Biggest mistake of the offseason

[brandon2348]

Long and short for me, without going into the "Ted speak" and dissecting each and every position of concern, since that has already been done. I think the biggest mistake of the offseason is reflected in the sheer volume of veteran players that left the Packers and the numbers that were brought in to replace them. This team was already thin in veteran talent and depth, by the end of last season that was starting to show at several positions. So the Packers are going to have to rely on a lot more young players that didn't appear ready to step up last year to improve quite a bit. To think that just signing a few free agents, drafting 8 guys and kicking the tires on 20 UDFA's is going to make the Packers better this year, is having a little too much confidence in the development of our current young guys. I hope a lot of us are wrong, but IMO the Packers needed to get better than they were in 2016 for a legitimate shot at a Super Bowl, I think so far, they have set themselves up to go in the other direction.

The easy question for me is "Is the current roster better or worse than it was 3 months ago?" I'm not sure I would believe an argument that it is better but I am open to hoping that it will be come September.

Lotta "Hope" going on around these parts.

 

[Mondio]

There's a difference between saying that better health would help and guaranteeing that it will happen.

But while the Packers did not deal with an above average amount of injuries overall in 2016, I think people are hopeful that they won't have so many concentrated to one position group as we saw at cornerback last season.

it has nothing to do with average amount of injuries, though I don't need to see the post to know who posted it. Probably something about mindboggling has been mentioned 2-3 times already too, but I digress.

It was the position where they hit and how often and what type. It was the constant rotation. I think it would have been better for our team to have 2 of those guys go out in week 4 than have the constant rotation game after game and half after half. That detroit game was fairly typical. Randall had a shoulder injury I think. Wasn't practicing, came in and played, left with a knee injury. Rollins wasn't practicing, came into the game with an injury and left on a stretcher. that Dorleant came in after being activated from the IR a couple weeks earlier and left with a season ending injury.

I think it would have been better off to just have the first 2 or 3 be done for the year and then have health at least with the younger guys or lesser guys behind them, but we didn't even get that. so while the total numbers may have been "average" it doesn't even begin to account for what really happened in stretches last year and to imply so is, "mind boggling" LOL

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

it has nothing to do with average amount of injuries, though I don't need to see the post to know who posted it. Probably something about mindboggling has been mentioned 2-3 times already too, but I digress.

It was the position where they hit and how often and what type. It was the constant rotation. I think it would have been better for our team to have 2 of those guys go out in week 4 than have the constant rotation game after game and half after half. That detroit game was fairly typical. Randall had a shoulder injury I think. Wasn't practicing, came in and played, left with a knee injury. Rollins wasn't practicing, came into the game with an injury and left on a stretcher. that Dorleant came in after being activated from the IR a couple weeks earlier and left with a season ending injury.

I think it would have been better off to just have the first 2 or 3 be done for the year and then have health at least with the younger guys or lesser guys behind them, but we didn't even get that. so while the total numbers may have been "average" it doesn't even begin to account for what really happened in stretches last year and to imply so is, "mind boggling" LOL

This is why some of us were screaming about either trading for or bring in healthy street vet FA's at CB. I won't debate with you about "who" and "if" there were better options. But at some point last season, you had to (or should have) looked at the group TT had at CB as either being injured, young/inexperienced or a combination of both from top to bottom and say "enough is enough", we need to bring in experienced healthy bodies. I get the hope that 7 months is enough time for this group of guys to get healthy and start all over again, I just don't have a lot of confidence that health is the only concern with most of them.

 

[XPack]

4: NOT overpaying to match for Hyde. (With what he got I actually thought about putting this number 1)

5: NOT overpaying to match for Lacy.

The default assumption that if any player leaves us, he is overpaid is frankly ridiculous.

It'd be seriously galling if Hyde or Lacy went on to have huge years while we miss another opportunity for having played it economically safe. The decision whether those moves were smart or not can only be ascertained end of next season and maybe the one after. All this "not overpaid" is baloney at this point of time.

I'd rather not get into a Casey Hayward situation. Maybe it's hindsight propelled information, but do you think we might have won the SB if we had Hayward in our team last season?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Did the author of the piece cited in the OP do anything other than scan the "free agents lost" list?

Perhaps not. Just because somebody might have been paid to write something doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about.

There's hardly a team in the league that wouldn't take this O-Line sans Lang. Not many can can say they are reliably set (or better) at 4 of 5 positions.

