Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
16 Pages123>»

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
uffda udfa  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 10:02:53 AM(UTC)
Jimmy Graham has been ruled a TE for purposes of the franchise tag costing him 5.3 million. In order to acquire Graham under tag rules we'd have to offer New Orleans two 1st rounders. Given our brutal history with 1st round draft picks, would you cough up two 1st's for Graham?

That is something I would consider especially given Finley's probable non return and the Packers love affair with TE's. It's great Richard Rodgers looked good in OTA's but there's a gaping hole at that position.

In this slow time of the year hypothetical topic, the signing of Graham would cost you the resigning of Nelson or Cobb.... I'd still do it.

I think we can live without guys like Sherrod, Perry, Harrell, etc for Jimmy Graham and find another WR to replace Jordy or Randall.

My only pause with this hypothetical is Graham will be 28 at midseason. We'd only get one for sure solid contract with him. 6'7 guys who run 4.53 aren't easy to find and nearly impossible with the talent of Jimmy Graham.

It'd have to work out better than Joe Johnson. RollEyes
nerdmann  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 10:05:14 AM(UTC)
I don't think we have a "brutal" record drafting in the first round.

And no, price is WAY too high.
Zero2Cool  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 10:22:32 AM(UTC)
Over the last two seasons Graham has 21 drops, Finley 11.




musccy  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 10:35:33 AM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
I don't think we have a "brutal" record drafting in the first round.

And no, price is WAY too high.


Agreed. A Rod, Raji, and CM3 were all T.T. 1st rounders.

Two 1sts for one year of one player doesn't add up for me.
Pack93z  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 10:35:51 AM(UTC)
No.. on a couple of fronts.

1. You would have to consume a franchise tag per season on him or overpay him verse the norm for TE's. Seems like it is going to be a headache for the team.. why deal with that?

2. Dreadful in the first round? I disagree.. 2 firsts for him a TE.. with our scheme.. no.

3. I think we sit and watch how this plays out.. if it becomes a problem which it may become.. the price tag for him will decrease. But you will be inheriting problem # 1 regardless.
uffda udfa  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 12:10:20 PM(UTC)
musccy said: Go to Quoted Post
Agreed. A Rod, Raji, and CM3 were all T.T. 1st rounders.

Two 1sts for one year of one player doesn't add up for me.


Obviously, you're not giving up two 1st's for one year...you'd have a contract agreed to before you ever pulled the trigger. It'd be a multi year deal.

I did laugh when I read we wouldn't want to give up two firsts and Raji was mentioned. The guy had NO interest from anyone. Another wash out first rounder.

As to drop rate, he played with a wrist injury during his terrible drop season. His career drop rate is 9.1%: from Mlive.com:

Drops are the biggest concern with Ebron. According to a RotoWorld study, he put 11.4 percent of his targets on the ground last year. That's a pretty poor percentage, but only slightly worse than the career drop rates of Graham (9.1 percent), Vernon Davis (9.8 percent) and Rob Gronkowski (8.1 percent).

Jimmy would be unreal in our O. Where did we suffer most last year? RED ZONE OFFENSE. We were very poor down there. Enter Jimmy Graham...problem solved. Difference between scoring a TD last year vs. SF in playoffs and kicking FG that led to loss, possibly.

Give me a TRUE STAR in Graham. They gave 8 million to Finley. I'm sure we could work something out with Jimmy.
musccy  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 12:54:22 PM(UTC)
Clearly Raji is not the player he once was, but he was a meaningful contributor to the SB season, so I wouldn't call him a disaster either.

As far as Graham, I know he can catch, get TDs, and tear down FG uprights, but can he block? I honestly don't know, I don't follow him that closely, but I'm framing the question that way because I feel it's more of what the Packers need. Especially with the team transitioning to a bigger emphasis in the running game, and with a number of good receiving threats in the backfield and and at WR, do we need to spend big $ at that position as well? We're about to drop a lot of money on Cobb and Nelson to catch the ball, do we need another 8+mil receiving option?
uffda udfa  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 1:51:26 PM(UTC)
musccy said: Go to Quoted Post
Clearly Raji is not the player he once was, but he was a meaningful contributor to the SB season, so I wouldn't call him a disaster either.

