HiAndTight

Haha...I'm just picturing Mother Teresa going on a hunger strike until she was traded from Calcutta to Mumbai! I'm with you. I might be in on Wilson as that's starting to sound maybe a little more realistic, but I'd either look at Donald or I'd just go into the tank.

NFL contracts are not typically guaranteed like in other sports. That makes contract length irrelevant to a player unless the team is saying they will fully guarantee the contract (which I doubt they are) or give him an opt out. Like we just saw with JJ Watt, the Texans were able to release him even though he had 1 year left on his contract for around $17 million. That last year was fully in the team's control, they could have kept and paid him if they felt he was worth it or they could do what they did and release him. By this time any guaranteed money Watt was paid upon signing the contract had no impact on that last year of his deal, the Texans released him and were free and clear of that $17 million obligation with no salary cap penalties. Yet from a player perspective Watt had to ask for his release, he was locked into that year and was at the mercy of the team's decision. JJ Watt is still good and likely to get a good contract now that he's a FA, maybe not $17 million per year good but still good. But if Watt's performance had dropped to a point where it made no sense to pay him $17 million he could be cut and out of a job and the Texans still would have been free and clear salary cap wise. That's a huge advantage for the team and not any advantage for the player. Dak just wants more control over the end of his contract. Or he's just trying to get more guaranteed money from Dallas than they're currently offering. Watt's contract is kinda an apples to oranges comp though. The non-guaranteed contract doesnt' really matter when you're talking about giving a guy 110 million guaranteed over 5 years. It means it's virtually guaranteed...at least until the final year. Had JJ wanted, he could have held out and tried to get the biggest deal possible. That would have meant playing 3 more years in his case to get to where Dak will be after this season. I get why Dak's doing it. A Franchise QB in his mid 20's on the open market...especially as the Cap gets back to normal would likely get 45 million per year on the open market. He's looking at how contracts have gone up...going from 10 million per being a record when Favre signed it, to 20, 30, now over 40. So from his perspective, it makes all the sense in the world to try and get 3 or 4 years. The Cowboys on the other hand want those long contracts. I've pointed this out in the past, but how do the Cowboys stay under the cap with all the massive contracts they give out? They sign guys for 6-7 years. Again, with the way the cap has gone up and how contracts steadily rise, if it's not a good deal in 4 years, they can get out of it relatively cheap and if it is, they're getting massive discounts. Tyron Smith is the example I use. He's 30 years old. About the same age as Bahktiari. He signed an 8 year 97 million dollar deal in 2014 that most people thought was crazy. A year later, Bahk signed his 4 year 48 million dollar deal. Now at 30, Smith has a cap hit of ~14 million with 8.8 million in dead cap this year and just 5 next year. Bahk just signed another 4 year deal with 92 million and his dead cap # would be ~70 million. So I get both sides of it. Dallas has the cash to pay guys the bigger signing bonuses and when you give them the longer contracts, you can move on from guys more easily or if they continue to play like Smith HAD been playing prior to his recent struggles with injury, you're getting a huge discount. If I was Dallas, I'd absolutely be trying to get a longer deal for Dak and if you'r the player, it comes down to betting on yourself. Think about what Dak would be looking at if you took Covid out of the equation. A cap that was expected to go as high as 240-250 next year in what would likely be his final year under the tag and then the following year, as a 28 year old Free Agent...he probably was expecting 50 million per year. In fact, I'd be willing to bet QB's are signing for 50 per in 3-4 years from now without having gone through two franchise tags. Hell, Dak is in line for 50 if they franchise him again next year. And that would mean he made 3/120 the past 3 years despite a gruesome injury to his ankle. Kirk Cousins, a guy who wasn't a top 10(maybe a top 15) QB got a 3/94 fully guaranteed offer before 2018 and he passed on that to sign the largest contract ever in guaranteed money to play in Minnesota. Betting on yourself can really pay off as Cousins wasn't worth half that deal. I've beaten this drum before, but Jenkins and Jaire should both get 6-7 year contracts. Gary and Savage after them if they develop. Clark should have, Adams could have his last time up... If they had the room, Jones would be a guy who they could give a 5-6 year deal IF they wanted to sign him. Of course, the Cowboys probably make another 100+ million per year from those luxury suites that the Packers don't...but the Packers also don't have an owner that buys a 250 million dollar yaht.

