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.
3 Pages<123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Online nerdmann  
#26 Posted : Friday, March 29, 2013 11:41:18 AM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,715
Applause Received: 667

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
I'm just zipping through some stuff on Twitter, saw a comment from Osi Umenyiora saying the Falcons are the most talented team he has been on. It got me thinking about what we do to make our team better, and I wonder whether we hurt ourselves more than help ourselves with such a strong policy of staying away from Free Agents?

This is not a bash Ted Thompson thread. That is not the intent.

That is one hell of a lot of talent they have amassed there in ATL. Same with BAL, and SF. Proven talent at that. I look at how we've been mentioned as possible destinations in all the chatter and realize we were pretty much just played by most players looking for new homes to get better deals.

Are we not even a consideration to some players who could really help us?

Personally, I think a team's roster is best developed by adding great young talent via the draft, with some veterans added at key positions to help show some of the younger guys the way. A balance if you will.

Somehow, I think we've lost that balance. We've swung so far to the other side of FA where we don't add top talent, that many players available probably don't look at Green Bay as an attractive alternative destination. For instance, remember the Marshawn Lynch signing in SEA. I know Woodson really wanted GB to get him. Granted, we won the SB that year. However, we've been looking for that punishing RB element ever since, while Lynch has gone onto 1204 yds in 2011, and 1590 yds in 2012. How differently would our team have looked if we had Lynch, and used that 2011 R3 on a position other than RB Alex Green?

Would we have run the table in 2011 by adding Lynch in 2010 along with a top DL FA in 2011 or a good DL with the R3?

There is indeed a method to Thompson's approach, as both FA and draft & develop register around a 50% success rate from what I read recently (sorry, can't recall where). Maybe Thompson's method will prove best. Then again... I feel like we really missed out in capitalizing on how hot we were 2011 by failing to add a powerful pass rusher or two. I believe that could have taken us over the top. And, we were missing the very same thing in 2012, while waiting and hoping for draftees with one or two years experience, or none at all, to produce at a high level. Meanwhile, we lose out on opportunities with a potent offense and Rodgers poised to deliver.

Our recent Brad Jones signing seemed a bit frivolous to me, as his play was decent, and there is a possibility he will improve, but he signed for more than some top talents around the league at other positions of great need to the Packers. Those dollars that Thompson doesn't wish to waste on FAs, well, there is a strong possibility they have been wasted in other areas by wanting to keep his own, if some of this "potential" is not realized.

I'm curious to know your thoughts, as it seems Green Bay is losing some of it's lustre as a possible destination for top FA talent, especially being as devoid of top talent as we are at so many positions: S, DE, LB, LT, C, RB, TE. In listing those, I'm merely talking about how our depth or lack thereof may be perceived by others around the league.

So, what do you think?


For every Osi Unemora and Marshawn Lynch, Ted finds a Sam Shields, a Don Barclay, a DuJuan Harris, a Desmond Moses. Go on down the list.

Meanwhile these teams create a window, then enter cap hell. Fuck that shit.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
thanks Post received 2 applause.
Zero2Cool on 3/29/2013(UTC), play2win on 3/29/2013(UTC)
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#27 Posted : Friday, March 29, 2013 11:56:12 AM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 96
Applause Received: 161

This is an interesting question.

In 1985, shortly after losing Game 7 of the World Series, Whitey Herzog, Head Coach of the Cardinals was asked if this was the worst defeat of his life (Or something close). He said, "Heck no, I wouldn't mind losing the World Series every year. That means I got here and that's a pretty dang good accomplishment!" (Paraphrasing.)

I think we are doomed to depression if winning the Super Bowl is the stick by which we measure our team. The Packers are one of 3 teams to be in the playoffs for 4 consecutive years and I think 5 is a realistic goal. That defines a great team, in my opinion. It takes more than a great team to win the Super Bowl, though. It takes tremendous luck. And Health.

What if last year, the scabs hadn't blown the call in Seattle? Then the Packers would have been the #2 seed and had a week off instead of the 49ers. And the game would have been at Lambeau. Would that have made a difference? It might have. One unlucky call, early in the season, might have changed the entire playoffs last year. That's the Super Bowl, baby. That's the kind of luck it takes to win the SB.

