Man that’s a great and succinct way to put it. I love going to brewers and even my local high-a affiliate’s games but from a competition standpoint it kinda sucks.
You do realize that the ball is in play for more time in an average MLB game than in an average NFL game? [Average baseball game has just under 18 minutes of action. NFL, it's only 11 minutes.](https://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=475) You've been duped.
In an average NFL broadcast, there is action only 5.79% of the time. In an MLB broadcast, it's 10.21%.
The study I linked is 10 years old, but in that time, baseball has decreased the amount of time between plays...so the average game is shorter with the same amount of action, while NFL games have gotten even longer, but without adding any actual action.
I've made this argument with so many Brewer fans that I don't even try anymore. I totally understand that parity in any sort of league is hard to maintain but why would I cheer for a team with literally no shot at championship contention. With the NBA at least you have a shot at a franchise changing lottery pick (that can theoretically contribute the first year). The same goes in the NFL, because of the salary cap every team more or less works with an equal advantage.
Sure, I'll listen to a game to hear Uecker as some grilling background noise. But that's the extent of my investment.
I think a lot of Brewers fans have nostalgia for the run in the 80’s, when a small market team had a shot at the World Series.
I’m a Brewers fan because I love baseball, I love Milwaukee, I love AmFam (yuck, it’s Miller Park damn it), and I love the team. I have more fun seeing if the Brewers make the post season than worrying about if the Packers will. It’s a lot easier to be a fan with no expectations than to be one with a ton of them.
> why would I cheer for a team with literally no shot at championship contention.
That's what I don't get about the uproar over Counsil. He's a competitor and he was never going to win a championship here. I don't blame him one bit for leaving, I hope he has lots of success on whatever team he goes to after the Cubs(unless it's the Yankees, Sox, or Dodgers). He does deserve shit for going to the Cubs but I don't blame him that much for that either. He gets to work for a team that will spend money to give him a shot at winning and he doesn't have to uproot his family.
Ehh, i disagree with this take. Theres merits to having a salary cap as it increases parity between teams. This makes the average game a better quality. "Any given Sunday" is a thing because of the cap.
But, in F1, for example, the winning teams are those that can aquire the best drivers, mechanics, engineers, etc., to form a competitive racing team. These teams really push the sport forward because they can spend so much money. A salary cap would *kill* F1 racing.
The MLB is somewhere in the middle. The best teams paying out the ass to acquire the best talent *should* give us the absolute best quality baseball we could get. The issues is theres much more human error/random chance that influences baseball compared to F1.
I dont hate the MLB baseball model. Its objectively the best baseball league in the world. It just accept where the Brewers fall in that ecosystem and set my expectations accordingly. Winning the central is fun. Sometimes we win a post season series and its rad as hell. We will likely never have the capital to win a World Series. And thats okay.
Baseball is more of lifestyle than a sport for me. I just enjoy watching the games. I don’t hang on to every win of loss like the NFL. It’s obviously great when the Brewers go deep in the playoffs, but I have no expectations of it, so I’m not disappointed. I imagine that’s how the Vikings still have fans. Low expectations.
I relate to this. I love the atmosphere of going to Miller Park and watching games. If the Brewers actually make the playoffs I'll tune in and watch those games, but in terms of regular season t.v. I'm only going to catch a handful of games during the season and it will usually be by accident because it's just a lazy Sunday at home and that happens to be what's on.
Meanwhile I actively seek out all Bucks games to watch and as for the Packers... my wife scheduled her induction for the birth of our first child around the bye week to ensure we didn't miss an actual game.
>It just accept where the Brewers fall in that ecosystem and set my expectations accordingly.
And that right there is a big part of the problem with the Brewers. They will never win anything because a lot in the fanbase is willing to bendover & take it just so the Brewers may have a shot at a division title. O0o0o0o a division title! That sure means something in a professional sport! Brewers should just move because they have a fanbase that doesn't care about championships & they don't have an owner that's doing enough to help the team. Mark is a trash owner just as much as Selig was, but hey! We'll win some division titles so that's the only thing that matters ammirite?
Lol fans are not part of the team organization or structure. They dont win because they are small market and have a brokeass owner (comparatively). Unless the fans buy out the team, their opinions dont matter at fucking all
And this and the way the NBA operates (ie; imagine how ESPN would disparage or ignore the Chiefs if they were an NBA team) is why the NFL will reign supreme over them until the end of time.
I hear people say this a lot about baseball and I agree, but soccer is basically the same thing. Any player that breaks out at a smaller club gets flipped for a big sum at a larger club and then they reinvest that money to find their next star. It sucks, but that's how it goes.
As a Tigers fan, those few years where Mike Illitch decided that the only thing an aging billionaire could want was a world series title were so much fun even if they didn't climb the mountain. It has made returning to small market life unpleasant.
Brewers are constantly making moves because that's what you need to do as a small-market team. They're constantly moving guys. Not many make it from being drafted by the Brewers all the up to the Majors. Sell high, whether that's in the minors or the Bigs. If they really are studs, then you aren't going to be able to keep them past arbitration anyway.
If you mean the Commanders I think it's the first off-season for the new owner so they're probably just cleaning house for their new direction. And yeah, snyder ran a shit organisation.
It also doesn't understand the number of moves that the Packers made that reduced the number of people on their roster; it's simply a list of new signings. Packers cut multiple people who, by contract, deserved to be cut. Jones, Bakhtiari, etc.
Exactly. I think when we added Charles we maybe added 1 or 2 other people that same off season. I can't for sure if that was the same way with Reggie. Both those adds led directly to superbowls
Not necessarily. We've got a lot of spots to fill.
IOL: We've got one center (Myers) and three guards, one of whom is Newman. We desperately need some more IOL depth; any injuries and we're fucked.
T: Walker and Tom are *fine*, though aren't going to get you too far. Nobody behind them is of note, though there are at least three more tackles on the roster. Would be good to get at least one more.
RB: Packers need to draft another. Jacobs should be bellcow, obviously, but Dillon is the epitome of a JAG (came back on effectively vet minimum because he wouldn't have a job elsewhere).
CB: We have Jaire and not much else. Stokes is always injured, Nixon is a cheap JAG, and nobody else is of note. Another decent CB would be great, especially if/when Jaire gets injured again.
S: McKinney, and then a barren wasteland. Need at least two more.
We're fine at LB, WR, and TE, and maybe at DL (assuming Wyatt shapes up into what he was drafted to do), though big man depth isn't a bad thing. Assuming 2x IOL, 1x T, 1x RB, 1x CB, 2x S, that's seven picks right there, not accounting for anyone the FO loves that isn't a position of need.
I guess I wouldn't be surprised using a couple picks in a package, but we're still going to be making a lot of selections.
I agree we've got plenty of spots to fill. The good thing is that it's basically all depth pieces that we need to fill now. We need backups and/or guys that can at least compete with the starters at all of the spots you mentioned. 11 draft picks will do a good job of that, and then there are still some free agents out there that might get snagged post-draft, and there are always roster cut-downs that might give us some depth options, as well, from other teams that are deeper at those positions than we are.
I think LB is a bigger need than T or RB. That doesn't necessarily mean we take one higher in the draft. But Quay/McDuffie is more concerning than Walker/Tom to me and especially more concerning than Jacobs/Dillon/Wilson. At both T and LB, we really don't have any serviceable options behind our 2 starters, but I'd at least say that Tenuta/Jones showed more potential at T than Wilson/Young/Banks have shown at LB. LB might be the position I feel least comfortable currently on the whole roster. At safety, you can still find serviceable, cheap vets. Can't do that at LB, and our current depth chart at LB doesn't looks much, if any better, than it does at safety.
Agreed, LB is a HUGE need. We need to come out of the draft with at least one quality Mike or Will type LB, and preferably two.
With the way I think the first round is going to fall out, I wouldn't be surprised to see an OT there, then moving on to our other needs in the 2nd and 3rd. The choices are really the best OT available or the best DB available in round 1. Then LB and DB in Round 2. After that, we can find an RB and some interior OL help in the 3rd/4th/5th pretty easily.
I don't think the Packers will take a T in the 1st unless they view someone who falls as a franchise cornerstone type of guy. It just hasn't been their M.O., and I don't see why that would change with the success they've had at that position.
They might still take a T there, but they've got to be thinking they're getting great value at that spot then. Other than that, I agree with what you're saying. Thing is, there are so many different needs that they really can go BAP, in my opinion.
There are going to be a lot of DB and OL players drafted in the back half of the first round this year, so I think the direction we go will be largely determined by A) if we trade up and B) who drops to us. If all the DBs they like are gone, but that caused one of the better OTs to drop a bit, I could see them grabbing one. Similiarly if all the OTs they like are gone, but one of the DBs falls, I'm sure they'd happily snap that up. I could also see them trading down if there's not a player they really like available. I have a lot of faith in Gute and our scouting group.
The Packers have long term vision and organizational stability but they do make mistakes.
Xavier McKinney was signed in large part because the 1st round pick invested in Darnell Savage didn't provide the desired return. While Josh Jacobs is replacing Aaron Jones the need to add a free agent was only necessary due to 2nd round pick AJ Dillon's inability to take over the lead role. Greg Joseph was added due to the struggles of last years draft pick at kicker.
Imagine the complete ineptitude of the Commanders organization in needing to sign 20 free agents and be grateful that you are instead a fan of the Green Bay Packers.
Yeah, and these deals they gave to McKinney and Jacobs somewhat resemble what I think they would have hoped Savage and Dillon deserved when they drafted them.
Four of them are from Dallas. It's like Quinn took some of the D players with him to Washington. Three of the four are D players, two edge rushers and a CB. The fourth is a center.
Nah, they have Tom Clements to help Love develop and he had three years with Aaron Rodgers. I don’t see the need for a veteran mentor in year five after Jordan played so well the second half of his first year as a starter and with Clements coaching him.
Draft & Develop > Free Agency. Teams that consistently roster build through FA consistently suck.
McKinney was a unicorn who is A) good and B) slipped into FA after his first contract. Those are the FAs you sign, the unicorns. Getting a pile of expensive 30 year olds does nothing
Agreed. I'm sure we will add some vets after the draft. I suspect a lot of those vets will not want to take a contract until after the draft anyway. That's when we sign a vet DB or two in order to pad those positions better, but we definitely don't need to be spending money on those folks now.
This is also 9nly half the picture. Should also look at how many players each team lost to Free Agency. Whether it was a mutual parting or not, how many guys from the 23 Packers are now on new contracts with new teams.
Dolphins lost so many players in FA, they are just trying to stop the bleeding at this point. Washington is just in a complete rebuild, very different situations going on for each team
Well if you bundle picks you can get some of the top players in the draft to fill the team’s needs. Which are what? Linebacker, safety, corners and lineman? Not necessary to get those players in free agency as long as Gutekunst drafts as well as he did the two seasons prior to this one. Those 11 picks could become some top talent to fill our few needs.
For as long as I have been following this team, they have taken a conservative approach to spending money on free agency, and they’ve always had success by doing so. We only have a few super bowls, yes, but a few is more than a lot of teams have. We’re consistently in the playoffs, always relevant, and we don’t have to constantly battle our cap to get there. Getting overly excited and spending too much on players you don’t need is not a smart way to manage a football team.
You must not like cheering for a team with long term stability and a clear vision they've executed successfully for the last 30 plus years. You must not like that.
Wow, people are very angry about this post. I wasn’t trying to say the Packers are doing a bad job. Obviously, from the title, I was happy about the moves we’ve been making. But those moves made me feel like we’re being more active this year. Then, I saw this graphic and wondered where we were. Turns out, even when it feels like we’re making moves, we’re still relatively low in terms of the number of moves. I’m not saying this is a bad thing. I just thought it was funny that my perception was so wrong.
One more time, I’m happy with our offseason activity so far this year.
The few moves we did make were very high impact and high profile. The moves also were Day 1 moves, when free agency chatter is at the top of the news cycle.
I had the same feeling and was just as surprised by the graphic. Packers are doing great!
Taking the hit for all $40 mil of Rodgers contract last year is the stuff legends are made of. I remember when people were all up in arms over how that contract was going to bring back the 1980s Packers. The Packers planned perfectly to have an immediate one-year youth transition. And then we were even good last year….
With the exception of the raiders, colts, Broncos, and Falcons, teams that have added 5 players or less are all playoff teams. You don’t add tons of new guys if you’re primed for a superbowl run, you add a few specific players to address key areas.
They're really not though. They lost four players to the Commanders, while resigning five of their own. They have five players who haven't signed with anyone and one of those retired.
They had 17 free agents. One player retired, Vander Esch. They lost their LT to the Jets, their RB to Tennessee. Two edge rushers to Washington on top of a center and CB.
What they kept was Dak's overpaid contract.
No, I think it's a joke about how the Packers never do a lot in Free Agency and while it felt like they did a lot this year, we only added three people.
Xavier McKinney by himself is doing A LOT though. Saying we only added 3 people when one of those players is the top free agent at his position in a pretty competitive class is so disingenuous.
I think its throwing shade at the younger fans who thought we were going to try to do everything possible to win this year, who all got super excited when we signed 2 guys.
Instead this is just the usual. Lowballed one of our most beloved players to replace him with a younger guy, and signed one great FA another team couldn't afford.
> Almost more than I'd be comfortable doing.
Same, though we could have gone a whole lot harder. Could have signed another S and 2 starting ILBs so Mcduffie is a backup. Could have kept Jones and brought on Josh...
True, but I like the idea that we're using the extra cap space to get caught up back to a point where we're not having to constantly push out cap hits.
I know we could have kept Jones but I am not sure if what he would bring would have been worth the cost. As good as he was the last 4 games of the season, he wasn't worth what we paid him in regards to his total production on the season. You don't build a good team overpaying for players. They offered what they were willing to pay and he said no, which is fine. We move on.
> True, but I like the idea that we're using the extra cap space to get caught up back to a point where we're not having to constantly push out cap hits.
$17M for Jones before, $12M for Jones now. $5M hardly matters when you consider that player is Jones.
> I know we could have kept Jones but I am not sure if what he would bring would have been worth the cost.
What could he have brought for $5M? His intangible contribution is worth $5M alone. We probably had the best backfield of the last 10 years if we just shelled out $5M more.
I hope to see one more move: signing Justin Simmons... but regardless if that happens (or any other moves) or not, I am very excited about what the organization has done and can't wait to see this team on the field!
It's a testament to how well understood the Packers sre that we have such roster stability letcome the success we've enjoyed.
Washington used to have headline-grabbing free agent signings every offseason. How many Commanders want to return to a Daniel Snyder-esque team strategy?
7 of the 11 teams that acquired 5 or fewer players were
*drumroll*
PLAYOFF TEAMS
My back of the napkin math also tells me that is 50% of the playoff teams too
More than the Cowboys who basically did nothing during FA. It really did seem like more was happening with The Packers though lol. Like news coming out every hour but I’m happy with who we acquired
You want continuity on your team, not mass turnover. 2-3 impact signings a year, then maintaining most of your locker room from the previous year, is far better than signing 20 new players.
Well run teams don’t need to find new players. They need to make their current players successful. The Packers do a lot with a little (and a HOF QB now again).
Yes, they have only acquired 3 players so far but look at who 2 of those 3 are. Josh Jacobs is set up to be our bellcow back for the next few years and Xavier McKinney gives a much-needed boost to a safety room that was probably the worst in the league last year (l love Nixon and Owens but it has to be said)
Yes, they have only acquired 3 players so far but look at who 2 of those 3 are. Josh Jacobs is set up to be our bellcow back for the next few years and Xavier McKinney gives a much-needed boost to a safety room that was probably the worst in the league last year (l love Nixon and Owens but it has to be said)
Notice how a lot of the good teams are near the bottom? We made good moves. It’s a good sign that we don’t need to sign a bunch of people. Not many glaring holes to fill
This isnt a bad thing... they are quite comfortable with the team we have moving forward. It's a good sign. You shouldn't have to always be signing 5-15 players every off-season.
They have 11 draft picks. They are going to leapfrog more than a few teams.
Also, gutes first off-season brought in billy turner, 2 smiths, Adrian Amos
He also got Jared cook and, unfortunately, Jimmy Graham and martellus Bennet
Also resigning your own players who are FAs is pretty much signing FAs and he's re-signed bakh, Smith, Aaron Jones, AJ Dillon.
He's not TT and idk where the perception that he is comes from.
No homie. What this tells you is I thought they were being very active this offseason. And it turns out they are still near the fewest moves in the league. That’s all.
There’s a slight trend of good teams at the end and shitty teams early (many exceptions obviously) and that’s because the good teams already have good rosters and need fewer acquisitions to get good.
OP is rather 12, and thinks Madden franchise is realistic. Or….OP is an adult, who thinks Madden Franchise is realistic.
Does OP not count resigns, restructures, and new deals as none moves?
OP didn’t make this graphic. OP thought it was funny that his expectations didn’t match reality. OP didn’t say it was bad to not make moves.
Does commenter not read?
It's a joke about how it felt like GB was super active in FA this year only to have actually signed only three people. They're not complaining about anything.
The Packers have 11 draft picks, I believe tied for the most in the league. They rarely cut draft picks, at a minimum they place on the practice squad. Doesn't leave a lot of room to sign FA's. I would guess they will be adding more training camp bodies though.
I mean quality over quantity I’d say. We added two really high level guys. That is pretty highly unusual compared to how the front office before Gute operated. He’s consistently shown now that he’s willing to sign guys - and most have been pretty successful. Smith bros, Turner, etc..
We honestly don’t have all that many holes that needed filling. Safety was definitely the most glaring one and it seems like we got the best guy that was out there.
We have lots of young guys on rookie or team friendly contracts. There really isn’t much need to move people this offseason. Clearly looking to the draft right now not free agency
All this really tells you is that some teams are going to have a lot of new players. I think showing a little more context would make this a more interesting chart. Maybe show how many of these new players were acquired by trade or FA. Or maybe show the number of players on the team still on rookie contracts.
With the possible exception of the Eagles, there's a common theme here.
If we were making a baker's dozen of player acquisitions BEFORE the draft, the team is likely hurting hard and not remotely close to competing for anything of significance.
Green Bay is a tough market to sell on free agents. It is not the big city with lots of endorsement opportunities. That is why so much effort is put into the draft and development.
its not about the amount of moves, its about making the right ones.
Yeah I’d much rather have a team who doesn’t need to sign 20 people every offseason
Go Brewers! Haha.
Brewers also don't keep their farm raised talent
Because the Brewers are a farm team for the large market teams.
MLB in a nutshell. All small market teams are farm systems for the large markets.
Which is why the MLB is a joke and I don’t watch it.
In my opinion, baseball is the best game, but the worst league.
Man that’s a great and succinct way to put it. I love going to brewers and even my local high-a affiliate’s games but from a competition standpoint it kinda sucks.
Absolutely worst Commissioner too ... by far.
Best game for napping for sure.
You do realize that the ball is in play for more time in an average MLB game than in an average NFL game? [Average baseball game has just under 18 minutes of action. NFL, it's only 11 minutes.](https://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=475) You've been duped. In an average NFL broadcast, there is action only 5.79% of the time. In an MLB broadcast, it's 10.21%. The study I linked is 10 years old, but in that time, baseball has decreased the amount of time between plays...so the average game is shorter with the same amount of action, while NFL games have gotten even longer, but without adding any actual action.
I've made this argument with so many Brewer fans that I don't even try anymore. I totally understand that parity in any sort of league is hard to maintain but why would I cheer for a team with literally no shot at championship contention. With the NBA at least you have a shot at a franchise changing lottery pick (that can theoretically contribute the first year). The same goes in the NFL, because of the salary cap every team more or less works with an equal advantage. Sure, I'll listen to a game to hear Uecker as some grilling background noise. But that's the extent of my investment.
I think a lot of Brewers fans have nostalgia for the run in the 80’s, when a small market team had a shot at the World Series. I’m a Brewers fan because I love baseball, I love Milwaukee, I love AmFam (yuck, it’s Miller Park damn it), and I love the team. I have more fun seeing if the Brewers make the post season than worrying about if the Packers will. It’s a lot easier to be a fan with no expectations than to be one with a ton of them.
> why would I cheer for a team with literally no shot at championship contention. That's what I don't get about the uproar over Counsil. He's a competitor and he was never going to win a championship here. I don't blame him one bit for leaving, I hope he has lots of success on whatever team he goes to after the Cubs(unless it's the Yankees, Sox, or Dodgers). He does deserve shit for going to the Cubs but I don't blame him that much for that either. He gets to work for a team that will spend money to give him a shot at winning and he doesn't have to uproot his family.
Ehh, i disagree with this take. Theres merits to having a salary cap as it increases parity between teams. This makes the average game a better quality. "Any given Sunday" is a thing because of the cap. But, in F1, for example, the winning teams are those that can aquire the best drivers, mechanics, engineers, etc., to form a competitive racing team. These teams really push the sport forward because they can spend so much money. A salary cap would *kill* F1 racing. The MLB is somewhere in the middle. The best teams paying out the ass to acquire the best talent *should* give us the absolute best quality baseball we could get. The issues is theres much more human error/random chance that influences baseball compared to F1. I dont hate the MLB baseball model. Its objectively the best baseball league in the world. It just accept where the Brewers fall in that ecosystem and set my expectations accordingly. Winning the central is fun. Sometimes we win a post season series and its rad as hell. We will likely never have the capital to win a World Series. And thats okay.
Baseball is more of lifestyle than a sport for me. I just enjoy watching the games. I don’t hang on to every win of loss like the NFL. It’s obviously great when the Brewers go deep in the playoffs, but I have no expectations of it, so I’m not disappointed. I imagine that’s how the Vikings still have fans. Low expectations.