Injuries ruined Sayers and TD's career. Terrell Davis is the one I really don't get. I guess it was his 2000 yard season and the SB's, but he had 4 good years. You take Ahman Green's peak and it was pretty close. And this was at a time when Denver was in the midst of a run of just throwing anyone out there at RB and they were going for 1000...like UW backs. The year after TD had 2000 yards, he got hurt. Olandis Gary came in and in 12 games ran for almost 1200 yards. The following year, TD was again hurt, 27-year-old Mike Anderson...a rookie. So TD doesn't make sense to me. Gale Sayers...he also had a short career, but he was so dominant at that time...and then the fact that Hornung is in with about 1300 fewer yards rushing(forget receiving, KR, PR, etc...). Calvin is a whole different animal. He was arguably the most talented WR'er to ever play the game. A 6'5, 240-pound freak who ran a 4.3 40 and looked like a dominant DE. He was better than Sharpe and he played a couple of years longer. But he's an absolute no doubt HOF'er, so...needless to say, Sterling should absolutely be in the HOF.

It was just different times. Barely any team plays a base 4-3 anymore. Most teams are in sub packages all the time, with stand-up edge rushers. I don't know if there is any edge rusher who regularly puts his hand on the ground. Za'Darius at times I suppose. If Reggie played in today's NFL, he'd likely be a 3-technique DL in the JJ Watt mold. Reggie would probably be a 3 like Watt was, but I think a closer comp would be Myles Garrett. We tend to remember Reggie with a little belly, but coming out of UT, he was a freak who ran a ~4.6 40. He was also long, strong and 6'5, so he moved all over our line, but he was primarily a DE. Philly Reggie though, he could play DE in Cleveland or Tampa or he could play DE in any 3-4. He's arguably the greatest defensive player of all time. JJ Watt if he stayed healthy is the closest comp to Reggie and Reggie was more athletic than him. As for Edge rushers who put their hand on the ground, there's still some. Watt is considered an "edge," though...I'm not sure why. But JPP, Mack does quite a bit, Myles Garrett. I don't know, I'm just kinda skimming through this. Reggie White and Watt played the same position to me. Dominant, bad arse DL who could stop the run or the pass. The rest is really splitting hairs(though Reggie was a DE;)

Wentz has played at a MUCH higher level in the NFL than Goff. Goff played in a QB friendly system with a loaded group of WR'ers. Wentz has had next to no help and he'd still been very good up until this past year. I don't think Wentz is a top 10 or maybe even a top 15 QB right now, but it makes sense to me why teams would think they can fix him. And I SOOO hope the Bears are one of those teams. To see them go all in on Trubisky and then trade for Wentz, I'd be feeling pretty good about those two games.

I think this is true, though I think it's important to push back on both extreme viewpoints on this as I've done in this thread/discussions on their cap. It's irresponsible for journalists to say that the Packers are in some sort of devastatingly insurmountable cap mess, as Herman did over the weekend. That's blatantly false. Things looked much bleaker when they were looking at $176, but now that the expectations are for mid-$180s or up to $196m, the Packers have a workable situation. I get that writers can only write so many 'should the Packers sign JJ Watt?' articles right now, so I'm not surprised that some are choosing to make this a story to fill space... Still, the 'There are no problems, they can just kick the can down the road a few years' folks are equally wrong. The Packers' cap situation is probably the worst it's been in over 15 years (which is a testament to the skill of the Russ Balls of the world in and of itself). It's not Thompson having to move on from 3 All-Pro caliber players as he had to in 2005 level bad, but the Packers are almost certainly going to have to A)cut a couple of guys like Smith/Wagner that are productive players that are scheduled to start on week 1, and B)involuntarily let the bulk of their UFAs walk without much chance to retain them. That's something they really haven't had to do. But, as it has been clearly noted, they've got plenty of ability to both get under the cap and free up the ability to do a few things with the roster, and that's something that teams like New Orleans don't have the ability/flexibility to do. Add in the teams that have room but need to add a QB, and you end up with a lot of teams with issues. The Cap is the worst it's been in for 15 years because the Packers were very conservative under Thompson. That and...obviously Covid, which has put most contenders in a similar situation. There are no problems, they can just kick the can down the road a few years' folks are equally wrong. Isn't this you pushing back against a non-existent viewpoint? They certainly CAN kicks their problems down the road to a degree, and they should, but I don't recall anyone saying there were no problems. I've been arguing all year that it's unlikely the cap would actually be the lowest possible number, which was the cap floor that they set before the season. Now there are people around the league suggesting they'll try and spread the hit over the next two years and the cap could be 200 or 201 million this off-season. And yet I certainly never said there were no problems. I believe this started with the "there is no chance the Packers can re-sign Jones," argument that was made after the Bahk extension and went from there. The whole point was always the "Packers are in cap hell," or, "the Packers are 20 million over the cap," talking points have been wrong. As for letting the "bulk" of their FA's go, again, that's another part that's largely ignored in these discussions. The Packers have relatively few URFA's relative to most other teams. And they've got very good replacements in-house. They drafted a RB who looks very good, not to mention RB's are often the most capable of producing early in their careers. So they might lose Linsley and Jones, but they drafted three interior OL last year, one of whom was projected to go much higher before tearing his ACL and basically treated last year as a redshirt type year. They also have an elite center on the roster in Jenkins. Speaking of New Orleans though...they're an obvious outlier. The victim of very bad timing with the Cap not going up nearly as much as it was expected to next year, and they were probably the most aggressive team in the NFL the past couple seasons. This past year they tried trading a 2nd round pick to have another team sign Clowney to a contract and then pay him his signing bonus. They've added players all over the place in an attempt to get Brees another ring. That's an extreme example of how you can push your hits down the road(but it can be done). Even then, they'll go through one year of cap hell, again, in part due to a fluke circumstance, but after that, they'll be in good shape with a lot of young talent on the roster. They could even trade Ramcykz and Lattimore and probably add 3 1sts, + and go through a very quick mini-rebuild. I don't think anyone's even suggesting the Packers act like the Saints. The argument has merely been, they'll be able to create cap room and now, in the twilight of Rodgers career, is the time for the organization to be more aggressive. Which it sounds like they're planning on being.

