Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Free Agency: TE's
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="sschind" data-source="post: 655907" data-attributes="member: 10247"><p>There are probably 4 or 5 game changing TE's in the league and none of them are available to the Packers right now (ie none of them are free agents) From what I have read there is no game changing TE available in the draft either. That certainly doesn't mean the Packers can't improve their TE situation some with a FA or draft pick but it does mean that even if they get a starter other than RR he isn't going to be that game changer that so many want. He isn't going to be that TE that makes defensive coordinators worry.</p><p></p><p>IMO the closest to that would be Ladarius Green and given what Allen signed for I'm guessing Green will get at least that much. If you want Ted to spend that much on him fine, I won't argue, I won't even disagree. I like LG, a lot. Its just that a signing of that caliber will come at a price. That price may be worth it (nice fence I am on here isn't it?) </p><p></p><p>I agree with several points on both sides of the argument. Sure, It would be nice and certainly an improvement to get that speedy big guy who could stretch the field. On the other hand I think the entire Packers offense had an off year last year and I fully expect them to bounce back. That includes RR. Now some will say "bounce back to what" and they will be right, he will never be that game changing top 5 TE that makes defenses sweat but IMO he doesn't need to be. There is a difference between what is needed and what would be nice? </p><p></p><p>I wouldn't be opposed to bringing in Green at all. I wouldn't be opposed to trading for Martellus Bennett if the price was right. Both would be instant upgrades to the starter position at TE. As for any other TE available to the Packers right now I don't see them as that instant upgrade automatic #1 TE. A guy that you could say "he will be our starting TE" A few I would consider would be Gresham, Davis, Josh Hill but I don't see them as automatic upgrades and clear #1s.</p><p></p><p>The bottom line is I would love a top 5 TE but there are none available and until one becomes available I think RR can be an adequate TE in our offense.</p><p></p><p>That last line reminds me of the Homer Simpson line when he had 2 bucks left to buy a Christmas tree "Isn't it sufficient"</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="sschind, post: 655907, member: 10247"] There are probably 4 or 5 game changing TE's in the league and none of them are available to the Packers right now (ie none of them are free agents) From what I have read there is no game changing TE available in the draft either. That certainly doesn't mean the Packers can't improve their TE situation some with a FA or draft pick but it does mean that even if they get a starter other than RR he isn't going to be that game changer that so many want. He isn't going to be that TE that makes defensive coordinators worry. IMO the closest to that would be Ladarius Green and given what Allen signed for I'm guessing Green will get at least that much. If you want Ted to spend that much on him fine, I won't argue, I won't even disagree. I like LG, a lot. Its just that a signing of that caliber will come at a price. That price may be worth it (nice fence I am on here isn't it?) I agree with several points on both sides of the argument. Sure, It would be nice and certainly an improvement to get that speedy big guy who could stretch the field. On the other hand I think the entire Packers offense had an off year last year and I fully expect them to bounce back. That includes RR. Now some will say "bounce back to what" and they will be right, he will never be that game changing top 5 TE that makes defenses sweat but IMO he doesn't need to be. There is a difference between what is needed and what would be nice? I wouldn't be opposed to bringing in Green at all. I wouldn't be opposed to trading for Martellus Bennett if the price was right. Both would be instant upgrades to the starter position at TE. As for any other TE available to the Packers right now I don't see them as that instant upgrade automatic #1 TE. A guy that you could say "he will be our starting TE" A few I would consider would be Gresham, Davis, Josh Hill but I don't see them as automatic upgrades and clear #1s. The bottom line is I would love a top 5 TE but there are none available and until one becomes available I think RR can be an adequate TE in our offense. That last line reminds me of the Homer Simpson line when he had 2 bucks left to buy a Christmas tree "Isn't it sufficient" [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
DoURant
Heyjoe4
Capitol 8805
Latest posts
Top 30 Visits 2025
Latest: OldSchool101
4 minutes ago
Draft Talk
H
First Round Prospect Discussions Specifically
Latest: Heyjoe4
5 minutes ago
Draft Talk
I remember this place.
Latest: OldSchool101
31 minutes ago
The Green Bay Life
Should the Packers Start Revoking Season Tickets?
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 12:09 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Heard a Trey rumor....
Latest: tynimiller
Today at 11:23 AM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Free Agency: TE's
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
