SI: Packer Team Needs At Left Tackle, Defensive End and Defensive Back

by Brandon on Feb 15, 2012 10:00 AM CST in Green Bay Packers Draft

Every NFL team's path to success in the offseason - Jeff Diamond - SI.com. I'm not sure why Jeff Diamond thinks left tackle is a priority for the Green Bay Packers. They just used their last two first round draft choices on offensive tackles, and there's no way they'll do it again this April. Chad Clifton might be nearing the end of the line, but the future should belong to Derek Sherrod, with Marshall Newhouse holding down the fort until Sherrod's healthy and more experienced. Plus, they could move Bryan Bulaga to left tackle if it's really a problem.

However, he's right on about the next position. First he said defensive end was the priority, but then he changed the topic point to pass rusher. Either one sounds good to me.

He then mentions that Tramon Williams and Charles Woodson "need to play better." Williams had an off year, but Woodson was just as good as he's been over the past few seasons. Either way, I'm not expecting the Packers to give either of them any serious competition for their jobs next season. Sam Shields might be in more danger because he gave up a lot of receiving yards last season, and his poor tackling forced the coaches to split his time in the NFC Divisional playoff game with Jarrett Bush. Still, I expect the Packers will give Shields another chance in 2012 before using a high draft choice to replace him.

I would like to see them draft a safety who would be a better starter than Charlie Peprah, if Nick Collins isn't cleared next month to play in 2012.

Tweet Comment 63 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Generally agree.

Except I don’t know that Sherrod’s development is a sure thing. Bulaga seems to have RT locked down, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Newhouse is the long-term replacement on the left side. He held up very well, especially considering it was the first extended action of his career. He’s in a similar situation as Mark Tauscher was, being a low-expectation prospect forced into early action. I could see him having a similar career arc.

Everyone assumes “pass rush” means another linebacker to force the edge. I completely agree that the Packers need another OLB, but a 3-4 end that can collapse the pocket can be just as disruptive. When healthy, it was something Cullen Jenkins could provide, and an area in which BJ Raji, Ryan Pickett, and Howard Green struggled last season. Addressing the pass rush could mean acquiring either an OLB or DE. They need a “disrupter” to break down protections, it will create more opportunities for everyone.

I think DB is lower priority (I caught myself before saying “secondary concern”), but that priority level is directly linked to how healthy and available Nick Collins might be. But safeties aren’t as premium as CBs and LBs.

by mpbMKE on Feb 15, 2012 10:25 AM CST reply actions

Don't get why people are willing to assume LT is set

Newhouse proved last year he couldn’t play left tackle (if you doubt this go watch the Kansas City game and Tamba Hali) while Sherrod may be able to play the game but we don’t even know when he’ll be healthy enough to play again. We can all agree that Rodgers is the most important player on the Packers roster and yet people seem willing to leave his blindside secured by a inadequate LT (Newhouse) and an unproven, injured second year player (Sherrod). As for moving Bulaga, he became one of the better right tackles in the NFL last year, it should be a last resort to move him since he’s not a great left tackle (otherwise he would have been able to beat out Newhouse) and you’re going to replace him on the right side with a player that’s not as good. All you’d end up with are two weak tackles instead of one.

Yes, I think the Packers defense needs to be the emphasis of the draft and free agency but to just assume that left tackle is not an issue is to ignore the facts.

by SunshinePacker on Feb 15, 2012 11:49 AM CST reply actions

One game doesn't make a career

They both are young players with a lot of upside and the general thought is that one of them will prove themselves capable. Newhouse performed well down the stretch and I think he will continue to improve especially with a whole offseason this next year.

by nonstop87 on Feb 15, 2012 12:12 PM CST up reply actions

Newhouse held up well

in several other games. he deserves a shot.

to only mention one game is to ignore all of the facts.

aaaaaaaaahh, I gotta go!!

by b3nihana on Feb 15, 2012 12:29 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

One game was an example

In the interest of brevity, I could go game by game if you’d like but luckily for me Profootball Focus has already done that. And guess what, they graded him as the worst tackle in the NFL last year (among pplayers who were in on 50% of their team’s snaps as well as among players who were in on at least 25% of their team’s snaps).

