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 ... , 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
skibrett15


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2531
Location: nibelheim
PostPosted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All of our young players at TE needed fewer reps not more reps. I'm excited to get them off the field.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shanedorf


Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 1510
PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MM talks offense at the owners meetings

"One other change he envisions is the Packers playing their tight ends more on the line of scrimmage next season after displacing them outside and in the backfield for much of 2016. Bennett frequently played outside in the Patriots’ offense, but McCarthy hopes to bring Bennett closer to the football. It’s a logical move given the praise the veteran tight end has received for his blocking ability throughout his career."

“I’m looking forward to playing more with the tight end on the line of scrimmage,” McCarthy said. “That’s definitely something that will be different this year than we’ve done in the past. That exists already. We need to do a better job playing to the specifics and details of our offensive scheme.”
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
squire12


Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 6557
PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Might also be nice to play to the strengths of the players.

Cobb, underneath, working between the hash, not outside.

R Rodgers not on TE flat route, hoping he breaks a tackle.
_________________
Salary Cap Fantasy Football League
2016 Salary Cap League Rosters
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HorizontoZenith


Joined: 03 Mar 2016
Posts: 4990
PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

squire12 wrote:
R Rodgers not on TE flat route, hoping he breaks a tackle.

Let's not kid ourselves, this is going to happen at least 6 times next year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pugger


Joined: 01 May 2010
Posts: 14730
Location: Green Bay for the summer.
PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Ted being Ted Reply with quote

Cadmus wrote:
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?


Was Bennett a FA? I thought the Bears traded him to NE. Chicago wasn't going to trade a TE like him to us. I'm not sure what you are getting at... Anxious
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11746
PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shanedorf wrote:
MM talks offense at the owners meetings

"One other change he envisions is the Packers playing their tight ends more on the line of scrimmage next season after displacing them outside and in the backfield for much of 2016. Bennett frequently played outside in the Patriots’ offense, but McCarthy hopes to bring Bennett closer to the football. It’s a logical move given the praise the veteran tight end has received for his blocking ability throughout his career."

“I’m looking forward to playing more with the tight end on the line of scrimmage,” McCarthy said. “That’s definitely something that will be different this year than we’ve done in the past. That exists already. We need to do a better job playing to the specifics and details of our offensive scheme.”
.


Nice

CentralFC wrote:
CWood21 wrote:
squire12 wrote:
We don't or we have not had the players to warrant that as an option?

I agree with the not having enough pass rushers....that is why in this mock, I said I would take the OLB (Harris) in the first over the TE. I made a mention that pairing a TE like Njoku or Engram would be an interesting option. Feel free to read the whole thread to get up to speed.


What exactly has McCarthy done that would indicate that he's going to change schemes, formations, or playcalling? Early in the season, our offense was struggling and most of us were asking for him to adapt and run more combo routes and rub routes to create separation for the receivers. He didn't do that, and eventually our offense got on track. Would I love to see more 2 TE looks? Absolutely, but as someone pointed out we're near the bottom of 2 TE looks. And I don't believe that's going to change with McCarthy.


Mac has never had the opportunity to run a 2 TE look and do it with confidence. Comparing this year's personnel to past rosters is a useless exercise. Our best duo was Cook and Rodgers, and Cook was out most of the season and Rodgers has severe limitations.

I think the biggest benefit is getting opposing defenses in sub packages, and then running with Bennett/Kendricks on the field. Bill B. and New England made a concerted effort to get bigger and counter the surge of sub package defenses. I think this is a step in a similar direction.

_________________
packerjmf wrote:
GWH87 wrote:
Somebody take the off season shovel out of Ted's hands & bury him in his own hole.

How can he dig a hole if he's too busy sitting on his hands?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shanedorf


Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 1510
PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 8:27 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.

TE Owen Daniels and Gary Kubiak are very tight from their time in Houston. That's why Daniels followed Kubiak to Baltimore when Kubiak was hired as OC. Then when Kubiak got the HC job in Denver, Owen Daniels followed him there too.

So your critique of the Packers front office/TT is mainly the result of lack of information. And an unwillingness to accept that reality.
We just don't have all the info we need to fully understand the situation for every NFL player. I'm just a schmoe on a message board and I know more about Kubiak/Owen Daniels than you do.

The Packers have a multi-million dollar Pro Personnel group and a dossier on every player that's come into the league over the last 20 years. We can all wish for certain players, but its a tad off base to start throwing shade at the front office when you haven't got enough info to make or back-up that assertion. The Packers brought him in; he chose to play for Kubiak. The Packers had no chance at Owen Daniels
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17890
PostPosted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lol old Owen Daniels..game changer right there.

If the dude raced a pregnant woman he'd come in third.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Shanedorf


Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 1510
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's MM at the meeting in AZ
Here he's talking about the TE position, Bennett, "Big Men Running Down the middle of the Field" and the flexibility of going from a 1 back to a 2 back look with the same personnel

http://www.packersnews.com/videos/sports/nfl/packers/2017/03/29/mike-mccarthy-importance-tight-end-position/99804632/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11746
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shanedorf wrote:
Here's MM at the meeting in AZ
Here he's talking about the TE position, Bennett, "Big Men Running Down the middle of the Field" and the flexibility of going from a 1 back to a 2 back look with the same personnel

http://www.packersnews.com/videos/sports/nfl/packers/2017/03/29/mike-mccarthy-importance-tight-end-position/99804632/





Bennett down the seam. On quick hitters. Blocking in-line. Trotting out Adams, Nelson, Bennett, and Cobb, with Monty in the backfield or a legitimate rookie back. Wow.
_________________
packerjmf wrote:
GWH87 wrote:
Somebody take the off season shovel out of Ted's hands & bury him in his own hole.

How can he dig a hole if he's too busy sitting on his hands?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11746
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

O/U 8 TDs for MB this season

O/U 70 receptions

O/U 750 yards
_________________
packerjmf wrote:
GWH87 wrote:
Somebody take the off season shovel out of Ted's hands & bury him in his own hole.

How can he dig a hole if he's too busy sitting on his hands?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17890
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CentralFC wrote:
O/U 8 TDs for MB this season

O/U 70 receptions

O/U 750 yards


Under on all. You jinxing bastard
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
DavidatMIZZOU


Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 15983
Location: The ZOU
PostPosted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CentralFC wrote:
O/U 8 TDs for MB this season

O/U 70 receptions

O/U 750 yards


Over or equal on TDs. Under on receptions. Under on yards.


I don't think he will get the target numbers to put up the bulk numbers. In 2011 and 12, they threw to Finley, a lot. They might do that with the TEs this season, but I think Adams, Cobb, and Nelson will also be getting a lot of targets.
_________________
GO PACK GO!

mistakebytehlak wrote:

My god it must be so terrible to have three teams that consistently make the playoffs

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shanedorf


Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 1510
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CentralFC wrote:
Trotting out Adams, Nelson, Bennett, and Cobb, with Monty in the backfield or a legitimate rookie back. Wow.


This is the part that's interesting to me. From a defensive package point of view, does the DC match " personnel" or players ? Is this group listed above 11 personnel or 12 ? Or maybe its 01 or possibly 21

Cobb can be a RB or a WR. Monty can be a RB or a WR. Bennett can be a blocker or a pass catcher. You can go five wide with this group or use a 2 RB attack.

When Rodgers gets the defensive package they like, its full speed ahead with an up tempo attack
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11746
PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shanedorf wrote:
CentralFC wrote:
Trotting out Adams, Nelson, Bennett, and Cobb, with Monty in the backfield or a legitimate rookie back. Wow.


This is the part that's interesting to me. From a defensive package point of view, does the DC match " personnel" or players ? Is this group listed above 11 personnel or 12 ? Or maybe its 01 or possibly 21

Cobb can be a RB or a WR. Monty can be a RB or a WR. Bennett can be a blocker or a pass catcher. You can go five wide with this group or use a 2 RB attack.

When Rodgers gets the defensive package they like, its full speed ahead with an up tempo attack


Exactly. Options. Rodgers will eat you alive if you're in the wrong personnel grouping. Adding another young piece to the receiver group, a running back to Monty-Michael duo, and look out.
_________________
packerjmf wrote:
GWH87 wrote:
Somebody take the off season shovel out of Ted's hands & bury him in his own hole.

How can he dig a hole if he's too busy sitting on his hands?
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 ... , 19, 20, 21  Next
Page 20 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