Do we have the pieces to go to a 4-3?

[ThePerfectBeard]

When you call something "stupid", it's good to have your facts straight, or...

Thanks Jack, I'll be sure to read up on every play we run so I'm prepared next time. I'm not a DC, but I'm a stats major who just happens to watch football. Every time we roll that scheme out there, we get dominated. Our Defense has dropped to mid bottom in all important categories. To me, that's stupid. I was also defending not making a change in the base scheme. I'm sure I could dig up something idiotic that you've posted at some time, but thanks for pointing that out for me.

 

[TJV]

Thanks Jack, I'll be sure to read up on every play we run so I'm prepared next time. I'm not a DC, but I'm a stats major who just happens to watch football. Every time we roll that scheme out there, we get dominated.

You are welcome, Cheesehead. When you wrote, “This stupid 2-5 hybrid base Capers uses is just stupid and doesn't work.”, you are the one that looked stupid because the Packers don’t use a "2-5 hybrid scheme". That's easy enough to understand, right?

And you don’t have to be a DC or a stats major, to know the scheme the Packers use the majority of the time on defense is a 2-4-5. You just have to be able to count and distinguish between DL, LBs, and DBs. Or read an article or two, or even just read posts on this forum. But it is a good idea for you to be better prepared next time so I wish you the best of luck with that.

I'm sure I could dig up something idiotic that you've posted at some time, but thanks for pointing that out for me.

Again you are welcome - enough of thanking me! And my posts, like everyone else's, are available for searching so please dig up whatever you like.

 

[ThePerfectBeard]

You are welcome, Cheesehead. When you wrote, “This stupid 2-5 hybrid base Capers uses is just stupid and doesn't work.”, you are the one that looked stupid because the Packers don’t use a "2-5 hybrid scheme". That's easy enough to understand, right?

And you don’t have to be a DC or a stats major, to know the scheme the Packers use the majority of the time on defense is a 2-4-5. You just have to be able to count and distinguish between DL, LBs, and DBs. Or read an article or two, or even just read posts on this forum. But it is a good idea for you to be better prepared next time so I wish you the best of luck with that. Again you are welcome - enough of thanking me! And my posts, like everyone else's, are available for searching so please dig up whatever you like.

Jack that wouldn't be hard to do. All I would have to do is point out the mindless article: O-lines not vital to success in today's NFL, but I won't since that would be off topic.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Also have to include if said player can fit with what you want to do..Just because player a plays well in a certain system, doesnt mean he will play well in yours.

You would still have more of an advantage in free agency because at least you have film of what the guy can do. You're projecting EVERYTHING about a draft pick, including his fit in your system.

 

[mradtke66]

I'll be sure to read up on every play we run so I'm prepared next time. I'm not a DC, but I'm a stats major who just happens to watch football. Every time we roll that scheme out there, we get dominated.

Here's the problem--you're calling something stupid that you just admitted you don't understand! Let's try to explain this in simpler terms, because you should really understand it. THERE IS NO 2-5 SCHEME. The following is base level of football understanding that anyone who has ever played any kind of football, High School or even Madden on your console of choice, should understand.

Base Defense: 3-4-4, "Okie." 7 men in the box. A balanced defense called against balanced or base offensive sets.

Nickel Defense: 2-4-5, 6 men in the box. Normally the counter to a 3 receiver offensive set. Called nickel because it brings 5 defensive backs on the field. Nothing in life is free and we can't play 12 guys, so someone from the front 7 has to come off of the field. Downside: weaker against the run. Upside: 1 cornerback per receiver. You must recognize this personnel grouping because the Packers use it approximately 70% of the time. While they apparently run it more than the rest of the league, it's not necessarily because of Capers' preferences, it is in response to 3-1-1 becoming the preferred base offense in the NFL. If the offense comes out with 3 receivers and you don't match with nickel personnel, you are a fool who will be burned. This is the modern NFL, "Throwball." Similarly, modern offenses want you to go to nickel, because it's easier to run on. This is the chess game.

