Thoughts on the Offseason

[AlexGreen#20]

4 minutes ago, squire12 said:

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=580873

Plenty of people were bitching at the GB front office for how that was executed.

@AlexGreen#20 how do you know that GB did not inquire about trading Nelson?

Once teams know you are looking to move a player....before he would be cut, his trade value is minimal.  Why would a team give up a pick AND take on Nelson base 2018 salary.  Why not just wait for GB to cut him.

Keeping Nelson's cap hit on the books through TC limits your options in pursuing other FA.  Why hamstring your own ability to go after other player by keeping a player you are likely cutting anyway.

I admittedly don't know for a fact that the Packers didn't attempt to shop Nelson other than that we didn't hear even a whisper about it, and it's inconsistent with what the Packers did in the process of cutting him.

Nelson isn't a guy you need to move. If you call the Raiders and they say they're not interested, Nelson's value doesn't tank. The Packers don't need to move Nelson. You can play out the season with him.

It's also not like his contract was that bad. The Raiders gave Nelson the same annual money for two years.

[squire12]

18 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I admittedly don't know for a fact that the Packers didn't attempt to shop Nelson other than that we didn't hear even a whisper about it, and it's inconsistent with what the Packers did in the process of cutting him.

Nelson isn't a guy you need to move. If you call the Raiders and they say they're not interested, Nelson's value doesn't tank. The Packers don't need to move Nelson. You can play out the season with him.

It's also not like his contract was that bad. The Raiders gave Nelson the same annual money for two years.

Were you in favor of keeping Nelson at his 2018 GB contract on March 1st?  

I feel like this is a hindsight discussion on things.  Knowing that GB missed out on signing other FA WR, it makes sense to feel that GB should have kept Nelson through TC and then see how he looked alongside of the rookies and younger WR.  

IF GB thought that Nelson was done and his 2018 contract was not a good value and having the additional cap space along with the signal of need to the FA WR that an opportunity to come in and compete for a lot of snaps/targets with Aaron Rodgers at the QB position....THEN cutting Nelson in March was the correct move at that time based on the information available at that time.

[AlexGreen#20]

10 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Were you in favor of keeping Nelson at his 2018 GB contract on March 1st?  

I feel like this is a hindsight discussion on things.  Knowing that GB missed out on signing other FA WR, it makes sense to feel that GB should have kept Nelson through TC and then see how he looked alongside of the rookies and younger WR.  

IF GB thought that Nelson was done and his 2018 contract was not a good value and having the additional cap space along with the signal of need to the FA WR that an opportunity to come in and compete for a lot of snaps/targets with Aaron Rodgers at the QB position....THEN cutting Nelson in March was the correct move at that time based on the information available at that time.

Nelson's value at 11.5 isn't good, but you're stuck with the signing bonus regardless. Nelson at 7.5 isn't bad value in my mind. Raiders didn't think so either.

Nelson isn't stopping you from signing anybody. If you agree with a different receiver on numbers and you NEED the cap space immediately (and I don't believe there was a contract signed this year for a WR that would've required this) you get his signature on the paper. You then fax the "Jordy Nelson is being released" papers and then fifteen minutes later you fax the "Player A is a Green Bay Packer" papers. 

We tried to half *** doing the right thing and got torched

[squire12]

4 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Nelson's value at 11.5 isn't good, but you're stuck with the signing bonus regardless. Nelson at 7.5 isn't bad value in my mind. Raiders didn't think so either.

Nelson isn't stopping you from signing anybody. If you agree with a different receiver on numbers and you NEED the cap space immediately (and I don't believe there was a contract signed this year for a WR that would've required this) you get his signature on the paper. You then fax the "Jordy Nelson is being released" papers and then fifteen minutes later you fax the "Player A is a Green Bay Packer" papers. 

We tried to half *** doing the right thing and got torched

That all looks good for GB and the team, but if you are the outside FA WR, why are you looking to come to GB to be what looks like the 4th WR behind Adams, Cobb, Nelson for the 2018 season?

 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, squire12 said:

That all looks good for GB and the team, but if you are the outside FA WR, why are you looking to come to GB to be what looks like the 4th WR behind Adams, Cobb, Nelson for the 2018 season?

 

1. Because money talks more than situation.

2. Because as the GM you communicate with the player, that your plan is for that guy to absolutely be a full time starter. Even if he's not bright enough to get it, the agent will understand we've got two cut candidates at that position and read between the lines.

3. Because these guys you're looking at should be clear cut improvements over what's in house. If you're gonna write that check, it needs to be worth it.

[squire12]

39 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1. Because money talks more than situation.

2. Because as the GM you communicate with the player, that your plan is for that guy to absolutely be a full time starter. Even if he's not bright enough to get it, the agent will understand we've got two cut candidates at that position and read between the lines.

3. Because these guys you're looking at should be clear cut improvements over what's in house. If you're gonna write that check, it needs to be worth it.

 So cutting Nelson allows you to have more money to pursue the player and provide an attractive situation.  In hindsight, it looks bad

[AlexGreen#20]

39 minutes ago, squire12 said:

 So cutting Nelson allows you to have more money to pursue the player and provide an attractive situation.  In hindsight, it looks bad

Money was never an issue. We had enough to make these offers. Even a mediocre salesman sells the prospect that he's the present and the future at one of the receiver spots.

In hindsight it looks bad, but this wasn't an issue that you needed hindsight to see going badly. This was putting the departing player first and the organization second. 

This wasn't an instance of the car getting side-swiped by a reckless driver on the freeway while we were minding our own business doing everything right. We were weaving in and out of traffic on this one.  

[squire12]

9 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Money was never an issue. We had enough to make these offers. Even a mediocre salesman sells the prospect that he's the present and the future at one of the receiver spots.

In hindsight it looks bad, but this wasn't an issue that you needed hindsight to see going badly. This was putting the departing player first and the organization second. 

This wasn't an instance of the car getting side-swiped by a reckless driver on the freeway while we were minding our own business doing everything right. We were weaving in and out of traffic on this one.  

Were you happy with the Fuller offer sheet?  Did you feel it was a high enough offer to force Chicago's hand in being able to match it?

[AlexGreen#20]

2 hours ago, squire12 said:

Were you happy with the Fuller offer sheet?  Did you feel it was a high enough offer to force Chicago's hand in being able to match it?

I was not happy with the offer sheet, I don't see how that fits the timeline though.

[squire12]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I was not happy with the offer sheet, I don't see how that fits the timeline though.

Keeping Nelson means you have less to make an offer for Fuller.

 

[Packerraymond]

15 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Nelson's value at 11.5 isn't good, but you're stuck with the signing bonus regardless. Nelson at 7.5 isn't bad value in my mind. Raiders didn't think so either.

Nelson isn't stopping you from signing anybody. If you agree with a different receiver on numbers and you NEED the cap space immediately (and I don't believe there was a contract signed this year for a WR that would've required this) you get his signature on the paper. You then fax the "Jordy Nelson is being released" papers and then fifteen minutes later you fax the "Player A is a Green Bay Packer" papers. 

We tried to half *** doing the right thing and got torched

In what world are we torched? We have 3 receiving targets of Adams, Cobb, Graham which is equal to the trip we had last year. We drafted 3 rookies that all profile as potential high level athletes and we're sitting here today with the ability to add Dez Bryant, Jeremy Maclin or Eric Decker with minimal financial commitment if we choose. Nothing about that says "torched."

I have a feeling this move is going to turn out like the Sitton move where have the fanbase says " I probably overreacted there" when the seasons over.

[Shanedorf]

16 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Don't be freaking naive. There's no such thing as a football move that isn't a money move. They're the same.

