Green Bay's greatest position weakness is ?

[salmar80]

Good thread. salmar, some good points in your last two posts. I think the frustration with Richard Rodgers isn't the numbers and plays in a vacuum, but the numbers and plays in relation to what was there for him on the field. Inside the 5 his size and hands made him a weapon. The other 95 yards of the field he simply was physically and mentally unable to take advantage of what was there for him. Physically he could not separate and run away from LBs and could not break tackles. Mentally he ran lazy, winding routes that often interrupted other receivers or ran himself right into the coverage. I cant imagine Fontenot didnt see this and hammer it home on film but RR never took to the coaching. So IMO he has value, just limited.

Henry supposedly has some pop as a blocker and can catch and run a little. He went through camp with a broken hand and a club so he never had much of a shot. Backman and Perillo are H back, ST only type guys. Move along.

I agree that RR isn't a special talent. His stiff route-running was tough to watch, and utter inability to get YAC was my main beef. He wasn't a 1st round pick either, so there is probably development yet to be done. He also had to play a TON - probably too much for his good. He'd be a fine no. 2 TE/red zone threat. I think everyone is in agreement we could use a more athletic no. 1. Unfortunately last year's and this year's drafts flat out suck at the position.

Backman was terribly overaggressive on STs, thus didn't play them much. It still mystifies me that we let Gaston go instead of cutting Backman and putting him on PS. Hard to imagine some other team snagging him. I really wonder TT's reasoning there. What do we not see about Backman? Henry will get a fair chance, that injury was terribly timed. Very interested in seeing what he can do. Perillo is the funniest looking guy ever - but has good hands.

 

[salmar80]

Agree that some of the criticism is off . . . he cuts those that need to be cut. Sometimes he errs on the side of caution but I have no problem with him giving young guys a couple of years at least.

I get what you are saying about the risks of FA, and am all for bringing back the rest of the TE crew minus Quarless. Keep the best, cut the rest. These things are not mutually exclusive. I do agree fans these days tend to be impatient, but at the same time, I see no reason not to invest in some known quality once or twice every off-season.

Bringing in a FA does not mean you have to cut Backman. TT has kept 3-5 TEs every season. A group consisting of FA, Rookie, Rodgers and Backman is very workable. Signing FAs does not totally preclude drafting and developing young talent.

Also, while I appreciate that Tamme and Daniels were not exactly game-changers, they did help their teams. Just because they were not all that hot does not make every FA will be mediocre. This year's TEs are not last year's TEs. Just because there were no difference makers last year does not mean there won't be any this year. Different group, different guys. For every Tamme who is wasted money there is a Ware or Talib who makes a difference.

I agree that we'd have room for a FA and rookie.

Tamme was one of only two really successful TE signings (maybe 3 if you count overpaid Owen Daniels). Zach Miller came outta nowhere to give CHI a decent year. Either of those could've helped us, on the cheap, but two or three out of 22 top UFA TEs is pretty damn bad odds. For every success, there are so many busts.

It would be nice to make a FA splash, but it's the guarantees we'd need to give to gamble on top talent that makes it tough. Sign one and he busts, and we're letting a Sitton, Lang or Bak go next year for nothing. That fact hasn't changed from last year. Different class, same risk.

I disagree that quality is known. Otherwise 4 teams wouldn't have given >6M per year for total bust TEs. Actually usually the player's former team is the one who knows their quality best. That's why I'm baffled over fascination over, say, Laurinaitis, who was cut by a team with ample cap space, and who was willing to take a pay cut to stay. How does he suddenly become sure thing? I'd look hardest at guys who had to be cut for cap reasons, or ones who were in a wrong scheme for their talent. Those are rare.

 

[Half Empty]

I'd love to have a real threat at TE, but the Packers have never had one for more than a year or two. Lots of competent guys, some very good at particular tasks, but nobody that the opposition has had to plan around. Another forum is doing a "best Packer _____" series, and while some positions (e.g., linebacker) produce much discussion about why so-and-so didn't make the cut, the TE talk was mostly about finding enough for the minimum. Maybe somebody brought down a curse at the Pack at that position - I don't know how else to explain it. And, given the current roster and projections for the draft and FA, it looks like we'll be in that condition for at least a while longer.

 

[FlaPack]

I'd love to have a real threat at TE, but the Packers have never had one for more than a year or two. Lots of competent guys, some very good at particular tasks, but nobody that the opposition has had to plan around. Another forum is doing a "best Packer _____" series, and while some positions (e.g., linebacker) produce much discussion about why so-and-so didn't make the cut, the TE talk was mostly about finding enough for the minimum. Maybe somebody brought down a curse at the Pack at that position - I don't know how else to explain it. And, given the current roster and projections for the draft and FA, it looks like we'll be in that condition for at least a while longer.

Like him or not Finley had to be accounted for. He created space. As to the FA group I'm not impressed. As to the draft Hooper makes the most sense

 

[57packer]

My take on FAs is this. The quality IS known, the future is not. Sure, every FA is a risk in terms of whether they will perform. Like they say in the financial world, "past performance does not guarantee future returns". I think you have to be smart in FA and look at each one as an investment. What do you need from them. What role do they fill.

Lauranitis for example is probably not a guy I'd invest in. Has been trending downward and is on the downslope of his career. Not something I want in a starting, every down, ILB. I'd rather throw money at a younger guy like Trevathan, who as a bonus, played in a 3-4 defense.

Not that old guys can't be decent value. Peppers has been as part of a rotation. I think a guy like Forte could be. Older and trending downward, but brings some skills we don't have and would fit in terms of not being the starter or workhorse back. A guy that could be part of a rotation, especially as a 3rd down back if they don't re-sign Starks. Might not be willing to accept that role just yet.

A guy like Damon Harrison for example. Still young. Plays a position where decreased speed is not an issue. Doesn't need to play every snap because the NT is part of a rotation. Probably won't command crazy money. Seems like a good fit.

I'd certainly ask about Jared Cook, but I suspect he will command massive, early FA money. Instead I might take a look at Coby Fleener. Maybe just needs a change of scenery. Has been somewhat inconsistent, but probably won't break the bank. I don't need him every down, but his ability to get downfield is a particular skill we lack right now. Also, don't laugh, I'd probably call Antonio Gates. Still productive as a role player. Would he come to GB for a shot at a title on a one year type deal? I'd take a flyer on a guy who could help the younger guys, give you something on the field as a part-time player, and won't hurt you long-term against the CAP. Highly doubt it would happen as I think he'll finish his career in SD.

I disagree that signing a big-time FA puts us at risk of losing Sitton or Lang or BahkT next year. The CAP is not a problem. Again, assuming Peppers is done, that's $10mil off the books for 2017. Sitton and Lang are already among the 10 highest paid guards in the NFL. How much higher can they go? Say you give them each an extra $1mil/yr. That means they count $2mil more against the CAP than they will for 2016. With our CAP space, no problem. The $10mil you gain with Peppers leaving is enough to pay Sitton and Lang their additional money, and re-sign BahkT, and have money left over.

 

[FlaPack]

My take on FAs is this. The quality IS known, the future is not. Sure, every FA is a risk in terms of whether they will perform. Like they say in the financial world, "past performance does not guarantee future returns". I think you have to be smart in FA and look at each one as an investment. What do you need from them. What role do they fill.

Lauranitis for example is probably not a guy I'd invest in. Has been trending downward and is on the downslope of his career. Not something I want in a starting, every down, ILB. I'd rather throw money at a younger guy like Trevathan, who as a bonus, played in a 3-4 defense.

Not that old guys can't be decent value. Peppers has been as part of a rotation. I think a guy like Forte could be. Older and trending downward, but brings some skills we don't have and would fit in terms of not being the starter or workhorse back. A guy that could be part of a rotation, especially as a 3rd down back if they don't re-sign Starks. Might not be willing to accept that role just yet.

A guy like Damon Harrison for example. Still young. Plays a position where decreased speed is not an issue. Doesn't need to play every snap because the NT is part of a rotation. Probably won't command crazy money. Seems like a good fit.

I'd certainly ask about Jared Cook, but I suspect he will command massive, early FA money. Instead I might take a look at Coby Fleener. Maybe just needs a change of scenery. Has been somewhat inconsistent, but probably won't break the bank. I don't need him every down, but his ability to get downfield is a particular skill we lack right now. Also, don't laugh, I'd probably call Antonio Gates. Still productive as a role player. Would he come to GB for a shot at a title on a one year type deal? I'd take a flyer on a guy who could help the younger guys, give you something on the field as a part-time player, and won't hurt you long-term against the CAP. Highly doubt it would happen as I think he'll finish his career in SD.

I disagree that signing a big-time FA puts us at risk of losing Sitton or Lang or BahkT next year. The CAP is not a problem. Again, assuming Peppers is done, that's $10mil off the books for 2017. Sitton and Lang are already among the 10 highest paid guards in the NFL. How much higher can they go? Say you give them each an extra $1mil/yr. That means they count $2mil more against the CAP than they will for 2016. With our CAP space, no problem. The $10mil you gain with Peppers leaving is enough to pay Sitton and Lang their additional money, and re-sign BahkT, and have money left over.

I have zero interest in Gates. For multiple reasons. As to Fleener would rather rather take Hooper. More upside.

The cap discussion is interesting. As 12 gets up in years and the window closes I'm much more in favor of pushing money forward. Spend to win now. Good chance you have to blow the entire thing up in 5 years anyway. But that's not been the organizations philosophy

 

[Half Empty]

Didn't want to make a big deal of it, but "for more than a year or two" was intended to cover Finley, Jackson, and others that might have flashed. I guess in Finley's case, it might have been "a year or three", but I've always thought it interesting that his really good years sandwiched 2010.

 

[GBP4EVER]

I have zero interest in Gates. For multiple reasons. As to Fleener would rather rather take Hooper. More upside.

The cap discussion is interesting. As 12 gets up in years and the window closes I'm much more in favor of pushing money forward. Spend to win now. Good chance you have to blow the entire thing up in 5 years anyway. But that's not been the organizations philosophy

I am not concerned with Rodgers cap number. I don't think it goes above 20-21 million ever which is not a lot with how the cap is growing every year. It seems like Ted has 20-30 million to play with every year so unless we go into a year with only 5-10 million in cap space I don't see it being a issue to redo Rodgers contract to free up cap space.

 

[FlaPack]

I am not concerned with Rodgers cap number. I don't think it goes above 20-21 million ever which is not a lot with how the cap is growing every year. It seems like Ted has 20-30 million to play with every year so unless we go into a year with only 5-10 million in cap space I don't see it being a issue to redo Rodgers contract to free up cap space.

Only way 12 gets his contract re worked is if they plan on extending him. My point was I have no issues moving money forward on Lang and/or Sitton

 

[GBP4EVER]

Only way 12 gets his contract re worked is if they plan on extending him. My point was I have no issues moving money forward on Lang and/or Sitton

Yes I would like to bring them both back but I wonder if Sitton will want to keep playing? He has a bad back and has also had other nagging injuries is he to the point were he will say enough is enough and retire instead of signing a new contract?