Nickel Defense Alternative: "Psycho Defense," 1-5-5. I don't know if I've seen it one time this season.

Dime Defense: 2-3-6, "One More than Nickel," Same basic concept as nickel, except you're matching against 4 wide receivers, so you need 4 cornerbacks.

 

[DevilDon]

Yes, sorry, I was. I'm curious as to where the defensive improvement has come in the Capers era. I see one good year (2010), and a deceptively decent "stat" defense that got exposed in the playoffs last year. The injuries on defense have, frankly, not been too far off from the mean (unlike the offense). I'll give you that important players like Shields, Burnett, Matthews, etc. have missed a handful of games, but no key player besides Hayward has been placed on IR or even missed more than half the season -- while there's been at least 4 on offense. Since the defense was going along okay when the injuries were occurring, and got completely embarrassed on Thursday, the problems on defense seem to be caused by a lot more than devastating injuries.

I wonder what you mean by improvement? They did improve last year. Call it statistical when you don't want to admit it and then if it's not statistical they haven't improved? Also, improved to what point? All teams go up and down in rankings on defense and offense. What happened to the 2011 Packer offense?
Here's a good article where Bill Polian measures how losing a franchise QB makes a difference:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/234150661.html

On Raji, I am frankly flabbergasted that anyone could place more value on him for us than acquiring an elite safety, especially given the current state of the defense with Raji. I have asked this before and will ask again -- what exactly does he contribute that is conducive to winning football games?

He eats up blocks. I know you don't like that explanation but it's what he does. He's not always supposed to penetrate, that can give you over pursuit and open a huge hole. He is often tasked with filling a gap and staying there. If the play doesn't come right at him he can't make a tackle while he's in a gap.
I guess you just have to trust just about any and every NFL analyst that guys like Raji are hard to find. You certainly can't put Daniels or Jones in his spot on some downs. If he was as bad as you suggest, why don't they just plug Boyd in there?
When Raji did all those wonderful splash plays in 2010 he had Jenkins in the lineup with him. It's a different DL now and players are tasked with doing different things.
I'm flabbergasted that you think guys like him are easy to find and just plug and play.
I never said the Packer can't use a safety. I think they most certainly should get one in the draft this year, in fact, I was really surprised they didn't take one last year. I believe they thought Jennings or Richardson or somebody was going to step up.
My point is that you don't want to go into the draft needing to fill a huge hole left by Raji's departure. They still might if he's looking for too much but I'd rather see a safety in the 1st or 2nd and not have to go after Raji's replacement.

 

[DevilDon]

MMost of the time the young draft pick is much more of an unknown than the free agent. With free agents you have actual video of how the've performed against NFL competition. Look at the Seahawks for example. They signed Avril for a relative bargain and the guy has been integral in their team becoming the best defense in the NFL. Free agency is not always bad, often times it's actually quite helpful. The problem is that most people hear free agency and they think Mario Williams or some other high-priced free agent while the better GMs utilize free ageny to fill in gaps in the roster with steady vets that allow rookies the time to develop without hurting the team.

Then why do more teams look to the draft to build their roster? Also you didn't answer why the FAs team let them go?
Seattle is in an envious position to not have to pay large stacks of cash to their QB. That's an advantage that will go away. Further, for every Cliff Avril, there are more Mario Williams' in FA.
If you're suggesting that John Schneider is better than Ted Thompson because he got some FAs then I don't know what to tell you. You do know where Schneider learned his trade right?

 

[Bagadeez04]

Scheme is irrelevant. Great players and great coaches is what makes formidable defense.

This talk of switching to a 4-3 Is fluff, it fixes nothing.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Then why do more teams look to the draft to build their roster? Also you didn't answer why the FAs team let them go?
Seattle is in an envious position to not have to pay large stacks of cash to their QB. That's an advantage that will go away. Further, for every Cliff Avril, there are more Mario Williams' in FA.
If you're suggesting that John Schneider is better than Ted Thompson because he got some FAs then I don't know what to tell you. You do know where Schneider learned his trade right?

