Packers Huddle

2022 1st
2022 2nd
2023 1st
Patrick Surtain II

Would you accept?

Local Denver reporters are saying that within the Bronco organization this is their likely offer and that they will outbid anyone else should Rodgers come available via trade.

I would take it yes. I would also request either Bridgewater or Lock (likely Lock) and I think Denver would oblige at that point.

Ghost_Lombardi wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 14:36

2022 1st
2022 2nd
2023 1st
Patrick Surtain II

Would you accept?

Local Denver reporters are saying that within the Bronco organization this is their likely offer and that they will outbid anyone else should Rodgers come available via trade.

If Rodgers was 100% a goner and this was unreconcilable, then yes I'd take it. Then we'd have a pretty bomb secondary and draft capital to either beef the team up or draft a QB is Love doesn't work out.

It might make me forget John Hadl

Damn right I'd take it. And I would give them Kevin King too if they want him.

Damn skippy I’d take it. I wouldn’t even demand Lock or Bridgewater in return. I’d wait for one to be waived once the deal was inked and then grab them at min cost. The draft and FA are pretty much over, either would jump at a chance for potential playing time on a contender.

I’d even entertain the King throw-in option. They could keep him as a Rodgers liaison for when Rodgers didn’t want to speak directly with any of his new teammates.

Yes, three 1s (counting Surtain as a 1st) and a 2nd would about do it for me.

I may try to offer up some players and squeeze a bit more out of them, but this is an acceptable baseline offer.

I would find a way to work juedy in there. Our wr room is empty in 22 at this point. Get another young guy cheap for a few years. Love can use the weapons. I like surtain but he hasnt played a snap. Juedy has

I wonder if Denver if would take King and MVS for Jeudy and Surtain plus the draft picks.

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 09:41

I wonder if Denver if would take King and MVS for Jeudy and Surtain plus the draft picks.

Doubt it. They’d be getting one year deals on King and MVS. I really think if we want Surtain you gotta give back Stokes which on itself is already a deal worth more than 2 firsts

lupedafiasco wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 10:14

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 09:41

I wonder if Denver if would take King and MVS for Jeudy and Surtain plus the draft picks.

Doubt it. They’d be getting one year deals on King and MVS. I really think if we want Surtain you gotta give back Stokes which on itself is already a deal worth more than 2 firsts

Depends how much they want Rodgers I guess.

Backthepack4ever wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 07:30

I would find a way to work juedy in there. Our wr room is empty in 22 at this point. Get another young guy cheap for a few years. Love can use the weapons. I like surtain but he hasnt played a snap. Juedy has

this would make a lot more sense for us then Surtain, and I doubt they would be interested in a switch with Stokes for Surtain and also give us Juedy and the 2 ones and a second, that would be tough to say no to, and no matter who our QB is ( Love or a vet) they would have another impact receiver to help them.

The Packers really need a slot CB and a 3rd outside CB as backup. They need 4, they have 2 if you don't count King.

TheSkeptic wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 11:45

The Packers really need a slot CB and a 3rd outside CB as backup. They need 4, they have 2 if you don't count King.

Love or any other QB needs receivers, no guarantee Adams stays if Rodgers leaves, and none of the rest are any better then a #3 receiver, Lafluers schemes are predicated on the QB getting the ball out quickly, how can he with long striders and slow to clear options like MVS, Brown, Lazard etc. players like Juedy and A Rodgers the slot guy we just drafted are a perfect fit for Lafluers offense.

we have two quality edge corners now with Stokes and Alex, and also King for this season, plus the other corner and safety we just picked as well.

go pak go wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 14:42

I would take it yes. I would also request either Bridgewater or Lock (likely Lock) and I think Denver would oblige at that point.

With Love on the team, I would take Bridgewater. He has shown more than once he can adapt to different offenses. Plus he is a known quantity at this point. Lock is still an unknown. And if Denver was so high on him, why would they have Bridgewater?

Raptorman wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 12:45

go pak go wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 14:42

I would take it yes. I would also request either Bridgewater or Lock (likely Lock) and I think Denver would oblige at that point.

With Love on the team, I would take Bridgewater. He has shown more than once he can adapt to different offenses. Plus he is a known quantity at this point. Lock is still an unknown. And if Denver was so high on him, they wouldn't have Bridgewater.

I agree with you. Andy Herman (which you probably don't follow since you are a Vikings fan) disagrees with you.

There are two frames of thought.

1. Bridgewater isn't a "threat" to Love and you won't have a QB controversy and would be a great backup.

2. Lock would have a more QB controversy but you also have 2 lottery tickets which gives you a better shot at striking. Also the Packers really liked him in the draft process in 2019.

Ultimately, Lock is cheaper than Bridgewater on the cap.

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 13:31

Raptorman wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 12:45

go pak go wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 14:42

I would take it yes. I would also request either Bridgewater or Lock (likely Lock) and I think Denver would oblige at that point.

With Love on the team, I would take Bridgewater. He has shown more than once he can adapt to different offenses. Plus he is a known quantity at this point. Lock is still an unknown. And if Denver was so high on him, they wouldn't have Bridgewater.

I agree with you. Andy Herman (which you probably don't follow since you are a Vikings fan) disagrees with you.

There are two frames of thought.

1. Bridgewater isn't a "threat" to Love and you won't have a QB controversy and would be a great backup.

2. Lock would have a more QB controversy but you also have 2 lottery tickets which gives you a better shot at striking. Also the Packers really liked him in the draft process in 2019.

Ultimately, Lock is cheaper than Bridgewater on the cap.

what about Bortles, I read he is the best fit concerning all the available vets?

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 13:31

Raptorman wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 12:45

go pak go wrote: ↑

07 May 2021 14:42

I would take it yes. I would also request either Bridgewater or Lock (likely Lock) and I think Denver would oblige at that point.

With Love on the team, I would take Bridgewater. He has shown more than once he can adapt to different offenses. Plus he is a known quantity at this point. Lock is still an unknown. And if Denver was so high on him, they wouldn't have Bridgewater.

I agree with you. Andy Herman (which you probably don't follow since you are a Vikings fan) disagrees with you.

There are two frames of thought.

1. Bridgewater isn't a "threat" to Love and you won't have a QB controversy and would be a great backup.

2. Lock would have a more QB controversy but you also have 2 lottery tickets which gives you a better shot at striking. Also the Packers really liked him in the draft process in 2019.

Ultimately, Lock is cheaper than Bridgewater on the cap.

Sure, take a 59% passer over the 68% passer. That 9% makes a huge difference down the stretch. Also, you woul have two, 2 year QBs with no veteran to help them out. I say go for it.

Yoop wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 13:45

go pak go wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 13:31

Raptorman wrote: ↑

08 May 2021 12:45

With Love on the team, I would take Bridgewater. He has shown more than once he can adapt to different offenses. Plus he is a known quantity at this point. Lock is still an unknown. And if Denver was so high on him, they wouldn't have Bridgewater.

I agree with you. Andy Herman (which you probably don't follow since you are a Vikings fan) disagrees with you.

There are two frames of thought.

1. Bridgewater isn't a "threat" to Love and you won't have a QB controversy and would be a great backup.

2. Lock would have a more QB controversy but you also have 2 lottery tickets which gives you a better shot at striking. Also the Packers really liked him in the draft process in 2019.

Ultimately, Lock is cheaper than Bridgewater on the cap.

what about Bortles, I read he is the best fit concerning all the available vets?

I believe he makes the most sense for the Packers. He will be a Million bucks. He is a vet as you said and has experience with Hackett and the Rams at the least. Plus he would likely accept the role of "mentor" over say a Lock.

It also sounds like the Packers are being linked to him right now.

I'd take that deal in a heartbeat.

I'd take it but if we could add in Jeudy (or actually Sutton) and Lock too then oh man.