Random Packer News & Notes

[HyponGrey]

On 6/1/2018 at 5:40 PM, Cakeshoppe said:

If you don't want me calling myself a doctor, don't give me a doctorate is all I'm sayin

I mean, he IS a surgeon...

[TheBitzMan]

On 6/1/2018 at 7:05 PM, Scoremore said:

It's a little different now with QB's commanding ridiculous salaries.  Wouldn't say it's short sighted at all.  When you devote north of 80 million guaranteed you are putting the franchise at risk.  Period.  I haven't heard anything about how he has looked in practice other than he got picked off twice.  I also would disagree that they are aggressively trying to lock him up right now.  The Packers are holding all the cards here not Rodgers.  If they were smart they would wait. 

Of course the reports are they are working on a new deal.  What else are they supposed to say?  Minny, Atlanta, Oakland all of these teams are taking a massive risk with massive contracts containing huge guaranteed money.  Minny in particular.  That deal with Cousins was stupid crazy.  I hate the Vikings anyway but the point is paying any player that kind of guaranteed money is a huge huge risk.  Aaron's contract when done will also be a huge risk.  Nothing the Packers can do the market is the market.  How do you know Aaron is 100%?  I sure don't.  Don't think anyone in this forum knows.  The Packers should be getting a pretty good idea by the time training camp rolls around.  As for me I'll have to see how he performs in a few regular season games before rendering judgement.  

As I stated earlier he missed most of last season with a serious injury to his throwing shoulder.  At this moment in time he does not deserve to be the highest paid player in the league.  Also you can't say he's the best QB in the league either.  We simply don't know he'll have to prove himself after the injury.  He might comeback at 80 or 90%.  We'll just have to wait and see.

That's all well and good. My point is they aren't going to give him the contract if he isn't healthy & 100%. No one here knows first hand but I will am willing to accept that if they give him the contract he is 100%...

You are also acting like all of this is done in a vacuum. There are market factors at play here. The supply of starting capable QBs is scarce as it compares to the demand, equating to a constant rise in the salary. You can say it's ridiculous but it's basic economics. In the grand scheme of things they should probably be paid more than they already are. 

The risk these teams take giving these QBs massive contracts (you say Minny, ATL, Oakland & soon to be GB) is far less risk than then letting the QB walk and trying to find another  above average/elite starting QB. There are a lot of franchises that would be willing to give up much more for a chance at a QB of their caliber. If there was a surplus of QB talent in the league your point may hold water but there isn't and to overlook that is naive at best.

[MacReady]

Just now, TheBitzMan said:

The risk these teams take giving these QBs massive contracts (you say Minny, ATL, Oakland & soon to be GB) is far less risk than then letting the QB walk and trying to find another  above average/elite starting QB.

Not when said quarterback is signed for another two years and you could trade them for a king's ransom if they refuse to sign for a realistic, fair deal that won't cripple your team going forward. 

[TheBitzMan]

4 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Not when said quarterback is signed for another two years and you could trade them for a king's ransom if they refuse to sign for a realistic, fair deal that won't cripple your team going forward. 

I get the point, but when has that ever happened? Also when has a QBs contract ever crippled a team? Outside of the Saints just constantly restructuring these contracts generally play out just fine...

[fattlipp]

He is signed for 2 more years, and we could franchise him the next 3 after that and still save money....

in that scenario we would have him through 2023, by then he will be done anyways.

 

[MacReady]

Just now, TheBitzMan said:

I get the point, but when has that ever happened? Also when has a QBs contract ever crippled a team? Outside of the Saints just constantly restructuring these contracts generally play out just fine...

It's never happened because teams have been too scared to do it.  I think a lot of people underestimate how significantly GIGANTIC Ted's balls were when he traded Brett Favre.  Favre had just taken a team nobody expected to make the playoffs all the way to the Championship game.  Yes, he said he retired, but nobody believed it when he said it, and everybody wanted Favre for another year.  Even Charles Woodson wanted Favre another year.  NOBODY was in Aaron's corner except for Thompson and McCarthy. 

QB contracts don't necessarily cripple a team, but they prevent the wildly important additions in free agency.  Not just the big signings, but the veteran signings and in-season moves that play significant roles in building a Super Bowl team.  If Wentz had been in his second contract, the Eagles wouldn't have been able to afford Foles.  Hell, they wouldn't have been able to afford half of their additions (Blount, Long, Dolphins RB whose name escapes me, Jefferey...). 

They key to winning Super Bowls these days can be directly correlated to the talent/cap percentage of a QB.

