"Better to let go of a player too early than too late."

[Scott4Pack]

Many have said this too many times over the years. Some GM from years ago actually said it. Maybe it was Ron Wolf or even HC Bill Parcell s. But it wasn't a guy who currently was employed in the NFL.

The release of Aaron Jones, to me, might point to the evidence of this and whether it applies specifically to the Green Bay Packers under the leadership of Guty. Don't mistake me. I'm not complaining about this. I think it's a legitimate decision point, even for pivotal players.

Can this forum mention other players that MAYBE this applied to? I'm looking for guys who would still be viably very good the following year but they were definitely closer to the end than the beginning of their careers.

Is Kenny Clark another possible consideration? I wouldn't put Preston Smith there because nobody will say that he would have one or more great years ahead of him. He'll just play out his contract at this point. And we hardly have anybody old enough to consider too.

I also thought about when we let go of Jordy Nelson. Yeah, he had his knee injury. He might've actually slowed too. But he had a good enough game along the sidelines he would've played fine enough. I think a little of Dre Campbell too. But the consensus will probably say he isn't the guy he used to be. Josh Sitton? The guy was a real stud. Others? It'd be interesting to consider Aaron Rodgers too. He still was playing at a very high level, even if not same as his previous level. But his dynamic situations were starting to have more gravity than his on-field play.

[APB]

Jordy was the first player I thought of.

You could also add Favre to your list although his departure was more complicated than simply “better too early than too late”. It was pretty clear, though, that the FO recognized his quality play days were numbered.

I wish they’d have utilized this philosophy with Bubba Franks.

[mnkcarp]

Yeah I think Aaron's long ball had seen better days by the time he left Green Bay. Same as Favre. They might be football smarter than anyone on the field due to sheer experience, but these old legends turn into dink-and-dunkers eventually, or they get picked off a lot...

[RingoCStarrQB]

John Hadl

[APB]

John Hadl

Hadl was already washed up when they traded the farm for him. They never saw a “too early” year from him in GB.

[dsr]

IMO The point of releasing both Favre and Rodgers was that they were approaching the end of their days as top QBs AND the next man was already in the building and we risked losing him if he didn't play. If Rodgers hadn't been ready and waiting, we surely wouldn't have lost Favre; I suspect the same is true about Love/Rodgers.

In other cases, it's a fairly meaningless soundbite. Is it better to release a man too early if that man would have made the plays that won the Superbowl? Obviously not. But you never know what would have happened, whereas you do know what happens to the player you should have released but didn't. Hence the negatives of releasing a player too late are visible and obvious, but the negatives of releasing a player too early, are not.

[go pak go]

IMO The point of releasing both Favre and Rodgers was that they were approaching the end of their days as top QBs AND the next man was already in the building and we risked losing him if he didn't play. If Rodgers hadn't been ready and waiting, we surely wouldn't have lost Favre; I suspect the same is true about Love/Rodgers.

In other cases, it's a fairly meaningless soundbite. Is it better to release a man too early if that man would have made the plays that won the Superbowl? Obviously not. But you never know what would have happened, whereas you do know what happens to the player you should have released but didn't. Hence the negatives of releasing a player too late are visible and obvious, but the negatives of releasing a player too early, are not.

That's a good point. Sometimes we do know if we let go of a player too early. The most obvious example in my time as a Packers fan is Charles Woodson.

We clearly let him go too early. He wanted to stay in GB. We shafted him and boy did he make us pay with that decision because he was incredible at safety with the Raiders. Super dumb of us because we always made the wrong decisions of Corners and Safetys for upcoming contracts after 2013. Just got it wrong every single time.

Charles Woodson
Casey Hayward
Micah Hyde
Tramon Williams

And we let those players go to keep/replace with Clinton Dix, D Randall, Q Rollins, K King, Josh Jones.

Yikes...

[YoHoChecko]

One thing that complicates this is contract length.

It used to be "only give out 3rd contracts in very rare circumstances," but that's when a rookie contract was 4/5 years and the extensions given were usually at least 4 years and in the 4-6 year range generally.

It used to be common cap practice to aim for 6-year overall contracts because the signing bonus was prorated over 5 years and that allowed a year at the end with a large base salary that could drive up the average annual value of the contract without any guarantees or dead money. It's a team-friendly way to get a player-friendly headline number.

As players have gained more negotiating power over time, both through changing precedents in practice (no rules changes) and through CBA changes (rule changes), players are angling for shorter contracts. The cap is increasing at such an accelerated pace that getting a 3-year deal allows a player to hit multiple contracts within their prime instead of, really, essentially, getting one shot at it (second contract).

As that's become more common and more expected for players, the teams have to change their strategy a bit. Letting go of a guy "a year early" often meant not giving a 3rd contract to a guy who was going into an aged 30/31 season (21/22+4 year rookie + 5/6 year second contract). Now it means a guy going into aged 28 season.

I know that's not relevant to the excellent Woodson example above, nor to the Julius Peppers example that also rings in my head on this topic--both from the same general era. But it's definitely an evolving factor in the business/contract side of football right now.

[Yoop]

IMO The point of releasing both Favre and Rodgers was that they were approaching the end of their days as top QBs AND the next man was already in the building and we risked losing him if he didn't play. If Rodgers hadn't been ready and waiting, we surely wouldn't have lost Favre; I suspect the same is true about Love/Rodgers.

In other cases, it's a fairly meaningless soundbite. Is it better to release a man too early if that man would have made the plays that won the Superbowl? Obviously not. But you never know what would have happened, whereas you do know what happens to the player you should have released but didn't. Hence the negatives of releasing a player too late are visible and obvious, but the negatives of releasing a player too early, are not.

That's a good point. Sometimes we do know if we let go of a player too early. The most obvious example in my time as a Packers fan is Charles Woodson.

We clearly let him go too early. He wanted to stay in GB. We shafted him and boy did he make us pay with that decision because he was incredible at safety with the Raiders. Super dumb of us because we always made the wrong decisions of Corners and Safetys for upcoming contracts after 2013. Just got it wrong every single time.

Charles Woodson
Casey Hayward
Micah Hyde
Tramon Williams

And we let those players go to keep/replace with Clinton Dix, D Randall, Q Rollins, K King, Josh Jones.

Yikes...

go look at other teams and it's the same thing, sometimes things just don't work out as they seem that they would, just because the replacement didn't become as good is doesn't mean those decisions where wrong.

And if Woodson wanted to stay so bad why did he retire as a Raider? could have came back and retired as a Packer just as others have done in the past, we inducted him into the Packer HOF, when he goes to Canton it will be as Raider

money comes into play with the other 3, all wanted more then the team wanted to pay, so naturally they where replaced in the draft, normal operating procedure that we do regularly.

this year early versus year late comes up every time a a player gets hurt and was on a big contract, Bakhtiari is a rinse and repeat of that.

[go pak go]

IMO The point of releasing both Favre and Rodgers was that they were approaching the end of their days as top QBs AND the next man was already in the building and we risked losing him if he didn't play. If Rodgers hadn't been ready and waiting, we surely wouldn't have lost Favre; I suspect the same is true about Love/Rodgers.

In other cases, it's a fairly meaningless soundbite. Is it better to release a man too early if that man would have made the plays that won the Superbowl? Obviously not. But you never know what would have happened, whereas you do know what happens to the player you should have released but didn't. Hence the negatives of releasing a player too late are visible and obvious, but the negatives of releasing a player too early, are not.

That's a good point. Sometimes we do know if we let go of a player too early. The most obvious example in my time as a Packers fan is Charles Woodson.

