal before FA. Everyone else gets to test the waters ...
February 13, 2012 at 12:06 pm
I hate it, but I think you may be right, Aaron.
I'm trying to remember the last time we had one of these "the two sides are very far apart" situations play out with the Packers re-signing the guy before he hits the market. Usually these stories are a strong hint that the player will hit FA, at least for a test.
I suppose it's better than the Cullen Jenkins situation (player could not get the Packers to make an offer despite public appeals).
February 13, 2012 at 12:15 pm
I doubt the per year value of the contract is what is holding this up. The market is pretty set at ~$5 million a year for a quality starting center. If TT wants to keep Wells everyone knows this is the going per year rate. The hang-up is probably about guaranteed money and how that gets structured in the contract. My guess TT is just not willing to give Wells the amount of up-front guaranteed money that Wells wants. Looking at past contracts, TT has been able to use roster bonuses tied to being on the game day roster. Not sure that is going to fly with Wells.
PackerAaron
February 13, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Agreed Dave. I thought I had read somewhere that the real hang up was the length of the deal, with the team obviously wanting something shorter and Wells wanting something longer. I just couldn't find it while writing at work this morning.
February 13, 2012 at 12:20 pm
My suspicion is that unless Wells takes a discount, he'll walk. I doubt that Ted wants to or is willing to pay him more than $5M/year or an incentive-based deal.
It's not that Wells isn't worth the money today, it's that he may not be worth the money this fall or next year. Yes, offensive linemen can play well into their thirties. At the same time, Wells already has an injury history, and Dietrich-Smith may be "good enough" - not better than Wells by any means, but starter caliber. Between Wells' price tag and the number of developmental players on the roster, the cost of keeping SW is probably just too high considering the other expenses the Packers have coming.
February 13, 2012 at 12:45 pm
There is a reason centers don't make as much as their line-mates - they're more easily replaceable. I say if he doesn't agree to around $5 to $6 million on a shorter contract, let him walk. Also, I always got the feeling Wells never got over the Spitz situation a few years back and has no intention of giving a home-town discount.
PackerAaron
February 13, 2012 at 12:49 pm
<em>they’re more easily replaceable</em>
I think in a more traditional offense this would tend to be the case. However, I do wonder how much of an adjustment period it would be when it comes to the line calls and protections for someone coming into McCarthy's offense without any history in it.
February 13, 2012 at 01:23 pm
the packers are "over a barrel" on this one.
if they have to fill starting spots at...
DE
OLB
S
and C
(all in one offseason)
...they are screwed.
you can't fill 4 spots with rookies and expect to win a title.
they HAVE to sign wells.
HAVE.
TO.
add to all of this questions at TE, QB2, RB, CB, & OT.
YIKES!
15 WINS CAN TURN INTO 9 REAL QUICK IN THE NFL.
PackerAaron
February 13, 2012 at 01:30 pm
Which, of course, is how many regular season wins the World Champs had. ;)
February 13, 2012 at 05:28 pm
yup - let's shoot for 9 wins.
aim high.
PackerAaron
February 13, 2012 at 08:34 pm
I love how you turned aiming for a Super Bowl championship into 'aiming low'
The point is - the regular season means little if you aren't playing your best football at the end of the year, as the Packers and their fans learned the hard way this year. As I always say - I want the Packers to win every game they play. But if it takes a month for a new team to gel and the team gets hot in December and goes on a run, that's much preferable to another regular season of dominance followed by a one-and-done playoff appearance.
February 14, 2012 at 05:50 am
i guess you're feeling a bit more confident about next season than i am.
here's what i see...
-they'll resign finley so they'll be ok at te (if he doesn't suck again this upcoming season)
-harrell will be their qb2 (yikes)
-they will lose wells (yikes)
-collins will not play ever again (yikes)
-they'll stand pat with the rb's they have (yikes)
-at s they will be starting peprah or jennings or a rookie (yikes)
-at de they will be starting neal or wynn or a rookie (yikes)
-at c they will be starting eds or a rookie (yikes)
-at rolb they will be starting zombso'otojonesden or a rookie (yikes)
-woodson is regressing as we speak (yikes)
-capers has been figured out (yikes)
-tramon,shields have both shown the capacity to SUCK (yikes)
-hawk will still be a starter (yikes)
-their lt gave up double digit sacks last season (yikes)
-pickett is getting old (yikes)
-raji, playing next to a rookie or a scrub and an aged pickett, will find himself in the same situation as last season. (yikes)
yes - they have a great wr corp, an improving special teams, 3 solid ol staters, and one of the best qb's playing the game.
if you think that's enough - and that with everything else i've listed above going on, they'll still be able to "gel and get hot in december"... well... more power to ya.
this is why i was soooooo upset with the loss to the giants. windows stay open shorter than ever in the nfl.
it may be closing on the packers as we speak.
it would not shock me if they missed they playoffs next year.
too many problems to fix in one offseason, in my opinion.
PackerAaron
February 14, 2012 at 08:17 am
You have an incredible way of looking at everything as negatively as possible, Cow.
<em>it would not shock me if they missed they playoffs next year.</em>
The only way they miss the playoffs is if Rodgers goes down.
February 14, 2012 at 07:48 am
Ok - Cow, now you're overreacting. TT is at the very least a competent GM. MM is at the very least a competent HC.
They won't let all those things happen, and if they somehow did, they'd be fixed before the next year.
When's the last time GB had 2 bad years back to back?
Try 1991-1992.
IMO we'll be competitive again this year - and once you get in the playoffs, who knows what'll happen.
But if not (and I struggle to see how a 15 win team could suck the next year), TT/MM will fix it. Pronto.
February 14, 2012 at 08:14 am
bearmeat -
so which part of my assessment is incorrect?
February 13, 2012 at 02:37 pm
On the face of it, Cow is right. (Can't believe I'm saying that)
HOWEVER:
What it boils down to here is what GB's salary cap is going to look like in the next 5-7 years. If TT gives in and pays Wells 5 mil for 6 years, with 20 mil of that guaranteed, then what's left for:
QB 1
WR 1
TE 1
RT
LOLB
Nickelback
These are all deals that will have to be redone soon, and IMO they'll all be at least high end players still in their late 20's/early 30's.
I really, really want Wells back too, and Centers can play well until about 35/36 anyway. BUT, if you're TT, you need to know how much you have to keep clear for the players above.
February 13, 2012 at 02:36 pm
You can't pay everyone. Don't think EDS is as good as Wells, but he was ok filling in for Sitton. Draft a center somewheres between round 2-6 and let them duke it out with EDS. Rather save the cap $ for a skill position.
February 14, 2012 at 09:31 am
Mr. Nagler -
"The only way they miss the playoffs is if Rodgers goes down."
I will remember to keep reminding you of this quote as the team struggles for wins number 8 and 9 come next December.
You can't really disagree with any of the problems I listed. They are all the MOST LIKELY scenarios.
Bearmeat -
"They won’t let all those things happen, and if they somehow did, they’d be fixed before the next year."
If they try to fix all of their holes with draft picks then the scenarios I listed are EXACTLY what will happen. What - are they gonna go sign free agents? C'mon. You're looking at the guys they have and/or rookies.
I'm calling it now... 9-7. That defense is f'n horrible.
February 14, 2012 at 09:43 am
Listing a players name followed by 'yikes' constitutes a scenario? You're right, there's no way to rebut an scenario that lacks any reason, rational or detail other than, 'yikes'.
February 14, 2012 at 01:14 pm
you're right.
"yikes" is not a scenario. "yikes" is my reaction to my proposed and very likely scenario.
example: "at s they will be starting peprah or jennings or a rookie" = likely scenario
(yikes) = reaction to likely scenario.
PackerAaron
February 14, 2012 at 09:53 am
<em>They are all the MOST LIKELY scenarios.</em>
Not even close to such. You really think Tramon Williams is as bad as he showed this year? I don't. You really think they'll start Peprah or Jennings at safety? I don't. You automatically assume a rookie at OLB opposite Matthews will suck? I don't. (Brooks Reed was a rookie last year. Did he suck?)
And on and on. You can play Chicken Little all you want. I'll remain objective, thanks.
February 14, 2012 at 11:02 am
Tramon Williams - Has had as many BAD seasons (1) as GOOD ones (1). is creeping up on 30 years old. why should we believe his arrow's pointing up?
If not Peprah or Jennings then who? a rookie (like i said - "yikes").
Reed behind the Packers dline = zombo.
I may be playing chicken little OR you might be burying your head in the sand.
PackerAaron
February 14, 2012 at 11:07 am
The big difference though is that I can see BOTH the bad and the good possibly happening. You have already resigned yourself to the fact that the Packers are set to re-enter the Forrest Greg era.
February 14, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Cow42, I didn't read most of your postings cuz I know the tenor you spew. My Q is do you have a computer under the bridge w/ you or do you have to come out from under to use one?
February 14, 2012 at 10:53 am
cow:
-they’ll resign finley so they’ll be ok at te (if he doesn’t suck again this upcoming season)
Sure. Even if they don't re-sign him, I think the TE position will be solid.
-harrell will be their qb2 (yikes)
Why the yikes? How much of Graham Harrell's play have you witnessed to know he's not capable of being a backup?
-they will lose wells (yikes)
Not a guarantee.
-collins will not play ever again (yikes)
Again not a guarantee.
-they’ll stand pat with the rb’s they have (yikes)
Even Grant? I also don't see why the "yikes" here. Starks only lacks in pass pro right now, and Green/Saine still haven't even come close to hitting their potential. Besides, RB is not the strength of the offense and doesn't need to be.
-at s they will be starting peprah or jennings or a rookie (yikes)
Doubtful Peprah will be a starter. And what's wrong with Jennings? Do you know he'll be bad next year?
-at de they will be starting neal or wynn or a rookie (yikes)
Rookie doesn't equal bad. I don't think the Packers would have minded JJ Watt on their team this year.
-at c they will be starting eds or a rookie (yikes)
See Wells comment above.
-at rolb they will be starting zombso’otojonesden or a rookie (yikes)
Again, rookies don't = bad.
-woodson is regressing as we speak (yikes)
Yup.
-capers has been figured out (yikes)
Really? So you just get "figured out" and you're done as a coach?
-tramon,shields have both shown the capacity to SUCK (yikes)
Especially with a bad pass rush to help them.
-hawk will still be a starter (yikes)
Maybe...
-their lt gave up double digit sacks last season (yikes)
And players don't improve?
-pickett is getting old (yikes)
Yup.
-raji, playing next to a rookie or a scrub and an aged pickett, will find himself in the same situation as last season. (yikes)
Again, rookie != bad. It can, but not a given.
PackerAaron
February 14, 2012 at 11:08 am
<em>-capers has been figured out (yikes)
Really? So you just get “figured out” and you’re done as a coach?</em>
THANK you Chad. In cow's world there's just NO POSSIBLE WAY Capers could ever possibly adjust. None. He's done. Over. Finished. He sucks. YIKES.
February 14, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Cow, you make some good points about likely weaknesses next year.
But saying the Packers will miss the playoffs might be obscuring some of the good points you make.
We have the best QB in the NFL, right? When was the last time the team with the best QB MISSED THE PLAYOFFS? I'm sure it's happened, but its got to be very rare (you could lock in Peyton/Brady for 10 wins every year for a decade).
Nagler's right, unless Rodgers gets injured, the Pack will make the playoffs.
February 14, 2012 at 01:26 pm
i could not care less about "making the playoffs". i'm worried about championships. average teams "make the playoffs".
who cares about making the playoffs?
if you didn't win the whole thing, you failed.
PackerAaron
February 14, 2012 at 01:40 pm
And 31 teams fail every single year. The key is to be in a position to make a run, which is exactly where Thompson has the Packers every year.
Wait, remind me, how do teams get to play for a Championship? Oh that's right. They have to be in the playoffs.
February 14, 2012 at 02:37 pm
"Wait, remind me, how do teams get to play for a Championship? Oh that’s right. They have to be in the playoffs."
I knew you were going to say this.
we all know there's "making the playoffs" and then there's "MAKING THE PLAYOFFS". the broncos made the playoffs this year but they weren't winnin' any super bowl.
i think it's incorrect to think that every team that makes the playoffs has a chance to win the super bowl. that's not really the case.
bengals?
lions?
falcons?
texans?
broncos?
ummmmm, no.
PackerAaron
February 14, 2012 at 02:49 pm
<em>we all know there’s “making the playoffs” and then there’s “MAKING THE PLAYOFFS”</em>
I give up.
