1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Do you like our chances in the NFC??..no really?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by rodell330, Mar 18, 2013.

  1. 13 Times Champs
    Offline

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings Received:
    +1,377 / 86 / -17
    Packer Fan Since:
    1960
    I gave you a funny but I wish I could vote twice. ;)
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. NelsonsLongCatch
    Offline

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Chi-Town
    Ratings Received:
    +567 / 31 / -20
    I'm not saying any of this. I'm just saying one-year situational pass rusher. Third-and-long only... either defensive end or outside linebacker. No coverage, no "fitting into a scheme". Just pinning his ears back and going after the QB. 12 - 17 snaps per game.
  3. rodell330
    Offline

    rodell330 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,255
    Location:
    Canton, Ohio
    Ratings Received:
    +796 / 168 / -43
    Packer Fan Since:
    1990

    Exactly what i'm saying. Just go do you Dwight..throw all this scheme stuff out the window.
  4. NelsonsLongCatch
    Offline

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Chi-Town
    Ratings Received:
    +567 / 31 / -20
    Yeah... Basically, "Dwight, it's 3rd-and-11. Make sure the quarterback doesn't have seven seconds to look down field and make a play"
  5. adambr2
    Offline

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,134
    Ratings Received:
    +727 / 15 / -3
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    1) Still doesn't answer why the Colts would let him go and sign Walden if they felt that strongly about Freeney's value. Every team wants a good pass rush.

    2) Supposing he really did have that value, why would he sign here for that role? He has been visiting with 4-3 defenses this week. If he is so good that he would make us so much better, why is he interested in signing with us to become a part time player for 12-17 snaps a game?

    No offense, I don't even know how Freeney got brought up, but I think it's way out there. It doesn't make sense on a lot of different levels. We haven't shown any interest in him and won't.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  6. NelsonsLongCatch
    Offline

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Chi-Town
    Ratings Received:
    +567 / 31 / -20
    Teams get rid of veterans all the time. Why did the Raiders get rid of Charles Woodson? Why did the Ravens not resign Ed Reed? Just because the original team doesn't want a player any more doesn't mean he's garbage.
  7. NorthWestCheeseHead
    Offline

    NorthWestCheeseHead Just talk about FACTS, baby

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    810
    Location:
    Bremerton WA
    Ratings Received:
    +282 / 36 / -5
    Packer Fan Since:
    1994
    I don't think in either of those instances the team letting the player go went out and signed someone to that position through FA. My memory is foggy on what the Raiders did after letting Woodson go though. (I was in Afghanistan at the time so I wasn't paying that much attention)
  8. adambr2
    Offline

    adambr2 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,134
    Ratings Received:
    +727 / 15 / -3
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    No one said he's garbage, but look at the situation individually, regardless of other veterans getting cut.

    His contract was up. They did not cut him to save a big cap hit, he was a free agent. They could have easily made him an offer.

    Instead, they paid Erik Walden $4M a year to play his old position.

    Wouldn't you say that is a pretty enormous red flag of how they feel about Freeney and how well he fits into a 3-4 defense?
  9. Raptorman
    Offline

    Raptorman Vikings fan since 1966.

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,953
    Location:
    Vero Beach, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +707 / 20 / -11
    Unless of course he was a Packer and is signed by the Vikings. Then he is. ;)
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. SpartaChris
    Online

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,036
    Ratings Received:
    +944 / 25 / -9
    No, he want's us to make a move, any move, in free agency for the sake of making a move. It doesn't need to be logical or make sense, so long as it's a free agent signing with name recognition, then he wants us to make it.
  11. Greenbayphil
    Offline

    Greenbayphil Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    485
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Ratings Received:
    +111 / 2 / -0
    I wouldn't ever consider signing Freeney, why? because we don't need him. Some of you guys are forgetting that we are going to have alot of good guys back next year and more rookies. Just chill.
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  12. NelsonsLongCatch
    Offline

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Chi-Town
    Ratings Received:
    +567 / 31 / -20
    We're both in agreement that Freeney shouldn't be a full time 3-4 OLB. We're both in agreement that Freeney doesn't fit as a 3-4 OLB. My point is that he doesn't have to be a full time player, only a situational pass rusher on a one-year contract. Remember, Worthy might not play until Week 11 and Perry had a very limited rookie season. As a situational pass rusher, you don't have to worry about scheme or coverage.

    And the Colts want to get younger since they're rebuilding.
  13. ivo610
    Offline

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    14,780
    Location:
    Madison
    Ratings Received:
    +3,428 / 81 / -25
    Players take a 1 yr contract as a last resort, most of the time in hopes if putting up good stats in order to land a bigger long term deal the next season. I don't see him even considering the packers as it would marginalize him and his impact.
  14. NelsonsLongCatch
    Offline

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Chi-Town
    Ratings Received:
    +567 / 31 / -20
    I agree, but the market for Freeney and Abraham seems to very small.
  15. Oshkoshpackfan
    Offline

    Oshkoshpackfan USMC4EVER

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    2,743
    Location:
    Camp Lejeune NC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,139 / 72 / -13
    Packer Fan Since:
    1981
    I don't know if I would say the market is small.....it may just be that people see them for what they really are, older and slower than they once were and teams don't want to shell out the type of money the players think they are worth. Had this been 3 years ago, both of those guys have been snatched up before you could blink an eye.
  16. paulska
    Offline

    paulska Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    56
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Ratings Received:
    +11 / 0 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1996
    Step away from the purple drank. Saturday was key in our regular season because....he was replaced by Evan Dietrich-Smith halfway through the year because he was ineffective and overpowered as a pass blocker and non-existent as a run blocker? Charles Woodson, injured for a huge chunk of the year, who overplayed balls and gave up big plays consistently when in the line up, missing tackles and blowing coverages he made as recently as last season? Greg Jennings, who was sidelined for a huge chunk of the year with groin issues, who flashed big a couple of games but was clearly no longer the mailcarrier in this offense when he was healthy?