We clearly let him go too early. He wanted to stay in GB. We shafted him and boy did he make us pay with that decision because he was incredible at safety with the Raiders. Super dumb of us because we always made the wrong decisions of Corners and Safetys for upcoming contracts after 2013. Just got it wrong every single time.

Charles Woodson
Casey Hayward
Micah Hyde
Tramon Williams

And we let those players go to keep/replace with Clinton Dix, D Randall, Q Rollins, K King, Josh Jones.

Yikes...

go look at other teams and it's the same thing, sometimes things just don't work out as they seem that they would, just because the replacement didn't become as good is doesn't mean those decisions where wrong.

And if Woodson wanted to stay so bad why did he retire as a Raider? could have came back and retired as a Packer just as others have done in the past, we inducted him into the Packer HOF, when he goes to Canton it will be as Raider

money comes into play with the other 3, all wanted more then the team wanted to pay, so naturally they where replaced in the draft, normal operating procedure that we do regularly.

this year early versus year late comes up every time a a player gets hurt and was on a big contract, Bakhtiari is a rinse and repeat of that.

Obviously every team makes a decision based on information at the time. Hindisight can and should be used on judging if the decision was the right one. Us moving on from the highlighted 4 players was absolutely the wrong decision. Woodson leaving was absolutely the decision of the Packers. There are many articles and interviews by players (Rodgers and Woodson specifically) who stated that.

[RingoCStarrQB]

Charles Woodson is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I have a Pro Football Hall of Fame signed helmet "Charles Woodson #21". Summary Ststement: He went in as a Packer and a Raider". Pretty sure he's in the inner sanctum at Lambeau. Go Packers!

[YoHoChecko]

Yeah, I'm actually pretty sure that the Pro Football Hall of Fame does not require or even permit a team designation upon induction. You aren't in the HoF as a Raider." You're in it or you aren't, and when you're in it, all of your teams are acknowledged. Players often choose to "retire as" a specific team and that's a personal decision to them. It has no bearing on the HoF. Woodson famously LOVED living and playing in Green Bay and the stint he had with us revitalized his career and his reputation as a top player int he league. But when we moved on and the Raiders took him back, it makes sense that he may choose to acknowledge the team that drafted him and gave him the opportunity to finish his career there would hold a special place in his mind, also.

[Yoop]

That's a good point. Sometimes we do know if we let go of a player too early. The most obvious example in my time as a Packers fan is Charles Woodson.

We clearly let him go too early. He wanted to stay in GB. We shafted him and boy did he make us pay with that decision because he was incredible at safety with the Raiders. Super dumb of us because we always made the wrong decisions of Corners and Safetys for upcoming contracts after 2013. Just got it wrong every single time.

Charles Woodson
Casey Hayward
Micah Hyde
Tramon Williams

And we let those players go to keep/replace with Clinton Dix, D Randall, Q Rollins, K King, Josh Jones.

Yikes...

go look at other teams and it's the same thing, sometimes things just don't work out as they seem that they would, just because the replacement didn't become as good is doesn't mean those decisions where wrong.

And if Woodson wanted to stay so bad why did he retire as a Raider? could have came back and retired as a Packer just as others have done in the past, we inducted him into the Packer HOF, when he goes to Canton it will be as Raider

money comes into play with the other 3, all wanted more then the team wanted to pay, so naturally they where replaced in the draft, normal operating procedure that we do regularly.

this year early versus year late comes up every time a a player gets hurt and was on a big contract, Bakhtiari is a rinse and repeat of that.

Obviously every team makes a decision based on information at the time. Hindisight can and should be used on judging if the decision was the right one. Us moving on from the highlighted 4 players was absolutely the wrong decision. Woodson leaving was absolutely the decision of the Packers. There are many articles and interviews by players (Rodgers and Woodson specifically) who stated that.

thats the point, teams make decisions based on the perspective of what a player will be or how he will fit in the future, and every team lets players go they probably shouldn't have, or keep players with the same negative results, you listed 4 players that stand out to you, again if ya did that around the league you could do that with every team.

how is hindsight going to change anything? no two players are the same?

[Crazylegs Starks]

Yeah, I'm actually pretty sure that the Pro Football Hall of Fame does not require or even permit a team designation upon induction. You aren't in the HoF as a Raider.
...

[Madcity_matt]

Yeah, I'm actually pretty sure that the Pro Football Hall of Fame does not require or even permit a team designation upon induction. You aren't in the HoF as a Raider.
...

yep. Teams "claim" players for purposes of their lore and history books based on how much of their career they played there. For instance, the Packers "claim" Woodson as a Packer (as would the Raiders) but they don't claim Peppers.

[go pak go]

Charles Woodson is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I have a Pro Football Hall of Fame signed helmet "Charles Woodson #21". Summary Ststement: He went in as a Packer and a Raider". Pretty sure he's in the inner sanctum at Lambeau. Go Packers!

He is yes. The Packers ultimately choose who to put in there. At some point space may be an issue.

We honored Woodson in 2021 vs the Rams. It'll be interesting what we do with Julius Peppers. Does he make the ring of honor at Lambeau?

image.png (146.78 KiB) Viewed 628 times

[Half Empty]

Charles Woodson is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I have a Pro Football Hall of Fame signed helmet "Charles Woodson #21". Summary Ststement: He went in as a Packer and a Raider". Pretty sure he's in the inner sanctum at Lambeau. Go Packers!

He is yes. The Packers ultimately choose who to put in there. At some point space may be an issue.

We honored Woodson in 2021 vs the Rams. It'll be interesting what we do with Julius Peppers. Does he make the ring of honor at Lambeau?

image.png

I'm voting 'no', and apparently the post above yours agrees. Other than bringing a big name to the team, what did he accomplish in GB that lots of others didn't?

[go pak go]

Charles Woodson is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I have a Pro Football Hall of Fame signed helmet "Charles Woodson #21". Summary Ststement: He went in as a Packer and a Raider". Pretty sure he's in the inner sanctum at Lambeau. Go Packers!

He is yes. The Packers ultimately choose who to put in there. At some point space may be an issue.

We honored Woodson in 2021 vs the Rams. It'll be interesting what we do with Julius Peppers. Does he make the ring of honor at Lambeau?

image.png

I'm voting 'no', and apparently the post above yours agrees. Other than bringing a big name to the team, what did he accomplish in GB that lots of others didn't?

I would agree. Though Peppers was amazing, he wasn't with us long enough or impactful enough to be in the Ring of Honor. Woodson on the other hand clearly did and should be. DPOY as a Packer, THE leader on our SB run.

Peppers meanwhile told Burnett to slide at the 50 yardline which helped seal the fate of the worst 5 minutes in Packers history.

[lupedafiasco]

He is yes. The Packers ultimately choose who to put in there. At some point space may be an issue.

We honored Woodson in 2021 vs the Rams. It'll be interesting what we do with Julius Peppers. Does he make the ring of honor at Lambeau?

image.png

I'm voting 'no', and apparently the post above yours agrees. Other than bringing a big name to the team, what did he accomplish in GB that lots of others didn't?

I would agree. Though Peppers was amazing, he wasn't with us long enough or impactful enough to be in the Ring of Honor. Woodson on the other hand clearly did and should be. DPOY as a Packer, THE leader on our SB run.

Peppers meanwhile told Burnett to slide at the 50 yardline which helped seal the fate of the worst 5 minutes in Packers history.

People really need to stop blaming Peppers for what Bumstick did.

[YoHoChecko]

Yeah, I agree that peppers' three years in Green Bay were both noteworthy and useful as a top player--on the field and in the locker room--playing in a key championship window for our favorite team, but also brief and nondescript enough with no championship to show for it such that he doesn't merit any special Packer honor.... and also that the "told Burnett to slide" thing is not really a factor at all in my mind.