Great cap percentage + Good QB play can get you a Super Bowl win faster than
Poor cap percentage + Great QB play.

Foles, Brady, P. Manning, Brady, Wilson, Flacco, E. Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Roethlisberger, E. Manning, P. Manning (just over 10%), Roethlisberger, Brady, Brady, Johnson, Brady. 

That's 17 seasons of proof that %+Play of the QB can directly be correlated to Super Bowl wins.  The only outlier is Manning in 2015.  That DEFENSE was otherworldly.  The Broncos had to stretch their cap situation so thin that they crashed, and they crashed hard. 

[MacReady]

Just now, fattlipp said:

He is signed for 2 more years, and we could franchise him the next 3 after that and still save money....

in that scenario we would have him through 2023, by then he will be done anyways.

 

Why don't people understand this?!?!?!?!?!?!

Rodgers has NOTHING other than pitching a fit and whining as far as a place to negotiate an unfair deal from.  If he does that and threatens to sit out, trade the damn diva. 

[Packerraymond]

7 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

It's never happened because teams have been too scared to do it.  I think a lot of people underestimate how significantly GIGANTIC Ted's balls were when he traded Brett Favre.  Favre had just taken a team nobody expected to make the playoffs all the way to the Championship game.  Yes, he said he retired, but nobody believed it when he said it, and everybody wanted Favre for another year.  Even Charles Woodson wanted Favre another year.  NOBODY was in Aaron's corner except for Thompson and McCarthy. 

QB contracts don't necessarily cripple a team, but they prevent the wildly important additions in free agency.  Not just the big signings, but the veteran signings and in-season moves that play significant roles in building a Super Bowl team.  If Wentz had been in his second contract, the Eagles wouldn't have been able to afford Foles.  Hell, they wouldn't have been able to afford half of their additions (Blount, Long, Dolphins RB whose name escapes me, Jefferey...). 

They key to winning Super Bowls these days can be directly correlated to the talent/cap percentage of a QB.

Great cap percentage + Good QB play can get you a Super Bowl win faster than
Poor cap percentage + Great QB play.

Foles, Brady, P. Manning, Brady, Wilson, Flacco, E. Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Roethlisberger, E. Manning, P. Manning (just over 10%), Roethlisberger, Brady, Brady, Johnson, Brady. 

That's 17 seasons of proof that %+Play of the QB can directly be correlated to Super Bowl wins.  The only outlier is Manning in 2015.  That DEFENSE was otherworldly.  The Broncos had to stretch their cap situation so thin that they crashed, and they crashed hard. 

So should Philly let Wentz go? And LA Goff? 

Your point is true, but it has no practicality. Of course your chance to win SBs is higher when your QB is on a cheaper deal, but eventually that deal runs out, what do you do then? Get rid of your QB? 

[MacReady]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

So should Philly let Wentz go? And LA Goff? 

You're point is true, but it has no practicality. Of course your chance to win SBs is higher when your QB is on a cheaper deal, but eventually that deal runs out, what do you do then? Get rid of your QB? 

Let them go?  No.  Trade them?  Yes.  There are always teams who can't DRAFT and DEVELOP a QB.  Green Bay is a team that can do both.  It's better to get a head start on the next QB than it is to sign a QB to a contract that makes the cap so unhealthy as to eliminate the chance of building a competitive team. 

Think of it this way... If we had traded Rodgers during this draft, we probably could have had our pick of any of the quarterbacks in this draft, plus Chubb, plus Alexander and at LEAST two first round picks next year (plus probably another from Cleveland).

That would have given us Darnold/Mayfield/Allen/Rosen + Chubb + Alexander + Jackson + Our first round pick next year, Saints first round pick next year and Cleveland's first round pick next year. 

Honestly, if I were the Eagles, I'd trade Carson Wentz as soon as he's healthy for the gigantic ultra huge haul and roll with Foles.  I know for a fact Foles can win Super Bowls.  I haven't seen Wentz in the postseason.  Foles is four years older than Wentz, more experienced in the playoffs, WILDLY cheaper going forward, and my team is poised for another run at the Super Bowl already.  Add three first round picks to that, take a project QB, let him watch and learn for four years, and suddenly I've got 10 years of inexpensive QB play. 

NFL teams put the QB on much too high a pedestal.

