2023 Packers draft discussion

[nate82]

Just now, HarveysWBs said:

If Rodgers is back, I’d assume one or two needs have to be met via free agency, and whatever financial shenanigans or cap casualties have to happen to make that work probably happens (bye, Jones, you’ll be missed). Any solid FA safeties likely to be out there?

The Packers would have to cut: Jones, Bakhtiari, Smith and O'Donnell to get to about $9m in cap space.  I am not sure what that would get the Packers in FA at safety but you would have to add at least one OL, LB and RB in the draft.  I think the Packers cut O'Donnell and then go with someone else as it saves the Packers about $2m in cap space.  If they trade Love with all of the other cuts then that gives the Packers about $11m in cap space. 

I believe the Packers won't cut Bakhtiari until after 6/1 which gives them more cap space but I think that only happens if Rodgers is not on the team. 

[LouisEly]

If Rodgers is back, Jones isn't going anywhere.  Jones was 9th in the NFL in total yards from scrimmage this past season.  The only players ahead of him were Josh Jacobs, Derrick Henry, Christian McCaffrey, Justin Jefferson, Nick Chubb, Tyreek Hill, Saquon Barkley, and Austin Ekeler.  Jones was ahead of Davante Adams, A.J. Brown, Dalvin Cook, Travis Etienne, Stefon Diggs, CeeDee Lamb, Alvin Kamara, and... everybody else.

[nate82]

This is my the Packers trade Rodgers draft.  I think I need to add more to the trading of the 5th pick to the Panthers but otherwise I think this is who the Packers would surround Love with.  Watson, Doubs and Johnston would be a nice set of WR's for Love to throw to and add in Musgrave as a nice TE.  Defensively the Packers would improve at DB and LB.  I think the steal of the draft would be Zach Harrison in the 3rd round.  He could become a very nice pass rusher for the Packers.  Possible TJ Watt type of player ceiling though the floor could be out of the league in a few years.  A lot of his issues come from the pre-snap as he is late a lot but good coaching should fix that. 

[adambr2]

There's absolutely no way Rodgers is bringing back a top 5 pick and change. 

Seattle also doesn't make sense as a destination unless the Seahawks let Geno hit free agency and someone gives him a big overpay to leave Seattle. My guess is he'll be a bridge guy there for another 2 seasons and they'll draft his successor in '24.

[nate82]

6 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

There's absolutely no way Rodgers is bringing back a top 5 pick and change. 

Seattle also doesn't make sense as a destination unless the Seahawks let Geno hit free agency and someone gives him a big overpay to leave Seattle. My guess is he'll be a bridge guy there for another 2 seasons and they'll draft his successor in '24.

Maybe.  OK how about this Steelers send 17, 32 and 49 to the Packers for Rodgers.  Packers would then have 15 and 17 plus three picks in the 2nd round.  The other option would be Vegas could go 7, 70 and 109.  Though I think Love to the Steelers makes a little bit more sense than Rodgers.  But that would mean no 1st round pick coming to the Packers and probably would be 49 and a fourth round pick in '24. 

[CheezWizHed]

On 1/11/2023 at 8:18 PM, LouisEly said:

Problem is they only have nine picks, and three are in the seventh round which you can't really count on to contribute.

With their first six picks they are going to have to find at least one S, TE, WR, DE (Clark, Slaton, and Ford are NTs, only DE is Wyatt, Slayton was on the practice squad all year for a reason and Ford never saw game action all season for a reason), and Edge rusher.  In the 7th there's a good chance they might have to double-up on WR, S, and TE.  That's eight picks spoken for.  In fact, if Amos isn't back they are going to have to double up on safety, if Lazard/Cobb aren't back they will have to double up on WR.  Sounds like any future that Savage has is at nickel.  All other positions are a luxury.

Clark played quite a bit of DE with Slaton in on early downs and then moved in for pass rush downs. Given TJ's improvements, I wouldn't be surprised if that continues.  I'm not banking on Ford or Slayton for much except maybe one of them stepping up enough to be a backup.  If you go into TC with Ford, Slayton, a vet minimum, a mid-round draft pick, and a couple UDFAs, you will likely find two decent backups to the starting 3. 

[GAME05]

Rodgers to Seattle is an interesting thought, especially since what Seattle would be paying Rodgers wouldn't be a whole lot more than what they'll likely have to pay Geno. 

