2023 Off-season Talk

[Rockice_8]

2 hours ago, KingOfNewYork said:

Rodgers is the best but he's also the oldest and will cost the most(second most). Just none of the choices are ideal and we refuse to do the work to develop Zach so we're kinda stuck in the mud unfortunately. 

How so?  Not enough weapons, didn't dumb down the offense enough, didn't give enough of a chance?  Guy has gone 2 years with some of the worst starting QB play and what we are supposed to hand the keys to the guy in 2023 when he can't hit a screen pass without sailing it 5 yards over the WRs head.

Horrible take and even worse idea. 

There really are two good options for where we sit.  Either go all in for Lamar or get Rodgers and make a run these next two years.  If we go the Rodgers route then we keep Zach on ice for those years and then give him another shot in 2025 after Rodgers is done.  They can eat the Rodgers dead cap that year and either Zach shows he's the guy or we bottom out in 2025 with him and draft the next QB with Rodgers contract off the books for 2026.  I see no better options.  

[Rockice_8]

12 minutes ago, GangGreen420 said:

It’s been reported that the belief is the deal would include 13

Schefter said it but most others are contradicting that.  I trust JD will not offer 13 and will not be happy if he does.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Rockice_8

[Bobby816]

1 minute ago, Rockice_8 said:

13 should 100% be off the table.

I pretty much agree with this. But if LV is saying they'd give up 7 for him. We'd have to consider it and then some. If the price is crazy for him (let's say 13 this year and a 1st next year)...... I'm 100% happy turning my attention to Carr and signing him and having all our picks.

 

Just what that price line is for me... I'm a tad unsure. On the surface I want to say our 2nd this year and a 2nd next year that turns into a 1st if he still plays in 2024 (not sure actually how that works since the draft is before the season). I say this with GB likely assuming he does play 2 seasons and they think they get our 1st next year. I'm comfortable right around there.

Therefore we'd be giving up 43 this year and "likely" a mid to late 20th pick maybe even in the 30s 1st for Rodgers. Not bad for 2 years to go legit after a SB.

Now if we're forced to give up 13 this year I don't want to give up much more than that at the top of any draft beyond that. If LV is offering up 7, the value for 13 from us is about us having to add on top of 13 would be us having to give up our 3rd rounder this year as well and more (likely a late pick or a mid future pick).

 

On one hand I can sit here and say... there's no way I want to give up many picks bc we just saw JD do great in this last draft (given we pretty much had 4 1st rounders). But that's not the case this year. We'd be in essence giving up 1 player and a mid round guy (not exactly a huge success rate) maybe for an elite player likely for 2 seasons. That 1 player would have to be something special for us for it not to be worth it. What are our needs likely that early if we sign an average QB instead? OL? So to now let's put actual names to the trade... Are we not ok trading let's say Broderick Jones and Jordan Battle for Aaron Rodgers.

For me you can keep those 2. Battle likely wouldn't even start for us and Jones would likely start... but heck give me a vet guy at OT or even Mitchell if it means I can have an elite QB for 2 years.

 

Now to the money... I'd dislike paying someone who wasn't here. But cap is rising crazy every year and we'd likely be drafting a developmental guy this year or next that would be under a rookie contract for us post Rodgers. Cap can "relatively" be fake. NO seems to make it work every year when they're 100mill over it seems like every year. 

[GangGreen420]

12 minutes ago, Rockice_8 said:

Schefter said it but most others are contradicting that.  I trust JD will not offer 13 and will not be happy if he does.

Any first round pick should be conditional IMO

[Rockice_8]

18 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

I pretty much agree with this. But if LV is saying they'd give up 7 for him. We'd have to consider it and then some. If the price is crazy for him (let's say 13 this year and a 1st next year)...... I'm 100% happy turning my attention to Carr and signing him and having all our picks.

 

If LV gives up 7 he's all theirs.  13 is off the table and if it means we don't land Rodgers so be it.

[Rockice_8]

15 minutes ago, GangGreen420 said:

Any first round pick should be conditional IMO

Yes but in 2024.  13 should not even be an option.  If we are losing 13 it's for Lamar Jackson, not Aaron Rodgers.

[Bobby816]

25 minutes ago, Rockice_8 said:

How so?  Not enough weapons, didn't dumb down the offense enough, didn't give enough of a chance?  Guy has gone 2 years with some of the worst starting QB play and what we are supposed to hand the keys to the guy in 2023 when he can't hit a screen pass without sailing it 5 yards over the WRs head.

Horrible take and even worse idea. 

There really are two good options for where we sit.  Either go all in for Lamar or get Rodgers and make a run these next two years.  If we go the Rodgers route then we keep Zach on ice for those years and then give him another shot in 2025 after Rodgers is done.  They can eat the Rodgers dead cap that year and either Zach shows he's the guy or we bottom out in 2025 with him and draft the next QB with Rodgers contract off the books for 2026.  I see no better options.  

Exactly. And I can only speak for myself... But I said that the excuses were over for Wilson after our last offseason. He had WRs, he had a RB room, He had 2 good TEs, He had good enough of an OL and he had an elite defense. Yet still was never the reason we won when we did win and was mostly the reason we lost when we lost with him. The only game we can even speak highly of last year for him as a signature win was BUF. And we didn't win that game bc of him. It was the defense. He threw for 154yds an 1 TD that game FYI.

I really disregard anyone's opinion on our QB search if they think Wilson should even see a snap next year without injuries. 

[Bobby816]

5 minutes ago, Rockice_8 said:

Yes but in 2024.  13 should not even be an option.  If we are losing 13 it's for Lamar Jackson, not Aaron Rodgers.

And I can totally get this. I get not wanting to give up crazy draft capital for a 2 year window.

[Rockice_8]

2 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

Exactly. And I can only speak for myself... But I said that the excuses were over for Wilson after our last offseason. He had WRs, he had a RB room, He had 2 good TEs, He had good enough of an OL and he had an elite defense. Yet still was never the reason we won when we did win and was mostly the reason we lost when we lost with him. The only game we can even speak highly of last year for him as a signature win was BUF. And we didn't win that game bc of him. It was the defense. He threw for 154yds an 1 TD that game FYI.

I really disregard anyone's opinion on our QB search if they think Wilson should even see a snap next year without injuries. 

He didn't even need to be a top 10 QB he just needed to not be the worst QB and he couldn't even do that.

Coming from the "I only care about wins guy" I can see why he loves Zach look at that W/L record 🤣 

[Bobby816]

3 minutes ago, Rockice_8 said:

He didn't even need to be a top 10 QB he just needed to not be the worst QB and he couldn't even do that.

Coming from the "I only care about wins guy" I can see why he loves Zach look at that W/L record 🤣 

Heck I was the guy in here while he was away not exactly defending Wilson. But saying that White wasn't any better than Wilson. So while I wasn't saying Wilson > White. I was more saying neither are it. That we need an upgrade from both.

White and Flacco are easy. Just let them walk. We know they're not it. Wilson we might as well keep because we aren't getting anything for him and no team will take him and his rookie contract of being a 2nd overall pick and statistically the worst starter in the league. So we're pretty much stuck with him for 2 more seasons. By no means should he se a start unless there's an injury though. 

 

[KingOfNewYork]

1 hour ago, Rockice_8 said:

Again, what in the world are you talking about?  

Nevermind, yall continue to miss the point. Enjoy. 

[KingOfNewYork]

54 minutes ago, Rockice_8 said:

How so?   

They're "moving on". 

Rest of your post is irrelevant empty statements I'm not reading. 

[NYJETS52]

7 minutes ago, KingOfNewYork said:

They're "moving on". 

Rest of your post is irrelevant empty statements I'm not reading. 

Technically speaking they are moving on from him being the starter.  As long as he is on the roster they are not moving on.  The one true statement from MLF even if it was a dig at the front office from an angry ex girlfriend was the kid should have sat and developed for a year or two.  

He needs a veteran presence to learn from. Flacco's wasnt it.  Guy has been checked out sign he left Baltimore.  Hopefully if they get Rodgers he can learn and grow into something that looks like a QB.  

[KingOfNewYork]

Anyway back to actual discussion and not just agendas. 

Woody has to be honest with himself. Nothing 2024 and forward (capital wise) should be on the table without a long term commitment to this staff. 

Letting Douglas and Saleh give a guy like Carr a deal with 3 years of guaranteed money but the team fails to make the playoffs(likely scenario) and you fire them. Now you're stuck with a QB who can't get it done taking up 2 years of cap at the most important position on offense. What prospective coach will come in and take that job? Likely not the top candidate.

Trading 2024 and beyond picks for Rodgers carries the same risk but this is taking away draft capital for the prospective GM. Imagine we trade a conditional 2024 pick that becomes a 1 and it meets the conditions, say 11 wins or a post season berth. We lose in the WC round and Rodgers retires. Now we're out our 2023 pick(s) we gave up, our 2024 1st and still need a QB...again. That is unless we do the work with guy in house(we won't). 

This is why I said we're entering the Colts territory of chasing veterans(Rivers to Wentz to Ryan). This is not the way, it rarely has been though most will point to Brady and Stafford as success stories but McVay and Arians aren't walking through that door and you seen what the Bucs looked like when Bowles took over. We look more familiar to that than a Super Bowl contender. Coaching matters, most of you guys refuse to acknowledge that piece and if you did you'd see the issue we have at play with Hackett leading the charge. 

Now think about all the holes we still have to fill on the OL, at Safety, Linebacker, Defensive Line. There's a lot that matters not just upgrading QB play but it's all people seem to think this team needs(from fans to media). 

 

[KingOfNewYork]

Just now, NYJETS52 said:

Technically speaking they are moving on from him being the starter.  As long as he is on the roster they are not moving on.  The one true statement from MLF even if it was a dig at the front office from an angry ex girlfriend was the kid should have sat and developed for a year or two.  

He needs a veteran presence to learn from. Flacco's wasnt it.  Guy has been checked out sign he left Baltimore.  Hopefully if they get Rodgers he can learn and grow into something that looks like a QB.  

He can't play in this uniform again. The kid was booed for throwing away a screen pass the opposing team blew up. The moment he steps on the field and has an incompletion he'll be booed out the stadium again. They aren't doing that to him or themselves.