In terms of the DL, the Packers havent addressed the position in the draft in earlier than the 5th round since 2017 when they drafted Montravious.
we got lucky with Clark when we took him late 20's, I hate drafting DT late first round, most take about 3 years to play up to draft status then cost to much to resign, still gotta have them so teams have to gamble and take them.
I must say, at least you're consistent. Whoever the Packers pick in the draft and they turn out to be good solid players or even top flight stars, they're lucky. They were lucky when they drafted players like Jones, Bak, Linsley, Williams and so on because they're just throwing darts, right? But they pick a guy in Clark or Rodgers late in the first round and they're lucky. No scouting or interviews. Nobody watching tape on them. Just pure luck.
I guess on the plus side, at least you're not bitching about Jordan Love.
I'm sure you'll get back to beating that dead horse soon.
In terms of the DL, the Packers havent addressed the position in the draft in earlier than the 5th round since 2017 when they drafted Montravious.
we got lucky with Clark when we took him late 20's, I hate drafting DT late first round, most take about 3 years to play up to draft status, if they ever do, then cost to much to resign, still gotta have them so teams have to gamble and take them.
I must say, at least you're consistent. Whoever the Packers pick in the draft and they turn out to be good solid players or even top flight stars, they're lucky. They were lucky when they drafted players like Jones, Bak, Linsley, Williams and so on because they're just throwing darts, right? But they pick a guy in Clark or Rodgers late in the first round and they're lucky. No scouting or interviews. Nobody watching tape on them. Just pure luck.
I guess on the plus side, at least you're not bitching about Jordan Love.
I'm sure you'll get back to beating that dead horse soon.
FO, you don't here me say that about other positions or players, but you'll always here me say it with DT's, why don't you go and research the position versus coming in here to talk smack, for all the Clarks we've drafted who has been a great pick, there are a half doz other 1st and 2nd rounders that weren't, and thats average around the league, after QB it's probably the highest bust rate position.
So if you're looking for a star in the first round, precedents from the last quarter-century indicate you're better off going with a safety, linebacker, tight end or interior offensive lineman than a defensive lineman or a wide receiver.
thats from Bleacher report, who wont allow drag and post of there link, for some reason, guess you'll actually have to look up these stats and graphs for yourself.
Ok, so this was interesting, but for me, I'm frustrated by how few media members address the fact that trading Rodgers now makes no sense.
They all do this thing like "how long can this go on? When do the Packers have to give in by?" And the only reason seems to be "can you imagine how annoying and distracting we, the media, would be to the team if they keep him while he holds out?"
Almost no one addresses that the penalties for holding out have been skewed fairly dramatically against the player, that missing a few days tolls his contract rather than letting a year go by, that the fines can no longer be excused by the team even if they want to.
In terms of the actual mechanics of football operations, Rodgers has almost no power. The ONLY power he has is the media making it hard on the packers if he doesn't play. And given how much more valuable a draft pick is when you know where it falls, the impetus to move now would be to avoid a distraction at an actual tangible football cost. Does this team seem like it shies away from distraction at the cost of football value? Absolutely not.
Just once I'd like these guys who I like and respect, like Herman and Dunne, to leave a portion of the conversation for "what benefit is it to the Packers to move now? How will it help the '21 team to trade him now instead of before next year's draft?"
Because to my eyes, it would not help the '21 team win now. A) It shuts the door on being a Rodgers-led team when the chance that he returns is non-zero, and B) the returns will come mostly in rookies or draft picks whose values are unknown and who are probably unlikely to make a big on-field impact in '21. If they DO make an on-field impact in '21, it is not going to be more of an impact that having Rodgers as the QB, which means that point A and point B build on each other.
Almost no one addresses that the penalties for holding out have been skewed fairly dramatically against the player, that missing a few days tolls his contract rather than letting a year go by, that the fines can no longer be excused by the team even if they want to.
I made the point in another thread, but I think the Packers have all the leverage, but I do think it shifts to Aaron pretty hard as TC approaches and begins. But, if the Packers weather that storm throughout preseason and make it to Game 1, I think it shifts right back to the Packers. You have to admit though, six short weeks on the calendar or whatever it is will be absolute HELL to live through if Aaron is sitting in limbo. So from my standpoint, let this simmer until the end of the month and then I make one more big all-in push, whatever it takes to get him back for 2021 only and if Aaron will not concede, I would move him for what I can shortly after June 1.
we got lucky with Clark when we took him late 20's, I hate drafting DT late first round, most take about 3 years to play up to draft status, if they ever do, then cost to much to resign, still gotta have them so teams have to gamble and take them.
