2026 NFL Discussion.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Garrett is better than Parsons but also 3 years older which is not trivial. Both are gamechangers, but he really elevates LAR to be the preseason overwhelming SB favorite. Parsons would do the same, but they are different kinds of deals. 

A player of Parsons ability NEVER becomes available at the age he was.

[CheezWizHed]

I tend to think the Packers got the better deal overall.  LAR gave up an ascending player in verse that was probably worth more than a single 1st round pick. Clark was probably more like a 4th round pick value at best. 

So you are talking 2 firsts and a 4th(Clark) vs 2 firsts (Verse), a second, and a third.  Or if you want to discount one round for every year the draft pick is out:

• 1 first, 1 second (discounted), one 4th (Clark)
• 2 Firsts (Verse), one third (discounted), one 5th (discounted 2 years)

Garrett is a better player today, but not by too much.  And how soon will he drop off? 

Can't fault the Rams for being aggressive and trying to win on possibly Stafford's last year. 

[JosephC]

If Garrett doesn't start crying about a new contract in a month, which he probably will, then IMO this is nearly a bargain trade for the Rams..and I really like Verse.  Overthecap has Garrett counting 9.16 million against the Ram's cap in 2026, 16.05 million in 2027 and 21.4 million in 2028.  2029 has a 22 million dollar option, so the contract was set up where 2029 would be the new contract year if Garrett is still playing at a high level.  But to have him that cheap for three years is a very, very positive aspect of the trade for the Rams.

Too bad for them he will likely start crying that the 150 million he's already made just isn't enough, and they will lose one of the best aspects of this trade when they hand him a big, fat new contract.

[OldHeidelberg]

56 minutes ago, JosephC said:

If Garrett doesn't start crying about a new contract in a month, which he probably will, then IMO this is nearly a bargain trade for the Rams..and I really like Verse.  Overthecap has Garrett counting 9.16 million against the Ram's cap in 2026, 16.05 million in 2027 and 21.4 million in 2028.  2029 has a 22 million dollar option, so the contract was set up where 2029 would be the new contract year if Garrett is still playing at a high level.  But to have him that cheap for three years is a very, very positive aspect of the trade for the Rams.

Too bad for them he will likely start crying that the 150 million he's already made just isn't enough, and they will lose one of the best aspects of this trade when they hand him a big, fat new contract.

I think Garrett just signed his new extension last offseason, if so he can cry all he wants, no NFL team is going to give him another extension that soon. I am not familiar enough with Verse's upside to say for sure but looking at those salary numbers I agree, the Rams did well and only gave up the one first which they hope will be #32.

Teams suddenly aren't clinging to their draft picks like they did 5 years ago. I was stunned by Philly giving up the two 3rd's for the aging VIkes edge. For whatever reason there is an all in mentality among the contenders right now, maybe a new CBA on the horizon has something to do with it.    

[CheezWizHed]

21 hours ago, OldHeidelberg said:

I think Garrett just signed his new extension last offseason, if so he can cry all he wants, no NFL team is going to give him another extension that soon. I am not familiar enough with Verse's upside to say for sure but looking at those salary numbers I agree, the Rams did well and only gave up the one first which they hope will be #32.

Verse was the D-ROY and 2x ProBowler (which may or may not mean much) and he is one a rookie contract for 3 more years.  I think it is easy to say a trade for him alone would be worth a 1st round draft pick. 

[LouisEly]

Nick Herbig, former Badger, got $100M from the Steelers with $42M guaranteed.  He had 7.5 sacks last year and 5.5 the year before, but isn't a full-time starter (credited with 11 total starts over the last two seasons).

 

[OldHeidelberg]

3 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

Verse was the D-ROY and 2x ProBowler (which may or may not mean much) and he is one a rookie contract for 3 more years.  I think it is easy to say a trade for him alone would be worth a 1st round draft pick. 

I just glanced at his sack totals before I posted and they seemed Gary-ish. I don't doubt he is worth a first rounder but the Rams aren't saddled with the massive contract we are with Parsons either, the Browns pick up some of his tab.  

[GAME05]

I still like it from the Browns perspective, particularly with the possibility they get in a bidding war with the Jets to get the #1 next year.

[CheezWizHed]

2 hours ago, OldHeidelberg said:

I just glanced at his sack totals before I posted and they seemed Gary-ish. I don't doubt he is worth a first rounder but the Rams aren't saddled with the massive contract we are with Parsons either, the Browns pick up some of his tab.  

That was my first impression too when I looked at his stats.  But there has to be something more to it for him to get defensive ROY and a 2x ProBowler.  

If we drafted someone and I guaranteed he'd win DROY and Pro Bowl twice in his first two seasons, you'd agree that it was a win for a first round pick. That is how I valued him at a 1st rounder. 