Teams look to the draft because it's cheaper and it's generally difficult to find a great player in free agency; that doesn't mean it's impossible to find good players in free agency. If you look back at my comments you'll also see that I mentioned quite a few draft successes that Schneider has found, as many as Thompson. I wasn't trying to denigrate Thompson, someone asked about a GM that has done a better job than Thompson, in my opinion Schneider has done so by being as good in the draft as Thompson while also excelling in free agency. And what does it matter where Schneider learned? Thompson doesn't get points for how many other GMs there are that learned with him and it's pretty apparent that Schneider learned the free agency and trade part of his job from other sources (not condemning Thompson with that comment, just an observation).

 

[Carl]

Teams look to the draft because it's cheaper and it's generally difficult to find a great player in free agency; that doesn't mean it's impossible to find good players in free agency. If you look back at my comments you'll also see that I mentioned quite a few draft successes that Schneider has found, as many as Thompson. I wasn't trying to denigrate Thompson, someone asked about a GM that has done a better job than Thompson, in my opinion Schneider has done so by being as good in the draft as Thompson while also excelling in free agency. And what does it matter where Schneider learned? Thompson doesn't get points for how many other GMs there are that learned with him and it's pretty apparent that Schneider learned the free agency and trade part of his job from other sources (not condemning Thompson with that comment, just an observation).

Like DevilDon said, Seattle is in a great spot with a cheap QB. When Seattle has to give guys like Wilson and Sherman big new contracts, they'll have to stop spending in free agency.

Thompson refuses to overpay for free agents at risk of damaging cap and therefore not having enough space to keep their own guys. For now, Schneider has the benefit of having some cap space room to overspend on free agents and trades - Avril and Harvin. And the Harvin trade is looking pretty awful so far, by the way.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Like DevilDon said, Seattle is in a great spot with a cheap QB. When Seattle has to give guys like Wilson and Sherman big new contracts, they'll have to stop spending in free agency.

Thompson refuses to overpay for free agents at risk of damaging cap and therefore not having enough space to keep their own guys. For now, Schneider has the benefit of having some cap space room to overspend on free agents and trades - Avril and Harvin. And the Harvin trade is looking pretty awful so far, by the way.

Why does everyone always go to the "cheaper QB" card? Seattle spends significantly more money at RB, TE, WR and a couple other positions that more than compensate for the salary difference between QBs. The Lynch trade was made before Wilson was even drafted. Just because Rodgers costs a lot doesn't mean our GM is crippled, and if he is, then why have a high priced QB?

 

[adambr2]

I wonder what you mean by improvement? They did improve last year. Call it statistical when you don't want to admit it and then if it's not statistical they haven't improved? Also, improved to what point? All teams go up and down in rankings on defense and offense. What happened to the 2011 Packer offense?
Here's a good article where Bill Polian measures how losing a franchise QB makes a difference:
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/234150661.html

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/234150661.html

I'm not denying that they improved last year, in some ways.

Overall, as I stated in another thread, I would take the 32nd ranked defense in 2011 over this 24th ranked defense. That defense did one thing very well -- force turnovers. A whopping 31 INT's in 2011 vs. 6 so far this year. The 2011 got shredded up and down the field, but they could force turnovers better than anyone else. This defense is terrible in every aspect. Going 15-1 with the 32nd ranked defense doesn't happen by accident, it took the defense doing that.

He eats up blocks. I know you don't like that explanation but it's what he does. He's not always supposed to penetrate, that can give you over pursuit and open a huge hole. He is often tasked with filling a gap and staying there. If the play doesn't come right at him he can't make a tackle while he's in a gap.
I guess you just have to trust just about any and every NFL analyst that guys like Raji are hard to find. You certainly can't put Daniels or Jones in his spot on some downs. If he was as bad as you suggest, why don't they just plug Boyd in there?
When Raji did all those wonderful splash plays in 2010 he had Jenkins in the lineup with him. It's a different DL now and players are tasked with doing different things.
I'm flabbergasted that you think guys like him are easy to find and just plug and play.
I never said the Packer can't use a safety. I think they most certainly should get one in the draft this year, in fact, I was really surprised they didn't take one last year. I believe they thought Jennings or Richardson or somebody was going to step up.
My point is that you don't want to go into the draft needing to fill a huge hole left by Raji's departure. They still might if he's looking for too much but I'd rather see a safety in the 1st or 2nd and not have to go after Raji's replacement.

Sorry, but you don't pay a guy $8M dollars to "eat up blocks". Especially when he doesn't even do it very well. 3-4 DE's should typically demand double teams to be effective, regardless of gap assignments. Do you think there's any coincidence that while the defense has been atrocious, the sight of Raji being singled by a opposing guard has been common?

Regardless, since Raji's audition as a NT was a failure, he isn't nearly as valuable in a 3-4 as a DE. Can you point me to all of these NFL analysts telling us how rare he is? I already showed you one article demonstrating that paying him may not be in our best interests.

They don't play Boyd over Raji for a couple reasons. Boyd is a project player, and Raji is a top 10 draft pick in the last season of his rookie contract. That doesn't mean that he can't be replaced. Plenty of replacement players end up outperforming their predecessors here after injury -- Tramon, Bishop, arguably even Lattimore.

Impact players worth the kind of coin you're suggesting makes plays on their own. A supporting cast helps, but guys worth top dollar at their position aren't rendered completely ineffective without the right personnel around them.

The Packers held to face a healthy Arian Foster last year without Raji, and they held him in check just fine. It is not going to be a code red if they don't bring him back.

 

[Carl]

Why does everyone always go to the "cheaper QB" card? Seattle spends significantly more money at RB, TE, WR and a couple other positions that more than compensate for the salary difference between QBs. The Lynch trade was made before Wilson was even drafted. Just because Rodgers costs a lot doesn't mean our GM is crippled, and if he is, then why have a high priced QB?

Exactly. They spend significantly more at other positions because they can.

Why have a high priced QB? Because they win teams games and more importantly, championships.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Exactly. They spend significantly more at other positions because they can.

Why have a high priced QB? Because they win teams games and more importantly, championships.

And yet I'm being told that the Seahawks were able to build a more robust team than the Packers because they have a cheaper QB. So which is it? Is having the high priced QB better or spending the money on other positions? Personally, I think spending the money on Rodgers is better GIVEN a team that has sufficient depth and playmakers at other positions. However, Rodgers alone will not compensate for a defense which features only one player that is worthy of the Pro Bowl (when healthy).

My annoyance with the 'cheaper QB' card is that it's a simple copout that ignore the reality of how a team like the Seahawks differs from the Packers. The Seahawks/Niners/etc have had just as much success with the draft as we have and vastly more success in free agency. That combination is generally going to mean they have deeper, more well rounded teams than we do.

 

[Carl]

And yet I'm being told that the Seahawks were able to build a more robust team than the Packers because they have a cheaper QB. So which is it? Is having the high priced QB better or spending the money on other positions? Personally, I think spending the money on Rodgers is better GIVEN a team that has sufficient depth and playmakers at other positions. However, Rodgers alone will not compensate for a defense which features only one player that is worthy of the Pro Bowl (when healthy).

My annoyance with the 'cheaper QB' card is that it's a simple copout that ignore the reality of how a team like the Seahawks differs from the Packers. The Seahawks/Niners/etc have had just as much success with the draft as we have and vastly more success in free agency. That combination is generally going to mean they have deeper, more well rounded teams than we do.

