Jump to content
Slinky

Mark Murphy must go!!

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

We paid Z like "a young ascending player coming off of a star year." That's free agency for you. If we hadn't drafted like **** the last 5 years and addressed the EDGE position better, maybe we wouldn't have needed the Smiths. That's life in the NFL. 

Also, people need to stop sleeping on Z. Guy posted 60 pressures on 691 snaps last year. His stats were right on part with Flowers, who played in BB's system, and people were having wet dreams over him possibly landing in GB on this forum. Z always has been one of the top EDGE prospects in the 2019 class. With the caveat that any free agent acquisition always has room to bust, landing Z was a home run for Gute. 

It wasn't that either.

These moves can be something other than fantastic/terrible.

Share this post


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

We paid Z like "a young ascending player coming off of a star year." That's free agency for you. If we hadn't drafted like **** the last 5 years and addressed the EDGE position better, maybe we wouldn't have needed the Smiths. That's life in the NFL. 

Also, people need to stop sleeping on Z. Guy posted 60 pressures on 691 snaps last year. His stats were right on part with Flowers, who played in BB's system, and people were having wet dreams over him possibly landing in GB on this forum. Z always has been one of the top EDGE prospects in the 2019 class. With the caveat that any free agent acquisition always has room to bust, landing Z was a home run for Gute. 

Maybe, assuming he's much, much, much better than he was in Baltimore.  I can't agree that Smith has always been a high end UFA prospect for this 2019 class.  I'd imagine that if that contract was suggested in September or October of this last year, that who ever did the suggesting would have been laughed off the board.  His contract year was far and away better than anything he'd ever shown as a pro in his previous 3 years. 

There is absolteuly nothing impressive about 18 1/2 sacks in  59 career games.  Thats the same number of career sacks that Nick Perry had in his first 4 seasons (51 games counting playoffs).  We signed Nick Perry to a 1 year 5 million dollar deal after that first contract ended.  

Of the top 10 paid guys on the edge, it's by far the worst production in their first contract.  Even Flowers (Who I wanted nothing to do with) was more productive and he he played less than a 1/2% of NE's defensive snaps his rookie year because of an injury.  

 

What 25, 26, 27 year old coming off his rookie deal that signs a big deal isn't "a young ascending player"?  Way too premature to call anything a home run or a bust IMO.  

Share this post


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

Maybe, assuming he's much, much, much better than he was in Baltimore.  I can't agree that Smith has always been a high end UFA prospect for this 2019 class.  I'd imagine that if that contract was suggested in September or October of this last year, that who ever did the suggesting would have been laughed off the board.  His contract year was far and away better than anything he'd ever shown as a pro in his previous 3 years. 

There is absolteuly nothing impressive about 18 1/2 sacks in  59 career games.  Thats the same number of career sacks that Nick Perry had in his first 4 seasons (51 games counting playoffs).  We signed Nick Perry to a 1 year 5 million dollar deal after that first contract ended.  

Of the top 10 paid guys on the edge, it's by far the worst production in their first contract.  Even Flowers (Who I wanted nothing to do with) was more productive and he he played less than a 1/2% of NE's defensive snaps his rookie year because of an injury.  

 

What 25, 26, 27 year old coming off his rookie deal that signs a big deal isn't "a young ascending player"?  Way too premature to call anything a home run or a bust IMO.  

Looking at sacks exclusively is where you're failing. Smith was the opposite of Fackrell last year. His Sacks/Pressure were very low. That's generally a strong indicator you're going to see more sack production in the future.

Share this post


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

Zadarius Smith, who had a contract year that almost out-produced his entire NFL career before it, is the 9th highest paid edge rusher in the NFL

He is currently the 27th highest paid EDGE rusher in practical guaranteed money.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/contracts/defensive-end/ - Everyone down to Jerry Hughes is higher for DEs

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/contracts/outside-linebacker/ - 9 higher OLBs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Jimmy Graham is the 11th highest paid TE currently in practical guarantees: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/contracts/tight-end/

Jimmy Graham has the highest average salary for a TE in NFL history.  https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/contracts/tight-end/

Assuming he makes the roster this year, we'd have already paid him more than the practical guarantee number so I'm unsure exactly why it's relevant.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SSG said:

Jimmy Graham has the highest average salary for a TE in NFL history.  https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/contracts/tight-end/

Assuming he makes the roster this year, we'd have already paid him more than the practical guarantee number so I'm unsure exactly why it's relevant.  

 

It's relevant because your words were wrong. You said Gute made him the highest paid. He did not. 

He made him the highest potentially paid, per year TE that he may or may not actually see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

It's relevant because your words were wrong. You said Gute made him the highest paid. He did not. 

He made him the highest potentially paid, per year TE that he may or may not actually see.

