Free Agency

[HardRightEdge]

A ton of value free agents available. Most a little older than I would like, but I expect TT to start kicking tires now.

Define value.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

Define value.

TT "value" = KMart players

 

[ivo610]

Define value.

Bargain basement prices judging by the contracts the first wave got.

Now how many of these are guys that could start on this team? Very few.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Bargain basement prices judging by the contracts the first wave got.

Now how many of these are guys that could start on this team? Very few.

OK, so you're still looking for vet minimum shots in the dark. Diddling around the edges.

 

[ivo610]

OK, so you're still looking for vet minimum shots in the dark. Diddling around the edges.

I think TT will kick tires. I don't see too many starters. Maybe some depth.

Mixed feelings on 1 yr contracts as I feel we should develop instead of just plug. But not every situation deserves that blanket policy. Obviously it didn't work out well last year with Benson and Saturday.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think TT will kick tires. I don't see too many starters. Maybe some depth.

Mixed feelings on 1 yr contracts as I feel we should develop instead of just plug. But not every situation deserves that blanket policy. Obviously it didn't work out well last year with Benson and Saturday.

There are plenty of guys on the FA board who could start for this team without breaking the bank. It's a matter of "want to".

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

I think TT will kick tires. I don't see too many starters. Maybe some depth.

Mixed feelings on 1 yr contracts as I feel we should develop instead of just plug. But not every situation deserves that blanket policy. Obviously it didn't work out well last year with Benson and Saturday.

Even saturday didn't really "work out' IMO. He had to be replaced due to getting worked over to easily. He was just getting old quick....now if that was jeff saturday from 5 years ago, hell yes. Im still skeptical that benson will work out after his injury.....but then again, neither cost us much money.

 

[HyponGrey]

indeed.....I am getting a little de ja vu from 2012.....wonder how long we will end up keeping the newest batch of has beens or never will be's??

6 weeks til Worthy gets off PUP.

 

[adambr2]

I still stand behind the Benson deal, even after the injury. You can get value at minimum sometimes. We don't need and aren't going to get an Arian Foster or Adrian Peterson on our roster. In general, we just need a guy who can be effective enough to gain positive yards, make play action effective, and give us a rushing option on 3rd/4th and short.

I would do Benson again if we don't sign anyone else in the meantime.

 

[texaspackerbacker]

Raji doesn't need a dime until he learns how to play every snap he is on the field.

In addition to that, he just doesn't show the toughness you expect from someone his size. He definitely is not in the same category of importance as Rodgers and Matthews, and I hope they don't re-sign him for anything resembling "big money".

 

[texaspackerbacker]

I still stand behind the Benson deal, even after the injury. You can get value at minimum sometimes. We don't need and aren't going to get an Arian Foster or Adrian Peterson on our roster. In general, we just need a guy who can be effective enough to gain positive yards, make play action effective, and give us a rushing option on 3rd/4th and short.

I would do Benson again if we don't sign anyone else in the meantime.

I never liked Benson before or after the injury. I'd take Ryan Grant over him, but more significantly, I'd take Harris, Green, Starks, and maybe Saine over him. My real hope, though, is we can draft Montee Ball in the 4th round. 3rd, maybe, but if he falls to 4th, great - the guy IMO will have an excellent pro career, barring injury.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

I never liked Benson before or after the injury. I'd take Ryan Grant over him, but more significantly, I'd take Harris, Green, Starks, and maybe Saine over him. My real hope, though, is we can draft Montee Ball in the 4th round. 3rd, maybe, but if he falls to 4th, great - the guy IMO will have an excellent pro career, barring injury.

LOL...c'mon texas.....ya know I gotta bust-yo-balls for all that ryan grant d!ck riding you are doing. I used to like the guy, but damn bro, you have one hell of a bromance going on.

 

[adambr2]

I know it's unfair, but I have a perennial distrust in Wisconsin RB's. It's partly because they seem to be able to continue to plug new recruits in and not miss a beat, so you wonder how much they benefit from the offensive system. What's the last Wisconsin RB that had success at the pro level?

I would take Ball in the 4th, but no sooner. I don't see him falling that far anyway because of the relatively light class of RB's in this draft.

 

[texaspackerbacker]

LOL...c'mon texas.....ya know I gotta bust-yo-balls for all that ryan grant d!ck riding you are doing. I used to like the guy, but damn bro, you have one hell of a bromance going on.

hahaha I put him below Harris, Green, Starks, and maybe even Saine - just ahead of Benson. The guy would not seem to be damaged by injuries (Grant I mean) or overly worn out. I just suspect that a full training camp would get him running better than last year and more like his first tour here. Mainly, though, my point is I just don't like Benson.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

hahaha I put him below Harris, Green, Starks, and maybe even Saine - just ahead of Benson. The guy would not seem to be damaged by injuries (Grant I mean) or overly worn out. I just suspect that a full training camp would get him running better than last year and more like his first tour here. Mainly, though, my point is I just don't like Benson.

This kills me , I have agree again. I`m no fan of Benson either, never really was.

 

[ivo610]

I know it's unfair, but I have a perennial distrust in Wisconsin RB's. It's partly because they seem to be able to continue to plug new recruits in and not miss a beat, so you wonder how much they benefit from the offensive system. What's the last Wisconsin RB that had success at the pro level?

I would take Ball in the 4th, but no sooner. I don't see him falling that far anyway because of the relatively light class of RB's in this draft.

Michael Bennett stuck around the league for awhile. But yeah, no one jumps out. TEs and O linemen have been pretty solid.

 

[TJV]

McGinn put up a piece yesterday on rating the free agents.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/freeagents19-ha970pa-198866041.html

He lists both the FAs who have already signed as well as those who haven't. Here's a list of the FA safeties still available in the order he lists them, with their former team abbreviated after their name:

Ed Reed BAL, Kerry Rhodes ARZ, Bernard Pollard BAL, Gerald Sensabaugh DAL, Dawan Landry JAX, Quintin Mikell STL, Michael Huff OAK, Ronde Barber TB, Tom Zbikowski IND, Atari Bigby SD.

I don't know what they're asking except McGinn says Reed turned down $5M from HOU, probably hoping to up BAL's offer to him. IMO Reed wouldn't be a good signing for the Packers - may as well bring Woodson back instead and I'm not in favor of that either. And he notes ARZ couldn't afford Rhodes. I would love to see Thompson sign a safety with a chance to start or a DL. What is everyone's opinion of the safeties still available?

 

[HardRightEdge]

McGinn put up a piece yesterday on rating the free agents.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/freeagents19-ha970pa-198866041.html

He lists both the FAs who have already signed as well as those who haven't. Here's a list of the FA safeties still available in the order he lists them, with their former team abbreviated after their name:

Ed Reed BAL, Kerry Rhodes ARZ, Bernard Pollard BAL, Gerald Sensabaugh DAL, Dawan Landry JAX, Quintin Mikell STL, Michael Huff OAK, Ronde Barber TB, Tom Zbikowski IND, Atari Bigby SD.

I don't know what they're asking except McGinn says Reed turned down $5M from HOU, probably hoping to up BAL's offer to him. IMO Reed wouldn't be a good signing for the Packers - may as well bring Woodson back instead and I'm not in favor of that either. And he notes ARZ couldn't afford Rhodes. I would love to see Thompson sign a safety with a chance to start or a DL. What is everyone's opinion of the safeties still available?

I'm a bit surprised Huff isn't rated higher. He'd be a lot cheaper than I originally thought if this is the consensus. He's 30 years old but has not lost much speed. More fast than physical...but if you want both you have to pay Pro Bowl money. He's a good ballplayer.

I noticed yesterday that Bigby was available.

Ed Reed's 34. Woodson was playing DPOY level football at that age...2 years later not so much. Reed's a little long in the tooth for that kind of money in our new normal of "the wide cheap middle."

 

[paulska]

McGinn put up a piece yesterday on rating the free agents.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/freeagents19-ha970pa-198866041.html

He lists both the FAs who have already signed as well as those who haven't. Here's a list of the FA safeties still available in the order he lists them, with their former team abbreviated after their name:

Ed Reed BAL, Kerry Rhodes ARZ, Bernard Pollard BAL, Gerald Sensabaugh DAL, Dawan Landry JAX, Quintin Mikell STL, Michael Huff OAK, Ronde Barber TB, Tom Zbikowski IND, Atari Bigby SD.

I don't know what they're asking except McGinn says Reed turned down $5M from HOU, probably hoping to up BAL's offer to him. IMO Reed wouldn't be a good signing for the Packers - may as well bring Woodson back instead and I'm not in favor of that either. And he notes ARZ couldn't afford Rhodes. I would love to see Thompson sign a safety with a chance to start or a DL. What is everyone's opinion of the safeties still available?

I tend to agree with HRE here (not that I am frequently in disagreement with him on things). I'd say that whoever plays opposite Burnett needs to have some range to him. That's not to say that there aren't redeeming qualities amongst the players available you listed:

• Rhodes can hit
• Pollard is assignment sure after having to cover for Ed "The Rover" Reed in Baltimore, but lacks speed in coverage
• Ronde Barber has seen it all and still made plays last year and is an amazing team guy, but is a little too close to the end a la Saturday, for me

Aside from Huff, everyone else there is just a guy. Given his still impressive physical tools, Huff likely has 3-4 years left of productive football in the right scheme. It always seemed to me that in our scheme we were at our best when we had two safeties that could play either role rather than a clearly defined hitter and cover-dude back there. Huff has the tools to do what Burnett does, which puts Capers in a position that teams can't zero in on the physical limitations of a player against us, and it means that either safety could do a lot of things pre-snap, which makes reads tougher to make in the passing game for opponents.

