Packers Huddle

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.

Bring him back to play without his two most trusted targets (one of whom he forced a trade for because he values having guys like that so much). Yeah, that will go over well with him...

Talk about a MAJOR pivot to try and get away from the statement that the cap situation is due to cap mismanagement and subsequent post trying to defend it. I think I got whiplash!

Yeah it is a good thing our cap is what it is - it means we have good players.

We should probably always be in this situation unless we are not winning and at that time we gut the team and start again.

But at the moment I think we run as close to the cap as possible for as long as Rodgers is who he is. We have a player board and work down through that - Rodgers being the top piece and then down - once we are in trouble we move what we need to from the bottom up on that list to keep going.

The thing that makes it easy right now is the fact we have the MVP QB.

Labrev wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 21:30

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.

Bring him back to play without his two most trusted targets (one of whom he forced a trade for because he values having guys like that so much). Yeah, that will go over well with him...

He wanted communication - he is not dumb. Put the numbers infront of him and if he thinks there is another player that they would be better off with out than listen to him. I don't think the numbers will work with other players though.

To your point though, it is probably the reason he will want to leave after next season. Who knows.

bud fox wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 21:38

Yeah it is a good thing our cap is what it is - it means we have good players.

We should probably always be in this situation unless we are not winning and at that time we gut the team and start again.

But at the moment I think we run as close to the cap as possible for as long as Rodgers is who he is. We have a player board and work down through that - Rodgers being the top piece and then down - once we are in trouble we move what we need to from the bottom up on that list to keep going.

The thing that makes it easy right now is the fact we have the MVP QB.

And look, there are people who feel this way. This is exactly how the Saints treated the cap with Drew Brees.

In the end, they had cap trouble and competitive teams for a long time, didn't get back to the Super Bowl, Brees retired, the team received no compensation for Brees, they let a lot of free agents leave, and had Jameis, Simien, and Taysum Hill as their QBs this year and no QB set to be next year's starters. But they did almost make the playoffs.

So look, it can work out well with either approach. You can wear egg on your face with either approach.

These are Rodgers' targets next year, at this moment:

RB:
Taylor
Hill
Dillon
Jones

TE:
Lewis
Deguara
Davis

WR:
Cobb
Rodgers
Winfree

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 21:42

bud fox wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 21:38

Yeah it is a good thing our cap is what it is - it means we have good players.

We should probably always be in this situation unless we are not winning and at that time we gut the team and start again.

But at the moment I think we run as close to the cap as possible for as long as Rodgers is who he is. We have a player board and work down through that - Rodgers being the top piece and then down - once we are in trouble we move what we need to from the bottom up on that list to keep going.

The thing that makes it easy right now is the fact we have the MVP QB.

And look, there are people who feel this way. This is exactly how the Saints treated the cap with Drew Brees.

In the end, they had cap trouble and competitive teams for a long time, didn't get back to the Super Bowl, Brees retired, the team received no compensation for Brees, they let a lot of free agents leave, and had Jameis, Simien, and Taysum Hill as their QBs this year and no QB set to be next year's starters. But they did almost make the playoffs.

So look, it can work out well with either approach. You can wear egg on your face with either approach.

Drew Brees is no Rodgers

If we must go the saints route in order to keep rodgers and extend the window, sounds good to me.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 21:43

These are Rodgers' targets next year, at this moment:

RB:
Taylor
Hill
Dillon
Jones

TE:
Lewis
Deguara
Davis

WR:
Cobb
Rodgers
Winfree

Stuffed that Rodgers pick. Should've had Higgins instead of Love.

ARod will make it work - we can get a first round receiver - get some cheap free agents.

I think we have to cut Cobb anyway to work cap wise.

Not too worried about the receiver situation. That is basically the receiving group that beat the number 1 Cardinals.

I have to be honest.

A small, but not negligible part of me leans toward moving on from Rodgers because it could go either way, but I think that the cap trouble the Packers are about to have is best solved by doing exactly what Rodgers said he hated in his presser. Cutting good guys, team guys, leaders, friends... because of the money.

Whenever I look at 2022, if I think Rodgers is on the team, I think "well if Rodgers is here then we have to keep Mason Crosby instead of go with the PS kicker because Rodgers won't stop talking about how much he loves Mason. We'll probably want to keep Cobb. We might have to let Adams and/or Tonyan go, but Rodgers will have to be managed as we work through those decisions on two guys he loves."

Just the complications of "if we pay this guy so much money that we can't afford very much, we ALSO will probably face pressure to bring back many of the very players we would have been able to move on from otherwise" really gets me.

And like, obviously, I would want to say "well,, Aaron, this is what you asked for; you can't have your cake and eat it, too." But it's that kind of "you're an employee and you will accept what I give you" attitude that he openly stated was driving him away.

