Cmon, you once ran a 4.4 40? Seriously, this kind seems like me claiming to have 12" appendage of some sort that is nothing to do with the arms or legs....
Possible? Sure. Probable?
NFL Veteran Combine today
- Thread starter TJV
- Start date
Cmon, you once ran a 4.4 40? Seriously, this kind seems like me claiming to have 12" appendage of some sort that is nothing to do with the arms or legs....
Possible? Sure. Probable?
Why is it so hard to believe? Are the only people in the world who can run 4.4 40's at the combine or in the NFL? I personally know a guy who ran a 40 in under 4.4 . Never played football or ran track; had no interest in sports. But he still ran a sub 4.4 40.
Shawnsta3
Cheesehead
I like your added parameters. Because to add one more Super Bowl appearance as a front office executive in 1996 and another win as VP of Football Operations two years out of your parameters might have made your argument less strong. Not to mention Super Bowls as your only parameters for rating a GM. Because while he's only won one Super Bowl in that time period which already qualifies him in the strong minority, him dominating the NFC North year after year is apparently worth nothing. Interesting.
I see where you could have interpreted my argument as straw man though, because these guys have gone unsigned. Though I think there still remains a correlation between veterans and their athletic ability dropping off. At least personally it has me thinking, what if a guy like Reggie Wayne or Frank Gore had to line up for a 40 time, how would they do today? Or even a guy like Darren McFadden who once ran it at 4.33 and was just signed? A.J. Hawk ran his combine 40 at 4.59 and I'd be very much surprised if he could have even cracked 5.0 in the last few years. Which is also the same time period in which he's become irrelevant on the football field. While a rookie coming in will certainly struggle in some areas where a veteran succeeds, I would take athletic rookie A.J. Hawk over veteran A.J. Hawk every day of the week. This is not even to mention the added addition of things like a rookie cap scale and compensatory picks into the equation. Hopefully this cleared my argument up.
rodell330
Cheesehead
Cmon, you once ran a 4.4 40? Seriously, this kind seems like me claiming to have 12" appendage of some sort that is nothing to do with the arms or legs....
Possible? Sure. Probable?
Why do you sound so surprised sir?? I was a pretty good athlete and I ran track. Just because I'm not in the NFL doesn't mean I was slow man haha
Last edited by a moderator:
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Your presentation is factually inaccurate.
Thompson was Director of Pro Personnel from 1993 - 1996. There should be some obvious irony in that fact given that the current regime relegates Pro Personnel to advance scouting of the current season's opponents. A "win" as VP of Football operations? Where was that supposed to have happened? Seattle went to the Super Bowl the year after Thompson returned to Green Bay besides actually losing the game. In both instances, Holmgren was the man.
And nobody remembers who finishes second, at least not in a good way, particularly when playoff losses are accomplished in dramatic and historical ways.
Wouldn't we all have preferred the rookie Hawk over the veteran Hawk...after the 2011 season. Or the rookie Raji over the vet Raji...after the 2011 season. Pickett might have been the slowest player in the NFL as of the 2012 season and had to be moved to NT with Raji out of position at DE.
Thompson is not just about youth. He's also about playing his own vets beyond their sell-by date when there's a lot of dead cap in their contracts. While there's some merit to this approach, judiciously applied, when considering the net cap cost of replacement, this point is never observed but nonetheless true. And it has been costly on the field. It's a risk averse approach that's become increasingly pronounced since the last CBA that provided for cap carryover. It's about managing cap for the next year, the unknown, at the expense of the current year's product. Always becoming, never being.
Thompson becomes increasing insular with each passing season.
I understand your viewpoint. It's commonly held. It's positives (youth) are commonly exaggerated while the negatives (sticking with his own beyond their time) are ignored.
Wayne, Gore, McFadden...who suggested those guys? We've been talking about reasonably priced NTs and ILBs to fill gaping holes. And even if we did sign one of those guys you mentioned with a lot of mileage, how is it different from playing Hawk in 2014 after what he showed in 2013?
Last edited by a moderator:
Winning a Super Bowl but mediocre after should not make you equal to a team that won a SB and is in the playoffs almost ever year.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
You know what? I find the benefit of winning a Division and then cr*pping the playoff bed has the sole benefit of providing some optimism for the next season. Thin gruel when it's "repeat and rinse", to mix metaphors.
Besides, check the list of 2017 free agents. The window may be narrower than you think.
Vrill
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2011
- Messages
- 1,803
- Reaction score
- 137
You're so negative about the Packers. I have an idea, go be a Bears, Lions, Vikings or Cowboys fan. Your posts sicken me sometimes.
So jaded...
Our window lives and dies on Rodgers. yeah in 2 years Lacy and most of the O line is up for contract. I am not stressing about it as its an eternity in this league.
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
The Patriots, who use free agency in a smart way to fill holes on their roster, have won four Super Bowls, appeared in two others and made the playoffs 12 times (winning their division every single time) within the last 14 years.
The only times they didn´t make the playoffs over that span they lost a tie-breaker for the division title on both occasions.
The pats success has been unparalleled in the salary cap era. But like the packers their seasons have frequently come down to a single play or call.