I must say, at least you're consistent. Whoever the Packers pick in the draft and they turn out to be good solid players or even top flight stars, they're lucky. They were lucky when they drafted players like Jones, Bak, Linsley, Williams and so on because they're just throwing darts, right? But they pick a guy in Clark or Rodgers late in the first round and they're lucky. No scouting or interviews. Nobody watching tape on them. Just pure luck.
I guess on the plus side, at least you're not bitching about Jordan Love.
I'm sure you'll get back to beating that dead horse soon.
FO, you don't here me say that about other positions or players, but you'll always here me say it with DT's, why don't you go and research the position versus coming in here to talk smack, for all the Clarks we've drafted who has been a great pick, there are a half doz other 1st and 2nd rounders that weren't, and thats average around the league, after QB it's probably the highest bust rate position.
So if you're looking for a star in the first round, precedents from the last quarter-century indicate you're better off going with a safety, linebacker, tight end or interior offensive lineman than a defensive lineman or a wide receiver.
Wow, getting you're info from bleacher report, I see you go right to the top when it comes to research.
As for talking smack, you're the one saying the Pack was " lucky " they drafted Clark. Not one shred of congrats for making a solid pick, just call it lucky.
If you had said, they got lucky that Clark fell to them, that would be fair. But no, just luck he worked out for them.
I made the point in another thread, but I think the Packers have all the leverage, but I do think it shifts to Aaron pretty hard as TC approaches and begins. But, if the Packers weather that storm throughout preseason and make it to Game 1, I think it shifts right back to the Packers. You have to admit though, six short weeks on the calendar or whatever it is will be absolute HELL to live through if Aaron is sitting in limbo. So from my standpoint, let this simmer until the end of the month and then I make one more big all-in push, whatever it takes to get him back for 2021 only and if Aaron will not concede, I would move him for what I can shortly after June 1.
But, like, what the heck do I want future picks in the 20s for? For the MVP? I'm going to get the 21st pick in the 2022 NFL draft and the 23rd pick of the 2023 draft? Come on. Obviously the Raiders or Broncos or WFT with Rodgers at the helm will be drafting higher than they are now. I just don't see how it makes sense to give Rodgers to a team now and then wait to get their draft pick until after he helps them win.
I get that players will be involved, too, but unless I get my unrealistic "I don't want to trade him" demands of the team's past 2 first round picks, a Day Two picked player from the past two years, and a future First rounder, we're basically saying "here, we'll take a down year and give you a good year in exchange for a diminishing return in value.
I'm holding him at least until the trade deadline, regardless of whether or not he returns. I don't care that the media environment will be hell. You don't give up an asset like that without knowing what you're getting back--or at least having a baseline of an idea.
If he's sitting out still in week 8, I'll trade his rights to the worst team that will make me a good, fair offer and let them deal with it. Before that, though, we're just giving away the most valuable part of the equation by allowing Rodgers to reduce the value of the picks we receive in exchange for him.
I made the point in another thread, but I think the Packers have all the leverage, but I do think it shifts to Aaron pretty hard as TC approaches and begins. But, if the Packers weather that storm throughout preseason and make it to Game 1, I think it shifts right back to the Packers. You have to admit though, six short weeks on the calendar or whatever it is will be absolute HELL to live through if Aaron is sitting in limbo. So from my standpoint, let this simmer until the end of the month and then I make one more big all-in push, whatever it takes to get him back for 2021 only and if Aaron will not concede, I would move him for what I can shortly after June 1.
But, like, what the heck do I want future picks in the 20s for? For the MVP? I'm going to get the 21st pick in the 2022 NFL draft and the 23rd pick of the 2023 draft? Come on. Obviously the Raiders or Broncos or WFT with Rodgers at the helm will be drafting higher than they are now. I just don't see how it makes sense to give Rodgers to a team now and then wait to get their draft pick until after he helps them win.
I get that players will be involved, too, but unless I get my unrealistic "I don't want to trade him" demands of the team's past 2 first round picks, a Day Two picked player from the past two years, and a future First rounder, we're basically saying "here, we'll take a down year and give you a good year in exchange for a diminishing return in value.
I'm holding him at least until the trade deadline, regardless of whether or not he returns. I don't care that the media environment will be hell. You don't give up an asset like that without knowing what you're getting back--or at least having a baseline of an idea.
If he's sitting out still in week 8, I'll trade his rights to the worst team that will make me a good, fair offer and let them deal with it. Before that, though, we're just giving away the most valuable part of the equation by allowing Rodgers to reduce the value of the picks we receive in exchange for him.
