I didn't really see anything like this so we might as well start one since it's the start of FA.

Looks like they locked up Lane Taylor. It's not much of an impact signing but he's a guy capable of filling in adequately as depth as long as they leave him at G.

Welp, that's about as far as the Packers Free Agency thread needs to go! We can safely lock this thread now! 🤬 😂 😂

Thanks for starting this thread, steve.

On the scale from "Reggie White exciting" to "Meh", this is definitely a "Meh," though.

Twenty of these won't stop many complaints about Thompson's approach.

---

Just sign any TE or ILB or do you have a list of TE or ILB that would be great to add to the roster? Or are you hoping the Packers can pluck a nobody free agent and turn them into a somebody? I'm naively heding my bets on Sam Barrington filling Clay Matthews III ILB spot and Jake Ryan being the other starter. Need depth though.

---

I mean, I of course have a list of players I think could help the Packers (Bennett, Daniels, Trevathan, Forte, etc.), but I don't firmly have a grasp on the salary cap implications. Just because a player could help the Packers doesn't mean he is worth signing, unless it's at the right price. I also don't want the Packers to lose any compensatory selections, unless it's for a truly proven and younger player like Trevathan. That would be worth it imo, unless the Packers really think they can get another very good ILB in the draft. I'm skeptical.

I think CM3 should stay in his hybrid role, especially if the Packers don't improve on Barrington/Ryan.

The thought of a Jake Ryan/Sam Barrington starting combo at ILBer in 2016 does not scare me as much as the 2013 Jerron McMillan/M.D. Jennings pairing at Safety (while Burnett was out) in 2013.

However, the Ryan-Barrington pairing does remind me of the A.J. Hawk/Brad Jones ILBer duo in 2014 and we all know how that turned out.

Can not go into 2016 with a 7th rounder who lacks speed/coverage and is coming off a season ending injury and a recently converted defensive lineman who was absolutely exposed in coverage last season. I'd like to see both Barrington & Ryan replaced. Neither are very good.

Really? Seems to me the game he filled in, he licked balls.

---

I think he started in 2 games and one was bad one was ok. Either way I'm interested in seeing the structure of the contract. I won't be surprised if it's a lower hit next year and a higher one in the 2nd year in case he improves and has a shot at a starting spot if one of lang/sitton walks in 2017. The RFA tender was like 1.6m so that's what I'm thinking the 1st year pay might be.

One player I'm interested in who may not be that expensive is Rishard Matthews the WR from Miami. I think he could be a good complimentary WR here and have an impact without having to be one of those 10m/y signings.

Looks like he mostly makes back up money this year and has a chance to make most of it if he improves and they keep him around to play in 2017.

Bringing back Chris Banjo is a good move. Malik Jackson getting 15/y makes Daniels deal look freaking glorious.

Oakland and Jax have been building carry-over $$, spending just enough to meet min spending requirements. Now that their QBs are looking like something it was my fear that they'd pay whatever to get whoever they wanted and Ted Thompson probably felt the same way and didn't let Daniels get close enough to even sniff free agency. If Daniels didn't get locked up he'd be gone!

Ted Thompson's contracts for star players sometimes seem a little high at first, but after one year or less, they often look like steals. The Packers know how to work contracts, that's for sure.

We NEED more help on defense. A linebacker to compliment CM3.
A tight end with some talent would be the next hole to fill.
I don't have a CLUE what Uncle Ted will do. But I HOPE he finally gets some free agents that can fill those 2 holes, and not "hope" the draft can do it.

---

Let the official wailing and gnashing of teeth begin.

he Green Bay Packers addressed the future of two pending free agents prior to the start of the new league year Wednesday afternoon in tendering a contract to tight end Justin Perillo but not outside linebacker Andy Mulumba.

Mulumba, a restricted free agent, is now free to sign with any NFL team. The lowest restricted tender the Packers could have issued the three-year veteran was worth $1.671 million, which is three times what Mulumba made when he had four tackles in six games last season.

While the former undrafted free agent can negotiate elsewhere, the Packers also can re-sign him at a lower cost. The minimum for a player with three accrued seasons is $760,000 in 2016.

Meanwhile, Green Bay tendered an exclusive-rights contract to Perillo, who will make $675,000 if he makes the team next season.

---

I'm glad we're not throwing our $$$ for free agents. I rather sign our own players that we know exactly what we're paying for in the future. In a couple of years we've got young players contracts coming to an end which we're going to need $$$. We can't invest in dead money which may end up being busts and we would half to cut them afterwards.

About 70-80% of free agents end up a bust.

---

Firstly, how'd you get that percentage?

Secondly, I don't get how a team like the Patriots manages to get a good mix in FA additions and solid draft picks, which keeps them at the top 4 teams in the NFL year - in, year-out, yet we have to keep all our money locked up in a vault so we can carry over a couple of millions to pay our own guys.

I get the necessity of resigning our own, but it's also clear that this year's draft alone isn't going to get us over the top.

Of course, there's no need to panic. There's a lot of FA left and a big portion of the signings today have been for ridiculous amounts of money.

I've said this before and I'll say this again:

There's a big gap between "making more signings in FA than Ted Thompson does" and "making signings like Chaka Khan paying 90 million and 42 guaranteed to Malik Jackson."

I don't know anyone on this board who has *EVER* advocated the latter type of free agent action.

Most of us would be happy if he made a few more signings like Pickett/Woodson/Peppers, rather than just 3 in a entire decade. Player acquisition is not a game to play so that you never fail, any more than onfield coaching should be designed never to lose.

GMs are paid to take some financial risks. And that includes, IMO and that of others, means taking some financial risks with free agency and trades.

I don't know if anyone has ever heard of Nassim Taleb. He made megamillions (and didn't lose it) despite decades in the world of high-powered Wall Street trading. Read his books (e.g., Fooled by Randomness; Black Swan) and you see him heaping scorn on those who take the Khan/Snyder/Jones approach in a world where the *daily* risk exposure can run into the tens or even hundreds of millions and makes the risks taken by NFL owner-idiots look like the risk of buying a couple Powerball tickets. "Idiots" is one of the more gentle terms he uses to describe that kind of dealmaking.

But Taleb didn't become and stay a megamillionaire by avoiding all risks. He didn't do it by insisting that the downside be minimized. He did it by "stop loss" rules that said "Take big risks when the potential gain is big enough, but when your loss reaches a particular point, get out and cut your losses."

IMO that approach is what distinguishes the Belichek/New England approach to free agency from both the idiots like Khan/Snyder and from people like Thompson and his bigger supporters here. Belichek doesn't go all in on anything like Snyder and company do. But he *is* willing to take bigger risks every year, especially in free agency, than Thompson does. And when he finds he has made a mistake, he cuts his losses and tries not to repeat the same error twice. Thompson, on the other hand, doesn't want to ever make certain errors. He doesn't want to make any mistake in free agency bigger than the risk once every few years of giving a fourth round draft pick for sixth round value.

(No free agent who believes himself capable of the season Moss put up in his first year in New England is going to agree to a way-below-level-for-two-years kind of contract. IMO, if I had been Moss when GB took the "we don't want to rent the guy for one year, we want to rent him for two years below his market" approach, I wouldn't have just said "yes" to New England's offer. I would have said "fuck you!" to Thompson.

It's not Belichek's willingness to take the "one year rent" risk for Moss than makes him a better GM than Thompson. Every GM is going to avoid some risks that he should have taken and taken some risks that he shouldn't. But the difference between Belichek and Thompson isn't any one deal or any two deals that one of them made and the other didn't. Belichek consistently is willing to take the kind of risks that Thompson isn't but should. It's Belichek's overall intermediate approach to risk-taking, year and year out, that explains why Belichek's teams have outperformed Thompson's over a long period of time.

I don't know where Elway fits -- he seems like he's more a Belichek type, but he could be a Khan type who got lucky for a couple years. It's simply too early to tell. Elway may be better than Thompson, he may just have started strong.

IMO it is *NOT* to early to tell who is the better GM type between Thompson and Belichek. IMO it's not even that close.

How big a difference in the two? Well, based on their respective track records, I would be wholly unsurprised if the overall accomplishments of Belichek in this offseason will, despite the lost draft pick because of Deflategate, be better than those of Thompson.

---

Ted got on the plane this morning for his vacation didn't he?

---

1: cheating

2: owner with big pockets, who can pay a little extra on the side via endorsement contracts, etc.

---