Jump to content

mikemike778

Veteran Members
  • Content Count

    906
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

179 Veteran

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. To be fair most draft classes are pretty bad if you disregard the best player from the class and the third best.
  2. I call it a failed pick. You get 4 years of players on a rookie contract for your team so I grade a draft based on what it does for your team over 4 years. Regardless of whether they sign a second contract and for whom. Might be harsh but if a player does well elsewhere maybe you've not done a good job of matching player or player character to scheme or player A stud RB Starting Corner Useful RB2 That's what we got. Not bad. I would say C+
  3. There isn't a big enough sample sizes to do any real statistical samples. Not really talking about whether Rodgers is wasted, its more the should you pay hall of fame QBs seeing as Output claims that its better to let them walk and rely on rookie contracts. The facts are hall of fame QBs with more games and if you don't remove anyone, win more titles. If Brady is an outlier, can we say any QB that wins a super bowl in their rookie contract is an outlier. What percentage of QBs that start during their rookie contract win a super bowl ?
  4. Re Lewis and Jones - yes they were priority but we didn't have to sign them as we had other options and we couldn't afford them without paying by credit. If as expected Jones is essentially on a 2 year contract then we will be still paying him in 2023 after he has left. Same with Lewis and King and various others. Don't have any problems with that but nobody can say we haven't put everything into going for a title this year. We have and have made decisions we didn't need to do regarding sacrificing future years for this year. Re Rodgers ... we paid him a signing bonus to cover four
  5. Tom Brady and New England are outliers. But we are discussing whether hall of fame QBs are worth it. There aren't many hall of fame QBs so you can't disregard the most successful one and claim a hall of fame QB isn't important in winning titles. I'm not saying Rodgers 1 super bowl is bad. I am saying the teams with hall of fame QBs win the most game and they win titles. You can't just disregard Brady's especially given they are across two teams. Having a rookie contract QB is good but having a star QB is better regardless of what percentage of the cap you pay him.
  6. Why wouldn't you factor in New England ? Surely they are exhibit A in why QBs are so valuable.
  7. So basically the teams that have won had The greatest QB of all time (New England) Arguably the most talented QBs of all time (Packers) The player seen as the most likely to become THE superstar in the NFL (Kansas City) Future Hall of Fame QBs (New Orleans and Seattle) Can we knock this nonsense about you must penny pinch on QBs on the head. This pretty much proves that getting the superstar QB must the absolute priority if you want to win and you must do whatever you can and pay what it takes to get one. Going back to 2021, the last 4 teams had Rodgers
  8. It wasn't though. We didn't have to sign Aaron Jones and many thought we wouldn't but we did on a low cap hit for 21, medium cap hit in 22 and then dead money in 23. We definitely didn't need to sign Mercedes Lewis, we have three decent TEs plus Dafney but we did and its going to see dead money in the future. There has been a very clear decision this year to kick as much cap down the road to try and win this year. These decisions don't make sense if you aren't going all out this year - they will make our team worse in 2023. That's why I wouldn't even consider trading Rodg
  9. Same here. Just didn't make sense unless you had an incredible grade on him - basically you thought he was a top 5 player that had fallen to mid 20s and you thought you had an elite QB prospect.
  10. The point of having a QB on a rookie deal is supposed to be you have an advantage with cheap starter at QB. Kind of eliminates that if you are paying your previous QB 30m in dead cap hits. I'm fine with committing to Rodgers. I like watching a team that competes every year - we might not compete for a long time if Love doesn't hit. But if we commit to him then you scrap the Love project (or just accept he is just a backup) and draft a new QB in a few years.
  11. Until this year ? Its actually kind of ironic that its the first year that Packers really and truly have kicked huge amounts of cap into the future to try and win this year - and its this year Rodgers has gone into a sulk. If anything for Rodgers reputation, his best bet would be to play 21 and leave in 22 when we pay the bill. We should have a real chance this year but there's a good chance the team gets ripped up next year. Would look good on his resume if we won it in his last year and then the team dropped to 4-13 or something when he leaves (still seems strange 17 games).
  12. The problem with that (2) is that you only get four years of a cheap rookie contract. If you spend the first two sitting behind Rodgers and then trade Rodgers in the third year the dead money on Rodgers wipes out another year of the 'Rookie QB contract benefits' so you only get one year benefit of a cheap starting QB. If you want to go down the rookie contract route then your rookie needs to either start in year one or year two (with no dead money against the previous QB) at the latest.
  13. Maybe they did hear him out but his suggestions were rubbish. He wanted to play with Graham and we signed him - the guys he wanted to keep would have been the wrong decision. He might just not be very good at playing GM
  14. I'm just not buying this at all. Everything had the feel of getting the team back for one last shot at the championship. If this was going on behind the scenes then all the off-season activity wouldn't have transpired like that. Unless the front office was 100% blind sided by it all which seems unlikely. I put at close to zero percent chance that the likes of Mercedes and co would have been signed if the various parties thought there was any chance of Rodgers going. You don't sacrifice the future for one season if you have a raw QB that you are unlikely to win with. No sense at all.
  15. You need to bear in mind if Packers trade him they have to eat 37m of dead cap. Regardless of whether its this year or split up over two years, that is an extreme amount of cap hit to eat. We would probably be better off letting him retire and getting a chunk of that back than trading him for anything less than two 1sts. Given the cap situation, any players included would have to be early in a rookie contract. Our cap is a car crash and if we are eating 37m dead money then we can't afford to take on big contracts. Given what Stafford and players like Palmer received in compensatio
×
×
  • Create New...