Packers 2022 Discussion Thread

[wallus]

21 minutes ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

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.

You don't pay a 39 year old QB that had just choked in the playoffs 150 million for 3 years. The roster wasn't good enough which is why they couldn't get it done.

Rodgers signed his extension on March 15th and Adams was traded on March 18th. It is highly likely the Packers knew he was gone before Rodgers signed. I don't get the "run it back" people with Rodgers. With the cap problems, they need to do a re-set. They needed to do it last year and are now paying the price.

Other than Brady, old QBs don't carry their team's to Super Bowls.

[superfly]

21 minutes ago, wallus said:

You don't pay a 39 year old QB that had just choked in the playoffs 150 million for 3 years. The roster wasn't good enough which is why they couldn't get it done.

Rodgers signed his extension on March 15th and Adams was traded on March 18th. It is highly likely the Packers knew he was gone before Rodgers signed. I don't get the "run it back" people with Rodgers. With the cap problems, they need to do a re-set. They needed to do it last year and are now paying the price.

Other than Brady, old QBs don't carry their team's to Super Bowls.

I will have paid AR 300 million dollars if we would have ended up in this result, and it kept that bum Russ Wilson out of here. There was a fair amount of rumors out there of a swap IIRC. Thank god it didn’t happen.

[Fear The Chorizo]

 I don't get the "run it back" people with Rodgers. With the cap problems, they need to do a re-set. They needed to do it last year and are now paying the price.

In the NFL, you run it back until it's obvious the roster is broken beyond repair, and then you take your medicine as an organization.  It's not MLB, where you need to manage the roster with an eye on seasons 3-4 years down the road from both a competitive and financial standpoint.  Last offseason, it wasn't obvious the roster was broken, so I think they made the right decision keeping the league MVP around and delaying the big roster turnover that we all know is inevitable when your team has been built for years around the comfort of having an elite quarterback leading it.  This offseason, I think it's a different story, and it's time to do a re-set.  

I don't get the people who say the Packers waited too long to trade Rodgers and they won't get enough value in return for him - He won 4 league MVPs and was one of the best 5 players in the NFL for most of his career as starting quarterback for the Packers, including the 2020 and 2021 seasons.  I for one thought after the 2019 season he was in the twilight of his career and the Packers would've been wise to explore a trade then, and he proved me wrong.  I'd argue they got plenty of value by keeping him a Packer until he demonstrated he's no longer that caliber of game-altering and roster-boosting player.  

[homer]

Running it back is one thing. Running it back without Adams and with a huge contract extension is another thing. That's why I maintain they thought Adams was going to re-sign. I don't know if they would have kept Rodgers had they known Adams wanted out.

[wallus]

If it wasn't obvious after the playoff game at home against SF last year, I don't know how much more obvious it could have gotten. The defense kept the team in the game, not the offense. That should have been the clue to not make a 39 year old quarterback one of the highest paid players in football. 

[GAME05]

If there were an agreement in place to trade Rodgers to the Jets after June 1, could the Jets just draft at our command and then trade those players to us, or is there something against the rules about that?

I otherwise read about trading Rodgers before then so that we can get draft picks now, but for the cap hit it would take to trade Rodgers before that date, I don't see how that could really be done without gutting much of the team. At least unless Rodgers' trade value is so much higher if the other team doesn't have much money to pay.

[GAME05]

I've been interested in just what sort of a return Rodgers would get, or at least what some slack-jawed journalists think, and have only come across two ideas:

Seattle: Rodgers and a 4th rounder

GB:

• 2023 First Round Draft Pick (5th overall)
• 2023 Second Round Draft Pick (52nd overall)
• 2023 Third Round Draft Pick (83rd overall)
• 2023 Fourth Round Draft Pick (122nd overall)

 

Jets: Rodgers

GB: Jets' 1st (13th) and 2nd (44th)

[Fear The Chorizo]

2 hours ago, wallus said:

If it wasn't obvious after the playoff game at home against SF last year, I don't know how much more obvious it could have gotten. The defense kept the team in the game, not the offense. That should have been the clue to not make a 39 year old quarterback one of the highest paid players in football. 

You act like Rodgers somehow used smoke and mirrors to win consecutive MVP awards leading a putrid offense - the absence of Bakhtiari and the weird O line shuffling decisions the Packers made really hurt them in both of their home playoff losses against the 49ers (Jenkins and Myers were also on IR in last year's game) and the Buccaneers, who had elite pass rushes.  One of the thoughts for running it back for 2023 was that the line would be solidified with Bakh, Jenkins, and Myers returning.

The Packers' offense carried that team most of the 2021 season - the fact the defense was winning them the game once the 49ers started doubling Adams until the special teams disaster should tell you that the roster was good enough to give it another shot.

And Rodgers was one of the highest paid players in football before the extension, for most of his career frankly - The Packers were going to have significant cap issues heading into the start of the 2022 league year even if they traded Rodgers.  The extension made his cap hit for the 2022 season palatable, so it made sense to do it.  

I also doubt the Packers knew for certain Adams wasn't coming back when they gave Rodgers the extension - IIRC Rodgers was surprised as well that #17 was dealt right after the ink dried on his new contract.

[nate82]

If the Colts do the stupid and trade for Rodgers I think this would be the return and what the Packers would do with the draft picks. 

[wallus]

1 hour ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

You act like Rodgers somehow used smoke and mirrors to win consecutive MVP awards leading a putrid offense - the absence of Bakhtiari and the weird O line shuffling decisions the Packers made really hurt them in both of their home playoff losses against the 49ers (Jenkins and Myers were also on IR in last year's game) and the Buccaneers, who had elite pass rushes.  One of the thoughts for running it back for 2023 was that the line would be solidified with Bakh, Jenkins, and Myers returning.

The Packers' offense carried that team most of the 2021 season - the fact the defense was winning them the game once the 49ers started doubling Adams until the special teams disaster should tell you that the roster was good enough to give it another shot.

And Rodgers was one of the highest paid players in football before the extension, for most of his career frankly - The Packers were going to have significant cap issues heading into the start of the 2022 league year even if they traded Rodgers.  The extension made his cap hit for the 2022 season palatable, so it made sense to do it.  

I also doubt the Packers knew for certain Adams wasn't coming back when they gave Rodgers the extension - IIRC Rodgers was surprised as well that #17 was dealt right after the ink dried on his new contract.

You are proving my point that the team was not good enough unless they have darn near perfect health. Because they have to pay Rodgers so much money, they can't afford to have capable backups. When the likely injuries occur, they are sunk. Even this year I am hearing "if only Gary and Stokes wouldn't have gotten injured". It happens every year in the NFL to pretty much every team. The Packers playing in a poor division have allowed them to rack up wins and fool fans into thinking they are better than they are.

[Fear The Chorizo]

21 minutes ago, wallus said:

You are proving my point that the team was not good enough unless they have darn near perfect health. Because they have to pay Rodgers so much money, they can't afford to have capable backups. When the likely injuries occur, they are sunk. Even this year I am hearing "if only Gary and Stokes wouldn't have gotten injured". It happens every year in the NFL to pretty much every team. The Packers playing in a poor division have allowed them to rack up wins and fool fans into thinking they are better than they are.

What exactly is your point?  GB had the top seed in the NFC despite their mash unit roster last season, because they did have solid depth at some of those positions.  However, their injury-riddled offensive line got whooped against the 49ers and it allowed the game to stay close until a special teams disaster swung it away from the Packers.  Is your point then that any veteran team that doesn't win a Super Bowl has to be blown up immediately the next offseason to start from scratch?  No team in the NFL can afford to have capable backups at every position - if you get a rash of injuries at key positions, you aren't winning a Super Bowl.  The 49ers have reached the NFC title game with a loaded roster, and their key in-season injuries were to a talented but inexperienced quarterback  who still needs development at the NFL level, and to their middling veteran back quarterback who has always been viewed as someone who could lose you a big game but not win one.  Sometimes elite quarterback play can overcome a bunch of players on IR to win a Super Bowl, but oftentimes those teams come up short.  Ask Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes about that in recent seasons.

The NFL playoffs are one game and done scenarios - frankly anything can happen to even the best constructed teams (like a blocked punt for a TD, or a helmet catch to ruin an undefeated season in the Super Bowl, etc) to knock them off.  Being good enough to have the top seed in a conference, to me at least, means your roster is pretty good and worth seeing if you can tweak it to improve rather than tear it down..

 

[wallus]

1 minute ago, Fear The Chorizo said:

Is your point then that any veteran team that doesn't win a Super Bowl has to be blown up immediately the next offseason to start from scratch? 

 

Nope. You must have been watching a different team than I did if you thought running it back and killing your future was the move. Ever sense the offseason when they signed the Smiths, they were kicking the can down the road with the cap. You can't keep doing that forever. I don't have an issue with Rodgers the player nearly as much as the contract they gave him. They paid him like he was going to be the same old AR. It appears that many of you fell for that too despite Father Time being undefeated. None of this includes the stupid drama and BS baggage he brings along with him. 

The opportunity cost was huge, you know buy low and sell high. Taking the Russell Wilson trade for Rodgers would have been a tremendous start to a short rebuild. You do that along with letting some vets go, clean up the cap and be ready for the next run. I had mentioned last offseason that it was time to see what Jordan Love can do and hopefully they will finally let him play.

[LouisEly]

On 1/26/2023 at 11:18 PM, wallus said:

Rodgers signed his extension on March 15th and Adams was traded on March 18th. It is highly likely the Packers knew he was gone before Rodgers signed.

There was no chance of Adams coming back if Rodgers wasn't coming back.  They had to get Rodgers in the fold first to have any chance of retaining Adams.

[Fear The Chorizo]

21 hours ago, wallus said:

Nope. You must have been watching a different team than I did if you thought running it back and killing your future was the move. Ever sense the offseason when they signed the Smiths, they were kicking the can down the road with the cap. You can't keep doing that forever. I don't have an issue with Rodgers the player nearly as much as the contract they gave him. They paid him like he was going to be the same old AR. It appears that many of you fell for that too despite Father Time being undefeated. None of this includes the stupid drama and BS baggage he brings along with him. 

The opportunity cost was huge, you know buy low and sell high. Taking the Russell Wilson trade for Rodgers would have been a tremendous start to a short rebuild. You do that along with letting some vets go, clean up the cap and be ready for the next run. I had mentioned last offseason that it was time to see what Jordan Love can do and hopefully they will finally let him play.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree on how good they were during the 2021 season, and we're apparently 1 season apart from wanting the short rebuild to happen.  They can do the same thing you're talking about this offseason, and frankly the biggest return value the Packers can receive by trading Rodgers is some short term cap relief and longer term cap stability for no longer having to string veteran contracts out indefinitely. 

[Hacksaw Jim Duggan]

23 hours ago, wallus said:

Nope. You must have been watching a different team than I did if you thought running it back and killing your future was the move. Ever sense the offseason when they signed the Smiths, they were kicking the can down the road with the cap. You can't keep doing that forever. I don't have an issue with Rodgers the player nearly as much as the contract they gave him. They paid him like he was going to be the same old AR. It appears that many of you fell for that too despite Father Time being undefeated. None of this includes the stupid drama and BS baggage he brings along with him. 

The opportunity cost was huge, you know buy low and sell high. Taking the Russell Wilson trade for Rodgers would have been a tremendous start to a short rebuild. You do that along with letting some vets go, clean up the cap and be ready for the next run. I had mentioned last offseason that it was time to see what Jordan Love can do and hopefully they will finally let him play.

Aaron Rodgers is the golden goose.  The Packers are all about the money.  Think of the organization as a ringleader of a circus, the organization thinks the people come to see the main attraction not the overall show.  Aaron Rodgers is the main attraction this is why a team would give a 39 year old qb a $150 million contract.    Big business has ruined football much like it has ruined travel, Las Vegas, the Dells, and everything else it has touched.  It is all about the money, not the product.  The Packers are a business not a football team.  Mike Murphy's sole focus is to make more money every year.  That is the truth.  The Packers are not focused on the Super Bowl only the cash flow.

[Matt Breen]

On 1/27/2023 at 11:52 AM, GAME05 said:

I've been interested in just what sort of a return Rodgers would get, or at least what some slack-jawed journalists think, and have only come across two ideas:

Seattle: Rodgers and a 4th rounder

GB:

• 2023 First Round Draft Pick (5th overall)
• 2023 Second Round Draft Pick (52nd overall)
• 2023 Third Round Draft Pick (83rd overall)
• 2023 Fourth Round Draft Pick (122nd overall)

 

Jets: Rodgers

GB: Jets' 1st (13th) and 2nd (44th)

I've seen several ideas, and most think the Packers can get a mid-to-late 1st rounder, plus another asset premium asset (by which I mean a 2nd-3rd rounder, or young player of that caliber). Not dissimilar to what we got for Adams. 

A few speculate that team's will want to give a draft pick in 2024 - the value attached to Rodgers playing another year. 

One of the reasons the Jets are often so discussed regarding a Rodgers trade (aside from his fit) is they have the 13th overall pick. The value of that is great - but not stupendous. The Jets aren't giving up an obvious franchise player at 13 - which makes moving the pick more palatable.

I doubt anyone gives us a top 10 pick - but hey, they can ask. 

[LouisEly]

I think the 2024 picks have more to do with trading Rodgers after 6/1 than anything.  If they trade him before 6/1 that's an additional $9M that they have to clear on top of the already $17M that they are over the cap. 

[wallus]

On 1/28/2023 at 11:43 AM, Fear The Chorizo said:

 They can do the same thing you're talking about this offseason, and frankly the biggest return value the Packers can receive by trading Rodgers is some short term cap relief and longer term cap stability for no longer having to string veteran contracts out indefinitely. 

Yeah they should be able to get some return for Rodgers but nothing like it would have been last offseason. The mountain of dead cap from all of this is huge.  TT got a lot of flack for being too conservative but he generally left the cap in a good place.

[wallus]

21 hours ago, Hacksaw Jim Duggan said:

Aaron Rodgers is the golden goose.  The Packers are all about the money.  Think of the organization as a ringleader of a circus, the organization thinks the people come to see the main attraction not the overall show.  Aaron Rodgers is the main attraction this is why a team would give a 39 year old qb a $150 million contract.    Big business has ruined football much like it has ruined travel, Las Vegas, the Dells, and everything else it has touched.  It is all about the money, not the product.  The Packers are a business not a football team.  Mike Murphy's sole focus is to make more money every year.  That is the truth.  The Packers are not focused on the Super Bowl only the cash flow.

But of all teams in professional sports to say this about, you pick the team that doesn't have an actual owner to pocket all of this money?

[Hacksaw Jim Duggan]

1 hour ago, wallus said:

But of all teams in professional sports to say this about, you pick the team that doesn't have an actual owner to pocket all of this money?

This is the only team in existence where front office salaries are not guaranteed. The front office needs to make more money each year or their salaries stagnate.  Murphy isn't worried about football as much as he is worried about his job and his salary from year to year.   Did you ever ask yourself why tickets, a beer, and a hotdog cost so much if there is no owner?  Hint its not to pay players salaries.  The Packers organization insists on taking a cut of all the earnings.  

The Packers were bailed out by the people during Curly Lambeau's ownership of the team.  The people even built the team a stadium and then paid for a facelift a few years ago.  What did the front office do to repay the people?  Raised the price of everything.  That is how business says thank you!

 

 

 

 

[wallus]

Yeah, you're gonna have to show your work a bit on your claims on the front office. I look forward to the links and articles so I can read about it.

[OldHeidelberg]

I have been cynical about the Packers organization's empire building going back a couple of stock sales ago, the one for the last stadium expansion. First, I don't think they needed to ask the fans for money to do that and second I think it has potential to be a long term blunder. They turned a tough ticket into an easy one. I dropped the price on my Tennesse game tickets on stubhub all week and ended up at $20 about an hour before kickoff but still no takers. For the NE game I told my friends who needed tickets to just wait until game day and sure enough there were 2 seats available right behind mine at less than face value. Eventually many fans are going to figure out that it's cheaper to go a la carte then having to pay for preseason tickets every year. Plus filling an 80k seat stadium in cold weather is going to be a challenge in down seasons even if the season ticket base holds and they may find it won't if they are bad for an extended period like the 80's. 

 

But they haven't found the bottom of Packer fans pockets yet so maybe I am mistaken about how much money fans will continue to shovel the team. 

[CheezWizHed]

Sounds like Jerry Gray (DB coach) might be headed to Atlanta for the same position.  Kind of sounds like some of the D's communications issues are being thrown his way.  Seems like he was an improvement for us.

But given the lack of any Jimmy Leonhard rumors for any DC positions, I wonder if this might be an opportunity for JL to step back into the NFL and stay close to home at the same time? 

[wallus]

22 minutes ago, OldHeidelberg said:

I have been cynical about the Packers organization's empire building going back a couple of stock sales ago, the one for the last stadium expansion. First, I don't think they needed to ask the fans for money to do that and second I think it has potential to be a long term blunder. They turned a tough ticket into an easy one. I dropped the price on my Tennesse game tickets on stubhub all week and ended up at $20 about an hour before kickoff but still no takers. For the NE game I told my friends who needed tickets to just wait until game day and sure enough there were 2 seats available right behind mine at less than face value. Eventually many fans are going to figure out that it's cheaper to go a la carte then having to pay for preseason tickets every year. Plus filling an 80k seat stadium in cold weather is going to be a challenge in down seasons even if the season ticket base holds and they may find it won't if they are bad for an extended period like the 80's. 

 

But they haven't found the bottom of Packer fans pockets yet so maybe I am mistaken about how much money fans will continue to shovel the team. 

I think re-sellers are going to have one heck of a time once the team hits a real rough patch. Even after this season's losing streak, getting rid of tickets was not easy.

[CheezWizHed]

2 minutes ago, wallus said:

I think re-sellers are going to have one heck of a time once the team hits a real rough patch. Even after this season's losing streak, getting rid of tickets was not easy.

Not that we have had many rough patches, but of course it happens.  Packers don't make $$ on resale of tickets though. And there are 140,000 people on the waiting list (as of May 2022).  Oh, and we were still #4 in home attendance last year; 10,000 fan average more than the Vikings (at #21).