    Collectively, those guys' huge salaries are off the books, and we have players behind them who equal or exceed their production at a better price tag, and not just on paper- all three of them were replaced by the same or better play by the next guy up on our roster for extended (at least half the season) chunks of time.

    If we fall to 5-11, it's because ARod misses extended time. Only reason...
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. 13 Times Champs
    Offline

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings Received:
    +1,377 / 86 / -17
    Packer Fan Since:
    1960
    Well EDS is better than Saturday. I'm not sure however whether he is the answer at center. At this point I'd have to say both are a step down from Wells who was interestingly a salary cap casualty. Woodson did indeed get old but I would ask you who his replacement is??? I'm assuming you think Cobb is Jennings replacement but I don't know if he will play the same role.
  18. slaughter25
    Online

    slaughter25 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    727
    Ratings Received:
    +211 / 7 / -2
    He was being sarcastic...
  19. AmishMafia
    Offline

    AmishMafia There's cheese under that hat

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,033
    Location:
    The heart of Amish Country, Las Vegas, NV
    Ratings Received:
    +1,394 / 50 / -4
    Doesn't matter if we are in a 'situation' - we still play in a scheme. I don't think Freeney is 1/2 the player you think he is. I would guess he doesn't make the team if we were to sign him. Now 5 years ago, yes, we could use Freeney circa 2007, but not him now.
  20. NelsonsLongCatch
    Offline

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,097
    Location:
    Chi-Town
    Ratings Received:
    +567 / 31 / -20
    Don't agree with that. The "scheme" for 3rd-and-long is get to the quarterback before his receivers run past the first down marker. No matter what team or defense, it's the same "scheme" on 3rd-and-long.
  21. ExpatPacker
    Offline

    ExpatPacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    1,035
    Location:
    A Galaxy Far, Far Away
    Ratings Received:
    +369 / 7 / -0
    Apparently however the coaching staff doesn't think that EDS was good enough. (See the latest on the interview w/ MM). The same is true of our LT situation with Newhouse, and Sherrod's injury is a apparently more than just a bad break.

    So, OC and LT. If this team is going to play at a high level in 2013, there has to be improvement at these two positions. That could mean an OL drafted in round 1, especially if a guy like Jonathan Cooper is still on the board. LT is a bit dicier. You know that the top 3 will be long gone by #26. Who is the best LT after that is something I couldn't even begin to guess on.
  22. paulska
    Offline

    paulska Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    56
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Ratings Received:
    +11 / 0 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1996
    Most draft boards I'm seeing have A&M's Joeckel, then Eastern Michigan's Fisher, then Oklahoma's Johnson as the three top rated tackles that project to LT, and a lot of the boards have them all in the top 10 in terms of quality of player in the draft, but that's not how the draft shakes out per se. I think you're right that those first three guys are likely gone by #26, although there's an outside chance that Johnson is still around, as there is a ton of depth at DL and LB, and a few CBs that are likely to creep up given that there isn't great depth at that position past the top three or four guys.

    I'm no draftnik, so I really don't know who the projected usual suspects are that are expected to be around when we draft that represent good value. Newhouse isn't blowing anyone away, agreed, but he's also no Jamarcus Webb out there either, and his price tag is doable. Anyone out there have a read on who is out there in terms of OL prospects that fit where we draft in terms of value and positional need?
  23. Bensalama21
    Offline

    Bensalama21 Ben

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    1,495
    Location:
    Charlotte
    Ratings Received:
    +578 / 13 / -0
    Hayward and Shields are going to be a top tandum in the league this year and Burnett will be an option for the pro bowl... Some younger players are turning into their prime also. You can't write off the defense because we lost a few people. The players we have now also improve year after year. (Not just free agents)
  24. 13 Times Champs
    Offline

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings Received:
    +1,377 / 86 / -17
    Packer Fan Since:
    1960
    So far Hayward has only played the slot receiver where he has done well. Saying he will start and excel in the base defense ????
  25. toolkien
    Offline

    toolkien Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 9, 2011
    Messages:
    87
    Ratings Received:
    +56 / 1 / -6
    I think the Packers should be o.k. in 2013. There's one essential trait, in this modern NFL, for teams to be a top end team - QB rating taken over QB rating given. Regardless of how you accomplish it. And who was #1 in QB rating taken over given in 2012? Green Bay. They've been at the top end in that stat for years, they were even 6th in that stat in 2008. This modern NFL is about making the playoffs and then winning the turnover margin once in. The Packers should make the playoffs, and there's little guarantee for the second part. The Ravens were just a short hair better than the Packers in 2012-2013 and they won it all, because they won the turnover margin. Every team has strengths and every team has holes. It's about hanging onto the ball once single elimination comes around. I certainly don't want the Packers mortgaging the future when they have a more than reasonable chance to make the playoffs as is. Blowing future cap space to increase potency for one or two seasons that are four combined fumbles/ints away from washing out regardless doesn't make sense. They just need to get in and take care of the ball and they have just as good a chance of winning than if they load up on talent paid for with future dollars. And they have just as good a chance of washing out adding greater potency if they turn the ball over four times in a playoff game.

Share This Page