HiAndTight

They've been pretty impressive coaches though. Wilcox and now Leonhard(I don't know if I'm missing anyone, but I don't recall any others). Cal hired Wilcox to be their HC and Leonhard's been talked about as a future HC for a while now.

I mean, cool and all, but how is this “well deserved”? Is there any evidence to point to saying it's not? I don't think so...since most people probably haven't heard of her prior to this. But the statement was made that this is well deserved. If he'd have said she DIDN'T deserve the promotion, that'd be one thing...but questioning if she did, that seems pretty normal. There's always a little skepticism when women get hired in men's sports. I understand it. Obviously, there are more qualified and intelligent enough to work in sports than there currently is. But you also have fans wondering if this is a move to get good PR or if they hired the best person for the job. That question won't change until there are enough women in sports that it's not worthy of National Headlines when the Brewers hire a woman to any significant role.

The Rams have to have invested more in the QB position than any team in the NFL. Two years ago signs a record-breaking deal... 2016 1st round pick (15th overall), 2016 2nd round pick (43rd overall), 2016 2nd round pick (45th overall), 2016 3rd round pick (76th), 2017 1st round pick (5th overall), and 2017 3rd round pick (100th overall). And this is just a couple years after giving him a massive contract, you give up the player you traded all those picks to get and a couple more 1sts and a 3rd. Yeah, safe to say they're playing for the next few years. I want the Packers to be aggressive...not sure I want them to be quite THIS aggressive though. Stafford doesn't work and you're looking at probably ~10 years before you can expect to compete again?

Something like this definitely makes the most sense. They've already added a playoff spot. I'd expect the NFL to use the 17 game or 18 game schedule to use to negotiate a cap that doesn't destroy contracts for vets. https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/news/nfl-salary-cap-might-not-crash-after-all It's amazing there was speculation the cap could hit 245 and then possibly hit 300 by 2022 just a year ago. But owners are almost certainly going to want something significant in return.

21.6 if he's traded. Indeed. One of the odd contracts where cut/trade don't mirror each other. My mistake for not checking both... I made the same mistake from Goffs. I guess you can't just look at spotract any longer and guess what it will cost to trade a guy anymore. 134 million and just 25 of it was in a signing bonus but 110 guaranteed, almost all of it over the first two years. Rodgers signed for the same amount, 4/134, but he got a 57.5 signing bonus and less than 100 guaranteed. There was a lot of speculation about Rodgers and this contract changing the market and him asking for a fully guaranteed deal, but looks like Watson came closer to it.

21.6 if he's traded. It seems like the last few years QB's are getting less in their signing bonus and more in guaranteed money in roster bonuses. So shouldn't be that hard for a team like the Texans to swing. Especially since it would signal they're not going to compete next year and could make other moves.

I think they would. As long as this trade doesn't force them to lose too many players like Smith in a trade or Hicks(not in the trade, but to make the cap work). Just putting Watson on the Bears and they would seem to be among the top 3-4 teams in the NFC.

No, the difference in talent between him and Rodgers. Not him and Goff. If you believe Rodgers is substantially better, wouldn't it stand to reason that would make up for the age difference? That's without considering that Rodgers would be sliding right into the same offense he currently plays in and could very well push the Rams over the top. I do think Stafford is underrated(unless you rate him at one of the top ~10 QB's in the NFL). And I absolutely do think it's because he plays for such a terrible franchise. I think he's had one defense that was in the top 15. He's had historically bad running games. So bad defenses and no running game, even with Calvin, it's kinda hard to put much blame on Stafford. But I guess we'll see. If he's that good, they should be much better the next couple years offensively.

Watt would probably have to take a big pay cut to play here(or in Pitt or anywhere at this point). I'd like to think he'd do that in order to come and try and win one in Wisconsin...but I don't know. He's still a good player, but even in the most optimistic scenarios, there are going to be a lot of players signing much smaller deals due to the cap. The last time we signed a 6'5 32-year-old future HOF DE/DT...it worked out alright.

Yes, but the roster bonuses are seldom guaranteed. That's the whole point. The Rams guaranteed Goff's 2021 and 2022 March 1 Roster Bonus last year. So that's 18 in future guarantees...which is why they couldn't cut him and why they were able to trade him. Also a really small signing bonus for a 134 million dollar deal. Just 25 million. And I suppose Wentz has some value in that you can try him out for a year...but it's pretty minimal at this point.

Who argued their ages don't matter? The argument is that Rodgers is better than Stafford and probably will be over the next contract. Not that age is irrelevant. But I'm not sure how you can both argue that Stafford is both overrated(or rated fairly) and that him being 5 years younger makes up for the difference in talent.

I don't actually think that's true. Cutting a player or trading them USUALLY doesn't make a difference, the cap hit is the same. But if they've got abnormally small signing bonuses relative to their contract, then Philly in theory should send us more, not less. Wentz doesn't offer any value...so if we're to take on his contract, that really should be more in return, not less.

Meh, I want no part of Wentz. Especially in lieu of an additional 1st. IF we were to blow the whole thing up, I'd rather take the picks and see what Love can do. At which point, even if he played like a top 5 QB, we'd still compare him to Rodgers and wish we have #12 back! I'd also add that the Eagles likely couldn't make that trade because Wentz has a 59 million dollar cap hit, but somehow the Rams just made that work with Goff, so who knows.

Yeah, it sucks...but it looks to me like they're trying to create an offense with more movement, more cutting, screening, and less Giannis on 5 type ball. That may not benefit them in the regular season...but if they can gel by mid-season, it should make a difference for the playoffs.

I get your point, but Rodgers just turned 37. I think a team like SF would trip over their own shoes racing to at LEAST match what the Rams gave up and likely more.

The Rams will go from Goff...1st pick in 2016 to 2023(at least) without a 1st round pick.

Just saw that...that's insane. How does this trade work? He has a 65 MILLION dollar cap hit. I wonder if the NFL is going to allow this trade to go through. Also, pretty good idea of what Watson will fetch. If Stafford, an older QB who's been banged up gets you two 1sts, a 3rd AND a really solid young starter in return, the Texans have to be looking at a bare minimum of 3 1sts and likely a couple more mid-round picks.

Is this supposed to be in blue? Or are you REALLY advocating for Ryan Braun to go back to 3rd base? I feel like there's maybe an inside joke I'm not privy to as I haven't been posting over here all that much as of late.

I've only had the chance to watch 1 game this season... any observations on what has changed? If you have access to The Athletic this article kind of talks about some of the tweaks they installed going into this season: https://theathletic.com/2281277/2021/01/11/bucks-new-offense-blue-dunker-spot/ Can someone let me know what they think of the Atlantic? I've got Subs to PFF, ESPN and a couple other things, but not that. ESPN is probably gonna go..rendering that site useless as it seems most of the good content is behind a paywall, but I'll live. But it seems like there are a lot of good articles in the Atlantic. Is that because I can't see them so I'm always guessing or getting the cliff notes or is it really that good of a site? Thanks in advance.

Every once in awhile a squirrel finds a blind nut. Yeah, if he finds it in Man, then I'll be a bit more annoyed. His regular-season performances were never the issue. If he could have been just the same player in the post-season, I think there's a good chance we've got a banner hanging right now and we go back to the finals last year.

I think the Rams are a real long shot. Feels like the only reason they're showing interest is to drive the price up. Otherwise...what, you pay Goff 30 million to backup Matt Stafford? I don't think Goff's the problem with that team. He's good enough...though Stafford would make 25 or so teams better. Your trade does make sense though. 1st, 2nd and a 4th for Stafford is probably the value I'd put on him and the Pats could send the 4th back for Jimmy G rather than take the chance he goes elsewhere... Pats are DEFINITELY getting Garoppolo back though. And they won't have to give up anything to do it as the reports are nobody is interested in trading for him most likely. And he'll probably win 10 games a year there. Then after winning because of Belichick he'll end up picking a team with two dominant WR'ers, bring in a 3rd, the #1 defense from the previous season and everyone will hail him as a hero! The Packers should be taking note. 3 QB's who took or got their teams in position to go to the SB in the last 5 years(Wentz, Goff and Jimmy G) are not really wanted by their teams any longer, Watson wants out in Houston, the Lions squandered Stafford's career there. You have a good thing going and guy that wants to be there. Push every last chip to the middle... Also, just a side note...so very glad the Bears decided that a career backup with success only in one city was worth THEM signing to be their backup. Otherwise they'd almost be forced to go out and get one of these QBs. As it is, they'll likely stick with Nick Foles and at best end up taking a very high risk QB like Lance or a low risk, low ceiling type QB like Jones in the draft. I cannot articulate enough how much I've enjoyed watching them fail to find a solid QB since the days of Sid Luckman!

