Free Agency

[HardRightEdge]

There's a HUGE difference in the compensation for players signed in the first week of free agency vs. those signed after the draft and during training camp. Using free agency to complement your roster is fine. Using it to BUILD your roster is a sign of **** poor scouting and desperation.

It was deadpan sarcasm.

Earlier discussions have arbitrarily pegged the 48 hour period as having some magical significance, as though ALL the impact players are signed by them. Then it was bumped to a week. Soon it will be two weeks. I get what you're saying.

 

[adambr2]

As long as we win the North who cares right?? smh . Teams who wanna win a SB will spend the money to get the players they need to increase their chances...at least it seems that way.

Rodell -- every team wants to win a SB. I assure you that there is not a GM out there right now stroking his chin saying, "Hmm, I just don't really want to win a Super Bowl, so I don't think I'm going to get involved in free agency. I don't want to increase my chances of winning a Super Bowl, I want to decrease them."

And no it does not "seem that way". It seems that GM's who don't take the knee-jerk, "SIGN SOMEBODY, ANYBODY RIGHT NOW BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE GETS HIM!" tend to have long, sustained track records of success like Thompson has.

If you were GM, I'm pretty sure we would have emptied the piggy bank for Peppers in 2010, and done anything we could to land Asomugha the next year. We wouldn't even be discussing free agents right now, we would be talking about how on earth we're going to find a way to afford Rodgers at all.

If you look at recent Super Bowl champions, almost none of them had a prior offseason of significant FA signings. There is historical evidence that these big name FA signings haven't led to instant titles like people think they will in March. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[adambr2]

Here is an under the radar idea if anyone has concerns about WR after the departure of Jennings -- what about Darrius Heyward-Bey? Should be a pretty inexpensive signing, he was just cut by the Raiders. Top 10 pick in 2009 that never put it together in Oakland. The scouting report on him coming out of college showed a very strong skillset.

Still very young and has top-end speed while still possessing decent size. I would definitely take a flyer if it wasn't pricey. Worst case scenario, he's our #4 WR and we don't really have to worry about drafting another this year if we don't get one to fall. Best case scenario, maybe he puts it together now finally playing for an elite QB and becomes a major deep threat for Rodgers.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Here is an under the radar idea if anyone has concerns about WR after the departure of Jennings -- what about Darrius Heyward-Bey? Should be a pretty inexpensive signing, he was just cut by the Raiders. Top 10 pick in 2009 that never put it together in Oakland. The scouting report on him coming out of college showed a very strong skillset.

Still very young and has top-end speed while still possessing decent size. I would definitely take a flyer if it wasn't pricey. Worst case scenario, he's our #4 WR and we don't really have to worry about drafting another this year if we don't get one to fall. Best case scenario, maybe he puts it together now finally playing for an elite QB and becomes a major deep threat for Rodgers.

I think he's worth discussing.

First, the negatives.

He's best remembered for having dropped 30%+ of his targets his rookie year. That's not a misprint. Some may remember him dropping 3 balls against us in 2011. There's some concern he's not mastered even the rudiments of route running...kind of a "go run fast toward the big tree" kind of guy. And having been in Oakland, he's suffered from a dysfunctional organization and poor coaching. In short, he's a first round bust of the first order.

Now the pluses.

He'll be cheap. I can't imagine interest in FA being much more than James Jones received.

After dropping 3 balls against us, he went out the next week and put up a career best 155 yds. against Detroit. His drop percent has gone down steadily since his rookie year to around a tolerable 10% (about what Jennings, Cobb and Finley put up last year). The guy can take the top off a defense, and there lies the value.

We had a lot of trouble with cover 2 zone last year. I think a big part of that was defenses not respecting our WRs long speed while cheating toward the intermediate middle where Rodgers has been known to make a lot of hay. I think a guy like DH-B out there in some 4 and 5 WR sets adds a needed dimension. It may seem like a small point, but getting those safeties to take two steps back and over can make a significant difference.

Rodgers does not suffer bad route running well, and God help you if it causes a pick. We'd find out in a hurry what the guy can offer. No guaranteed money on this one.

I don't know if DH-B is the answer, but we need a long speed guy, now or in the draft.

 

[ivo610]

I think he's worth discussing.

First, the negatives.

He's best remembered for having dropped 30%+ of his targets his rookie year. That's not a misprint. Some may remember him dropping 3 balls against us in 2011. There's some concern he's not mastered even the rudiments of route running...kind of a "go run fast toward the big tree" kind of guy. And having been in Oakland, he's suffered from a dysfunctional organization and poor coaching. In short, he's a first round bust of the first order.

Now the pluses.

He'll be cheap. I can't imagine interest in FA being much more than James Jones received.

After dropping 3 balls against us, he went out the next week and put up a career best 155 yds. against Detroit. His drop percent has gone down steadily since his rookie year to around a tolerable 10% (about what Jennings, Cobb and Finley put up last year). The guy can take the top off a defense, and there lies the value.

We had a lot of trouble with cover 2 zone last year. I think a big part of that was defenses not respecting our WRs long speed while cheating toward the intermediate middle where Rodgers has been known to make a lot of hay. I think a guy like DH-B out there in some 4 and 5 WR sets adds a needed dimension. It may seem like a small point, but getting those safeties to take two steps back and over can make a significant difference.

Rodgers does not suffer bad route running well, and God help you if it causes a pick. We'd find out in a hurry what the guy can offer. No guaranteed money on this one.

I don't know if DH-B is the answer, but we need a long speed guy, now or in the draft.

He is a player that really intrigues me as he has some unique skills as well as shown improvement every season. I think it's an option if we don't draft a wr but like I said earlier, I prefer younger guys as that #4,5 option.

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

The biggest issue is that until Oakland drafted him, no one, and I mean no one, saw him as a top pick. Complete reach. Let him battle for a PS spot. I would rather resign some of our PS WR's that went elsewhere and now are FA's. we had a tough time last year deciding who would make our final squad. Lets give them a look, since most didn't stick with where they landed. Then draft in the later rounds.

 

[adambr2]

The problem with free agency is that you are inherently going into it knowing that you will have to pay a player more than he is worth. This is especially true at the top, then less so the further down you get, where you can find bargains. Unrestricted free agents, especially the best ones are able to take advantage of basic economical supply and demand. Very high skilled free agents are low in supply and high in demand so they are able to often get ridiculously high deals, like Mario Williams did last year. Of course there may be less of a demand or more of a demand at a position in a given year, which also affects the market.

Even with less skilled free agents, you've still got 32 different opinions of you and all it takes is one to get overpayed, enter Erik Walden.

So it's typically to the team's benefit to extend guys before they hit free agency, where you can at least offer financial security in exchange for a lesser deal, like we did with TJ Lang. This is why Colledge got more money from the Cardinals than we had to give Lang. It certainly isn't Colledge being better than Lang.

I do think it's okay to play the free agency game, because the alternative is that you have to be nearly perfect on your drafting and scouting and who you give extensions to, and that just isn't realistic. You have to overpay once in awhile, just like when you overpay in fantasy football in a trade because you have 4 starting running backs and are leaving too many points on your bench every week but you desperately need a WR.

You just have to be smart about how you do it, pick and choose your spots, and don't just make moves for the sake of doing so. Steven Jackson and Greg Jennings had 12 million and 48 million reasons to sign elsewhere, and it would have been financially foolish for our franchise to give them more reasons than that to come. Be patient -- free agency is not over.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The biggest issue is that until Oakland drafted him, no one, and I mean no one, saw him as a top pick. Complete reach. Let him battle for a PS spot. I would rather resign some of our PS WR's that went elsewhere and now are FA's. we had a tough time last year deciding who would make our final squad. Lets give them a look, since most didn't stick with where they landed. Then draft in the later rounds.

Veteran players are not eligible for PS. To qualify for practice squad you have to be in the league 3 years or less and have been on a game day roster no more than a few times...6 or 8 games total, I can't recall the exact number at the moment.

We know Davis drafted him too high. It's irrelevant now...he'll be a cheap contract.

PS: Tory Gurley had poor early speed, lacked quickness in his cuts, and couldn't separate. You don't want to bother with him. His best shot is get up to 245 and play TE. He was working on it...he reported last year at 235, and MM was not happy about it.

 

[adambr2]

The biggest issue is that until Oakland drafted him, no one, and I mean no one, saw him as a top pick. Complete reach. Let him battle for a PS spot. I would rather resign some of our PS WR's that went elsewhere and now are FA's. we had a tough time last year deciding who would make our final squad. Lets give them a look, since most didn't stick with where they landed. Then draft in the later rounds.

