Re: Reality
Posted: 12 Nov 2023 08:12
Ah, no. Just no. Does that take in the $28,500,000 hit from Cousins? Or are they saying you can push money down the road and never have to account for it?
Page 7 of 7
Re: Reality
Posted: 12 Nov 2023 08:25
It (having great QB's) obviously is not all that is necessary. The problem is that great QB's want a lot of money, and without cap money to pay and retain the rest of the team, it is necessary to be incredibly lucky drafting and signing FA's and avoiding key injuries. It is almost impossible to have the best QB, the best Oline, the best receivers, the best RB and the best D in the league. Some position is going to get shorted unless the team is incredibly lucky with injuries and is the best at drafting in the league.
Some of us are critical of Gute or were critical of Ted, because they were not the GOAT in GM's. (Wolf?). But even if they were so good as to find the best LT in the league in the 4th round, what happens if that LT blows out his knee and is never again the same player? The Cheatriots were the best for a decade, but now having the same man as the best GM and HC isn't enough because Belichick got old and lost his edge.
The NFL has found a way to prevent dynasties with the cap and with draft order. It is genius because at the beginning of every season, 3/4 of the league has a legitimate chance at a SB. Even Da Bears where QB's go to fail has a chance and have had their SB's and made the playoffs in the last 10 years twice. It is genius because the primary path to a SB is to be LUCKY with the draft for 2 or 3 years in a row and with injuries.
Re: Reality
Posted: 12 Nov 2023 09:18
I mean you took a simplified snippet of my quote disregarding the "rest of the story" so I don't see the difference with my statement of MN's 2024 dead cap.
It is accurate and consistent to your approach.
But yes. With MN there is absolutely a lot more to the story.
Re: Reality
Posted: 12 Nov 2023 09:38
other teams have very expensive QB's and manage to find the missing player, and they win, whats obvious is that when a team devotes almost all its d picks on one aspect of the team, the other side will decline, and thats a fair interpretation of what's happened with us and our offense, it's not so much that we lost key starters, that is bound to happen in the UFA era, it's that we didn't make plans prior for there departure, or use UFA or even the draft to replace them till they where gone.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑12 Nov 2023 08:25It (having great QB's) obviously is not all that is necessary. The problem is that great QB's want a lot of money, and without cap money to pay and retain the rest of the team, it is necessary to be incredibly lucky drafting and signing FA's and avoiding key injuries. It is almost impossible to have the best QB, the best Oline, the best receivers, the best RB and the best D in the league. Some position is going to get shorted unless the team is incredibly lucky with injuries and is the best at drafting in the league.
Some of us are critical of Gute or were critical of Ted, because they were not the GOAT in GM's. (Wolf?). But even if they were so good as to find the best LT in the league in the 4th round, what happens if that LT blows out his knee and is never again the same player? The Cheatriots were the best for a decade, but now having the same man as the best GM and HC isn't enough because Belichick got old and lost his edge.
The NFL has found a way to prevent dynasties with the cap and with draft order. It is genius because at the beginning of every season, 3/4 of the league has a legitimate chance at a SB. Even Da Bears where QB's go to fail has a chance and have had their SB's and made the playoffs in the last 10 years twice. It is genius because the primary path to a SB is to be LUCKY with the draft for 2 or 3 years in a row and with injuries.
the idea that because Rodgers cost so much we couldn't buy talent pales when ya compare it to teams in the same boat that do
Re: Reality
Posted: 12 Nov 2023 09:47
I would say the list of teams that go from a HOF quarterback a successful multi-year run to the next generation without a hiccup in offensive production is very, very small.
The early 90's SF 49ers did it with Montana to Young. The late 2000's Packers did it. But even the Packers did it on the back of a rebuild of 2005 - 2008. I just can't think of many other teams that were in the same boat and did it successfully.
Re: Reality
Posted: 12 Nov 2023 10:09
different topic, my point concerned adding the missing skill position players that other teams do, even though they have QB's on expensive contracts, we see it happen almost every season.go pak go wrote: ↑12 Nov 2023 09:47I would say the list of teams that go from a HOF quarterback a successful multi-year run to the next generation without a hiccup in offensive production is very, very small.
The early 90's SF 49ers did it with Montana to Young. The late 2000's Packers did it. But even the Packers did it on the back of a rebuild of 2005 - 2008. I just can't think of many other teams that were in the same boat and did it successfully.
I think your right on your point, other then the Niners with Montana to Young, I think where the only other team to go from 1 HOF QB to another in Rodgers
not sure what rebuild of 05 to 08 your referring to, please explain, unless your referencing the firing of Sanders and hiring of Capers in 08?
