Free Agency: Packers Should Green Bay Pursue?

[HardRightEdge]

It appears Hunter Henry will be Franchise tagged by the LAC, estimated to be $10.7M, so that would leave Hooper at the top of the TE Free Agent pile. The thing i like about Hooper is the fact that he is only 25, has played all 4 years and his stats seem to be increasing each season. Last season stats are really impressive if you break them down:

Played in 13 games, but only targeted in 11 of those.

Catches: 75
Targets: 97
Yards: 787
TD's: 6

DROPS: 2!!!!

I will let Gute and MLF decide if Hooper fits the Packer offense and if he is the kind of guy they want on their team, but I see Hooper as an ascending player, probably coming into his best years. We will be saving $8M by cutting Graham, go get em' Gute!

Playing in only 13 games is a critical point. He was in the middle of a breakout year until he sprained an MCL. Over the first 8 games he was on pace for 104 / 1182 / 10. His performance in the game prior to the layoff and the two games following was lackluster, perhaps all injury related, then he finished strong in the last two gaames.

 

[Jason Edens]

It appears Hunter Henry will be Franchise tagged by the LAC, estimated to be $10.7M, so that would leave Hooper at the top of the TE Free Agent pile. The thing i like about Hooper is the fact that he is only 25, has played all 4 years and his stats seem to be increasing each season. Last season stats are really impressive if you break them down:

Played in 13 games, but only targeted in 11 of those.

Catches: 75
Targets: 97
Yards: 787
TD's: 6

DROPS: 2!!!!

I will let Gute and MLF decide if Hooper fits the Packer offense and if he is the kind of guy they want on their team, but I see Hooper as an ascending player, probably coming into his best years. We will be saving $8M by cutting Graham, go get em' Gute!

Better numbers than Graham over the last 4 years. Severely inferior numbers to Graham over his first 4 years though right? We have over paid for TE position for 4 years in a row. I don't want to see us do that again. If we need a receiver pay for it. We have not over paid a receiver in like 20 years.

 

[GleefulGary]

Better numbers than Graham over the last 4 years. Severely inferior numbers to Graham over his 4 years though right? We have over paid for TE position for 4 years in a row. I don't want to see us do that again. If we need a receiver pay for it. We have not over paid a receiver in like 20 years.

Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, and Davante Adams all got handsomely paid.

 

[Jason Edens]

Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, and Davante Adams all got handsomely paid.

Randall Cobb didn't live up to his pay day, but other than that, I think Jordy Nelson and Davante Adams have lived up to their pay.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Better numbers than Graham over the last 4 years. Severely inferior numbers to Graham over his 4 years though right? We have over paid for TE position for 4 years in a row. I don't want to see us do that again. If we need a receiver pay for it. We have not over paid a receiver in like 20 years.

Only 3 years of overpaying, I thought Cook was worth the money in 2016. The reason that we probably haven't overpaid for a FA WR in a long time, we just haven't signed any big names, but other teams have and gotten stung. Cobb wasn't a FA, but when it was all said and done, the Packers overpaid him on his final contract.

Nothing is ever a guarantee. We could spend $10M on a TE or $14M on a WR and one or both guys could be busts or booms. Packers have had a lot of luck grooming their own WR's in the past, not so much lately, but they also haven't invested much draft capital at WR. For whatever reason, the Packers can't seem to develop a good TE. Jermichael Finley (2008), being the last successful draft and develop guy.

As important as the TE seems to be in MLF's offense and the seemingly difficult task of developing one, I see the Packers going after Hooper, maybe signing someone like Cobb, if they can get them cheap. After that, its on to the draft, where they will probably look for a top WR.

 

[Jason Edens]

Only 3 years of overpaying, I thought Cook was worth the money in 2016. The reason that we probably haven't overpaid for a FA WR in a long time, we just haven't signed any big names, but other teams have and gotten stung. Cobb wasn't a FA, but when it was all said and done, the Packers overpaid him on his final contract.

Nothing is ever a guarantee. We could spend $10M on a TE or $14M on a WR and one or both guys could be busts or booms. Packers have had a lot of luck grooming their own WR's in the past, not so much lately, but they also haven't invested much draft capital at WR. For whatever reason, the Packers can't seem to develop a good TE. Jermichael Finley (2008), being the last successful draft and develop guy.

As important as the TE seems to be in Gute's offense and the seemingly difficult task of developing one, I see the Packers going after Hooper, maybe signing someone like Cobb, if they can get them cheap. After that, its on to the draft, where they will probably look for a top WR.

Cook was worth it. Bennet not. Graham not. We let Cook go for Bennet. And again, Rodgers isn't that much of a TE dependent QB. He has always been successful with at least 3 wide outs. I know he has thrown miracle passes to TEs, but the rest of the game he depended on WR1, WR2, and WR3.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Pros: Decent blocker, Reliable Hands, Good feel against zone coverage.

Cons: Not necessarily a running game asset, Not a big play threat, Surprisingly lackluster 3rd down production.

Hooper is a solidly above average TE who is probably going to get paid like an elite one.

If the Packers can sign Hooper for $10m per year, they'll get good value for their money. He's not one of the elite receiving TEs, but he doesn't really have any weaknesses in his game and that's really valuable in a TE. He primarily excels in the middle of the field where he can find open spots under the defense or holes in the zone defense, which would be very helpful for the offense considering their current personnel. While I personally might prefer getting Ebron for $6-$8m per season I can certainly understand MLF wanting to have a TE on the field that can both open the middle of the field in the passing game while also helping in the running game (something that Ebron certainly doesn't do).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Rodgers isn't that much of a TE dependent QB.

I would disagree on using that as a basis of what you do moving forward. First, Rodgers did have some success with his TE's (Finley and Cook) over his career. I would pin it more on the fact that the Packers just haven't really provided him consistently with a good one. Finally, this isn't MM running the offense anymore, its Matt LeFleur. His offense is different than MM's and combine that with a less mobile, aging #12 and maybe a really good TE is exactly what he needs?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Hooper is a solidly above average TE who is probably going to get paid like an elite one.

I agree, but it would be nice to go from paying elite money for an average to below average TE (Graham), to maybe slightly overpaying a mil or 2 for an ascending 25 year old that appears to check many of the boxes that we are looking for. If we had a solid group of WR's or the ability to obtain 1 or 2, I might not feel this way. However, given the current state of the entire receiver package (WR's and TE's) that the Packers have, Hooper looks better every day to me.

 

[GleefulGary]

Only 3 years of overpaying, I thought Cook was worth the money in 2016. The reason that we probably haven't overpaid for a FA WR in a long time, we just haven't signed any big names, but other teams have and gotten stung. Cobb wasn't a FA, but when it was all said and done, the Packers overpaid him on his final contract.

Nothing is ever a guarantee. We could spend $10M on a TE or $14M on a WR and one or both guys could be busts or booms. Packers have had a lot of luck grooming their own WR's in the past, not so much lately, but they also haven't invested much draft capital at WR. For whatever reason, the Packers can't seem to develop a good TE. Jermichael Finley (2008), being the last successful draft and develop guy.

As important as the TE seems to be in MLF's offense and the seemingly difficult task of developing one, I see the Packers going after Hooper, maybe signing someone like Cobb, if they can get them cheap. After that, its on to the draft, where they will probably look for a top WR.

It's LaFleur's offense, not Gute's.

I agree with what you're saying though.

 

[Dantés]

If the Packers can sign Hooper for $10m per year, they'll get good value for their money. He's not one of the elite receiving TEs, but he doesn't really have any weaknesses in his game and that's really valuable in a TE. He primarily excels in the middle of the field where he can find open spots under the defense or holes in the zone defense, which would be very helpful for the offense considering their current personnel. While I personally might prefer getting Ebron for $6-$8m per season I can certainly understand MLF wanting to have a TE on the field that can both open the middle of the field in the passing game while also helping in the running game (something that Ebron certainly doesn't do).

