Jump to content

Packers Sign DE Mo Wilkerson


Gopackgonerd

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Pugger said:

I have a feeling if we can get a FA player to actually come and see our facilities they will get the same feeling Mo did.   I suppose the trick is to get them to come...

Our facilities aren't anymore impressive than anybody else's. ****, I think I remember LA and Miami both have large outdoor sections overlooking the beach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

Our facilities aren't anymore impressive than anybody else's. ****, I think I remember LA and Miami both have large outdoor sections overlooking the beach. 

1200px-DonHutsonCenter.jpg

Obviously this is the bigger draw.  You and your insistence that it's harder to get a player to sign here instead of somewhere like Los Angeles makes me sick.  Get over yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

Oh come on.

 

Yes. A lot of players don't want to come to Green Bay. Not everyone cares about tradition and nostalgia. 

 

Sure some do, but it's not the norm and just because a couple guys like it, once they've signed here anyway, doesn't mean it's not way down the list for places most players want to go.

I feel like we've had this argument to death, but this again proves everyone's point that location isn't a top factor for many FAs. 

We were final 2 for Allen Robinson, who most definitely got more cash from the Bears. Chicago has more to do than GB, but everything south of Soldier Field and you might as well be in the Middle East. Can't tell me location was the factor there.

We got the 2nd best pass catcher and a top 3 DL on the market. 

For the millionth time, some players just want to win football games or get paid, if we go back to the 80s Packers, yeah we're going to have a hell of a time signing FAs. At this stage? I'm sure we could be in with a majority of the class every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Packerraymond said:

if we go back to the 80s Packers, yeah we're going to have a hell of a time signing FAs.

You mean before free agency existed?  Don't want to derail this again, but why do you think Joe Johnson was the biggest free agent Sherman ever signed? 

Ron Wolf capitalized on free agency when nobody really knew what free agency was.  Do you honestly think Reggie White would ever have reached  free agency in today's NFL now that teams know what it is and how it works?  Free agency in 1992 was like explaining calculus to a 5 year old.  Now, it's like explaining basic math to a mathematician.  So between 1996-ish and the signing of Charles Woodson, you've got Joe Johnson as your biggest free agent acquisition. 

Some people are willing to accept that's not a coincidence.  You and a few others don't WANT to believe it, so you don't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HorizontoZenith said:

You mean before free agency existed?  Don't want to derail this again, but why do you think Joe Johnson was the biggest free agent Sherman ever signed? 

Ron Wolf capitalized on free agency when nobody really knew what free agency was.  Do you honestly think Reggie White would ever have reached  free agency in today's NFL now that teams know what it is and how it works?  Free agency in 1992 was like explaining calculus to a 5 year old.  Now, it's like explaining basic math to a mathematician.  So between 1996-ish and the signing of Charles Woodson, you've got Joe Johnson as your biggest free agent acquisition. 

Some people are willing to accept that's not a coincidence.  You and a few others don't WANT to believe it, so you don't. 

You clearly didn't understand what I said. Obviously NFL didn't have FA in 1980s, but GB sucked. The combo of suck and location is going to be a killer. Combo of 8 straight playoff appearances and competing for Lombardi's with the location? You'll be in the mix for plenty.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bigger city means so much more than just clubs. It means restaurants, museums, concerts, all sorts of things. It also means more people which is potentially a bigger market for sponsorship and outside football income.

 

This stuff matters some. Sure some players have different priorities, but if "quality of life outside of football" is even a factor, Green Bay is a less attractive option and something has to balance that out, either more money or they have to buy in to the tradion or specific competitive situation in Green Bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, spilltray said:

A bigger city means so much more than just clubs. It means restaurants, museums, concerts, all sorts of things. It also means more people which is potentially a bigger market for sponsorship and outside football income.

 

This stuff matters some. Sure some players have different priorities, but if "quality of life outside of football" is even a factor, Green Bay is a less attractive option and something has to balance that out, either more money or they have to buy in to the tradion or specific competitive situation in Green Bay.

There are countless variables. Money will always be #1 no matter what the player. Then you have dozens of others. GB score very poorly in location, but highly when you look at team talent, success, facilities, coaching staff, etc. I don't believe every player hits FA and is looking directly at location like this forum would have you believe. I've compared it to college recruiting many times and it's very similar. There are many factors in the decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not "every" but any who weigh it at all makes it statistically more difficult on average. It is a point in the minus column other teams don't have. Do the Packers have other pluses? Sure, plenty. It is still a negative compared to other teams. It will matter more to some players and not at all to others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s just a fact that location hurts GB, but it’s not like it’s the only nfl team with that handicap. Example... Buffalo.

Ultimately there could be hundreds of different factors that players must look at before signing. Allen Robinson had GB as his second ... is it just because we offered good money, have Rodgers and win consistently? Or could it be those things plus he is a mid west guy and went to a college that was a small town college and honestly that doesn’t brother him.

Just look at the profile of the player when trying to figure this stuff out. Guys like Dez, Odell, etc likely wouldn’t sign here.... players like Larry Fitzgerald and Julio Jones would. Different types of personality still offer up greatness.

It will always be an issue for GB but if they are smart it will never be an excuse for losing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

It's not "every" but any who weigh it at all makes it statistically more difficult on average. It is a point in the minus column other teams don't have. Do the Packers have other pluses? Sure, plenty. It is still a negative compared to other teams. It will matter more to some players and not at all to others.

Never said it wasn't, there isn't a team out there that doesn't have negatives. GBs location is one of theirs. You could go to Miami and play for a dumpster fire of an organization, but hey at least you see palm trees. Honestly that's not the football player I want anyway so I'm glad they rule us out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spilltray said:

A bigger city means so much more than just clubs. It means restaurants, museums, concerts, all sorts of things. It also means more people which is potentially a bigger market for sponsorship and outside football income.

 

This stuff matters some. Sure some players have different priorities, but if "quality of life outside of football" is even a factor, Green Bay is a less attractive option and something has to balance that out, either more money or they have to buy in to the tradion or specific competitive situation in Green Bay.

Not to mention the players wives who are probably incessantly gnawing their ears off about going to a place with something to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty simple argument; different free agents value different things higher than others. It’s not accurate putting them all in a bubble. There are some people who will eliminate GB as a possibility altogether, some wouldn’t think twice of where the team is located.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, pollino14 said:

Pretty simple argument; different free agents value different things higher than others. It’s not accurate putting them all in a bubble. There are some people who will eliminate GB as a possibility altogether, some wouldn’t think twice of where the team is located.

No different than dating. Some girls like my mom's basement. She has wi-fi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

Never said it wasn't, there isn't a team out there that doesn't have negatives. GBs location is one of theirs. You could go to Miami and play for a dumpster fire of an organization, but hey at least you see palm trees. Honestly that's not the football player I want anyway so I'm glad they rule us out.

Now you're just talking crazy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Now you're just talking crazy. 

Why? If your #1 priority when picking a team is weather and night life, I can build a fine team without you. If location is important to you because you want your kids to go to school in a certain state or how safe the area is for your family? Totally cool. I don't need you leaving the cold on an off day to chill on a boat in Miami, not crazy at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...