Re: Reality
Posted: 14 Nov 2023 06:12
The Packers would have been able to add talent and fit it under the cap if they actually decided to go all-in while Rodgers was still around. It should have been pretty obvious to everyone that the season after he left was meant to a rebuild anyway so it wouldn't have mattered to add even more dead money into it anyway.texas wrote: ↑11 Nov 2023 16:02Once 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.
If a general manager solely relies on re-signing the team's own free agents as well as adding practice squad players that's definitely not going all-in. Period.
I wouldn't mind being 0-9 at this point if it meant the Packers would have won another Super Bowl while Rodgers was still around.TheSkeptic wrote: ↑12 Nov 2023 02:243-5 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?
Well, the Vikings will end up with another $50.2 million of dead money counting against their cap in 2024 once the contracts of Cousins, Hunter and Davenport void.
Re: Reality
Posted: 14 Nov 2023 06:58
Can you be more specific on that would have happened? Maybe give an example of a player from 2021 they could have signed and how they could have fit him under the cap?CWIMM wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 06:12
The Packers would have been able to add talent and fit it under the cap if they actually decided to go all-in while Rodgers was still around. It should have been pretty obvious to everyone that the season after he left was meant to a rebuild anyway so it wouldn't have mattered to add even more dead money into it anyway.
If a general manager solely relies on re-signing the team's own free agents as well as adding practice squad players that's definitely not going all-in. Period.
Then general manager did not solely rely on signing his own free agents and adding practice squad players.
Re: Reality
Posted: 14 Nov 2023 07:06
The Packers f*ed up by not signing OBJ. They could have done it. They should have done it and hindsight says it was the right move.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 06:58Can you be more specific on that would have happened? Maybe give an example of a player from 2021 they could have signed and how they could have fit him under the cap?CWIMM wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 06:12
The Packers would have been able to add talent and fit it under the cap if they actually decided to go all-in while Rodgers was still around. It should have been pretty obvious to everyone that the season after he left was meant to a rebuild anyway so it wouldn't have mattered to add even more dead money into it anyway.
If a general manager solely relies on re-signing the team's own free agents as well as adding practice squad players that's definitely not going all-in. Period.
Then general manager did not solely rely on signing his own free agents and adding practice squad players.
When I look at the Packers front office failures the last 10 years, not resigning Hyde, not drafting TJ Watt, taking Myers over Humphrey and not signing OBJ are the clear mistakes.
On the other hand, nobody says boo about passing on Stephon Gilmore and instead going with a no-namer Rasul Douglas which ended up be absolutely brilliant.
Re: Reality
Posted: 14 Nov 2023 07:29
While I agree, I believe we could not beat the Rams contract they gave his as it would have put us over the cap with likely to receive incentives.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 07:06The Packers f*ed up by not signing OBJ. They could have done it. They should have done it and hindsight says it was the right move.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 06:58Can you be more specific on that would have happened? Maybe give an example of a player from 2021 they could have signed and how they could have fit him under the cap?CWIMM wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 06:12
The Packers would have been able to add talent and fit it under the cap if they actually decided to go all-in while Rodgers was still around. It should have been pretty obvious to everyone that the season after he left was meant to a rebuild anyway so it wouldn't have mattered to add even more dead money into it anyway.
If a general manager solely relies on re-signing the team's own free agents as well as adding practice squad players that's definitely not going all-in. Period.
Then general manager did not solely rely on signing his own free agents and adding practice squad players.
When I look at the Packers front office failures the last 10 years, not resigning Hyde, not drafting TJ Watt, taking Myers over Humphrey and not signing OBJ are the clear mistakes.
On the other hand, nobody says boo about passing on Stephon Gilmore and instead going with a no-namer Rasul Douglas which ended up be absolutely brilliant.
There are definitely moves ever year that were wrong at the time and definitely wrong after the fact
What I really want to know if the trade in 2021 that we could have fit under our cap that would have put us over the top.
Re: Reality
Posted: 14 Nov 2023 07:33
Yeah there were no trades. I think we had a shot at OBJ if we actually tried. But it sounds like MLF and Rodgers told him he wouldn't be a highlighted player and that really turned OBJ off. I believe the Rams had an injury to Woods? So they had a clear opening and that was attractive.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 07:29While I agree, I believe we could not beat the Rams contract they gave his as it would have put us over the cap with likely to receive incentives.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 07:06The Packers f*ed up by not signing OBJ. They could have done it. They should have done it and hindsight says it was the right move.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 06:58
Can you be more specific on that would have happened? Maybe give an example of a player from 2021 they could have signed and how they could have fit him under the cap?
Then general manager did not solely rely on signing his own free agents and adding practice squad players.
When I look at the Packers front office failures the last 10 years, not resigning Hyde, not drafting TJ Watt, taking Myers over Humphrey and not signing OBJ are the clear mistakes.
On the other hand, nobody says boo about passing on Stephon Gilmore and instead going with a no-namer Rasul Douglas which ended up be absolutely brilliant.
There are definitely moves ever year that were wrong at the time and definitely wrong after the fact
What I really want to know if the trade in 2021 that we could have fit under our cap that would have put us over the top.
But man the power of Lazard. If anything has taught us anything...Aaron Rodgers LOVES Allen Lazard.
Re: Reality
Posted: 14 Nov 2023 07:50
wha? your using Rodgers familirarity with Lazard or Cobb, that chemistry to say stuff I highly doubt, OBJ would have been a walk on #1 as soon as he suited up, show me proof that either MLF or Rodgers ever made those statements.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 07:33Yeah there were no trades. I think we had a shot at OBJ if we actually tried. But it sounds like MLF and Rodgers told him he wouldn't be a highlighted player and that really turned OBJ off. I believe the Rams had an injury to Woods? So they had a clear opening and that was attractive.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 07:29While I agree, I believe we could not beat the Rams contract they gave his as it would have put us over the cap with likely to receive incentives.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 07:06
The Packers f*ed up by not signing OBJ. They could have done it. They should have done it and hindsight says it was the right move.
When I look at the Packers front office failures the last 10 years, not resigning Hyde, not drafting TJ Watt, taking Myers over Humphrey and not signing OBJ are the clear mistakes.
On the other hand, nobody says boo about passing on Stephon Gilmore and instead going with a no-namer Rasul Douglas which ended up be absolutely brilliant.
There are definitely moves ever year that were wrong at the time and definitely wrong after the fact
What I really want to know if the trade in 2021 that we could have fit under our cap that would have put us over the top.
But man the power of Lazard. If anything has taught us anything...Aaron Rodgers LOVES Allen Lazard.
the only reason Lazard ever reached 600 receiving yards with us is because we didn't have a OBJ to complement Adams.
you mistake liking a receiver who listens with Loving him more then better talent
Re: Reality
Posted: 14 Nov 2023 08:02
If I remember right, it was stated by the announcers during the Packers Rams game in November 2021. Definitely relying on memory here. It never really took in traction in the written media.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 07:50show me proof that either MLF or Rodgers ever made those statements.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 07:33Yeah there were no trades. I think we had a shot at OBJ if we actually tried. But it sounds like MLF and Rodgers told him he wouldn't be a highlighted player and that really turned OBJ off. I believe the Rams had an injury to Woods? So they had a clear opening and that was attractive.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 07:29
While I agree, I believe we could not beat the Rams contract they gave his as it would have put us over the cap with likely to receive incentives.
There are definitely moves ever year that were wrong at the time and definitely wrong after the fact
What I really want to know if the trade in 2021 that we could have fit under our cap that would have put us over the top.
But man the power of Lazard. If anything has taught us anything...Aaron Rodgers LOVES Allen Lazard.
Re: Reality
Posted: 14 Nov 2023 08:18
I expect not GPG, it defy's logic, both Lafleur and Rodgers in my humble opinion where probably the driving force to pick up OBJ in the first place, and our GM was the driving force for no deal to get done.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 08:02If I remember right, it was stated by the announcers during the Packers Rams game in November 2021. Definitely relying on memory here. It never really took in traction in the written media.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 07:50show me proof that either MLF or Rodgers ever made those statements.go pak go wrote: ↑14 Nov 2023 07:33
Yeah there were no trades. I think we had a shot at OBJ if we actually tried. But it sounds like MLF and Rodgers told him he wouldn't be a highlighted player and that really turned OBJ off. I believe the Rams had an injury to Woods? So they had a clear opening and that was attractive.
But man the power of Lazard. If anything has taught us anything...Aaron Rodgers LOVES Allen Lazard.
lis, if the only thing a person goes by is whats in print they will lose out on the a lot of stuff, I'am very selective of most stuff I read, lots of opinionated BS, I don't need a writer to tell me what to think, same with data and stats, I refute some of it because it doesn't align with what I see, and I been seeing this stuff with a eye on detail a long time
Re: Reality
Posted: 14 Nov 2023 20:29
Some teams hiccuped for multiple decades. Bears and Steelers starting in the 1950s come to mind. George Blanda, Ed Brown, Rudy Bukich, Jack Concannon, Bobby Douglass, Bob Avellini, Gary Huff, Mike Phipps, Vince Evans ..... Jim Harbaugh, Steve Walsh, Eric Kramer, Jay Cutler, Mitch Trubisky, Justin Fields......... LoLgo pak go wrote: ↑12 Nov 2023 09:47I would say the list of teams that go from a HOF quarterback a successful multi-year run to the next generation without a hiccup in offensive production is very, very small.
The early 90's SF 49ers did it with Montana to Young. The late 2000's Packers did it. But even the Packers did it on the back of a rebuild of 2005 - 2008. I just can't think of many other teams that were in the same boat and did it successfully.