Jump to content

2018 Free Agency - Prospects for GB


Sasquatch

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Norm said:

Crosby. Williams. Bahk. Collins.. Hayward. Hyde. Rodgers. All were given up on by many people. That list took me seconds to think of

Except none by the coaching staff...

Collins isn't even an equivalency AT ALL.  My dude started every friggin game he was available since his rookie year.  Jones has only ever really seen the field due to injury or being the 6th DB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Packers traded with the Seahawks in the draft, why didn't they get it done then ? Seattle could have drafted a replacement.
They've had an entire offseason dedicated to installing a new defense - makes so little sense to consummate the trade in September, especially between two friendly GMs. Thomas may or may not be worth the draft capital, but the timing doesn't seem kosher

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Norm said:

Crosby. Williams. Bahk. Collins.. Hayward. Hyde. Rodgers. All were given up on by many people. That list took me seconds to think of

That's because I'm pretty sure you just made it up. IIRC, Bahk and Hayward, just off the top of my head, had pretty solid first years and took off from there. Hell Bahk was a 4th round pick and shocked the hell out of everyone how well he held up at LT. Didn't Hayward have like 6 INTs as a rook? 

The point remains, just about every time someone on here questions a 2nd or 3rd year player, someone throws out "Adams" like there is some correlation there when there is none. Different player, different situation. Where are all my Vince Biegel lovers calling for Gute's head because he gave up on him after year 2? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

you can keep bringing up the exceptions and pretending they are as likely as the Patrick Lees and Aaron Rouses and Alex Greens and Jerel Worthys and Jerron McMillians and Khyri Thorntons and Quinten Rollinses but what I said was it's more likely that Jones is fighting for a spot next year than he is lighting it on fire.  If, by your second year, you are not injured and not even really in contention for a starting spot as a 2nd round pick, that lightbulb is probably not going to come on.  It could, but it's more likely not to.

And is anyone really here to argue that point or are you just trying to say "there's always a chance"

Of course there's a chance for Jones at this point.  But don't make that the plan at the position, and don't avoid making a move because there's a chance you may all of a sudden be deep at that position.

 

 

Just because he not likely to doesn't mean the reaction is give a first for a 30 year old on the backside of his career though either

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

Except none by the coaching staff...

Collins isn't even an equivalency AT ALL.  My dude started every friggin game he was available since his rookie year.  Jones has only ever really seen the field due to injury or being the 6th DB.

Let's at least wait a few NFL games year two before we write his obituary. I think he sucks will suck. But I'm not convinced of it like everyone clamoring for trades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

That's because I'm pretty sure you just made it up. IIRC, Bahk and Hayward, just off the top of my head, had pretty solid first years and took off from there. Hell Bahk was a 4th round pick and shocked the hell out of everyone how well he held up at LT. Didn't Hayward have like 6 INTs as a rook? 

The point remains, just about every time someone on here questions a 2nd or 3rd year player, someone throws out "Adams" like there is some correlation there when there is none. Different player, different situation. Where are all my Vince Biegel lovers calling for Gute's head because he gave up on him after year 2? 

Hayward had all the injuries and was too slow, even for the slot. Before Bahk broke out, or started, there was all sorts of we need to move on talk. I know your type bleaches their brains of ever having these views. You have never been wrong. But it happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Norm said:

Just because he not likely to doesn't mean the reaction is give a first for a 30 year old on the backside of his career though either

No that part came first and really has nothing to do with it.  The reaction was "BUT WUT ABT JONES"

IDC about Jones.  Just like I think Mack is probably worth 2x 1sts, Thomas is worth a first plus 12/year on a 3 year 40 mil extension with 25-30 GTD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

That's because I'm pretty sure you just made it up. IIRC, Bahk and Hayward, just off the top of my head, had pretty solid first years and took off from there. Hell Bahk was a 4th round pick and shocked the hell out of everyone how well he held up at LT. Didn't Hayward have like 6 INTs as a rook? 

The point remains, just about every time someone on here questions a 2nd or 3rd year player, someone throws out "Adams" like there is some correlation there when there is none. Different player, different situation. Where are all my Vince Biegel lovers calling for Gute's head because he gave up on him after year 2? 

Who loved him anyways. I didn't like the pick from day one. I'm a genius who should join the second guess everything club. I would be so good at it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, skibrett15 said:

No that part came first and really has nothing to do with it.  The reaction was "BUT WUT ABT JONES"

IDC about Jones.  Just like I think Mack is probably worth 2x 1sts, Thomas is worth a first plus 12/year on a 3 year 40 mil extension with 25-30 GTD.

I don't, but I don't think it's insane either. I'm not like you in thinking he'll age gracefully though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Norm said:

Hayward had all the injuries and was too slow, even for the slot. Before Bahk broke out, or started, there was all sorts of we need to move on talk. I know your type bleaches their brains of ever having these views. You have never been wrong. But it happened.

I'm sure I'm wrong (once in a while ;)) but so are the "draft and develop and don't cut a guy before year 4" crowd too. There is no hard-and-fast rule there, and you can't manage a team with a hard-and-fast rule like that. I have no problem "developing" a player and giving him as much time needed to see whether he is going to become something.....as long as it doesn't happen at the expense of the team and its goals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, packfanfb said:

So when do we start the Le'Veon Bell to Green Bay thread lol. 

Seriously think Pitt might receive some trade calls with all this noise coming from Bell's O'Line now. Bad news. 

Not interested unless it's a late round pick for a rental. Problem is in that case he isn't playing until week 10 so it wouldn't work any ways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

That's because I'm pretty sure you just made it up. IIRC, Bahk and Hayward, just off the top of my head, had pretty solid first years and took off from there. Hell Bahk was a 4th round pick and shocked the hell out of everyone how well he held up at LT. Didn't Hayward have like 6 INTs as a rook? 

The point remains, just about every time someone on here questions a 2nd or 3rd year player, someone throws out "Adams" like there is some correlation there when there is none. Different player, different situation. Where are all my Vince Biegel lovers calling for Gute's head because he gave up on him after year 2? 

Everyone wanted Randall cut after year two and then cried a river when we traded him in year 3, Mike Neal became counted upon later in his career, Mike Daniels was nothing much year 1. The list is just as long either way.

Giving up on Jones is stupid. Trading a 1st for Earl Thomas is even dumber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Everyone wanted Randall cut after year two and then cried a river when we traded him in year 3, Mike Neal became counted upon later in his career, Mike Daniels was nothing much year 1. The list is just as long either way.

Giving up on Jones is stupid. Trading a 1st for Earl Thomas is even dumber.

Haven't advocated for either, but I think it's equally stupid not to actively look to improve the safety position if the right deal is there or via FA next year because we are crossing our fingers with Jones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Everyone wanted Randall cut after year two and then cried a river when we traded him in year 3, Mike Neal became counted upon later in his career, Mike Daniels was nothing much year 1. The list is just as long either way.

Giving up on Jones is stupid. Trading a 1st for Earl Thomas is even dumber.

Only I cried about Randall :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...