Shield's testing the market

[Guiness]

Looks the Packers weren't able to get Sam Shield's signature, and he's testing the open market.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/01/sam-shields-will-test-the-market/

It would be really bad to lose him. Found and developed from a UDFA...

Personally, I think this means he's as good as gone, as we've talked about here before, TT sets his price and it seems to be a take it or leave it offer. It's likely some other team will offer more for this young talented player. The Pack's best chance to sign him was during the season.

[pbmax]

Might be interesting. Packers clearly don't think of him as a number one if the contract numbers being bandied about are accurate. So the tag seems unlikely. But the rest of the League has money to burn.

[denverYooper]

Rosencrantz is just playing the game.

[pbmax]

Stupid combine.

Tom Silverstein ‏@TomSilverstein 1h
Increase in the cap and interest from other teams at combine definitely affected Shields' demands. #Packers probably willing to do $6-7M per

[mraynrand]

aw shit

[red]

EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!!!!

our shit secondary is about to get even worse

this is what happens what you sit on your ass for a month and a half instead of getting shit done ASAP. this deal should have been locked up months ago

DO NOT LET YOUR BETTER PLAYERS TEST FREE AGENCY

[ThunderDan]

EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!!!!

our shit secondary is about to get even worse

this is what happens what you sit on your ass for a month and a half instead of getting shit done ASAP. this deal should have been locked up months ago

DO NOT LET YOUR BETTER PLAYERS TEST FREE AGENCY

Hmmmm, how did that work out in the Raji case?

We did negotiate with Sam during the season and couldn't get anything done. I wouldn't be surprised if TT, as in the past, said to SS you go out and get an offer and we will match it.

[red]

what? raji is the exact opposite. a player who should not have been resigned that TT wet himself very early on trying to get to resign and ended up throwing all kinds of ungodly money towards him, we're just lucky raji and his agent are stupid as shit

telling a player to go out and find the best offer you can and we'll match it is about as dumb as you can get, you let every other team in the NFL dictate just how much you are gonna pay your players

if you're not going to start locking these guys up with a year to go on their deal, and you're gonna keep playing this stupid game of chicken with free agency, then just trade the damn players and get something in return

[Smeefers]

Yeah, matching offers is a pretty poor way to run a business. He's going to generate interest and he's going to get paid. There's no way SS is this years JJ.

[KYPack]

I was about to make a post that I thought SS would get a deal from us and that would tap our kitty for any other signings.

Well, I was wrong, but nobody wudda known if I hadn't made this post.

McGinn (don't get started now people) said that he thought Pickett would get a couple year deal.

He also said that word around combine was that Neal would get a deal from several suitors, with AZ in the lead.

Who knows, but some things should start breaking loose soon

[SMBASS]

I would have never thrown 8 mil a year at Raji to begin with. Between the two I would have put my signing priority on Shields before Raji. Sam has had some ups and downs while learning a new position at the pro level and some of Raji's problems may stem from being misused as Wist contends, but looking from the outside in over the course of the 2012 and 2013 seasons I would have rated Shields as an ascending player and Raji as a descending player. I also put more of an emphasis on the CB position than Raji's DE/DT position. Just my opinion.

I also agree that I don't like the idea of letting other teams enter into setting the bar for how much you have to pay to retain someone I deem as an important player.

[red]

what happens if a team like dallas or washington comes in and offers him a huge contract with a lot of funny money in the last 3 years?

two years ago the game branden carr a 5 year 50 million dollar deal, its actually a 2 year 12 million dollar deal, where the cowboys can now cut him without too much of a penalty

washington two years ago gave josh morgan a 5 year 32 million dollar deal. the team had an option to opt out of the last three years that they used as soon as they could. the deal turned out to be a 2 year, 11 million dollar deal

TT doesn't do a lot of funny money deals, so if we end up matching a 5 year 40 or 50 million dollar deal that someone else has offered, then we're probably going to be on the hook for a whole hell of a lot more money then the other team would have been

[red]

McGinn (don't get started now people) said that he thought Pickett would get a couple year deal.



from us, or from someone else?

i wouldn't mind bringing the big guy back, even if he is on the downside of his career, jolly too

[Patler]

The Packers should have signed him......
The Packers can't let other teams......
The Packers....
The Packers...
The Packers....

It takes two to make an agreement. Rosenhaus is a good agent. For low to average players, he tends to complete deals early. For better players, he completes deals early when a team is willing to make a truly outstanding offer, otherwise he pushes the FA advantage as far as he can.

I think Shields is worth a good contract, not sure he is worth the kind of contract it would have taken to get him signed early with Rosenhaus as his agent. This might still work out for GB, with Rosenhaus dragging it on to the last minutes leading into free agency before agreeing to terms. If it goes to free agency and Shields signs somewhere for a huge deal, Rosenhaus will have done his job, but in my opinion the Packers might have, too, if he signs for more than what seems reasonable. If he signs a moderate contract elsewhere, then I will think the Packers botched the negotiation.

Maybe the Packers are unreasonable in what they offered, maybe not.
Maybe Shields is unreasonable in what he thinks he is worth, maybe not.
Time might tell us, or it might not.

[SMBASS]

The Packers should have signed him......
The Packers can't let other teams......
The Packers....
The Packers...
The Packers....

It takes two to make an agreement. Rosenhaus is a good agent. For low to average players, he tends to complete deals early. For better players, he completes deals early when a team is willing to make a truly outstanding offer, otherwise he pushes the FA advantage as far as he can.

I think Shields is worth a good contract, not sure he is worth the kind of contract it would have taken to get him signed early with Rosenhaus as his agent. This might still work out for GB, with Rosenhaus dragging it on to the last minutes leading into free agency before agreeing to terms. If it goes to free agency and Shields signs somewhere for a huge deal, Rosenhaus will have done his job, but in my opinion the Packers might have, too, if he signs for more than what seems reasonable. If he signs a moderate contract elsewhere, then I will think the Packers botched the negotiation.

Maybe the Packers are unreasonable in what they offered, maybe not.
Maybe Shields is unreasonable in what he thinks he is worth, maybe not.
Time might tell us, or it might not.

That's a pretty good way to put it Patler. Then no matter what happens, in hindsight you can't be wrong! No matter what, you're always taking some type of chance in these negotiations and there's never a sure thing because you're betting on future production. Injuries or a million other things can derail the actual outcome. My only point was that I would have put more of a priority on trying to re-sign Sam and I would have used some of the money they were throwing at Raji to do it. Does it guarantee that a deal would have been imminent? Absolutely not. It's a crapshoot and who ended up getting the better deal usually isn't known until a couple of years into the contract. Heck you could sign Sam for 8 mil a year now, (Or whatever number.) and 2 years from now that could look like a steal or it could look like a horrible decision. Nobody knows for sure and all of our opinions are based on pure speculation with the limited amount of knowledge we have regarding the situation.

[KYPack]

from us, or from someone else?

i wouldn't mind bringing the big guy back, even if he is on the downside of his career, jolly too

McGinn thought the GBP would sing Pickett. yeah, I'd take JJ back if he gets back from the neck procedure.

As far as your point that teams could offer Shield a gimmicked contract, but we'd have to come across with real dollars to match it?

Good God man, have you taken leave of your senses?

If teams offer funny money deals, the negotiations take place discussing the real money in the deals, not the "newspaper" value.

The only figures worth talking about are the guaranteed portion of the deals.

The rest is all bullshit.

[Teamcheez1]

Unless Shields got an outrageous offer from the Packers (which he won't), why wouldn't he test the market? Every team has extra money to spend in the FA market now that the cap has been raised. His agent may be playing the odds to see if he can get a better deal, and to see what the market will bear.

He can always go back to the Packers, but I'm of the opinion that he was going to do this from the start unless he was offered franchise tag type-numbers. I don't see him losing money either way.

[red]

McGinn thought the GBP would sing Pickett. yeah, I'd take JJ back if he gets back from the neck procedure.

As far as your point that teams could offer Shield a gimmicked contract, but we'd have to come across with real dollars to match it?

Good God man, have you taken leave of your senses?

If teams offer funny money deals, the negotiations take place discussing the real money in the deals, not the "newspaper" value.

The only figures worth talking about are the guaranteed portion of the deals.

The rest is all bullshit.

even guaranteed money is funny these day. we hear about guys that sign a 60 million dollar deal with 30 of it guaranteed. then we see the deal, and theres a 5 million dollar signing bonus, and the first years salary is fully guaranteed, another 5 million. then theres a 20 million dollar roster bonus due at the beginning of year 3, when his salary is also 15 million.

guess whos gonna be got before year three and not see that 20 million dollar "guaranteed" money?

and the players don't care about real vs funny money, thats why these asshole sign these deals. its all ego

look at the jennings dal last year. minnesota gave him like a dollar more then we offered him so he could save face and say he was going to the highest bidder, but its all funny money. jennings probably won't see the last 3 years of that deal, yet he probably would have in green bay. jennings took the deal that looked better in the headlines

when players go from one team to the next, they're not telling team A that team B offered then a 5 year 50 million dollar deal with 45 of that million coming in the last 2 years. he's going to tell team A that team B offered 5 years 50 million period

its not public knowledge until well after the player signs just how good these deals are. so in my example, team A has no clue if the offer the player got from team B is legit, or full of fake money

[mraynrand]

telling a player to go out and find the best offer you can and we'll match it is about as dumb as you can get

it kind of depends on the circumstances. How good the player is, how good the depth at that position is, whether you really have this as your actual approach, etc. etc.

I doubt that the Packers had this type of attitude with Shields in any way shape or form.

Packers generally set a price for a guy and stick with it. Fortunately with Raji it appears they got a break in that they overvalued him and he didn't accept. Either the Packers set too low with Shields or Sheilds set much higher. As with most Packer FAs, it seems there is some team out there willing to spend way too much for a particular player. That's the price you pay for being perennial one of the best teams in the league and developing talent.

[red]

Unless Shields got an outrageous offer from the Packers (which he won't), why wouldn't he test the market? Every team has extra money to spend in the FA market now that the cap has been raised. His agent may be playing the odds to see if he can get a better deal, and to see what the market will bear.

He can always go back to the Packers, but I'm of the opinion that he was going to do this from the start unless he was offered franchise tag type-numbers. I don't see him losing money either way.

the problem is, you have teams out there like the raiders that have something like 90 million in free cap space that can just front load the shit out of deals if they want. out of 31 other teams, the chance is there, and its a pretty good chance, that someone will pay more then we will, even though we really need him

letting players test the market works when they have very little talent, and you're pretty sure no one else wants them. i have a hard time believing no one will want a young CB on the rise. i think shields is gone the second free agency opens

[mraynrand]

and the players don't care about real vs funny money, thats why these asshole sign these deals. its all ego


They care about the guaranteed money a lot. That's their nest egg. That might be all they get. And they also care for bragging right with total contract numbers, but that may be more getting stroked by their agents. It's hard for me to believe that all but the dumbest players know that if their contract is back loaded with absurd dollars, they are going to have to re-negotiate or get cut. Many of these guys are thinking they might never make it past two or three more years in the league. They see other guys get hurt and drop out all the time. Up front, guaranteed money is the key.

[mraynrand]

letting players test the market

Packer may have less control than you suggest.

[red]

it kind of depends on the circumstances. How good the player is, how good the depth at that position is, whether you really have this as your actual approach, etc. etc.

I doubt that the Packers had this type of attitude with Shields in any way shape or form.

Packers generally set a price for a guy and stick with it. Fortunately with Raji it appears they got a break in that they overvalued him and he didn't accept. Either the Packers set too low with Shields or Sheilds set much higher. As with most Packer FAs, it seems there is some team out there willing to spend way too much for a particular player. That's the price you pay for being perennial one of the best teams in the league and developing talent.

most of my anger comes from shields agents quote about them looking for a deal like tim jennings. if thats the deal they were looking for (4 years 22.5 million) then there's no excuse for that being done. oh course if they were really looking for 9 or 10 million a year or so, then its a different story

but if we did refuse to pay our top corner 5.5 million a year, when we have no problem paying our 2nd (and after next year maybe the 3rd or 4th best) cb on the team 9.5 million this year. then i'm gonna be pretty furious

losing shields makes this team worse, not better imo. we're suppose to be trying to get better,not worse, and we have the cap space to prevent that

[red]

Packer may have less control than you suggest.

they could have been working on this for 2 or 3 years now. as soon as the undrafted rookie proved he could play. not every team has a rule where you can't negotiate with your players until the last year of the current deal, and then only if they are your very best players. all others need to wait another their contracts are up

[mraynrand]

most of my anger comes from shields agents quote about them looking for a deal like tim jennings. if thats the deal they were looking for (4 years 22.5 million) then there's no excuse for that being done. oh course if they were really looking for 9 or 10 million a year or so, then its a different story

but if we did refuse to pay our top corner 5.5 million a year, when we have no problem paying our 2nd (and after next year maybe the 3rd or 4th best) cb on the team 9.5 million this year. then i'm gonna be pretty furious

losing shields makes this team worse, not better imo. we're suppose to be trying to get better,not worse, and we have the cap space to prevent that

maybe the increased cap threw things out of whack. To me the interesting thing is whether the Packers had a chance to lock Shields up earlier for a little more cash. If there was a chance a month or two ago to sign him for around 6 mil/year and they blew it, that's on them for undervaluing him. But it's possible that Agent of Shield was never going to accept any offer until he knew the market.

[mraynrand]

they could have been working on this for 2 or 3 years now. as soon as the undrafted rookie proved he could play. not every team has a rule where you can't negotiate with your players until the last year of the current deal, and then only if they are your very best players. all others need to wait another their contracts are up

sure, but that just changes the planning a bit. If they sign him to an (effectively) four year deal two years ago, then you go through this next year. Shields was pretty raw; it's possible the Packers weren't quite there believing he was a long term answer at one corner. It's still possible the Packers have valued him properly and some other team is gonna get burned.

[Patler]

That's a pretty good way to put it Patler. Then no matter what happens, in hindsight you can't be wrong! No matter what, you're always taking some type of chance in these negotiations and there's never a sure thing because you're betting on future production. Injuries or a million other things can derail the actual outcome. My only point was that I would have put more of a priority on trying to re-sign Sam and I would have used some of the money they were throwing at Raji to do it. Does it guarantee that a deal would have been imminent? Absolutely not. It's a crapshoot and who ended up getting the better deal usually isn't known until a couple of years into the contract. Heck you could sign Sam for 8 mil a year now, (Or whatever number.) and 2 years from now that could look like a steal or it could look like a horrible decision. Nobody knows for sure and all of our opinions are based on pure speculation with the limited amount of knowledge we have regarding the situation.

Well, I have no intention of proclaiming to be either right or wrong about it regardless of what happens because I have no clue what the Packers offered, and I have no clue what Shields asked for.

If he signs for $5-6M somewhere else, I will feel that in some way the Packers must have botched the negotiations, because it seems he should be worth that. Of course, the thing we will likely never know is if Shields just doesn't want to be in GB for some reason. He wouldn't be the first player who wanted out, nor will he be the last. Some hate winter, some want to be closer to family, some don't like a coach, some would love to stay but want to maximize their income for what can be a short career.

Shields very well could be in that last category, because he has not made a great deal of money in his 1st four years, and for all he knows this will be his last contract. Seeing Collins go down and maybe Finley, getting all that you can get takes on more significance. With that in mind, his priority might be to see what FA brings.

You state; "I would have put more of a priority on trying to re-sign Sam and I would have used some of the money they were throwing at Raji to do it." More of a priority than what? Than the Packers did? How much of a priority did they put on it? For all you know it was their highest priority. I suspect the Packers may have done just what you suggest, because it has been reported that they withdrew their offer to Raji at some point during the season. Therefore, they freed up the Raji money for whatever purpose they wanted, and Shields was probably high on their list. But if Shields stance was, "I really want to see what FA will bring, but if you give me $10M/year I'll pass it up" no deal was ever going to get done. For all we know, they might have offered Shields as much or more than the offered Raji. Maybe they offered him substantially less.

The point I was trying to get across was that blaming the Packers for "not getting it done", as some have, is kind of silly, because Shields might not have had any intention to do anything but test free agency. The Packers can't get a deal done by themselves, nor can Shields. There have been plenty of instances of deals getting done the night before free agency starts, shortly after it starts and at a time after the player assesses his value in the eyes of other teams.

Shields seems to be an ascending player, but losing him in free agency means no more to me than losing a player to injury. It's just part of what happens.

[ThunderDan]

what? raji is the exact opposite. a player who should not have been resigned that TT wet himself very early on trying to get to resign and ended up throwing all kinds of ungodly money towards him, we're just lucky raji and his agent are stupid as shit

telling a player to go out and find the best offer you can and we'll match it is about as dumb as you can get, you let every other team in the NFL dictate just how much you are gonna pay your players

if you're not going to start locking these guys up with a year to go on their deal, and you're gonna keep playing this stupid game of chicken with free agency, then just trade the damn players and get something in return

Except that if GB had gotten the Shields done for 4/24m and he got burnt in 13 you would have been scream what a horrible signing and if Raji had played well in 13 you would have screamed that TT should have extended him during the year.

That being said, if there was a chance to sign SS for 4/24m during 13 we screwed up. But I don't think that happened. Here is what I think happened. After 2012 TT was trying to sign Shields to a deal. Probably in the 3/10m range and Sam wanted more so the Packers signed him for 1 year as a RFA. I thought I remember there was talk that Shields might miss part of training camp. I think he sighed his RFA offer very late.

At that point I think SS thought he could wait one more year to hit FA and see what his value truly was. Like Patler said if TT made a monster offer Shields would have given up on going to FA. I am sure Rosenhaus talked about the Tim Jennings deal just to give notice to the other teams in the NFL were the starting point would be not the ending point.

[ThunderDan]

Yeah, matching offers is a pretty poor way to run a business. He's going to generate interest and he's going to get paid. There's no way SS is this years JJ.

Yes only matching deals is a poor May to run a business. But what if the Packers offered SS a "fair" contract and he still said I think I am worth a lot more. At that point all you can say is good luck in FA and I hope you will allow us to match the offer if it is close to the one we offered.

TT has a history of signing young up and coming players to lucrative contracts. I am sure Shields has been on the radar since the end of the 2012 season.

[wist43]

Shields is an ascending player - as is Neal.

I think both those guys are as good as gone, and will get better deals on the open market than Packer fans think.

Neal proved he could handle OLB - if used properly (which of course will never happen here under Capers), Neal could be a beast in odd fronts the way teams like Baltimore and Pittsburgh have used those guys. Capers is an idiot though, so it doesn't matter if he walks.

There is no improving our defense - so we might as well focus on the offense.

[KYPack]

even guaranteed money is funny these day. we hear about guys that sign a 60 million dollar deal with 30 of it guaranteed. then we see the deal, and theres a 5 million dollar signing bonus, and the first years salary is fully guaranteed, another 5 million. then theres a 20 million dollar roster bonus due at the beginning of year 3, when his salary is also 15 million.

guess whos gonna be got before year three and not see that 20 million dollar "guaranteed" money?

and the players don't care about real vs funny money, thats why these asshole sign these deals. its all ego

look at the jennings dal last year. minnesota gave him like a dollar more then we offered him so he could save face and say he was going to the highest bidder, but its all funny money. jennings probably won't see the last 3 years of that deal, yet he probably would have in green bay. jennings took the deal that looked better in the headlines

when players go from one team to the next, they're not telling team A that team B offered then a 5 year 50 million dollar deal with 45 of that million coming in the last 2 years. he's going to tell team A that team B offered 5 years 50 million period

its not public knowledge until well after the player signs just how good these deals are. so in my example, team A has no clue if the offer the player got from team B is legit, or full of fake money

We are far apart in arguing this deal, Red one.

Nobody is getting fooled by paper deals.

The teams and the agents well know what money is out there, how much of it is guaranteed, and the term of deals.

