Packers 2024 Off-Season Thread

[SeaBass]

2 hours ago, adambr2 said:

Lot of Packer fans are lamenting having to pay Love after only 1 season of production and sample size (in general, not specifically here), but this is the price you pay for letting a guy sit for 3 years behind the incumbent starter. 

Not saying it wasn't a good move, it obviously has its advantages, but a lot of Packer fans don't seem to understand that we chose to put ourselves in this potential position. 

It's also very unlikely that Love went out and had a top 10 season as a QB with the supporting cast he did and not be proven. Could he regress? Sure. But it's not like he was out there bumbling around and getting lucky with his throws. And as you said, this is the price you pay for waiting on the guy. When you see guys like Trevor Lawrence getting paid people need to understand that this is just crazy QB money and tuck it away in a corner of your mind where it doesn't bother you.

ETA: Not ripping the supporting cast either, love the youth and depth of the receivers. But to do that with nearly exclusively 1st and 2nd year skill position players is impressive.

[BrewerFan]

4 hours ago, SeaBass said:

Well, maybe not a done deal for Jordan Love. Reports that he will not practice until deal is done per Gute.

 

They could have the years, GTD money, the SB, all that figure out and there could still be a dozen things to argue over. 

I'd think one absolute, definitive non-starter would be not being able to tag him at the end of this contract(or a No-Trade). I thought there was just a big extension where this was a sticking point. Jefferson maybe? Anyway, confident they'll get it done and that won't be part of it.

 

[BrewerFan]

21 minutes ago, SeaBass said:

It's also very unlikely that Love went out and had a top 10 season as a QB with the supporting cast he did and not be proven. Could he regress? Sure. But it's not like he was out there bumbling around and getting lucky with his throws. And as you said, this is the price you pay for waiting on the guy. When you see guys like Trevor Lawrence getting paid people need to understand that this is just crazy QB money and tuck it away in a corner of your mind where it doesn't bother you.

ETA: Not ripping the supporting cast either, love the youth and depth of the receivers. But to do that with nearly exclusively 1st and 2nd year skill position players is impressive.

You can't fluke your way into 11 games of play like Love had. Even the game vs SF, he was pretty impressive IMO. Terrible pick at the end, but...first year starting.

He showed everything he needed to and as was pointed out, it ain't his fault he didn't start more than a year...and halfway into last year, I remember people saying, "you can't judge him with this group of players around him." They were NOT the same players until the OL, WR/TE group got on the same page and then we got an effective run game going. But when we did, you saw him make throws VERY few players in the NFL can make. 

[SeaBass]

4 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

They could have the years, GTD money, the SB, all that figure out and there could still be a dozen things to argue over. 

I'd think one absolute, definitive non-starter would be not being able to tag him at the end of this contract. I thought there was just a big extension where this was a sticking point. Jefferson maybe? Anyway, confident they'll get it done and that won't be part of it. 

Right. I think I would only start to get concerned if this stretches into next week and it's still not done. And elevate to really concerned if it goes even longer.

In the end he's going to be a Packer for a long time. Unless things really, really go off the rails. I'm not getting that kind of feeling at all.

[adambr2]

The biggest thing I will be paying attention to is the number of years. The more it gets done for, the better it will look on the back end. 

The Patrick Mahomes contract is just wildly team friendly. 45M AAV...that has the Chiefs in position to be so good for so long. If he were a free agent today, what would be the benchmark starting point? At least 60M AAV, right?

Now just imagine what it's going to look like in 5 years when some QB who hasn't even played yet tops 80M AAV on a new deal. 

[rickh150]

Love has all the leverage here….would be interesting if he said it has to be x amount of dollars per year and Packers balking…Packers in awful position.

[homer]

love this quote

 

 

[BrewerFan]

On 7/22/2024 at 6:26 PM, adambr2 said:

The biggest thing I will be paying attention to is the number of years. The more it gets done for, the better it will look on the back end. 

The Patrick Mahomes contract is just wildly team friendly. 45M AAV...that has the Chiefs in position to be so good for so long. If he were a free agent today, what would be the benchmark starting point? At least 60M AAV, right?

Now just imagine what it's going to look like in 5 years when some QB who hasn't even played yet tops 80M AAV on a new deal. 

Yeah, but it's not really a 45M AAV, it's just a long-term commitment and then they keep restructuring it so that they can restructure it, it keeps him happy, but it gives them that runway to be able to keep pushing it off. You look at his cap hits now, it's low 30s this year. Then it's back up to the 60s after the ~4/220 extension he signed a year ago, which in turn makes the Chiefs needs to restructure again, pay him more and he's still getting the cash, people think he's giving them this discount that he's not, but it IS also team friendly. In order to do that though, you have to be pretty confident your team will keep restructuring and want you around. So that's probably more for a Mahomes, Rodgers, Brady types.

 

I don't think your 80M AAV in ~5 years is the least bit hyperbolic either. The massive lawsuit the NFL just lost may temporarily postpone that and cause another Covid-ish setback with revenue(it'd probably be spread out even more years)...but if that's overturned or it could just take 4-5 years to fight it, I'm sure it'll be close to that number. 

