Packers all in vs Rams ALLLLLL INNNNN

[HeresAGuy]

So it looks like we have two routes to go this offseason.  Trade Rodgers to Denver for a ton of draft picks, or keep him and try again.  To my shock, it looks like we are going to keep him for one more go.

For Packers fans, that season was a lot for us.  It felt aggressive........it felt like we went and got tools to make a difference.  For many teams, that was.........just another offseason.  In comparison to the Rams, it was like throwing a rock at a tank.  In this day and age, mortgaging the future is what gets you trophies.  The age of the dynasty is over.  There will be no more New England Patriots.  The era of mortgaging the future is here.  Tampa showed that, and now Los Angeles showed that.  Sure, Rams are gonna suck for a few years, but they have more trophies than a team that regular picks in the mid-late 20s over the past decade, who was told "you build through the draft".  Maybe........you build through trading for tried and true talent, blockbuster players, and accepting you are going to suck for 3-4 years after that?  If you're that close, and it seems we are "that close", that is what you need to do.  So what do we do to really show we are ALLLLLL INNN

1)  sling draft picks, and dont be ashamed of it.  Go get talent NOW and dont worry about it in the future.  If you're all in, go get a Jalen Ramsey, Von Miller, Matthew Stafford-like player at positions that can put you over the top, and to hell with the first rounders (at least while you are in ALLLLL INNNN mode)

2)  recruit.  recruit seriously.  GM Rodgers needs to work those phones on WRs like Michael Thomas and say he wants them here to win NOW.  If bringing in an elite WR can get a QB like Matt Stafford over the finish line, imagine what it can do for Aaron.  

3)  Which brings me to my next topic;  character concerns.  Antonio Brown made a difference for the Buccs.  OBJ made a difference for the Rams.  Sure, could be some ticking time bombs, but if you handle them cleanly, they are going to get you over the finish line.   Im not saying pick up Las Vegas Raiders awaiting DUI charges, but look around for people who have NASTY on them.

4)  The salary cap means as much to you as a poop flavored lolli-pop.  The Rams dont care about everyone leaving this offseason.  They got their desired objective.  It worked.  

Yes, again, the Rams are in line to suck a few years.  They're going to have like, negative seven draft picks over the next four years, but the end result is greater than regular dumping out in the playoffs.  If you asked the LA Rams fans if they would take 8 out of 10 years making the playoffs and dumping out, or sucking consistently for half a decade, but winning a championship, I think there is no debate there.  

Edited February 14, 2022 by HeresAGuy

[Siman08/OH]

Yes.

[Leader]

1 hour ago, HeresAGuy said:

They're going to have like, negative seven draft picks over the next four years, but the end result is greater than regular dumping out in the playoffs.  If you asked the LA Rams fans if they would take 8 out of 10 years making the playoffs and dumping out, or sucking consistently for half a decade, but winning a championship, I think there is no debate there.  

They're also incredibly lucky to even have gotten to the SB. They were a muffed INT from being eliminated against SF and today were one yellow flag away from a crucial 4th & 8 that would decide their entire season. So - you can portray it as some grand master plan - but they got a lot of breaks.

[TransientTexan]

1 hour ago, HeresAGuy said:

Sure, Rams are gonna suck for a few years, but they have more trophies than a team that regular picks in the mid-late 20s over the past decade, who was told "you build through the draft".  Maybe........you build through trading for tried and true talent, blockbuster players, and accepting you are going to suck for 3-4 years after that? 

This is just dumb analysis. It’s survivorship-bias. Plenty of teams attempt to go “all-in” only to have it *not* pay off. Cherrypicking the one that catches the breaks all the way through to the end while ignoring all the others is not a fair analysis. It’s like acting like you’re a major genius for betting on a 31-team field of opponents producing a champion vs a single team’s odds. 

[Malfatron]

We werent all in yet.

THIS is the year where everything goes in, 

[NFLGURU]

There's a big difference in getting players to LA vs getting them to Green Bay. 

[AlexGreen#20]

We tried to get OBJ, he chose LA over GB. 

To get Jalen Ramsey would have cost us Jordan Love, Eric Stokes, Royce Newman, and then 20 million in cap space, so a guy like Preston Smith/Kenny Clark/David Bakhtiari

[malak1]

 

7 hours ago, Malfatron said:

We werent all in yet.

THIS is the year where everything goes in, 

Lol

[MacReady]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

We tried to get OBJ, he chose LA over GB. 

To get Jalen Ramsey would have cost us Jordan Love, Eric Stokes, Royce Newman, and then 20 million in cap space, so a guy like Preston Smith/Kenny Clark/David Bakhtiari

I don't think anybody cares about what we would have missed if we didn't have Love the past two years.

Love is literally proof that the Packers have not been all in the past two years. If they were all in, they would never have drafted Love.

I want to be clear and say I'm not complaining. Long term, Love was the right pick. If keeping  your job is your only concern.

Tee Higgins or Michael Pittman Jr. on this team and we would have won one of the last two Super Bowls.

The Packers are not and never will have an all in year.

 

[mikemike778]

24 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

I don't think anybody cares about what we would have missed if we didn't have Love the past two years.

Love is literally proof that the Packers have not been all in the past two years. If they were all in, they would never have drafted Love.

I want to be clear and say I'm not complaining. Long term, Love was the right pick. If keeping  your job is your only concern.

Tee Higgins or Michael Pittman Jr. on this team and we would have won one of the last two Super Bowls.

The Packers are not and never will have an all in year.

 

 

If you are being pedantic then no team will ever be all-in.  All-in as per poker would be literally throwing everything at it. You would need to trade your entire draft class and use every single roster structure to the max to the point you would need to 100% gut the roster the following year. Anyone who was all-in would certainly go 0-17 the following year.

Win-now mode is probably a better term where you are prioritising the current team at the expense of future teams. 

Packers in 2019 were building for the future. Rodgers seemed to be in decline so we drafted a replacement along with Dillon who figured at the time to be a long term replacement for AJ. 

Packers in 2020 were in win-now mode (or all-in as people like to call it).  We drafted players to play this year evidenced by us getting 3 first year starters (Stokes, Myers, Newman) and I'm guessing it was hoped Rodgers (WR) would contribute as well.  Money wise we heavily pushed money out signing players we couldn't afford. Whilst we didn't give up picks we were every bit as win-now as the Rams were. We just fluffed our lines in the playoffs.

I think the way that we approached win-now/all-in was the right way to do it in that we did so via the salary cap spending money we couldn't afford but kept our picks. The advantage of doing that is that it makes the rebuild less painful as you have your picks. If you have to rebuild with no money and you don't even have any picks then its going to be pretty depressing.

 

[R T]

This is prisoner of the moment stupidity stuff. If the Bengals had won the SB would the topic be about how teams need to build through the draft to win the SB, not some 'need to be MORE all in' drivel. How about a theory that the Packers 'all in' cost them the win against the 49ers, if they hadn't activated 'all in' Mercilus they would have had another OL active for the FG blocking team. FG isn't blocked and Packers win the game. Simply laws of physics, for every action there is a reaction. 

The Packers don't need to reinvent the wheel here, THEY HAD THE BEST TEAM THE LAST 2 SEASONS. All they needed was their MVP to play like a top 10 QB and they are back-to-back SB champions. Not some silly 'they need to be MORE all in' nonsense. 

 

         

Edited February 18, 2022 by R T

[Norm]

I didn't read the post but this is why I wanted the Rams to lose. So I didn't have to listen to this ****

[Packerraymond]

3 minutes ago, Norm said:

I didn't read the post but this is why I wanted the Rams to lose. So I didn't have to listen to this ****

I've never agreed with you more than this.

[dll2000]

IF the Bengals won.   IF the Rams lost.

They didn't.

Rams gambled and won.

They didn't lay up.  They went for the green.

You can split hairs.  You can say a team could always do more.  They can spend their entire draft or even more picks, etc. They didn't do everything.  

But you can't argue GB did as much as Rams did to win this season.   Well some still will I guess.  You can argue anything.

Should they have done so is a different argument and a legit one.  Playing the long term game is usually more prudent course.  Laying up is often right decision.  NE won a lot and you can't argue they went all in much to do so.  

But what happened, happened and Rams have a title.

And in 2-3 years GB will be better positioned than Rams to improve their team or to sustain good play.

 

 

[eh3034]

I don't understand where everyone is coming from with this Rodgers to Denver nonsense.  Sure Denver can offer the world to Green Bay, but Rodgers could just retire rather than actually report to Denver if traded.  Why would Rodgers want to play for Denver?  They won't be better than KC with him, so they are a wild card team that has to go through KC, Cincy, Tennessee, and/or Buffalo in some combination.  I can see no way Rodgers would voluntarily go to the AFC (unless it was to Tennessee) and would use his retirement leverage to avoid it.  

The NFC is going to be so weakened next year, especially so if some of the rumored Rams retire.  I can't see Tampa Bay retooling for another run like people think, Dallas keeps spinning their wheels, and Kyler is messing around in Arizona.  Who is going to be the best team on paper next year in the NFC?  In my opinion, it will be whoever has Rodgers, and the only 2 logical places are staying in Green Bay or a trade to San Francisco.  To me, those are his only Super Bowl chances next year.

Personally, I would trade him to SF for Trey Lance, a 1st, etc.  Then build the 2022 offense around the studly RB duo and a mobile QB, and a sound defense.  If Lance is competent that team still contends in a weak NFC, and the post-Rodgers rebuild is greatly accelerated.  SF with Rodgers imo is the top team in the NFC, but I would probably say Green Bay without him is still the #4 team unless Lance is a Love-level disaster.  The NFC South conference winner next year could be 8-9, so I like the odds of being the 3 seed next year even without Rodgers.