Is it harder for the Packers to sign free agents than it is for other teams?

[MacReady]

Is it or is it not harder for the Packers to sign free agents than it is for other teams based on geographical location, market size, nightlife and other non-monetary reasons associated with Green Bay compared to other team locations in the NFL? 

Consider how many big name free agents the Packers have signed compared to other teams since free agency began.  Everybody claims White.  Who else?  Woodson, Peppers, Graham.  Dotson.  Wolf was good at it, but even he slowed down towards the end.  Sherman paid probably the equivalent of 18 million a year for an old fart pass rusher who managed 2 sacks for us. 

For every Woodson, I can name three big name free agents the Jaguars signed.  It's not limited to teams with loads of cap space, either.  The Broncos added a bunch.  Talib, Ward and more while they were paying Peyton. 

[Lodestar]

Ah, if only we could be the Jaguars. Damn you, Aaron Rodgers! *shakes fist*

[MacReady]

Just now, Lodestar said:

Ah, if only we could be the Jaguars. Damn you, Aaron Rodgers! *shakes fist*

I addressed this in my first post.  The Broncos paying Manning top money didn't stop them from signing a plethora of free agents. The Patriots paying Brady didn't stop them from landing Revis, Gilmore, others... If anything, having Rodgers helps sign free agents as a winning lure. 

[fattlipp]

For some player, for sure...others not so much.. 

I think once players mature and settle down and care more about rings than to sow their wild oats at Da Club..

 

Damn in my 20's we drove to Chicago every Friday and Saturday to go clubbing,  Milwaukee was as boring as hell, i cant imagine Green Bay...

[packfanfb]

I agree that it's "harder" in a general sense. Bottom line, I think the No. 1 reason we don't draw the younger big dog FAs is because we don't offer them competitive contracts versus other teams. It has pretty much been confirmed over and over again that we try to recruit FAs to GB at a discounted price. That simply is not going to work 99 out of 100 times, especially with younger FAs. Location plays a part but money ultimately trumps. 

[Spartacus]

Just now, packfanfb said:

I agree that it's "harder" in a general sense. Bottom line, I think the No. 1 reason we don't draw the younger big dog FAs is because we don't offer them competitive contracts versus other teams. It has pretty much been confirmed over and over again that we try to recruit FAs to GB at a discounted price. That simply is not going to work 99 out of 100 times, especially with younger FAs. Location plays a part but money ultimately trumps. 

Totally agree with this. 

[vegas492]

Much harder.

What do you sell them on in GB?  History?  Quarterback play?  Winning culture?  Continuity of the coach?

Used to be the facilities, but that isn't as true anymore as other stadiums and training facilities have been upgraded.

You sure aren't selling them on the small town or demographics of the small town.

You aren't selling them on living there year 'round.

You aren't selling them on tax advantages.

In the end, I think it is a money play to overcome the disadvantages to playing in GB.

Nice chat going about average age of guys GB tends to land.  Yah, they are more or less getting vets that have already made their money and are now looking for more, like winning and an opportunity at a Super Bowl.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think demographics are the biggest part of it.  Something like 96.5% of Green Bay is not-black and something like 70% of the NFL is.  Given that Green Bay is a small town, there are concerns there which you wouldn't find in a more cosmopolitan place (i.e. every other NFL city).  Certainly these concerns could be assuaged with the warmth of the people and their affection for anybody who plays for the Packers, but until you actually get to experience it (or hear from peers who have) it doesn't exactly help the sales pitch.

[Kepler]

28 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

What do you sell them on in GB?  History?  Quarterback play?  Winning culture?  Continuity of the coach?

That's exactly what an article I just read said the packers try to do in justifying contracts that are lower than market value. I think they should, for once, try to do that IN ADDITION to offering market value. Might help quite a bit. 

[CWood21]

Yes.  If the Packers are offering the same deal as the Los Angeles Rams or Miami Dolphins, why do you think that FA would sign with Green Bay over them?  And if the only argument you make is that the Packers have Aaron Rodgers or more likely to win that's not really a valid argument.

[Lodestar]

We've signed tons of free agents over the years; most of them just happen to be already playing with us. 

This conversation comes up every year, and while yes I'm sure it's harder to attract guys to the city of Green Bay, it's not like we're sitting here with no talent and tons of cap space. The biggest difference between us and a team like Jacksonville is not that they're some kind of destination team and city. It's that we have drafted well and retained our best players.

[RedRaider]

As someone who has been both 21 and 28 I gotta say there is a lot of difference in how you value where you live, what you spend your money on, etc.  Older players probably don't mind the lower key, focus on football atmosphere of Green Bay where they live for the part of the year when you are supposed to be focused on football.  If, during the season, the club scene is important to a player I question their commitment.  Do the partying wherever starting January/February through the start of training camp in late July. 

In the end, money is #1.  In a distant second is opportunity to win.  Followed by (in no particular order) weather, social life, demographics, and other various items.

[Packerraymond]

For players who location is high on their list of requirements yes.

For players who it isn't, no.

No different than recruiting IMO.

[Norm]

4 hours ago, Lodestar said:

Ah, if only we could be the Jaguars. Damn you, Aaron Rodgers! *shakes fist*

FL has no state income tax yeah? I could be wrong. I bet that helps, FWIW.

[Leader]

25 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

FL has no state income tax yeah? I could be wrong. I bet that helps, FWIW.

No. You're right. Florida has no State income tax and it definitely helps.

Plus its got some really nice weather and beaches.

Add on edit: I wouldnt be caught dead running around in full football gear in some of the pressure cooker heat - I mean, its down right nasty - but the pay is nice.