Yes, for now they do have deeper, more well rounded teams. When they have to pay their QBs a lot (and other guys likes Sherman or Smith as the Packers paid Matthews) I do not think they will.

Take a look at the other teams with top QBs. The Patriots are not loaded with talent aside from Brady. The Broncos have a suspect defense. The Saints just got beat up on by the Seahawks. The Ravens lost a lot of guys after paying Flacco. The Falcons are a mess right now aside from Ryan. To me, it's very rare for a team to have both a very good defense while having a great offense lead by a franchise, high paid QB.

 

[DevilDon]

Teams look to the draft because it's cheaper and it's generally difficult to find a great player in free agency; that doesn't mean it's impossible to find good players in free agency. If you look back at my comments you'll also see that I mentioned quite a few draft successes that Schneider has found, as many as Thompson. I wasn't trying to denigrate Thompson, someone asked about a GM that has done a better job than Thompson, in my opinion Schneider has done so by being as good in the draft as Thompson while also excelling in free agency. And what does it matter where Schneider learned? Thompson doesn't get points for how many other GMs there are that learned with him and it's pretty apparent that Schneider learned the free agency and trade part of his job from other sources (not condemning Thompson with that comment, just an observation).

No, it's not apparent that he learned free agency/trade from some other source. He learned it from Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson. The guy has cap space to work with. He can afford to take a game on some FAs.
Look Sunshine, TT works to get FAs all the time. He just doesn't get them at his price. You're completely blind if you don't see that. There are rumors every year, SJax this last year that the Packers were in the running.
Many teams are willing to sacrifice their cap or have the room for those guys. I'm absolutely 100% certain that Ted would love him some of those obvious FAs. But there is a cap and it seems to me that you are just ignoring that.
Tell ya what, when you can tell me which Packer FAs to keep, the money it will cost to sign them (this year, not last) and tell me how much cap money the Packers have for FA and THEN and only then tell me what you think are the best FA options... I'll anoint you the Packerforum.com GM.
It's not that he's cheap, no GM is cheap, they all want to spend their behinds off in FA. But there's a cap and it will kill your team for years if you don't pay attention.

 

[Carl]

No, it's not apparent that he learned free agency/trade from some other source. He learned it from Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson. The guy has cap space to work with. He can afford to take a game on some FAs.
Look Sunshine, TT works to get FAs all the time. He just doesn't get them at his price. You're completely blind if you don't see that. There are rumors every year, SJax this last year that the Packers were in the running.
Many teams are willing to sacrifice their cap or have the room for those guys. I'm absolutely 100% certain that Ted would love him some of those obvious FAs. But there is a cap and it seems to me that you are just ignoring that.
Tell ya what, when you can tell me which Packer FAs to keep, the money it will cost to sign them (this year, not last) and tell me how much cap money the Packers have for FA and THEN and only then tell me what you think are the best FA options... I'll anoint you the Packerforum.com GM.
It's not that he's cheap, no GM is cheap, they all want to spend their behinds off in FA. But there's a cap and it will kill your team for years if you don't pay attention.

Agreed. See Dallas Cowboys next season: projected to be 30 million over the cap. See the Falcons right now: The GM saw the team was getting old so he gave up picks to get Jones and spent in free agency.

Ted will not overpay in free agency. He just won't. Could we use an Avril right now? Absolutely, but for every Avril signing, there is an Asomugha signing.

If he overpaid, our team would be better in the short term, but probably have a down year or more building backup. Ted, however, likes to keep the cap healthy, which keeps the team contending every single year. The best team doesn't always win it all (Broncos last year, 16-0 Pats, 15-1 Packers, 2010 Falcons). He could overpay to have the most talented team for a year, but would most likely not win it all anyway and sacrifice other contending seasons.

 

[DevilDon]

I'm not denying that they improved last year, in some ways.

Overall, as I stated in another thread, I would take the 32nd ranked defense in 2011 over this 24th ranked defense. That defense did one thing very well -- force turnovers. A whopping 31 INT's in 2011 vs. 6 so far this year. The 2011 got shredded up and down the field, but they could force turnovers better than anyone else. This defense is terrible in every aspect. Going 15-1 with the 32nd ranked defense doesn't happen by accident, it took the defense doing that.

Were they terrible when they were on their 4 game winning streak? Go look at their rankings just before the Chicago game. Terrible in every respect? I'd say turnovers only. What happened?

Sorry, but you don't pay a guy $8M dollars to "eat up blocks". Especially when he doesn't even do it very well. 3-4 DE's should typically demand double teams to be effective, regardless of gap assignments. Do you think there's any coincidence that while the defense has been atrocious, the sight of Raji being singled by a opposing guard has been common?
.

Sorry adambr, I shouldn't have said "eat up blocks".
3-4 DE's do not need to demand double teams. It's completely wrong. Think of the math. The offense always has at least 5 guys blocking right? So a 3-4 is 5 with the DL and the OLBs right? If the OLBs occupy the tackles, that leaves the guards to play straight up with the DE and the center to play straight up with the NT right?
So now you have all the blockers occupied, but what if the offense leaves in a TE to block? What if the RB is there to block? You see where I'm going with this? Do the math with the 4-3 and you'll see the same.
There are eight gaps. Two A's on either side of the center, two Bs outside of each guard and two C's outside of the tackles. In the run game you want to maintain gap integrity. You want those gaps filled. It's called "contain" for the OLBs in the C gaps. If you over pursue you can leave a gap for the RB to go through. Johnny Jolly was noted for this back in the day. He'd shoot the gap. Lucky for him he was often right. It's undisciplined but it looks good to the fans if he gets a tackle for a loss. RBs who find those open gaps by having patience while the blocking unfolds are said to have "vision".
Doing the math you say: "but Devil, there are 6 gaps and only 5 guys on the D filling. Yep, here come your ILBs. Those guys are to fill whatever gap is left open.
So the OCoordinator of another team says: Let's leverage Raji to the B on this play and we'll hit the A. The O lineman will play weak with one arm and strong with another. But Raji's a disciplined D lineman. He maintains his gap. The RB sees he's maintained gap control and looks for another way. He's not going to go right at Raji and give him a tackle. Someone else gets the "stat" because the RB didn't run at a waiting monster.
This post is already too long but if you wish, I can tell you how it works in the passing game. The point is, people recognize that a lack of stats for a CB can be because he isn't targeted. Can you accept a lack of stats for Raji is because he's avoided?
There is a billion nuances to this of course but one thing is certain. B.J. Raji is among the most athletic huge guys in the NFL and there will be teams who will covet him and will pay him large stacks of cash. Once he is gone there's no getting him back. I'll never underestimate the value of a player like this because of stats.

 

[DevilDon]

Regardless, since Raji's audition as a NT was a failure, he isn't nearly as valuable in a 3-4 as a DE. Can you point me to all of these NFL analysts telling us how rare he is? I already showed you one article demonstrating that paying him may not be in our best interests.

They don't play Boyd over Raji for a couple reasons. Boyd is a project player, and Raji is a top 10 draft pick in the last season of his rookie contract. That doesn't mean that he can't be replaced. Plenty of replacement players end up outperforming their predecessors here after injury -- Tramon, Bishop, arguably even Lattimore.

Impact players worth the kind of coin you're suggesting makes plays on their own. A supporting cast helps, but guys worth top dollar at their position aren't rendered completely ineffective without the right personnel around them.

The Packers held to face a healthy Arian Foster last year without Raji, and they held him in check just fine. It is not going to be a code red if they don't bring him back.

