Packers Huddle

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2021 12:07

To be clear, the Packers are not in "Salary Cap Hell."

The LEAGUE is in "Salary Cap Hell" and the Packers are not in a great position to deal with it, but there's not been some poor management or bad free agent decisions that are punishing us.

And yes, we also have several All Pros who are playing as such and earning top contracts and eventually that forces tough decisions. But bear in mind that in any normal year with normal cap growth, the Packers would have cap space.

Jacksonville has 82 mil in available salary cap. New England has 69. The league average is 15 mil.
https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/

APB wrote: ↑

27 Feb 2021 11:56

Yoop wrote: ↑

26 Feb 2021 11:34

and I remember just how giddy people here got just at the thought of Rodgers being the most expensive QB in the league, no sheit, people where pouring champagne

Perhaps you could help us out and cite who these mystery posters were that you're now arguing against? As I recall, posters were celebrating the fact we got Rodgers at a relative bargain.

And if, in fact, the premise of the quoted portion above is indeed wrong, it then renders the remainder of your post as complete nonsense. You know, this part:

Rodgers was boiling, no receiver help to speak of, a coach that had become so redundent his schemes made everything on offense near impossible to accomplish, and he was fed up with carrying this team for the previous 3 or 4 seasons, (just look at all the wasted draft picks on defense) Murphy jumped up to save the day and smooth things over with Rodgers by giving him a contract he couldn't refuse, and again had to do so after firing McCarthy and bringing in Lafluer when Rodgers was upset with not being consoled on that decision.

Truth is, Rodgers did sign a relatively team friendly deal. Does that sound like the actions of a player who was "boiling", "fed up", or getting a contract he "couldn't refuse?"

Rodgers signed the most expensive contract per annual of any football player ever at the time, and I didn't say you, but there where members here that wanted that, and if you couldn't tell that Rodgers was upset at the end of 2017 well you just weren't paying attention, and thats why Murphy stepped in and extended him, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Rodgers was asking for a trade when it happened, but since we never heard a rumor of that in YOUR mind it couldn't have happened, never mind that in 2018 he acted pissed off from very early and practically forced Murphy and Guty to fire McCarthy 2/3 through the season, guess all this stuff just flew right over your head heh? didn't notice any of it going on? just nonsense and not worth paying attention to

oh ya, lets not forget his reaction when he wasn't consulted concerning the Lafluer hire, Murphy had to cool him down then to, just because Rodgers doesn't air the dirty laundry in public, doesn't mean there wasn't any, it's as though some of you are oblivious to any negative concerning the operation during the end of the Thompson regime, the FO was not functioning, we had failure going on for a couple years from the top down, no accountability, till Aaron Jones popped we had two impact players on offense and one was the QB, with Jones it became 3, ( in what world does that even make sense to you, a HOF QB with such a zipo supporting cast) pick after pick spent on defense with minimal returned there to, oh ya it was Capers fault.
just because a person smiles a lot, doesn't neccessarily mean there happy

I don't think anyone was hoping Rodgers would be the highest paid quarterback in the league.

I think people just wanted to ensure Aaron Rodgers would sign with the Packers and be a Packer for a long time.

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2021 16:42

I don't think anyone was hoping Rodgers would be the highest paid quarterback in the league.

I think people just wanted to ensure Aaron Rodgers would sign with the Packers and be a Packer for a long time.

come on, some where actually giddy that he would be the most expensive QB in the league, I don't remember who they are, I'am not naming anyone, the people that felt that way back then know who you are.

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2021 16:58

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2021 16:42

I don't think anyone was hoping Rodgers would be the highest paid quarterback in the league.

I think people just wanted to ensure Aaron Rodgers would sign with the Packers and be a Packer for a long time.

come on, some where actually giddy that he would be the most expensive QB in the league, I don't remember who they are, I'am not naming anyone, the people that felt that way back then know who you are.

Why would anyone want that? I mean who gives a flying sh*t? I ain't making the money.

I'm pretty sure people were happy a deal got done. I also know people were projecting what the cost would be and for the most part they were right.

But I have literally never heard an NFL fan boast they have the highest paid player in the league. Not with a hard cap.

It is always the opposite. We want a player. We are so overjoyed we signed a player and then the FIRST thing we ask is..."did we get a good deal?"

A good idea is a good idea. It doesn't matter if it comes from the ballboy or your superstar. The opportunity to present ideas come few and far between for the ballboy. But you should at least be talking to your star QB enough that he can get points across. Especially if the guy is as smart as AR is. If last years O design is to be believed then it was partly because AR got some of his ideas across. Personnel discisions should be up to the professionals but it doesn't hurt to get an opinion from some of your players. You don't have to act on it though.

And people were happy we signed AR, nobody was cheering about him being the highest paid other than AR and his agent.

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2021 17:59

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2021 16:58

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2021 16:42

I don't think anyone was hoping Rodgers would be the highest paid quarterback in the league.

I think people just wanted to ensure Aaron Rodgers would sign with the Packers and be a Packer for a long time.

come on, some where actually giddy that he would be the most expensive QB in the league, I don't remember who they are, I'am not naming anyone, the people that felt that way back then know who you are.

Why would anyone want that? I mean who gives a flying sh*t? I ain't making the money.

I'm pretty sure people were happy a deal got done. I also know people were projecting what the cost would be and for the most part they were right.

But I have literally never heard an NFL fan boast they have the highest paid player in the league. Not with a hard cap.

It is always the opposite. We want a player. We are so overjoyed we signed a player and then the FIRST thing we ask is..."did we get a good deal?"

so then people where happy to pay him more then any other football player had ever made with two years still remaining on a already expensive contract, prior to the year the coach was on the hot seat, none of that made any sense to me and I voiced it back then, why the rush to extend Rodgers? and why Keep McCarthy when there relationship had soured?
there was NO need to extend Rodgers at that time, unless it was to just pacify him, either way it all blew up the next season with keeping McCarthy around.

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 06:05

go pak go wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2021 17:59

Yoop wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2021 16:58

come on, some where actually giddy that he would be the most expensive QB in the league, I don't remember who they are, I'am not naming anyone, the people that felt that way back then know who you are.

Why would anyone want that? I mean who gives a flying sh*t? I ain't making the money.

I'm pretty sure people were happy a deal got done. I also know people were projecting what the cost would be and for the most part they were right.

But I have literally never heard an NFL fan boast they have the highest paid player in the league. Not with a hard cap.

It is always the opposite. We want a player. We are so overjoyed we signed a player and then the FIRST thing we ask is..."did we get a good deal?"

so then people where happy to pay him more then any other football player had ever made with two years still remaining on a already expensive contract, prior to the year the coach was on the hot seat, none of that made any sense to me and I voiced it back then, why the rush to extend Rodgers? and why Keep McCarthy when there relationship had soured?
there was NO need to extend Rodgers at that time, unless it was to just pacify him, either way it all blew up the next season with keeping McCarthy around.

You have to put yourself back in that moment. There was a lot of fear of what Rodgers could command if he actually did hit the open market and the thought was, and justifiably so, that Rodgers would sign with another team if he got to UFA.

And for good reason too. There was the stagnant model the Packers started since 2015 and there was a visible discontent when watching Rodgers.

We also just saw Kirk Cousins of all QBs become basically a fully guaranteed, nearly $100 million, quarterback. So if Cousins gets that with MN...what the hell would Rodgers get with another desperate team?

The counter to those fears which many brought up and I agreed, was the Packers had more control in the negotiating process than Rodgers did because we really had control for 4 seasons if absolutely necessary...though likely 3 seasons. We could have forced him to play out his contract in 18 and 19 and then tagged him in 20.

I honestly didn't have a problem with Rodgers making a career move he did back at that time. The Packers were not even close to the Packers we are now. This is clearly a different era and a different team with a different coach and a different GM who aren't afraid of going for it.

Also about the whole pay thing. I was thinking about this when I was watching Andy Herman's video yesterday and seeing Davante's contract extension mock and seeing $25 million cap hit in like 2023.

And it put a pit in my stomach. Not that I don't think he deserves it...he does. But it put a pit in stomach because this guy that we are giving the franchise to....couldn't even catch an easy ball in the biggest game of our season when we needed it most.

And because of that, we wring our hands as fans that our stars need to take a pay cut so we can find supporting players to give our stars a better chance to win.

Ultimately, I would have no problem with Bak's Rodger's, Adams's, Clark's, Z's, contract....if they just won.

But they didn't. And so we feel our front office needs to do more which they can't because all the resources are tied up with the stars who didn't show up when we needed them to.

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 07:12

Also about the whole pay thing. I was thinking about this when I was watching Andy Herman's video yesterday and seeing Davante's contract extension mock and seeing $25 million cap hit in like 2023.

And it put a pit in my stomach. Not that I don't think he deserves it...he does. But it put a pit in stomach because this guy that we are giving the franchise to....couldn't even catch an easy ball in the biggest game of our season when we needed it most.

And because of that, we wring our hands as fans that our stars need to take a pay cut so we can find supporting players to give our stars a better chance to win.

Ultimately, I would have no problem with Bak's Rodger's, Adams's, Clark's, Z's, contract....if they just won.

But they didn't. And so we feel our front office needs to do more which they can't because all the resources are tied up with the stars who didn't show up when we needed them to.

I saw that, too. Generally, I do not concern myself with cap committed dollars more than two seasons out. The Packers have kept a pretty good formula of avoiding large signing bonuses (except with their stars) so they can get out of deals if they need to and generally, they have been pretty good at not needing to.

I guess I disagree with your premise. If we won the Super Bowl, I'd still be on here hoping we find a way to stretch our dollars to improve the team. I get the whole sting of the loss thing, but if that is driving your decision making, you are probably the Jacksonville Jaguars.

NCF wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 07:18

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 07:12

Also about the whole pay thing. I was thinking about this when I was watching Andy Herman's video yesterday and seeing Davante's contract extension mock and seeing $25 million cap hit in like 2023.

And it put a pit in my stomach. Not that I don't think he deserves it...he does. But it put a pit in stomach because this guy that we are giving the franchise to....couldn't even catch an easy ball in the biggest game of our season when we needed it most.

And because of that, we wring our hands as fans that our stars need to take a pay cut so we can find supporting players to give our stars a better chance to win.

Ultimately, I would have no problem with Bak's Rodger's, Adams's, Clark's, Z's, contract....if they just won.

But they didn't. And so we feel our front office needs to do more which they can't because all the resources are tied up with the stars who didn't show up when we needed them to.

I saw that, too. Generally, I do not concern myself with cap committed dollars more than two seasons out. The Packers have kept a pretty good formula of avoiding large signing bonuses (except with their stars) so they can get out of deals if they need to and generally, they have been pretty good at not needing to.

I guess I disagree with your premise. If we won the Super Bowl, I'd still be on here hoping we find a way to stretch our dollars to improve the team. I get the whole sting of the loss thing, but if that is driving your decision making, you are probably the Jacksonville Jaguars.

The whole point is that player was worth it and will hopefully continue to be worth it.

The largest Packers issue isn't we don't pay players or go after big time players. We have always been a cap heavy team; meaning, we spend a lot of money. But then the players you give that money to better show up when we need them to show up.

It's crazy because we always talk about how our defense fails us which is a narrative driven on the 2012, 2015 and 2016 playoffs.

But really I look at the Packers as the offense failing us. The offense putting the ball on the ground or intercepted in our playoff losses when they never do that. The offense not generating more than 23 points in important games.

I get guys like Adams deserved his pay day. But what gives me the cringe is that guy who earned it...can't come through when we actually needed him to come through.

MVS and AJ Dillon should not have been the best WR and RB for the Packers in the biggest game of the season.

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 07:40

I get guys like Adams deserved his pay day. But what gives me the cringe is that guy who earned it...can't come through when we actually needed him to come through.

That is always going to be the narrative when a team doesn't win a big game. The team lost and it's stars didn't do enough to win. The spotlight is bright. Tampa played a little bit better than we did. The worst thing is it has happened often enough now where the narrative is also starting a suggest a pattern. I'm not concerned. We are going to break through, yet. It sucks and it's frustrating that it hasn't happened but there is nothing philosophically wrong with what we are doing.

go pak go wrote: ↑

25 Feb 2021 16:33

I think there comes a time yes. Your quarterback is almost like the COO of a football team. Or the offense for sure. I think there does come a time where their opinion and advice should come in.

COO? Um, no. A COO would be like a Field Staff General position in the military. The QB is more like a Major/Colonel or lower tier General. The QB is responsible for the activities of the offense on the field and maybe some of the motivational aspects on the sidelines and locker room. A COO is more than that.

If a team has a GM who wants to mentor QBs (or any other player) into coaching or management, that's fine. Otherwise, the QBs need to relish and appreciate their role on the 53. They can ask for players and coaches and even make a justification for them. But then, they need to leave their suggestions at the GMs door (or whoever makes those decisions for the team).

NCF wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 08:46

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 07:40

I get guys like Adams deserved his pay day. But what gives me the cringe is that guy who earned it...can't come through when we actually needed him to come through.

That is always going to be the narrative when a team doesn't win a big game. The team lost and it's stars didn't do enough to win. The spotlight is bright. Tampa played a little bit better than we did. The worst thing is it has happened often enough now where the narrative is also starting a suggest a pattern. I'm not concerned. We are going to break through, yet. It sucks and it's frustrating that it hasn't happened but there is nothing philosophically wrong with what we are doing.

players fail, very good players fail, to overcome that ya need more very good players, DC learn the traits and tendency's of opposing talent, they determine the best way to limit production from those players, sure they'll give Adams a bunch of short receptions, and concentrate on stopping the big chunk plays, same with a RB like Jones, a DC would be insane not to concentrate on stopping what Jones does best (stretch runs) once Jones went out the job of the DC just got a lot easier, when a DC only has one impact receiver to deal with you have a very hard time moving the ball, sure others such as Tonyan, MVS, etc. are quality contributors, but DC don't burn mid night oil scheming there defense to stop them, your hope is that there defense is busy stopping your better guys and the Tanyons and the rest benefit off of that, part of our problem as I've continued to present is our lack of impact receivers that force the burning of more mid night oil

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 09:17

NCF wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 08:46

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 07:40

I get guys like Adams deserved his pay day. But what gives me the cringe is that guy who earned it...can't come through when we actually needed him to come through.

That is always going to be the narrative when a team doesn't win a big game. The team lost and it's stars didn't do enough to win. The spotlight is bright. Tampa played a little bit better than we did. The worst thing is it has happened often enough now where the narrative is also starting a suggest a pattern. I'm not concerned. We are going to break through, yet. It sucks and it's frustrating that it hasn't happened but there is nothing philosophically wrong with what we are doing.

players fail, very good players fail, to overcome that ya need more very good players, DC learn the traits and tendency's of opposing talent, they determine the best way to limit production from those players, sure they'll give Adams a bunch of short receptions, and concentrate on stopping the big chunk plays, same with a RB like Jones, a DC would be insane not to concentrate on stopping what Jones does best (stretch runs) once Jones went out the job of the DC just got a lot easier, when a DC only has one impact receiver to deal with you have a very hard time moving the ball, sure others such as Tonyan, MVS, etc. are quality contributors, but DC don't burn mid night oil scheming there defense to stop them, your hope is that there defense is busy stopping your better guys and the Tanyons and the rest benefit off of that, part of our problem as I've continued to present is our lack of impact receivers that force the burning of more mid night oil

Exhibit A.

NCF wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 08:46

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 07:40

I get guys like Adams deserved his pay day. But what gives me the cringe is that guy who earned it...can't come through when we actually needed him to come through.

That is always going to be the narrative when a team doesn't win a big game. The team lost and it's stars didn't do enough to win. The spotlight is bright. Tampa played a little bit better than we did. The worst thing is it has happened often enough now where the narrative is also starting a suggest a pattern. I'm not concerned. We are going to break through, yet. It sucks and it's frustrating that it hasn't happened but there is nothing philosophically wrong with what we are doing.

I agree and I was in the party of "you take enough cracks at the whip and you are going to get your share". The thought is it eventually will go our way.

Except 1-5 in 6 appearance does suggest a pattern. We make fun of the Vikings for choking. The 2000's Packers are there.

Will we break that pattern? Odds are definitely stronger we won't than we will at this point. But that's why we are fans.

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 09:28

NCF wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 08:46

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 07:40

I get guys like Adams deserved his pay day. But what gives me the cringe is that guy who earned it...can't come through when we actually needed him to come through.

That is always going to be the narrative when a team doesn't win a big game. The team lost and it's stars didn't do enough to win. The spotlight is bright. Tampa played a little bit better than we did. The worst thing is it has happened often enough now where the narrative is also starting a suggest a pattern. I'm not concerned. We are going to break through, yet. It sucks and it's frustrating that it hasn't happened but there is nothing philosophically wrong with what we are doing.

I agree and I was in the party of "you take enough cracks at the whip and you are going to get your share". The thought is it eventually will go our way.

Except 1-5 in 6 appearance does suggest a pattern. We make fun of the Vikings for choking. The 2000's Packers are there.

Will we break that pattern? Odds are definitely stronger we won't than we will at this point. But that's why we are fans.

I don't buy it. I think you can look to 2019 and 2020 in terms of 2021, but even going back to the run the table team... it's not even close to the same team. The GM was different, the coach was different, the roster was 95% different. I don't believe this snake bitten worry. The Vikings choke because their teams suck and they knock on the door once every ten years or so. There is no pattern there, either.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 08:53

go pak go wrote: ↑

25 Feb 2021 16:33

I think there comes a time yes. Your quarterback is almost like the COO of a football team. Or the offense for sure. I think there does come a time where their opinion and advice should come in.

COO? Um, no. A COO would be like a Field Staff General position in the military. The QB is more like a Major/Colonel or lower tier General. The QB is responsible for the activities of the offense on the field and maybe some of the motivational aspects on the sidelines and locker room. A COO is more than that.

If a team has a GM who wants to mentor QBs (or any other player) into coaching or management, that's fine. Otherwise, the QBs need to relish and appreciate their role on the 53. They can ask for players and coaches and even make a justification for them. But then, they need to leave their suggestions at the GMs door (or whoever makes those decisions for the team).

come on Scott/ Grace, there called field Generals, there not called 1 star, 2 star, etc generals

what gives you the impression Rodgers hadn't asked for either players, or offensive changes for several seasons prior to 2018 ( the year of his revolting to the point of the McCarthy firing), Rodgers had always kept his feelings under wraps concerning most everything concerning the running of the team,cept maybe those two articles from 017, mostly very respectful of the FO, but seriously anyone watching the decline of Ted, the defense, and obviously the offense has to come to the conclusion he was not happy one bit about it, neither was I and voiced it plenty in this forum.

and to think a QB of his stature should just shut up and do what he's told goes against all reality concerning the nature of this stuff, look around the league, it aint happening, why would anyone go along with actions that affect your career that are in fact hurting it, that doesn't even make a lick of sense.

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 09:28

NCF wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 08:46

go pak go wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 07:40

I get guys like Adams deserved his pay day. But what gives me the cringe is that guy who earned it...can't come through when we actually needed him to come through.

That is always going to be the narrative when a team doesn't win a big game. The team lost and it's stars didn't do enough to win. The spotlight is bright. Tampa played a little bit better than we did. The worst thing is it has happened often enough now where the narrative is also starting a suggest a pattern. I'm not concerned. We are going to break through, yet. It sucks and it's frustrating that it hasn't happened but there is nothing philosophically wrong with what we are doing.

I agree and I was in the party of "you take enough cracks at the whip and you are going to get your share". The thought is it eventually will go our way.

Except 1-5 in 6 appearance does suggest a pattern. We make fun of the Vikings for choking. The 2000's Packers are there.

Will we break that pattern? Odds are definitely stronger we won't than we will at this point. But that's why we are fans.

Odds????? I would have loved to read the odds of us running the table the last time we won a SB around week 7 of that season, I learned years and years ago to not bet on sports, cause the odds makers are often wrong, it's just not a good bet very often for me. I'd rather bet on sure things, such as you stumbling along here trying to defend the position that Rodgers was a happy camper in 2018 when most of the civilized football world could tell that he was steaming.

Tax time, you must be busier then a one armed Paper hanger heh

Yoop wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 09:45

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2021 08:53

go pak go wrote: ↑

25 Feb 2021 16:33

I think there comes a time yes. Your quarterback is almost like the COO of a football team. Or the offense for sure. I think there does come a time where their opinion and advice should come in.

COO? Um, no. A COO would be like a Field Staff General position in the military. The QB is more like a Major/Colonel or lower tier General. The QB is responsible for the activities of the offense on the field and maybe some of the motivational aspects on the sidelines and locker room. A COO is more than that.

If a team has a GM who wants to mentor QBs (or any other player) into coaching or management, that's fine. Otherwise, the QBs need to relish and appreciate their role on the 53. They can ask for players and coaches and even make a justification for them. But then, they need to leave their suggestions at the GMs door (or whoever makes those decisions for the team).

come on Scott/ Grace, there called field Generals, there not called 1 star, 2 star, etc generals

what gives you the impression Rodgers hadn't asked for either players, or offensive changes for several seasons prior to 2018 ( the year of his revolting to the point of the McCarthy firing), Rodgers had always kept his feelings under wraps concerning most everything concerning the running of the team,cept maybe those two articles from 017, mostly very respectful of the FO, but seriously anyone watching the decline of Ted, the defense, and obviously the offense has to come to the conclusion he was not happy one bit about it, neither was I and voiced it plenty in this forum.

and to think a QB of his stature should just shut up and do what he's told goes against all reality concerning the nature of this stuff, look around the league, it aint happening, why would anyone go along with actions that affect your career that are in fact hurting it, that doesn't even make a lick of sense.

I never said that Aaron wouldn't justifiably have an opinion to share. My point was that any QB is not a COO.

Any QB or other player worth his salt will have an opinion. And like any other work place, it takes wisdom to know when to share it, or even if it should be shared at all. Sometimes, it's better to be quiet.
:-)