RealGM

Some here diss signing big $ FAs citing the many true disasters ala Joe Johnson.

Many cite teams like skins & vikes as being annual buyers with nothing to show.

Well....

FAs signed who were named All Pros -
G Hutchinson, RB Turner

Big trades that made all Pro - DE Allen

FAs signed who were named to ProBowl -
G Faneca, DL Jenkins, CB Woodson

probably others I missed.

Looks like Vikes did very well spending big $ as did Jets. Falcons must be happy.

Then are many other FAs who played well but didn't make post season honors - Moss.

Sure many FAs bust but many do excellent as do some teams who spend. Not so different from draft where some rookies sizzle and just as many fizzle.

FA can be great- even big $ FAs - but like the draft & trades you gotta know what your doing.

In the face of our OL & DL & RB needs over past 3 years, the players available and the cap $ we've had available, TT seems scared and cheap. Especially in light of the fact he hasn't exactly been overwhelming with his draft success.

And his choice to give more than logical $ to bubba, popp & grant further shows his lack of consistent good judgement.

With TT's personnel strategy its really hit & miss. Trial & error. Quantity over quality.

Good luck this off season Ted. You seem to need it.

eagle13 wrote:Some here diss signing big $ FAs citing the many true disasters ala Joe Johnson.

Many cite teams like skins & vikes as being annual buyers with nothing to show.

Well....

FAs signed who were named All Pros -
G Hutchinson, RB Turner

Big trades that made all Pro - DE Allen

FAs signed who were named to ProBowl -
G Faneca, DL Jenkins, CB Woodson

probably others I missed.

Looks like Vikes did very well spending big $ as did Jets. Falcons must be happy.

Then are many other FAs who played well but didn't make post season honors - Moss.

Sure many FAs bust but many do excellent as do some teams who spend. Not so different from draft where some rookies sizzle and just as many fizzle.

FA can be great- even big $ FAs - but like the draft & trades you gotta know what your doing.

In the face of our OL & DL & RB needs over past 3 years, the players available and the cap $ we've had available, TT seems scared and cheap. Especially in light of the fact he hasn't exactly been overwhelming with his draft success.

And his choice to give more than logical $ to bubba, popp & grant further shows his lack of consistent good judgement.

With TT's personnel strategy its really hit & miss. Trial & error. Quantity over quality.

Good luck this off season Ted. You seem to need it.

Vikings and the Jets are awesome examples of teams that have spent a lot and have been so productive, I mean they both are in contention for....um, well at least the Vikings have been dominating the North division for...um...I am so happy that you were able to pick out a few examples of the 100's of free agents that were signed, the evidence is clearly in your favor....and I know how much you enjoy my sarcasm, I luv giving it to you as well.

The Vikes and Jets did well spending? The Jets didn't make the playoffs and the Vikings shouldn't have. And I don't think Grant's contract is bad at all. He's a good back running behind a below average line and he still salvaged almost 1200 yards. What free agents would you have signed last off-season?

As much as I hate the guy, the Jared Allen trade/signing was a good one for the Queens. He's exactly the kind of player we need. He was certainly worth Brandon Flowers, Jamaal Charles and DaJuan Morgan. Yeah the Queens flamed out in round one but it wasn't because of the Allen trade.

xTitan wrote:Vikings and the Jets are awesome examples of teams that have spent a lot and have been so productive, I mean they both are in contention for....um, well at least the Vikings have been dominating the North division for...um...I am so happy that you were able to pick out a few examples of the 100's of free agents that were signed, the evidence is clearly in your favor....and I know how much you enjoy my sarcasm, I luv giving it to you as well.

I know you enjoy being a dick. But thats OK because your really good at it. Gotta go with your strengths! Especially when you have so few.

Actually I was trying to be balanced acknowledging the disasters like the Joe Johnsons.
Just trying to show that FAs also succeed.
But some people prefer their opinions over the facts.
The Jets were leading their division & did not lose b/c of their FA signings.
And yes I consider $ well spent if $ brought in 2 guys that make the Pro Bowl.
And the Vikings are in the playoffs (unfortunately) & we're not.

I just want the Pack to win - just like you do.
Just seems you care more about defending tt than examining all options to help the team.

eagle13 wrote:

xTitan wrote:Vikings and the Jets are awesome examples of teams that have spent a lot and have been so productive, I mean they both are in contention for....um, well at least the Vikings have been dominating the North division for...um...I am so happy that you were able to pick out a few examples of the 100's of free agents that were signed, the evidence is clearly in your favor....and I know how much you enjoy my sarcasm, I luv giving it to you as well.

I know you enjoy being a dick. But thats OK because your really good at it. Gotta go with your strengths! Especially when you have so few.

Actually I was trying to be balanced acknowledging the disasters like the Joe Johnsons.
Just trying to show that FAs also succeed.
But some people prefer their opinions over the facts.
The Jets were leading their division & did not lose b/c of their FA signings.
And yes I consider $ well spent if $ brought in 2 guys that make the Pro Bowl.
And the Vikings are in the playoffs (unfortunately) & we're not.

I just want the Pack to win - just like you do.
Just seems you care more about defending tt than examining all options to help the team.

Actually, you are wrong like usual, so being a "dick" as you say is so easy....you mentioned 5 free agents in your original post who were either pro-bowlers or all-pro's and of the 5, one was signed by TT, so by your very own example he is far and away much better at judging free agents than the majority of GMs, you must recognize the stupidity of your statement. I am about winning and i think TT has actually done better in free agency than most teams, would I like to see him get a couple more players this year? The answer is yes, but you have to be conservative because based upon your very own arguement you prove my point, most FA's are busts..........................TT made 2 great moves last year, letting Favre go and Corey Williams go....but he made a huge mistake by not replacing Willaims and building better lines....I have no problems admitting that.

MickeyDavis wrote:As much as I hate the guy, the Jared Allen trade/signing was a good one for the Queens. He's exactly the kind of player we need. He was certainly worth Brandon Flowers, Jamaal Charles and DaJuan Morgan. Yeah the Queens flamed out in round one but it wasn't because of the Allen trade.

Yep

I think many people are way off base and don't even think about what exactly the Vikings have done in free agency before just throwing out some pretty silly mocking of what they actually did with their free agency dollars. All that's ever said is, well we don't see the Viking dominating after all their spending, blah blah blah.

Pat Williams--- Anyone going to actually try and argue that he was a bad signing?

Antoine Winfield-- Anyone going to say Winfield hasn't easily justified his signing?

Steve Hutchinson--- He no longer is probably a top 5 guard in the NFL, but he's still clearly above average and the best guard in our division. At age 32 he's not some old man either and with the explosion of salaries, his contract is reasonable.

Bernard Berrian--- The Queens may have overpaid Berrian a bit given he's more a great deep threat than very well rounded, but they had a pitiful WR core and to have back to back 1000 yard season with the scrub QB's throwing to him the last two years, Berrian was far from a bust signing.

Jered Allen-- He was a mix of trade/free agent signing. The Vikings no question paid a hefty price in both draft picks and money for Allen, but in return they got one of the best defensive ends in the game who is also only 26 years old.

Chester Taylor-- Quality running back that has produced for them, just so happens that unfortunately multiple teams passed on Peterson, so now he's a top notch backup

Darren Sharper-- Hasn't been an elite safety anymore for awhile, but he wasn't paid a ton of money and has been solid for them.

So all i ask is where are the big mistakes the Vikings made in free agency? I see plenty of good from their signings and unlike other teams, not a bust in the whole bunch.

The reason the Vikings haven't advanced further the last couple years isn't the free agent spending, name me the quality young players of their own they lost because of being capped out from free agents signings? The reason they haven't advanced farther is the thankfully bad hiring of Childress, mediocre at best drafting, and the other huge huge reason, Gus Frerotte, Tarvaris Jackson, and a washed up Brad Johnson has been their quarterbacks the last three years.