Your "article" was a blog. That's about as credible as any opinion here. I'm not doing your homework for you. Go Google it. It's common knowledge that Raji would command a high dollar. If you think he'll come back on the cheap then you're not paying attention to FA in the NFL.
That's right. Boyd is a project player. Who knows what he can do? Obviously not as much as Raji. Would he "make the leap" as McMillian did? lol. I'm not saying Raji can't be replaced. But let's face it, draft failures happen all the time. Go look at past drafts, go look at how many failures. Raji is not by any stretch of the imagination a bust. He might not be worth his pick but he's far better than a ton of guys picked 1st or 2nd round to fill that spot since then. Hawk was picked high but he's not a bust. He's just not the player anybody saw at his pick. Still......
What kind of pick would it take, 1st, 2nd, 3rd to find another Hawk or Raji? You don't know and I don't either. It's all a guessing game to some degree. What FA would equal their production? Go look at past drafts adambr, go look. Look at every FA in the last couple of years. It's not as certain as you think. Personally I think people are nearsighted not to recognize the value that Hawk and Raji bring to this team. They don't miss games, they'd be valued for other teams. Don't for a second think that they'd be snatched up in a second in the FA market.
What is Raji worth? I'm just going to take a shot here: 8 million a year.
And here's the final kicker: This just KILLS me!: People here complain TT doesn't fill the roster yet they clamor for jettisoning the roster and get new guys in FA and the draft. Hey - you said he can't/won't do that!?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

No, it's not apparent that he learned free agency/trade from some other source. He learned it from Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson. The guy has cap space to work with. He can afford to take a game on some FAs.
Look Sunshine, TT works to get FAs all the time. He just doesn't get them at his price. You're completely blind if you don't see that. There are rumors every year, SJax this last year that the Packers were in the running.
Many teams are willing to sacrifice their cap or have the room for those guys. I'm absolutely 100% certain that Ted would love him some of those obvious FAs. But there is a cap and it seems to me that you are just ignoring that.
Tell ya what, when you can tell me which Packer FAs to keep, the money it will cost to sign them (this year, not last) and tell me how much cap money the Packers have for FA and THEN and only then tell me what you think are the best FA options... I'll anoint you the Packerforum.com GM.
It's not that he's cheap, no GM is cheap, they all want to spend their behinds off in FA. But there's a cap and it will kill your team for years if you don't pay attention.

There are plenty of teams that annually manage to sign a few guys in free agency that don't destroy their cap. Patriots, Seahawks, 49ers, Ravens and Saints have all managed to sign free agents while not going over the cap. Two of those teams have very expensive quarterbacks. It seems like too many simply parrot the easy yet inaccurate line that we can't sign guys because of the cap. Are we operating under different cap rules than those other teams?

Why should I have to do all that? Conversely, you tell me which free agents Thompson has offered contracts to in the past and the terms of said contracts. My job isn't to to sign free agents and draft players. That's Thompson's job. I'm simply pointing out that other teams manage to do well in the draft AND use free agency effectively while Thompson supposedly can't sign free agents because the Packers' don't want cap issues (I guess because we either overpay players or the Packers have a lower cap than some other teams).

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Yes, for now they do have deeper, more well rounded teams. When they have to pay their QBs a lot (and other guys likes Sherman or Smith as the Packers paid Matthews) I do not think they will.

Take a look at the other teams with top QBs. The Patriots are not loaded with talent aside from Brady. The Broncos have a suspect defense. The Saints just got beat up on by the Seahawks. The Ravens lost a lot of guys after paying Flacco. The Falcons are a mess right now aside from Ryan. To me, it's very rare for a team to have both a very good defense while having a great offense lead by a franchise, high paid QB.

Really, the Saints, with the second best record in the NFC, are just dismissed because they got beat by the Seahawks? For a team with a suspect defense, the Patriots sure won a bunch of games earlier this year when the Pats offense looked like garbage. You don't have to have a great defense (i.e., Seattle caliber) with a great QB. You do have to have a decent defense and I can't find a single player on this year's Packers defense that even deserves to be in the discussion for a Pro Bowl spot. That's actually pretty rare in the NFL. Even terrible teams generally have at least ONE guy that's playing well.

