Packers Huddle

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023 17:13

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023 12:16

ya don't like Rodgers, I don't care for him much either, but he is still the best option then a un proven Love.

You are correct! However, the convo goes on to beg the question WHY is Rodgers still the best option over Love?

There’ll likely be several valid answers. Mine is this. Whatever Rodgers might have lost in running or passing ability, he makes up for in savvy. He can read defenses like very few QBs can. That’s it. And as much as I do think that’s valid, I also hold the mantra that it’s better to let go of a player too early than too late. Rodgers might have two or three years yet of it being “too early.” But we won’t have Love for that long. And it’s unlikely that we’ll have a proven and very good (let alone elite) QB besides him. The Love variable must be worked in to this equation.

So, we need to roll the dice now with Love or we need to risk letting Rodgers play til he has no more gas in the tank (and might actually be performing less than expected). Which choice should be roll with?

that let go early rather then late can be used for any player Scott, and like everything can be irrational in the sense that QB's of Rodgers ability are so few and far between, again imho the position is almost more mental then physical.

and that is why till the pressure of live game action it's never certain just how good a QB will be, yes he looked good for 17 passes, what 11-6 or something like that, he's also looked good according to reports doing the scout team, but thats it, hardly a lot actually, and how was the pass rush he faced, my memory says the misses where mostly a result of pressure.

look what Ted did the draft before Rodgers started, brought in a few UDFA, used a 2nd on Brohm, and late 6th or 7th on Flynn, so he wasn't any more convinced back then as Gute is today with Love and why at least from what we heard the decision on next years QB is up to Rodgers, lets be real, most QB's fail, less if they get a couple years to groom the gray matter, I wish we could have seen Love play more last year, and maybe we would have if we'd have been eliminated sooner. again if he stays imo it's because the FO still wants to try NOW to win, and we'll see more back loaded contracts, probably another huge dollar extension, it's impossible for me to guess,, or as you and others believe, it's time cut the cord, get what we can get for him and just go with Love.

I don't like some of the comments I hear that Rodgers value has diminished because of all the talk of retirement, imo that might be a tactic for Rodger to dampen prospect interest, which makes sense if he wants to stay here, not sure what to think, to keep Rodgers another year makes no sense, another 3 even less, but to dump him and Love fail is how GM's lose there jobs, maybe not Guty, who knows, back to square 1, If I could have seen more of Love it would probably change my opinion.

BF004 wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023 17:48

So we are currently slated to be 16M over the 2024 cap as of right now with players we have, with Aaron on his current contract (which he won't play under if he stays). Tack on $20 for Jordan's 5th year option.

I believe, if we happen to trade Aaron this year though, we do save $40 million on the '24 cap, this putting us roughly ~~24M under the cap. (~4M under with Jordan 5th year option).

Certainly makes that easier to bring back a Adrian Amos (who won't hurt the cap this year, but will add to 2024 if back) and an AJ Dillon. And probably extend Jordan, I threw out a 3 year $60 million contract is very logical that mathematically makes sense for both sides.

I can’t possibly imagine Jordan Love staying on the team essentially one year away from a contract year as a backup. If I was him I’d be furious we pretty much talked his development and potential to earn a big contract.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023 19:37

BF004 wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023 17:48

So we are currently slated to be 16M over the 2024 cap as of right now with players we have, with Aaron on his current contract (which he won't play under if he stays). Tack on $20 for Jordan's 5th year option.

I believe, if we happen to trade Aaron this year though, we do save $40 million on the '24 cap, this putting us roughly ~~24M under the cap. (~4M under with Jordan 5th year option).

Certainly makes that easier to bring back a Adrian Amos (who won't hurt the cap this year, but will add to 2024 if back) and an AJ Dillon. And probably extend Jordan, I threw out a 3 year $60 million contract is very logical that mathematically makes sense for both sides.

I can’t possibly imagine Jordan Love staying on the team essentially one year away from a contract year as a backup. If I was him I’d be furious we pretty much talked his development and potential to earn a big contract.

I agree, but just the hard numbers.

