2018 Free Agents to Target

[Dantés]

Either can work if the situation calls for it. At this point, this team would have won a few more games with Hundley and a better supporting cast too. Better around the QB will make this team better for whoever is playing QB. I see them needing to draft and plug well this next year, we'll be in the mix, but really push for it next year. If they can continue to get development from some young guys and hit on a 2 picks at important positions, Pass Rusher, DB on defense or another lock down tackle on offense, let the older contracts expire and hit the FA heavier next year or keep that vet QB then when this team is actually in position to win it all, go for it. This year? I'm just not seeing it. Our team needs to have changover and grow with some offensive and defensive guys. We aren't drowning in cap, but we don't have a lot of funds to be tossing around either.

Get this team in position with the right choices and growth this year, spend some more next year. Until this team is more solid all the way around, and with 11-12 draft picks to pick, move, bundle and trade whatever, we should be able to get some really solid players picking in the top half the draft for the first time in a long time. see what we have, then get the FA's after they know what they've picked. A season like this in the NFL, we'll compete for a Super Bowl next year, but i'm not expecting it. We could really position ourselves well, balanced on both sides with a year of work.

I just don't see any backup taking this team as it sits very far, but if everyone else is better, maybe.

To be clear, I'm not talking about someone like Matt Moore taking the Packers on a playoff run. I'm merely arguing that something better than horrendous at QB might have held serve while Rodgers was away and thus put the team in a better position to make the playoffs once Rodgers got back.

For instance, when the Packers are turning over Drew Brees and Aaron Jones is running for 131 yards, perhaps a QB who can do better than 12/25 for 87 yards and a pick would give them a chance and pull off the win. The team around Hundley gave him a chance to win that game with turnovers and rushing offense. He fell flat on his face with the worst performance of any QB that week.

So you absolutely want and need to improve the entire roster. But if the QB play is that dreadful, it probably isn't going to matter.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

With #12 behind center, I like our chances in any season. However, the odds of actually going all the way needs to be increased by doing what we all know needs to get done, improve the defense and build a more solid roster of the other 52 players. All that being said, if you are a team with a legit shot at the Super Bowl, you still need to focus on having a solid backup QB. Yes, it would suck to have to spend $5+ M on a backup for insurance, but I think most of us can see ways the Packers actually have that money available to do so. I would rather have that money invested in an insurance policy behind #12, than the alternative hapening, a potentially winning season is derailed because Gunt/Ball decided to pack away some of the cap for a rainy day or overspend it on a current player that wasn't playing up to his contract.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Currently, the Packers are 14th in the league on cap money being allocated to the QB position for 2018. It is interesting to page through each team and see who they are spending their money on.

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/quarterback/

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Some have suggested using a 1st or second rd. pick on a QB, which I still don't understand. First, he has to be paid each year and those are not cheap contracts. Second, when is this guy going to actually be of value to the team through his play? Finally, not only are you losing out on the opportunity of drafting a guy who could have a bigger immediate impact, but you are basically losing a roster spot to carry that QB. Eventually, that time will come when Rodgers window is set to close, but with all the needs the team currently has, I don't see putting an expensive rookie QB 3 deep on the roster as being a smart move.

 

[GleefulGary]

Do we need a better backup QB: Yes.

Do we need more talent around the team: Yes.

Did we need better coaching: Yes.

I think our struggles relate to all three of these things. Hundley had a couple games where he did ok/good, but for the most part, he sucked. I don't think our scheme did him any favors, but McCarthy clearly didn't trust him, which does indicate that he isn't any good. It doesn't really matter, but Keenum is a lot better than Hundley. Hundley consistently dropped his eyes at the thought of pressure...he did improve, and then his teammates let him down. Still, he's just not very good and it has to do with his head, not his physical talents. Not sure how you fix that.

Our defensive scheme was crap. We have good players on defense. HaHa, despite his horrendous year, is a good player. Randall is a good player. Clark, Daniels, are excellent, and Lowry is a good player. Martinez is a good player. CM3 and Perry are good players (when healthy). There is no reason we had to have the issues that we did last year considering our talent, and I believe our scheme, and the confusion related to is, was the major cause of our problems. But we also do need more talent. We need a young and upcoming WR to replace Nelson/Cobb, I think Allison is fine as a #3/#4 type, but that's his ceiling. Michael Clark might be good someday, but that's a couple years off. We desperately need a good TE. We need another safety that is good, preferably a good coverage safety and let HaHa be a box guy. We need more depth. At the end of the day, we just didn't have enough depth. And you know what? Most teams never have enough depth. In a league with a salary cap, and as a team with an elite QB, it's hard to build up depth. That doesn't mean it can't be done though.

