Packers Huddle

bud fox wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 17:34

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 16:53

2019, 2020, & 2021 offseason: "The Packers should go all in and do everything they can to get the players for a SB run."

2022 offseason: "Not like that! You mismanaged the cap!"

The wrong thing was drafting Love. Imagine something simple as drafting Tee Higgins instead of Love. We have WR number 2 for this period and then we extend Rodgers, lose Adams Higgins takes the spot and we go WR again in the draft.

We Gucci

I am going to highlight why 23s childish mischaracterization of my comments were so wildly off target.

The Packers pay Kenny Clark high dollar, David Bahk High Dollar, Are debating about resigning D Adams for High Dollar.

The Packers correctly paid Z Smith, P Smith, and Amos for High Dollar (they all said they came here because Gute offered top dollar)

And then of course the Packers pay Rodgers Top Dollar.

If you start at 1 and go down the list ranking Packers players by how much percentage of the cap they take up you get

1 Rodgers
2 Adams
3 Bahk
4 Preston
5 Kenny
6 Amos
7 Turner
8 Aaron Jones
9 Jaire
10 Dean Lowry

and then in 2022 you can throw in Zadarius at 2 and Cobb at 7 on that list.

This means that the Packers may or may not have been going "all in", thats a discussion for other people. I do not care about it. I see teams kick money down the road all the time and either figure it out or eventually crash and burn. They usually burn, after their star QB leaves...on his own terms.

But back to the point...everybody on that list is either a TT draft pick or a free agent until you get to 9. And they are all currently vital pieces of the operation. All thats happening now is the homeruns that Gutey has picked in the draft are now getting ready to be paid. We are so reliant on the stars of the TT era because of several years of major whiffs in the draft (some HRs too like A Jones and Kenny), but several years of drafts that were just a mess (remember Dumbarious Randall, all the defensive whiffs etc). So we smartly spent big in FA to make up for some of that mess. Good Move.

But we cant just pay TT foundational guys forever, pay a QB top dollar forever, bring in FAs to fill the holes of always whiffing on 3rd round picks, and pay the Gutey draft stars forever.

So what do you do when you find yourself in a cap mess due to the things I described above?

The choice is very clear:

You keep the 2x MVP and trust he can play at a high level for 3-5 more years alongside his HC who has proven to be a rockstar and you trim the fat around him. You give him far less indegredients than he has right now to win with and you say "buddy, your the MVP and we pay you to make up the difference..you need to make it work like you used to all the time"

or

You trade the 2x MVP with plenty of gas still in the tank. You willingly say..I want TTs old draft pieces still in house, I want to pay Davante, and Bahk, and to keep the FAs that we brought in because we still need them, and I want to pay Jenkins and Jaire (smart), and I want the draft capital that comes with moving on from Rodgers, and I want to roll with Jordan Love.

Option 2 is fine if you believe Love can play. As for me, I would choose option 2 if I was damn sure Love could play. If i wasnt sure...no way in heck am I letting the reigning MVP walk out the door. I can find a Rasul Douglas to play corner, I have Dillon and Jones and OLmen under contract, I can draft me a 1st round WR, and I have Savage, Stokes, and I would be sure to pay Jaire...outside of that I would figure it out. If the Smiths, Amos, all of em had to walk..I would say Thank you for your service and bye bye as I hold on to the MVP and figure it out around him. Every other position is replaceable. Teams can have an elite QB one day, and never have another one walk through their door. While you have him, you hold him.

So as i was saying, this choice is not being forced on us because Rodgers is threatening retirement. It is being forced on us because of cap issues...the root of which stem back to later years of TT and his drafts, and the compensation for that which brought to us great players such as Z, P, and Amos.

The final angle to this is I have been speaking on what the Packers should do. What if Rodgers says hes not coming back and retires or demands a trade? Well...if Love can play, then the problem is solved. If you arent sure about Love...its Rodgers that signed his contract and its the Packers decision on whether they make him honor it or not. If Rodgers says hes not coming back because the cupboard is too bare due to his high contract, thats fine...we can roll with love...and Rodgers doesnt ever have to play again. The org has the power here. Rodgers signed the dotted line.

So no, its not as simple as "Go ALL IN GO ALL IN" then "PACKERS SCREWED THE CAP WHAA". This issue stems from being too reliant on guys on their 3rd deal

What does that mean? That means that the Packers are paying too many of Ted Thompsons draft picks, and the problem isnt the amount of money Rodgers makes as the best QB in the league, its that we dont have enough cheap contract guys around him due to reliance on guys drafted before Gute was promoted.

If Rodgers says hes not coming back because the cupboard is too bare due to his high contract, thats fine...we can roll with love...and Rodgers doesnt ever have to play again. The org has the power here. Rodgers signed the dotted line.

This bit is most interesting to me.

Seems obvious the Packers will offer Rodgers their best deal and he'll either take it or decline it.

So then what. I don't think the Packers have as much power as you say. They then basically have to trade Rodgers. Forcing him to play at his current cap number which would kill the cap for a wasted year and then lose him for nothing seems extremely dumb.

So at that point Gute agrees to trade Rodgers and both parties go their separate ways.

Is it not pretty straightforward?

British wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 20:01

If Rodgers says hes not coming back because the cupboard is too bare due to his high contract, thats fine...we can roll with love...and Rodgers doesnt ever have to play again. The org has the power here. Rodgers signed the dotted line.

This bit is most interesting to me.

Seems obvious the Packers will offer Rodgers their best deal and he'll either take it or decline it.

So then what. I don't think the Packers have as much power as you say. They then basically have to trade Rodgers. Forcing him to play at his current cap number which would kill the cap for a wasted year and then lose him for nothing seems extremely dumb.

So at that point Gute agrees to trade Rodgers and both parties go their separate ways.

Is it not pretty straightforward?

What if Rodgers doesn't want an extension but wants to play out his contract.

What if Rodgers can void trades to specific teams.

What if the only option is to keep him or cut him.

Some people on this forum think it is best for the Packers to not even offer an extension.

It is going to be another fun offseason

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 12:44

So $25M at bare minimum cap hit with a Rodgers extension. That means we save about $21M on the 2022 cap by extending him. We are currently about $37 million over the cap so that would bring the number down to $16M. Let's say we extend Z. Smith instead of outright cutting him give him a cap hit of $12M instead of $27 million, so we need to save another $1M somewhere. That's manageable. Now we need to fill out a 53 man roster at bare minimum and we only have 38 guys signed, currently. So fill that out with 15 rookie minimum salary guys at $705,000 a pop and we have to add $11 million on to the cap, so we are back up to $12M over. More cutting or extending has to be done! We can't cut Bakhtiari and we can't cut Clark. Let's extend P Smith so that he has a cap his of $9M instead of $21M. Probably need more room to deal with injuries and what not, so let's extend Amos. Let's give him a cap hit of $5M instead of $12M, so now we have $7 million to work with. That might give us some room to resign one of our FAs or a low level FA.

With that scenario, this is what our depth chart looks like in 2022 (minus a guy like Lazard, MVS, or another low level FA):

QB:
Rodgers
Love

RB:
Taylor
Hill
Dillon
Jones

TE:
Lewis
Deguara
Davis

WR:
Cobb
Rodgers
Winfree

OL:
Bakhtiari
Jenkins
Newman
Runyan
Myers
Turner

DL:
Clark
Slaton
Lowry
Keke
Heflin

OLB:
Z. Smith
P. Smith
Gary
Galeai
Garvin

ILB:
Summers
McDuffie

CB:
Alexander
Stokes
Jean-Charles

S:
Amos
Savage
Scott

LS:
Wirtel

K:
Crosby

So if we extended Rodgers, Amos, and both Smiths that would mean we have 22 guys on the 2023 roster. That probably adds at least $30 million on to the cap and we have a cap hit of about $57M, minus about $25M for bare minimum rookies to fill out the roster and we have $22M for our own 2022 FAs or other FAs.

Do you think Rodgers would want to come back without Adams?

