Ahmad Brooks anyone?

Tschmack posted:

 

D+ was extremely generous as a grade and DH nailed it 

The local media hacks are wondering where the future All Pro Fackrell is?  Seriously they are not going easy on this guy.   Perhaps the pre-draft scouting reports were just wrong

Won't be the first or last time a player didn't pan out 

 

Some of you are getting so impatient with players, I don't understand. Even McGinn, who blasts everyone every offseason, thought he was okay and had potential. Year 2 for him hasn't even happened, just because Clay and JJ Watt developed immediately doesn't mean that every player will. Local media "experts" commenting on what they think is happening at minimal contact practice is not a good way to judge a player. 

Packers hope to sign Ahmad Brooks but he's no longer in town, I'm told. Unclear if he has other visits or is just pondering an offer at this point.

Rob Demovsky, ESPN Staff Writer

Grave Digger posted: 

Some of you are getting so impatient with players, I don't understand. Even McGinn, who blasts everyone every offseason, thought he was okay and had potential. 

The issue isn't Fackrell's potential so much as how ridiculously underdeveloped he was/is. 

Per Rapoport Packers are signing Brooks for 1 year deal worth up to $5 million. So there will be a few escalators. 

Herschel posted:

Grave Digger posted: 

Some of you are getting so impatient with players, I don't understand. Even McGinn, who blasts everyone every offseason, thought he was okay and had potential. 

The issue isn't Fackrell's potential so much as how ridiculously underdeveloped he was/is. 

I don't know what that means. Can you explain? He's in year 2, how can you even know where his development is at? Jeff Janis is underdeveloped, he's in year 4 and seems to be on track to make the same impact he has the previous 3 years, which is minimal. 16 games in the NFL as #5 on the depth chart coming from a Mountain West Conference school is enough to fully gauge development?

One year deal, $5 million

ChilliJon posted:

Per Rapoport Packers are signing Brooks for 1 year deal worth up to $5 million. So there will be a few escalators. 

Bill Michaels just announced it on his show too.

$5 million seems a little rich for Brooks. Have to see the details. I imagine there's a crap ton of targets/goals he'll have to hit to get all $5 million. 

It's full of incentives, no doubt. 

BR reporting another signing coming? 

An OL?

The "other signing coming" is part of Rapoport report that has the Internet blowing up. No other signing coming. 

Rapoport tweet:

The #Packers are signing LB Ahmad Brooks to a 1-year deal that can be worth up to $5M, source said. Another(!) GB free agent signing coming.

Brooks is "the other GB FA signing" 

Timing says it can't be Hayden- he was just released this morning. They would bring him in if they wanted him. 

Base is apparently 3.5.

$3.5 seems a little rich as well. 

They must have really liked visit & been assured by NFL that no penalties are imminent from conduct policy. 

Couldn't be Haden? I don't know where he'd fit. We don't have good corners, but we have a lot invested in the ones we do have 

Gets $3.5M base in August from #Packers…. with a chance to make $5M.

Rapoport clarified the tweet: Brooks is the signing.

Sombitch had me going

Not saying GB won't consider Haden. Very unlikely though. I think they really like what they have right now. 

Odds to win the Super Bowl:

1.  New England Patriots.....6-1

2.  Green Bay Packers.....12-1

*

*

30. San Francisco 49ers.....300-1

I'd say the numbers are looking pretty darn good for Ahmad Brooks today.

FLPACKER posted:

They must have really liked visit & been assured by NFL that no penalties are imminent from conduct policy. 

Or they must really be concerned for their OLB depth.

ChilliJon posted:

$3.5 seems a little rich as well. 

3.5 for a year.  A little high but it sounds like he had other teams interested and TT wasn't letting him get out of Green Bay.  I think it's abundantly clear what the perception of depth, or lack thereof, is at OLB.

Meh on the salary - but really (pleasantly) surprised TT pulled the plug to do it. Brooks certainly adds some juice to OLB.

DH13 posted:

FLPACKER posted:

They must have really liked visit & been assured by NFL that no penalties are imminent from conduct policy. 

Or they must really be concerned for their OLB depth.

That too

I'm just referencing some of the pre-draft bios on Fackrell as a reference.   A lot of his strengths in college (speed, frame and length, coverage) are apparent but have not really translated well but the weaknesses (strength, average burst, unrefined techniques) have really been magnified given the jump in competition.

