Vic Ketchmab calls a spade a spade with fans who live in fantasy

[Bretsky]

JH, nobody wants to see TT sign someone like a Jairus Byrd to stupid guaranteed money and get hamstrung by his injuries or pedestrian play. On the opposite side, all of your depth does not have to be college free agents. There are free agents that a GM can sprinkle on to their roster that will provide veteran depth and not a ton of guaranteed money. I think some fans would just like our GM to consider more players like this. They may not be an all-pro because those guys are getting a lot of guaranteed money, but they aren't necessarily green horns either. I do think it makes a difference when you sign a guy like that too.

I think there is a camp of people who appreciate what TT does and how he thinks ahead in terms of having a long-game for the salary cap and who the team wants to retain and how they will fit under the cap down the road. I'm sure there are a lot of moving pieces there. However, what we are learning from Jared Cook is that he can still play and the team has gotten a nice look at him. I think there may be other under-valued gems like this that can help in the short-term while having a chance to prove a more long-term worth to the team. If that takes a roster spot from a college free agent, well, a number of them churn and burn the bottom of the roster every year anyway.

[Fritz]

Bretsky, you might want tl reconsider that sig.

[pbmax]

And another thing: this is Jason Garrett we are talking about. He is very conservative in game management.

The Seahawks and Patriots aren't going to clock the ball on first down.

[ThunderDan]

And another thing: this is Jason Garrett we are talking about. He is very conservative in game management.

The Seahawks and Patriots aren't going to clock the ball on first down.

Maybe, maybe not. Since the Seahawks and Pats weren't in the game we will never know. Let's leave it there.

[ThunderDan]

By releasing Sitton and playing Taylor and saving a ton in salary cap money the Packers now have the ability to pay Jared Cook. Thanks Ted!

[3irty1]

JH, nobody wants to see TT sign someone like a Jairus Byrd to stupid guaranteed money and get hamstrung by his injuries or pedestrian play. On the opposite side, all of your depth does not have to be college free agents. There are free agents that a GM can sprinkle on to their roster that will provide veteran depth and not a ton of guaranteed money. I think some fans would just like our GM to consider more players like this. They may not be an all-pro because those guys are getting a lot of guaranteed money, but they aren't necessarily green horns either. I do think it makes a difference when you sign a guy like that too.

I think there is a camp of people who appreciate what TT does and how he thinks ahead in terms of having a long-game for the salary cap and who the team wants to retain and how they will fit under the cap down the road. I'm sure there are a lot of moving pieces there. However, what we are learning from Jared Cook is that he can still play and the team has gotten a nice look at him. I think there may be other under-valued gems like this that can help in the short-term while having a chance to prove a more long-term worth to the team. If that takes a roster spot from a college free agent, well, a number of them churn and burn the bottom of the roster every year anyway.

I'll call BS on this. Nobody wants the outcome of Jairus Byrd, but opening day of free agency this is exactly what the #neverTT crowd is howling for. A big cap casualty star from another team. When Ted grabs an unknown journeyman or a cut player like Peppers/Cook it seemingly does nothing to temper the tightwad ted criticism.

The very idea that Cook, a guy Ted signed and who proved to be under-valued, is indicative that there are even more under-valued gems to be discovered is based in what exactly? The value of any player is based on the interest of 32 GMs. To land an under-valued player at all you need to out perform other GMs. To speculate that there is a significant pool of Jared Cook level veteran difference makers that represent great value and a good fit seems like a fantasy but even given that such a pool exists to expect Ted to collect these under-valued veterans is to ask him to outperform all other GMs with regards to each one of them.

I think there is a form of mistaking correlation for causation here. Ted's infrequent attempts but consistent success in free agency does not mean free agents by nature are successful and this could be scaled up with more attempts. A criticism to be taken seriously would be one that dealt with opportunity costs. For instance an example of resigning of his own free agent who would have been better to cut loose in favor of another specific free agent.

[Smidgeon]

I'll call BS on this. Nobody wants the outcome of Jairus Byrd, but opening day of free agency this is exactly what the #neverTT crowd is howling for. A big cap casualty star from another team. When Ted grabs an unknown journeyman or a cut player like Peppers/Cook it seemingly does nothing to temper the tightwad ted criticism.

The very idea that Cook, a guy Ted signed and who proved to be under-valued, is indicative that there are even more under-valued gems to be discovered is based in what exactly? The value of any player is based on the interest of 32 GMs. To land an under-valued player at all you need to out perform other GMs. To speculate that there is a significant pool of Jared Cook level veteran difference makers that represent great value and a good fit seems like a fantasy but even given that such a pool exists to expect Ted to collect these under-valued veterans is to ask him to outperform all other GMs with regards to each one of them.

I think there is a form of mistaking correlation for causation here. Ted's infrequent attempts but consistent success in free agency does not mean free agents by nature are successful and this could be scaled up with more attempts. A criticism to be taken seriously would be one that dealt with opportunity costs. For instance an example of resigning of his own free agent who would have been better to cut loose in favor of another specific free agent.