Here's how I see it:

We pick up Love's 5th-year option, which is about $20.3 million
We trade Aaron Rodgers this offseason for all we can get
We spend about half of the 2023 season evaluating Love as a starter...

IF we think he looks like the starter going forward, we make an offer.

Ok, we own your rights for 2023 at $2.3 million; for 2024 for $20.3 million; for 2025 at the QB franchise tag number, say $35 mil (32.4 mil for 2024 inflated by about 8-10%), so that's 3-years and $58 million.

So how much more than $58 mil over 3 years do we need to entice you to sign for 3 more years?

Let's say $66 million guaranteed over the first 3 years.

So then we need to know how much new money over the new years is needed; We make a comp to mid-tier QB contracts, from say Tannehill's $29.5mil/year up through Kirk Cousins' $40mil/year.

Throw him an offer for $35 mil/year in nM/nY to keep up with the market. Add that to the $22.6 million we owe over the final 2 years of his current contract (including 5th-year). And we're offering him a 6-year, $163 million contract with $66 million guaranteed.

His cap number gets reduced in the early years and grows throughout the contract, with the final year having a balloon salary because the 5-years of prorated bonus are no longer on the books. We try to avoid doing option bonuses with triggers to kick the can, because without Rodgers' deal on the books, we should be able to afford it.

The contract will make people blush at first, but by the time he's in years 4 through 6, the QB market will make his salaries a bargain (if he plays well). But it would provide cap savings to release him a few years down the line, so the team has some protection, as well.

Love could say no to the above offer, and bet on himself. But turning down $66 mil guaranteed at this juncture of his career is risky.


If he turns down the offer, or if he doesn't look like he's "the guy" halfway through the season, the options are the same. We draft a developmental QB this year or a potential starter next year (or both), and Love becomes the bridge QB in 2024 (or gets surpassed by the draft pick), and at $20.3 million, honestly, the QB position remains relatively cheap while we transition to who's next.


If this sounds familiar, it's because this is EXACTLY what happened with Rodgers after 3 seasons on the bench, Favre was traded, and he was extended in December his first year as a starter for a deal that looked like a huge gamble at the time, but kept Rodgers under contract at a bargain long enough to win that Super Bowl.

I am of the persuasion not to pick up the 5th year option. Make him play for that ish!

If he's looking good down the stretch, extend him. Worse comes to worse, tag him. If it goes sideways, you're not paying $20m for a lemon.

Labrev wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023 21:28

I am of the persuasion not to pick up the 5th year option. Make him play for that ish!

If he's looking good down the stretch, extend him. Worse comes to worse, tag him. If it goes sideways, you're not paying $20m for a lemon.

$20 million is literally middle-of-the-road QB money. Like this year $20 mil would have been the 14th-highest cap number, and so in two years, it's gonna be even lower. It's just not that much of a commitment at the position, honestly. If Love plays like a mid-tier starter, he'll get $20 million on the open market. Carson Wentz counted $26 mil against the cap this year. Jamies was a desperation signing and went for $15.6 mil. Mariota is at $14.5 million. Again, this is two years' worth of cap inflation away from Love's $20.3. I don't mind paying "a little better than Mariota and Jameis money" to keep our guy locked up.

As an update/correction, everything I said about QB cap numbers was from 2023, not 2022; I hadn't noticed Spotrac already advanced their default. So basically ignore a lot of the details in the past two posts and think of it more like guidelines of my thoughts.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023 21:37

Labrev wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023 21:28

I am of the persuasion not to pick up the 5th year option. Make him play for that ish!

If he's looking good down the stretch, extend him. Worse comes to worse, tag him. If it goes sideways, you're not paying $20m for a lemon.

$20 million is literally middle-of-the-road QB money. Like this year $20 mil would have been the 14th-highest cap number, and so in two years, it's gonna be even lower. It's just not that much of a commitment at the position, honestly. If Love plays like a mid-tier starter, he'll get $20 million on the open market. Carson Wentz counted $26 mil against the cap this year. Jamies was a desperation signing and went for $15.6 mil. Mariota is at $14.5 million. Again, this is two years' worth of cap inflation away from Love's $20.3. I don't mind paying "a little better than Mariota and Jameis money" to keep our guy locked up.

