Packers 2022 Discussion Thread

[patrickgpe]

1 year 4 million for Watkins, so no risk on the Packers behalf. 

[PeaveyFury]

Actually "up to $4 mil," so that's likely an incentive-laden deal.

 

[bjkrautk]

Productivity (not to mention number of targets?) has fallen off for Watkins over the past 2 seasons, but he's at least a veteran option who, along with Cobb, can provide a veteran presence while the rookies get up-to-speed.  

While he only had 27 catches last season, he took one of them for 49 yards, so there's still some speed there.  Knowing they were going to bring someone in, hard to be too disappointed with a "re-prove it" year for Watkins.

 

EDIT: Acme Packing Co. story notes Watkins played for LaFleur with the Rams in 2017.

[PeaveyFury]

From an age standpoint, you have to like that he's only 28 and still hypothetically the rare-ish FA receiver that should still have his prime legs underneath him. The bad news is that those legs and much of the rest of him are often hurt.

He's living a lot off his draft position and great first two years in the league, but he's become a bit of a transient guy that hasn't had exceptional production in a while now. But from a Packer standpoint, familiarity with MLF should equate to a short learning curve on the system, and having Aaron throwing to him will be a nice plus.

Seems like one of those 'out of nowhere resurgence' candidates, or a 'hurt in week 2 then out for the year' stories, and probably not much in between.

[NBBrewFan]

By itself it seems like a decent addition.  The WR room is better now than it was a few hours ago.  If that's the last move (plus a couple of draft picks) then I'm not sure that solves the WR talent issue, but I don't think the $ they gave Sammy will impair them to get another vet or 2 (by trade and taking on cap $ or in free agency when some of the vets get cut later in the preseason). There are still multiple contracts that can be renegotiated/extensions (Amos, Jenkins, Alexander, Lowry, etc) to free up more cap room.

[SeaBass]

He's 28 now but he'll be 29 in June. Solid signing, hopefully still has speed ability. One more warm body than we had yesterday and potential to produce at an MVS level (in overall numbers, if not yds per reception).

[Fear The Chorizo]

This is a move that needed to happen, bringing in a vet with speed that improves their WR depth chart - this also means the Packers won't need to be as WR-focused early in the draft if a stud at a different position falls in their lap.

[brewcrewdue80]

Imagine a 1 year deal 4mil with Rodgers targeting you as #1 WR.  And the comment is he'll just get hurt?   Can you see the money being thrown to WRs?  1year to show he can remain healthy and show with an elite QB the numbers he can provide. For his next contract.  Big day for GB, Rodgers and what the team outlook is for 2022.

[PeaveyFury]

23 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

This is a move that needed to happen, bringing in a vet with speed that improves their WR depth chart - this also means the Packers won't need to be as WR-focused early in the draft if a stud at a different position falls in their lap.

I think this is a really good point. Still can take a WR at 22 if the board shapes up that they feel they should. But certainly more flexibility to make a 'value' pick if someone slides and they feel they can address WR thereafter.

[patrickgpe]

43 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

This is a move that needed to happen, bringing in a vet with speed that improves their WR depth chart - this also means the Packers won't need to be as WR-focused early in the draft if a stud at a different position falls in their lap.

IMHO they still need to get atleast 1 in the first 2 rounds. You are right they don't necessary need to take one at 22, but signing Watkins didn't really change that since he is only on a 1 year prove it deal and they don't really have any long term solutions at WR past this year (hoping for the development of Rodgers and trying to resign Lazard is about it). 

[CheezWizHed]

55 minutes ago, patrickgpe said:

IMHO they still need to get atleast 1 in the first 2 rounds. You are right they don't necessary need to take one at 22, but signing Watkins didn't really change that since he is only on a 1 year prove it deal and they don't really have any long term solutions at WR past this year (hoping for the development of Rodgers and trying to resign Lazard is about it). 

I'd be really disappointed if we can't get one WR in the first two rounds of a WR-deep draft with 4 picks!  But as I've mentioned in the past (e.g the DL-Reed signing), it is good to get a safe "floor" on your weak spots so you aren't forced to reach for guys because of run.  

And Watkins certainly doesn't stop you from drafting 2 WRs in the first two rounds (or even 1st round) either.

[Samurai Bucky]

Would the Packers be bold enough to take a first and maybe a fourth and fifth and trade for Metcalf?  You could take a tackle with the other first rounder and then a WR in the second or third?

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

7 minutes ago, Samurai Bucky said:

Would the Packers be bold enough to take a first and maybe a fourth and fifth and trade for Metcalf?  You could take a tackle with the other first rounder and then a WR in the second or third?

The question is whether Seattle would take that package. Also, the Packers were prepared to pay Davante, but would they be prepared to pay Metcalf the same kind of money ... because you don't do a deal like that unless you have a long-term extension ready to roll.

[SeaBass]

Yeah, I've said it before but I think the Packers are really happy with their draft picks and also probably don't want to add a huge WR contract, so it's kind of a double whammy to trade a 1st away AND add that big contract at the same time. Maybe if Rodgers were 5 years younger it would be a different story.

[patrickgpe]

41 minutes ago, Samurai Bucky said:

Would the Packers be bold enough to take a first and maybe a fourth and fifth and trade for Metcalf?  You could take a tackle with the other first rounder and then a WR in the second or third?