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 19:39

So no, its not as simple as "Go ALL IN GO ALL IN" then "PACKERS SCREWED THE CAP WHAA". This issue stems from being too reliant on guys on their 3rd deal

What does that mean? That means that the Packers are paying too many of Ted Thompsons draft picks, and the problem isnt the amount of money Rodgers makes as the best QB in the league, its that we dont have enough cheap contract guys around him due to reliance on guys drafted before Gute was promoted.

I disagree with almost that entire post entirely. Like everything about it.

Of COURSE our top cap guys are either free agents signed by the current GM or the previous GM's draft picks. That's how time works. We're not yet to the end of Gutey's first draft class's rookie deals yet. So all the guys who cost money are from previous years' draft picks or extensions or have been signed by the guy in charge.

There is literally no possible other way our cap could be distributed than "paying mostly TT draft picks and Gutey free agents." That is the only option.

Now, I'm going to lose some people. But all those free agent signings that made up for, say, that awful 2015 draft class that we totally whiffed on (Randall and Rollins up top)... had we NAILED those draft picks instead, we would have been paying our OWN draft picks that money. In fact, you could essentially just "pretend" that the 2019 free agent class--Z, Preston, and Amos--were drafted by our own team in 2015. Preston Smith instead of D. Randall (8 picks later), Adrian Amos instead of Jake Ryan; Za'Darius Smith would have to go a round or two earlier (TyMo's 3rd round pick or Rollins' 2nd round pick, compared to Z in the 4th). Heck, we could even throw Ibrahim Campbell into our 2015 draft class, hypothetically.

And when all of them were free agents 4 years later, even if they were our own picks, we'd have to decide who to re-sign. Paying those free agents in 2019 isn't making up for the bad draft class of 2015 so much as it was replacing them with better players from the same draft. We paid those free agents instead of signing our own players to second deals. We let the bums walk.

The fact that our money is being spent on All Pros from TT's drafts and pro bowl free agents from Gutey's years is not some sort of statement on the state of the team's roster. It's just the reality that we've only had our current GM for 3.5 years.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 19:39

If you start at 1 and go down the list ranking Packers players by how much percentage of the cap they take up you get

1 Rodgers
2 Adams
3 Bahk
4 Preston
5 Kenny
6 Amos
7 Turner
8 Aaron Jones
9 Jaire
10 Dean Lowry

and then in 2022 you can throw in Zadarius at 2 and Cobb at 7 on that list.

This means that the Packers may or may not have been going "all in", thats a discussion for other people. I do not care about it. I see teams kick money down the road all the time and either figure it out or eventually crash and burn. They usually burn, after their star QB leaves...on his own terms.

But back to the point...everybody on that list is either a TT draft pick or a free agent until you get to 9.

Is this a joke?

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 20:36

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 19:39

So no, its not as simple as "Go ALL IN GO ALL IN" then "PACKERS SCREWED THE CAP WHAA". This issue stems from being too reliant on guys on their 3rd deal

What does that mean? That means that the Packers are paying too many of Ted Thompsons draft picks, and the problem isnt the amount of money Rodgers makes as the best QB in the league, its that we dont have enough cheap contract guys around him due to reliance on guys drafted before Gute was promoted.

I disagree with almost that entire post entirely. Like everything about it.

Of COURSE our top cap guys are either free agents signed by the current GM or the previous GM's draft picks. That's how time works. We're not yet to the end of Gutey's first draft class's rookie deals yet. So all the guys who cost money are from previous years' draft picks or extensions or have been signed by the guy in charge.

There is literally no possible other way our cap could be distributed than "paying mostly TT draft picks and Gutey free agents." That is the only option.

Now, I'm going to lose some people. But all those free agent signings that made up for, say, that awful 2015 draft class that we totally whiffed on (Randall and Rollins up top)... had we NAILED those draft picks instead, we would have been paying our OWN draft picks that money. In fact, you could essentially just "pretend" that the 2019 free agent class--Z, Preston, and Amos--were drafted by our own team in 2015. Preston Smith instead of D. Randall (8 picks later), Adrian Amos instead of Jake Ryan; Za'Darius Smith would have to go a round or two earlier (TyMo's 3rd round pick or Rollins' 2nd round pick, compared to Z in the 4th). Heck, we could even throw Ibrahim Campbell into our 2015 draft class, hypothetically.