 

[Poppa San]

In addition overall the Packers weren't even one of the most injured teams in the league last season.

True Packers were 15th. Pretty close to median with 70.5. Dullass @ 16th with 70.6 was the ONLY NFC team with more than GB that made the playoffs.

 

[RRyder]

The default assumption that if any player leaves us, he is overpaid is frankly ridiculous.

It'd be seriously galling if Hyde or Lacy went on to have huge years while we miss another opportunity for having played it economically safe. The decision whether those moves were smart or not can only be ascertained end of next season and maybe the one after. All this "not overpaid" is baloney at this point of time.

I'd rather not get into a Casey Hayward situation. Maybe it's hindsight propelled information, but do you think we might have won the SB if we had Hayward in our team last season?

It's not any player that leaves. Those where all just BAD contracts. Lang got more guaranteed then Perry for christ sake, Lacy walking around at about 270 while looking for a contract isn't worth more then the minimum and good lord if anyone tries to defend the deal Hyde got. If you or anyone else would've been OK with handing out those contracts then I'm happy those of that ilk aren't running the team. But yeah let's just place bets on them living up to those deals they never should've gotten cause at least it'd mean they were "trying" am I right?

As for Hayward. Would he have helped a ton last year? Hell yes. Without hindsight however paying even just 5 mill per for a CB that had just lost his starting job to a rookie and had been losing playing time to another rookie in the nickle didn't look appealing to many when the decision was made. Cherry picking is the most apt term here

 

[HardRightEdge]

Lotta "Hope" going on around these parts.

It's that time of year!

 

[brandon2348]

it has nothing to do with average amount of injuries, though I don't need to see the post to know who posted it. Probably something about mindboggling has been mentioned 2-3 times already too, but I digress.

It was the position where they hit and how often and what type. It was the constant rotation. I think it would have been better for our team to have 2 of those guys go out in week 4 than have the constant rotation game after game and half after half. That detroit game was fairly typical. Randall had a shoulder injury I think. Wasn't practicing, came in and played, left with a knee injury. Rollins wasn't practicing, came into the game with an injury and left on a stretcher. that Dorleant came in after being activated from the IR a couple weeks earlier and left with a season ending injury.

I think it would have been better off to just have the first 2 or 3 be done for the year and then have health at least with the younger guys or lesser guys behind them, but we didn't even get that. so while the total numbers may have been "average" it doesn't even begin to account for what really happened in stretches last year and to imply so is, "mind boggling" LOL

Thats great Mondio. It's "mind boggling" to me that a 170 dollar playoff ticket in the endzone has become the "standard of success".

However some of us might actually want to go see a Super Bowl.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Did the author of the piece cited in the OP do anything other than scan the "free agents lost" list?

Perhaps not. Just because somebody might have been paid to write something doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about.

There's hardly a team in the league that wouldn't take this O-Line sans Lang. Not many can can say they are reliably set (or better) at 4 of 5 positions.

Yes, the Packers have had a great OL over the past....upteen years, but I don't know how anyone can conclude that the OL is in better shape now, than it was 3 months ago? While I am curious and a bit nervous about who they will find to replace Lang, I am confident that like Sitton, the Packers have someone in mind. What does have me concerned the most about the offensive line is more about its depth or lack of. I can't recall a season where depth hasn't been relied on in more than just 1 OL position. Losing Sitton, Lang and Tretter in less than one year took a lot of experience and talent from the OL and subsequently thinned out its depth. I'm not fully convinced that our OL is currently deep enough to withstand more than 1 or 2 injuries. But I will acknowledge that I don't foresee TT not being able to rebuild that depth between now and September. I just hope he has better luck then all those teams that have tried the same thing and failed.

 

[Sky King]

I flip your first two positions and agree with your third. I think the CBs are at least going to be competent and will be much better as a whole if the pass rushers consistently get through. I'd get the top two edge\ pass rushers first then look elsewhere.

Pass rush and pass coverage do have that synergistic effect upon another other. Is one more dependent upon the other even more? I would tend to lean more towards the pass rush simply because the less time needed to maintain tight coverage the better - that's presuming that the DBs can cover from the onset 0f the play, of course. Both need to be good but I would favor the need for a good pass rush myself.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's not any player that leaves. Those where all just BAD contracts. Lang got more guaranteed then Perry for christ sake, Lacy walking around at about 270 while looking for a contract isn't worth more then the minimum and good lord if anyone tries to defend the deal Hyde got. If you or anyone else would've been OK with handing out those contracts then I'm happy those of that ilk aren't running the team. But yeah let's just place bets on them living up to those deals they never should've gotten cause at least it'd mean they were "trying" am I right?

As for Hayward. Would he have helped a ton last year? Hell yes. Without hindsight however paying even just 5 mill per for a CB that had just lost his starting job to a rookie and had been losing playing time to another rookie in the nickle didn't look appealing to many when the decision was made. Cherry picking is the most apt term here

All good points and besides not being able to resign Lacy, I personally wasn't that upset about who we didn't resign. While that is all fair and good to say, the off season isn't just about who you don't resign but probably more importantly, about what moves you make to counter those losses and any carryover needs from the previous season. This IMO is where TT comes up short every year, expecting to cover his losses and needs with a few free agents, rookies and development of his own guys.

So we can talk about and applaud TT for who he didn't sign to big contracts this year, but what were his moves to counter his losses and needs?

 

[Mondio]

This is why some of us were screaming about either trading for or bring in healthy street vet FA's at CB. I won't debate with you about "who" and "if" there were better options. But at some point last season, you had to (or should have) looked at the group TT had at CB as either being injured, young/inexperienced or a combination of both from top to bottom and say "enough is enough", we need to bring in experienced healthy bodies. I get the hope that 7 months is enough time for this group of guys to get healthy and start all over again, I just don't have a lot of confidence that health is the only concern with most of them.

Of course, it's easier to not get into The Who's and when's because that reveals the reality of the situation. And the guy everyone wanted to trade for didn't have a much different season than Randall did except we could have given up draft picks and a few million in cap space. It's a damn shame Ted didn't listen.

 

[Mondio]

Thats great Mondio. It's "mind boggling" to me that a 170 dollar playoff ticket in the endzone has become the "standard of success".

However some of us might actually want to go see a Super Bowl.

It wasn't 170, but it still would have been worth every penny if it was.

Anyway, it's a shame. You seem like a decent guy that is caught in a funk but it's apparent that is where you want to be. Off to the pile with you too, carry on.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Of course, it's easier to not get into The Who's and when's because that reveals the reality of the situation. And the guy everyone wanted to trade for didn't have a much different season than Randall did except we could have given up draft picks and a few million in cap space. It's a damn shame Ted didn't listen.

The "who's and when's" are always out there. Unless you can tell me that there are never street FA's signed or trades that take place during the year, I will believe your argument. Now the logistics of such are up to TT and the Packers, not you and I.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yes, the Packers have had a great OL over the past....upteen years, but I don't know how anyone can conclude that the OL is in better shape now, than it was 3 months ago? While I am curious and a bit nervous about who they will find to replace Lang, I am confident that like Sitton, the Packers have someone in mind. What does have me concerned the most about the offensive line is more about its depth or lack of. I can't recall a season where depth hasn't been relied on in more than just 1 OL position. Losing Sitton, Lang and Tretter in less than one year took a lot of experience and talent from the OL and subsequently thinned out its depth. I'm not fully convinced that our OL is currently deep enough to withstand more than 1 or 2 injuries. But I will acknowledge that I don't foresee TT not being able to rebuild that depth between now and September. I just hope he has better luck then all those teams that have tried the same thing and failed.

The O-line as currently constituted is good enough to win a championship. The key problems are in other areas.

For depth, expect the Packers will either fall in love with one of the PS-type C/OG or OG guys on the roster during workouts (clearly not likely), convert Murphy to OG, draft an interior OL, or sign a vet interior OL after the draft.

They have something in mind for a backup OG if one assumes Barclay will start while also serving as the backup C, and Murphy is not moved from OT. They may go high enough for an OG (say, 4th. round) to provide competition for Barclay making him a swing man backup.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yes, the Packers have had a great OL over the past....upteen years, but I don't know how anyone can conclude that the OL is in better shape now, than it was 3 months ago? While I am curious and a bit nervous about who they will find to replace Lang, I am confident that like Sitton, the Packers have someone in mind. What does have me concerned the most about the offensive line is more about its depth or lack of. I can't recall a season where depth hasn't been relied on in more than just 1 OL position. Losing Sitton, Lang and Tretter in less than one year took a lot of experience and talent from the OL and subsequently thinned out its depth. I'm not fully convinced that our OL is currently deep enough to withstand more than 1 or 2 injuries. But I will acknowledge that I don't foresee TT not being able to rebuild that depth between now and September. I just hope he has better luck then all those teams that have tried the same thing and failed.

