Random Packer News & Notes

[Sandy]

Depends on a few things...if his contract expires/voids, then we could hypothetically tag and trade him still. Or he could resign for another season with us.

That said, Brandt's post is 100% speculation. It may end up being true, but he even says "unless contract indicates differently"...and since there's no contract yet, this is just made up BS that he knows will get his tweet posted on ESPN today.

[Packerraymond]

44 minutes ago, Leader said:

Andrew Brandt -  Unless contract indicates differently (which I don't think it will), the Aaron decision is a one-year Last Dance.

I'm shocked that Brandt thinks our FO is that inept, and if it's true, that our FO is that inept. 

[CWood21]

31 minutes ago, Leader said:

It's still to be determined....but as I said elsewhere....if this turns out to be a "one and done" contract - we should have traded him and taken the infusion of picks/players & cap relief.

Is there anything to suggest that the deal is a one year deal with void years?  I seriously doubt it.  It's got to be effectively poison-pilled that keeps Rodgers in Green Bay.  My guess is some sort of sizeable roster bonus that guarantees the year before.

[Leader]

3 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Is there anything to suggest that the deal is a one year deal with void years?  I seriously doubt it.  It's got to be effectively poison-pilled that keeps Rodgers in Green Bay.  My guess is some sort of sizeable roster bonus that guarantees the year before.

When I listened to the audio - Brandt was basing his comments on the fact AR had negotiated an out after 2022 - and - until he hears that the out's been removed (which he appears skeptical about.....) - he's going with the thought that it's gonna be a one and done.

Do I like AR coming back? Yes. It helps us win now...and if the contract's structured properly...into the future.
I think it gets us into the Playoffs at least. My level of trust in our Playoff performances has slipped.

Would I want AR back on a one and done - and bypass the potential return trading him could provide - the foundation for moving forward it could provide? No. That I would see as an opportunity missed.

But - let's play with this a bit...
IF it turns out AR's a one and done - do you think Davante negotiates a longer term deal (?) - or plays out the string on the tag so they both become FA's in 2023? Could that possibly be in play?

[Green19]

15 minutes ago, Sandy said:

Depends on a few things...if his contract expires/voids, then we could hypothetically tag and trade him still. Or he could resign for another season with us.

That said, Brandt's post is 100% speculation. It may end up being true, but he even says "unless contract indicates differently"...and since there's no contract yet, this is just made up BS that he knows will get his tweet posted on ESPN today.

It was reported that with that out from last year that they put language keeping GB from being able to tag him. If the language is in the contract and true Rodgers would be a true FA. No tag , no nothing.

[R T]

4 minutes ago, Leader said:

When I listened to the audio - Brandt was basing his comments on the fact AR had negotiated an out after 2022 - and - until he hears that the out's been removed (which he appears skeptical about.....) - he's going with the thought that it's gonna be a one and done.

Do I like AR coming back? Yes. It helps us win now...and if the contract's structured properly...into the future.
I think it gets us into the Playoffs at least. My level of trust in our Playoff performances has slipped.

Would I want AR back on a one and done - and bypass the potential return trading him could provide - the foundation for moving forward it could provide? No. That I would see as an opportunity missed.

But - let's play with this a bit...
IF it turns out AR's a one and done - do you think Davante negotiates a longer term deal (?) - or plays out the string on the tag so they both become FA's in 2023? Could that possibly be in play?

I don't believe for a second that Adams is tied to Rodgers beyond 2022. Adams is not risking injury and a generational type payday so he can maybe go somewhere with the wishy-washy Rodgers next year. The Packers and Adams will find common middle ground in time and Adams will sign a long-term deal.   

[Packerraymond]

2 hours ago, Outpost31 said:

You’re wrong and you still can’t accept it and it’s annoying.

We’re not talking about whether or not the trade should have been made.

It was made.

The Raiders won it.

In literally every measurable, tangible metric, the Raiders won the trade.

And no they don’t believe in Carr, and you know that. Neither does McDaniels. Nobody believes in Carr.

They’re in purgatory. If they re-signed Mack with the intention of keeping Carr, remove Jacobs and Waller and every offensive player they signed. Take some of Carr’s OL away and he’s crying again like he did when the Seahawks got to him.

You’re not winning a Super Bowl with a crying QB no matter how many Macks you have on defense because there isn’t a path to and through the Super Bowl that doesn’t include a QB who can do enough against 11 Macks when all enough is is more than Crying Carr can do.

