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.
You aren’t going all in when you have multiple first round picks in 2022 and you never move a one or a two for assets that can immediately help on the field
With what cap room could we have acquired a guy who is at the level of being traded for a 1st round pick? We had a hard enough time keeping the roster the way it was as-is, and we even had to let go of Z.
Cap space is a mirage. You can kick as much as you want to into future and then pay for it later. Paying for it later is what you do when you go “all in”. We’ve paid for it for one year.
We have nearly $12.5 million in dead cap and VOID years in 2024. But more importantly, we have $140,500,000 of money going to the following players where a majority of it is "dead cap" except they aren't cut. But it's still deferred dollars.
David B
Kenny C
Jaire A
Aaron J
Preston S
D'Vondre C
We aren't out of the cap issue in 2024. We will start getting out of it in 2025. But even 2025 will see over $22 Million in cap hit due to VOID years.
There is this active campaign that the front office didn't focus dollars on the 2019 - 2022 Packers. And that is just not true. We pushed a lot of dollars into those years. And we are now getting to see the joy of seeing significant cap hit to guys like Preston Smith and D'Vondre Campbell as a result. This is part of going for it.
With what cap room could we have acquired a guy who is at the level of being traded for a 1st round pick? We had a hard enough time keeping the roster the way it was as-is, and we even had to let go of Z.
Cap space is a mirage. You can kick as much as you want to into future and then pay for it later. Paying for it later is what you do when you go “all in”. We’ve paid for it for one year.
We have nearly $12.5 million in dead cap and VOID years in 2024. But more importantly, we have $140,500,000 of money going to the following players where a majority of it is "dead cap" except they aren't cut. But it's still deferred dollars.
David B
Kenny C
Jaire A
Aaron J
Preston S
D'Vondre C
We aren't out of the cap issue in 2024. We will start getting out of it in 2025. But even 2025 will see over $22 Million in cap hit due to VOID years.
There is this active campaign that the front office didn't focus dollars on the 2019 - 2022 Packers. And that is just not true. We pushed a lot of dollars into those years. And we are now getting to see the joy of seeing significant cap hit to guys like Preston Smith and D'Vondre Campbell as a result. This is part of going for it.
Void years and players having big cap hits later in their contracts is not some strategy for the “all in” teams. It’s a strategy used league wide to free up space in the short term and to just deal with the space issue later.
Cap space is a mirage. You can kick as much as you want to into future and then pay for it later. Paying for it later is what you do when you go “all in”. We’ve paid for it for one year.
We have nearly $12.5 million in dead cap and VOID years in 2024. But more importantly, we have $140,500,000 of money going to the following players where a majority of it is "dead cap" except they aren't cut. But it's still deferred dollars.
David B
Kenny C
Jaire A
Aaron J
Preston S
D'Vondre C
We aren't out of the cap issue in 2024. We will start getting out of it in 2025. But even 2025 will see over $22 Million in cap hit due to VOID years.
There is this active campaign that the front office didn't focus dollars on the 2019 - 2022 Packers. And that is just not true. We pushed a lot of dollars into those years. And we are now getting to see the joy of seeing significant cap hit to guys like Preston Smith and D'Vondre Campbell as a result. This is part of going for it.
Void years and players having big cap hits later in their contracts is not some strategy for the “all in” teams. It’s a strategy used league wide to free up space in the short term and to just deal with the space issue later.
So then "paying for it later" isn't going all in because every team does it as a strategy.
I don't know what you are driving at here with your original post of "we paid for it in one year" The only guy we paid for was Aaron Roders
This is wrong because they went all-in only after we already had Love. Rodgers sucked in 2019, so they took a flyer on Love. Then Rodgers was good in 2020, so they went all-in at that point.
Just look at the contracts they handed out after that point.
How exactly did the Packers go all-in in 2021? By drafting Stokes, Myers and Amari Rodgers in the first three rounds? By not signing a single veteran free agent during the offseason?
I'm sorry but re-signing some of your own free agents doesn't qualify as going all-in.
