Packers 2022 Discussion Thread

[wallus]

43 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

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). 

Yeah the Packers don't make money but when re-sellers can't make money/get their investment back they will drop their season tickets. Getting into Lambeau is not difficult at all anymore.

[OldHeidelberg]

48 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

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). 

Most teams don't build 80000 seat stadiums unless they plan on hosting multiple super bowls or CFB playoff games. They want to keep the seat value high enough to keep a season ticket base even through tough years. I don't think the Viking stadium has as much capacity as Lambeau. Whether the Packers have put that season ticket base at risk remains to be seen but I feel like they may have sacrificed long term stability for short term profits. They have a ton invested in the idea that going to Lambeau is a special experience but speaking only for myself the aura wears off after a couple of dozen games and you start to appreciate your couch at home over all the hassle, especially if you don't live in the Green Bay area.

[Matt Breen]

Here's my big prediction for the off season.

The Packers trade Rodgers to the Jets for their 1st round pick (13th pick), plus another pick in 2024 (which depends on if Rodgers plays beyond 2023). 

Packers then draft TE Michael Mayer from Notre Dame and WR Quentin Johnston from TCU or Jaxon Smith-Njigba from Ohio St. (or whatever WR they rank highest).

It will give Love a formidable set of young players to help him develop. And elicit a bunch of annoyed people - including Rodgers - who never had guys like that drafted for him during his time with the club.

[HarveysWBs]

1 hour ago, reillymcshane said:

Here's my big prediction for the off season.

The Packers trade Rodgers to the Jets for their 1st round pick (13th pick), plus another pick in 2024 (which depends on if Rodgers plays beyond 2023). 

Packers then draft TE Michael Mayer from Notre Dame and WR Quentin Johnston from TCU or Jaxon Smith-Njigba from Ohio St. (or whatever WR they rank highest).

It will give Love a formidable set of young players to help him develop. And elicit a bunch of annoyed people - including Rodgers - who never had guys like that drafted for him during his time with the club.

I don’t know how I feel about Mayer, as I never remember thinking he would be an athletic difference maker at the NFL level.  For as nice of a college player he was, he just never looked like he was going to be able to separate against professional defenders, but I didn’t see him play more than a couple times last year.

Putting that aside though, I’d be thrilled with loading up on weapons.  It’s about dang time, and Love is going to need it. Also, if it’s a little pettiness on the part of the front office, that’s fine with me too. I’d say giving Aaron a little ribbing on his way out is fair play.  He trashed them pretty hard in his press conference after the summer of discontent, and Mark Murphy and Gute would need to be pretty saintly not to want just a smidgeon of payback.  

In any event, it is time to invest in offense.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

13 hours ago, reillymcshane said:

Here's my big prediction for the off season.

The Packers trade Rodgers to the Jets for their 1st round pick (13th pick), plus another pick in 2024 (which depends on if Rodgers plays beyond 2023). 

Packers then draft TE Michael Mayer from Notre Dame and WR Quentin Johnston from TCU or Jaxon Smith-Njigba from Ohio St. (or whatever WR they rank highest).

It will give Love a formidable set of young players to help him develop. And elicit a bunch of annoyed people - including Rodgers - who never had guys like that drafted for him during his time with the club.

This might happen. If Rodgers is annoyed he can thank his own contract.

I don't find either side unreasonable, though, tbh. It's not selfish of Rodgers to want to be paid like one of the best ever. And it's normal for the Packers to use his exit to spread the wealth around a bit. It's just one of those "sometimes reality sucks" situations. 

But some teams handle it better than others. Tyreek Hill left and the Chiefs are back in the Super Bowl. I mean, freaking MVS stole the show yesterday.

[CheezWizHed]

19 hours ago, wallus said:

Yeah the Packers don't make money but when re-sellers can't make money/get their investment back they will drop their season tickets. Getting into Lambeau is not difficult at all anymore.

If I recall correctly, the Packers nearly exhausted their season ticket waiting list back in the late 80s after two decades of futility.  But they could lose 100% of their season ticket holders, refill the stadium with people waiting to get tickets.  Yes, some people resell their tickets and that is the only reason they get the tickets (the in-person scalping tradition has gone back a long ways), but It will take may years of abject failure to exhaust the list. 

[Matt Breen]

4 hours ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

This might happen. If Rodgers is annoyed he can thank his own contract.

I don't find either side unreasonable, though, tbh. It's not selfish of Rodgers to want to be paid like one of the best ever. And it's normal for the Packers to use his exit to spread the wealth around a bit. It's just one of those "sometimes reality sucks" situations. 

