Random Packer News & Notes

[incognito_man]

3 hours ago, Chili said:

Did not want Parker at all. Puts us closer to OBJ, Fuller and Jones.

OBJ isn't playing in 2022...

[Norm]

2 hours ago, Arthur Penske said:

Maybe I’m missing something but why OBJ? Coming off 2nd ACL and didn’t even want to play in GB in 2022.

Something something mason Dixon line

[Chili]

2 hours ago, Arthur Penske said:

Maybe I’m missing something but why OBJ? Coming off 2nd ACL and didn’t even want to play in GB in 2022.

A Rams return seems closed to him, the Patriots has just traded for Parker...his options is beginning to narrow for him and he may not have many options as to who his next team will be.

If the Packers take a long term view of say.... the next couple of years they will have to ask themselves is there anyone on the team who is capable of being WR1 right now and the answer obviously would be no. Also the likelihood of finding an immediate WR1 from the draft is unlikely too as rookies tend to take a couple of years to develop.

So in the meantime who is going to fill the WR1 role for the Packers over the next couple of years? Someone gotta do it.

That's why i'm starting to think signing OBJ makes some sense. Right age, bonafide WR1, fills a need, shouldn't be overly expensive. Just have to be patient with with his recovery for i dunno...for the first 8 games. If we reach a superbowl that is potentially 21 games in a season so obviously if everything goes perfectly for us then OBJ would still get to play 12 games next season. With that in mind are we still going to say no to signing OBJ?

[Chili]

15 minutes ago, Norm said:

Something something mason Dixon line

You can't take something I said from a completely different context and apply it to this. You're essentially strawmanning me. Dude. Not cool.

Tut tut.....

[thrILL!]

13 minutes ago, Chili said:

If the Packers take a long term view of say.... the next couple of years they will have to ask themselves is there anyone on the team who is capable of being WR1 right now and the answer obviously would be no. Also the likelihood of finding an immediate WR1 from the draft is unlikely too as rookies tend to take a couple of years to develop.

So in the meantime who is going to fill the WR1 role for the Packers over the next couple of years? Someone gotta do it.

What’s the difference between the bolded?  

I don’t know if any of these top WR prospects will be able to step in and be WR1 to start this season for us.  Maybe the ones who can will be gone by 22.  But a guy like Jamo could contribute in 2022 and be the clear WR1 in 2023 and there’s the rub.  Gotta see how the board falls and weigh the options of what we need.  
 

Which FAs to sign now vs which FAs will be available post-Draft to fill the void and be the bridge.  I’d take a flyer on Julio if we can make it work.  He’s struggled with injuries obviously but if he stays healthy he could be huge. Not to mention mentor the younger guys. We need some kind of FA vet tho. 

[Norm]

47 minutes ago, Chili said:

You can't take something I said from a completely different context and apply it to this. You're essentially strawmanning me. Dude. Not cool.

Tut tut.....

People don't forget

[mikemike778]

51 minutes ago, Chili said:

A Rams return seems closed to him, the Patriots has just traded for Parker...his options is beginning to narrow for him and he may not have many options as to who his next team will be.

If the Packers take a long term view of say.... the next couple of years they will have to ask themselves is there anyone on the team who is capable of being WR1 right now and the answer obviously would be no. Also the likelihood of finding an immediate WR1 from the draft is unlikely too as rookies tend to take a couple of years to develop.

So in the meantime who is going to fill the WR1 role for the Packers over the next couple of years? Someone gotta do it.

That's why i'm starting to think signing OBJ makes some sense. Right age, bonafide WR1, fills a need, shouldn't be overly expensive. Just have to be patient with with his recovery for i dunno...for the first 8 games. If we reach a superbowl that is potentially 21 games in a season so obviously if everything goes perfectly for us then OBJ would still get to play 12 games next season. With that in mind are we still going to say no to signing OBJ?

OBJ is pushing 30 and has an extensive injury including two ACL tears of the same knee. From an injury risk perspective, the risk level would be considered extreme.

