The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
Hell no.paco wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 10:45With the rumors of Deshaun Watson possibly asking to be traded, I saw this hypothetical thrown out there.
Would you trade Rodgers and Adams for Watson this offseason? Watson is 25 and already a hell of a QB in a bad situation. Rodgers is 37 and the MVP. Adams is 28 and had an OPOY type year.
Would you do it?
Yes, lol, I wouldpaco wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 10:45With the rumors of Deshaun Watson possibly asking to be traded, I saw this hypothetical thrown out there.
Would you trade Rodgers and Adams for Watson this offseason? Watson is 25 and already a hell of a QB in a bad situation. Rodgers is 37 and the MVP. Adams is 28 and had an OPOY type year.
Would you do it?
Yes, obviously the cap makes in impossible. But if you took that out of the equation, I would lean yes as well for reasons I stated. Hard decision no doubt. But it helps secure a post-Rodgers future.BF004 wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 10:50Yes, lol, I wouldpaco wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 10:45With the rumors of Deshaun Watson possibly asking to be traded, I saw this hypothetical thrown out there.
Would you trade Rodgers and Adams for Watson this offseason? Watson is 25 and already a hell of a QB in a bad situation. Rodgers is 37 and the MVP. Adams is 28 and had an OPOY type year.
Would you do it?
Watson is that good and that young.
Impossible, Houston and GB both already over the cap, likely, and both would actually lose cap space in dead cap by trading Rodgers or Watson.
I mean, even if he is really really good, the odds of him reaching HOF caliber like Watson already is, just odds not there.
I concur! Watson is not that good. He has too many bouts of inaccuracy.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 10:47Hell no.paco wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 10:45With the rumors of Deshaun Watson possibly asking to be traded, I saw this hypothetical thrown out there.
Would you trade Rodgers and Adams for Watson this offseason? Watson is 25 and already a hell of a QB in a bad situation. Rodgers is 37 and the MVP. Adams is 28 and had an OPOY type year.
Would you do it?
That some said yes, intrigued me so I went back and looked back at Watson's year. I think I may have spoken too soon. He had a really good year.williewasgreat wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 11:23I concur! Watson is not that good. He has too many bouts of inaccuracy.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 10:47Hell no.paco wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 10:45With the rumors of Deshaun Watson possibly asking to be traded, I saw this hypothetical thrown out there.
Would you trade Rodgers and Adams for Watson this offseason? Watson is 25 and already a hell of a QB in a bad situation. Rodgers is 37 and the MVP. Adams is 28 and had an OPOY type year.
Would you do it?
100% agree with YoHo. I thought it was a joke at first, and then some agree to it. We would be giving up multiple shots at the Super Bowl for a talented yes, expensive yes, young yes QB. WE JUST DRAFTED A QB IN THE FIRST ROUND TO BE THAT GUY AFTER OUR MVP QB RETIRES OR MOVES ON IN ANOTHER 2 YEARS. Give up Davante? So Watson comes here with no supporting cast after the number 1 WR in the NFL and number 1 RB on the team go away?YoHoChecko wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 11:39I don't even understand what the payoff would be of trading away our two best players for one who is maybe also going to be as good as Rodgers but who is younger.
Like, he's not cheaper? He has the second biggest contract in football. Rodgers isn't retiring this year or next, so we don't have an immediate need.
This entire deal would be for, what, to replace 2023/4 Love with 2023/4 Watson at the cost of replacing 2021 and 2022 Rodgers with Watson?
AND throw in the league's best WR?
Like, that is a very stupid, awful, terrible deal for us. It's attempting to solve a problem 2-3 years out that we don't even know if it's a problem yet, and it comes at the cost of the next two years when we could easily just draft another QB next year to also develop alongside Love to reduce the odds of a problem.
Honestly, I didn't even notice who brought this up and so I don't want to be too mean, but its genuinely the worst football post I've seen this year. But take heart, it's still very early in the year.
It's a hypothetical that could and would never happen. Relax.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 11:39I don't even understand what the payoff would be of trading away our two best players for one who is maybe also going to be as good as Rodgers but who is younger.
Like, he's not cheaper? He has the second biggest contract in football. Rodgers isn't retiring this year or next, so we don't have an immediate need.
This entire deal would be for, what, to replace 2023/4 Love with 2023/4 Watson at the cost of replacing 2021 and 2022 Rodgers with Watson?
AND throw in the league's best WR?
Like, that is a very stupid, awful, terrible deal for us. It's attempting to solve a problem 2-3 years out that we don't even know if it's a problem yet, and it comes at the cost of the next two years when we could easily just draft another QB next year to also develop alongside Love to reduce the odds of a problem.
Honestly, I didn't even notice who brought this up and so I don't want to be too mean, but its genuinely the worst football post I've seen this year. But take heart, it's still very early in the year.
I made a comment about this on a different thread. This goes way past just tanking for a lower draft pick. What about betting? Odds come out on Friday and a team is giving 2, come Sunday and the team tanks by sitting some of it's best players. By the time of kickoff, that same team may be getting 7. All because some slimly owner wants a lower pick.Yoop wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 10:22you don't get it, this season it's tanking to move from slot 6 to 9, what will it take for a team to tank next year, or for a half doz teams to follow that in years to come each season, all in the hopes of drafting a 60% hit rate player a few selections earlier in the draft, soon we'll see a snowballing affect of starters giving a half effort late season when they know the FO is purposely trying to lose, in affect the game declines.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 09:59People are acting like Hurts was hooping. He was 7/20 with a pick.
The Chiefs and Eagles both did what they get was best for their organization. Not sure what people are talking about. Complaining to complain.
will the league do anything about this? not likely any more then a stern scolding behind closed doors, it's a can of worms they will avoid opening unless this escallates, which I expect it will, hopefully it never will with the Packers.
I have no sympathy for these people. If you are betting on a meaningless game, I would hope the bettor would understand and have considered all of the possible ways to lose his/her money.Christo wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 14:15I made a comment about this on a different thread. This goes way past just tanking for a lower draft pick. What about betting? Odds come out on Friday and a team is giving 2, come Sunday and the team tanks by sitting some of it's best players. By the time of kickoff, that same team may be getting 7. All because some slimly owner wants a lower pick.Yoop wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 10:22you don't get it, this season it's tanking to move from slot 6 to 9, what will it take for a team to tank next year, or for a half doz teams to follow that in years to come each season, all in the hopes of drafting a 60% hit rate player a few selections earlier in the draft, soon we'll see a snowballing affect of starters giving a half effort late season when they know the FO is purposely trying to lose, in affect the game declines.lupedafiasco wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 09:59People are acting like Hurts was hooping. He was 7/20 with a pick.
The Chiefs and Eagles both did what they get was best for their organization. Not sure what people are talking about. Complaining to complain.
will the league do anything about this? not likely any more then a stern scolding behind closed doors, it's a can of worms they will avoid opening unless this escallates, which I expect it will, hopefully it never will with the Packers.
And how about fans who purchase tickets? Do they get a refund because a team/owner decides to throw a game?
This type of action has to be stopped now.
Only way I can see right now is to go to a lottery system for non playoff teams.
I hear people saying, the Eagles are doing what's best for the Eagles. Well, what's best for them is really bad for the league.
Nobody cares if you have sympathy for them or not. By all accounts, that wasn't a meaningless game. Maybe to you, but other people had interests in it.NCF wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 14:20I have no sympathy for these people. If you are betting on a meaningless game, I would hope the bettor would understand and have considered all of the possible ways to lose his/her money.Christo wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 14:15I made a comment about this on a different thread. This goes way past just tanking for a lower draft pick. What about betting? Odds come out on Friday and a team is giving 2, come Sunday and the team tanks by sitting some of it's best players. By the time of kickoff, that same team may be getting 7. All because some slimly owner wants a lower pick.Yoop wrote: ↑07 Jan 2021 10:22
you don't get it, this season it's tanking to move from slot 6 to 9, what will it take for a team to tank next year, or for a half doz teams to follow that in years to come each season, all in the hopes of drafting a 60% hit rate player a few selections earlier in the draft, soon we'll see a snowballing affect of starters giving a half effort late season when they know the FO is purposely trying to lose, in affect the game declines.
will the league do anything about this? not likely any more then a stern scolding behind closed doors, it's a can of worms they will avoid opening unless this escallates, which I expect it will, hopefully it never will with the Packers.
And how about fans who purchase tickets? Do they get a refund because a team/owner decides to throw a game?
This type of action has to be stopped now.
Only way I can see right now is to go to a lottery system for non playoff teams.
I hear people saying, the Eagles are doing what's best for the Eagles. Well, what's best for them is really bad for the league.