Any new rumors on possible FA for the Pack?· Page 4

Bigbyfan
Member

15 years ago

I always here about FA's being the big thing that takes teams and puts them over the top.
But i think alot of the times they end up being desperate moves by GM's that end up blowing up in their faces.
I think thats something Ted Thompson is very aware of, and thats why he doesn't just go out and mortgage the farm on alot of FA's. Many of them are players at the ends of their careers that get a big pay day on what they DID, not what they are still able to do.
People like Reggie White are VERY rare.
JMO

"beast" wrote:

I need a little help, what were the FAs that put the Steelers over the top?

"Cheesey" wrote:

They didn't get these guys this past offseason, but Ryan Clark, James Harrison, their center, and the already mentioned Moore were all big contributors to that team.

blank

go.pack.go.
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#32

I think Huff would be better than Peprah...at least bring him in to compete for the backup job.

And I would MUCH rather have Will Blackmon returning punts/kickoffs than Jim Leonard.

We could bring him in as a backup, but not as a starter. Also, I like Rouse better than him, maybe just because he's from Va. Tech but I like him.

beast
Select Member

15 years ago

#33

"Cheesey" wrote:

I need a little help, what were the FAs that put the Steelers over the top?

"beast" wrote:

Thats just what i'm saying..........most FA's DON'T put teams over the top.
You must have missed my point completely.
You build your team through the draft, and IF there is a FA that can put you over the top, THEN make a move. Otherwise you are wasting big money.
Ted Thompson knows that.

"Cheesey" wrote:

Nope, I understood your point completely and I agree. I was just adding on in a question form, trying to point out that the Steelers didn't sign any great FA player and in fact were to have said to have a couple of great FAs .....

"Bigbyfan" wrote:

I need a little help, what were the FAs that put the Steelers over the top?

"beast" wrote:

They didn't get these guys this past offseason, but Ryan Clark, James Harrison, their center, and the already mentioned Moore were all big contributors to that team.

"Cheesey" wrote:

Yeah but Clark and Harrison basically no bodies went they were signed.... Moore had a little name for him self, Hartwig had a somewhat name.. but my points was that none of these guys were big name guys when they went their. I don't remember the last big name guy the Steelers signed, and the Packers have signed bigger names and yet Ted Thompson get's killed by some people for not doing enough in FA.

But Ted Thompson has brought in guys with bigger names than the Steelers and more

Charles Woodson
Ryan Pickett
Brandon Chillar
Charlie Peprah
John Kuhn
Donald Lee
Tory Humphrey
Jason Hunter
Tramon Williams
Ruvell Martin
Jarrett Bush

dhazer
Veteran Member

15 years ago

#34

I don't remember the last big name guy the Steelers signed, and the Packers have signed bigger names and yet Ted Thompson get's killed by some people for not doing enough in FA.

Well just how do you have to change when you win 2 Super Bowls in 4 years compared to having 1 winning season in that same time span?

You call the likes of Donald Lee, Chillar, Williams, and Kuhn as bigger names than what the Steelers did ? How many of those 4 will be starters this year? I think its probably going to be 0. Woodson noone else wanted so we got him by default.

Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)

beast
Select Member

15 years ago

#35

I don't remember the last big name guy the Steelers signed, and the Packers have signed bigger names and yet Ted Thompson get's killed by some people for not doing enough in FA.

"dhazer" wrote:

Well I don't think the Steelers bought in a whole lot of FA even before they won that Super Bowl and they were doing the same hting then as they are doing now.

I'm saying as a whole they're bigger names. Like the Packers bigger name beats the Steelers and the Packers 2nd biggest name beats the Steelers biggest name.

Also we didn't get Woodson by default, that's complete non sense, there were other teams wanting Woodson. If it was by default Woodson wouldn't of come to GB because he heard bad things about GB. But he came because Ted Thompson went after him harder than any other team's GM, plain and simple.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

15 years ago

#36

I don't remember the last big name guy the Steelers signed, and the Packers have signed bigger names and yet Ted Thompson get's killed by some people for not doing enough in FA.

"dhazer" wrote:

Why no mention of Charles Woodson or Ryan Pickett?

blueleopard
Member

15 years ago

#37

Huff would be a good signing because it's too early in his career to call him a bust. Having him on the field would add to the youth movement, and Perry would have more time to work on him.

Danreb Victorio A Believer of Greg Jennings

bozz_2006
Registered

15 years ago

#38

I'm sort of with blueloepard on this one. I wouldn't mind seeing him in GB, if it's cheap. i don't think he'll get a lot of attention because he been a bust so far.

Cheesey
Preferred Member

15 years ago

#39

I don't remember the last big name guy the Steelers signed, and the Packers have signed bigger names and yet Ted Thompson get's killed by some people for not doing enough in FA.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:

"dhazer" wrote:

Why no mention of Charles Woodson or Ryan Pickett?

(SHHHH!!! You'll RUIN his argument!!!!) :thumbleft: LOL!!!

Bigbyfan
Member

15 years ago

#40

Huff would be a good signing because it's too early in his career to call him a bust. Having him on the field would add to the youth movement, and Perry would have more time to work on him.

"blueleopard" wrote:

Yet many call Harrell a bust 🙂

blank

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Mucky Tundra (4m) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (4m) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (25m) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (1h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (1h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (2h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (2h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (2h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (2h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (2h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (2h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (2h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (2h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (2h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (2h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (2h) : 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 (2h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (2h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (3h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (3h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (3h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (3h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (3h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (3h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (3h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (3h) : Packers will get in

beast (3h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (3h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (3h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (5h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (6h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (6h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (6h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (7h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (16h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (16h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (17h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (20h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks

Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak

beast (21-Dec) : So far the college playoffs have sucked... One team absolutely dominates the other

beast (21-Dec) : Well even if you weren't positive towards a guy, you wouldn't nessarily want to tell the media that (if they don't know about it)

Martha Careful (21-Dec) : I think MLF want Love to look past the end half issues, and feel good about his play. Our coaches generally keep a very positive tone.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS