Jump to content

Cheese Curds: Green Bay Packers Updates


swede700

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

The Packers have had 2 drafts (2018 and 2019) under Gute.  They've (so far) had one season (2018) with Gute as GM.  Based on the same timeline, you'd be looking at the Saints going into the 2017-18 season.  Ironically, after finishing the 2016-17 season 7-9, the Saints were fortunate to pick Marshon Lattimore at 11 and Ryan Ramczyk at 32.  The Packers finished 6-9-1 and chose Rashan Gary at 12 and Darnell Savage at 21.  In the 2016, the Saints got 3 starters (Sheldon Rankins, Michael Thomas, and Vonn Bell).  In the 2018 draft, the Packers believe they got 3 starters (Jaire Alexander, Josh Jackson, and MVS).  Sheldon Rankins wasn't very good in his rookie year and was cut short by injury, so I'd say he's actually fairly similar to Josh Jackson in that regard.  Michael Thomas was really good his rookie year as was Jaire Alexander.  Von Bell is a solid starter, and most view MVS in a similar light.  The Saints killed the 2017 draft.  There's no way to sugarcoat it.  The Packers hope they have that kind of draft.

I hope you are not trying to compare the Packers talent to the Saints. Kamara is one of the best at his position in the NFL, Michael Thomas is without question one of the best in his position in the NFL and down the road potentially could be the said for Ramczyk and Lattimore.  The Packers in the last three years cannot say that about any of the players they have picked.  Alexander is good he is not that good.  Only way they take it up a notch is if Gary and Savage develop quickly into Pro bowl level players automatically and that is pretty debatable that happening.  

The Packers young talent compared to the Saints to me is not even in the same Universe.  Lucky for them few teams in the NFL are on that Saints level of young talent.  Rankins is better than you say he is, not to mention they got Malcom Brown from the Patriots who is a thick dude out there, Eli Apple has a lot of upside also.  McCoy could be a fine center in the NFL for years but will see and oh yeah they have Marcus Davenport one of the most talented DEs in the NFL currently, he has tons of upside.

 

Kevin King, Josh Jones, Josh Jackson, St. Brown all will have to really pick up their level of play.  Alexander can ball a little but the rest still have a long ways to go, lucky for them Sternberger should be great.  Still they need many more to be even near the level of the Saints.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CWood21 said:

The Packers have had 2 drafts (2018 and 2019) under Gute.  They've (so far) had one season (2018) with Gute as GM.  Based on the same timeline, you'd be looking at the Saints going into the 2017-18 season.  

Right, that’s why I made the comparison, the one you suggested wasn’t fair (“not apples to apples”).

The 2017 Saints were contenders: won their division,  topped the league in DVOA, and came a Miracle short of being favored in the NFCCG. 

A year ago, after the 2017-18 season, I said the Packers roster had declined considerably from the end of their run as one of the best teams in the league (2009-14), and they needed to go through a Saints-style retooling around Rodgers and a few other cornerstones (Bakhtiari, Adams, Clark) in order to contend. At the time, Packers fans on this board disagreed, wanted to argue that the 2016 playoff run showed they were still a contender, and that the only reason they hadn’t won the division in 2017 was that Rodgers got hurt. 

It looks like the Packers agreed with my take. They didn’t stay in a holding pattern waiting for Rodgers to return from the clavicle fracture, they changed management and started to turn over the roster. They replaced most of the long-time and expensive vets who were the building blocks of the team from a few years earlier.

They’ve now had 2 offseasons under new management. The rebuild is mostly done. Given their current contracts, there likely won’t be much roster turnover in GB in the next year or two: Graham will be gone next year, Bulaga has one year left and probably won’t get a 3rd contract, Linsley has 2 years left, but that’s about it. They have a long list of players already under contract for the next 3 years, including Rodgers, Adams, both Smiths, Amos, Turner and Lowry, plus of course all the rookies Gute has drafted the last 2 years, including MVS and EQ, Alexander and Jackson and Savage, Gary and Keke, Burks, Sternberger and Jenkins.

Some of those players will need to develop, especially the day 2-3 2019 rookies, but it’s fair to start to judge the results of the rebuild this year. Those players will either be good enough to take the Packers back to the Super Bowl, or they won’t — there’s not a lot of extra help coming in UFA given the cap space they have left and the players who’ll need new contracts, and they probably won’t have another top 12 draft pick unless Rodgers gets hurt again. 

