Random Packer News & Notes

[fattlipp]

yeah franchise tags in 2021-23 will probably be around 25m,30m,36m,  still cheaper than what ARod is going to get and its year to year, protects us vs another shattered collarbone.

Edited June 4, 2018 by fattlipp

[SSG]

4 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

This whole bust QB thing is a myth.  90% of quarterbacks who bust bust because a team did not do their homework or did not have the talent on the coaching staff or talent on the team to perform at a high level.  The Patriots had what's his face (traded to the Colts) look like a competent starter, so did Cassell, so did everybody who has ever backed up Brady... Until they left New England. 

Hundley sucked, but Hundley was a fifth round pick.  You show me Hundley, I show you Flynn, who set a Packer record in the year Rodgers won MVP, and then got us into playoff contention shortly after coming back.

For every potential bust, there is a Brad Johnson, Nick Foles, Alex Smith available as a starting option that could lead the Packers to the Super Bowl if the Packers had the draft capital and cap space to build an elite defense. 

A myth that is supported by literally hundreds of failed QBs.  The idea that 90% of QBs bust are because of the team is both uneducated and ridiculous. 

The fact that you think that 90% of the QBs who enter the NFL are capable of winning a Super Bowl is both crazy and ridiculous.  

[Redt]

Wow, short term memory failings are running wild. Do you all recall just last season with and without Rodger's? This team is not a contender without Rodger's period. It blows my mind that one would even consider trading Rodger's in the prime of his career, for unproven draft picks, really? Please don't tell me that we can develop QB's in GB, we were lucky or smart enough to obtain two HOF QB's and that is both lucky and good, don't ever forget that TT drafted Brian Brohm in round 2. 

Pay Rodger's what he is worth and let's go win a couple more SB before he is done.

[MacReady]

Just now, SSG said:

A myth that is supported by literally hundreds of failed QBs.  The idea that 90% of QBs bust are because of the team is both uneducated and ridiculous. 

The fact that you think that 90% of the QBs who enter the NFL are capable of winning a Super Bowl is both crazy and ridiculous.  

Do you think that Carson Wentz would have performed as well in Cleveland as he did in Philadelphia?  Thanks for not adding the proper qualifiers to my statement, too.  Great argument tactics.  I said 90% of QB busts bust because a team did not do their homework or did not have the proper staff/team.  Do you need for me to go over this clearly so that you can understand it?

I never said 90% of quarterbacks who enter the NFL are capable of winning Super Bowls.  Go back and re-read without your "I'm angry and want to call him out" glasses.  I said... Here's a breakdown for you...

90% of BUSTS bust because the team did not do their homework (Manziel, Tebow, the likes of quarterbacks who do not deserve first round consideration), or because their team did not have the staff and team to support them.  That means that I acknowledged 10% of busts just bust without anyone ever being to blame. 

Very few quarterbacks worth a top ten pick with proper scouting and a proper staff, proper supporting team bust. 

Look at Alex Smith.  1 TD, 11 INT in his first year.  Never over 20 touchdowns with San Francisco.  He was a bust for San Francisco.  He goes to Kansas City and turns them into a perrenial playoff team because they did what he's comfortable with.  Look at Goff, Foles, Keenum.  They all sucked, and sucked badly with Fisher.  Goff went from 5 touchdowns and 7 interceptions to 28 touchdowns and 7 interceptions.  Foles and Keenum both went to the playoffs, Foles won a Super Bowl. 

So yes, 90% of busts bust because a team didn't do their homework or because their staff is crap. 

Just now, Redt said:

Wow, short term memory failings are running wild. Do you all recall just last season with and without Rodger's? This team is not a contender without Rodger's period.

First, this team hasn't been a competitor WITH Rodgers for 7 of the 8 years since our Super Bowl win. 

Second, Hundley was a fifth round draft pick. 

There are 21 quarterbacks capable of winning Super Bowls in this league right now, and that's not including a single rookie, which will likely add more to that number. 

Every single year, the majority of quarterbacks in the league are capable of winning a Super Bowl on a good team.

Edited June 4, 2018 by HorizontoZenith

[TheBitzMan]

1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said:

That's literally - LITERALLY - nobody's solution to this.  It's the fact that we COULD franchise tag him for three years, completely eliminating any bargaining chips that he has.  He has two years left on his contract, then a year of a franchise tag and the threat of a second tag.

 

1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said:

  1 hour ago, fattlipp said:

He is signed for 2 more years, and we could franchise him the next 3 after that and still save money....

in that scenario we would have him through 2023, by then he will be done anyways.

