Packers Huddle

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 08:06

go pak go wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 07:53

Yoop wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 07:17

I know I'am crying over spilt milk here, imo McCarthy wasted cheap production from Jones, even Rodgers hinted that we needed to run more at the end of Jones rookie season, he didn't mention Jones specifically but he's not blind, he obviously new Jones could be a big contributor with more touches.

I guess I don't get the hand wringing of how the Packers handled Aaron Jones in 2017 and 2018 when we weren't gonna do anything those years anyways.

If there is anything I am pissed or sad about the Aaron Jones era it is how he didn't contribute in either of our NFCCG's.

well hind sight is 20/20, and thats what your using when you say 017 and 018 where spoiler years, add in a 1000 yrds from Jones and those two seasons could have turned out better.

then you blame Jones for not producing against two of the best run stop defenses in the league in SF and Tampa, hardly Joneses fault that the OL couldn't open holes.

I love how people say never give a RB a 2nd contract, yet support them riding pine for 2 of there 4 rookie seasons.

go pak go wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 07:56

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 07:09

APB wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 07:02

I get the financial side of the RB decisions but, man, do I hate seeing those two guys walk. They were good players, good team mates, and good citizens. They earned a second contract. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that second contract will be with the Packers. And again, I get why.

I'm feeling the same way. Like I wish RBs just didn't get paid much and we could keep these two as long as they can play

I'm the other way around.

Like I wish top WRs didn't command over $25 million. I wish QB's didn't command over $35 million. I wish pass rushers didn't command around $20 million and we could just have all these guys at around $12 million instead.

Like it doesn't give me pleasure that Aaron Jones deserves to be a low paid guy because he plays a certain position group when he is doing just as much work and likely more impactful than most on our team....yet we only want to pay him a Dean Lowry wage.

lulu wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 21:09

go pak go wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 07:56

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 07:09

I'm feeling the same way. Like I wish RBs just didn't get paid much and we could keep these two as long as they can play

I'm the other way around.

Like I wish top WRs didn't command over $25 million. I wish QB's didn't command over $35 million. I wish pass rushers didn't command around $20 million and we could just have all these guys at around $12 million instead.

Like it doesn't give me pleasure that Aaron Jones deserves to be a low paid guy because he plays a certain position group when he is doing just as much work and likely more impactful than most on our team....yet we only want to pay him a Dean Lowry wage.

Unfortunately it's the nature of the position. Shelling out big bucks on a second contract for a RB is a bit dicey given the pounding these guys take.

I think most underappreciate Williams. Is he a #1? No. He's a heck of a #2 though and does alot of things quite well. Oh, and if memory serves, he hasn't missed many/any games.

lulu wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 21:09

I think most underappreciate Williams. Is he a #1? No. He's a heck of a #2 though and does alot of things quite well. Oh, and if memory serves, he hasn't missed many/any games.

lulu wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 21:09

go pak go wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 07:56

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

10 Mar 2021 07:09

I'm feeling the same way. Like I wish RBs just didn't get paid much and we could keep these two as long as they can play

I'm the other way around.

Like I wish top WRs didn't command over $25 million. I wish QB's didn't command over $35 million. I wish pass rushers didn't command around $20 million and we could just have all these guys at around $12 million instead.

Like it doesn't give me pleasure that Aaron Jones deserves to be a low paid guy because he plays a certain position group when he is doing just as much work and likely more impactful than most on our team....yet we only want to pay him a Dean Lowry wage.

Unfortunately it's the nature of the position. Shelling out big bucks on a second contract for a RB is a bit dicey given the pounding these guys take.

I think most underappreciate Williams. Is he a #1? No. He's a heck of a #2 though and does alot of things quite well. Oh, and if memory serves, he hasn't missed many/any games.

Yoop wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2021 07:18

even in a bad year to get big money in FA, Jones will be a hot ticket player, probably get 12 to 13 annual on a 3 to 4 year contract and will go fast, the production is obvious, and thats what GM's look for in a player.

we can't even afford the tag price, why would Jones take less then that to remain here, in one season he will double what we could offer him.

texas wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2021 01:52

Jones should stick with us even if it's ostensibly for less and here's why.

It is very very common for RBs to decline earlier than other positions. Nobody disagrees with that. Also, RBs tend to decline immediately after getting a big payday. If they go to another team, with another system (in which they're unproven) and coaches, it's far more likely they take a step back than take a step forward. So all of those things considered, it's likely that whatever team signs him to a big contract will be regretting it, at least a little bit, after a year, because the chances are moderately high that he won't live up to it. And just like it's common for RBs to decline after big contracts, it's common for teams to pull the plug on RBs who aren't pulling their weight faster than other positions.

