Skip to content

Packers have nothing to lose by talking to McLendon

McLendon AP

The Packers wisely have decided to kick the tires on Steelers nose tackle Steve McLendon.  Green Bay has nothing to lose by taking advantage of the opportunity to talk to a player who would be off limits if he were under contract.

Former Patriots V.P. of player personnel and former Chiefs G.M. Scott Pioli explained on Wednesday’s PFT Live the benefit of bringing in a restricted free agent.  At a minimum, it’s an opportunity to legally tamper with a player whose rights technically belong to another team.  The Packers can get to know McLendon, and they can decide whether they’d like to make a run at him if he becomes an unrestricted free agent in 2014.

The Packers also could sign McLendon to an offer sheet before Friday’s deadline.  If the Steelers choose not to match, the Packers would get him without compensation, because the Steelers tendered McLendon, who was undrafted, at the lowest level of $1.323 million.

If the Packers make a move on McLendon, the Steelers could once again find themselves stung by a decision to tender a player too low.  By bumping the number to $2 million, the Steelers would have been entitled to a second-round pick as compensation — and the Packers surely wouldn’t be considering a run at McLendon.

Pioli explained that some teams intentionally tender players at one level higher than intended, in order to ensure that the player won’t be vulnerable to an offer sheet.  McLendon, with merely a right of first refusal, is as vulnerable as a restricted free agent can be.

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!
Permalink 35 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Green Bay Packers, Pittsburgh Steelers, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
35 Responses to “Packers have nothing to lose by talking to McLendon”
  1. tokyosandblaster says: Apr 17, 2013 10:23 PM

    Then again, no one currently on the Steelers roster is worth a roster spot in Green Bay.

  2. 84sgl says: Apr 17, 2013 10:28 PM

    Are you serious? I hope we can somehow keep Steve because he looks great when in for Hampton. I’ve been saying for 2 years now that he should be starting. He may not clog the middle like Big Snack but he certainly provides that push in the middle you like to see from a 0 or 1 technique. He’s probably best suited for a 4-3 in all honesty because he likes to try and maul guys and go to the ball instead of being gap sound. But man I hope we can keep him.

  3. larryboodry says: Apr 17, 2013 10:32 PM

    The Packers are fine just the way they are…Just ask their #1 fans tokyo and filthy.

    Sorry, not sure what just came over me…Must have wanted to experience life as a troll, if only this once.

  4. kevingreene160sacknoHOFclub says: Apr 17, 2013 10:36 PM

    I guess if Pittsburgh loses their heir-apparent to Casey Hampton it’ll be up to Alameda Ta’amu to “resist arrest” by the opposing O-line and “drive” through the pocket.

  5. bullsonparade2399 says: Apr 17, 2013 10:38 PM

    I dont see this as a glaring need for the Packers. They need secondary, Rb depth, and OL help.

  6. aljack88 says: Apr 17, 2013 10:39 PM

    Steelers messing up again with their RFA’s?

  7. thesteelers says: Apr 17, 2013 10:48 PM

    We > them.

    Think about it, Steve.

  8. thestrategyexpert says: Apr 17, 2013 10:54 PM

    That’s ridiculous to tender a guy at a level higher than intended. You decide what tender level the player is worth paying in order to keep him and the name of the game is to pay that price or less only. Any time that you are going over that limit you are doing a disservice to the team.

    It makes no sense to pay a premium to protect a valuation of something that doesn’t exist. The gap between the intended value of the player and the price at that next higher level becomes a voluntary waste that can potentially be avoided.

    So find a way to avoid it, that’s the job!

  9. blackngold4life says: Apr 17, 2013 11:07 PM

    Absolutely NOTHIN ..Now that extra 1.3m they used on Sanders is gone..think that left them 800,000..Hmmmz. No brainer for McLendon either..get extra $ from the Packers or get crumbs from the Steelers if they can even match. looks like a extra 5th round draft pick commin

  10. uwsptke says: Apr 17, 2013 11:15 PM

    I disagree about defensive line not being a need. It’s their #1 need in my opinion since you have to look past just this year. Raji is only under contract for one more year, and so is CJ Wilson. Pickett is most likely in his last year. Worthy tore his ACL at the end of the year so he might not even see the field.

    Defensive line is absolutely a need. And without even having to offer up a draft pick? There’s no downside to this.

  11. crownofthehelmet says: Apr 17, 2013 11:45 PM

    Makes sense. It’s common knowledge that other GMs know the Steeler back-ups are far better than their teams’ starters.

  12. 73rocs says: Apr 18, 2013 12:26 AM

    Totally agree with uwsptke. The Pack is likely gonna lose Raji because they can’t affor him after signing Matthews and Rodgers (signing to still happen). Stocking the line with a relatively inexpensive player at about 2 million bucks give or take a bit is a good idea.

  13. morganstan100 says: Apr 18, 2013 12:29 AM

    Either the steelers defense collapses or the bumbling front office gets fooled again in a cap blowing ploy. Either way, It’s a lose lose proposition for a team already on the ropes. Too bad they don’t watch and learn from the Ravens, the current Superbowl Champs. Yikes.

  14. zombiefan1000 says: Apr 18, 2013 12:40 AM

    Scott Pioli needs to be a full time analyst. Absolute natural as well as being extremely intelligent. i could listen to him talk football all day!

  15. tiggerblood says: Apr 18, 2013 3:32 AM

    Agree they need depth their first rounder should be spent in this area too. Safety with their second pick. The packs D seemed to fall off when Jenkins left and Collins went down with injury. Fill these two areas with quality players and the Pack will be back to early 2011 season levels.

  16. arrowdead says: Apr 18, 2013 4:53 AM

    SP on this website burns me! A small part of his failure in KC was his standoffish, super secret, pseudo-Belichek style management, and now he lives in front of the camera!

  17. madjack58 says: Apr 18, 2013 7:45 AM

    McClendon is very serviceable backup. While we have a lot of needs I’d like to see us go NT, ILB, S in the draft. Build the future of this defense up the middle. If we can retain him and let the Packers work out the contract that’s fine by me, but overpaying for McClendon would be a huge mistake IMO.

  18. rodgersrodgersheisking says: Apr 18, 2013 8:21 AM

    great call bringing him in, cheap talented guys are what we need now we’re rewarding half the team with monster contracts.

  19. ravenator says: Apr 18, 2013 8:29 AM

    Chalk that up to another sensational front office play by the Steelers. I mean seriously, do you people actually applaud this Colbert guy? He’s ruined your franchise but you fanboys keep blind faith in him. What a sorry group from top to bottom.

    Cheers!

  20. jeffersonkostilnick says: Apr 18, 2013 8:46 AM

    For all of you saying GB is the better team, how many Super Bowls have you won and appeared in again?

  21. billh1947 says: Apr 18, 2013 9:06 AM

    Nothing will happen to worry the Steelers,after all look who is in charge of the Packers and when was the last time he actually signed a FA.

  22. packers412qbs says: Apr 18, 2013 9:53 AM

    I know a bit about McLendon. But all I need to know is that Steeler fans(who know their crap) can’t believe the steelers didn’t tender McLendon more and think it would be a huge loss for their team. SIGN HIM! The packers front seven needs any type of pass rush and run stopper they can get! You can never have enough depth on the d-line and with Jerel Worthy recovering from a serious knee injury, again depth is a great thing.

  23. Jalen0595 says: Apr 18, 2013 10:27 AM

    Packers have won 13 NFL championships. More than any other team, including Pittsburgh.

  24. steel2372 says: Apr 18, 2013 11:12 AM

    Yes they have 13 nfl championships but only 4 super bowl victories. Before the AFL-NFL merger Several season they did not even play a playoff game. The winner was determined at the end of the regular season by who had the most victories. It was very much different back then. They are to be congratulated on 13 championships.

  25. gbmickey says: Apr 18, 2013 12:46 PM

    Steel you might want to look up Nfl history as well as divisions and playoffs. You will see Pittsburgh was part of the NFL along with Green Bay since 1933 and did have a playoff. Because they sucked it is convenient you want to discount prior championships because the Steelers won none. Spoken like a true homer.How about we just count Super Bowls since 2010? See how ridiculous that sounds?
    The total is 13 for GB to 6 for the Steelers.

  26. morganstan100 says: Apr 18, 2013 12:49 PM

    Here go the Steelers fans again, comparing rings. Well, GB manhandled the Steelers in 2010, and the loss was so devastating the Steelers never won another playoff game. Now, Steelers are in the cellar waving their old trophies around, but no one can see them from his high up on SB Championship Hill.

  27. vincelombardisghost says: Apr 18, 2013 1:29 PM

    In Ted Thompson I trust. TT is savvy and wise with roster spots as is the team in managing the salary cap. If McClendon fits into the puzzle that is an NFL roster, we will sign him. And Steeler fans, enough of comparing championships vs. the Packers.

