Packers Huddle

Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑

26 May 2023 14:40

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

26 May 2023 14:07

I do wonder, with the trade of Rodgers, if Green Bay is now inching closer to the 80s. During those days, very few elite players wanted anything to do with the Packers. Then, Reggie, Favre, and a winning record changed things.

How many elite players came here with Rodgers? And how are we defining "elite"?

The 80's was a totally different situation, though. It was already preceded by a decade of losing, bad coaching decisions, mismanagement by the board of directors, lack of investment in facilities, and more importantly, it was before free-agency/salary caps.

I’ll change my mention of “elite” to “top tier” if that helps the conversation.

Back in the 80s, GB was considered a washed up location. There was even discussion about whether to take the Packers away, because the small town couldn’t possibly (in the minds of some) post a winning franchise any more. If FAs wanted to go to GB, it was with the understanding that they’d presumably be joining a losing team/culture. Nobody wanted that, until White and Favre and Wolf changed things.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

26 May 2023 15:13

Free Agency didn't exist until 1993 so saying that Green Bay didn't attract big name players in the 80s as a reason why we didn't succeed isn't on point.

Trades…

Drj820 wrote: ↑

26 May 2023 16:05

Yoop wrote: ↑

26 May 2023 15:25

salmar80 wrote: ↑

26 May 2023 14:38

Also, we didn't sign a single top-tier, top-of-the-market UFA (except our own) during all of AR's tenure. That's unlikely to change. I can't remember a single occasion of AR luring in a big fish...

And before you jump on that, we got Charles Woodson on a bargain since others thought he was washed up, and the Smiths paled in comparison with top-tier Khalil Mack's deal.

We may not look as sexy for an older player looking for a ring as before, but that's a small percentage of available players.

Both Favre and Rodgers drew interest from big name players, our GM's just wouldn't pay the asking prices

Tough, but fair.

Ted even more so then Gutekunst felt over paying for talent shows a weakness, and will cause a snow ball affect resigning our own players, probably true at least to a point, however he lost out on players simply because of offering a 3rd round pick versus a 2nd, and with players that could have really made a difference, Moss was one and there where a couple safety's, RB's etc. Gute outside of his 2nd season has been cap strapped so it's hard to lay any blame on him.

we've also heard around the league of players that want to play with Rodgers, who wouldn't, if your a good receiver Rodgers can make you a better one, people that argue with that logic have a agenda

Yoop wrote: ↑

27 May 2023 13:45

Drj820 wrote: ↑

26 May 2023 16:05

Yoop wrote: ↑

26 May 2023 15:25

Both Favre and Rodgers drew interest from big name players, our GM's just wouldn't pay the asking prices

Tough, but fair.

Ted even more so then Gutekunst felt over paying for talent shows a weakness, and will cause a snow ball affect resigning our own players, probably true at least to a point, however he lost out on players simply because of offering a 3rd round pick versus a 2nd, and with players that could have really made a difference, Moss was one and there where a couple safety's, RB's etc. Gute outside of his 2nd season has been cap strapped so it's hard to lay any blame on him.

we've also heard around the league of players that want to play with Rodgers, who wouldn't, if your a good receiver Rodgers can make you a better one, people that argue with that logic have a agenda

Ya I understand the philosophy in terms of free agency and dollars offered, but I never agree with being stingy on any draft picks outside of round one. They are just too much a gamble on whether they would out or not compared to a veteran player where you know what they can do

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

27 May 2023 12:52

Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑

26 May 2023 14:40

How many elite players came here with Rodgers? And how are we defining "elite"?

The 80's was a totally different situation, though. It was already preceded by a decade of losing, bad coaching decisions, mismanagement by the board of directors, lack of investment in facilities, and more importantly, it was before free-agency/salary caps.

I’ll change my mention of “elite” to “top tier” if that helps the conversation.

Well now you have to define "top tier".

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

27 May 2023 12:52

Back in the 80s, GB was considered a washed up location. There was even discussion about whether to take the Packers away, because the small town couldn’t possibly (in the minds of some) post a winning franchise any more. If FAs wanted to go to GB, it was with the understanding that they’d presumably be joining a losing team/culture. Nobody wanted that, until White and Favre and Wolf changed things.

So in other words, the 80's were different and have no commonality with 2023. Seems like we agree?

Drj820 wrote: ↑

27 May 2023 14:19

Ya I understand the philosophy in terms of free agency and dollars offered, but I never agree with being stingy on any draft picks outside of round one. They are just too much a gamble on whether they would out or not compared to a veteran player where you know what they can do

I feel like the surety of veterans is a bit overstated, though, unless you have coaches in the building who have worked with the player or the system/scheme is incredibly transferrable. Tons of big free agent signings each year crash and burn with their new teams. They're probably more reliable than draft picks, but they're not as sure as many people assume.

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 May 2023 08:15

the Raiders are such a idiotic organization, who pays almost 30 mil for a WR then ships out the player that attracted that WR, if Garapolo doesn't pan out then Adams should force a trade

If he failed his physical in March, they went into the draft with that information.

All the big 3 QBs were gone by 4, very costly to move up.

Levis went 33 and they picked 35. Certainly could have made a move up anytime there.

Hooker went 68, they picked 70. Again could have made a move up.

Either they just kept missing out by standing pat, or they must be content with Garrapolo eventually.


Probably the right move for them to consider trading Adams. They aren’t competing in that division in that conference the next two years.

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 May 2023 09:51

If he failed his physical in March, they went into the draft with that information.

All the big 3 QBs were gone by 4, very costly to move up.

Levis went 33 and they picked 35. Certainly could have made a move up anytime there.

Hooker went 68, they picked 70. Again could have made a move up.

Either they just kept missing out by standing pat, or they must be content with Garrapolo eventually.


Probably the right move for them to consider trading Adams. They aren’t competing in that division in that conference the next two years.

I think so too, Adams is already spouting his displeasure, I know Carr's numbers declined some last year, but to me that had to do mostly with supporting cast, still they let go of a very reliable QB for Garapolo who is anything but reliable, and now he's coming back from another surgery, just doesn't make any sense to me.

I see Adams point, he's knocking on Cantons front door, he wants a QB that he knows will help him to open it.

imho players, specially talented ones see personal accolades (fame, money) as there main goal, and team achievement second to that, I know fans think that should be reversed, but it isn't, winning SB's is a bonus for all there hard work, but a bust in canton is the primary reason they play

Raiders did adams wrong. He obviously left for Carr and they punted on carr for Jimmy. Who is maybe equal at best. Not an upgrade at all. They pulled a classic bait n switch.

I have to assume Jimmy will be goid to go in due time, McDaniels no doubt wanted a guy with familiarity. Isn't the physical just whatever a team decides it is, anyway?

Labrev wrote: ↑

28 May 2023 11:28

I have to assume Jimmy will be goid to go in due time, McDaniels no doubt wanted a guy with familiarity. Isn't the physical just whatever a team decides it is, anyway?

McDaniels did the same with Cutler, and will do the same with Garapolo, he's a over bearing jerk, Carr has always been a better QB and more reliable then Garapolo, yet McDaniels felt the need to criticize Carr for everything that seemed to wrong with his offense last year, same crap he pulled with Cutler in Denver, I give McDaniels 3 years tops with Raiders

Yoop wrote: ↑

28 May 2023 10:30

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 May 2023 09:51

If he failed his physical in March, they went into the draft with that information.

All the big 3 QBs were gone by 4, very costly to move up.

Levis went 33 and they picked 35. Certainly could have made a move up anytime there.

Hooker went 68, they picked 70. Again could have made a move up.

Either they just kept missing out by standing pat, or they must be content with Garrapolo eventually.


Probably the right move for them to consider trading Adams. They aren’t competing in that division in that conference the next two years.

I think so too, Adams is already spouting his displeasure, I know Carr's numbers declined some last year, but to me that had to do mostly with supporting cast, still they let go of a very reliable QB for Garapolo who is anything but reliable, and now he's coming back from another surgery, just doesn't make any sense to me.

I see Adams point, he's knocking on Cantons front door, he wants a QB that he knows will help him to open it.

imho players, specially talented ones see personal accolades (fame, money) as there main goal, and team achievement second to that, I know fans think that should be reversed, but it isn't, winning SB's is a bonus for all there hard work, but a bust in canton is the primary reason they play

Well he can't come back to GB this season as the Packers can't afford him. But if Love is what we all hope he will be, a year from now ......

He would be 31 to start the 2024 season, 32 to end it.

Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑

27 May 2023 21:31

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

27 May 2023 12:52

Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑

26 May 2023 14:40

How many elite players came here with Rodgers? And how are we defining "elite"?

