Free Agency

H

HardRightEdge

Guest
I love the argument we have to keep Rodgers and Matthews so that's why we can't spend on a free agent. Agree we have to keep them. But as valuable as these guys are they won't be enough to win another title without upgrading the rest of the roster. Unless we can find a way to do that we will be perennial also rans. Some may be happy with that, not me. We've got to find a way to keep Rodgers and Matthews and get someone in free agency to help at either safety, DE, LB or LOT. I don't think we can address all those needs with the draft alone.

You could add TB to the list, and TE if Finley is gone. There are more holes and injury question marks than we've seen in several seasons.
 

rodell330

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
5,611
Reaction score
493
Location
Canton, Ohio
I love the argument we have to keep Rodgers and Matthews so that's why we can't spend on a free agent. Agree we have to keep them. But as valuable as these guys are they won't be enough to win another title without upgrading the rest of the roster. Unless we can find a way to do that we will be perennial also rans. Some may be happy with that, not me. We've got to find a way to keep Rodgers and Matthews and get someone in free agency to help at either safety, DE, LB or LOT. I don't think we can address all those needs with the draft alone.


Exactly. The NFC is getting tougher and what we have as of now is a team that can make the playoffs... but not win a SB. Jenkins went to New york for cheap, and Krueger is going to sign with the Browns. What is TT waiting for? We need help on defense and now two of the better guy's at their position are gone. SMH this "building through the draft" mindset is kinda getting on my nerves.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
"TOP of the FA market."

If reports are true, only Tampa was interested in him and wanted him at safety. Only the Pack wanted him as a CB. Really wouldn't consider him 'at the top' of the FA market. But your point is taken.

But also please note, only the Pack and the Saints won a SB with a high dollar FA. So obviously the Packers are willing to go after a guy with high FA bucks if it is a good deal. Leads me to think, that most of the deals out there, TT does not consider a good deal.

Now, now. Those are the only two I could think of off the top of my head. There are surely more. I was simply observing that Breer was wrong; I was not providing a Packer prescription. As for Woodson not being "top of the market", what we paid him says otherwise.

It's not a question of either big name signings or "just guys" for the vet minimum. Why do people always think in extremes? There's the wide middle ground where decent players can be had, and likely at a good price this year. Canty, for example, would be valuable add if proven to be healthy and reasonably priced.
 

13 Times Champs

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
3,924
Reaction score
424
Location
Virginia
You could add TB to the list, and TE if Finley is gone. There are more holes and injury question marks than we've seen in several seasons.

Business as usual won't be enough. Look I agree the draft is and should be the staple in building a team. But Thompson has to step outside those boundaries this year.
 

BorderRivals.com

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
594
Reaction score
77
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Exactly. The NFC is getting tougher and what we have as of now is a team that can make the playoffs... but not win a SB. Jenkins went to New york for cheap, and Krueger is going to sign with the Browns. What is TT waiting for? We need help on defense and now two of the better guy's at their position are gone. SMH this "building through the draft" mindset is kinda getting on my nerves.

CNNSI.com ranks the Packers front office as the second-best in the league because of its draft-and-develop and avoid pricey free ageny spending that more often dooms teams than rewards them. Winners in March don't win in January/February.
 

rodell330

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
5,611
Reaction score
493
Location
Canton, Ohio
CNNSI.com ranks the Packers front office as the second-best in the league because of its draft-and-develop and avoid pricey free ageny spending that more often dooms teams than rewards them. Winners in March don't win in January/February.


We've been embarassed two years in a row in the playoffs..i think it's time for a new approach dontcha think?
 

rodell330

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
5,611
Reaction score
493
Location
Canton, Ohio
Pro Football Talk reporting that the Packers are current leaders for RB Steven Jackson!!

We don't need Steven Jackson smh!! he's good but can he rush the passer? can he cover like a corner and hit like a linebacker? i'd much rather make a splash on defense then bring in Steven Jackson. Scoring points is not our issue..it's stopping people.
 

MidnightToker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
18
Reaction score
2
Location
Murfreesboro, TN
We don't need Steven Jackson smh!! he's good but can he rush the passer? can he cover like a corner and hit like a linebacker? i'd much rather make a splash on defense then bring in Steven Jackson. Scoring points is not our issue..it's stopping people.

I want him. As long as Dom keeps running our defense into the ground, we'll need to score 60 points to win each game. Thus, Aaron Rodgers + Steven Jackson
 

HyponGrey

Caseus Locutus Est
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
3,758
Reaction score
221
Location
South Jersey
I love the argument we have to keep Rodgers and Matthews so that's why we can't spend on a free agent. Agree we have to keep them. But as valuable as these guys are they won't be enough to win another title without upgrading the rest of the roster. Unless we can find a way to do that we will be perennial also rans. Some may be happy with that, not me. We've got to find a way to keep Rodgers and Matthews and get someone in free agency to help at either safety, DE, LB or LOT. I don't think we can address all those needs with the draft alone.
You could add TB to the list, and TE if Finley is gone. There are more holes and injury question marks than we've seen in several seasons.
TE RB LB are all draft fixable or at the very least cheap. LT and DE not so much. Plus "Never overpay for skill players" is slowly becoming dogma to me.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
Now, now. Those are the only two I could think of off the top of my head. There are surely more. I was simply observing that Breer was wrong; I was not providing a Packer prescription. As for Woodson not being "top of the market", what we paid him says otherwise.