I'll bet Dak gets 60M after this year. Dallas can't tag him, can't trade him, they owe him 40M either way next year(just like Brady, Rodgers, Brees)...all those big deals, they all seem to have void years. So Dallas is either gonna give him ~4/240 with another void year or...let him walk I guess. They can't stop him. 

[BrewerFan]

21 hours ago, rickh150 said:

Love has all the leverage here….would be interesting if he said it has to be x amount of dollars per year and Packers balking…Packers in awful position.

No...he does not. 

They'll get a deal done because it makes sense for both sides, but Love doesn't have "all the leverage." The Packers could tag him next year ~40M and then the following year. Hell, if they really wanted, they could tag him 3 straight years for 40, 48 and then ~58...and Love takes all the risk there.

If he has a bad injury...he risks 200M+ in GTD money and he makes less in AAV than the Packers are almost certainly offering. 

 

The Packers, they obviously would risk pissing off their star player, but they're also not just gonna write him a blank check and let his agent fill in the number. 

NTC, Not being able to Tag him. Those seem like the most likely sticking points right now. Particularly latter after Dak got one. I don't know that any other QB has gotten one, but...they'll figure it out and get him signed. If they were really this far apart, he wouldn't be on the field with the team in the pouring rain. 

[SeaBass]

Training camp has officially started with AJ Dillon winning the first mention of being in the "best shape of his career."

I'm all for him having a great season but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[OldHeidelberg]

15 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

 

NTC, Not being able to Tag him. Those seem like the most likely sticking points right now. Particularly latter after Dak got one. I don't know that any other QB has gotten one, but...they'll figure it out and get him signed. If they were really this far apart, he wouldn't be on the field with the team in the pouring rain. 

I don't see the Packers giving up the franchise tag on a 25 year old QB who they are giving a megadeal to. Dak got it after I think playing for the tag, that is usually when teams agree to give it up. While it is used on other players all the time the tag is really about keeping the top QB's from moving, no way the Packers are the team that's going to blow that up. I would guess it is more about the length of the deal, Love probably wants another raise before he is 30.

[BrewerFan]

7 hours ago, OldHeidelberg said:

I don't see the Packers giving up the franchise tag on a 25 year old QB who they are giving a megadeal to. Dak got it after I think playing for the tag, that is usually when teams agree to give it up. While it is used on other players all the time the tag is really about keeping the top QB's from moving, no way the Packers are the team that's going to blow that up. I would guess it is more about the length of the deal, Love probably wants another raise before he is 30.

Oh...I don't think they'd give that to him, but I could see him wanting it. It'd be a huge mistake and really mitigate any leverage they'd have in future deals, but...I think it'll be done. 

I've said 5/280. That should be easy enough, but there's obviously a LOT of other incentives and GTD money that goes into it. 

And often GTD money. It's all reported the same, but it's VERY rarely totally GTD. GTD vs injury vs GTD vs performance. That's how Den got out of Wilson's deal without the full GTD money(still a small nation's GDP worth)...I think. That's why they didn't want to pay him.

 

I actually think now it's a 4yr extension they're looking for rather than 5, but again, just guessing. 4/226 for a total of 5/~240?

 

I don't know what it is, I'm just VERY happy that it's an issue and 

[BrewerFan]

12 hours ago, SeaBass said:

Training camp has officially started with AJ Dillon winning the first mention of being in the "best shape of his career."

I'm all for him having a great season but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

Ok...cool. So it's that time of the year. Now...are his feet quicker and can he get to his landmarks and read his blocks? Because if so, great...if not, he's not well suited for the ZBS. But the "best shape of his life," schtick!

[OldHeidelberg]

17 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

 

And often GTD money. It's all reported the same, but it's VERY rarely totally GTD. GTD vs injury vs GTD vs performance. That's how Den got out of Wilson's deal without the full GTD money(still a small nation's GDP worth)...I think. That's why they didn't want to pay him.

 

I actually think now it's a 4yr extension they're looking for rather than 5, but again, just guessing. 4/226 for a total of 5/~240?

 

I don't know what it is, I'm just VERY happy that it's an issue and 

It may be just speculation but sounds like the hold up is that the Packers don't like to guarantee money past the first season. That sounds not quite right as I know they have used guaranteed roster bonuses in future years but they probably mean base salary. If true, that seems like a tough line to draw considering how much other QB's are getting guaranteed.

The hold in is starting to bother me as the offense has stunk without him. I guess I will just hope it is our stellar new defense and not the backup QB's. 

[BrewerFan]

18 minutes ago, OldHeidelberg said:

It may be just speculation but sounds like the hold up is that the Packers don't like to guarantee money past the first season. That sounds not quite right as I know they have used guaranteed roster bonuses in future years but they probably mean base salary. If true, that seems like a tough line to draw considering how much other QB's are getting guaranteed.

The hold in is starting to bother me as the offense has stunk without him. I guess I will just hope it is our stellar new defense and not the backup QB's. 

Yeah, I see others are saying it's the GTD money past year one also. I have trouble buying that. You're going to be paying him 280M. 

 

Maybe they want his entire deal GTD? Maybe they want the final year GTD at an inflated price. The tag is 20% increase, so if it was like...65M or something, that's nearly 80M to tag him,

I feel like it's gonna get done, but it'll be like Rodgers, no money left on the table. Which sucks, it'll hurt our team building, but that's Gute's job and I wouldn't take less if it were me.