I know you think the players are stupid shits (& in a lotta cases you are right), but triple sharp people know these deals to the penny.

There are many cases of people getting cut before the second year schedule kicks in.

The agents and the teams have no illusions.

It's a cold business based on money.

All that said, we agree on the outcome.

Neal and Shield will turn up deals that the GBP can't match, IMHO.

[SMBASS]

The point I was trying to get across was that blaming the Packers for "not getting it done", as some have, is kind of silly,

Not intending to harp on you Patler and I agree with this part of your post considering at this time we really have no idea regarding all the facets of the negotiations. (Maybe we'll learn more about it in the future.) I just think our leverage to get Shields re-signed would have been better prior to the announcement of the cap increase for 2014 because most, "experts" didn't believe the increase was going to be as substantial as it is and it gives other teams more leverage to counter offer now. (Agents can also get greedier.) As Red stated, if the amount wanted by Shields was similar to the deal Tim Jennings got then I think we really blew it. (Once again, who knows if this is true or not.) I just hate the thought of losing a player we developed and I feel is ascending. Especially with the deficiencies we already have on our defense.

[Patler]

The point I was trying to get across was that blaming the Packers for "not getting it done", as some have, is kind of silly,

Not intending to harp on you Patler and I agree with this part of your post considering at this time we really have no idea regarding all the facets of the negotiations. (Maybe we'll learn more about it in the future.) I just think our leverage to get Shields re-signed would have been better prior to the announcement of the cap increase for 2014 because most, "experts" didn't believe the increase was going to be as substantial as it is and it gives other teams more leverage to counter offer now. (Agents can also get greedier.) As Red stated, if the amount wanted by Shields was similar to the deal Tim Jennings got then I think we really blew it. (Once again, who knows if this is true or not.) I just hate the thought of losing a player we developed and I feel is ascending. Especially with the deficiencies we already have on our defense.

Everyone has the same amount more to work with. Other teams have $x more than they expected, but so do the Packers. I don't see that as changing the negotiating field all that much.

Again, if Shields really wanted to test the FA market, there wasn't much GB could do.

[Patler]

even guaranteed money is funny these day. we hear about guys that sign a 60 million dollar deal with 30 of it guaranteed. then we see the deal, and theres a 5 million dollar signing bonus, and the first years salary is fully guaranteed, another 5 million. then theres a 20 million dollar roster bonus due at the beginning of year 3, when his salary is also 15 million.

Who would ever consider a future roster bonus as part of the guaranteed money?

Most reports I see now days are fairly accurate and break compensation into at least three general categories, that which is truly guaranteed, that which is likely to be paid (basically includes everything he will get in the early years when cutting him is almost impossible for salary cap reasons) and the rest. Most articles are careful to even breakout workout bonuses and game day roster bonuses as not being part of the guaranteed money.

[gbgary]

EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!!!!

our shit secondary is about to get even worse

this is what happens what you sit on your ass for a month and a half instead of getting shit done ASAP. this deal should have been locked up months ago

DO NOT LET YOUR BETTER PLAYERS TEST FREE AGENCY

yup...if he isn't signed the d will be even weaker, they'll have to address his loss in the draft which only makes
addressing our other needs even more difficult. very short sighted by a team that's got plenty of money. looks like we'll be the youngest (ie least experienced) team again next year. the rodgers window isn't getting any bigger.

[wist43]

Seriously, when it comes to our defense, I don't think players matter in the least...

To be sure, losing Neal and Shields is going to hurt, but we were garbage with them here.

TT, MM, and Capers think throwing too much money at players like Hawk and Brad Jones is a good investment; drafting players ill-suited to playing the scheme doesn't matter; and in the case of Perry, drafting a player to play a position he specifically said he didn't want to play - is the way to build a defense.


Add to that the misuse of a player like Raji, and playing 2-4 as the base - and you have a hopeless situation.

Stevie Wonder could see the lunacy of all that.

Seriously, we might as well just forget about the defense in terms of investing in players, and concentrate on making our offense as elite as possible.

[Smeefers]

I think it would be kind of funny to see Shields giant green G while he's wearing another uniform.

http://coedbc.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/sam-shields-tat-intro.jpg

[red]

you know what else i don't like about letting sam just walk

i know two teams that could really need CB help

the bears and vikings. and i'd say there's a good chance he could end up at one of those two teams

[Smeefers]

you know what else i don't like about letting sam just walk

i know two teams that could really need CB help

the bears and vikings. and i'd say there's a good chance he could end up at one of those two teams

I think it's just time to admit to ourselves that whenever we have a decent player leave in free agency, there's a good chance they'll end up in the division. SS could end up in any three of our rival's camp. Raji would only really fit in with the bears. James Jones would look good in blue. J mike could end up in purple. Starks is the only FA we have who most likely wouldn't end up in the division.

[red]

Who would ever consider a future roster bonus as part of the guaranteed money?


it happens with almost every deal the second the agent announces the deal, its not until days or even weeks later that the media digs up the true value

here' an example, mario williams

from NFL.com http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8279ef2f/article/bills-fullcourt-press-lands-mario-williams-with-sixyear-deal


Williams' deal is for six years and is worth $96 million -- $50 million guaranteed -- with the potential to go up to $100 million, a league source told NFL Network's Albert Breer.

heres the real breakdown that came out later from profootballtalk http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/17/breaking-down-the-mario-williams-deal/


1. $19 million signing bonus.

2. $5.9 million fully guaranteed base salary in 2012.

3. $8 million option bonus in 2013.

4. $6.5 million base salary in 2013, guaranteed for injury only at the time of signing, fully guaranteed second day of 2013 league year.

5. $10.6 million roster bonus in 2014, guaranteed for injury only at time of signing.

6. $1.9 million base salary in 2014.

7. $1 million roster bonus in 2015.

8. $12.1 million base salary in 2015.

9. $2.5 million roster bonus in 2016.

10. $11.5 million base salary in 2016.

11. $3.5 million roster bonus in 2017.

12. $11.4 million base salary in 2017.

13. $100,000 workout bonus in 2012, with $500,000 workout bonuses in each year from 2013 to 2016.

13. $400,000 Pro Bowl incentives per year.

14. $400,000 in additional incentives per year.

so even though it was announced as 50 million "guaranteed", so of the money was in the form of roster bonuses that were due in later years. my inderstanding of it is, he could have been cut last offseason and only get 24.9 of that "guaranteed" 50 million dollars

and before anyone talks about how the team would be able to cut him in 2013 due to cap reasons, yes they could have. cutting williams last year would have resulted in a penalty that was 1.5 million or so more then his cap number would have been if on the team

hell, he's due a 10.6 million dollar roster bonus right now that was part of that original "guaranteed" money

[red]

I think it's just time to admit to ourselves that whenever we have a decent player leave in free agency, there's a good chance they'll end up in the division. SS could end up in any three of our rival's camp. Raji would only really fit in with the bears. James Jones would look good in blue. J mike could end up in purple. Starks is the only FA we have who most likely wouldn't end up in the division.

well, i was only really worried about the bears and vikings, who really worries about the lions?

if anything, they need our charity

[Pugger]

Is Sam worth $11M if we tag him? Our D needs good players but is Shields really worth this kind of coin? From what I hear the FA market might be flooded by corners so if we lose Sam maybe we could end up with somebody better in the end. ;-)

[mission]

Can't be 100% draft and develop and let guys like Sam Shields get away.

What's the point?

[red]

Can't be 100% draft and develop and let guys like Sam Shields get away.

What's the point?

agreed 110%

[red]

Is Sam worth $11M if we tag him? Our D needs good players but is Shields really worth this kind of coin? From what I hear the FA market might be flooded by corners so if we lose Sam maybe we could end up with somebody better in the end. ;-)

in order to do that, we would have to be players in free agency

i'll believe that when i see it

[KYPack]

it happens with almost every deal the second the agent announces the deal, its not until days or even weeks later that the media digs up the true value

here' an example, mario williams

from NFL.com http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8279ef2f/article/bills-fullcourt-press-lands-mario-williams-with-sixyear-deal



heres the real breakdown that came out later from profootballtalk http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/17/breaking-down-the-mario-williams-deal/



so even though it was announced as 50 million "guaranteed", so of the money was in the form of roster bonuses that were due in later years. my inderstanding of it is, he could have been cut last offseason and only get 24.9 of that "guaranteed" 50 million dollars

and before anyone talks about how the team would be able to cut him in 2013 due to cap reasons, yes they could have. cutting williams last year would have resulted in a penalty that was 1.5 million or so more then his cap number would have been if on the team

hell, he's due a 10.6 million dollar roster bonus right now that was part of that original "guaranteed" money

OK Red, you're starting to wander back into camp reality. You got so far afield there for a awhile, I thought we going to have to send the dogs out after you. The quick way to analyze any NFL signing is the signing bonus and the first years salary. That's the guaranteed dough. The rest is all newspaper and media bullshit. There are NO guaranteed contracts in the NFL. They are series of one year contracts. You must make the roster to collect the agreed year's salary.

Louis Delmas, Cullen Jenkins and a handful of other players have gotten totally screwed by this little nuance in NFL deals. The teams, players, and agents well know what is real money and what is paper funny money. Only the fans get all heated up by the artificial amounts listed by the media at signing. Everybody waits to see what the real value of a deal is.

[packer4life]

Is Sam worth $11M if we tag him? Our D needs good players but is Shields really worth this kind of coin? From what I hear the FA market might be flooded by corners so if we lose Sam maybe we could end up with somebody better in the end. ;-)

Vontae Davis, Aqib Talib, Alterraun Verner, and Rogers-Cromartie

All 4 CBs have better name recognition than SS and figure to go quickly in the first week of FA. Shields may be close to as good as these guys, but don't forget what hurts him is he plays for a defense with a nationally poor reputation. Secondly he is an UDFA whereas 3 of the 4 listed above were first round picks (verner was a 4th rounder). DRC is 6'2 and Talib is 6'1. Throw in the fact that Revis is also being dangled around in trade talks and you essentially have a market flooded with marquee CBs.

Face it folks, Sam Shields is gonna get the leftovers. Drew will try to get him the most $$$ by waiting until FA for bids. At the end of the day we will value him most and come through w a fair deal averaging around 6.5 mill.

[pbmax]

OK Red, you're starting to wander back into camp reality. You got so far afield there for a awhile, I thought we going to have to send the dogs out after you. The quick way to analyze any NFL signing is the signing bonus and the first years salary. That's the guaranteed dough. The rest is all newspaper and media bullshit. There are NO guaranteed contracts in the NFL. They are series of one year contracts. You must make the roster to collect the agreed year's salary.

This.

Usually the difference between the funny numbers and the actual contract is about 3-5 days. Once its filed with the NFLPA, any agent can look it up and it can get to the media. Problem is, not every contract gets that kind of scrutiny. And that is the question I have always had about spotrac and the other sites and their contract numbers, how quickly and accurately do they get the real numbers?

[Patler]

it happens with almost every deal the second the agent announces the deal, its not until days or even weeks later that the media digs up the true value

here' an example, mario williams

from NFL.com http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8279ef2f/article/bills-fullcourt-press-lands-mario-williams-with-sixyear-deal



heres the real breakdown that came out later from profootballtalk http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/17/breaking-down-the-mario-williams-deal/



so even though it was announced as 50 million "guaranteed", so of the money was in the form of roster bonuses that were due in later years. my inderstanding of it is, he could have been cut last offseason and only get 24.9 of that "guaranteed" 50 million dollars

and before anyone talks about how the team would be able to cut him in 2013 due to cap reasons, yes they could have. cutting williams last year would have resulted in a penalty that was 1.5 million or so more then his cap number would have been if on the team

hell, he's due a 10.6 million dollar roster bonus right now that was part of that original "guaranteed" money

Well, the difference between you and me is that I pretty much ignore the first day announcement. It rarely has any foundation, and often even has the length wrong, let alone financial details. By day 2 or 3 it is usually clear.

What the heck does "...guaranteed for injury only at time of signing" mean? He's covered if he hurts himself while signing the contract? Guaranteed against a severe paper cut?

[bobblehead]

what happens if a team like dallas or washington comes in and offers him a huge contract with a lot of funny money in the last 3 years?

two years ago the game branden carr a 5 year 50 million dollar deal, its actually a 2 year 12 million dollar deal, where the cowboys can now cut him without too much of a penalty

washington two years ago gave josh morgan a 5 year 32 million dollar deal. the team had an option to opt out of the last three years that they used as soon as they could. the deal turned out to be a 2 year, 11 million dollar deal

TT doesn't do a lot of funny money deals, so if we end up matching a 5 year 40 or 50 million dollar deal that someone else has offered, then we're probably going to be on the hook for a whole hell of a lot more money then the other team would have been

You really have a low opinion of TT. So your opinion at this point is that if some team offers Sam a funny money deal, TT is going to match the number, but guarantee the entire deal?? Seriously?

[pbmax]

Everyone needs to calm down. Sam Shields hasn't gone from a $6 million per year CB to an $11 mpy in a week.

The hangup before was upfront and guaranteed money. You know Ted has a number in mind.

Rosenhaus now knows the cap has gone up by even more than expected and he got some interest in Sam. He is also an expert at manipulating the media, being happy to make himself look like the bad guy, to get the best deal for his client.

I doubt these techniques work on Ted, they mainly work on panicky GMs and owners who just want it done and don't care about the details.

The question is will someone overbid the Packers in FA? Nothing has changed, Shields bet on himself and it might payoff, though I agree with P4L that its no slam dunk he will strike it rich.

Also think about this: if you now believe the D suffers from round pegs in square holes, Shields is a round peg. He doesn't play zone well and gives Capers less flexibility. Shields and Williams in man puts more pressure on the deep safety when there is no pass rush, which there has not been. And there has not been a FS playing well in over a year.

He was UDFA with a specialty. There is Williams, House, Hayward and Hyde to step in (that's more than Ted usually has in stock when he lets someone go) plus whoever gets drafted, UDFA'd. I love Shields because as an ex receiver, when he had a chance to make a play, he made it, but there are better players out there.

There is a reason he is not guaranteed to make more money than Tramontana even though Tramontana has played like death warmed over for 2.5 of the last three seasons.

[bobblehead]

McGinn thought the GBP would sing Pickett. yeah, I'd take JJ back if he gets back from the neck procedure.

As far as your point that teams could offer Shield a gimmicked contract, but we'd have to come across with real dollars to match it?

Good God man, have you taken leave of your senses?

If teams offer funny money deals, the negotiations take place discussing the real money in the deals, not the "newspaper" value.

The only figures worth talking about are the guaranteed portion of the deals.

The rest is all bullshit.

I think full blown TT derangement syndrome has set in KY. No other explanation.

[bobblehead]

even guaranteed money is funny these day. we hear about guys that sign a 60 million dollar deal with 30 of it guaranteed. then we see the deal, and theres a 5 million dollar signing bonus, and the first years salary is fully guaranteed, another 5 million. then theres a 20 million dollar roster bonus due at the beginning of year 3, when his salary is also 15 million.

guess whos gonna be got before year three and not see that 20 million dollar "guaranteed" money?

and the players don't care about real vs funny money, thats why these asshole sign these deals. its all ego

look at the jennings dal last year. minnesota gave him like a dollar more then we offered him so he could save face and say he was going to the highest bidder, but its all funny money. jennings probably won't see the last 3 years of that deal, yet he probably would have in green bay. jennings took the deal that looked better in the headlines

when players go from one team to the next, they're not telling team A that team B offered then a 5 year 50 million dollar deal with 45 of that million coming in the last 2 years. he's going to tell team A that team B offered 5 years 50 million period

its not public knowledge until well after the player signs just how good these deals are. so in my example, team A has no clue if the offer the player got from team B is legit, or full of fake money

Then that negates the entire premise that TT told him to go test the market and we will match an offer. If you can't verify an offer, you are taking the players word...which puts you right back to the theory that you are setting a price and sticking to it and other teams don't actually affect things much.

[pbmax]

What the heck does "...guaranteed for injury only at time of signing" mean? He's covered if he hurts himself while signing the contract? Guaranteed against a severe paper cut?

Actually, I think that is a real thing. Its guaranteed for injury in early years, but at some point, if on roster, will automatically becomes fully guaranteed.

You get hurt, it pays at the specified date regardless. You stay healthy and on roster, it becomes a full guarantee. The incentive for the team to be decisive about the deal and pay/release the player at a known date is obvious. What I have forgotten is whether there is any risk the player shares besides a shorter contract.

[bobblehead]

most of my anger comes from shields agents quote about them looking for a deal like tim jennings. if thats the deal they were looking for (4 years 22.5 million) then there's no excuse for that being done. oh course if they were really looking for 9 or 10 million a year or so, then its a different story

but if we did refuse to pay our top corner 5.5 million a year, when we have no problem paying our 2nd (and after next year maybe the 3rd or 4th best) cb on the team 9.5 million this year. then i'm gonna be pretty furious

losing shields makes this team worse, not better imo. we're suppose to be trying to get better,not worse, and we have the cap space to prevent that

I will concede that if SS signs for 4 years 22.5 million then TT dropped the ball. Since SS is testing FA I really don't believe that agent in this case. TT would have locked him up already for that deal imo.

[Patler]

Actually, I think that is a real thing. Its guaranteed for injury in early years, but at some point, if on roster, will automatically becomes fully guaranteed.

You get hurt, it pays at the specified date regardless. You stay healthy and on roster, it becomes a full guarantee. The incentive for the team to be decisive about the deal and pay/release the player at a known date is obvious. What I have forgotten is whether there is any risk the player shares besides a shorter contract.

Ya, I get that, but when it is "at the time of signing" it becomes instantly guaranteed, so why bother with specifying a condition/date?

[Joemailman]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000314696/article/jimmy-graham-leads-top-25-nfl-free-agents-for-2014

A list of the 25 top free agents has Shields as the #6 CB. This would seem to reduce the chances that he will receive an offer on Day 1 that is for much more than he's worth. TT should have a decent chance at working out a deal with Shields or someone of comparable ability.

[pittstang5]

Everyone needs to calm down. Sam Shields hasn't gone from a $6 million per year CB to an $11 mpy in a week.

The hangup before was upfront and guaranteed money. You know Ted has a number in mind.

Rosenhaus now knows the cap has gone up by even more than expected and he got some interest in Sam. He is also an expert at manipulating the media, being happy to make himself look like the bad guy, to get the best deal for his client.

I doubt these techniques work on Ted, they mainly work on panicky GMs and owners who just want it done and don't care about the details.

The question is will someone overbid the Packers in FA? Nothing has changed, Shields bet on himself and it might payoff, though I agree with P4L that its no slam dunk he will strike it rich.

Also think about this: if you now believe the D suffers from round pegs in square holes, Shields is a round peg. He doesn't play zone well and gives Capers less flexibility. Shields and Williams in man puts more pressure on the deep safety when there is no pass rush, which there has not been. And there has not been a FS playing well in over a year.

He was UDFA with a specialty. There is Williams, House, Hayward and Hyde to step in (that's more than Ted usually has in stock when he lets someone go) plus whoever gets drafted, UDFA'd. I love Shields because as an ex receiver, when he had a chance to make a play, he made it, but there are better players out there.

There is a reason he is not guaranteed to make more money than Tramontana even though Tramontana has played like death warmed over for 2.5 of the last three seasons.

Thanks for talking me down off the ledge PB.

The biggest issue for me is that we have alot, I mean ALOT of players that might not be back due to FA plus other circumstances...injury, etc. (Finley & Jolly). We could lose them all. Shields, to me, is priority number one and if we keep him, for me, it softens the blow of losing players like Neal, Finley, Jolly and even Raji to some extent.

There were some positive rumors about Shields, now this. But like many have said, this could be all "Talk" to get his price up or who knows what. We'll just have to wait and see.

IIRC, when Collins was a FA, his deal got done minutes or just after FA and rumors then were that he was looking to go somewhere else - again, if I remember correctly. Like most, I just wish this would get done now.

