I am shocked!

[Half Empty]

Coming in to express a personal opinion (and I identify it as such) pretty much takes all the wind out of a lot of our sails.

However, to try and counter, one has to ask for how long the mediocrity lasts (and, for that matter, what how mediocrity is defined). Over the last nine years, the Giants have had some dismal teams, but also as many Lombardis as the Pack has since '67. I hate having to go back to my time in grammar school in order to really brag on my team, where they're getting more than their share.

 

[JacobInFlorida]

I would rather us be like the Atlanta Braves of the '90's and find ways into the playoffs each year and roll the dice in the post-season then gamble and try to win it all within one to three years and then settle into mediocrity. That is just me though.

Agree. The Broncos were a team of destiny. They won quite a few games that they had no business winning this year. Couple that with the Bengals, who were the best AFC team, losing their QB to a freak injury right before the playoffs. Patriots lay an egg in week 17 giving the Broncos HFA. Steelers lose their best player, who tore up Denver's defense a couple weeks earlier, and their QB played with a major throwing arm injury. It all just worked out.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Since TT won a Super Bowl with his strategy 5 years ago, I'm not sure about your point. Should the Broncos win multiple championships then your specific post might have merit. Otherwise it's just recent noise, within the last 15 minutes.

Our defense has been middle of the road each year since 2010. Defense wins championships. Leaving a gaping hole in the middle of the field where 2 ILBs are supposed to be is not a recipe for success.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Agreed. TT will never be accused of being a Riverboat Gambler when it comes to FA signings. The few high profile ones he has signed have done really well in GB. Could he sign more? Sure. But had he signed more in the last 10 years, would the Packers have won more SB's or found themselves among the teams struggling with the cap and wins? Nobody knows that answer with 100% surety. What we do know though is that under TT's management, the Packers have never had a cap issue and have fielded a very competitive team almost every year.

I don't understand why free agency automatically means cap issues? People bring that up as if it's a guarantee that if you dabble in free agency then you'll have cap problems. Example free agent signing that doesn't kill the cap: Packers bring in Raji and Guion for combined cap hit of $5.5 million; Dan Williams signed a deal with the Raiders that would have added $750,000 more than those two combined and he's a MUCH better player than either of them. Having Williams on the roster would have made the defense better AND the Packers would have a much stronger dline going into next season.

Don't get caught up in that single example, perhaps Williams never wanted to come to Green Bay and he was never a real option. The point is that free agency doesn't automatically mean cap issues, even if you sign some Tier 2 free agents.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Agree. The Broncos were a team of destiny. They won quite a few games that they had no business winning this year. Couple that with the Bengals, who were the best AFC team, losing their QB to a freak injury right before the playoffs. Patriots lay an egg in week 17 giving the Broncos HFA. Steelers lose their best player, who tore up Denver's defense a couple weeks earlier, and their QB played with a major throwing arm injury. It all just worked out.

Teams with great defenses and poor offenses generally win games they had "no business" winning because a great defense makes every game close and often will provide the edge. When you have a defense that can pressure the QB like the Broncos can, that's the best possible thing to have in a defense in today's NFL.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't understand why free agency automatically means cap issues? People bring that up as if it's a guarantee that if you dabble in free agency then you'll have cap problems.

Personally, when I refer to FA and cap issues, I think more about the big money FA's. But you can get into cap troubles just keeping your own signed. The danger of the big money FA's (your own or others) is the price that comes along with that FA for the length of the contract and guaranteed money. A price that you can't duck out of, if that FA washes out. Look at teams with cap issues and big FA's signings have a lot to do with it.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/nf...ous-salary-cap-issues-in-2016.html/?a=viewall

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Defense wins championships.

That statement is a total myth.

