This team needs a 2nd round WR/TE/RB or equivalent FA

[TheBitzMan]

Just now, vegas492 said:

Spotrac projects him to be a little under $11M/year.

You good with that?

If you follow that other guys' logic that GB should overspend to get free agents here.....then it's probably $13M/year.

 

That's probably too rich for me. He is 30 and I'd rather take a shot on a younger, cheaper option with some upside.  

I am also firmly on the side of spending our free agent dollars on the defense.  

[CWood21]

Just now, vegas492 said:

Hard to argue with that route either.  Especially if it means getting a high end safety and a mid tier edge with some of that money.

I honestly can't find a single argument that would justify spending that kind of coin on a WR in FA.  We've got two young guys (ESB & MVS) who have shown promise, a "veteran" who produced at a high rate early in the year, and still have Davante Adams.

[vegas492]

1 minute ago, {Family Ghost} said:

I probably would as well.  I kind of see Tate as a much more productive Cobb, but I don't think he's worth 11 mil per at 30 years old.  7 or 8 mil .. I could stomach that.

Structure of the deal would be very important.  He can average $11M/year if there is a nice out after two years before the contract escalates.

[CWood21]

Just now, vegas492 said:

Structure of the deal would be very important.  He can average $11M/year if there is a nice out after two years before the contract escalates.

Why would Tate agree to a deal like that?  Looking at the list of available FA WRs, you'd make a strong argument that he's the most attractive option.

[skibrett15]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

I honestly can't find a single argument that would justify spending that kind of coin on a WR in FA.  We've got two young guys (ESB & MVS) who have shown promise, a "veteran" who produced at a high rate early in the year, and still have Davante Adams.

it's the argument at the top of the first page.

If this offense had a legit #2 option, one who you are 96% as excited about when it's 1 on 1 and the ball is in the air as you are with Davante RIGHT NOW, this would be an offense that is unstoppable and more capable of surviving an injury to adams.

[vegas492]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

I honestly can't find a single argument that would justify spending that kind of coin on a WR in FA.  We've got two young guys (ESB & MVS) who have shown promise, a "veteran" who produced at a high rate early in the year, and still have Davante Adams.

Throw Kumerow in there, too.  I think he's got a chance to be a productive slot.  I also think that Moore has slot ability with that quickness.

The only reason I'd be "in" on Tate is because he has some Cobb ability....kind of an RB at the WR position to help with those quick screens and stand up passes.  I can see him being productive right away.

And yes, adding anyone would mean GB more or less gives up on a player or two on this list.  ESB/MVS/Kumerow/Allison/Moore.  

There certainly is risk involved.  Financial and player development.

[vegas492]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Why would Tate agree to a deal like that?  Looking at the list of available FA WRs, you'd make a strong argument that he's the most attractive option.

Scheme fit and QB.

And those are pretty small compared to cash.  Point well taken.

I just like his fit with Rodgers and how the offense has run in the past.  

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

it's the argument at the top of the first page.

If this offense had a legit #2 option, one who you are 96% as excited about when it's 1 on 1 and the ball is in the air as you are with Davante RIGHT NOW, this would be an offense that is unstoppable and more capable of surviving an injury to adams.

We're not a legitimate #2 option away from having a great offense.  We're a QB who executes the offense and an offense that doesn't put our players in bad positions.  Plus, you're taking away from another position if you're spending $11M on a WR.

[CWood21]

Just now, vegas492 said:

Scheme fit and QB.

And those are pretty small compared to cash.  Point well taken.

I just like his fit with Rodgers and how the offense has run in the past.  

So...he's going to pass up on significantly less money to play with Rodgers?  Didn't seem to work with Allen Robinson last year.

[CWood21]

2 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Throw Kumerow in there, too.  I think he's got a chance to be a productive slot.  I also think that Moore has slot ability with that quickness.

The only reason I'd be "in" on Tate is because he has some Cobb ability....kind of an RB at the WR position to help with those quick screens and stand up passes.  I can see him being productive right away.

And yes, adding anyone would mean GB more or less gives up on a player or two on this list.  ESB/MVS/Kumerow/Allison/Moore.  

There certainly is risk involved.  Financial and player development.

A handful of PS games doesn't change anything for me with regards to Kumerow.  He's an unknown.  Josh Jackson looked good in preseason, but he's been bad this year.

[vegas492]

5 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Why would Tate agree to a deal like that?  Looking at the list of available FA WRs, you'd make a strong argument that he's the most attractive option.

 

2 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Scheme fit and QB.

And those are pretty small compared to cash.  Point well taken.

I just like his fit with Rodgers and how the offense has run in the past.  

 

Just now, CWood21 said:

So...he's going to pass up on significantly less money to play with Rodgers?  Didn't seem to work with Allen Robinson last year.

But...if rumors are to be believed, Graham may have (key word, "may") taken less to play with Rodgers.

And I agreed with you.  Just trying to see both sides.

And...Robinson is a boundary WR.  I personally like Tate because of the slot potential.  Taking those short stand up passes 12 yards or so with his running back like ability.  That's the only reason I like him...and to a lesser extent, I'd say that about Sanders as well.

[skibrett15]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

We're not a legitimate #2 option away from having a great offense.  We're a QB who executes the offense and an offense that doesn't put our players in bad positions.  Plus, you're taking away from another position if you're spending $11M on a WR.

at least you're on topic now.

 

We're a #2 option from having a great offense.  This will only work with Greg-Jordy-Finley, Jordy-Jones-Finley, Greg-Driver, Jordy-Cobb

Right now we have Adams-Graham-Player x.  The impact the rookies had was minimal.  Geronimo's impact is minimal.

Edited December 12, 2018 by skibrett15

[Brit Pack]

More than WR/RB/TE etc I would prefer us to address the interior of the Oline as a priority. We need more depth and we need a stud in there. Give Rodgers solid protection especially with the dominant front 7's in the NFC North he'll face twice a year.

[vegas492]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

A handful of PS games doesn't change anything for me with regards to Kumerow.  He's an unknown.  Josh Jackson looked good in preseason, but he's been bad this year.

Kumerow earned praise from Rodgers.  That is good enough by me to get somewhat excited about what he could do.  It is telling, though, that he's healthy and GB isn't rushing him onto the field.

Look, I'm all about the development of the kids.  I think they have all the skills needed to succeed.  

[{Family Ghost}]

12 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

He's probably going to be seeking a 3 or 4 year deal minimum, and given his age and what we've seen out of ESB and MVS I don't really want to bog down the position.  IF Marqise Lee can get $8.5M/year, Tate is easily going to get north of that.

Tate will be 31 before the 2019 season starts .. Lee was 26 when he signed his deal.  Couple the age with a drop in production in Philly and I think Tate could get a bit less than he's hoping for.

Edited December 12, 2018 by {Family Ghost}