October 16, 2019, 10:14:53 PM

Author Topic: TT doesn't sign free agents  (Read 17982 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AldenRoche

  • Guest
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #60 on: February 21, 2013, 07:48:39 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?

This thread concerns veteran unrestricted free agents (UFAs like Woodson and Pickett) not street and undrafted free agents (UDFAs). You know, guys like Kuhn, DuJuan Harris, and Frank Zombo. Every NFL team has numerous street and UDFAs on their roster now that the draft has only 7 rounds.

Heck, I think TT and his staff have done an outstanding job at finding street and UDFAs but that simply is not the same discussion as veteran, UFAs.

Offline realitybytes

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 284
  • Karma: +2/-2
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #61 on: February 21, 2013, 08:05:17 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.


nobody ever made the claim that tt doesn't sign street free agents. and i really hate the fact that the same term is used to describe nfl veterans who have proven themselves worthy of playing at the nfl level and a bunch of guys with zero experience who have been passed over by every team in the league. some of us are capable of distinguishing between the two. others can't see the difference.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Offline eX Oh

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #62 on: February 21, 2013, 08:20:47 AM »
There's always going to be a handful of trades/FA signings that work out well.

These are the vast minority.

The only way to really pursue these deals is on a case-by-case basis with 14 metric crap-tons of due dilligence.  Pretty hard to generalize about it - but teams that over-pursue generally suffer in the end.  Going to this well too often fragments your team, locker room, and your salary cap.

I imagine TT could be a little more aggressive - but too much more and we may not have had the solid team we have enjoyed.

Its really a dogfight each year trying to get some value out of FA/Trades and its not as simple as saying 'I'm gonna sign a good WR/OLB/Whatever'.  There are a couple right ways and a thousand wrong ways to go about this IMO.  And there are zero guarantees you'll be able to find your guy and not hamstring yourself in the process (The Bears and Cutler).


Offline Beagle

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2118
  • Karma: +0/-1
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #63 on: February 21, 2013, 08:51:03 AM »
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?

I would think that if you went to to the GM's of both Atlanta and Seattle and tried to argue that " the trades for Gonzalez and Lynch haven't yielded anything", they would laugh you right out of the building. Both of those teams could have very easily been in the SB this past year and those players you mentioned had a lot to do with their success.

I simply don't see the relevance in your aguements. Trading can have a major positive effect on a team and just because TT does not trade as much as other teams, does not mean that it does not make a major impact.

You can attribute the success of the Green Bay Packers over the course of the last 20 years or so to the fact that we had some very good GM's. Their success for the franchise had a lot to do with FA signings, drafting and trades. I don't buy onto the arguement that Ron Wolf's accomplishments are somehow minimized because he came in at the beginning of the FA era. He built some pretty good Packer teams and as I recall, all the other teams in the NFL had access to all the same players Ron Wolf did. He just made some gret trades....as well as draft picks and FA signings.

But it makes me wonder.... how much better would we be now if Ted had signed a great FA (Randy Moss in 2007, held on to Cullen Jenkins in 2011) or made a great trade. Food for thought and it can be argued to death for both good and bad to the success of the team. 

But we are already are an elite team and it is because of Ted and his methodology. But that does not mean he can't do some things better. But to simply say that trades don't impact teams or that we are simply better because we won 1 SB a few years ago so the mindset on other teams must be wrong is , IMO, not accurate.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 08:51:59 AM by Beagle »
“It’s not whether you get knocked down, it’s whether you get up.” -V. Lombardi

Offline Twain

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3167
  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #64 on: February 21, 2013, 03:22:00 PM »
I think that is an excellent post Beagle.

I just want to add that I think many fans fail to recognize how hard it is to be successful in the free agent scrum.  The recent article on the Reggie White deal really points that out, when they talk about how the Packers' ability to structure the deal the way they did due to a large amount of cash on hand allowed them to beat out teams like SanFrancisco that had limitations on what they could spend or how they could structure.

The cap implications of a big name free agent can sink a team if they fail to perform.  Mike Sherman learned a bit about that.

Teams can definitely be made better with key free agents or trades, but making those deals is not without risk.  It would be nice to hit the jackpot on a trade or free agent, but we are doing okay despite the failures in this area.
"The trouble ain't that there are too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right."

Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
  • Karma: +1/-10
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #65 on: February 22, 2013, 12:32:56 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.


nobody ever made the claim that tt doesn't sign street free agents. and i really hate the fact that the same term is used to describe nfl veterans who have proven themselves worthy of playing at the nfl level and a bunch of guys with zero experience who have been passed over by every team in the league. some of us are capable of distinguishing between the two. others can't see the difference.
Thanksfor proving my point. You  know can't make your "TT doesn't sign FA"  so you arbitrarily decide on your own who is a FA or not so it makes your argument stick. FA are any player who isn't currently under contract. Period. That is how the NFL defines it. FA are not whoever you feel will make your argument. "TT doesn't sign players I think are FA" is not an argument.
"Aaron Rodgers is a baaaaaaad man" - Stephen A. Smith

Offline cpk1994

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6299
  • Karma: +1/-10
Re: TT doesn't sign free agents
« Reply #66 on: February 22, 2013, 12:37:17 AM »
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?

I would think that if you went to to the GM's of both Atlanta and Seattle and tried to argue that " the trades for Gonzalez and Lynch haven't yielded anything", they would laugh you right out of the building. Both of those teams could have very easily been in the SB this past year and those players you mentioned had a lot to do with their success.

Well guess what? THEY WEREN'T. You can talk about your coulda, woulda, shoulda's. At the end of the day the Falcons and Seahwaks still lhaven't sniffed a SB. Seattle still hasn't sniffed an NFC ttyitlr game yet despite the trade. Meanwhile, GB and TT have already won a SB with their method and are in position every year to win another. It's laughable to say TT should be making trades  when TT has already proven his method works.
"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 #67 on: February 22, 2013, 07:06:32 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.


nobody ever made the claim that tt doesn't sign street free agents. and i really hate the fact that the same term is used to describe nfl veterans who have proven themselves worthy of playing at the nfl level and a bunch of guys with zero experience who have been passed over by every team in the league. some of us are capable of distinguishing between the two. others can't see the difference.
Thanksfor proving my point. You  know can't make your "TT doesn't sign FA"  so you arbitrarily decide on your own who is a FA or not so it makes your argument stick. FA are any player who isn't currently under contract. Period. That is how the NFL defines it. FA are not whoever you feel will make your argument. "TT doesn't sign players I think are FA" is not an argument.


there is a reason why most intelligent posters have left this forum.
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)