I wondered the same thing but looked him up, his height is 5-9 1/2. That's well under the Packers' minimum of 5-10 1/2, so I'm guessing that takes him out of the running. Maybe they'd make an exception for a guy like Mathieu who has some special qualities, but if they stick with the Wolf height standards, then I'd have to think Gaines is a non-starter.
I just don't see how they don't sign or trade for a corner in free agency who can start in their nickel. I don't see how they have any other choice.
Yeah, I never understood the way Seattle used him. Why trade what they did for the guy, and then play him as a traditional tight end? That's not his thing, never was. He's a WR in a tight end's body. Gronkowski can do both. With Graham, you have to move him around, play him in the slot, out wide. Don't use him in-line very much. I have to think the Packers know that.
Sometimes in the moment the people who know aren't willing to say what they know.
Maybe. Hyde should have been a safety. I get trying Randall at CB, he had the speed to do it, and he played OK in the slot. As far as trading Randall, the fact that they were willing to move him despite their issues at CB tells you everything you need to know. McCarthy clearly wanted him out of the locker room.
I don't know a lot about him. Has good size and has played decent football at times. Injury prone. Sounds like he's the best guy remaining, so there's probably a real good argument for signing him unless they think they can trade for somebody better.
Haven't seen any reports that they're interested in him. Ebron has been mostly an underachiever, I haven't asked any scouts about him but would have to say I'd be wary of signing him. I had the thought you had but about Julius Thomas when he was cut yesterday.
The Raiders have pick No. 10, I can't imagine they'd take Hundley and pick 14 for pick 10. Would they take a fourth-rounder and Hundley? Maybe, but my gut is they wouldn't. I just don't know that anyone would trade anything for Hundley, knowing there's a good chance he'll get cut sometime before the start of the season.
Not that I heard. I thought that was a guy they might sign. The only caveat there is that I heard he's a slot guy, not an outside guy. So if they didn't pursue it harder, there's at least a chance that he didn't have the qualities Pettine looks for in a slot guy (the blitzing ability, etc.). I don't know the answer to that.
My guess is that after signing Graham they're OK going in with Allison (or maybe Clark) as the likely No. 3, with a draft pick maybe to compete if they take one in the first three rounds, which is a real possibility.
My guess is they'll draft a CB in the later rounds and cut Callahan. Just a guess.
I have to say, if I were them I probably would have tried really hard to sign Watkins or Robinson at WR despite the cost, for the reasons you say.
Just saw a text from a co-worker that they've re-signed Waters. Don't know why they didn't tender him.
Also just saw on Twitter that Cleveland is cutting CB Jason McCourty. Maybe he's a possibility. Don't know much about other than he's obviously not as good as his brother.
Moving on from Nelson suggests that's not the case, but let's see how the rest of the offseason goes first.
That's the gist of it, at least for now.
No, because to structure a contract that the Bears wouldn't match probably would make it prohibitive for the Packers to sign him.
I still think it's too early. Favre turned 36 in '05 and already had been talking about retirement for a couple years. Rodgers (he won't turn 35 until December) has said nothing but that he wants to play until at least 40. You're right about the durability, Favre was indestructible and Rodgers has shown he gets hurt. But even between '05 and now the rules protecting QBs have changed drastically, which will only help their longevity. Go watch the YouTube highlights for Favre in the '09 championship game against New Orleans, he took eight or so vicious hits that weren't penalized that would be penalties (and some possible ejections) now. So the rules help Rodgers' chances of playing into his 40s. I personally think it's still too early to draft his successor.
I think this is the new normal. Read a good column by Sam Farmer of the LA Times, said one of the reasons there are more trades now is texting. Quoted a GM as saying he can text all 31 other GMs about a player he's willing to trade in about 10 minutes, whereas in the past to call all of them, play phone tag and all that, it would take two or three days.
They're going to have trouble retaining all their best D players, just like Seattle did once it had to pay Russell Wilson.
I don't think so. Wilkerson is listed as a DE, but that's in a 3-4 defense, I think he's primarily an inside player. They still badly need a really good outside rusher.
I haven't seen the details of Graham's year except that it averages about $10M a year, so if they structured it evenly, then they basically traded Nelson's $10.25M pay for Graham's. So that should leave them about $20M under the cap. I really don't know what Mathieu will get on the open market. I'd think in the $10M range at least, but that's a wild guess. There are durability issues with him, but when he plays he's been a playmaker.
One or maybe even two of those guys could end up helping some, but IMHO they need a real difference maker there, and chances of any of those three falling into that category are minimal.
As long as the cap keeps rising the salaries will rise with it.
Yeah, probably. But the Packers don't have a great pass rush. Wilkerson could help there, maybe help a lot if he plays like he did a couple years ago. But they still need an outside rusher too.
I'm thinking it would be a draft pick.
They might be thinking that, and one or both could improve a lot. But if I'm the Packers I'm not banking on that. Too risky.
OK, this has to do it, other duties to get too but thanks for all the great questions, only got to a fraction of them, with the NCAA tourney going on I didn't expect this kind of traffic. We'll do it again next week, so if I didn't get to you try again then. Yeah, that's a big reason why the Packers can create more room this year if they need it. The cap keeps going up $10M or so a year, so they can push some money into future caps with Rodgers' deal without imperiling their cap situation down the road. They have some flexibility with how they structure Rodgers' deal and probably can create $7M to $10M in cap room with his new contract if they need it. You're right, in a year or two other QB contracts will go right by Rodgers. And with that we have to wrap this up. But thanks everyone for coming by. Good luck in your tourney pools and we'll talk again next week. Take care.