Jump to content
Want to remove all ads? ×

If its good enough for the Packers, than it is good enough for me

JOJOTOWNSELL

By JOJOTOWNSELL
in NY Jets Forum

Recommended Posts

JOJOTOWNSELL

JOJOTOWNSELL

Posted
Posted

The last paragraph is key

 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/03/packers-prefer-compensatory-picks-over-unrestricted-free-agents/

 

Packers General Manager Ted Thompson has a formula for building his team, and he’s sticking with it.

Thompson believes in building through the draft, not free agency, and that includes acquiring more draft picks by declining to sign unrestricted free agents. In the NFL, teams that lose more in free agency than they acquire get compensatory picks, and the Packers’ moves in free agency this year indicate that they’re already thinking about acquiring compensatory picks for next year. The NFL doesn’t public the precise formula used to determine compensatory picks, but the simple version is that if the unrestricted free agents you lose are better, higher-paid players than the unrestricted free agents you sign, then the NFL will compensate you the following year with compensatory picks.

As the Green Bay Press-Gazette points out, even the one big name the Packers have signed this offseason, Julius Peppers, was a free agent because he was released by the Bears, not because his previous contract expired. That means he won’t count as an unrestricted free agent addition for the Packers for the purpose of determining their compensatory picks next year.

Last year the Packers lost two key players, receiver Greg Jennings and linebackerErik Walden, as unrestricted free agents. And the Packers didn’t sign any unrestricted free agents last year. As a result, this year they’re getting an extra third-round pick and an extra fifth-round pick as compensatory selections.

This year the Packers have again not signed away any players whose previous contract expired, but they have lost four players, center Evan Dietrich-Smith, receiver James Jones, defensive lineman C.J. Wilson and offensive linemanMarshall Newhouse. That means the Packers will almost certainly do well when the compensatory picks are passed out a year from now.

Building through the draft and declining to overspend in free agency would be a smart strategy even if the NFL didn’t have a compensatory pick system to reward frugal teams. But when compensatory picks are added to the equation, it’s easy to see why Thompson declines to go after free agents. The Packers have been successful this way. It’s surprising more teams haven’t copied them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayKwaz

JayKwaz

Posted
Posted

That article is horsesh*t. You know why the packers win? They have had a hall of famer at QB for the last 20 years. Period. 

 

This article is great, the Steelers who win more years then they lose follow the same model. You can't overspend in free agency, even if the money is there. Draft right and coach your athletes up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
unbanmadmike1

unbanmadmike1

Posted
Posted

This article is great, the Steelers who win more years then they lose follow the same model. You can't overspend in free agency, even if the money is there. Draft right and coach your athletes up.

No, those two teams have hall of fame QB's. The title of those articles might as well be "have a hall of fame QB and then you win more."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BroadwayJoe12

BroadwayJoe12

Posted
Posted

Oh and they have a Hall of Fame QB too. What a lucky coincidence!

 

Everyone agrees that you need a QB, but rarely do you find one on the open market, at least without special circumstances e.g. major injury, team drafts #1 prospect at twilight of the other's career etc.. It's one of those positions that you keep on trying until you finally hit, because winning without one is next to impossible.  That's why you don't see teams blowing all of their money one or two players that might give them 1 or 1.5 cumulative win-shares. If the QB you have ends up stagnating, you don't want to be on the hook for big-money contracts that will hamstring you from future moves.  You keep building a team through the draft, make sensible FA acquisitions and bide your team until you do find a QB who can carry the team or one who's good enough to win with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayKwaz

JayKwaz

Posted
Posted

Everyone agrees that you need a QB, but rarely do you find one on the open market, at least without special circumstances e.g. major injury, team drafts #1 prospect at twilight of the other's career etc.. It's one of those positions that you keep on trying until you finally hit, because winning without one is next to impossible. That's why you don't see teams blowing all of their money one or two players that might give them 1 or 1.5 cumulative win-shares. If the QB you have ends up stagnating, you don't want to be on the hook for big-money contracts that will hamstring you from future moves. You keep building a team through the draft, make sensible FA acquisitions and bide your team until you do find a QB who can carry the team or one who's good enough to win with.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
j4jets

j4jets

Posted
Posted

 

The Packers obsessively draft QB talent. That's how they found Favre in the second and Rodgers at 24.

 

They didn't find Favre in the 2nd round and Rodgers fell in to their lap as he slipped in the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BroadwayJoe12

BroadwayJoe12

Posted
Posted

 

 

I think you're being generous. I would argue that the collection of Sanchez, Holmes and Harris probably gave us negative win-shares and still took up all of our money.

 

That Harris contract would blow me away if it weren't for how baffling the Sanchez extension was. It's like the Angels whiffing on Trout and then inking Melky Cabrera to a $100 million deal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Miss Lonelyhearts

Miss Lonelyhearts

Posted
Posted

I think you're being generous. I would argue that the collection of Sanchez, Holmes and Harris probably gave us negative win-shares and still took up all of our money.

That Harris contract would blow me away if it weren't for how baffling the Sanchez extension was. It's like the Angels whiffing on Trout and then inking Melky Cabrera to a $100 million deal.

The Harris contract is still a travesty. Everybody is complaining about Idzik not doing enough with all the cap space but if we weren't in the position we are Harris would be gone right now instead of playing this year out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BroadwayJoe12

BroadwayJoe12

Posted
Posted

The Harris contract is still a travesty. Everybody is complaining about Idzik not doing enough with all the cap space but if we weren't in the position we are Harris would be gone right now instead of playing this year out.

 

Agreed. His staple was that he was one of the best tackling ILBs in the league, which somewhat made up for his complete lack of support in the passing game. However, too many times did I see him take a poor route or completely whiff on a tackle this season. His resurgence that many liked to point out can be attributed to the great play of our line.. He seems to be a leader and one of the guys Rex uses to make sure the defensive-line is properly aligned, but if he earns half of his salary I'd be surprised.

 

I think after this year, the only two guys besides Decker making more than a few million is Brick and Mangold.  I dunno if they'll be restructured or just kept on until they're cut in a year or two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bleedin Green

Bleedin Green

Posted
Posted

They didn't find Favre in the 2nd round and Rodgers fell in to their lap as he slipped in the draft.

 

I'm sorry, but the Rodgers thing is such a cop-out.  The Packers didn't even need a QB at the time; Favre was still there, still played for another 3 years there, and then still was in the league for another 3 after that had they wanted to keep him.  There were 23 teams who didn't want Rodgers and yet, because a team who didn't even have a need for the position used its first round pick on him it doesn't really count?  How many much higher picked QBs have turned out to be monstrous busts?  That's not even getting into the fact that on this very same board we kept hearing about how awful the Geno pick was because of the fact that he dropped and what that must have implied (and let me just preemptively say that whoever tries to chime in by comparing Geno's rookie year to Rodgers' 4th is immeasurably stupid).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
unbanmadmike1

unbanmadmike1

Posted
Posted

I'm sorry, but the Rodgers thing is such a cop-out.  The Packers didn't even need a QB at the time; Favre was still there, still played for another 3 years there, and then still was in the league for another 3 after that had they wanted to keep him.  There were 23 teams who didn't want Rodgers and yet, because a team who didn't even have a need for the position used its first round pick on him it doesn't really count?  How many much higher picked QBs have turned out to be monstrous busts?  That's not even getting into the fact that on this very same board we kept hearing about how awful the Geno pick was because of the fact that he dropped and what that must have implied (and let me just preemptively say that whoever tries to chime in by comparing Geno's rookie year to Rodgers' 4th is immeasurably stupid).

1st year vs 4th year notwithstanding can you find me anyone who thinks that Smith will ever be close to the player that Aaron Rodgers is? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bleedin Green

Bleedin Green

Posted
Posted

1st year vs 4th year notwithstanding can you find me anyone who thinks that Smith will ever be close to the player that Aaron Rodgers is? 

 

Oh, of course not, and that's not my point.  The point was simply that their draft day situations were not all that dissimilar and so it seems odd to say it was an obvious and easy pick for a team that didn't have a need at the position.  Nobody thought Aaron Rodgers was certain to become the player he is now back when he was drafted, that's why he fell.  It's not like the entire NFL knew he was destined to become one of the NFL's best, but came together and said "nah, we'll let the Packers have him".

 

Rodgers could have turned out to be a bust, but of course he didn't, so that the Packers not only opted to take him but had the foresight to do it despite having a HOF already at the position doesn't get thrown away simply because he didn't go #1 overall.  Saying that's an easy decision is pure hindsight and they certainly got plenty of questions for it at the time (keep in mind, Favre didn't retire for another 6 years).  Besides, I think most would agree Rodgers is far from a lock to have been the same player he is now if he was starting as a rookie for the 2005 49ers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company

Site Sponsor

MetLife Stadium Tailgate

NY Jets Podcast

NY Jets Podcast

DMCA Page

  • -- DMCA Page
    • ×
    ×
    • Create New...