In other words, there is a moderately high chance he signs a deal and gets cut after a year and loses leverage. And then once a RB is cut and tarnished as overvalued, you see it all the time that they frequently have trouble plugging back in and ever getting good money again. GB would be an option since he flourished in our system, but if we've moved on from him once, we'd presumably have a rotation already in place and thus he wouldn't be as valuable to us then as he is now.

So take this scenario vs re-signing with us for a healthy yet slightly undermarket (for him) salary. He remains the lead back. He likely does just as well as he has been doing in a system he knows and is somewhat designed for him. We likely stick with him for several years and are much slower to cut our losses should regression occur, both because he's our system guy and because he is not overvalued. There's a 50-50 chance or better that he makes more money with us in 4 years than he does by trying to hit payday somewhere else, plus he sets himself up as a Packer for life. Plus let's be honest if he actually wants a Super Bowl, he's got a better shot here than Miami or NYJ.

Or he could be like Mark Ingram or David Johnson or Lamar Miller and sucker the Texans into breaking the bank for a RB on the verge of being washed up later in his career. But assuming that will no longer be a play at that point, if I'm him, I'm definitely testing the waters, but I'm keeping a clear bias towards staying where I'm at even if it means that the sticker price on my deal might be less.

go pak go wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2021 08:35

Yoop wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2021 07:18

even in a bad year to get big money in FA, Jones will be a hot ticket player, probably get 12 to 13 annual on a 3 to 4 year contract and will go fast, the production is obvious, and thats what GM's look for in a player.

we can't even afford the tag price, why would Jones take less then that to remain here, in one season he will double what we could offer him.

Who is this poster of reason and what have you done with Yoop!?

Pugger wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2021 09:48

texas wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2021 01:52

Jones should stick with us even if it's ostensibly for less and here's why.

It is very very common for RBs to decline earlier than other positions. Nobody disagrees with that. Also, RBs tend to decline immediately after getting a big payday. If they go to another team, with another system (in which they're unproven) and coaches, it's far more likely they take a step back than take a step forward. So all of those things considered, it's likely that whatever team signs him to a big contract will be regretting it, at least a little bit, after a year, because the chances are moderately high that he won't live up to it. And just like it's common for RBs to decline after big contracts, it's common for teams to pull the plug on RBs who aren't pulling their weight faster than other positions.

In other words, there is a moderately high chance he signs a deal and gets cut after a year and loses leverage. And then once a RB is cut and tarnished as overvalued, you see it all the time that they frequently have trouble plugging back in and ever getting good money again. GB would be an option since he flourished in our system, but if we've moved on from him once, we'd presumably have a rotation already in place and thus he wouldn't be as valuable to us then as he is now.

So take this scenario vs re-signing with us for a healthy yet slightly undermarket (for him) salary. He remains the lead back. He likely does just as well as he has been doing in a system he knows and is somewhat designed for him. We likely stick with him for several years and are much slower to cut our losses should regression occur, both because he's our system guy and because he is not overvalued. There's a 50-50 chance or better that he makes more money with us in 4 years than he does by trying to hit payday somewhere else, plus he sets himself up as a Packer for life. Plus let's be honest if he actually wants a Super Bowl, he's got a better shot here than Miami or NYJ.

Or he could be like Mark Ingram or David Johnson or Lamar Miller and sucker the Texans into breaking the bank for a RB on the verge of being washed up later in his career. But assuming that will no longer be a play at that point, if I'm him, I'm definitely testing the waters, but I'm keeping a clear bias towards staying where I'm at even if it means that the sticker price on my deal might be less.

But I can understand if he goes for a nice payday. The career of most RBs is short so if I were in his shoes and some team was gonna pay me $10+ million I wouldn't hesitate.

texas wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2021 12:01

Pugger wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2021 09:48

texas wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2021 01:52

Jones should stick with us even if it's ostensibly for less and here's why.

It is very very common for RBs to decline earlier than other positions. Nobody disagrees with that. Also, RBs tend to decline immediately after getting a big payday. If they go to another team, with another system (in which they're unproven) and coaches, it's far more likely they take a step back than take a step forward. So all of those things considered, it's likely that whatever team signs him to a big contract will be regretting it, at least a little bit, after a year, because the chances are moderately high that he won't live up to it. And just like it's common for RBs to decline after big contracts, it's common for teams to pull the plug on RBs who aren't pulling their weight faster than other positions.

In other words, there is a moderately high chance he signs a deal and gets cut after a year and loses leverage. And then once a RB is cut and tarnished as overvalued, you see it all the time that they frequently have trouble plugging back in and ever getting good money again. GB would be an option since he flourished in our system, but if we've moved on from him once, we'd presumably have a rotation already in place and thus he wouldn't be as valuable to us then as he is now.

