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 Pages123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline MintBaconDrivel  
#1 Posted : Sunday, April 7, 2013 5:28:08 PM(UTC)
MintBaconDrivel

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 12/11/2012(UTC)

Applause Received: 97

Packers wrote:
Murphy Takes 5 is a monthly column written by President and CEO Mark Murphy. On the first Saturday of every month, Mark will write about a topic of interest to Packers fans and the organization, ...

often hear from fans who are disappointed that we aren’t more active in free agency. I know it can be frustrating for them to see other teams adding free agents - and receiving “A” grades from the media. The reality, though, is that championships are not won in March. The Eagles’ “dream team” from two years ago is a good example of the risks involved with signing high-priced free agents. Free agency can certainly play a role in helping teams improve (Charles Woodson and Ryan Pickett are good examples of recent free agents who have played key roles for us), but history shows that teams that focus on drafting, developing and extending the contracts of their core players are more likely to have sustained success.

Message modified by moderator Sunday, April 7, 2013 6:01:14 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Delivering the latest and most important updates on the Green Bay Packers for your convenience.
UserPostedImage
Offline MintBaconDrivel  
#2 Posted : Sunday, April 7, 2013 7:52:49 PM(UTC)
MintBaconDrivel

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 12/11/2012(UTC)

Applause Received: 97

ProFootballTalk wrote:
Packers CEO Mark Murphy realizes that a gap currently exists between the his team and the 49ers.  But that hasn't prompted the Packers to make bold moves in free agency, even as the Niners have traded for receiver Anquan Boldin and signed cornerback Nnamdi Asomugha. “Look at the teams who have done that,' Murphy tells
Delivering the latest and most important updates on the Green Bay Packers for your convenience.
UserPostedImage
Offline wpr  
#3 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2013 5:53:35 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

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

Applause Given: 3,049
Applause Received: 1,481

meh. I get so tired of the chest thumping they do when they don't pick up anyone of quality as a FA. I've said it before it is not either/or. Either pick up 16 FAs at a cost of $100 ea or don't get any at all.

Murphy even points out Woodson and Pickett as being an integral part of the SB team so history PROVES picking up a FA every once in a while fills in the gaps that you can't complete via the draft.
Quote:

So, when you watch the NFL Draft on Thursday, April 25 (in prime time for the third straight year), know that it’s the best way to improve our team.
but it is not the only way.
UserPostedImage

Will you follow me, one last time?
thanks Post received 2 applause.
yooperfan on 4/8/2013(UTC), play2win on 4/9/2013(UTC)
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#4 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2013 7:03:44 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

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

Applause Given: 458
Applause Received: 276

There's two ways of looking at this: One is that we have such an outstanding winning record the past few seasons, most of the Thompson era, so they must be doing it the best way, etc. the other is that Thompson, McCarthy, ALL of us got incredibly lucky that Aaron Rodgers turned out to be so absolutely super, and without him or if he had even just been a normal good QB, the team would stink. I kinda go back and forth on this. In the past, I was always opposed to signing other people's star free agents for the big money. On the other hand, you look what some other teams have done, and you look up and down this Packer roster, it's shaky at best if you get beyond Rodgers and Matthews and maybe a couple of receivers who arguably are what they are because of Rodgers.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline Zero2Cool  
#5 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2013 7:18:23 AM(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: 1,956
Applause Received: 2,191

Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson have said something similar about star free agents. If they are so good, why did the team that knows them best not resign them?

Player decide it was time to move on? Why?
Team decide it was time to move on? Why?
Team overstocked at the position?
Coach philosophy change?


And just because Player A was a stud with Team A, it doesn't mean Player A will achieve similar success with Team B. The thinking that it does, is how the "Madden" line of thought was coined. In Madden, players are ranked by arbitrary (okay, maybe not arbitrary but have you really looked at those rankings?) numerical values. You can yank a player and pluck him into your team and he'll perform the same as he did on the previous team. Madden doesn't take into account schemes or anything like that in its rankings. Much like fans fail to do as well.
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
earthquake on 4/8/2013(UTC)
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#6 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2013 7:33:20 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

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

Applause Given: 458
Applause Received: 276

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson have said something similar about star free agents. If they are so good, why did the team that knows them best not resign them?

Player decide it was time to move on? Why?
Team decide it was time to move on? Why?
Team overstocked at the position?
Coach philosophy change?


And just because Player A was a stud with Team A, it doesn't mean Player A will achieve similar success with Team B. The thinking that it does, is how the "Madden" line of thought was coined. In Madden, players are ranked by arbitrary (okay, maybe not arbitrary but have you really looked at those rankings?) numerical values. You can yank a player and pluck him into your team and he'll perform the same as he did on the previous team. Madden doesn't take into account schemes or anything like that in its rankings. Much like fans fail to do as well.



