AlexGreen#20 Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 1 minute ago, {Family Ghost} said: I keep hearing that Rodgers just wants the Packers to be tied to him past 2021. As it is now he's kind of viewed as a lame duck because the Packers can bail on him for a 17 million dollar dead cap hit. He just turned in an MVP season and you'd think the Packers would be game to keep him on board past 2021, but they seem to want to straddle the fence and see how things go. I get it, but I think the Packers still need to be doing more to give this team a real shot at winning the big one. In some ways I think Packers lack of a true money bags owner holds us back. It just doesn't seem we take the extra steps to win titles. It always comes down to the mathematics of it. Would you rather have a 9% chance of winning for 3 years, or a 15% chance of winning in year 1, and a 5% chance of winning in years 2 and 3. *Exact percentages being estimates 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 13 minutes ago, incognito_man said: He doesn't according to this article: https://theathletic.com/2342129/2021/01/25/aaron-rodgers-future-packers-trade/ Not sure why this quoted packfan, meant to quote @Packerraymond in response to no-trade clause. Shocking he doesn't have one, either way, we're not trading him this year. We'll see what next off-season brings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Penske Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 51 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: Yes it is on Rodgers contract, literally everyone on the beat has confirmed this. Andrew Brandt said it's in just about every decent sized NFL contract. 45 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: I thought Rap Sheet was reporting that it wasn't? Breer also said it was the other day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les Punting Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 1 hour ago, R T said: When people bring up Adams and Z. Smith for extensions as a form of gaining cap space I don't believe they have researched what that means next off season. It would lead to a complete gutting of this roster and probably make it impossible to keep any of their own FA's (Alexander) or sign any outside FA's. They have only 32 players under contract for next season now and are already over 8M over the projected cap for 2022. A Adams or Smith deal borders on financial suicide. Pushing one premium contract worth of money into '22 will require a complete gutting of the roster? Isn't that what the team claimed they wanted to do with Rodgers deal? How would backloading an extension for Adams be suicide in '22? His '22 cap hit wouldn't need to be more than what, ~$15m? So that's ~$23m over the '22 cap? Moves to free up cap space in '22: convert Rodgers base ($+12m), convert Bakhtiari roster bonus (+$7), convert Clark base/roster bonus (+$10), cut P Smith (+$12), cut Lowry (+$4.5), extend Alexander (+$5), extend ZSmith (+$10), that's $62m, less than half of which would land on the '23 cap. Trading Rodgers (+$12) and releasing AJones (+$15) in '23 would completely offset the money pushed from '22. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R T Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 11 minutes ago, Les Punting said: Pushing one premium contract worth of money into '22 will require a complete gutting of the roster? Isn't that what the team claimed they wanted to do with Rodgers deal? How would backloading an extension for Adams be suicide in '22? His '22 cap hit wouldn't need to be more than what, ~$15m? So that's ~$23m over the '22 cap? Moves to free up cap space in '22: convert Rodgers base ($+12m), convert Bakhtiari roster bonus (+$7), convert Clark base/roster bonus (+$10), cut P Smith (+$12), cut Lowry (+$4.5), extend Alexander (+$5), extend ZSmith (+$10), that's $62m, less than half of which would land on the '23 cap. Trading Rodgers (+$12) and releasing AJones (+$15) in '23 would completely offset the money pushed from '22. You left out they need to sign at least 20 more players to fill out a roster. Plus Alexander's 5th year option, which they will exercise is 13.294M more that needs to be added to the cap. Your math is a little fuzzy when you put Alexander at +5M when he is counting zero dollars at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 16 hours ago, Arthur Penske said: There were some people mad around here when GB past on these guys in the draft Hurst actually wouldn't be a bad pickup. Would add good depth to the 4i tech position Barry's defense uses and he's a pretty decent pass rusher. I think 2020 was a down year for him but he's only like 25. Think he's subject to waivers but I'd throw a claim at him at a minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R T Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 19 minutes ago, packfanfb said: Hurst actually wouldn't be a bad pickup. Would add good depth to the 4i tech position Barry's defense uses and he's a pretty decent pass rusher. I think 2020 was a down year for him but he's only like 25. Think he's subject to waivers but I'd throw a claim at him at a minimum. Maybe. Hurst has a heart issue that dropped him off just about every teams draft board leading up to the draft, him playing for anyone may depend more on that than his play on the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemike778 Posted April 16, 2021 Share Posted April 16, 2021 23 hours ago, R T said: When people bring up Adams and Z. Smith for extensions as a form of gaining cap space I don't believe they have researched what that means next off season. It would lead to a complete gutting of this roster and probably make it impossible to keep any of their own FA's (Alexander) or sign any outside FA's. They have only 32 players under contract for next season now and are already over 8M over the projected cap for 2022. A Adams or Smith deal borders on financial suicide. This ... consensus is that Adams will command a market setting contract. If you lower his 2021 cap hit that gets added to the market setting contract. The cap looks a mess in 2022 so his contract would need a very small cap hit in 2022. So you end up taking a market setting 5 year deal and squeezing it into 3 years. Appreciate people expect the cap to rocket but we would have truly astronomical cap hits from 23 onwards for a third contract ageing receiver with a growing injury history. Would love to see Adams, Rodgers and the gang back. But I think there is a strong chance both of them and Z are all gone. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R T Posted April 17, 2021 Share Posted April 17, 2021 Always a class act, wish Lane the best with the Texans. Lane Taylor on Twitter: "Thank you Green Bay! @packers https://t.co/1bGuPtUSSV" / Twitter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted April 18, 2021 Share Posted April 18, 2021 39 minutes ago, R T said: Always a class act, wish Lane the best with the Texans. Lane Taylor on Twitter: "Thank you Green Bay! @packers https://t.co/1bGuPtUSSV" / Twitter brilliant move on his part. He wasn't going to get his starting job back in Green Bay and Houston's OL is a trainwreck at Guard. Lots of tweener T/G types on that roster. No reason he can't get one of the starting Guard positions. On 4/16/2021 at 6:27 PM, mikemike778 said: Would love to see Adams, Rodgers and the gang back. But I think there is a strong chance both of them and Z are all gone. I could see Gute blowing this all up if a Super Bowl doesn't happen this year, sadly enough. On the other hand, I could also see him letting a ton of guys walk if we were to win the Super Bowl, however. In any case, if Adams, Rodgers, and Z are gone we're pretty much blowing it up and sticking to the rookie contracts while accumulating as much cap space as possible. We need the draft to be a win-now type of draft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasquatch Posted April 18, 2021 Share Posted April 18, 2021 2 hours ago, Joe said: brilliant move on his part. He wasn't going to get his starting job back in Green Bay and Houston's OL is a trainwreck at Guard. Lots of tweener T/G types on that roster. No reason he can't get one of the starting Guard positions. I could see Gute blowing this all up if a Super Bowl doesn't happen this year, sadly enough. On the other hand, I could also see him letting a ton of guys walk if we were to win the Super Bowl, however. In any case, if Adams, Rodgers, and Z are gone we're pretty much blowing it up and sticking to the rookie contracts while accumulating as much cap space as possible. We need the draft to be a win-now type of draft. I’m not familiar with a “win-now” draft. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{Family Ghost} Posted April 18, 2021 Share Posted April 18, 2021 14 hours ago, Sasquatch said: I’m not familiar with a “win-now” draft. Think the opposite of the 2020 Green Bay Packers draft strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted April 18, 2021 Share Posted April 18, 2021 15 hours ago, Sasquatch said: I’m not familiar with a “win-now” draft. See e.g. Tampa Bay Buccaneers 2020. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader Posted April 18, 2021 Author Share Posted April 18, 2021 Tom Silverstein - Packers avoid no-show risk by making first two weeks of offseason program virtual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted April 19, 2021 Share Posted April 19, 2021 "Win now draft." Thats an LOL statement. Where GB is picking, it's tough sledding getting instant contributors. You want a "win now" draft, draft high. Be a bad team because of an injury. Then when your injured stars return, you've added young talent to the roster while bringing back your horses. Or, be a bad team picking high. "Win" the draft because of where you are picking. Then watch the young kids fail because of poor talent around them. I'm not sure how you "win now" in the draft when picking this low. Unless you mortgage the future and trade up. Or...maybe trade down, punt the first round, focus on the second and third rounds and go get your guys that fit the system. 2 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.