Packers notes

[Deleted member 6794]

In addition Sam Barrington and Demetri Goodson missed practice with an illness, Jordy Nelson didn't participate because of a personal natter.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Packers have promoted Eliot Wolf to director of player personnel.

 

[Poppa San]

Packers have promoted Eliot Wolf to director of player personnel.

Think he may have had a suitor inquire about an open GM / front office job.

 

[Shawnsta3]

The front office has quietly rebuilded very successfully after the losses of Dorsey and McKenzie as well Scheneider. They were replaced by guys like Eliot Wolf, Director of Player Personnel; Alonzo Highsmith, Senior Personnel Executive; and Brian Gutenkunst, Director of College Scouting.


Give these guys credit, no doubt those last few drafts with the old crew and switching regime were a bit shaky in 2011 and 2012, but the new regime turned out two really successful drafts here in 2013 and 2014. Guys like Datone Jones, Lacy, Bathkiari, Hyde, Charles Johnson, Barrington, Clinton-Dix, Adams, and R. Rodgers have all been impressive at some point in the NFL and there's still hope for Thornton, Abbrederis and Janis. Not to mention the improvement in free agent signings from guys like Philip Merlin, Daniel Muir, Anthony Hargrove and Jeff Saturday in 2012 to Julius Peppers last year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Sam Barrington has been fined $16,537 for roughing Matthew Stafford on Sunday. That is 2.44% of his salary for this season. Compared to Suh's fine, which is 0.55% of his 2014 salary, that makes perfect sense.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Sam Barrington has been fined $16,537 for roughing Matthew Stafford on Sunday. That is 2.44% of his salary for this season. Compared to Suh's fine, which is 0.55% of his 2014 salary, that makes perfect sense.

$16, 537 for a love tap that was a questionable call to start with? Stafford's reaction was akin to a flop which is becoming all too prevalent; I'm surprised he didn't fall down to emphasize the point.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Packers have promoted Eliot Wolf to director of player personnel.

It should be noted that in 10 of his 11 post-intern seasons with the Packers, Wolf worked on the Pro Personnel side; his only direct involvement in the college scouting process might have been in his one season as Assistant Director of Player Personnel in 2011.

Pro personnel guys serve the function of keeping up to date on pro players who might become available, either through waivers, off the street, or during the free agent signing periods. This mostly entails identifying players who can fill out the bottom of the roster. A high profile FA signing like Peppers is initiated at or get elevated quickly to the GM level, particularly in Peppers' case where the player is a known quantity having played against him and game-scouted him twice per year for several years.

With many teams, the Pro Personnel guys show their value by finding street vets or evaluating waiver wire guys to plug injury holes in-season.

The Packer Pro Personnel guys in recent years under Wolf's leadership might be characterized as Maytag repairmen with a spotty record. Vet free agent signings have been relatively few, and with the exception of Peppers and Guion, have provided little or no help. And as with Peppers, the Packers played against Guion twice per year for a few years so the involvement of Pro Personnel would have been less than a discovery process.

Even the practice squad gets heavily populated with either Packer draftees or rookie free agents, some of those guys getting released and then coming back to PS repeated times. In fact, the guys elevated from PS who did not get their start with the Packers have been few, far between, and less than impactful.

The most notable activity that might have originated out of Pro Personnel under Wolf's watch was the vet backup/replacement revolving door of QBs in 2012 prior to the Flynn signing; that's something one would prefer to expurgate from the resume. Tolzien will likely have trouble staying in the league when his PS eligibility is exhausted.

Frankly, I don't think this promotion has much to do with fear of losing Wolf. He's not properly seasoned and has nothing on his resume to suggest the "talent savant" reputation that Schneider acquired. He has very little formal college scouting experience. He doesn't have the 20+ years of experience in scouting and pro personnel that McKenzie and Dorsey brought to the table; those two guys spent many years beating the bushes as college scouts before moving up in the organization, as did Thompson himself.

I believe this move is an effort to put him at Thompson's elbow in the college talent evaluation process without sending him back to square one. Call it a management training program where the bottom rungs of the ladder are bypassed.

The more interesting question is who will take Wolf's spot. Typically that would be announced in conjunction with the Wolf promotion if it was internal. Will Thompson go outside for somebody who can find some low priced vet players? There should be somebody in the Pat's front office who might fit the bill given their constant vet wheeling/dealing/revolving door to good effect.

 

[Sky King]

$16, 537 for a love tap that was a questionable call to start with? Stafford's reaction was akin to a flop which is becoming all too prevalent; I'm surprised he didn't fall down to emphasize the point.