Nobody's solution? This quote that you replied to sure makes it sound like this is the idea...

You don't think Rodgers has any leverage in this franchise tag scenario? You would be paying him $40+/mil a year!! At that point you would be begging him to take a deal...You want to talk about crippling the salary cap..I mean c'mon.

I can understanding the trading for picks but that leaves way too many variables for my liking. This franchise thing is just nonsense in my eyes. The Packers have never been in salary cap trouble and they won't be with is new deal. Everyone is freaking out about nothing. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by TheBitzMan

[MacReady]

Just now, TheBitzMan said:

 

Nobody's solution? This quote that you replied to sure makes it sound like this is the idea...

You don't think Rodgers has any leverage in this franchise tag scenario? You would be paying him $40+/mil a year!! At that point you would be begging him to take a deal...You want to talk about crippling the salary cap..I mean c'mon.

I can understanding the trading for picks but that leaves way too many variables for my liking. This franchise thing is just nonsense in my eyes. The Packers have never been in salary cap trouble and they won't be with is new deal. Everyone is freaking out about nothing. 

This isn't the zinger you think it is.  I never said I want to make him play for 2 years, then franchise tag him for three.  I said we could do that, and we can use that as a bargaining chip.  And yeah... That option still saves us more money than paying him 15% of the cap for the next 6  years. 

Freaking out about nothing?  Maybe, if these rumors are false.  If Rodgers is really demanding 15% of the cap every single year, people aren't freaking out enough. 

[TheBitzMan]

Just now, HorizontoZenith said:

This isn't the zinger you think it is.  I never said I want to make him play for 2 years, then franchise tag him for three.  I said we could do that, and we can use that as a bargaining chip.  And yeah... That option still saves us more money than paying him 15% of the cap for the next 6  years. 

Freaking out about nothing?  Maybe, if these rumors are false.  If Rodgers is really demanding 15% of the cap every single year, people aren't freaking out enough. 

I never said you did. You said nobody did, when that is exactly what was said...

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Let them go?  No.  Trade them?  Yes.  There are always teams who can't DRAFT and DEVELOP a QB.  Green Bay is a team that can do both.  It's better to get a head start on the next QB than it is to sign a QB to a contract that makes the cap so unhealthy as to eliminate the chance of building a competitive team. 

Think of it this way... If we had traded Rodgers during this draft, we probably could have had our pick of any of the quarterbacks in this draft, plus Chubb, plus Alexander and at LEAST two first round picks next year (plus probably another from Cleveland).

That would have given us Darnold/Mayfield/Allen/Rosen + Chubb + Alexander + Jackson + Our first round pick next year, Saints first round pick next year and Cleveland's first round pick next year. 

Honestly, if I were the Eagles, I'd trade Carson Wentz as soon as he's healthy for the gigantic ultra huge haul and roll with Foles.  I know for a fact Foles can win Super Bowls.  I haven't seen Wentz in the postseason.  Foles is four years older than Wentz, more experienced in the playoffs, WILDLY cheaper going forward, and my team is poised for another run at the Super Bowl already.  Add three first round picks to that, take a project QB, let him watch and learn for four years, and suddenly I've got 10 years of inexpensive QB play. 

NFL teams put the QB on much too high a pedestal.

 

That's just a total Madden franchise mode way to look at it.

It'd be like if you're in charge of logistics for a company and you use this high priced freight company that always gets your stuff there on time. You decide to switch to a company you think is equally as good but much more reasonably priced. Turns out they aren't and your freight is constantly late with damaged product. What's the end result? Your *** is getting fired.

Any GM trades a franchise QB to save money and the next guy he draft busts, he's gone, and he may never get another shot.

Sorry but that's fantasy land stuff. Roseman would be fired if he traded Wentz and Foles regressed back to the mean.

[MacReady]

Just now, TheBitzMan said:

I never said you did. You said nobody did, when that is exactly what was said...

No, it wasn't.  The person whom I quoted said we COULD do that.  Nobody said we SHOULD franchise tag him for three years.  Can we drop this specific argument because nobody said we should tag him for three years and I don't want to continue on this conversation because I'm already frustrated that so few people are so content with giving Rodgers 15% of the cap, and I'll only get frustrateder once Leader complains about a discussion on the semantics between Should and Could.  

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

That's just a total Madden franchise mode way to look at it.

It works in Madden.  Believe me, I know. 

Quote

Sorry but that's fantasy land stuff. Roseman would be fired if he traded Wentz and Foles regressed back to the mean.

You're right.  It's why no GM will do it.  It's an extreme risk.  It is a risk with an INSANE amount of reward, and a large amount of risk.  Think of the trades that made franchises.  The Cowboys built a franchise off a trade.  Imagine if the Patriots had traded Brady after the Seahawks Super Bowl win.  I see Garropolo as just as capable of winning the Falcons game (remember, Brady SUCKED, and he sucked badly in the first half of that game.  He also gave the Falcons 7 points on a pick six, and on both of his final two drives, he threw what should have been interceptions).  The Patriots also would have gotten a king's ransom in picks. 

Imagine if Favre had been traded after the Broncos loss. 

I realize it's a risk, but it is a risk that I would take, and not just because Rodgers is demanding a lot of money.

Rodgers has had an injury history that cannot be ignored.  He thinks 8 more years, I think 4 more years.

If a team was to capitalize on a quarterback's value, they could ensure a head start on the next rebuilding phase.  I don't want for Rodgers to retire after a Championship game defeat leaving us with nothing but a wasted season ahead. 

[Packerraymond]

4 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

It works in Madden.  Believe me, I know. 

You're right.  It's why no GM will do it.  It's an extreme risk.  It is a risk with an INSANE amount of reward, and a large amount of risk.  Think of the trades that made franchises.  The Cowboys built a franchise off a trade.  Imagine if the Patriots had traded Brady after the Seahawks Super Bowl win.  I see Garropolo as just as capable of winning the Falcons game (remember, Brady SUCKED, and he sucked badly in the first half of that game.  He also gave the Falcons 7 points on a pick six, and on both of his final two drives, he threw what should have been interceptions).  The Patriots also would have gotten a king's ransom in picks. 

Imagine if Favre had been traded after the Broncos loss. 

I realize it's a risk, but it is a risk that I would take, and not just because Rodgers is demanding a lot of money.

Rodgers has had an injury history that cannot be ignored.  He thinks 8 more years, I think 4 more years.

If a team was to capitalize on a quarterback's value, they could ensure a head start on the next rebuilding phase.  I don't want for Rodgers to retire after a Championship game defeat leaving us with nothing but a wasted season ahead. 

What happens when that QBs rookie deal is up? Do you trade him? Is it a never ending 4-5 year cycle?

[Lodestar]

13 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

It works in Madden.  Believe me, I know. 

You're right.  It's why no GM will do it.  It's an extreme risk.  It is a risk with an INSANE amount of reward, and a large amount of risk.  Think of the trades that made franchises.  The Cowboys built a franchise off a trade.  Imagine if the Patriots had traded Brady after the Seahawks Super Bowl win.  I see Garropolo as just as capable of winning the Falcons game (remember, Brady SUCKED, and he sucked badly in the first half of that game.  He also gave the Falcons 7 points on a pick six, and on both of his final two drives, he threw what should have been interceptions).  The Patriots also would have gotten a king's ransom in picks. 

Imagine if Favre had been traded after the Broncos loss. 

I realize it's a risk, but it is a risk that I would take, and not just because Rodgers is demanding a lot of money.

Rodgers has had an injury history that cannot be ignored.  He thinks 8 more years, I think 4 more years.

If a team was to capitalize on a quarterback's value, they could ensure a head start on the next rebuilding phase.  I don't want for Rodgers to retire after a Championship game defeat leaving us with nothing but a wasted season ahead. 

In this scenario, do the Pats trade Garoppolo a year later? Cause he's one of the highest paid QBs in the league now.

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

What happens when that QBs rookie deal is up? Do you trade him? Is it a never ending 4-5 year cycle?

Second contracts are pretty manageable.  It's the third one that gets you.  Aaron's second contract isn't what kept us from winning a Super Bowl, it was Thompson's refusal to use the cap space Aaron's second contract allowed that killed us.

[MacReady]

Just now, Lodestar said:

In this scenario, do the Pats trade Garoppolo a year later? Cause he's one of the highest paid QBs in the league now.

No, they sign him before he plays lights out as a starter.  You and I both know Garoppolo wouldn't be the highest paid QB in the league if he was re-signed before he became a starter. 

[TheBitzMan]

Just now, HorizontoZenith said:

Second contracts are pretty manageable.  It's the third one that gets you.  Aaron's second contract isn't what kept us from winning a Super Bowl, it was Thompson's refusal to use the cap space Aaron's second contract allowed that killed us.

At the point he signed he became the highest paid player in NFL history. They are manageable a few years down the line because the market passes them by. Similar to what is going to happen with this Rodgers contract...

(See Lodestar mentioning Jimmy G was the highest paid player before Ryan signed his)