PC Forums

General Category => NFL Talk => Free Agency => Topic started by: ThatGuy284 on April 13, 2018, 09:44:53 AM

Title: Dez Bryant
Post by: ThatGuy284 on April 13, 2018, 09:44:53 AM
I'll be the first to throw it out there.   Doesn't help speed issues but I'd rather have Bryant running on the 1st unit with Adams, Cobb and Graham than a rookie.     Sign a nice 1-yr Alshon Jeffrey deal and let's move on.  Give a rookie WR a year to develop.   Give Bryant some new malls and jewelry stores in GB and Appleton to terrorize as an added bonus for him
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: RT on April 13, 2018, 09:51:59 AM
I'll be the first to throw it out there.   Doesn't help speed issues but I'd rather have Bryant running on the 1st unit with Adams, Cobb and Graham than a rookie.     Sign a nice 1-yr Alshon Jeffrey deal and let's move on.  Give a rookie WR a year to develop.   Give Bryant some new malls and jewelry stores in GB and Appleton to terrorize as an added bonus for him

IMO the signing would make no sense. If a aging WR who has lost his speed was an option they could have just keep Nelson at a cheaper price and had a more productive player then Bryant. Don't believe Bryant has any value to the Packers.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: ThatGuy284 on April 13, 2018, 10:27:51 AM
You are entirely correct.   I posted more because I think they erred in letting Jordy go more than what I think the Pack would actually do.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: MO.Pack on April 13, 2018, 12:03:50 PM
He still has value in the red zone and having him, Graham and I'll put Cobb in there also would be a nightmare for a defense.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: RT on April 13, 2018, 01:53:29 PM
Matt Miller

Verified account
 
@nfldraftscout
 4h4 hours ago
More
Twitter any time a player gets cut:

Fan of former team: "He sucked, we're better off without him."

Fans of every other team: "I hope we sign him, he's exactly what we need!"

Their is a reason the former team doesn't want them around anymore and it isn't just about money. If the Packers would of tried a little bit, they could of kept Nelson around for something just over the minimum. They didn't offer because they really didn't want his services anymore. The same go's for Bryant. Father time wins every battle.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: The GM on April 13, 2018, 03:18:11 PM
Bryant is a loose cannon, cant get separation, and drops too many balls when he does get open.  If they were even remotely interested in Bryant, they could have paid Nelson.   No chance IMO.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: JQ on April 13, 2018, 05:35:41 PM
After the marty bennett fiasco...I’d be stunned if Green Bay brought in dez bryant. Not only is he another headcase, but as others have suggested, he’s lost his top end speed.
Title: Bryant to GB?
Post by: Bignutz on April 14, 2018, 08:14:29 AM
Keep hearing this rumor. Thoughts? Dez that is.
Title: Re: Bryant to GB?
Post by: claymaker on April 14, 2018, 08:25:17 AM
No. They just cut Nelson due to his cap number. It is unlikely they would sign Dez Bryant because he would cost even more than Nelson would have.

With Green Bay's proven track record of WR development and eye for talent signing him makes little sense.

The rumor being thrown out there isn't considering either of these factors and is simply basing it off their available cap room and having lost Nelson, which makes it speculation not an actual rumor.

EDIT: Taking Calvin Ridley with their first pick is a much better option, and in all likelihood might actually be the BPA. 
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: claymaker on April 14, 2018, 08:30:36 AM
Matt Miller

Verified account
 
@nfldraftscout
 4h4 hours ago
More
Twitter any time a player gets cut:

Fan of former team: "He sucked, we're better off without him."

Fans of every other team: "I hope we sign him, he's exactly what we need!"

Their is a reason the former team doesn't want them around anymore and it isn't just about money. If the Packers would of tried a little bit, they could of kept Nelson around for something just over the minimum. They didn't offer because they really didn't want his services anymore. The same go's for Bryant. Father time wins every battle.

Green Bay did offer him a new deal with a large pay cut and Nelson quickly declined.

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/packers-free-agency-2018/2018/3/15/17127988/packers-contract-offer-to-jordy-nelson-was-embarrassing-according-to-james-jones

Packers had their number and weren't willing to budge.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: RT on April 14, 2018, 08:45:29 AM
Matt Miller

Verified account
 
@nfldraftscout
 4h4 hours ago
More
Twitter any time a player gets cut:

Fan of former team: "He sucked, we're better off without him."