The current Packers were built in the draft with a few UDFA along the way. Why is there pressure to sign FA's in order to maintain that greatness? Why do we not believe that we can continue to draft and develop and excel? Don't give me window of opportunity because I think our window exists as long as Aaron Rodgers is QB and that could approach a decade.

Someone mentioned the Bears in this thread. They are a prime example of what is bad. They have a franchise QB (Talent wise, not head wise). They have pursued that one piece that will put them over the top. How well has that worked? They have big money tied up in a RB that is probably done. Their OL is 5x worse than the Packers (I believe that not one of their starters would have even made the Packers roster). They trade for Marshall and he is a major talent. How many playoff games has he won for them? Their best players last year: Briggs, Tillman, Marshall, Peppers have an average of 10.5 seasons. The Packers only have 5 players with more than 7 years experience and that include Benson and Kuhn, not exactly keys to the team. The Bears are old and there is no Perry, Shields, House, McMillian, Moses, Cobb, Heyward breaking out for them. But the Bears have consistently played the FA game. Where has that gotten them? Increased ticket sales, but old and bad on the field.

I am not a big fan of FA. I think it has much more potential to hurt a team long term than to help short term. I like being a consistent winner. Even if that means we have to lose in the playoffs every year. Think about how many teams wish they had our problems...
thanks Post received 3 applause.
Zero2Cool on 3/29/2013(UTC), DakotaT on 3/29/2013(UTC), DoddPower on 3/29/2013(UTC)
Offline play2win  
#28 Posted : Friday, March 29, 2013 12:30:44 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

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

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

QC, I'm just doomed man! Look at my freaking user name!

A bazillion Super Bowls, please!

There are some great comments in here. Yeah, we may have fared quite differently had we not lost so many to injury - and those were key players as some have mentioned. Far too numerous over the last 3 seasons. I hope they can get that rectified, or that our luck there turns more in our favor.
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#29 Posted : Friday, March 29, 2013 12:49:42 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 96
Applause Received: 161

Don't for a second think that I was smiling after the 49er game. I was not happy. But then I realized it could have been a much worse ending to the season. Think about rooting for the Browns, Raiders, or Rams. That would suck.

Besides, I live in IL. As long as we beat the Bears so I can gloat for 8 months, my life is pretty good!
thanks Post received 1 applause.
play2win on 3/29/2013(UTC)
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#30 Posted : Friday, March 29, 2013 2:15:01 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 13
Applause Received: 398

Some things to look at. Had we signed Lynch, we would have to have added him to the list of players that needed contracts over the last couple years. Williams, Sitton, Nelson, Jones. Would we have had the money to sign them? We moved cap space forward to this which likely will be used towards Rodgers extension, would that not be possible if we had gotten Lynch? The impact of a signing is more than just a year.

I have pretty strong beliefs, that you do build a team through the draft. But, I also beleive, the draft can only take you so far. When a draft is graded years later, if a team gets 2 or 3 starters it is considered an A draft. That means with 22 starters, it would take over 7 years to draft a team. The problem comes in that the first players have come up for contract before you draft a full team. And unless you are able to keep them all, you are not only trying to fill what hasn't been through the draft, you are replacing players who move on also, and that doesn't account for injuries. So FA has to be a part of the plan, question is how big a part.

Normally with FA, I go with the Bob Barker approach. This player could be yours, IF, the price is right.

But I think the Packers are now and for a couple years in position, where a FA when the Price isn't right would be OK. When Ted started, he didn't have to worry about what position a player was at. Because we needed them all. Today, that is not so. We can't count on the Best Player being at a position we need. We need to look at, where we need players more. We need to be more aggressive in the Draft, similar to getting Raji and Matthews. Quality vs Quantity. And we need to fill in FA. I think we missed on not getting Jenkins back. 8mil over 3 years was in the Price is Right category for a player of his talent. And I think if we really want to take a shot for the SB, we can afford to overpay to rent a player. Offer that player more than market value for shorter term than they would normally be looking for.

With Teds Plan, I see the team being good, year in and year out. But I don't see the team being Great. I would give up a couple years being down, if it was because we took a shot a greatness.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 2 applause.
yooperfan on 3/29/2013(UTC), play2win on 3/29/2013(UTC)
Offline Gaycandybacon  
#31 Posted : Saturday, March 30, 2013 7:04:54 PM(UTC)
Gaycandybacon

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 9/17/2012(UTC)
Location: Hanover Park, IL

Applause Given: 145
Applause Received: 178

Honestly the Pats.. They aren't the GREATEST team on paper. Yet, they're always in contention every stinkin' year. It has to do with coaching, training, and getting good players on your team. And you know what I mean by good players. Having those great character guys on your team. Why do you think the good teams are always the ones that stay quiet? Patriots, Giants, Packers, Steelers all to name a few. The lions, cowboys, and jets to name a few fail every year for this feat.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 3/31/2013(UTC)
Offline play2win  
#32 Posted : Monday, April 1, 2013 4:31:39 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

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

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: Gaycandybacon Go to Quoted Post
Honestly the Pats.. They aren't the GREATEST team on paper. Yet, they're always in contention every stinkin' year. It has to do with coaching, training, and getting good players on your team. And you know what I mean by good players. Having those great character guys on your team. Why do you think the good teams are always the ones that stay quiet? Patriots, Giants, Packers, Steelers all to name a few. The lions, cowboys, and jets to name a few fail every year for this feat.


I agree with you, but I think this is missing the point.

There are those teams that often make their splashes in winning the March SBs. Teams that continually load up in free agency, and time and time again make the same mistakes.

What I am talking about is being so rigid in the opposite direction that you miss out on possibly landing a role player that unexpectedly takes your team over the top. There is a patience to that game as well, as I believe there are few teams that have notched that special player onto their rosters and gone on to immediately win the SB.

We've done it twice and won SBs. 1996 signing of Eugene Robinson, an 11 yr vet with the Seahawks, and the 2010 signing of Howard Green, and 8 yr vet from the Jets.

Both players filled a need area on the roster, and both made significant contributions towards winning the Super Bowl.
Offline DoddPower  
#33 Posted : Monday, April 1, 2013 3:35:36 PM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

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

Applause Given: 2,097
Applause Received: 530

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
I agree with you, but I think this is missing the point.

There are those teams that often make their splashes in winning the March SBs. Teams that continually load up in free agency, and time and time again make the same mistakes.

What I am talking about is being so rigid in the opposite direction that you miss out on possibly landing a role player that unexpectedly takes your team over the top. There is a patience to that game as well, as I believe there are few teams that have notched that special player onto their rosters and gone on to immediately win the SB.

We've done it twice and won SBs. 1996 signing of Eugene Robinson, an 11 yr vet with the Seahawks, and the 2010 signing of Howard Green, and 8 yr vet from the Jets.

Both players filled a need area on the roster, and both made significant contributions towards winning the Super Bowl.


This statement seems to imply that Ted Thompson is too rigid to make additions, but I don't think that's the case, at all. He is always looking at, speaking to, and investigating free agents, it's just the stars don't always align, for whatever reason. I'm sure he can make the stars align more often, but he's likely following an agreed upon budget and if negotiations get outside of that budget, the Packers are out of the game.

Offline texaspackerbacker  
#34 Posted : Monday, April 1, 2013 5:16:43 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 483
Applause Received: 294

I go all the way back to the Lombardi era and before, and I remember when a lot of people were saying we COULDN'T afford Grabowski and Anderson. Vince managed to snag them - both. Never mind the fact that neither turned out to be the superstar we hoped. Thompson has his way of doing things. I certainly don't agree with it all the time, but we can't really argue with the results in terms of a winning record. The point is, if the prize is great enough, he can and will get it for the Packers.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline dfosterf  
#35 Posted : Monday, April 1, 2013 5:29:30 PM(UTC)
dfosterf

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

United States
Joined: 8/19/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 208
Applause Received: 430

You fill your team with the best player available.

Blanket philosophies are foolish, imo. You do not weigh your success in free agency based on the whole league, for example.

I think we had a far better shot at a Super Bowl if Ted filled a few holes for us that he did not do. He strikes me as somewhat of a moron when he speaks. I know he's educated, etc. I do not see the brilliance... just sayin'... If he is so good at drafting, how could he not be better at picking some players that have played in the league?

We are satisfied as a fan base, we are in a small market, he gets good press, we shall fucking schlep along wading high just above- mediocrity, but below greatness, unless luck intervenes.
UserPostedImage
damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.



Offline texaspackerbacker  
#36 Posted : Monday, April 1, 2013 6:01:11 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 483
Applause Received: 294

Originally Posted by: dfosterf Go to Quoted Post
You fill your team with the best player available.

Blanket philosophies are foolish, imo. You do not weigh your success in free agency based on the whole league, for example.

I think we had a far better shot at a Super Bowl if Ted filled a few holes for us that he did not do. He strikes me as somewhat of a moron when he speaks. I know he's educated, etc. I do not see the brilliance... just sayin'... If he is so good at drafting, how could he not be better at picking some players that have played in the league?

We are satisfied as a fan base, we are in a small market, he gets good press, we shall fucking schlep along wading high just above- mediocrity, but below greatness, unless luck intervenes.


hahaha I suggested that "luck intervened" in PackerFanForum in Thompson getting Aaron Rodgers - saying Thompson was good but not a great GM. The TT-ophiles jumped all over me. I agree with you in principal about filling those few holes, etc., but on a case by case basis, I can't really think of any that I wish Thompson had paid what it would have taken to get the player. And yeah, he sure ain't charismatic or even quietly intelligent-sounding...... but we sure do have that great winning record hahaha.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline dfosterf  
#37 Posted : Monday, April 1, 2013 6:01:14 PM(UTC)
dfosterf

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

United States
Joined: 8/19/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 208
Applause Received: 430

Originally Posted by: dfosterf Go to Quoted Post
You fill your team with the best player available.

Blanket philosophies are foolish, imo. You do not weigh your success in free agency based on the whole league, for example.

I think we had a far better shot at a Super Bowl if Ted filled a few holes for us that he did not do. He strikes me as somewhat of a moron when he speaks. I know he's educated, etc. I do not see the brilliance... just sayin'... If he is so good at drafting, how could he not be better at picking some players that have played in the league?

We are satisfied as a fan base, we are in a small market, he gets good press, we shall fucking schlep along wading high just above- mediocrity, but below greatness, unless luck intervenes.


Of course it hurts us, we are just loyal. Loyal is different from correct.



UserPostedImage
damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.



Offline dfosterf  
#38 Posted : Monday, April 1, 2013 6:05:51 PM(UTC)
dfosterf

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

United States
Joined: 8/19/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 208
Applause Received: 430

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
hahaha I suggested that "luck intervened" in PackerFanForum in Thompson getting Aaron Rodgers - saying Thompson was good but not a great GM. The TT-ophiles jumped all over me. I agree with you in principal about filling those few holes, etc., but on a case by case basis, I can't really think of any that I wish Thompson had paid what it would have taken to get the player. And yeah, he sure ain't charismatic or even quietly intelligent-sounding...... but we sure do have that great winning record hahaha.


...Just so you know, I've defended him here at least on par with anyone on this forum, lol

UserPostedImage
damn skippy I'm an owner. I currently own a full .00001924537805515393 % of the Green Bay Packers.



Offline play2win  
#39 Posted : Tuesday, April 2, 2013 6:01:19 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

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

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Winning records mean about as much to me as Top Passers.

I want Championships from this group. Ted has done a great job getting us to this point where we remain competitive, but I believe more could be done to add veteran help at a position of need. He's got many of the hard to get pieces in place. Why not go for it a little bit more?

DL was a void spot after losing Jenkins, with no significant improvements added in going on 3 seasons. Had we retained Jenkins, or added a true replacement, I think we would have run that 2011 table, and possibly been more competitive in 2012.

Leaving holes as important as that on your roster with this collection of talent seems a waste, and an unnecessary risk.
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#40 Posted : Tuesday, April 2, 2013 12:14:28 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 96
Applause Received: 161

But you make it sound like Ted Thompson has ignored the position. In the last 3 drafts, he has drafted 5 DL, tied for most of any position with OL. Ted Thompson can't totally control how they develop. He can't control Mike Neal's injuries. He isn't at fault for Worthy's knee blowing out. Did you know in Feb 2011, that Mike Neal wasn't going to develop into an adequate replacement for Jenkins? I didn't. I bet the private depth chart at Lambeau Field was counting on it.

He has signed FA. They just didn't work.

You can criticize the results, but not the effort. Ted Thompson has attempted to address the issue the best he thinks he can. We have the luxury of criticizing the results, but we are not the ones that have to make decisions.