A quick-shot reply with no real evidence is something that ignores all the facts.

by SunshinePacker on Feb 16, 2012 2:47 PM CST up reply actions

Newhouse performed admirably

against Jared Allen, runner up DPOY this season. I believe he also fared well against Peppers.

by Vinz_Clortho on Feb 15, 2012 12:37 PM CST up reply actions

Because he was only a second year player who didn’t have an offseason. When we drafted him, it was known that he was a project. And when you consider those things, he fared pretty well. It sucked to see him get dominated by Hali and Pierre-Paul but it’s kind of to be expected.

Plus, Sherrod should get better as he develops. At the very least, we know we’ve got a serviceable player in Newhouse (if he doesn’t develop anymore, which seems doubtful), which will allow for Sherrod to develop some more.

by packallday555 on Feb 15, 2012 1:10 PM CST up reply actions 4 recs

Agree packallday555 ~ Newhouse, with a full off season, and strength conditioning &

some coaching up is going to be a lot better player! At least if Newhouse can hold the fort until Sherrod can get healthy and get back on the field, between the two of them, I’m not too worried about the LT position…

On the other hand, if we can’t get Scott Wells re-signed, I’m not sure we have a starting C on the roster, which would mean that TT might have to consider Konz in the 1st round!? If we can get Wells to sign a decent contract, it means a great deal… TT can look to go DE/OLB in the 1st if one he likes is there… Knowing TT, he may still draft Konz if he’s available… Wouldn’t surprise me, and I wouldn’t be upset… : )

"SOUTHERN HILLS KENNEL" ~ We Breed The Best Bitches In TEXAS!!!

GO PACK GO!!!

by BirdDogUni on Feb 15, 2012 1:22 PM CST up reply actions

Bulaga was worse in 2010

Than Newhouse was in 2011, but is now an anchor on the line. Why is Newhouse discounted from that kind of development in his 2nd season?

by mpbMKE on Feb 15, 2012 1:37 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Don't think you should discount it

Just don’t think that you should take the only strength on the team, our offense, and hang your hopes on a player that didn’t play well last year.

Turning it around, why remove a position from the draft board just because you HOPE a player will improve in his third season?

by SunshinePacker on Feb 16, 2012 2:44 PM CST up reply actions

We also drafted a T with our 1st round pick this last draft.

13.

"Skip, once again, stop it; Be an analyst; don't be a douchebag."

by Wiedmann on Feb 16, 2012 3:23 PM CST up reply actions

Newhouse

Also looked darn good at LT for his last three games. This is a second year player, drafted in the 5th round, and who missed a critical off season program we are talking about. His play this year was very good all things considered. All Sherrod had was a broken leg (clean break too btw), he will be fine when it heals.

Bulaga should not be moved from RT. ProFootball Focus graded him out to be the second best RT in the league last year. Their grading system may not be the best or most accurate, but why take the 2nd best player at their position and move them? And this was after his 2010 season in which he was our weakest link on the OL. He gave nearly as many pressures and sacks last year as Newhouse did this year!

by Shoes31 on Feb 15, 2012 3:02 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Not true...

Newhouse proved last year he couldn’t play left tackle

What he proved is that he was young and needs development! He performed as well last year as Bulaga did as a rookie. Granted Newhouse wasn’t a rookie, but he came from a much smaller football program and needed alot more refinement in his technique than did Bulaga. Bulaga gave up 12 sacks at RT his rookie year and Newhouse 12 last year. With this offseason, Newhouse should take and even better jump in performance. No reason to think that he can’t become a damn good LT.

Bulaga never competed w/ Newhouse for the LT job, don’t know what your getting at… But your entire comment is simply not true and ignores the fact that Newhouse actually performed pretty well for his inexperience. He’ll take a big jump in performance this season w/ the OTA’s and offseason program!

Our Biggest Challenge is how we deal w/ Success!

by Strohman on Feb 15, 2012 7:30 PM CST up reply actions 3 recs

Green and gold glasses

Left tackle is one of the top five most important positions on this team. Too much pressure equals poor offensive production and last year showed that our defense isn’t up to carrying the team. I’m not arguing that Newhouse won’t improve, what I’m stating is a simple fact; Newhouse had some poor games at the end of the season, yes he played better, but that’s relative to some pretty poor play to start the season. Profootball Focus has him rated as the 60th worst (!) tackle that played at least 50% of his team’s snaps; Newhouse has a -40.6 overall rating at tackle. For comparison, the median tackle (Max Starks) was a -2.2.

His last four games; hits, pressures and sacks and then % of plays in which he failed at his job of pass blocking:
Week 15 Kansas City: allowed 5 pressures and 1 sack, got beat 9.7% of his plays
Week 16 against Chicago: allowed 4 pressures, got beat 7.5% of his plays
Week 17 against Detroit: 3 pressures and 1 hit, got beat 5.2% of his plays
Divisional Round against NYG: 2 pressures and 1 sack, got beat 7.2% of his plays

On the season, he got allowed a pressure, hit or sack on 6% of the plays he was in the game. We all make fun of the poor Bears line and yet, there left tackle was only at 4.6% bad plays. I mentioned Max Starks earlier, he played in a similar offense that was vewry reliant on the passing game and Starks gave up pressure/hit/sack on 3.6% of plays.

So, why should left tackle be off the board? Yes, he MIGHT get better but is that what you want to hinge the offense on? We went 15-1 without a pass rusher opposite Clay, how well do you think we’ll play with the worst left tackle in football?

by SunshinePacker on Feb 16, 2012 2:41 PM CST up reply actions

Bryan Bulaga, Chad Clifton, Derek Sherrod, Marshall Newhouse, Ray Dominguez, Herb Taylor

Those are the Tackles we have under contract right now for next year. So, no the offense is not going to hinge on the development of Newhouse; he’s the 4th option at T as it stands right now.

13.

"Skip, once again, stop it; Be an analyst; don't be a douchebag."

by Wiedmann on Feb 16, 2012 3:50 PM CST up reply actions

The point of the article is that LT isn't a concern

Clifton may not be back and we have two left tackles on the roster of any note, Newhouse and Sherrod. Newhouse we’ve seen, he needs to make a giant leap to become an average left tackle, not impossible but not definite. Sherrod, well we don’t know anything about the guy, not even how much practice he’s actually going to get since he broke his leg. I’m not saying he won’t heal 100% but it’s certainly going to derail any practice time that he gets.
My point isn’t that we suck at left tackle, just that we shouldn’t disregard the left tackle position because we have two players there. If a good left tackle is on the board the Packers should think long and hard about drafting him.

by SunshinePacker on Feb 17, 2012 8:58 AM CST up reply actions

No, you're being ridiculous

Saying our offense hinges on the development of our 4th tackle is just plain wrong. You could go through every position & discount 3 players to justify drafting at that position. If you get 3 “what if?”s per position; I’d like to see what position wouldn’t be on the board. Sometimes you don’t even need three:
QB: What if Rodgers gets injured? There won’t be a good QB prospect at 28, we better trade up to #2 to get RGIII
RB: What if Starks’ injury flares up again? What if Alex Green doesn’t fully recover? What if Saine regresses?
FB: What if John Kuhn gains a lot of weight & is ineffective?
etc.
etc.

13.

"Skip, once again, stop it; Be an analyst; don't be a douchebag."

by Wiedmann on Feb 17, 2012 2:42 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Green and gold glasses

What’s wrong with ’em?!?

Your handle appears to be a misnomer.

"Perfection is not attainable,
but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence!"

After further review,
The Munsters of the Midway still suck,
Skol is a four-letter word,
abd those upstarts in Detroit couldn't beat the Little Sisters of the Poor.

by NorthStarr on Feb 17, 2012 2:33 AM CST up reply actions

Ok, here's the thing

The reason why Tramon had an off season because of a nagging shoulder injury. Because Nick Collins was out, he had to play pass coverage and couldn’t jump routes like normal. Charles, however had a two-fold problem. Because Nick was out, he also had to play pass coverage. Also because of Cullen Jenkins being an Eagle, Charles was not able to do the Corner/Safety Blitz thing. A DE with pass rush ability and the reaquiring of Nick fixes these problems. Ted Thompson had one job to do: keep the team together. He failed and now the future is in doubt. Not that the Packers can be an elite team or get back in the playoffs, but that we can be a legitimate Super Bowl threat. We haven’t been that for a long time. We were a playoff team that hoped that the stars would align and we would somehow luck out and get in the Superbowl again. Ted needs to do everything and anything to get back in the mix of Superbowl contention. This also includes free agency as well as the draft.

