What’s the best package we could get for Rodgers?

[pgwingman]

38 minutes ago, HeresAGuy said:

For the next part of the deal, use that Devante Adams/MVS ultimatum that he gave to your advantage, and swing a deal for the WRs.  Send Devante Adams and MVS on over in return for Jeury and Tim Patrick (thinking Courtland Sutton but that might be a bridge too far). 

How would this work? I think you could tag Adams, but you can only tag one player a year. MVS is either walking free or being resigned here.

[HeresAGuy]

9 minutes ago, pgwingman said:

How would this work? I think you could tag Adams, but you can only tag one player a year. MVS is either walking free or being resigned here.

Oh......I thought he had another year?  Thats my bad didnt take that into account

[Gopackgonerd]

If only Surtain was a stud DL instead, then we could just keep Douglas

[MacReady]

33 minutes ago, Gopackgonerd said:

If only Surtain was a stud DL instead, then we could just keep Douglas

I’ll be sad when the Packers inevitably decide to move on from Rasul. Dude embodies what you want on your roster, but we’re going to try to go younger and get ourselves a Packer Person.

[CWood21]

7 hours ago, squire12 said:

Can you lay this out in actual numbers?  Would like to see how you are doing the contracts on players with the extensions and re-signing of Adams to make it all work.  

Saying it is 1 thing, showing it is another.

I mean, in theory it could be done, but it makes those deals particularly painful a year or two down the road.

[mikemike778]

14 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

There is no guarantee attached to draft picks, true. But equally there is no guarantee of Superbowls in the next two or three years. It is unlikely even with Rodgers at the helm, due to Superbowls being very hard to achieve, also due to Rodgers failure at a crucial time and partly due to the losses this year heavily impacting the overall quality of the team (especially if both Rodgers and Adams are retained).

It seems like you are fearful of change @Sandy but it is coming, either next year or a couple of years down the road. I still believe a trade is the best result for the longer-term future of the team. So, two opposing points of view, both are speculation, so which is the prudent course ?  I guess we will all have to wait and see what happens............. and beyond that, the consequences of whichever decision the Packers make.

Personally.

I'm not afraid of change and a rebuild could be good fun during the draft.  The point of football though as a fan is watching the games. Not watching the draft. 

There's no guarantees either way but if we move on then there is a good chance that come December, the season is essentially dead and we are probably hoping we lose to get a good draft pick. It sucks losing big playoffs games but its (for me) 10 times better than having the season pretty much over in December.

If we don't get lucky with hitting on a QB, it could be 10 years before we are a legit team. There's people reading this who will probably not be around in 10 years (I'm in my 40s but there's no guarantees). 

It is what it is and like I said, would make draft season much more interesting, its by no means a disaster if we don't have meaningful football to watch next year.  But if we can return Rodgers and a strong enough team to have us all wearing our lucky pants next Jan anticipating a big playoff game then I'm 100% for that. 

[Cpdaly23]

30 minutes ago, mikemike778 said:

Personally.

I'm not afraid of change and a rebuild could be good fun during the draft.  The point of football though as a fan is watching the games. Not watching the draft. 

There's no guarantees either way but if we move on then there is a good chance that come December, the season is essentially dead and we are probably hoping we lose to get a good draft pick. It sucks losing big playoffs games but its (for me) 10 times better than having the season pretty much over in December.

If we don't get lucky with hitting on a QB, it could be 10 years before we are a legit team. There's people reading this who will probably not be around in 10 years (I'm in my 40s but there's no guarantees). 

It is what it is and like I said, would make draft season much more interesting, its by no means a disaster if we don't have meaningful football to watch next year.  But if we can return Rodgers and a strong enough team to have us all wearing our lucky pants next Jan anticipating a big playoff game then I'm 100% for that. 

Ok, this all true- but hear me out.  Had the packers taken this approach (win now with no regard for the future) in 2008 what would the last 15 years have looked like?

 Could a QB search end up being a disaster?  Maybe.  Perhaps it’s even probable.  But a ton of draft capital gets you a really good swing at a good 2023 QB class if Love isn’t the guy.  If you run this back, Love will be traded, and lord knows Gutekunst won’t consider restocking QB with a high pick while Rodgers is here.  You would almost be assuring that the worst possible outcome you fear for the future comes true.  

[Leader]

54 minutes ago, mikemike778 said:

If we don't get lucky with hitting on a QB, it could be 10 years before we are a legit team. There's people reading this who will probably not be around in 10 years (I'm in my 40s but there's no guarantees).

Damn. I've never channeled my thinking on Packer moves in relation to my own longevity. Adds a whole new level of importance and gravity to things....not that I'm going anywhere soon....or dont think so at least 

 

[Gopackgonerd]

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

I’ll be sad when the Packers inevitably decide to move on from Rasul. Dude embodies what you want on your roster, but we’re going to try to go younger and get ourselves a Packer Person.

Idk man, there's no way he's not a packer person with that many Thank you, God. tweets

[squire12]

5 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

What difference does that make? If they pushed all the chips in for 2021, they'll push it again.

Eventually the year will come where they need to pay the piper, but if Rodgers has a strong desire to come back, absolutely nothing has shown me that Gute and LaFleur will do what Ted and Mac did and pass.

They'll kick the can further down the road.

Very possible.   Just want people to play out the downstream ramifications of doing what is proposed 

[Sandy]

51 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Very possible.   Just want people to play out the downstream ramifications of doing what is proposed 

Yeah it gets real ugly by year 4, or whichever year Rodgers ultimately retires. That's the trade-off. Based on their stance that they want Rodgers back, seems management is ok with this, and I agree with it.

I figure that they're going to rebuild after Rodgers is gone too, whenever that is, so they won't be needing much of the cap right away anyway.

[fattlipp]

Rodgers, Adams, and P.Smith

for

Surtain, Chubb, Jeudy, Albert O, 2022 1st (9), +2023 2nd if Broncos make SB.

[spilltray]

Just now, fattlipp said:

Rodgers, Adams, and P.Smith

for

Surtain, Chubb, Jeudy, Albert O, 2022 1st (9), +2023 2nd if Broncos make SB

 

First off P. Smith isn't an asset in that trade. He's a liability. He detracts from the return instead of adds. 

Second no thanks on Chubb outright. He's on the 5th year tender now and giving him that next contract is problematic right now.

3rd, pass on Surtain. Alexander and Stokes are going to be a nasty duo already.

Give me more picks. I especially want picks NEXT year as a hedge on Love. If he works out, great keep stocking the cupboards.

[Sasquatch]

Probably a long shot, but I can see Arians try and lure Rodgers to Tampa if Brady retires.  Long shot because it’s NFC, but It might appeal to Rodgers considering the weapons he’d have at his disposal.

Hypothetically, there’s some players on that roster that could be juicy as part of a trade, including picks of course.

[fattlipp]

After we eat all the cap hits P Smith would be worth the 10m it would cost Denver.