Leader Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 2 minutes ago, vegas492 said: No, the point is the contract. It is written as a pay as you produce. Easy to get out of. This ☝️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Just now, vegas492 said: Did they, though? GB had their number. Jones found a different number. Jones signed. Didn't feel like GB went out of their way to accommodate him. But I'm looking at the timing of everything. Maybe they (GB) did have a number in mind with Jones to pair with Jacobs. But it didn't seem like GB was either willing to budge off of the number due to the market, or that Jones was open to allowing GB to up their offer. Neither of which sheds any bad light onto Gute, in my book. Rapsheet said the plan was to pair them up initially from the texts he was getting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 6 minutes ago, beekay414 said: Obviously not, my man. Because Aaron Jones isn't a Green Bay Packer anymore. They didn't just spend an hour trying to figure this out. They spent weeks/months trying to work it out with Jones. He obviously disagrees with your take. He disagreed with the Packers offer. Plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 1 minute ago, Old Guy said: He disagreed with the Packers offer. Plain and simple. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Just now, beekay414 said: Rapsheet said the plan was to pair them up initially from the texts he was getting. Interesting. Because it really didn't look like it went down that way from everything that I've read. Seemed like it was always in the cards to get Jones at a lower number. When he balked, then we simply pivoted to Jacobs. Of course there was always the hope that Jones would find out his market, bring it to GB, they would counter offer or match and then both would be kept. But we know that is not a given once a player is released. I know I hoped it would happen because Jones loved being a Packer. I thought he would be the one to see past a million or so to stay (again). But alas, it was not meant to be. The way the Jacobs contract is written also tells me that it was an an either/or with Jones or Jacobs. Had we gotten Jones to a number, he was a pay as you produce guy. Jacobs is the same way. Not sure why you would have two like that on a roster. And now we won't. We will have one on a deal like that and a rookie on a cheap deal to split carries and develop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 20 minutes ago, Old Guy said: Then Gute is officially a moron. You don't make it through an entire season with one RB. The reason he spent a 2nd on Dillon four years ago, in Jones PRIME. GB is obviously going to draft a high(ish) RB in a few weeks to pair with Jacobs, so I don't see your point. Signing Jacobs and keeping Jones was never a consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 1 minute ago, Mazrimiv said: Signing Jacobs and keeping Jones was never a consideration. Though I havent ready anything conclusive, I believe this to be correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Just now, vegas492 said: Interesting. Because it really didn't look like it went down that way from everything that I've read. Seemed like it was always in the cards to get Jones at a lower number. When he balked, then we simply pivoted to Jacobs. Of course there was always the hope that Jones would find out his market, bring it to GB, they would counter offer or match and then both would be kept. But we know that is not a given once a player is released. I know I hoped it would happen because Jones loved being a Packer. I thought he would be the one to see past a million or so to stay (again). But alas, it was not meant to be. The way the Jacobs contract is written also tells me that it was an an either/or with Jones or Jacobs. Had we gotten Jones to a number, he was a pay as you produce guy. Jacobs is the same way. Not sure why you would have two like that on a roster. And now we won't. We will have one on a deal like that and a rookie on a cheap deal to split carries and develop. Very well could've been wrong since Rapaport isn't infallible and an hour later Jones wasn't a Packer anymore. I would like to sign a veteran RB to a cheap deal to be the back-up and then draft a RB to break into the league as the 3rd RB. I'm still not ruling out bring AJD back on a cheap deal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 8 minutes ago, vegas492 said: Did they, though? GB had their number. Jones found a different number. Jones signed. Didn't feel like GB went out of their way to accommodate him. But I'm looking at the timing of everything. Maybe they (GB) did have a number in mind with Jones to pair with Jacobs. But it didn't seem like GB was either willing to budge off of the number due to the market, or that Jones was open to allowing GB to up their offer. Neither of which sheds any bad light onto Gute, in my book. By all accounts I've seen, Jones being released was a done deal when GB came to an agreement with Jacobs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampfgeist Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 4 minutes ago, Old Guy said: Jones has been fine splitting the workload for the first - seven years of his career. Suddenly, now he wants to be the bell cow. Jones knows at the age of 30, he needs a smaller workload, not bigger. Jacobs has a lot of wear and tear on his body given the number of touches he's had. This could have easily been worked out. Jacobs got his payday; he would have been good getting less touches an additional years on his career. Agree with the first part. Don't believe at all Jones is suddenly concerned about splitting carries. Fans have wanted coaches to #FreeJones for years and AJ never complained whether he was getting 20 carries or 9 in a game. Don't disagree with the 2nd part. Would just say I think it's as simple as team probably deciding not to allocate more # to the RB position as they still need to add additional veteran talent in the secondary, linebacking corps for sure and are still facing a substantial new contract for Love. Would have been awesome to watch a Jacobs/Jones pairing but if we end up with another good safety (CGJ, Curl, Blackmon, Simmons, Fuller, Chinn, Jenkins, Diggs) and/or linebacker (Baker, Queen, White, Gay, Jewell, Hicks) I'd get it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Fans concerned about paying Jacobs because he is washed, and the solution is to also pay Jones? Great plan. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 5 minutes ago, beekay414 said: I'm still not ruling out bring AJD back on a cheap deal. That's what I was thinking earlier. In a kinda-sorta way - if we can get the numbers right - wouldnt he be a fine backup? There may be more dynamic guys available - thats for sure - but he knows the system well and we know what we have with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refugee Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Leader said: That's what I was thinking earlier. In a kinda-sorta way - if we can get the numbers right - wouldnt he be a fine backup? There may be more dynamic guys available - thats for sure - but he knows the system well and we know what we have with him. Post draft if he’s still out there and we have a hole to fill, it’s a no brainer. I don’t know if we will before that considering we could bring in a more dynamic young guy. Edited March 12 by Refugee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainmaker90 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 9 minutes ago, beekay414 said: Very well could've been wrong since Rapaport isn't infallible and an hour later Jones wasn't a Packer anymore. I would like to sign a veteran RB to a cheap deal to be the back-up and then draft a RB to break into the league as the 3rd RB. I'm still not ruling out bring AJD back on a cheap deal. Oh god, I didn’t even think about him being an option again. Please no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 1 hour ago, Old Guy said: Absolutely pissed we didn't give Jones the extra 1.5 million to stay. That tandem would have been lethal. I think Gute does a heck of a job as GM. He ****ed up on this one though. Having Jones would prolong Jacobs career too. or maybe the process was .... GB wants Jones at $6M for 2024 Jones and agent would go no lower than $10M GB says that is not good enough reduction and pivots to Jacobs then releases Jones Jones' agent calls around to teams and the best offer is $7M 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.