Packers Huddle

BF004 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 17:20

British wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 17:12

Seems to me there are two good outcomes with Adams this off-season and one bad one.

The good: We sign him to an extension or we trade him for a 1st(+)

The bad: We lose him for a comp pick.

Those feel like the only three likely outcomes. 66% chance of success.

In Gute We Trust.

Normally I would agree, but I crunching some numbers, I don't see how we can tag davante without inflicting pretty great personal harm. That being, you don't just let the top player at a 2nd most important position outside of QB just walk. You keep those players on your team.

The latest from Ingalls:


Seems to me it's doable. Ingalls says here we would be $1.2m short.

Extra savings on top of what Ingalls outlines are:
Don't tender Lazard at $4m
We don't sign all our PS players (total is $14m)
We don't tender all 8 of the ERFA (total is $7m)
We cut Lowry rather than extend him
We cut Preston rather than extend him

Doing some or all of the above would get us in under cap. Then on Day 1 of free agency we trade Rodgers and Adams. That would instantly give us lots of cap space to fill out the roster, sign some of our PS guys, potentially sign one or more of Lazard, MVS, Rasul, Devondre, Lowry, Preston etc.

British wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 17:53

BF004 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 17:20

British wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 17:12

Seems to me there are two good outcomes with Adams this off-season and one bad one.

The good: We sign him to an extension or we trade him for a 1st(+)

The bad: We lose him for a comp pick.

Those feel like the only three likely outcomes. 66% chance of success.

In Gute We Trust.

Normally I would agree, but I crunching some numbers, I don't see how we can tag davante without inflicting pretty great personal harm. That being, you don't just let the top player at a 2nd most important position outside of QB just walk. You keep those players on your team.

The latest from Ingalls:


Seems to me it's doable. Ingalls says here we would be $1.2m short.

Extra savings on top of what Ingalls outlines are:
Don't tender Lazard at $4m
We don't sign all our PS players (total is $14m)
We don't tender all 8 of the ERFA (total is $7m)
We cut Lowry rather than extend him
We cut Preston rather than extend him

Doing some or all of the above would get us in under cap. Then on Day 1 of free agency we trade Rodgers and Adams. That would instantly give us lots of cap space to fill out the roster, sign some of our PS guys, potentially sign one or more of Lazard, MVS, Rasul, Devondre, Lowry, Preston etc.

Are you saying get rid of AR and Adams to keep guys like Lowry and MVS?

wallyuwl wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 19:22

Are you saying get rid of AR and Adams to keep guys like Lowry and MVS?

No. I'm saying if Rodgers and Adams refuse to stay in Green Bay we can trade them both, rather than letting Adams leave for a comp pick.

Some are worried that if Rodgers wants out we will not have the cap space to tag Adams.

Obviously the club will be trying to extend them both, but if that doesn't prove possible, we can at least get fair value for them in a trade to help the rebuild.

So nobody thinks it's possible that Rodgers restructures to a team friendly deal? He's not an idiot. He knows if they pay him $30 million or more the chances of keeping a competitive team are slim and none. Guess we'll find out if he just wants to stay or if he wants to stay and be competitive.

packman114 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 20:43

So nobody thinks it's possible that Rodgers restructures to a team friendly deal? He's not an idiot. He knows if they pay him $30 million or more the chances of keeping a competitive team are slim and none. Guess we'll find out if he just wants to stay or if he wants to stay and be competitive.

I think this is the hope of most fans and posters, and if he wants that then I suspect it will get sorted out pretty quickly and things may fall into place with Adams then too.

But what is interesting to work out is what can the Packers do if Rodgers and Adams refuse to extend and want out.

In that scenario we're probably looking to trade them and doing a rebuild. It's tougher to get under the cap Day 1, including tagging Adams, but it appears doable.

British wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 19:38

Obviously the club will be trying to extend them both,

Im not so sure this is a guarantee....

Time will tell, but I don't see how we won't have some measure of rebuild next year.

