Packer Free Agents: What should the Packers do? Track Their Decisions

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well....since my first thread was just shut down, before one single decision concerning current Packer Players has been made, I guess I will try it again and hope this one doesn't get closed due to being a repeat.

****************************************************************************************

Lots of talk about the draft and who to sign in Free Agency, but before all that happens, the Packers will need to make decisions on 21 current players on the roster.

UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENTS
OLB Clay Matthews
WR Randall Cobb
DL Muhammad Wilkerson
TE Marcedes Lewis
TE Lance Kendricks
OL Byron Bell
CB Davon House
CB Bashaud Breeland
LB Jake Ryan
S Eddie Pleasant

RESTRICTED FREE AGENTS
WR Geronimo Allison
S Kentrell Brice
S Ibraheim Campbell

EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS FREE AGENTS
OL Lucas Patrick
OL Justin McCray Resigned
OL Adam Pankey
OLB Reggie Gilbert
TE Robert Tonyan Resigned
WR Jake Kumerow
DL Fadol Brown Resigned
RB Lavon Coleman

Other Packers Released:

• Antonio Morrison

UFA: I would like to see Wilkerson and Breeland brought back.

Cobb, Mathews and Kendricks: Wouldn't bother me either way, but think Randall and Mathews still have something to contribute, at the right price.

RFA: Brice and Allison should be brought back.

ERFA: Backups, camp bodies and potential depth. McCray, Kumerow and Tonyan for sure you bring back. Gilbert might be worth giving another year.

 

[brandon2348]

Well depending on free agents they sign and who they are targeting in draft it will probably shape the whole thing meaning one domino falling could make several others fall and/or create several other subsequent moves.

I'm expecting a busy busy free agency. My feeling is Cobb will be gone with a clear vision on how to replace him. Perry should be gone and Matthew's retained only at league vet minimum if he wants to retire a Packer. The direction they go with Perry and Matthew's should point largely how they want to move. Safety needs to be at the top of priority list IMO heading into free agency as I dont trust a rookie back there.

I am in agreement with re-signing both Wilkerson and Breeland. Kendricks wouldn't be a bad depth guy to bring back. T. William's and Mason Crossbar need to go.

The biggest decision for me is what to do with Bulaga.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I've thought a lot about Cobb and can't help but wonder if most don't want him resigned mainly due to the fact that he woefully under-performed after his last big contract was signed? As well as the injury factor that contributed to some of his underachieving. He missed 11 games in 4 years.

Cobb will be 29 in August and still probably has some decent football left in him. While I think he will be offered more by another team, I wouldn't mind if the Packers resigned him on a 1-2 year deal worth $4-5M/year. If they let him walk, that is another hole that has to be filled immediately. I don't see anyone that is currently on the team who is ready, nor would I have any faith in a draft pick to do it immediately either. So the other option is Free Agency. How much will that cost and how long will it take that player to get in sync with #12?

That last part is probably the value of keeping Cobb to me. He and Rodgers have established good chemistry and even having him around for 10-12 games, at the right price, would be a good thing IMO.

Would also add a quote from AR himself, which he stated after the loss to the Bears.

“When Randall is healthy I think our offense has been different because we have a true slot guy who can make plays in the slot consistently,” Rodgers said. “Having a slot guy like that who legitimately can get open time after time is what we need.”

I have similar thoughts with Matthews. Wouldn't break the bank on him, but as of right now, he is the best OLB on a team that is in desperate need of help at OLB.

 

[brandon2348]

Of course Rodgers is saying that because Cobb is the only true slot the Packers have had in years. But yes with him being 29 it is time to move on as Cobb has regressed just too much plus the yearly injury bug he gets. 3rd contracts are usually bad contracts for the team and I expect Cobb to be one of those whoever signs him. I dont want him back at any price taking reps from the future slot.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Of course Rodgers is saying that because Cobb is the only true slot the Packers have had in years. But yes with him being 29 it is time to move on as Cobb has regressed just too much plus the yearly injury bug he gets. 3rd contracts are usually bad contracts for the team and I expect Cobb to be one of those whoever signs him. I dont want him back at any price taking reps from the future slot.

Yes, far be it from Rodgers to not know what receivers he likes or what Randall brings to the team. LOL

Cobb was only 20 when he was drafted so his "3rd contract" might not be the poison pill you want to assume it will be, especially if its based on his last few years of work.

So besides Paris Campbell, who are these future slots you speak of?

 

[brandon2348]

Yes, far be it from Rodgers to not know what receivers he likes or what Randall brings to the team. LOL

Cobb was only 20 when he was drafted so his "3rd contract" might not be the poison pill you want to assume it will be, especially if its based on his last few years of work.

So besides Paris Campbell, who are these future slots you speak of?

Deebo Samuel is my fall back on Campbell in draft as I've posted.

Ryan Grant is a URFA I like that's an under the radar type player. He just doesn't have the blow by speed a Campbell possesses but he can definitely run precise routes getting in and out of cuts.

There is always the Antonio Brown option as well.

 

[sschind]

Deebo Samuel is my fall back on Campbell in draft as I've posted.

Ryan Grant is a URFA I like that's an under the radar type player. He just doesn't have the blow by speed a Campbell possesses but he can definitely run precise routes getting in and out of cuts.

There is always the Antonio Brown option as well.

Careful with the D word or they will shut this thread down as well.

OLB Clay Matthews - worth bringing back at the right price
WR Randall Cobb-see above. If not its a must address either through FA or the d****
DL Muhammad Wilkerson- would like to have back
TE Marcedes Lewis- depends on what they do with Graham and in the d****
TE Lance Kendricks- gone
OL Byron Bell- cheap depth?
CB Davon House- gone
CB Bashaud Breeland- resign but may be too expensive
LB Jake Ryan- Meh
S Eddie Pleasant- who

RESTRICTED FREE AGENTS
WR Geronimo Allison- resign
S Kentrell Brice - resign for depth and possible development?
S Ibraheim Campbell- see above

EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS FREE AGENTS
OL Lucas Patrick - cheap depth
OL Justin McCray - see above
OL Adam Pankey - see above
OLB Reggie Gilbert- maybe if preseason games counted
TE Robert Tonyan - no harm in keeping
WR Jake Kumerow- if they aren't interested in an early round WR worth a shot keeping
DL Fadol Brown -who
RB Lavon Coleman - we could use RB depth but I don't know this guy

 

[Do7]

Wait didn't have a thread for this?

*Noticed locked thread and reads what happens*

Poppa San why did you do that!?

 

[PackAttack12]

Apparently it was closed because it turned into a 'MFing' draft thread.

The over-moderation is exhausting. In order to discuss free agency, you have to also discuss the draft because the two go hand in hand. What teams do in free agency dictates players that they take in the draft.

The discussion was how the Graham signing would effect the draft.

Here's to hoping this one stays alive.

 

[Do7]

Apparently it was closed because it turned into a 'MFing' draft thread.

The over-moderation is exhausting. In order to discuss free agency, you have to also discuss the draft because the two go hand in hand. What teams do in free agency dictates players that they take in the draft.

The discussion was how the Graham signing would effect the draft.

Here's to hoping this one stays alive.

I get that, but couldn't they have said to stay on topic? I just don't see the point of making the same thread again.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I get that, but couldn't they have said to stay on topic? I just don't see the point of making the same thread again.

The other thread was shut down, so I made the same thread, because the topic was far from over. Not to mention that there was some good conversation going on about the topic, as well as the normal side conversations.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Over moderating comment was harsh and uncalled for. Moderators do the best we can. I'm sure if you're interested in the job we'll listen to your applications

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Over moderating comment was harsh and uncalled for. Moderators do the best we can. I'm sure if you're interested in the job we'll listen to your applications

Buggy you all do a great job and I think most of us appreciate what the mods do and feel for you when the crap hits the fan due to some posters that require you to moderate them.

I think what many are frustrated with is the fact that threads are being closed for reasons most of us don't agree they should be closed for. Simply because a thread gets temporarily side tracked or an event ends, shouldn't be reasons to close threads, IMO. Side tracking is very normal in most conversations. Eventually, you get back on track. Talking about historical things is normal.

I understand and appreciate wanting to combine similar threads, to keep things easier for us to find, but a mod saying "End of discussion, because I said so" or "I don't like the direction this is taking, I am shutting it down".

Topics that may seem "over with" aren't always over. Dom Capers, Brett Favre, Jeff Janis, Mike McCarthy.....those guys have been gone how long and yet we still talk about them and will continue to. Sure the "Fire Capers" thread technically played out when Capers was fired, but that doesn't mean there won't be conversations that people might want to have centering around the subject.

Honestly, I can't think of any good reason why a thread should be closed, unless its a duplicate thread and the mods want to go through the hassle of combining it with the other one.

Just my 2 cents.

Again....I appreciate what the Mods do here and its a job I wouldn't want, but maybe before shutting a thread down, ask yourself "Is it necessary to shut it down and what harm will happen if I don't?"

 

[PackAttack12]

Over moderating comment was harsh and uncalled for. Moderators do the best we can. I'm sure if you're interested in the job we'll listen to your applications

It's unfortunate if that's the way you interpreted it. Wasn't my intention.

I contribute to, or have contributed to, in total around 10 message boards over the years. I've never had the desire to be a moderator, and my comments aren't suggesting that I could do a better job, and they aren't suggesting that I even want to do that job. Because I don't.

But expanding upon @Pokerbrat2000 's point, it becomes quite challenging to have consistent dialogue amongst other forum members whenever a moderator decides that the thread is over just because they felt like doing it. If a moderator feels that they have a right to do whatever they want to do because they have that authority, then more power to them.

However, if you're going to close a thread because you don't like the direction it's going, or if you're going to close a thread because it temporarily got off topic, you'd have to close every single thread after a couple of pages, or even after a couple of posts. Very few, if any, threads remain completely on the original topic.

I think sometimes in an attempt to keep things consistent by impulsively closing threads, or even combining threads, it actually makes the posting experience less enjoyable. In regards to combining threads, content is all over the place because the conversation originated in multiple different spots. It's so hard to keep up with how the conversation is going when all of those posts from multiple threads are jumbled together.

I most certainly have the utmost appreciation for the job you guys do. This is a top notch website and a top notch forum. But sometimes I wish there wasn't so much of a quick trigger, almost as if a thread is being closed just to say that there was some form of moderation for the day.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

It's unfortunate if that's the way you interpreted it. Wasn't my intention.

I contribute to, or have contributed to, in total around 10 message boards over the years. I've never had the desire to be a moderator, and my comments aren't suggesting that I could do a better job, and they aren't suggesting that I even want to do that job. Because I don't.

But expanding upon @Pokerbrat2000 's point, it becomes quite challenging to have consistent dialogue amongst other forum members whenever a moderator decides that the thread is over just because they felt like doing it. If a moderator feels that they have a right to do whatever they want to do because they have that authority, then more power to them.

However, if you're going to close a thread because you don't like the direction it's going, or if you're going to close a thread because it temporarily got off topic, you'd have to close every single thread after a couple of pages, or even after a couple of posts. Very few, if any, threads remain completely on the original topic.

I think sometimes in an attempt to keep things consistent by impulsively closing threads, or even combining threads, it actually makes the posting experience less enjoyable. In regards to combining threads, content is all over the place because the conversation originated in multiple different spots. It's so hard to keep up with how the conversation is going when all of those posts from multiple threads are jumbled together.

I most certainly have the utmost appreciation for the job you guys do. This is a top notch website and a top notch forum. But sometimes I wish there wasn't so much of a quick trigger, almost as if a thread is being closed just to say that there was some form of moderation for the day.

No problem at all. Don't worry about it mate. I've shared several PM's about the issue

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Again, my hat off to the moderators, it isn't an easy job, nor probably a fun one. Shaggy needs to double your salaries! I hope all of you take what has been said as just constructive thoughts as to how some of us feel. Nothing personal at all.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[sschind]

Apparently it was closed because it turned into a 'MFing' draft thread.

The over-moderation is exhausting. In order to discuss free agency, you have to also discuss the draft because the two go hand in hand. What teams do in free agency dictates players that they take in the draft.

The discussion was how the Graham signing would effect the draft.

Here's to hoping this one stays alive.

I agree with you but on the other hand Poker started the other thread to discuss what was happening with the Packers own free agents specifically. It did get sidetracked.

I get that, but couldn't they have said to stay on topic? I just don't see the point of making the same thread again.

That's like telling ... well it's like telling a lot of people a lot of things. Suffice to say it doesn't always work.

Buggy you all do a great job and I think most of us appreciate what the mods do and feel for you when the crap hits the fan due to some posters that require you to moderate them.

I think what many are frustrated with is the fact that threads are being closed for reasons most of us don't agree they should be closed for. Simply because a thread gets temporarily side tracked or an event ends, shouldn't be reasons to close threads, IMO. Side tracking is very normal in most conversations. Eventually, you get back on track. Talking about historical things is normal.

I understand and appreciate wanting to combine similar threads, to keep things easier for us to find, but a mod saying "End of discussion, because I said so" or "I don't like the direction this is taking, I am shutting it down".

Topics that may seem "over with" aren't always over. Dom Capers, Brett Favre, Jeff Janis, Mike McCarthy.....those guys have been gone how long and yet we still talk about them and will continue to. Sure the "Fire Capers" thread technically played out when Capers was fired, but that doesn't mean there won't be conversations that people might want to have centering around the subject.

Honestly, I can't think of any good reason why a thread should be closed, unless its a duplicate thread and the mods want to go through the hassle of combining it with the other one.

Just my 2 cents.

Again....I appreciate what the Mods do here and its a job I wouldn't want, but maybe before shutting a thread down, ask yourself "Is it necessary to shut it down and what harm will happen if I don't?"

Sorry Poker, no matter how much you want it not to be so, Jeff Janis is over.

To keep this post on topic there is no new news to report about any of the Packer Free agents.




As far as the moderation goes I may be more guilty of sidetracking threads than many others with my attempts at humor (note I said attempts) and my often long winded posts. I just think that despite the way we act sometimes we are all adults and if we can't handle a bit of side traction (couldn't think of a a better way to put it) we probably shouldn't be playing around on the internet, at least not on discussion sites. I think most of us can tell pretty quickly if a post is on topic and we can move on to the next one. For the most part little jokes and side conversations don't take anything away from the information I get from threads and they don't bother me. For certain things I do get it. If a thread is started to specifically talk about 1 thing it would be nice if it stuck to that one thing but for most topics its an impossible task to keep it from straying.

At some point yes, threads can run their course but what I personally would like to see is the "ignore thread" function easier to access, like a little red dot next to the little blue dot for "go to the first unread post". That way I don't have to open a thread I know I want to ignore just to be able to ignore it. I guess that is a topic for the suggestion section though. That way if we do become bored with a thread that will just not go away we can deal with it on our own.

 

[gbgary]

i think the Packers will be moderately involved in free agency. did you see what i did there?

 

[OldSchool101]

No problem at all. Don't worry about it mate. I've shared several PM's about the issue

I just want a right to Free Speech. Course now that I think about it, I’d like Free everything! free petroleum , Free Fast food, Free Rock Concerts, Free candy.. free bowling, Free transportation, I’d better stop before it gets R rated and best get back on the thread track..

Wait!!!! FREE AGENCY!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Lot's of talk about outright cutting Nick Perry, to save $3.3M in cap, yet still get hit with his dead cap of $11.1M. The cut will have to take place before 3/14 or he gets a roster bonus of $4.8M and at that point, I don't see him being cut this year. Unless, they feel a post June 1st cut is beneficial to spread the cap hit out over 2 years.

Perry has definitely not even come close to living up to his contract and outright cutting him before 3/14 might be the obvious and maybe wise move. However, given the Packers current depth at OLB, this might be the case where a restructure of his remaining 3 years might benefit both sides.

The question is, how much is he worth on the open market? $2M on a 1 year prove it deal? What if the Packers offered to restructure to a 3 year $15M deal ($5M/year). Effectively, this would cost the Packers an additional $3.9M ($1.3/year) over the dead cap to employ Perry for 3 more years. It guarantees Perry that additional amount as well.

There is no doubt that Perry is not worth his current contract, but he does provide some value (when healthy) to the Packers. What that value is, I think is anybodies guess. If we had more depth at OLB, Perry is an easy cut. Unfortunately, we don't have depth, so if a restructured deal could actually (for once) be worked out, it might provide the Packers with a bit of help at a position of great need.

 

[OldSchool101]

The question is, how much is he worth on the open market? $2M on a 1 year prove it deal? What if the Packers offered to restructure to a 3 year $15M deal ($5M/year). Effectively, this would cost the Packers an additional $3.9M ($1.3/year) over the dead cap to employ Perry for 3 more years. It guarantees Perry that additional amount as well.

That’s a crafty idea I like it. I also think we’re in dangerous territory if we start cutting everyone like Clay, Perry, Cobb etc.. we need to pick our poison in 2019 because it’s at least a 2 year fix in my mind. Probably 60-70% of this gets fixed in 2019 IF we do this right and prioritize who we part with.
Let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot and broaden the holes we need to fill. Perry would be smart to take that deal or counter offer a couple million from it. Settle on a 3yr/16.5M and retain a loyal veteran

Something tells me if we inject a couple more playmakers on Defense, guys like Daniels and Perry will be recipients of bettering their games.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That’s a crafty idea I like it. I also think we’re in dangerous territory if we start cutting everyone like Clay, Perry, Cobb etc.. we need to pick our poison in 2019 because it’s at least a 2 year fix in my mind. Probably 60-70% of this gets fixed in 2019 IF we do this right and prioritize who we part with.
Let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot and broaden the holes we need to fill. Perry would be smart to take that deal or counter offer a couple million from it. Settle on a 3yr/16.5M and retain a loyal veteran

I agree, although Matthews and Cobb would be resigns, since their contracts are up I see Cobb more willing to sign the proverbial "Packer friendly deal" than Matthews. Matthews name and NFL status will get bigger offers than he is worth. A team desperate for a slot receiver might offer Cobb more than he is worth, but I think he knows his production will probably be higher in GB, due to his chemistry with AR.

But you are right, IMO, while these players (Matthews, Cobb, Perry) did not perform up to their contracts in the past, they still have definite value to the team. I don't foresee Gute overpaying them, but I also don't see him just saying "F-it, they aren't worth even talking to".

 

[OldSchool101]

I agree, although Matthews and Cobb would be resigns, since their contracts are up I see Cobb more willing to sign the proverbial "Packer friendly deal" than Matthews. Matthews name and NFL status will get bigger offers than he is worth. A team desperate for a slot receiver might offer Cobb more than he is worth, but I think he knows his production will probably be higher in GB, due to his chemistry with AR.

But you are right, IMO, while these players (Matthews, Cobb, Perry) did not perform up to their contracts in the past, they still have definite value to the team. I don't foresee Gute overpaying them, but I also don't see him just saying "F-it, they aren't worth even talking to".

of course, I suppose Bulaga is the better example.
If I’m a player in that age range, 30ish, I’m wanting a multi year contract (2 yr etc) because I don’t want to go through this every season as far as the wondering if this is the year I’m done.
If I’m GB I’m liking the flexibility of being able to spread the hit over 2 years and push some into next season. Also it doesn’t hurt having some veteran leadership while new guys are in a learning curve. Sort of a staggered approach. If my rookie excels early? My feelings are not hurt having Perry or Bulaga as a Moderately paid backup

 

[Mondio]

Perry can't stay on the field though. I can't even remember him on the field last year. 1 play against the Bears? I guess he earned his money, we beat the Bears, but that guy has been a ghost. I don't hate him for it, but he just can't ever stay even moderately healthy. With his track record I don't know that I could even start to imagine he'd give us 8 quality games next year. He just has a body that doesn't hold up. muscles, connective tissue, bones etc, all seem to just break and fail on him.

 

[HardRightEdge]

What if the Packers offered to restructure to a 3 year $15M deal ($5M/year). Effectively, this would cost the Packers an additional $3.9M ($1.3/year) over the dead cap to employ Perry for 3 more years. It guarantees Perry that additional amount as well.

Do you really think Perry would accept $1.3 mil per year cash money for the next 3 years? I don't.