Good article on Thompson

[Deleted member 6794]

Of the top 10 free agent spending teams this season, guess how many even made the playoffs? THREE

From those three, guess how many are still playing? ZERO

Gotta a link to the top 10 teams???

 

[FrankRizzo]

Of the top 10 free agent spending teams this season, guess how many even made the playoffs? THREE

From those three, guess how many are still playing? ZERO

Top 5 FA CB signings from last off-season:

Biggest contracts

1. Keenan Lewis, New Orleans Saints - five years, $25.55 million ($5.11 million per season, $6 million signing bonus)
2. Chris Houston, Detroit Lions - five years, $25 million ($5 million per season, $6.5 million signing bonus, $9.5 million guaranteed)
3. Derek Cox, San Diego Chargers - four years, $20 million ($5 million per season, $5.2 million signing bonus, $10.25 million guaranteed)
4. Sean Smith, Kansas City Chiefs - three years, $18 million ($5.5 million per season, $6.75 million signing bonus, $7.465 million guaranteed)

5. Cary Williams, Philadelphia Eagles - three years, $17 million ($5.67 million per season, $5 million signing bonus, $5.75 million guaranteed)

Pay attention to these numbers as Sam Shields is looking to get paid. Some comps for him here.

2012

2012's Biggest CB Contracts

1. Lardarius Webb, Baltimore Ravens - six years, $50 million ($8.34 million per season, $10 million signing bonus, $23 million guaranteed)

2. Brandon Carr, Dallas Cowboys - five years, $50.1 million ($10.02 million per season, $10 million signing bonus, $25.5 million guaranteed)

3. Cortland Finnegan, St. Louis Rams - five years, $50 million ($10 million per season, $5 million signing bonus, $27 million guaranteed)

4. Carlos Rogers, San Francisco 49ers - four years, $29.3 million ($7.33 million per season, $5 million signing bonus, $14.5 million guaranteed)

 

[NOMOFO]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9...-breaks-big-spenders-big-bargains-free-agency

 

[PackerFlatLander]

Yep...It's a giant reach to begin to justify Raji's numbers. As I said, I love the guy and it kills me but he has just sucked. Forget the numbers...how about the eye test? I have no idea how anyone that's watched the Pack play could not see it.

I agree 100%. Love the guy, too and guys his size don't come around hardly ever very often, but he's certainly been nothing special as of late. My guess is they rip him loose because someone is going to overpay for him, I guarantee it.

 

[NOMOFO]

Boldin and Harvin were two pretty huge pickups but they were through trade so they wouldn't count in a 'free agency only' review.

I do get your point which is why I'm very much against signing a guy like Byrd who will command a lot of money. I just want some guys looking for their second contract, who haven't received a lot of playing time (maybe they were behind a good player on the old team), that can compete for a starting role and, if injuries occur, won't leave us with first and second year guys as the only backups.

Agreed... or some decent vets that just want a legit shot at a Super Bowl so they'll come at a decent price. I'm fine with snagging a player like that with a 2-3 yr contract or so. It's when teams end up signing two or more starters (on one side of the ball) to shorter term higher dollar contracts that they get in trouble with the CAP.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9...-breaks-big-spenders-big-bargains-free-agency

Once again you only tell half of the story. It's true that only three of the top 10 spending teams in free agency made the playoffs and that none of them is playing now.

BUT five of them improved their record during the 2013 season while one of them had the same. In 2012 only one of those teams made the playoffs, losing in the wild-card round.

 

[NOMOFO]

Once again you only tell half of the story. It's true that only three of the top 10 spending teams in free agency made the playoffs and that none of them is playing now.

BUT five of them improved their record during the 2013 season while one of them had the same. In 2012 only one of those teams made the playoffs, losing in the wild-card round.

I'm trying to find information on the most active teams in free agency over the past 5 years. That's the most telling and that's the point! Like I said 100 times now, there is ZERO doubt in my mind that both Seattle and San Fran are about to start to spin back down next year thanks to them not building out there rosters past this year and over-signing FA!

I'm NOT the LEAST surprised that teams spending big in free agency "won more games" than the year before. Just like a crack addict will feel much better after spending on that hit he just took! The goal is not to win more games. It's to win the Super Bowl! Do you want to wager me about those same teams going to the playoffs in 2015? I will take that bet.

You complain that the Packers season is lost if we don't get further into the playoffs, yet you point to non-playoff teams "winning more games" as proof that free agency makes sense?! lol REALLY? Ironically, these same teams that "won more games" seldom go to the playoffs much less win playoff games.

I don't know how many times this needs to be said, Ted Thompson rosters for long term success, not "more wins this year".

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm trying to find information on the most active teams in free agency over the past 5 years. That's the most telling and that's the point! Like I said 100 times now, there is ZERO doubt in my mind that both Seattle and San Fran are about to start to spin back down next year thanks to them not building out there rosters past this year and over-signing FA!

I'm totally sure you said that about the Patriots in the early 2000s as well.

The goal is not to win more games. It's to win the Super Bowl!

You complain that the Packers season is lost if we don't get further into the playoffs

Within one post you name winning the Super Bowl as the only goal, still bash me for not being satisfied with a early playoff exit.

I don't know how many times this needs to be said, Ted Thompson rosters for long term success, not "more wins this year".

That's true. The problem though is that it's although build for early playoff exits. And even if the Seahawks and Niners will hit rock bottom in a few years there will be other teams around build for one or two Super Bowls ending another Packers season too early.

