Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Mark Murphy Q&A
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 495803"><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>Murphy himself dodged the issue:</p><p> </p><p>"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 <em><strong>“A” grades</strong></em> 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."</p><p> </p><p>I have no argument there whatsoever. But it does address the issue of the "B grade" players.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 495803"] 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 [I][B]“A” grades[/B][/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Staff online
G
griffin
Administrator
Members online
DoURant
Green_Bay_Packers
Pkrjones
griffin
Latest posts
The Jordan Love Era Begins
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
45 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Bucks v. Pacers
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 3:45 PM
Milwaukee Bucks Forum
I had This Nightmare
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 3:38 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Assessing the Draft Class (2024)
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 3:38 PM
Draft Talk
C
Who Will Start?
Latest: Calebs Revenge
Today at 3:22 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Mark Murphy Q&A
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top