Leader Posted March 10, 2023 Author Share Posted March 10, 2023 1 minute ago, Old Guy said: Tell me why you would post that quote talking about getting rid of out LT? LOL DO you not see the irony of your reply? I'll give you the best to get rid of him, it's the difference between Rodgers going to the Jets and we get compensation, or he retires. Rodgers will play any game he needs to in order to get his way. Be happy to. Simple. Clearly what I posted wasnt my personal opinion. I'm not making the connection with BAK going to the Jets is crucial to AR going there and I dont see his contract cost as being out of whack with top LTs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 Just now, Packerraymond said: What are you talking about? Seems you're just making stuff up. There's not a single report that a requirement of Rodgers going to NY is us trading Bakh too. Look up! The quote from Ken Ingalls @Leaderposted. I replied to that. Full admission, I've said Bak with Rodgers makes sense and even suggested it might happen. I'm actually all for it, but again, LOOK forwards top of page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Leader said: Be happy to. Simple. Clearly what I posted wasnt my personal opinion. I'm not making the connection with BAK going to the Jets is crucial to AR going there and I dont see his contract cost as being out of whack with top LTs. I'll type slower so you understand. I REPLIED to your quote of Ken Ingalls which he clearly implied Bak going with Rodgers to the Jets. Edited March 10, 2023 by Old Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 Just now, Old Guy said: Look up! The quote from Ken Ingalls @Leaderposted. I replied to that. Full admission, I've said Bak with Rodgers makes sense and even suggested it might happen. I'm actually all for it, but again, LOOK forwards top of page. The first sentence is that he doesn't think Bakh is going to be a part of the trade. I agree. Not sure what you're reading. The Jets will either pay fair price for Bakh, or he's a Packer. If Rodgers has a tantrum about that, he can retire, we get the cap relief either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted March 10, 2023 Author Share Posted March 10, 2023 Just now, Old Guy said: I'll type slower so you understand. I REPLIED to your quote of Ken Ingalls which he clearly implied Bak going with Rodgers to the Jets. Ease off with the subtle digs. Not necessary. Again - I posted the comment (read: opinion) of Ken Ingalls - not mine. I dont think trading BAK to the NYJs is central or necessary to trading AR there. There's more than enough complications to just trading AR and sending BAK only complicated matters. And as also mentioned - I dont think BAKs contract cost to be out of line with other top LTs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 Just now, Packerraymond said: The first sentence is that he doesn't think Bakh is going to be a part of the trade. I agree. Not sure what you're reading. The Jets will either pay fair price for Bakh, or he's a Packer. If Rodgers has a tantrum about that, he can retire, we get the cap relief either way. He then went on to say it would more likely be a post June 1st cut rather than a trade. When you could easily make the Bak trade separate and the picks in 24 or beyond and designate that trade as post June 1st. I'd rather get compensation for Bak and Rodgers by shipping them both rather than Rodgers making Bak contingent upon him going to NY and he gets butt hurt and retires if it doesn't happen. The retirement option still seems to be on the table according to the talking heads. I'm not buying it but with him, who could be surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 2 minutes ago, Leader said: Ease off with the subtle digs. Not necessary. It wasn't subtle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted March 10, 2023 Author Share Posted March 10, 2023 Just now, Mazrimiv said: It wasn't subtle. Sorry...but could you type that slower? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 1 minute ago, Leader said: Ease off with the subtle digs. Not necessary. Again - I posted the comment (read: opinion) of Ken Ingalls - not mine. I dont think trading BAK to the NYJs is central or necessary to trading AR there. There's more than enough complications to just trading AR and sending BAK only complicated matters. And as also mentioned - I dont think BAKs contract cost to be out of line with other top LTs. When you post a comment people on a message board people are going to opine. His cap number is 33 million in 2024, where you either extend him or cut him. We are not in the habit of extending 30-year-old plus offensive linemen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R T Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 6 minutes ago, Old Guy said: When you post a comment people on a message board people are going to opine. His cap number is 33 million in 2024, where you either extend him or cut him. We are not in the habit of extending 30-year-old plus offensive linemen. Seems like a 2024 decision. Packers rode out 2 years of rehab with the hope that he would get back to playing at a high level, which is what happen in the second half of the season. Why would they want to move on from him at this point? His contract is very reasonable for a Pro Bowl level LT for 2023. Maybe that is the FO's plan, but highly doubt it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 (edited) 11 minutes ago, R T said: Seems like a 2024 decision. Packers rode out 2 years of rehab with the hope that he would get back to playing at a high level, which is what happen in the second half of the season. Why would they want to move on from him at this point? His contract is very reasonable for a Pro Bowl level LT for 2023. Maybe that is the FO's plan, but highly doubt it. My thought on this is if Rodgers is gone, you purge your roster of aging vets with big contract now. Then in '24 and beyond you can build around Love. Bak is at that age where his play is going to decline, not get better. He's going to be 33 end of September. Edited March 10, 2023 by Old Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 1 minute ago, Old Guy said: My thought on this is if Rodgers is gone, you purge your roster of aging vets with big contract now. Then in '24 and beyond you can build around Love. Bak is at that age where is play is going to decline, not get better. He's going to be 33 end of September. So an All-Pro LT doesn't benefit a first year starting QB? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 17 hours ago, Mazrimiv said: The reality that Gute has planned for this outcome several years in advance seems completely lost on so many. I suppose we could talk about mismanagement if GB was in this spot with Rodgers, and had no alternatives at the position. ....or if the alternatives were...Carr at 4 years, $150M and $100M guaranteed. or Jimmy G at whatever he's gonna cost. or Jimmy Garrapolo. or Heineke. or Dalton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: So an All-Pro LT doesn't benefit a first year starting QB? Never said that! Can you count on a 33-year-old LT with a bad knee? If the choice for Rodgers is retire or get traded to the Jets WITH Bak, do you pass up the compensation for Rodgers? Don't put it past Rodgers to make those demands either. Edited March 10, 2023 by Old Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 17 hours ago, Toddfather said: Exactly. Love was raw, and got to sit for three years behind a HOF QB who answered questions etc. More importantly he got to watch him. I agree with @vegas492. You saw the faces in the war room when they drafted Love. They were always excited, and knew they had two years to develop him. It ended up being three. Who knows what he will be, but I didn't hate the approach. It is only with hindsight that I get it. I did not like the pick at the time, simply because it was too early to maximize the rookie contract. And we really needed another impact player, somewhere, to help us get over the hump and into the big game. And that hasn't changed, at all. Though I believe you can argue, we were there already and an injury to an elite LT derailed that dream. The fact is, those last two QB classes did not show much in the way of talent that would have been available to GB...unless you really want to count Hurts. (Whom I liked in the draft, but never fathomed he would be this good.) GB had a plan, Rodgers threw a monkey wrench into the plan, in a good way, and now we are here. It is not a bad position to be in. 1 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.