The is the most basic of premise when it comes to game theory as applied to auction scenarios. You identify how much an asset means to you. If you win the auction it means one thing: you valued the asset more than anyone else at the table. It also implies that because you won the asset, you overvalued it on average. Obviously that's the premise, but the asset can have a higher value than everyone anticipated---such as Cook with Rodgers throwing to him.

[pbmax]

The is the most basic of premise when it comes to game theory as applied to auction scenarios. You identify how much an asset means to you. If you win the auction it means one thing: you valued the asset more than anyone else at the table. It also implies that because you won the asset, you overvalued it on average. Obviously that's the premise, but the asset can have a higher value than everyone anticipated---such as Cook with Rodgers throwing to him.

In Cook's case he wanted to sign with an established QB and Rodgers was high on his list. So he helped limit the number of available bidders.

[Carolina_Packer]

I'll call BS on this. Nobody wants the outcome of Jairus Byrd, but opening day of free agency this is exactly what the #neverTT crowd is howling for. A big cap casualty star from another team. When Ted grabs an unknown journeyman or a cut player like Peppers/Cook it seemingly does nothing to temper the tightwad ted criticism.

The very idea that Cook, a guy Ted signed and who proved to be under-valued, is indicative that there are even more under-valued gems to be discovered is based in what exactly? The value of any player is based on the interest of 32 GMs. To land an under-valued player at all you need to out perform other GMs. To speculate that there is a significant pool of Jared Cook level veteran difference makers that represent great value and a good fit seems like a fantasy but even given that such a pool exists to expect Ted to collect these under-valued veterans is to ask him to outperform all other GMs with regards to each one of them.

I think there is a form of mistaking correlation for causation here. Ted's infrequent attempts but consistent success in free agency does not mean free agents by nature are successful and this could be scaled up with more attempts. A criticism to be taken seriously would be one that dealt with opportunity costs. For instance an example of resigning of his own free agent who would have been better to cut loose in favor of another specific free agent.

I'm sure you are right that there are some on the board who would support a "day one of free agent, lots of guaranteed money" type of signing. I don't happen to be one of them. I mostly agree with the approach taken, and how could you not argue with the results overall since TT/MM have been in charge; many good points also made by Smeefers.

My point is that I would be in favor of looking for more veteran free agents to sprinkle into the mix; ones that do not come with a lot of guaranteed money, and could prove their fit with the team, and then be rewarded. I'm not saying I know from year to year if there are a pool of those types of players. I don't know whether TT and Co. considers guys who would fall into this category, who end up getting one year deals, and then prove their worth, ala Cook. Obviously there would only be certain positions you would go after, as well. For instance, Brandon Boykin signed with the Bears for basically one year at about the minimum, and we kept Demetri Goodson who has yet to show that he looks comfortable playing in the scheme. I'm not arguing for Boykin, I'm just saying if guys like him who have showed they can already play are available to provide depth instead of a guy like Demetri Goodson who has yet to have it click for him, why not have that be your depth instead? I'd feel much better putting a guy like Boykin in as an injury replacement. If guys like Boykin are available year to year and TT just shows little or no interest, then he'll never know if he can find someone to help make a difference. I would take my chances with a Brandon Boykin type (experience/reasonable money) vs. someone like Demetri Goodson who is clearly a project.

I also like the point that some guys would do better when joined with some of our existing talent and coaching staff.

[bobblehead]

. However, what we are learning from Jared Cook is that he can still play and the team has gotten a nice look at him. I think there may be other under-valued gems like this that can help in the short-term while having a chance to prove a more long-term worth to the team. If that takes a roster spot from a college free agent, well, a number of them churn and burn the bottom of the roster every year anyway.

If it takes the spot of Gunther or Shields??

"Gems TT has signed"

Cook, Guion, Peppers are all very effective players TT has signed in recent years. Early on he signed Woodson and Pickett. I could go on with the Anthony Hargroves of the NFL. Early on TT whiffed with a lot of those types of guys and fans were all over him to sign marquee FA's instead of those crappy veterans.

I'm not good at the unrestricted college kids, but Tramon, Shields, Gunther, Allison, Elliot, Zombo all come to mind immediately as guys who were effective and a net benefit.

[texaspackerbacker]

The key question to ask is what would the Packers be like without Aaron Rodgers - or if he was merely a good QB instead of as great as he is? I'm not talking Cutler quality, but let's say maybe Eli Manning or Alex Smith, like that. My answer would be that looking down the rest of the roster, we'd have a pretty bad team - overall, worse that just about anybody else you can name. THAT tells the tale about Ted Thompson. Anybody disagree?

[yetisnowman]

The key question to ask is what would the Packers be like without Aaron Rodgers - or if he was merely a good QB instead of as great as he is? I'm not talking Cutler quality, but let's say maybe Eli Manning or Alex Smith, like that. My answer would be that looking down the rest of the roster, we'd have a pretty bad team - overall, worse that just about anybody else you can name. THAT tells the tale about Ted Thompson. Anybody disagree?

