Free Agents you would like to see sign with Green Bay in 2019?

[gopkrs]

If Iupati was cheap; I could see signing him and not using him till the 2nd half of the season or later. (Knees)

 

[sschind]

$9 mil seems a little high but I don't know why anyone would think Amos would be cheap.

I wouldn't mind the Packers paying that kind of money to Amos to solidify the free safety position.

Thanks for the input. My BIL is perfectly fine with letting him walk at that price (or anything near it for that matter) It seems to me that he just doesn't care for him that much. I've really watched the guy play so I don't know.

HRE do you mean it sounds high for Amos or for the position in general.

I can see the Bears letting him walk at that ask, they have a lot tied up in that defense and I think Eddie Jackson's contract is due up after 2020. I'm hoping for another soft Safety market like we saw last year. Some decent options to choose from off of this "Top 10".

1. Earl Thomas
2. Tyrann Mathieu
3. Lamarcus Joyner
4. Landon Collins
5. Adrian Amos
6. Tre Boston
7. Eric Reid
8. Ha Ha Clinton-Dix
9. Ron Parker
10. Kenny Vaccaro

With that much talent available it might hold prices down. I can see at least half the guys on that list I wouldn't mind having and even the ones I wouldn't want will probably be in demand elsewhere adding to the supply.

 

[thequick12]

Thanks for the input. My BIL is perfectly fine with letting him walk at that price (or anything near it for that matter) It seems to me that he just doesn't care for him that much. I've really watched the guy play so I don't know.

HRE do you mean it sounds high for Amos or for the position in general.



With that much talent available it might hold prices down. I can see at least half the guys on that list I wouldn't mind having and even the ones I wouldn't want will probably be in demand elsewhere adding to the supply.

Wait why would you pay 9 million for Amos when you could get Earl Thomas for about that? I mean maybe you have to pay Thomas 10 million per but I'm taking Thomas all day. Amos is solid but nowhere near the play maker Thomas is

 

[sschind]

Wait why would you pay 9 million for Amos when you could get Earl Thomas for about that? I mean maybe you have to pay Thomas 10 million per but I'm taking Thomas all day. Amos is solid but nowhere near the play maker Thomas is

Age and injuries perhaps. Sign Amos for four years and there is a good chance you get all four from him. Thomas? who knows.

 

[thequick12]

Age and injuries perhaps. Sign Amos for four years and there is a good chance you get all four from him. Thomas? who knows.

Only probably gonna have to give Thomas 3 years. Rather have 2 great years of safety play for 30 million than 4 ok, so so years of Amos for 36 million. Amos has 3 int in 4 years starting most of those games and only missing 4. There's no logical reason to assume that will change now and he'll become a play maker. That kind of money should be reserved for guys who consistently make impact plays not guys who just consistently don't make bad plays

 

[HardRightEdge]

Wait why would you pay 9 million for Amos when you could get Earl Thomas for about that? I mean maybe you have to pay Thomas 10 million per but I'm taking Thomas all day. Amos is solid but nowhere near the play maker Thomas is

$9 mil is a little high in my view, but were the Thomas/Amos money the same I'd prefer Amos. Thomas will be 30 years old before the season starts and has had 2 serious injuries in the last 3 years. Amos is 4 years younger and ascending.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't see an upside to Thomas. He is going to want to be paid for who he was at the top of his game. Will he get better? I doubt it and there is a chance he regresses. Not saying he isn't a great player at 100% health, but that is the price it will probably take to get him. We did that with Graham.

A guy like Amos, I don't think has even hit his peak, so his value may actually go up over what he signs a 4 year deal at.

 

[HardRightEdge]

HRE do you mean it sounds high for Amos or for the position in general.

I'm thinking more like $8 mil per year for 4 years for Amos. I wouldn't pay that for any of the guys in pokerbrat's list a few posts above.

$9 mil is not too much for a preeminent FS. If we were talking about Earl Thomas following his 2013 season, entering his 5th. year, or the following year after a 5th. year option season, you couldn't touch him for $9 mil/year today.

 

[sschind]

Only probably gonna have to give Thomas 3 years. Rather have 2 great years of safety play for 30 million than 4 ok, so so years of Amos for 36 million. Amos has 3 int in 4 years starting most of those games and only missing 4. There's no logical reason to assume that will change now and he'll become a play maker. That kind of money should be reserved for guys who consistently make impact plays not guys who just consistently don't make bad plays

That's fair enough I was just giving you some reasons why someone might rather have Amos over Thomas.

 

[sschind]

I'm thinking more like $8 mil per year for 4 years for Amos. I wouldn't pay that for any of the guys in pokerbrat's list a few posts above.

$9 mil is not too much for a preeminent FS. If we were talking about Earl Thomas following his 2013 season, entering his 5th. year, or the following year after a 5th. year option season, you couldn't touch him for $9 mil/year today.

Is that you saying you think Amos is the best FA safety available? or is there someone other than those on the list. Just curious

 

[thequick12]

I'm thinking more like $8 mil per year for 4 years for Amos. I wouldn't pay that for any of the guys in pokerbrat's list a few posts above.

$9 mil is not too much for a preeminent FS. If we were talking about Earl Thomas following his 2013 season, entering his 5th. year, or the following year after a 5th. year option season, you couldn't touch him for $9 mil/year today.

Are you saying Thomas isn't worth 9 million a year ? Because I guess I would tend to agree but then Amos certainly isn't worth 8. The only reason I agree Thomas isn't worth 9 is because of the injury history the age doesn't bother me safeties Specifically elite ones tend to play at a very high level late into their careers and years. If you knew Thomas would play every game he's 100% worth 9 million a year but you don't so he's probably not.

But I was just commenting on the suggestion the packers should sign Amos for 9 m per. In which case I'd rather throw that money at Thomas the proven guy rather than the guy you say is "ascending " because he had 2 picks last season doubling his career total. Amos isn't a bad player he may even be an above avg starter. He just doesn't make plays and the packers already had that in Morgan Burnett. And don't get me wrong that guy is awesome to have as your number 2 safety when you have nick Collins or say earl Thomas or even in the situation Amos would be leaving Eddie Robinson. But asking Amos to be your number 1 play making safety is a recipe for the same tired play we've seen back there since Collins. Amos is robin not Batman and what's robin without batman?

 

[Packer Brother]

What about Chris Hogan?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Are you saying Thomas isn't worth 9 million a year ? Because I guess I would tend to agree but then Amos certainly isn't worth 8. The only reason I agree Thomas isn't worth 9 is because of the injury history the age doesn't bother me safeties Specifically elite ones tend to play at a very high level late into their careers and years. If you knew Thomas would play every game he's 100% worth 9 million a year but you don't so he's probably not.

But I was just commenting on the suggestion the packers should sign Amos for 9 m per. In which case I'd rather throw that money at Thomas the proven guy rather than the guy you say is "ascending " because he had 2 picks last season doubling his career total. Amos isn't a bad player he may even be an above avg starter. He just doesn't make plays and the packers already had that in Morgan Burnett. And don't get me wrong that guy is awesome to have as your number 2 safety when you have nick Collins or say earl Thomas or even in the situation Amos would be leaving Eddie Robinson. But asking Amos to be your number 1 play making safety is a recipe for the same tired play we've seen back there since Collins. Amos is robin not Batman and what's robin without batman?

If you are going to critique Amos in this way you should at least get the Eddie Jackson part correctly. Jackson route jumps and Amos backstopped him in a predominantly zone defense. Balls don't get over his head and he doesn't miss tackles, which are pretty much Job #1 and Job #2 in a free safety.

As for safety longevity, injuries compound and accelerate age. Clinton-Dix hasn't missed a game in 5 seasons and racks up 1,000 snaps per year. He's on track for a long career. Thomas presents a risk.

