Packers extend an offer to a Free Agent DE

[Patler]

But.......its Mike Montgomery!

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/41069662.html

[Bretsky]

BRING BACK ROBERT FERGUSON :!: :lol: :wink:

[Fritz]

Wow..I'm amazed at how easily these guys put on and take off weight. Like it's no big deal.

Hmm...how DO they do that?

Mike Montgomery. Geez. In the article he sounded as anxious as a girl without a date the week before the prom.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Why! :huh:

[Pugger]

Why! :huh:

We need backups and nobody else cared to give him an offer. We'll see if he's still around come September.

[bobblehead]

Wow..I'm amazed at how easily these guys put on and take off weight. Like it's no big deal.

Hmm...how DO they do that?

Mike Montgomery. Geez. In the article he sounded as anxious as a girl without a date the week before the prom.

They do it because they are in their mid 20's and have all the time to spend and money for nutritional experts and trainers.

Now I'm not saying none of them cheat, but in my 20's I could go from 180 to 200 and stay fit in any category. A 20lb range for a 180 lbs. is similar to a 30 range for a 270 lbs.

[pittstang5]

With this new defense, I see Montgomery, provided they sign him, as just a camp body. Like the article mentions, I think he'd need to gain some weight in order to play DE. Even then, I don't think think he'd be any better than what they already have on the roster, obviously not including any draft picks or FAs they pick up in the mean time.

I'm not even going to think about him playing OLB. Not only would he have to lose some weight, but he'd have to become more athletic, something I don't think of when you mention Montgomery.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm pleased to read this. Montgomery is yet another of those disrespected players that the Packers already have--some people just seem have the mindset to downgrade anything we already have.

He did a decent job as a 4-3 DE, however, he seems to be smallish at 3-4 DEs go. I don't see that as a major problem, though. There is a tendency to pigeonhole players these days based on weight and other factors. If the guy is decent, I think he can compensate enough to get by. Montgomery is no superstar, but he certainly seems good enough to be a backup.

[3irty1]

With the type of player he is, I feel that he's not a bad fit if he can get his weight up.

[Bossman641]

With the type of player he is, I feel that he's not a bad fit if he can get his weight up.

Useless?? :lol:

[wist43]

Why! :huh:

No kidding... he's strictly a 4-3 end, and a bad one at that!!!

Unbelievable :roll:

[cpk1994]

Why! :huh:

No kidding... he's strictly a 4-3 end, and a bad one at that!!!

Unbelievable :roll:Once again the almighty wist claims that a player can't play in the 3-4 even though that player probably hasn't played a down in it yet. Proof be damned :roll:

[wist43]

Why! :huh:

No kidding... he's strictly a 4-3 end, and a bad one at that!!!

Unbelievable :roll:Once again the almighty wist claims that a player can't play in the 3-4 even though that player probably hasn't played a down in it yet. Proof be damned :roll:

Have you even seen Montegomery play??? The guy is 8 ft tall and slow footed...

Yeah, prototypical 3-4 DE...

[sharpe1027]

Why! :huh:

No kidding... he's strictly a 4-3 end, and a bad one at that!!!

Unbelievable :roll:

With all due respect, you think just about every player on the Packers is strictly a 4-3 player. Yet, most NFL 3-4 players played in a 4-3 defense before playing in the 3-4. You always present a doomsday scenario, from Rodgers last year to every linemen and linebacker this year. What about the Packers do you like?

[sharpe1027]

Why! :huh:

No kidding... he's strictly a 4-3 end, and a bad one at that!!!

Unbelievable :roll:Once again the almighty wist claims that a player can't play in the 3-4 even though that player probably hasn't played a down in it yet. Proof be damned :roll:

Have you even seen Montegomery play??? The guy is 8 ft tall and slow footed...

Yeah, prototypical 3-4 DE...

Maybe he is not good enough for either, but your description seems more suited for a 3-4 DE than for a 4-3 DE.

[Zool]

I will agree with Wist about Montgomery. I think he's too tall and smallish to play a 3-4 end spot. He's far too robotic to play OLB.

[bobblehead]

I will agree with Wist about Montgomery. I think he's too tall and smallish to play a 3-4 end spot. He's far too robotic to play OLB.

I will accept the argument he doesn't have the talent, but if he comes in at 290 and can play at that weight he is within the range for a 3-4 DE.

I agree he is not that good and won't amount to anything more than a backup though.

[Lurker64]

At 6-5" hes about the exact height you want in a 3-4 DE. If he can put on some pounds and get a little stouter at the point of attack, he can be a serviceable backup. I agree that I don't expect much out of him, but I've been surprised in the past.

[Patler]

Help me understand this. At 6'5" Mike Montgomery is "too tall" for a DE in the Packers new 3-4 defense, but Canty and Olshanski would have been great additions to sign for the new defense.

Canty is 6'7"
Olshansky is 6'6"

Did we plan on digging little trenches for Canty or Olshansky to play in so they wouldn't be "too tall"? The trench for Montgomery to play in can be much shallower! :lol:

[sharpe1027]

Help me understand this. At 6'5" Mike Montgomery is "too tall" for a DE in the Packers new 3-4 defense, but Canty and Olshanski would have been great additions to sign for the new defense.

Canty is 6'7"
Olshansky is 6'6"

Did we plan on digging little trenches for Canty or Olshansky to play in so they wouldn't be "too tall"? The trench for Montgomery to play in can be much shallower! :lol:

Trying to find support for a conclusion after-the-fact, rather than reasoning your way to the conclusion, can lead to some strange results. :shock:

Monty might suck at 3-4, but he was no shining star in the 4-3. Arguably, a change in defense could help him. Worst case, he is even worse in the 3-4 and gets cut in favor of someone better. Best case, he plays better than some other 3rd string backup.

[Packerarcher]

Why! :huh:

What else do you expect from the inept TT.

[wist43]

Don't know where you guys get the idea that someone 6'5" is "ideal" for a 3-4 End???

