Packers Question of the Day: Free Agency

If there's any indication that the general manager Ted Thompson and the Packers went "all in" this offseason, look no further than the seven free agents the team has signed since March.

Does this approach indicate a change in Ted Thompson's philosophy, a sign that Eliot Wolf (someone who many presume to be next-in-line once Thompson's tenure is finished) is behind the decisions or did Thompson just take Aaron Rodgers' "all in" comments to heart?

It could just be Thompson used free agency to address the players he lost, which was a hefty handful. He may have had no choice.

Leave your thoughts below.

__________________________

Zachary Jacobson is a staff writer/reporter for Cheesehead TV. He's the voice of The Leap on iTunes and can be heard on The Scoop KLGR 1490 AM every Saturday morning. He's also a contributor on the Pack-A-Day Podcast. He can be found on Twitter via @ZachAJacobson or contacted through email at [email protected].

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (68)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
jeremyjjbrown's picture

September 06, 2017 at 10:44 am

"He may have had no choice."

Well, he had a choice to continue the way they did things before. I hope he finally accepted that they were not going to win a championship that way, and bringing in affordable help is a necessary evil.

That said I have gone from very dubious about this defense to actaully excited. I think that they could finish in the top half of the league and that would be a huge boon to SuperBowl chances.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
KenEllis's picture

September 06, 2017 at 11:20 am

TT had NO CHOICE but to add a veteran Safety when he let Woodson go after the 2012 season, but he instead chose to go with his draft pick Jerron McMillian and undrafted free agent M.D. Jennings.

TT had NO CHOICE but to scour the league for a competent backup QB going into 2013, but instead went all offseason with his own undrafted guy Graham Harrell until it was too late to find anyone worthwhile and he was forced to pick up Seneca Wallace.

TT had NO CHOICE but to go outside the organization to find at least one competent inside linebacker going into 2014. Instead, he insisted that the team play AJ Hawk and Brad Jones (two of his draft picks who he signed to big second contracts). When Jones proved so incompetent that he was benched after game 1 in Seattle, the team was forced to play undrafted free agent Jamari Lattimore. When Hawk's deficiencies proved to great to ignore any longer, Clay was forced to move to ILB.

TT had NO CHOICE but to look around the league for a legitimate TE threat in 2015. Instead, he saddled ARod with his plodding 2014 3rd round pick Richard Rodgers and some overweight guy off the street that he uncovered named Justin Perrillo.

TT had NO CHOICE but to sign or trade for a decent RB heading into 2016 given Lacy's lack of commitment in 2015 and the fact Starks was >30. Yet, he chose to go into 2016 with only with those two to start the season, a choice that led to predictable results.

These are but some of the recent scenarios in which Ted Thompson had NO CHOICE but to look outside the organization to add at least complementary players but did not do so.

Something has changed in 2017 in Green Bay when it comes to adding veteran players from outside the organization and it would be great if our intrepid press corps could get to the bottom of what caused this change.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bear's picture

September 06, 2017 at 11:30 am

Why?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dschwalm's picture

September 06, 2017 at 12:45 pm

Good post. I had forgotten about some of the strange decisions he has made over the years, but now I don't care WHY he changed his traditional strategy. I hope it's in time!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 06, 2017 at 12:55 pm

"Something has changed in 2017 in Green Bay when it comes to adding veteran players from outside the organization and it would be great if our intrepid press corps could get to the bottom of what caused this change."

Putin.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bure9620's picture

September 06, 2017 at 08:09 pm

Bahaha

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

September 07, 2017 at 03:57 am

Excellent KenEllis. The pattern was; TT played it too conservative previously. He's broken new ground albeit not doing so irresponsibly, and still holds to his guiding principle; value for money. But this is a shift, regardless of whether a little luck played a factor. Many of us posters just wanted to see TT capitalize on more of these opps to get FA vets over past 5 years. Kudos to TT for getting more aggressive after the draft, and Kudos for getting them inked in team friendly deals.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Johnblood27's picture

September 06, 2017 at 10:11 am

The bottom of the roster was thin, TT had no choice when the GBP FA were all overvalued by others or undervalued by TT and walked for greener pastures.

There just wasnt the NFL talent to fill from bottom up this time.

If this team doesnt win big, NOBODY can say TT didnt go get middle of the pack FA to fill holes. The blame gamers will have to point elsewhere.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

September 06, 2017 at 10:14 am

Not necessarily true, because I will be the 1st one to say he loaded up on too many mediocre players, and not enough difference makers.
This team needed play-makers, only time will tell if they found any.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
ejr450's picture

September 06, 2017 at 10:47 am

Who should it have been? Alshon Jefferey? Calais Campbell for $15M per year? AJ Bouye for $15M per year? Or TJ Watt instead of King & Biegel?

We got 2 playmakers - Perry and Bennett at below market rates.

I think what TT is doing is a great approach. He mentioned that the roster had gotten a little stale last year. This is focused attempts to strengthen the roster with quality players. If a viable swing OL shows up (John Greco anyone?) I'm all set.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

September 06, 2017 at 11:02 am

Perry was already here, so obviously that's not an addition is it?
And yes, he's a play-maker assuming he can stay healthy.
Bennett I'll give you, but we needed about 2-3 more on that level to make a difference. That's the type of player I'm talking about.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

September 06, 2017 at 11:17 am

Finwiz, "Perry was already here". Ah, no. He was a FA (or about to be, I don't remember) who happened to be a Packers player, so that argument is completely false. TT made sensible additions under the methods the Packers use to manage the cap. He was NOT going to go against his instincts and load up with expensive "playmaker" FA's who might or might not pan out.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

September 06, 2017 at 12:43 pm

It's about making a difference to the talent on the team, from 2016.
Since Perry was already here in 2016, it doesn't matter one iota FA or otherwise, we need to increase talent with difference makers not maintain the status quo.
You seem like an intelligent guy, so I am not sure why that was so difficult to comprehend.
Assuming Perry was a diff maker, (a rather large stretch IMO) we needed another one or two like him on defense.
Ahmad Brooks replaces Peppers sack total, so don't come at me with that one.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 06, 2017 at 12:45 pm

...and I would argue that the teams that seem to be full of "playmakers" are usually reaping the benefits of hitting the jackpot in the draft. They're getting guys who stepped into signficant roles immediately--on rookie contracts--and are making good on those opportunities.

You can only afford a small number of real difference makers on 2nd and 3rd contracts. Those guys who made your roster look so good want to get paid, and you can only keep so many of them.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

September 06, 2017 at 01:01 pm

I don't disagree at all Dobber.
I guess you are indicting the quality of the players TT has drafted the last few years.
It really kills a team if you can't find at least one a year that's a star, or at least 1 every 2 years.
By star I mean pro-bowl player.
On defense (since this is what we need) a double digit sack guy, and a 7-8 INT guy, from a current, or 1-2 year prior draft class.
Most recent guy they got like this on D was Ha-Ha, and I think he's not quite on the star level yet. Ascending and close, but not quite there.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 07, 2017 at 09:22 am

Think of it this way...if Perry left, would it have been a loss?

If so, then resigning him was an addition.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

September 06, 2017 at 12:34 pm

Finwiz -
'but we needed about 2-3 more on that level to make a difference. That's the type of player I'm talking about.'

Can't those 2-3 players come from within the team itself?

Just some names that could be considered play makers or have the ability to become play makers/difference makers this year...

Ty Montgomery - The ultimate weapon. He is such a unique player and will be a matchup nightmare for defenses.

Davante Adams - While this maybe an odd pick, just saying what if he explodes this year? And more then last year. With Nelson and our TE's and Ty, Adams could be the guy who flourishes the most.

Trevor Davis - His first punt return was explosive. He also added 2 more extremely good punt returns. If he becomes and explosive returner he becomes a dangerous weapon for us. Also perhaps we will see his speed used on offense on occasion.

Kenny Clark/Lowry - They become the players many of us think they will , they will be be shutting down offenses.

Randall/Rollins - Randall and Rollins had 5 interceptions their rookie year combined. Last year they had 4 while they missed a lot of games and were injured. With them being healthy again they could become the play making players we were hoping for when we drafted them.