Somehow you went from preferring an elite safety for 2 year for $30 mil to Thomas not being worth $9 mil per year. That's a little all over the place.

In any event, safety is one of many possibilities with numerous needs. The Bears may find a way to pay him by cutting somebody else. Focusing on Amos is an example of how you want to spend your money with at least a 2+ year perspective: second contract players without health issues. They just happen to cost more.

Thomas presents the kind of risk that has been absorbed with Graham's 3 year / $30 mil deal. My advice is simple: don't do that. Reaching past age and/or injury risk is a "win now" move that this roster is not fit for. Think longer term.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It will be interesting to see what Thomas signs for and how his injuries will effect his contract. He wasn't happy playing his final year on a 4 year $40 M contract and I thought I read he was seeking Eric Berry like money which was six years for $78M or $13M/year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If Iupati was cheap; I could see signing him and not using him till the 2nd half of the season or later. (Knees)

I don't consider it a smart idea to sign a player with Iupati's track record of injuries.

Are you saying Thomas isn't worth 9 million a year ? Because I guess I would tend to agree but then Amos certainly isn't worth 8. The only reason I agree Thomas isn't worth 9 is because of the injury history the age doesn't bother me safeties Specifically elite ones tend to play at a very high level late into their careers and years. If you knew Thomas would play every game he's 100% worth 9 million a year but you don't so he's probably not.

But I was just commenting on the suggestion the packers should sign Amos for 9 m per. In which case I'd rather throw that money at Thomas the proven guy rather than the guy you say is "ascending " because he had 2 picks last season doubling his career total. Amos isn't a bad player he may even be an above avg starter. He just doesn't make plays and the packers already had that in Morgan Burnett. And don't get me wrong that guy is awesome to have as your number 2 safety when you have nick Collins or say earl Thomas or even in the situation Amos would be leaving Eddie Robinson. But asking Amos to be your number 1 play making safety is a recipe for the same tired play we've seen back there since Collins. Amos is robin not Batman and what's robin without batman?

Amos was one of the best free safeties in the league over the past two seasons. While Thomas performing at his peak has definitely played at a level above there's a lot of risk involved by signing him after having suffered two season ending injuries in 2017 and '18.

Therefore I would prefer the Packers to pursue Amos, a move that would most likely be cheaper as well.

 

[PackerDNA]

It will be interesting to see what Thomas signs for and how his injuries will effect his contract. He wasn't happy playing his final year on a 4 year $40 M contract and I thought I read he was seeking Eric Berry like money which was six years for $78M or $13M/year.

I think with his age and recent injuries, he's probably going to be dissapointed.

 

[elcid]

With the amount of safety talent available, I'd throw 8m a year over 3 years to Mathieu, Collins and Amos in that order of preference and see who takes the bait. Furthermore, Id try to add one veteran offensive playmaker (be it at WR, TE, RB, idc) and one veteran OL at the costs of roughly 5m each a year as I believe such additions would mitigate our need of reaching for offensive players in a draft loaded with D talent. To finalize, Id try signing an mid tier edge rusher in Anthony Barr / Preston Smith (for max 9m a year) or somewhat cheaper edge rusher in Za'darius Smith/Fowler Jr/Barrett (for about 6-7m a year).

All these guys are young and could produce for years to come. If none of these guys would be willing to take on such contracts (which seems fairly likely given the premium edge rushers have), I'd like to see some of that money spend on a true cover ILB. Mosley, Brown or Littleton come to mind.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It will be interesting to see what Thomas signs for and how his injuries will effect his contract. He wasn't happy playing his final year on a 4 year $40 M contract and I thought I read he was seeking Eric Berry like money which was six years for $78M or $13M/year.

Someone not in his right mind might offer Thomas that kind of contract, which in Berry's case represented a 4 year committment until the dead cap/cap savings reached tolerable levels for release at age 33 if circumstances demanded. In Thomas' case it would be age 34.