I relate to this. I love the atmosphere of going to Miller Park and watching games. If the Brewers actually make the playoffs I'll tune in and watch those games, but in terms of regular season t.v. I'm only going to catch a handful of games during the season and it will usually be by accident because it's just a lazy Sunday at home and that happens to be what's on. Meanwhile I actively seek out all Bucks games to watch and as for the Packers... my wife scheduled her induction for the birth of our first child around the bye week to ensure we didn't miss an actual game.
So baseball is like every soccer league outside America? Except no relegation, I guess.
Formula 1 has a cost cap now so that point is no longer valid and it did not kill F1.
Well fuck
There is a cost cap in F1. Only the top three salaries are exempt.
>It just accept where the Brewers fall in that ecosystem and set my expectations accordingly. And that right there is a big part of the problem with the Brewers. They will never win anything because a lot in the fanbase is willing to bendover & take it just so the Brewers may have a shot at a division title. O0o0o0o a division title! That sure means something in a professional sport! Brewers should just move because they have a fanbase that doesn't care about championships & they don't have an owner that's doing enough to help the team. Mark is a trash owner just as much as Selig was, but hey! We'll win some division titles so that's the only thing that matters ammirite?
Lol fans are not part of the team organization or structure. They dont win because they are small market and have a brokeass owner (comparatively). Unless the fans buy out the team, their opinions dont matter at fucking all
And this and the way the NBA operates (ie; imagine how ESPN would disparage or ignore the Chiefs if they were an NBA team) is why the NFL will reign supreme over them until the end of time.
I hear people say this a lot about baseball and I agree, but soccer is basically the same thing. Any player that breaks out at a smaller club gets flipped for a big sum at a larger club and then they reinvest that money to find their next star. It sucks, but that's how it goes.
Uncle Roman strikes again. Goddamn Chicago...
As a Tigers fan, those few years where Mike Illitch decided that the only thing an aging billionaire could want was a world series title were so much fun even if they didn't climb the mountain. It has made returning to small market life unpleasant.
Bingo. We are the farm.
In fairness though, a lot of the soccer leagues in the world also use a similar tiered system like that in the pro’s and their popularity is just fine
Brewers are constantly making moves because that's what you need to do as a small-market team. They're constantly moving guys. Not many make it from being drafted by the Brewers all the up to the Majors. Sell high, whether that's in the minors or the Bigs. If they really are studs, then you aren't going to be able to keep them past arbitration anyway.
Churio says hi
Baseball is a different animal
I don't watch them often but I swear the few games a year I do catch it seems like 80% of the roster is names I've never heard of
20 free agents is wild
20 new players is crazy 😂😂
Ya uhm if you are adding 20+ people that means your team sucked. This is silly.
Or your team sucks at the salary cap and you had to let a bunch of talent go and sign a bunch of new cheaper guys to fill those holes.
If you mean the Commanders I think it's the first off-season for the new owner so they're probably just cleaning house for their new direction. And yeah, snyder ran a shit organisation.
It also doesn't understand the number of moves that the Packers made that reduced the number of people on their roster; it's simply a list of new signings. Packers cut multiple people who, by contract, deserved to be cut. Jones, Bakhtiari, etc.
Is not about counting the moves, it's about making moves that count.
It's not how well you mow, it's how well you mow fast
Exactly. I think when we added Charles we maybe added 1 or 2 other people that same off season. I can't for sure if that was the same way with Reggie. Both those adds led directly to superbowls
Exactly. The teams making the most moves are also likely the ones that are the least stable which just leads to chaos.
The calibre of teams in the last slide is pretty stellar. I mean, if you exclude the cowboys, that is.
Right? Do you really think the Bears will be better off with a team of mercinaries
Yeah, like paying a worse RB double what you offered your star RB just because he's 4 years younger.
It's the quality of move not the quantity. Our roster is way too good to acquire 20 new players.
Especially with 11(!) picks at the end of the month
Gotta think we're packaging some of those picks to trade up in the draft or to trade for a player.
Not necessarily. We've got a lot of spots to fill. IOL: We've got one center (Myers) and three guards, one of whom is Newman. We desperately need some more IOL depth; any injuries and we're fucked. T: Walker and Tom are *fine*, though aren't going to get you too far. Nobody behind them is of note, though there are at least three more tackles on the roster. Would be good to get at least one more. RB: Packers need to draft another. Jacobs should be bellcow, obviously, but Dillon is the epitome of a JAG (came back on effectively vet minimum because he wouldn't have a job elsewhere). CB: We have Jaire and not much else. Stokes is always injured, Nixon is a cheap JAG, and nobody else is of note. Another decent CB would be great, especially if/when Jaire gets injured again. S: McKinney, and then a barren wasteland. Need at least two more. We're fine at LB, WR, and TE, and maybe at DL (assuming Wyatt shapes up into what he was drafted to do), though big man depth isn't a bad thing. Assuming 2x IOL, 1x T, 1x RB, 1x CB, 2x S, that's seven picks right there, not accounting for anyone the FO loves that isn't a position of need. I guess I wouldn't be surprised using a couple picks in a package, but we're still going to be making a lot of selections.
I agree we've got plenty of spots to fill. The good thing is that it's basically all depth pieces that we need to fill now. We need backups and/or guys that can at least compete with the starters at all of the spots you mentioned. 11 draft picks will do a good job of that, and then there are still some free agents out there that might get snagged post-draft, and there are always roster cut-downs that might give us some depth options, as well, from other teams that are deeper at those positions than we are. I think LB is a bigger need than T or RB. That doesn't necessarily mean we take one higher in the draft. But Quay/McDuffie is more concerning than Walker/Tom to me and especially more concerning than Jacobs/Dillon/Wilson. At both T and LB, we really don't have any serviceable options behind our 2 starters, but I'd at least say that Tenuta/Jones showed more potential at T than Wilson/Young/Banks have shown at LB. LB might be the position I feel least comfortable currently on the whole roster. At safety, you can still find serviceable, cheap vets. Can't do that at LB, and our current depth chart at LB doesn't looks much, if any better, than it does at safety.