If he was very cheap (as in 2m max) then I wouldn't be massively against signing him as long as it was seen as a punt. We would still need in my opinion two highly drafted receivers in the first two rounds. If we signed him it should be on an , expect nothing so anything he produces is a pleasant surprise.

Planning on him being the WR1 for the next few years is reckless in the extreme.

NFL is a violent sport - when players turn 30, previously fragile players don't become durable - it is the opposite. 

Its like Bulaga on his 3rd contract - if you sign him and he gets injured don't complain about your bad luck. 

[mikemike778]

8 hours ago, Old Guy said:

Football is a young man's game. I'm for getting rid of guys a contract too early than too late. I'm not for taking a market at 20 million and moving it to 30 million. Which is what happened with WR and now the CB market it heading the same way. As far as Rodgers, he's earned his ticket out of town when he turned into Favre 2.0. He's back we have to roll with it. Still not on board and never will be on board for taking a shot by mortgaging our future with a QB who has been average at best in the playoffs. 

I was all for keeping Jaire at Ramsey money. I'm not for keeping him above Howard's money. He's coming off a major injury and that is a risk I wouldn't take. I wouldn't give him away. I'd want two FRPs for him. Otherwise, he plays on the franchise tag, which hurts our cap this year. 

It takes a lot of really good players to win a Super Bowl. It also takes some luck. You can't keep everybody, and nobody did this better than NE. Look at the talent he allowed to walk away or traded because they didn't fit into their idea of the cap. It's really not complicated and why other teams haven't copied the most basic part of their success is really quite amazing to me.

 

Interesting you use NE as a comparison. Yes they let talent walk away but the one guy they would not let walk is their QB. And of course when he did, the success ended.  Its a all a guessing game what will happen but there is a high chance Packers go from a contending team or an irrelevant team which is why a lot of Rodgers fans want to put that off. 

If we followed the NE route like you suggest we would keep Rodgers which is very much against your views.

Look I get the case for moving on from him whilst I don't agree but you can't let your studs go as well. Or what do you have left - just guys not good enough to command big contracts ?

The reality is any young superstar will want contracts that look insane, Gary will be the same. If you want to keep them you have to pay them. Generally I am wary of third contracts but your best players you have to give a second deal to or you wont have a good team. 

If your strategy is to let your HOF players like Rodgers and lose the Alexander and Gary's of the world because you wont pay market setting contracts then if you were a GM your team would be a perennial 2-15 team I'm afraid.

 

[Old Guy]

24 minutes ago, mikemike778 said:

 

Interesting you use NE as a comparison. Yes they let talent walk away but the one guy they would not let walk is their QB. And of course when he did, the success ended.  Its a all a guessing game what will happen but there is a high chance Packers go from a contending team or an irrelevant team which is why a lot of Rodgers fans want to put that off. 

If we followed the NE route like you suggest we would keep Rodgers which is very much against your views.

Look I get the case for moving on from him whilst I don't agree but you can't let your studs go as well. Or what do you have left - just guys not good enough to command big contracts ?

The reality is any young superstar will want contracts that look insane, Gary will be the same. If you want to keep them you have to pay them. Generally I am wary of third contracts but your best players you have to give a second deal to or you wont have a good team. 

If your strategy is to let your HOF players like Rodgers and lose the Alexander and Gary's of the world because you wont pay market setting contracts then if you were a GM your team would be a perennial 2-15 team I'm afraid.

 

Do you not think the draft capital we would have gotten for Rodgers would have gone a long ways to shorten that downturn? 

You can't cherry pick part of a scenario and try to make a comparison. I want Rodgers gone because he's turned into a complete *******. Just like Favre. 

[mikemike778]

20 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Do you not think the draft capital we would have gotten for Rodgers would have gone a long ways to shorten that downturn? 

You can't cherry pick part of a scenario and try to make a comparison. I want Rodgers gone because he's turned into a complete *******. Just like Favre. 

Depends on whether you hit with the picks - particularly QB, good chance we are irrelevant for some time but who knows. We could get lucky and draft the next Burrow immediately. We could be Bears and spend the next 20 years waiting for a QB.

