MintBaconDrivel
8 years ago
Do Packers' fans want another Chicago Bear mucking up their roster??

Running back Matt Forte

It makes so much sense. With backup running back James Starks a free agent, the Packers need someone to push Eddie Lacy. Word is that another ex-Bear-turned-Packer Julius Peppers has been trying to recruit Forte to Green Bay. It sounds like Forte wants to go to a contender, so perhaps the Packers could get him at an affordable price.

Rob Demovsky  wrote:


nerdmann
8 years ago
I'm fine with Starks. He knows the system and has experience with Aaron. This staff has never really loved him though. Plus he had some fumbles last year.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Yerko
8 years ago
I would absolutely disagree with this move. With $19.6 million in cap, I would hope the Packers allocate that available money to a position like ILB, DT or TE.

Forte will be demanding starter money and starter carries. The Packers aren't the best option.
UserPostedImage
DoddPower
8 years ago

I would absolutely disagree with this move. With $19.6 million in cap, I would hope the Packers allocate that available money to a position like ILB, DT or TE.

Forte will be demanding starter money and starter carries. The Packers aren't the best option.

Originally Posted by: Yerko 



I generally agree with you, but I bet Forte would have been a better "starter" last season than Eddie Lacy or James Starks.
Yerko
8 years ago

I generally agree with you, but I bet Forte would have been a better "starter" last season than Eddie Lacy or James Starks.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 



No doubt about that. I just find it difficult to have that much money tied up in 1 position. I am also one of those hopefuls that thinks Lacy has a huge bounce back this year.

I know everything is speculation at this point. I also saw Forte is willing to "take less" to be with a contender. How much is less here and if it is significant, do the Packers bite then?

Also, is Peppers recruiting because someone at the top asked him to put out a feeler? I can't imagine Peppers going out of his way to even approach Forte unless there was a realistic idea of him being approached by the Pack.
UserPostedImage
nerdmann
8 years ago
Was Forte released or did he play out his contract?

If he was released, he won't cost us compensatory picks. That's a huge deal for Ted.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
sschind
8 years ago

Was Forte released or did he play out his contract?

If he was released, he won't cost us compensatory picks. That's a huge deal for Ted.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 



I read a quote from Ted last year that said if he thinks the player can help the team the comp pick issue is irrelevant. I wish I would have saved it because people always bring this up with Ted and his comp picks.


I love Forte but I think Lacy will be our #1 back getting a significant majority of our carries so if I'm looking at paying Matt Forte 4 or 5 million (just guessing) or keeping Starks at around a million to be our back up I'd prefer to keep Starks.

I guess if you honestly think Lacy will fall flat again then maybe but I don't think that will be the case and I doubt the Packer management believes it either.
DoddPower
8 years ago

I read a quote from Ted last year that said if he thinks the player can help the team the comp pick issue is irrelevant. I wish I would have saved it because people always bring this up with Ted and his comp picks.

Originally Posted by: sschind 



I call BS on this. Ted might have said that, but I know losing any draft picks matters to him. Lots of players could have theoretically "helped" the Packers over the years, but when considering salary cap implications and potentially losing some draft picks which equates to young and cheap players, Ted rarely deems it worth it. I wouldn't believe anything Ted Thompson says at a press conference anyway. His actions clearly demonstrate his values.


I love Forte but I think Lacy will be our #1 back getting a significant majority of our carries so if I'm looking at paying Matt Forte 4 or 5 million (just guessing) or keeping Starks at around a million to be our back up I'd prefer to keep Starks.

I guess if you honestly think Lacy will fall flat again then maybe but I don't think that will be the case and I doubt the Packer management believes it either.

Originally Posted by: sschind 



Even if Lacy bounces back next year, I don't think the Packers will resign him. I wouldn't. I don't want players that are supposed to be "professionals" but can't keep themselves in shape and motivated. It wouldn't work in my professional world, and it shouldn't work in the NFL. Moreover, it's not worth paying RBs big money anyway, especially ones with question marks.

I don't think Starks should be resigned. He has served his time. A decent backup can be drafted every year. Forte would provide some nice insurance for a season or two until the Packers find their next featured back. Remember how bad things were before Lacy came around? I'm not anxious to return to those times.

But ultimately, I do think the money could be spent better elsewhere. Running backs are one of the most replaceable positions in the NFL. No need to send big money there. But Forte is very good, and I love his versatility. He would be a nice addition if he could be signed for cheap, which is doubtful.
8 years ago
I would rather spend the money elsewhere.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
8 years ago
I don't know why John Crockett isn't in the conversation here. I'd rather the money be spent on defense, even if Forte is an upgrade over Starks.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (1h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (1h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (1h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (1h) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (1h) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (1h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (1h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (1h) : 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 (2h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (2h) : 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 (2h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (3h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (3h) : 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 (3h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (3h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (3h) : 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 (4h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (4h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (4h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (5h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (5h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (5h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (6h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (6h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (7h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (7h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (7h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (7h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (7h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (7h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (7h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (7h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (7h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (7h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (7h) : 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 (7h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (7h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (7h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (8h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (8h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (8h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (8h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (8h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (8h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (8h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (8h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (8h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (8h) : Packers will get in
beast (8h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
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
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

6h / 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.