Harrell Signed

LUKE23 · Post #1 » by **LUKE23** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:19 am

5 Year Deal.

Ayt · Post #2 » by **Ayt** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:50 am

Hoot hootie hooo!!!!

Post #3 » by **MickeyDavis** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:30 am

Camp starts in a few hours.

Post #4 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:15 am

Once Akoye was in the fold for the Texans I figured it wouldn't be long before Harrell followed suit.

Dwade03 · Post #5 » by **Dwade03** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:50 am

espn says it was a 6 year deal, who's right?

LUKE23 · Post #6 » by **LUKE23** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 1:26 pm

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=639231

5-year deal between 14.5 and 15 million.

Ill-yasova · Post #7 » by **Ill-yasova** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:27 pm

Five year deal, club option for the sixth year. I don't like the fact that they put him number one on the depth chart. I'm a Corey Williams fan and my prediction is that he will be the starter by the beginning of the season.

Nash13/Marion31 · Post #8 » by **Nash13/Marion31** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:09 pm

Yeah, right now Williams has experience and health on his side, so I would be surprised if he didn't get the job come Preseason.

eagle13 · Post #9 » by **eagle13** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:30 pm

There is something odd going on here. Williams had at the very least a decent year - to some even a good year. IS MM & TT putting pressure on CW to sign? Justifying their selection of Harrell? I'm good with Harrell and actually expect him to start since he should be the stronger run stopper BUT why diss Corey? Let him come into camp as starter - these guys have pride - he did a good job last year. Then let obvious play out. Harrell on run downs - Corey on passing downs. I hope MM & TT don't alienate CW.

Post #10 » by **MickeyDavis** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:10 pm

They may have decided they don't want to spend any more on their DLine and plan on CW walking. The Pack have been very good at locking up guys before they become free agents. The fact that CW didn't get an extension means he's probably leaving.

Being in a contract year will fire him up, I expect a good season out of him. I like the kid, my company represents him. But I doubt he's a Packer beyond this season.

eagle13 · Post #11 » by **eagle13** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 8:49 pm

MickeyDavis wrote:They may have decided they don't want to spend any more on their DLine and plan on CW walking. The Pack have been very good at locking up guys before they become free agents. The fact that CW didn't get an extension means he's probably leaving.

IF that's true and it seems to me it is - then it must mean they are not really that impressed with CW - otherwise it makes the selection of harrell even odder. Picking JH meant you were not adding a player to your talent pool but rather creating a situation where you are only replacing a pretty good pllayer you were forcing out.

Being in a contract year will fire him up, I expect a good season out of him. I like the kid, my company represents him. But I doubt he's a Packer beyond this season.

I agree CW will have good year.

EG4life · Post #12 » by **EG4life** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 3:26 pm

schweig · Post #13 » by **schweig** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 7:10 am

Thompson takes a lot of crap, but he and Andrew Brandt got everyone in by camp again. And after watching the special teams last year, especially the coverage and blocking, I can't argue that a partly special-teams-themed draft was such a bad idea.

Meanwhile Oakland had everyone in the draft to choose from and they're playing the same old ****, "Kiffin acknowledged that Russell's situation was a precursor to bringing Culpepper in for a workout." Even if Culpepper only needed some more time off to regain some more strength and get back to being a decent quarterback, for the Raiders to frame it that way sounds so stupid. The 30-year-old free agent shouldn't have anything to do with finding the middle ground with your #1 overall pick, especially with the way things are set up for draft signings these days.