Like I said not fighting the Rodgers thing if that's what you want to do (again I disagree but that's another matter) but if you go down that route you can't let the Alexanders of this world go or you don't have a team. He isn't going to be the only player who will be wanting a contract that looks crazy at first glance.

 

[Leader]

Bill Huber / SI  -  Packers Spin Wheels in Race for Super Bowl

While many of the NFL's heavyweights improved this offseason, the Green Bay Packers are going nowhere fast in their pursuit of another Super Bowl victory.

On Thursday, the Los Angeles Rams signed six-time All-Pro linebacker Bobby Wagner. In the craziest offseason in NFL history, it was another case of the rich getting richer.

If the goal is to win the Super Bowl – and at a place called “Titletown,” that should be the goal – the Green Bay Packers have spent the offseason with their fingers clenched to the rooftop of a 32-story building, the rest of their body dangling precariously off the edge.

It’s impossible to overstate the opportunities the Packers wasted the past two years, especially with Aaron Rodgers winning back-to-back MVPs. Now, with some key personnel losses, can they win the game that matters in February before they lose their grip?

In 2020, they had the NFC Championship Game on their home turf, intercepted Tom Brady three times and lost anyway. Wanting to give that powerful team another chance, general manager Brian Gutekunst moved heaven and earth to keep the group together. “Run it back,” they said. Instead, they ran it backward. They had the No. 1 seed again, the incredible good fortune of adding defensive studs De’Vondre Campbell and Rasul Douglas, and went one-and-done.

Green Bay is the only team in NFL history with three consecutive 13-win seasons. However, three spectacular regular seasons ended with three spectacular postseason flameouts. This offseason, Gutekunst traded All-Pro receiver Davante Adams and released outside linebacker Za’Darius Smith and right tackle Billy Turner to get far enough under the salary cap to re-sign Campbell and Douglas and add defensive tackle Jarran Reed.

Those were solid signings, but are the Packers better? Of course, you know the answer. They’re not better. This is a team clinging to the edge of that skyscraper, perhaps fighting a losing battle against salary-cap gravity to climb their way back to the top of the building where all the legit championship contenders hang out.

Green Bay’s main rivals in the NFC, the Los Angeles Rams (won the Super Bowl in 2021), Tampa Bay Buccaneers (won the 2020 Super Bowl) and San Francisco 49ers (eliminated the Packers in 2019 and 2021), aren’t appreciably better. But at least they’re not obviously worse, like the Packers are without Adams.

Gutekunst went all-in last offseason, turning over every couch cushion to find the money to keep the 2020 team together. That meant pushing millions upon millions of 2021 salary-cap dollars into 2022 and beyond. Given the power of the team he had built, it was the right approach. It didn’t work, but the failure to win the Super Bowl had nothing to do with the roster he assembled.

This offseason, Gutekunst ran out of couch cushions. Tough decisions were made. The roster isn’t as good.

[Brat&Beer]

Not one word from Huber about the fact they'll be getting back 2 Pro Bowl O-linemen and a Pro Bowl cornerback?

Edited April 3, 2022 by Brat&Beer

[MaximusGluteus]

1 minute ago, Brat&Beer said:

Not one word from Huber about the fact they'll be getting back 2 Pro Bowl O-linemen and a Pro Bowl cornerback?

Not to mention Z being out all season yet he implied that we were better last season because of him.

[thrILL!]

38 minutes ago, Brat&Beer said:

Not one word from Huber about the fact they'll be getting back 2 Pro Bowl O-linemen and a Pro Bowl cornerback?

He gave Rodgers a Hail Mary of a pass too. 

[Sandy]

11 hours ago, Leader said:

A word I dont see getting bandied about around here is "guarantees" - it's all the rage with NFL players now and it was a contributing factor on why Davante moved on. GB (supposedly) wouldnt offer the contract guarantees he was looking for. True or not....I've no clue.

His contract offer from us didn't guarantee he'd play half his games in Las Vegas.