Not the jealous type but...

D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I should have specified like I did in the other thread. A Non-QB player since that's what the Packers are looking for.

I agree that most of the big free agent signings don´t work out and I think it is ridiculous to bring up every single guy that is released as a possible fit for the Packers. Still think though Byrd would have been worth the money and would have improved the defense immediately.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
Alright. Then just big name expensive free agent? Non-QB. And the team was better.

It can't be too hard to find a list of recent expensive free agents.


Enviado desde mi iPhone con Tapatalk

The year the Bears signed Julius Peppers they made the NFC Championship Game. And just an FYI, that contract was always meant to be a 3 year-deal.

Charles Woodson was a pretty good signing for Green Bay.

Michal Turner ran for 1,700 yards and 17 touchdowns in his first year with Atlanta. Falcons went 11-5 that year.

There are good free agent signings. It's not an absolute of "all big free agents signings are bad".
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Exactly, Cowboys cut Ware to save $, how will they fill that hole?

Same with the Saints, to get one player, they did this..

The Saints have been cutting ties with several veterans this offseason, both to shed salary-cap space and invest in younger players. They also released receiver Lance Moore, defensive end Will Smith, linebacker Jonathan Vilma, safety Roman Harper and cornerback Jabari Greer.

Got rid of FIVE players to sign Bryd??

Lance Moore was their #3 or #4 receiving threat, not a big deal as a lot of us are fine with the Packers letting James Jones walk. Will Smith and Jonathan Vilma (12 snaps) didn´t play last season and the defense improved significantly. I think there is absolutely no doubt that Byrd is an upgrade over Harper and Greer was an average starter at CB for some games.

Losing these five games doesn´t seem that bad IMO.
 

UpDownEndAround

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
45
Reaction score
4
The year the Bears signed Julius Peppers they made the NFC Championship Game. And just an FYI, that contract was always meant to be a 3 year-deal.

Charles Woodson was a pretty good signing for Green Bay.

Michal Turner ran for 1,700 yards and 17 touchdowns in his first year with Atlanta. Falcons went 11-5 that year.

There are good free agent signings. It's not an absolute of "all big free agents signings are bad".


You're right, but most of them are failures for the price tag they command. This is isn't disputable. Look at the teams that are all big FA spenders. Most recently, Philly/Washington/Dallas/Minnesota/Buffalo...none even made the playoffs!!!!....the list goes on. You have to be cap aware for future years...Denver is more likely to go "all in" because Peyton isn't likely to play more than 1 or 2 more years. There are always exceptions with these big signings, but they are rare.

I understand the frustrations to an extent, but the proof is in the pudding. Day 1 FA signings are more often mistakes than not!

We are not out of the FA market at this point...it hasn't even been 24 hours. I think it is clear from MM pressers and the fact that we are letting a lot of our own guys test the FA waters that we are going to get some new talent in here on D. There is a lot to be said about keeping your own guys and unlike all those other teams who blow their cap space early and end up with cap nightmares later (Dallas, Pitt, NO), we are consistently competitive....even when our MVP QB misses half the year! Is it that hard to see which way is far more effective?

We will be spending most of that cap, some of you just need to have some patience.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
The year the Bears signed Julius Peppers they made the NFC Championship Game. And just an FYI, that contract was always meant to be a 3 year-deal.

Charles Woodson was a pretty good signing for Green Bay.

Michal Turner ran for 1,700 yards and 17 touchdowns in his first year with Atlanta. Falcons went 11-5 that year.

There are good free agent signings. It's not an absolute of "all big free agents signings are bad".

The Bears made the playoffs once in the during Peppers' tenure.

Nobody wanted Woodson but the Packers. He was a later in free agency guy.

Turner is a good example though, but this question shows it's hard to think of big name free agents who made their teams better.

Sure, many free agents have played well, but does it matter if the team isn't better? As Longtimefan posted, the Saints are a great example where Byrd could be good, but the team may not be any better due to letting so many others go.

And we all know how easy it is to list off guys who haven't been worth the contract.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
You're right, but most of them are failures for the price tag they command. This is isn't disputable. Look at the teams that are all big FA spenders. Most recently, Philly/Washington/Dallas/Minnesota/Buffalo...none even made the playoffs!!!!....the list goes on. You have to be cap aware for future years...Denver is more likely to go "all in" because Peyton isn't likely to play more than 1 or 2 more years. There are always exceptions with these big signings, but they are rare.

I understand the frustrations to an extent, but the proof is in the pudding. Day 1 FA signings are more often mistakes than not!

We are not out of the FA market at this point...it hasn't even been 24 hours. I think it is clear from MM pressers and the fact that we are letting a lot of our own guys test the FA waters that we are going to get some new talent in here on D. There is a lot to be said about keeping your own guys and unlike all those other teams who blow their cap space early and end up with cap nightmares later (Dallas, Pitt, NO), we are consistently competitive....even when our MVP QB misses half the year! Is it that hard to see which way is far more effective?

We will be spending most of that cap, some of you just need to have some patience.

I'm not frustrated. I just pointed out that impact free agents usually go first.

I do agree with the Denver "all in" idea. Once Peyton leaves, they'll be back at square one.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
The Bears made the playoffs once in the during Peppers' tenure.

Nobody wanted Woodson but the Packers. He was a later in free agency guy.

Turner is a good example though, but this question shows it's hard to think of big name free agents who made their teams better.

Sure, many free agents have played well, but does it matter if the team isn't better? As Longtimefan posted, the Saints are a great example where Byrd could be good, but the team may not be any better due to letting so many others go.

And we all know how easy it is to list off guys who haven't been worth the contract.

I agree with you. I just posted that impact free agents go first (99% of the time).

On a side note, I don't think the players the Saints cut were great by any means. Moore was a #3 receiver, Vilma has been injured/suspended the last two years, Smith is injured, Harper isn't needed now that Byrd was signed and Greer is an alright corner. It's not like they cut Jimmy Graham and Drew Brees to sign Byrd.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,356
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Milwaukee
Lance Moore was their #3 or #4 receiving threat, not a big deal as a lot of us are fine with the Packers letting James Jones walk. Will Smith and Jonathan Vilma (12 snaps) didn´t play last season and the defense improved significantly. I think there is absolutely no doubt that Byrd is an upgrade over Harper and Greer was an average starter at CB for some games.

Losing these five games doesn´t seem that bad IMO.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...ely-cut-by-saints-rbs-thomas-sproles-on-block


The Saints are in the midst of preparing for the new league year -- and free agency -- beginning at 4 p.m. ET on March 11. As such, with many teams, it's time for some old faces to go in order to create cap space.

One candidate who is almost certainly gone is veteran wideout Lance Moore. Moore tweeted on Friday morning his thanks to "Who Dat Nation."

Moore spent the past nine seasons with the Saints after latching on as an undrafted free agent. He was perfect in Sean Payton's system.

He was also a frequent red zone target for Drew Bress -- Moore caught 346 passes in that time for 4,281 yards and impressive 38 touchdowns.

Bush's actual replacement, Darren Sproles, might not be long for New Orleans either. Adam Schefter of ESPN reports that Sproles, along with Pierre Thomas, is on the trading block.

Thomas isn't a huge surprise and is another likely candidate to get cut. Owed about $3 million in the final year of his deal, Thomas is turning 30 next season and despite being an key member of the Saints offense last year, could easily be a casualty. It's possible there's trade interest in him.

Sproles, one of the most versatile backs in the NFL, is also heading into the final year of his deal. He wasn't as impressive in 2013 as he's been in the past and, again, the Saints need cash. Given that Sproles, who relies on his quickness to be effective, will turn 31 this offseason, it's possible the Saints could move on as well.


Moore was more than just a #3 or 4 according to that article

Sproles was very good

But my point is the same..No matter who they are, getting rid of over 5 players to clear room is bad cap management

Packers arent in that spot
 
Last edited:

PFanCan

That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
491
Location
Houston, TX
If Super Bowls were won during Free Agency....

One could argue that the most recent Super Bowl had a lot to do with what was done during last year's Free Agency period (see below).

Can you name a big name, 1st day free agent that a team signed and the team got significantly better in the last few years? I've asked this in another thread and all we've come up with is big name guys who haven't made team better.

Edit: non QB player since that's what the Packers need.

I will name two: Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett, both signed last year by the Seahawks. Avril was a 2 year $13M signing and Bennett was a one year flyer (since resigned) at $5M. Both played key roles in the Super Bowl run and, without them, not sure that Seattle hoists the Lombardi.

Free Agency has most definitely helped plenty of teams succeed beyond this one example. Not every team that is typically active during this period is named "Raiders", "Redskins" or "Eagles".
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
One could argue that the most recent Super Bowl had a lot to do with what was done during last year's Free Agency period (see below).

I will name two: Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett, both signed last year by the Seahawks. Avril was a 2 year $13M signing and Bennett was a one year flyer (since resigned) at $5M. Both played key roles in the Super Bowl run and, without them, not sure that Seattle hoists the Lombardi.

Free Agency has most definitely helped plenty of teams succeed beyond this one example. Not every team that is typically active during this period is named "Raiders", "Redskins" or "Eagles".

From the first part, drafting (Wilson, Sherman, Chancellor, etc.) was the main reason the Seahawks were good enough to win it.

Avril and Bennett are good examples of guys that have helped though.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,356
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Milwaukee
I agree with you. I just posted that impact free agents go first (99% of the time).

On a side note, I don't think the players the Saints cut were great by any means. Moore was a #3 receiver, Vilma has been injured/suspended the last two years, Smith is injured, Harper isn't needed now that Byrd was signed and Greer is an alright corner. It's not like they cut Jimmy Graham and Drew Brees to sign Byrd.


Not saying they are/were great---But trying to trade Sproles to clear room along with the other 5 is just bad way of handling the cap
 

PFanCan

That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
491
Location
Houston, TX
One more I just thought of: Anquan Boldin, 5 year deal to the 49ers last year.

But, this was a trade I believe, not a FA signing, but same difference in that it elevated San Francisco by bringing in top talent outside the draft-and-develop strategy.
 

UpDownEndAround

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
45
Reaction score
4
One could argue that the most recent Super Bowl had a lot to do with what was done during last year's Free Agency period (see below).


I will name two: Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett, both signed last year by the Seahawks. Avril was a 2 year $13M signing and Bennett was a one year flyer (since resigned) at $5M. Both played key roles in the Super Bowl run and, without them, not sure that Seattle hoists the Lombardi.

Free Agency has most definitely helped plenty of teams succeed beyond this one example. Not every team that is typically active during this period is named "Raiders", "Redskins" or "Eagles".


http://nfl.si.com/2014/01/29/denver-broncos-seattle-seahawks-d-lines-super-bowl/

Good examples, but both were considered bargains, not the guys who got overpaid on day 1 of FA.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin

PFanCan

That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
491
Location
Houston, TX
From the first part, drafting (Wilson, Sherman, Chancellor, etc.) was the main reason the Seahawks were good enough to win it.

I agree that their drafting has been good. Damned good. I will even venture to say, "lucky".

But, I disagree in that they would have won it all by relying only on the draft. Of course, we will never know for sure. So, it's just an opinion.

All we know for sure (and can call a fact) is that they won it all with the strategy that WAS employed, which was to supplement their drafting with significant free agency activity.
 

PFanCan

That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,067
Reaction score
491
Location
Houston, TX

UpDownEndAround

Cheesehead
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
45
Reaction score
4
One more I just thought of: Anquan Boldin, 5 year deal to the 49ers last year.

But, this was a trade I believe, not a FA signing, but same difference in that it elevated San Francisco by bringing in top talent outside the draft-and-develop strategy.


Yes, it worked well last year. Now Boldin is one year older, they extended him, and now have to let other stars go like Carlos Rogers and might not be able to bring back their other younger CB in Tarell Brown, who they like a lot. This is how it works, you can't pay everyone. Not to mention what will happen to SF/SEA when they have to pay top QB money.

Again, I think most of us know we need to get a couple guys from the outside to shore up our D, but there is no reason to panic. If we are over .500 without Rodgers for half the season and still win the division, we certainly don't need to panic on day 1 of free agency and overspend, causing us cap trouble down the line.
 
OP
OP
rodell330

rodell330

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 18, 2012
Messages
5,611
Reaction score
493
Location
Canton, Ohio
Why is it necessary to keep the same personnel if it's not working? Some of you have the same mindset as TT and it's no wonder why you defend him. This guy knows the system and is home grown so let's try to keep player A vs player B because the philosophy is retain your own even tho player B is better ? there's clearly a chance to upgrade at certain spots and not necessarily "big names " yet nothing. The safety spot still sucks, we need another mlb, depth on the DLine and a tightend. No worries tho...Rodgers will carry the Packers to a division title where it'll be an early
playoff exit by another team that clearly has better talent..like the last couple of years. Seems like that's the goal... Win
the north and pray your hot entering the playoffs huh? Even winning the north isn't a guarantee . The same ones that support TTs methods are going to be the same ones complaining that the defense sucks and had no play makers.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
Why is it necessary to keep the same personnel if it's not working? Some of you have the same mindset as TT and it's no wonder why you defend him. This guy knows the system and is home grown so let's try to keep player A vs player B because the philosophy is retain your own even tho player B is better ? there's clearly a chance to upgrade at certain spots and not necessarily "big names " yet nothing. The safety spot still sucks, we need another mlb, depth on the DLine and a tightend. No worries tho...Rodgers will carry the Packers to a division title where it'll be an early playoff exit by another team that clearly has better talent..like the last couple of years. Seems like that's the goal... Win
the north and pray your hot entering the playoffs huh? Even winning the north isn't a guarantee . The same ones that support TTs methods are going to be the same ones complaining that the defense sucks and had no play makers.

Again, free agency has been going on for less than a day. Still plenty of time to fill spots with non big name guys.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,279
Reaction score
2,395
Location
PENDING
One could argue that the most recent Super Bowl had a lot to do with what was done during last year's Free Agency period (see below).



I will name two: Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett, both signed last year by the Seahawks. Avril was a 2 year $13M signing and Bennett was a one year flyer (since resigned) at $5M. Both played key roles in the Super Bowl run and, without them, not sure that Seattle hoists the Lombardi.

Free Agency has most definitely helped plenty of teams succeed beyond this one example. Not every team that is typically active during this period is named "Raiders", "Redskins" or "Eagles".

There are 32 teams vying for the SB each season. Some are building primarily through the draft, some through primarily FA, and some with a combination. Over the last decade or so, all the SB winners were teams that build through the draft. Giants, Packers, Steelers, Saints (at the time), Colts account for 7 of the SB and were Draft-Built teams. Only the Seahawks and the Ravens relied on FA. If you look at the core of those teams, however, they were draft picks that carried the team. Is this a new trend? I doubt it.

Since TT's tenure, every season, this is the same reaction of fans. I heard a Packer fan on NFL radio again complaining that the rest of the Division is passing us up based on FA signings and yet TT does nothing. Yet over TTs tenure we have one of the best inter-division records in all of the NFL; we have more division titles than Bears/Lions/Vikes; and have a better overall win/loss record. This includes the last 3 division titles.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
There are 32 teams vying for the SB each season. Some are building primarily through the draft, some through primarily FA, and some with a combination. Over the last decade or so, all the SB winners were teams that build through the draft. Giants, Packers, Steelers, Saints (at the time), Colts account for 7 of the SB and were Draft-Built teams. Only the Seahawks and the Ravens relied on FA. If you look at the core of those teams, however, they were draft picks that carried the team. Is this a new trend? I doubt it.

Since TT's tenure, every season, this is the same reaction of fans. I heard a Packer fan on NFL radio again complaining that the rest of the Division is passing us up based on FA signings and yet TT does nothing. Yet over TTs tenure we have one of the best inter-division records in all of the NFL; we have more division titles than Bears/Lions/Vikes; and have a better overall win/loss record. This includes the last 3 division titles.

I remember all the panic about the Vikings signing Jennings and having three first round picks, and how they've surpassed us. Or the Bears actually making a move and getting a new head coach and the Lions signing Bush. They Didn't quite catch up....
 

BorderRivals.com

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 12, 2012
Messages
594
Reaction score
77
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Seattle's FA moves that put them over the top last year were week 2 signings. That's where good teams/GMs make smart deals to better their teams without hurting their long-term outlook. I agree that it's frustrating seeing so many moves and not a blip about the Packers. But, was there one contract yesterday that you thought, damn, that would have been good for the Packers? For sure, it'd be less than a handful, at best.

BTW - I was just waiting for this post from Rodell. Surprised it took him that long to write it, though! :)
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top