Jake Long Free Agent

[Bretsky]

In our offense with the injury I would not touch Long. Way too much money for someobdy coming off a bad injury. Miami wanted to keep the dude, but they franchised Starks because they wanted to keep him more......and with the severity of the injury they don't want to pay 8-10MIL for a left tackle.

I would be fine with singing a Matt Burke type of free agent that we think is competent there but I'm not sure I'd break the bank for anybody.

[Pugger]

If we don't draft a tackle or pick one up in FA that will tell us they think Sherrod - remember him? - is ready to compete with Newhouse for that position.

[KYPack]

dude was suppose to be way overweight and lazy coming out of school, i think he was still called that his rookie year, but it sounds like he's really turned into a solid LT. not a pro bowler, but solid

and he's still a big dude at 330 i think

theres quite a few more guys hitting the market. it would really be a crime if we didn't go into next season with a little bit better guy at LT

i say sign a free agent LT and draft barrett jones or another highly ranked center and we go into next season with a much improved line

He's a RT, but can play the left side.

In fact, he'd be playing the left in Cincy, but the Bengals already have an All Pro LT & #1 pick in Andrew Whitworth.

Smith would be a pretty solid guy for us to get, but as Fritz points out, he's no fit for us salary wise.

Smith is really a good player. Sportswriter are so lazy, they don't watch tape, so they don't know how good he is.

They just repeat the story from combine 4 years ago when Smith's flashed his man boobs in the 40.

[Guiness]

In our offense with the injury I would not touch Long. Way too much money for someobdy coming off a bad injury. Miami wanted to keep the dude, but they franchised Starks because they wanted to keep him more......and with the severity of the injury they don't want to pay 8-10MIL for a left tackle.

I would be fine with singing a Matt Burke type of free agent that we think is competent there but I'm not sure I'd break the bank for anybody.

We have no idea if Miami would like to keep Long at 8-10. If you look back to my post earlier in this thread, I did some digging and the tag would've cost the Dolphins about $15million because the '120%' clause would've kicked in.

The buzz is that he still lands back in Miami for the price you said, after he tests the waters and finds no takers.

I think we could obviously afford a Jack Long salary...if we wanted to. Look at the shenanigans teams around the league pull with the salary cap, but it's not the way TT does business and I don't want it to be. I'd rather go with what we have, which is Newhouse who can hold the fort and might still be improving, with Sherrod and Bulaga players with potential who may upgrade the position at a later date.

[Packers4Glory]

I don't know that anyone can say for certain what his price is going to be. It may be you can get him for a relative bargain. Gotta kick the tires on a legit solid LT or RT if you want to move Bulaga back to left. Can't go into next yr with what we have now and expect to be any better. I don't see newhouse improving enough to cut it as anything more than a decent backup, and Barclay is a nice project w/ some promise, but has a long way to go.

Our line last yr was line having an expensive car w/ lots of options, but carrying shitty insurance.

[Bossman641]

He's a RT, but can play the left side.

In fact, he'd be playing the left in Cincy, but the Bengals already have an All Pro LT & #1 pick in Andrew Whitworth.

Smith would be a pretty solid guy for us to get, but as Fritz points out, he's no fit for us salary wise.

Smith is really a good player. Sportswriter are so lazy, they don't watch tape, so they don't know how good he is.

They just repeat the story from combine 4 years ago when Smith's flashed his man boobs in the 40.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Are you arguing TT should do nothing in free agency or only sign minimal guys as has been his patern the past few years ?

Yes. Generally. And the minimal guy that works out is ideal. Every offseason it's the same conversation.

TT's way has worked. Dynasties are dead. (How long has it been since the Pats won a title, 7-8 years?) It's impossible to keep a team together. This is the way the NFL works nowadays. Great organizations are those that are annual contenders for a Super Bowl. It takes good fortune to win one title. The cards really have to fall your way to win more than one. But people will bitch and moan if there team doesn't win every year. TT has done a good job in the draft, and he's had to pay to keep his elite players (Rodgers, Collins, Jennings, Sitton, T. Williams in past years; Rodgers again, Raji, Matthews in the future). Poorly run franchises usually chase big name FAs because they've failed to develop their own elite players.

[Bretsky]

Yes. Generally. And the minimal guy that works out is ideal. Every offseason it's the same conversation.

TT's way has worked. Dynasties are dead. (How long has it been since the Pats won a title, 7-8 years?) It's impossible to keep a team together. This is the way the NFL works nowadays. Great organizations are those that are annual contenders for a Super Bowl. It takes good fortune to win one title. The cards really have to fall your way to win more than one. But people will bitch and moan if there team doesn't win every year. TT has done a good job in the draft, and he's had to pay to keep his elite players (Rodgers, Collins, Jennings, Sitton, T. Williams in past years; Rodgers again, Raji, Matthews in the future). Poorly run franchises usually chase big name FAs because they've failed to develop their own elite players.

