Packers Huddle

Labrev wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2022 08:52

At most, I would offer Jenkins Top-5 IOL money, with incentives to make it the highest-paying contract, and hope that he will choose us over some team that will pay him "Best G in the League"-money.

this is a insane conversation we are having, a players worth is often based on factors we don't notice such as the ability he has to elevate team mates, how do you measure that kind of respect?

Your willing to give Jenks about 18 mil., the Rams where willing to Give Donald 37 mil. or basically QB money and neither Jenks or Donald can do anything close to what the QB can, no other position (including RB's or WR's) can score points without that QB, not enough to win most games anyway, I look at 40 plus for a QB as a standard operating expense now for most teams, having a good cheap one on a rookie contract is rare.

Labrev wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2022 08:52

He used to be a guy who could cover up a lot of weaknesses on the roster, but that is quickly becoming less and less true. So the Catch-22 of Rodgers is as he ages, he needs more and more help around him, but we are less and less equipped to do that the more we pay him.

more ignorant foolishness, how do you cover up for a receiver that runs 40 freaking routes and is rarely open, Lazard ran 37 routes and was targeted twice with one catch, your problem Labrev is you think Rodgers sucks and Lazard doesn't, or Tonyan, or Nijman,, people like you rave about a OL that get pushed back in the pocket on nearly every pass play, but since no one touches Rodgers PFF gives them a plus grade, how ridiculous is that?

two certainty's in football, 1. a QB can cover up for weaker players as long as he also has some good ones to do that with, early this season all we had where two good RB's.

2. No longer are DC's able to scheme to hide weak defensive position, why? because most teams have more offensive skill players then just two RB's

Yoop wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2022 11:11

Labrev wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2022 08:52

He used to be a guy who could cover up a lot of weaknesses on the roster, but that is quickly becoming less and less true. So the Catch-22 of Rodgers is as he ages, he needs more and more help around him, but we are less and less equipped to do that the more we pay him.

more ignorant foolishness, how do you cover up for a receiver that runs 40 freaking routes and is rarely open, Lazard ran 37 routes and was targeted twice with one catch, your problem Labrev is you think Rodgers sucks and Lazard doesn't, or Tonyan, or Nijman,, people like you rave about a OL that get pushed back in the pocket on nearly every pass play, but since no one touches Rodgers PFF gives them a plus grade, how ridiculous is that?

two certainty's in football, 1. a QB can cover up for weaker players as long as he also has some good ones to do that with, early this season all we had where two good RB's.

2. No longer are DC's able to scheme to hide weak defensive position, why? because most teams have more offensive skill players then just two RB's

yoop,

As always, my greatest weapon against your current "prisoner of the moment"-takes is....... your "prisoner of the moment"-takes from OTHER moments.

You recently said teams "just" (lol) need a good QB, good OL, good WRs, and good defense to win.

So basically, every position minus RB and TE needs to be good, even with a good QB, to win games. So the only things a good QB can actually cover up are weakness at RB and TE; weaknesses at OL, WR, or D are too much to overcome.

Sorry, can't have it both ways. I know you badly want to, but too bad for you, I exist to burst these bubbles

Either:
>a good QB can cover up lots of weaknesses.
-OR-
>even a good QB can't overcome weaknesses at OL, WR, and on D; those all need to be good as well.

Pick one, my dear, and only one.

Andrew Brandt had a great quote on paying QBs: "It doesn't matter how much you pay them, so long as they perform up to the contract."
He also said: "Despite comments to the contrary, NFL teams have won Titles with a very highly paid QB"

NFL salary structures are byzantine with all kinds of accelerators, short term and long term bonuses, roster bonuses, workout bonuses etc
One way to sort it all out is annual average - but the problem is that Rodgers' current contract was structured in such a way to make him immovable. It also allows Rodgers to say he's the MVP and has the biggest paycheck. But like every deal, it contains a lot of fluffery
So when you take that placeholder deal and run it through the Comp-0-tron, you get results like the OP tweet

Take a look at the link below from OTC. They show the cap numbers AND they show the "OTC valuation"
During AR's MVP seasons, he was vastly underpaid. Even with the mediocre 2022 performance - Rodgers has an OTC valuation of $ 30M and his cap number was $28M last year and $31 M next year. So for 2020, 2021 and 2022- Rodgers cap space wasn't an overpay compared to his performance and thus his cap $$ weren't a detriment to the overall roster build.

https://overthecap.com/player/aaron-rodgers/1085


Z sat out an entire season and GB ate all of that cash, he contributed nothing. Bak has been out- and he commands a big bag of dead money
Those are bigger issues than AR's pay imo. Rodgers past contracts weren't the problem and the new deal he signs this offseason likely won't be a big problem either.

IF/When his play drops off big time vs his actual pay (and it happens fast for many of them) then we'll come back and talk ROI again.
.

