Green and Bold: The Splash Is Still Possible

Jared Cook may not be the best free-agent tight end available, but he makes sense for the Packers.

Jared Cook may not be the best free-agent tight end available, but he makes sense for the Packers.

While defensive end Ray Drew, a former undrafted free agent, doesn't count as a splashy free-agency signing by Ted Thompson, at least with this signing the Packers are no longer the only team in the league to have not signed an outside player in free agency. 

However, that's not necessarily where the buck stops this offseason for the Packers' front office.

Thompson rarely gets involved in the volatile first week of free agency, preferring to let the dust settle before making his move when he has done so in the past.

Could Thompson still bring in a higher-profile free agent to address one of the team's weak spots ahead of the draft? Absolutely. 

On Tuesday, Aaron Wilson of the National Football Post reported that former Rams tight end Jared Cook visited with the Packers in Green Bay Monday. 

I've maintained all offseason that tight end is the one position where the Packers could get the most bang for their buck in free agency. Signing a veteran tight end takes some pressure off Richard Rodgers and instantly upgrades Aaron Rodgers' stable of weapons to one of the NFL's most deadly, given that it already includes outside threat Jordy Nelson and slot stud Randall Cobb. 

The team doesn't appear to be making moves to re-sign veteran tight end Andrew Quarless, who has shared starting snaps with Rodgers in the last two seasons.

That's a fair amount of targets the Packers have to re[lace, and Kennard Backman certainly hasn't shown he's ready to take on that role. 

Now, let's break down the potential Cook signing for what it really is. 

Is the 28-year-old Cook a potential franchise cornerstone? No; his production in St. Louis wasn't mind-blowing and he wouldn't be the long-term plan in Green Bay. Presumably, that honor is still reserved for Richard Rodgers. 

However, could Cook's speed (4.50 second 40-yard dash), size, and athleticism help give the Packers offense another dimension it needs to consistently outscore opponents into January?

Absolutely.

Getting a player such as Cook involved as a threat in the seam will give the Packers more ways to get down the field and hopefully limit the number of third down situations they find themselves in, which they didn't have much success converting in 2015. 

Sure, Cook didn't have any touchdowns on 75 targets last season, but he did have nearly 500 yards. Richard Rodgers has already proven he can be the big, athletic end zone target the Packers need. But Cook helps the offense become more multidimensional. Having been a starter himself, he also likely pushes Rodgers to be better in training camp. 

Prior to the Drew signing, the Packers were estimated to have about $12.5 million in available cap space per Spotrac.

Green Bay may want to carry some of that over into next season to help address the expiring contracts of three starting offensive linemen, and the team will need to reserve a few million to sign their rookies.

But there's still room to sign another free agent to a moderate short-term deal. At this stage in the free agency game, they can even make the contract heavily incentive-based. 

The bonus with Cook is that because he was released by the Rams, he wouldn't cost the Packers a compensatory pick. Given that, plus the fact that he's languishing on the open market without much action, he could be a low-risk, high-reward option for Green Bay, which fits Thompson's style. 

Plus, we already know No. 89 will be available...

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (112)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
sheppercheeser's picture

March 16, 2016 at 06:07 am

Why hasn't any other NFL team shown Cook any interest? He isn't old and apparently has skills- is his asking price too much, is he a bad locker room presence, has he had off-field problems or is he just not a splashy player like the article suggests?

0 points
0
0
TommyG's picture

March 16, 2016 at 06:12 am

We don't know that no other team has shown interest. I'm still of the mindset that his agent is using this visit to leverage a big(ger) contract somewhere else.

0 points
0
0
Crackerpacker's picture

March 16, 2016 at 07:10 am

It works the other way too I can just imagine Ted being asked why he didn't sign a FA TE, And him saying something like, We tried we had people in, But we couldn't get it done it works like that sometimes.

0 points
0
0
AgrippaLII's picture

March 16, 2016 at 05:14 pm

All of the above?

0 points
0
0
TommyG's picture

March 16, 2016 at 06:10 am

Two TE sets with two very different TE would give AR a ton of material to work with. Whether it is cook that comes in or not, he is the type of TE we need... If he can hold onto the ball.

0 points
0
0
dschwalm's picture

March 16, 2016 at 07:09 pm

No! Martellus Bennett is the type of TE we need. He just went to the Patriots for a 4th Rounder. Those dumb Patriots not adhering to the D&D philosophy like TT does. That;s why they have 4 SBs in 5 years. I wish the Packers were that "stupid"

0 points
0
0
chugwater's picture

March 16, 2016 at 08:08 pm

They don't have four SBs in five years. They had 3 in 4 years a decade ago. Your assertion that their current approach to roster building is superior to GB's does not show in the number of SB rings.

