Free Agency: Packers Should Green Bay Pursue?

[Dantés]

A comparison and an observation:

Z. was in the discussion of possible free agent signings last year. I believe you listed both Smiths as possibilites among a few others in one particular post, which got my attention and support in my preferred "go young or go home" approach in rebuilding the roster.

I don't recall anybody proposing that Z. be signed for $16.5 million per year, currently the 3rd. highest 3-4 OLB contract on a per year basis behind only Mack and Miller. I think if that had been put on the table strenuous objections would have been voiced. Of course, after the fact any criticism is bound to be somewhat muted in deference to the GM and staff.

The point being, that contract required a projection, of the player and the scheme fit. There wasn't confirmed elite status to go with that elite pay. In this case Gutekunst was right. What seperates good GMs from mediocre or poor ones is their projection hit rate, whether with free agents or in the draft.

So, lets consider how it might be possible to project Hooper into a headline contract:

• His receiving stats over the first half of last season before he sprained a knee were All Pro worthy.
• He's a second contract player in his prime.
• Other than that knee sprain last season, where he missed 3 games, he's been a durable player missing 5 games over 4 years. The two games he missed as rookie were also the result of a knee injury which might be concerning. However, after a few lackluster games post-injury last season, perhaps an injury hangover, Hooper rallied back in the last two games last seasons with 14 catches on 18 targets for 127 yards. That should asuage injury risk concerns.
• He may not be an elite blocker but he's surely better than what Graham brought to the table.

We have the report from Demovsky that Gutekunst intends to "make a run" at Hooper. That's obviously a cost sensitive matter but Gutekunst surely knows he'll command some serious coin. Whether he'd be the highest bidder, as with at least the Smiths and Amos, guys who were downright giddy over their contracts, remains to be seen. We had reports he was in discussions with Robinson and Watkins but settled for Graham. He may have a firm price point on Hooper that he won't exceed.

On the other hand, we had a report from a week or so back that discussions with Bulaga had not started. I've two different reports about what transpired last year, one saying Bulaga wanted and extension but was not offered one and the other saying we was offered and extension but declined it. If either is true, there is some lingering tension.

It comes down to price, price, price and cap, cap, cap. My speculation would be if either Bulaga or Hooper can be secured at Gutekunst's max price point, and he can only afford one, it would be Hooper.

That's all fair. I'm a little bit skeptical of Hooper is some aspects of his game, but he is surely the best potential FA pass catcher that the team will have a shot at, so I understand pursuing him. Within reason, I think it would probably be a good addition.

What I would really like about it is that tight end tends to develop a year or two behind most positions. So it would be a way to get some production at the position immediately without having to draft and develop.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It comes down to price, price, price and cap, cap, cap. My speculation would be if either Bulaga or Hooper can be secured at Gutekunst's max price point, and he can only afford one, it would be Hooper.

I tend to agree with this and I think the 'discomfort" any team is going to have with signing Bulaga is not knowing how long his body will actually hold up. He will be 31 on the 21st of this month and has a history of a lot of injuries. How long of a contract do you give him and how long of one does he want and at what money? Bulaga is probably at best a 2 year investment, if the Packers think they can find a younger cheaper option, with a bit of a drop off in skills, go for it. As far as Hooper goes, I don't think you find a younger, cheaper option with his talent, at least not "ready made".

Signing Hooper is planning for the future, Bulaga is just a stop gap until you can find his replacement, which they already whiffed on with Spriggs.

 

[swhitset]

I need to offer something of a correction. I've been pointing out that Hooper had "only" a 50% success rate on 3rd down this season-- 9 first downs on 18 3rd down targets. First of all, that ignores a touchdown, which would make his rate 56%. But more importantly, I realized that I don't really know if that success rate is good or bad. I was assuming it was sub-standard without a frame of reference. So I pulled data on several of the top tight ends to compare. Find it below. In order, these numbers are 3rd down targets, 3rd down receptions, 3rd down TD's, and 3rd down catches for first downs. The last number is the success rate-- the % of 3rd down targets that resulted in a first down or a touchdown.