Fans of every other team: "I hope we sign him, he's exactly what we need!"

Their is a reason the former team doesn't want them around anymore and it isn't just about money. If the Packers would of tried a little bit, they could of kept Nelson around for something just over the minimum. They didn't offer because they really didn't want his services anymore. The same go's for Bryant. Father time wins every battle.

Green Bay did offer him a new deal with a large pay cut and Nelson quickly declined.

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/packers-free-agency-2018/2018/3/15/17127988/packers-contract-offer-to-jordy-nelson-was-embarrassing-according-to-james-jones

Packers had their number and weren't willing to budge.

Nowhere in my post did I say the Packers didn't offer a reduced deal. I said, " If the Packers would of tried a little bit" and that is exactly what Nelson said 11 days after the acticle you provided a link to. This is Nelson comment, “The ‘hurt’ part was the unwillingness to make it work.”

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2018/03/26/jordy-nelson-hurt-by-lack-of-contract-negotiation-with-packers/
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: claymaker on April 14, 2018, 09:19:35 AM
Matt Miller

Verified account
 
@nfldraftscout
 4h4 hours ago
More
Twitter any time a player gets cut:

Fan of former team: "He sucked, we're better off without him."

Fans of every other team: "I hope we sign him, he's exactly what we need!"

Their is a reason the former team doesn't want them around anymore and it isn't just about money. If the Packers would of tried a little bit, they could of kept Nelson around for something just over the minimum. They didn't offer because they really didn't want his services anymore. The same go's for Bryant. Father time wins every battle.

Green Bay did offer him a new deal with a large pay cut and Nelson quickly declined.

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/packers-free-agency-2018/2018/3/15/17127988/packers-contract-offer-to-jordy-nelson-was-embarrassing-according-to-james-jones

Packers had their number and weren't willing to budge.

Nowhere in my post did I say the Packers didn't offer a reduced deal. I said, " If the Packers would of tried a little bit" and that is exactly what Nelson said 11 days after the acticle you provided a link to. This is Nelson comment, “The ‘hurt’ part was the unwillingness to make it work.”

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2018/03/26/jordy-nelson-hurt-by-lack-of-contract-negotiation-with-packers/

No but you also claimed if that offer was "something just over the minimum" they could have kept him. They lowballed him and he did not accept.
Title: Re: Bryant to GB?
Post by: Shinesman on April 14, 2018, 10:04:31 AM
Dez is getting the Randy Moss treatment from the writers and fans. He played for a team that had a young QB who caught the league off guard one year, and suffered the next for whatever reason. Dez is far from washed up. That guy just gets open, and has never played for a guys who can put the ball in tight spots like Rodgers. I dont think he will even talk with Green Bay, but I dont think he is as far gone as the masses think he is.
Title: Re: Bryant to GB?
Post by: ricky on April 14, 2018, 12:47:11 PM
No. A problem waiting to happen. He is too- excitable for my taste. He'll get into the faces of coaches, and probably Rodgers sooner or later if he thinks he's open and the pass goes elsewhere. Volatile to me, passionate to to others. Besides, he's going to want a big payday, if not immediately, then very soon. He also doesn't seem to be able to take any responsibility for his actions. Its all someone else, or a conspiracy, or something. But its not him:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/04/13/dez-bryant-blames-coaches-his-former-teammates-who-are-garretts-guys-for-his-release/
Title: Re: Bryant to GB?
Post by: phanatic1 on April 14, 2018, 12:58:52 PM
Lots of talk about Dez that is for sure.  I am not a fan of his and the show that goes with him - but - lets face it, he has some left in the tank and the Packers could use a guy like him.  You gotta admit that having Adams and Dez wide with Cobb in the slot and Graham working the middle would be pretty darn good.  Would Dez go for a 1 or 2 year deal to play with Rodgers? 

