Packers 2022 Discussion Thread

[LouisEly]

I think the Raiders make a perfect trade partner.  They have $20M in cap room, and if they release Carr they'll free up another $30M.  The key with Rodgers is a post-6/1 trade, and the Raiders have Chandler Jones who could free up another $17M with a post-6/1 trade.  That could clear enough space to move Rodgers and Bakhtiari.  A post-6/1 trade of Bakh would free up $17M in cap space for 2023.  The Raiders already have Adams, and can probably have enough to sign more of Rodgers buddies.

Not sure how to value Jones - last year was a down year, but it was his first down year (other than when he was injured in 2020) and his 2023 salary and roster bonus are guaranteed.  He could provide depth at edge rusher if not start across from Smith.  His salary guarantee might make it hard to move him in a trade, but the Pack could get extra picks from the Raiders for taking him and his salary off their hands.

That would mean the Packers would get picks for Rodgers, Bakh, and for taking Jones.  I could see that as being 2-3 firsts and seconds and a couple later round picks, with the assumption that it's 2024/2025 picks because of the post-6/1 trade, the assumption that they'll be picks later in the rounds because of winning with Rodgers/Bakh, and the devaluing of draft picks in future years.

[Matt Breen]

20 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

I think the Raiders make a perfect trade partner.  They have $20M in cap room, and if they release Carr they'll free up another $30M.  The key with Rodgers is a post-6/1 trade, and the Raiders have Chandler Jones who could free up another $17M with a post-6/1 trade.  That could clear enough space to move Rodgers and Bakhtiari.  A post-6/1 trade of Bakh would free up $17M in cap space for 2023.  The Raiders already have Adams, and can probably have enough to sign more of Rodgers buddies.

This makes lots of sense - except Rodgers would be headed to the AFC West. The Chiefs and Chargers are pretty formidable. And what happens if Russell Wilson rebounds? He could easily be in a middle situation again.

Perhaps Rodgers is fine with that - but it's a tough road to take.

[Matt Breen]

To me it all comes down to the club's perception of Love. We've barely seen the guy for three years, so the front office and coaching staff certainly have a much better feel for the guy's future. If the Packers aren't sold on the guy I can see pushing to bring Rodgers back for another season. But as people have noted - for the long term health of the team, it might be best to move on sooner than later. 

If the club thinks Love is the long term solution, then trading Rodgers would probably net us a couple of high picks to help fortify the roster. 

[LouisEly]

38 minutes ago, reillymcshane said:

This makes lots of sense - except Rodgers would be headed to the AFC West. The Chiefs and Chargers are pretty formidable. And what happens if Russell Wilson rebounds? He could easily be in a middle situation again.

Perhaps Rodgers is fine with that - but it's a tough road to take.

You think that Rodgers and his ego don't believe that they can beat anybody?

[MrTPlush]

Rodgers would be hosed regardless of where he goes. The Packers likely would only trade him to the AFC. So he has to go through Allen, Burrow, Mahomes

[CheezWizHed]

15 hours ago, reillymcshane said:

To me it all comes down to the club's perception of Love. We've barely seen the guy for three years, so the front office and coaching staff certainly have a much better feel for the guy's future. If the Packers aren't sold on the guy I can see pushing to bring Rodgers back for another season. But as people have noted - for the long term health of the team, it might be best to move on sooner than later. 

If the club thinks Love is the long term solution, then trading Rodgers would probably net us a couple of high picks to help fortify the roster. 

I disagree that Love's long or short term future has anything to do with it.  The bigger question IMO is can we win a SB with Rodgers in the short term? If the answer is no, then we need to cut bait, get what we can for him and rebuild.  

If Love is the long term answer great... if not, we bottom out and draft another QB.  Holding on to Rodgers just to field a .500 level team is a bad idea.

43 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Rodgers would be hosed regardless of where he goes. The Packers likely would only trade him to the AFC. So he has to go through Allen, Burrow, Mahomes

I think LV is probably more attractive to Rodgers than NYJ would be.  Those seem to be the big rumors.

I could see us trading to Seattle or TB perhaps.  And the only other team in the NFC that makes any sense (i.e. a QB away from the SB) would be the Cowboys.   It will be interesting to see what Detroit does.  Goff played well last year for them.  But I can't see us trading in division anyway.

