Packers Huddle

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 20:49

Aaron Rodgers trade grades: Did Jets or Packers win the deal?
5:03 PM CT
Seth Walder
ESPN Analytics
It finally happened: The New York Jets traded for Aaron Rodgers….

There are sooo many things I disagree with Walder in his analysis. The fact he’s confounded by the fact the Jets offered so much after making the argument the Packers had no leverage should have maybe made him rethink things. Nope.

APB wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 21:03

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 20:49

Aaron Rodgers trade grades: Did Jets or Packers win the deal?
5:03 PM CT
Seth Walder
ESPN Analytics
It finally happened: The New York Jets traded for Aaron Rodgers….

There are sooo many things I disagree with Walder in his analysis. The fact he’s confounded by the fact the Jets offered so much after making the argument the Packers had no leverage should have maybe made him rethink things. Nope.

Ya, an interesting article, to say the least.

BF004 wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 20:12

I think 64 is a bit conservative for what is a likely first rounder.

I got 7th overall on my tvc.

32, discounted a round.

It's almost definitely going to be back half of round one (if Rodgers is healthy and the Jets are an above-500 team) or early round 2 (if Rodgers is not healthy and the Jets are a .500 or below team).

What better estimate for the pick than 32?

Then, as usual, you discount a round because a pick now is worth more than a pick later. Usually when discounting a round, you take the value of the 16th pick (middle of the round). For a conditional that is either a late 1 or early 2, you again split the difference.

And if you simply don't believe in present value and the idea of discounting, there are like 1,000 NFL insiders who have been GMs who will attest to the fact that this is how they value future picks.

APB wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 21:03

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 20:49

Aaron Rodgers trade grades: Did Jets or Packers win the deal?
5:03 PM CT
Seth Walder
ESPN Analytics
It finally happened: The New York Jets traded for Aaron Rodgers….

There are sooo many things I disagree with Walder in his analysis. The fact he’s confounded by the fact the Jets offered so much after making the argument the Packers had no leverage should have maybe made him rethink things. Nope.

Yeah, it's phenomenal how the Packers got almost exactly what all the "Packers have the edge in leverage" people predicted and so many of the "Packers have no leverage" people continue to believe that they had no leverage and simply that the Jets made a bad move as a self-inflicted wound.

Assume 2024 pick is between 18 and 50 so discount 50 to 82

Old Jimmy Johnson Chart:

13 for 15 - +100
Acquire Pick 42 - +480
Acquire Pick 207 - +7
Acquire 2024 1st/2nd - +400 to +180
Give Pick 170 - -8

Total - +979 (Pick 16/17) +759 (Pick 23)

New Rich Hill Chart:

13 for 15 - +21
Acquire Pick 42 - +142
Acquire Pick 207 - +3
Acquire 2024 1st/2nd - +115 to +54
Give Pick 170 - -21.8

Total - +259.2 (Pick 21) to 198.2 (Pick 30)

Pretty much any way we slice it, we got a first round pick for Aaron Rodgers.

Captain_Ben wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 17:19

Glad it's finally done. 30+ years of HOF QB play. Will that trend continue? It's improbable. But I am excited for the new chapter and will be rooting for Love.

We really don't need HOF QB play. If Love is a better than average starter we can be successful with that.

Honestly the thing I am most excited about right now is that the 2023 Packers draft will not be overshadowed by Rodgers/Packers drama!!

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 23:09

Honestly the thing I am most excited about right now is that the 2023 Packers draft will not be overshadowed by Rodgers/Packers drama!!

There is still going to be a lot of rodgers talk when the Packers come up on any broadcast.

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 17:59

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 17:47

HERE is another perspective!
:-)

A next year pick is usually considered a round lower than if had been this year. So nowhere close to #3 compensation.

Possibly in the lower rounds, but surely not in round 1? Given the choice of pick 32 this year or pick 1 next year, I doubt many GMs would go for this year.

Pick 48 this year or pick 16 next year? On that, I would say it was very short-term thinking to go for this year's 48.

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 19:15

APB wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 19:05

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 18:20

Agree with this...

Will ya’ll still feel like the delayed pick is discounted next year when the Packers have a second round 1 pick in what many already perceive to be a significantly stronger draft class?

As my business 101 professor used to say. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

Not an equivalent analogy. The main reason a dollar today is worth less than a dollar next year is because a dollar today can buy you 100 sweets, a dollar next year will only buy you 90. But if a first round pick today gets you a man who will score 100 TDs, then a first round pick next year (all else being equal) will get you a man who will score 100 TDs. Inflation doesn't affect the value of a footballer like it affects money.

It's true there are other advantages to getting things now rather than later, and it's true that a pick this year is worth more than a pick next year (again, all else being equal) but not to the same degree as applies to money.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 21:30

BF004 wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 20:12

I think 64 is a bit conservative for what is a likely first rounder.

I got 7th overall on my tvc.

32, discounted a round.

It's almost definitely going to be back half of round one (if Rodgers is healthy and the Jets are an above-500 team) or early round 2 (if Rodgers is not healthy and the Jets are a .500 or below team).

What better estimate for the pick than 32?

Then, as usual, you discount a round because a pick now is worth more than a pick later. Usually when discounting a round, you take the value of the 16th pick (middle of the round). For a conditional that is either a late 1 or early 2, you again split the difference.

And if you simply don't believe in present value and the idea of discounting, there are like 1,000 NFL insiders who have been GMs who will attest to the fact that this is how they value future picks.

Well you don’t just discount a whole round.

There have been dozens of trades with future picks that what the actually discount is, and places have shown it. I think is was essentially a 10-15 pick discount.

Can’t find it, but no one will ever give up a future first for pick 64.

Pugger wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 23:06

Captain_Ben wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 17:19

Glad it's finally done. 30+ years of HOF QB play. Will that trend continue? It's improbable. But I am excited for the new chapter and will be rooting for Love.

We really don't need HOF QB play. If Love is a better than average starter we can be successful with that.

We certainly can, especially if he is paid like an average starter. What we can't be successful with is paying an average QB as if he were a much better than average QB. Put an average QB behind a much better than average Oline and he will often outplay a much better than average QB behind an average Oline.

dsr wrote: ↑

25 Apr 2023 04:55

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 19:15

APB wrote: ↑

24 Apr 2023 19:05

Will ya’ll still feel like the delayed pick is discounted next year when the Packers have a second round 1 pick in what many already perceive to be a significantly stronger draft class?

As my business 101 professor used to say. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

Not an equivalent analogy. The main reason a dollar today is worth less than a dollar next year is because a dollar today can buy you 100 sweets, a dollar next year will only buy you 90. But if a first round pick today gets you a man who will score 100 TDs, then a first round pick next year (all else being equal) will get you a man who will score 100 TDs. Inflation doesn't affect the value of a footballer like it affects money.

It's true there are other advantages to getting things now rather than later, and it's true that a pick this year is worth more than a pick next year (again, all else being equal) but not to the same degree as applies to money.

Only problem is people get hungry and there is a good chance someone else will be buying sweets in your position the following year.

It really isn't that complicated.

A 2023 pick can contribute to your team in 2023 and make a second year jump in 2024. That is worth more to a team right now than a pick that can't contribute to a team until 2024 and make a 2025 second-year jump.

In a 3-year window that begins right now, you get 20-33% more production from a 2023 pick than a 2024 pick (lower end discounting rookie production)

we did well, we got the swap in round one this year, also a 2nd rounder, and next years #24, I don't get to concerned with the idea that a pick next year losses slot value, at worst it's still a high draft pick, to me we did about as well as I expected.

we jumped 2 slots in the first, it could help us get a targeted selection.

Yoop wrote: ↑

25 Apr 2023 07:46

we did well, we got the swap in round one this year, also a 2nd rounder, and next years #24, I don't get to concerned with the idea that a pick next year losses slot value, at worst it's still a high draft pick, to me we did about as well as I expected.

we jumped 2 slots in the first, it could help us get a targeted selection.

To be clear, I'm not concerned about the value loss. We got great value.

And we'll probably end up with an additional 1st round pick.

I think I said several times since the MacAfee interview that I wanted a pick swap and either both 2023 seconds or a 2024 pick that could become a first. I didn't want a 2023 2nd and a 2024 2nd.

Getting the 1st round pick swap this year was great (worth a 3rd or 4th round pick on its own). Getting a 2nd round pick in this draft, particularly one locked in as a high 2nd round pick was great. Having the chance to get a 1st round pick (very likely) next year is great. I'm glad we have it. I think we will be more glad next year that we have it.

But a Matthew Bergeron or Keanu Benton in the hand is worth a mystery 20th pick in the 2024 bush, ya know?

It's also worth bearing in mind that by getting a future first we also have the POTENTIAL for it to be a very high first. That's actually quite valuable, even if the likely range is 20-40.

The Jets play in a difficult division in a much tougher conference. They could easily take Ls to the Bills, Dolphins and Pats.

The Jets OL is bad. Rodgers will be adjusting to a new environment.

There's a reasonable chance they get off to a slow start, Rodgers gets pressured more by tougher opponents behind a weaker OL. All it takes is for the ball to bounce the wrong way and the Jets could easily miss the playoffs.

And I don't see the Jets benching Rodgers before game 11 unless they are totally out of it. If they pull Rodgers and accept the season is a failure everyone is getting fired there.

Does anyone remember why Rodgers wore #12 for us? I see he is going back to #8 like he wore at Cal.

I do think injury is a very real risk with Rodgers. It tends to be an issue with older players, and Rodgers has never had the kind of frame that can take too much of a beating. He has battled injuries often in his career, though he has often played through them.

Let's hope the Jets solidify that OL, and that Breece Hall can come back soon (but maybe not get fully back to form this year; we don't want the Jets to actually win 2023 games).

I am excited about Love and his potential but it is a little bittersweet to see AR going to NY. It has been a pleasure watching him play all these years in GB. A lot of the "experts" on the TV sports channels think the Jets are now in the AFC conversation but IMO it will be a more daunting task for AR with the quality of teams and QBs in that division and conference.