  28. nasan27 says: Apr 18, 2013 1:30 PM

    gbmickey says:
    Apr 18, 2013 12:46 PM
    Steel you might want to look up Nfl history as well as divisions and playoffs. You will see Pittsburgh was part of the NFL along with Green Bay since 1933 and did have a playoff. Because they sucked it is convenient you want to discount prior championships because the Steelers won none. Spoken like a true homer.How about we just count Super Bowls since 2010? See how ridiculous that sounds?
    The total is 13 for GB to 6 for the Steelers.

    ______________________________

    Many teams didn’t win any championships back then. No matter who your favorite team is, there’s no denying that the league was very different back then. There were less teams and the competition wasn’t nearly as tough as it is today. It was easy for a few teams to get a good head coach and a lot of talent and have success. Every team didn’t even play the same number of games in that time period and there were even years where there were no playoffs and the championship was handed to the team with the best record. I’m not denying the Packers their championships but you have to admit that they got them under vastly different circumstances.

  29. nasan27 says: Apr 18, 2013 1:36 PM

    Here go the Steelers fans again, comparing rings. Well, GB manhandled the Steelers in 2010, and the loss was so devastating the Steelers never won another playoff game. Now, Steelers are in the cellar waving their old trophies around, but no one can see them from his high up on SB Championship Hill.

    __________________________________

    The Packers won that game by six points. Pittsburgh had the ball with a chance to win in the closing minutes so it’s not quite accurate to say that anyone was manhandled

    High up on Super Bowl Hill? What have the Packers won since that Super Bowl victory? If anything, THEY were manhandled 38-20 by a 9-7 Giants team in the 2011 playoffs. Last year, they won a single playoff game against a weaker team (Minnesote) and were again, since you like that word so much, MANHANDLED by the 49ers 45-31. Seriously, things have been tough for Pittsburgh lately, but it’s not like Green Bay has been making deep playoff runs, either.

  30. nasan27 says: Apr 18, 2013 1:41 PM

    vincelombardisghost says:
    Apr 18, 2013 1:29 PM

    And Steeler fans, enough of comparing championships vs. the Packers.

    _________________________________

    No one is denying the number of total championships that the Packers have one, but like I said, you can’t deny that they were won under very different circumstances. For three of their championships, they didn’t even have to play any playoff games. They were named champions at the end of the season because they had the best record. Back then, every team didn’t even play the same number of games last year and you also had teams folding in the middle of the season.

    Since the 60′s and in the modern era after teh 1970 merger, the competition has been more stiff. In that same time period, Green Bay (7) does have more championships than Pittsburgh (6). People focus more on what’s happened during the modern era because the league is more stable, the competition is better, and there is more parity than there was prior to the 1960′s.

  31. gbmickey says: Apr 18, 2013 2:17 PM

    Nasan as with Steel look it up. The Steelers have played since 33. They has equal opportunity to win as did the Packers playing in the NFL and same competition with a playoff. You cant just subjectively pick a timeframe that suits you. Logic would say you begin the comparison when both were in the league together and that is 1933.

  32. blackngold4life says: Apr 18, 2013 3:08 PM

    OK we can lay this to rest now..

  33. Canned Heat says: Apr 18, 2013 4:54 PM

    jeffersonkostilnick says: Apr 18, 2013 8:46 AM

    For all of you saying GB is the better team, how many Super Bowls have you won and appeared in again?
    _________________________________

    That’s as valid as asking “Who holds the record most NFL World Titles….?”

    (Sit down for this Mr. Kostilnick)

    Um….the Green Bay Packers with 13.

    What’s your question again??

  34. axespray says: Apr 18, 2013 9:23 PM

    Leave it to fairweather steeler fans to discount anything that happened before the 70s … smh.

    All I know is dudes back then played with leather helmets and no face masks…. Injuries? Play through ‘em ….

    Championships won back then by teams may have been won differently than now, but to discount ‘em like any of those old school teams didn’t earn ‘em is just garbage…. those old timers were tough as nails.

  35. dfinpds says: Apr 19, 2013 2:34 PM

    I guess if the old school championships don’t count, then the steroid wins of the ’70s should also be ignored? If you are talking history, perhaps the history of a certain “teams” doctor being arrested in the ’70s with a HUGE package of steroids?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!