Packers hire Mike Pettine, defensive coordinator

[Deleted member 6794]

If Rodgers stays healthy, just improving the quality of the defense is a big step. But I do think TE and WR (depending on Jordy and Cobb) are big needs on offense and those will need to be addressed ASAP. If the starting WR's are Adams, Nelson and Cobb for 2018 we should be fine, but the depth beyond the big 3 is questionable at best.

It's true the Packers need to address some holes on the offensive side of the ball this offseason as well.

I feel like that is true if depth players but our starters this year included a lot of older guys - rodgers, Evans, bulaga, Nelson, Cobb, Bennett, clay, Burnett are all older. I know not all are really old but all are nearing the end of their second NFL contract or past that.

I guess that every single team in the league has some older starters on their roster as well.

 

[rodell330]

Zimmerman is a defensive guy. He was a DC before he became a HC...actually a pretty good one. It doesn’t surprise me that the Vikings have an elite defense. It helps if your HC understands defense and personnel that needs to be on that side of the ball. I don’t think MM has a clue about what he wanted to do with the defense. I think his mind was set on the offense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Zimmerman is a defensive guy. He was a DC before he became a HC...actually a pretty good one. It doesn’t surprise me that the Vikings have an elite defense. It helps if your HC understands defense and personnel that needs to be on that side of the ball. I don’t think MM has a clue about what he wanted to do with the defense. I think his mind was set on the offense.

It also helps having a general manager capable of drafting elite defensive players.

 

[bigbubbatd]

It's true the Packers need to address some holes on the offensive side of the ball this offseason as well.



I guess that every single team in the league has some older starters on their roster as well.

I just think the Packers seem to start a lot of older guys in part because they haven't drafted well. I could be wrong but it doesn't seem like we have a lot of first contract starters.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I just think the Packers seem to start a lot of older guys in part because they haven't drafted well. I could be wrong but it doesn't seem like we have a lot of first contract starters.

The Packers opened the season with 10 starters still being on their first contract. I don't know how that compares to other teams around the league but guess it's close to the league average.

 

[bigbubbatd]

The Packers opened the season with 10 starters still being on their first contract. I don't know how that compares to other teams around the league but guess it's close to the league average.

Seems like would be about average. Thanks for doing the work and making all my points invalid

 

[Poppa San]

If the starting WR's are Adams, Nelson and Cobb for 2018 we should be fine, but the depth beyond the big 3 is questionable at best.

And who are the Eagles or Saints 4-6 guys and how is their depth @ WR compared to GB? I really don't know.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And who are the Eagles or Saints 4-6 guys and how is their depth @ WR compared to GB? I really don't know.

Actually both the Saints and Eagles had only two receivers that had more than 36 catches this season.

 

[Poppa San]

Actually both the Saints and Eagles had only two receivers that had more than 36 catches this season.

So their depth is really unproven also.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So their depth is really unproven also.

Both of those teams either have an elite tight end or receiving running back though.

 

[Poppa San]

Both of those teams either have an elite tight end or receiving running back though.

I was responding to the point that after the top 3 WRs, the Packers have no depth, not about their other options. I was wondering who has much depth beyond their top three receivers at the WR position.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I was responding to the point that after the top 3 WRs, the Packers have no depth, not about their other options. I was wondering who has much depth beyond their top three receivers at the WR position.

I agreed with your post about it. That doesn't change the fact the Packers passing offense as a whole is missing an important piece those teams have.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

My post about Jordy, Cobb and Adams was about actually having them on the roster for 2018, not the depth of the position per se. People are talking about cutting Jordy and Cobb to save cap space. IMO, if you do that, we are left with 1 starter and a lot of question marks.

I wouldn't be too excited about the WR position if on opening day we are lining up Adams, Allison and Davis.

 

[7thFloorRA]

Sounds like Darren Perry is headed to the Titans. They can have him. I think he has something to do with the terrible angles, tackling and communication issues. I have a suspicion he told guys what they wanted to hear instead of what they needed to hear.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

My post about Jordy, Cobb and Adams was about actually having them on the roster for 2018, not the depth of the position per se. People are talking about cutting Jordy and Cobb to save cap space. IMO, if you do that, we are left with 1 starter and a lot of question marks.

I wouldn't be too excited about the WR position if on opening day we are lining up Adams, Allison and Davis.

It would definitely be better if the Packers would be able to restructure the contracts of Nelson and Cobb to better reflect their current production to keep them around.

 

[Half Empty]

Don't know anything about the specifics, but, off the top of my head, I don't remember many contracts being restructured - maybe as many as player-for-player trades. Is it complicated, will the players just not go for it, or what?

 

[G0P4ckG0]

Don't know anything about the specifics, but, off the top of my head, I don't remember many contracts being restructured - maybe as many as player-for-player trades. Is it complicated, will the players just not go for it, or what?