What ever you say.  If assuming a player is going to get cut after year 1 makes you feel better about the contract more power to you.  That is exactly what you are doing by referencing practical guarantees.  In both examples, said player will have made more than that practical guaranteed # by simply making the roster in year 2 of the deal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

If "Current and former members of the organization" do not count as sources, then the only source that will pass your burden of proof is what one of the top 4 guys says in a press conference.

Not necessarily AG. But it’s impossible to gauge the credibility of unnamed sources, present and/or past, when one doesn’t know if they work(ed) in the front office or at the Packer Pro Shop. In addition, it’s not a stretch to opine these naysayers are/were disgruntled and/or otherwise unhappy.

Silverstein acknowledges some of his sources as being, “...agents and friends for some of those employees and people who do business with the Packers.Honestly, we’re supposed to assume this is a reliable source of FACTS? 

Nobody knows at this point how the new coaching staff and (hopefully) improved roster will fare this season. But I expect the Packers to be improved. I’ve maintained all along this transitional process will take two, maybe three years to fully bear fruit. Meantime, with a healthy Aaron Rodgers, I expect Green Bay to be competitive and win their share of football games.

I’m a realist, not some naive Pollyanna, and I remember well the post-Lombardi the dark times. Silverstein’s ramblings, sweeping generalizations, and unnamed second and third hand sources just aren’t compelling enough to convince me.

 

 

 

Edited by JQ1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JQ1 said:

Not necessarily AG. But it’s impossible to gauge the credibility of unnamed sources, present and/or past, when one doesn’t know if they work(ed) in the front office or at the Packer Pro Shop. In addition, it’s not a stretch to opine these naysayers are/were disgruntled and/or otherwise unhappy.

Silverstein acknowledges some of his sources as being, “...agents and friends for some of those employees and people who do business with the Packers.Honestly, I’m/we're supposed to assume this is a source of some veracity? 

Nobody knows at this point how the new coaching staff and (hopefully) improved roster will fare this season. But I expect the Packers to be improved. I’ve maintained all along this transitional process will take two, maybe three years to fully bear fruit. Meantime, with a healthy Aaron Rodgers, I expect Green Bay to be competitive and win their share of football games.

I’m a realist, not some naive Pollyanna, and I remember well the post-Lombardi the dark times. Silverstein’s ramblings, sweeping generalizations, and unnamed, second and third hand sources just aren’t compelling enough to convince me.

 

 

 

All anybody can do is connect the dots man. 

Just not sure it makes sense to be dismissing negative reports out of hand. 

Share this post


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

What ever you say.  If assuming a player is going to get cut after year 1 makes you feel better about the contract more power to you.  That is exactly what you are doing by referencing practical guarantees.  In both examples, said player will have made more than that practical guaranteed # by simply making the roster in year 2 of the deal.  

What makes me happy is accurate statements, which your's were not and made me unhappy. So I took the liberty to correct you.

Now I'm happier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 7:41 AM, Joe said:

Aren't they all?...

Perhaps but this year seems especially drawn out with all the drama of the coaching changes, reports of AR and MM not getting along, losing several long time veterans, FA and the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

All anybody can do is connect the dots man. 

Just not sure it makes sense to be dismissing negative reports out of hand. 

what dots are there to connect other than:

*MLF has control over who he wants to hire

*But does not have an unlimited budget

*So his boss has to approve a salary

*And apparently did eventually?

 

I remember discussing this before (not necessarily with you) - but fans would pay the DB-assistant coach more than Belichick in theory if they think it would help win games.

Still see a completely non-story here.

Share this post


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

what dots are there to connect other than:

*MLF has control over who he wants to hire

*But does not have an unlimited budget

*So his boss has to approve a salary

*And apparently did eventually?

 

I remember discussing this before (not necessarily with you) - but fans would pay the DB-assistant coach more than Belichick in theory if they think it would help win games.

Still see a completely non-story here.

1. There's no reason the Packers should EVER EVER EVER have a budget on assistant coaches. They should have the best of everything that isn't capped by the league.

It's never going to look good when the guy that was formerly handling the outside development, starts making the calls on the budget that cut the on-field product.

2. Those dots on Rizzi point to one of two situations, neither look good.

LaFleur didn't pass on the salary demands to Murphy ahead of time so that it could be approved.

Murphy knew what it was going to take to get this done. He tried to play this old school sitting across the table from a new school cat. He started with a low ball offer trying to save a few bucks. And got burned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1. There's no reason the Packers should EVER EVER EVER have a budget on assistant coaches. They should have the best of everything that isn't capped by the league.

It's never going to look good when the guy that was formerly handling the outside development, starts making the calls on the budget that cut the on-field product.

2. Those dots on Rizzi point to one of two situations, neither look good.

LaFleur didn't pass on the salary demands to Murphy ahead of time so that it could be approved.

Murphy knew what it was going to take to get this done. He tried to play this old school sitting across the table from a new school cat. He started with a low ball offer trying to save a few bucks. And got burned.

1. That's silly. There's a real budget.

2. Or maybe Rizzi asked for more?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×