Obviously it's all about the money. Most of those guys signing big contracts with new teams, you can't dispute that they are good. You just have the question of are they worth what they command for salary? The law of supply and demand says yes, but it's kinda like the kid with a belly ache after buying out the candy store - is enjoying the candy worth the pain? I really don't know - I'm conflicted on this issue.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline Zero2Cool  
#7 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2013 7:37:32 AM(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: 1,956
Applause Received: 2,191

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
Obviously it's all about the money. Most of those guys signing big contracts with new teams, you can't dispute that they are good. You just have the question of are they worth what they command for salary? The law of supply and demand says yes, but it's kinda like the kid with a belly ache after buying out the candy store - is enjoying the candy worth the pain? I really don't know - I'm conflicted on this issue.


Obviously? How is this obvious? Do you think Greg Jennings was going to come back even if the Packers matched the Vikings offer dollar for dollar? Wrong. He made it clear he wanted to be the focal point of the offense, something he couldn't be at Green Bay because of all of the weapons. So, no, it is not obvious.

There are many factors into this, it is not obvious and it is not clear cut. Heck, if it were so obvious and clear cut, we wouldn't have a discussion, haha.
UserPostedImage
Offline wpr  
#8 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2013 8:34:06 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

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

Applause Given: 3,049
Applause Received: 1,481

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson have said something similar about star free agents. If they are so good, why did the team that knows them best not resign them?

Player decide it was time to move on? Why?
Team decide it was time to move on? Why?
Team overstocked at the position?
Coach philosophy change?


And just because Player A was a stud with Team A, it doesn't mean Player A will achieve similar success with Team B. The thinking that it does, is how the "Madden" line of thought was coined. In Madden, players are ranked by arbitrary (okay, maybe not arbitrary but have you really looked at those rankings?) numerical values. You can yank a player and pluck him into your team and he'll perform the same as he did on the previous team. Madden doesn't take into account schemes or anything like that in its rankings. Much like fans fail to do as well.


Just because a team doesn't want a player back does not mean that he is old, broke down or worthless.

There are a lot of reasons players move on.

The team wants a player to move on.
1. The team wants to go with a youth movement.
a) #2 player may well not be as good as the one being allowed to leave but
    1) Player #2 has growth potential
    2) The money difference for the performance difference does not justify paying player #1 the money.

b) The team is so lousy that they don't want to spend the money for player #1 and still finish last.
2. Conflict between player and management.
3. Changing in coaching/schemes.
4. Ownership is stupid.
5. Injury or age concerns


The player wants to move on.

a) Change in coaching/schemes.
b) Wants to be a more noticeable player on a team.
c) Money!!!
d) Wants to move to a contending team.
e) Wants to move to a better organization.
f) Wants to move to a team closer to his off season home.
g) Wants to "punish"/show up former team.

Just like you think we assume that we are playing "Madden" and think players are interchangeable (Which we don't) you appear to assume that the only FAs that GB can sign are the ones that will cost them $100 million and tie up their resources for 20 years and don't perform at all for the entire duration of their contracts. (Which is not the case.) Even if they do overpay for a quality player for a couple of years but win the SB, it would be worth it.
UserPostedImage

Will you follow me, one last time?
Offline Zero2Cool  
#9 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2013 9:19:26 AM(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: 1,956
Applause Received: 2,191

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
Just because a team doesn't want a player back does not mean that he is old, broke down or worthless.

There are a lot of reasons players move on.

The team wants a player to move on.
1. The team wants to go with a youth movement.
a) #2 player may well not be as good as the one being allowed to leave but
    1) Player #2 has growth potential
    2) The money difference for the performance difference does not justify paying player #1 the money.

b) The team is so lousy that they don't want to spend the money for player #1 and still finish last.
2. Conflict between player and management.
3. Changing in coaching/schemes.
4. Ownership is stupid.
5. Injury or age concerns


The player wants to move on.

a) Change in coaching/schemes.
b) Wants to be a more noticeable player on a team.
c) Money!!!
d) Wants to move to a contending team.
e) Wants to move to a better organization.
f) Wants to move to a team closer to his off season home.
g) Wants to "punish"/show up former team.

Just like you think we assume that we are playing "Madden" and think players are interchangeable (Which we don't) you appear to assume that the only FAs that GB can sign are the ones that will cost them $100 million and tie up their resources for 20 years and don't perform at all for the entire duration of their contracts. (Which is not the case.) Even if they do overpay for a quality player for a couple of years but win the SB, it would be worth it.


Can you actually read what I said in context and then respond? You quoted me, but with all your assumptions and words you put into my mouth, you clearly have me confused with someone else. Thank you.

For the sake of discussion. Simply because a player is not resigned, that does not mean he is worthless. Not sure where that came from. Anyhow. No one said "you" (general term) think players are interchangeable. There is no denying that often times we read how this player was so great on their team, the Packers should sign him to boost their level of play. If the player doesn't perform similarly to how they did on their previous team, they are blasted as a WASTE and Ted Thompson is blasted for being STUPID with the Packers money.

I have said numerous times that if the Packers are one or two players away from being as close to a "sure bet" Super Bowl contender, they should indeed overspend to get said player/s. It's about winning championships, as we can all agree upon.

Pulling the trigger on higher risk free agents is something Ron Wolf did better than Thompson, in my opinion.
UserPostedImage
Offline wpr  
#10 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2013 9:33:04 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

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

Applause Given: 3,049
Applause Received: 1,481

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson have said something similar about star free agents. If they are so good, why did the team that knows them best not resign them?

implies that the player must not be worthwhile. Silence on your part to contend with their statements also implies your agreement.



Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
And just because Player A was a stud with Team A, it doesn't mean Player A will achieve similar success with Team B. The thinking that it does, is how the "Madden" line of thought was coined. Madden doesn't take into account schemes or anything like that in its rankings. Much like fans fail to do as well.


implies (perhaps unfairly but then you do not expound to clarify.) that you believe most fans do not distinguish between schemes and teams.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
Can you actually read what I said in context and then respond? You quoted me, but with all your assumptions and words you put into my mouth, you clearly have me confused with someone else. Thank you.

it is not my intention to put words into your mouth. By reading your posts I am drawing a conclusion. Perhaps I am wrong in my conclusions but I have noticed over the years others do the same. Perhaps we need more clarity from you.
UserPostedImage

Will you follow me, one last time?
Offline DoddPower  
#11 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2013 1:06:17 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: 2,051
Applause Received: 514

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
And just because Player A was a stud with Team A, it doesn't mean Player A will achieve similar success with Team B. The thinking that it does, is how the "Madden" line of thought was coined. In Madden, players are ranked by arbitrary (okay, maybe not arbitrary but have you really looked at those rankings?) numerical values. You can yank a player and pluck him into your team and he'll perform the same as he did on the previous team. Madden doesn't take into account schemes or anything like that in its rankings. Much like fans fail to do as well.


Actually, that's not true in the new Madden, at least in Connected Careers. Player ratings are determined by pre-set schemes that are set when establishing ones coach. I still don't think it makes much difference, but it definitely affects how the players' overall rating is viewed. Someone hasn't played much Madden 13! heh heh.

Offline QCHuskerFan  
#12 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2013 1:22:32 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 86
Applause Received: 149

This is perhaps a new way to envision Free Agents. Think of them as recently divorced individuals.

Do they have value? Well, probably not much to their former spouse or they would still be married.

Are they as attractive as they once were? Probably not, due to the laws of nature.

Are they as physically impressive as they once were? No. Next question.

Are they flexible and trainable? Less so than they were a few years ago.

So what is it that makes them more attractive than someone that is younger, in better shape, and not so stuck in their ways?
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 4/8/2013(UTC)
Offline buckeyepackfan  
#13 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2013 1:53:29 PM(UTC)
buckeyepackfan

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2012Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2014

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)
Location: Lima, Ohio

Applause Given: 335
Applause Received: 445

I have a headache.

This has turned into a strange year in FA. There are still quite a few really good players who haven't been signed.

The longer they sit un-signed, the lower the price will go for them.

Problem right now is The Packers need to get The Rodgers and Mathews deals done just to see who they can afford, if they so choose to go after a player.
Enjoy the ride – It kicks and just keeps on kickin’. "Stats are for Losers"
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#14 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2013 2:27:04 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 13
Applause Received: 371

Building through the draft, if done right is a way to make a team that is year in and year out good. That can win the division every year and make the playoffs. But to win past that, the team needs something more. Luck which is what hit us in 2010. Or adding the key players to positions that haven't been meet through the draft.

They don't need to be top FA names. I think resigning Cullen Jenkins would have been a good move, added depth and a veteran at the position that could help the development of the youth. We have seen how Woodson, helped with the development of Tramon, and Nick and others. Cullen could have done similar with our young DEs.

I see a similar situation in Madison with the Badgers. Barry had the team setup where it would be competetive yearly, and Beilema reaped the rewards of that, but the team needs something added on top of what Barry established for them to be considered legit title contenders.

The packers are going to be good as long as Rodgers doesn't get hurt. In order to make that into SB, we are going to need the right FAs added.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
wpr on 4/8/2013(UTC)
Offline gotarace  
#15 Posted : Monday, April 8, 2013 2:43:38 PM(UTC)
gotarace

Rank: 5th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/3/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 58
Applause Received: 21

I have two words for everyone saying a free agent can't make a difference on a football team... build through the draft...bah bah bah...Reggie White. Coupled with the trade for Brett Favre... We went from pretenders to contenders overnight. I'm old enough to have suffered through the 1970's-1980's and adding 2 quality players turned the Packers franchise completely around.
Smart As a Horse
Hung Like Einstein
thanks Post received 1 applause.
wpr on 4/8/2013(UTC)
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 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

Tweeter

Recent Topics
50m / Green Bay Packers Talk / hardrocker950

2h / Announcements / Zero2Cool

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

10h / Announcements / Zero2Cool

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

29-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

29-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

29-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann