The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
If we're to believe some around here, Rodgers behavior is due in large part to the Packers not building a strong enough roster around him to be successful. In response, Rodgers refuses to budge on his contract thus hamstringing the organization in any attempt to improve the roster.
I think I'm onboard for it. I'm coming to terms that Davante is a goner.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 07:33Q: if trading for Julio means we get one year of Julio and Davante together, but that Devante walks after 2021, is that a deal you do?
Can’t guarantee Davante stays anyway. But financially that might force it.
When Aaron retires, we’ll have cap room to extend both.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 07:33Q: if trading for Julio means we get one year of Julio and Davante together, but that Devante walks after 2021, is that a deal you do?
Can’t guarantee Davante stays anyway. But financially that might force it.
Yeah I just think 2022 will be without Rodgers and Adams which will allow the Packers to "get by". Preston, Davante and Aaron not being on the roster will get the Packers close to being under the 2022 cap. Unfortunately more moves will need to be made though because we will need to sign quite a bit of players just to have 53 bodies.paco wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 07:36The price of a COVID year and going "all in". We have no choice but to do this, just to field a team this year. 22 is going to be a hell of a year. I expect it not to be a very good looking one.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 07:28Feels like the sort of loophole that gets closed in the next round of negotiation. It’s DEFINITELY a bad practice. Not one you want to get into if you can avoid it.
The thing I loved about TT’s play it safe strategy even when it was frustrating for me or even when he was overdoing it, I knew we were always among the league’s lowest in dead money, which meant our cap could be used for our CURRENT team.
Gutey is dipping hard into dead money strategies. As a constant “the sky is not falling because the TV money is coming” proponent, even I’m starting to get a little geeked out about what we’re going to have to do to get through 22 and into the bigger TV money years
And I agree 100% with everything you just said. I hate this and I'm betting they do too. Will be good to get back to normal in a few years.
I think, based on information we didn't have (pre-COVID) and information we already have now (new media deals) it's prudent in the interim term to balance the transition period. Some teams are stupid... we know that, but I doubt the Packers will make this any kind of usual practice going forward.
No I think it came down to the Packers knowing full well the window they created and they are doing everything they can do lengthen that window.NCF wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 08:21I think, based on information we didn't have (pre-COVID) and information we already have now (new media deals) it's prudent in the interim term to balance the transition period. Some teams are stupid... we know that, but I doubt the Packers will make this any kind of usual practice going forward.
The hard part there is just knowing exactly how deep to go. You can middle-ground it. Questions of like, do we let Z walk or give him a big extension? Do we extend an MVS or Lazard on mid-level starter money or go young and cheap at the position? Do we give Tonyan a big deal after this year to make him part of the core going forward or let him walk and stick with Deguara and draft picks as the core? Limitless questions like this about which players become your key pieces to hold into the next window/run, and which need to go to clear space.
I think this is the biggest question.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 08:39
I am interested in how all of that will shake out; but at the same time, I feel like I'm getting ahead of myself in even thinking about it. It matters entirely whether we use Rodgers in 2021 to finish out "a window" and then move on. If we move on from Rodgers before that and make 2021 the year to sort of clean up some extensions we need and start a fresh window moving into 2022 and onward? Or whether we actually wind up with a contract that keeps Rodgers in house for 3 years and try to muddle through the 2021-2022 cap without letting that window shut for another year or two after. There are too many possibilities for the decisions and questions I mention in the first paragraph to be made, but it WILL be interesting watching them navigate that.
Honestly, that's the thing. I think Rodgers genuinely wants the team to prove it's willing to ruin itself on behalf of extending his window with them. I think he WANTS to see Saints-style offseasons of kicking the can down the road and squeezing what needs to be squeezed. He wants to leave the team in a state that has an uncertain path future. Because IF the team does ANY planning for life without him, he interprets it as a seizure of control from him to the team over the course of his career. He's proven that. He has said, outwardly, objectively, openly, that he feels the selection of Love took away from him his control over his career-ending timeline with the team. It's the control over team personnel decisions and the process of exerting that control that upsets him. He is, as many/most successful people are, a bit of a control freak. But to the extreme that any planning for life without him feels like an insult, it makes keeping him AND planning for life without him imenently more difficult.Yoop wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 09:27If Rodgers wants guarantee's and increased contract money for the rest of this contract, it would be impossible to retain all players whos contracts will be up in the next 2 years, and when he does leave after 2023 we'll still be in cap hell and would take years to recover, it could work if he just wants the years guaranteed with no increase of money, I think we'll know more after the manditory workouts June 8.
he said it because it's true, the drafting of his replacement (Love) a year after giving him a 4 years extension obviously gives the impression that the FO had no intention of allowing him to finish his contract here, and in all likelyhood he would be traded to the highest bidder even if he was still the best option at QB, and sense he was given the contract, and then Guty took Love he has very little faith in the words this FO uses to console him, after all he has no guarantee's, sure he and his agent where stupid to agree to a contract like that, but then maybe they thought at the time they wouldn't need it, then Guty passes on every receiver prior and post the Love pick, really sending the message who's in charge, naturally a player that has been so involved with the success of this team would get upset, you though don't seem to think he has a beef, I do, in fact if I was in his shoes I might do exactly as he is, time for some accountability from this FO.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 09:35Because IF the team does ANY planning for life without him, he interprets it as a seizure of control from him to the team over the course of his career. He's proven that. He has said, outwardly, objectively, openly, that he feels the selection of Love took away from him his control over his career-ending timeline with the team.
The Packers are likely going to be pretty bad very soon anyways. It's just will that bad come in 2021, 2022 or 2023.
If Love is better than average and the Packers have 3 more 1st round picks, then that "Pretty Bad" may never come. Good drafting, good coaching, and cap room to sign some decent FA's can quickly solve those issues.go pak go wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:26The Packers are likely going to be pretty bad very soon anyways. It's just will that bad come in 2021, 2022 or 2023.
Like you said, if Rodgers doesn't play this year, the really bad could happen in 2021 and leak into the future (like there is a chance it could get really, really messy if Love is really bad and players don't want to play here). On the other hand, if Rodgers does play in 2021 - 2023, the really, really bad is likely going to be in 2023. And it will probably be really, really, really bad assuming the Packers try everything in their power to keep as much of the 2022 roster together as possible kicking even more cap hit down the road.
Yeah I agree. I think Love being better than average is a higher risk if put into the starting role in 2021. But I do think there is a decent chance that the Packers could have a good life post Rodgers if the transition occurs in the offseason of 2022.Acrobat wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:28If Love is better than average and the Packers have 3 more 1st round picks, then that "Pretty Bad" may never come. Good drafting, good coaching, and cap room to sign some decent FA's can quickly solve those issues.go pak go wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:26The Packers are likely going to be pretty bad very soon anyways. It's just will that bad come in 2021, 2022 or 2023.
Like you said, if Rodgers doesn't play this year, the really bad could happen in 2021 and leak into the future (like there is a chance it could get really, really messy if Love is really bad and players don't want to play here). On the other hand, if Rodgers does play in 2021 - 2023, the really, really bad is likely going to be in 2023. And it will probably be really, really, really bad assuming the Packers try everything in their power to keep as much of the 2022 roster together as possible kicking even more cap hit down the road.
Yeah, my thoughts too. I do think he's going to be good. I more worry about him being thrown in too fast, losing his confidence and then fizzling out. Maybe that's why we brought Bortles in too.go pak go wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:35Yeah I agree. I think Love being better than average is a higher risk if put into the starting role in 2021. But I do think there is a decent chance that the Packers could have a good life post Rodgers if the transition occurs in the offseason of 2022.Acrobat wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:28If Love is better than average and the Packers have 3 more 1st round picks, then that "Pretty Bad" may never come. Good drafting, good coaching, and cap room to sign some decent FA's can quickly solve those issues.go pak go wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:26
The Packers are likely going to be pretty bad very soon anyways. It's just will that bad come in 2021, 2022 or 2023.
Like you said, if Rodgers doesn't play this year, the really bad could happen in 2021 and leak into the future (like there is a chance it could get really, really messy if Love is really bad and players don't want to play here). On the other hand, if Rodgers does play in 2021 - 2023, the really, really bad is likely going to be in 2023. And it will probably be really, really, really bad assuming the Packers try everything in their power to keep as much of the 2022 roster together as possible kicking even more cap hit down the road.
I really do.
What ultimately frustrates me the most if Rodgers doesn't play this year is our roster is honestly going to be "wasted". Like I would understand why we would play Blake Bortles over Love, but at the same point it would be incredibly frustrating knowing we have this roster that is ready to do things but have a glaring weakness at the QB spot only to know we will have to or likely not have the choice of retaining many of our top players next year (like Smith, Rodgers Adams, etc.)Acrobat wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:38Yeah, my thoughts too. I do think he's going to be good. I more worry about him being thrown in too fast, losing his confidence and then fizzling out. Maybe that's why we brought Bortles in too.go pak go wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:35Yeah I agree. I think Love being better than average is a higher risk if put into the starting role in 2021. But I do think there is a decent chance that the Packers could have a good life post Rodgers if the transition occurs in the offseason of 2022.
I really do.
Agreed 100%. I actually think the Packers had this planned out right with moving on from Rodgers after this coming season and Rodgers is just trying to blow a big hole in it.go pak go wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:41What ultimately frustrates me the most if Rodgers doesn't play this year is our roster is honestly going to be "wasted". Like I would understand why we would play Blake Bortles over Love, but at the same point it would be incredibly frustrating knowing we have this roster that is ready to do things but have a glaring weakness at the QB spot only to know we will have to or likely not have the choice of retaining many of our top players next year (like Smith, Rodgers Adams, etc.)Acrobat wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:38Yeah, my thoughts too. I do think he's going to be good. I more worry about him being thrown in too fast, losing his confidence and then fizzling out. Maybe that's why we brought Bortles in too.go pak go wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:35
Yeah I agree. I think Love being better than average is a higher risk if put into the starting role in 2021. But I do think there is a decent chance that the Packers could have a good life post Rodgers if the transition occurs in the offseason of 2022.
I really do.
And what really sucks is if the Packers came off a SB winning season, I think the Packers would have a higher ability to say "okay. we got our ring" and it would be easier to move on.Acrobat wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:44Agreed 100%. I actually think the Packers had this planned out right with moving on from Rodgers after this coming season and Rodgers is just trying to blow a big hole in it.go pak go wrote: ↑02 Jun 2021 10:41What ultimately frustrates me the most if Rodgers doesn't play this year is our roster is honestly going to be "wasted". Like I would understand why we would play Blake Bortles over Love, but at the same point it would be incredibly frustrating knowing we have this roster that is ready to do things but have a glaring weakness at the QB spot only to know we will have to or likely not have the choice of retaining many of our top players next year (like Smith, Rodgers Adams, etc.)
Winning the Super Bowl last year would have eliminated all of this. Rodgers wouldn't be acting this way, but if he were we could move on. But it just erases the whole narrative that "planning ahead cost us in the short term." The fan base is both spoiled by success, but also gut-wrenchingly wounded by the near-misses and "just a couple plays" that allows anyone to take a single change, a single swapped draft pick, a single player decision, a single pass, a single blown coverage, a single play call, a single FG decision.... and say "this is why we don't have a ring."