King/Jones - King has the traits to become very good. We have yet to see if he will become a ball hawk, but he has the potential to be. Also he could help take away bigger WR's.
Jones is so fast and can hit. We have yet to see how they plan on using him, but he come be the middle of the field player we have been missing.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

September 06, 2017 at 01:07 pm

Yes those players CAN come within your own talent, and/or draft choices.
The question is, the probability of that happening, vs. hiring a known FA that has a proven history of success.
Listen, I know it isn't practical to think they were going to add more than one salary on the level of Bennett, but the defense surely needs it, and probably more than the offense.
I hope your lofty predictions for our own draft choices come to pass, because I will certainly be watching (and hoping) closely.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

September 06, 2017 at 01:03 pm

In all honesty, I think going after FA's can be just as bad as it can be good. A player maybe great on one team because they know how to use them. But may not fit as well with another team. A couple of examples of this are Jimmy Graham and Jarius Byrd. They were supposed to be the playmakers that changed their teams around. There are many, many more examples.

I am not saying Jones and King will be the playmakers, just saying that they maybe could be. They have the potential to be.
Just like the others that I mentioned.

Also every year there seems to be a player or 2 that emerges when you never expected them too. Maybe that guy is Aaron Jones (who looked good in the preseason). Maybe that guy is Brice who looks to have taken a step in year 2. Maybe that guy is Allison who looked very good in preseason.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bure9620's picture

September 06, 2017 at 08:15 pm

Totally agree, there a Just as many FA aquisitions that don't turn out well and typically you are stuck paying them a lot of money. Albert Haynesworth anyone?? Okay he is an extreme example but there are many that don't work. Could be the scheme, the culture, the locker room, or they turn out to be on the decline..

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

September 07, 2017 at 07:31 am

Exactly...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

September 07, 2017 at 07:46 am

I completely, 100% agree. Looking for "playmakers" in FA will more often than not eventually yield the opportunity to add one with one of the first 10 picks in the draft.

Every single team in the NFL is looking to keep their important, core players. The ones that get to FA get there because the team that knows them best did not prioritize keeping them enough. Throwing big $$ at "playmakers" from that pool of players is more risky than the draft because of the cap hits involved. Once you start eating some bad contracts, you are forced to let more good younger players walk and the downward spiral has begun.

The proper use of FA* is to find solid players at a reasonable price to fill in specific gaps in the roster. The key part of the equation is a prudent risk/reward balance in regards to the cap. Over the years, TT has not done enough of that. For this past offseason, he did a fantastic job of it. I don't know why 2017 was different than in years past. I don't care. I'm just excited to get into the season to watch it play out.

*--Applies equally to trading for vets from other teams.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 06, 2017 at 12:58 pm

I think the end result is that the talent level on this team is better than in 2015 and 2016 (I'm not going to touch 2014). The floor has been raised.

Let's play some games and see what happens.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

September 06, 2017 at 01:12 pm

Agreed!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 06, 2017 at 10:20 am

No way that TT is just rubber stamping someone else's decisions. I don't buy that for a minute. It doesn't mean that with the reorganization of management over the last year or two that there hasn't been someone new whispering in TTs ear, though (or that the NFL-level player evaluation hasn't been improved to increase TTs confidence in it).

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 06, 2017 at 10:47 am

You mean that pro personnel department has improved such that TT has greater confidence in it, right?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 06, 2017 at 12:41 pm

Yup. Oops!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

September 06, 2017 at 10:21 am

I think it was a combination of things. The Packers didn't expect to lose Sam Shields, so he had to be replaced. Davon House was a classic TT move.

Jahri Evans is a repeat of the Saturday signing, but hopefully he has a lot more left in the tank.

The TE position has been a disaster since Finley was forced to retire. This may be the most atypical TT move - signing not one but two quality FAs to stock a position that he had been unable to fix through the draft. If you are looking for proof that TT is more focused on the now, maybe this is your choice.

If you hadn't had the 49ers switching from a 3-4 to a 4-3 you never would have had Brooks and Dial come free this late in the process. In the short run I expect some bumps as they get used to the new system. In the long run I think luck was with the Packers here, and TT was willing to take advantage of the opportunity.

