GB Packers

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from dapats1281. Show dapats1281's posts

    GB Packers

    By the beginning of next season, 2 players (Rodgers and Matthews) will annually, on avg, eat up around 25% of the cap.

    I do think they had to resign Clay...but boy is it going to be tough to improve that roster!

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    Mathews deal announced...killer numbers. $65M total. $31 guaranteed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    In response to rkarp's comment:

    Mathews deal announced...killer numbers. $65M total. $31 guaranteed.




    I am shocked the numbers are that high given the FA market this offseason.  I believe only Flacco got more guaranteed than that.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    I'm sure Packers fans would feel much better if the Packers had forgone Clay Matthews and instead gotten great value by trading down to sign Darius Butler and Brandon Tate. 

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I'm sure Packers fans would feel much better if the Packers had forgone Clay Matthews and instead gotten great value by trading down to sign Darius Butler and Brandon Tate. 

     




    Yeah, great example.

    Here is a comparison. Matthews had 5 more sacks then Rob Ninkovich, but he also had 4 less FF's...you know turnovers? Only difference is Matthews now makes more money then most players in the LG, oh and Nink probably plays the run better.

    Bottom line it for you. If we paid a guy like Mario Williams to come in here and get 10 sacks a year for us at 100 million$ we wouldn't be able to "build a team".

    I Love the way BB builds the team that has won more games then any other for 13 years strong.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from IrishMob7. Show IrishMob7's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

    I'm sure Packers fans would feel much better if the Packers had forgone Clay Matthews and instead gotten great value by trading down to sign Darius Butler and Brandon Tate. 

     



    Prolate, you act as if Matthews was some hot commodity coming into the draft.  He was so highly rated that 25 other teams passed on him.  Matthews has had a good career so far in the NFL, yes, however, he's overrated IMO.  He sucks in coverage and can't play the run.  He's great at getting after the QB, something this team lacks, but no way do I want my team paying 65M total and 31M guaranteed for a one-trick pony (a stud at his one trick, nonetheless.)  

    Look at both Peppers and Williams, two of the most coveted pass rushers on the FA market in recent memory.  What have they done to drastically improve their respective teams?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    Just making a little lighthearted fun of Rusty's tendency to claim every GM other than BB is screwing up while making BB out to be more infallible than god.

    Whatever you think of the price paid for Matthews, there's no doubt he's an impact player.  And he's not nearly as one-dimensional as some claim.  In fact, he was quite effective against the run last year. Nink isn't a bad player, but there's no way he's as dominant as Matthews.  And while Matthews success maybe wasn't anticipated by all the draft pundits or by every team, he was clearly a better pick than Butler, Tate, and Edelman combined.  If anything saved face for BB, it was that one of the picks he got through the series of trades folowing the trade of the Matthews pick resulted in Gronk.  He likely could have secured Gronk some other way, but all the extra picks  don't hurt when you need ammo to trade up.

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

    Yeah, great example.

    Here is a comparison. Matthews had 5 more sacks then Rob Ninkovich, but he also had 4 less FF's...you know turnovers? Only difference is Matthews now makes more money then most players in the LG, oh and Nink probably plays the run better.

    Bottom line it for you. If we paid a guy like Mario Williams to come in here and get 10 sacks a year for us at 100 million$ we wouldn't be able to "build a team".

    I Love the way BB builds the team that has won more games then any other for 13 years strong.



    Come on TC.  Ninkovich is an underrated player for this team imo, but Matthews got the contract he did and is a 2 time all pro for a reason.  The guy is a beast.  Do I think BB would have paid him as much as GB just did had we drafted him?  Probably not although perhaps he would have locked him up proactively.  But the guy was a good draft pick regardless.  I'll be honest.  I didn't want him because I thought he was a PED risk.

    I will say that I think we made out okay since we ended up with Gronk via a long combination of trades and it is impossible to know how it would have turned out otherwise, but Matthews is a great player.  No need to bash the guy to defend BB (and honestly it was pretty obvious to me that prolate was just dicking around).