[nate82]

PFF stats for Verse 

Far better than Gary.  While the sack numbers are not there yet his total pressures, hits and hurries suggest he should have had more sacks.  He is also not just a pass rusher but more of a complete player.  You can play him on running downs and not be worried about him being a liability out there.  

[BrewerFan]

On 6/2/2026 at 1:07 PM, OldHeidelberg said:

I think Garrett just signed his new extension last offseason, if so he can cry all he wants, no NFL team is going to give him another extension that soon. I am not familiar enough with Verse's upside to say for sure but looking at those salary numbers I agree, the Rams did well and only gave up the one first which they hope will be #32.

Teams suddenly aren't clinging to their draft picks like they did 5 years ago. I was stunned by Philly giving up the two 3rd's for the aging VIkes edge. For whatever reason there is an all in mentality among the contenders right now, maybe a new CBA on the horizon has something to do with it.    

Verse had 188 pressures his first two years and 45 QB hits. It was a few years ago, but generally for every 2 QB hits, you got 1 sack(more like 2.2). I doesn't know if that number's changed, but Verse is a stud.

I also think the Eagles got a good deal on Greenard. 

But you look at 5 years ago, I don't think it was that different. That was right when the Rams were doing the same thing they're doing now... but now instead of giving up 2 1sts for a guy like Ramsey, they got Myles Garrett, the closest approximation of a Eagles Reggie White I've seen(Watt was pretty close as well, but Garrett and White had better speed). 

 

[BrewerFan]

20 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

That was my first impression too when I looked at his stats.  But there has to be something more to it for him to get defensive ROY and a 2x ProBowler.  

If we drafted someone and I guaranteed he'd win DROY and Pro Bowl twice in his first two seasons, you'd agree that it was a win for a first round pick. That is how I valued him at a 1st rounder. 

I think you were conservative if anything. You're not just getting a young star edge who's on the verge of being a superstar, you're paying him... pretty much the league minimum for the next 2 years.

The Packers underpaid for Parsons and I think the Rams got a fair deal. They gave up a lot. I don't think they needed to give up Verse when they had Young and Fiske on that DL which is why they were trying so hard to not trade him.

Quote

@LouisElyNick Herbig, former Badger, got $100M from the Steelers with $42M guaranteed.  He had 7.5 sacks last year and 5.5 the year before, but isn't a full-time starter (credited with 11 total starts over the last two seasons).

And Verse will cost the Browns 4M the next two years. 

For what it's worth, here's an article trying to approximate Verse's value. A 1st+2nd according to Barnwell. 
https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/trying-define-jared-verse-trade-195236900.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

He goes to a team with a pretty good front along with him, so he'll likely continue to get opportunities. 

 

I think this is a trade that's just really good for both teams. I think the Browns did better to get good equal value than the Cowboys did. 

[OldHeidelberg]

1 hour ago, BrewerFan said:

Verse had 188 pressures his first two years and 45 QB hits. It was a few years ago, but generally for every 2 QB hits, you got 1 sack(more like 2.2). I doesn't know if that number's changed, but Verse is a stud.

I also think the Eagles got a good deal on Greenard. 

But you look at 5 years ago, I don't think it was that different. That was right when the Rams were doing the same thing they're doing now... but now instead of giving up 2 1sts for a guy like Ramsey, they got Myles Garrett, the closest approximation of a Eagles Reggie White I've seen(Watt was pretty close as well, but Garrett and White had better speed). 

 

I remember seeing an article after we traded for Parsons comparing it to recent trades, there were maybe 2 or 3 since 2020. In the last year we have seen Parsons, Garrett, Sauce, Brown and probably forgetting someone. Just thought more big names moving around all of the sudden but that may just be me not paying attention to other teams/players like I do the Packers.

[BrewerFan]

1 hour ago, OldHeidelberg said:

I remember seeing an article after we traded for Parsons comparing it to recent trades, there were maybe 2 or 3 since 2020. In the last year we have seen Parsons, Garrett, Sauce, Brown and probably forgetting someone. Just thought more big names moving around all of the sudden but that may just be me not paying attention to other teams/players like I do the Packers.

I could also be putting more weight on what the Rams have done. They went 7 years without a 1st rd pick, traded for Cooks, multiple 1sts for Ramsey, Stafford and then a 2nd+3rd for Von Miller. 

But then you have Jamal Adams, Tunsil, Tyreke Hill went for multiple 1sts, Minkah Fitzpatrick, DeForest Buckner. Davante Adams was traded for a 1st. 

Russel Wilson... though a lot of those are older than 5 years. 

Guys like Parsons or even Myles Garrett getting traded are probably a bit more rare. 

If you're talking about multiple 1sts, then it's probably just been a handful of defensive players. 

[Joseph Zarr]

This Mike Pennel story out of the DR is crazy. What in the literal hyeck? Unreal.

[HarryDoyle]

Terrible news of Chris Johnson's ALS diagnosis. Hearing that kinda ruined my day.

