Packers all in vs Rams ALLLLLL INNNNN

[Sandy]

4 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

 

Not forcing, I agree. But I still see the possibility that they prefer he goes and structure their 'record deal' so that it is not attractive to Rodgers, a sort of unspoken coded message from management (which Rodgers is sure to recognise, as he is very good at coded messages himself).

Is it likely, no, but it is possible.

Having said that, does @Leader's comment make me an INcredible fan, or credulous ?

It's not just that it's unlikely, the odds of this are incredibly slim because of how likely it blows up in managements face.  Why would Rodgers not go to the media and talk about the offer, explaining why it was presented in poor taste and exposing management as a bunch of frauds, leading to years of players avoiding the Packers for reasons besides the cold?

You're alluding to our team's management being a bunch of shady two-timers as if it's a good thing.

[coachbuns]

1 hour ago, Sandy said:

It's not just that it's unlikely, the odds of this are incredibly slim because of how likely it blows up in managements face.  Why would Rodgers not go to the media and talk about the offer, explaining why it was presented in poor taste and exposing management as a bunch of frauds, leading to years of players avoiding the Packers for reasons besides the cold?

You're alluding to our team's management being a bunch of shady two-timers as if it's a good thing.

Isn't it rather simple:  Packers offer Rodgers the world knowing he's going elsewhere on his own volition .. doesn't matter whether Rodgers turns it down as they offered him whatever he was looking for and he just decided to go elsewhere.  That's not being shady two-timers, that's being business savvy.  That being said, I don't think Rodgers is going anywhere.  If he does, fine .. get a boat load of comp;  If he stays that's ok too.     

[Sandy]

6 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

Isn't it rather simple:  Packers offer Rodgers the world knowing he's going elsewhere on his own volition .. doesn't matter whether Rodgers turns it down as they offered him whatever he was looking for and he just decided to go elsewhere.  That's not being shady two-timers, that's being business savvy.  That being said, I don't think Rodgers is going anywhere.  If he does, fine .. get a boat load of comp;  If he stays that's ok too.     

That I agree with, if they already know he wants to leave...it was just the part that the other poster suggested where they put several factors into the contract that make it worse for Rodgers to incentivise him to turn it down while pretending that they are offering everything. That would blow up in their face.

I also agree that all signs point to a reunion right now. The only thing that can stop it now is if Rodgers cares more about something besides a second SB - like warm weather or post-career connections - since we're the obvious best option for him if he wants to win.

[CWood21]

21 hours ago, eh3034 said:

I personally believe Rodgers is in it only for one last championship before retiring, and would only go somewhere that has a legitimate chance to get to the Super Bowl, and wouldn't voluntarily go somewhere that would be fighting just to make the playoffs with the addition of him, and then have to run through all the top NFL teams to even get that chance.  No different than LeBron "taking his talents to Miami." Was he scared of the stacked Western Conference?  Of course not, but he's no dummy and saw that he could easily run through the Eastern Conference and give himself the best chance as a championship.  Rodgers is equally no dummy, and if he looks at the team/path that would best give him a shot at a championship, it isn't with any AFC team outside of Tennessee.

Putting aside the fact that I don't think it's "one more run" before retiring, or him throwing the stink last offseason wouldn't have been a thing.  How many championship-caliber teams have a hole at QB?  Just going through the playoff teams this year, you've got LA Rams (Matthew Stafford), Cincinnati (Joe Burrow), Kansas City (Patrick Mahomes), Buffalo (Josh Allen), Dallas (Dak Prescott), Arizona (Kyler Murray), and Las Vegas (Derek Carr) as currently married to their QB.  You can probably cross New England (Mac Jones) and San Francisco (Trey Lance) for different reasons.  Which leaves Tampa Bay, Tennessee, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia as the only possible suitors.

[OneTwoSixFive]

3 hours ago, Sandy said:

You're alluding to our team's management being a bunch of shady two-timers as if it's a good thing.

It is neither shady or two-timing to offer Rodgers a contract that they (the Packers) can live with. If Rodgers doesn't like the contract, it isn't like he can't find work elsewhere, fairly easily.

His problem is choosing between four choices. 1) Retire, 2) push for a trade, 3) accept a contract he may or may not like, or 4) play for one season with the Packers until his contract runs out and then he can go anywhere he chooses. The details of any offer to him can affect how he feels and which choice he makes.

I do agree that at this time things seem to be shading towards the Packers keeping him, but no certainty is there, not yet.

Edited February 16, 2022 by OneTwoSixFive

[Pugger]

22 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

You think Tom Brady would be scared of Dak effing Prescott??? Lol. 

Rodgers will be just fine reuniting with Hack in Denver or playing for a guy he's said many times he respects in Tomlin. 

Yes, I know Rodgers might enjoy working with Hack again but why would he want to go to Denver at this point in his career?  That team is not a QB away from a Super Bowl.  I am with Sandy here - his best chance of getting another ring is to stay in GB if Ball and company can do some creative accounting and keep most of the core of this roster together.  If he returns like I suspect he will I hope fans don't storm 1265 with torches and pitch forks.

[R T]

2 minutes ago, Pugger said:

Yes, I know Rodgers might enjoy working with Hack again but why would he want to go to Denver at this point in his career?  That team is not a QB away from a Super Bowl.  I am with Sandy here - his best chance of getting another ring is to stay in GB if Ball and company can do some creative accounting and keep most of the core of this roster together.  If he returns like I suspect he will I hope fans don't storm 1265 with torches and pitch forks.

Outside of QB, Denver probably has a better roster than Kansas City. Rodgers to Denver would make them one of the best teams in the NFL overnight by adding their missing piece, surprised that isn't a general understanding. 

[15412]

Just now, R T said:

Outside of QB, Denver probably has a better roster than Kansas City. Rodgers to Denver would make them one of the best teams in the NFL overnight by adding their missing piece, surprised that isn't a general understanding. 

I think Denver is an extremely attractive option that Rodg might have.  They have a good defense as it sits, some skill set talent on offense, and a ton of cap room.  They could quickly build a team around him, including Adams if they so desire.  They would immediately be a contender.  A fresh start with some "friends" around him could be just what the doctor ordered.  They could give a 1,2,3 this year in the drat and still have a 2 and 3 along with the rest.  A natural landing spot for both Rodg and GB

[Pugger]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Putting aside the fact that I don't think it's "one more run" before retiring, or him throwing the stink last offseason wouldn't have been a thing.  How many championship-caliber teams have a hole at QB?  Just going through the playoff teams this year, you've got LA Rams (Matthew Stafford), Cincinnati (Joe Burrow), Kansas City (Patrick Mahomes), Buffalo (Josh Allen), Dallas (Dak Prescott), Arizona (Kyler Murray), and Las Vegas (Derek Carr) as currently married to their QB.  You can probably cross New England (Mac Jones) and San Francisco (Trey Lance) for different reasons.  Which leaves Tampa Bay, Tennessee, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia as the only possible suitors.

Of the last 4 teams you list that made the playoffs last year Pitt has the cap space but are they close to a SB?  Or Philly?  Tampa has a good roster so they could be attractive to AR but they have a lot of FAs they want to resign so getting AR would not be cheap.  TN is $6 million over the cap.  But what do they do with Tannehill?  

https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/nfl/titans/2022/01/27/ryan-tannehill-contract-tennessee-titans-quarterback-salary-cap/6612006001/

[{Family Ghost}]

22 minutes ago, Pugger said:

Yes, I know Rodgers might enjoy working with Hack again but why would he want to go to Denver at this point in his career?  That team is not a QB away from a Super Bowl.  I am with Sandy here - his best chance of getting another ring is to stay in GB if Ball and company can do some creative accounting and keep most of the core of this roster together.  If he returns like I suspect he will I hope fans don't storm 1265 with torches and pitch forks.

I think Denver has more offensive talent than we do .. it seems like an attractive spot to me.  They still have a strong defense, several good young receivers, a couple good young TE's.  They have a strong running game.  I think they are a triggerman away from being a 12-13 win team.  Plus, Aaron would probably not have to learn a new offense.

[eh3034]

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Putting aside the fact that I don't think it's "one more run" before retiring, or him throwing the stink last offseason wouldn't have been a thing.  How many championship-caliber teams have a hole at QB?  Just going through the playoff teams this year, you've got LA Rams (Matthew Stafford), Cincinnati (Joe Burrow), Kansas City (Patrick Mahomes), Buffalo (Josh Allen), Dallas (Dak Prescott), Arizona (Kyler Murray), and Las Vegas (Derek Carr) as currently married to their QB.  You can probably cross New England (Mac Jones) and San Francisco (Trey Lance) for different reasons.  Which leaves Tampa Bay, Tennessee, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia as the only possible suitors.

I for the most part agree, and I'm a big Trey Lance fan considering the "homerism" factor lol, I think SF has some buyers remorse on him, and if so they should not hesitate to make the move for Rodgers.  I definitely feel like this past season they were a QB away from a championship, and the rest of the NFC is seemingly crumbling around them, so the opportunity is there for the taking if they don't think Lance is the guy.  Sure it would be painful, but if you get 2-3 year commitment from Rodgers, then I think they should go for it.

Regarding Tampa, I don't believe they are a playoff caliber team anymore.  Look at everything they are losing, plus their cap situation.  They are pretty much only returning Evans, Brate, and their OTs to that entire offense.  They'll struggle to be a .500 team.  Pittsburgh I feel the same way about, they are stuck in "no man's land" right now in that they aren't a championship team, but won't rebuild, so they are in "forever .500" mode.  Rodgers makes them a lot better, yes, but not better than Ten, Cincy, KC, or Buf, making it not really a desirable destination for Rodgers IMO.  Tennessee works but seemingly it has already been confirmed that he is not going there.  Philly would be interesting because the NFC is going to be so weak next year.  Philly should have the cap space to land him, and the draft capital to where they would still have picks to improve the team while still acquiring him.  That's a very interesting scenario to consider.  If I'm on board with SF trading Lance, I shouldn't scoff at Philly trading Hurts in a similar scenario.

[NFLGURU]

Denver isnt all that attractive, obviously, he'd help them, but they are still pretty young.   

They earned their #9 pick. 

Rodgers doesnt have to learn a new offense in Denver, but everybody else there does.  Building trust with unknowns in a new offense,  Not sure he wants to go through that. 

Rodgers is a teammate guy, talks glowingly of his teammates:  Who does he know in Denver?, a couple of coaches?

Denver is really attractive because of what Green Bay could get back in a trade.   The team isnt this Land of Oz destination its being projected as. 

Who is the new ownership Group in Denver??   Will they leave them alone or are they the next Jerry Jones type with hands in everything??  

Looks like the whole get closer to Shaliene Woodley in Boulder concept is out the door.    

A lot for Rodgers to consider, maybe he wants the challenge??

   

Edited February 16, 2022 by NFLGURU

[Dr LBC]

On 2/13/2022 at 8:03 PM, HeresAGuy said:

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.  

This is more than a little bit of a myopic view of how things went down for the Rams.  And I'll admit, I think Les Snead is enjoying a good amount of luck with this paying off for us at the time that it did.  That said, if you think the Rams are in cap hell, you really haven't been paying attention or are content to just take a surface-view and nothing more.

The extensions that were given out in recent years (Donald, Ramsey, Kupp, Floyd) all had built-in restructure arms to the contracts; we already saw it exercised and executed in Woods' case last offseason.  It's all-but-certain Snead will work to structure an extension for Stafford the same way.

We're not "in line to suck" anytime soon.  We'll likely end up not able to repeat what the Bucs did in re-signing every pending free agent starter off the Super Bowl winning side, but there's a literal Grand Canyon between that and "in line to suck."

Also, OBJ's "character issues" were a lot more media-drivel than anything of great significance.  He was actually, by most accounts, extremely well liked in that Browns locker room... save for one particular QB.  Was he, personally, unsettled? Absolutely.  And that's what the Rams capitalized on and where individual guys on our rosters (Woods, Ramsey) started doing recruiting and advocacy to get him to sign on in LA after he got his release.

But the All-In approach was as much about taking areas of strength and further strengthening them (in our case, pass-rush and WR depth) and not fixating on "need" (our interior OL has needed work ever since the offseason following the last Super Bowl we were in when Rodger Saffold left).  And then not quibbling over price tags on guys who made clear-cut improvements in our starting sides over what we had - and who played positions that would also have knock-on effects (QB, CB, EDGE).  But to that point, it also means an honest assessment of who, at positions that don't have that knock-on effect, on your roster (and in particular among the pending FA's on your team) are replaceable - either by very short-term veteran contracts to middle-tier/merely-comparable-or slightly-less free agents, by Day 3 picks (because Les trades back to acquire many Day 3 picks annually and several times over), or by trading late-round conditional picks.  It was ignored, largely by the media (but as an effect also by a demo of the layman NFL fans), that one of the 1st's traded for Stafford was almost entirely to get the Lions to take on Goff's contract in the exchange.  But we also had to make the determination to let guys like John Johnson, Troy Hill, Austin Blythe walk, along with Dante Fowler, Corey Littleton, and Nickell Robey-Coleman a year earlier.

Just doing a cursory look over your roster, pending FA's, etc. and I fully expect people to disagree with me (and in some of those cases for it to be righteous and me to be wrong), but my best guess is that if you enact a similar all-in approach, you ought to be prepared to let the likes of DeVondre Campbell, Tonyan (unless there's just some amazingly team-friendly contract or 1-year deal that can be worked out; because he's ultimately replaceable in the offensive scheme as is any TE that isn't Kittle-level upper-echelon), and quite possibly MVS and/or Kevin King (based off how season finished, I'd aim to give Rasul Douglas a healthy/built-in-restructure extension and let King walk).  I'd be looking to find someone to take on the contract of one of the Smith boys, even if that meant taking a very limited return on the deal (like a D3 or even future D3 pick) - seeing how the draft falls to you, but also being comfortable with Gary's development thus far, trusting that some similar progress can be made with Bullard, and having that earmarked as an area to watch for mid-season upgrades if the later doesn't happen.

ILB's are replaceable and barring that the detriment of lackluster ones can be covered up by quality DL and quality S play.  You've already got the safeties, so I'd genuinely be looking more at what DL teams may be looking like they're either not going to be in a position to pay or not wanting to pay when their rookie deals are up a year from now and focus on that's where your R1 pick this year is going, even if it means (it usually doesn't, even if it may look that way because that's what the media is selling and fans covetous to be able to get that guy in 2023 FA may want) not working out that extension until the 2023 offseason.  I don't know that they're going to need the cap-relief per say, but they are a team that's in the market for their long-term solution at QB so Washington could be a side looking to horde picks to that end (and might be a team where you could get away with trading next year's R1 and this year's R2, possibly) and willing to part with Jonathan Allen or Matt Ioannidis (though you'd clearly want to exhaust every attempt at Allen first) in that pursuit.  Just spitballing here.

[Dubz41]

4 hours ago, Dr LBC said:

This is more than a little bit of a myopic view of how things went down for the Rams.  And I'll admit, I think Les Snead is enjoying a good amount of luck with this paying off for us at the time that it did.  That said, if you think the Rams are in cap hell, you really haven't been paying attention or are content to just take a surface-view and nothing more.

The extensions that were given out in recent years (Donald, Ramsey, Kupp, Floyd) all had built-in restructure arms to the contracts; we already saw it exercised and executed in Woods' case last offseason.  It's all-but-certain Snead will work to structure an extension for Stafford the same way.

We're not "in line to suck" anytime soon.  We'll likely end up not able to repeat what the Bucs did in re-signing every pending free agent starter off the Super Bowl winning side, but there's a literal Grand Canyon between that and "in line to suck."

Also, OBJ's "character issues" were a lot more media-drivel than anything of great significance.  He was actually, by most accounts, extremely well liked in that Browns locker room... save for one particular QB.  Was he, personally, unsettled? Absolutely.  And that's what the Rams capitalized on and where individual guys on our rosters (Woods, Ramsey) started doing recruiting and advocacy to get him to sign on in LA after he got his release.

But the All-In approach was as much about taking areas of strength and further strengthening them (in our case, pass-rush and WR depth) and not fixating on "need" (our interior OL has needed work ever since the offseason following the last Super Bowl we were in when Rodger Saffold left).  And then not quibbling over price tags on guys who made clear-cut improvements in our starting sides over what we had - and who played positions that would also have knock-on effects (QB, CB, EDGE).  But to that point, it also means an honest assessment of who, at positions that don't have that knock-on effect, on your roster (and in particular among the pending FA's on your team) are replaceable - either by very short-term veteran contracts to middle-tier/merely-comparable-or slightly-less free agents, by Day 3 picks (because Les trades back to acquire many Day 3 picks annually and several times over), or by trading late-round conditional picks.  It was ignored, largely by the media (but as an effect also by a demo of the layman NFL fans), that one of the 1st's traded for Stafford was almost entirely to get the Lions to take on Goff's contract in the exchange.  But we also had to make the determination to let guys like John Johnson, Troy Hill, Austin Blythe walk, along with Dante Fowler, Corey Littleton, and Nickell Robey-Coleman a year earlier.

Just doing a cursory look over your roster, pending FA's, etc. and I fully expect people to disagree with me (and in some of those cases for it to be righteous and me to be wrong), but my best guess is that if you enact a similar all-in approach, you ought to be prepared to let the likes of DeVondre Campbell, Tonyan (unless there's just some amazingly team-friendly contract or 1-year deal that can be worked out; because he's ultimately replaceable in the offensive scheme as is any TE that isn't Kittle-level upper-echelon), and quite possibly MVS and/or Kevin King (based off how season finished, I'd aim to give Rasul Douglas a healthy/built-in-restructure extension and let King walk).  I'd be looking to find someone to take on the contract of one of the Smith boys, even if that meant taking a very limited return on the deal (like a D3 or even future D3 pick) - seeing how the draft falls to you, but also being comfortable with Gary's development thus far, trusting that some similar progress can be made with Bullard, and having that earmarked as an area to watch for mid-season upgrades if the later doesn't happen.

ILB's are replaceable and barring that the detriment of lackluster ones can be covered up by quality DL and quality S play.  You've already got the safeties, so I'd genuinely be looking more at what DL teams may be looking like they're either not going to be in a position to pay or not wanting to pay when their rookie deals are up a year from now and focus on that's where your R1 pick this year is going, even if it means (it usually doesn't, even if it may look that way because that's what the media is selling and fans covetous to be able to get that guy in 2023 FA may want) not working out that extension until the 2023 offseason.  I don't know that they're going to need the cap-relief per say, but they are a team that's in the market for their long-term solution at QB so Washington could be a side looking to horde picks to that end (and might be a team where you could get away with trading next year's R1 and this year's R2, possibly) and willing to part with Jonathan Allen or Matt Ioannidis (though you'd clearly want to exhaust every attempt at Allen first) in that pursuit.  Just spitballing here.

Too long, Waiting for the crib notes.......

[coachbuns]

5 hours ago, 15412 said:

I think Denver is an extremely attractive option that Rodg might have.  They have a good defense as it sits, some skill set talent on offense, and a ton of cap room.  They could quickly build a team around him, including Adams if they so desire.  They would immediately be a contender.  A fresh start with some "friends" around him could be just what the doctor ordered.  They could give a 1,2,3 this year in the drat and still have a 2 and 3 along with the rest.  A natural landing spot for both Rodg and GB

Not enough comp for Rodgers.  A 1,2,2 this year - a 1 and 2 next year plus a player or two would be adequate.