 

Edited June 4, 2018 by HorizontoZenith

[TheBitzMan]

1 minute ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Let them go?  No.  Trade them?  Yes.  There are always teams who can't DRAFT and DEVELOP a QB.  Green Bay is a team that can do both.  It's better to get a head start on the next QB than it is to sign a QB to a contract that makes the cap so unhealthy as to eliminate the chance of building a competitive team. 

Think of it this way... If we had traded Rodgers during this draft, we probably could have had our pick of any of the quarterbacks in this draft, plus Chubb, plus Alexander and at LEAST two first round picks next year (plus probably another from Cleveland).

That would have given us Darnold/Mayfield/Allen/Rosen + Chubb + Alexander + Jackson + Our first round pick next year, Saints first round pick next year and Cleveland's first round pick next year. 

 

What if they bust, none of those QBs are close to a sure thing? You are trading a generational QB to rebuild with unknown draft picks to not pay him the money the market says he should...

What does this say to those FAs you want so badly? Come here and we won't pay you what your worth? You aren't getting the veteran signings and the FAs looking to win without the elite QB. Every impactful FA we have signed this year has said it is because of Rodgers and the chance to win. 

[Shanedorf]

OverTheCap writers authored a book on the topic ( Caponomics) and stated there are at least (2) distinct methods for building a Champion, 1 with and 1 without a highly compensated QB

https://overthecap.com/the-two-distinct-roster-construction-strategies-in-the-nfl/

One take home message is that IF you are going to pay a QB elite money, you absolutely need to get elite performance. IF you pay elite money and get not-elite play, then you're hurting your chances to win the Big One

Rodgers still tilts the field with his play, therefore its not unpossible to win a Championship while paying him top money.

"Teams can still be successful spending over 10% of the cap on a quarterback, that’s clear, but as stated earlier, it has to be a high performing player with a well-constructed team around him. No matter how good a quarterback is, he still needs a great roster around him. On the way to a Super Bowl, teams face multiple elite teams, all with their own strategies for success. Some of those teams have great offenses, some have great defenses, and some are great at everything like the 2016 Patriots and 2017 Eagles. If you don’t have a complete team that’s good in every phase of the game, you could run into an opponent that can drag you into the kind of game you can’t excel in or they might just be better than you across the roster."

[TheBitzMan]

29 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Why don't people understand this?!?!?!?!?!?!

Rodgers has NOTHING other than pitching a fit and whining as far as a place to negotiate an unfair deal from.  If he does that and threatens to sit out, trade the damn diva. 

You are so caught up on not giving him a certain % of the cap but you want to franchise him for 3 years?? You realize the franchise tag is 120% of the prior year salary, by the 3rd year he would be making $40/mil per. 

That is everyone's solution to this? 

The Packers are wizards with the cap and signing him long term is what is best for the franchise. Rodgers may not have leverage right now but in a year or two he will. There is franchise stability that comes with having your elite QB on a long term deal, not everything is black and white. 

[fattlipp]

37 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Why don't people understand this?!?!?!?!?!?!

Rodgers has NOTHING other than pitching a fit and whining as far as a place to negotiate an unfair deal from.  If he does that and threatens to sit out, trade the damn diva. 

I think people are afraid of a disgruntled Rodgers, and to be fair, he could be the type that just hangs up the cleats to prove a point...  Sanders/Calvin style....

Edited June 4, 2018 by fattlipp

[MacReady]

Just now, TheBitzMan said:

You are so caught up on not giving him a certain % of the cap but you want to franchise him for 3 years?? You realize the franchise tag is 120% of the prior year salary, by the 3rd year he would be making $40/mil per.

That's literally - LITERALLY - nobody's solution to this.  It's the fact that we COULD franchise tag him for three years, completely eliminating any bargaining chips that he has.  He has two years left on his contract, then a year of a franchise tag and the threat of a second tag.

[MacReady]

Just now, TheBitzMan said:

What if they bust, none of those QBs are close to a sure thing?

This whole bust QB thing is a myth.  90% of quarterbacks who bust bust because a team did not do their homework or did not have the talent on the coaching staff or talent on the team to perform at a high level.  The Patriots had what's his face (traded to the Colts) look like a competent starter, so did Cassell, so did everybody who has ever backed up Brady... Until they left New England. 

Hundley sucked, but Hundley was a fifth round pick.  You show me Hundley, I show you Flynn, who set a Packer record in the year Rodgers won MVP, and then got us into playoff contention shortly after coming back.

For every potential bust, there is a Brad Johnson, Nick Foles, Alex Smith available as a starting option that could lead the Packers to the Super Bowl if the Packers had the draft capital and cap space to build an elite defense.