[JosephC]

Garrett did get a new deal from the Rams.  35.7 million signing bonus, so that's money in his pocket right now.  Guaranteed 30+ million dollar option in 2027 that is fully guaranteed.  The Rams having Garrett as a bargain price for the next three years is no longer the case.  He will be cheap in 2026.  Previously his cap number in 2027 was only projected to be 21.4 million, but now with an option bonus of just over 30 million, plus the pro-rated portion of the signing bonus, plus a base salary plus other workout bonuses, his 2027 cap number will likely be 39+ million.

Over the cap does not have the new numbers yet, but here is an outline of some of the highlights of the new contract.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/inside-the-latest-myles-garrett-deal

I now like this deal for the Browns...and by a pretty large margin.  There is so much in terms of player/pick capital surrendered plus money given up, this deal is no longer a good deal for the Rams if Garrett is a great player for them.  Garrett must be a great player for them, AND they must win a Super Bowl.  Wthout that, this is a bad deal for the Rams IMO. 

[nate82]

I never want to see Packers fans crying how poor the team is financially.  They have a net income of $132.5mm.

Such a poor franchise what are they ever are going to do!!!

[OldHeidelberg]

On 6/30/2026 at 10:03 AM, JosephC said:

Garrett did get a new deal from the Rams.  35.7 million signing bonus, so that's money in his pocket right now.  Guaranteed 30+ million dollar option in 2027 that is fully guaranteed.  The Rams having Garrett as a bargain price for the next three years is no longer the case.  He will be cheap in 2026.  Previously his cap number in 2027 was only projected to be 21.4 million, but now with an option bonus of just over 30 million, plus the pro-rated portion of the signing bonus, plus a base salary plus other workout bonuses, his 2027 cap number will likely be 39+ million.

Over the cap does not have the new numbers yet, but here is an outline of some of the highlights of the new contract.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/inside-the-latest-myles-garrett-deal

I now like this deal for the Browns...and by a pretty large margin.  There is so much in terms of player/pick capital surrendered plus money given up, this deal is no longer a good deal for the Rams if Garrett is a great player for them.  Garrett must be a great player for them, AND they must win a Super Bowl.  Wthout that, this is a bad deal for the Rams IMO. 

I missed this so sorry for the late reply but looking at the link isn't this really just a restructure rather than an extension? If so, I don't know that this really changes the winner in this deal. The average yearly amount is still a healthy dose below the Packers extension for Parsons and they are still not on the hook for any additional money like we were in our trade. Not that who got the better of it isn't very much in question, just that this doesn't change it much, more money in Garrett's pocket now and less chance he gets cut early in the deal for sure. 

[JosephC]

4 hours ago, nate82 said:

I never want to see Packers fans crying how poor the team is financially.  They have a net income of $132.5mm.

Such a poor franchise what are they ever are going to do!!!

Policy is an ass.

Packers get 432 million in national shared revenue.  So they pay all the player salaries and misc expenses, and still have roughly 100 million left over.

That does not even include "local revenue," which was reported to be just a shade under 300 million.

So as you already said, when all is said and done for the year, they wound up +132.5 million.

The rainy day fund is now 700+ million.

And despite all of this, Policy is whining about how difficult it will be to stay competitive in the current environment.

Get ready for the big swindle.  Get ready for the state to kick them a free 30+ million per season for no reason at all.  Hey, if the University of Wisconsin can get 14 million per year to pay football players, why shouldn't the Packers get a 30 million dollar "need this to be competitive" donation every year.

Big-time sport owners/CEO/athletic directors, nothing more than pigs to the trough when it comes time to grab some taxpayer money.

 

Can I say "ass" on this board?  Whoops, I guess I already did.  Policy is an ass.

[LouisEly]

16 hours ago, JosephC said:

So as you already said, when all is said and done for the year, they wound up +132.5 million.

That's because of $133.6 million in non-operating income from net investment gains, both local and national, and the NFL's sale of NFL Network to ESPN.

They had an operating net loss of $1.1M.

Can't count on non-operating income from year to year.  Investments can lose money, and there's no more NFL Network to sell.

[igor67]

Perhaps, but how much extra did they spend knowing that extra revenue was coming in? Ultimately 1.1 million is a small enough percentage of the total that you can easily balance that if you need to.

[homer]

I think you can make the numbers say whatever you want them to say.

[JosephC]

The Packers had a stock sale in 2022 that reportedly raised 65.8 million.

The "rainy day fund" stood at 474 million in the 2023 financials.

https://thebusinessnews.com/northeast/packers-report-another-solid-financial-year/

Three years later, the rainy day fund is over 700 million.

Did they really need to do that stock sale in 2022?  Where did all that money come from in the last 3 years?

This team does not need more money from stock sales or free government handouts.  The NFL and the Packers are swimming in money.

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

Who thought the Packers were poor?