For depth, expect the Packers will either fall in love with one of the PS-type C/OG or OG guys on the roster during workouts (clearly not likely), convert Murphy to OG, draft an interior OL, or sign a vet interior OL after the draft.

They have something in mind for a backup OG if one assumes Barclay will start while also serving as the backup C, and Murphy is not moved from OT. They may go high enough for an OG (say, 4th. round) to provide competition for Barclay making him a swing man backup.

It was interesting hearing Rodgers talk about "12 personnel" being more in the mix, that being 2-wide, 2-TE, single back as a balanced attack approach. That brings the TEs more into the run blocking mix, though that begs a question unrelated to the OL...what about Cobb?

 

[Sky King]

...It was interesting hearing Rodgers talk about "12 personnel" being more in the mix, that being 2-wide, 2-TE, single back as a balanced attack approach. That brings the TEs more into the run blocking mix, though that begs a question unrelated to the OL...what about Cobb?

He and Monty rotate in the backfield?

 

[XPack]

It's not any player that leaves. Those where all just BAD contracts. Lang got more guaranteed then Perry for christ sake, Lacy walking around at about 270 while looking for a contract isn't worth more then the minimum and good lord if anyone tries to defend the deal Hyde got.

We could have kept them for less. Both Lang and Lacy wanted to stay in GB and I'm sure we could have retained them for less than what the new team is paying out. Hyde was never hot target too. I'm sure we could have raised their contracts for less than what they earned in FA and still retained them. None of them had a breakout year to have any extra leverage.

The objective of a transfer season (FA+ Drafts) is for us to improve our team without getting economically busted. We are well and good to the last pat, but the team hasn't noticeably improved in past 2 or 3 years.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The O-line as currently constituted is good enough to win a championship. The key problems are in other areas.

For depth, expect the Packers will either fall in love with one of the PS-type C/OG or OG guys on the roster during workouts (clearly not likely), convert Murphy to OG, draft an interior OL, or sign a vet interior OL after the draft.

They have something in mind for a backup OG if one assumes Barclay will start while also serving as the backup C, and Murphy is not moved from OT. They may go high enough for an OG (say, 4th. round) to provide competition for Barclay making him a swing man backup.

Like I said, I'm not super concerned about the starting 5 on the OL, but rotational depth has to be addressed, especially since they may be relying on either Spriggs, Barclay, McCray or Murphy to assume the RG spot.

 

[Mondio]

The "who's and when's" are always out there. Unless you can tell me that there are never street FA's signed or trades that take place during the year, I will believe your argument. Now the logistics of such are up to TT and the Packers, not you and I.

yes, it's my contention and always has been that once the draft happens, there is never another single player available at any time from then forward until the season concludes. Or it has always been that trades are uncommon, especially for a player that would have replaced Sam Shields, and let's face it, with all the injuries that happened behind him, it was going to take a big big player to fill those shoes. Joe Hayden was the answer. Turns out he played about as well as Randall, probably even a tad worse.

Could another player been traded for a week before the deadline. I'm sure there was considering the number of players in the NFL, there had to be a least one. Then it comes down to cost. Until you can give me the cost about all you can say is, "I wish there would have been someone available" It's a little disingenuous to say Ted wasn't doing his job when trades of that magnitude are rare and even more rare mid season.

as for the street FA's, I don't have that list in front of me, but I don't remember any names jumping out. In fact almost all of them remained available all year long, in a league that is now built on passing and defending against it, if a team could have used them, they probably would have been picked up by someone. They weren't.

Just think, we could have traded for Hayden and his contract and got sub Randall performance with a few million in cap eaten. We could have picked up Trevathan and got 4th round 2nd year player on a rookie contract production for 6-7 million. There's more I'm sure i'm missing from just last year alone. and I thought our secondary would be a strength. The analysis in this room isn't very good by anyone. I certainly don't think I have all the answers, but I do take issue with some that think they do.

 

[brandon2348]

For depth, expect the Packers will either fall in love with one of the PS-type C/OG or OG guys on the roster during workouts (clearly not likely), convert Murphy to OG, draft an interior OL, or sign a vet interior OL after the draft.

