Josh Jones wants out of Green Bay.....

[HardRightEdge]

Jones should be traded. Or as it stands now, eventually cut if there are no takers which is the likely outcome. Maybe a conditional 7th. rounder based on how long Jones sticks on his new roster or some other qualifying criteria.

Jones was drafted to play ILB, and couldn't. Jones couldn't beat out Kendell Brice, a guy the Packers had zero interest in keeping after the season when not even the lowest restricted free agent tender was offered. Jones couldn't beat out Williams or Campbell. And he sure as heck will be playing behind Amos and Savage now.

Jones is a bench and special teams player. If he wasn't on the bubble already it was only for lack of alternatives. If he's going to be so unhappy in that role as to want out then the Packers should accomodate him.

 

[OldSchool101]

There were a lot of people advocating for the Packers to draft Watt who ended up being upset that Thompson traded back into the second round to select King

I was one of those, but more than anything I was just discouraged I stayed up until the midnight hour to see us defer our pick. That discouraged me more than the player itself

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If he's going to be so unhappy in that role as to want out then the Packers should accomodate him.

While I agree that if Jones has made the decision that he doesn't want to be in Green Bay, he has basically put the Packers in the position of excepting that fact. However, that doesn't mean the Packers should bend over backwards to accommodate him in the way that he wants. I think that is a dangerous precedent to set.

Ultimately Jones will probably no longer be a Packer, but I think the Packers need to take control of how that is done and do it in a way that best suits their long term needs.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Neither of these comments are relevant to what I said in the first place.

Do you really believe the new regime would have signed Amos and drafted Savage if Jones performed at a high level just because he wasn't brought in by them???

Jones had more than enough chances to convince the Packers he was worthy of being a starter but couldn't. Once he realized that he quit.

The other point I was trying to make was that there's no reason to complain that the team didn't have a first round pick in 2017 as it was Thompson's decision to move back into the second.

 

[Dantés]

Do you really believe the new regime would have signed Amos and drafted Savage if Jones performed at a high level just because he wasn't brought in by them???

Jones had more than enough chances to convince the Packers he was worthy of being a starter but couldn't. Once he realized that he quit.

The other point I was trying to make was that there's no reason to complain that the team didn't have a first round pick in 2017 as it was Thompson's decision to move back into the second.

Obviously not. I've already said that Jones has not been good. I don't even really believe that he's going to get better at this point.

But he got replaced quicker because he was a pick of the previous regime. I'm sure he still believes in himself, and I could understand how he would be frustrated that his timing with the Packers meant fewer chances than if the same FO that drafted him were still here.

Who was complaining about them not having a 1st round pick?

 

[HardRightEdge]

While I agree that if Jones has made the decision that he doesn't want to be in Green Bay, he has basically put the Packers in the position of excepting that fact. However, that doesn't mean the Packers should bend over backwards to accommodate him in the way that he wants. I think that is a dangerous precedent to set.

The dangerous precedent is letting some player, especially a marginal one, hang around after a no-show, voluntary or otherwise, and demanding a trade. You want this guy in your locker room or position room? There's no need to bend over backwards. Word is out, either Gutekunst gets a call expressing interest or he doesn't. If he doesn't, which is the likely outcome, then Jones should be cut, plain and simple, before the start of mandatory minicamp on June 11.

If you want precedent, we can move up the food chain to Sitton and Clinton-Dix, two guys in their contract years who were not happy with not being offered extensions, lame ducks as it were. Reports had Sitton grousing about it in the locker room; C-D took his grousing public with evidence of business decisions made on the field. Those guys got traded so fast it made their heads spin.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The dangerous precedent is letting some player, especially a marginal one, hang around after a no-show, voluntary or otherwise, and demanding a trade. You want this guy in your locker room or position room? There's no need to bend over backwards. Word is out, either Gutekunst gets a call expressing interest or he doesn't. If he doesn't, which is the likely outcome, then Jones should be cut, plain and simple, before the start of mandatory minicamp on June 11.

If you want precedent, we can move up the food chain to Sitton and Clinton-Dix, two guys in their contract years who were not happy with not being offered extensions, lame ducks as it were. Reports had Sitton grousing about it in the locker room; C-D took his grousing public with evidence of business decisions made on the field. Those guys got traded so fast it made their heads spin.

That I am aware of neither Sitton or Dix were asking to be traded and they were showing up to work. At this point we don't know if Jones is locker room cancer or if he will show up when practices become mandatory. Obviously his attitude is one that you probably don't want in a locker room and while the practices this week were voluntary, MLF asked all players to attend and I think all but Jones complied.

All subtle differences, when you have a player that doesn't want to be on your team or one that isn't a good fit for your team. The Packers chose to purge the 2 players mentioned, it was the Packers decision, not the players. Same with Ty Montgomery. My point is you can't let Jones dictate his own future by immediately giving into his demands. Make him dangle, make his actions sting him, set an example and then do what works best for the team.

 

[Mondio]

If they can't trade him and if he doesn't show up and actually work, but starts being a problem, i'd put him on a list if there is one, or just dismiss him from the team, stay away and pay him. Being the guy that won't show up to work will kill his career in the NFL faster than him not being able to supplant UDFA's on the roster at his position. He may think he can just go, but he can't, and while I wouldn't want someone causing problems around my locker room, I can keep him away from it while sending a big message to him and the league will listen. This guy won't work. His career will be over and other players will take note.

 

[HardRightEdge]

That I am aware of neither Sitton or Dix were asking to be traded and they were showing up to work. At this point we don't know if Jones is locker room cancer or if he will show up when practices become mandatory. Obviously his attitude is one that you probably don't want in a locker room and while the practices this week were voluntary, MLF asked all players to attend and I think all but Jones complied.

All subtle differences, when you have a player that doesn't want to be on your team or one that isn't a good fit for your team. The Packers chose to purge the 2 players mentioned, it was the Packers decision, not the players. Same with Ty Montgomery. My point is you can't let Jones dictate his own future by immediately giving into his demands. Make him dangle, make his actions sting him, set an example and then do what works best for the team.

Sitton and Dix were showing up to work *****ing about money and security and polluting the locker room. They were starters; Jones is not. The point being in terms of precedent, if they were willing to move on from those starting players under those circumstance then moving on from a bench player in Jones is that much easier.

And if precedent is your concern, it's not like guys who think they should get more playing time are going to line up behind him asking for a trade. GMs look askance at this kind of thing. Who wants a marginal player who makes trouble? GMs might look past it if you're Le'veon Bell but not without some concern. Josh Jones is not Le'veon Bell, as though that needs to be said, and the concerns are elevated.

The only way Jones is going to be around much longer is if he made some profuse public appology with some perfunctory gobbledy **** about "miscommunication". I wouldn't rule that out if his agent advises him there isn't much interest in anybody taking on the last 2 years / $2 mil in salary left on his contract and that he'll be looking a cup of coffee at the minimum.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sitton and Dix were showing up to work *****ing about money and security and polluting the locker room. They were starters; Jones is not. The point being in terms of precedent, if they were willing to move on from those starting players under those circumstance then moving on from a bench player in Jones is that much easier.

I think we just disagree on how each of us view and would handle the situation. In Jones's case, his cancer has not reached the locker room yet, but potentially could if the Packers say "OK, we have a player that isn't happy and wants to be traded/released, let's meet his needs". To me that is the potential cancer that the Packers could create, allowing a player to tell the Packers what to do and infecting the locker room with that knowledge "if you aren't happy in Green Bay, we will help you find happiness by releasing you". I would much rather see the Packers deliver the message of "You are under contract, we will decide your future until that contract is over." If Jones shows up to mandatory camp and is a major distraction, then you dismiss him and put him on ice.

Players like Dix and Sitton had already infected the locker room with a different kind of cancer, cutting it out was the Packers decision, not Sitton or Dix's.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If they can't trade him and if he doesn't show up and actually work, but starts being a problem, i'd put him on a list if there is one, or just dismiss him from the team, stay away and pay him.

I don't know why you would pay a guy to stay away rather than just cutting him. There's cap savings to be had, and he'd be taking up a roster spot. Since I've never heard of such a thing ever being done there may be other reasons why it hasn't been done.

 

[Mondio]

it just happened last year with the Steelers, but I'm not suggesting keeping him forever. Just until final cut downs and cut him. I dont' think we find a trade partner, he's either going to come to his senses and work for what he wants in training camp, or he'll be cut.

 

[HardRightEdge]

it just happened last year with the Steelers, but I'm not suggesting keeping him forever. Just until final cut downs and cut him. I dont' think we find a trade partner, he's either going to come to his senses and work for what he wants in training camp, or he'll be cut.

Because Le'Veon Bell did not show up in violation of his contract, he went without pay for the season, did not count against the cap, and he didn't cost a roster spot. His no-show was also subject to significant fines. I don't know what the final tally was, or if the Steelers actually sought to collect those fines, but they were up to $852,000 by opening day.

You suggesting paying Jones to stay away.

Regardless, putting Jones and Bell in the same sentence is pretty absurd to begin with.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You suggesting paying Jones to stay away.

You didn't ask me this, but......I would first let him show up at mandatory camps. If he doesn't, put him on the "did not report" and start the fines. If he shows up and all is forgotten, great. If he shows up and is a distraction, let him add that part to his resume and then cut him.

Right now the situation is "I didn't show up for voluntary camp and OBTH, please trade me". Packers need to say "you are under contract, show up, increase your market value by showing that you are a team guy and then we will see what happens."

Bottom line....Packers have options other than caving to his demand.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think we just disagree on how each of us view and would handle the situation. In Jones's case, his cancer has not reached the locker room yet, but potentially could if the Packers say "OK, we have a player that isn't happy and wants to be traded/released, let's meet his needs". To me that is the potential cancer that the Packers could create, allowing a player to tell the Packers what to do and infecting the locker room with that knowledge "if you aren't happy in Green Bay, we will help you find happiness by releasing you". I would much rather see the Packers deliver the message of "You are under contract, we will decide your future until that contract is over." If Jones shows up to mandatory camp and is a major distraction, then you dismiss him and put him on ice.

Players like Dix and Sitton had already infected the locker room with a different kind of cancer, cutting it out was the Packers decision, not Sitton or Dix's.

You're right. We disagree. Besides, cutting him would not be giving him what he wants. Do you think anybody is going to pay him the $2 mil over the next 2 years as under his current contract? Given his performance and the fact he's now poisoned the well having made this demand? I don't. Maybe you can get away with that if you are Le'Veon Bell.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You didn't ask me this, but......I would first let him show up at mandatory camps. If he doesn't, put him on the "did not report" and start the fines. If he shows up and all is forgotten, great. If he shows up and is a distraction, let him add that part to his resume and then cut him.

Right now the situation is "I didn't show up for voluntary camp and OBTH, please trade me". Packers need to say "you are under contract, show up, increase your market value by showing that you are a team guy and then we will see what happens."

Bottom line....Packers have options other than caving to his demand.

Under what circumstances would "all be forgotten"? You're so concerned with appearing to be extorted. Why would this trade demand, which is an extortion in itself, be shrugged off? There's one way, which I said from the beginning...a public apology.

If Jones is not traded or cut before mandatory minicamp, he has not apologized, and he shows up to mandatory minicamp to avoid being fined, still holding to his demand to be traded, how would that sit with you? It would be so wildly out of sync with the kind of player he is as to be a delusional. Again, he ain't Le'Veon Bell.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You're right. We disagree. Besides, cutting him would not be giving him what he wants. Do you think anybody is going to pay him the $2 mil over the next 2 years as under his current contract? Given his performance and the fact he's now poisoned the well having made this demand? I don't. Maybe you can get away with that if you are Le'Veon Bell.

