Broncofan Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 (edited) 1 minute ago, CWood21 said: Rodgers has also been healthier and notably better. And Bridgewater has no value. His value is as a throw-in so the Packers don't have to start Love if they don't want to. Bridge has little to no value on his own but he’d almost certainly be included to give GB the one-year caddie. It’s not going to be deal breaker nor a major shift in value. Edited May 5, 2021 by Broncofan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 1 minute ago, Broncofan said: Right - but if he’s just relaying what he’s bring told then the 5 percent line is pretty eye-opening. Depends on who his source is. It's pretty likely coming from someone on Aaron's side IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 1 minute ago, Broncofan said: Bridge has little to no value but he’d almost certainly be included. It’s not going to be deal breaker nor a major shift in value. Agreed. Not sure that the Packers want/need Chubb. Still think Jeudy would appeal to them more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 3 minutes ago, Broncofan said: The most cited framework yesterday around a Surtain / Stokes swap, Bridgewater and 2022/23 firsts. That would put the pick swap at about 25 value. Seems about right for the 3-1sts pick range being floated. Also less than the 3-pick (including 1.9 by itself) plus young starter price floated for Wilson / Watson (whose youth raises the tag). If Denver is willing to do that swap above I’d suspect a deal goes down post-June 1. The ability to include a premium position player can’t be matched by other teams - let alone the issue of A-ARod leveraging his preference for only certain teams. That seems very reasonable from the Denver side. I suspect GB would be more willing to do a King/Surtain swap than a Stokes/Surtain swap, however as they hold the leverage currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 17 minutes ago, incognito_man said: Would be great to get Surtain from Denver as part of the deal. Then Love can have a defense with a secondary consisting of: Jaire Alexander, Patrick Surtain, Eric Stokes, Darnell Savage and Adrian Amos to rely upon. I LOVE the idea of building up a bad-butt defense, and OL (#1 in league last year and have added SIX draft picks to it over the last 2 drafts), and running game (re-signed Aaron Jones and drafted AJ Dillon last year and Kylin Hill this year) to support Love's early starting years. OL and running game look in place, but need to add some blue-chip pieces to defense from assets acquired from Rodgers trade to make this happen. Gee. That almost sounds optimistic. (Having keyboard issues so i have to type words that will spellcheck to the correct word - or select different wording. Repairs will be forthcoming.......) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 Just now, CWood21 said: Agreed. Not sure that the Packers want/need Chubb. Still think Jeudy would appeal to them more. Don’t see that on Denver’s side. They would consider Surtain / Stokes or Sutton. Simply because they can replace those skill sets. Cant replace Jeudy’s role. Denver would probably include a 3rd 1st before Jeudy (I know it’s less value but just saying). Knowing their window is short - Paton would deal assets he can replace. Jeudy is the one piece they can’t. A 3rd pick is almost certainly to go before that. Or a Surtain / Stokes swap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutler06 Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 6 minutes ago, CWood21 said: Rodgers has also been healthier and notably better. And Bridgewater has no value. His value is as a throw-in so the Packers don't have to start Love if they don't want to. Rodgers has also NOT played for a pathetic Lions ballclub, it'll be interesting to see his production as a Ram. And unless the Pack has a veteran QB, I'd disagree Teddy has no value. If Love falls flat, teams would usually appreciate even a stop-gap veteran (and he's cheap) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 3 minutes ago, Broncofan said: Don’t see that on Denver’s side. They would consider Surtain / Stokes or Sutton. Simply because they can replace those skill sets. Cant replace Jeudy’s role. Denver would probably include a 3rd 1st before Jeudy (I know it’s less value but just saying). Knowing their window is short - Paton would deal assets he can replace. Jeudy is the one piece they can’t. A 3rd pick is almost certainly to go before that. Or a Surtain / Stokes swap. Don't think Denver took Surtain with the intention of trading him. Sounds like a good conspiracy theory. As I mentioned, the Packers probably don't have a ton of interest in Sutton given he's coming off injury and he's due a new contract. The Packers want draft pick(s) and young players on cheap deals. That isn't Sutton or Chubb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 Just now, Cutler06 said: Rodgers has also NOT played for a pathetic Lions ballclub, it'll be interesting to see his production as a Ram. And unless the Pack has a veteran QB, I'd disagree Teddy has no value. If Love falls flat, teams would usually appreciate even a stop-gap veteran (and he's cheap) I'd sooner sign Fitzmagic as my stopgap QB then give up anything for Bridgewater. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 2 minutes ago, incognito_man said: That seems very reasonable from the Denver side. I suspect GB would be more willing to do a King/Surtain swap than a Stokes/Surtain swap, however as they hold the leverage currently. I think the take on who holds the leverage is highly debatable. Given A-Rod’s age and income options bring different than most guys. I also don’t think it means GB has to take the best deal even if it’s way below market - but it doesn’t translate to other situations (like Russell Wilson) where the team has to get a no-brainer yes offer. To wit - I suspect Denver would decline on King and hold at Surtain/Stokes. Same on Jeudy. Paton has year 1 job security so he doesn’t have to go HAM on this like Pace & Chicago did. If he’s going to deal for A-Rod outside of a Surtain / Stokes swap it’s all assets he can replace - such as picks. Since the window is so finite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutler06 Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 Just now, CWood21 said: I'd sooner sign Fitzmagic as my stopgap QB then give up anything for Bridgewater. You think Fitzpatrick is gonna sign for less than $3MM ??? OK Bridgewater would be in play for the offer, can't see him not. If you have enough confidence in Love, then I'd think a cheaper backup would be more desirable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 Just now, Cutler06 said: You think Fitzpatrick is gonna sign for less than $3MM ??? OK Bridgewater would be in play for the offer, can't see him not. If you have enough confidence in Love, then I'd think a cheaper backup would be more desirable. I couldn't care less about how much they're paying a backup QB. They're paying him to be a veteran mentor to Rodgers. It doesn't change the dynamic of the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 5 minutes ago, Broncofan said: I think the take on who holds the leverage is highly debatable It's not. GB holds Rodgers' rights for the next 3 years. They have ALLLLLL the leverage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, CWood21 said: I couldn't care less about how much they're paying a backup QB. They're paying him to be a veteran mentor to Rodgers. It doesn't change the dynamic of the deal. It’s kind of a moot point though since Fitz is signed in WFT. I don’t think Bridge would carry much value but a Denver trade is almost certainly including him. No FA left to be the vet caddie. Edited May 5, 2021 by Broncofan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted May 5, 2021 Share Posted May 5, 2021 1 minute ago, Broncofan said: It’s kind of a moot point though since Fitz is signed in WFT. [insert any veteran QB] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts