Packers Huddle

i dont think of him as a good TE.

But he had a better market than Tonyan.

What should that tell us about little bobby?

So Dalton Schultz survived the first wave, any takers?

Guess I was expecting him to be more coveted. I’d prefer him to Tonyan.

I think a 2 year contract would be perfect. Awesome TE draft, but rookies always suck. Still draft one high, maybe even two regardless.

Give someone decent for Jordan, if he had like a Jared Cook impact, then keep him around. Regardless if our, hopeful, TE draft picks this year pan out. I love a good 2 TE set.


Need A starter safety FA and a TE FA. Don’t want to do much this offseason. But also don’t want to completely punt on the year and just toss out some randos. Don’t want to miss the playoffs cause we are playing Tariq Carpenter at safety or someone as bad as we think he is, but is still better but shouldn’t be playing in meaningful games.

Haven’t seen this verified, but heard the packers have spent the least amount in the week.

Nixon, long snapper and Tyler Davis.

Guess I’d believe it.

And frankly happy with that.

First time in a while, rank the roster gunna be really interesting.

Gary, Jaire, Kenny??

Bak, Jenkins, Jones.

I’d say confidently our top 6, 3 on O and 3 on D.


Where on earth you rank Jordan in this mix?

Bobby to da Bears..

Hopefully we use something else than a 3rd rounder on a TE...

Tonyan served a purpose in Green Bay. He has amazing hands too. But I think we are better served with a more powerful TE in our scheme.

THanks for the great plays Bob! You will be missed. I hope you find green pastures in Chicago, except when you play us.
:-)

Doubt this comment deserves its own thread…but just something I thought about…so Getsy was QB coach for two years with Love. Love was believed to suck so bad that he couldn’t even wear a uniform in year one on game day, and was bad enough after year two that the packers bent over and begged Rodgers to come back…

Then Getsy leaves and Clements comes in and all of a sudden Love takes leaps and bounds and is amazing.

Also Fields becomes a running back and shows little development as a passer at QB.

So like…did Getsy suck??? Does Getsy suck???

Drj820 wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2023 18:54

Doubt this comment deserves its own thread…but just something I thought about…so Getsy was QB coach for two years with Love. Love was believed to suck so bad that he couldn’t even wear a uniform in year one on game day, and was bad enough after year two that the packers bent over and begged Rodgers to come back…

Then Getsy leaves and Clements comes in and all of a sudden Love takes leaps and bounds and is amazing.

Also Fields becomes a running back and shows little development as a passer at QB.

So like…did Getsy suck??? Does Getsy suck???

Maybe. But turning Fields into a good passer would be a tough task for any coach, I think.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2023 18:54

Doubt this comment deserves its own thread…but just something I thought about…so Getsy was QB coach for two years with Love. Love was believed to suck so bad that he couldn’t even wear a uniform in year one on game day, and was bad enough after year two that the packers bent over and begged Rodgers to come back…

Then Getsy leaves and Clements comes in and all of a sudden Love takes leaps and bounds and is amazing.

Also Fields becomes a running back and shows little development as a passer at QB.

So like…did Getsy suck??? Does Getsy suck???

and it took Rodgers GM manship to bring Clements back

Yoop wrote: ↑

17 Mar 2023 06:15

Drj820 wrote: ↑

16 Mar 2023 18:54

Doubt this comment deserves its own thread…but just something I thought about…so Getsy was QB coach for two years with Love. Love was believed to suck so bad that he couldn’t even wear a uniform in year one on game day, and was bad enough after year two that the packers bent over and begged Rodgers to come back…

Then Getsy leaves and Clements comes in and all of a sudden Love takes leaps and bounds and is amazing.

Also Fields becomes a running back and shows little development as a passer at QB.

So like…did Getsy suck??? Does Getsy suck???

and it took Rodgers GM manship to bring Clements back

Rodgers is also the one who wanted Getsy back the first time too. Rodgers LOVES Getsy.

