Packers Huddle

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 08:02

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 07:55

Come on. Someone bite.

I'd love to be wrong, but I'd put the odds of this at < 1%

People just patently ignoring the difference and history of restricted free agents by comparing it to the OT deals happening in unrestricted free agency.

Likely not. But the value for us was too easy this year. If nobody bites, we get a below average starting RT on a super cheap deal.

But if someone bites, we get that sweet, sweet 2nd round pick. It was an absolute no brainer to pull the trigger on this.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 08:44

BF004 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 08:26

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 08:02

I'd love to be wrong, but I'd put the odds of this at < 1%

People just patently ignoring the difference and history of restricted free agents by comparing it to the OT deals happening in unrestricted free agency.

No one ignoring it, no one predicting it. Yet if there was a time it could happen, one could connect the dots in this situation.

Sorry, I was describing a lot of twitter reaction and like Peter Burkowski commentary in my comment, not this board necessarily.

And frankly I thought KC with lowly pick 63 was probably our best hope.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 10:20

Why tho?

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 10:57

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 10:20

Why tho?

My guess is to just add flexibility. Honestly with the way the cap rules are set, I have no problem adding these void years as long as we aren't stupid with the 2023 freed up cap space.

If the freed up cap space is used to absorb some dead cap quicker or front load some contracts on players we know will be a foundational piece 2024 and beyond or just wanting the cap space "in case" but in reality just roll it into 2024...I'm cool with it. It honestly doesn't matter.

But if the cap space is used for stupid quick fixes like ensuring we pay Mason Crosby to come back on a $5 million contract or overspend on a short term free agent like a safety or wide reciever...I will be pretty disappointed.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 10:57

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 10:20

Why tho?

Ya, I am not exactly sure why either. We are about $16 million under right now. Trading Rodgers halves that amount. So with Campbell's restructure we are at about $10 million under when we trade Rodgers.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 10:57

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 10:20

Why tho?

More room to add players that can mitigate the front office being fired. They’re losing their only scapegoat in the coming weeks.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 13:03

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 10:57

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 10:20

Why tho?

More room to add players that can mitigate the front office being fired. They’re losing their only scapegoat in the coming weeks.

Die is cast. Nothing saves Gutey if Love sucks this season. Except for a SB win.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 13:25

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 13:03

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 10:57

Why tho?

More room to add players that can mitigate the front office being fired. They’re losing their only scapegoat in the coming weeks.

Die is cast. Nothing saves Gutey if Love sucks this season. Except for a SB win.

Do not underestimate the idiocy of Packers fans. They will find some silver lining to try and justify keeping bad general managers for as long as it takes. See TT.

Just gonna leave this here…

salmar80 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 13:25

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 13:03

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 10:57

Why tho?

More room to add players that can mitigate the front office being fired. They’re losing their only scapegoat in the coming weeks.

Die is cast. Nothing saves Gutey if Love sucks this season. Except for a SB win.

Not a whole lot of words there, but I don't understand. If Love sucks, how is team going to win a SB?

APB wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 14:03

Just gonna leave this here…

Scantling had 1 reception in that SB, big deal, he got that contract to be a decoy, which is all he ever will be, same with Lazard, both these players hit there ceilings before they where ever not resigned by us, and if we'd have had a quality receiver group neither would have gotten what they got from KC or the Jets after we didn't resign them.

Herman hates Rodgers.

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 14:42

APB wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 14:03

Just gonna leave this here…

Scantling had 1 reception in that SB, big deal, he got that contract to be a decoy, which is all he ever will be, same with Lazard, both these players hit there ceilings before they where ever not resigned by us, and if we'd have had a quality receiver group neither would have gotten what they got from KC or the Jets after we didn't resign them.

Herman hates Rodgers.

So the AFC Championship Game where MVS went 6 catches for 119 and a TD didn't count?

The beauty of the KC offense is, ... Mahomes throws to the receiver that's open.

He doesn't try to force feed Kelce the ball 15 times because he is the only star receiver, and ignore guys like MVS because "durr he not gud."

Half Empty wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 14:36

salmar80 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 13:25

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 13:03

More room to add players that can mitigate the front office being fired. They’re losing their only scapegoat in the coming weeks.

Die is cast. Nothing saves Gutey if Love sucks this season. Except for a SB win.

Not a whole lot of words there, but I don't understand. If Love sucks, how is team going to win a SB?

Winning the SB without Love being great is unlikely, but then posters have repeatedly told me it doesn't take great QB play to win the SB.

If the running game rules and makes things easy for Love, and the D becomes the dominant force we were hoping for last season... IF everything else goes way above expectations, Love may not have to be good, just a manager. In that case, if the much-maligned picks like Gary were to carry the team, Gutey could be vindicated despite Love not being great.

Again: Unlikely.

salmar80 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 15:13

Half Empty wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 14:36

salmar80 wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 13:25

Die is cast. Nothing saves Gutey if Love sucks this season. Except for a SB win.

Not a whole lot of words there, but I don't understand. If Love sucks, how is team going to win a SB?

Winning the SB without Love being great is unlikely, but then posters have repeatedly told me it doesn't take great QB play to win the SB.

If the running game rules and makes things easy for Love, and the D becomes the dominant force we were hoping for last season... IF everything else goes way above expectations, Love may not have to be good, just a manager. In that case, if the much-maligned picks like Gary were to carry the team, Gutey could be vindicated despite Love not being great.

Again: Unlikely.

Based on what I've seen, I don't really worry about Love's skill or ability either physically or mentally. I think he'll be good. I worry more about things like durability, which is an unknown for any player that's only started 1 game, as well as clutch genes, which again, we have no way of knowing yet.

Labrev wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 15:01

The beauty of the KC offense is, ... Mahomes throws to the receiver that's open.

He doesn't try to force feed Kelce the ball 15 times because he is the only star receiver, and ignore guys like MVS because "durr he not gud."

MVS caught about 40 passes and was targeted 80 times, so he caught 50% just as he had with us, Mahomes doesn't have to force feed anyone ( he does though) because his worst receiver is scantling.

here we go again with defending the crap fest WR situation that has been a constant since 2015,

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 15:23

Labrev wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 15:01

The beauty of the KC offense is, ... Mahomes throws to the receiver that's open.

He doesn't try to force feed Kelce the ball 15 times because he is the only star receiver, and ignore guys like MVS because "durr he not gud."

MVS caught about 40 passes and was targeted 80 times, so he caught 50% just as he had with us, Mahomes doesn't have to force feed anyone ( he does though) because his worst receiver is scantling.

here we go again with defending the crap fest WR situation that has been a constant since 2015,

Mahomes just won a Super Bowl with MVS as one of his WR's. Rodgers did not win a Super Bowl with MVS as one of his WR's.

Acrobat wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 15:36

Yoop wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 15:23

Labrev wrote: ↑

15 Mar 2023 15:01

The beauty of the KC offense is, ... Mahomes throws to the receiver that's open.

He doesn't try to force feed Kelce the ball 15 times because he is the only star receiver, and ignore guys like MVS because "durr he not gud."

MVS caught about 40 passes and was targeted 80 times, so he caught 50% just as he had with us, Mahomes doesn't have to force feed anyone ( he does though) because his worst receiver is scantling.

here we go again with defending the crap fest WR situation that has been a constant since 2015,

Mahomes just won a Super Bowl with MVS as one of his WR's. Rodgers did not win a Super Bowl with MVS as one of his WR's.

MVS also played in the playoffs with Mahomes. MVS ducked games.