Do you like our chances in the NFC??..no really?

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
Freeney had 5 sacks and 12 tackles as an OLB last year. 12! We are just as well expecting that kind of production from Perry for cheaper over the course of a season. He is nothing more than a "sign a big name for the sake of doing so" acquisition, especially at his age. It doesn't matter how down his market is if he doesn't fit into our schemes.

There is no comparison between KGB and Freeney. Different defensive scheme and position expectations. We're careful in free agency as it is, we are not going to go sign someone who doesn't even fit our system.

Freeney will sign for a 4-3 team, as he should.

I'm not saying any of this. I'm just saying one-year situational pass rusher. Third-and-long only... either defensive end or outside linebacker. No coverage, no "fitting into a scheme". Just pinning his ears back and going after the QB. 12 - 17 snaps per game.
 
OP
OP
rodell330

rodell330

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
5,611
Reaction score
493
Location
Canton, Ohio
I'm not saying any of this. I'm just saying one-year situational pass rusher. Third-and-long only... either defensive end or outside linebacker. No coverage, no "fitting into a scheme". Just pinning his ears back and going after the QB. 12 - 17 snaps per game.


Exactly what i'm saying. Just go do you Dwight..throw all this scheme stuff out the window.
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
1) Still doesn't answer why the Colts would let him go and sign Walden if they felt that strongly about Freeney's value. Every team wants a good pass rush.

2) Supposing he really did have that value, why would he sign here for that role? He has been visiting with 4-3 defenses this week. If he is so good that he would make us so much better, why is he interested in signing with us to become a part time player for 12-17 snaps a game?

No offense, I don't even know how Freeney got brought up, but I think it's way out there. It doesn't make sense on a lot of different levels. We haven't shown any interest in him and won't.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
1) Still doesn't answer why the Colts would let him go and sign Walden if they felt that strongly about Freeney's value. Every team wants a good pass rush.

Teams get rid of veterans all the time. Why did the Raiders get rid of Charles Woodson? Why did the Ravens not resign Ed Reed? Just because the original team doesn't want a player any more doesn't mean he's garbage.
 

NorthWestCheeseHead

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 21, 2012
Messages
1,127
Reaction score
103
Teams get rid of veterans all the time. Why did the Raiders get rid of Charles Woodson? Why did the Ravens not resign Ed Reed? Just because the original team doesn't want a player any more doesn't mean he's garbage.
I don't think in either of those instances the team letting the player go went out and signed someone to that position through FA. My memory is foggy on what the Raiders did after letting Woodson go though. (I was in Afghanistan at the time so I wasn't paying that much attention)
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
Teams get rid of veterans all the time. Why did the Raiders get rid of Charles Woodson? Why did the Ravens not resign Ed Reed? Just because the original team doesn't want a player any more doesn't mean he's garbage.

No one said he's garbage, but look at the situation individually, regardless of other veterans getting cut.

His contract was up. They did not cut him to save a big cap hit, he was a free agent. They could have easily made him an offer.

Instead, they paid Erik Walden $4M a year to play his old position.

Wouldn't you say that is a pretty enormous red flag of how they feel about Freeney and how well he fits into a 3-4 defense?
 

Raptorman

Vikings fan since 1966.
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
438
Location
Vero Beach, FL
Teams get rid of veterans all the time. Why did the Raiders get rid of Charles Woodson? Why did the Ravens not resign Ed Reed? Just because the original team doesn't want a player any more doesn't mean he's garbage.
Unless of course he was a Packer and is signed by the Vikings. Then he is. ;)
 

SpartaChris

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
671
So you want to pay $12M to a 33 year old 4-3 DE, and plug him in as a 3-4 OLB, a system which he decidedly failed in last year.

That is an insanely bad idea, sir. Maybe Mike Sherman would do that. I think you should leave this GM'ing stuff to TT.

No, he want's us to make a move, any move, in free agency for the sake of making a move. It doesn't need to be logical or make sense, so long as it's a free agent signing with name recognition, then he wants us to make it.
 

Greenbayphil

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
562
Reaction score
105
Location
Glasgow, Scotland
I wouldn't ever consider signing Freeney, why? because we don't need him. Some of you guys are forgetting that we are going to have alot of good guys back next year and more rookies. Just chill.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
No one said he's garbage, but look at the situation individually, regardless of other veterans getting cut.

His contract was up. They did not cut him to save a big cap hit, he was a free agent. They could have easily made him an offer.

Instead, they paid Erik Walden $4M a year to play his old position.

Wouldn't you say that is a pretty enormous red flag of how they feel about Freeney and how well he fits into a 3-4 defense?

We're both in agreement that Freeney shouldn't be a full time 3-4 OLB. We're both in agreement that Freeney doesn't fit as a 3-4 OLB. My point is that he doesn't have to be a full time player, only a situational pass rusher on a one-year contract. Remember, Worthy might not play until Week 11 and Perry had a very limited rookie season. As a situational pass rusher, you don't have to worry about scheme or coverage.