And when all of them were free agents 4 years later, even if they were our own picks, we'd have to decide who to re-sign. Paying those free agents in 2019 isn't making up for the bad draft class of 2015 so much as it was replacing them with better players from the same draft. We paid those free agents instead of signing our own players to second deals. We let the bums walk.

The fact that our money is being spent on All Pros from TT's drafts and pro bowl free agents from Gutey's years is not some sort of statement on the state of the team's roster. It's just the reality that we've only had our current GM for 3.5 years.

Good.

I appreciate you saw this too. That argument of top 9 being either TT draft picks or FA signings literally made no sense.

Like we are expecting 2018 draft picks to get paid a lot of money on their final year of their rookie contract?

Gosh, also, almost none of these guys are even on their 3rd deals!



Kenny Clark: second deal
Za'Darius Smith: second deal
Adrian Amos: second deal
Preston Smith: second deal
Davante Adams: last year of his second deal
Dean Lowry: second deal
Billy Turner: second deal
Jaire: first deal

3rd deals:
Rodgers and Bakhtiari

We are not reliant on 3rd deals.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 19:39

bud fox wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 17:34

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 16:53

2019, 2020, & 2021 offseason: "The Packers should go all in and do everything they can to get the players for a SB run."

2022 offseason: "Not like that! You mismanaged the cap!"

The wrong thing was drafting Love. Imagine something simple as drafting Tee Higgins instead of Love. We have WR number 2 for this period and then we extend Rodgers, lose Adams Higgins takes the spot and we go WR again in the draft.

We Gucci

I am going to highlight why 23s childish mischaracterization of my comments were so wildly off target.

The Packers pay Kenny Clark high dollar, David Bahk High Dollar, Are debating about resigning D Adams for High Dollar.

The Packers correctly paid Z Smith, P Smith, and Amos for High Dollar (they all said they came here because Gute offered top dollar)

And then of course the Packers pay Rodgers Top Dollar.

If you start at 1 and go down the list ranking Packers players by how much percentage of the cap they take up you get

1 Rodgers
2 Adams
3 Bahk
4 Preston
5 Kenny
6 Amos
7 Turner
8 Aaron Jones
9 Jaire
10 Dean Lowry

and then in 2022 you can throw in Zadarius at 2 and Cobb at 7 on that list.

This means that the Packers may or may not have been going "all in", thats a discussion for other people. I do not care about it. I see teams kick money down the road all the time and either figure it out or eventually crash and burn. They usually burn, after their star QB leaves...on his own terms.

But back to the point...everybody on that list is either a TT draft pick or a free agent until you get to 9. And they are all currently vital pieces of the operation. All thats happening now is the homeruns that Gutey has picked in the draft are now getting ready to be paid. We are so reliant on the stars of the TT era because of several years of major whiffs in the draft (some HRs too like A Jones and Kenny), but several years of drafts that were just a mess (remember Dumbarious Randall, all the defensive whiffs etc). So we smartly spent big in FA to make up for some of that mess. Good Move.

But we cant just pay TT foundational guys forever, pay a QB top dollar forever, bring in FAs to fill the holes of always whiffing on 3rd round picks, and pay the Gutey draft stars forever.

...

So as i was saying, this choice is not being forced on us because Rodgers is threatening retirement. It is being forced on us because of cap issues...the root of which stem back to later years of TT and his drafts, and the compensation for that which brought to us great players such as Z, P, and Amos.

...

So no, its not as simple as "Go ALL IN GO ALL IN" then "PACKERS SCREWED THE CAP WHAA". This issue stems from being too reliant on guys on their 3rd deal

What does that mean? That means that the Packers are paying too many of Ted Thompsons draft picks, and the problem isnt the amount of money Rodgers makes as the best QB in the league, its that we dont have enough cheap contract guys around him due to reliance on guys drafted before Gute was promoted.

Oh, looks like I struck a nerve. Sorry, I know you hate humor. I will try to keep this childishly simple for you.

