Packers Huddle

It only counts if you make so many moves that you wreck the team for a generation if you fail.

I am not saying "Conservative" is a bad thing, just saying I believe the Green Bay Packers management still operates very conservatively!

I'm just distraught. This is the saddest day in Packers history.

go pak go wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2021 19:32

I actually don't hate the King signing in and of itself. I just hate the current value if it truly is a 1 year $6 million deal.

That's fair.

The Packers, King and his agent all know his injury history - so it's a reasonable guess that some of that reported $ 6M is game day bonus.
I'd think 700K - 800K of King's comp is tied to being active. Probably some Pro Bowl money in there, a few bonuses for INTs etc. Some fluffery.
Base pay guess is $4M - and its not like King had much negotiating leverage.

If you go to this contract page at OTC and click on "CBs" it will show you some annual pay, guaranteed pay etc. by position
Based on the other names in there, you can kinda slot King and $ 4M seems about right. ( an admittedly non- a scientific method ..)

https://overthecap.com/contracts/

BSA wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2021 23:57

go pak go wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2021 19:32

I actually don't hate the King signing in and of itself. I just hate the current value if it truly is a 1 year $6 million deal.

That's fair.

The Packers, King and his agent all know his injury history - so it's a reasonable guess that some of that reported $ 6M is game day bonus.
I'd think 700K - 800K of King's comp is tied to being active. Probably some Pro Bowl money in there, a few bonuses for INTs etc. Some fluffery.
Base pay guess is $4M - and its not like King had much negotiating leverage.

If you go to this contract page at OTC and click on "CBs" it will show you some annual pay, guaranteed pay etc. by position
Based on the other names in there, you can kinda slot King and $ 4M seems about right. ( an admittedly non- a scientific method ..)

https://overthecap.com/contracts/

We'll see about the specifics, but it's ALWAYS a good sign when initial contact leak doesn't mention guarantees or details.

My guess too would be about 4M with incentives. If King returns to 2019 form (he has every incentive to), that would be a great deal. If 2020 form, I'll be mad.

The only logical contract details is that Kevin King is paying us 6 million to stay in the league. Thats gotta be what happened.

I wouldn't have re-signed him, for the NFCCG alone. But we've seen way worse. As it stands, when we drafted him, he was the first decent CB we had in a few years. Better than Dumbarious, better than Rollins, better than Bush (although Bush rose to the occasion when it counted whereas King choked), better than Ahmad Carroll, better than MD Jennings and whoever else we were trotting out around then. Honestly better than House during his first stint here. He's like the perfect depth CB. But we really should find a good #2.

I still want Richard Sherman.

All this means is that the Packers can draft an outside cb in the 3rd or 4th round and let him develop for a several weeks rather than throw him to the wolves. Rather than drafting in the first round and probably having to move up to get a first week starter.

Now they can draft an OT. Or an ilb. Or a dlineman. Or even a center. One less hole to fill in the first 2 rounds.

If King does not play better, that 3rd round CB will take his job in December anyway.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2021 22:01

go pak go wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2021 21:42

Drj820 wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2021 20:45

disagree

Zadarius Smith. Preston Smith. Adrian Amos. Billy Turner. Rick Wagner. Christian Kirksey. Mercedes Lewis. Jimmy Graham. Muhammad Wilkerson. Beshaud Breeland. Ibraheim Campbell. Snacks Harrison. Tevon Austin. Tyler Ervin.

2021 has been an anomaly of no outside free agents.

Each year under Gute the Packers have pushed for veteran signgings outside of the organization and even largerr name FA's. This is also not including significant offers made to Allen Robinson and Kyle Fuller.

Brian Gutenkust is not Ted Thompson. 2021 is the first year we have only gone with "familiar names".

I dont really see anything on your list that makes Buds position a false statement. The Smiths, Amos, and Turner were risks in that they were big contracts..but heaven and earth wasnt moved to make the deals. We had tons of cap space because we let alot of guys walk who stunk.

The signings of Wagner, Kirksey, Lewis, Wilkerson, Breeland, Campbell, Snacks, Tavon, and Ervin were all extremely conservative answers to roster issues that we had. They were all wire guys or very low risk. There wasnt anything about those moves that were whatever the opposite of conservative would be. We had some cap space like well run teams do, and we made deals that we could get out of to fill some spots.

We kept Jimmy an extra year, we brought back Preston after a bad year, we brought back king, we paid Crosby a ton for a kicker who cant kick it out of the back of the end zone, and we even paid Aaron Jones instead of going shopping for cheaper...all because like bud said, we prefer to dance with guys that we know...i dont blame them for that btw. We have brought back a lot of guys I am pleased we brought back.

But we had one big spending spree in a year we had tons of cap space, we havent made many splashes since, there was cap to be played with this year and we decided to not play with it so that we can just bring back king. We have had opportunities to move up in drafts and we have chosen to stay put. We have drafted guys that we intend to use a couple of years down the line...

Firing a ST coach and promoting from within to fill the spot is keeping with what ya know.

All fine things to do by the way, but certainly all things "Conservative management" does, like Bud said.

Huh.

Jimmy Graham being signed originally wasn't a "conservative move". He was a high-level TE that we spent a lot of money on to bring in while at the same time cutting a known player and beloved player in Jordy Nelson to make the move happen. That was about as unconservative as it got. It just didn't work.

We then throw a huge offer sheet to Kyle Fuller and Allen Robinson in the same year. They just didn't end up in GB but not because we didn't throw the farm at them.

One year later, we sign the top two edge rushers in free agency on the first day as well as a higher end safety (not the highest as that was Earl Thomas) and overpaid for a tackle. Again. Not the conservative let's go bargain shopping Packers moves. And I wouldn't say we did it because we had tons of cap space. We did it because we backloaded those contracts like crazy.

We move on from Clay Matthews. We use draft capital to trade back and trade up while getting another 1st. We have traded up TWICE in round 1 two years in a row to get the player we want in Darnell Savage and Jordan Love. In fact, in 3 drafts....Gute has never NOT traded in the first round.

Even in the coaching ranks....we fired our DC when he fielded a top 10 defense essentially two years in a row because his defense didn't fit the aggression the Packers wanted.

We have more money deferred into 2022 and backloading contracts than any other team in the league right now in order to go as "all in" as possible.

Look I'm pissed we didn't get Fuller this year. I am. I thought the resources of using $10 million was better spent on Fuller compared to Preston and Dean. But to say Gute is conservative, doesn't take splash moves, or doesn't go with people they don't know is wrong. It just so happens this is the first year the Packers haven't made a splash external player move during the Gute era.

go pak go wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2021 07:05

Look I'm pissed we didn't get Fuller this year. I am. I thought the resources of using $10 million was better spent on Fuller compared to Preston and Dean. But to say Gute is conservative, doesn't take splash moves, or doesn't go with people they don't know is wrong. It just so happens this is the first year the Packers haven't made a splash external player move during the Gute era.

yep, Guty is the type of GM most of us wanted after ultra conservative TT, I liked the TT approach, but it was out dated, since the arrival of UFA it is impossible to rely solely on the draft to field a competative team, ya have to use UFA, the thing is to not spend big on worn out or lazy players.

minus redoing Rodgers or Adams contracts we have back loaded 28 mil. in order to keep this team intact only losing Linsley, I have doubts that Ted would have done this.

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2021 19:38

salmar80 wrote: ↑

23 Mar 2021 14:56

I hope the lack of interest in King scares the crap outta him and motivates him into having a career year...

If we had a defensive line and didn't need ILB help ........... this might scare alot of people.

Do you remember this? Clemson’s Antuan Edwards, 6-foot-1, came off the board at No. 25 overall. Then came 5-foot-11 speedster Fred Vinson of Vanderbilt at No. 47 overall. And finally, 6-foot Mike McKenzie of Memphis at No. 87 overall.

Just wondering about the bottom line here. Is it drafting for need, something about the size of the guys, or something else? Edwards was on some All-Rookie teams, then got injured. Vinson netted Ahman Green and a favorable draft swap. McKenzie was a really good starting CB for five years until contract problems. Hence, I don't think the complaint is wasted draft choices.

