Ha Ha Clinton extension

[Deleted member 6794]

From what I seen of our string of great safety's, is that it takes 4,5,6 years to get their coverage game together. Haha might be close after all the recent practice. But two years ago , we was a half step behind pretty consistently, but made up for it with a int, or big play every once in a while.
Burnett on the other hand had become a very good safety in coverage But GB wanted him to take the next step to the do all "woodson role"... he did OK, but was no woodson. Not much impact up front, and not many reads resulting in turnovers.
I still believe the experience would have been better served back deep in coverage. While the young aggressive Alabama alum rolls like the tide.

I'm just saying there are certain players who have "it" right away. Developed consistently. But because this is the NFL, they get their rookie rears kicked from time to time. Or injured doing things they could get away with in school. But in the NFL they get tattoo'd or broken... By second contract, they are the ones doing the tattooing and breaking. We can't let him go. And the sooner we sign, the cheaper he looks 3 years from now when he is a allpro

While there might be an argument to be made that Clinton-Dix is better suited to line up at strong safety he's definitely an upgrade over Burnett in coverage.

It’s the “if” part of the first sentence where I have my doubts.

I guess we will find out about it in the next couple of months.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You can always use the franchise tag if he turns in that great of a season if you're only worried about losing him.

The franchise tag for safeties was set at $11.3 million for this season. There's no way I would feel comfortable paying Clinton-Dix that kind of money.

 

[PikeBadger]

Adams is already a proven receiver in the league and Clark is at least on the cusp of it.

Really? I haven’t heard or read anything on Clark’s progress. Anyone hearing things out there about Clark?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Doesn't excuse or account for the rest of the crap swirling around him. Unless he's had grandmas dying left and right.

He had a death in his family, geez. The other "crap" surrounding him (as far as camp has gone) has been the media guessing about random things during the slow time of the year, when the media has to write articles. I'm sorry, but a guy shouldn't have people question him because he was spending time with his family during OPTIONAL workouts.

 

[PackerDNA]

That's not the whole story or the issue and you know it.

 

[Conan Troutman]

The franchise tag for safeties was set at $11.3 million for this season. There's no way I would feel comfortable paying Clinton-Dix that kind of money.

The tag would only be an option if he turns into a star player and you don't want to let him walk, at which point yes I would feel comfortable paying him that kind of money. If he doesn't have that great a year, he's going to be a lot cheaper and you can let him test the market and then make your decision.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

That's not the whole story or the issue and you know it.

You're right, I don't know it. No fan knows it either. All I know is that he had a death in his family and didn't attend an OPTIONAL camp. Heck, if a player doesn't attend an optional camp because he wanted to drive his kid to day care I would be perfectly fine with that. Only time will tell if he's a great safety but the past two years of injury-riddled secondary play aren't exactly a great barometer for any of the secondary players the team has right now.

 

[PackerDNA]

You're right, I don't know it. No fan knows it either. All I know is that he had a death in his family and didn't attend an OPTIONAL camp. Heck, if a player doesn't attend an optional camp because he wanted to drive his kid to day care I would be perfectly fine with that. Only time will tell if he's a great safety but the past two years of injury-riddled secondary play aren't exactly a great barometer for any of the secondary players the team has right now.

Then why did he throw in the money part, that he wasn't being paid a bonus to be there? He did that; could have just left it at his grandma.

 

[swhitset]

The tag would only be an option if he turns into a star player and you don't want to let him walk, at which point yes I would feel comfortable paying him that kind of money. If he doesn't have that great a year, he's going to be a lot cheaper and you can let him test the market and then make your decision.

I don’t care how great his year is.... He’s been year long enough that just having a great contract year wouldn’t be enough to justify that much money in my mind.

 

[Conan Troutman]

I don’t care how great his year is.... He’s been year long enough that just having a great contract year wouldn’t be enough to justify that much money in my mind.

I'm not saying he's so good I want to use the tag on him. I'm saying let him play out his contract year and then see if his demands go down a bit. The tag is just in case he turns in a great year, you don't reach a long term deal and want to see if he can repeat that year first. I'm just not sold yet on the "extend him now after a down year while he's cheaper" plan, because I think it's more likely his price tag will go down, not up. The tag would simply be the emergency option in response to the other poster who was worried about him becoming a FA after a great year, not what I'd want the Packers to pay him.

 

[swhitset]

I'm not saying he's so good I want to use the tag on him. I'm saying let him play out his contract year and then see if his demands go down a bit. The tag is just in case he turns in a great year, you don't reach a long term deal and want to see if he can repeat that year first. I'm just not sold yet on the "extend him now after a down year while he's cheaper" plan, because I think it's more likely his price tag will go down, not up. The tag would simply be the emergency option in response to the other poster who was worried about him becoming a FA after a great year, not what I'd want the Packers to pay him.

While i’m still skeptical about using the tag on him.... I agree with the majority of your post.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Really? I haven’t heard or read anything on Clark’s progress. Anyone hearing things out there about Clark?

Clark is widely considered to be one of the best young defensive linemen in the league. With him still being only 22 years old I fully expect him to develop into a dominating player.

I'm not saying he's so good I want to use the tag on him. I'm saying let him play out his contract year and then see if his demands go down a bit. The tag is just in case he turns in a great year, you don't reach a long term deal and want to see if he can repeat that year first. I'm just not sold yet on the "extend him now after a down year while he's cheaper" plan, because I think it's more likely his price tag will go down, not up. The tag would simply be the emergency option in response to the other poster who was worried about him becoming a FA after a great year, not what I'd want the Packers to pay him.

If Clinton-Dix turns in a great 2018 season I would prefer to sign him to a long-term contract. The Packers should think about letting him walk in free agency if his price tag drops, meaning he would have struggled this season once again.

 

[Conan Troutman]

If Clinton-Dix turns in a great 2018 season I would prefer to sign him to a long-term contract. The Packers should think about letting him walk in free agency if his price tag drops, meaning he would have struggled this season once again.

I agree with the first sentence. But I think his price tag will drop even if he has a decent to good year. Right now, he and his agent seem to have a number in mind, and I think this number is going to come down once they hit a safety market that just doesn't seem to value solid play much. Either he's a star, then pay him what it takes, or he's just a fine starter, then let him test the market and replace him if necessary.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Right now, he and his agent seem to have a number in mind, and I think this number is going to come down once they hit a safety market that just doesn't seem to value solid play much. Either he's a star, then pay him what it takes, or he's just a fine starter, then let him test the market and replace him if necessary.

The Packers should be extremely reluctant to let Clinton-Dix walk away in free agency next offseason if he proves to be a fine starter in 2018. Once again I want to remind everyone of the abysmal play the team had to endure before drafting him with Jennings and McMillian starting.

 

[Conan Troutman]

The Packers should be extremely reluctant to let Clinton-Dix walk away in free agency next offseason if he proves to be a fine starter in 2018. Once again I want to remind everyone of the abysmal play the team had to endure before drafting him with Jennings and McMillian starting.

The problem with those two guys was always coverage, not tackling. If Clinton-Dix ends up a very good in the box safety but just average in coverage, which we'll probably find out this year if he does or not, I'm not sure why I would pay him when Jones can play in the box and Brice is a decent allround safety. Would that safety group be worse without him? Sure, but you've got to save money somewhere if you want to pay #12 and they're already lowballing RB, OG and ILB. I'm okay with paying for a really good FS, but a high priced run stopper may be a luxury the Packers can't afford.

 

[gopkrs]

The problem with those two guys was always coverage, not tackling. If Clinton-Dix ends up a very good in the box safety but just average in coverage, which we'll probably find out this year if he does or not, I'm not sure why I would pay him when Jones can play in the box and Brice is a decent allround safety. Would that safety group be worse without him? Sure, but you've got to save money somewhere if you want to pay #12 and they're already lowballing RB, OG and ILB. I'm okay with paying for a really good FS, but a high priced run stopper may be a luxury the Packers can't afford.

I am not sure that Dix cannot cover from a free safety perspective. That godawful scheme had him playing too far away. And not at all sure why you would mention Jones who did not show me anything last year except a slow learning curve.

 

[El Guapo]

I'm always skeptical about players that only shine in the final year of their rookie contract. It's tough for fans to know the difference between a guy that finally figured it out, and a guy that only turned up the volume to get a fat paycheck. The coaches who see the kid week after week should have a much better inclination about whether things are finally clicking or he's merely trying harder.

I get the sense that Clinton-Dix has the tools but only turns it on when he wants to. If the coaches feel the same way, I'd let him walk.

 

[Conan Troutman]

I am not sure that Dix cannot cover from a free safety perspective. That godawful scheme had him playing too far away. And not at all sure why you would mention Jones who did not show me anything last year except a slow learning curve.