I agree completely. It also delays the first year you would need to use the franchise tag which means you can do the three year calculation you did to really hold big-time leverage in negotiation of a long-term contract. If we are pivoting to Love, I am like 99.9% certain that exercising the 5th-year option is the way the Packers will go and it seems like a no-brainer to me.

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023 17:54

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023 17:13

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Feb 2023 12:16

ya don't like Rodgers, I don't care for him much either, but he is still the best option then a un proven Love.

You are correct! However, the convo goes on to beg the question WHY is Rodgers still the best option over Love?

There’ll likely be several valid answers. Mine is this. Whatever Rodgers might have lost in running or passing ability, he makes up for in savvy. He can read defenses like very few QBs can. That’s it. And as much as I do think that’s valid, I also hold the mantra that it’s better to let go of a player too early than too late. Rodgers might have two or three years yet of it being “too early.” But we won’t have Love for that long. And it’s unlikely that we’ll have a proven and very good (let alone elite) QB besides him. The Love variable must be worked in to this equation.

So, we need to roll the dice now with Love or we need to risk letting Rodgers play til he has no more gas in the tank (and might actually be performing less than expected). Which choice should be roll with?

that let go early rather then late can be used for any player Scott, and like everything can be irrational in the sense that QB's of Rodgers ability are so few and far between, again imho the position is almost more mental then physical.

Yup. That’s exactly why I wrote that.

Are the Packers completely sold out to the idea of riding Rodgers until he can’t draw breath any further (or at least until this contract is over)? Both Guty and MLF said as much, to the effect that Aaron Rodgers is the foundation of all of their planned success. I’m sure they meant that last year and they certainly said it often enough to make it believable. But this year? Nah.

There is a lot of pressure on the Packers to play Love in 2023. He’s a former first round pick. He’s shown the apparent ability to do what they want. He has teammate support. And they likely lose him in the long run if they don’t play him this year. Yeah, they can execute his 5th year option. But once 2024 is over, he’s likely gone for resenting it.

The looming Rodgers decision isn’t going to be in a void. It’ll have contingency on it. Whether to continue with him, or to trade him, at the risk of losing a guy who might be a pretty good QB.

If Rodgers wants to play, I’m sure that he and the Pack will discuss whether he thinks he has 3-4 years left in the tank. If so, then they can trade Love without too much issue.

Where is the charm offensive this year?

I realize that Aaron is set to do his blackout retreat and all. But I look at MLF and Guty’s example last year. They hardly waited for the previous season to turn dead and cold before they had multiple quotes of their enduring support of Rodgers if he would choose to return. Maybe I’m missing it, but I don’t see that this year, so far.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2023 12:32

Maybe I’m missing it, but I don’t see that this year, so far.

They already had their come-to-jesus moment awhile back. They learned how to handle it like partners
Gute/MLF/Rodgers et al met at the end of the season - honestly discussed all the options - and both parties will reconvene shortly.
Nothing for the media to chew on, which is why they've resorted to making stuff up.

BSA wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2023 12:40

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2023 12:32

Maybe I’m missing it, but I don’t see that this year, so far.

They already had their come-to-jesus moment awhile back. They learned how to handle it like partners
Gute/MLF/Rodgers et al met at the end of the season - honestly discussed all the options - and both parties will reconvene shortly.
Nothing for the media to chew on, which is why they've resorted to making stuff up.

Not sure they're making things up so much as the only sources that can/do talk to the media about it are "insiders" but can also do nothing but guess.

Like, sure, the Jets are interested. I bet they have sources who say so. I bet the Jets are interested. I bet they have sources who say Rodgers prefers the Raiders. I bet those sources genuinely believe it based on some sort of limited chats with people who chatted to people. But the only people who know what's going on are in a quiet waiting period. So all other sources offer insight into the thoughts close to the situation, but none about the thoughts of the way the situation will actually play out in reality.

there is no news because we are waiting on 12 to tell us what we are going to do, per usual

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2023 12:45

So all other sources offer insight into the thoughts close to the situation, but none about the thoughts of the way the situation will actually play out in reality.

