The Adams Poll

What would you choose if you could go back and pick?

  • Keep Adams

  • Take the Deal


Results are only viewable after voting.

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
Adams has been dealt and has signed a 5 year, 141.25M deal (28.25M/season), making him the highest paid non-QB of all time.

The Packers received picks 22 and 53 in the upcoming draft as well as the cap relief of not having Adam on the tag or having to extend him.

Every indication is that the Packers themselves were willing and able to match the offer that Adams received, but he wanted to leave.

So with all of that understood, if you could wind back the clock and make the choice, would you take Adams at that price, or would you take the deal that Green Bay has received?

It's always difficult not to let biases influence these opinions (e.g. I am going to convince myself to like what the team did because that's the reality now, OR I am going to convince myself to hate what happened because I just love that player, etc.).
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
I vote for taking that deal. Here's my rationale:

The Player: Adams is an absolute stud, an elite offensive weapon, and a great all-time Packer. I love the guy as a fan. So this isn't anti-Adams, at all. But it is my strong conviction that the league grossly overvalues the WR position and I cannot get my head around how it makes sense, value wise, to pay almost 30M annually for a player at that position from his age 30 through 35 seasons (more realistically, 33 or 34). Adams could ball out in Vegas, but there's also a real scenario where he turns into a 90/1100/7 type of guy with Carr. If you're paying 30M for that, you're in trouble.

The Return: Getting 1st and 2nd round picks for a 29 yo on a tag is great business. When the Texans dealt Deandre Hopkins, the best WR in the game at the time and looking for a new contract, they got back a 2nd and had to take on a terrible RB contract. The Packers got a 1st and a 2nd and didn't take on any salary. And Adams is older than Hopkins was at the time.

The Fiscal Side: Say the Packers go on now to sign Rasul Douglas, MVS, Austin Hooper, and maybe a rotational defensive lineman because they aren't paying Adams. Do those acquisitions add more value to the team than Adams? No, I don't think so. but do they heavily off-set his loss? Of course they do. So when you consider that side of it and the draft capital, I think the gains are greater than the losses.

The Team: Green Bay under LaFleur has gone 7-0 in games without Adams and scored over 31 points per game. Does that in any way mean they're better off without him, or that his loss is irrelevant. Absolutely not. But what it does indicate is that there is a lot more to this offense (the system and the QB) than just him.
 

KiDcUdI

Cheesehead
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
378
Reaction score
171
Location
Texas
Honestly didn’t think we could get a 1 and 2 for Adams. That’s a deal you can’t refuse.

Every year you could get multiple WRs that are pro bowl quality. This is the type of move you can build a foundation on. With that many picks in the top half of the draft you can go with a true BPA and still fill your needs.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
I vote for taking that deal. Here's my rationale:

The Player: Adams is an absolute stud, an elite offensive weapon, and a great all-time Packer. I love the guy as a fan. So this isn't anti-Adams, at all. But it is my strong conviction that the league grossly overvalues the WR position and I cannot get my head around how it makes sense, value wise, to pay almost 30M annually for a player at that position from his age 30 through 35 seasons (more realistically, 33 or 34). Adams could ball out in Vegas, but there's also a real scenario where he turns into a 90/1100/7 type of guy with Carr. If you're paying 30M for that, you're in trouble.

The Return: Getting 1st and 2nd round picks for a 29 yo on a tag is great business. When the Texans dealt Deandre Hopkins, the best WR in the game at the time and looking for a new contract, they got back a 2nd and had to take on a terrible RB contract. The Packers got a 1st and a 2nd and didn't take on any salary. And Adams is older than Hopkins was at the time.

The Fiscal Side: Say the Packers go on now to sign Rasul Douglas, MVS, Austin Hooper, and maybe a rotational defensive lineman because they aren't paying Adams. Do those acquisitions add more value to the team than Adams? No, I don't think so. but do they heavily off-set his loss? Of course they do. So when you consider that side of it and the draft capital, I think the gains are greater than the losses.

The Team: Green Bay under LaFleur has gone 7-0 in games without Adams and scored over 31 points per game. Does that in any way mean they're better off without him, or that his loss is irrelevant. Absolutely not. But what it does indicate is that there is a lot more to this offense (the system and the QB) than just him.
Nicely said.
This next part will be a little more curt and not so refined or thorough.