And Calvin Ridley.  The more I watch, the more I like him.  He kind of has flown under the radar in the pre-draft hype as he didn't run real fast and his frame is pretty small.  But there is no arguing his production.  Could the Packers take him at 14 and then get the OLB on day 2??  I don't think it is out of the question. 
Title: Re: Bryant to GB?
Post by: The GM on April 14, 2018, 02:01:24 PM
No. A problem waiting to happen. He is too- excitable for my taste. He'll get into the faces of coaches, and probably Rodgers sooner or later if he thinks he's open and the pass goes elsewhere. Volatile to me, passionate to to others. Besides, he's going to want a big payday, if not immediately, then very soon. He also doesn't seem to be able to take any responsibility for his actions. Its all someone else, or a conspiracy, or something. But its not him:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/04/13/dez-bryant-blames-coaches-his-former-teammates-who-are-garretts-guys-for-his-release/

Agree, I can see him flinging his helmet, screaming at teammates on the sidelines.  In this offense, you have to be prepared to NOT get the ball.  The ball is spread around.  Ask yourself this, when was the last time you saw a Packer WR blow up about not getting balls thrown his way?    Its been awhile, and now is not the time to start.

You might hear about some vague interest by the Packers, but IMO that is more about Gute keeping the Packers name alive in any FA talks. 
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: RT on April 14, 2018, 04:19:11 PM
Matt Miller

Verified account
 
@nfldraftscout
 4h4 hours ago
More
Twitter any time a player gets cut:

Fan of former team: "He sucked, we're better off without him."

Fans of every other team: "I hope we sign him, he's exactly what we need!"

Their is a reason the former team doesn't want them around anymore and it isn't just about money. If the Packers would of tried a little bit, they could of kept Nelson around for something just over the minimum. They didn't offer because they really didn't want his services anymore. The same go's for Bryant. Father time wins every battle.

Green Bay did offer him a new deal with a large pay cut and Nelson quickly declined.

https://www.acmepackingcompany.com/packers-free-agency-2018/2018/3/15/17127988/packers-contract-offer-to-jordy-nelson-was-embarrassing-according-to-james-jones

Packers had their number and weren't willing to budge.

Nowhere in my post did I say the Packers didn't offer a reduced deal. I said, " If the Packers would of tried a little bit" and that is exactly what Nelson said 11 days after the acticle you provided a link to. This is Nelson comment, “The ‘hurt’ part was the unwillingness to make it work.”

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/2018/03/26/jordy-nelson-hurt-by-lack-of-contract-negotiation-with-packers/

No but you also claimed if that offer was "something just over the minimum" they could have kept him. They lowballed him and he did not accept.

Thank you for enlarging the point of the original post and highlighting that they no longer wanted his services. Glad you were able to connect those 2 dots. Good job you.
Title: Re: Bryant to GB?
Post by: scoremore on April 14, 2018, 04:28:15 PM
Dez is a vet.  He's got plenty left.  Yes he could definitely help the Pack.  What's the price tag?  How would he fit in the locker room?  Those are my biggest concerns with the guy.  Gute should probably do his due diligence whether he becomes a Packer or not I don't know but would say odds are very slim.  Can't look for a rookie WR to come in and make an impact.  Just never happens.  Allison all he does is make plays whenever he's out there.  Clark and Yancey like those guys too.  Davis?  Dunno if he'll ever be a factor at WR.  So we have 3 potential guys that could step up.  Hit on one and we are ok with the guys we have.
Title: Re: Bryant to GB?
Post by: LaSeeno on April 14, 2018, 07:42:51 PM
Man, one side of me really wants to see Dez opposite Adams.
Title: Re: Bryant to GB?
Post by: ricky on April 14, 2018, 09:29:47 PM
Man, one side of me really wants to see Dez opposite Adams.

Don't succumb to the Dark Side!
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: claymaker on April 15, 2018, 07:55:39 AM
Thank you for enlarging the point of the original post and highlighting that they no longer wanted his services. Glad you were able to connect those 2 dots. Good job you.

They did want his services though, contrary to your point. They DID offer him exactly what you described as "something just over the minimum", likely a bit more, in an effort to keep him.   
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: ricky on April 15, 2018, 09:07:26 AM
They did want his services though, contrary to your point. They DID offer him exactly what you described as "something just over the minimum", likely a bit more, in an effort to keep him.

If they wanted to keep him, he'd still be on the team. They offered him an insulting low contract. Nelson instead moved on. So, did they offer m  a contract? Yes. Was it a realistic attempt to keep him on the roster? No. To illustrate, league minimum for players with 10+ years experience is a little over $1 million. The Raiders signed him for two years for about $7 million a year. Though realistically, this is a one year contract, since they'd have no dead cap if they cut him next year. Could the Packers have done the same? I think it was within their grasp if they had wanted to keep him.