I think Rodgers will get it - if not he will demand a trade or ask to be released which is a Rodgers problem and not a packers problem.

If Rodgers can't live without Cobb and Adams and says he won't play another game for the packers, than you work with him on a trade. The blame is on him. The packers can't keep Adams - they can maybe keep Cobb but they shouldn't at his 22 cap hit.

bud fox wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 22:02

which is a Rodgers problem and not a packers problem.

BINGO.

This is it. There is what the Packers should do, and then there are things that are just going to be on Rodgers. The Packers should work to keep their MVP in house at all cost IMO. But if he says hes leaving, the packers have to adjust accordingly.

When I say what the Pack should do, or what their plan should be, or what the choices are..I am speaking from the orgs perspective. Meaning..if Rodgers says Adios...thats his legacy. If the Packers say adios to Rodgers, thats the GMs legacy. If I am the GM I am keeping that blood off my hands.

Good communication of the thought process from the org will go along way in keeping the two parties on the same page.

BF004 wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 20:33

bud fox wrote: ↑

10 Jan 2022 20:17

Rodgers unprepared half against one of the best def's is not the same as Love's prepared matches against not great defences at the time of playing them.

Also for that Pats game Favre had gone 5/15 and 2 sacks - 0 tds

Rodgers went 4/12 33 and 3 sacks/fumble.

Lions game

Rodgers went 14/18 2 tds 0 int 0 fumble
Love went 10/17 1 td 2 ints 1 fumble - td was a 60 yard screen.

I like how the TD gets its own footnote to discredit it but an interception doesn’t, nor mention of playing with backups, nor it being a meaningless game.


Like I just hate agenda posting. Just strive to be honest and accurate with a situation. Doesn’t benefit anyone, including yourself.

He didn’t have a very good outing, but we don’t need an angle about it either way.


*** not really meaning to single just you or this post out, but just in general.

Delving into the details of everything, like the footnote on the TD, is exactly what we should be doing more of. Upon looking at these details, it's clear that the counterargument of "but Rodgers sucked too!" is a bad counterargument.

But you're right that it means that we need to look at the INTs closely too, to see if they are Love's fault or not. What I definitely know right now is that he gets minimal credit for the TD.

I personally think GB should try to work out a long extension with AR. 2022 will be rough cap-wise, and a lot of good players will leave. But draft well and another SB window could open as soon as 2023.

If AR refuses to sign an extension and wants out, then it is an AR problem, and you explore the trades. Starting over with the boatload of picks the reigning MVP would warrant isn't the worst thing in the world.

If AR refuses to sign an extension AND refuses all trades, well, then we are in a pickle. Keep him for 46M or cut him and get no compensation... This is the AR's middle finger -option, or self-destruct button, and would be stupid for all involved (which is why it won't happen). I guess I'd keep him and blame him for the gutted roster.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 01:31

I personally think GB should try to work out a long extension with AR. 2022 will be rough cap-wise, and a lot of good players will leave. But draft well and another SB window could open as soon as 2023.

If AR refuses to sign an extension and wants out, then it is an AR problem, and you explore the trades. Starting over with the boatload of picks the reigning MVP would warrant isn't the worst thing in the world.

If AR refuses to sign an extension AND refuses all trades, well, then we are in a pickle. Keep him for 46M or cut him and get no compensation... This is the AR's middle finger -option, or self-destruct button, and would be stupid for all involved (which is why it won't happen). I guess I'd keep him and blame him for the gutted roster.

The worrying fourth option, is that Rodgers knows we don't want to keep him at 46m and lose him for nothing in '23. He also knows no team will trade for him if he refuses to play for them. So he tells the Packers to trade him to Denver for a single 1st round pick.

Rodgers won't be helped if we clear out his new team's draft picks for the next 2 years. He likely wants to play for 2-3 years and those picks will help him win.

So why doesn't he get his people to tell the other 30 teams he won't play for them and tells Denver (or his other top choice) that they are the only bidders. They offer a 1st and the Packers have little option but to take the deal.

British wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 04:45

salmar80 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 01:31

I personally think GB should try to work out a long extension with AR. 2022 will be rough cap-wise, and a lot of good players will leave. But draft well and another SB window could open as soon as 2023.

If AR refuses to sign an extension and wants out, then it is an AR problem, and you explore the trades. Starting over with the boatload of picks the reigning MVP would warrant isn't the worst thing in the world.

If AR refuses to sign an extension AND refuses all trades, well, then we are in a pickle. Keep him for 46M or cut him and get no compensation... This is the AR's middle finger -option, or self-destruct button, and would be stupid for all involved (which is why it won't happen). I guess I'd keep him and blame him for the gutted roster.