 

[Sky King]

Most forumites recognize the need for players to have multiple qualities: fast, strong, smart, durable, etc. If it is possible that players could be holding back an NFL team's success because they are not multi-talented enough, then how should we view the administrators of football operations when they, too, are primarily one-dimensional? Can they possibly be so good at drafting alone that they have no need to be more active in free-agency?

Yes, we know that the Packers occasionally do dabble in free agency, and we are also aware that being highly active in free-agency is also no guarantee of an NFL team's future success. But since the Packers sit at the very bottom of the list regarding free agency activity, has the status quo been effective enough?

Personally, I don't think that it is, especially when significant weaknesses have not been addressed through the draft alone -- multiple years at a time for some positions. A slight nudge towards free agency might be a good thing.

 

[Half Empty]

That statement is a total myth.

Total? What about yesterday?

 

[Vrill]

That statement is a total myth.

Both of those SB teams had the best defenses this past season....

Both teams had mediocre offenses. Especially Denver. They scored 36 offensive TD's for the whole season. That is pretty poor, yet their defense was dominant. Their D won that game.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Total? What about yesterday?

You should relax a bit and stop taking every single word literally. There have been great defenses and offenses winning the Super Bowl but to claim teams need a great defense to win a title is simply not true.

 

[PackerDNA]

Lost in every article I've read today is how outstanding the Panthers defense played.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Both of those SB teams had the best defenses this past season....

Both teams had mediocre offenses. Especially Denver. They scored 36 offensive TD's for the whole season. That is pretty poor, yet their defense was dominant. Their D won that game.

That's true for this season. There have been several teams with a mediocre defense at best winning the Super Bowl in recent years.

 

[Larry 3]

Most forumites recognize the need for players to have multiple qualities: fast, strong, smart, durable, etc. If it is possible that players could be holding back an NFL team's success because they are not multi-talented enough, then how should we view the administrators of football operations when they, too, are primarily one-dimensional? Can they possibly be so good at drafting alone that they have no need to be more active in free-agency?

Yes, we know that the Packers occasionally do dabble in free agency, and we are also aware that being highly active in free-agency is also no guarantee of an NFL team's future success. But since the Packers sit at the very bottom of the list regarding free agency activity, has the status quo been effective enough?

Personally, I don't think that it is, especially when significant weaknesses have not been addressed through the draft alone -- multiple years at a time for some positions. A slight nudge towards free agency might be a good thing.

The Pack has been to the playoffs seven years in a row correct? The status quo seems to be working as intended,

 

[Sanguine camper]

The Packers don't need to break the bank with free agents but they would benefit from signing a few veterans to fill holes. Does anybody think that Owen Daniels is worse than molasses Richard Rodgers? With Aaron Rodgers as his qb he would have been an upgrade. What I am trying to show is that putting all of your eggs in one basket is too risky. For the Packers they over rely upon draft and develop. While the draft is the best way to build a team you still have to plug holes using all sources.

 

[Carl]

Our defense has been middle of the road each year since 2010. Defense wins championships. Leaving a gaping hole in the middle of the field where 2 ILBs are supposed to be is not a recipe for success.

Just last season the team with the much better defense lost the game. In 2013, the Ravens won it all with an okay defense. Defense doesn't always win it all.

 

[Carl]

It's worth noting the Broncos winning it all with multiple big money free agents is is an exception, not a rule. Most big spenders don't win much.

 

[PackerDNA]

The Pack has been to the playoffs seven years in a row correct? The status quo seems to be working as intended,

If the intent is just make the playoffs and hope for the best.

 

[PackerDNA]

It's worth noting the Broncos winning it all with multiple big money free agents is is an exception, not a rule. Most big spenders don't win much.

The most successful teams of recent seasons- and favored to be again next season- are teams very active in free agency and trades; Broncos, Patriots, Seahawks.

 

[Carl]

If the intent is just make the playoffs and hope for the best.

That's all a GM can really do. No move or moves can guarantee a Super Bowl. We've had a strong contending team at least a couple of the past five years capable of winning it. Unfortunately, they didn't play their best when needed the most though.