3-4 ends need to stack at the point of attack and occupy blockers, i.e. more of a 4-3 DT description; hence, everyone else's contention on this board that Harrell is bound for the HOF as a 3-4 end.

Harrell and Jolly are much closer to the body type you're looking for out of a 3-4 end... there are some taller guys playing end in the 3-4 theses days, but they are playing with leverage, and effectively holding the point... which of course is the primary duty of a 3-4 end.

I liked Canty at 3-4 end b/c, despite his being 6'7", he is one stout dude, who can stack the end of the line with the best of 'em, can also get off blocks when the play is there to be made, and can even provide a modicum of pass rush - which is a low priority in a 3-4.

Rangy guys like Montegomery usually have to get it done with speed off the edge. Sans speed??? Hopefully they can fall back on their height, long arms, and technique to help them get the edge. Montegomery simply doesn't have the speed or talent. He looks good getting off the bus, but the guy simply doesn't have the movement skills or strength to excel at much of anything... there's a reason he isn't drawing any interest on the FA market.

[Patler]

Don't know where you guys get the idea that someone 6'5" is "ideal" for a 3-4 End???

3-4 ends need to stack at the point of attack and occupy blockers, i.e. more of a 4-3 DT description; hence, everyone else's contention on this board that Harrell is bound for the HOF as a 3-4 end.

Harrell and Jolly are much closer to the body type you're looking for out of a 3-4 end... there are some taller guys playing end in the 3-4 theses days, but they are playing with leverage, and effectively holding the point... which of course is the primary duty of a 3-4 end.

I liked Canty at 3-4 end b/c, despite his being 6'7", he is one stout dude, who can stack the end of the line with the best of 'em, can also get off blocks when the play is there to be made, and can even provide a modicum of pass rush - which is a low priority in a 3-4.

Rangy guys like Montegomery usually have to get it done with speed off the edge. Sans speed??? Hopefully they can fall back on their height, long arms, and technique to help them get the edge. Montegomery simply doesn't have the speed or talent. He looks good getting off the bus, but the guy simply doesn't have the movement skills or strength to excel at much of anything... there's a reason he isn't drawing any interest on the FA market.

I agree with one point, Montgomery isn't drawing any FA interest because he hasn't been a very good player. He will succeed or fail because of his ability, or lack of ability. It will have nothing to do with being 6'5" as opposed to 6'3" or 6'4".

This fascination the last 5 years or so with "body types" is mostly hogwash. An inch or two difference one way or another, 10 or 15 pounds one way or another for guys this big has minimal impact compared to their athletic ability and feel for the sport. If it did, Canty would never even have been tried at DE in a 3-4 as he is much, much "too tall".

If 6'4" is ideal, 6'5" doesn't make a bit of difference.

[sharpe1027]

Don't know where you guys get the idea that someone 6'5" is "ideal" for a 3-4 End???

3-4 ends need to stack at the point of attack and occupy blockers, i.e. more of a 4-3 DT description; hence, everyone else's contention on this board that Harrell is bound for the HOF as a 3-4 end.

Harrell and Jolly are much closer to the body type you're looking for out of a 3-4 end... there are some taller guys playing end in the 3-4 theses days, but they are playing with leverage, and effectively holding the point... which of course is the primary duty of a 3-4 end.

I liked Canty at 3-4 end b/c, despite his being 6'7", he is one stout dude, who can stack the end of the line with the best of 'em, can also get off blocks when the play is there to be made, and can even provide a modicum of pass rush - which is a low priority in a 3-4.

Rangy guys like Montegomery usually have to get it done with speed off the edge. Sans speed??? Hopefully they can fall back on their height, long arms, and technique to help them get the edge. Montegomery simply doesn't have the speed or talent. He looks good getting off the bus, but the guy simply doesn't have the movement skills or strength to excel at much of anything... there's a reason he isn't drawing any interest on the FA market.

This was the first time anyone said anything about 6' 5" being ideal for anything. *edit* Sorry Wist, I didn't see that post about 6' 5" until just now*edit*

You were the one that characterized Monty as "strictly a 4-3 end," and then tried to explain your position based upon his height and lack of speed. Yet, even your explanation states that speed is not as important in a 3-4 end as it would be in a 4-3 end.

Changing to conversation to be about whether or not Monty will be a good 3-4 end is fine, but nobody said he was good.

I agree he probably won't be a good 3-4 end, but he wasn't a good 4-3 end either and in no way was he "strictly a 4-3 end."

[Lurker64]

Starting 3-4 DEs in the league for the 2008 season:

Pittsburgh Steelers (12-4, won superbowl)
Aaron Smith 6'-5"
Brett Keisel 6'-5"

Baltimore Ravens (11-5, made AFC championship game)
Trevor Pryce 6'-5"
Justin Bannan 6'-3"

Miami Dolphins (11-5, won division)
Kendall Langford 6'-6"
Vonnie Holliday 6'-5"

San Diego Chargers (8-8, won division)
Igor Olshansky 6'-6"
Luis Castillo 6'-3"

New England Patriots (11-5)
Richard Seymour: 6'-6"
Ty Warren 6'-5"

New York Jets (9-7)
Shaun Ellis 6'-5"
Kenyon Coleman 6'-5"

Dallas Cowboys (9-7)
Marcus Spears 6'-4"
Chris Canty 6'-7"

San Francisco 49ers (7-9)
Justin Smith 6'-4"
Ray McDonald 6'-3"

Cleveland Browns (4-12)
Corey Williams 6'-4"
Shaun Smith 6'-2"


So if a guy isn't cut out to be a 3-4 DE because he's taller than 6-4", a lot of teams are doing a lot of things wrong. Note that all of the 3-4 teams who finished the season with a winning record features at least one defensive end who was 6'-5" or taller...

[Joemailman]

I'm not excited about Montgomery, but if he can play effectively at 290, he might have a chance. I've always thought his major weakness was lack of speed off the edge. Well, at DE in a 3-4, he won't be playing the edge, so his greatest weakness is irrelevant.