The worrying fourth option, is that Rodgers knows we don't want to keep him at 46m and lose him for nothing in '23. He also knows no team will trade for him if he refuses to play for them. So he tells the Packers to trade him to Denver for a single 1st round pick.

Rodgers won't be helped if we clear out his new team's draft picks for the next 2 years. He likely wants to play for 2-3 years and those picks will help him win.

So why doesn't he get his people to tell the other 30 teams he won't play for them and tells Denver (or his other top choice) that they are the only bidders. They offer a 1st and the Packers have little option but to take the deal.

Then all the Packers get is a single 1st round pick. It is still far far far far better than keeping an overpaid aging diva. Push comes to shove, even just cutting him is better than keeping him.

Reading the last two pages of this thread was like witnessing a conversation between intelligent sober people conversing with guys who have had too much to drink and just spewing out stuff to see what sticks.

The primary reason I am fine letting Rodgers walk if he doesn't take significant concessions in making it work is because I already have seen the movie of how Rodgers and the Packers do without strong support on the roster from 2011 - 2019. (And there were some really good rosters in this window)

It involves a lot of 4 to 6 word posts from bud fox complaining about how management screwed Rodgers and how the Packers have no talent.

If they couldn't get it done before, there is no reason for me to believe they can do it again. So get the resources you can get, give Rodgers the opportunity at another crack and wipe the slate clean.

If Rodgers wants to stay I'd be elated. But he has to mean it by putting his money where is mouth is.

go pak go wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 14:29

packman114 wrote: ↑

11 Jan 2022 14:08

Just to continue to be a pain ion the ass. These numbers are extending his current deal? Is it not possible to just negotiate a brand new contract? I know YoHo that "he is who he says he is" but are there any rules prohibiting tearing up the current contract and negotiating a new one?

It is essentially a new deal.

But what you have to keep in mind is no matter what, the Packers have to expense prior bonus/deferred dollars already paid to Rodgers. The Packers can't escape that.

So even though they can start from scratch of new money, they still have to recognize the deferred cap already paid to Rodgers. Which is what a lot of that 2022 cap number would be.

Thank you, that was the information I wasn't understanding. Now I get it.

British wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 04:45

salmar80 wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 01:31

I personally think GB should try to work out a long extension with AR. 2022 will be rough cap-wise, and a lot of good players will leave. But draft well and another SB window could open as soon as 2023.

If AR refuses to sign an extension and wants out, then it is an AR problem, and you explore the trades. Starting over with the boatload of picks the reigning MVP would warrant isn't the worst thing in the world.

If AR refuses to sign an extension AND refuses all trades, well, then we are in a pickle. Keep him for 46M or cut him and get no compensation... This is the AR's middle finger -option, or self-destruct button, and would be stupid for all involved (which is why it won't happen). I guess I'd keep him and blame him for the gutted roster.

The worrying fourth option, is that Rodgers knows we don't want to keep him at 46m and lose him for nothing in '23. He also knows no team will trade for him if he refuses to play for them. So he tells the Packers to trade him to Denver for a single 1st round pick.

Rodgers won't be helped if we clear out his new team's draft picks for the next 2 years. He likely wants to play for 2-3 years and those picks will help him win.

So why doesn't he get his people to tell the other 30 teams he won't play for them and tells Denver (or his other top choice) that they are the only bidders. They offer a 1st and the Packers have little option but to take the deal.

If AR tries to get traded for cheap, we bite the bullet and keep him, at least for now.

If Aaron wants a running start with his new team, he'd want to be traded as early as possible. We don't HAVE to trade him as early as possible, tho it would be nice to do so before the draft. But we still hold his rights for the year, and he's not getting younger. I doubt he'd like missing out on influencing the UFA period with his new team, or the camp. Instead of taking a lowball offer, we could wait it out. Aaron would be mad, but him asking to get traded would've already burned the bridge.

But I doubt he cares all that much about draft picks. Draft picks are mainly about the long term (although yes, sometimes there's instant impact), and AR won't be on the new team to see the second contract prime years of the upcoming picks. If he goes to a team with cap space, they can get all the UFAs Aaron wants for a few years' push. Heck, the dead money GB would eat with the trade would help his new team big time in that regard. They'd be in great position to extend AR so that the 2022 and 2023 cap hits are laughably low.

go pak go wrote: ↑

12 Jan 2022 06:00

The primary reason I am fine letting Rodgers walk...

In my opinion, from my observation, the main reason you are fine with punting Rodgers is because you think the success we have had with him, can be found without him. You seem to think the recent success is due to the toys around him, so you want to keep the toys.

To that I say, good luck.