PC Forums

General Category => NFL Talk => Free Agency => Topic started by: classicpack on April 29, 2013, 09:15:09 AM

Title: Safety?
Post by: classicpack on April 29, 2013, 09:15:09 AM
What's your take?  Does TT sign a second tier safety in FA now for further depth backup?  Does he resign Woodson?  Does he move Locke to safety? (Do we finally cut Bush--not a safety question but wishful thinking).   Personally, I think he does nothing until after all mini camps are done.
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: ThatGuy284 on April 29, 2013, 12:51:14 PM
Culver, Peprah, Bigby and Martin are all out there for the taking... ;D
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: Ellis269 on April 29, 2013, 02:57:51 PM
The only guy left worth looking at is Kerry Rhodes. He'd be a good addition IMO.
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: Pugger on May 01, 2013, 10:15:03 AM
The coaches must see something in Sean Richardson and Jerron McMillian to play opposite Burnett...
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: philepps85 on May 01, 2013, 06:53:44 PM
The only guy left worth looking at is Kerry Rhodes. He'd be a good addition IMO.

+1, but it's not gonna happen unless the holdovers stink up the preseason and he's still unsigned.
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: Draft Hobbyist on May 02, 2013, 07:27:20 AM
I doubt a move is made.
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: davekenya on May 02, 2013, 06:54:32 PM
Only 1 month until the June 1st cuts - let's see who surfaces then...
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: ricky on May 03, 2013, 08:32:38 AM
Two possibilities, and perhaps both will come to pass. Hyde converted to safety. He has the size, and if he is a willing tackler near the line, being a CB coming out of college speaks well of his coverage ability. Another possibility is that the Packers reach out to Woodson for another year. No other team seems interested, and, since he would get a respectable though not large salary, he might be a consideration. I fully realize that Woodson offered to take a pay cut, but he'd have to be willing to come in for $2 million or so. If not, the Packers go with who they have. I'd be for bringing back Woodson simply because he could be an on field coach and mentor for the younger players.
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: Draft Hobbyist on May 03, 2013, 04:20:59 PM
Two possibilities, and perhaps both will come to pass. Hyde converted to safety. He has the size, and if he is a willing tackler near the line, being a CB coming out of college speaks well of his coverage ability. Another possibility is that the Packers reach out to Woodson for another year. No other team seems interested, and, since he would get a respectable though not large salary, he might be a consideration. I fully realize that Woodson offered to take a pay cut, but he'd have to be willing to come in for $2 million or so. If not, the Packers go with who they have. I'd be for bringing back Woodson simply because he could be an on field coach and mentor for the younger players.

I don't think the Packers would take Woodson back for the league minimum. He's old and slow, he's a penalty waiting to happen, and we would have to cut someone to make room for him that his younger and could develop.
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: Nitschke on January 06, 2014, 06:53:08 PM
Looked up Woodsons stat line and he played in all 16 games 97 tackles solo & assist, 2 sacks, 3 forced fumbles, 2 fumble recoveries, and one INT.    MD Jennings had 74 combined tackles, 1 sack, and 1 forced fumble.  Don't know on cap numbers, but have to think Woodson' leadership/experience is worth any difference.  Didn't watch the Raiders once this year, so maybe I'm missing something, but really did not like losing him.
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: ricky on January 06, 2014, 09:27:09 PM
There was consensus (if memory serves) that Woodson had (a) lost a step; (b) was not good in coverage anymore; (c) was too penalty prone; (d) was too old. Many were calling for younger players to step in and step up. Though Rodgers himself lobbied the team to keep Woodson.

Then again, lets say he'd have been switched to safety to play with Burnett? Would that have made sense? I remember this being a topic of discussion earlier, but, seriously, even if he was simply average, he'd have raised the bar at safety considerably.

Thanks for resurrecting this thread. Because now, the question of what to do at safety is still around. Bring in a veteran? The Texans tried that with Ed Reed, though you'd think they'd learned their lesson with Ahman Green. If TT signs anyone, expect it to be a second tier FA, a play of whom we've probably never heard. Because the Packers have a lot of FA's, and picking and choosing who to keep and at what price is going to mean making some real tough choices.
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: dannobanano on January 07, 2014, 07:46:00 AM
There was consensus (if memory serves) that Woodson had (a) lost a step; (b) was not good in coverage anymore; (c) was too penalty prone; (d) was too old. (e) He was too expensive at $10M and was too proud take a pay cut.
Many were calling for younger players to step in and step up. Though Rodgers himself lobbied the team to keep Woodson.

Then again, lets say he'd have been switched to safety to play with Burnett? Would that have made sense? I remember this being a topic of discussion earlier, but, seriously, even if he was simply average, he'd have raised the bar at safety considerably.

Thanks for resurrecting this thread. Because now, the question of what to do at safety is still around. Bring in a veteran? The Texans tried that with Ed Reed, though you'd think they'd learned their lesson with Ahman Green. If TT signs anyone, expect it to be a second tier FA, a play of whom we've probably never heard. Because the Packers have a lot of FA's, and picking and choosing who to keep and at what price is going to mean making some real tough choices.
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: GBRoCk2 on January 15, 2014, 09:13:40 AM
There was consensus (if memory serves) that Woodson had (a) lost a step; (b) was not good in coverage anymore; (c) was too penalty prone; (d) was too old. Many were calling for younger players to step in and step up. Though Rodgers himself lobbied the team to keep Woodson.

Then again, lets say he'd have been switched to safety to play with Burnett? Would that have made sense? I remember this being a topic of discussion earlier, but, seriously, even if he was simply average, he'd have raised the bar at safety considerably.

Thanks for resurrecting this thread. Because now, the question of what to do at safety is still around. Bring in a veteran? The Texans tried that with Ed Reed, though you'd think they'd learned their lesson with Ahman Green. If TT signs anyone, expect it to be a second tier FA, a play of whom we've probably never heard. Because the Packers have a lot of FA's, and picking and choosing who to keep and at what price is going to mean making some real tough choices.

I feel we have to bring in a veteran free agent, I believe some of the players in interviews even suggested this.

I've always liked Bernard Pollard, he would bring toughness to this team and has experience in a 3-4. If we address any position in free agency, I'd like it to be safety.
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: Ellis269 on January 17, 2014, 10:57:47 PM
Mike Mitchell - Carolina

Younger and better in coverage, but still brings that intimidation factor into the middle of the field. Should have gotten him last year when the position was a mess and nobody wanted him.
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: golfman on January 18, 2014, 04:18:43 AM
Mike Mitchell - Carolina

Younger and better in coverage, but still brings that intimidation factor into the middle of the field. Should have gotten him last year when the position was a mess and nobody wanted him.

Interesting that this conversation is a repeat of 2013.

Funny but true, I didn't even know this section existed or ignored it because of our lack of involvment in free agency.
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: ramrod on January 18, 2014, 06:29:06 AM
Not saying Thompson is going to do it, but my thinking also is that we need an established veteran next to Burnett. You put a rookie in there and nothing will change as I believe that Burnett is more a follower than a leader of men.
 Also am looking at different combinations of players and free agents to shore up the middle of the field. These three areas need to be addressed, nose tackle, middle linebacker, safety. So far I am leaning towards spending a little money on safety in free agency, drafting Ra'Shede Hageman, DE/DT, Minnesota in the first round, and then trading up for  Kyle Van Noy, DE/OLB, BYU. It depends on who the flavor of the week is on draft day. We may have to draft Van Noy with our first pick.
 A good free agent safety will cost money and make quite a few of our free agents expendible. I just don't see Thompson doing this.
Title: Re: Safety?
Post by: JPPlaya on January 18, 2014, 07:10:59 AM
Agree with the vet idea. We're lost back there. Ryan Clark from PIT is the one that makes the most sense to me. Good schemefit. WonWon't cost TOO much. Could be signed short term (2 years). Still productive and is a smart, experienced player . Sign him and draft a prospect in the 3rd-4th round to compete.