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

incognito_man Mach 4.6 (quickie edition - REVAMPED)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 7541
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
nfldraftguru1 wrote:

Diminishing returns. It makes less sense to take an OLB in round one than an OT. I agree we need depth, we don't need to spend another first when we have obvious other needs. If Jones or Moore fell (not possible) then yeah. Unless you have a really high (top 15) grade on Carradine (have spent almost no time looking at top OLBs this year) then maybe I could see it, but combine this with a DE who doesn't really fit as a 5-tech and I'd throw a fit.


wait...you state 'diminishing returns' and then suggest it makes more sense to take an OT?? whaaaat?

A 3rd OT NEVER sees the field except for injury.
A 3rd OLB will see a LOT of snaps even if there's no injury in front of him.

I don't think you can find anyone else to agree that an OT is better value than another OLB in round 1 this year. That's just crazy talk!
I certianly agree there incog! I have long dreamt of having 3 good edge rushers to take some of the load off of Matthews. I am not sure where Tank is sitting at on the road to recovery but I wouldn't draft an edge rusher who can't work out at the combine (Save for Clowney) just because I am too much of a numbers guy when it comes to pass rushers.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gizmo2012


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 2622
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
Hinkle wrote:
Im assuming we are trading Jennings? Cause if we let him go we get a comp. pick but we wouldn't receive it till next years draft. So I assume you are tag and trading Jennings?


Yup. Assuming a tag-n-trade.


Have you seen the free agent WR's that are going to be on the market this year? I assume the Packers will not risk tagging Jennings because they could be stuck with a 10 million dollar bill. Besides, to tag Jennigns will require a few moves and so far none of those have taken place. I'm not saying your wrong but I am saying it is reach to assume that Jennings will get tagged because no way is he worth 10 million a year. Don't forget the Packers will need to put away money for tagging Jennings and putting tenders on Shields and EDS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SE500


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 510
Location: WISCONSIN
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I'm not saying your wrong but I am saying it is reach to assume that Jennings will get tagged because no way is he worth 10 million a year"

I'd be willing to bet Jueenings signs with whoever for a long term deal that pays him a minimum of 8 mill, possibly more. Was We Welker worth the money to New England last year when they tagged him??

Driver and Saturday have already helped out. We will either cut or restructure both Finley and Woodson. There is easily more we could do. Finding the room for Jennings and others will be absolutely no issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nfldraftguru1


Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 9760
Location: Whitewater, WI
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SE500 wrote:
"I'm not saying your wrong but I am saying it is reach to assume that Jennings will get tagged because no way is he worth 10 million a year"

I'd be willing to bet Jueenings signs with whoever for a long term deal that pays him a minimum of 8 mill, possibly more. Was We Welker worth the money to New England last year when they tagged him??

Driver and Saturday have already helped out. We will either cut or restructure both Finley and Woodson. There is easily more we could do. Finding the room for Jennings and others will be absolutely no issue.

I'd be shocked if Finley was cut or restructured.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gizmo2012


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 2622
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SE500 wrote:
"I'm not saying your wrong but I am saying it is reach to assume that Jennings will get tagged because no way is he worth 10 million a year"

I'd be willing to bet Jueenings signs with whoever for a long term deal that pays him a minimum of 8 mill, possibly more. Was We Welker worth the money to New England last year when they tagged him??

Driver and Saturday have already helped out. We will either cut or restructure both Finley and Woodson. There is easily more we could do. Finding the room for Jennings and others will be absolutely no issue.


Jennings could very well get 7 or 8 million per year, the problem is the Packers today don't have the money to tag Jennings. I think TT does with Jennings what he did with James Jones - let him test the market and then make him an offer if he hasn't been signed. TT would have to free up a lot of money to tag Jennings and put tenders on the RFA's. I have seen no hint the Packers are even considering tagging Jennings and I don't see it happening without huge moves and cuts very soon. TT may make a move to sign Jennings to be more cap friendly this year because the salary cap is very tight this year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 29880
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gizmo2012 wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
Hinkle wrote:
Im assuming we are trading Jennings? Cause if we let him go we get a comp. pick but we wouldn't receive it till next years draft. So I assume you are tag and trading Jennings?


Yup. Assuming a tag-n-trade.


Have you seen the free agent WR's that are going to be on the market this year? I assume the Packers will not risk tagging Jennings because they could be stuck with a 10 million dollar bill. Besides, to tag Jennigns will require a few moves and so far none of those have taken place. I'm not saying your wrong but I am saying it is reach to assume that Jennings will get tagged because no way is he worth 10 million a year. Don't forget the Packers will need to put away money for tagging Jennings and putting tenders on Shields and EDS.


missed the part where Woodson was cut, eh?