Going after high priced FAs is like the boy that asked Kate Upton to prom. It gets a lot of press. Somebody is famous for a bit. But at the end of the night, he is disappointed and unfulfilled.
Offline play2win  
#41 Posted : Tuesday, April 2, 2013 1:05:23 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

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

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
But you make it sound like Ted Thompson has ignored the position. In the last 3 drafts, he has drafted 5 DL, tied for most of any position with OL. Ted Thompson can't totally control how they develop. He can't control Mike Neal's injuries. He isn't at fault for Worthy's knee blowing out. Did you know in Feb 2011, that Mike Neal wasn't going to develop into an adequate replacement for Jenkins? I didn't. I bet the private depth chart at Lambeau Field was counting on it.

He has signed FA. They just didn't work.

You can criticize the results, but not the effort. Ted Thompson has attempted to address the issue the best he thinks he can. We have the luxury of criticizing the results, but we are not the ones that have to make decisions.

Going after high priced FAs is like the boy that asked Kate Upton to prom. It gets a lot of press. Somebody is famous for a bit. But at the end of the night, he is disappointed and unfulfilled.


Well, in the 2011 draft, Ted waited until his 8th selection before addressing DL. I'm sorry, that doesn't sit well with me, after letting your top pass rusher walk, with no viable replacement added via FA.

How is it that everyone on this board understands the importance of a pass rush to your secondary and your defense, but our own GM fails to insure, -insure - the need is addressed?

When you discard FA as an option, and I mean, the top talents in FA, not 3rd and 4th tier that barely make a roster, you count on hitting with all of your draft picks. Even to me this seems foolhardy. No one hits on all their picks. You don't have to dive into FA like some teams do, but you can certainly add a top veteran talent at a position of need to in effect, insure the position is addressed.

Great, Ted hit D with his first 6 picks last year. He'll damn near have to do the same again, and hope these players can contribute on the level we need them to if we are to improve defensively.

I will add, then where does that leave us on our offensive needs? I just don't like the approach.

Meanwhile, off goes NT Alan Branch to BUF for $3M on a 1 yr deal. We could have added Steven Jackson at RB, and still saved money, rather than keeping Finley on the roster, as a decoy... for God's sake!

I've heard enough crap about SJax being too old, but ATL knows he will punish defenses. Fucking punish them. That is exactly what we need!

BTW, your prom quote doesn't apply with such a broad brush. Reggie White. Charles Woodson. Ryan Pickett. Sean Jones. Santana Dotson. Andre Rison.

Name one prominent FA Ted has signed that did not work out. A Free Agent at his peak or near peak in his career. The only ones that qualify are Woodson and Pickett, and both were high priced in their markets.

Message modified by user Tuesday, April 2, 2013 1:18:44 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#42 Posted : Tuesday, April 2, 2013 1:54:35 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 13
Applause Received: 398

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
Well, in the 2011 draft, Ted waited until his 8th selection before addressing DL. I'm sorry, that doesn't sit well with me, after letting your top pass rusher walk, with no viable replacement added via FA.


The 2010 defense didn't drop production when Jenkins was out, and he was only back in limited usage during the playoffs and Superbowl. That defense didnt' have big holes to fill. We already had Neal who was to be Jenkins replacement.

He addressed the teams biggest need which was Tackle, also addressing the running, receiving, dline and DB.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
Offline play2win  
#43 Posted : Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:38:51 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

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

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
The 2010 defense didn't drop production when Jenkins was out, and he was only back in limited usage during the playoffs and Superbowl. That defense didnt' have big holes to fill. We already had Neal who was to be Jenkins replacement.

He addressed the teams biggest need which was Tackle, also addressing the running, receiving, dline and DB.


That's where we may be differing a bit. I do not see an unproven rookie who winds up injured during is 2nd game played and thrown on IR as any kind of insurance for the following year. Speaking of which, Neal played in only 7 games in 2011 with ZERO sacks and 1 whole tackle.

I don't think Nick Perry is worthy of being counted on to hold up at OLB opposite Matthews either. We need a proper backup, and backup plan.

If Perry does return well from injury and proves his talents on our D, great. Same with Neal.

I'm still waiting... I mean, c'mon!!!!! Neal had 11 Tackles in 11 games last year? Wow... No wonder we sucked so bad in run D...
Offline Pack93z  
#44 Posted : Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:41:22 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 400
Applause Received: 1,078

Yes history tells us Ted isn't going to pry open the checkbook wide open any offseason.. but he has shown more than once that he will go out and try to fill holes.. he just chooses to address his own first, then go through the draft process.. then start to evaluate what is left to fill. I can only remember Pickett being signed very early in the Free Agent period for market value.

Jeff Saturday was an attempt last season at filling a void in Free agency for a sizable sum.. it didn't work. Cedric Benson was another gamble, one that looked very promising prior to an injury.

He has been in chases for players in the past and this season in Steven Jackson... but I firmly think he places a premium to adhering to a value ratio that he deems fit. Some of that is cap related.. some of that is probably team unity related in keeping the pay scales in check.. and some of that is just adhering to a value structure.

Each year I see a handful of players that I would love to suit up for "my team".. at times they are the headliners.. and at times, they are role players or developing players. Most of the time.. I watch as they are signed and think.. I think that is too much for them. Not always.. but most times they are overpaid. And I am just a schmuck that watches football and has just about as much interest in the business side as in the pro on the field side.. I am sure guys like Ted with more information available to them view things similar... they would love to add certain players, but all things have to jive for it to happen.. one of those being the players wanting to come here.

Message modified by user Tuesday, April 2, 2013 2:56:06 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#45 Posted : Wednesday, April 3, 2013 8:17:57 AM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 96
Applause Received: 161

Let's look at another downside of signing a FA. You get older in 2 ways. If Ted Thompson signed SJax, who gets cut? Green, Harris or Starks? Because one of them goes. Starks has starter talent allegedly. Green is still recovering allegedly. Harris (FA pickup) is intriguing. So not only is your starter old, but you have to cut a young, developing (hopefully) back. And you can't use a draft pick. So in a year or 2, when SJax is in a wheelchair (But still costing $), you have to replace him. But you have reduced options because now all of your backs are in the 4+ years of experience and most backs don't last past that mark.

So while many of us are not excited about our RB's, if we had signed Jackson, in 2 years, we might be sitting here with no viable RB. At least now, we have potential in some bodies. But I'm an optimist.
Offline Rockmolder  
#46 Posted : Wednesday, April 3, 2013 8:45:44 AM(UTC)
Rockmolder

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2010

Netherlands
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 161
Applause Received: 264

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
Let's look at another downside of signing a FA. You get older in 2 ways. If Ted Thompson signed SJax, who gets cut? Green, Harris or Starks? Because one of them goes. Starks has starter talent allegedly. Green is still recovering allegedly. Harris (FA pickup) is intriguing. So not only is your starter old, but you have to cut a young, developing (hopefully) back. And you can't use a draft pick. So in a year or 2, when SJax is in a wheelchair (But still costing $), you have to replace him. But you have reduced options because now all of your backs are in the 4+ years of experience and most backs don't last past that mark.

So while many of us are not excited about our RB's, if we had signed Jackson, in 2 years, we might be sitting here with no viable RB. At least now, we have potential in some bodies. But I'm an optimist.


Sounds a little far fetched.

You cut just one of those running backs... The one with the least potential in your eyes. I figure it would've been Starks, because he's always injured, or Green, because he plays like Barry Sanders with Noah Herron talent.

That still leaves you with two guys on the roster, with the bright spot and change of pace back obviously being Harris at this point.

I'd go as far as saying that, had we signed Jackson, I would've held on Harris and let go of the rest, fill that up with a draft pick.

Lastly, when you start signing on talent and future potential alone, our WR roster would exist of Cobb, Ross, Boykin, Borel and Gurley.

Between that and our current group, I think I know who I'd rather have.
UserPostedImage
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#47 Posted : Wednesday, April 3, 2013 8:56:45 AM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 96
Applause Received: 161

The 49ers lost in 2011 NFC Championship game to Giants. They brought in 3 high profile FA. Was it Randy Moss, Brandon Jacobs or Mario Manningham that made the impact that got them to the Super Bowl?

Oh wait. They all were underachievers. Manningham only played in 12 games, starting just 10. Jacobs and Moss are already gone. Wow. Jacobs cost $1.5 million and had about 5 carries for 7 yards. Missed most of the year with injuries and attitude. Moss was $2.5 million for 28 catches and 3 TD's.

A year later and the 49ers are having to replace those players as well as the normal attrition.

