13 Times Champs
Cheesehead
For sure. See you on your next snipe hunt.
Mark Murphy Q&A
- Thread starter ivo610
- Start date
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Once again, this is the typical response to any mention of free agency. When did it become "dream team" or nothing? I think if we went through every team with a chance of contending this season, we'd find at least one FA acquisition targeted as a starter. Unless the Packers win the SB, the FA-free-zone argument won't hold water...once again.
MiamiBeachPacker
Cheesehead
For sure. See you on your next snipe hunt.
I'm sure you'll be complaining about something else soon, so I guess I'll see you then.
Aaron rodgers is god
Cheesehead
When you have a great Qb it can mask a lot of problems like our O line and running game. I think our team is better then people give us credit for.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Believe it or not, the Packers have a very talented roster. Average players (reasonably priced FAs) would not add much value to the team. Only the higher value players would increase our talent level significantly. TT does roll the dice and signs the average players, Muir, Hargrove, and another one last year were unable to even make the team. The improvement has to be significant and it has to be priced appropriately. I think that is a rare combination.
The Packers have been the most successful team over the past 3 years. And once again this coming season, they will again be one of the few teams deemed to: 'have a good shot at the Superbowl'. They have more Superbowl wins than the teams being envied in this thread: Falcons, 49ers and Seahawks - combined over the last 5 years.
Time will tell if the FA acquisition philosophy works or not - so far it has very limited success. My prediction? Seahawks and 49ers have fewer victories than the Packers. Falcons? They are less into the FA thing - so they will do better than Hawks and 9ers also.
If it was as simple as just plucking a player who is good in FA and guaranteeing a SB victory, I am sure TT would pull the trigger in a heartbeat. But the NFL is much more complex than that. The cost of signing a FA goes beyond the weekly paycheck.
El Guapo
Cheesehead
You're guilty of what you accuse.
Sure people such as myself defend the conservative approach to free agency, but I don't remember reading any posts where we are advocating nothing in free agency. Most of us would all applaud a good free agent pickup or two, but at the right price. Like most discussions the two factions see the other as extreme. I think a lot of us share more of a common ground than it seems.
texaspackerbacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2004
- Messages
- 385
- Reaction score
- 27
Yeah, not to mention the defense - just about everything other than the great QB himself is shaky. Yeah, the team is better than some give it credit for, but it is BECAUSE of Rodgers.
I'm NOT saying we should have built by signing high price or even medium price free agents. I am saying, however, the execution of that draft and develop policy could have been a lot better. Yeah, there has been some bad luck in terms of injuries, and yeah, Thompson has had some successes, but all in all, his drafting, especially in the upper rounds, could have been a lot better.
Aaron rodgers is god
Cheesehead
Well there is a couple components to this. When you win you don't get high draft picks. It's pretty hard to get top notch prospects. It also doesn't help when you're 3 last first round picks are all hurt. This is just bad luck. TT has excelled at finding good players and good depth beyond the 2nd round. This has allowed is to continue to win with injuries. We have been very unfortunate with injuries. People are going to get hurt but we continue to have a ton of injuries and some of our top players have gotten hurt. Once you see the team at full strength u can see the true talent of our team.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
I've been in several discussions of moderately priced FA possibilities (Jackson, Bradshaw, Canty, Jenkins, Huff, Heyward-Bey, etc., etc.). I didn't endorse all of these guys, but the point is that there are quality players at reasonable prices who would be upgrades to the starting line-up or key rotational spots. These threads typically include tired lectures about draft-and-develop. I did not say "everyone" engages in all-or-nothing thinking; I said it is typical.
Futher, responses that include mention of "just guys" like Hargrove, Miur and "another guy" don't qualify as modest endorsements of FA in the "middle ground". They're much closer to the "nothing" end of the all-or-nothing scale.
