LB Ahmad Brooks to the Packers

[brandon2348]

How many were screaming 2 years ago to cut Davante Adams immediately, or T.J. Lange, who sucked his first 2 years? Who wanted to run James Jones out of town about 5 years ago? How many were begging for a replacement for Bahktiarri after his rookie year? Likely the same people wanting to cut Spriggs, and Fackrell right now. Given the salary cap, free agency, drafting late every year, and seeing that the whole system is set up for parity, it's amazing to make the playoffs 8 years straight. I think the Packers personnel people know better than we do how to run a football team in the NFL.

I didn't want any of those guys you listed gone however I was frustrated with Adams. I don't want Spriggs gone either as I believe there is still hope for him.

Frackrell is a different deal considering his age. The thing with Frackrell is whether college or pro I have never seen him really dominate at all which concerns me. His claim to fame is a long interception return for a TD at Utah State. With Frackrell I see a really good athlete who just isn't a real good football player. There is an instinctive part that doesn't show up at the combine and I believe that to be the case with Frackrell.

I never liked the pick and I still don't. This is one of those picks I really had to sell myself on and with Frackrell turning 26 I believe "buyers remorse" has set in a little for some people.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I believe signing Brooks is a great move by Thompson adding much needed quality depth at edge rusher while pushing Elliott and Fackrell down the depth chart as well as allowing the Packers to keep Biegel on the PUP list for the first six weeks of the season.

Who said it's just because of their draft pick investment?

There's absolutely no reason to believe that either Spriggs or Fackrell would make the final roster this season if the Packers didn't invest day two draft picks to select both of them only a year ago.

He had "moments at the combine" you mean. The guys college tape is very mediocre and that was at lowly Utah State.

It would be a miracle to expect some magic light to automatically turn on at this point. You guys can hold onto hope here but I'm off the Frackrell train and was never really on it.

PASS.

Fackrell flashed potential rushing the passer in limited action during the regular season last year though.

While great news for Packer fans, the signing of Brooks has to make Fackrell, Gilbert and Calvin very nervous.

I definitely believe that Fackrell will make the final roster even after the team signed Brooks.

Nah, not when it's a one year deal on an aged vet. This is a recognition of weakness, not an exploration of options. Or, at least, they shouldn't be any more nervous than they should have already been.

The Packers adding Brooks will most likely result in one of the outside linebackers not making the roster though.

I disagree with your RB analysis however. Anderson can play and play well, when healthy. He's averaged close to 5 per tote for his career and has a nose for the end zone. Charles was a sneaky good pickup too in my eyes. He has obvious injury concerns but he also has the highest career YPA in league history and certainly flashed the other night. He still has plenty of juice in those legs and can house one any given carry.

While I agree with your take on the Broncos possibly being a Super Bowl contender there are question marks about their running game as Anderson has never carried the ball more than 179 times a season and Charles has been injured a lot lately.

I'd be surprised to see any more signings unless we get hit hard with injuries at a position group in the last pre-season game.

I would be surprised to see the Packers add another free agent as well although the team could definitely need quality depth on the offensive line.

How many were screaming 2 years ago to cut Davante Adams immediately, or T.J. Lange, who sucked his first 2 years? Who wanted to run James Jones out of town about 5 years ago? How many were begging for a replacement for Bahktiarri after his rookie year? Likely the same people wanting to cut Spriggs, and Fackrell right now. Given the salary cap, free agency, drafting late every year, and seeing that the whole system is set up for parity, it's amazing to make the playoffs 8 years straight. I think the Packers personnel people know better than we do how to run a football team in the NFL.

You fail to mention that a lot of players didn't develop into solid contributors after getting off to a slow start during their NFL careers though, solely providing a list of guys that were able to overcome struggling early. BTW I can't remember a single Packers fan advocating for the team to get rid of Bakhtiari after he performed at an admirable level starting every single game at left tackle his rookie season.

 

[Dantés]

There's absolutely no reason to believe that either Spriggs or Fackrell would make the final roster this season if the Packers didn't invest day two draft picks to select both of them only a year ago.

Fackrell flashed potential rushing the passer in limited action during the regular season last year though.

Cap... "there's absolutely no reason" and then you literally list one immediately after saying that.

Fackrell did enough last year to warrant a look in year two. He's also one of the better special teamers on the team.

Spriggs was a super athletic project coming out of Indiana. That's why you keep him. If he fixes his issues with inside moves, he's one of the most valuable commodities in the sport.

So in other words, there absolutely are reasons to keep these guys other than draft investment.

 

[SoonerPack]

Thumbs up for me. A necessary move given the injuries and just the overall lack of depth at OLB. I still think they are one quality player short at the position.

Hopefully that's where VB can step in when he's finally healthy. However, expecting much out of a rookie who missed all of TC is probably foolhardy. At least early on it is. Maybe another guy becomes available when rosters are whittled down? You can't even enough guys to rush the QB in today's NFL and we all know about the injury concerns for our top two guys. I do know having Brooks in the fold helps a ton and I'm happy with Ted for stepping up.

