Packers extend an offer to a Free Agent DE

[texaspackerbacker]

I guess one word: INJURIES wasn't enough.

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

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

[wist43]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sharpe1027]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[wist43]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sharpe1027]

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

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

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

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

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

[wist43]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sharpe1027]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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