Packers chat with Pete Dougherty

Packers chat with Pete Dougherty

Submit your questions in advance of Pete's chat at noon Thursday.

  • Pete, next year TT will likely have the max four compensatory picks, plus a 2nd round pick for Hundley. They should be LOADED with picks. As such, their core players (HHCD, Bak, Daniels, etc. etc.) combined with this year's rookie crop - they should be in good shape for the long term health of the roster - should they not?
  • Not sure they'll get the max because they also signed Martellus Bennett, he was unrestricted free agent, so he'll count against them in the formula. Kendricks, House and Evans all were cut by their teams, so they don't count. But your point remains, they'll do well overall because they lost Lang, Tretter, Lacy and Peppers. Being able to trade those picks now helps too, will give them more flexibility in the draft. Great chance to upgrade the roster. I'd argue they should keep signing strategic free agents (and guys who were cap casualties) like Thompson did this year too.
  • Pete, was Thompson shopping Brett Hundley during the draft?
  • Rob Demovsky of ESPN.com reported that they got an offer (or offers?) for him. No word on what the offer was, but they didn't do the deal, so not enough. I'd think it at minimum would have taken a third-rounder to get them to think about it, and more likely a second to get them to do it, but I'd suspect no one offered even a third. Teams just didn't have enough to go on because Hundley barely played last preseason -- hurt his ankle in the opener and was out until the start of the regular season. So pretty tough for a team to give up a high pick on a guy they haven't seen on tape since preseason of his rookie year. Still it was interesting they even got inquiries.
  • It appears that Shields still wants to play football. Is that correct? If so woould the Packers consider bringing him back with a financial package tied to the number of games played?
  • His last public comment that I recall was after the NFC title game and he said he wanted to continue, but I'm not buying. Maybe he really is hoping to but I have trouble seeing any team taking the risk, and I wonder if for contractual reasons he needs to say that until doctors say he definitely can't play. I don't recall the details of how all this works, but when players retire they get severance pay, and if they have to retire for medical reasons than that might affect (ie improve) the severance. But teams aren't going to want to sign him because there's such a high risk he'll get another concussion in camp or early in the season, and then they'll have to pay him for all year. And you don't want to plan on him being part of your team if the risk is that high that he won't make it through the season. I have to think he's finished playing football, for his own well being. Why risk it? We're talking about his brain.
  • Is the fact the Packers didn't select a Tight End reflective of their opinion of Beau Sandland??? Does he have a realistic chance of making the final 53?
  • He's got a chance, they wouldn't have kept him around if he didn't. So it might reflect that some. Also reflects all the needs they had elsewhere, they're strong at tight end at least for this season.
  • Is CB out of favor in New England? Could we package one of our spares CB and perhaps A number three next year? He's playing in the contract year so maybe he can be had on the cheap. King and Butler would look a heck of a lot better than what we put on the field against Atlanta!
  • It sure sounds like the Patriots are looking to deal him, but I'd have thought that would have happened during the draft so they could get the pick this year. I haven't heard anything about him since the draft, so maybe he can be had. The problem is you'd have to work out a long-term deal with him before making the trade, because you don't want to trade a pick and then get him for only one year. New England isn't going to give him up for that cheap a price. So you have to think he's really good and worth a long-term deal -- sounds like he wants a big pay day. I know a scout or two in the league who liked him but didn't think he was worth a first-round pick, which means not worth the highest-end money. Maybe the Patriots are fine at this point with playing the season with him then letting him leave next year in free agency and getting the compensatory pick.
  • There was talk after the draft that Eliot Wolf and Brian Gutekunst played a larger role this year, perhaps the beginning of a transitioning out of the Ted Thompson era. Two part question: 1) did you notice any Wolf/Gutekunst influence with the Packer draft or with free agency leading up to the draft, and 2) are either Wolf or Gutekunst candidates for the Buffalo GM vacancy?
  • Thompson did some things in free agency he hasn't -- signing multiple players from other teams, including two tight ends plus a starting guard just before the draft. So that makes you wonder if Wolf-Highsmith-Gutekunst had more influence on him this offseason. No one has told me that yet but it's a real possibility. A story in the Buffalo News speculated on candidates for the Bills' GM job, it had a fairly long list (I'd guess about 10 guys) and Wolf was on it. But so far no reports they've contacted him or will interview him.
  • Pete, do you think TT knew Kevin King was their guy when they traded back from 29 and he felt confident he'd still be there at 33? I know I was nervous.
  • I don't see how they could have been sure. They moved back four spots, any of those teams could have taken King, or somebody could have traded ahead of them after they moved back. My guess is they had several guys they liked, so they were pretty sure someone they liked would be there.
  • Pete, as a follow up to my previous question, when the Packers were on the clock at 33, if they knew King was there guy, why keep taking calls? Why almost let the clock run out? They had 16 to 18 hours to think about this, just turn in the card and get your man. Some of us have heart conditions!
  • They obviously liked the guy enough to take him, but they were open to moving back. Probably speaks to the strength of this draft, Thompson alluded to that several times, said everything they did was playing to the board, which I took to mean the strength and depth of this draft in rounds two through four. That probably explains why they didn't take him at No. 29. They felt good about their other options and gaining the extra pick. When they were at 33, they liked him enough where it would have taken a really good deal to get them to move. They didn't get it so they picked him.
  • The draft showed us the prototype of what the Packers future secondary should look like: Fast, Tall, Flexible (multischeme/position). Any other "trends" you noticed from the draft?
  • Yeah, it definitely showed that. Can't say I noticed other trends. Three running backs, that speaks volumes, Thompson wasn't going to leave McCarthy short-handed at that position again. They always take an offensive lineman or two. Definite emphasis on size and speed in the back seven on defense in this draft.
  • Both Perry and Clay are injury prone. With the players on the depth chart at the OLB position, does your gut tell you they can cut back on their snap count somewhat, or are the still going to have to play a ton of snaps? Ideally you'd want to save them for the playoffs, instead of limping in like has been recent history.
  • I'd think Perry will play a lot. I think he's only 26, so he needs to play a lot. Maybe they'll try to cut back on Matthews' snaps some, depends also on how much they play him inside vs. outside. I'm sure they're hoping Biegel can work into the rotation quickly. Maybe Fackrell or Elliott will show enough to get more snaps too. That would help get Matthews a little rest.
  • All of a sudden that RB room looks really young/green. While you'd like to have more experience there, young legs are generally a good thing at that position.
  • Yeah, that more than any other position is for young guys. Running backs get so beaten up, they're borderline old even at 27. I remember talking to Santana Dotson about how short the NFL careers are for running backs, and he's a Texan (if I remember right) and said, "Momma, don't let your babies grow up to be running backs."
  • Are Dom and Whitt salivating or pulling their hair out with all of those young CB's?
  • Salivating now. The hair pulling will come on some game days this year.
  • Looks like the Bye week is much more favorable this year than last. I think the league really needs to rethink the the bye week. My though is to have it for four weeks around the mid point of the season, and have one NFC + one AFC division on bye each of those weeks, and then rotate it yearly. That would still allow for plenty of games to be televised (3 divisons each still playing), while making it much more "fair". Having an early bye just stinks.
  • Yeah, I think they changed it a little this year, I think the first bye is Week 5 instead of Week 4 as it had been. The schedule is really, really complicated, so I don't know if they could do what you propose and still find a decent schedule that meets their other parameters. But agreed, I'd think they really should do everything they can to get the first bye in Week 6.
  • I don't know if there will be a venue for us to wish the great Bob McGinn hail and farewell. . but if not our thanks to him for his service to Packer Nation. We will miss him and we wish him the best always.
  • If you're on Twitter, send out a tweet of thanks and include @BobMcGinn in it, he'll see it. That's probably the easiest way. Bob is one of the greats, no doubt about that. Tough, smart, well sourced and a bulldog. What else is there? We'll try to carry on his legacy best as we can.
  • Hi Pete. Seems a lot of people are writing off Randall and Rollins, saying the draft "put them on notice." I still believe the Packers fully expect them both to bounce back this year. Your take?
  • I'm sure they expect improvement and both to be better than last year after having promising rookie seasons. A lot of it will come down to how much their injuries affected them. We should find out this season. Randall has a lot of talent, so it's a matter of how toughness and all those things. The question many have with Rollins is whether he's fast enough to be a top two or three cornerback. But I think you're right, the Packers are looking for one or both to be more like the player they showed they might be as rookies.
  • Pete. Do you think Jahri Evans will be the starting right guard come December or is he the second coming of Jeff Saturday?
  • You never know for sure, he could hit the wall this season, it usually happens fast in this league. But he's 33, Saturday was 37, that's a fairly significant age difference. Sounds like he played fairly well last year because he was lighter than the previous season. I'd think that will be important for him, to keep his weight down. My guess is he'll be the starter all season.
  • My wife says I look better without a beard, but I really prefer it. Any sage advice as I navigate these polarizing waters?
    Also, love the pick of Josh Jones!
  • I'll say the same thing I tell any of my friends who grow a beard: Good move, anything to cover up that face.
  • Prediction: Lucas Patrick makes the RG race interesting this summer.
  • I'm sure he'll get a good look.
  • What's good pete? I think that our secondary is good enough to be at least average this year, what bothers me is our pass rush, since our two edge rushers are injury prone and 2 of the 3 backups too. What is your take on this?
  • Basically agree. I thought pass rusher was need 1A and cornerback 1B. Looks to me like they thought cornerback was need 1, and pass rusher was 2 or 3. Or maybe they were just going with their draft board relative to those positions. I agree it's precarious with the injury histories of Matthews and Perry. There's no knowing how much Fackrell or Elliott will improve either -- Fackrell's age is a concern, I think he's 25 even though he's only a second-year pro. So the Biegel pick could end up being huge. If he can help them right away, that could make a fairly big difference. That's asking a lot of a fourth-round pick, but he was the first pick of the round, and this was a deeper draft than usual at that position.
  • The Packers seem to reward good players with decent second contracts when their play merits. Oddly, they seem quite averse to the reverse -- they seem scared to ask for concessions when performance flags.

    52 and 18 seem ideal candidates for a pay cut -- the savings combined could bring in another quality player.

    Other teams cut pay to motivate, massage the roster -- why not the Packers?
  • They do sometimes. I don't think they had a lot of choice with Matthews. They don't have much playmaking on defense, and he's one of their most talented guys despite the injuries. If you're going to ask a guy to take a pay cut, then you have to be willing to cut him if he says no. Matthews easily could have said no on the belief he'd get a good contract from another team. The Packers just couldn't afford to lose him. I probably would have asked Cobb for a pay cut with the chance to earn a lot of the money back in incentives. McCarthy really likes Cobb for his toughness, and Cobb is effective when plays breakdown, which happens a fair amount with Rodgers. So the Packers didn't ask him. I'm trying to think of recent Packers who have taken pay cuts, the only one coming to mind is Crosby after his bad year. I have to think there's another player or two recently, but maybe not. Maybe when it gets to that point they more often just cut the guy and move on.
  • Hey Pete, A lot of comparison's are being made with Biegel and Mathews. They have very similar stats from their combines. The question I have is (knowing this is very early in the process), will they view Biegel and Mathews as possibly interchangeable pieces in their defense as far as switching between ILB and OLB? It would be a lot to ask of Biegel this early, but if they do intend to move Mathews around more, perhaps they would use Biegel to be the guy to switch with. Thoughts?
  • There are some similarities in Matthews and Biegel's testing, but it's mostly because they had similar 40 times. Matthews overall was a notch better tester. And for the reason you suggest, I'd guess they won't mess with moving Biegel around this year. I'd think they'd want to him just learn OLB, and let Matthews be the guy who plays all over. If Biegel shows the aptitude, they can start moving him more in Year 2. But my best guess is they work him strictly at OLB, though even that means occasionally rushing from a standup position inside (they do that a lot in dime).
  • I thought it was a great move to trade down and get additional picks. I thought is was a bit of a mistake to concentrate on skill positions on day three. I think we needed to take more shots at pass rushers and interior offensive lineman. I can see 2 RBs and 1 WR, but those other two picks should have been used somewhere we needed more help. We need to stock up one last time as Rodgers gets further into the last half of his career. It would be sad to see only one Super Bowl from such a great QB. Thompson also needs to take a few more calculated chances in free agency to bring in mid priced vets like New England does regularly to help Brady out.
  • You know, I can't disagree, I could have seen taking a shot at another rusher than one of the receivers. I have to think those were more driven by their draft board, that the guys they picked were rated a fair amount higher than any rushers available. The three RBs seems like overkill, but I get it. Just because they drafted three doesn't mean all three will be good enough to make the 53, or that all three will get through camp healthy. So that was a way to hedge the bet and make sure they won't get caught short-handed at RB like last year.
  • I really like our rookie class this year. Which players are you looking forward to seeing the most on the field?
Powered by ScribbleLive Content Marketing Software Platform