0 points
0
0
PaulRosik's picture

March 17, 2016 at 12:19 am

The Patriots went ten years without winning a super bowl. We all know if you were a Patriots fan you would have been crying for them to fire the coach and ditch that idiot qb and move on.

0 points
0
0
fg_311's picture

March 20, 2016 at 05:16 pm

That's true that they didn't win one in 10 years but they also went to two more before that smh.

0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

March 16, 2016 at 06:15 am

Well, its enticing. But I believe optimism and wishing outpaces realism and evidence. If he was inconsistent before, that is the default going forward. Sure, all of those QBs that threw him the ball were pretty weak. But there is a premium on consistency, and punting on 4th and 3 because of another dropped pass isn't going to go over very long.
So if coaches feel he was inconsistent based on bad QB play, then ok, I can revise my assessment. But for now, seems like red flags and I'd be surprised if this is the kind of guy TT buys after passing up on much better character and reliable guys.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 16, 2016 at 06:36 am

The way I look at it, IF they were to sign Cook, they don't need him to be the starter or necessarily even better then Rodgers.
What they really need him to do is to be a complimentary piece to Richard Rodgers. To be able to do the things that Rodgers can't do. That is really what the offense needs. What Cook (or whoever they bring in) needs to be is better then Quarless, Perillo, Backman, Henry.

Cook has the size, speed and athleticism that our offense lacks at TE. Adding a target that can take pressure off of the WR's would be a huge asset to our offense. Making the 2 TE set more formidable would give our offense more options.

0 points
0
0
mnbruton's picture

March 17, 2016 at 10:28 am

Exactly my thoughts! Thanks for reading!

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

March 16, 2016 at 06:59 am

If the report is true where TT tried to trade for him before the trade deadline last year then I believe there's a little more substance to this, like Ted really likes him. Ted has protected himself already with the Perry and Guion signing, Perry for injuries, Guion for smoking Bud, he can do the same with Cook.

I'd like to see them sign Cook but the longer the Packers wait, the less chance I see of it happening. Tommy G might be right, it's a leverage move by Cook and his agent. BUT if Ted's trying to load the contract with incentives it might take a little longer. If it doesn't happen today of tomorrow I don't see it happening. Reel him in Ted!

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 16, 2016 at 07:06 am

Like the speed he brings, and the big play ability but I'll believe it when he actually is signed. Call me skeptical. Not getting my hopes up, plus higher profile free agent is only because Drew is the classic no profile FA.

0 points
0
0
Horse's picture

March 16, 2016 at 07:17 am

Cook's agent is Precision Sports Management. They also rep Sam Barrington.

The one standout stat is Cook's 12.8 yds/reception. Being crappy so far in the RZ is a red flag though. Since the Packers let him leave town without a contract, they must have some questions left about Cook unless PSM overpriced him.

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

March 16, 2016 at 09:07 am

He had issues dropping the ball far too often... Basically he is a Finley with less athleticism than Jermichael but also less of the drama. Won't help the team much. But I am not sure there is a real good TE worth drafting high, so they might sign him just for insurance purposes, if they can get him cheap.

0 points
0
0
zoellner25's picture

March 16, 2016 at 09:16 am

Man I miss Jermichael Finley.

0 points
0
0
Paul Ott Carruth's picture

March 16, 2016 at 09:51 am

40% drop rate. 39 catches on 75 targets. 0 Touchdowns. 7 explosive plays. This is what 4.5 speed gets you. Meet Jared Cook. No thank you.

The general consensus in Packer Nation is that the team needs to get a TE. I don’t disagree. The draft is weak. The free agent pool is weaker. The notion that the Jared Cook’s of the world are somehow an upgrade over Richard Rodgers is laughable at best. I understand why Packer fans are not happy with Richard Rodgers. It’s because he isn’t Jermichael Finley. For some reason Packer fans have this belief that the speed burning TE is the missing piece of the puzzle for a Super Bowl appearance. That is foolish. Who were the TEs following Finley’s injury in 2010? Lee, Crabtree and the rookie Quarless. You’re going to tell me with a straight face that those guys were the key to the championship? Look, I get that Finley had remarkable talent. There is no question about it. But that type of talent isn’t crucial to winning a championship….not at that position. You need a sure handed, move the chains type of athlete. Having freakish speed and a power forward type build is fantastic but if it isn’t converted in to production it’s useless. And that’s where the pro personnel aspect of this position comes in to play. Yes, Cook is big and fast…..just like Finley……but he also drops a lot of passes…..catchable passes……just like Finley did. In a word….unreliable. That’s what you want Ted Thompson to sink money into? If you’re going to pay a TE based on 4.5 speed and potential you’re better off drafting a TE in the later rounds and developing that TE. You’ll save yourself a ton of money and be working with the same thing…..potential.

