Jump to content

Time to Fire LaFleur, Gute, and Murphy And Burn The House Down

LLcheesehead12

By LLcheesehead12
in Green Bay Packers

 Share

Recommended Posts

skibrett15

skibrett15

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

You're assuming a guy like Justin Jefferson is going to be good value at 25+ per year. I don't think that's remotely a safe conclusion. 

I think that what I'm saying is that Justin Jefferson on a rookie deal plus Darius Slay (or pick your favorite veteran CB) is a better package than Patrick Surtain and Davante Adams/Tyreek Hill.

Certainly a cheaper deal for the same production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pgwingman

pgwingman

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

I think that what I'm saying is that Justin Jefferson on a rookie deal plus Darius Slay (or pick your favorite veteran CB) is a better package than Patrick Surtain and Davante Adams/Tyreek Hill.

Certainly a cheaper deal for the same production.

I agree with your logic for players on rookie deals.

However, isn't the real goal to be able to sign your players to 2nd contracts?

In your example, I think the value flips back once you sign guys to a second contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skibrett15

skibrett15

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, pgwingman said:

I agree with your logic for players on rookie deals.

However, isn't the real goal to be able to sign your players to 2nd contracts?

In your example, I think the value flips back once you sign guys to a second contract.

yeah, I mean there might be some case to be made around the WR market is a bubble.  But so long as your team building philosophy is we are going to build around a passing game - you need a WR1 and that WR1 will either be highly paid, or on a rookie contract.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrBobGray

MrBobGray

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

I don't think that's remotely true. 

All the other premium positions still play good ballon their rookie deals. 

I think I probably land at the same position as you do, but I will point out that receivers on rookie deals is the only way to get talent at receiver at a cost that's palatable.  If you don't want to hand out big money to receivers, and personally I don't, then it's fair to say that receivers on cheap rookie deals actually are more valuable than premium positions who are more likely to be worth spending more on.  To an extent anyway, since you still only have so much money you can spend and I'd still rather spend those resources on premium positions, but I can see the argument.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skibrett15

skibrett15

Posted
Posted
Just now, MrBobGray said:

I think I probably land at the same position as you do, but I will point out that receivers on rookie deals is the only way to get talent at receiver at a cost that's palatable.  If you don't want to hand out big money to receivers, and personally I don't, then it's fair to say that receivers on cheap rookie deals actually are more valuable than premium positions who are more likely to be worth spending more on.  To an extent anyway, since you still only have so much money you can spend and I'd still rather spend those resources on premium positions, but I can see the argument.

Yes.

You don't have (I think you probably should though) to build a team with an alpha receiver.  But if you do, I'd rather draft the guy - and WRs are much more playable early career than they used to be - than pay up for Davante or Tyreek.

 

Unless you have a team building philosophy akin to Ted Thompson - where you simply DO NOT spend on any outside free agents - then it makes sense to me to bring in a highly paid LT or CB or Edge from outside than to spend on a WR. 

 

One thing I'm 1000% sure of is the value disparity between a TE and a WR.  Highly paid TEs make RB money.  Highly paid WRs make Kirk Cousins money.

The Best TEs in the NFL cost 14M - the same cost as Robbie Anderson.  I would pay Mark Andrews or Kelce or Goedert as much as  $20M every single time before paying these mediocre mid-level WRs like Robbie Anderson and Lazard and Agholor and MVS.

Teams like Miami and Philly have built some impossible rosters by having rookie deal WRs AND QBs at the same time while spending on OL and CB and Edge.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cpdaly23

Cpdaly23

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, skibrett15 said:

WRs. On. Rookie. Deals. Are. Very. Valuable.

Second only to QBs on rookie deals.

Intrinsic value is more important than pure market value.  WR market values are skewed higher currently, leading to the PERCEPTION of a massive gap in rookie contract value vs. CB’s, LT’s, and edge rushers.  But once impact on the game is factored AND the fact that WR is one of the positions most dependent on others for success, a really good argument can be made that the top WR contracts are horrible values vs. the “core”  positions.

Edited by Cpdaly23
Link to comment
Share on other sites
skibrett15

skibrett15

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Cpdaly23 said:

Intrinsic value is more important than pure market value.  WR market values are skewed higher currently, leading to the PERCEPTION of a massive gap in rookie contract value vs. CB’s, LT’s, and edge rushers.  But once impact on the game is factored AND the fact that WR is one of the positions most dependent on others for success, a really good argument can be made that the top WR contracts are horrible values vs. the “core”  positions.

which WR contracts do you want on your team.

 

Be specific, and include contracts signed within the past 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cpdaly23

Cpdaly23

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

which WR contracts do you want on your team.

 

Be specific, and include contracts signed within the past 2 years.

First, you are arguing that WR’s are a core position now because rookie deals vs. the top end of the spectrum.  My post was in response to that.

But if you insist…

I am in the minority in that I don’t think the problem with our offense is “not enough WR’s”.  This is like 3rd or 4th on my list of what I believe ails this offense.  Right behind…

1) QB insisted reversion to MM type scheme

2) Offense line musical chairs and underperformance (some injury related) 

3) Regression from the QB 

Now that I have some caveats out of the way, it NEVER made any sense for us to let go of MVS.  I would have signed him to the exact deal KC did.  He’s not a great player, but he can stretch a defense and open up everything underneath for your RB’s, TE’s, and inexperienced WR’s.  Heck. Look at our offense in 2021 with MVS vs without MVS- our scoring output dropped 6 points a game without him.  
 

‘I also would have gone after Austin Hooper.  That would be a WR and TE for a net 16MM in 2023.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pf9

pf9

Posted
Posted (edited)

5 days since we lost to the last place Lions and still no news that LaFleur is fired or Rodgers is benched.

As Tommy Shaw would say, the Packers are fooling themselves but they don't believe it. They're kidding themselves but they don't believe it. Ironically, Styx is from the same city as the Bears.

Edited by pf9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...