Running it Back

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,125
Reaction score
1,474
For me, I'd rather not keep pushing. If we are going to give a new QB a chance; we have to give him a good team to play with imho. The first couple years are normally tough anyway but after that things could kick in. If we don't saddle ourselves with dead weight.
I hate to see Love sitting on our bunch next season no matter what. Like to see him get his opportunity somewhere.
 

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
2,540
Reaction score
1,498
I would think if Rodgers commits early to coming back, Love will ask for a trade. If they do trade him I can't see them getting more than a second if that. What I would do in that case is see about getting a second and maybe a fifth or 6th in this draft and a conditional first based on playing time and performance in the following draft.
Are people on drugs. You think they can get 3 picks for Love with 2 of them being 1st and 2nd rounders?
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
Are people on drugs. You think they can get 3 picks for Love with 2 of them being 1st and 2nd rounders?
I think he proposed a 2nd and 5 OR 6th. The 2nd could become a first if he hits playing benchmarks like throws for 3800 yards the 2nd becomes a 1st.

So 2 picks, with 1 being a late rounder.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,079
Reaction score
5,503
Forget about any specific young QB for a second. The QB position is by far the most dynamic position as far as long term potential production.

As an easy example. I can take my choice of any current QB and the impact they’ve had over their career and you can pick any other player to compete with me at ANY other position. We can total their cumulative career impacts and my QB will blow away any player (outside of QB) you can surmise.

If someone argued it’s a 1 player exception? We can take this and extrapolate it out to multiple groups of players at the QB position and it still holds true. I’ll take 3 current QB’s and you take take 3 players from ANY other positions combined.

When we finish picking we’ll convert these players to draft picks. I’ll trade my 4th year QB for draft picks and you trade your non QB 4th year player. Let’s see who comes out on top.

I’ll start with Brady
 
Last edited:

AKCheese

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
714
Love MIGHT garner a 3rd pick IF he gets time and plays well in these last games. Meanwhile we gut our future who said LAST year was his “last dance”, laid a massive egg in our playoff loss, proclaimed he had no interest in being part of a rebuilding process in Green Bay and then has played in a generally ho-hum manner this year - that would be doubling down on the lunacy of giving The Arrogant One $150M and a loaded CAP - gun. I don’t doubt we’ll try to do it, I just point out it’s dumb. Think of how things worked out this year, but with less. Seattle is soooooooooooo damn glad they got the bite at the apple after Green Bay passed
 

AKCheese

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
714
Forget about any specific young QB for a second. The QB position is by far the most dynamic position as far as long term potential production.

As an easy example. I can take my choice of any current QB and the impact they’ve had over their career and you can pick any other player to compete with me at ANY other position. We can total their cumulative career impacts and my QB will blow away any player (outside of QB) you can surmise.

If someone argued it’s a 1 player exception? We can take this and extrapolate it out to multiple groups of players at the QB position and it still holds true. I’ll take 5 current QB’s and you take take 5 players from ANY other positions combined, your free choice.
My 5 QB’s will put your 5 players to absolute shame in a trade deal.

If I showed you what my QBs would garner in a trade deal your jaws would drop
But you only need ONE qb. And has been shown on many occasions winning titles does not require a HOF level QB
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,079
Reaction score
5,503
But you only need ONE qb. And has been shown on many occasions winning titles does not require a HOF level QB
Agreed. My point is more about long term value. That’s what the exercise is about. In general terms, us fans wholly trivialize the long term value of the QB position in general. The QB’s are never worth anything until they are. Even a starter like Trevor Lawrence doesn’t stand out early in his career or look like he’s worth much. Then, that QB becomes exponentially more valuable than Gold.

An average starting WR might get you 8 seasons without picking an anomaly. An average starting QB can get you twice that. In comparison, a QB who suddenly starts can also surpass the production and impact that a starting caliber alternate/comparable non QB position group possesses in short form.

Therefore if both click, the QB potential far outweighs another position group.
We see it all the time when QB1 goes down. When Prescott broke his leg the other year, the then #1 rated prolific paced Offense suddenly spiraled out of control
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
For me, I'd rather not keep pushing. If we are going to give a new QB a chance; we have to give him a good team to play with imho. The first couple years are normally tough anyway but after that things could kick in. If we don't saddle ourselves with dead weight.

Don't get me wrong, the Packers should only push cap space into future years if Rodgers returns as their starter. Otherwise I agree it wouldn't make any sense.

I would. He has done very well. Or are you talking about getting hurt? Need to keep drafting O linemen anyway and maybe stay away from paying someone Bakhtiari money.

I'm taking about performance. While Tom has played at a decent level this season in my opinion the sample size is too small to rely on him being the starting left tackle entering next season.

The best thing would be for AR to retire after the 2023 season and go with Love in 2024.

The Packers would take a massive amount of dead money ($68.2 million) counting against their cap in 2024 if Rodgers retires after the '23 season.

If that means telling Aaron thanks but done or if that means sacrificing a first round pick for little return and trading Love.

With Rodgers' option bonus of $58.3 million for next season being fully guaranteed there's no way the Packers can tell him thanks but done.

No, I'm not ticked off that you answered that question. I'm generally just sick of the way you pollute the forum by offering nothing original and simply nitpicking everyone's posts. This is the same thing that literally everyone else is sick of, if you hadn't noticed.

It's hilarious that you believe you're a well-respected poster around here and that you somehow feel qualified to act as the spokesperson for other posters despite you being absolutely incapable of having a civilized discussion with someone who has a different point of view on your oh-so original input. You revert to personal attacks as soon as someone dares to have another opinion or corrects you on something that would have taken a one-minute search on Google to figure it out on your own.

As I have mentioned on several occasions, I don't care if other posters like me. I'm here to talk about my favorite NFL team and it's not my problem if some posters can't deal with me having an independent opinion on topics or correct them once they post inaccurate information.

You speak so confidently from ignorance that I am not going to take your word for anything. To the contrary, your utter disdain for Love makes me pretty optimistic about the guy.

Once again, I don't have any disdain for Love at all. I didn't like that the Packers spent a first rounder on a quarterback in the 2020 draft as I predicted the situation would play out as it actually did back then. I don't know (and you or anyone else doesn't either) if he will end up developing into a decent starter at the NFL level but as I have mentioned on several occasions me complaining about his selection was never about him in the first place.

Depends a lot on what other teams thought of Love prior to 2020 draft and what they think of him now plus what they've heard Packer defensive players say about Love this year.
In the grand scheme of things, QB play is far more important than WR play.

While there's no doubt the last sentence is true teams don't give a young wide receiver who is on the verge of putting up his second consecutive 1,000 yards season for a complete unknown quarterback who will be in his last season of his rookie deal. Especially as they might end up picking early enough to select one of the top prospects in the draft at the position.

I would think if Rodgers commits early to coming back, Love will ask for a trade. If they do trade him I can't see them getting more than a second if that. What I would do in that case is see about getting a second and maybe a fifth or 6th in this draft and a conditional first based on playing time and performance in the following draft.

I think he proposed a 2nd and 5 OR 6th. The 2nd could become a first if he hits playing benchmarks like throws for 3800 yards the 2nd becomes a 1st.

So 2 picks, with 1 being a late rounder.

I don't think so as PackerDNA talked about a second and day three pick in this year's draft and a conditional first rounder in next year's.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
I don't think so as PackerDNA talked about a second and day three pick in this year's draft and a conditional first rounder in next year's.
This is what he said. I guess people can interpret it however they're going to. His last sentence does add some confusion because he uses "and a conditional first" But he leads with, "if they do trade,him I can't see them getting more than a 2nd, if that". I wouldn't assume he went from thinking he's worth no more than a 2nd to he'd try and get a 2nd, a 5th and a 1st in the following draft a sentence later. I err on the side it was a confusing choice of "and" on a message board and meant he'd take the late rounder and make the 2nd a conditional pick not this year, but for next that could become a 1st.
but he's going to have to clear that up.


