Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pokerbrat2000" data-source="post: 1003055" data-attributes="member: 7261">Not sure how you look at either as good signings, just because they were cheap? Funchess signed for $2.5M and ended up costing the Packers $1M+ an injury settlement and never played a down. Watkins was paid $1.85 million and looked lost and washed up the few times he did play.  I realize that neither were paid "big money", but I would still consider both as bombs/duds.I agree they are definitely poor examples of why giving a FA WR more than a 1 year deal is a good thing. Thank god the Packers didn't tie up a lot of money in either. That said, if Gute ever decides to give a top FA WR big money, I would hope he ties him up for more than 1 year.  I just don't think a year is enough time for a receiver to establish himself with a team. Neither Funchess or Watkins went on to do anything, so yes, the Packers avoided tying up too much money with those 2.</blockquote>

Total: 118 (members: 4, guests: 114)