October 19, 2019, 03:38:31 AM

Author Topic: TT doesn't sign free agents  (Read 18003 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ThatGuy284

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 938
  • Karma: +4/-4
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #45 on: February 18, 2013, 01:54:23 PM »
If only there was some way to prove that TT has been able to build a successful winner with his methodology...


Offline Twain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3167
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #46 on: February 18, 2013, 03:17:02 PM »
If only there was some way to prove that TT has been able to build a successful winner with his methodology...

If only Green Bay had won the super bowl in the last decade like San Francisco.....  hysterical
"The trouble ain't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."

Offline realitybytes

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
  • Karma: +2/-2
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #47 on: February 18, 2013, 05:26:36 PM »
confused(
Comparing TT to Wolf doesn't seem fair to me. 

Wolf was there at the start of the free agency phenomenon, an I believe was a classic "early adopter" of the change.  He figured it out and exploited it before others figured it out.

It is a different situation now.  In some ways, TT may have figured out the dangers of free agency better than others.  I understand that SF and Baltimore have had success with it, but the thing we aren't talking about is the number of losing teams that use free agency and still are losers.

Sure, I would like to see us score a home run on free agency.  I just think it is harder to do these days.

I'm with you.  Except for a couple of guys who will cost a fortune there is a reason why most FAs are available.   

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl-mock-draft/2013/1/29/3926974/super-bowl-2013-rosters


i'm not sure i understand the relevance of that link to your comment. the article that you linked to shows that the ravens have 14 players and the 49ers have 17 players who originally played for some other team. only four packers on the 2012 roster ever played a significant number of snaps for another team.

Unless I read that article wrong it appeared most of the players on these rosters were built along the same lines that TT advocates.   confused(


not trying to be rude, but yes - you did read the article wrong. to be fair, it is slightly misleading because they make it look like the ravens and the niners drafted all those guys. but if you read it closely, you will see that many of the guys who were "drafted" were actually drafted by other teams. aldenroche has already listed a whole bunch of starters and that were drafted, but not drafted by the teams they currently play for.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
  • Karma: +1/-10
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #48 on: February 19, 2013, 07:51:43 AM »
TT doesn't sign many name FAs but he isn't opposed to signing UDFAs.  We've found a couple of gems this way (Sheilds and Barclay e.g.).

TT has not signed any NAME free agents since 2006 (unless you count an obviously over-the-hill Saturday or past his prime Benson, both of who had NAMES but came on the cheap). TT also has not traded for a single NFL veteran player since 2007 (when he got Ryan Grant for a 7th round pick).

The record reveals TT has an aversion to adding NFL VETERAN talent to the team.

I certainly agree that he does, however, seem to relish signing undrafted/street free agents like Shields, T. Williams, D. Harris, D. Barclay and E. Walden.
The record also shows he had the highest offer on the table for Lavar Arrington and Adam Vinitieri, but they took money elsewhere. 

Also, not trading for players isn't a big deal because it is a rarity in the league as a whole. Ron Wolf didn't trade that often either.

Did Ron Wolf trade for Brett Favre? Did he trade for Keith Jackson? How about Eugene Robinson?

How was the guy who caught two TDs for the Ravens Anquan Boldin acquired? Couldn't have been via trade could it?
So, Wolf made 3 trades in his 9 seasons as GB GM. yep, he was a real trade machine.

Read my post again. I never said that trades didn't happen. I said they were rare and that Wolf didn't trade that often. And that is still fact.
"Aaron Rodgers is a baaaaaaad man" - Stephen A. Smith

AldenRoche

  • Guest
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #49 on: February 19, 2013, 08:18:55 AM »
TT doesn't sign many name FAs but he isn't opposed to signing UDFAs.  We've found a couple of gems this way (Sheilds and Barclay e.g.).

TT has not signed any NAME free agents since 2006 (unless you count an obviously over-the-hill Saturday or past his prime Benson, both of who had NAMES but came on the cheap). TT also has not traded for a single NFL veteran player since 2007 (when he got Ryan Grant for a 7th round pick).

