GB free agency 2022

[packfanfb]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

It's probably a fringe 7th round pick.  If that.

Yea, I looked up Jamaal's deal (which I believe netted us a 7th) and it was 2/$6m. So Burks might fall short especially with deals likely going up this year. 

[CWood21]

7 hours ago, packfanfb said:

Didn't think he was as close with Crosby despite being teammates the longest. Either way, you cut Billy Turner to save $2.5m but are keeping Mr. 50/50 Crosby for $4m? 

Someone needs to explain that one to me with something other than "he's friends with 12."

I'm not sure being obtuse is the solution to the question you're asking.  For the record, I'm on the same side with you regards to releasing Billy Turner, but there's reason to believe that Crosby isn't broken.  After the Kansas City game, he was 13-17 (76.4%) including the playoffs which is only 5 points lower then his career average.

[TransientTexan]

17 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

I thought we'd save around $2.5, pretty close to Turner's savings, but that's neither here nor there. Personally, I think it's time to move on from Crosby. I'd be fine drafting a guy on Day 3, and if that doesn't work, there's always other veteran options. We need to make tough choices on who to keep, who to not, and I'd put Crosby near the bottom of "need to keep". 

When you cut Crosby, another guy at the bottom slides onto the top-51. Probably someone making ~$0.7m, which diminishes the savings. 

I’m fine w/ them moving on from Crosby (I’ve done that myself in some of my mocks), but it still doesn’t gain them much. And it’d be rolling the dice on his replacement in a way that isn’t the same as Turner->Jenkins, who we’ve already witnessed can do it. 

[CWood21]

5 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Yea, I looked up Jamaal's deal (which I believe netted us a 7th) and it was 2/$6m. So Burks might fall short especially with deals likely going up this year. 

It's close enough that it's possible, but it just depends on what kind of deals are being handed out.

[CWood21]

7 hours ago, packfanfb said:

He's probably too expensive, but Pierce-Clark would look good. I mean, it's long past due we take a player from Minnesota versus the other way around right? 

A two down DL that provides no interior pass rush?  I think I'd rather run Lancaster at the minimum.  And that's saying something.

[CWood21]

5 hours ago, Old Guy said:

Now that Rodgers signed a team friendly deal, I guess we can go shopping for some big-name free agents. 

Not yet.  We're still $6M-$7M over the cap according to OTC/Spotrac, so the Packers probably need to clear more cap space out.

[Green19]

6 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

This team can't win it all with Lazard as the top option behind Adams. That's just my opinion, but no one will ever be able to convince me otherwise. I'm perfectly fine with not adding an overpriced WR in FA, but if not, I'm expecting the Packers to take a WR top 60 in the draft, preferably in the top 30 even if they have to move up to get a top tier guy. It's a massive hole that needs to be filled. Again, I know a lot of people disagree with me on that point, but that's my 2 cents. 

Oh look I don’t disagree… I’m in a discussion with Leader in another thread about this topic as well.

My point is I can realistically only see a Fueller being added. Just because of the previous interest, lafluer’s connection from ND and likely lower number it will take to get him. Outside of that I don’t see any help really being added in FA. There is rumor of McCould from Pit, but that screams special teams add.

And when it comes to a rookie WR… unless they get lucky and draft a Jefferson or Chase type WR, they aren’t likely to get much out of a rookie WR. I don’t think Rodgers has it in him to make that work.

When you hear all the stuff it goes into not only being a WR in this offense but for THIS QB… it’s not just plugging in a guy with all world talent and here we go! That makes me see the prospects as… they have to literally draft a unicorn at the position to get what it seems like what people want for this offense.

I more interested in Amari’s second year and if Steno and Tom can help massage this offense so it’s not just Adams.

[packfanfb]

8 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'm not sure being obtuse is the solution to the question you're asking.  For the record, I'm on the same side with you regards to releasing Billy Turner, but there's reason to believe that Crosby isn't broken.  After the Kansas City game, he was 13-17 (76.4%) including the playoffs which is only 5 points lower then his career average.

Yea, but even GB seemed gun shy to put him out there for anything outside of 40 yards. His logs over that period were: 

Seattle: 1-2 (1-1 for 20-29, 0-1 for 40-49)

MIN: 1-2 (0-1 for 30-39, 1-1 for 50-59)

LAR: 3-4 (2-2 for 20-29, 1-2 for 40-49)

CHI: 1-1 (20-29)

BAL: 1-1 (20-29)

CLE: 1-1 (30-39)

MIN: 3-3 (30-39)

DET: 1-1 (30-39)

So, over the last 8 games, Crosby only attempted 4 FGs beyond 39 yards and was 2-4). 

Respectfully, I don't give any NFL kicker credit for making FGs within 39 yards. Those are chip shots. So, do we really know if Crosby is "back"? 

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, {Family Ghost} said:

I don't think 23 mil per is going to get it done .. try 30 per and you might be in the ball park.

There's no reason he's going to get anywhere close to $30M.

[packfanfb]

7 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

A two down DL that provides no interior pass rush?  I think I'd rather run Lancaster at the minimum.  And that's saying something.

Wasn't Pierce actually decent as a pass rusher last season? He was better than Tomlinson IIRC. 

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, packfanfb said:

Respectfully, I don't give any NFL kicker credit for making FGs within 39 yards. Those are chip shots. So, do we really know if Crosby is "back"? 

Either way, savings are minimal at best.  You save just under $2.4M by releasing him, which goes down to closer to $1.7M when you factor in a replacement.  That's not really anything to stress over.

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

There's no reason he's going to get anywhere close to $30M.

I bet you he will, he has all the leverage. 

[vegas492]

8 minutes ago, Green19 said:

 

And when it comes to a rookie WR… unless they get lucky and draft a Jefferson or Chase type WR, they aren’t likely to get much out of a rookie WR. I don’t think Rodgers has it in him to make that work.

 

He made it work early with MVS with success.  And he was a late round pick.

I hold out hope that if we take a WR in round 1, Aaron will use him.

And if the kid has deep speed, that is about all we really need.  If the kid can run routes, Aaron will find him.

I know this runs contrary to most every other WR he's brought in, but this is just how I feel.

[Leader]

5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I bet you he will, he has all the leverage. 

Not if we trade him. Then we'll have to draft a stud WR! HAAAAAAAAAAAA!  Okay.......I've lost it.
I need to sit in a quiet room for a bit

[squire12]

5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I bet you he will, he has all the leverage. 

Might not be 30, but I think it's 27+

Adams sticking to the tag salary, limits GB ability to add FA in the next few months.