Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
6 Pages<1234>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Online TheKanataThrilla  
#11 Posted : Friday, January 18, 2013 8:59:58 AM(UTC)
TheKanataThrilla

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Canada
Joined: 9/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 154
Applause Received: 118

Originally Posted by: RajiRoar Go to Quoted Post
Think

diddn't someone mention this in another post?


It is a league of copy-cats. The back shoulder throw is employed by most offenses now. The 2 TE attack with a WR who can stretch the field will take some drafting to implement, but should be do-able. I like the idea of a 2 TE attack as it is hard to defend and it has the ability to chew up clock. It also means our adequate but not spectacular running game is all we really need.
"Stumbling from one disaster to another" Lost Together (Blue Rodeo)
Offline Wade  
#12 Posted : Friday, January 18, 2013 10:22:04 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 683
Applause Received: 715

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder Go to Quoted Post
I don't see a single way this'd happen.

The closest thing would be a franchise tag and trade kind of thing. Something we've all called for with Flynn and Jenkins in 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Not Ted's style.

There's a couple of ways people would fit this under the cap and justify spending 10 million dollars on Greg.

One calls for us to cut Tramon. I've gone into that one in the Jennings vs Williams thread, so I won't do it again here.

The other one's to re-allocate Driver's money, like Kevin suggested. Not a big fan of this one, either.

You're going to be operating awfully close to the cap, while we have very capable players at the position and could sign a 3rd, 4th WR a lot cheaper/draft one in april. Doesn't seem like it benefits us a whole lot for the risk we're taking, when we have a couple of must-sign players in line to get a contract extension.

Jennings is expendable at this point, while guys like Raji, Matthews, Williams etc leave you awfully thin at a certain position.

Next to that, Jennings is just not as talented as people tend to give him credit for. He's good, no doubt about it, but he's going towards 30, has some injury problems and has always been one tier below the elite.

He's not coming back.


I don't understand why everyone is still so keen on Raji. He's had two part years (end of 2010 and end of regular season in 2012) where he's been good. The rest of the time, he's disappeared. And if you look closely, it's not the usual "disappears because he's doing a thankless job of nose tackle who occupies two players but has low tackle numbers). It's "disappears because he can regularly be tied up with one blocker". That's what makes Pickett a superior DT to me. Unless he's hurt, or gassed in the 4th quarter because he's had to play too many snaps, he virtually always takes two blockers out of the equation. Raji doesn't.

He's had two 5-6 game streaks of dominance and one cool discount-double-check commercial. If it came down to "Raji or Jennings", I'd take the consistent high level of performance of Jennings every time. And go back to the draft/free agent drawing board in search of another starting NT.

Matthews v. Jennings. Matthews in a no brainer.

Williams v Jennings -- I don't know anymore. Before this year I would have said Williams in a heartbeat, because I thought him our best cover guy. Now, I just don't know.

And lets not forget, of the teams who would be substantially improved by signing Jennings, three of them reside in the NFC North. Cutler with Marshall AND Jennings, Stafford with Johnson AND Jennings, those would be particularly scary IMO.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Offline Jlapp  
#13 Posted : Friday, January 18, 2013 10:29:13 AM(UTC)
Jlapp

Rank: Fresh Cheesehead

United States
Joined: 1/17/2013(UTC)
Location: IA

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 1

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
And lets not forget, of the teams who would be substantially improved by signing Jennings, three of them reside in the NFC North. Cutler with Marshall AND Jennings, Stafford with Johnson AND Jennings, those would be particularly scary IMO.


If the packers can't afford to keep Jennings, there is no way in hell the Lions would be able to sign him. They'd have like 50% of their cap in those 3 players. Bears are similar position as Packers. Could make it work for 2013 but both of their corners scheduled to hit free agency in 2014.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Zero2Cool on 1/18/2013(UTC)
Offline DakotaT  
#14 Posted : Monday, January 21, 2013 3:49:01 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 666
Applause Received: 1,371

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
I gave my reason why the Packers will franchise Greg Jennings. It's sound and reasonable. No one has proven the theory impossible or unlikely. Bring it!

Jordy Nelson, Greg Jennings, James Jones and Randall Cobb are very talented. Of the group, only Jennings would be more successful in another offense.

Nelson, Jones and Cobb are products of the offense.

Jennings #1.
Nelson #2.
Jones #3.
Cobb #3.

Packers have two 3's, one 2 and one 1.


All your theory is about is conjecture. The reason Jennings won't be franchised is because he isn't worth that much money just like Uncle Ted didn't think Wells was worthy of the franchise tag last year. If Jennings is franchised, I would be surprised if he wasn't traded for picks prior to the draft.
UserPostedImage
Offline Zero2Cool  
#15 Posted : Monday, January 21, 2013 5:01:56 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,966
Applause Received: 2,223

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
All your theory is about is conjecture. The reason Jennings won't be franchised is because he isn't worth that much money just like Uncle Ted didn't think Wells was worthy of the franchise tag last year. If Jennings is franchised, I would be surprised if he wasn't traded for picks prior to the draft.