That's not really true. A lot of mocks did have him going in the top 10. Some had him more towards the back of the 1st round. Very few saw him getting out of the 1st round.

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

Correct on the PS, I didn't realize he had already been in the league so long. For the ex pack receivers, there were two others, Smithson I think was one, and there was another, besides Gurley... but DHB, fast, not accomplished. Low pay, yeah try him out, but we have released guys that have spent time, know o ur system and might make more impact. I am not a fan of WR's from other teams. We seem to be able to draft or sign and develop better at this than any other position than almost any other team.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Reminder: We have players like Rodgers and CM3 that need to be retained.

Spending money, because you have money, is about the most foolish thing an NFL GM can do. But think about that, we have $18M in cap space with one of the most talented rosters in all of football. TT did that not by quick reaction to perceived problems with spending on FAs.

As with my post above, there are many more negatives than there are positives about signing impact FAs. As such, there are more mistakes than successes when it comes to signing them. What some don't seem to get, is that it is not always an option. Take DE. There has to be a person who fits this:

1. Fits the system
2. Is reliable (not an injury risk)
3. Want to play in GB
4. Represents a significant increase in the talent level
5. Fits the locker room
6. Agrees to the $$$ the Packers feel he is worth
7. Will not adversely affect the team in any way shape or form.

That weeds out most of the FAs.

Cullin Jenkins. Too late.

As far as your reminder, I'm reminded we very recently offered Jennings $8 mil per year...which he declined. Packer management seems to think they have an $8 million cushion.

 

[texaspackerbacker]

Good Point made above about lack of speed for deep routes among Packer receivers. Even if a guy misses 30% of the time (which I doubt he is still that bad), he still needs to be covered - which loosens things up for the rest of the receivers. I'll give a "maybe" to getting DHB, but we could use somebody with more speed - unless Ross already fills that role.

 

[FrankRizzo]

DHB was shockingly drafted BEFORE Michael Crabtree, who was rated the #1 WR in that draft by 999 of 1000 people/groups surveyed. The 1 out of 1000 was Al Davis.

Raider fans were PIZZZZZZZZED off when that pick was announced, as Packer fans were when Justine Harrell's name was announced.
Both fan bases were horrifically proven WAAAAAAAAY right on those 2 REACHES.

But if cheap, I'd certainly entertain the addition of DHB, perhaps he could just stick as the KR/PR so we don't have to have Cobb there....

 

[toolkien]

I know TT doesn't really do the free agency thing but man with Harvin going to the Seahawks and Boldin to the 49ers and other guys out there I feel like that poor kid that watches all his friends get cool new toys. I know we have been relatively successful drafting and building from within but I can't still not feel that we are missing out on a key piece or pieces to make us better. I don't want to waste Rodgers years here not giving him the best possible players. I think we should have won more playoff games and at least another Super Bowl when Favre was here if we would have done more. I realize with contracts coming up we have to be smart but it drives me crazy sometimes with all these other teams gobbling up guys.

From 1992-2007, the Packers had the best regular season record in all of football.

http://pfref.com/pi/share/EopSW

From 1992-2007, the Packers had the best regular season record AGAINST PLAYOFF CALIBER TEAMS in all of football, the only team above .500 against playoff caliber teams played in the regular season.

http://pfref.com/pi/share/6inDP

But the Packers had only the 9th best playoff win/loss over that time.

http://pfref.com/pi/share/aG8Bc

What accounted for the difference in fortunes? TURNOVERS. The Packers gave the ball away like it was on fire in the playoffs, a habit the current teams have had as well. Turnovers pretty much dictate your postseason success, especially over the last 13 years or so.

So just how much more were the Packers supposed to do? They had all the necessary potency as displayed by regular season success, even against playoff caliber teams. Unfortunately they got a little "choky" when single elimination time came around. I guess too many fans couldn't let that reality sink in as it tended to tarnish the reputation of The Great One, who was more than front and center in that chokability (which is what made that Viking 2009 season an inevitability, combining Favre with the poster child franchise for choking).

And, in the end, unless people can justify pricey free agent acquisitions in terms of guaranteeing winning the turnover margin, it's a waste of time to worry about it. This modern version of the Packers has displayed high end potency (2nd most potent team in the NFL the last 4 years behind New England) and they have the 2nd best post season value (behind Baltimore). Largely they have failed to follow the regular season model that gets them into the playoffs, particularly with regard to turnovers. Adding a big name doesn't do a whole lot if the Packers continue to fail in maintaining their top end turnover margin ways once single elimination comes along. Too many people tend to run for the hills and assume the team is less potent than it is. The Packers don't need to sign a litany of over hyped names, and over pay them, they need to hang onto the damn ball in the playoffs like they do in the regular season. If McCarthy and his staff don't have the players ready for post season intensity, shelling out $10M per season for Player X isn't going to do much to fix it.

 

[Shawnsta3]

Anybody else notice how at the end of every regular season and after our postseason wins and super bowl wins all we hear is support for TT and "TT knows best" but come free agency its all " why is Ted such a cheap Bastard?"

Everyone else already hit it out of the park on this thread including Amish Mafia. The reason we have one off the most talented teams with the most cap room ability to extend most of our own guys is because we don't overspend on FA's. We wouldn't be able to extend Rodgers, Matthews, Raji if we already spent big bucks on Asamghoua, Jennings, Jenkins and Jackson.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Anybody else notice how at the end of every regular season and after our postseason wins and super bowl wins all we hear is support for TT and "TT knows best" but come free agency its all " why is Ted such a cheap Bastard?"

Everyone else already hit it out of the park on this thread including Amish Mafia. The reason we have one off the most talented teams with the most cap room ability to extend most of our own guys is because we don't overspend on FA's. We wouldn't be able to extend Rodgers, Matthews, Raji if we already spent big bucks on Asamghoua, Jennings, Jenkins and Jackson.

TT offered Jennings $8 mil per year.

 

[Shawnsta3]

TT offered Jennings $8 mil per year.

Right, that's one name though. Not every single free agent from another team that doesn't fit our system and wants the. big bucks.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Right, that's one name though. Not every single free agent from another team that doesn't fit our system and wants the. big bucks.

You missed my point.

You said, "We wouldn't be able to extend Rodgers, Matthews, Raji if we already spent big bucks on Asamghoua, Jennings, Jenkins and Jackson."

TT offering anybody $8 mil per year, be it Jennings or anybody else, indicates that TT himself (or Russ Ball if that happens to be case) does not buy the Rodgers/Matthews/Raji argument from his current position at $18 mil under the cap. You actually mentioned Jennings, for whom TT had a large chunk of money on the table.

 

[Shawnsta3]

You missed my point.

You said, "We wouldn't be able to extend Rodgers, Matthews, Raji if we already spent big bucks on Asamghoua, Jennings, Jenkins and Jackson."

TT offering anybody $8 mil per year, be it Jennings or anybody else, indicates that TT himself (or Russ Ball if that happens to be case) does not buy the Rodgers/Matthews/Raji argument from his current position at $18 mil under the cap. You actually mentioned Jennings, for whom TT had a large chunk of money on the table.

Yeah I'm not sure what you mean. I think we're hung up on the number, 8 million. I don't consider that huge and I also think had you seen him accept that, Finley's contact would be extended/ renegotiated/ cut. Which would have pretty much evened it it and we'd be exactly where we started with around 15-20 million for Rodgers, Matthews, Raji.

 

[7thFloorRA]

Raji doesn't need a dime until he learns how to play every snap he is on the field.

 

[ivo610]

Bradshaw intrigues me with his great blocking. Very underrated aspect of a RB.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I like Bradshaw's game, 27 years old, fewer than 1000 carries, won't cost that much, hasn't displayed any off field knucklehead activities for about 4 years.

I'd be concerned about his recurring foot injuries.

 

[J Mills]

Biggest issue with Bradshaw is he can't stay healthy. It would have to be at the right price. I can't see paying a part time player full time money.

 

[ivo610]

A ton of value free agents available. Most a little older than I would like, but I expect TT to start kicking tires now.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

A ton of value free agents available. Most a little older than I would like, but I expect TT to start kicking tires now.

indeed.....I am getting a little de ja vu from 2012.....wonder how long we will end up keeping the newest batch of has beens or never will be's??