The 80's was a totally different situation, though. It was already preceded by a decade of losing, bad coaching decisions, mismanagement by the board of directors, lack of investment in facilities, and more importantly, it was before free-agency/salary caps.

I’ll change my mention of “elite” to “top tier” if that helps the conversation.

Well now you have to define "top tier".

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

27 May 2023 12:52

Back in the 80s, GB was considered a washed up location. There was even discussion about whether to take the Packers away, because the small town couldn’t possibly (in the minds of some) post a winning franchise any more. If FAs wanted to go to GB, it was with the understanding that they’d presumably be joining a losing team/culture. Nobody wanted that, until White and Favre and Wolf changed things.

So in other words, the 80's were different and have no commonality with 2023. Seems like we agree?

No, I wouldn’t agree. I’m talking about a perception. It’s the perception, at least as I am only guessing about it, that players have strong preferences to NOT play in Green Bay. They have their reasons why. But one reason back in the day was that they perceived the Packers as a perpetually losing organization and disadvantaged from the start by the “small town” atmosphere. If you are as old as I am, then you remember that banter going about the league and/or news media.

That is the reason that the signing of Reggie White was so unexpected. A guy of his caliber could’ve played almost anyplace or just stayed in Philly if he really wanted. He felt that God told him to go to Green Bay. To say that him coming to GB wasn’t going “against the grain” is simply a huge understatement.

So, I’m not really discussing the details of the organization as much as the perception held by the players and coaches. In the 80s, they simply thought there was no way the Packers could sustain a winning organization, so they did their best to stay away. Now, in the 2020s, we aren’t perceived that same way - yet. But we need to prove that the Packers can continue the winning legacy. Or that perception may sink in again.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

28 May 2023 15:50

So, I’m not really discussing the details of the organization as much as the perception held by the players and coaches. In the 80s, they simply thought there was no way the Packers could sustain a winning organization, so they did their best to stay away. Now, in the 2020s, we aren’t perceived that same way - yet. But we need to prove that the Packers can continue the winning legacy. Or that perception may sink in again.

It is going to take more than 2 seasons of missing the playoffs to do that. The Packers have been too good for too long for that perception to take hold quickly. We can start being afraid of this if the Packers do not make the playoffs with a reasonably healthy team in 2024/25. And for that to happen, Love would have to be a complete bust - which I do not expect.

BF004 wrote: ↑

28 May 2023 09:51

If he failed his physical in March, they went into the draft with that information.

All the big 3 QBs were gone by 4, very costly to move up.

Levis went 33 and they picked 35. Certainly could have made a move up anytime there.

Hooker went 68, they picked 70. Again could have made a move up.

Either they just kept missing out by standing pat, or they must be content with Garrapolo eventually.


Probably the right move for them to consider trading Adams. They aren’t competing in that division in that conference the next two years.

The QB in LV isn't the problem with winning. The defense is. Whoever the QB is winning when the defense gives up 26 points a game is damn near impossible. Even Brady has a losing record with that kind of defense.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

29 May 2023 04:30

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

28 May 2023 15:50

So, I’m not really discussing the details of the organization as much as the perception held by the players and coaches. In the 80s, they simply thought there was no way the Packers could sustain a winning organization, so they did their best to stay away. Now, in the 2020s, we aren’t perceived that same way - yet. But we need to prove that the Packers can continue the winning legacy. Or that perception may sink in again.

It is going to take more than 2 seasons of missing the playoffs to do that. The Packers have been too good for too long for that perception to take hold quickly. We can start being afraid of this if the Packers do not make the playoffs with a reasonably healthy team in 2024/25. And for that to happen, Love would have to be a complete bust - which I do not expect.

Agreed 100%. Crazy to think but the Glory years were actually less than 10 years total of dominance. We're now in the midst of the Packers being a Playoff contender at worst every year for the last 30 seasons. That's pretty incredible. 2 seasons without making the playoffs will not crush that, though the urgency to figure things out will definitely be heightened. But it's a different league now and players normally have 2 homes anyway, so the sorry tales of the 70's and 80's are very unlikely to repeat themselves.

BF004 wrote: ↑

27 May 2023 08:38

Loved this dude coming out.

He’s been very quiet I had thought to deserve a contract like this. Although Buffalo’s D always been great while he’s there.