Goldie posted:I really like how Martinez plays.....he’s always around the ball. Hustle, hustle, hustle, love how he’s fast on the field ready to play, and gets off in a hurry too. I like him. Is this his 3rd or 4th year with Pack??
I'd rather have someone with the speed to play in passing situations with the headset. In a perfect world, Martinez isn't playing in dime.
I think we're over rating Martinez and under valuing or D line when we point to those tackle numbers. He's no AJ Hawk as he has some speed and instinct, but he is just a avg player IMO.
Hungry5 posted:Fandame posted:I'm behind Jones' move to safety.
Dix and Jones will break some bones?
Apologies to Kiel, thread title meister.
...but Cousins will never hurt us...
BrainDed posted:I think we're over rating Martinez and under valuing or D line when we point to those tackle numbers. He's no AJ Hawk as he has some speed and instinct, but he is just a avg player IMO.
Martinez is entering his third year and no real reason to believe we've seen his ceiling.
BrainDed posted:I think we're over rating Martinez and under valuing or D line when we point to those tackle numbers. He's no AJ Hawk as he has some speed and instinct, but he is just a avg player IMO.
He’s not Luke Keuchly, but he’s better than average. He didn’t just rack up a lot of tackles, he led the entire NFL in tackles in his second year. He needs a better ILB paired with him to really make this D stout in the front 7, but he’s already in the top 25 of ILBs in the NFL and he’s only entering year 3.
Boris:
You call getting the #1 overall pick in the 4th & 5th rounds plus a 22 year old QB, "a discount"??
Don't know how much more you were expecting.
The trade may have been a bargain. I don't know, but...
Pack did lose their 4th and 5th and Kizer's QB numbers were atrocious.
Wrong Can O' Nuts, the Packers gained position in the 4th and 5th. They'll have the first pick in the 4th.
As far as Kizer, who the hell knows. He's a better option than Hundley.
"He's a better option than Hundley."
Oh man, I hope so. Certainly can't be worse, can he?
I thought Hundley was going to be alright judging by preseason play, but his time in the regular season had me cursing at the TV
Brainwashed Boris posted:You call getting the #1 overall pick in the 4th & 5th rounds plus a 22 year old QB, "a discount"??
Don't know how much more you were expecting.
1 more thing....**** him!!
His job is to play football not worry about who the coaches are holding accountable.
Just like MM said, "He needs to keep his own house clean."
F**K him!
We also traded a 4th and 5th WITH Randall for all that. Kizer aside, the value of the pick swap basically puts a 4th round value on Randall. Unless we end up flipping Kizer for a high pick, it is NOT a positive that we had to dump a former 1st round pick for a 4th round pick. We basically just shipped off Randall for more than we would get in compensatory value, Cleveland did the same with Kizer. I’m fine with the trade, it just sucks we took such a loss on a high pick.
I agree, it wasn’t Randall’s place to speak out, it’s why he’s not a Packer anymore. He’s right though, he got benched multiple times and no other defender did seemingly (despite a litany of mental errors and assignment breakdowns across the board in the secondary).
Thunderbird posted:"He's a better option than Hundley."
Oh man, I hope so. Certainly can't be worse, can he?
I thought Hundley was going to be alright judging by preseason play, but his time in the regular season had me cursing at the TV
He just can't process the regular season game-day speed and defenses fast enough. Plus absolutely no feel in the pocket.
Scotty Tolzien looked great in pre-season too. Much better reader of the game than Hundley too. Just not enough arm and too many brain farts when the bright lights are on.
There's a reason its the most highly paid position in the league.
Back on topic:
It will be so nice to see opposing teams not knowing what our defense will be doing on every play. Even Hundley and Tolzien could've looked good against Dom.
It will be equally nice to see a defense that knows what it's supposed to be doing on every play.
I'll just say, careful with that assumption axe, Eugene....
Henry posted:Wrong Can O' Nuts, the Packers gained position in the 4th and 5th. They'll have the first pick in the 4th.
As far as Kizer, who the hell knows. He's a better option than Hundley.
Oh, stop with trying to paint a mistake when there is none. Nothing I wrote contradicts what you wrote. The Packers "lost" (gave up) their 4th and 5th and gained the Brown's 4th and 5th.
Grave Digger posted:We also traded a 4th and 5th WITH Randall for all that. Kizer aside, the value of the pick swap basically puts a 4th round value on Randall. Unless we end up flipping Kizer for a high pick, it is NOT a positive that we had to dump a former 1st round pick for a 4th round pick. We basically just shipped off Randall for more than we would get in compensatory value, Cleveland did the same with Kizer. I’m fine with the trade, it just sucks we took such a loss on a high pick.
You're talking like Randall was Deion or Revis in his prime?!?!
We received increased value in 4th & 5th plus a backup QB that's 22 years old & was a 2nd rounder last year - FYI, that's first round value - I know Kizer didn't play all that great but it's the freaking BROWNS for god sakes!! It's a fair trade & We got the better end of the trade IMO at this point in time. Randall may turn out to be an All-Pro for the Browns but he isn't anything close for the Packers from 2015-2017. Dorsey & Crew obviously think they can get more out of him plus Kizer wasn't going anywhere in Cleveland because they're drafting a QB this year.
The trade makes sense for both teams & we received about the best value we could have at this point in time.
From article: "The additions of Muhammad Wilkerson and Tramon Williams further support the notion that Pettine is bringing in veterans familiar with his system to help bring along the youngsters."
...... and who wants to play for Pettine. I think they are trying to improve the attitude of the defense as well. Dix is going to have a hard times sticking this year if they get some players who show they can play in the draft.
Randall was deemed cancerous. He needed to go. Getting a back up QB(need) and moving up in 2 rounds of the draft(could be special) is making the best of a bad situation.
Vince looking big !! Would be great if Pettine can get something out of him.
Grave Digger posted:Kizer aside, the value of the pick swap basically puts a 4th round value on Randall.
Exactly. Randall aside, we traded a late fourth and fifth for an early fourth and fifth and a recent second round pick backup QB. This trade was highway robbery!
Biegel and Adams were basically redshirts last year. But Biegel flashed more potential and upside in limited snaps than Fackrell has since he's been in GB.
Looking forward to Biegel being healthy from day one this year. Can't ever question his motor.
phaedrus posted:Henry posted:Wrong Can O' Nuts, the Packers gained position in the 4th and 5th. They'll have the first pick in the 4th.
As far as Kizer, who the hell knows. He's a better option than Hundley.
Oh, stop with trying to paint a mistake when there is none. Nothing I wrote contradicts what you wrote. The Packers "lost" (gave up) their 4th and 5th and gained the Brown's 4th and 5th.
How is significantly improving your placement in each round a loss?
Brainwashed Boris posted:You're talking like Randall was Deion or Revis in his prime?!?!
We received increased value in 4th & 5th plus a backup QB that's 22 years old & was a 2nd rounder last year - FYI, that's first round value - I know Kizer didn't play all that great but it's the freaking BROWNS for god sakes!! It's a fair trade & We got the better end of the trade IMO at this point in time. Randall may turn out to be an All-Pro for the Browns but he isn't anything close for the Packers from 2015-2017. Dorsey & Crew obviously think they can get more out of him plus Kizer wasn't going anywhere in Cleveland because they're drafting a QB this year.
The trade makes sense for both teams & we received about the best value we could have at this point in time.
I don’t think I’ve indicated that at all. He was a first round pick, we traded him for less than 1st round value. No matter which way you shake it we took a loss on him, which sucks, but I’m sure it’s an addition by subtraction. Obviously he didn’t like it in GB, that seemed to be clear early on with his tweets about GB having no place to eat or nothing to do or something (which CWood quickly corrected him). I doubt either GM was thrilled about giving up on failed high round picks.
Grave Digger posted:I don’t think I’ve indicated that at all. He was a first round pick, we traded him for less than 1st round value. No matter which way you shake it we took a loss on him, which sucks, but I’m sure it’s an addition by subtraction.
A second round rookie QB with starting experience + increases in value in 4th and 5th for a late first rounder is even or advantage Green Bay. Not sure what you’re arguing.
Grave Digger posted:Brainwashed Boris posted:You're talking like Randall was Deion or Revis in his prime?!?!
I don’t think I’ve indicated that at all. He was a first round pick, we traded him for less than 1st round value. No matter which way you shake it we took a loss on him, which sucks, but I’m sure it’s an addition by subtraction. Obviously he didn’t like it in GB, that seemed to be clear early on with his tweets about GB having no place to eat or nothing to do or something (which CWood quickly corrected him). I doubt either GM was thrilled about giving up on failed high round picks.
Was he WORTH 1st round value in your mind? I'm 100% confident your answer will be "no". Therefore, rolling the dice on a backup QB selected in R2 of the previous draft & moving to the top of R4 & R5 in this year's draft is pretty good value.
Or try it this way. Given what you know about Randall's time in GB (his play, his attitude, etc.), what round would you pick the exact same player in this draft?
Grave Digger posted:Brainwashed Boris posted:We received increased value in 4th & 5th plus a backup QB that's 22 years old & was a 2nd rounder last year - FYI, that's first round value - The trade makes sense for both teams & we received about the best value we could have at this point in time.
I don’t think I’ve indicated that at all. He was a first round pick, we traded him for less than 1st round value.
I don't think you understand "1st round value" - Kizer was the 52 selection overall last year & he's a QB.
Randall was the 30th overall selection in 2015
We also swapped our 4th & 5th rounders to MOVE UP in each round.
If your opinion is that "we traded him for less than 1st round value." then that's fine. That's your opinion but please show me the GM on the planet that would've given us MORE value than we received? The Packers received 1st round value.
Ghost of Lambeau posted:From article: "The additions of Muhammad Wilkerson and Tramon Williams further support the notion that Pettine is bringing in veterans familiar with his system to help bring along the youngsters."
...... and who wants to play for Pettine. I think they are trying to improve the attitude of the defense as well. Dix is going to have a hard times sticking this year if they get some players who show they can play in the draft.
I am okay with the idea of using vets for a year or two to bring along the young guys. It shows planning and an unwillingness to scrap this year for the sake of letting young guys get all the snaps. My guess is, with this philosophy, that by the end of the year and if the young guys pan out, that Tramon will be limited in number of snaps. It depends on how Wilkerson plays to see what type of role he takes. I'm hoping they both become mentors (cross fingers with Wilkerson).
Both Pettine and Rex Ryan have typically brought in vets experienced in his/their system(s). Bart Scott comes to mind. As does Jimmy Leonhart. Both somewhat limited as players but smart and on the field leaders.
Similar to this move by Lombardi.
Lombardi was such a visionary, and a winner. He "got" it.
Henry posted:phaedrus posted:Henry posted:Wrong Can O' Nuts, the Packers gained position in the 4th and 5th. They'll have the first pick in the 4th.
As far as Kizer, who the hell knows. He's a better option than Hundley.
Oh, stop with trying to paint a mistake when there is none. Nothing I wrote contradicts what you wrote. The Packers "lost" (gave up) their 4th and 5th and gained the Brown's 4th and 5th.
How is significantly improving your placement in each round a loss?
You just need to understand that you are assigning a different meaning to the word " loss" than I assigned.
Loss (me): Refers to the Packer's losing their 4th and 5th round picks. (Note: this is not to be taken to also mean I do not believe the Packers gained other 4th and 5th round picks).
Loss (Henry): Refers to a qualification of the trade as a whole, as in "The Packers lost on that trade."
I never remotely used the word loss in the way you have suggested.
As we say in the South, Phaedrus, "Bless your heart." but every time I read a post from you, I have this image in my mind:
I never know there was more than one way to use the word loss.
It also means grief, which is what we are all experiencing right now discussing the nuance of "loss"
This is a weird argument about value we received. Even when you factor in Kizer and Randall’s draft slot, we really only came out of the deal with high 3rd round value. Thats being fair because Kizer’s value, while subjective, is significantly lower than now than where he is drafted. That 3rd round value is arguably more than we would get in a compensatory pick for Randall and Kizer’s value could easil skyrocket with proper coaching (making the deal insanely good), but flipping a former 1st round pick for a 3rd round pick in the prime of his career is taking a loss. If you’re going to trade a player, at least get the original investment back. I’m not saying the trade shouldn’t have been made, it just sucks that we had to take such a loss just to get rid of a player that SHOULD be one of our core players right now. To be clear though, I think it’s Randall’s fault we had to take that loss. If some day we can flip Kizer for a mid-high 2nd then we will end up breaking even on this deal.
Which is more likely, Kizer leading us to a Super Bowl or Randall leading us to a Super Bowl?? I'll take the former every time and twice on Sundays.
Many thought Wolf was crazy when he gave up a 1st for Bert. 🤔
phaedrus: I lost my car keys.
henry: phaedrus just said he lost at poker last night.
phaedrus: Your assignment of my use of lost is incorrect.
Others: phaedrus this "nuance" is intellectually too much for us.
Grave Digger posted:This is a weird argument about value we received. Even when you factor in Kizer and Randall’s draft slot, we really only came out of the deal with high 3rd round value. Thats being fair because Kizer’s value, while subjective, is significantly lower than now than where he is drafted. That 3rd round value is arguably more than we would get in a compensatory pick for Randall and Kizer’s value could easil skyrocket with proper coaching (making the deal insanely good), but flipping a former 1st round pick for a 3rd round pick in the prime of his career is taking a loss. If you’re going to trade a player, at least get the original investment back. I’m not saying the trade shouldn’t have been made, it just sucks that we had to take such a loss just to get rid of a player that SHOULD be one of our core players right now. To be clear though, I think it’s Randall’s fault we had to take that loss. If some day we can flip Kizer for a mid-high 2nd then we will end up breaking even on this deal.
Kizer was taken in the 2nd round. Or are you saying Kizer's value is now a 3rd rounder? Because if you are, you can't say you flipped a former 1st rounder when his current value is much less than a 1st rounder.
Grave Digger posted:This is a weird argument about value we received. Even when you factor in Kizer and Randall’s draft slot, we really only came out of the deal with high 3rd round value. Thats being fair because Kizer’s value, while subjective, is significantly lower than now than where he is drafted. That 3rd round value is arguably more than we would get in a compensatory pick for Randall and Kizer’s value could easil skyrocket with proper coaching (making the deal insanely good), but flipping a former 1st round pick for a 3rd round pick in the prime of his career is taking a loss. If you’re going to trade a player, at least get the original investment back. I’m not saying the trade shouldn’t have been made, it just sucks that we had to take such a loss just to get rid of a player that SHOULD be one of our core players right now. To be clear though, I think it’s Randall’s fault we had to take that loss. If some day we can flip Kizer for a mid-high 2nd then we will end up breaking even on this deal.
Taken just for draft slot, it was picks 30, 114, 150 for 52, 101, 138. That doesn't add up to "3rd round value" to me. So in order to validate "3rd round value" you've established Kizer's status had dropped significantly. I guess I am not as harsh on a rookie QB having a bad season for a train-wreck franchise. I'm guessing there is a Brown's fan out there who defends bad coaching and feels it really just sucks that we had to take such a loss just to get rid of a player that SHOULD have been one of our core players right now in Kizer.
I think it was a good trade at a good time. I will arbitrarily assign an early 2nd value on it because that seems to be the game.
El-Ka-Bong posted:It also means grief, which is what we are all experiencing right now discussing the nuance of "loss"
And which we are experiencing from last season. 
phaedrus posted:Henry posted:phaedrus posted:Henry posted:Wrong Can O' Nuts, the Packers gained position in the 4th and 5th. They'll have the first pick in the 4th.
As far as Kizer, who the hell knows. He's a better option than Hundley.
Oh, stop with trying to paint a mistake when there is none. Nothing I wrote contradicts what you wrote. The Packers "lost" (gave up) their 4th and 5th and gained the Brown's 4th and 5th.
How is significantly improving your placement in each round a loss?
You just need to understand that you are assigning a different meaning to the word " loss" than I assigned.
Loss (me): Refers to the Packer's losing their 4th and 5th round picks. (Note: this is not to be taken to also mean I do not believe the Packers gained other 4th and 5th round picks).
Loss (Henry): Refers to a qualification of the trade as a whole, as in "The Packers lost on that trade."I never remotely used the word loss in the way you have suggested.
Vikings fan think.
Can O' Nuts everybody!
