Fear The Chorizo

Bleach? FWIW, while I tend to disagree with people opting not to get a COVID vaccine I also respect their own decision regardless of their reasoning - anecdotally unvaccinated adults in this country don't come close to fitting neatly into political or cultural groups for countless reasons. However, that respect vanishes for individuals who are publicly and intentionally misleading about it instead of opting to either be open and honest or just flat out state it's none of your business. If this all proves to be true, having Rodgers wind up getting to carry on by a different set of rules than his peers in public settings because of being misleading/ambiguous is a terrible look - particularly at this moment when both private and public sector workplaces are in scramble mode trying to figure out what the hell they are supposed to be doing with various vaccine mandate edicts.

Honestly it looks like it may be just as likely Woodley got "Discount Double-checked"....two peas in a pod

The team knows he’s not vaccinated. He’s not misleading them. That’s why he’s been following the protocol while in team facilities. But he hasn’t been following the protocol while traveling, on the sidelines or while talking with the press. My theory is that the team allowed him to avoid the protocol in public-facing settings. It's not just the Packers, though - it's the league that allowed him to avoid protocols in public-facing settings, too.

Yeah, that's bad - so the Packers have been willfully giving him special treatment for several months on top of it, allowing for the perception of him being vaccinated per NFL rules. And the NFL and everyone else in the know (including the reporters breaking the news he was indeed not vaccinated for COVID) was just fine with it and went along hoping there wouldn't be a positive test to catch all of them with their pants down - for a virus that is proving to lead to positive COVID cases whether they are vaxxed for it or not. How can the NFL even consider suspending/fining Rodgers after the fact considering they knew their protocols were being selectively enforced?

It's Ian Rappaport and he wasn't ambiguous about it. Than why haven't there been like 50 stories the past few months written about why Rodgers wasn't needing to follow NFL-mandated protocols coming from him? To me that's a bigger news story than a positive COVID test - whether Rodgers was already jabbed or not.

Other than the multiple reports circulating that he was not. Which are based on trying to parse the meaning of the word immunized and not based on direct knowledge of Rodgers not actually being vaccinated for COVID and then proceeding to not follow league-mandated protocols for unvaccinated players the past ~4 months. I will say that if these reports turn out to be true, to me it has way more to do with whether Rodgers was willfully allowed by the NFL/Packers to not follow unvaccinated player protocols for the past 4 months and not nearly as much about whether his decision to get jabbed or not at some point this spring resulted in a positive COVID test. I mean, dude was in Hawaii early summer partying with friends during a time when that state was requiring all sorts of extended quarantine/testing protocols for people traveling to that state without being able to show proof of vaccination. Plus he's hosting Jeopardy, going to the Derby, golfing with Tom, Phil, and Bryson.....and with the circle of people Rodgers socializes with I have a very difficult time seeing him not getting a COVID vaccine. We will know more over the next few days as to his vaccination status, whether Rodgers wants to disclose it or not simply by how the timeline of his potential return to team activities transpires. This is just something the team won't be able to parse words about and get away with there being uncertainty on any longer. Silver lining is at least this is being dealt with in terms of Rodgers contracting COVID in early November and not two months from now during the playoffs. And hopefully the Packers can get fully through their season's COVID ordeal by the end of their bye week. And, LOLz at the NFL and State Farm still not getting their Mahomes/Rodgers matchup despite adding a 17th game to the schedule.

At this point, most NFL players and all NFL coaches that have caught COVID were indeed vaccinated, and there's no reason to believe Rodgers was any different.

Just the reactions Crosby had during the Bengals game on the field during his missed kicks had me thinking something was off with the timing between the snap and hold - if there's no consistent timing with the pace of the snap to the holder, the kicker is getting to the ball either too early (no target to kick until last second) or too late (more likely to get blocked). If the snaps are inconsistent in pace and location the holder doesn't have enough time to set the ball up the same way every time. Good longsnappers get FG snaps to the point where the ball lands in a holder's hands in the perfect position to just stand it up without even having to rotate laces around - that just wasn't happening consistently with the Packers this season.

The initial ranking of putting a 1-loss Alabama team at #2 essentially guarantees two SEC teams in the CFP, regardless of who wins between Georgia and Bama in the SEC title game. It's pathetic That's despite Bama only having one win against a team currently in the AP top 25 (#15 Ole Miss, who just lost to Auburn) and who likely only has one more game left on their regular slate against a top 25 program (Auburn)....but sure, rank them #2 ahead of 3 other power 5 conference unbeatens, an undefeated non-power 5 team ranked 2nd in the AP, and 6 other 1-loss power 5 schools that all have played tougher competition to date. What.A.Joke... My thought as well. Are they probably one of the 4 best teams? Yea, but do they deserve to be top 4 currently? Probably not. Alabama was clearly the best team in college football last season. Then they lost 10 players in this year's NFL draft, including 8 of the top 40 picks. These studs included their starting quarterback, two best wide receivers (including the Heisman winner), starting running back, best corner, left tackle and center. I don't care how deep and talented your program is - if you lose all those positions to the draft, you're going to have some growing pains the next season and it shouldn't be a foregone conclusion that the guys taking their place aren't going to miss a beat. I'm certain the replacements to these positions are all great recruits that are likely to have the NFL in their own sights someday given how Alabama can essentially roll out of bed with the top 1 or 2 recruiting classes every single year....but that shouldn't be reason enough to just prop them back up at the top of the rankings automatically. To me their #2 CFP ranking is based more on what they've done the last few seasons and not on this season's team - that just shouldn't happen at the college level. Had Bama won out this season and then knocked off an undefeated Georgia in the SEC title game a month or so from now, then I'd strongly consider them to be one of the best 4 teams in the country and put both of those squads in the playoff if other conferences/teams didn't have multiple undefeated squads. But to just stick a 1-loss Bama team at #2 ahead of everyone else right now and basically set things up for a 2-loss Bama team still making the CFP is just flat out wrong.

The initial ranking of putting a 1-loss Alabama team at #2 essentially guarantees two SEC teams in the CFP, regardless of who wins between Georgia and Bama in the SEC title game. It's pathetic That's despite Bama only having one win against a team currently in the AP top 25 (#15 Ole Miss, who just lost to Auburn) and who likely only has one more game left on their regular slate against a top 25 program (Auburn)....but sure, rank them #2 ahead of 3 other power 5 conference unbeatens, an undefeated non-power 5 team ranked 2nd in the AP, and 6 other 1-loss power 5 schools that all have played tougher competition to date. What.A.Joke...

I mean, Rodgers was posting Instagram videos of himself as John Wick at a Halloween party over the weekend... pretty sure the only people worried about limiting random exposures of players at this point are fans.

Probably simply means he's done. It was a no-risk flyer. Him being inactive against the Cardinals was a dead giveaway that the experiment wasn't going well. Oh, I'd agree it's likely because he's done in terms of being an impact linebacker against the run at a position the Packers have a need - but making this move right before the trade deadline is likely that they're going to be doing something of note that requires a roster spot on the 53 man. It could be as simple as making a spot for Adams coming off the COVID list in a couple days, but one would think that move wouldn't happen until later in the week.

sounds like the Jaylon Smith era in Packerland is over....his release could also signal other internal roster moves getting some injured guys back active - or a pending trade that needs a roster spot.

I think alot of Engram's limitations have to do with the Giants' system and having an inaccurate/inexperienced QB throwing to him while running for his life behind a bad O-line. The Packers have better blocking TE's on their roster so I doubt he'd be expected to do a ton of that, and Engram IMO would excel running seam routes and splitting out away from the tackle box - the Giants don't send him downfield with the routes he runs, partly due to scheme but also due to their lack of healthy downfield threats and no time to throw without getting defensive pressure. I wouldn't expect trading for Engram to mean he'd be taking all of Tonyan's snaps and being the TE#1 right away - I'm actually hopeful Deguara gets more playing time - but I think he'd be an upgrade to the Packers' current TE group in passing situations and the change of scenery into an offense with a great QB and solid offensive line could let him take advantage of what he theoretically could do best by being a downfield matchup problem for LB's and safeties in coverage.

Will be interesting to see if the Packers make any trades on deadline day - picking up Mercilus, Smith, and Douglas has bolstered the LB and secondary rooms to help deal with all the injuries at those position groupings....and I think it would be tough to find noticeable upgrades via trade at those spots right now knowing key guys like Z. Smith and J. Alexander may be returning later this year. I can see the Packers trading for a TE to replace Tonyan on the roster, but then again it might be Deguara's time to take most of those snaps as a pass catching option - and the Packers still have 4 TE's available on the roster. Evan Engram is an intriguing option, though.

There is a specific person who posts on here who would of called that dumpster diving as they are not a big named player. Two of the 4 OF's that the Braves acquired the Brewers tried acquiring during the off season also. Wrong, that's not at all dumpster diving, in my book. You know what it is?? It's being aggressive. Look what happened because the Braves decided to get aggressive. They are still playing. John Curtiss and Daniel Norris, is NOT being aggressive. They were nothing moves, other than to add some depth to the bullpen. Very Meh moves. How'd they work out?? If you take this train of thought, apparently the Dodgers weren't aggressive enough by fielding a team with close to $275M payroll and then trading for Trea Turner and Scherzer on top of it. The Braves didn't get aggressive at the trade deadline - they took a quantity over quality approach because they had nothing in the OF once Acuna went down and didn't want to make splashier moves that would've required them trading value from their farm system. It's the type of soft buy a sub-.500 team can make in a division where nobody wanted to win it and there wasn't a realistic shot at pushing for a WC2 spot when at the time all of the Giants/Dodgers/Pads looked like they were going to push towards 100 win seasons. The Braves are the perfect example of baseball being baseball in the postseason - by that I mean it's actually rare for the team perceived to be the best regular season team winning it all, and the playoffs typically boil down to whose pitching staff doesn't fall apart over the course of multiple long series and which team has a couple role players come up with hits in big spots to win them games when their biggest stars are being pitched around.

sounds like MVS (hammy) and Lazard were both back at practice today. Hopefully Adams can come off the COVID list after recovering and testing negative later this week, and be able to play this Sunday @ KC.