He most certainly does have a weakness-- beating man coverage.

The large majority of his production has been as an outlet underneath against zone coverage. Per PFF, that's over 75% of his receiving production. When he's facing man coverage, he isn't nearly so productive. But when Julio Jones, Calvin Ridley, and Mo Sanu were on the field with him all at once, it was easier for him to find those looks.

I don't think it's a coincidence that his conversion rate on 3rd down targets was a mere 50%. I think that he feasted on shallow targets against zone coverage on earlier downs, but then faced man coverage on money downs when the defense had a chance to get off the field.

I am by no means saying he's a bad player. He has value. I'm just torn regarding what he's worth.

 

[GleefulGary]

I think he's a nice player.

Currently better than anyone we have.

Buuuut there's a reason Atlanta didn't fight too hard to keep him.

 

[Do7]

I think he's a nice player.

Currently better than anyone we have.

Buuuut there's a reason Atlanta didn't fight too hard to keep him.

Then again cap wise I don't think Atlanta would be in a position to keep him even if they had wanted to. It's like you said he's likely better than anyone we have here...

 

[Dantés]

I think he's a nice player.

Currently better than anyone we have.

Buuuut there's a reason Atlanta didn't fight too hard to keep him.

I think it's partially that they don't see him as an elite player, but also partially that they're in a really tough spot against the cap.

 

[Jason Edens]

I would disagree on using that as a basis of what you do moving forward. First, Rodgers did have some success with his TE's (Finley and Cook) over his career. I would pin it more on the fact that the Packers just haven't really provided him consistently with a good one. Finally, this isn't MM running the offense anymore, its Matt LeFleur. His offense is different than MM's and combine that with a less mobile, aging #12 and maybe a really good TE is exactly what he needs?

Rodgers has had as much success with Graham as any other specific TE in his career. Oops I am speaking facts again. Let everyone bash me now.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Rodgers has had as much success with Graham as any other specific TE in his career. Oops I am speaking facts again. Let everyone bash me now.

Yet, you previously said this....which is it? It can't be both.

Cook was worth it. Bennet not. Graham not.

Depending on how you want to define success, generally speaking Rodgers hasn't been given a lot to work with in the way of TE's. With Finley and Cook, probably being the 2 that had the most success with Rodgers.

Seems like you just like to create arguments for the sake of arguing? Was trying to help you out a bit here, but you really are not helping yourself by being combative with everyone. I think if I misstated that Rodgers threw 3 interceptions last year, you would want to spend 20 posts debating the actual number (4).

 

[Jason Edens]

Yet, you previously said this....which is it? It can't be both.



Depending on how you want to define success, generally speaking Rodgers hasn't been given a lot to work with in the way of TE's. With Finley and Cook, probably being the 2 that had the most success with Rodgers.

Seems like you just like to create arguments for the sake of arguing? Was trying to help you out a bit here, but you really are not helping yourself by being combative with everyone. I think if I misstated that Rodgers threw 3 interceptions last year, you would want to spend 20 posts debating the actual number (4).

Did we pay Finley or Cook as much as we did Graham or Bennet? Hence value... If you want to constantly troll me fine, but at least keep posting your funny pictures when you do.

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

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

You should seek professional help. How the mods have allowed you to stay today amazes me. Your pent up anger is dangerous to you, maybe others, buy certainly you. A wise man once advised... R-E-L-A-X. It is good advice. Also, google is your friend. Look up “ passive aggressive”. It does not mean what you think it means.

Life is short, try to enjoy it. I get being a follower of the purple team keeps you from enjoying football, but there are other interests out there. Being angry and jealous is no way to go through life young man.