As far as Graham, I know he can catch, get TDs, and tear down FG uprights, but can he block? I honestly don't know, I don't follow him that closely, but I'm framing the question that way because I feel it's more of what the Packers need. Especially with the team transitioning to a bigger emphasis in the running game, and with a number of good receiving threats in the backfield and and at WR, do we need to spend big $ at that position as well? We're about to drop a lot of money on Cobb and Nelson to catch the ball, do we need another 8+mil receiving option?


In my mind, if you sign Graham you are not signing both Nelson and Cobb. Jordy or Randall would be sacrificed for Jimmy. I don't think Graham is much of a blocker... do you really want your superstar WR TE in as a blocker? He's lethal in the passing game. The money is likely there as we ponied up 8 million for Jermichael on a bit of a prove it deal. Graham has proven it and then some so I'm sure we could cough 10-12 million for him at the expense of letting Jordy or Randall go which is a consideration as it is now. We don't know if Randall wants to be a Packer in the same way Jordy seems to. We may not be able to resign him at all and using the tag puts us at around 12 million for one year of Randall.

Yes, two 1st's is a lot to give up, but if we're going to be drafting toward the end of the 1st and with our failure rate, I think that's an acceptable trade off to get a known superstar vs. two potential busts or injury situations. You just never really know. Graham is a known quantity who changes games especially in the red zone where our biggest need on O lies. How is that going to change this season? It likely won't and will be a frustrating thing to watch.

Maybe, the Saints pull the tag and we can send them one first and something else... a player perhaps? Nick Perry? I doubt many, if any, would agree with me, but I believe this is something Ted Thompson would consider. He will make plays for the right kind of player and we just happen to have a major need at TE and in the redzone. Odds are insanely low this would happen, but I bet Ted Thompson sniffs it out a little if things get rocky with Jimmy and the Saints.

steveishere  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 2:58:02 PM(UTC)
Between the picks and the money that's a lot of resources invested in 1 player that just seems unnecessary with how good our offense already is. That seems like a move someone would make if they were desperate to get their pass game going and that's really not an issue here.
OlHoss1884  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:20:54 PM(UTC)
Without Graham I suspect the Packers may have the best offense in the league this year, so no, I would not give up ONE first rounder let alone two. As valuable as he is as an asset, the Packers do not wont for receivers...we need a TE who can block a little, too, which Graham does about as well as I do.

While any team that has him will be the better for it, to me there is no sense in giving up anything valuable for a player who doesn't really fit a true "need".
nerdmann  
#11 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:46:37 PM(UTC)
I'd consider giving up a second for him.
uffda udfa  
#12 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 3:52:22 PM(UTC)
How is he not a need? I'm puzzled by that statement. For as good as our O is or can be...it struggles in the red zone. WHY is that going to change this season? What's changed? Subtract Jermichael and James Jones and add two rookies and we're better in the red zone? Pure utter nonsense. I'm as big of a fan as anyone here but to think this offense is going to be unstoppable is laughable as we were plenty stoppable in the redzone vs. better defenses. That will continue to be a problem until it's addressed and it hasn't been. Graham blows the red zone issue out of the water. We're fortunate Crosby was good last year... if he reverts to who he was 2 seasons ago with our red zone issues we're going to lose our fair share of close games due to our red zone woes.

I prefer 7 to a Mason Crosby FG attempt but that's just me and I prefer not to falsely believe that subtracting Finley, Jones and adding a rookie WR and TE is going to fix our redzone issues.
dhazer  
#13 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 5:20:57 PM(UTC)
I say this is an easy question and the answer is not just no but a huge HELL NO. Why do we lose 2 wrs for a TE and did we forget that we won a Super Bowl with Quarless as our TE?

To me Graham and Gronk are over rated because look at the teams they play on, They don't have any great WRS on the teams, so they are the main targets, thus the big numbers.
uffda udfa  
#14 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 6:50:11 PM(UTC)
dhazer said: Go to Quoted Post
I say this is an easy question and the answer is not just no but a huge HELL NO. Why do we lose 2 wrs for a TE and did we forget that we won a Super Bowl with Quarless as our TE?

