Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think this is a great chance for the packers to get a guy who is proven at the position. You can then cut perry and draft at 12 the BPA. It will likely be a pass rusher or perhaps you take Ferguson later either way you end up with two new guys at the position. One a proven vet who will command attention, the second should be able to work 1 on 1 and hopefully win enough to make it all worth while that with a safety or two signing will change this team entirely. And thats why you make this move.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rcon14 said:

People think backup OTs grow on trees and that Spriggs isn't like a top 10 backup OT in the league.

The problem associated with Spriggs has always been more about his draft position. Not only was he a 2nd rounder, but we moved up to land him, which of course, whether justified or not, comes with expectations. Presently, Spriggs has become a decent 6th man OT, no disagreement there, however, to date, has otherwise been closer to a "miss" given the expectations that came with his draft position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

At some point you gotta dive in though. Whether its for Ford or elsewhere, you cant keep just dipping your toe in FA trying to find bargains and be married to your draft picks. I have zero issue with Gute dealing a pick or two for a high end player and taking a chance. There should be alot of that going on these last few years with Rodgers. 

If we have some real ****ty contracts on the books when Rodgers is 39-40, I really won't care.

You either go all in or play conservative which we kind of have for the last decade. If last season wasn't a fluke for Ford, which I doubt it was, we have a chance to get a real playmaking pass rusher that we've really haven't had since Clay still playing at a high level 3-4 years ago or Peppers coming in to complement him.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Gutey go a little more all in this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

At some point you gotta dive in though. Whether its for Ford or elsewhere, you cant keep just dipping your toe in FA trying to find bargains and be married to your draft picks. I have zero issue with Gute dealing a pick or two for a high end player and taking a chance. There should be alot of that going on these last few years with Rodgers. 

If we have some real ****ty contracts on the books when Rodgers is 39-40, I really won't care.

I couldn’t agreee more. I also am fine giving a 28 year old a contract who deserves it. Safe in prime underpriced fas don’t hit the market. They get franchised/extended. The biggest moves this franchise made in the last 30 years were White (highest paid D player in 30s at time), Woodson/Peppers (guys the league thought was done).

Literally, the only high end rushers that were semi in prime to hit FA in the last decade are Peppers (first go with bears) and Vernon. To get a pass rusher we have to trade or hit on a pick. With our recent track record in R2 and extra ammo this year, I’m surprised by the amount pushback. This isn’t a Mack 2 1s and #1 money future mortgage 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

The problem associated with Spriggs has always been more about his draft position. Not only was he a 2nd rounder, but we moved up to land him, which of course, whether justified or not, comes with expectations. Presently, Spriggs has become a decent 6th man OT, no disagreement there, however, to date, has otherwise been closer to a "miss" given the expectations that came with his draft position. 

The other problem with Spriggs has been about his position. I think that if he was named the starter at right tackle and could focus on one spot instead of backing up multiple spots he may have a better chance of success. As long as we have Bak at left tackle and Bulaga was healthy, Spriggs was going to be the swing tackle. Maybe if he were able to play one position only, he would progress into a solid starter. I have a feeling that a year from now we are having conversations about Spriggs being an URFA that we must resign. I feel that he would be in high demand right now if he was in free agency. Bak was not stellar in his first year as a full time starter, but he developed into the best left tackle in football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pacman5252 said:

I couldn’t agreee more. I also am fine giving a 28 year old a contract who deserves it. Safe in prime underpriced fas don’t hit the market. They get franchised/extended. The biggest moves this franchise made in the last 30 years were White (highest paid D player in 30s at time), Woodson/Peppers (guys the league thought was done).

Literally, the only high end rushers that were semi in prime to hit FA in the last decade are Peppers (first go with bears) and Vernon. To get a pass rusher we have to trade or hit on a pick. With our recent track record in R2 and extra ammo this year, I’m surprised by the amount pushback. This isn’t a Mack 2 1s and #1 money future mortgage 

I can still see the argument for sticking to FA rather than a trade. There are always risks for any player performing up to expectations, whether they're obtained by trade, FA, or trade. Splitting the risk into 2 players is less risky than putting all your eggs in one basket, which is what trading for high-$ guys is.

For example, from the data I have, the #44 draft slot has like a 35% chance to be a good player. I don't have statistics for the FA's, but for the sake of argument, lets say Dee Ford has a 30% chance of not being a good player for the years he is with us, and Preston Smith has a 40% chance of not being a good player. Then, statistically:

0.40*0.65= 26% chance that neither Preston Smith or the #44 is a good player for us

vs. the 30% chance Ford isn't a good player for us. 

so in that case, the FA+pick has a better chance of yielding high-end player production than the traded high-$ player. Now, obviously, this equation can change depending on what the true FA statistics are. Just pointing out that there is a world where giving a 2nd to pay Ford is not the optimal option, even forgetting about the benefit of splitting risk among 2 players.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, packfanfb said:

At some point you gotta dive in though. Whether its for Ford or elsewhere, you cant keep just dipping your toe in FA trying to find bargains and be married to your draft picks. I have zero issue with Gute dealing a pick or two for a high end player and taking a chance. There should be alot of that going on these last few years with Rodgers. 

If we have some real ****ty contracts on the books when Rodgers is 39-40, I really won't care.

I don't disagree that spending money is a good idea.  I just don't think Ford is the guy to do it.  Spend that money on Barr or Houston, and keep our draft pick too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

I can still see the argument for sticking to FA rather than a trade. There are always risks for any player performing up to expectations, whether they're obtained by trade, FA, or trade. Splitting the risk into 2 players is less risky than putting all your eggs in one basket, which is what trading for high-$ guys is.

For example, from the data I have, the #44 draft slot has like a 35% chance to be a good player. I don't have statistics for the FA's, but for the sake of argument, lets say Dee Ford has a 30% chance of not being a good player for the years he is with us, and Preston Smith has a 40% chance of not being a good player. Then, statistically:

0.40*0.65= 26% chance that neither Preston Smith or the #44 is a good player for us

vs. the 30% chance Ford isn't a good player for us. 

so in that case, the FA+pick has a better chance of yielding high-end player production than the traded high-$ player. Now, obviously, this equation can change depending on what the true FA statistics are. Just pointing out that there is a world where giving a 2nd to pay Ford is not the optimal option, even forgetting about the benefit of splitting risk among 2 players.  

 

I agree with what you said. I will say I think Preston and Barr the only guys in FA who are even close to Ford and I would rather sign Smith (Spotrac has Fords value at 16.5 a year, Smith at 11.1).

The counter argument would be we don’t even know if Preston would play here  and there is value in securing a resource that is scarce (pass rush being the resource). This gets into analyzing the secarios. There is a scenario that Smith would only play here if we offered stupid over (for Smith) market value where we the value in the second round pick hedge is lost. With Ford being tagged he has way less leverage and can’t pick a contract. Ford at 16.5 or Smith at 11 and keeping a second, I’d keep the second. Smith at 16 plus a second vs Ford at 16.5 I’d rather have Ford.

Edited by pacman5252
Added Barr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ccecilnosebleed said:

I’d rather have Barr, spend less money and keep the draft pick. Less to lose, better long term value.

I get the argument and agree, I’d rather keep the pick and sign Barr or Smith on market value deals. 

With that said though as an organization we have to explore all avenues to address a problem (adding a better than average in prime edge player) that multiple teams have with a finite amount of options (really only 3 in Barr, Smith, Ford, maybe Smith). We don’t know if the FAs we want want to play here. It is the bird in the hand is worth more than 2 in the bush argument. There is value in securing a player like Ford for just a second considering the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 66fan said:

The other problem with Spriggs has been about his position. I think that if he was named the starter at right tackle and could focus on one spot instead of backing up multiple spots he may have a better chance of success. As long as we have Bak at left tackle and Bulaga was healthy, Spriggs was going to be the swing tackle. Maybe if he were able to play one position only, he would progress into a solid starter. I have a feeling that a year from now we are having conversations about Spriggs being an URFA that we must resign. I feel that he would be in high demand right now if he was in free agency. Bak was not stellar in his first year as a full time starter, but he developed into the best left tackle in football.

Part of it was also that Spriggs was likely drafted to be the LT.  Bakhtiari was average at the time, and entering into a contract season.  I know that I thought the proper move would be to let Bakhtiari walk and move on with Spriggs.  But Bakhtiari was really good from that point onward, and was re-signed.  So now we have bookend tackles, both under 30, and the odd man out is the 2nd round pick, who hasn't had many opportunities to play.  And to be real, Spriggs hasn't really made the most of the few opportunities that he has had.  He is kind of like Darryn Colledge but can't make the transition to guard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but it occurred to me that one reason Ford's numbers may be so high is because the Chiefs, who took an early lead in virtually every game they played, were defending the pass all year. Looking at the numbers, they faced the most pass attempts of any team in the NFL. The Packers were 25th. I'm not saying Ford wouldn't be a huge improvement over what we have, but he could not have been in a more perfect situation when it comes to maximizing his numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, packfanfb said:

The problem associated with Spriggs has always been more about his draft position. Not only was he a 2nd rounder, but we moved up to land him, which of course, whether justified or not, comes with expectations. Presently, Spriggs has become a decent 6th man OT, no disagreement there, however, to date, has otherwise been closer to a "miss" given the expectations that came with his draft position. 

If not for the rookie wide receivers, Spriggs might be one player to benefit the most from the offensive changes.  I would assume that more ZBS will only help a guy who is more mobile than strong.  Maybe a commitment to the running game will out him in a better position in pass pro as well.

Last year was the first year he looked like a capable backup.  Maybe this year he finds his place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ccecilnosebleed said:

I’d rather have Barr, spend less money and keep the draft pick. Less to lose, better long term value.

I don't think this is a good comparison of players to have. Barr specializes more in coverage (and maybe it's lack of opportunity) whereas we know/consistently see Ford rush. We DO need better coverage LBs, but I'd take the better pass rusher for the pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...