Free agent Paul Kruger

If the ravens tag flacco they will be 20 mil over the cap and unable to tag Kruger.

Thoughts on this guy? He's had a great year. I feel he is too expensive for us but should be someone to keep an eye on.

I wouldn't mind this signing if it were possible.

He's definitely had a star-on-the-rise kind of year. I'll admit I didn't know who he was until halfway through this season. I'd snap him up in an instant, but I definitely feel like he'll sign longterm in Baltimore.

Those are some tough numbers to work for them.

Some teams have a huge amount of cap space and could very well sign him to a long term front loaded deal.

He'd be a great pick-up if we could land him for a reasonable price, but as I said on another thread, if he was going to give a discount to work for a contender, he'd stay in Baltimore.

Gotta think with the dumping of Lewis and probably Reed off the books will free up some space and Kruger will stay...we'll see though.

I guess I'm just of the mindset that if there's an up-and-comer like him, there are ways for the team to play things so they don't lose him. I don't know the ins and outs, and I know there are always cap casualties, but I just don't see it happening to guys who are angling for their first post-rookie contract.

True. The key is flaccos contract in this whole thing.

Not in Teddy's MO.

Kruger's price tag is bound to be at a premium after arguably being the Ravens top defender on their SB run, although there's no question he can play in our scheme. The one reservation I have is that he's not good at all in coverage on athletic TEs and RB's- if you're going to pay big $$, I'd make sure it was on someone who had the full range of tools. That's why Woodson was such a good signing for us- up until the last season and a half, he could literally do it all for us (cover, hit, blitz, spy, tackle).

Smart notes about Ray Lewis and Ed Reed's large salaries coming off the books for the Ravens. That said, like others have mentioned, if Flacco is going to hold out for more than Peyton money, I still don't see how they sign him and anyone else of note.

Our problem is going to be that we have three big contracts to take care of in house: ARod, CM3 and Raji are all notable renegotiations that need happen before we go spend large on other premium free agents.

It ain't flashy, but so far resigning our own high performing blue chip talent has been a really stable and rewarding strategy. It drives people crazy, but the best way to fill holes is with young talent obtained through the draft where the first four years offer impact at a very affordable price tag.

I think it's funny that the NBA is now facing the same reality as the NFL has lived with for the better part of a decade- even LeBron knows that three max salaries can't deliver championships in the new CBA, and that teams are going to need to be optimal at getting performance and value out of draft picks if they hope to contend, or else the luxury tax penalties are insane...

with what Raji has shown, i wouldn't resign him for any big time money. He isn't worth it and to me he is a borderline bust(considering where he was drafted). Now Rodgers and Matthews are players that have to be re-signed.

I have said it before and i will say it again, the packers are maybe 2-4 players away (mostly on D) from being ready to win a super bowl. Kruger could be 1 of those guys. that isn't to say to go spend an insane amount on him but if the price is fair I say do it.

The days of constantly drafting players is over, we have enough depth and enough raw talent that trading a couple picks for proven starters would be worthwhile to do this year. I am not suggesting to forgo the draft completely but eventually you can't keep everybody and some years you need to make some trades and free agent signings to either take the next step or just fill a void for 1 year.

Thats a very good point. Rodgers didnt come to MM as a finished product, he required development, which is one of MMs strengths. During Rodgers' first 3 years behind Favre it was not clear what we had. Rodgers was inconsistent in the preaeason and seemed injury-prone.

Remember when we drafted Brian Brohn when he fell to us in the 2nd in 2008. Obviously that didnt pan out but at the time that was an insurance policy to Rodgers.

Which means he'll (likely) be too expensive for our tastes.

If you think of NFL teams as riding waves in the ocean towards the Super Bowl, the Packers are near the top of the wave. We won in 2010 and some may say we already crested and are moving back down towards the trough. It's possible to stay on top of the wave but you've got to have excellent balance (cap space) to do so. You can go all in with a top dollar free agent or two and see if it works, but that likely will mean shedding some of your stars in 2-3 seasons when the cap hits. Otherwise you can remain frugal maybe never hit the SB again, or find balance somewhere in between. TT seems to be more focused about staying on the peak of the wave versus getting to its highest peak.

All that means that I don't think he'll jump for a SB free agent.

Time to spend some money and stop being cheap. TT's prospects at linebacker havn't really panned out except Matthews. Time to go after a proven guy.

He could be useful but you have to take into account the people around him as well. He's a good player but I wouldn't say break the bank for him.

Seriously, does anyone think Thompson would offer this guy the money he'll want? I'd love to have him but not in TT's mo.

With what money? You remember Matthews isdue an extension, probably somewhere around the 11 mil mark, we still have to re-sign shields, and we'll probably tender EDS too. What money do we have to spend? We can cut Woodson to sign Matthews, but with an estimated 7 mil in cap with 5 mil tied up in the draft and contracts to redo, you can't sign an 8 mil FA. I'm sorry, but the math denies you.

PIPE DREAM

Also, I saw on twitter someone asked the stat geek site ProFootballFocus about how Kruger fared overall yesterday.
They responded that he didn't play enough really because the coaches thought Courtney Upshaw was a better option against that 49er offense.

Interesting isn't THAT.

Draft day last year, most of Packer fans, and Kiper, McShay, expected or wanted the Packers to take Upshaw not Perry.

I even said that. I knew Upshaw would be the better OLB. I think Teddy just fell in love with Perry being able to run a 4.5 40. Just cause a guy is fast doesn't make him a pass rusher...it helps, but you have to be able to shed blocks and take the proper angles. The thing that makes Clay Matthews so good is the angles he takes, and how uses his hands..not his speed.

I don't think his 40 time had much to do with it. We normally draft out of a major conference in the first round and Perry was the obvious choice given who was left. Plus Upshaw's weight and athleticism were a question mark for an edge rusher. A guy who weighs close to 280 isn't really an ideal build for a 3-4 OLB and his coverage ability as displayed at the combine was rather dismal.

But Baltimore runs a 3-4, and they took Upshaw.
And they liked him more than Kruger vs San Francisco.

Is it not possible Ted chose wrong on this one?
Year one, clearly the edge goes to Upshaw & Baltimore.

Things can change though. I do like Perry and I agree with Ted.

Perry adds something that every defense needs and our defense missed sorely against San Fran-- speed.

He also was coming along really well considering where he started from with no knowledge as a LB. I would take Perry's quickness over Upshaw's bulk any day.

I said I like Perry and agree with Ted.
X coming your way too.......

I think Perry could be good as a d-end. He could turn out to be the next dwight freeney..or Vernon Gholston.