They have something in mind for a backup OG if one assumes Barclay will start while also serving as the backup C, and Murphy is not moved from OT. They may go high enough for an OG (say, 4th. round) to provide competition for Barclay making him a swing man backup.

It was interesting hearing Rodgers talk about "12 personnel" being more in the mix, that being 2-wide, 2-TE, single back as a balanced attack approach. That brings the TEs more into the run blocking mix, though that begs a question unrelated to the OL...what about Cobb?

I've posted about them wanting to go bigger as there moves would suggest and that makes Cobb somewhat expendable.

Well see how it shakes out.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

yes, it's my contention and always has been that once the draft happens, there is never another single player available at any time from then forward until the season concludes. Or it has always been that trades are uncommon, especially for a player that would have replaced Sam Shields, and let's face it, with all the injuries that happened behind him, it was going to take a big big player to fill those shoes. Joe Hayden was the answer. Turns out he played about as well as Randall, probably even a tad worse.

Could another player been traded for a week before the deadline. I'm sure there was considering the number of players in the NFL, there had to be a least one. Then it comes down to cost. Until you can give me the cost about all you can say is, "I wish there would have been someone available" It's a little disingenuous to say Ted wasn't doing his job when trades of that magnitude are rare and even more rare mid season.

as for the street FA's, I don't have that list in front of me, but I don't remember any names jumping out. In fact almost all of them remained available all year long, in a league that is now built on passing and defending against it, if a team could have used them, they probably would have been picked up by someone. They weren't.

Just think, we could have traded for Hayden and his contract and got sub Randall performance with a few million in cap eaten. We could have picked up Trevathan and got 4th round 2nd year player on a rookie contract production for 6-7 million. There's more I'm sure i'm missing from just last year alone. and I thought our secondary would be a strength. The analysis in this room isn't very good by anyone. I certainly don't think I have all the answers, but I do take issue with some that think they do.

Yet, he did try to do that very thing to address the needs at RB. It's very clear to me that TT saw no need to do anything at CB, whether there were or weren't better options outside of the team. How do I know this? What has he done since the end of the season to address the need that most of us perceive exists?

So you can keep making the excuse and saying TT had no options in October to address the CB position, but I will keep saying.....his actions tell me he didn't see a need.

 

[Mondio]

Is it because he doesn't see a need to improve a team, or he doesn't think the names you recognize are going to be an improvement? again, Gilmore I give the benefit of the doubt to, because he was signed by the Pats. A pretty good team and managing rosters and they play him 2x's a year. other than that, who? Personally I don't think bouye is worth that contract. I think he was decent with a great pass rush in front of him. The rest? most of them are still available if that means anything.

So doesn't see a need to improve a roster, or doesn't see the guys available to do it with that enters into a whole bunch of other variables about where they wanted to be in the first place. Considering nobody saw 2 TE's getting signed this year, or Peppers when he was and how much people really know about his organization until it actually happens tells me, Ted is always working. If something isn't done, it's for other reasons we will never know except for taking wild guesses. Like I am now, maybe Ted is at home taking a nap instead of watching film.

 

[Ogsponge]

an even bigger surprise, another thread with another opportunity to ***** and moan about Ted and not signing SOMEBODY!!!!!!!! with the same old hats and same old arguments.

At this moment? the bulk of the offeseason hasn't even occurred. The most important part is still a week away. It's like picking a loser of a race and trying to pinpoint what he did in training 5 months in advance of even getting to the starting line. Forgive me if I think it's silly. But the rest of you carry on, by all means. Just like last year, I think we should have a thread titled, Dumbest moves proposed by forum members a year ago. and not to mention the odds are astronomically higher that the majority of the contestants are going to lose rather than win and you act like you successfully predicted something. LOL

We could then talk about how stupid all of you were for wanting to pay 8 million dollars a year for 4th round rookie contract production and many other things. But of course those are all forgotten, all you know is ted doesn't have all pro's at every position, and that's reason enough for you LOL. Remember when losing Sitton was the biggest mistake last year? That lasted what? 2 snaps into the season. But seriously, carry on like you know. In as many threads as humanly possible

You do realize that you are one of the biggest loudest old hats on the forum right? I mean you ***** and moan about the *****ers and moaners louder than the original *****ers and moaners. This is of course fully within your right to do so But don't sit there and pretend for even one second that you are not right there with all the rest of the whiners and cryers.