BSA wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2022 12:15

Andrew Brandt had a great quote on paying QBs: "It doesn't matter how much you pay them, so long as they perform up to the contract."
He also said: "Despite comments to the contrary, NFL teams have won Titles with a very highly paid QB"

NFL salary structures are byzantine with all kinds of accelerators, short term and long term bonuses, roster bonuses, workout bonuses etc
One way to sort it all out is annual average - but the problem is that Rodgers' current contract was structured in such a way to make him immovable. It also allows Rodgers to say he's the MVP and has the biggest paycheck. But like every deal, it contains a lot of fluffery
So when you take that placeholder deal and run it through the Comp-0-tron, you get results like the OP tweet

Take a look at the link below from OTC. They show the cap numbers AND they show the "OTC valuation"
During AR's MVP seasons, he was vastly underpaid. Even with the mediocre 2022 performance - Rodgers has an OTC valuation of $ 30M and his cap number was $28M last year and $31 M next year. So for 2020, 2021 and 2022- Rodgers cap space wasn't an overpay compared to his performance and thus his cap $$ weren't a detriment to the overall roster build.

https://overthecap.com/player/aaron-rodgers/1085

Absolutely, I think that is a great way to look at it, for any player getting a high percentage of the cap.

Rodgers' $28.5 million cap puts him at 6th in cap hit for 2022. Playing close to that ranking should be the expectation. However, I not sure if he is there this year. I would say he is more borderline top 10 than borderline top 5. In short, I am not sure how OTC came up with the valuation they did for 2022. To know, you would need to subscribe!!

**EDIT** - It looks like any QB who starts every game has a valuation higher than their cap number.

Labrev wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2022 11:45

Yoop wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2022 11:11

Labrev wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2022 08:52

He used to be a guy who could cover up a lot of weaknesses on the roster, but that is quickly becoming less and less true. So the Catch-22 of Rodgers is as he ages, he needs more and more help around him, but we are less and less equipped to do that the more we pay him.

more ignorant foolishness, how do you cover up for a receiver that runs 40 freaking routes and is rarely open, Lazard ran 37 routes and was targeted twice with one catch, your problem Labrev is you think Rodgers sucks and Lazard doesn't, or Tonyan, or Nijman,, people like you rave about a OL that get pushed back in the pocket on nearly every pass play, but since no one touches Rodgers PFF gives them a plus grade, how ridiculous is that?

two certainty's in football, 1. a QB can cover up for weaker players as long as he also has some good ones to do that with, early this season all we had where two good RB's.

2. No longer are DC's able to scheme to hide weak defensive position, why? because most teams have more offensive skill players then just two RB's

yoop,

As always, my greatest weapon against your current "prisoner of the moment"-takes is....... your "prisoner of the moment"-takes from OTHER moments.

You recently said teams "just" (lol) need a good QB, good OL, good WRs, and good defense to win.

So basically, every position minus RB and TE needs to be good, even with a good QB, to win games. So the only things a good QB can actually cover up are weakness at RB and TE; weaknesses at OL, WR, or D are too much to overcome.

Sorry, can't have it both ways. I know you badly want to, but too bad for you, I exist to burst these bubbles

Either:
>a good QB can cover up lots of weaknesses.
-OR-
>even a good QB can't overcome weaknesses at OL, WR, and on D; those all need to be good as well.

Pick one, my dear, and only one.

I bet you have a framed picture of Chubby Checker hanging above your bed lol cause u's got the twist down really good.

we struggled early this season mostly do to lack of WR's, that was the biggest factor, everything else ( OL, Defense) make that issue worse, the most productive part of the offense was the running, till defenses realized our WR's where not there biggest threat, so they loaded the box and the running stopped getting good down and distance, once we got Watson back it forced defenses to loosen up, and we finally got some balance back.


to think a QB with a few good receivers can't over come below average RB's OL, and defense is to deny reality, we see exactly that happen every Sunday, and we watched it happen for us for most of the last decade or more, go watch reruns of the 2011 season, only two DC's where able to stop that offense, both had very good pass rush, both schemed pass coverage, and didn't worry about Grant, Green or Starks, they burnt the mid night oil to stop Rodgers, Driver, Jennings, Nelson, Finley, those 5 players dominated that season, and people seem to think it's impossible to put 5 like that together, but the first thing you have to do is try, till last years draft we didn't, and according to you and some others RODGERS is to blame for that

BSA wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2022 12:15

ndrew Brandt had a great quote on paying QBs: "It doesn't matter how much you pay them, so long as they perform up to the contract."
He also said: "Despite comments to the contrary, NFL teams have won Titles with a very highly paid QB"

Of course Andy would say that, He's a finance officer, even I, a Rodgers defender, don't think he or any other sports player is worth the contracts necessary to retain them, but then is a owner justified making 3 times that contract because fans come to see that player? just asking, heck in some cases it's a lot more then 3 times.

