With all the talk today about how and why the Packers are struggling at certain positions I thought this might deserve it's own thread. Like the old cliche says "Actions speak louder than words". TT-speak leaves us with little to go on, since everyone is a 'fine player' and 'we like our guys'. So let's look at his actions, specifically in regards to where he chooses to spend money.

Offense:

QB - Gave Rodgers a nice fat contract. No problem spending there

RB - Ditto Grant. Money spent here.

FB - No one spends big money on FB's. Heck some offenses don't even really use one.

TE - So far no big money spent here, BUT he was willing to pursue Gonzales, so that tells me he will spend $ for the right guy.

WR- Jennings got a nice deal. Numerous fairly high draft picks who get paid well. Money spent.

O-line- Aside from Wells 5 year, $15 mill deal in 2006 (decent pay but not exorbitant), who else has he opened the pocket book for? Clifton's last deal was done before TT arrived. I doubt there are many here who would approve of any of our younger O-lineman getting big contracts right now. I'd say this is one area where TT's actions leave us to conclude he does not spend big $ here. Let Rivera and Wahle go as well


Defense:

D-line: Good 1st round $ to Raji. Pickett got a good FA deal. Jenkins got a good deal compared to his actual statistical output. Harrell got first round pay. Kampman got a nice deal (he was a DE at the time). Safe to say he'll spend money here.

LB's: Got Chillar w/out breaking the bank. Paid Hawk top 5 money. Paid Poppinga a somewhat questionable salary. Barnett got $35 mill in 2007. Matthews got 1st round pay. Safe to say he'll spend at his old position.

CB's: Woodson. Harris got a 5 year, $17 mil. deal in 2007. Money spent.

Safety: Paid a little to Manual, but not bad. Has shown reluctance to pony up for Nick Collins, one of his OWN draft picks who has been to the Pro Bowl. Let Sharper go instead of paying him what in retrospect would have been money well spent. All other additions have been nickel and dime pickups. I'd say he does NOT spend at this position.

So, judging by TT's own actions, I'd say the two positions he has shown a tendency to NOT pay big money to are the O-line and safety.

Now, what would YOU say are our two biggest liabilities? I'd say O-line and safety.

Discuss...

Chicken/Egg. Joe Johnson.

Not sure I follow. Chicken/Egg...Well, I'd say that a.) not paying attention to key roster spots leads to b.) poor play at those positions. Don't see how it can work the other way around.

Joe Johnson was a Sherman deal of course. I'm not saying you have to throw big $ at FA's. But drafting a O-lineman or safety high in the draft and therefore paying accordingly for that draft slot should eventually lead to strong play at that position if the GM/scouts are good at their jobs. In 4+ years, you'd certainly HOPE so anyway.

Does he not spend money on those positions resulting in poor performances, or are our players performing poorly so they aren't getting paid/he isn't finding value in big dollar free agents at those positions. Nick Collins is a strike against the latter.

About Joe Johnson, I'm just glad we are not paying big dollars for crappy free agents. There is the case of Harrell, but draft busts are part of the game.

I see what you are saying now. But I still contend that drafting an o-lineman or safety in the first round, OR shelling out some $ for a guy like Steve Hutchinson would probably not have us in this situation. It appears to me that there are a few positions that TT's philosophy simply says not to pay large parts of your salary cap to. Just speculation of course, but the #'s seem to back it up.

No doubt about it

Collins is pretty good and Bigby is decent - the depth is poor

OL - I'm tired of thinking about them

I also think these are two areas that are safe to look into the FA market, mainly because you need veterans in each, no real place for rookies.

I think you're on the right track with this, but it has nothing to do with money and everything to do with how TT values these positions.

In regards to the O-Line, TT believes that you can find quality starters later in the draft. Now I believe that's true for every position outside of LT, which going into the off-season is going to be a HUGE problem.

In regards to the safety position, TT hasn't really invested ANYTHING here. In the years since Nick Collins we've seen Marquand Manual and Aaron Rouse???? That's not good enough.


I agree that right now those are the two biggest areas of need, and my only issue with TT so far is he's had the chance to SIGNFICANTLY upgrade these positions and passed on the opportunity. Case in point:

The 2007 NFL Draft - We have a GAPING hole at SS. I know TT wanted Revis/Lynch, we just missed out on those guys, but had some great safety prospects in Michael Griffin (picked 3 spots later) and Reggie Nelson (picked 5 spots later), and instead of picking players who would fill a need, he went with the "higher ceiling" player in Justin Harrell.

-Now I'm usually ok with drafting players like this, and had Harrell dominated his final year of college instead of being hurt, fine. But he had a CLEAR opportunity to upgrade a position of need with a potential pro bowl talent and passed.

The 2009 NFL Draft - I won't argue with the Raji pick because we need an impact player on the D-line, and Matthews sure looks like a keeper, but I think you solve 75% of your O-Line issues if you make the same offer to NE at 23 instead of 26 and draft Michael Oher. This guy would be starting at RT right now, dominating (which he is in BAL), and we'd have our LT of the future pinned down. Instead, we get to watch our QB get destroyed and have NO answer to solve it on the horizon.

-As much as I like Clay Matthews, we have other players on our roster with the same type of potential as him (Chillar/Thompson)

What you are not factoring in is the money wasted.

Specifically at linebacker.

TT seriously overpaid for Barnett and Brady P, plus he overdrafted Hawk.

I don't like any of those guys.

You could certainly make that argument. The only TRULY wasted $ out of the guys I mentioned imo has been Harrell.

With the new players contract up in the air, slary cap up in the air, etc., TT has chosen not to spend any money unless absolutely necessary. Draft picks, extending key players, and adding a couple stop-gap type free agents. Very simply, he's not going to spend big money until this is resolved.

Once the labor issues are settled, I think he would be willing to spend money on ANY position if he finds the right player and doesn't have to overpay to get him. That includes O line and Safety.

I think it is important to realize that TT spends as much or more than every other GM in the NFL. What he tends not to do, is give lots of up-front money to FAs. Instead he gives bonuses to players already on the roster to extend them. The reason he has not spent a lot of money on the OL, is simply because none of the players have stepped forward and earned it.

Personally, I believe the talent is there, the coaching just is not bringing it out.

TT, I believe, is of the mind that an OL player must develop. You can take high picks and get earlier production out of them, but you can also draft players later 3-5 rounds, have them develop, and you end up with as good of a player. That, of course, has not happened. I attribute that the the reason above - and feel that that principle is true. If you get a shot high in the draft for a Joe Thomas, you take him. Otherwise, you develop the talent with later picks.

Do you think he values some positions more than others, or do we suffer due to the "best player available" approach.

Look at the decision to keep 3 fullbacks, and no backup left tackle. Taking a long position on fullback and taking a short position on tackle seems like bad investing, since two tackles are out there on each offensive play, and not every offensive play uses a fullback.

I don't think he values fullback more, but it makes you wonder if he gets locked into BPA. Seems to me that if you have a talent available that is just far and away better, then BPA is the way to go. But if you have needs at several positions, then get the best player at one of those positions.

Just a thought.

How many times when TT was drafting did he have the opportunity to draft a LT in the first round without giving up multiple picks to move up to get one? I'm not being flippant, I'm just wondering if anyone remembers.

BPA is the way to go in drafting. If you draft players of less quality, you (not surprisingly) end up with a roster with players of less quality. That being said, I was against keeping 3 FBs - I think you keep a full roster, even if you have to cut a good player at a position of strength.

You inaccurately state that we had no backup LT. We do - Colledge.

You really can't count Colledge as a back up tackle unless:
1: He is so damn good he doesn't need to practice at the position
or
2: You don't believe there is a difference playing guard and tackle.

I don't believe either, so I hope you were being sarcastic.

The problem with BPA is that it assumes you can make a distinction as to who is "better" given the players play different positions. I don't think you can. It is like asking which is better, this apple, or that orange? If you have a OL player with a first round grade, and a WR with a first round grade, why not draft the lineman if that is what you need. Who cares if you reached 3 positions? Likewise, why draft a very good blocking fulback, when you have two fullbacks already that keep the draftee from being active? He clearly isn't better than what you have at a well stocked position.

I'm not advocating drafting inferior players, but at some point you have to be able to field a complete team, which means having your backup be someone that actually plays that position, as opposed to pulling another starter to play a position they have rarely played in the pros.

I am not defending TT"s handling of the oline at all. However, I think a couple of things need to be pointed out to be fair. Most of the oline is still on their offensive contracts. I think TT failed in not securing an heir apparent to Clifton or at least a decent backup. I think it is a little unfair call someone cheap though if a player is still on a rookie contract. People were saying that Thompson was being cheap with Jennings until he got his contract extension. Every player that is ever drafted gets a rookie contract that is similar in pay outside of the first round.

On Collins' contract none of the defensive players contracts have been extended. Picketts', Jollys', or Kampman's haven't been extended. So this isn't something he is just doing with Collins'. I do agree that considering how badly the other safeties have played TT has to keep Nick Collins. I think that cutting Anthony Smith was moronic.

TT failed to replace Tauscher let alone finding a replacement for a guy still on the squad. As far as the not securing a couple players, it seems to be a common theme with him. That kind of hit rate gets you fired in most jobs.

A comment I'd like to add regarding my original post: I contended that O-line and safety are areas that TT does not appear to place a monetary importance on, while every other position group has had significant expenditures. The notion has been floated here that there may be factors to explain that such as rookie contracts, etc. I would like to point out that the time period we are talking about here is FIVE years. In NFL terms that is a very long period of time, almost like 'dog years'. NFL= 'not for long'. If TT had been on the job 2 or 3 years, then sure I would accept the status quo. FIVE years, though? I haven't lost faith in TT's methods, but there should be results by now. Maybe a case that his theory is sound but his 'fundamentals' and 'execution' have been lacking instituting it. I bet if the front office works on their pad levels and hand placement it'll all get straightened out.

If Anthony Smith was all world why is he STILL the 3rd stringer on a winless team? I do agree TT didn't address that position - unless Martin comes around - but I doubt Smith was the answer either.