Those guys were journeyman low risk/low reward players signed for the minimum with no guarantees. There should have been no expectation they could play a meaningful role. You get 90 slots for training camp; you're not going to find 25 UFAs, and even if you could some vet ballast is needed. Bringing in some vet camp bodies at low pay, in the hopes that the numbers game might yield one who might (1) fill a spot in the bottom of the roster or (2) who can provide a few snaps in rotation or (3) can play ST is pretty much standard operating procedure around the league. Signing Mulligan is not what we're talking about here; a starting RB or DE or S for a modest contract is the issue.
Murphy himself dodged the issue:
"I often hear from fans who are disappointed that we aren’t more active in free agency. I know it can be frustrating for them to see other teams adding free agents - and receiving “A” grades from the media. The reality, though, is that championships are not won in March. The Eagles’ “dream team” from two years ago is a good example of the risks involved with signing high-priced free agents."
I have no argument there whatsoever. But it does address the issue of the "B grade" players.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
[quote="AmishMafia, post: 495767, member: 2846"My prediction? Seahawks and 49ers have fewer victories than the Packers."[/quote]
That's possible. It's a tough division getting tougher. I'm pleased we're in the NFC North as currently constituted.
That's possible. It's a tough division getting tougher. I'm pleased we're in the NFC North as currently constituted.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Personally, I thought we should sign Jackson and Canty. We didn't, and I trust TT to have probably made the right call.
The negatives on bringing in a vet 'camp body' at low pay to hopefully fill a spot are:
1. Takes snaps away in practice from a young player with more potential than the vet has
2. Takes a roster spot from a young ascending player with potential
3. New player can be taught from the beginning the MM/Packer way
4. 'Modest' contract may pay more than another player on the roster at the same position causing dissension in the locker room.
texaspackerbacker
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2004
- Messages
- 385
- Reaction score
- 27
True, and I really hope we see that kind of season this year. If Sherrod and Perry play like we originally hoped, it will go a long way toward making me consider Thompson a better GM. If we go all the way and win the Super Bowl or close to that, then there is no point in even speculating if the team is great, good, mediocre, or poor other than Aaron Rodgers. If we don't have that great season, though, the "what iffing" will get stronger and stronger.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Until somebody writes their memoir we'll never know if TT just kicked tires with Jackson and Canty, low balled them, they had no intention of coming to Green Bay or some combination of the above. The failed Canty physical is suspect...Baltimore's docs had no problem. Those medical exams are often not black and white anyway...it's a risk/reward decision, as much about money and football as medicine. The point being, TT looked at Canty and Jackson for FA or trade 4 years ago, now again. Couldn't a few more names be added to the "interesting" list?
Your point 3. mentions the Packer way, but the fact of the matter is the Pack does sign vet camp bodies, so I'm unclear on your point. This is typical throughout the league; teams hope to find a guy or two with some worth who can stick on the 53. Cases in point: Mulligan and the FA kicker, and Jolly for that matter. There will likely be a few more. These vet bodies are also good to have around for positions with thin depth in case somebody gets hurt before opening day. A vet with an iffy resume is often better than one more rookie who's not ready to play.
With regard to point 4. (the Muir, Merling, Hargrove, Mulligan types), those contracts are not guaranteed. If they make it to opening day, they make it. A judgement will have been made about their value relative to salary. If somebody else in the locker room has a problem with what that guy is payed, that's his problem. If you were going to worry about that stuff, you might as well worry about how the Pack let Crabtree go and then signed Mulligan to save $300,000. What message does that send to the bottom of the roster? This issue should be a non-starter.
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
● I've gotta say I don't care very much about what Murphy has to say about football operations - as opposed to franchise-level operations. The more he stays out of the way regarding football decisions, the better IMO. For example, if he determines Thompson has to go at some point, he should fire him and hire another guy and then stay out of that guy's way. Of course I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to talk about the team or that he's meddling. I'm just saying that I don't care much what he has to say about the football team.
