Thompson: "We value draft and development, we value free agency"

[salmar80]

Pretty sure I can get many to agree that Barclay is NOT considered great depth - maybe he's not meant to be a starter, but he's not meant to play like we've seen him perform (badly), either. IF that's the case, the only real depth I've SEEN on the OLine is Tretter. TE doesn't even have a starter with whom we're happy, so depth isn't worth discussing. Allowing for Jordy to come back as before, and therefore Cobb gets better again, who has SHOWN the ability to be the depth? Won't bother with QB since conventional wisdom is that if AR is out, so is the Pack. RB has a "will he come back" Lacy and a minimum wage Starks. FB is pretty deep, though.

Defensively, the DBs, overall are nowhere near the question mark they once were. However, for ILB, see the TE situation above (depending upon how you view Matthews), and at OLB, Peppers played well but is old, Perry and Neal are a combination of brittle and UFA (although maybe Matthews helps here - pick one). DL has Daniels and...

Obviously a subjective evaluation, but I sure don't see the team depth.

Barclay sure was horrendous. I wrote this about him earlier:

"OT Don Barclay -35.2, 72nd/77 OTs - Holy #¤%& was he bad. Coming off an ACL and another injury, he just crumbled. Allowed 9 sacks and 43 pressures in just 241 snaps, and was THE worst in the league in pass block efficiency. Projecting for full season of starting snaps, it would've been about 26 sacks and 120 pressures. Also 11th worst run blocker."

But you seem to think the only good depth is "proven" depth. I don't think you really mean that, because that would be faulty in many ways:

1) Past performance doesn't mirror future performance. A guy like Laurinaitis is "proven." But can he still play like in those years he "proved" it? I sincerely doubt it. Most UFAs who fail, do so because they're signed to deals based upon past performance, and can't recreate it older and with a new team.

2) Players have to get a fair chance to prove themselves, before they become "proven." Or fail. I know it doesn't always work out, but you seem to choose to disregard potential. Whoda thunk Linsley could play LT at all? I sure didn't. That UDFA Shields would ever be 10M+ per year CB?. That Worthy couldn't do ANYTHING right? With draft and develop, you sometimes get the "develop", sometimes not. But without opportunity to prove it, we as fans don't see which it is. I still have near zero idea what Tolzien is now. Only their coaches know.

3) "Proven" is expensive. Develop is cheap. I personally like to spend the big $$$ on starters, not depth.

4) Fans sometimes make "proven" outta nothing. We somehow adjust our sights when it comes to outside UFAs. Ladarius Green is NOT proven, playing second fiddle to a great one, yet he's somehow considered "proven" (I do like him!). Bennett was such a headache, CHI fans wanna run him outta town, despite production. But he'd be great here... Grass is greener... it's a powerful thought.

I do agree we're thin at some spots. It's only February, though. I'm glad we're only thin at some, and not most spots, and that we have most starters figured out.

 

[Pugger]

Barclay will be lucky to make the team this year. Every time he was out there this year he got his butt handed to him.

Yes, Barclay was pretty dreadful. I think the coaches have finally figured it out that Tretter is the better backup option unless/until we find another in this upcoming draft.

 

[Half Empty]

My reply was in response to the post that felt we're in pretty good shape for depth. My point was supposed to be that we can't know that because of the lack of proven talent, not that I expect us to actually have those guys. Certainly, having proven backup talent would be nice, but I agree with the undertone of your post, which I take to be that we can't always either know about or afford really quality backups. If, on the other hand, your point is that you agree we've already got good depth, feel free to point out where I went wrong in my assessment.

However, as long as you bring it up...

1) Certainly we can never know - could Peppers still play at a high level when we signed him? I never thought he'd see more than the first year of that contract. An aside, but your points are some of the reasons I really hate guaranteed money and players looking to renegotiate. As I mentioned, though, looking at someone like Laurinaitis is apples and oranges to my post. I don't think anyone suggested signing him as depth. Somewhat aside, I expect that most of the folks looking to sign him do so from a position of "well, we know that nobody has been developed this far, so let's try another approach".

2) Certainly agree that they need that fair chance. Otherwise, they are just potential and could turn out like Worthy. Without actual game experience, I question even your point about only the coaches knowing - until it's for real, I'd counter that nobody knows. And Tolzien is a great case in point - I find it hard to believe that, especially last year, they couldn't have put him in to see if he's the long-term backup.

3) Again, I'm talking about depth with which we can feel comfortable. Proven substitutes shouldn't be that expensive. Developed guys are cheap, and many of ours are worth just that. No way to argue with spending big on starters, not backups, but I never intended to intimate the opposite.

4) Sure, Packer fans probably think that just being a Packer might make a guy better, or the scheme, coaching, injury recovery, talent around him, et. al. But again, those folks aren't usually brought up unless we're talking about positions like safety was and ILB is - desperation can do strange things. And, remember where we are in the football year - what else is there to talk about?

Finally, we agree we're thin at some spots. I'm probably of the opinion that we're thin at more. However, your optimism about February and the starters is not something I can use to help fill my glass above the half-way point. Working backwards, not only do I see very little "comfortable" (maybe a better term than proven?) depth, I see a lot of actual or potential (free agency) holes in the starting lineup. And, from now until the season starts, the only ways to improve the team are the draft (how many rookies make a splash?), trades (very rare in today's NFL, AND we have TT), or free agents (UDFAs are rookies, so expect little this year, and UFAs, in addition to our GM's track record, are an area you don't seem to think will help). Nothing there gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

 

[salmar80]

My reply was in response to the post that felt we're in pretty good shape for depth. My point was supposed to be that we can't know that because of the lack of proven talent, not that I expect us to actually have those guys. Certainly, having proven backup talent would be nice, but I agree with the undertone of your post, which I take to be that we can't always either know about or afford really quality backups. If, on the other hand, your point is that you agree we've already got good depth, feel free to point out where I went wrong in my assessment.

However, as long as you bring it up...

1) Certainly we can never know - could Peppers still play at a high level when we signed him? I never thought he'd see more than the first year of that contract. An aside, but your points are some of the reasons I really hate guaranteed money and players looking to renegotiate. As I mentioned, though, looking at someone like Laurinaitis is apples and oranges to my post. I don't think anyone suggested signing him as depth. Somewhat aside, I expect that most of the folks looking to sign him do so from a position of "well, we know that nobody has been developed this far, so let's try another approach".

2) Certainly agree that they need that fair chance. Otherwise, they are just potential and could turn out like Worthy. Without actual game experience, I question even your point about only the coaches knowing - until it's for real, I'd counter that nobody knows. And Tolzien is a great case in point - I find it hard to believe that, especially last year, they couldn't have put him in to see if he's the long-term backup.

3) Again, I'm talking about depth with which we can feel comfortable. Proven substitutes shouldn't be that expensive. Developed guys are cheap, and many of ours are worth just that. No way to argue with spending big on starters, not backups, but I never intended to intimate the opposite.

4) Sure, Packer fans probably think that just being a Packer might make a guy better, or the scheme, coaching, injury recovery, talent around him, et. al. But again, those folks aren't usually brought up unless we're talking about positions like safety was and ILB is - desperation can do strange things. And, remember where we are in the football year - what else is there to talk about?

Finally, we agree we're thin at some spots. I'm probably of the opinion that we're thin at more. However, your optimism about February and the starters is not something I can use to help fill my glass above the half-way point. Working backwards, not only do I see very little "comfortable" (maybe a better term than proven?) depth, I see a lot of actual or potential (free agency) holes in the starting lineup. And, from now until the season starts, the only ways to improve the team are the draft (how many rookies make a splash?), trades (very rare in today's NFL, AND we have TT), or free agents (UDFAs are rookies, so expect little this year, and UFAs, in addition to our GM's track record, are an area you don't seem to think will help). Nothing there gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

Serious big hand to a well thought of reply by HE, who could've easily been done it easy by dissing me. Even though I do not agree with his opinion, I LOVE a good debate.

I don't think we currently have good or great depth. But it tends to be so in February.

1) If you could give minimal guarantees to potential impact or good depth UFAs, even incentives for future performance, I would have no problem with them. But 1st and 2nd -tier UFAs usually are seeking EXACTLY those full guarantees to protect them against injury, age and happenstance. Pep and Woody (and Pickett) were unusually great signings, with low guarantees. I really dunno how TT doesn't get credit for that (I guess since they've stayed productive), since it's the guarantees to risky failures that can really kill your cap.

I actually did not know if Pep could play for us when we signed him, but I knew we could easily get rid of him if we wanted to after one season. That's protecting the team.

2) I'd argue the guys watching all year closest know best. That's the coaches, the GM, medical staff. NO ONE else has that info about a little-played guy, unless they go full Patriots and spy like N-Korea. I find it hard to believe one's own team doesn't know about the potential of a guy. You've scouted in college, HS even, then have had them at practice, then play in pre-season, and then if not on the field, see him on the scout team or PS. You should have better info than anyone. Also: If you don't have to sell tickets, why would you expose a possible good player, and hype him up?

3) Subs should not be expensive. I agree. But proven ones tend to be so. See: Paying for past performance. I don't think the goal of a team should be making fans comfortable with depth. Just the coaches. (And I'm not saying the Packers haven't failed at that.)

4) It sure is the Season of Hope. When we forget all past success, remember only the fails. And delve deep into the holes of the roster. Hope for a Savior, that ONE guy who'll get us to the PRIZE, who doesn't begin as a rookie carpenter's kid, but as a full-grown nailed-on-the-cross cursing sunnofadaddy. (Wow! THAT was inappropriate, but kinda fitting.)

I'd love to fill your glass past the half-point. But I can't. I KNOW these 2016 Packers will be in the hunt, again. But I can't guarantee you a SB win. I wish I could give you a warm and fuzzy feeling....but I fear you'll get that bear in the Revenant.

 

[Nerd]

Yes, Barclay was pretty dreadful. I think the coaches have finally figured it out that Tretter is the better backup option unless/until we find another in this upcoming draft.

Barclay wasn't as good this past year, but he was coming back from knee surgery. Also, the great portion of his shit suckage came at LT, where he should never have been lined up to begin with. I agree, Tretter is better.

 

[Nerd]

Keep in mind we've got some developmental players on PS too. What's that guy Vujnovich? Something like that. He might provide some depth as a swing T. I don't see him in practice, so I'm not sure where he's at.

 

[44blitz]

I hope he doesn't value this group of rookies. Some real lack luster talent this year. TT will stick with what got him here until he retires or the whole thing flops.

 

[realitybytes]

I hope he doesn't value this group of rookies. Some real lack luster talent this year. ...

i agree. this crop of draft candidates is not up to par.

 

[eyecatcher]

The 2015 draft was lack luster?

Damarious Randall had a better than expected year.
Quinten Rollins was fine and showed plenty of potential.
Ty Montgomery played 5 1/2 games so you can't really evaluate him
Jake Ryan was disappointing as I hoped he'd take over in the middle much earlier and make an impact.
Hundley is a project
Ripkowski, Ringo and Backman didn't see the field much which is expected for late round picks.

TT drafted for need and seemed to do I decent job.

 

[Wolfman]

I hope he doesn't value this group of rookies. Some real lack luster talent this year. TT will stick with what got him here until he retires or the whole thing flops.

With what got him here? You mean Aaron Rodgers? Because when ARod gets hurt, this team beyond struggles. Rodgers makes Ted look way better than he is. He is very fortunate Aaron somehow slid to the Packers.