TheKanataThrilla
11 years ago

:-k

diddn't someone mention this in another post?

Originally Posted by: RajiRoar 



It is a league of copy-cats. The back shoulder throw is employed by most offenses now. The 2 TE attack with a WR who can stretch the field will take some drafting to implement, but should be do-able. I like the idea of a 2 TE attack as it is hard to defend and it has the ability to chew up clock. It also means our adequate but not spectacular running game is all we really need.
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
11 years ago

I don't see a single way this'd happen.

The closest thing would be a franchise tag and trade kind of thing. Something we've all called for with Flynn and Jenkins in 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Not Ted's style.

There's a couple of ways people would fit this under the cap and justify spending 10 million dollars on Greg.

One calls for us to cut Tramon. I've gone into that one in the Jennings vs Williams thread, so I won't do it again here.

The other one's to re-allocate Driver's money, like Kevin suggested. Not a big fan of this one, either.

You're going to be operating awfully close to the cap, while we have very capable players at the position and could sign a 3rd, 4th WR a lot cheaper/draft one in april. Doesn't seem like it benefits us a whole lot for the risk we're taking, when we have a couple of must-sign players in line to get a contract extension.

Jennings is expendable at this point, while guys like Raji, Matthews, Williams etc leave you awfully thin at a certain position.

Next to that, Jennings is just not as talented as people tend to give him credit for. He's good, no doubt about it, but he's going towards 30, has some injury problems and has always been one tier below the elite.

He's not coming back.

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 



I don't understand why everyone is still so keen on Raji. He's had two part years (end of 2010 and end of regular season in 2012) where he's been good. The rest of the time, he's disappeared. And if you look closely, it's not the usual "disappears because he's doing a thankless job of nose tackle who occupies two players but has low tackle numbers). It's "disappears because he can regularly be tied up with one blocker". That's what makes Pickett a superior DT to me. Unless he's hurt, or gassed in the 4th quarter because he's had to play too many snaps, he virtually always takes two blockers out of the equation. Raji doesn't.

He's had two 5-6 game streaks of dominance and one cool discount-double-check commercial. If it came down to "Raji or Jennings", I'd take the consistent high level of performance of Jennings every time. And go back to the draft/free agent drawing board in search of another starting NT.

Matthews v. Jennings. Matthews in a no brainer.

Williams v Jennings -- I don't know anymore. Before this year I would have said Williams in a heartbeat, because I thought him our best cover guy. Now, I just don't know.

And lets not forget, of the teams who would be substantially improved by signing Jennings, three of them reside in the NFC North. Cutler with Marshall AND Jennings, Stafford with Johnson AND Jennings, those would be particularly scary IMO.


And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Jlapp
11 years ago

And lets not forget, of the teams who would be substantially improved by signing Jennings, three of them reside in the NFC North. Cutler with Marshall AND Jennings, Stafford with Johnson AND Jennings, those would be particularly scary IMO.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



If the packers can't afford to keep Jennings, there is no way in hell the Lions would be able to sign him. They'd have like 50% of their cap in those 3 players. Bears are similar position as Packers. Could make it work for 2013 but both of their corners scheduled to hit free agency in 2014.
DakotaT
11 years ago

I gave my reason why the Packers will franchise Greg Jennings . It's sound and reasonable. No one has proven the theory impossible or unlikely. Bring it!

Jordy Nelson, Greg Jennings, James Jones and Randall Cobb are very talented. Of the group, only Jennings would be more successful in another offense.

Nelson, Jones and Cobb are products of the offense.

Jennings #1.
Nelson #2.
Jones #3.
Cobb #3.

Packers have two 3's, one 2 and one 1.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



All your theory is about is conjecture. The reason Jennings won't be franchised is because he isn't worth that much money just like Uncle Ted didn't think Wells was worthy of the franchise tag last year. If Jennings is franchised, I would be surprised if he wasn't traded for picks prior to the draft.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
11 years ago

All your theory is about is conjecture. The reason Jennings won't be franchised is because he isn't worth that much money just like Uncle Ted didn't think Wells was worthy of the franchise tag last year. If Jennings is franchised, I would be surprised if he wasn't traded for picks prior to the draft.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



You have no theory and you are solely basing your response on conjecture where mine had facts in it. You can look them up yourself. Also, Scott Wells didn't want to return to the Packers and admitted as much. and Wells wasn't franchise tag worthy. That brings up a question, is Greg Jennings worth the $10 million for 2013 season?

Greg Jennings is clearly the best WR the Packers have. I'd rather Jennings on the roster and let Jermichael Finley go and see Andrew Quarless earn the starting TE position.

There are some consequences to tagging someone an hoping for a trade. It happened once, with Corey Williams. The CBA and some rules have changed since then, which makes me doubt we'll see that move again for the Ted Thompson Packers. The moment that player signs the tender, it becomes guaranteed cash and that is exactly why the Packers didn't franchise tag Matt Flynn. He would have been entitled to something like $15 million to sit on the bench.


UserPostedImage
DakotaT
11 years ago

You have no theory and you are solely basing your response on conjecture where mine had facts in it. You can look them up yourself. Also, Scott Wells didn't want to return to the Packers and admitted as much. and Wells wasn't franchise tag worthy. That brings up a question, is Greg Jennings worth the $10 million for 2013 season?

Greg Jennings is clearly the best WR the Packers have. I'd rather Jennings on the roster and let Jermichael Finley go and see Andrew Quarless earn the starting TE position.

There are some consequences to tagging someone an hoping for a trade. It happened once, with Corey Williams. The CBA and some rules have changed since then, which makes me doubt we'll see that move again for the Ted Thompson Packers. The moment that player signs the tender, it becomes guaranteed cash and that is exactly why the Packers didn't franchise tag Matt Flynn. He would have been entitled to something like $15 million to sit on the bench.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



A three year deal is all I'd offer Jennings and not at $10M per either. Just because he happens to be our top receiver at the moment doesn't justify overpaying him. The Wells and Jennings situation is a lot different because one of the strengths of the Packers is the depth of the WR position - but the depth of the OLine causes a lot of concern. The Packers should have franchised Wells. Who gives a shit about hurt feelings.

I would be for franchising Jennings for a year - but then he is gone anyway after that.
UserPostedImage
play2win
11 years ago
I think Jennings might be happy if he gets paid. But, something tells me he wants that shot at the open market, and Ted just might let him hit it. That's kind of his MO.
Cheesey
11 years ago
I think play to win is right. I think Jennings
has an inflated opinions of himself and will want
the moon. seems like his talk has been
towards his wanting out of Green Bay.
I think he's good, but his attitude this season
has been strange.
I don't see Ted overpaying for him.
besides the fact that gb needs a full
defensive overhaul. I don't know if they
can get enough defense pieces to fix
the problems they have to be competitive
with the higher tier teams.
UserPostedImage
blueleopard
11 years ago
It depends on what kind of ass Jennings' agent is.

Jennings definitely falls under the category of Packers people, and I think he definitely would consider a discount. As the #1 WR here, he knows that there are two other #1 receivers on this team, and he knows that Jermichael Finley could have another year to prove himself.

He already stated quite plainly that he "hopes" he's not franchised. IMO, especially considering the fact that he's a 2nd round draft choice who has outplayed every contract he's signed, he deserves to hit the open market. Maybe he'll turn out to be like James Jones. Not in the sense that nobody will show interest, but in the sense that he'll figure that GB is the proper home for him.

I think we all know Jennings needs Green Bay more than Green Bay needs him, but I also think the goal of any NFL player on the business sides of things who turns out to be good deserves their shot at a big payday.
Danreb Victorio A Believer of Greg Jennings
PackFanWithTwins
11 years ago

It depends on what kind of ass Jennings' agent is.

Jennings definitely falls under the category of Packers people, and I think he definitely would consider a discount. As the #1 WR here, he knows that there are two other #1 receivers on this team, and he knows that Jermichael Finley could have another year to prove himself.

He already stated quite plainly that he "hopes" he's not franchised. IMO, especially considering the fact that he's a 2nd round draft choice who has outplayed every contract he's signed, he deserves to hit the open market. Maybe he'll turn out to be like James Jones. Not in the sense that nobody will show interest, but in the sense that he'll figure that GB is the proper home for him.

I think we all know Jennings needs Green Bay more than Green Bay needs him, but I also think the goal of any NFL player on the business sides of things who turns out to be good deserves their shot at a big payday.

Originally Posted by: blueleopard 



Not a good thing then. His Agent is the same as Fitzgerald. Who has also has Suh, who held out his rookie contact, and Michael Crabtree who also held out into the regular season.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Fan Shout
packerfanoutwest (2h) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (7h) : Merry Christmas!
beast (15h) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (23h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (23-Dec) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
4h / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19h / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.