From Lambeau to Lombardi, Holmgren, McCarthy and LaFleur and from Starr to Favre, Rodgers and now Jordan Love we’re talking Super Bowl Champion Green Bay Packers football. This Packers Forum is the place to talk NFL football and everything Packers. So, pull up a keyboard, make yourself at home and let’s talk some Packers football.
How about we actually talk about the real reasons why the Packers had trouble selling tickets to the playoff game to the 49ers at the end of the 2013 season? Aaron Rodgers went down and the tickets went on sale during a losing streak. Simple as that. No reason to fabricate any other reason.
I was at both of the "cold games", the 2007 NFC Championship Game versus the Giants and the 2013 season playoff game versus the 49ers.
Packers went 8-7-1 in 2013. Seneca Wallace, Scott Tolzien and Matt Flynn collectively completed over 60% of their passes but went 2-4-1. In the game we lost to the Lions, Matt Flynn completed 10 passes for 139 yards and Eddie Lacy had 16 yards rushing on 10 carries. Rodgers was 6-3 in the othere 9 games. Beat Duh Bears in Game 16 on that incredible 48 yard pass to Randall Cobb with 0:38 left in the 4th quarter. I'll never forget the key block by John Kuuuuuuuuuuhn.
2013 was the first season the new 80,000 seat Lambeau Field opened up, including the 700 level endzone seats. Electronic ticketing wasn't as advanced in 2013 as it is today. But you are right Pckfn23 .......... the Rodgers injury was the primary reason for the trouble selling out Lambeau Field for the playoff game versus the Niners. 2007 was the NFC Championship Game.......... a bigger game than the 2013 playoff game. For some reason early round playoff games in January don't attract as much game ticket fury as opening day does in September. Just sayin'
Didn't need Lambeau Field sell outs to lose both postseason games..........but we did. Not the best of memories, although the bar scenes the night before each game were incredibly electric.
This is interesting. From what I understood, they did not need his permission to do a simple restructure, so this alludes to something a little bit different, doesn't it?
If, in fact, it's true then yes, I think so. I don't think Michael Silver is a tied in news source as far as the Packers are concerned, though.
News outlets have been pushing this Rodgers restructure thing for some time now and I think as FA has slowed down, they're now looking for "news" to report and Rodgers' current and future standing with the club is newsworthy stuff. As reported by Michael Silver, though? For me, not so much...
This is interesting. From what I understood, they did not need his permission to do a simple restructure, so this alludes to something a little bit different, doesn't it?
It honestly sounds like Silver has no idea what he is talking about and his opinion is telling that I don't think he knows what he is talking about.
If, in fact, it's true then yes, I think so. I don't think Michael Silver is a tied in news source as far as the Packers are concerned, though.
News outlets have been pushing this Rodgers restructure thing for some time now and I think as FA has slowed down, they're now looking for "news" to report and Rodgers' current and future standing with the club is newsworthy stuff. As reported by Michael Silver, though? For me, not so much...
I think we've discovered the secret identity of [mention]lupedafiasco[/mention] :
-
image.png (44.02 KiB) Viewed 519 times
I don't have great trust in Michael Silver, so I'm not getting worked up over this. The Packers can free up about 9M of cap space without negotiating by converting AR's 2021 base salary to a signing bonus. They can do that without even consulting the player, and it only means AR gets the money now, not as a weekly check during the season.
IF there's an actual negotiation, it would either be about an actual extension, or about adding dummy/voidable years to the contract. Adding 2 years to it would help a lot now and also next year. A signing bonus gets prorated (= it's cap hit is split) over a maximum of 5 years, so adding 2 real or void years to the existing 3-year contract would max the amount of cap space we could free by converting salary to signing bonus.
If we do an actual 2-year extension, AR would be 42 years old at the end of it. Adding voidable/dummy years would not benefit Rodgers in any way, other than freeing cap for a SB push before GB would have to make a real decision between him and Love in 2023.
I honestly could care less about Rodgers and an extension at this point because we have like 3 options to clear up cap if needed.
I am however starting to get a bit annoyed that CB after CB is getting signed and it looks like we are going into the season with hopefully Kevin King back at this point.
Just seems like we don't have a plan right now when we need one.
am still waiting and giving time for them to do something but I think it will be a mistake if they decide to do nothing at Cornerback.
Agreed.
You seem like a rather bright individual...
1) Do you think the Packers are aware of the importance of CB2 ? (yes)
2) Do you think the offseason plan is to do nothing about it ? (no)
It would be reasonable to conclude they have several plans and multiple contingencies - especially given the crazy nature of draft and free agency. We just don't know yet.
If you look at Gute history, he's hit several problem areas with multiple shots.
2 Smiths and Gary. 3 WRs drafted in same draft. Amos and Savage, Turner and Wagner. Runyan and Stepaniak
So its really not a question of IF, but rather WHO and WHEN. And while I appreciate the fans' anxiety, its March 22nd and FA just opened in GB.
It opened last week for some teams, but for Packer Nation, its really Day 1 today.
.
But if I'm being truly honest...I also don't think signing anyone on the street is much of an upgrade over Holman, Jackson and future draft picks at this point.
Why he intrigues me is he was very good in the nickle and STAR role with us early in his career.
Why he doesn't intrigue me is the Chargers, who will be running the same type of defense as we will be, didn't think Hayward was a fit for their defense.
Why he intrigues me is he was very good in the nickle and STAR role with us early in his career.
Why he doesn't intrigue me is the Chargers, who will be running the same type of defense as we will be, didn't think Hayward was a fit for their defense.
Hayward was a cap cut, pure and simple as he was scheduled to make almost $10M. Teams always make those excuses that a player doesn't fit the scheme. It's BS. If the player is good enough, you make the scheme fit him, you make it work. I think Hayward is still good and you find a way to get him in your defense.
But if I'm being truly honest...I also don't think signing anyone on the street is much of an upgrade over Holman, Jackson and future draft picks at this point.
I don't think either have the fluidity to line up inside regularly, and there are a lot of slot-capable free agents available, so I definitely think adding one in an upgrade.
And while we don't fully know how the defense will look. This exact dilemma keeps pulling me back to how badly I wanted a Seattle-coaching-tree defense with this personnel in our secondary.
I think having Savage and Jaire means one corner needs very little safety help and the other has enough range to cover 2/3 of the field as a deep "center fielder." It basically removes the need for a second "safety" and allows your box safety or 3rd safety/nickel/dime defenders to become a more permanent fixture without borrowing from the front 7 personnel or paying for it on the back end.
But we shall see. I also am no Xs and Os expert so I genuinely may be wrong about this whole thing.
I honestly could care less about Rodgers and an extension at this point because we have like 3 options to clear up cap if needed.
I am however starting to get a bit annoyed that CB after CB is getting signed and it looks like we are going into the season with hopefully Kevin King back at this point.
Just seems like we are going by Green Bay's plan to keep King right now.
Fixed that for you.
:-)
Seriously, I am frustrated with King as much as the next guy. The guy is physically good, combined with occasional lapses of any thinking ability. But he is usable. I'm more concerned that we need depth at CB and that hasn't happened yet. But then, the first week of real FA action is in the books. We wouldn't expect to sign depth at this point.
Come on down and try some of our delicious green chili! Best in the world!
Seriously, I am frustrated with King as much as the next guy. The guy is physically good, combined with occasional lapses of any thinking ability. But he is usable. I'm more concerned that we need depth at CB and that hasn't happened yet. But then, the first week of real FA action is in the books. We wouldn't expect to sign depth at this point.
No way. We need to sign a starter and draft depth. No need wasting a roster spot and money on veteran depth.
But like I said, at this point the "starter" we sign may be the starting nickel defender, upgrading on Sullivan, while letting Jackson and Hollman and a draft pick vie for the outside spot.