February 14, 2012 at 01:22 pm
my bad - you're right. those adjustments he made during the season sure whipped that d back into shape.
here's a proposition for you... go back and look at tape of all packer defensive snaps from last season. i bet you could count on 2 hands the number of times the opposing offense was surprised by the defense.
everyone knew what was coming.
all.
year.
PackerAaron
February 14, 2012 at 01:43 pm
<em> go back and look at tape of all packer defensive snaps from last season</em>
I have. Have you?
February 14, 2012 at 02:28 pm
no.
i want you to do the work for me.
by the way - how many times did the packer defense surprise the opposing offense (free rusher to the qb, etc) per game? just a guess. i'm not being a dick this time around. i'm actually interested on your opinion. did it look to you like the other team usually had a good idea of what was coming?
PackerAaron
February 14, 2012 at 02:37 pm
It did, actually. But that said, how many times did the Giants "surprise" the opposing offense? Not many. Why? They had superior personnel rushing the quarterback. Capers will look a lot smarter and "unpredictable" when he's got a real DE and/or OLB.
Look at the Steelers. They haven't stayed a top defense because LeBeau is more creative than Capers. Hell, they run nearly identical schemes. But Lebeau's defense looks just as predictable and "figured out" when Polamalu or Harrison miss games due to injury. Hell, they played their playoff game without Ryan Clark and lost to Tebow. I mean, has Dick Lebeau suddenly "lost it"? No. Same thing happened to Capers this year.
That said, the Packers defense is not in the dire straights you and many Packers fans would condemn them to. They need two players - and improvement from within - and they could easily be a Top 10 defense again. Let the offseason play out.
February 14, 2012 at 02:56 pm
Some analyses can't be boiled down to black/white or awesome/suck. Opposing teams had more than a decade of film on Capers prior to last year and the Packers SB run. It's not like the opposition just figured out what his intentions or tendencies are this year. Like anything, the answer is complex. Lack of execution, some predictable tendencies for both personnel and coaching staff as a byproduct of limited talent on the defensive line, poor tackling, mentality related to being an 'opportunistic defense' (generate turnovers) vs. a fundamentally sound defense leading to a self-identity of 'taking chances' and a failure to tackle or be assignment sound.
Nothing is black and white, cow. I suspect you get so much negative feedback because characterizing it as such isn't close to reality.
If you really believe the Packers will regress this far due to personnel or unit specific coaching then you must feel the same way about the Saints (no talent whatsoever in their back 7, defensive line looked awful), Patriots (less talent than the Packers on defense by far) and 49'ers (no QB, couldn't hold the Packers offensive jock in terms of talent).
All those teams should regress more than your predicted regression of the Packers by your reasoning.
February 14, 2012 at 04:34 pm
i guess it comes down to this...
i'm not as high on the packers' defensive talent as you guys are. you say that they have more talent than the saints and pats. i don't agree. in my opinion - not only are the packers lacking playmakers, they lack starters. there are 4 players on the defense i think are any good. burnett (maybe), matthews, raji, and bishop.
woodson's bad. no one will convince me otherwise. he can't cover and can't tackle.
williams is bad. he was flat out horrific this season. an undrafted guy who was cut by a couple of teams and had one out - of - his - ass season. he's going to be 29 and to think he'll go back to being the player he was in 2010 is a pipe dream.
shields is soft. he's young so i actually like him over williams and woodson. at least there's the possibility of improvement.
hawk sucks.
peprah sucks.
collins is done.
pickett is ancient.
neal is glass.
all rolb's are useless.
wynn sucks.
i agree with you on capers... he had nothing to work with (but to compare him to lebeau is ridiculous - he is nowhere near that guy).
nagler -
"they need two players". what are the chances of drafting 2 impact defensive players in the same draft? slim to none. yeah-yeah, they did it with raji and matthews... give me another example....
"improvement from within". other than shields and burnett, who has room for improvement?
"they could easily be a Top 10 defense again". that's crazy. this defense is lightyears away from even being below average.