I'm not saying he can't cover. I just want to find out how good exactly he is in coverage before I'd give him his contract is all I'm saying. Yeah Jones didn't show much, but flashed a lot of raw ability. Which is another reason why I'd prefer the Packers to take a wait-and-see approach and defer the decision whether to pay C-D until next year. There are a lot of questions to be answered about every single member of that safety corps and not signing him now buys you a whole season full of answers.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The problem with those two guys was always coverage, not tackling. If Clinton-Dix ends up a very good in the box safety but just average in coverage, which we'll probably find out this year if he does or not, I'm not sure why I would pay him when Jones can play in the box and Brice is a decent allround safety. Would that safety group be worse without him? Sure, but you've got to save money somewhere if you want to pay #12 and they're already lowballing RB, OG and ILB. I'm okay with paying for a really good FS, but a high priced run stopper may be a luxury the Packers can't afford.

The problem with the Packers having to start Jennings and McMillian was that both of them were awful. Period. Once again, I believe Clinton-Dix has the ability to develop into a very good free safety with both Jones and Brice being completely unproven. Therefore I would like the team to re-sign him, provided the coaching staff is fine with his attitude.

I'm not saying he can't cover. I just want to find out how good exactly he is in coverage before I'd give him his contract is all I'm saying. Yeah Jones didn't show much, but flashed a lot of raw ability. Which is another reason why I'd prefer the Packers to take a wait-and-see approach and defer the decision whether to pay C-D until next year. There are a lot of questions to be answered about every single member of that safety corps and not signing him now buys you a whole season full of answers.

It's possible that not re-signing Clinton-Dix before the start of this season ends up costing the Packers significant money and cap space in the long haul though.

 

[Mondio]

It's possible that not re-signing Clinton-Dix before the start of this season ends up costing the Packers significant money and cap space in the long haul though.

I don't think Ha Ha would be amenable to a lesser deal right now anyway. If he was going to sign anything right now, I think it would be for what he thinks he's worth. IMO, that amount is probably much higher than he's produced thus far in his career. If I was the Packers, I'd have his amount set already, give or take a million or 2 and he can sign it when he's ready. they should know what he is already, and IMO, that will be nothing more than a pretty solid guy with a few big plays. I don't see game changer like Nick Collins in him, relative to their skill sets. and even if a guy does have a good year, i'm not paying game changer money to someone I feel is just solid. Even if it means I have to start over.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't think Ha Ha would be amenable to a lesser deal right now anyway. If he was going to sign anything right now, I think it would be for what he thinks he's worth. IMO, that amount is probably much higher than he's produced thus far in his career. If I was the Packers, I'd have his amount set already, give or take a million or 2 and he can sign it when he's ready. they should know what he is already, and IMO, that will be nothing more than a pretty solid guy with a few big plays. I don't see game changer like Nick Collins in him, relative to their skill sets. and even if a guy does have a good year, i'm not paying game changer money to someone I feel is just solid. Even if it means I have to start over.

I agree that the Packers definitely shouldn't offer Clinton-Dix elite money at this point as he hasn't performed up to that level so far. It might be smart to sign him to a more team friendly extension right now if the coaching staff feels comfortable about him developing into a game changer though, possibly saving a lot of money. It's a moot point if you're correct about HHCD not being interested in agreeing to a lesser deal though.

 

[Conan Troutman]

The problem with the Packers having to start Jennings and McMillian was that both of them were awful. Period. Once again, I believe Clinton-Dix has the ability to develop into a very good free safety with both Jones and Brice being completely unproven. Therefore I would like the team to re-sign him, provided the coaching staff is fine with his attitude.

Jennings and McMillian were both awful, I give you that. But Jones and Brice aren't completely unproven they'v at least shown they're better than those two guys if nothing else. Do I want to annoint them as the next starting duo for years to come? Hell no. But decent safeties are neither expensive nor that hard to find. Just look at what's available right now on the market, in late June. The last thing you want to do is needlessly overpay for an average guy and be stuck with dead money if he doesn't live up to his big contract and the Packers had too many of those in the last years. I'm sure the Packers will take a good look in camp and during the season how the safeties perform and if they think they're not going to get it done, there will be stop gap veterans available to plug the hole. And if they like what they see and think there's no need to act, even better.