Many ways to skin a cat
Teams, such as the Saints, have used free agency to supplement a few stars and drafts to win it all
The Giants are the only team to win 2 SuperBowls in the NFL over the past decade. They've mixed and matched drafts with free agency as well
There is nothing wrong with paying good money for the right free agents; the bad teams keep picking and chasing the wrong free agents to overpay year after year
How much did Woodson and Pickett have to do with the success Green Bay has had ? TT was successful in free agency because he chose the right free agents to give a lot of money to

In today's NFL, the way to stay in the top tier is to have an elite QB, a couple stars, and surround them with adequate talent. That gives you a consistent shot.

Rodgers, Brady, Manning, Manning, Brees, Rothlisberger, Rodgers.............as long as they play at a near elite level their teams will be in the playoffs nearly every year and have a shot

[pbmax]

There is a downside to the Saints and Giants method. The Saints are in Year 2 of blowing up their defense (and not just because of Gregg).

The Giants also do the Pittsburgh Steeler up one year, down the next yo-yo with their approach, though I confess it hasn't hurt them that one of the down years led to a title.

[Fritz]

Counterintuitively, signing a big-name free agent to a big contract is often more of a risk than using the draft and suplementing with the occasional low-level free agent.

[Packers4Glory]

how many playoff teams allowed as many sacks as GB and made the playoffs? ZERO. GB gave up the 2nd most sacks in the lg 51. The next playoff teams Indy & SF gave up 41. Balt gave up 38.

Packers super bowl season: 38

They have to get better at protecting the QB and right now they don't have a LT/RT combo that is adequate enough. I really feel like this team is a tackle short of having a good enough line. Right now they're short a starter, and that makes them short on depth.

If they do into the season w/ what they finished w/ plus Sherrod, then expect more of the same and another early exit in January...that's if AR can survive another big sack season.

[pbmax]

A LOT of Packer sacks were on the QB. He holds the ball rather than force throws or throwing it away. So unless those sack numbers come with comparisons over who was responsible on other teams, I don't think they should be taken at face value and made to be a make or break performance area.

That said, the protection can improve by a great margin on the O line alone.

[red]

A LOT of Packer sacks were on the QB. He holds the ball rather than force throws or throwing it away. So unless those sack numbers come with comparisons over who was responsible on other teams, I don't think they should be taken at face value and made to be a make or break performance area.

That said, the protection can improve by a great margin on the O line alone.

when you watch some of the other teams in the playoffs, those qb's had all day to sit back there and get comfortable. like 5-6 seconds or more

rodgers was usually having to move within 2-3 seconds. yeah, he was holding the ball longer then the 2.3 seconds that m3 tries to teach, but it would be nice if he could get 3 seconds or more every now and then without having to move around

[Bretsky]

A LOT of Packer sacks were on the QB. He holds the ball rather than force throws or throwing it away. So unless those sack numbers come with comparisons over who was responsible on other teams, I don't think they should be taken at face value and made to be a make or break performance area.

That said, the protection can improve by a great margin on the O line alone.

This is kind of selective reasoning. Rodgers also uses his mobility to avoid a lot of sacks that less than mobile QB's would do down on. He turns some of them into first downs via the run, he turns some into first downs via the pass, and it's his fault he takes some sacks when others migth throw the ball away.

But I find it hard to blame Rodgers for sacks w/o giving him credit for avoiding a lot as well

[pbmax]

The tackles definitely need to be better in pass pro. I am not satisfied with the status quo on the O line. And my fear is that the team will be forced to wait and see this year if Bulaga and Sherrod or other younger players get healthy, develop and play better. I don't think a FA LT is coming in this offseason.

But Rodgers causes sacks as well. He does escape some sacks and he does occasionally get first downs and should get credit. But mobile QBs cause more total sacks. Rodgers doesn't move to run, he moves to throw and buy time. Red sees QBs in the playoffs with 5 or 6 seconds to throw. I remember Rodgers with that kind of time (not often enough) and thinking "how can no one be open?". Then sack or throw away.

Think of the Favre statue ready to throw on a hair trigger when pressure reared it ugly head in the latter half of his career. He dropped the sack total below 20 and that wasn't all Clifton and Tauscher. Like a good running back, a quick QB can make the O line look brilliant.

If LT gets solidified and Rodgers can ignore his blindside, I think the 2011 offense comes back.