2019 Free Agent Discussion

[Dubz41]

6 hours ago, Kepler said:

But is that pettine's preference?

I don't think it's his preference, it's just that he's had some measure of success with that type.  He may have been making lemonade out of lemons.

I vote Zadarius and then get Burns in the draft.

[Brit Pack]

3 hours ago, GFLikes@DBakh69 said:

 Hey guys,

      I'm new here, so I apologize if this has been discussed or belongs on the draft thread, but how many starting level free agents do we need to retain or acquire to free up the draft to truly go bpa/bva? As of now, positions in need of a starting level player appear to be: DE, OLB, ILB, S (1 or 2), RG, and WR. An extra CB, TE, and RT (Bulaga's last year under contract and busted up knees...) could also arguably be added to this list. Given a need for 8-10 immediate contributors, how many of those positions are you comfortable addressing through the draft, and how many through free agency? Also, which positions would you prefer to draft, and which would you rather get a veteran? 

Personally, I would get around 6 players through free agency and predominantly on the defensive side of the ball. We got no safeties, we need another MLB, we need two edge guys. Then on offence a RG, maybe a vet WR, and RB, but those two are luxury gets. That leaves the draft to get a DL, TE and RT as a priority in my mind, as those roles i.e. Daniels, Graham Bulaga are ageing and will need replacing soon.

The crazy thing is on our defence with the exception of Perry and T.Will, who I reckon both will get cut, there is only one player on a vet deal, Daniels who accounts for 5.44% of the cap and then all we got are guys, some really good ones, who are on rookie deals. Nothing in between. We need some defensive vets otherwise we are expecting our defence to turn around based on rookies coming in and lighting it up.

I would go heavy in FA for defence, and heavy in the draft for offence/BPA.

[Leader]

Jack Wepfer:

Something Michael Cohen pointed out on his pod today, RE: Breeland, that supports what both McGinn wrote in his end-of-year grades and Andy Herman suggested: Breeland might not be much more than “a guy”. Lack of top end speed may not justify a $6m+ AAV contract. If you disagree with the player assessment, that’s fine, but I do wonder, to Andy’s point, how perennially poor CB play in GB cloaked what was, in actuality, a ‘meh’ season from Breeland relative to the league. From McGinn: “Lack of speed was a major reason why he allowed 4 ½ plays of 20 yards or more...It also contributed to why his penalty-ridden ways in Washington continued in Green Bay. He’s grabby, and his five penalties were second most for any player on defense.” Similar to Wilkerson, at least GB is in the advantageous position of having intimate knowledge of the player, both from a talent and medical perspective. Letting him walk or test the market will tell us the degree to which Pettine/medicals justify Breeland’s cost. I finally got around to reading “Collision Low Crossers” and Pettine is characterized as extremely meticulous and studious. To that end, I think his voice—and I personally would trust his judgment—will play a role in Breeland’s future, for better or worse.

[rcon14]

Just now, Leader said:

Jack Wepfer:

Something Michael Cohen pointed out on his pod today, RE: Breeland, that supports what both McGinn wrote in his end-of-year grades and Andy Herman suggested: Breeland might not be much more than “a guy”. Lack of top end speed may not justify a $6m+ AAV contract. If you disagree with the player assessment, that’s fine, but I do wonder, to Andy’s point, how perennially poor CB play in GB cloaked what was, in actuality, a ‘meh’ season from Breeland relative to the league. From McGinn: “Lack of speed was a major reason why he allowed 4 ½ plays of 20 yards or more...It also contributed to why his penalty-ridden ways in Washington continued in Green Bay. He’s grabby, and his five penalties were second most for any player on defense.” Similar to Wilkerson, at least GB is in the advantageous position of having intimate knowledge of the player, both from a talent and medical perspective. Letting him walk or test the market will tell us the degree to which Pettine/medicals justify Breeland’s cost. I finally got around to reading “Collision Low Crossers” and Pettine is characterized as extremely meticulous and studious. To that end, I think his voice—and I personally would trust his judgment—will play a role in Breeland’s future, for better or worse.

Honestly, watching Breeland this year, I couldn't figure out if he was actually good or if we were all just telling ourselves he was good. I still don't know the answer to that question, but at least I know other people also don't.

[vegas492]

2 minutes ago, rcon14 said:

Honestly, watching Breeland this year, I couldn't figure out if he was actually good or if we were all just telling ourselves he was good. I still don't know the answer to that question, but at least I know other people also don't.

His sample size for us was pretty small.

I'd happily keep him on the roster, though.  He's pretty good insurance in that CB group.  Rolling into the season with King, Alexander, Jackson, Breeland and Brown isn't a bad thing at all.

 

[rcon14]

Just now, vegas492 said:

His sample size for us was pretty small.

I'd happily keep him on the roster, though.  He's pretty good insurance in that CB group.  Rolling into the season with King, Alexander, Jackson, Breeland and Brown isn't a bad thing at all.

 

It just depends on the number. I don't really want to pay 6M for a guy who you're hoping is CB4.

[vegas492]

41 minutes ago, rcon14 said:

It just depends on the number. I don't really want to pay 6M for a guy who you're hoping is CB4.

He would be a $6M insurance policy.

We may already have that on the roster with Williams, if we make major additions to the safety position.

[rcon14]

1 minute ago, vegas492 said:

He would be a $6M insurance policy.

We may already have that on the roster with Williams, if we make major additions to the safety position.

6M is an expensive insurance policy imo

[vegas492]

1 minute ago, rcon14 said:

6M is an expensive insurance policy imo

On the surface, it surely is.

But...all those other corners are on rookie deals, may be they could swing a 2 year, $12M contract out there.

And if they really need that money....cutting Tramon gets a lot of it back.  Then again, perhaps Tramon is the insurance policy.

[rcon14]

1 minute ago, vegas492 said:

On the surface, it surely is.

But...all those other corners are on rookie deals, may be they could swing a 2 year, $12M contract out there.

And if they really need that money....cutting Tramon gets a lot of it back.  Then again, perhaps Tramon is the insurance policy.

It all kind of depends on what else you can do with the money. 2/12 where you're basically out after year one is totally fine if you couldn't find another place to use that cap space.

[skibrett15]

49 minutes ago, rcon14 said:

It just depends on the number. I don't really want to pay 6M for a guy who you're hoping is CB4.

I don't really think he'll fetch close to that do you? 2 for 8 would be nice I think.

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, skibrett15 said:

I don't really think he'll fetch close to that do you? 2 for 8 would be nice I think.

I think he was around 3 for 24M this past off-season. 

2 for 8 may be a steal for him.  

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, rcon14 said:

It all kind of depends on what else you can do with the money. 2/12 where you're basically out after year one is totally fine if you couldn't find another place to use that cap space.

I think we have plenty of cap space...and we have nothing but guys on first contracts in that corner group.  I'd give him a nice 2 year deal knowing that when it is up, we will allocate that % or so to help re-up one of the young kids.

I honestly would like an insurance policy like that, be it Breeland or someone else.  While I adore King, the fact is he hasn't stayed healthy.  Even Alexander dealt with injuries this year.  Jackson and Brown are works in progress.  It would be nice to have someone of a "known" commodity back there to help shore things up.  Kind of like a good swing tackle, you hope he never plays, but when he does, you hope to have no perceivable drop off.

[squire12]

1 hour ago, rcon14 said:

It all kind of depends on what else you can do with the money. 2/12 where you're basically out after year one is totally fine if you couldn't find another place to use that cap space.

If saving that $6M per year allows GB to be more aggressive in pursuing other FA.  

Is a 2nd tier Edge ($8-10M) + Breeland ($6M) vs a tier 1 Edge for $15M the better use of the cap space?

[Cheech]

1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

I think we have plenty of cap space...and we have nothing but guys on first contracts in that corner group.  I'd give him a nice 2 year deal knowing that when it is up, we will allocate that % or so to help re-up one of the young kids.

I honestly would like an insurance policy like that, be it Breeland or someone else.  While I adore King, the fact is he hasn't stayed healthy.  Even Alexander dealt with injuries this year.  Jackson and Brown are works in progress.  It would be nice to have someone of a "known" commodity back there to help shore things up.  Kind of like a good swing tackle, you hope he never plays, but when he does, you hope to have no perceivable drop off.

This.  In reality, he was our #2 corner once Tramon was moved to safety.  2/12 type of deal is completely reasonable.