But, but but….what about Ladarius Green? Why not Coby Fleener? Come on’ man….Martellus Bennett is out there. Let’s make a trade for him. No, No, and No. Their production doesn’t warrant throwing money at a position that isn’t crucial to winning a championship. Gronk, Kelce, Watson, Witten? Okay…now were talking. Tons of production there. Give me Graham too. Explosive. Fleener? 54 catches for 491 yds and a 9.1 average with 3 touchdowns and 4 explosive plays. Green? 37 for 429 and a 11.6 average with 4 touchdowns and 5 explosive plays. Bennett? 53 catches for 439 yds, and 8.3 average with 3 touchdowns and 5 explosive plays. How about the average, no good Richard Rodgers? 58 catches for 510 yards and an 8.8 average with 8 touchdowns and 6 explosive plays. Rodgers outclasses all of these TEs in catches, yards, and touchdowns. He ranks 3rd in average per catch behind Cook and Green and 2nd behind Cook in explosive plays. Again, tell me where do I find the upgrade from Rodgers?

Now I’m not a big fan of aggregate stats and averages. There are too many variables when looking at catches. Rodgers caught many of his passes near the line of scrimmage on bench routes. That will surely up the number of catches. But look at explosive plays. That’s what this argument has been about. It’s believed that Rodgers isn’t explosive enough to turn catches in to 20+ yd gains. Compared to the aforementioned TEs that’s simply untrue. Just go back to the Detroit game. When used as a vertical threat Rodgers can and did produce. I’m not even taking in to account the Hail Mary. Bottom line….none of these other TEs are head and shoulders above Rodgers in that category. If they were, they’d be signing for Ben Watson money….Gronk money….Kelce money. They aren’t . These guys are no more explosive and reliable than Rodgers. If the Packers are looking for a 1 or 2 year complimentary TE they can do better and save some cash. Heath Miller had 60 catches for 535 yds, 2 touchdowns and 5 explosive plays. Zach Miller had 34 catches for 439 with 5 touchdowns and 7 explosive plays. He also had a 12.9 average. His stats are far and away better than Cook’s but because he was out of football and is on the older side and isn’t a speed freak he apparently doesn’t rate. He’s not “sexy” enough for the fans. I’ll take productive over flashy all day every day. And thus far, Eliot Wolf, the director of pro personnel and now the director of personnel, thinks so too. In the end, they may sign Cook (although, I highly doubt it) but if they do there are no guarantees it leads the Packers to the Promised Land. The proof is in the production. Again folks….we’re talking about TE here. Not QB. Not LT. Not CB. Not pass rusher. A TE. When a TE wins the Super Bowl MVP or MVP of the league……give me a call. Until then….it’s just a TE.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:17 am

Stats can be good, they can be bad. In this case, the 0 TD's last year sounds bad. But take into consideration that St Louis's QB's threw a grand total of 11 TD's last year. Total... That pretty much explains why he had 0 TD's.

Most people that I have seen that want Cook are not asking him to be an upgrade over Rodgers. Rodgers is fine as a starter. Most want cook to come in and be an upgrade over the #2 TE on the roster. Which Cook would be.

What they need from their 2nd TE is to be able to compliment Rodgers. Do what he can't do. Cook can do the things that Rodgers can't. His drop percentage maybe high, but without looking at each of his drops, I don't want to judge him based on the stat.

Reasons why I would go after him, is he has been a productive TE. He won't command top salary. He won't cost a compensation pick. He would be an upgrade for their #2 TE spot.

No Cook is not the final missing piece to be the Super Champs. But what he does do is provide more fire power on offense. A player that could help our offense become more productive and spread the field more.

To me it would be a good signing.

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:36 am

Besides saying Richard Rodgers is fine at TE1 and that Cook would compliment him I agree with everything else.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:47 am

Put it this way. We won't be finding an upgrade at TE this year over Rodgers. But finding one that can compliment him, or rotate with him would be huge for our offense.
We can draft a TE high, but odds are they won't be a big time upgrade until next year.

0 points
0
0
Paul Ott Carruth's picture

March 16, 2016 at 11:08 am

Zach and Heath Miller would be better upgrades based on production. Cook has had 7 years to prove he's the man and yet he was marginally better than Lance Kendricks. Kendricks had more touchdowns than Cook. He doesn't provide anymore fire power than Zach Miller or Heath Miller. Production...not potential. Thompson could draft the next Tony Gonzalez for all we know and get him at a cheaper price. If Cook agrees to a vets minimum with some escalators....maybe. Other than that.....no thank you. For as much as he was used he didn't produce.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 16, 2016 at 11:39 am

Since Heath Miller has retired, its hard to really use him as an example.

Yes, Cook has had 7 years to prove himself. At the same time who has he had surrounding him at QB in those 7 years.

2009 - Vince Young, Kerry Collins
2010 - Kerry Collins & Vince Young
2011 - Matt Hasselbeck
2012 - Jake Locker, Matt Hasselbeck
2013 - Sam Bradford, Kellen Clemens
2014 - Austin Davis, Shaun Hill
2015 - Nick Foles, Case Keenum

While Cooks stats might not be great, you can't deny that the quality of QB's he has played with have been downright brutal. The only year that he had the same starting QB for the entire year was 2011. Coincidentally that was the year he had his best year. Catching 49 passes for 759 yards and 3 TD's.

You are right. Thompson could draft the next Tony Gonzalez. But the team that drafts right before the Packers could end up drafting him and the Packers will be without again.
I'm not saying Cook will come in and light the world on fire. I'm just saying that, if they have a chance to take him. I think he is worth the risk.

0 points
0
0
Paul Ott Carruth's picture

March 16, 2016 at 11:13 am

How much do #2 TEs usually command? Think Cook will take the vets minimum? I don't. Nor should the Packers offer him more than that should they offer.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

March 16, 2016 at 01:35 pm

You might speak too much common sense for irrational FA TE acquisition speculation...

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 16, 2016 at 05:46 pm

I agree RC, The bigger problem is that we only have RRodgers and while I hope MM will use RRodgers more like he did against Detroit, this team needs another threat to take pressure off the WRs. Have to have someone other than an injured Q or Perillo , who I like, but other than the element of surprise,noone takes them seriously.
Not saying Cook is the answer because ideally we could use one who can block as well. As for needing a TE to win the SB, not essential but with this team I think it would make a bigger difference. Different than 2010 group of receivers. That was a deeper and more experienced group, and faster overall I think.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 17, 2016 at 06:32 am

That is exactly it. We only have Rodgers and we have no one else. If we had someone to pair with him, it would be better.

I'm not for sure if Cook is the answer. But I do think Cook is a major upgrade over Quarless, Perillo, and Backman.

I agree about the WR's. We didn't have Finley in 2010, but our WR's were great. Jordy was our 4th WR option. Driver was towards the end of his prime, Jennings and Jones were in there primes.

0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:36 am

"40% drop rate" seems a little unfair without knowing how many of those non-catch targets were "catchable." PFF tracks that stat. The ranking I found from 2 years ago had him as the #2 TE for drops with a rate of about 14%.

Cooks has a history of drops, yea, but not 40+ in a season.

0 points
0
0
zoellner25's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:53 am

Agreed Evan. 40% drop rate is not accurate.

0 points
0
0
Paul Ott Carruth's picture

March 16, 2016 at 11:03 am

Not 40 drops in a season. 40% coming in to this season. He catches 60% of footballs thrown his way in his career. This would suggest he doesn't catch 40%, which is greatly misleading. You are correct. He drops around 14% of passes that are considered catchable. This is why I hate aggregate stats. They don't paint an accurate picture but people have used the whole targeting metric incorrectly. Again, is Cook an upgrade over a Zach Miller or Heath Miller based on production and explosiveness?

0 points
0
0
mrtundra's picture

March 16, 2016 at 02:18 pm

There are two things I don't like about Richard Rodgers. He is slow. Everyone knows this. The Packers knew it when they drafted him. Secondly, he doesn't break any tackles. Once a defender is on him, he goes down. Other than those two things, Rodgers is a decent TE for the Packers. His numbers rank with other top TEs. It's just that he is slow and has trouble breaking tackles.

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 16, 2016 at 02:38 pm

The frustrating part about the lack of tackle breaking is his size. He might be one of those gentle giants.

Tackle Breaking
Blocking

I could live with the lack of speed, but man, these two have to be the most frustrating part(s) of his game.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 16, 2016 at 02:52 pm

I really wonder if he lost some weight if he would get quicker and therefore could break a few more tackles due to his quickness.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 16, 2016 at 06:04 pm

Probably but he still would go down on contact. Just weird for a guy his size and body type.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 17, 2016 at 06:41 am

What it looks like to me is that he has cement in his shoes. One of the best ways is to break tackles is to keep your feet moving. Rodgers stops his feet, perhaps from being to heavy?

This is just speculation. But I do wonder if he would be a much better player if he were to lose some weight. Become more agile, and quicker.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 16, 2016 at 06:07 pm

DW, I agree. I know position and game has changed but it used to be that having good hands, Blocking and being hard to bring down were more important than anything else when it came to tight end skills. Right now we have just good hands.

0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

March 16, 2016 at 02:35 pm

We sign te maybe we use that draft pick on nose tackle,offensive tackle,outside linebacker,2 inside lbers,

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 16, 2016 at 02:44 pm

Exactly what I'm thinking/hoping.