To me Graham and Gronk are over rated because look at the teams they play on, They don't have any great WRS on the teams, so they are the main targets, thus the big numbers.


To me that tells me how special Graham is... EVERYONE knows it's going to him and he still produces huge numbers.

How do we lose 2 WR's? We likely lose one...Randall or Jordy.

We won the SB with Zombo at OLB opposite Matthews but we spent a 1st rounder to replace Zombo because it was a need. TE is a major need for this team. Andrew Quarless isn't much. We're used to a threat at TE being on the field.

You may believe it's crazy but I believe Ted Thompson has his eye on this. I say that based on giving Finley 8 million and our fascination with the TE position and having no proven option there.

mi_keys  
#15 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 7:12:10 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
For as good as our O is or can be...it struggles in the red zone. WHY is that going to change this season? What's changed? Subtract Jermichael and James Jones and add two rookies and we're better in the red zone?


Last year was a statistical anomoly for our offense during the Rodgers/McCarthy era. Here are our redzone TD conversion rate rankings since 2008:

2008: 5
2009: 7
2010: 4
2011: 3
2012: 1
2013: 26

We played most of last year without Finley so how much are we really subtracting year over year?

We played two thirds of the year without Cobb. We played half the year without Rodgers. Bulaga and Sherrod are returning from injury. Our other starting tackle from last year has another year experience. Quarless and Bostick improved towards the end of last year. We've brought in 5 rookies at WR/TE I can think of offhand (our 4 draft picks and Lyerla). The first of those draft picks, Adams, was touted for his vertical/high-pointing ability and his hands, two very useful tools in the red zone. Eddie Lacy has another year of experience.

So is it really so inconceivable that we'll do better in the red zone?

As for the proposed trade, absolutely and unequivocally no. The cost is simply way too much.
cheeseheads123  
#16 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 9:04:40 PM(UTC)
Can he play defense?

This offense is more than capable of winning a championship.
uffda udfa  
#17 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 11:07:54 PM(UTC)
Profootballtalk.com mentions Packers as a team that hypothetically could pursue Graham:

http://profootballtalk.n...am-make-a-run-at-graham/

'If anyone actually does it, a franchise with a need at the position that expects to pick low in the first round next year (e.g., the Packers) and/or an NFC South team whose Hall of Fame tight end has retired (i.e., the Falcons) would make sense.'

---Respected NFL writer, Mike Freeman said a half dozen teams might make a run at Graham. Packers "make sense". It ain't crazy and am not sure why the strong reaction against it.

Our O likely is NOT good enough to beat Seattle and it hasn't been good enough to beat SF for a few years. Graham could get us over the SF hump and help us compete with Seattle.
DarkaneRules  
#18 Posted : Wednesday, July 2, 2014 11:39:21 PM(UTC)
Sha right... like when pigs fly out of my butt!
lolleren  
#19 Posted : Thursday, July 3, 2014 12:27:38 AM(UTC)
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
Profootballtalk.com mentions Packers as a team that hypothetically could pursue Graham:

http://profootballtalk.n...am-make-a-run-at-graham/

'If anyone actually does it, a franchise with a need at the position that expects to pick low in the first round next year (e.g., the Packers) and/or an NFC South team whose Hall of Fame tight end has retired (i.e., the Falcons) would make sense.'

---Respected NFL writer, Mike Freeman said a half dozen teams might make a run at Graham. Packers "make sense". It ain't crazy and am not sure why the strong reaction against it.

Our O likely is NOT good enough to beat Seattle and it hasn't been good enough to beat SF for a few years. Graham could get us over the SF hump and help us compete with Seattle.


I for one do not think you are crazy, and it is something we need to look into, I think 2 firsts is abit too much, but if it could be worked out so we give up a first 2015 and perhaps either a second or third in 2016 I would jump at it, assuming we could still keep either Cobb or Nelson.
Most likely Nelson, since Cobb in slot is a luxury and with Graham on the team alot of his production would come out of the slot position.
StarrMax1  
#20 Posted : Thursday, July 3, 2014 6:27:55 AM(UTC)
Giving up draft picks, especially 1's and 2's. is not Ted Thompsons way.

Why bring in a guy who may or may not stick around, and if he does, he is going to want WR money (10 mil + a year), when the team already has 2 solid(not spectacular) TE's in Quarless and Taylor, and a group of rookies and 1 yr guys who are going to be pushing them for starting jobs.

This is off season silly talk.
But it is something to talk about.

[grin1]
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
16 Pages123>»
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.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
beast (8h) : Who are the longshots? Jags? Saints? Redskins? and who?
SINCITYCHEEZE (8h) : Buckeye closing in on 4 Longshots in Pickem today....Son you need to hook me up we could make a killing on some parlays next weekend. Lol
beast (9h) : Bears ran it 60% of the time...
beast (13h) : Bears tried hard to give it away, but Steelers couldn't take it
Mucky Tundra (14h) : Lot of injuries :(
Zero2Cool (15h) : OUT for the Packers: WR Randall Cobb S Kentrell Brice CB Davon House LB Jake Ryan LB Nick Perry T David Bakhtiari DT Mike Daniels
beast (15h) : Ravens/Jags must be a FF nightmare, as ol' TEs who never score, had 4 of the 6 TDs
beast (15h) : Bears beating Steelers at halftime.
beast (15h) : https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/yp89dj/stephen-a-smith-points-out-nfls-paid-patriotism-problem
beast (15h) : I just read that it wasn't until the NFL started getting paid by the DoD (in 2009), that players were on the sidelines for the Anthem. (I ca
Zero2Cool (15h) : apparently it was comon to stay in lockeroom years ago
Zero2Cool (15h) : i couldn't find anything confirming its against the rules
beast (15h) : Is it against the rules to be in the lockerroom for the Anthem?
yooperfan (17h) : Prolly some fines coming down.
Zero2Cool (17h) : it is? this could be interesting
yooperfan (17h) : It's against league rules for a team not to be on the field during the National Anthem.
Nonstopdrivel (17h) : Chat room posting to the top instead of bottom again.
Zero2Cool (17h) : Jordy Nelson IN. Randall Cobb OUT.
Nonstopdrivel (17h) : Where is everybody? There's plenty of football to talk about!
yinzer (18h) : what??
Zero2Cool (18h) : Today's Birthdays: mi_keys (29)
Zero2Cool (18h) : Steelers Will Remain In Locker Room During National Anthem
Zero2Cool (18h) : thanks
buckeyepackfan (23h) : Good Morning Packer Fans! Gameday! GO! PACK! GO!
buckeyepackfan (23h) : Happy Belated Birthday Z2C!
beast (24-Sep) : Happy Birthday
wpr (23-Sep) : Hope you had a great day Z.
uffda udfa (23-Sep) : Happy Birthday, Z.
macbob (23-Sep) : Z2C-Hope you had a wonderful birthday! Thanks for providing us a great place to hang out.
Smokey (23-Sep) : Anyone watching the Utah vs Arizona tonight .
Cheesey (22-Sep) : No..."Fired FROM the forge!"LOL!
Smokey (21-Sep) : A "Forged in Fire" wash out ? LOL
Cheesey (21-Sep) : Zero got cut??? I TOLD him not to play with knives!
uffda udfa (21-Sep) : Spriggs to IR.
uffda udfa (21-Sep) : Nick Perry having surgery on finger likely out this week.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2017 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 7:30 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 8 @ 3:25 PM
at Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 15 @ 12:00 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Monday, Nov 6 @ 7:30 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
RAVENS
Sunday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
at Steelers
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 10 @ 12:00 PM
at Browns
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Saturday, Dec 23 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 12:00 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
26m / Green Bay Packers Talk / isocleas2

28m / Green Bay Packers Talk / isocleas2

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

23-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

22-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

22-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

21-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

21-Sep / Around The NFL / Cheesey

21-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

20-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

Headlines