Henderson

All Categories >> Sports >> Football >> Green Bay Packers

03/06/2007 7:56 pm

Sarah's Archive

Rate this Blog

Yours:

Rated 0 times.

This one hurts. I hope it's just a rumor. He's been my guy for such a long time. He's a hard worker and an all around good guy. (as i've blabbed on and on in past times) I hate losing players, this time of the year can be exciting, but why do the veterans have to lose their jobs so that we have to watch rookies screw things up because they have lower wages?

I'm sad

	Micah - 584 Posts 03/06/2007 @ 08:21:50 PM
The comments on that article are top notch...way better than the drivel we get here....fuzz nuts		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/06/2007 @ 09:33:55 PM
Well, to be fair, Sarah, he did lose his starting job last year, so it's not like their just dumping him to save money. I like'd Henderson too. He never got the respect around the league that I think he deserved. He'll surely be missed, and a Packer Hall-of-Famer he'll be.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 03/06/2007 @ 11:13:48 PM
The problem with the league is that the players union screwed themselves over by actually getting "too good" of a deal. The reason you don't see average veterans hanging around is because they have to be paid a minimum wage based on their years in the league. What you end up with is guys who would be willing to play for less, but can't, so they get too expensive to just keep around for insurance.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 03/07/2007 @ 06:53:01 AM
true		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 03/07/2007 @ 12:54:12 PM
I'm not sure it's a 100% true, at least in this case. I mean he's 36 years old. His body has taken beating after beating. Ask him in 20 years if he wishes he would've played another season. Maybe the player's union is actually protecting the health of long-time veterans by getting them out of the game sooner. Or not, I don't know, just felt like arguing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Alex edited this at 03/07/2007 6:02:37 pm

	Jon - many posts 03/07/2007 @ 05:51:51 PM
If not for the salary cap, the Vikings would just now be getting done with a dynasty that began in 1999. The NFL is terrible. On a related note, being the team with the top overall pick is practically becoming a bad thing these days. You have to basically make that pick the highest paid player in the league even though he's got about a 50% chance of even being good enough to be a starter in the league. Maybe that's low, but seriously, would you even be surprised if four years from now JaMarcus Russell isn't even playing? I wouldn't be. Top pick QB's seem to be either great or terrible with nothing inbetween. Personally I'd take Calvin Johnson out of AWP-Tech (Awkward White Pants Tech). I wouldn't be disappointed if the Vikings traded up for him either. Of courese the Vikings have no talent anyway so they can't make that trade unless trading picks is the choice, in which case, a Ricky Williams situation might be a bit much, but something short of that I might support.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 03/07/2007 @ 06:07:38 PM
If I was GM I would always default to trying to get rid of top 5 pick for salary reasons. I'm not sure what those draft board pick value things would say, but presumably you could trade #1 overall, and maybe you 6 and 7 round for say #15 overall, and the other teams 2 and 4 round maybe. Multiple players with "very good or good" potential is better than 1 player with "excellent" potential in my opinion. Unless you're 1 player away from a championship caliber team.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/07/2007 @ 06:10:13 PM
Jon, you don't know anything. I kid. I still haven't decided which system I dislike more, baseball or football, as far as team salaries are concerned. On one side, you have a system that basically punishes teams for creating good teams by having a limit on how much your team can cost (good players equals high player salary equals high team salary) Baseball on the other hand doesn't limit how high the salaries can be, but that absolutely punishes the smaller market teams because the high market teams push up the price of moderate to good players so much that the low market teams cannot hang on to their talent and thus they can never make the gains required to raise payroll. It indirectly puts a cap on the low market team payroll.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/07/2007 @ 06:11:29 PM
I guess I prefer baseball's system, but it too is flawed, and the sport would benefit with more reform to this aspect of the system.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 03/07/2007 @ 06:31:46 PM
I have problems with them both too. Baseball has an interesting thing where the young players can't really get a huge contract right away. It sucks for someone who's great early and gets injured without getting a big sum of money but it keeps the absurdity of Alex Smith getting a contract equal to Canada's GDP before playing a game from ruining a team's finances. By the way I'm sure Canada's GDP is terribly larger than the contract in reality. It's kind of lame to point out when you're using hyperbole but I don't want to create confusion. The system also allows teams to at least hang on to players for a couple of years.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 03/07/2007 @ 07:08:20 PM
NFL Rookie contracts are absurd, and something needs to be done about it soon. As for Alex's draft value comment: The value of picks grows almost exponentially. For the Vikings to move up to the #3 (from #7) would likely wipe out their first day picks this year and cost them a first day pick (possibly even the first round) for next year. That's the deal they would have to make to get Calvin Johnson. Both systems have flaws, but the Packers would be the doormat of the league (and would more likely be in Milwaukee by now) if it were baseball's system. The NFL just has to incorporate some sort of "if you draft them, or they've been on your team for 5 years, or something equivalent, that they will only count up to a certain amount on your cap" rule. Something to reward teams for grooming talent and to stop the "rooting for laundry" that has gone on. More often than not if a team doesn't want to pay one of their players a certain amount it's because they aren't willing to commit that kind of percentage of the team to that player. It's not because the owner is actually not willing to pay that amount. The best part is that NFL teams share a fair amount of revenue, so this wouldn't get "out of hand" like baseball either. (Though teams do keep stadium revenue, so it would be bad for the Vikings in the near future.) Guys could leave if they did want a "fresh start" or chance at a championship but their current team would have the option to offer more money to the guys they took the original chance on then other teams could for the players that just follow the money. I can't think of a down side to this, and I don't know why it hasn't happened.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 03/07/2007 7:11:31 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/07/2007 @ 07:14:37 PM
Revenue sharing is a big thing, I think. Baseball would benefit from having increased revenue sharing, across the board. Baseball would benefit, and thus all teams involved will benefit.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Micah - 584 Posts 03/07/2007 @ 07:49:28 PM
You can have the Lions pick, although most want them to trade with the Cardinals to guarantee one of Russell, Thomas, Quinn, Peterson, or Johnson. It wouldn't cost them as much as you think. They've already entertained offers of the Jets #25 and Jonathan Vilma, although Vilma's pretty huge. But I wouldn't mind them getting one of the big 3 defensive linemen and tons of extra picks from the Vikings. http://www.footballtimes.org/pickvaluecalc.asp Here is a draft pick calculator		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 03/07/2007 @ 08:26:21 PM
I think baseball has gotten a lot better. That might be partially because teams that spend a lot haven't necessarily been winning a lot though. Obviously I have simmed through a few seasons on Madden and just managed my team. 1, 161, 193 = 1935 15, 47, 111 = 1934 That's a pretty fair trade, even if this calculator thing says it is for fantasy drafts too which I'm not sure I would rate the same as a real draft.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Alex screwed with this at 03/07/2007 9:02:04 pm

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 03/07/2007 @ 08:54:46 PM
FYI, According to the CIA World Factbook, Canada's GDP in 2006 (est.) was $1.089 trillion (exchange rate) or $1.165 trillion (Purchasing Power Parity).		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 2 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 10/07/2011 @ 09:24:58 PM
Jon Wrote - 03/07/2007 @ 05:51:51 PM On a related note, being the team with the top overall pick is practically becoming a bad thing these days. You have to basically make that pick the highest paid player in the league even though he's got about a 50% chance of even being good enough to be a starter in the league. Maybe that's low, but seriously, would you even be surprised if four years from now JaMarcus Russell isn't even playing? I wouldn't be. Top pick QB's seem to be either great or terrible with nothing inbetween.. Eerie.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.