The emotional choice is to keep AR and Davante. But to do that, how much massive bleeding needs to occur to release a bunch of vets? Won't the 2 of them consume something like 40%+ of our salary cap? Ouch.

To keep either AR or Davante, we still need to release some vets. But at least the bleeding would decrease.

To let go of/trade AR and Davante would surely mean a larger rebuild. Give Love a TE as a comfort blanket and draft for DL and WR. And move on.

I'd really enjoy seeing AR return, as he still is in top form. But oh the price of keeping him and Davante. If Guty can swing it, that'll be like Moses and the Red Sea.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 21:28

British wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 19:38

Obviously the club will be trying to extend them both,

Im not so sure this is a guarantee....

I hear you. But we know the Packers were deep in contract talks with Adams in the off-season and there were many reports the Packers had an extension on the table for Rodgers.

Since then they've played even better and led the Packers to being the #1 team in the league.

I can see the sense in the Packers trading them for a rebuild, but even I think Gute would be nuts to not even *try* and bring them both back on team friendly deals. If they decline then so be it, but it seems clear the Packers will be making them offers.

British wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 03:46

Drj820 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 21:28

British wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 19:38

Obviously the club will be trying to extend them both,

Im not so sure this is a guarantee....

I hear you. But we know the Packers were deep in contract talks with Adams in the off-season and there were many reports the Packers had an extension on the table for Rodgers.

Since then they've played even better and led the Packers to being the #1 team in the league.

I can see the sense in the Packers trading them for a rebuild, but even I think Gute would be nuts to not even *try* and bring them both back on team friendly deals. If they decline then so be it, but it seems clear the Packers will be making them offers.

Yeah, the public blowback would be horrendous for Gute if he simply traded them off/let walk without even an attempt at making a reasonable offer to stay. Moves like that are apparently what started the whole Rodgers rift in the first place.

Yes. Seems to me if there is a Rodgers departure they will try and do it like the Lions did with Stafford. A celebratory send off, a thanks for long service and a bunch of picks in return.

That possibility was on the table the moment the Packers agreed to void his '23 year of his deal.

packman114 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 20:43

So nobody thinks it's possible that Rodgers restructures to a team friendly deal? He's not an idiot. He knows if they pay him $30 million or more the chances of keeping a competitive team are slim and none. Guess we'll find out if he just wants to stay or if he wants to stay and be competitive.

I don't. He has basically said in the past he wants to be paid what he is worth. Didn't dance around the subject at all.

NCF wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 08:54

packman114 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 20:43

So nobody thinks it's possible that Rodgers restructures to a team friendly deal? He's not an idiot. He knows if they pay him $30 million or more the chances of keeping a competitive team are slim and none. Guess we'll find out if he just wants to stay or if he wants to stay and be competitive.

I don't. He has basically said in the past he wants to be paid what he is worth. Didn't dance around the subject at all.

Not sure why people think Rodgers, a guy who threatened to not show up, wanted out of GB, and thought about retirement, would take a team friendly deal. Doesn't make sense. IF fences are mended and he's open to staying, he may tweak a thing or 2 in the contract to lend a hand. But he's not taking Brady-like team friendly deals.

Big IF. But it isn't happening, because he's gone. Not gonna be a Packer next year.

NCF wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 08:54

packman114 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 20:43

So nobody thinks it's possible that Rodgers restructures to a team friendly deal? He's not an idiot. He knows if they pay him $30 million or more the chances of keeping a competitive team are slim and none. Guess we'll find out if he just wants to stay or if he wants to stay and be competitive.

I don't. He has basically said in the past he wants to be paid what he is worth. Didn't dance around the subject at all.

It is simply wild to me that despite literally 16 years of Rodgers being almost exactly who he's always been, people would still ask a question about whether he'd take less to play for a competitive team.

NCF wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 08:54

packman114 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 20:43

So nobody thinks it's possible that Rodgers restructures to a team friendly deal? He's not an idiot. He knows if they pay him $30 million or more the chances of keeping a competitive team are slim and none. Guess we'll find out if he just wants to stay or if he wants to stay and be competitive.

