{Family Ghost} Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Is it all quiet on the Packers FA front today? Haven't heard any juicy rumors at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{Family Ghost} Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 5 minutes ago, beekay414 said: Well in that case the Packers were just interested in getting a new lead back. Must have wanted more of a bell cow that is a few years younger. We'll see how things work out for Jacobs in GB. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Just now, {Family Ghost} said: Well in that case the Packers were just interested in getting a new lead back. Must have wanted more of a bell cow that is a few years younger. We'll see how things work out for Jacobs in GB. Not directing this at you, obviously but a lot of people are gonna pose questions like "why couldn't we just offer X amount more or cut this guy to make more room for Jones?" but the question really needs to be "would Jones have signed a similar deal here knowing he was going to be the back-up?" There was no way that another discounted contract was good for the business of Aaron Jones in Green Bay after we brought in JJ unless he was 100% bought into just retiring here and wanting to win a title. It's obvious now that he's also, and I hold no blame over him for it, in the business of what's best for Aaron Jones. So, while people are gonna wanna rake the Packers over the coals for letting another fan favorite go, you can't hold Gute accountable for his words and not hold Jones accountable for his. These things go both ways. Again, this post is just in general, not directed at you. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 10 minutes ago, beekay414 said: These numbers are helpful, but the number I really want to know is the final Rosenhaus offer to Gute. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Just now, Mazrimiv said: These numbers are helpful, but the number I really want to know is the final Rosenhaus offer to Gute. It was probably "no restructure" lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 14 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said: How did we arrive at him being offered 6 mil by the Pack? He was due to make 17.5 mil, and the Packers asked for a 50 percent cut. I thought the Packers were in that 8-9 mil range. What am I missing? The cap hit was set to be 17.5M, not the 2024 earnings. He was set to earn 12M in new money. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{Family Ghost} Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 7 minutes ago, beekay414 said: Not directing this at you, obviously but a lot of people are gonna pose questions like "why couldn't we just offer X amount more or cut this guy to make more room for Jones?" but the question really needs to be "would Jones have signed a similar deal here knowing he was going to be the back-up?" There was no way that another discounted contract was good for the business of Aaron Jones in Green Bay after we brought in JJ unless he was 100% bought into just retiring here and wanting to win a title. It's obvious now that he's also, and I hold no blame over him for it, in the business of what's best for Aaron Jones. So, while people are gonna wanna rake the Packers over the coals for letting another fan favorite go, you can't hold Gute accountable for his words and not hold Jones accountable for his. These things go both ways. Again, this post is just in general, not directed at you. It's business .. I don't have a problem with it other than that I think they low-balled Jones a bit. The Packers set their price on Jones and he decided it was too much of a cut .. again, it's business. Now do I think they set the price a little too low for Jones .. yep, but Gute knew those risks when he presented the offer. Credit to him to pivoting to what should probably be an upgrade at the position for a really nice cap hit number in 2024. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampfgeist Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 (edited) 27 minutes ago, beekay414 said: but the question really needs to be "would Jones have signed a similar deal here knowing he was going to be the back-up?" Do not agree with this question. AJ and Dillon have had a near 50/50 split in carries (no worse than 60/40) for the last 3 seasons. Don't think this is the year Jones said he's not willing to be in a timeshare. He's had plenty of games taking a backseat to Dillon and has never complained. Prior to Dillon it was a timeshare with Jamaal Williams. Edited March 12 by Kampfgeist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Just looking at the "final offer" numbers posted by Schneidman, I think Jones obviously leaves if he knows ahead of time that those are his two choices. Who could blame him? The real question is whether GB would have moved to 6M + 1M incentives if Jones had given that as his final offer. For myself, I doubt the final offer from Rosenhaus went that low. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{Family Ghost} Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 2 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said: Just looking at the "final offer" numbers posted by Schneidman, I think Jones obviously leaves if he knows ahead of time that those are his two choices. Who could blame him? The real question is whether GB would have moved to 6M + 1M incentives if Jones had given that as his final offer. For myself, I doubt the final offer from Rosenhaus went that low. I think once the Packers were turned down they turned their attention to securing Jacobs. Once they got him locked down I think they were just out on Jones. Probably was no way he was returning at that point. I doubt the Packers ever envisioned a Jacobs/Jones tandem. Jones would probably be the Packers lead back if he would accepted the Packers proposal, and then they would have went the Zack Moss route or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 5 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said: I think once the Packers were turned down they turned their attention to securing Jacobs. Once they got him locked down I think they were just out on Jones. Probably was no way he was returning at that point. I doubt the Packers ever envisioned a Jacobs/Jones tandem. Jones would probably be the Packers lead back if he would accepted the Packers proposal, and then they would have went the Zack Moss route or something like that. I am thinking in terms of what was the final offer from Jones/Rosenhaus on Friday, when talks are reported to have broke down. Once GB agreed with Jacobs, it was over for Jones as a Packer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 53 minutes ago, Kampfgeist said: Do not agree with this question. AJ and Dillon have had a near 50/50 split in carries (no worse than 60/40) for the last 3 seasons. Don't think this is the year Jones said he's not willing to be in a timeshare. He's had plenty of games taking a backseat to Dillon and has never complained. Prior to Dillon it was a timeshare with Jamaal Williams. It wouldn't have been a timeshare. He would've been a clear #2 behind Jacobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kampfgeist Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 1 minute ago, beekay414 said: It wouldn't have been a timeshare. He would've been a clear #2 behind Jacobs. Don't understand what would give you any indication that he would be a clear #2 since that's never been the case under MLF. It's an odd belief to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire12 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 8 minutes ago, Kampfgeist said: Don't understand what would give you any indication that he would be a clear #2 since that's never been the case under MLF. It's an odd belief to me Jacobs >> Williams >Dillon Jacobs would be the best RB Jones had played with in his time in GB. Might not have been a clear #1 vs #2, but I it certainly could have been Jones in the lesser role vs previous years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beekay414 Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 10 minutes ago, Kampfgeist said: Don't understand what would give you any indication that he would be a clear #2 since that's never been the case under MLF. It's an odd belief to me Jacobs wasn't coming here for a timeshare. It was a pivot when Jones wouldn't take the discount. There's no reason to believe that a proven bellcow back, who basically signed a one year deal, is committing to splitting carries at 26 years old. 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.