The other issue I see with Fackrell is that he's not elite in any aspect of his game which can make a difference in how he performs.   He looks good on paper and did well at Utah State but that's about it.

Big difference in terms of a guy like Jeff  Janis.   Whatever your view of his pass catching ability,  he has elite level speed which has translated into him making a impact as a gunner on STs.  That will ensure he has a roster spot despite his other warts.  

Good news is adding Brooks gives them some quality depth which they desperately need. 

Great signing IMO...he is a physical OLB, savvy and I believe he has stayed pretty healthy over his career.  I don't mind the money as we were paying Peppers more and I think Brooks has more in the tank.  I don't think he will get into trouble in GB and hopefully his legal issues aren't going to cost him any playing time.  

Why Ahmad Brooks?

Toughness, experience, and can play the run!

Eats tight ends in the run game for breakfast.. No chance. pic.twitter.com/bMyMx6Eyim

— Ben Fennell (@BenFennell_NFL) August 30, 2017

More from Fennell.

First and foremost. Brooks isn't a player you need to worry about being pushed around..

Unlike some others..

Ouch. 

Maybe with a little less pressure all that potential in Fackrell and Elliot may take a step since they won't be getting run over a regular basis.

Tschmack posted:

I'm just referencing some of the pre-draft bios on Fackrell as a reference.   A lot of his strengths in college (speed, frame and length, coverage) are apparent but have not really translated well but the weaknesses (strength, average burst, unrefined techniques) have really been magnified given the jump in competition.

The other issue I see with Fackrell is that he's not elite in any aspect of his game which can make a difference in how he performs.   He looks good on paper and did well at Utah State but that's about it.

Big difference in terms of a guy like Jeff  Janis.   Whatever your view of his pass catching ability,  he has elite level speed which has translated into him making a impact as a gunner on STs.  That will ensure he has a roster spot despite his other warts.  

Good news is adding Brooks gives them some quality depth which they desperately need. 

So you're saying that a rookie from a Mountain West school picked in round 3 had trouble with the jump in competition...how is that surprising or something that should be held against him? If you expected him to jump in and be Clay Matthews then you should have adjusted your expectations. 

The point with Janis is that he's performing exactly the same on STs and offense as he did day 1. There's no development after 4 years and you can see that. That's not saying anything about his impact, it's just a fact. Fackrell has been here for just 1 season, there's no way you can label him as anything except a player still developing. 

So, even if they had TJ Watt, would Brooks still be a good signing?

Great signing as it moves a position of likely weakness once Perry or Clay got injured to one of potential strength.

By the by, if someone on this board had suggested at the end of last season that Ted Thompson would sign six veteran free agents during the offseason they would have been called nuts by Ted's greatest fans, his greatest detractors and everyone in between.

Something strange is afoot at a Circle K in Green Bay. 

Happy to have him even though some out there might not think of his background as a "Packers' People!!" type background.  

ChilliJon posted:

$3.5 seems a little rich as well. 

Same money as Jeremy Maclin, Connor Barwin, Frank Gore, Matt Shaub, Julius Peppers and Elvis Dumervil. His minimum salary is at $1 million. 

For a one-year shot at a position of need? Seems a reasonable bet. 

ChilliJon posted:

More from Fennell.

First and foremost. Brooks isn't a player you need to worry about being pushed around..

Unlike some others..

Ouch. 

Brooks can't play RT, can he?

Important to remember Brooks played under Vic Fangio in SF, so he already knows defense. Fangio runs Dom's D; he just runs it better.

— Michael Rodney (@PackersNotes) August 30, 2017

Which would explain why the Bears defense has been otherworldly the past two years. 

This Rodney guy is a complete ass clown. 

SteveLuke posted:

Great signing as it moves a position of likely weakness once Perry or Clay got injured to one of potential strength.

By the by, if someone on this board had suggested at the end of last season that Ted Thompson would sign six veteran free agents during the offseason they would have been called nuts by Ted's greatest fans, his greatest detractors and everyone in between.

Something strange is afoot at a Circle K in Green Bay. 

Some are speculating who apparently are "in the know" at 1265, that Elliot is being allowed to make these moves with Ted giving his approval but essentially stepping back a bit. Obviously, there is no way anyone will ever admit that on the record, but it at least makes you wonder whether there is some merit to this.

Perhaps it's a test run of sorts for when Ted retires?

Regardless, it's stunning the amount of FA moves GB has made this year.