Packers Huddle

Rodgers should make less than all three of those guys.

All three are younger, two took their team to the playoffs, whereas Rodgers out-Lion'd the Lions in his own stadium in the game he needed to win to get in, those same two are pretty mobile (this is huge in today's NFL) whereas Rodgers is slow, one (Smith) got MVP votes more recently than he did.

No reason to pay him upwards of $33.5m.

JLVE SZN

So there are 4 QB's that should go top 10.

Looking at the teams, Texans, Colts, Seahawks, Raiders, Panthers, Falcons who frequently have QB's mocked to them.

Seattle and Atlanta both seem content with who they have at the same time, right or wrong.


Really kind of hoping maybe Carolina ends up with Lamar Jackson.

That would basically leave the Texans, Colts and Raiders who would be locks to take 3 of the 4 all the way down to pick 7.

There really doesn't seem to be anyone head and shoulders over anyone else.

Long thought our process short, I can't really imagine anyone breaking the bank to move up to pick 1. I feel like the Ryan Poles has been working hard to sell that pick and get a haul, I just frankly don't see a reason for anyone to offer them much of anything.

Like the Colts giving up 4, their 2nd and a 1st next year? Why? Even you like a guy much more, that is a HUGE difference to give up when you are basically assured to have your pick of 2 of the those 4 guys by pick 4, and even worse case scenario, you get one of them.

And for the Raiders, it would probably make much more sense to trade to 3 or 5 maybe to make sure you get a guy you want.

I don't know, I just can't really see anyone trading up to one other than maybe the Colts, and I honestly wouldn't be offering much more than 4 and my 2nd.

Or maybe the Bears could slide down to 2 if they con the Texans into moving up 1, maybe it could get more interesting then. But I just can't see them getting this 'big haul' for that pick.

I still think the Colts and Texans will bid against themselves for number 1

I also think the Panthers’ offer looks better to the Bears after Carter’s arrest

I don’t see any reason to write off the Seahawks’ and Falcons’ interest in QBs but not write off the Panthers for Jackson, given the reason for writing them off are sources reporting they’re out on Jackson.

I guess I just disagree with a lot of the premises used to make the assumption the Bears won’t get much trade action. I don’t think it’ll be a legendary haul; there’s no Luck or Lawrence in this class. But they’ll get a good offer and take it.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2023 19:55

so Brandt thinks team should Guarantee players millions of dollars?? I support the Ravens for refusing to just do that.

It's why we are having these issues with Rodgers.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2023 10:55

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2023 19:55

so Brandt thinks team should Guarantee players millions of dollars?? I support the Ravens for refusing to just do that.

It's why we are having these issues with Rodgers.

No [mention]Yoop[/mention]. Brandt contends the collective group of owners outside of Jimmy Haslam thought the contract given to Watson was an abject mistake. The Ravens resisting Jackson's demand for a fully guaranteed contract is singularly saving the owner collective from going down a precedent road they absolutely do not want to go down.

Yeah, this is not about interest in Lamar Jackson.

It's about the fact that NO owner wants a world where QBs can expect a 5-year fully guaranteed deal. Guarantees beyond 3 years are dicey at best. When you talk the size of QB contracts, it gets even dicier.

Now add in that the NFLPA is advising Lamar in an effort to make him the standard-bearer to bring about just that expectation and precedent? (I understand that Watsons et the precedent, but one bad contract is one bad contract; two sets expectations).

This is a proxy war between the owners and the union. It doesn't need to be collusion or nefarious in order for all the owners in position to act saying they don't want to go down this road. It is simply bad for them, long-term to go take that leap. They don't want to do it. And they shouldn't want to do it.

The comparison between serial masseuse molester DeSean Watson and model citizen Lamar Jackson looks awful from a PR standpoint. But the three other teams who were competing for Watson weren't going to give him the deal the Browns did. The Browns got him because they went there. The majority of owners immediately jumped on him, including the Ravens' owner, publicly (as BSA pointed out a few posts ago).

Lamar is going to be the pawn in the battle between owners and union and there is immense pressure in their peer group not to cave, spoken or unspoken. It's going to look sketchy, discriminatory, fishy, collusiony. But it's a battle the owners feel they must win.

APB wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2023 11:14

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2023 10:55

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

07 Mar 2023 19:55

so Brandt thinks team should Guarantee players millions of dollars?? I support the Ravens for refusing to just do that.

It's why we are having these issues with Rodgers.

No @Yoop. Brandt contends the collective group of owners outside of Jimmy Haslam thought the contract given to Watson was an abject mistake. The Ravens resisting Jackson's demand for a fully guaranteed contract is singularly saving the owner collective from going down a precedent road they absolutely do not want to go down.

got it now, thanks.

these long term guaranteed contracts are insane.

Word is talks between Lamar Jackson and ATL are progressing significantly.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/la ... dfef4&ei=9

Labrev wrote: ↑

08 Mar 2023 13:02

Word is talks between Lamar Jackson and ATL are progressing significantly.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/la ... dfef4&ei=9

They the team to get closest to giving him what he wants in my opinion.

Coach needs to win
No viable qb on roster
Owner desperately wants to win
Stadium has been empty since Ryan left
Plenty of cap space

Perfect storm. Lamar solves most of those problems

Just had the link to that exact tweet copy and was ready to paste here.


What the word? Schaudenfreude?

Drj820 wrote: ↑

09 Mar 2023 15:56

He, too, is a complicated fella...

APB wrote: ↑

09 Mar 2023 16:14

He, too, is a complicated fella...

The new DC in minny is Brian Flores and he rubs some people the wrong way
Could be that LB coach Mike Smith is out and Z is a huge fan of his

Chiefs just cut Frank Clark, I could see Z chasing a ring in KC
Its possible AR asked the Jets to grab Z, would be a nice add in NY opposite Carl Lawson
You can make a case for just about any team, wonder what Z is after

to go back and see where the blame was places for Smith leaving...?

I’ve been saying Yosh could be quite appealing for some teams.

KC would make a TON of sense. Losing Brown, not much cap room, looking to compete, and they have the last pick in the 2nd round.

BF004 wrote: ↑

09 Mar 2023 17:59

KC would make a TON of sense.

time to put a muzzle on MVS, he's trying to gut the Packers roster

BF004 wrote: ↑

09 Mar 2023 17:59

I’ve been saying Yosh could be quite appealing for some teams.

KC would make a TON of sense. Losing Brown, not much cap room, looking to compete, and they have the last pick in the 2nd round.

is that to say that if the Chiefs sign Yosh, that they give Green Bay the 63rd pick (after GB has opportunity to sign Yosh)?

I would take that deal, even if we lose Bahktiari.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

09 Mar 2023 19:04

BF004 wrote: ↑

09 Mar 2023 17:59

I’ve been saying Yosh could be quite appealing for some teams.

KC would make a TON of sense. Losing Brown, not much cap room, looking to compete, and they have the last pick in the 2nd round.

is that to say that if the Chiefs sign Yosh, that they give Green Bay the 63rd pick (after GB has opportunity to sign Yosh)?

I would take that deal, even if we lose Bahktiari.

Assuming we put the 2nd round tender on him, yes.