All in all, this does not look like typical TT moves, but there were a strange combination of circumstances all crashing down the same year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

September 06, 2017 at 11:34 am

MM, I disagree. This looks EXACTLY like typical TT moves: If you find good inexpensive FA's who don't mess up your draft capital or cap numbers you will sign them. Example: Julius Peppers. This year was a perfect storm of a massive loss of Packers players to FA and availability of players to sign cheaply and not affect the cap. The number of players picked up may make it appear "un-Ted like" but the reality is this is not any different than how TT has always operated. I agree with the first part of your post (except that Jahri Evans, at 34 is not a repeat of the 37 year old Saturday signing) but your final assertion doesn't match with that IMHO.

EDIT, In re-reading your post I think we are mostly saying the same thing in different ways.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

September 06, 2017 at 12:26 pm

I agree with your edit. :-)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Qoojo's picture

September 06, 2017 at 10:38 am

While the number of FA signings was atypical for TT, it's really not that much out of character. The future was not sacrificed for any of these signings.

TT saw the power of having a decent TE last year. He could even compare performance when healthy vs without Cook. I think it made it real easy to see the importance of a good TE for Rodgers.

Then the packers got lucky with 49ers switch over to 4-3. Clear upgrades over the guys they let go. Although you have to wonder about trading Elliott. They spend all that time developing a player, then the other team will reap any rewards.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Finwiz's picture

September 06, 2017 at 12:53 pm

I think they made the evaluation based on last year and preseason that Elliott wasn't going to make the jump to be the backup they envisioned.
With Fackrell the jury's still out, but they clearly gave up on Jayrone.
Between injuries and lackluster play, he essentially contributed nothing last year. I think they just confirmed what they saw during the last 2 regular seasons.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 06, 2017 at 12:46 pm

Elliott was a very good special teamer, but they really needed more for this defense to be better. This was essentially resetting the clock on that roster spot.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
S.L.C.Cheesehead's picture

September 06, 2017 at 10:41 am

Just hoping he continues the trend by picking up a F.A. or two for the OL.
You can't leave the most valuable player in the league defended by a shallow, injury prone line.

That's powerful stupid.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dblbogey's picture

September 06, 2017 at 10:59 am

Because their are tons of quality free agent OL just sitting out there? Were you demanding that TT pick up some really talented free agent CB's half way through the season last year too?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
S.L.C.Cheesehead's picture

September 06, 2017 at 11:38 am

He could bring in Greco or Mangold for a tryout; or he could of brought in Alex Boone til yesterday, but that boat has sailed.
As far as last year, he could of made a trade for a corner. Thompson didn't, and we all know how that turned out.
I know you're just going to continue arguing, so I'll give you a prediction for this weekend:
One of the five key lineman is going to get hurt, and Rodgers is going to be scrambling for his life the rest of the game, because Thompson left a glaring issue unresolved.
If I'm wrong, I'll apologize on Monday.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 06, 2017 at 12:23 pm

Are we saying that last year's backup situation was really any better than this year?

Two rookies and Barclay with Taylor stepping in for a former all-pro?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 06, 2017 at 10:44 am

No, I don't think TT is all in. Depends on your definition, I suppose. These 7 FA signings all look pretty prudent and low risk. TT is still leaving a considerable amount to carry over into 2018. I don't see us mortgaging of the future or coming real close to that line as of yet, which is my definition.

It also depends on what TT thinks or knows about AR and his demands for his extension. If AR is really going to demand $32M AAV, and if his cap hit for 2018 is going to increase by $8M or $10M, GB could be in a world of hurt, unless there is a massive increase in the cap.

We already might need for 2018 a starting RG, #2 WR, a rotational #3 OLB (and maybe a starting OLB depending on CM3), a starting OC (probably Linsley for good-sized bucks) a utility interior OC/OG, a swing OT, a #1/#2 CB, perhaps a slot WR, and perhaps a #2 QB.

As dire as that all sounds, there are lots of possibilities for internal replacements at all these positions. TT will have a draft, or he might find more perfectly adequate stop gap FAs like I hope Evans and Brooks will prove to be. If we need a starting OLB and slot WR because CM3 and Cobb didn't perform, we'll pick up $20M in cap savings, though that would be a bummer because if we cut those 2 we lose out on comp picks.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 07, 2017 at 09:25 am

I agree: when you go "all-in" you're risking something or giving up something desirable in the long-term. I don't see that here.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Horse's picture

September 06, 2017 at 10:45 am

“What changed this year was it seemed like some of our guys left that we would normally have signed and it just didn’t work out. At the same time, we had opportunities that we haven’t had in the past to sign a couple of guys that we felt like could help our team.”

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Mojo's picture

September 06, 2017 at 11:17 am

In numbers, and most of the time position, Ted has basically replaced those FA's (and Shield) that he lost or traded (Elliott).

Sometime earlier, someone posted what the FA's we lost cost versus what we paid for our signings. I believe what Ted paid for the additions was substantially less than what the departures made.

If what the FA's sign for represents "market" then you can say Ted wasn't willing to pay market for those leaving. He was able to get replacements on cheaper deals.

This is exactly the opposite of being "all in".

Not saying I don't like many of the moves, but Ted is mostly replacing positions that left. It's not an all out one year run for the SB as many are claiming. No big break-the-bank big name signing. And going forward, future draft-picks wise and cap wise the team is more conservative than ever.

Put another way, if Ted had resigned all of GB's departing FA's this year would anyone be say he's "all in." His reshuffling of the deck with new faces is distorting perceptions.

I think the better argument is not whether Ted is "all in" as much as has Ted's philosophy of using only "his guys" been infused with a more league-wide player procurement inclusiveness.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

September 06, 2017 at 10:31 pm

<p>I agree with what you wrote, Mojo. &nbsp;Other than Bennett, all the replacement FAs were cheaper, and Bennett was not all that much more expensive than Cook.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>The flip side of the low risk strategy is that these players mostly came on one year deals. &nbsp;Mostly, that is good, because it gives a chance for our internal replacements to grow and develop. &nbsp;One example is House. &nbsp;Lets assume he has a good year. &nbsp;Fine, take the comp if King, R&amp;R,etc., develop. &nbsp;If they don&#39;t, we&#39;ll have to decide whether to give a 29 year old CB a longer contract. &nbsp;Too many variables to decide that now. &nbsp;If the OG internal replacements don&#39;t develop, we&#39;ll have to decide whether to give Jahri another year, and at what price. &nbsp;Same for Brooks. &nbsp;Dial isn&#39;t that old, IIRC. &nbsp;Could make for an interesting off-season. &nbsp;Time to play real games now, though!</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Edit: I have no idea why I am seeing so much gooblygook in my post or how to get rid of it.</p>

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 07, 2017 at 09:26 am

When the comment box comes up, switch to plain text editor.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packer_Fan's picture

September 06, 2017 at 11:33 am

The all in statement was from Rodgers. To me, that is a statement to the organization to bring together a sufficient team to make a run for the Super Bowl. There are many ways to do that. You can go all out at the beginning of free agency and spend big bucks. You get a few players. I am good with how TT did it. Pick a few players at the beginning (Bennett & Kendricks) and then pick up good players like Evans, Brooks and Dial to round out your squad when they are available and are not high priced. OL is another place to try to do that. What I don't want to happen is there are not enough good backups ready and end up like last year again. Some may think we have squandered the last 7 years of not putting a good enough team around Rodgers to win another Super Bowl. We may have 5 or 6 years still with Rodgers at the helm and with the opportunity to get to the Super Bowl. The all in strategy is get enough players to win. 2014 may have been a year, but 2016 was lost because of the defense. TT needs to avoid the urge to sit tight and see what happens. Can't keep waiting for next year if things go awry like in 2016.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Duke Divine's picture

September 06, 2017 at 11:47 am

Tinkerin Ted scheming again!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spud Rapids's picture

September 06, 2017 at 12:11 pm

TT hasn't changed his strategy at all... he has always signed free agents that 1.) wouldn't negatively impact the cap beyond their value 2.) would have a negligible effect on compensatory picks 3.) still have a juice left in the motor 4.) bolstered depth at positions of need.

The only difference between this year and last is there simply was more FA that fit that mold. I don't ever think TT has ever been adverse to signing free agents he just chooses to sign his own vs. breaking the bank on a player from another team. Besides when you sign your own FA's you know they work in your locker room, scheme, and you know their off the field character. Other FA's from other teams leave question marks in those departments.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

September 07, 2017 at 02:05 am

Exactly! TT told that more than several times, but people do not listen! "We always looks at FA market and available players, who can come and make our roster better/our team better!" Ted Thompson was repeating this sentence from one to another press conference. Still, reporters and fans asking themselves what the hack TT is doing. I think that is hilarious...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Razer's picture

September 06, 2017 at 12:20 pm

Over time, most of us would grow as people, workers or managers. Ted came in with a philosophy at a certain point in the modern NFL game and had success. He worked his formula and now is adapting. Good on him.

As many have pointed out, we lost a lot of guys through FA. Most were on the last legs of helping this team. Ted, his team and the coaches recognized that homegrown and draft wasn't going to get us to a Super Bowl. At least they made changes to their approach and we filled some gaps. He is a little late to the game that other organizations have mastered (New England). Let's hope that these additions work out or TT will be blamed for a new crime.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Since69's picture

September 06, 2017 at 12:59 pm

In the modern era, the only thing a team is sure to get when going "all in" is an extended stay in salary cap hell. Every year, teams overspend so they can chase that trophy. Even they DO make good choices and DO improve for a while, they all have to pay the piper eventually.

I like the Packers' approach. I'd rather see enjoyable, competitive football every week, year after year, than having three good season followed by five years of suck. What's the point of buying a superbowl once every ten years if it means you're going to suck for 7 of the years in between?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 06, 2017 at 02:47 pm

I tend to agree. I'd love to see an all but guaranteed SB, but I feel pretty good about their ability to compete for it. For those who say they'd endure the suck for a few years, ask fans in Cleveland, New York, Detroit and other cities how long the suck has persisted. There's no timer on the abyss: when you drop in, you have no idea if or when you're getting back out. Just as truly going 'all in' is no guarantee that you reach the top.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

September 06, 2017 at 03:00 pm

Yeah, there are plenty of teams who went "all in," then FAILED, and then sucked for years with no Lombardi to show for it. Ask Danny Snyder how well his "all in" teams did in Washington.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Steve Cheez's picture

September 06, 2017 at 07:00 pm

Trading for John Hadl...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

September 06, 2017 at 01:50 pm

How 'bout we all admit that we don't have a friggin' clue what TT was thinking?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
gmeyers1's picture

September 06, 2017 at 03:49 pm

<p>He may be going all in because he plans to retire after this season.</p>

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
4thand10's picture

September 06, 2017 at 04:22 pm

Ringo claimed by the Bengals....

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Cartwright's picture

September 06, 2017 at 04:32 pm

<p>Ted has a winning formula, it was based on making the best draft pick in NFL history when he picked Aaron Rogers when 23 passed and has been building a team around him ever since. We copped one SB, just missed going to another and were one game away last year. We have been to the party 8 years in a row. Despite the repeat debacles we always see on defense that leave you fuming, &nbsp;I can&#39;t dog Ted too hard, I remember the lean years. These SF pickups may make the difference, they ain&#39;t no slim Pinkins off waivers. &nbsp; &nbsp;</p>

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

September 06, 2017 at 04:50 pm

44, Can you translate the half of your post that's all in symbols? What the heck is all that? Typos? Some sort of new texting thing (I don't text)? I'm being serious; I'd really like to know if that's just some text glitch off a phone or something I should understand in the modern age.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Steve Cheez's picture

September 06, 2017 at 07:02 pm

The (apparently) new text editor did that to a couple of mine. It seems to replace punctuation with about a dozen numbers and symbols.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

September 06, 2017 at 08:33 pm

The new default appears to be "rich text editor". Looks like it clears up if you switch to "plain text editor".
My .02 on the subject.
(Not my BAC.)