It all depends upon what the player most wants. Is it money, remaining loyal to a team, championships, job security?

 

[yooperpackfan]

It all depends upon what the player most wants. Is it money, remaining loyal to a team, championships, job security?

Generally it's the greed factor, money, and sprinkle in a little ego.

 

[SoonerPack]

It would definitely be better if the Packers would be able to restructure the contracts of Nelson and Cobb to better reflect their current production to keep them around.

I will be shocked if 87 doesn't willingly restructure. He is in the twilight of his career and I can't see him starting over with another team at this point. I think he will either come back at a lower number or call it a day and spend his days on the farm. Cobb is the guy I think may not be willing to restructure because of his age and the fact he probably believes he has a lot of tread left on the tires. I beleive he has some good years left but not 10M/yr good.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Don't know anything about the specifics, but, off the top of my head, I don't remember many contracts being restructured - maybe as many as player-for-player trades. Is it complicated, will the players just not go for it, or what?

When you are talking millions of dollars, I can see why players and their agents are willing to gamble on not restructuring. Even if the Packers cut them, they are going to find the money elsewhere and that money may be more than what the Packers are willing to pay them on a restructured contract.

I also wonder if collectively players and their agents don't want to get into the habit of restructuring deals every year if that contract now looks like a bad one for the team that entered into it. On the opposite end of the equation, how many teams are going to players and saying "you know what, you are being way underpaid, lets change your contract to reflect what you did last year and we expect in the future." That only tends to happen in the final year of a contract when a team doesn't want that player to hit free agency.

 

[Dantés]

It would definitely be better if the Packers would be able to restructure the contracts of Nelson and Cobb to better reflect their current production to keep them around.

Even if that means adding years to the deal? Honest question.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Even if that means adding years to the deal? Honest question.

Although I am not sure if you are asking me this?

I would say both Cobb and Nelson would be valuable to the Packer offense for as long as either of them can play, but with the caveat, at the right price. I guess I am not in the camp that either of them aren't still pretty good at what they do. Are they both currently being overpaid? Hell yes. However, on a new contract, I will take both of them for as long as they are productive. If I had my way, both get restructured on a reasonable contract ( 2 year for Jordy, 3 year for Cobb) and the Packers use either their first or second pick on a WR who could be ready to go in 2 years.

 

[Dantés]

Although I am not sure if you are asking me this?

I would say both Cobb and Nelson would be valuable to the Packer offense for as long as either of them can play, but with the caveat, at the right price. I guess I am not in the camp that either of them aren't still pretty good at what they do. Are they both currently being overpaid? Hell yes. However, on a new contract, I will take both of them for as long as they are productive. If I had my way, both get restructured on a reasonable contract ( 2 year for Jordy, 3 year for Cobb) and the Packers use either their first or second pick on a WR who could be ready to go in 2 years.

Sure, but as you say: “as long as either can play.” Especially in Jordy’s case, we don’t know how much longer that will be. Which makes it a little scary to extend him into the future.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sure, but as you say: “as long as either can play.” Especially in Jordy’s case, we don’t know how much longer that will be. Which makes it a little scary to extend him into the future.

Personally, I don't think extending Jordy for 1 additional year (beyond his current one year remaining), is that scary. He will only be 33 this May and there have been productive WR's at that age. His chemistry and abilities with AR are pretty special and that is going to be hard to replace. Is he the player he was 4 years ago? No, but I think you are going to have question marks with rookies and FA's too. The Packers could cut Jordy and Cobb, go out and sign a couple of free agent WR's and use a pick or 2 on the position, but will that make them better than having Jordy and Cobb?

 

[swhitset]

Personally, I don't think extending Jordy for 1 additional year (beyond his current one year remaining), is that scary. He will only be 33 this May and there have been productive WR's at that age. His chemistry and abilities with AR are pretty special and that is going to be hard to replace. Is he the player he was 4 years ago? No, but I think you are going to have question marks with rookies and FA's too. The Packers could cut Jordy and Cobb, go out and sign a couple of free agent WR's and use a pick or 2 on the position, but will that make them better than having Jordy and Cobb?

I am, I would say 80% in agreement with you.... however, I do think that if Aaron Rodgers has one possible weakness it is in his intolerance with players that don't see and understand the field as well as he does. I think this may cause him to rely on players like Jordy a little too much. Every week I see quarterbacks with much less ability than Rodgers completing passes to, shall we say, far less cerebral receivers. Im just wondering if maybe Rodgers needs to learn to adjust to an occasional bad route as much as his receivers need to learn how to run them correctly . Now to try to make this make sense within the points being made about potentially keeping or losing Jordy and Cobb.... We are going to need to replace Jordy soon... the question is do we do it now to give Aaron time to adjust.... or do we do it later when Rodgers's carreer is closer to being over as well.