Green Bay Packers: Green Bay Packers sign Tauscher to new deal

Full story: Fox6

Veteran Green Bay Packers right tackle Mark Tauscher has agreed to terms on a multiyear contract that will bring him back to the team, his agent said Sunday.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of23
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Pack

Sussex, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Mar 14, 2010
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Well now dont the Pack feel stupid, Let him go and then sign him..Shows you what a douche bag Ted Thompson is
normallylikeyell ow

Du Bois, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Mar 15, 2010
 
Well a "I-reverse-myself" douche bag is better than a stubborn one. Glad to have Tauscher back.
JOB

Milwaukee, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Mar 15, 2010
 

Judged:

1

I love the pack, but I am so fed up with THOMPSON. His focus has always been on bringing back their free unrestricted agents, many of them are hardly worth re-signing. THOMPSON simply refuses to bring in top notch free agents, with experience. Until he realizes what an idiot he is the Packers will continue to struggle with their offensive and defensive line units.
GBPfan

Fountain, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Mar 15, 2010
 
JOB wrote:
I love the pack, but I am so fed up with THOMPSON. His focus has always been on bringing back their free unrestricted agents, many of them are hardly worth re-signing. THOMPSON simply refuses to bring in top notch free agents, with experience. Until he realizes what an idiot he is the Packers will continue to struggle with their offensive and defensive line units.
It's nice to hear from other true Packer fans that expect real results. I too would like to see the kind of veteran mix needed to win Championships. Perhaps we'll see it happen with the next GM. GO PACK GO!
normallylikeyell ow

Du Bois, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Mar 16, 2010
 
Hey I'm no Thompson cheerleader, GBP you know that! JOB, who are these terrific players out there that we can afford? I didn't see a whole lot on the tackle market that's better than Clifton and Tauscher, quite frankly. Would you rather have Collins or Samare Rolle? Julius Peppers would have been nice...
GBPfan

Fountain, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Mar 16, 2010
 
I know you're not a cheerleader NLY. I like Clifton, Tauscher and Collins. I like that they have been signed. However, I agree with JOB that Thompson needs to bring in some more help from outside. The attempt to build almost exclusively through the draft is failing. Ultimately, it's a recipe for disaster. Some people seem to believe that every dollar spent by TT or any other GM on rookies is money well spent while every dollar spent on free agents is money wasted. That's simply ridiculous. Successful GMs find proven players that are a good fit with their teams and use free agency as an extra tool to build with. The GMs that don't are foolishly handicapping their teams. A GM that can't or won't use free agency can't compete with the league's best GMs. It is unrealistic to believe that Ted "43-40" Thompson will ever do much more than hover around .500 if he continues to use free agency so little. That means mostly missing the playoffs, mostly playing on the road when you do make the playoffs and hoping on a wing and a prayer for a miracle. That is not the best strategy for success.
normallylikeyell ow

Du Bois, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Mar 16, 2010
 
No argument with that. Just thought we might discuss who was available and possible to obtain? I say there were no better tackles. Marcus McNeil is restricted and likely to re-sign. Same for Jared Gaither. Willie Colon can't block any better than Barbre. Jamal Brown spent all last year on IR. Jermon Bushrod is also a RFA, but the Saints will keep one or both. The ONLY guy I could see ahead of our guys might possibly be Donald Penn of Tampa (RFA)--but he's their best lineman--they'll probably sign him. I agree with JOB on bringing in FAs, but let's talk about some viable options, otherwise it's just bitching. You want Joey Porter? I don't. You want T.O.? I don't. Is Shawn Merriman worth the money at this point in his career? We don't pay punters, but Sepulveda of PIT is a RFA. Tony Brown (DT Tenn) is probably the best guy you could take a run at. Good pass rusher inside. Ray Edwards would have to convert to LB (see Kampman). DBs? Ellis Hobbs is out there. Fabian Washington (who I don't like that much) also--both RFAs with no CBA. Marlin Jackson got snatched up by the Eagles. I just don't think there's a lot out there with the labor situation. You're basically talking about guys as old as Harris (Roland Harper) or the Alan Balls of the world, who are subs. Heck we need to re-sign Tramon Williams, too.
GBPfan

Fountain, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Mar 16, 2010
 
I agree that the pickings are slim, particularly this year. I imagine the good GMs saw this coming and signed players in previous years. If the Packers had signed just one additional free agent in each of the last 5 seasons the list of Packer needs could be 5 positions shorter. Imagine how that could have changed the Packers prospects for next season. I don't want to be saying the same thing five years from now when the situation is five years worse, but I'll keep reminding everybody if I have to. That is why I keep on pointing out that the #1 priority for the Packers should be a better GM. The rest will take care of itself. Then the only thing people will have to discuss is the marvelous job the new GM is doing. I know that might upset the people that want to pick apart every decision the GM makes. Sometimes I wonder if that is why some people love TT and his failure so much. Because he provides so much opportunity to pick him apart. I just want a GM that knows how to get results. I'm not concerned with whether I guess his every move.

BTW a Peppers or even a Cromartie (for example)might have made the list of Packer needs one player shorter this year, and as you pointed out the pickings are rather slim this year. Better yet, if TT had made a good free agency signing each year for the last 5 years perhaps the Packers needs are easily met in the draft. The point is if you don't take a chance you can't win. There appear to be some GMs that know how to pick winners in free agency. TT doesn't appear able to do so or he's unwilling to take a chance. We know how that's working out -- 43-40.
normallylikeyell ow

Du Bois, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Mar 17, 2010
 
If ands and buts, though... This is where we're at. Who can draft or trade for?
normallylikeyell ow

Du Bois, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Mar 17, 2010
 
Anybody want Nathan Vasher?
eric

Monroe, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Mar 17, 2010
 
Kevin Meawe is still available,yes hes an old man by now,but,hes a hell of alot better then Colledge and let him battle with spitz for guard or TJ Lang for guard and put Spitz at Center or fight with Wells.
How about signing Lito Sheppard and or instead of Tramon Williams? Williams got a high pick compensasion so im sure he will be back and from what i read they are going to give him a bigger part,so maybe they are going to open up the defense and more blitzing after a year of the defense under the belts, of course they better have better OLB for rushing the qb and healthy corners to cover the few less seconds then last year.
I still like Charles Brown from USC at Cliftons LT replacment if the Packers are willing to let him sit and learn for a year,plus or OR do the Packers want to do that,when they should sign a vet to replace CLifton if he gets hurt again,so thats tricky.COllege sure cant do it,TJ Lang did ok for a rookie so who know into his 2nd year he might be even better one would think.
eric

Monroe, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Mar 17, 2010
 
Id give him a shot,Minn takes our players so we can take Chicago/s i guess.If he doenst work out,cut him.Is he a strong safty? if so,then Bigby has some competition.
GBPfan

Fountain, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Mar 17, 2010
 
normallylikeyellow wrote:
If ands and buts, though... This is where we're at. Who can draft or trade for?
Or sign as free agents! That depends on who the GM is. IF it's Ted "43-40" Thompson the answer is Charles Dillon. As for the draft, obviously that depends on who will be available when the Packers pick. Why not ask then?

Talk about "ifs and buts." Who the Packers take is the ultimate ifs and buts question. It will be the player they have tagged at #23 IF all the other players tagged before him are gone. IF not, they will pick the highest rated. BUT IF the opportunity to trade up or down and still get a player you want presents itself the Packers will do that. BUT that depends on IF the Packers have players and/or picks that another team will want and IF the Packers are willing to part with them. BUT all these factors can change IF another team in front or behind the Packers can make a better offer to the negotiating team.

BUT what one GM would do isn't what any other GM would do. BUT the best GMs will make the best choices and decisions and a team will reap the benefits IF a team has hired one of them.
normallylikeyell ow

Du Bois, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Mar 18, 2010
 
Charles Dillon needed to fill Matt Giordano's spot! I hope we pay $700,000 too. Vasher's a corner, eric. Was great for a time there. He's better than Lito Sheppard, who can't cover any more, but needs a change of scenery. And he'll get one, since they cut him loose. Williams can still cover--he's just small--and he is a decent backup for kick returns. We can draft a great corner at 23 IF we choose to. I like Kareem Jackson and Devin McCourty. Kyle Wilson has also been mentioned--but I like these two better. Jackson is a tackler. McCourty definitely looks the part--great instincts and ball skills. Both are 4.4 speed.
normallylikeyell ow

Du Bois, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Mar 18, 2010
 
Forgot to mention that the way the draft is shaping up, we could get a top running back at 23. Like Ryan Mathews of Fresno State. Now can Packers fans keep two Mat(t)hews straight? That's another question... Jahvid Best is slipping at bit, but I really like Montario Hardesty of TEN too.
Jeremy

Mooreton, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Mar 19, 2010
 
normallylikeyellow wrote:
Forgot to mention that the way the draft is shaping up, we could get a top running back at 23. Like Ryan Mathews of Fresno State. Now can Packers fans keep two Mat(t)hews straight? That's another question... Jahvid Best is slipping at bit, but I really like Montario Hardesty of TEN too.
It wouldn't bother me at all to draft a RB, the back ups in GB are really nothing to awe at.
answerman

Appleton, WI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Mar 19, 2010
 
I think you could make a case that to fill a need player from any position could be drafted at #23, with the possible exception of QB and WR (and I'm not even sure on WR). What's been the Packers' downfall for a while is lack of depth... and that depth is what separates the elite teams from the "adequate" ones.

If you go through the Packers' projected starting lineup for this year (which should look pretty much the same as last year) most of the 22 starting spots look pretty solidly manned. The problem arises, as we found out last year early on with the O-line and later in the secondary, when your starters go down with injury and there's a huge dropoff qualitywise from the starters to the backups. Ironically, I think I'm making the same point GBPfan's been making for a while here... that the elite teams can deal with injuries better because they have quality backups. The Packers are seriously lacking in that area at most positions. Whether they improve via the draft or via free agency doesn't matter... but they do need to improve there to truly be considered an elite team.

Who replaces Grant if he goes down with an injury? No one seriously expects Jackson or Green to perform at the same level. Who do you bring in if Clifton goes down? DL? LB? And God help us if we have the same backups in the secondary as we did last year.

Now, I'm not saying that you have to be the Yankees of football and sign every All-Pro just to sit on the bench, but I think you can make a case that just about every position on the Packers could be improved in the depth department. And honestly when you're drafting at #23, the instant impact players are pretty much gone (unless you get lucky like we did with Matthews last year). To me,#23 is a depth/future building block and not an impact position.
Jeremy

Mooreton, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Mar 19, 2010
 
answerman wrote:
I think you could make a case that to fill a need player from any position could be drafted at #23, with the possible exception of QB and WR (and I'm not even sure on WR). What's been the Packers' downfall for a while is lack of depth... and that depth is what separates the elite teams from the "adequate" ones.
If you go through the Packers' projected starting lineup for this year (which should look pretty much the same as last year) most of the 22 starting spots look pretty solidly manned. The problem arises, as we found out last year early on with the O-line and later in the secondary, when your starters go down with injury and there's a huge dropoff qualitywise from the starters to the backups. Ironically, I think I'm making the same point GBPfan's been making for a while here... that the elite teams can deal with injuries better because they have quality backups. The Packers are seriously lacking in that area at most positions. Whether they improve via the draft or via free agency doesn't matter... but they do need to improve there to truly be considered an elite team.
Who replaces Grant if he goes down with an injury? No one seriously expects Jackson or Green to perform at the same level. Who do you bring in if Clifton goes down? DL? LB? And God help us if we have the same backups in the secondary as we did last year.
Now, I'm not saying that you have to be the Yankees of football and sign every All-Pro just to sit on the bench, but I think you can make a case that just about every position on the Packers could be improved in the depth department. And honestly when you're drafting at #23, the instant impact players are pretty much gone (unless you get lucky like we did with Matthews last year). To me,#23 is a depth/future building block and not an impact position.
I think QB and RB depth is treading a fine line whether this team goes 12-4 or 4-12. If Grant goes down, they have virtually no running game. If Rodgers goes down, well I think we know what would happen there. I would argue that QB and RB depth is prolly the most crucial and I could see GB picking a RB at #23 and adding another Vet QB through FA, but who am I to say, I'm just a fan. I guess they consider Matt good enough to relieve AR. My gut tells me an OT at #23, but I wouldn't be surprised if a RB is grabbed. Look how Knowshon Moreno, Shonn Greene, and Rashard Mendenhall have turned out, is there a guy who would be available at #23 with that kind of pedigree? If there is, TT would be foolish to pass on it.
normallylikeyell ow

Du Bois, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Mar 19, 2010
 
Yes, there is. Mathews will be good. You guys make good points. Jeremy, your opinion is as valid as anybody's--including the GM. answerman, I know we seem WR-obsessed, but it would be hard to pass on Golden Tate if he's still there, as he is a West Coast slot guy all the way: yac like crazy, a running back body and decent hands. I'm not enamored with the QBs this draft. I think Dan Lefevour and Mike Kafka are as good as any of the guys at the top. They'll last pretty late. I think Matt Flynn can play--he just hasn't. As far as a veteran backup, I've wasted two off-seasons asking for that. Ted's not going to do it.
Jeremy

Mooreton, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Mar 19, 2010
 
normallylikeyellow wrote:
Yes, there is. Mathews will be good. You guys make good points. Jeremy, your opinion is as valid as anybody's--including the GM. answerman, I know we seem WR-obsessed, but it would be hard to pass on Golden Tate if he's still there, as he is a West Coast slot guy all the way: yac like crazy, a running back body and decent hands. I'm not enamored with the QBs this draft. I think Dan Lefevour and Mike Kafka are as good as any of the guys at the top. They'll last pretty late. I think Matt Flynn can play--he just hasn't. As far as a veteran backup, I've wasted two off-seasons asking for that. Ted's not going to do it.
I like Golden Tate a lot!!! He reminds me of a Brian Westbrook type, a little too short to be a receiver, but really goods hands and like you said, YAC. He could be a standout his rookie year on the right team. I GB think would use him wisely, but will he be there? Who knows. If Tate fell in GB's lap, I would be real excited, but I think the wise decision would be OT, but I believe in the draft, the best available is what you take. It will be another fun year of the NFL draft, I look forward to it every year.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of23
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••
•••
•••