2018 Free Agency - Prospects for GB

[Arthur Penske]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

Good fix for Brooks' role. I wouldn't want him as a starting OLB however.

Robert Quinn when he's cut?  Saw that floating around as a possibility today.

[CWood21]

20 hours ago, MaryTsraining3s said:

Kind of looking to go off this explanation a little more. For years it has always been "these teams are better top to bottom than the Green Bay Packers" and we are going to have a tough time, our time has passed, etc. It was the Giants, then San Francisco, Seattle, Arizona, then Dallas, Atlanta, now it's Philly, MN, again back to San Francisco. There have always been teams people say are better than the Packers top to bottom, but GB has always been right there competing/beating them (as long as 12 is healthy). Seattle and Arizona are "down" a little now, Philly and MN are up. It isn't any different than any other year, just some teams rising as others are on the decline. This year will be no different than any other year in the past 7 years, as long as Rodgers stays healthy. And if Pettine can do something with that defense, there certainly won't be any questions about who is at the top. 

That's kind of why these power rankings during the offseason are pointless.  It's a lot of "what have you done for me lately" mentality.  Los Angeles, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and Minnesota are coming off tremendous seasons, so you can't take anything away from them.  But the Packers are consistently among the top teams in the NFC.  They just fall short.

[CWood21]

19 hours ago, jleisher said:

A couple names to think about,  RG3 and Kaepernick.  Would it be worth giving them a shot?  Dirt cheap, no risk.  I would.

I'm not trying to be a ******, but aside from name value what makes you think they're an upgrade over Brett Hundley?  I mean, I'm not opposed to it if you can come up with legitimate value to their game, but I think you'd be hard pressed to do so.

[CWood21]

19 hours ago, skibrett15 said:

I don't think an in-line blocking TE who can also catch is as important as having a versatile receiving threat.  We need a better threat than Kendricks, blocking be damned.

Happy to run Jones/Williams in shotgun with the TE flexed out to keep his man away from the front rather than trying to find a guy who can block and can't catch or get open.

It's not the ability to be an in-line blocker.  It's the fact that if you have a guy who can flex outside, and block in-line you're not going to have to make substitutions to get the correct players in there.  The Packers are at their best when they're in the hurry-up offense, and if the Packers have to substitute to run certain plays how much value is in that?

[CWood21]

7 minutes ago, ArthurPensky said:

Robert Quinn when he's cut?  Saw that floating around as a possibility today.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.  I'd imagine they'd get some trade value if they made him available.

[Packerraymond]

21 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.  I'd imagine they'd get some trade value if they made him available.

I'd throw our first 3rd rounder out there and see what they think.

They have to resign Donald, Watkins, Gurley, Tru Johnson, and a good deal of role players in the next 2 years. They don't necessarily have to make the move, but they might want to for some flexibility, plus they've had a shortage of picks lately with the Goff deal.

If they move on from Austin they can have Cobb too as well as the 3rd. Would be a good fit with Woods and Watkins.

 

[CWood21]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

I'd throw our first 3rd rounder out there and see what they think.

They have to resign Donald, Watkins, Gurley, Tru Johnson, and a good deal of role players in the next 2 years. They don't necessarily have to make the move, but they might want to for some flexibility, plus they've had a shortage of picks lately with the Goff deal.

If they move on from Austin they can have Cobb too as well as the 3rd. Would be a good fit with Woods and Watkins.

I'm pretty sure Tavon Austin is a cap casualty this offseason.  And I think they're moving on from Trumaine Johnson if the price tag gets too high.  I'm sure @jrry32 could elaborate a bit.

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

I'm pretty sure Tavon Austin is a cap casualty this offseason.  And I think they're moving on from Trumaine Johnson if the price tag gets too high.  I'm sure @jrry32 could elaborate a bit.

I mean Donald is a 100+ contract and Watkins will be 10+ with Adams and Jeffrey signing. Joyner will be close to 10 as well and Nickel-Robey is in for a big pay bump too. Then you have Gurley an extension candidate.

They have a decent amount of cap space, they certainly don't look like they have to move Quinn but the buzz around what I've read is that they'll ask him for a pay cut. There's absolutely no reason for him to take one so that might rub him the wrong way. We'll see how it turns out. He'd be a nice add for us, probably better than any FA on the market or at least equal to Ziggy Ansah at worst.

[Shanedorf]

Here's more on Robert Quinn, he won't be cut. They'll have many suitors

- Rams would love to get a 2nd for him to replace the one they spent on Sammy Watkins, but that's a bit rich. A 3rd and 5th might get er done if you think he can play inside and outside in Pettine's defense

Another option is to trade back in the 2nd with Buffalo (Rams original 2nd)  and adding another 3rd. Then you can give a lesser 2nd to the Rams for Quinn and have (3) 3rds which is enough ammo to climb back into round 2 if you're so inclined

Quinn is a talented pass rusher, had some success vs GB in years past. Wade Phillips worked on converting a lifelong DE into a 3-4 OLB in 2017, not sure how well the conversion worked. But the Rams do have some cap clenching issues and RQ might be a moveable piece. In the post above, I noted that the Rams have some pretty serious investments in the front 7 already and that's before the Aaron Donald blockbuster deal is signed.

[jrry32]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

I'm pretty sure Tavon Austin is a cap casualty this offseason.  And I think they're moving on from Trumaine Johnson if the price tag gets too high.  I'm sure @jrry32 could elaborate a bit.

Austin is almost certainly gone. It's uncertain what happens with Trumaine, but yes, I think we'll move on if the price tag gets too high. I don't expect Quinn to be cut.

[jrry32]

59 minutes ago, Shanedorf said:

Here's more on Robert Quinn, he won't be cut. They'll have many suitors

- Rams would love to get a 2nd for him to replace the one they spent on Sammy Watkins, but that's a bit rich. A 3rd and 5th might get er done if you think he can play inside and outside in Pettine's defense

Another option is to trade back in the 2nd with Buffalo (Rams original 2nd)  and adding another 3rd. Then you can give a lesser 2nd to the Rams for Quinn and have (3) 3rds which is enough ammo to climb back into round 2 if you're so inclined

Quinn is a talented pass rusher, had some success vs GB in years past. Wade Phillips worked on converting a lifelong DE into a 3-4 OLB in 2017, not sure how well the conversion worked. But the Rams do have some cap clenching issues and RQ might be a moveable piece. In the post above, I noted that the Rams have some pretty serious investments in the front 7 already and that's before the Aaron Donald blockbuster deal is signed.

Robert Quinn could be traded, but I think we'll hold onto him for another year unless someone makes a really good offer. He produced 9.5 sacks in 2017 (coming on strong in the second half of the year), and he's affordable for a quality pass rusher for the next two years.

But if someone offered a second, I'm sure we'd consider it.

[Shanedorf]

7 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

Robert Quinn could be traded, but I think we'll hold onto him for another year unless someone makes a really good offer. He produced 9.5 sacks in 2017 (coming on strong in the second half of the year), and he's affordable for a quality pass rusher for the next two years.

But if someone offered a second, I'm sure we'd consider it.

Thanks for insight

How do you think he did  playing more of an OLB role vs his traditional DE spot ?

[jrry32]

1 minute ago, Shanedorf said:

Thanks for insight

How do you think he did  playing more of an OLB role vs his traditional DE spot ?

He was shaky at the start of the year to the point that Matt Longacre was outplaying him. He stepped up and played well over the second half of the year. I'd hold onto him for another year to see if more familiarity leads to him continuing to improve. He's still too much of a one-trick pony, but with Donald inside, that trick is pretty effective.

[craig]

21 hours ago, skibrett15 said:

I don't think an in-line blocking TE who can also catch is as important as having a versatile receiving threat.  We need a better threat than Kendricks, blocking be damned.

Happy to run Jones/Williams in shotgun with the TE flexed out to keep his man away from the front rather than trying to find a guy who can block and can't catch or get open.

1.  I agree.  Obviously I'd like to have a high-end TE who's a good blocker and a good receiver, and who's a flexible fit for RPO. 

2.  But Kendricks isn't really that guy, and Rodgers is a terrible blocker.  Not expecting Burton to be a power blocker, but I'm not sure he'd be worse than Rodgers, or that significantly much worse than Kendricks.  (But what do I know, I haven't scouted his blocking, and am just assuming he's not good because you smarter guys say so, and because I assume being fast means he's probably not massively strong.)   Sometimes guys who are faster in routes might also be quicker and more flexible in blocking, and getting their pads low and stuff.  So maybe the impact on the blocking game by replacing Rodgers or Kendricks with Burton would be insignificant, or would actually be an upgrade rather than a downgrade?  

3.  I think having a versatile, fast, good receiving threat could open up a lot of things for the offense.  Burton might possibly have that capacity; we know Kendricks doesn't, or Rodgers.  

4.  Think that for the no-huddle, Rodgers would benefit more from an extra target who can get open to first-down line fast, more than he'd benefit from a wannabe-blocker-TE who doesn't even really block very well.  

5.  I just don't want to come back with Kendricks-Rodgers-Rookie-UDFA.  I think the quality of the existing personnel is so low, and the FA price for average-ish TE's is so relatively modest, that upgrading in the anti-awful-direction relative to what we've got now wouldn't be all that hard or that expensive, and could make a very positive impact.  

6.  Cook wasn't a good blocker either, (although not necessarily bad), but I think what he added as a receiver helped a lot.  

[craig]

On 2/14/2018 at 11:26 PM, Sasquatch said:

Well, according to Colin Cowherd, “The Packers Super Bowl window has closed!”  He goes on to state that there’s several other teams in the NFC with better coaches, better personnel, great QB’s, and much stronger defenses than GB, in spite of AR’s greatness.  He thinks Philly, LA, Saints, Minny, even San Fran are top to bottom better than GB, and for that reason, most top FA’s won’t want to go to GB.  Obvious hatred of Cowherd aside, comment on his statement with something other than “rubbish”.  Does he make a fair point and are we too passionate about our team to see the writing on the wall, or, is he wrong because.....?

"Closed" is wrong.  The National INjury League is too unpredictable.  

"Philly, LA, Saints, Minny, even San Fran are top to bottom better than GB".  Not sure with 9ers, but certainly agree on the first four.  Apart from Rodgers, those rosters are certainly better than Green Bay, not even close.  And it's not clear that Rodgers is enough superior to catch up and surpass.  

That said, not being as good is not the same as being unable to compete.  Lots of teams, all six of those teams Packers included, can hopefully and not unrealistically hope that if things break right, they could reach the Super Bowl.  If you hit on your draft picks; if injuries are generously slim; if the "+D" part of D+D works, so that 2nd and 3rd years guys and UFA's signed in recent years are ascending significantly; if older guys (Rodgers included) defer the impact of Father Time; then we've got a shot.  All of those teams mentioned could legitimately feel that way, Packers included. 

But yeah, we're not the favorites.