Green is a Texan

For me anyway, this one of those times where I appreciate what Green has meant to the team, wish him the best, and get ready to move on (as opposed to players in recent times that have demanded a trade or gone over to the dark-purple side). Certainly Green looked pretty good at times last year, but he's 30 and there's a fair chance of injury or just degradation of skills over the lifetime of his new contract.

Most people were already predicting that they'd draft a RB in the first round (Marshawn Lynch, RB, Cal is the one I've been seeing). I've heard they've shown some interest in Travis Henry too, though I think his next visit is to Denver.

If this was about Dennis Green, then it would be newsworthy.

I refuse to put Denny Green on the "news worthy" list.

Henry signed with Denver, and Thomas Jones gots traded to them Jets. So I'm thinking Green Bay is banking on the draft at this point. Although Michael Turner is a restricted free agent. That might be interesting.

ESPN Free Agency Winners and Losers

Green Bay is in the Losers for letting Ahman go. The Texans are in the losers because their biggest move was getting Ahman Green.

Does not compute.

"Green was an interesting signing, but the team needs a receiver on the other side of Andre Johnson after releasing Eric Moulds. So far, the Texans haven't made enough offensive moves to move forward in the increasingly tough AFC South."

What doesn't compute about that? It doesn't say signing Green was bad, it just says they need to do more yet.

Because if one move was bad enough to land a team on that list the team who got him should get the appropriate 'credit' for that move.

Every other team on the Losers list actually lost. The Texans are on there because they need a #2 receiver and haven't gotten one yet? There are lots of teams with bigger need at receiver then the Texans.

Does not compute.

I dare you to compute some teams with a bigger need at receiver than the Texans.

We always lose in free agency.

I don't think free agency has to be a zero-sum game

Except for when they signed that one White guy. That was a pretty good deal.

I'd rather develop young talent and then have some cap room to keep them instead of going out and signing veterans all the time. Which I think is right where the Packers are at. Young team, improved quite a bit last year, not sure what their cap is but I'm guessing they have some room. I not worried about losing Green and I actually like the position they're in. I should see how many draft picks they have.

There is a qualifier to that strategy. Don't let Mike Sherman decide who your teams up and coming players are that deserve extensions.

Got this from jsonline "Thompson put a value on Green and stuck with it. The Packers have $21 million in salary cap room and could have afforded to meet Green's demands, but Thompson's philosophy has been not to overpay, which in this case seemed inevitable given the market."

Plus, they brought in a whole new coaching staff last year, so now they've got a year under their belt.

16, 47, 78, 108, 147, 178, 209

That doesn't account for any compensatory picks.

How about: 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, 42

NOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's a deal.