May 24, 2018, 01:16:15 AM

Author Topic: deangelo williams  (Read 3670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline realitybytes

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
deangelo williams
« on: October 30, 2012, 05:02:12 AM »
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000087424/article/deangelo-williams-drawing-interest-from-a-contender
"Williams has been ineffective in limited duty this season, but he has averaged 5 yards per carry since entering the NFL in 2006. He has been completely marginalized in Carolina's offense, getting just 19 carries in the past three games. A team source told the Observer that at least one playoff-contending team has contacted the  about a potential deal for Williams.
It makes sense for the  to get what they can for 29-year-old Williams, who isn't contributing this season and almost certainly won't be brought back in 2013. "
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Offline GBP4EVER

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1001
Re: deangelo williams
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2012, 05:22:19 AM »
No one will trade for him. He has a bad contract.

Offline Hands

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
    • Uncover
Re: deangelo williams
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2012, 05:39:29 AM »
I would see Blount before Williams. He's a younger, cheaper, and move the pile kind of runner vs. a shifty speedy guy.
In the land of the blind.....the one eye man is king!

Offline realitybytes

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
Re: deangelo williams
« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2012, 05:48:22 AM »
No one will trade for him. He has a bad contract.
i disagree. it's a bad contract for the panthers, yes. but this is the second year of a five-year deal and all of the guaranteed money was paid in the first two years. if the packers traded a fourth or fifth round pick for williams, they would only be on the hook for half of this year's salary (roughly 2.7 million), and they could cut him in the offseason without any real penalty. personally, i think he'd be better than benson.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

maxman44

  • Guest
Re: deangelo williams
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2012, 06:51:02 AM »
Character issues aside, Blount makes more sense that Williams and Jackson

Offline Beast Light

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2940
Re: deangelo williams
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2012, 06:55:09 AM »
Character issues aside, Blount makes more sense that Williams and Jackson

I agree.  If you are going to give up picks for a RB, you might as well go after a younger guy with some upside.  Otherwise we are looking at the same issue again next year, unless we invest on a RB in the draft.  I'd rather bring in a guy that can help us for 3 years.

Offline Packinatl

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1708
Re: deangelo williams
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2012, 07:00:32 AM »
No one will trade for him. He has a bad contract.
i disagree. it's a bad contract for the panthers, yes. but this is the second year of a five-year deal and all of the guaranteed money was paid in the first two years. if the packers traded a fourth or fifth round pick for williams, they would only be on the hook for half of this year's salary (roughly 2.7 million), and they could cut him in the offseason without any real penalty. personally, i think he'd be better than benson.

Disagree...he is guaranteed $21M and we would be on the hook for the balance of that.  If you trade for him you assume the contract. 

Also if Carolina deals him they are on the hook to push forward $9.6M to this years cap...dont see it
"The day you sign a client is the day you start losing one."

Offline realitybytes

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
Re: deangelo williams
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2012, 07:25:50 AM »
16 million of the guaranteed money was paid in the first year of the contract (2011). the remaining five million is considered a part of his $5.25 million second-year salary (2012). after this season, there is no more guaranteed money in his contract.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Offline Packinatl

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1708
Re: deangelo williams
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2012, 07:35:36 AM »
16 million of the guaranteed money was paid in the first year of the contract (2011). the remaining five million is considered a part of his $5.25 million second-year salary (2012). after this season, there is no more guaranteed money in his contract.

You really want to rent a guy for $2.6M? not me. And if you do keep him them cam you really afford a RB with his contract numbers with #12 and #52 due?  nope  2013: $4.75 million, 2014: $5.75 million, 2015: $6.75
"The day you sign a client is the day you start losing one."

Offline golfman

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11870
Re: deangelo williams
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2012, 07:46:53 AM »
16 million of the guaranteed money was paid in the first year of the contract (2011). the remaining five million is considered a part of his $5.25 million second-year salary (2012). after this season, there is no more guaranteed money in his contract.

You really want to rent a guy for $2.6M? not me. And if you do keep him them cam you really afford a RB with his contract numbers with #12 and #52 due?  nope  2013: $4.75 million, 2014: $5.75 million, 2015: $6.75

Those are his contract numbers moving forward? Maybe it's just me and I am not a big fan of paying running backs a ton of money, but those numbers seem doable.

How about we trade Finley for him. I know I have been defending Finley in the other thread, but it was always with the caveat that he's probably gone after this year. I was also for a sign and trade of him in this offeseason. We'd have to change our offense a touch to a little more run oriented.

I think you can definitely keep Williams for 2013 and then see. Franchise Jennings and work on deals for Rodgers and Matthews. I think Woodson is done after this year and possibly Pickett. That should leave enough cash to get Rodgers done and probably Matthews.

I'm not so sure Raji will get done until after his contract expires in 2013.
"Make the Packers Great Again! "

Offline vegas492

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
Re: deangelo williams
« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2012, 08:21:14 AM »
Deangelo is getting old and has a bad contract.

I'll pass.  Just like TT will.

Offline Packinatl

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1708
Re: deangelo williams
« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2012, 08:26:00 AM »
16 million of the guaranteed money was paid in the first year of the contract (2011). the remaining five million is considered a part of his $5.25 million second-year salary (2012). after this season, there is no more guaranteed money in his contract.

You really want to rent a guy for $2.6M? not me. And if you do keep him them cam you really afford a RB with his contract numbers with #12 and #52 due?  nope  2013: $4.75 million, 2014: $5.75 million, 2015: $6.75

Those are his contract numbers moving forward? Maybe it's just me and I am not a big fan of paying running backs a ton of money, but those numbers seem doable.

How about we trade Finley for him. I know I have been defending Finley in the other thread, but it was always with the caveat that he's probably gone after this year. I was also for a sign and trade of him in this offeseason. We'd have to change our offense a touch to a little more run oriented.

I think you can definitely keep Williams for 2013 and then see. Franchise Jennings and work on deals for Rodgers and Matthews. I think Woodson is done after this year and possibly Pickett. That should leave enough cash to get Rodgers done and probably Matthews.

I'm not so sure Raji will get done until after his contract expires in 2013.

That's what is left.
"The day you sign a client is the day you start losing one."