And to add to that, I'd much rather be left with questioning goal to go playcalling decisions after failing to convert on multiple possessions by just going with power runs and asking why not try passing a bit more or getting both RBs on the field together - particularly in a game when your top 3 WRs don't suit up and your best pass catching tight end tears his ACL early in the 2nd half. Having a playcall with either a dive run with Dillon or pass option to the flat with Jones really would stress LBs/safeties down inside the 5.

The Rams might not have the means to improve their roster beyond signing the few draft picks they have left, but at least they don’t have to make tough decisions just to get to cap. The -$33 million doesn’t even include re-signing Adams. His current $16 million / year just falls off. +$10mm > -$33mm, right? What am I missing? If the Packers wanted to just flat out cut the Smiths, they'd save roughly $30M in projected cap space. Cutting Cobb would be another $7M in cap savings. Restructuring Kenny Clark and Bahktiari could save them a ton. Cutting Amos would save them $7M in space, along with a few others that may have cheaper replacements already in house (Billy Turner, Lowry). That's basically $50M in cap savings by cutting some veterans that could easily be wise football roster decisions heading into next year independent from what their cap hit may be - and that's also without saving a penny in cap room by either extending Rodgers to a cap-friendly deal or trading him as part of a "blow it all up but quickly retool" offseason. The Packers also currently have 9 picks in the 2022 draft. Of course, they're not the Jaguars with like $60M in cap room for next season....but why on earth would they want to be? As we found out this last offseason, there's always a way to "make it work" with cap rules - if Rodgers wants to stick around I'm sure they'd find a way to get Adams extended and not just cut other players they would view as valuable pieces to contend in 2022. If Rodgers wants out there are plenty of options to trim payroll without having to suffer through a few seasons of garbage to clear cap problems before actively trying to contend again.

The Packers are currently projected to be over the cap by $33 million in 2022 with only 39 players under contract. By comparison, the Rams are in an enviable position. Re-structure Stafford by converting his base salary to a signing bonus (adding void years, if necessary) and poof … you free up $10 million. https://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space/ The Packers' cap hell rests almost solely with sorting out Rodgers' situation - if he remains with the Packers in 2022 it will be under a restructured deal/extension that removes almost all of his projected $46M cap hit for 2022. If he forces his way out then the team trades him to remove a huge portion of that cap hit. Between Rodgers and sorting out what to do with the Smiths + Cobb, the Packers will be just fine salary cap wise and have plenty to extend Alexander and even get Adams under contract if Rodgers stays around. If Rodgers leaves, then Adams leaves and it's also likely many of the veterans with big cap numbers also get cut or restructured....but the Packers will actually have draft picks and cap room to work with to rebuild the roster and a QB still on rookie deal starting.

Forgot to mention that as of this moment, they're basically at what the 2022 salary cap will be (+/- $5M) with only 39 players on their roster. They're going to need to hire Simone Biles to be their cap guru in the offseason.

Zimmer survived last year because their GM survived, somehow. Don't get me wrong, Spielman has made some good picks in the draft - but every GM does if he's given 10 seasons at the helm. They don't have the depth along the Oline (which is improving with recent draft picks but also had nowhere to go but up after several awful seasons) to really take advantage of elite skill position talent, and the same can now be said of their defensive front 7 causing their weak secondary to be exploited by good offenses. I've mentioned it before - they've got enough skill position talent to win a few games they probably shouldn't, but their lack of depth and inconsistency/poor game management will wind up with them losing a few games against terrible teams or in spots like last night where they were playing at home against a solid team without its starting QB. I see them finding a way to that 8-9 or maybe 9-8 no man's land record, which in this division is good enough for 2nd place because the Lions are awful and the Bears are a poorly-managed train wreck, too.

Vikes LOL they're done - remaining schedule is brutal.... @ Baltimore (east coast) nooner @ San Diego (west coast) Packers @ san fran (west coast) on top of that they've got Steelers, Rams, and @ Packers in December/early January. The Packers may have the division clinched before the calendar reaches December if they take care of business.

Encouraging signs coming out of Z. Smith's camp lately...would be great getting him back in a few weeks

No to trading Love - at least not until this offseason after the ink dries on a Rodgers contract extension that gives them longterm certainty at the position and gets them out of cap hell. After this last offseason it wouldn't surprise me for Rodgers to say all the right things all season long, have Love get traded, and then Rodgers still forces his way out next spring.