Free Agency: Packers Should Green Bay Pursue?

[Dantés]

The 49ers are paying edge rushers (Armstead and Ford are NOT defensive tackles) plus their best dlineman is on a rookie deal; and the Chiefs certainly did NOT win based on their defensive performance. So, yeah, those 49ers and Chiefs. If you think the Packers can field the Chiefs offense, then I'll buy paying Clark like the Chiefs are paying Chris Jones.

Armstead has played the majority of his career as an interior lineman-- especially as a pass rusher.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Armstead has played the majority of his career as an interior lineman-- especially as a pass rusher.

That's true. I would have to point out though, that Armstead had a breakout year last year after being underwhelming for a number of years which coincided with them drafting Nick Bosa and trading for Dee Ford. Armstead is very good, as is Clark, but I would still argue that Deebo Samuel or even Emanuel Sanders were more important to last year's 49ers team. My issue is not that Clark is not worth the contract he will sign, guys are worth whatever a GM says they are; my question is whether spending that much on one spot when the defense needs help in many other places is wise. Of course, my scenario of trading Clark would necessitate getting a haul back like Diggs or letting him walk and managing to replace him with an interior guy who's 85% as good as Clark. Those are tough marks to hit and signing him to an extension is easier, with a higher floor but a potentially lower ceiling.

I guess my overriding thought is that the Packers defense and offense both need help and the Packers are going to need to make some choices to free up the money next year to resolve those holes (or get REALLY lucky in the draft). If they draft Mims in round 1 and a CB in round 2 I'll start to think they might be able to spend the money on Clark (I REALLY like Mims).

 

[Dantés]

That's true. I would have to point out though, that Armstead had a breakout year last year after being underwhelming for a number of years which coincided with them drafting Nick Bosa and trading for Dee Ford. Armstead is very good, as is Clark, but I would still argue that Deebo Samuel or even Emanuel Sanders were more important to last year's 49ers team. My issue is not that Clark is not worth the contract he will sign, guys are worth whatever a GM says they are; my question is whether spending that much on one spot when the defense needs help in many other places is wise. Of course, my scenario of trading Clark would necessitate getting a haul back like Diggs or letting him walk and managing to replace him with an interior guy who's 85% as good as Clark. Those are tough marks to hit and signing him to an extension is easier, with a higher floor but a potentially lower ceiling.

I guess my overriding thought is that the Packers defense and offense both need help and the Packers are going to need to make some choices to free up the money next year to resolve those holes (or get REALLY lucky in the draft). If they draft Mims in round 1 and a CB in round 2 I'll start to think they might be able to spend the money on Clark (I REALLY like Mims).

So all it would take for you to change your mind is for them to choose particular players at their picks in this coming draft?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Some people have brought up Brandin Cooks and it looks like he is most definitely on the block and has been connected with the Packers. I dont know contract and cap stuff like many others so a few questions

The Rams would take an additional cap hit of $5 million for either the 2020 season or over the next two years by trading Cooks. It's not gonna happen.

I don't think there's any chance of the Rams trading Cooks. His salary ($8mil) & roster bonus ($4mil) are already guaranteed.

A team trading for Cooks would be on the hook for his $8 million base salary this season.

And, again, you do if you overpay a player for the impact he has on the team. There is a price for EVERY player, and Clark's price cannot be a top-5 overall DT contract.

I'm not advocating for the Packers to overpay to retain Clark but to pay market value for him. Rightfully that will be expensive.

Look at it this way. You had dominant Clark this year and he didn't help the team all that much against the best teams in the NFL (granted, the only "best" team that the Packers played last year was the 49ers). So, if you keep him and tie up a large chunk of the cap, you're staying status quo on defense and relying on rookies to make a big impact. Not the normal view on great players but at some point a team needs to weigh the pros and cons of whether to make improvements at multiple positions while losing some talent at one, or retaining talent at one position while probably staying the same at other positions.

The front office needs to surround Clark with better talent on the defensive line but not completely start over at the position by moving on from him.

While the Packers could address the defensive line and another position with veterans with the money saved by not extending Clark they would still have to rely on rookies to have an impact on the DL but next to a less talented player.

However, the Packers aren't going to close the gap with the 49ers when they have holes at CB, WR, TE, OL, ILB, and DE by signing one of the best DT's in the NFL which will sacrifice improving at those positions.

The Packers won't be able to address every position you listed by not extending Clark but would have to add defensive line to the ones in dire need of an upgrade.

Armstead is very good, as is Clark, but I would still argue that Deebo Samuel or even Emanuel Sanders were more important to last year's 49ers team.

Sanders had a total of 13 receptions for 166 yards and no touchdowns over the past six games for the Niners last season. He wasn't more important than Armstead by any means.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

So all it would take for you to change your mind is for them to choose particular players at their picks in this coming draft?

That was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Tone is something that really needs to be added to the Internet

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I'm not advocating for the Packers to overpay to retain Clark but to pay market value for him. Rightfully that will be expensive.



The front office needs to surround Clark with better talent on the defensive line but not completely start over at the position by moving on from him.

While the Packers could address the defensive line and another position with veterans with the money saved by not extending Clark they would still have to rely on rookies to have an impact on the DL but next to a less talented player.



The Packers won't be able to address every position you listed by not extending Clark but would have to add defensive line to the ones in dire need of an upgrade.



Sanders had a total of 13 receptions for 166 yards and no touchdowns over the past six games for the Niners last season. He wasn't more important than Armstead by any means.

First, they would almost certainly downgrade on the dline by letting Clark walk. Whether it was an overall positive would depend on how much they could upgrade elsewhere on defense with the money saved. Again, Clark is the safe, albeit expensive, option.

You don't think having an actual NFL starting caliber WR on the team helped open up the team's offense? I guarantee that the 49ers dline last year was good enough that they wouldn't have slowed down much if Armstead was off the field. He's a good player, but they have so many good players on defense that one more doesn't mean as much.

People starting to look at teams are beginning to notice that what tends to matter most for winning is the number of weaknesses on the team, not necessarily the number of strengths. Being amazing at 2-3 positions groups but weak in 5-7 is worse than being great at 1 position but weak at only 2. Something to think about.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

Not as good as Dennard, but I could go for him for vet minimum, for depth as a "big slot" CB.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[GleefulGary]

Ed ****son got cut. Apparently GB was interested in him in 2018 until they signed Jimmy Graham.

 

[PikeBadger]

The Rams would take an additional cap hit of $5 million for either the 2020 season or over the next two years by trading Cooks. It's not gonna happen.



A team trading for Cooks would be on the hook for his $8 million base salary this season.



I'm not advocating for the Packers to overpay to retain Clark but to pay market value for him. Rightfully that will be expensive.



The front office needs to surround Clark with better talent on the defensive line but not completely start over at the position by moving on from him.

While the Packers could address the defensive line and another position with veterans with the money saved by not extending Clark they would still have to rely on rookies to have an impact on the DL but next to a less talented player.



The Packers won't be able to address every position you listed by not extending Clark but would have to add defensive line to the ones in dire need of an upgrade.



Sanders had a total of 13 receptions for 166 yards and no touchdowns over the past six games for the Niners last season. He wasn't more important than Armstead by any means.

The way I see it, this draft is going to bring in players that can be significant contributors in 2021 to fill in for expired contracts after the 2020 season. That would require a heavy emphasis on LT, DL, CB, RB, ILB and TE. I wouldn’t mind seeing the following take place.

Rd 1 - DL
Rd 2 - OT
Rd 3 - WR
Rd 4 - CB
Rd 5 - TE
Rd 6 - RB
Rd 6 - ILB
Rd 6 - DL
Rd 7 - CB
Rd 7 - OT

 

[tynimiller]

https://www.packersnews.com/story/s...green-bay-bid-wr-emmanuel-sanders/2935838001/

We were wanting Sanders for 3 years...but he is a wuss with the cold is the abbreviated version for those not wanting to read the article. He chose 2 years with NO over 3 years in GB due to the cold weather.

 

[elcid]

The way I see it, this draft is going to bring in players that can be significant contributors in 2021 to fill in for expired contracts after the 2020 season. That would require a heavy emphasis on LT, DL, CB, RB, ILB and TE. I wouldn’t mind seeing the following take place.

Rd 1 - DL
Rd 2 - OT
Rd 3 - WR
Rd 4 - CB
Rd 5 - TE
Rd 6 - RB
Rd 6 - ILB
Rd 6 - DL
Rd 7 - CB
Rd 7 - OT

I wouldn't like taking a DL man in the first round at all. I'd prefer either a WR, ILB or OT. My take:

1: WR
2: ILB
3: OT
4: DL
5: CB
6: TE/WR/RB
7: ILB/OT

 

[PikeBadger]

https://www.packersnews.com/story/s...green-bay-bid-wr-emmanuel-sanders/2935838001/

We were wanting Sanders for 3 years...but he is a wuss with the cold is the abbreviated version for those not wanting to read the article. He chose 2 years with NO over 3 years in GB due to the cold weather.

That’s ok. We don’t need any pansies in town. Let the beach commandos go somewhere else.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

https://www.packersnews.com/story/s...green-bay-bid-wr-emmanuel-sanders/2935838001/

We were wanting Sanders for 3 years...but he is a wuss with the cold is the abbreviated version for those not wanting to read the article. He chose 2 years with NO over 3 years in GB due to the cold weather.

I actually read that article too and I got sort of a different impression. I thought the cold was part of it (shocking that a WR would rather play in a dome than 3 degree weather) but I thought his family being close and able to attend all the games was a more important reason for him.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

We've known this forever. Green Bay is not an attractive place to play for a multitude of reasons, and this is one of them. I'd have to be honest, although it was my childhood dream to play for the Packers; if I had, as I got older, I'd have probably became a Jaguar.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

First, they would almost certainly downgrade on the dline by letting Clark walk.

That's all I need to know to consider it a bad idea.

You don't think having an actual NFL starting caliber WR on the team helped open up the team's offense?

Sanders was mostly a non-factor for the Niners late in the regular season and the playoffs.

People starting to look at teams are beginning to notice that what tends to matter most for winning is the number of weaknesses on the team, not necessarily the number of strengths. Being amazing at 2-3 positions groups but weak in 5-7 is worse than being great at 1 position but weak at only 2. Something to think about.

I agree that the Packers should strive for not having a lot of weaknesses. But getting rid of Clark isn't the way to get it done.

The way I see it, this draft is going to bring in players that can be significant contributors in 2021 to fill in for expired contracts after the 2020 season. -

I vehemently disagree with this statement. With Rodgers championship window closing fast the Packers need to add rookies that have an immediate impact in this year's draft.

Green Bay is not an attractive place to play for a multitude of reasons, and this is one of them.

In my opinion free agents not wanting to play in Green Bay isn't true for most of the veterans.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I agree that the Packers should strive for not having a lot of weaknesses. But getting rid of Clark isn't the way to get it done.

The Packers are going to have to find money somewhere to fill holes on the team. You obviously rate DT as a more important position than myself. I happen to think finding 2 good corners or receivers is more important than one DT.

 

[PikeBadger]

I vehemently disagree with this statement. With Rodgers championship window closing fast the Packers need to add rookies that have an immediate impact in this year's draft.

That’s always nice when it happens but when your first two picks are at 30 and 62 I wouldn’t expect any of our draft picks to be the best player in their position group next year. Would be extra sweet if we got 3 competent starters next season out of these 10 picks imo and the most likely potential places to do that are ILB, DL, 3rd CB and possibly WR. We can almost certainly expect an OT and RB amongst those 10 picks as well imo.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

He hasn't exactly panned out but as a Nickel or Dime we could do a lot worse. He's a good tackler at least.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers are going to have to find money somewhere to fill holes on the team. I happen to think finding 2 good corners or receivers is more important than one DT.

The Packers can create $12 million of cap space by releasing Linsley and Taylor and not suffer from a major drop-off in performance.

In addition the team doesn't need two good cornerbacks or receivers. They should be able to address those positions in the upcoming draft.

That’s always nice when it happens but when your first two picks are at 30 and 62 I wouldn’t expect any of our draft picks to be the best player in their position group next year.

Gutekunst needs to find prospects that can contribute immediately. They don't have to be considered the best in their position group entering the draft for it to happen.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

In addition the team doesn't need two good cornerbacks or receivers. They should be able to address those positions in the upcoming draft.

Gutekunst needs to find prospects that can contribute immediately. They don't have to be considered the best in their position group entering the draft for it to happen.

Absolutely. I thought Gute might be leaning this way last year, the only thing that I saw was an outlier was the Gary pick. Or rather, the Gary as an OLB pick.

One thing I hope I'm right about is Gute's affinity for the SEC and ACC. But I do see he also likes the BigTen. I know I'm making a statement loaded with bias but, I believe if our first 3 picks come out of those conferences, we'll be in good shape to see dividends Week 1.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The Packers can create $12 million of cap space by releasing Linsley and Taylor and not suffer from a major drop-off in performance.

In addition the team doesn't need two good cornerbacks or receivers. They should be able to address those positions in the upcoming draft.

Addressing a position means they DO need cornerbacks or receivers, no? And expecting to find two good, reliable corners and a good, reliable WR in one draft is kind of optimistic.

Keep one position elite or have the money to improve 2-3 positions, that's my main question. Outside of CB, pass rusher, or QB, I don't happen to believe any other position is worth the combination of 2 or 3 other position groups...except maybe RB and ILB, those two combined aren't as valuable as WR, OT, or DT.

 

[Dantés]

Thinking about the DL recently, I am wondering if fans are overrating the need to spend a high pick on the position.

When the Packers signed the Smiths and then drafted Gary, I think the design was pretty clearly to have them all on the field together quite a bit. That can happen because Z can essentially be a 3T on passing downs. One would think that with Gary playing more, that sort of look will increase, not decrease.

The Packers, like just about every NFL defense, are primarily a two iDL defense. Clark obviously has ~75% of one spot on lock down (snap wise). If 20% of the other is Z, then it's unlikely that they would invest a high pick in a guy to play that limited role (that he would still be sharing with Lowry).

On top of that, I don't think that this DL class is particularly good in the draft.

So I am wondering if they might be best off to just sign one of the remaining early down specialists to help bolster the run defense, and then be free to pass on DL early in the draft.

Snacks Harrison is still out there. The entire defensive line fell apart in Detroit last season. But one has to believe that if motivated, he could still be a very strong run stuffer in a limited role.

 

[PikeBadger]

Gutekunst needs to find prospects that can contribute immediately. They don't have to be considered the best in their position group entering the draft for it to happen.

I think you misinterpreted what I was getting at.

I think the phrase “immediate impact” has different definitions to us. I remember going down this rat hole before.

we were 13-3 and played in the conference championship last year. It’s not an easy chore for any rookie coming in to become an instant starter imo.

I’d rather count on our 2nd and 3rd year players making a nice jump in effectiveness. Just not a huge fan of counting on rookies.

 

[Dantés]

I think you misinterpreted what I was getting at.

I think the phrase “immediate impact” has different definitions to us. I remember going down this rat hole before.

we were 13-3 and played in the conference championship last year. It’s not an easy chore for any rookie coming in to become an instant starter imo.

I’d rather count on our 2nd and 3rd year players making a nice jump in effectiveness. Just not a huge fan of counting on rookies.

Chisel this in stone.

It is fine to hope for and expect a level of contribution from a rookie class. But the biggest contribution outside of FA should always be from your sophomore class. The Packers need big(ger) contributions from Gary, Savage, Sternberger, and Keke more than anything.

The rookie class can and should help to an extent, as it did last year, but that's not where a team's biggest positive gain should be coming from. If it is, then that means you screwed up your previous draft(s).

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Addressing a position means they DO need cornerbacks or receivers, no? And expecting to find two good, reliable corners and a good, reliable WR in one draft is kind of optimistic.

First of all you said that the Packers need to add two receivers and cornerbacks, something I don't agree with. While it's true that those positions need to be upgraded with an early round pick at WR and a nickel CB there's no reason to move on from Clark to make it happen by any means.

Keep one position elite or have the money to improve 2-3 positions, that's my main question.

The Packers don't have an elite defensive line with Clark though and without him the unit would be terrible. Therefore they should look at other positions to save cap space if needed.

we were 13-3 and played in the conference championship last year. It’s not an easy chore for any rookie coming in to become an instant starter imo.

I’d rather count on our 2nd and 3rd year players making a nice jump in effectiveness. Just not a huge fan of counting on rookies.

There are several positions in need of an upgrade where a rookie can have an immediate impact. As mentioned before, while I would prefer the Packers to not rely on rookies to contribute Gutekunst will need to find some for this season with Rodgers championship window closing fast.