You are right, if he is cut, his contract goes away and he will need to renegotiate with another team, a chance he is taking if his demands are true. Meanwhile the Packers gain absolutely nothing, they lose the money invested in his guaranteed money, as well as a 2nd round pick investment and send the message to the rest of their players "ask to be cut/traded and we will do it".

If you contracted a guy to cut your lawn for the summer, pay him upfront for 4 mowings, help train him on the finer points of mowing and after 2 times he says "I'm done, can you release me from my contract so that I can go mow another neighbors lawn?" What would you do?

Right now it appears Josh Jones is done in Green Bay, but IMO the Packers only way to gain anything now and in the future out of the situation, is by making a stand "you aren't going to dictate what we do with your contract."

 

[Heyjoe4]

I was puzzled why TT drafted him in the first place with such a scouting report, especially given a then Capers overly sophisticated defense. Maybe he can retool himself in a press-man style defense elsewhere as a CB or big Nickel where all he has to do is cover one guy, if not he's yet another TT bust.

It’s debatable what TT was thinking. I still think Jones can make a name for himself playing consistently at ILB. At any rate, he has to establish value before demanding a trade. This could actually be a good year for him with a defined role.

 

[Heyjoe4]

he could turn out to be good, but it's going to take work. He seems like maybe he doesn't have the mental make up to do that. Skipping work and asking for a trade instead is a telltale of sign of being mentally weak in the face of a small amount of adversity. He's the type of player that will play well when it suits him. at this point, he's good at the LOS and pretty bad everywhere else. Teams have 10,000 ways to exploit an incomplete player like that.

His only chance to get better is to have a defined role playing near the LOS (call it ILB). His call for a trade in way too early, and shows his immaturity and lack of devotion to the team.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You are right, if he is cut, his contract goes away and he will need to renegotiate with another team, a chance he is taking if his demands are true. Meanwhile the Packers gain absolutely nothing, they lose the money invested in his guaranteed money, as well as a 2nd round pick investment and send the message to the rest of their players "ask to be cut/traded and we will do it".

If you contracted a guy to cut your lawn for the summer, pay him upfront for 4 mowings, help train him on the finer points of mowing and after 2 times he says "I'm done, can you release me from my contract so that I can go mow another neighbors lawn?" What would you do?

Right now it appears Josh Jones is done in Green Bay, but IMO the Packers only way to gain anything now and in the future out of the situation, is by making a stand "you aren't going to dictate what we do with your contract."

I suspected this is the nub of our disagreement. You're looking to extract value from a 2nd. round pick. I see a player with a low football IQ, a busted pick with sunk costs that you can't recover. You can keep paying him more money as your 4th. safety behind Williams swinging in as the #3 if injury dictates. That makes Jones a player on the bubble to start with. And this player has the temerity to demand a trade? He should be begging not to be cut.

Lets say I paid a guy decent upfront cash money to cut my lawn 4 times, guaranteed money that can't be clawed back no matter how a good a job he does, with more to be paid at my option if I let him cut it a 3rd. time and again more money at my option if I let him cut it a 4th. time. After 2 cuts I don't like the job he's doing so I contract with a team of 3 other guys for much more money to cut my lawn. It's spring and the team doesn't covera all the cuttings I need every 3 or 4 days. Maybe I'm OK with paying that first guy lesser money for supplemental cuts having no other options at the time. But then he doesn't show up one day and says he wants me to sell his contract to somebody else. I think I'll oblige him and not exercise my 3rd. and 4th. cut options.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Under what circumstances would "all be forgotten"? You're so concerned with appearing to be extorted. Why would this trade demand, which is an extortion in itself, be shrugged off? There's one way, which I said from the beginning...a public apology.

Exactly my point, what Jones is asking is extortion. So why should the Packers give in to it?

If Jones is not traded or cut before mandatory minicamp, he has not apologized, and he shows up to mandatory minicamp to avoid being fined, still holding to his demand to be traded, how would that sit with you? It would be so wildly out of sync with the kind of player he is as to be a delusional. Again, he ain't Le'Veon Bell.

Actions will speak louder than words. If Jones shows up, works hard and either changes his outlook or keeps them to himself, that is going to go a long way. Public apology? Sure, but those are just words.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I suspected this is the nub of our disagreement. You're looking to extract value from a 2nd. round pick. I see a player with a low football IQ, a busted pick with sunk costs that you can't recover. You can keep paying him more money as your 4th. safety behind Williams swinging in as the #3 if injury dictates. That makes Jones a player on the bubble to start with. And this player has the temerity to demand a trade? He should be begging not to be cut.

At this point, unless Jones does a convincing 180 in attitude and action, I view him as a lost sunk cost. So no, the only value left for the Packers to get out of him at this point is the value of sending a message that "players don't dictate what we do".

Lets say I paid a guy decent upfront cash money to cut my lawn 4 times, guaranteed money that can't be clawed back no matter how a good a job he does, with more to be paid at my option if I let him cut it a 3rd. time and again more money at my option if I let him cut it a 4th. time. After 2 cuts I don't like the job he's doing so I contract with a team of 3 other guys for much more money to cut my lawn. It's spring and the team doesn't covera all the cuttings I need every 3 or 4 days. Maybe I'm OK with paying that first guy lesser money for supplemental cuts having no other options at the time. But then he doesn't show up one day and says he wants me to sell his contract to somebody else. I think I'll oblige him and not exercise my 3rd. and 4th. cut options.

and if you can't sell his contract, decide that his cost is tolerable for other services in the contract, but he refuses to at least trim bushes or power wash your siding, do you let him walk or enforce the contract, blocking him from working for someone else during the life of the contract?

Whether its a yard man, Josh Jones, Preston Smith or Aaron Rodgers, you have to look at the fact that there is a signed contract between 2 parties. A contract that called for upfront guaranteed money, the amount of which is reflected in the length of the contract. While the contract is full of all sorts of rights and duties for each party, one of those rights doesn't allow one of the signers to say "I demand you trade me and my contract to someone else". Jones can ask for it, but IMO, the Packers would be walking a slippery slope by caving into his demand.

 

[Mondio]

Because Le'Veon Bell did not show up in violation of his contract, he went without pay for the season, did not count against the cap, and he didn't cost a roster spot. His no-show was also subject to significant fines. I don't know what the final tally was, or if the Steelers actually sought to collect those fines, but they were up to $852,000 by opening day.

You suggesting paying Jones to stay away.

Regardless, putting Jones and Bell in the same sentence is pretty absurd to begin with.

I just said what I meant if it was unclear the first time. Players get a camp stipend to be there. Game checks dont' start until the game do. If he's a problem, let him be "hurt" give him his stipend or whatever they get then cut him at roster reductions. He doesn't have a chance to get in camp with another team, his career will suffer. Not that it likely matters, his career will suffer if he doesn't put in the work which has nothing to do with any of this.

and yeah, i was comparing Jones and Bell LOL

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

Jones can ask for it, but IMO, the Packers would be walking a slippery slope by caving into his demand.

I honestly think it's a prime opportunity for the Packers to move on. I think one thing we all seem to agree on is that Jones has the physical traits and lacks the mental traits to be successful in the NFL. He's the reason why players like Ty Summers gets a shot to replace players with his physical gifts; John Madden always said the game is 90% mental. If Jones can't grasp 90% then we should just cut our losses, regardless of the literal and moral contracts that exist. After looking at the roster, Tray Matthews and/or Mike Tyson both look like excellent candidates to supplant Jones and even Greene respectively.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I just said what I meant if it was unclear the first time. Players get a camp stipend to be there. Game checks dont' start until the game do. If he's a problem, let him be "hurt" give him his stipend or whatever they get then cut him at roster reductions. He doesn't have a chance to get in camp with another team, his career will suffer. Not that it likely matters, his career will suffer if he doesn't put in the work which has nothing to do with any of this.

and yeah, i was comparing Jones and Bell LOL

I'll give you credit for one thing. You at least quoted what you were replying to for a change.

You mentioned handling Jones as was done in Pittsburgh. If you were not talking about Bell I can't think of another player you were referring to.