sschind
10 years ago

Well, the good news, for me, is despite most of you being against this callling it stupid, there are several people who cover the NFL who think it makes sense like I do like Ed Werder, the guys at Profootballtalk.com and this guy...

Adam Schefter ✔ @AdamSchefter
Follow
If I'm the Seattle Seahawks or Green Bay Packers, I'm willing to sign TE Jimmy Graham to an offer sheet and to give up two 1's to get him.
7:40 AM - 3 Mar 2014

And then Nate Davis from USATODAY.com checked in with this:




--- Those ROPE pushers!

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



Every single time some veteran is cut somebody somewhere says we should consider him. There are lots of sports reporters out there so it is not surprising that some of them are going to think this is a good idea. That doesn't make it a good idea. Just for shits and giggles I asked about 20 Ppacker fans this weekend if we should tade for him and not a single one of them said yes. That means nothing of course but it does tell me that this is not somethingthat the majority of fans think is a good idea.

You keep brininging up the Packers past #1 draft pick history and that is all it is, history. It has absolutely nothing to do with what might or might not happen in the next two years. Something really bad could happen and instead of pick 25 or lower we could be 10 or higher. Instead of 2 busts we could get 2 studs. Would I trade a single #1 for him? Of course I would I might even consider #1 and a #3 but then you also have to figure the cap space.

Yeah we could cut a bunch of players making a bit of money but we ould have to replace them and to really save that money we would have to replace them with cheaper options which generally means rookies who are unproven or cheap vets who are cheap for a reason. Upgrading one position, even if it is by a lot, does not mean you will ahve a net gain if it means downgrading at other positions.

The bottom line is that the way our offense is designed (compared to the Saints) Graham would not be the force in Green Bay as he is in New Orleans. Yes, he would make our offense better but not significantly better as to be worth the price either in cap space or in draft picks.

+3
sschind
10 years ago

The outside view considers that Driver, Jennings, Jones and Finley are gone, or basically the guys around Aaron when he started. The typical Packer fan thinks Boykin, Richard Rodgers, Davante Adams and Jared Abbrederis= Driver, Jennings, Finley, Jones I wouldn't begin to know where to start with that. I see it like the outside does... we've lost so much over the last few years and I don't view the rookies as on equal footing with proven very good players who have departed like some who already have our young bucks pegged for stardom.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



Aside from the typical Packer fan shot this is one thing I do agree with you on. I do think or pass catching game when you consider the WRs, TEs, and RBs has gone down a great deal over the last couple of years. The only position of the three where ist may have gotten better is at RB (it reamains to be seen with Lacy though it looks promising.) With the loss of Driver (though he was old and losing some of his game) Jennings, Jones and Finley (assuming) we went from arguably a top 3 pass catching unit in the league (some would say #1) to maybe top 3 in our own division (Chicago is better for sure and maybe even Detroit so its a good thing we do have Rodgers to make our guys better) The thing is if getting Graham would mean losing Nelson or Cobb I don't see enough of a net gain to offset the huge cost.
warhawk
10 years ago
First of all Rodgers moves the ball around and the defense never knows where he's going with it. For Graham to pay off given the price he would need to become the featured guy meaning players like Nelson and Cobb would not get the ball as often. This would create a subtle change in how McCarthy game plans. Any given week depending on the defense you see him calling plays that offers more opportunity to a given receiver based on what the opposing D shows. I don't see McCarthy changing how he goes after defenses depending on what they give you and what they take away so I don't see Graham getting the kind of numbers here he would somewhere else.

Next problem I have is with giving up two 1st round picks Graham would have to not only produce in a huge way he would have to not get hurt over the next three years, otherwise, the team loses talent from the draft AND the go to guy. That's a lot of eggs in one basket. This along with the fact that with the kind of money he gets there will be contracts coming up that Thompson will not be able to do anything with. If the Packers signed him now what does that mean for Nelson or Cobb? I believe Thompson has positioned himself to keep both but if they sign Graham I don't know they can keep either one. How does this make the Packers better? So the cost will be higher than two 1st round draft picks.

The Packers will be a top three offense this year barring another barage of injuries. I don't see the NEED here to make a move like this and if anything I see the Packers weaker a few years down the road. Not better. For that you will never see Thompson make a move like this. He will NOT jeopordize the future. Just not how he does business.
"The train is leaving the station."
+4
play2win
10 years ago

Trading first round picks for any non QB is foolish, period. Quit trying to defend that, there is no defense! The Packers should be trading their 1st round picks for multiple 2nd and 3rd rounders.

Jimmy Graham has more drops than Jermichael Finley over the last two seasons and would cost the Packers 10-12 million a year. That means the Packers would losee Jordy Nelson and/or Randall Cobb.

The Packers need a blocking TE, not a receiving TE. The Packers have a solid running back now.

I am astonished anyone thinks Jimmy Graham is worth two 1's in the Packers offense. He's a cog in the system player for the Packers, not a system maker.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



Why does this sound so incredibly disingenuous?
Dexter_Sinister
10 years ago

Aside from the typical Packer fan shot this is one thing I do agree with you on. I do think or pass catching game when you consider the WRs, TEs, and RBs has gone down a great deal over the last couple of years. The only position of the three where ist may have gotten better is at RB (it reamains to be seen with Lacy though it looks promising.) With the loss of Driver (though he was old and losing some of his game) Jennings, Jones and Finley (assuming) we went from arguably a top 3 pass catching unit in the league (some would say #1) to maybe top 3 in our own division (Chicago is better for sure and maybe even Detroit so its a good thing we do have Rodgers to make our guys better) The thing is if getting Graham would mean losing Nelson or Cobb I don't see enough of a net gain to offset the huge cost.

Originally Posted by: sschind 



The typical Packer fans probably thinks it is Nelson, Cobb, Boykin, Adams and Quarless replacing Driver, Jennings, Jones and Finley.

Not Boykin, Rodgers, Adams and Abbrederis. That is pretty ridiculous.

Nelson and Cobb made Driver and Jennings dispensable. The hope is that Boykin makes Jones dispensable and he kind of did by being more productive per target last year considering the 2 fumbles Jones had. Quarless is a faster, stronger version of Finley and we won a super bowl with him at TE. Given a full year as the starter, he might relace him adaquately. Then we have Rodgers, Lyerla, Abbrederis and Janis strictly as depth if they even beat out Taylor, Bostic, White, Dorsey and Gillett. Which isn't a given.

Per target, I would rank Nelson in the top 5 and Cobb in the top 10. I would rank Boykin above Alshon Jeffery. I also don't think the Lions have enough depth to compete. The Packers have the best receivers in the North and are at or near the top of the NFC.

Per target, Graham is not more productive than and doens't carry the ball like Cobb. I agree that he will probably cost us Cobb and 2 first round picks at a minimum.

Rodgers also used 17 different targets in 2012. Last year Brees only used 13. And he also attempted 650 passes compared to Rodgers 550. Fewer opportunities to go around to more targets would cut Grahams opportunities. Would he be worth it at half the targets? How about less than half?

If Graham were the Packers best WR, I would not expect much more than 80 catches. Since I don't think he would be, I would expect closer to 60.

I agree, he isn't worth it.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
+2
sschind
10 years ago

The typical Packer fans probably thinks it is Nelson, Cobb, Boykin, Adams and Quarless replacing Driver, Jennings, Jones and Finley.

Not Boykin, Rodgers, Adams and Abbrederis. That is pretty ridiculous.

Nelson and Cobb made Driver and Jennings dispensable. The hope is that Boykin makes Jones dispensable and he kind of did by being more productive per target last year considering the 2 fumbles Jones had. Quarless is a faster, stronger version of Finley and we won a super bowl with him at TE. Given a full year as the starter, he might relace him adaquately. Then we have Rodgers, Lyerla, Abbrederis and Janis strictly as depth if they even beat out Taylor, Bostic, White, Dorsey and Gillett. Which isn't a given.

Per target, I would rank Nelson in the top 5 and Cobb in the top 10. I would rank Boykin above Alshon Jeffery. I also don't think the Lions have enough depth to compete. The Packers have the best receivers in the North and are at or near the top of the NFC.

Per target, Graham is not more productive than and doens't carry the ball like Cobb. I agree that he will probably cost us Cobb and 2 first round picks at a minimum.

Rodgers also used 17 different targets in 2012. Last year Brees only used 13. And he also attempted 650 passes compared to Rodgers 550. Fewer opportunities to go around to more targets would cut Grahams opportunities. Would he be worth it at half the targets? How about less than half?

If Graham were the Packers best WR, I would not expect much more than 80 targets. Since I don't think he would be, I would expect closer to 60.

I agree, he isn't worth it.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 



Ignoring their place on the depth chart for a moment because you will get arguments as to who was where. Its not enough for some guys (Nelson, Cobb. Boykin) to make others (Driver, Jennings, Jones) expendable, that happens all the time, you still have to replace the guys who made the others expendable and that is what I feel the Packers have failed to do at least with experience. Don't get me wrong, I love the potential that Adams and Rodgers and Abbrederis bring and hopefully in a year or two none of what we are talking about will matter. I have a lot of hope for these guys but right now not a lot of confidence. IMO Jennings, Nelson, Cobb, Driver, Finley was a much stronger puzzle than than Nelson, Cobb, Boykin, Adams, Quarless. You may disagree.

Then you throw these guys into the mix Rodgers, Lyerla, Abbrederis and Janis ... Taylor, Bostic, White, Dorsey and Gillett. That is 9 bodies with very little to show if anything besides potential. I'm sure pretty much every team in the league can list 9 guys like this. I have lots of hope for some of them but I am not banking on any of them.

As far as ranking Boykin ahead of Jeffery that's just crazy talk. Are you telling me you wouldn't trade Boykin for Jeffrey even if they were going to get the same number of targets? If so I don't know how to respond other than to say take off the homer glasses or the hater glasses whichever you happen to be wearing. I'm not sure about the Lions depth and you may be right about that. The Packers may have the second best pass catching team in division but I don't think they have the best recievers. That would go to the Bears.

At least we agree on Grahamm.

play2win
10 years ago
sschind, I disagree on your statement on our receiving depth, as i believe very, very few teams could list that much talent 9 deep.

I totally agree that as it stands, we are talking about pure potential, as so few are NFL tested.

But, the raw talent we have, IMO is explosive, and rivals any group we have put onto the field to date in GB, throughout our team history.

I also agree on Jeffery, who is a supreme talent in CHI.

Boykin showed great potential last season with the opportunities he was given, but this season will be quite different, as Adams, Abbrederis and Janis all have the potential to push him for reps.

At TE, I personally feel we will be better than we may have ever seen here. I think Rodgers and Lyerla will make the final 53 and will contribute significantly as rookies.That is just my opinion and it is purely based on potential, and what I saw briefly in OTAs. This group will put up better numbers than Keith Jackson and Mark Chmura did here in GB, and I am willing to bet on that.
+1
mi_keys
10 years ago
On the topic of depth in our current receiving group vs. prior years.

On paper, our deepest period was 2011 and 2012:

Jennings
Nelson
Finley
Driver
Cobb
Jones

But you'd have to keep in mind that Cobb was just a rookie and second year player those years. He was budding potential but not yet a proven commodity. Driver's productivity had completely dropped off by that point. Finley was coming off and ACL tear. Nelson and Jennings both dealt with injuries in 2012.

It wasn't like we had all of those guys all healthy and performing at their best over concurrent periods.

Nelson and Cobb are one of the better duos in the NFL. I'd put Jeffery and Marshall, White and Jones, and Thomas and Welker as better duos for sure. Not that I think they blow Nelson and Cobb out of the water, but I would for sure put those groups ahead. There are others in the mix as well: Johnson and Tate (because Johnson is just so damn good), Boldin and Crabtree, Jackson and Garcon, and Fitzgerald and Floyd. I'd say Nelson and Cobb are potentially scratching top 5 duos, but certainly top 10. The fact that they are second, or maybe even third in the division is more a reflection of the depth at that position in the NFC North.

Boykin is a pretty good number 3 based on his production last year.

Quarless' production after Finley went out projects to 450-500 yards, 40-45 catches, and about 4 TDs. If Rodgers, Lyerla or Bostick don't beat him out, I can see him at 500+ yards and 4-5 TDs, which would be about average for a starting tight end. Nothing special, but something you could work with.

At that point, you look at Adams, Abbrederis, Janis, Harper, Bostick, Rodgers and Lyerla, and you should expect at least 1 or 2 of those to pan out and produce.

It's not the best receiving group we've had since Rodgers has been here, but it's really not too far off and it's still one of the better groups in the league.
Born and bred a cheesehead
+2
uffda udfa
10 years ago

from JSOnline.com: "I think we are pretty wide open at this point," Packers tight ends coach Jerry Fontenot said during minicamp in June. "I think guys have shown some progress, and those guys warrant a much bigger look. And I think once we get to training camp, we'll have an idea of a rotation, at least, and giving guys reps just to make sure they're ready to start the season."

Right now, though, Fontenot admits his positional group is the most unsettled on the team.



I believe if you can translate coach speak, the translation is we aren't very good at TE. Being wide open means they lost their guy (Finley) and have no clue who is going to replace him. "Shown some progress" means they're a long way from being ready to dominate at the TE position. Making sure they're ready...not really good but we have to trot someone out there. The non quote that is highlighted is the most ominous of all. Unsettled equals nobody's any good and his position group is weakest on the team.

It pains me but I would admit they'll never do this UNTIL they have completely moved on from Finley. If they think there is a real possibility he could return, why would they cough that much? If they know for sure he's finished, I think they realize just how gaping of a hole we have at TE. My view is we have next to nothing at the TE position for this year and maybe going forward, also. My hope rests on Lyerla straightening himself out and marrying his natural talent with hard work and dedication to be something down the road. Josh Huff thinks his guy Colt can be better than Jimmy Graham. I believe that more than I believe we have anyone ready on this roster to contribute but will Colt be able to hang in mentally. Thankfully, we have a guy I really like there at TE or I'd really be going cuckoo on here for Jimmy G. Less than a week until we find out whether Jimmy is extended or remains tagged.

On the 16th, if he hasn't been extended, we can really get this baby rockin.

As an aside... Graham should have more drops than Finley in the last two seasons...he's seeing it much more and Finley didn't have close to a full season last year. Jimmy's career drop % is less than 10.

UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


Dexter_Sinister
10 years ago

sschind, I disagree on your statement on our receiving depth, as i believe very, very few teams could list that much talent 9 deep.

I totally agree that as it stands, we are talking about pure potential, as so few are NFL tested.

But, the raw talent we have, IMO is explosive, and rivals any group we have put onto the field to date in GB, throughout our team history.

I also agree on Jeffery, who is a supreme talent in CHI.

Boykin showed great potential last season with the opportunities he was given, but this season will be quite different, as Adams, Abbrederis and Janis all have the potential to push him for reps.

At TE, I personally feel we will be better than we may have ever seen here. I think Rodgers and Lyerla will make the final 53 and will contribute significantly as rookies.That is just my opinion and it is purely based on potential, and what I saw briefly in OTAs. This group will put up better numbers than Keith Jackson and Mark Chmura did here in GB, and I am willing to bet on that.

Originally Posted by: play2win 



Per target, Boykin's production is remarkably similar to Jeffery's. Minus Alshon's 3 fumbles of course. Which would cause me to drop him just below. Also considering Jarrett had to catch passes from 4 different QBs.

After his shaky start going 1 for 6 against Baltimore, Boykin was pretty good. Catching over 62% of his targets.

For the second half of the year, Boykin was as good as Jeffery, only he didn't fumble the ball as much.
I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.
Similar Topics
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Mucky Tundra (8h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
    buckeyepackfan (8h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
    buckeyepackfan (8h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
    Mucky Tundra (8h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
    Zero2Cool (8h) : Watson gonna be OK???
    packerfanoutwest (12h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
    packerfanoutwest (12h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
    packerfanoutwest (12h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
    Zero2Cool (15h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
    Zero2Cool (15h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
    bboystyle (15h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
    Zero2Cool (15h) : Ahh, ok.
    bboystyle (15h) : yes due to tie breaker
    Zero2Cool (15h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
    Zero2Cool (15h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
    bboystyle (15h) : 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 (16h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
    beast (16h) : 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 (16h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
    Zero2Cool (17h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
    bboystyle (17h) : 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 (17h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
    Zero2Cool (17h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
    beast (17h) : 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 (18h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
    Zero2Cool (18h) : I see what you did there Mucky
    Zero2Cool (18h) : dammit. 3:25pm
    Zero2Cool (18h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
    Mucky Tundra (18h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
    Mucky Tundra (18h) : Yeah baby!
    Zero2Cool (19h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
    Zero2Cool (20h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
    beast (20h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
    Zero2Cool (21h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
    Zero2Cool (21h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
    packerfanoutwest (21h) : ok I stand corrected
    Zero2Cool (21h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
    Zero2Cool (21h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
    beast (21h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
    beast (21h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
    Zero2Cool (21h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
    beast (21h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
    beast (21h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
    beast (21h) : 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
    Zero2Cool (21h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
    Zero2Cool (21h) : I literally just said it.
    packerfanoutwest (21h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
    Zero2Cool (21h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
    Zero2Cool (21h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
    packerfanoutwest (22h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    29 - 34
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    16 - 10
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    30 - 14
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    29 - 31
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    24 - 19
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    34 - 13
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    24 - 22
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    30 - 27
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    14 - 24
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    20 - 19
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    38 - 10
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    30 - 17
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    31 - 34
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    30 - 13
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    34 - 0
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
    Vikings
    Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
    BEARS
    Recent Topics
    4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    20h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

    22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

    19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    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

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

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