Fatgerman Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26793007/packers-safety-jones-wants-traded&ved=2ahUKEwiYkKOH3KziAhVNX60KHTfxCOkQqOcBMAJ6BAgCEAM&usg=AOvVaw2_JEA-JzhKw_ZnmlOXbqDU Josh Jones is a young, top flight athlete at a position we have currently occupied by an old vet and UDFA options. He hasn't had a great deal of success in his two seasons in the league, but we all know that Mike Pettine system is ridiculous. He could probably be had for a late round pick, and he'd add one more, highly intriguing, option for SS. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/josh-jones%3Fid%3D2558119&ved=2ahUKEwjYpM3l3aziAhUJVa0KHeN9D5cQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3eITHLDQeIXtQnNrdS4Mqr 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomahawk Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 I don't see anything happening with us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NateDawg Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 He’s a fringe-starter. We have a couple of those at the spot. I also think GB addressed safety for a reason, which should be alarming since Jones is young. Not sure it’s a fit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatgerman Posted May 21, 2019 Author Share Posted May 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, NateDawg said: He’s a fringe-starter. We have a couple of those at the spot. I also think GB addressed safety for a reason, which should be alarming since Jones is young. Not sure it’s a fit. The reason I am inclined to look past all that is because of the Pettine factor. That defense sucked with us, made even decent players look bad with it's extreme over complications. Jones could be the sort of kid, when in a simpler 4-3 where guys don't have to over think and can play fast and aggressive, who could rebuild his career. Plus, he is more of a true SS and Pettine preferred two FS/CB hybrids. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETSGOBROWNIES Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 Depending on the cost I’d be interested. I don’t think we have much behind the starters with the exception of Redwine who is a complete unknown. Worst case we get a freak athlete who’s young and on a rookie deal for 2 more seasons. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatgerman Posted May 21, 2019 Author Share Posted May 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: Depending on the cost I’d be interested. I don’t think we have much behind the starters with the exception of Redwine who is a complete unknown. Worst case we get a freak athlete who’s young and on a rookie deal for 2 more seasons. And Redwine is reportedly more of a FS. So at SS we have old man Burnett, Eric Murray (more of a nickel), UDFA journeyman Whitehead, and UDFA rookie JT Hassell... They have potential, but does that group inspire anyone? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomahawk Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 (edited) That group inspires Dorsey, which is just fine in my book. I don't see GB trading away a young player like that just because he wants it. They need depth as well, as proven last year with all of their injuries. I would take the kid for a 7th rounder, but don't foresee that being enough for GB to part ways with him which is why this is a never gonna happen to me. With Tre Boston and Eric Berry still available, this just seems like a stretch. Edited May 21, 2019 by Tomahawk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedTheClock Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 The S group is all John Dorsey guys. He didn't trade for Eric Murray just to cut him. He didn't sign Morgan Burnett to trade for his replacement before he plays a snap. And we drafted Sheldrick Redwine in the 4th round. I would suspect Redwine and Randall to be our starting safeties this year with Burnett and Murray as the backups. We don't need another S this season IMO. Especially if it meant giving up assets to acquire one. We literally don't have ANY UDFA's in our S group once we cut our roster down to the final 53. It's going to be a 1st round pick, a 2nd round pick, and a pair of 4th round picks. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NudeTayne Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 Josh Jones would be a great pickup. A sixth rounder may get it done. And Young Sheldrick is likely here to take over for Randall next year if Randall wants too much money. Jones was a guy many of us wanted a couple years ago. He'd be a great addition. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETSGOBROWNIES Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Tomahawk said: That group inspires Dorsey, which is just fine in my book. Does it? Or are they just the guys we’ve drafted and signed thus far? 1 hour ago, BleedTheClock said: The S group is all John Dorsey guys. As is every position group now. Should we never expect a trade or an attempt at upgrading a position group? 1 hour ago, BleedTheClock said: He didn't trade for Eric Murray just to cut him. He didn't sign Morgan Burnett to trade for his replacement before he plays a snap. True, but neither are likely here after this year. 1 hour ago, BleedTheClock said: And we drafted Sheldrick Redwine in the 4th round. I would suspect Redwine and Randall to be our starting safeties this year with Burnett and Murray as the backups. We don't need another S this season IMO. Especially if it meant giving up assets to acquire one. I could see Burnett being the starter but he also won’t make it through the whole season most likely. The asset is the key part. A day 3 pick, round 6/7 specifically, would be fine. 1 hour ago, BleedTheClock said: We literally don't have ANY UDFA's in our S group once we cut our roster down to the final 53. It's going to be a 1st round pick, a 2nd round pick, and a pair of 4th round picks. With 2 of those guys on the last year of their deals and the other injury prone and on a 2 year deal. There’s not a lot of long term pieces. I’m not saying we NEED him, or that we WILL trade for him, but to call the safety position “set” or “inspiring” is a bit much. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETSGOBROWNIES Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 Another point, with the trend of nickel packages becoming base defenses, would or be crazy to keep 5 safeties and 4 corners? Especially since Redwine, Murray and Randle are all CB converts? Just thinking out loud here... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomahawk Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: Does it? Or are they just the guys we’ve drafted and signed thus far? Well, clearly he feels we have room for depth/upgrades otherwise he wouldn't have contacted the agents for Berry and Boston. The issue with this kid requesting a trade is that GB has need for depth as well. They aren't giving him up for nothing. They have no motivation to actually move the kid. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LETSGOBROWNIES Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 34 minutes ago, Tomahawk said: Well, clearly he feels we have room for depth/upgrades otherwise he wouldn't have contacted the agents for Berry and Boston. Do we know that he hasn’t? We also don’t know what type of contract those guys are seeking. 34 minutes ago, Tomahawk said: The issue with this kid requesting a trade is that GB has need for depth as well. They aren't giving him up for nothing. They have no motivation to actually move the kid. Agree they need help too, but if he doesn’t want to be there and are concerned he could become a problem in the locker room, perhaps they look for the best deal they can get. Teams move players they’d rather keep all the time due to player dissatisfaction. Not dissimilar from Duke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatgerman Posted May 21, 2019 Author Share Posted May 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: Do we know that he hasn’t? We also don’t know what type of contract those guys are seeking. Agree they need help too, but if he doesn’t want to be there and are concerned he could become a problem in the locker room, perhaps they look for the best deal they can get. Teams move players they’d rather keep all the time due to player dissatisfaction. Not dissimilar from Duke. How many teams are willing to sit on a DEPTH player who is disgruntled and wants out? A second/third string guy wants out, addition by subtraction. Besides, Greenbay drafted replacements. Not to mention our guys, Highsmith & Wolf, drafted him. Greenbay basically threw Randall away, giving him to us for Kizer. How did that work out? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomahawk Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 8 minutes ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said: Do we know that he hasn’t? We also don’t know what type of contract those guys are seeking. Agree they need help too, but if he doesn’t want to be there and are concerned he could become a problem in the locker room, perhaps they look for the best deal they can get. Teams move players they’d rather keep all the time due to player dissatisfaction. Not dissimilar from Duke. We know that he HAS indeed contact their agents. I'm guessing they want contracts we aren't willing to give. We haven't moved on from Duke. Again, the compensation has to be right. We have solid depth at RB. GB does not have solid depth at Safety. They likely want a 4th/5th for him and wouldn't get better than a 6th from anyone. I just don't see them willingly moving the kid because he asked. If they did it would be much later into the season when they have solidified any injury concerns and locked in their starters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.