Offline Rockmolder  
#48 Posted : Wednesday, April 3, 2013 9:09:04 AM(UTC)
Rockmolder

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2010

Netherlands
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 161
Applause Received: 264

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
The 49ers lost in 2011 NFC Championship game to Giants. They brought in 3 high profile FA. Was it Randy Moss, Brandon Jacobs or Mario Manningham that made the impact that got them to the Super Bowl?

Oh wait. They all were underachievers. Manningham only played in 12 games, starting just 10. Jacobs and Moss are already gone. Wow. Jacobs cost $1.5 million and had about 5 carries for 7 yards. Missed most of the year with injuries and attitude. Moss was $2.5 million for 28 catches and 3 TD's.

A year later and the 49ers are having to replace those players as well as the normal attrition.



First of all, those weren't big signings. All of them were one year prove it deals with not that much money tied upto them, with the exception of Manningham, who put up 450 yards before wrecking his knee. Not great, but not a big blow at $7,3 million over two years.

Second of all, that doesn't prove your point as much as it proves that they were bad signings in hindsight.

Did Woodson, going towards his 30s when he signed with us hinder us in developping other corners? On the contrary. And he became the league DMVP and mentored guys like Williams and Shields.

You don't waste age by having a veteran play in a starter spot, you waste it by having a guy like Driver on the roster as your number five guy. You pump talent in from the bottom, you don't force them into starting spots in the hope that they'll be any good.

UserPostedImage
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#49 Posted : Wednesday, April 3, 2013 9:28:30 AM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 96
Applause Received: 161

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post
That's where we may be differing a bit. I do not see an unproven rookie who winds up injured during is 2nd game played and thrown on IR as any kind of insurance for the following year. Speaking of which, Neal played in only 7 games in 2011 with ZERO sacks and 1 whole tackle.

I don't think Nick Perry is worthy of being counted on to hold up at OLB opposite Matthews either. We need a proper backup, and backup plan.

If Perry does return well from injury and proves his talents on our D, great. Same with Neal.

I'm still waiting... I mean, c'mon!!!!! Neal had 11 Tackles in 11 games last year? Wow... No wonder we sucked so bad in run D...


I am not arguing that Neal has worked. But he was the plan to replace Jenkins. Just because a plan doesn't work, doesn't mean it didn't exist and that it wasn't well thought out.

The Packers are not the Univ of Alabama. They don't have the luxury of 125 players on their roster. It is not possible to have high quality, starter ready backups at every position. Nobody does. The team has 42 real players on game day. They have to believe in Perry returning and excelling because they can't afford to spend big money on a backup to a #1 draft pick. Erik Walden got 8M guaranteed from the Colts! He was a backup that nobody on here wanted. Packers have to believe in Moses improving as their plan for Perry's replacement. That and a draft pick in 2013 and a UDFA.

I've already stated this winter that there is no worse situation, in my opinion, on our roster than backup QB. The gap between Aaron Rodgers and #2 makes the Grand Canyon look small. The consensus of this forum was "Oh well", "Harrell has improved", and "MM knows best". I am a lot more confident in the Packers plan to replace Perry than AR. But they can't have Tom Brady/ Drew Brees/ Manning on the bench for 'What if' purposes.
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#50 Posted : Wednesday, April 3, 2013 9:32:45 AM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 96
Applause Received: 161

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder Go to Quoted Post
Sounds a little far fetched.

You cut just one of those running backs... The one with the least potential in your eyes. I figure it would've been Starks, because he's always injured, or Green, because he plays like Barry Sanders with Noah Herron talent.

That still leaves you with two guys on the roster, with the bright spot and change of pace back obviously being Harris at this point.

I'd go as far as saying that, had we signed Jackson, I would've held on Harris and let go of the rest, fill that up with a draft pick.

Lastly, when you start signing on talent and future potential alone, our WR roster would exist of Cobb, Ross, Boykin, Borel and Gurley.

Between that and our current group, I think I know who I'd rather have.


Cut Starks. What if Jackson gets hurt, Green proves not able to return from injury and Harris shows why 30 teams allowed him to sell cars for a living last fall? Now you have absolutely nothing and you have money tied up. That is not that far fetched a scenario.

Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>
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
15m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / stevegb

16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

27-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

27-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

27-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nyrpack

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / rabidgopher04

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann