2023 Off-season Talk

[CWood21]

8 hours ago, KimuraGod said:

Ah the old well ‘if some other clown did it then I must do the same’. Every deal is unique and this one more than most.

Theoretically Wentz (who was 28 at the time of the trade) could have been Washingtons qb for a good 7-9yrs of the trade worked out.

In this scenario we would be looking 2 years at absolute best. Massive difference. 

I mean, if you'd rather have 7-9 years of QB purgatory or 2 years of potentially elite QB play, go right ahead.  I wouldn't agree with you in the slightest.  Matt Ryan looked absolutely cooked his last year in Atlanta, and the Colts traded a 3rd round pick for him.  That should speak volumes about what the QB market costs to get involved in.  QBs will always cost a ton.  That's because there's always more QB-needy teams than QBs available. This is year after year after year.

8 hours ago, KimuraGod said:

The only reason we are even talking about a trade is because Rodgers is not the guy he was and is nearly 40. 

He’s not four years younger though mate; a prospective buyer would be all in for two years max.

We’ve also got the 13th pick in the draft. If another team offers you 2024&2025 1st rounders they could be high 20’s+ so they wouldn’t even equate to the 13th pick. 

You’re mentioning the Wentz and Wilson deals and what they actually prove is they haven’t worked. 

And if it’s a straight up choice between Rodgers or Jimmy G under centre for 2023 then of course I want Rodgers. I’m massive pro trading for him.
 

However….under your guidelines….

-Jimmy G. $25m on a four/five year deal. No draft picks lost. 
 

-Rodgers. $31m (only $15.8m against the cap) two years max. And then multiple first round picks. 
 

That would then make me think twice. 

Rodgers also lost his favorite WR since he entered the league, a revolving door on the OL pretty much the entire year, and breaking in two rookie WRs.  And that's why the Packers aren't asking for 3 FRPs+.    If I can get a FRP and a SRP (with the potential to be another FRP), I'd consider that a win.

And I think you're missing the context of the package.  There's a 13 for 15 swap.  Presumably, if that deal would go down then the Jets would be able to use that #15 pick to either help solidify that OL or add another weapon to the WR corps.  If you give up that 13th pick (and not receive #15), you'd be able to use your SRP to bolster this roster.  But in this theoretical trade, you get to keep that pick.  If you'd rather give up your #13 pick instead of one of the other picks, I'd jump at that opportunity.  But I was actually trying to be helpful to the Jets by allowing them to keep a top 15 pick to help put more pieces around Aaron Rodgers.  But realistically, that package is almost certainly going to be the pick swap plus the '24 FRP plus a '25 SRP unless the Jets win a Super Bowl in 2024.  To me, I'd trade a FRP in a heartbeat if it meant we won the Super Bowl.

As for the Jimmy G part, I don't agree in the slightest.  We've seen San Francisco, a Super Bowl contender, ACTIVELY look to replace him.  Not to mention, he's a walking injury concern.  He's only played 12+ games twice in his career with San Francisco.  Since he was traded to San Francisco, he's averaged 9.5 GP.  If you want to pay him that much money to sit on the bench, go right ahead.  I'll laugh when he's on the IR after 3 games.

[CWood21]

10 hours ago, jetjuice said:

I wouldn't consider Lamar a realistic option at this point, even if the Ravens were to trade him I doubt it would be to another AFC team. Similar to who GB is willing to do business with for obvious reasons. That's not even factoring in the insane cost that it would take to acquire him. Derek Carr is just meh to me, pretty uninspiring altogether. Same with Jimmy G, I said it earlier to me that's just accepting QB purgatory and that's not ok.

I see how you're using the Stafford trade for the framework for this Rodgers proposal with the future firsts. Stafford was 32 when he was traded, Rodgers will be 39 and has a high likelihood of only giving his new team one year of play before he retires. Contract status was similar. Rams also included a 3rd and Goff (who was not viewed highly at the time, more of a throw in). If you wanna say that the 3rd and Goff offset the 7 year age difference then I can sort of see where you're coming from, but I would feel a lot better if there were conditional picks involved.

Green Bay probably wants to get the rebuild going now while they look to see what they have in Love, so I'm sure they'll want the 1st rounder sooner, which I'm ok with. If we did something like a 2023 1st and a 2024 conditional 3rd that could become a 2nd, I could be swayed. Maybe include a cheap young flier who needs a change of scenery like Denzel Mims. The fact that acquiring Rodgers isn't as cap prohibitive as I thought is making me warm up to it. If you are right and it is a 2023 2nd and 2024 1st, I'd be ok with that too. I just see GB wanting #13 this year because the expectation should be that we aren't going to be drafting that high in 2024.

I'm glad we're on the same page regarding Lamar Jackson.  I think Baltimore would look to move him into the NFC (Atlanta makes sense) if they're going to move him.  To me, Derek Carr is the low floor, low ceiling QB.  You're probably going to be a playoff team with him, but unless he goes full Nick Foles he's probably not your Super Bowl QB.

Stafford was an inferior QB to Rodgers with a bigger injury concern.  I don't think ANY/A is the end-all, be-all for QB stats, but it's a good starter.  He only had 3 seasons (1 of which he got hurt and only played in 9 games) where he posted 7+ ANY/A while Rodgers has had 9.  Rodgers is absolutely better than Stafford, and I don't even think it's debatable.

As for your proposal compared to mine, mine included that pick swap for the 2023 draft.  If you don't want a top 15 pick to help put more pieces around Rodgers, I'm not opposed to having both the 13th and 15th pick in the draft.  My proposal was a all-in for the Jets for the next 2 years for Rodgers.  Denzel Mims doesn't have value, and Green Bay probably doesn't value him at all.

[CWood21]

3 hours ago, xrade said:

I disagree with this sentiment.  Rodgers will most likely be one and done.  How does having one year of Rodgers offer more upside than several years of Carr?  Guarantee me a SB this season and I am on board or guarantee me that he will be here for more than a year and I am still on board.  The probability that either of those things happening are low.  Let's also not so easily dismiss his un-Rodgers like season this year.  Maybe it was because of the players he is surrounded with.  But maybe it is because he is losing it.

Taking all that into consideration and I believe Carr has more upside.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that Rodgers is one-and-done.  If Rodgers was legitimately one-and-done, then it'd have made more sense for Green Bay to run Rodgers out for one more year and then turn to Love on his 5th year option.  Legitimately speaking, Rodgers probably has 2 more years unless he gets a new deal.  After the second year, there's not much actual cash flow left, so there would need to be another deal agreed to.  

And that's why that second conditional pick was included based on whether or not he retires.  If he legitimately is one-and-done, that second conditional pick never conveys.  If he retires after 1 year, you've essentially traded a SINGLE FRP for Rodgers assuming the Jets make the playoffs.  To me, that's fair.

[jetjuice]

33 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I'm glad we're on the same page regarding Lamar Jackson.  I think Baltimore would look to move him into the NFC (Atlanta makes sense) if they're going to move him.  To me, Derek Carr is the low floor, low ceiling QB.  You're probably going to be a playoff team with him, but unless he goes full Nick Foles he's probably not your Super Bowl QB.

Stafford was an inferior QB to Rodgers with a bigger injury concern.  I don't think ANY/A is the end-all, be-all for QB stats, but it's a good starter.  He only had 3 seasons (1 of which he got hurt and only played in 9 games) where he posted 7+ ANY/A while Rodgers has had 9.  Rodgers is absolutely better than Stafford, and I don't even think it's debatable.

As for your proposal compared to mine, mine included that pick swap for the 2023 draft.  If you don't want a top 15 pick to help put more pieces around Rodgers, I'm not opposed to having both the 13th and 15th pick in the draft.  My proposal was a all-in for the Jets for the next 2 years for Rodgers.  Denzel Mims doesn't have value, and Green Bay probably doesn't value him at all.

Yeah we're essentially on the same page as a whole. If I were JD and you were Gut, we'd probably be able to agree to terms. I wouldn't let a swap of two spots in the first round prevent this from getting done.

What would be your official offer?

Edited January 27, 2023 by jetjuice

[CWood21]

48 minutes ago, jetjuice said:

What would be your official offer?

Honestly, I think it just depends on what the Jets would want to do.  If they want to minimize the long-term risk, something like 13 and a conditional '24 pick for Rodgers.  That likely ends up as a SRP unless the Jets make the Super Bowl.  3rd round pick if they miss the playoffs all together.  If the Jets prefer to have another pick in the 2023 draft, then the Packers could send their SRP or 3rd round pick but the Packers would probably want/need another pick.  I think there's enough variation of the trade depending on what the Jets would want.

#13, '24 Pick (Conditional), and '25 Pick (Conditional) for Rodgers/#15

OR

#13 and '24 Pick (Conditional) for Rodgers

OR

#13, '24 FRP, and '24/'25 Pick (Conditional) for Rodgers and #45

LIS, I was trying to come up with a deal where the Jets didn't give up their FRP this year to help maximize their Rodgers' window.  It comes at the expense of the unknown of future years, but was tied to Rodgers' availability.

[xrade]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

I don't think there's any reason to believe that Rodgers is one-and-done.  If Rodgers was legitimately one-and-done, then it'd have made more sense for Green Bay to run Rodgers out for one more year and then turn to Love on his 5th year option.  Legitimately speaking, Rodgers probably has 2 more years unless he gets a new deal.  After the second year, there's not much actual cash flow left, so there would need to be another deal agreed to.  

And that's why that second conditional pick was included based on whether or not he retires.  If he legitimately is one-and-done, that second conditional pick never conveys.  If he retires after 1 year, you've essentially traded a SINGLE FRP for Rodgers assuming the Jets make the playoffs.  To me, that's fair.

To Jets fans, it is not.  I don't say that to be argumentative but we would then be in this same boat next year but without a FRP.  Making the playoffs is great but the real goal is the SB.  I am a Yankees fan as well.  We make the playoffs seemingly every year.  So what.  Show me some promise that a championship is within reach not just good enough to make the playoffs and then fizzle.

Which leads me to point B.  I'd like to see this organization to be in the playoff hunt every year, not just one year.  We have done that when Tannenbaum was our GM, went all in but still no Championship.  We then spent the next few years recovering. 

You are a GB fan.  You had a really long run of success since the Favre years.  Sure, you had some lean years with Magic man, but you have no idea what 50 years of crap is like unless you're a Red Sox or Cubs fan as well.

[jetjuice]

28 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Honestly, I think it just depends on what the Jets would want to do.  If they want to minimize the long-term risk, something like 13 and a conditional '24 pick for Rodgers.  That likely ends up as a SRP unless the Jets make the Super Bowl.  3rd round pick if they miss the playoffs all together.  If the Jets prefer to have another pick in the 2023 draft, then the Packers could send their SRP or 3rd round pick but the Packers would probably want/need another pick.  I think there's enough variation of the trade depending on what the Jets would want.

#13, '24 Pick (Conditional), and '25 Pick (Conditional) for Rodgers/#15

OR

#13 and '24 Pick (Conditional) for Rodgers

OR

#13, '24 FRP, and '24/'25 Pick (Conditional) for Rodgers and #45

LIS, I was trying to come up with a deal where the Jets didn't give up their FRP this year to help maximize their Rodgers' window.  It comes at the expense of the unknown of future years, but was tied to Rodgers' availability.

It definitely makes sense from the Jets standpoint to push the FRP into 2024 and maximize Rodgers window, but GB should assume that we will be picking a lot later than #13 in 2024 and will probably want to get their rebuild going sooner than later while they see what they have in Jordan Love, so I would expect GB to dig their heels in for our 1st in 2023. I'm ok with it. I wouldn't give TWO conditional picks though, and I don't see GB giving up 45 this year in any trade.

#13, '24 conditional 4th (4th if he retires before 2024, 3rd if he doesn't but we miss playoffs, 2nd if we make playoffs, 1st if we win Super Bowl), for Rodgers straight up would be my offer.

I think the bolded is the closest bet.