But some teams handle it better than others. Tyreek Hill left and the Chiefs are back in the Super Bowl. I mean, freaking MVS stole the show yesterday.

If the Rodgers is dealt, one of the big reasons I could see the team go high on offensive skill players (TE, WR) is to try and help Love successful. The coaches and front office have a lot riding on Love if they get rid of Rodgers. So some premium talent at the receiver positions would be a smart way to help the offense do well.

Of course, where that leads the defense is another question. Perhaps land a regular in the 2nd round at the safety position. And hope Walker and Wyatt improve, and our injured guys (Gary, Stokes) come back and do well. Add in a FA or two - who knows.

[nate82]

2 minutes ago, reillymcshane said:

If the Rodgers is dealt, one of the big reasons I could see the team go high on offensive skill players (TE, WR) is to try and help Love successful. The coaches and front office have a lot riding on Love if they get rid of Rodgers. So some premium talent at the receiver positions would be a smart way to help the offense do well.

Of course, where that leads the defense is another question. Perhaps land a regular in the 2nd round at the safety position. And hope Walker and Wyatt improve, and our injured guys (Gary, Stokes) come back and do well. Add in a FA or two - who knows.

This is actually a rather deep draft when it comes to the defensive side.  A lot of players who could go in the 2nd or 3rd round are going to drop into the 4th and 5th rounds on the offensive side of the ball.  Defense is really deep so I wouldn't be surprised if you see some really good edge rushers or safeties available in the 3rd or 4th round who should have been drafted in the 2nd or 3rd round.  I think the weakest is probably LB and TE in this draft. 

There could be a lot of players available on the defensive side when it comes to the 3rd or 4th round who could be role starters on the defensive side of things (nickel CB's, pass rushers, etc.).  I think teams with extra 3rd and 4th round picks will be surprised with who is available and will be the ones who benefit the most. 

[Hacksaw Jim Duggan]

23 hours ago, wallus said:

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.

Here are a couple of sites for you.  Want some answers do some statistical evaluation.  Not here to hold your hand.  Personally, I would make a note about the national revenue the Packers generate and the local revenue the Packers generate which can be easily deduced.  Then I would look at the Statistica revenue and note the overall increase in revenue from 2001-2021.  The Packers and the NFL in general should be ashamed of themselves.  It is all about the revenues and not about the game anymore.  Money talks and BS watches.  

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2022/07/22/green-bay-packers-revenue-profit-record-2022/10131171002/

Green Bay Packers revenue 2021 | Statista

[nate82]

The 2023 cap will be $224.8m.

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-sets-salary-cap-at-224-8-million-per-team-in-2023

The Packers have about -$16m in cap space and will need to get that down by March 15th at 4pm ET. 

[areacodes]

2 hours ago, Hacksaw Jim Duggan said:

Here are a couple of sites for you.  Want some answers do some statistical evaluation.  Not here to hold your hand.  Personally, I would make a note about the national revenue the Packers generate and the local revenue the Packers generate which can be easily deduced.  Then I would look at the Statistica revenue and note the overall increase in revenue from 2001-2021.  The Packers and the NFL in general should be ashamed of themselves.  It is all about the revenues and not about the game anymore.  Money talks and BS watches.  

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2022/07/22/green-bay-packers-revenue-profit-record-2022/10131171002/

Green Bay Packers revenue 2021 | Statista

How do those links support anything you said in this post?

 

[wallus]

28 minutes ago, areacodes said:

How do those links support anything you said in this post?

 

They don't which is why I asked for evidence. I am guessing I won't be getting anything other than "find it yourself"

[areacodes]

39 minutes ago, wallus said:

They don't which is why I asked for evidence. I am guessing I won't be getting anything other than "find it yourself"

Exactly. Seemed reasonable to ask for something to back that up.

I’d think if you say something outlandish like Hacksaw Jim, you should be ready to back up your statement with more than “Want some answers do some statistical evaluation. Not here to hold your hand.”

[Hacksaw Jim Duggan]

2 hours ago, nate82 said:

The 2023 cap will be $224.8m.

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-sets-salary-cap-at-224-8-million-per-team-in-2023

The Packers have about -$16m in cap space and will need to get that down by March 15th at 4pm ET. 

Do you think the Green Bay Packers will cut anyone or just restructure contracts and kick the can down the road?

