Packers extend an offer to a Free Agent DE

[sharpe1027]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Partial]

Love xkcd.

[Brando19]

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

[falco]

Love xkcd.

pfb kicks xkcd's ass

http://pbfcomics.com/

[Patler]

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

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

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

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

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

[texaspackerbacker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One word: INJURIES

[3irty1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rbaloha1]

Some of you guys get too caught up with stats.

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

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

[SnakeLH2006]

Re: Packers extend an offer to a Free Agent DE

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

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

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

[hurleyfan]

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

Maybe a new coach and scheme helps?

[Bretsky]

Re: Packers extend an offer to a Free Agent DE

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

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

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

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

Poor Frickin Guy

He should rename his bit to be the Blog about Nothing

[wist43]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pugger]

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

[sharpe1027]

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

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

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

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

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

[cheesner]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody here is content with a slightly above average team. The NFCC game 2 years ago we were within a play or two of beating the eventual champ. Not sure if we matched up well to beat NE, but who knows?

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

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