A Hypothetical built on Optimism

[salmar80]

I will say if Love plays 8 games and looks ok, taking Rodgers back mid-season probably should NOT involve giving him more, longer guarantees. Unless he plays just well enough to get us a 1st round pick+ back in a trade, which in my hypothetical seems slightly unlikely, but possible. But these questions would all be more about 2022, and I'm trying to ask about 2021, so I'm sort of on a tangent here.

Absolutely not giving Rodgers anything more. I think we are honestly screwed if we do give Rodgers more anyway because the Packers are going to suck in 2022 and beyond.

The cap will be NO MORE than 208 million dollars in 2022 based on the latest agreement. it could be less.

The 2022 Packers currently have $237 million on the cap. Keep in mind we have already deferred almost everyone. We will have Alexander to sign in 2023 AND Davante Adams is not under contract in 2022.

So we are going to have to shave over $30 million, sign players just to have a roster, and have two significant FA decisions to make with Alexander and Adams. The more I think about it, the more I don't think Rodgers can be a Packer after this year. It just doesn't make sense.

That's going too far. There are ways to create a LOT of cap space for 2022 and beyond if AR commits to us (and the Packers to him). It's the year-by-year teetering that would be very tricky cap-wise, since extensions would play a big part in creating that short term cap space.

[NCF]

Didn't think kind of happen with the 2017/2018 Eagles with Foles being amazing whenever he started and Carson not being as good in 2018 and beyond?

Yes, but I think that is a common scenario. The back-up gets a chance based on injury and excels. This hypothetical is pretty specifically different.

[Crazylegs Starks]

Exactly; I made these stats as neutral and difficult to gauge as humanly possible. <snip>

Personally, I'm quite proud of myself for expertly crafting the most neutral scenario through which to judge the situation as imaginable.

Don't think we didn't notice, you sneaky devil

[YoHoChecko]

Sort of like the Brady-Bledsoe year honestly.

Bay in year one looked like an efficient system QB with arm talent of a 199th pick, but surprisingly good efficiency while the defense and “Patriot Way” led to wins. Once Bledsoe was healthy again, it was a genuinely debatable position to roll with Brady, but they did. Until Brady got injured and they needed Bledsoe in the playoffs, then had to decide again, when Brady was healthy the next game.

I think that putting Love on the bench after 8 games to finish the season with Rodgers could be done without upending Love’s career or “pulling the plug” as they say. But I guess I left out of my thinking that many/most would see that as a point of no return.

[bud fox]

If the Packers are better without Rodgers you trade him.

If the team is better without the MVP of the league. Man you guys are in for a rude awakening

[go pak go]

If the Packers are better without Rodgers you trade him.

If the team is better without the MVP of the league. Man budfox is in for a rude awakening

fixed it

[go pak go]

Sort of like the Brady-Bledsoe year honestly.

Bay in year one looked like an efficient system QB with arm talent of a 199th pick, but surprisingly good efficiency while the defense and “Patriot Way” led to wins. Once Bledsoe was healthy again, it was a genuinely debatable position to roll with Brady, but they did. Until Brady got injured and they needed Bledsoe in the playoffs, then had to decide again, when Brady was healthy the next game.

I think that putting Love on the bench after 8 games to finish the season with Rodgers could be done without upending Love’s career or “pulling the plug” as they say. But I guess I left out of my thinking that many/most would see that as a point of no return.

Yeah I think you could bench Love because we own him for 3 more years. But you owe it to both of them after the 21 season to trade one of them.

Rodgers will net you more in trade value, save you more in cap and provide less years of service.

So I am trading Rodgers.

[BF004]

Sort of like the Brady-Bledsoe year honestly.

Bay in year one looked like an efficient system QB with arm talent of a 199th pick, but surprisingly good efficiency while the defense and “Patriot Way” led to wins. Once Bledsoe was healthy again, it was a genuinely debatable position to roll with Brady, but they did. Until Brady got injured and they needed Bledsoe in the playoffs, then had to decide again, when Brady was healthy the next game.

I think that putting Love on the bench after 8 games to finish the season with Rodgers could be done without upending Love’s career or “pulling the plug” as they say. But I guess I left out of my thinking that many/most would see that as a point of no return.

Bledsoe =/= Rodgers

Or even close.

[Drj820]

If bortles is starting in week 8 then That means Love obviously can’t play so the proper move would be to fire Gutey and then in comes Mr Rodgers.

[YoHoChecko]

Bledsoe =/= Rodgers

Or even close.

No not at all. There are no perfect corollaries, but that was a very unknown, up-in-the-air, "stick with the franchise QB or move on to the successful young guy who isn't lighting it up but is winning"

[go pak go]

Honestly should have been more of a situtation going into the cold game vs New York Giants in January 2008 between Favre and Rodgers.

[Labrev]

If Love is playing well, I am thinking you send Rodgers packing here.

One of the main reasons I do not want to trade him *now* is because it will be more advantageous to do it after the season. A mid-season trade would not quite be as good but it would be better than doing so now, especially if there are coaches and/or GMs that are in desperate situations midway through the season.