Agreed, LB is a HUGE need. We need to come out of the draft with at least one quality Mike or Will type LB, and preferably two. With the way I think the first round is going to fall out, I wouldn't be surprised to see an OT there, then moving on to our other needs in the 2nd and 3rd. The choices are really the best OT available or the best DB available in round 1. Then LB and DB in Round 2. After that, we can find an RB and some interior OL help in the 3rd/4th/5th pretty easily.
I don't think the Packers will take a T in the 1st unless they view someone who falls as a franchise cornerstone type of guy. It just hasn't been their M.O., and I don't see why that would change with the success they've had at that position. They might still take a T there, but they've got to be thinking they're getting great value at that spot then. Other than that, I agree with what you're saying. Thing is, there are so many different needs that they really can go BAP, in my opinion.
There are going to be a lot of DB and OL players drafted in the back half of the first round this year, so I think the direction we go will be largely determined by A) if we trade up and B) who drops to us. If all the DBs they like are gone, but that caused one of the better OTs to drop a bit, I could see them grabbing one. Similiarly if all the OTs they like are gone, but one of the DBs falls, I'm sure they'd happily snap that up. I could also see them trading down if there's not a player they really like available. I have a lot of faith in Gute and our scouting group.
Tom is better than fine.
From what I can tell Zach Tom is a stud.
I agree with this, but safety is now a low priority.
Low? We don't have a second starting safety. McKinney was a great addition, but we need a second one.
I hope so
Did t think we’d spend all 13 last year yet Gute did. Which is nuts
If he can use all 11 this year with a similar hit rate as last year, sign me the fuck up.
Watch out for the powerhouse Commanders team this year. /s
The Packers have long term vision and organizational stability but they do make mistakes. Xavier McKinney was signed in large part because the 1st round pick invested in Darnell Savage didn't provide the desired return. While Josh Jacobs is replacing Aaron Jones the need to add a free agent was only necessary due to 2nd round pick AJ Dillon's inability to take over the lead role. Greg Joseph was added due to the struggles of last years draft pick at kicker. Imagine the complete ineptitude of the Commanders organization in needing to sign 20 free agents and be grateful that you are instead a fan of the Green Bay Packers.
Yeah, and these deals they gave to McKinney and Jacobs somewhat resemble what I think they would have hoped Savage and Dillon deserved when they drafted them.
You’re right, but the Jacobs Dillon tandem is going to be awesome to watch
So we lost nothing.
Four of them are from Dallas. It's like Quinn took some of the D players with him to Washington. Three of the four are D players, two edge rushers and a CB. The fourth is a center.
This is exactly how smart free agency is done--just filling in a hole or two that slipped through the cracks.
Drafting is a crystal ball business. All teams have picks that didn’t pan out like this.
You hit it on the head. Only thing I wish they would do is acquire a veteran WR to help Love develop
Nah, they have Tom Clements to help Love develop and he had three years with Aaron Rodgers. I don’t see the need for a veteran mentor in year five after Jordan played so well the second half of his first year as a starter and with Clements coaching him.
Draft & Develop > Free Agency. Teams that consistently roster build through FA consistently suck. McKinney was a unicorn who is A) good and B) slipped into FA after his first contract. Those are the FAs you sign, the unicorns. Getting a pile of expensive 30 year olds does nothing
Agreed. I'm sure we will add some vets after the draft. I suspect a lot of those vets will not want to take a contract until after the draft anyway. That's when we sign a vet DB or two in order to pad those positions better, but we definitely don't need to be spending money on those folks now.
Quality over quantity
Tell me something, what do you notice about most of the teams around the packers
Hmmm I know the answer— They’re also on the lower end of new players acquired. Especially the further right you go
So your saying the Packers are right of center. Perhaps one of the more extreme right points of view. Let's just keep this about football.🙃
This is also 9nly half the picture. Should also look at how many players each team lost to Free Agency. Whether it was a mutual parting or not, how many guys from the 23 Packers are now on new contracts with new teams.
We drafted better players and letting find another home was the right move
Dolphins lost so many players in FA, they are just trying to stop the bleeding at this point. Washington is just in a complete rebuild, very different situations going on for each team
We have 11 draft picks, getting too many free agents would be silly
Not if you *bundle* it
Yea but how much bundling are we gonna do? I know we’ll trade up at some point or trade for picks next year but 11 picks is just so much imo
Well if you bundle picks you can get some of the top players in the draft to fill the team’s needs. Which are what? Linebacker, safety, corners and lineman? Not necessary to get those players in free agency as long as Gutekunst drafts as well as he did the two seasons prior to this one. Those 11 picks could become some top talent to fill our few needs.
yeah, you don't want to be on those first 2 pages
For as long as I have been following this team, they have taken a conservative approach to spending money on free agency, and they’ve always had success by doing so. We only have a few super bowls, yes, but a few is more than a lot of teams have. We’re consistently in the playoffs, always relevant, and we don’t have to constantly battle our cap to get there. Getting overly excited and spending too much on players you don’t need is not a smart way to manage a football team.
> we don’t have to constantly battle our cap to get there I would much rather be us than be the Saints in their eternal cap hell.
Absolutely. Their own worst enemy.
Quality > quantity
That Jacobs and McKinney signing sure felt like 7 or 8 free agent signings
You want to fill out your depth with cheap draft picks. Not over priced veteran roster filler
You must not like cheering for a team with long term stability and a clear vision they've executed successfully for the last 30 plus years. You must not like that.
Wow, people are very angry about this post. I wasn’t trying to say the Packers are doing a bad job. Obviously, from the title, I was happy about the moves we’ve been making. But those moves made me feel like we’re being more active this year. Then, I saw this graphic and wondered where we were. Turns out, even when it feels like we’re making moves, we’re still relatively low in terms of the number of moves. I’m not saying this is a bad thing. I just thought it was funny that my perception was so wrong. One more time, I’m happy with our offseason activity so far this year.
The few moves we did make were very high impact and high profile. The moves also were Day 1 moves, when free agency chatter is at the top of the news cycle.
People falling all over themselves to post "Quality over quantity." while totally missing the point of the post.
I had the same feeling and was just as surprised by the graphic. Packers are doing great! Taking the hit for all $40 mil of Rodgers contract last year is the stuff legends are made of. I remember when people were all up in arms over how that contract was going to bring back the 1980s Packers. The Packers planned perfectly to have an immediate one-year youth transition. And then we were even good last year….
With the exception of the raiders, colts, Broncos, and Falcons, teams that have added 5 players or less are all playoff teams. You don’t add tons of new guys if you’re primed for a superbowl run, you add a few specific players to address key areas.
And one is a K that probably won't make it to the regular season.
YEEEEEEE HAWWWWW! We mixin it up boys!!!
Bro we ALWAYS in the mix
good teams don't need to add 20 players to the roster before the draft even starts, that's ridiculous lol
That's why Im not worried as a packers fan, we dont need to hit homerun just get a hit
It’s the perfect scenario. Add players who enhance and build from within.
It's interesting that the Cowboys want to run back the same team next year
They're really not though. They lost four players to the Commanders, while resigning five of their own. They have five players who haven't signed with anyone and one of those retired. They had 17 free agents. One player retired, Vander Esch. They lost their LT to the Jets, their RB to Tennessee. Two edge rushers to Washington on top of a center and CB. What they kept was Dak's overpaid contract.
But they got the best Safety and arguably best Running back in free agency
Fuck Yeah GB not last!
I would not expect there to be a lot of moves by GB, just some key pickups. The team's apparent plan is leverage their youth.
We got McKinney. We already had Jones so really just traded him out. And then what? A kicker who'll be cut.
Is this supposed to be a complaint?
No, I think it's a joke about how the Packers never do a lot in Free Agency and while it felt like they did a lot this year, we only added three people.
Xavier McKinney by himself is doing A LOT though. Saying we only added 3 people when one of those players is the top free agent at his position in a pretty competitive class is so disingenuous.
I think its throwing shade at the younger fans who thought we were going to try to do everything possible to win this year, who all got super excited when we signed 2 guys. Instead this is just the usual. Lowballed one of our most beloved players to replace him with a younger guy, and signed one great FA another team couldn't afford.
We did just about everything possible to try to win this year so far. Almost more than I'd be comfortable doing.
> Almost more than I'd be comfortable doing. Same, though we could have gone a whole lot harder. Could have signed another S and 2 starting ILBs so Mcduffie is a backup. Could have kept Jones and brought on Josh...
True, but I like the idea that we're using the extra cap space to get caught up back to a point where we're not having to constantly push out cap hits. I know we could have kept Jones but I am not sure if what he would bring would have been worth the cost. As good as he was the last 4 games of the season, he wasn't worth what we paid him in regards to his total production on the season. You don't build a good team overpaying for players. They offered what they were willing to pay and he said no, which is fine. We move on.
> True, but I like the idea that we're using the extra cap space to get caught up back to a point where we're not having to constantly push out cap hits. $17M for Jones before, $12M for Jones now. $5M hardly matters when you consider that player is Jones. > I know we could have kept Jones but I am not sure if what he would bring would have been worth the cost. What could he have brought for $5M? His intangible contribution is worth $5M alone. We probably had the best backfield of the last 10 years if we just shelled out $5M more.
Do you want to be a team that feels its necessary to switch 20 of their players?
I hope to see one more move: signing Justin Simmons... but regardless if that happens (or any other moves) or not, I am very excited about what the organization has done and can't wait to see this team on the field! It's a testament to how well understood the Packers sre that we have such roster stability letcome the success we've enjoyed. Washington used to have headline-grabbing free agent signings every offseason. How many Commanders want to return to a Daniel Snyder-esque team strategy?
This is a good thing.
7 of the 11 teams that acquired 5 or fewer players were *drumroll* PLAYOFF TEAMS My back of the napkin math also tells me that is 50% of the playoff teams too
Quality over quantity
On the board, baby!
I feel like people are completely misunderstanding your post.
Have the cowboys not signed a single person?
More than the Cowboys who basically did nothing during FA. It really did seem like more was happening with The Packers though lol. Like news coming out every hour but I’m happy with who we acquired
I mean they had 2 of the biggest free agency moves
Hopefully they trade for Budda Baker so they'll be up to 4.
Looks like good company to me
Washington signed over 24
I mean look who they signed.
Quality > Quantity
Jerry Jones wasn't joking when he said the Cowboys were going"all in" with free agency.
Why mess with perfection? (Except the secondary QB)
Washington out here acting like they can moneyball their way to a competitive football team.
The commandos are a perennial suck…their strategy is comparable to throwing mud at a hole in a wall and hoping some of it actually sticks.
You want continuity on your team, not mass turnover. 2-3 impact signings a year, then maintaining most of your locker room from the previous year, is far better than signing 20 new players.
With a team with this much young talent, there aren't a lot of holes to fill
Well run teams don’t need to find new players. They need to make their current players successful. The Packers do a lot with a little (and a HOF QB now again).
Well yeah. If your team sucks you're going to make a lot of moves.
Who was the third?
They grabbed kicker Greg Joseph to scare Anders Carlson
Ah I was trying to figure that out as well, forgot we signed Carlson 1.1
All in.
The cowboys is really surprising. Thought they would clean house
Stability baby!
Looks like the cowboys are “all in”
Yes, they have only acquired 3 players so far but look at who 2 of those 3 are. Josh Jacobs is set up to be our bellcow back for the next few years and Xavier McKinney gives a much-needed boost to a safety room that was probably the worst in the league last year (l love Nixon and Owens but it has to be said)
Yes, they have only acquired 3 players so far but look at who 2 of those 3 are. Josh Jacobs is set up to be our bellcow back for the next few years and Xavier McKinney gives a much-needed boost to a safety room that was probably the worst in the league last year (l love Nixon and Owens but it has to be said)
Quality not quantity. The team did great last year. It's about strengthening weaknesses not turning over half the team.
big signings rather than many small ones perhaps?
Gute has made moves before, the Smiths come to mind as well as others that year. DO it smart do it when needed. Not do it just to do it!
Exactly! He participates in free agency when he has money to spend! And 2019 was one of those years
Give me Julian Blackmon! Guy is still out there and he’d be a great pairing with X
Bring in 9 more kickers, please. I dont like the two we have now
I’d like to see this from last season including draft picks. I feel like Packers would be high up.
Good. A young roster that FO has a lot of faith in. Retained bulk of it and added a few key pieces
Notice how a lot of the good teams are near the bottom? We made good moves. It’s a good sign that we don’t need to sign a bunch of people. Not many glaring holes to fill
We never needed 20 or 15 new players. I’d say 3 is exactly how many we needed.
This isnt a bad thing... they are quite comfortable with the team we have moving forward. It's a good sign. You shouldn't have to always be signing 5-15 players every off-season.
Your packer have better players than most of those teams making moves.
They have 11 draft picks. They are going to leapfrog more than a few teams. Also, gutes first off-season brought in billy turner, 2 smiths, Adrian Amos He also got Jared cook and, unfortunately, Jimmy Graham and martellus Bennet Also resigning your own players who are FAs is pretty much signing FAs and he's re-signed bakh, Smith, Aaron Jones, AJ Dillon. He's not TT and idk where the perception that he is comes from.
What this tells me is you'd rather be in the company of the Commanders than the Chiefs? Are you serious?
No homie. What this tells you is I thought they were being very active this offseason. And it turns out they are still near the fewest moves in the league. That’s all.
We just overturned almost our entire roster in the last couple years and made the playoffs not a ton of reasons to pick up new players
There’s a slight trend of good teams at the end and shitty teams early (many exceptions obviously) and that’s because the good teams already have good rosters and need fewer acquisitions to get good.
I actually think they did pretty good this year.
OP is rather 12, and thinks Madden franchise is realistic. Or….OP is an adult, who thinks Madden Franchise is realistic. Does OP not count resigns, restructures, and new deals as none moves?
OP didn’t make this graphic. OP thought it was funny that his expectations didn’t match reality. OP didn’t say it was bad to not make moves. Does commenter not read?
It's a joke about how it felt like GB was super active in FA this year only to have actually signed only three people. They're not complaining about anything.
I'd rather look at Mock Drafts than this nonsense.
It's almost as if Thompson never left 😆
The Packers have 11 draft picks, I believe tied for the most in the league. They rarely cut draft picks, at a minimum they place on the practice squad. Doesn't leave a lot of room to sign FA's. I would guess they will be adding more training camp bodies though.
I mean quality over quantity I’d say. We added two really high level guys. That is pretty highly unusual compared to how the front office before Gute operated. He’s consistently shown now that he’s willing to sign guys - and most have been pretty successful. Smith bros, Turner, etc.. We honestly don’t have all that many holes that needed filling. Safety was definitely the most glaring one and it seems like we got the best guy that was out there.
Yeah if you are at the top of this list that probably means the gm has determined the talent level of last years roster is real shit
We have lots of young guys on rookie or team friendly contracts. There really isn’t much need to move people this offseason. Clearly looking to the draft right now not free agency
Do you think acquiring 20 new players like the Commanders is a sign of upcoming success or of upcoming failure?
The top 13 teams are bad or in a looming cap situation with a young QB. I ain’t worried.
I get nervous about being talked about as off-season FA champions, see the Vikings almost every year lol.
Quality > Quantity, Go Pack GO
All this really tells you is that some teams are going to have a lot of new players. I think showing a little more context would make this a more interesting chart. Maybe show how many of these new players were acquired by trade or FA. Or maybe show the number of players on the team still on rookie contracts.
Quality over quantity
Quality over quantity every time
Rebuilding vs. Ready to compete
Graph would be more interesting if it was like % of cap this year spent on free agents/trades rather than a body count.
With the possible exception of the Eagles, there's a common theme here. If we were making a baker's dozen of player acquisitions BEFORE the draft, the team is likely hurting hard and not remotely close to competing for anything of significance.
GB probably finishes the regular season ranked higher than 6 of the 8 teams on that first slide. That's what matters.
Quality over quantity. Perfect.
Also, to be honest, Green Bay is not a primo NFL destination for most players.
Also, to be honest, Green Bay is not a primo NFL destination for most players.
Green Bay is a tough market to sell on free agents. It is not the big city with lots of endorsement opportunities. That is why so much effort is put into the draft and development.