[wist43]

Why! :huh:

No kidding... he's strictly a 4-3 end, and a bad one at that!!!

Unbelievable :roll:

With all due respect, you think just about every player on the Packers is strictly a 4-3 player. Yet, most NFL 3-4 players played in a 4-3 defense before playing in the 3-4. You always present a doomsday scenario, from Rodgers last year to every linemen and linebacker this year. What about the Packers do you like?

There's some hope... Rodgers has been light years better than I ever could have hoped for, but he has a long way to go, and a lot to prove.

The OL is still a mess, the LB's are pedestrian, and the front seven in general are miscast AND pedestrian... I don't know why some of you have such a problem with this argument.

The preceeding paragraph, is preached daily on 1250... I disagree with those guys about as much as I do you guys, but it's not as if I'm the only one who sees these things.

As I said, Silverstein wrote an article in JS a couple of weeks ago that I'm sure everyone on here would assume I ghost wrote.

4-12, 8-8, 13-3, and 6-10... I see them as an 8-8 to 10-6 team in perpituity, with little chance of winning it all with the current philosophies in place under TT.

I think TT is a good judge of talent... but, he seems to have a huge blind spot, i.e. team building. If the BPA at every pick is a QB... we're going to end up with 12 QB's... needs be damned. Team building be damned. Need a WR, and you're stacked at DT??? Who's the pick??? Harrell. Need a DT after Harrell busts and TT boots Williams??? And you're reasonably set at WR??? Who's the pick??? Nelson.

Coming off a 13-3 season... of which I would argue that is an aberration and and fluke more than anything else... but, suppose it's not, and the Packers really were contenders last year... what does TT do last season??? No FA help, and a draft class that looks okay, but did nothing to help the team on the field.

If you guys were correct, and the 13-3 season was for real, and the team was on the cusp of a championship - how can you claim that, and at the same time defend TT for doing nothing to put the team over the top last year???

Can't have it both ways. They were 6-10... and for the homers on this board, this may come as a shock to hear, but 6-10 is not a good record.

[Fritz]

My God, Lurk, you've hit on the secret! Get tall defensive ends in a 3-4 and you'll win; get short guys and you'll suck. Hmm...If you get two guys who are, say, 6'-8" will you do even better? Or is it better to have one really tall guy and one kinda tall guy?

Hmmm. I'm surprised Patler or Waldo have not hit on this yet. Perhaps Montgomery is more valuable than we thought...

Seriously (and I like ya, Lurk, just joking around )I wonder if it's the fact that taller guys have longer arms, and it's the long arms at that spot, with that open space, that makes a difference in shedding a blocker and therefore requiring two blockers to occupy the DE. Hmmm.

[wist43]

Don't know where you guys get the idea that someone 6'5" is "ideal" for a 3-4 End???

3-4 ends need to stack at the point of attack and occupy blockers, i.e. more of a 4-3 DT description; hence, everyone else's contention on this board that Harrell is bound for the HOF as a 3-4 end.

Harrell and Jolly are much closer to the body type you're looking for out of a 3-4 end... there are some taller guys playing end in the 3-4 theses days, but they are playing with leverage, and effectively holding the point... which of course is the primary duty of a 3-4 end.

I liked Canty at 3-4 end b/c, despite his being 6'7", he is one stout dude, who can stack the end of the line with the best of 'em, can also get off blocks when the play is there to be made, and can even provide a modicum of pass rush - which is a low priority in a 3-4.

Rangy guys like Montegomery usually have to get it done with speed off the edge. Sans speed??? Hopefully they can fall back on their height, long arms, and technique to help them get the edge. Montegomery simply doesn't have the speed or talent. He looks good getting off the bus, but the guy simply doesn't have the movement skills or strength to excel at much of anything... there's a reason he isn't drawing any interest on the FA market.

I agree with one point, Montgomery isn't drawing any FA interest because he hasn't been a very good player. He will succeed or fail because of his ability, or lack of ability. It will have nothing to do with being 6'5" as opposed to 6'3" or 6'4".

This fascination the last 5 years or so with "body types" is mostly hogwash. An inch or two difference one way or another, 10 or 15 pounds one way or another for guys this big has minimal impact compared to their athletic ability and feel for the sport. If it did, Canty would never even have been tried at DE in a 3-4 as he is much, much "too tall".

If 6'4" is ideal, 6'5" doesn't make a bit of difference.

TT talked a little bit about body type at the combine... said they would be transitioning to different body types. Didn't come right out and differentiate between 3-4/4-3 body types... but they are different.

He did make the comparison of a 4-3 DT to a 3-4 DE, and said they would be grading players differently b/c of the switch.

[Lurker64]

My God, Lurk, you've hit on the secret! Get tall defensive ends in a 3-4 and you'll win; get short guys and you'll suck. Hmm...If you get two guys who are, say, 6'-8" will you do even better? Or is it better to have one really tall guy and one kinda tall guy?

Hmmm. I'm surprised Patler or Waldo have not hit on this yet. Perhaps Montgomery is more valuable than we thought...

Seriously (and I like ya, Lurk, just joking around )I wonder if it's the fact that taller guys have longer arms, and it's the long arms at that spot, with that open space, that makes a difference in shedding a blocker and therefore requiring two blockers to occupy the DE. Hmmm.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

[sharpe1027]

There's some hope... Rodgers has been light years better than I ever could have hoped for, but he has a long way to go, and a lot to prove.

The OL is still a mess, the LB's are pedestrian, and the front seven in general are miscast AND pedestrian... I don't know why some of you have such a problem with this argument.

The preceeding paragraph, is preached daily on 1250... I disagree with those guys about as much as I do you guys, but it's not as if I'm the only one who sees these things.

As I said, Silverstein wrote an article in JS a couple of weeks ago that I'm sure everyone on here would assume I ghost wrote.

4-12, 8-8, 13-3, and 6-10... I see them as an 8-8 to 10-6 team in perpituity, with little chance of winning it all with the current philosophies in place under TT.

I think TT is a good judge of talent... but, he seems to have a huge blind spot, i.e. team building. If the BPA at every pick is a QB... we're going to end up with 12 QB's... needs be damned. Team building be damned. Need a WR, and you're stacked at DT??? Who's the pick??? Harrell. Need a DT after Harrell busts and TT boots Williams??? And you're reasonably set at WR??? Who's the pick??? Nelson.

Coming off a 13-3 season... of which I would argue that is an aberration and and fluke more than anything else... but, suppose it's not, and the Packers really were contenders last year... what does TT do last season??? No FA help, and a draft class that looks okay, but did nothing to help the team on the field.

If you guys were correct, and the 13-3 season was for real, and the team was on the cusp of a championship - how can you claim that, and at the same time defend TT for doing nothing to put the team over the top last year???

Can't have it both ways. They were 6-10... and for the homers on this board, this may come as a shock to hear, but 6-10 is not a good record.

Nope, 6-10 is not a good record. However, I think everyone agrees that another 6-10 record will not cut it. I think everyone tends to assume, incorrectly, that defending TT means absolute faith in him. Most of the criticisms of TT along the lines of generalized things like "he loves his own players too much" or "he'll never sign a free agent" or "he trades down every pick" or "he is a snake." Frankly, the perception is far from the reality.

You can't have it both ways either, you see them as never having a chance to win it all, but yet the team was good enough to win it all just two years ago. No they didn't win it all, but in a game of inches, they lost the championship game by a millimeter.

[Partial]

Love xkcd.

[Brando19]

Yes!!!!! This kid's gonna have a breakout year. I'm glad he's coming back. Jump on the bandwagon ladies and gentlemen cuz this train's mowing some sum bitches down!

[falco]

Love xkcd.

pfb kicks xkcd's ass

http://pbfcomics.com/

[Patler]

TT talked a little bit about body type at the combine... said they would be transitioning to different body types. Didn't come right out and differentiate between 3-4/4-3 body types... but they are different.

He did make the comparison of a 4-3 DT to a 3-4 DE, and said they would be grading players differently b/c of the switch.

Yup, I know, and MM has been fascinated with "body types" since the day he set foot in WI. Until now it has been mostly with respect to ST players. It is one of MM's favorite buzz phrases, and now TT is picking it up too.

I don't doubt you will evaluate players differently, based on their abilities. After all, you want them to do different things, But that is a classification of ability, not size. If you have the size to be a D-lineman generally, they will find a place for you to play if you have ability. An inch or two one way or another will not stop them from taking a player they like on film, nor encourage them to take a player they don't like on film.

"Body type" - a buzz phrase to impress the listener. Irrelevant in player evaluations.

[texaspackerbacker]

Don't know where you guys get the idea that someone 6'5" is "ideal" for a 3-4 End???

3-4 ends need to stack at the point of attack and occupy blockers, i.e. more of a 4-3 DT description; hence, everyone else's contention on this board that Harrell is bound for the HOF as a 3-4 end.

Harrell and Jolly are much closer to the body type you're looking for out of a 3-4 end... there are some taller guys playing end in the 3-4 theses days, but they are playing with leverage, and effectively holding the point... which of course is the primary duty of a 3-4 end.

I liked Canty at 3-4 end b/c, despite his being 6'7", he is one stout dude, who can stack the end of the line with the best of 'em, can also get off blocks when the play is there to be made, and can even provide a modicum of pass rush - which is a low priority in a 3-4.

Rangy guys like Montegomery usually have to get it done with speed off the edge. Sans speed??? Hopefully they can fall back on their height, long arms, and technique to help them get the edge. Montegomery simply doesn't have the speed or talent. He looks good getting off the bus, but the guy simply doesn't have the movement skills or strength to excel at much of anything... there's a reason he isn't drawing any interest on the FA market.

I agree with one point, Montgomery isn't drawing any FA interest because he hasn't been a very good player. He will succeed or fail because of his ability, or lack of ability. It will have nothing to do with being 6'5" as opposed to 6'3" or 6'4".

This fascination the last 5 years or so with "body types" is mostly hogwash. An inch or two difference one way or another, 10 or 15 pounds one way or another for guys this big has minimal impact compared to their athletic ability and feel for the sport. If it did, Canty would never even have been tried at DE in a 3-4 as he is much, much "too tall".

If 6'4" is ideal, 6'5" doesn't make a bit of difference.

TT talked a little bit about body type at the combine... said they would be transitioning to different body types. Didn't come right out and differentiate between 3-4/4-3 body types... but they are different.

He did make the comparison of a 4-3 DT to a 3-4 DE, and said they would be grading players differently b/c of the switch.

One word: INJURIES

[3irty1]

There's some hope... Rodgers has been light years better than I ever could have hoped for, but he has a long way to go, and a lot to prove.

The OL is still a mess, the LB's are pedestrian, and the front seven in general are miscast AND pedestrian... I don't know why some of you have such a problem with this argument.

The preceeding paragraph, is preached daily on 1250... I disagree with those guys about as much as I do you guys, but it's not as if I'm the only one who sees these things.

As I said, Silverstein wrote an article in JS a couple of weeks ago that I'm sure everyone on here would assume I ghost wrote.

4-12, 8-8, 13-3, and 6-10... I see them as an 8-8 to 10-6 team in perpituity, with little chance of winning it all with the current philosophies in place under TT.

I think TT is a good judge of talent... but, he seems to have a huge blind spot, i.e. team building. If the BPA at every pick is a QB... we're going to end up with 12 QB's... needs be damned. Team building be damned. Need a WR, and you're stacked at DT??? Who's the pick??? Harrell. Need a DT after Harrell busts and TT boots Williams??? And you're reasonably set at WR??? Who's the pick??? Nelson.

Ok so we are "stacked at DT" and needed a WR but instead draft Harrell, then it turns out that we were actually pretty good at WR. Then after one partial season you call Harrell a bust and we go from stacked to needy??? I'm glad TT is one step ahead.