You have no theory and you are solely basing your response on conjecture where mine had facts in it. You can look them up yourself. Also, Scott Wells didn't want to return to the Packers and admitted as much. and Wells wasn't franchise tag worthy. That brings up a question, is Greg Jennings worth the $10 million for 2013 season?

Greg Jennings is clearly the best WR the Packers have. I'd rather Jennings on the roster and let Jermichael Finley go and see Andrew Quarless earn the starting TE position.

There are some consequences to tagging someone an hoping for a trade. It happened once, with Corey Williams. The CBA and some rules have changed since then, which makes me doubt we'll see that move again for the Ted Thompson Packers. The moment that player signs the tender, it becomes guaranteed cash and that is exactly why the Packers didn't franchise tag Matt Flynn. He would have been entitled to something like $15 million to sit on the bench.

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
Offline DakotaT  
#16 Posted : Monday, January 21, 2013 5:18:24 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 666
Applause Received: 1,371

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
You have no theory and you are solely basing your response on conjecture where mine had facts in it. You can look them up yourself. Also, Scott Wells didn't want to return to the Packers and admitted as much. and Wells wasn't franchise tag worthy. That brings up a question, is Greg Jennings worth the $10 million for 2013 season?

Greg Jennings is clearly the best WR the Packers have. I'd rather Jennings on the roster and let Jermichael Finley go and see Andrew Quarless earn the starting TE position.

There are some consequences to tagging someone an hoping for a trade. It happened once, with Corey Williams. The CBA and some rules have changed since then, which makes me doubt we'll see that move again for the Ted Thompson Packers. The moment that player signs the tender, it becomes guaranteed cash and that is exactly why the Packers didn't franchise tag Matt Flynn. He would have been entitled to something like $15 million to sit on the bench.



A three year deal is all I'd offer Jennings and not at $10M per either. Just because he happens to be our top receiver at the moment doesn't justify overpaying him. The Wells and Jennings situation is a lot different because one of the strengths of the Packers is the depth of the WR position - but the depth of the OLine causes a lot of concern. The Packers should have franchised Wells. Who gives a shit about hurt feelings.

I would be for franchising Jennings for a year - but then he is gone anyway after that.
UserPostedImage
Offline play2win  
#17 Posted : Monday, January 21, 2013 5:19:31 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

I think Jennings might be happy if he gets paid. But, something tells me he wants that shot at the open market, and Ted just might let him hit it. That's kind of his MO.
Offline Cheesey  
#18 Posted : Monday, January 21, 2013 5:59:37 PM(UTC)
Cheesey

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 7/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 200
Applause Received: 435

I think play to win is right. I think Jennings
has an inflated opinions of himself and will want
the moon. seems like his talk has been
towards his wanting out of Green Bay.
I think he's good, but his attitude this season
has been strange.
I don't see Ted overpaying for him.
besides the fact that gb needs a full
defensive overhaul. I don't know if they
can get enough defense pieces to fix
the problems they have to be competitive
with the higher tier teams.
UserPostedImage
Offline blueleopard  
#19 Posted : Monday, January 21, 2013 7:14:01 PM(UTC)
blueleopard

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/22/2008(UTC)

Applause Received: 72

It depends on what kind of ass Jennings' agent is.

Jennings definitely falls under the category of Packers people, and I think he definitely would consider a discount. As the #1 WR here, he knows that there are two other #1 receivers on this team, and he knows that Jermichael Finley could have another year to prove himself.

He already stated quite plainly that he "hopes" he's not franchised. IMO, especially considering the fact that he's a 2nd round draft choice who has outplayed every contract he's signed, he deserves to hit the open market. Maybe he'll turn out to be like James Jones. Not in the sense that nobody will show interest, but in the sense that he'll figure that GB is the proper home for him.

I think we all know Jennings needs Green Bay more than Green Bay needs him, but I also think the goal of any NFL player on the business sides of things who turns out to be good deserves their shot at a big payday.
Danreb Victorio A Believer of Greg Jennings
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#20 Posted : Monday, January 21, 2013 7:22:59 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 13
Applause Received: 398

Originally Posted by: blueleopard Go to Quoted Post
It depends on what kind of ass Jennings' agent is.

Jennings definitely falls under the category of Packers people, and I think he definitely would consider a discount. As the #1 WR here, he knows that there are two other #1 receivers on this team, and he knows that Jermichael Finley could have another year to prove himself.

He already stated quite plainly that he "hopes" he's not franchised. IMO, especially considering the fact that he's a 2nd round draft choice who has outplayed every contract he's signed, he deserves to hit the open market. Maybe he'll turn out to be like James Jones. Not in the sense that nobody will show interest, but in the sense that he'll figure that GB is the proper home for him.

I think we all know Jennings needs Green Bay more than Green Bay needs him, but I also think the goal of any NFL player on the business sides of things who turns out to be good deserves their shot at a big payday.


Not a good thing then. His Agent is the same as Fitzgerald. Who has also has Suh, who held out his rookie contact, and Michael Crabtree who also held out into the regular season.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
6 Pages<1234>»
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

Tweeter

Recent Topics
54m / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DakotaT

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Tezzy

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / porky88

22-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / packman82

22-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

22-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / macbob

21-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool