what would you trade for Richard Sherman?

Status
Not open for further replies.

brandon2348

GO PACK GO!
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
339
I also believe Rodgers' all in comment was speaking to the players and teammates every bit as much if not more so, than any message to the front office.

There were obviously guys that were all in, Jordy for example. And guys that weren't. Eddie for example. I'm sure there were some issues with film study and all the preparation in games this year. Issues with how some took care of themselves mentally and physically from week to week.

I'd much prefer that type of all in, than the type some are wishing for. All in and one blown knee and you're feeling the effects for 3 more years.

Well right now TT has us set up "all in" on losing a playoff game again so you can rest your laurels on that.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I'd much prefer that type of all in, than the type some are wishing for. All in and one blown knee and you're feeling the effects for 3 more years.

There is a possibility of adequately addressing positions of need without the team suffering huge consequences if it doesn't work out.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
Teds not going anywhere until he chooses to before this contract is up. Fans aren't going to have anything to do with it.

And for the record, I don't think the guy from the Texans especially and Gilmore as well, were a Sam Shields. So how much we were prepared to pay Sam has nothing to do with it.

Somehow I have a feeling that if Gilmore turns out to be just ok and Bouye busts you won't be back here proclaiming how wrong you were. The FA class of DBs wasn't exactly anything to write home about this year. It was pretty sub par if you ask me. But we didn't sign the biggest name to whatever it took, so we lost right?

Oh, we just needed to sign a veteran for help? But House doesn't count because he was here before and knows the defense. Needed someone else that most likely is of a similar talent that has no familiarity with the system because that would have been better
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,075
Reaction score
7,891
Location
Madison, WI
I don't think a lot of posters want Thompson to go all-in, mortgaging the future of the team for several years. There are several fans advocating for him to address obvious positions of need in a timely fashion though.

There's a huge difference between those two approaches.

Which was why I asked. ;) Because, I have seen "those" fans who are hell bent on winning a SB at any and all costs...those are the fans that will be here cheering on the Victory and saying "I told you so", but most likely will also be the fan that shows up pissing and moaning when the strategy backfires in the following years.

Let's just say there is a difference between "going all in" and making a few more moderate risk moves. TT isn't a big risk taker and some might say that is why the Packers are the successful team that they are today. But I can see how others, like you and I, want to see him possibly loosen things up slightly and take a few more of those calculated risks.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Somehow I have a feeling that if Gilmore turns out to be just ok and Bouye busts you won't be back here proclaiming how wrong you were. The FA class of DBs wasn't exactly anything to write home about this year. It was pretty sub par if you ask me. But we didn't sign the biggest name to whatever it took, so we lost right?

Oh, we just needed to sign a veteran for help? But House doesn't count because he was here before and knows the defense. Needed someone else that most likely is of a similar talent that has no familiarity with the system because that would have been better

Well, if Hompson wasn't excited about one of the top cornerbacks than he should have traded for one. The position completely lacks talent therefore standing pat shouldn't have cut it this time.

House doesn't count because he isn't a #1 cornerback and not because he already played for the Packers from 2011-14.

Let's just say there is a difference between "going all in" and making a few more moderate risk moves. TT isn't a big risk taker and some might say that is why the Packers are the successful team that they are today. But I can see how others, like you and I, want to see him possibly loosen things up slightly and take a few more of those calculated risks.

I'm preplexed that a lot of fans bring up taking more risks will mortgage the Packers future for years to come yet somehow the Patriots have ended up with more cap space at the start of the league year than the Packers quite a few times.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,075
Reaction score
7,891
Location
Madison, WI
I'm preplexed that a lot of fans bring up taking more risks will mortgage the Packers future for years to come yet somehow the Patriots have ended up with more cap space at the start of the league year than the Packers quite a few times.

I agree that there are a few more things that I would have liked to have seen Thompson do in the offseason to improve the 2017 team, but none would have been considered "all in" to me. You are also correct, Bill Belichick has proven to all that Free Agency and big moves can work. But you can also take the flipside of that coin and look at the countless times it hasn't worked out for teams like the Jaguars, Dolphins, Eagles, etc.
 

brandon2348

GO PACK GO!
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
339
I agree that there are a few more things that I would have liked to have seen Thompson do in the offseason to improve the 2017 team, but none would have been considered "all in" to me. You are also correct, Bill Belichick has proven to all that Free Agency and big moves can work. But you can also take the flipside of that coin and look at the countless times it hasn't worked out for teams like the Jaguars, Dolphins, Eagles, etc.

None of those teams have or had a QB like Aaron Rodgers while using free agency like they did.
 

brandon2348

GO PACK GO!
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
339
Well, if Hompson wasn't excited about one of the top cornerbacks than he should have traded for one. The position completely lacks talent therefore standing pat shouldn't have cut it this time.

House doesn't count because he isn't a #1 cornerback and not because he already played for the Packers from 2011-14.



I'm preplexed that a lot of fans bring up taking more risks will mortgage the Packers future for years to come yet somehow the Patriots have ended up with more cap space at the start of the league year than the Packers quite a few times.


This is because the Patriots would cut guys like Clay Matthews that are on the "down turn" creating a "cap savings" then using that money to upgrade the roster.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I agree that there are a few more things that I would have liked to have seen Thompson do in the offseason to improve the 2017 team, but none would have been considered "all in" to me. You are also correct, Bill Belichick has proven to all that Free Agency and big moves can work. But you can also take the flipside of that coin and look at the countless times it hasn't worked out for teams like the Jaguars, Dolphins, Eagles, etc.