Good luck in the NFL trying to be a big winner when you have a bad head coach and a terrible QB situation. If it hadn't been for the Vikings good free agent signings and Adrian Peterson, they'd have been lucky to win four games each of the last two years. There are plenty of examples out there of teams wasting big money in free agency while getting little production in return, Minnesota though isn't one of them.

You can actually add even more solid FA signings:

Longwell
Ben Leber
Shiancoe
Bobby Wade (nothing spectacular obviously, but with their crappy WRs...)

They gave Madieu Williams a huge deal, and I think he played well after coming back from injury. The jury is still out on that one, though.

It doesn't matter who the Vikings signed because they're sitting at home watching football just like us. (Or they could be lounging on the sex boat) If 8-8 is as far as all those signings could take them then I'm more than comfortable building the Packers through the draft and only signing free agents when you know FOR SURE, that they're going to fit into your scheme and play at a high level.

They were actually 10-6 this year, aaprigs.

Ayt wrote:They were actually 10-6 this year, aaprigs.

Yeah, yeah. My point is they're an average to below average team even with all those decent signings and trades.

It's scary to think what that team could be like with a good QB.

aaprigs311 wrote:

Ayt wrote:They were actually 10-6 this year, aaprigs.

Yeah, yeah. My point is they're an average to below average team even with all those decent signings and trades.

That's because, as was said above, they have had below average drafting and they have a lousy coach and they have no quarterback. There isn't a single solution in the NFL. You need a good draft AND good free agents.

The Pack has a good quarterback, below average drafts, few free agent signings, questionable coaching and guess what... no playoffs 3 out of the last 4 years. But we do have cap space.

You don't necessarily need good free agents. It's been proven year in and year out over the last decade that teams can rely almost exclusively on the draft, contend, and win the Super Bowl.

I don't have a problem with free agency. It's obviously brought good talent to Green Bay. But to use it as a primary resource to build your roster simply isn't a good idea. Give me trades and the draft.

aaprigs311 wrote:It doesn't matter who the Vikings signed because they're sitting at home watching football just like us. (Or they could be lounging on the sex boat) If 8-8 is as far as all those signings could take them then I'm more than comfortable building the Packers through the draft and only signing free agents when you know FOR SURE, that they're going to fit into your scheme and play at a high level.

What's happened in Minnesota is they haven't really drafted that well over the years and thus haven't had to pay a bunch of productive young players big money as they approached free agency and as big, haven't had a high quality QB that carries a big cap number. So they've went out in free agency to acquire talent and unlike some teams that have made their share of mediocre or poor signings, the Queens actually have done very well with their free agent signings.

They now have a pretty good football team, but their miserable situation at QB and bad head coach has just been to much to overcome. If say they had drafted Rodgers and developed him well, the Vikings would easily be a big threat in the NFC. Thankfully though, they/Childress drafted Jackson and have wasted two years of a pretty talented team on a QB that has been largely over his head along with 11 games on 37 year old Gus Frerotte.

I was never trying to imply that the Packers need to sign as many free agents as the Vikings have, just that those who try to act like the Viking have foolishly wasted a ton of cash in free agency simply are flat out wrong and it's not even close. Thankfully for Packer fans, they've yet to fix their QB situation and in general teams have to draft a QB to get a good one, something they have still got to do unless they again try to find another stopgap, but one better than Gus Frerotte.

DrugBust wrote:You don't necessarily need good free agents. It's been proven year in and year out over the last decade that teams can rely almost exclusively on the draft, contend, and win the Super Bowl.

I don't have a problem with free agency. It's obviously brought good talent to Green Bay. But to use it as a primary resource to build your roster simply isn't a good idea. Give me trades and the draft.

Even though i wish Ted was a little more aggressive with his cap room, in general i agree that teams are better off if they draft well and just use free agency to supplement the roster with some quality free agent signings. The great success the Vikings have had in free agency isn't the norm, they've hit a couple home runs and not had really any busts. The odds are against repeating their success.

Where i have the biggest problem with free agency is when teams are pressed to the cap and still make signings, thus moving money around to where eventually the piper will come calling and you might not be able later to pay your young players because there is to much dead money eating up cap space. Teams like the Redskins and Raiders have been notorious for that, Sherman also did this when he was our GM. Giving out big signing bonuses and pushing a lot of the money to the back end, vs using cap space to front load a lot of the bonuses so that signings don't kill your cap in the future.

You guys are kinda misinterpreting my point. I totally agree that free agency can be a great resource. What I'm saying is teams like the Vikings spend all that money in free agency to fill other needs, but they continue to neglect finding a respectable qb. My point is after their spending spree last offseason are they going to be in position to trade for a Matt Cassel and actually be able to give him a long term deal? Or sign a big time free agent qb like the Saints did 3-4 offseasons ago? I really dont know their cap situation, but I'd venture to say that they would have a hard time bringing in a guy like Cassel and locking him up long term. They could address the need through the draft, but realistically by the time they develop a young qb they'll have holes elsewhere. I know that's how the NFL works, but when you got a pretty decent team like the Vikes had this season and fail to add such a big need I question their logic. If they would have brought in Pennington instead of Madieu Williams or something I think it's safe to say they'd be playing this weekend.

You guys are kinda misinterpreting my point. I totally agree that free agency can be a great resource. What I'm saying is teams like the Vikings spend all that money in free agency to fill other needs, but they continue to neglect finding a respectable qb.

The Vikings did the same thing the Packers did, they tried drafting their QB of the future.Three years ago they spent a 2nd round pick on Tarvaris Jackson, the difference is the Packers properly evaluated that Rodgers could be a good NFL QB and developed him well while the Vikings/Childress wrongly evaluated Jackson. So now because of this, the Packers have their QB of the future in place while the Vikings are stuck having to decide if Jackson can develop any further or if they need to get another QB via the draft or trade.

My point is after their spending spree last offseason are they going to be in position to trade for a Matt Cassel and actually be able to give him a long term deal?

With Tom Brady still suffering with complications from his multiple surgeries, odds are very high that the Pats will franchise Cassel.

Or sign a big time free agent qb like the Saints did 3-4 offseasons ago?

When the Saints signed Brees, he was coming off a shoulder surgery and he didn't have many offers. The Saints rolled the dice on him, but it's not like it was some no brainer call and that the Queens among other teams were dumb to not also go after Brees given the very real health concerns. Since that signing, if there was another high quality QB to hit free agency, i don't remember the guy.

If they would have brought in Pennington instead of Madieu Williams or something I think it's safe to say they'd be playing this weekend.

They talked to Pennington after the Jets waived him, but with Jackson being in place, Pennington chose Miami because it was a lock he'd be the starting QB. Plus, he got to stay in the division with the Jets and show that they made a mistake cutting him.

I know that's how the NFL works, but when you got a pretty decent team like the Vikes had this season and fail to add such a big need I question their logic.

Look around the NFL, the vast majority of quality QB's are guys drafted by the same team and after proving they can play, are paid well by that team before they reach free agency. There are a few guys like say Romo or Delhomme that come out of nowhere to be a surprise good QB, but it wasn't lack of cap space that prevented the Vikes from getting them. In 2004 they had Culpepper who had an MVP quality year and was young, but the next year tore up his knee. Bad luck. In 2006 Brad Johnson was given the job, but they also drafted Jackson in hopes the next year he'd be their long term solution. Well, it looks like they whiffed on that draft pick, but it's not like they ignored trying to address to QB position, they simply made a bad talent evaluation on Jackson. If instead Jackson had developed like they hoped this year, QB wouldn't be an issue for them.

Wow, you don't seem to understand what I'm trying to convey. I give up, I don't know how else to explain it.