So take this scenario vs re-signing with us for a healthy yet slightly undermarket (for him) salary. He remains the lead back. He likely does just as well as he has been doing in a system he knows and is somewhat designed for him. We likely stick with him for several years and are much slower to cut our losses should regression occur, both because he's our system guy and because he is not overvalued. There's a 50-50 chance or better that he makes more money with us in 4 years than he does by trying to hit payday somewhere else, plus he sets himself up as a Packer for life. Plus let's be honest if he actually wants a Super Bowl, he's got a better shot here than Miami or NYJ.

Or he could be like Mark Ingram or David Johnson or Lamar Miller and sucker the Texans into breaking the bank for a RB on the verge of being washed up later in his career. But assuming that will no longer be a play at that point, if I'm him, I'm definitely testing the waters, but I'm keeping a clear bias towards staying where I'm at even if it means that the sticker price on my deal might be less.

But I can understand if he goes for a nice payday. The career of most RBs is short so if I were in his shoes and some team was gonna pay me $10+ million I wouldn't hesitate.

Yeah I wouldn't blame him either. And guys like that don't get where they are unless they are willing to repeatedly bet on themselves. However, the chances are higher than anyone wants to admit that if he leaves, he won't be nearly as effective as he was in GB and will get cut after a year. Because teams that give big money to RBs regret it like 95% of the time. And if he's one and done in a new location, it's unlikely he ever again sniffs even what we're offering him now.

But yeah $10m right now is hard to pass up.

texas wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2021 12:01

Pugger wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2021 09:48

texas wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2021 01:52

Jones should stick with us even if it's ostensibly for less and here's why.

It is very very common for RBs to decline earlier than other positions. Nobody disagrees with that. Also, RBs tend to decline immediately after getting a big payday. If they go to another team, with another system (in which they're unproven) and coaches, it's far more likely they take a step back than take a step forward. So all of those things considered, it's likely that whatever team signs him to a big contract will be regretting it, at least a little bit, after a year, because the chances are moderately high that he won't live up to it. And just like it's common for RBs to decline after big contracts, it's common for teams to pull the plug on RBs who aren't pulling their weight faster than other positions.

In other words, there is a moderately high chance he signs a deal and gets cut after a year and loses leverage. And then once a RB is cut and tarnished as overvalued, you see it all the time that they frequently have trouble plugging back in and ever getting good money again. GB would be an option since he flourished in our system, but if we've moved on from him once, we'd presumably have a rotation already in place and thus he wouldn't be as valuable to us then as he is now.

So take this scenario vs re-signing with us for a healthy yet slightly undermarket (for him) salary. He remains the lead back. He likely does just as well as he has been doing in a system he knows and is somewhat designed for him. We likely stick with him for several years and are much slower to cut our losses should regression occur, both because he's our system guy and because he is not overvalued. There's a 50-50 chance or better that he makes more money with us in 4 years than he does by trying to hit payday somewhere else, plus he sets himself up as a Packer for life. Plus let's be honest if he actually wants a Super Bowl, he's got a better shot here than Miami or NYJ.

Or he could be like Mark Ingram or David Johnson or Lamar Miller and sucker the Texans into breaking the bank for a RB on the verge of being washed up later in his career. But assuming that will no longer be a play at that point, if I'm him, I'm definitely testing the waters, but I'm keeping a clear bias towards staying where I'm at even if it means that the sticker price on my deal might be less.

But I can understand if he goes for a nice payday. The career of most RBs is short so if I were in his shoes and some team was gonna pay me $10+ million I wouldn't hesitate.

Yeah I wouldn't blame him either. And guys like that don't get where they are unless they are willing to repeatedly bet on themselves. However, the chances are higher than anyone wants to admit that if he leaves, he won't be nearly as effective as he was in GB and will get cut after a year. Because teams that give big money to RBs regret it like 95% of the time. And if he's one and done in a new location, it's unlikely he ever again sniffs even what we're offering him now.

But yeah $10m right now is hard to pass up.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2020 19:36

So he wants more money... Damn. Nice knowing you Aaron Jones! Now bring home that Lombardi!

Drj820 wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2023 17:57

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2020 19:36

So he wants more money... Damn. Nice knowing you Aaron Jones! Now bring home that Lombardi!

Found somebody who didn’t wanna pay Aaron Jones

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2023 17:58

Drj820 wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2023 17:57

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2020 19:36

So he wants more money... Damn. Nice knowing you Aaron Jones! Now bring home that Lombardi!

Found somebody who didn’t wanna pay Aaron Jones

Oh, I see, you don't understand sarcasm. Good try! Bringing back a 2 year old topic for that... Sad.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2023 18:16

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2023 17:58

Drj820 wrote: ↑

27 Jan 2023 17:57

Found somebody who didn’t wanna pay Aaron Jones

Oh, I see, you don't understand sarcasm. Good try! Bringing back a 2 year old topic for that... Sad.

You called me a troll and Yoop a village idiot (very rude) after I agreed people didn’t want to sign him. Then you mistakenly said I couldn’t find proof…I went and found some. It was easy.