Unreasonably Early Rock Moster

Why not?

Karlos Dansby, for example. Not a long-term guy, but still a good player who can cover you for a couple of years. He ended up in Cleveland for a reasonable deal.

I often wondered what OAK's price would have been on Khalil Mack. Trading for him could have been a sound move, given how close we are. I wanted Eric Kendricks in R1 all the way, but that didn't happen. Figured CB was far deeper than ILB in the last draft, and that the needs were about equal.

Pretty much feel we can add an occasional FA, or make an occasional trade, with D&D, together. Balance. Seems we gave up too many opportunities over the years holding to a -strict- D&D philosophy. Safety was a position that called out for years, as did DE and ILB. OLB too, till Ted finally signed Peppers.

We have sucked so badly everywhere outside of Matthews and Neal at LB that I've come to question if Winston Moss is JAG. What remarkable work has he done? He is no Whitt.

Dansby.  4 years, 24 million.  14 million gauranteed. 

 

That's a lot.

 

 

 

 

Sounds like Brad Jones money... Well, AJ Hawk money... adjusted for inflation.

Dude. Trade for Mack?  When could that have possibly taken place?  5th overall and awesome.

 

Jeez.

 

Yeah, I wondered what the price might have been. ****. Sue me.

I think that's a lot more than Jones got.

I'm gonna say something akin to the Hadl trade.

a - Thompson isn't going to trade for a starter as the $$ they'd demand likely disrupts the cap mgmt (see Henry's post)

2 - any top tier player mentioned in the media as a possible trade option for GB is almost always in line for a new deal and it is likely his agent is the one who floated the rumor (see Boris's elevnty-billion posts on this)

last - "We like the guys we have."   - Uncle Tranny Ted

 

Would it be perfect to have a pro-bowl ILB? Absolutely, which is why CM3 will be there again this season. Lots of nickle and dime D from the Wizard.

 

 

Well, I wondered what OAK's price might have been, not what your guess might be... Brak.

Not a bad player to think about trading for. Future picks. A player. Could work.

 

You just beat me to it, Brak.

 

I was going to say more than trading for Joe Thomas.

 

What about trading for Julio Jones? We need a wideout now.

 

Whaddaya think? Worth a couple of these

 

Btw, I wanted Mckinney and had never heard of Randall.

 

Except, Thompson would never do that.

All you ****ing wankers. The only thing I want are productive players. Keep your Perry, Datone and Barrington. Daniels' 5.5 sacks were more than all 3 last year.

I know Ted won't. I'm thinking he ought to loosen up a bit on that. 8 years between signing a significant FA between the Woodson and Peppers signings.

How does a 4-3 DE that played OLB at Buffalo solve our ILB needs? 

I think we see a lot less of Barrington this season. Perry may not be living up to some perceived value based on his draft position, but he provides Peppers and Neal some bench time all the while CM3 mans the middle.

 

 

All the while ****ing **** up.

Give me Elliott, Hubbard, Mulumba and Vaughters any day over Perry. 3 sacks last year. Two in a blowout of CHI. Zero after Matthews started playing inside. Zero.

 

Then I guess I don't see the need to discuss it. A better conversation here might be about the cuts happening to see if there is a diamond in the rough STer out there. Zook sure could use some help. Or maybe a punter to light a fire under Masthay.

 

 

If Masthay has a bad game again Thursday the Packers punter is currently not on the roster. 

 

It's a good thing you're not the GM.

Nick Perry is a 4-3 DE masquerading as an OLB. He put up 21 sacks as a DE in 3 years at USC. Yet we're talking about blowing early draft picks for a 4-3 DE. I'm missing something. We already have a really good 4-3 DE. 

 

 

Can anybody describe for us the difference between how Capers uses Perry and how a 4-3 DE is used in other schemes ?

 

They both battle OTs in the pass game

They both set the edge in the run game

So - on both passing and running plays, they do the exact same thing against the exact same opponent. Crazy huh ?

 

Occasionally, a 4-3 DE will drop into coverage on a zone blitz. Infrequently.

Occasionally Perry will drop into a zone to cover. Infrequently

 

They do the exact same thing in both scenarios.

So fer gawd's sake can we please stop regurgitating this idiotic meme ? 

Nick Perry is a 4-3 DE ! Ted screwed up !!

Crock-of-****ing- bull****.

 

Carry on 

Perry was recruited by Pete Carrol. Pete runs a 4-3 with DE's going forward 99.95% of the time hell bent on getting to to QB with fast small LB's cleaning up RB's that his disruptive front 4 missed. Which wasn't often. 

 

Perry had 24 total tackles as a freshman under Pete.  9 tackles for a loss and 9 sacks. He was a ****ing uncaged monster as a part time freshman. He he ran a 4.51 40 at 6'4 241 at USC his freshman year. 

 

Nick Perry is a 4-3 defensive end. Thats how he's wired. Ted didn't **** up. He bet on the pure athletic ability. 

 

When Perry was a rookie he had Hawk and Jones, and Doc Jennings and McMillian at safety. Not the time to turn a pass rusher loose at OLB. Read and limit damage kid. 

 

And if there's any question you can take the attack mentality out of a 4-3 DE and make him overthink his way through a 3-4 season lets both enjoy Jared Allen this year. 

 

The point is to examine possibilities outside the realm of what actually occurred.  For example, if we traded th Perry and Jones picks for real talent, would it have been enough to get us past Seattle last year?  More realistic example, if we never gave thus awful contracts to Jones and Hawk, could we have signed a different FA that would have been able to tackle Lynch in the 4th quarter.

 

Thompson has made mistakes, it doesn't make you less of a fan of the org to point them out and discuss alternatives.   Yes, he makes less mistakes than 90% of other GM's.

 

The Packers 2-4-5 (which looks exactly like the picture above) uses Perry... as a 4-3 DE... That's the point I'm trying to get across

He isn't being asked to become a traditional 3-4 OLB, he's being asked to play the role of a 4-3 DE, which is his strength.

 

 

Perry hasn't lived up to expectations because he is / was injured - not because he was somehow "miscast" as many here have suggested.

Yes, Nick Perry is built like a 4-3 DE and Yes that's exactly how the Packers are using him on Sundays.

Even Bostick would disagree with trading picks for "real talent". And he's out of work. 

 

That's what I keep writing in my letters to Monica Bellucci when I tell her about our long term relationship after I make her bark like a seal.

 

I'll give a difference, lining up right over the OT where a quick burst or bull rush will throw a OT vs. an OT setting up those few extra steps from the OLB position.  Point of attack is different, plain and simple.  They aren't always running him from a 2/4/5. 

 

Perry is a 4-3 DE and positioned himself as such during the draft trying to bulk up. Uncle Tranny Ted drafted him because he was more than athletic enough to make the transition.  Subtract the health issues, Perry's use of strength and bull rush, along with that athleticism lining up over a OT would've been a benefit for him.  I think he is the kind of athlete that would've put up good numbers anywhere if he isn't always hurt but he was made for a 4-3. 

 

There is a difference.

       
       


What's your point? Carl Bradford had 22 sacks in 3 years playing a "Devil Backer" at ASU.

Someone asked who I would have wanted to trade for. I said Kendricks or Mack. Big deal. Both would have been immediate upgrades.

Some of these other players simply are unknown quantities to many fans. Statistically, our young CBs are doing quite well, making a lot of plays in preseason to win jobs. Bradford, Vaughters, Hubbard are no different. I'm just pointing to players who are consistently showing up and making football plays as being the ones we should keep over the others who are not.

Henry,
Good call on the Monica Belucci barking thing. Keep writing. Could happen.

 

It helps if it's based in reality.  Khalil Mack?

I simply said I wondered what OAK's price might have been. WTF?

You mean to tell me, looking back, that you wouldn't have been excited about that as a draft day trade? Yeah, I was curious to know at what cost?

Offering up any idea to possibly make us better, without concern for ridicule, may as well be written on paper and shoved into a shredder.

Those are the kind of moves a bad GM makes.  Get to #5 for what would be a ILB in this scheme?  Julio Jones has racked up the championships for Atlanta.

       
       


Nope. Not to #5. I wanted to know their price for him this past April.

And that would be different how?

This isn't fantasy football. - Ted Thompson

 

Mack had a very good 2014 and if OAK would have considered trading him I agree with Brak, Hadl-like would have been the deal.

Wasn't Hawk drafted at #5? How did that work our??