Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Smaller Faster Longer Leaner

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Smaller Faster Longer Leaner

    Posting from another thread. So is the idea to build a NYG(2007/2011)-like DL?

    Originally posted by Striker View Post
    FWIW -

    Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 5m
    From Total Access: I’m told #Packers plan to spend money on outside free agents this year with nearly $30M in cap space. Could most in years

    Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 5m
    What is #Packers plan? They want to re-make their D in Dom Capers’ image, going more athletic & versatile up front. May mean goodbye to Raji

    Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 4m
    Don’t be surprised if #Packers DLs now weigh closer to 290 than the 330 that Ryan Pickett & BJ Raji weigh. Will get much faster, too

    Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 3m
    Yes. Packers DLs will likely more resemble Datone Jones RT @sorenson11: @RapSheet like Datone's weight?
    "Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck

  • #2
    If we are ditching the fatties for leaner and faster then my thoughts on running a penetration defense might come true.
    The only time success comes before work is in the dictionary -- Vince Lombardi

    Comment


    • #3
      It'll be interesting to see if they'll actually go for a first day FA, or if they wait for the "second tier" of them.

      Comment


      • #4
        Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 5m
        What is #Packers plan? They want to re-make their D in Dom Capers’ image, going more athletic & versatile up front. May mean goodbye to Raji
        When they got Dom and went to the 3-4, one of the things they said was critical was a big NT. That's why they drafted Raji with #10, because big guys like that are hard to come by.

        However they go, I still think getting a stud safety is more critical than any other position. Nick Collins made that whole defense better.
        2025 Ratpickers champion.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MadScientist View Post
          When they got Dom and went to the 3-4, one of the things they said was critical was a big NT. That's why they drafted Raji with #10, because big guys like that are hard to come by.

          However they go, I still think getting a stud safety is more critical than any other position. Nick Collins made that whole defense better.
          I think they will still have 2 bigger guys for NT. But you won't see them at DE or at DT in the nickel.
          Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.

          Comment


          • #6
            I would like to see a 6'5 or taller NT. I don't want a fat man, I want a ripped man. More Jay Ratliff than Ryan Pickett.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Striker View Post
              It'll be interesting to see if they'll actually go for a first day FA, or if they wait for the "second tier" of them.
              As teams are dealing with several years of a stagnant cap there are a LOT of good "second tier" football players available. Randy Starks comes to mind.
              The only time success comes before work is in the dictionary -- Vince Lombardi

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by bobblehead View Post
                As teams are dealing with several years of a stagnant cap there are a LOT of good "second tier" football players available. Randy Starks comes to mind.
                This is a good point, about the stagnant cap. Teams with franchise QBs right now are getting punished for having to pay those QBs and having to let good players go to do so. The Packers seem to have managed their way into a situation where they should be able to afford to buy some extra talent in 2014. Add to that the fact that the cap will see a bump in 2015 when the new TV deals kick in and the Packers might be able to afford a nice run of 2-3 years.
                When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ~Hunter S.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If the cap increases for every team, how does that help the Packers?


                  "Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?"

                  "These go to eleven"
                  "Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mraynrand View Post
                    If the cap increases for every team, how does that help the Packers?


                    "Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?"

                    "These go to eleven"
                    I helps the packers for many reasons. One being that if in fact they do sign free agents this year they won't be in cap hell in a few years. Not a lot of teams have a lot of cap this year so only about 5-10 teams should be major players in free agency. If they are able to land a good free agent or two with large contracts then it will even itself out when the cap increases. So basically the cap going up next year and the year after would give teams with a lot of cap this year more incentive to spend. That and Cobb and Nelson need extensions next year.

                    I don't think we will though.....I would like to know how someone make a statement that this team is going to do this and that a month before free agency? Seems like bs to me.
                    Draft Brandin Cooks WR OSU!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mraynrand View Post
                      If the cap increases for every team, how does that help the Packers?


                      "Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?"

                      "These go to eleven"
                      They have a top 3 franchise QB under contract. His salary as a percentage of the cap will drop. In 2 years, when San Fran and Seattle are paying their lesser QBs more money, the shoe will be on the other foot.
                      When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ~Hunter S.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mraynrand View Post
                        If the cap increases for every team, how does that help the Packers?


                        "Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?"

                        "These go to eleven"
                        Originally posted by denverYooper View Post
                        They have a top 3 franchise QB under contract. His salary as a percentage of the cap will drop. In 2 years, when San Fran and Seattle are paying their lesser QBs more money, the shoe will be on the other foot.
                        It also helps now. With a decent amount of room and lots of contracts up the Packers have significant space in the year while the cap is still flat. Its not expected to go up significantly until next year. It might give them an single year edge versus teams who have less space and less contract flexibility.

                        However, given Rodgers and Matthews presence, I am not sure we see a Woodson like signing. The highest paid players in 2007 were probably Favre and KGB.
                        Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          We will sign a Saftey, OLB and a D Lineman!!! BIG FREE AGENT SPLASH!!!!
                          Swede: My expertise in this area is extensive. The essential difference between a "battleship" and an "aircraft carrier" is that an aircraft carrier requires five direct hits to sink, but it takes only four direct hits to sink a battleship.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            When I read the title of this thread of think of this guy...

                            --
                            Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Guiness View Post
                              When I read the title of this thread of think of this guy...

                              He DID win though...
                              Swede: My expertise in this area is extensive. The essential difference between a "battleship" and an "aircraft carrier" is that an aircraft carrier requires five direct hits to sink, but it takes only four direct hits to sink a battleship.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X