Packers Huddle

Drj820 wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 19:13

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:35

Drj820 wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:31

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.

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2023 07:27

Drj820 wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 19:13

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:35

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.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2023 07:45

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2023 07:27

Drj820 wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 19:13

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.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 02:52

I agree. There is talent. Even Love is good enough to win with - including a SB.

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:12

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.

CWIMM wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2023 06:17

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.

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:12

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.

LombardiTime wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2023 07:18

CWIMM wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2023 06:17

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.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2023 07:45

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:12

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.

APB wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2023 07:15

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 23:23

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 23:18

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?

RingoCStarrQB wrote: ↑

05 Nov 2023 10:08

In today's Milwaukee paper Pete Dougherty is suggesting the Mark Murphy is now onboard for a rebuild .... duh, really?

So one question the entire Packers Nation must now have: What is the official Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) to achieve the rebuild?

Another question: What took so long to commit to the rebuild?

Another question: I the firing of Gutey and LaCoach part of the rebuild? What is the POA&M for doing so?

Another question: __________________________

GO PACK GO!! Beat LA.

CWIMM wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2023 06:17

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 02:52

I agree. There is talent. Even Love is good enough to win with - including a SB.

At this point all of us are solely guessing on if those two statements are true.

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:12

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.

texas wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023 16:02

CWIMM wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2023 06:17

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 02:52

I agree. There is talent. Even Love is good enough to win with - including a SB.

At this point all of us are solely guessing on if those two statements are true.

texas wrote: ↑

01 Nov 2023 16:12

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.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023 21:46

texas wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023 16:02

CWIMM wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2023 06:17

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.

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2023 07:27

We have nearly $12.5 million in dead cap and VOID years in 2024.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023 21:46

texas wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023 16:02

CWIMM wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2023 06:17

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.

Raptorman wrote: ↑

11 Nov 2023 22:19

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Nov 2023 07:27

We have nearly $12.5 million in dead cap and VOID years in 2024.

Only that much? Wow. I wish my team only had that much.