Preseason 2 Washington Redskins Studs/Duds

[gopkrs]

I think we traded up to get Spriggs because we needed depth and Spriggs had to have been higher on their board. High enough that they probably thought he was a future starter. I really do not see what is complicated or important about it. If it was a mistake; it won't be the last one.

 

[Mondio]

Which was my point and how this discussion got started. We don't know. Was it a luxury pick or a need pick? Personally, I think it was viewed as a need, not quite knowing what they were going to do or be able to do with Bahk and here sits a guy that was projected by some to go in round 1. But once they saw Spriggs practice and play, the Packers saw a need to get Bahk signed.

I think you got the first part right, it was a need as in a team always needs quality offensive linemen. Considering the history with a few of ours and a couple of upcoming FA's if you have a chance to nab a very highly rated tackle in the 2nd round, you do it. I think you're way off in thinking they quickly signed BahkT once they saw Spriggs play. I'm more inclined to think BahkT was in their plans from the start of the offseason.

Just for a refresher, besides the draft hype about Spriggs, this is what they were saying about him this time last year.

It’s safe to say the Packers are pleased – and probably a little surprised – with Spriggs’ performance and physicality at camp. He’s already right behind David Bakhtiari on the depth chart and he’ll get plenty of playing time in the preseason games.

Drafted in the second round out of Indiana, Spriggs has drawn the coaches’ attention during pass-blocking drills. These one-on-one combat sessions between an offensive lineman and a defensive pass rusher are graded as wins, losses, or ties. Spriggs got off to a fast start, earning an 8-3-2 record in the early days of training camp. Through Tuesday, he has added on eight straight wins, so he now stands 16-3-2 against some tough and talented pass rushers.

https://www.totalpackers.com/2016/08/jason-spriggs-great-investment/

But if there is any question as to why GB saw the fit to take a highly rated offensive lineman keep in mind that at the end of 2016 this is what they were facing as the headed into the draft that year. Bakhtiari, Sitton, and Lang would be in their final years of their contracts, backup J.C. Tretter was also in his last year. He was the only decent backup tackle on the roster at the time. And BahkT was coming off having torn ligaments in his ankle that required surgery.

 

[Sky King]

If you want all Packer players to succeed, you'll be rooting for 37 of them either invisible on the PS, wearing somebody else's uniform, or wearing no uniform at all.

It's a war of attrition and a zero sum game. When you get down to the position on the roster where Janis resides, in rooting for him to succeed you are de facto rooting for somebody else to fail. There's no way around that.

Now is a time for observation. Guys are being given an opportunity to beat him out. Rooting comes later when the roster is down to 53.

I understand your explanation but for me it rings way too cynical. Where the explanation seems flawed is the "defacto" claim. To be true TT, his staff and the coaches would be cheering for players to fail. They want them to succeed. All of them. Why wouldn't they? It's purely competitive. May the best player win.

As far as observation is concerned, what I have observed is that some forumites formulate an opinion on certain players at some point and nothing can change their minds about them. And if that player starts to show signs of improvement they refuse to acknowledge it even when recent multiple performances would seem to indicate otherwise. They're even outspoken about hoping a player will fail. It's one circumstance where "what have you done lately" doesn't apply (to the negative types). Saving face on a previously outspoken rush to judgment could mean they will root for a player to fail. No thanks to that.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not exactly. They received a different 2nd round pick in return - net loss of two picks The cost to move-up nine spots were the two later round picks. They still possessed a second round pick after the transaction, just one that was theoretically better than their original pick. Time will tell if that pick will be as valuable as the price that was paid for it.

Not exactly? How is it not exactly 3 picks that the Packers used to obtain Spriggs? It seems that you and Mondio fail to realize, they still had to use the pick obtained to draft Spriggs. If the Packers had 7 picks in a draft and they traded them all away to move up nine spots in the first round, how many picks did they use to obtain the one player they chose in that draft? Let me guess? You think 6? What happened to the 7th pick they started with?

Mondio and I have been going at this for weeks now and you don't understand it either? *shakes my head*

I respect a discussion on the pluses and minuses of the whole Spriggs move as it was then and as it sits now, but I am tired and done debating simple math.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think you got the first part right, it was a need as in a team always needs quality offensive linemen. Considering the history with a few of ours and a couple of upcoming FA's if you have a chance to nab a very highly rated tackle in the 2nd round, you do it. I think you're way off in thinking they quickly signed BahkT once they saw Spriggs play. I'm more inclined to think BahkT was in their plans from the start of the offseason.

Just for a refresher, besides the draft hype about Spriggs, this is what they were saying about him this time last year.



https://www.totalpackers.com/2016/08/jason-spriggs-great-investment/

But if there is any question as to why GB saw the fit to take a highly rated offensive lineman keep in mind that at the end of 2016 this is what they were facing as the headed into the draft that year. Bakhtiari, Sitton, and Lang would be in their final years of their contracts, backup J.C. Tretter was also in his last year. He was the only decent backup tackle on the roster at the time. And BahkT was coming off having torn ligaments in his ankle that required surgery.

Interesting quotes taken from an article written before any preseason games were played. Same article ended with:

"That strategy could prove to be brilliant if Spriggs lives up to the potential he is showing so far at training camp."

Let's hope all that optimism eventually pans out on Jason Spriggs.

 

[Sky King]

Not exactly? How is it not exactly 3 picks that the Packers used to obtain Spriggs? It seems that you and Mondio fail to realize, they still had to use the pick obtained to draft Spriggs. If the Packers had 7 picks in a draft and they traded them all away to move up nine spots in the first round, how many picks did they use to obtain the one player they chose in that draft? Let me guess? You think 6? What happened to the 7th pick they started with?

Mondio and I have been going at this for weeks now and you don't understand it either? *shakes my head*

I respect a discussion on the pluses and minuses of the whole Spriggs move as it was then and as it sits now, but I am tired and done debating simple math.

You went to public school, didn't you?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You went to public school, didn't you?

I read that and all I picture is this

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Sky King]

I read that and all I picture is this

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Some of your handiwork, I suppose?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Some of your handiwork, I suppose?

I'll just wait here for you to start "your momma" jokes.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Sky King]

I'll just wait here for you to start "your momma" jokes.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

This may help you. It's a quote from an article in Acme Packing Company regarding the 2016 draft results:

"The Green Bay Packers entered the 2016 NFL Draft with nine selections: their original pick in each round plus a pair of fourth-round compensatory selections. When all was said and done, General Manager Ted Thompson made one trade, which swapped three picks for one, and left the Packers with seven selections overall."

Let's see now. They started out with nine picks but actually only made seven picks. due to one transaction.

9-2=7

So, they had a net loss of two (2) picks. Where is the third pick you keep talking about? Take your time. You won't even need to remove your shoes and socks.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm still on the Janis bandwagon. He sucks at returning kickoffs, but I think he can have a impact in a game because of his size and speed. The physical tools are definitely there.

Janis has averaged 26.3 yards on 20 kickoff returns with the Packers. I'm not sure why you believe he sucks at it.

To me it's not so much whether or not he outjumps runs and muscles future car salesmen, it's whether he shows the looked for improvements in his game. Does he release better and more consistently, does he appear to run better routes and does he consistently catch the ball when it's thrown to him. According to JS staff he has improved in all of these phases.

I'm not optimistic about Janis having an impact as a receiver because there were similar reports about him having significantly improved during training camp in past years as well. That faded pretty quickly once the season started though.

LOL.....How is pointing out that they used 3 picks (#57, #125 and #248) dramatic? Did they not use 3 picks to draft Spriggs? Not sure why you have a problem with a fact or why you think it's dramatic to mention it when talking about how Spriggs was acquired.

The reason Mondio has a problem with it is that you dared to criticize a move made by Thompson.

I think Dix can do it. Burnett I don't. HaHa and Brice might be what we are looking for. imho

The coaching staff will definitely continue to use Burnett as the strong safety lining up close to the LOS. It's true that he isn't a good fit playing deep though.

As far as observation is concerned, what I have observed is that some forumites formulate an opinion on certain players at some point and nothing can change their minds about them. And if that player starts to show signs of improvement they refuse to acknowledge it even when recent multiple performances would seem to indicate otherwise. They're even outspoken about hoping a player will fail. It's one circumstance where "what have you done lately" doesn't apply (to the negative types). Saving face on a previously outspoken rush to judgment could mean they will root for a player to fail. No thanks to that.

I haven't seen a single poster roiting for a player to fail. That's a ridiculous statement to make.

This may help you. It's a quote from an article in Acme Packing Company regarding the 2016 draft results:

"The Green Bay Packers entered the 2016 NFL Draft with nine selections: their original pick in each round plus a pair of fourth-round compensatory selections. When all was said and done, General Manager Ted Thompson made one trade, which swapped three picks for one, and left the Packers with seven selections overall."

Let's see now. They started out with nine picks but actually only made seven picks. due to one transaction.

9-2=7

So, they had a net loss of two (2) picks. Where is the third pick you keep talking about? Take your time. You won't even need to remove your shoes and socks.

It's amazing how many Packers fans have a hard time understanding simple math. While it's true the team took a net loss of two picks to move up nine spots in the second round of last year's draft there's no doubt at all Thompson used three selections to draft Spriggs.

 

[Sky King]

I haven't seen a single poster roiting for a player to fail. That's a ridiculous statement to make.

Hardly.

It's amazing how many Packers fans have a hard time understanding simple math. While it's true the team took a net loss of two picks to move up nine spots in the second round of last year's draft there's no doubt at all Thompson used three selections to draft Spriggs

It's not the many Packer fans that you condescendingly refer to in your statement above that do not understand simple math and what the term "net loss" represents.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This may help you. It's a quote from an article in Acme Packing Company regarding the 2016 draft results:

"The Green Bay Packers entered the 2016 NFL Draft with nine selections: their original pick in each round plus a pair of fourth-round compensatory selections. When all was said and done, General Manager Ted Thompson made one trade, which swapped three picks for one, and left the Packers with seven selections overall."

Let's see now. They started out with nine picks but actually only made seven picks. due to one transaction.

9-2=7

So, they had a net loss of two (2) picks. Where is the third pick you keep talking about? Take your time. You won't even need to remove your shoes and socks.

Again, in case you missed it before, I am done debating the math on the Spriggs pick, if you can't understand how the Packers used 3 of their draft picks to obtain Spriggs, 2 instant "net losses" of picks and the jury is still out on whether the 3rd pick is a loss or a gain, then you really should stop questioning me about my education and ask yourself about your own..

You went to public school, didn't you?

 

[Mondio]

what's funny is he thinks I don't actually get where he's coming from with "3 picks" I get it. and I find it as annoying as the Vikings fan that use to troll the ESPN boards years ago and argue that Clay Matthews cost us 4 players because we gave up 3 picks and used a 2nd rounder to pick him, 4 picks, 4 players to that guy. I think it's funny. and telling. forget the context that basically using 2 3rd rounders put us back in the 1st round to pick a premier pass rusher. Because that's what the trade was. a swapped 2nd for a 1st and 3 3rds, oh, and we got some later round pick too, but that doesn't matter when there's an agenda to argue and context to ignore. day after day that guy would come on and say Matthews was ok, but he wasn't worth 4 players.

It would be like me arguing we picked King for free, he cost us nothing because we had a pick and after we picked him we still had a pick. See, the math works, 1 pick still equals 1 pick. He was free. I would never argue something like that. In both situations, they had a player rated, and were able to move to where they thought they could get him. who knows if either will be worth it. we had 3 4th round picks. maybe they looked at their board and figured they'd get enough value from those 2 picks and decided to use one to move up? It's not like we had a single 4th round pick, we had three, all towards the end of the round and all within about 5 picks of the previous + or-. I don't really care to go back and count and be precise. With guys like Daniels and our starting left tackle being 4th rounders, i understand that every pick is valuable. But if I have 3 of something all of basically the same value and i can use 1 to nab a guy some had as a 1st round rated talent? I guess they accuse Ted of being to safe when it suits them and accuse him of being too loose when it suits them.