I don't think that was the play. You may be referring to the Brad Jones slap. Barrington hit him right after he threw a pass and drove his shoulder full weight into Stafford's chest as he fell backwards onto the ground. At the time I was surprised that no flag was thrown.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I don't think that was the play. You may be referring to the Brad Jones slap. Barrington hit him right after he threw a pass and drove his shoulder full weight into Stafford's chest as he fell backwards onto the ground. At the time I was surprised that no flag was thrown.

My mistake. I now recall that hit and was wondering the same thing at the time. Not that I think there's anything wrong with that hit, but the refs/NFL office is inconsistent enough in treating those "drive into the ground" QB hits you never know what they'll do. I guess you're supposed to hit and roll, bringing the QB down on his side or on top of you. Who knows, really.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Barrington returned to practice today, Rodgers (calf), Nelson (personal matter) and Goodson (illness) not practicing today.

 

[gopkrs]

My mistake. I now recall that hit and was wondering the same thing at the time. Not that I think there's anything wrong with that hit, but the refs/NFL office is inconsistent enough in treating those "drive into the ground" QB hits you never know what they'll do. I guess you're supposed to hit and roll, bringing the QB down on his side or on top of you. Who knows, really.

I would say that when you are on the way down and you know you are on top of the guy; don't purposely drive your shoulder or helmet or your total body weight into the QB and into the ground. It should have been called and it was stupid of Barrington to do it.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

Sam Barrington has been fined $16,537 for roughing Matthew Stafford on Sunday. That is 2.44% of his salary for this season. Compared to Suh's fine, which is 0.55% of his 2014 salary, that makes perfect sense.

You can also say Suh's fine was 400% more than Barrington's fine. IMO, you can't assess fines based on how much a player makes - that boils down to discrimination. It's like a speeding ticket (and I'm just using this as an example, not saying a speeding ticket is the same as roughing fines) - but fines for speeding aren't based on how much a person makes, only by how fast you were going. Obviously it hurts more in the pocket book for a person who doesn't make as much money, but an offense should have a set fine that applies to everybody, regardless of how much they make. The way to handle repeat offenders is through suspension - and since Suh was clean for the defined amount of time according to what the NFL and the player's union agreed upon, this was to be treated like a first time offense from what I undersatnd (not that I agree with it, it's just what was agreed upon). I am in no way defending what Suh did, but I also don't think it is fair to fine him more just because he makes more money.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I would say that when you are on the way down and you know you are on top of the guy; don't purposely drive your shoulder or helmet or your total body weight into the QB and into the ground. It should have been called and it was stupid of Barrington to do it.

I just went back and looked at that play. First of all, Barrington hit him about simultaneously with the throw so there was no question of the hit being late. Second, it looks like Barrington did try to roll him...by the time they hit the ground Barrington had only his right arm and shoulder over Stafford and his helmet was to the side. Stafford's impact with the ground was a natural consequence of Barrington's bulk, momentum and good form tackling on a well timed hit.

Given the timing of the hit, consideration should be given to the defender's rightful objective in the event the QB pulls the ball back. Had Stafford done so, there would be no penalty or fine.

Watching this thing in slo-mo does a disservice...it obscures the speed at which the tackle unfolded.

The fact this play was unobscured to the officials (unlike Bush's facemask that was also fined) and no flag was thrown is indicative of the inconsistency with which these calls are made. I'm not saying a flag/fine would have been entirely unexpected. What I'm saying is I've seen similar hits go unflagged and unfined for some justifiable reasons.

As one who rarely complains about calls, I believe the league made a mistake here in issuing a fine on a borderline call.

Of course the hit was against a playoff QB. The league might want to send a message that the spectacle (and associated ratings) should not be ruined by having a bunch of Ryan Lindley's on the field.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You can also say Suh's fine was 400% more than Barrington's fine. IMO, you can't assess fines based on how much a player makes - that boils down to discrimination. It's like a speeding ticket (and I'm just using this as an example, not saying a speeding ticket is the same as roughing fines) - but fines for speeding aren't based on how much a person makes, only by how fast you were going. Obviously it hurts more in the pocket book for a person who doesn't make as much money, but an offense should have a set fine that applies to everybody, regardless of how much they make.

That depends on where you're living. I know that in Finland the fines for speeding tickets are a set percentage of a person's income and I like that system way better.

I think the NFL should implement a similar way of fining people.

 

[TJV]

You can also say Suh's fine was 400% more than Barrington's fine. IMO, you can't assess fines based on how much a player makes - that boils down to discrimination. It's like a speeding ticket (and I'm just using this as an example, not saying a speeding ticket is the same as roughing fines) - but fines for speeding aren't based on how much a person makes, only by how fast you were going. Obviously it hurts more in the pocket book for a person who doesn't make as much money, but an offense should have a set fine that applies to everybody, regardless of how much they make. The way to handle repeat offenders is through suspension - and since Suh was clean for the defined amount of time according to what the NFL and the player's union agreed upon, this was to be treated like a first time offense from what I undersatnd (not that I agree with it, it's just what was agreed upon). I am in no way defending what Suh did, but I also don't think it is fair to fine him more just because he makes more money.

I don’t think that’s a good analogy as the NFL is a business which, for example, has a moral clause in its employment contracts. It and its employees are very much in the public eye, unlike “ordinary speeders”. The supposed reason for the NFL to enforce fines on players is deter the offender from repeating the offense. And IMO more important than the safety and health of the players who were the victims of the offense, is to protect the league’s public image. So if deterring future bad acts is the main purpose for the fines, how those fines affect individual players is very important. Fining players based upon their respective game checks would ensure the impact for that season at least would be equal no matter how much the player earns and would result in much more of an equal deterrent.

Comparing the Barrington hit to suh’s more subtle stomp makes no sense. As HRE posted, Barrington’s was in the natural flow of the game, even if you think it was late. OTOH, suh’s was a purposeful attempt to injure Rodgers away from the action of the play. (BTW, only a Lions fan could think it wasn’t purposeful.)

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

That depends on where you're living. I know that in Finland the fines for speeding tickets are a set percentage of a person's income and I like that system way better.

I think the NFL should implement a similar way of fining people.

I still think it is discrimination. What you are saying is someone should pay more for something just because they make more money. With that logic, then they should also pay more for a gallon of milk or anything else than people who don't make as much money.

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

I don’t think that’s a good analogy as the NFL is a business which, for example, has a moral clause in its employment contracts. It and its employees are very much in the public eye, unlike “ordinary speeders”. The supposed reason for the NFL to enforce fines on players is deter the offender from repeating the offense. And IMO more important than the safety and health of the players who were the victims of the offense, is to protect the league’s public image. So if deterring future bad acts is the main purpose for the fines, how those fines affect individual players is very important. Fining players based upon their respective game checks would ensure the impact for that season at least would be equal no matter how much the player earns and would result in much more of an equal deterrent.

Comparing the Barrington hit to suh’s more subtle stomp makes no sense. As HRE posted, Barrington’s was in the natural flow of the game, even if you think it was late. OTOH, suh’s was a purposeful attempt to injure Rodgers away from the action of the play. (BTW, only a Lions fan could think it wasn’t purposeful.)

Like I said, I was only using speeding as an example. But I'm not sure I follow your logic. It sounds like you are saying the NFL fines are meant to deter future offenses - unlike speeding tickets. Are you saying that speeding tickets/fines aren't meant to deter a person from future offenses? Sorry, I have to disagree, I know if I get a speeding ticket I would be more careful about speeding in the future, whatever the fine is. No, it doesn't guarantee it won't happen again, but neither does a more hefty fine by the NFL.

Also, I didn't compare Barrington's hit to Suh's, I only pointed out that Suh's fine was 400% more than Barrington's which is a fact, not a comparison, and BTW I never said Suh's stomp on Rodgers wasn't on purpose, if that is what you were implying.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I still think it is discrimination. What you are saying is someone should pay more for something just because they make more money. With that logic, then they should also pay more for a gallon of milk or anything else than people who don't make as much money.

That's why people earning more money have to pay a higher tax rate. TJV explained it really good why the NFL should change the way the league handles fines.

 

[HardRightEdge]

"In the NFL halls of justice, the only justice is in the NFL halls." - Lenny Bruce paraphrased

You guys are teetering on the edge of some libertarian vs. socialism debate. I'd gladly add my two cents, but past experience shows the moderators would slap me down. Yes, I'm talking about you, LTF.

 

[TJV]

I still think it is discrimination. What you are saying is someone should pay more for something just because they make more money. With that logic, then they should also pay more for a gallon of milk or anything else than people who don't make as much money.

IMO you went from a bad analogy to a worse one! Or are you saying milk producers and grocers are attempting or should attempt to deter people from drinking milk? BTW many states charge "points" against the licenses of speeders. Lose enough points and your license is suspended, no matter your income. But IMO what you are missing is the unique status of the NFL and its players (similar to but not the same as MLB and the NBA).

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

IMO you went from a bad analogy to a worse one! Or are you saying milk producers and grocers are attempting or should attempt to deter people from drinking milk? BTW many states charge "points" against the licenses of speeders. Lose enough points and your license is suspended, no matter your income. But IMO what you are missing is the unique status of the NFL and its players (similar to but not the same as MLB and the NBA).

