Type to search

Antonio Freeman Knows Why the Packers Didn’t Re-Sign James Jones

Antonio Freeman

The Green Bay Packers let receiver James Jones walk in free agency and didn’t put up any sort of fight. Former Packers receiver Antonio Freeman knows why.

Freeman, who went through a similar departure from Green Bay, knows it came down to a business decision. He mentioned that the Packers have Jarrett Boykin, who makes a lot less money than Jones, and how the Packers can develop him to fill Jones’ spot.

And they probably can.

Here’s the interesting part of his quote, at least to us. It’s something that no one likes to point out.

“We have to get the most out of our employees that we can and pay them the least amount of money because we have a quarterback who limits what we can do financially.”


Yeah, look, we’re not going to pretend Rodgers doesn’t deserve the $22 million per season he gets. The idiotic market dictates that he should get paid that idiotic amount of money as the best quarterback in the league. Did he have to take that much? No, but the Packers offered it and why is he going to turn it down?

Obviously, the Packers don’t necessarily need Jones. The point is, they probably would have re-signed him if their quarterback wasn’t eating up such a huge chunk of the salary cap.

But don’t tell anyone.

Monty McMahon

Monty McMahon is one of the founders of Total Packers. He is probably the most famous graduate of UW-Oshkosh next to Jim Gantner.



  1. Remedy April 4, 2014

    “a quarterback who limits what we can do financially”

    and a quarterback who removes the limits on what our team can accomplish

  2. MADCity Packer Fan April 4, 2014

    That’s why they had to let Jordy Nelson and Clay Mathews go! Wait!!! They didn’t!! Shut up.

  3. Tucson Packer April 4, 2014

    I wonder who gives us more of a shot of success in the possession; Jones or Rodgers….hmmm…

  4. 1265Lombardiave April 4, 2014

    “A quarterback that limits you financially.” Really?! How about that jackass Greg Jennings… He got paid because he had #4 and #12 throwing to him. Would he make 9 million after last season s stellar performance with the 3 Stooges passing to him in MN?Nope!

  5. Savage57 April 5, 2014

    Guy makes a good point. When one player consumes such a disportionate percentage of the teams resources, it kind of rings hollow when the coach starts talking about team.

    Write it down. QB salaries are going to follow the same curve as RB salaries have. Real big, then after a couple of years of paying 20% of your payroll to a guy that’s injured or watching the other team with the $800K QB win the Super Bowl with a more balanced team, they’ll go away.

    1. Cheesemaker April 5, 2014

      Agreed. It is a good point. It’s not a knock on Rodgers. It’s a knock on a pricing model that is ridiculously disproportionate to a single position. Savage’s example of the Seahawks is the perfect example of how NOT overpaying a QB can work. The Niners are another example. Again, I love #12 and I don’t begrudge him a penny. I begrudge the system that makes it available.

      1. Cheese April 5, 2014

        If your name is Cheesemaker, does that make you my dad?

        1. Cheesemaker April 7, 2014

          That depends. What’s your mother look like?

    2. RelampagoBlanco April 5, 2014

      The second that Little Joey Flacco signed his $100M deal I cringed thinking about what an actual QB like #12 would get.. As has been said above though, based off the model he’s worth every penny.

  6. Shawn Neuser April 5, 2014

    Savage and Cheese, to quote the great Private Hudson- you guys “haven’t been keeping up with current events!”

    Or namely, articles recently posted on this site.

    A top dollar quarterback gives you a better chance of having a top 10 offense, and a top 10 offense gives you your best chance of making the playoffs.

    Once you are in the playoffs, there is no statistical correlation between the rankings of your offense or defense and your chances of winning the Super Bowl. In other words, the playoffs are pretty much a free-for-all that is more and more resembling the NCAA tourney.

    Thus the saying, “just get in, baby.”

    Since having a top QB is your best chance of getting in, they will continue to get paid the big money.

    A short window of productivity and the decreasing importance of the RB has the most to do with their limited earning potential. The RBs are less important because the passing game is more important, thus meaning the QB is more important.

    The QB position is in no danger of experiencing what the RB position currently is.

    1. Savage57 April 6, 2014

      A number of years ago, I was having a conversation with a senior executive of a major wireless carrier, and while I was working on my PDA, i looked over at him and said, “what this thing really needs is a phone in it.”

      To which he replied, “It’ll never happen.”

      Shawn, you are that guy,

      1. Shawn Neuser April 7, 2014

        Savage, I don’t think you quite have that analogy correct.

        The correct way to apply it to this situation would be if YOU went back to that same guy now and said, “Hey, those PDAs are going to be worth big bucks again.” And he said, “Whuh? The phone is what is important now. No one wants a PDA.” And you said, “No, they are going to make a comeback. Things change.”

        The depth of your reasoning is akin to Jeff Goldblum’s reasoning in “Jurassic Park”-
        “You propose that a population of males will breed?”
        “No, I’m just saying is that life finds a way.”

        Ah, okay. Things change. Life finds a way. Hard to argue with that hardcore reasoning.