So this is a big year for Green Bay. If they’re going to win another Super Bowl before Rodgers turns 40, they should start to threaten as a contender this year.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ozzy said:

I hope you are not trying to compare the Packers talent to the Saints. Kamara is one of the best at his position in the NFL, Michael Thomas is without question one of the best in his position in the NFL and down the road potentially could be the said for Ramczyk and Lattimore.  The Packers in the last three years cannot say that about any of the players they have picked.  Alexander is good he is not that good.  Only way they take it up a notch is if Gary and Savage develop quickly into Pro bowl level players automatically and that is pretty debatable that happening.  

The Packers young talent compared to the Saints to me is not even in the same Universe.  Lucky for them few teams in the NFL are on that Saints level of young talent.  Rankins is better than you say he is, not to mention they got Malcom Brown from the Patriots who is a thick dude out there, Eli Apple has a lot of upside also.  McCoy could be a fine center in the NFL for years but will see and oh yeah they have Marcus Davenport one of the most talented DEs in the NFL currently, he has tons of upside.

 

Kevin King, Josh Jones, Josh Jackson, St. Brown all will have to really pick up their level of play.  Alexander can ball a little but the rest still have a long ways to go, lucky for them Sternberger should be great.  Still they need many more to be even near the level of the Saints.

No.  My argument is the 2019 Packers are akin to the 2017 Saints.  I don't think that's a huge stretch to make.  The Saints were coming off a 7-9 season and a pair of FRP, and the Packers came off a 6-9-1 season with a pair of FRP.  Nobody viewed the Saints as a title contender going into 2017.  That's my argument.  Not that the '19 Packers and '19 Saints are on a similar level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Krauser said:

Right, that’s why I made the comparison, the one you suggested wasn’t fair (“not apples to apples”).

The 2017 Saints were contenders: won their division,  topped the league in DVOA, and came a Miracle short of being favored in the NFCCG. 

A year ago, after the 2017-18 season, I said the Packers roster had declined considerably from the end of their run as one of the best teams in the league (2009-14), and they needed to go through a Saints-style retooling around Rodgers and a few other cornerstones (Bakhtiari, Adams, Clark) in order to contend. At the time, Packers fans on this board disagreed, wanted to argue that the 2016 playoff run showed they were still a contender, and that the only reason they hadn’t won the division in 2017 was that Rodgers got hurt. 

It looks like the Packers agreed with my take. They didn’t stay in a holding pattern waiting for Rodgers to return from the clavicle fracture, they changed management and started to turn over the roster. They replaced most of the long-time and expensive vets who were the building blocks of the team from a few years earlier.

They’ve now had 2 offseasons under new management. The rebuild is mostly done. Given their current contracts, there likely won’t be much roster turnover in GB in the next year or two: Graham will be gone next year, Bulaga has one year left and probably won’t get a 3rd contract, Linsley has 2 years left, but that’s about it. They have a long list of players already under contract for the next 3 years, including Rodgers, Adams, both Smiths, Amos, Turner and Lowry, plus of course all the rookies Gute has drafted the last 2 years, including MVS and EQ, Alexander and Jackson and Savage, Gary and Keke, Burks, Sternberger and Jenkins.

Some of those players will need to develop, especially the day 2-3 2019 rookies, but it’s fair to start to judge the results of the rebuild this year. Those players will either be good enough to take the Packers back to the Super Bowl, or they won’t — there’s not a lot of extra help coming in UFA given the cap space they have left and the players who’ll need new contracts, and they probably won’t have another top 12 draft pick unless Rodgers gets hurt again. 

So this is a big year for Green Bay. If they’re going to win another Super Bowl before Rodgers turns 40, they should start to threaten as a contender this year.

No.  I'm talking about the Saints going INTO 2017.  They weren't viewed as a contender.  The Saints finished 4 games out of first place, and they drafted the eventual OROY (Alvin Kamara) and DROY (Marshon Lattimore).  I'd say the Packers are possibly in that same part of their rebuild/reload.  Not after 2017.  There was no reason to suggest that blowing things up after 2016.  You had Aaron Rodgers and you were fresh off an NFC Championship game.  Things fell apart in 2017 because of Aaron Rodgers.  Brett Hundley was a mediocre QB at best.

You're really overplaying this whole turnover.  The only difference was that they were more active in FA.  They were still drafting to replace the guys that were leaving as FAs.  That's the only difference.  Even then, they're probably still another offseason away from solidifying their roster assuming their '19 draft goes well.  They'll be in the mix for a playoff spot, but I don't see them as heavy favorites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

No.  I'm talking about the Saints going INTO 2017.

Right, the Packers going into 2019 are in a similar position to the Saints going into 2017. That’s been my point here, which you seem to be having trouble understanding. 

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

There was no reason to suggest that blowing things up after 2016.  You had Aaron Rodgers and you were fresh off an NFC Championship game.

There was reason for concern. They made the NFCCG but they weren’t nearly as good as they’d been in 2014. And the trend was bad: their core was aging and expensive, and their recent draft classes were weak.

Then they got worse in 2017. The secondary fell apart. Their tackles got hurt and their OL depth got exposed. They had nothing at WR aside from Adams. The 4-1 record before Rodgers’ injury was flattering — they were never going to win the division that year even if he’d stayed healthy. 

Lucky for Packers fans, the team recognized that they weren’t just a healthy Rodgers season away from contending. Changes needed to be made. And now, 2 offseasons later, they have new management, new coaches, and a lot of turnover at the core of their roster. 

5 hours ago, CWood21 said:

You're really overplaying this whole turnover.  The only difference was that they were more active in FA.  They were still drafting to replace the guys that were leaving as FAs.  That's the only difference.

I really don’t think so. There’s a thread on your board called something like Gute’s Roster Purge. That’s about right.

Packers in training camp 2017 (the post-NFCCG team you say didn’t need to be blown up), who are no longer on the team 2 years later:

  • Cobb (29 this year)
  • Nelson (34)
  • Montgomery (25)
  • Lang (31)
  • Daniels (30)
  • Perry (29)
  • Matthews (33)
  • Randall (26)
  • Burnett (30)
  • Clinton-Dix (27)

That’s roughly half a team worth, almost all starters (Montgomery wasn’t a starter but led the team in rushing yards in 2016), either on expensive contract extensions or drafted in the first 3 rounds. Most of them were released or traded from active contracts. Perry is the only one who looks like he might retire without playing a year for a different team.

For a draft and develop team, it’s striking that the Packers have so few players developed within the organization on non-rookie long-term contracts:

  • Rodgers (drafted 2005)
  • Bulaga (2010)
  • Bakhtiari (2013)
  • Adams (2014)
  • Linsley (2014)

That list could arguably include Tramon Williams (UDFA 2007, left GB after 2014, returned in 2018 on a 2 year deal). 

But there are some huge gaps there: only one player on a 3rd contract (Rodgers), four on 2nd contracts, of whom one (Bulaga) is likely in his last year in GB. 

To move out all those recent draft picks and expensive homegrown veterans, opening up space for a new crop of draft picks and UFA additions, really is a big change. But that change was necessary — they were never going to have a chance until they pulled the plug on the 2016-17 version of the Packers and tried to rebuild. 

5 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Even then, they're probably still another offseason away from solidifying their roster assuming their '19 draft goes well.  They'll be in the mix for a playoff spot, but I don't see them as heavy favorites.

The Packers shouldn’t be viewed as a contender right now, much as the Saints weren’t heading into 2017. It will take a similar impact from their recent acquisitions to put them back into that tier. 

We’ll see how it goes this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2019 at 6:23 PM, Ozzy said:

Yes Kizer has his issues but again I would take him all day long in terms of potential over freaking Brett Hundley.  There is a reason Hundley was what a 5th round pick and Kizer got 1st round talk and ended up being a 2nd round pick.  Hundley to me was a walking loss when they put him in, so really I wish they kept him.  

 

All I know is that they are better off if Rodgers goes down with Kizer than with Brett Hundley and to me it is not even close.  Sure Kizer has some accuracy issues but I do not believe he was fulled developed or should have started as a rookie.  He should have stayed at Notre Dame one more year instead of leaving as a RS SOPH.  Accuracy can improve and fundamentals can improve with work.  And if given time to develop I think he has higher potential.  

Kind of like the Vikings with Sloter, sure Mannion might be the better option on paper but Sloter has by far a higher potential and upside and I  feel he will most likely win the 2nd job.  

I personally don't care about his potential.  What I care about is what I see and Kizer is a worse QB than Hundley...and it's not very close in my eyes.  And you made a reference earlier about him playing at Notre Dame.  Notre Dame hasn't put a great QB since Joe Montana and haven't even produced a competent NFL QB since Steve Beuerlein.

Edited by swede700
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, swede700 said:

I personally don't care about his potential.  What I care about is what I see and Kizer is a worse QB than Hundley...and it's not very close in my eyes.  And you made a reference earlier about him playing at Notre Dame.  Notre Dame hasn't put a great QB since Joe Montana and haven't even produced a competent NFL QB since Steve Beuerlein.

