HiAndTight

Well...take him off the list of guys who were very unlikely to get the job.

LOL even Houston's previous GM would say no to that. Probably would need at least one or two more 1st round picks going to Houston for this deal to work. Behind a paywall on ESPN+ this is a trade scenario Bill Barnwell came up with for a Watson trade to GB as part of a column he wrote coming up with scenarios for several teams. For what it's worth he has Green Bay as the least likely destinations for Watson but he was trying to list teams that might have a reason so they were included. Packers send: QB Aaron Rodgers (to 49ers), 30th overall pick in 2021, QB Jordan Love (to Texans) 49ers send: 12th overall pick in 2021, 2022 first-round pick (to Texans), 2022 second-round pick (to Packers), QB Jimmy Garoppolo (to Patriots) Texans send: QB Deshaun Watson (to Packers), 2022 fourth-round pick (to 49ers) Patriots send: 142nd overall pick (to 49ers) He has a lot more comments about this but I don't want to plagiarize paid content over much, but this obviously would be a complicated trade that includes a lot of draft choices. Green Bay sending out both Rodgers and Love plus a 1st round pick is a pretty steep price, even with them getting SF's 2nd round pick in 2022 in return. But maybe they wouldn't think it's that bad? I mean...it'd be fair...and again, if you're taking the salary cap out of it as was originally proposed, I'd do it. You basically trade down, 10-15 spots to downgrade your QB very slightly, but you jump to another 15 years of a HOF caliber QB?

What...a glorious day!!!!! Just saw the alert from the Journal. Now get the new guy a nice athletic DE and a hybrid Safety and this defense is pretty much set...forgot CB. So...just 3 good starters away!

Same here. I would assume there was something lost in translation from whoever Shefter is talking to...or maybe because Gute makes the calls people in his camp are kinda curious where he stands after drafting Love or maybe they're not interested in restructuring or...I don't know, a lot of speculation. Rodgers is healthy, we KNOW he wants to play, we know Murphy and the staff want him back. I find it hard to believe Gute wouldn't as well. Still just bothers me a little that Shefter reported on it...again, he's generally pretty damn good. We're not talking about someone like Madden here.

I ASSUME it's nonsense, but Shefter usually doesn't just make things up. And why even bring up names? Because it's a forum and I'm speculating. IF Gute's really the one guy who's swimming against the tide and Murphy, the coaching staff, and the player all want one thing and he wants another...which at this point would only be to make this team "his team," in that old cliche, then that's not really a functional organization. And I understand the Packers will be around after Rodgers. I don't really understand the point you're making. They'll also be around after Gute. And SB wins are exceedingly hard to come by. 2 Since Lombardi. So if Gute is more interested in building for the next 20 years instead of right now(which I don't believe is true, but if it was) and at odds with all the other key figures, it's hardly unreasonable to move on. It's not like this is unprecedented. The Chiefs very recently fired a GM(John Dorsey) who drafted the core of their dynasty including Mahomes(whom he traded up for despite having a Pro Bowl-caliber QB) and a long list of other very talented players, Kelce in the 3rd, Hill in the 5th, Peters...and the list goes on. They didn't fire him because of his team-building ability, they did so because he was butting heads with their coach and others in the front office. So when Adam Schefter reports he's the one who's got a different opinion, not sure why it's so crazy to speculate what would happen if that situation played out.

I have a pretty vivid image of Greg Lloyd coming in and leading with the crown of his helmet, lowering it and getting Favre right under his facemask. Pretty sure Favre had a concussion from that one. He'd likely have gotten a couple of game suspension for that one in today's NFL. I love Favre. He was tough, he brought us back in a lot of games(he also blew quite a few games with just terrible picks) and he helped keep us competitive. BUT...if you're comparing him to Rodgers, he's just not in the same league. That's all. Rodgers may 'just' be a top 5 All-Time QB because of the lack of team success, but he's a tier or two above Favre.

I wonder why people keep repeating this? From 2000-2021 (I can count this year since neither QB this year is on a rookie contract), the SB winning QB is on a rookie contract 31.8% (7 of 22) of the time. The SB losing QB is on a rookie contract 22.7% (5 of 22) of the time (or 27.3% combined). 6 of the 7 SB winning QBs are probably future HOF QBs (Brady 2x, Rothlisberger, Wilson, E Manning, Mahomes) with Flacco as the other. Of the 5 SB losing QBs, you have Wilson as future HOF probable with McNair, Grossman, Kapernick, and Goff. Best way to win a SB is to have a HOF level QB on a rookie contract. The second best way is to have a HOF level QB. Feels like it's just become a talking point. You can win with a highly paid QB. You just need to draft well and you can't make bad signings. The Packers have been in a position to win several times. They didn't lose because of Rodgers's salary...especially since most years Thompson carried 10+million in cap room during the year to carry over. He was maybe a little too conservative, but that's the general idea, draft well, retain your own players. Of course, it's easier if you have an additional 30 million dollars, but I guess I don't really get the point as a while. Is the argument that it's better to move on from elite QB's and try to develop younger ones? I'm sure that's not the point. So it feels like we're just talking about a few young QB's who came in and were really good right out of the gate. But take Seattle. They drafted Kam, Sherman and Wagner late in the draft. Browner...who was perfect in that scheme for a while wasn't someone who cost much in terms of draft capital or money. It's just about smart team building...and ignoring all the years Brees or Rodgers were in contention and making deep runs(or Peyton or Ryan).

I like Gute, but IF there is any truth to this...do you consider making a change? Eliot Wolf maybe. If you have a GM who is the only guy in the building advocating you move on from your MVP QB when your team is riiiight on the cusp, that'd seem like it was ego-driven. He wants to win with "his guy." But I'm sure this story is nonsense and I doubt Gute has any objections to him coming back. What would suck is if he's kinda stuck on the idea of moving on from Rodgers in 2 years(or after next year) so they don't restructure and create room to keep players or add right now. That might what Rodgers means when he says he's not sure everyone else wants him back as badly.

I think you're drastically underestimating Watson. In just about any other era, he'd be THE guy we're all talking about. 25 years old, not a lot of talent around him and he was still one of the best QB's in the league this year. He also led the league in yards per attempt and per completion(as well as yards). And he can run. I think he's probably the 3rd best QB in the league right now(behind the two you mentioned)...but when you consider he's 12 years younger...just curious why you're so adamant.

Agreed. I guess if you go back and you need to nitpick, it might have made more sense to send Diggs rather than have him spy McNabb or cover Staley out of the backfield, but the Packers had been abusing the Eagles OL all game long to the tune of 8 sacks. Reasonable to think they'd get pressure and that McNabb would try to extend the play. Funny enough, Pettine's play call with 8 seconds and no TO's remaining could have also worked. Man across the board with Savage playing that robber, trying to take away the middle(absolutely no clue why, other than Pettine thought they had one TO left). Pettine's call was so-so much worse. That might be one of the worst calls in league history.

Was that a coaching blunder or just bad defense? I was so steamed about 4th and 1 the rest of the game was blur, I knew we had already lost. Yes. Both. Similar to King and Pettine - bad play call, bad play execution. I don't think the play call was bad. They were in a cover 2...and if Barnett just drops and doesn't bite on that underneath route their TE ran or Sharper drives on the ball, they're fine. Terrible execution and Donatell was scapegoated after the season...IMO. Sheman lost them that game by not going for it...and then of course Favre by throwing that ridiculous pick.

Why? His first year as the full-time starter he went 11-5 despite a terrible offensive line. Second-year(last year) he again led them to the playoffs where Mahomes put 51 on him. This year he was great(33/7 and over 4800 yards). Then throw in the fact that he had a historically great National Championship Games at Clemson where he split with Alabama and threw for nearly 900 yards and 7 TD's in the two games...unless that was a little tongue in cheek, he's about as proven a winner as you can get.

I think I'd pass on Lawrence. He's got enormous upside, but I don't know that his upside is higher than either of the next two QB's(Wilson and Fields). Lawrence would align pretty well with young guys on the Packers. The Savage, Alexander, Gary, Dillon, Jenkins core. And both Adams and Bahk have enough time left that they could be around as he really gets going(assuming he does).