Ultimately, I think it's about production per dollar- if Huff is signable for 12 million over four years, does his level of play and production outperform the collective performance of Jennings and McMillian for their collective remaining salary to the degree that the money difference is worth it?

I can't say, because I don't watch enough AFC west games to know just how effective Huff is in a role comparable to how we'd use him. Signing him is a minor leap of faith because he's spent so much time at CB for Oakland instead of at safety where the consensus is that he's a better performer overall.

I will say that the last DB with question marks about tread and tools we signed in FA turned out MEGAroses for us- if Huff is 1/2 as dominant at safety as Woodson was at CB, I think 12 mil/4 years is money well spent, because it not only means improved play, but it also means that one of our younger talents gets a chance to come along without needing to do it without brain farts costing us big plays left, right and center...

 

[Raptorman]

I know it's unfair, but I have a perennial distrust in Wisconsin RB's. It's partly because they seem to be able to continue to plug new recruits in and not miss a beat, so you wonder how much they benefit from the offensive system. What's the last Wisconsin RB that had success at the pro level?

I would take Ball in the 4th, but no sooner. I don't see him falling that far anyway because of the relatively light class of RB's in this draft.

Maybe because the Badgers O-line is better at run blocking than the Packers are.

 

[TJV]

Thanks for the input on the safeties. HardRightEdge, I heard someone on the radio last week really tear into Reed saying he’s washed up, has lost more than a step and he'll be a horrible signing. No doubt over the top – and I don’t even remember his name which may have defeated the purpose of his analysis. In any event, I don’t think there’s any “danger” of the Packers pursuing Reed.

paulska, Michael Rodney, the guy who writes Packer Update (at .net), agrees with your assessment of Huff. He sounds like a good fit – Rodney thinks he played CB better than Tramon Williams did last season and of course could play the slot in the dime. I’d really like this signing – then if MD Jennings and/or McMillian come on, great but they’d be covered if they don’t. There’s a report that 4 teams are pursuing Huff, including the Packers.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Thanks for the input on the safeties. HardRightEdge, I heard someone on the radio last week really tear into Reed saying he’s washed up, has lost more than a step and he'll be a horrible signing. No doubt over the top – and I don’t even remember his name which may have defeated the purpose of his analysis. In any event, I don’t think there’s any “danger” of the Packers pursuing Reed.

paulska, Michael Rodney, the guy who writes Packer Update (at .net), agrees with your assessment of Huff. He sounds like a good fit – Rodney thinks he played CB better than Tramon Williams did last season and of course could play the slot in the dime. I’d really like this signing – then if MD Jennings and/or McMillian come on, great but they’d be covered if they don’t. There’s a report that 4 teams are pursuing Huff, including the Packers.

Huff's roots are at safety, and I can't see us signing him without the intent of starting him there. He's played CB and nickel when injuries dictated, not necessarily as a coaching preference. It would be good to have a guy with his kind of versatility.

I suppose if Williams does not get back to form and House can't stay healthy again, Huff could swing over there...that's the versatility benefit. But the real threat to Williams' job is House. Of all the D guys we've drafted in the last 3 years, House and Heyward are the guys I see as having the most upside.

That is if House can stay healthy...you have to fear he might just be one of those brittle guys (or is it low threshold of pain?) like Mr. Starks.

Signing Huff would likely require the release of either Jennings, McMillan or Bush. I think McMillan or Bush would be the casualty. Huff could swing to dime (or call it 3-safety...a distinction without a difference), making Bush expendable if we can find a gunner. MM loves having him around, though.

I'd think Huff would be a more productive player out from under the Oakland cloud, and could be had at discount to true market value because of said cloud.

I can't think of a reason McKenzie wouldn't give TT an honest evaluation if he asked for it.

It's just a thought....

I see risk in Reed. Like Woodson and Polamalu, he's a freelancer who lives off his physical skills and guile. When the speed goes, look out, as some have commented elsewhere. There's nothing uglier than jumping a route or taking an aggressive angle and being late. I don't know if Reed is there yet. There seems to be mixed opinions.

 

[Southpaw]

TT "value" = KMart players

We need those Neiman Marcus Bloomingdales players

or at the very least Macy's players

 

[HyponGrey]

We need those Neiman Marcus Bloomingdales players

or at the very least Macy's players

You know, just because it's the most expensive doesn't mean it's the best. Common misconception.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

You know, just because it's the most expensive doesn't mean it's the best. Common misconception.

And just because you go out and get 4 or 5 El cheap-o's and they don't pan out and get cut makes it any better?