Free Agency: TE's

[Mondio]

not have a chance? really? so what is it this team NEEDS at the TE position? I know, I know, we have Aaron Rodgers. Our wideouts should be 90+ with 1400+ and 12+TD's every year and so should our TE. But when we come back to reality, what does this team "need" for a TE. Though there are certain things RR is not, there is a A LOT about him that he is. He could be better at blocking and he could be more nimble in the open field. It's not a secret, but it's not as if he's some scrub that can't play. He's actually a pretty decent big bodied guy.

Sure I'd like him to be a bit better at some things, but to see he doesn't even have a chance? I guess if you think we need Jermichel Finley, who we won a super bowl without, then yeah, he doesn't have a chance. But to be a productive NFL caliber TE? I'd say he already is.

 

[mradtke66]

I still maintain I'd be happy with RR, IF, and I stress IF, he learns how to block we inline. He's got good size, good hands, and runs his routes well. He blocks well when motioned like an H-Back into the backfield.

He'd be "complete" if he was A) Faster or B) A good blocker. Since A is near impossible to fix, I hope he focuses on B.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

not have a chance? really? so what is it this team NEEDS at the TE position? I know, I know, we have Aaron Rodgers. Our wideouts should be 90+ with 1400+ and 12+TD's every year and so should our TE. But when we come back to reality, what does this team "need" for a TE. Though there are certain things RR is not, there is a A LOT about him that he is. He could be better at blocking and he could be more nimble in the open field. It's not a secret, but it's not as if he's some scrub that can't play. He's actually a pretty decent big bodied guy.

Sure I'd like him to be a bit better at some things, but to see he doesn't even have a chance? I guess if you think we need Jermichel Finley, who we won a super bowl without, then yeah, he doesn't have a chance. But to be a productive NFL caliber TE? I'd say he already is.

The Packers offense would be a much better unit with a tight end capable of stretching a defense. Rodgers doesn´t have any chance to ever be a guy capable of doing that.

 

[Mondio]

What offense wouldn't be better with a TE that can stretch a field? Now tell me how many teams have won a lot of games and Super Bowls without a TE that can stretch the field and tell me that's what we need? or do we need a guy that can catch 50-70 balls, for a 10YPC or better and approach 10 TD's a year from the TE position? That's not good enough?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

What offense wouldn't be better with a TE that can stretch a field? Now tell me how many teams have won a lot of games and Super Bowls without a TE that can stretch the field and tell me that's what we need? or do we need a guy that can catch 50-70 balls, for a 10YPC or better and approach 10 TD's a year from the TE position? That's not good enough?

I didn´t say the Packers need a tight end capable of stretching the field to win the Super Bowl but that it would make the offense better and improve the team´s chances to win another Lombardi Trophy.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Set aside AR's injury and any O-line issues, I think in 2015 the Packers discovered the importance of being able to stretch the field/defense with their receivers. Adding a TE that can do this can only help matters. I like Richard Rodgers for what he offers in the short yardage, red zone offense, but a TE with some speed and ability to shed linebackers is just going to open things up just that much more for AR to pick apart a defense. This should also help to open up the running game.

 

[Mondio]

Set aside AR's injury and any O-line issues, I think in 2015 the Packers discovered the importance of being able to stretch the field/defense with their receivers. Adding a TE that can do this can only help matters. I like Richard Rodgers for what he offers in the short yardage, red zone offense, but a TE with some speed and ability to shed linebackers is just going to open things up just that much more for AR to pick apart a defense. This should also help to open up the running game.

of course it will help matters. Who doesn't want Gronkowski on their team? or Kelce? anybody that doesn't want them?as with everything, it's where do you find them, can you find them, how much are you going to pay them or give up to get them and how much is the net gain to the team. last question, is 50-70 catches, 10ypc or better and 7-10 TD's good production from the TE position? I think it is, what are your expectations and what do you say we NEED to be a good team?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

of course it will help matters. Who doesn't want Gronkowski on their team? or Kelce? anybody that doesn't want them?as with everything, it's where do you find them, can you find them, how much are you going to pay them or give up to get them and how much is the net gain to the team. last question, is 50-70 catches, 10ypc or better and 7-10 TD's good production from the TE position? I think it is, what are your expectations and what do you say we NEED to be a good team?