by biggun33 on Feb 15, 2012 12:14 PM CST reply actions

i generally believe this is true but would ammend one thing

and that would be having the db’s hang back 10 yards pre-snap. part of this is becuase of collins, but they were doing this even before he was hurt and we were lit up for 800 + yards in the first 2 games passing. holding back 10 yards gives the wr’s a free release from their lines and their rhythm with the qb is perfect. short slants and wr screens are all day affairs with db’s and if you’ve got one with a bum arm, the chance for one of those to get broken increases significantly. when we were at our best we were playing tighter man to man defense, getting push from both sides of the d-line with jenkins and clay, with bj and pickett occupying the middle taking up a double team.

defenses had to hold one reciever in to help with the chucky blitz, and our linebackers didn’t have to shed blocks as often to get to the running back.

whatever we do, we need to shore up the defensive end positions and their virginal play style (no penetration whatsoever). #1
then look to get another OLB offside Clay becuase Zombo can’t stay healthy for the life of him – maybe he is trying to hard – and Walden does nothing but run straight into the guy who is blocking him, and he is not strong enough to bull rush anyone. #2
then go after someone to be an upgrade from the bush/lee tandem that embarrased themselves for most of the year when it counted. I’m not saying that bush isn’t awesome in the special teams department, but we need someone who can be a beast in special teams as well as contribute EFFECTIVELY in his normal position. #3
Any help to the offensive line is a bonus#4
Another role playing tight end to replace the most likely gone finley #5
a consistent backup QB who we can groom to be a good emergency start #6

Look-de-do, that should be our draft strategy right there.

by Nels Winkler on Feb 15, 2012 1:10 PM CST up reply actions

I agree that he failed on the Jenkins thing, and what ended up happening was precisely the reason I wanted to keep Jenkins.

But I think you’re being a little dramatic. I don’t think we “lucked out” last season. The team just finally started playing consistently. That’s what was missing early on in 2010. We’d just have too many brain farts in games. All that’s really missing imo, to get back to being the outright favorite is a pass rusher and the return of Collins. Things have been optimistic about Collins returning, and I don’t see why Thompson couldn’t find a pass rusher with our first pick.

I doubt we do anything in FA. We’re going to need the cap room these next few years when we have to re-sign Jennings, Matthews, Raji, and extend Rodgers.

by packallday555 on Feb 15, 2012 1:16 PM CST up reply actions

Huh?

Ted Thompson had one job to do: keep the team together. He failed and now the future is in doubt. Not that the Packers can be an elite team or get back in the playoffs, but that we can be a legitimate Super Bowl threat. We haven’t been that for a long time. We were a playoff team that hoped that the stars would align and we would somehow luck out and get in the Superbowl again.

Did you watch any of the season before the playoffs? They were the best team in the league last season and ran into the Giants at the wrong time to play their worst game of the year. I agree they have some holes to fix on D, but please name me one team who you consider a legitimate Super Bowl threat that doesn’t have any holes to fix.

I heard a lot of people complain about not resigning Jenkins, but honestly where would the money have come from? He signed a 5/25 contract and got almost 7 mil last year so who should’ve been cut to make room to re-sign him?

by Bezerkers on Feb 15, 2012 4:02 PM CST up reply actions

???????

I do not know, but JENKINS missing is main reason why DEFENSE was not WORKING!!! WAS loss to Giants worth not signing JENKINS?

by zappop777 on Feb 15, 2012 6:36 PM CST up reply actions

Here's what it comes down to. This has been discussed to death here but people keep coming and going WE NEEDED CULEN JENKS OMG!!11111!!!

Would you prefer a good DE in his early 30’s with an injury history for 3-4 seasons or 2 WRs in Nelson and Jones, both in their mid-20s, to stay around for another contract and possibly their careers (although I see that as doubtful with Jones)? Not to mention that then we would also have had the huge question of what to do with Finley/those 2 wr’s during this offseason if we resigned Jenkins!

The salary cap, low expectations for Jenkins to stay healthy long term, and his age were all huge factors in why we didn’t resign him. Who knew that Neal would get hurt? One or two injuries doesn’t make someone injury-prone. Hell, Jenkins missed large chunks of a few seasons during his career. This was a long term decision.

TL DR, you’re wrong, learn about the salary cap.