There is a baseline of probable outcomes: accumulated injuries accelerate effective age, advancing age increases the chance of injury which is the other side of the same coin as declining athleticism, RBs with repeated 350-400 touch seasons present high risk. D-Linemen with repeated 80-90% snap count seasons age fast.

There are freaks of nature, such as Peppers or Peterson, but these are rare exceptions which argue against the kinds of long term contracts offered Berry (or Thomas if someone is crazy enough to offer something similar).

A sensible approach to aging players is illustrated in the Rams signing Suh for 1 year, $14 mil. Age 31, a high snap count D-Lineman, less dominant than he once was but with gas still in the tank, while being durable in not having missed a game in the previous 6 years. It's not hard to see how the Rams might view Suh as a missing piece that could get them over the top at some cost while mitigating the risk of a multi-year contract. They were in position for a "win now" move while this deal did not have the cap overhang if it didn't happen. Reportedly, Suh turned down better offers, presumably for more than one year, another exceptional turn of events in Suh going for the win over the money. So long as multi-year offers for aging players are the order of the day most players will take them and perpetuate the foolishness.

We can quibble about Thompson's misses increasingly outnumbering hits as the years wore on in terms of who he let go in free agency and who he extended, but the overall approach was sound: stay young, draft and develop, exploit the advantage in cheap rookie contracts, limit going multi-year with aging players. The problem was that he lost his draft mojo that was evident in the earlier years and the overall age of the roster increased and quality of the roster eroded as a result.

 

[PackerDNA]

HRE, I think these are the subtleties that a lot of posters miss when , for example, arguing their displeasure in not getting Mack. You make a big bold move such as for Mack when you already have a loaded team that you feel is one such player/move away from winning a Super Bowl. For the Packers as they stand now, getting Mack not only would have not resulted in a Super Bowl this season, it would likely have set us back further in the long run also.
As for the Rams example, they have who they feel to be their long term answer at QB on his rookie deal, and had tons of cap space. So getting a lot of high end free agents to make a push now was a feasable option for them.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I used to have frequent conversations with a friend about NFL contracts and the enormous (in my eyes) money paid, as frustrating as his pat summary of every situation was for me, I have grown to accept it. His ending statement was always "Hey, it is whatever the market will bear".

Every player has a unique set of circumstances and if his services are in demand by more than one team, you are either going to have to beat that teams offer or be a more favorable option for that player to outweigh less money. Seems in many cases, money talks.

 

[HardRightEdge]

HRE, I think these are the subtleties that a lot of posters miss when , for example, arguing their displeasure in not getting Mack. You make a big bold move such as for Mack when you already have a loaded team that you feel is one such player/move away from winning a Super Bowl. For the Packers as they stand now, getting Mack not only would have not resulted in a Super Bowl this season, it would likely have set us back further in the long run also.
As for the Rams example, they have who they feel to be their long term answer at QB on his rookie deal, and had tons of cap space. So getting a lot of high end free agents to make a push now was a feasable option for them.

I said at the start of last season that this was not a championship caliber roster and Mack would not make it so. I suppose some might have thought the Packers were one elite player away. My case is proven. And yet, with that reality now evident, we have discussions on a smaller scale where there is a seeming perception that signing Brown or Bell and/or Thomas is some magic potion as though the team is something like two players away.

I take comfort in looking at the kinds of players Gutekunst reportedly did pursue in free agency last season: Mack (which I'm certain did not get very far), tender for Fuller, Robinson and Watkins (which I also don't believe got very far given the Chiefs contract for a guy who has shown no progression since his early career injuries looks a little crazy). All of these guys have two things in common: (1) they were second contract players which means you markedly enhance your chances they'll be worth the money 2 or 3 years down the road and (2) unfortunately you have to pay for that privilege.

he Fuller tender was solid if not sucessful; Gutekunst did not reach for the others. It didn't work out but the approach was sound. It is unfortunate he saw the need to reach for Graham, precisely the kind of move I would be critical of today and was not all that keen about at the time.