How exactly did the Packers go all-in in 2021? By drafting Stokes, Myers and Amari Rodgers in the first three rounds? By not signing a single veteran free agent during the offseason?
I'm sorry but re-signing some of your own free agents doesn't qualify as going all-in.
Truer words have never been written.
A truly radical, for the Packers anyway, move would have been to trade that 2020 or 2021 1st round pick for a veteran player to make a Super Bowl run.
That is something 3 of the past 4 SB winners have done. In fact, both the Chiefs and Rams traded away multiple 1st round picks for players on their way to Super Bowl wins.
The other SB winer during that time was Tampa Bay, which added Brady, Gronk, Fournette, and Antonio Brown among others on their way to a SB victory.
Tampa Bay and the Rams truly went all in and both teams are now clearly in a re-building phase. The Bucs are currently 3-4 and the Rams are 3-5.
The Pack did not go all in and instead drafted their QB of the future. They are currently 2-5.
This is wrong because they went all-in only after we already had Love. Rodgers sucked in 2019, so they took a flyer on Love. Then Rodgers was good in 2020, so they went all-in at that point.
Just look at the contracts they handed out after that point.
How exactly did the Packers go all-in in 2021? By drafting Stokes, Myers and Amari Rodgers in the first three rounds? By not signing a single veteran free agent during the offseason?
I'm sorry but re-signing some of your own free agents doesn't qualify as going all-in.
[/quote]
These are things all non-packer fans know. Good post
How exactly did the Packers go all-in in 2021? By drafting Stokes, Myers and Amari Rodgers in the first three rounds? By not signing a single veteran free agent during the offseason?
I'm sorry but re-signing some of your own free agents doesn't qualify as going all-in.
Truer words have never been written.
A truly radical, for the Packers anyway, move would have been to trade that 2020 or 2021 1st round pick for a veteran player to make a Super Bowl run.
That is something 3 of the past 4 SB winners have done. In fact, both the Chiefs and Rams traded away multiple 1st round picks for players on their way to Super Bowl wins.
The other SB winer during that time was Tampa Bay, which added Brady, Gronk, Fournette, and Antonio Brown among others on their way to a SB victory.
Tampa Bay and the Rams truly went all in and both teams are now clearly in a re-building phase. The Bucs are currently 3-4 and the Rams are 3-5.
The Pack did not go all in and instead drafted their QB of the future. They are currently 2-5.
Another great post. As I have been saying, you are not "all in" if you draft multiple times in the 1st round, or have every pick 1-4 during the time you are supposed to be "all in".
"All in" teams flip those assets (picks) for proven players than can help you win NOW
This is wrong because they went all-in only after we already had Love. Rodgers sucked in 2019, so they took a flyer on Love. Then Rodgers was good in 2020, so they went all-in at that point.
Just look at the contracts they handed out after that point.
How exactly did the Packers go all-in in 2021? By drafting Stokes, Myers and Amari Rodgers in the first three rounds? By not signing a single veteran free agent during the offseason?
I'm sorry but re-signing some of your own free agents doesn't qualify as going all-in.
These are things all non-packer fans know. Good post
[/quote]
apparently not, or apparently conveniently gloss over in order to defend there delusion of all in, your right going all in is easy to recognize.
In hindsight you can always say they could have done more... And now we're left holding the bag, but only for 1 year, which our front office is also clearly viewing as an evaluation year.
They could have started "doing more" by not having $h!t drafts almost every year since 2011. I don't trust this front office to correctly evaluate an elementary school talent show correctly.
Since 2011?
I gotta ask, what constitutes a successful draft in your view? Or even a non-$hit draft?
Ron Wolf said getting 3 starting caliber players from a draft class is GM job security, or something like that
I've heard enough beat writers defending this trade, and some sort of rebuild, then saying we could possibly be a contender next year or it may take as much as multiple years, depending on Jordan, or if we fire this head guy or a coach, or any number of scenarios yet to unfold, the effort to sell ink has never been so easy
This is wrong because they went all-in only after we already had Love. Rodgers sucked in 2019, so they took a flyer on Love. Then Rodgers was good in 2020, so they went all-in at that point.
Just look at the contracts they handed out after that point.
How exactly did the Packers go all-in in 2021? By drafting Stokes, Myers and Amari Rodgers in the first three rounds? By not signing a single veteran free agent during the offseason?
I'm sorry but re-signing some of your own free agents doesn't qualify as going all-in.
Once again, you guys just act like the cap isn't a thing. As I have already granted, yes they probably could have squeezed out a slight improvement at WR or DB or Punter or whatever from somewhere, but it is a pipe dream that they would have been able to magically add a couple all-pros to our already maxed out ($-wise) roster. As it was, we didn't have enough room to pay the guys we had, which is why they put all the pain onto this year. Could they have added even more future pain to go even more all-in? Probably, but not as much as you guys seem to believe.
So yes, re-signing some of your own free agents qualifies as going all-in, especially when some of those FAs are the top guys at their positions, and others are below-average guys that you are re-signing for the sole purpose of placating your prima donna QB who considers them untouchable. Lol at your definition of all-in not including signing top players at their position simply because they already reside on your roster. That's a dumb argument.
As it stands, the most impactful improvement we could have made over the past few years wasn't even an additional superstar FA- it was firing our ST staff when it was obvious they were terrible. The roster was plenty good enough to win it all in 2020 and especially 2021.
This is wrong because they went all-in only after we already had Love. Rodgers sucked in 2019, so they took a flyer on Love. Then Rodgers was good in 2020, so they went all-in at that point.
Just look at the contracts they handed out after that point.
How exactly did the Packers go all-in in 2021? By drafting Stokes, Myers and Amari Rodgers in the first three rounds? By not signing a single veteran free agent during the offseason?
I'm sorry but re-signing some of your own free agents doesn't qualify as going all-in.
Once again, you guys just act like the cap isn't a thing. As I have already granted, yes they probably could have squeezed out a slight improvement at WR or DB or Punter or whatever from somewhere, but it is a pipe dream that they would have been able to magically add a couple all-pros to our already maxed out ($-wise) roster. As it was, we didn't have enough room to pay the guys we had, which is why they put all the pain onto this year. Could they have added even more future pain to go even more all-in? Probably, but not as much as you guys seem to believe.
So yes, re-signing some of your own free agents qualifies as going all-in, especially when some of those FAs are the top guys at their positions, and others are below-average guys that you are re-signing for the sole purpose of placating your prima donna QB who considers them untouchable. Lol at your definition of all-in not including signing top players at their position simply because they already reside on your roster. That's a dumb argument.
As it stands, the most impactful improvement we could have made over the past few years wasn't even an additional superstar FA- it was firing our ST staff when it was obvious they were terrible. The roster was plenty good enough to win it all in 2020 and especially 2021.
In my opinion in 2019 if we played the 49ers 100 we would have lost all 100. That team was significantly better than ours. In 2020 I think we would have had a chance but we lost the arms race leading up to the conference game. We have failed at repeatedly not adding scoring weapons leading up to the playoffs and it’s why other teams have won the SB. I think in 2021 that was our shot but LaFleurs coaching decisions in STs ruined us. There was no reason not to try something different for a coordinator on that side of the ball. You couldn’t be worse than worst of all time. Again though it was another example of a team that just couldn’t add an offensive piece to help push us over the top. Lazard was good at everything except being a receiver.
At this point all of us are solely guessing on if those two statements are true.
How exactly did the Packers go all-in in 2021? By drafting Stokes, Myers and Amari Rodgers in the first three rounds? By not signing a single veteran free agent during the offseason?
I'm sorry but re-signing some of your own free agents doesn't qualify as going all-in.
Once again, you guys just act like the cap isn't a thing. As I have already granted, yes they probably could have squeezed out a slight improvement at WR or DB or Punter or whatever from somewhere, but it is a pipe dream that they would have been able to magically add a couple all-pros to our already maxed out ($-wise) roster. As it was, we didn't have enough room to pay the guys we had, which is why they put all the pain onto this year. Could they have added even more future pain to go even more all-in? Probably, but not as much as you guys seem to believe.
So yes, re-signing some of your own free agents qualifies as going all-in, especially when some of those FAs are the top guys at their positions, and others are below-average guys that you are re-signing for the sole purpose of placating your prima donna QB who considers them untouchable. Lol at your definition of all-in not including signing top players at their position simply because they already reside on your roster. That's a dumb argument.
As it stands, the most impactful improvement we could have made over the past few years wasn't even an additional superstar FA- it was firing our ST staff when it was obvious they were terrible. The roster was plenty good enough to win it all in 2020 and especially 2021.
In my opinion in 2019 if we played the 49ers 100 we would have lost all 100. That team was significantly better than ours. In 2020 I think we would have had a chance but we lost the arms race leading up to the conference game. We have failed at repeatedly not adding scoring weapons leading up to the playoffs and it’s why other teams have won the SB. I think in 2021 that was our shot but LaFleurs coaching decisions in STs ruined us. There was no reason not to try something different for a coordinator on that side of the ball. You couldn’t be worse than worst of all time. Again though it was another example of a team that just couldn’t add an offensive piece to help push us over the top. Lazard was good at everything except being a receiver.
I largely agree. I think 2020 could have been won without any additional pieces but I do think that their roster was better (easy to do when you have guys going to sunny Florida, which also has 0 income tax, for pennies to play with Brady). I think they win 6 out of 10 times. But if we don't shoot ourselves in the foot twice (the Hail Mary and Jones' fumble), it's all of a sudden a much closer game. And iirc we totally shut Brady down in the 2nd half at a certain point.
3-5 is not having gone all in. The Packers hedged their bets just in case Rodgers got hurt and played like crap, which kind of go together, and which he did for about 5 games last season, resulting in the Packers missing the playoffs altogether.
Maybe you who wanted the Packers to go all in a few years ago would prefer that the Packers be 0-8 now? And in even worse salary cap situation?
At this point all of us are solely guessing on if those two statements are true.
How exactly did the Packers go all-in in 2021? By drafting Stokes, Myers and Amari Rodgers in the first three rounds? By not signing a single veteran free agent during the offseason?
I'm sorry but re-signing some of your own free agents doesn't qualify as going all-in.
Once again, you guys just act like the cap isn't a thing. As I have already granted, yes they probably could have squeezed out a slight improvement at WR or DB or Punter or whatever from somewhere, but it is a pipe dream that they would have been able to magically add a couple all-pros to our already maxed out ($-wise) roster. As it was, we didn't have enough room to pay the guys we had, which is why they put all the pain onto this year. Could they have added even more future pain to go even more all-in? Probably, but not as much as you guys seem to believe.
So yes, re-signing some of your own free agents qualifies as going all-in, especially when some of those FAs are the top guys at their positions, and others are below-average guys that you are re-signing for the sole purpose of placating your prima donna QB who considers them untouchable. Lol at your definition of all-in not including signing top players at their position simply because they already reside on your roster. That's a dumb argument.
As it stands, the most impactful improvement we could have made over the past few years wasn't even an additional superstar FA- it was firing our ST staff when it was obvious they were terrible. The roster was plenty good enough to win it all in 2020 and especially 2021.
In my opinion in 2019 if we played the 49ers 100 we would have lost all 100. That team was significantly better than ours. In 2020 I think we would have had a chance but we lost the arms race leading up to the conference game. We have failed at repeatedly not adding scoring weapons leading up to the playoffs and it’s why other teams have won the SB. I think in 2021 that was our shot but LaFleurs coaching decisions in STs ruined us. There was no reason not to try something different for a coordinator on that side of the ball. You couldn’t be worse than worst of all time. Again though it was another example of a team that just couldn’t add an offensive piece to help push us over the top. Lazard was good at everything except being a receiver.
It is laugh out loud funny how some fans will defend not having better receivers then the likes of Lazard, Allison, the one trick pony MVS, we here the "we went all in" comments as though simply retaining a great QB was all that was needed.
or it may take as much as multiple years, depending on Jordan, or if we fire this head guy or a coach, or any number of scenarios yet to unfold, the effort to sell ink has never been so easy 
