I am leaning slightly towards Packer98's view. After all, we are in a rebuilding year. (I said this last year and got many, many responses, at least one of which was not an "R" rating)

We got set back a year by the switch to the 3-4 and defensive staff. It's cool. I'm good. Just want to go on record, and advocate youth accordingly (they need the reps) We will be awesome in 2010! Trade that pick back in the 1st.


:cheers:

Oh how strongly I disagree my friend.. too many are lowering the expectations with the move to the 3-4.

While I expect some coverage concept issues and maybe a blown assignment here or there due to the transition, I completely refuse to give this team a pass because of the concept philosophy change in defensive alignment.

In today's game, with all the tools at your disposal to build a team or unit, there should not a single freaking reason to point to this change in structure as a reason not to play solid ball and not have a good blend of player to make the scheme work for us.

We are a young deep team at the core.. with certain positions such as CB where our current window may be closing.. I see no reason not to add a player near the end in moderation and to bring a presence to the team.

How do you develop leaders, have them learn from other leaders ahead of them.

---

I am semi-tongue-in-cheek with my "rebuilding year" characterization, only because the term itself seems to liven things up. There will be absolutely no passes issued. Looks to me like the Pack has made their off season "splash", but because it's coaching and not players, it goes largely under appreciated as profound moves go. You have to recognize the pure gamble being employed here...I like Dom and the other acquisitions, but frankly I really believe that the transition could very easily go very south, very fast. I am not saying it will, I'm saying it could. I still don't hear anyone addressing the .2 second differential in average time in the pocket between Aaron Rodgers and Brett Favre, or the fact that we have to pass the ball on 3rd and short because we are unable to gain the required yardage on the ground, or for that matter, anywhere near a goal line. You see, I am apprently in the minority when I keep advocating offensive line help in the draft and fix whatever woes exist on d via free agency. We will not/cannot do that, so I return to my rebuilding year comment. I also understand your leadership comment, but an alternative is to just stay young and let them learn by doing, not watching...not saying that's right, but there IS a fine-line decision-wise. There is plenty of leadership on that defense...plenty.

Guy sounds like a locker room leader and a good presence both on and off the field. I don't really see what the disagreement could be with it. He's not going to cost an arm and a leg. 4 sacks last year in spot duty? Pretty sweet. There is a huge difference between making the shift from a bunch of extremely high payed older players to a younger, deeper, talented roster, and bringing in a veteran who can contribute in multiple ways.

---

Ahhh...

I am the first one on the interior of our offensive line issues.. namely a LG the plays too freaking high and can't pick up the slightest of stunts. Or the C that is long on effort but short on size and girth. The revolving door of shifting pieces from one spot to another freely, but the same coaching staff that tried to sell the moving of Hawk to the middle as a reduction of shift, mind you not being forth right and saying the Hawk was under performing and the move was more to try and wake his sleeping ass up.

I too would like some offensive line help to be added, but apparently they are sold on Cliffy making it another year and that Tauscher will remain loyal to us. I hope they have plans to move Colledge to the outside this year and give him a real shot of growing into a very solid player.

But I will almost be willing to bet that we are targeting a Tackle or two very early in this deep draft. But I agree, a veteran guard to anchor at the left spot would be a very welcomed addition.

We shall see how this all plays out between now and draft day.. is more really more or less?

---

I'd say bring him in on a 2 year deal as a rotational player and see if we can't find his eventual full-time replacement in the draft.

---

I say he won't even be mentioned in GB, as i agree with Dfoster for once and that is we are rebuilding. Remember this is only year 5 of the 10-20 year plan Ted Thompson has in store for us.

We will not sign any old guy to a 1-2 year deal because we aren't that close to being an elite team.

---

I bet you don't agree with my assessment that Aaron Rodgers is an improved keystone over Brett Favre.

Your sarcasm is getting a little old. Why not just contribute genuine thoughts instead of being sarcastic all the time and trying to piss in GB's cheerios? We have a young franchise QB. We don't have an aging roster with overpaid players. We don't have a terrible cap situation. Silly meaningless phrases like "rebuilding period" don't mean crap. It's been made clear time and time again that Thompson's goal is to improve the franchise's situation one step at a time, with each situation being unique. If they think the team will be in a better situation by signing a veteran like this for 2 years, then they will try to do it without harming the team in the process (by throwing ridiculous money at someone they don't think will truly improve the team as much as the money hit will hurt them).

That all seems like common sense to me.

---

As i stated in another thread i'm giving Rodgers time because he is not a Franchise qb after 1 year of starting. Do i think we would have been better off with Brett at qb last year and i would have to say yes. But the reasoning has been discussed to death on here so i won't go into it again.



Btw Mass are you talking to me or Dfoster because i just agreed with his rebuilding comment.

---