Bring two Badgers back to Wisconsin; Jim Leonhard and JJ Watt. The first one is probably as easy as "would you like the.." before he says yes. The second one seems less likely but is just an ideal fit if he can stay healthy(though I don't think I'd give up a 2nd for him...or even a 3rd as I think Houston will likely move on from him as they start their little rebuild). Beyond that, I guess try and find a #2 CB, maybe a better slot corner. That might be Hollman, though if it were, you'd have likely played him last year in SOME capacity. Extend Adams and start talking with Jaire. Hopefully, find 3-4 young guys who have been on the practice squad or gotten very little PT and hope they can develop. Garvin comes to mind if we do in fact cut Preston Smith. Hope the OL can coach up Yosh and his play can match his incredible athletic ability while also praying Bahk can come back healthy by mid-season. If you do all those things, and your young players take another step and you're relatively lucky again next year with regard to injuries and seeding, maybe we'll host another NFCCG and we won't have our hearts ripped out of our chest again. That's about as optimistic as I can be right now!

Honestly, I saw someone say this (and have heard it several times), so I was curious if it was true. And it wasn't. I'm also curious where the "rookie QB sits" concept comes from too. As far back as I can remember, QBs drafted in the first round more often than not would start that year - especially if they were top 10 picks. In fact, much was made about Rodgers "having the luxury" to sit and learn first. I guess it probably comes from the Steve Young, Tommy Maddux moves. Pretty sure the Dolphins drafted someone who wasn't as notable as Tommy Maddux while they still had Marino. And then the Chiefs just did it with Mahomes. I think it's rare just because if you have an elite QB, teams normally don't go looking for another one. Those situations are kinda rare. I do wonder how many QB's have had their careers ruined because they were thrown in right away. Was David Carr really any better than Derek? I just saw someone explaining how Matt Ryan was so "bad" this year despite throwing 26/11 because how often he was hit/sacked. It something like 41 and 60. David Carr was sacked 76 and 68 times in different seasons and a total of 249 over parts of 5 seasons in Houston. There has been talk about Tua not impressing enough and Miami moving on from him...he went 6-3 as a rookie with 11 TD's and 5 picks. Anyway, I think people need to dig a bit more with regard to the rookie QB thing. On all those teams, you had superstars who were drafted late and were also on rookie deals. I think it's an oversimplification. Getting Ty Hill and Travis Kelce in rounds 3 and 5 and not having really paid them yet allowed the Chiefs to invest elsewhere. And now Mahomes has taken a very team-friendly contract(funny to say when you sign for 500 million, but it is and in 5 years it'll likely look MUCH more team friendly) and they're set up pretty well.

Agreed with Stafford to the Colts. They have a great OL, Taylor's a stud and he could both thrive and not rip the Packers hearts out. I am a fan of his. Not too worried about Watson to SF. Just don't think the Texans will trade him and if they do, they might want 4 1sts from SF given he'll be going to a team that's almost certainly going to be picking late in the draft each year(after this year). If he does land in SF...well, that's probably a wrap. We'll get 4-5 repeats of last years SB ver the next decade(probably hyperbolic, but it would seem to set both teams up for dynasties). Then again, maybe that gives the Packers a nice kick in the rear. Make them go get JJ Watt or whoever else to shore up this defense. Feels like we're one good player away from being elite. Watt/Clark/Keke would give you three well above average pass rushers from the inside and two guys who can play the run.

Stafford to SF seems the most likely idea right now...which sucks. A LOT. Good for him...god knows he deserves it, but that team would be my pick to go to the SB if they made that move. Apparently nobody is interested in Jimmy G. The Pats I assume are counting on that and just waiting until he gets cut. Just 2.8 million cap hit. John Lynch is proving to be a really good GM as that was a very forward-thinking contract. Conversely, Wentz is almost impossible to move with I think 60 million in dead cap space(maybe even 70). Don't think Dak is going to force a trade...he's one year away from his dream scenario. Kirk Cousins got 3/94 offered, fully guaranteed as a FA and he was several years older at the time. That translates to about 4/160 now, maybe more by next year. Not sure how dead set Watson is on standing firm on his trade demands.... Yup...things are gonna be crazy this off-season. QB's like Goff and Jimmy G, take their teams to the SB and their teams want to unload them. You have at least borderline HOF talents like Ryan and Stafford, their teams are deciding it's best to start over. Really hope we restructure Rodgers so we don't have to be included in any of that nonsense. Nothing to look at in GB other than a 6'5 DE from Pewaukee coming to try and be the second coming of Reggie White for the Packers!