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    is everyone who happens to not agree with you a troll, pink hat and stupid? and if someone agrees with something I say, or vice versa, are we allies?

    this is a forum to throw around thoughts and ideas about the Pats and general football. if there is a difference of opinion, so be it.

    let it go. you have been trying to change peoples perceptions for well over 2 years now, and you have not succeeded in any way. you should stop with the policing of thoughts not aligned with yours and leave your posts to football thoughts. when you are off your high horse and BB man love, I actually read what you have to say regarding football...you should stop there.

    and btw, I won our Jets bet

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    It's kind of odd to me that so many fans on this site have been clamoring for a dominant pass rusher for years and yet are so intent on pooh-poohing Matthews.  Really, wouldn't a Matthews have helped the Pats outside linebacker woes and given us the kind of impact pass rusher people have been calling for?  In the long run, trading the Matthews pick for three picks (a second rounder and two third rounders) wasn't bad value--I understand that.  But let's not exaggerate and try to argue that the Packers somehow screwed up in picking all-pro linebacker Matthews and the Pats made some brilliant move in turning the Matthews pick into two busts (Butler and Tate, a receiver coming off a knee injury who ended up on IR his first year) plus another third round pick, even if that other third round pick, through a series of trades, eventually helped secure Edelman (a guy who probably could have been signed as an UDRFA) and (with the addition of a sixth round pick) Gronk. It was a typical BB strategy of passing on first round talent to try to get multiple chances in later rounds for players with lower salary cap cost.  Certainly Gronk and Matthews are equivalent talents . . . but we had to wait an extra year to get our good player, and we got a player of Gronk's talent only because he slipped thanks to injury concerns which honestly are starting to get worrying.  We'll have to see which team in the end gets more value from their player . . . Gronk signed a big contract too.  Hopefully, he's on the field when we need him.  He hasn't been there in big games the past two seasons.  Yeah, you can get "value" by drafting guys who slip because of injury.  But if those guys never get on the field (Crable, Dowling, etc.) is it really good value?  I think the jury is still out on that question. 

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Philskiw1. Show Philskiw1's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    I would have rather had Dunlap over Mathews   

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    Sorry but TrueChamp exposed no one. He compared a guy with 42.5 sacks in 58 games played to a guy with 19.5 in 70. Psst, Matthews has more FF in his career too (y'know, turnovers).

    Great example.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

     

     

    Yeah, great example.

    Here is a comparison. Matthews had 5 more sacks then Rob Ninkovich, but he also had 4 less FF's...you know turnovers? Only difference is Matthews now makes more money then most players in the LG, oh and Nink probably plays the run better.

    Bottom line it for you. If we paid a guy like Mario Williams to come in here and get 10 sacks a year for us at 100 million$ we wouldn't be able to "build a team".

    I Love the way BB builds the team that has won more games then any other for 13 years strong.

     



    Come on TC.  Ninkovich is an underrated player for this team imo, but Matthews got the contract he did and is a 2 time all pro for a reason.  The guy is a beast.  Do I think BB would have paid him as much as GB just did had we drafted him?  Probably not although perhaps he would have locked him up proactively.  But the guy was a good draft pick regardless.  I'll be honest.  I didn't want him because I thought he was a PED risk.

     

    I will say that I think we made out okay since we ended up with Gronk via a long combination of trades and it is impossible to know how it would have turned out otherwise, but Matthews is a great player.  No need to bash the guy to defend BB (and honestly it was pretty obvious to me that prolate was just dicking around).




    I'm not bashing Matthews, and when Prolate goes on a 3 year long mission of "bashing" BB's draft picks I don't consider it dicking around. Matthews is a great pass rusher. I disagree that he was effective against the run and have seen him get pushed around often watching packers games with my uncle(some reason is a die hard pack fan and not a Pats fan booooo).