Some Great Players are often going to think they are the sole ingredient for success of a team. It’s like an ego thing, it’s how they are built.
Yet the reality is that Randall Cobb has it correct in saying he is 1/11th and doing his part. He’s much more humble than Adams obviously.

Much of our success comes from our excellent Coaching and above average player acquisition. In addition the philosophy of paying an aging player record setting $$ + parting with major draft resources (in Oakland’s case) rarely works out positively for the team. Look no further than the Chicago Bears and Khalil Mack. Now let’s evaluate.. is Chicago that much better as a unit? Nope
Give me 4-5 talented starters and 1-2 will likely play “lights out”. It’s just math. Putting all our eggs in 1 basket (outside of maybe QB (depending on the player)) is bad news bears
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
If I could go back I would keep Adams.

In my opinion the Packers receiving a first and second rounder is a fantastic deal.

But, with all other moves made by Gutekunst indicating the team going all-in it doesn't seem to be smart to trade one of the best receivers in the game. Especially considering the lack of talent at the position on the roster.

In addition there's hardly a true #1 receiver available in free agency and while I fully expect the Packers to select a wide receiver early in the draft it might be too much to ask of a rookie to immediately turn into one as well.

With that being said, the Packers might not have had another choice as to trade Adams as it seems he didn't want to be around anymore.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
If I could go back I would keep Adams.

In my opinion the Packers receiving a first and second rounder is a fantastic deal.

But, with all other moves made by Gutekunst indicating the team going all-in it doesn't seem to be smart to trade one of the best receivers in the game. Especially considering the lack of talent at the position on the roster.

In addition there's hardly a true #1 receiver available in free agency and while I fully expect the Packers to select a wide receiver early in the draft it might be too much to ask of a rookie to immediately turn into one as well.

With that being said, the Packers might not have had another choice as to trade Adams as it seems he didn't want to be around anymore.

The all-in argument is definitely the most compelling in that direction.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
If I could go back I would keep Adams.

In my opinion the Packers receiving a first and second rounder is a fantastic deal.

But, with all other moves made by Gutekunst indicating the team going all-in it doesn't seem to be smart to trade one of the best receivers in the game. Especially considering the lack of talent at the position on the roster.

In addition there's hardly a true #1 receiver available in free agency and while I fully expect the Packers to select a wide receiver early in the draft it might be too much to ask of a rookie to immediately turn into one as well.

With that being said, the Packers might not have had another choice as to trade Adams as it seems he didn't want to be around anymore.

Everyone knows I called this in many ways, but I’m with @captainWIMM on this and I would have tried everything to not lose him….and maybe they did if reports are true - at that point sure this is an excellent return on a guy you never wanted to lose.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,594
Reaction score
5,875
If I could go back I would keep Adams.

In my opinion the Packers receiving a first and second rounder is a fantastic deal.

But, with all other moves made by Gutekunst indicating the team going all-in it doesn't seem to be smart to trade one of the best receivers in the game. Especially considering the lack of talent at the position on the roster.

In addition there's hardly a true #1 receiver available in free agency and while I fully expect the Packers to select a wide receiver early in the draft it might be too much to ask of a rookie to immediately turn into one as well.

With that being said, the Packers might not have had another choice as to trade Adams as it seems he didn't want to be around anymore.
I certainly respect that opinion and it’s certainly a valid concern. However the Packers must be constantly looking to the future even within a “win now” mentality.

I’d add to this that it’s my opinion, partly from watching past receivers part ways and the elevated success of the contemporary Packers, we underestimate the effectiveness of the battle plans. Wars are won with overwhelmingly inferior numbers of men or equipment and it has happened continually from the very earliest parts of our earths history. The NFL is a sport to us casual spectators, but it’s no different than the rules of the engagement of war and its ensuing battles.

Give me a Premier Field General (and determined supporting cast) with adequate supply. I’ll let you have Premier Supplies with an adequate general. It is human to be constantly enamored with the size of our enemy, yet it is that exact fear (not the too oft misinterpreted “scary” fear but one of “respect”) that drives us to formulate better battle plans.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
However the Packers must be constantly looking to the future even within a “win now” mentality.

The Packers made several moves without thinking about the future this offseason while going all-in. Therefore I don't consider that a valid argument in favor of trading Adams.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,247
Reaction score
1,532
Adams has been dealt and has signed a 5 year, 141.25M deal (28.25M/season), making him the highest paid non-QB of all time.