Watching both play in college from their first year on I believe what I see.  You can take Hundley, go ahead and good luck with that throwing motion.  And how you would not care about potential for a backup QB I have no idea, that is why they are there to develop for down the road.  Sure if the starter goes down but also for the future, not compared to two obviously but go ask Aaron Rodgers how being a backup helped him develop.

As for the Notre Dame QB track record yeah it is bad, but if Rosen busts and outside of Aikman UCLA list is just as bad as Notre Dame so that is not all that relevant.

Edited by Ozzy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ozzy said:

Watching both play in college from their first year on I believe what I see.  You can take Hundley, go ahead and good luck with that throwing motion.

As for the Notre Dame QB track record yeah it is bad, but if Rosen busts and outside of Aikman UCLA list is just as bad as Notre Dame so that is not all that relevant.

I do agree the fact that he went to Notre Dame is ultimately irrelevant, but regardless it doesn't have a great track record of producing QBs.  Anyway, I personally wouldn't want either Hundley or Kizer as a backup QB...I don't think either one is any good.  And honestly, I'm not very comfortable with the Vikings' backup QB situation either, so it's not just a blast against whomever the Packers have (in case any Packers fans are reading this ;)).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ozzy said:

Watching both play in college from their first year on I believe what I see.  You can take Hundley, go ahead and good luck with that throwing motion.  And how you would not care about potential for a backup QB I have no idea, that is why they are there to develop for down the road.  Sure if the starter goes down but also for the future, not compared to two obviously but go ask Aaron Rodgers how being a backup helped him develop.

As for the Notre Dame QB track record yeah it is bad, but if Rosen busts and outside of Aikman UCLA list is just as bad as Notre Dame so that is not all that relevant.

Hundley or Kizer? Kind of a terd sandwich vs. giant ****** debate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, swede700 said:

I do agree the fact that he went to Notre Dame is ultimately irrelevant, but regardless it doesn't have a great track record of producing QBs.  Anyway, I personally wouldn't want either Hundley or Kizer as a backup QB...I don't think either one is any good.  And honestly, I'm not very comfortable with the Vikings' backup QB situation either, so it's not just a blast against whomever the Packers have (in case any Packers fans are reading this ;)).  

 Yeah I am not comfortable with the Vikings backup QB situation either.  Solter I like potentially and arguably with his height and arm strength might have a slight nod over Kizer but honestly Kizer in college I liked his pocket awareness, he is well built, nice throwing motion and I think he was just on a terrible Browns team and was put into action too soon without much around him or WRs to throw to once Gordon went down.  I do not feel that was indicative of his talent.  Hundley on the other hand was with a ok Packers team and they were damn awful with him I thought and just completing a forward pass was impressive.  

So yeah if we could get Kizer I would love it for the Vikings, thus I think they did improve the backup QB spot with him over Hundley but maybe that is just me.  Hopefully Solter develops and becomes the #2 guy over Mannion who is not really good and Browning would be lucky to make the practice squad I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2019 at 11:37 PM, Krauser said:

Right, the Packers going into 2019 are in a similar position to the Saints going into 2017. That’s been my point here, which you seem to be having trouble understanding.

Maybe I was misunderstanding your post, but it certainly seemed you were comparing the Saints AFTER the 2017 season to the Packers going into the 2019 season.  Things weren't so rosy whenever the Saints were going into 2017 with Marshon Lattimore and the rest of their draft class.  I don't recall many calling them divisional favorites, especially after finishing the prior season 4 games behind the Falcons.

On 7/27/2019 at 11:37 PM, Krauser said:

There was reason for concern. They made the NFCCG but they weren’t nearly as good as they’d been in 2014. And the trend was bad: their core was aging and expensive, and their recent draft classes were weak.

Then they got worse in 2017. The secondary fell apart. Their tackles got hurt and their OL depth got exposed. They had nothing at WR aside from Adams. The 4-1 record before Rodgers’ injury was flattering — they were never going to win the division that year even if he’d stayed healthy. 

Lucky for Packers fans, the team recognized that they weren’t just a healthy Rodgers season away from contending. Changes needed to be made. And now, 2 offseasons later, they have new management, new coaches, and a lot of turnover at the core of their roster. 

