When I talk about free agents, I'm generally talking about outside free agents. That is, players that didn't play for the Packers the past season. Resigning a teams own players generally keeps the core in tact, but signing outside free agents to fill in gaps (e.g. Pickett, Woodson, Peppers) can seriously address obvious weaknesses. Resigning a teams free agents isn't likely to address weaknesses from the previous season. Without substantial outside free agents, most the pressure is on the draft and/or UDFA. That makes it tough if one isn't drafting very well every season.

I have no interest in Ted signing players just to sign players or just to be active in free agency to say that he is. I want him to sign players that can help this team, and I think there are a few out there every couple of years.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

That makes no sense though. What was a weakness last year is irrelevant. What matters is what the team looks like in it's current form. When we signed Sam Shields as a FA we needed a starting CB. We could have let Shields go and sign Aqib Talib (for example) and you guys would get all excited but the end result is we signed a starting CB where one was needed regardless of what the players name is.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

That makes no sense though. What was a weakness last year is irrelevant. What matters is what the team looks like in it's current form. When we signed Sam Shields as a FA we needed a starting CB. We could have let Shields go and sign Aqib Talib (for example) and you guys would get all excited but the end result is we signed a starting CB where one was needed regardless of what the players name is.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

no what dodd says does makes sense. If GB has 3 quality WR and one of them becomes a FA and they resign him they still have 3 quality WRs. If they entered the offseason with a problem at TE and they sign their WR then they still have a problem at TE.

One can also ask why did their player end up as a FA in the first place? If they sign their former player then obviously the player didn't have an issue with staying with the Packers. They could have signed the guy the year before he became a FA. So does it really count when they sign a player they could have signed a long time ago? To some degree but not so much.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

That makes no sense though. What was a weakness last year is irrelevant. What matters is what the team looks like in it's current form. When we signed Sam Shields as a FA we needed a starting CB. We could have let Shields go and sign Aqib Talib (for example) and you guys would get all excited but the end result is we signed a starting CB where one was needed regardless of what the players name is.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

When I talk about free agents, I'm generally talking about outside free agents. That is, players that didn't play for the Packers the past season. Resigning a teams own players generally keeps the core in tact, but signing outside free agents to fill in gaps (e.g. Pickett, Woodson, Peppers) can seriously address obvious weaknesses. Resigning a teams free agents isn't likely to address weaknesses from the previous season. Without substantial outside free agents, most the pressure is on the draft and/or UDFA. That makes it tough if one isn't drafting very well every season.

I have no interest in Ted signing players just to sign players or just to be active in free agency to say that he is. I want him to sign players that can help this team, and I think there are a few out there every couple of years.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

In my opinion signing your own FAs is required to maintain the Status Quo. Should we have needs beyond our current Status Quo this is when we need to either draft or sign FAs from other teams.

I commend Ted Thompson for his work at trying to keep the core together and sign some of the key guys, but has that actually improved the team or just prevented it from getting worse?

Originally Posted by: TheKanataThrilla