Edited January 27, 2023 by jetjuice

[Bobby816]

2nd and 4th this year and a 2nd next year that goes to a 1st if he plays for us next year and doesn’t retire. Goes to a 3rd if he retires.

[Rockice_8]

14 hours ago, CWood21 said:

Even 1 year of Aaron Rodgers is worth more than a mid-SRP plus a '24 3rd.  If Carson Wentz can fetch an exchange of SRPs along and a pair of 3rds, Rodgers is easily worth substantially more.

They moved up 5 slots in round 2 which is like 4th round value and got a third plus a conditional 3rd which I'm not even sure was met.  I get Wentz isn't Rodgers but I'm not seeing 2 firsts for A-Rod coming back to GB for a guy who has threatened to retire 2 years in a row and clearly wants out.  Remove the retirement contingent and guarantee two 2nds with the ability to go to a 1st as long as he doesn't retire.  Not sure teams are giving up more than 2 seconds for a 1-year rental even if it's for a great QB.  Wentz would be essentially a 4th and two 3's and Rodgers would likely be a 2nd and a 1st which is clearly more.

2023 - 2nd

2024 - 2nd that becomes a 1st if he doesn't retire plus another mid rounder like a 4th

That seems fair for both sides.  You get 2 seconds for a 1 year rental or a 2 and 2024 1st if he plays 2 years.  That mid rounder isn't a deal breaker for me if it makes you happy.  Can't see you getting much more than that.  

[KingOfNewYork]

1 hour ago, Bobby816 said:

2nd and 4th this year and a 2nd next year that goes to a 1st if he plays for us next year and doesn’t retire. Goes to a 3rd if he retires.

I like this. 

[Rockice_8]

21 hours ago, Bobby816 said:

The part I don’t like that’s rumored if we do get Rodgers is grabbing Cobb. Just let Moore play. Now if we want to go get Lazard… I’m for that. I’m good with cutting Davis and Berrios and adding Lazard. But I don’t want snaps taken away from Moore. I think with Rodgers is where we see GW become a #1 and Moore more like his rookie self and more.

If Rodgers wants Cobb for cheap as WR 4 I can live with that since we can cut Berrios and let Bam do the kick returns.  I still think Moore plays over Cobb and he can take that Berrios role in 4 WR sets.  Davis will be gone too.

I was thinking when I say sell out is going for Hopkins and signing some combination of Poyer/Edmunds/Risner to a back loaded deals and not messing around (hurt BUF at the same time).  Restructure Lawson, resign Q and then Draft an OT at 13.  We'd be loaded for 2-years and for sure be contenders then probably be in cap hell for 2025 when the checks come due but totally worth it. 

Got all our high picks in 2025 so we can suck for a QB in 2025 or 2026 and start from scratch but it would be a hell of a lot of fun for two years.

 

[GangGreen420]

21 hours ago, Bobby816 said:

If you think about it it’s exactly what we should do IMO. We need to get that winning culture in this team. Wilson isn’t providing that. And we can’t get any star QB that’s still young. We’ve had 0 luck in the draft drafting high. For countless reasons. Whether it be just drafting the wrong guy. Not giving the guy any weapons. Not protecting them. Poor OC. Etc.

 

So try something different. Go get the proven guy and draft a guy in the mid rounds and develop them. Try something different. And while that young guy learns. The other 51 guys are just getting used to a winning culture and getting better 

I mean it depends on the cost to get him and if Rodgers genuinely even wants to play more.. he really seemed like he wasn’t sure when you watch the interview. But I can’t get behind this idea we are SB contenders with him. Playoff team? Probably. But he’s made it to the SB once in his entire career, he’s declining, and the AFC is a gauntlet right now. Is he really going to take us farther than Jimmy G? I don’t think so, but at least he brings excitement. If he’s cheap, go for it. But I don’t really even want to give up one FRP for him, because we aren’t winning a SB.

[KimuraGod]

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

I mean, if you'd rather have 7-9 years of QB purgatory or 2 years of potentially elite QB play, go right ahead.  I wouldn't agree with you in the slightest.  Matt Ryan looked absolutely cooked his last year in Atlanta, and the Colts traded a 3rd round pick for him.  That should speak volumes about what the QB market costs to get involved in.  QBs will always cost a ton.  That's because there's always more QB-needy teams than QBs available. This is year after year after year.