It's not a question of either big name signings or "just guys" for the vet minimum. Why do people always think in extremes? There's the wide middle ground where decent players can be had, and likely at a good price this year. Canty, for example, would be valuable add if proven to be healthy and reasonably priced.
You have to agree, teams that do a lot of FA spending have not won the SB in some time.

As far as getting average players and decent value - what is the point? Why would you get an average player and higher $$$ when we have average players who may develop into better? Any player above average commands a premium price. TT, nor I, for that matter, is against going after FAs. Its just a rare situation when it actually helps your team. The 3 veteran DLs we signed last year, people were excited. In the end, only 1 made the roster, and he was cut after a few weeks.

I love the argument we have to keep Rodgers and Matthews so that's why we can't spend on a free agent. Agree we have to keep them. But as valuable as these guys are they won't be enough to win another title without upgrading the rest of the roster. Unless we can find a way to do that we will be perennial also rans. Some may be happy with that, not me. We've got to find a way to keep Rodgers and Matthews and get someone in free agency to help at either safety, DE, LB or LOT. I don't think we can address all those needs with the draft alone.

The problem with your logic is that there is a finite resource (salary cap) available. If spending money was the answer to improving your team - we would never win. There are several owners more than willing to throw everything they have at it to win. The best you can do, as a GM, is to assemble as much talent potential on the roster and hope a few players each year emerge to put you over the hump and its enough to win the SB. SB is the goal of everyone who is a Packer fan. There are 31 other teams, and 1600 other players who would run over their own mother to win the SB. It is not easy. Its not fair to call a season a failure if we don't win it. There are too many items out of TT's control - injuries and ignorant refs spring to mind quickly. But sometimes it can come down to a ball landing on its nose, does it bounce into the end zone for a touchback or does it bounce out at the 1 ft line.

I hear ya bro, i really do. However bringing in some help to improve upon that success isn't going to hurt.
It will more likely hurt than help.
 

13 Times Champs

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
3,924
Reaction score
424
Location
Virginia
The problem with your logic is that there is a finite resource (salary cap) available. If spending money was the answer to improving your team - we would never win. There are several owners more than willing to throw everything they have at it to win. The best you can do, as a GM, is to assemble as much talent potential on the roster and hope a few players each year emerge to put you over the hump and its enough to win the SB. SB is the goal of everyone who is a Packer fan. There are 31 other teams, and 1600 other players who would run over their own mother to win the SB. It is not easy. Its not fair to call a season a failure if we don't win it. There are too many items out of TT's control - injuries and ignorant refs spring to mind quickly. But sometimes it can come down to a ball landing on its nose, does it bounce into the end zone for a touchback or does it bounce out at the 1 ft line.


It will more likely hurt than help.

No the logic isn't flawed. Yes there is a salary cap. All the rest you said is fluff.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
Is the $18M under the cap that we're at including the rollover cap room from last year? I would assume yes, but just curious.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,356
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Milwaukee
Packers have a new cap guru I believe..So his thinking may help sway Ted..

Not saying it will, but one could hope
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Nothing

For some reason I thought Dorsey was the cap guy..I made mistake

No problem. So far, it's all going according to the typical script. Normally, I would endorse the conservative approach. This year...I think there are just too many holes, too many big injury uncertainties, to patch with draft picks.

What would really set me off, though, would be throwing money at Jennings (as the current rumor goes) while doing nothing in FA on the defensive side. That would be a weak default to a position of comfort.
 

Forderick

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
158
Reaction score
7
We don't need Steven Jackson smh!! he's good but can he rush the passer? can he cover like a corner and hit like a linebacker? i'd much rather make a splash on defense then bring in Steven Jackson. Scoring points is not our issue..it's stopping people.

while I agree about the defence being bad, but a good running game can eat up the clock giving the defence time to rest. this would in turn make them fresher and better.

and I just read that Chris Canty signed with the Ravens for a 3 year 8 million dollar deal. He might not be the best but at that price it would have been worth it, not only for depth but for his knowledge of the Giants system a team the packers can't beat.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,356
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Milwaukee
while I agree about the defence being bad, but a good running game can eat up the clock giving the defence time to rest. this would in turn make them fresher and better.

and I just read that Chris Canty signed with the Ravens for a 3 year 8 million dollar deal. He might not be the best but at that price it would have been worth it, not only for depth but for his knowledge of the Giants system a team the packers can't beat.

Link somewhere on the forum stating the Packers dr wouldnt approve his physical
 
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
386
Reaction score
45
Location
Titletown, Mexico
Young developing defense that was 11th in the league in spite of the injuries.
Our offense was still productive in spite of our starting tackles and runningback on IR.
11-5 10-6(superbowl win) 15-1 11-5
basically perennial contenders, yet we're whining about "HOLES!?!?!?" ... so we should hit the panic button (ala jerry jones) and make drastic moves to address these "holes" ? - "Let's go buy Brandon Carr - let's go trade up for Morris Claiborne." ... then be stuck restructuring contracts for the next several years, no thanks.

Draft - Develop ... stay the course, then watch as the 49ers/seahawks have to either cut a bunch of good players/or restructure a ton of contracts in the next year or so...
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top