        1. Savage57 April 8, 2014

          Shawn, we have to agree to disagree. I’m too old, and have made too many accurate predictions in my life. Trying to over-analyze things sometimes clouds simple fundamental foundations that apply universally. Systems and models almost invariably self-correct for outliers and deviation.

          !0 years from now, when a QB’s percentage of payroll has shrunken by half from where it is today, just remember where you first learned it would happen.

  7. Shawn Neuser April 5, 2014

    That all being said, A-Rodge’s contract is the least of factors in James Jones’ departure. A-Rodge’s cap number will not prevent the Packers from paying either Randall Cobb or Jordy Nelson or both big money.

    It is the fact that both those guys are younger and better than Jones and that Jarrett Boykin is younger with similar potential that has EVERYTHING to do with Jones’ departure.

  8. GBslacker April 5, 2014

    “Idiotic” market?
    “Idiotic” amount of money?

    How about “idiotic” comment?
    … from a player that earned millions thanks to a HoF QB getting him the ball?

  9. packerguy April 5, 2014

    Except that RBs were never that important to team success, and QBs are. You people are terrible at analysis

    1. Savage57 April 6, 2014

      What, do you have the memory of an ant? 15 years ago, it was all about RB’s. Now it’s morphed to QB’s. Soon, it’ll be something else. What does NFL stand for? Not For Long.

      You are terrible at reasoning.

      1. Packerguy April 7, 2014

        Except for the REALLY IMPORTANT detail that QBs were just as important then, teams were just wrong. Teams valuing something highly is not the same as it being actually valuable. The market has been correcting over the last fifteen years. Its not going to change back just because “hurr durr things change.” Not how the free market actually works. Seattle is the most stacked team because they are massively underpaying a top 5 value QB, so everywhere else is loaded beyond what is normally possible in the salary cap era. You don’t understand economics or football, shut the FUCK up.

        1. Savage57 April 8, 2014

          Or, you could grasp the reality that there MAY be a flaw in the certainty of your bullet-proof locked down logic. You’re probably just pissed because you owned a lot of RIM stock and were just as certain that Blackberry’s would always own the market.

          You are as ignorant as you are outspoken.

          And since I like the idea of being able to toss my opinions about without some shriveldick attacking me, nope, I’ll just keep on truckin’.

          1. packerguy April 8, 2014

            You have no actual argument, and you tried to take the high road while calling a complete stranger a “shriveldick.” Well congrats, you managed to depress me. People are such fucking idiots

          2. Savage57 April 8, 2014

            Sorry chief, but no can do. You called the low road when you told me to SHUT THE FUCK UP. What did you expect my response would be? Oh, okay.

            By the way, for a guy who doesn’t understand anything about economics, I’ve done a number of real estate deals in excess of $50MM in my career, so yeah I think I have a clue. And one of those clues is that economic systems are wildly variable, suffer extremes in volatility, then find a balance point. QB contracts are at the zenith of one of those cycles and will eventually correct themselves.

  10. curlys mom April 6, 2014

    Maybe, Savage, but with the significant changes for player safety, this is becoming more of a throw and catch league, and less a bull rush through the line. Which makes the QB more important, and more expensive.

  11. Richard Crainium April 6, 2014

    Shawn here is your no statistical analysis: http://thebiglead.com/2014/01/02/nfl-2013-which-teams-fit-the-profile-of-past-super-bowl-winners/

    I’m with you tho… What do you do let AR test the market? 31 other teams would sign him for the same amount or more!

    Also- the 9ers will be joining the overpay for the qb club either this year (if they’re smart) or next year. And Seattle is exactly two years away from the same position. You have to pay if you want to play.

    1. Shawn Neuser April 7, 2014

      Richard, I wouldn’t exactly call grouping teams based on who they “resemble” as being convincing statistical analysis.

      Note that according to this “analysis,” the Seattle Seahawks last year “resembled” the 2010 Packers. Yes, the Packers and Seahawks were both good against the pass. However, the statistical “resemblance” ends there.

      Note also that though Seattle was correctly picked as the favorite, same as Las Vegas or a guy in a bar could have told you, New Orleans and Kansas City were listed as the next best favorites via this “statistical analysis.” Neither won a game in the playoffs.

    2. Cheesemaker April 7, 2014

      That’s a great analysis, thanks for the link. Enjoyed reading that.

      I think what it comes down to is that you can’t win it all with a poor QB. He doesn’t have to be elite, but he’s gotta be at least good and not losing the game.

      To your second point, because of that, if you have a good or elite QB, you have to keep him even it that means paying a disproportionate chunk to that one position. The downside of not having a good QB is too significant.

      To your last comment, you’re right, Seattle and San Fran will follow suit. And then they will be challenged to stay as good as they are now because they’ll probably lose at least a couple high quality players at other positions. Look at Baltimore – it will be interesting to see how competitive they can be going forward now that they are paying so much to Flacco.

  12. Richard Crainium April 8, 2014

    It’s all who they resemble based on statistical analysis. Therefore being………. A statistical analysis. All it’s says if I recall is that you can’t be bad against the pass. There is merit to having a capable d… You need available payroll to pay quality defenders. Does it have to be the tear your face off/drug induced d like Seattle?? No but you need a rush so your dbacks can make plays.