I already told you! I deal with the god damn receivers so the linebackers don’t have to! I have coverage skills; I’m good at covering people! Can’t you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?!

by msc32887 on Feb 15, 2012 6:45 PM CST up reply actions

I would have rather we signed Jenkins and let Jones walk. And that, along with not signing Hawk to a ridiculous contract that he didn’t deserve wouldn’t have made signing Jenkins detrimental to us signing Nelson and Finley. Though, had we tried to talk to him after he wasn’t getting much attention from teams in FA, we probably could have had him for a very reasonable price.

I get that he was probably confident in Neal but imo, it was too risky to go with him after he was out all season. There’s no way we didn’t know how valuable Jenkins was too us. He almost averaged a sack a game in 2010. I think there are exceptions to the letting 29+ years old players walk, especially when we’re talking about a 3-4 DE that can actually provide a very good pass rush, which is extremely rare.

Not signing him was a mistake.

by packallday555 on Feb 15, 2012 10:26 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

If we didn't sign Hawk for that price, and trust me, someone else would have.

Then who would have been our starting ILB this year? Barnett would have cost around the same as Hawk did, yet he’s another Jenkins with the age and the injuries. And don’t forget, Jenkins was asking for a huge, long term contract from us. Much higher than the $5 mil/5 years ($4 mil in the first and the Eagles have an option to release him or something along those lines) and the $3 mil/year that Jones got.

You can’t look at these things with the benefit of hindsight. Look at Wahle/Rivera a few years back. Similar situation, both players were getting old and injuries were a concern. They didn’t do much after being released, and it was considered a good decision. Looking at the cap realities of the time, this was the route to take for long term stability and success. TT isn’t one to pull a Childress and put everything in for one good season. He’s more of a macro guy.

by msc32887 on Feb 15, 2012 10:48 PM CST up reply actions

Then somebody else would have overpaid for him. No way Barnett costs around the same as Hawk. We were just unfortunate that Hawk had his first really good season in his contract year. That, and the fact that we had let Barnett go (or decided to go) and that Chillar was hurt made it so we had to much him too much. Barnett got 3 years $12M from the Bills. I’d guess we could have had him for 3-4 years at $4-5M a year.

If Jenkins wanted $7-8M a year, then I completely agree with letting him hit FA. What I don’t agree with is the fact that we didn’t start talks with him AFTER we let him hit FA — like we did with Clifton. I don’t believe for a second that we couldn’t have found out that the market for him was pretty dry. And at that point, I think we could have signed him to a very reasonable contract.

You can’t look at these things with the benefit of hindsight.

That’s the thing though — I’m not. I was saying all these same things last year at this point, along with many others. I said many times that if Neal didn’t live up to expectations that we’d be in big trouble. I also said that Hawk had had a bunch of average seasons up to 2010 and that it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he had a bunch more average seasons afterwards — that looks like it’s coming true.

There seems to be the sentiment here by some that Thompson is a God who can do no wrong, and that’s just not the case. I think he’s one of the better GM’s in the league but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t make mistakes — he does. And letting Jenkins and Barnett walk were mistakes. I could live with letting Barnett walk because at least Hawk is serviceable. And realistically, having Barnett instead of Hawk last year probably wouldn’t have made a huge difference in our defense’s performances. However, having Jenkins would have. As soon as we let him go, and Neal got hurt, we were basically doomed.

I realize he’s a macro guy and I agree with the approach. But there’s exceptions to the rule, and I think Jenkins is the case. 3-4 DE’s who can rush the passer are a dime a dozen. It would have been one thing if Neal had played all season, and we had that to go off of but he obviously didn’t. Thompson took the risk, and I think the risk was the main factor in us losing in the first round of the playoffs.

by packallday555 on Feb 16, 2012 11:32 AM CST up reply actions

We cannot assume that talks were either started or not after the start of FA, especially if the scource is someone whos public image would benefit from the news.