Sure, add a WR'er, but if Watt is willing to sign a team-friendly deal to come back in Wisconsin, he really shores up your front 7. I think Martin and Barnes looked pretty good as rookies, but if you can shore up the DL, that helps them out a ton. I think the first priority should be finding an OT, after that, a well-rounded DE...which Watt, even in his decline absolutely is. That takes a lot of pressure off the secondary. I'd only prioritize MLB'er if something crazy like Parsons fell to them. Otherwise, look for an athletic backer in the middle rounds, but focus on OT, CB and DE early on.

That was always the thing with Brady. They'd give him 10 million in a signing bonus, tack on another year or two and then act like he was such a great guy for taking a deal. Romo, Brees did the same things. At this point, the best case would probably be to extend Rodgers a couple years, give him 20 million in a signing bonus to restructure and reduce his cap hit as much as possible, or however that would work. I don't put much stock on Lang saying he is "hellbent on revenge," but I do think he(Rodgers) would probably like to see them try and be a little more aggressive in addressing immediate needs at this point. The Packers FO has been smart for the most part, but they're at the point now where Rodgers is near the end. Wouldn't kill them to approach this off-season like the Saints have the past few years. This years Covid situation makes their cap situation that much more precarious, but in a normal year, they'd eat their lumps, keep most of their roster in tact and just go through one year of cap hell. The Packers can do that...push it down the road. They will need Rodgers to be willing to work with them though.

I don't even know if he needs to take less. Just restructuring would cut his cap number significantly. He did restructure this contract once already before last season to free up space for last year. I agree though. I don't see him signing a deal that would cut how much money he's getting. His stance on the last CBA would suggest he's pretty rigid in not leaving money on the table and believes the players are and do-do just that. They should be able to work something out pretty easily that both sides are happy with. It'd push any window for trading or moving on from Rodgers down the road a bit. That seems like it'd be the biggest issue for the Packers.

Better now than later. Still, not good News. I've watched fewer Bucks games this year than most years, but it seemed like they were starting to gel recently. Start to play better as a unit.

No I am not, and I NEVER said they needed to run moves by him...in fact because you keep suggesting that's what I'm saying, I literally JUST said; And I know because I've listened to Rodgers this year. He does weekly interviews that give you more insight than we've ever had as Packers fans. And I don't believe he did talk to the front office about the extension with Bahktiari. McAfee asked him if he knew he was going to sign it and he said no, and then said he'd talked to Dave and knew they were working on something, but he had no idea. And how do I know they didn't run Graham by him? I guess I just have to take his word for it. He may be lying about it I suppose. But if that IS the case, then by your logic, that'd make him more important than the franchise...wouldn't it? This isn't the hill for me. I really didn't think it'd be controversial when I suggested that the Packers should communicate more with their franchise player and I don't believe that in any way infers that I believe he's more important than the organization. But I don't really have much more to add.

I think Nelson's obviously hyperbolic, but Cobb? Yeah, we clearly could have used Cobb either of the last two years. And who else could they have brought in that would have been better than Gronk and AB? Obviously Gronk's situation is unique having spent his career with NE and Brady. But AB? Who could they have gotten that Brown prevented them from signing?

Aaron Rodgers had a cap hit of $37+ million dollars in 2020. How is that not treating him like an all-time-great QB? It was 21 million, but how does this discussion keeps changing. I'm talking about communicating with Rodgers during the off-season with regard to who they're going to bring in, AGAIN, as the Buccs did with Brady or the Pats did when they brought in AB or Gronk. Never said they didn't pay him enough, I've never said he was more important than the franchise, I've never inferred either. I also didn't say they needed to makes the moves he's wanted. Just communicate with him. That's all. Doesn't seem like that's really asking too much of them. This is kinda the problem when you take one sentence and delete the rest of the quote. It completely changes the context. I'm not arguing that Rodgers hasn't been paid well enough. He's paid right in line with what franchise QB's get paid. I'm saying it might be good if they spoke during the off-season. Not just an exit interview and then nothing again until OTA's or a phone call 15 seconds before they announce they're drafting a QB. Which was fine.

There were so many just fluke plays in that game. That pass to Goodwin on 3rd and long that set them up for another TD. 3 of the Buccs TD's came on strange of fluky plays. Maybe if the Packers are leading, TB comes back. I don't know how the game would have played out. TB was just a really bad match up and it was made worse that Bahk missed the majority of both games. You do have to give Brady credit though. He's smart. He picked a team that was on the cusp going into this year, during his time in New England, he never signed that monster extension, and they just always find ways to win. But it is really sickening to see him win another SB MVP when everyone knows the game was MUCH more about KC's Tackles vs JPP and Shaq Barrett.

Seconded. Aaron Rodgers is a great player. He is not bigger or more important than the Green Bay Packers. When he retires in a few years, the Packers will still be a team. Hopefully they are a team that is in good shape to compete. I'd love to see then go all in to get the TEAM a Super Bowl. If Rodgers is the QB, great. But they certainly don't owe him the personnel moves he wants. Woah....how did this go from the Packers should at least pretend to listen to his input to he's not bigger or more important than the Packers? The Buccs brought in Gronk and AB almost certainly because Brady wanted them. That seemed to help out in the SB. Nobody's saying that they need to run their draft picks by Rodgers to make sure they're up to his standards, but the Packers almost never actually go out and improve their team with veterans. Antonio Brown was available. The Packers needed a WR'er. He's talked publicly about wanting to play with Rodgers. He signed with the team that had Gronk and 2 #1 WR'ers already. Just saying when you've got the best player in your franchises history, you could treat him like most teams treat and all time great QB.

Wouldn't the same be said about JJ Watt? He got into it with their HC. I think if I was a 25 year old QB and my coach gave away a HOF caliber WR'er in the prime of his career among the MANY terrible moves he made, I'd also want out. As for his play this year, he was still elite. But a QB can only overcome so much.

They've literally got 3 #1 WR'ers, 3 really good TE's, Fournette. That was the worst part of Brady going to Tampa. You knew how much talent was there and how people would act like he just carried them to the SB. By the way, a nod to JPP. Few players have tried as hard as he has to end his career as often as he has and failed. You'd think a guy that blew half his hand off and fractured his neck in a car accident would be slowing down, but he was a beast this year. Though accentuated again by the fact he was playing against our backup and then Mike Remmers.

That's really stupid. They added some nice pieces, but we were saying on this board last year if they just had a game manager at QB, they'd be an 11 win team. Not the SB Champs, but they went .500 with a QB who had 42 or 44 turnovers last year. That's incredible. Two #1 WR'ers, two elite edge rushers, Vea, White....I guess they brought in Wirfs after Brady, but I don't know if that's because of Brady so much as they had the 12th pick in the draft and they just picked the best player available. They had a lot of talent all over the place. Sure, adding Gronk, AB and several other ring chasers is nice, but even at TE, they had Howard and Brate. It'd be nice if the Packers treated Rodgers like the Buccs did Brady though. At least pretend to listen to his imput.

One could argue that cornerback, offensive tackle and center and larger need positions than wr. That being said I hope they get Aaron some help Tackle is by far the biggest and CB the next. Though I wouldn't put Center on that list. Feels like they drafted next years Center this year. Either by picking Stepaniak, who they knew would miss most of this year to play guard and slide Jenkins back to his position in College, or Patrick or Hanson. Either way, I think C is covered. I love Allen Robinson, but if we're going to spend a lot of money on a Free Agent, I'd rather it be on Taylor Morton. Give Rodgers the next RT in the game...someone who can hold down LT for the first quarter of next year and is just 26 years old, and I think the Packers are real tough to beat. They need to look at HOW they've been losing games. It's almost always when Rodgers gets pressured. Morton almost certainly won't happen, but there this is also supposed to be a very deep class at OT as well. You really can't have too many. If someone can play Tackle, they can pretty much always play inside. OT, CB, DE, then a few positions you could add someone at depending on who's available. Hopefully a big guy like Nasirildeen in the 3rd or 4th. But with at least one of those positions, you have to try and go out and make it happen, add someone who can help out right now instead of hoping someone falls to you. Gute is pretty good at making sure he gets "his guy," having traded up for Alexander, Savage and Love. Maybe he'll do the same with Slater or whoever.

Umm lol no. Green Bay's defense isn't even half as good as Tampa Bay's is. The Packers wouldn't have been able to take away Hill like Tampa has. Tampa has actually taken out all of the Chiefs WR's Green Bay couldn't have done that. Also Tampa's pass rush is far better than Green Bay's. It is a completely different game if it is Packers vs Chiefs. Tampa is Probably the best NFL defense since the Baltimore squads. This Tampa defense was pretty good...it wasn't in the same world as those Baltimore squads(or even it's other SB team). I don't think this Tampa D was better than those Seattle Defenses, the Broncos with Ware and Von Miller(who also got to play against Mike Remmers in the SB). KC was playing with two tackles out. The Packers without the best. Tampa has a nice D, but either this post should be in blue, or you're getting a little too caught up in the moment.

Umm lol no. Green Bay's defense isn't even half as good as Tampa Bay's is. The Packers wouldn't have been able to take away Hill like Tampa has. Tampa has actually taken out all of the Chiefs WR's Green Bay couldn't have done that. Also Tampa's pass rush is far better than Green Bay's. It is a completely different game if it is Packers vs Chiefs. Wait...what? How exactly is it that GB wouldn't have been able to take Hill away? I forget, which team had the #1 CB in the NFL and the #2 Safety? And which team gave up 200 yards to him in the 1st quarter of a game? I really don't know how to measure if someone is "half as good" or three times as good as another team, but I do know that going up against KC's backup Tackles like Mike Remmer, our defense would have abused KC's as well. It probably isn't that different of a game if it's GB and KC. Playing with Mike Remmers in the Super Bowl as a Starting Tackle is like playing with 10 guys.

Speaking only for myself, I don’t at all think Tampa was the better team two weeks ago. Their pass rush played better than our offensive line, and that plus two unforced errors (one strongly aided by referee malpractice) was the difference in the game. But our QB played decisively better, and we won the turnover battle and dominated time of possession. Those are all marks of superior teams. But results did not match process, thanks largely to Mike Pettine’s brain fart. So here we are. But I am not disputing Tampa’s front 7, they’re great. But Green Bay was better and should have won that game, and anyone is going to have a hard time convincing me otherwise. It was a strange game and one only the Packers could lose. They went from a likely 1st down at the Tampa ~45 with about a minute left down 14-10 to 24-10 in about 2 minutes of the game. So even ignoring the fact that the best LT in the NFL wasn't playing in that game, the sequence with the no-call on the Murphy Bunting INT(which I didn't have a problem with until that flag game in about 15 seconds late from the ref 20 yards away from the play while the ref about 5 yards away didn't throw a flag) then the Scotty Miller TD and the Aaron Jones fumble. It's a fluke sequence of events. I think the Packers should have won that game. I think if they had Bahktiari...they probably would have just found another way to lose it. I don't think Tampa was better.

The only off-field issues I know of with regard to Breeland were from the last off-season after he re-signed with the Chiefs.

I have no problem with Calvin getting in on the 1st ballot. Obviously, I think Sharpe should be in the HOF, but I wouldn't ding Calvin for his omission.

My point, which I've made several times now, is saying that he had Bashaud Breeland on his team, a player that is on a SB team, so he obviously had some talent, isn't the strongest argument for the talent he had in Washington. Coming off that big Super Bowl Win the Chiefs signed Breeland for 1 year and 3 million. Further proof that he's not exactly viewed as a core piece on a defensive unit. I don't see how the Packers offense is in any way relevant to the defensive talent that Barry had 5 years ago in Washington. It IS directly relevant to Breeland getting his ring however.