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

September 07, 2017 at 09:32 am

Steve and TK, Thanks for the explanation. I'll stick to the plain text editor then.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Ustabeayooper's picture

September 06, 2017 at 05:02 pm

<p>It always amazes me that we have people who have continued to question the decisions of our GM. 8 years in a row in the playoffs, 2 out of 3 years playing for NFC championship,all accomplished while drafting between 20 and 32 every year. TT is all in every year. He doesn&#39;t &nbsp;play the shiner new object syndrome of free agency. Just look at the Vikings. They overpay for Boone and cut him a year later. Big cap hit ! &nbsp; They overpay for 2 OT this year and will probably have a worse O line. There maybe a time where we will long for a GM and HC &nbsp;as good as we have now. Since I have been a packer fan longer than most of you have been alive, enjoy the success. I remember winning one game in the late 50&#39;s and celebrating.</p>

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
The TKstinator's picture

September 06, 2017 at 08:30 pm

I remember that game. Afterwards we partied like it was 1999.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
GatorJason's picture

September 06, 2017 at 07:31 pm

The change was triggered by a short discussion Ted, Mike and Dom had last year after the Packers had no running backs, having to convert a WR and had no CBs having to play Safeties and a former free agent WR as cover corners.

MM: "Ted, WTFO!"

TT: "Mike, okay, I hear yah. Chill Bro! I still think our boys can mature and save the day this year, but just to make you happy, Hey Eliot, go get me a water and take a look at some 49ers you said we could poach next year. BTW, you and Brian got great intell during your GM interviews. Ha, ha, ha. "

DC: "Ted, I can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear. I need help NOW!"

TT: "Say again Dom."

DC: "Give me some help in the secondary or we're gonna get lit up like a f’ing Christmas tree."

TT: "Ah Christmas, my favorite time of the year . . . all the lights. . . . Let's just see how our boys do in the play-offs. We'll be okay . . Eliot, where’s my water?"

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bure9620's picture

September 06, 2017 at 08:30 pm

TT being a draft and develop GM is fully aware you cannot plug every so for hole if you roster for players leaving in free agency with draft picks and he has even admitted as much in previous years. We happened to haveit's of attrition in FA this last year, so when you look at the shear number player for player it really is not that Big of a devotion. Where TT have deviated this year is putting in waiver claims this close the regular season, we received one which means he likely out it claims for other as well.

Just wait this till after this year the amount of FA. Lindsley, Evans, DA, Burnett, House, Janis, Gunter, McCray, Barclay, Brooks, Dial( I think), RJF, Richard Rodgers, Goode, Thomas

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

September 07, 2017 at 09:31 am

It's another big year of FAs (and likely, we'll hear from others on this board about how the roster was mismanaged to allow all these guys to come up at one time), but as you go down the list, how many of those guys are really above replacement-level? Just a few. And there are replacements already on the roster for a few of them.

Many were worried about the large number of FAs coming up last off-season, and I would argue that there were more impact guys then than there are on this list.

The key piece, of course, is #12 and his renegotiation.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

September 07, 2017 at 02:09 am

<p>Can you make possible text from rich text editor in comment section or remove that feature completely!</p>

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

September 07, 2017 at 07:58 am

<p>First off everyone assumes that if TT doesn&#39;t sign anyone...he didn&#39;t even try. Not the case, because every year he&#39;s trying to make deals with players that could make a difference. He won&#39;t risk his salary cap for paying too much for marginal guys. That is a good thing, Now this past year he did have a lot of guys leave the Packers and needed replacements. The biggest being the TE spot where he doubled down on two players.</p>
<p>Green Bay has had a playoff team for many years, so their roster wasn&#39;t that bad...just not good enough to win a SB. So TT adds a few replacement players for those that have left and a few more where the team is still weak. While it may seem to be a huge change of operation, I think two things made it happen:</p>
<ul>
<li>
Too many core players left in FA that needed to be replaced</li>
<li>
Salary cap ramifications were acceptable for him to proceed.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>
<p>I also think like many he saw this year that with adding a player like Brooks, who was a FA, he could provide enough manpower to push the Pack to the SB with any luck.</p>
<p>Of course this is just my guess.</p>

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

September 07, 2017 at 09:49 am

I'm actually starting to mentally ignore all that "Rich Text" when I read a comment. Easier than my first French class, LOL.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.