There really wasn't.  Prior to the 2017 season, the Packers had gone to the playoffs in 8 straight seasons and 9 out of the prior 10 seasons.  It would have been equivalent to the New England Patriots cleaning house after the 2013 season in which they lost to the Broncos in the AFC Championship.  The Packers lost to the Falcons in the NFC Championship.  The difference between the next season is the Patriots didn't lose their starting QB for a LARGE chunk of the year.  The Packers started off 4-1 with Aaron Rodgers fully healthy, and from the Vikings game on they finished 3-8.  They were on pace to win 13 games prior to the Rodgers injury.  Based on their play without Rodgers, they would have won ~4 games all year.  Did the Rodgers' injury expose the rest of the roster?  I think we'd be foolish to say otherwise, but that applies to like 99% of the league.  You take away the teams' best player, and how much do they struggle?  You take away Tom Brady from the Patriots, how much do they struggle?  You take away Khalil Mack away from the Bears?  No team is built to withstand a significant injury to their star player, let alone a franchise QB.

On 7/27/2019 at 11:37 PM, Krauser said:

I really don’t think so. There’s a thread on your board called something like Gute’s Roster Purge. That’s about right.

Packers in training camp 2017 (the post-NFCCG team you say didn’t need to be blown up), who are no longer on the team 2 years later:

  • Cobb (29 this year)
  • Nelson (34)
  • Montgomery (25)
  • Lang (31)
  • Daniels (30)
  • Perry (29)
  • Matthews (33)
  • Randall (26)
  • Burnett (30)
  • Clinton-Dix (27)

That’s roughly half a team worth, almost all starters (Montgomery wasn’t a starter but led the team in rushing yards in 2016), either on expensive contract extensions or drafted in the first 3 rounds. Most of them were released or traded from active contracts. Perry is the only one who looks like he might retire without playing a year for a different team.

For a draft and develop team, it’s striking that the Packers have so few players developed within the organization on non-rookie long-term contracts:

  • Rodgers (drafted 2005)
  • Bulaga (2010)
  • Bakhtiari (2013)
  • Adams (2014)
  • Linsley (2014)

That list could arguably include Tramon Williams (UDFA 2007, left GB after 2014, returned in 2018 on a 2 year deal). 

But there are some huge gaps there: only one player on a 3rd contract (Rodgers), four on 2nd contracts, of whom one (Bulaga) is likely in his last year in GB. 

To move out all those recent draft picks and expensive homegrown veterans, opening up space for a new crop of draft picks and UFA additions, really is a big change. But that change was necessary — they were never going to have a chance until they pulled the plug on the 2016-17 version of the Packers and tried to rebuild. 

First off, that's a poster who wants change for the sake of change.  He would have been clamoring for Davante Adams to have been released after his injury-plagued sophomore season.  I wouldn't really use him as a strong barometer of what the forum as a whole believes in.  That's the type of poster that wants to overhaul 90% of the roster on any given offseason because the team fell short of playoff mix.  Instead, it's a "gloatfest" because they're overturning the bottom half of the roster which most teams do.  Ironically, it was the exact same poster that beat a deadhorse with Kyler Fackrell.

With the exception of Damarious Randall, the Packers moved on from their aging players.  That's not exclusive to the Packers.  That's every franchise.  When you're overpaying guys on the wrong side of 30, that's when you end up in salary cap hell.  Again, with the exception of Damarious Randall most of those players went on and struggled with their new franchise.  I'm not sure why you're praising Gute for something that any GM worth their salt would do, and trying to make an assumption that TT would have held onto them isn't the argument to make either.

And I think most have viewed TT's later draft class as have not been up to standard.  Early on in his career as GM, Ted Thompson was hitting at an unsustainable rate.  No different than the Seahawks for a few years, etc.  Between 2012-15, the Packers drafted Casey Hayward, Mike Daniels, David Bakhtiari, JC Tretter, Micah Hyde, Davante Adams, Corey Linsley, and Damarious Randall.  Now some of those players (i.e. Hayward, Hyde, and Randall) had more success with other teams, which is hard to blame on the FO.  The FO effectively evaluated the talents, and ultimately it's the coaches responsibility to make sure they're put into a position to succeed.  It's just convenient to blame the FO in that situation.

My point is the Packers have been doing the EXACT same thing every other franchise has doing.  The only difference is they're now supplementing them with FA signings.  Unless you're drafting at an unsustainable rate, you have to supplement those draft picks with FA signings.  That's really the only difference between Gute and TT.  That and Gute seems to put a premium on athletes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, swede700 said:

I do agree the fact that he went to Notre Dame is ultimately irrelevant, but regardless it doesn't have a great track record of producing QBs.  Anyway, I personally wouldn't want either Hundley or Kizer as a backup QB...I don't think either one is any good.  And honestly, I'm not very comfortable with the Vikings' backup QB situation either, so it's not just a blast against whomever the Packers have (in case any Packers fans are reading this ;)).  