And the Colts want to get younger since they're rebuilding.
 

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
We're both in agreement that Freeney shouldn't be a full time 3-4 OLB. We're both in agreement that Freeney doesn't fit as a 3-4 OLB. My point is that he doesn't have to be a full time player, only a situational pass rusher on a one-year contract. Remember, Worthy might not play until Week 11 and Perry had a very limited rookie season. As a situational pass rusher, you don't have to worry about scheme or coverage.

And the Colts want to get younger since they're rebuilding.

Players take a 1 yr contract as a last resort, most of the time in hopes if putting up good stats in order to land a bigger long term deal the next season. I don't see him even considering the packers as it would marginalize him and his impact.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
Players take a 1 yr contract as a last resort, most of the time in hopes if putting up good stats in order to land a bigger long term deal the next season. I don't see him even considering the packers as it would marginalize him and his impact.

I agree, but the market for Freeney and Abraham seems to very small.
 

Oshkoshpackfan

YUT !!!
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
3,286
Reaction score
260
Location
Camp Lejeune NC
I agree, but the market for Freeney and Abraham seems to very small.

I don't know if I would say the market is small.....it may just be that people see them for what they really are, older and slower than they once were and teams don't want to shell out the type of money the players think they are worth. Had this been 3 years ago, both of those guys have been snatched up before you could blink an eye.
 

paulska

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
112
Reaction score
14
Location
Nova Scotia, Canada
At best we will be a 5-11 team. I can't imagine us winning anymore games since we had key losses to our team like Jeff Saturday, Charles Woodson, and Greg Jennings. All of them were instrumental to our great season this year.

Step away from the purple drank. Saturday was key in our regular season because....he was replaced by Evan Dietrich-Smith halfway through the year because he was ineffective and overpowered as a pass blocker and non-existent as a run blocker? Charles Woodson, injured for a huge chunk of the year, who overplayed balls and gave up big plays consistently when in the line up, missing tackles and blowing coverages he made as recently as last season? Greg Jennings, who was sidelined for a huge chunk of the year with groin issues, who flashed big a couple of games but was clearly no longer the mailcarrier in this offense when he was healthy?

Collectively, those guys' huge salaries are off the books, and we have players behind them who equal or exceed their production at a better price tag, and not just on paper- all three of them were replaced by the same or better play by the next guy up on our roster for extended (at least half the season) chunks of time.

If we fall to 5-11, it's because ARod misses extended time. Only reason...
 

13 Times Champs

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
3,924
Reaction score
424
Location
Virginia
Step away from the purple drank. Saturday was key in our regular season because....he was replaced by Evan Dietrich-Smith halfway through the year because he was ineffective and overpowered as a pass blocker and non-existent as a run blocker? Charles Woodson, injured for a huge chunk of the year, who overplayed balls and gave up big plays consistently when in the line up, missing tackles and blowing coverages he made as recently as last season? Greg Jennings, who was sidelined for a huge chunk of the year with groin issues, who flashed big a couple of games but was clearly no longer the mailcarrier in this offense when he was healthy?

Collectively, those guys' huge salaries are off the books, and we have players behind them who equal or exceed their production at a better price tag, and not just on paper- all three of them were replaced by the same or better play by the next guy up on our roster for extended (at least half the season) chunks of time.

If we fall to 5-11, it's because ARod misses extended time. Only reason...
Well EDS is better than Saturday. I'm not sure however whether he is the answer at center. At this point I'd have to say both are a step down from Wells who was interestingly a salary cap casualty. Woodson did indeed get old but I would ask you who his replacement is??? I'm assuming you think Cobb is Jennings replacement but I don't know if he will play the same role.
 

slaughter25

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
727
Reaction score
80
Step away from the purple drank. Saturday was key in our regular season because....he was replaced by Evan Dietrich-Smith halfway through the year because he was ineffective and overpowered as a pass blocker and non-existent as a run blocker? Charles Woodson, injured for a huge chunk of the year, who overplayed balls and gave up big plays consistently when in the line up, missing tackles and blowing coverages he made as recently as last season? Greg Jennings, who was sidelined for a huge chunk of the year with groin issues, who flashed big a couple of games but was clearly no longer the mailcarrier in this offense when he was healthy?

Collectively, those guys' huge salaries are off the books, and we have players behind them who equal or exceed their production at a better price tag, and not just on paper- all three of them were replaced by the same or better play by the next guy up on our roster for extended (at least half the season) chunks of time.

If we fall to 5-11, it's because ARod misses extended time. Only reason...

He was being sarcastic...
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
We're both in agreement that Freeney shouldn't be a full time 3-4 OLB. We're both in agreement that Freeney doesn't fit as a 3-4 OLB. My point is that he doesn't have to be a full time player, only a situational pass rusher on a one-year contract. Remember, Worthy might not play until Week 11 and Perry had a very limited rookie season. As a situational pass rusher, you don't have to worry about scheme or coverage.