Yeah...it's really a no-brainer if you remove the emotion from it. Watson is a stud. I think he'd thrive in this offense and they'd be able to add a couple wrinkles. Something they likely plan on doing with Love(I'd think some pre-snap motion and zone reads). But he's a far better athlete. At 25, you'd reasonably expect 10 prime seasons out of Watson. I think you can hope for 3, maybe 4 left from Rodgers.

I don't agree with you on the NFL HOF at all. There might be some QB's who aren't worthy who were elected decades ago, but there are more truly dominant players who don't get in because they played positions that didn't have real "stats." So while the NFL may have Joe Namath, I'd respond with Harold Baines. Now if there's one that's flawed, it's the Basketball HOF...I have no clue what the criteria is to get into that.

That's pretty much where I'm at. There is one other position that I wouldn't be surprised if they draft a guy on day 2 and that is OLB, assuming that Preston Smith is a cap casualty. If he's gone, they have no depth. I'm looking at Cincinnati's Mijay Sanders, if he's still available in round 3. Assuming that Kirksey is also a cap casualty and that Oren Burks is running out of time, an ILB on day 3 would be a good investment. I don't think they bring back Josh Jackson at $2M to sit on the bench if the cap goes down; I think they double up at CB with one in rounds 1-3 and then another in rounds 5-7. Unfortunately, this looks to be a lean year for DL. Barmore is more of a run-stuffer, and you can find those guys later in the draft. Not many 3-4 DL types projected to go in the top three rounds; lots of undersized guys this year. He's young though and if he went back for another year, I think he'd be a top 10 pick. He's explosive and has a really violent first step. But you'd be hoping he could develop on the fly. Which may not be a bad thing, but I think he will be a really good pass rusher relative to his position as he develops. He can definitely get into the backfield. But I think we're pretty much in agreement. Focus first on shoring up the pass rush and stopping the pass rush and then address other positions as the board dictates. I'm really kinda lost on what to do with Preston Smith. Ideally, I'd like to see them keep him and still draft a guy who can replace him. If he can get back to how he played last year and Gary takes another step, we could really develop a dominant pass rush. If you add another threat on the DL and you bring back Keke, that's a pretty dominant front. I realize there are a lot of if's in there, but that's all we have right now. Guessing, projecting, and anything to forget that we should but won't be playing in a week and a half. As for Oren Burks, I guess I might bring him back as he was one of the few guys I thought played well on STs, but you can't count on anything else out of him. He's Josh Jones basically. Also, time to admit that Raven Green is just not durable enough. No fault of his own, he's tough, but he's just not that nickel LB'er we need. So I'd prefer a safety-LB'er hybrid. A Jeremy Chinn type(who was taken one pick after Dillon). At CB, it'd seem like they'd move on from Jackson. They didn't think he was worthy of playing at all vs Tampa. King was awful, but I don't know how much of that was the injury. I'd be fine with bringing him back as he is at least the type of guy you don't mind opposite of Alexander, a bigger ball hawk type. But he'd have to be cheap and I agree, they should still double up. Pass rushers, corners...you're really never set at either. With the extra picks and the ability to trade comp picks, if there's someone they think can start in as a rookie, I definitely wouldn't be against them being aggressive again and trying to move up. It's worked with Alexander and Savage, but you're usually chasing Corners at the end of the 1st.

That should be taken for granted. And we should remember the Packers did try to talk Favre into coming back when he retired after Rodgers had already spent 4 years on the bench. Favre wasn't playing at the same level Rodgers is(anywhere near it actually) and Rodgers by year 3 had shown he had quite a bit of talent. So if things play out as they did with Rodgers taking over, I'll be fine with it. Largely because I don't think Rodgers is going to hem and haw about coming back. The best case is the Packers restructure Rodgers, they free up cap space and they use it to improve this team. I don't think we'll see them quite go the route of the Saints, but if they could add a player or two...PFF has them signing Will Fuller to a massive deal which I think is unrealistic. If they were to spend on a FA, Taylor Morton would be the guy I think I'd prefer. A 26-year-old versatile Tackle. Spending crazy money on Bahk makes it far less likely, but if one thing has killed the Packers the last two years, it's been teams with two edge rushers who can make Rodgers life hell. I'd rather they add an established tackle than spend on someone like Will Fuller or even Robinson who is a lot like Adams himself(though...to play Devils advocate, they did try to sign him when he signed with the Bears and does seem like he wants to play with an elite QB at some point). But that's probably as likely as they spending 18.5 million per year on a WR'er who's constantly hurt. More realistic would be Mike Hilton or Troy Hill, cheaper CB's who are better in man than Chandon Sullivan, and then target younger Corners and OT's in the draft. Keeping most of this team together and adding a couple of pieces in the draft and the continued progress from our young core...in theory at least, should be good enough to keep this team playing at a high level.

