Packerraymond Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Just now, HorizontoZenith said: If we won a Super Bowl playing that New England team, Aaron Rodgers just threw 12 touchdowns in a game. How could our D be any worse? Lol they gave up 500+ pass yards and over 4 YPC. The Pats D was awful too. Better QB that night won and the D that made 1 play won. There was no consistent D played. Could easily have been us. Clay, Perry, Daniels and Clark are just as capable as Graham was to make that play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 1 minute ago, Packerraymond said: Why are we just comparing offense? So we're about even there with a large gap on defense. They're clearly ahead of us at this point this year. Time to close the gap. Because we're literally getting into shiny new toy syndrome here. They go from back-to-back 7-9 seasons to going 13-3 and winning the Super Bowl with their backup QB. What exactly about Philadelphia's recipe for success is something worth modeling after? It's not exactly like they've had Seattle-like success over a short period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Just now, Packerraymond said: How could our D be any worse? This was the most dangerous question to ask for as long as Capers was our coordinator. Nuff said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 1 minute ago, CWood21 said: Because we're literally getting into shiny new toy syndrome here. They go from back-to-back 7-9 seasons to going 13-3 and winning the Super Bowl with their backup QB. What exactly about Philadelphia's recipe for success is something worth modeling after? It's not exactly like they've had Seattle-like success over a short period of time. They added a nice weapon for their QB and some cheap vets on both sides of the ball. If anything I think it shows any team can make a huge one year jump by hitting on their FA and draft targets. NO, PHI, CAR and Jax all testified to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 1 minute ago, Packerraymond said: They added a nice weapon for their QB and some cheap vets on both sides of the ball. If anything I think it shows any team can make a huge one year jump by hitting on their FA and draft targets. NO, PHI, CAR and Jax all testified to that. But is it a sustainable model, that's what we're trying to figure out. Does making these mid-splash moves really push the need, or does it supplement your current roster. The acquisition of Ajayi gave the Eagles a quality RB, and an ideal partner to LeGarrett Blount, their physical back. I'd argue that New Orleans' success is as much about the play of Lattimore than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Just now, CWood21 said: But is it a sustainable model, that's what we're trying to figure out. Does making these mid-splash moves really push the need, or does it supplement your current roster. The acquisition of Ajayi gave the Eagles a quality RB, and an ideal partner to LeGarrett Blount, their physical back. I'd argue that New Orleans' success is as much about the play of Lattimore than anything else. What's unsustainable about it? They'll have to continue drafting well but that's just a given. The FAs deals they made aren't close to being ones that can have a long term hurt. They made smart vet additions (I doubt they spent any more than we did in FA with Bennett, House, RJF, Evans, Dial, Brooks, there's just panned out) and they had a nice draft. I don't get the controversy of saying, the Packers need a better offseason than they had in 2017 to pass these teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 I'll add that I don't think our D could be much worse either. New England punted 0 times and had 1 turnover off a blind sack. Any defense could have done that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted February 5, 2018 Author Share Posted February 5, 2018 10 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: What's unsustainable about it? They'll have to continue drafting well but that's just a given. The FAs deals they made aren't close to being ones that can have a long term hurt. They made smart vet additions (I doubt they spent any more than we did in FA with Bennett, House, RJF, Evans, Dial, Brooks, there's just panned out) and they had a nice draft. I don't get the controversy of saying, the Packers need a better offseason than they had in 2017 to pass these teams. In general, I agree with this. They were pretty active - via multiple methods - to fill in roster spots with players that produced - contributed to their success. Is it sustainable? Dont know cause I dont pay attention to their CAP situation - but they did some scrambling that paid off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 8 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: What's unsustainable about it? They'll have to continue drafting well but that's just a given. The FAs deals they made aren't close to being ones that can have a long term hurt. They made smart vet additions (I doubt they spent any more than we did in FA with Bennett, House, RJF, Evans, Dial, Brooks, there's just panned out) and they had a nice draft. I don't get the controversy of saying, the Packers need a better offseason than they had in 2017 to pass these teams. Because look at what the Eagles just gave up at the deadline to land Ajayi. They gave up a 2018 4th round pick in order to do so. Based on what transpired, it's an easy win. But what if they didn't win the Super Bowl, does that make it a great deal? They just gave up a potential long-term asset for a temporary fix. Hell, he was only a part-time back in Philadelphia. You can't give up long-term assets for short-term fixes, and assume that's a sustainable model. Too many teams have tried and failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, Leader said: In general, I agree with this. They were pretty active - via multiple methods - to fill in roster spots with players that produced - contributed to their success. Is it sustainable? Dont know cause I dont pay attention to their CAP situation - but they did some scrambling that paid off. It works in a short-term model, but it doesn't really work in a long-term model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 I am not going to argue Ajayi isn't worth a 4th rounder... what is the hit % on a 4th rounder being a productive NFL player? cmon now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinaski_86 Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 14 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said: They aren't even that in Green Bay. Running backs are purely running backs here. It's BS. I hate it. The Jaguars torched the Patriots on it. The Panthers torched the Patriots on it. The Eagles torched the Patriots on it. If we played the Patriots, Montgomery wouldn't have a catch. Maybe that will change this year. Maybe. We can hope right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Just now, CWood21 said: Because look at what the Eagles just gave up at the deadline to land Ajayi. They gave up a 2018 4th round pick in order to do so. Based on what transpired, it's an easy win. But what if they didn't win the Super Bowl, does that make it a great deal? They just gave up a potential long-term asset for a temporary fix. Hell, he was only a part-time back in Philadelphia. You can't give up long-term assets for short-term fixes, and assume that's a sustainable model. Too many teams have tried and failed. Losing a 4th round pick makes it an unsustainable model? Come on, it's not like they're Seattle throwing 1-2nds around. I wish we'd throw a mid round pick for a proven vet once in a blue moon. Would've been nice to have a vet DB in 2016 or a vet WR in 2015. Don't have to do it every year but if you find value in a given year at a position you're weak at, you pull the trigger. I'm not about sacrificing the present for the future. I commend the Eagles on that deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Just now, Packerraymond said: Losing a 4th round pick makes it an unsustainable model? Come on, it's not like they're Seattle throwing 1-2nds around. I wish we'd throw a mid round pick for a proven vet once in a blue moon. Would've been nice to have a vet DB in 2016 or a vet WR in 2015. Don't have to do it every year but if you find value in a given year at a position you're weak at, you pull the trigger. I'm not about sacrificing the present for the future. I commend the Eagles on that deal. At the very least, Ajayi helped Blount and Clement stay fresh. I loved the trade back then and I love it now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Losing a 4th round pick makes it an unsustainable model? Come on, it's not like they're Seattle throwing 1-2nds around. I wish we'd throw a mid round pick for a proven vet once in a blue moon. Would've been nice to have a vet DB in 2016 or a vet WR in 2015. Don't have to do it every year but if you find value in a given year at a position you're weak at, you pull the trigger. I'm not about sacrificing the present for the future. I commend the Eagles on that deal. But that's not what was being implied. It seemed to be implied that you're fine with using picks consistently on soon-to-be FA who aren't full-time players. Ajayi had only one game in the regular season where he played in more than 50% of the offensive snaps. And now he's a pending FA. That's not a good model for success. If the Eagles didn't win the Super Bowl, and instead were one-and done would be applauding what the Eagles did? I'm not opposed to doing it every now and then, but it's not something that's sustainable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.