It might turn out Spriggs is nothing more than hype from College, in which case it was a bad choice. anyway, I if you saw no need for the Packers to take an offensive lineman that was that highly rated when they had a chance, I guess I'd like to hear the logic? 3 of 5 starters were heading into FA after the season, your top back up was heading to FA after the season. Heading into the season, 1 starter was recovering from 5 torn ankle ligaments, Lang had a shoulder injury that would require surgery in offseason, Sitton had has back and foot injuries again to end 2015. Bulaga missed more games with a knee injury etc. and we saw Rodgers get hammered in a few games at the end of 2015. I guess if you saw no need for quality offensive lineman, you didn't see a need. Needless to say, I'd disagree.

I think they wanted to get BahkT locked up regardless, and they did.

 

[Candidate for Deletion]

No, that's still hindsight.

"All things considered, it didn't work out." -> Not Hindsight.

"It was a bad pick because other things happened." -> Complete and total hindsight.

It needs to examined at the time with what is known at the time. Obviously, we don't know the whole story with front offices being secretive.

To recap:

"Letting Hayward walk was a bad decision, because all of our other corners were hurt. We should have kept him." -> Hindsight.

"We shouldn't have drafted Spriggs, because we resigned Bhak." -> Hindsight.

wow, what a tedious way to be wrong.

 

[PackAttack12]

Always cracks me up seeing someone question the intelligence of another when the person doing the questioning is just flat out wrong.

 

[PackAttack12]

what's funny is he thinks I don't actually get where he's coming from with "3 picks" I get it. and I find it as annoying as the Vikings fan that use to troll the ESPN boards years ago and argue that Clay Matthews cost us 4 players because we gave up 3 picks and used a 2nd rounder to pick him, 4 picks, 4 players to that guy. I think it's funny. and telling. forget the context that basically using 2 3rd rounders put us back in the 1st round to pick a premier pass rusher. Because that's what the trade was. a swapped 2nd for a 1st and 3 3rds, oh, and we got some later round pick too, but that doesn't matter when there's an agenda to argue and context to ignore. day after day that guy would come on and say Matthews was ok, but he wasn't worth 4 players.

It would be like me arguing we picked King for free, he cost us nothing because we had a pick and after we picked him we still had a pick. See, the math works, 1 pick still equals 1 pick. He was free. I would never argue something like that. In both situations, they had a player rated, and were able to move to where they thought they could get him. who knows if either will be worth it. we had 3 4th round picks. maybe they looked at their board and figured they'd get enough value from those 2 picks and decided to use one to move up? It's not like we had a single 4th round pick, we had three, all towards the end of the round and all within about 5 picks of the previous + or-. I don't really care to go back and count and be precise. With guys like Daniels and our starting left tackle being 4th rounders, i understand that every pick is valuable. But if I have 3 of something all of basically the same value and i can use 1 to nab a guy some had as a 1st round rated talent? I guess they accuse Ted of being to safe when it suits them and accuse him of being too loose when it suits them.

It might turn out Spriggs is nothing more than hype from College, in which case it was a bad choice. anyway, I if you saw no need for the Packers to take an offensive lineman that was that highly rated when they had a chance, I guess I'd like to hear the logic? 3 of 5 starters were heading into FA after the season, your top back up was heading to FA after the season. Heading into the season, 1 starter was recovering from 5 torn ankle ligaments, Lang had a shoulder injury that would require surgery in offseason, Sitton had has back and foot injuries again to end 2015. Bulaga missed more games with a knee injury etc. and we saw Rodgers get hammered in a few games at the end of 2015. I guess if you saw no need for quality offensive lineman, you didn't see a need. Needless to say, I'd disagree.