The point is if you are going to say someone should pay a bigger fine just because they make more money, then the same logic implies that they should pay more money for everything else. The reason for the fine is inconsequential - if the only basis for someone paying more for a fine is because they make more money, then it is purely discriminatory. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are ways to handle repeat offenders. To just say the amount of a fine should be based on how much the player makes just isn't right IMO.

Your reference to people losing points against their license, no matter their income, supports my point. A person doesn't lose more or less points based on how much they make, right? So why should a person may a bigger fine for the same offense just because they make more money?

 

[TJV]

The point is if you are going to say someone should pay a bigger fine just because they make more money, then the same logic implies that they should pay more money for everything else.

You’ve completely missed the point so your "logic" doesn't apply. Fines of NFL players for bad behavior should be proportional to their compensation because if they aren’t the richer players don’t suffer the deterrent effect other players do. When you make the analogy to “they should pay more money for everything else” you completely ignore the main point: The purpose of the fines are their deterrent effect. (That's the point I was making with the milk.)

You also missed the point on the loss of points for driver’s licenses. The fines for speeding being the same affect drivers differently depending upon their income and net worth. So a fine could be 4% of one person’s income and 0.004% of another’s. But all drivers begin with the same number of points. So if a speeding ticket “costs” 2 points, the loss of those points would affect the poor driver and rich driver the same with respect to the possible suspension of his license, just as proportional fines would affect players the same in the NFL.

 

[Sky King]

I just went back and looked at that play. First of all, Barrington hit him about simultaneously with the throw so there was no question of the hit being late. Second, it looks like Barrington did try to roll him...by the time they hit the ground Barrington had only his right arm and shoulder over Stafford and his helmet was to the side. Stafford's impact with the ground was a natural consequence of Barrington's bulk, momentum and good form tackling on a well timed hit.

Given the timing of the hit, consideration should be given to the defender's rightful objective in the event the QB pulls the ball back. Had Stafford done so, there would be no penalty or fine.

Watching this thing in slo-mo does a disservice...it obscures the speed at which the tackle unfolded.

The fact this play was unobscured to the officials (unlike Bush's facemask that was also fined) and no flag was thrown is indicative of the inconsistency with which these calls are made. I'm not saying a flag/fine would have been entirely unexpected. What I'm saying is I've seen similar hits go unflagged and unfined for some justifiable reasons.

As one who rarely complains about calls, I believe the league made a mistake here in issuing a fine on a borderline call.

Of course the hit was against a playoff QB. The league might want to send a message that the spectacle (and associated ratings) should not be ruined by having a bunch of Ryan Lindley's on the field.

Five years ago Barrington's hit was probably not a fine. Neither was Brad Jones slap. Of the two, Barrington's was the only one that may have produced pain and injury. Jones "slap" was inconsequential except for the penalty that resulted from it. If new rules result in less debilitating injuries long term, I'm in favor of enforcing them. But the inconsistencies of that enforcement are such a constant that the game itself is the one that may suffer the most long term damage. The final disposition of the Suh incident speaks clearly to that.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

Sam Barrington has been fined $16,537 for roughing Matthew Stafford on Sunday. That is 2.44% of his salary for this season. Compared to Suh's fine, which is 0.55% of his 2014 salary, that makes perfect sense.

I hope one of the veterans with deep pockets cover that fine for the young buck...

 

[Daryl Muellenberg]

You’ve completely missed the point so your "logic" doesn't apply. Fines of NFL players for bad behavior should be proportional to their compensation because if they aren’t the richer players don’t suffer the deterrent effect other players do. When you make the analogy to “they should pay more money for everything else” you completely ignore the main point: The purpose of the fines are their deterrent effect. (That's the point I was making with the milk.)

You also missed the point on the loss of points for driver’s licenses. The fines for speeding being the same affect drivers differently depending upon their income and net worth. So a fine could be 4% of one person’s income and 0.004% of another’s. But all drivers begin with the same number of points. So if a speeding ticket “costs” 2 points, the loss of those points would affect the poor driver and rich driver the same with respect to the possible suspension of his license, just as proportional fines would affect players the same in the NFL.

I could argue that any fine is meant as a deterrent, not just in the NFL. The legal/court system doesn't hand out fines based on a person's income, why should the NFL? I just don't think you will ever see it where the NFL will assess a fine based on a player's income. I'm also referring to first/second time offenders. When you get to repeat offenders, then I don't have a problem with increasing the fine (double/triple, etc) and/or suspension, but I still don't think it should ever be based on how much a player makes. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

If they really wanted a fine to be relative to a player's salary (again, for repeat offenders), all they would have to do is suspend them as the player would be essentially giving up a game check which is based on their income as they don't get paid for games missed due to suspension.