Coming off a 13-3 season... of which I would argue that is an aberration and and fluke more than anything else... but, suppose it's not, and the Packers really were contenders last year... what does TT do last season??? No FA help, and a draft class that looks okay, but did nothing to help the team on the field.

If you guys were correct, and the 13-3 season was for real, and the team was on the cusp of a championship - how can you claim that, and at the same time defend TT for doing nothing to put the team over the top last year???

Can't have it both ways. They were 6-10... and for the homers on this board, this may come as a shock to hear, but 6-10 is not a good record.

Is there anything TT could have done that would have put them over the top despite the injuries that the defense suffered? We (as fans) went into 2007 thinking that we had needs at RB, WR, and OL. We went into 2008 thinking that we were 10 deep at LB and DL and our biggest need was a nickleback. So far TT has been right more often than we have.

[rbaloha1]

Some of you guys get too caught up with stats.

MM plays too high -- regardless of height and is often overpowered at the point of attack. Agreed too rangy and most likely better suited as a de in space.

MM compensates with great hustle and chase. Hope MM is not resigned.

[SnakeLH2006]

But.......its Mike Montgomery!

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/41069662.html

Wow...Snake can finally rest easy now. I've been texting/emailing TT to no avail for the past week or so to shore up our camp body water boy position...THANK GOD!! :roll:

[hurleyfan]

Monty might suck at 3-4, but he was no shining star in the 4-3. Arguably, a change in defense could help him. Worst case, he is even worse in the 3-4 and gets cut in favor of someone better. Best case, he plays better than some other 3rd string backup.

Maybe a new coach and scheme helps?

[Bretsky]

But.......its Mike Montgomery!

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/41069662.html

Wow...Snake can finally rest easy now. I've been texting/emailing TT to no avail for the past week or so to shore up our camp body water boy position...THANK GOD!! :roll:



Poor Greg Bedard decided to do a daily blog about Packers free agency

Poor Frickin Guy

He should rename his bit to be the Blog about Nothing :lol:

[wist43]

There's some hope... Rodgers has been light years better than I ever could have hoped for, but he has a long way to go, and a lot to prove.

The OL is still a mess, the LB's are pedestrian, and the front seven in general are miscast AND pedestrian... I don't know why some of you have such a problem with this argument.

The preceeding paragraph, is preached daily on 1250... I disagree with those guys about as much as I do you guys, but it's not as if I'm the only one who sees these things.

As I said, Silverstein wrote an article in JS a couple of weeks ago that I'm sure everyone on here would assume I ghost wrote.

4-12, 8-8, 13-3, and 6-10... I see them as an 8-8 to 10-6 team in perpituity, with little chance of winning it all with the current philosophies in place under TT.

I think TT is a good judge of talent... but, he seems to have a huge blind spot, i.e. team building. If the BPA at every pick is a QB... we're going to end up with 12 QB's... needs be damned. Team building be damned. Need a WR, and you're stacked at DT??? Who's the pick??? Harrell. Need a DT after Harrell busts and TT boots Williams??? And you're reasonably set at WR??? Who's the pick??? Nelson.

Coming off a 13-3 season... of which I would argue that is an aberration and and fluke more than anything else... but, suppose it's not, and the Packers really were contenders last year... what does TT do last season??? No FA help, and a draft class that looks okay, but did nothing to help the team on the field.

If you guys were correct, and the 13-3 season was for real, and the team was on the cusp of a championship - how can you claim that, and at the same time defend TT for doing nothing to put the team over the top last year???

Can't have it both ways. They were 6-10... and for the homers on this board, this may come as a shock to hear, but 6-10 is not a good record.

Nope, 6-10 is not a good record. However, I think everyone agrees that another 6-10 record will not cut it. I think everyone tends to assume, incorrectly, that defending TT means absolute faith in him. Most of the criticisms of TT along the lines of generalized things like "he loves his own players too much" or "he'll never sign a free agent" or "he trades down every pick" or "he is a snake." Frankly, the perception is far from the reality.

You can't have it both ways either, you see them as never having a chance to win it all, but yet the team was good enough to win it all just two years ago. No they didn't win it all, but in a game of inches, they lost the championship game by a millimeter.

Not asking for it both ways... quite frankly, I see the 13-3 season as a fluke. I'm consistent in my contention that we won't win a SB unless TT adapts his approach.

I do think TT is a good enough talent evaluator to win us a SB, but being a good talent evaluator and a good GM are two different things.

Most of the guys on this board are perfectly happy with 9-7/10-6 in perpetuity... I want Superbowls... we're going on 13 years now since we won SB XXXI... the years have a way of ticking by.

[Pugger]

I have no problem with TT signing Monty again. He is no starter but he is a servicable backup. And if he doesn't make it thru training camp we really aren't out much. I hear fans bemoan the fact we don't have any depth. Well, this signing gives us some depth. Will he be good enough in the 3-4 to back up our starters? We'll find out soon enough.

[sharpe1027]

Not asking for it both ways... quite frankly, I see the 13-3 season as a fluke. I'm consistent in my contention that we won't win a SB unless TT adapts his approach.

I do think TT is a good enough talent evaluator to win us a SB, but being a good talent evaluator and a good GM are two different things.

Most of the guys on this board are perfectly happy with 9-7/10-6 in perpetuity... I want Superbowls... we're going on 13 years now since we won SB XXXI... the years have a way of ticking by.

No doubt you are being consistent, but you are hardly being fair in your criticisms of others. How is it that I am having it both ways when I say that the 13-3 season is evidence that the team had enough talent to contend for a SB win, but you aren't when you conclude that it is a fluke? Is it that your conclusions are more valid than mine? Why is that? Is it simply because I don't agree with you? :?:

Last year, most people will agree that the defense lost a lot of games (the offense was not perfect either). The Packers were very active in trying to change things. Will it work? I don't know, but I would say that is a strong indicator that the Packers are willing to adapt their approach.

[cheesner]

There's some hope... Rodgers has been light years better than I ever could have hoped for, but he has a long way to go, and a lot to prove.

The OL is still a mess, the LB's are pedestrian, and the front seven in general are miscast AND pedestrian... I don't know why some of you have such a problem with this argument.

The preceeding paragraph, is preached daily on 1250... I disagree with those guys about as much as I do you guys, but it's not as if I'm the only one who sees these things.

As I said, Silverstein wrote an article in JS a couple of weeks ago that I'm sure everyone on here would assume I ghost wrote.

4-12, 8-8, 13-3, and 6-10... I see them as an 8-8 to 10-6 team in perpituity, with little chance of winning it all with the current philosophies in place under TT.

I think TT is a good judge of talent... but, he seems to have a huge blind spot, i.e. team building. If the BPA at every pick is a QB... we're going to end up with 12 QB's... needs be damned. Team building be damned. Need a WR, and you're stacked at DT??? Who's the pick??? Harrell. Need a DT after Harrell busts and TT boots Williams??? And you're reasonably set at WR??? Who's the pick??? Nelson.

Coming off a 13-3 season... of which I would argue that is an aberration and and fluke more than anything else... but, suppose it's not, and the Packers really were contenders last year... what does TT do last season??? No FA help, and a draft class that looks okay, but did nothing to help the team on the field.

If you guys were correct, and the 13-3 season was for real, and the team was on the cusp of a championship - how can you claim that, and at the same time defend TT for doing nothing to put the team over the top last year???

Can't have it both ways. They were 6-10... and for the homers on this board, this may come as a shock to hear, but 6-10 is not a good record.

Nope, 6-10 is not a good record. However, I think everyone agrees that another 6-10 record will not cut it. I think everyone tends to assume, incorrectly, that defending TT means absolute faith in him. Most of the criticisms of TT along the lines of generalized things like "he loves his own players too much" or "he'll never sign a free agent" or "he trades down every pick" or "he is a snake." Frankly, the perception is far from the reality.

You can't have it both ways either, you see them as never having a chance to win it all, but yet the team was good enough to win it all just two years ago. No they didn't win it all, but in a game of inches, they lost the championship game by a millimeter.

Not asking for it both ways... quite frankly, I see the 13-3 season as a fluke. I'm consistent in my contention that we won't win a SB unless TT adapts his approach.

I do think TT is a good enough talent evaluator to win us a SB, but being a good talent evaluator and a good GM are two different things.

Most of the guys on this board are perfectly happy with 9-7/10-6 in perpetuity... I want Superbowls... we're going on 13 years now since we won SB XXXI... the years have a way of ticking by.
Nobody here is content with a slightly above average team. The NFCC game 2 years ago we were within a play or two of beating the eventual champ. Not sure if we matched up well to beat NE, but who knows?

You admit that TT is good enough evaluating talent to win us a SB. GREAT! Who gives a sh?? how he does it, as long as we win the SB! If he uses tap dancing to motivate the team, I don't care, as long as it works.

Why didn't he sign a bunch of FAs to put us over the edge if we were close? Why? If we were close by using his team building approach, why on earth would you suddenly try something different? Winning the SB is not as easy as a simple decision. So many GMs have tried the 'buy a SB approach' and no team has been able to do it yet. Face it. To win a SB you have to be patient and put the proper pieces together. Signing players that maybe better pieces looks great, but do they fit in the puzzle? Thats another matter.

[texaspackerbacker]

I guess one word: INJURIES wasn't enough.

A few years ago, we went from 12-4 to 4-12. Why? Because injuries decimated the team in the 4-12 year--yet some idiotically claimed that the 12-4 was the fluke and the injury-ruined 4-12 was the norm.

Now, history has repeated itself. We went from 13-3 to 6-10. Why? Clearly the same reason--injuries decimated the team again. Yet some doom and gloomers--the SAME doom and gloomers, in many cases, that denied the obvious in the 4-12 season are AGAIN claiming that the good season was a fluke and the rotten season ruined by injuries was the norm.

[wist43]

There's some hope... Rodgers has been light years better than I ever could have hoped for, but he has a long way to go, and a lot to prove.

The OL is still a mess, the LB's are pedestrian, and the front seven in general are miscast AND pedestrian... I don't know why some of you have such a problem with this argument.

The preceeding paragraph, is preached daily on 1250... I disagree with those guys about as much as I do you guys, but it's not as if I'm the only one who sees these things.

As I said, Silverstein wrote an article in JS a couple of weeks ago that I'm sure everyone on here would assume I ghost wrote.

4-12, 8-8, 13-3, and 6-10... I see them as an 8-8 to 10-6 team in perpituity, with little chance of winning it all with the current philosophies in place under TT.

I think TT is a good judge of talent... but, he seems to have a huge blind spot, i.e. team building. If the BPA at every pick is a QB... we're going to end up with 12 QB's... needs be damned. Team building be damned. Need a WR, and you're stacked at DT??? Who's the pick??? Harrell. Need a DT after Harrell busts and TT boots Williams??? And you're reasonably set at WR??? Who's the pick??? Nelson.

Coming off a 13-3 season... of which I would argue that is an aberration and and fluke more than anything else... but, suppose it's not, and the Packers really were contenders last year... what does TT do last season??? No FA help, and a draft class that looks okay, but did nothing to help the team on the field.

If you guys were correct, and the 13-3 season was for real, and the team was on the cusp of a championship - how can you claim that, and at the same time defend TT for doing nothing to put the team over the top last year???

Can't have it both ways. They were 6-10... and for the homers on this board, this may come as a shock to hear, but 6-10 is not a good record.

Nope, 6-10 is not a good record. However, I think everyone agrees that another 6-10 record will not cut it. I think everyone tends to assume, incorrectly, that defending TT means absolute faith in him. Most of the criticisms of TT along the lines of generalized things like "he loves his own players too much" or "he'll never sign a free agent" or "he trades down every pick" or "he is a snake." Frankly, the perception is far from the reality.

You can't have it both ways either, you see them as never having a chance to win it all, but yet the team was good enough to win it all just two years ago. No they didn't win it all, but in a game of inches, they lost the championship game by a millimeter.

Not asking for it both ways... quite frankly, I see the 13-3 season as a fluke. I'm consistent in my contention that we won't win a SB unless TT adapts his approach.

I do think TT is a good enough talent evaluator to win us a SB, but being a good talent evaluator and a good GM are two different things.

Most of the guys on this board are perfectly happy with 9-7/10-6 in perpetuity... I want Superbowls... we're going on 13 years now since we won SB XXXI... the years have a way of ticking by.
Nobody here is content with a slightly above average team. The NFCC game 2 years ago we were within a play or two of beating the eventual champ. Not sure if we matched up well to beat NE, but who knows?

You admit that TT is good enough evaluating talent to win us a SB. GREAT! Who gives a sh?? how he does it, as long as we win the SB! If he uses tap dancing to motivate the team, I don't care, as long as it works.

Why didn't he sign a bunch of FAs to put us over the edge if we were close? Why? If we were close by using his team building approach, why on earth would you suddenly try something different? Winning the SB is not as easy as a simple decision. So many GMs have tried the 'buy a SB approach' and no team has been able to do it yet. Face it. To win a SB you have to be patient and put the proper pieces together. Signing players that maybe better pieces looks great, but do they fit in the puzzle? Thats another matter.

I'm not all gung-ho to sign "a bunch" of FA's... just the occasional piece; that said, I'm not even a big advocate of that if we're not close enough to get us over the top.

I agree with TT's approach in general, i.e. building thru the draft; BUT, once the talent level of the team is close enough, you have to go out and find those one or two difference makers to put you over the top - assuming you don't already have them on the roster. I don't care if those difference makers come via FA or the draft, but my preference would be the draft.

TT's draft philosophy is the 12,000 darts approach, and hope that one of those darts hits a player... that's all well and good when you're starting from scratch, but once you've built a solid base, you have to take some chances and go after some quality.

TT has flipped the roster almost entirely since he's been here... and I think we're better off today than when he took over, but I still don't see us ascending to a SB. I see us plodding along year after year, with huge drafts classes that push the junk he drafted 4 years earlier off the roster... how does that land us a Lombardi Trophy???

[sharpe1027]

I'm not all gung-ho to sign "a bunch" of FA's... just the occasional piece; that said, I'm not even a big advocate of that if we're not close enough to get us over the top.

I agree with TT's approach in general, i.e. building thru the draft; BUT, once the talent level of the team is close enough, you have to go out and find those one or two difference makers to put you over the top - assuming you don't already have them on the roster. I don't care if those difference makers come via FA or the draft, but my preference would be the draft.

TT's draft philosophy is the 12,000 darts approach, and hope that one of those darts hits a player... that's all well and good when you're starting from scratch, but once you've built a solid base, you have to take some chances and go after some quality.

TT has flipped the roster almost entirely since he's been here... and I think we're better off today than when he took over, but I still don't see us ascending to a SB. I see us plodding along year after year, with huge drafts classes that push the junk he drafted 4 years earlier off the roster... how does that land us a Lombardi Trophy???

I can appreciate that view, but I don't agree with all of your supporting premises.

The Packers have tended to acquire a good number of draft picks, which I think is smart. However, they have taken their shots with their high picks, including drafting Harrell, when they could have traded down, and staying pat with the #5 pick to take Hawk. They have also been active in trying to get a few extra difference makers like Woodson, Pickett, Moss or Gonzo. Often overlooked is that they aren't cutting loose key pieces because they have overspent on "difference makers," at the expense of the guys who really make the team go.

I don't agree that getting "difference makers" from the top few picks has to be the way to go. Difference makers come everywhere in the draft. Those top few picks tend to put too many eggs in one basket and if the basket is full of holes and you'll never know it until it is too late.

If you have a guy rated a lot higher than other guys, trade up to get him (see J. Thompson). If you have 3-4 guys all rated the same, trade down assuming you get anything of value in the trade. Don't pick high to pick high.

Thing is, I can't see them sitting there thinking "gee we have this guy that is clearly better than anyone else, but we would be better off getting 2-3 of these other guys we think are just decent". The reality of the matter is the Packers have been pretty good at avoiding the mistake of over-rating a guy and placing the success of an entire draft year on one pick.

[wist43]

I'm not all gung-ho to sign "a bunch" of FA's... just the occasional piece; that said, I'm not even a big advocate of that if we're not close enough to get us over the top.

I agree with TT's approach in general, i.e. building thru the draft; BUT, once the talent level of the team is close enough, you have to go out and find those one or two difference makers to put you over the top - assuming you don't already have them on the roster. I don't care if those difference makers come via FA or the draft, but my preference would be the draft.

TT's draft philosophy is the 12,000 darts approach, and hope that one of those darts hits a player... that's all well and good when you're starting from scratch, but once you've built a solid base, you have to take some chances and go after some quality.

TT has flipped the roster almost entirely since he's been here... and I think we're better off today than when he took over, but I still don't see us ascending to a SB. I see us plodding along year after year, with huge drafts classes that push the junk he drafted 4 years earlier off the roster... how does that land us a Lombardi Trophy???

I can appreciate that view, but I don't agree with all of your supporting premises.

The Packers have tended to acquire a good number of draft picks, which I think is smart. However, they have taken their shots with their high picks, including drafting Harrell, when they could have traded down, and staying pat with the #5 pick to take Hawk. They have also been active in trying to get a few extra difference makers like Woodson, Pickett, Moss or Gonzo. Often overlooked is that they aren't cutting loose key pieces because they have overspent on "difference makers," at the expense of the guys who really make the team go.

I don't agree that getting "difference makers" from the top few picks has to be the way to go. Difference makers come everywhere in the draft. Those top few picks tend to put too many eggs in one basket and if the basket is full of holes and you'll never know it until it is too late.

If you have a guy rated a lot higher than other guys, trade up to get him (see J. Thompson). If you have 3-4 guys all rated the same, trade down assuming you get anything of value in the trade. Don't pick high to pick high.

