June 25, 2019, 11:30:00 PM

Author Topic: Hypothetical GM  (Read 2260 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TAYLORBOY

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
  • Karma: +8/-0
Re: Hypothetical GM
« Reply #30 on: March 26, 2019, 08:51:29 AM »
I don't think Gute would spend the draft capital on a CB after investing so much in years past..

Pack has had good luck getting help at CB with UDFA and might go back to that method again.

If you look at Gute's FA move, he went after what was needed by his DC on 1st day. young talented and type of player Pettine craves....and he got in a bidding war to get those 2 OLBers who can also play up and down the DL...perfect match for the scheme

Everybody with any working knowledge of the new HC says to look at the 49ers/Shanahan to see what the Packers O will look like. small sample of proof would be the OL Coach he nabbed not because of his experience in coaching OL but he experience in coaching the scheme he wants in GB....thus a coach without much experience but has his experience with the 49ers.....don't think that is by accident or coincidence...

Also if you look at Z Smith signing you will find that Gute's best friend Hendrickson coached OL at the Ravens and vouched for the character of Smith giving a boost to his signing..

Hendrickson was also an area scout for Ravens and his expertise was OL...so....maybe we won't spend a high pick on a OL unless he is really a can't miss target at 12...can we find good OL in lower rounds as before

Also...could Hendrickson bring a little of that " defensive " mentality from the Ravens over here as Player Director which could put a higher Packer choice in a safety or ISLB...something Ravens has always had?

Going back to the 49ers blueprint we are short 2 positions for ML...RB and TE...Jones played last season at around 194# that's just too light and no wonder he has ended u p injured at seasons end

I think RB is higher on our list than maybe we think....and also TE....

Gute looks to me like is listening to his Coaches....DC getting FA that fits nicely into his scheme....and maybe going differently than in previous years as who he coverts in the 1st round....

Unless a top OL slides or one of the top  rushers drops.... I could se one of the top TE's at 12 or one of the top ISLB.....

at #30 we get frosting on the cake...this may be the only BPA in top 2 rounds

RB or a top safety in 2nd at 44

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3375
  • Karma: +59/-17
Re: Hypothetical GM
« Reply #31 on: March 26, 2019, 10:13:53 AM »
Overall I think that is pretty sound thinking. Agree that to think that Jones can carry the load without getting injured is naïve thinking, he has missed time because of injury in every year of his college and pro career. The draft does seem to be setting up for a group of safeties to be there at #44, at this moment safety seems to be a logical 2nd round pick. The RB's the Packers probably are looking at seem mostly like 3rd day types, IMO I believe they can get a quality player to add to the current mix there. 

Offline TAYLORBOY

  • All Pro
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
  • Karma: +8/-0
Re: Hypothetical GM
« Reply #32 on: March 26, 2019, 11:05:01 AM »
On the RB question....I was surprised that we didn't go after the FA Coleman from Atlanta...he didn't get all that much in $$$...

Maybe Gute/ML has spotted a RB that is well within our reach in the draft... has the same multi-talented ability and more likely more than one who will fit the bill..

Online ricky

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5935
  • Karma: +43/-20
Re: Hypothetical GM
« Reply #33 on: March 26, 2019, 12:37:01 PM »
I'm not on trial here, if you choose to believe that they are only in it to win, well go ahead and believe it. The Packers are counting on it.

No, not you, but your idea that the Packers will put profit over a winning team is definitely on trial. And, yes, I do believe the Packers are trying to improve the team. Adding four FA's (so far) to bolster the defense to give them more options in the draft was a good move. Did they profit from it? Or did it make the team better? To be determined.

Your comments suggest that you do not understand what 'profit first ' really means. It's about maximizing profits 365 days out of the year. The stadium and ticket sales matured and topped out long ago.

I understand that. Which is why the increased the size of the stadium, and added additional revenue making enterprises to help them all year around. Which is why the Packers are also expanding into a "Packers World" (my term), which would be an entertainment venue for all ages to part with their money all year around. What I see is a two-fold operation. One is purely business, and, as stated, wants to maximize profits. The other side is football related, and yes, I believe they want to maximize wins, and get more SB titles. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. After all, as stated, the team has limits on spending, and has to follow rules laid down by the larger entity they belong to, while the business side doesn't have those limitations.

The Packers are now simply using the old business adage of 'sell them what they want'. Fan base wants hope, the Packers sell them some hope. Do the Packers want to win? Of course they want to win, it will just need to overcome some of the decisions made to maximize the daily profits along the way is all.

