Rodgers to the Jets Trade Discussion

[vegas492]

8 minutes ago, PackFan13 said:

My guy, we literally couldn't recover an onside kick to go to the Superbowl. Just look at the defenses stats between the two teams. It's night and day. Isn't Brady on record talking about how unfair Rodgers would be in ne? 

I don't know if that was Brady or BB.

That Seattle game never should have come down to the onside had #12 scored a TD in the freakin' red zone, too!

[Arthur Penske]

17 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

I wonder if Rodgers will attend the Jets optional team activities.

Perhaps no team activities  shefty

 

[craig]

Packers were a crummy team last year, with a lousy, predictable offense and a blah, boring, un-talented defense.  

Bringing in Love isn't going to make Barry or the defense any less soft and vulnerable.  

Replacing Rodgers isn't going to make the running game any better, either.  It's the same linemen who aren't great as run-blockers, and Dillon is going to be as non-quick next year as he was last year.  Rodgers checked out of some run-calls that were doomed to fail; presumably Love will stick with more, so we'll probably get even more bad-yardage runs?  Last year we were 14th in ypc; I'd assume if MLF commits even more heavily to the run, and Love doesn't check out of dud run calls, our ypc should get worse and should slip below league average?  

I don't think we're going to be a 12-win team based on either our mediocre running game or our mediocre defense.  With a first-year QB, bad TE's, a weak WR group, and MLF's run-oriented scheme that is pass-game-uncreative, I don't see our passing game being anything special either?   

Mediocre run game, mediocre defense, limited passing game, and bad special teams, how can we not contend? 

I'm also nervous that we've assumed MLF has a great scheme; blame Aaron for not running it.  I'm nervous that Love will run it... and we'll see it's a kinda boring predictable easy-to-defend scheme?

 

 

[TransientTexan]

22 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

Everyone has young players that can leap forward.  

But not all have the same quantity of talent that could leap. GB had draft-pick value around the level of the #8 slot last year, due to the picks received from the Adams trade. It would stand to reason that their class should have more talent, and thus have more ‘leap’ potential than most teams. 

 

 

[OzPackfan]

13 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

The option bonuses already get prorated in the current contract. They already would be a big up-front cash payment with a spread out cap hit. 

but yes, they could rework the contract in other ways. 

 

 

Those option bonuses only get pro-rated if they are paid. A new contract could remove both and allow for a more simpler exit in 2 years time for both Rodgers and the Jets

[vegas492]

Just now, TransientTexan said:

But not all have the same quantity of talent that could leap. GB had draft-pick value around the level of the #8 slot last year, due to the picks received from the Adams trade. It would stand to reason that their class should have more talent, and thus have more ‘leap’ potential than most teams. 

 

 

So long as we didn't take non-premiums high in the draft.  Yes.

But we took an ILB there.  They don't move the needle much for me.  But, Quay, I think has a chance to be a really special player, moreso than I feel most ILBs.

So does Wyatt.  Watson and Doubs and Toure.  Yes.  Tom is a premium at LT.  We got a humper for RT.  Dud at guard.

I'll agree with your statement.  We had more draft value.

And we are going to need it because the two drafts I went over, well, one is pretty ugly.

[TransientTexan]

8 minutes ago, OzPackfan said:

Those option bonuses only get pro-rated if they are paid. A new contract could remove both and allow for a more simpler exit in 2 years time for both Rodgers and the Jets

But what you suggest would mean sliding more of the cap hit to the front of the contract rather than it being spread out. Which seems like the opposite of what the Jets want. They are pretty tight on 2023 cap. 

unless you are saying AR might take a straight-up pay cut on a rewritten deal. 
 

 

 

[PackFan13]

26 minutes ago, vegas492 said:

I don't know if that was Brady or BB.

That Seattle game never should have come down to the onside had #12 scored a TD in the freakin' red zone, too!

There will always be plays during a game that could have been converted on offense. That's not nearly the same thing as failing to do something that happens maybe 4% of the times it's attempted? 

[NFLGURU]

1 hour ago, vegas492 said:

Yeah, they are really "wooing" him by meeting him at a dingy regional airport.

Favre took Reggie to Red Lobster....

Why do I see them all sitting on the floor in a circle with Rodgers.  Legs crossed and palms up with meditation music in the background.   

[NFLGURU]

47 minutes ago, craig said:

Packers were a crummy team last year, with a lousy, predictable offense and a blah, boring, un-talented defense.  

Bringing in Love isn't going to make Barry or the defense any less soft and vulnerable.  

Replacing Rodgers isn't going to make the running game any better, either.  It's the same linemen who aren't great as run-blockers, and Dillon is going to be as non-quick next year as he was last year.  Rodgers checked out of some run-calls that were doomed to fail; presumably Love will stick with more, so we'll probably get even more bad-yardage runs?  Last year we were 14th in ypc; I'd assume if MLF commits even more heavily to the run, and Love doesn't check out of dud run calls, our ypc should get worse and should slip below league average?  

I don't think we're going to be a 12-win team based on either our mediocre running game or our mediocre defense.  With a first-year QB, bad TE's, a weak WR group, and MLF's run-oriented scheme that is pass-game-uncreative, I don't see our passing game being anything special either?   

Mediocre run game, mediocre defense, limited passing game, and bad special teams, how can we not contend? 

I'm also nervous that we've assumed MLF has a great scheme; blame Aaron for not running it.  I'm nervous that Love will run it... and we'll see it's a kinda boring predictable easy-to-defend scheme?

 

 

^This

[OzPackfan]

32 minutes ago, TransientTexan said:

But what you suggest would mean sliding more of the cap hit to the front of the contract rather than it being spread out. Which seems like the opposite of what the Jets want. They are pretty tight on 2023 cap. 

unless you are saying AR might take a straight-up pay cut on a rewritten deal. 
 

 

 

 

I'm suggesting everything is possible and there are many different ways to skin a cat

[craig]

5 hours ago, {Family Ghost} said:

I agree with you.  The offense will be better if we stick to running a purer form of the LaFleur offense.  Lean on that running game a bit more and hopefully we can add some pieces that will help down the field.  The hardest part will be winning the close games .. as Gute said it takes a while for young QB's to learn how to win.  That will be a challenge.

I hope that offense thrives.  But I admit I also worry that could be a really bad, boring offense?  Lots of predictable runs behind a mediocre run-block line, into defenses anticipating predictable runs?  Lots of 3rd downs and 3rd-down pressure on a first-year QB?   Lots of punts, putting our soft defense on the field often?  Lots of half-time deficits, with MLF telling TV reporter "gotta keep trying to get the run-game going".  Lots of 4th-quarter deficits for a 1st-year QB then trying to force it?  

Or not, maybe our run game will suddenly be really good?  And maybe Love will be scrambling out of trouble and making plays with his legs pretty often, both to extend plays and complete passes, or to run for first downs and keep drives alive?  Having some young legs could really help, I'd think...

[MacReady]

Football is a lot more about attitude and mentality than people here accept.

You look at teams like the Chiefs who just won and their defense played like an elite defense in critical moments. They don’t have a lot of talent.

Football teams are a direct reflection of their personalities and leadership.

My bet is Chris Jones is a man among men not only physically, but mentally as well. Him and at least one more player on defense, all led by Mahomes, who is legit one tough SOB.

Rodgers is not that, he’s never been that, he will never be that.

Love might not be the guy, but next year people here won’t recognize the Packers as a team anymore. For better or worse. I suspect for better. We might not win as many games, but we’re going to go out with a completely different attitude.

[Kepler]

I'm so worried and nervous I don't think they should change anything at all! It's just too scary! 

[oldmansmell]

30 minutes ago, craig said:

I hope that offense thrives.  But I admit I also worry that could be a really bad, boring offense?  Lots of predictable runs behind a mediocre run-block line, into defenses anticipating predictable runs?  Lots of 3rd downs and 3rd-down pressure on a first-year QB?   Lots of punts, putting our soft defense on the field often?  Lots of half-time deficits, with MLF telling TV reporter "gotta keep trying to get the run-game going".  Lots of 4th-quarter deficits for a 1st-year QB then trying to force it?  

Or not, maybe our run game will suddenly be really good?  And maybe Love will be scrambling out of trouble and making plays with his legs pretty often, both to extend plays and complete passes, or to run for first downs and keep drives alive?  Having some young legs could really help, I'd think...

I think a larger problem is that given the success of GB the Rams and Niners, plus the head coaches that have come out of the tree it's an offense that is ran be almost a third of the league. Not to mention that tree was relatively unsuccessful post-Elway, so it's also the case that the majority of these guys worked in the same room together for a large part of their careers. McDaniel, McVay, Kyle, LF, and the Vikings head coach were all on the same staff for two seasons I think.