You’re wrong. You want me to show you how wrong you are? I am going to right now admit the following things:

Julio Jones lack of TD production is happenstance.

Not drafting WR, IOL, ILB, TE in the first round is a strong guideline, not a rule, and it’s not always a mistake to do so (although you should use extreme prejudice the better the first round draft pick).

And I’ll admit the truth to 7 other things if I think of them, but this one I will not.

The Bears made a bonheaded decision based on the HOPE of landing a QB on a rookie contract and they should never in a million years have made this trade.

The Raiders objectively and subjectively won this trade for the reasons I’ve already mentioned.

Literally the only reason you are arguing this is because of mule headed pride.

 

No one won the Mack trade. 

[Leader]

1 minute ago, R T said:

I don't believe for a second that Adams is tied to Rodgers beyond 2022. Adams is not risking injury and a generational type payday so he can maybe go somewhere with the wishy-washy Rodgers next year. The Packers and Adams will find common middle ground in time and Adams will sign a long-term deal.   

Agree there is injury risk - but many other players have bet on themselves and won - plus - Davante's not suffered any serious injury so far in his career. Could that luck hold? Maybe yes / maybe no.

If they're working jointly - which is pure conjecture - there;s less "wishy-washiness" to it and more direct comments / promises made privately to each other. 

[MacReady]

3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

No one won the Mack trade. 

Use whichever kind of semantic gymnastics you want. Be as stubborn as you want.

If you could choose to have an above average running back and average to above average #3 WR or zero of those things, you’re picking the former.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

No one won the Mack trade. 

You could say both teams lost.  The Bears went all in on a championship window predicated on the assumption that Trubisky was going to make the leap, as a result they accomplished very little and the coach and the GM lost their job.  The Raiders on the other hand lost a hall of fame caliber talent, and in return they got a bunch of picks and whiffed on them.

[vegas492]

1 hour ago, Striker said:

The Raiders won the trade simply because Gruden "resigned" and Mayock was fired and they still have that above average RB and WR AND made the playoffs despite playing most of the season with an interim HC.

Meanwhile, the Bears are starting over. Again.

...at least they have Fields?

 

*edit - yes, I know that Gruden "resigning" had nothing to do with that trade but it's still a win.

[Packerraymond]

1 minute ago, Outpost31 said:

Use whichever kind of semantic gymnastics you want. Be as stubborn as you want.

If you could choose to have an above average running back and average to above average #3 WR or zero of those things, you’re picking the former.

 

I would choose to sign the HOF pass rusher that actually positively moves the needle for my franchise. Should we trade Gary for Damien Harris and Jakobi Myers?

[PossibleCabbage]

27 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

I'm shocked that Brandt thinks our FO is that inept, and if it's true, that our FO is that inept. 

It's possible there's an understanding that has some basis in the contract that if the Packers aren't going to be able to extend Davante past the next season, that Rodgers would be traded.

[CWood21]

18 minutes ago, Leader said:

When I listened to the audio - Brandt was basing his comments on the fact AR had negotiated an out after 2022 - and - until he hears that the out's been removed (which he appears skeptical about.....) - he's going with the thought that it's gonna be a one and done.

Do I like AR coming back? Yes. It helps us win now...and if the contract's structured properly...into the future.
I think it gets us into the Playoffs at least. My level of trust in our Playoff performances has slipped.

Would I want AR back on a one and done - and bypass the potential return trading him could provide - the foundation for moving forward it could provide? No. That I would see as an opportunity missed.

But - let's play with this a bit...
IF it turns out AR's a one and done - do you think Davante negotiates a longer term deal (?) - or plays out the string on the tag so they both become FA's in 2023? Could that possibly be in play?

The void was created for leverage purposes.  If Rodgers wouldn't have gotten that void year added, he would have been stuck in the same position he was last offseason this offseason IF he wasn't happy.  It was meant to accelerate the timeline.  It wouldn't make sense that the Packers just gave Rodgers a $50M/year contract (assuming that's correct), but leave the void.  That's literally bending over backwards, and actually makes @StatKing look right.  I refuse to believe the FO is that inept.

[Packerraymond]

2 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said:

It's possible there's an understanding that has some basis in the contract that if the Packers aren't going to be able to extend Davante past the next season, that Rodgers would be traded.

Then that should've happened this year, when his value was highest. That would be an absurdly stupid decision from our FO and I will spend the entire year call all of them dumbass.