Here is where your argument gets confusing. You say the team wants to offer hope to the fans, but that the hope is false. Yet, they also want to win games. And somehow, building up profits outside of the football operations will somehow hamper their ability to build a winning team. Quite simply, how? Again, the team is limited in resources by the league. Whether the Packers are worth approximately $2.5 billion (the current estimate), or $1 billion of $50 billion is really irrelevant. Because the team can't spend any more for FA's than their salary cap allows. So, how does one impact the other? To me, it doesn't. 

 The things that won't happen are the tough decisions that would be unpopular with the majority of the fan base, like when Rodgers was drafted.
Unpopular decisions make for unhappy fans and unhappy fans don't open their wallets. Larger decisions are now made bases on popular opinion, not from the opinions of the football people.

You can't seriously believe this. The team is only making popular decisions? Lie cutting Jordy Nelson last year? Bringing in Jimmy Graham, which was very controversial? Letting Clay Matthews walk in FA? These were extremely popular with the fans? People still complain about the loss of Hayward and Hill, not to mention Hyde. Gutekunst is doing his best to make this team more accountable, starting with a new coach and staff, but retaining the DC, and giving him some new pieces to help him succeed. Also, you are aware that the Packers have one of the most loyal fan bases in the league. Putting up with the terrible teams and decisions made during the '70 and '80's was a trial, but always (that dreaded word) hoping for the best. And the team did turn itself around. I believe they have a chance to do that again. Only this time they already have a QB on the team who has shown the ability to lead the team to not only winning seasons, but the playoffs and SB. What they needed was a new infusion of enthusiasm, ideas and a willingness to change to meet the demands of a changing NFL. We'll find out soon enough if they've succeeded, or are simply rearrangning the deck chairs as the ship continues to founder.

Can the Packers still win? Sure, but it will be in spite of the profit first structure, not because of it.   

One thing I do want to make clear. This is not an attack on you, but on what I consider a very wrong opinion. I totally respect you as a poster, because you've earned that respect. But this idea of "profit first will hurt the team" (my take, not a quote from you) makes no sense.
"My hopes are not always realized, but I always hope." Ovid

Offline OneTwoSixFive

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2336
  • Karma: +15/-10
Re: Hypothetical GM
« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2019, 03:31:25 AM »
RT is a good poster but as Li Kao said to Number Ten Ox "I have a slight flaw in my character"...........*

*Quoted from an outstanding Oriental historical (8th century) Fantasy book "The Bridge of Birds" by Barry Hughart, winner of the World Fantasy Award in 1985
(ricky) "Personally, I'm putting this in a box, driving a stake through its heart, firing a silver bullet into its (empty) head, nailing it shut, loading it into a rocket and firing it into the sun. "

(Pink Floyd) "Set the controls for the heart of the sun"

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3375
  • Karma: +59/-17
Re: Hypothetical GM
« Reply #35 on: March 27, 2019, 07:20:06 AM »
RT is a good poster but as Li Kao said to Number Ten Ox "I have a slight flaw in my character"...........*

*Quoted from an outstanding Oriental historical (8th century) Fantasy book "The Bridge of Birds" by Barry Hughart, winner of the World Fantasy Award in 1985

That is an interesting confession, 1265. Is their more you would like to share?

Now, lay back down on the couch and tell us "how does that make you feel"?

Offline OneTwoSixFive

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2336
  • Karma: +15/-10
Re: Hypothetical GM
« Reply #36 on: March 27, 2019, 10:31:29 AM »
I confess I love good fantasy (there are forests worth of bad fantasy out there) and harder edged Sci-Fi. It does always make me feel good when reading it.

You place me as Li Kao with the 'slight flaw', which actually does me far too much credit as he was the foremost scholar in China, in his time.

I saw you as Li Kao, which (as I have said) is, on the whole, a laudable personage to be compared too.
(ricky) "Personally, I'm putting this in a box, driving a stake through its heart, firing a silver bullet into its (empty) head, nailing it shut, loading it into a rocket and firing it into the sun. "

(Pink Floyd) "Set the controls for the heart of the sun"

Offline RT

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3375
  • Karma: +59/-17
Re: Hypothetical GM
« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2019, 11:40:06 AM »
This is good, we are making progress here. So what would you say was the negative life event that pushed to the point of wanting to live in a fantasy world. Your mentally challenged uncles inappropriate touching? Or was it the priest? Relax....take a deep breath....continue when you are ready.   