I don't. He has basically said in the past he wants to be paid what he is worth. Didn't dance around the subject at all.

Yup.

When someone tells you something...believe them.

I'am glad all concerned have put this season first over anything that transpires after it.

of course Guty and the FO will again make offers after the season to both Rodgers and Adams, and will do as best they can to retain both players, the thing is I don't see them sending off a bunch of vets to do it, that would be counter productive, it is easier to replace a WR, and even a QB then it is to restock a bunch of positions with above average starting talent, obviously it wont be a first ballot HOF QB or a receiver mentioned in the same breath, but ya can't drop 30% plus of the cap on two players, no matter how much the fans like em, this has always been a next man up league, we've simply been very fortunate to only have to switch out QB's once in the last 30 years

go pak go wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 09:29

NCF wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 08:54

packman114 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 20:43

So nobody thinks it's possible that Rodgers restructures to a team friendly deal? He's not an idiot. He knows if they pay him $30 million or more the chances of keeping a competitive team are slim and none. Guess we'll find out if he just wants to stay or if he wants to stay and be competitive.

I don't. He has basically said in the past he wants to be paid what he is worth. Didn't dance around the subject at all.

Yup.

When someone tells you something...believe them.

go pak go wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 09:29

NCF wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 08:54

packman114 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 20:43

So nobody thinks it's possible that Rodgers restructures to a team friendly deal? He's not an idiot. He knows if they pay him $30 million or more the chances of keeping a competitive team are slim and none. Guess we'll find out if he just wants to stay or if he wants to stay and be competitive.

I don't. He has basically said in the past he wants to be paid what he is worth. Didn't dance around the subject at all.

Yup.

When someone tells you something...believe them.

Well, unless he's talking about be vaccinated.

NCF wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 10:40

go pak go wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 09:29

NCF wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 08:54

I don't. He has basically said in the past he wants to be paid what he is worth. Didn't dance around the subject at all.

Yup.

When someone tells you something...believe them.

Denver, for example, has the cap to pay AR 30 mil and Adams 20 mil and MVS 10 mil. They already have a good D. If they do that, they are a SB contender.

Why would AR take less money to be on an inferior team whose management he does not like? To resign AR the Packers would need to cut several good players, they would not be anywhere near as good a team as they are now. Losing Adams and Tonyan and Preston and Campbell and Douglas would really really really hurt. Lose all of them, which the Packers probably would do, would mean the Packers are no longer a SB contender.

williewasgreat wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 11:37

go pak go wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 09:29

NCF wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 08:54

I don't. He has basically said in the past he wants to be paid what he is worth. Didn't dance around the subject at all.

Yup.

When someone tells you something...believe them.

Well, unless he's talking about be vaccinated.

Who on the Packers said they were "vaccinated" and were not?

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 09:01

NCF wrote: ↑

06 Jan 2022 08:54

packman114 wrote: ↑

05 Jan 2022 20:43

So nobody thinks it's possible that Rodgers restructures to a team friendly deal? He's not an idiot. He knows if they pay him $30 million or more the chances of keeping a competitive team are slim and none. Guess we'll find out if he just wants to stay or if he wants to stay and be competitive.

I don't. He has basically said in the past he wants to be paid what he is worth. Didn't dance around the subject at all.

It is simply wild to me that despite literally 16 years of Rodgers being almost exactly who he's always been, people would still ask a question about whether he'd take less to play for a competitive team.

Well I'm listening to what he says now and not in the past. He is the one being reflective and saying that he's in a good place. My point was the last sentence...we will find out if he just wants to finish a Packer or whether he wants to finish a Packer with a competitive team and the teammates he "loves" so much. There is no way you can convince me he expects the Packers to keep him and Davantae if they are paying him $30+ million. The guy is not an idiot. He doesn't need money but he certainly needs Adams if he wants to be successful here. Why not take the discount to keep Adams? It's actually the logical thing to do.