Anyways, I feel like the talent on this team is underrated. We have an elite QB. We have a great OL. We have at least one very good WR. We have a great DL. We have two good edge rushers, one good LB, and some potential in the secondary and one safety who has shown he can be good. So we do have talent. We just need to use it better.

 

[Mondio]

To be clear, I'm not talking about someone like Matt Moore taking the Packers on a playoff run. I'm merely arguing that something better than horrendous at QB might have held serve while Rodgers was away and thus put the team in a better position to make the playoffs once Rodgers got back.

For instance, when the Packers are turning over Drew Brees and Aaron Jones is running for 131 yards, perhaps a QB who can do better than 12/25 for 87 yards and a pick would give them a chance and pull off the win. The team around Hundley gave him a chance to win that game with turnovers and rushing offense. He fell flat on his face with the worst performance of any QB that week.

So you absolutely want and need to improve the entire roster. But if the QB play is that dreadful, it probably isn't going to matter.

it isn't going to matter much, though the Jags won a playoff game like that but I agree, exceptions don't prove rules i just felt like being a *******.

But Hundley didn't have only those types of performances in that game, it was horrendous and with even close to average QB play we win. he was kind of all over. I know QB play lost us some games, but everyone played their part. Where Thielen was going up and making crazy catches against the Saints for Keenum's jump balls, Jordy was dropping a pass right in his hands, perfectly thrown on a slant for a 1st down on a 3rd down play. Instead of 4 more plays, we punt. He should be better, but they all played their part.

 

[Mondio]

So what you are saying is....."Hundley could have been worse"?

I'd rather not find out...

 

[gbgary]

Some have suggested using a 1st or second rd. pick on a QB,

that would be crazy...now...if they're keeping Rodgers.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'd rather not find out...

It will be interesting to see how the Packers address the #2 QB spot in the offseason. In the past, I would expect not much done by TT and MM, passing it off as "he just needs to learn" and seeing Hundley back as the #2.

I think most expect Gunt to bring in some competition for the position. Whether that is in the form of a veteran, a rookie or a combination of, who knows. I don't see Callahan or a rookie as being competitive enough to immediately push Hundley out of the spot, but then again, look at Dak and Russell.

Although I wouldn't be 100% comfortable with Hundley in 2018, an offseason of studying his game film, training camp and preseason games might push him to that next level. I also get what you (Mondio) and some are saying, signing a vet QB doesn't guarantee anything either.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think there is any way whoever was in charge doesn't bring in competition for Hundley. and I know MM is a smart coach. I also know he's always going to go to bat for his players that are working hard, regardless of their physical, mental, whatever limitations. I'm confident he knows what he has in Hundley at this point. maybe all of it wasn't apparent before the real games, but at this point, he knows. I do agree with someone who said it's in his (hundley's) head why he wasn't more successful. Maybe he gets it right this offseason? but he'll have to earn it in the preseason. Physically he "should" be fine, but lots of guys don't get it upstairs. There will be competition and it will be from more than Callahan.

 

[Dantés]

it isn't going to matter much, though the Jags won a playoff game like that but I agree, exceptions don't prove rules i just felt like being a *******.

But Hundley didn't have only those types of performances in that game, it was horrendous and with even close to average QB play we win. he was kind of all over. I know QB play lost us some games, but everyone played their part. Where Thielen was going up and making crazy catches against the Saints for Keenum's jump balls, Jordy was dropping a pass right in his hands, perfectly thrown on a slant for a 1st down on a 3rd down play. Instead of 4 more plays, we punt. He should be better, but they all played their part.

I wouldn't say you're technically wrong, but I'm arguing that the part Hundley played was was bigger than anyone else's in the negative (just as AR's part is way bigger than anyone else's in the positive).

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I see that argument, but they had better either bite the bullet and do that or spend a top 100 pick on a QB to replace Hundley. If Rodgers should happen to miss time again, it is unacceptable to burn another season because his replacement is the worst starting QB in the league for those weeks.