He is a FA after this season and has said he doesn't want to be in GB. If Seattle will take that and GB can sign him to an extension, I'm all for it. I would imagine the cost is 2 1sts, or atleast the same package GB got from LV (1st and 2nd)

[Mr Southpaw]

I look at Watkins this way... They would not have signed him unless MLF really liked him and thought he could deliver.  When you work every day with someone you know that person character, so I am trusting in MLF right now.

On to the draft, I would not have a problem trading a late pick or two to move up from 22 to the middle teens to get the receiver they really want. I did a simulator just to get an idea.  I would go to heaven if the Packers had this draft. They can give me a D+ for Woods, he is a stud blocker with size and can move.

[NBBrewFan]

I think after the WR contracts given out this offseason every agent on the planet is advising their clients to go to free agency or to not sign contract extensions. Also the fans know where the cap is going and the agents do too so i think we may not see the extensions to several of our own players because they want to see how the market gets priced next year and the following year.  I think Metcalf has made it clear to the seahawks he's going to free agency.  That also makes it hard to trade as the price for a 1 year rental is going to be a lot lower than one where the player is willing to sign an extension. just my guess.

[young guns]

3 hours ago, Samurai Bucky said:

Would the Packers be bold enough to take a first and maybe a fourth and fifth and trade for Metcalf?  You could take a tackle with the other first rounder and then a WR in the second or third?

I had posted an article earlier that said there was a rumor that Seattle basically hung up on the jets after an offer involving the 10th pick.  Didn't even counter.  So it seems they are dead set on keeping him or the price is astronomical or both.

So if that report is true it sounds like it might take both of the firsts(or 1 this year and next years) to get Seattle to listen.

[PeaveyFury]

11 minutes ago, young guns said:

I had posted an article earlier that said there was a rumor that Seattle basically hung up on the jets after an offer involving the 10th pick.  Didn't even counter.  So it seems they are dead set on keeping him or the price is astronomical or both.

So if that report is true it sounds like it might take both of the firsts(or 1 this year and next years) to get Seattle to listen.

Then Seattle has to be comfortable with him walking next year after basically wasting a year of his value in what is literally a rebuilding year for them. If that's true, they're ragingly dumb.

[FVBrewerFan]

I don't see the need to draft a WR in the 1st/2nd rounds.  If there's someone there you love, sure take him.  But I see a couple more vets being added to the WR/TE room via cap casualties, trades, etc.  

[SeaBass]

36 minutes ago, young guns said:

I had posted an article earlier that said there was a rumor that Seattle basically hung up on the jets after an offer involving the 10th pick.  Didn't even counter.  So it seems they are dead set on keeping him or the price is astronomical or both.

So if that report is true it sounds like it might take both of the firsts(or 1 this year and next years) to get Seattle to listen.

The Jets said they never offered the 10th overall pick so that rumor was debunked. The Jets said that Seattle wasn't even taking offers on DK so they never got as far as making an offer.

[patrickgpe]

50 minutes ago, PeaveyFury said:

Then Seattle has to be comfortable with him walking next year after basically wasting a year of his value in what is literally a rebuilding year for them. If that's true, they're ragingly dumb.

They traded away their star QB and don't have one. What does a 4th year of DK do with noone to throw him the ball and a team that is clearly rebuilding. 

[brewcrewdue80]

4 hours ago, PeaveyFury said:

Then Seattle has to be comfortable with him walking next year after basically wasting a year of his value in what is literally a rebuilding year for them. If that's true, they're ragingly dumb.

After what GB just accomplished with Adams, gotta believe Seattle would just go that route and get a 1 and 2. 

3 hours ago, patrickgpe said:

They traded away their star QB and don't have one. What does a 4th year of DK do with noone to throw him the ball and a team that is clearly rebuilding. 

They would get a future look at how well the QB they will draft works with an elite WR. 

[Joseph Zarr]

Seeing A.J. Brown, Deebo Samuel, and Terry McClaurin holding out of all team activities demanding new deals has me thinking the Packers may have accidentally gotten ahead of the curve of 'WR's are now a spot on your roster you need to find an impactful rookie on a 4-5 year cheap deal before he demands you give him that high-priced new deal'. I, for one, am pretty grateful we can turn attention toward Jaire.

[madbad2000]

24 minutes ago, Julio Muchacho said:

Seeing A.J. Brown, Deebo Samuel, and Terry McClaurin holding out of all team activities demanding new deals has me thinking the Packers may have accidentally gotten ahead of the curve of 'WR's are now a spot on your roster you need to find an impactful rookie on a 4-5 year cheap deal before he demands you give him that high-priced new deal'. I, for one, am pretty grateful we can turn attention toward Jaire.

It will be interesting how this plays out because if Washington or Tennessee determine the headache is not worth the cost they may trade and become immediate WR players in the draft.  Washington at 11 is already an outside player for WR, but if they trade McLaurin then perhaps they go WR there grabbing another one off the board before GB can select.  And Ten sitting at 27 may make GB think about WR at 22 more knowing Ten may grab one before 28.

An alternative is that the acquiring team may no longer be in that WR market.  If say Philly trades for AJ Brown, they likely won't be in that market in Rd 1.