Packers Huddle

BSA wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 11:59

Odell has earned more than $75M from his football career and some unknown amount pimping products.
IF he is still putting money at the top of his Decider List, then he's not somebody GB wants for a Title run.

If you can't make it work for $75M, then another $1-3M isn't going to change anything.

I mean, we want him for his talent. He has never shown much outside of talent that could help us for a title run IMO. He isnt a Julias Peppers, Big Dog, or Lazard style "team first guy".

He has potential and talent, thats what we want from him

Hypothetical. If the Packers initial offer was veteran minimum and OBJ genuinely takes that as an insult, then he doesn't belong on the Packers, as what is the rumored priorities are not actually priorities.

BSA wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 11:59

Odell has earned more than $75M from his football career and some unknown amount pimping products.
IF he is still putting money at the top of his Decider List, then he's not somebody GB wants for a Title run.

If you can't make it work for $75M, then another $1-3M isn't going to change anything.

I was going to mention this earlier, spot on, I just don't see money as the issue here, simple respect is in order though, he probably looks at the minimum contract offer as simply a lack of respect and not even in the range other teams are offering such as maybe 2 or 2.5.

more and more I think he wants to go to a team that will give him a fair offer to resign next season, and minus Rodgers we probably don't look as attractive

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:05

Hypothetical. If the Packers initial offer was veteran minimum and OBJ genuinely takes that as an insult, then he doesn't belong on the Packers, as what is the rumored priorities are not actually priorities.

Yeah. Now if OBJ heard the vet minimum and said, "hey. I'd like to still choose you but would like to meet halfway as I'm still turning down higher offers"...I'd have respect for that and would probably take him up on it.

go pak go wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:17

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:05

Hypothetical. If the Packers initial offer was veteran minimum and OBJ genuinely takes that as an insult, then he doesn't belong on the Packers, as what is the rumored priorities are not actually priorities.

Yeah. Now if OBJ heard the vet minimum and said, "hey. I'd like to still choose you but would like to meet halfway as I'm still turning down higher offers"...I'd have respect for that and would probably take him up on it.

What are we saving money for ... If it's available spend it and try and win a championship

IF you want to win a Championship, you have to have the heart of a Champion. Mercenaries don't have the heart of a champion because no amount of money is going to help them overcome the intense mental/physical/emotional challenges they will face along the way.
How many times have we heard star players make this statement after winning the Super Bowl:

"Well, when the going gets tough... I just check my account balance"

You wanna be a Champion ? Cool. There's a price to be paid...but the Football Gods don't accept legal tender

bud fox wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:23

What are we saving money for ... If it's available spend it and try and win a championship

You do understand that it's not "use it or lose it" money, right?
I don't want to sound insulting.

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:25

bud fox wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:23

What are we saving money for ... If it's available spend it and try and win a championship

You do understand that it's not "use it or lose it" money, right?
I don't want to sound insulting.

Can we even restructure contracts at this stage to add more dollars to existing contracts? Would seem late.

BSA wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:24

IF you want to win a Championship, you have to have the heart of a Champion. Mercenaries don't have the heart of a champion because no amount of money is going to help them overcome the intense mental/physical/emotional challenges they will face along the way.
How many times have we heard star players make this statement after winning the Super Bowl:

"Well, when the going gets tough... I just check my account balance"

You wanna be a Champion ? Cool. There's a price to be paid...but the Football Gods don't accept legal tender

Sounds nice but not realistic. Every single player should play for free then, otherwise we won't win cause they are just mercenaries.

The guy is worth more than vet min that is a fact. Now we could get a discount given all variables at the moment ... Take the chance and go for gold

bud fox wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:28

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:25

bud fox wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:23

What are we saving money for ... If it's available spend it and try and win a championship

You do understand that it's not "use it or lose it" money, right?
I don't want to sound insulting.

Can we even restructure contracts at this stage to add more dollars to existing contracts? Would seem late.

The only possible thing we can do to gain money is extend Adams and that's not happening. We need money in case we need to bring in other players. What if a bus crashes and 10 guys are lost for the season? You have to keep a couple million to bring in guys off the street to fill holes.

side note, this was funny.

bud fox wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:28

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:25

bud fox wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:23

What are we saving money for ... If it's available spend it and try and win a championship

You do understand that it's not "use it or lose it" money, right?
I don't want to sound insulting.

Can we even restructure contracts at this stage to add more dollars to existing contracts? Would seem late.

