Random Packer News & Notes

[Leader]

1 minute ago, coachbuns said:

$$ talk ... nothing else .. period.  One didn't want to be here, one wasn't worth the dollars KC signed him for and the other just wasn't that good.  

Point of interest for me is that apparently GB had only offered a one year deal. I wonder which weighed more heavily in that calculation: the player's perceived talent / upside - or their future cap situation. A one year deal certainly doesnt sound like an "all in...push debt into the future" kinda offer.

[incognito_man]

Yeah it's not remotely a bad draft.

[coachbuns]

1 minute ago, Leader said:

Point of interest for me is that apparently GB had only offered a one year deal. I wonder which weighed more heavily in that calculation: the player's perceived talent / upside - or their future cap situation. A one year deal certainly doesnt sound like an "all in...push debt into the future" kinda offer.

Thinking they just weren't that enamored with him to offer more than a one year.  KC overpaid .. 30 mill for 3 years .. GB wasn't going to pay him 10 mill for one year let alone what he got.

[Leader]

Just now, coachbuns said:

Thinking they just weren't that enamored with him to offer more than a one year.  KC overpaid .. 30 mill for 3 years .. GB wasn't going to pay him 10 mill for one year let alone what he got.

Probably so. Perhaps they felt he should be farther along after 4 years.
Be interesting to see how things progress in KC. Glad we have a deep draft WR-wise coming up.

[n8ghee]

I’m seeing sports writers saying MVS will slot in nicely into Tyreek Hills role…ha, more like he will replace Byron Pringles production. I’d be surprised if he actually makes it to the third year of that overpriced contract.

 

that being said, I’ll miss MVS, he’s hilarious on Twitter.

[R T]

1 minute ago, squire12 said:

So 3 players got signed by other teams on contracts GB deemed too steep for thie budget make it a bad draft?

I think you are missing the point because you want to miss the point here, but I'll attempt to explain anyways.

I was lucky enough to have a very long conversion with Pat Kerwin at one time and ask him many of the same questions on this exact subject. It is about starters to start with, starters that your team feels strong enough to want back on a second contract. If the Packers really wanted MVS back he would be a Packer today, that contract did not stop them from bringing him back. After 4 seasons the Packers have one player left from that draft, a starter but one player.

As for the rest of the draft it has one other starter (MVS), two that should make the backend of another team's roster (Burks, St. Brown), two on future deals as camp bodies (Jackson, Scott) and five out of the league (Moore, Madison, Looney, Bardley, Donnerson). That is not a good return, but as I have stated before it happens.

It's not by my scale that I'm weighing this by, that is how GM's view the process. TT had said things along those same lines and Bill Polian has also. I don't have Sirius radio anymore, but for several years in a row in the dog days of summer Daniel Jeremiah would grade draft after 4 years. He would break them down the same way that I just did and it is doubtful he would grade that draft well either. 

A person can say something along these lines and doesn't need to be he is hating, sometimes it doesn't come together. I'm as big a fan of Gutes as anyone and often defend his job, this draft just will not go down as one of his brighter moment is all.           

[Chili]

24 minutes ago, n8ghee said:

I’m seeing sports writers saying MVS will slot in nicely into Tyreek Hills role…ha, more like he will replace Byron Pringles production. I’d be surprised if he actually makes it to the third year of that overpriced contract.

 

that being said, I’ll miss MVS, he’s hilarious on Twitter.

Kansas will split Tyreek's role. The deep stuff MVS, the short yardage and end around stuff Hardman. The volume stuff Juju. Of course they will draft somebody but the idea remains the same - split Hill's responsibilities.

Like us with Adams, they cannot hope to replicate Hill's role and production right away. There's no-one like him available so the answer is to split up the responsibilities.

I'm still waiting to see what the Packers will do.

[squire12]

24 minutes ago, R T said:

I think you are missing the point because you want to miss the point here, but I'll attempt to explain anyways.