Well I am naive. I've never been an NFL agent, nor have I worked in personnel for an NFL team. On top of that I've never met Gute, let alone have a direct line of communication with him. Or to Jordy. Or to his agent. I am naive to the actual facts of this transaction; I can only go on what's reported- and that's often biased,  info. Especially in the case of the Packers front office who are very tight- lipped

I come at this from the point of view that the Packers decided they didn't want Jordy going forward - and then the next decision is how to handle that

The Packers under Brandt, then TT &  Ball were very well regarded around the NFL for crafting fair and reasonable contracts. The agents often commented that the Packers were well-prepared and talented negotiators. I suspect that continues under Gute/Ball. These guys know what they are doing.

Given that, its a fair guess that they were aware of Jordy's value and so was Jordy's agent. Yet the Packers low-balled the number. Why ?

Were they interested in sticking it to Jordy ? Unlikely. Were they unaware of his value around the league and comparable deals for WRs ? Again unlikely

Did they want to eff with Rodgers ? Also unlikely. So given all of that, one could surmise that the Packers made the offer they did knowing he wouldn't take it. They made him an offer he couldn't possibly accept.

Which was in line with their football decision that Jordy can't do it for 20 more games/ season. Your premise is based on the assumption that he can.

If we come at it from your point of view - that the Packers really wanted Jordy back- then you have to go through all kinds of flips and twists and bungling to explain how it all went down. You noted that the Packers didn't have to move Jordy in March, they could have waited ( and paid bonuses) until May or August.

IF the Packers actually wanted Nelson in 2018, he'd still be a Packer ! It would have been a simple negotiation completed in a couple of hours. The Packers had the money, the player wanted to be here....easy-peasy stuff.

So why did they move him in March ? Because they had already decided to move on and there was simply no value in waiting.

The Packers didn't get torched, there is no negative impact from their moves. Jordy is gone, the cap space was realized and both parties move on.

Reading the tea leaves is all I can do as a naive fan on a message board - but it appears to me they had no interest in his services for 2018 and beyond. And when you look at it in that light, the Packers didn't "handle it poorly" or "weave in and out of traffic"

They were 100% consistent with their football assessments and offseason plans.

Occam's Razor in action: no bungling, no weaving, no imaginary FA they were chasing, no brainfart offer that was completely out of line with reality.

[squire12]

24 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

In what world are we torched? We have 3 receiving targets of Adams, Cobb, Graham which is equal to the trip we had last year. We drafted 3 rookies that all profile as potential high level athletes and we're sitting here today with the ability to add Dez Bryant, Jeremy Maclin or Eric Decker with minimal financial commitment if we choose. Nothing about that says "torched."

I have a feeling this move is going to turn out like the Sitton move where have the fanbase says " I probably overreacted there" when the seasons over.

GB also has Aaron Rodgers, the often argued best QB in the league.  MM the highly successful HC.  That could combination should be able to function and have success without Nelson.

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, squire12 said:

Keeping Nelson means you have less to make an offer for Fuller.

 

No, you can make your offer to Fuller and figure out your cap later. If you get Fuller, you then figure out what you're doing with cutting Nelson, not signing Tramons, etc. To make it work. These are two separate issues.

Also if we cut Nelson to make a claim on a transition tag in which we then threw out a softball offer that the Bears matched immediately, that is SO MUCH WORSE than just cutting Jordy purely out of a sense of loyalty.

[AlexGreen#20]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

In what world are we torched? We have 3 receiving targets of Adams, Cobb, Graham which is equal to the trip we had last year. We drafted 3 rookies that all profile as potential high level athletes and we're sitting here today with the ability to add Dez Bryant, Jeremy Maclin or Eric Decker with minimal financial commitment if we choose. Nothing about that says "torched."

I have a feeling this move is going to turn out like the Sitton move where have the fanbase says " I probably overreacted there" when the seasons over.

We could've had all three of those targets AND Nelson.

That's the point.