Though Rodgers being a bridge QB I'd see Seattle demanding they keep the #5 so they can draft Rodgers' successor. Seattle's late 1st and a 3rd seems more fitting, or it's a player from Seattle as the main return. Noah Fant and a 2nd would be fine with me.

[CheezWizHed]

Seattle trading for Rodgers and then drafting a successor QB would be pretty funny...

[Jopal78]

Nobody is going to trade for Aaron Rodgers. He would necessarily have to commit to playing for more than a year to even make it plausible for Green Bay to deal him; something he hasn't done the last three seasons.

[patrickgpe]

2 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

Nobody is going to trade for Aaron Rodgers. He would necessarily have to commit to playing for more than a year to even make it plausible for Green Bay to deal him; something he hasn't done the last three seasons.

someone may but return would be Favre-like, nothing close to a 1st. 

[nate82]

2 hours ago, patrickgpe said:

someone may but return would be Favre-like, nothing close to a 1st. 

I don't think so.  The Raiders are basically begging for a QB and would trade their 1st for Rodgers.  The Seahawks have multiple 1st round picks and could trade one of them for Rodgers.  Probably not going to happen but the Lions could trade one of their 1st round picks for Rodgers also. 

Something like the Lions 18th and 81st pick could be possible or the Seahawks 20th and 83rd pick.  If the Raiders get real desperate it could be their 7th pick and 109th pick.  I think Rodgers would probably prefer the Seahawks or the Raiders over the Lions.  But I could definitely see the Lions trading for Rodgers it would put them as a Super Bowl favorite and probably the favorites in the NFC by a lot.  The Lions could also trade out of the 6th pick and trade it to a team that needs a QB and get another pick in the first round of '24 instead where they could draft a QB if Rodgers retires after the '23 season or draft a QB at that spot to be a replacement for Rodgers.

Please note I am not a Packers fan so I am not being homerish on these trades.  I don't think the Packers will get the return they could have received last year which was multiple 1st round picks.  I think they get at least one 1st round pick and it could possibly be in the middle of the draft. 

The Steelers also make some sense maybe they trade the 32nd and 49th pick to the Packers for Rodgers. 

[GAME05]

Trade clause or no, I still figure Rodgers would have to approve a trade beforehand. And in that case why go to a middling team when he could be on a middling one in GB? But the Jets would easily be the most Superbowl-capable of the bunch and I could see that convincing him. Elijah Moore and a 2nd wouldn't be a haul, but would be reasonable for a guy who may only play one more year. Then maybe a conditional 2nd and 4th if he plays the year after. Plus with their 1st the Jets would be in line to take the Richardson guy from Florida who will need a year or two of bench work before he's ready, anyway.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

19 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

Nobody is going to trade for Aaron Rodgers. He would necessarily have to commit to playing for more than a year to even make it plausible for Green Bay to deal him; something he hasn't done the last three seasons.

I think you are underestimating the amount of revenue acquiring Rodgers would bring in for a team. Not only would a team trade for him, if there were more than one team involved, it could very likely turn into a bidding war.

[adambr2]

20 hours ago, Jopal78 said:

Nobody is going to trade for Aaron Rodgers. He would necessarily have to commit to playing for more than a year to even make it plausible for Green Bay to deal him; something he hasn't done the last three seasons.

Didn't he essentially do that last season with his new contract? He'd be walking away from a lot of money to retire now. That's all a team can do to make a player commit to future years-- make it financially painful to walk away. Any player could walk away after any season whether they're 23 or 40.

[homer]

I think there are teams that would trade for a year of Rodgers if they thought that he would help them win a SB. They just wouldn't trade as much as if they could have more than a year. 

[Jopal78]

2 hours ago, adambr2 said:

Didn't he essentially do that last season with his new contract? He'd be walking away from a lot of money to retire now. That's all a team can do to make a player commit to future years-- make it financially painful to walk away. Any player could walk away after any season whether they're 23 or 40.

 

3 hours ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

I think you are underestimating the amount of revenue acquiring Rodgers would bring in for a team. Not only would a team trade for him, if there were more than one team involved, it could very likely turn into a bidding war.

Not really. I  do agree with you I don't think it's likely he will walk away from the guarantee he has next year. On the other hand, he has been paid close to half a billion dollars in just NFL salary alone, so anything is certainly possible in an individual with that magnitude of wealth. What is more, the Packers absolutely believed he might have walked away after the '20  season and that was a situation where he would have had to pay back part of his signing bonus to do so. 

