Free Agency: TE's

[Carl]

Agreed. Free agency isn't a panacea. However, I was really speaking more to the crowd that determines that every negative free agent outcome is indicative of ALL free agent signings. Yes, many free agent signing don't work out. However, many DO work out.

To be fair, the ones that do not work out greatly outnumber the ones that do work out.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

How do we know that? Based on their play the last few seasons, Cook is a slightly better receiver (way more athletic but bad hands) but a MUCH better blocker. Why is it automatic that the Packer's coaches didn't base the signing mainly on improved pass protection and run blocking with a side of improved receiving?

Cook is an upgrade over Rodgers blocking for the run but he struggles mightily in pass protection as well. There shouldn't be any doubt the Packers primarily added him as a receiving threat capable of stretching a defense.

To be fair, the ones that do not work out greatly outnumber the ones that do work out.

That's simply not true. While there are a lot of free agent deals that don't work out several successful teams heavily rely on free agents playing a significant amount of snaps.

For example the two teams which made it to the Super Bowl in 2015 had free agents line up for 45.9% (Broncos) and 37.8% (Panthers) of the total snaps.

There's no doubt risk is involved by signing a free agent from another team but the same applies to draft picks and re-signing a team's own players.

 

[Carl]

Cook is an upgrade over Rodgers blocking for the run but he struggles mightily in pass protection as well. There shouldn't be any doubt the Packers primarily added him as a receiving threat capable of stretching a defense.



That's simply not true. While there are a lot of free agent deals that don't work out several successful teams heavily rely on free agents playing a significant amount of snaps.

For example the two teams which made it to the Super Bowl in 2015 had free agents line up for 45.9% (Broncos) and 37.8% (Panthers) of the total snaps.

There's no doubt risk is involved by signing a free agent from another team but the same applies to draft picks and re-signing a team's own players.

All that stat says is two good teams got significant contributions from free agents. That does not mean at all that more free agents signing work out compared to those that do not.

I can't find any sources and without an extensive analysis, I do realize now I can't say for sure that most signings do not work out, however.

It's pretty well established though that most money dished out in free agency doesn't work out since spending big typically does not equal success.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

All that stat says is two good teams got significant contributions from free agents. That does not mean at all that more free agents signing work out compared to those that do not.

I can't find any sources and without an extensive analysis, I do realize now I can't say for sure that most signings do not work out, however.

It's pretty well established though that most money dished out in free agency doesn't work out since spending big typically does not equal success.

I don't have access to any sources analyzing the success rate of free agent signings either but I guess that you're correct that the majority of those deals doesn't work out as planned.

That is most likely true for drafting players and re-signing a team's own free agents as well though.

As a side note you mentioned in the first post I replied to that free agent deals not working out GREATLY outnumber the ones which do, something I don't agree with. I'm not convinced that it's well established that spending big money automatically results in a team not being successful either (see Broncos from 2013-15).

The most important thing in my opinion is the front office has to be smart about roster moves, no matter if it involves drafting, trading or re-signing players as well as bringing in free agents.

 

[Mondio]

Hey, we got a FA TE, and I hope he catches the super bowl winning touchdown this year

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Cook is an upgrade over Rodgers blocking for the run but he struggles mightily in pass protection as well. There shouldn't be any doubt the Packers primarily added him as a receiving threat capable of stretching a defense.

I'm sorry but I just don't agree. If Cook's past struggles in receiving were solely based on QB play then I might be more open to the idea. However, Cook's main issue has been that when his, admittedly poor, past QBs have gotten the ball to him, he has dropped WAY too many passes. I'm not saying that his receiving skills won't be an upgrade, he certainly has the potential to be a far more dynamic receiver than Rodgers, but that's all it is, potential. There is no certainty that he'll be a better receiver. There IS certainty that he will be a much better blocker (based on past performance which of course is not guarantee of future performance). While Cook is not as strong a blocker in pass pro he's still much better than Rodgers and the difference in their run blocking skills is enormous.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm sorry but I just don't agree. If Cook's past struggles in receiving were solely based on QB play then I might be more open to the idea. However, Cook's main issue has been that when his, admittedly poor, past QBs have gotten the ball to him, he has dropped WAY too many passes. I'm not saying that his receiving skills won't be an upgrade, he certainly has the potential to be a far more dynamic receiver than Rodgers, but that's all it is, potential. There is no certainty that he'll be a better receiver. There IS certainty that he will be a much better blocker (based on past performance which of course is not guarantee of future performance). While Cook is not as strong a blocker in pass pro he's still much better than Rodgers and the difference in their run blocking skills is enormous.

I guess it's best to revisit this topic after several regular season games as there's no way we agree with each other now.

Cook isn't any better than Rodgers in pass protection though.

 

[bigbubbatd]

I am interested to see if there is any difference between first day of free agency signings and guys who sign later, even a week in. It seems likes the big splashy first day signings dont always workout but that is probably because they are more memorable.

 

[PikeBadger]

Cook is an upgrade over Rodgers blocking for the run but he struggles mightily in pass protection as well. There shouldn't be any doubt the Packers primarily added him as a receiving threat capable of stretching a defense.



That's simply not true. While there are a lot of free agent deals that don't work out several successful teams heavily rely on free agents playing a significant amount of snaps.

For example the two teams which made it to the Super Bowl in 2015 had free agents line up for 45.9% (Broncos) and 37.8% (Panthers) of the total snaps.

There's no doubt risk is involved by signing a free agent from another team but the same applies to draft picks and re-signing a team's own players.

What were the numbers of snaps by free agents for the 10 worst teams?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

What were the numbers of snaps by free agents for the 10 worst teams?

I'm sorry I don't have any information about that. If someone else is able to come up with that I would be interested in it as well.

 

[PikeBadger]

I am interested to see if there is any difference between first day of free agency signings and guys who sign later, even a week in. It seems likes the big splashy first day signings dont always workout but that is probably because they are more memorable.

Far more debilitating to the signing team as well because they are signing player friendly, not team friendly contracts. I prefer TT go spend that first week on a very remote uninhabited island.

 

[PikeBadger]

I'm sorry I don't have any information about that. If someone else is able to come up with that I would be interested in it as well.

That would be an interesting study over the last 5 years.

 

[PackerDNA]

Maybe, maybe not. It was a concern of mine. Why was a team choosing to re-sign a guy on the decline and mostly used up over a young on the rise and relatively inexpensive guy already on the roster? The fact that SD didn't seem at all interested in getting him under contract, and instead concentrated on a guy with 1-2 seasons left in the league was a headscratcher to say the least. Maybe this is part of the reason SD had no interest? Maybe this is related to why Ted had none? Maybe it's all just a coincidence and none of it matters?

I was also perplexed by their decision to go with Gates. I chalked it up to a behind the scenes fallout ending with Green telling SD he wouldn't resign with them. If the Steelers had no ideas about what- if anything- was wrong with Green, then I doubt Thompson did.

 

[Mondio]

I was also perplexed by their decision to go with Gates. I chalked it up to a behind the scenes fallout ending with Green telling SD he wouldn't resign with them. If the Steelers had no ideas about what- if anything- was wrong with Green, then I doubt Thompson did.

but maybe they did and thought it was worth the roll of the dice because they thought they could make him better with a change of scenery? or maybe we just got lucky?

 

[PackerDNA]

but maybe they did and thought it was worth the roll of the dice because they thought they could make him better with a change of scenery? or maybe we just got lucky?

IMO, I'd have to believe if any team knew about a guy having chronic headaches with several concussions documented in his short career, that would be a huge red flag.

 

[Mondio]

IMO, I'd have to believe if any team knew about a guy having chronic headaches with several concussions documented in his short career, that would be a huge red flag.

And I believe those in the know, would know some reason a young and seemingly ascending player isn't actively trying to be retained by his current team for general reasons, if not exactly why. Regardless, not being made an offer considering the outward circumstances is a red flag itself. Anyway,we didn't sign him. We signed someone else.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And I believe those in the know, would know some reason a young and seemingly ascending player isn't actively trying to be retained by his current team for general reasons, if not exactly why. Regardless, not being made an offer considering the outward circumstances is a red flag itself. Anyway,we didn't sign him. We signed someone else.

I don't think the Steelers front office is that incompetent that they would ignore huge red flags known to or being perceived by other teams.

 

[Poppa San]

Cook isn't any better than Rodgers in pass protection though.

I'm not very concerned about a TEs pass protection as his job on passing plays is usually to catch the ball, not stay in and block. The few times they do isn't enough to merit much attention.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not very concerned about a TEs pass protection as his job on passing plays is usually to catch the ball, not stay in and block. The few times they do isn't enough to merit much attention.

Exactly, sunshine is convinced the Packers brought in Cook to primarily be a blocker though.

 

[Mondio]

I don't think the Steelers front office is that incompetent that they would ignore huge red flags known to or being perceived by other teams.

Didn't stop people from thinking they could use Percy Harvin or any number of guys in the league that don't stick with one team

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Didn't stop people from thinking they could use Percy Harvin or any number of guys in the league that don't stick with one team

True, but a lot of teams ignore character red flags when having the chance to acquire a potential impact player.

I'm absolutely convinced the Steelers and no other team aside of possibly the Chargers knew about Green suffering from chronic headache most likely being the result of multiple concussions.

Most general managers don't hesitate to take a risk signing a player who has a concussion history as long as those guys returned to beingsymptom free (see Rodgers extension in 2013).

 

[Mondio]

True, but a lot of teams ignore character red flags when having the chance to acquire a potential impact player.

I'm absolutely convinced the Steelers and no other team aside of possibly the Chargers knew about Green suffering from chronic headache most likely being the result of multiple concussions.

Most general managers don't hesitate to take a risk signing a player who has a concussion history as long as those guys returned to beingsymptom free (see Rodgers extension in 2013).

I'm not saying they did. All this was in response to someone saying you cant use the present situation to judge the past event of NOT signing him. I said maybe you can, maybe we just got lucky. For me, the fact that SD didn't want to try and bring him back and instead kept a guy that will only be in the league for another year or 2 was red flag enough. Whether the Steelers, Packers or anyone else knew the specifics, they had to have had a general idea that something was up.

 

[PikeBadger]

but maybe they did and thought it was worth the roll of the dice because they thought they could make him better with a change of scenery? or maybe we just got lucky?

I can't remember. Was Green Bay showing any interest at all in signing this guy?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I can't remember. Was Green Bay showing any interest at all in signing this guy?

There weren't any reports about the Packers being interested in Ladarius Green before he signed with the Steelers.

 

[Mondio]

I can't remember. Was Green Bay showing any interest at all in signing this guy?

Not that was apparent to any of us, but fans sure were