I just don't agree. There was a long stretch he had a dominant OL, a great RB(Green's 2003 season he ran for the 5th most yards in a season in NFL history IIRC). He also had more consistent defenses. They weren't always great, but they forced quite a few turnovers. There were years they were better than others, but on balance, I think he had some pretty talented teams. And the teams often lost BECAUSE of him, not in spite of him as is the case with Rodgers.

Schilling being Schilling. If you can separate the pitcher from ALL the things he's said or done, I think he probably should get in on the strength of his post-season success, but...hey, if he wants to be a clown and ask that he be removed, don't disappoint him. To be clear...that's not political. He's said and done plenty of obnoxious things that I don't even need to consider his political views.

I'm sure this has made the rounds before, but I hate how one drunk wrote a book of fiction and made Cobb "THE bad guy" in Baseball. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/43506-ty-cobb-was-not-a-racist I'm not sure what the whole story is...but I think it's fair to say he's not the crazy racist who was MORE racist than the average big leaguer in the early 20th century.

I think part of the problem is when you look back at older rosters, you don't appreciate their impact as much. But he had great OL's for a good stretch of his career and a dominant running game. He just threw too many games away. The Eagles game...throwing the ball up on 1st down when you'd run for 220 yards or whatever it was. Favre was a HOF'er and you can't take that away from him, but Rodgers definitely is on a whole other level.

Sure, all that, but when you've got one player in Bonds where you can if not pinpoint when he started taking steroids at least make a pretty educated guess, you can look at the type of player he was without them. He had two HOF careers 1986-1999 and then 2000-2007, one in which he was like a god and the other...he won 3 MVPs and some historically great seasons when it's pretty fair to assume he wasn't on steroids. Same with Clemens, though it's much more difficult to guess when he started, I believe the assumption is when he went to the Blue Jays. So even if you want to throw out what they did on steroids and ignore that a significant pct of players in that era were juiced, they both did plenty the first half of their careers to get in. Also, I can at least understand not voting guys in for 'cheating the game.' It's a hellua lot better than not voting for Jeter because he "wasn't clutch."

In time you can look back at those Packers seasons with good memories, just like with the Brewers, but in the moment it's an absolute killer. I will never forget how awful I felt walking out of Miller Park after game 7, but I appreciate the memories and will also never forget how great game 163 at Wrigley was. I'm at least appreciative that we have teams that are this competitive and in the near future one of them will likely break through and win another title. Better to be relevant and come just short of a title than to be like Minnesota or something. Not sure when that time will come! I look at the last 10 years and see just too many lost opportunities. The Dodgers were so much more talented, that loss had a "oh, that sucks," type feeling. Not the pissy mood I've been in for the last two days where I've had to remind myself not to let that seep into real life.

I felt just the opposite about Favre. I didn't want to see him succeed. Especially with him forcing his way to Minny. But in a scenario in which Rodgers wanted to stay and the Packers didn't do everything to make that happen....absolutely. But I really hope we don't have to cross that bridge. I couldn't have imagined saying something like that at any other point in my life as a Packers fan(not to make it sound more serious than it is).

I hadn't. I've always given the benefit of the doubt to the coaches, but I just think the talent we have on defense was too good to not be top 10. They did really turn it around just around or after the mid-point, but that was also around when MLF was talking about how they needed to play better, be more aggressive, and fly to the ball. So I don't know if he gets the credit for that. But we all agree, he gets the blame for that insanely bad call.