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
Packers visiting with TE Jermaine Gresham
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="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 617814"><p>It comes down to how you want to define the character of your team within the constraints of the salary cap and the draft.</p><p></p><p>New England is TE and slot centric; their #2 wide out caught 12 balls last season. The Pats have not had a 1,000 yd. wide out since Moss in 2009.</p><p></p><p>Seattle is defense first, then run the ball and game manage the passing offense. They bet several acres of the farm on a TE, not a wide out, this offseason. The year before they let Golden Tate walk in FA. Before that, they bet a few other acres of the farm on Harvin, a slot receiver/utility knife.</p><p></p><p>Neither of those teams want to spend cap or picks on wide outs, perhaps unique in the league.</p><p></p><p>The Packers' foundational principles in the current era are winning (1) the QB-rating-differential and (2) the turnover differential, which are two sides of the same coin, a philosophy adapted to leverage the capabilities of the franchise QB. The offense is WR-centric, emphasizing downfield passing with two $10 mil per year WRs and some meaningful draft capital expended on the supporting cast. On defense, it's all about keeping the opposing QB at bay. It's no coincidence that 5 of the top 6 picks over the last 2 drafts have been WRs and DBs. Would an impact tight end be of use? Sure. But how are you going get one if the draft and cap priorities are elsewhere? And if you go out and buy one, is there enough ball to go around to have the investment pay off? Probably not. Modest but meaningful production out of the TE position out of a low cost crew would be a positive. Anything more would be a pleasant surprise, even to the coaches I suspect.</p><p></p><p>Thankfully, there is a recognition that winning in the two metrics noted above is not enough. But the TE position is not the deal breaker; the issues lie elsewhere.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 617814"] It comes down to how you want to define the character of your team within the constraints of the salary cap and the draft. New England is TE and slot centric; their #2 wide out caught 12 balls last season. The Pats have not had a 1,000 yd. wide out since Moss in 2009. Seattle is defense first, then run the ball and game manage the passing offense. They bet several acres of the farm on a TE, not a wide out, this offseason. The year before they let Golden Tate walk in FA. Before that, they bet a few other acres of the farm on Harvin, a slot receiver/utility knife. Neither of those teams want to spend cap or picks on wide outs, perhaps unique in the league. The Packers' foundational principles in the current era are winning (1) the QB-rating-differential and (2) the turnover differential, which are two sides of the same coin, a philosophy adapted to leverage the capabilities of the franchise QB. The offense is WR-centric, emphasizing downfield passing with two $10 mil per year WRs and some meaningful draft capital expended on the supporting cast. On defense, it's all about keeping the opposing QB at bay. It's no coincidence that 5 of the top 6 picks over the last 2 drafts have been WRs and DBs. Would an impact tight end be of use? Sure. But how are you going get one if the draft and cap priorities are elsewhere? And if you go out and buy one, is there enough ball to go around to have the investment pay off? Probably not. Modest but meaningful production out of the TE position out of a low cost crew would be a positive. Anything more would be a pleasant surprise, even to the coaches I suspect. Thankfully, there is a recognition that winning in the two metrics noted above is not enough. But the TE position is not the deal breaker; the issues lie elsewhere. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
PackerDNA
SudsMcBucky
Latest posts
Good Bye J’aire Alexander
Latest: OldSchool101
14 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Packers Stock Sale
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 12:52 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
New Proposed Kick-Off Rule
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 12:49 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Brewers 2025!
Latest: weeds
Today at 12:23 PM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Top 30 Visits 2025
Latest: DoURant
Today at 11:11 AM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Packers visiting with TE Jermaine Gresham
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
