Why do the Packers seem to do this?

[Sunshinepacker]

as far as OLB contracts go, this was not a massive deal with what, 18M guaranteed? I read it somewhere about Mack, The Raiders were terrible on defense with him and are terrible without him. Bears were good on defense without him, they're good with him, but he's been silenced the past couple weeks and has career stats about like Matthews at the same point in their careers. The biggest knock on Perry was injury anything else is just revisionist history and he looked pretty good in a year he was mostly healthy.

The Bears were good without him, they're great with him. It's not revisionist to point out that Perry is constantly injured and only played through those injuries in a contract year, that's what happened. And NO defensive player makes a defense good or bad on their own, their is no defensive equivalent of a QB. However, having a top-5 defensive player goes a long way towards making a good defense.

And where do you see that Perry and Matthews are similar?! In Clay's first 6 years he had 61 sacks; Perry has 30.5 sacks in his first six years! So if you meant literally half by "about like" then I agree....

 

[Mondio]

Maybe check Matthews and Mack, the two guys I was comparing. And the Bears are still in 4th place in the division. Great is right

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I forgot to address this.

In 2016, Perry had 11 sacks in 14 games.
In 2016, Ingram had 8 sacks in 16 games.
In 2016, Jones had 11 sacks in 16 games.
In 2015 (his last year before FA), Vernon had 7.5 sacks in 16 games.

Sacks aren't the end all, be all, but they're not meaningless either. And you can look into other metrics. Perry's 2016 season heading into free agency was on a level with those guys, and was more productive than any of them in terms of getting to the QB.

I agree, his 2016 year was very good. The problem was 2012-2015. The Eagles, for some reason, only played Ingram situationally even though many were pointing out that he was very good when he was on the field.

Chandler Jones isn't even close; yes, he had 11 sacks in 2016. He also had 12.5 in 2015 and 11.5 in 2013. Vernon had fewer sacks in 2015 but he was third in the league in QB hits in 2015 with 36 that season (for reference, Perry had 16 QBhits in 2016).

 

[Dantés]

I agree, his 2016 year was very good. The problem was 2012-2015. The Eagles, for some reason, only played Ingram situationally even though many were pointing out that he was very good when he was on the field.

Chandler Jones isn't even close; yes, he had 11 sacks in 2016. He also had 12.5 in 2015 and 11.5 in 2013. Vernon had fewer sacks in 2015 but he was third in the league in QB hits in 2015 with 36 that season (for reference, Perry had 16 QBhits in 2016).

Ingram is a Charger, not an Eagle, and he was a full time starter.

I agree that Jones is better than Perry, but based on 2016 they were comparable. And his superiority was majorly priced in. He got 5/82.5/51, verses 5/59/18.5. Vernon signed a year earlier, under a lower cap, and got 5/85/52.

So what I'm saying is that Perry, who played at a level comparable to those guys in 2016 (i.e. when he was healthy), was retained at a relative discount due to his durability issues and lack of a track record (as a result of said durability issues).

 

[Dantés]

The other option would have been to either franchise Perry or let him walk. I'm not a fan of signing guys that are constantly hurt and only play through those injuries in a contract year. When i say he only showed up in the contract year, that's what i meant, he only played through the injuries (effectively) in a contract year. We've seen the results of paying for one year's worth of a guy actually performing over an entire season, and it's not pretty.

But to let him walk, you'd have to replace him. And the options were just not there. I can't speak or you in particular, but I think that most of the fans that now criticize the FO for extending Perry would have been calling for their heads had they allowed him to walk without a legitimate replacement.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

But to let him walk, you'd have to replace him. And the options were just not there. I can't speak or you in particular, but I think that most of the fans that now criticize the FO for extending Perry would have been calling for their heads had they allowed him to walk without a legitimate replacement.

And it turns out that replacing him wouldn't have been that hard...Reggie Gilbert has more than replaced him on a rookie deal; not snaps obviously, but certainly in performance.

 

[gonzozab]

Because accountability is slow to come from the top. Murphy held on way too long to Teddy as GM and now his subpar drafts are catching up to him as the team is now only a borderline playoff team, and that's only because Rodgers is still the best QB in the game. Interestingly enough, Rob Demovsky just put out a column on this today. A great read.

http://www.espn.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/46040

 

[Dantés]

And it turns out that replacing him wouldn't have been that hard...Reggie Gilbert has more than replaced him on a rookie deal; not snaps obviously, but certainly in performance.

That's hindsight analysis. No FO could have been expected to realize that their great, homegrown pass rusher would regress after extension to the point that he would be this easy to replace.

During the 2017 offseason, if someone had suggested that the Packers let Perry walk and just replace him with Reggie Gilbert, they would have been ridiculed into oblivion.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

That's hindsight analysis. No FO could have been expected to realize that their great, homegrown pass rusher would regress after extension to the point that he would be this easy to replace.

During the 2017 offseason, if someone had suggested that the Packers let Perry walk and just replace him with Reggie Gilbert, they would have been ridiculed into oblivion.

If the front office had said they didn't trust the defensive equivalent of Doug Martin to stay healthy after he got paid, lots of people would have understood. Fear of ridicule is not a good management strategy.

 

[PikeBadger]

In Gute's case, I think he realized next year is supposed to be a good draft for pass rushers, while this year was a good year for secondary. Knowing we had so many holes, he addressed the secondary in this draft and is waiting until next year to address the pass rush. And they have two first round picks. I think it's a two year plan (at least).

Ted would leave holes in the team, but I think in his mind he had drafted young athletes that were supposed to step up and fill those spots. So he would wait until the next draft to address those spots. Because he was a draft and develop guy, plus he was cheap. He did dip into free agency here and there, but it had to be on his terms. "Next man up" did work pretty well in 2010, but that was a talented team.

Free agency should ALWAYS be on the general managers terms. The organizations that dive headlong into free agency and surrender to players terms generally end up in rebuilding mode 2-3 years later and get caught up in annual roster churning. The 2010 team was ravaged by injuries but was miraculously supplemented by off the street free agents and practice squad guys that performed very well for us as well as first contract guys that over performed their salary.

 

[Dantés]

If the front office had said they didn't trust the defensive equivalent of Doug Martin to stay healthy after he got paid, lots of people would have understood. Fear of ridicule is not a good management strategy.

I don't think the FO themselves were afraid of ridicule. I think they were afraid of letting a good edge rusher go without a viable alternative.

 

[rmontro]

The Lions traded for Damon Harrison today. Will Gute make a move before the trade deadline?

Calling Mack a success or failure at this point for the bears is extremely premature. Sure he's better for their defense. and if Trub never develops was the draft picks and cap cost worth it? we'll find out.

I'd be very surprised if the Bears ended up declaring Mack a failure. He would make anyone's defense better, and they pick up a star player who will sell tickets and merchandise. The Bears aren't the Patriots, where if they don't win the Super Bowl it will be considered a failure.

The organizations that dive headlong into free agency and surrender to players terms generally end up in rebuilding mode 2-3 years later and get caught up in annual roster churning. The 2010 team was ravaged by injuries but was miraculously supplemented by off the street free agents and practice squad guys that performed very well for us as well as first contract guys that over performed their salary.

I don't think anyone is suggesting reckless spending.
As for the first contract guys who over performed, that's the secret ingredient, isn't it? A large supply of young, inexpensive, effective athletes. I guess Ted failed when his picks stopped paying off.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I don't think the FO themselves were afraid of ridicule. I think they were afraid of letting a good edge rusher go without a viable alternative.

I agree, but I think the critical factor here was that they were betting against the history of such players and hoping he would be the exception. By signing him, and vastly overpaying for what he's produced, they effectively locked in a non-viable starter that prevents them from affording other options.

Sure, letting him walk might have hurt, but they wouldn't have been wasting $14m in cap space on him each year.

 

[Mondio]

And it turns out that replacing him wouldn't have been that hard...Reggie Gilbert has more than replaced him on a rookie deal; not snaps obviously, but certainly in performance.

I’m not so sure about that. Watch where a lot of big runs go and who’s in the field

I don't think the FO themselves were afraid of ridicule. I think they were afraid of letting a good edge rusher go without a viable alternative.

and as you pointed out earlier, they protected themselves probably as best they could against injury with a guaranteed bonus less than half of what other comparable FA or signed before becoming FAs were gettinngnof his caliber.

 

[Poppa San]

Gee another week and another WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? hindsight is 20/20 thread.

 

[Caya]

This is just my opinion but it seems like they are slow to fix their issues.
Example we all knew for the past couple of seasons they need pass rush depth but they ignored it i still think they have not realised they need help.
They ignore the safety problems at the minute i do not think they will fix it in the off season.
In about 2 seasons (I am being sarcastic) MM will realise we need to run Aaron Jones more.
It is like they do not realise what issues they have they seem to ignore it.
Is it down to MM being stuborn (and the front office).

Maybe it is just me thinking wrong i do not know.

MM is one of the most stubborn coaches I have ever seen. We could’ve picked up Kenny Vaccaro, Eric Reed, and a few other safeties but they thought they were fine with what they had. I think maybe sometimes they are a little too optimistic as well. They also have to think About re-signing a few of their younger stud players in the coming years.

 

[Mike McCarthy]

Because accountability is slow to come from the top. Murphy held on way too long to Teddy as GM and now his subpar drafts are catching up to him as the team is now only a borderline playoff team, and that's only because Rodgers is still the best QB in the game. Interestingly enough, Rob Demovsky just put out a column on this today. A great read.

http://www.espn.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/46040

Article is absolutely 100% spot on. So why hang on to Teddy in any role at this point is what I’d like to know. Pretty obvious he was asleep at the wheel for quite some time managing this team.

 

[Dantés]

I agree, but I think the critical factor here was that they were betting against the history of such players and hoping he would be the exception. By signing him, and vastly overpaying for what he's produced, they effectively locked in a non-viable starter that prevents them from affording other options.

Sure, letting him walk might have hurt, but they wouldn't have been wasting $14m in cap space on him each year.

I think it's totally fair to say that he hasn't come close to paying off on this second contract. However, what I'm saying is that on the front end of it, it was the most sensible option in most people's opinion, and they priced in the durability discount by paying him about 5M less per season than the other top edge rushers to sign in that same general time frame, and giving only 31% guaranteed versus 62%.

In other words, the Packers weren't blind to Perry's risks-- a comparison of numbers illustrates that they baked his injury history into the cake. But they decided the risk in extending him was lower than the risk of letting him go without a viable alternative, and I can't fault them for that.

 

[Dantés]

MM is one of the most stubborn coaches I have ever seen. We could’ve picked up Kenny Vaccaro, Eric Reed, and a few other safeties but they thought they were fine with what they had. I think maybe sometimes they are a little too optimistic as well. They also have to think About re-signing a few of their younger stud players in the coming years.

I've been basically agnostic about this whole kneeling controversy, and I wasn't opposed to signing Reid just because he cares about certain causes and chooses to express his views by kneeling. But since he picked a fight at mid field with an opponent over his own agenda, I'm feeling just fine that the Packers never picked up the phone. Screw him. He's selfish. Apparently the whole world is unjust to him by not respecting his choice to kneel, but he's apparently justified in going after another player for making his own choices? That's ******** and if I was a Panthers' fan, I'd be calling for him to unceremoniously dumped onto the street. Clown.

 

[Firethorn1001]

With TT, I'd agree that the front office was slow to react to change or to move on. I'll give Gutey the benefit of the doubt right now. Realistically, there was only so much he could have done last year with a limited cap situation and Rodgers contract in the background. I think releasing several TT draft picks (Biegel, Rollins, trading Randall) shows that he is willing to walk away from a situation that isn't the greatest and with the number of leaks they sprung, all their issues weren't getting fixed in one offseason.

 

[Packer Brother]

Also it seems to be a trend of starting seasons slowly and then playing well in November/December...which isn't all that bad, but still results in loss of home-field advantage.[/QUOTE]

This is a myth. In 2011, the team got apparently worse as the season wore on (Record didn't show it because they played thrash opponents. Then the Giants slapped them silly). The 2015 team started out 6-0 and collapsed down the stretch. The 2017 team missed the postseason. 2014 loss to Buffalo cost them a SB.

Regardless, this is MM's last season. This team will get curb stomped by LA & NE.

 

[Packer Brother]

With TT, I'd agree that the front office was slow to react to change or to move on. I'll give Gutey the benefit of the doubt right now. Realistically, there was only so much he could have done last year with a limited cap situation and Rodgers contract in the background. I think releasing several TT draft picks (Biegel, Rollins, trading Randall) shows that he is willing to walk away from a situation that isn't the greatest and with the number of leaks they sprung, all their issues weren't getting fixed in one offseason.

What bothers me, and maybe it's just my hate for TT showing, is the fact Thompson was kept on as a "Scout"/"advisor". It's obvious that Murphy didn't want him to be a GM anymore. Just fire the guy. He didn't do his job here. No need to make him feel better by keeping him around. This is a business.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

well yeah it's obvious. But i'm not disappointed in our draft picks.

Don't get me wrong, I think Gutekunst had a pretty good draft this year. I was surprised the Packers didn't add any edge rusher aside of Donnerson though.

Imagine how much easier it might have been to trade for Mack, or some other actual elite pass rusher, if the team didn't have $14m a year going to a guy with about as much on-field impact as Erik Walden with a better pedigree.

There's no guarantee the Raiders would have agreed to trade Mack to the Packers if they had more cap space. In addition how would you have replaced Perry in 2017???

The two seasons prior to this season, the Packers have a combined 9-11 record through the first 10 games. They always seem to "flip a switch" come November/December.

Well, I don't care what happened with Hundley starting.

It's hard to make the case that that's been the Packers' problem. They've drafted a ton of athletic potential. They just haven't seen it pay off.

Unfortunatley Thompson didn't draft any good football players over his last three years aside of Clark.

And it turns out that replacing him wouldn't have been that hard...Reggie Gilbert has more than replaced him on a rookie deal; not snaps obviously, but certainly in performance.

You're using hindsight to evaluate the situation though. There was no way Thompson could have expected it to turn out that way in March 2017.

The 2010 team was ravaged by injuries but was miraculously supplemented by off the street free agents and practice squad guys that performed very well for us as well as first contract guys that over performed their salary.

You have to remember that 2010 was an uncapped season as well

They also have to think About re-signing a few of their younger stud players in the coming years.

Clark is the only young stud headed towards free agency in the near future.

 

[Dantés]

Unfortunatley Thompson didn't draft any good football players over his last three years aside of Clark.

He also drafted our entire backfield over the last three years, and I think that's a good group. And Blake Martinez is a *good* football player-- not great, but solid. And I like what I've seen from Lowry last year and this year. We will see what happens with King, Jones, and Adams. I have hope for King, but not much for the other guys.

Bottom line though, they're three unimpressive drafts in a row and they're weighing the current roster down.

 

[rmontro]

You have to remember that 2010 was an uncapped season as well

Hmm, I had forgotten that. I wonder if that affects the perception of Thompson's performance and philosophy that he wasn't able to get it done under a capped season?