The record reveals TT has an aversion to adding NFL VETERAN talent to the team.

I certainly agree that he does, however, seem to relish signing undrafted/street free agents like Shields, T. Williams, D. Harris, D. Barclay and E. Walden.
The record also shows he had the highest offer on the table for Lavar Arrington and Adam Vinitieri, but they took money elsewhere. 

Also, not trading for players isn't a big deal because it is a rarity in the league as a whole. Ron Wolf didn't trade that often either.

Did Ron Wolf trade for Brett Favre? Did he trade for Keith Jackson? How about Eugene Robinson?

How was the guy who caught two TDs for the Ravens Anquan Boldin acquired? Couldn't have been via trade could it?
So, Wolf made 3 trades in his 9 seasons as GB GM. yep, he was a real trade machine.

Read my post again. I never said that trades didn't happen. I said they were rare and that Wolf didn't trade that often. And that is still fact.

I agree that trades are rare in the NFL.

But I thought you wrote "not trading for players isn't a big deal." That is why, in comparing TT to RW, I merely pointed out that RW's trades (especially the one for Favre) were pretty big factors in the Pack's success under RW.

I also think the Ravens trade for Anquan Boldin proved to be a big deal in their winning this year's Super Bowl. I further think the Falcons trades for Asante' Samuel and Tony Gonzalez and the Seahawks trade for Marshawn Lynch were big deals for those playoff teams.


Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
  • Karma: +1/-10
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #50 on: February 20, 2013, 06:40:58 AM »
TT doesn't sign many name FAs but he isn't opposed to signing UDFAs.  We've found a couple of gems this way (Sheilds and Barclay e.g.).

TT has not signed any NAME free agents since 2006 (unless you count an obviously over-the-hill Saturday or past his prime Benson, both of who had NAMES but came on the cheap). TT also has not traded for a single NFL veteran player since 2007 (when he got Ryan Grant for a 7th round pick).

The record reveals TT has an aversion to adding NFL VETERAN talent to the team.

I certainly agree that he does, however, seem to relish signing undrafted/street free agents like Shields, T. Williams, D. Harris, D. Barclay and E. Walden.
The record also shows he had the highest offer on the table for Lavar Arrington and Adam Vinitieri, but they took money elsewhere. 

Also, not trading for players isn't a big deal because it is a rarity in the league as a whole. Ron Wolf didn't trade that often either.

Did Ron Wolf trade for Brett Favre? Did he trade for Keith Jackson? How about Eugene Robinson?

How was the guy who caught two TDs for the Ravens Anquan Boldin acquired? Couldn't have been via trade could it?
So, Wolf made 3 trades in his 9 seasons as GB GM. yep, he was a real trade machine.

Read my post again. I never said that trades didn't happen. I said they were rare and that Wolf didn't trade that often. And that is still fact.

I agree that trades are rare in the NFL.

But I thought you wrote "not trading for players isn't a big deal." That is why, in comparing TT to RW, I merely pointed out that RW's trades (especially the one for Favre) were pretty big factors in the Pack's success under RW.

I also think the Ravens trade for Anquan Boldin proved to be a big deal in their winning this year's Super Bowl. I further think the Falcons trades for Asante' Samuel and Tony Gonzalez and the Seahawks trade for Marshawn Lynch were big deals for those playoff teams.
I said that trades weren't a big deal because they are rare. The Seahwaks and Falcons have done nothing despite those trades while GB has won a SB. The Ravens also won the Super Bowl, but Flacco was the big reason they won, not Boldin.  Boldin had 6 catches and 1 TD. Most receivers could accomplish that.
"Aaron Rodgers is a baaaaaaad man" - Stephen A. Smith

AldenRoche

  • Guest
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #51 on: February 20, 2013, 07:23:48 AM »
So it is not the undisputed fact that Seattle and Atlanta made trades for Lynch, Gonzalez, and Samuel, respectively that is at issue any longer, it is that, in your mind, those trades are irrelevant because the Seahawks and Falcons "have done nothing." So I guess then trades only matter if they are made by teams that win Super Bowls and "do something."

