AlexGreen#20 Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 8 minutes ago, Sandy said: That's half the confusion trying to do this, and I'm still shaky on how many void years can be tacked on an extension...would it be a maximum of 5 years out from the start of the new years on the deal? Or from this season? And is that 5 year rule something that's just a limitation of OTC? These are troubling times for cap calculations. Btw on that Jaire debate going on above...I'd argue that Jaire has very little leverage at this time. If he gets hurt this year - even for a few weeks - then the "injury prone" label is going to stick to him as he goes into a walk year. I know NFL GMs are big boys who do their homework, but these are the same people offering David Njoku star contracts. He might find a bit fewer suitors on the open market. So does he bet on himself and still risk getting tagged? Or does he take a deal worth slightly less than some of his peers and eliminate some of that doubt, securing his future with making sure there are some guarantees? You can do as many void years as you want, but a signing bonus only prorates for 5 years, even if you sign a 10 year contract, so there's no point in doing them past 5 years of the contract. Jaire is gonna get paid. He's a phenomenal young player at a premium position. Even if he goes down in week 4, he'll get paid. He's not the type of guy to take anything more than all of it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Penske Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 4 hours ago, incognito_man said: Gute is learning from Rodgers. "Not one" = more than one Lol, the immunized comment really wasn’t next level by 12. Not only person questioned it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 3 hours ago, St Vince said: Rodgers is such a diva, I'm over this already. Gute would be foolish to give Rodgers and Adams those contracts. Rodgers had 11 years to get back to a SB, it's time to move on. This offense is supposed to be designed to win a SB with a game manager type QB. Goff and Jimmy G made it to a SB in this offense. Let Rodgers and Adams walk, I want to keep this promising young OL in tact. I rather take that money and bring back the entire defense. Trade Rodgers and Adams to Vegas for Carr, Waller, Crosby and 3 one's. Built a ferocious defense and let Carr thrive in a QB friendly offense designed to run without an elite QB. We can let Love develop for another year while we stock pile talent with two first round picks over the next 3 years. This is the route we need to go. It's funny how we mention Jimmy G and Goff and both the teams these guys played for went on Super Bowl runs and lost, they realised they wanted nothing more to do with them. And hence why they both went out to find a better solution. But here we are, a team who has in hand a way better QB, are thinking the better solution is to get rid of our elite aging QB and get a QB like the two these teams got rid of and that will give us a better chance of winning... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Brit Pack said: But here we are, a team who has in hand a way better QB, are thinking the better solution is to get rid of our elite aging QB and get a QB like the two these teams got rid of and that will give us a better chance of winning... This is a partial truth. As far as I'm aware not one person on this board (who advocates trading Rodgers) thinks we have a better chance of winning in the short term. The argument for trading Rodgers is about what happens in the longer term, in 2023, 24 and beyond. If the Packers fail to get a superb owl in the next two years (ok, possibly three), then the tactic of selling out to keep Rodgers and Adams is a failed tactic. Keeping Rodgers also assumes he will play at a high level, which is not a given at his age. Also, keeping him = no extra high picks to help the Packers move on. Specifically, there will be no extra first round pick in 2023, that allows the Packers to trade up for another first round QB if Love fails in 2022. No future safety net is available in this scenario. .........And when the Packers finally DO move on from Rodgers they will be a significantly weaker team (than if he was traded this year), having missed out on having two good shots at a starter level QB (Love and a high 2023 pick). In addition, there will be at two or three good players that the Packers were not able to keep, due to the future cap damage done to keep Rodgers (and possibly Adams). That is the future. If the Packers DO get a superbowl in the next couple of years, you can call the choice to keep Rodgers a success. The Packers will suck more down the road, but I would think that winning a SB is sufficient justification for a bad cap situation and fewer quality players in the following years. If the Packers fail to get another SB with Rodgers, then the decision to keep Rodgers is a poor one. THIS is the choice, and if you don't think there are two valid, but opposing opinions on this, I don't think you have read the last however many pages of comment. The TLDR short version is, your views tend to depend on whether you are nowacrat, or a buildican. Edited March 2, 2022 by OneTwoSixFive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 13 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said: If the Packers fail to get a superb owl in the next two years (ok, possibly three), then the tactic of selling out to keep Rodgers and Adams is a failed tactic. This is actually another partial truth. It is more comforting to have a good season with Rodgers, even one that still fails to net a SB, than to endure a (probable) poor season without him. However, given the serious future problems that come with keeping AR, it needs something big (ie a SB) to justify that decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 39 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said: This is a partial truth. As far as I'm aware not one person on this board (who advocates trading Rodgers) thinks we have a better chance of winning in the short term. The argument for trading Rodgers is about what happens in the longer term, in 2023, 24 and beyond. If the Packers fail to get a superb owl in the next two years (ok, possibly three), then the tactic of selling out to keep Rodgers and Adams is a failed tactic. Keeping Rodgers also assumes he will play at a high level, which is not a given at his age. Also, keeping him = no extra high picks to help the Packers move on. Specifically, there