There's no doubt teams have to be smart when using free agency. That's true for re-signing their own players as well though.
 

brandon2348

GO PACK GO!
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
339
I just don't see all the concern over all the "so called risk".

It's like what the hell are we risking? We have the worst pass defense in the NFL. We have the most overpaid player in the league on our roster. I just don't see a whole lot to lose or regress at here by making some more aggressive moves.

The only excitement on the defensive side of the ball is an UDFA safety and Kenny Clark is only 21 years old. Whoopee Dew Dah!
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
None of those teams have or had a QB like Aaron Rodgers while using free agency like they did.
Just think if they would have. How great they would have been with all their big spending. Just think, Rodgers could have went his entire career without even making the playoffs lol
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Just think if they would have. How great they would have been with all their big spending. Just think, Rodgers could have went his entire career without even making the playoffs lol

All of the teams mentioned above made the playoffs at least twice since Rodgers was drafted with far less talented quarterbacks. I'm not convinced the Packers would have been able to accomplish that.
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,467
Reaction score
599
Just think if they would have. How great they would have been with all their big spending. Just think, Rodgers could have went his entire career without even making the playoffs lol

I'm pretty sure that if those teams had AR at the time, they wouldn't have felt it necessary to make the big-ticket moves.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I'm pretty sure that if those teams had AR at the time, they wouldn't have felt it necessary to make the big-ticket moves.

A good general manager makes big-ticket moves even when having a franchise quarterback.
 

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,467
Reaction score
599
Come on, Capt, don't need you wordsmithing, too. What I meant, and thought I'd conveyed, was stupid/panicky/inappropriate splash moves. More specifically, I'm convinced that 'those' teams would have not made the same signings (the ones that led to continued mediocrity) if they'd had Aaron.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
More specifically, I'm convinced that 'those' teams would have not made the same signings (the ones that led to continued mediocrity) if they'd had Aaron.

I'm not convinced about that aside of signings at the quarterback position or if the salary cap wouldn't have allowed while having one of the highest paid players in the league.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,075
Reaction score
7,891
Location
Madison, WI
None of those teams have or had a QB like Aaron Rodgers while using free agency like they did.
That still doesn't say anything about the success or failures of teams who have gone "all in" with free agency.

While it is true that some teams who have chosen to spend huge money in free agency and failed, didn't have AR at QB, I don't think even Aaron Rodgers can single handedly be expected to take just any team to a Super Bowl and the Packers are proof of that. I think it would be easy to compile a list of teams out there that would be in serious contention if AR Rodgers was their QB. I also don't think it would be a stretch to say that the Packers would be a .500 or less team without AR. So while you want to try to find the missing piece(s) to get the Packers to the Super Bowl while AR is at QB, there is a fine line between obtaining those pieces and potentially doing it in a way that handcuffs the Packers future if those particular moves fail.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
2,897
There are some genuine gripes against Thompson's approach. I do think he's too stingy on the open market. I wouldn't want him to be as aggressive as some have in mind, but he ought to do more than what he does.

That said, I think Packer fans have a little bit of a warped view on this issue after about 25 years of really good GM's in the front office. They aren't that easy to find. A lot of times when you get rid of "really good" to try to find "great," you end up downgrading.

Some seem to think that's a risk worth taking because TT will never bring another ring to Green Bay. I don't share that opinion. It's happened once and they're in the mix every year.

But my guess is this will all be moot and he will retire after next season. Wolf will get his shot. If he merely manages to to maintain Thompson's level of success, Packer fans will be lucky.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,075
Reaction score
7,891
Location
Madison, WI
Packer Report‏ @PackerReport 3h3 hours ago
Thompson on state of the defense: Feels good about roster as a whole.

Wow, just Wow!

That is just "Tedspeak" for "Why are you asking me these questions? You know I am not going to answer them".

Did you hear him being asked at the combine about the Josh Sitton move? He hesitated and acted like he didn't know who Josh Sitton was, it was classic. Of course, he followed that with "we don't like to discuss past players"
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
2,897
There's nothing sillier than when people get bent out of shape over GM/HC answers than are total cliche coach speak. They pretty much all do it. What do they expect?
 

brandon2348

GO PACK GO!
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
339
That still doesn't say anything about the success or failures of teams who have gone "all in" with free agency.

While it is true that some teams who have chosen to spend huge money in free agency and failed, didn't have AR at QB, I don't think even Aaron Rodgers can single handedly be expected to take just any team to a Super Bowl and the Packers are proof of that. I think it would be easy to compile a list of teams out there that would be in serious contention if AR Rodgers was their QB. I also don't think it would be a stretch to say that the Packers would be a .500 or less team without AR. So while you want to try to find the missing piece(s) to get the Packers to the Super Bowl while AR is at QB, there is a fine line between obtaining those pieces and potentially doing it in a way that handcuffs the Packers future if those particular moves fail.

We're so far from "reckless spending" in free agency and Im not asking the Packers to do anything close to that at this point. I don't consider filling a couple glaring holes as being reckless.

Is it a guarantee that the Packers win another Superbowl filling those holes in free agency?

Of course not but once again it goes along with "probabilities" and the "probabilities" go up significantly. At the very worse you can look back and say we did everything we could and there is no shame in that IMO. The shame where I see is being half cocked and ignoring the obvious expecting a different result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Latest posts

Top