Of course all of Thompson's picks and current Free Agents would be at the top of the list of highest cap hit... Brian Gutekunst's first draft was 2018. No player has reached free agency yet... The player we would extend before or during year 4 is Alexander and we 5th year optioned him.

We are not reliant on 3rd deals. That isn't even remotely true. Only players on deals past their 2nd are Rodgers, Bakhtiari, Lewis, Mercilus, and Cobb.

You completely misunderstand that the cap issues we see now are directly related to going all in on Rodgers current contract AND the dropping of the cap because of COVID hitting at the precisely wrong time for the Packers. The later part was HUGE.

You can not just sweep away the FACT that we are pushing cap out to make a run, specifically this year. That's not even debatable. We have $47 million ($33 being Rodgers) in voided contracts that we will incur over the next 2 seasons, directly related to pushing the cap issues down the road. We signed veteran, top dollar free agents specifically to make the run we are currently on.

You do have 1 point that rings true. The picking up of Free Agents is to fill holes left by poor drafting, but that is not cap mismanagement, that was poor drafting by Thompson in the later years and refusal to pick up low cap veterans to kick the tires and see if they pan out. The fact that these are free agents is not the driving factor in our cap issues, however. Adrian Amos is the 16th highest paid safety this year. Zadarius Smith is the 15th highest paid EDGE rusher this year. Preston Smith is the 30th highest paid EDGE rusher this year. Billy Turner is the 16th highest paid right tackle this year. These guys were ALL brought on to make a run at a Championship. They have all played up to their contracts, barring injury. They are more than making up for those missed picks. A pick that hit may be costing us even more.

This was not brought about, at all, by paying players that should not have been paid or paying players more than they should have. That is cap mismanagement and that didn't happen. We aren't seeing tons of dead cap hits and IN FACT, we are 26th in total amount of dead cap in 2021 with $647,582. That is a direct sign that the cap is not mismanaged. We are paying good players, good salaries, for good play. We ARE NOT in the current cap situation due to CAP MISMANAGEMENT.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 20:36

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 19:39

So no, its not as simple as "Go ALL IN GO ALL IN" then "PACKERS SCREWED THE CAP WHAA". This issue stems from being too reliant on guys on their 3rd deal

What does that mean? That means that the Packers are paying too many of Ted Thompsons draft picks, and the problem isnt the amount of money Rodgers makes as the best QB in the league, its that we dont have enough cheap contract guys around him due to reliance on guys drafted before Gute was promoted.

I disagree with almost that entire post entirely. Like everything about it.

Of COURSE our top cap guys are either free agents signed by the current GM or the previous GM's draft picks. That's how time works. We're not yet to the end of Gutey's first draft class's rookie deals yet. So all the guys who cost money are from previous years' draft picks or extensions or have been signed by the guy in charge.

There is literally no possible other way our cap could be distributed than "paying mostly TT draft picks and Gutey free agents." That is the only option.

Now, I'm going to lose some people. But all those free agent signings that made up for, say, that awful 2015 draft class that we totally whiffed on (Randall and Rollins up top)... had we NAILED those draft picks instead, we would have been paying our OWN draft picks that money. In fact, you could essentially just "pretend" that the 2019 free agent class--Z, Preston, and Amos--were drafted by our own team in 2015. Preston Smith instead of D. Randall (8 picks later), Adrian Amos instead of Jake Ryan; Za'Darius Smith would have to go a round or two earlier (TyMo's 3rd round pick or Rollins' 2nd round pick, compared to Z in the 4th). Heck, we could even throw Ibrahim Campbell into our 2015 draft class, hypothetically.

And when all of them were free agents 4 years later, even if they were our own picks, we'd have to decide who to re-sign. Paying those free agents in 2019 isn't making up for the bad draft class of 2015 so much as it was replacing them with better players from the same draft. We paid those free agents instead of signing our own players to second deals. We let the bums walk.

The fact that our money is being spent on All Pros from TT's drafts and pro bowl free agents from Gutey's years is not some sort of statement on the state of the team's roster. It's just the reality that we've only had our current GM for 3.5 years.

Ouch Yoho. When i saw I had a notification I was hoping you were giving me a little lombardi trophy on the bottom right of my post. Hard to see how you disagree that the decision is now between

1) off brand ingredients picked up from walmart with a world class chef to prepare the dish
or
2) Name brand ingredients like Kraft Cheese, Mayfield Milk, you know the real good stuff...and a chef who follows instructions off instagram recipe pages.

I choose to hope we use off brand ingredients and keep the chef. Others clearly want to keep the Kraft cheese.

We signed those FAs at top dollar. They all admitted they were the highest offer they received by far. 3 of 4 of them are against the cap next year. You would hope you can get the guys you draft for at least market value, not over equilibrium, especially when you do things like pay them early and such. And Gutey has certainly hit some homeruns in the draft, but those third round whiffs add up too. Not saying he should be perfect.

The bottom line is this: Every team in the league faces this predicament. If you have a cheap great QB, you can buy great players to go around him. If you have a great QB and you pay him alot, you can afford less toys and he has to make up for the slack and you have to draft well to fill out your squad. The Packers are now back to having to make that choice. Do they want the MVP and less toys? Or do they want more toys and a wildcard at QB.

I choose the QB and less toys. Because I trust the MVP.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 20:53

This was not brought about, at all, by paying players that should not have been paid or paying players more than they should have. That is cap mismanagement and that didn't happen. We aren't seeing tons of dead cap hits and IN FACT, we are 26th in total amount of dead cap in 2021 with $647,582. That is a direct sign that the cap is not mismanaged. We are paying good players, good salaries, for good play. We ARE NOT in the current cap situation due to CAP MISMANAGEMENT.

This is key: looking at dead money not just the next two years, where we have a lot of it as you mentioned; but the fact that we have been INCREDIBLY low in dead money for quite some time. It's another piece of evidence that we literally, THIS YEAR. changed our contract and management practices from the norm of this organization to keep the existing team together longer than we normally could have given the cap's COVD dip.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 20:56

The bottom line is this: Every team in the league faces this predicament. If you have a cheap great QB, you can buy great players to go around him. If you have a great QB and you pay him alot, you can afford less toys and he has to make up for the slack and you have to draft well to fill out your squad.

Tom Brady's teams have never made that choice because he routinely plays for above-average QB money while playing great.

Also,cheap great QBs are so rare that they should under no circumstances be anyone's model for franchise building. Only Russell Wilson and Patrick Mahomes have made the Super Bowl on their rookie contracts. Kaepernick might be a 3rd, but he didn't win it.

So yeah, most teams do face these challenges, and most have significantly fewer great players around their highly-rated QBs and I can say that with assurance because we have a metric--pro bowlers and all pro players--that shows the past 2 seasons the Green Bay Packers have maintained name brand ingredients at several positions, not just the MVP QB. It has shown GREAT cap management prior to the COVID dip and then a CLEAR response to the covid dip by kicking the cap can to give us one more year at full strength before we have to make some of those choices. So I can agree with that stuff

That you misrepresented the reason why our cap was tight, the contracts the players you listed were on, and the actions needed to rectify it... those are the parts I disagreed with.

But yeah, the choice is try to squeeze the most out of the last 2-4 years of an MVP QB with a rebuilt roster around him OR try to squeeze the most out of a first round QB pick with 2-3 years left under contract with a stronger, reloaded roster around him. We agree that those are the choices, if not on the phrasing and inherent implications of those phrasing choices.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 21:04

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 20:56

The bottom line is this: Every team in the league faces this predicament. If you have a cheap great QB, you can buy great players to go around him. If you have a great QB and you pay him alot, you can afford less toys and he has to make up for the slack and you have to draft well to fill out your squad.

Tom Brady's teams have never made that choice because he routinely plays for above-average QB money while playing great.

Also,cheap great QBs are so rare that they should under no circumstances be anyone's model for franchise building. Only Russell Wilson and Patrick Mahomes have made the Super Bowl on their rookie contracts. Kaepernick might be a 3rd, but he didn't win it.