[woodbuck27]

Hmmmm, how did that work out in the Raji case?

We did negotiate with Sam during the season and couldn't get anything done. I wouldn't be surprised if TT, as in the past, said to SS you go out and get an offer and we will match it.

" I wouldn't be surprised if TT, as in the past, said to SS you go out and get an offer and we will match it. " ThunderDan

ThunderDan:

If in fact TT did that as you suggest. Then it looks to me like TT is allowing Sam Shields and his agent to do his job. TT is also sending a message to a solid CB that we love you (maybe) yet not so much.

This issue of Sam Shields and a new contract has drug on and on. it was taking way too long to get done. TT just didn't act aggressively enough to get Sam Shields inked. The Green Bay Packers have lots of Cap space and this is one player that TT could 'only' ill afford to lose. TT puts up crazy money, considering the busted contract year, in the 2013 season for BJ Baji, In contrast for a player who's valuable to our secondary, starting RCB Sam Shields. Ted Thompson demonstrates his uncanny ability to lay an egg.

ThunderDan you believe it's something like this;

Ted Thompson ( Russ Ball) to CB Sam Shields (his Agent).

" We feel we offered you a fair contract... we love you in Green Bay, but we can 'only pay you this much money ($whatever$). So Sam ( Sam's agent) go out and test FA to see what your worth. You deserve to know that Sam. Maybe...entertain offers from NFL teams that want /need you more than we do. Set your bar and then before you sign with that team. Come back here Sam because we do love you so much, that we'll match the other teams offer for your services.

The risks of such a plan...no plan by Ted Thompson is obvious ThunderDan.

That scenario you suggest ThunderDan is at at best ..... " Ted Thompson coping out ".

The real scenario that we all see finally and as it appeared to be going down. Is that the Green Bay Packers; " in all likelihood ", lost a very decent CB from a very bad Packer secondary, that's now headed for more challenges in the 2014 season.

Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy's much hailed " Draft and Develop Program" is about to take another hit. The funny thing is that you could see this from a long ways off; yet what are we really seeing here?

Is it Ted Thompson in some mode of self destruction and blowing up the Green Bay Packers. Ted Thompson is one very strange man. Then again... this is what I've come to expect from him.

A little more of ... NOTHING from Ted Thompson. A little more of what could have been. It's really sad to observe.


GO PACK GO !

[red]

Well, the difference between you and me is that I pretty much ignore the first day announcement. It rarely has any foundation, and often even has the length wrong, let alone financial details. By day 2 or 3 it is usually clear.

What the heck does "...guaranteed for injury only at time of signing" mean? He's covered if he hurts himself while signing the contract? Guaranteed against a severe paper cut?

well there is the problem, and this response is to bobble too

that first days announcement usually comes from the players agent, thats what he wants the world to know what his client got. IMO, thats what he would tell other GM's that are interested

we find out real numbers days after the fact. if SS gets an offer from someone with lets say a roster bonus in year 3 or 4, SS and his agent aren't going to come to TT and say that the deal has a roster bonus in year 3, they're going to do what all agents do (like in the mario williams example) and tell TT they got this deal on the table with this much in "guaranteed" money

TT, if he wants to keep the guy, then has to figure out on his own if the player and his agent are bluffing, or if the deal is real

[red]

Then that negates the entire premise that TT told him to go test the market and we will match an offer. If you can't verify an offer, you are taking the players word...which puts you right back to the theory that you are setting a price and sticking to it and other teams don't actually affect things much.

yeah, and thats all TT can really do now. stick to his offer, maybe raise it some. and hope no one beats it

or you could see a case where the player gets a good looking "fake money" deal, and brings it back to GB, and when TT doesn't match it, the player can get pissed because TT won't play ball, and decides to leave out of spite. maybe like #85 did

[red]

You really have a low opinion of TT. So your opinion at this point is that if some team offers Sam a funny money deal, TT is going to match the number, but guarantee the entire deal?? Seriously?

IMO, TT will have no clue if a team wants to overpay with real money for SS or pay him close to what GB wants to, but with lots of fake money that make the deal look better.

[red]

do you guys really think that drew is gonna walk into TT's office and tell him that sam has a 5 year 40 million dollar deal on the table, but that there is a 10 million dollar roster bonus before year 5 and that 5th years salary is 15 million BTW, making this really a 4 year 15 million dollar deal. so if you came in at 4 years at about 4 million a year, we'll be all set

hell no

he's gonna walk in a say "we've got a 5 year 40million dollar offer with x amount guaranteed (including that roster bonus that he won't mention). will you match it?

[pbmax]

We feel we offered you a fair contract... we love you in Green Bay but we can 'only pay you this much money ($whatever$). So Sam ( Sam's agent) go out and test FA to see what your worth. Maybe...entertain offers from NFL teams that want /need you more than we do. Set your bar and then before you sign with that team. Come back here because we do love you so much that we'll match the other teams offer for your services.

That scenario that you suggest ThunderDan is at at best ..... Ted Thompson coping out.



What if Ted and Russ think Sam's market is $6.25 mil per year and Drew thinks its $7.5 mpy?

Where is the cop out in not signing him at $7.5 mpg?

What if Drew scares up a deal for $6.75 mpg on Day 4 of the Free Agency period and Packers match? Ted saves $750,000 per year.

Sam Shields is not invaluable and is replaceable. There is no cop out in not meeting his demands.

[pbmax]

do you guys really think that drew is gonna walk into TT's office and tell him that sam has a 5 year 40 million dollar deal on the table, but that there is a 10 million dollar roster bonus before year 5 and that 5th years salary is 15 million BTW, making this really a 4 year 15 million dollar deal. so if you came in at 4 years at about 4 million a year, we'll be all set

hell no

he's gonna walk in a say "we've got a 5 year 40million dollar offer with x amount guaranteed (including that roster bonus that he won't mention). will you match it?

He can't do that because if he does, no one will deal with him again. Rosenhaus has a bad public rep, but teams don't mind doing business with him. That means he has to be fundamentally honest, if not forthright.

Also remember, its our guess Ted has told him to come back and we'll consider matching. That's a tidbit that helps Drew but not Ted. I doubt, even if the Packers want the option, that they have told Rosenhaus that directly.

[mraynrand]

this thread has become absurd. There are people guessing what Ted's position is and faulting him now for not living up to it in the future. UNSOUND!

[Smeefers]

do you guys really think that drew is gonna walk into TT's office and tell him that sam has a 5 year 40 million dollar deal on the table, but that there is a 10 million dollar roster bonus before year 5 and that 5th years salary is 15 million BTW, making this really a 4 year 15 million dollar deal. so if you came in at 4 years at about 4 million a year, we'll be all set

hell no

he's gonna walk in a say "we've got a 5 year 40million dollar offer with x amount guaranteed (including that roster bonus that he won't mention). will you match it?

If he did that, he'd be severely misrepresenting his client. If Drew KNOWS that there's a crap number at the back end of the contract that SS in all likelihood will not get, wouldn't it be in his clients best interest to get that 4 year 4 mil deal. That's a tangible, believable, realistic salary that's actually going into his clients pockets instead of some wish wash hope and a prayer cash that he's never going to see.

[mraynrand]

Back-loaded, funny money contracts are for show. All but the dumbest of the dumb know they will never get the cash from the out years, and will have to re-negotiate or get cut. Up front money is the best bet; optimize that because you never know what will happen to you. If you can get a lot of up front money AND a reasonable contract (with at least 4 years of salary that the team will certainly pay you if you continue to play well), then that's great too. But get the guaranteed money and go from there.

[Packgator]

The rumor on the street has it that the Packers (last week) offered 6-7 million per year.

[KYPack]

do you guys really think that drew is gonna walk into TT's office and tell him that sam has a 5 year 40 million dollar deal on the table, but that there is a 10 million dollar roster bonus before year 5 and that 5th years salary is 15 million BTW, making this really a 4 year 15 million dollar deal. so if you came in at 4 years at about 4 million a year, we'll be all set

hell no

he's gonna walk in a say "we've got a 5 year 40million dollar offer with x amount guaranteed (including that roster bonus that he won't mention). will you match it?

PB answered this above me, but no, there ain't an agent in the league that would attempt to do this.

it would be actionable for one thing and easily exposed for another.

You'd be out into Bernie Madoff-land.

Even Rosehhaus, a man who has violated NFLPA rules by poaching clients from other agents, would not try this kinda shit.

Pack gator, where did you read of that offer?

hadn't heard that one.

[Packgator]

Pack gator, where did you read of that offer?

hadn't heard that one.

It was mentioned in a Silverstein blog (today) at jsonline.

[mraynrand]

He was UDFA with a specialty. There is Williams, House, Hayward and Hyde to step in (that's more than Ted usually has in stock when he lets someone go) plus whoever gets drafted, UDFA'd. I love Shields because as an ex receiver, when he had a chance to make a play, he made it, but there are better players out there.


this comment is interesting. Like all FAs, the Packers have a much better idea about Shield's ceiling than other team's GMs trying to sign him. Interesting to me is whether Shields has topped out or not. It seems like the Packers think he has. What we saw this past year may be the best Shields we will ever see. If so, that isn't worth more than 6-7/year.

[Patler]

As others have stated, over the years various Packer front office guys have said that Rosenhaus is actually one of the easier agents to work with during negotiations. Direct and efficient without a lot of wasted time in posturing. If he does that, it is before negotiations start. Agents have said the same about the Packers generally and Russ Ball specifically, that they are direct, honest and fair. I doubt there is deception or trickery going on, just a difference of opinion on Shields' worth in the market place.

It seems that whenever the Packers do re-sign one of their own, an awful lot of fans accuse the Packers of overvaluing their own. If they don't re-sign someone, its because they are obstinate.

[Guiness]

McGinn thought the GBP would sing Pickett. yeah, I'd take JJ back if he gets back from the neck procedure.



I've never heard TT's crooning skills, but maybe if MM does the harmony and Rodgers can warble some tenor notes they can convince him :razz:

[red]

you guys give agents way too much credit, and must think all negotiations are moral and honest

agents don't give a shit about teams or being buddy-buddy with anyone, they're out to get as much money possible for them and their clients

by any means necessary

and by saying, the agent "can't act like that because it would ruin him in the eyes of all other teams, no one will trust him". give me a break. the agents have the talent. if you want the talent, you have to deal with the agent

[Patler]

you guys give agents way too much credit, and must think all negotiations are moral and honest

agents don't give a shit about teams or being buddy-buddy with anyone, they're out to get as much money possible for them and their clients

by any means necessary

and by saying, the agent "can't act like that because it would ruin him in the eyes of all other teams, no one will trust him". give me a break. the agents have the talent. if you want the talent, you have to deal with the agent

One of the things I think you are forgetting about is that there are lots of contracts, relatively few agents and even fewer team negotiators. There are only a few players that aren't fungible commodities, so there are more players than available contracts. Agents who lie, procrastinate and otherwise obstruct negotiations won't last long because they won't get things done and teams will simply move on to the next agent who has a similar player. There is always another one out there.

I don't know about now, but a few years ago Rosenhaus had a tremendous number of players, and did most of the negotiations himself. He can do that only if he moves quickly, zeros in on the common ground if it exists and finishes it off. If he and the team differ significantly, no sense wasting anyone's times, find a way to resolve it, which might mean FA.

[The Shadow]

I would franchise him. Some players just earn my respect by their big plays against the Bears - and Shields is one of them. Remember his interception to close the NFC championship at Soldier Field for us? Those kinds of plays in super crunch time can't be overestimated.
I would open the purse strings.

[Joemailman]

I think the franchise tag is the worst option. You end up overpaying him for one year and pissing him off at the same time. Shields is a good player, but he's not one of the top 5 CB's in the NFL. There are likely going to be several UFA CB's as good as Shields who might actually be a better fit for what the Packers do defensively (ie, good zone players). There are also about 10 CB's considered good enough to be drafted in the 1st 2 rounds of the NFL draft. So, TT has other options if Shields wants to go elsewhere.

[Bretsky]

Yeah, matching offers is a pretty poor way to run a business. He's going to generate interest and he's going to get paid. There's no way SS is this years JJ.


ALLEN ROSSUM.........Rossum told GB he would go otu and come back and allow them to match any offer he received

And then he went out, got his offer, and did not honor his word to come back to us and instead signed with the other team

[RashanGary]

im ok with risking losing shields vs paying whatever it takes. There is only so much salary cap space. Its one of the acting laws of the current system, something that has to be heeded or the price will be paid. Function out of fear and desperation as Red seems to be doing and I dont think good things will come. Its best to pay attention to the way things are, the truth, and to do your best within the governing system, then let the chips fall where they may.

i hear people calling Teds approach of having value set on playes worth as being rigid and stupid. I call it sound and wise. Time will tell who has a more accurate understanding of the dynamics of building an NFL team. I have a somewhat strong mind and some confidence. I'd bet on me, and with that, id bet on ted and his Packers but ive been wrong before too :)

[Bretsky]

I think that in the end TT signs Shields

[RashanGary]

I think that in the end TT signs Shields

I kind of have that hunch too. I think rosenhaus is doing his due dilligence by using the market to raise the bar as high as possible. I think Shields likes it here and will come back if the Packers are close. Just a hunch. I dont think Shields is as highly regarded as Greg Jennings. He has weaknesses in his game that he'll pay for. I suspect the price wont be outrageous, but if it is, we'll be fine without him too.

[woodbuck27]

I think that in the end TT signs Shields

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense if he doesn't but if I'm San Shields and chasing the TT merry-go-round I'm royally pissed off. There is little reason why TT has to risk losing SS in Free Agency.

It's not too late for your prediction to come true B.

Tomorrow is Mon. 3 March 2014 and it's still eight more days until FA opens on March 11, 2014. I don't want it to get down to that and Sam Shield's agent shopping him because the risk is there that he could get snapped up.

It's this silent treatment in Green Bay that has to be disconcerting and IMO smacks of disregard /disrespect.

Maybe TT is looking at this draft as being reportedly by some. As one of the deepest drafts in decades. Maybe TT wants to keep the team really young but really young isn't necessarily what we need for a Super Bowl. We need talent and experience.

We don't need street level FA's and secondary college draft picks that 'only' Green Bay Packer Scouts and Ted Thompson are licking their lips over.

We need decent common sense.

GO PACK GO !

[pbmax]

ALLEN ROSSUM.........Rossum told GB he would go otu and come back and allow them to match any offer he received

And then he went out, got his offer, and did not honor his word to come back to us and instead signed with the other team

The only person reporting the Packers asking for a chance to match the best offer is red.

There is a simple, fundamental disagreement over his market value. They have been talking for 2 weeks, that much is clear.

[ThunderDan]

It's this silent treatment in Green Bay that has to be disconcerting and IMO smacks of disregard /disrespect.

GO PACK GO !

How do you know the Packers aren't talking to Shields and Rosenhaus every day? You have no idea. The only person talking about disrespect on this board is you.

[woodbuck27]

The only person reporting the Packers asking for a chance to match the best offer is red.

There is a simple, fundamental disagreement over his market value. They have been talking for 2 weeks, that much is clear.

The more I think about this the more obvious it is that TT has to get Sam Shields signed.

TT has to consider the impact of losing Sam Shields in FA and the Packers locker room.

TT can't let them all walk.

It makes good sense to re-sign Sam Shields, ED-S and Mike Neal or those I feel are among the most important to be retained.

We're not going to win another Super Bowl anytime soon with "a great bean counter" as a GM.

GO PACK GO !

[pbmax]

How do you know the Packers aren't talking to Shields and Rosenhaus every day? You have no idea. The only person talking about disrespect on this board is you.

Funny you should mention talking as of six days ago ...


Drew Rosenhaus, who represents Shields, met face-to-face with the Packers with the hope the sides could work out a deal before Shields became a free agent on March 11, according to a league source.

No deal was completed, but the source described the negotiations as "ongoing." The sides are expected to be in regular communication over the next several weeks.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10511740/sam-shields-green-bay-packers-attempting-complete-deal

[woodbuck27]

How do you know the Packers aren't talking to Shields and Rosenhaus every day? You have no idea. The only person talking about disrespect on this board is you.

Does that bother you?

;-)

[red]

The only person reporting the Packers asking for a chance to match the best offer is red.

There is a simple, fundamental disagreement over his market value. They have been talking for 2 weeks, that much is clear.

i didn't say that, someone else did, i said it was stupid if thats what tt is doing

i'm of the opinion that as soon as free agency opens, SS is as good as gone

its also my opinion that they should have been working at signing him for at least a year now, not just the last 2 weeks

[ThunderDan]

i didn't say that, someone else did, i said it was stupid if thats what tt is doing

i'm of the opinion that as soon as free agency opens, SS is as good as gone

its also my opinion that they should have been working at signing him for at least a year now, not just the last 2 weeks

The packers tried to sign him long-term after the 2012 season. There was talk that Shields was going to hold out for 2013 training camp. In the end Shields made a 1 year bet by signing the RFA offer.

[woodbuck27]

This article covers the situation Packers and Sam Shields pretty well.

Unless something dramatic happens we've seen the last of this solid CB.

Ted !?? Uhh Ted... wake up man !

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2014/3/1/5460012/sam-shields-packers-free-agency-2014-franchise-tag-transition-tag

Packers Free Agency 2014: No Deal Imminent with Sam Shields

By: Evan "Tex" Western  @TexWestern on Mar 1 2014, 11:20 AM


Tom Silverstein ✔ @TomSilverstein

" No way #Packers use the franchise/transition tag on Shields. If they were willing to pay $11M, they would have gotten a long-term deal done."


12:16 PM - 1 Mar 2014

Heh Ted !??

Sam Shields is our top FA and his play has been seen as deserving Re: staying as Packer.

We saw improved play from CB Tramon Williams late last season. We do have depth and youth at this very important position but the other fellas (Hayward, Hyde and House . . . " the 3 H's" all come with question marks !

Sam Shields is getting better all the time. TT cannot allow this man to hit the FA trail. The risk that he'll be gone is all TT should need as clear motivation to get Sam Shields signed.

Maybe Sam Shields agent is over pricing his client. He's 'only' worth what the market will bear. I don't want to see him hit that market with his talent....and upside still there.

GO PACK GO !

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

With 35 million in cap space this is not good news. I wonder what was offered by the packers that they turned down. If it was indeed 6-7 million, i think they have to let him walk like they did Jennings. Shields is a solid player, but he is not worth more than 7 million/year. He is still not all that great at tackling and if it wasn't for his speed he would get burnt more than often than not. He still has a lot to work on for his game to be worth more than 7 million/year. I just hope they didn't low ball him with a 4 or 5 million/year deal.

[Carolina_Packer]

The more I think about this the more obvious it is that TT has to get Sam Shields signed.

We're not going to win another Super Bowl anytime soon with "a great bean counter" as a GM.

GO PACK GO !

Be careful with "has to" in your first statement. I respect it when a team sets a cap number value on a guy and sticks to their guns, which leads to your second point, which is that you have to have a guy in the front office with a long term outlook on the cap and keeping it healthy.

Will any fan base be patting the GM on the back if they go "all in" on a team, putting themselves in an unfavorable cap situation, and not winning a Super Bowl? Then after coming up short, going through a rebuild? Are you OK with that possibility?

The truth about TT is that he's never going to get the team in trouble in terms of salary cap, because he's never going to take a wild chance. I think that's going to serve the team better in the long run.

[Bossman641]

It's this silent treatment in Green Bay that has to be disconcerting and IMO smacks of disregard /disrespect. [/B]

Silent treatment? Where are you getting that? They've been in constant contact, particularly over the past 2 weeks.

[woodbuck27]

With 35 million in cap space this is not good news. I wonder what was offered by the packers that they turned down. If it was indeed 6-7 million, i think they have to let him walk like they did Jennings. Shields is a solid player, but he is not worth more than 7 million/year. He is still not all that great at tackling and if it wasn't for his speed he would get burnt more than often than not. He still has a lot to work on for his game to be worth more than 7 million/year. I just hope they didn't low ball him with a 4 or 5 million/year deal.