 

[A-aron Rodgerz]

I think a lot of the big free agents this year are going to resign or get tagged and wont hit the open market. I think Clowney is fun to think about in Green and Gold but even if he hits FA, its not realistic and that size of a contract wouldn't allow us much other options at other positions. The edge position is going to get gut this offseason so we're going to need to sign more than one guy. We have a lot of issues to address this offseason if we want to put ourselves back in contention so going all out on one guy isn't going to allow us improve in other positions.

I think the best move we could make this offseason would be getting Thomas. I believe getting a veteran to anchor our defense behind King, Alexander and hopefully Breeland would take our secondary to the next level. The reason I want Thomas is because I think we need to go get a ball hawk that will sure up the back end of our defense. I think Collins is a great player but he's a box safety which I don't think makes us much better. If last year was any indication of what the market is going to be for safeties this year, I don't think it will break our bank. Especially since he's turning 30 and coming off the injury. But if you look at his production before he got hurt, he can still play at a very high level. A lot of people are really concerned with his injuries the past two years, but he also started 108 consecutive games before the injury in 2017. As an aggressive safety, that doesn't strike me as a guy with durability issues. I think we could get him for a reasonable amount and that would leave us with a lot of money to grab a few solid OLBs and start to fix the right side of our offensive line. Dollar for dollar I think Thomas is the best move we can make.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think a lot of the big free agents this year are going to resign or get tagged and wont hit the open market. I think Clowney is fun to think about in Green and Gold but even if he hits FA, its not realistic and that size of a contract wouldn't allow us much other options at other positions. The edge position is going to get gut this offseason so we're going to need to sign more than one guy. We have a lot of issues to address this offseason if we want to put ourselves back in contention so going all out on one guy isn't going to allow us improve in other positions.

I think the best move we could make this offseason would be getting Thomas. I believe getting a veteran to anchor our defense behind King, Alexander and hopefully Breeland would take our secondary to the next level. The reason I want Thomas is because I think we need to go get a ball hawk that will sure up the back end of our defense. I think Collins is a great player but he's a box safety which I don't think makes us much better. If last year was any indication of what the market is going to be for safeties this year, I don't think it will break our bank. Especially since he's turning 30 and coming off the injury. But if you look at his production before he got hurt, he can still play at a very high level. A lot of people are really concerned with his injuries the past two years, but he also started 108 consecutive games before the injury in 2017. As an aggressive safety, that doesn't strike me as a guy with durability issues. I think we could get him for a reasonable amount and that would leave us with a lot of money to grab a few solid OLBs and start to fix the right side of our offensive line. Dollar for dollar I think Thomas is the best move we can make.

There's no doubt Thomas is still capable of performing at an elite level when healthy but with him having suffered two season ending injuries in consecutive years there's reason to doubt he's durable enough to justify signing him to a lucrative long term deal.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There's no doubt Thomas is still capable of performing at an elite level when healthy but with him having suffered two season ending injuries in consecutive years there's reason to doubt he's durable enough to justify signing him to a lucrative long term deal.

Because of those injuries and his age, the only way I am comfortable signing Thomas is on a 1 year prove it deal and it wouldn't be for the top $ he was wanting before his injury either.

That said, I think the Packers have a 1-2 year retool and settle in with the new coaches time frame ahead of them, so really not sure if I want to see any of those "prove it on year deals" on high end guys this season in Free Agency.

 

[A-aron Rodgerz]

There's no doubt Thomas is still capable of performing at an elite level when healthy but with him having suffered two season ending injuries in consecutive years there's reason to doubt he's durable enough to justify signing him to a lucrative long term deal.

Like I said, I think we can sign him for a reasonable deal. I'm not advocating to sign him for a "lucrative long term deal". Obviously I have no idea how much Thomas is expecting to get or what he will hold out for, but for the reasons I pointed out, I see him being affordable. I'd love to see him on a one year prove it deal like we did with Wilkerson last year.