Is there any franchise who is comfortable with their backup QB for an extended period of time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Is there any franchise who is comfortable with their backup QB for an extended period of time?

It took a few games to get to that point, but we were in 2017...plus any team over the past 10 years that has had Fitzmagic or Josh McCown as their backup QB.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2019-07-29 at 11:20 AM, CWood21 said:

Maybe I was misunderstanding your post, but it certainly seemed you were comparing the Saints AFTER the 2017 season to the Packers going into the 2019 season.

You were misunderstanding my point, and I was comparing them to the Saints heading into 2017. 

On 2019-07-29 at 11:20 AM, CWood21 said:

With the exception of Damarious Randall, the Packers moved on from their aging players.

Clinton-Dix and Montgomery were still on rookie deals. Cobb is the same age as Adam Thielen (they have the same birthday, even). Burnett is the same age as Harrison Smith. Daniels just turned 30.

On 2019-07-29 at 11:20 AM, CWood21 said:

Early on in his career as GM, Ted Thompson was hitting at an unsustainable rate.

Yeah, I've been making that point in Packers discussions on this board since 2015. Their peak was built on an unsustainable hit rate on players taken outside the top 20 picks (Rodgers, Matthews, Collins, most of the receivers, most of the OL), plus a couple of the best FA signings in recent memory (Woodson, Peppers). 

But since the last great year in 2014, a number of those players fell off due to to injury or age, and weren't well replaced. A lot of talent didn't develop well (especially in the secondary), or dropped off unusually young (Cobb, Perry, especially). The pipeline in the draft slowed to a trickle, and dried up completely in one year (2015). 

I agree that a big part of the problem there was with development, not only player selection. But for a draft-and-develop team like Green Bay, that's still notable and worth taking into consideration. 

The effect was that by 2016-17, the Packers roster was noticeably weaker than it had been a few years earlier. 

On 2019-07-29 at 11:20 AM, CWood21 said:

My point is the Packers have been doing the EXACT same thing every other franchise has doing.

They've been doing the same thing as other rebuilding teams are doing, turning over the roster. 

My point is to recognize that they have indeed been rebuilding. 

I'm not going to go team by team, but I think you'll find the Packers total of four homegrown players on second contracts is lower than most teams, especially teams who were considered competitive in 2016-18.

I made this point prospectively, at the time over the last few years, that the Packers roster around Rodgers had declined, and they were lacking blue chip, prime age talent. That analysis has been supported by the actions of the Packers themselves, as their roster has been cleared of most of the players who would have been in second contracts in their prime right now, backfilled with free agents and supplemented by a younger cohort acquired in the last few years in the draft, still on rookie deals. 

Packers fans at the time argued that point with me. Last year at this time, the claim was that the DL and edge rushers were good, Rodgers had enough weapons, the IOL was strong and the secondary already had lots of talent that Pettine could coach up. It didn't work out that way. They won 6 games, and in half of them needed a miraculous 4th quarter comeback to pull out the win.

I'm not saying the Packers are taking the wrong approach, I'm saying they're (finally) taking the right approach. I'm skeptical the changes will all pay off immediately, but at least GB seems to be heading in the right direction, for the first time since 2014. 

Edited by Krauser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tight end Jimmy Graham said late in his first season in Green Bay that his “numbers suck,” but that didn’t get in the way of the Packers paying him a $5 million roster bonus early in the offseason. Graham caught 55 passes for 636 yards and two touchdowns last year, which may have led some to cut ties but new head coach Matt LaFleur’s offensive plans led the team to go in the other direction. Graham has been in a prominent role during training camp practices and believes the Packers are going to “use the tight end quite a bit” as the season unfolds.

“When I get those opportunities, I have to show him that I’m the biggest, fastest thing out there. I have to go up and get those grabs for him,” Graham said, via Madison.com. “I’ve been focused and I’m ready to get this thing started obviously. We have four more weeks here, but I’m about as fired up as I’ve ever been to go and shut a lot of people up.”

Graham believes that “everybody thinks I’m old and slow now” and obviously relishes the chance to show that’s not the case.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/08/07/jimmy-graham-fired-up-to-shut-people-up/

 

@Krauser

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...