 

[Carl]

Really, the Saints, with the second best record in the NFC, are just dismissed because they got beat by the Seahawks? For a team with a suspect defense, the Patriots sure won a bunch of games earlier this year when the Pats offense looked like garbage. You don't have to have a great defense (i.e., Seattle caliber) with a great QB. You do have to have a decent defense and I can't find a single player on this year's Packers defense that even deserves to be in the discussion for a Pro Bowl spot. That's actually pretty rare in the NFL. Even terrible teams generally have at least ONE guy that's playing well.

First of all the 2-14 Chiefs had 6 Pro Bowlers. That's not a good measure of team success. You can't say the Matthews and Shields are not playing well.

I also think you're overacting to how bad the defense is. The were playing at a top 10 level in the win streak before Rodgers went down. Rodgers makes the defense better.

If Rodgers didn't go down, the Packers would be in first in the division and we wouldn't even be having a conversation about Thompson's struggles.

 

[Carl]

There are plenty of teams that annually manage to sign a few guys in free agency that don't destroy their cap. Patriots, Seahawks, 49ers, Ravens and Saints have all managed to sign free agents while not going over the cap. Two of those teams have very expensive quarterbacks. It seems like too many simply parrot the easy yet inaccurate line that we can't sign guys because of the cap. Are we operating under different cap rules than those other teams?

Why should I have to do all that? Conversely, you tell me which free agents Thompson has offered contracts to in the past and the terms of said contracts. My job isn't to to sign free agents and draft players. That's Thompson's job. I'm simply pointing out that other teams manage to do well in the draft AND use free agency effectively while Thompson supposedly can't sign free agents because the Packers' don't want cap issues (I guess because we either overpay players or the Packers have a lower cap than some other teams).

There are also plenty of teams that don't. The Cowobys, Redskins, Raiders for years, Bears. The Ravens also lost a lot last year due to their cap. Also, how many expensive free agents do the Patriots have on their team right now that they overpaid?

The Packers are 10 millions under the cap right now with lots of players to resign. Which players would you essentially trade by signing a free agent and letting owns go?

 

[easyk83]

And yet I'm being told that the Seahawks were able to build a more robust team than the Packers because they have a cheaper QB. So which is it? Is having the high priced QB better or spending the money on other positions? Personally, I think spending the money on Rodgers is better GIVEN a team that has sufficient depth and playmakers at other positions. However, Rodgers alone will not compensate for a defense which features only one player that is worthy of the Pro Bowl (when healthy).

My annoyance with the 'cheaper QB' card is that it's a simple copout that ignore the reality of how a team like the Seahawks differs from the Packers. The Seahawks/Niners/etc have had just as much success with the draft as we have and vastly more success in free agency. That combination is generally going to mean they have deeper, more well rounded teams than we do.

The Hawks will lose players once they lock down Russell Wilson just like the Ravens did, just wait and watch.

 

[Carl]

There are plenty of teams that annually manage to sign a few guys in free agency that don't destroy their cap. Patriots, Seahawks, 49ers, Ravens and Saints have all managed to sign free agents while not going over the cap. Two of those teams have very expensive quarterbacks. It seems like too many simply parrot the easy yet inaccurate line that we can't sign guys because of the cap. Are we operating under different cap rules than those other teams?

Why should I have to do all that? Conversely, you tell me which free agents Thompson has offered contracts to in the past and the terms of said contracts. My job isn't to to sign free agents and draft players. That's Thompson's job. I'm simply pointing out that other teams manage to do well in the draft AND use free agency effectively while Thompson supposedly can't sign free agents because the Packers' don't want cap issues (I guess because we either overpay players or the Packers have a lower cap than some other teams).

We can also look at how many much higher in the draft the 49ers and Seahwaks have picked for years from being down for so long. They are loaded with talent from players picked higher in rounds. Put them at the same spot as the Packers and their drafts are nearly as good.