 

[Jason Edens]

You should seek professional help. How the mods have allowed you to stay today amazes me. Your pent up anger is dangerous to you, maybe others, buy certainly you. A wise man once advised... R-E-L-A-X. It is good advice. Also, google is your friend. Look up “ passive aggressive”. It does not mean what you think it means.

Life is short, try to enjoy it. I get being a follower of the purple team keeps you from enjoying football, but there are other interests out there. Being angry and jealous is no way to go through life young man.

pas·sive-ag·gres·sive
adjective

1. of or denoting a type of behavior or personality characterized by indirect resistance to the demands of others and an avoidance of direct confrontation, as in procrastinating, pouting, or misplacing important materials.

Your post is passive aggressive. I am 43 years old thank you. I am a Green Bay Packers fan, I have a ball signed by the Super Bowl team led by Brett Favre. I can post pictures if needed. The posts towards me have all been passive aggressive up until now. Now they are just aggressive. I have a clear understanding of the english vocabulary. Maybe the mods don't particularly like 7 of the long time posters here ganging up on a new voice. Maybe you are all Bernie bros, who knows. But now all of these posts are directed at me personally. For what? Because I disagree that CB is one of our biggest positions of need. You are all idiots for posting otherwise. Every single one of you. If we had a better corner back in the NFC championship game what would have happened differently...

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

 

[Mondio]

That’s also the face someone makes when discussing cornerbacks for next year and says Tramon is still on the roster.

anyway 6 years ago we paid Finley 8 million dollars for a season that ended his career. And There were rumors we were offering Bennett’s money to Cook but he turned it down.

 

[Jason Edens]

That’s also the face someone makes when discussing cornerbacks for next year and says Tramon is still on the roster.

anyway 6 years ago we paid Finley 8 million dollars for a season that ended his career. And There were rumors we were offering Bennett’s money but he turned it down.

Mrs passive aggressive posts again. What did you say exactly there? Quit being a ***** and come at me directly if you are going to come at me at all. It seems like I have 6 or more posters attacking me directly here for dare saying that CB is not a need for the GB Packers.

 

[Passepartout]

Sorry you got attacked Jason. People need to hear agree to disagree!

 

[Mondio]

Mrs passive aggressive posts again. What did you say exactly there? Quit being a ***** and come at me directly if you are going to come at me at all. It seems like I have 6 or more posters attacking me directly here for dare saying that CB is not a need for the GB Packers.

yeah, that's why people have an issue LOL.

anyway, quit playing the victim, it's not that fitting.

 

[Jason Edens]

yeah, that's why people have an issue LOL.

anyway, quit playing the victim, it's not that fitting.

Ok lets get back to the original point. Please tell me and everyone else why you feel we need to spend high draft picks to shore up the CB position in this draft. Oh what is that? You weren't in that conversation, nor held that position to start with. Oh, you just decided to jump in and attack me personally for no other reason than to attack me personally. That is what I thought.

 

[Jason Edens]

Sorry you got attacked Jason. People need to hear agree to disagree!

I appreciate your post. I have thick skin. Quite a few sharks here apparently. Not my first rodeo though.

 

[AmishMafia]

Ok lets get back to the original point. Please tell me and everyone else why you feel we need to spend high draft picks to shore up the CB position in this draft. Oh what is that? You weren't in that conversation, nor held that position to start with. Oh, you just decided to jump in and attack me personally for no other reason than to attack me personally. That is what I thought.

We have:

Jaire - very good
King - good but not great. Minor injuries. Will be FA next year
Tramon - slowing down. Did ok. Hope to bring him back
Sullivan - looked good in some play
Holliman - raw


Now, it takes 2 years for a CB to get up to speed.


Ask yourself, what will our CBs look like in 2 years.

King and Tramon could be gone.

And we need at least 3 starter quality and another good one.

Looks to me like we should draft one. If you wait till we need one, it's too late.