Who do we re-sign

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,215
Reaction score
5,061
I take back my statements of Quarless....we could get by without him and it may be in our best interest to cut loose from him. But RR is still a solid if not very good #2...we just need that #1!
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
I hope Barclay isn't here. If he is it most likely means we didn't pick up anyone worth a **** along the offensive line in the offseason. I'm not sure how he'd be at guard, i'd rather have new blood because at this point I think Tretter is miles better than him at any position along the line. Barclay should never see the tackle position again.

I think Perry has a bit more upside too, if healthy, but I'm not sure how other teams are viewing him. I don't want big dollars going to him by any means, but are other teams going to hold off because of injury concerns? or are they just going to take that chance? He's a wildcard to me. Everytime I see a scenario where he is gone, I easily see one where he is back.
I don't expect Quarless to come back, I don't think he has any more to offer this team
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,215
Reaction score
5,061
I hope Barclay isn't here. If he is it most likely means we didn't pick up anyone worth a **** along the offensive line in the offseason. I'm not sure how he'd be at guard, i'd rather have new blood because at this point I think Tretter is miles better than him at any position along the line. Barclay should never see the tackle position again.

I think Perry has a bit more upside too, if healthy, but I'm not sure how other teams are viewing him. I don't want big dollars going to him by any means, but are other teams going to hold off because of injury concerns? or are they just going to take that chance? He's a wildcard to me. Everytime I see a scenario where he is gone, I easily see one where he is back.
I don't expect Quarless to come back, I don't think he has any more to offer this team

Perry intrigues me....I see his FA going one of two ways "We get him for a deal" or "Some teams shocks everyone with what seems like a reach and overpay". He's done enough at times to make anyone want him...but he also at times has dissolved into the un-noticed. I'm hoping we get him back for a deal, and lace it with some incentives. I saw some flashes this year out of him that made me want to see him in a GB jersey for some time.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Curious Captain...why let Quarless go. He isn't going to garner a lot of money. He knows he is a back up and for me I can't think of a better #3 on a depth chart at TE to keep? RR needs to be a #2 though. I can't think of trying to get both a bonafide starter and depth at TE with experience like Quarless?

I take back my statements of Quarless....we could get by without him and it may be in our best interest to cut loose from him. But RR is still a solid if not very good #2...we just need that #1!

Quarless most likely will get suspended for part of the 2016 season and he didn´t offer a ton when playing this season so I´d rather have the team going into a different direction. Rodgers is an average #2 tight end, absolutely agree the Packers are in desperate need of getting a true #1 at the position.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,215
Reaction score
5,061
Top needs for 2016 are the same as they were going into 2015. TE and ILB.

TE was somewhat filled last year, but agreed top priority is still a stud there and an ILB. We get bonafide starters this offseason in both and BAM! Anything else is a cherry on top of the off season.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
Top needs for 2016 are the same as they were going into 2015. TE and ILB.
I think so too, but last year we had a chance at some decent ILB prospects, but I completely agree with Ted's decision to go with DB's over ILB. for one, the ILB's were ok prospects, and it appears our DB's are playing at a higher level at their respective (and IMO more important) position on the defense.

With being able to keep clay at ILB, it gave us some flexibility, but I'm hoping it is only short term and that term is over with Clay in the middle. Though I can't say I don't like him there, but I'd rather it be out of creativity, not necessity, that he is in that position on defense.

I do think they were banking on RR to make a step forward. He was after all a guy that played WR in college I think and added some weight to play TE. I thought he'd make some bigger steps forward as a TE than he did. That decision wasn't a good one in hindsight, but I think he can still be a good TE if some things change. Mainly he still looks a bit "soft" and young. Seems weird to say about such a big guy, and one who could probably stomp me anyway, but he seems like a little babyface out there. Like he hasn't matured yet physically. Maybe he's carrying too much weight for his frame, or he just hasn't put in the work to maintain a TE playing weight and is just eating himself there? I don't know.

Seems like a good guy, and he has very good hands. I still think he'd be a very good TE if he was used as one that runs to the spot, turns around and catches it for a 1st down or TD for a nice 4-7 catch per game year and that will be more than enough out of him for our offense to be very productive. But if we don't have the receivers to stretch and put out on the field, then we do need another TE that can do it.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,215
Reaction score
5,061
I think so too, but last year we had a chance at some decent ILB prospects, but I completely agree with Ted's decision to go with DB's over ILB. for one, the ILB's were ok prospects, and it appears our DB's are playing at a higher level at their respective (and IMO more important) position on the defense.

With being able to keep clay at ILB, it gave us some flexibility, but I'm hoping it is only short term and that term is over with Clay in the middle. Though I can't say I don't like him there, but I'd rather it be out of creativity, not necessity, that he is in that position on defense.

I do think they were banking on RR to make a step forward. He was after all a guy that played WR in college I think and added some weight to play TE. I thought he'd make some bigger steps forward as a TE than he did. That decision wasn't a good one in hindsight, but I think he can still be a good TE if some things change. Mainly he still looks a bit "soft" and young. Seems weird to say about such a big guy, and one who could probably stomp me anyway, but he seems like a little babyface out there. Like he hasn't matured yet physically. Maybe he's carrying too much weight for his frame, or he just hasn't put in the work to maintain a TE playing weight and is just eating himself there? I don't know.

Seems like a good guy, and he has very good hands. I still think he'd be a very good TE if he was used as one that runs to the spot, turns around and catches it for a 1st down or TD for a nice 4-7 catch per game year and that will be more than enough out of him for our offense to be very productive. But if we don't have the receivers to stretch and put out on the field, then we do need another TE that can do it.

I think you nailed RR Mondio. Best case is he slims down and follows through on some projections...worst case he is an efficient and dependable handed #2. We have to assume the latter and hope for the former...grab a stud TE in FA or draft and worst case we have 2 :)
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top