I meant you understand that what's leftover carries forward, and can be used to extend Jaire, etc next year. It's not mad money.

go pak go wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 11:41

NCF wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 11:39

Acrobat wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 11:33

Just never know someone's financial outlook and money usually wins in the end.

Oftentimes soon followed by regret.

Yup. He will never admit, but inside he knows this is absolutely true.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/02/024db92 ... deb6e7.jpg

Florios venom for the pack is hilarious, but this is basically what I was saying earlier.

bud fox wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:28

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:25

bud fox wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:23

What are we saving money for ... If it's available spend it and try and win a championship

You do understand that it's not "use it or lose it" money, right?
I don't want to sound insulting.

Can we even restructure contracts at this stage to add more dollars to existing contracts? Would seem late.

I explained my reasons I think on page 4 of this thread. You always need/want at least some reserve. Especially when you are the Packers who are already "all in" and really don't have any restructures left to create 2021 cap space if necessary.

Once you get to this time of year, the actual cap number is hard to know. A lot of minor transactions happen with IR players, adding new players, PSquad, etc. Every player counts on the cap so you need money set aside if you lose players to injury because you need to replace said player. Additionally, as I said in my first post, end of year contract adjustments are real with incentives that can either raise or lower your cap number for the year.

Spotrac has the Packers at like $6 million. OTC has the Packers at like $4.6 Million and I think Ken Ingalls has the same, but what this shows is we as the public have an idea where the cap is but not completely know where the cap is or where it will end up. There is an error range of how close the cap reported to the public is to actual. Again, this is why we always see adjustments just ahead of the new league year.

The teams know much more about potential year end cap adjustments than a simple Spotrac or OTC database would. So as mentioned earlier, if we see more injuries or see more incentives needing to be paid, we have to have cap for that. Teams in the past (like NO's or DAL) would have to make restructures right before year end to push cap into the following year to end the league year under the cap. You can't be over the cap or you will face penalties.

The problem with the Packers is we don't have really much, if any, bullets in the chamber to restructure and defer cap space into the future if necessary. So we need the cap space whereas another team who has the ability to restructure more players at year end can be a bit more aggressive in how close they get to $0 on the cap.

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:33

bud fox wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:28

Madcity_matt wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:25

You do understand that it's not "use it or lose it" money, right?
I don't want to sound insulting.

Can we even restructure contracts at this stage to add more dollars to existing contracts? Would seem late.

I meant you understand that what's leftover carries forward, and can be used to extend Jaire, etc next year. It's not mad money.

Yeah. For the most part I don't think the million dollars or so spent here would prevent any other player from an extension. It's much more about having reserves set aside for 2021 in case we need it.

NCF wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:41

go pak go wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 11:41

NCF wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 11:39

Oftentimes soon followed by regret.

Yup. He will never admit, but inside he knows this is absolutely true.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/02/024db92 ... deb6e7.jpg

actually I think it's a snow ball affect, if a receiver like Jennings knows he's as good or better then another then he wants more then the other makes, thats the respect I think Jennings was looking for, always wished we would have payed him, just because it didn't work with Minny doesn't mean it would have happened here.

So what is our collective lose our minds point? 1 year - $1.5 million? 1 year - $2 million? More?

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:48

NCF wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:41

go pak go wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 11:41

Yup. He will never admit, but inside he knows this is absolutely true.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/02/024db92 ... deb6e7.jpg

actually I think it's a snow ball affect, if a receiver like Jennings knows he's as good or better then another then he wants more then the other makes, thats the respect I think Jennings was looking for, always wished we would have payed him, just because it didn't work with Minny doesn't mean it would have happened here.

We did offer to pay him after 2011. He gambled. Turned down the offer and lost and was then stuck with MN because his value dropped after his 2012 injury.

Jennings was dumb because the Packers offered a very fair deal and he was not including the extranalities of being a Packer. He had commercials, endorsements, etc. All of that went away when he went to MN because of a less popular team and his QB was terrible so production fell.

Jennings gambled and lost. And he really lost because he also lost his relevancy. The only thing he can contribute now is when the media wants a hit piece on Aaron Rodgers.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2021 12:49

So what is our collective lose our minds point? 1 year - $1.5 million? 1 year - $2 million? More?

I would pay anything up to $1.5 Million.

Then there is a grey zone. I think anything over $2 million is tough. Over $2.5 million is really tough.