UFA RCB Sam Shields:

http://www.packers.com/team/roster/Sam-Shields/74bd59be-1dcb-4dce-ad23-1d8ec3333f24

I think we felt that RE: RCB Sam Shields ... a 4 year $24 million$ "ball park offer" with say 3 years and $12 - 16 million$ fully guaranteed would get it done. Does TT really want the headache of more heat on the Packers defensive backfield and damage control for that in this off season ?

TT should sign Sam Shields, coming off his best season as a high priority.

He's not going there if Sam Shields exclusive agent ( Drew Rosenhaus ) is trying to stroke TT for $ 7-8 million$ per season on a four year deal and too much of that fully guaranteed. whatever this agent is going to see if he can squeeze more $juice$ for his client and prove that he's a more than worth NFL players agent.

What we may have here is a clash of ego's and Ted Thompson Vs Drew Rosenhaus. This could... if it's the case, cost us a solid CB.

We have this but is it accurate?:

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2014/2/23/5438494/report-packers-cb-sam-shields-seeks-4-year-22-4-million-deal?utm_source=acmepackingcompany&utm_medium=nextclicks&utm_campaign=articlebottom

If so what can be the problem if its NOT Sam Shields agent and getting the maximum fir his client RCB Sam Shields.

I'm seeing it this way:

After TT signs RCB Sam Shields:

TT should focus on an upgrade in the middle of the OL. He'll most likely hang onto AJ Hawk as he pursues the record of most tackles All Time Green Bay Packers and he needs help. The depth chart has Jamari Lattimre (size 1? @ Ht: 6'-2" and Wt. : 237 lbs ...Age:25 Experience: 3 Yrs. ( 2011-13 ) behind MLB Brad Jones .

Quick Stats (2013): behind him and looking at *** MLB Jamari Lattimore (size !?) he's only 5 lbs lighter than MLB Brad Jones (who had his most productive season last inspite of only playing 12 games).

Jamari Lattimore:

http://www.packers.com/team/roster/Jamari-Lattimore/7f7ddd1a-cd39-4da4-a122-182d2464be3e

Most of us agree that SS Morgan Burnett's (play fell off in 2013).

** We need to see both Morgan Burnett's and Jamari Lattimore's step it up this off season. With Lattimore maybe it's simply a case of electing him over Brad Jones. Giving his attitude and the past and responding to a challenge a first shot decision over Brad Jones. Jamari Lattimore has always answered the bell in his past. This time his size my be restrictive? In any case he's a solid ST's player and 'only' 25 years old.

++ MLB Brad Jones (6'-3" and 242 lbs) played 12 games and that had to be a distraction for him. All the same his stat's weren't all that bad as he had his best season as a Green Bay Packer overall coming on stream in 2009.

MLB Brad Jones:

++ http://www.packers.com/team/roster/Brad-Jones/f36a54e1-7045-4ce9-a9ad-ad4ba468a

^^ SS Morgan Burnett ... and his productivity tackle wise fell off 22% in 2013 and he had zero Sacks.:

^^ http://www.packers.com/team/roster/Morgan-Burnett/f6075ba5-5bde-4448-a5f8-26e03b0a9849

MLB backup Jamari Lattimore (he only started 4 games in 2013 and his first starts in his three years as a Green Bay Packer where his primary role had been on ST's in KO and punt return coverage where he's a Co-captain along with :

*** http://www.packers.com/team/roster/Jamari-Lattimore/7f7ddd1a-cd39-4da4-a122-182d2464be3e

Morgan Burnett and Jamari Lattimore:

** http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article_ketchman/article-1/Lattimore-Jennings-beat-the-odds/cbac34bc-fc30-45fe-a015-a0f3b3c6cab0

I TRUST we agree that TT has to do major damage control to the center of our "D" period.

The middle of the defensive line is failing now in a big way with 2 of 3 gone ( B. J. Raji = 'Bust' and Johnny Jolly - Injury recovery) for the start, midway part of the 2014 season.


UFA DT Ryan Pickett: Age and Productivity (he's falling off):

http://www.packers.com/team/roster/Ryan-Pickett/8947c554-f8bc-434c-a311-4431f3abacde

UFA DT B. J Raji ( a Bust in Green Bay with by far his worst play in a contract season last year):

http://www.packers.com/team/roster/B.J.-Raji/a7786824-303d-4168-b381-17c69a182ee7

UFA DT Johnny Jolly ... The Green Bay Packers most productive DT and Lost to a neck injury and recovery period ... by reports, the midway point of the 2014 season.

http://www.packers.com/team/roster/Johnny-Jolly/949e1325-490a-4135-8236-69a5b533a56f

[mraynrand]

Silent treatment? Where are you getting that? They've been in constant contact, particularly over the past 2 weeks.

This is what happens to you when Mary Pickford is your contemporary.

http://bioscopic.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/mybestgirl.jpg

[woodbuck27]

Silent treatment? Where are you getting that? They've been in constant contact, particularly over the past 2 weeks.

It's the time it takes to get to this last two week period that I'm referring to?

It's how I've come to know Ted Thompson and his challenge with procrastination.

A suggestion: If you disagree with simply keep that to yourself. let's agree to disagree. Disagreeing here on any matter isn't in the final outcome going to change the water on the beans. Why try to engage a fight and controversy when your never going to back me down. I never back down. I look very hard to see something and get it right. Let's simply agree to disagree with me.


That's healthy all around (for Packerrats) and to go anywhere else is a reflection on "YOU" Bossman641 not me. really did you expect any other response from me. Would you be more pleased if I used a two word response as some and one member in particular does?

Bossman641 and anyone else (no need of names as your too obvious) that needs your ego stroked by lining up in concert Vs this packerrat:

Your not changing what I see and post here. If you ever imagine that might be... "your burning rubber" wrong.

As a member here I've every right that you do. Do I jump all over you as I often may disagree with you? No...

I choose to ignore some of your positions for the health of Packerrats so do the same and me please. Stop making it a personal mission to discredit me. That's a losing position and me. I see it my way and if that disagrees with your way deal with it in yourself. Don't go all "fetch the fricken' rope" on me. That's simple bullshit that you can or need to control bossman641

I feel I've always been mannerly with your ego needs. I might express this post with a concise "two word" response. I'm not sure that you and a few others here don't deserve "just that" !? Instead I again...offer this. The bottom line. I'm every bit the Packer fan that you are. I want, I expect, the same as you. A GM to get my team where I want to see it for all of Packer Nation. To where the Green Bay Packers are a legitimate Super bowl contender and not where it's been headed and getting worse for three straight seasons.

I don't support failure nor anything contributing towards such. I'm naturally analytical and I pay attention.

For the sake of all goodness. RELAX bossman641. This is getting embarrassing. :lol:

GO PACK GO !

[pbmax]

i didn't say that, someone else did, i said it was stupid if thats what tt is doing

i'm of the opinion that as soon as free agency opens, SS is as good as gone

its also my opinion that they should have been working at signing him for at least a year now, not just the last 2 weeks

I did not truly mean you were reporting it, only that you mentioned it in a post. It has since taken on a life of its own, with people assuming this is what the Packers and Thompson are doing.

[woodbuck27]

Be careful with "has to" in your first statement. I respect it when a team sets a cap number value on a guy and sticks to their guns, which leads to your second point, which is that you have to have a guy in the front office with a long term outlook on the cap and keeping it healthy.

Will any fan base be patting the GM on the back if they go "all in" on a team, putting themselves in an unfavorable cap situation, and not winning a Super Bowl? Then after coming up short, going through a rebuild? Are you OK with that possibility?

The truth about TT is that he's never going to get the team in trouble in terms of salary cap, because he's never going to take a wild chance. I think that's going to serve the team better in the long run.

SOLD ! and "TT has to".

TT doesn't have to do anything except "try his very best".

He has to try to do whatever is legitimately in his best judgement " BEST for the health of the Green Bay Packers".

I don't believe any form of undo procrstination helps in terms of that as a proper focus.

GO PACKERS GO !

[KYPack]

ALLEN ROSSUM.........Rossum told GB he would go otu and come back and allow them to match any offer he received

And then he went out, got his offer, and did not honor his word to come back to us and instead signed with the other team

There was another issue.

Rossum wanted to play DB in addition to returning.

ATL told him he could do both, Shermie only wanted to return kicks.

ATL basically lied to him, too.

Rossum only saw spot duty at DB.

[woodbuck27]

The more I think about this the more obvious it is that TT has to get Sam Shields signed.

TT has to consider the impact of losing Sam Shields in FA and the Packers locker room.

TT can't let them all walk.

It makes good sense to re-sign Sam Shields, ED-S and Mike Neal or those I feel are among the most important to be retained.

We're not going to win another Super Bowl anytime soon with "a great bean counter" as a GM.

GO PACK GO !

I'll add FB John Kunn and C.J. Wilson, coming off his most productive NFL season and arguably his best training camp, to my wish list and resigning.

http://www.packers.com/team/roster/C.J.-Wilson/e0fe2993-47b1-4bfc-b875-9b9f1dabb283

I offer this story on defensive lineman C. J. Wilson and 8 tackles in 8 games with zero games started and 2013 salary: $635,250 as to why I feel he should be seriously considered to be resigned.


http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20140124/PKR0101/140124023/Free-agent-countdown-No-15-C-J-Wilson

[pbmax]

Grimes signed a multi-year deal. One less guy on market, one less team in market.

Tom Silverstein ‏@TomSilverstein 11m
Interested to see terms. Will speak to Shields' worth #Packers @bgrimey21 signs multi-year deal with @miamidolphins pic.twitter.com/s048QjGNjC

Parameters:
Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 24m
Will be curious to see final terms of Brent Grimes deal with the #Dolphins. Last I heard they were discussing a three-year deal worth $21M.

Other reports say the final deal is for 4 years.

[Bossman641]

It's the time it takes to get to this last two week period that I'm referring to?

It's how I've come to know Ted Thompson and his challenge with procrastination.

A suggestion: If you disagree with simply keep that to yourself. let's agree to disagree. Disagreeing here on any matter isn't in the final outcome going to change the water on the beans. Why try to engage a fight and controversy when your never going to back me down. I never back down. I look very hard to see something and get it right. Let's simply agree to disagree with me.


That's healthy all around (for Packerrats) and to go anywhere else is a reflection on "YOU" Bossman641 not me. really did you expect any other response from me. Would you be more pleased if I used a two word response as some and one member in particular does?

Bossman641 and anyone else (no need of names as your too obvious) that needs your ego stroked by lining up in concert Vs this packerrat:

Your not changing what I see and post here. If you ever imagine that might be... "your burning rubber" wrong.

As a member here I've every right that you do. Do I jump all over you as I often may disagree with you? No...

I choose to ignore some of your positions for the health of Packerrats so do the same and me please. Stop making it a personal mission to discredit me. That's a losing position and me. I see it my way and if that disagrees with your way deal with it in yourself. Don't go all "fetch the fricken' rope" on me. That's simple bullshit that you can or need to control bossman641

I feel I've always been mannerly with your ego needs. I might express this post with a concise "two word" response. I'm not sure that you and a few others here don't deserve "just that" !? Instead I again...offer this. The bottom line. I'm every bit the Packer fan that you are. I want, I expect, the same as you. A GM to get my team where I want to see it for all of Packer Nation. To where the Green Bay Packers are a legitimate Super bowl contender and not where it's been headed and getting worse for three straight seasons.

I don't support failure nor anything contributing towards such. I'm naturally analytical and I pay attention.

For the sake of all goodness. RELAX bossman641. This is getting embarrassing. :lol:

GO PACK GO !

Woodbuck27, I asked you a question Woodbuck27. I thought you might have known something that I did not know Woodbuck27. Not every post is an attempt to discredit or take veiled shots at you. If Shields leaves for a reasonable offer I will be just as angry as you are.

[wist43]

Perhaps the way to go is "minimum wage" defense across the board - and load up on offense??

TT did nothing to help the defense in '11, and we were one of the worst in league history; he threw picks and money at the defense the last 2 years, and we've been one of the worst defenses in the league.

Since none of you seem to think the one common denominator, Mr. Spraypaintedhair, is to blame - then obviously TT has to be to blame. So, since TT and the Packers obviously suck at evaluating defensive personnel - just forget about drafting or signing defensive players altogether, only sign street FA's to minimum contracts - and go from there.

Since we're guarenteed to suck on defense no matter what - might as well go as cheap as possible.

[mraynrand]

TT ... he threw picks and money at the defense the last 2 years, and we've been one of the worst defenses in the league.

maybe that's how they all got injured

[wist43]

maybe that's how they all got injured

Fold a crisp dollar bill into an airplane - you could poke an eye out?? Maybe they got all the strains and sprains when diving out of the way of the currency projectiles??

[Packgator]

Grimes signed a multi-year deal. One less guy on market, one less team in market.

Tom Silverstein ‏@TomSilverstein 11m
Interested to see terms. Will speak to Shields' worth #Packers @bgrimey21 signs multi-year deal with @miamidolphins pic.twitter.com/s048QjGNjC

Parameters:
Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 24m
Will be curious to see final terms of Brent Grimes deal with the #Dolphins. Last I heard they were discussing a three-year deal worth $21M.

Other reports say the final deal is for 4 years.

It's looking like Grimes got 4 years at 32 million.

[pbmax]

Pete Dougherty ‏@PeteDougherty 1h
No surprise, but not much reason to think Packers will tag Shields. Source just said they've mentioned nothing about it to him or his agent

Pete Dougherty ‏@PeteDougherty 1h
... cost likely prohibitive for them at $11.8 million tag tender for CBs

[pbmax]

Packer Twitterverse is predicting Shields will beat Grimes deal and secure $8-9 million per season. Problem is, they are discussing the funny money, overall numbers.

Silverstein with valid point that the problem in some CB contracts (mentions TJ but no idea who that is) is that half the money is "guaranteed". Points out that Williams, who will play out the contract got 1/3 guaranteed.

[mraynrand]

It's the time it takes to get to this last two week period that I'm referring to?

It's how I've come to know Ted Thompson and his challenge with procrastination.

A suggestion: If you disagree with simply keep that to yourself. let's agree to disagree. Disagreeing here on any matter isn't in the final outcome going to change the water on the beans. Why try to engage a fight and controversy when your never going to back me down. I never back down. I look very hard to see something and get it right. Let's simply agree to disagree with me.


That's healthy all around (for Packerrats) and to go anywhere else is a reflection on "YOU" Bossman641 not me. really did you expect any other response from me. Would you be more pleased if I used a two word response as some and one member in particular does?

Bossman641 and anyone else (no need of names as your too obvious) that needs your ego stroked by lining up in concert Vs this packerrat:

Your not changing what I see and post here. If you ever imagine that might be... "your burning rubber" wrong.

As a member here I've every right that you do. Do I jump all over you as I often may disagree with you? No...

I choose to ignore some of your positions for the health of Packerrats so do the same and me please. Stop making it a personal mission to discredit me. That's a losing position and me. I see it my way and if that disagrees with your way deal with it in yourself. Don't go all "fetch the fricken' rope" on me. That's simple bullshit that you can or need to control bossman641

I feel I've always been mannerly with your ego needs. I might express this post with a concise "two word" response. I'm not sure that you and a few others here don't deserve "just that" !? Instead I again...offer this. The bottom line. I'm every bit the Packer fan that you are. I want, I expect, the same as you. A GM to get my team where I want to see it for all of Packer Nation. To where the Green Bay Packers are a legitimate Super bowl contender and not where it's been headed and getting worse for three straight seasons.

I don't support failure nor anything contributing towards such. I'm naturally analytical and I pay attention.

For the sake of all goodness. RELAX bossman641. This is getting embarrassing. :lol:

GO PACK GO !

good content

[red]

Packer Twitterverse is predicting Shields will beat Grimes deal and secure $8-9 million per season. Problem is, they are discussing the funny money, overall numbers.

Silverstein with valid point that the problem in some CB contracts (mentions TJ but no idea who that is) is that half the money is "guaranteed". Points out that Williams, who will play out the contract got 1/3 guaranteed.


tim jennings, bears CB. the guy who's deal is the only one shields agent mentioned when talking about what they were looking for a couple weeks ago

this deal

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/chicago-bears/tim-jennings/

[Smeefers]

This whole debacle reminds me of last years Steven Jackson hub bub. TT was a fool for not paying whatever it took to get Jackson in the green and gold.

One player does not make this team.

Yes, SS is good. I wouldn't pay franchise tag cash for him though. I wouldn't call him a top 5 corner. Hell, I think Casey Hayward is a more complete corner than shields is.

SS is a playmaker, a solid man to man corner who has amazing burst and speed and who can cover guys like Johnson Jr. and Marshall. He's not a shut down corner by any means. He's in the "good not great" category and I think he should be paid as such. There's a limit to what you pay those guys. Just because we have the cap room doesn't mean Shields should get a blockbuster deal.

Especially if it costs us room to maneuver in free agency and get a player in a position that we actually need. hehehe, I kid I kid. We all know there's no free agent moves to be made.

[woodbuck27]

Woodbuck27, I asked you a question Woodbuck27. I thought you might have known something that I did not know Woodbuck27. Not every post is an attempt to discredit or take veiled shots at you. If Shields leaves for a reasonable offer I will be just as angry as you are.

Bossman641...Your repeating yourself. Try to stay cool. 8-)

I'm not now, nor will I ever get angry over such a matter and a former Packer (in reality) going elsewhere to better his life.

Why would I ever get angry over something I have zero control over? I see the Sam Shields situation as simply Sam Shields trying to be maxed out in control of his life...period.

I see this situation and a valuable CB for us as simply he and his agent and TT and the Packer contract negotiator somehow NOT on the same page. I'm simply a Packer fan. I simply make observations and have feelings.

It's really just that simple.

GO PACK GO !

[wist43]

tim jennings, bears CB. the guy who's deal is the only one shields agent mentioned when talking about what they were looking for a couple weeks ago

this deal

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/chicago-bears/tim-jennings/

If that's the deal they're looking for - then TT is just being cheap. Shields will get that deal in a heartbeat on the open market.

Throwing money at our defense is a waste of resources though. We were junk with Shields - who is a pretty damn good player.

If guys like Raji, Neal, and Shields can all escape... good for them.

[3irty1]

Shields is a fine player but most of that value comes from being able to defend the particularly dangerous class of receivers who make a career out running deep fade routes. Take that away and he's pretty average given his struggles against more physical recievers. Boldin and Garcon could get open at will against Shields just by shoving him around. Nobody bit on that 2nd round tender of his for a reason. If I'm Ted no way do I overpay for Sam Shields. "He's the closest thing we have to a playmaker in the secondary" is not an excuse. Sam Shields does not get rewarded for the incompetence of others, you've got to pay him on his own merit. If the rest are really expected to suck the answer is to make it rain pink slips back there and go shopping in FA. 7M per year buys a look at guys who are better than Sam Shields and there are a few of them out there.

That said, I'm guessing Ted will make this happen. There is absolutely no reason for Sam not to wait until the deadline and use all the leverage he has. His best offer will come next week period. Dude's got our logo tattooed on his neck, he's coming back.

[mraynrand]

7M per year buys a look at guys who are better than Sam Shields and there are a few of them out there.

Serious question: Who did you have in mind?

[pbmax]

Shields is a fine player but most of that value comes from being able to defend the particularly dangerous class of receivers who make a career out running deep fade routes. Take that away and he's pretty average given his struggles against more physical recievers. Boldin and Garcon could get open at will against Shields just by shoving him around. Nobody bit on that 2nd round tender of his for a reason. If I'm Ted no way do I overpay for Sam Shields. "He's the closest thing we have to a playmaker in the secondary" is not an excuse. Sam Shields does not get rewarded for the incompetence of others, you've got to pay him on his own merit. If the rest are really expected to suck the answer is to make it rain pink slips back there and go shopping in FA. 7M per year buys a look at guys who are better than Sam Shields and there are a few of them out there.

That said, I'm guessing Ted will make this happen. There is absolutely no reason for Sam not to wait until the deadline and use all the leverage he has. His best offer will come next week period. Dude's got our logo tattooed on his neck, he's coming back.

He also does well on deep crossing and in routes. His closing speed really helps there.

[pbmax]

If that's the deal they're looking for - then TT is just being cheap. Shields will get that deal in a heartbeat on the open market.

Throwing money at our defense is a waste of resources though. We were junk with Shields - who is a pretty damn good player.

If guys like Raji, Neal, and Shields can all escape... good for them.

The Jennings comparison is tough now because the cap went up and Rosenhaud trumpeted multiple interest. Could be a smoke screen, could just be noise.

But the stumbling block with the Jennings comparable was the guaranteed money. It encompassed half the contract.

[Fritz]

You can't blame Shields for wanting a big pay day, GB tattoo or no. If he signs with an NFC North team, he can just say it's there to remind him of what a big rival GB is.

You can't blame the Packers for not just throwing money at the guy. They may yet spend a chunk of change on him, but in this league now you can't really afford to overpay players, or at least I don't think you can afford that.

There's also much we don't know. Does the guy have the urge to get better and better, or did he go to the Cletidus Hunt school of "take the money and sit"? Does he want to live and stay in GB? How much better can he become as a tackler?

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

You don't pay Shields more than 7 million/year, he simple isn't worth that. He's a good player, but by no means great. We've made the playoffs five straight seasons, and if it wasn't for the defense sucking 4/5 of those years we might have at least one more title. We don't have any blue chip players on defense expect Matthews since 2011. Only elite players sign contracts worth 8-9 million/year or higher. If thats what he's asking for I'm with TT on this one. If Shields, Raji, Finely, or anyone else isn't willing to except a fair contract offer, then front load Cobb, Nelson, and maybe even Bulagas (if healthy) contract now. Any left over money use to sign and front load a good free agent. Then focus on the draft.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Would be interesting if TT enters the bidding for Byrd and lets Shields walk. Would you rather have Byrd and draft Gilbert if he's available, or keep shields and draft Clinton-dix/Pryor. I think I would actually rather have Byrd/Gilbert over say Shields/Clinton-dix since we need more immediate help at FS.

[Guiness]

Would be interesting if TT enters the bidding for Byrd and lets Shields walk. Would you rather have Byrd and draft Gilbert if he's available, or keep shields and draft Clinton-dix/Pryor. I think I would actually rather have Byrd/Gilbert over say Shields/Clinton-dix since we need more immediate help at FS.

I like that idea - if the numbers being thrown around for Shields are accurate, they're pretty close to the Safety franchise number, which would have to be the starting point for talks with Byrd.

I get the feeling that would be a non-starter though. Byrd has not signed with the Bills, and I doubt it's because they're not trying or being cheap. I think Byrd wants to play someplace warmer, and Buffalo to Green Bay is pretty much a lateral move that way.

edit: looks like Byrd want to be the top paid safety in the league, ~$10M. Damn close to the CB franchise tag.

[red]

I like that idea - if the numbers being thrown around for Shields are accurate, they're pretty close to the Safety franchise number, which would have to be the starting point for talks with Byrd.

I get the feeling that would be a non-starter though. Byrd has not signed with the Bills, and I doubt it's because they're not trying or being cheap. I think Byrd wants to play someplace warmer, and Buffalo to Green Bay is pretty much a lateral move that way.

edit: looks like Byrd want to be the top paid safety in the league, ~$10M. So essentially the same as the CB franchise tag.

byrd and bills are still talking

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/04/jairus-byrd-says-hes-still-talking-to-the-bills/

and even though byrd denies it in the article, "sources" say he turned down a 3 year 30 million dollar deal from the bills

[red]

huh, heres an article today from PFT that talks about how reported "guaranteed" money, isn't actually guaranteed

i guess they do exist

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/04/derek-cox-deal-illustrates-the-problem-with-injury-only-guarantees/

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Serious question..

If we lose both Shields and Raji, should we cut Tramon Williams IF we don't plan on keeping him past next season?

I'm not throwing in the towel if we lose both players, but how much of a difference would Williams make for one year if we are still in the process of rebuilding the defense. Losing Shields and Raji only creates more holes that need filling. Holes that probably can't be filled in one year. Let House, Hayward, Hyde, and whomever else we pick up a long the way play. Would you rather have 7.5 million extra to spend on extensions for younger players/pushing forward into following years rather then spending it on Williams for one year. If we lose Shields, Raji, and maybe even Neal, its safe still to say we are still in the process of rebuilding the defense. If Tramon is not in those long term plans then whats the point of keeping him at that salary for a year? Having an extra 8 million could always come in handy if not this year then next.

[red]

i like how you say "if we lose raji"

i think we might actually be calling other teams trying to find someone who will sign him away so he can't come back to us

but if we lose shields then no, i would not then want to also get rid of tramon. i don't think hes all that great, and imo he's way over paid, but at this point we don't know if haywards hamstrings will allow him to play this year and hyde might end up playing safety. leaving us with house and bush as our cb's

[mraynrand]

Cleveland wil make a serious bid for Byrd. They are already talking about T.J. Ward as a former player.

[red]

Cleveland wil make a serious bid for Byrd. They are already talking about T.J. Ward as a former player.

that seems to be the consensus, seems like everyone and their mothers has those two linked right now

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I realize Raji is as good as gone, but that doesn't mean we don't need someone to replace him. We have below average safeties, below average ILBs, and unless Worthy, Boyd, and Jones all play amazing this year, as it stands we also have a below average dline. All in all, we have a couple decent corners, one OLB we can count on, and potential on the dline. To me losing Raji (although he hasn't played well recently) and Shields sets us back further. Unless TT signs some (as in more than one) free agents on defense that can make significant contributions, I don't see the point of having Tramon for one year if he's not in our plans going forward. Once we lose Raji, Shields, and possibly Neal, we would need significant additions on defense not to be horrible. All I'm saying is why pay an older vet for one year if its not going to pay off? Let House, Hyde, a draft pick or two, and hopefully Hayward play.

Put it another way. If Tramon Williams was a free agent and we had 40 million cap space would you sign him to a one year deal worth about 8 million or just hold onto that money to sign someone who might actually be apart of the team for more than one season. Of course I'm basing this on the assumption that he's gone after next season.

I'm not saying cutting him is the right move, just that depending on how this off season plays itself out it might be worth considering.

[gbgary]

lets just cut, or let walk, all our best players. imagine the cap room we'll have if we could get rodgers off the books. tt could have us at maybe 70m below the cap. just think what we could NOT do with that!

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

lets just cut, or let walk, all our best players. imagine the cap room we'll have if we could get rodgers off the books. tt could have us at maybe 70m below the cap. just think what we could NOT do with that!

Nice. Yeah lets do that. Lets cut Rodgers. Matthews too. Don't forget Cobb and Nelson. Lets not go over board though, lets keep Bush and Brad Jones.

[call_me_ishmael]

Would be interesting if TT enters the bidding for Byrd and lets Shields walk. Would you rather have Byrd and draft Gilbert if he's available, or keep shields and draft Clinton-dix/Pryor. I think I would actually rather have Byrd/Gilbert over say Shields/Clinton-dix since we need more immediate help at FS.

Definitely. I just don't think Gil is gonna be available.

[3irty1]

i like how you say "if we lose raji"

i think we might actually be calling other teams trying to find someone who will sign him away so he can't come back to us

but if we lose shields then no, i would not then want to also get rid of tramon. i don't think hes all that great, and imo he's way over paid, but at this point we don't know if haywards hamstrings will allow him to play this year and hyde might end up playing safety. leaving us with house and bush as our cb's

I wonder where Ted really stands on Raji. Whether you love or hate it about Ted, he seems reluctant to ever make a low ball offer even when its exactly what's needed in cases like Woodson, James Jones, or this year Raji. I assume this is so he doesn't make an offer that could be received as insulting opting instead to let the free agent market do the humbling for him and making his offer under circumstances where they will be better received. I don't think that Raji was so horrific that he played himself completely out of an offer, I have a feeling this is Ted's way of proposing a pay cut. If another team overpays, then good for Raji I guess because we can't afford to.

[wist43]

Why would Raji want to come back??

He's not a 2-gap Nose Tackle... he knows that, I know that, most everyone acknowledged that when he came out in the draft. So what does Capers do with him?? He uses him as a 2-gap NT, lol...

Might as well have tried playing him at Safety.

If I'm a defensive player who is unfortunate enough to be drafted by the Packers, I'm just marking time until my rookie contract runs out, and I can leave for a better environment.

[pbmax]

I wonder where Ted really stands on Raji. Whether you love or hate it about Ted, he seems reluctant to ever make a low ball offer even when its exactly what's needed in cases like Woodson, James Jones, or this year Raji. I assume this is so he doesn't make an offer that could be received as insulting opting instead to let the free agent market do the humbling for him and making his offer under circumstances where they will be better received. I don't think that Raji was so horrific that he played himself completely out of an offer, I have a feeling this is Ted's way of proposing a pay cut. If another team overpays, then good for Raji I guess because we can't afford to.

I agree to a point. But nearing FA, he doesn't offer a deal to avoid it being shopped by the agent.

He has been rather brutal with Hawk and Crosby right before camp, when there were no alternatives.

But he could have had Woodson for a song, it had to mainly be a question of his level of play.

[pbmax]

Why would Raji want to come back??

He's not a 2-gap Nose Tackle... he knows that, I know that, most everyone acknowledged that when he came out in the draft. So what does Capers do with him?? He uses him as a 2-gap NT, lol...

Might as well have tried playing him at Safety.

If I'm a defensive player who is unfortunate enough to be drafted by the Packers, I'm just marking time until my rookie contract runs out, and I can leave for a better environment.

He has not played NT since 2010.

If that is the reason for his decline, then the Packers should put him back there.

[3irty1]

He hasn't been a good 3-tech LDE, but was moved there because he was such a lousy NT in 2011. I'm not a fan of Capers, but I am a fan of Occam's razor so it's hard for me to swallow that Raji is a fat Warren Sapp if you use him right.

[wist43]

He has not played NT since 2010.

If that is the reason for his decline, then the Packers should put him back there.

He play DT in that God-awful 2-4, but b/c there were on 2 DL on the field, he and Pickett weren't 2-gap DL, they were 2 against 5 defensive linemen - which I don't think there is even a term for.

Add to that, that Raji played a shit-ton of snaps - what does anyone expect from the guy??

A reporter brought it up the MM that Raji was playing a lot of snaps and appeared to be worn down - to which MM replied "he's a young man"... lol, WTF??

No, if I'm Raji... I would have made up my mind 3 years ago that I was out the door as soon as my contract was up - and that appears to be what he was thinking when he turned down that big contract offer.

[wist43]

He hasn't been a good 3-tech LDE, but was moved there because he was such a lousy NT in 2011. I'm not a fan of Capers, but I am a fan of Occam's razor so it's hard for me to swallow that Raji is a fat Warren Sapp if you use him right.

Then that means that everyone in the front 6/7 sucks, right??

All those high draft picks - and we're one of the worst overall defenses in the league, and one of the worst run defenses in the league... injuries as an excuse don't begin to cover the mess.

To make matters worse, TT throws big contracts at the 2 most pedestrian players we have in our defensive front - Hawk and Brad Jones; and worse added to worse, those guys are always on the field!!! Jeesh...

With the personnel Capers had available - I would never, ever, have run that idiotic 2-4. If I was going to go to the nickel, I would be in a 3-3 front that maximized the talent that TT had given me. Watching a Capers run defense is nothing short of painful.

[pbmax]

He hasn't been a good 3-tech LDE, but was moved there because he was such a lousy NT in 2011. I'm not a fan of Capers, but I am a fan of Occam's razor so it's hard for me to swallow that Raji is a fat Warren Sapp if you use him right.

I believe 2011 was the first year they used the Eagle Oakie, with Raji at the 3 tech but they did split the reps between it and base Oakie that year. Was Pickett still at end in 2011?

[3irty1]

Then that means that everyone in the front 6/7 sucks, right??

All those high draft picks - and we're one of the worst overall defenses in the league, and one of the worst run defenses in the league... injuries as an excuse don't begin to cover the mess.

To make matters worse, TT throws big contracts at the 2 most pedestrian players we have in our defensive front - Hawk and Brad Jones; and worse added to worse, those guys are always on the field!!! Jeesh...

With the personnel Capers had available - I would never, ever, have run that idiotic 2-4. If I was going to go to the nickel, I would be in a 3-3 front that maximized the talent that TT had given me. Watching a Capers run defense is nothing short of painful.

Is your problem with the defense really the 2-4 on the whole the way that most teams use it or do you hate the version that comes out on most 1st downs and sometimes on 2nd down that features run stuffing personnel in a pass rushing formation? Pretty much every 3-4 team runs more 2-something than they do their base D so lets first start with acknowledging that because I have a hard time knowing exactly how much of what you're saying is sarcastic exaggeration.

I'd agree that the whole 2-4 with Pickett and Raji as a situational run defense was not an idea that was worth renewing once Woodson aged out of stardom. I find it even more offensive that the answer was simply to draft a new Woodson to be the new gem of the defense (Hayward, Hyde). They're insanely lucky that those guys have been pretty good but its super flawed to draft anyone and expect them to carry Woodson's jock. That defense should have died with Woodson IMO. But I don't think the fatty version of the 2-4 was "idiotic" back when it worked. My criticism of Capers is basically that he's living in the recent past. I don't blame him that Raji and Perry aren't perennial pro bowlers. They are in a position to succeed if they were capable.

[3irty1]

I believe 2011 was the first year they used the Eagle Oakie, with Raji at the 3 tech but they did split the reps between it and base Oakie that year. Was Pickett still at end in 2011?

I thought so but that's just the way I remember it. 2011 was a strange year because run defense didn't matter.

[mraynrand]

I started a play-by-play analysis of the defensive fronts used. So far, I'm though the first half of the opener against SF. The Packers used the 2-4 on 10 of 37 plays with mixed success. Only once did they use it on an obvious running down and it also yielded two runs for losses and a sack, as well as a third down stop of a Kap run. Also yielded two large plays, and both TDs, but the coverage was terrible on both, and one series started at the 12 following Lacy's fumble. D. Jones and Neal were exclusively used at the two down-linemen in the 2-4, so you could argue it was psycho package I suppose. Interesting that Neal and Matthews did line up on the same side in the 2-4 and that produced pressure. Next: more first half detail and the second half.

Conclusions at half: APRH, Neal and Matthews on the same side is a good combo; re-sign Neal, get Matthews healthy. Improve secondary. Don't run 2-4 on third and less than 3.

[Fritz]

I admire your thoroughness.

Maybe we can ground our opinions in some actual observations of play and results.

[pbmax]

I started a play-by-play analysis of the defensive fronts used. So far, I'm though the first half of the opener against SF. The Packers used the 2-4 on 10 of 37 plays with mixed success. Only once did they use it on an obvious running down and it also yielded two runs for losses and a sack, as well as a third down stop of a Kap run. Also yielded two large plays, and both TDs, but the coverage was terrible on both, and one series started at the 12 following Lacy's fumble. D. Jones and Neal were exclusively used at the two down-linemen in the 2-4, so you could argue it was psycho package I suppose. Interesting that Neal and Matthews did line up on the same side in the 2-4 and that produced pressure. Next: more first half detail and the second half.

Conclusions at half: APRH, Neal and Matthews on the same side is a good combo; re-sign Neal, get Matthews healthy. Improve secondary. Don't run 2-4 on third and less than 3.

Mad, give this guy $20 out of petty cash.

[pbmax]

I admire your thoroughness.

Maybe we can ground our opinions in some actual observations of play and results.

Internet, Fritz, you are on the internet. This isn't some volcano where we take measurements and test hypotheses. We insist our way to the truth.

[Bossman641]

He play DT in that God-awful 2-4, but b/c there were on 2 DL on the field, he and Pickett weren't 2-gap DL, they were 2 against 5 defensive linemen - which I don't think there is even a term for.

Add to that, that Raji played a shit-ton of snaps - what does anyone expect from the guy??

A reporter brought it up the MM that Raji was playing a lot of snaps and appeared to be worn down - to which MM replied "he's a young man"... lol, WTF??

No, if I'm Raji... I would have made up my mind 3 years ago that I was out the door as soon as my contract was up - and that appears to be what he was thinking when he turned down that big contract offer.

I agree that Raji was playing way too many snaps a few years ago - think he was in the high 80's. This year he was at 59% of the snaps. The perplexing thing is that he has seemingly got worse the less snaps he plays.

[Guiness]

PFT released their top 100 FA list.

Good news Shields is the 5th rated CB - bad news is he's 15th overall.

There are a goodly number of Packers on that list - 7 - Shields, Raji, JJ, Starks, Finley, Neale and EDS. Seems others have a pretty good opinion of our guys.

Neale picked a good year to stay healthy and have something approaching a break-out season.

link - http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/05/the-free-agent-hot-100-3/

[Brandon494]

Sign Everson Griffen!!!! Its about time we steal a player from the Vikings and he says he wants to play LB in a 3-4 to showcase his rushing skills.

[red]

Sign Everson Griffen!!!! Its about time we steal a player from the Vikings and he says he wants to play LB in a 3-4 to showcase his rushing skills.

whats the record for USC LB's on one team?

TT might not deem him to be packer people


On January 28, 2011, Griffen was arrested in Los Angeles for public intoxication. Three days later, he was arrested again after he was found driving with an invalid drivers license. He then tried to flee on foot only to be tasered after allegedly grabbing an officer in the crotch area

[Brandon494]

Yea remember he was a 1st round talent that skipped to the Vikings in the 4th round but I know TT will never make that move. What if we let Shields go and signed Byrd...I doubt he'll want to give Byrd the move hes looking for though.

[wist43]

I agree that Raji was playing way too many snaps a few years ago - think he was in the high 80's. This year he was at 59% of the snaps. The perplexing thing is that he has seemingly got worse the less snaps he plays.

I think he had just checked out on the Packers... he had made up his mind he was gone a couple of years ago, and as Capers continued to misuse him, it just soured his attitude all the more.

I don't blame him. He was wasted the way Capers used him.

Perry will be the next one to bolt for the door as soon as he can. Everyone is on him for underperformance, but he wasn't shy about not wanting to play OLB to begin with - the Packers draft him, and viola!!! just add water, instant OLB?? I'm sure he was seriously bummed when the Packers took him.

After Perry will be Jones.

I don't see Capers changing what he does; and, I think TT and MM have proven that Capers can consistently run one of the worst defenses in the league and they won't do anything about it, so by the time those guys's contracts come up, they'll be as frustrated and ready to leave as Raji was.

[wist43]

Is your problem with the defense really the 2-4 on the whole the way that most teams use it or do you hate the version that comes out on most 1st downs and sometimes on 2nd down that features run stuffing personnel in a pass rushing formation? Pretty much every 3-4 team runs more 2-something than they do their base D so lets first start with acknowledging that because I have a hard time knowing exactly how much of what you're saying is sarcastic exaggeration.

I don't think most teams run a lot of 2-4. Certainly 4-3 teams never run it, and most 3-4 teams will only run it as a change up.

Watching some Baltimore games this year, they consistently ran a 3-3 in the situations that we run a 2-4; and true to a base 3-4 team, they actually ran a 3-4 as their base. The did run some 2-4 occassionally, but they got burned running it, and immediately scrapped it for the 3-3. We get burned running the 2-4, and everyone says "it's the best we can expect"?? I don't accept that.

Capers runs the 2-4 as his base more often than not. As I said, and I can't remember who looked it up, but someone on this board did some research and it turned out that the Packers run 2-4 more than any team in the league.

And yes, I absolutely, posivitely, hate, hate, hate running the 2-4 on 1st down; 2nd and 6; 1st and goal (as that idiot Capers did against the Bears); on and on...

I see the 2-4 as a gimmick - even with all-pro personnel like the Niners, I wouldn't run it. I think it is a weak front, that takes options away in terms of stunts, twists, and blitzes. To my way of thinking, I want the OL to be forced to make calls every play - if they get it right, which they usually will, then it becomes physicality; but when they miss an audible or adjustment, the DC should be able to spring a free rusher at least several times/game. The 2-4 is the vanilla of all vanilla formations.

The 2-4 is far too static and predictable. Add to that, the fact that Capers is misusing the personnel, and you have the recipe for one of the worst defenses in the league. To me, it's obvious... I really do find it amazing that so many of you defend it.


I'd agree that the whole 2-4 with Pickett and Raji as a situational run defense was not an idea that was worth renewing once Woodson aged out of stardom. I find it even more offensive that the answer was simply to draft a new Woodson to be the new gem of the defense (Hayward, Hyde). They're insanely lucky that those guys have been pretty good but its super flawed to draft anyone and expect them to carry Woodson's jock. That defense should have died with Woodson IMO. But I don't think the fatty version of the 2-4 was "idiotic" back when it worked. My criticism of Capers is basically that he's living in the recent past. I don't blame him that Raji and Perry aren't perennial pro bowlers. They are in a position to succeed if they were capable.

I don't like the 2-4 in general... and I don't think it ever "worked". If we get a stop out of that front, I look at it like we dodged a bullet, got lucky, the other team didn't run the right play, etc...

I see no good in the alignment at all. It's a weak front; players are misused; the strength of the defense is in the DL, and with the 2-4 you necessarily have all but 2 of those guys on the sideline, while conversely you have 2 of the most pedestrian defensive players in the league on the field for every play - Brad Jones and AJ Hawk.

It's dumb in every way imaginable to my way of thinking. Capers talks about stopping the run is always his #1 priority, but you wouldn't know it by his playing 6 man fronts, giving up a high YPC Avg, and high total rushing yds almost every game.

There would be an argument for it if by playing the 2-4 we were a lights out pass defense, but we're not - we're one of the worst pass defenses in the league on top of being one of the worst run defenses!!!

Seriously, isn't watching a Capers run defense nothing short of painful?? The numbers bear me out... we're a complete disaster on that side of the ball, and have been for 3 years running.

[pbmax]

Baltimore only runs a 3-3 if you believe their base front is a 4-3. When Dumerville and Suggs are rushing the passer, there are only two other lineman on the field.

Nearly half of the teams in the NFL run the 3-4 and they ALL run 2-4 nickel. The difference is amount and down and distance, not scheme.

This argument boils down to: would like to have Terrel Suggs at OLB/rush end rather than Perry.

[mraynrand]

Perry will be the next one to bolt for the door as soon as he can. Everyone is on him for underperformance, but he wasn't shy about not wanting to play OLB to begin with - the Packers draft him, and viola!!! just add water, instant OLB?? I'm sure he was seriously bummed when the Packers took him.

That's just silly. Perry is asked to rush the passer most of all. Not asked to cover in space as much as perhaps a typical OLB. At ROLB, he rushed all the time, especially in the 2-4. If he wasn't rushing, he had run responsibility, and as a converted DE, he was very good at it. Sort of like playing 3-4 with a ROLB who can rush. Perry might balk if they don't let him play ROLB, where he has been the best. APRH, he will likely be a pretty good ROLB. This requires they keep Neal (or replace him) and keep playing him at a down lineman in the 2-4 and keep Matthews at LOLB and/or hybrid (my suggestion).

Jones should love the 2-4; most of his bigger plays have come off that formation (think sack at Dallas).

[KYPack]

I started a play-by-play analysis of the defensive fronts used. So far, I'm though the first half of the opener against SF. The Packers used the 2-4 on 10 of 37 plays with mixed success. Only once did they use it on an obvious running down and it also yielded two runs for losses and a sack, as well as a third down stop of a Kap run. Also yielded two large plays, and both TDs, but the coverage was terrible on both, and one series started at the 12 following Lacy's fumble. D. Jones and Neal were exclusively used at the two down-linemen in the 2-4, so you could argue it was psycho package I suppose. Interesting that Neal and Matthews did line up on the same side in the 2-4 and that produced pressure. Next: more first half detail and the second half.

Conclusions at half: APRH, Neal and Matthews on the same side is a good combo; re-sign Neal, get Matthews healthy. Improve secondary. Don't run 2-4 on third and less than 3.

Good job, Rand.

With all the data and sites out there, you'd think you could get this kind of information readily.

But, when it come down to it, you have to do it the old fashioned way and watch tape and stat the stuff up.

The 2-4 is not our pre-dominant D by any stretch and isn't ruining our world when it's implemented.

In the play-offs, SF ran the 2-4 way more than we had all season and was somewhat effective in doing it.

[wist43]

Baltimore only runs a 3-3 if you believe their base front is a 4-3. When Dumerville and Suggs are rushing the passer, there are only two other lineman on the field.

Nearly half of the teams in the NFL run the 3-4 and they ALL run 2-4 nickel. The difference is amount and down and distance, not scheme.

This argument boils down to: would like to have Terrel Suggs at OLB/rush end rather than Perry.

Why in poo-perfect hell would a 4-3 team run a 2-4??

Invest all those $millions in DL, and then plunk their ass on the bench??

Get real max.

[wist43]

Good job, Rand.

With all the data and sites out there, you'd think you could get this kind of information readily.

But, when it come down to it, you have to do it the old fashioned way and watch tape and stat the stuff up.

The 2-4 is not our pre-dominant D by any stretch and isn't ruining our world when it's implemented.

In the play-offs, SF ran the 2-4 way more than we had all season and was somewhat effective in doing it.

The 2-4 was our most common defense.

ayn is saying he's going thru the SF game - about the only team we played all year in which we didn't run as much 2-4 was against SF, b/c of Gore and their stout OL.

Granted I missed a lot of the season, but of what I did see, and when I did tune into games - we were almost always in a 2-4.

[wist43]

Guys, go ahead and keep on with your singing the praises of Capers and the 2-4...

You're homers thru and thru... blowout losses in the playoffs, 31st ranking in '11; 25th ranking this year; disgruntled players; massive breakdowns... it all just bounces off you with no effect.

Some of us aren't content with embarrassing loses; and dismal performances - but for the majority of Packerrats - it's all good. To be sure - Capers is your man ;)

[3irty1]

Every 3-4 team runs a 2-4 as their go-to nickel defense although some teams like Pittsburg tend to mostly flip between a 3-4 and 2-3 dime with relatively little nickel at all. The heavy 2-4 definitely worked and worked well when it was rolled out as a one-size fits all defense in 2010. It balanced out a defense who's biggest strength was stuffing the run and by putting those run stuffing personel into a pass defense alignment had a well balanced defense. Chuck was a solid inside presense, that 2-4 was nearly a 4-3 when it needed to be.

[3irty1]

Guys, go ahead and keep on with your singing the praises of Capers and the 2-4...

You're homers thru and thru... blowout losses in the playoffs, 31st ranking in '11; 25th ranking this year; disgruntled players; massive breakdowns... it all just bounces off you with no effect.

Some of us aren't content with embarrassing loses; and dismal performances - but for the majority of Packerrats - it's all good. To be sure - Capers is your man ;)

No one is singing the praises of the 2-4. I'm saying the opposite. Believe it or not there is a middle ground where someone can critisize Capers without thinking he's completely retarded and incompetant. In fact if you give credit where credit is due, some people might take your critisisms seriously once in a while.

[woodbuck27]

I agree that Raji was playing way too many snaps a few years ago - think he was in the high 80's. This year he was at 59% of the snaps. The perplexing thing is that he has seemingly got worse the less snaps he plays.

His head is screwed up.

[woodbuck27]

PFT released their top 100 FA list.

Good news Shields is the 5th rated CB - bad news is he's 15th overall.

There are a goodly number of Packers on that list - 7 - Shields, Raji, JJ, Starks, Finley, Neale and EDS. Seems others have a pretty good opinion of our guys.

Neale picked a good year to stay healthy and have something approaching a break-out season.

link - http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/05/the-free-agent-hot-100-3/


" There are a goodly number of Packers on that list - 7 - Shields, Raji, JJ, Starks, Finley, Neale and EDS. Seems others have a pretty good opinion of our guys." Guiness

RCB Sam Shields (re- sign or have an outstanding backup plan with a solid vet CB)

B. J. Raji (It's OVER ! He's burnt out in Green Bay or a BUST so let hi go).

WR James Jones ... If TT didn't make James Jones an offer that sucks...He started out last season as the Green Bay Packers #2 WR that man deserved that much respect from Ted Thompson. James Jones want s to remain a Packer so such disrespect sends a double bad message of no return on "loyalty". The locker room looks at such things seriously and such disregard (as no offer) may send a message throughout the NFL and players will avoid Green Bay and TT's attitude.

RB James Starks - The one two punch ( Lacy and Starks) with #2 RB James Starks worked for the Packers and with him going elsewhere we'll have a ? mark at RB again. if we lose James Starks he has to be replaced in this off season. We havn't seemn enough of J. Franklin to assess his strength and DuJuan Harris is coming off serious injury and a year away from the NFL. I'm thinking that James Starks will sign elsewhere and it won't' take long into FA to see that happen.

JerMichael Finley...it seems that MM is in love with this TE and he's inconsistent and now with this last serious injury at greater risk.i say it's time to move on without JF as a TE. We need to find a decent TE that will improve our Red Zone offense and stretch the field with yards after the catch.

OLB/DE Mike Neal stepped up his game last season and he can help CM's put heat on the opposition QB. I believe he deserves to be retained as he's a prime example as is Sam Shields. That "draft and develop" does work. If Sam Shields and Mike Neal are allowed to walk the much talked about Green Bay Packers and (TT's and MM's) et all Draft and Develop Program is going to approach looking like nothing short of horseshit.

Center Evan Dietrich-Smith is ranked in the TOP Ten of NFL centers (maybe as high as 5th best !?) and Aaron Rodgers needs a center he can develop a rapport with. Obviously it makes solid sense to retain Evan Dietrich - Smith at center. Ted Thompson might have made signing E D-S a priority and it sure looks like TT is playing a different sort of hardball so far this off season.

TT has a way of causing me to scratch my head. Actually if I allow it ...Ted Thompson (and Mike McCarthy) can drive me up the wall.

I'd be seeing logical... or what makes decent sense to me. If Ted Thompson manages to resign all of: RCB Sam Shields, OLB / DE Mike Neal and Center E D-S and to resign James Starks is a bonus.

I feel it's best to let high draft picks BJ Raji and JerMichael Finley walk. That's just the way the cookie has crumbled. Too bad so sad. Those two high draft picks are BUSTS in Green Bay. Ted Thompson cannot afford anymore time and CAP space on those two.

GO PACK GO !

[wist43]

Every 3-4 team runs a 2-4 as their go-to nickel defense although some teams like Pittsburg tend to mostly flip between a 3-4 and 2-3 dime with relatively little nickel at all. The heavy 2-4 definitely worked and worked well when it was rolled out as a one-size fits all defense in 2010. It balanced out a defense who's biggest strength was stuffing the run and by putting those run stuffing personel into a pass defense alignment had a well balanced defense. Chuck was a solid inside presense, that 2-4 was nearly a 4-3 when it needed to be.

You'd have to prove to me that every team runs a 2-4 as their "go-to" nickel... there's no way that is the case.

The 4-3 teams simply go to a 4-2, and have for as long as father time has been growing his beard.

Now if you want to argue that most versions of the 2-4 are in fact, a 4-2?? I'll go along with that, but if that is the case, a team better have the 4-3 defensive personnel to pull it off, i.e. big budget DE's, and gap penetrating DT's.

The way Capers runs it, he's saying he can stop the run too... as you've pointed out. Of course that is not the case - teams run on us on 3rd and 6, and get the 1st down!!!

Or in these cases when Forte walks into the end zone on 1st and goal!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWffw9Ex7_o

At 2:00 and 2:53 Capers runs the 2-4 on 1st and goal.

wow, just wow...

[wist43]

No one is singing the praises of the 2-4. I'm saying the opposite. Believe it or not there is a middle ground where someone can critisize Capers without thinking he's completely retarded and incompetant. In fact if you give credit where credit is due, some people might take your critisisms seriously once in a while.

In the past 3 years - when has Capers deserved any credit??

A game here and there... about 1/2 of last year the stats looked okay - but then disaster the rest of the way.

You guys desperately seek to find silver lining, when there is none.

[mraynrand]

You'd have to prove to me that every team runs a 2-4 as their "go-to" nickel... there's no way that is the case.

The 4-3 teams simply go to a 4-2, and have for as long as father time has been growing his beard.

Now if you want to argue that most versions of the 2-4 are in fact, a 4-2?? I'll go along with that, but if that is the case, a team better have the 4-3 defensive personnel to pull it off, i.e. big budget DE's, and gap penetrating DT's.

The way Capers runs it, he's saying he can stop the run too... as you've pointed out. Of course that is not the case - teams run on us on 3rd and 6, and get the 1st down!!!

Or in these cases when Forte walks into the end zone on 1st and goal!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWffw9Ex7_o

At 2:00 and 2:53 Capers runs the 2-4 on 1st and goal.

wow, just wow...

What you continually fail to recognize is the effect of personnel. Bears are running three wide with Bennett at TE. That's four legit receiving threats, not to mention Forte out of the backfield. Chicago passes far more often than they run on that down and distance. Earlier in the year, Neal was in the 2-4 with Jones, but late in the year, with injuries - esp to Jolly, the rotation changed. So now you have Neal, Pick and Raji. That's 3 down linemen, depending on how you look at Neal. on the other side, Mulumba is filling in for Perry and Matthews who are both out at that point, and Lattimore is in for Brad Jones. Blame the 2-4 all you want, but you put in an extra fatty lineman (the rookie? Who? D. Jones or Daniels), and your ability to cover the TE or RB is compromised. Funny that Neal recognized the run, but didn't get there. On the other side, would have preferred Perry over Mulumba who got killed, but Perry was hurt. Would have preferred Matthews to Perry or Lattimore, but Matthews was hurt. I guess Capers biggest failure is his inability to just conjure up new pro bowl personnel using spells and incantations.

[3irty1]

You'd have to prove to me that every team runs a 2-4 as their "go-to" nickel... there's no way that is the case.

The 4-3 teams simply go to a 4-2, and have for as long as father time has been growing his beard.

Now if you want to argue that most versions of the 2-4 are in fact, a 4-2?? I'll go along with that, but if that is the case, a team better have the 4-3 defensive personnel to pull it off, i.e. big budget DE's, and gap penetrating DT's.

The way Capers runs it, he's saying he can stop the run too... as you've pointed out. Of course that is not the case - teams run on us on 3rd and 6, and get the 1st down!!!

Or in these cases when Forte walks into the end zone on 1st and goal!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWffw9Ex7_o

At 2:00 and 2:53 Capers runs the 2-4 on 1st and goal.

wow, just wow...

I dug this 2011 data up:



Pkg
3-4-4
4-3-4
5-2-4
2-4-5
3-3-5
4-2-5
1-4-6
2-3-6
3-2-6
4-1-6
1-3-7
Other


ARZ
49%
0%
0%
45%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
3%


ATL
0%
44%
0%
0%
6%
49%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%


BLT
6%
36%
0%
8%
21%
22%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
5%


BUF
2%
26%
7%
1%
9%
3%
0%
5%
21%
21%
0%
5%


CAR
0%
51%
1%
0%
0%
38%
0%
0%
0%
8%
0%
2%


CHI
0%
47%
0%
0%
0%
53%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%


CIN
0%
51%
0%
0%
0%
46%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%


CLV
0%
54%
0%
0%
11%
29%
0%
0%
1%
2%
0%
3%


DAL
34%
1%
0%
18%
3%
0%
8%
29%
0%
0%
1%
7%


DEN
0%
38%
0%
0%
44%
5%
0%
6%
3%
0%
0%
4%


DET
0%
48%
0%
0%
0%
45%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%


GB
27%
0%
0%
62%
0%
0%
2%
5%
0%
0%
0%
5%


HST
57%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
38%
0%
0%
0%
4%


IND
0%
61%
0%
0%
1%
36%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%


JAX
0%
45%
1%
0%
1%
34%
0%
0%
4%
12%
0%
4%


KC
55%
0%
0%
9%
0%
0%
1%
32%
0%
0%
1%
3%


MIA
30%
0%
0%
29%
27%
0%
5%
6%
0%
0%
0%
3%


MIN
0%
42%
0%
0%
0%
54%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
1%


NE
12%
29%
0%
3%
33%
12%
0%
2%
5%
1%
0%
3%


NO
4%
44%
0%
0%
36%
10%
0%
0%
2%
2%
0%
3%


NYG
0%
22%
0%
0%
22%
46%
0%
0%
5%
3%
0%
3%


NYJ
37%
0%
0%
3%
19%
0%
6%
7%
4%
0%
16%
7%


OAK
0%
37%
3%
1%
18%
4%
0%
1%
30%
4%
0%
3%


PHI
0%
41%
0%
0%
0%
46%
0%
0%
0%
10%
0%
3%


PIT
58%
0%
0%
26%
0%
0%
0%
15%
0%
0%
0%
1%


SD
50%
0%
0%
37%
6%
0%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
3%


SEA
0%
56%
0%
0%
0%
35%
0%
0%
4%
1%
0%
4%


SF
45%
0%
0%
42%
0%
0%
0%
11%
0%
0%
0%
1%


SL
0%
56%
0%
0%
0%
15%
0%
0%
0%
27%
0%
2%


TB
0%
52%
0%
0%
3%
29%
0%
0%
9%
6%
0%
2%


TEN
0%
44%
0%
0%
0%
42%
0%
0%
11%
1%
0%
2%


WAS
53%
0%
0%
44%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
2%


NFL
16%
29%
0%
10%
9%
20%
1%
5%
3%
3%
1%
3%




So what I said wasn't true because there was one 3-4 team that didn't use the 2-4 as a go to nickel which was the Jets although they apparently also ran a 1-3-7 16% of the time which I can only imagine would triple your blood pressure as a fan.

We ran a shitload of nickel in situations where other teams would run a 3-4 and also when other teams would run a 2-3 dime. So now perhaps it's clear what I've been saying, that I don't want to throw out the 2-4 altogether because that's nuts, I just want to throw out the Pickett+Raji version and replace those snaps with something more conventional. Do this and our % would be in line with Arizona, SF, and Washington.

[red]

so are we a 3-4 team, or are we really a 2-4? seeings how that chart says we were in a 2-4 more then twice as often as we were in our base 3-4, i would say the capers d is a base 2-4

so based on that, wist would win the internet

[mraynrand]

So now perhaps it's clear what I've been saying, that I don't want to throw out the 2-4 altogether because that's nuts, I just want to throw out the Pickett+Raji version and replace those snaps with something more conventional. Do this and our % would be in line with Arizona, SF, and Washington.

When I get more data, I'll start a new thread about the 2-4. But given that the Packers NEVER ran the Raji-Pickett 2-4 in the opener, when they had their preferred personnel available, I suspect that Capers doesn't like the Raji-Pick 2-4 and that they won't run it even if they get those guys back, APRH. They used D. Jones and Neal exclusively in the 2-4 in the opener.

[mraynrand]

so are we a 3-4 team, or are we really a 2-4? seeings how that chart says we were in a 2-4 more then twice as often as we were in our base 3-4, i would say the capers d is a base 2-4

so based on that, wist would win the internet

It depends on who they play against and who you count as an OLB or DE. Against SF, the Packers were largely 3-4 with the 3 being an assortment of 79-90-97. But you can go 2-4 with Perry and Neal and have flexibility to defend the run. But the Packers rarely ran the 2-4 when expecting run. But that's based on limited data. Eventually, I'll get through the entire season and we'll see...

[red]

It depends on who they play against and who you count as an OLB or DE. Against SF, the Packers were largely 3-4 with the 3 being an assortment of 79-90-97. But you can go 2-4 with Perry and Neal and have flexibility to defend the run. But the Packers rarely ran the 2-4 when expecting run. But that's based on limited data. Eventually, I'll get through the entire season and we'll see...

are neal and perry lined up on the line and rushing, making it a 4-2? or are they off the line and dropping into coverage, meaning you're taking to guys that suck at coverage, and making them cover?

after watching the video against the bears, i guess i don't have a problem with the 3-4 or 2-4 or 4-2 part, its the fact that we are in the nickle on first and goal

the 3-4 is suppose to be the more athletic formation already seeings how you have 4 smaller speedier LB's on the field instead of 4 bigger slower linemen. why do we need to go even more athletic then that?

i think if we got 1 or 2 safeties that are worth a shit, and 1 or 2 LB's that could cover, then maybe we wouldn't have to play the nickle on 2/3rds of our plays

[3irty1]

so are we a 3-4 team, or are we really a 2-4? seeings how that chart says we were in a 2-4 more then twice as often as we were in our base 3-4, i would say the capers d is a base 2-4

so based on that, wist would win the internet

Our base defense is a 3-4 but only because the 2-4 is a derived from that which is what base D is supposed to mean. There are a bunch of 4-3 teams that spend more time in their 4-2 subpackage but that doesn't make it not a subpackage. I get what you're saying though, we use the 2-4 for everything, even when other teams would use a dime. No wonder in 2011 the middle of the field was wide open all year.

[mraynrand]

are neal and perry lined up on the line and rushing, making it a 4-2? or are they off the line and dropping into coverage, meaning you're taking to guys that suck at coverage, and making them cover?

So far, I've rarely seen Perry or Neal in coverage. Pass rushing or run fits mostly.

[mraynrand]

I get what you're saying though, we use the 2-4 for everything, even when other teams would use a dime. No wonder in 2011 the middle of the field was wide open all year.

Maybe 2013 as well. This is an interesting point, because the Packers did use the 2-4 a lot on passing downs and against SF, gave up some of their bigger completions - at least in the first half. Given that they were missing Burnett and relying on McMillian and Jennings, in retrospect it seems like a bad gamble, even though SF had fewer receiving threats at the time (Crabtree and Manningham out).

[pbmax]

Why in poo-perfect hell would a 4-3 team run a 2-4??

Invest all those $millions in DL, and then plunk their ass on the bench??

Get real max.

They have been a multiple front for years. Suggs was always a one man hybrid at 260. With Dumerville there at 5' 11", that is a three four. When they go heavy, they stick what-his-name from Alabama in there.

You could call it a Pete Carroll 4-3 Elephant, but its a smaller front in any alignment than the Packers throw out there. In their pass rush package, there are only 2 true D lineman.

[mraynrand]

after watching the video against the bears, i guess i don't have a problem with the 3-4 or 2-4 or 4-2 part, its the fact that we are in the nickle on first and goal

Red, what the hell else are you to do when they show 3 wides and have Bennett and Forte? And their tendency is to pass. If it was first and goal from the 1 or 2, sure, load up the line. But from the 6, they showed pass. Packers had it well defended scheme-wise. It's just that Mulumba can't hold up to run blocking like Perry or Matthews, and to get bigger means a rookie DL or two pass rushers (D. Jones, Daniels). Options were limited by personnel.

[pbmax]

A 4-3 morphing into a 4-2 nickel is not trying to keep size on the field. One of those lineman on the field is probably Kampman sized or less.

They are taking off a thumping MLB to replace him with a DB. Given that 4-3 D's tend to rely on either the MLB or the Will (with the MLB taking on a Guard/FB) to make most plays, they are making the same run soundness for pass defense substitution every team makes in nickel.

The exception to this would be if you were Jim Haslett and you have asked for one or two big thumpers at ILB. Then you might have to run 3-3 or at least sub out a different LB for Levon Kirkland.

And even then, you might be sending in a pass rush specialist to replace one of the 3 D lineman as well.

[mraynrand]

^^^ that's fine for the nickel, but what about the dime - then you need to go 2-3-6. I am taking 31's word for it that the packers got burned a lot running the 2-4 in 2011 on passing downs. That seems unsound.

[wist43]

I dug this 2011 data up:



Pkg
3-4-4
4-3-4
5-2-4
2-4-5
3-3-5
4-2-5
1-4-6
2-3-6
3-2-6
4-1-6
1-3-7
Other


ARZ
49%
0%
0%
45%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
3%


ATL
0%
44%
0%
0%
6%
49%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%


BLT
6%
36%
0%
8%
21%
22%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
5%


BUF
2%
26%
7%
1%
9%
3%
0%
5%
21%
21%
0%
5%


CAR
0%
51%
1%
0%
0%
38%
0%
0%
0%
8%
0%
2%


CHI
0%
47%
0%
0%
0%
53%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%


CIN
0%
51%
0%
0%
0%
46%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%


CLV
0%
54%
0%
0%
11%
29%
0%
0%
1%
2%
0%
3%


DAL
34%
1%
0%
18%
3%
0%
8%
29%
0%
0%
1%
7%


DEN
0%
38%
0%
0%
44%
5%
0%
6%
3%
0%
0%
4%


DET
0%
48%
0%
0%
0%
45%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7%


GB
27%
0%
0%
62%
0%
0%
2%
5%
0%
0%
0%
5%


HST
57%
0%
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
38%
0%
0%
0%
4%


IND
0%
61%
0%
0%
1%
36%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%


JAX
0%
45%
1%
0%
1%
34%
0%
0%
4%
12%
0%
4%


KC
55%
0%
0%
9%
0%
0%
1%
32%
0%
0%
1%
3%


MIA
30%
0%
0%
29%
27%
0%
5%
6%
0%
0%
0%
3%


MIN
0%
42%
0%
0%
0%
54%
0%
0%
0%
3%
0%
1%


NE
12%
29%
0%
3%
33%
12%
0%
2%
5%
1%
0%
3%


NO
4%
44%
0%
0%
36%
10%
0%
0%
2%
2%
0%
3%


NYG
0%
22%
0%
0%
22%
46%
0%
0%
5%
3%
0%
3%


NYJ
37%
0%
0%
3%
19%
0%
6%
7%
4%
0%
16%
7%


OAK
0%
37%
3%
1%
18%
4%
0%
1%
30%
4%
0%
3%


PHI
0%
41%
0%
0%
0%
46%
0%
0%
0%
10%
0%
3%


PIT
58%
0%
0%
26%
0%
0%
0%
15%
0%
0%
0%
1%


SD
50%
0%
0%
37%
6%
0%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
3%


SEA
0%
56%
0%
0%
0%
35%
0%
0%
4%
1%
0%
4%


SF
45%
0%
0%
42%
0%
0%
0%
11%
0%
0%
0%
1%


SL
0%
56%
0%
0%
0%
15%
0%
0%
0%
27%
0%
2%


TB
0%
52%
0%
0%
3%
29%
0%
0%
9%
6%
0%
2%


TEN
0%
44%
0%
0%
0%
42%
0%
0%
11%
1%
0%
2%


WAS
53%
0%
0%
44%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
2%


NFL
16%
29%
0%
10%
9%
20%
1%
5%
3%
3%
1%
3%




So what I said wasn't true because there was one 3-4 team that didn't use the 2-4 as a go to nickel which was the Jets although they apparently also ran a 1-3-7 16% of the time which I can only imagine would triple your blood pressure as a fan.

We ran a shitload of nickel in situations where other teams would run a 3-4 and also when other teams would run a 2-3 dime. So now perhaps it's clear what I've been saying, that I don't want to throw out the 2-4 altogether because that's nuts, I just want to throw out the Pickett+Raji version and replace those snaps with something more conventional. Do this and our % would be in line with Arizona, SF, and Washington.

Excellent find, I will assume the numbers are correct...

But just as with players at DE/OLB and TE/WR (Jimmy Graham) trying to redesignate what they are for franchise tag purposes, how do these statistics define fronts?? As with Dallas's Demarcus Ware. He is listed as a DE, and I assume when they are defined as being in a 3-4, his hand is on the ground vs. when they are defining them to be in a 2-4, or a 2-3, he is standing up??

As for the Packers, that chart backs up my argument that we play more 2-4 than anyone in the league - by a wide margin. Arizona, SF, and Washington are the only ones that are even within 20% points, and each of them runs more 3-4 than they do 2-4.

Green Bay on the other hand is listed at 62% 2-4, and only 27% 3-4.

As I said, no one else is even close... this backs up my argument.

Excellent use of the internet my friend, lol... :)

[red]

Red, what the hell else are you to do when they show 3 wides and have Bennett and Forte? And their tendency is to pass. If it was first and goal from the 1 or 2, sure, load up the line. But from the 6, they showed pass. Packers had it well defended scheme-wise. It's just that Mulumba can't hold up to run blocking like Perry or Matthews, and to get bigger means a rookie DL or two pass rushers (D. Jones, Daniels). Options were limited by personnel.

my understanding is that the ILB's are suppose to be able to drop back or at least stay where they are to help in coverage. we play a zone, not a man, so we don't need to go hat for hat

like PB said, taking out a bigger LB, for a smaller CB doesn't seem all that smart in most situations

[mraynrand]

^^^ it was still a nickel Red, not dime. Four LBs in there.

[wist43]

What you continually fail to recognize is the effect of personnel. Bears are running three wide with Bennett at TE. That's four legit receiving threats, not to mention Forte out of the backfield. Chicago passes far more often than they run on that down and distance. Earlier in the year, Neal was in the 2-4 with Jones, but late in the year, with injuries - esp to Jolly, the rotation changed. So now you have Neal, Pick and Raji. That's 3 down linemen, depending on how you look at Neal. on the other side, Mulumba is filling in for Perry and Matthews who are both out at that point, and Lattimore is in for Brad Jones. Blame the 2-4 all you want, but you put in an extra fatty lineman (the rookie? Who? D. Jones or Daniels), and your ability to cover the TE or RB is compromised. Funny that Neal recognized the run, but didn't get there. On the other side, would have preferred Perry over Mulumba who got killed, but Perry was hurt. Would have preferred Matthews to Perry or Lattimore, but Matthews was hurt. I guess Capers biggest failure is his inability to just conjure up new pro bowl personnel using spells and incantations.

Dude - TT paid Brad Jones a bushel full of money to cover TE's, did he not?? And if you are in a 3-4, you still have 4 DB's and Jones on the field, do you not??

So right there, you have 5 players committed to covering 3 receivers, and 1 TE - more if your defensive call is zone and you drop x-number of LB's. On those 2 plays, you're only defending 5 yds and 1 yd!!!

By being the 2-4 in those down/distance/goal to go situations - why would any Offensive Coordinator call a pass, when he can just run it up the middle and walk into the end zone?? Which is exactly what happened!!!

How is it that you miss any of that?? lol...

[3irty1]

Excellent find, I will assume the numbers are correct...

But just as with players at DE/OLB and TE/WR (Jimmy Graham) trying to redesignate what they are for franchise tag purposes, how do these statistics define fronts?? As with Dallas's Demarcus Ware. He is listed as a DE, and I assume when they are defined as being in a 3-4, his hand is on the ground vs. when they are defining them to be in a 2-4, or a 2-3, he is standing up??

As for the Packers, that chart backs up my argument that we play more 2-4 than anyone in the league - by a wide margin. Arizona, SF, and Washington are the only ones that are even within 20% points, and each of them runs more 3-4 than they do 2-4.

Green Bay on the other hand is listed at 62% 2-4, and only 27% 3-4.

As I said, no one else is even close... this backs up my argument.

Excellent use of the internet my friend, lol... :)

This is 2011 data so Ware would have been listed at OLB. No one disputes that we run by far the most, what I'm saying is that we've got different versions of it for different down and distances. Our 3rd down 2-4 doesn't look like our 1st down 2-4 even though both count towards our 62%. I'm guessing that the about 10% of the time we're running that "run stopping" 2-4 that I want gone. Do away with it and the difference between us and a normal team is mostly accounted for, the rest can be accounted for by how little dime we were running. In 2011 that made sense to keep Jarrett Bush off the field but these days with Hyde and Hayward it would seem like we can put a pretty good 2-3 on the field.

I'd say appropriate % for the Packers is something like 35% 3-4, 45% 2-4, 10% dime, 10% other

[3irty1]

Dude - TT paid Brad Jones a bushel full of money to cover TE's, did he not?? And if you are in a 3-4, you still have 4 DB's and Jones on the field, do you not??

So right there, you have 5 players committed to covering 3 receivers, and 1 TE - more if your defensive call is zone and you drop x-number of LB's. On those 2 plays, you're only defending 5 yds and 1 yd!!!

By being the 2-4 in those down/distance/goal to go situations - why would any Offensive Coordinator call a pass, when he can just run it up the middle and walk into the end zone?? Which is exactly what happened!!!

How is it that you miss any of that?? lol...

This is like the 3rd time I've heard you talk about the big contract that Brad Jones or AJ Hawk are rocking. How much do they make exactly?

[red]

^^^ it was still a nickel Red, not dime. Four LBs in there.

no i ment it in a different way

when we run a 2-4, it looks to me like we're actually running the 4-3, but we're substituting a LB or a cb. taking it from a 4-3-4, to a 4-2-5

[wist43]

This is 2011 data so Ware would have been listed at OLB. No one disputes that we run by far the most, what I'm saying is that we've got different versions of it for different down and distances. Our 3rd down 2-4 doesn't look like our 1st down 2-4 even though both count towards our 62%. I'm guessing that the about 10% of the time we're running that "run stopping" 2-4 that I want gone. Do away with it and the difference between us and a normal team is mostly accounted for, the rest can be accounted for by how little dime we were running. In 2011 that made sense to keep Jarrett Bush off the field but these days with Hyde and Hayward it would seem like we can put a pretty good 2-3 on the field.

Running that "Jumbo 2-4" Capers is hoping to get one halfway decent stop on 1st or 2nd down. He's comfortable with giving up a 7 yd run on 1st down, if on 2nd down he can stop them for no gain, and end up at 3rd and 3.

Of course an offense would take short 3rd down conversions like that every time, as you hear announcers going on endlessly about "managable" 3rd down situations.

Trouble for Capers is that he's as likely to give up a 5 yd run on that 3rd down, as he is likely to stop a short pass.

As for the statistics you posted, you said they were for 2011... might I remind everyone, Green Bay set an NFL record for pass defense futility in 2011, and finished next to last in overall defense. That just doesn't work for me.

[red]

This is like the 3rd time I've heard you talk about the big contract that Brad Jones or AJ Hawk are rocking. How much do they make exactly?

brad jones cap numbers

2013- 2.5 million
2014-3.925 million
2015- 4.675

not huge amounts, but a lot more then what jones is worth IMO. i would say that 2.5 million a year every year would be fair

hawk

2013- 5.2
2014- 5.1
2015- 5.1

higher, but it depends on your take on hawk. he seems to be a love him or hate him guy

[wist43]

This is like the 3rd time I've heard you talk about the big contract that Brad Jones or AJ Hawk are rocking. How much do they make exactly?

Wasn't Jones's 4 years, $22 million??

I'll have to look it up... I remember I was pissed when they signed him to it. He and Hawk are the dictionary definition of "pedestrian".

No matter what TT paid for Jones, he was overpaid. He is close to minimum wage player.

[wist43]

Looked it up... Jones signed a 3 year, $11.75 million contract.

Maybe it was Hawks that was 4 years, $22 million...

Regardless, they are both overpaid. The bottom line is - they don't make plays!!

[3irty1]

Running that "Jumbo 2-4" Capers is hoping to get one halfway decent stop on 1st or 2nd down. He's comfortable with giving up a 7 yd run on 1st down, if on 2nd down he can stop them for no gain, and end up at 3rd and 3.

Of course an offense would take short 3rd down conversions like that every time, as you hear announcers going on endlessly about "managable" 3rd down situations.

Trouble for Capers is that he's as likely to give up a 5 yd run on that 3rd down, as he is likely to stop a short pass.

As for the statistics you posted, you said they were for 2011... might I remind everyone, Green Bay set an NFL record for pass defense futility in 2011, and finished next to last in overall defense. That just doesn't work for me.

I don't have numbers for other years but it doesn't seem like they've moved away from the recipe. Exactly what they were doing worked well in 2010 and even worked pretty well in 2012 thanks to the miracle of Hayward's rookie year. Point I'm making is that there is nothing wrong with the 2-4 in general, it can be done because we've done it and even with all the changes I'd like to see it'd still be our most popular formation probably. My beef is that we haven't updated the defense from 2010 to work with 2013 personnel which is like the opposite of what good coaches do: Move the scheme to fit the personnel.

[pbmax]

^^^ that's fine for the nickel, but what about the dime - then you need to go 2-3-6. I am taking 31's word for it that the packers got burned a lot running the 2-4 in 2011 on passing downs. That seems unsound.

Well, that middle of the field problem persists to this day in Pittsburgh, so there are always area of vulnerabilities in any D. More concerning to me about the pass D were the dearth of pass rush and INTs, though that may not have been apparent during the '11 season.

The listing in 3irty1's chart is a bit misleading because in every one of those pass defenses, 2 LBs are pass rushing. But even then I don't remember much 6 DBs with 2 LBs from the Packers.

[3irty1]

Looked it up... Jones signed a 3 year, $11.75 million contract.

Maybe it was Hawks that was 4 years, $22 million...

Regardless, they are both overpaid. The bottom line is - they don't make plays!!

Jones is certainly overpaid for his production, I do think Hawk has earned his keep on durability alone. These guys are both just paid like average starters though.

[3irty1]

Well, that middle of the field problem persists to this day in Pittsburgh, so there are always area of vulnerabilities in any D. More concerning to me about the pass D were the dearth of pass rush and INTs, though that may not have been apparent during the '11 season.

The listing in 3irty1's chart is a bit misleading because in every one of those pass defenses, 2 LBs are pass rushing. But even then I don't remember much 6 DBs with 2 LBs from the Packers.

This is best known to fans as the "3 man rush" or "prevent" defense we saw so much through 2010 and 2011.

[pbmax]

This is best known to fans as the "3 man rush" or "prevent" defense we saw so much through 2010 and 2011.

Yes it was but I remember more 7 DBs and 1 ILB than I remember 6 DBs and 2 ILBs. Could be mistaken here but at one point there was only 1 dime linebacker.

[pbmax]

In the red zone, I am troubled by the 2-4 inside the 5 despite the matchup. But while Jones and Hawk may be counted on trailing the TE down a seam and forcing the QB to squeeze in a throw over the LB and in front of the safety, its a much different scenario in the red zone with a TE out side or in motion. Then an ILB needs help and that can cost you coverage elsewhere. I am not sanguine about my odds in a 3-4-4 versus a red zone pass.

However, the threat of a run, even if its against tendency is severe.

I think you have to play the best defense for your personnel. That may not have been Mulumba and probably points out an adjustment that needed to be made. Tough call, I don't know what Chicago's numbers were in the red zone. Jeffrey and Marshall that close are terrifying and Bennett doesn't help matters.

[Fritz]

This points up an issue that Wist does not seem to consider: the personnel. With the injuries at that point in the season, they were extremely limited in what and who they could put out there. I wonder - though of course I don't know - if Capers would've called a different formation if he'd had a fuller complement of players.

And you don't know the answer to that either, Wist, so don't come back please with your fatalistic "Capers would've called it anway because I have decided I know that he loves that defense so much that he would've called it no matter what."

Truth is, we just don't know.

