Packers Huddle

Guessing the Raiders won’t be trading Crosby then, lol.

I have followed this Stafford thing closely. Sounds to me like the Rams setting the negotiating ceiling. I doubt he is actually moved. But, if this does happen, I would also immediately pencil in ARod as the new Rams QB.

Don't buy it, but it is rumor season. The only thing I truly believe from this is the Packers willingness to ship Doubs out.

NCF wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2025 09:59

Don't buy it, but it is rumor season. The only thing I truly believe from this is the Packers willingness to ship Doubs out.

Hope they don't trade Wicks, too much upside there.

Doubs probably has more trade value, only 1 year left on contract, concussions make me nervous, and whatever weird locker room drama is going on.



But Metcalf makes sense. He's that MVS-Watson field stretcher we need. Even when those guys aren't personally productive, our EPA per play goes up like 20%.

Plus he's a way more productive receiver than either, and also a great blocker. Awesome replacement for Watson for this year, maybe beyond.



But at the same time, hate adding him on just a 1 year deal, his contract is $18 million this year, guess not too much for a good WR, but still $18M we can't spend elsewhere, and we have to give up players and picks.

Could just sign Davante for probably around $18M and keep the picks.


Torn on this unless I see the compensation and/or money we end up giving Metcalf.

Just bring back this man.

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2025 10:26

Just bring back this man.

I have been introducing my baby daughter to Packers football early (she is 11 months old). We spend every Saturday morning watching the Packers and I love seeing her face light up.

Anyways, we are starting as far back as NFL+ allows which is 2009.

All I can say is my gawd I just loved that team and that 2007 - 2011 roster. Also football was so much better back then. I just get the warm fuzzies whenever I see guys like Jones call out his old crew.

It sucks to say that football will never be that good ever again but is true. From the broadcast. To the stadiums and the passion. To the hitting and physicality. Everything about football (and sports in general) was just better 15 years ago. I know I say it a lot but football peaked in 2010. The CBA in 2011 was the beginning of the decline. Money has ruined sports.

go pak go wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2025 10:33

It sucks to say that football will never be that good ever again but is true. From the broadcast. To the stadiums and the passion. To the hitting and physicality. Everything about football (and sports in general) was just better 15 years ago.

To be fair, people said that in the 80's when the Bears were doing the Super Bowl shuffle rap about the 60's.

People were saying it then about the 90's and how tough Brent Favre was.

We are saying it now about 15-20 years ago.

And in 2045, we'll be talking about how fun and tough those Jordan Love Packers were 15-20 years ago.

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2025 10:37

go pak go wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2025 10:33

It sucks to say that football will never be that good ever again but is true. From the broadcast. To the stadiums and the passion. To the hitting and physicality. Everything about football (and sports in general) was just better 15 years ago.

To be fair, people said that in the 80's when the Bears were doing the Super Bowl shuffle rap about the 60's.

People were saying it then about the 90's and how tough Brent Favre was.

We are saying it now about 15-20 years ago.

And in 2045, we'll be talking about how fun and tough those Jordan Love Packers were 15-20 years ago.

I know. And I hate being that cloud yeller or the "back in my day"

I think what is doing it for me is I am literally re-watching the entire season. Like it's been so long that I don't have every play memorized and I get more excited watching Jennings get a 30 yard pass to convert a first down 15 years ago than I do for plays in this decade watching live.

I can truly say the game was better and I am glad I get to rewatch these games in its entirety.

And my gawd Charles Woodson, Clay Matthews, Johnny Jolly, and Nick Collins. We really got robbed with Johnny Jolly. Screw puprle drank.

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2025 10:37

go pak go wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2025 10:33

It sucks to say that football will never be that good ever again but is true. From the broadcast. To the stadiums and the passion. To the hitting and physicality. Everything about football (and sports in general) was just better 15 years ago.

To be fair, people said that in the 80's when the Bears were doing the Super Bowl shuffle rap about the 60's.

People were saying it then about the 90's and how tough Brent Favre was.

We are saying it now about 15-20 years ago.

And in 2045, we'll be talking about how fun and tough those Jordan Love Packers were 15-20 years ago.

the 60's was the greatest era of the game, greatest athletes, and ten times the fan appreciation, or was that the 70's

to me the game evolves back upon itself, the 90's was the beginning of the live ball era, more pass, less run, now we see more importance on being able to run the ball, once defense figure out how to stop the latest addition of offensive prominence, offensive guru's design a new plan and the ball, it just a keeps on rolling.

I tend to agree that money has forced changes, less player exposure to injury was bound to happen as their cost skyrocketed, so we see less contact, more penalties, so obviously, less bloodshed, that's bad, football fans love watching as bells get rung, players laying in a heap wreathing in pain, it's a gladiator sport minus the gladiators, replaced by sniveling cry babies who broke a hang nail and are now on IR well it hasn't really gotten that bad yet, just seems like it at times, this game still has a lot of stuff I love, I also think the officiating being replaced by some tech stuff is a good thing.

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2025 10:24

Hope they don't trade Wicks, too much upside there.

Doubs probably has more trade value, only 1 year left on contract, concussions make me nervous, and whatever weird locker room drama is going on.



But Metcalf makes sense. He's that MVS-Watson field stretcher we need. Even when those guys aren't personally productive, our EPA per play goes up like 20%.

Plus he's a way more productive receiver than either, and also a great blocker. Awesome replacement for Watson for this year, maybe beyond.



But at the same time, hate adding him on just a 1 year deal, his contract is $18 million this year, guess not too much for a good WR, but still $18M we can't spend elsewhere, and we have to give up players and picks.

Could just sign Davante for probably around $18M and keep the picks.


Torn on this unless I see the compensation and/or money we end up giving Metcalf.

I don't see #17 signing for $18 million, but would rather sign him for $24 million and keep the players and picks. The 1 year left on the contract is a big part of what makes the Metcalf prospect bad.

Gutenbumst trading for DK has gotta be the funniest thing ever when he could have just taken him in the first place.

Deboo to skins for a 5th. Wow. Cheap.

Backthepack4ever wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2025 17:50

Deboo to skins for a 5th. Wow. Cheap.

Agreed, niners must think he’s outta gas at this point. They do need to move $ though. Props to Washington. I really wanted to be the team that’s slinging 5th rounders for players.

Wasn't really interested in Deebo personally. We need a field stretcher. Deebo is more of an east-west mover.

Labrev wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2025 19:34

Wasn't really interested in Deebo personally. We need a field stretcher. Deebo is more of an east-west mover.

For a 5th I don't care if he does the silly jet sweeps. I agree he wasn't a top guy I wanted but value wise I'll take him

GMs just don’t trade high value picks for players like Deebo which is why I think Jaires price is also a 5th. They’re both often injured, pricey, and relatively up in age for positions that rely heavily on athleticism.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2025 16:42

Gutenbumst trading for DK has gotta be the funniest thing ever when he could have just taken him in the first place.

yep, and I don't see him attempting to make up for that mistake by trading for him now, for 1 he would lose a top pick that he values, even though his track record suggests trading every first round pick for a proven vet would produce better results then the Dliners he's used them on.

DK would provide the deep threat we lost with Watson, a better route runner, I think the emergence of Njigba is the main reason DK targets diminished, but he still caught 60% of targets, his presence would benefit every receiver or pass plan we use, depending who the player is (Alexander, LVN) or not, I'd be very interested in this plan, that's if there even is one.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2025 01:03

GMs just don’t trade high value picks for players like Deebo which is why I think Jaires price is also a 5th. They’re both often injured, pricey, and relatively up in age for positions that rely heavily on athleticism.

people will flat out freak out when/if Alexander is cut, but that is what I expect

Give or take a percent, 97% of the all NFL prospects could have been drafted by the Packers. There are roughly 20 guys we don't have an opportunity to acquire, out of the roughly 600 players entering the NFL. Even then if one wants to say we could trade for the #1 pick each year, it could be said we have the opportunity to draft every player.

We could have drafted Malik Willis. That doesn't mean trading for him was a mistake or an indictment on the front office. Just like trading for DK Metcalf, if we can, wouldn't be some indictment. The worst thing a front office can do is not improve a team due to some idiotic notion of pride.