Loss to AZ a possible off-season positive, IF capitalized on

[green_bowl_packer]

This was from a Boston paper regarding the Patriots loss. Did read/hear some things that TT was bound to go nuts in the off-season (per his standards) and look to sign two lineman (TB tackles?). I'd like to think that if there is a given advantage, we will take it.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2010/01/why_the_loss_he.html

The Patriots (and PACKERS) received one concrete benefit from losing Sunday. In losing, the Patriots ensured they will have the freedom to spend as much money on unrestricted free agents as they want this offseason. The eight playoff teams remaining will be restrained in how many free agents they are allowed to sign this offseason because of the rules that govern a year with no salary cap.

The teams who made the final eight but lose this weekend will only be permitted to sign one unrestricted free agent for $4.925 million per year or more, plus the number of their unrestricted free agents sign with another team. They can also sign any unrestricted free agents who sign for less than $3.275 million per year.

[mission]

Re: Loss to AZ a possible off-season positive, IF capitalize

This was from a Boston paper regarding the Patriots loss. Did read/hear some things that TT was bound to go nuts in the off-season (per his standards) and look to sign two lineman (TB tackles?). I'd like to think that if there is a given advantage, we will take it.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2010/01/why_the_loss_he.html

The Patriots (and PACKERS) received one concrete benefit from losing Sunday. In losing, the Patriots ensured they will have the freedom to spend as much money on unrestricted free agents as they want this offseason. The eight playoff teams remaining will be restrained in how many free agents they are allowed to sign this offseason because of the rules that govern a year with no salary cap.

The teams who made the final eight but lose this weekend will only be permitted to sign one unrestricted free agent for $4.925 million per year or more, plus the number of their unrestricted free agents sign with another team. They can also sign any unrestricted free agents who sign for less than $3.275 million per year.

Where did you hear that about the linemen/TT?

[green_bowl_packer]

Re: Loss to AZ a possible off-season positive, IF capitalize

This was from a Boston paper regarding the Patriots loss. Did read/hear some things that TT was bound to go nuts in the off-season (per his standards) and look to sign two lineman (TB tackles?). I'd like to think that if there is a given advantage, we will take it.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2010/01/why_the_loss_he.html

The Patriots (and PACKERS) received one concrete benefit from losing Sunday. In losing, the Patriots ensured they will have the freedom to spend as much money on unrestricted free agents as they want this offseason. The eight playoff teams remaining will be restrained in how many free agents they are allowed to sign this offseason because of the rules that govern a year with no salary cap.

The teams who made the final eight but lose this weekend will only be permitted to sign one unrestricted free agent for $4.925 million per year or more, plus the number of their unrestricted free agents sign with another team. They can also sign any unrestricted free agents who sign for less than $3.275 million per year.

Where did you hear that about the linemen/TT?

Premonition?

You got me, sorry about that. I searched for a story or a post and couldn't find anything regarding pursuing some linemen. I've got mozilla with five NFL tabs, I'm back and forth on all season long. The comment would more likely have come from a Joe Blow Packer fan, than Joe Montana. This ones got a link.

I do think that we are finally at the add the cherry on top stage of team building than at any point in TT's stint as GM. I don't quite understand all of the ramifications of the uncapped year, but from what I understand we are better off with it, as we have so many of our own guys to wrap up we can sit on them.

I guess you also jeopardize the locker room if you give money to someone from the outside over the guys we already have who are waiting for a raise.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Diner-morning-news-How-the-Packers-can-improve.html

Diner morning news: How the Packers can improve

by Michael Lombardi
January 14, 02010

Wednesday, I wrote about the Patriots being fortunate to lose in the first round of the playoffs since it will allow them to be active in free agency. Well, the same can be said for the Packers, who also lost in the first round. However, the Packers have a completely different team than the Patriots in terms of youth and talent, and the cure for their ills won’t necessarily come from free agency. But there might be a blue-chip player who can make a difference if they’re open-minded.

On offense, the Packers have extremely talented skill players, but their needs are in the offensive line, where free agency does not often provide answers. Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher played well down the stretch and solidified the line late in the season, but was their play perfect? No, but it was much better than having to put T.J. Lang and Allen Barbre at tackle. The Packers need help in their offensive line, which will have to come from the draft. Will Lang and Barbre get better? Maybe, but the Packers front office can’t hang their hopes on either player. They must be aggressive in their approach to securing linemen. The Packers must find linemen who can play with power in the run game and can keep the pocket clean in pass protection to afford quarterback Aaron Rodgers time. If Rodgers has time, if he has comfort in the pocket, there’s no telling how good he can be. With Rodgers playing at his current level, the supporting players around him will be easy to find, but finding quality linemen will be the stiffest challenge.

On defense, the Packers have to be concerned. They had the No. 2-ranked defense in the NFL, but in each of their six losses, they gave up more than 30 points a game. Their inability to play effectively against top passing teams has to cause concern, but more than the talent base, they have to be concerned about how easily the Cardinals attacked their scheme last week. The Cardinals’ wide receivers weren’t just open, they were wide open, and this must force defensive coordinator Dom Capers to make adjustments. Clearly, the Cards copied the game plan of the Steelers by stacking their wideouts and creating problems for the Packers’ defensive backs. When playing a pure man-to-man team, stacking the wideouts allows the receivers to get off the line cleanly, but it also places a burden on the defense to sort out the coverage and communicate with each another — something the Packers failed to do. When a team can attack the scheme as well as the Cardinals and Steelers did, it has to force the Packers into making adjustments.

I know the Packers were missing veteran cornerback Al Harris, who would have helped sort through some of the calls, but if the Packers want to continue to play all this man-to-man coverage, they’ll need to add more corners. This may come from free agency, but knowing that Packers GM Ted Thompson doesn’t embrace free agency, I’m sure they’ll draft another corner.


Yet here lies the problem for Thompson. He has a very good team that’s one solid offseason from competing for a Super Bowl title, but all his needs will not be met in just the draft. He has to be more open-minded in his approach to free agency and try to fix some of the current concerns on the team before the draft. He should really give great thought to trying to add a player of the caliber of the Panthers’ Julius Peppers. If Peppers is a free agent, he’ll command a huge pay day, but he would be a perfect fit coming off the edge to help Clay Matthews rush. One more blue-chip player would really make a difference to the Packers on defense.

This is not to imply that Thompson should spend like a drunken sailor, but he should consider spending for quality. And he has to use every avenue available to improve his team because he can’t address every need in just the draft. He’s on the cusp of something very good in Green Bay, and he needs to just make a few moves to get this team over the top.

So like the Patriots, it might have served the Packers well to lose in round one of the playoffs. Thompson just needs to make a few moves in free agency to get this team over the hump.

[Bretsky]

good article but I lack much faith that TT will splash in free agency

It also looks like we should have kept Frank Walker; he's have been our third best CB last weekend and is still playing Sunday

[red]

i don't see anything happening in FA for us, line wise

there's a small chance a good lineman will hit free agency this year, and many teams will be going after them (him)

[Sparkey]

lol

I heard on Michael, Hawk plus our first and third to Cleveland for Joe Thomas!

yeah sure

[Freak Out]

It also looks like we should have kept Frank Walker; he's have been our third best CB last weekend and is still playing Sunday

Who'd have thought we'd be pining for the likes of Frank Walker.

[pbmax]

Mike Lombardi should pay more attention. Lang was in the game and did fine being thrown in the fire. He can be trusted to play next year, the problem is deciding where.

Also, the Packers were in a Cover 2, not a pure man to man. Though they do play some of the DBs in press coverage. If it was man to man, then there would be no need to make calls, as each guy would have a specific player and would follow him like a puppy. Lombardi means matching up in a zone, not man to man*.


* May be complete mule fritters. Take with grain of salt until confirmed.

[SnakeLH2006]

lol

I heard on Michael, Hawk plus our first and third to Cleveland for Joe Thomas!

yeah sure

I'd take that deal too.