I'm definitely in favor of bringing in a quarterback to compete with Hundley for the backup job but don't want the Packers to spend $5 million on that player.

Some have suggested using a 1st or second rd. pick on a QB, which I still don't understand.

That would be a terrible move.

Anyways, I feel like the talent on this team is underrated. We have an elite QB. We have a great OL. We have at least one very good WR. We have a great DL. We have two good edge rushers, one good LB, and some potential in the secondary and one safety who has shown he can be good. So we do have talent. We just need to use it better.

I guess we will find out pretty fast if the Packers have enough talent on defense with a new scheme in place. While I consider the defensive line serviceable they're definitely not great by any means. The Eagles come to mind when talking about an elite one.

 

[gbgary]

spotrac.com/research/nfl/market-values-for-50-notable-nfl-free-agents

 

[Alex]

spotrac.com/research/nfl/market-values-for-50-notable-nfl-free-agents

If that market value for Morgan Burnett is accurate, then he can walk. No thanks.

 

[GleefulGary]

I guess we will find out pretty fast if the Packers have enough talent on defense with a new scheme in place. While I consider the defensive line serviceable they're definitely not great by any means. The Eagles come to mind when talking about an elite one.

Daniels-Clark-Lowry is serviceable?! I mean, you've got a top 5T end, legit top 5 guy at his position, Clark is a top NT and ascending, and Lowry is at worst solid. So tell me, how the hell is that serviceable? And I didn't say they were elite, I said they were great. There's a difference. There's also a difference in the roles our DL has vs the roles the Eagles DL has.

 

[PackerDNA]

You're saying we have top 5 Dlinemen, which, being top 5 in the league at a position would be elite. We don't have any top 5 Dlinemen- or anything else on defense.

 

[Dantés]

You're saying we have top 5 Dlinemen, which, being top 5 in the league at a position would be elite. We don't have any top 5 Dlinemen- or anything else on defense.

He said that Mike Daniels is top 5 among 5T ends. I don't think that's much of a reach. Clark was arguably better than him last year as the NT. Lowry is a solid player. When you put together two great starters and a solid compliment, that's a really good starting unit.

If PFF means anything to you (or Captain, who generally loves their grades), you're talking about Daniels (87)- Clark (87.9)- Lowry (77)

On their scale, that's two players in the "High Quality" range and one in the "Average." That would seem to match what was said.

 

[PackerDNA]

Good, but they're not elite or dominant players. Clark has an outside chance of being one.

 

[Dantés]

Good, but they're not elite or dominant players. Clark has an outside chance of being one.

Isn't this just semantics?

 

[PackerDNA]

No, reality.

 

[GleefulGary]

No, reality.

You can be top 5 at a position and not be elite. But really, this is all semantics bc we probably all have slightly different definitions of the word. Whatever your definition though, we have a very good DL.

 

[Dantés]

No, reality.

Lol. You haven't said anything about them in reality. You've just taken issue with his adjectives.

 

[PackerDNA]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I don't look at any of the 3 and think 'wow, we need to upgrade asap'. Clark still has upside, and a legit shot at being one of the best. Lowry will never be great, but I'm fine with him, and believe he still has upside.

 

[sschind]

spotrac.com/research/nfl/market-values-for-50-notable-nfl-free-agents

I'd take Marqise Lee for 7 million and if Jordan Matthews didn't make the cut at just under 6 I'd be interested in him too. If we decide to move on from Nelson or Cobb (mainly Cobb) I'd take either one of these as a potential replacement.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Daniels-Clark-Lowry is serviceable?! I mean, you've got a top 5T end, legit top 5 guy at his position, Clark is a top NT and ascending, and Lowry is at worst solid. So tell me, how the hell is that serviceable? And I didn't say they were elite, I said they were great. There's a difference. There's also a difference in the roles our DL has vs the roles the Eagles DL has.

I don't think the Packers defensive line is anywhere close to being great, especially considering the team completely lacks quality depth.

If PFF means anything to you (or Captain, who generally loves their grades), you're talking about Daniels (87)- Clark (87.9)- Lowry (77)

On their scale, that's two players in the "High Quality" range and one in the "Average." That would seem to match what was said.

Those are decent grades but there's not a single elite player on the DL supposedly being a great unit overall.