Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Moving Forward & Our Foundation
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10694
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Kuhn wrote:
ECPackers wrote:
you guys are insane.



this whole "we don't need greg jennings" things has to stop. you look like fools. it don't matter what ya say, jennings is the best WR on the team. probably the best WR in packers history. our offense is in shambles...and a large part of that is because jennings isn't out there. we need nelson too...
in fact.. we kinda need all of em.

i know it starts with our offensive line. but the truth is, we just have a selfish, stubborn GM, who don't wanna go outside his system, and don't ever wanna bring anyone in when we NEED it.


he built a great team, one that won the SB... but the fact is... he got lucky. and he thinks its gonna happen again. last year, we could've got one of the best RB's in the league. (lynch)... we could've gotten other OL that were very good...etc.



also, last year we had a team SO elite... we almost went undefeated. we knew our D was crap, and had no running game. all they had to do was bring in a vet or 2 and would've made a ton of difference. this is like the early 2000's all over again... could've should've would've won multiple championships, but in the end, the GM screwed the team over


Lemmie be the 1st to comment before these other guys rip you apart...

You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger Jennings fan then me. Love, and I mean LOVE Jennings, he is without a doubt the best WR on this team and one of our biggest leaders at that. For me, not resigning Jennings this offseason means that I never get to see my favorite WR, Packer and player in the league suit up for this team ever again.

THAT SAID, This offense can live, dare I say THRIVE without him. Look at the Texans game. I HIGHLY DOUBT you would have said any of this after that game. The fact is, we just have too many players in need of big contracts. Aaron should be payed like the best player in the league because he is the best player, and our D is nonexistant without Matthews. Jennings is maybe 4th most important behind ARod, CMIII, and BJ Raji and that is because we are so deep at WR.

The problems on this offense start up front. We don't have our best tackle in Bulaga and Sherrod hasn't had a chance to prove himself. Out 4th string tackle is starting for christsakes! Now, that isn't this unit's only problem. We lost our offensive line's leader in Wells and frankly, Saturday hasn't stepped up or really come close.

RB is one of those positions where you can find a gem in the later rounds, hell one of the best RB in the league (Foster) went undrafted!! TT knows that and thats why the highest he's drafted a RB was 2nd round. This is the same reason he hasnt drafted a WR in round one either.

As far as defense goes it all starts up front. This is a borderline elite secondary with a lot of ballhawks and they're being picked apart. That is because we have NO PASS RUSH outside of 1 player, Matthews. TT knows that as well and that is why he invested high picks in Perry and Worthy last year. We know what this group is capable of, this could be one of the best defenses in the league and was when we had another pass rusher in Jenkins.

My point is this is still a team that could be a dynasty. We've gotten screwed the past 3 years with injuries and we still win games. TT is the best GM in the league and you're a fool if you don't think so too.


Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

The thing with Jennings is simple. WR's impact comes as a function of the entire offense. No WR can single handedly carry a team enough to be worth that kind of money. WR talent is more important in terms of having good WRs 1-4/5 (depending on your O) and being able to throw to any of them. When you pay 1 WR franchise type money, you are going to severly limit guys 2-4.

Selfish stubborn GM who won't go outside his system? Put the crack pipe down and take off the tinfoil hat. That "system" is what built the roster in the first place. Not every move is going to work out for any GM. Every team is going to have flaws and to win it all, they are going to have to overcome those flaws. It's the nature of the game. The team lost last year because the guys that got it to 15-1 absolutely crapped the bed in the playoffs. Rodgers was decent, but there were way too many key drops and penalties and fumbles that killed drives. No team is going to win many playoff games when their O plays like that.

Bring in a vet or two? That's like the whole "TT should have done more in the offseason!" rabble. What? Give me names. Show me contracts the Packers could have signed these guys to and the financial repercussions long term of these contracts.

There are only 2 players the Packers can't afford to let go.

Aaron Rodgers
Clay Matthews

BJ Raji as an honorable mention because big men who can move like he can are so rare.

EVERYONE else on the roster can be viewed as a question of value under the salary cap.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
GoPackGo


Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 5250
Location: Sconnie boy
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I love TT, but he really did drop the ball on Marshawn Lynch. I gladly would have given him what Seattle did.
_________________

R-E-L-A-X
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 7085
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ECPackers wrote:
you guys are insane.



this whole "we don't need greg jennings" things has to stop. you look like fools. it don't matter what ya say, jennings is the best WR on the team. probably the best WR in packers history. our offense is in shambles...and a large part of that is because jennings isn't out there. we need nelson too...
in fact.. we kinda need all of em.

i know it starts with our offensive line. but the truth is, we just have a selfish, stubborn GM, who don't wanna go outside his system, and don't ever wanna bring anyone in when we NEED it.


he built a great team, one that won the SB... but the fact is... he got lucky. and he thinks its gonna happen again. last year, we could've got one of the best RB's in the league. (lynch)... we could've gotten other OL that were very good...etc.



also, last year we had a team SO elite... we almost went undefeated. we knew our D was crap, and had no running game. all they had to do was bring in a vet or 2 and would've made a ton of difference. this is like the early 2000's all over again... could've should've would've won multiple championships, but in the end, the GM screwed the team over


1. 30 y/o who can't stay healthy, looking for a big contract, Greg Jennings just isn't valuable enough to list as untouchable and he may not be valuable enough to drop the sort of cash that Jennings is willing to accept. In that case then it's the smart move for both sides to move on.

2. Don Hudson. Look him up because . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

3. Our GM never wants to bring anybody in because Free Agency is a fool's errand when you go in gambling on older guys looking for big money. See: Eagles, Cowboys, Redskins of yester-year.

4. Luck doesn't win Super Bowls, you can't in one paragraph say how uber-talented the team is and then in another paragraph say it was luck that they just so happened to win a Super Bowl. You're talking out of both ends.

5. I don't think TT is assuming he's going to get lucky. He's choosing not to [inappropriate/removed] away future assets which is something I think everybody should be on board with. Our record under TT is phenomenal and being upset that he's not diverting from that strategy is illogical.

6. Was not trading for Lynch a mistake? In hindsight, probably. At the time that would have been a foolish move all things considered. There were numerous reasons to be concerned about Lynch and considering TT's ability with midround picks I don't think it's foolish to not trade away a pick for a back.

7. Your expectations of multiple championships is absurd. So few teams win champtionships and you're expecting a string of several. The only thing that can be placed on TT is whether or not the team is talented enough to win a championship and I think that the answer has been a resounding yes for 3 seasons now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ECPackers


Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Posts: 1231
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lol, forget don hudson.



anyways, the texans game? really? you're going to use the ONLY game we had a good offensive showing as ur 'proof' we can 'thrive' without jennings?


thats asinine.



would we survive? yeah, but we'd have to completely refocus the offense like the patriots.

and am i the only one who thinks ZBS is trash? i mean, maybe 5 teams in the NFL use it... should tell you something.
_________________
GREEN BAY PACKERS
JARRET BUSH IS MY BOY!
Brewers
Bucks
Badgers
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 10694
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ECPackers wrote:
and am i the only one who thinks ZBS is trash? i mean, maybe 5 teams in the NFL use it... should tell you something.


ZBS run blocking concepts merge more closely with spread offense pass protection than a Power run blocking scheme. Given that the running game in this offense, with Aaron Rodgers is only there to support the passing game, I think it makes a ton of sense.
_________________
Wilfred wrote:
Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Dubyajay


Joined: 23 Mar 2010
Posts: 1762
PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is so much stupid in this thread it's imbear-able.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
strat1080


Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 1966
PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ECPackers wrote:
lol, forget don hudson.



anyways, the texans game? really? you're going to use the ONLY game we had a good offensive showing as ur 'proof' we can 'thrive' without jennings?


thats asinine.



would we survive? yeah, but we'd have to completely refocus the offense like the patriots.

and am i the only one who thinks ZBS is trash? i mean, maybe 5 teams in the NFL use it... should tell you something.


I personally would take Jennings hands down over Finley. Its basically that simple. The Packers are going to have to choose who they feel is more critical to the team. They can afford to keep one of them but not both. Finley has been a major disappointment since his injury. He is being paid like a top TE but isn't playing anywhere close to a top TE. He's not making any of the splash plays that you would expect from a guy like Gronk, Graham, and some of the other big time TEs.

IMO, we can't afford to keep paying him like a Top TE and get average receiving and well below average blocking production from him. If we parted ways with Finley I see no reason why we can't keep a WR corps consisting of Jennings, Nelson, Jones, and Cobb. I think we should keep Cobb in his current role. If we infuse him too much in the offense it will take away from his returning ability. Jennings is simpy a much more consistent player than Finley and generates more big plays. We won a Super Bowl without Jermichael Finley. I mean the proof is in the pudding.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ketchup


Joined: 13 May 2009
Posts: 14286
Location: Milwaukee, WI
PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As long as we have the best QB in the NFL as our "foundation", we'll be just fine.
_________________

Kempes on the custom sig!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 7085
PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ECPackers wrote:

and am i the only one who thinks ZBS is trash? i mean, maybe 5 teams in the NFL use it... should tell you something.


Seeing as literally every team in the NFL has ZBS concepts incorporated into their running game, you might not be the only one on this site, but I think you would be laughed out of every room in an NFL facility.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 7085
PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

strat1080 wrote:
ECPackers wrote:
lol, forget don hudson.



anyways, the texans game? really? you're going to use the ONLY game we had a good offensive showing as ur 'proof' we can 'thrive' without jennings?


thats asinine.



would we survive? yeah, but we'd have to completely refocus the offense like the patriots.

and am i the only one who thinks ZBS is trash? i mean, maybe 5 teams in the NFL use it... should tell you something.


I personally would take Jennings hands down over Finley. Its basically that simple. The Packers are going to have to choose who they feel is more critical to the team. They can afford to keep one of them but not both. Finley has been a major disappointment since his injury. He is being paid like a top TE but isn't playing anywhere close to a top TE. He's not making any of the splash plays that you would expect from a guy like Gronk, Graham, and some of the other big time TEs.

IMO, we can't afford to keep paying him like a Top TE and get average receiving and well below average blocking production from him. If we parted ways with Finley I see no reason why we can't keep a WR corps consisting of Jennings, Nelson, Jones, and Cobb. I think we should keep Cobb in his current role. If we infuse him too much in the offense it will take away from his returning ability. Jennings is simpy a much more consistent player than Finley and generates more big plays. We won a Super Bowl without Jermichael Finley. I mean the proof is in the pudding.


I don't understand why you would want to pay either one if the money they're asking is more than their worth. Rather let them walk then pony up the big boy bucks for a guy that isn't worth it. Jennings has far from lived up to his deal this year too, whether the injury excuse is valid or not is up for some debate.

I'd rather let both walk than pay them more than they're worth and not be able to pay Clay or Rodgers. I don't trust either guy to come up with a fair number to remain a Packer, Finley because he's proven an unreasonable [inappropriate/removed] and Jennings because there's going to be more money on the table elsewhere. It may be an inevitability that both walk, which isn't something that anybody on this forum should be particularly happy about, but it's the business of the pro game and if it happens you have to move on and reallocate those resources in a different way to make up for the loss of two very talented players.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
I Am Rodgers


Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 7333
Location: New Jersey
PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If we can sign GJ for less because of this season I'm all for it. I would not pony up anything close to VJ money though. I'd offer something like 3 years 21-24 mil. and see what he thinks. 3 years allows him to hit the market at 32 which isn't that old for a WR. If he wants more years or more money I'm ok in letting him walk. It similar to the Reggie Wayne contract, only with more money. Wayne was 33 and signed for 3/16.5. Signing GJ for 3/22.5 would be fair. If that is the case though, I could see Finley not on this team next year. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. In any case I see us taking a WR or TE in the first 3 rounds of the draft.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group