1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Can i get a tall receiver

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by flapackfan, Dec 18, 2006.

  1. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well..

    I'm not talking about stock-piling....

    I'm talking about at least one solid FA at WR...and a better TE...(for depth, at the very least...)

    (Then pick up a utility vet o-lineman for depth..)

    Then take care of the defense....absolutely..

    (Especially the Safety position..)

    That's not exactly going crazy or hardly what you would call, "breaking the bank" on high priced, over valued FA's, as some might say...

    Free agency is not an all or nothing proposition, as some would lead you to believe....
     
  2. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    You're saying are biggest need is WR and TE?

    Okay. I can roll with that. I would put getting a TE that can block and catch ahead of another WR though. I think Driver, Jennings and Krob will be good next year. BUT, just how good with Krob be after missing a year? How long will it take to shake off the rust? That'd be a reason to pick up a FA WR.


    WR, TE, OL, S are what you think are the biggest needs for the Packers?

    S(to start),
    TE(to backup bubba who i hear his an excellent blocker),
    WR(to push koren for third WR) and
    DB (for nickel package)
     
  3. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    yep..
     
  4. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'd put the needs like this heading into the off season.

    DE, RB, S, TE, DT, CB, and then a tall WR. I just don't see WR as that big as a need. Jennings has been pretty good for a rookie and should only get better. Robinson is a definite 3rd legit receiving threat. Though if there is a young game changing WR then I wouldn't mind a look. I'm not sure if there is one though. I don't see the need to sign OL anymore since we did it the young way and we need to stick with them as they are getting better.
     
  5. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Interesting, DE and RB before S? Don't have much faith in the current DLmen? I think Ahman and Vernand work good together. I'm probably bias against Manuel though. I really don't like that pick up at all. I'd rather have picked up Marques Anderson instead!!
     
  6. dxbfan

    dxbfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    560
    Ratings:
    +0
    Surprising order of priority Porky. One of way of looking at it is what if the position was not addressed, what impact would it have?

    By that logic the order would change to S, TE, WR, RB, DE, DT. The thinking being that the current talent on the D line did enough this year to rank 4th in sacks and 15th against the run, therefore if there were no change in personnel you could expect similar numbers next year. The secondary on the other hand resulted in a ranking of 26th, thereby necessitating a change more than elsewhere. Similar logic with the offense, TE being a non-factor this year outside pass protection and therein constituting a greater need than elsewhere.
     
  7. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Really all the positions I listed are as equal need but I belive Nick Collins can bounce back next season. He actually played SS his rookie year so maybe moving him to SS and finding a new FS would help him.

    As for DE and RB ahead of Safety. We need a consistent running game to open things up on offense. Green is good for his age but he's a free agent and at 30 he's not the future impact player on this team.

    DE I think is one of the 3 most important positions in the game. QB, LT (or RT if you have a left handed QB) and DE IMO are positions you need to be solid at if your going to contend for a title. We have one great DE. If we get another one I honestly think it'll not only improve our overall pass rush but it'll take a lot of pressure off of the secondary.
     
  8. dxbfan

    dxbfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Messages:
    560
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think you have a point as regards Collins. It seems unlikely that all the promise he showed last year has simply been exhausted. While I agree that DE is a key position and will certainly improve an already decent pass rush, I dont know how much its going to help the secondary. The secondary's problems this year had less to do with a QB with all the time in the world to make a pass but more to do with being out of position and not being on the same page as the rest of the defense.
     
  9. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    Porky..

    You forgot the o-line...

    Right now, the Pack has no depth on O-line...

    That needs to be addressed...along with WR position...

    (What if KR falls of the wagon..? Ferguson should be cut..can't be depended on..or take an extreme cut in pay...)

    You need at least one more good WR for insurance purposes alone..
     
  10. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    We have 6 offensive lineman who are capable of starting. 3 whom can play anywhere We have Moll who can play RT and RG. Spitz who can play any interior position. Colledge who can play LT and LG.

    Spending money on offensive line was more so a need last year. Next year it is not a need. Maybe in June I'd like to see them bring in one veteran but no big name is needed.

    What IF Brett Favre gets hurt? Should we sign Matt Schaub as insurance?
     
  11. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    Man..

    Why are you so extreme? You take the extreme view...

    When did I say a big name O-lineman..??

    I said a utility veteran guy who can play several postitions...
    (What if one of the o-lineman get hurt? Then you're caught with your pants down like TT was this this year...)

    Schaub? You can sign him if you want, if you don't believe in Aaron Rodgers being the heir apparent...

    (Frankly, I'm a little concerned about the guy's fragility factor..He was on the field for one half and got a season ending injury...not good, in my book..)
     
  12. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    I'd be game for signing Matt regardless of Favres health.

    Easier said than done.
     
  13. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    A utility veteran guy who can play several positions. Care to name any that will be free agents?

    From the looks of it Ted Thompson drafted 3 of them. Now they may not be vets but they can play several positions.

    Mark Tauscher has missed the last 4 starts and the Packers are 2-2. Clifton missed one start and the Packers are 1-0. So when did T.T. get caugh with his pants down?
     
  14. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    All year he's been caught with his pants down because they have max protect all the time, and are only using 1/2 the playbook because you have 3-4 rookies starting on the line, at times....

    This limits the offense. There is no doubt about it. Now these rookies are developing, but it came at a price. There were several guys TT could have snatched up last year for the O-Line, but didn't for some reason. And these were guys who could have fit the scheme, etc...

    I don't know what the FA situation is for O-Lineman this year, but I'm will to wager there will be a few guys available..

    The fact that the Packers lost 2 games with Tauscher out and have been unable to run the ball effectively and consistently also illustrates my point....

    Look, the rookies have performed admirably at times, but they are still rookies, and sacrifices and mistakes were made because of them that translate into Losses for the team. That's why it's better to have some vets in there so you don't have to DEPEND on the play of the rookies all year...which will be, by it's nature, inconsistent...

    Makes sense..
     
  15. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8

    Holy fukn sht. Awesome post!
     
  16. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    Thanks Zero

    :wink:
     
  17. porky88

    porky88 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,991
    Ratings:
    +0
    Care to drop any names? Several Guys? Who Larry Allen and Steve Hutchinson. Both whom wouldn't fit the scheme very well at all? Really the only one guy I thought worth marquee money that would fit in the scheme is Tom Ashworth whom signed with Seattle. He's even having problems cracking the starting lineup for the Seahawks.

    And they won 2 games without him. They are 2-2 without their best offensive lineman and 1-0 without their LT. So they have a winning record (3-2) without a starting tackle in the lineup. Again this proves your point as in? They lost games without them. In fact they are 3-6 in games that Tauscher and Clifton are both in the starting lineup. I’m not saying the they are better off without Tauscher and Clifton. I’m saying that the records don’t prove your point at all.

    The Basis of your argument is "They are rookies"

    They aren't going to be Rookies Next Year. So why go out and sign an utility offensive lineman when we have 3 of them. Like I said we could probably use one depth guy but the Need isn't as drastic as it once was. The offensive line continues to improve and they will continue to grow better. You'd be surprise what an entire off season of working together can do especially after one year of playing together. Are you implying they won't improve at all? I sure hope not considering guys like Mike Wahle and Marco Rivera all were rookies at one time and all got better.
     
  18. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,743
    Ratings:
    +2,983
    thought this was about getting a tall WR not offensive lineman???
     
  19. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    No worries, once the staff gets here they'll get it back on topic.
     
  20. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,743
    Ratings:
    +2,983
    Uh huh :thumbsup:

    :eek:fftopic:
     

Share This Page