"Let the offseason play out." to me this means that you essentially agree with me. that they do not currently have the pieces they need.
all i'm saying is that to count on the draft to fill all of those needs is being very optimistic. it could happen, i guess... i just don't think it's very likely.
you're depending on too many things to fall in their favor... they draft a stud de, they draft a stud olb, shields gets better, woodson gets better, williams gets better, collins plays again, burnett gets better, hawk suddenly stops sucking, neal grows a sack.
if you think that's all going to happen, i'm extremely jealous of you. you are one optimistic mo-fo. it must be fun to dance around believing that everything's going to go right.
February 15, 2012 at 08:22 am
useless, sucks, awful, done.
Give some substance, cow. Why was Woodson's entire game awful? Footwork? Liability on his assignments based on the defensive call and secondary alignment? Bites on primary moves with no recovery speed? Upright in his backpedal? Eyes too frequently in the backfield? Too eager to jump routes? Feet don't stay below his base when he squares to tackle?
But no, we get single word soup with a hint of bitterness.
That doesn't bother me though, that's just you knowing so little about the basics of the game outside yardage totals.
One thing that does piss me off about your comments is when you assign what you 'think' other people are thinking and quickly erect some non-existent strawman of an argument on their behalf.
I'm 99% sure you don't know what a strawman argument is, so look it up.
February 15, 2012 at 01:43 pm
Hey CSS - here's my analysis. The guys Woodson and Shields and Williams were covering seemed to be open a lot.
That's all I need to see to decide whether a guy's playing well or not.
So many people on this blog act like scouts. Knock it off.
I have opinions on things.
Strong opinions.
Emotionally based opinions.
They tend to differ from the opinions of others.
Why is this a problem?
Why attack me?
I have never attacked anyone on this blog (other than Packer players when I feel that they play bad).
I get dumped on pretty hard here.
And I'm not sure why.
I think the defense is bad and has a long way to go to even become below average. i don't think the players that the Packers have on the defensive side of the ball are very good. I don't think many of them will ever be better than average.
You disagree.
What's the big deal?
PackerAaron
February 15, 2012 at 01:55 pm
<em>here’s my analysis. The guys Woodson and Shields and Williams were covering seemed to be open a lot.</em>
See, that's not analysis. Can you tell us why that was the case? Because THAT is analysis.
Yes, you are allowed your own opinion. But you don't handle it very well when someone asks you to delve a little deeper than "This guy sucks/didn't play well"
I get that people can gang up on you a bit, but when you spend the better part of an entire year just throwing out "This team/player sucks" without showing more than a rudimentary understanding of how the game is played, I can't say I blame them.
February 15, 2012 at 02:33 pm
I don't "dig deeper" because I think its pointless. I think that the people who do talk about footwork and coverages, blah, blah, blah would be laughed at by guys who actually do this for a living.
You'd have to be a pretty cocky s.o.b. to think that you're qualified to evaluate NFL talent.
Did Woodson play well? - in my opinion - NO.
Do I know WHY he didn't play well? - NO... and neither does any commenter on this or any other blog.
Does my not knowing WHY he played poorly mean that he really didn't play poorly - HELL NO! He played like ass. Even he would tell you he did.
You can agree with me or not but you all need to get off your f'n high horses like your some sort of uber-knowlegable football evaluators.
YOU.
ARE.
NOT.
(except for paul ott caruth - that dude's from another planet).
PackerAaron
February 15, 2012 at 02:42 pm
<em>I don’t “dig deeper” because I think its pointless.</em>
Cool. And I don't.
<em>You’d have to be a pretty cocky s.o.b. to think that you’re qualified to evaluate NFL talent.</em>
I don't think I know more than someone who's employed by an NFL team, and have never said as much. But that doesn't mean there isn't a big jump from "This guy didn't play well" to wanting to find out why. I (and others) want to find out why.
If you don't like conversing with people who are genuienly interested in finding out the why's when it comes to football, there are plenty of forums and comments sections where "This guy sucks" passes as a cogent observation on the game of football. This is not one of those places. If you want to continue to bring weak ass arguments to bear, you will continue to be called out for them by people here who are indeed interested in digging a little deeper.
You can keep crying about it or try to learn something from folks who, no, don't do this for a living, but who are for the most part an intelligent and curious bunch.
It's your choice.