Packers weren’t going to pay that bonus due tomorrow.

Either would have been cut, trade, or restructure. But he’s coming back!

Be excited to see him at safety this year.

BF004 wrote: ↑

17 Mar 2023 09:42

Packers weren’t going to pay that bonus due tomorrow.

Either would have been cut, trade, or restructure. But he’s coming back!

Be excited to see him at safety this year.

We are in the cap creating business this year.

BF004 wrote: ↑

17 Mar 2023 09:42

Packers weren’t going to pay that bonus due tomorrow.

Either would have been cut, trade, or restructure. But he’s coming back!

Be excited to see him at safety this year.

This is another I don't understand. It's $2 million. We could have just paid it. Why restructure everything into basically amortizing the cost into the future--often past the point at which the contract ends. I want future savings more than I want to save $2 million this year. I know we're gonna be tight this year, but so be it. Be tight. All dead money is bad dead money. I will die on this hill.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

17 Mar 2023 09:51

BF004 wrote: ↑

17 Mar 2023 09:42

Packers weren’t going to pay that bonus due tomorrow.

Either would have been cut, trade, or restructure. But he’s coming back!

Be excited to see him at safety this year.

This is another I don't understand. It's $2 million. We could have just paid it. Why restructure everything into basically amortizing the cost into the future--often past the point at which the contract ends. I want future savings more than I want to save $2 million this year. I know we're gonna be tight this year, but so be it. Be tight. All dead money is bad dead money. I will die on this hill.

I am holding out hope we are trading for a Jets player.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

17 Mar 2023 09:51

BF004 wrote: ↑

17 Mar 2023 09:42

Packers weren’t going to pay that bonus due tomorrow.

Either would have been cut, trade, or restructure. But he’s coming back!

Be excited to see him at safety this year.

This is another I don't understand. It's $2 million. We could have just paid it. Why restructure everything into basically amortizing the cost into the future--often past the point at which the contract ends. I want future savings more than I want to save $2 million this year. I know we're gonna be tight this year, but so be it. Be tight. All dead money is bad dead money. I will die on this hill.

I think its better to create the flexibility and if is the case, just bring the additional cap carryover, basically a neutral move in total but gives you more flexibility and overall takes a lower % of the cap overall a span of years.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

17 Mar 2023 10:03

I am holding out hope we are trading for a Jets player.

I’m not sure I like the possible options that cost money. We should want cheap players in return. I would love a safety, but the Jets need safety, too. I could do with a TE I guess?

I dunno. I’d just prefer to go the bargain, tight cap, young player, draft picks route this year to set the roster up with youth and potential AND some future wiggle room to maybe add more seasoned/proven players later.

YoHoChecko wrote: ↑

17 Mar 2023 10:20

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

17 Mar 2023 10:03

I am holding out hope we are trading for a Jets player.

I’m not sure I like the possible options that cost money. We should want cheap players in return. I would love a safety, but the Jets need safety, too. I could do with a TE I guess?

I dunno. I’d just prefer to go the bargain, tight cap, young player, draft picks route this year to set the roster up with youth and potential AND some future wiggle room to maybe add more seasoned/proven players later.

I'm with you. I haven't seen details of these restructures, maybe they do not include void years?? If they don't, I'm ok with it. If they do, no like.

BF004 wrote: ↑

17 Mar 2023 10:20

I think its better to create the flexibility and if is the case, just bring the additional cap carryover, basically a neutral move in total but gives you more flexibility and overall takes a lower % of the cap overall a span of years.

It’s only neutral if we don’t use the space. If we use it, we’re borrowing against our future. Not all cleared space will be rolled over. A lot will be spent.

There is absolutely no difference between our current approach to cap space and the saints approach.

2 teams who aren’t winning a Super Bowl, mortgaging the future to stay average to sell some hope so they can keep butts in the seats

Except we will be $10 million under the 2024 cap when Rodgers is dealt and the Saints are $116 million over the 2024 cap right now. Tough to honestly say that their approaches are the same.