My biggest annoyance is, "How can the Coaching Staff and Packers make a plan going into the seasno without knowing about the Rodgers question?....like it has to be settled?"
No it doesn't. Next man up works for every other position. Next man up works when Rodgers is injured. Will we win as many games? No.
Does it matter for 2021? No.
Re: Rodgers Reconciliation Solution Thread
Posted: 11 May 2021 15:35
by YoHoChecko
Right, like, obviously without Rodgers there, you plan for Love to start and prepare him to do so. If he comes in, I'm pretty sure they can figure out a path forward with him. I dunno. Just seems like there's a forced urgency to resolve this by some that doesn't exist to me. I want it resolved, but if I'm the team, I stand pat as long as possible because there's no real incentive to moving now rather than later. I can handle "distraction."
Right, like, obviously without Rodgers there, you plan for Love to start and prepare him to do so. If he comes in, I'm pretty sure they can figure out a path forward with him. I dunno. Just seems like there's a forced urgency to resolve this by some that doesn't exist to me. I want it resolved, but if I'm the team, I stand pat as long as possible because there's no real incentive to moving now rather than later. I can handle "distraction."
If a deal is really, really good...I'm pulling the trigger. Like if Denver does follow through on a recently draft first round player, plus 3 1sts (maybe more)....I'm pulling the trigger if I truly don't think Rodgers will play in 2021.
If they think Rodgers will play and will be committed for 2021, that is best case scenario.
If Rodgers holds out all TC and comes to play for week 1, that is a really poopy scenario.
But by no means do you dump Rodgers at a discount because you are afraid of a distraction.
Re: Rodgers Reconciliation Solution Thread
Posted: 11 May 2021 16:14
by Yoop
ehhhhhhh, Favre wanted to come back the day TC was to start, and we had been accustomed to his shananagans for about 2 months when he started talking about coming back, remember when Ted shipped down his foot locker ( I laughed for a week over that stunt) this stuff with Rodgers has been mostly on the down low, if it gets to the stage of the Favre rebellion then imo we should trade him, take the best deal we can get and move on.
and bring in or trade for a seasoned QB, I don't want to force Love in prior to being ready, and I don't see how thats possible, sure he may know the play book, maybe even has reworked some tech issues, but all of that was under friendly fire in practice, and very limited at that , I'd rather he sat another season, don't want to ruin him and then have to start over with another first round pick on a QB. I have to admit, ( I hate to, but) looks like taking Love is the catalist ( I don't believe it though) to our problem with Rodgers, it now seems smart that we took him ( I'am actually spitting while saying this )
second highest bust rate position after RB drafted in the first round last 25 years right in front of DT, so Christo, yes I think ya need a little luck as even a very good GM to hit on these positions, all 3 are hovering at 50% hit rate.
Re: Rodgers Reconciliation Solution Thread
Posted: 11 May 2021 16:18
by bud fox
If Rodgers is adamant he will not play for pack and the pack have tried everything - he will be traded before or at start of the season.
They aren't going to let him sit for a year.
Re: Rodgers Reconciliation Solution Thread
Posted: 11 May 2021 16:20
by YoHoChecko
The Favre timeline was totally different. We didn't bring him back when he wanted in because the team had already decided to move on. Three differences:
First: Favre had retired and wanted back in. Rodgers has 3 years on his contract and wants out.
Second: Rodgers was a fairly well-known entity within the Packers in 2008. He was ready to play and the team knew it. Love in an unknown entity at this point. He was not put in position to advance within the offensive scheme due to a COVID offseason and playing scout team QB for a year. Is he better off than a year ago? Almost definitely. Has he been prepared to start or evaluated as a potential gameday option? He has not. The team doesn't know yet.
Third: Rodgers was starting for the first time entering the final year of his rookie deal. A determination had to be made. Love has 3 years and an option remaining on his deal. There is no time constraint.
ehhhhhhh, Favre wanted to come back the day TC was to start, and we had been accustomed to his shananagans for about 2 months when he started talking about coming back, remember when Ted shipped down his foot locker ( I laughed for a week over that stunt) this stuff with Rodgers has been mostly on the down low, if it gets to the stage of the Favre rebellion then imo we should trade him, take the best deal we can get and move on.
ehhhhhhh. Favre wanted to play before TC (really starting in June). Rodgers says he doesn't want to play for the Packers and we have no viable backup option at this point.
If Rodgers wants to play and TC hasn't started....it's his job. Not the same thing as 2008.
I think the bigger issue comes if we go all TC without Rodgers and then he decides to play starting Week 1 of the season.
If Rodgers is adamant he will not play for pack and the pack have tried everything - he will be traded before or at start of the season.
They aren't going to let him sit for a year.
This is my point.... why not? Explain to me why not. Why do we need 2022 draft picks before the 2021 season? What is the rush?
Why do we need to eat his dead money to trade him instead of having him repay us and or miss game checks and get credits to our cap?
This whole "we won't let him sit" thing has nothing to do with the business or leverage or football game. It's only a weird pride/ego/distraction effect.
If Rodgers is adamant he will not play for pack and the pack have tried everything - he will be traded before or at start of the season.
They aren't going to let him sit for a year.
This is my point.... why not? Explain to me why not. Why do we need 2022 draft picks before the 2021 season? What is the rush?
Why do we need to eat his dead money to trade him instead of having him repay us and or miss game checks and get credits to our cap?
This whole "we won't let him sit" thing has nothing to do with the business or leverage or football game. It's only a weird pride/ego/distraction effect.
I agree, the Packers have way more leverage than the " experts " are giving them. He's not a kid anymore. At 37, will be 38 in the 2022 season, physically, I don't think it helps him all that much. He'll have lost 37 million bucks plus a year he can't get back.
P.S. until the diva opens his mouth and starts speaking for himself, everything is just talk show gibberish.
The Favre timeline was totally different. We didn't bring him back when he wanted in because the team had already decided to move on. Three differences:
First: Favre had retired and wanted back in. Rodgers has 3 years on his contract and wants out.
Second: Rodgers was a fairly well-known entity within the Packers in 2008. He was ready to play and the team knew it. Love in an unknown entity at this point. He was not put in position to advance within the offensive scheme due to a COVID offseason and playing scout team QB for a year. Is he better off than a year ago? Almost definitely. Has he been prepared to start or evaluated as a potential gameday option? He has not. The team doesn't know yet.
Third: Rodgers was starting for the first time entering the final year of his rookie deal. A determination had to be made. Love has 3 years and an option remaining on his deal. There is no time constraint.
my point is the team didn't want the distraction then, and wont want it now, and it will appear that we are seeking some sort of revenge by not trading him, specially when he's not going to play, and we are being offered fair compensation, what good comes to us for making him sit a year? financial?
my point is the team didn't want the distraction then, and wont want it now, and it will appear that we are seeking some sort of revenge by not trading him, specially when he's not going to play, and we are being offered fair compensation, what good comes to us for making him sit a year? financial?
Yes, big financial and cap relief comes if he sits a year. Further, his value to other teams doesn't diminish much. And like I said, we can SEE what draft picks we are trading him for. We can get a top 5 pick in return instead of a likely pick in the 20s. And those picks come from the same draft.
The loss is that we might have the leverage to get more players now than we do then, when the draft will once-again become the primary currency. But I'm not certain that's the case.
Also, if he sits for part of the year and the team flounders some--say we're 5-4 through nine games and he decides he wants to get back to the Super Bowl and he comes back during our bye week and we go on a run late in the season.
Like I said, trading him before the season makes the chances that he plays for GB in 2021 0. As long as the Packwers hold his rights, the chance of him playing is non-zero.
Those are the benefits. A non-zero chance of return; a clearer picture as to which draft assets you are acquiring in return for his services, and massive potential cap savings as we don't pay him for the games he doesn't play in the midst of a tight and uncertain cap situation.
And the benefits of trading him now are... a better media environment? And POSSIBLE contributions from players received in the trade which are highly unlikely to make up for the on-field gap that a zero-percent chance of having Rodgers would have.
Re: Rodgers Reconciliation Solution Thread
Posted: 11 May 2021 18:58
by Ghost_Lombardi
His value greatly diminishes if he sits a year. He is never going to be worth more than he is right now.
You don't ask for just draft picks. You also ask for young foundational players on a first contract.
Re: Rodgers Reconciliation Solution Thread
Posted: 11 May 2021 20:22
by Drj820
I’m not sure his value really tanks If he sits a year. Teams that feel close will bid for Rodgers either this year or happily do it next year all so they can get 2 to 3 years of shooting for a sb with Rodgers. Teams that offer max loot won’t be trying to get anything out of him in 5 years. If they do, that will be bonus bucks for them. This would all be about maxing out a 2-3 year window before he is expected to decline.
You trade now and your draft picks become in the 20s. You wait and you know what picks you are trading for.
I don’t see a big drop off in compensation packages between this year and next
)
Favre wanted to play before TC (really starting in June). Rodgers says he doesn't want to play for the Packers and we have no viable backup option at this point.