Jump to content

OneTwoSixFive

Members
  • Content Count

    1,708
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

649 Pro Bowl

3 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

1,023 profile views
  1. People differ and it isn't really controversial to say that some deal with adversity better than others.. If I were to chart my own mental strength it wouldn't be a constant. Key events can increase anxiety and depression, but behind that there is what I would call an inner core, which varies between individuals.
  2. Dak's brother took his own life and Dak himself has talked about anxiety and depression he has had. While not necessarily abnormal, it would seem he is at the wrong end of the 'mental strength' curve, intensified by him working in a notoriously high-pressure, low-tolerance job, and at it's most demanding position. Also, unfair as it may seem, when it comes to talking millions of dollars, people tend to play hardball. Sure he can walk away from the Cowboys, but that has its own cost. He has made much of his resume behind a very good o line, good receivers and a top running back. How would he fare with a much worse team, which is the kind of team most likely able pay him the big bucks.
  3. Dak Prescott's refusal to sign a long-term deal may have just come back to bite him. He tore up his ankle by running (and not sliding) on Sunday, and will be out for a while (at least this season). He turned down a reported 5yr $175m deal, an average of $35m per year (I believe he wanted a four year deal) and as a consequence has doubly lost. There is no big chunk of guaranteed money in his bank (from a long-term deal). Also, the Cowboys might reference this injury as part of the negotiations when sorting out a multi-year deal after this, his franchise-tagged year. He might even have a triple loss as he has had documented mental problems in the past and being out for a long period of time from a gruesome injury will be very mentally testing.
  4. Just had my first stab at Thedraftnetwork site for a 3 round mock. I don't know much about the players apart from what was said on TDN, but went with what I thought was decent value (at least on their board) and positions of most need, imo. 29 DL Jaylen Twyman Pittsburgh 6'2", 290 Good vision, great strength and excellent quickness off the snap 61 OT Jalen Mayfield Michigan 6'5", 319 Great size, superior athleticism and a good run blocker too - need some technique work. 92 CB Marco Wilson Florida 6'0", 190 Fast thinker who plays outside and in. Good closing speed as a blitzer and cover guy. Should only get better. Inconsistent jamming at the LOS.
  5. That's pretty much my thinking as well. The Packers saw enough in Love to spend a first rounder on him and there needs to be a successor to AR, be it Jordan Love that we already have, or someone else taken in the next few years. I'm not sure there is anyone upcoming that is both a viable target (ie within the Packers reach) and with better potential than Love, though I admit I know nothing about 3rd/4th/5th best college QBs for the next several years. Maybe a Trey Lance type (N.Dakota St.) falls to them, who knows ? Not recommending Lance himself, as he would be a 2021 target which imo is too early to give up on Love. I know @Outpost31 likes to post 'out there' opinions (and I enjoy reading his takes BECAUSE he is an original thinker), especially if he thinks he is the only one pushing that opinion...................................... but it wasn't many months back he was on the trade Rodgers bandwagon. I'm sticking with the hope that we get 'good Rodgers' for all of 2020 and 2021, by which time Love should be ready for prime time if he is good enough to be the future. My 'if-it-goes-wrong scenario, is one where the Packers go QB again, maybe in the 2023 draft after Love has failed in the spotlight during the 2022 season. That scenario could mean Rodgers (assuming he stayed with the team) is with the Packers until either the end of 2023, or even 2024, when he will be 39/40 or 40/41 (his birthday is 2 Dec).
  6. This began (for me) as a rebuttal of the post by @pacman5252 where he suggested the Packers tag and trade Bakhtiari to free up money. In his response to my suggestion that we SHOULD re-sign him (to a 3yr deal) he thought that Bakh wouldn't settle for a 3 year deal (which might be the case), so I replied I'd be okay with a 4 year one as a compromise. The questions I have about longer (5-6yr deals) is whether Bakh would still be deserving of an elite money deal in the last two years of that deal (when he would be 34 and 35). Bakh might still be very good, but equally the Packers might wish they had negotiated a shorter deal because his play has slipped, giving them a chance of offering a cheaper deal or of moving on with no dead cap money. I can see Beast's point about a longer deal (assuming the cap keeps rising, which isn't certain now), but longer deals with older players can fail. To @vegas492 I'd say it is a combination of the future being an unknown and the advancing age increasing the risk, and that applies to everyone, not just DB, though different positions have different age-to-risk levels (QBs and kickers can go on longer than most).
  7. A four year deal, while not oiptimum, is a decent compromise. A five year deal (at premium tackle money) is starting to move further into the territory of risk than I would be comfortable with.
  8. What is your succession plan after Rodgers then, given that the Packers virtually never get to draft high ? Any QB taken in the draft has a less than 50/50 chance of succeeding (and that is in round one, the odds drop sharply after that). An ostrich-style planning for the future is unlikely to end well. Look at the Bears endless search for a long-term QB. Bears: Harbaugh, Walsh, Kramer, Krieg, Matthews, McNown, Miller, Stewart, Krenzel, Orton, Grossman, Cutler, Barkley, Trubisky (plus many other recognisable names backing up). Packers: Favre, Rodgers (plus mostly unknown backups, barring current Eagles head coach, Pederson). I understand not knowing if Love will turn out well, the odds of drafting a success there tell you that is rational. But, if Love works out as a long term starter, the cost of late 1st and 4th round picks is trivial.
  9. You don't need to project Bakhtiari being a top LT with the Packers until he is 36, nor should you assume the Packers are automatically better off by taking a cheaper LT. If Bakhtiari (29 on the 30 Sept) is given a new contract, why not a three year extension ? That means he will turn 32 a couple of games into 2023, the last year of his extension. That doesn't seem to be a great risk for a guy who has generally been pretty healthy through his career, who is in the key position of protecting the blindside of an elite, but aging, QB.
  10. Caption. They replaced me with a zombie...................nobody noticed. or To the new entrance guard at Gillette stadium "Let me in, I'm the head coach". "Yes, really". "Stop laughing". "No I don't want a handout, I earn $12m a year". "Why are you grabbing me by the shirt and trousers". Wheee, splot.
  11. The Packers CAN sign King, Linsley, Bakhtiari and Jones, all of them. It doesn't mean they should, because the 2021 cap is going to make things really tough. It can either be very tough in later years, or very tough in 2021, and Gutekunst is the custodian of future years just as he is one, in the now. I remember, many, many times in years gone by that posters wanted the Packers to go all-in on that particular year (whichever that year was) and to hell with the future. The Packers have always been very mindful of the more distant future and it has served them well over the years. Bakhtiari is absolutely right that there are ways to push a cap debt into future years, but like a credit card the bill always comes due. The more you push into the future, the less money you have to pay Elgton Jenkins and Jaire Alexander and Rashan Gary, maybe Dillon and Deguara and Davante Adams. Keep guys now, lose more later. Choosing who gets another contract is going to be painful, now or later. Not everyone will be re-signed. I wanted Bulaga signed this season and he wasn't............and I understand why. The cap was also why Martinez is no longer on the team. Best case scenario (for the shorter term) imo, is that the Packers sign three of Bakhtiari/King/Linsley/Jones, it may well be they only keep two. The cap can be hell for fans as some of the most beloved players on a team are jettisoned for cap reasons. But longer term, would the Packers have been a better team for keeping Lang, Sitton, J.Nelson ? I'm aware that these were older players and of the four players I mentioned in paragraph one, only Linsley will be 30 before the start of the 2021 season, but they were favourites, as better players tend to be. Sometimes the best contracts are the ones you don't sign.
  12. Detroit now looks a bit like the Packers from a little while back. A fast start when it's scripted plays............then it falls apart
  13. PFF scores are less meaningful than they might be, because of the sample size (and maybe partly influenced by the gameplan last week as well). After the first three weeks, an average grade might be much more revealing. Beyond that, the more weeks players are graded, the better the info.
  14. This question says more about the individual poster than it does about the team being better than last year. With less information available than in any normal year, optimists will be positive and pessimists will be negative. As always time will tell, but if nothing else it will be a fascinating and unique year.
×
×
  • Create New...