June 20, 2019, 02:19:42 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Josh Jones wants to be Traded?
« Last post by RT on June 18, 2019, 03:05:08 PM »
Deleted for being overly argumentative on a subject I really don't care about. Why needlessly antagonize others over an issue that effectively really doesn't matter, and is just fodder for the slow days of football? Have at it, fellow posters.

Not a big deal ricky, it is slow and will be for another month. A little back and forth about a marginal player is perfectly fine for discussion.

IMO your comparison of Jones and Roberts is an apples to oranges comparison, they are not even close to the same quality of players. As I stated before, Jones has value and if the Packers decide to move him they will get something in return. Unless he becomes a felon between now and training camp of course.
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Josh Jones wants to be Traded?
« Last post by ricky on June 18, 2019, 02:46:08 PM »
Deleted for being overly argumentative on a subject I really don't care about. Why needlessly antagonize others over an issue that effectively really doesn't matter, and is just fodder for the slow days of football? Have at it, fellow posters.
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Josh Jones wants to be Traded?
« Last post by PackerJoe on June 18, 2019, 12:53:29 PM »
I thought jones was starting to come on at the end of the year, when alot of players were injured or thrown in the towel. There are always injuries, you can count on king getting hurt in the first four games, last years safety is a 36 year cb, our DL and lb should provide more pressure taking heat off the db's, so the defense should be better.  If he stuck around another year, and performed, he would have much more leverage.  Maybe he wants to go to Baltimore or Carolina and be closer to home. Hey I get that.  If he insists on a trade, perhaps we can pick up a speedy, talented linebacker.  One potential to think about, we could couple him and spriggs in a deal. Like both players and think a change of scenery would bode well for them (IE Indianapolis, Cincinnati).  Someone out of the NFC.
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Position look: QB
« Last post by RT on June 18, 2019, 12:42:17 PM »
I think you are twisting this a little bit craig. Calling audibles is part of the game, but the majority of plays should not be audibles.

You use the term 'bad plays' and no one used the term 'bad plays', the play that the Patriots ran on 1st down was a quick throw to the flat that was good for a 3-4 yard gain. The pass went to the flat for the purpose of setting up a play later on. Not a good play, not a bad play, just a play with a purpose. Also, no one is talking about using such a play on 3rd down to end a drive, that just is not logical.

The Packers were average, middle of the road, at most things last season and that includes 1st downs and average plays per drive. The Packers ranked 15th in 1st downs per game at 20.8 with the Rams first at 24.4 per game. Average plays per drive for the Packers was 6.09 which was 13th in the NFL, the Ravens were first at 6.71 plays per drive. Let those numbers sink in for a few minutes, the Packers were about a half a play per drive from leading the NFL. Yet Packers fans have this narrative that the Packers were always going 3 and out. Just maybe a little less disruption to the sequencing gets them there.


Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Position look: QB
« Last post by craig on June 18, 2019, 11:37:24 AM »
Good leadership comes from actions and not words. In the words of Bill Belichick, the Packers need Rodgers to 'just do his job', anything else is just lip service and not needed. It would start by running the plays that are called and stop audibling out of a large percentage of them. Coaching staffs spend months breaking down opponents and designing game plans to best sequence their plays for an end purpose and breaking the sequence with constant audibles kills the chance of manipulating a defense with the purpose the game plan intended.

Belichick does a great segment each week during the season on there teams website breaking down plays. Watching one week last season he talked about burning a play on 1st down to see how a safety reacted to a formation and setting that player up for a play later in the game from the same formation. First they showed the set up play and then they showed the play from the same formation and the end result of a 60+ yard scoring strike. Rodgers doesn't like a play and audibles out of it, but just like the Belichick play, the play may have a bigger picture purpose and because of the audible the information is never gathered for later use. Football has become a game of chess and requires thinking several moves ahead, not just one move at a time. Rodgers should 'just do his job' and stop trying to do everyone else's.       

Really interesting points.  My mind is going in multiple directions with this.
1.  Every coach wants a QB who can audible out of bad plays and into better plays... at times, and to some degree.  So, doing an appropriate amount of audibling is part of "just doing his job".  The question is when and where, and when is too much? 
2.  I wonder what MLF wants? 
3.  I'm not sure whether MM was a great chess master? Will MLF be?  I hope so....
4.  I think communication is pretty important.  If you're going to run some bad plays to set up a big-play later, I'd think that could be discussed in advance?  There could be an understanding of when you're trying to sequence some stuff. 
5.  Sequencing plays and stuff is probably a lot easier if your offense is good enough to be stacking first downs, even while setting up for even great gains later... 
6.  1-2-3-punt may not be the most conducive to sequencing.  So I could imagine there might be lots of times when it's 3rd down, and you're not thinking chess or sequencing, but simply trying to give yourself the best chance of keeping the ball rather than punting it over....
7.  If Rodgers is going to play as a selfish, short-sighted, inaccurate, bad-decision-making disruptor, then the team is not going to go as far as it could.  Good QB play needs to be a component of a big season.  Somehow or other, Rodgers and MLF will need to be able to work together, in a favorable way, to achieve big success.  Whether that's possible, I have no idea.
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Position look: QB
« Last post by craig on June 18, 2019, 11:14:09 AM »
So in a nutshell, the Packers are only going as far as Rodgers takes them. No?

Yes and no.  Yes, ANY realistic chance for the Packers to go far hinges on Rodgers being a really good, asset contributor.  Any chance requires that he steps up and plays much better than he did last year.  If he's as injury-limited as last year; as inaccurate; as scattershot poor in his decision-making, etc., then the Packers aren't winning the Super Bowl. 

There's a host of things that have to come together for the Packers to win the Super Bowl.  QB play has to be one of them.  If QB play is poor, it's just not happening. 

"Going as far as Rodgers takes them" is phrased (intentionally, I think) to sound un-teamly.  Rodgers can't take them, it's a team.   A host of things need to come together.  The o-line needs to stay healthy and play well.  The receiving corps needs to step up.  The run-game needs to work.  The o-scheme needs to work.  They need to be able to convert 3rd downs and red-zone.  The defense needs to stay healthy.  The pass rush needs to work.  The secondary needs to stay healthy.  There's a whole lot of things that need to come together for the Packers to emerge as the best team in football.  It's not "just about" or "all about" Rodgers.  It's about the team. 

But for the team to thrive, I do think it's essential that the QB thrives.  QB-play is such an important component of team function.  If Rodgers isn't healthy enough, accurate enough, smart enough, patient enough, collaborative enough to play at a very high level, the Packers won't go all the way.  As MLF has noted, QB play can sometimes make up for some other things going imperfectly.  But it's really hard to go all the way while needing to make up for bad QB play. 
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Position look: FB/TE
« Last post by craig on June 18, 2019, 10:43:36 AM »
Thanks! League having daily transaction log makes really good sense.  As does team announcement subsequent to passing a physical. 
NFL Talk / Re: Vikings paying for Cousins deal
« Last post by raptorman on June 18, 2019, 08:25:55 AM »
So far, the Vikings have dealt with their cap very well. But next year could be the year. Like next year might be the year the Vikes finally win a SB. Or not. The article is from PFT: https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/06/15/vikings-facing-cap-issues-in-2020-too/
Notice they don't talk about any other teams with cap issues next year. Although 2 others are in worse shape than the Vikings.   

My 2 cents on what happens next year.   Cousins 3rd year cap is $31 million.  No, nothing says they can't renegotiate or extend the contract.  yeah it's guaranteed, But what's guaranteed?   The money.   So, if after this year the Vikings want to keep Cousins, I bet you will see them extend his contract, lower his cap hit for 2020 spread the guaranteed money over 5 years in a signing bonus.
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Position look: FB/TE
« Last post by RT on June 18, 2019, 07:47:29 AM »
Dumb Q here: 
Q1:  The mechanics are, you place the claim first (as happened here), then you do the physical next? 

Q2:  How does a claim like this get publicized?  It gets placed with the league office, and they daily announce any such?  Weekly announce?  Instantly announce?  Or is it the claiming team who publicizes it? 
*The reason I'm asking is, if it depends on the team, maybe I wouldn't announce until after a guy had passed his physical?  Rather than claiming guys-released-based-on-physical-issues, reporting each claim, then releasing the "failed-his-physical" announcement as well?

Claim first followed by the physical, just not possible for every team interested in a player to give a physical before dropping a claim.

The NFL has a transaction log and they are the ones who first release the transaction information and that is done daily. The Packers probably will not announce the claim until after the physical is passed.
Green Bay Packers News Talk / Re: Position look: RB
« Last post by dannobanano on June 17, 2019, 06:55:47 PM »
Looking at yesterdays waiver wire, RB James Williams was waived by the Chiefs and he is a very similar RB to Bibbs at 300K a year less. Just brainstorming here.

The Lions also released blocking TE Michael Roberts and the Bills released TE Mik'Quan Dean who the Packers showed interest in the pre draft process.

The Green Bay Packers have claimed tight end Michael Roberts off waivers from the Detroit Lions, per the NFL’s transaction log.

I like this move. He was an emerging combo TE coming out of college, and he caught a ton of TD's his senior year before getting drafted.

I had him as a 4th round possible consideration for the Packers in the that draft.


[As a senior, Roberts became quarterback Logan Woodside's favorite red zone target, scoring 16 times (sixth-most in the FBS) on 45 receptions that covered 533 yards.

Roberts is a red zone monster (scored a TD every 3.1 receptions in career) who could emerge as a Stafford favorite in that area.

Very capable run blocker. Operates from strong base and utilizes lengths well. Sinks hips to brace up and neutralize defensive ends with leverage and uses hips and shoulder turn to steer out of the play. Has experience blocking from in-line and from wing spot.

One season of "wow" production, but has NFL size and length. Roberts' tape shows inconsistent effort from a blocking standpoint, but it also shows the strength and ability to handle those chores on the next level. He should be a functional receiver target as well and could come in as a third tight end with the ability to work his way up the ladder.]

Maybe MLF has a better plan on how to utilize his ability more than the kitty's did?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10