So yeah, most teams do face these challenges, and most have significantly fewer great players around their highly-rated QBs and I can say that with assurance because we have a metric--pro bowlers and all pro players--that shows the past 2 seasons the Green Bay Packers have maintained name brand ingredients at several positions, not just the MVP QB. It has shown GREAT cap management prior to the COVID dip and then a CLEAR response to the covid dip by kicking the cap can to give us one more year at full strength before we have to make some of those choices. So I can agree with that stuff

That you misrepresented the reason why our cap was tight, the contracts the players you listed were on, and the actions needed to rectify it... those are the parts I disagreed with.

But yeah, the choice is try to squeeze the most out of the last 2-4 years of an MVP QB with a rebuilt roster around him OR try to squeeze the most out of a first round QB pick with 2-3 years left under contract with a stronger, reloaded roster around him. We agree that those are the choices, if not on the phrasing and inherent implications of those phrasing choices.

the cap is mess in 2022 because we have the elite QB that we pay, and FAs that we think we need to pay, and Guteys HRs that want money, and Ted Thompsons guys that we havent drafted replacements for. We cant keep the QB plus all those other components. We can keep many of those components if we punt on the QB.

If Love can play...I am good with whatever the org chooses. But I have begun judging whether he can play, and he hasnt shown it yet. So at this point, I would choose the MVP and less toys. Because MVP QBs dont grow on Trees.

We get rid of Smiths, Cobb and Turner - we are under cap for next season.

That doesn't seem a big loss to keep Rodgers. We also lose Davante but he is turning 30 next year and I don't like the idea of him being the highest paid WR.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 21:10

the cap is mess in 2022 because we have the elite QB that we pay, and FAs that we think we need to pay, and Guteys HRs that want money, and Ted Thompsons guys that we havent drafted replacements for.

I guess no one here understands why you're trying to separate it by GM when many NFL-team tenures last longer than 3-4 years? And we just changed GMs?

Like, who are "Ted Thompson's guys that we haven't drafted replacements for" except for Davante Adams. Like there is one of those guys. The best WR in the league... the new GM figured he'd keep him around on the contract extension he'd already signed.

And why are you separating out "FAs we think we need to sign" and "Gutey's home runs that want money?" Like, Jaire is the ONLY guy that we might need to extend this year, I guess. We aren't in cap trouble because of Gary or Jenkins for this year (21) or next (22). But then we do have a couple free agents we might want to sign in Campbell and Rasul... but those are also Gutey's home runs.

It just seems like you're trying to make some weird statement about moving on from TT guys on 3rd contracts but the only people you want to keep are TT's guys on 3rd/4th contracts (Rodgers and Adams). Like, what's the point of all the separate categories you're trying to create between Gutey's FA signings, Gutey's draft picks, and TT's draft picks. We're just a team with a ton of depth and elite players playing with a GM who has not yet seen his first draft class hit free agency.

bud fox wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 21:15

We get rid of Smiths, Cobb and Turner - we are under cap for next season.

That doesn't seem a big loss to keep Rodgers. We also lose Davante but he is turning 30 next year and I don't like the idea of him being the highest paid WR.

I am gathering that the people who keep saying it is impossible to keep Rodgers...are really just saying that they want the nice toys we have on the team, without Rodgers.

I would take less toys, to have Rodgers.

Because I think you dont punt an MVP QB while you have him under your roof and under contract.

Many seem to be ready to walk away.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 21:18

bud fox wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 21:15

We get rid of Smiths, Cobb and Turner - we are under cap for next season.

That doesn't seem a big loss to keep Rodgers. We also lose Davante but he is turning 30 next year and I don't like the idea of him being the highest paid WR.

I am gathering that the people who keep saying it is impossible to keep Rodgers...are really just saying that they want the nice toys we have on the team, without Rodgers.

I would take less toys, to have Rodgers.

Because I think you dont punt an MVP QB while you have him under your roof and under contract.

Many seem to be ready to walk away.

Oh of course this is why people hate Rodgers being so good because it deflates there attachment to all these packer connections. It hurts to think that the player you invested all that time was largely a product of Aaron Rodgers.