G P G!!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Cap... "there's absolutely no reason" and then you literally list one immediately after saying that.

Fackrell did enough last year to warrant a look in year two. He's also one of the better special teamers on the team.

Spriggs was a super athletic project coming out of Indiana. That's why you keep him. If he fixes his issues with inside moves, he's one of the most valuable commodities in the sport.

So in other words, there absolutely are reasons to keep these guys other than draft investment.

I shouldn't have posted there are no reasons other than the Packers having spent early draft picks on Spriggs and Fackrell to hold on to both of them. It's currently the main argument for keeping them on the roster though.

Hopefully that's where VB can step in when he's finally healthy. However, expecting much out of a rookie who missed all of TC is probably foolhardy. At least early on it is. Maybe another guy becomes available when rosters are whittled down? You can't even enough guys to rush the QB in today's NFL and we all know about the injury concerns for our top two guys. I do know having Brooks in the fold helps a ton and I'm happy with Ted for stepping up.

I highly doubt the Packers are planning on adding another veteran free agent to the outside linebacker corps.

 

[Pkrjones]

I highly doubt the Packers are planning on adding another veteran free agent to the outside linebacker corps.

I'm guessing they didn't plan, before Saturday night, to even add one until Brooks became available. I'm optimistic TT makes at least one more vet signing (on the OL) before the Seattle game.

 

[Poppa San]

I'm guessing they didn't plan, before Saturday night, to even add one until Brooks became available. I'm optimistic TT makes at least one more vet signing (on the OL) before the Seattle game.

Barring new injuries, he'd be better off waiting until after the Seattle game to sign a veteran as something about the salary guaranteed if on opening day roster. Ted also will more likely take on a 2nd year player than a 5 year vet though.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm guessing they didn't plan, before Saturday night, to even add one until Brooks became available. I'm optimistic TT makes at least one more vet signing (on the OL) before the Seattle game.

It's definitely more likely that Thompson signs a veteran offensive lineman as the sixth guy on the depth chart than him adding another outside linebacker.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's definitely more likely that Thompson signs a veteran offensive lineman as the sixth guy on the depth chart than him adding another outside linebacker.

Agreed. Depending on the status of Matthews and Perry of course. How often have we heard vagueness on an injury and future status of a player, not to mention the track records of Perry and Matthews in regards to injury.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Agreed. Depending on the status of Matthews and Perry of course. How often have we heard vagueness on an injury and future status of a player, not to mention the track records of Perry and Matthews in regards to injury.

I fully expect Matthews and Perry to be ready for the season opener vs. the Seahawks.

 

[El Guapo]

We aren't out of the weeds yet. Brooks is a tremendous talent, but he's been with one team his entire pro career and has one week to learn our defensive scheme and calls. It will certainly take him some time to get up to speed. Brooks will go in for short stints in planned situations. If Perry or Matthews gets hurt, I expect that Capers will have to do more than just have other players help him with the calls and alignments. He would have to dial back the pre-snap adjustments if Brooks had to play the entire game.

As for additional free agents, I saw a list of potential veteran free agent cuts. Does it seem as though the teams/NFL are moving more towards a second free agency period right as the season begins? It doesn't seem intentional, but more and more teams in recent years seem to be releasing veterans "early" so that they can find a new team. I don't remember much FA frenzy around this part of the season 5-10 years ago.

 

[PikeBadger]

Anyone know the current injury status of Barclay? I'm guessing that Murphy is currently the #6 OL guy at this time. Whether the staff is comfortable with him getting starter snaps is not something I'm privy too. I'd lean towards it being unlikely that Thompson would bring in an outside FA o-lineman at this time. I think we'd have seen that a couple of weeks ago. Like every other NFL team, we are extremely vulnerable if two starters go down to injury.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

We aren't out of the weeds yet. Brooks is a tremendous talent, but he's been with one team his entire pro career and has one week to learn our defensive scheme and calls. It will certainly take him some time to get up to speed.

I agree that it will take Brooks some time to learn the Packers system but having been in the league since 2006 might speed up the process. FWIW he spent his first two seasons in the NFL with the Bengals.

 

[PikeBadger]

We aren't out of the weeds yet. Brooks is a tremendous talent, but he's been with one team his entire pro career and has one week to learn our defensive scheme and calls. It will certainly take him some time to get up to speed. Brooks will go in for short stints in planned situations. If Perry or Matthews gets hurt, I expect that Capers will have to do more than just have other players help him with the calls and alignments. He would have to dial back the pre-snap adjustments if Brooks had to play the entire game.

As for additional free agents, I saw a list of potential veteran free agent cuts. Does it seem as though the teams/NFL are moving more towards a second free agency period right as the season begins? It doesn't seem intentional, but more and more teams in recent years seem to be releasing veterans "early" so that they can find a new team. I don't remember much FA frenzy around this part of the season 5-10 years ago.

It appears that there are at least three teams tanking the season before it begins. I don't recall seeing that before.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Like every other NFL team, we are extremely vulnerable if two starters go down to injury.

Unfortunately the Packers are extremely vulnerable on the offensive line if either of the five starters go down though.

 

[PikeBadger]

Unfortunately the Packers are extremely vulnerable on the offensive line if either of the five starters go down though.

We don't know that for sure. The staff seems pleased with Murphy's development. I would expect some dropoff with one starter out but I don't think it would be catastrophic. At this point, I sense we are most vulnerable at LT. every other team with an elite LT probably feels the same way.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

We don't know that for sure. The staff seems pleased with Murphy's development. I would expect some dropoff with one starter out but I don't think it would be catastrophic. At this point, I sense we are most vulnerable at LT. every other team with an elite LT probably feels the same way.

While Murphy might turn into a decent player as early as this season there's no doubt the backups on the offensive line are a huge question mark entering this season.

 

[SoonerPack]

OL depth is a concern for most teams in the league. I think it gets overly hyped every year. Starters are starters for a reason just as backups are backups for a reason. We have a pretty good track record of coaching OL'men up so that gives me a little comfort.

 

[rodell330]

WHEN Matthews or Perry gets hurt, I'm
A lot more comfortable knowing there's at least another vet who should be able to come in,
and be somewhat productive. I think Fackrell is more of a gameday player. I'm ok with that if he's contributing.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Curious as to what your thoughts are on the move? Yeah, meah or nah?

I have to start with the assumption that the deal is as reported: 1 year, $3.5 million guaranteed, $1.5 million in incentives. The "guarantee" is not particularly relevant since all NFL contract money for the year becomes guaranteed as of week 1. I assume the incentives are for games played, or maybe a mil for games played and the rest for "Pro Bowl" or the like. Rappaport misses the mark on occasion; we need to see this made official.

I believe it tells us more about Packer concerns with the health of Matthews and Perry (and Biegel and Elliott) than some independent assessment of Brooks. If it were just one guy missing a couple of games I'm not sure they would have pulled this trigger.

Further, Thompson rarely goes in for one year rent-a-player deals for vets with a resume. I believe the last time that happened was the mid-August signing of Ced Benson in 2012; I can't recall any others. This is quite reminiscent of the Benson singing, when they had let Grant go, Starks had turf toe, Saine had a hamstring and Green was coming off knee surgery.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/trainingcam...-veteran-rb-cedric-benson-reach-one-year-deal

So, given the assumed circumstances that the injuries are more concerning than a mere "two weeks recovery and we're good to go week 1" scenario, I'm good with it. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. I did not see Brooks play last year so I can't venture a guess as to what he has in the tank. We'll have to see how he looks week 1. Recalling Benson, it was a "better than nothing" result, but not a game changer, and then he had the Lisfranc injury in week 5 I believe, and that ended his season and career.

One aspect of Brooks that I like is he's kind of a fiery guy. There was that notable helmet throwing incident in 2014 when Tomasulo pulled him from a game. Not that I'd want anybody throwing helmets on the sidelines or a bunch of screamers in the locket room. But other than Daniels, there seems to be too much of a "futball been berry berry good to me" and a cerebral attitude to the proceedings. It might be helpful to have somebody on the field who will kick some a*s and bring intensity to the proceedings when needed.

We've been wondering for a few years now when the brain trust would start to feel the pressure of playoff flops. I mean it's not like they lost a Super Bowl on a last second goal line interception. Some of these losses have been historically dismal. If the off season FA signings are any indication, somebody is feeling the heat, and this signing is another indication. I think that's a good thing. We'll see...the proof is in the putting, or pudding if one prefers.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

OL depth is a concern for most teams in the league. I think it gets overly hyped every year. Starters are starters for a reason just as backups are backups for a reason. We have a pretty good track record of coaching OL'men up so that gives me a little comfort.

I'm absolutely convinced that most teams in the league have currently more talent among their backups on the offensive line than the Packers.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I believe it tells us more about Packer concerns with the health of Matthews and Perry (and Biegel and Elliott) than some independent assessment of Brooks. If it were just one guy missing a couple of games I'm not sure they would have pulled this trigger.

I believe a lack of quality depth at edge rusher was the main reason for Thompson pulling the trigger on signing Brooks.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I believe a lack of quality depth at edge rusher was the main reason for Thompson pulling the trigger on signing Brooks.

I don't think they suddenly came to that realization after week 3 of the preseason. Indications are they're concerned about no depth of any kind unless you want to count Fackrell and just some guy.

As for Biegel, all the happy talk about him being ready for opening day, I don't think the Packers were stupid enough to believe that (1) they would certainly get the best case scenario on a microfracture surgery or that (2) even if they got the best case he'd be ready week 1 with no practice, no contact, no preseason game experience. I doubt this was some shocking 11th. hour realization. I don't believe Biegel factored into it at all. It's all of the other guys being suddenly banged up.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It appears that there are at least three teams tanking the season before it begins. I don't recall seeing that before.

I've noted the Browns and the Bills. Who's the third?

 

[Pkrjones]

I've noted the Browns and the Bills. Who's the third?

NY Jets. I'll be surprised if there are 30k fans at both Buffalo/Jets games as they battle for the bottom.