Rodgers also lost his favorite WR since he entered the league, a revolving door on the OL pretty much the entire year, and breaking in two rookie WRs.  And that's why the Packers aren't asking for 3 FRPs+.    If I can get a FRP and a SRP (with the potential to be another FRP), I'd consider that a win.

And I think you're missing the context of the package.  There's a 13 for 15 swap.  Presumably, if that deal would go down then the Jets would be able to use that #15 pick to either help solidify that OL or add another weapon to the WR corps.  If you give up that 13th pick (and not receive #15), you'd be able to use your SRP to bolster this roster.  But in this theoretical trade, you get to keep that pick.  If you'd rather give up your #13 pick instead of one of the other picks, I'd jump at that opportunity.  But I was actually trying to be helpful to the Jets by allowing them to keep a top 15 pick to help put more pieces around Aaron Rodgers.  But realistically, that package is almost certainly going to be the pick swap plus the '24 FRP plus a '25 SRP unless the Jets win a Super Bowl in 2024.  To me, I'd trade a FRP in a heartbeat if it meant we won the Super Bowl.

As for the Jimmy G part, I don't agree in the slightest.  We've seen San Francisco, a Super Bowl contender, ACTIVELY look to replace him.  Not to mention, he's a walking injury concern.  He's only played 12+ games twice in his career with San Francisco.  Since he was traded to San Francisco, he's averaged 9.5 GP.  If you want to pay him that much money to sit on the bench, go right ahead.  I'll laugh when he's on the IR after 3 games.

Why would we have 7-9 years of purgatory? Is it Rodgers or bust for us then?
 

Matt Ryan was awful last year so that again could turn teams off from trading for vets. Actually off the top of my head I don’t think any new vets did well last year. Ryan, Wilson, Wentz all bombed. 
 

Ha 3 first round picks now. My god you must be living in cuckoo land. He’s 40 this year why would someone trade three firsts for him? You could get Lamar for that or better yet trade those picks to Chicago for #1 and get Stroud/Young. 

 

I’m not missing anything mate…you’re not appreciating that if we gave up this years first it’s a decent pick. #13 is nothing to be sniffed at as well you know. To put it in context if the trade went ahead for two first rounders in 2024 & 2025 and we did indeed reach the championship games or better yet a SB the 13th pick holds very similar points on the trade value chart.

That’s why #13 and a mid rounder next year seems fair on all parties imo. 
 

I’m mentioning Jimmy G because he’s a name floated out there. I have repeatedly stressed that I want Aaron Rodgers as the Jets qb. However I don’t want our pants pulled down on a deal. I think you can understand where I’m coming from. 

[Bobby816]

Few things to note and some probably think I’m crazy for this. But I really don’t care.

 

I think GW can be very close to as good as Davante if Rodgers came here. And I think Hall can be just as good if not better than Jones here if we can add a piece or 2 to the OL and we get Rodgers. Our TEs are better than what he’s had and I think we can add a Lazard and our whole WR group is better as well with GW, Moore, Lazard and some depth like Mims and such. 

[jetsfan4life51]

21 minutes ago, Bobby816 said:

Few things to note and some probably think I’m crazy for this. But I really don’t care.

 

I think GW can be very close to as good as Davante if Rodgers came here. And I think Hall can be just as good if not better than Jones here if we can add a piece or 2 to the OL and we get Rodgers. Our TEs are better than what he’s had and I think we can add a Lazard and our whole WR group is better as well with GW, Moore, Lazard and some depth like Mims and such. 

If Hall isn’t better than Jones without Rodgers I’d be disappointed. He has healthy Jonathan Taylor potential when healthy. 
 

I think GW can be great independent of QB play, but a good QB could put him in top tier discussion. 
 

There are plenty of pros and cons. Rodgers could elevate the talent, he can teach Zach to be a pro, he can bi*ch out GW and Moore when they act like divas. Is 1-2 years of that worth more than FRPs?