will be no extra first round pick in 2023, that allows the Packers to trade up for another first round QB if Love fails in 2022. No future safety net is available in this scenario. .........And when the Packers finally DO move on from Rodgers they will be a significantly weaker team (than if he was traded this year), having missed out on having two good shots at a starter level QB (Love and a high 2023 pick). In addition, there will be at two or three good players that the Packers were not able to keep, due to the future cap damage done to keep Rodgers (and possibly Adams). That is the future. If the Packers DO get a superbowl in the next couple of years, you can call the choice to keep Rodgers a success. The Packers will suck more down the road, but I would think that winning a SB is sufficient justification for a bad cap situation and fewer quality players in the following years. If the Packers fail to get another SB with Rodgers, then the decision to keep Rodgers is a poor one. THIS is the choice, and if you don't think there are two valid, but opposing opinions on this, I don't think you have read the last however many pages of comment. The TLDR short version is, your views tend to depend on whether you are nowacrat, or a buildican. I see it not as a Super Bowl or bust but as the chance to get a Super Bowl and Rodgers gives us the best chance of that. It is about the now and let the future be the future. Bill Belichick had no idea what he had in Brady when Bledsoe went down. What the Packers will be in 2024 and beyond is all hypothetical, all the potential draft picks we acquire could amount to a hill of beans. We just don't know. Keeping Rodgers gives us more certainty, moving on from Rodgers is more exciting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 51 minutes ago, Brit Pack said: It is about the now and let the future be the future. So...............nowacrat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brit Pack Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 4 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said: So...............nowacrat. Is that a bad thing or a good thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 2 minutes ago, Brit Pack said: Is that a bad thing or a good thing? Not sure it's either, just differing opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 (edited) It's exactly as @AlexGreen#20 said. The 'good or bad' thing will take years of playing out, before you can say which decision is the good one and which is the bad one. If you aren't sure what a nowacrat is, it is someone concerned more with the short term than the future. A buildican is more concerned with the future. Edited March 2, 2022 by OneTwoSixFive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachbuns Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 8 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said: It's exactly as @AlexGreen#20 said. The 'good or bad' thing will take years of playing out, before you can say which decision is the good one and which is the bad one. If you aren't sure what a nowacrat is, it is someone concerned more with the short term than the future. A buildican is more concerned with the future. Not sure if nowacrat and buildican are words but I do like how they are described. This forum certainly has both of them. Is Gute and his cohorts a nowa or a buildi?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Vince Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 2 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said: It's exactly as @AlexGreen#20 said. The 'good or bad' thing will take years of playing out, before you can say which decision is the good one and which is the bad one. If you aren't sure what a nowacrat is it is someone concerned more with the short term than the future. A buildican is more concerned with the future. I think it's dumb and Irresponsible. Rodgers is really confusing and frustrating. Last year it wasn't about the money but this year it is? I don't begrudge a player for getting "his" but if getting his is gonna set the franchise up for failure in the future me as a fan hate the idea. I don't want to mortgage the future. Rodgers and Adams have delivered zero rings together but they want to be the highest paid by the Packers. Really can't blame Adams but QBs especially elite ones make a Absurd amount of money, so you have to ask is it about a championship or his personal economy, only he can answer that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 23 minutes ago, coachbuns said: Not sure if nowacrat and buildican are words but I do like how they are described. This forum certainly has both of them. Is Gute and his cohorts a nowa or a buildi?! Traditionally Gute has been a buildican. And that's the lineage he comes from. But last year he showed some nowacrat tendencies and based on the conversation this off-season, he looks like he's going to have an even more radical nowacrat this year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 Inventing words, I like it. Put me in the buildican camp. Always loved the draft and even more so when Green Bay had premium picks. Full disclosure, this is in small part why I'm for getting rid of Rodgers. Certainly not in totality, however. I also firmly believe it is the best move for the organization, long-term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubz41 Posted March 2, 2022 Share Posted March 2, 2022 3 hours ago, Brit Pack said: I see it not as a Super Bowl or bust but as the chance to get a Super Bowl and Rodgers gives us the best chance of that. It is about the now and let the future be the future. Bill Belichick had no idea what he had in Brady when Bledsoe went down. What the Packers will be in 2024 and beyond is all hypothetical, all the potential draft picks we acquire could amount to a hill of beans. We just don't know. Keeping Rodgers gives us more certainty, moving on from Rodgers is more exciting. and economically more feasible. The amount of 'void' years it is going to take get people back in the building is incredibly non-Packer like. It's a horrible plan. Short sided and desperate. Moving on from Rodgers (and Adams) could lead to another decade of playoff teams. It doesn't even hinge on Love's performance. If he doesn't show improvement with playing time....you have the draft capital to go after your next best guess at QB in 2023 draft. Karma leans toward a "John Hadle trade redemption"! 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.