June 18, 2018, 11:57:33 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
Author Articles / GM Brian Gutekunst is Having a Nice Rookie Year
« Last post by Bob Fox on June 10, 2018, 08:28:39 AM »
GM Brian Gutekunst is Having a Nice Rookie Year

By Bob Fox

In his first term as general manager of the Green Bay Packers, Brian Gutekunst is having a pretty good rookie season. Or offseason, depending how you look at it.

The additions that Gutekunst has made to the roster up until now has been quite unlike what we have seen from Ted Thompson over the past 13 years, when he held the same job title.

Let’s take a look at the roster moves that Gutekunst has made since he became GM.

The first acquisition that Gutekunst made was when he traded defensive back Damarious Randall to the Cleveland Browns for quarterback DeShone Kizer. Plus the Packers and Browns swapped picks in the fourth and fifth rounds in the 2018 NFL draft.

The move was made for two reasons. Randall had basically worn out his welcome in Green Bay, both with his inconsistent performances and his attitude. The addition of Kizer says a lot about how the team feels about the overall performance of Brett Hundley in 2017, as he took over for Aaron Rodgers after No. 12 fractured his collarbone in Week 6.

Hundley was 3-6 as a starter and he threw nine touchdown passes compared to 12 interceptions for 1,853 yards. No. 7’s passer rating was just 70.9.

Hundley was also sacked 29 times, as he had difficulty moving around the pocket and going through his reads.

Hundley did run for 270 yards and two scores, but he just couldn’t lead the Packers down the field consistently enough due to his passing deficiencies.

The 6’4″, 235-pound Kizer will push Hundley in 2018 for the backup job behind Rodgers. My money is on Kizer winning that battle.

Just a few days after the trade to pick up Kizer, Gutekunst really got busy. He first released wide receiver Jody Nelson, who was definitely a fan favorite in Green Bay. NFL scout Chris Landry told me that Nelson looked visibly slower in 2017, which was two years removed from a torn ACL in the 2015 preseason.

The release of Nelson cleared $10.2 million in cap space.

After the release of Nelson, the Packers signed tight end Jimmy Graham of the Seattle Seahawks to a three-year contract worth $30 million, with $22 million paid out during the first two years of the deal.

Graham will be a big red zone weapon for Rodgers to utilize, as well as someone who can stretch the seam down the middle of the field. Rodgers has taken advantage of that situation before in the past in Green Bay with other tight ends like Jermichael Finley and Jared Cook.

In his eight-year career in the NFL, Graham has 556 receptions for 6,800 yards and 69 touchdowns.

The 6’7″, 265-pound Graham has also been named to five Pro Bowl squads and was also named first-team All-Pro in 2013 by AP.

To read the rest of the story, please go to:

Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Guesses at the 53 man roster
« Last post by RT on June 09, 2018, 07:49:41 PM »
Well with Filipo Mokofisi, Jacob Alsadek and Colby Pearson already gone from the original 90 man roster, guessing most peoples 53 man roster guesses are already up in smoke.  :D

There is currently an open spot on the roster and that more than likely will be filled early next week.
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Last post by ricky on June 09, 2018, 04:21:55 PM »
Twain, that seems to be a reasonable and logical summation. However, would Rodgers accept a deal that could be voided early, rather than one which would guarantee him a lot of money? I personally think the deal you suggest would make a lot of sense. AR would still be very, very wealthy, but the Packers would be protected from that dreaded "dead money" that could hamper them for several years.
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Last post by Twain on June 09, 2018, 11:41:35 AM »
I have to wonder if Rodgers will end up signing a shorter contact that voids the last two years on this deal, with the whole contract guaranteed- 3 years, maybe 4.

He gets a deal that reflects his standing in the NFL and it allows both sides to negotiate an extension before the end, at which time both sides will have a better idea what his value will be as he hits the 40 yr mark.  It would lower risk for both sides, as the team would be protected against career ending injury leaving them with a lot of dead cap, and Rodgers will be protected against the deal under paying him relative to newer contracts.  It gives him the opt out without it really being an opt out- it is more of a forced renegotiation.

I suspect this is a difficult negotiation because of his age and the potential dead cap implications.
On the Streets / Re: Mark's Movie Reviews
« Last post by marklawrence on June 09, 2018, 05:56:33 AM »

A horror film. I didn't really understand what happened, and that sentiment was echoed by several others in the audience. Toni Colette gives a great performance, at least as good as in the sixth sense. Other than that it's a bunch of poorly adapted people running into strange inexplicable supernatural events and reacting badly. Usually movies like this include a priest, but in this movie there's no good guys, only demons. It got a 98 at rotten tomato's, but I have no idea how. I shouldn't go to horror flicks, they really don't work for me.
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Last post by ricky on June 08, 2018, 04:31:03 PM »
RT, I'm not arguing that Rodgers will go the same direction as McKenzie. I was just pointing out that "he has no leverage" is not accurate. I agree that AR does want to end his career in GB. But then, that is a team decision, not his. Who would have imagined Joe Montana playing for another team, for example? What is irksome to someone like AR is that right now, he is paid cosiderably less than QBs who are not nearly as worthy of big contracts. Seriously- check out the guys who are more highly paid that AR. Yes, Brady is the huge outlier, but that is his choice, and we'll see how long that lasts. Meanwhile, Wentz and Goff are nearing their first "real" contracts.

Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Last post by RT on June 08, 2018, 03:27:44 PM »
Big difference with Rodgers and McKenzie is that it is important to Rodgers and his legacy to play the whole of his career in GB.

The Packers messed up with Mckenzie and should of just sent him home and took his chance to play away. Handle it like Wolf handled the Keith Jackson situation, play for the Packers or don't play. Neither side is interested in playing hardball with the Rodgers deal.

Caught Joel Corry on Sirius NFL radio a few days ago talking about the Rodgers contract talks and opt outs in the NFL, it was very informative. The problem with an opt out with Rodgers deal is that the whole of the remaining signing bonus becomes a cap hit for that year that the opt out is exercised. So if the Packers give AR a 80M signing bonus on a 4 year deal and he opts out after 2 years, their than becomes a 40M cap charge to that business year. Big signing bonuses and opt outs don't work hand and hand in the NFL.

Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Rodgers seeking "opt out" clause in new contract?
« Last post by ricky on June 08, 2018, 02:22:00 PM »
Gregg, this is the common belief, that AR has no leverage. Yet, back in 2004, Mike McKEnzie (cornerback) decided he wanted out of GB. Everyone knew he had no leverage. That he would have to play for the Packers or no one else. Then during training camp or some other team activity, he was "hurt". He said it was his hamstring. The medicos could find nothing, but he claimed he couldn't play. How do you force a player who says he is injured to get on the field? You can't. It is his word against the medicos. It got ugly, and he was traded to NO, where he had a miraculous recovery. AR could do the same thing. And seriously, would anyone like to have an ugly tug-of-war between the team and the player, ala Favre? Sure, the Packers could just let him sit on IR or whatever, so he couldn't play- but he would still be gatting paid a great deal. So, he does have leverage. The only question is whether he or the team would let it get that ugly.
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Packers transactions
« Last post by RT on June 08, 2018, 01:51:38 PM »
Green Bay had at least two positions that needed attention on the offense: OT, and TE. So Gutsey gets a vet for each position. Now people are saying they are tooooo expensive and not very good. Maybe, but they are better than what was on the roster and they are healthy which can't be said for the OTs.

I can only assume this is in response to my post with it being the only one that has a nay vote about the signings. If that is the case, you have completely missed the point.
On the Streets / Re: Mark's Movie Reviews
« Last post by marklawrence on June 07, 2018, 08:14:14 PM »
Ocean's 8

In 1960 Sinatra and friends put out a movie Oceans 11 about a gang that does an improbable heist. In 2001 George Clooney did a remake. This proved so popular it was followed by Ocean's 12 and Ocean's 13. Now, a decade later, Danny Ocean (Clooney) is dead, but his sister Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock) organizes a jewel heist at the Met. $300m worth of jewels.

If you liked Ocean's 11, you'll like this. It was well constructed, good acting and dialog, and no more improbable than the previous films. To my eyes, the only major plot fail is that there's a group of highly intelligent criminals in NYC who want to steal hundreds of millions of dollars, and they're not working for a hedge fund.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]