Hunter Henry: 16 targets, 10 receptions, 2 TD, 8 1D, 63%
George Kittle: 34 targets, 27 receptions, 2 TD, 18 1D, 59%
Zach Ertz: 29 targets, 18 receptions, 2 TD, 15 1D, 59%
Dallas Goedert: 19 targets, 11, receptions, 1 TD, 10 1D, 58%
Austin Hooper: 18 targets, 12 receptions, 1 TD, 9 1D, 56%
Jared Cook: 20 targets, 11 receptions, 2 TD, 9 1D, 55%
Mark Andrews: 37 targets, 25 receptions, 2 TD, 17 1D, 53%
Darren Waller: 24 targets, 15 receptions, 1 TD, 11 1D, 50%
Travis Kelce: 31 targets, 17 receptions, 0 TD, 13 1D, 42%
Evan Engram: 16 targets, 9 receptions, 1 TD, 5 1D, 38%

So it would seem that a 56% success rate is right in line with other top tight ends, and thus not something that should be held against Hooper's production.

It’s refreshing to see a poster in here willing to reassess their own opinions and admit when they feel that they were wrong.

 

[GleefulGary]

If I had to wager a guess:

- We sign Littleton. He's the perfect fit, and because of that, Gute will be willing to pay what it takes.

- We make a good run at Hooper. I think we sign him, but it'll be close.

- We bring Veldeheer back to be our RT. Bulaga is gone.

- Bring back Tramon.

- Bring in some kind of DL depth, a plugger. This happens before or after the draft.

- Probably bring back Goodson, with the idea that him, Summer, and a rookie will battle for the other ILB spot.

Doing this means that we don't have to draft an ILB on days 1 or 2. It means that we will have to spend an early slot on OT, which I would've expected them to do even if Bulaga was brought back.

In short, we sign Littleton, Hooper, and some depth pieces in FA. With that, I'd expect WR and OT in the first couple rounds, and then probably iDL, CB, or RB.

 

[GleefulGary]

It’s refreshing to see a poster in here willing to reassess their own opinions and admit when they feel that they were wrong.

Some of us never get the chance to admit we're wrong. A pity.

 

[OldSchool101]

I would disagree on using that as a basis of what you do moving forward. First, Rodgers did have some success with his TE's (Finley and Cook) over his career. I would pin it more on the fact that the Packers just haven't really provided him consistently with a good one. Finally, this isn't MM running the offense anymore, its Matt LeFleur. His offense is different than MM's and combine that with a less mobile, aging #12 and maybe a really good TE is exactly what he needs?

#12 needs both an underneath TE and underneath WR. I’d love to see both, I think that’s vital in the QB quick release game, which you want an older QB balancing more. As a bonus I’d like to see a Receiver and TE that possesses some adequate YAC and already have a knack for coming back to the ball, working the sideline, some back shoulder, back hip and some high point etc.. I don’t see much of a selection in FA, but there’s a slew of them in this draft

I think it was that Mims highlight real someone posted that jumped out at me as him having a really good combo of those traits and a likelihood of not getting snatched too early round 1. He’s got really good ball focus and sideline/Endzone awareness. He also has above average strength and as a bonus he seems love blocking. Very physical, with solid footwork, which is perfect for full press and contributing early. He’s also deceptively fast with a superb downfield stiff arm if he gets to 3rd gear.

 

[HardRightEdge]

That's all fair. I'm a little bit skeptical of Hooper is some aspects of his game, but he is surely the best potential FA pass catcher that the team will have a shot at, so I understand pursuing him. Within reason, I think it would probably be a good addition.

What I would really like about it is that tight end tends to develop a year or two behind most positions. So it would be a way to get some production at the position immediately without having to draft and develop.

Well, Hooper followed that TE progression into what started as a breakout 4th. season, so there's that.

There is another side factor. With LaFleur's 2 TE sets, one of which being Graham, it necessitated he put a Lewis-type on the field given Graham's blocking shortcomings. Even if Hooper is merely a "capable" run blocker, it opens the possibilty of pairing him with Sternberger or Tonyan in those sets, both of which present better receiving threats than Lewis at least in downfield routes. That presents a personnel group that doesn't just say, "I'm running the ball now."

As a backstop for blocking depth, a low round pick for a Crabtree type, good blocker but not of much use in the receiving department, would be a cheaper option than bringing back Lewis or some other vet. You could keep him on the PS without compromise under the new CBA rules. Starting in 2020, up to two PS players an be promoted to the roster and then returned later without being subjected to waivers. That promotion-return can be done twice per year per player.

This, along with the expansion of the game day roster from 46 to 48, would open the possibility for more specialization. A guy who is good at just one thing but not very good at the rest might be promoted for a game to be worked into specific match-up snaps and then sent back to the PS. A D-LIne run stuffer who offers little in the pass rush and is limited to either one-gap or two-gap might be an add for a particular game for specific down-and-distance situations. Limited usefulness that might not warrant a roster or game day spot over a full season, but handy in certain moments.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I need to offer something of a correction. I've been pointing out that Hooper had "only" a 50% success rate on 3rd down this season-- 9 first downs on 18 3rd down targets. First of all, that ignores a touchdown, which would make his rate 56%. But more importantly, I realized that I don't really know if that success rate is good or bad. I was assuming it was sub-standard without a frame of reference. So I pulled data on several of the top tight ends to compare. Find it below. In order, these numbers are 3rd down targets, 3rd down receptions, 3rd down TD's, and 3rd down catches for first downs. The last number is the success rate-- the % of 3rd down targets that resulted in a first down or a touchdown.

Hunter Henry: 16 targets, 10 receptions, 2 TD, 8 1D, 63%
George Kittle: 34 targets, 27 receptions, 2 TD, 18 1D, 59%
Zach Ertz: 29 targets, 18 receptions, 2 TD, 15 1D, 59%
Dallas Goedert: 19 targets, 11, receptions, 1 TD, 10 1D, 58%
Austin Hooper: 18 targets, 12 receptions, 1 TD, 9 1D, 56%
Jared Cook: 20 targets, 11 receptions, 2 TD, 9 1D, 55%
Mark Andrews: 37 targets, 25 receptions, 2 TD, 17 1D, 53%
Darren Waller: 24 targets, 15 receptions, 1 TD, 11 1D, 50%
Travis Kelce: 31 targets, 17 receptions, 0 TD, 13 1D, 42%
Evan Engram: 16 targets, 9 receptions, 1 TD, 5 1D, 38%

So it would seem that a 56% success rate is right in line with other top tight ends, and thus not something that should be held against Hooper's production.

That's pertty interesting, not just the percentages but how these players are used in their respective offenses. How did you get that data? Can you whip up Graham's numbers for comparison?

You've got guys like Andrews, Kittle and Kelce with double the number of 3rd. down targets of some of the other names including Hooper. The thing is it's hard to know if that's a function of the player, the system, the availability of other other options, their teams average distances on third down, or the preferences of the QBs in those situations.

I guess we can say Hoopers percentage is impressive if the number of targets is not. On the other hand, with Jones, Ridley, Freeman with 59 catches on 70 targets, and even Gage with 49 catches on 74 targets, Ryan had a lot to choose from.

 

[tynimiller]

If I had to wager a guess:

- We sign Littleton. He's the perfect fit, and because of that, Gute will be willing to pay what it takes.

- We make a good run at Hooper. I think we sign him, but it'll be close.

- We bring Veldeheer back to be our RT. Bulaga is gone.

- Bring back Tramon.

- Bring in some kind of DL depth, a plugger. This happens before or after the draft.

- Probably bring back Goodson, with the idea that him, Summer, and a rookie will battle for the other ILB spot.

Doing this means that we don't have to draft an ILB on days 1 or 2. It means that we will have to spend an early slot on OT, which I would've expected them to do even if Bulaga was brought back.

In short, we sign Littleton, Hooper, and some depth pieces in FA. With that, I'd expect WR and OT in the first couple rounds, and then probably iDL, CB, or RB.

I'm assuming you're cutting Taylor, Graham, Linsley in order to maybe even kinda be able to swing those signings??? Or is this a no cap scenario?

 

[Dantés]

That's pertty interesting, not just the percentages but how these players are used in their respective offenses. How did you get that data? Can you whip up Graham's numbers for comparison?

You've got guys like Andrews, Kittle and Kelce with double the number of 3rd. down targets of some of the other names including Hooper. The thing is it's hard to know if that's a function of the player, the system, the availability of other other options, their teams average distances on third down, or the preferences of the QBs in those situations.

I guess we can say Hoopers percentage is impressive if the number of targets is not. On the other hand, with Jones, Ridley, Freeman with 59 catches on 70 targets, and even Gage with 49 catches on 74 targets, Ryan had a lot to choose from.

I used the splits on pro football reference to gather the data.

Graham last year was targeted 19 times on 3rd down, came up with 11 catches for 0 TD and 8 1D, so a success rate of 42%.

The data would ideally have some more context, as usage is important.

 

[GleefulGary]

I'm assuming you're cutting Taylor, Graham, Linsley in order to maybe even kinda be able to swing those signings??? Or is this a no cap scenario?

I'm not a cap guru, I don't worry about it. For the most part, if a team wants to do it, they can make it work. Look at the Saints. They've been in supposed cap purgatory for years, yet they still sign people.

But to answer, yes, Graham and Taylor are gone. We know that Graham will be, and it only makes sense that Taylor will as well. I really don't like the idea of cutting Linsley, but I do think it's a viable option if they need the space.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm not a cap guru, I don't worry about it. For the most part, if a team wants to do it, they can make it work.

That is an unfortunate misperception. The hard cap is a zero sum game. Whoever you sign there is somebody you can't sign or must cut.

You mentioned the Saints. The key to their recent success is stacking a couple of outstanding drafts in recent years, quite a few very good players on cheap contracts freeing cap for vet signings. Even so, they too have not gotten back to the Super Bowl.

I don't disagree with your suggested signings, but it's clear there is not enough cap for all of those names and types without cuttings somebody(s) you would rather not as the cap situation stands now.

By the way, I guess you also expect Clark to be playing on the 5th. year option. That would not surprise me but you did not include that in your assumptions. Oh, the cap doesn't matter so this shouldn't either. Where there's a will there's a way, right?

One caveat: As noted elsewhere it is possible the cap will jump significantly in 2020 and beyond with the completion of the Las Vegas and LA stadiums along with the new CBA terms which might open the possibility of an extra unanticipated back-loaded contract of note. But that's another one of those irrelevant cap issues where we await more clarity.

 

[GleefulGary]

That is an unfortunate misperception. The hard cap is zero sum game. Whoever you sign there is somebody you can't or must cut.

You mentioned the Saints. The key to their recent success is stacking a couple of outstanding drafts in recent years, quite a few very good players on cheap contracts. Even so, they too have not gotten back to the Super Bowl.

I don't disagree with your suggested signings, but it's clear there is not enought cap for all of those names without cuttings somebody(s) you would rather not.

Yeah yeah, and we couldn't make the signings we did last year. Oops!

I've heard it all before.

 

[tynimiller]

I'm not a cap guru, I don't worry about it. For the most part, if a team wants to do it, they can make it work. Look at the Saints. They've been in supposed cap purgatory for years, yet they still sign people.

But to answer, yes, Graham and Taylor are gone. We know that Graham will be, and it only makes sense that Taylor will as well. I really don't like the idea of cutting Linsley, but I do think it's a viable option if they need the space.

Understood.

I mean I have a few dream FA scenarios as well...but if I were to predict a realistic option I'd say we are looking at something like:

CUTS: Graham and Taylor.

SIGNINGS:

ILB: Littleton or Schobert or Kwiatkoski, Goodson gets cheaper deal as well ILB if we don't draft one after the draft.
TE/WR: Not enough money for a TOP TIER guy in either. Keep eye out for a Lewis resigning, Fells TE signing...maybe a dice roll on Eifert...at WR I truly am thinking we don't dabble.
RT: We resign Bulaga or Veldheer (doubt both)
CB: I sense Tramon will be back on a 2 year deal (his final deal)...front weighted for team friendly heading into next year with a lot of contracts coming up.
K: We all know Crosby is coming back


Personally I'd love to cut Linsley as well, BUT only if we can resign Bulaga (don't want to fill both spots in one year). Patrick serves us well at Center. Bulaga on a two year allows us to find his heir in our ranks/draftee this year or two.

This additional cut allows us to possibly dabble in a Hooper TE deal...or even a veteran WR like Sanders/Dorsett/Cobb type is back on the table realistically.

 

[Do7]

Some of us never get the chance to admit we're wrong. A pity.

There's no shame in admitting you made a mistake or wrong. It happens to the best of us.

 

[tynimiller]

Yeah yeah, and we couldn't make the signings we did last year. Oops!

I've heard it all before.

However, as we all know that involved the cutting of Daniels which many were ticked about. However, it free'd up like $8 Million. Without that cut we don't get Amos and both Smiths. We get 2 of them. May have cost us Turner as funds thinned. It also involved letting Cobb and Clay walk.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yeah yeah, and we couldn't make the signings we did last year. Oops!

I've heard it all before.

And the cap cost of those players signed last year is rapidly escalating. We were habituated to the Thompson approach of limiting back-loading of contracts. For all Gutekunst recent talk of being a Wolf and Thompson man, those backloaded contracts were uncharacteristic to say the least. It's pay me now or pay me later--with these players it is later and later is now, and even more next year. Rodgers renegotiation to get 11 mil in cap space this year exacerbated that issue.

You've got half a dozen core player whose cap cost next year will be $50 mil more than last year. That's signficant.

You cannot do what Gutekunst did last year over and over unless you start cutting guys or let free agents walk that you'd rather keep and have to replace. It's not the cap space that has Gutekunst saying he cannot be aggressive. It's the cap liabilities on the books for next year that give him pause, along with a more impressive group of free agents than this year's group.

Any idiot could go all-in and sign guys to five year contracts with a first year salary of $1 mil, give them whomping signing bonuses (players love those), and push the cap hit out to years 2-5. I would not expect any of those.

Now, you could be right if the insiders know the cap will leap next year. But being right in ignorance isn't really right at all, it is just an accident.

 

[GleefulGary]

However, as we all know that involved the cutting of Daniels which many were ticked about. However, it free'd up like $8 Million. Without that cut we don't get Amos and both Smiths. We get 2 of them. May have cost us Turner as funds thinned. It also involved letting Cobb and Clay walk.

Daniels was cut before FA. People still said we wouldn't be able to do what we did.

Russ Ball is very good at his job. He'll figure it out.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Daniels was cut before FA. People still said we wouldn't be able to do what we did.

Russ Ball is very good at his job. He'll figure it out.

Given the condition of the 2018 roster and its cap cost, Ball's record is not unblemished if you want to assume he's the only person involved in contract structures. I'm not convinced that Ball's involvement isn't at the margins. I would expect he's the guy well versed in the more arcane aspects of capology. It's not like Thompson was or Gutekunst is brain dead in these matters. Organizational cash management factors into it and the MBA CEO probably has a firm handle on that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What I would really like about it is that tight end tends to develop a year or two behind most positions. So it would be a way to get some production at the position immediately without having to draft and develop.

Seems like this is the case with WR's in Green Bay as well. I know a lot of people are hopeful that because this appears to be a deep draft for WR's, that if the Packers select one early, they will instantly contribute. While that would be great, I really don't think the Packers or their fans should bank on that happening, especially if the TE positions isn't upgraded.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Jones, Ridley, Freeman with 59 catches on 70 targets, and even Gage with 49 catches on 74 targets, Ryan had a lot to choose from.

I think more importantly, defenses had a lot to defend against, possibly giving Hooper more favorable matches then he would see in a Packer uniform. That is the one piece of the puzzle that concerns me with Hooper, as it does with any player that the Packers are looking at acquiring (FA, Draft, Trade). Is that player really THAT good on his own or is he teamed up with a lot of other good players that just make him look better?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It’s refreshing to see a poster in here willing to reassess their own opinions and admit when they feel that they were wrong.

I am going to disagree with that today, but tomorrow I think I will agree with it.

 

[Dantés]

Seems like this is the case with WR's in Green Bay as well. I know a lot of people are hopeful that because this appears to be a deep draft for WR's, that if the Packers select one early, they will instantly contribute. While that would be great, I really don't think the Packers or their fans should bank on that happening, especially if the TE positions isn't upgraded.

I don't think a WR picked at #30 or #62 or somewhere in between is necessarily going to come in and be a top 2 player in targets or receiving, but such a player could fill a role and add a missing facet to the offense.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't think a WR picked at #30 or #62 or somewhere in between is necessarily going to come in and be a top 2 player in targets or receiving, but such a player could fill a role and add a missing facet to the offense.

If all the Packers do is add a rookie into the current group of WR's and don't upgrade the TE position, a high drafted WR will definitely get more playing time. However, unless someone not named Adams steps up their game, as well as Sterberger or Tonyan, I don't think that rookie WR alone is going to do enough to improve the offense over what we saw last season.

You mentioned in a previous post that you felt it takes a few years for TE's to produce, which I agree with, what changes that in your mind when it comes to WR's, especially in Green Bay?

 

[Dantés]

If all the Packers do is add a rookie into the current group of WR's and don't upgrade the TE position, a high drafted WR will definitely get more playing time. However, unless someone not named Adams steps up their game, as well as Sterberger or Tonyan, I don't think that rookie WR alone is going to do enough to improve the offense over what we saw last season.

The one factor that stands the best chance to improve the offense in 2020 is familiarity in the offense.

But yeah, they need to add weapons on offense if they can. I think Hooper is probably the best option in a weak FA group.