http://packerswire.usatoday.com/2018...thews-in-2018/
Why Packers should keep Clay Matthews in 2018
Clay Matthews Career Statès:
http://www.nfl.com/player/claymatthews/80431/profile
Printable View
http://packerswire.usatoday.com/2018...thews-in-2018/
Why Packers should keep Clay Matthews in 2018
Clay Matthews Career Statès:
http://www.nfl.com/player/claymatthews/80431/profile
If we add another EDGE player I want to see what Pettine can do with Clay and Nick this year.
He can move to the middle and have a huge impact on the game. Unfortunately we need to find another edge rusher no matter how you slice it or dice it.
Absolutely! This is what I've been saying also. Clay has lost a step and seldom finishes the job from OLB, but he did a damn fine job at ILB, and paired with Martinez would be a definite asset to our D. And Perry/Brooks/Biegel/Fackrell all would be decent second best OLBs if we could just find a star-quality pass rusher to pair them with.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobblehead
He certainly still has gas left in the tank to play 2-3 more years, but I believe the days of being a continual threat as a pass rusher from OLB are now behind CM3. He should now be in a rotation with Perry and some other younger guys, and he should expect time at ILB as well.
If he wants to stay in Green Bay for another 3 years, I would offer to extend his deal 2 more years for a total of around $21M. Give him a $6M signing bonus and roughly $7M / $5M / $3M base salaries for the next 3 years. That reduces his cap number this year by about $2.5M and ensures his cap number will reduce along with his expected contribution in coming years. If he's not willing to accept an offer like that, then you let him play out his deal this year and wave bye-bye after 2018.
I'd be fine letting clay walk or restricture. For the 10-12 games he plays - ugh.
Would a rookie EDGE player be able to step right in Clay's shoes? If not would a FA pass rusher be any better and/or cheaper? Most teams hang onto their good pass rushers. If one hits the market he'll cost more than what we'll be paying Clay so he better be a hell of lot more effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fosco33
Right. The FA(s) who solves all your problems has to exist in reality, not just in fantasy. And he/they had better work out great or you are screwed. Not every foray into free agency works out like it did for the Jags this year. But there will be those who will cherry pick the good outcomes and ask "why didn't the Packers do that?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Pugger
Keep Clay, sign a vet top CB, draft pass rush, TE and line. Sign Jimmy at TE and let's do this.
Signing every hotshot free agent is fantasy, not reality - not even if the owner is a trillionaire - due to that dreaded thing called salary cap. But if you have an elite QB on your roster, the best strategy to subscribe to is Belichickism.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
That means trading for Cook even if you already have 3 good receivers on your roster. AND signing a lockdown corner in free agency even with another lockdown corner already on the roster.
Btw, how do y'all type in the trademark symbol next to a word? I wanna trademark Belichickism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti-Polar Bear
THat's fine. Just spell it out - ID the player(s) the contracts and who you have to let go to make it happen from a financial and roster perspective. I'd be interested to see whet specifically you have in mind.
One caution: there is but one Belichick; even if you like his protege, it doesn't guarantee similar success. It's likely that Belichickism™ may only work for Belichick.
Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Oday
We should risk the "cap hell" that some people whine about while we still have Aaron Rodgers playing at a top level. Then when he is gone, either it will take care of itself because his big contract is gone too, or else we suffer for a couple of years - which we probably would anyway when he's gone, but the ride to get there will be worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
Is that what Belichick does?Quote:
Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
Too lazy at this moment to do the math, but the math says that with a Brady or a Rodgers, your odds of winning more than a fluke Super Bowls are excellent via Belichickism. Just gotta be smart with the cap, ala Belichick.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
And while I'm not Nostradamus, I'm fairly certain that the Packers would've won more than a fluke Super Bowl by now in this century had Thompson acquired pimps like Jimmy G, Tony G, V-Dave, Beast Mode, Randy Fucking Moss, and Revis Island when he had the chance. Hell, Packers might've won the SB last season had the Polar Bear signed Cro while bums like Gunter, Randall, Goodson, Hyde and Rollins were disgracing the corner position.
You may be right, but you can't be lazy - you do have to do the math to see who and what you can afford and the long-term ramifications. Belichickism™ requires math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti-Polar Bear
With the way the Zombies (e.g. mindless folks) of planet Earth are feeding the greedy, fat capitalists in the NFL, the cap will only continue to increase significantly with time.Quote:
Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
Cap hell? That's so 90's. No such thing in this century.
Nope. Still too lazy. And still haven't figured out how to get the exponent TM next to a word, not even after googling it. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
I'll say this: the cap can always be cooked.
I didn't mean you personally. I meant 'you' as in the GM. ™ - try cut and paste. But remember, it's use is restricted ®.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti-Polar Bear
This sounds like a plan! :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Oday
You are more likely to get a shutdown corner at 14 than top flight pass rush. Draft the corner, sign some pass rush.
Put Fackrell in an incubator so he can finish developing.
Ask the Cowboys, Redskins and Saints how that is working for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti-Polar Bear
Draft Landry and sign a vet CB. I think it's easier to rush the passer for rookies than cover WRs.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
The Packers have no business drafting anything but BPA.
Plug all the emergency holes with FA as cap permits but for godsakes use the draft to reel in a star with a rookie contract at any position.
There are some positions that can be eliminated from 1st round consideration though:Quote:
Originally Posted by 3irty1
QB: You have Rodgers
TE: Nobody rated that high
G: Can find them later
C: See Guard
ILB: Nobody rated that high
Pretty could chance there will be an OLB, WR, OT or CB worthy of the 14th pick.
RB is stacked, wouldn't pick a WR that high unless it's a Moss talent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
Or Safety. Unless it's Nick Collins, the position isn't a game changer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
What about Calvin Ridley? they need to figure out what to do at WR -- they have Davante and a bunch of #3/#4 level WRs, and that's not good enough even with Rodgers IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony Oday
(I ask that even though I agree with most that CB and especially pass rush need help.)
What about Roquan from Georgia, Joe? He could be a Kuechly type.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
Boards are all over the place on him right now. I've seen him rated from #5 overall to a 2nd round pick. So he could be gone before the Packers pick, or he could be a reach at # 14. He's not at the Senior Bowl, so he'll be one to watch at the Combine.Quote:
Originally Posted by BZnDallas
Interesting. I've seen some mid 20s on him. Guess we'll get more info as the process proceeds. BPA on defense is my choice. There are a couple top positions talents that could be available.
I would not draft a 6'1" WR in the first round, I know dumb to think that, but if you are burning a top pick I want a 6'4" WR that runs a 4.4 40.Quote:
Originally Posted by run pMc
CB is the TOP need but I think that is a Free Agent Need, King will be decent (I hope) Randall is a headcase but played OK toward the end and we have Rollins and I am pretty sure a couple of undrafted CBs that will turn into Shields and Tramontana I hope.
I don't know how much a difference the 4-3 is between the 3-4 at OLB but we need a pass rush and I would be ok an actually happy to see us switch but that would mean drafting a stud, pass rushing DE. I just don't know where Clay would play.
Stolen idea from Fritz:
Bench Randall early each season. By stretch run he’ll be at Pro Bowl level.
I didn't say sign a FA. I said Clay is overpaid for his games played and production. I'd ask him to take a cut or a walk. We can use that cap for any number of valued, productive positions.
Even if Clay is overpaid for what he does now, he's still a top 5 player on defense. Hemorrhaging talent (even overpaid talent) will not help the Packers get better. Let him play out his contract (Nelson too) and keep looking for young players to fill the role (if Gute can draft pass rushers like TT drafted WRs, we'll be fine). If the Packers run out of money, that's when you approach Nelson for a cheap extension.
None of these players are deadweight. It isn't like Clay is Menedict Barnold. And even if Nelson is final-year-Donald-Driver or second-stint-Antonio-Freeman, Rodgers benefits from having Nelson on the field, and at this point, that's the deciding factor.
yup...move him to the middle if they draft an edge at 14. keep him where he's at if they draft a cb...and depending on what they do in free agency.
I'm with you on this, just as I was with you on getting rid of Ted. Don't push it, though, by bringing bad politics into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anti-Polar Bear
Cap hell is less likely these days, but it still could be reached if things got too extreme. We are far away from that extreme now, however, and we can and should get much closer to the edge - load up and high grade things while we still have Aaron Rodgers at the top of his game.
Just wait til the cable packages collapse.
thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Smidgeon