● Regarding this discussion, IMO it's foolish (or "wrong" if you prefer) to say the team is "all Rodgers", which is basically what texaspackerbacker is posting. If it's all Rodgers, why don't they win it all every season, or why did they win it all in 2010? Rodgers has played great since the 2009 season. And IMO the burden is on texaspackerbacker to explain how the Packers won it all in 2010 with a team that suffered more injuries than any other (or nearly any other) since he doesn't believe Thompson excels at drafting and/or he hasn't built a deep team.
● I am and have been an ardent supporter of Thompson but like HardRightEdge I do wish he would look at mid-level UFAs more. The best example this offseason IMO is the defense would have been better if he would have signed Huff and let Jones go. They really like Hawk (much more than I do at least) and if Bishop returns my guess is those two will be starting. While Jones can backup inside and outside he hasn't shown much outside and even if he did, he's being paid starters money. He may be their best ILB in coverage and if that's why he was extended at starter's money (and they expect him to get more snaps than Hawk and even perhaps a healthy Bishop) than I would rather they pick two of the three in that group and let the "third" go. Beyond that, there are others who were drafted (or otherwise acquired) and who are (hopefully) developing at ILB, particularly Smith and Manning.
OTOH, I am concerned that McMillian, MD Jennings, nor Richardson is the answer at safety. Of course I hope I'm wrong about that. But for how often they play 5 or more DBs, Huff's coverage ability would have been very valuable, IMO making him more valuable than Jones for about the same money.
But while presenting these opinions I'm certainly aware that Thompson and his staff know a lot more than I do about the players on their roster as well as all the players in the league than I do. For example, they may think it's likely Bishop won't be healthy enough to depend upon this season. They may be thinking this is Hawk's last season in Green Bay and Jones still has an upside. And they may have their eye on a safety or two in the draft they think will likely be available to them. I posted a link about the Packers' dead cap money and said that's a feather in Thompson's cap: Having less than 1% of dead money against this year's cap is remarkable. And extending Rodgers and Matthews is huge money and cap-wise this offseason. But signing Huff instead of Jones wouldn't have materially changed their money or cap situation. And having 2-3% in dead cap money in a "normal" year wouldn't either.
● Regarding this discussion, IMO it's foolish (or "wrong" if you prefer) to say the team is "all Rodgers", which is basically what texaspackerbacker is posting. If it's all Rodgers, why don't they win it all every season, or why did they win it all in 2010? Rodgers has played great since the 2009 season. And IMO the burden is on texaspackerbacker to explain how the Packers won it all in 2010 with a team that suffered more injuries than any other (or nearly any other) since he doesn't believe Thompson excels at drafting and/or he hasn't built a deep team.
● I am and have been an ardent supporter of Thompson but like HardRightEdge I do wish he would look at mid-level UFAs more. The best example this offseason IMO is the defense would have been better if he would have signed Huff and let Jones go. They really like Hawk (much more than I do at least) and if Bishop returns my guess is those two will be starting. While Jones can backup inside and outside he hasn't shown much outside and even if he did, he's being paid starters money. He may be their best ILB in coverage and if that's why he was extended at starter's money (and they expect him to get more snaps than Hawk and even perhaps a healthy Bishop) than I would rather they pick two of the three in that group and let the "third" go. Beyond that, there are others who were drafted (or otherwise acquired) and who are (hopefully) developing at ILB, particularly Smith and Manning.
OTOH, I am concerned that McMillian, MD Jennings, nor Richardson is the answer at safety. Of course I hope I'm wrong about that. But for how often they play 5 or more DBs, Huff's coverage ability would have been very valuable, IMO making him more valuable than Jones for about the same money.