I think they wanted to get BahkT locked up regardless, and they did.

And after all that being said, the Packers still invested three draft choices in Spriggs.

 

[Mondio]

awwe, you're cute

 

[PackAttack12]

awwe, you're cute

I know that facts are sometimes hard, but they are what they are. Why some have trouble accepting them is beyond me.

 

[easyk83]

I'm not optimistic about Janis having an impact as a receiver because there were similar reports about him having significantly improved during training camp in past years as well. That faded pretty quickly once the season started though.

Im pretty sure that at this time last year that the narrative was that he was still struggling with route running and still made too many mistake while running said routes.

http://archive.jsonline.com/sports/...truggling-in-camp-b99555431z1-321698201.html/

 

[Mondio]

why try logic? of course one would have to accept that draft picks are all equal in value, which all know they are not. You're arguing something that is not fact, you just like to assume it is so, because you can't follow logic? or you just don't want to.

It's like arguing that loaf of bread is going to cost me 5 pieces of currency and then you're using pesos or dollars. They aren't the same and end sum math doesn't apply. Unless of course you have an agenda and would like it to.

 

[Sky King]

what's funny is he thinks I don't actually get where he's coming from with "3 picks" I get it. and I find it as annoying as the Vikings fan that use to troll the ESPN boards years ago and argue that Clay Matthews cost us 4 players because we gave up 3 picks and used a 2nd rounder to pick him, 4 picks, 4 players to that guy. I think it's funny. and telling. forget the context that basically using 2 3rd rounders put us back in the 1st round to pick a premier pass rusher. Because that's what the trade was. a swapped 2nd for a 1st and 3 3rds, oh, and we got some later round pick too, but that doesn't matter when there's an agenda to argue and context to ignore. day after day that guy would come on and say Matthews was ok, but he wasn't worth 4 players.

It would be like me arguing we picked King for free, he cost us nothing because we had a pick and after we picked him we still had a pick. See, the math works, 1 pick still equals 1 pick. He was free. I would never argue something like that. In both situations, they had a player rated, and were able to move to where they thought they could get him. who knows if either will be worth it. we had 3 4th round picks. maybe they looked at their board and figured they'd get enough value from those 2 picks and decided to use one to move up? It's not like we had a single 4th round pick, we had three, all towards the end of the round and all within about 5 picks of the previous + or-. I don't really care to go back and count and be precise. With guys like Daniels and our starting left tackle being 4th rounders, i understand that every pick is valuable. But if I have 3 of something all of basically the same value and i can use 1 to nab a guy some had as a 1st round rated talent? I guess they accuse Ted of being to safe when it suits them and accuse him of being too loose when it suits them.

It might turn out Spriggs is nothing more than hype from College, in which case it was a bad choice. anyway, I if you saw no need for the Packers to take an offensive lineman that was that highly rated when they had a chance, I guess I'd like to hear the logic? 3 of 5 starters were heading into FA after the season, your top back up was heading to FA after the season. Heading into the season, 1 starter was recovering from 5 torn ankle ligaments, Lang had a shoulder injury that would require surgery in offseason, Sitton had has back and foot injuries again to end 2015. Bulaga missed more games with a knee injury etc. and we saw Rodgers get hammered in a few games at the end of 2015. I guess if you saw no need for quality offensive lineman, you didn't see a need. Needless to say, I'd disagree.

I think they wanted to get BahkT locked up regardless, and they did.

I think it's safe to conclude that a few posters could not possibly be bookkeepers.

 

[Poppa San]

I know that facts are sometimes hard, but they are what they are. Why some have trouble accepting them is beyond me.

Because we found something besides TT can't draft or Janis can't run routes or the defense flat out sucks because of Capers to pick to death while waiting for opening day.

 

[easyk83]

How do you feel about your vendor stand this year?

 

[Mondio]

Because we found something besides TT can't draft or Janis can't run routes or the defense flat out sucks because of Capers to pick to death while waiting for opening day.

oh, there's still an element of TT can't draft. Just wait