Here are the numbers NFL vet minimums salaries: https://landryfootball.com/understanding-nfl-minimum-salaries-veteran-cap-benefit-rule-free/

Here are the numbers for the Raiders: https://overthecap.com/player/jordy-nelson/1121
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: claymaker on April 15, 2018, 03:50:45 PM
They did want his services though, contrary to your point. They DID offer him exactly what you described as "something just over the minimum", likely a bit more, in an effort to keep him.

If they wanted to keep him, he'd still be on the team. They offered him an insulting low contract. Nelson instead moved on. So, did they offer m  a contract? Yes. Was it a realistic attempt to keep him on the roster? No. To illustrate, league minimum for players with 10+ years experience is a little over $1 million. The Raiders signed him for two years for about $7 million a year. Though realistically, this is a one year contract, since they'd have no dead cap if they cut him next year. Could the Packers have done the same? I think it was within their grasp if they had wanted to keep him.

Here are the numbers NFL vet minimums salaries: https://landryfootball.com/understanding-nfl-minimum-salaries-veteran-cap-benefit-rule-free/

Here are the numbers for the Raiders: https://overthecap.com/player/jordy-nelson/1121

We don't know the exact number of the offered contract. I doubt it was the league minimum, 4 or 5 million seems about right to me. Considering the Raiders gave him 7, 4-5 million is a fair assumption and also a very low offer. They wanted to keep him at their number not his.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: ricky on April 15, 2018, 08:45:45 PM
We don't know the exact number of the offered contract. I doubt it was the league minimum, 4 or 5 million seems about right to me. Considering the Raiders gave him 7, 4-5 million is a fair assumption and also a very low offer. They wanted to keep him at their number not his.

"Just over league minimum" would be four or five times as much? That is not "a little over the league minimum" IMO. We'll probably never know the real offer, unless Jordy decides to share it. 
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: marklawrence on April 16, 2018, 08:05:35 PM
Current rumors are that Dez wants to play for the Giants, and the team that is most interested in him is the Ravens.

I'm perfectly comfortable predicting he won't be a packer.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: MO.Pack on April 20, 2018, 06:44:02 PM
Giants say they are not interested in his service.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: RT on April 20, 2018, 08:21:35 PM
I don't think it is out of the question that no one wants him.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: ricky on April 20, 2018, 08:57:13 PM
I don't think it is out of the question that no one wants him.

Cincy or the Ravens would take him. Maybe Oakland. All three seem to like outcasts, and the Ravens and Raiders could use a WR to help bolster their offenses. But RT, you could be correct. A guy who seems to have regressed as an offensive threat, but who wants to get paid like a star. Also, although he had indicated repeatedly he would never play for a reduced/reworked contract, once he was released, suddenly he was willing to take a pay cut. This guy is bad news. Time to pull out that 12 foot Hungarian.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: davekenya on April 26, 2018, 09:00:08 AM
Apparently Bryant has turned down a multi-year offer to join the Ravens (who then signed Snead).  Brant was cut by the Cowboys because his declining numbers over the past three years ere iincongruent to a 16.5 M cap figure in 2018.  Bryant is betting on himself.  He apparently believes injuries, a lack of a focus and poor scheme in Dallas were factors in his decline and has vowed to bounce back in 2018.  He wants to sign a 1-year 'prove it' deal and then be back on the market.  To me this would indicate he'll try his hardest to not only do well but behave well; knowing 31 other teams will be watching him.  This would motivate him to play well.

Playing with Rodgers would give him about the best chance to showcase his skills (whatever they may be); Rodgers will get him the ball if he's open.  If anything, this would indicate Bryant might take less to sign in GB than elsewhere - knowing he'd have best chance to have big numbers with GB compared to most teams. 

The cost to GB could be absorbed in a 1-year deal.  It could mean - but not necessarily - pushing Rodgers' extension out a year.  After 2018, GB would have the money allocated to Bryant to work with plus others (CMIII) no longer under contract and they'll need to figure out Cobb.

The other cost would be a roster spot.  GB will likely draft a WR (or 2??) anywhere in rounds 2-6 if the board dictates it.  Cobb + Adams + Bryant + 1 rookie + 2 carry-overs from last year would fill 6 WR spots.  That would be letting go current WR roster talent.  Is Gute comfortable doing that?  Potentially losing Cobb and Bryant after 2018 would leave only Adams as proven talent.  Would Gute be comfortable with that?  Would we?   For these reasons, Bryant doesn't seem a good option. 

On the other hand, he'd be a great 1-year fix -- Graham, Adams, Bryant, Cobb, Montgomery out of backfield -- how the heck do you defend that?  Bryant would be insurance if there was a WR injury; or Adams got another concussion taking him out 3-6 weeks.  If this happened, I don't see two of Graham, Adams, Cobb (the other injured) as being much of a threat to defenses.  Monty would need to play more WR schemes.  This would be the case for getting Bryant.  We know a rookie WR would only be able to contribute minimally not knowing the offense and audibles/scrambles, etc that AR and MM would want.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: marklawrence on April 26, 2018, 10:34:01 AM
I think you're a very optimistic guy.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: dannobanano on April 26, 2018, 12:39:04 PM
The only way he comes to GB is if he's willing to accept that he would be the #2 WR, we already have our #1 in Adams.

If he accepts that, and a modest 1 yr. deal, and lets the Packers put in a team distraction/bad chemistry clause in the 1 yr deal..........then we may be interested.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: ricky on April 26, 2018, 04:16:24 PM
When Bryant was first cut, it was assumed he'd have multiple teams interested, and he'd go on a recruiting tour, with him choosing among multiple offers. Instead, Baltimore is apparently the only team to make him an offer. Since it was multi-year, he turned it down, looking for a one year "prove it" deal.And there seem to be no takers on that front. The real question for the Packers is whether he'd be a good fit with Rodgers. Bryant is a receiver who will out fight a defender for the ball, even though he looks covered. Romo trusted him; Prescott didn't. So, his production dropped, his paycheck didn't match his production.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: dannobanano on April 26, 2018, 04:50:18 PM
Maybe that's because Dak isn't as accurate a passer as Romo was?
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: ThatGuy284 on April 26, 2018, 05:03:36 PM
Dak Prescott also attempted significantly fewer passes per season than Romo did and Rodgers did in his previous two full seasons.   The Dallas offense shifted to Elliott as the primary option
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: ricky on April 26, 2018, 06:33:49 PM
Maybe that's because Dak isn't as accurate a passer as Romo was?

Romo was at 65.3 completion percentage for his career. Prescott is at 65.2. True, the number of years is not the same, but so far, they are in a virtual tie.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: ricky on April 26, 2018, 06:39:43 PM
Dak Prescott also attempted significantly fewer passes per season than Romo did and Rodgers did in his previous two full seasons.   The Dallas offense shifted to Elliott as the primary option

Prescott has attempted 949 passes his first two seasons. Romo in his first two years as a starter threw 857 times.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: ThatGuy284 on April 26, 2018, 08:03:22 PM
Dak Prescott also attempted significantly fewer passes per season than Romo did and Rodgers did in his previous two full seasons.   The Dallas offense shifted to Elliott as the primary option

Prescott has attempted 949 passes his first two seasons. Romo in his first two years as a starter threw 857 times.

Neat.

Those dates do not overlap Dez Bryant's career.    During Dez's best seasons (prior to Ezekiel Elliott's arrival) Romo averaged significantly higher attempts and/or significantly higher completion %.    During the last 4 full 16 game seasons of Rodgers' career he averaged almost 90 more attempts per season than Dak has in his last 2
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: The GM on April 26, 2018, 10:34:55 PM
I think Bryants slim chance of landing in GB hinges on day 2 or 3 of the draft.  If the Packers take a WR on Friday or Saturday early, Bryant is an afterthought.  If they dont, Bryant may have a very slim chance of being in GB.  I think they'll take a WR somewhere in rd 2-4. JMO.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: davekenya on April 27, 2018, 07:18:05 AM
I'd be against Bryant - not because of his abilities/attitude, but more the cost. 
I think we'll get by fine with Adams, Cobb, Graham, and an occasional Monty.  15% of the passes also going to other WRs already on the roster and/or 2018 draft pick.  If somebody emerges, then the 15% goes higher.

I think the offense is screwed if Graham is injured; plain and simple.  Adams and Cobb can't keep an entire defense honest.  But this is another conversation.

The biggest reason I'd pass on Bryant would be to save the 9M (or whatever) he'd cost us in 2018; bank that money and use it to extend Wilkerson before he hits the open market after 2018  if he reverts to form.  He might want to stay with Pettine and his system - who initially and again with GB in '18 helped him maximize his talents.  A front DL of Wilkerson, Clark and Daniels (spelled currently by Lowry and Adams -- who really is still an unknown) would set us up well for several years.  If Wilkerson isn't worthy of a contract extension, fine, let him go after '18 and use the money elsewhere.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: ricky on April 27, 2018, 10:22:19 AM
Neat.

Those dates do not overlap Dez Bryant's career.    During Dez's best seasons (prior to Ezekiel Elliott's arrival) Romo averaged significantly higher attempts and/or significantly higher completion %.    During the last 4 full 16 game seasons of Rodgers' career he averaged almost 90 more attempts per season than Dak has in his last 2

Fair enough. In his final two seasons when he played full time, each season in 15 games, Romo attempted a total of 970 passes. One year, he was at 63.9% completion rate; the next year, 69.9%. So, hopefully that clarifies things. Rodgers attempts per season are irrelevant, since he obviously didn't have the stud RB that Dallas does.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: claymaker on May 08, 2018, 12:20:30 PM
With Bryant's market cap shrinking and the lack of interest around the league at what point should Green Bay consider signing him?

I was 100% against signing him initially, but now he could be a real bargain deal. I don't buy the "teams won't even sign him for the league minimum" narrative. My number to sign him would be 4-5 million on a 2-3 year deal. I'd even go ahead and fully guarantee his contract at that price.

The biggest factor in my mind is how will he fit into the locker room and on the sidelines. There has only been speculation about Bryant going to Green Bay in the media, so at this point I believe they have no interest in him. It's still worth discussing though. It would also be a giant slap in the face to Nelson unless they sign him cheap.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: ricky on May 08, 2018, 02:46:31 PM
With Bryant's market cap shrinking and the lack of interest around the league at what point should Green Bay consider signing him?

I was 100% against signing him initially, but now he could be a real bargain deal. I don't buy the "teams won't even sign him for the league minimum" narrative. My number to sign him would be 4-5 million on a 2-3 year deal. I'd even go ahead and fully guarantee his contract at that price.

The biggest factor in my mind is how will he fit into the locker room and on the sidelines. There has only been speculation about Bryant going to Green Bay in the media, so at this point I believe they have no interest in him. It's still worth discussing though. It would also be a giant slap in the face to Nelson unless they sign him cheap.

Bryant doesn't want a multi-year contract. Will he accept a longer deal because there is nothing else available? We'll see. But I have to say, your analysis of the situation is as succinct and flawless as I've read. However, if he's winning, and putting up some good numbers, I don't see him as being a problem. The problem would be with all the WR's the Packers drafted, already have on the team, and with Adams effectively being named the #1 WR, where would that leave Bryant? That is the "fly in the ointment, the monkey in the wrench" for the Packers. So, yes, your scenario makes sense, but I don't see it happening.
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: RT on May 15, 2018, 09:23:31 AM
Jason Witten, the admitted Packers hater and accused 'Garrett Guy' by Dez Bryant has successfully trolled both Bryant and Packers fans in one fell swoop. With his first act as part of the media he declares Bryant will end up in GB, knowing that Bryant has a bad taste in his mouth about the Packers and a sizable portion of the Packers fanbase would lose sleep over the idea of Bryant in green and gold. Personally I find it hilarious and look forward to his future trolling of the Giants, Eagles and Redskins fanbases. 
Title: Re: Dez Bryant
Post by: The GM on May 15, 2018, 07:33:19 PM
It will be interesting to see what Gute does here and what management style he takes.  TT likely wouldnt have had any part of Bryant in Green Bay.  A guy like John Schneider could comb prisons looking for a player if he could find them, and let Pete Carroll handle them.   I dont think Bryant will be in GB because of all the WRs they drafted.   Gute may have a different approach and style to these type situations.  We'll see.