But while presenting these opinions I'm certainly aware that Thompson and his staff know a lot more than I do about the players on their roster as well as all the players in the league than I do. For example, they may think it's likely Bishop won't be healthy enough to depend upon this season. They may be thinking this is Hawk's last season in Green Bay and Jones still has an upside. And they may have their eye on a safety or two in the draft they think will likely be available to them. I posted a link about the Packers' dead cap money and said that's a feather in Thompson's cap: Having less than 1% of dead money against this year's cap is remarkable. And extending Rodgers and Matthews is huge money and cap-wise this offseason. But signing Huff instead of Jones wouldn't have materially changed their money or cap situation. And having 2-3% in dead cap money in a "normal" year wouldn't either.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Point 3 isn't a deal breaker, just a negative or potential negative. Learning the 'Packer way' is just this: coaches use different approaches and not all approaches will produce the results. MM seems most interested in an up-tempo practice where guys take it seriously just like a game. Belechek is a practice perfect coach. He will practice one play repeatedly till the players have it down. Coaches like Dungy are philosophy coaches. Dungy often stopped action in the middle of plays to discuss what everyone's role is and the overall objectives. What you get used to may be difficult to change gears and adapt to coaching/practice styles. Think about Asamougah. Went from a top CB to below average in 1 season with switching teams. He had too much skill to attribute to just the Eagles used him wrong. There was more there - style and overall atmosphere have an effect. Starting with a new player - clean slate - adapts him to your system/philosophy/atmosphere.
People are people. To disregard how a player will affect the team chemistry (and a part of that is salary comparison) is a mistake. Mulligan is a bargain basement signing - he will compete for a spot, just like everyone else. Nobody will envy his $.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Then your point 4. doesn't make any sense.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
In most years, Murphy would have little involvement in the details of roster construction and specific pay issues. This year, however, he's the guy who has to give the go ahead on the Rodgers/Matthews signing bonuses, and how much is allowable. The numbers are so large in these cases as to impact organizational-level cash management.
I imagine he must have had involvement in the decision to blow out the payroll in the uncapped 2010 year. The $150 - $160 mil payroll/benefits tab that year cut operating profit to a razor thin $5 mil.
Otherwise, he pays TT, Ball and a bunch of guys in Pro Personnel and scouting good money to put their heads together to build a roster within certain high level budget constraints.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Muligan is dirt cheap. Nobody will care.
Mulligan isn't making more than anyone on the roster. In status, he is on par with the UFA that will come in and compete for a roster spot. My bet is he gets cut in the middle of camp. Besides, my points are not 'deal breakers'. Those are just some of the negatives that exist when you sign a FA. Too many arm-chair-GMs never consider the negatives and just think if you add a talented player, your team is automatically better.
A majority of cases where a team signs a FA, IMHO, they get worse. There is a reason for that. You can discount the 'dream team' as being an over the top example - but it is a very real example of the subtraction by addition. Adding talented players to the Eagles did not make them a better team.
I forgot Huff also. I think if I was TT, I would have gone after him. I'm not opposed to signing FAs, there are instances when it can help your team. Huff would be downgraded because he had little talent around him, and I think he can play. One thing we don't know, is what kind of person Huff is. He could be a butt head and our locker room is much better without him. So I tend to trust TT and who he avoids. To say that TT avoids FA because he is cheap or his ego is just stupid (not that you do that - but other posters do).
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
You said:
"The negatives on bringing in a vet 'camp body' at low pay to hopefully fill a spot are:
4. 'Modest' contract may pay more than another player on the roster at the same position causing dissension in the locker room."
Mulligan fits your profile...he's reported to be contracted at $715,000 for one year. That's more than most rookie and second year guys. I think you should drop 4. from your list.
I do agree Mulligan's what is typically characterized as a "camp body". I use that term, but I don't really like it. It implies the guy has no chance to make the roster, which isn't the case...he's more of an insurance policy. Much depends on where Quarless stands. If he's not back to where to he was, and having lost Crabtree, we'll need a #3 blocking TE. After two years, D.J. Williams still has a tenuous grasp of left vs. right, i.e., he doesn't look like he knows what he's doing out there, and he's not a very good blocker. I'd give Mulligan about equal chance to make the roster as Williams regardless of Quarless' status. Finley, Taylor, Mulligan, some guy or Finley, Quarless, Taylor, Mulligan are distinct possibilities.