The Packers received picks 22 and 53 in the upcoming draft as well as the cap relief of not having Adam on the tag or having to extend him.

Every indication is that the Packers themselves were willing and able to match the offer that Adams received, but he wanted to leave.

So with all of that understood, if you could wind back the clock and make the choice, would you take Adams at that price, or would you take the deal that Green Bay has received?

It's always difficult not to let biases influence these opinions (e.g. I am going to convince myself to like what the team did because that's the reality now, OR I am going to convince myself to hate what happened because I just love that player, etc.).
Take the deal.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
Some numbers on the Packers under LaFleur when missing Adams.

2019, Week 5, @DAL:

-34 points scored (allowed 20.1/gm in 2019)
-Rodgers: 22/34, 238 yards, 0 TD, 0 INT
-Jones: 19/107/4 (rushing TD's of 1, 3, 5, and 18 yards)
-No player over 8 targets
-13 catches for running backs

2019, Week 6, Vs DET:

-23 points scored (allowed 26.4/gm in 2019)
-Rodgers: 24/39, 2 TD, 1 INT
-No player over 7 targets
-8 catches for running backs

2019, Week 7, Vs OAK:

-42 points scored (allowed 26.2/gm in 2019)
-Rodgers: 25/31, 429, 5 TD, 0 INT
-No player over 5 targets
-10 catches for running backs

2019, Week 8, @KC:

-31 points scored (allowed 19.3/gm in 2019)
-Rodgers: 23/33, 305 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT
-No player over 8 targets
-10 catches for running backs

2020, Week 3, @NO:

-37 points scored (allowed 21.1/gm in 2020)
-Rodgers: 21/32, 283 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT
-No player over 8 targets
-5 catches for running backs

2020, Week 4, Vs. ATL:

-30 points scored (allowed 25.9/gm in 2020)
-Rodgers: 27/33, 327, 4 TD, 0 INT
-No player over 8 targets
-14 catches for running backs

2021, Week 8, @ ARI:

-24 points scored (allowed 21.5/gm in 2021)
-Rodgers: 22/37, 184 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT
-Aaron Jones w/ 11 targets; no one else over 6
-7 catches for running backs

Totals:

-Record: 7-0
-Points/Game: 31.6
-Rodgers Totals: 164/239 (68.6%), 2049 yards (8.6 YPA), 19 TD, 1 INT
-Points above opp. average: 8.6*
-Only one instance of a player topping 8 targets
-67 catches for running backs, or just shy of 10 per game

*This means that the Packers outscored the opponents' average points allowed number by an average of 8.6 ppg.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
So folks realize:

Dallas in 2019 - 8-8 Record
Detroit in 2019 - 3-12-1 Record
Oakland in 2019 - 7-9 Record
Kansas City in 2019 - Playoff team 12-4 Record
New Orleans in 2020 -Playoff team 12-4 Record

Atlanta in 2020 - 4-12 Record
Arizona in 2021 - Playoff team 11-6 Record
 

Magooch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 15, 2021
Messages
794
Reaction score
759
I'm sure someone who knows the cap situation better than I would be able to give a clearer picture but I feel like if you keep Adams, you're also not gonna be able to keep all five of Rasul, De'Vondre, Tonyan, Preston, and Rodgers... And of course Rodgers made it clear that he doesn't want to be a part of a "rebuild". While obviously it would've been nice to keep both Rodgers and Davante... I feel like that'd be pushing us closer to rebuild territory as we'd still be thin on passcatchers and likely have lost two or three of our most important players on last season's defense.

I know it's not as simple as just a binary decision but given the choice I'd rather have Rodgers with (for example) a rookie WR or two, Lazard, Cobb, Tonyan, etc for the next 2-3 years than I would want to have Love at QB with Adams, Lazard, Cobb, and I guess probably still another rookie WR and/or TE for the next 5.
 

tynimiller

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
14,256
Reaction score
5,078
I'm sure someone who knows the cap situation better than I would be able to give a clearer picture but I feel like if you keep Adams, you're also not gonna be able to keep all five of Rasul, De'Vondre, Tonyan, Preston, and Rodgers... And of course Rodgers made it clear that he doesn't want to be a part of a "rebuild". While obviously it would've been nice to keep both Rodgers and Davante... I feel like that'd be pushing us closer to rebuild territory as we'd still be thin on passcatchers and likely have lost two or three of our most important players on last season's defense.

