Packers have gotten bargain value with a one-year, $1 million contract that lured Guion away from Minnesota.

PackersNews  wrote:

If the Peppers signing was Woodson-esque, than the Guion signing is more akin to the Pickett signing. And here I thought he might not even make it out of training camp even before it started.

Originally Posted by: Mucky Tundra 

He barely made it IN to camp.

I still bring Raji back next year on a redemption contract.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

Guion would actually be best as a backup lineman at all three spots. Daniels and Jones at DE, but for the love of God, draft a nose tackle and address the inside linebacker position.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Do NOT bring back that God damned lump, Raji! At first, my default point of view toward Guion was hell no - that's because of seeing that worthless piece of shit, Raji, and to only a slightly lesser extent, Pickett. However, Guion has earned the respect of fans with not only his effort, but a fair amount of burst and penetration ability too. I do NOT compare him to Pickett because in his best years, Pickett rarely actually made a tackle - a few near misses and sometimes jamming up blockers. When he and Raji played, it was like having 9 men on D against 11 on offense.

As for next year, yeah, if we can snag an exceptional ILB, I'm for it. Using Matthews inside and the decent job done by Barrington makes that less necessary. I really hope Hawk retires. As for the D Line, Pennell has been a slight disappointment, but they say it takes a while to develop D Linemen. I would not draft a D Lineman early in the draft. The Packers use specialty packages enough that Daniels, Guion, D. Jones, and Pennell is good enough - along with the specialty guys - Neal - who IMO has been a nice surprise, maybe Peppers again, Matthews, Perry, Elliot, etc.

I'm gonna start another thread for what I really want in the first round of the draft rather than redirect this one.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

Do NOT bring back that God damned lump, Raji! At first, my default point of view toward Guion was hell no - that's because of seeing that worthless piece of shit, Raji, and to only a slightly lesser extent, Pickett. However, Guion has earned the respect of fans with not only his effort, but a fair amount of burst and penetration ability too. I do NOT compare him to Pickett because in his best years, Pickett rarely actually made a tackle - a few near misses and sometimes jamming up blockers. When he and Raji played, it was like having 9 men on D against 11 on offense.

As for next year, yeah, if we can snag an exceptional ILB, I'm for it. Using Matthews inside and the decent job done by Barrington makes that less necessary. I really hope Hawk retires. As for the D Line, Pennell has been a slight disappointment, but they say it takes a while to develop D Linemen. I would not draft a D Lineman early in the draft. The Packers use specialty packages enough that Daniels, Guion, D. Jones, and Pennell is good enough - along with the specialty guys - Neal - who IMO has been a nice surprise, maybe Peppers again, Matthews, Perry, Elliot, etc.

I'm gonna start another thread for what I really want in the first round of the draft rather than redirect this one.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

TT sucks. He never signs any free agents. He never goes out and gets what the team needs on the free agent market. He just sucks.

:)

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

Why does he go with guys like Hawk and Jones in the middle for so long when they are so obviously not up to par? And then compound the problem by giving them above average contracts?

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Why does he go with guys like Hawk and Jones in the middle for so long when they are so obviously not up to par? And then compound the problem by giving them above average contracts?

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Why am I not surprised to read this take from you on Raji :)

Doubt Hawk (or Brad Jones 🙏 🙏 🙏 ) will be back in GB next year, but also doubt he'll will retire. As for Pennell, he was a UDFA from a D2 school. I know he's reported to have tons of talent, but again, he was a UDFA from a D2 school.

Originally Posted by: musccy 

For several reasons.

First, unlike this board and most fans, Ted Thompson does not have the capability to turn over the entire roster every off season. Let alone after every loss as most fans wish to do. Can't happen. So you address the biggest priorities. ILB, much like FB and P, is not usually one of them.

Second, having Hawk on the roster saves at least 2 spots. Dude never misses a game. So Mike McCarthy can carry an extra DL on the roster. Or WR. Or whatever. In his 9 years on the team, he has missed 2 games. Think about the list of players at the other ILB spot. There's been so many I can't count that high.

Third, it may be that we are not as appreciative of his role and impact. Clay Matthews playing an extensive role in our D has 61 tackles. AJ Hawk, playing a much smaller role, has 90. I don't know where to find the number of plays each has seen, but I am guessing that Clay has seen a lot more time on the field. So wouldn't Hawk be the more efficient tackler? I agree that Hawk is short of big plays, but he's consistent. He's not the best ILB in the league, but he's played next to worse ones most of his career.

Would you rather have the 49ers ILB studs this year? Bowman and Willis? 34 total tackles in a combined 6 games on the field. 11M in salary, sitting. Those 2 missed 26 games this year. Hawk has missed 2 in his career. There's a value to showing up.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

2013 B.J. Raji 666 snaps with a grade of -24.9
Salary for 2014: $3.1 million (+ $100,000 workout bonus + $300,000 in per-game roster bonuses),

2014 Letroy Guion 555 snaps with a grade of -5.2
Salary for 2014: $730,000 (+ $50,000 workout bonus + $105,000 in per-game roster bonuses),

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Actually, I would would rather go to a 4-3 and leave Clay in the middle. but if we insist on using this linebacker defense with lousy inside linebackers - than yes I would like to have studs like Bowman and Willis. SF losing both of them is like having Packers karma shifted on to them.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Packers don't seem to be able to find enough DL for a 3-4. But they can shift enough LB in and out to do ok in a 3-4.

4-3 is dependent on finding multiple studs for DL. I'm not confident.

That and we don't even play a traditional 3-4 all that much.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 

We already have Jones, Perry, Daniels, Mike Neal, and possibly Raji. All these guys are square pegs in round holes in our current defense. Jones and Perry are 4-3 DE's and Daniels plays your pass rushing DT. Just need a fat boy in there to keep Clay clean.

We are not playing the 3-4 like it should be played.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT