GB free agency 2022

[NFLGURU]

You run into the same problem with Metcalf that you did with Adams.  WRs want to play with a good QB.  Is Rodgers playing in 2023??  Why would Metcalf sign a long term deal in Green Bay and risk getting stuck with a Josh Rosen type after Rodgers??  

[HighCalebR]

14 minutes ago, Arthur Penske said:

More like a 2nd and mid round is all I’d be willing to part with. 

I said this proposition half kidding, but Russ is not the QB rodgers is and Seattle’s offense isn’t what GBs is. 

Deep ball theyre incredibly comparable and thats what DK is.

[Scoremore]

1 hour ago, packfanfb said:

I'm guessing Seattle would take pick 28 straight up. 

I'd do it for that.  Assuming he'll play on his current deal and not hold out.  Yah a one year rental which is fine.  One year rental on that pick too.  We'd get it back and perhaps more in a tag and trade.  DK would have a career year in GB.  He'll get his cash and we'll recoup our pick probably come out ahead on the deal.  That's a risk I'd be wiling to take as long as DK agrees to go along for the ride.  Think he is probably looking to cash in now and may  be unwilling to play without a new deal in which case the whole discussion is mute.

Edited April 3, 2022 by Scoremore

[Nick_gb]

Ideally, I'd like to see GB trade a 2nd round pick this year, to get Metcalf. However, if we're unable to, then I'd be okay with sending a 2023 1st round pick. The idea would be to recoup some of that loss with Pick #22 and trading back - With a trade that'd net you 2023 1st rounder. I have no interest in signing him to a long term contract, because I have no idea if Aaron Rodgers is set to return for the 2023 season. If he is not, then I'm tagging and trading DK for an additional 2023 1st round pick and going into the 2023 draft with 2-3 1st round picks and the ammunition necessary to snag one of the Top QB's if Aaron Rodgers isn't returning and if we do not believe in Jordan Love. Essentially, you're setting yourself up to be prepared for whatever happens with Aaron Rodgers. He's too wishy washy for me not to prepare the team to lose him.

[Leader]

1 hour ago, PossibleCabbage said:

So the whole problem with the "trade for a player on a rental type deal, then tag him and trade him" is that the franchise and transition tags are supposed to require a team making a good faith effort to resign the tendered player, not just to leverage their rights for assets.  The NFLPA has made rumblings about this before, but when you make a habit of doing it then that's the sort of thing that's going to cause major trouble in labor relations.

Generally the reason I'm not in favor of acquiring Metcalf is that I do not wish to pay him what he is likely to get paid in his second contract.  I'd rather just draft guys who will at least be cheap for 4 years.

This ^

Plus, you want to cut off any players coming to GB? Bring em in - tag & trade a couple of them. The word will get around quick enough.

I dont want Metcalf for contract reasons - and I sure dont want him if it means we give up top draft picks to SEA for him.

We're tight on operating capital......so some talented / quality / cheap talent could come in handy right about now.

 

[NFLGURU]

19 minutes ago, Leader said:

This ^

Plus, you want to cut off any players coming to GB? Bring em in - tag & trade a couple of them. The word will get around quick enough.

 

 

Agree, I think this is a big part of what the Packers want to avoid.  They try to act in good faith and make Green Bay as attractive as possible.  Good business practices bring more options.

[Mazrimiv]

3 hours ago, CWood21 said:

At the end of the day, do you think the NFL or NFLPA will realistically prevent a tag 'n trade from happening?  Because I don't.  Davante Adams didn't want to play on the franchise tag, and ended up getting his trade to Las Vegas and his multi-million dollar extension.  With the exception of Kirk Cousins and Brandon Scherff, how many players were franchise tagged multiple years without a long-term deal?

PIT tagged RB Bell multiple times, and nobody will convince me they ever had any intention of paying him a legit 2nd contract.  That being said, it's true enough that RB's are kind of a unique case with their short shelf life relative to other positions.  It's kind of ridiculous that the tags even exists, but the NFLPA continues to leave it in the CBA, so they reap what they sow.

Edited April 3, 2022 by Mazrimiv

[Mazrimiv]

For the sake of argument, let's say GB sends pick #28 to SEA for DK, and then signs Metcalf to a deal in the general neighborhood of what they were willing to give Adams.

So the overall Adams trades becomes

• GB gives up: Adams, pick #28
• GB receives: DK, pick #22, pick #53. 

I am undecided on whether paying Metcalf that kind of contract is a good idea.  While I can think of worse ways for the Adams trade to play out, the idea that SEA would even make Metcalf available is a red flag for me.

[VonKarman]

I feel like it's much smarter to go after Lockett than after Metcalf. You can probably have him for a 3rd+5th rounder or something similar, has a 2022 3M cap hit if we trade for him and he has a contract up until 2025 that we can cut with no dead money whenever we feel like it. We get a pretty good receiver and we don't get to spend too much capital doing it.

[squire12]

28 minutes ago, VonKarman said:

I feel like it's much smarter to go after Lockett than after Metcalf. You can probably have him for a 3rd+5th rounder or something similar, has a 2022 3M cap hit if we trade for him and he has a contract up until 2025 that we can cut with no dead money whenever we feel like it. We get a pretty good receiver and we don't get to spend too much capital doing it.

Not sure what happens to the option bonus of $3.25M for each year of 2022, 23, 24, 25.  

[AlexGreen#20]

32 minutes ago, VonKarman said:

I feel like it's much smarter to go after Lockett than after Metcalf. You can probably have him for a 3rd+5th rounder or something similar, has a 2022 3M cap hit if we trade for him and he has a contract up until 2025 that we can cut with no dead money whenever we feel like it. We get a pretty good receiver and we don't get to spend too much capital doing it.

Why would they want to jettison him if he's under contract long term?

[R T]

35 minutes ago, VonKarman said:

I feel like it's much smarter to go after Lockett than after Metcalf. You can probably have him for a 3rd+5th rounder or something similar, has a 2022 3M cap hit if we trade for him and he has a contract up until 2025 that we can cut with no dead money whenever we feel like it. We get a pretty good receiver and we don't get to spend too much capital doing it.

Seattle would have a 18+M cap hit if they traded Lockett now, they probably wouldn't trade him if someone offered a 1st for him today.

On a Metcalf note, ESPN Jeremy Fowler reported that any deal for Metcalf would need a new contract as part of the deal, since he already turned down a 4/84M extension with the Seahawks that is the tricky part. Jets reporter Rich Cimini reported that he thought Metcalf was a player the Jets would be all in on if he did become available. It would be a big splash move that would boost season ticket sales and unlike Hill, Metcalf has a much cleaner off the field record. 

There is smoke with Metcalf so there is probably fire, just don't believe the Packers are competing players if the Jets are going for a silly PR move.   

Edited April 3, 2022 by R T

[coachbuns]

5 hours ago, NFLGURU said:

You run into the same problem with Metcalf that you did with Adams.  WRs want to play with a good QB.  Is Rodgers playing in 2023??  Why would Metcalf sign a long term deal in Green Bay and risk getting stuck with a Josh Rosen type after Rodgers??  

Have you seen what Seattle has for a QB!?s  A year with Rodgers is worth 3 years with some scrub qb who can't get him the ball.  

[coachbuns]

4 hours ago, NFLGURU said:

Agree, I think this is a big part of what the Packers want to avoid.  They try to act in good faith and make Green Bay as attractive as possible.  Good business practices bring more options.

Follow the dollars ... that's what counts.  Love Green Bay, my son lives there but trying to make GB attractive to young quality football players is often times a losing proposition without HUGE dollars to go with it.  Good business options are certainly nice for a team to have but dollars rule.

[incognito_man]

6 hours ago, NFLGURU said:

You run into the same problem with Metcalf that you did with Adams.  WRs want to play with a good QB.  Is Rodgers playing in 2023??  Why would Metcalf sign a long term deal in Green Bay and risk getting stuck with a Josh Rosen type after Rodgers??  

Getting 8yrs of production and then an extra 1st and 2nd round pick is a problem I'd love to have every off-season.