It's nice to aim for that level of success but imo it doesn't mean you're a failure if you don't reach it. Sure I would like the packers to dabble in FA after the big names are signed but it's hard to know what the reasons are behind them not getting involved more.
Florio seemed to rip the pack yesterday for their lack of big name FA activity, pointing out they have ONLY signed 3 big names in FA since its existence. That seems a bit unfair as big names rarely out in FA but GB sure has a good track record for them with big names. Ted might not swing often, but when he does its a home run. You could look at a dozen other teams in the league and struggle to find 1 or 2 as successful free agents they have signed.
rodell330
Cheesehead
Haha it's like you can't say anything negative about the Packers smh. I think if TT was more aggressive in free agency it would only help our chances at winning another SB. What's he waiting for ? There were upgrades to be had at key positions but crickets...
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
I don´t want the Packers to go after every big name in free agency (although I was one of the posters interested in Byrd last season) but I would love Thompson to selectively upgrade position of needs with second- or third-tier free agents who agree to reasonable deals.
The Packers chances of winning the Super Bowl (which should be the ultimate goal although I´m well aware it´s not possible to achieve it every single season) are reduced by his reluctance to use every possible way of acquiring talent.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
I like what he have on offense. Are you sure it's not the aforementioned thin gruel that sickens you?
Half Empty
Cheesehead
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,476
- Reaction score
- 604
I understand the folks who consider regular season accomplishments (wins, division titles) as a measure of success. Don't agree, but otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion. For some of us, there are 31 losers every season. Given the last 18 Super Bowls, we come out behind the Pats, Raven, Giants, Steelers and Bronco and are tied with the Seahawks, Saints, Colts, Bucs and Rams. That puts us in the top third. And, more than that, the Pack has had several bites at the apple during that time that failed badly.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Here are the players who will be FAs in 2017:
Lacy
Sitton
Lang
Bhaktiari
Peppers
Hyde
Barrington
D. Jones
That's 6 starters, possibly 7 with Jones, and actually 8 with Hyde since the nickel back gets a ton of snaps, he's the #3 safety and possibly the #3 cover corner.
Daniels and Hayward (a presumptive starter) in 2016 make 10. With a repeat of Matthews at ILB in nickel, Perry (2016) is a presumptive "starter" given the number of nickel snaps. That's 11 starters.
A base D NT, and a base D LB, at a minimum, are still requirements for 2015. We're up to 13. Reducing Matthews snaps from all-nickel (2/3 of the snaps) requires a 3-down ILB rather than a 2-down guy. A FB/H-back lead blocker is still on the list for this year.
There are also the following second line depth and rotational players on the clock: Barclay (2016), Quarless (2016), Neal (2016), Starks (2016), Tretter (2016) and Tolzien (2016). Add Crosby to the list for 2016.
That's a lot of players at issue over 3 drafts assuming a repeat of recent years' zeros from outside free agents. And it's not like there are high picks with promise standing behind these guys.
I'd like to say a few of these players can be expected to be extended. But after seeing Cobb, Bulaga, Williams and House left to test free agency, that's hardly certain.
You're s season away from offering to extend those guys. While it's important to keep an eye on things due to the cap, it's long enough away that we need to see how things gel before we panic about the breakup of the starters. Besides, some of our posters keep saying we'll have mountains of cash to give FAs from the new tv deal.
What players has Ted made a mistake letting walk during his tenure? Cuts excluded, I'm talking players he just plain didn't resign. His track record is pretty solid, so I trust the process.
El Guapo
Cheesehead
Funny that I clicked directly on Page 2 and there is not one post even remotely relevant to the Veteran Combine thread title.
rodell330
Cheesehead
He let Woodson go a year to soon IMO...he was wayyy better than any other safety on the roster when he was released and his stats in Oakland back that up.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Guys get injured, guys retire, guys don't like Ted's offer, guys don't take the vaunted second year jump. As for the latter point, there are not many bottom of the bench youngsters who have impressed enough where you say, "they're stuck behind an established starter."
As you saw with the Williams and House deals, increasing cap levels just get sucked up in wage inflation for starter-level players. House's case should be instructive...that's a lot of money for a guy who had yet to establish himself as a starter.
As I say regularly, "panic" is not a word to be applied to a spectator sport unless you have large monetary wager on an outcome.
What makes the 2017 scenario concerning is 1) the shear volume of starters and second line backups involved, 2) Thompson's hesitance to match the market, 3) a less than impressive back bench and 4) complete disinterest in mid-tier FA starters to back and fill.
The process is losing momentum. Maybe I should change that signature line to "two drafts".
Carl
Cheesehead
Well, TT hasn't been complained about enough in other threads already...
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Maybe you didn't connect the dots?
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Oh, like this is some kind of exception?
It all goes to the issue of acquiring (or not) players from the outside.
Personally, I see no problem with meandering threads that remain tangential to the theme. It's a way of avoiding a collection of little unconnected ideas in their own little unconnected boxes.
Last edited by a moderator:
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Wells was let go; a past sell-by date player (Saturday) replaced him, a guy that became a liability.
Cullen Jenkins was let go. Nobody filled his shoes until the 2014 version of Daniels.
Williams/House is an open book.