Thing is, I can't see them sitting there thinking "gee we have this guy that is clearly better than anyone else, but we would be better off getting 2-3 of these other guys we think are just decent". The reality of the matter is the Packers have been pretty good at avoiding the mistake of over-rating a guy and placing the success of an entire draft year on one pick.

I would certainly have preferred to trade back than draft that tub of lard Harrell... they clearly over rated that guy, and his being drafted was a mistake.

I didn't want Hawk either; only came around to accepting the pick b/c I figured he'd at least be an NFL calibur player, if only a pedestrian one. In hindsight, Hawk's level of play and overall talent is 3rd rounderish. Can't be drafting JAG's with the 5th pick.

As for JThompson, yes TT traded up to get him, but that was in the 4th round... certainly not a big risk, and he's certainly not a difference maker.

While it's true that difference makers can be found anywhere in the draft... the fact is that TT has drafted one difference maker in 4 years (Jennings). I view 4 years as one full cycle in today's salary cap/rookie contract NFL... one difference maker in 4 years isn't going to win you any SB's.

[sharpe1027]

I would certainly have preferred to trade back than draft that tub of lard Harrell... they clearly over rated that guy, and his being drafted was a mistake.

I didn't want Hawk either; only came around to accepting the pick b/c I figured he'd at least be an NFL calibur player, if only a pedestrian one. In hindsight, Hawk's level of play and overall talent is 3rd rounderish. Can't be drafting JAG's with the 5th pick.

As for JThompson, yes TT traded up to get him, but that was in the 4th round... certainly not a big risk, and he's certainly not a difference maker.

While it's true that difference makers can be found anywhere in the draft... the fact is that TT has drafted one difference maker in 4 years (Jennings). I view 4 years as one full cycle in today's salary cap/rookie contract NFL... one difference maker in 4 years isn't going to win you any SB's.

I presented examples of them taking a chance to land a difference maker. I also said that I didn't think that was necessarily the best or only way to field a winner. I think you just proved my point. :?

[wist43]

I would certainly have preferred to trade back than draft that tub of lard Harrell... they clearly over rated that guy, and his being drafted was a mistake.

I didn't want Hawk either; only came around to accepting the pick b/c I figured he'd at least be an NFL calibur player, if only a pedestrian one. In hindsight, Hawk's level of play and overall talent is 3rd rounderish. Can't be drafting JAG's with the 5th pick.

As for JThompson, yes TT traded up to get him, but that was in the 4th round... certainly not a big risk, and he's certainly not a difference maker.

While it's true that difference makers can be found anywhere in the draft... the fact is that TT has drafted one difference maker in 4 years (Jennings). I view 4 years as one full cycle in today's salary cap/rookie contract NFL... one difference maker in 4 years isn't going to win you any SB's.

I presented examples of them taking a chance to land a difference maker. I also said that I didn't think that was necessarily the best or only way to field a winner. I think you just proved my point. :?

Huh??? how did I prove your point??? Not even sure what we're debating anymore, lol :D

I don't think TT has ever made a move to land a difference maker... except for maybe the rumors about Moss a couple of years ago.

The Harrell pick stunk of "smarter than youism" and had nothing to do with taking a risk on a potential difference maker... he was just TT's BPA.

If TT were taking "risks" to land potential difference makers, he would be signing FA's and/or moving up in the draft... he has done neither, and will likely never do either - b/c, simply put, TT isn't a risk taker. I don't think I'm going out on a limb saying that.

TT's MO is to move down... moving down is designed to increase your odds of finding an actual player amongst the rabble, and eliminating the potential downside of going after a more highly touted player and missing...

TT is all about minimizing risk... but minimizing risk comes with its own cost, i.e. one difference maker, and a roster full of JAG's in 4 years.

[sharpe1027]

Huh??? how did I prove your point??? Not even sure what we're debating anymore, lol :D

I don't think TT has ever made a move to land a difference maker... except for maybe the rumors about Moss a couple of years ago.

The Harrell pick stunk of "smarter than youism" and had nothing to do with taking a risk on a potential difference maker... he was just TT's BPA.

If TT were taking "risks" to land potential difference makers, he would be signing FA's and/or moving up in the draft... he has done neither, and will likely never do either - b/c, simply put, TT isn't a risk taker. I don't think I'm going out on a limb saying that.

TT's MO is to move down... moving down is designed to increase your odds of finding an actual player amongst the rabble, and eliminating the potential downside of going after a more highly touted player and missing...

TT is all about minimizing risk... but minimizing risk comes with its own cost, i.e. one difference maker, and a roster full of JAG's in 4 years.

I provided examples of where the Packers took a risk on a player and you proceeded to show how those risks failed. You provided pretty good evidence against taking the risks.

You assume a lot when you pretend to know what the Packers are thinking when they decide to move down. Inferring motivations such as "smarter than youism" is an convenient way of dismissing facts that don't align with your conclusion. I admit, I can't prove you wrong, I can only point out that you can't even begin to prove you are right. That entire conclusion rests on your ability to know the thoughts going through the minds of those in the Packer's organization. I would point out that many people outside of the Packers believed that Harrell was a pick that aligns perfectly in your risk-for-a-difference-maker. Here is a guy that, if not for the injuries, many thought could be top ten pick.

You can either believe the Packers selected Harrell out of some Freudian insecurity, or you can believe the Packers selected Harrell because they were taking a risk on a guy that had a chance of being a difference maker. I am not one for psychological analysis, so you can guess where I come down on this decision

I guess you could be right that they are just trying to be safe and that is why they trade down, but everytime I have heard them explain a move down, they make the move because they don't think other teams are going to take the guy they like. Sure, the could stay put and draft him anyway, but why not trade down and get him later?

I would suspect that it is a case by case basis and not some overall strategy to trade down as much as possible. The Packers have traded down more than up, but I think that could be explained when you notice that they are good at finding solid players that other teams hadn't targeted (Jennings comes to mind), thus they can trade down more often.