cannondale Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said: For the love of God, it's not about replacing Randall. We need 5 corners. We had 3. We traded one. Now instead of having to add 2, we have to add 3. We have X amount of money to do this. Randall only cost 2 million. You really can't put this in simpler terms. And your point is that Gute doesn't know this or doesn't have a plan in place to fix it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 Just now, cannondale said: And your point is that Gute doesn't know this or doesn't have a plan in place to fix it ? My point is that he is making it more difficult on himself and requiring himself to use assets that otherwise could have been spent on other holes in order to plug a hole he didn't have before he did this to himself. Read about the boat for future reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 Just now, sgtcheezwiz said: It just means we cannot double up on drafting other positions You mean it prevents us from using resources we previously wouldn't have had to use in order to plug a hole we didn't have before we made the whole? Huh. It's almost like that's what I've been saying. Maybe soon people will understand that. Do I need another boat analogy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopackgonerd Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 I'll say this, as much as I don't like this trade, it's not an impossible task rebuild the secondary. If we can at least straighten out Boundary and Nickel, its not gonna look so bad. Perhaps a later round draft pick or 2 to sure out the depth as well. It's obviously not gonna look as good as with Randall, but I dont think the front office is dumb enough to leave this hole wide open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernpackfan Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said: For the love of God, it's not about replacing Randall. We need 5 corners. We had 3. We traded one. Now instead of having to add 2, we have to add 3. We have X amount of money to do this. Randall only cost 2 million. You really can't put this in simpler terms. You are correct, we do need to add 3 corners. The difference is that most of the people on here aren’t as pessimistic about Gute eventually doing just that this offseason. There is still lots of time, plenty of guys out there via trade, FA, and the draft, and the Packers gave plenty of resources. You have to have some faith that there is a larger plan that we just aren’t privy to. I believe you were a supporter of TT, and his reign required us to have a tremendous amount of faith in his plan. I think we should give his successor some of the same benefit of the doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenrik Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said: You mean it prevents us from using resources we previously wouldn't have had to use in order to plug a hole we didn't have before we made the whole? Huh. It's almost like that's what I've been saying. Maybe soon people will understand that. Do I need another boat analogy? Haha you had a boat analogy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernpackfan Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said: You mean it prevents us from using resources we previously wouldn't have had to use in order to plug a hole we didn't have before we made the whole? Huh. It's almost like that's what I've been saying. Maybe soon people will understand that. Do I need another boat analogy? Your boat analogy assumes the only holes are at CB. It doesn’t take into account that our biggest hole last year was backup QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannondale Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said: My point is that he is making it more difficult on himself and requiring himself to use assets that otherwise could have been spent on other holes in order to plug a hole he didn't have before he did this to himself. Read about the boat for future reference. Would love to talk boats, but I'm busy reading this book about how sometimes you have to take one step back in order to take three steps forward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 Just now, northernpackfan said: Your boat analogy assumes the only holes are at CB. It doesn’t take into account that our biggest hole last year was backup QB. No, my analogy literally covered other positions. Also... Backup QB position is a hole that is at the top of the boat. If water starts pouring into that hole, you are already ****ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtcheezwiz Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 Just now, HorizontoZenith said: You mean it prevents us from using resources we previously wouldn't have had to use in order to plug a hole we didn't have before we made the whole? Huh. It's almost like that's what I've been saying. Maybe soon people will understand that. Do I need another boat analogy? We can still use resources to acquire players. You make it out to be a zero sum game, where we have a stockpile of CB's or a losing record. There are still resources to acquire players, maybe it just means we draft one edge guy instead of two. BUT we addressed the need of a back up quarterback. And I know you will down play the importance of this, but clearly 1265 saw it as a need after last season. Can you blame them? We cannot assume Rodgers health or longevity, therefore it makes sense to grab an insurance policy. I agree, it is a lot to pay for this insurance but it very well may be worth it and can easily be rectified with this free agent class, a deep draft class for the corners, and 12 f-in draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Gopackgonerd said: I'll say this, as much as I don't like this trade, it's not an impossible task rebuild the secondary. If we can at least straighten out Boundary and Nickel, its not gonna look so bad. Perhaps a later round draft pick or 2 to sure out the depth as well. It's obviously not gonna look as good as with Randall, but I dont think the front office is dumb enough to leave this hole wide open. Not to bust on ya....but it didnt look all that hot WITH Randall. Since when did he become "Shutdown DR?" I must have missed it. He ALWAYS allowed free release - always He ALWAYS was trailing his responsibility - always. He wasnt all that hot in zone and a close it down tackler? Nope. And - he was ALWAYS the first to throw up his hands in "Not my fault...what were you other guys doing?" manner - always. This we cant replace? Oh well. Leave it at that. We're doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtcheezwiz Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, northernpackfan said: Your boat analogy assumes the only holes are at CB. It doesn’t take into account that our biggest hole last year was backup QB. Yaaaasss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fussnputz Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 1 minute ago, HorizontoZenith said: My point is that he is making it more difficult on himself and requiring himself to use assets that otherwise could have been spent on other holes in order to plug a hole he didn't have before he did this to himself. Read about the boat for future reference. I think the talent on the roster has been trending down for a while. Trading Randall makes less talent to be sure. HZ is right about that. We gave up a starter for a backup. But clearly there will be more shoes dropping to retool the roster. This was just the first step. What probably has to happen for the retooling: (1) Create cap space (restructure and extend Nelson and Rodgers, possibly Cobb) (2) Use cap space to acquire some FAs. Wilkerson? A CB? (3) Trades? For players, or moving up/down in the draft? (4) Draft new guys that fit the scheme, both defense and offense (remember MM was rebuilding the offensive play book too)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtcheezwiz Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 Yes it makes it harder to rebuild the secondary. No it is not impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted March 10, 2018 Share Posted March 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said: My point is that he is making it more difficult on himself and requiring himself to use assets that otherwise could have been spent on other holes in order to plug a hole he didn't have before he did this to himself. Read about the boat for future reference. You honestly think he traded him for S & G's? Dude Pettine didn't want him. The hole was going to be there. We added a new DC, that DC has probably talked to Whitt, Mac, Moss and Gute about the roster, he's probably talked to Daniels, HHCD, CMIII, the respected vets on the roster and from what he heard and saw on tape, he didn't want Randall. We apparently liked Kizer enough to consider him at 33, obviously that would've been a foolish draft pick. We've been shopping Randall since the Combine. I'm sure Gute saw CLE adding Taylor and picked up the phone and structured a trade around Randall for Kizer. Randall was gone in 12 months, now we've got a cheap backup QB until 2020, now we'll be able to spend that 2,3,4th round pick next year after Brett leaves on a more pressing position, or that 5m we'd have to pay Hundley on a vet FA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.