If the argument is gutey is a more aggressive GM than TT, I completely agree. If the argument Gutey had made the packers management “not conservative” I still disagree. In the final two years of possessing a HOF qb, there has been so much more that is possible to do in that stretch to load up and go for a ring.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2021 09:39

If the argument is gutey is a more aggressive GM than TT, I completely agree. If the argument Gutey had made the packers management “not conservative” I still disagree. In the final two years of possessing a HOF qb, there has been so much more that is possible to do in that stretch to load up and go for a ring.

I can agree with that. But when we start qualifying "in the final two years" our basis of our argument of the Packers not going for it is based on the decision of the Packers deciding to keep Preston and Lowry over bringing in a higher impact external defensive player in their place.

Which I would have done. But we are dealing with a pretty small sample size of decision making.

What are some examples of aggressive management? I am seriously curious.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2021 09:39

If the argument is gutey is a more aggressive GM than TT, I completely agree. If the argument Gutey had made the packers management “not conservative” I still disagree. In the final two years of possessing a HOF qb, there has been so much more that is possible to do in that stretch to load up and go for a ring.

OK, but you should describe at least partially what he should have done,

heres my old shtick:lol: I think Rodgers got a lot of blame for 018 and 19 that should have been directed at McCarthys old scheme and MLF's new one, and also supporting cast of players that didn't really enhance either scheme, so instead of drafting Love ( as we saw last year Rodgers candle still burns brightly) we should have improved other areas of need such as DL, ILB, CB, WR, nothing insures that we would have won a SB doing that, however our odds of it would have been better.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2021 10:46

What are some examples of aggressive management? I am seriously curious.

I think the Saints, Rams, and Bucs would be in line with what people are talking about.

The Saints pushing cap dollars to their limit to keep Brees' window competitive
The Rams making tons of trades, giving up draft capital to push the chips to the middle
The Bucs last year going for Brady, Antonio Brown, Gronk--this year keeping them together.

None have had more success than us, but they are successful teams whose management styles seem to reflect the desires philosophy of many board-members

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2021 10:46

What are some examples of aggressive management? I am seriously curious.

I think the most obvious is what the Saints did in 2018 and 2019 as well as what the Eagles did in 2011.

Both failed.

I think people also like to point out what the Rams have done since 2017 and what the Bucs did in 2020. I think the Bucs was more of just Gronk and AB wanting to play with Brady.

Otherwise I don't really know. Maybe we could point at what the 9ers did in 2019 by getting Emmanual Sanders.

But again most of these teams ended up being losers.

Well maybe I'll get a year of King where his smack talk is backed up.

I'll live with this.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2021 11:11

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2021 10:46

What are some examples of aggressive management? I am seriously curious.

I think the Saints, Rams, and Bucs would be in line with what people are talking about.

The Saints pushing cap dollars to their limit to keep Brees' window competitive
The Rams making tons of trades, giving up draft capital to push the chips to the middle
The Bucs last year going for Brady, Antonio Brown, Gronk--this year keeping them together.

None have had more success than us, but they are successful teams whose management styles seem to reflect the desires philosophy of many board-members

go pak go wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2021 11:12

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2021 10:46

What are some examples of aggressive management? I am seriously curious.

I think the most obvious is what the Saints did in 2018 and 2019 as well as what the Eagles did in 2011.

Both failed.

I think people also like to point out what the Rams have done since 2017 and what the Bucs did in 2020. I think the Bucs was more of just Gronk and AB wanting to play with Brady.

Otherwise I don't really know. Maybe we could point at what the 9ers did in 2019 by getting Emmanual Sanders.

But again most of these teams ended up being losers.

Awesome! Good examples. I think compared to those teams the current Packers management should not be considered conservative. Certainly not as aggressive as those teams, but getting close.

I truly don't believe the Packers are completely adverse to going to any of these extremes if it is for the right player. A fan favorite, locker room favorite, All-Pro Center may seem like that is someone that fits the bill, but when you consider it's a non-premium position on the OL for a guy on his 3rd contract, maybe it should not be as shocking as it seems. Really, this FA class was nothing special regardless of the money available to spend. Who is it, exactly, that we should have mortgaged the future for? Because really, if your response is just do it and sign anyone, that seems a little irresponsible to me knowing the risk proposition involved in free agency.

Another HUGE thing to consider is it's March 24th. We don't, currently, have a game next week. There are a lot of phases to work through yet before September and I am not sure we're done making significant upgrades yet.