You are not logged in. Join Free! | Log In Thank you!    

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

5 Pages«<345
Share
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline sschind  
#61 Posted : Thursday, December 5, 2013 3:36:38 PM(UTC)
sschind

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 756
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: SE WISCONSIN

Applause Given: 78
Applause Received: 313

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
You can call BS all you want, but simply because there are two players of their caliber, doesn't mean they WANT to sign with the Packers. Remember, it takes two. That is what I am saying and what most seem to ignore.



I acknowledged that when I said Not that the Packers necessarily have a shot at those players for some of the other reasons you mentioned

You did say that but you also said but it seems Packers fans think since Thompson did well with Woodson and Ryan Pickett that it means there are one or two players every year of similar caliber. Simply put, that year was the exception, not the rule. which to me means that you think there are no players of that caliber not just that the Packers don't always have a chance on signing them.

I agree with you on the "it takes two" thing. I have said many times that we may not know which FAs Ted Thompson has pursued who have declined his offer for whatever reason. Sometimes we know when free agents are approached but often times I am sure we do not. GMs and agents and players don't always say which teams are interested or have made offers

I certainly have no objections to some of your reasons why we may not sign many free agents but I do object to your assertions that it is because they are not out there.
I fully respect your right to have your opinion but that doesn't mean I agree with it or respect you for having it.
Offline warhawk  
#62 Posted : Thursday, December 5, 2013 3:37:53 PM(UTC)
warhawk

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

Posts: 1,405
Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)

Applause Received: 163

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
I agree with where everyone is headed. Ted Thompson did not provide starter depth 3 deep and it's because he did not delve deeply enough into FA. As if signign a few different FA would make a difference.

Looked at Denver's defense lately? Think they are winning games if Manning and Welker are out for an extended period? Think their fans are whining about depth? Of course not. They're not testing their depth.

Is Detroit leading the North if Stafford and Megatron are out for 5 games each? Who cares about their DL if those 2 are sitting?

Take the starting QB and #1 receiver from any playoff team. Then ask yourself if they would still be headed for the playoffs? Denver- Nope. Patriots- Nope. Bengals- Nope. Colts- Maybe, they lost Wayne already and their division sucks. Cowboys without Romo and Bryant- Nope. Think Seattle is 11-1 if Tarvaris Jackson had 5 starts? You get the idea.

There is too much parity in the NFL and the rosters are too small to survive injuries. It doesn't matter how you build your team if they get hurt. Lose your best player and you are probably done. Lose your best 2 or 3, you are done. Doesn't matter where the players come from.

On August 1, the Packers 3 most valuable players were QB, LT and OLB; meaning Rodgers, Bulaga, and Matthews. Those 3 have missed more than they have played. GB managed to survive Bulaga's loss. But you can't survive all 3. Throw in Cobb, who was probably #5 or #6 and Hayward at #10 or so. It's over. The fact that it technically isn't over is due to the aforementioned parity.

For those of you that insist Ted Thompson should have done more, what available FA could he have signed over the last 2 years that would have made up for losing Rodgers?


It's the goal of every team to get better every year and from the beginning to the end of each year. How could it not hurt a D&D team like the Pack when over the last year and three quarters of this year so many top picks have lost so much time? They have lost better quality play by not having Bulaga, Perry, possibly Sherrod, and, they haven't been able to develop further either. You can only get better being on the field and you can't help the team not being there either.

You add Rodgers, Mathews, Cobb, Finley, and any thought of stacking success as McCarthy calls it is out the window and the team goes to pure survival mode. This team has had no shot at growing together, getting better as the year go on, building momentum and confidence, etc. Every week the injury report looks like a damn bus trip in China gone bad.

"The train is leaving the station."
thanks Post received 1 applause.
play2win on 12/5/2013(UTC)
Offline sschind  
#63 Posted : Thursday, December 5, 2013 3:45:56 PM(UTC)
sschind

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 756
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: SE WISCONSIN

Applause Given: 78
Applause Received: 313

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post


I just wish we could pull off a couple of good ones, trades or signings that would help improve one or two positions on our team. It would mean all the difference, having a super solid Safety group, or a set of stud ILBs, bookend OTs that are pretty much shut down players to protect Rodgers, etc.

I believe Ted drafts pretty well, and if he applied the same passion for searching out key veteran FAs or trades, and massaged his cap accordingly, maybe we might get another SB win or two while Aaron is still our QB. I question whether that can really happen by drafting alone. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. For me, as a fan, I would prefer he took a few more risks and had a more balanced approach to talent acquisition.


I think every fan of every team wishes that. The thing is in order to have those couple of good ones you have to be willing to put up with a couple of bad ones because no one hits on everything.

I fully respect your right to have your opinion but that doesn't mean I agree with it or respect you for having it.
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#64 Posted : Thursday, December 5, 2013 3:54:04 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Posts: 203
Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 60
Applause Received: 93

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
The problem isn't depth. The problem is Ted Thompson did not even provide the team with quality starters - not most of the O-Line, not the D-Line, only marginally at OLB and ILB, probably not at Safety, not until this season at RB.

As for all that speculation about the Broncos, Cowboys, Seahawks, etc. going in the toilet if they lost their star QB, it's just that - speculation. It's nowhere near as clear cut as it was with the Packers.

Hopefully Rodgers does come back this week, we win out, and advance in the playoffs, but the simple fact is, a lot of people in this forum are in total denial of the inadequate job done by Ted Thompson - and it goes way beyond just backup QB.



Speculation? Are you that stupid to think that the Broncos would be 10-2 with Brock Osweiler at QB? He's completed 4 passes in his career. And he is the experienced backup.

It's easy to have all the answers, I guess. So here's my questions.

The Packers have 16.1M tied up in their top 8 OL (I am assuming it's TT's fault that Sherrod and Bulaga got hurt...)
Packers have 4.7M in their 4 safeties.
They have 17.5M in their 7 DL.

So do better than Ted. Put for forth the effort to back up your criticism. Show me what he should have on the team.

FYI- #1 2013 Safety in FA has a 2013 Cap # of 9M. Double what the Packers have in all 4 of their safeties.
blank
Offline DoddPower  
#65 Posted : Thursday, December 5, 2013 5:39:31 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Posts: 2,582
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 1,469
Applause Received: 353

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
Speculation? Are you that stupid to think that the Broncos would be 10-2 with Brock Osweiler at QB? He's completed 4 passes in his career. And he is the experienced backup.

It's easy to have all the answers, I guess. So here's my questions.

The Packers have 16.1M tied up in their top 8 OL (I am assuming it's TT's fault that Sherrod and Bulaga got hurt...)
Packers have 4.7M in their 4 safeties.
They have 17.5M in their 7 DL.

So do better than Ted. Put for forth the effort to back up your criticism. Show me what he should have on the team.

FYI- #1 2013 Safety in FA has a 2013 Cap # of 9M. Double what the Packers have in all 4 of their safeties.


Don't feed the clueless troll.

Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages«<345
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF 2.1.0 | YAF © 2003-2014, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.149 seconds.