I know this has been discussed 1000 times but it's ridiculous to make a sweeping statement like "He didn't sign enough FAs" and refusing to bring even a single example of someone he could have signed to the party. I literally have not seen one of 6 posters engaged in a solid 10 pages worth of conversation over the last couple weeks bring up diddly despite literally a dozen direct requests by 3 different posters to provide said example in a very non-confrontational manner.

I'm not in the "Ted's a deadbeat" camp but I refuse to believe there's not several obvious examples of missed opportunities during Ted's tenure. I seriously do not get the point of having these abstract philosophical conversations (and putting a notable amount of effort into them) without any attempts to tie it back into the realm of the actual world. You clearly want to discuss the subject and put some effort into it since you're bringing up specific examples of people Ted DID sign and analyzing those signings. Why not put a fraction of that effort into explaining why you believe what you believe? Saying that Ted signed these guys and you don't think they're big signings doesn't really address the statement that during Ted's tenure there have been enough players that could have helped Green Bay.

Sorry, I'm just perplexed.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

Since my last post's length bothered you here is my short answer.
With all due respect, No.

Longer version- I am not looking through the past 11 years of FAs looking for the ones GB could have signed. Suffice it to say that somebody in the prior 11 seasons could have been a help to the Packers organization.

GB acquired 2 players in 2006 then nobody was worthy until Uncle teddy took a shot on an aging Benson in 12 and Peppers in 14? Not very likely.

I am not implying that he had to sign 3-4 FAs every season. Not even 1 a year. But there have been plenty of times when another quality player on the team would have made a difference.

As has been said too many times in the past Uncle Teddy would have to be nearly perfect in the draft if he is going to go exclusively draft and develop. He hasn't been perfect by a long shot.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

I am in no way, shape, or form bothered by long posts. Hell, most of mine are short novels. It is more often than not (albeit not necessarily indicative of) something well-thought out. Nobody's requesting you pull up a list of free agents and rattle off 50 people Ted could have signed. I'm saying that you are obviously bothered by our lack of engagement in free agency and I don't understand how you couldn't have a single example of someone in recent enough memory for you to remember that you wish the Packers would have signed. Hell, it could even be someone that in retrospect the Packers shouldn't have signed. I'm in full agreement that Ted hasn't delved into FA enough, and in order to get this team over the hump he's going to need to take a gamble or two.

Examples: I thought the Packers should have grabbed Jairus Byrd back in 2014. Pleasantly surprised that Ha Ha has held his own, but at the time I wanted a veteran presence.

Because that's something we can talk about. A pro-Ted or anti-Ted viewpoint is all fine in my book, but if everyone's sticking to nonspecific broad strokes and nobody's explaining WHY they believe what they believe in a quantifiable way, things tend to devolve into their usual "Ted sucks!" "No he doesn't!" pissing fests. Because that's the only thing people are talking about.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

Agreed. I kind of wanted Byrd too. Thank jeebus Ted didn't fall for that one!

I think Ted should sign a few more free agents, but I think he should try to restrict it to players that won't cost a compensatory draft pick. I think that's generally the best way to go about it, especially when the GM drafts well. I personally think Ted's last draft was very good. Hard to realistically ask for much more when picking late in each round.

Some examples that might be worth considering this season are Mario Williams, Scott Chandler, Matt Forte, and a few others. Plenty of players that could help the team and not cost a compensatory draft pick.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

Weather through Free Agency , The Draft , or a combination deal, I believe the #1 off season Packer need is for a true "deep threat WR". Not a project that may payoff at some unknown point in the future, but a proven (day one) player that scares the hell out of opposing teams. 6'2" , large hands, 4.40 40 yd speed.

#2 need is at CB !

Originally Posted by: Smokey 

Weather through Free Agency , The Draft , or a combination deal, I believe the #1 off season Packer need is for a true "deep threat WR". Not a project that may payoff at some unknown point in the future, but a proven (day one) player that scares the hell out of opposing teams. 6'2" , large hands, 4.40 40 yd speed.

#2 need is at CB !

Originally Posted by: Smokey 

I am in no way, shape, or form bothered by long posts. Hell, most of mine are short novels. It is more often than not (albeit not necessarily indicative of) something well-thought out. Nobody's requesting you pull up a list of free agents and rattle off 50 people Ted could have signed. I'm saying that you are obviously bothered by our lack of engagement in free agency and I don't understand how you couldn't have a single example of someone in recent enough memory for you to remember that you wish the Packers would have signed. Hell, it could even be someone that in retrospect the Packers shouldn't have signed. I'm in full agreement that Ted hasn't delved into FA enough, and in order to get this team over the hump he's going to need to take a gamble or two.

Examples: I thought the Packers should have grabbed Jairus Byrd back in 2014. Pleasantly surprised that Ha Ha has held his own, but at the time I wanted a veteran presence.

Because that's something we can talk about. A pro-Ted or anti-Ted viewpoint is all fine in my book, but if everyone's sticking to nonspecific broad strokes and nobody's explaining WHY they believe what they believe in a quantifiable way, things tend to devolve into their usual "Ted sucks!" "No he doesn't!" pissing fests. Because that's the only thing people are talking about.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

If Lacy's looking iffy then I'd be all for going out and getting Forte. Would need to pay a premium but he's an all-around playmaker. Agree that last draft was phenomenal, however to some extent he lucked out that Rollins and Randall were able to contribute right out of the gate and hold their own. I was SUPER nervous going into the season about our DBs. Hopefully they continue to grow (and catch more balls that hit them in the hands).

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

Davis will become a free agent next week and a return to Denver is unlikely. The same could probably be said of a long-term deal after the way last season went, but Davis is still planning on several more years in the NFL.

The marginal production in Denver continued a troubling trend for Davis dating back to the start of the 2014 season. After a 52-catch/13-touchdown 2013 season, Davis dropped to 26 catches for 245 yards for the 49ers that year and had 18 catches in 2015 before being traded to Denver. If Davis can’t move things in the other direction this year, he’s going to have a hard time getting close to his goal.

“My body feels good enough to come back and play at a high level, even better I think because I’m just a little wiser,” Winslow said on SiriusXM NFL Radio. “It was good to get away from the game just to work on me. I want to be a better player than I was before. I think I can.”