I know it's not as simple as just a binary decision but given the choice I'd rather have Rodgers with (for example) a rookie WR or two, Lazard, Cobb, Tonyan, etc for the next 2-3 years than I would want to have Love at QB with Adams, Lazard, Cobb, and I guess probably still another rookie WR and/or TE for the next 5.

Rasul and Tonyan deals only went through post-Adams no longer on the 2022 cap table.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
For the record, I think the argument that “The Packers were already mortgaging the future to push all the chips in, so why not just add an Adams deal to that mix?” is a perfectly valid argument.
 

swhitset

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 28, 2015
Messages
4,351
Reaction score
1,217
Oh really? Why do you think
Russ Ball has been burning the midnight oil ?!
The Davante saga was ALL about the $$
According to multiple sources that is incorrect. Yeah originally… like it last year… it was about the dollars, but when the Packers didn’t offer him what he wanted during negotiations last year he had already decided that he wasn’t coming back. So this year after getting confirmation from Rodgers that he would be back. The Packers did go all in and even reportedly offered Adams what he wanted … but he left anyway.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Some numbers on the Packers under LaFleur when missing Adams.

2019, Week 5, @DAL:

-34 points scored (allowed 20.1/gm in 2019)
-Rodgers: 22/34, 238 yards, 0 TD, 0 INT
-Jones: 19/107/4 (rushing TD's of 1, 3, 5, and 18 yards)
-No player over 8 targets
-13 catches for running backs

2019, Week 6, Vs DET:

-23 points scored (allowed 26.4/gm in 2019)
-Rodgers: 24/39, 2 TD, 1 INT
-No player over 7 targets
-8 catches for running backs

2019, Week 7, Vs OAK:

-42 points scored (allowed 26.2/gm in 2019)
-Rodgers: 25/31, 429, 5 TD, 0 INT
-No player over 5 targets
-10 catches for running backs

2019, Week 8, @KC:

-31 points scored (allowed 19.3/gm in 2019)
-Rodgers: 23/33, 305 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT
-No player over 8 targets
-10 catches for running backs

2020, Week 3, @NO:

-37 points scored (allowed 21.1/gm in 2020)
-Rodgers: 21/32, 283 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT
-No player over 8 targets
-5 catches for running backs

2020, Week 4, Vs. ATL:

-30 points scored (allowed 25.9/gm in 2020)
-Rodgers: 27/33, 327, 4 TD, 0 INT
-No player over 8 targets
-14 catches for running backs

2021, Week 8, @ ARI:

-24 points scored (allowed 21.5/gm in 2021)
-Rodgers: 22/37, 184 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT
-Aaron Jones w/ 11 targets; no one else over 6
-7 catches for running backs

Totals:

-Record: 7-0
-Points/Game: 31.6
-Rodgers Totals: 164/239 (68.6%), 2049 yards (8.6 YPA), 19 TD, 1 INT
-Points above opp. average: 8.6*
-Only one instance of a player topping 8 targets
-67 catches for running backs, or just shy of 10 per game

*This means that the Packers outscored the opponents' average points allowed number by an average of 8.6 ppg.

There's no doubt those numbers are impressive but there's no reasonable explanation for why the Packers offense has been more successful without Adams on the field. Unfortunately I don't expect them to be capable of keeping that up for an entire season, especially once the playoffs roll around.

I'm sure someone who knows the cap situation better than I would be able to give a clearer picture but I feel like if you keep Adams, you're also not gonna be able to keep all five of Rasul, De'Vondre, Tonyan, Preston, and Rodgers... And of course Rodgers made it clear that he doesn't want to be a part of a "rebuild". While obviously it would've been nice to keep both Rodgers and Davante... I feel like that'd be pushing us closer to rebuild territory as we'd still be thin on passcatchers and likely have lost two or three of our most important players on last season's defense.

The Packers currently have $20 million of cap space (the deals of Douglas and Tonyan aren't included in that number). With Adams counting $8 million against the Raiders' cap in 2022 it would have been possible for the team to keep all of the players you mentioned.
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
1,961
Maybe I'm not right in the head, but in all honestly, I was glad to see the Packers take the two picks for Adams, and move on. As good as a receiver can be, there are others who can step up and fill the gap. It might not be one player, but a spread of 3 or 4 players, who add to their stats, to pick up the slack. The simple fact is, Rodgers is going to get his connects, and they are going to move the ball, with or without Adams.