 

[Carl]

The most successful teams of recent seasons- and favored to be again next season- are teams very active in free agency and trades; Broncos, Patriots, Seahawks.

There's a difference between being active and spending a lot.

I wouldn't call the Patriots big spenders. Revis had the highest deal and he was only for one season. Also, the Seahawks trades have been awful. I sure hope we don't trade like them.

I'm not against patching in free agency with cheaper guys. Throwing a lot of money at three defenders like the Broncos did two offseasons ago is something that usually doesn't work out for teams.

 

[PackerDNA]

That's all a GM can really do. No move or moves can guarantee a Super Bowl. We've had a strong contending team at least a couple of the past five years capable of winning it. Unfortunately, they didn't play their best when needed the most though.

No, a GM can utilize every avenue available to improve his team , wisely maximizing those avenues to maximize his team's chances for success each season. That such moves don't always work, or don't work out for some other team, is no excuse to not do so.
I also don't think that the team was a contender this season, although IMO they were going in . They were second tier to the top teams in the conference.
The question moving forward is have they peaked with this group? Is the window closing? Maybe 2014, and the injury wrecked 2013 were their best shots. If so, all the more reason to make moves.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

I think what he is saying is if the OP is completely unrelated to the Packers, it doesn't belong in the Packers forum.

This is an old argument so I'll just add one question: Does Thompson get credit for signing future HOF Peppers? Or doesn't he count because he wasn't technically a UFA? Or because he avoided a bidding war to get him? Like many of you I would like to see Thompson use UFA more than he has but I do think he should get credit for signing Peppers.

Why are you asking me these questions? I haven't said anything pro/con Ted Thompson in this thread. I guess I'm "anti-Ted" for asking if a Mod was threatening to move a thread.

At the same time, does he get credit for drafting Jerel Worthy and Kyri Thornton? Carl Bradford? This line of point/counter-point could go on forever.

But to answer your question, Peppers doesn't count. He wasn't an unrestricted free agent. If the NFL doesn't consider him a UFA (i.e. didn't affect compensatory picks), he's not a UFA

 

[Carl]

Why are you asking me these questions? I haven't said anything pro/con Ted Thompson in this thread. I guess I'm "anti-Ted" for asking if a Mod was threatening to move a thread.

At the same time, does he get credit for drafting Jerel Worthy and Kyri Thornton? Carl Bradford? This line of point/counter-point could go on forever.

But to answer your question, Peppers doesn't count. He wasn't an unrestricted free agent. If the NFL doesn't consider him a UFA (i.e. didn't affect compensatory picks), he's not a UFA

Of course one of the few free agent moves TT has made doesn't even count to some people. If anything, signing Peppers should count more since Peppers didn't count against any comp picks.

And Peppers was a UFA, by the way. A UFA is "a player whose contract has expired and has four or more tenured years in the league. He may sign with any other team with no restrictions. If a team loses more (or more valuable) UFAs than it signs, they may be awarded "Compensatory Draft Picks" from the league."

The fact that he didn't count against comp picks doesn't change whether or not he was a UFA.

http://www.canalstreetchronicles.co...icted-exclusive-rights-free-agents-definition

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Of course one of the few free agent moves TT has made doesn't even count to some people. If anything, signing Peppers should count more since Peppers didn't count against any comp picks.

And Peppers was a UFA, by the way. A UFA is "a player whose contract has expired and has four or more tenured years in the league. He may sign with any other team with no restrictions. If a team loses more (or more valuable) UFAs than it signs, they may be awarded "Compensatory Draft Picks" from the league."

The fact that he didn't count against comp picks doesn't change whether or not he was a UFA.

http://www.canalstreetchronicles.co...icted-exclusive-rights-free-agents-definition

His contract didn't expire. He was released by the Bears.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000333172/article/julius-peppers-released-by-chicago-bears