Entertain this for a second (Free Agency Related)

[Southpaw]

I'm sure everybody knows and will acknowledge that we have a lack of balance on offense. The imbalance being in the run department.

Now I know it's not in our style to sign old *** players, but Thomas Jones is a Free Agent.

Now again while he is a bit up there in age, he's still probably one of the more reliable running backs around and I think on a good team in a good system he can still be an impact player at the position. Just two seasons ago he posted a career high in rushing. Granted this was on the Jets' run, run, run and run some more offense, but still that's impressive and I think the only reason he hasn't duplicated that in Kansas City is because of the presence of Jamaal Charles.

I can't imagine that KC will try to resign him and I don't think he be very expensive at all for us.

Just spit balling here. What do you think? Worth a look?

 

[Dan115]

I don't see Ted moving on him.

 

[GWheels]

I don't think TT would pull the trigger for Jones. I'm wondering what the development of Alex Green is. We need a guy that can be a 20 carry and at least an 80 yard a game kind of back, especially in November and December. Wish Grant could be the Grant of old.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

All Thomas Jones does is go to a team and rush for 1,000+ yards... He's always in shape... He might just be a cheap pickup due to his age.

 

[bozz_2006]

Thompson hates old guys.

 

[Southpaw]

All Thomas Jones does is go to a team and rush for 1,000+ yards... He's always in shape... He might just be a cheap pickup due to his age.

That's what I really dig about Jones. He's a workhorse who is durable always in shape, doesn't try to do anything too fancy with his moves just picks up tough yards.

All that considering he's a RB and he's 33 years old, that's pretty damn good. And we could get him for probably nothing

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

That's what I really dig about Jones. He's a workhorse who is durable always in shape, doesn't try to do anything too fancy with his moves just picks up tough yards.

All that considering he's a RB and he's 33 years old, that's pretty damn good. And we could get him for probably nothing

What if the Packers can get him for 1-year ,$2.5M? He'd be a good mentor to Starks and give Alex Green time to heal.

 

[MiamiBeachPacker]

TT wont go after him because of his age

 

[Southpaw]

What if the Packers can get him for 1-year ,$2.5M? He'd be a good mentor to Starks and give Alex Green time to heal.

I like it. Alex Green looks like he could be our future starter depending on how bad his injury is. He's a very explosive runner which I like

 

[Southpaw]

TT wont go after him because of his age

I think in this instance it would be a worthwhile investment. He'd be cheap and everybody knows he can still play at a high level.

We keep around a lot of old players too, so I don't see why this is really any different. It's not like we're going to break the bank for him

 

[MiamiBeachPacker]

Don't forget that we also have Brandon Saine on the roster

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Don't forget that we also have Brandon Saine on the roster

I don't think Saine is guaranteed a roster spot.

 

[MiamiBeachPacker]

I don't think Saine is guaranteed a roster spot.

Of course he isn't guaranteed a spot, but people seem to keep forgetting he is on the team. Back to the topic, TT just isn't very likely to target Thomas Jones.

 

[Poppa San]

I don't think Saine is guaranteed a roster spot.

He'll have one before Thomas Jones does. Why get Jones when Grant is not really much different?

 

[Southpaw]

He'll have one before Thomas Jones does. Why get Jones when Grant is not really much different?

I think Jones is better than Grant. He's much more dependable as a runner. Both Grant and Starks tend to get too fancy and make too many moves and as a result usually end up getting tackled for loss or minimal gain. Jones will take what he can get and has the strength to get yards after contact.

He's never had a really serious injury in his career that I can recall either

 

[Wood Chipper]

We are better off using a late pick on a RB or picking up a young RB who was cut then getting Thomas jones.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

He'll have one before Thomas Jones does. Why get Jones when Grant is not really much different?

Those two players are nothing alike.

 

[TJV]

The Packers signing a mid-level UFA at many positions wouldn’t be a mistake IMO but signing Thomas Jones would be and I’ll be shocked if Thompson does so. Jones is going into his 13th NFL season and he’s run the ball and caught it almost 3,000 times. I don’t know how many blocking collisions he’s had but I do know he’ll be 34 when the 2012 season begins and the production of old NFL RBs many times “falls off a cliff” at the end of their careers. The last three seasons his average rush has gone from 4.2 yards to 3.7 to 3.1. Keeping Ryan Grant for about $1M makes much, much more sense than signing Jones at any price. I hope Thompson doesn’t use anything more than a fourth round pick on a RB because of greater needs elsewhere. But I would much prefer that to signing Jones. And more importantly, I think Thompson agrees with that.

 

[Croak]

I guess I have to question the implication of the main premise in the op. The implication is that this "unbalance" is not good. Southpaw can correct me if I'm wrong in how I'm reading his post. But what if the "unbalance" is by design? Coach McCarthy said he throws a lot to set up the run. I'm guessing a majority of teams work the other way around, ie. run to set up the pass. If the Coach's philosophy is to purposely have "unbalance" then he is succeeding with the tools he has. I mean, after all, how many folks would say the Packer's offense is weak?

 

[ivo610]

designed run plays? what are those?

 

[BSchujasNYG]

Peyton Hillis, BGE, Mike Tolbert. All tough running backs who shouldn't command more then 3-4 mil per year.

Hillis will probably only want/get a 1 year deal because of all his drama in Cleveland.

 

[Wood Chipper]

The giants finished 32nd in rushing in the league this year.

 

[Southpaw]

I guess I have to question the implication of the main premise in the op. The implication is that this "unbalance" is not good. Southpaw can correct me if I'm wrong in how I'm reading his post. But what if the "unbalance" is by design? Coach McCarthy said he throws a lot to set up the run. I'm guessing a majority of teams work the other way around, ie. run to set up the pass. If the Coach's philosophy is to purposely have "unbalance" then he is succeeding with the tools he has. I mean, after all, how many folks would say the Packer's offense is weak?

Well clearly if that is the philosophy, it's not working. We pass the **** out of the football, but it never results in opening up running lanes for our tailbacks.

McCarthy I believe has also stated that the ground attack is not as productive as he'd like it to be.

But as I stated in another thread, there will come a point where a coordinator is going to figure out how to slow down or forbid even stop our success throwing or our receivers decide to not catch the ball. Are you going to count on Brandon Saine or James Starks to take over the game?

Even if it is by design to pass the ball to set up the run, I think it'd be nice to have a back that can actually pick up decent yardage when a run play is called. Consistently

 

[Southpaw]

The giants finished 32nd in rushing in the league this year.

and we had the second worst defense in league history this year. League History!

and went 15-1.....

you don't need defense to win games lol

 

[Croak]

So here's the situation. The Packers only have a limited amount of money. Do they spend what little they have left after contract negotiations to shore up a prolific offense, or use it for defensive help?