Well, then again, in your mind the Ravens' trade for Anquan Boldin does not count as significant because his starter status and 6 catches for 106 yards and a TD in the Super Bowl win over the 49ers could be accomplished by "most receivers."

Hmm, I guess in your world a trade would only count if it involved the MVP of a Super Bowl winning team. Thanks, I now understand your position much, much better and completely agree with you that such trades have almost never happened.


Offline Twain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3167
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #52 on: February 20, 2013, 11:31:20 AM »
Where is the analysis of free agents and trades the Kansas City Chiefs made, or the Oakland Raiders?  Your sort of cherry picking the teams you are using to say free agency and trades make the team so much better.

"The trouble ain't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."

AldenRoche

  • Guest
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #53 on: February 20, 2013, 11:48:52 AM »
Where is the analysis of free agents and trades the Kansas City Chiefs made, or the Oakland Raiders?  Your sort of cherry picking the teams you are using to say free agency and trades make the team so much better.

Actually, I'm not cherry picking. I believe the Packers have the best QB in the game and should contend for the Super Bowl as a result. Hence, I am comparing the make up of the Packers's roster to the rosters of other current/recent Super Bowl contenders (and winners) like the Ravens, 49ers, Patriots, Giants, Falcons, and Saints. 

I'm sure you are correct and some of the terrible teams in the league have been big players in free agency and on the trade front (though I am having a hard time remembering all the FAs the Chiefs have signed -- seems to me a lot of their high draft picks have just not panned out, just like Detroit). However, I am also sure some of the lower-level teams have not partaken much in free agency and they may not have even made a single trade in the past 10 years. Those teams are not my focus the teams that are threats to win the Super Bowl are.

Anyway if others want to comfort themselves by thinking that seriously taking part in UFA or making trades only leads to records like those of the Chiefs and Raiders (and ignore that Balt., SF, NYG, NE, and other contenders are more apt to acquire veteran talent than GB is) that is their prerogative.

Offline Twain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3167
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #54 on: February 20, 2013, 12:47:17 PM »
Where is the analysis of free agents and trades the Kansas City Chiefs made, or the Oakland Raiders?  Your sort of cherry picking the teams you are using to say free agency and trades make the team so much better.

Actually, I'm not cherry picking. I believe the Packers have the best QB in the game and should contend for the Super Bowl as a result. Hence, I am comparing the make up of the Packers's roster to the rosters of other current/recent Super Bowl contenders (and winners) like the Ravens, 49ers, Patriots, Giants, Falcons, and Saints. 

I'm sure you are correct and some of the terrible teams in the league have been big players in free agency and on the trade front (though I am having a hard time remembering all the FAs the Chiefs have signed -- seems to me a lot of their high draft picks have just not panned out, just like Detroit). However, I am also sure some of the lower-level teams have not partaken much in free agency and they may not have even made a single trade in the past 10 years. Those teams are not my focus the teams that are threats to win the Super Bowl are.

Anyway if others want to comfort themselves by thinking that seriously taking part in UFA or making trades only leads to records like those of the Chiefs and Raiders (and ignore that Balt., SF, NYG, NE, and other contenders are more apt to acquire veteran talent than GB is) that is their prerogative.

But that is not what I am saying.  I'm just pointing out that the evidence that signing free agents and making trades leads to Super Bowl contention has not been convincing.  After all, we have been a Super Bowl contender for three years, and unlike some on your list, we have actually won one recently.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 12:49:37 PM by Twain »
"The trouble ain't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."

AldenRoche

  • Guest
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #55 on: February 20, 2013, 01:11:16 PM »
Where is the analysis of free agents and trades the Kansas City Chiefs made, or the Oakland Raiders?  Your sort of cherry picking the teams you are using to say free agency and trades make the team so much better.

Actually, I'm not cherry picking. I believe the Packers have the best QB in the game and should contend for the Super Bowl as a result. Hence, I am comparing the make up of the Packers's roster to the rosters of other current/recent Super Bowl contenders (and winners) like the Ravens, 49ers, Patriots, Giants, Falcons, and Saints. 

I'm sure you are correct and some of the terrible teams in the league have been big players in free agency and on the trade front (though I am having a hard time remembering all the FAs the Chiefs have signed -- seems to me a lot of their high draft picks have just not panned out, just like Detroit). However, I am also sure some of the lower-level teams have not partaken much in free agency and they may not have even made a single trade in the past 10 years. Those teams are not my focus the teams that are threats to win the Super Bowl are.

Anyway if others want to comfort themselves by thinking that seriously taking part in UFA or making trades only leads to records like those of the Chiefs and Raiders (and ignore that Balt., SF, NYG, NE, and other contenders are more apt to acquire veteran talent than GB is) that is their prerogative.

But that is not what I am saying.  I'm just pointing out that the evidence that signing free agents and making trades leads to Super Bowl contention has not been convincing.  After all, we have been a Super Bowl contender for three years, and unlike some on your list, we have actually won one recently.

Fair points that GB has been a contender the last 3 without making trades or signing many UFAs (though I don't think they win the Super Bowl without signing free agents Pickett and Woodson in 2006).

My posts, on at thread about TT not signing free agents, is actually the opposite of the one you make above -- namely that acquiring veteran talent through free agency and/or trades does not preclude teams from winning the Super Bowl as the Ravens and Giants have proven the past 2 seasons. IMO too many Packer fans have a myopic view that taking part in free agency necessarily leads to negative outcomes. The evidence is to the contrary.

Offline JimATX

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 380
  • Karma: +4/-0
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #56 on: February 20, 2013, 09:09:42 PM »
Currently the Packers have 68 players on the "roster". 35 were drafted and 31 were FAs. Did those 31 FAs join the Packers without a contract?
Winning is habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.

Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
  • Karma: +1/-10
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #57 on: February 21, 2013, 12:39:29 AM »
So it is not the undisputed fact that Seattle and Atlanta made trades for Lynch, Gonzalez, and Samuel, respectively that is at issue any longer, it is that, in your mind, those trades are irrelevant because the Seahawks and Falcons "have done nothing." So I guess then trades only matter if they are made by teams that win Super Bowls and "do something."

Well, then again, in your mind the Ravens' trade for Anquan Boldin does not count as significant because his starter status and 6 catches for 106 yards and a TD in the Super Bowl win over the 49ers could be accomplished by "most receivers."

Hmm, I guess in your world a trade would only count if it involved the MVP of a Super Bowl winning team. Thanks, I now understand your position much, much better and completely agree with you that such trades have almost never happened.
You are the one making a claim that making trades are very important towards winning SB's. I am simply pointing out that the trades for Gonzalez and Lynch haven't yielded anything while TT's way has already yielded a Super Bowl. GB has been just as successful as those teams you pointed out, so why are trades so important?
"Aaron Rodgers is a baaaaaaad man" - Stephen A. Smith

Offline realitybytes

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
  • Karma: +2/-2
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #58 on: February 21, 2013, 05:29:25 AM »
Currently the Packers have 68 players on the "roster". 35 were drafted and 31 were FAs. Did those 31 FAs join the Packers without a contract?


and now we've come back to the tired old argument made by people who don't know the difference between an unrestricted veteran free agent and an undrafted street free agent. signing players that no other nfl team wanted and who have never played a single down of nfl football in a regular season game is not what we are talking about here.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
  • Karma: +1/-10
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #59 on: February 21, 2013, 07:33:02 AM »
Currently the Packers have 68 players on the "roster". 35 were drafted and 31 were FAs. Did those 31 FAs join the Packers without a contract?


and now we've come back to the tired old argument made by people who don't know the difference between an unrestricted veteran free agent and an undrafted street free agent. signing players that no other nfl team wanted and who have never played a single down of nfl football in a regular season game is not what we are talking about here.
Of course, because you can't make your argument that "TT doesn't sign FA" stick unless you claim those don't count regardless of the fact that they are indeed FA. 
"Aaron Rodgers is a baaaaaaad man" - Stephen A. Smith