Look at it this way: This is the same draft-and-develop approach Thompson has been doing for years at most of the non-premium positions. I mentioned RB, ILB and OG earlier and I'd add at least SS to that list. As we've seen with Collins, it's definitely worth it to pay up for an elite FS, but the money spent at someone who isn't that elite or at least very good FS who can set up the defense would be better spent on the premium positions. This year the main concern has to be to structure the cap long term so it can fit with Rodgers' new deal. So Thompson in his usual M.O. of trying to adress those needs a year ahead selected Jones in round two.
And here's a not that unlikely scenario: Jones turns out to be as good as Clinton-Dix or at least not significantly worse, but both will strictly be in the box strong safeties. So you're essentially wasting the difference between whatever Clinton-Dix earns that year to what Jones makes on the last year of his rookie contract and all you've got to show for is more depth and maybe slightly better SS play. It may just be 5 millions for one year, but cap space is hard to come by and I'd gamble on those 5 million chance most years, even if I have to overpay for a stop-gap plan B every once in a while.

I understand your reluctance in risking the safety position to repeat the horror show that Jennings and McMillian were. But I think the Packers just have no choice but to take calculated risks like that every year if they want to remain competetive on the FA market, lock up their core players and have the highest paid QB in the league all at the same time.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Jennings and McMillian were both awful, I give you that. But Jones and Brice aren't completely unproven they'v at least shown they're better than those two guys if nothing else. Do I want to annoint them as the next starting duo for years to come? Hell no. But decent safeties are neither expensive nor that hard to find. Just look at what's available right now on the market, in late June. The last thing you want to do is needlessly overpay for an average guy and be stuck with dead money if he doesn't live up to his big contract and the Packers had too many of those in the last years. I'm sure the Packers will take a good look in camp and during the season how the safeties perform and if they think they're not going to get it done, there will be stop gap veterans available to plug the hole. And if they like what they see and think there's no need to act, even better.

Look at it this way: This is the same draft-and-develop approach Thompson has been doing for years at most of the non-premium positions. I mentioned RB, ILB and OG earlier and I'd add at least SS to that list. As we've seen with Collins, it's definitely worth it to pay up for an elite FS, but the money spent at someone who isn't that elite or at least very good FS who can set up the defense would be better spent on the premium positions. This year the main concern has to be to structure the cap long term so it can fit with Rodgers' new deal. So Thompson in his usual M.O. of trying to adress those needs a year ahead selected Jones in round two.
And here's a not that unlikely scenario: Jones turns out to be as good as Clinton-Dix or at least not significantly worse, but both will strictly be in the box strong safeties. So you're essentially wasting the difference between whatever Clinton-Dix earns that year to what Jones makes on the last year of his rookie contract and all you've got to show for is more depth and maybe slightly better SS play. It may just be 5 millions for one year, but cap space is hard to come by and I'd gamble on those 5 million chance most years, even if I have to overpay for a stop-gap plan B every once in a while.

I understand your reluctance in risking the safety position to repeat the horror show that Jennings and McMillian were. But I think the Packers just have no choice but to take calculated risks like that every year if they want to remain competetive on the FA market, lock up their core players and have the highest paid QB in the league all at the same time.

Jones and Brice might be talented but as of right now I wouldn't feel comfortable about the Packers having to start either of them.

In my opinion it's not that easy to replace a player like Clinton-Dix. The Packers struggling to find an even decent replacement for Collins for nearly three years should work as evidence for it.

It seems that we won't agree on HHCD's ability to perform at a good level lining up at free safety.

 

[Conan Troutman]

Jones and Brice might be talented but as of right now I wouldn't feel comfortable about the Packers having to start either of them.

In my opinion it's not that easy to replace a player like Clinton-Dix. The Packers struggling to find an even decent replacement for Collins for nearly three years should work as evidence for it.

It seems that we won't agree on HHCD's ability to perform at a good level lining up at free safety.

I view Jones and Brice as potential cheap replacements next year. I don't want to hand one of them the starting spot either and if Clinton- Dix turns to be a very good starter I'd just pay him - next year. I just don't see a reason to extend him now at his current asking price is all.

I don't see him as a FS, that's right. I think he can play okay there, but he lacks elite range and maybe instincts/ball skills to a degree. And for a SS to be worth that contract, he needs to be really great. If you're really confident that he's that enforcer of the defence and a difference maker, I get why would want to lock him up now. But I don't have that level of confidence so I'd prefer to see next year first.

 

[PikeBadger]

I am not sure that Dix cannot cover from a free safety perspective. That godawful scheme had him playing too far away. And not at all sure why you would mention Jones who did not show me anything last year except a slow learning curve.

I’ve seen enough of him not being able to stay with TE’s on sideline routes. Neither Dix or Burnett could cover that.