And the Colts want to get younger since they're rebuilding.
Doesn't matter if we are in a 'situation' - we still play in a scheme. I don't think Freeney is 1/2 the player you think he is. I would guess he doesn't make the team if we were to sign him. Now 5 years ago, yes, we could use Freeney circa 2007, but not him now.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
Doesn't matter if we are in a 'situation' - we still play in a scheme.

Don't agree with that. The "scheme" for 3rd-and-long is get to the quarterback before his receivers run past the first down marker. No matter what team or defense, it's the same "scheme" on 3rd-and-long.
 

ExpatPacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
1,815
Reaction score
227
Location
A Galaxy Far, Far Away
Well EDS is better than Saturday. I'm not sure however whether he is the answer at center. At this point I'd have to say both are a step down from Wells who was interestingly a salary cap casualty. Woodson did indeed get old but I would ask you who his replacement is??? I'm assuming you think Cobb is Jennings replacement but I don't know if he will play the same role.

Apparently however the coaching staff doesn't think that EDS was good enough. (See the latest on the interview w/ MM). The same is true of our LT situation with Newhouse, and Sherrod's injury is a apparently more than just a bad break.

So, OC and LT. If this team is going to play at a high level in 2013, there has to be improvement at these two positions. That could mean an OL drafted in round 1, especially if a guy like Jonathan Cooper is still on the board. LT is a bit dicier. You know that the top 3 will be long gone by #26. Who is the best LT after that is something I couldn't even begin to guess on.
 

paulska

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
112
Reaction score
14
Location
Nova Scotia, Canada
Apparently however the coaching staff doesn't think that EDS was good enough. (See the latest on the interview w/ MM). The same is true of our LT situation with Newhouse, and Sherrod's injury is a apparently more than just a bad break.

So, OC and LT. If this team is going to play at a high level in 2013, there has to be improvement at these two positions. That could mean an OL drafted in round 1, especially if a guy like Jonathan Cooper is still on the board. LT is a bit dicier. You know that the top 3 will be long gone by #26. Who is the best LT after that is something I couldn't even begin to guess on.

Most draft boards I'm seeing have A&M's Joeckel, then Eastern Michigan's Fisher, then Oklahoma's Johnson as the three top rated tackles that project to LT, and a lot of the boards have them all in the top 10 in terms of quality of player in the draft, but that's not how the draft shakes out per se. I think you're right that those first three guys are likely gone by #26, although there's an outside chance that Johnson is still around, as there is a ton of depth at DL and LB, and a few CBs that are likely to creep up given that there isn't great depth at that position past the top three or four guys.

I'm no draftnik, so I really don't know who the projected usual suspects are that are expected to be around when we draft that represent good value. Newhouse isn't blowing anyone away, agreed, but he's also no Jamarcus Webb out there either, and his price tag is doable. Anyone out there have a read on who is out there in terms of OL prospects that fit where we draft in terms of value and positional need?
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
1,576
Reaction score
377
Location
Charlotte
We havn't really done didly squat to improve the defense and the offense imo is less scary without Greg Jennings and the future of Finley is still up in the air.

Heres to hoping we find a stud rb and another difference maker on defense.
Hayward and Shields are going to be a top tandum in the league this year and Burnett will be an option for the pro bowl... Some younger players are turning into their prime also. You can't write off the defense because we lost a few people. The players we have now also improve year after year. (Not just free agents)
 

13 Times Champs

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
3,924
Reaction score
424
Location
Virginia
So far Hayward has only played the slot receiver where he has done well. Saying he will start and excel in the base defense ????
 

toolkien

Cheesehead
Joined
May 9, 2011
Messages
107
Reaction score
12
I think the Packers should be o.k. in 2013. There's one essential trait, in this modern NFL, for teams to be a top end team - QB rating taken over QB rating given. Regardless of how you accomplish it. And who was #1 in QB rating taken over given in 2012? Green Bay. They've been at the top end in that stat for years, they were even 6th in that stat in 2008. This modern NFL is about making the playoffs and then winning the turnover margin once in. The Packers should make the playoffs, and there's little guarantee for the second part. The Ravens were just a short hair better than the Packers in 2012-2013 and they won it all, because they won the turnover margin. Every team has strengths and every team has holes. It's about hanging onto the ball once single elimination comes around. I certainly don't want the Packers mortgaging the future when they have a more than reasonable chance to make the playoffs as is. Blowing future cap space to increase potency for one or two seasons that are four combined fumbles/ints away from washing out regardless doesn't make sense. They just need to get in and take care of the ball and they have just as good a chance of winning than if they load up on talent paid for with future dollars. And they have just as good a chance of washing out adding greater potency if they turn the ball over four times in a playoff game.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top