February 15, 2012 at 03:48 pm
all i've ever done is point out that some of the players on this team are maybe not as good as people might think.
what's your opinion on the following players?
hawk - do you think he played well this season? do you think he'll get any better?
williams - do you think he played well this season? do you think he'll get any better?
woodson - do you think he played well this season? do you think he'll get any better?
zombo and co. - do you think he played well this season? do you think he'll get any better?
wynn - do you think he played well this season? do you think he'll get any better?
neal - do you think he played well this season? do you think he'll get any better?
shields - do you think he played well this season? do you think he'll get any better?
peprah - do you think he played well this season? do you think he'll get any better?
which positions (if any) do you feel replacements need to be made?
do you think all of those replacements can be made in one offseason?
i think it's glaringly obvious that they need new players at s, ilb, rolb, de, and at least 1 cb spot.
i don't think they can do all of that in one offseason.
i think that the fact that they probably will not be able to take care of all of those holes in one offseason means that they will agin have a horrible defense.
i believe that the horrible defense will again prevent them from winning a super bowl.
i also believe that if the defense plays as poorly next season as it did this past season that it is possible that this team will miss the playoffs all together.
you (and others) seem to just trust that "blahh, things'll just get fixed. tt will pick two stud defensive players, and everyone else will just get better".
why is your opinion any stronger than mine.
none of my concerns are without merit. not a one.
PackerAaron
February 15, 2012 at 03:55 pm
<em>you (and others) seem to just trust that “blahh, things’ll just get fixed. tt will pick two stud defensive players, and everyone else will just get better”.</em>
That's not even close to what I've written. I can't speak to anyone else.
<em>i believe that the horrible defense will again prevent them from winning a super bowl.</em>
IT'S FEBRUARY. Can we at least let Ted do his work before declaring the 2012 season a failure?
February 14, 2012 at 11:55 am
can i ask the elephant-in-the-room question? okay, i will.
does rodgers prefer wells?
imo, the answer to that question will determine if he stays or not.
February 14, 2012 at 12:15 pm
I think it's a pretty safe bet that he does, but I don't think that will be the deciding factor. Rodgers wasn't a fan of McAdoo for QB coach, and he got that.
I think the team is very wary of letting Rodgers play GM. You really don't want to create another Favre-monster. Plus, the (possibly) Rodgers-influenced James Jones signing didn't exactly set the world on fire.
February 14, 2012 at 12:25 pm
i agree that TT will/is careful not to create a favre monster - but there are some differences:
1. rodgers is HIS monster. favre was not - shouldn't make a difference in terms of TT taking his input into consideration, but i'm sure it does.
2. re: QB coach -- i think TT/MM would draw the line at AR having an impact on coaching hires - input perhaps, but little/no substantive impact.
3. the relationship between C and QB is, in my estimation, even more important than between QB and WR #3, and it seems AR had an impact on that decision - as you pointed out.
I don't think it needs to be a slippery slope - just influence contained by reasonable boundaries - WR and OL should be inbounds IMO for the input and influence of a QB who is perhaps the best in the league, and projected to be so for near a decade. if wells makes him comfortable, and it's a borderline decision, i say he stays and rodgers' input, whether public or private, is a factor.
February 14, 2012 at 04:47 pm
The disturbing part of cow42's list of potential problem areas for the Pack in 2012 is not so much any individual item but the fact that there are 16 items on the list. Even if half come to fruition, GB could be in for a rocky 2012.
I do agree that there is still time for changes & adjustments to be made that can stem a total down-year for GB in 2012. However, I'm not sure that one off-season will be enough to 'fix' the "D". PackFans have got to accept the reality of the situation & somehow escape their denial. TT sat on his hands during the 2011 draft & the lock-out. Now, this offseason will be a mad scramble to make up for lost time.
It's unfortunate because 15-2 looks so good 'in the books' but the reality is that season 2011 turned into a lost opportunity. The window is not nearly as open as it once was after winning SB 45.
February 15, 2012 at 08:25 am
"PackFans have got to accept the reality of the situation & somehow escape their denial."
And you can officially join Cow in the stupidity hall of fame in the reading for comprehension category and mastery in erecting strawman arguments about what you think people are thinking.
Reading is hard....
February 15, 2012 at 01:09 pm
Too bad that there are fans like you who are incapable of accepting the fact that each person has a right to opinions that may not jive with yours.
I have read many of your posts & you, sir, are a sad person who at some juncture in your life will be jolted into reality. Hope you can handle it.
Try reading more, posting less. It might help in your comprehension.
February 15, 2012 at 01:48 pm
you love that "strawman" thing, don't ya?
opinion that differs from yours = stupid.
got it.
PackerAaron
February 15, 2012 at 01:56 pm
See, again, that's not what it means at all. FIND OUT. Look it up. READ what a "strawman argument" is about.
But no, you just resort to "x = stupid"
And you wonder why people get tired of your act.
February 15, 2012 at 02:20 pm
i should have separated the two comments.
I was making 2 observations.
1 - he loves "strawman"
2 - when my opinion differs from his I am stupid.
I should have been more clear.
February 15, 2012 at 01:20 pm
The Giants' D this past season gave up more points per game than the Packers, and had a much worse QB rating against than the Packers.
They finished 27th in yards allowed, 29th in passing yards allowed.
They somehow managed to correct it midseason and finished strong enough to win a title.
To say that the Packers can't do the same, considering the personel and coaching staff present, is completely misguided.
February 14, 2012 at 07:43 pm
Last year's draft was very good. TT drafts for future needs. So Sherrod > Cllifton; while he will rehab a good part of the offseason, I don't doubt that he will be available and possibly start and be at least as good as the 2012 version of Clifton. So Cobb > Driver; if Jones doesn't sign, Driver is welcome for 2012. So A.Green>Grant; less obvious, but with Saine in the mix, our rb's are adequate and cheap. That's three draft picks that improve the 2012 packers over 2011.
Also look at players improving. There is a reason that veteran's get paid more than rookies: they are better players (to a point). While its hard to fathom MD Jennings as the starting safety next year; it could happen and he could be adequate. Not Collins quallity, but we're talking about replacing a pro bowler. Very likely better than Peprah.
I don't think I'm drinking the kool-aid; but I've witnessed TT making roster moves that improve our team, so I'm willing to let him do his job. And you know; even if the Pack were to miss the playoffs, I'd still cheer for them and say "wait till next year".
February 15, 2012 at 12:06 pm
CSS:
Apparently it's an "all or nothing" mentality with some people. You're either fully with me, or completely against me. No middle ground, no nuance... ever.
February 15, 2012 at 03:45 pm
I know. I also limit my tone since its not my blog (learned my lesson, rightfully so). But I do believe in asking for some substance in a response and believe that to be a reasonable request. This is a football savvy board and the lack of a response (substance) speaks volumes.
I'll limit the whack a mole responses, its all together too easy and I don't care to disrespect Nagler's blog. The substance there stands on its own.
February 15, 2012 at 04:03 pm
you guys win.
i'll fall in line like everyone else here.
it's probably a lot easier and more fun.
sorry for bringing up opinions and arguments that might have been contradictory to what everyone else thinks.
it might take me a little bit of time and practice to be able to contribute posts with as much class and substance as those of someone like css.
i'll just keep reading through posts like the following (all from css). all substance. all the time.
"You’re right, there’s no way to rebut an scenario that lacks any reason"
"That doesn’t bother me though, that’s just you knowing so little about the basics of the game outside yardage totals.
One thing that does piss me off about your comments is when you assign what you ‘think’ other people are thinking and quickly erect some non-existent strawman of an argument on their behalf.
I’m 99% sure you don’t know what a strawman argument is, so look it up."
"And you can officially join Cow in the stupidity hall of fame in the reading for comprehension category and mastery in erecting strawman arguments about what you think people are thinking.
Reading is hard…."
"I’ll limit the whack a mole responses, its all together too easy"
this guy knows how to contribute insightful, high quality information. no doubt about it.
February 16, 2012 at 10:32 am
FWIW, this isn't about winning or losing an argument. It's about how the argument plays out. And I'll admit openly, cow, that I don't think you're to blame. It takes two to tango, as my father says.
But there's a difference between asserting your opinion as fact/truth and being open to conversation about a topic. It has to be a give and take from all sides, and we can't make too many assumptions about what the other person really thinks.
None of us are perfect, and it's hard to argue without getting overly defensive. Plus, sometimes we just have to learn how to disagree and leave it at that.