Richard Rodgers stats were pedestrian IMO, his 8.8 yds/rec. was 68th in the league of active tight ends. But you also have to look beyond the stats. What is that Player doing for the offensive scheme? Yes, Richard Rodgers will get his yards and TD's but is he creating match-up problems for the defense? Is he creating more choices or options for AR? I have to say "no" to this. As much as I like James Jones, Richard Rodgers is a bit like him. He runs his routes, if he happens to get open and AR sees him, he gets his yards and little else.

As far as where to find a better player? Same place teams found Gronk, Olsen, Kelce, etc.....free agency and draft. How much will that cost the Packers? Depends on how much that type of TE is valued in their system.

 

[Mondio]

and a year ago he was at over 10 ypc which is about what every other TE in the league gets outside of the handful that we'd consider elite, that's not good enough? I'd also point out that Cobb's YPC were down a few yards to from a few seasons over 14 to 11? of course RR yards were down, EVERYBODY"S were. I full expect that to go up. His receptions were 12th, and again, outside a handful of others, most of those above him were in in that same 50-60 catch range. and he was 5th in TD's. But I guess that doesn't fit the "pedestrian" mantra so it was strategically left out

anyway, nobody is arguing that RR is going to blow the doors off a defense. All of this was in response to someone that said it was sad that a 3rd rounder has zero chance to become an NFL TE. Is that your contention too? or are you guys arguing because you want to tell me RR has some deficiencies that I've already mentioned numerous times? I guess at this point it doesn't matter. If it's the former, well it's hard to argue with logic like that and if it's the latter, I'd rather not be arguing about the same thing with different words

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

anyway, nobody is arguing that RR is going to blow the doors off a defense. All of this was in response to someone that said it was sad that a 3rd rounder has zero chance to become an NFL TE. Is that your contention too?

If you are asking me, I have stated for some time that I like RR, as a #2 TE option. I don't view him as a bust at all. I believe that we will also see more out of RR in the future. But, I think an upgrade at our #1 is needed to further improve the offense. I felt the same way about Quarles before all his injuries and off the field issues. Solid #2, but pass for a #1.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I view this a bit like the RB position. Lacy (2015 version) and Starks, very capable backs but neither could be classified as game changers. Imagine what having Adrian Peterson in the backfield behind #12 would do for the offense.

While #12 is behind center, the more game changers we can put on the field, the more that offense is just going to be nearly impossible to stop. When we lost Jordy, a game changer IMO, our offense became average.

 

[Mondio]

I view this a bit like the RB position. Lacy (2015 version) and Starks, very capable backs but neither could be classified as game changers. Imagine what having Adrian Peterson in the backfield behind #12 would do for the offense.

While #12 is behind center, the more game changers we can put on the field, the more that offense is just going to be nearly impossible to stop. When we lost Jordy, a game changer IMO, our offense became average.

I thought Rodgers was our game changer? at 20+ million a year I'd hope he'd be. How many game changers do you pay? can you pay? For the price, give me Eddie and Lacy all day over All Day at this point.

 

[jrock645]

Lacy was a game changer in 13 and 14.

 

[ivo610]

thoughts on Garrett Graham out of Houston? His wife is a total Smokeshow

 

[Mondio]

thoughts on Garrett Graham out of Houston? His wife is a total Smokeshow

isn't a forum requirement to post pictures after making such a claim now i'll have to google all by myself

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

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

 

[Mondio]

well, Vrill wasn't lying

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I thought Rodgers was our game changer? at 20+ million a year I'd hope he'd be. How many game changers do you pay? can you pay? For the price, give me Eddie and Lacy all day over All Day at this point.

2015 made it pretty obvious to me that Aaron Rodgers alone, isn't enough of a game changer. So I guess I would answer your question with "at least 1 more then AR". As far as how much you have to pay a game changer? That depends on your ability to scout, develop, value talent and a little bit of luck. Your statement sounds as if it assumes that game changers can only be high paid players. I would disagree, there have been plenty of game changers throughout the history of the NFL that weren't making top $ (at least until their next contract).

 

[jrock645]

Well said!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

thoughts on Garrett Graham out of Houston?

With the Packers in need of an athletic tight end Graham isn't a fit.

