I expected this a while ago. My answer is I don't have the time to memorize every FA who is available and then follow them on their current teams. Sorry. If that was my job I wouldn't be hanging around here and discussing it with you rabble. [grin1]

However you can't tell me in the past few years there has been no one all of the NFL that Ted couldn't have signed.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

If there was someone worth remembering, you would, that is pretty much my point, lol. Example, I wanted Chris Canty when we started to implement the 3 - 4 and even said we should overpay marginally to get him. Didn't happen and probably a good thing too. I think the Packers should have tried trading Aaron Kampman. I think we all knew that just wasn't going to work out, even though he led the team in QB pressures/hurries until injured.

There always players a General Manager can sign. Does that mean the player does want to sign? Does that mean they will sign? Nope, it takes two as you no doubt are fully aware.

When wanting to acquire a free agent there are lots of questions. Why is he available? Why doesn't his team want him anymore or why doesn't he want that team anymore?

You just don't see too many players who have worn out their welcome that turn out to be Charles Woodson for you, but it seems Packers fans think since Thompson did well with Woodson and Ryan Pickett that it means there are one or two players every year of similar caliber. Simply put, that year was the exception, not the rule.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

If there was someone worth remembering, you would, that is pretty much my point, lol. Example, I wanted Chris Canty when we started to implement the 3 - 4 and even said we should overpay marginally to get him. Didn't happen and probably a good thing too. I think the Packers should have tried trading Aaron Kampman. I think we all knew that just wasn't going to work out, even though he led the team in QB pressures/hurries until injured.

There always players a General Manager can sign. Does that mean the player does want to sign? Does that mean they will sign? Nope, it takes two as you no doubt are fully aware.

When wanting to acquire a free agent there are lots of questions. Why is he available? Why doesn't his team want him anymore or why doesn't he want that team anymore?

You just don't see too many players who have worn out their welcome that turn out to be Charles Woodson for you, but it seems Packers fans think since Thompson did well with Woodson and Ryan Pickett that it means there are one or two players every year of similar caliber. Simply put, that year was the exception, not the rule.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

FA is as hit or miss as is the draft. I think the bigger problem is the lack of true balance with talent acquisition. All we really add are draft picks and UDFAs. Many of our other FA signings have been in the lower tiers with the exception of Saturday and Benson, who we whiffed on.

Looking at record alone for the past 3 seasons is almost akin to turning a blind eye to the other areas of need that have gone unaddressed through FA or trade, as Rodgers, we've realized clearly overcompensated for those areas left without talent upgrades both on offense and on defense.

A GM can't get his entire team via the draft, and expect them all to be better than other teams who apply a more balanced approach. I question how many games we would have won, how successful we would have been without Pickett and Woodson over that span, two very important FA acquisitions. Holding dear to your picks and re-signing them can create problems as well, as we've seen with AJ Hawk and Brad Jones. I believe a balance of draft choices, veteran FAs and key trades for players at positions of great need might prove to be a better solution to rounding out and improving this Packers team.

How effective is it to re-sign your own players when they've proven to have been unable to close the deal? Unable to stop better talent? Unable to beat the contenders, the teams who have gone onto win SBs? We knew coming into this season that OT, LB and S were huge issues. We really lucked out with the play of Bakhtiari. Many of us knew Brad Jones was not the answer in the middle, and questioned the players we had lined up at FS. When Bulaga went down, we really ought to have added a high quality player there via trade or FA. Knowing we weren't adding FS via the draft, we should have made a trade, and Jairus Byrd was available. I would guess a Byrd trade could have easily netted us two more wins, maybe three this season.

Trades are tough, as it takes two to Tango. I'm not saying this is easy, at all. The FA thing, as I said, is as hit or miss as the draft. But, it would be nice to see them trying. Our staff should have been able to readily see our shortcomings that Rodgers overcame with his own play, and those areas of the team should have been addressed a bit more aggressively. Its not like we are going to have Rodgers forever. Gotta strike while the iron is hot, and Aaron was indeed hot.

Balance. That would be nice to see.

And, as the article attests, "developing players like no one else…" I just don't see it. Our player development looks somewhat marginal under McCarthy, especially on the defensive side of the ball.

Originally Posted by: play2win 

Acquire all the players you want. If your unit is less than the sum of its parts, you still get what we have.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

There always players a General Manager can sign. Does that mean the player does want to sign? Does that mean they will sign? Nope, it takes two as you no doubt are fully aware.

...Woodson and Ryan Pickett that it means there are one or two players every year of similar caliber. Simply put, that year was the exception, not the rule.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Two best points in this thread. I get the general sentiments and the feeling that Ted is sitting on his hands in F.A. However...

Stephen Jackson was someone Ted targeted. He low balled him, which is why he didn't come to G.B. How many more times have there been FAs been sought after by Ted, but the FA wasn't interested? We can't know that - it doesn't mean Ted and co. are balking at that market, though.

Using the Jackson example to expand on Zero's second point, Ted valued Jackson correctly, and in hindsight, the Packers are in a much better position w/o him on the roster now. Furthermore, Benson and Saturday WERE Woodson and Pickett caliber players (maybe a smidge older, but I'd say "comparable tier"), they were vets, reasonably priced, all the things people are clamoring for in this thread. They just don't always pan out. We saw the same thing with "Hardly" Nickerson and Joe Johnson back with Sherman.

Originally Posted by: musccy 

Woodson was also in the prime of his career with all kinds of room to grow.

Originally Posted by: play2win