We have seen what happens when you take those players away from Rodgers. We have also seen what happens, in limited time, when you take Rodgers away from those players.

"oh man the oline is playing so bad now"
"the receivers aren't getting open"

Really

the cap is mess in 2022

And the vast majority of that stems from pushing in the chips for the run in 2020 and especially 2021, NOT CAP MISMANAGEMENT.

Here are all the Thompson picks signed in 2022:

Aaron Rodgers
Mason Crosby
David Bakhtiari
Kenny Clark
Aaron Jones
Dean Lowry
Randall Cobb

The point that a reason behind our cap issues is that we have not drafted replacements for these players does not hold water. We tried to draft a replacement for Rodgers and see if that works out. We need to draft a replacement for Crosby. We don't need to draft a replacement for Bakhtiari, Clark, or Jones. Lowry is making journeymen money and Cobb left and came back on a trade. We have MAYBE 2 guys on that list out of an ENTIRE 8 guys that fit the bill and they take up a whopping 5.94% of the cap...

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 21:18

bud fox wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 21:15

We get rid of Smiths, Cobb and Turner - we are under cap for next season.

That doesn't seem a big loss to keep Rodgers. We also lose Davante but he is turning 30 next year and I don't like the idea of him being the highest paid WR.

I am gathering that the people who keep saying it is impossible to keep Rodgers...are really just saying that they want the nice toys we have on the team, without Rodgers.

I would take less toys, to have Rodgers.

Because I think you dont punt an MVP QB while you have him under your roof and under contract.

Many seem to be ready to walk away.

I can see this going either way.

Bud is right that we can make the cap work in 2022 by making those moves (and I think a few extensions and renogotiations). But the problem is that once you make the move to keep Rodgers long-term, the out years of the deal get us right back into longer-term, more enduring cap trouble, because we continue to have a massive QB contract beyond 2022.

So if we're looking at cap trouble in 2022 if we don't either move on from Rodgers or eliminate a pro bowl starter, 2 high-level starters, and a role player off the team... in 2023, with Rodgers' contract, we're deciding which of Jenkins and Gary we can afford, or we're cutting another pro bowler like Bakhtiari or Clark

There's just a convenient intersection of Rodgers' potential refusal to return, the covid cap hitting right when the team's fiscal planning was stretched thin, and the emerging young stars coming toward the end of their rookie deals... it would be imprudent NOT to look into the options right now, from the team and Rodgers' perspectives.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 21:26

Drj820 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 21:18

bud fox wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 21:15

We get rid of Smiths, Cobb and Turner - we are under cap for next season.

That doesn't seem a big loss to keep Rodgers. We also lose Davante but he is turning 30 next year and I don't like the idea of him being the highest paid WR.

I am gathering that the people who keep saying it is impossible to keep Rodgers...are really just saying that they want the nice toys we have on the team, without Rodgers.

I would take less toys, to have Rodgers.

Because I think you dont punt an MVP QB while you have him under your roof and under contract.

Many seem to be ready to walk away.

I can see this going either way.

Bud is right that we can make the cap work in 2022 by making those moves (and I think a few extensions and renogotiations). But the problem is that once you make the move to keep Rodgers long-term, the out years of the deal get us right back into longer-term, more enduring cap trouble, because we continue to have a massive QB contract beyond 2022.

So if we're looking at cap trouble in 2022 if we don't either move on from Rodgers or eliminate a pro bowl starter, 2 high-level starters, and a role player off the team... in 2023, with Rodgers' contract, we're deciding which of Jenkins and Gary we can afford, or we're cutting another pro bowler like Bakhtiari or Clark

There's just a convenient intersection of Rodgers' potential refusal to return, the covid cap hitting right when the team's fiscal planning was stretched thin, and the emerging young stars coming toward the end of their rookie deals... it would be imprudent NOT to look into the options right now, from the team and Rodgers' perspectives.

Obviously you cut Bahk in 2023 and sign Jenkins and Gary. The Packers can grow OLmen out of thin air with Rodgers telling them who to block at the LOS.

Abra Ka Dabra