Under his current contract, he doesn't have to pay anything back if he walks because most of the remaining money is all roster bonuses, meaning he only gets it if he's on the roster. Rodgers has all the leverage. It's actually the exact opposite of your statement: it is now painful for the Packers to walk away from Aaron Rodgers. Even if Rodgers wants out of Green Bay it would probably be still difficult to put together a trade with a significant return for the Packers. 

No GM going to put his career on the line trading for a mercurial Aaron Rodgers without first getting a commitment that he's "in" for multiple seasons, and I assume Rodgers isn't going to give up the leverage his contract affords him. Would some team take a chance thinking they could talk Rodgers into playing for them? Sure, but it certainly wouldn't be a First or Second coming back to Green Bay in that situation. 

As to the notion of a team being interested in acquiring Rodgers to drive revenue;  it probably means said team isn't competitive so they wouldn't be a match in the first place.

Honestly a trade of Aaron Rodgers, would be very similar to when the Mariners traded Ken Griffey Jr. He demanded from out and with 10/5 rights dictated where he was willing to go to. As a result the Mariners got bits and pieces back for a once in a generation hall of fame talent.  

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

2 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

If a team is interested in acquiring Rodgers to drive revenue, it probably means they are not a competitive team, so they're likely not a match to begin with. It would be very similar to when the Mariners traded Ken Griffey Jr. He wanted out and with 10/5 rights dictated where he was willing to go to. As a result the Mariners got bits and pieces back for a once in a generation hall of fame talent.  

The Raiders are 100% in that situation. They have a playoff-level amount of skill position talent, a massive hole at QB, and a Las Vegas fanbase they are trying to drum up excitement in. The fit almost makes too much sense to actually work.

[Jopal78]

2 minutes ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

The Raiders are 100% in that situation. They have a playoff-level amount of skill position talent, a massive hole at QB, and a Las Vegas fanbase they are trying to drum up excitement in. The fit almost makes too much sense to actually work.

I believe they've sold out all their home games in Vegas so far, and they're amongst the most expensive ticket on the secondary market. Raider merch is always amongst the best selling in the game, thus I would disagree they need to "drum up excitement for the fanbase." 

I do think its debatable as to the amount of skill they truly have (6-11 last year). They were not good last season even before a bunch of their players were injured and went on IR.

The Raiders are also the text book example of a dysfunctional franchise. Who knows, but Rodgers seems too wise to get stuck in that kind of mess voluntarily. But most importantly, Tom Brady is a free agent and if he decides to play, the Raiders could potentially sign him for just money, whereas Rodgers would cost picks and cash and they would still need to know if he was going to play for them. 

[patrickgpe]

are the sellouts due to visiting fans wanting to spend a weekend in LV and see their team / a new stadium or actual interest of the raiders by LV residents? i think more of the former. 

[Jopal78]

10 minutes ago, patrickgpe said:

are the sellouts due to visiting fans wanting to spend a weekend in LV and see their team / a new stadium or actual interest of the raiders by LV residents? i think more of the former. 

Does it matter who they sell their tickets to? I'm sure brokers sell 30-40% of the tickets at Lambeau every weekend too.  

[homer]

1 hour ago, Jopal78 said:

Does it matter who they sell their tickets to? I'm sure brokers sell 30-40% of the tickets at Lambeau every weekend too.  

I guess if they want more Raider fans than opposing team fans it does matter. If they don't then...

[LouisEly]

2 hours ago, Ron Robinsons Beard said:

The Raiders are 100% in that situation. They have a playoff-level amount of skill position talent, a massive hole at QB, and a Las Vegas fanbase they are trying to drum up excitement in. The fit almost makes too much sense to actually work.

Plus reuniting with Davante Adams.  No need for any time to get on the same page, those two can look at each other and know exactly what the other is thinking.  Package Bakh in that trade too if LVR has the cap room.

[GAME05]

But wouldn't Las Vegas have an easier time selling season boxes to all the casinos who want to keep their whales happy? That matters more than a couple hundred seats in the nosebleeds. 

[CheezWizHed]

Wouldn't Rodgers make them a better TV draw?  Bump up their merch sales?  Butts in the seats isn't the biggest revenue maker anymore...

[endaround]

Josh McDaniel wants his QB to buy him another 5 years of development while he once again proves he's over his head.  So unless Brady goes to Vegas, they are going to develop a guy. The roster is bad and little draft capital to make it better.