The issue is the breathless tweets from schefturd and others acting like they have a news report - but when you actually read what they " reported" it is nothing more than a lame-ass guess. A guess designed to generate clicks. That's absurd. They're using their platform to keep the masses riled up ( over nothing !) and watching the ads - and I take massive umbrage to that sort of bs manipulation & self-interest.


Rodgers said it best: "They don't know &%$@ "

BSA wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2023 12:58

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2023 12:45

So all other sources offer insight into the thoughts close to the situation, but none about the thoughts of the way the situation will actually play out in reality.

The issue is the breathless tweets from schefturd and others acting like they have a news report - but when you actually read what they " reported" it is nothing more than a lame-ass guess. A guess designed to generate clicks. That's absurd. They're using their platform to keep the masses riled up ( over nothing !) and watching the ads - and I take massive umbrage to that sort of bs manipulation & self-interest.


Rodgers said it best: "They don't know &%$@ "

lol ya mean AR resorted to Teddy T comments, they think they know, but havn't a clue, Teddy babe, you'll never be forgotten

Drj820 wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2023 12:47

there is no news because we are waiting on 12 to tell us what we are going to do, per usual

He da boss man

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2023 13:24

Drj820 wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2023 12:47

there is no news because we are waiting on 12 to tell us what we are going to do, per usual

He da boss man

Yes, and that is the problem. But it is tragic rather than funny except to those who put the boss above the shareholders. The boss wants to get paid beyond the value he delivers, the shareholders want a profit (playoff game).

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2023 02:56

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2023 13:24

Drj820 wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2023 12:47

there is no news because we are waiting on 12 to tell us what we are going to do, per usual

He da boss man

Yes, and that is the problem. But it is tragic rather than funny except to those who put the boss above the shareholders. The boss wants to get paid beyond the value he delivers, the shareholders want a profit (playoff game).

most of the shareholders agree with the decision the FO makes, and right now there waiting on Rodgers to make a decision, why? because they know going with Love is a 50/50 proposition. obviously you don't know that, just like you don't know what Rodgers wants, quit acting as though you do.

Yoop wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2023 06:24

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2023 02:56

Yoop wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2023 13:24

He da boss man

Yes, and that is the problem. But it is tragic rather than funny except to those who put the boss above the shareholders. The boss wants to get paid beyond the value he delivers, the shareholders want a profit (playoff game).

please spare me your bloviated tripe, most of the shareholders agree with the decision the FO makes, and right now there waiting on Rodgers to make a decision, why? because they know going with Love is a 50/50 proposition. obviously you don't know that, just like you don't know what Rodgers wants, quit acting as though you do.

I have no idea why you felt the need to respond like that. You're dismissive, insulting, and condescending all because someone else had the nerve to voice their opinion.

You wonder why you have such a hard time getting along with other members? It's because of your need to treat people exactly as you did here without provocation.

APB wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2023 07:06

Yoop wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2023 06:24

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

17 Feb 2023 02:56

Yes, and that is the problem. But it is tragic rather than funny except to those who put the boss above the shareholders. The boss wants to get paid beyond the value he delivers, the shareholders want a profit (playoff game).

please spare me your bloviated tripe, most of the shareholders agree with the decision the FO makes, and right now there waiting on Rodgers to make a decision, why? because they know going with Love is a 50/50 proposition. obviously you don't know that, just like you don't know what Rodgers wants, quit acting as though you do.

I have no idea why you felt the need to respond like that. You're dismissive, insulting, and condescending all because someone else had the nerve to voice their opinion.

You wonder why you have such a hard time getting along with other members? It's because of your need to treat people exactly as you did here without provocation.

BS, I made a joke that wasn't meant as literal, and he took it as truth, Rodgers doesn't run this team any more then you or Skeptic or I do, and every comment he makes is to degrade Rodgers and act as though Love is the 3rd coming, every post.