Packers Offseason Philosophy: Least Important Positions

[go pak go]

So [mention]Yoop[/mention] where are you at then?

Sounds like you want to invest heavy on the defense. I do too. I think top defense is key.

So what positions on offense are you willing to cut back on?

Again, this thread isn't about promoting the importance of a position. We get it. Every position is important. We have heard it all. This thread however is about dealing with limited resources and what positions you are willing to not invest as heavy in.

[Yoop]

So @Yoop where are you at then?

Sounds like you want to invest heavy on the defense. I do too. I think top defense is key.

So what positions on offense are you willing to cut back on?

Again, this thread isn't about promoting the importance of a position. We get it. Every position is important. We have heard it all. This thread however is about dealing with limited resources and what positions you are willing to not invest as heavy in.

It's hard to know this stuff till a decision is made concerning Rodgers and Adams, if both go then we should be able to sign at least one of Campbell or Douglas, or both, that is unless they want mega money.

If we keep Rodgers we wont be able to keep some of the defensive stars,

[go pak go]

So @Yoop where are you at then?

Sounds like you want to invest heavy on the defense. I do too. I think top defense is key.

So what positions on offense are you willing to cut back on?

Again, this thread isn't about promoting the importance of a position. We get it. Every position is important. We have heard it all. This thread however is about dealing with limited resources and what positions you are willing to not invest as heavy in.

It's hard to know this stuff till a decision is made concerning Rodgers and Adams, if both go then we should be able to sign at least one of Campbell or Douglas, or both, that is unless they want mega money.

If we keep Rodgers we wont be able to keep some of the defensive stars,

You just don't want to answer this question do you.

I'm not talking about specific players. I'm talking team building philosophy. What type of team do you want to build and what type of team do you think should be assembled in today's NFL?

[Yoop]

So @Yoop where are you at then?

Sounds like you want to invest heavy on the defense. I do too. I think top defense is key.

So what positions on offense are you willing to cut back on?

Again, this thread isn't about promoting the importance of a position. We get it. Every position is important. We have heard it all. This thread however is about dealing with limited resources and what positions you are willing to not invest as heavy in.

It's hard to know this stuff till a decision is made concerning Rodgers and Adams, if both go then we should be able to sign at least one of Campbell or Douglas, or both, that is unless they want mega money.

If we keep Rodgers we wont be able to keep some of the defensive stars,

You just don't want to answer this question do you.

I'm not talking about specific players. I'm talking team building philosophy. What type of team do you want to build and what type of team do you think should be assembled in today's NFL?

really tough questions, I still think ya need above average QB and passing game, I think it's harder to keep a running offense going then a passing offense, imo it's easier for a defense to stop the run then it is to stop the pass.

our situation though with Rodgers and the cap, and the possible 2 or 3 first round picks ( 2 is far more likely then 3, and no way DEnver is going to give us Juedy, Herman is dreaming) means we'll have to depend on the run more with Love and rely on stellar defensive play, again though so many unknowns it's hard to give you a satisfying answer

[NCF]

I think I have two strong thoughts based on the comments thus far.

#1 - I think TE >>> WR2
#2 - I think specialists (K, P, & LS) should be treated as priorities because the overall % of cap is so low compared to more critical positions.

I also think ILB is a low priority, but it cannot be ignored completely as we have done in the past.

[go pak go]

I think I have two strong thoughts based on the comments thus far.

#1 - I think TE >>> WR2

Oooh. I like this a lot. Most of your #2 WRs are in that $8MM to $12MM range (if not on a rookie deal). This is a great one when looking at what the better spend is. I agree a lot. Give me a top 10 TE and I will just keep drafting my #2.

image.png (106.56 KiB) Viewed 265 times

image.png (36.72 KiB) Viewed 265 times

[NCF]

This is a great one when looking at what the better spend is.

Unfortunately, we have been burned here, recently, with Marty and Jimmy, but have to keep trying until you get it right. I really don't know what to make about Bobby's long-term outlook, but I think I want someone that is a more refined blocker than he is.

[Scott4Pack]

I think the example that Seattle set during their prime years would suggest that a top tier OLine might not be as important as we think it is. At least a prime QB like Wilson showed that he could operate with a bad OLine. He also had beast mode and the Legion of Boom to support.

I'm not asking for a bad OLine. Just want to point out this example.

[Pckfn23]

I think I have two strong thoughts based on the comments thus far.

#1 - I think TE >>> WR2

Oooh. I like this a lot. Most of your #2 WRs are in that $8MM to $12MM range (if not on a rookie deal). This is a great one when looking at what the better spend is. I agree a lot. Give me a top 10 TE and I will just keep drafting my #2.

Basically the KC route.

[Drj820]

I think the example that Seattle set during their prime years would suggest that a top tier OLine might not be as important as we think it is. At least a prime QB like Wilson showed that he could operate with a bad OLine. He also had beast mode and the Legion of Boom to support.

I'm not asking for a bad OLine. Just want to point out this example.

I think they might be an outlier. Wilson has always had incredible pocket awareness, and able to make plays after being under pressure. This is pretty much very rare. Not sure I buy it can be easily replicated.

[Pugger]

We didn't get to 24 for a few reasons:

1. The Lewis fumble took a possession away and our defense I think got robbed on a fumble recovery that would have put us near the same spot.

2. Aaron Jones didn't take advantage of a play and ran a really, really stupid run after the catch that cost us at minimum a time out and 10 extra yards and at maximum a TD.

3. Our tackle situation was pretty poor. Especially at RT which didn't allow routes to develop.

4. Deguara's drop over the middle was huge. You can't drop plays that are there to be made.

5. Rodgers missed check downs. Especially in the 2nd half. An underrated key play was missing a checkdown and instead he tried to run it on his own but got tripped up the Dlineman. That was a play on 2nd down primed to get us moving, but it stalled us instead as we once again were facing a 3rd and long.

6. AJ Dillon being out. I think he is more important to our team than Aaron Jones and him being out was a killer.

7. The obvious miss of Lazard or even Q on that final drive.

Every time a play was there to be made, someone didn't make it. It was the fault of the QB, the TE, the RB. They just didn't make the play when it was there to be made which could have gotten us going. You have to make the plays when the plays are there to be made. And our offense really struggled doing that which put them behind the chains and right into SF's hands.

Plus we get a FG blocked right before the half.

I wasn't talking about STs. I was talking about offense.

But the offense put the ST in position to add more points at the end of the half.

[Pckfn23]

I think the example that Seattle set during their prime years would suggest that a top tier OLine might not be as important as we think it is. At least a prime QB like Wilson showed that he could operate with a bad OLine. He also had beast mode and the Legion of Boom to support.

I'm not asking for a bad OLine. Just want to point out this example.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/ ... sive-line/
LAR: 21
CIN: 19
SF: 17
KC: 28
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/ ... sive-line/
TB: 2
KC: 24
GB: 14
BUF: 3
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/ ... sive-line/
KC: 14
SF: 17
GB: 4
TEN: 6

Definitely looks like a team doesn't have to allocate a ton of resources to the position group.

[Pugger]

Priority 1 is a long snapper that weighs more than 180 lbs

[Pugger]

See I think Bak's injury is a significant reason why we don't have 2 SB rings from the last two years.

I think we very well win both SBs if he was protecting the LT spot and Turner was at RT.

You sign big time players for big time games. I know it obviously comes to a point. And I think we are at the point for Adams and Rodgers because their cap will simply be too large. But from a cap standpoint, signing even Bak for this run was good. He had a low cap hit this year for the intended purpose of putting together a run. It just didn't work out.

But Alexander is a guy you sign with the intention of keeping a Packer for another 5 years at least. And I can't let those guys go. 23, 97, and 52 are the pillars of the new defense.

Alexander is a true lock down corner. These guys don't grow on trees.

[Pugger]

See I think Bak's injury is a significant reason why we don't have 2 SB rings from the last two years.

I think we very well win both SBs if he was protecting the LT spot and Turner was at RT.

But Alexander is a guy you sign with the intention of keeping a Packer for another 5 years at least. And I can't let those guys go. 23, 97, and 52 are the pillars of the new defense.

Bak's absence for sure cost a SB appearance in 2020 season, with him against Tampa the Packers win that game. This year I don't think his absence cost much, though putting Turner at LT for the playoffs was a bad decision.

Gotta keep Alexander.

I think Turner is one position where we can make a cut, pare the cap and not suffer much. Jenkins or Nijman could go over to RT. I think a OL of Bak, Runyan, Myers, Patrick and Jenkins/Nijman would be pretty darn good.

[Pugger]

See I think Bak's injury is a significant reason why we don't have 2 SB rings from the last two years.

I think we very well win both SBs if he was protecting the LT spot and Turner was at RT.

You sign big time players for big time games. I know it obviously comes to a point. And I think we are at the point for Adams and Rodgers because their cap will simply be too large. But from a cap standpoint, signing even Bak for this run was good. He had a low cap hit this year for the intended purpose of putting together a run. It just didn't work out.

But Alexander is a guy you sign with the intention of keeping a Packer for another 5 years at least. And I can't let those guys go. 23, 97, and 52 are the pillars of the new defense.

I thought the consensus here was special teams cost us this year? Keep chugging beers at Bucks games during ur rehab Bak!. We cant win it without you.

[Pckfn23]

See I think Bak's injury is a significant reason why we don't have 2 SB rings from the last two years.

I think we very well win both SBs if he was protecting the LT spot and Turner was at RT.

But Alexander is a guy you sign with the intention of keeping a Packer for another 5 years at least. And I can't let those guys go. 23, 97, and 52 are the pillars of the new defense.

Bak's absence for sure cost a SB appearance in 2020 season, with him against Tampa the Packers win that game. This year I don't think his absence cost much, though putting Turner at LT for the playoffs was a bad decision.

Gotta keep Alexander.

I think Turner is one position where we can make a cut, pare the cap and not suffer much. Jenkins or Nijman could go over to RT. I think a OL of Bak, Runyan, Myers, Patrick and Jenkins/Nijman would be pretty darn good.

Maybe, maybe not. He isn't particularly expensive at a $9,169,412 cap hit which ranks 14 among RTs. His average salary of $7,000,000 is also 14th. His play was very good in 2021. If we cut him there are question marks at RT. We also save about $4.2 Million.

[Labrev]

TE is definitely a very efficient use of resources if you can find a good one.

My hangup with the TE position though is it's a tough position to find good ones. It's hard to find guys that are that big yet athletic enough to be a threat, as they often lack the athleticism to be a real threat, and often the ones that have the athletic tools you want are not quite big enough and are more like Big WRs or HBacks than TEs (Engram, Lazard).

[Half Empty]

Plus we get a FG blocked right before the half.

I wasn't talking about STs. I was talking about offense.

But the offense put the ST in position to add more points at the end of the half.

OK, give them the FG. What part of the discussion does that change?

[Pugger]

I wasn't talking about STs. I was talking about offense.

But the offense put the ST in position to add more points at the end of the half.

OK, give them the FG. What part of the discussion does that change?

In that game with those conditions if our ST was just average 13 points would have been enough to win on that day seeing our D only gave up 6, that's all.