[Hacksaw Jim Duggan]

2 hours ago, areacodes said:

How do those links support anything you said in this post?

You can't break down a simple article to find any supporting evidence?  I hope you don't own stocks or run a business.  Just shooting from the hip I would take the Packers reported revenues in 2022 of $579 million subtract the $309.2 million dollar contribution from the national revenue.  Noting that national revenue is an equal share of the television and media deals means the Green Bay Packers received over $265 million from Wisconsin, Brown County, and Green Bay.  It might be a broad paint brush but to think the organization does nothing but give to the city and the surrounding population is naive.

 

The statistica link shows you a business that has quadrupled its revenue in 20 years while providing only one product.  If the Packers generate around 40% of total revenue from local and state deals that means in 2001 of the $132 million total revenues the organization generated about $50 million.  In 2022 that total is over $265 million.  The Packers are a business and they don't care about anything but money.

[CheeseheadInQC]

On 1/29/2023 at 1:01 PM, Hacksaw Jim Duggan said:

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!

I think you might be looking in the wrong direction. The rest of league already hates that the Packers’ structure mandates a level of financial openness that they would rather avoid. Do you really think the Packers aren’t under considerable pressure to operate in a similar manner to the other teams to avoid making the owners look bad?

[areacodes]

1 hour ago, Hacksaw Jim Duggan said:

You can't break down a simple article to find any supporting evidence?  I hope you don't own stocks or run a business.  Just shooting from the hip I would take the Packers reported revenues in 2022 of $579 million subtract the $309.2 million dollar contribution from the national revenue.  Noting that national revenue is an equal share of the television and media deals means the Green Bay Packers received over $265 million from Wisconsin, Brown County, and Green Bay.  It might be a broad paint brush but to think the organization does nothing but give to the city and the surrounding population is naive.

 

The statistica link shows you a business that has quadrupled its revenue in 20 years while providing only one product.  If the Packers generate around 40% of total revenue from local and state deals that means in 2001 of the $132 million total revenues the organization generated about $50 million.  In 2022 that total is over $265 million.  The Packers are a business and they don't care about anything but money.

Well, thanks for being condescending.

A few points:

Did somebody say the organization does nothing but give to the city and surrounding community? On top of that, why should a business be expected to do that and not make money?

You  also really think the Packers have done nothing to earn the revenue because they “only  provide one product”? And you are calling me naive?

The local revenue is generated from the development of Lambeau Field itself and the year-round attraction it is for fans, from the Titletown District, from owning land around the stadium and area that has been developed, food/beer sales, merchandise, having events at the stadium and so on. Not to mention an additional game added to the schedule that they get additional revenue from as well.

A majority of that stuff has been opened or significantly upgraded during the time-frame you quoted about their revenue increasing, so that would have a significant impact and not that they’ve just increased ticket and concession costs so Murphy and the front office can increase their yearly salary and don’t care about putting a winning product on the field. You also said that the Packers are the only front office that doesn’t have guaranteed salaries and have yet to provide any proof of that and I think wallus was asking about that too - but I’m sure you’ll ignore that and just insult us again.

[nate82]

4 hours ago, Hacksaw Jim Duggan said:

Do you think the Green Bay Packers will cut anyone or just restructure contracts and kick the can down the road?

No idea I am not a Packers fan.  Their biggest decision will be Rodgers and that may take some time.

[Fear The Chorizo]

A significant chunk of the Packers' increased revenue in recent years comes from the Titletown district and non-gameday events it hosts year round.  Pretty sure there are paying customers visiting the Lambeau field area bit more than the dozen or so pre-, regular and postseason home game dates each year.  Is the argument that the Packers should tear all that down and sell the property so they aren't generating that revenue anymore?  The salary cap in 2001  was roughly $65M and it's about to go up to $225M....so yes, a business should do everything it can to increase revenues and in turn produce a better product for its customers - in the case of a pro sports franchise that includes the team on the field and all the other fan/local customer experiences.

And who cares whether or not Packer front office staff have guaranteed salaries?  There are tons of careers where you make what you earn based on performance/results year to year.  I actually think that model for certain front office staff responsible for the business side of the Packers is a good thing.

[Samurai Bucky]

Here is a question:  Let's say Rodgers restructures his contract in a way where he frees up cap space.  Yes, that would mean he would take a significant cut in pay, but let's just say it happens.  So his annual salary goes down from just under $60M to $40M.  Would you be more in favor of keeping him since there would be more money to get some additional pieces, or would you still want to trade him.