    My point was that while Prolate continues to bash BB the GM I point out that Nink was nearly as effective rushing the QB while playing a role BB covets. A guy who can defend the run, rush the passer and drop back to get his hands in passing lanes. 5 FF's is nothing to sneeze at and I was surprised to see Clay only had 1.

    Who would you rather have if you are building a "TEAM"

    Nink at a few million or Matthews at 60 million?

    I am sure of who BB would choose.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    The bottom line for me is that's a great deal of cap space consumed by only 2 players, impact though they may be.  The Packers have fielded competitive teams for quite some time and won it all a couple of years ago.  That said the point that it's not going to be easy to fill the rest of their needs with the available cap space is legit in my opinion.  

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to rkarp's comment:

     

    Mathews deal announced...killer numbers. $65M total. $31 guaranteed.

     




    I am shocked the numbers are that high given the FA market this offseason.  I believe only Flacco got more guaranteed than that.

     



    Don't forget Romo. Didn't he get more than Flacco guaranteed?

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    I'm hardly bashing BB as a GM (and I'd never question his coaching the way TC does regularly).  My point simply is that the BB "value" approach requires trade offs and while it tends to work well at keeping the team highly competitive over extended periods, it may leave the team a bit light on top-tier talent at times and that may have some negative consequences against the best teams in the playoffs.  I think the Pats have had clear success with their approach for over a decade, but I also think there are a number of other teams that have been very successful too, maybe trading some consistency from year to year and also flirting with salary cap problems at times in order to increase talent levels in other years and possibly win championships.  I'm not sure one approach is clearly better, but I do think the answer isn't clear cut in favour of the Pats and against other winning teams like the Packers, the Steelers, the Ravens, and the Giants.  That's why I say the jury is still out.  BB has won a lot, but so have those other teams.  And in recent years a lot of those other teams have been stronger playoff teams.  That's just a fact and I don't see any reason  to pretend otherwise. The Pats certainly have nothing to be ashamed of, but neither do the Steelers or Giants or Ravens.  Those are very well run teams too.

     

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from rkarp. Show rkarp's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    In response to ATJ's comment:

    The bottom line for me is that's a great deal of cap space consumed by only 2 players, impact though they may be.  The Packers have fielded competitive teams for quite some time and won it all a couple of years ago.  That said the point that it's not going to be easy to fill the rest of their needs with the available cap space is legit in my opinion.  



    I would bet that as long as they have Rodgers, they will be in the hunt.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: GB Packers

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    In response to prolate0spheroid's comment:

     

    I'm sure Packers fans would feel much better if the Packers had forgone Clay Matthews and instead gotten great value by trading down to sign Darius Butler and Brandon Tate. 

     

     




     

    Yeah, great example.

    Here is a comparison. Matthews had 5 more sacks then Rob Ninkovich, but he also had 4 less FF's...you know turnovers? Only difference is Matthews now makes more money then most players in the LG, oh and Nink probably plays the run better.

    Bottom line it for you. If we paid a guy like Mario Williams to come in here and get 10 sacks a year for us at 100 million$ we wouldn't be able to "build a team".

    I Love the way BB builds the team that has won more games then any other for 13 years strong.




    Irrationals exposed! You believe these people?? We have Nink at a fraction of the price...and what is five sacks anyway? Nothing. And this Mathews fellow - if we drafted him, we would eventually have to pay him for being one of the best pass rushers in the NFL...who wants to do that? It's about team building. Team. You sign a bunch of nobody's...they play hardly relevant for a year...then you get rid of them. It's low risk. Yeah you find yourself not really improving and having to do it all over again, but no one gets hurt...and in the end we can always just blame it on the quarterback.

    It's about being the smartest person in the room. What's a decade without winning a Super Bowl while having the best quarterback in the NFL? Exactly...nothing. Hell Marino never won a thing - we may never win a thing again, but our books are balanced...we're smarter than everyone and we are super safe. That's what matters most.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share