I would think if Rodgers commits early to coming back, Love will ask for a trade. If they do trade him I can't see them getting more than a second if that. What I would do in that case is see about getting a second and maybe a fifth or 6th in this draft and a conditional first based on playing time and performance in the following draft.
 

Schultz

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 8, 2021
Messages
2,540
Reaction score
1,498
You’re a liar on several counts.

1) You have to have a sense of humor to find things hilarious.

2) You’re not here to talk about the Packers. You’re here to correct everything you read because it makes you feel smart. Hence why you never offer anything original. You just quote what other people offer and nitpick it like a censorious parasite.

3) You have despised Love since he was drafted as you despise all decisions and ideas that aren’t your own.

It’s no use denying all this. There’s literal years of proof.
Lighten up Francis!
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,332
Reaction score
4,057
Location
Milwaukee
Another debate with capt and someone?

Dante please stop take to pm

Capt you been suspended before for engaging. You have the right to defend but ignore now

You been told to do this NUMEROUS TIMES.. I dont care if you hate that suggestion, I can guarantee you won't like alternative.

That is it
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
This is what he said. I guess people can interpret it however they're going to. His last sentence does add some confusion because he uses "and a conditional first" But he leads with, "if they do trade,him I can't see them getting more than a 2nd, if that". I wouldn't assume he went from thinking he's worth no more than a 2nd to he'd try and get a 2nd, a 5th and a 1st in the following draft a sentence later. I err on the side it was a confusing choice of "and" on a message board and meant he'd take the late rounder and make the 2nd a conditional pick not this year, but for next that could become a 1st.
but he's going to have to clear that up.

You're right, I was confused by his post as well. Maybe he will clarify it at some point.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,899
Reaction score
2,853
More on the subject of running it back. If Rodgers is kept, these are the biggest questions that come to my mind:

1. Trading Love: Trading Love only really makes sense under three scenarios: 1) He's going to intentionally become a locker room cancer (highly unlikely); 2) The FO is convinced he doesn't have a future in the league; 3) He can return a player of high value that will help immediately. The ideas of Pittman or Moore (NYJ) have been floated, but those have to be considered unlikely. So my guess is that Love is back even if Rodgers is back in Green Bay as the starter in 2023. He won't like it, but there's not much he can do about it.

2. Wide Receiver: Not that the Packers have much room to work with in terms of free agents anyways, but this upcoming WR free agent class is terrible. Legitimately the best names on the list are Jakobi Meyers, D.J. Chark, Allen Lazard, Sterling Shepard, Mecole Hardman, Nelson Agholor, Juju Smith-Schuster, etc. With such a weak class, major help at the position would have to come via the draft or trade market. A trade would be doubly expensive and seems unlikely. In my view, the best option would be to re-sign Lazard and continue adding talent via the draft. Lazard isn't anyone's idea of a #1 receiver, but he's productive in this offense and does a lot of the dirty work in the running game. A 2023 corps that starts with Watson, Doubs, and Lazard could be feasible if it added another talented rookie and perhaps a solid veteran.

3. Tight End: Almost the entire group at TE is due to hit free agency. Tonyan and Lewis are UFA's, while Davis is an RFA. Only Deguara is on the roster for next year, and he's in a niche role (H-Back), and I wouldn't even mind bringing in competition for him. Lewis' role as a true Y is critical. If he wants to play one more year, great. If not, they better be in the market for a replacement (Adam Shaheen, Jesse James, O.J. Howard). I would tender Davis simply because he's young and he's the leading ST player on the roster. The key is going to be finding a better receiving option at the position to fill Tonyan's role. Mike Gesicki and Evan Engram don't strike me as a great fit in the offense (though maybe in Lazard's role they would work). Dalton Schultz figures to get paid a hefty sum. I like the idea of playing on the second level with guys like Foster Moreau or Irv Smith Jr and/or making the position a high draft priority.

4. Right Tackle:
The years of development of Yosh Nijman have paid off and he's a starting caliber tackle who can play on either side of the line. The problem is that he can probably get between 15-18M AAV on the open market, and I doubt the Packers have any intention to match given the position they're in, cap-wise. So that raises some questions. Do they try to turn Tom into a RT when that isn't his natural position? I don't get the sense that that would work, but Newman being the starter isn't feasible either and Jenkins is far more valuable at LG than he is at RT. I think the best approach might be drafting someone in the top 100 and putting that player into the mix with Rasheed Walker, Sean Rhyan, and Caleb Jones, and letting it sort out in camp. There's no guarantee there, but that's a lot of talent in competion.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,262
Reaction score
1,230
4. Right Tackle: The years of development of Yosh Nijman have paid off and he's a starting caliber tackle who can play on either side of the line.
I'm not convinced. Hasn't he needed a lot of help? And I worry more about that side than the other.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,899
Reaction score
2,853
I'm not convinced. Hasn't he needed a lot of help? And I worry more about that side than the other.

He's certainly the best option that the Packers have. I think it's somewhat moot, because even at his level of play they're likely to get priced out. And teams can remind themselves that the right side isn't really his natural side. So however he looks on the right, it will probably be better on the left.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,899
Reaction score
2,853
I am more worried about safety than I am about WR or OL.

Safety is a problem, but the defensive personnel is so strong overall that a good coordinator could make it work.

If this team is going to get back where we want it to go, they need to get the offense back in order.
 

gopkrs

Cheesehead
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
5,262
Reaction score
1,230
I hate to see Love sitting on our bunch next season no matter what. Like to see him get his opportunity somewhere.
You know, I don't have a problem with that. I want to see him get his opportunity also...but with us. Not sure when just now. If we don't win the super bowl; next year.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,125
Reaction score
1,474
Safety is a problem, but the defensive personnel is so strong overall that a good coordinator could make it work.

If this team is going to get back where we want it to go, they need to get the offense back in order.
Can Wyatt and Reed be the answers around Kenny Clark?
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
4. Right Tackle: The years of development of Yosh Nijman have paid off and he's a starting caliber tackle who can play on either side of the line. The problem is that he can probably get between 15-18M AAV on the open market, and I doubt the Packers have any intention to match given the position they're in, cap-wise.

I'm not suggesting it's not going to happen but I would be shocked if Nijman would be offered that much money in free agency.

I am more worried about safety than I am about WR or OL.

True, safety is definitely a position in need of an upgrade, especially if the Packers don't re-sign Amos.

Can Wyatt and Reed be the answers around Kenny Clark?

Possibly, but Reed is a free agent after this season.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,899
Reaction score
2,853
Can Wyatt and Reed be the answers around Kenny Clark?

Reed himself is a FA after this season, so he would have to be brought back. The iDL under contract for next season are Clark, Wyatt, Slaton, and Ford.

Lowry is not a good player, so replacing his level of production won't be difficult. The challenge will be improving upon it. Wyatt certainly has the talent to do that, he just needs to find consistency (which is very normal for rookie DT's).

The quiet reality of this season that's pretty unsettling regarding the DL is how poorly Kenny Clark has played for stretches. He's only 27, so I'm wondering if he's played hurt at times? Because there have also been spells, especially recently, when he's looked far more like himself. It's also possible that Barry's approach regarding gap responsibilities doesn't suit him.

But here's the bottom line to me: the Packers have made their major investments on the defensive line. Clark is 27 and on a deal paying him 17.5M AAV. Wyatt is a rookie 1st round pick. So those two are the foundation of your DL rotation moving forward. They need to solidify the depth behind them, but they can't continue to spend major resources on spots where they've made investments already while ignoring other parts of the roster-- not if they want to improve on this season.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
The quiet reality of this season that's pretty unsettling regarding the DL is how poorly Kenny Clark has played for stretches. He's only 27, so I'm wondering if he's played hurt at times? Because there have also been spells, especially recently, when he's looked far more like himself. It's also possible that Barry's approach regarding gap responsibilities doesn't suit him.
That's a lot of the defense for me and not just week to week, but stretches in games themselves. No speaking about Clark directly, but the unit. They go from looking abysmal, to looking pretty damn good from one half to the next. On an individual level some injury could explain things like Clark specifically, but defense itself has been like that all year too.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top