Also, don't forget DB and DE. We're thin at Safety and we only have 3 proven DLinemen in Daniels, D. Jones and Pennell (who will miss some games).

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 16, 2016 at 06:11 pm

Me too. Using a high pick on a TE that will not play much next year just doesn't make sense, any way you look at it.

0 points
0
0
RVAborn's picture

March 16, 2016 at 11:21 pm

They didn't need an athletic tight end in 2010 because of that very talented receiving core. The linebackers couldn't just sit underneath in 2010 as they did incessantly in 2015.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 17, 2016 at 06:59 am

My point exactly. And it's not 2010 anymore and our lack of plays over the middle last year was there for all to see, especially without Jordy.

0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:32 am

I do like the idea of signing a Vet FA TE, then you have flexibility in the draft to go for a longer term solution.

I don't like the idea of having to draft to fill a weak gap.

0 points
0
0
Point-Packer's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:47 am

Not going to happen. Came and left without a deal.

0 points
0
0
Handsback's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:49 am

Cook was a rising star when he was with the Titans. I think he was a little immature and has paid that price. There's no question he can do what Green Bay will ask of him, it's more of a commitment on his part to go all-in and try to make a difference within the scope of the Packer's offense. He's healthy, and realistically has quite a few years left in him. So signing him to a FA contract may sound like a no-brainer. He will have to decide if he wants to make his mark and play with the best QB in the league in a limited role vs. a bigger role on a team with a marginal QB.

0 points
0
0
pakmann's picture

March 16, 2016 at 02:32 pm

Maybe it's because he has a knack for drops. I can just see when after a few misses Aaron starts looking elsewhere. I expect this to be a huge year for Davante Adams.

0 points
0
0
AgrippaLII's picture

March 16, 2016 at 05:44 pm

I just don't see this guy as an upgrade at TE. Yes he's faster than Rodgers but he doesn't block and he drops too many balls. The only thing going for him is he's a roster cut. I don't expect Ted to throw a ton of money at him just to be a number two TE. I'd rather see a draft pick in that role.

0 points
0
0
Lphill's picture

March 16, 2016 at 06:59 pm

Meanwhile Patriots signing free agents to help win now for there Veteren QB , maybe Ted should take notice.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 16, 2016 at 07:52 pm

TT is really putting our faith in him to the test this year Looks like he is going to go exclusively with the draft. He must know something we don't see with this year's draft class. I sure hope so,but I don't see any significant improvement at TE unless someone we already have takes a big jump this year.

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

March 16, 2016 at 08:31 pm

Ted did sign the pastor of Disaster LOL

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:41 pm

Yes being a Packer fan before the draft keeps getting rougher each year.

0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

March 19, 2016 at 06:04 am

All of you "against Ted Thompson way of doing business" I think this piece of article should be read: http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/packers-free-agency-2016-news-reports/...

Thank you!

0 points
0
0
dschwalm's picture

March 16, 2016 at 07:13 pm

The only TE worthy of acquiring is Martellus Bennett and he just went to the Pats. The rest are just bodies

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 16, 2016 at 07:36 pm

If the Pats hold on to Bennett they will have the best TE combo EVER.

0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 16, 2016 at 09:12 pm

Not sure if it'd top 2011 with Gronk and Hernandez.

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:01 pm

@Evan I think so. If not in yards, then in TDs. The Pats have that speedy guy at RB who can't be covered by an LB, Edelman and Amendola in the slot, Gronk double teamed wherever he's at and then there's this 6 foot 7 guy that's bigger and/or faster than any LB or DB you put on him.

@RC LMAO!!!

0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 17, 2016 at 07:21 am

In 2011, Gronk and Hernandez combined for 24 TDs. They're not topping that this year.

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 17, 2016 at 09:29 am

@Evan as much the Pats throw the ball -- it's possible.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 16, 2016 at 09:45 pm

I don't think they will compare to Richard Rodgers and Justin Perillo.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 17, 2016 at 12:15 am

I can honestly say that there is no comparison.

0 points
0
0
Lphill's picture

March 16, 2016 at 07:46 pm

The point is the clock running out on Brady so they are filling holes with proven players instead of drafting and waiting on development . Wow what a concept!

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 16, 2016 at 07:57 pm

Smart move. They saw what happens when Gronk goes down so even without a glaring need at TE they are upgrading depth just in case.

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 17, 2016 at 12:20 am

Yes. Plus NE's Oline was terrible and they stopped even the pretense of trying to run the ball. So they bring their offensive line coach out of retirement, bring in an underachieving Jonathan Cooper to play OG, and now two TEs who can block. They probably hope to draft an OLineman or two as well.

0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

March 16, 2016 at 08:22 pm

There goes Bennett to New England,now thats like a double whammy as we are out of te options and N.E gets that much stronger

0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

March 16, 2016 at 08:25 pm

Ted your a douche bag

0 points
0
0
packsmack's picture

March 16, 2016 at 08:55 pm

I'm dying.

0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

March 16, 2016 at 09:02 pm

You guys all seem to be taking this well.

0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

March 16, 2016 at 09:10 pm

New Engalnd doing whatever to get Brady a 4th S.B,Ted doing his,best to keep Rodgers 1

0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

March 17, 2016 at 09:57 pm

You mean 6th SB, correct?;) Lol

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

March 16, 2016 at 09:11 pm

Manny Papoose. Get on the horn.Wine? Check. Dine? Check. Crack open the wallet. Make it happen. Manny Papoose is the key to everything.

0 points
0
0
TommyG's picture

March 16, 2016 at 09:34 pm

Anybody else hearing about Dansby? He's looking for a team to bring him a ring. Imagine, if you will CMIII, Ryan, Dansby, and Peppers as our LB corps. I just got chills!

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

March 16, 2016 at 09:54 pm

yeah, an over-the-hill LB who aged terribly and who not even the Browns want anymore really will make that work...

4 years ago I'd have found that idea great, now you might as well sign Brad Jones again...

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:02 pm

Why do we always have to settle for someone over-the-hill?

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:38 pm

Because their cheap, but most of all don't cost us a pick. Not that I'm not tired if it. I am. Can we pick up somebody in their prime for a change?

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 17, 2016 at 12:51 am

Lol, well I knew that. It just sucks that the players we do bring in are usually old and/or players that have proved little to nothing.

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:20 pm

I really don't know and think that 'a big splash' is needed... Although I don't think that highly of Peter King, he wrote this in his weekly SI column, which I fully agree with:

"We fall for it every year. Good for players to be able to make these millions. Better them than the owners. But did you notice something about the free market this year? Two-thirds of the teams in the league sat out the frenzy. Nine teams did most of the damage in the first four days of freedom this year. What does that say? Are teams getting smarter? I don’t know, but I do know this: The start of this free-agency period had more people stunned at two contracts—$17 million a year to Vernon, and $18 million a year to Osweiler—than I can remember. History says the first few days of free agency always bring the kind of overpayment that looks dumb a couple years later. This year, maybe 22 or 23 teams, some of which have a ton of cap room, heeded that alert."

Also, anybody remember Dwayne Bowe? I am sure last year a lot of readers here would've been overjoyed had the Packers signed him. Well, just like Dansby, he was released today. He cost the Browns $9 million last season - and didn't start a single game. NOT ONE. FOR THE BROWNS! He played in 7 games and had a total of 5 catches. $ 9 million down the drain. They payed $1.8 million PER CATCH! Yet he was a big name and I am sure someone called for Ted to sign him here. Glad Ted didn't even entertain the thought.

So let's all chill out and see what will happen. I am sure the Packers will have a good team again in fall.

0 points
0
0
Samson's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:30 pm

All you're doing is cherry picking. For every signed free agent that fails there's another that is signed that succeeds. --- The teams with depth in the NFL get it through free agency, not by accident. -------- The Pack haven't had depth in TT's time and it has cost them greatly.

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:42 pm

You may call it cherry picking. Alright, but consider that the four biggest spenders in free agency in 2015 all were home for January. Didn't even make the playoffs. Julius Thomas the biggest name as TE last year. Didn't do anything in 2015. There are other names I could list here...

Secondly, only 1 team has won the SB twice during Ted's tenure as GM. And it wasn't the Patriots. So no team really built depth I guess then.

and finally, please tell me who all those FAs are who the Packers should sign now providing depth, considering that the team has about $12 million in cap space and will need about $6 million for signing draft picks? Please give me names and $ amounts you would sign them for...

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 16, 2016 at 11:06 pm

"and finally, please tell me who all those FAs are who the Packers should sign now providing depth, considering that the team has about $12 million in cap space and will need about $6 million for signing draft picks? Please give me names and $ amounts you would sign them for..."

This should be good...

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 17, 2016 at 12:26 am

GB only needs about $2 million net to sign their draft prospects. But I generally agree and have commented on our limited cap resources. Figure TT will prudently want to keep $5+ million for in-season acquisitions and/or to roll over.

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

March 17, 2016 at 09:31 am

As you see, I'm still waiting for an answer. So much for the 'sign this guy that guy' crowd. Once asked whom and for how much, then there isn't anything there... Easy to constantly blame TT when one doesn't have answers either...

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 17, 2016 at 11:03 am

I was looking forward to an answer too =(

0 points
0
0
Samson's picture

March 17, 2016 at 11:22 am

Ol' Packer-Pete
Typical homer response on your part. -- I'm not paid millions to be GM for the Pack. -- TT is. -- It's his responsibility to arm the Pack with depth, not my responsibility. -- GB hasn't been in a SB since season 2010. -- This is on TT, -- You'll think differently when AR is long gone & the Pack no longer have an elite QB.

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

March 17, 2016 at 05:18 pm

Yeah, TT injured the entire receiving corp last year.

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

March 17, 2016 at 10:59 pm

Typical cop out response - Everything is bad TT not doing enough blablabla. Ask for specifics 'i'm not paid millions to be GM for the Pack...'

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:24 pm

New England trades a 4th round pick to the Bears for Bennett and a 6th round pick. This is why New England makes it to the SB or AFC Championship every year and the TT lead Packers are normally one and done or gone by the divisional round. FRUSTRATION is an understatement!!!

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:33 pm

Just heard the news. Trying to convince myself Bennett would have been a headache and we would be picking up a big salary, although not sure about the contract. Anyway getting him and a 6th for a 4th is pretty shrewd on NE part. Ted better get his game on in the draft.

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

March 16, 2016 at 11:10 pm

MB was a locker room cancer where ever he was. The Bears let him go for practically nothing, without having much behind him at TE. There certainly is a reason for that. NE has the advantage that they have solid leadership within the team and also a don't put up with crap attitude of the coach. Packers do not have those in place.

0 points
0
0
Samson's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:35 pm

NE uses all the tools available to improve their team & especially their bench. --- TT refuses to use all that is available. --- Once AR retires (or demands his release) then the loyal homers will think differently about their precious TT.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 16, 2016 at 10:51 pm

Like I said here a moment ago this is not our time of year. Rough being a fan now with draft still a month away.

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 16, 2016 at 11:01 pm

It's hard to believe that our RIVAL would give Bennett up for anything similar to what a team outside of the conference and division offered.

I can't knock TT for missing out on Bennett because a team traded for him. Now, it would have been different if Bennett was a free agent.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 17, 2016 at 12:10 am

You're right. Thanks for the clarity.

0 points
0
0
NickPerry's picture

March 17, 2016 at 05:45 am

That's a excellent point DW, even after 11 years of TT I still react before thinking at times. Thanks for helping me pull head out of arse on that one! : )

Still very frustrated overall though.

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

March 16, 2016 at 11:04 pm

Maybe. TT had his first draft as a Packers GM in charge in spring 2005. Since then NE has won the SB just once. As many times as the Packers. So no matter what you say, during that time the Patriots have not been more successful. And their run may be over once either Brady or Belichick retires... Which may happen before AR retires. Brady is turning 39 before the season after all...

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

March 17, 2016 at 12:33 am

I give TT a pass on Bennett as well. Intra-divisional trades are rare. Frankly, I do not think I would have pulled the trigger on giving up a 4th plus paying Bennett in return for Bennett and a 6th. I'd only sign Cook for cheap, maybe $3 million AAV.

0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

March 16, 2016 at 11:00 pm

We could have plugged holes at lb and te and drafted o.lineman for the future Next year we have broken down B.B. to sign,beat up Josh Sittin and marginal Backtiari,good luck with that teddy

0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

March 16, 2016 at 11:00 pm

We could have plugged holes at lb and te and drafted o.lineman for the future Next year we have broken down B.B. to sign,beat up Josh Sittin and marginal Backtiari,good luck with that teddy

0 points
0
0
pooch's picture

March 16, 2016 at 11:01 pm

Is this how Thompson phases out Rodgers in the next 3 years and starts Hundley

0 points
0
0
Point-Packer's picture

March 17, 2016 at 12:26 am

Patriots trade those precious draft picks and now have the best TE combination in football. Probably win another Super Bowl. Meanwhile, GB will lose in the divisional round and all you super freak, borderline psychotic, TT lovers will continue to defend this insane tendency to "keep our own guys".

Ridiculous extreme homer blinded bullshit.

0 points
0
0
mnbruton's picture

March 17, 2016 at 10:32 am

One point that many don't seem to grasp is that there is NO. WAY. the Bears would have agreed to that same exact trade with the Packers, or any division rival for that matter. It's apples and oranges.

0 points
0
0
ray nichkee's picture

March 17, 2016 at 11:15 am

Good point. I'm working on a pill for these d-bags. How do the pa-cheats and coach belli-cheat stack up to the pack? I do not want the new england brand to come over and infiltrate the green bay ways. Murphy, thompson, and mccarthy can't pull off wearing the evil dark side hoodie. May the force be with the the green and gold. (and some other colors to make more $)

0 points
0
0
PaulRosik's picture

March 17, 2016 at 12:59 am

Packers are 77 - 34 - 1 over the last 7 seasons (84 - 40 - 1` including playoff games), have made the playoffs all seven seasons, and won a Super Bowl. Only New England has more wins over this time, though they also have only one Super Bowl win over this span. And you people here seriously think now they are going to change what they have been doing? You are dreaming. Or on crack. Or are dreaming of crack.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

March 17, 2016 at 06:49 am

Over the last 7 years, Packers and Patriots are the only 2 teams to make the playoffs each year and both have 1 Super Bowl ring.

True statement.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

March 17, 2016 at 07:23 am

True and it is a testament to their consistency but they both also have benefitted by having little to no competition within their divisions.

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

March 17, 2016 at 09:35 am

That's the funny thing to me. I guess a lot of people would right now be happy if Ted went all in, trying to win it. Then maybe there are a couple of key injuries, the team won't win the SB, and then in coming years those same people would hammer on Ted for going all in and raising salary cap hell...
Let's all remember, Mike Sherman left Ted salary cap problems. Ted has solved those, has improved the team to the point that they are solid contenders every year, and also had a team win the SB once so far during his tenure. What more can a true fan really ask for??? This is not the 80s and 90s with dynasties and the same 2 teams playing in the NFCCG...

0 points
0
0
Samson's picture

March 17, 2016 at 11:25 am

Now you're a predictor of the future !! -- You are talking through your arse like always. -- Go drink yourself another TT kool-aid.

0 points
0
0
PaulRosik's picture

March 17, 2016 at 10:27 am

Since 2009 the Packers are 7 - 6 in the playoffs with one Super Bowl win. Over that same time span the New England Patriots are 8 - 6 in the playoffs with one Super Bowl win. Yet so many people here seem to think the Packers are an abysmal failure and the Patriots are Gods gift to football. It is odd.

0 points
0
0
Point-Packer's picture

March 17, 2016 at 10:12 am

"Over the last 7 years, Packers and Patriots are the only 2 teams to make the playoffs each year and both have 1 Super Bowl ring."

How many rings have Brady and Belichick won over their 15 year history together (not counting the one they will get this year)? How many rings do you think Rodgers and McCarthy will win?

If the answer is one, GB will have wasted an all century talent. And one of the reasons we would have wasted such talent, is because our GM was unwilling to make the FA deals that would push GB over the hump it needed to not just make the playoffs, but actually win the crown. The Bennet trade that NE just made is an example of why there is a strong disparity in the success of the two franchises, despite similarities in philosophy and talent at the QB position.

NE goes and gets the guy they need to win now. GB is happy with mediocrity and "a plan for the future".

Here's to another 11-5 season and a divisional loss in the playoffs.

0 points
0
0
PaulRosik's picture

March 17, 2016 at 10:40 am

You mistake having a plan with being satisfied, No one is satisfied. If the Packers win 5 Super Bowls in a row the goal for the 6th year is to win another one. There is no such thing as satisfaction - ever. You mistake the passion and pride of Packers fans as being ok with losing and that is just wrong. The Packers made the playoffs twice from 1968 to 1992 and yet they sold out every home game over that span. The message they were sending was not that they liked losing but that they loved their Packers. And they still do.

The Packers plan is to draft and develop and then resign those that have proven themselves. The whole thing does hinge on drafting well and a couple misses can really set the team back. (And so will going after free agents and having that guy turn out to be a stiff) But don't ever mistake having a plan with not trying. That is so wrong it is hard to measure its level of "wrongness".

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 17, 2016 at 10:52 am

Oooo! Talk to 'em, Paul!!!

0 points
0
0
calabasa's picture

March 17, 2016 at 10:54 am

"Jared Cook may not be the best free-agent tight end available, but he makes sense for the Packers."

The caption to the photo here makes me crack up. Doesn't this just sum it up for us?!

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

March 17, 2016 at 05:27 pm

To the posters drooling over the Pats. Seattle made the biggest SB blunder EVER to lose a title. The Patriots signed a gangster named Hernandez, how'd that turn out. They take risks and Bennett is a risk. This all world TE wore out his welcome everywhere he's been.

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

March 17, 2016 at 06:11 pm

Every team takes risks.

We took a chance with Charles Woodson and it worked.
Eagles took a chance on TO and it got them to the SB.
The Patriots took a chance with Moss and it got them to a SB.
The Patriots took a chance with Brandon Browner and won a SB.

Eagles took a chance with DeMarco Murray -- failed
Dolphins took a chance with N. Suh -- failed
Remember the Eagles "Dream Team" (lol) -- failed
Saints took a chance with Brandon Browner -- failed

Ok, I quit.

0 points
0
0