Cap numbers can be found here:  https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

33 minutes ago, Samurai Bucky said:

Here is a question:  Let's say Rodgers restructures his contract in a way where he frees up cap space.  Yes, that would mean he would take a significant cut in pay, but let's just say it happens.  So his annual salary goes down from just under $60M to $40M.  Would you be more in favor of keeping him since there would be more money to get some additional pieces, or would you still want to trade him.

Cap numbers can be found here:  https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers

At this point I don't think it's really about the money. They can figure out some cap gymnastics that would enable them to bring him back, and probably even go out and acquire a weapon for him. At this point, though, I think it's more about the very limited shelf life he has left, and the fact that they have a talented young QB that they are basically backed into a corner with as far as deciding to move forward. It's almost exactly like Brady's last few years played out in New England. Garoppolo was drafted to be the heir apparent, but Brady continued performing at a high level way past when NFL QBs typically do, and instead of turning the keys over to Jimmy G and dealing Brady for what likely would have been a king's ransom, the Pats chose to jettison Garoppolo for what they could. And as we saw, Brady only lasted another season or two before moving on, leaving the Pats with a rebuild and a QB carousel. I get the feeling the Packers don't want to repeat that. 

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think if the Packers can get a draft pick anywhere in the 1st of this year's draft + future later round picks, they should trade Rodgers.  I think he still has a couple really good seasons left in the tank, but he's no longer the caliber of QB who can carry a flawed team on a playoff run - even though he's paid like one.  Because of that, I think what's best for both Rodgers and the Packers is for him to finish his career elsewhere...pretty much every HOF-caliber quarterback in the past 20 years hasn't finished their career with their original team, with salary cap limitations it's almost impossible to pull that off without completely destroring a roster once Father Time finally takes a great quarterback out to pasture.

Not sure if this has been brought up or not, but I also think it's a bad idea for a team that plays in a cold weather town to rely on an old quarterback to win them home playoff games in January.  Favre showed signs of disliking the cold towards the end of his Packers tenure despite playing fantastic in the elements when he was younger, and I think the same goes for Rodgers.  Hell, Brady beat Rodgers in Lambeau to go to the Super Bowl as an old man, but he threw 3 second half picks to keep the game close.

[LouisEly]

On 1/30/2023 at 6:33 PM, Hacksaw Jim Duggan said:

Do you think the Green Bay Packers will cut anyone or just restructure contracts and kick the can down the road?

There is a third option - trading.  A team that is a legitimate contender for the Super Bowl but has an iffy LT/OL would gladly trade for Bakh because they only have to pay him the cash portion of his contract for two years.  The signing/restructure bonus $ stay with the Packers.  Getting a Pro-Bowl caliber LT for $17M in cash in 2023, $20M in cash in 2024, non-guaranteed without having to sign to a long-term deal is a bargain.  Even if Bakh's knee acts up again (which it didn't after week 9), a team can cut him without any dead cap because the portion of the contract they are taking on is not guaranteed.

Similar with Aaron Jones - he was 9th in the league in total yards from scrimmage last year, and he is tied for 8th all-time in YPC (and three of the players ahead of him are QBs - the only RBs in the modern era with a higher YPC are Jamaal Charles, Nick Chubb, and Jim Brown).  A non-guaranteed $16m this year, $12M next is not a big risk for a premium 3-down RB.  Lots of cash, but none guaranteed and no long-term deal required.

If Rodgers is traded, I expect Bakh and Jones to be traded as well.  If they keep Rodgers, they'll restructure/extend. 

[CheezWizHed]

13 hours ago, Samurai Bucky said:

Here is a question:  Let's say Rodgers restructures his contract in a way where he frees up cap space.  Yes, that would mean he would take a significant cut in pay, but let's just say it happens.  So his annual salary goes down from just under $60M to $40M.  Would you be more in favor of keeping him since there would be more money to get some additional pieces, or would you still want to trade him.

Cap numbers can be found here:  https://overthecap.com/salary-cap/green-bay-packers

Yes, I would because he is still legit enough QB to win a SB.  But no he won't because Rodger's first love is Rodgers.

[HarveysWBs]

On a related point to “Rodgers’ first love is Rodgers,” I think with the Brady retirement news, we can dispel any notion of Rodgers retiring. As I said the first time Brady walked away, there is no way on this good earth Rodgers is going to share his retirement year—and more importantly, HOF enshrinement—with the one guy from his generation who overshadowed him.  0.0% chance of retirement now.  The only question is where he plays.