 

[NOMOFO]

I'm totally sure you said that about the Patriots in the early 2000s as well.



Within one post you name winning the Super Bowl as the only goal, still bash me for not being satisfied with a early playoff exit.



That's true. The problem though is that it's although build for early playoff exits. And even if the Seahawks and Niners will hit rock bottom in a few years there will be other teams around build for one or two Super Bowls ending another Packers season too early.

That's fine. That's your opinion and that is totally fine. You are not alone. For me, I would rather be in it with a chance damn near every year, than have a slightly better chance and "go for it" one year, knowing they will then be losing games a few years.

Honestly though... do you at all see how your view on this looks kind of insane from where we are as a Packer's team?

Just a yes or no here captain-be 100% honest:
If you are a betting man, if the Packers were a healthy, would they have beaten the 49ers two weeks ago?

And regarding the comment about winning verses winning Super Bowls. AGAIN- how else can a logical person look at this, than to say, the Packers are THREE YEARS removed from winning the Super Bowl. THREE YEARS. No- Ted doesn't look to win "more" games, he looks to win every game!!!!!!!! You really are trying too hard now.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Just a yes or no here captain-be 100% honest:
If you are a betting man, if the Packers were a healthy, would they have beaten the 49ers two weeks ago?

It's not as easy as that as that would be pure speculation. I think there's a good chance that we would have beaten the Niners, but it's not a given.

And regarding the comment about winning verses winning Super Bowls. AGAIN- how else can a logical person look at this, than to say, the Packers are THREE YEARS removed from winning the Super Bowl. THREE YEARS. No- Ted doesn't look to win "more" games, he looks to win every game!!!!!!!!

That's three years of losing although having the best QB in the league. The offense is fine and probably will be for years. On the defensive side of the ball mistakes have been made though and it has cost the Packers.

First letting Jenkins go was a wrong decision. Collins injury was a freak accident, but TT has had three years now to at least find a decent replacement but has failed miserably. The same can be said about the OLB position opposite Clay. After Woodson was let go the defense seemed to lack a true leader, but no replacement was brought in. Seems like he overpaid last year for Burnett and Jones.

 

[NOMOFO]

It's not as easy as that as that would be pure speculation. I think there's a good chance that we would have beaten the Niners, but it's not a given.



That's three years of losing although having the best QB in the league. The offense is fine and probably will be for years. On the defensive side of the ball mistakes have been made though and it has cost the Packers.

First letting Jenkins go was a wrong decision. Collins injury was a freak accident, but TT has had three years now to at least find a decent replacement but has failed miserably. The same can be said about the OLB position opposite Clay. After Woodson was let go the defense seemed to lack a true leader, but no replacement was brought in. Seems like he overpaid last year for Burnett and Jones.

Even if we agree he's made some bad moves that cost the Pack a chance to beat the Niners, (despite being totally decimated by injury and almost beating them).... does that mean we change the way we do business moving forward? Winning Super Bowls in the NFL is not easy. We can ask about 20 teams. The first order of business is to get there.

Regardless... We know the Packers just won a SB three years ago. Right? We agree at the VERY LEAST, that the Packers can play San Fran even if healthy. Right? San Fran is playing for the NFC Championship Sunday. How, would any logical person knowing these facts, suggest Ted Thompson's roster approach needs to be changed? I'm sorry, it just makes no sense. Meanwhile, you named those teams that increased their wins this year. How many of those teams do you think will be in the playoffs next year? Don't know about you, but I'm picking the Packers to be there.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Regardless... We know the Packers just won a SB three years ago. Right? We agree at the VERY LEAST, that the Packers can play San Fran even if healthy. Right? San Fran is playing for the NFC Championship Sunday. How, would any logical person knowing these facts, suggest Ted Thompson's roster approach needs to be changed? I'm sorry, it just makes no sense.

It's fine for me if you want to speculate about "what if..." and be glad that we could have beat the Niners or any other team in the playoffs, we have lost four in a row to them, going 2-7 against playoff teams over the last two regular seasons. TT's approach is fine most of the time, but he has to use free agency this offseason to improve the team (look it up, most beat writers think that way as well).

Meanwhile, you named those teams that increased their wins this year. How many of those teams do you think will be in the playoffs next year? Don't know about you, but I'm picking the Packers to be there.

You came up with the highest spending teams in 2013 and how many of them are still playing, I just pointed out that wasn't a fair evaluation of the free agent impact because those teams were even worse the year before.

And BTW, why do you have to post so much stuff in either CAPITALS or bold??? That doesn't make you more credible.

 

[NOMOFO]

It's fine for me if you want to speculate about "what if..." and be glad that we could have beat the Niners or any other team in the playoffs, we have lost four in a row to them, going 2-7 against playoff teams over the last two regular seasons. TT's approach is fine most of the time, but he has to use free agency this offseason to improve the team (look it up, most beat writers think that way as well).


You came up with the highest spending teams in 2013 and how many of them are still playing, I just pointed out that wasn't a fair evaluation of the free agent impact because those teams were even worse the year before.

And BTW, why do you have to post so much stuff in either CAPITALS or bold??? That doesn't make you more credible.

the reason I post in capitals and bold? it's the ADHD thing I mentioned 100 times.... clearly some don't read very well...or they pick and choose what they want to let sink in... for instance ....do you know how many times now I said I would welcome ted snagging some FA if he can find them at a decent price? yet, again and again people post that I am totally against signing free agents. ADHD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!