I think when ya average it out like this it's more palatable to the average fan, and I think if our rookie receivers had had more experience and health Rodgers would have had a better season.

shocking stat from Mondays game for me was Lazard, even though it shouldn't have been, imo Lazard has been over rated as a receiver, 37 plays, 2 targets, 1 catch, I don't care how good he is blocking, he needs to get open more often.

by the way, nice post

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2022 13:04

I am not sure how OTC came up with the valuation they did for 2022.

me neither
I thought it might be a projection based on previous season- but it might be current year data
I did find an explainer page, linked below

https://overthecap.com/player/aaron-rodgers/1085

https://overthecap.com/otcs-valuation-diamond-explained

Rodgers is in the upper right quadrant and here's how they describe it:

Right Quadrant: Proper Value, High Expenditure

"Players in this quadrant are closely matched with high performance but high compensation. Most of these players are the veteran stars of the league who have secured their lucrative veteran contract. Teams may be paying a lot for these players, but they are getting their money’s worth."

BSA wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2022 15:22

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2022 13:04

I am not sure how OTC came up with the valuation they did for 2022.

me neither
I thought it might be a projection based on previous season- but it might be current year data
I did find an explainer page, linked below

https://overthecap.com/player/aaron-rodgers/1085

https://overthecap.com/otcs-valuation-diamond-explained

Rodgers is in the upper right quadrant and here's how they describe it:

Right Quadrant: Proper Value, High Expenditure

"Players in this quadrant are closely matched with high performance but high compensation. Most of these players are the veteran stars of the league who have secured their lucrative veteran contract. Teams may be paying a lot for these players, but they are getting their money’s worth."

Ya, not sure I completely agree with the last part for 2022. Up for debate.

Yoop wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2022 06:39

go pak go wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2022 19:13

Yoop wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2022 16:50

rgest NFL Contracts Signed This Offseason (Average Annual Value)
Packers QB Aaron Rodgers: $50,271,667. ...
Broncos QB Russell Wilson: $49,000,000. ...
Cardinals QB Kyler Murray: $46,100,000. ...
Browns QB Deshaun Watson: $46,000,000. ...
Raiders QB Derek Carr: $41,500,000. ...
Rams QB Matthew Stafford: $40,000,000.

I think this shows even more so the importance of not paying the QB so much.

Yuck.

point is teams pay it because minus a good QB and it's near impossible to win in this league, and they resign them because there so hard to come by, we'll probably rework Rodgers contract for next season, or we'll trade him, and there will be teams willing to pay out the money, no one likes it, who would ever support these ridiculous contracts, Aaron Donald makes 38 mil a year, why would anyone pay that for a DT? simple, the production demands it in this bloated market.

Yup. What you said there, is a basis for KEEPING Love. If Guty and MLF truly believe in him, they will keep him in 2023, even if he must sit for Rodgers..

From Zach Kruse:

Rookie left tackle Zach Tom played 71 snaps at left tackle in place of David Bakhtiari but allowed just one total pressure (hurry) over 36 pass-blocking snaps. He earned the team’s top pass-blocking grade on Monday night.

^ Tom has been awesome-

Packers are rolling out a rookie, the 140th pick in the draft as their starting LT... and he's holding his own. Not bad

Yoop wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2022 14:53

to think a QB with a few good receivers can't over come below average RB's OL, and defense is to deny reality, we see exactly that happen every Sunday, and we watched it happen for us for most of the last decade or more, go watch reruns of the 2011 season,

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Oct 2022 08:41

Labrev wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2022 22:08

To say nothing about how stupid it is to try to build a high-flying pass offense for a team whose road to a title will run through Green Bay in winter. That "awesome" 2011 team fell apart like a house of cards as soon as they had to play playoff football in sub-optimal conditions.

gesus Labrev, put down the hash pipe, the 2011 team was figured out because about the only thing it had going for it was the passing game, we couldn't run the ball, the defense rapidly declined, same with ST's, the Giants had excellent pass rush, which gave Rodgers little time to throw.

we are not trying to build a high flying passing attack, simply one that compliments the run,

My greatest weapon against yoop... is yoop!

Labrev wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2022 08:19

Yoop wrote: ↑

21 Dec 2022 14:53

to think a QB with a few good receivers can't over come below average RB's OL, and defense is to deny reality, we see exactly that happen every Sunday, and we watched it happen for us for most of the last decade or more, go watch reruns of the 2011 season,

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Oct 2022 08:41

Labrev wrote: ↑

24 Oct 2022 22:08

To say nothing about how stupid it is to try to build a high-flying pass offense for a team whose road to a title will run through Green Bay in winter. That "awesome" 2011 team fell apart like a house of cards as soon as they had to play playoff football in sub-optimal conditions.

gesus Labrev, put down the hash pipe, the 2011 team was figured out because about the only thing it had going for it was the passing game, we couldn't run the ball, the defense rapidly declined, same with ST's, the Giants had excellent pass rush, which gave Rodgers little time to throw.

we are not trying to build a high flying passing attack, simply one that compliments the run,

Hahaha. The transactional arguer will say conflicting arguments in a 48 hour period to simply have an argument. But this is pretty funny.

Labrev wrote: ↑

22 Dec 2022 08:20

My greatest weapon against yoop... is yoop!