But yes, I do agree that it was a mistake to let him go. But good, rational decisions are also sometimes mistakes. I’m assuming that the general feeling among the staff was that the chance of Neal performing well was greater than the chances of both Neal not performing well and Jenkins not getting injured/declining with age. At the time, given the plausible scenarios, this was the right decision. But sometimes shit hits the fan.

by msc32887 on Feb 16, 2012 2:54 PM CST up reply actions

A little condescending for a poorly thought response

Jenkins signed for about $4-$5 million; the team could afford that in a contract similar to what the Eagles did and cut him this year if it didn’t pan out. “Who knew that Neal would get hurt”…turn it around, when has he proven that he could replace the second bast pass rusher on the team? Injury prone label aside, TT decided to let our second best pass rusher go and counted on an unknown quantity to replace him. It backfired. That’s the way things go sometimes but don’t hide behind the cap as the reason that we didn’t sign him. TT misjudged the market, never followed up and got burned. End of story. He’s done far more good than bad as the GM but don’t ignore the bad.

by SunshinePacker on Feb 16, 2012 2:52 PM CST up reply actions

tten him for 4-5 million. More like 7-8.

Oh, you want condescending or critique on a poorly thought out response?

He was asking for more than that in our contract talks! We wouldn’t have gotten him for 4-5 million. More like 7-8. “unknown quanitity” is the wrong term here. We would have most likely kept the same amount of DE’s regardless of Jenkins’ status. Maybe use “entity” or “player” here. I’m not hiding behind the cap as the reason. It’s one of the reasons, albeit a significant one, that made management feel like it could afford to lose him rather pay the asking price. As Jenkins was the one asking for the contract above market price, I’d say that he was the one that misjudged the market.

Not to mention the other players that we would have had to let go to accommodate his resigning, whether it was at 4-5 million or 7-8 million. As resigning young promising players over established vets takes multiple years to assess the true value of, we won’t know this for some time. Will Jenkins continue to perform at the level corresponding to his high level of his contract or will he fall off within the next couple of years? How will Nelson/Jones/Finley (whichever 1-2 we would have had to let go as a result of resigning Jenkins) develop and perform over this time? Will their value surpass Jenkins? Has it already? Opportunity cost

by msc32887 on Feb 16, 2012 3:07 PM CST up reply actions

Whoops, title fail.

by msc32887 on Feb 16, 2012 3:07 PM CST up reply actions

It backfired. That’s the way things go sometimes but don’t hide behind the cap as the reason that we didn’t sign him. TT misjudged the market, never followed up and got burned. End of story. He’s done far more good than bad as the GM but don’t ignore the bad.

Basically my feelings on it as well.

I understand the cap factors in but I don’t buy for a second that there aren’t incentives we could have inserted into the contract to ensure that we didn’t get burned (i.e. games played, sack numbers)

by packallday555 on Feb 16, 2012 3:20 PM CST up reply actions

Sorry, NOT the best team.

Lot of Packers fans let their emotions and team dedication override their common sense, this Packers team was the best offense in the league but also the WORST defense. It’s not a great accomplishment to be the WORST statistical defense to ever make the playoffs, much less lose as bad as they did by proving the statistics were right. No pressure on QB’s was a season long vulnerability that Thompson never addressed, secondary looked like ’10’s SB team in roster names only—played and tackled as bad or worse than any team in the league this past year. Thompson will likely make one or two O-line picks but likely focuses on the one area that kept GB out of SB—defense. Jenkins could’ve been signed for less money than Eagles paid, replacing him and upgrading OLB and secondary can only make the Packers better, finishing last again in ’12 means ONE and DONE in playoffs again.

by Shavager on Feb 16, 2012 12:17 AM CST up reply actions

Who said it was?

It’s not a great accomplishment to be the WORST statistical defense to ever make the playoffs,

Nobody…

Kinda hard to address a problem during the year… If you wanna argue that he didn’t do it during the offseason, thats another issue, altho Neal was thought to be his replacement. During a season there aren’t any good pass rushers walking around on the street waiting for a team to call them. Jenkins would have cost the Packer ALOT more to resign than the Eagles paid him. To resign Jenkins before he hit FA, it would have cost the Packer 7 -8M per season.

Our Biggest Challenge is how we deal w/ Success!

by Strohman on Feb 16, 2012 8:25 AM CST up reply actions

Jenkins would have cost the Packer ALOT more to resign than the Eagles paid him. To resign Jenkins before he hit FA, it would have cost the Packer 7 -8M per season.

