Jump to content
Outpost31

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

Is it harder for Green Bay, Wisconsin than other markets to land free agent talent?  

60 members have voted

  1. 1. Is it harder for Green Bay, Wisconsin than other markets to land free agent talent?



Recommended Posts

First off your poll is too limited. You’re essentially making participants choose if worse than all 29 teams or equal all 29 teams.

idk how many US metros you guys have been to (this isn’t directed toward you HZ, just general comment), but there’s a big difference between Cincinnati/Buffalo and New York. Definitely wouldn’t call every NFL city “cosmopoliatan”. 

In fact, as a lover of big cities, especially visiting them, I would argue there’s more of a difference between New York/LA and Cincinnati than Cincinnati and Green Bay. 

So do I think a young player fixated on “lifestyle” will prefer Green Bay over Miami? No. Do I think players care that much picking Green Bay over somewhere like Cincinnati? Not really. Especially when adding in the other factors.

also, knock on signing older vets all you want, but the Pats have had a lot of success using this. And to a family with kids who want somewhere quieter to raise them, I could see Green Bay being a pro. 

Not all people have the same priorities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

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? 

absolutely yes, it's harder. nobody wants to come to green bay. there is nothing to do, and wisconsin is riddled with a heroin epidemic and obesity. i'm sure if you asked every free agent to rank all 32 teams in terms of location, green bay would be one of the least desirable 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Joe said:

Cost has nothing to do with the viability of us signing players and has everything to do with activities. We're better off than we once were, but I'm sure it makes players of color very uncomfortable when they head north or west of Green Bay only to see a buttload of trailer parks with hick trucks and confederate flags.

 

That said, most players commute to their teams during the season and live elsewhere most of the year, so if we can sell the idea of the team, rather than the negatives outside of the Green Bay City limits, we SHOULD be a viable landing spot.

Just curious but your post got me thinking if that rationale holds true for Detroit or teams from the southeast having a slightly harder time signing white guys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far too much being made of the tax advantage of playing in a state with no income tax.  The players pay taxes in every state they play in.  If they play for a team in state that has no income tax that is 8 games.  On a $5 million contract they may be saving $200,000.  That's peanuts in the grand scheme.  Does anybody thing a couple hundred thousand in tax savings to play for a crappy team is better than going to the playoffs every year and getting up to 175,000 in playoff pay if you win the Super Bowl.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, eyecatcher said:

Far too much being made of the tax advantage of playing in a state with no income tax.  The players pay taxes in every state they play in.  If they play for a team in state that has no income tax that is 8 games.  On a $5 million contract they may be saving $200,000.  That's peanuts in the grand scheme.  Does anybody thing a couple hundred thousand in tax savings to play for a crappy team is better than going to the playoffs every year and getting up to 175,000 in playoff pay if you win the Super Bowl.  

In no world is 200,000 dollars peanuts, and shame on you for suggesting it is. 

Also, we're not talking about 5 million dollar contracts.  Those are the contracts the Packers can sign players to because those are value signings.  When you talk about 50 million dollar contracts, that 200,000 dollars becomes 2 million dollars. 

But the rest of what I said is moot because in nobody's world is 200,000 dollars peanuts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Joe said:

Cost has nothing to do with the viability of us signing players and has everything to do with activities. We're better off than we once were, but I'm sure it makes players of color very uncomfortable when they head north or west of Green Bay only to see a buttload of trailer parks with hick trucks and confederate flags.

Wholly **** man! You just described 90% of the Southeastern US!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

In no world is 200,000 dollars peanuts, and shame on you for suggesting it is. 

Also, we're not talking about 5 million dollar contracts.  Those are the contracts the Packers can sign players to because those are value signings.  When you talk about 50 million dollar contracts, that 200,000 dollars becomes 2 million dollars. 

But the rest of what I said is moot because in nobody's world is 200,000 dollars peanuts. 

Shame on me for having an opinion?  There are on average 10 or 11 players on a team that make 5,000,000 or more.  The Packers have 13 right now.  I agree it's harder for the pack to sign FAs.  I just don't think taxes have anything to do with it.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting side note of no particular importance but this morning I saw a Forbes article listing the 10 most states people are moving out of.

Wisconsin was #10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I believe GB has to pay a little more to get FA. Sort of a boring tax, same as bad teams that pay a losers tax. The facts are that GB outside of football is boring. I live in between Chicago and Milwaukee and I've spent many weekends there because I dated a few women but there's just nothing to do in GB especially after football season. I could just imagine a young 22 year old with millions to spend options are for entertainment.

My ex loved to gamble so we spent most of the time at their big casino for entertainment. The cool thing about GB for me was bumping into players around town even from visiting teams.

I remember this topic being discussed in 2012 when Steven Jackson choose the Falcons over us coming off a 15 and 1 season, in that case it wasn't about a ring.  We tend to attract players  going on their 3rd or 4th contracts who've all ready made their millions wanting to get a ring before they hang them up.

Edited by St Vince

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, persiandud said:

absolutely yes, it's harder. nobody wants to come to green bay. there is nothing to do, and wisconsin is riddled with a heroin epidemic and obesity. i'm sure if you asked every free agent to rank all 32 teams in terms of location, green bay would be one of the least desirable 

This gets old. First off, Wisconsin is not near the national highs when it comes to the heroin epidemic. That would be the east coast. Are this issues? Of course. But the whole country is in an opioid crisis right now. 

Secondly, Wisconsin obesity numbers are near the average. Legit just read an updated study on this, and Milwaukee, which used to be on the high end, is now on the middle/lower end for large metros for obesity. 

This is just non-factual crap, and it’s why people make inaccurate generalizations in the first place. 

It’s fine to say you dislike a place, but don’t make stuff up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, St Vince said:

"......I've spent many weekends there because I dated a few women but there's just nothing to do in GB especially after football season. I could just imagine a young 22 year old with millions to spend options are for entertainment......."

Well one thing I'm sure they do is "date" the women who's boyfriends only show up on the weekends. Thats a no brainer :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sasquatch said:

Each player is going to value different things, so it’s hard to nail down.  Reputation of front office, player personnel, culture is important to some.  To others, it’s chicks, man.  Gotta get me some chicks...and some good bling.  Show me the money!  Others, would play anywhere - they just hope to get a contract.  And it’s fluid, always changing.  Seems now playing in Minny is the hot ticket.  That wasn’t the case a few years ago.  Some PhD candidate could probably give this question a whirl.  Probably some interesting multiple regression equation that considers all variables across a matrix of longitudinal data to get an ideal location/scenario for a majority of players.  My guess...it ain’t GB.  But that’s not the end of the world either.  We’ve got championships...and cheese.  And chicks with cheese.  And Muskie fishing.

You had me at muskie fishing.  I got my Personal Best out of GB a couple years ago.  35 pounds.  Just short of 50 inches.  Can't wait to get back there this year and chase them around to get my 50+.  In fact, that fish came not too far away from Rodgers house....  :)

Edited by vegas492

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sasquatch said:

Each player is going to value different things, so it’s hard to nail down.  Reputation of front office, player personnel, culture is important to some.  To others, it’s chicks, man.  Gotta get me some chicks...and some good bling.  Show me the money!  Others, would play anywhere - they just hope to get a contract.  And it’s fluid, always changing.  Seems now playing in Minny is the hot ticket.  That wasn’t the case a few years ago.  Some PhD candidate could probably give this question a whirl.  Probably some interesting multiple regression equation that considers all variables across a matrix of longitudinal data to get an ideal location/scenario for a majority of players.  My guess...it ain’t GB.  But that’s not the end of the world either.  We’ve got championships...and cheese.  And chicks with cheese.  And Muskie fishing.

Wouldn’t take a PhD student. Would actually be a fairly simple regression. I’m guessing money would be by fair the most influential coefficient. 

This is actually a pretty interesting topic to run something like this on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players that have location as one of their top needs (for the reason GB would be on the bottom of the list, not family wise as far as schools and safety) are the FAs that probably have the highest chance of busting after they get that contract anyway. I'm glad it weeds them out.

I want guys looking for their football fit anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, persiandud said:

absolutely yes, it's harder. nobody wants to come to green bay. there is nothing to do, and wisconsin is riddled with a heroin epidemic and obesity. i'm sure if you asked every free agent to rank all 32 teams in terms of location, green bay would be one of the least desirable 

We love our beer and brats! And our fat German girls☺

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×