Do we have someone ready to replace Adams? I don't think so. But, I don't want to replace him, I want to see more of a spread in guys stepping up, and catching the ball. I don't like seeing us relying on a stud receiver to "do it all." Despite Adams' lofty stats, the Packers could win without him, couldn't they?

Let's see what the two picks bring to the team, and watch how Rodgers handles the whole thing this year. I don't think we're going to see a let up in production. In fact, I think we may see more production from both the running game and passing game, because it's going to be more diverse. Sometimes, less can be better. This could be the case here.
 

elcid

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 11, 2017
Messages
794
Reaction score
119
Given our predicament with the cap, I was all for trading him. Id also use both our first round picks on WR's, and try to nab an EDGE and OT with our second rounders
 

Voyageur

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 10, 2021
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
1,961
It wasn't just trading Adams for draft picks. It was trading Adams for draft picks, Tonyan, Douglas and probably 1 other veteran body yet to be determined (probably MVS). I think 75-80M tied up in a QB/WR is just too restrictive over multiple years.
Exactly the point. If you keep Adams, a long list of guys, and you mentioned two, probably three, would have to be jettisoned. It wouldn't make sense. When you get a couple of decent draft picks for someone you couldn't afford to keep anyway, it means a lot. You get to keep several pieces of the team in place, and only have to deal with one major replacement.

Was it a wise decision? Right now people will swing both ways on that issue. Then, during the year, we're going to hear the groaning about how the draft picks aren't doing anything to help, and the screaming for heads to roll at the end of the year.

Next year, if those picks start playing great ball, all we'll hear out here is how Gutey got "lucky."

Reality is, the Packers have turned the Adams trade into a head start on moving on from the Rodgers era, by putting a couple of extra guys in play, who will be available to them for up to 5 years, and it only cost them one overly expensive piece.

Personally, I like the trade. If they did the same thing with Rodgers tomorrow, that wouldn't upset me either. But, only if the picks were in the top 3 in the first two rounds. I want to see one of the best players land on our roster, and have bargaining chips that allow them to snag a good QB down the road, if necessary.
 

milani

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
4,247
Reaction score
1,532
There's no doubt those numbers are impressive but there's no reasonable explanation for why the Packers offense has been more successful without Adams on the field. Unfortunately I don't expect them to be capable of keeping that up for an entire season, especially once the playoffs roll around.



The Packers currently have $20 million of cap space (the deals of Douglas and Tonyan aren't included in that number). With Adams counting $8 million against the Raiders' cap in 2022 it would have been possible for the team to keep all of the players you mentioned.
There is a difference in game planning when you know Adams will not play a week or so ahead of time than if he just got hurt in a game and cannot return. Case in point in 2019 Adams got hurt in a game against Philly in the second half and we were minus him on that last crucial drive which stalled near the goal line. And as such if you know Adams is not on your roster at all next season the offensive game plan cannot be exactly the same. Holmgren had to make an adjustment with the Packer offense when Sterling Sharpe suddenly could no longer play football again knowing the team likely would never see anyone of his caliber again. Sometimes these events cause an OC and an HC to be much more creative.
 
OP
OP
Dantés

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
3,036
There's no doubt those numbers are impressive but there's no reasonable explanation for why the Packers offense has been more successful without Adams on the field. Unfortunately I don't expect them to be capable of keeping that up for an entire season, especially once the playoffs roll around.

I think there is actually a very reasonable explanation.

Rodgers hyper-targets Adams. This yields the great result of an elite WR producing a lot, but it also yields the bad result of the offense becoming more predictable and less specific to the weaknesses of the opponent.

Adams had 169 targets last year (104 more than the next highest!), or 10 per game. While he was out, only once did a player top 8 targets. The passing game was more diverse, less predictable, and (I would assume) more specifically tailored to the opponent. The absence of Adams forced Rodgers to just take what the defense was giving him within the scheme, and he's so good that when he's doing that, it can be deadly.

And we have all seen the many still shots of Rodgers targeting a covered Adams over an open Lazard, MVS, Tonyan, etc.

I'll keep reiterating that I'm not saying they're better without him. But there is a rational explanation for why they thrived without him in those games and thus reason to believe that they can still be a top offense with different receiving options (though obviously if the season started today, they'd be in trouble).
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top