[wist43]

This points up an issue that Wist does not seem to consider: the personnel. With the injuries at that point in the season, they were extremely limited in what and who they could put out there. I wonder - though of course I don't know - if Capers would've called a different formation if he'd had a fuller complement of players.

And you don't know the answer to that either, Wist, so don't come back please with your fatalistic "Capers would've called it anway because I have decided I know that he loves that defense so much that he would've called it no matter what."

Truth is, we just don't know.

Fritz, you really should look this stuff up before you try to poke me in the eye, lol...

I looked it up for week 17 against the Bears. As it happens, Brad Jones was inactive - so, since he's every 2-4 lovers poster boy, it would seem all the more reason not to be in the 2-4.

Beyond that, we had the following defensive linemen active for that game: Raji, Pickett, Daniels, Boyd, and D. Jones.

Of course Jolly was already on IR, Worthy was an injury inactive; but Wilson was a healthy scratch. In place of Wilson being active, MM had 3 QB's active - when there is absolutely no need for that, b/c you can have 3 suited up, and if your starter goes down, the 3rd QB can become active, but the starter cannot reenter the game. So there is absolutely no need to have 3 QB's active - ever.

Another caveat, Mulumba started in place of Perry.

[run pMc]

There were 3 QBs active because it was Rodgers first game back. God knows what Flynn or Tolzien could give you from one game to the next, so with all the other injuries having 3 QBs wasn't truly awful. They aren't going to have a lot of active DL in a 3-4D, especially if they play so much 2-4, and by then they didn't have a lot of healthy LBs (or anyone, it seemed).

B.Jones was pretty gimpy and not impressing before the CHI game; I doubt he would have been much help. Mulumba was beat up too. Whether you like him or not, I've no doubt Capers was limited in what he could call. He was starting rookie UDFAs...if one of the other NFCN teams does that, you don't think M3 and Rodgers don't take notice and try to take advantage? Playing rookies can payoff or backfire...sometimes in the same game.

I realize that makes me sound like a Capers apologist. He does stuff that drives me crazy, but I thought he was limited by personnel and injuries. TT's a pretty good GM, but he's got his work cut out for him on the personnel side and Capers by way of finding the best uses of the talent TT gives him.
Agree that a 2-4 that gives up 7 yds on 1st down is bad, but I'd hope on a run the safeties would come down to fill, and the DL would play their fits to prevent a gain like that. I'm not smart enough (or in the film room) to know if that's scheme or players, but I don't think most DC's would have done any better with the injuries and youth.

[Guiness]

Yes it was but I remember more 7 DBs and 1 ILB than I remember 6 DBs and 2 ILBs. Could be mistaken here but at one point there was only 1 dime linebacker.

The 7DBs on the field made possible by Woodson's ability to come up and make a play in run support, IMO.

[pbmax]

The 7DBs on the field made possible by Woodson's ability to come up and make a play in run support, IMO.

Yeah, he would often start out where an ILB would be as well.

After further thought, I suspect many of the three man rushes we saw were dime but I did not notice the 2 ILBs dropping into zones deep.

[Fritz]

Fritz, you really should look this stuff up before you try to poke me in the eye, lol...

I looked it up for week 17 against the Bears. As it happens, Brad Jones was inactive - so, since he's every 2-4 lovers poster boy, it would seem all the more reason not to be in the 2-4.

Beyond that, we had the following defensive linemen active for that game: Raji, Pickett, Daniels, Boyd, and D. Jones.

Of course Jolly was already on IR, Worthy was an injury inactive; but Wilson was a healthy scratch. In place of Wilson being active, MM had 3 QB's active - when there is absolutely no need for that, b/c you can have 3 suited up, and if your starter goes down, the 3rd QB can become active, but the starter cannot reenter the game. So there is absolutely no need to have 3 QB's active - ever.

Another caveat, Mulumba started in place of Perry.

I'm not sure how your educated, researched response somehow contradicts what I wrote. If MM had 3 QB's active and you want to complain about that, then fine - but that only suggests you'd have preferred the defense to have another player for Capers to choose from...and your "caveat" about Mulumba starting in place of Perry? Why didn't Neal play instead? Perhaps had it been Neal or Perry in the game the defensive call might've been different.

[mraynrand]

Dude - TT paid Brad Jones a bushel full of money to cover TE's, did he not?? And if you are in a 3-4, you still have 4 DB's and Jones on the field, do you not??

So right there, you have 5 players committed to covering 3 receivers, and 1 TE - more if your defensive call is zone and you drop x-number of LB's. On those 2 plays, you're only defending 5 yds and 1 yd!!!

By being the 2-4 in those down/distance/goal to go situations - why would any Offensive Coordinator call a pass, when he can just run it up the middle and walk into the end zone?? Which is exactly what happened!!!

How is it that you miss any of that?? lol...

I didn't miss anything. Let Jones cover the TE, APRH. The Packers were in a 3-4, if you consider Neal a DE, which the Packers essentially do. The play worked for Chicago because they went against tendency and because Mulumba and Lattimore were in there instead of any combination of Perry Matthews and Jones. That's just reality. The TD on that play was due to Chicago having a pretty good passing offense and still being able to go against tendency and exploit a weakened defenses weaknesses, and/or poor individual play. It had nothing to do with scheme necessarily.

[mraynrand]

I'm not sure how your educated, researched response somehow contradicts what I wrote. If MM had 3 QB's active and you want to complain about that, then fine - but that only suggests you'd have preferred the defense to have another player for Capers to choose from...and your "caveat" about Mulumba starting in place of Perry? Why didn't Neal play instead? Perhaps had it been Neal or Perry in the game the defensive call might've been different.

Neal was lined up at ROLB or LDE, however you want to look at it. He beat his guy, blew up run to his area, and would have sacked Cutler had it been a pass. The failure was on the right side of the line with Mulumba and Lattimore - and no help from the DL of Pickett and Raji. Considering how beat up Pick was and how useless Raji was, the outcome doesn't surprise me all that much. But that's not a scheme issue.

[wist43]

I'm not sure how your educated, researched response somehow contradicts what I wrote. If MM had 3 QB's active and you want to complain about that, then fine - but that only suggests you'd have preferred the defense to have another player for Capers to choose from...and your "caveat" about Mulumba starting in place of Perry? Why didn't Neal play instead? Perhaps had it been Neal or Perry in the game the defensive call might've been different.

Fritz, lol... you said Capers had to play the 2-4 b/c he didn't have a full compliment of players to choose from, i.e. he didn't have enough healthy DL to choose from.

He had 2 DL on the field in those 2-4, goal-to-go, alignments. He had 5 to choose from; and one of his constant 2-4 LB's, Brad Jones, was not even active for the game!!

So your contention is without merit - that's the point. Capers could have had 3 DL, or 4 DL, or even an actual "goal line defense" on the field - he certainly had enough DL to do it. So your point of injury leading to an insufficient number defensive linemen available simply doesn't hold water.

[red]

Neal was lined up at ROLB or LDE, however you want to look at it. He beat his guy, blew up run to his area, and would have sacked Cutler had it been a pass. The failure was on the right side of the line with Mulumba and Lattimore - and no help from the DL of Pickett and Raji. Considering how beat up Pick was and how useless Raji was, the outcome doesn't surprise me all that much. But that's not a scheme issue.

and yet thats the guy we decided to resign

wonderful

[mraynrand]

He had 2 DL on the field in those 2-4, goal-to-go, alignments.

If you count Neal, he had three. And Pick and Raji are his run stoppers. It's not like he had his pass defense 2-4 out there - which consists of D. Jones and Neal as the DL. So the scheme is entirely different from the 'base' 2-4 you keep harping on, and is actually closer to a typical run-stopping base 3-4.

[mraynrand]

and yet thats the guy we decided to resign

wonderful

To a one-year, bargain contract. Why is Raji not getting an 8 mil/year deal with 20+ guaranteed? I suspect TT said something like "I see the good in you Raji, the conflict"

[red]

To a one-year, bargain contract. Why is Raji not getting an 8 mil/year deal with 20+ guaranteed? I suspect TT said something like "I see the good in you Raji, the conflict"

if he saw something good about him, he must be watching him in the shower or something, because no one that saw him play the last 2 years on the field saw much to get excited about

[denverYooper]

I used to get feels on a trick,
now I throw Shields on the dick
to stop me from that HIV shit.

[Fritz]

Fritz, lol... you said Capers had to play the 2-4 b/c he didn't have a full compliment of players to choose from, i.e. he didn't have enough healthy DL to choose from.

He had 2 DL on the field in those 2-4, goal-to-go, alignments. He had 5 to choose from; and one of his constant 2-4 LB's, Brad Jones, was not even active for the game!!

So your contention is without merit - that's the point. Capers could have had 3 DL, or 4 DL, or even an actual "goal line defense" on the field - he certainly had enough DL to do it. So your point of injury leading to an insufficient number defensive linemen available simply doesn't hold water.

I didn't say injury to defensive linemen; I said injury may have limited Capers's choices for preferred defenders

[wist43]

I didn't say injury to defensive linemen; I said injury may have limited Capers's choices for preferred defenders

You're just trying to be shifty now, lol... you know all along that my complaint is that we don't have enough DL on the field - so why point out my complaints with your observation??

Are you saying in 1st and goal, Capers may actually have wanted to go to a 2-3, or a 1-5?? What sense would that make?? The issue there is stopping the run, hence, the need for more beef up front - and not just beef, but beef with hands on the ground. With only a yard to gain, if you don't get under the OL pads, then you're going to give ground - ground you can't afford to give - again, hence, you need beef on the field, and facing up the OL.

Neal standing up doesn't get you that, nor does bringing in another DB - what was needed, clearly, was at least 1 more DL.

[wist43]

If you count Neal, he had three. And Pick and Raji are his run stoppers. It's not like he had his pass defense 2-4 out there - which consists of D. Jones and Neal as the DL. So the scheme is entirely different from the 'base' 2-4 you keep harping on, and is actually closer to a typical run-stopping base 3-4.

You can't count Neal, b/c he was standing up... in goal-to-go situations you need DL with their hands on the ground to negate the surge of the OL.

By standing up, you give that leverage up before the ball is snapped.

[Fritz]

You win in this instance.

[pbmax]

Well, hold on declaring a winner. Much of the debate from this Bear's sequence centers on two facts that we can only guess at. In general, the play inside the 5 looks like its the wrong personnel and I agree with wist the threat of run is so great, you need more bodies inside for your plan at this down and distance. But you also have to consider match ups and active roster decisions for any single game. You are going to give up something to get something with a single opponent. Once you determine what the Bears are going to do to beat you in the game (pass) you plan your roster and game plan accordingly. We also don't know what the Bears play call tendency was that close in the red zone.

The Packers, with Wilson inactive, were not expecting a bulldozer attack from the Bears. Their O line was improved this year but it wasn't much of a threat to run. Not compared to Marshall, Jeffrey and Bennett. Hence Wilson was an easy inactive.

Neal and Jones didn't spend much time playing run defense in their version of the 2-4 and neither was a D line starter in a 3-4. Daniels and Boyd were more versatile, but both logged more time is pass rush nickel than base D. But I am not sure who logged the bulk of Jolly's snaps in base once he was hurt.

So the game time decision is to put players in who have not practiced much in the alignment or you stick with what you practiced and use backups at LB. They stuck with what they were practicing, matched up and got burned. But before declaring a lost cause, you are going to give up a touchdown inside the 5 yard line about 70% of the time. So the question that McCarthy and Capers must ask themselves is how much defending and increasing your 30% chance is worth in terms of roster construction, practice and game plan.

I think the run D must be rethought because outside of the start of the 2013 season, it has been horrendous. Injuries make it hard to predict future problems. And I don't think its 2-4 anymore as those numbers have come down from 2011, but 3irty1 could be right.

But I also don't want the run D rethought because of that goal line stand. Its not as common a game situation as the middle or other end of the field is. And if Matthews and BJones were healthy, I might prefer to play for the pass against this opponent.

[mraynrand]

You can't count Neal, b/c he was standing up... in goal-to-go situations you need DL with their hands on the ground to negate the surge of the OL.

By standing up, you give that leverage up before the ball is snapped.

That's just absurd. Neal won his battle, whether his hand was in the dirt or not.

[mraynrand]

if he saw something good about him, he must be watching him in the shower or something, because no one that saw him play the last 2 years on the field saw much to get excited about

Darth Vader was a piece of shit for 30 plus years. Hopefully Raji can turn it around in less time, and without dying.

[mraynrand]

Well, hold on declaring a winner.....

trying to split the baby again, I see....


http://spainhour83.tripod.com/calvin_hobbes/C_H_17.gif

[Smeefers]

I think he had just checked out on the Packers... he had made up his mind he was gone a couple of years ago, and as Capers continued to misuse him, it just soured his attitude all the more.

I don't blame him. He was wasted the way Capers used him.

Perry will be the next one to bolt for the door as soon as he can. Everyone is on him for underperformance, but he wasn't shy about not wanting to play OLB to begin with - the Packers draft him, and viola!!! just add water, instant OLB?? I'm sure he was seriously bummed when the Packers took him.

After Perry will be Jones.

I don't see Capers changing what he does; and, I think TT and MM have proven that Capers can consistently run one of the worst defenses in the league and they won't do anything about it, so by the time those guys's contracts come up, they'll be as frustrated and ready to leave as Raji was.

I don't understand the "I don't blame him" talk that you constantly pepper in when you think guys are tanking on purpose. If someone is sucking, I blame the shit out of them. If they're sucking on purpose? I don't want a cancer like that anywhere near my team. I don't blame Raji for not getting any sacks last year because he was taken out on passing downs. I do blame him for being part of a defense that was a sieve against the run in the second half of the season. I do blame Raji for looking like he just stopped caring. I blame him for not keeping that motor going. I absolutely loved Raji when I saw him sitting on the ground, legs in front of him, exhausted as we were getting our asses handed to us a year or two ago. I want to see my players leave every ounce they got on the field week in and week out.

The dude is getting paid millions of dollars to play the game. If he can't muster up a good attitude about it, then fuck him right in the ass. Blame's on him.

[mraynrand]

I don't understand the "I don't blame him" talk that you constantly pepper in when you think guys are tanking on purpose. If someone is sucking, I blame the shit out of them. If they're sucking on purpose? I don't want a cancer like that anywhere near my team. I don't blame Raji for not getting any sacks last year because he was taken out on passing downs. I do blame him for being part of a defense that was a sieve against the run in the second half of the season. I do blame Raji for looking like he just stopped caring. I blame him for not keeping that motor going. I absolutely loved Raji when I saw him sitting on the ground, legs in front of him, exhausted as we were getting our asses handed to us a year or two ago. I want to see my players leave every ounce they got on the field week in and week out.

The dude is getting paid millions of dollars to play the game. If he can't muster up a good attitude about it, then fuck him right in the ass. Blame's on him.

Preach it, brother!!!

[woodbuck27]

Fritz, lol... you said Capers had to play the 2-4 b/c he didn't have a full compliment of players to choose from, i.e. he didn't have enough healthy DL to choose from.

He had 2 DL on the field in those 2-4, goal-to-go, alignments. He had 5 to choose from; and one of his constant 2-4 LB's, Brad Jones, was not even active for the game!!

So your contention is without merit - that's the point. Capers could have had 3 DL, or 4 DL, or even an actual "goal line defense" on the field - he certainly had enough DL to do it. So your point of injury leading to an insufficient number defensive linemen available simply doesn't hold water.


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnxS_Uxat1qQ8RBUxrWPbtvs2ME656J YX0bppH2R530UA8uslW


https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSUkwtdv7ahyXha4njvoanuBtNojCI1M BS2v0xyrmHdtgvMZIydQQ

Dom " Stubborn Man" Capers ( born August 7, 1950 )

2028 - DC For The Green Bay Packers ....

[woodbuck27]

This is best known to fans as the "3 man rush" or "prevent" defense we saw so much through 2010 and 2011.

Having AJ Hawk (who's absolutely robbed the Green Bay Packers ) and Brad Jones stick around.

Now "prevents" the Green Bay Packers small 'd' defense from ever improving.

[bobblehead]

Looked it up... Jones signed a 3 year, $11.75 million contract.

Maybe it was Hawks that was 4 years, $22 million...

Regardless, they are both overpaid. The bottom line is - they don't make plays!!

I agree we need to upgrade both positions, but both guys are in this system for several years and we all knwo you need said veterans to run the Capers D. imo neither are overpaid, they are paid just right...below average and average, which is how they play.

[bobblehead]

Fritz, you really should look this stuff up before you try to poke me in the eye, lol...

I looked it up for week 17 against the Bears. As it happens, Brad Jones was inactive - so, since he's every 2-4 lovers poster boy, it would seem all the more reason not to be in the 2-4.

Beyond that, we had the following defensive linemen active for that game: Raji, Pickett, Daniels, Boyd, and D. Jones.

Of course Jolly was already on IR, Worthy was an injury inactive; but Wilson was a healthy scratch. In place of Wilson being active, MM had 3 QB's active - when there is absolutely no need for that, b/c you can have 3 suited up, and if your starter goes down, the 3rd QB can become active, but the starter cannot reenter the game. So there is absolutely no need to have 3 QB's active - ever.

Another caveat, Mulumba started in place of Perry.

I am convinced that CJ wilson slept with MM's wife.

[pbmax]

I am convinced that CJ wilson slept with MM's wife.

I heard he punched Trgo.

In other news, Raji should also be blamed for simply not being able to get off single blocking to make a play.

Here is a challenge: can you construct a 3-3 front that can rush the passer better than the 2-4? In other words, who is the down lineman you want pass rushing more than Perry or Neal?

[red]

I heard he punched Trgo.

In other news, Raji should also be blamed for simply not being able to get off single blocking to make a play.

Here is a challenge: can you construct a 3-3 front that can rush the passer better than the 2-4? In other words, who is the down lineman you want pass rushing more than Perry or Neal?

i'm pretty sure thats what we drafted datone for, and maybe worthey and neal before him

[mraynrand]

i'm pretty sure thats what we drafted datone for, and maybe worthey and neal before him

and that's exactly how they started the season - in a 2-4 with Jones and Neal as the DL, and Matthews and Perry at OLB. It didn't seem all that unsound to me - you have pass rush capability, and due to Perry and Neal having solid DL experience and size, they can defend the run as well. But guys have to perform (D. Jone) and remain uninjured (Perry, Matthews).

[mraynrand]

Having AJ Hawk (who's absolutely robbed the Green Bay Packers ) and Brad Jones stick around.

Now "prevents" the Green Bay Packers small 'd' defense from ever improving.

Hogwash. Packers have several options to replace current LBs already on their roster and will likely draft and/or bring in other LBs. Brad Jones' time is short. And Hawk is perfectly fine if he's the weak link in the defense.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

If Raji does sign a one year deal, I would be interested in seeing Perry and Jones starting at DE and Raji at NT. Hopefully they keep Neal so Perry can play DE and him and Clay can start at OLB.

[Fritz]

Interesting that the Packers appear to have made a . . . what was the word? "Serious"? "Meaningful"? offer to Mike Neal, who is still going to shop his wares.

It makes me wonder if the team is disenchanted with Perry, or if they see enough snaps for both Perry and Neal.

As for which down linemen in a 3-3 you'd want rushing the passer, that would be Daniels, for sure, Jones, and probably they drafted Worthy for this, too.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Interesting that the Packers appear to have made a . . . what was the word? "Serious"? "Meaningful"? offer to Mike Neal, who is still going to shop his wares.

It makes me wonder if the team is disenchanted with Perry, or if they see enough snaps for both Perry and Neal.

As for which down linemen in a 3-3 you'd want rushing the passer, that would be Daniels, for sure, Jones, and probably they drafted Worthy for this, too.

Matthews and Perry are both injury prone. Plus, Neal is a nickel pass rusher. All three would get plenty of playing time.

[Fritz]

So any early word on Shields?

[Joemailman]

So any early word on Shields?

Yep.