 

[Mondio]

2015 made it pretty obvious to me that Aaron Rodgers alone, isn't enough of a game changer. So I guess I would answer your question with "at least 1 more then AR". As far as how much you have to pay a game changer? That depends on your ability to scout, develop, value talent and a little bit of luck. Your statement sounds as if it assumes that game changers can only be high paid players. I would disagree, there have been plenty of game changers throughout the history of the NFL that weren't making top $ (at least until their next contract).

I think everyone had a bad year, for all sorts of reasons. It hink AR is still one of the best, I think Lacy is still top 10 RB and can be a difference maker, I think We have very good guards and above average center. I think Cobb is still a playmaker. I think RR is a very capable TE. What I think was obvious is this is a team sport and that will never change. And when everyone isn't performing like they have, can, and should be, things look a lot worse than they are. For all sorts of reasons, none that I think one can firmly put their finger on, a lot of guys weren't at their normal self last year. If last year taught anybody anything, it should have taught them just how team oriented this game is.

 

[Half Empty]

and a year ago he was at over 10 ypc which is about what every other TE in the league gets outside of the handful that we'd consider elite, that's not good enough?

First, I'm assuming that a year ago was 2015. If so, nfl.com has him with an 8.8 average. That puts him 68th overall, but that includes a lot of players with just a handful of catches, which obviously skews the data. I'll let you choose the "with at least ___ catches" number, but Rodgers wasn't very high on the list. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...archive=false&conference=null&qualified=false

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think everyone had a bad year, for all sorts of reasons. It hink AR is still one of the best, I think Lacy is still top 10 RB and can be a difference maker, I think We have very good guards and above average center. I think Cobb is still a playmaker. I think RR is a very capable TE. What I think was obvious is this is a team sport and that will never change. And when everyone isn't performing like they have, can, and should be, things look a lot worse than they are. For all sorts of reasons, none that I think one can firmly put their finger on, a lot of guys weren't at their normal self last year. If last year taught anybody anything, it should have taught them just how team oriented this game is.

The 2015 Packer offense definitely should have learned that AR alone isn't enough. I agree with you that it was a snowball effect of injuries, poor play and probably loss of confidence that knocked the wheels off the offense last year.

I wouldn't classify Lacy as a top 10 back...maybe he has the potential to be one, but not last year. Is RR a capable TE? Sure, just as Lacy is a capable RB. But if you heard news that RR was in the middle of some amazing off season program that would make him faster and thus a TE that could open things up in the middle, wouldn't you be pumped? We all know Eddie may come back in better shape and a more productive RB, but I think we also know RR won't come back any faster. He may be more productive next year with Jordy back, but he probably wont ever be the game changing TE that I would envision as a #1 on a pass oriented offense.

I'm not going to take the time to go back and look at stats, but I recall a number of games last year that the opposing teams TE's tore us up. Unless you include the Hail Rodgers play, I don't really remember any Packer games where I said at the end "man that Richard Rodgers is really something." So yes, if all you want is a body to fill the TE position and you are satisfied with average, I would say RR is your man, I just think we can find better.

 

[Mondio]

i know he's not a game changing TE, and really, how many teams have one? They aren't that plentiful. We have game changers in our RB, and WR's. Our offense doesn't hinge on a game changing TE. It's a luxury, one I'd love to have, but one we're not likely to find. All these guys that are "better" in the league, most are not really all that much better. They have him in yards, after a season in which our WR who has been 14+ in YPC also dropped down to 11. I don't think it's indicative of his ability, but rather the season we found ourselves in.

I didn't say Lacy was a top 10 back last year, but he should have been. He has that ability, and he's shown it, he should be a game changer and has been.

Why do I get the sense that if we sign someone with a name and they get 60 catches and 8 TD's and average 11 yards per catch it will be deemed a success, but if RR does that, he'll still be a disappointment?

 

[Mondio]

First, I'm assuming that a year ago was 2015. If so, nfl.com has him with an 8.8 average. That puts him 68th overall, but that includes a lot of players with just a handful of catches, which obviously skews the data. I'll let you choose the "with at least ___ catches" number, but Rodgers wasn't very high on the list. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...archive=false&conference=null&qualified=false

He was also 12th in catches, 18th in yards, both about middle of the pack and 5th in TD's. and in 2014 he was over 10 yds per catch, just like Cobb was over 14 yards per catch but also dropped by 3 or so yards per reception. Indicative or our TE, or the offense in general?

What is YOUR expectation for a TE to be serviceable in this league?