We don't see eye to eye on much....but I agree 100% here. I think we might win 3 or 4 games with Eli on our roster. Our team is built on Aaron being dominant, precise, and winning the turnover battle. We are not a very talented team top to bottom. Look at the Giants this year. Eli was like 29th in QBR this season and they still won 11 games. Look what happens for stretches when Aaron plays mediocre-good...we lose a lot.

[bobblehead]

The key question to ask is what would the Packers be like without Aaron Rodgers - or if he was merely a good QB instead of as great as he is? I'm not talking Cutler quality, but let's say maybe Eli Manning or Alex Smith, like that. My answer would be that looking down the rest of the roster, we'd have a pretty bad team - overall, worse that just about anybody else you can name. THAT tells the tale about Ted Thompson. Anybody disagree?

WE also would have drafted several spots higher in every single round of every single draft the last 10 years. Anybody disagree?

And I would disagree at how bad we would be. Its completely unkown who we would have at QB, but I suspect with MM's ability to develop a QB it would be someone above average.

I'll also say take Brady from Belligenius or Ryan from quinn, or Rothlesburger from Tomlin, or any starting QB from any NFCC or AFCC team and see what happens.

[ThunderDan]

I completely disagree. TT has shown he knows how to draft a QB when needed. MM has shown to be able to coach up QBs.

We wouldn't be nearly as good at QB but we would be stable. The organization and team are so important in the NFL. Stability and continuity are so important. Look at the 3 best franchises in the last 20 years. PITT, NE and GB have stayed the course and have been rewarded with above average to excellent play for a long stretch. You can say look at their QBs. But we have seen PITT and NE be able to pop QBs in and out of the lineup with success. We had Wallace and Tolzien losing for us but TT was able to get Flynn to plug the hole long enough to get ARod back.

[yetisnowman]

I completely disagree. TT has shown he knows how to draft a QB when needed. MM has shown to be able to coach up QBs.

We wouldn't be nearly as good at QB but we would be stable. The organization and team are so important in the NFL. Stability and continuity are so important. Look at the 3 best franchises in the last 20 years. PITT, NE and GB have stayed the course and have been rewarded with above average to excellent play for a long stretch. You can say look at their QBs. But we have seen PITT and NE be able to pop QBs in and out of the lineup with success. We had Wallace and Tolzien losing for us but TT was able to get Flynn to plug the hole long enough to get ARod back.

And again that speaks to the talent level difference. The Packers are 3-7-1 without Rodgers over the years. Pats without Brady are 14-6. That's no coincidence. You think we win more than a couple games with an entire season of Hundley at qb?

[pbmax]

And again that speaks to the talent level difference. The Packers are 3-7-1 without Rodgers over the years. Pats without Brady are 14-6. That's no coincidence. You think we win more than a couple games with an entire season of Hundley at qb?

Yes they would. McCathy has optimized his offense for Rodgers talents. He would need to adjust to Hundley, but they would eventually adjust. NE offense is built for more QBs.

The idea that the Packers are only Rodgers away from the Browns is exactly the kind of thinking that makes the Browns the Browns and the Packers the Packers.

[woodbuck27]

I completely disagree. TT has shown he knows how to draft a QB when needed. MM has shown to be able to coach up QBs.

We wouldn't be nearly as good at QB but we would be stable. The organization and team are so important in the NFL. Stability and continuity are so important. Look at the 3 best franchises in the last 20 years. PITT, NE and GB have stayed the course and have been rewarded with above average to excellent play for a long stretch. You can say look at their QBs. But we have seen PITT and NE be able to pop QBs in and out of the lineup with success. We had Wallace and Tolzien losing for us but TT was able to get Flynn to plug the hole long enough to get ARod back.

"...TT was able to get Flynn to plug the hole long enough to get ARod back "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_F...en_Bay_Packers

See the second time around with the Green Bay Packers ( November 12, 2013).

While Matt Flynn was 'plugging the hole' created by the loss of ARod; and just for the record:

the Green Bay Packers went 1W - 2L - 1T (OT).

[ThunderDan]

"...TT was able to get Flynn to plug the hole long enough to get ARod back "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_F...en_Bay_Packers

See the second time around with the Green Bay Packers ( November 12, 2013).

While Matt Flynn was 'plugging the hole' created by the loss of ARod; and just for the record:

the Green Bay Packers went 1W - 2L - 1T (OT).

And if you read the next post in the thread i said plugging the hole meant 2-2 or 3-1. So Flynn did half a game worse than what I said. Which was just enough to let us beat CHI in the last game of the year to make the playoffs on an amazing 4th quarter 4th down touchdown pass from ARod to Cobb.

[woodbuck27]

And if you read the next post in the thread i said plugging the hole meant 2-2 or 3-1. So Flynn did half a game worse than what I said. Which was just enough to let us beat CHI in the last game of the year to make the playoffs on an amazing 4th quarter 4th down touchdown pass from ARod to Cobb.

Ohh .... now I see !

[ThunderDan]

People on this forum were jokingly calling for ARod to be traded mid-year and play Hundley. I feel confident that Hundley could come in and hold the fort down (which means go 2-2 or 3-1) for a 4 game stretch if needed during the regular season. Looking forward to seeing his growth in next year's preseason.