Packers Huddle

By the way, if Love sucks, then why does Rodgers seem so unsure of his future in Green Bay? Rodgers is one of the very few people who would know if Love can play or not.

If Love sucks, then the decision at QB is obvious, trade Love now for whatever you can get and roll with Rodgers for another year or two while starting over with the replacement QB project behind him.

Rodgers is not acting like a man who knows that the decision between him and Love obviously favors himself if he wants to come back and play.

I'm not saying the FO will definitely go with Love over him, just that Rodgers's uncertainty only makes sense if this team has reason to believe they can be fine without him, and without having next year's draft class on the team, Love is the only (realistic) other reason.

Rookie contracts now compared to 2005 would lend themselves more to grooming.

Alex Smith signed a 6 year, $53.5 million contract in 2005. Trevor Lawrence in 2021 signed a 4 year, $36.8 million contract.

The salary cap in 2005 was $85.5 million. The salary cap in 2021 was $182.5 million.

Labrev wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2023 17:54

By the way, if Love sucks, then why does Rodgers seem so unsure of his future in Green Bay? Rodgers is one of the very few people who would know if Love can play or not.

If Love sucks, then the decision at QB is obvious, trade Love now for whatever you can get and roll with Rodgers for another year or two while starting over with the replacement QB project behind him.

Rodgers is not acting like a man who knows that the decision between him and Love obviously favors himself if he wants to come back and play.

I'm not saying the FO will definitely go with Love over him, just that Rodgers's uncertainty only makes sense if this team has reason to believe they can be fine without him, and without having next year's draft class on the team, Love is the only (realistic) other reason.

I'm wondering if Rodgers might see the team is in a rebuild mode and he has said he wants no part of that.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2023 17:55

Rookie contracts now compared to 2005 would lend themselves more to grooming.

Alex Smith signed a 6 year, $53.5 million contract in 2005. Trevor Lawrence in 2021 signed a 4 year, $36.8 million contract.

The salary cap in 2005 was $85.5 million. The salary cap in 2021 was $182.5 million.

Yeah, I read [mention]Drj820[/mention]'s comment and thought basically what you're getting at - the ability to sit and groom a QB is easier today than it was 20 years ago. Rookie contracts are the reason why.

APB wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023 15:36

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2023 17:55

Rookie contracts now compared to 2005 would lend themselves more to grooming.

Alex Smith signed a 6 year, $53.5 million contract in 2005. Trevor Lawrence in 2021 signed a 4 year, $36.8 million contract.

The salary cap in 2005 was $85.5 million. The salary cap in 2021 was $182.5 million.

Yeah, I read @Drj820's comment and thought basically what you're getting at - the ability to sit and groom a QB is easier today than it was 20 years ago. Rookie contracts are the reason why.

In 2005, rodgers signed a 5 year 7.7million dollar contract. The contracts were inflated at the very top, but the very top isn’t sitting anyways.

Love would have made close to what Rodgers was making if this was 2005.

The difference now tho is the “window” finding a good qb can give you while that qb is on a rookie deal. Let’s say Love really can play, we could have had years of a cheap Love with tons of money for other spots. Dak did this with Dallas, Philly doing it now with hurts, ravens with lamar..etc etc all the same story. All trying to take advantage of the rookie window before they have to pay the qb and spend less on other positions.

The most ideal situation is to sit any qb draft pick ONE year behind a vet and then get ready to take advantage year 2-4.

Sitting a qb for 3 years that isn’t gonna be a career backup is just excessive for the year 2023. Obviously.

Rodgers, 5 years, $7.7 million, $1.5 million/year
Love, 4 years, $12.4 million, $3.1 million/year

Salary cap in 2020 was $198.2 million.
Salary cap in 2005 was $85.5 million.

As a percentage of the cap it still would lend itself more or as much for rookies to sit now as far as rookie contracts go.

Your point? Qb taking less of the cap percentage is why teams want to take advantage of that scenario and load up the rest of the roster, if the qb can play. I’m all for sitting a rookie one year, but In an ideal world, you don’t waste a rookie that can plays entire rookie contract with him on the bench. You do that for career backups. If you feel like defending the guteys decision to draft Love and have him sit his entire contract instead of drafting someone that could help his team on the field, just ask how many other teams draft first rounders and have them sit their entire contract. Teams play their first rounders because they want to figure out if they can play, while they are cheap.

My point is that this:

Grooming rodgers was 18 years ago. Leagues a little different now by the way. Mainly due to the structure of rookie contracts.

is not necessarily the case. The structure of rookie contracts now does not detract from grooming a player like Rodgers was in 2005.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023 17:22

My point is that this:

Grooming rodgers was 18 years ago. Leagues a little different now by the way. Mainly due to the structure of rookie contracts.

is not necessarily the case. The structure of rookie contracts now does not detract from grooming a player like Rodgers was in 2005.

Under the new system, how many of the other 31 franchises have groomed a future long term starter for 3+ seasons before he was given the keys to the car?

Further, in the old system, it was much more common for teams to sit their QB draft picks a full season or more before they were named the starter. How common is that now with first rounders?

In the new systems, teams absolutely want to find out what they have while the player is cheap so they can dump him and try again if he sucks, or play him and load up the assets around him while he is cheap if he is good. We see it all across the league. Often.

The structure of rookie contracts doesn't affect any of that now compared to 2005. It was likely to affect the higher picks in 2005 because of the huge salaries they were getting. It is less of a detriment now than it was then. There are changes, but not because of the structure of rookie contracts.

having a designated time where you are guaranteed to have cheap labor has no impact on teams all of a sudden either trying to win in that window before they have to pay the labor, or wanting to find out if the labor can perform before they have to pay them....makes no sense...but got it.

Most rookie contracts were "cheap" in 2005 other than that of the top QB and/or the top 5. The same holds today although they are "cheaper" as a percentage of the cap. 2005's rookie contract structure wouldn't change the desire of teams to see what they have in guys while they are "cheap." That hasn't changed today. Those top QBs making a hell of a lot in 2005 were more likely to play early because they were making so much. As we saw that contract amount dropped off the lower they were drafted. There just isn't any contract reason why grooming rookies can't happen today compared to 2005.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2023 17:55

Rookie contracts now compared to 2005 would lend themselves more to grooming.

Alex Smith signed a 6 year, $53.5 million contract in 2005. Trevor Lawrence in 2021 signed a 4 year, $36.8 million contract.

The salary cap in 2005 was $85.5 million. The salary cap in 2021 was $182.5 million.

youve completely flipped your argument now. interesting.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023 18:03

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2023 17:55

Rookie contracts now compared to 2005 would lend themselves more to grooming.

Alex Smith signed a 6 year, $53.5 million contract in 2005. Trevor Lawrence in 2021 signed a 4 year, $36.8 million contract.

The salary cap in 2005 was $85.5 million. The salary cap in 2021 was $182.5 million.

youve completely flipped your argument now. interesting.

No. It would still lend itself more toward grooming now because all the rookie contracts are relatively cheap compared to 2005. It's less pronounced as you go down the draft, but those top guys in 2005 making so much as rookies had them more likely playing than sitting.

I believe it was 2011 when that all changed with rookie contract caps and slotting.

i guess you are just arguing to argue again.

Pretty obvious almost all teams use the designated window of time before a QB draft pick must sign his second contract to figure out if he can play or not, and if he can...they use the extra cap space to load up assets around him.

its literally the way the process works all across the league

That window also existed in 2005, so not a rookie contract structure reason why grooming can't happen today compared to 2005. Even the top QBs rookie contract was cheaper than their 2nd, unless they busted of course.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023 17:46

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023 17:22

My point is that this:

Grooming rodgers was 18 years ago. Leagues a little different now by the way. Mainly due to the structure of rookie contracts.

is not necessarily the case. The structure of rookie contracts now does not detract from grooming a player like Rodgers was in 2005.

Under the new system, how many of the other 31 franchises have groomed a future long term starter for 3+ seasons before he was given the keys to the car?

Further, in the old system, it was much more common for teams to sit their QB draft picks a full season or more before they were named the starter. How common is that now with first rounders?

In the new systems, teams absolutely want to find out what they have while the player is cheap so they can dump him and try again if he sucks, or play him and load up the assets around him while he is cheap if he is good. We see it all across the league. Often.

To answer your question - not many.

But it’s not “mainly due to the structure of rookie contracts” as you asserted several posts back. If anything, the structure of rookie contracts makes it financially easier to sit on a draft pick if the org so chooses. There is no longer the big financial pressure to play the rookie. Sure, there are other pressures, but contractually that aspect has been relieved.

The fact most org’s smartly choose not to anymore is, IMO, more related to the evolving organizational strategic approach of loading up the rest of the roster while your capable QB is on a cheap contract, as you pointed out. The actual contract structure, though, is essentially what it’s always been, only less financially burdensome.

APB wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023 19:05

Drj820 wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023 17:46

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023 17:22

My point is that this:

is not necessarily the case. The structure of rookie contracts now does not detract from grooming a player like Rodgers was in 2005.

Under the new system, how many of the other 31 franchises have groomed a future long term starter for 3+ seasons before he was given the keys to the car?

Further, in the old system, it was much more common for teams to sit their QB draft picks a full season or more before they were named the starter. How common is that now with first rounders?

In the new systems, teams absolutely want to find out what they have while the player is cheap so they can dump him and try again if he sucks, or play him and load up the assets around him while he is cheap if he is good. We see it all across the league. Often.

To answer your question - not many.

But it’s not “mainly due to the structure of rookie contracts” as you asserted several posts back. If anything, the structure of rookie contracts makes it financially easier to sit on a draft pick if the org so chooses. There is no longer the big financial pressure to play the rookie. Sure, there are other pressures, but contractually that aspect has been relieved.

The fact most org’s smartly choose not to anymore is, IMO, more related to the evolving organizational strategic approach of loading up the rest of the roster while your capable QB is on a cheap contract, as you pointed out. The actual contract structure is essentially what it’s always been, only less financially burdensome.

Well said, thank you.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023 17:22

My point is that this:

Grooming rodgers was 18 years ago. Leagues a little different now by the way. Mainly due to the structure of rookie contracts.

is not necessarily the case. The structure of rookie contracts now does not detract from grooming a player like Rodgers was in 2005.

Of course most of the time a high draft pick QB is taken by a QB needy team and he is thrown to the wolves on day 1. Rodgers and Love were fortunate that they could be groomed behind a HOF QB. I doubt Rodgers would be the QB he eventually became if he had to play right away and I suspect Love is in the same boat.