Probably true but they could have jumped back in during FA and tried. Maybe in Jenkins mind it was already too late but it was at least worth a try, imo.

by packallday555 on Feb 16, 2012 10:38 AM CST up reply actions

They could have tried

and for all we know they did, but Jenkins could have said at that point when the Packers didn’t show interest earlier that he didn’t want to sign w/ the Packers. I don’t think we can say for sure if the Packers tried or not, but its also pretty clear that Jenkins was upset w/ the Packers and therefore didn’t want to talk to them and chose to sign w/ the competition, to try to “stick it the Packers”.

Our Biggest Challenge is how we deal w/ Success!

by Strohman on Feb 18, 2012 12:29 PM CST up reply actions

We don’t know either way but I doubt we tried later on after we never talked to him beforehand.

And if we had, I’m sure it would have probably been leaked to the media.

by packallday555 on Feb 18, 2012 3:34 PM CST up reply actions

Is this the year?

TT makes a splash in FA, we are due for a nice signing…

aaaaaaaaahh, I gotta go!!

by b3nihana on Feb 15, 2012 12:30 PM CST reply actions

Lets see,TT needs to figure how to keep Wells,Finley

pacific the babies with Driver,make account for next years resigning/restructuring of some to prevent FA….the answer is…. No!

by Tarynfor12 on Feb 15, 2012 2:44 PM CST up reply actions

pacific the babies?

13.

"Skip, once again, stop it; Be an analyst; don't be a douchebag."

by Wiedmann on Feb 15, 2012 2:48 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

lost me

aaaaaaaaahh, I gotta go!!

by b3nihana on Feb 15, 2012 4:20 PM CST up reply actions

I think she meant this?

13.

"Skip, once again, stop it; Be an analyst; don't be a douchebag."

by Wiedmann on Feb 15, 2012 5:20 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

you know I meant ass wipe, Oh,thats right your MR. perfect typer

by Tarynfor12 on Feb 16, 2012 9:04 AM CST up reply actions

you meant ass wipe?

football does not build character, it reveals character.

by sheehan on Feb 16, 2012 9:59 AM CST up reply actions

ass wipe the babies?

13.

"Skip, once again, stop it; Be an analyst; don't be a douchebag."

by Wiedmann on Feb 16, 2012 2:32 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs

Bad anlaysis from Diamond

Could use depth at OT and OG, but not a high round pick unless a stud player falls to us. C is another story altogether, something he conveniently didn’t include. We have two LT’s on our roster to replace Clifton, but no true C on our roster for Wells.

DE and LB are the top two targets / “needs” for us. Could use a developmental corner, or a starting safety if Collins doesn’t return. The rest is just depth and developmental guys.

by Shoes31 on Feb 15, 2012 3:05 PM CST reply actions

The guy seems like he didn't do any research at all.

Yes Clifton is getting old but his replacement is already on the roster. As you said, DB is also not an immediate top need.

I disagree with you on C. Scott Wells isn’t that old, I think they resign him

"I'm here to talk about the economy today -- about the need to get four quarters of strong, consistent performance. That wasn't another Jay Cutler joke, I swear. It could be, but it's not."

by Kuhl on Feb 15, 2012 5:21 PM CST up reply actions

Im hoping we resign Wells

And I think we do. But we don’t have a true replacement on the team for Wells, while we do for Clifton.

Peter King posted his latest mock draft today, and he has us taking Harrsion Smith SS from Notre Dame at 28. Now that is a guy that didn’t do his research. Not saying SS isn’t a possibility because of the Collins situation ( I think he’s coming back), but Smith is a 3rd round prospect. Doesn’t have the coverage skills for the first round.

by Shoes31 on Feb 15, 2012 7:43 PM CST up reply actions

Horrible pick by King!

I agree Smith is a mid round pick at best. And he doesn’t have range… The way the NFL is going and based on what Capers wants (interchangable Safeties) there is no way Smith is drafted by the Packers. Look for a mid round safety w/ decent size and a sub 4.5 40 that they can develop. A Safety w/ a 4.5+ 40 just isn’t going to have the range the Packers want. Need another guy just like Burnett or Collins. Markelle Martin from Ok St would be ideal in the 3rd… Otherwise only a couple that fit the bill.

Our Biggest Challenge is how we deal w/ Success!

by Strohman on Feb 15, 2012 8:21 PM CST up reply actions

King too?

Didn’t Kiper just pick him as well? Sounds like an awful pick. I don’t mind a mid-to-late round center as a project, I just get annoyed by those who say that GB should let Wells go so that they can draft Konz in the 1st rather than a more important need.

"I'm here to talk about the economy today -- about the need to get four quarters of strong, consistent performance. That wasn't another Jay Cutler joke, I swear. It could be, but it's not."

by Kuhl on Feb 16, 2012 10:00 PM CST up reply actions

If there's not a good value OLB or DL at 28, I have absolutely no problem with picking Konz.

13.

"Skip, once again, stop it; Be an analyst; don't be a douchebag."

by Wiedmann on Feb 16, 2012 10:21 PM CST up reply actions

Don't get me wrong

I’d love to have Konz, he seems like he’ll be really good, but we have a Pro Bowl center and I’d put OLB, DE, FS. CB, and (depending on if Finley comes back) TE all above center. If the draft works out and he’s obviously BPA and no one who fits GBs needs comes close than I wouldn’t mind having him. I just don’t think it’s a pressing need.

"I'm here to talk about the economy today -- about the need to get four quarters of strong, consistent performance. That wasn't another Jay Cutler joke, I swear. It could be, but it's not."

by Kuhl on Feb 17, 2012 12:07 AM CST up reply actions

Wells may not return

He’s a FA, and may price himself out of GB.

13.

"Skip, once again, stop it; Be an analyst; don't be a douchebag."

by Wiedmann on Feb 17, 2012 1:07 AM CST up reply actions

If Thompson wants him he can get him

center isn’t usually a high-profile, high-paying position.

"I'm here to talk about the economy today -- about the need to get four quarters of strong, consistent performance. That wasn't another Jay Cutler joke, I swear. It could be, but it's not."

by Kuhl on Feb 17, 2012 5:53 PM CST up reply actions

Franchise Center is about 10M

Thats pretty high paying.. And why I don’t see the Packers tagging Wells. Finley is a playmaker and his franchise number even as a WR is lower than Center. As a TE, he is almost underpaid.

Our Biggest Challenge is how we deal w/ Success!

by Strohman on Feb 17, 2012 8:27 PM CST up reply actions

Neither is guard, but somebody will be backing up the Brinks Truck for Carl Nicks

13.

"Skip, once again, stop it; Be an analyst; don't be a douchebag."

by Wiedmann on Feb 18, 2012 2:26 AM CST up reply actions

I think drafting a guard/center is a greater need than tackle. we have 2 first round picks, and newhouse played well at times last year. We also have Lang, whom every time i see play at tackle does a good job. If worst came to worst, we could shuffle Lang to tackle and have a hole at guard, which a draft pick could shore up

by jfizzle on Feb 15, 2012 6:03 PM CST reply actions

two first round picks????

where did the second one come from ? the last i saw we only had one late first round pick.

by IcemanBT on Feb 18, 2012 10:19 AM CST up reply actions

I think what jfizzle meant

was that we have two first-round picks (Bulaga and Sherrod) already on the roster.

I did have to go back and re-read it, after seeing your reply, before I figured that out, though. :)

"Perfection is not attainable,
but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence!"

After further review,
The Munsters of the Midway still suck,
Skol is a four-letter word,
abd those upstarts in Detroit couldn't beat the Little Sisters of the Poor.

by NorthStarr on Feb 18, 2012 1:40 PM CST up reply actions

Thompeon???

Let’s see what kind of GM we have to “BALANCE” the teams productivity on both sides of team…….CLUE———-RANDY WHITE TYPE DEFENSIVE LINEMAN!!!

by zappop777 on Feb 15, 2012 6:40 PM CST reply actions

I'll take a side of Brian Urlacher, Dick Lane, and Barry Sanders, please.

Why not trade Rodgers for 5 first round picks, pay Flynn $15 million a year, then trade Ryan Grant for Matt Forte? Randy White’s don’t just fall from the sky. And by the way, PUTTING a parT of YoUR SENTENCE in caps isn’t a good way to DRAW EMPHASIS to what you’re TRYING to say. It just MAKES you look like a fool.

by msc32887 on Feb 15, 2012 6:49 PM CST up reply actions

HAHA-----LOLLLLLLZ

Aaron Rodgers, MVP.
The day LeBron James wins an NBA championship will be the day I stop watching NBA basketball. Needless to say, it looks like I'll be watching for quite a few more years.

by arodgb on Feb 15, 2012 7:41 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs