Driver, Woodson and Jennings

[Joemailman]

3 of the recent pinnacles of the Packers franchise have or will depart from the Packers. It is a testament to the job TT has done that nobody seems too nervous about it.

None of the 3 had a crucial role with the 2012 Packers, so replacing them on the field won't be a big deal. However, that's a lot of leadership walking out the door. It will be necessary for some players who haven't had a big leadership role in the past to assume one.

On defense I'm looking at Clay Matthews and Tramon Williams, if Tramon can elevate his game over what we saw this year. You can't jump out of Adrian Peterson's way and be seen as a leader.

On offense someone will need to emerge as a leader of the receiver group. Not sure how that will play out.

[pittstang5]

I'm still not 100% that Jennings will be gone. Maybe it's denial. I honestly can't see him in another uniform.

[smuggler]

He's gone. I think he'll look good in Dolphin white.

[King Friday]

I'm still not 100% that Jennings will be gone. Maybe it's denial. I honestly can't see him in another uniform.

Jennings was gone the minute the Packer offense didn't miss much of a beat without him this season. The emergence of Cobb and Jones makes Jennings very easy to let go when you consider how much he is going to cost.

[pittstang5]

He's gone. I think he'll look good in Dolphin white.

If he has to go somewhere other than GB, I'm fine with Miami or any where in the AFC.

Vikings or Bears could be possible places - both teams need a receiver like Jennings. That would suck.

[Smeefers]

The vikings have 19 mil cap space and the bears have 24 mil in cap space. Either could easily afford him.

[Fritz]

The vikings have 19 mil cap space and the bears have 24 mil in cap space. Either could easily afford him.

On the other hand, the Lions are tight against the cap. Their solution? They're going to restructure (that is, push sal cap money problems into the future and try to live for the moment) contracts. They intend to restructure Stafford's, and have already restructured their mediocre center, Dominic Raiola's, contract.

I love it. Keep restructuring those contracts, Detroit, so you can sign a couple aging vets!

[Pugger]

Jennings was gone the minute the Packer offense didn't miss much of a beat without him this season. The emergence of Cobb and Jones makes Jennings very easy to let go when you consider how much he is going to cost.

You didn't think our offense missed a beat without him this season? He is our best route runner and he makes the other WRs better. Our offense in 2012 not being what in 2011 and his absence for much od the season was not a coincidence to me.

[smuggler]

Pass protection was the difference between 2011 and 2012.

[SkinBasket]

Calling Jennings a "pinnacle" player is like calling the Big Mac a gastronomical delicacy. Yeah, he was good. Sometimes great. Sometimes he wasn't around, and sometimes he just wasn't worth the money. But lets not pretend he was any more than a 60th percentile WR, who's always had HOF quality QBs throwing the ball to him.

[King Friday]

You didn't think our offense missed a beat without him this season? He is our best route runner and he makes the other WRs better. Our offense in 2012 not being what in 2011 and his absence for much od the season was not a coincidence to me.

The offense wasn't as good as last year even when Jennings WAS in the lineup. Our OL was made up of a bunch of late round picks and undrafted players by the end of the year. The number of QB pressures this year was the key difference in the decreased production from 2011.

Bottom line...you could have 4 mediocre receivers out there, and with Rodgers and a very good OL, they will look like world beaters. You simply DO NOT PAY to keep a top receiver when you have a QB like Rodgers. It isn't necessary, and restricts your ability to afford help in other areas of real need.

[Fritz]

Calling Jennings a "pinnacle" player is like calling the Big Mac a gastronomical delicacy. Yeah, he was good. Sometimes great. Sometimes he wasn't around, and sometimes he just wasn't worth the money. But lets not pretend he was any more than a 60th percentile WR, who's always had HOF quality QBs throwing the ball to him.

Wait a minute. Wait just a minute. Big Macs are awesome, Skin. And don't you forget it.

I'd like to see Jennings back - but not if the price will cost the team Raji, who is I think the most likely of the big three to not re-up.

[woodbuck27]

The vikings have 19 mil cap space and the bears have 24 mil in cap space. Either could easily afford him.

The Bears should go all in on him but I'm thinking that Greg Jennings wants to move the family to a warmer climate.

[Ballboy]

I dont claim to know all the ins & outs of the cap....but in my eyes I feel Jennnings is a must keep. I suggested in the past that cutting the like of Finley(I do like him, just not at 8million) and restructuring others we could get Greg at a decent price without having to worry about mortgaging the future. Now with the Packers cuttting Woodson, and the small rumblings to a lesser extent Hawk...why cant/wont we be able to make a run at him? For all the talk about the TE's in MM's system, how many balls and TD's did they actually have this year? Was there ever a game where AR went to Finley time & time again in total domination? Just look at the games Jennings had after he came back.

Furthermore, it could be very possible the likes of Erst(TE from Stanford...SP?) & Eiffert(TE from Irish) could be their for the Packers at the end of round 1. Given our actual game use of Finley, Im sure a rookie TE could give us about the same production...Finley was never that great at blocking anyway!

Getting a rookie WR, whom some thing we may draft early, would be more difficult to get going in the NFL.

[smuggler]

Jennings must not be a must-keep because the Packers and Jennings have not opened any negotiations for a new contract. Meanwhile, his GB home is up for sale and free agency is fast approaching.