In reality, this is probably more ink than the issue deserves, but we can blame TT again for that...he could give us more to talk about.
That it comes to this should not be a surprise. MM says he's spending his time reading books, doing some soul searching, working on the new meal facility and menu. We should have guessed TT and the scouts were not passing down much tape.
13 Times Champs
Cheesehead
You said:
"The negatives on bringing in a vet 'camp body' at low pay to hopefully fill a spot are:
4. 'Modest' contract may pay more than another player on the roster at the same position causing dissension in the locker room."
Mulligan fits your profile...he's reported to be contracted at $715,000 for one year. That's more than most rookie and second year guys. I think you should drop 4. from your list.
I do agree Mulligan's what is typically characterized as a "camp body". I use that term, but I don't really like it. It implies the guy has no chance to make the roster, which isn't the case...he's more of an insurance policy. Much depends on where Quarless stands. If he's not back to where to he was, and having lost Crabtree, we'll need a #3 blocking TE. After two years, D.J. Williams still has a tenuous grasp of left vs. right, i.e., he doesn't look like he knows what he's doing out there, and he's not a very good blocker. I'd give Mulligan about equal chance to make the roster as Williams regardless of Quarless' status. Finley, Taylor, Mulligan, some guy or Finley, Quarless, Taylor, Mulligan are distinct possibilities.
In reality, this is probably more ink than the issue deserves, but we can blame TT again for that...he could give us more to talk about.
That it comes to this should not be a surprise. MM says he's spending his time reading books, doing some soul searching, working on the new meal facility and menu. We should have guessed TT and the scouts were not passing down much tape.
Just Too Good!
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Huh? Mulligan isn't evidence or proves any point against anything in my post. If it was just you, I would laugh and shrug it off, but there are others with limited reading comprehension who will chime in and agree with you.
First: Mulligan is making more than I thought. But, what does that matter? My comments were general in nature for all FAs [sarcasm] And I fully prescribe to the theory 'if he is a big name he must be good'. Therefore, because I never heard of him, he must be a bad player. Maybe he has access to cheap show tickets for TT? Who knows why he signed him? [/sarcasm]
I will just lay things out in bullet points to help.
- I am not against signing FAs
- There are positives and negatives of signing a FA
- This is true whether it is a cheap Mullen or an expensive Asamogouh
- Just because there are some negatives, doesn't mean it outweighs the positives
- I was for signing a few of those guys that we had rumored interest
That is all I was trying to say. Some here seem to think that FA is a risk free easy way to improve your team. I don't think that is true.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
The 49ers signed Nnamdi for 1 year, $1.75 mil including incentives. He could be going back to his college roots at safety, though they signed a safety as well. They do play a fair amount of man coverage, Nnamdi's forte, so we could be seeing him at corner. The reports of his demise are exaggerated. Decent players tainted by dysfunctional systems present interesting bargain opportunities.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Agreed. Referring to Nnamdi when he went to the Eagles. I saw him in 1 game and part of another. He was allowing the WR to get separation consistently. For that he made more than $25M from the eagles for 2 years of service.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
They were making him play zone...not his forte. They stuck Samuel at nickel in zone when they couldn't trade him. Square pegs in round holes all over the place.
I also saw Nnamdi play a couple of times with the Eagles. Seeing him in zone hand off his guy to nobody and end up chasing was certainly wince-worthy. It was really bad at the start of 2011...burn city. Hard to tell if that was his problem, the safety blowing coverage or just a dysfunctional scheme. It did not appear to be an issue of speed. The guy's 31...he should have some tread left. SF will find out, and it did not cost them much for the effort.
Similar threads
