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

TE Martellus Bennett signs with Packers 3yr/$21 million!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20, 21  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TransientTexan


Joined: 27 Jul 2014
Posts: 516
Location: Connecticut
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Ted being Ted Reply with quote

DraftHobbyist wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
Which year did they have the cap space to do that in?


Which year did we have the cap space to sign a veteran TE FA signing to a minimal contract? All of them.


then why do you refer to Bennett? you're comparing 2 completely different types of signings. do you seriously think a vet min TE would have solved the problem?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PackyAttacky


Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 103
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For years the Ted hate is insane. 2 years without a TE other than RR and one year we had Q. We got cook last year and Bennett this year, unless Bennett is a wind bag, TT will have addressed the TE position more next year than neglected it 3/5 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 6424
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Ted being Ted Reply with quote

DraftHobbyist wrote:
What gets me about this Bennett signing is that for years Thompson wouldn't sign a TE for that 1-year $1M-$3M contract that would've likely helped the team immensely. Now he spends $7M/year on a TE during a strong TE class. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy about the signing, but I think back to a few years ago and wonder why not then. Well, at least we have Bennett now.


Here is the TE group of FA from 2014
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2014/tight-end/

Here is the TE group of FA from 2015
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2015/tight-end/

What TE would have helped the team immensely?
_________________
Salary Cap Fantasy Football League
2016 Salary Cap League Rosters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DraftHobbyist


Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Posts: 271
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Ted being Ted Reply with quote

squire12 wrote:
Here is the TE group of FA from 2014
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2014/tight-end/

There are a few names I see, but the guy I wanted most at the time was Owen Daniels. He was signed for 1-year $1M and produced 527 receiving yards and 4 TD's. Last year he produced 517 receiving yards and 3 TD's. He also does some non-statistical things that help the team out.
Quote:
Here is the TE group of FA from 2015
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2015/tight-end/

Owen Daniels upped his value from 1-year $1M to 3-years $12.25M (a little over $4M/year) showing that his 2014 signing was a good one. He likely would've been worth it for the Packers to pick up. I think he would've been a little too rich for my blood at the $4+M/year, though.
Scott Chandler and Jacob Tamme would've been potential targets. Chandler was coming off 3 really solid seasons with the Bills, and he only got 2-years $5.3M with $2M guaranteed. Jacob Tamme was more up and down, but he had some really solid seasons, and he ended up with 657 yards, 1 TD, and 31 first downs. Tamme's contract was also a 2-year deal, but only for $3.2M and $400,000 guaranteed.
So there were definitely guys out there to be had.
TransientTexan wrote:
then why do you refer to Bennett? you're comparing 2 completely different types of signings. do you seriously think a vet min TE would have solved the problem?

I referred to Bennett because this thread is about Bennett, and I think that it shows TT has learned from his mistakes. Yes, I seriously think that a veteran TE would've helped a great deal. We don't need to be elite at every position, but it would be nice to be not horrible at some. TE is one of those positions that we were horrible at for years, which guys can be found for extremely cheap to improve the roster, and TT just didn't do it. If it was about the salary cap I could understand, but it wasn't. Remember how bad we were at S as well? I don't hate TT, but there are parts of his managing that could've been improved, and I think if you asked Ted Thompson he would like to treat some of these positions differently.
_________________


Last edited by DraftHobbyist on Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cadmus


Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 2185
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Ted being Ted Reply with quote

DraftHobbyist wrote:
squire12 wrote:
Here is the TE group of FA from 2014
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2014/tight-end/


There are a few names I see, but the guy I wanted most at the time was Owen Daniels. He was signed for 1-year $1M and produced 527 receiving yards and 4 TD's. Last year he produced 517 receiving yards and 3 TD's. He also does some non-statistical things that help the team out.

Quote:
Here is the TE group of FA from 2015
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/2015/tight-end/


Owen Daniels upped his value from 1-year $1M to 3-years $12.25M (a little over $4M/year) showing that his 2014 signing was a good one. He likely would've been worth it for the Packers to pick up. I think he would've been a little too rich for my blood at the $4+M/year, though.

Scott Chandler and Jacob Tamme would've been potential targets. Chandler was coming off 3 really solid seasons with the Bills, and he only got 2-years $5.3M with $2M guaranteed. Jacob Tamme was more up and down, but he had some really solid seasons, and he ended up with 657 yards, 1 TD, and 31 first downs. Tamme's contract was also a 2-year deal, but only for $3.2M and $400,000 guaranteed.

So there were definitely guys out there to be had.

TransientTexan wrote:
then why do you refer to Bennett? you're comparing 2 completely different types of signings. do you seriously think a vet min TE would have solved the problem?


I referred to Bennett because this thread is about Bennett. Yes, I seriously think that a veteran TE would've helped a great deal. We don't need to be elite at every position, but it would be nice to be not horrible at some. TE is one of those positions that we were horrible at for years, which guys can be found for extremely cheap to improve the roster, and TT just didn't do it. If it was about the salary cap I could understand, but it wasn't. Remember how bad we were at S as well? I don't hate TT, but there are parts of his managing that could've been improved, and I think if you asked Ted Thompson he would like to treat some of these positions differently.


You mean the guy Thompson brought in for a FA visit in 2014, but he decided to sign somewhere else?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DraftHobbyist


Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Posts: 271
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:58 pm    Post subject: Re: Ted being Ted Reply with quote

Cadmus wrote:
You mean the guy Thompson brought in for a FA visit in 2014, but he decided to sign somewhere else?

Yeah. He should've signed Daniels.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 6424
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Ted being Ted Reply with quote

DraftHobbyist wrote:
Cadmus wrote:
You mean the guy Thompson brought in for a FA visit in 2014, but he decided to sign somewhere else?

Yeah. He should've signed Daniels.


Maybe the GB offered Daniels a contract, but he felt that being the 3rd target behind Nelson and Cobb and splitting time with Quarless (who GB signed that offseason as well) was not the best situation for him.
_________________
Salary Cap Fantasy Football League
2016 Salary Cap League Rosters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DraftHobbyist


Joined: 17 Aug 2014
Posts: 271
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Ted being Ted Reply with quote

squire12 wrote:
Maybe the GB offered Daniels a contract, but he felt that being the 3rd target behind Nelson and Cobb and splitting time with Quarless (who GB signed that offseason as well) was not the best situation for him.

Doubtful. The Packers have Aaron Rodgers, are a playoff team, and he played college at Wisconsin. He played high school in Illinois. Everything screams money. If TT had offered him more money he likely would've signed with the Packers. If you have some sort of information that he didn't sign with the Packers because of something outside of money I'd like to see it, but until I do, I'm going to follow the money.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 6424
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Ted being Ted Reply with quote

DraftHobbyist wrote:
squire12 wrote:
Maybe the GB offered Daniels a contract, but he felt that being the 3rd target behind Nelson and Cobb and splitting time with Quarless (who GB signed that offseason as well) was not the best situation for him.

Doubtful. The Packers have Aaron Rodgers, are a playoff team, and he played college at Wisconsin. He played high school in Illinois. Everything screams money. If TT had offered him more money he likely would've signed with the Packers. If you have some sort of information that he didn't sign with the Packers because of something outside of money I'd like to see it, but until I do, I'm going to follow the money.


Daniels signed with Baltimore, who was also a playoff team and 1 year removed from a Super Bowl victory.

The fact that Daniels played at WI and grew up in Illinois likely means very little.

OR maybe there were aspects of the lifestyle in GB that did not suit him vs what he grew up in Illinois and had at Wisconsin.

Maybe he did not like the cold weather and playing in GB in November and December...due to the time he spent in Madison during college.

Maybe it was about money.

There are a lot of factors that might swing the deciding factors on whether a player signs or not with a given team. Those on the outside will likely never know.
_________________
Salary Cap Fantasy Football League
2016 Salary Cap League Rosters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cadmus


Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 2185
PostPosted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:33 pm    Post subject: Re: Ted being Ted Reply with quote

DraftHobbyist wrote:
squire12 wrote:
Maybe the GB offered Daniels a contract, but he felt that being the 3rd target behind Nelson and Cobb and splitting time with Quarless (who GB signed that offseason as well) was not the best situation for him.

Doubtful. The Packers have Aaron Rodgers, are a playoff team, and he played college at Wisconsin. He played high school in Illinois. Everything screams money. If TT had offered him more money he likely would've signed with the Packers. If you have some sort of information that he didn't sign with the Packers because of something outside of money I'd like to see it, but until I do, I'm going to follow the money.


Sorry.

He brought Daniels in for a FA visit, how could you possibly criticize Thompson?

It could have been money, it could have been fit (he signed for less than we re-signed Quarless for and Daniels might not have been comfortable with that), it might have been medicals (Daniels has certainly dealt with injuries throughout his career).

I don't know how you could be upset with Thompson for anything that concerns Owen Daniels. They looked and they didn't like what they saw, and we can only speculate as to why they chose not to sign him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TransientTexan


Joined: 27 Jul 2014
Posts: 516
Location: Connecticut
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:02 am    Post subject: Re: Ted being Ted Reply with quote

DraftHobbyist wrote:
TransientTexan wrote:
then why do you refer to Bennett? you're comparing 2 completely different types of signings. do you seriously think a vet min TE would have solved the problem?

I referred to Bennett because this thread is about Bennett, and I think that it shows TT has learned from his mistakes. Yes, I seriously think that a veteran TE would've helped a great deal. We don't need to be elite at every position, but it would be nice to be not horrible at some. TE is one of those positions that we were horrible at for years, which guys can be found for extremely cheap to improve the roster, and TT just didn't do it. If it was about the salary cap I could understand, but it wasn't. Remember how bad we were at S as well? I don't hate TT, but there are parts of his managing that could've been improved, and I think if you asked Ted Thompson he would like to treat some of these positions differently.


2013-Finley still on team
2014- Quarless/RRod platoon for 49/76, 548y, 5td (vs. 48/79, 527y, 4td for Daniels). GB offense ranks #1
2015- RRod struggles, but not significantly different statistically from most other TE's in the league.
2016-Cook is signed & offense returns to form after slump.

Not seeing the room for meaningful improvement for the prices you're talking about. Between 2014 & 2015, teams were allowed $298.55 mil of cap space. Green Bay spent $298.74 mil over that time period. They had a small amount of rollover money, but it's not like they were sitting on alot of unused money. The complaint just feels incredibly nitpicky, esp. when making essentially 1 yr of struggles seem like a decade.

2 yr of MD Jennings is not ideal at safety, but plenty of good teams have a hole like that occasionally. We won a SB w/ Quarless & Peprah as starters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 40902
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Drafthobbyist brings up a good point. I also think we coukd have been stronger at the TE position the last several years without much investment. Not necessarily to the point that it was a strength, but at least less of a weakness.

I think his is an absolutely fair criticism.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HorizontoZenith


Joined: 03 Mar 2016
Posts: 4487
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ted Thompson has always said that he sees free agency as a way to fix misses in the draft. I just think he has a hard time giving up on players he drafted.

He missed several times on TE, he gave Richard Rodgers a lot of time to turn into something he couldn't, so he signed Cook. When Rodgers and others didn't step up at TE, he fixed that problem in free agency with Bennett and Kendricks.

He did the same thing with Woodson at corner. Woodson was signed in Carroll's last year in Green Bay.

It's really not a bad strategy at all when you consider tight end being not the most important position in football.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shanedorf


Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 1317
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:

I think his is an absolutely fair criticism.

yes and no.
Where I struggle with the endless criticisms is that they are often speaking in hypotheticals instead of actually naming names.
"GB should grab more mid-level FAs" is a great concept, but that's all it is - a concept.
When you really filter it down by looking at fit, scheme, money, availability, age, skill set, cap fit, interest in living in GB, what their wife wants, where their family lives etc the list is actually pretty darn small. Its easy to talk about "concepts" and hypotheticals but it just isn't grounded in the reality that free agents are "free" and they have the freedom to choose.

Every player who signs a reasonable deal elsewhere isn't a screw up by the Packers. Its just how the world of FA works.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CWood21


Moderator
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 48696
Location: mike23md on the dope sig
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
I think Drafthobbyist brings up a good point. I also think we coukd have been stronger at the TE position the last several years without much investment. Not necessarily to the point that it was a strength, but at least less of a weakness.

I think his is an absolutely fair criticism.


While it's legitimate criticism, so is the notion that adding a veteran for the sake of adding a veteran. If we added Owen Daniels or Jacob Tamme or whoever, that's snaps in practice and games that young players are missing out on. Obviously, for Richard Rodgers that wouldn't change the fact that he's a below-average player but you're taking away valuable reps from young players who need them.
_________________

PackFan4Life wrote:
I have been pooping like a unicorn for two days and it is freaky.

bkobow05 wrote:
So this is what DCR feels like on Saturdays...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
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 ... 18, 19, 20, 21  Next
Page 19 of 21

 
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