I was lucky enough to have a very long conversion with Pat Kerwin at one time and ask him many of the same questions on this exact subject. It is about starters to start with, starters that your team feels strong enough to want back on a second contract. If the Packers really wanted MVS back he would be a Packer today, that contract did not stop them from bringing him back. After 4 seasons the Packers have one player left from that draft, a starter but one player.

As for the rest of the draft it has one other starter (MVS), two that should make the backend of another team's roster (Burks, St. Brown), two on future deals as camp bodies (Jackson, Scott) and five out of the league (Moore, Madison, Looney, Bardley, Donnerson). That is not a good return, but as I have stated before it happens.

It's not by my scale that I'm weighing this by, that is how GM's view the process. TT had said things along those same lines and Bill Polian has also. I don't have Sirius radio anymore, but for several years in a row in the dog days of summer Daniel Jeremiah would grade draft after 4 years. He would break them down the same way that I just did and it is doubtful he would grade that draft well either. 

A person can say something along these lines and doesn't need to be he is hating, sometimes it doesn't come together. I'm as big a fan of Gutes as anyone and often defend his job, this draft just will not go down as one of his brighter moment is all.           

I actually didn't see your follow-up post after you stated it was a bad draft.

I agree in principle on the 3 starters concept....but getting an all pro caliber player at a premium position is a bit better than a random starter.  Quality gets a lean over quantity.

That draft also involved a trade that netted an additional 1st in 2019 which leads to Savage....oh, another starter.

So if you want to consider things a bit deeper than 3 starters and 2nd contract players, we could .  If not, then so be it.

[Brit Pack]

Chandon Sullivan visiting the Vikes!

[R T]

1 minute ago, squire12 said:

I actually didn't see your follow-up post after you stated it was a bad draft.

I agree in principle on the 3 starters concept....but getting an all pro caliber player at a premium position is a bit better than a random starter.  Quality gets a lean over quantity.

That draft also involved a trade that netted an additional 1st in 2019 which leads to Savage....oh, another starter.

So if you want to consider things a bit deeper than 3 starters and 2nd contract players, we could .  If not, then so be it.

All fair points. 

This whole bad draft thing took a life of its own quickly and wasn't meant to be that at all. The internet has a way of doing that. Kind of like when a person has sticker shock when they first see the price of something and say OMG that's too high, but they still plan on buying it, just surprise by what they saw. Versus saying that's too high and you're not getting any of my business because of it. When I first looked at that list of players from the 2018 it was a bit of sticker shock and the response was OMG that was a bad draft. It was a reflects response is all. The Packers got Alexander from the draft and he is hopefully a building block for many years to come. Some people want to add Savage to that draft which is fine as long as those people are consistent and remove him from the 2019 draft. Which I really don't agree with and doubt that GM's look at it that way either, but hell it's the internet so whatever works for each individual is fine. 

[Mazrimiv]

KC is in for a rude awakening with what MVS actually brings to the offense.  Good for MVS to get that contract, but I want no part of him at 10M/YR

[Norm]

MVS has 1000 yards if he plays 14 games. 

Or I ban myself.

[gopackgo972]

1 hour ago, Chili said:

Kansas will split Tyreek's role. The deep stuff MVS, the short yardage and end around stuff Hardman. The volume stuff Juju. Of course they will draft somebody but the idea remains the same - split Hill's responsibilities.

Like us with Adams, they cannot hope to replicate Hill's role and production right away. There's no-one like him available so the answer is to split up the responsibilities.

I'm still waiting to see what the Packers will do.

The chiefs are in a much better spot than the packers are right now. Just goes to show how our WR corp was DA or nothing. 

[Leader]

9 minutes ago, Norm said:

MVS has 1000 yards if he plays 14 games. 

Or I ban myself.

Could you self ban yourself now.....and come back when/if he hits those targets?
Asking for a friend 

[ccecilnosebleed]

Did we not sign Jarran Reed today? Is it humanly possible that there hasn't been a thread created for this? Or do we not care? Or perhaps my old age is preventing me from seeing such thread?