[Matt Breen]

I just wish Rodgers would make a decision sooner than later. I think we can win with him next year - and I'd love to have him back - but if he doesn't want to be here for whatever reason - let's get a move on. 

 

[Matt Breen]

On 1/25/2023 at 8:43 AM, CheezWizHed said:

I disagree that Love's long or short term future has anything to do with it.  The bigger question IMO is can we win a SB with Rodgers in the short term? If the answer is no, then we need to cut bait, get what we can for him and rebuild.  

Yeah, this is a good point. I look at the club as capable of winning a Super Bowl with Rodgers - but maybe I'm wrong. I'm thinking if Rodgers is still around and you sprinkle in a few additions (I think TE Michael Mayer would be a solid value with our top pick), plus the fact that the young guys like Watson will mature and be better players - you can have a really good team. I think we underperformed last year.

But who knows. Maybe I'm downplaying some of the holes in the team, plus a tough salary cap situation.

And as you say - if the front office doesn't think we can win with Rodgers - then move on now. It's foolish to keep him so we end up playing .500 ball again. Especially if we can add a couple of assets via a trade. And clear up some cap space down the road.

[wallus]

Hackett getting the OC job with the Jets will make NY a good fit for AR.

[LouisEly]

On 1/25/2023 at 8:43 AM, CheezWizHed said:

I could see us trading to Seattle or TB perhaps.  And the only other team in the NFC that makes any sense (i.e. a QB away from the SB) would be the Cowboys.   It will be interesting to see what Detroit does.  Goff played well last year for them.  But I can't see us trading in division anyway.

I could see Seattle ($31M in cap space), but not TB - they're in cap hell ($55M over the cap right now, and almost all of their top salary guys have more dead cap than 2023 salary).  Baltimore ($33M cap space) and the Giants ($45M in cap space) are options that also have QBs that are free agents.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

17 minutes ago, wallus said:

Hackett getting the OC job with the Jets will make NY a good fit for AR.

The Jets were already likely the best fit for AR. Hackett going there just greases the skids even more.

Which probably means it won't happen. 

[wallus]

28 minutes ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

The Jets were already likely the best fit for AR. Hackett going there just greases the skids even more.

Which probably means it won't happen. 

They goofed up not sending AR to the Broncos last year so hopefully they don't mess it up again.

[jerichoholicninja]

Everyone seems to think Brady's going to the Raiders but I think he'll be a Jet. He'll have a good defense and an offense where all he really has to do is hand it off and throw to some talented receivers some times. Getting to beat Belichek twice a year certainly doesn't hurt either.

Don't sit on the Colts getting ARod. He'd fit right in with what they've been trying to do at QB since Luck retired.

[Joseph Zarr]

I am generally in favor of trading Aaron Rodgers as it is the 'sensible' long-term and organizationally sound thing to do. I'm also intrigued by the potential of Jordan Love and what he'll do running the actual Petals offense and bringing a jolt of young athleticism to the pocket again (knowing full well it will most likely be highly inconsistent results and the regression might be steep - so be it.)

I think it's also important to remind ourselves, in addition to playing with an injured thumb for the majority of the season; the loss of his coveted top 2 NFL WR weapon in Davante Adams in the off-season; the loss of his previous offensive strategy minds in Getsy and Hackett; a rotating cast of young and/or injured or coming off of injury OL; not having Christian Watson for half the season and the majority of Training Camp etc... Rodgers also suffered from the 2nd highest drop rate in the entire NFL in 2022 even while leading the NFL in on-target percentage:

Anyhow, I bring all this up pointlessly to state:

It would be the absolute most modern Packers thing ever to trade Aaron Rodgers while stubbornly and inexplicably holding onto Joe Barry as the DC. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 hour ago, wallus said:

They goofed up not sending AR to the Broncos last year so hopefully they don't mess it up again.

Yeah I'm sorry but these takes that they goofed by not trading Rodgers last year are as Monday morning as it gets. I'm not at all saying you're the only one who's said it, but there is plenty of justification for keeping Rodgers for this past season. They were knocking right on the door repeatedly. It's perfectly acceptable to keep Rodgers as they did and run it back again - even without Adams. 

Like there wouldn't have been tons of blowback had they traded him last offseason. And yes, I know there won't be a shortage of replies that "I wanted him traded!" I get it. My point is just that not trading was not this big blunder that some are implying it was. 

I think I want him traded this year though. I don't have the animosity that some people do toward Rodgers, but I think both parties are at this point where their goals aren't in lockstep with each other anymore. 

With that said I don't take this stuff all that seriously at this point in my life, so I'd be OK with Rodgers deciding he only wants to wear one uniform and putting in another year. I think things would be more compelling if he went somewhere else, though, and watching them put together a roster without this giant weight on their back would be interesting.

What I don't buy is that Rodgers has lost much, if anything. He's the same guy and he was hurt, and they were worse. I agree with his own assessment that he could win MVP in the right situation. Feel pretty sure GB isn't it.

[homer]

Not trading him meant signing him to an extension which meant a boatload of dead cap money no matter what happens. 
 

    

        1 hour ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:     

    

 Yeah I'm sorry but these takes that they goofed by not trading Rodgers last year are as Monday morning as it gets. I'm not at all saying you're the only one who's said it, but there is plenty of justification for keeping Rodgers for this past season. They were knocking right on the door repeatedly. It's perfectly acceptable to keep Rodgers as they did and run it back again - even without Adams.  

We had a whole thread dedicated to Rodgers trade rumors last year. Didn't seem like many people were saying that was a horrible idea.

[GAME05]

I was one who wanted Rodgers traded last year but I respect that it wasn't necessarily a "wrong" decision to want him to stay, either. Just a difference in how we'd run things as armchair GMs. Though certainly if he were a Denver Bronco they would have been better than the 5th pick in the draft.

I think Love can be a decent QB in the League, plus if Rodgers stays we're probably talking about both QBs gone in a couple years and than like every other team spending a good half-decade desperately trying to find your next franchise QB. Or worse, finally finding a middling one like Kyler Murray and get stuck paying him like he's elite. At least with Love you get to skip some of that process.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 hour ago, homer said:

Not trading him meant signing him to an extension which meant a boatload of dead cap money no matter what happens. 
 

We had a whole thread dedicated to Rodgers trade rumors last year. Didn't seem like many people were saying that was a horrible idea.

I'm not saying it was a horrible idea. I'm saying it was perfectly reasonable for them to think they could make another run at the Super Bowl this year. Stuff happens and sometimes the result is bad. I'm sorry but regardless of the circumstances, it takes major cojones to trade the MVP of the league. People liked this defense on paper a lot before the year. I don't think a lot of people saw this dud coming.  The consensus was basically that there would be growing pains at WR but the rest of the team was really good.

 

[Fear The Chorizo]

24 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

I'm not saying it was a horrible idea. I'm saying it was perfectly reasonable for them to think they could make another run at the Super Bowl this year. Stuff happens and sometimes the result is bad. I'm sorry but regardless of the circumstances, it takes major cojones to trade the MVP of the league. People liked this defense on paper a lot before the year. I don't think a lot of people saw this dud coming.  The consensus was basically that there would be growing pains at WR but the rest of the team was really good.

 

Yep - people mainly wanted to see him traded because they assumed there was no way the Packers could keep some core guys around due to cap issues.  Trading Adams (who was deadset on wanting out of GB) and inking Rodgers to a new contract resolved those issues enough to continue another year of restructuring roulette for the 2022 league year and largely try to run it back again.  It wasn't about them thinking Rodgers wouldn't be an elite quarterback this season, it was a general malaise of just wanting to move on - has there been a precedent previously to trade the reigning NFL MVP in the offseason, particularly a quarterback?  Can't think of it.

All that being said, given how 2022 went, I think this is the offseason to trade Rodgers if he still wants to continue playing.

[endaround]

2 hours ago, GAME05 said:

I was one who wanted Rodgers traded last year but I respect that it wasn't necessarily a "wrong" decision to want him to stay, either. Just a difference in how we'd run things as armchair GMs. Though certainly if he were a Denver Bronco they would have been better than the 5th pick in the draft.

I think Love can be a decent QB in the League, plus if Rodgers stays we're probably talking about both QBs gone in a couple years and than like every other team spending a good half-decade desperately trying to find your next franchise QB. Or worse, finally finding a middling one like Kyler Murray and get stuck paying him like he's elite. At least with Love you get to skip some of that process.

Yes, with Love you get to start paying him before you even know if he is any good.  Love's 5th year option is going to be like $25-$30 million if picked up.  And then you either need to sign him long term or start the Cousin's franchise folly.

[wallus]

5 hours ago, homer said:

Not trading him meant signing him to an extension which meant a boatload of dead cap money no matter what happens. 
 

We had a whole thread dedicated to Rodgers trade rumors last year. Didn't seem like many people were saying that was a horrible idea.

Right, signing Rodgers to that contract and not getting a haul (which he will not get nearly as much now) is not Monday morning quarterbacking by any means.

Relying on a 39 year old quarterback to carry your passing game with little help was not a recipe for success. Who could have seen that coming?

[Joseph Zarr]

2 hours ago, endaround said:

Yes, with Love you get to start paying him before you even know if he is any good.  Love's 5th year option is going to be like $25-$30 million if picked up.  And then you either need to sign him long term or start the Cousin's franchise folly.

Love's 5th year, from my understanding, is roughly $19.5Milly. Rookie contract QB Pro Bowlers, like Joe Burrow ($30.4 Milly - been to a pro bowl), make the money you are suggesting. So, the Packers have to decide whether they are on board with fully guaranteeing this money by May 3rd. This being said, even if they pick up that option, my understanding is his 2023 cap hit will still be roughly $3.9Mil. 

Anywho, the great context and conditions of all this is simply not ideal. At all. And, so it goes. It will certainly be interesting to see what they ultimately decide to do.

[CheezWizHed]

2 hours ago, wallus said:

Right, signing Rodgers to that contract and not getting a haul (which he will not get nearly as much now) is not Monday morning quarterbacking by any means.

Relying on a 39 year old quarterback to carry your passing game with little help was not a recipe for success. Who could have seen that coming?

Rodgers had his issues, but mostly with his injured thumb. If Adams stays and Gary is healthy, I think it is a very different season.

[Fear The Chorizo]

2 hours ago, wallus said:

Right, signing Rodgers to that contract and not getting a haul (which he will not get nearly as much now) is not Monday morning quarterbacking by any means.

Relying on a 39 year old quarterback to carry your passing game with little help was not a recipe for success. Who could have seen that coming?

He won league MVP the previous two seasons heading into his 39 yr old season as a quarterback...you don't trade that player unless he wants out when you have a roster that by all indications was more than good enough to contend in 2023.  

If I remember correctly, they resigned Rodgers before it was abundantly clear Adams wasn't returning - so yes that thought process kind of is Monday morning quarterbacking after Adams essentially forced a trade by refusing a bigger contract than what the Raiders gave him, Rodgers broke the thumb on his throwing hand in London, and his two top rookie receivers took turns losing practice and game snaps their first year being injured.

[Fear The Chorizo]

4 hours ago, endaround said:

Yes, with Love you get to start paying him before you even know if he is any good.  Love's 5th year option is going to be like $25-$30 million if picked up.  And then you either need to sign him long term or start the Cousin's franchise folly.

There's no way Love's situation mirrors Cousins, and there's no way Love gets franchised.  He'll either prove to be good enough to extend ahead of time or he'll wash out after the 2024 season - Cousins' rookie deal was only for 4 seasons since he was a 4th round pick, so Washington had to start franchising him a full season earlier than what GB would potentially have to do with Love.  And that 5th year option will be closer to $20M, not $30...while it's not ideal to commit that to a quarterback with 1 career start that's more or less the going rate for a decent quarterback and would be a huge discount to what they're paying Rodgers.  Knowing Love's 4th year is still incredibly team friendly makes that 5th year option a no brainer, IMO.  Even if he's no good, Love will at minimum serve as a bridge to the next quarterback picked to be the longterm starter for the 2025 season....if that's the case, the next QB drafted high will likely be picked by a new GM.