Cap expected to be: $121.5million
Current cap hits (minus rollover): $111.5million
Woodson savings: $9.5million
Total Room: $19.5million
WR Tag: $10.4million
1st round tender: $2.9million

Doubt EDS gets a tender.
Remaining room: $6.2million before Jennings is traded.

Other areas of possible cap savings:
Picket - $6.2million
Tramon - $4.5million
Kuhn - $2.5million
Quarless - $1.4million

(note that these do not include the cost of replacement)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
smetana34


Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 3090
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nfldraftguru1 wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
nfldraftguru1 wrote:

Diminishing returns. It makes less sense to take an OLB in round one than an OT. I agree we need depth, we don't need to spend another first when we have obvious other needs. If Jones or Moore fell (not possible) then yeah. Unless you have a really high (top 15) grade on Carradine (have spent almost no time looking at top OLBs this year) then maybe I could see it, but combine this with a DE who doesn't really fit as a 5-tech and I'd throw a fit.


wait...you state 'diminishing returns' and then suggest it makes more sense to take an OT?? whaaaat?

A 3rd OT NEVER sees the field except for injury.
A 3rd OLB will see a LOT of snaps even if there's no injury in front of him.

I don't think you can find anyone else to agree that an OT is better value than another OLB in round 1 this year. That's just crazy talk!

I'm saying people have brought it up and at least there are performance concerns there. Perry looked very solid and getting him at 100% this year will be nice to see.

Taking either an OT or OLB in round one is a waste of resources IMO.


And there isn't performance issues at OLB?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 29880
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nfldraftguru1 wrote:

I'm saying people have brought it up and at least there are performance concerns there. Perry looked very solid and getting him at 100% this year will be nice to see.

Taking either an OT or OLB in round one is a waste of resources IMO.


Those two positions are not comparable whatsoever from a resource perspective for this team.

One is CLEARLY more value to this team than the other. In fact, I think only Safety and RB rank higher for us in the short-term.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nfldraftguru1


Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 9760
Location: Whitewater, WI
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
nfldraftguru1 wrote:

I'm saying people have brought it up and at least there are performance concerns there. Perry looked very solid and getting him at 100% this year will be nice to see.

Taking either an OT or OLB in round one is a waste of resources IMO.


Those two positions are not comparable whatsoever from a resource perspective for this team.

One is CLEARLY more value to this team than the other. In fact, I think only Safety and RB rank higher for us in the short-term.

C and RE are above it as well.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ugLymayNe


Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 12171
Location: Wisconsin
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nfldraftguru1 wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
nfldraftguru1 wrote:

I'm saying people have brought it up and at least there are performance concerns there. Perry looked very solid and getting him at 100% this year will be nice to see.

Taking either an OT or OLB in round one is a waste of resources IMO.


Those two positions are not comparable whatsoever from a resource perspective for this team.

One is CLEARLY more value to this team than the other. In fact, I think only Safety and RB rank higher for us in the short-term.

C and RE are above it as well.


And Picketts replacement, and a CB to replace Tramon down the line. OT is one of the positions we shouldn't touch unless the impossible falls.
_________________
@PJHotel_

Sig brought to you by Justo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 29880
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nfldraftguru1 wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
nfldraftguru1 wrote:

I'm saying people have brought it up and at least there are performance concerns there. Perry looked very solid and getting him at 100% this year will be nice to see.

Taking either an OT or OLB in round one is a waste of resources IMO.


Those two positions are not comparable whatsoever from a resource perspective for this team.

One is CLEARLY more value to this team than the other. In fact, I think only Safety and RB rank higher for us in the short-term.

C and RE are above it as well.


Not really.

Back-up C is a marginal roster spot position. A 3rd pass-rusher is a premium roster spot. At RE we have Wilson, Worthy and Neal currently. I agree that Dline is a need for the future, but so is OLB. Matthews contract is up soon too.

I'm shocked people don't think OLB is a good value pick in the first round this year (or any year for that matter). Just a little scan of draft history will indicate the high value teams place on pass rushers regardless of how many they have on their team. We have ONE stud who has missed time the last 2 years and a 2nd year player who missed most of the season. There is obvious room for improvement in that department.

It's not a case where the back-up doesn't see playing time either. A 3rd pass-rusher will see more playing time than any other 'back-up' other than a nickle-back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 29880
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ugLymayNe wrote:
nfldraftguru1 wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
nfldraftguru1 wrote:

I'm saying people have brought it up and at least there are performance concerns there. Perry looked very solid and getting him at 100% this year will be nice to see.

Taking either an OT or OLB in round one is a waste of resources IMO.


Those two positions are not comparable whatsoever from a resource perspective for this team.

One is CLEARLY more value to this team than the other. In fact, I think only Safety and RB rank higher for us in the short-term.

C and RE are above it as well.


And Picketts replacement, and a CB to replace Tramon down the line. OT is one of the positions we shouldn't touch unless the impossible falls.


wait, you are referring to OT right? If so, I only see a couple spots that hold LESS value to us in this draft than another OT.

OLB is on the high end, OT is on the low end. No idea why he's comparing them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dubyajay


Joined: 23 Mar 2010
Posts: 1590
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
ugLymayNe wrote:
nfldraftguru1 wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
nfldraftguru1 wrote:

I'm saying people have brought it up and at least there are performance concerns there. Perry looked very solid and getting him at 100% this year will be nice to see.

Taking either an OT or OLB in round one is a waste of resources IMO.


Those two positions are not comparable whatsoever from a resource perspective for this team.

One is CLEARLY more value to this team than the other. In fact, I think only Safety and RB rank higher for us in the short-term.

C and RE are above it as well.


And Picketts replacement, and a CB to replace Tramon down the line. OT is one of the positions we shouldn't touch unless the impossible falls.


wait, you are referring to OT right? If so, I only see a couple spots that hold LESS value to us in this draft than another OT.

OLB is on the high end, OT is on the low end. No idea why he's comparing them.


I think you read him wrong incog, I think you are both on the same page regarding the OT.

With regards to the OLB, I'm on board with ya. You can never have too many good passrushers. Platooning would not be a bad thing, especially with a creative mind like Capers running the show- I could see him having a lot of fun with another competent toy. I have no idea if Tank is that player- but if there is someone there at the pick who can rush the passer and the staff think he can be a good pro- I wouldn't see that in the same light as say a QB- where he would just ride the bench. Guess what I am saying is he would still be a good value, even with 2 pegged starters already on the roster. Especially given how fragile Clay's hammys are it seems.
_________________
McThreadski wrote:

Fear of re-injuring is a real thing. Years ago, I messed up my left leg in a freak break dancing incident... I never recovered mentally from it and I no longer "own" the dance floor at weddings and bar mitzvahs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ugLymayNe


Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 12171
Location: Wisconsin
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
ugLymayNe wrote:
nfldraftguru1 wrote:
incognito_man wrote:
nfldraftguru1 wrote:

I'm saying people have brought it up and at least there are performance concerns there. Perry looked very solid and getting him at 100% this year will be nice to see.

Taking either an OT or OLB in round one is a waste of resources IMO.


Those two positions are not comparable whatsoever from a resource perspective for this team.

One is CLEARLY more value to this team than the other. In fact, I think only Safety and RB rank higher for us in the short-term.

C and RE are above it as well.


And Picketts replacement, and a CB to replace Tramon down the line. OT is one of the positions we shouldn't touch unless the impossible falls.


wait, you are referring to OT right? If so, I only see a couple spots that hold LESS value to us in this draft than another OT.

OLB is on the high end, OT is on the low end. No idea why he's comparing them.



Yeah, I don't want an offensive tackle whatsoever in this draft. It would be a complete waste, we proved that we have a very good(and young) RT in Bulaga the past few years and two guys that are good enough in Newhouse/Barclay. I equate drafting an OT early to drafting a QB or a pure guard early.

I'm not sure how I feel about OLB in the first, but to me it depends on who is available. We can't just reach for players because they fit needs. If an OLB is the best player available, so be it. A few other things that an OLB would do for us:

1)Insurance if Clay walks next year.
2) Replace Walden
3)Competition for Perry

And if Perry and the new guy turn into quality players, three fresh pass rushers is something I would look forward to.
_________________
@PJHotel_

Sig brought to you by Justo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 29880
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dubyajay wrote:


I think you read him wrong incog, I think you are both on the same page regarding the OT.

With regards to the OLB, I'm on board with ya. You can never have too many good passrushers. Platooning would not be a bad thing, especially with a creative mind like Capers running the show- I could see him having a lot of fun with another competent toy. I have no idea if Tank is that player- but if there is someone there at the pick who can rush the passer and the staff think he can be a good pro- I wouldn't see that in the same light as say a QB- where he would just ride the bench. Guess what I am saying is he would still be a good value, even with 2 pegged starters already on the roster. Especially given how fragile Clay's hammys are it seems.


No, I understand his stance on the OT, just don't think there's a comparison between OTs and pass-rushers for our team's needs is what I'm saying.

As far as our current rushers, I think Perry is a guy who could potentially play some downs with his hand in the dirt too eventually. I could see us getting all of Matthews/Perry and Carradine on the field at the same time.
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 - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
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