Cheese Curds: Green Bay Packers Updates

[swede700]

1 hour ago, TENINCH said:

After reading what they wrote about the Vikings and the fans in reddit I agree with you. 😡

A lot of the Packers fans I've come across are self-righteous ignoramuses (Not all of them, I've met quite a few that are pretty smart and make for good conversations).  If you follow the caricature of the Packers' fan that is KFAN-created Carl Gerbschmidt on Twitter, he is the epitome of many of them. 

In fact, just last week, someone had mentioned that the Packers have been more successful than either the Broncos or the 49ers over the last 2 decades...and then I pointed out that the Broncos have just as many Super Bowl titles as the Packers do in the last 2 decades and the 49ers have more Super Bowl appearances than the Packers do in the last 2 decades...then some Packer rube says that they've won 13 World Championships.  So, then again I said, apparently you can't do math because he said "in the last 2 decades"...so then he retorts again with "13 World Championships!".  🤦🏽‍♂️

Edited May 10, 2021 by swede700

[SemperFeist]

Probably not a good sign

[marshpit23]

38 minutes ago, SemperFeist said:

Probably not a good sign

Not for GB, but for us, yes.

[CWood21]

On 5/7/2021 at 5:59 AM, CriminalMind said:

If Rodgers is traded... i think it will be for alot lower than ppl might think. 

DEN sends 2022 1st & 2023 2nd (can be upgrade to 1st based on Rodgers playing 8 games)

DEN doesn't need to outbid anyone because their offer is the only one on the table, after no other team submits an offer once Rodgers 'selects' his preferred destination (DEN). 

So even less then what the Lions got for Stafford?

[swede700]

23 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So even less then what the Lions got for Stafford?

I don't know...Stafford is 4-5 years younger than Rodgers, so the Rams are theoretically going to get more years out of him than the Broncos would with Rodgers (although Stafford has been far more battered than Aaron), so it might be a wash in the trade.  

[viking]

30 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

So even less then what the Lions got for Stafford?

Lions got draft picks for taking on Goffs insane contract 

[CriminalMind]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

So even less then what the Lions got for Stafford?

Yes, the league knows if GB is trading Rodgers, its reached the point where GB does not have an alternative.

DET didnt need to trade Stafford, and it certainly was not a public "breakup". And the timing of the year would theoretically be be worse for GB, while DETs was in the best window (once teams eliminated, well before Free Agency & before the draft)

Edited May 13, 2021 by CriminalMind

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, viking said:

Lions got draft picks for taking on Goffs insane contract 

Yet despite how "toxic" Goff was, the Lions passed on a QB.  Either he wasn't a toxic contract or the Lions are the worst ran franchise in the league.

[swede700]

37 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Yet despite how "toxic" Goff was, the Lions passed on a QB.  Either he wasn't a toxic contract or the Lions are the worst ran franchise in the league.

Goff was toxic to what McVay wanted to do, primarily.  The contract was secondary, because the Rams certainly have had no qualms over handing out big contracts.  

[CWood21]

7 minutes ago, swede700 said:

Goff was toxic to what McVay wanted to do, primarily.  The contract was secondary, because the Rams certainly have had no qualms over handing out big contracts.  

Trust me, I made the exact same opinion when the trade was first broke.  But Detroit didn't "need" Goff especially when they were picking at 7, and probably had the chance to draft a QB at 7.  Not only did they have the largely consensus QB2 throughout the draft season, they passed on him which indicates they like Jared Goff far more then you're willing to admit.

And I posed this question in another thread, if you're the Rams why would you dilute the Stafford trade when you could have traded Goff separately?

[Uncle Buck]

46 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Yet despite how "toxic" Goff was, the Lions passed on a QB.  Either he wasn't a toxic contract or the Lions are the worst ran franchise in the league.

Are you trying to say that the Lions aren't the worst ran franchise in the league?  If they aren't the worst, they have to be very close to the bottom.

[CWood21]

Just now, Uncle Buck said:

Are you trying to say that the Lions aren't the worst ran franchise in the league?  If they aren't the worst, they have to be very close to the bottom.

Actually, I think this FO has shown more in this one offseason then the last two FOs did combined.  IF the Lions can rehab Goff's value and flip him for more assets next offseason, I'd be stoked as a Lions' fan.  Sewell was by far my BPA on my board.  I liked their 2nd through 4th round picks, although I'm not a huge fan of Alim McNeil.  Probably would have grabbed Dynami Brown there instead.

[Uncle Buck]

1 minute ago, CWood21 said:

Actually, I think this FO has shown more in this one offseason then the last two FOs did combined.  IF the Lions can rehab Goff's value and flip him for more assets next offseason, I'd be stoked as a Lions' fan.  Sewell was by far my BPA on my board.  I liked their 2nd through 4th round picks, although I'm not a huge fan of Alim McNeil.  Probably would have grabbed Dynami Brown there instead.

I do agree with you on this new regime.  I like their new head coach a lot.  It would sure be nice for Lions fans if they have finally gotten things figured out.  It has been a long run of dismal football for them.

[swede700]

4 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Trust me, I made the exact same opinion when the trade was first broke.  But Detroit didn't "need" Goff especially when they were picking at 7, and probably had the chance to draft a QB at 7.  Not only did they have the largely consensus QB2 throughout the draft season, they passed on him which indicates they like Jared Goff far more then you're willing to admit.

And I posed this question in another thread, if you're the Rams why would you dilute the Stafford trade when you could have traded Goff separately?

I don't have a high opinion of Goff, but I don't have a low opinion of him either.  I never thought he should have been drafted #1, and never should have gotten the contract he did, as I view him in a similar tier as Garropolo.  He's a 15-20 level QB at best. 

But, the new GM in Detroit knew what he had in Goff since he was with the Rams, so he's a far safer option than any they could get at #7.   I bet he also thinks that he just needs someone he can count on while he builds the rest of the team around him.

And why would the Rams throw him into the trade?  I imagine having to compete with all the other teams who were looking to peddle their QBs as well would have diluted the value that they could have gotten in return, so trade him to someone you know, because you know you'll get fair value.  

[Guest]

3 hours ago, swede700 said:

I don't know...Stafford is 4-5 years younger than Rodgers, so the Rams are theoretically going to get more years out of him than the Broncos would with Rodgers (although Stafford has been far more battered than Aaron), so it might be a wash in the trade.  

The market for a QB was less certain when Stafford was traded and the Lions had leverage...thus it seemed like a lot.  If Rodgers is traded now...really the only team that makes sense is the Broncos...and they would have equal or more leverage dictating the compensation with Green Bay.  If Green Bay waits until the start of the season when some teams will be very anxious about their starter, there may be more leverage on Green Bay's side of the ledger.