Offline ThatGuy284

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
  • Karma: +3/-4
Re: Hypothetical GM
« Reply #38 on: March 27, 2019, 12:37:58 PM »
What is the equivalent to Li Kao wearing tin foil caps in 8th century Orient?

Offline footballdad

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
  • Karma: +15/-0
Re: Hypothetical GM
« Reply #39 on: March 27, 2019, 03:21:58 PM »
Any chance we could get back on topic? Unless its not about who we like at 12? Anyway, I would be happy with Wilkins, Lawrence, or Ferrell. Just don't think any of the tackles rate that high. Could get behind Fant or Bush. If Hockenson, Oliver, or White is still there at 9 or 10, I'm 100% in on moving up.

Offline The GM

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2730
  • Karma: +48/-4
Re: Hypothetical GM
« Reply #40 on: March 27, 2019, 05:55:30 PM »
Any chance we could get back on topic? Unless its not about who we like at 12? Anyway, I would be happy with Wilkins, Lawrence, or Ferrell. Just don't think any of the tackles rate that high. Could get behind Fant or Bush. If Hockenson, Oliver, or White is still there at 9 or 10, I'm 100% in on moving up.

Im only going up for Josh Allen and it would depend on the price.  I think we can get a good player at 12, or even slide down at few spots and pick up another pick. JMO.

Offline ThatGuy284

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 931
  • Karma: +3/-4
Re: Hypothetical GM
« Reply #41 on: March 27, 2019, 06:06:53 PM »
For those advocating Lawrence at 12 - just wondering how you see his fit with Clark vs other DL options?  I like Lawrence as a player but I’m struggling to see his fit.  I’m all for a trench player, OL or DL at 12...or even 30,  and open to being convinced he’s an attractive option

Do you think he could play as a 5 tech or NT only?  I only see him as a NT and only a 2 down player at that. Would you push Clark out to an end position—- knowing Clark is an All-Pro caliber NT and we’ll have him under contract for at least this season and next.    Would he be as effective in another spot or do you envision a rotation with Lawrence playing early downs?   


Offline Shinesman

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2588
  • Karma: +26/-100
Re: Hypothetical GM
« Reply #42 on: March 27, 2019, 08:17:43 PM »
Any chance we could get back on topic? Unless its not about who we like at 12? Anyway, I would be happy with Wilkins, Lawrence, or Ferrell. Just don't think any of the tackles rate that high. Could get behind Fant or Bush. If Hockenson, Oliver, or White is still there at 9 or 10, I'm 100% in on moving up.

Im only going up for Josh Allen and it would depend on the price.  I think we can get a good player at 12, or even slide down at few spots and pick up another pick. JMO.

You wouldnt move up to 10 to take White ahead of Cincy? That's the group that now needs the most improvement on the defense.
"Tradition! Just because we've always done it that way, doesn't mean that it isn't incredibly stupid."

Offline The GM

  • HOF Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2730
  • Karma: +48/-4
Re: Hypothetical GM
« Reply #43 on: March 27, 2019, 09:13:13 PM »
Any chance we could get back on topic? Unless its not about who we like at 12? Anyway, I would be happy with Wilkins, Lawrence, or Ferrell. Just don't think any of the tackles rate that high. Could get behind Fant or Bush. If Hockenson, Oliver, or White is still there at 9 or 10, I'm 100% in on moving up.

Im only going up for Josh Allen and it would depend on the price.  I think we can get a good player at 12, or even slide down at few spots and pick up another pick. JMO.

You wouldnt move up to 10 to take White ahead of Cincy? That's the group that now needs the most improvement on the defense.

I wouldnt, but its not my call.  I wouldnt give up what it would likely take to move.  Too many needs for this team.  I really like White though, he and Martinez would be fun to watch.

Offline footballdad

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
  • Karma: +15/-0
Re: Hypothetical GM
« Reply #44 on: March 28, 2019, 01:48:59 AM »
As far as Lawrence goes, I realize its a bit of a reach. With some players it is about what they themselves can do. With him , stats wise it is about what he will allow others to do. If he can consitently take on two blockers and hold point or get a push it would free up the backers to run to the football. In a rotation with Clark, will keep Clark fresh. Create 1 one 1's across the board.

Josh Allen - with the signing of the Smith's - down and distance pass rush specialist to begin? Like Lawrence, not an every down guy from the start but does it matter if they are effective and creating havoc when they are on the field? No. End results are what matters.